This is my first post in English, and my English isn’t perfect – so please try relating to the content more than to the grammar and spelling mistakes .
This post has been inspired by two videos I've seen recently, that has been embedded into social websites, such as youtube and face book.
Not a new concept – but it made me believe (and hope) that social websites and the internet in general, may one day proof to be the ones to turn the tide and expose the distorted "balance" between peace lovers and violence provokers, That is presented to us on the offline media by agenda driven governments. (wow. That was a long one).
I know, of course, that the interactive media works for both sides and some use it to distribute hate and anger, but an optimistic part of me wants to believe that most of the people on the planet want peace and couldn't care less for borders and other people's believes – as long as they don't offence them and harm them in any way (which it shouldn't).
Most of the decision about peace and war in the world, are made by a small dominating group of people that lead the rest of us. Some time we'd like to think that these people represent us and our opinions, but only a small percentage of us know that our opinions are fad to us buy the same people that we elect.
For an example: this is one of the videos that inspired this post. This Arabic woman is making some very clever points to which I agree, but some of her "facts" are wrong, or should I say – miss represented.
It's true that Jewish or Israeli people never exploded in a German resonant or burnt a church, but we have are share of political and religious acts of violence against are peers.
This video was posted on an Israeli guy's facebook page and got a-lot of responses that praised this speaker for her courage to "say the truth". But some of what she said was only "the truth" as Israeli people were brought to preserve it. The "truth" they were taught on Israeli schools… for you see, it's less than accurate that the Jewish community earned the right to Israel just by suffering the holocaust and by being responsible for a-lot of the scientific and cultural contributions.
A great part of the establishment of Israel was achieved by violence against the British occupiers and the residents. Israeli children are brought up believing that the underground fighters (that finally became the IDF when Israel was formed) are heroes. That their actions were justified, and even that they really tried not to heart people – but "just" blow up buildings to make a statement. (which of course is not true).
These were acts of terror. Same as we protest against today. Innocent people will always get heart on the way.
No one's hands are clean. No side can claim to be right more than the other. The only way we will have peace – here in the middle east, and everywhere else in the world – is by putting our differences aside and start anew.
A new world were the people really can choose. Choose to respect one another's believes without forcing them to change it. Choose to receive all the objective information and decide for themselves what they really think about – whatever.
My hope is that the internet will provide a bridge of communication between all the people that are tired of being manipulated by those few with interest of war and fear, and together we will act to achieve the real choice of the masses: peace.
obviously I don't disagree with your analysis, but I think you are confusing 2 important elements: the speaker's argument and the recipient.
השבמחקDr. Sultan is addressing the Islamic extremists who support suicide bombings. The agitating argument is meant to cause disdain of the subject matter by presenting this practice as futile and primitive.
Therefore, it is the kind of criticism that needs to be told (by those who are in proximity of and have sufficient influence over the target audience), although not necessarily in this specific cut-throat rhetoric (since it might be difficult to appeal to a Muslim audience by discrediting their heritage).
Sultan tries to convey the message that a society is built through hard work, rather then by perpetuating violence and avoiding progress. However terrorizing we might find IDF's actions, violence against civilians is still generally frowned upon within the Israeli society. Nevertheless, it's an argument we can address to our own government or religious officials.
In my view, Sultan's argument sits in its proper place within the continuum of critical thinking, addressed to whom it should be. By no means it lessens our ability or legitimacy to criticize policies made by decision-makers in the Israeli government, just as it is not our task to criticize those we are not entitled to, since we do not take part in their discourse.