|
|
Tags for This Article:
Media (3109) Government (3072) People (2531) Democracy (1819) People (1690) Israel (1433) World (1099) Religion (1079) Law (1071) State (974) Terrorism (944) Violence (899) Other (869) Christianity (657) Islam Muslim (497) Empire (424) Islam Shia (207) Islam Sunni (193) Islamism (35)
|
(more...)
(less...)
Add to My Group
A major documentary series by Christiane Amanpour aired on CNN from August 22-24. "God's Warriors", which began by focusing on the Jewish religion, followed by Islam and Christianity, has provoked a great deal of criticism. Maurice Ostroff, a respected commentator on current affairs and a regular contributor to the Jerusalem Post has written a thorough critique of the series which we would like to share with our readers: "GOD'S WARRIORS" DISAPPOINTS: CNN EARNS A C-MINUS At the conclusion of the widely advertised CNN TV series "God's Warriors", dealing with the intersection between religion and politics Christiane Amanpour said she tried to explain the phenomenon of millions of people who know how to make the world right but feel ignored. While she certainly deserves an A+ for her professionally conducted interviews in seven countries over eight months, the documentary barely earns a C- for its explanations. The six-hour program leaves serious viewers more confused than before. Each of the three two-hour programs suffers from excess length, due mainly to irrelevancies. Former President Carter for example, enjoys the privilege of freely advertising his book in two of the series, but contributes nothing to the main subject. Amanpour does not hesitate to inject her own views, demonstrating occasional lack of knowledge. For example when an Israeli settler said God says Jews must live in Hebron, Amanpour interjected that the West Bank was designated by the UN to be the largest part of an Arab state. Not only is this statement factually incorrect, it is out of context. Amanpour is evidently unaware that all Arab states rejected UN partition resolution 181, to which she evidently referred and that the West Bank was included in the area designated for encouragement of Jewish settlement by the Balfour Declaration and even endorsed in article 6 of the British mandate. The relevance of religious extremism to the so-called Jewish lobby in the USA is flimsy indeed. Nevertheless, Amanpour found time to allow Jimmy Carter as well as Professor Mearsheimer to expound their controversial views which have been criticized by experts. In a six-hour program, there is no excuse to claim that lack of time prevented the presentation of these extremist views in their proper context by quoting authoritative contradictory opinions. Nor is there any excuse for attacking a Jewish lobby, without presenting the context as a natural part of the general lobbying scene in the USA like the ACLU and the very powerful, well-funded Arab lobbies. The repeated references to settlements as illegal exposes a biased outlook. Obviously the most reliable sources from whom to seek clarification are the persons who played key roles in drafting the relevant resolution 242, namely British Ambassador to the UN, Lord Caradon, American Ambassador, Arthur Goldberg and US Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs, Eugene Rostow. All have agreed that settlements are legal. In an interview in the Beirut Daily Star on June 12, 1974, Lord Caradon stated: "It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions of June 4, 1967 because these positions were undesirable and artificial." Professor Julius Stone, one of the twentieth century's leading authorities on the Law of Nations concurred that the Jewish right of settlement in the territories is equivalent in every way to the right of the existing Palestinian population to live there. What must deeply concern everyone interested in maintaining Western democracy is the danger that this widely advertised documentary diverts attention from the real threat of Jihad, by equating it with non-violent religious movements. A warning early in the program by Ed Husain who said he was brain-washed to believe in a religious duty to kill innocent people on the basis of religion is unfortunately diluted later in the program. As a former member of the radical group, Hiz Ut-Tahrir he describes it as a group of individuals across the world dedicated to overthrowing every single Arab government, every single Muslim government and setting up an expansionist global state in the Middle East and a launch pad for creating an Islamist empire. They operate openly, in large numbers on university campuses to this day and openly admit they intend to establish an Islamic empire ruled by fundamentalist Islamic law, Sharia. Sorely missing from the entire series is any mention of the basic motivator of Islamic violence, the incitement to hatred emanating from state media as well as openly from mosques, not only in Arab countries but under the noses of European and British governments. As human beings, can we be unperturbed by the indoctrination of infants to become suicidal Warriors as shown in an interview with a three-and-a-half year old girl broadcast on Iqra? It is unforgivable that in this documentary which could serve to create a genuine better understanding of the violence generated by religious zealotry, the authoritative voices of many experts in the field were omitted. The program would for example achieve greater credibility had Harvard Professor Alan Dershowitz been interviewed as a foil to Mearshheimer.
ACLU The ACLU has a very effective lobbying campaign. Here is a link to the website . I also found info about an ACLU Lobby Day. Here is a blurb from the site regarding who they lobby for: "The Racial Justice Program aims to preserve and extend the constitutional rights of people of color. Committed to combating racism in all its forms, our advocacy includes litigation, community organizing and training, legislative initiatives, and public education." Interesting bit of information is that when I was having a problem with gender discrimination at work and called the ACLU for help, they told me that they did not address that sort of issue. I thought the group was supposed to champion for Civil Liberties for all people, but evidently not. by
Barbara Peterson (46 articles, 80 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 416 comments)
on Monday, August 27, 2007 at 3:32:37 PM
A writer is a rogue goose. All other gees fly in a flock formation; every goose knows his place and time for honking. The rogue goose is undisciplined. He leaves the formation indiscriminately to have a look at it from aside. He roams back and forth, takes a peep at the leader, honks a little bit from behind, distracts everyone and writes on what he sees. Time passes and as he wants to return back to his place he discovers someone else there. Thus he either has to wait until they land for rest...
That's strange because ACLU lawyers seem to lead on the issues of the gender disrimination. But still, who benefits? ACLU does not lead to the particular benefit of some group of people. At the same time AIPAC does ( not the Jews they serve). And... as you want to protect Israel, that is fine with me but AIPAC does not help Israel, sorrry. Neither does it help the Jews, sorry again. And one more thing- no one is ' soft' on religious extremism: we all grieve for the loss of life. That is the only criteria we aall should use and if we use it-those who cause the loss of life, people like AIPAC and, say extreme ' Christians' come out not that far apart, unfortunately. by
Mark Sashine (50 articles, 19 quicklinks, 244 diaries, 3453 comments)
on Monday, August 27, 2007 at 5:03:26 PM
The People are not the Government As I think about this subject and review the linked sites, I realize that truth is mixed with lies, which is how all governments seem to work. I take everything I read with a grain of salt :) The government is not the same as the people. The people of Israel need help. The government of Israel is corrupt. In fact, if we could just get the governments to deal with each other and leave the people out of it we might all be better off! by
Barbara Peterson (46 articles, 80 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 416 comments)
on Monday, August 27, 2007 at 5:20:53 PM
A writer is a rogue goose. All other gees fly in a flock formation; every goose knows his place and time for honking. The rogue goose is undisciplined. He leaves the formation indiscriminately to have a look at it from aside. He roams back and forth, takes a peep at the leader, honks a little bit from behind, distracts everyone and writes on what he sees. Time passes and as he wants to return back to his place he discovers someone else there. Thus he either has to wait until they land for rest...
I would agree with this surely. I would also add that many people who claim to ' love the Jews' do not love them at all ( see my ' slimy love' series under Mark Sashine). by
Mark Sashine (50 articles, 19 quicklinks, 244 diaries, 3453 comments)
on Monday, August 27, 2007 at 5:42:18 PM
Just read your article... I just read your article, and it is very insightful. I agree about the racism issue. You can take any person - white, black, blue or green, and raise that person to hate others not like him/herself, and you have a menace to society. I do not believe that people are born inherently evil, but can be made that way through indoctrination from the time they are born until they take their right of free choice and use it to break out of the mold created for them. by
Barbara Peterson (46 articles, 80 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 416 comments)
on Thursday, August 30, 2007 at 6:58:54 PM
propaganda... "One of the most misleading aspects of the program, was the use of the very few isolated incidents of Jewish terror attempts over the past 15 years, to create the false impression that a Jewish terror movement exists on a par with the violent worldwide jihadist phenomenon of indiscriminate death and destruction." It is certainly misleading to equate Israeli (not Jewish!) terrorism with that from Palestinians; the Palestinians have been killed in far greater numbers -- on the order of 10 to 1 -- than Israelis. And to compare Muslim Jihad worldwide with Jewish activities is very misleading: world Jewish population is about 13 million, compared to the billions of Muslims. But if we start counting the deaths in the world from wars supported by Israel then Israel has quite a tally to their "credit" indeed.) ACLU does fight for justice -- and not only for racial justice as was implied-- AIPAC and zionists just the opposite -- and certainly not for the Jewish people -- no more than the neocons and PNAC fight for the rights and well-being of people. But as far as fighting against gender discrimination, the devil is in the details, and no details were supplied -- just a blanket accusation without any evidence: that doesn't mean anything at all. by
Blue Pilgrim (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 997 comments)
on Monday, August 27, 2007 at 5:24:13 PM
Don'pigeon hole me or sterotype me
Panurg Why did you not place one more clause in our listing of Christian and Jewish religious extemists. You omission is glaring is it not? You need to be fair. We condemn those like the Oklahoma City bombing (I am sure beyond a shadow of doubt you would say McVay was Christian) and the Israeli Mosque attack (Jewish) and Beriut attack by Sharon (Jewish). Surely you believe there are maybe at least one or more groups you could include in your list; however, you never do? Do you? by
pratliff94 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 962 comments)
on Wednesday, August 29, 2007 at 12:53:12 AM
Who wrote this article? There is no author listed excpet "honest reporting" without any link. Is OpEdNews now accepting propaganda from anonymous sources? Was this written by Big Brother? It stinks!! by
Blue Pilgrim (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 997 comments)
on Monday, August 27, 2007 at 3:54:24 PM
The process and policy One of our volunteer editors authorized and published this article. Here on OpEdnews, we've probably published five to ten times as many pro-palestinian articles as we publish articles defending and supporting Israel. We'll continue to publish opinion pieces from both perspectives, with the attitude that many articles are incomplete until they are commented upon. I am trying to get the clear message to volunteer editors that we only publish as articles submissions that have the person's name. SOme of them slip by. But this one has a name on it. Regarding discussion of zionism on OpEdNews-- it is currently over done. You want to talk about specific behaviors or actions or policies of Israel... fine. You want to talk about parties or specific people in Israel-- fine. But it's too easy to blur the line between bashing zionism and Jews. Back off. There are other ways to discuss the issues. As far as I'm concerned, the variations of the word zionist and zionism have almost taken on the abuse level of the N word. It won't be tolerated here. That's not at all an effort to stop honest discussion of current issues. But it's too easy for antisemites to lapse into hate talk that goes too far, hiding behind the word games using zionism. It ain't happening here. by
Rob Kall (807 articles, 3921 quicklinks, 332 diaries, 1702 comments)
on Tuesday, August 28, 2007 at 3:56:26 PM
I am backed off consider me silenced! by
Blue Pilgrim (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 997 comments)
on Tuesday, August 28, 2007 at 6:02:22 PM
You're way to smart to be silenced. That's not the intention at all. Just use a bit more nuance in your criticism of Israel, and that is not, in any way shape or form meant to suggest you should back off on criticizing Israel. I don't have a problem with that. Zionist/zionism are sloppy words that are too easily abused. Choose your words better. Otherwise, have at it. You haven't been censored before, even though you've been quite critical. by
Rob Kall (807 articles, 3921 quicklinks, 332 diaries, 1702 comments)
on Tuesday, August 28, 2007 at 7:42:06 PM
Don'pigeon hole me or sterotype me
Rob Kall Do not worry about BluePilgrim accusation of propaganda; every line he writes is Muslim proganda; and now he will say I hate Muslims for attacking his prejudiced comments. by
pratliff94 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 962 comments)
on Wednesday, August 29, 2007 at 12:57:07 AM
OK -- found it with google "As an organization dedicated to defending Israel against prejudice in the Media, we aim to provide educational tools and resources to anyone wishing to advocate for Israel." It's a zionist propaganda outfit! (also see http://www.prwatch.org/node/396 ) So this is now the crap we can expect on OpEdNews? Is this now a feed for unlinked tales from zionists? Very disappointing... by
Blue Pilgrim (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 997 comments)
on Monday, August 27, 2007 at 4:33:23 PM
Both Sides Hearing both sides of an argument is painful, but necessary for the discerning of the truth. I have run into anti-semitism before, and it is very unpleasant. Zionism is not a dirty word. Here is the definition: Main Entry: Zi·on·ism Zionism is merely the act of establishing a homeland by the Jewish people on a tiny portion of land called Israel that they can call home after so many years of persecution. Unfortunately the word is now used as a curse-word by certain people who have successfully waged a propaganda campaign to get rid of the Jewish 'problem' once and for all. by
Barbara Peterson (46 articles, 80 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 416 comments)
on Monday, August 27, 2007 at 5:11:08 PM
Comment is hidden
Comment is hidden Reason:
zionism aside from it's earliest roots and intentions, has become monstorous, and zionists very destructive of peace and of all people, including the Jewish people. It is as extreme as any Islamic extremism, extreme nationalism, or any other extreme ideology. But they DO have a good propaganda machine... by
Blue Pilgrim (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 997 comments)
on Monday, August 27, 2007 at 5:54:06 PM
Where today's biggest God's warrior? I watched the whole show looking for "George W Bush, American God's Warrior". What happened Christiane? Ah yes, you work for CNN. by
TomK (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 217 comments)
on Monday, August 27, 2007 at 10:18:58 PM
I am a Canadian politiphile with a special interest in the American empire.
Soft on WHAT? Yes, I see it now. Americans have a lo-o-o-ong way to go in thinking through their blind allegiance to Israel, their own complicity in the rise of Islamicism, and their own destructive fundamentalist streak. Amanpour: hard on the Jews, soft on the Muslims . . . an American perspective, par excellence! Seems there are two cultural taboos at work here. Critique of Jewish fundamentalism in Israel is ipso facto "bigoted, anti-semitic, and racist," as the woman on the call-in show called Jimmy Carter. Similary, anything less than a thorough trashing of everything Islamic means you're "with the terrorists," as Bush said about anybody who dares not to be "with us". It's been 6 years since 9/11, so get over it! Your Fundy-in-Chief has done 50 times that damage since then. If Amanpour was "soft on" anyone's religious violence, it was his. Indeed, I quite appreciated the first two episodes of the series, but the last one was a disappointment. In the second episode, Amanpour grilled the Muslim woman who was torn on the question of stoning women for adultery, but in the third episode I heard nothing about those in the US who can't wait to get biblical law on the books so they can start stoning them too. Besides the superficiality of the last episode, the only thing missing from the series was a dose of Comparative Religion -- because clearly what many Americans need to see is the remarkable extent to which these three dangerous forms of religious fascism mirror each other. by
delia (0 articles, 1 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 112 comments)
on Monday, August 27, 2007 at 10:55:39 PM
The Warriros of God? : Diseased and Fanatics these are The Warriors of God by
Mark Angelo Cummings (4 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 53 comments)
on Tuesday, August 28, 2007 at 9:57:59 AM
DOB -- September 20, 1940. Became active in civil rights and peace movements in 1962. Active in socialist and antiwar movements -- 1963-69. Active in Gay Liberation from 1969 to present.
ISRAELI/ARAB CONFLICT A CLASH OF TWO RIGHTS If any of us belonged to a nationality that had been subjected to genocide for two thousand years, we would support seizing territiry to establish our own independent nation, even if it did mean displacing the people already living there. The Arab-Israeli conflict over Palestine has correctly been called a clash of two rights. The Arabs had the right to continued possession of the land where they had been living for thousands of years. But, after the holocaust, the Jews had the right to get a nation of their own, anyway they could. The best solution therefore would have been for the two peoples to reach an agreement to divide Palestine. But that agreement WAS reached when President Carter presided over the signing of the Oslo Accords. The Jews would have the east bank of the Jordan river and the Arabs the west bank. But Israel kept establishing new settlements in the west bank so that the territorys is divided up in many many isolated areas without even any freedom of travel between the isolated areas. Israel has actually set up a system of reservations or Arabstans for the Arabs. You can not expect to have peace if you continue to establish settlements on the territory alloted to the other group after you sign a treaty dividing up the land. Under David and Solomon, the Israeli empire extended from Gaza to the Euphrates. What further plans for expansion do the Israeli settlers have. Furthermore, all modern democratic countries no longer punish the relatives of criminals. In the United States, even the relatives of Timothy McVeigh and Osama ben Laden did not have to fear legal sanctions. But Israel demolishes the houses owned by the families of convicted terrorists. It also readily issues permits for new houses for Jewish settlers but almost never issues permits to Arabs -- and demolishes their houses because they do not have permits. Israelis take more than their share of the scarce water so that you have Palestinian farmers subsisting in the water scarcity common to the Middle East outside well watered Israeli golf courses. The United States support of the Israeli seizure of more and more Palestinian land has resulted in hatred of the U.S. throughout the Islamic World and led to 9/11. If we had been defending the morally right course, it could be argued that we should continue the present policy. Bur there is no reason for the United States to bring such grief on itself by supporting an immoral policy. If the U.S. told Israel to return to the Oslo Accords and agree on a fair division of Palestine or we would cut off the flow of military aid, and then cut off the aid flow if Israel balked -- Israel would have no choice but to agree. Hopefully the accumulated Islamic hatered of the U.S. would eventually die down and we would no longer have a Palestine problem. Robert Halfhill rhalfhill@juno.com by
rhalfhill (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 284 comments)
on Wednesday, August 29, 2007 at 1:32:08 AM
The Size of Israel Are you aware that the size of Israel is slightly larger than the state of Massachusetts? Land area of Israel: 7,849 sq. mi. (approx.) Land area of Massachusetts: 7,840.02 sq. mi. (approx.) The tiny state of Israel is also surrounded by 22 Arab states. How much more land do they need? Also, you probably do not want to hear this, but: "Israel is the very embodiment of Jewish continuity: It is the only nation on earth that inhabits the same land, bears the same name, speaks the same language, and worships the same God that it did 3,000 years ago. You dig the soil and you find pottery from Davidic times, coins from Bar Kokhba, and 2,000-year-old scrolls written in a script remarkably like the one that today advertises ice cream at the corner candy store." by
Barbara Peterson (46 articles, 80 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 416 comments)
on Wednesday, August 29, 2007 at 12:20:01 PM
Hi, I am a registered Green Party voter in New Mexico. I possess a Masters Degree in Social Studies and PhD in Health Promotion. I follow the teachings of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. I care about people, social justice, economic democracy, human rights, peace, and promote progressive politics.
Muslim Propaganda? pratiff94, please define Muslim propaganda, and I doubt that every line he writes is Muslim propaganda, if possible, please point out the lines that you claim are propaganda. Are you implying that his support for Palestinian |
