More evidence of slipping standards at National Radio
Just heard on the 11 o’clock news on National Radio that Obama has said that the Palestinian state “should be based on the contentious 1967 borders.”
“Contentious”?
Excuse me? “Contentious”?
Almost the whole of the international community recognizes that Israel must return to the 1967 borders, and that the Occupied Territories must be part of the new Palestine state.
Why would that newsreader have read out that these borders are “contentious”?
Lanthanide7.1
Evidently Israel doesn’t agree, therefore making it “contentious”.Morrissey7.1.1
Evidently Israel doesn’t agree, therefore making it “contentious”.No, it makes Israel a scofflaw regime. That, and its massive use of firepower against civilian populations.
The Voice of Reason7.2
The word ‘contentious’ is not included in the online report, however, it might be that a reporter put it in while reading the news out. It’s an unusual word to use, I agree, but it may be that it is Israel’s theft of the land after the 6 day war that is contentious, not the borders prior to that.
joe907.3
Why would that newsreader have read out that these borders are “contentious”?Just saying….After the U.S. government called settlements “illegal” for years, President Reagan said they were “not constructive.” President Clinton changed it again, saying that “natural growth” was acceptable. President George W Bush went further to say that it was “unrealistic” to expect any kind of peace based on old borders.
So in effect, President Obama’s endorsement of the 1967 lines is a return from the shifting positions taken by his predecessors.THE TERM “1967 lines” refers to the line from which the IDF moved into the territories at the start of hostilities on June 4, 1967 (the Six Day War).
These lines were not based on historical fact, natural geographic formations, demographic considerations or international agreement. In fact, they had served as the agreed-upon armistice lines from the termination of the 1948 War of Independence, pursuant to the armistice agreements then signed between Israel and its neighbors – Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon – in 1949. These lines remained valid until the outbreak of the 1967 hostilities.
The armistice lines represented nothing more than the forward lines of deployment of the forces on the day a cease-fire was declared, as set out in Security Council Resolution 62 of November 16, 1948, which called for the delineation of permanent armistice demarcation lines beyond which the armed forces of the respective parties would not move. The line was demarcated on the map attached to the armistice agreement with a green marker pen and hence received the name “Green Line.”- The international consensus is absolutely clear. Where did you cut and paste that nonsense from?
- Where did you cut and paste that nonsense from?The blue bit Morrissey, the blue bit.
- Good Lord, joe90! ABC and the Jerusalem Post are about as reliable and trustworthy as President Obama’s statement that from now on the U.S. is going to “support democracy” in the Middle East.
- And you appear to have missed the Just saying… part of the post where I try to show that Obama seems to be backing the Palestinians by going back to the original US stance on the issue of the 1967 borders.and that the Israelis don’t like it.
- joe90, I read what you posted. Obama’s words are nothing new: the U.S., like every other country in the world (bar one), says Israel is violating international law by its occupation of the West Bank and its blockade of Gaza. There is NOTHING contentious about saying Israel must observe the law.And….did you just call me a wingnut?!?!?!?!?!?
- So we’re back where it all started.Morrissey…I don’t like the word contentious.Me….what’s contentious, the US position is bla .bla, the Israeli position is bla..bla..Morrissey…..I’m right and all the world thinks so too.Me…ask a stupid..get a stupidMorrissey…I’m right and all the world agrees with me…how dare you use.. MSM …Me….I’m just saying..nothings really changed…and you’re starting to sound like…..Morrissey…..bla bla ..and you called me a name.Me…. Palestine is a fuck up but at least someone is trying, .. you’re starting to mirror the wingnuts who as long as they get to be on what they think is the right side don’t give a rats about the people on the other side ..Last word to ME.. he may not have met my expectations but Obama winning another term is the first real opportunity since Begin and Sadat for a lasting peace in the region.End.
- Nice attempt at dramatisation, my friend. You should approach that tired old codger John Barnett about a screenwriting job; the ones he employs on his movies are certainly not much chop.However, while your dialoguing shows promise, you need to pay attention to your understanding of content, which is sadly lacking. I’ll deal with just the most glaring errors….1.) Me….what’s contentious, the US position is bla .bla, the Israeli position is bla..bla..
Actually, it’s the US and the whole world versus Israel.2.) Morrissey…..I’m right and all the world thinks so too.
That is correct. You are trying to scoff at this writer (i.e., moi) as out on a limb; actually, my position is the mainstream one.3.) Me…. Palestine is a fuck up but at least someone is trying,
WHO is trying, Joe? And who is it that is responsible for it being a “fuck up”?4.) …you’re starting to mirror the wingnuts who as long as they get to be on what they think is the right side don’t give a rats about the people on the other side.
There you go again! It’s easy to throw around empty epithets like “wingnuts”, especially when you aren’t up to speed on an issue. Have you been listening to that penetrating analyst Leighton Smith on NewstalkZB, by any chance?5.) Last word to ME.. he may not have met my expectations but Obama winning another term is the first real opportunity since Begin and Sadat for a lasting peace in the region.
On what basis do you make that statement? Obama has done precisely nothing to stop Israel’s depredations in Gaza or the West Bank. You would know that if you had any familiarity with Israeli and Palestinian politics.
Pascal's bookie…
The difference between ’67 borders’ and ‘facts on the ground’ as starting points is nicely captured in this french map:
- And yet Israel doesn’t agree. As ultimately they are the ones that have to do something about the issue, their opinion matters, I think.
In other words – talk is cheap. I’m there are members of the “international community” that think the Israel borders issue is cut-and-dried, but those members may be having their own border disputes with their neighbours.
I think ragging on National Radio by saying that “it isn’t contentious because the international community thinks x y and z” is making a fuss out of nothing. Clearly there is contention about the borders (otherwise they would already be the borders), and so using the word is accurate. You may not agree with it, but that doesn’t mean that National Radio are ‘wrong’.- As ultimately they are the ones that have to do something about the issue, their opinion mattersUltimately it is Israel’s sponsor, the United States, that has to do something—other than its occasional wringing of hands and the odd stern word to its Israeli protégé.Israel’s occupation of the West Bank, and its blockade of Gaza, are in flagrant violation of international law. The whole world recognizes that fact—except Israel. The U.S. has chosen to ignore Israel’s multiple violations, just as it chose to ignore similar behaviour by the apartheid regime in South Africa, the Suharto regime in Indonesia, and Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq.…there are members of the “international community” that think the Israel borders issue is cut-and-dried…
Every country in the world bar Israel recognizes that Israel must return to the 1967 borders.but those members may be having their own border disputes with their neighbours.
Which of those countries occupies, locks down the towns, demolishes private homes as punishment for resistance, demolishes hospitals and schools, and systematically terrorizes its neighbours? Which of those countries has its troops treating civilians like THIS?…
- Here’s a dictionary definition for you:
–adjective
1.
tending to argument or strife; quarrelsome: a contentious crew.2.
causing, involving, or characterized by argument or controversy: contentious issues.- Here’s a dictionary definition for you:None of which applies to the issue of Israel’s violation of international law. There is unanimous agreement on this, even from Israel’s sponsor and enabler, the United States. There is nothing contentious about it whatsoever; the only question is, when will the international community act against this scofflaw regime?
-
More evidence of slipping standards at National Radio [from Friday 20 May]On Friday 20 May, this writer (i.e., moi) was challenged by a rather confused and uninformed (these traits always go together) but dramatically ambitious joe90. Unfortunately, our friend Joe did not linger long enough to post up his response to my corrections of his quibbles.Perhaps joe90 would like to make a reasoned (i.e., no indolent flinging of empty and abusive epithets like “wingnut”) response at his leisure…joe’s original post can be found HERE…
http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-20052011/And here is the Breen response…Nice attempt at dramatisation, my friend. You should approach that tired old codger John Barnett about a screenwriting job; the ones he employs on his movies are certainly not much chop.However, while your dialoguing shows promise, you need to pay attention to your understanding of content, which is sadly lacking. I’ll deal with just the most glaring errors….1.) Me….what’s contentious, the US position is bla .bla, the Israeli position is bla..bla..
Actually, it’s the US and the whole world versus Israel.2.) Morrissey…..I’m right and all the world thinks so too.
That is correct. You are trying to scoff at this writer (i.e., moi) as out on a limb; actually, my position is the mainstream one.3.) Me…. Palestine is a fuck up but at least someone is trying,…
WHO is trying, Joe? And who is it that is responsible for it being a “fuck up”?4.) …you’re starting to mirror the wingnuts who as long as they get to be on what they think is the right side don’t give a rats about the people on the other side.
There you go again! It’s easy to throw around empty epithets like “wingnuts”, especially when you aren’t up to speed on an issue. Have you been listening to that penetrating analyst Leighton Smith on NewstalkZB, by any chance?5.) Last word to ME.. he may not have met my expectations but Obama winning another term is the first real opportunity since Begin and Sadat for a lasting peace in the region.
On what basis do you make that statement? Obama has done precisely nothing to stop Israel’s depredations in Gaza or the West Bank. You would know that if you had any familiarity with Israeli and Palestinian politics.
