This time they went too far.

[Traitorfish]

Eh, if a report came out say that broccoli caused bum-warts, they'd jump on that too. These people are bottom-feeders, regardless of the fact that some of them are bottom-feeders with a fancy letterhead.

 

[Mouthwash]

Eh, if a report came out say that broccoli caused bum-warts, they'd jump on that too. These people are bottom-feeders, regardless of the fact that some of them are bottom-feeders with a fancy letterhead.

Why is it always Israel? Imagine if they did an article on the discrimination against Han Chinese in Thailand, or Mexicans in the US. Short of a complete apartheid system with massacres and racial cleansing, would that strike you as relevant or worth reading? No? So why do they focus on the Jewish state?

 

[Ajidica]

The entire mainstream media, from the Independent to Huffington Post, jumped on the story. You don't think there's something a little wrong there?

Why wouldn't they? It was a possibly big story that -given the Israeli governments iffy transparency- appeared well sourced for a topic of its level of possible embarrassment for the Israeli government.

Unless my reading comprehension skills have utterly failed me, the second Haaretz article points out that Israeli government does not dispute the base assertion; that due to a whole host of issues the Ethopian immigrants were not fully informed enough to give their consent to a rather powerful birth control medicine and possibly could have been intentionally misinformed. As a result of this story breaking the Israeli government has withdrawn the existing birth-control measure of the Integration policies and is presumably developing new measures. The Independent is essentially repeating the basic assertions of the Haaretz article.

Other smaller media outlets turned it into the "ISRAEL ENGAGES IN NAZI FORCED STERILIZATION PROGRAMS!!!!!" incoherent ranting which managed to completely distract news media from the issue -problems in Israel's integration programs- into the rather stupid "Is Israel Nazi Germany 2.0".

Why is it always Israel? Imagine if they did an article on the discrimination against Han Chinese in Thailand, or Mexicans in the US. Short of a complete apartheid system with massacres and racial cleansing, would that strike you as relevant or worth reading? No? So why do they focus on the Jewish state?

Well, Hispanic discrimination in America is well covered and there is little coverage of the discrimination of Han Chinese in Thailand because, put bluntly, the West doesn't care. There are several reasons why media tends to focus on the Israel-Palestinian Conflict.
1) All involved parties have done an excellent job internationalizing the issue.
2) The situation can easily be spun to fit into whatever narrative the media outlet is trying to promote. Just look at how quickly Yassir Arafat went from terrorist to statesman and then back to terrorist.
3) Israel is a developed Western country which makes reporting from there pretty easy compared to other areas of conflict such as the deserts of Uzbekistan or the jungles of the DRC.
4) Because of all the media attention we expect more news reports to come from there when compared to other areas in the world.
5) As a result of all of these, when the Israeli government does engage in borderline illegal acts, such as the settlements, or absolutely fail to uphold their end of Oslo by refusing to work with the PA (and organization the Israeli government helped establish to facilitate the peace process) it makes international headline.

 

[Traitorfish]

Why is it always Israel? Imagine if they did an article on the discrimination against Han Chinese in Thailand, or Mexicans in the US. Short of a complete apartheid system with massacres and racial cleansing, would that strike you as relevant or worth reading? No? So why do they focus on the Jewish state?

Is it always Israel? I can't say I hear much about Israel and race outside of the context of the Palestinian issue, which really is its own special package. Even this seems to have been buried halfway down a sub-section of a sub-section in most outlets, and quickly buried beneath yet more articles on Syria and Turkey. Most people can't really get past the Palestinian/Israeli thing when it comes to issues of race and Israel, because both sides are invested in the construction of Israel as a homogeneous volkstaat. (Look at your own phrasing here, "the Jewish state", ethnically and religiously undifferentiated.) Even black Jews, who depart too blatantly from the stereotype of an Ashkenazi republic to be entirely ignored, are regarded more as an oddity than anything else, and I dare say that a lot of people who read that article were more struck by the revelation that "black Israelis" are a thing than by whatever is actually alleged to have happened.

But, yes, I would consider an article on anti-Mexican discrimination in the United States worth reading. I've read them before, and expect to read them in the future. Should it be otherwise?

 

[Mouthwash]

Why wouldn't they? It was a possibly big story that -given the Israeli governments iffy transparency- appeared well sourced for a topic of its level of possible embarrassment for the Israeli government.

Unless my reading comprehension skills have utterly failed me, the second Haaretz article points out that Israeli government does not dispute the base assertion; that due to a whole host of issues the Ethopian immigrants were not fully informed enough to give their consent to a rather powerful birth control medicine and possibly could have been intentionally misinformed. As a result of this story breaking the Israeli government has withdrawn the existing birth-control measure of the Integration policies and is presumably developing new measures. The Independent is essentially repeating the basic assertions of the Haaretz article.

No, the Independent did indeed avoid directly stating false things, but the implications were quite obvious. You can't get any other impression that the Israeli government attempted to keep the population low intentionally after reading it. As I pointed out, it also misused the controversy over whether Ethiopian Jews are halachically Jewish (as they were converted anyway to be sure and were universally accepted as Jews), and misquoted Netanyahu when he talked about illegal Sudanese immigrants. The implication being that since Ethiopian Jews weren't considered real Jews, they posed a threat to (according to Bibi) Israel's "Jewish characteristic." There is no movement within Israel to get rid of Ethiopian Jews, and the vast majority of the religious population accepts them as Jewish.

 

[Mouthwash]

Is it always Israel? I can't say I hear much about Israel and race outside of the context of the Palestinian issue, which really is its own special package. Even this seems to have been buried halfway down a sub-section of a sub-section in most outlets, and quickly buried beneath yet more articles on Syria and Turkey. Most people can't really get past the Palestinian/Israeli thing when it comes to issues of race and Israel, because both sides are invested in the construction of Israel as a homogeneous volkstaat. (Look at your own phrasing here, "the Jewish state", ethnically and religiously undifferentiated.) Even black Jews, who depart too blatantly from the stereotype of an Ashkenazi republic to be entirely ignored, are regarded more as an oddity than anything else, and I dare say that a lot of people who read that article were more struck by the revelation that "black Israelis" are a thing than by whatever is actually alleged to have happened.

Yes, it is. Just look at how the Guardian and Independent screamed about how Bedouins in Israel don't get full educational coverage while glossing over the fact that they are nomads and live independently on their little villages in the Negev, taking government subsidies and not usually integrating with Israeli society. I don't even think most of them attend school.

The Jews (collectively) are a nation with a shared common history, not merely a religion or ethnic group. As I've said, I myself am not Ashkenazi; my father's family comes from Morocco.

But, yes, I would consider an article on anti-Mexican discrimination in the United States worth reading. I've read them before, and expect to read them in the future. Should it be otherwise?

OK, bad example (since the US is still part of the English-speaking world). How about the treatment of Azeris in Armenia, or Muslims in Russia? I'm referring to your British tabloids newspapers that take literally every opportunity they can to trash Israel, whether the criticism happens to be fabricated or not, and despite the fact that some of accusations have nothing to do with the Palestinians.

 

[Ajidica]

I was under the impression Haaretz was pointing out the difficulties the Israeli program to promote integration of the Ethiopian immigrants encountered, notably the western tendency to have fewer children than in non-western countries. (Although, oddly, the Israeli government does not try and promote this low birth rate among the Ultra-Orthodox. Rather, they actively promote it with several subsidies and tax breaks.)

With regards to the Ethiopian Jews 'Jewishness' I was under the impression that there was significant dispute in Israel over the possibility of Ethiopians using this as a refugee service rather than as part of Israel's aliyah* program. Since your knowledge of the Israeli domestic situation appears better than mine, if you could link to an article about this topic that would be grand. However, the point is sort of moot because I have little interest in someone's 'Jewishness'.
*It has been ages since I've read Exodus but IIRC aliyah was the term used to encompass the ideological/religious aspect of Zionism with regards to immigration of Jews to Israel.

The Jews (collectively) are a nation with a shared common history

It must be a very large nation if it can encompass people as different from each other as Stephen Fry and the Ultra-Orthodox.

How about the treatment of Azeris in Armenia, or Muslims in Russia? I'm referring to your British tabloids newspapers that take literally every opportunity they can to trash Israel, whether the criticism happens to be fabricated or not, and despite the fact that some of accusations have nothing to do with the Palestinians.

I read the BBC pretty heavily and the coverage of issues appears directly proportionate to the level of political attention paid to the issue. Even then, their coverage of Israel (beyond human interest stories -such as the Russian Jews in Israel- and domestic politics expected of a world news agency) strays little beyond their military actions, the peace process, and the very dubious nature of the Israeli settlements.
It must be said I've encountered very little anti-Israeli sentiments from the BBC. While I can't speak for other British news agencies, the only international British journalist I'm familiar with (Robert Fisk) doesn't come off as anti-Israel. Anti-Zionist yes, but not anti-Israel.

 

[Mouthwash]

I was under the impression Haaretz was pointing out the difficulties the Israeli program to promote integration of the Ethiopian immigrants encountered, notably the western tendency to have fewer children than in non-western countries.

Are you capable of grasping basic messages? The article was about the alleged forced birth control. It ranted about the problems Ethiopians had to whip up sympathy.

With regards to the Ethiopian Jews 'Jewishness' I was under the impression that there was significant dispute in Israel over the possibility of Ethiopians using this as a refugee service rather than as part of Israel's aliyah* program. Since your knowledge of the Israeli domestic situation appears better than mine, if you could link to an article about this topic that would be grand.

Just Google it. I don't know much about the controversy, either, but I've lived among Ethiopian Jews and I know that the ones in doubt were converted, just to be sure. The claims made by the Independent paint a complete fabrication.

 

[Traitorfish]

Yes, it is. Just look at how the Guardian and Independent screamed about how Bedouins in Israel don't get full educational coverage while glossing over the fact that they are nomads and live independently on their little villages in the Negev, taking government subsidies and not usually integrating with Israeli society. I don't even think most of them attend school.

Was this recent? I don't recall.

The Jews (collectively) are a nation with a shared common history, not merely a religion or ethnic group. As I've said, I myself am not Ashkenazi; my father's family comes from Morocco.

I'm aware that you are, yes. I'm simply observing how deeply invested we are in the narrative of a homogeneous "Jewish state".

OK, bad example (since the US is still part of the English-speaking world). How about the treatment of Azeris in Armenia, or Muslims in Russia? I'm referring to your British tabloids newspapers that take literally every opportunity they can to trash Israel, whether the criticism happens to be fabricated or not, and despite the fact that some of accusations have nothing to do with the Palestinians.

I certainly feel that I should be aware of issues like this, yes, and if I'm not it's simply because they are for reasons both legitimate and specious some distance down my list of priorities.

 

[Mouthwash]

It must be a very large nation if it can encompass people as different from each other as Stephen Fry and the Ultra-Orthodox.

Ah, I guess Egypt must be a "very large nation" in order to encompass people like Bassem Youssef and Abdul Nasser. What does this even mean? The split is ideological.

While I can't speak for other British news agencies, the only international British journalist I'm familiar with (Robert Fisk) doesn't come off as anti-Israel. Anti-Zionist yes, but not anti-Israel.

What does that mean?

 

[Traitorfish]

Ah, I guess Egypt must be a "very large nation" in order to encompass people like Bassem Youssef and Abdul Nasser. What does this even mean? The split is ideological.

The point is that it's hard to believe a ultra-orthodox Russian Jew and a secular British Jew have much in the way of "shared history" that amounts to much beyond mythology. Which is of course true of most declared "nations", but in the case of the "Jewish nation" it seems harder than usual to ignore.

 

[Mouthwash]

Was this recent? I don't recall.

I don't, either. I saw it a while ago. They also ranted about Israel declaring itself a Jewish state, despite the fact that Israel's original charter declared it one and it was founded by secular Jewish socialists.

I'm aware that you are, yes. I'm simply observing how deeply invested we are in the narrative of a homogeneous "Jewish state".

Why did you say "Ashkenazi republic?" I'm not religious. Israel can be a state for the Jews the same way Poland is a state for the Polish. I have no problems if Arabs live there, so long as they don't make it another Arab state through demographics and they are reasonably loyal (that is, they accept the concept of Israel being a Jewish state). If you reject the concept of state or nations, then fine. If you accept the concepts of states and nations but think that the idea of a Jewish one is racist, you're anti-Semitic.

I certainly feel that I should be aware of issues like this, yes, and if I'm not it's simply because they are for reasons both legitimate and specious some distance down my list of priorities.

Why should they inform you about every bit of discrimination or ethnic tension in the world?

 

[Ajidica]

Are you capable of grasping basic messages? The article was about the alleged forced birth control. It ranted about the problems Ethiopians had to whip up sympathy.

I had the impression that the Haaretz article was pointing out how many Ethiopian immigrants were not given sufficient information about the form of birth control they were getting or other forms of birth control in addition to misinformation/miscommunication over their ability to enter Israel without the birth control. Whether it was forced or not would be an issue only the Israeli government could ultimately confirm or deny. As of now, the evidence indicates it was not a systemic attempt for force birth control but rather a poorly thought out integration plan which the Israeli government has since withdrawn in the face of criticism.

The claims made by the Independent paint a complete fabrication.

It isn't Pulitzer quality reporting from the Independent in that section, I'll give you that but your crusade to transform some poor reporting into a symbol of the world conspiracy against Israel smells a bit like the conspiracy theory that the world is secretly run by the Jews.

What does that mean?

It means that I haven't encountered any sort of anti-Israel crusade in either British media or American media.

If you accept the concepts of states and nations but think that the idea of a Jewish one is racist, you're anti-Semitic.

I personally object to the idea states should attempt to defend their ethnicity -let alone a religious identity. The EDL and BNP are rightly criticized for their attempt to 'defend' Britishness. Why should the attempt by Israeli politicians to do the same receive any less disapproval from me?
EDIT: Just look at what TF is saying on this topic as he is capable of discussing it far clearer than I am.

 

[Traitorfish]

Why did you say "Ashkenazi republic?" I'm not religious. Israel can be a state for the Jews the same way Poland is a state for the Polish. I have no problems if Arabs live there, so long as they don't make it another Arab state through demographics and they are reasonably loyal (that is, they accept the concept of Israel being a Jewish state). If you reject the concept of state or nations, then fine. If you accept the concepts of states and nations but think that the idea of a Jewish one is racist, you're anti-Semitic

That's silly. Plenty of people "accept the concept of states or nations", but reject the concept of ethnic states, Jewish or otherwise. Personally, I know a lot of people who are Scottish nationalists, but would regard the concept of a state for ethnic Scots as deeply objectionable, and you'd hardly call them "anti-Scottish".

Why should they inform you about every bit of discrimination or ethnic tension in the world?

It's their job, isn't it?

 

[Formaldehyde]

The entire mainstream media, from the Independent to Huffington Post, jumped on the story. You don't think there's something a little wrong there?

What is "a little wrong there" is jumping to conclusions. There are numerous Ethiopian Jews who claim this is true. What is your basis for claiming they are all lying except that it apparently personally embarrasses you, as well as the government of Israel which apparently allowed it to occur for years?

It must be said I've encountered very little anti-Israeli sentiments from the BBC. While I can't speak for other British news agencies, the only international British journalist I'm familiar with (Robert Fisk) doesn't come off as anti-Israel. Anti-Zionist yes, but not anti-Israel.

That is obviously true with the media in general. It is certainly true with Haaretz without question despite how their reporting makes the bigots in Israel feel. Haaretz continues to prove that they are singularly unafraid to report what is actually occurring in their own country. It is just a shame that Israel has so few other news organizations which are willing to do the same.

Why did you say "Ashkenazi republic?" I'm not religious. Israel can be a state for the Jews the same way Poland is a state for the Polish. I have no problems if Arabs live there, so long as they don't make it another Arab state through demographics and they are reasonably loyal (that is, they accept the concept of Israel being a Jewish state). If you reject the concept of state or nations, then fine. If you accept the concepts of states and nations but think that the idea of a Jewish one is racist, you're anti-Semitic.

Freedom of speech FTW yet again. Please keep making these threads and espousing these views.

 

[Mouthwash]

The point is that it's hard to believe a ultra-orthodox Russian Jew and a secular British Jew have much in the way of "shared history" that amounts to much beyond mythology. Which is of course true of most declared "nations", but in the case of the "Jewish nation" it seems harder than usual to ignore.

You don't know a lot about Jews, do you? We all grew up under the same mythology, we all know the same histories, we generally share the same religion (but that isn't remotely essential), we know the different factions and ideologies of Judaism, we have the same cultural norms, etc. I'm not religious and I don't think that the Torah's account is true, but I can go to any Jewish community in the world and feel at home. They found some previously unknown Jewish village in Africa (forgot which country), and the Israeli media made a whole story out of it. There are even organizations like Chabad which go all over the world and try to bring together Jews to connect them with Jewish life. The Jews that adopt the customs of gentiles don't remain Jewish past a few generations, so they really aren't a factor.

 

[Ajidica]

Do you have any actual evidence that it was "poor reporting"?

That they included comments by Netanyahu explicitly referring to illegal African immigrants isn't particularly relevant to a discussion revolving around legal immigrants.

but I can go to any Jewish community in the world and feel at home.

Somehow I doubt a secular British Jew like Ed Milliband or Stephen Fry would feel at home with Ultra-Orthodox Jews although if you can demonstrate it to the contrary I would be perfectly happy and plenty interested to see it.

 

[Traitorfish]

You don't know a lot about Jews, do you? We all grew up under the same mythology, we all know the same histories, we generally share the same religion (but that isn't remotely essential), we know the different factions and ideologies of Judaism, we have the same cultural norms, etc. I'm not religious and I don't think that the Torah's account is true, but I can go to any Jewish community in the world and feel at home. They found some previously unknown Jewish village in Africa (forgot which country), and the Israeli media made a whole story out of it. There are even organizations like Chabad which go all over the world and try to bring together Jews to connect them with Jewish life. The Jews that adopt the customs of gentiles don't remain Jewish past a few generations, so they really aren't a factor.

I'm not denying that Jews have a shared mythology and identity. (I'm certainly not denying that this is an amazing and seemingly unrivalled cultural achievement.) I'm saying that this doesn't constitute a shared history. You can't pretend that two thousand years of diaspora didn't happen.

 

[Mouthwash]

It isn't Pulitzer quality reporting from the Independent in that section, I'll give you that but your crusade to transform some poor reporting into a symbol of the world conspiracy against Israel smells a bit like the conspiracy theory that the world is secretly run by the Jews.

Right. I can give you a hundred more examples, but I think that would deserve a thread of its own. Just drop it.

It means that I haven't encountered any sort of anti-Israel crusade in either British media or American media.

No, what does "anti-Zionist" mean? I know plenty of people who have experiences with British journalists who make every effort to keep things anti-Israel, but that's just anecdotal evidence.

That's silly. Plenty of people "accept the concept of states or nations", but reject the concept of ethnic states, Jewish or otherwise. Personally, I know a lot of people who are Scottish nationalists, but would regard the concept of a state for ethnic Scots as deeply objectionable, and you'd hardly call them "anti-Scottish".

No, if English immigrants were transforming Scotland into another English area, I don't think they would approve. As I said, I don't care if Arabs are in Israel with equal rights. I just don't want Israel to become an Arab state.

It's their job, isn't it?

No, it is not.

What is "a little wrong there" is jumping to conclusions. There are numerous Ethiopian Jews who claim this is true. What is your basis for claiming they are all lying except that it apparently personally embarrasses you?

When did I deny this? Some Ethiopian women may have been pressured into it, but none of them have the slightest clue if the government deliberately was responsible. Which was the point of this thread.

Do you have any actual evidence that it was "poor reporting"?

Yes. Go back to literally every single post I've responded to you in. Go back to the OP. See how many links and studies I give. Look at the blatant distortions I highlight in the Independent's article. Why is this hard for you? Why do I have to ask you over and over?

 

[Mouthwash]

That they included comments by Netanyahu explicitly referring to illegal African immigrants isn't particularly relevant to a discussion revolving around legal immigrants.

Are you even glancing at the things you respond to? I told you why I pointed it out. Did you read the article?

Somehow I doubt a secular British Jew like Ed Milliband or Stephen Fry would feel at home with Ultra-Orthodox Jews although if you can demonstrate it to the contrary I would be perfectly happy and plenty interested to see it.

No, they wouldn't. They would know a lot about their shared culture, but they would be ideological opposites. At the same time, I wouldn't expect David Cameron to feel at home with George Galloway, or Barack Obama to feel at home with the KKK. No real objection here.

I'm not denying that Jews have a shared mythology and identity. (I'm certainly not denying that this is an amazing and seemingly unrivalled cultural achievement.) I'm saying that this doesn't constitute a shared history. You can't pretend that two thousand years of diaspora didn't happen.

OK, so quibble with the exact phrasing. "History" may have been a bad word. I was referring to mythology.