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
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, and you are violating the membership agreement of hatrack, particularly as several people here have arab heritage.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.]
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.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.]
Posts: 441 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
This discussion is.... intense to say the least...
IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 367 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
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...
IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 367 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 8355 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
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"?
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
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.
IP: Logged |
posted
An interesting, current perspective from a Palestinian Christian can be found in the book "Bethlehem Besieged" by Pastor Mitri Raheb.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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".
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"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.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
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?
IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 367 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.)
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
staelise so you know, didnt suggest that both sides had an equally legitimate case I think.
IP: Logged |
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.
posted
"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.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 367 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"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.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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".
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"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.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
