Unmitigated Slaugher in Congo - World Condemns Israel

[Bonam]

There are considerable western religious, cultural and political interests in Israel. There are considerable western business interests in the DRC. Guess what, of the four mentioned considerable western interests, only one likes to operate without media scrutiny.

Umm... there are plenty of western business interests in Israel too, FYI.

[dizzy]

Umm... there are plenty of western business interests in Israel too, FYI.

Yes, you're right. But you might be missing my point.

[Bonam]

Yes, you're right. But you might be missing my point.

Perhaps I am. From my reading of your post, I believe your implication was that business interests like to keep away from media, whereas political/religious interests do not, and that because of this there is little/no media in the DRC and a lot of media in Israel. Did I misinterpret?

If not, my opinion is that this statement is nonsense because businesses have little/no power in regards to keeping reporters out of a country.

[dizzy]

Perhaps I am. From my reading of your post, I believe your implication was that business interests like to keep away from media, whereas political/religious interests do not, and that because of this there is little/no media in the DRC and a lot of media in Israel. Did I misinterpret?

If not, my opinion is that this statement is nonsense because businesses have little/no power in regards to keeping reporters out of a country.

Yes, business interests in places like this like to operate below the publicity radar (profits do not require media attention to be made), while the win strategy for religious, cultural and political movements are typically centered on public relations.

That Israel also has business interests with the west, as opposed to only having business interest to the west, is the distinction.

[Bonam]

Yes, business interests in places like this like to operate below the publicity radar (profits do not require media attention to be made), while the win strategy for religious, cultural and political movements are typically centered on public relations.

If reporters wanted to get into the DRC to cover violence going on there, just how is it that you believe that business interests could keep them out?

That Israel also has business interests with the west, as opposed to only having business interest to the west, is the distinction.

I guess those companies with interests in Israel must really be some weak and disorganized businesses compared to the ones in the DRC since they can't even keep out those pesky reporters and stay out of the media spotlight. Surely a few priests and politicians couldn't stop these all powerful businesses that can control the international flow of reporters? Oh wait... that's a bunch of BS.

Edited April 4, 2010 by Bonam

[dizzy]

If reporters wanted to get into the DRC to cover violence going on there, just how is it that you believe that business interests could keep them out?

I guess those companies with interests in Israel must really be some weak and disorganized businesses compared to the ones in the DRC since they can't even keep out those pesky reporters and stay out of the media spotlight. Oh wait... that's a bunch of BS.

I see where I'm not being clear. Those religious, cultural and political movements I'm referring to are based in north america. They are evangelical christians, zionists, lefty students and radicals who have developed a romantic attachment to the intifadah, etc. The DRC does not have a similar following within north america.

[Bonam]

I see where I'm not being clear. Those religious, cultural and political movements I'm referring to are based in north america. They are evangelical christians, zionists, lefty students and radicals who have developed a romantic attachment to the intifadah, etc. The DRC does not have a similar following within north america.

Ok, I see what you mean here. You are stating that evangelical Christians and Zionists want to hear news from Israel (presumably pro-Israeli news), and lefties and radicals want to hear news from Israel (presumably pro-Palestinian news). Because all these people want to hear news from Israel, reporters go there so that they can generate stories that all these people want to hear. And, because no one much cares about the DRC, and the stories from there would not be as popular, not many reporters go there.

I pretty much agree, and also think there is some truth to other poster's statements that reporters probably like going to Israel for the safety and nice lifestyle and ease of getting stories as well.

Now, what does any of this have to do with business interests? Clearly, it seems that what determines whether reporters report from a certain country, according to your statement, is whether there exist large groups of people who would be interested in hearing about news from that country.

[dizzy]

Ok, I see what you mean here. You are stating that evangelical Christians and Zionists want to hear news from Israel (presumably pro-Israeli news), and lefties and radicals want to hear news from Israel (presumably pro-Palestinian news). Because all these people want to hear news from Israel, reporters go there so that they can generate stories that all these people want to hear. And, because no one much cares about the DRC, and the stories from there would not be as popular, not many reporters go there.

I pretty much agree, and also think there is some truth to other poster's statements that reporters probably like going to Israel for the safety and nice lifestyle and ease of getting stories as well.

Now, what does any of this have to do with business interests? Clearly, it seems that what determines whether reporters report from a certain country, according to your statement, is whether there exist large groups of people who would be interested in hearing about news from that country.

I mentioned business interests because, when making my initial statement, I did not want to suggest that we don't have stakes in the DRC. They just exist on a plain that few outside of the OXFAM crew care about.

[Bonam]

I mentioned business interests because, when making my initial statement, I did not want to suggest that we don't have stakes in the DRC. They just exist on a plain that few outside of the OXFAM crew care about.

Ok. So mentioning business interests in the DRC was merely an additional and not particularly relevant piece of information. In that case we understand each other and the thread can continue on...

[dizzy]

Ok. So mentioning business interests in the DRC was merely an additional and not particularly relevant piece of information. In that case we understand each other and the thread can continue on...

Well, yes and no. The point of the OP was to ask why everyone cares about Israel's atrocities but not the DRC's. I'm saying that domestic interested parties are creating the media fever over israel. I don't think it's irrelevant to note that we have interests in natural resource rich DRC, but yes, it's not as relevant as the former point. Ultimately, my observation would be that we care more about israel simply because of squeeky wheel syndrome and laziness wrt searching out our own particular demons on the world stage.

[Bonam]

Ultimately, my observation would be that we care more about israel simply because of squeeky wheel syndrome

I agree, but I guess this is kind of a circular argument. We care more about Israel because there are more people ("squeaky wheel") that care about Israel. Not particularly insightful in itself. The question should be, why is that that there are groups that are so deeply interested in Israel, and yet so little interest in some other countries where much more terrible events happen on a regular basis?

Surely all the concerned human rights activists should be quite the big interest group when it comes to hearing about all the atrocities that go on in the world? Why is it that these lefty students and radicals that you mentioned are so interested in Israel specifically?

[dizzy]

I agree, but I guess this is kind of a circular argument. We care more about Israel because there are more people ("squeaky wheel") that care about Israel. Not particularly insightful in itself. The question should be, why is that that there are groups that are so deeply interested in Israel, and yet so little interest in some other countries where much more terrible events happen on a regular basis?

Surely all the concerned human rights activists should be quite the big interest group when it comes to hearing about all the atrocities that go on in the world? Why is it that these lefty students and radicals that you mentioned are so interested in Israel specifically?

The interests of some are quite obvious. I'm sure we don't have to discuss why zionist-minded evangelical christians and many jews have a vocal interest in Israel. Given the nature of political discourse in the west, there is also little that is complex about why the left has developed a platform on which to build an opposing viewpoint.

FTR I suspect that all concerned human rights activists are concerned about atrocities everywhere. I do not think this is the same as asking where the public-at-large's interests lay.

[Bonam]

Given the nature of political discourse in the west, there is also little that is complex about why the left has developed a platform on which to build an opposing viewpoint.

To be honest this part doesn't quite make sense to me. I don't see what the left has to gain with this stance. Israel is a nation that follows many liberal ("leftist") values in a region where such values almost do not exist. These values include generally equal rights for people of different genders, religions, sexual orientations, etc. They also include quite the socialist-leaning economic model.

If anything, the left should be praising Israel for upholding these values to the extent that they do in the face of such intense opposition as they experience from all their neighbors. They should be holding Israel up as an example of the economic success that can be achieved with a relatively socialist economy. They should be showcasing how Israel managed to take millions of destitute refugees and over a short time span integrated them as members of a prosperous society.

It is only comparatively recently that Israel has fallen out of favor with the left, and I don't quite understand why. Is it because Israel is disliked by the Muslim world and the third world, and the left will bend over backwards to accommodate these groups in any way possible?

Edited April 4, 2010 by Bonam

[jbg]

To be honest this part doesn't quite make sense to me. I don't see what the left has to gain with this stance. Israel is a nation that follows many liberal ("leftist") values in a region where such values almost do not exist. These values include generally equal rights for people of different genders, religions, sexual orientations, etc. They also include quite the socialist-leaning economic model.

If anything, the left should be praising Israel for upholding these values to the extent that they do in the face of such intense opposition as they experience from all their neighbors. They should be holding Israel up as an example of the economic success that can be achieved with a relatively socialist economy. They should be showcasing how Israel managed to take millions of destitute refugees and over a short time span integrated them as members of a prosperous society.

It is only comparatively recently that Israel has fallen out of favor with the left, and I don't quite understand why. Is it because Israel is disliked by the Muslim world and the third world, and the left will bend over backwards to accommodate these groups in any way possible?

You've hit the nail on the head.

I think a lot of leftists (and I count myself as a leftist not agreeing with most of the Left on this) unconsciously oppose any Western interest when it comes into conflict with a non-Western interest, no matter how harmful to leftist causes or the West. Why would the leftists have supported the Iranian fundamentalists over the Shah, who at least wanted equal rights for women? Are Muslims pro-gay or pro-feminist?

Israel has the added element of being a Jewish state. There has, since Biblical times, been a certain antipathy towards Jews. There are reams of print on why that is. My view is that no matter what policies Israel pursues, many in the West will hate it.

[bloodyminded]

You've hit the nail on the head.

I think a lot of leftists (and I count myself as a leftist not agreeing with most of the Left on this) unconsciously oppose any Western interest when it comes into conflict with a non-Western interest, no matter how harmful to leftist causes or the West. Why would the leftists have supported the Iranian fundamentalists over the Shah, who at least wanted equal rights for women? Are Muslims pro-gay or pro-feminist?

The leftists didn't support the fundamentalists.

And if Western powers are going to support brutal dictators, then when those tyrants are overthrown--even by worse tyrants--it is the initial support for tyranny that it to blame.

[jbg]

The leftists didn't support the fundamentalists.

No they don't. But they oppose any efforts to overthrow them.

And if Western powers are going to support brutal dictators, then when those tyrants are overthrown--even by worse tyrants--it is the initial support for tyranny that it to blame.

Then its damned if you do damned if you don't. These countries aren't going to have Jeffersonian democrats as leaders.

[bloodyminded]

Then its damned if you do damned if you don't. These countries aren't going to have Jeffersonian democrats as leaders.

I'm not convinced it's always necessarily an either/or--support this tyrant, or support that one. But even if it were true, you're openly conceding that your criticism of leftists applies unequivocally to everyone else as well.

Which begs an obvious question about the focus of your critique.

[jbg]

I'm not convinced it's always necessarily an either/or--support this tyrant, or support that one. But even if it were true, you're openly conceding that your criticism of leftists applies unequivocally to everyone else as well.

Which begs an obvious question about the focus of your critique.

I thought you might be interested, based upon the post that this post responds to (link).

[eyeball]

I think the question is, when so much worse...far worse happens elsewhere without criticism, why does every petty thing in Israel take up bandwidth.

Cui bono?

Israel has been very effective as a lighting rod hasn't it? If this was the intent right from the beginning by the Great Power that created the place it certainly worked.

[dre]

is there a problem? ... and thanks for acknowledging that this thread's intent is to marginalize the targeted MLW member. As for your personalization, I'm quite comfortable in directing an occasional slag towards AGW climate change deniers... but really, not to derail this thread, you can't seriously infer the label "denier" is derogatory - right? It's simply a matter-of-fact classification

Holy shit. If I started a thread this stupid, Id shoot myself in the face!

[GostHacked]

Is this thread about the slaughter in the Congo or about how many condemn Israel?

[jbg]

Israel has been very effective as a lighting rod hasn't it? If this was the intent right from the beginning by the Great Power that created the place it certainly worked.

Holy shit. If I started a thread this stupid, Id shoot myself in the face!

Is this thread about the slaughter in the Congo or about how many condemn Israel?

This purpose of this thread is to contrast "world opinion's" relative silence on the frequent brutal massacres elsewhere in the world to its full-throated condemnation of the collateral damage when Israel tries to defend its very existence. The hypocrisy is astounding.

Clearly, the purpose is to delegitimize Israel.

[bloodyminded]

This purpose of this thread is to contrast "world opinion's" relative silence on the frequent brutal massacres elsewhere in the world to its full-throated condemnation of the collateral damage when Israel tries to defend its very existence. The hypocrisy is astounding.

Clearly, the purpose is to delegitimize Israel.

"Clearly," not at all. Do you think "the world" in generally irrationally hates Israel, which does nothing wrong?

That's paranoid delusion.

[jbg]

This purpose of this thread is to contrast "world opinion's" relative silence on the frequent brutal massacres elsewhere in the world to its full-throated condemnation of the collateral damage when Israel tries to defend its very existence. The hypocrisy is astounding.

Clearly, the purpose is to delegitimize Israel.

"Clearly," not at all. Do you think "the world" in generally irrationally hates Israel, which does nothing wrong?

That's paranoid delusion.

I repeat for emphasis.

Israel, like any country defending itself, cannot precisely tailor its response to avoid all loss of life of innocent people, and certainly not avoid the loss of life of non-combatants who place themselves in harm's way (such as people on the "flotilla" going to Gaza). My point is that when such incidents happen there are immediate condemnations and calls for "investigation".

The world is largely silent in the face of the numerous atrocities occurring on almost a daily basis in Africa and Asia. Mugabe and Zimbabwe are rarely mentioned. Nor, as "bloodyminded" pointed out in a sarcastic manner is Equitorial Guinea. Ditto Nigeria, Sudan, Democratic Republic of the Congo (as discussed in the Opening Post), Chad, Iran, Afghanistan or Pakistan (unless somehow the U.S. is involved).

A bit of consistency would be nice.

[eyeball]

This purpose of this thread is to contrast "world opinion's" relative silence on the frequent brutal massacres elsewhere in the world to its full-throated condemnation of the collateral damage when Israel tries to defend its very existence. The hypocrisy is astounding.

Clearly, the purpose is to delegitimize Israel.

Actually I was delegitimizing Britain for having created Israel in the first place. Come to think of it British meddling factors large in many of the locales mentioned in this thread doesn't it? Go figure.

In any case, I've long called for an international truth, reconciliation and reparation process to address the underlying causes that have lead to such frequent brutal massacres in the post colonial mess that was unnecessarily created in the past. I've also called for legislation that allows Canadians to control the corporations we send abroad that are often close to the source of so much dysfunction in Africa today.

Further to these I've also proposed a public review of the treaties and commitments we've made with our allies and trading partners to ensure none of these are interfering in places like Africa in any sort of predatory imperialistic manner that aggravates the situation.

Canada invented the notion of the Responsibility to Protect and that sovereignty is a government's responsibility, not a right. We should likewise find novel ways to implement that responsibility. I think we can far better help places like Africa not by sending troops and weapons there but by sanctioning other nations, allies and trading partners that do. Of course we'll have to stop doing that ourselves.