Olmert: Israeli lives worth more than Palestinian ones

[Waya]

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article1095841.ece

[gordianot]

1. How sad. You could look at this several different ways none are valid. n/t

[pelsar]

11. whats so surprising?

many of the posters here think Palestinians lives have more worth than israelis.....what he said is simply true of all "groups"...basic sociology/anthropology 101.

or for a more concrete example:

simply count the posts criticizing israeli response to kassams....and count the criticism of those firing the kassams...clearly many here believe the Palestinians have the "right to shoot" and kill more than israel.

[gordianot]

17. Nothing surprises me.

I tend to look at this in terms of anthropology part of human nature.

[notadmblnd]

2. I want to see how quick all the Israel defenders show up

to justify this remark.

[Igel]

7. I've heard enough people say that

we need to get our troops out of Iraq. Some argue that our being there makes it worse, or doesn't make a difference; those have a moral principle in play.

Some argue it doesn't matter: even if US troops' presence there did make a difference, it's not worth American lives. It's not just an Olmert thing. But it is a pragmatic thing, at times, and a very commonly held belief: Members of the group are more important than those outside the group.

Some go far as to figure that guaranteed dying to kill another person on behalf of their own group is a positive virtue that some supernatural entity rewards.

[notadmblnd]

10. No, it's not just an Olmert thing....

it's a racist thing.

[Igel]

19. Broader than racist.

Much broader.

Iraqi Arabs are the same 'race'; Amazonian and N. American Indians have tribes and clans that don't differ by race. Italian mobs killed others of Italian descent, same for Mexican and Japanese gangs. The Congolese killing each other are of the same 'race'. Even the Russian armies in 1919 were of the same 'race', just of different (political) tribal affiliation.

Not race. Sufficient in-group identity for their behavior to be tribal, and with a strong enough motivation to engage in war or violence, and you get where you need to go.

Unless you've defined a shi'ite race, a sunni race, and all other sorts of 'races'. Which means that 'race' has just expanded to include the ground 'tribe' or 'clan' used to cover.

[Larkspur]

3. That's the mentality of imperialists

All imperialists believe they are god's gift to the world and that makes them superior to those they conquer and suppress.

[Scorpio2000]

4. Two sides in a War

It's the mentality of anyone who wishes to protect their own citizens.
This is tough talk aimed at those who continue to fire kassams and katyushas at Israeli citizens while risking the lives of their own.
It's up to Hamas to protect their citizens (which of course are more important than Israelis).
A good first step would be stopping the missile attacks

[Tom Joad]

5. Must believe that they are children of a lessor god.

[Tom Joad]

6. Olmert is speaking like a deranged war criminal.

Clearly, Israel is doing what it needs to do to take Palestinian land, to make permanant the illegal occupation, to punish a whole people for daring in any way to resist.

I would grant Olmert this much however, at least he recognizes that Israel actually killed people this past week. It seems there are a few here who seem to think that no Israeli arms were involved in the Palestinian deaths of the last week, so great is their misguided zeal to defend Israeli policy.

[Scorpio2000]

8. Withdrawal from Gaza was taking "palestinian" land?

The deranged war criminal was standing next to Abu Mazen and K. Abdullah when he made the statement.
Seems that they understood what he was saying and why he was saying it.

[BayCityProgressive]

I support Israel

and I do think it is important to protect innocent Israeli civilians but come on Olmert.This was a horrible choice in words. If this is what he really thinks it is sad. However, I fear this is what most world leaders think. Hamas by using terrorism thinks that palestinian lives are more important than innocent Israelis. and Bush and the congress seem to think that US lives are more important than Iraqis. The sad part of war and turmoil is that each side tries to dehumanize the other. It is wrong no matter who does it, in my opinion.

[Tom Joad]

12. I agree with most of your sentiments expressed there. It's not the

choice of words that bothers me, it is the actions of the State that make those words all too real.

The deaths of Palestinians is not "to protect" Israelis, but to further an historic and current grave injustice, that can only be defended by violence.

You are right that too many of us in the world, consider the lives of "the other" to be of less importance than ours. Certainly the policies of most nations seem to follow that sentiment.

Something to ponder.

[BayCityProgressive]

13. I think that

is where some disagreement comes between us. I support a Palestinian state, however it was an injustice for the Palestinians and the Arab nations to try to wipe Israel off the map multiple times. I also don't agree with everything that Israel has done in the aftermath of those wars. No nation is perfect and war breeds hatred and dehumanization. I think where I differ with the pro-Palestinian side is what the Palesinians expect from the Israelis and this "right of return" farce. Israel should never have occupied Gaza and the West Bank for so long but the fact is...no one wants this land and the Palestinians that live there wont renounce terror..Israel resents this area and the arab countries want nothing to do with them outside of using them as political toys against Israel. The people also need to take some of the blame for their actions.

[Violet_Crumble]

23. A question about yr concept of Right of Return...

You called it a farce, so correct me if I'm wrong here, but do you think Right of Return involves the physical return of every Palestinian refugee to what is now Israel? I support the Right of Return, but I'm aware (and hope) that what it will most likely entail is a limited and symbolic physical return, while for most others it will be financial restitution and repatriation. A total physical Return and a two-state solution are incompatible with each other for obvious reasons, and those who support it don't seem to realise that it's a bit of a having yr cake and eating it too type of thing. One of the failings of the PA during the Oslo era was that they tended to ignore Palestinian refugees in the diaspora, and didn't attempt to prepare refugees in Gaza and the West Bank for what the reality would be - that very few of them would end up in what is now Israel. And preparing them should have been important, as there's some pretty strong dreams of a return to a very different place than the pre-1948 Israel that many have inherited from parents and grandparents who were original refugees....

[pelsar]

15. so do you.....

you can get off your "high horse" and come down to reality:

if your in a store being robbed and their are two kids next to you...your son and some other kid you dont know...who are you going to stand in front of?....and who are you going to leave exposed to the robbers gun?


its called protecting your own....

[Violet_Crumble]

21. Excellent post....

While I'm not surprised Olmert thinks that way, I am surprised that he came out and said it. Yr right about it being a sad part of war, and whether it's the I/P conflict or the war in Iraq, the impression I get from these leaders is that not only do they act as though the lives of their citizens are more important than others, but they expect the others to act as though they believe it too. Having read some of the posts in this thread, I'm not inclined to take what Olmert said as racism, though from a statement like that it could start the path to real racism the likes of which were common in WWII propaganda from both sides (an example of that would be ABC radio broadcasts made for Japanese troops in New Guinea which called them yellow monkeys, inhuman monsters, etc). While I'm willing to give leaders of nations involved in conflict a bit of leeway, the same doesn't apply to those who aren't even citizens of the countries involved in the conflicts who say and/or act as though the lives of their 'team' are infinitely more valuable than the other...

[BayCityProgressive]

9. I support Israel

and I do think it is important to protect innocent Israeli civilians but come on Olmert.This was a horrible choice in words. If this is what he really thinks it is sad. However, I fear this is what most world leaders think. Hamas by using terrorism thinks that palestinian lives are more important than innocent Israelis. and Bush and the congress seem to think that US lives are more important than Iraqis. The sad part of war and turmoil is that each side tries to dehumanize the other. It is wrong no matter who does it, in my opinion.

[Scurrilous]

14. What's with the " " marks? n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

22. I'm guessing it means 'There's No Such Thing As Palestinians'...

n/t

[Englander]

16. Well, that explains everything. n/t

[eyl]

18. For all the detractors

I must have missed when Olmert was elected as the Palestinian PM.

I mean, the fact that a government considers the lives and well being of its own citizens to be more important than that of peope with whom, for all intents and purposes, we are at war, should be rather obvious.

[Poll_Blind]

20. Eyl, I know where you're coming from on that but you gotta realize...

...that when he says something like that alot of us, who have spent a pretty fair amount of time studying Israeli history (especially the last 20-30 years of it), are reminded of other implications of that comment. Like, say, the people assassinated in France by the Mossad merely in order to delay important components of the Osirak reactor from being delivered to Iraq. Or the announcement that Israel will be carrying out targeted assassinations on foreign (including U.S.) soil. Or the innocent Palestinians who are killed when Israel forgets that it's the "most humane army in the world" and doesn't walk the walk when it comes to restraint of military force when innocents are nearby.

To most Israelis, and certainly all liberal ones, these historic acts are or border on the shameful. To other Israelis, goyim are soul-less robots. Don't believe me? Google an old Ha'Aretz article called "Taliban in the cabinet", I believe. I want to say that Moshe Dyan said it first (I know Sharon was also fond of saying it), when he said “I am a Jew first, and an Israeli second.”*. That's fine, but when goyim see how freely Isreal has spilled the blood of innocents, sometimes just to make the Arabs look bad (**COUGH** **COUGH** King David Hotel)...well, Olmert's statement is bound to raise a few eyebrows. It's uncontroversial that most Israelis are going to see the comment more or less innocently but in a goy mind it may strike a number of chords, some of them not so harmonic.

*That the rabbinate would not be satisfied with control merely over the civil courts in Israel is unsurprising. However there is less and less light that shines between the influence of the rabbinate over civil and legal proceedings in Israel (**COUGH** **COUGH** Deri's law) and when people get to know some of the parties (Heck, Shas alone hold 10% of the Knesset seats) they can't help but feel a little panicked.

Old-time Zionists would be spinning in their graves if they could see how thier dream has been twisted (thanks to Conservative American dollars, among other things)into what liberal Israelis have to put up with today. Only the uneducated, the xenophobic or the downright racist are suspicious of the Jews as a people. But, I tell ya, Israel (as in GOI) has given some provided some pretty strong examples as to why goyim should read more into rather innocent commentary by that state's political leaders.

And come on, how many goyim spend the time to untangle the knot of the history and metamorphosis of Zionism or study any of the, what, 19 political parties in Israel today in order to even begin to compose an informed opinion? And those are just two bullet points off a list of many.

I'm not trying to argue a point so much as give you an idea why his comments are being scrutinized so thoroughly when, and I think I probably agree with you in this case, they really don't need to be.

PB

OnEdit: added brackets a * because Dyan's quote isn't clearly related to the following paragraph. Still sloppy but that's all I can put into it before haul ass back into the remaining hours of beautiful sunshine.

[meti57b]

29. Are you serious? .......

.... considering the numbers of "non-Jews" that have always thought their lives are a whole lot more important than that of Jews. If you are going to talk about "non-Jews" assassinated in France, perhaps we should also talk about the millions of Jews handed over to the Germans and exterminated during World War II because they were thought to be evil and deficient sub-humans, not to mention the Jews who were murdered throughout history for that reason.

"To other Israelis, goyim are soul-less robots"..... give me a break! Exactly what have non-Jews thought of Jews for a few thousand years and continue to think of us.

As far as your apparent concern about the word "Goyim", "non-Jews" have virtually turned the word "Jew" into an epithet. I have friends who think the word "Jew" is an uncourteous usage from how it has been used and and refer to us as "Jewish".

I might add as a different aspect of the topic, ... by definition, all nations, who maintain and use armed forces, think the lives of their own citizens are more important than the lives of those whom they prepare themselves to fight. A few years back, 80%-90% of Americans thought their lives were more important than Iraqi lives.

[eyl]

30. I understand why his comments are being scrutinized so carefully

I just think that at least some people here are jumping on any chance to label Olmert (or any other Israeli figure) "racist".

To most Israelis, and certainly all liberal ones, these historic acts are or border on the shameful. To other Israelis, goyim are soul-less robots. Don't believe me? Google an old Ha'Aretz article called "Taliban in the cabinet", I believe. I want to say that Moshe Dyan said it first (I know Sharon was also fond of saying it), when he said “I am a Jew first, and an Israeli second.”*. That's fine, but when goyim see how freely Isreal has spilled the blood of innocents, sometimes just to make the Arabs look bad (**COUGH** **COUGH** King David Hotel)...well, Olmert's statement is bound to raise a few eyebrows. It's uncontroversial that most Israelis are going to see the comment more or less innocently but in a goy mind it may strike a number of chords, some of them not so harmonic.

Google shows no hits for that article name.

As for the Dayan & Sharon quote, have you got a source? I've never seen it attributed to Dayan, but rather to either Sharon or Netanyahu. In any case, you need to remember that "Jew" also has a national meaning, as well as a religious one, and that's almost certainly how Sharon used it, if he did, in the sense of having concern for Jews worldwide rather than just Israel (Sharon was never particularly religious, AFAIK).

As for the King David Hotel, A) I don't know of any attempts to pin that on the Arabs and B) don't you think it's a bit farfetched to analyze the current behavious of Israel on the basis of something which was done by a minority group sixty years ago?

*That the rabbinate would not be satisfied with control merely over the civil courts in Israel is unsurprising. However there is less and less light that shines between the influence of the rabbinate over civil and legal proceedings in Israel (**COUGH** **COUGH** Deri's law) and when people get to know some of the parties (Heck, Shas alone hold 10% of the Knesset seats) they can't help but feel a little panicked.

I think you're mistaking religious and political interests. "Deri's law" wasn't the result of any increase in religious influence over the judicial system, nor did it result in such; it supported the personal interest of a specific individual (to get out of jail early), who happened to be very influential in Shas. The same thing could have concievably happened in Shinui; there's nothing religious about it.

And come on, how many goyim spend the time to untangle the knot of the history and metamorphosis of Zionism or study any of the, what, 19 political parties in Israel today in order to even begin to compose an informed opinion? And those are just two bullet points off a list of many.

My point is that they don't need to apply that knowledge in this case - though if they are going to make an accusation of racism, it behooves them to study the target of their accusations beforehand. But as I said above, that a leader considers, all else being equal, that preserving the lives of the civilians of his own country is more important than those of an enemy country should be obvious. To put it another way - if you tak Olmert's statment and strip away all the identifiers (i.e. turn it into "a world leader stated the lives of the citizens of a town in my country are more important then those of the people of another town in the territory of our enemy", does it still come off as racist?

I also think that the Independant isn't completely innocent here. The headline states that Olmert said the lives of Israelis are worth more than those of the Palestinians. But what he actually said (and this is what is written in the body of the article) is that they were more important. The difference is subtle, but significant. "Important" is a practical value, to determine what course of action to take. "Worth", OTOH, is an ethical/moral judgement. To give a somewhat exaggerated (and clumsy, unfortunately) example: we can all agree that lives are more important than property. But if you take a town with one murder and 30,000 thefts per annum, it might be more important to divert additional resources to theft prevention rather than to the homicide department.

[G2099]

24. Israeli lives worth more than Palestinian ones

Ehud Olmert, the Israeli Prime Minister, expressed "deep regret" for army operations that have killed 14 Palestinian civilians in Gaza in just nine days but said the lives of Israeli citizens threatened by Qassam attacks were "even more important".

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Israeli+lives+worth+more+than+Palestinian+ones+&btnG=Google+Search

[aquart]

25. To an Israeli. Gosh.

Let's hear what the Palestinians have to say about the value of Israeli lives, shall we? No?

Some days you fellas just make it WAY too easy.

[Jim Sagle]

26. self delete.

(up too late - need to sleep)

[mike_c]

27. that looks identical to the OP....

Huh?

[Jim Sagle]

28. Good catch. (Easy, but good.)

:dunce: