Re: Middle East

> >> > > > > >> > > "Roman M. Parparov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>  news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> >> > > > > >> > > > This picture summarizes the entire topic:
> >> > > > > >> > > > 
> >> > > > > >> > > > http://empire.tau.ac.il/peculiar/child.gif
> >> > > > > >> > > > 
> >> > > > > >> > > > Judge for yourself.
> >> > > > > >> > > 
> >> > > > > >> > > This contribution of yours is truly astonishing. It
>  represents a gross
> >> > > > > >> > > oversimplification of a highly complex geopolitical
>  question.
> >> > > > > >> > > 
> >> > > > > >> > > It's certainly *not* about soldiers on both sides hiding
>  behind
> >> > > > > >> > > perambulators.
> >> > > > > >> > 
> >> > > > > >> >      You misinterpret the image: The Israeli soldier is
>  clearly **in
> >> > > > > >> > front** of "his " perambulator, in an effort to do all that he
>  can to
> >> > > > > >> > protect it. The Palestinian terrorist IS indeed hinding behind
>  his
> >> > > > > >> > pram, and pushing it forward towards the Israeli soldier, even
>  as he
> >> > > > > >> > is shooting at the Israelis. The Palestinian pram may have a
>  baby, or
> >> > > > > >> > it may be used to smuggle weapons, or it may have a bomb. It
>  may even
> >> > > > > >> > have a baby bomb....
> >> > > > > >> 
> >> > > > > >> No, I don't "misinterpret the image" as you put it, you
>  misinterpret
> >> > > > > >> my interpretation. I could see *clearly* that in that *drawing*,
>  which
> >> > > > > >> is pure, indeed, puerile Zionist *propaganda*, the Israeli
>  soldier is
> >> > > > > >> in front of the perambulator. My point was that it is an image
>  as
> >> > > > > >> risible as equally distorted anti-Israeli propaganda, which
>  might look
> >> > > > > >> the same, but with the insignia on the soldiers' respective
>  uniforms
> >> > > > > >> reversed.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >    Your "interpretation" is not in accordance with the facts.
> >> > > > > 
> >> > > > > My interpretation *takes account of the fact that it is a
>  propaganda
> >> > > > > DRAWING*... DUH!!!!!
> >> > > > 
> >> > > >    The cartoon "propaganda" is effective precisely because it is in
> >> > > > accordance with the facts. Therefore, it would be much more "risible"
> >> > > > to create an image that "might look the same, but with the insignia
>  on
> >> > > > the soldiers' respective uniforms reversed." 
> >> > > <snip>
> >> > > 
> >> > > Ok, it's now obvious that you have an idiosyncratic view of what the
> >> > > word: "propaganda" actually means. You believe that the propaganda
> >> > > image to which Roman posted a link is a *reflection of reality*, and
> >> > > further, that an image which looked identical except for the insignia
> >> > > on the soldiers' uniforms being reversed would be "risible". In other
> >> > > words, when it's biased in favour of Israel, you believe that it's
> >> > > accurate, when it's biased against Israel, you believe it's
> >> > > propaganda. Right?
> >> > 
> >> > 
> >> >       Propaganda CAN be accurate. 
> >> 
> >> True.
> >> 
> >> > Indeed, it is often most effective
> >> > when it IS accurate. 
> >> 
> >> False.
> >> 
> >> Think of the power of video or film images in In
> >> > the case of the cartoon, it is accurate to depict the Palestinian
> >> > soldiers as exploiting innocent Palestinians (symbolized by the pram),
> >> 
> >> They're *not* soldiers, however, so it *is* inaccurate.
> >
> >    So?? The Palestinian fighters like to think of themselves as
> >soldiers. 
> 
> Yet the Israelis do not. So what is the justification for making the
> Palestinians seem more legitimate than evidently many Israelis and Israeli
> supporters believe? Why distort the truth? What purpose does it serve?
> 
> They certainly fit within the rubric of (unlawful)
> >combatants. 
> 
> So why depict them as *lawful* army combatants? 

   But the cartoon doesn't do that--quite the opposite. The
Palestinian figure is committing a war crime.

   More to the point, the artistic style of the cartoon is
deliberately simple and minimalistic. The figures representing the
soldiers are generic in nature. Yet the Palestinian is wearing a hood,
which futher suggests the artist's intent to depict the Palestinian
combatant as an irregular fighter who does not adhere to international
norms in the conduct of war.

   The lawfulness of a soldier is based on his actions, not on whether
he wears a uniform.

What is lawful about using civilians as human shields?

Where's the logic in that? 
> 
> There are certainly plenty of Palestinian militants armed
> >with guns (and RPGs, and mortars, and rockets, and bombs, etc).
> >
> 
> Yes, certainly, but legitimate soldiers?

     Nothing in the cartoon suggests that the sysmbolic Palestinian
soldier is "legitimate". Irrespective of legitimacy, the Palestinian
militants are a potent, organized force.
> 
> Do you see why I am objecting?
> 
> >    Your trifling quibble does not serve to refute the image.
> >
> 
> Sure it does. It's a clear demonstration that the image is distorted on *both
> sides* and may therefore--paradoxically--serve as a recruiting poster for
> Hamas.

   Sure, it would be good to recruit those Arabs who don't have qualms
about
sacrificing Paletinian children, and enjoy murdering Israeli ones.


> 
> Would that be good or bad, do you think?
> 
> 
> >[it is accurate to depict the Palestinian "soldiers" as exploiting
> >innocent Palestinians (symbolized by the pram)]
> >
> >   See? By adding quotation marks, the statement suggests that the
> >cartoon image of the Palestinian "soldier" is **figurative**


   
> >
> 
> Yes. Hamas recruitment is looking good.
> 
> >   Shocking that one would find figurative images...in a cartoon.
> >
> 
> Yes. I'm really shocked. The leaders of Hamas, by contrast, are celebrating,
> since they know that for as long as the Israeli government continues to act as
> it is, there will be a steady stream of recruits to Hamas.


     The leaders of HAMAS are crapping their pants, because they know
that their life expectancy is measured in months.
> 
> >> 
> >> > in endeavors to gain tactical advantages against the Israeli soldiers.
> >> > This actually happens. 
> >> 
> >> Wrong. See above.
> >
> >    Tchsk!! You are really grasping at straws.
> 
> Justify thia.

     Ahh....This again. When you resort to "justify" blah blah, you
are REALLY grasping at straws. Well, do try to hang on, old boy.
> 
> >> 
> >> > However, to reverse the image would not
> >> > accurately depict the conflict between the Palestinians and the
> >> > Israelis. 
> >> 
> >> Just as the image *as it stands* does not. 
> >
> >   But the point is that to reverse the image to show the Israeli
> >soldier hiding behind the pram would be much less accurate than the
> >way the image is currently constructed.
> >
> 
> How would it be "much less accurate" since the image is equally distorted in
> its depictions of both the Palestinian and Israeli sides?

   There is no meaningful answer to your question since it is not the
"equality" of distortion that matters, but the **degree** of
distortion.
> 
> 
> 
> >
> >It's hardly helpful, then,
> >> wouldn't you agree?
> >
> >    Helpful to whom? The cartoon helps to get a point across  to the
> >viewer
> 
> Yes. The viewer thinks: "The Israeli government's Settlement policy and its
> anti-Palestinian propaganda have persuaded me to join Hamas."



   Only if that viewer is completely prejudiced, as you are. 

First, the image is not generated by the Israeli Government.

Second, there is nothing in the image that refers to Israel's
settlement policy.

Not one person in a thousand would interpret the image as you do.
> 
> >> 
> >> The Israelis assiduously try to avoid putting their children
> >> > in harm's way, 
> >> 
> >> The Israeli government's Settlement Policy does *precisely the
> >> opposite*. Discuss.
> >
> >    The Israeli government puts bombs around the waist of Israeli
> >children? 
> 
> No, but it bombs Palestinians.

     Right, the Israeli **Military** bombs the Palestinians, **NOT**
her children.
> 
> Gives them a rifle, and tells them to arrest or fight Hamas
> >members?
> >
> 
> No. Israelis are drafted into the army, and many are killed. Needlessly.

   Actually, far more Israeli civilians than soldiers have died in the
recent terror campaign. If it weren't for the IDF, the death toll of
Israeli civilians would be much higher.
> 
> >   No, the Israeli government expends a lot of resources to defend the
> >Settlements, and the children in them. 
> Right. Is this wise? Is it justified? Rememer those Hamas leaders and their
> recruits.

    I believe that Israel should withdraw from the settlements in
Gaza, and in the isolated areas of the West Bank. Almost all of the
settlements to the east of the security fence will end up being
abandoned.

> 
> They build security fences
> >around the settlements, and run patrols, etc. The Israeli children are
> >not present when the IDF engage the militants.
> >
> 
> Right. This will afford some protection to ordinary Israelis, but it will not
> stop Hamas. Quite the contrary. All this reminds me of South Africa in the days
> of apartheid. The whites built security fences to keep out the blacks.

   Have you seen the security fence? Multiple kill zones, automatic
sensors, enfilading fire....this barrier will not be easy for the
Palestinian terrorist to breach.

> 
> >    You'd probably be surprised to learn that more Israeli kids are
> >killed within the "Green Line" (pre-1967 armistice lines) than are
> >killed in the West Bank/Gaza.
> >
> 
> Would I, indeed? Patronising jackass, I already knew that.

Don't get snippy!
> 
> > 
> >> and have soldiers out in the vanguard as the 1st line
> >> > of defense. Thus, your hypothetical cartoon featuring a role-reversed
> >> > Israeli is indeed risible.
> >> 
> >> ...as risible, in fact, as the cartoon as it stands, since it depicts
> >> an Israeli *soldier* fighting a Palestinian *soldier*....
> >
> >     I think that we've been there, done that
> 
> ....and got some recruits for Hamas. Yes.
> 
> >> 
> >> > > 
> >> > > Does it follow, then, that you would believe that an Israeli
> >> > > historian's view of Israel's situation would be *more accurate* (or,
> >> > > if you prefer, *less biased*) than a Palenstinian historian's view
> >> > > would be?
> >> > 
> >> >     Does it follow logically?? No--theoretically, it is possible for a
> >> > Palestinian Historian's view of Israel's situation to be more accurate
> >> > and less biased than an Israeli counterpart. However, in practice, it
> >> > is precisely the case that Israeli historians **usually** ARE more
> >> > accurate/less biased.
> >> > 
> >> 
> >> Perhaps, then, you'd be interested to read what one Israeli historian
> >> said in an interview last year:
> >> 
> >> http://www.merip.org/mer/mer223/223_shlaim_interview.html
> >> 
> >> <snips pro-Israeli example>
> >
> >   Israel is a country where there is free speech, and a diversity of
> >political views. In my opinion, this is a positive attribute of the
> >country, especially compared to other countries in the region.
> >Likewise for historians.
> >They can have their opinions and interpretations of history. It is up
> >to me to decide of them I will accept.
> >
> >    Now, try to find a dissonant voice among the Palestinian
> >historians.
> >
> 
> Oh, right! All Palestinian historians are useless. That makes perfect sense. 
> 
> Not.
> 
  Well, if you find a dissonant voice among the Palestinian
historians, do show me. On the other hand, there are more than a few
Arab historians who have done their dissertations on the
Holocaust....I'm sure that even you might have a hard time stomaching
the denial and revisionism.


> Is Shlaim lying, or is his assessment accurate?

   Or is he simply mistaken?