Skip to main content

Warlike behaviour draws condemnation

Coincidental with the previous posting on a new Jewish group calling for a just solution of the Israel-Palestinian conflict, comes this piece in the SMH on a survey of how various countries around the world are viewed:

"The mortal enemies Israel and Iran share common ground as the world's most reviled nations, according to a global poll that has confirmed a slide in the reputation of the United States.

Its "use and pursuit of military power" was a negative influence on the world, the poll found, as was North Korea, which tested a nuclear weapon late last year.

The BBC- Herald survey - of more than 28,000 people in 27 countries - has revealed that with most of the world, Australian opinion was strongly against Israel, Iran and North Korea. But in the Middle East crucible, heated by the rhetoric and actions of Tel Aviv and Tehran, public support was with Iran, which in 2005 called for Israel to be "wiped off the map". There were even some positive feelings for North Korea."

"People around the world tend to look negatively on countries whose profile is marked by the use or pursuit of military power," said Steven Kull, the director of the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland, which conducted the poll with the polling firm GlobeScan."

Comments

Anonymous said…
Interesting.

Israel has never tested a nuclear weapon, never tested a nuclear capable ballistic missle, and never threatened to wipe any country off the map.

Iran, which has done all of these things, get better PR.

What a crock.
March 08, 2007 1:23 am
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Pentagon's eye-popping spending....and waste!

Only a gigantic bureaucracy could get away with spending of such dimensions - and the amazing waste involved in part of that ginormous spend.   Think US Pentagon..... "From spending $150 million on private villas for a handful of personnel in Afghanistan to blowing $2.7 billion on an air surveillance balloon that doesn’t work, the latest revelations of waste at the Pentagon are just the most recent howlers in a long line of similar stories stretching back at least five decades.  Other hot-off-the-presses examples would include the Army’s purchase of helicopter gears worth $500 each for $8,000 each and the accumulation of billions of dollars' worth of weapons components that will never be used. And then there’s the one that would have to be everyone’s favorite Pentagon waste story: the spending of $50,000 to investigate the bomb-detecting capabilities of African elephants. (And here’s a shock: they didn’t turn out to be that great!) The elephant research, of course, represe...
Post a Comment
Read more

Video: Israel demolishing a Bedouin village

From Mondoweiss - Israel's supposed "most moral army in the world", the IDF, engaged in immoral, and according to international law, illegal action.... "Israeli forces have demolished every home in the Bedouin village of Khirbet Taha in the northern West Bank district of Nablus during three separate demolitions since the start of the year. Unlike most Bedouin villages, the residents in Khirbet Taha own their own land. However that land falls in Area C, territory in the occupied West Bank under full Israeli control. The village’s only school was also destroyed, leaving children to study in a dilapidated 100-year-old mosque — the only structure left standing in the village. According the United Nations, Israel has demolished half as many Palestinian buildings in the first few months of 2016, as they had in all of 2015. In February alone, the UN found that more Palestinians homes were destroyed than any other month since 2009, when the organization began its docum...
Post a Comment
Read more

What does a no-fly zone actually mean?

As some countries consider imposing a no-fly zone in relation to Libya, the pertinent question must be what does that mean and entail? FP provides the answers: "It depends on the circumstances. There are two primary types of no-fly zones imposed by air forces. The first is imposed by one military over another, while the two sides are at war. In practice, this type of no-fly zone amounts to a warning from one side that it will engage the other's aircraft if they are spotted in a given territory. The second type, more applicable to the situation in Libya, is when an outside power possessing overwhelming air superiority restricts flights over a given country in order to discourage an internal conflict or humanitarian crisis. This is a relatively recent tactic, which was used most famously in Bosnia and Iraq during the 1990s. No-fly zones are often a compromise in situations where the international community is demanding a response to ongoing violence, but full military interven...
6 comments
Read more