Why isn't the killing of 3 children by IDF headline news at DU

[haab]

We always complain about the Right Wing media and their bias toward Republicans. Yet how different is DU when it ignores the Palestinian kids killed by Israeli shelling.

Kids are kids regardless of color.

After 9/11 I remember the majority of Arabs and Muslims alike pointing a finger toward Israel. At the time I thought it was sickening to even dare imply a reason/justification for such a hideous crime. Bush used our unquestioning anger to push strongly for a war in Afghanistan followed by Iraq and now he's targeting Iran.

The support of Egypt to invade Afghanistan was only gained after Bush promised to address the Israel/Palestinian conflict after the invasion, yet his aim was already set on Iraq.

More war fighting and killings will never bring peace to Israel, yet that's the path we seem to have chosen, as we keep silent to the killing of innocent children by the hands of the IDF.



Annan condemns Gaza killings

Saturday 10 June 2006

At least 35 people were wounded in the Gaza shelling.

The secretary general of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, has called for a full investigation of the killing of seven Palestinians by Israeli artillery in Gaza, his spokesman said.

Spokesman Stephane Dujarric said in a statement on Friday: "The secretary general is deeply disturbed at the killing of civilians, including women and children, on a beach in Gaza earlier today."

<<snip>>

Ten Palestinians were killed on Friday by the Israeli military.

Seven people, including five members of the same family, died when an Israeli artillery shell reportedly landed on a Gaza beach.

Three Palestinians were killed as they prepared to launch a rocket attack on Israel, the Israeli army said. Palestinians said they were civilians.

<http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/D8737480-0701-4C9C-99BB-DBF66AEEB1E3.htm|english.aljazeera.net>

[Crunchy Frog]

1. Because all of those discussions have to stay confined

to the Israel/Palestine forum. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=124

This thread will likely be moved there shortly. It's too bad that this issue can't be discussed normally here, but the topic seems to be too hot, and the emotions on all sides so intense, that they have decided to keep it all confined to its own special forum.

I personally wish that the subject could be discussed more rationally, but I don't see that happening.

[OzarkDem]

2. Because its not our troops killing them

and lets hope we don't get drawn into fighting that war also instead of seeking a diplomatic solution.

[acmejack]

3. It was posted at least three times yesterday when it was current.

I saw it numerous times as a topic of discussion, it most certainly was not ignored by those of us with an interest in such things.

[acmavm]

4. Your are right, I saw it too. But yesterday I just didn't have the energy

to respond on them. The 'Israel can do no wrong' faction of DU just wears me out and I didn't want to bother with them.

[acmejack]

6. I totally understand.

I have had my encounters with them too. There are certain members of their community who are quick to sling names and worse at anyone who dares question the holy rights of Israel.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[acmavm]

10. You can't have a reasonable OR rational discussion on anything that

touches upon Israel. The minute that you try to point out that there is every bit as much blame to be alloted to the Israelis and their government for the current situation in the Middle East, the same old crown comes out accusing everyone of being anti-semetic and/or a person comparable to the worst of the Nazi regime. And most days it's more trouble than it's worth arguing with 'em.

And I really wish that these people would look up Semite in the dictionary. But since they won't I'll give them the definition from Dictionary.com:

Sem·ite n.
1. A member of a group of Semitic-speaking peoples of the Near East and northern Africa, including the Arabs, Arameans, Babylonians, Carthaginians, Ethiopians, Hebrews, and Phoenicians.
2. A Jew.
3. Bible. A descendant of Shem.

[cali]

13. Respectfully,

there are people on both sides who take extreme positions and will grant no quarter to those they oppose. Still, those people, I believe, are a minority. It's possible to have a a respectful discussion of these issues, but it requires restraint and understanding- and that's difficult.. No offence, but your little diatribe about what a semite is doesn't help the discussion.

[acmavm]

14. No offense taken, but apparently some here don't understand that

when they throw around the term anti-semite or anti-semetic, it includes BOTH Arabs and Jews.

And my posts weren't a diatribe. They were a perfectly accurate description of what happens on DU when any discussion of I/P matters slants toward an area where criticism of Israel occurs, or is even implied.

[haab]

15. It is important to know the Arabs and Jews are Semitic

And discussions that slant against Israel are not intended to be Anti-Semitic.

I personally think it's about time the Anti-Semitic term is dropped for good. It served its purpose and it's out of date. It should also be prohibited in all discussions about Israel for the discussion to yield anything meaningful.


Calling someone Anti-Semitic can be as offences as calling a person the N word.

[Igel]

17. You may catch that meaning.

but that's not usually the meaning being thrown around. It boils down to who's more important in deciding what somebody's saying: the person speaking, or one or more of the listeners.

Semitic may include descendants of Shem (not, by the way, confined to Arabs and Jews, but also to peoples not now usually considered Semitic--so lots of non-Semitic peoples are Semites, if you allow the definition to shift). Semitic includes Arabic, Hebrew, and and some other languages now verging on extinction because of Arabic dominance. Plus Tigrinya and Amharic (the official language of Ethiopia).

But 'anti-Semitic' is a bit more specialized in meaning; it happens. You like dictionary.com and claim them as your authority, fine:

anti-semitic adj 1: relating to or characterized by anti-Semitism; hating Jews 2: discriminatory especially on the basis of race or religion
an·ti-Sem·ite n. One who discriminates against or who is hostile toward or prejudiced against Jews.

Gee, the authority you want to beat others over the head with seems to think you're wrong.

It's dangerous to try to horse language based on etymology or an agenda. Sometimes it works; mostly it sounds Orwellian. Usage usually trumps ideologues.

[cali]

18. Actually, it doesn't. The term anti-semite

is much like a term of art- it has a specific meaning within a given context. It was coined to reflect sentiment and prejudice against jews. That it conflicts with the meaning of the word semite doesn't negate the history or meaning of the word. Should its meaning be changed to reflect prejudice against all semites? Perhaps. Usage and history will decide that. As of now, anti-semitic has a specific and almost universally recognized interpretation- and be it for good of for ill, it does not include both arabs and jews. None of this, of course, has anything to do with criticism of Israel, and I find it a tad difficult to understand why you think it does. One can criticize Israel as I often do, and still recognize that the word anti-semitic refers to jews. Surely you're not suggesting that anyone who takes that position is a knee jerk supporter of Israel?

[mike_c]

19. we do....

eom

[cali]

5. I'm with

Crunchy Frog; I wish we could discuss I/P affairs respectfully in the main forums. That doesn't seem possible so the powers that be have constrained all matters relating to I/P to a specifically designated forum. The death of the children and other civilians on the beach in Gaza has been posted several times there. If it's any consolation, the death of Israeli children by Suicide bombers or others is also relegated to said aforementioned forum.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rman]

12. because the rules of the I/P forum don't apply to GD

that's my guess.

I/P doesn't allow discussion of background and history;


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x21970

....
- New threads must be based on a recently-published news item or op-ed piece. They may not be based on editorial cartoons or photographs. Citations and references should include a link to the original source. Exceptions will be allowed if, based on prior approval, the moderators feel a thread is appropriate.
- All threads must be based on material originally published no more than 3 weeks ago.
....

[The Magistrate]

20. As A Point Of Fact, Sir

Just about every discussion in the Israel v. Palestine forum comes quickly to focus on the history and background of the matter, whatever the item with which it commences. There is a continual supply of new op-ed pieces focusing on the history, and when persons comment on news of the day, in supoorting their positions they almost invariably call upon the history of the conflict in hopes this will estanblish the correctness of their view, or to attempt a demonstration of the error of their opponent's view.

[ixion]

7. killing is bad. period.

No matter who or what organization carries it out, and under what deity or political philosophy they ascribe the action to.

I do not make a distinction between religions/nations when it comes to such things.

It is bad when Palestinians kill Israelis.
It is bad when Israelis kill Palestinians.

Neither one is innocent, nor the victim. Both kill on a whim. Israel, however, has the unfair advantage of being propped up by the Europe and the US, despite the fact that it acts as a rogue state on many occasions. The situation is deplorable on many, many levels.

[acmejack]

8. An intractable problem with no apparent solution.

Since the some leading members of the parties on both sides seem to be content with killing each other to the last woman and child. There are voices of sanity on both sides who do give us reason for hope, but it seems they are continually marginalized.

Wish it were in my power to create to equal and seperate places on opposite sides of the Earth to accomodate these folks and bring peace to that troubled part of the world. Somehow, I doubt even that would do it...

[Poll_Blind]

16. Threads covering US -policy- twoard Israel/Palestine are supposed to be...

...allowable for discussion in fora other than I/P.

In practice, though....

PB

[ContraBass Black]

21. It was.

Did you miss it?

[Lithos]

22. Locking per I/P guidelines

Subject must match article title which in turn must be a recent news or op-ed article.

Lithos
DU Moderator