Firstly; Let us define terrorism: The word "terrorism" is controversial, with no universally agreed definition. The way the term is used varies widely, with descriptive and prescriptive applications, and is often used in its prescriptive (normative) sense to signal that the political violence of an enemy is regarded as unjustified or unjustifiable. As a result, those accused of being terrorists rarely identify themselves as such, instead using terms such as separatist, freedom fighter, liberator, militant, activist, insurgent, paramilitary, guerrilla, rebel, jihadi, mujaheddin, or fedayeen.
Definitions of "terrorism" generally involve some or all of the following:
A terrorist act is generally unlawful. It is violent and may be life threatening. The violence is politically motivated. The direct targets are civilians. The direct targets may not be the main targets. The main targets may be one or more nation-states, governments, or societies; or a political, ethnic, or religious group, or an industry or commercial operation, within those societies. The objective is usually to intimidate the main targets. There may or may not be a claim of responsibility. The perpetrator is usually a non-state entity. Where there is direct state involvement, the state actors are clandestine or semi-clandestine. See State terrorism.
So we can use both "freedom fighter" and "terrorist" interchangably.
So, lets have some examples: The first geurilla war would be when Napoleon invaded Spain and the Spaniards began a "little war" against the French thus an example of "terrorism" when did it end? When Spain was Liberated by the English.
Now lets fast forwards a hundred years or so to the Second World War, to the Russian steepe.
Russian, Belorussian, Ukrainian, and Batlic Statian Paritsans (see Freedom Fighter) were usually at first Red Army soldiers who got lost in the retreat or managed to escape behind german lines out of the pockets during 1941 Operation barbarossa. At first they were mostly bandits with only a few deliberate attmepts to raid german supply lines until they were all organized into an effective arm of the Armed forces, and the Russian Partisan movement only ended when A they met up with the Red Army and were disbanded and thrown into Penal battalions or B when the last bit of the Rodina was liberated in 1944.
Thus Partisanism in Russia only ended when the land was liberated.
Next, there were also "Freedom fighter" (as deemed by the Allies but considered as Terrorists by the Germans hmm) movements in France and any other country occupied by the Fascists. They only ended when in case A or Case Francais when France was Liberated by the Allies or B in the case of Eastern Europe when the Red Army entered Eastern Europe. Or case C in Poland where the Warsaw uprising was crushed by the Germans.
In the case of Eastern Europe the Red Army's control of information, and transportation was so complete and total that when the Partisans disarmed they couldn't rearm and try to fight the Red Army, (except in cases where the freedom fighters were Communists like Marshall Tito who instead were set up as the new government).
Thus I see only 2 ways that terrorism/freedom fighterism of any kind ever finished.
When A the land they were fighting for was Liberated and restored to them or B when a totalitarian power took control of the situation and with Draconian measures crushed the resistance.
Things don't look good right now because A) Israel is a democratic nation and cannot resort to Draconian measures and B) If they give the terrorists everything they want the state of Israel will nolonger exist. Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
First off, I want to congratulate you on a well constructed post (from a spelling/grammatical standpoint). I've criticized you in the past for misspellings and grammatical errors, and your effort in this instance is noted. I skimmed it, but I only noticed one misspelled word.
That said, I don't have an answer for your question, but I do offer a different definition of terrorism.
Terrorism isn't defined by the goal. It's defined by the method. The idea behind terrorism is to influence through fear. The objectives can be political, religious, social, or environmental. But the method is always to force change by inducing panic.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Like "Shock and Awe?"
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I don't see that option A has anything to do with democracy. 'We kill 200 Palestinians for every Israeli killed' might be an option of last resort to be embraced by Israelis, but it's definitely there.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
quote: The idea behind terrorism is to influence through fear.
The idea behind an overwhelming military force is also to influence through fear. The distinction between an army and a terrorist's goal is primarily between the types of targets that are attacked(i.e. military and civilian).
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
"The distinction between an army and a terrorist's goal is primarily between the types of targets that are attacked(i.e. military and civilian). "
So the car bombings in Beirut weren't terrorism?
I disagree. I think terrorism is merely the way the enemy accomplishes the same goal.
Another definition of terrorism might be:
"Any form of warfare that effectively emasculates conventional military equipment and tactics."
or:
"We don't like the way they conduct war, because we have no effective means to fight it."
Posted by Kettricken (Member # 8436) on :
I don’t think terrorism can ever be ‘defeated’ but situations can change so individual groups of terrorists can stop. There will always (in the foreseeable future) be another group with another grievance somewhere in the world.
The IRA is supposed to be in the process of decommissioning their weapons. Will this be the end of terrorism in Northern Ireland? No. For the last couple of nights there have been petrol bombs thrown and guns fired, this time by loyalists. There are other republican groups that have broken from the IRA and vow to continue terrorism. But there is hope that a solution will finally be found. More and more people on both sides are getting sick of the violence and have appreciated the relative peace of the last few years.
Extremist Muslim terrorism looks further from a solution, but that doesn’t mean one will not be found in the future. But what about places like Chechnya? Where will be the next part of a country to try to get independence? What will be the next country invaded by a neighbour that uses terrorism to try to make them leave?
Terrorism is part of the world today. Hopefully one day it will not be, but for now it is a weapon used by people who believe in their cause but do not have an army to fight with. Hopefully in the future these groups will realise that they loose sympathy from people who might help by attacking civilians. For that to happen we need a way for people who feel they have a cause to get headlines and support without killing people. Any ideas?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Terrorism can never be totally defeated, because there will always be ruthless, evil people in the world...or courageous, self-sacrificing freedom-fighters, YMMV.
However, the question of whether or not terrorism can be defeated as a frequent method of politics...that's much less open-ended, I think. I think the answer to that-and most especially whether certainly TYPES of terrorism, for certain causes-can be eliminated is 'yes'.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
GA, my point was that there really is no distinction except in cases where civilians are targeted. Otherwise "terrorism" is just a new form of conventional warfare.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
In Joe Haldeman's The Forever Peace, a way was found to destroy the entire galaxy. The ultimate terrorist's weapon, and some would be crazy enough to try it. A way to end terrorism was absolutely essential.
Worth the read.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:The idea behind an overwhelming military force is also to influence through fear.
Not true. The idea behind overwhelming military force is that it's a deterrent. Not because it inspires fear, because unless it can all be deployed at once there's always an area of maximum vulnerability where a smaller force can overpower a larger one at the point of attack.
Like China having a billion man military won't stop anyone from entering into combat with them, because there isn't a battlefield large enough to fight on. Their size of their military just means anyone'll think twice before invading them.
But that's another discussion entirely.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:"We don't like the way they conduct war, because we have no effective means to fight it."
Another reason why terrorism is dependent on fear. How do you fight a phantom? That's how terrorism becomes really effective. A few successful strikes will paralyze the entire population, because they know there's no real prevention possible.
[ September 13, 2005, 05:27 PM: Message edited by: El JT de Spang ]
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Ok, this has become a discussion on the goals/methodes of terrorism (somewhat); though the purpose of discussion how to end it is still hear somepeople are under the impression that it "never ends" but as I pointed out there are plenty of historical precedents to when terrorism ended (I mentioned the more notable ones, and the ones easiest to define/talk about, there are definatly other more obscure ones).
The problem was that it ended only 2 ways.
1- The terrorist/freedom fighters got what they want, as in 100% what they want not some silly wussy compromise.
2- A totalitarian power so ruthless in its application of Military force and Covert-Ops that all current resistence movements were easily disarmed and none were ever EVER able to take place EVER AGAIN.
And in the Israeli-Palistinian issue Israel can do neither options without A) Dismantling their own nation. or B) Sacrifing their Liberal Democratic society, and fundamental freedoms for the benefits of security.
That was the original point, a frustrated question in the midst of reality, "How can we do this?" For we are between a rock and a hard place and every choice we make will be between the frying pan and the pot, every choice will effect every issue for generations to come and for Israel, a wonderful nation, an Island of Light in a sea of darkness is in the prediciment of a lifetime. So I ask again, what can we do if our only choices are to either kill our body or kill our soul?
Posted by EricJamesStone (Member # 5938) on :
Blayne, I think you've ignored instances where the activities of terrorist groups did not end in one of your two ways.
2. When was the last time the U.K. experienced an attack by the Angry Brigade?
And, given the recent decision of the Provisional IRA to disarm, it's possible that the terrorism in Northern Ireland will come to an end without either the terrorists winning or a totalitarian regime crushing the terrorists (unless you consider the U.K. totalitarian.)
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
There's another way to end terrorism - ignore it.
It sounds unbelievable, but if you simply treat terrorism like a natural disaster then it loses all its power. It's almost impossible to do, but there it is.
And it won't end all terrorism, just one specific instance.
Terrorism as a whole can't be stopped for the forseeable future.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
El JT:
I'm totally in agreement with you. The reason that tactic works, by the way, is that one goal of terrorism is to do things that have a demoralizing, amplification effect on the target population. Destroy a building and ruin the economy...that sort of thing.
If we fail to rise to the bait, while calmly and rationally pursuing the people who ordered or perpetrated the attack, we may lose out on the satisfaction of immediate retaliation, but we win in the following ways: - we don't destroy our way of life - we don't panic and throw money away on useless, ineffective gestures - we don't escalate already volatile situations.
Ultimately, we need one more thing in order to STOP terrorism. That is, we need to take away its appeal. They can't recruit people who are happy with their life. So, we work hard to make sure that people are not stuck, disenfranchised and ready to do anything to break the cycle.
But WE will never win the war on terrorism because we can't do any of the above.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
We can't? Or won't?
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
I don't see world peace coming about any time soon, and given the number of world militaries with highly sophisticated and modern equipment and tactics, perhaps the rise of guerilla tactics in those not so equipped is inevitable.
I think the best real tool we have against terrorism is effective distribution of accurate information. Terrorism thrives in a mentality that dehumanizes an oppressive "other", an enemy that cannot be reasoned with and must not be coddled or negotiated with, but can only be destroyed.
We need to convince suicide bombers that their lives are worth living, beyond the vague possibility that their martyrdom will somehow make the lives of those they identify as their own better somewhere up the line. And we need to convince them the lives they might take are not enemies but human beings, and their taking is a grave injustice.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:We need to convince suicide bombers that their lives are worth living, beyond the vague possibility that their martyrdom will somehow make the lives of those they identify as their own better somewhere up the line.
Or that there is no afterlife and that they've got to make the best with what they've got?
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:There's another way to end terrorism - ignore it.
I'm also in total agreement with this. Terrorism thrives in a multimedia age. If we could somehow convince the news media to not report acts of terrorism, that alone would make a big dent in it.
But we've got to recognize that as a society. We've done that before, with "loose lips sink ships." The papers stopped reporting ship departures, because they recognized a direct correlation between printing those departures and u-boat successes off the N.J. coast.
I've said this before, that during the Columbine shootings the commentator I was listening to during the live feed actually mentioned that this would cause "copycat" shootings. Why it didn't occur to the producers of those news organizations that copycats would be less likely if they didn't break into daytime programming is beyond me, except that they didn't want to get scooped.
If the news media and law enforcement could get together and come up wiht some guidelines for reporting this kind of event (where there is a correlation between reporting an event and repeat events) so that the information is available, but not sensationalized, it would go a long way in the right direction.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
I think Bob hit the nail right on the head there.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Ah but you see, in a democratic society the media thinks with its nuts first and wallet second (vice versa?) The media sees a story, and wil try to profit on it, and will print it, cause a huge reaction, the bigger the better for them.
For Totalitarian governments, its a matter of pride and national security (sounds familiar?) if they allow such a resistence to gain ground and spread they will lose their control of the people and risk losing power and could never ignore the problem.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: There's another way to end terrorism - ignore it.
It sounds unbelievable, but if you simply treat terrorism like a natural disaster then it loses all its power. It's almost impossible to do, but there it is.
Um... not had much experience with terrorism, I see.
Look, not all terrorists are the same, but I can assure you that the Arabs would be happy as little clams to have Israel ignore their terrorism and just kill everyone in Israel off peacemeal. They are not doing it for the attention. They are not playground bullies. They have a well defined intent, and they have been consistent in the pursuit of that intent.
I don't get it. Why does it seem that I have more respect for those bloodthirsty terrorist murderers and supporters and accomplices of terrorist murderers than the "moderates"?
Edit: replaced the phrase "sons of camels" (which had intended to be a euphemism to begin with) as per requests. I think it flowed better before, but I bow to the demands of the Professionally Offended.
[ September 15, 2005, 05:31 PM: Message edited by: starLisa ]
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Look, not all terrorists are the same, but I can assure you that the Arabs would be happy as little clams to have Israel ignore their terrorism and just kill everyone in Israel off peacemeal. They are not doing it for the attention. They are not playground bullies. They have a well defined intent, and they have been consistent in the pursuit of that intent
That's not terrorism, that's war. Two very different animals with very different motives and goals.
Posted by Epictetus (Member # 6235) on :
Not necessarily. Terrorism is simply a tactic to be used in war. That's a little hard for some to come to grips with, but there are no rules in warfare except those you apply to yourself, and those rules cannot be applied to your opponent.
A commander can do whatever he wants if he thinks it will accomplish an objective. Terrorism is the label we have applied to this tactic because we have chosen not to use it, and wish to seperate it from what we call "conventional warfare."
I personally don't think terrorism can be defeated if for no other reason than it's been around so long. The first instances of terrorism I can think of are the Assassins during the First Crusade, and that was roughly 1000 years ago. My memory doesn't serve me to well, but I'm sure there are other examples before that.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think the word Terrorism is used far more often than is warranted. American revolutionaries were terrorists by the definition so commonly used. Sam Addams, and often times George Washington and others, were all terrorists. Loyalists were pillaged and captured and held for ransom, and were in general terrorized in heavily Tory areas during the revolution.
But they are heroes, so, let's just brush all that under the rug shall we?
I think Palestinian terrorists would get a lot further with civil disobedience than they are getting with suicide bombings. Or even a combination of the two. One suicide bomber attacks in Tel Aviv, and a large group of peaceful protestors stage a non-violent silent protest in Jerusalem. Not that I'm advocating such an action, but given the sometimes trigger happy nature of the IDF, I think an incident involving murdered non-violent protestors would be a very likely outcome.
Peaceful protests won't do anything in Iraq, because the American forces there would let them do whatever they want in that regard. And thus they will never achieve their goal. It will only work when the oppressor has a hair trigger.
I do think terrorism as a whole will one day be defeated. Simply saying that there will always be evil people in the world is far too simplistic, and shows a lack of understanding of the sources and causation of terrorists. The current problem in Israel hasn't ALWAYS been there. Sure, there have always been problems there, but this specific problem is relatively recent.
I think there are more solutions than A. The bad guys win and B. Ruthlessly crushing them. Nation building CAN be successful, if you make reaonable goals, and understand the situation you are stepping into. The US rarely understands the situation it is stepping into, and thus usually ends up screwing it up.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Epictetus -
Terrorism, by the modern definition, has been around since well before Roman times. The Greeks and Persians used it. I'm betting it was used even before then. But they didn't call it terrorism, they called it warfare.
Posted by Epictetus (Member # 6235) on :
That is true, the Spartans used guerrilla warfare at Thermopoli, the Mongols would kill the population of entire villages to scare others into surrendering, and there are accounts of Bodicia (around the time of the Roman Emperor Claudius) wiping out the entire Roman colony of Londinium for the same reason (even though it was populated pricipally by Britons, not Romans).
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
What happened at Thermopylae was in my opinion nothing even close to terrorism, though maybe they call it that by todays standards. Two military forces met, the invaders and the defenders, the latter being the lesser force, but in many ways being of a higher caliber.
Were it me, I'd do anything I could to win. And back then, they generally did.
And I was under the impression that Bodicia's burning of Lodinium killed mostly Roman citizens. Either way, that is balanced by the following battle, in which Bodicia was defeated, and thousands of men, women and children were slaughtered by the Roman legions.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Terrorism is the label we have applied to this tactic because we have chosen not to use it, and wish to seperate it from what we call "conventional warfare."
I categorize this as 'guerilla warfare', not terrorism. I think you can have terrorism in regular warfare, but it's comparitively rare. I can't think of an example (too early in the morning) but I feel certain someone else can.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Thermopylae was not terrorism.
The Trojan Horse could be viewed as terrorism, though. It just succeeded completely in the first attempt.
Posted by Papa Janitor (Member # 7795) on :
quote:Look, not all terrorists are the same, but I can assure you that the Arabs would be happy as little clams to have Israel ignore their terrorism and just kill everyone in Israel off peacemeal. They are not doing it for the attention. They are not playground bullies. They have a well defined intent, and they have been consistent in the pursuit of that intent.
Lisa, could you clarify this a bit? While I believe your meaning is that Arab terrorists would be "happy as little clams" to be ignored, what you have written could be interpreted that all Arabs would be happy to have the terrorist actions be ignored. Please help me to know that you don't believe all Arabs to be "bloodthirsty sons of camels." Or at bare minimum, since I'm not authorized to police thoughts (yet), that you didn't intend to say it here.
--PJ
Posted by Somnium (Member # 8482) on :
Chances are no. Terrorism is not the same as guerilla warfare. Terrorism is striking out at the citizens generally, while Guerilla warfare is not(well unless the army is somewhat corrupt or you have a situation like in vietnam where a citizen can turn soldier in a matter of seconds, not that it makes it any better).
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Geurilla warfare is in my mind an acceptable means to to wage war if the odds are overwhelmingly against you. Mao used it and won and used it well. The thing with geurilla warfare is that it relies almost 100% on maintaining the support of the people, inorder when times are rough to become "fish among water" as Mao termed it. Once you start attacking your own civilians you lsoe that support and you are then left out into the open and easily crushed.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
PJ.... policing thoughts will aid you to no avail in my case, you read my thoughts and you'll go blind .
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Guerilla warfare is being entirely categorized as terrorism. Setting off a roadside bomb to blow up a humvee isn't terrorism, it's guerilla warefare. Same thing with ambushes, and firefights in the middle of cities.
The Bush Administration uses the term terrorism so often to describe these things because he knows it's the only thing that will rally any sort of support to a dying cause. If he called it what it was, they'd lose even more support.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
That i think maybe true.
Posted by EricJamesStone (Member # 5938) on :
I'm a supporter of the war in Iraq, and voted for Bush both times. But I do agree there needs to be a distinction between attacks targeting civilians and attacks targeting military forces. Only the former should be referred to as terrorism. Unfortunately, the Bush administration (and the Clinton administration, for that matter) have blurred that line. For example, the attack on the U.S.S. Cole should not have been labeled a terrorist act.
However, since the forces opposing U.S. troops in Iraq are in fact using terrorism (targeting civilians), it is legitimate to label them generally as terrorist forces, even if they sometimes attack military targets.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Papa Janitor:
quote:Look, not all terrorists are the same, but I can assure you that the Arabs would be happy as little clams to have Israel ignore their terrorism and just kill everyone in Israel off peacemeal. They are not doing it for the attention. They are not playground bullies. They have a well defined intent, and they have been consistent in the pursuit of that intent.
Lisa, could you clarify this a bit? While I believe your meaning is that Arab terrorists would be "happy as little clams" to be ignored, what you have written could be interpreted that all Arabs would be happy to have the terrorist actions be ignored. Please help me to know that you don't believe all Arabs to be "bloodthirsty sons of camels." Or at bare minimum, since I'm not authorized to police thoughts (yet), that you didn't intend to say it here.
--PJ
I'd be happy to clarify. All of the Arab nations, without exception, are correctly described as in my post. Not all Arab individuals are. Furthermore, I would say that the vast majority (near enough to a unanimity as to make no practical difference) of self-described Palestinian Arabs who live in the Middle East are willing supporters and accomplices to those who actually carry out terrorist actions.
Edit: ... and are consequently also as described in my previous post.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang:
quote:Look, not all terrorists are the same, but I can assure you that the Arabs would be happy as little clams to have Israel ignore their terrorism and just kill everyone in Israel off peacemeal. They are not doing it for the attention. They are not playground bullies. They have a well defined intent, and they have been consistent in the pursuit of that intent
That's not terrorism, that's war. Two very different animals with very different motives and goals.
And yet the differences can be blurred. If the Arab war against Israel is indeed a war, then acts of terrorism are war crimes.
I haven't noticed the "militants" and "freedom fighters" who blow up children being called "war criminals" any time lately.
Have you?
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Going back to the original question that started this thread...take a look at President Bush's statements at the UN yesterday! I'm in shock.
Washington Post Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I don't watch the news, so I don't really know what they're called. But regardless of how the media refers to stuff like that, it doesn't change the fact that terrorism and guerilla warfare are two seperate things. No amount of arguing changes that either.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:I'd be happy to clarify. All of the Arab nations, without exception, are correctly described as in my post. Not all Arab individuals are. Furthermore, I would say that the vast majority (near enough to a unanimity as to make no practical difference) of self-described Palestinian Arabs who live in the Middle East are willing supporters and accomplices to those who actually carry out terrorist actions.
Hopefully that kind of attitude isn't prevelant among Israelis, otherwise it's no surprise that it looks like there is no end in sight to the conflict there.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
starLisa, while you are certainly entitled to your opinion, I would like to go on the record as finding it offensive and prejudicial. I also think the terminology you used is inappropriate for this message board, and I would request that you remove it from your post.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
ummmm which comment? While her comments are flamitory they are noentheless relevent to the discussion.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Such a very strange opinion as the Jordan government is on fairly good terms with Israel, and while Egypt's relations are somewhat strained at the moment, for a long period there was significant cooperation and connection building with Israel.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:I'd be happy to clarify. All of the Arab nations, without exception, are correctly described as in my post. Not all Arab individuals are. Furthermore, I would say that the vast majority (near enough to a unanimity as to make no practical difference) of self-described Palestinian Arabs who live in the Middle East are willing supporters and accomplices to those who actually carry out terrorist actions.
Hopefully that kind of attitude isn't prevelant among Israelis, otherwise it's no surprise that it looks like there is no end in sight to the conflict there.
On the contrary. The lack of that view among too many Israelis has been a major contributor to the ongoing conflict.
I mean, honestly. Open your eyes and look. There has not been a single time that Israel has agreed to a concession that the Arabs haven't responded by upping the violence. They've been firing rockets into Israel from Gaza all this last week, and it barely qualifies as news.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: starLisa, while you are certainly entitled to your opinion, I would like to go on the record as finding it offensive and prejudicial. I also think the terminology you used is inappropriate for this message board, and I would request that you remove it from your post.
I'm sorry that you feel that way, ElJay. I hope you never find yourself in the situation that so many Israelis are in of being targets simply because they exist.
You are welcome to complain about my post, and if required to do so, I will amend it. I hope that I will not be required to do so, since it is accurate.
Are you disturbed at all about the fact that the State of Israel just rendered thousands of its own citizens homeless and jobless, and that the Arab reaction has been to immediately use the vacated area as a place from which to launch rockets and grenades into Israel? If not, then your feelings probably aren't going to concern me overly much.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Such a very strange opinion as the Jordan government is on fairly good terms with Israel, and while Egypt's relations are somewhat strained at the moment, for a long period there was significant cooperation and connection building with Israel.
Do you know that it's illegal for a Jew to live in Jordan? To own property in Jordan? Do you know that the Egyptians continue to officially praise suicide bombers who kill innocent civilians?
Does it bother you that not one single concession has ever been made by the Arabs? Not one? Israel has friggin' armed the Palestinian Arabs with assualt rifles, and uniformed Palestinian Arabs have used those same rifles to murder Israeli Jews?
Do you know that the majority of the arms now being smuggled into Israel for Arab terrorists are coming from Egypt?
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:I don't get it. Why does it seem that I have more respect for those bloodthirsty sons of camels than the "moderates"?
I think that this, specifically, is what ElJay finds prejudicial. Care to rephrase?
I find your whole tone to be a little superior, but that's certainly within your rights. I don't think anyone's objecting to that, but maybe phrasing things a little more thoughtfully would be in order.
EDIT: By the way, when Pop commented on the phrase I quoted, that was the nice way of saying to rephrase it. The next step, I imagine, will be "requiring" you to rephrase. We typically give people the benefit of the doubt.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang:
quote:I don't get it. Why does it seem that I have more respect for those bloodthirsty sons of camels than the "moderates"?
I think that this, specifically, is what ElJay finds prejudicial. Care to rephrase?
I find your whole tone to be a little superior, but that's certainly within your rights. I don't think anyone's objecting to that, but maybe phrasing things a little more thoughtfully would be in order.
EDIT: By the way, when Pop commented on the phrase I quoted, that was the nice way of saying to rephrase it. The next step, I imagine, will be "requiring" you to rephrase. We typically give people the benefit of the doubt.
I live to serve.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
No, its illegal for non-Arabs to own (immovable) property without the approval of the Jordanian government. Arab jews would be eligible, for instance.
As for no concessions, you might look at the treaties concluded by Sadat with Israel, and the treaties concluded later by Jordan. You may be surprised to find that Israel considered those treaties to contain concessions, which would certainly suggest to me they do.
Oh, and did you know the majority of arms used by terrorists around the world come from the US, Russia, or China? Clearly all three countries support terrorism.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Oh, and you are violating the membership agreement of hatrack, particularly as several people here have arab heritage.
Posted by Papa Janitor (Member # 7795) on :
quote:EDIT: By the way, when Pop commented on the phrase I quoted, that was the nice way of saying to rephrase it. The next step, I imagine, will be "requiring" you to rephrase. We typically give people the benefit of the doubt.
No, not actually. I wasn't saying rephrase it -- I was asking for clarification. I'll admit to being somewhat surprised at the clarification, I'll admit, but as I said, I'm no thought police. If I expect something rephrased, I'll ask that it be rephrased.
I personally kinda side with ElJay on this -- I think you (Lisa) are welcome to have your opinion, whether I agree with it or not. I'd think your view is pessimistic, judgmental, and probably inappropriately overgeneralized, but I'll readily admit that I'm no expert on politics in the middle-east.
However, you've given little to no reasoning for your extrapolations. Do you live in the region? How many Palestinians do you know, and what percentage of the total would that be, such that you can assert knowledge about something "near enough to a unanimity as to make no practical difference"?
I believe that that is why ElJay refers to your statements as "prejudicial" -- you make claims about a vast majority of people when there's no reasonable way you could know what you say to be true. That's my take, anyway. Such overgeneralization could also be seen as bordering upon violating the terms of service, though the terms in question involve intent, which is why I'm still trying to figure out what your intent is.
quote:. . . I bow to the demands of the Professionally Offended
I'd rather you didn't pull that kind of crap, either, but that's more as Papa Moose than as Papa Janitor.
Further questions, though, and though it's a question that could be asked challengingly, I'm being sincere here. You stated "Um... not had much experience with terrorism, I see." If it isn't too personal or painful, can you tell us what yours is? It might help a number of us to understand where you're coming from.
--PJ
[Edited to remove unknown offense, even in quoting someone else.]
[ September 15, 2005, 06:54 PM: Message edited by: Papa Janitor ]
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
Are you disturbed at all about the fact that the State of Israel just rendered thousands of its own citizens homeless and jobless, and that the Arab reaction has been to immediately use the vacated area as a place from which to launch rockets and grenades into Israel? If not, then your feelings probably aren't going to concern me overly much.
Yes, the Palestinian reaction disturbs me as well. I do not condone their actions. And I believe that it is the responsibility of the State of Israel to now provide housing and assistance finding employment to the people it forced to move. You'll note I have not expressed an opinion on the forced abandonment of the settlements, I am of mixed feelings about it. But since the elected government of Israel decided it was necessary, I think it is their responsibility to make sure it does not cause those people undue hardship.
I don't think the way you choose to express your opinions is helpful to your cause. That may not concern you, of course. I don't really care. What I care about is keeping this forum a civil place that is welcoming to anyone who stops by. We have several members who live in Israel, and I appreciate hearing the viewpoint of people actually living in the situation. I wish, however, that we had a poster or two from Palestine as well. And should one stop by, I would prefer they not think that everyone here automatically labels them as a bloodthirsty terrorist murderer -- or a son of camels -- and so has no desire to join a hostile community.
I assure you that I am offensive as often as I am offended, and probably much more so. Your comments do not offend me personally, rather they promote the kind of ignorant, racist, unwelcoming atmosphere that I think is bad for this board. If you want to attack me personally, feel free. I'm here to stand up for myself. But put your broad brush back in the toolbox and leave the inflammatory statements for an audience that appreciates them. I'm pretty sure you'll find it's not here.
Posted by Papa Janitor (Member # 7795) on :
I've been informed by a Hatracker (twinky, since he doesn't mind the attribution, but has chosen not to discuss Israel/Palestine issues at Hatrack) that the phrase "self-described Palestinian Arab" is highly offensive:
quote:"Self-described Palestinian Arabs" is an offensive way to describe Palestinians. This is partly because Palestinians are ethnically distinct from Lebanese, Syrians, Egyptians, and so on... but it's mostly because throughout Israel's history there have been multiple attempts to discredit or deny the very existence of the Palestinian people as an ethnic unit. The (in)famous "a land without a people for a people without a land" is the most obvious example of this.
As I said above, "I'll readily admit that I'm no expert on politics in the middle-east," and neither am I an expert in history of any kind, so I'm not in a position to agree with or refute twinky's claim. However, as a courtesy to him and others, I'll ask both that you (Lisa) edit out the phrase in your earlier post, and that we not use it in the future.
I don't believe this is the same situation discussed a couple months ago regarding the use of deity as exclamation. This is more similar to a term like the infamous N-word (see? I can't even type it now) being used (or if anyone remembers a thread here a few years ago, the word "Abo" referring to Australian Aborigines). And after hearing twinky's take on it, I felt like a second-grader who used the N-word without understanding what it meant.
If anyone has a question on this, feel free to ask me about it.
--PJ
[Edit -- ironic that I find it ok to use the phrase in this discussion context, even though it's still quoting someone else.]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Starlisa -
quote:On the contrary. The lack of that view among too many Israelis has been a major contributor to the ongoing conflict.
I mean, honestly. Open your eyes and look. There has not been a single time that Israel has agreed to a concession that the Arabs haven't responded by upping the violence. They've been firing rockets into Israel from Gaza all this last week, and it barely qualifies as news.
Right, and you know, looking that way at Israelis is what makes them think you are all land grabbing arab hating Jews. If you're ready to call them all the same, you should be ready for all the problems that go along with it. You'll never really understand them, and you'll never have peace. If every Israeli thought like you, I wonder how long it would take for Israel/Palestine to just implode into a ploom of smoke.
quote: Do you know that it's illegal for a Jew to live in Jordan? To own property in Jordan?
Does it bother you that not one single concession has ever been made by the Arabs? Not one?
Do you know that the majority of the arms now being smuggled into Israel for Arab terrorists are coming from Egypt?
It's also illegal for Palestinian refugees in Jordan to return to Palestine. Are you complaining about that too?
Never made a single concession? There's an Israel isn't there? Jordan and Egypt also made several concessions that Israel recognizes as concessions. What concessions can Palestinians make? The Israelis have everything!
And Israel is the most heavily armed power in the region, much of that from the sweat of Europe and America. I'm not surprised they want something to defend themselves with. Also, Israeli made Uzis are a favorite of gangs and terrorist organizations all over the world. Where is your outrage over there?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Papa Janitor: I've been informed by a Hatracker (twinky, since he doesn't mind the attribution, but has chosen not to discuss Israel/Palestine issues at Hatrack) that the phrase "self-described Palestinian Arab" is highly offensive:
quote:"Self-described Palestinian Arabs" is an offensive way to describe Palestinians. This is partly because Palestinians are ethnically distinct from Lebanese, Syrians, Egyptians, and so on... but it's mostly because throughout Israel's history there have been multiple attempts to discredit or deny the very existence of the Palestinian people as an ethnic unit. The (in)famous "a land without a people for a people without a land" is the most obvious example of this.
As I said above, "I'll readily admit that I'm no expert on politics in the middle-east," and neither am I an expert in history of any kind, so I'm not in a position to agree with or refute twinky's claim. However, as a courtesy to him and others, I'll ask both that you (Lisa) edit out the phrase in your earlier post, and that we not use it in the future.
I apologize, Papa J, but I won't be able to do that. I hope that you will not delete my post or ban me, but if you do, I'll accept it.
The thing is, that twinky is quite right that
quote:throughout Israel's history there have been multiple attempts to discredit or deny the very existence of the Palestinian people as an ethnic unit
There's a reason for that. Before the League of Nations split the southern part of Syria off and labeled it as the Palestinian Mandate, it was just southern Syria.
Once they created a region called "Palestine" that was distinct from the rest of Syria (and by Syria, I mean Syria and Lebanon, because this was before Syria was partitioned into those two countries), they gave it to Britain to administer for the purpose of creating a Jewish state in it.
Shortly thereafter, Britain separated 79% of Palestine off and created a Palestinian Arab state called the Emirate of Transjordan. They issued a paper declaring that they were no longer considering that area to be a part of the Mandate for Palestine.
Jewish towns on the east side of the Jordan River were, of course, abandoned and destroyed.
In the remaining 21% of what had been Palestine, there were Jews and Arabs living there. In standard parlance of the time, "Palestinian" meant a Palestinian Jew, while Palestinian Arabs were specified as Palestinian Arabs.
Despite the fact that most of the Palestinian Arabs were now living in what has become Jordan, and despite the fact that all of the Palestinian Arabs were simply Syrian Arabs who lived in the southern part of Syria, the Arabs in the remaining sliver of land still didn't want Jews there. When the United Nations voted to partition the land 50-50 between Palestinian Jews and Palestinian Arabs, the Arabs -- all of them -- went into a complete frenzy.
In 1948, about 6 months after the UN vote for partition, a Palestinian Jewish state was declared. It was given the name "Israel". Rather than declare a Palestinian Arab state in the other half, the Arabs living there joined with the forces of 6 Arab countries in an all-out attack intended to drive all Jews out of the region. Most Jews were expelled from the Arab countries many of them had been living in for centuries. Their property and wealth was stolen from them, and has never been returned.
The Arabs killed 10% of the Jews in Israel in that one war. Think about that. Imagine 10% of the population of the USA getting killed by an enemy whose only reason for fighting is that they exist.
In the final armistice in 1949, Israel wound up with roughly 11% of what had been Palestine, compared to 10% that was captured by Egypt and Jordan.
Understand, the offer of a state for the Arabs of the part of Palestine that hadn't already been turned into an Arab Palestinian state was refused. And in the 18 years between the armistice and the attempt by Egypt, Syria and Jordan to drive the Jews into the sea (their words, incidentally) in 1967, there was no talk of there being Palestinian Arabs who wanted a state in those lands. Fancy that.
In 1964, while Jordan still had the West Bank, which they'd annexed, although the annexation was never recognized by any countries other than Britain and Pakistan, and while Egypt still had the Gaza Strip, the Palestine Liberation Organization was founded. Not, mind you, to "liberate" the West Bank and Gaza. Those were already considered liberated. No, what they wanted to "liberate" was the rest of it. Everything.
There is a Palestinian Arab state called Jordan and a Palestinian Jewish state called Israel. The vast majority of those calling themselves "Palestinian Arabs" today have never lived in the area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.
Finally, my use of the term "self-defined Palestinian Arabs" includes such people as Yassir Arafat, who was actually an Egyptian, but defined himself as "Palestinian" for political purposes.
quote:Originally posted by Papa Janitor: I don't believe this is the same situation discussed a couple months ago regarding the use of deity as exclamation. This is more similar to a term like the infamous N-word (see? I can't even type it now) being used (or if anyone remembers a thread here a few years ago, the word "Abo" referring to Australian Aborigines). And after hearing twinky's take on it, I felt like a second-grader who used the N-word without understanding what it meant.
Twinky misled you, Papa J. And I'm sorry, but I can't acquiesce to a fiction that has been used as a justification for the murder of so many of my people.
I've narrowly missed being one of those statistics on a number of occasions. I have friends who were murdered for the crime of riding a bus through the center of Jerusalem.
Please look at the facts. If you want to ban me, that's your privilege, and I'll respect it, even while I disagree with it.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
This discussion is.... intense to say the least... Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Starlisa -
quote:On the contrary. The lack of that view among too many Israelis has been a major contributor to the ongoing conflict.
I mean, honestly. Open your eyes and look. There has not been a single time that Israel has agreed to a concession that the Arabs haven't responded by upping the violence. They've been firing rockets into Israel from Gaza all this last week, and it barely qualifies as news.
Right, and you know, looking that way at Israelis is what makes them think you are all land grabbing arab hating Jews.
Would you care to explain that? Or at least to parse it? The Arabs think we're all "land grabbing arab hating Jews" because we caved to terror and evicted our own people from their homes in order to give those homes to the Arabs?
Was that what you meant to say? If so, could you explain how Jews giving Arab land makes people think that Jews are "land grabbing"?
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: If you're ready to call them all the same, you should be ready for all the problems that go along with it. You'll never really understand them, and you'll never have peace. If every Israeli thought like you, I wonder how long it would take for Israel/Palestine to just implode into a ploom of smoke.
What is it now? And honestly, what have the Arabs ever done that leads you to believe that they want "peace" in the sense that you're using that word? I'm sure they want peace, but the peace they want is a Middle East without Israel in it. They have never given up on that goal.
Egypt signed a treaty with Israel in exchange for billions of US dollars. And Egypt still gives aid and comfort to terrorists, and lauds suicide bombers publically.
Jordan signed a treaty with Israel in exchange for Israel agreeing not to push the fact that 79% of Palestine, and most of the Arabs who lived in the southern part of Syria called Palestine, live in Jordan. Remember that Yassir Arafat tried to kill King Hussein and establish Jordan as a Palestinian State in 1970.
The only "concessions" on the side of Jordan and Egypt were to hold off and not try and destroy Israel any more. How very nice of them.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote: Do you know that it's illegal for a Jew to live in Jordan? To own property in Jordan?
Does it bother you that not one single concession has ever been made by the Arabs? Not one?
Do you know that the majority of the arms now being smuggled into Israel for Arab terrorists are coming from Egypt?
It's also illegal for Palestinian refugees in Jordan to return to Palestine. Are you complaining about that too?
First of all, they are in Palestine. Second of all, if they are refugees, it's because they were unwise enough to listen to their fellow Arabs when they were told to leave until Israel had been destroyed. Bad move on their parts.
I know a woman who lives in Upper Nazareth. It's a town next to Nazareth. Upper Nazareth is a mostly Jewish town. Nazareth is an Arab town.
Anyway, in 1967, the Egyptians and Syrians and Jordanians were waxing poetic about the forthcoming slaughter of the Jews. King Hussein famously ranted in an address on Radio Amman: "Kill the Jews wherever you find them. Kill them with your arms, with your hands, with your nails and teeth."
So this woman walks into her kitchen one day, and a woman from Nazareth with whom she was on fairly amiable terms was in her kitchen looking around. She said something lame like, "Er... can I help you?" And the Arab woman said, "No, I'm just getting familiar with the place. After you Jews are killed, this is going to be mine."
And what exactly was going on with the Palestinian Arab "refugees" in the 19 years that the West Bank was under Arab control?
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Never made a single concession? There's an Israel isn't there?
Papa Janitor, I'd just like you to take note here. Apparently allowing Israel to exist is a concession. I didn't write what I wrote just to be nasty. This is what's behind what I wrote.
Lyrhawn, a concession is taking a step towards a middle ground. Israel offered Arafat virtually everything he'd been claiming he wanted at Camp David II, and the response was not only refusal, but a new intifada.
Where is an Arab who will say, "You know what? We have a real problem here. How about we split the difference?" Yeah, sure. The Arabs calling themselves Palestinian currently rule over 90% of the West Bank and all of Gaza. Why haven't they declared Palestine? I'll tell you why. It's because having a state was never their goal.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Jordan and Egypt also made several concessions that Israel recognizes as concessions. What concessions can Palestinians make? The Israelis have everything!
"What concessions can Palestinians make?" Gee, how about stop blowing up school buses. Stop transporting arms in ambulances. Stop airing Sesame Street style TV shows that teach young children that the highest thing they can aspire to is to be a suicide bomber and die for the glory of Allah, taking as many Jews with them as possible.
Israel has everything? Why is it that I can't go into a grocery store or a mall or a movie theater without having to have my bags checked? Why is it that we didn't have public wastebaskets for years, until someone designed one that would contain a grenade explosion? It's because the Arabs view no act beyond the pale. They will commit any barbaric act necessary to achieve their goals.
This isn't a theory. This is history and current events, all wrapped into one.
Committing these actions is evil. Let me repeat that for you: It is evil. There can never be any excuse for it. And yet even those Palestinians who don't commit such acts excuse them. They name schools and streets after people who strap bombs to their bodies and blow up kids. And that, I'm sorry to say, is also evil.
This isn't a squabble. This isn't a difference of opinion. This is a brutal war against people who simply want to live in peace. There is no moral equivalency. There is no place for "Both sides have done bad things." That's offensive nonsense.
There is a good guy here, and there is a bad guy. And it's a great tragedy that people's ability to make moral judgements have become so dulled that they can even question that.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: And Israel is the most heavily armed power in the region, much of that from the sweat of Europe and America.
Israel is not the most heavily armed power in the region. Not nearly.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I'm not surprised they want something to defend themselves with. Also, Israeli made Uzis are a favorite of gangs and terrorist organizations all over the world. Where is your outrage over there?
They are used because they are simple. An Uzi is made up of seven pieces, and a child could learn to take it apart and put it back together again in pitch black. They're cheap, and mostly not made in Israel any more. The pared down Uzis used by gangs and terrorists are often knock-offs.
But anything to bash Israel, right?
Posted by Chungwa (Member # 6421) on :
I don't suppose you'd concede that your personal circumstances may have led you to a rather one-sided bias on the issue, would you?
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
starLisa, I fully admit to not being well versed in the history involved here. But I do believe there are two sides to every issue. We can't change history, we can only change how we interact now. And the realities of now appear to be that there will be two nations in the land we're talking about here, and they will either exterminate each other or find a way to get along.
Even if everything you say is true, insisting on calling the other side by a name they find offensive does not help move the factions towards peace. Maybe you don't want peace, but if that is the case, what exactly do you want? Israel to clear all the Palestinians from the land? The death toll for both sides would be enormous. And the rest of the world would very quickly lose patience with both sides, as well.
Anyway, I'm sure that to you I look like a goody-goody bleeding heart, with no understanding of the realities involved. And I am certainly an idealist. I believe that people can find a way to live in peace, but only if they start looking at each other as people, not pejoratives. And someone has to start first.
(I'm done now. . . that's my official amount of energy willing to be expanded tilting at windmills for this topic. I certainly don't expect you to be convinced, but I'm pretty much incapable of not having my say, so there ya go. I wish you nothing but the best, and sincerely hope that relations improve to the point where you don't have to worry about taking buses or being out in public anymore.)
Added: This was started before your most recent post, for context.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Its sad how Israel will problg have to turn into a totalitarian state inorder to win security. How sad, either that or sacrifice their soverignty... Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chungwa: I don't suppose you'd concede that your personal circumstances may have led you to a rather one-sided bias on the issue, would you?
Gosh. I hadn't thought of that. Victims of crimes probably shouldn't be permitted to testify either. After all, they're probably biased.
Look, I have a clear position. No one can claim that I'm being subtle about it, either. I say what I mean.
But I'm giving you easily verifiable facts. What on earth does the fact that I have a position have to do with the truth or falsity of those facts?
Fact is, I've never been harmed myself. Nor, thank God, have any of my family members. Nor, for that matter, does it matter that I've had friends murdered by Palestinian Arab martyrs and heros of the jihad.
The fact is that there are two sides in this conflict, and they are not Israeli and Palestinian. They are Israeli/Jewish and Arab/Muslim.
The fact is also that the Israeli side has never been the aggressor, but has acted only to defend itself from murderous and genocidal attacks.
The fact happens to be, in addition, that Israel has made insanely generous offers of concessions solely because it values peace more than winning. And that the Arabs have uniformly rejected these offers, and upped the violence in response each time, because they value winning more than peace.
And heck, doesn't it make sense? I mean, Israel backs down. What does that say? To you, maybe it means that they want to compromise. But to the Arabs, it means that they aren't strong enough to hold the course, and that victory has just become more likely. Of course they react by escalating.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote: What is it now? And honestly, what have the Arabs ever done that leads you to believe that they want "peace" in the sense that you're using that word? I'm sure they want peace, but the peace they want is a Middle East without Israel in it. They have never given up on that goal.
That right there is why you can't understand the situation. You think every Arab is the same, like they are carbon copies of each other, preprogrammed to do one thing: Hate Israel. That's stupid, and dangerous, for your own country's sake. If you believe they hate you, it makes it much easier to hate them, as you clearly seem to. You talk so vehemently about how much they want to wash you from the face of the earth, and I wonder where that vehemence comes from. And I wonder how different it is from Arab anger. If you aren't smart enough to recognize the differences between the factions, and public opinion in Palestine, you'll never win, unless you kill them all. And then you'll have lost the only war that really matters in the end.
quote: First of all, they are in Palestine. Second of all, if they are refugees, it's because they were unwise enough to listen to their fellow Arabs when they were told to leave until Israel had been destroyed. Bad move on their parts.
This is rich. First of all, YOU are in Palestine too. It was owned by other people before the Israelites got there. Second of all, stop complaining about the disengagement and removal of the settlers from Gaza. If they had to leave and are without jobs, it's becuase they were unwise to listen to their fellow Israelis when they were told to move there to begin with. Bad move on their parts.
quote: Where is an Arab who will say, "You know what? We have a real problem here. How about we split the difference?" Yeah, sure. The Arabs calling themselves Palestinian currently rule over 90% of the West Bank and all of Gaza. Why haven't they declared Palestine? I'll tell you why. It's because having a state was never their goal.
Right, they are going to declare a state with Israeli military posted throughout their new country? Because when the Americans did it, the British all packed up and went home with apologies and kisses. You seem like you understand the situation, but ignore every fact that might undercut Israel's stance.
quote: Israel is not the most heavily armed power in the region. Not nearly
Please. Tell me which individual nation in the Middle East could all by itself take out Israel? Hell I'll do you one better, expand it, I'll throw in the whole of Africa too. Which nation?
quote:The Arabs killed 10% of the Jews in Israel in that one war. Think about that. Imagine 10% of the population of the USA getting killed by an enemy whose only reason for fighting is that they exist.
Imagine American being taken over by a foriegn power, and then that foriegn power offered us Florida and Maine back, while trying to turn Washington D.C. into their new capital.
I'm not saying I agree with the Palestinians on everything, I'm not. I abhor the violence that goes on there, and I was pissed as hell when I saw on the news what Palestinians were doing to some of the Jewish synagouges in the empty settlements, though I was pissed at Israel too. There is no absolute right, and absolute wrong here. I don't agree with them on half of the issues at hand, but I am sick and freaking tired of arrogant people like you generalizing all Arabs as bloodthirsty savages trying to drive Israel into the sea. It was hard not to laugh when you brought up Palestinian TV brainwashing Palestinian children. Because you don't make a very good case for unbiased sanity.
Posted by Chungwa (Member # 6421) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: Gosh. I hadn't thought of that. Victims of crimes probably shouldn't be permitted to testify either. After all, they're probably biased.
I'm sorry that you took my question as insulting or sarcastic (by your response, I'm assuming you took in one of those ways) - I didn't intend it to be taken that way.
That being said, my point (which I'm sure you understood) was that you are most certainly only one side of the story - another side, equally as valid, exists.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote: What is it now? And honestly, what have the Arabs ever done that leads you to believe that they want "peace" in the sense that you're using that word? I'm sure they want peace, but the peace they want is a Middle East without Israel in it. They have never given up on that goal.
That right there is why you can't understand the situation. You think every Arab is the same, like they are carbon copies of each other, preprogrammed to do one thing: Hate Israel.
But they are. When Palestinian TV shows a film of young girls singing rhapsodically about how they want to grow up to be suicide bombers, it makes an impact.
There are Arabs in the US who were raised away from that environment and who aren't all about the violence. That's great. There should be many more.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: That's stupid, and dangerous, for your own country's sake. If you believe they hate you, it makes it much easier to hate them, as you clearly seem to. You talk so vehemently about how much they want to wash you from the face of the earth, and I wonder where that vehemence comes from.
<blink> Then you aren't paying attention. They say it themselves. All you have to do is take them seriously and stop dismissing what they say as mere rhetoric. It isn't, you know.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: And I wonder how different it is from Arab anger.
Really. And here I haven't blown up a pizza shop for, I don't know, weeks.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: If you aren't smart enough to recognize the differences between the factions, and public opinion in Palestine, you'll never win, unless you kill them all.
Or expel them all. And Lyrhawn, the existence of anti-Nazi forces in Germany didn't mean that the Third Reich should have been treated as a bunch of factions. When people are trying to kill you, it doesn't much matter if there's someone among those people who isn't sure it's right to blow up school buses and maim and kill little kids. They continue to conduct business as usual with those who are quite sure that it is right.
Where are the Arabs protesting against naming schools after suicide bombers? Because you know the media would be all over that. The thing is, there are none.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: And then you'll have lost the only war that really matters in the end.
Suppose, just for the heck of it, that you let us decide what matters. When you can't walk down a street without knowing that some Arab might come up to you with a belt full of explosives or an axe, then you'll be in a slightly better position to give advice, hmm?
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote: First of all, they are in Palestine. Second of all, if they are refugees, it's because they were unwise enough to listen to their fellow Arabs when they were told to leave until Israel had been destroyed. Bad move on their parts.
This is rich. First of all, YOU are in Palestine too. It was owned by other people before the Israelites got there.
Pardon? The name Palestine was invented by the Romans. The application of that name to southern Syria was done by the League of Nations. Israel is in a very small part of what was called Palestine.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Second of all, stop complaining about the disengagement and removal of the settlers from Gaza. If they had to leave and are without jobs, it's becuase they were unwise to listen to their fellow Israelis when they were told to move there to begin with. Bad move on their parts.
They weren't unwise. Building towns in Israel was the right thing to do. Not annexing the Gaza Strip in 1967 was the bad move.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote: Where is an Arab who will say, "You know what? We have a real problem here. How about we split the difference?" Yeah, sure. The Arabs calling themselves Palestinian currently rule over 90% of the West Bank and all of Gaza. Why haven't they declared Palestine? I'll tell you why. It's because having a state was never their goal.
Right, they are going to declare a state with Israeli military posted throughout their new country? Because when the Americans did it, the British all packed up and went home with apologies and kisses. You seem like you understand the situation, but ignore every fact that might undercut Israel's stance.
You fail to see that every act Israel takes to control the Palestinian Arabs is a direct result of Palestinian Arab violence. If they weren't trying to kill us, we wouldn't need to put up a fence. If they weren't trying to kill us, we wouldn't need checkpoints.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote: Israel is not the most heavily armed power in the region. Not nearly
Please. Tell me which individual nation in the Middle East could all by itself take out Israel? Hell I'll do you one better, expand it, I'll throw in the whole of Africa too. Which nation?
They are all one nation. Look up Pan-Arabism.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:The Arabs killed 10% of the Jews in Israel in that one war. Think about that. Imagine 10% of the population of the USA getting killed by an enemy whose only reason for fighting is that they exist.
Imagine American being taken over by a foriegn power, and then that foriegn power offered us Florida and Maine back, while trying to turn Washington D.C. into their new capital.
That's dishonest. There never was a nation called Palestine. There was an area by that name, and most of it is now Jordan.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I'm not saying I agree with the Palestinians on everything, I'm not. I abhor the violence that goes on there, and I was pissed as hell when I saw on the news what Palestinians were doing to some of the Jewish synagouges in the empty settlements, though I was pissed at Israel too.
Because God forbid you should be pissed at murderers and terrorists without being equally pissed at their victims.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: There is no absolute right, and absolute wrong here.
Yes, Lyrhawn, there is. What you're doing is no different than prosecuting a rape victim for scratching her attacker's face.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I don't agree with them on half of the issues at hand, but I am sick and freaking tired of arrogant people like you generalizing all Arabs as bloodthirsty savages trying to drive Israel into the sea.
Then tell them to stop.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: It was hard not to laugh when you brought up Palestinian TV brainwashing Palestinian children. Because you don't make a very good case for unbiased sanity.
Hard not to laugh? The moral bankruptcy of someone who could laugh about something like that is beyond belief.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote: What is it now? And honestly, what have the Arabs ever done that leads you to believe that they want "peace" in the sense that you're using that word? I'm sure they want peace, but the peace they want is a Middle East without Israel in it. They have never given up on that goal.
That right there is why you can't understand the situation. You think every Arab is the same, like they are carbon copies of each other, preprogrammed to do one thing: Hate Israel.
But they are. When Palestinian TV shows a film of young girls singing rhapsodically about how they want to grow up to be suicide bombers, it makes an impact.
starLisa, right there, you lose all credibility. You come across as a racist, and it's looking pretty ugly from here.
You can spout all your "every Arab is the same" bit all you want, but I don't buy it. I know a lot of people who've lived in that region among the Arab Muslims, and by all accounts, they're NOT all like that.
When I have a whole lot of people I know in real life, know very well, know that they're reasonably decent judges of character, and they've actually lived amongst the Arab Muslims, and on the other side, I have you, someone who is, by all appearances, hatemongering, guess what? I believe them.
If you said a lot or even most I might believe you. But when you do not allow for even one single person to be different than you assume, that's it.
It's too bad. I would like to learn more about what's happening there, but it's difficult to sort out your extremist opinions from anything resembling the truth.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Not to step into the middle of this ongoing debate, but I was wondering how people would react to Britain's new proposed anti-terror law. As reported in today's Washington Post:
quote:If approved by Parliament, the legislation also would outlaw "indirect incitement" of terrorism and "glorifying" violence -- provisions aimed at extremist Islamic clerics accused of seducing youths into militant activities.
I'm worried that the US will try to follow suit.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:The fact is that there are two sides in this conflict, and they are not Israeli and Palestinian. They are Israeli/Jewish and Arab/Muslim.
I'm curious as to where Palestinian Christians fall into your two-sided veiw of the world. Are they not part of "the fact"?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I would rather not have Palestinian christians brought into it, I'm pretty sure in Lebanon they were the ones who murdered hundreds if not a few thousand Palistinian Arabs. I could be wrong with the Palistinian part but definatly not with the Christian.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
An interesting, current perspective from a Palestinian Christian can be found in the book "Bethlehem Besieged" by Pastor Mitri Raheb.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chungwa:
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: Gosh. I hadn't thought of that. Victims of crimes probably shouldn't be permitted to testify either. After all, they're probably biased.
I'm sorry that you took my question as insulting or sarcastic (by your response, I'm assuming you took in one of those ways) - I didn't intend it to be taken that way.
I did take it that way. You said:
quote:Originally posted by Chungwa: I don't suppose you'd concede that your personal circumstances may have led you to a rather one-sided bias on the issue, would you?
I do not think that my views suffer from one-sided bias. They are based on the reality. If they come across as being one sided, it's because the other side is indefensible.
quote:Originally posted by Chungwa: That being said, my point (which I'm sure you understood) was that you are most certainly only one side of the story - another side, equally as valid, exists.
That's not true. And that's the whole problem. People want there to be two valid sides of the story. There aren't always.
I mean, technically, there is another side. But that doesn't mean it has any validity. During WWII, the Nazis had a side. But I would contend that it was not valid. Not even slightly.
And I'm not using them as an example in order to intimidate people into agreeing. I hate that kind of thing, and I apologize to anyone who takes it that way. It's simply the most recent and appalling example I could think of.
Um... let's see. Was there a valid side to Saddam Hussein invading Kuwait? Was there a valid side to the 9/11 attacks? Was there a valid side to the countless acts of terrorism that have become almost "business as usual"? And does the fact that 90% or more of all terrorist attacks in the world are carried out by people with recognizably Arabic names mean anything to you?
I guarantee you that if the majority of such attacks were carried out by people named Goldberg and Bronstein, you'd see pogroms all over the place.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by quidscribis:
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote: What is it now? And honestly, what have the Arabs ever done that leads you to believe that they want "peace" in the sense that you're using that word? I'm sure they want peace, but the peace they want is a Middle East without Israel in it. They have never given up on that goal.
That right there is why you can't understand the situation. You think every Arab is the same, like they are carbon copies of each other, preprogrammed to do one thing: Hate Israel.
But they are. When Palestinian TV shows a film of young girls singing rhapsodically about how they want to grow up to be suicide bombers, it makes an impact.
starLisa, right there, you lose all credibility. You come across as a racist, and it's looking pretty ugly from here.
Do you see what you just did? I can show you actual clips from actual PA Television and prove that this is true, and yet rather than address it, all you do is call me a racist.
A racist thinks that people are bad or less-than by their nature. That it's inherent to them.
I know that this is not the case for the Arabs. This culture of death is a choice. And that makes it far worse, in my view. When a baby bites, it's one thing. When a young child bites, it's quite another. When an adult does it, you lock him away.
quote:Originally posted by quidscribis: You can spout all your "every Arab is the same" bit all you want, but I don't buy it. I know a lot of people who've lived in that region among the Arab Muslims, and by all accounts, they're NOT all like that.
Actions speak much, much louder than words, sorry to say.
quote:Originally posted by quidscribis: If you said a lot or even most I might believe you. But when you do not allow for even one single person to be different than you assume, that's it.
I never said "all", but I do say that all of them in the Middle East acquiesce to those who carry out the terrorism, and that they treat them as valued members of the community and do nothing to stop them. And I stand by that. Find me counter-examples, if you can. Where's the Arab version of the Israeli "Peace Now" organization?
quote:Originally posted by quidscribis: It's too bad. I would like to learn more about what's happening there, but it's difficult to sort out your extremist opinions from anything resembling the truth.
It's difficult to learn anything if you label information as "extremist opinions" simply because you don't like them.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: Not to step into the middle of this ongoing debate, but I was wondering how people would react to Britain's new proposed anti-terror law. As reported in today's Washington Post:
quote:If approved by Parliament, the legislation also would outlaw "indirect incitement" of terrorism and "glorifying" violence -- provisions aimed at extremist Islamic clerics accused of seducing youths into militant activities.
I'm worried that the US will try to follow suit.
I hope they do. This is a clear case of shouting "fire" in a crowded theater. Inciting to violence isn't covered by the first amendment.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw:
quote:The fact is that there are two sides in this conflict, and they are not Israeli and Palestinian. They are Israeli/Jewish and Arab/Muslim.
I'm curious as to where Palestinian Christians fall into your two-sided veiw of the world. Are they not part of "the fact"?
Like George Habash and his PFLP? The slashes in both cases were intended to denote "and/or".
There are Palestinian Arabs who are Druze, and serve in the Israeli Army. By publically making a stand against the bad guys, they are no longer bad guys.
A racist would consider them to be the same as all the other Arabs.
But someone who thinks they can just refrain from carrying out atrocities themselves and then have coffee with those who do are merely fooling themselves.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Your opinions aren't labeled extremist because I don't agree with them (not that I do or do not agree - I'm happily uninformed on the goings on in Israel). They just read like incendiary anti-Arab propaganda. I don't doubt that you believe them, but hearsay (even first hand) isn't enough evidence to convince me.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Find me counter-examples, if you can. Where's the Arab version of the Israeli "Peace Now" organization?
There’s also The Jerusalem Center for Women which is a Palestinian organization that works closely with the Israeli group Bat Shalom, again, a peace organization.
Here’s the Negev co-existence forum, seems to be Palestinian.
I’m sure they’re more – these came up on the front page of a google search. I was looking for one that I actually know a member of, but I guess they don’t have a website.
Posted by Papa Janitor (Member # 7795) on :
To be honest, I almost didn't post this because I'd just as soon this thread die. However, since I don't believe it's gonna happen any time soon, I figured I might as well post anyway.
Lisa, I gotta admit I get bugged when someone plays the "well if you have to ban me then whatever" card. You seem to have (in my opinion, of course) a distressingly black-and-white view of things which others may not find so clear cut. Unsurprisingly, you see this as a strength in yourself. I'm not going to try to change you or your opinion on that. In general, banning is unnecessary here -- people who conduct themselves in such a manner that banning would seem a reasonable option usually leave of their own accord because they feel unwelcome. There have been a few exceptions over the years, of course, but there's no "one warning and you're gone" code to which we adhere.
But I have a (what I consider to be relatively simple) request. If you are using the phrase "self-described Palestinian Arab" regarding people such as Arafat (and again I don't know enough to agree or disagree with you about him), could you in the future say "Palestinians and self-described Palestinian Arabs" when referring to the whole?
I don't consider myself a "self-described American European," though I suppose it could be considered just as true but with a longer timeframe. I just think it sounds silly. Palestine exists now and has for a while, and it just seems kinda ridiculous not to consider people Palestinians.
I hope you can consider this a reasonable compromise.
--PJ
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Papa Janitor- I more or less completely disagree with star lisa (ok, I haven't read this whole thread, but she's posting on ornery too, and she's just as incendiary there, with both our resident Israeli's calling her a racist and making sure that everyone knows she only speaks for a very small group of Israelis), but the fact is that the people who now describe themselves as palestinians did not do so until well after the formation of the state of israel. The reformation of self-identity that created the national group "palestinians" was a political move designed to discredit Israel's right to existence.
While I certainly have no problems calling the people under discussion Palestinians (and do so, in all my discussions on the matter), from lisa's perspective, what you are asking isn't reasonable. What you're asking is very similar to asking that a pro-choice advocate label her position as "Pro-murder." Allowing one side's language to win in a war of ideas, and disallowing the language of the other side, is a coercive move that gives extra power to one side of an argument.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Even if the choice of name has changed due to political and social pressures, there is a people who possess a common identity who happen to live in the area and be typically islamic, and who have lived in that area for quite some time as a people.
Denying their right to name themselves something wholly appropriate for such a people in that region is an affront to the respect starLisa agreed to show in the membership agreement, even if she has a hard time seeing that herself.
Regarding your analogy, its not really similar to asking a pro-choice advocate label her position "pro-murder", but analogous to a pro-choice advocate asking a pro-life advocate to stop labeling her position "pro-murder".
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Denying their right to name themselves something wholly appropriate for such a people in that region is an affront to the respect starLisa agreed to show in the membership agreement, even if she has a hard time seeing that herself."
I don't disagree that its not inappropriate they call themselves palestinians, at all. What I do disagree is that people have a right to force their political language on others. Papa janitor is asking starlisa to concede that her national story is a false national story, while affirming that the national story of the palestinians is a true national story. Which was, of course, the intent when the palestinians started calling themselves palestinians. Because starlisa's national story, which is at least as true as the palestinians national story, says that the palestinian people do not exist as anything other then a political group aimed at throwing all jews out of their homeland, by violence if necessary.
Why should we ask her to respect other people's national story, if we can't respect her own?
Certainly there is a line that can be crossed in one's self-story, but in this case, the truth is that starlisa's national story has enough truth to it that its unfair for us to ask her to concede a key part of her story, unless we also ask that palestinians concede that their name is an attempt to remove lisa's national story from existence.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Even if the choice of name has changed due to political and social pressures, there is a people who possess a common identity who happen to live in the area and be typically islamic, and who have lived in that area for quite some time as a people.
That's just the thing, fugu. That's what I'm saying is not true. They never had a common identity that differed from the Arabs living in what's now Jordan, Lebanon or Syria.
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Denying their right to name themselves something wholly appropriate for such a people in that region is an affront to the respect starLisa agreed to show in the membership agreement, even if she has a hard time seeing that herself.
Interesting way to put it. It's not that I have a hard time seeing it, rather, it's that it's untrue.
Sometimes I just wish that Israel had chosen the name Palestine back in 1948. I mean, the Jerusalem Post was called the Palestine Post (that's still the name of the newspaper's corporate body), and the Jews were known as Palestinians. When the state was going to be created, the names Israel, Judea, Palestine and Zion were all put forth as possibilities.
God only knows what the Arabs would be doing semantically today had we chosen the name Palestine. We didn't, not because of any Palestinian Arab identity, but rather because the name Palestine was created by the Romans as an intentional affront, and we didn't want to go on accepting that.
Calling the Arabs in that area Palestinians only tends to solidify the fiction that there was a country/culture called Palestinian that was invaded and conquered by Israel. Something that is factually untrue.
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Regarding your analogy, its not really similar to asking a pro-choice advocate label her position "pro-murder", but analogous to a pro-choice advocate asking a pro-life advocate to stop labeling her position "pro-murder".
No, Paul was right. The people I was talking about are Palestinian Arabs in exactly the same sense that the Jordanians are. And exactly in the same sense that Israelis are Palestinian Jews, Christians and Arabs. Israel is just the name given to the Jewish Palestinian state.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Fugu- If you want a better analogy, there are a lot of groups in the united states that call themselves uplifting and positive.
Yet, we have no problem calling them what they are ... "Neo-Nazi skinheads."
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Take another look at the last sentence you wrote there, Lisa
quote:Israel is just the name given to the Jewish Palestinian state.
Palestinian is just the name given (similarly recently) to another body of people in the area.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
starLisa. Did those people live there or not? My impression from the UN documents from the period (which I've linked to before) is that the people of Arabian descent lived on land that is now (or until recently was) part of the territory given to the country established as Israel. In addition, Israel took over some neighboring lands and is now in the process of "returning" it to the people who lived there all along.
I don't really understand this obsession. So what if they try to solidify an identity. It's not like the majority of the Jews now living in Israel were from there either or came from families that lived there in recent historical times.
I don't really know what your point is. It seems to be that the people of arab descent have less right to the land that they have lived on historically than do the Jewish citizens of Israel. (or maybe you mean all citizens of Israel have a superior claim, but I suspect you would generally exclude Israelis of arab descent -- am I wrong?)
If that is your point, could you explain your reasoning?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
There is still a problem here, there are still terrorists, who happen to be doing everything in their power to kill as many Jews as possible in the hopes of ending what they call "Israeli Opression" (dispite deserving it in either case) and are refusing any reasonably calls for peace.
Startlise has I think the only solution possible, unless some miracle happens.
Whats more important? Protecting the lives of Israeli Jews or being ethical and not deporting thousands if not millions of arabs?
Posted by Chungwa (Member # 6421) on :
Blayne, the answer really doesn't have to be one or the other. starLisa may believe that it's about doing what it right or doing evil - but that type of thinking will never solve anything.
There have been atrocious acts on both sides, just like in any conflict. It is important to recognize them, but dwelling on them will only decrease the chance of a solution.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Is it at least worth considering the fact that Israel's tactics have not ended terrorism and the strong-arm approach has helped to fuel the hatred?
I can't presume to tell an Israeli how best to live under the threat of terror attacks, but running roughshod over the rights of an already oppressed group does not seem to be a very good long-term strategy to me.
Wholesale deportation will not work.
Assuming the government would stop short of genocide, I think Israel needs to realize that it will always have a very large population of arabs inside its borders, or right on the edge of them.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Such a big thread . . . I don't know if I can remember all the thoughts I have had reading it today.
First of all, as to the original issue, I agree with those who have pointed out that guerilla warfare is not the same as terrorism. I define terrorism as attacks on civilians with the specific purpose of causing a general environment of fear, and thereby, a weakening of resolve and an erosion of support for the government.
When someone plows a dynamite-filled van into a tank or something, it is not terrorism. When an army kills the entire civilian population of a city-state, it is an atrocity, but it is also not terrorism.
Based on that, I agree with those who say that if you refuse to live in fear, or overreact, but instead react with an appropriate resolve to find and punish those responsible, you make terrorism ineffective.
Where I think starLisa has a point is not in saying that terrorism would go on, but that the war would. Terrorism is but one tactic. Would a guerrilla-type war continue to go on even if it was ignored? Certainly. Terrorists are after attention. Guerillas not so much.
I also agree with starLisa that it is oversimplistic and false to state that every dispute has two equally legitimate sides. I think this fallacy is a result of moral relativism, and it is a dangerous one. Statements such as those are typically made by people who have no idea what they are talking about. There are other situations where people talk like that about something I know about, when they clearly don't know what they are talking about, and it makes my blood boil.
Having said that, I don't think the Israeli/Palestinian case is quite that clearcut, because I think both the Israelis and the Arabs in the area are suffering for the foolish meddling of western imperial/post-imperial powers decades ago. I freely admit that my understanding of the situation may be incomplete, though, and is subject to change if someone provides me compelling evidence.
(The purpose of this post is not to take a side, though. I have a definite opinion of who is "more wrong," but it's not what I want to address right now, or an argument I want to get into. The purpose of this part of this post is just to dispute the notion that there is never a clear-cut villain and a clear-cut monster, and that the truth is always somewhere in between. I think that's dangerous rubbish.)
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
staelise so you know, didnt suggest that both sides had an equally legitimate case I think.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
All Starlisa quotes:
quote: Really. And here I haven't blown up a pizza shop for, I don't know, weeks.
I said Arab anger, not Arab actions. Last I checked, feelings themselves didn't commit acts of terrorism. And you really aren't making a good case for yourself, you keep saying that all Palestinians are trained to hate Jews or Israelis or both. If I were to meet you as the only representative of the Israeli people, I would be convinced that Israelis, or according to your rash generalizations, Israelis and Jews, all hated Arabs and wanted them deported as far away as possible, or killed off all together. The fact that you don't see the difference speaks volumes about you as a person.
quote: That's dishonest. There never was a nation called Palestine. There was an area by that name, and most of it is now Jordan.
Palestine is taken from the name of the Philistines, who owned the area just before the Israelites invaded and carved out their own state. It isn't an arbitrary name, like, oh I don't know, Israel, that was just made up for the heck of it, it has historical precedence, more than Israel has. Israel as a nation didn't even last that long, it was a mere blink of an eye historically. Which is why I get so confused when you, and close minded people who share your viewpoint, act like you have some sort of cultural or ancestral right to live there and that the Arabs don't. Do you read history books? Ones that aren't full of propaganda?
quote: Because God forbid you should be pissed at murderers and terrorists without being equally pissed at their victims.
Shocker, you mistook my point. Yes, I am pissed at the Palestinians for what they did, but I'm just as pissed at the Israelis for almost purposefully goading them into it. When they left they said that the synagouges would be left to Palestine to do with as they pleased, and they hoped they would be protected. That's rich. Protected with what? Palestinian security officers didn't even have weapons to protect themselves during the withdrawel, how are they supposed to protect your synagouges? By buying more weapons on the black market? Wait no, they can't do that without earning your ire as well. Israel could have demolished them personally, making sure it was done properly, instead of leaving it to angry people who they knew were incapable of stopping anyone from harming those buildings. It was a publicity stunt, and propaganda tool. THAT is why I'm equally angry. This one had nothing to do with murderers and killers, and I don't think I'd be that far off in calling SOME (that's right, I can make a distinction) of your people that too.
quote: What you're doing is no different than prosecuting a rape victim for scratching her attacker's face.
You're prosecuting the rapist's brother for doing nothing at all! How is that any better?
quote:Hard not to laugh? The moral bankruptcy of someone who could laugh about something like that is beyond belief.
Of all the people in Israel talking about moral bankrupcy, your credibility on that subject has to be near the bottom. I'd drop it if I were you.
On to other things:
quote: Um... let's see. Was there a valid side to Saddam Hussein invading Kuwait?
Well, to be nitpicky, there was a valid side to Saddam invading Kuwait, not that I agree with it in any way, shape or form. Kuwait historically was a part of Iraq. The modern nation of Iraq was formed of three distinct and separate areas which never should have been mashed into a single nation, the southern area included Kuwait. You could argue that he was trying to take back what was illegally and ridiculously cut off when Britain tried to play cartographer, and I think it would have some validity to it. But it ends there. He didn't want the land, it just wanted to rape and pillage the people. So he loses anyway, but that just shows your total lack of understanding for any given issue Lisa.
quote: I never said "all", but I do say that all of them in the Middle East acquiesce to those who carry out the terrorism, and that they treat them as valued members of the community and do nothing to stop them.
Nice rhetoric, but wrong again. One of my brother's room mates in the Marines has family that lives in Palestine, and he told me that his family, one among many others in the area, hated it when suicide bombers struck, because then Israel could close the border and they couldn't get in to work, and then would have no money, and the family would starve. Everyone is not the same, but at this point, I don't expect you to understand that.
PS - Kudos to Bob-Scopatz: Very good points all around.
[ September 17, 2005, 03:13 AM: Message edited by: Lyrhawn ]
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Palestine is taken from the name of the Philistines, who owned the area just before the Israelites invaded and carved out their own state. It isn't an arbitrary name, like, oh I don't know, Israel, that was just made up for the heck of it, it has historical precedence, more than Israel has. Israel as a nation didn't even last that long, it was a mere blink of an eye historically."
Palestine as a nation has never existed, so historically, if we're going to call the 130 years of the united kingdom of israel plus the next 220 years of existence of the northern kingdom of israel, plus the 80 years of the Hassmonean kingdom, the blink of an eye, what do we call the zero years that there has been an independent nation of palestine?
Israel is not an arbitrary name, as the kingdom of Israel has previously existed on that spot, and is the ancient name of the people whose state Israel is, such name being used for that people consecutively for millenia.
On the other hand, the palestinian people came into existence 40 years ago. So how is palestinian not arbitrary? As you yourself said, the name palestine comes from "philistine." You know WHY that peice of dirt became known as palestine? Because the Romans wanted to erase the name of israel and memory of judaism from the minds of the people in the rest of their empire. It wasn't until the roman explusion of the Jews that the peice of dirt under discussion was ever known as Palestine.
Funny how the palestinians renamed themselves as palestinians 40 years ago to accomplish exactly that same purpose.
Posted by Chungwa (Member # 6421) on :
I have a very strong urge to sigh.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
And yet, chungwa... I'm perfectly willing to let the palestinians call themselves palestinians. While the name they chose for themselves has unfortunate historical origins, and was adopted as their national name under unfortunate circumstances, it also IS one of the names of the peice of dirt under question.
But if we ask starlisa to call them palestinians, its important to understand WHY she shouldn't be expected to bow to those wishes. Naming is a very powerful political tool, and the name the palestinians chose for themselves is a very powerful name.
There's certainly two sides, but if lyrhawn is basically going to ignore one side, I feel free to present the other side while ignoring his.
Of course, one might reasonably say that in between my post, and his post, some truth can be found.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
One of the requirements of the TOS is that we treat people here with respect. Twinky requests she not use her term out of respect because he considers it substantially insulting to his heritage (which it is); she doesn't have to use Palestinian instead, though it would make a rather good amount of sense (and the word war was lost long ago, given that the Israeli government seems to have no problem calling them Palestinians), but she should stop using her term.
Posted by Chungwa (Member # 6421) on :
Yes, Paul Goldner, I comprehended your point the first time. I think it's bunk (not that I'm disagreeing with your historical facts, mind you) but at this point in the thread, I don't think that matters much.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Twinky requests she not use her term out of respect because he considers it substantially insulting to his heritage (which it is)"
Well, yes, and the POINT here is that the usage of the name palestinian is substantially offensive to starlisa. And it is.
"(and the word war was lost long ago, given that the Israeli government seems to have no problem calling them Palestinians)"
But the israeli government doesn't speak for all israelis, much less all jews.
"but she should stop using her term."
which term should she use that won't offend twinky, and doesn't mean starlisa is granting power she is unwilling to grant?
By the way, I think twinky's being overly sensitive on this. She's saying "so-called palestinians," which seems to me a good line of respect, and self-respect. Why? Because the palestinians call themselves palestinians, but starlisa denies the "right" (for lack of a better word) to that name. Yet... thats what they are called. "So-called" indicates that they are, in fact, called that, but that she doesn't think they should be.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
So-called has significant negative connotations, and implies illegitimacy. Self-styled would be slightly better, though somewhat incorrect as they are far from just self-styled, the term enjoying widespread usage.
Also, it doesn't much matter if the use of the term palestinian is offensive to her, she's not the one being called anything by it. Lots of people on hatrack say things that may be offensive to other people, but most of those things go by because they are not aimed, because they are not applied. She is applying a term to a group that includes a hatracker which is offensive to him. When others use Palestinian they do not apply any term to her, by implication or otherwise. Her "peripheral offense" is something she's going to have to learn to deal with, and it is a different sort of offense, with an important difference.
Personally, I would suggest she refrains from using any term to talk about any people in the way she has the palestinian people as a whole.
However, I am sure having got through college she should be able to manage any number of circumlocutions to avoid using both "so-called Palestinians" and "Palestinians".
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"So-called has significant negative connotations, and implies illegitimacy."
Thats actually the point...
"Also, it doesn't much matter if the use of the term palestinian is offensive to her, she's not the one being called anything by it."
No, but she shouldn't have to use it, either.
"She is applying a term to a group that includes a hatracker which is offensive to him."
Here's the problem though: The term she is using is perfectly accurate, and probably the least offensive term that she could use while retaining her national self-story. She's using "so-called" in EXACTLY the manner it is supposed to be used... when a group of people has taken a name, and is called by that name by other groups of people, but which the speaker denies is a legitimate use of the name.
"Personally, I would suggest she refrains from using any term to talk about any people in the way she has the palestinian people as a whole."
I agree. I don't think there is any doubt that she's a racist. That doesn't mean there isn't a legitimate point here about the name the palestinians have chosen for themselves.
"However, I am sure having got through college she should be able to manage any number of circumlocutions to avoid using both "so-called Palestinians" and "Palestinians"."
Probably, but most of them will probably be worse then "so-called".
There's a limit to respecting other people. When we deny the legitimate use of language to people, and in so doing deny their right to their self-story, then we've crossed the line from political correctness to thought-censorship. In this case, it seems to me that Twinky is asking that starlisa give up more then is his right to ask.
Now, if hatrack rules say he can ask her to give up her national self-story in how she presents her thoughts here, then thats fine. It just should be recognized that hatrack is censoring legitimate self-stories.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
She's perfectly capable of coming up with polite terms, for instance, talking about "non-jewish arab people living in israel" would encompass the situation, pretty much, and should be acceptable to both sides.
Hatrack doesn't allow people to call Mormons (or Jehovah's Witnesses) "so-called Christians" no matter how important it might be to that person's self-story. The right to self-identify is far more important than the right of a person to use a term of denigration, however "arguable" the correctness of a term is.
Furthermore, I think we know that starLisa isn't going to stop thinking what she thinks if she stops using her term, so its hardly giving up her self-story, its ceasing to express her self-story in an offensive manner.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"She's perfectly capable of coming up with polite terms, for instance, talking about "non-jewish arab people living in israel" would encompass the situation, pretty much, and should be acceptable to both sides."
No it wouldn't. Israeli arabs are entirely different then palestinians. Israeli arabs do NOT think of themselves as palestinian (other then perhaps a few).
"Hatrack doesn't allow people to call Mormons (or Jehovah's Witnesses) "so-called Christians" no matter how important it might be to that person's self-story. The right to self-identify is far more important than the right of a person to use a term of denigration, however "arguable" the correctness of a term is."
I guess I should leave again, then. The right to express self-story that is historically accurate far far outweighs the right not to be offended by someone elses self story.
I left before because of odious censorship. I guess that hasn't changed.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Hmm...I think people should all get a grip. It's not odious to ask someone to be polite in their rhetoric. It's just common sense, if someone wants to be considered, they have to be considerate in turn.
In the grand scheme of things, questioning someone's parentage and right to exist is not all that offensive.
Oh wait. Yes it is.
Oops.
Maybe starLisa doesn't think that's what she's doing, but it comes across that way. I think that's what people are trying to tell her.
And, seriously, the arabs who are in that place have been there for generations. They were there before the UN helped the zionists create Israel. They were there back into the days before written history. Just like the jews who trace their ancestry to Abraham. Because they too trace their ancestry to Abraham.
More to the point, no matter what they are called, or call themselves, they are there to stay. It would seem to be a more effective strategy to work from the obvious facts rather than try to support a claim for illegitimacy of their right to name themselves. What's at stake is not a name. What's at stake is that the people were there and are there still.
The politics of the world body would almost demand that they pick a name so that they could be referred to in documents and discussions. What difference does it make what they chose?
Would Israel by any other name be something else?
This argument holds no water and gets everyone worked up over something trivial. The real question is what to do for the arabs who don't want to join Israel so that they no longer want to see it destroyed.
Is there anything?
If their lives were self-directed and comfortable, would that change things?
I submit that there's already a valid test case. The arabs who are legitimate citizens of Israel are "different" you say. How so? They are of exactly the same religious and cultural heritage. They aren't any different from those outside the border in any appreciable physical or historical sense.
They only thing that makes them different is that they, (like the Israeli jews and Israeli Christians and Israeli agnostics and Israeli atheists) have experienced the benefits of the rule of law and a strong centralized democratically elected government.
To deny that Palestinians are capable of also learning such things would be racist, pure and simple. More importantly, it'd be wrong. My prior community is full of Palestinians and they came to America, learned to love the country, and stayed. None of them are terrorists. None of them support Hammas -- at least not in my hearing, but I believe them when they tell me how much they despised Arafat and hate Hammas.
So, the real question in my mind is whether the ONE TACTIC that has not yet been tried would result in an effective end to terrorism. That tactic is to better the lives of the young people and have them experience what their opportunities will be if they have a country run by good leaders and with economic opportunity.
You and starLisa say they don't want it -- had their chance and blew it. I think you might be misapplying the lesson from history. The people who were alive in the 30's and 40's are not alive now. There's a lot of Palestinians who want only to live in peace and have a shot at a normal life for themselves and their children.
To get there, they need more than a state run by the usual suspects. They need massive infusion of capital. They need their schools to stay open. They need better leaders.
In short, they need exactly the kind of help Israel got when it drew on the world's resources to establish itself. It needs people with some attachment to that spot of Earth to come back, successful, to show a better way. And it needs the governments of the world to favor it in trade for a time. Maybe a long time. Just like Israel has earned and enjoyed.
If that happened, I think you'd see a different Palestine (the whole region, not just the arab portion of it).
If Israel was smart, it would be investing in the region too.
But Israel's leaders are almost as bloody-minded and short-sighted as the ones leading the Palestinians.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Palestinian is perfectly historically accurate, even if it has not been used very long -- it has been used over and over and over again in recent history for a certain people who happen to, non-coincidentally, have lived for a long time in a region known as Palestine.
Shall we be allowed to insultingly reject every other name people like to call themselves which rests on shaky historical foundations?
*prepares to cease using the term American*
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
" It's not odious to ask someone to be polite in their rhetoric. It's just common sense, if someone wants to be considered, they have to be considerate in turn."
I agree. But it is odious to enforce politeness, especially if one is not enforcing politeness on both parties. From the perspective of starlisa, the name "palestinian" means "I am attempting to obliterate your people and your right to exist." Lets keep that directly in the forefronts of our minds, shall we?
"And, seriously, the arabs who are in that place have been there for generations."
This simply isn't true for the most part. Most of them moved into what became israeal after the beginning of the zionist movement. Of arabs displaced by the 1948 war, fewer then 50,000 had ancestry in what became israel as a result of that war, that dated back prior to 1850.
"More to the point, no matter what they are called, or call themselves, they are there to stay. It would seem to be a more effective strategy to work from the obvious facts rather than try to support a claim for illegitimacy of their right to name themselves. What's at stake is not a name. What's at stake is that the people were there and are there still."
I agree.
"The politics of the world body would almost demand that they pick a name so that they could be referred to in documents and discussions. What difference does it make what they chose?"
This is why I have no problem with the name palestinian.
"You and starLisa say they don't want it -- had their chance and blew it. I think you might be misapplying the lesson from history. The people who were alive in the 30's and 40's are not alive now. There's a lot of Palestinians who want only to live in peace and have a shot at a normal life for themselves and their children."
No Bob, this is NOT what I say. Its what Star Lisa says. I say they do want it, had a chance, blew it, and have consisntely rejected all reasonably attainable chances that Israel has offered, yet they STILL deserve a chance. They have to recognize, though, that the fault of their predicament is not primarily with israel, but with israel, the united states, britain, jordan, egypt, iraq, lebanon, and other arab nations, and not necessarily in that order.
I haven't made my argument on this thread, Bob. I've defended the right of starlisa to remind people that the choice of the name "palestinian" was at least in part an attempt to obliterate israel.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Shall we be allowed to insultingly reject every other name people like to call themselves which rests on shaky historical foundations?"
No, but we should be allowed to insultingly reject those names which we perceive to be chosen as an attack upon ourselves. To deny that right is simply ludicrous.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
So you think someone who thought Jehovah's Witnesses being Christians was an affront to their religion (and there are plenty such people) should be able to come to Hatrack and talk about Jevovah's Witnesses as "so-called Christians"?
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"So you think someone who thought Jehovah's Witnesses being Christians was an affront to their religion (and there are plenty such people) should be able to come to Hatrack and talk about Jevovah's Witnesses as "so-called Christians"?"
If someone who thought jehovah's witnesses called themselves christians in an attempt to destroy another group, then I'd be ok with them saying "so-called christians."
Lets try a better analogy: Lets say I start calling myself "Fugu should die a painful miserable death" and use that as my screen name. You should certainly have the right to refer to me as "the guy So-called fugu should die a painful miserable death."
Though, really, I'd say you should use HARSHER language.
There are certainly jews who believe this is exactly what the palestinians did when choosing the name "palestinian." In defence to them, might I suggest that we stop using the word "palestinian" on this site? No. That would be ludicrous. But its also ludicrous to suggest that people who legitimately feel that "palestinian" is a word that signifies "Israel has no right to exist and we will kill jews until the goal of removing israel from the face of the map has been accomplished," have no right to strenuously object to the term palestinian, and even denigrate it.
Freedom of speech and politeness is a tough balancing act. In this case, the attempt to balance politeness against freedom of speech removes the power of a person to denigrate something that from a certain perspective MUST be denigrated.
And there is some historical justification for that perspective.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Paul, thanks for the clarification.
I have to disagree with your assessment of the historic presence of arabs in that area. It just defies logic, frankly. Some of the people were nomadic, so it is even tough to figure out who was where when.
But the archaeological and scriptural evidence all point to people who are present day Palestinians being in that area for a lot longer than the 1850's. I don't know where you got that, but you state it so authoritatively that I figure you must have some credible source -- one I've never run across.
But, if you could, tell me how that lines up with three different scriptural traditions as well as the archaelogical evidence?
Was there some sort of mass expulsion from somewhere else and these people are relatively new arrivals? I may have missed some history of the region that I would like to know.
Or maybe you could tell me how the study was done and how the conclusions were drawn.
By the way, would it not be fair to say that the vast majority of people living in Israel today had no connection to the physical place since the diaspora? Is there any reason to think that a person inside Israel had relatives there more than 100 years ago?
If you're basing the statement on that, I'll grant that the region had a fairly low population of both arabs and jews in 1850. So, it's unlikely that anyone living there today had direct forebears who were there.
By the way, I don't grant that the average Palestinian wants to see Israel gone. I have met hundreds of Palestinians (there and in the US) and of course we talk about this problem. Not one of them said they wanted jews dead or Israel to be gone. The most violent emotion I saw was a grudging resignation to the fact that Israel was there to stay.
they hated the Israeli military for bulldozing houses and closing checkpoints so that they were starving for business. But they also hated Arafat and Hammas.
And I'm talking every single person I've talked to.
Now, that was years ago. Things may have changed. I don't know what they're feeling like these days.
As for the Jews I met in Israel, for the most part they were the same. Except I met one old lady who just said "the arabs should go away -- they have plenty of countries and we have only this one." I was shocked at the time, but then I realized what she'd lived through and, while I didn't agree with her, I could certainly understand why she felt that way.
I also would hate to live life knowing that the next time I took a bus or went someplace crowded, or sent my kids off to a field trip...death was looming.
It is a horrible way to live.
Sadly, I can understand people thinking that every Palestinian is an enemy. Even if it were true, it wouldn't give people the excuse to spread lies. Since it is not true, the lies just seem worse.
I'm still trying to decide if starLisa is lying. Her statements sure don't line up with the reality of the people I've known personally.
But you and she seem to agree on a history that I've never heard and have not found in the reading I've done on the region. You may have better sources. Or, you may have information that I've simply missed.
In the meantime, I still think if the goal is discussion, there's at least some reason to tone down the rhetoric.
Or, maybe offer some proof of the assertions about Palestinians wanting all jews dead, or that the name "Palestinian" was "chosen" to be deliberately insulting to Israel so we can all judge for ourselves.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Not that I'm really planning on getting into this thread, but I was under the impression that the impolite phrase in question was "bloodthirsty sons of camels."
As to the question of the name "palestinian," it seems to me that this is very similar to a situation that comes up with some frequency when we refer to any person. That is, is the person a "person?" Or is the person a "black person," "hispanic person," "white person," or whatever. We tend to refer to people like ourselves as just "people," but we add the specifier when we talk about other groups.
So why should the region of palestine have groups like "palestinian arabs," or "palestinian jews?"
Seems to me that part of the problem is the fact that Israel was created as a homeland specifically for jews. It would have been better to have created an open democracy with no ethnic association, whose purpose is merely to provide a form of government for whoever happens to live there.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"I have to disagree with your assessment of the historic presence of arabs in that area. It just defies logic, frankly. Some of the people were nomadic, so it is even tough to figure out who was where when."
I'm not saying there weren't arabs in the area. What I'm saying is that the claim of many palestinians to have been there for generations is a false one. It is true of certain palestinians, but not of most.
Mark Twain wrote in 1867 that the area was basically deserted, with no permanent settlements. Most other accounts of the region from that time period agree with Twain.
According to most estimates, the area that is now israel, west bank, and gaza, had about 1/2 million people circa 1880. I'm not sure what sources you've looked at, so if that number seems off to you, we'll discuss. Likewise, from what I can tell, between 100-150,000 of those people lived in what was partitioned into israel in 1947. Again, we discuss more specifics if you'd like.
The population of Jaffa, as an example of ethnicity, was composed of Turks, ARabs, Greeks, Armenians, and a host of others. James Parkes writes that many of the villages in palestine at the end of the 19th century were populated entirely by people who had recently moved there from other parts of the ottomon empire, some villages of Bosnians, some of Druze, some of Egyptians, some of Circassians.
The 1911 encyclopedia brittanica talks about the massive influx of egytpians into palestine that had been going on for about 50 years.
Arieh Avneri concludes in his 1984 book that "The few arabs who lived in palestine 100 years ago, when jewish settlement began, were a tiny remnant of a volatile population, which had been in constant flux, as a result of unending conflict between tribes and local despots."
In 1857, the British Consul in jerusalem reported that the country is "in considerable degree empty of inhabitants," and that the arab population was leaving and not returning, and this had been an ongoing problem. Four years later, "depopulation is even now advancing" and four years after that "whole villages are disappearing" and "the stationary population extirpated."
We see similar attitudes expressed by Samuel Bartlett, edward wilson, Willaim Allen, Willaim Thomson, and Reverend Samuel Manning.
J.L. Burkhardt reported in the early 1800's that "Few individuals die in the village in which they are born. Families are continuously moving from one place to another"
A lot of arab re-immigration to palestine seems to have occured because of jewish immigration. For example, in 1892, Rishon L'Tzion (a jewish settlement) had 40 jewish families, and because of the newly arrable land, had attracted 400 arab families... mostly egyptian and Bedouin. This was not atypical, apparently.
There simply was not a stable arab population in palestine prior to the jewish migration. Had there been a continuous arab presence? yes. But the number of arabs with deep roots in the area was only a tiny fraction of the 400,000 arabs who were living in the area that is now israel, west bank, and gaza.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"By the way, I don't grant that the average Palestinian wants to see Israel gone. "
I don't either. Not now. In 1967, who knows what hte average palestinian wanted? But its an inescapable conclusion that palestinian and arab leadership, in 1967, wanted israel gone.
"Or, maybe offer some proof of the assertions about Palestinians wanting all jews dead, or that the name "Palestinian" was "chosen" to be deliberately insulting to Israel so we can all judge for ourselves."
See, this is my problem :-/ You're conflating me and lisa and my hypothetical jew who believes the argument I am putting forward.
Is there "proof" that the name was deliberately chosen to be insulting to israel? No. But its undeniable that the palestinians didn't think of themselves that way until well after the establishment of israel. There is simply no reference to a national group "palestinians" until then. And the name palestine originally emerged as an attempt to obliterate the memory of judea and israel, by the roman empire. And the national movement to establish a nation of palestine began in the early 1960s, and didn't gain momentum until after Jordan and Egypt lost the 1967 war.(Prior to that point, the goal was for egypt and jordan to control the territory) And, again, its pretty obvious that in 1967, the goal of arab leadership was the extermination of israel. So the logic of my hypothetical jew should be apparent.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Thanks Paul.
Apparently many of your quotations are those used by Peters and later Dershkowitz.
There appears to be some controversy surrounding both, but the historian doing the questioning (Finkelstein of DePaul University) may be a bit of a crank -- I couldn't find any resolution to his claims that Dershkowitz is a plagiarist or that Peters' book is a fraud. But I did see the same quotations as you used in a variety of places. And no new ones. So, either Peters and Dershkowitz were exceeding thorough (a claim Dershkowitz at least is not making), or...
Everyone is just using Peters' analysis -- perhaps uncritically. Which seems more likely. At least that's what I was able to find at the moment. But there are literally dozens of sources all saying the same things, some questioning it, but most taking it as fact. But all the references appear to be the same excerpts that Peters used, so I assume it's all based on her research, not de novo historical work going back to original sources. Dershkowitz says as much in an article I read.
At any rate, it does seem to me that the area was nearly depopulated at various times in its history, and that Jews and Arabs began repopulating at roughly the same time. Is that correct? It also seems that the Jewish people coming into the area were far more successful at making the place over into arable farmland, which stands to reason given that the main occupation of the Arabs out in the open areas would have been tending flocks.
Of course, prior to that time, there was the construction of the Dome of the Rock in the late 600's. I find it curious that none of the descriptions of Jerusalem cited in the Jewish accounts mention this fabulous building and instead talk about the state of decay of Solomon's temple. Given that the temple has been maintained (apparently from what I could find) pretty much continually throughout the period from the 600's to the present, this would seem to argue for the presence of SOME people who were followers of Mohammed.
Is there some heavy editing going on? I mean, the Dome of the Rock has been there for centuries, right?
These sources also don't make mention of some of the Christian buildings that have been there for hundreds of years and show both signs of decay and repeated maintenance.
I suppose it's possible that EVERYTHING was in a state of decay and depopulated by 1850, but something doesn't pass the laugh test here.
The Dome of the Rock was upgraded with mosaics in the 1500's. And the site has traditionally been part of the hajj for muslim pilgrims -- one of a short list of places to be visted in ones lifetime.
So...that the area was reported as "empty" just sounds odd to me. Who kept that temple going? Did they open it for a week every few years?
More importantly, weren't there still traditions associated with the area among various peoples, Jews and Arabs alike? That surely must be true, right?
And, by the facts presented, wouldn't it also be the case that the vast majority of Jews in the region in 1920's and 30's had no historical personal ties to the area either?
I'm not sure what the real point is about legitimacy of claims if everyone who came there is "new" but everyone of them claims both ancestral and religious ties to the land.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
*Shrug* The empty areas aren't Jerusalem. There WERE populated cities. Just vast regions of basically emptiness. (Incidentally, yes, I'm using dershowitz as my main source here, because its what I haev handy, and when I did a thorough fact checking on it a couple years ago for one of my classes, it was pretty good material). The jewish immigration was primarily to what became Israel under the 1947 UN partition plan, which was basically empty aside from a few small cities. (Hebron, for example).
"And, by the facts presented, wouldn't it also be the case that the vast majority of Jews in the region in 1920's and 30's had no historical personal ties to the area either?"
Yup.
"I'm not sure what the real point is about legitimacy of claims if everyone who came there is "new" but everyone of them claims both ancestral and religious ties to the land."
The point, as far as I am concerned, are that a lot of the claims made are simply false. Jews don't pretend that their families were there before 1850, but the palestinian self-story currently claims that there were a half million or more land-workers living in what is now israel, and that their families had been there for a thousand years. Its simply false. Jews who claim the land was completely empty are likewise telling a falsehood. Neither group claiming one of these facts should be believed. There WERE people there. We shouldn't tell lies about them not being there, nor should we tell lies about how long they had been there and what their ties to the land actually was.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
There seems to be some problem in terms of the number of people who fled the region, though. I think the UN figure is 711,000 (give or take). Which is, in fact, more than 1/2 million.
I believe that in the early days of Israel, many of the people simply moved into houses that were vacated by people hoping to get out before the fighting started. I'm not 100% certain of the chronology -- this might've been later than '48, but it does seem to be well documented that 700,000+ people left the area.
I'm assuming the majority of those were not Jews, but we are talking more modern times than 1850, of course.
Anyway, thanks for the info. I have no independent way of checking Dershkowitz or Peters. I do have to worry that the quotations I was able to find on pro-Israel websites (and presumably Dershkowitz himself) seem to ignore the population centers (Jaffa was also a going concern at that point, no? At least when I was there, there was an old section of the city that had to have pre-dated 1850. It sure looked older than that, anyway). It had a newspaper in 1911, for example. And that's apparently the earliest printed reference to the arab population as "Palestinians" if I understand the article I read on it.
So, it's not like it all just emerged in the late 40's. But it's also not like it's been the national homeland for hundreds of years either.
There were people of Arabian descent there all along, apparently. And many of them lost everything running away from the fighting. And those people seem to self-identify as Palestinians today.
As far as population centers go, I can sure understand the bulk of the country being empty. It's mostly desert today still. But yeah, I'd be happier if the various sources talked about the mix of people in the various population centers rather than try to paint a picture of vast emptiness. Jerusalem and Jaffa were full of people, for sure. I'm not sure about Bethlehem. There's really not much there even now.
Hebron is a tough one. There were lots of people living there when I visited, but there really didn't seem to be much of an old part of town. Ancient bits (like 2000+ years old) but nothing from 100 or so years ago.
Ah well.
Thanks again for the info.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Yeah, about 700,000 people left in 1948. HUGE numbers of people moved in between 1880 and 1946, perhaps quadruping the total population that was there in 1850.
A lot of why you don't hear talk about the population centers is that the primary claim of the palestinians concerning this time period is that jews drove off people living on the land. Jews didn't move into the cities, for the most part, and no one claims that, when they did, they booted people off the land. You do see claims about jews booting local farmers off of the land that jews bought outside the cities. So there's a lot of contention about who was living outside the cities, and not much about who was living inside the cities.
"There were people of Arabian descent there all along, apparently. And many of them lost everything running away from the fighting. And those people seem to self-identify as Palestinians today."
Yes, this is more or less true.
To me, the major disaster of the 1947-1952 period was the simple inability of jordan, egypt, lebanon, syria, and iraq, to take in the arabs fleeing the fighting. This is the only refugee crisis of the last 100 years that hasn't been 90% resolved within 5 years, because in every other case, the nations to which people fled took in the refugees, and allowed them to assimilate. The arab nations around israel didn't do that, and thus we have this ongoing catastrophe. Israel can't take in the population, and now, the palestinians (justifiably, because of the way they were treated at the hands of the arab nations in the first 60 years of this century) don't want to be taken in by jordan and egypt, for the most part. WHich means a state needs to be created out of nothing, and thats one of the hardest things on the planet to do.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
All of those neighboring nations are poor and ill-governed. It seems like a fair description of the entire region, really.
Pretty sad.
When I was in Jordan, I had to give a lift from Petra to the border for one of their policemen. They didn't have police cars. Or personal cars for that matter.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Take another look at the last sentence you wrote there, Lisa
quote:Israel is just the name given to the Jewish Palestinian state.
Palestinian is just the name given (similarly recently) to another body of people in the area.
The name "Palestine" was the name of a region. Not a nationality, and not a culture. There was no distinctive Palestinian Arab culture or nationality that differed from neighboring Arab cultures or nationalities.
The UN offered the Arabs living in 21% of the area that had been called Palestine a state. They turned the offer down. The Jews living in 21% of the area that had been called Palestine were also offered a state, and they accepted it.
Thus Israel came into existence, and whatever the Arabs of that area would have called their state did not. By their own choice.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: starLisa. Did those people live there or not? My impression from the UN documents from the period (which I've linked to before) is that the people of Arabian descent lived on land that is now (or until recently was) part of the territory given to the country established as Israel.
Yes, Bob, that's true. It's also true that Jews lived on land that was part of the territory offered to the Arabs in the UN Partition Plan of 1947.
Had the Partition Plan been carried out as voted on by the UN, there would have been Jews living in both Jewish Palestine and Arab Palestine, and there would have been Arabs living in both Arab Palestine and Jewish Palestine.
The lines had been drawn so that Arab Palestine would be a majority Arab and Jewish Palestine would be a majority Jewish.
What would have happened then? Well, when India was partitioned into a Muslim state and a Hindu/Sikh state in 1947, about 13 million people crossed the borders so that they could be in the country where they were the majority. It was done without pre-planning, and a lot of people died in the process, just because neither India nor Pakistan were prepared for the migrations.
Then there was the partition of Syria into a Muslim state and a Christian state in 1943. To the best of my knowledge, there was no similar population transfer in this case, but as in the case of India and Pakistan, the borders were designed to allow Syria to be a majority Muslim and for Lebanon to be a majority Christian. The Muslims were quite unhappy with this.
Incidentally, is anyone noticing a pattern here? Muslims couldn't get along with the Hindus and Sikhs in India, so the area got partitioned. They couldn't get along with the Christians in Syria, so the area got partitioned. In both cases, the Muslims who remained have done their level best to turn the non-Muslim area into another Muslim one.
And then there's the partition of the 21% of Palestine that the British hadn't already given to the Arabs, into an area that would be a majority Jewish and an area that would be a majority Arab (also a majority Muslim). This time, the Arabs/Muslims didn't even accept the partition, and went to war to try and prevent it. But had they not, do you think that the Arabs/Muslims who remained within the borders of the Jewish state would have behaved any differently than their cousins in Lebanon and India?
Some 600,000 Jews fled from Arab countries when Israel was created, fearing for their lives. Their property and assets were seized by the Arab governments. Do you suppose the Jews of Arab Palestine would have fared differently?
The Arabs living within the borders of Jewish Palestine, however, well, we don't have to hypothesize here. We know what happened to them. They were given Israeli citizenship and all the rights pertaining thereto.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: In addition, Israel took over some neighboring lands and is now in the process of "returning" it to the people who lived there all along.
I'm not sure what you mean by taking over neighboring lands. Here is a map of the Partition Plan authorized by the UN in 1947. The coast was split pretty much evenly, and the land... well, the Jews got the Negev desert, but that's okay. We're good at reclaiming such lands.
After the Arabs tried to wipe Israel out, the final armistice lines no longer left us in three non-contiguous chunks of land. We had something that was a little easier to defend. And we were the ones in need of a defense; not the Arabs.
But the shape of the country was still extremely dangerous to us. The areas called the West Bank, which had been annexed by Jordan, jutted into the center of Israel and provided them with an enormously long border that was used to send mujahhadin (jihadists) across constantly to attack Israel.
When Egypt and Syria and Jordan decided to try again to obliterate Israel in 1967, we did our best to make it so that they wouldn't be able to do it again. We took Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) from Jordan, and we took the Sinai and the Gaza Strip from Egypt. Note that the Arabs had been holding these areas for 18 years without any thought of making a special "Palestinian state". The only discussions of a Palestinian problem were they problem they had with Israel existing on a remnant of the land that had been called Palestine.
In 1964, when the Palestine Liberation Organization was created, its goal was to liberate what they were then calling "Palestine", which was the area within Israel's borders. It did not include the West Bank or Gaza. Note also that it was never the Palestinian Liberation Organization. This was not about "Palestinians". It was about the existence of a Jewish state on land they insisted was called Palestine. Check this article out for more information about what the Arabs were actually saying about Palestine before they realized what a valuable propaganda tool it would be to claim there was a Palestinian nationality.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: I don't really understand this obsession. So what if they try to solidify an identity.
The fact is that the idea of Palestinian nationality came about solely as a weapon to be used against Israel. I object to that. I can't understand why you don't.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: It's not like the majority of the Jews now living in Israel were from there either or came from families that lived there in recent historical times.
And yet the fact that Jews were elsewhere was solely due to the fact that non-Jews expelled us. Nor did we ever give up our claims on our land.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: I don't really know what your point is. It seems to be that the people of arab descent have less right to the land that they have lived on historically than do the Jewish citizens of Israel. (or maybe you mean all citizens of Israel have a superior claim, but I suspect you would generally exclude Israelis of arab descent -- am I wrong?)
If that is your point, could you explain your reasoning?
I'm saying that they have 22 countries. They've shown an utter inability to play well with others. They've committed atrocity after atrocity in order to achieve the destruction of Israel, and should not be rewarded for that.
There was a time when terrorism shocked people, Bob. And not just the immediate victims. Americans are shocked when America is attacked. Or when England is, maybe. But when Arabs throw a firebomb at a car and burn a mother and her children to death; when Red Crescent ambulances transport a suicide bomber into Israel, claiming that she needs surgery in an Israeli hospital, and she goes and blows up people walking down the street... none of this shocks anymore. You ought to be asking yourself if that's a good thing.
I'm saying that when David Ben Gurion declared the State of Israel in 1948, the state that was being declared had a majority Jewish population. And that every square centimeter of area that's been added on since then has been the direct result of Arab attacks against us and concentrated attempts to wipe us off the map.
I'm saying that if Mexico were to attack the United States and northern Mexico were to be taken by the United States in the process of defending itself, the United States would be well within its rights to keep the area taken.
I'm saying that the areas of Judea and Samaria have only ever had one sovereign nation ruling over them, and that was the Jews. Our entire history is there. Hebron and Bethlehem are far more important to us, historically, than Tel Aviv and Haifa.
My father once told my brother that if there's a kid who is constantly getting into fights with everyone, that it's that kid who is the problem. And I think that India and Lebanon and Israel are classic examples of who the problem really is here.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chungwa: Blayne, the answer really doesn't have to be one or the other. starLisa may believe that it's about doing what it right or doing evil - but that type of thinking will never solve anything.
And this is exactly what I'm talking about. By shutting your eyes to the very possibility that one side is behaving in a manner that can only be called "evil", you're superimposing what you want things to be on what actually is.
Would WWII have gone better had the Allies stopped thinking of the Nazis as evil and decided to let them keep Poland and Austria, so long as they pulled out of France and stopped bombing Britian?
quote:Originally posted by Chungwa: There have been atrocious acts on both sides, just like in any conflict. It is important to recognize them, but dwelling on them will only decrease the chance of a solution.
There have not been atrocious acts on both sides, and the idea that you would even compare the two is beyond belief.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: Is it at least worth considering the fact that Israel's tactics have not ended terrorism and the strong-arm approach has helped to fuel the hatred?
I disagree with that estimation, Bob. It isn't Israel's "strong arm approach" that has fueled the hatred. On the contrary; it's Israel's refusal to win that's done that.
quote:From an article by Jonathan Rosenblum:
Salah Tamari, a former Palestinian terrorist, told Israeli journalist Aharon Barnea of the complete transformation he underwent in an Israeli prison. While in prison, he had completely despaired of any hope that the Palestinians would one day realize any of their territorial dreams, and so he was ready to renounce the struggle.
Then, one Passover, he witnessed his Jewish warder eating a pita sandwich.
Tamari was shocked, and asked his jailer how he could so unashamedly eat bread on Passover.
The Jew replied: "I feel no obligation to events that took place over 2,000 years ago. I have no connection to that."
That entire night Tamari could not sleep. He thought to himself: "A nation whose members have no connection to their past, and are capable of so openly transgressing their most important laws --- that nation has cut off all its roots to the Land."
He concluded that the Palestinians could, in fact, achieve all their goals. From that moment, he determined "to fight for everything -- not a percentage, not such crumbs as the Israelis might throw us -- but for everything. Because opposing us is a nation that has no connection to its roots, which are no longer of interest to it."
Tamari goes on to relate how he shared this insight with "tens of thousands of his colleagues, and all were convinced."
See, this is what encourages them. When Israel pulls out of Gaza, they're totally psyched. Because clearly, the violence and terror is working.
Look... it's normal human psychology. If I know that there's a reward a mile away, I may try and get to it. But if I see the same reward one foot out of reach, I'm going to try much harder to get to it. Because it's almost within reach.
One of the biggest lies of all the lies told about the Arabs is that the terrorism is a result of despair and desperation. It isn't. It's a result of hope. It's a result of seeing, with their own eyes, that it works.
Nothing succeeds like success, Bob. And hatred... I'm not even sure that label applies in the way Westerners generally use it. I've met Arabs who are wholehearted supporters of terrorist atrocities, and they are generally some of the nicest and most genteel people you'll ever meet. Honest to God. They don't see the need to seethe with hatred and vituperation, except for the benefit of the media. They just have an agenda. And an implacable will that is fueled by hope and progress.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: Wholesale deportation will not work.
Why not?
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: Assuming the government would stop short of genocide, I think Israel needs to realize that it will always have a very large population of arabs inside its borders, or right on the edge of them.
Right on the edge, we can deal with. Walking down the middle of a main street in Jerusalem so that they can set off an explosive belt and murder people... not so much.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote: That's dishonest. There never was a nation called Palestine. There was an area by that name, and most of it is now Jordan.
Palestine is taken from the name of the Philistines, who owned the area just before the Israelites invaded and carved out their own state. It isn't an arbitrary name, like, oh I don't know, Israel, that was just made up for the heck of it, it has historical precedence, more than Israel has. Israel as a nation didn't even last that long, it was a mere blink of an eye historically.
I'm glad that there are people here who know something about history, particularly biblical history. I imagine they're reading what you just wrote and trying to figure out what it's like on whatever planet you're from.
The Philistines -- who no longer exist, incidentally -- had a handful of cities on the coastal plain. Down around Gaza, actually. There haven't been Philistines for about two thousand years.
Israel, on the other hand, is mentioned in Assyrian inscriptions dating almost a millenium more than that, and the nation calling itself Israel has existed since even before that, continuously, until today.
So... "just made up for the heck of it"? I don't know what you're smoking, Lyrhawn, but I hope you brought enough to share.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Which is why I get so confused
I agree that you're confused. See? We do have things we can agree on.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: when you, and close minded people who share your viewpoint, act like you have some sort of cultural or ancestral right to live there and that the Arabs don't. Do you read history books? Ones that aren't full of propaganda?
Yep. And I'll bet others here do as well.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote: Because God forbid you should be pissed at murderers and terrorists without being equally pissed at their victims.
Shocker, you mistook my point. Yes, I am pissed at the Palestinians for what they did, but I'm just as pissed at the Israelis for almost purposefully goading them into it. When they left they said that the synagouges would be left to Palestine to do with as they pleased, and they hoped they would be protected. That's rich. Protected with what? Palestinian security officers didn't even have weapons to protect themselves during the withdrawel, how are they supposed to protect your synagouges? By buying more weapons on the black market? Wait no, they can't do that without earning your ire as well. Israel could have demolished them personally, making sure it was done properly, instead of leaving it to angry people who they knew were incapable of stopping anyone from harming those buildings. It was a publicity stunt, and propaganda tool. THAT is why I'm equally angry. This one had nothing to do with murderers and killers, and I don't think I'd be that far off in calling SOME (that's right, I can make a distinction) of your people that too.
That's truly sick. When Jordan took Jerusalem from us, they used Jewish tombstones to line latrines. Did they lack the firepower to prevent it? No, it was actually done officially.
A large percentage of the terrorist attacks carried out by the "Palestinians" over the past decade or so have been carried out by uniformed officers of the Palestinian Authority, using guns given to them by Israel.
When we took Jerusalem back from the Arabs, we didn't knock down the Dome of the Rock or the El Aksa Mosque, though we should have, since they were intentionally built on the site of our Holy Temple. We immediately turned around and gave control of our own holiest place to the Muslim Waqf.
Those synagogues should have been left standing. Why should Israel have had to commit the crime of destroying them just to spare the Arabs the media embarrassment when they acted like barbarians?
All they had to do was leave the buildings alone. Any other nation on the face of the planet probably could have handled that minor task.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote: What you're doing is no different than prosecuting a rape victim for scratching her attacker's face.
You're prosecuting the rapist's brother for doing nothing at all! How is that any better?
It's not better or worse. It's a lie. One minute you're claiming that most of the Arabs are just the nicest folks you can find, and want nothing of the incessent terrorism. That it's just the people running things. Then Joe Palestinian goes berserk on international news, torching synagogues, and you do a quick reversal and say that the people in charge were trying to prevent the barbarism, and it was just Joe Palestinian venting.
Which is it, Lyrhawn?
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Hard not to laugh? The moral bankruptcy of someone who could laugh about something like that is beyond belief.
Of all the people in Israel talking about moral bankrupcy, your credibility on that subject has to be near the bottom. I'd drop it if I were you.
You aren't. And I think it's fairly clear who is more credible here.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: On to other things:
quote: Um... let's see. Was there a valid side to Saddam Hussein invading Kuwait?
Well, to be nitpicky, there was a valid side to Saddam invading Kuwait, not that I agree with it in any way, shape or form.
Getting back to that credibility thing...
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote: I never said "all", but I do say that all of them in the Middle East acquiesce to those who carry out the terrorism, and that they treat them as valued members of the community and do nothing to stop them.
Nice rhetoric, but wrong again. One of my brother's room mates in the Marines has family that lives in Palestine, and he told me that his family, one among many others in the area, hated it when suicide bombers struck, because then Israel could close the border and they couldn't get in to work, and then would have no money, and the family would starve. Everyone is not the same, but at this point, I don't expect you to understand that.
Wow. See, most people I know object to mass murder because it's wrong. Not because it makes it harder for them to earn a living.
I hope that people here are reading what Lyrhawn has been writing, and are getting a slightly better idea of the kind of thing Israel is up against.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: I agree. I don't think there is any doubt that she's a racist.
I think there's a lot of doubt on that count.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: And, seriously, the arabs who are in that place have been there for generations. They were there before the UN helped the zionists create Israel.
See my other response to you, Bob. There were Jews there as well before the UN helped the Jews create Israel.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: They were there back into the days before written history. Just like the jews who trace their ancestry to Abraham. Because they too trace their ancestry to Abraham.
Um... no. They lived in Arabia. The Jews lived in Israel. The Arabs came out of Arabia and conquered lands, including ours. They had never lived there prior to the late 7th century CE. The fact that they trace their ancestry to Abraham doesn't mean that they ever lived in that area.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: I submit that there's already a valid test case. The arabs who are legitimate citizens of Israel are "different" you say.
Says who? They are treated differently by Israel, in the sense that they are given citizenship and the rights that go with it. But they don't fight in the Israel Army, and there have been many terrorist attacks carried out by Israeli Arabs, and many more Israeli Arab terrorist cells broken up before they had a chance to attack.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: They only thing that makes them different is that they, (like the Israeli jews and Israeli Christians and Israeli agnostics and Israeli atheists) have experienced the benefits of the rule of law and a strong centralized democratically elected government.
To deny that Palestinians are capable of also learning such things would be racist, pure and simple.
You're absolutely right. They are capable of doing so. But they have shown no desire to do so. Do you know how much money has been pumped into the Palestinian Authority since it was first created? The US alone gives them some $80 million each year, plus extra disbursements of $50 million here and there for "disaster relief".
And that's not counting what they get from Europe and from other Arab countries.
How about Israel? Israel has paid millions of dollars into the Palestinian Authority, given them arms "to keep order" (although they strangely keep getting used to kill Jews). Israel agreed to transfer withheld income tax from Palestinian workers in Israel to the Palestinian Authority.
Imagine that. Can you imagine a Mexican or French or Japanese citizen coming to the US, working, getting income tax withheld from their pay, and the US transfering that money to their home governments? Yeah, right.
And what has the Palestinian Authority done with all that money? Well, there was the arms shipment on the Karine A that Israel discovered and prevented. That was a big waste of money. But it was actually one of the only things the "Palestinians" have done with the money they've been given other than embezzling it.
Sure, Bob. Give them heaps of money. I'm all for that, so long as it doesn't come out of my pocket. Good luck keeping track of what they do with it. Sustainable development? Yeah, sure.
Why do some people think that money will fix anything? Why should they stop their violence against Israel when it's working?
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: More importantly, it'd be wrong. My prior community is full of Palestinians and they came to America, learned to love the country, and stayed. None of them are terrorists.
Ken yirbu. May there be many more. I'd love for them to all come to the US and acculturate. I'd friggin' pay to help them do so.
Let's start a fund, hmm? The Hatrack Fund for Ending the Middle East Conflict by Helping Palestinians Move to the United States. HFEMECHPMUS. Not the best acronym in the world, but we can work on it.
I'll prime the pot with $100, if someone wants to set this up, and assuming that it's worked out in any reasonable sort of way.
We can lobby our congress-critters for green cards, and raise money for airfare and relocation costs. Set up an employment service to get them jobs in areas that will earn them a good living. Get them preferred mortgage rates so that they can buy homes and settle in.
Lest you think I'm joking, I am deadly serious. I'll give in blood and sweat and cash to help in such a thing. You think I don't like Arabs, and you're wrong. I don't like what they're trying to do to Israel. There is nothing about being Arab that makes someone violent or a terrorist.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: So, the real question in my mind is whether the ONE TACTIC that has not yet been tried would result in an effective end to terrorism. That tactic is to better the lives of the young people and have them experience what their opportunities will be if they have a country run by good leaders and with economic opportunity.
Well, it's been tried in the Middle East and has failed miserably. But I'm more than happy to use the test case you're talking about (the Arabs in your community) as a model. I think it might actually work.
The question is: Are you willing to try it?
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: You and starLisa say they don't want it -- had their chance and blew it.
Nope. I'm saying that the refusal of the Arabs in the Middle East to accept the existence of Israel has been continuous. And that they not only didn't want it in 1948, but that they also didn't care about it until after 1967. And that they don't honestly care about it even now, except as a tool to use in annihilating Israel.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: I think you might be misapplying the lesson from history. The people who were alive in the 30's and 40's are not alive now. There's a lot of Palestinians who want only to live in peace and have a shot at a normal life for themselves and their children.
Sounds cool to me.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: To get there, they need more than a state run by the usual suspects. They need massive infusion of capital. They need their schools to stay open. They need better leaders.
They've been given massive infusions of capital. Their schools still teach vile anti-semitic and anti-Israel lessons. And if you try to give them better leaders, you're just engaging in cultural imperialism. You can't force them to do the right thing in that area.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: In short, they need exactly the kind of help Israel got when it drew on the world's resources to establish itself.
Oh, please. Israel wasn't trying to exterminate anyone. Israel hadn't raised up several generations of people whose only raison d'etre was the obliteration of another people. You can't compare the situations.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: It needs people with some attachment to that spot of Earth to come back, successful, to show a better way.
No. It needs the rest of them to go off and become successful.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: And it needs the governments of the world to favor it in trade for a time. Maybe a long time. Just like Israel has earned and enjoyed.
Excuse me? The Arab Boycott means nothing to you? Moves for divestment mean nothing to you? The fact that Israel is the only nation in the UN that can't sit on the Security Council means nothing to you?
Israel hasn't been favored in trade. That's the most ridiculous of the many ridiculous things you've said.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: If Israel was smart, it would be investing in the region too.
I think that preventing Arabs from killing us has to be a first priority. I'd be awfully pissed if my government were to spend money on building gymnasiums for Arabs while neglecting to prevent Arabs from blowing me up.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: But Israel's leaders are almost as bloody-minded and short-sighted as the ones leading the Palestinians.
Damned short-sighted, indeed. Preventing murders should always come a distant second to helping the murderers.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
dkw, thanks for the links.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: Seems to me that part of the problem is the fact that Israel was created as a homeland specifically for jews. It would have been better to have created an open democracy with no ethnic association, whose purpose is merely to provide a form of government for whoever happens to live there.
Hmm. I think that if the various nations of the world had spent less time expelling us and murdering us in wholesale lots, that we might have been willing to consider the idea of forgoing a state of our own.
Things had even been moving towards that in the US prior to WWII. General Grant issued an order expelling Jews from Kentucky, Tennessee and Mississippi, which was cancelled by President Lincoln, but not until many of the Jews had already been forced out.
Even as late as the 1940s, many hotels and beaches and other places of business carried signs saying "No Jews or Dogs" (in some areas of southern Florida, these signs could be found on beaches into the 1960s).
There were official quotas on how many Jews could be admitted to universities. I have relatives who changed their names to sound less Jewish so that they could go to medical school.
It was the shock of the death camps in Germany that reversed this trend. That shock won't last.
Israel is the one place on Earth that is ours. The one place that we're not guests.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:The Philistines -- who no longer exist, incidentally -- had a handful of cities on the coastal plain. Down around Gaza, actually. There haven't been Philistines for about two thousand years.
What's your point? After the first Israel fell, and up until the 20th century, there hadn't been an Israel in something like 2,000 years. What, since Israel conquered them and took their land, and have been there slightly more recently, you have a better claim 2,000 years later? Ironic argument coming from someone who argues that the claim that goes the furthest back is most relevant. Regardless, that area has been ruled by so many different people, both before, and after Israel was there, I find it laughable that you can claim you have more a right to be there than anyone, even if you could directly trace your family lineage back a thousand years, which would be fun to see.
quote: Any other nation on the face of the planet probably could have handled that minor task.
They aren't a nation, and you won't let them have guns. Regardless of the reason, that's still a fact, and you can't ignore that part of the situation. I'm not excusing what they did. It was horrible. Israel told the Palestinians that the synagouges were being left their intact and that they hoped the PA would guard them. They did so knowing full well that the PA didn't have the manpower for that, and seriously, you'd rather have their security forces guarding your abandoned synagouges than out fighting terrorism? Where are your priorities?
quote: One minute you're claiming that most of the Arabs are just the nicest folks you can find, and want nothing of the incessent terrorism.
First of all, your response in no way matches what I said, but I don't suppose incoherency has ever stopped you before. Second, I never made that claim, but you don't have a problem putting words in my mouth, so, continue to do so if it makes you feel better. Third, I don't think there are many people on Hatrack that would disagree with me when I say that there are more Arabs that desire peace over a continued violent conflict.
quote: You aren't. And I think it's fairly clear who is more credible here.
You're the one advocating mass deportations, Arab killing, and a host of other immoral unconscionable things, and you really think that gives you a moral, superior high ground? What sort of fantasy land do you live in where that qualifies as GOOD moral karma?
quote: Getting back to that credibility thing...
Unsurprisingly, everything I said that you left out of the quote box is entirely true. Either you're desperate for something to attack me on, or you really just don't understand history. Or a possible third option that is becoming clearer to me, you do understand history, but like to ignore all the parts that disagree with your philosophy.
quote:Wow. See, most people I know object to mass murder because it's wrong. Not because it makes it harder for them to earn a living.
I hope that people here are reading what Lyrhawn has been writing, and are getting a slightly better idea of the kind of thing Israel is up against
Harder to earn a living? They aren't trying to buy a lexus, they are trying to buy a loaf of bread. Have you ever lived in that kind of poverty? If you have, then shame on your for not having sympathy for those that share that condition. If you haven't then I'm really not surprised by your cold hearted response. You can wax poetic all you want about being moral and just, and even attack the thoughts of a poor Palestinian family trying to survive, but I have a feeling that were you in the same situation, food and shelter would be a lot more important than lofty morals. Also, I highly doubt that many people are even reading this thread any more, as it has descended into point, counterpoint useless arguing, and seems to have little value other than to watch with weird fascination to see what crazy rhetoric will be spawned next.
And what are you talking about "the kind of thing Israel is up against"? I'm not your enemy. Hell, my tax dollars go towards buying you tanks (you're welcome), if that's an enemy to you, you have some skewed ideas on what makes a friend and what doesn't. My disdain and vehemence at the moment have far less to do with Israel than they have to do with you being a close minded racist.
quote: Israel hadn't raised up several generations of people whose only raison d'etre was the obliteration of another people. You can't compare the situations.
That was from your post to Bob. But seriously, have you READ the stuff you've been writing on this thread? And you can still say that honestly?
And stop acting like Jews are the world's only persecuted peoples. Catholics have a laundry list of complaints about how they were and in some places still are treated, and I think Muslims are probably feeling the same way about now.
The Assyrians didn't conquer the first Israel because they were Jewish, they conquered because they wanted land, and the Israelis had it. When the Persians took over, they even helped the Jews rebuild their temples, and let them worship freely. Considering the time period, that's fairly incredible. And you mentioned somewhere that only Israel ever ruled that area as a nation. What is that based on? The Assyrians, Persians, and a dozen others all ruled that area as part of an empire, or kingdom. Such as those Roman folk, who I think, MIGHT have had some territory around there. What definition of ruled are you going by?
One last thing, forgot to mention this before. You claimed somewhere earlier, I don't feel like looking for the quote, so I'll paraphrase, something to the effect of 'things aren't the same, Israel isn't out killing people like Palestinians are' or some such.
Explain to me then why the death rate for the Palestinians is so much higher. And explain why Israel launches missiles into apartment complexes to try and kill a single person, or at cars in heavy traffic to try and kill a single person. Israel doesn't really seem to care much about collateral damage and harming innocents. And if your return argument is either 1. That there are no innocents, or 2. that it's justified because of what they did to you, then I really wish you'd take a closer look at what you're saying, and maybe apply that to a theory on why the cycle of violence will never end.
[ September 18, 2005, 01:25 PM: Message edited by: Lyrhawn ]
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
starLisa,
My personal experience of Palestinians differs widely from yours. I'm not going to try to convice you of a truth you will not see. But I will hope that someday you find some other way to see the world.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:The Philistines -- who no longer exist, incidentally -- had a handful of cities on the coastal plain. Down around Gaza, actually. There haven't been Philistines for about two thousand years.
What's your point? After the first Israel fell, and up until the 20th century, there hadn't been an Israel in something like 2,000 years.
By that argument, there hasn't been a Palestine either. Ever, actually, but let's give them the benefit of the doubt and date them to 1948. What makes 2,000 years important? In international law, a key parameter is whether the nation which was displaced maintains a continual claim on the land from which it was displaced. This is something that is not the case for any so-called "Palestinian Arabs", but is most certainly the case for the Jews, also called Israel. Our entire culture is steeped in the dream of return to Zion, and has been without interruption.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: What, since Israel conquered them and took their land, and have been there slightly more recently, you have a better claim 2,000 years later?
Yep. Because we didn't take their land. The land that had been offered to them was never accepted by them. In terms of contract law, nothing happened. And even if they had accepted it, there is no record anywhere of them maintaining any such claim during the time the West Bank and Gaza were under Arab control.
The Poles had a right to take their country back after the Germans were defeated in WWII. If someone were to get up today and claim to be a descendent of the Gauls conquered by Rome, they'd have no leg to stand on, because they have no continuity of claim.
We do.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Ironic argument coming from someone who argues that the claim that goes the furthest back is most relevant. Regardless, that area has been ruled by so many different people, both before, and after Israel was there, I find it laughable that you can claim you have more a right to be there than anyone, even if you could directly trace your family lineage back a thousand years, which would be fun to see.
I can't, personally. I know Jews who can.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote: Any other nation on the face of the planet probably could have handled that minor task.
They aren't a nation, and you won't let them have guns.
Crap. We gave them guns. It's one of the reasons Binyamin Netanyahu lost the premiership.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Regardless of the reason, that's still a fact, and you can't ignore that part of the situation. I'm not excusing what they did. It was horrible. Israel told the Palestinians that the synagouges were being left their intact and that they hoped the PA would guard them. They did so knowing full well that the PA didn't have the manpower for that, and seriously, you'd rather have their security forces guarding your abandoned synagouges than out fighting terrorism? Where are your priorities?
This editorial says it much better than I could have. It actually deserves a thread of its own, but I'll just link to it here.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote: One minute you're claiming that most of the Arabs are just the nicest folks you can find, and want nothing of the incessent terrorism.
First of all, your response in no way matches what I said, but I don't suppose incoherency has ever stopped you before. Second, I never made that claim, but you don't have a problem putting words in my mouth, so, continue to do so if it makes you feel better. Third, I don't think there are many people on Hatrack that would disagree with me when I say that there are more Arabs that desire peace over a continued violent conflict.
As Anatole France said, "If 50 million people say a foolish thing, it remains a foolish thing."
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote: Getting back to that credibility thing...
Unsurprisingly, everything I said that you left out of the quote box is entirely true.
Oh, of course. That's why you snipped it all and refused to respond to it.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: The Assyrians didn't conquer the first Israel because they were Jewish, they conquered because they wanted land, and the Israelis had it. When the Persians took over, they even helped the Jews rebuild their temples, and let them worship freely. Considering the time period, that's fairly incredible. And you mentioned somewhere that only Israel ever ruled that area as a nation. What is that based on? The Assyrians, Persians, and a dozen others all ruled that area as part of an empire, or kingdom. Such as those Roman folk, who I think, MIGHT have had some territory around there. What definition of ruled are you going by?
I'm not talking about the conquered province of some foreign nation. But I suspect that you knew that and are just playing your usual rhetorical games.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: One last thing, forgot to mention this before. You claimed somewhere earlier, I don't feel like looking for the quote, so I'll paraphrase, something to the effect of 'things aren't the same, Israel isn't out killing people like Palestinians are' or some such.
Explain to me then why the death rate for the Palestinians is so much higher.
Because they don't care as much about preserving life. Not theirs and not ours. We don't have a concept such as "suicide bombers". We don't think that it's worth sacrificing our lives in order to kill as many Arabs as possible. On the contrary, we risk Jewish lives in order to avoid civilian casualties on the Arab side.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: And explain why Israel launches missiles into apartment complexes to try and kill a single person, or at cars in heavy traffic to try and kill a single person. Israel doesn't really seem to care much about collateral damage and harming innocents. And if your return argument is either 1. That there are no innocents, or 2. that it's justified because of what they did to you, then I really wish you'd take a closer look at what you're saying, and maybe apply that to a theory on why the cycle of violence will never end.
There's a limit to what we're willing to do to spare Arab civilians who don't care that they're being used as human shields for monsters.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Ok Lyrhawn, I think its been discussed MULTIPLE times that Israel cares enough about preventing collateral damage that when they go after terrorist leaders they make sure they don't miss, and that instead of say carpet bombing a region and leave it at that they send in a regiment to go house to house and save lives.
The difference between using a sniper rifle and s hotgun but it has to be done.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Ok, also I don't know enough to argue anything here really, except to say that I have to agree that StarLisa's choice of words in saying "so called palistinian" is correct enough that to deny it would undue her national story (excellent phraseing btw), while we can ask not to call anyone a sons of camels and other such choicy words we can't do thought censorship.
Next, I asked if Terrorism could ever be defeated and listed 2 extremes of how it ended, and mused if it can end any other way and that should've been the focus of the thread not which side has a more valid and better worded arguement.
However the current discussion is entertaining enough that I shall digress, lean back on my easy chair and watch.
Posted by Chungwa (Member # 6421) on :
I'm actually hoping this discussion ends here. While I enjoy discussing the problems in the Middle East as much as the next guy, this thread is too riddled with racist remarks for me to find "entertaining."
In fact, I'm not sure why I keep looking in this thread.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Morbid fascination?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
*evil chuckle*
See? It is entertaining because you can't look away.
As for racist remarks, well, aside from lisa's earlier camel bit I don't really think there's was any racism, I think Lisa isn't racist at all, just an average Israeli who is probably correct in fearing for her life on a daily basis. And in actuality if there isn't any change in the future for a warming in relations I doubt that view will change. I'm certain she probly knows at least ONE Palistinian (for lack of a better word) whose not a terrorist and is friends with. But ya, I remember now Palistinians even ones living in Israel do have at the very least a suspiscion of Israeli's (these were children), (this was a documentary by an American Jew) and a bunch of Palistinian kids were brought across a checkpoint to meet a bunch fo Jewish kids and got along.
The point was that the Palistians not distrusted any Israeli but also showed the beginnings of what could begin to become hatred under thr right circumstances until they met some Jewish Israeli's themselves and became friends.
So, I think there should be programs in which Palistinian children should meey Jewish children and in 1 to generations everything will be ok.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
The funny bit was convincing them to meet, the American was sitting on a bed next to the Palistinian kid and trying to get him to agree to meet and the kid goes "but he's a jew", and the American replies "I'm a Jew too you know", the kid replies "but your American Jew, its different"
I found it amusing to say the least, children can be so cute in their misconceptions.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote: As Anatole France said, "If 50 million people say a foolish thing, it remains a foolish thing."
I guess it's impossible to enlighten a closed mind.
quote:Oh, of course. That's why you snipped it all and refused to respond to it.
What are you gibberishing on about there? I posted a pargraph explaining my view, and the history behind it, and you took it out of context and posted the most inflammatory part. You "snipped" away the biggest part, I didn't snip anything away.
quote: On the contrary, we risk Jewish lives in order to avoid civilian casualties on the Arab side.
Hah! Instead of a missile attack from an Apache Longbow, go in with a SWAT team to minimize civilian casualties. You strike from afar with mostly American made weapons. How is that risking your life to avoid Arab casualties?
quote: There's a limit to what we're willing to do to spare Arab civilians who don't care that they're being used as human shields for monsters.
Right, one terrorist holes up in an apartment complex I'm sure he puts a notice on the front door saying "thanks for volunteering to die for me."
Blayne -
quote: Ok Lyrhawn, I think its been discussed MULTIPLE times that Israel cares enough about preventing collateral damage that when they go after terrorist leaders they make sure they don't miss, and that instead of say carpet bombing a region and leave it at that they send in a regiment to go house to house and save lives.
Where on Earth did we establish that? Jonathon Howard even admitted in another thread that there have been missile attacks on apartment complexes. starLisa claims that the rate of Palestinian deaths is so higher because they keep blowing themselves up, which is silly, because if that were the cast, the Israeli casualties would be 20 times higher. The reason is that the IDF killed many of them. I don't know why she is trying to hide it.
As fas as this conflict goes, it will never end without third party interference. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, everyone in Palestine could choose freedom except for 10 people, if those 10 people committed suicide bombings, Israel would retaliate and then 10 more would leave the cause of peace and join up. A third party needs to step in in this area. Massive funding needs to be given to the Palestinians, or used by a third party to help better them. The 80 million dollars a year starLisa mentioned is what some countries spend on stationary, you can't build a nation off that, and the fact that she mentioned it is incredibly weak sounding, coming from a citizen that receives BILLIONS of free money frmo around the world, most notably America, every year.
Palestine more or less needs the kind of guidance that East Timor had before it became a full fledged nation. It needs real status in the UN, not just observer status. It needs help on security matters, economic matters, and every other nation building tool. Give these people something else to live for other than hate. Right now they have little hope of growing old and prospering, but they see a people living miles away in conditions amazingly better than their own.
Give them the tools, guide them to make sure they use them. Give them security, REAL security, not biased Israeli security that is self serving in concept and in practice. Show them another way, and show them that the world is willing to help them achieve it. I think they would go for that.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I'ld like to see that happen, couse' not with the US, they screw up enough in foreign countries as it is, I saw let the Chinese/Russians prop them up they know how to build a nation.
Posted by Chungwa (Member # 6421) on :
Blayne, sometimes I want to smack you.
(and not because you think the US shouldn't be the country to help)
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote: I'ld like to see that happen, couse' not with the US, they screw up enough in foreign countries as it is
I wouldn't mind if the US did it. They don't have the credibility they would have had BEFORE the Iraq war. But they have tools and experience, a UN peacekeeping force backed up by an American military could do a world of good. It ties the US strengths and eliminates their weakness, which is ignorance.
The US would never do it without amnesty from World Court prosecution however. So it's a moot point. Personally I think the British owe the most to that little region, and should be the backbone of the force. The French owe some too. But the Swiss would probably be the most trustworthy. Or the Russians.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Now sending the British there i geuss would also be a good idea. And c'mon man, how butch is an army with a wine opener on its knife?
"Some of you have never opened Charlemange under fire"
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
That was Robin Williams right?
Regardless, the Swiss are highly trained, and make incredibly high quality weapons. They know what they are doing, and would be perfect for such a mission.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
yeah robin williams, I nevertheless have encredible respect for the swiss, they made a mean looking tank, that with the local swiss terran...
It was sloped, it almost looked like a triangle, but at that angle it could deflect anything then.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
The Russians . . . are good at nation-building . . .
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I didn't say they were, just that the Palestinians would probably be more likely to trust them than many others.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Hey, they were going good until they decided to open up and become all soft and democratic, bunch of gd damn wussies.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold:
quote:We need to convince suicide bombers that their lives are worth living, beyond the vague possibility that their martyrdom will somehow make the lives of those they identify as their own better somewhere up the line.
Or that there is no afterlife and that they've got to make the best with what they've got?
Certainly the idea of an idyllic afterlife as a reward for martyrdom is an ancient and dangerous motivator. Consider the hashishim. But unless we also remove the idea that a suicide bombing is a noble undertaking that has a significant chance to improve the lives of those the bomber leaves behind, removing the notion of an afterlife is not enough.
Incidentally, all:
Merriam-Webster online (www.m-w.com) defines a guerilla as
a person who engages in irregular warfare especially as a member of an independent unit carrying out harassment and sabotage
So while not all guerillas could be considered terrorists, most if not all terrorists could be called guerillas; and no, the descriptor does not ennoble or justify them.
Posted by RoyHobbs (Member # 7594) on :
Thought that I'd stir the pot with an article that seems to corroborate much of what StarLisa has been saying. (From a slightly more conservative forum )
I don't know why people don't love threads like this; passionate debate, that's what it's all about!
Thread question: Can terrorism ever be defeated?
Short Answer: NO
Implied question: Can we defeat the terrorists of today?
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)