There is also the very important fact that Israel is a country which begins with the letter I and ends with the letter L.

That is totally different from Sri Lanka, which begins with the letter S and ends with the letter A.

This vital difference explains why Jews have been beaten in the street, shop windows of stores rumoured to be “pro-Israel” smashed, and racist conspiracy theories about Jews controlling the world have been bandied around in connection with Gaza; while nothing of the sort has happened in relation to Sri Lanka at all.

Oh come on … David T can you please acknowledge that there are reasons why people might make more of a fuss about Israel/Palestine than they do about Sri Lanka other than antisemitism, and Sunny can you please acknowledge that antisemitism plays a significant and very worrying part in the reactions we see to Israel/Palestine.

Yes, Harry’s Place is, shall we say, an extremely ‘focused’ blog, and there are many subjects about which one might expect people concerned with human rights to write about, which it does not write about. So in that sense, it is a bit rich for HP point at other people for being unbalanced. At the same time, given HP’s focus, it’s quite reasonable for them to point out that “people who care about human rights” do tend to focus their attention on Isreal Palestine to an extent that is perhaps not q

rats … to continue.

…. not quite fully explained by the reasons given by Sunny above.

And Sunny I don’t think HP pointing this out quite amounts to them saying the “anti-imperial left” is evil, more that they are inconsistent and, perhaps, deluding themselves. And while you like to say otherwise, HP does try to distinguish between the part and the whole, and if you asked them would probably say that sections of the “anti-imperial left” are if not antisemitic then at least sailing very close to it, but not all of them.

(Also, making comparisons does not imply moral equivalence because you can always say “this one is bad and this one is not bad”.)

Thank goodness for HP which has done a sterling and focussed job uncovering the neo-fascist tendencies among much of the totalitarian left and the pseudo-liberal chattering classes. The blogs of Hundal turn a blind eye to these developments.

The gist of this post by Hundal seems to be that these problems don’t exist. Watch Qaradawi speaking of his admiration for the Final Solution in relation to the Gaza conflict, or read the Red Cross report pointing out that phosphorous was not being used illegally, and discern whether HP or Hundal is more convincing.

Can we knock this type of discussion on the head please. It just comes across as really silly point-scoring at the expense of other people’s suffering.

I have written a couple of pieces about Sri Lanka at CiF and the response I got in the comments below was just as vociferous as an I/P thread. Aid workers have been killed in both places – and are regularly demonised as being ‘terrorist dupes’. The diaspora are also particularly vociferous I have noticed (as if they think that, really, it is all about them).

There are lots of reasons why the middle east has a higher profile in the UK media than Sri Lanka does – and I am not quite sure what puprose either this piece or David’s one – is trying to make. I thought that Jonathan Freedland made a good point today about antisemitism and what is happening in Gaza – but this sort of yah, boo, sucks to you stuff comes across as Nick Cohen at his very worst.

How many attacks on Sri Lankans and supposed Sri Lankan property have there been in the country, this year?

Oh and I don’t know the rights and wrongs of the white phosphorous use, but this is what the International Committee of the Red Cross has to say:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090114/ap_on_re_eu/eu_red_cross_white_phosphorus_2

GENEVA – The international Red Cross said Tuesday that Israel has fired white phosphorus shells in its offensive in the Gaza Strip, but has no evidence to suggest the incendiary agent is being used improperly or illegally.

The comments came after a human rights organization accused the Jewish state of using white phosphorus, hich ignites when it strikes the skin and burns straight through or until it is cut off from oxygen. It can cause horrific injuries.

The International Committee of the Red Cross urged Israel to exercise “extreme caution” in using the incendiary agent, which is used to illuminate targets at night or create a smoke screen for day attacks, said Peter Herby, the head of the organization’s mines-arms unit.

“In some of the strikes in Gaza it’s pretty clear that phosphorus was used,” Herby told The Associated Press. “But it’s not very unusual to use phosphorus to create smoke or illuminate a target. We have no evidence to suggest it’s being used in any other way.”

In response, the Israeli military said Tuesday that it “wishes to reiterate that it uses weapons in compliance with international law, while strictly observing that they be used in accordance with the type of combat and its characteristics.”

Herby said that using phosphorus to illuminate a target or create smoke is legitimate under international law, and that there was no evidence the Jewish state was intentionally using phosphorus in a questionable way, such as burning down buildings or consciously putting civilians at risk

However, Herby said evidence is still limited because of the difficulties of gaining access to Gaza, where Palestinian health officials say more than 900 people have been killed and 4,250 wounded since Israel launched its offensive late last month. Israel says the operation aims to halt years of Palestinian rocket attacks over the border.

Luis – what are those reasons exactly?

Sunny, you’ve completely rinsed this lot.

Conor, surely the points scoring began at Harry’s Place, not pickled politics?

Tom, well indeed

http://www.hurryupharry.org/2009/01/27/the-imaginary-world-of-sunny-hundal/

‘I really can’t see what this thread has achieved.’

Tom Miller,
No I believe this started with a previous post when Sunny accused Harrys Place of being rabidly pro-Israel/ Operation Cast Lead– which in terms of many regular commenters was substantially correct, but demonstrably incorrect in terms of the editorial contributions– which were quite mixed.

Luis, I too am wondering what those reasons are? Considering one of the conflicts has been far more bloody and killed far more people, it can’t be mere humanitarian concern, can it?

S, are you kidding? Posts at HP have been overwhelmingly pro-Israel, including numerous cut and paste jobs from Z Word.

in terms of Operation Cast Lead, views on HP were SPLIT

many of the HP posters had serious reservations on it, whereas the comments box (open to all) were probably slightly more pro it, so it is a bit more complex than often portrayed

If you really cannot think of any reasons why the Israel Palestine conflict might attract more attention than other conflicts of comparable body counts, you are either a) dim b) not really trying.

But really, Conor said it right: let’s knock this crap on the head, it’s extremely un-edifying.

sorry “other than antisemitism” is missing from the first sentence, above

Sunny accused Harrys Place of being rabidly pro-Israel/ Operation Cast Lead– which in terms of many regular commenters was substantially correct, but demonstrably incorrect in terms of the editorial contributions– which were quite mixed.

This is correct, HP’s post were quite mixed. There was a broad range of views, from Exterminate all the brutes to Careful now, let’s try to only exterminate the real brutes.

HP used to be pretty good for a laugh – you even used to get the odd thought-provoking post, in amongs all the smears and guilt-by-association – but they’re doctrinaire Israeli nationalist wingnuts these days, and it shows. I agree with Luis that there are a lot of racist cranks and some extremely dodgy rhetoric on the left around I/P, but that doesn’t change the fact that HP’s performance during the war was nothing short of a fucking disgrace.

The nasty undercurrents of some of the protests require urgent attention and refutation, but let’s not pretend – HP used it as an excuse for exactly the kind of paranoid rubbish, diversionary bullshit, enthusiastic flag-waving for violence and blind apologetics they’ve spent the last five years ticking the Indecent left off for.

As for David T., I’m sorry to say that he’s finally kicked what remains of his reputation as The sane one at Harry’s Place burning into the gutter. Next time he accuses some dodgy Muslim advocacy group of playing the persecution/racism card in order to deflect criticism, I suggest someone shows him that HP “Starbucks Kristallnacht” header. Total and utter lunacy.

Luis – enlighten us.

Yes Luis, please do.

This is correct, HP’s post were quite mixed. There was a broad range of views, from Exterminate all the brutes to Careful now, let’s try to only exterminate the real brutes.

I am not a commenter at Harrys Place but I have read their posts during this period (and Pickled Politics) so I know that what you say is simply false. Go and have a look. There are a number of very rabid and regular commenters (especially one with a middle earth style name???) who I think do them no favours.

sorry, you’re playing dumb and just not trying.

Imagine you are a history student, being set an essay: “Why does the conflict in Israel Palestine attract so much attention? You should consider interactions between the history of the conflict, media coverage and the evolution of popular opinion.”

I’m not going to do your homework for you, children.

The basic reason I/P gets more coverage than anyone else is the same reason Strictly Come Dancing gets more viewers than some random talent show on ITV4: viewers know the participants, know what they think about them.

With other wars it is more ‘TLA – were they the ones who were in that thing with the hostages? Do I like them?’

I am not a commenter at Harrys Place but I have read their posts during this period (and Pickled Politics) so I know that what you say is simply false. Go and have a look.

Of course the Rodent’s claims are false. He’s still upset after being exposed as a troll at both HP and by Will Rubbish at DSTPFW.

Luis, do not assume that we are all as clever as you. If you want me to understand your point of view, you will have to explain it to me. So, what are those reasons you spoke of?

ponderer

soru’s got you off to a flying start

Luis – your argument appears to be circular.
I/P attracts more attention because it attracts more attention.
But why does it attract that *extraordinary* amount of attention?
And why so much (self-righteous) vitriol?
Uniquely so.
A whole order of magnitude more attention.

Luis – what are those reasons exactly?

If you scroll above to the top of this page, you’ll see points 1 – 7. They explain why I think the I/P conflict gets more coverage than Sri Lanka. If you have anything to counter that, please offer it cjcjc and ponderer.

Conor – No, I’m afraid its not as simple as that.

Firstly, there’s an attempt at Harry’s Place to paint all those who opposed Operation Cast Lead as apologists or secret supporters of Hamas.

There’s also the “wide range of opinion” on the whole issue ranging from the anti-Israel left is holding us back and we should rain fire on these fuckers until they disown the militants all the way to if only these people came to the negotiating table we wouldn’t have all these unfortunate situations… and while you’re at it please stop building the settlements.

David T’s answer meanwhile is most illuminating.

The second problem I have is that while the left is constantly denigrated over there for not being outright supporters of Israel, the “anti imperial left” itself has been too unwilling to refute the stupid arguments they make.

It was bad enough we’ve had to sit there for years and listen to how they were right all along about the Iraq war. Now, apparently, they were also right all along about the invasion of Gaza. Oh and apparently I don’t care about human rights enough and only Harry’s Place does. Sorry, not having it.

Sunny – sorry – of course you would expect Gaza to have more coverage for your very sensible reasons. I was being a bit silly.

But – rationally – how much more?

A few column inches versus ACRES?

And so much (sickeningly self-righteous) vitriol.
(Yes, from more than one side.)

I wonder how many blog debates take the following form?

A) attribute opponent with stupid opinion
B) get upset about stupid opinion

Case in point: “there’s an attempt at Harry’s Place to paint all those who opposed Operation Cast Lead as apologists or secret supporters of Hamas”

Sunny, this is not the first time I’ve said this to you, but there’s something about HP that causes you to come adrift from you moorings. Have another look at your accusation …. see anything perhaps not wholly accurate about it? The use of the word “all” maybe? Brownie, Graham & Neil I seem to remember*, as saying they opposed Operation Cast Lead. Is HP painting them as a secret Hamas supporter now?

* I could be wrong.

cjcjc – re: circularity. Ooh, you’re getting there – positive feedback mechanisms are certainly part of the interaction between popular opinion and media coverage. Now, add in some history, sprinkle some clash of civilizations dust on top, and you will be on your way to identifying some reasons in addition to antisemitism (which clearly plays a role too) why I/P gets so much attention.

way to go knocking it on the head, me

Sunny
here’s also the “wide range of opinion” on the whole issue ranging from the anti-Israel left is holding us back and we should rain fire on these fuckers until they disown the militants all the way to if only these people came to the negotiating table we wouldn’t have all these unfortunate situations… and while you’re at it please stop building the settlements.

Sunny
This is not true. From the past 10 days ( I got bored looking further)

against Cast Lead:
http://www.hurryupharry.org/2009/02/04/reflections-on-cast-lead-and-collective-madness/
http://www.hurryupharry.org/2009/01/18/ding/

against Setllements:
http://www.hurryupharry.org/2009/01/31/time-to-leave/
http://www.hurryupharry.org/2009/01/25/friends-don’t-let-friends-build-settlements/

in favour of DEC appeal
http://www.hurryupharry.org/2009/01/28/the-bbc-get-impartiality-wrong-twice/
http://www.hurryupharry.org/2009/01/26/the-bbc-decision-the-dec-appeal/

and probably most topical against divisive spats between all people of good will.
http://www.hurryupharry.org/2009/01/23/the-only-way-forward-is-peace/

I think you should take a deep breath.

ps
I note that I was wrong about the genesis of this argument– it actually seems to have begun with HP criticising you for defending John Pilger — so I guess you could say nyaaahh they started it.

But – rationally – how much more?

A few column inches versus ACRES?

As I pointed out in my original post, on Pickled Politics I paid more attention to Sri Lanka than I/P prior to Gaza, mostly because it only led to stupid discussions, and because there was already enough content on it.

I changed that policy on Gaza because I felt the whole operation was not only stupid, but those defending it were making the most absurd arguments. HP being the best case in point.

As for acres of coverage – maybe you should tell Melanie Phillips and HP themselves? After all, this blog alone has hardly any coverage on it compared to HP. LibCon has been deliberately light on this issue. Most of the coverage has been in media which are strongly pro-Israel. So I’m not even sure what point you’re trying to make. Was The Times anti-semitic for reporting on White Phosphorus use?

Luis:
The use of the word “all” maybe? Brownie, Graham & Neil I seem to remember*, as saying they opposed Operation Cast Lead. Is HP painting them as a secret Hamas supporter now?

So, was everyone who went on the peace really in London a Hamas supporter? There was about 1 post a week saying how the operation was wrong, and 10 a day saying how the left was nasty for opposing the war.

That doesn’t even include Gene’s disgusting apologia for the Interior minister who said he didn’t really care if civilians died during their attacks.

For HP to lecture others on human rights abuses and to take the high moral ground really is laughable right now.

Oh no, not this crap again.

I’m so bored I could eat my own hair.

I’m out of here, before Aaron eats his own hair.

No, I’ve got time for that. Are we talking “with a knife and fork”, or is he just going to jam it in by the fistful?

It depends how long it takes the average “muscular liberal” to play out his or her daily psychodrama.

Also, fyi, I like to pull it out in large clumps (usually with some scalp still attached), and then stuff it in my mouth in the hope that it’ll kill me before another one of these debates does.

Luckily I have no hair on my head, so this could go on forever….

Having visited HP several times, I’m still trying to work out how it still manages to pass itself off as ‘left of centre’.

If the contributors aren’t justifying every action perpetrated by Israel they are wanking themselves into a froth over the SWP, which is apparently behind the entire anti-war movement (along with their beardy puppetmasters).

There are a handful of vaguely left-wing respondants but they seem to be posting out of habit rather than a sense of community.

Having visited HP several times, I’m still trying to work out how it still manages to pass itself off as ‘left of centre’.

They’re going through the same pains that the old neoconservatives in America did over the 70s and 80s. They too claimed to be left of centre while simultaneously spending all their time denouncing the left for not supporting them “against the menace” (of communism then, and Islamism now)…

All the time, we’ll constantly hear that its not that they have abandoned left-wing principles but that the left has abandoned them. Until of course Melanie Phillips welcomes them with open arms.

It has always been a tradition of the left to denounce other parts of the left – but usually each party could make some claim to be ‘of the left’: I really don’t see HP supporting any left-wing causes while they attack others for betraying the cause. They occasionally attack the BNP but you don’t really have to be left of the Tory mainstream to regard them as racist fucknuts.

Well their idea of what it means to be on the left is the Euston Manifesto, so it is not exactly surprising that they seem to have a different focus and priorities from the rest of us.

I don’t really have a problem with the Euston Manifesto per se. I just think that those happy to intervene (and I am sometimes) need to understand what the hell they’re getting into.

My first advice is to have nothing to do with the corporatised wing of the Republican Party – i.e. The Bush’s, Bechtel, Haliburton, The Carlyle Group, PNAC. These guys are the protagonists of Corporate Imperialism and do not share our moral compass.

Second is that militarism is the action of last resort, and should only be used to resolve an ongoing humanitarian disaster. Or when posed with a clear and present danger.

Third. Any military engagement should have clear military goals. Spreading democracy and rebuilding broken societies are not realistic military objectives.

Forth. Islamism in most forms is regressive (to our eyes), but you can’t change people’s beliefs with guns and bombs. And remember, the warmongers who pushed for this crusade, are same guys who kiss every princely Saudi hand they can find. Don’t be a tool to these people.

Fifth. Israel is a clusterfuck. Don’t get involved.

Point 5 is the most important. Popular feeling on the Tamils’ plight would be roused if the British media was packed full of egregious apologists who defended every action the Sri Lankan Government took and attempted to silence all critics by calling them Buddaphobes.

Was The Times anti-semitic for reporting on White Phosphorus use?

Good question. Maybe David Toube would like to answer that for us?

Second is that militarism is the action of last resort, and should only be used to resolve an ongoing humanitarian disaster.

Ideally within the framework or international law too…

Aaron,

There are certain things in the Euston Manifesto with which I fully agree, and I’m not totally opposed to military action per se. The problem is though that the kind of caveats you (and Leon) mention are essential if you are going to support the principle that military intervention is sometimes legitimate, and Euston is barely concerned with them, instead I think there is an unwritten assumption that liberal democracies can always be trusted to act responsibly and in good faith. They are more concerned with sneery asides at what they see as a morally compromised “left” than in seriously considering the consequences of what they are proposing. Basically the whole tone and emphasis is wrong, some issues are given undue prominence, others I would consider more important are barely mentioned. So although bits of it are ok in isolation, as a “manifesto” for what it means to be on the left today it just doesn’t cut it for me and it’s not something I could consider signing up to.

So why might the outrage in Britain over Gaza be higher profile than the conflict in Sri Lanka?

Perhaps the Tamils have not killed enough Westeners?