Canaries in the Mine, or, Why I was Wrong...

[Skeptic]

As we all know, this forum has quite a few people who are strongly opposed to israel's existence. It's unjust, says one; the arabs are right to try and destroy it, says another; it's racist to have a jewish state, says a third; it should be "peacefully" dismantled, says a fourth; it's an artificial creation, says the fifth; besides, the jews shouldn't have those nationalistic feelings and should become world citizens, anyway.

Of course, it is ONLY the jewish state that these people consider "artificial" (one look at the borders in Africa or the rest of the middle east will show you how absurd this is); it is ONLY the jewish state that has no right to exist due to the "injustice" it causes (Sudan or Congo get off scot-free, naturally); it is ONLY the jews who should have no nationalistic feelings (arabs or christians, of course, are allowed to); it is ONLY the jewish nation which is "racist" for just being a nation (nothing is wrong with the 21 or so judenrein, nationalistic, dictatorial arab states); it is ONLY the jewish state that should be destroyed; it is ONLY the jews who should return to exile; and, above all, it is ONLY the jews who should be massacred in the second holocaust a "peaceful dismantlement" of the "racist" israel is sure to be, as anybody who reads the arab press knows.

Yet these same critics of israel's existence are shocked--SHOCKED!--when I claim that this is antisemitic. "How dare you say that, when we don't hate jews, we "only" want the jewish STATE destroyed!", they claim. And they're serious. Who says that wanting a country destroyed and its people expelled is proof that you REALLY hate them?, says one of these critics. How dare you say that I am antisemitic, when I only support the genocide of the jews within the "strictly limited geographical area" of the jewish state?, says another. And so on.

What is even more confusing is that these people all claim to be liberals, men of the world, free of prejudice and hate, and really, really good guys. They are all for human rights (except for the jews'), peace (except with the jews), equality (except of jews in places where they aren't wanted) and nonviolence (except when attacking jews).

What is going on here? How come these people don't see the contradiction between their commitment to human rights, equality, peace, etc., and their support of a second holocaust?

There are two possiblities. The first, which was the one I believed until I thought about it more deeply, is that these people simply hate jews, and use the "liberal" language as a cover for this, e.g., using the more socially-acceptable "anti-zionism" as a cover of their hatered.

I now think that I was wrong. This hypothesis, I figured out, doesn't explain two things.

First, it doesn't explain the absurdity of the excuses these people use to justify their hate. "Regular" antisemites, when they bother to deny their antisemitism, claim that they don't hate jews and have nothing against them. These people's excuses, on the other hand, are so absurd they are a case of an excuse that's worse than the crime: "I am NOT an antisemite! I just want the jewish state destroyed!", or "I am NOT an antisemite! I only want their genocide in a STRICTLY LIMITED georaphical area!" is on the same level of "excuse" as "sorry I pinched your ass, sir--I thought it was your wife", or "I love humanity, it's PEOPLE I can't stand".

Either they are both antisemitic and very, VERY stupid, or there is some other explanation to their utter blindness to jews' right to live--the only nation whose rights they totally ignore.

Second, it doesn't explain why so-called "anti-zionism" IS acceptable in the first place. Fine, you don't hate jews, "only" zionists. Is that any better? Why is it socially acceptable to call for the destruction of israel--and ONLY israel--why every other nation on earth, including insane thuggeries like Sudan or North Korea, have an undeniable right to exist, no matter what its crimes? Is israel truly worse than Sudan, Libya, Stalin's USSR, or Nazi Germany? Yet nobody ever claimed Germany or Russia have no right to exist.

After all, if I was committed to Italy's eradication, saying that I "don't really" hate Italians since I only want ITALY destroyed, not the death of all Italian-Americans (for instance), it would hardly be an acceptable excuse. So why IS it (for some people) acceptable to wish israel destroyed as long as you don't want ALL jews dead? Isn't that like saying that there's nothing wrong in wanting so-and-so dead, merely because you don't want to kill his family as well?

So what is going on here? If the cause of this "blindness" to israel's right to exist on the part of those who should be most AWARE of it--the so-called "liberals" and "human rights activists"--is not antisemitism, what is it?

I thought about it, and reached a second conclusion. The real reason these "liberals" hate israel and the jews so much is not antisemitism--it is THE INABILITY TO FACE THE EXISTENCE OF EVIL.

The jews, you see, are like canaries in the mine. Whenever some new violent evil appears on the world stage--Nazism, Communism, Islam--it tends to zero in on the jews FIRST. The jews were the first targets of nazi Germany, of the Communists in Russia, and now of Islam. As the jews go, so does the rest of the world: what the Nazis did to the jews, and what the Muslims want to do to them, is simply a "dress rehersal" of what they want to do to ALL their "enemies", e.g., all non-Aryans or all non-Muslims. And this, of course, is why they are evil movements.

But many "liberals" simply cannot accept it. They cannot accept that some people hate them merely because they exist, and want them all dead; they cannot accept that some people in the world could not care less for their human or other rights, and want to subdue them all. They deny the existence of evil. It is too horrible to contemplate, after all, that many muslims want them dead just because they aren't muslims, or that Hitler wants them all as slaves just because they aren't Aryans. Why can't we all get along?

THIS is what they want to deny. They can't stand it. So what is the solution? Blame it on the jews! For, if the Nazis', or Communists', or Muslims', hate of the jews can be seen, not as a warning sign for the rest of the world, BUT AS SOMETHING THE JEWS CAN BE BLAMED FOR, then--halleluyah!--we are off the hook. Evil doesn't really exist; it's not that the nazis, communists, or muslims are REALLY evil--it's just that they have "legitimate reasons" to hate the jews... and we are off the hook.

Sorry, guys. No matter how much you blame israel for it... evil DOES exist.

[Ed]

Excellent post. I am still waiting to hear why the third option has not been taken by the palistinians.

[LFTKBS]

You'd think Allah or YHWH would step in and send in some plagues or something. That would determine who has the right to the area pretty fast, I bet.

[Ed]

Originally posted by LFTKBS
You'd think Allah or YHWH would step in and send in some plagues or something. That would determine who has the right to the area pretty fast, I bet.

You would, but I'm busy doing ineffable things that are beyond your understanding. Later, dude.

[CapelDodger]

from Ed:
Excellent post. I am still waiting to hear why the third option has not been taken by the palistinians.
From ben Gurion:
[A] Jewish State in part of Palestine is not the end but the beginning. The establishment of such a Jewish State will serve as a means in our historical efforts [sic] to redeem the country in its entirety ... And then I am sure we will not be prevented from settling in all the other parts of the country, either through mutual understanding and agreement with our Arab neighbours or by other means ."
(My emphasis)

I'm not about to plough through a screed by a terrorism-apologist like Skeptic, so what's this third option the Palestinians could have tried?

[Dancing David]

Thanks sceptic, for a thought out post,

there are 'liberals' like myself whoever who are not oppsed to the existance of Israel and find that it already exists as a state. Tha box is open and hope is the last beast out of the box.

I do not object to the state of israel, i object to the fact that to be a citizen of Israel you must be of a particular religion. I think a simple solution to the issues of the middle east would be for Israel to recognise all born it it's bouns as citizens.

Other than that I feel Israel in better or worse than any other state. I feel that there are those on all sides who could be tried for war crimes. And that until there is a realistic acceptance of the fact that Israel exists , and that there is a disenfranchised population, trouble will ensue.

To accuse all liberals of blind hatred of Israel is the same as accusing all conservatives of blind support of the past regime of Pinochet in Chile.

Thanks.

[Skeptic]

I do not object to the state of israel, i object to the fact that to be a citizen of Israel you must be of a particular religion.

?????????????

You don't. There are quite a few israeli arabs (and others) in israel.

You might be referring to the immigration law that allows jews automatic israeli citizenship. This is true--because israel is conceived as the jewish state. But it is not true that ONLY jews can become naturalized israeli citizens. Anybody can; it's only that it isn't automatic if you aren't a jew.

This is not "racism" any more than the fact that an American citizen--even someone who was never in the US, say, a child of diplomats born abroad--need not apply for a visa when they return to the state.

At any rate, Dancing David, I didn't mean people like you in this post. I strongly disagree with your views sometimes, but I do not recall I EVER said, or implied, that you are an antisemite or an israeli-hater. Why? Because, so far as I know, you indeed NEVER criticized israel's existence, only its policies.

Criticism of israel's policies isn't antisemitism; I'm talking about those who are criticizing israel's EXISTENCE as inherently evil. To repeat, it's like the difference between saying you did wrong yesterday and saying I wish you were dead. Not all criticism is created equal...

[Skeptic]

To accuse all liberals of blind hatred of Israel is the same as accusing all conservatives of blind support of the past regime of Pinochet in Chile.

Where did I accuse ALL liberals? I said that those who hate israel in this forum are usually liberals, not that liberals all hate israel, which is most definitely false.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by LFTKBS
You'd think Allah or YHWH would step in and send in some plagues or something. That would determine who has the right to the area pretty fast, I bet.

The satirical paper "The Onion" had a headline the other day: "God Re-Floods Middle East". In the interview, God says, "I Told you to take this 'love thy brother' thing seriously!"

[Skeptic]

[I'm not about to plough through a screed by a terrorism-apologist like Skeptic,

...says a man who supports Arafat and the Hamas. :rolleyes:

[Ed]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
from Ed:

From ben Gurion:

(My emphasis)

I'm not about to plough through a screed by a terrorism-apologist like Skeptic, so what's this third option the Palestinians could have tried?

Non-violent protest and first class PR. They lost the moral high ground for the ephemeral joy of seeing dead Jews.

They should have glommed onto Ghandi and King as symbols, thus confounding Jewish liberals in the States. They should have wrapped themselves in the banner of pacificsim and co-opted every living symbol of same.

They should have learned the english words to "We Shall Overcome". They should have ditched the stupid anti-jew rants in their textbooks and added stuff on non-violence and MLK. They would have had the talking heads on CANBC tearey eyed. Elie Weisel should have written some of it.

They should have sent a delegation to the MLK memorial thing, they should have walked barefoot to the coast hopped a ship hopped off and then walked to DC. Bleeding feet "as our land bleeds for us" .... Yada yada. Cute chick blond "journalists" following them around. Have one collapse from "emotional and physical exhaustion every now and then. Make sure that they go to Jewish hospitals, though.

They should have played the media card far better. The last thing that they should conjure up is dead children. They should have eshewed the image of underage"martyrs". They should have spokesmen that shave and speak flawless english.

Somehow bloodshead and death plays well with their Arab coreligionists but it does not play well in other societies and those are the societys that they have to convince.

They are playing a stupid, ill informed, naive, short sighted game.

Perhaps they are getting what they deserve since they are apparently too stupid to do anything more effective. Or does anyone think that their "strategy" actually has more merit than what I suggest?

[svero]

Haha. Too funny. Skeptic. Do you even READ what you write? Other people are "evil". I use to think you were all anti-semites but now I see that you just can't accept that the arabs are "evil" - It's ludicrous to the point of being funny.

What's the word again for someone who decides who's evil and who isn't by what religion or ethnic group they belong to? Let me see... let... me.. see... Ah yes! I've got it! Racist! You know to completely come out of the closet what you need to do is instead of using phrases like "Hamas Apoligist" or "Anti-Semite" when accusing others, you should try "Towelhead-lover" or something like that.

Or better yet, you could try to adjust your thinking to that of a sane rational person. I know it's impossible, but here's what a sane person does. He holds *everyone* accountable to the *same* level of decency and integrity based not on what they look like or what sky faerie they happen to worship, but rather based on what they actually do. So if for instance Hamas kills some civilians to further their political cause and you say that's "evil" -- then when Israel does the same you must also say that's "evil" instead of saying "civilian casualties are an unfortunate side effect of the war on terror".

[Cain]

*Rubs hands together as if to scheme*
One day we will finally push the Jews into the sea!

Sorry, guys. No matter how much you blame israel for it... evil DOES exist.

Your awesome powers of observation are only exceeded by your ability to race-bait.

Only the hysterical Alan Dershowitz could pen something along these lines:


What is going on here? How come these people don't see the contradiction between their commitment to human rights, equality, peace, etc., and their support of a second holocaust?

Your ethnocentrism aside (there have been many holocausts in human history), there's no contradiction, obviously, in opposing a brutal apartheid... oh, what's the point?

[RCNelson]

As long as the Jews think that God prefers Jews, and as long as the Muslims think that God prefers Muslims, there is no hope for peace.

As long as they both follow their tribal gods, there is no hope for peace.

This is so sad.

And so hopeless.

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by svero


Or better yet, you could try to adjust your thinking to that of a sane rational person. I know it's impossible, but here's what a sane person does. He holds *everyone* accountable to the *same* level of decency and integrity based not on what they look like or what sky faerie they happen to worship, but rather based on what they actually do. So if for instance Hamas kills some civilians to further their political cause and you say that's "evil" -- then when Israel does the same you must also say that's "evil" instead of saying "civilian casualties are an unfortunate side effect of the war on terror".

I understand what you are saying, but is this always true?

Were British and American forces just as evil as the Nazis when they killed civilians in bombing raids?

I think your equivalency might just be too pat.

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by Cain


Your ethnocentrism aside (there have been many holocausts in human history), there's no contradiction, obviously, in opposing a brutal apartheid... oh, what's the point?

I am curious, do you bring that same level of outrage at the farrrrrrrrrrr worse slaughter of Xians by Muslims in Sudan or the genocide in Congo?

Or the apartied practiced against Jews in some of these Arab states which killed or expelled their Jews in 1948?

You don't? Why not?

Is it because like your avatar Chomsky, victims are not important, victimizers are?
I have no doubt if you could somehow tie Israel to the Congo, you would be on here screaming about it, but since Israel has nothing to do with it, the 3.3 million dead are not really important. I mean there is brutal apartied in Israel and ONLY Israel right? And Israel, and perhaps America, ONLY deserve condemnation right?

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Cain
Your ethnocentrism aside (there have been many holocausts in human history)

You are wrong about that. There have been many genocides in History indeed but only one Holocaust.

[LuxFerum]

Main Entry: ho·lo·caust
Pronunciation: 'hO-l&-"kost, 'hä- also -"käst or 'ho-l&-kost
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French holocauste, from Late Latin holocaustum, from Greek holokauston, from neuter of holokaustos burnt whole, from hol- + kaustos burnt, from kaiein to burn -- more at CAUSTIC
Date: 13th century
1 : a sacrifice consumed by fire
2 : a thorough destruction involving extensive loss of life especially through fire <a nuclear holocaust>
3 a often capitalized : the mass slaughter of European civilians and especially Jews by the Nazis during World War II -- usually used with the b : a mass slaughter of people; especially : GENOCIDE

[Skeptic]

Haha. Too funny. Skeptic. Do you even READ what you write? Other people are "evil".

Yes, Svero. Afarat, Hitler, Stalin, Bin Laden and their followers are (or were) evil. That's exactly your problem: you cannot believe this.

So if they want the jews dead... it must be something the jews did; it cannot be because they hate YOU, too, regardless of what they said about the "Aryan revolution", the destruction of the "capitalist west", or the end of the "infidels" in Europe and America.

What's the word again for someone who decides who's evil and who isn't by what religion or ethnic group they belong to?

Hamas Bomber? Yasser Arafat? Bin Laden? Stalin? Hitler? THEY sure decide who is evil and who isn't according to the religion and ethnic group they belong to.

But again, you cannot accept that... so if a Hamas man blows himself up on a bus full of babies, it CANNOT be because he hates jews--and all non-muslims, for that matter. Such evil, after all, doesn't exist. Islam is, after all, a "religion of peace". Just ask Noam Chomsky.

So it has to be something else, something which is surely the babies' fault.

Let me see... let... me.. see... Ah yes! I've got it! Racist!

(snort)

"Racist" is the catch-all liberal stock reply to unanswerable arguments. What it really means is "I don't agree with you, so I'll stop the discussion" (much like "political correctness" is the catch-all conservative stock reply to unanswerable arguments).

Or better yet, you could try to adjust your thinking to that of a sane rational person. I know it's impossible, but here's what a sane person does. He holds *everyone* accountable to the *same* level of decency and integrity based not on what they look like or what sky faerie they happen to worship, but rather based on what they actually do.

Indeed so. So, do you hold Arafat to that level of decency? No, his mass murder of jews is part of the "legitimate palestinian struggle". Do you hold bin Laden to this level of decency? No, blowing up the twin towers is surely caused by some sort of "desperation" due to unnamed american evils.

There is ONLY one groups in the world you do NOT hold to that "level of decency"--muslim terrorists. When they kill people (especially jews), it isn't REALLY their fault; it must be the result of "desperation" due to "israeli (or USA) policies", which are the "root cause" of terror (just like wearing that skimpy dress was the "root cause" of the woman getting raped, I guess).

Unlike you, I AM holding Bin Laden and Arafat to their action. It is YOU who refuses to do so, since this means admitting that they might be evil people, and, as every "Sane and rational" person knows, "evil" is just a fairy tale.

So if for instance Hamas kills some civilians to further their political cause and you say that's "evil" then when Israel does the same you must also say that's "evil" instead of saying "civilian casualties are an unfrtunate side effect of the war on terror".

See what I mean? Here you go again. You equate Hamas' goal of wiping out the jews with israel's goal of surviving, as if they are both of the same legitimacy because they're both "political causes". You equal Hamas' method of killing as many babies as possible with israel's method of killing as FEW babies as possible by targeting the LEADERS of Hamas as morally the same, just because both involve "civilian casualties".

Of course, by this stupid argument, bombing Berlin in WWII was morally equivaleny to Auschwitz: in both cases, a political groups caused "civilian casualties to advance its political goals". Also, a rapist and his intended victim who fights back are the same: they both use "physical force to advance sexual goals" (he of raping her, she of not getting raped.) When you ignore both what the political goal is, and the methods used to advance it, EVERYTHING becomes "morally equivalent".

Once more, you deny evil. What is evil here is Hamas, in its genocidal goal and its savage methods. Is isn't the fact that somebody has "political goals" that makes things equivalent--it is WHAT THESE GOALS ARE. Since the Hamas' goal is genoicde, it's evil. Simple, isn't it?

But noooooooooo, that can't be it. Someone who wants all the jews dead by blowing them up on buses couldn't possibly REALLY be evil. That might imply they hate YOU for no reason, too! So quick, get out the "moral equivelancy" magic wand! Let's pretend the israelies are just as bad because both sometimes kill "innocent civilians" to advance "political causes".

Oh wait, using the "moral equivelancy" magic wand also "proves" the nazis are the same same as the allies in WWII and that a rapist is the same as his victim. But never mind: use ANY excuse, no matter how absurd, to deny that Hamas is evil. Evil, after all, doesn't exist. It's just jewish racist propaganda...

[svero]

>Yes, Svero. Afarat, Hitler, Stalin, Bin Laden and their followers
>are (or were) evil.

And yet you would never hold Sharon accountable for the war crimes he's convicted of. The problem here is that YOU have a double standard.

>So if they want the jews dead... it must be something the jews
>did; it cannot be because they hate YOU

I never said that. There are many factors that may lead a particular group of people to do bad things, but to attribute it to an entire nation of people is where you step away from reality and into woo woo land.

>But again, you cannot accept that... so if a Hamas man blows
>himself up on a bus full of babies, it CANNOT be because he
>hates jews

I disagree. He may very well hate jews. I don't argue with that.

>--and all non-muslims, for that matter. Such evil, after all,
>doesn't exist.

It exists but it is created. He wasn't born hating jews.

>Islam is, after all, a "religion of peace". Just ask
>Noam Chomsky.

No comment. All religion is stupid from my point of view. I'm not aware of any religion that is particularly peaceful of beneficial. That's another argument.

>"Racist" is the catch-all liberal stock reply to unanswerable >arguments.

That's how you use the term Anti-Semite. I'm using the term correctly. You attribute to an entire group of people some "evil" characteristics and dismiss that anything at all done to them could indeed be the cause of animosity.

>Indeed so. So, do you hold Arafat to that level of decency?

Yes. Everyone gets the same set of moral rules as it were. Both Arafat AND Sharon and whomever else.

>No, his mass murder of jews is part of the "legitimate
>palestinian struggle".

Wrong again. It is you who refuses to hold the Israeli govt responsible for the very crimes you accuse Arafat and his ilk of.

> Do you hold bin Laden to this level of decency?

Yes.

>No, blowing up the twin towers is surely caused by some sort
>of "desperation" due to unnamed american evils.

No. Wrong.

>There is ONLY one groups in the world you do NOT hold to
>that "level of decency"--muslim terrorists.

It's strange you know... That's exactly wrong. It's like the only group that I KNOW I'm prejuidiced against is probably Arabs. I see that as a character flaw. Anyway I certainly don't give them any quarter. What reason would I possibly have to? I stand to gain nothing by siding with either side.

>Unlike you, I AM holding Bin Laden and Arafat to their action.

Wrong. I hold them to the same moral standard as I hold Sharon or whoeever. You believe there's a difference. You believe Israel fights for it's survival, defends, aims at military only etc... Yet the facts on the ground do not support that belief.

>See what I mean? Here you go again. You equate Hamas' goal
>of wiping out the jews with israel's goal of surviving

It's stunning the mental block you seem to have. It's like... well my side is surviving and defending freedom but their side are just a bunch of mad jew hating evildoers who must be killed. You sound like a fanatic. You sound like them! Don't you get it? Anyway... there's no point. I had a personal rule of not replying to this sort of thread anymore because it will lead into an endless debate where you can't see the forest from the trees. I think you're either unwilling or incapable of looking at the situation in the middle east rationally.

[coalesce]

A fabulous, well-thought out opening and equally impressive replies.

Excellent work.

Michael

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Skeptic

The jews, you see, are like canaries in the mine. Whenever some new violent evil appears on the world stage--Nazism, Communism, Islam--it tends to zero in on the jews FIRST. The jews were the first targets of nazi Germany, of the Communists in Russia, and now of Islam. As the jews go, so does the rest of the world: what the Nazis did to the jews, and what the Muslims want to do to them, is simply a "dress rehersal" of what they want to do to ALL their "enemies", e.g., all non-Aryans or all non-Muslims. And this, of course, is why they are evil movements.


Bulls**t. As Finkelstein points out, it was the Communists who were first in Germany. Stop making such an ass of yourself.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Skeptic

I thought about it, and reached a second conclusion. The real reason these "liberals" hate israel and the jews so much is not antisemitism--it is THE INABILITY TO FACE THE EXISTENCE OF EVIL.


'EVIL' belongs where it was created, with the other myths of "The Demon Haunted World". It is a concept who's time has long gone.

[Ed]

How about someone replying to my third alternative

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Ed


Non-violent protest and first class PR. They lost the moral high ground for the ephemeral joy of seeing dead Jews.

They should have glommed onto Ghandi and King as symbols, thus confounding Jewish liberals in the States. They should have wrapped themselves in the banner of pacificsim and co-opted every living symbol of same.


Many have tried this. They were ignored, or killed or jailed. Look at what happened to Rachael Corrie. Skeptic thinks that was her fault.

[Ed]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Many have tried this. They were ignored, or killed or jailed. Look at what happened to Rachael Corrie. Skeptic thinks that was her fault.

BS. If the same level of money and organization were put against this type of effort it would work. I am talking about policy, like murder is currently their policy. I am talking about coordination and planning and not individuals. Come on, you won't fault them? Not enough dead jews this way?

[Dancing David]

Sceptic,

I agree very highly with your premise that in European society, the jews have been the canary in he coal mine. I would suggest that other cultures might have thier own canaries. Currently in the US I would say we might have our own canaries.

I still do not beleieve that there should be a state that allow citizenship based upon religous origins. And to say that somehow the people who left Israel in the Babylonian exile are entitled to return , is well, something I disagree with.

I don't understand why people born in Israel who identify themselves as the descendants of the palestinians are not granted full citizenship. Just as I find it very odd that there are 'koreans' in Nippon who are born in Nippon, but have no citizenship.

My feeling has always been that all sides have to stop the terror, I am not saying that Israel should just belly up, but that they could make major progress in allowing civili liberties (like power, water and non destruction of property) for all the people who live in Israel.

But I very strongly agree that until all nations, especialy the european ones, aknowledge the inherent racism behind aniti israel sentiment, this will go nowhere. This would also include the current demonization of the Islam.

Respectfully

[Cleopatra]

David

You will be pleased to know that those issues do not pass unnoticed by the Israeli citizens.

The issue of citizenship is a serious one and all of us that strongly believe in the Principles that are articulated in the the Declaration of Independance of Israel, fight to defend the Rights of the Palestinian fellow citizens through The Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI).

The Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI). (http://www.acri.org.il/english-acri/engine/index.asp)


The Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI) was founded in 1972 as a non-political and independent body, with the goal of protecting human and civil rights in Israel and in the territories under Israeli control.

The founders of ACRI rooted their vision in the principles and rights articulated in the Declaration of Independence, and in the United Nation’s Universal Declaration on Human Rights, which was drafted under the influence of the horrors seen during the Second World War.

ACRI works to protect the right of diverse individuals and sectors of society including men and women, religious and secular, Jews and Arabs, those on the political right and left, new immigrants and veteran citizens, the unemployed, and foreign workers.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Ed
How about someone replying to my third alternative

Or I expect those --like Capel Dodger-- that in other threads analyzed eloquently the introvert nature of European Jewry and its role in the formation of Zionism to try to demonstrate why it was impossible for the Palestinians to take Ed's third alternative...

Otherwise I will have to do it :)

[Solitaire]

Originally posted by Skeptic
I thought about it, and reached a second conclusion.
The real reason these "liberals" hate israel and the
jews so much is not antisemitism - it is...
THE INABILITY TO FACE THE EXISTENCE OF EVIL!.

Going off the deep end are we? :D
Here, this will help. (http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0050/0050_01.asp)

[Solitaire]

Originally posted by Ed
Non-violent protest and first class PR.
They lost the moral high ground for the ephemeral joy of seeing dead Jews.

They should have glommed onto Ghandi and King as symbols,
thus confounding Jewish liberals in the States. They should have
wrapped themselves in the banner of pacificsim and co-opted every
living symbol of same.

Let's stop here.

In the palesteinian population you have extremists who enjoy killing.
They would not have much power except for the fact that they get both
funding and materials from outside nations such as Iran. Hence when
a pacifist leader pops up in the palesteinian population, the extremists
quite effectively quashes this leader and his followers. Remember, the
number one killer of palesteinians isn't the Israeli military or settlers
it's other palesteinians. This third option, therefore, cannot be expressed.

[Chaos]

O well, it´s firing into the melee then... ;)

Were British and American forces just as evil as the Nazis when they killed civilians in bombing raids?

In that instance, yes, they were evil. Just as they were in Japan, in Korea, in North Vietnam, in Afghanistan, and in Iraq. (Did I forget any country?)

There is NO excuse for killing civilians, NEVER. Even if that means more soldiers have to die because the war lasts a longer - and there is still no proof that carpet bombing german and japanese cities helped bring the war to an end.
It is a soldiers job to fight and to risk death; that is what he is paid for. If a soldier is killed by the enemy, this is regrettable, but his occupational hazard.
A civilian, on the other hand, has no job being at the lower end of an air raid. Nor was it his fault that he is at a place the enemy has decided to bomb.

The Allies in WWII where, I grant them that much, a lesser evil than Nazi Germany, or the Soviet Union, for that matter, but they where an evil nonetheless.


As for the thread´s topic:
Skeptic, you mentioned "Israel´s legitimate struggle for survival" several times. How about the Palestinians´ legitimate struggle for the land they have lived in for 2,000 years, for equal rights, etc.? Do Palestinians have no rights in your eyes?
No, I am not a terrorist sympathizer or apologetic. I only believe that, just because terrorists act on the Palestinians´ behalf, or claim to do so, it is not all of the Palestinians, or all of the muslims, that are racist or antisemitic or, to use that melodramatic word, evil. Nor do I blame the Israelis in general (or the jews - funny how we mix nationality and religion, isn´t it) for the ongoing murder of palestinian civilians at the hand of the Israeli Army.

To use a simple example:
Suppose someone beats you up, and the next day, I murder that someone, saying I did that for you. Does that make you a murderer too?

In my opinion, it doesn´t.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Chaos

There is NO excuse for killing civilians, NEVER.

You're a fool. You're basically saying that we shouldn't be able to do anything against tyrants like Saddam as long as they use civilian human shields. That simply does not work. And it doesn't even save any Iraqis in the long run, since more Iraqis died from Saddam than ever died at the hands of Americans. But you've bought into the worst of Chomsky-like ideology, thinking that we must handicap our own ability to act against those who have no scrupples, who will stop at nothing, who kill civilians willingly and purposefully. Your approach frees dictators to act as they choose, since none can step forward to stop them without being condemned. You don't actually care about the oppressed, you really only care about who you consider the oppressor. You would prefer to see Iraq rot under Saddam's brutal oppression, because somehow you think that would be less evil than our invasion? Where the hell are your priorities? They certainly aren't with the people of Iraq, that's for damned sure.

[Chaos]

Dear Ziggurat,

there are others ways of deposing such tyrants than just dropping bombs into cities.

For a long time - ever since the development of the bomber aircraft - U.S. Forces and their political leaders have shown a fondness for doing violence against civilian targets on a massive scale. It may have been a lack of imagination to come up with another idea, or a well-hidden cruel streak, or any other reason. The supposed rationale behind this was and is "if we bomb them, they´ll hate their leader for that". I hate to break it to you, but: this never worked. They didn´t hate their leaders; they hate America.

Ok, so much for the ranting, now to some real arguments.

There is NO excuse for killing civilians, NEVER.

I admit I was wrong in phrasing it in that categorical way. There is one, and only one, excuse, and that is to prevent more civilians from dying.

But does that justify what we have seen in Iraq and Israel?

No, it does not.

The U.S. has supported Saddam Hussein until a few weeks before his invasion of Kuwait. That was after he gassed those Kurds in Halabja. That was after the had reigned as a tyrant for over a decade. That was after a bloody war with Iran which he started.
Then, the U.S. did not depose him until another 12 years had passed - in which he still ruled as a tyrant, in which he had massacred Schiite rebel whom the U.S. had promised aid which never came, in which sanctions the U.S. had imposed and enforced did nothing to weaken his rule but killed hundreds of thousands of civilians.
And now, after attacks on the U.S. in which Saddam had no part, with a case for war resting on lies, forgery and false allegations, you come and depose Saddam, killing a few thousand civilians in the process, and you have the guts to say "All we wanted was help the Iraqi people. Be grateful and welcome us!" I shurely didn´t hear anything about the suffering of the Iraqi people before the war; it only ever went "WMDs! WMDs! WMDs!".


And as for Israel, I don´t deny that the Israeli government has the right to defend itself, their state and their people.
But what they are doing - assassinating Hamas leaders with numerous bystanders turned into "collateral damage" - has little to do with self-defense. It is only terror and vendetta.
The civilized way to deal with terrorists is to capture them, put them to trial, convict them if they are guilty, and then jail them (I oppose the death sentence, but that´s another point which would not belong to this thread).
Instead, the Israeli government has chosen to kill any suspected terrorists it can find and not give a damn how many Palestinian civilians die in the process. Congratulations, Mr. Sharon, you have brought a civilized country back to the middle ages.

What reasons can the Israeli government have to act like this? Aren´t they capable of capturing these people? Don´t they have courts to put them to trial? Don´t they have jails to keep them in?
Or do they except some other, bigger effect from those public assassinations?
Perhaps they think that if they keep killing enough terrorists, the Hamas will give up for lack of manpower. Well, if they have still not realized this doesn´t work, I guess they never will.
Perhaps they think that they can frighten Palestinians into not becoming terrorists? Ditto - they should know this won´t work, as these terrorists "know" paradise awaits them.
Perhaps they think, like the U.S. leaders do, that they can frighten the population into hating Hamas? This will not work either, and it never did. They will just make them hate Israel - ALL Israelis - even more. They are just pouring oil into the fire.
Even if you don´t share my morals, you should understand that it just simply DOESN´T WORK. This chain reaction of violence-revenge-violence-revenge will never make things better; this way, Israel will know peace only once there is no-one left alive in the region.
The only way there can possibly be peace in that region is that everybody with any ties to past acts of violence in this struggly on BOTH sides is removed from the political process, and BOTH sides stop holding past acts against the other side as a whole. And I see neither Arafat nor Sharon (nor anyone else involved) willing to do that.


(Edited for typos)

[Skeptic]

There is NO excuse for killing civilians, NEVER.

Really? So, in that case, the USA and England should have just surrendered to the Nazis. After all, fighting a war with them would surely have led (as it did) to the death of civilians. Since there is "no excuse for killing civilians, NEVER", that's the only "truly moral" choice they had. And they CERTAINLY should not have bombed the German factories, God forbid--sure, that would have meant lots more German tanks and planes and lots more dead English and Americans, but hey, "there is no excuse for killing civilians, NEVER".

You claim that "there is no excuse for killing civilians, NEVER" is a pathetic attempt to create some sort of moral equivelancy between ALL acts of killing civilians, because they are all "wrong": between bombing Berlin's aeroplane factories and operating Auschwitz gas chambers; between Hamas' targeting of babies on buses and israel's targeting of Hamas leaders who deliberately surround themselves by babies as human shields.

In other words, you attempt to equate genocidal murder and self-defense as both equally wrong, because they both "hurt civilians". This is no more convincing than your previous attempt to equate the two by claiming that they are both equally legitimate, since they are both "political goals".

Why do you do this? Why do you equate the Hamas with israel, or (in this post of yours) bombing Berlin with running Auschwitz? To repeat my original comment, I no longer believe that this is because you are an antisemite who wants jews dead. The reason is in the absurdity of your claims: if you were just an antisemite, you wouldn't seriously claim that bombing Berlin and operating Auschwitz were "equally wrong", a claim so absurd on its face it is self-refuting. The real problem is, you really DO believe this nonsense!

Your problem, as I see it, is a stunted moral sense that does not believe in the existence of evil, and thus fails to recognize it when it sees it. Being "evil blind" left you with a moral sense that cannot distinguish between Auschwitz and Berlin--a distinction which is the easiest thing in the world to make, for those not morally impaired in the same way. It is a bit like being "color blind", when a person cannot distinguish between red and green, say, a blatantly obvious difference for those not similarly impaired.

Perhaps a better analogy is being a christian scientist. An observer looking at christian scientists might reasonably conclude that their religion is to be as sick as possible by avoiding doctors and other medical treatment. This is wrong--their religion is to deny the existence of sickness. Their illnesses and death merely a RESULT of this delusion: since they cannot bring themselves to believe pain is real, they blame it all on their "lack of faith" and then die of treatable diseases. It is the all-too-common case where fervent belief in an ideal (eternal health, the unreality of pain) creates the exact opposite effect in practice (death and sickness).

Similarly with you and others on this board. An observer looking at your posts bashing israel's existence, glorifying Hamas, etc., might reasonably conclude that you are a bunch of neo-nazis whose goal is to see all jews dead. This is not true: your real delusion is the denial of evil, a stunted moral sense. The apparent "antisemitism" is merely the RESULT of this delusion: since you cannot bring yourself to believe that anybody could be evil enough to just want all the jews dead, you have to conclude that they had it coming. Your fervent belief in an ideal (eternal peace, the unreality of evil) creates the exact opposite effect in practice (support of genocidal warmongers).

You support them not because you LIKE genoical warmongers, but because you deny that such people exist. Therefore, much like a Christian scientists will claim he just SEEMS to be in pain and that this is really a test of his faith in God's healing, you will claim Arafat and Yassin just SEEM to be genoical warmongers, but in reality supporting them is a test of faith in the "there's a little bit of good in everyone" and "evil is unreal" creed. If they hate the jews so much, they might have some good reason, because they simply CANNOT be REALLY evil.

You aren't really bashing jews--you're protecting your precious worldview where evil doesn't exist and everybody can get along if they just WANT to. A classic example of this attitude is "A Unique Person's" post, a few weeks back, about a islamic militia in Indonesia that--for the first time--is trying to blow up Australians. Yes, we've got here muslims wanting christians dead; guess who AUP blamed? That's right, the jews, for "stirring up trouble in the middle east" (despite the fact that the muslim group in question never so much as mentioned the middle east in its declaration on how it will destroy Australia).

Why? Is AUP stupid? No. Is he out to get all the jews? Probably not. But he just cannot stand the idea that some people, like this indonesian militia, want him dead simply because he isn't muslim. This is unbearable. So if he could only somehow blame the jews (or ANYBODY, for that matter) for the muslim militia's genocidal plans for him and his family, he can restore his belief that they really aren't evil, and don't really want him dead, but are just "frustrated" by some "rational" reason--like jews who live 10,000 miles away.

I do not know if there is any radical surgery to cure color blindness. I do, however, suggest a radical surgery for you, which might cure you of your moral blidness. Look in the papers for the next reunion of RAF or USAF WWII bomber pilots. Then, go over there, and tell them how, in your view (as you expressed it here) their actions were no better, and no different, than the actions of those SS men who ran the death camps. Observe how THEY react to this amazing moral revelation by you. I assure you that--presuming they don't kill you--a few hours with them will cure you of your "moral blindness", one you realize what they REALLY were all about. At least, it would be a start.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Chaos
Dear Ziggurat,

there are others ways of deposing such tyrants than just dropping bombs into cities.


I'd love to hear of another way to depose Saddam. I've heard that we weren't justified, that the costs for doing so were to high, etc. But I have never heard someone put forward an alternative method to depose Saddam other than invasion. Do you actually have such a proposal? Seriously, I would be interested in hearing about alternatives, but I haven't heard any yet.


For a long time - ever since the development of the bomber aircraft - U.S. Forces and their political leaders have shown a fondness for doing violence against civilian targets on a massive scale.


Irrelevant in the current context. There was relatively little damage to civilian targets as a result of US bombing during this campaign, and civilians were never the targets this time around.


I shurely didn´t hear anything about the suffering of the Iraqi people before the war; it only ever went "WMDs! WMDs! WMDs!".


I've said it before and I'll say it again: I don't care what Bush's motives are, I care about what he actually does. Deposing Saddam was a good thing, and I support that. Yet you seem to oppose that, because you don't like Bush's motives. What about YOUR motives? Why DON'T you support the overthrow of a brutal, oppressive dictator? Are you ONLY motivated by opposition to Bush? That's a surefire way to make yourself irrelevant. I heard arguments before the war from the pro-war side concerning human rights and democracy, and if the anti-war croud chose to ignore those arguments, perhaps it was because they didn't really care about those issues. As for our former support for Saddam, that was a terrible mistake. But why on earth should we AVOID correcting the mistakes we made in the past?


Even if you don´t share my morals, you should understand that it just simply DOESN´T WORK. This chain reaction of violence-revenge-violence-revenge will never make things better; this way, Israel will know peace only once there is no-one left alive in the region.


You're right, the chain reaction will never bring peace. But as Synchronicity pointed out, inter-Palestinian violence is a larger problem for the Palestinian people than Israeli violence, but you never hear about that, because somehow it's justified or acceptable. Israel is not the Palestinian people's biggest problem, their own corrupt leadership is. Peace is achievable for the Palestinians, if they want it. But their leadership is not honestly interested in peace, they want victory, even though they have no hope of achieving the kind of victory they want:

http://www.memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD57303

[CapelDodger]

From Ed:
Non-violent protest and first class PR. They lost the moral high ground for the ephemeral joy of seeing dead Jews.
They had the moal high-ground and they were compeltely ignored. Non-violent protest left 13 Israeli Arab demonstrators shot dead a couple of years back.

You can see what they've always been up against in ben Gurion's words amongst others - Jabotinsky was the most honest, Weitzmann was more mealy-mouthed about "arrangements" being made for the previous inhabitants of his little monument.

[Chaos]

Skeptic, please don´t dwell on that sentence, I already changed it.

The Allied Air Forces in Europe and the Pacific did more than just bomb factories. They destroyed the inner cities of many German and Japanese towns with the intention of frightening (and killing) the civilian population. Look up the fate of Dresden and Hamburg in a textbook - or that of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

As I have written, I consider the Allies the lesser of two evils.

Funny that you mention self-defense. Self-defense applies only versus the one who is attacking you, not against innocent bystanders. To stick with WWII: would you consider it self-defense that Red Army soldiers raped countless German women and girls? These were also civilians who had the misfortune to belong to a side of a conflict that had commited acts of terror before.
Actually, I consider the Allied involvement in WWII as some kind of self-defense on a very large scale. Hitler declared war on each of the allies. BUT this means you what you have to do to end this conflict, without killing any more civilians than you absolutely have to. And you do NOT go out of your way to destroy residential areas and kill the inhabitants.

In my opinion, the difference between what the Nazis did and what the Allies did is:
The Nazis killed civilians in an organized way to exterminate the kinds of civilians (jews, gypsies etc.) as a whole; this is genocide. If I have ever heard of anything that is evil, this is it.
The Allies killed civilians either because they did not care about killing them or because they figured killing some of them would mean the rest would want to end the war (this is basically the idea behind terror bombing). Although this is a much lesser evil than genocide, it still leaves a lot of room for improvement.
In short: just because what you are fighting against is evil, it does not mean you can justify anything to fight it.

I do not think that there is some good in Arafat; I once did, but the recent months have cured me of that.
BUT I think this neither means the Israeli government has the right to kill Palestinians as they please, nor does that mean Palestinians as a whole have less a right not to be killed as Israelis.

As an aside:
Note that I say "the Nazis", not "the Germans", and (which does not imply a comparison to the former) "the Israeli government", not "the Israelis". The same I just said for the Palestinians goes for the Israelis now as well as for the Germans in WWII.

While I do not think there is some good in Arafat or OBL or Saddam Hussein, I do not think, either, that there is NO evil in Bush, Sharon etc.; civilized nations are supposed to stick to rules to distinguish themselves from the terrorists, and both Bush and Sharon seem to be in the process of saying goodbye to that.

I will visit a Air Force veterans meeting and tell them what I think at the same day that you visit a meeting of the survivors of the destruction of Hamburg or Dresden (if there is such a meeting at all) and tell them that what they went through was perfectly justified because they were evil.

[Cain]

Originally posted by Mike B.
[B]

I am curious, do you bring that same level of outrage at the farrrrrrrrrrr worse slaughter of Xians by Muslims in Sudan or the genocide in Congo?

Or the apartied practiced against Jews in some of these Arab states which killed or expelled their Jews in 1948?

Are those atrocities discussed ad nauseum on these forums by one-sided apologists?

You don't? Why not?

Is it because like your avatar Chomsky, victims are not important, victimizers are?

Special outrage is reserved for Israel because my country, the United States, supports a tyrannical state financially and diplomatically. Since we do in fact live in a semi-democratic state where people can influence policy, I'm partially responsible for the atrocities carried out in my name.


I have no doubt if you could somehow tie Israel to the Congo, you would be on here screaming about it, but since Israel has nothing to do with it, the 3.3 million dead are not really important. I mean there is brutal apartied in Israel and ONLY Israel right? And Israel, and perhaps America, ONLY deserve condemnation right?

Can you produce even a scintilla of textual evidence to support these risible claims? No, it's just more under-handed speculation; a circuitous ad hominem of sorts. We must never ever discuss Israeli crimes. They're fighting terrorism, after all. People who want to discuss these topics are anti-semities, or maybe they just hate America. Uh huh.

Cleopatra wrote:

You are wrong about that. There have been many genocides in History indeed but only one Holocaust.

This touches upon a point made in the thread on Finkelstein that relates to the Holocaust industry. I'm sure you're well aware that Hitler murdered nearly 12 million people, mostly Jews (the well-known six million figure). But whenever I hear about Hitler's atrocities, probably the worst in human history, we almost always hear only the six million figure. We're constantly reminded of it. So much so that now I hear people say Hitler killed six million people. Is that six million altogether?

Besides, the original text -- where I quoted Skeptic -- had holocaust in all lower case letters. Maybe you tried to compensate by bizarrely capitalizing "history" in your reply.

As for non-violent resistence, the Palestinians have tried many times. Recently with the road map, the "lull" that took place for a couple months, about 17 Palestinians were killed. Did the media mention any of them? Did it make the front page of the New York Times? Of course not. It's not until a suicide bomber attacks and then Israel "retaliates."

Finkelstein in another article, maybe an excerpt from a chapter in his book, discusses a meeting he had with a leader of Hamas. Before the Intifada Palestinians were getting killed 10 to 1. Now he says, if I recall correctly, they're killed only 3-1. Under hopelessly dire circumstances people will resort to primitive retribituve violence: for everyone one of us you kill, we'll kill one of yours. None of this excuses morally wicked suicide bombers, but it does provide context.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by svero
And yet you would never hold Sharon accountable for the war crimes he's convicted of.

Maybe I missed something but when was Sharon convicted for war crimes (and what were the crimes he was convicted of)?

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


You are wrong about that. There have been many genocides in History indeed but only one Holocaust.

It is a dirty little secret that the first actual use of the word "holocaust" against the Jews was in England. In the 11th or 12th century, I think.

[Luke T.]

Hey, I'm a guy who likes to blame a lot of things on the Left, but I think there are no black and white answers to the Israeli/Palistinian situation. The maniacs on both sides are in control.

Also, I think it is safe to say that, as a group, the Jews in America lean heavily to the Left. I doubt you would hear any of them calling for the elimination of Israel. :D

I was also surprised to learn that many White Nationalists are strongly in favor of the existence of Israel. It only reinforces their belief of the inevitability of the separation of the "races," and that we would all be better off with separate nations.

The problem WNs have with Israel is with what they believe to be the constant meddling in American politics, and the Jews' attempts to mongrelize all of us to prevent the existence of a White Nation.

Not even all Palistinians favor the elimination of Israel.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Cain

Special outrage is reserved for Israel because my country, the United States, supports a tyrannical state financially and diplomatically. Since we do in fact live in a semi-democratic state where people can influence policy, I'm partially responsible for the atrocities carried out in my name.


Yup, it figures. You really are more concerned with the victimizers (the US) than the victims. It's probably fine for you if the US abstains from intervening against oppression, as long as we're not supporting it directly. So the crimes of Saddam deserve less outrage than the crimes of Israel, even though they are far more terrible and numerous. The support of oppression by other countries, such as France's support for various African dictators, don't matter either, as long as we're not doing it. The deaths of the innocent don't matter, as long as they don't get any tarnish on YOU. We just couldn't stand that, could we?


As for non-violent resistence, the Palestinians have tried many times. Recently with the road map, the "lull" that took place for a couple months, about 17 Palestinians were killed.


You seriously think that this "lull" counts as the palestinians having tried non-violence? The palestinians put themselves in their current mess. Even some of their supporters are able to see this more clearly than you apparently can:

http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=countries&Area=palestinian&ID=SP40402

[Ed]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
From Ed:

They had the moal high-ground and they were compeltely ignored. Non-violent protest left 13 Israeli Arab demonstrators shot dead a couple of years back.

You can see what they've always been up against in ben Gurion's words amongst others - Jabotinsky was the most honest, Weitzmann was more mealy-mouthed about "arrangements" being made for the previous inhabitants of his little monument.


Nonsense. Half assed attempts.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Ed



Nonsense. Half assed attempts.

You mean they should have had more shot?

[svero]

Originally posted by ssibal


Maybe I missed something but when was Sharon convicted for war crimes (and what were the crimes he was convicted of)?

I was referring to his forced resignation as minister of defense after an Israeli investigation found him indirectly responsible for the massacres at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps in 1982.

From the Washington Post...
"The commission cited Sharon for "grave mistakes" and recommended that he resign as defense minister or be dismissed. After at first refusing, he resigned."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A41261-2001Jun24?language=printer

I admit though, that that doesn't qualify as a "conviction" of war crimes, so it was incorrect to phrase it that way.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Skeptic
As we all know, this forum has quite a few people who are strongly opposed to israel's existence. It's unjust, says one; the arabs are right to try and destroy it, says another; it's racist to have a jewish state, says a third; it should be "peacefully" dismantled, says a fourth; it's an artificial creation, says the fifth; besides, the jews shouldn't have those nationalistic feelings and should become world citizens, anyway.

Of course, it is ONLY the jewish state that these people consider "artificial" (one look at the borders in Africa or the rest of the middle east will show you how absurd this is); it is ONLY the jewish state that has no right to exist due to the "injustice" it causes (Sudan or Congo get off scot-free, naturally); it is ONLY the jews who should have no nationalistic feelings (arabs or christians, of course, are allowed to); it is ONLY the jewish nation which is "racist" for just being a nation (nothing is wrong with the 21 or so judenrein, nationalistic, dictatorial arab states); it is ONLY the jewish state that should be destroyed; it is ONLY the jews who should return to exile; and, above all, it is ONLY the jews who should be massacred in the second holocaust a "peaceful dismantlement" of the "racist" israel is sure to be, as anybody who reads the arab press knows.

Yet these same critics of israel's existence are shocked--SHOCKED!--when I claim that this is antisemitic. "How dare you say that, when we don't hate jews, we "only" want the jewish STATE destroyed!", they claim. And they're serious. Who says that wanting a country destroyed and its people expelled is proof that you REALLY hate them?, says one of these critics. How dare you say that I am antisemitic, when I only support the genocide of the jews within the "strictly limited geographical area" of the jewish state?, says another. And so on.

What is even more confusing is that these people all claim to be liberals, men of the world, free of prejudice and hate, and really, really good guys. They are all for human rights (except for the jews'), peace (except with the jews), equality (except of jews in places where they aren't wanted) and nonviolence (except when attacking jews).

What is going on here? How come these people don't see the contradiction between their commitment to human rights, equality, peace, etc., and their support of a second holocaust?

There are two possiblities. The first, which was the one I believed until I thought about it more deeply, is that these people simply hate jews, and use the "liberal" language as a cover for this, e.g., using the more socially-acceptable "anti-zionism" as a cover of their hatered.

I now think that I was wrong. This hypothesis, I figured out, doesn't explain two things.

First, it doesn't explain the absurdity of the excuses these people use to justify their hate. "Regular" antisemites, when they bother to deny their antisemitism, claim that they don't hate jews and have nothing against them. These people's excuses, on the other hand, are so absurd they are a case of an excuse that's worse than the crime: "I am NOT an antisemite! I just want the jewish state destroyed!", or "I am NOT an antisemite! I only want their genocide in a STRICTLY LIMITED georaphical area!" is on the same level of "excuse" as "sorry I pinched your ass, sir--I thought it was your wife", or "I love humanity, it's PEOPLE I can't stand".

Either they are both antisemitic and very, VERY stupid, or there is some other explanation to their utter blindness to jews' right to live--the only nation whose rights they totally ignore.

Second, it doesn't explain why so-called "anti-zionism" IS acceptable in the first place. Fine, you don't hate jews, "only" zionists. Is that any better? Why is it socially acceptable to call for the destruction of israel--and ONLY israel--why every other nation on earth, including insane thuggeries like Sudan or North Korea, have an undeniable right to exist, no matter what its crimes? Is israel truly worse than Sudan, Libya, Stalin's USSR, or Nazi Germany? Yet nobody ever claimed Germany or Russia have no right to exist.

After all, if I was committed to Italy's eradication, saying that I "don't really" hate Italians since I only want ITALY destroyed, not the death of all Italian-Americans (for instance), it would hardly be an acceptable excuse. So why IS it (for some people) acceptable to wish israel destroyed as long as you don't want ALL jews dead? Isn't that like saying that there's nothing wrong in wanting so-and-so dead, merely because you don't want to kill his family as well?

So what is going on here? If the cause of this "blindness" to israel's right to exist on the part of those who should be most AWARE of it--the so-called "liberals" and "human rights activists"--is not antisemitism, what is it?

I thought about it, and reached a second conclusion. The real reason these "liberals" hate israel and the jews so much is not antisemitism--it is THE INABILITY TO FACE THE EXISTENCE OF EVIL.

The jews, you see, are like canaries in the mine. Whenever some new violent evil appears on the world stage--Nazism, Communism, Islam--it tends to zero in on the jews FIRST. The jews were the first targets of nazi Germany, of the Communists in Russia, and now of Islam. As the jews go, so does the rest of the world: what the Nazis did to the jews, and what the Muslims want to do to them, is simply a "dress rehersal" of what they want to do to ALL their "enemies", e.g., all non-Aryans or all non-Muslims. And this, of course, is why they are evil movements.

But many "liberals" simply cannot accept it. They cannot accept that some people hate them merely because they exist, and want them all dead; they cannot accept that some people in the world could not care less for their human or other rights, and want to subdue them all. They deny the existence of evil. It is too horrible to contemplate, after all, that many muslims want them dead just because they aren't muslims, or that Hitler wants them all as slaves just because they aren't Aryans. Why can't we all get along?

THIS is what they want to deny. They can't stand it. So what is the solution? Blame it on the jews! For, if the Nazis', or Communists', or Muslims', hate of the jews can be seen, not as a warning sign for the rest of the world, BUT AS SOMETHING THE JEWS CAN BE BLAMED FOR, then--halleluyah!--we are off the hook. Evil doesn't really exist; it's not that the nazis, communists, or muslims are REALLY evil--it's just that they have "legitimate reasons" to hate the jews... and we are off the hook.

Sorry, guys. No matter how much you blame israel for it... evil DOES exist.

A fine post from a fine man....it bears repeating,...so here it is again.

I salute you Skeptic...you're a helluva smart guy.

-z

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by rikzilla


A fine post from a fine man....it bears repeating,...so here it is again.

I salute you Skeptic...you're a helluva smart guy.

-z

And I salute you Rick, this post was up to your usual standard.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by rikzilla


A fine post from a fine man....it bears repeating,...so here it is again.

I salute you Skeptic...you're a helluva smart guy.

-z
Hmmm, one side is "Evil" the other is not...One side is always to blame the other is not..... To criticise one side is racist but to critisize the other is not....

To Skeptic and all the other "black hats V white hats" brigade, as long as you are unable to address the fault on both sides of this farce (and there is MUCH blame on all sides) you will always continue to be part of the problem rather than any part of a solution.

Both sides rely on an army of unquestioning apologists to maintain their will to continue this crime...

[svero]

Originally posted by The Fool

Hmmm, one side is "Evil" the other is not...One side is always to blame the other is not..... To criticise one side is racist but to critisize the other is not....

To Skeptic and all the other "black hats V white hats" brigade, as long as you are unable to address the fault on both sides of this farce (and there is MUCH blame on all sides) you will always continue to be part of the problem rather than any part of a solution.

Both sides rely on an army of unquestioning apologists to maintain their will to continue this crime...

Now here's a post worth repeating.

- S

[American]

There's no way in hell I am reading all of that.

However, the few lines that I skimmed seemed dead-on. It's nothing I didn't already know, as Rush Limbaugh has been articulating those ideas for 15 years now, but it's nice to see you state the truth independently.

[demon]

"To Skeptic and all the other "black hats V white hats" brigade, as long as you are unable to address the fault on both sides of this farce (and there is MUCH blame on all sides) you will always continue to be part of the problem rather than any part of a solution."

I respect your comments and there is some truth to what you say here. However, as long as one side has the unquestioning moral and economic support of the world`s greatest superpower, and that superpower continues it`s penchant for vetoing UN resolutions concerning Israel`s actions in the occupied territories and elsewhere inspite of what the rest of the world community seems to think, then talking about who is part of the problem and who is part of the solution starts from a false premise.
One side has a huge advantage and one has to acknowledge that.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by American
There's no way in hell I am reading all of that.

However, the few lines that I skimmed seemed dead-on. It's nothing I didn't already know, as Rush Limbaugh has been articulating those ideas for 15 years now, but it's nice to see you state the truth independently.

So there you are Skeptic, you and Rush, speaking with one voice.

[Cleopatra]

Fool

As an Israeli who has served the Israeli Army ( that means I am a full citizen that has accepted the obligations apart from the privileges) sometimes I find amusing the way "foreigners" argue over our head :D

Seriously, the tone of those debates hurt me a lot :)

Cries and subtle comments from both sides.

I think that the West and the Arab world ( I mean apart from the Palestinian people) have found a battle field to clear their differencies and keep people distracted from other serious matters.

Have no doubt Fool.

Everytime I inform people that Israelis in Israel fight about Human Rights and Peace I get no response :)

I think that I destroy the image of the bloodthirsty Israeli :)

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Fool

As an Israeli who has served the Israeli Army ( that means I am a full citizen that has accepted the obligations apart from the privileges) sometimes I find amusing the way "foreigners" argue over our head :D

Everytime I inform people that Israelis in Israel fight about Human Rights and Peace I get no response :)



I have pointed out more than once that there are Israelis who are actively seeking peace.



I think that I destroy the image of the bloodthirsty Israeli :)

There are Israelis who are conscientious objectors to compulsory military service. From what I have read, the penalty for doing so is quite high.

Do you think that Israelis who do want peace should be obliged to be objectors? In your time in the IDF, were you obliged to obey orders that you felt were not ethical? Did they work you out and put you somewhere safe and out of the way where you couldn't get into any trouble?

I have heard first hand accounts of Israelis treating Palestinians like n**ers. Is this true? Are the checkpoints meant to be as much a form of harrassment and humiliation as a security device?

PS. I am not at all doubting your sincerity or intergrity on this issue. I am just curious about these questions.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Cain



This touches upon a point made in the thread on Finkelstein that relates to the Holocaust industry. I'm sure you're well aware that Hitler murdered nearly 12 million people, mostly Jews (the well-known six million figure). But whenever I hear about Hitler's atrocities, probably the worst in human history, we almost always hear only the six million figure. We're constantly reminded of it. So much so that now I hear people say Hitler killed six million people. Is that six million altogether?


I have explained in that thread why I don't accept the terms introduced by the "Finkelstein Industry".

If you keep addressing to me referring to Finkelstein I take it as an attempt to flame me and this stands for the other gentlemen that participate in those threads especially for those that are very dear to me....

Why exactly you blame Jews this time? Because they haven't taken up the obligation to speak on behalf of all the victims of The Holocaust?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


I have explained in that thread why I don't accept the terms introduced by the "Finkelstein Industry".

If you keep addressing to me referring to Finkelstein I take it as an attempt to flame me and this stands for the other gentlemen that participate in those threads especially for those that are very dear to me....

Why exactly you blame Jews this time? Because they haven't taken up the obligation to speak on behalf of all the victims of The Holocaust?

I think he is not angry at the Jews not speaking up on behalf of others, as much as the misrepresentation of the Holocaust. For example, Skeptics basic claim that the Jews are always attacked first, that is, when they fall it is a sign of trouble ahead, like the canaries dying in a mine. Finkelstein states that is just untrue, that Hitler went for the Communists first.

[Cleopatra]

The fact that you consider these questions difficult to be answered amuse me very much.

I will reply to them with no fear and passion as we say in court.


Originally posted by a_unique_person

I have pointed out more than once that there are Israelis who are actively seeking peace.

And they are the majority.

There are Israelis who are conscientious objectors to compulsory military service. From what I have read, the penalty for doing so is quite high.

In countries that the military service is obligatory ( Greece, Israel etc) those who refuse to serve are imprisoned.

I think that I have posted an article by the " The Nation" about this issue.

Do you think that Israelis who do want peace should be obliged to be objectors?

Of course. This is a duty to the country.Peace comes through War.

In your time in the IDF, were you obliged to obey orders that you felt were not ethical? Did they work you out and put you somewhere safe and out of the way where you couldn't get into any trouble?

I served the Airforce in the airport security I didn't serve in the occupied territories.

I have heard first hand accounts of Israelis treating Palestinians like n**ers. Is this true? Are the checkpoints meant to be as much a form of harrassment and humiliation as a security device?

The comparison is unfortunate. In the checkpoints the Palestinians are treated worse than those you mentioned I have posted that and this is an issue we strongly object but we get the usual reply; this is war and to tell you the truth, this is War indeed.

I am not at all doubting your sincerity or intergrity on this issue. I am just curious about these questions.

I am not afraid of truth, I think it's better to accept the bitter truth than trying to sugar coat the situation. As I have said many times we are not better than others but we are not worse as well.

[livius drusus]

First by posted by galiel here (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&postid=446492#post446492) and very much applicable to this thread:

"I have to laugh about this whole thread. It's better than crying, in any case.

I was there. I sat in a bomb shelter during the Yom Kippur War and I served in the military. I spent 6 months behind enemy lines. I spent 6 months in the occupied territories. I lost friends and ha near-misses with family members from terrorist attacks.

War is ugly. It is ugly on all sides. Trying to justify one side while demonizing the other side is simplistic and self-defeating.

To all the knee-jerk Israel supporters, I have seen the underbelly of the "heroic" Sabra, humiliating Arab women, spitting on Arab men, beating prisoners to death, stealing and pillaging Arab property, cheering when an artillery shell sends civilian villager bodies flying in the air. I witnessed the 20-year deliberate campaign to kill, exile and discredit the moderate, intellectual leadership that emerged after '67. This paved the way for Arafat to jump into the power vacuum. This was done by *labour* governments. I know first-hand what a megalomaniacal zealot Sharon is--it nearly cost me my life.

To all the knee-jerk Palestinian supporters, I have seen, with my own eyes, Fatah trainees strangle puppies with their bare hands to "toughen" them up for ax attacks on kibbutz nurseries, I have seen the effects of a pipe-bomb full of nails, I have seen booby-trapped cigarette boxed, children's dolls and buttons strewn around my high-school, which bordered the Green Line. I have seen Arafat neglect his people's social service needs while parading on the international stage, thus creating a vacuum into which the fundamentalist Hamas and Hezbollah have inserted themselves.

War is ugly. Any attempt to find exclusive virtue in one side or the other is misinformed, naive and counter-productive.

The fact is, both sides are held tight in the grip of extremists, and extremists control political, military and economic power on both sides.

People can live together; when I was growing up, I used to go to the Arab Quarter of the Old City in Jerusalem after school to haggle with the merchants and eat sweet honey,pistachio and cheese treats and drink coffee so thick your spoon stood up in it.

I returned to the same streets in military uniform, and saw the hatred, fear and distrust replace the friendliness of my youth.

Yes, Palestinian youth are taught to hate--as much by Israeli oppression as by fundamentalist propaganda. Israeli's are taught to hate as well--the saying "the only good Arab is a dead Arab" is commonly quoted without a hint of irony (it was originally said about Jews), and "dirty Arab" is said with the same stereotyping and bigotry that once enveloped the "dirty Jew" expression in Nazi Europe.

But, despite all that, the majority of reasonable people can live together. It is the extremists who make it impossible. And as long as neither side is willing to take the first step, nothing will change.

I must address two extreme falshoods here: one, that zionism has as a goal the control of all Palestine. That is factually incorrect. Only the religious zealots (called the "right" in Israel) make claim to a "greater Israel". The democratic socialists who built the country have no such interest.

Second, that Israel has never made any efforts for peace. Israel is a parliamentary republic, and it has experienced dramatic shifts in political power in the past 50 years. There is a dramatic polarization in Israel that is the result of 50 years of internal and external conflict, that has left few moderates and many extremists on either end. Israel is, most of all, a victim of the entanglement of government and religion, which has paralized the country since the days of Ben Gurion and his devil's pact with religious parties in order to form a majority.

As well, there are still reasonable people of exceptional integrity and courage on the Palestinian side, such as Saeb Arekat, Hanan Ashrawi and, yes, even Bargouti, currently in Israeli prison, who is a warrior but also a statesman, and, like Begin, could make peace just as easily as war, if it were in the best interest of his people.

We don't have much leverage on terrorists. But we do have leverage on Israel. SOmeone has to break the stalemate. Being "right" does not prevent one from being dead, maimed, or grieving the loss of loved ones. It's time to stop talking about who is "right" and to start using American leverage to get Israel to take the first steps--removing the zealots who created illegal settlements as deliberate barriers to peace. And, rather than playing the terrorists' game by suspedning peace talks whenever a bomb goes off, Israel should be pressured to redouble peace efforts, increase aid and relax restrictions each time terrorists attack. Fighting terror with peace is the only thing that will work, in the long run.

Meanwhile, Arab intellectuals should support the minority of voices in Palestine that have called for passive resistance and non-violent methods of fighting occupation. Every time an Israeli citizen is killed, there is less sympathy for the cause of freedom and self-determination. Rather than retaliating for Israel's brutality, Palestinians should redouble efforts to communicate, educate and reach out to Israelis.

This is too long, I know. But, after having lived through a couple of decades of this neverending ******** rhetoric in Israel, I hate to see the same old arguments going round and roung all over again with no one actually listening to the other side. This is as bad as evolution v. creationism, only the way folks are talking on this thread, it's like both sides are creationist zealots.

Common sense has shown the way out for generations. As people not caught up in the middle of the mess, we ought to exercise some common sense of our own, and stop the knee-jerk ideologically pure responses."

[Bluegill]

Originally posted by Mike B.



Is it because like your avatar Chomsky, victims are not important, victimizers are?


Oh! I thought his avatar was Norman Rockwell.

[Cleopatra]

Thanks for your message Livius.

It was interesting to read another account from the area, I think that I totally agree with you, I disagree to a couple of points that they are of minor importance.

I have posted about Marwan Barghoudi and Sari Nusseibeh in this forum as well but I didn't get a response just because those names aren't in the pre-canned information most people are parotting.

I have posted about Yossi Beilin and Abu Mazen months before the later becomes a PM... no response again :)

I am glad you posted your intersting account, it's important to have a variety of voices that have been in the area.

[Cain]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
[B]

Yup, it figures. You really are more concerned with the victimizers (the US) than the victims. It's probably fine for you if the US abstains from intervening against oppression, as long as we're not supporting it directly. So the crimes of Saddam deserve less outrage than the crimes of Israel, even though they are far more terrible and numerous. The support of oppression by other countries, such as France's support for various African dictators, don't matter either, as long as we're not doing it. The deaths of the innocent don't matter, as long as they don't get any tarnish on YOU. We just couldn't stand that, could we?


More of the same bullsh*t, I see.

Crimes perpetuated by my country, the United States, in my name, bear special responsibility. That's not at all to suggest or imply that crimes commissioned or supported by the United States are more evil. If I murder ten people with a sniper rifle, and someone else murders thirty with a chainsaw, the Chainsaw Massacrer has probably, all other things being equal, committed greater evil. But I'm hardly morally responsible in the same way. A more consistent analogy for your offensive accusations could probably involve the police chiefs of their respective districts dealing with these crimes, sniper and chainsaw victims. The fact a person dedicates their resources -- all of their resources in this case -- to apprehending the sniper in no way diminishes the atrocities of another serial killer.

The United States' invasion of Iraq will cost hundreds of billions of dollars. Hundreds of billions of dollars that could, for instance, have gone to aid for sub-saharan Africa, where millions die from preventable diseases and illness. Of course we also bear responsibility for things we can prevent. This point has been consistently made in my posting history. I think Howard Zinn phrased it succinctly: "You can't remain neutral on a moving train."

If you want to get personal -- and it appeares that you do -- someone earlier mentioned that 3.3 million had died in the Congo. According to the Amnesty International Action alert our chapter of AI received two weeks ago, it was 3.5 million, and 500,000 others displaced. Now did I refuse to help write and sign the letter because my government was not directly involved?

F*ck You.

[Tricky]

Thank you very much livius drusus. It is quite a relief to hear a reasoned voice from someone who has actual first-hand, long-term experience with this issue, and who does not feel the need to revile posters of either side.

That was a very informative post. I hope you will continue to contribute.

(But looking at your link, I have to ask if you are Galiel on the Infidels board. If not, you should at least place the post in quotes. Still it is worth seeing.)

[Cleopatra]

Livius Drusus is Livius Drusus, he is quoting another poster :)

If I am not mistaken he has posted this message before in this forum unless I read it in "Infidels."

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Livius Drusus is Livius Drusus, he is quoting another poster :)

If I am not mistaken he has posted this message before in this forum unless I read it in "Infidels."

Why would Galileal be banned?

[JamesM]

Originally posted by Luke T.

It is a dirty little secret that the first actual use of the word "holocaust" against the Jews was in England. In the 11th or 12th century, I think.
There is an article about pre-WWII uses of the word 'holocaust' here (http://www.berkeleyinternet.com/holocaust/). From that site:
"Londonie immolare Iudeos ... potuerit holocaustum." (c. 1200 - The Chronicle of Richard of Devizes (ed. J. T. Appelby, 1963), p. 3 -- See below for translation.)

"On the very day of the coronation [3 September 1189] ... a sacrifice of the Jews to their father the devil was commenced in the city of London ... the holocaust could scarcely be accomplished the ensuring day." (Chronicles of the Crusades (1848), p. 3 -- a translation of the Latin partially quoted above

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Why would Galileal be banned?

Pardon me?

Don't ask me about things that have to do with "Infidels". Maybe I wasn't clear. Livius re-posted here a message that was originally posted in "Infidels".

James

The "heretic" Sefardic Community of Thessaloniki, suggested that the Jews must stop using the word Holocaust to refer to the genocide because it means purification through the sacrifice ...

I always had the idea that the word Holocaust could be found in the Bible, I just checked and I didn't find anything, probably I was mistaken...

[Larspeart]

I am conservative, and I oppose the formation of Isreal. I believe that it was illegal and morally reprehensible to do to the palastinians. Now, I also disagree 100% with how the maniac PLO (and all of it's dozens of terrorist branches) are trying to 'get it back'.

The US, Britain, and the UN had no freaking right to decide to just dump a country on top of another country, they deprive the existing citizens of said first country immediate citizenship in the new one.

Now, it is too darn late to do anything except knee-jerk reactions. You can't very well kick the jews out, and the jews and muslims OBVIOUSLY can't seem to get along, so what do you do? Frankly, I have no clue. All I can say is 'we shouldn't have done it in the 1st place' but that kind of state ment solves nothing and gets us no where.

/sigh

I personally favor a full pull-out of US interests. at least those which are US-Government sanctioned. If private charities and interests what to help them out, fine. The US government has made enough of a mess over there already, and needs to get the hell out.

[JamesM]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
The "heretic" Sefardic Community of Thessaloniki, suggested that the Jews must stop using the word Holocaust to refer to the genocide because it means purification through the sacrifice ...
Are they 'heretics' because of that suggestion? I thought I'd seen that argument about the inappropriate meaning of 'holocaust' in other Jewish sources.

I always had the idea that the word Holocaust could be found in the Bible, I just checked and I didn't find anything, probably I was mistaken...
According to the article I linked to earlier, it can be found, sort of:
the word "holocaust" is not to be found anywhere in the King James Bible. The Hebrew olah is translated as "burnt offering(s)" or "burnt sacrifice(s)" in the King James Bible. (10) A check of concordances and a sampling of representative passages show that all of the principal Protestant and Jewish English-language Bibles of the last few centuries translate olah as "burnt offering(s)" or some very similar expression. [...] (It should be noted, however, that Catholic Bibles do translate olah/olot as "holocaust"

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by JamesM
Are they 'heretics' because of that suggestion? I thought I'd seen that argument about the inappropriate meaning of 'holocaust' in other Jewish sources.

I was joking. They call themselves heretics because they oppose to the majority of Jewry in almost everything, they do not let themselves to forget :)

Yes, there is a minority that points out that the word is totally unappropriate because of the Biblical reference, they think that "sacrifice" is an insult to the victims of the genocide. To what and why did they sacrifice themselves?

I agree of course.

According to the article I linked to earlier, it can be found, sort of:


Yes, I am reading it now, thank you, it's very interesting.

[LW]

Originally posted by Skeptic
As we all know, this forum has quite a few people who are strongly opposed to israel's existence.

There probably are much less them than what you think. Remember that if someone criticizes Israel for any reason that doesn't imply that they want see Israel destroyed and all Jews killed.

I find that you write intelligent and thoughtful posts on most subjects, but sometimes your posts make me wonder on what planet you live when you are in Arab/Israeli relation threads.

For example, once you posted something along the line: "you can't join European liberals if you don't want all Jews killed." And that with absolute certainty: all European liberals want all Jews killed. That claim is so absurd that I don't know how to answer it.

I think that I've understood the point that you are trying to argue. I believe that you are saying that if Israel adopts the peaceful policies that some peace-protester wants them to adopt, then Palestinian terrorists can kill Jews with impunity and Arab states will destroy Israel. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I'd be willing to wager a large sum of money that most Middle-East peace activists don't want that. They want that everybody lives in blissful harmony, singing happy songs together. If you say that they are naive idiots who don't know anything about how the real world works, then feel free to do so, I won't object (well, at least I won't object much). But if you claim that they really want a new Holocaust, you'd better provide some evidence for it.

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by svero

I was referring to his forced resignation as minister of defense after an Israeli investigation found him indirectly responsible for the massacres at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps in 1982.

Lebanese Christians killed Palestinians in these massacres. Israel's prime minister at the time, Menachem Begin, acidly noted that "Goyim kill goyim, and the Jews get blamed."

[livius drusus]

Cleopatra is correct. Galiel was an IIDB poster not myself. I considered putting it in quotes but it struck me as so large that it would be awkward in a quote box, so I simply attributed it to him in my introductory sentence. I see my minimalist approach was confusing (and possibly unfair to galiel who deserves all the credit for his extraordinary eloquence about his life experience), so I will take Tricky's advice and edit my post to include good ol' fashioned quotation marks.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
David

You will be pleased to know that those issues do not pass unnoticed by the Israeli citizens.

The issue of citizenship is a serious one and all of us that strongly believe in the Principles that are articulated in the the Declaration of Independance of Israel, fight to defend the Rights of the Palestinian fellow citizens through The Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI).

The Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI). (http://www.acri.org.il/english-acri/engine/index.asp)



I think that there is a basis for hope in Irael, and the middle east. There is alos a peace faction in Israel, which gets little coverage. I wonder if there are palestinian peace groups?

Thank you Cleo, I did not mean to condemn all Israeli's for the action of thier government.

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by LW


There probably are much less them than what you think. Remember that if someone criticizes Israel for any reason that doesn't imply that they want see Israel destroyed and all Jews killed.

I find that you write intelligent and thoughtful posts on most subjects, but sometimes your posts make me wonder on what planet you live when you are in Arab/Israeli relation threads.

For example, once you posted something along the line: "you can't join European liberals if you don't want all Jews killed." And that with absolute certainty: all European liberals want all Jews killed. That claim is so absurd that I don't know how to answer it.

I think that I've understood the point that you are trying to argue. I believe that you are saying that if Israel adopts the peaceful policies that some peace-protester wants them to adopt, then Palestinian terrorists can kill Jews with impunity and Arab states will destroy Israel. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I'd be willing to wager a large sum of money that most Middle-East peace activists don't want that. They want that everybody lives in blissful harmony, singing happy songs together. If you say that they are naive idiots who don't know anything about how the real world works, then feel free to do so, I won't object (well, at least I won't object much). But if you claim that they really want a new Holocaust, you'd better provide some evidence for it. This post deserves repetition. Perhaps if repeated often enough, Skeptic will understand.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by BPSCG

Lebanese Christians killed Palestinians in these massacres. Israel's prime minister at the time, Menachem Begin, acidly noted that "Goyim kill goyim, and the Jews get blamed."

Begin said that??:eek:

Right!

[livius drusus]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Thanks for your message Livius.

It was interesting to read another account from the area, I think that I totally agree with you, I disagree to a couple of points that they are of minor importance.

I have posted about Marwan Barghoudi and Sari Nusseibeh in this forum as well but I didn't get a response just because those names aren't in the pre-canned information most people are parotting.

Canned information is a dead-on description. Many people have become accustomed to repeating certain themes on global issues based solely on what makes sense to them, what fits in with what they already believe. Painting entire populations with one black or white brush is not only intrinsically inaccurate, but it only feeds the polarization monster which keeps people from seeing each other as human beings.

What I love most about galiel's post is how rich it is in human understanding without naivete or pollyannaishness.

I have posted about Yossi Beilin and Abu Mazen months before the later becomes a PM... no response again :)

I am glad you posted your intersting account, it's important to have a variety of voices that have been in the area.

I have read with fascination many of your detailed expositions of the realities of politics and life in the Middle East. The fact that they don't get responses is, imo, a sad testimony to the focus on ideological abstractions and depersonalization that characterizes the discussion of this topic. (And to the fact that I don't come by very often.)

In general I find that most Americans tend towards a rather rudimentary and U.S.-centric knowledge of world affairs. The names and places sort of melt into each other until it's one big amorphous and unpalatable stew. Then the celebrity deathmatches, Arafat v. Sharon, Hamas v. IDF, whatever v. whatever, come to define the millions of different people and circumstances in the region.

IMO, grasping nuance, coming to an understanding that nobody is just one thing, is an enormous first step towards unravelling this Gordian knot without resorting to Alexander's solution.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Ed


Non-violent protest and first class PR. They lost the moral high ground for the ephemeral joy of seeing dead Jews.

They should have glommed onto Ghandi and King as symbols, thus confounding Jewish liberals in the States. They should have wrapped themselves in the banner of pacificsim and co-opted every living symbol of same.


Originally posted by a_unique_person


Many have tried this. They were ignored, or killed or jailed. Look at what happened to Rachael Corrie. Skeptic thinks that was her fault.

There are a couple of large differences between the 'pacificist' movements in Palestine/Israel, and those of Ghandi/King/etc.

- In Ghandi/King/etc., the pacificists formed a very large segment of the dissent. (There may have been those advocating change by violent means, but they did not overwhelm the non-violence advocates. However, a majority of Palestinians don't support non-voilent means. In such an environment, those advocating non-violence are ignored (especially by the palestinians themselves), simply because far too much effort needs to be taken up handling those who prefer voilence

- Many of those advocating 'non-violence' end up indirectly supporting terrorism (even if they themselves did not engage in the violence). Ghandi did not have his people protest outside the offices of bomb makers; however, groups like the ISM are quite happy to let themselves be used as human shields to protect Palestinian terrorist activities.

[Cleopatra]

Livius Drusus :

Just one comment. It's really hard not to become a fanatic. It takes a lot of effort not to let yourself be driven by emotions and fear.

Now tell me. Is this Collosseum in your avatar? Collosseum under the moonlight?

[livius drusus]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Livius Drusus :

Just one comment. It's really hard not to become a fanatic. It takes a lot of effort not to let yourself be driven by emotions and fear.Very true. Fanaticism is an understandable (if regrettable) consequence of living in the perpetual fear of a warzone. Armchair fanaticism, otoh, a thousand miles and life experiences away from the battle, is not so readily excused.

Now tell me. Is this Collosseum in your avatar? Collosseum under the moonlight? It is indeed. Under a a lunar eclipse to be specific. La mia bella Roma, Caput Mundi.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


I was joking. They call themselves heretics because they oppose to the majority of Jewry in almost everything, they do not let themselves to forget :)

Yes, there is a minority that points out that the word is totally unappropriate because of the Biblical reference, they think that "sacrifice" is an insult to the victims of the genocide. To what and why did they sacrifice themselves?

I agree of course.


You are sounding more and more like Finkelstein everyday. (A much polite version, though).

[Skeptic]

Hmmm, one side is "Evil" the other is not...

Indeed so. One side--the palestinians--is advocating genocide. That's evil. The other--israel--is trying to survive. That isn't evil.

Now, that was simple, wasn't it?

This of course doesn't mean israel is perfect or blameless--but there is a difference between "not perfect" and "evil"; for example, in the goals (annihilation vs. survival) and methods (trying to kill the enemy leaders vs. trying to kill the enemy's babies), etc. Eisenhower and Roosevelt weren't perfect. Churchill wasn't perfect. But Hitler was evil.

You are, I am afraid, exemplifying my point about being "evil blind": for you, it is always the case that either both sides are "evil" (making the term meaningless in the context) or both sides are "not evil" and somehow perfectly legitimate (making the term inapplicable).

You simply cannot believe that, sometimes--not always--it IS a case of (relative and imperfect) good versus the forces of evil. In fact, you consider the very suggestion to be absurd--which is exactly your problem, as said above. Hitler was one case of evil. Arafat another. Bin Laden a third.

Summarized in two sentences, my claim and your reply are:

Me: "The problem is, some people cannot recognize evil."
You: "No it isn't! Evil doesn't exist!".

I rest my case.

[a_unique_person]

You are incapable of advanced analytical thought.

I rest my case.

[livius drusus]

Skeptic, you are aware that not every Palestinian is in Hamas, right? When you say the Palestinian "side" is evil and seeks the eradication of Israel, you dismiss every moderate, every pacifist, every person who doesn't give a rat's ass either way and would just like to live her life in peace. When you say the Israeli "side" is only defending itself with honor, you dismiss every religious zealot, every sadist, every person who has suffered so much all he wants is revenge.

There aren't just two sides here. Outside of videogames there never is.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


You are sounding more and more like Finkelstein everyday. (A much polite version, though).

Since you knew that I'd read this in the morning while driking coffee why did you post it? Now I need a new monitor and maybe a keyboard....


Livius, the avatar of "tua bella Roma" brought up many memories :)

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Hmmm, one side is "Evil" the other is not...


Summarized in two sentences, my claim and your reply are:

Me: "The problem is, some people cannot recognize evil."
You: "No it isn't! Evil doesn't exist!".

I rest my case.

You blatantly misrepresent my position. Evil doesn't exist? Is this deliberate misrepresentation or just plain ignorance? How many times do I have to tell you my view is that there is Evil on all sides of this farce? Branding any people as "all evil" is simple bigotry, something you love to accuse other of.....There I've said it again, you can misrepresent it again if you like, as you do to most other posts you disagree with.

I am sick of restating my case. I'm also sick of you attributing bizzare positions to me and other posters..... Lastly I would suggest you change your name from "skeptic" to "Skeptic, except about anything said by Israeli apologists"

[a_unique_person]

The only reasonable explanation I can come up with is that Skeptic is evil.

[crackmonkey]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


'EVIL' belongs where it was created, with the other myths of "The Demon Haunted World". It is a concept who's time has long gone.

[a_unique_person]

Taking too much crack, Mr. Monkey. Can't you recognise sarcasm when you see it.

[crackmonkey]

My point was that YOU posted the 'evil doesn't exist' comment (or a close facsimile thereof), and Skeptic contrasted your stance with his. Fool somehow thought Skeptic was talking to him, and so accused him of all kinds of silliness.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Hmmm, one side is "Evil" the other is not...

Indeed so. One side--the palestinians--is advocating genocide. That's evil. The other--israel--is trying to survive. That isn't evil.

Now, that was simple, wasn't it?

This of course doesn't mean israel is perfect or blameless--but there is a difference between "not perfect" and "evil"; for example, in the goals (annihilation vs. survival) and methods (trying to kill the enemy leaders vs. trying to kill the enemy's babies), etc. Eisenhower and Roosevelt weren't perfect. Churchill wasn't perfect. But Hitler was evil.

You are, I am afraid, exemplifying my point about being "evil blind": for you, it is always the case that either both sides are "evil" (making the term meaningless in the context) or both sides are "not evil" and somehow perfectly legitimate (making the term inapplicable).

You simply cannot believe that, sometimes--not always--it IS a case of (relative and imperfect) good versus the forces of evil. In fact, you consider the very suggestion to be absurd--which is exactly your problem, as said above. Hitler was one case of evil. Arafat another. Bin Laden a third.

Summarized in two sentences, my claim and your reply are:

Me: "The problem is, some people cannot recognize evil."
You: "No it isn't! Evil doesn't exist!".

I rest my case.

Skeptic,
It's not that they don't believe evil exists...hey, Jews exist, therefore in AUP's world that fact is incontrovertable evidence of evil.

No, it's their desire to see everything else in shades of gray. That's all well and good because most arguments do exist in gray areas between good and bad...however, the need to seek out the ambiguous gray instead of the blackest gray causes these so called liberals to seize up. They become unable to take any decision because they are focused on the ambiguous.

Well sure, there are Palestinians that likely don't even believe in Allah, and would just as soon live in peace with Jewish folk...but do such people make up the majority? Sadly they do not. The majority of Palestinians act just as Skeptic described. He took great pains to say that Israel is not blameless...and yet many of you take him to task for seeing "EVIL" in the Palestinian's embrace of suicidal terror.

That's a shame,....you guys are some of the smartest folks on the internet, yet somehow you have become incapable to telling right from wrong and good from evil. Simple concepts that seem to be beyond your grasp. IMHO you are destined to be disappointed all your lives...because the rest of us will never rise to this advanced form of intellectual stupidity.

There were guys I knew in the Army that said that it's possible to drink yourself sober....I've never achieved such a feat....but I do believe that we have seen some of you guys actually think yourselves stupid. Hey the evidence is all around us! :rolleyes:

-z

[LW]

Originally posted by rikzilla
The majority of Palestinians act just as Skeptic described.

The real majority or a majority as in "The Moral Majority"?

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by LW


The real majority or a majority as in "The Moral Majority"?

You know, I wondered just how many palestinians supported violence against Israel. So, I did a quick search...

See:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0705/p01s03-wome.html
(Christian science monitor, not a 'mainstream' news source, but they point to various polls which put support between 52% and 72%)

http://www.manilatimes.net/national/2003/may/06/opinion/20030506opi4.html (Probably a little less biased than CS monitor, they point out support at 'up to' 70%, with around 30% support for the more radical Hamas and another 30% for Arafat's group)

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,51348,00.html (Opinion polls showing support at around 70%)

Now, that's for suisice bombings. I don't know how that compares with the people who favour other violent means (attacks against soldiers only, etc.) But, at this current time, it appears as if the majority of Palestinians do support terrorist bombings.

[livius drusus]

Originally posted by Skeptic
One side--the palestinians--is advocating genocide.

Originally posted by rikzilla
Well sure, there are Palestinians that likely don't even believe in Allah, and would just as soon live in peace with Jewish folk...but do such people make up the majority? Sadly they do not. The majority of Palestinians act just as Skeptic described.

I would like to see evidence of this assertion, please. Is there a study indicating that the majority of Palestinians wish to destroy Israel and kill all Israeli jews? By majority do you mean 51% or 99.99%? How have you and Skeptic come to this conclusion? From what I've read, it seems his sources are the utterings of Hamas and a handful of (frequently self-appointed) political leaders, not any kind of on the ground examination of Palestinian attitudes.

Finally, even if there were evidence that most Palestinians are just a few weapons deals away from genocide, accuracy still requires the use of qualifiers such as "the majority" or "most" instead of the kind of blanket coverage you and Skeptic have employed.

[livius drusus]

Originally posted by Segnosaur
Now, that's for suisice bombings. I don't know how that compares with the people who favour other violent means (attacks against soldiers only, etc.) But, at this current time, it appears as if the majority of Palestinians do support terrorist bombings.

Thank you for your research, Segnosaur. I would submit that since even taking the most evil case scenario polls as accurate 30% of Palestinians do not support suicide bombings, one might be hard pressed to claim that Palestinians as a whole support outright genocide, which is the assertion Skeptic has repeatedly made on this thread to support his contention that the Palestinian side is evil.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by livius drusus

Thank you for your research, Segnosaur.

You're welcome.

Originally posted by livius drusus

I would submit that since even taking the most evil case scenario polls as accurate 30% of Palestinians do not support suicide bombings, one might be hard pressed to claim that Palestinians as a whole support outright genocide, which is the assertion Skeptic has repeatedly made on this thread to support his contention that the Palestinian side is evil.

I just wanted to point out a couple of thngs (both for and against Israel and the Palestinians)

- Just because a Palestinian supports suicide bombing, it does not necessarily mean they support genocide. They could simply view it as a means to an end. (They may be happy with the Jews, as long as they were somewhere else...)
- However, that does not necessarily make the Palestinian who supports bombing (but doesn't support genocide) a good person. I still think such a person is evil, but it an evil person with different goals.
- Although some Palestinians may reject non-violent means, when we think of Palestinian attitudes or policies, we have to go with what the majority believe in (or at least what their overall activities indicate). For example, there may have been some nazis who didn't support the killing of jews; however, that does not mean that naziism was not 'evil'; it simply meant that some people who were identified with that group did not support the group's policies.

[livius drusus]

Originally posted by Segnosaur
I just wanted to point out a couple of thngs (both for and against Israel and the Palestinians)

- Just because a Palestinian supports suicide bombing, it does not necessarily mean they support genocide. They could simply view it as a means to an end. (They may be happy with the Jews, as long as they were somewhere else...)

Agreed. I would even add that they could even be happy living side by side with them as long as they had equal rights. Such a position is really not unheard of on either side of the (now literal) fence. Some examples of cooperative organizations are:
Bat Shalom (http://www.batshalom.org/english/batshalom/index.html)
Coalition of Women for Peace (http://www.coalitionofwomen4peace.org/)
Ta'ayush - Arab Jewish Partnership (http://taayush.tripod.com/new/index-temp.html)
Bustan (http://www.bustanlshalom.org/vision/)

There are many, many more.

- However, that does not necessarily make the Palestinian who supports bombing (but doesn't support genocide) a good person. I still think such a person is evil, but it an evil person with different goals.

I don't think harbouring despicable or evil beliefs necessarily makes a person evil. In my experience people are never just one thing.

- Although some Palestinians may reject non-violent means, when we think of Palestinian attitudes or policies, we have to go with what the majority believe in (or at least what their overall activities indicate).

As I said above, it is neither necessary nor accurate to paint an entire people with one ideological brush. A simple qualifier will suffice. Beyond that, "overall activities" tends to be virtually indistinguishable from "noisiest and bloodiest activities" particularly if one is dependent on US news sources which focus on bloodshed as a matter of course.

For example, there may have been some nazis who didn't support the killing of jews; however, that does not mean that naziism was not 'evil'; it simply meant that some people who were identified with that group did not support the group's policies.

That is a false analogy. Palestinian is not a political ideology like Naziism. It is an ethnicity and as such encompasses a variety of ideologies. Calling Naziism, which holds as a central tenet the extermination of European Jews, evil is not the same thing as calling Palestinians, a group of people with divergent beliefs, evil.

[renata]

Just thought I would post excerpts from this report by Human Rights Watch. Seemed relevant.

Emphasis mine throughout.


http://www.hrw.org/reports/2002/isrl-pa/


This is not the first time that Palestinian armed groups have used suicide bombings to target Israeli civilians, although the scale and intensity of the current wave of attacks is unprecedented. Between September 1993 and the outbreak of the latest clashes between Palestinians and Israelis in late September 2000, Palestinian groups carried out fourteen suicide bombing attacks against Israeli civilians, mostly in 1996-97, killing more than 120 and wounding over 550. 12 Hamas said it committed most of the attacks; Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for the others.

The PA responded by detaining hundreds of Hamas and Islamic Jihad members and supporters, but they were not charged or brought to trial in connection with the bombings. Following these detentions, the bombings ceased. Many of the detainees, however, were released from PA custody once the clashes between Palestinians and Israelis resumed in September 2000. Coincidentally or not, the new round of suicide bombings began within a few months, again under the auspices of Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

....

For Hamas and Islamic Jihad, the stated goal is the creation of a Palestinian Islamist state comprising not only the West Bank and Gaza Strip, but also the entire territory over which Israel has held sovereignty since 1948. The PFLP also calls for a Palestinian state encompassing Israel, though not an Islamist one. By contrast, the nationalist agenda of the al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades calls for establishing Palestinian rule over the territories of the West Bank and Gaza Strip and for freeing those territories from Israeli military occupation.
...


Palestinian officials, while denouncing the attacks on Israeli civilians, implicitly sought to justify them by pointing to the provocative impact of incidents such as an alleged Israeli booby-trap bomb that killed five young boys in Khan Yunis on November 22, 2001. "Everyone should realize that atrocities lead to atrocities," said Nabil Sha'ath, the PA minister of planning and international cooperation. "This is the inevitable outcome of the accumulation of atrocities committed by the Israeli army against our civilians, the humiliation, the torment, the unmitigated persecution," Sha'ath said.51

...

Public officials, because of the political authority they embody, should never legitimize attacks on civilians. Yet political leaders have made statements that appear to endorse attacks against civilians, both within the Occupied Territories and externally. These span the range from ambiguity to outright support, and undermine other statements condemning attacks against civilians.85 Political leaders such as President Arafat have repeatedly praised "martyrs," without distinguishing between those who die as victims of attacks or while attacking military targets and those who intentionally die in the course of a deliberate attack against civilians.86 Yasir Abed Rabbo, the PA minister of culture and information, reportedly defended the use of the term "martyr" with reference to suicide bombers. "You can call him a shahid and denounce what he does politically," he said.87

Other officials have expressed more unequivocal support for attacks on civilians. On April 10, 2002, PA Cabinet Secretary-General Ahmad `Abd al-Rahman described that day's attack on a Haifa bus as a "natural response to what is taking place in Palestinian camps."88 Six weeks later, `Abd al-Rahman described suicide bombings in an interview with the Qatar-based satellite television station al-Jazeera as "the highest form of national struggle. There is no argument about that."89

....

Apologetic statements by public officials have also been accompanied by the broadcast of incendiary statements on publicly funded television. There were several recorded instances of such broadcasts on the official PA television channel in 2001, particularly in the broadcasts of weekly Friday prayer sermons. Among these were the live broadcasts of Shaikh Ibrahim Ma`adi delivering sermons from a Gaza mosque on June 8, 2001, and again on August 3, 2001. "Blessed are the people who strap bombs onto their bodies or those of their sons," Ma'adi said on the first of these occasions. On the second, he explicitly called for bombings in Tel Aviv, Hadera, Ashkelon, and other Israeli cities, adding:

The Jews have bared their teeth. They have said what they have said and done what they have done. And they will not be deterred except by the color of the blood of their filthy people. They will not be deterred unless we willingly and voluntarily blow ourselves up among them.93

In the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, such statements constitute incitement to crimes against humanity. Under international criminal law, the PA has a responsibility to ensure they are neither broadcast nor published, and should bring to justice those who make them.
.....

Willful killing, that is, intentionally causing the death of civilians, and "willfully causing great suffering or serious injury" when wounding victims, are war crimes.124 Persons who commit, order, or condone war crimes are individually liable under international humanitarian law for their crimes.
.....


Many Palestinians interviewed by Human Rights Watch said attacks on civilians were their only weapon with which to respond to repeated IDF use of tanks, attack helicopters, missiles, and warplanes.

Many conflicts, whether internal or international, take place between parties with radically differing means at their disposal. This is true of almost all wars that could potentially qualify under Additional Protocol I, article 4(1) as wars of national liberation, where one party frequently has vastly more sophisticated technical and military means than the other. Yet Protocol I reaffirms that all the basic rules of international humanitarian law still apply in those circumstances. Indeed, such a practice would be an exception that would virtually swallow the rules of international humanitarian law, since most wars are between forces of unequal means. The prohibition against intentional attacks against civilians is absolute. It cannot be justified by reference to a disparity of power between opposing forces.

....

Most perpetrators of suicide bombing attacks have been young men aged eighteen to twenty-four. At least three bombings, however, have been carried out by children-persons under the age of eighteen.

...

On June 28, 2002, an Israeli military court sentenced a sixteen-year-old boy to life imprisonment after he was apprehended in an attempt to blow himself up on or near a bus. At his sentencing, the boy said he had been "deceived" by Hamas into participating in the unsuccessful attack.249 Islamic Jihad acknowledged that to perpetrate a bombing on June 9, 2002 at Megiddo Junction, its members taught Hamza Samudi to drive; his age has been given variously as sixteen, seventeen, and nineteen.250

The participation, acknowledgment, and acceptance of the use of children to perpetrate suicide bombings have continued despite widespread Palestinian unease with such tactics. This unease intensified in April 2002 following three separate incidents in the Gaza Strip in which several Palestinian boys between the ages of fourteen and sixteen were killed as they charged the perimeter of an Israeli settlement armed with knives and crude pipe bombs.

...

There have been several reports of segments on PA television that explicitly encourage children to take part in clashes with Israeli forces and extol the virtues of martyrdom.

...

On August 26, 2002, the Palestinian Journalists Syndicate called on Palestinian armed factions to stop using children, and declared that it was "absolutely forbidden" for photojournalists to take pictures of children carrying weapons or taking part in militant activities. The statement said that footage of armed children served "the interests of Israel and its propaganda against the Palestinian people." Tawfiq Abu Khousa, deputy chair of the syndicate, said, "We have decided to forbid taking any footage of armed children, because we consider that as a clear violation of the rights of children and for negative effects these pictures have on the Palestinian people."3

It is the encouragement of children to carry weapons and take part in armed activity that is wrong, not media coverage of these activities.

...

Syria has consistently refused to take steps to limits its assistance to armed Palestinian groups that perpetrate suicide attacks. It claims that such groups are engaged in legitimate resistance against occupation but makes no effort to disassociate itself from attacks on civilians, in clear violation of international humanitarian law.32

....
The government of Iraq has expressly endorsed and encouraged suicide bombing attacks against civilians. Iraq, in its provision of funds to families of "martyrs" and others, has established a differential in which families of suicide bombing operatives are said to receive a considerably larger sum of $25,000, while other families that have suffered a death receive $10,000.33 In promoting suicide attacks, Iraqi leaders have made no distinction between attacks against civilians and attacks against military targets.
....


Among the PA documents captured by the IDF in April-May 2002 are records relating to payments from the Saudi Arabian Committee for Support of the Intifada al-Quds, headed by the Saudi Arabian Interior Minister, to the Tulkarem Charity Committee.53 Under the arrangement, all payments or distributions were made on the basis of information supplied by "Palestinian elements," and were arranged through some fourteen local charity committees, many of which had links to Hamas.54 Each charity committee made payments or distributed food to the needy, and also gave both lump-sum and ongoing payments to families of individuals killed, injured, or imprisoned in the intifada, including the families of individuals from Hamas or other armed groups who had carried out suicide attacks against civilians.55 The PA strenuously objected on the grounds that it was designed to undercut its authority, but not because the payments were rewarding attacks on civilians.

....

One of the most contested questions in the debate about Palestinian suicide attacks on Israeli civilians is what, if any, role has been played by the Palestinian Authority and specifically, President Arafat. Israel charges that the PA has ordered and systematically participated in "terror," a term it applies to all armed activity against Israeli targets, whether military or civilian. It holds the PA responsible every time an attack occurs. The PA denies having any role in attacks against civilians.

The PA, under the terms of the Oslo Accords, assumed law enforcement responsibilities for those areas of the West Bank and Gaza Strip under its control-namely, the major cities and Palestinian population clusters, amounting at the time of the outbreak of clashes in September 2000 to approximately 26 percent of the West Bank and 60 percent of the Gaza Strip.62 The PA thus has had an obligation to take all available and effective measures consistent with international human rights and humanitarian law to prevent suicide or other attacks against civilians by the armed groups operating from these areas.

Human Rights Watch found that there were steps that the PA could have taken to prevent or deter such attacks, but that it remained unwilling to risk the political cost of acting decisively. The PA routinely failed to investigate, arrest and prosecute persons believed to be responsible for these attacks, and did not take credible steps to reprimand, discipline, or bring to justice those members of its own security services who, in violation of declared PA policy, participated in such attacks. In addition, although President Arafat repeatedly condemned suicide attacks against civilians, he consistently failed to insist that terms of honor and respect such as "martyr"-which Palestinians use to designate persons who have died or suffered grave loss in clashes with Israeli forces or settlers-should not apply to people who die in the course of carrying out indiscriminate attacks against civilians.

....
The PA's failure to act in an effective and consistent manner against Palestinian attacks on civilians contributed to an atmosphere of impunity, allowing the armed groups to conclude that there would be no serious consequence for those who planned or carried out attacks that amounted to war crimes, and in the cases of suicide bombings, crimes against humanity. This failure reflects a high degree of political responsibility on the part of President Arafat and the PA leadership for the many civilian deaths that have resulted.

...

As the spiral of violence wound tighter, the Palestinian Authority continued to condemn publicly armed attacks that deliberately targeted civilians but, except for a brief period from mid-December 2001 to mid-January 2002, took no clear or credible actions to prevent such attacks or to punish those responsible.

...

Although the PA's legal governing authority derives from the Oslo Accords signed with Israel, the duty to prevent systematic indiscriminate attacks against civilians is not contingent on Israeli compliance with those accords or rendered null by what the PA regards as Israeli violations of the accords. That duty should not be a bargaining chip whose implementation is subject to political negotiations. As the political authority in place, the PA has a responsibility to bring to justice individuals who order, plan, or carry out attacks against civilians. The PA has failed to meet this obligation.

When the PA made arrests, they were often indiscriminate, picking up supporters of one or another militant group without regard to any alleged responsibility for the serious crimes being committed in the name of that group. Instead of being investigated, detained suspects were typically held without charge and later released. The PA has explained these releases as a response to the danger posed by Israeli bombings of places of detention, but it has not tried to explain why suspects were not investigated, charged, or brought to trial.

PA officials also claim that Israeli actions, such as the destruction of PA police and security installations, have undermined the PA's capacity to act. However, the record indicates that the PA for the most part did not attempt to exercise its capacity to prevent or punish such crimes even when it had the ability to do so.
...


In the first weeks of the clashes, the PA released numerous detainees, most of them members of Hamas and Islamic Jihad, some of whom had been in PA detention without charge or trial for several years.78 According to press reports, the first releases took place on October 4, 2000, when twelve Hamas detainees were released from Gaza Central Prison. Subsequent releases occurred over the following week. A PA security official in Gaza claimed that by mid-October the PA had "begun to re-arrest them."79 In Nablus, fourteen of the thirty-five who had been released reportedly responded to a summons to turn themselves back in.80 Hamas political leader `Abd al-`Aziz al-Rantisi was rearrested on October 18 and released again on December 26, 2000, at the end of Ramadan.81

The Islamic Jihad organization has cited these releases as a factor contributing to the group's ability to carry out attacks against Israeli targets.
...

Some of the detainees released at the beginning of the uprising, as well as other armed militants and political critics of the PA, were re-detained and re-released periodically during 2001. Some were formally arrested and, beginning in late October 2001, the PA started using administrative detention orders to detain suspects. Individuals known to be leaders of groups responsible for attacks against civilians nevertheless continued to operate openly in the West Bank and Gaza Strip-in the case of Bethlehem-area al-Aqsa Brigades leader Atef Abayat, even when technically under "house arrest."

...

In mid-April 2001, the PA confirmed that it had released Muhammad Deyf, imprisoned since 1996 for his role in the Hamas suicide bomb attacks in February of that year, although officials insisted he remained under their control in "a safe place where he cannot be reached by the Israeli authorities."86 No such pretenses were made when Deyf narrowly escaped death in an Israeli rocket attack targeting him as he traveled by car in Gaza city on September 26, 2002.87

...

Those measures taken by the PA to limit armed activities failed to include meaningful efforts to bring perpetrators of suicide attacks on civilians to justice.
...

Fatah officials authorized these six requested payments despite widely available evidence that, in at least the cases of two individuals, the named recipients had participated in attacks on civilians in the Occupied Territories. Fourteen of the forty-one individuals for whom payment was authorized were at the time "wanted" by Israel. Twelve of these individuals, in seeking financial assistance, identified themselves as "wanted."
...

The clearest case in which President Arafat authorized payment despite the recipient's widely reported links to attacks on civilians was that of Ra�Œid al-Karmi, the al-Aqsa Brigades leader in Tulkarem. 119 An undated request from Ramallah-based Fatah leader Hussein al-Sheikh asked Arafat to provide al-Karmi and two others with $2,500 each; Arafat apparently authorized payments of $600 each on September 19, 2001.120 The IDF had placed al-Karmi on its "most wanted" list in August 2001, accusing him of involvement in "numerous" shooting attacks and responsibility for the deaths of seven civilians and two soldiers. Al-Karmi himself openly boasted of his involvement in the execution-style killing of two Israeli restaurateurs visiting Tulkarem on January 23, 2001-in retaliation, he said, for Israel's assassination several seeks earlier of local Fatah leader Thabet Thabet.121 The PA had arrested al-Karmi and three others later in January 2001 in connection with the killing of the two restaurateurs, but he fled prison several months later. Al-Karmi had survived a well-publicized Israeli assassination attempt on September 6, 2001, shortly before President Arafat authorized the payment in question, and had spoken openly of his intention to continue attacks against Israelis.122

In another captured document, al-Karmi approached Arafat via Marwan Barghouti, requesting payments to twelve "fighter brethren," not including himself.123 Despite al-Karmi's own self-proclaimed responsibility for attacks on civilians, Arafat granted a payment of $350 to each individual on al-Karmi's list, again without making any apparent effort to ensure that these fighters were not responsible for attacks on civilians. The payments were made on January 7, 2002, a week before al-Karmi was assassinated. At the time of his assassination, according to media reports, the PA had assured European Union officials that al-Karmi was under arrest.124 According to one report, he was assassinated "while visiting his wife and daughter during a furlough from the `protective custody' of a PA jail."125

....

Based on its own investigation as well as media accounts and publicly available, captured PA documents, Human Rights Watch identified instances in which individuals employed in one or another Palestinian security force were involved in shooting or suicide bomb attacks targeting civilians. Human Rights Watch also found that individual members of the PA security forces have had ongoing associations with armed groups that have carried out suicide bombing attacks on civilians. On at least two occasions, individual members of PA intelligence services assisted perpetrators in carrying out such attacks.139
...

The PA should have made credible efforts to reprimand, discipline, or, where appropriate, bring to justice members of its own security services who, in apparent disregard for declared PA policies, participated in or lent support to those responsible for attacks against civilians. Insofar as Human Rights Watch could determine, it did not do so.
...


High-ranking PA officials, including President Arafat, failed in their duty to administer justice and enforce the rule of law in compliance with international standards. Through their repeated failure to arrest or prosecute individuals alleged to have planned or carried out suicide attacks against civilians, they contributed a climate of impunity-and failed to prevent the bloody consequences. Their payments to, and recruitment of, individuals responsible for attacks against civilians likewise demonstrate, at least, a serious failure to meet their political responsibilities as the governing authorities, if not a willingness to support them. However, there is no publicly available evidence that Arafat or other senior PA officials ordered, planned, or carried out such attacks.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
My point was that YOU posted the 'evil doesn't exist' comment (or a close facsimile thereof), and Skeptic contrasted your stance with his. Fool somehow thought Skeptic was talking to him, and so accused him of all kinds of silliness.

"somehow" thought he was talking to me??????Read the post . "skeptic" quoted me and replied to me...He misrepresented my position. If you have a theory that he is getting me mixed up with A_U_P you should take that up with "skeptic " I can only assume that if somebody quotes me and then comments on the quote they are talking to me.....sound fair????

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by rikzilla


Skeptic,
It's not that they don't believe evil exists...hey, Jews exist, therefore in AUP's world that fact is incontrovertable evidence of evil.


-z

Liar Liar, Pants on Fire.

[kittynh]

Well and then there are those like myself who begin to think more highly of John Lennon as time goes on...

If it weren't for religion people might see that it's just a bit of land. It really isn't any different or any more special than any other bit of land. I would think that even Jesus would have a fit at this business of making the material spiritual. I should think God would just blow the whole place up to show that while many different religions have made this bit of real estate into "their" special spiritual hot spot to Her it's just another bit of dirt.

[demon]

"I should think God would just blow the whole place up to show that while many different religions have made this bit of real estate into "their" special spiritual hot spot to Her it's just another bit of dirt."

I wonder if she/god would feel quite so philosophical if it happened to be the bit of "dirt", where her house was getting destroyed by a bulldozer, or her olive grove, or her water supply.

To thousands of people this bit of "dirt" is their home.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by demon
I wonder if she/god would feel quite so philosophical if it happened to be the bit of "dirt", where her house was getting destroyed by a bulldozer, or her olive grove, or her water supply.

To thousands of people this bit of "dirt" is their home.

You forgot the bit dirt where you try to sit down for a cup of coffee or ride the bus and get blown up by a maniac.

[demon]

"You forgot the bit dirt where you try to sit down for a cup of coffee or ride the bus and get blown up by a maniac."

Fair point...at least we both agree that the "dirt" in question isn`t some abstract entity or concept.

I see you make a point of reminding me about that, why dont you take this opportunity to remind the lady too?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by ssibal


You forgot the bit dirt where you try to sit down for a cup of coffee or ride the bus and get blown up by a maniac.

Yes everyone is miserable and suffering. Now what can be done about it?

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by livius drusus





I don't think harbouring despicable or evil beliefs necessarily makes a person evil. In my experience people are never just one thing.


So then using your logic, Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao, and the big H were not "evil". They were merely good average folks who "harbour despicable or evil beliefs".

Hogswallop! Please explain how one can distinguish an evil person from a person who merely harbours despicable or evil beliefs.

If it quacks and waddles Livius, is it not a duck?? Oh wait, I get it! It's merely an undefined living creature who harbours duck-like beliefs!? Yeah, that's the ticket! :rolleyes:

What a great illustration of the moral paralysis that liberals tend to labor under! "Peace in out time!" trumpeted Mr. Chamberlain, and he meant it! He believed in it like a fundie believes in "creation". Why though? Almost everyone else in the world knew the big H could not be trusted...it was obvious! Yet Mr. Chamberlain knew in his heart that his new friend Adolph was merely a poor misunderstood person who merely harbored a few despicable or evil beliefs...but was otherwise a good person. Beloved of his friends,...nice to his dog.


As I said above, it is neither necessary nor accurate to paint an entire people with one ideological brush. A simple qualifier will suffice. Beyond that, "overall activities" tends to be virtually indistinguishable from "noisiest and bloodiest activities" particularly if one is dependent on US news sources which focus on bloodshed as a matter of course.

See, it's not the Palestinians that support bloodthirsty terrorists, it's the biased US news sources that report the bloodshed. (Talk about blaming/killing the messenger!) Gee, I guess the Palestinians who erupted into spontaneous joy on 9/11 were merely misunderstood. Or perhaps it was all a HOAX!! (http://www.snopes.com/rumors/cnn.htm) perpetrated by the biased US news sources!!?? No, the majority (70%) of Palestinians aren't evil...they're just drawn that way. :rolleyes:



That is a false analogy. Palestinian is not a political ideology like Naziism. It is an ethnicity and as such encompasses a variety of ideologies. Calling Naziism, which holds as a central tenet the extermination of European Jews, evil is not the same thing as calling Palestinians, a group of people with divergent beliefs, evil.

Divergent beliefs eh? Well, seems to me it's been demonstrated that 70% of Palestinians are in full agreement that Jewish bus-riders need to be blown up at random. But they're not really evil, they're just people who hold despicable or eveil beliefs!

Well, that explains everything doesn't it!!??

-z

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by livius drusus
What I love most about galiel's post is how rich it is in human understanding without naivete or pollyannaishness.


And, rather than playing the terrorists' game by suspedning peace talks whenever a bomb goes off, Israel should be pressured to redouble peace efforts, increase aid and relax restrictions each time terrorists attack. Fighting terror with peace is the only thing that will work, in the long run.

His post was fine until he said that terrorism should be rewarded.

C'mon, Israel should increase aid whenever a bomb goes off? What sort of suicidal thinking leads to that conclusion?

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by livius drusus
Thank you for your research, Segnosaur. I would submit that since even taking the most evil case scenario polls as accurate 30% of Palestinians do not support suicide bombings, one might be hard pressed to claim that Palestinians as a whole support outright genocide, which is the assertion Skeptic has repeatedly made on this thread to support his contention that the Palestinian side is evil.

Seventy percent is a huge majority. It's unfathomable. I cannot imagine the horror of living next to a population where seven out of ten people want you dead so bad, that they are willing to send one of their own to die to see it happen.

And yet when confronted with the statistic, you close your eyes to it and only see the other 30%, without even knowing how many of those 30% simply prefer to see you die by other means.

[Skeptic]

I don't think harbouring despicable or evil beliefs necessarily makes a person evil.

And I don't think harbouring lots of money necessarily makes Bill Gates rich.

"Harbouring despicable or evil beliefs" (and acting on them) is what being evil IS, just like having money is what being rich IS.

People are rarely one thing

Indeed so--which is why Bill Gates isn't REALLY rich. He is so many other things as well--a father, a guy who wears glasses, etc. He just happens to have a lot of money, that's all.

Of course, the flaw in this logic is the assumption that if somebody isn't ONLY evil, he isn't evil at all. This isn't true: people can be evil AND good at gardening or dog-breeding, for instance, like Hitler was. I've heard Bin Laden makes a bitchin' Hummus, too. And Al Capone was nice to little old ladies. But that hardly means Hitler or Al Capone weren't evil just because they weren't ONLY evil.

Frankly, you keep proving my point, namely, that you would do anything to deny evil exist. Of course, "He isn't evil, he just harbors evil thoughts and acts on them" is about as logical an argument as "he isn't rich, he's just got money". But hey, what the hell--the existence of evil people just HAS to be deined SOMEHOW.

[PogoPedant]

Originally posted by Mycroft


Seventy percent is a huge majority. It's unfathomable. I cannot imagine the horror of living next to a population where seven out of ten people want you dead so bad, that they are willing to send one of their own to die to see it happen.
To be fair, a little know side of Hamas is their aid-work. In addition to blowing up children on schoolbuses, they provide relief to the homeless and unemployed. That makes the whole support/don't support bit more difficult.
On one hand, Hamas is an evil cult of mass murderers. On the other hand, they are one of the few organizations left with enough money to keep palestinians fed. Would you bite the hand that feeds you?

I have no solutions.

[kittynh]

Hey, bulldoze my house! I'll move, but I won't strap a bomb to my kid and send him to blow your house up.

I have no spiritual ties to anything material. I refuse to let such ties get in the way of me having a happy life. When I die I'm not going to get a bunch of virgins (what would I do with them?) nor am I expecting any thing in particular. I think I could be happy anywhere, and raise my family anywhere also. I've met lots of people who have done so (in Wisconsin the Hmong population is very happy, and not pining away for old Cambodia).

Other than pushing Atheism I'm not sure this could work as a solution though.

Mind you, I have Scottish relatives that would gladly kill off the Royals!

[a_unique_person]

Most Palestinians aren't suicide bombers.

However, how would you react to living in an environment where, at any time, your home could be bulldozed, and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it.

http://www.radioproject.org/images/sobhia.jpg

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Mycroft


Seventy percent is a huge majority. It's unfathomable. I cannot imagine the horror of living next to a population where seven out of ten people want you dead so bad, that they are willing to send one of their own to die to see it happen.

And yet when confronted with the statistic, you close your eyes to it and only see the other 30%, without even knowing how many of those 30% simply prefer to see you die by other means.

If you want to see why there is a lot of hatred for Israelis, here are some photos you won't see in the press.

http://www.upmrc.org/content/gallery/main.html

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by kittynh
Hey, bulldoze my house! I'll move, but I won't strap a bomb to my kid and send him to blow your house up.


They were moved on, out of their original homes, now they have nowhere else to go.

[kittynh]

I wouldn't live there. My family and indeed many people living in the US are here because where we lived wasn't safe for us. My brothers family lives in Canada instead of China for a reason. My family was offered the choice of death or move to the US. They lived with their land being taken away from them and sheep moving in. When they objected they were told to move or hang. Family diaries from that time show they were never happier than when they came to the colonies and found peace at last.

Should be noted the only Jewish family in my neighborhood moved here from Isreal. They decided "homeland smoneland" (an actual quote)

[espritch]

I’ve pretty much given up these Israel/Palestinian threads since I got tired of having people treat any criticism of Israeli policy as being pro terrorist. However, I thought this article was somewhat relevant:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20030925/ts_afp/mideast_israel_030925191109

On Wednesday, 27 reserve pilots submitted a petition to air force commander Dan Halutz, saying they were no longer prepared to take part in missions that they regarded as "illegal and immoral".

"I was proud to belong to the organization called the Israel air force, and today I am ashamed," said the Blackhawk helicopter captain.

"This is an organization that carries out actions that in my eyes are immoral and patently illegal. It is an organization that has no qualms about dropping bombs -- it doesn't matter if they are 250, 500 or 1,000 kilos (550, 1,100 or 2,200 pounds) -- on the densest neighborhoods in the world, causing massive killing of civilians."
Of course maybe these guys are just more liberals who can’t recognize evil. But I suspect the real problem is that they can.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by espritch
I’ve pretty much given up these Israel/Palestinian threads since I got tired of having people treat any criticism of Israeli policy as being pro terrorist. However, I thought this article was somewhat relevant:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20030925/ts_afp/mideast_israel_030925191109




Of course maybe these guys are just more liberals who can’t recognize evil. But I suspect the real problem is that they can.

Funny that,

American or Israeli servicemembers who become disgruntled or morally offended by the actions of their government end up on tv, or authoring op-ed pieces.

The one thing missing from the Palestinian/Arab side are their dissenters. Could this be the reason? (http://www.amnesty.org.il/reports/PASD0.html)

In the past six years, the Palestinian Authority (PA) has detained dozens of persons, including human rights defenders, journalists, religious figures, writers, government officials, trade unionists and academics for exercising their legitimate rights to freedom of expression. Many have been detained after they expressed or reported criticism, verbally or in writing, of the policies of the PA or the conduct of the peace negotiations with Israel.

So, we've heard the minority opinion from the American and Israeli service members...where's the minority opinion from a member of the PA's security services? Hell, where is it from ANY Palestinian?? :confused: Or are they all in complete agreement? Just like Saddam Hussein's 100% of the vote?? :rolleyes:
-z

[Cleon]

Originally posted by rikzilla

So, we've heard the minority opinion from the American and Israeli service members...where's the minority opinion from a member of the PA's security services? Hell, where is it from ANY Palestinian?? :confused: Or are they all in complete agreement? Just like Saddam Hussein's 100% of the vote?? :rolleyes:
-z

Or maybe "Palestinian denounces occupation, suicide bombings" just doesn't make as juicy a headline.

Edward Said, who sadly died yesterday, often condemned suicide bombings and Arafat's "leadership," as well as Israel's military occupation of the WB and Gaza and Zionism in general. (Of course, that didn't stop Israel supporters from accusing him of being pro-terrorist and anti-semitic.)

The reality is, the only time the Palestinian resistance gets any coverage to speak of in the West is when they blow people up (or advocate doing so). Nonviolent resistance, attacks on military targets, Palestinians who say "we just want to live in peace," dissenters within the PA, all of this stuff goes on, but none of it gets in the Western media.

I think--and independently of whether you agree with my anti-Zionism or not, I think you can agree with this--that people in the US especially have a very poor understanding of what's going in in Palestine. And I don't just mean the humanitarian conditions of the Palestinians--I mean the internal forces at work within the PA. For example, Israel's spent a fair bit of time over the past few years blowing up as much of the PA's security structure as possible--the result being, even if Arafat wants to, he has as much chance of being able to rein in Hamas as I have raising the Titanic with my teeth. Another example--people think that Arafat's a Hamas supporter. Not true--yes, they have an alliance now, as they've had in the past, but I don't think people really understand the love/hate relationship the PLO and Hamas have. It's a marriage of opportunity, not unlike Zionism's courtship of the Christian Right in the US. The fact is, behind the scenes, the two groups hate each other's guts.

But I digress.

My point is, don't question the lack of something until you're really sure it isn't there. People on this side of the pond are woefully misinformed and underinformed about what Palestinians are saying and doing.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Cleon


Or maybe "Palestinian denounces occupation, suicide bombings" just doesn't make as juicy a headline.

Edward Said, who sadly died yesterday, often condemned suicide bombings and Arafat's "leadership," as well as Israel's military occupation of the WB and Gaza and Zionism in general. (Of course, that didn't stop Israel supporters from accusing him of being pro-terrorist and anti-semitic.)

The reality is, the only time the Palestinian resistance gets any coverage to speak of in the West is when they blow people up (or advocate doing so). Nonviolent resistance, attacks on military targets, Palestinians who say "we just want to live in peace," dissenters within the PA, all of this stuff goes on, but none of it gets in the Western media.

I think--and independently of whether you agree with my anti-Zionism or not, I think you can agree with this--that people in the US especially have a very poor understanding of what's going in in Palestine. And I don't just mean the humanitarian conditions of the Palestinians--I mean the internal forces at work within the PA. For example, Israel's spent a fair bit of time over the past few years blowing up as much of the PA's security structure as possible--the result being, even if Arafat wants to, he has as much chance of being able to rein in Hamas as I have raising the Titanic with my teeth. Another example--people think that Arafat's a Hamas supporter. Not true--yes, they have an alliance now, as they've had in the past, but I don't think people really understand the love/hate relationship the PLO and Hamas have. It's a marriage of opportunity, not unlike Zionism's courtship of the Christian Right in the US. The fact is, behind the scenes, the two groups hate each other's guts.

But I digress.

My point is, don't question the lack of something until you're really sure it isn't there. People on this side of the pond are woefully misinformed and underinformed about what Palestinians are saying and doing.

The hopelessly naive have spoken up!

So, the reason that we don't hear Palestinians protesting the PA, Hamas, etc, is the fault of the western media?? Did you even read what I posted??

How is the western media supposed to report on something that is so brutally repressed??

from Amnesty International:
Almost invariably the PA has held prisoners of conscience without respect for due process guarantees. Often critics of the PA have been invited by one of the Palestinian security services for a short meeting over "a cup of coffee", only to emerge from detention days, weeks, or even months later. Almost all were never shown an arrest warrant or brought before a court. The PA has released nearly all detainees without charge. Sometimes the detainee had to sign an undertaking not to speak against the PA before being released. The PA has held many prisoners of conscience incommunicado, for days or sometimes weeks. Some detainees have been tortured in custody.


The PA has restricted freedom of expression in other ways. Members of the various Palestinian security forces have physically attacked journalists while they were going about their duties. In December 1999 General Intelligence officers beat a member of the Palestinian Legislative Council while he was participating in a peaceful demonstration against the detention of prisoners of conscience. The PA has closed down newspapers, research centres, news agencies, television and radio stations for limited periods and stopped the distribution of newspapers and other publications.


So, please tell me how the free press is supposed to report Palestinian dissent in this environment?? Do tell us.

-z

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by rikzilla


The hopelessly naive have spoken up!

So, the reason that we don't hear Palestinians protesting the PA, Hamas, etc, is the fault of the western media?? Did you even read what I posted??

How is the western media supposed to report on something that is so brutally repressed??



So, please tell me how the free press is supposed to report Palestinian dissent in this environment?? Do tell us.

-z

Well, you found out, they found out.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Well, you found out, they found out.

So, it's all good then??

Again, and again AUP...you display your moral bankruptcy as if it's something you are proud of.

-z

[Cleon]

Originally posted by rikzilla


The hopelessly naive have spoken up!

So, the reason that we don't hear Palestinians protesting the PA, Hamas, etc, is the fault of the western media?? Did you even read what I posted??

How is the western media supposed to report on something that is so brutally repressed??


How am I supposed to carry on a decent discussion with someone who goes off calling me "hopelessly naive?"

In any event, first, I note the article's three years old. The situation is somewhat different than what it was three years ago--quite a bit has happened.

Second--your assumption is that there is no dissent because it's "brutally repressed." I'm sorry, that's just not true; there is dissent. There is dissent in China. There is dissent in Myanmar. There was dissent in Nazi Germany. Every regime, no matter HOW brutal, has had some measure of dissent. The Western media has no problem reporting on Chinese dissent or Burmese dissent--it does not report on Palestinian dissent. Unless you believe it's all been "brutally repressed" out of the Palestinian people, the only logical conclusion is that the media pays no attention to it. (Incidentally, NON-Western media, such as Al-Ahram and Al-Jazeera, DO report on different Palestinian perspectives.)

Third, how much control do you think Arafat really has at this point? The guy can't even leave his friggin' house, for crying out loud. The PA's security forces have been decimated. It's really, really, really difficult to carry on a secret police force when your government barely exists.

I'm not denying the PA has its share of thugs (though I do note that everything it's accused of by Amnesty--imprisonment without trial, torture, etc.--are things Israel admits to doing). But assuming that simply because you haven't heard of different Palestinian opinions, they don't exist or have been "brutally repressed" out of existence is incredibly myopic.

[rikzilla]

Well?

Let's go back to my original question then. We've heard from the dissident American serviceman...his essay against US policy in Iraq was trumpeted here on threads started by AUP, etc. Now we saw another disaffected servicemember...this time the Israeli pilot loudly protesting his government's policy in regards to launching attacks on Palestinians.

These people are not speaking from jail. They are obviously not dead, or being tortured. No, they're on tv...venting the spleen of their moral indignation on the world stage. Where is the Palestinian equivelant? Absent that...where is ANY Palestinian dissent?

I don't see it, do you? You say it exists, and I do believe you. So show it to me.

The real problem is one of perception. Perhaps you believe that all governments are basically equal and that if dissent is heard from within a government that government must be doing something very bad indeed to have such dissent from within it. Then perhaps you see a government from which arises no such dissent and figure that's a government that is doing business ethically because there is no internal dissention? This is a common misconception...obviously this type of illogical thinking fueled the posting of the American soldier's, and Israeli pilot's comments. These threads were held up as proof that Israel and America are doing things so evil that even their own soldiers cannot abide it. Yet, the logic is flawed...

Repeat after me...Carl Sagan is my friend..."

Common fallacies of logic and rhetoric
Ad hominem - attacking the arguer and not the argument.
Argument from "authority".
Argument from adverse consequences (putting pressure on the decision maker by pointing out dire consequences of an "unfavourable" decision).
Appeal to ignorance (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence).
Special pleading (typically referring to god's will).
Begging the question (assuming an answer in the way the question is phrased).
Observational selection (counting the hits and forgetting the misses).
Statistics of small numbers (such as drawing conclusions from inadequate sample sizes).
Misunderstanding the nature of statistics (President Eisenhower expressing astonishment and alarm on discovering that fully half of all Americans have below average intelligence!)
Inconsistency (e.g. military expenditures based on worst case scenarios but scientific projections on environmental dangers thriftily ignored because they are not "proved").
Non sequitur - "it does not follow" - the logic falls down.
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc - "it happened after so it was caused by" - confusion of cause and effect.
Meaningless question ("what happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?).
Excluded middle - considering only the two extremes in a range of possibilities (making the "other side" look worse than it really is).
Short-term v. long-term - a subset of excluded middle ("why pursue fundamental science when we have so huge a budget deficit?").
Slippery slope - a subset of excluded middle - unwarranted extrapolation of the effects (give an inch and they will take a mile).
Confusion of correlation and causation.
Straw man - caricaturing (or stereotyping) a position to make it easier to attack..
Suppressed evidence or half-truths.
Weasel words - for example, use of euphemisms for war such as "police action" to get around limitations on Presidential powers. "An important art of politicians is to find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the public"



...thank you Carl.

-z

[Cleon]

Originally posted by rikzilla
These people are not speaking from jail. They are obviously not dead, or being tortured. No, they're on tv...venting the spleen of their moral indignation on the world stage. Where is the Palestinian equivelant? Absent that...where is ANY Palestinian dissent?


Actually, many of the Israelis who've refused orders have been imprisoned.


I don't see it, do you? You say it exists, and I do believe you. So show it to me.



Yes, I do see it. That's exactly my point. Just because you don't see it, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Google is your friend:

http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2002/07/07/arafat_020707
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2000/478/re1.htm http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/1998/406/re6.htm

Nothing from a US-based news source, though. Funny, that.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Cleon


Actually, many of the Israelis who've refused orders have been imprisoned.


Many? Not all? How many? Who?




Yes, I do see it. That's exactly my point. Just because you don't see it, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Google is your friend:

http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2002/07/07/arafat_020707
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2000/478/re1.htm http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/1998/406/re6.htm

Nothing from a US-based news source, though. Funny, that.

Did you read the links you posted? It wasn't about peace-loving Palestinians openly protesting their government as are the Israeli and American examples. No...they are protesting that the PA is not doing enough TO SUPPORT TERRORISM!!

Thanks for the glaring example of a closed, repressed, terrorist supporting regime. Now hold it up against the American and Israeli example of dissent in a free nation. Now do you get it?

-z

[Cleon]

Originally posted by rikzilla

Did you read the links you posted? It wasn't about peace-loving Palestinians openly protesting their government as are the Israeli and American examples. No...they are protesting that the PA is not doing enough TO SUPPORT TERRORISM!!

Thanks for the glaring example of a closed, repressed, terrorist supporting regime. Now hold it up against the American and Israeli example of dissent in a free nation. Now do you get it?

-z

Yes. You either didn't read the links, or are a flat-out liar.

The CBC link says nothing about supporting terrorism one way or the other. The crowd is reported as being pro-reform, and apparently thought the firings were an illusion of reform and not the real deal:


"These changes are just minimal, superficial changes that are reactions to external pressures. Nothing more, nothing less," one Ramallah resident told CBC News. "They are much further still from genuine reform that people have been demanding for many, many years."


The first Al-Ahram link also says nothing about "not supporting enough terrorism." The criticism of Arafat, a valid one IMO, is that he was too willing to sacrifice Palestinian self-determination to the Israelis.

The third link, again, says nothing about "not supporting enough terrorism." (It's actually pre-Intifada.) The protestors had these gripes:


The protesters singled out Abbas for their silent outrage, accusing him of having taken a lax stance on the prisoners' cause during the Wye Plantation talks and describing the Palestinian negotiations as "disgraceful".

Outside Abu Mazen's opulent villa, protesters lambasted Palestinian negotiators for not insisting that the Israelis draw up a comprehensive list of the names of the prisoners slated to be released.


So which is it? Did you not bother to read them, or are you simply lying?

[rikzilla]

Your links are meaningless because they do not fit this discussion.

I can show you a dozen pages of the Iraqi people under Saddam protesting America, or Israel...and saying that Saddam is wrong because he's not doing more against America/Israel. Such an example however, would not be proof of real Iraqi dissent would it?

-z

[Cleon]

Originally posted by rikzilla
Your links are meaningless because they do not fit this discussion.

I can show you a dozen pages of the Iraqi people under Saddam protesting America, or Israel...and saying that Saddam is wrong because he's not doing more against America/Israel. Such an example however, would not be proof of real Iraqi dissent would it?

-z

Man, I swear, you have more dodges than a Chrysler dealership.

First, you claim that there's no dissent. Then, you claim that any dissent is because they want MORE terrorism. Now, you're saying that the dissent is actually directed at Israel and not at Arafat.

I guess it all matters on your definition of "dissent." The way I look at it, leaders like Hussein and Arafat are concerned with their power base, and therefore are willing to crush dissent no matter where it's coming from.

If people were dissenting, saying he should've taken a harder stance against the US (and there was plenty of that), that's one thing. If they were openly accusing him of violating his principles and questioning his leadership for not standing up enough against the US, like the Palestinians in those links, that would not be tolerated. It's the threat to the power base that's oppressed, not the message itself in many cases. And that threat can come from people advocating a softer or harder stance. Independent of actual message, questioning a person's or group's leadership itself is "real dissent."

(Note: I'm not comparing Hussein and Arafat. Apples and oranges, really, but the general power concepts are the same.)

Oh, and incidentally, I'll repost the quote from the CBC article. At the very least, you have to admit this is an open criticism of Arafat's leadership:


"These changes are just minimal, superficial changes that are reactions to external pressures. Nothing more, nothing less," one Ramallah resident told CBC News. "They are much further still from genuine reform that people have been demanding for many, many years."


There's not much room for interpretation on that one.

[rikzilla]

So what?

The same article says this:
Although they don't like Arafat's decision to fire Rajoub, many marchers were quick to point out they still support the Palestinian leader himself. "Long live Arafat," they shouted during Sunday's protest.

But again, let's compare dissidents shall we? The American soldier is one Sgt Predmore of the 101st Airborne. A man who risks his career, but not anything much more than that by his dissent.

Then there are the 27 pilots that the Age article does not name, yet these pilots are known to Air Force Brig. Gen. Ido Nehushtan. They are not in hiding,..they may face disciplinary action or even jail just as Sgt. Predmore might. But they do not fear for their lives.

This is to be expected of a truly free nation. No matter what,..in any given population there is always some dissent.

So your post of the CBC article is supposed to prove that Palestinians can freely voice their anti-government/Arafat opinions?? Here is the section of the article you hold up as proof:
"These changes are just minimal, superficial changes that are reactions to external pressures. Nothing more, nothing less," one Ramallah resident told CBC News. "They are much further still from genuine reform that people have been demanding for many, many years."

"One Ramallah resident"??? Just one? Does he have a name?

This sounds like a National Enquirer article. You know, where they say stuff like: "..and Ben Affleck wears women's panties!...said "a pal" well, there's dissent in Ramallah! ...say's "a pal". :D :D :D

How does that come close to the level of Sgt Predmore's dissent? Truth is, it doesn't now does it? It rises to the level of gossip...one Ramallah resident said.

You hold that up as evidence of a unrepressed minority? Yet you blow off the evidence of Amnesty International?

You are a rare bird aren't you?

-z

[Cleon]

Originally posted by rikzilla
So what?

The same article says this:


So your post of the CBC article is supposed to prove that Palestinians can freely voice their anti-government/Arafat opinions?? Here is the section of the article you hold up as proof:



BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Oh, that's priceless...Since when am I trying to prove they're free to voice their opinions? I've never claimed anything of the sort, in fact, I explicitely said otherwise. Numerous times. Of COURSE dissent is quashed as much as Arafat is able to (which is, not much anymore).

What I was pointing out is that Palestinian dissent never makes it into the Western media, and asking "where is the Palestinian opposition" is like asking where the Titanic is. It's there, you just have to look for it because there's no neon sign saying "HERE IT IS!"


You hold that up as evidence of a unrepressed minority? Yet you blow off the evidence of Amnesty International?

You are a rare bird aren't you?

-z

At this point I have to assume you're a liar. I didn't "blow off" the Amnesty report, and I certainly am NOT claiming the Palestinians are unrepressed. Never have, even when I was an ardent Israel supporter. They're getting screwed by the Israelis, and screwed by the PA. And I think they pretty much know that.

[Solitaire]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Most Palestinians aren't suicide bombers.

However, how would you react to living in an environment where,
at any time, your home could be bulldozed, and there is absolutely
nothing you can do about it.

Living in the united states I can say I hate the idea.
But if a developer wants my land, he just calls up
the government and the bulldozers roll and there's
nothing I can do about it. See Shanek for more info.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by rikzilla


So, it's all good then??

Again, and again AUP...you display your moral bankruptcy as if it's something you are proud of.

-z

No, I was merely pointing out that the use of torture in the PA has been documented and reported, as is torture by Israel.