DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - Guardian uses 'blood and soil' imagery to promote Jewish annihilation

**Beerinkol** · 07-08-2011, 10:55 PM

http://hurryupharry.org/2011/08/05/g...nd-of-zionism/

Here’s David Hearst, a foreign leader writer for the Guardian:
If Israel ends its occupation of the West Bank, and allows it to join with Gaza, the result could be two states – a Palestinian one alongside an Israeli one. But if you accompany that with a civil rights movement inside Israel, the goal could be very different – a secular, democratic state “for all its citizens”, where Jew, Christian and Muslim are equal. A one-state solution in which Jewish citizens lose an inbuilt majority. The end of Zionism, no less.This appears to be the outcome that Hearst hopes for. It doesn’t matter that there is no major Palestinian political movement which is seriously advocating such a “secular democratic state”. Hamas most certainly isn’t. And neither is Fatah.

Most pro-Palestinian activism these days is unphased by the dominance of Palestinian religious and ethnic politics. Palestinians have a well developed sense of religious and ethnic identity: predominantly as Muslims and/or as Arabs. Many supporters of the Palestinian cause are as enthusiastic about Palestinian nationalism as they are hostile to Jewish nationalism. Palestinian nationality is typically portrayed as organic and authentic, as opposed to the false and alien nationality of Jews. Israel is the home to the descendants of millions of Jews, ethnically cleansed from the whole of the Middle East. Nevertheless, Jews are routinely characterised as interlopers, while Palestinian nationalism is depicted as rooted in the soil.

You won’t see many leader-writers in the Guardian calling for the recreation of a United Sudan. I don’t think I’ve seen any editorials in the Guardian suggesting that Ethiopia and Eritrea be integrated into a single state. Nobody would think of calling for the uniting of Greece and Turkey, or of Bangladesh, Pakistan and India. I expect, by contrast, that there’s a reasonable amount of support in the Guardian for Scottish independence, even if the majority of Englishmen wished to preserve the Union.
However, when it comes to Israel and Palestine, the calculus is different. I think we understand why that is.
As things stand, the Guardian officially supports some form of two state settlement. Its Palestine Papers leader, earlier this year, argued:
Let there be no doubt. A two-state solution remains the only show in town. It is still achievable despite the agony of these revelations and the conflicts of the last two decades.Some time in the next few years, that line will change. The Guardian will declare two states a thing of the past, and will declare – in sadness and anger – that Israel should no longer exist.

07-08-2011, 10:55 PM	#1
Beerinkol Join Date Dec 2006 Posts 5,268 Senior Member	Guardian uses 'blood and soil' imagery to promote Jewish annihilation http://hurryupharry.org/2011/08/05/g...nd-of-zionism/ Here’s David Hearst, a foreign leader writer for the Guardian: If Israel ends its occupation of the West Bank, and allows it to join with Gaza, the result could be two states – a Palestinian one alongside an Israeli one. But if you accompany that with a civil rights movement inside Israel, the goal could be very different – a secular, democratic state “for all its citizens”, where Jew, Christian and Muslim are equal. A one-state solution in which Jewish citizens lose an inbuilt majority. The end of Zionism, no less.This appears to be the outcome that Hearst hopes for. It doesn’t matter that there is no major Palestinian political movement which is seriously advocating such a “secular democratic state”. Hamas most certainly isn’t. And neither is Fatah. Most pro-Palestinian activism these days is unphased by the dominance of Palestinian religious and ethnic politics. Palestinians have a well developed sense of religious and ethnic identity: predominantly as Muslims and/or as Arabs. Many supporters of the Palestinian cause are as enthusiastic about Palestinian nationalism as they are hostile to Jewish nationalism. Palestinian nationality is typically portrayed as organic and authentic, as opposed to the false and alien nationality of Jews. Israel is the home to the descendants of millions of Jews, ethnically cleansed from the whole of the Middle East. Nevertheless, Jews are routinely characterised as interlopers, while Palestinian nationalism is depicted as rooted in the soil. You won’t see many leader-writers in the Guardian calling for the recreation of a United Sudan. I don’t think I’ve seen any editorials in the Guardian suggesting that Ethiopia and Eritrea be integrated into a single state. Nobody would think of calling for the uniting of Greece and Turkey, or of Bangladesh, Pakistan and India. I expect, by contrast, that there’s a reasonable amount of support in the Guardian for Scottish independence, even if the majority of Englishmen wished to preserve the Union. However, when it comes to Israel and Palestine, the calculus is different. I think we understand why that is. As things stand, the Guardian officially supports some form of two state settlement. Its Palestine Papers leader, earlier this year, argued: Let there be no doubt. A two-state solution remains the only show in town. It is still achievable despite the agony of these revelations and the conflicts of the last two decades.Some time in the next few years, that line will change. The Guardian will declare two states a thing of the past, and will declare – in sadness and anger – that Israel should no longer exist.
	Quote