babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics

Topic Closed  Topic Closed


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » the middle east and central asia   » Criticism of Israel VS Criticism of Israel

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Criticism of Israel VS Criticism of Israel
Justice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3877

posted 27 May 2004 12:32 PM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:

Thomas Linner:

the fiercest, most precise critics of the occupation are most commonly Israeli NGOs like B'Tselem and Gush Shalom.


Israeli Cabinet Minister uses the "N" word

This is a very interesting point.

Are their criticisms fair?

Are these orgs more legit then others?

How do they differ from other organizations the criticize Israel?

I believe that Gush Shalom is very fair in fact I whole heartedly support Gush shalom because unlike other organizations it supports the importance of a Jewish state. There for just as I admit Israel is often wrong so do they but I also believe that Israel has the right with in certain ethical parameters to defend itself yes sadly it has crossed the lines from time to time I believe that Gush Shalom stand point is similar

From Gush Shalom's website

quote:

Aims:
The primary aim of Gush Shalom is to influence Israeli public opinion and lead it towards peace and conciliation with the Palestinian people, based on the following principles:
  • Putting an end to the occupation,
    - Accepting the right of the Palestinian people to establish an independent and sovereign State of Palestine in all the territories occupied by Israel in 1967,
  • Reinstating the pre-1967 "Green Line" as the border between the State of Israel and the State of Palestine (with possible minor exchanges of territories agreed between the parties); the border will be open for the free movement of people and goods, subject to mutual agreement.
  • Establishing Jerusalem as the capital of the two states, with East Jerusalem (including the Haram al-Sharif) serving as the capital of Palestine and West Jerusalem (including the Western Wall) serving as the capital of Israel. The city is to be united on the physical and municipal level, based on mutual agreement.
  • Recognizing in principle the Right of Return of the Palestinian refugees, allowing each refugee to choose freely between compensation and repatriation to Palestine and Israel, and fixing by mutual agreement the number of refugees who will be able to return to Israel in annual quotas, without undermining the foundations of Israel.
  • Safeguarding the security of both Israel and Palestine by mutual agreement and guarantees.
  • Striving for overall peace between Israel and all Arab countries and the creation of a regional union.

B'Tselem on the other has a soul single purpose and the fact that such a critical orginzation exist in Israel I think shows how much of a moral high ground Israel has. Now yes it is true that the situation in many other places differs a lot but if there were more self critical organizations in countries around the world we would all live in a better world Also even though B'Tselem does not criticize almost anyone but Israel. It has never indicated what it believes a final solution to the conflict should, nor that there should not exist a Jewish state (anti-zionist). Finaly because of the make up of the people who work in the organization I think that they would actually support a Jewish state. B'Tselems website

I think there is a big difference between B'Tselem and Gush Shalom compared to other critics of Israel. They are not anti Israel nor do the demonize Israel like other organizations like Al-Awada and SPHR which are clearly anti-Zionist.

Their 2 greatest flaws are:

1) that they are not self critical

2) in the words of Nusseibeh

quote:
He urged them to abandon their dream of returning to their homes in what is now Israel and to focus all their energies on achieving statehood in the West Bank and Gaza.
The “right of return,” he suggested, is a just cause in theory, but unfulfillable in practice.
He warned his people that if they cling to the right of return, which he described as “a kind of yearning to return in space and time,” they will achieve neither independence nor freedom.
It is better to establish a state, even on a small part of historic Palestine, than to leave refugees in squalid refugee camps without dignity or a future.
Acknowledging that Palestinians will have to pay a hefty price for statehood, Nusseibeh said, “We recognize that the refugees will be absorbed in a Palestinian state and not in Israel.”
the past cannot be resurrected, he called on Palestinians to face their responsibility to the future.
“It is not enough to cry and write poetry,” he said, criticizing rejectionist and romantic Palestinians who refuse to modify their rigid concept of the right of return.

I was at the conference where he said this but here is a source for this particular part.
source

[ 27 May 2004: Message edited by: Justice ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Jack01
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5211

posted 27 May 2004 02:52 PM      Profile for Jack01        Edit/Delete Post
The opportunity has passed.

I used to get caught up in the details the "process" of peace.

Israel and Palestine now sit in the shadow of Islamic Fundamentalism.

The fundies have to have Palestine as their cause to rally.

The secularists had their chance and squandered it.

The Israelies will vacilate between the hard right and center. When they move back to center new cycles of terrorism will push them back to the right.

Regardless of what the moderates do on the Palestinian side the Fundies will keep driving at Israel and the Israelies will continue to retaliate.

People "babble" will keep arguing who holds the higher moral ground.


From: Windsor, ON | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 27 May 2004 02:55 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh please. As if Israel doesn't have hundreds of thousands of "fundies" who want all the land from the sea to the Jordan for themselves.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 27 May 2004 02:57 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
On the subject of Israeli "fundies," see the cover story in this week's New Yorker.

I'm not finished it yet, but I'll be back with quotes. I had straight hair when I started reading.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Justice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3877

posted 27 May 2004 03:07 PM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
We all know everybody has "fundies".

The question is who should be considered fundamentalist?

Is it fundamentalist to believe in the 2 state solutions?

Is it fundamentalist to believe that everybody has a right to an identity?

And that sometimes there are conflicts of identity and therefore we need to find a compromise? (Perhaps best along what Nusseibeh suggests).

Ayalon mentioned this is a battle over identities and that identities can not come before economics.

If this war was over economics then it would have ended long ago I don't think most people are that stupid.

Even in the United States where most wars are a matter of economics I believe most people realize that won't fix their problems in the long run.


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Justice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3877

posted 27 May 2004 03:12 PM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Anyways that there is a reason for the unusual support of fundamentalist among Palestinians and that is desperation.

However the solution to their desperation needs to come from with in Similar to the Jews through out the 20th century.


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 27 May 2004 03:28 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Justice, at the risk of sounding like Bill Clinton (whom I rilly rilly did not like), I feel your pain. *empathizing smiley*

There are many obvious practical, humane reasons for supporting the two-state solution, maybe even now, although I think that the Israelis are pushing their luck if they think that most of the rest of us can any longer equate their desperation with that of the people and tortoises and kangaroos they drive their huge armoured vehicles over. And there is the wee problem of Israel's sponsor-state, the U.S. of A., whose motives everywhere are drawing mostly suspicion from most of the rest of us.

I also think that there is a deeply humane rationale in respecting and protecting any local culture, any deeply rooted culture, in recognizing how important to life itself respect for tradition and community are.

So I wouldn't call anyone on either side who argues from either of those two bases a "fundie."

But then there are the people who believe that "God gave us this land." Those people? Problem.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Justice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3877

posted 27 May 2004 05:00 PM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
As an Israeli that’s not what I want. Jews and Israeli’s have to stop looking at themselves as victims it only servers to isolate and polarize them more. It is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

We should only try and learn from the holocaust to the extent that the lessons learned are universal. I do believe in the importance of protecting identity I believe Jews have a genuine connection to Israel and it is because of that I can also understand the Palestinian claims and needs . And since the needs and claims of the Palestinians overlap those of the Jews a compromise needs to be reached.

This is why I support Nusseibeh’s vision all the peace documents drafted by individuals outside of the government since 2000 that I know of like the Ayalon-Nusseibeh initiative and Belin-Rabbo “Geneva Accords” do address the Refugee problem. They might not give justice but the do provide a practical solution and an end to their suffering as well as freedom, independence and sovereignty over themselves. A fundamental factor of any 2 state solution is that any 2 states that will a rise will need cooperation between each other if they are to be viable states. They may realize in the future that one state is more logical but for the sake of identity which both have been fighting for many, many, many years for the 2 state solution is the best compromise.

Also I’d like to explain what I meant by people who are desperate supporting fundamentalist. In the Palestinian case the people who do provide the best if not the only schools and hospitals are the Hamas so of course the Palestinians will support them they will support any when who will immediately improve their living conditions if Arafat were to do the same and stop being corrupt he could gain a lot more support. The problem is that both Arafat and the Hamas for better or worse support violence and the more they support the violence the more it seems to push Israeli’s in the same direction. On top of that sadly the Israeli’s have done nothing to help find an alternative killing terrorist leaders will not insure are more moderate leader will arise. Nor will on going threats and continued suffering persuade the Palestinians that Israel can not be beat or that violence has to end in order for their suffering to end. Violence will not solove anything for either side in the long run. Nor will unwavering on certain issues help either. The occupation has to end (all aspects military incursions, curfews, targeted killing, administrative detentions etc…) settlements torn down at once and the support of militaristic organizations and the Palestinian end. Finally and understanding of the Right of Return in the context the Nusseibeh put it we need to look to the future and stop longing for the past or as you said it skdadl the fundamental belief that these rights whether settling here or there are absolutes by god. You can believe what you want but sooner or latter you need to compromise.


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Justice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3877

posted 27 May 2004 05:01 PM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh by the way could you send a link to the article in the New Yorker you were talking about?

as well if Josh is thinking about the over 200,000 settlers it is true of many of them but many only settled there because the Israeli government gave them a good deal(stupid strategical thinking). If they were given a good deal else where I'm sure they would move out immediately.

Proof of my point

quote:
And then a surprise speaker: "My name is Eliezer Bidu. I live in the settlement of Omarim, south of Hebron. I went there 14 years ago because I was promised quality of life for my family. What a quality of life! A few months ago our car was shot at. A bullet passed near the head of my baby son. I want to get out of there. Not to live guarded by soldiers day and night, on disputed land among neighbours who hate me. I want to live in the real Israel, and I am not the only one."

from now magazine

[ 27 May 2004: Message edited by: Justice ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 27 May 2004 06:12 PM      Profile for Rufus Polson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Justice:
However the solution to their desperation needs to come from with in Similar to the Jews through out the 20th century.

So, it's OK for countries where Jews live to be anti-semitic? The countries they're living in being egalitarian and non-oppressive is not part of the solution? That seems odd.

For instance, take Canada. Back forty years or so, Jews were clearly treated badly in much of Canada, second class citizens. Before world war II it was worse still. Canada as a whole has changed, a change of which the Jews in Canada have been a part certainly, but broader social change, the rise of a more urban, sophisticated sensibility, multiculturalism policies, and anti-racism fights generally have all had a big impact. By the end of the twentieth century, Jews in Canada could by no stretch of the imagination be considered desperate; much of the solution came from Canada as a whole.

Israel similarly has a major role to play in ceasing to make the Palestinians desperate. This victim-blaming "solution needs to come from within" is foolish.


From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 27 May 2004 06:32 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
?This victim-blaming "solution needs to come from within" is foolish.
Where should it come from? The only nation that seems to have any influence over Israel at all is the United States, and they don't seem to be doing anything to aid the Palestinian cause. Even the Norwegians couldn't help Arafat when Ehud Barak screwed him over at Oslo. On the other hand, if we allow the major political parties in Israel to decide the fate of the Palestinian people, without somebody monitoring their actions, things will end very badly indeed. How much support does the the Israeli Communist Party have amongst the electorate in Israel? Did the Americans sit in on the Oslo negotiations?

[ 27 May 2004: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 27 May 2004 08:30 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Rufus Polson:

So, it's OK for countries where Jews live to be anti-semitic? The countries they're living in being egalitarian and non-oppressive is not part of the solution? That seems odd.

For instance, take Canada. Back forty years or so, Jews were clearly treated badly in much of Canada, second class citizens. Before world war II it was worse still. Canada as a whole has changed, a change of which the Jews in Canada have been a part certainly, but broader social change, the rise of a more urban, sophisticated sensibility, multiculturalism policies, and anti-racism fights generally have all had a big impact. By the end of the twentieth century, Jews in Canada could by no stretch of the imagination be considered desperate; much of the solution came from Canada as a whole.

Israel similarly has a major role to play in ceasing to make the Palestinians desperate. This victim-blaming "solution needs to come from within" is foolish.



I find myself in agreement here with Rufus.

From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
mjollnir
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5618

posted 27 May 2004 11:54 PM      Profile for mjollnir        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Justice:
As an Israeli that’s not what I want. Jews and Israeli’s have to stop looking at themselves as victims it only servers to isolate and polarize them more. It is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

We should only try and learn from the holocaust to the extent that the lessons learned are universal. I do believe in the importance of protecting identity I believe Jews have a genuine connection to Israel and it is because of that I can also understand the Palestinian claims and needs . And since the needs and claims of the Palestinians overlap those of the Jews a compromise needs to be reached.

This is why I support Nusseibeh’s vision all the peace documents drafted by individuals outside of the government since 2000 that I know of like the Ayalon-Nusseibeh initiative and Belin-Rabbo “Geneva Accords” do address the Refugee problem. They might not give justice but the do provide a practical solution and an end to their suffering as well as freedom, independence and sovereignty over themselves. A fundamental factor of any 2 state solution is that any 2 states that will a rise will need cooperation between each other if they are to be viable states. They may realize in the future that one state is more logical but for the sake of identity which both have been fighting for many, many, many years for the 2 state solution is the best compromise.

Also I’d like to explain what I meant by people who are desperate supporting fundamentalist. In the Palestinian case the people who do provide the best if not the only schools and hospitals are the Hamas so of course the Palestinians will support them they will support any when who will immediately improve their living conditions if Arafat were to do the same and stop being corrupt he could gain a lot more support. The problem is that both Arafat and the Hamas for better or worse support violence and the more they support the violence the more it seems to push Israeli’s in the same direction. On top of that sadly the Israeli’s have done nothing to help find an alternative killing terrorist leaders will not insure are more moderate leader will arise. Nor will on going threats and continued suffering persuade the Palestinians that Israel can not be beat or that violence has to end in order for their suffering to end. Violence will not solove anything for either side in the long run. Nor will unwavering on certain issues help either. The occupation has to end (all aspects military incursions, curfews, targeted killing, administrative detentions etc…) settlements torn down at once and the support of militaristic organizations and the Palestinian end. Finally and understanding of the Right of Return in the context the Nusseibeh put it we need to look to the future and stop longing for the past or as you said it skdadl the fundamental belief that these rights whether settling here or there are absolutes by god. You can believe what you want but sooner or latter you need to compromise.


Leaders can compromise, sooner or later they always do, arafat has done sooo much compromising that he's become fit to be a character in a Discworld novel (where pragmatism is above all). But, why should the 3 million refugees compromise? Who has the right to give their innate and irrefutable rights up in their stead?
Allowing a "limited number" back is an absurd argument, either you recognize their right or you don't. If that clashes with the notion of a Jewish State, well, tough luck.

Since those refugees are still legal residents of their land (by the most basic laws of humanity), then they must have a say as to whether they want a Jewish state on their land or not, shouldn't they? I'm pretty sure they'd go for a secular state, though.

The refugees must not pay for a European-dominated united nations that tried to assuage its guilt by giving out was not its own to give.
Once again, they find that, surprise surprise, their fate will be decided by others.

Yes, we should always look towards the future, but not a future that denies justice and equality. Correcting past mistakes is always a good criterion for having a good future


From: NY | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
mjollnir
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5618

posted 28 May 2004 12:05 AM      Profile for mjollnir        Edit/Delete Post

[ 28 May 2004: Message edited by: mjollnir ]


From: NY | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 28 May 2004 12:55 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Macabee:
I find myself in agreement here with Rufus.

Ow! That blue piece of sky that fell on my head really hurt.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mycroft_
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2230

posted 28 May 2004 01:00 AM      Profile for Mycroft_     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Anyone read the article on the settler movement in this week's New Yorker? Scary stuff.
From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
liminal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5617

posted 28 May 2004 08:15 AM      Profile for liminal        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Justice:

Finally and understanding of the Right of Return in the context the Nusseibeh put it we need to look to the future and stop longing for the past or as you said it skdadl the fundamental belief that these rights whether settling here or there are absolutes by god. You can believe what you want but sooner or latter you need to compromise.


[B][/B]
Typical hypocrisy: It is only the Zionist claim that has forged a thread of legitimacy by saying that they were given the land by God, not the Palestinians, who were already rooted there, so if anyone should compromise and abandon "the fundamental belief that these rights whether settling here or there are absolutes by god", you know damn well who it is.

[ 28 May 2004: Message edited by: liminal ]


From: the hole I just crawled out of | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 28 May 2004 08:21 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Mycroft, I am part way through -- I read the first section and ended up so depressed that I had to stop for a while. I'll finish it over the weekend, I guess.

Justice, the article isn't online. Here, on the New Yorker site, is an interview with the author, Jeffrey Goldberg.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 29 May 2004 03:37 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Justice

quote:
B'Tselem on the other has a soul single purpose and the fact that such a critical orginzation exist in Israel I think shows how much of a moral high ground Israel has.

'Peace Now' Under Investigation for Espionage Activities


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
GhostOne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6109

posted 13 June 2004 08:01 PM      Profile for GhostOne     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by liminal:

Typical hypocrisy: It is only the Zionist claim that has forged a thread of legitimacy by saying that they were given the land by God, not the Palestinians, who were already rooted there, so if anyone should compromise and abandon "the fundamental belief that these rights whether settling here or there are absolutes by god", you know damn well who it is.
[ 28 May 2004: Message edited by: liminal ]

The jewish people have a stonger link to their country than any other people I can think of. A jewish state existed in that region thousands of years before the "palestinians" set their legs there. The palestinian claim to the region is similar to the claim of the buyer of a stolen car to the car (or perhaps not as strong since the buyer of a stolen car can often plead ignorance).

hypocrisy is for people living in countries where aboriginals have been virtually wiped out and their land taken, sometimes as recent as a couple of hundered years ago, speaking against the right of Israel to exist.

[ 13 June 2004: Message edited by: GhostOne ]


From: Delta, BC | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 14 June 2004 12:35 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If Candians are being hypocritical for ignoring their destruction of the original population of Canada while condeming Israeli for similar action. Then you are being hypocritical for condmening the Arabs for kicking out the Jews, oh so very long ago, but defending Israel right to do so, on the basis that Canada was created in this way.

Typical zionist double think. If usurping land is ok, then say so, if not then say that.
Are the Palestinians the usurpers of the land or the usurped? Pick one.

[ 14 June 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 14 June 2004 02:22 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Then you are being hypocritical for condmening the Arabs for kicking out the Jews

When did Arabs ever kick anyone out of Palestine?


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 14 June 2004 02:36 AM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
How is it possible to have a thread such as this WITHOUT it being swamped with irrelevant claptrap from Starbuck and Brant K ?
From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 14 June 2004 03:21 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
We have three epsisodes of ethnic cleansing being used as examples:

1) Biblical: Arab v Jews
2) Colonial North America: Erupoeans v Natives
3) Israel: Jews v Arabs.

In the first case the poster is opposed to the 'theft of land', and uses it to justify 3. He/she then suggests that in the case of persons are being hypocritical if they condemn 3 but not 2.

By (correctly!) equating 3 and 2, (by noting the hypocrisy of supporting one while condemning the other,) the poster has inadevertently justified 1.

Because 2 is clearly a case of 'theft of land' ("where aboriginals have been virtually wiped out and their land taken,") 3 must also be a case of 'theft of land' given that the are equatable in the posters mind. If case 2 justifies case 3, and 2 is an act of 'theft of land' and case 1 is also a case of 'theft of land,' then case 2 also justifies case 1.

If case 1 is justified on the same principals on which Europeans stole land from Natives, then the poster should STFU given that the so called Jewish state that at one time supposedly existed in the region of Palestine was stolen fair and square by the Arabs. If stealing is fair and square then fine. But lets have one moral view or the other, not this constant waffling back and forth, using morally contradictory arguments.

Alternately, the poster would be better off not to equate 2 and 3 as that would make his/her arguement at lease logically consistent.

But by trying to get their final ("you did it to the Natives. So there!") 'have-my-cake-and eat-it-too' moral universe the posters slips back into the moral mud where his slimy, self-serving neo facist mentality was formed. Formed? did I say "formed?" I meant half-baked.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
aRoused
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1962

posted 14 June 2004 05:06 AM      Profile for aRoused     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'd throw information up here about the origins of the Arabs, how they've been there for on the order of 1500-2000+ years, and how the early "Jewish" states (more likely city-states) weren't so much Jewish as Semitic-speaking worshipers of a pantheon of deities including JHVH, whose monotheistic worship gradually overcame the polytheistic practices to form the core of what could truly be called a Jewish nation, but the poster who truly needs this info won't bother to read it.

And I shouldn't be feeding the trolls anyways.


From: The King's Royal Burgh of Eoforwich | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 14 June 2004 03:25 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
There are many obvious practical, humane reasons for supporting the two-state solution, maybe even now, although I think that the Israelis are pushing their luck if they think that most of the rest of us can any longer equate their desperation with that of the people and tortoises and kangaroos they drive their huge armoured vehicles over. And there is the wee problem of Israel's sponsor-state, the U.S. of A., whose motives everywhere are drawing mostly suspicion from most of the rest of us.

I also think that there is a deeply humane rationale in respecting and protecting any local culture, any deeply rooted culture, in recognizing how important to life itself respect for tradition and community are.

So I wouldn't call anyone on either side who argues from either of those two bases a "fundie."

But then there are the people who believe that "God gave us this land." Those people? Problem.



Could you provide me with a few more reasons to support a two state solution?

[ 14 June 2004: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 14 June 2004 03:38 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No.

But understand this, CMOT: however much I am distressed by the cynicism of the power-brokers, I still believe in all the people, on all sides. And I do not believe that humane solutions to anguish now this complex are ever accomplished overnight, without great human cost.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
GhostOne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6109

posted 14 June 2004 05:35 PM      Profile for GhostOne     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
If Candians are being hypocritical for ignoring their destruction of the original population of Canada while condeming Israeli for similar action. Then you are being hypocritical for condmening the Arabs for kicking out the Jews, oh so very long ago, but defending Israel right to do so, on the basis that Canada was created in this way.

Typical zionist double think. If usurping land is ok, then say so, if not then say that.
Are the Palestinians the usurpers of the land or the usurped? Pick one.

[ 14 June 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


Try for a second to listen to someone else besides yourself. Where did I say that Arabs kicked the Jews out of Israel?

I said, and I stand by what I said, that if a Canadian (for example) is critical of Israel for allegedly usurping Palestinian land and demands that the entire land is returned to the Palestinians and that they are compensated, then this Canadian is being hypocritical. The reasoning is that following the same logic he should demand the return of the entire territory of Canada to the First Nations and that they are compensated for their suffering.

For a Zionist to claim that Israel has a right to exist because Canadians did what they did the couple of last hundred years would be a ridiculous claim. I never heared such a claim. Obviously one wrong doesn't justify another (alleged) wrong.

The situation in Israel is much more complex than the simplicity of the Candian example.

Lastly, to answer your question I would say that some of the Palestinians are usurpers and some are usurped. Some have reasonable claims and demands and some don't. Even those who were actually forcibly removed from their property in 1948, and have had genuinely suffered, would have some problem presenting their case given the wider historical context.

It's not black and white, it's gray. The big question is what is the relevance of all this today and how do we solve today's problems.

I am not a Zionist and I don't represent Zionism. If I double-speak (and I don't) please don't use me as an example of Zionism to promote your anti-Zionist propoganda.


From: Delta, BC | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
GhostOne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6109

posted 14 June 2004 06:09 PM      Profile for GhostOne     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by aRoused:
I'd throw information up here about the origins of the Arabs, how they've been there for on the order of 1500-2000+ years, and how the early "Jewish" states (more likely city-states) weren't so much Jewish as Semitic-speaking worshipers of a pantheon of deities including JHVH, whose monotheistic worship gradually overcame the polytheistic practices to form the core of what could truly be called a Jewish nation, but the poster who truly needs this info won't bother to read it.

And I shouldn't be feeding the trolls anyways.


First let me say that the historical claims only have limited relevance to today's problems. Just look at the map of the world and show me one nation that can trace its national existance 4000 years back.

Nevertheless, and for the sake of historical interest and accuracy, I'd be happy to get references that show connections between the current palestinians and the land of the state of Israel for periods preceding, lets say, King David's period, over 3000 years ago. (Jewish history actually extends quite a while further back in the region but lets just use this as a point of reference)


From: Delta, BC | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
GhostOne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6109

posted 14 June 2004 06:43 PM      Profile for GhostOne     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
We have three epsisodes of ethnic cleansing being used as examples:

1) Biblical: Arab v Jews
2) Colonial North America: Erupoeans v Natives
3) Israel: Jews v Arabs.


The only clear-cut case of ethnic cleansing is #2.

What arab v. Jews in biblical times? What are you talking about?

I wouldn't say that Israel has ever practiced ethnic cleansing. A significant portion of the Israeli population is arab. A lot of today's refugees left their houses while beliving the arab countries would wipe out Israel and they'd be back in a matter of weeks. Unfortunately they found themselves stuck in refugee camps under arab rule after the war with the arab rulers doing all they can to ensure the problem doesn't get resolved. Not to mention that if you look further back in history you'll find out that the Israeli's are the real refugees in this story. (Not that this diminishes the suffering of the palestinians today but we do need to have some sort of perspective).

Again, history does have somewhat limited relevance here. And again, one wrong doesn't justify another.

Israel is standing on higher moral ground today because it is acting in self defense and because the methods it uses are more moral than the methods used by the palestinians. Israel wanted to pursue a path to a peaceful solution but all it got back was suicide bombings (At all stages of negotiation). IMO this is true regardless of who is "right" and who is "wrong". Obviously if you take a magnifying glass and look at one point of this conflict you might find instances where Israel (or Israelis) is behaving immorally, this is regrettable, but don't loose sight of the bigger picture.


From: Delta, BC | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 14 June 2004 06:46 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by GhostOne:
[QB]

First let me say that the historical claims only have limited relevance to today's problems. Just look at the map of the world and show me one nation that can trace its national existance 4000 years back.


We first need to define 'nation'. The concept of 'nationhood' employed by folks like you and me in 2004 is a recent intellectual development in the history of humankind, and seems to be connected with the promulgation of common vernacular tongues by way of mass media (the printing press) among other things. I would argue that technically speaking no 'nation' can trace their history back that far because what we conceive of as 'nationhood' was not yet the dominant form of social organisation and group self-perception.

In fact - since Zionism is on topic in this discussion - this fact is evident throughout much of the earliest Zionist writing, such as that of Herzl. He was cognisant of the fact that the 'Jewish people' did not truly conceive of themselves as a nation in the way that some others did, but that they MUST begin to do so, and seek after a national territory like other nations in order to have any political legitimacy (and protection) in an emerging system of nation-states and national identities.

Zionism was, in large part, an attempt to recast 'Jewishness' as a kind of nationalism - an intellectual and political trend that Herzl rightly understood was fast coming to mark the modern era and provide the substance and justification for political organisation and mobilisation. What is implicit here is that 'Jewishness' was not - strictly speaking - a kind of 'nationalism' before this time.

[ 14 June 2004: Message edited by: Courage ]


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 14 June 2004 06:50 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Please GhostOne, decide whether or not history is important. You see, on the one hand you say it has limited relevence, while on the other you use phrasing and terminology with a clear historical geneology - i.e. terminology and tropes that rely on a certain reading and interpretation of events in history. From this historical interpretation you come to certain conclusions about morality, i.e. the position of Israel vs. The Palestinians (aggressor/victim).

So, which is it? What's in and what's out?

[ 14 June 2004: Message edited by: Courage ]


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 14 June 2004 06:57 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
A lot of today's refugees left their houses while beliving the arab countries would wipe out Israel and they'd be back in a matter of weeks.

Uhhh...and a significant proportion were actively driven out by Haganah troops.

Moreover, there has been little documentary evidence found to support the claim that the Arab population was under the impression you claim.


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 14 June 2004 07:01 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I wouldn't say that Israel has ever practiced ethnic cleansing.

You might not say this, but Israeli historian Benny Morris, using documented sources, has admitted as much. He qualified his statements, though, by saying that Israel didn't go far enough.

As far as Jewish claims on the land of Palestine go, I don't see how anyone can, on one hand deny the legitimacy of the claims of people who were driven off the land 50+ years ago, and yet say that the superstitions of a tribe of wandering shepherds from ancient Mesopotamia give them precedence today.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
GhostOne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6109

posted 14 June 2004 07:10 PM      Profile for GhostOne     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Courage:
Please GhostOne, decide whether or not history is important. You see, on the one hand you say it has limited relevence, while on the other you use phrasing and terminology with a clear historical geneology - i.e. terminology and tropes that rely on a certain reading and interpretation of events in history. From this historical interpretation you come to certain conclusions about morality, i.e. the position of Israel vs. The Palestinians (aggressor/victim).

So, which is it? What's in and what's out?

[ 14 June 2004: Message edited by: Courage ]


Frankly, it's a difficult question. I think that for the most part history is not relevant. On the other hand if you ignore history altogether (even what happened yesterday) you loose context.

I guess my big problem is with people selectively choosing some historical events that are convenient to them while ignoring everything else to promote their agenda. This applies to very short term history - e.g. the use of a picture of a boy facing a tank while ignoring the day before that where a suicide bomber blows man woman and children into pieces. It also applies to longer term history.

I know the palestinians today are suffering but the solution to their problem should not be based on creating more suffering for other people. The solution has to work for today, not for history. Critizing Israel for acts of self-defense only promotes the Palestinian notion of a solution, namely the destruction of Israel, and in the long term will not benefit either side.


From: Delta, BC | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 14 June 2004 07:21 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by GhostOne:
[QB]

I guess my big problem is with people selectively choosing some historical events that are convenient to them while ignoring everything else to promote their agenda.


Then stop doing it lest someone find it...shall we say, off-putting...

quote:
The solution has to work for today, not for history.

But their suffering is a result of history. A history of ethnic cleansing and a history (present reality) of occupation.

quote:
Critizing Israel for acts of self-defense

What was that about selective history? Shall we ignore the history of international law on the matter of the occupation - i.e. that it is not justified as an act of 'self-defense'?

quote:
only promotes the Palestinian notion of a solution, namely the destruction of Israel

There is not one monolithic "Palestinian notion of a solution." But then again, I suppose Palestinians are just Jew-haters who want to destroy Israel and everyone in it. A well-couched slur by any other name....

[ 14 June 2004: Message edited by: Courage ]


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
GhostOne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6109

posted 14 June 2004 07:25 PM      Profile for GhostOne     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:

You might not say this, but Israeli historian Benny Morris, using documented sources, has admitted as much. He qualified his statements, though, by saying that Israel didn't go far enough.

As far as Jewish claims on the land of Palestine go, I don't see how anyone can, on one hand deny the legitimacy of the claims of people who were driven off the land 50+ years ago, and yet say that the superstitions of a tribe of wandering shepherds from ancient Mesopotamia give them precedence today.


I did not deny the legitimacy of all the claims. I've actually said that some of them do have reasonable claims. Please listen to me and not just to yourself.

I do think however that even those who have legitimate claim and were forcibly removed from their houses 60 years ago would today have to compromise for something less than returning to their old house. It's tough but it can be something you can live with.

There has been an uninterrupted jewish existance in Israel since the period you describe (4000 years ago?) and those that had to leave were forcibly removed and always wanted to go back. Your attemps to twist this around and rewrite history might very well work but they won't change history.


From: Delta, BC | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 14 June 2004 07:37 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by GhostOne:
[QB]

I did not deny the legitimacy of all the claims. I've actually said that some of them do have reasonable claims. Please listen to me and not just to yourself.

I do think however that even those who have legitimate claim and were forcibly removed from their houses 60 years ago would today have to compromise for something less than returning to their old house. It's tough but it can be something you can live with.

[quote] There has been an uninterrupted jewish existance in Israel since the period you describe (4000 years ago?) and those that had to leave were forcibly removed and always wanted to go back.


Uhh...but if history is irrelevent, then who cares? Moreover, this claim is questionable. There seems to have been very few (essentially nil) attempts by Jews in Diaspora to organise a return to Israel in the 2000 years or so since the Roman invasion. In fact, even under the tolerant purview of the Ottoman Empire (who were then in control of Palestine) virtually no Jews in Ottoman areas organised attempts to return to Palestine. There also appears to be a significant amount of documentation - both theological and 'legal' - from within the corpus of Jewish literature that suggests that loyalty to whatever state Jews found themselves in was to be commended and encouraged. It is also apparent from Jewish theology that a proper 'Return' was not considered possible as a purely political (i.e. nationalist) venture, but could only come as an eschatological event involving A Messiah, among other problematic hitches.

More recently, it seems that as late as the 1800's there was a large movement from within Judaism itself toward assimilation into one or another of the emerging nations of Europe as a means of addressing the challenges presented by the new nation-state system and socio-economic conditions of industrial society.

Moreover, going a lot further back, it is also clear that huge numbers of the Jews driven from Palestine by the Romans assimilated into surrounding cultures and political arrangements over the centuries that followed their expulsion. But how is this so if the desire to return is a fixed and immutable part of 'being Jewish'?

In other words, we see that in the very cultural artifacts of Jews themselves and by looking at the history of what Jews did, we find that there has been a great deal of vacillation on the matter of a return to Palestine. There is simply no evidence that this desire was fixed and immutable, to be found equally amongst all Jews in all places at all times.

quote:
Your attemps to twist this around and rewrite history might very well work but they won't change history.

You write as though history in this case is precise and defined. And yet we see that even the introduction of a few 'facts' (aren't these also 'history') begins to drastically alter the potential for interpretation and reading of what you present as a closed and fixed History. History isn't static out there. It is ever and always an act of interpretation - whether it be of documents and artifacts, or of memory and the subjective workings of psychology.

[ 14 June 2004: Message edited by: Courage ]


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
GhostOne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6109

posted 14 June 2004 07:45 PM      Profile for GhostOne     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Courage:

There is not one monolithic "Palestinian notion of a solution." But then again, I suppose Palestinians are just Jew-haters who want to destroy Israel and everyone in it. A well-couched slur by any other name....

[ 14 June 2004: Message edited by: Courage ]


I call it as I see it. I'd be happy if it wasn't the case. I guess it's a positive indication that you're calling it a slur.

Unless the Palestinians can come up with a monotlithic version of a solution there will be no solution. Can Israel sign a peace agreement with half the Palestinians while the other half vows to destory it?

I am not selectively quoting history unless as a counter-argument to others who are doing the same in which case just add the two halves together to get a more complete picture.

I thought we were talking about morality when all of the sudden you need to refer to the "international law". I'm not a lawyer or an expert in international law so I can't really answer that (though I'd be interested in hearing more details about this law). I do think however that a country has a responsiblity to protect the lives of its citizens. Just in the same way an individual can use lethal force in protecting his own life so can a country to protect its citizens.
On the other hand, if squatters have invaded into your house and will not let you back in, you are not justified to use lethal force against them.


From: Delta, BC | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 14 June 2004 07:52 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by GhostOne:
[QB]

I call it as I see it.


Look harder.

quote:
I'd be happy if it wasn't the case. I guess it's a positive indication that you're calling it a slur.

No, it's intended to be a very negative indication. Please simply browse around the internet and you can find a myriad of political positions held by Palestinians on the matter of Israel, the Right of Return, etc. Better yet, go ask a few.

quote:
I thought we were talking about morality when all of the sudden you need to refer to the "international law".

Are not laws codified expressions of a particular group's moral beliefs? International law is an attempt to create a contractual code of moral conduct for states. As such, I think it is a fairly decent measure of what might be called 'morality' when the questions of, for instance, 'self-defense' and 'aggression' using military force, come up.

[ 14 June 2004: Message edited by: Courage ]


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
GhostOne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6109

posted 14 June 2004 08:10 PM      Profile for GhostOne     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Courage:

You write as though history in this case is precise and defined. And yet we see that even the introduction of a few 'facts' (aren't these also 'history') begins to drastically alter the potential for interpretation and reading of what you present as a closed and fixed History. History isn't static out there. It is ever and always an act of interpretation - whether it be of documents and artifacts, or of memory and the subjective workings of psychology.

[ 14 June 2004: Message edited by: Courage ]

[ 14 June 2004: Message edited by: Courage ]



You're also writing as though history is precise and defined.

Just because I don't think history is that relevant doesn't mean someone else reading this shares the same view. I feel the need to add some historical details so people can have a balanced view. As you and others are focusing on events that support their view I bring counter-examples that support my view.

I can tell you that, for one thing, Jewish prayers, tradition and folk-lore are full of yearning to return to Israel. Every year the passover seder ends with the words "Le Shana Ha Baa Be Yerushalim Ha Bnuiah". Next year in re-built Jerusalem.

You do have a point that for the most part Jews did not make an organized attempt to return to Israel until the 1800s. There have been some attempts though:
In 1211, a group called the 300 rabbis moved to Israel.
From 1517, under the ottoman empire rule, a lot of jews did come back to Israel.
In 1700 there was a large group organized by Judah Hasid that made way to Israel.
1764 another large wave of immigration.

There are many reasons:
As you said yourself, for the most part, until the some periods of the Ottoman empire, jews were not permitted to come back to Israel. You also have to remember that this sort of journey, at those times, was a very dangerous prospect. Doubtless there were other religious and political factors.

At any case, you can't deny the historic linkage as some people here are trying to do.


From: Delta, BC | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 14 June 2004 08:13 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
But understand this, CMOT: however much I am distressed by the cynicism of the power-brokers, I still believe in all the people, on all sides. And I do not believe that humane solutions to anguish now this complex are ever accomplished overnight, without great human cost.


I don't understand. Could you elaborate?


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
GhostOne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6109

posted 14 June 2004 08:31 PM      Profile for GhostOne     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Courage:

No, it's intended to be a very negative indication. Please simply browse around the internet and you can find a myriad of political positions held by Palestinians on the matter of Israel, the Right of Return, etc. Better yet, go ask a few.
[ 14 June 2004: Message edited by: Courage ]


I've seen Palestinans cheering from the roof tops when Saddam Hussein was firing missiles on Israel. I've seen celebrations in the streets and distribution of candy to kids after suicide bombings. I've seen the study material taught to children in Palestinian schools.

I know there are a lot of moderate palestinians but their voice is not heared. The political leadership (Fatah, Hamas) is pursuing a path of armed struggle until the destruction of Israel - A lot of them are very open about it.

And you haven't answered my question, how can Israel reach an agreement with the palestinians if they can't talk with one voice? And what happens if while signing an agreement there is still a considerable support and action for the destruction of Israel?

quote:
Originally posted by Courage:

Are not laws codified expressions of a particular group's moral beliefs? International law is an attempt to create a contractual code of moral conduct for states. As such, I think it is a fairly decent measure of what might be called 'morality' when the questions of, for instance, 'self-defense' and 'aggression' using military force, come up.

[ 14 June 2004: Message edited by: Courage ]


I would need some pretty strong body of evidence before I accept international law as the equivalent of morality. The world, as a whole, is not a moral place. International law is a result of power struggle and politics.


From: Delta, BC | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 14 June 2004 08:34 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well first off Ghostone if you are going to take this issue seriously, then you better start looking at what Palestinians actually say, as opposed to what Zionists say they are saying.

For instance, there is not one instance in the 1964 Charter of of the PLO, which states that the Jews should be driven into the sea. In fact it states that Jews living in Palesine "prior to the Zionist invasion" are Palestinians.

In fact the 1964 Charter of the PLO calls for the creation of a secular state where all religions are treated equally. This is a far cry from the insistance of the Israel state that all persons living in Israel must live in a Jewish state. Ask yourself, whould I support the imposition of a uni-religious state in BC?

If you are concerned about hypocrisy, why are you supporting the imposition of a uni-religious state in the region of the Palestine Mandatte, even if you would reject the notion in your own country?

What if the Muslims came to Delta and determined that you (from whatever relgious background you are from) should live in the Islamic State of British Columbia? Would you accept that? I highly doubt it.

If you consider the problem in that light, perhaps you will see why it is that a large number of Christian and Muslim Arabs are opposed to the sudden imposition of a religiously oriented state, the force evacuation of residents and expropriation (without compensation) of properties of long time residents.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 14 June 2004 08:36 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
There has been an uninterrupted jewish existance in Israel since the period you describe (4000 years ago?) and those that had to leave were forcibly removed and always wanted to go back. Your attemps to twist this around and rewrite history might very well work but they won't change history.

For someone who tells others to listen to him and not to themselves, this is rather ironical.

Carry on.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 14 June 2004 08:39 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ironic.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 14 June 2004 08:44 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
BTW, Ghostone, what excactly bothered you about the 'study material' that you have 'seen' that is used in Palestinian schools. You are fluent in Arabic writen and spoken?
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
liminal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5617

posted 14 June 2004 08:53 PM      Profile for liminal        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The jewish people have a stonger link to their country than any other people I can think of. A jewish state existed in that region thousands of years before the "palestinians" set their legs there. The palestinian claim to the region is similar to the claim of the buyer of a stolen car to the car (or perhaps not as strong since the buyer of a stolen car can often plead ignorance).

Though I usually care not to reply to such logic (or rather lack of) of who came first, I find myself sliding in that pothole. The most reductive instrument to use in the Middle East is shallow classification because its fallacy twofold:
1-Because it is under Islam that Arabs set out on their expansionist campaigns, Arabs only came to existence in the 600s
2-Because Palestinians identify themselves as Arabs means they are ethnically and genetically Arabs, and because of such, they only came to the Holy Land with the Muslims

Enough of this lumping. Arabs existed before Islam, and Arabs might still exist if Islam perishes. Arab tribes dwelled in present day Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Jordan, and Israel as long as Hebrew tribes did (if not earlier), and indeed, sometimes, a tribe would be both. So saying that Arabs came in 600s is failing to make the distinction between Arab and Islam.
The second problem is reading what being Arab entails. The majority of the citizens of the Levant identify themselves as Arabs culturally and through the language they speak. To speak about Arabism genetically or ethnically is absurd.
Let us take the Palestinians as a case study:
Some were the original Cannaites and Syriac that converted to Christianity and in some cases then to Islam.
Some were Hebrews that stayed even after they were banished by the Romans
Some are originally Hebrews converted to Christianity by Jesus himself and/or his followers at the time.
Some were Arab tribes that were Pagan, and then converted to Islam or to Christianity
Some were Arab tribes that were either Jewish or Christian, who either remained so, or converted to Islam
Some were Arab Muslims that came with the conquests after 600
Some were Arab Muslim that came from the Arabian Peninsula, and converted to Christianity
Some were Europeans, coming with the Crusaders, but staying after they left, some converting to Islam, and most remaining Christian (the most notable family of Jaffa is the Demiani, which is a Palestinian family of European roots that go for 10 generations)
Some were Sephardim that came after the Spanish bigot trials
Some were Assyrians or Armenians or what have you, and so on, so forth…

So, the Palestinians (as much as the Lebanese or the Syrians) are a group of anthropological mess. If we were to use the juvenile argument of “I was here first”, as if it is contest where the last person keeping his hand on the car wins it, we would find that the Hebrews themselves, during their Golden Age, never monopolized the land, and “shared it” with the Canaanites (if sharing today is conducted with such atrocity, why blame the ancient world prior to establishment of human rights), not to mention that when they came from Egypt to the promised land, they took land from the Canaanites (Like roaming and chanting around Jericho for 7 days until the city fell. If The Hebrews were the ones surrounding the city, and there was a city when they arrived, what was inside, Ghosts or sheep?)


From: the hole I just crawled out of | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
GhostOne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6109

posted 14 June 2004 09:06 PM      Profile for GhostOne     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
BTW, Ghostone, what excactly bothered you about the 'study material' that you have 'seen' that is used in Palestinian schools. You are fluent in Arabic writen and spoken?

I am not fluent (even though I did study arabic).
I have seen translations and portions of the material published on different occasions and numerous articles in the media about the contents.

I am bothered by demonificatin of the other side (Israelis), anti-semitism, justification of jihad and suicide bombings.

A quick googling brings these:
http://eufunding.org/Textbooks/Nielson.html
http://www.edume.org/reports/1/1a.htm
http://www.ipcri.org/files/textbooks.pdf

There are some other links presenting other views even though the main argument seems to be whether or not the Palestinians started replacing some of their study material after being pressured by the EU in 2000 to do so or they didn't. They shouldn't have been teaching that material in the first place.


From: Delta, BC | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
liminal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5617

posted 14 June 2004 09:11 PM      Profile for liminal        Edit/Delete Post
Don’t Israelis rejoice Independence Day? The Independence marking the founding of the state of Israel, which was conducted like the link shows:

http://www.marxists.de/middleast/rose/6-hijack.htm

[/QUOTE] Two weeks later British troops were withdrawn from Haifa. At sundown on 21 April the Zionists hurled sixty pounds of explosives about 300 yards into the crowded Arab quarter. Barrel bombs, which were casks filled with gasoline and dynamite, rolled down the narrow alleys and crashed, creating an inferno of flames and explosions. Loudspeakers of the Haganah, the mainstream Zionist militia, broadcast “horror recordings” that filled the air with shrieks and anguished moans of Arab women, interrupted by a booming sorrowful voice that called out in Arabic, “Flee for your lives! The Jews are using poison gas and atomic weapons!” As the Palestinians fled Haifa only one phrase trembled on their lips: “Deir Yassin, Deir Yassin”. [/QUOTE]

Amazing that anything goes for one group, while the other, no matter how attacked it is, is scrutinized.

And as for the diatribe about Palestinian curricula, which most apologists flaunt in our faces unchallenged. Well, the mirror has two faces.
http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/0999/9909019.html


I don’t see you shedding any concern in the bigotry in the Israeli school curricula!
[QUOTE] One Israeli public high school student told the Washington Report that the contents of the schoolbooks and the viewpoints expressed by some teachers indeed have a lasting negative effect on youngsters’ attitudes toward Palestinians.

“Our books basically tell us that everything the Jews do is fine and legitimate and Arabs are wrong and violent and are trying to exterminate us,” said Daniel Banvolegyi, a 17-year-old high school student in Jerusalem.

“We are accustomed to hearing the same thing, only one side of the story. They teach us that Israel became a state in 1948 and that the Arabs started a war. They don’t mention what happened to the Arabs—they never mention anything about refugees or Arabs having to leave their towns and homes,” said Banvolegyi.

Banvolegyi, who will be a high school senior this fall, and then will be drafted into the Israeli army next summer, said he argues with his friends about what he regards as racism in the textbooks and on the part of the teachers. He pointed out a worrisome example of how damaging the textbooks and prevailing attitudes can be.

“One kid told me he was angry because of something he read or discussed in school and that he felt like punching the first Arab he saw,” said Banvolegyi. “Instead of teaching tolerance and reconciliation, the books and some teachers’ attitudes are increasing hatred for Arabs.”

Banvolegyi spoke about his schoolmates who, he says, “are dying to go into combat and kill Arabs. I try to talk to them but they say I don’t care about this country. But I do care and that’s why I tell them peace and justice are the only ways to work things out.”

[ 14 June 2004: Message edited by: liminal ]


From: the hole I just crawled out of | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
GhostOne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6109

posted 14 June 2004 09:23 PM      Profile for GhostOne     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by liminal:

So, the Palestinians (as much as the Lebanese or the Syrians) are a group of anthropological mess. If we were to use the juvenile argument of “I was here first”, as if it is contest where the last person keeping his hand on the car wins it, we would find that the Hebrews themselves, during their Golden Age, never monopolized the land, and “shared it” with the Canaanites (if sharing today is conducted with such atrocity, why blame the ancient world prior to establishment of human rights), not to mention that when they came from Egypt to the promised land, they took land from the Canaanites (Like roaming and chanting around Jericho for 7 days until the city fell. If The Hebrews were the ones surrounding the city, and there was a city when they arrived, what was inside, Ghosts or sheep?)

I generally agree with you.

I was just replying to the "I was here first" argument presented here by showing the other side of the coin. If someone does want to pursue the "I was here first" argument, as stupid as it is, he's not standing on the firmest ground in this case.

This thread is about critisim of Israel. I think it is OK to be critical of Israel, there are many reasons to be so. Many Israelis are critical of Israel's policy.

But one-sided criticism, ignoring the larger picture, is unproductive.


From: Delta, BC | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 14 June 2004 09:33 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
You might not say this, but Israeli historian Benny Morris, using documented sources, has admitted as much. He qualified his statements, though, by saying that Israel didn't go far enough.

Gaaah!

Here I was thinking that Mr. Morris was on the side of light, and then some radical named after a cartoon horse hits me over the head with his guitar of iconoclasty and reveals that the man is actually an extremist bastard. Sings badly: Where have all the lefties gone, long time passing! where have lefties gone, long time ago!

Fuck but it's deppressing.

P.S. What about Tom Segev? Is he a rightist in sheep's clothing too?


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
liminal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5617

posted 14 June 2004 09:38 PM      Profile for liminal        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by CMOT Dibbler:

Gaaah!

Here I was thinking that Mr. Morris was on the side of light, and then some radical named after a cartoon horse hits me over the head with his guitar of iconoclasty and reveals that the man is actually an extremist bastard. Sings badly: Where have all the lefties gone, long time passing! where have lefties gone, long time ago!

Fuck but it's deppressing.

P.S. What about Tom Segev? Is he a rightist in sheep's clothing too?



CMOT old chap, when Morris confesses to ethnic cleansing, then continues to say that he wished Ben Gurion had finished off the job he started, what would that make him? A dove of peace?


From: the hole I just crawled out of | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 14 June 2004 10:02 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, see, I haven't read any of his stuff, but I had heard from what I now recognize to be a incredibly biased source, that Morris was quite liberal and as far from being a Zionist as it's possible to be. In which of his books does the schill condone ethnic cleansing?
From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
GhostOne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6109

posted 14 June 2004 10:33 PM      Profile for GhostOne     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by liminal:
Don’t Israelis rejoice Independence Day? The Independence marking the founding of the state of Israel, which was conducted like the link shows:

http://www.marxists.de/middleast/rose/6-hijack.htm

(portion snipped)

And as for the diatribe about Palestinian curricula, which most apologists flaunt in our faces unchallenged. Well, the mirror has two faces.
http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/0999/9909019.html

I don’t see you shedding any concern in the bigotry in the Israeli school curricula!
[ 14 June 2004: Message edited by: liminal ]


I am quite familiar with the Israeli school curricula. Balance is in the eye of the beholder but I think the Israeli school curricula is extremely balanced as compared to the Palestinan.
Israelis, living in a democratic country, are also exposed to a multitude of opinions out of school. They can pick up a copy of "Haaretz" and read about the palestinans suffering in road blocks. They are free to make up their own minds if the road blocks are a necessity to protect their own lives or just cruel treatment of the palesinians for no reason.

The number of free thinking, self-critical Israelis that are produced, and you have no problem quoting, are evidence enough to the difference between the educational systems and the overall cultures.

So is the great number of Israelis who support a peaceful solution. This is why you will see Israeli's demonstrate for a withdrawl from Gaza and in the past you could have seen vast demonstrations in support of the peace process.

I've yet to see a big Palestinian demonstration against suicide bombers and for peace.

The difference in the school curricula and education system is evident in its product. Free thinkers on one side, suicide bombers on the other.


From: Delta, BC | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
liminal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5617

posted 14 June 2004 11:22 PM      Profile for liminal        Edit/Delete Post
The well balanced curriculum exists in Dorothy's hole. You chose to let the contents of the report to which I posted a link pass over your head. You still have the audacity to talk about the well balanced curriculum, when you have not bothered to refute the contents of the article. And then you go to rationalize that a 7 year old kid can pick up Haaretz for balance. I can't blame you, you might be one of those "free thinkers'.
Another shining example of a "free thinker':

"It's a war, in a war these things happen...It's just a bucnh of Arabs. Why are you taking it so hard?"
Israeli army seargent whose artillery battery shelled the UN headquarters in Quana in South Lebanon, killing over a 100 refugees, qoted in the Israeli weekly Kol Ha'ir 10 May 1996

On one hand, suicide bombers are condemned by Arab League summits, on the other, Israeli "freethinkers" of the ilk of our friend whom i qouted become prime ministers.

[ 14 June 2004: Message edited by: liminal ]


From: the hole I just crawled out of | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 14 June 2004 11:26 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The difference in the school curricula and education system is evident in its product. Free thinkers on one side, suicide bombers on the other.


Bullshit.

The analysis of bias in the Palestinian school system is entirely one sided. For instance, it is said that Palestinians maps do not indicate the existence of Israel, as the Prismgroup.org web site states: "Negating Israel’s existence through its non-placement on maps, etc." Yet of course we are not told that Israeli maps, as a rule, do not indicate the disputed nature of the WB and the gaza strip. If it racist and incitful of violence to draw maps that exclude the the 'others' paradigm then Israel is just as guilty.

This map from the official Go Israel site does not indicate that there is any distinction between Palestinian areas and Israel:

Where is the West Bank, Golan heights and the Gaza Strip? Negating Arab existence? Incite to Riot and hatred?

Also overt racist idea are part and parcel of Israel education and even pronouncements from govenrment officials. Sharon's first minster of Toursim called Palestinians "lice," "scorpions" and "vermin."

quote:
He is the most vocal proponent of the idea of ridding the biblical land of Israel of the four million Arabs who live there, insisting that they should be "transferred" east of the Jordan river to Jordan.

Or more Recently, on this web site, we discovered:

Professor Steven Plaut who teaches at the University of Haifa believes that:

quote:
It does not matter that Ariel Sharon showed cowardice in not also mowing down the Hamas "mourners" marching in the Bloody Sheikh's (Ahemd Yassin) funeral procession.

That the present Israeli minster of Transportation Minister Avigdor Lieberman believes that Arab-Israelis should be sent to whatever territory that the Palestinians have left over after Israel decides what land it wants, based on their ethnicity.

Lieberman's political plan: Population exchange

Or what are we supposed to think when
McDonald's in Israel bans use of Arabic by staff

You think that this common place racims at levels of society means that Israel is a free country where Arab-Israeli's are treated with respect?

Also I find your defintion of democracy very curious given that 3 million palestinians can not vote in elections for the person who commands the army that rules their lives, while they live side by side with imported Jewish 'settlers' who are accorded full rights as Israeli citzens even though they live in the WB and Gaza Strip. Inclusive of all persons living in the Israeli sphere of rule nealry 1/3rd of the population is disenfranchised.

What produces suicide bombers is desperation, religious conviction and lack of Apache helicopters, expensive tanks and huge military subsidies from the world leading super-power, not maps in text-books.

[ 14 June 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
liminal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5617

posted 14 June 2004 11:29 PM      Profile for liminal        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by GhostOne:

I've yet to see a big Palestinian demonstration against suicide bombers and for peace.


And I have yet to see a big Israeli demonstration against terrorism committed by their founding fathers (who were bombers, albeit not suicidal, but I guess in Israeli curricula, it's ok. It's not like they're killing each other when they kill 72 civilians in King David Hotel).

But wait, Israeli freethinkers elect those terrorists as prime ministers.


From: the hole I just crawled out of | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 14 June 2004 11:45 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think also you should take a look at were you are getting your information about Palestinian educational materials.

Exactly who is the theprismgroup.org. Who funds it and why. Also what is the Israel / Palestinian Center for Research and Information. Sounds good but who funds it and why? I looked carefully at the "About Us" section of the theprismgroup.org site and found no reference to a governing body, a board of directors or information on who founded it and why? There isn't any mailing adress or other information associated with non-profit organizations.

What gives? Or more to the point who gives the money to fund these web sites?


It says that it is a group of volunteers, yet a group of 'volunteers' puts together a web site of more than 30 web pages, without funding?


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
GhostOne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6109

posted 15 June 2004 12:08 AM      Profile for GhostOne     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Well first off Ghostone if you are going to take this issue seriously, then you better start looking at what Palestinians actually say, as opposed to what Zionists say they are saying.

For instance, there is not one instance in the 1964 Charter of of the PLO, which states that the Jews should be driven into the sea. In fact it states that Jews living in Palesine "prior to the Zionist invasion" are Palestinians.

In fact the 1964 Charter of the PLO calls for the creation of a secular state where all religions are treated equally. This is a far cry from the insistance of the Israel state that all persons living in Israel must live in a Jewish state. Ask yourself, whould I support the imposition of a uni-religious state in BC?

If you are concerned about hypocrisy, why are you supporting the imposition of a uni-religious state in the region of the Palestine Mandatte, even if you would reject the notion in your own country?

What if the Muslims came to Delta and determined that you (from whatever relgious background you are from) should live in the Islamic State of British Columbia? Would you accept that? I highly doubt it.

If you consider the problem in that light, perhaps you will see why it is that a large number of Christian and Muslim Arabs are opposed to the sudden imposition of a religiously oriented state, the force evacuation of residents and expropriation (without compensation) of properties of long time residents.


Israel is a secular, democratic, multi-religious state. It is also a safe haven for the jewish people who have been persecuted over many centuries. Under Israeli rule the holy sites of the three religions are accessible to all worshippers and their freedom of religious practice is guaranteed. Before 1967 when east jerusalem was under Jordanian rule jews could not access their holy places.

Maybe you should read the PLO charter again ( http://www.iris.org.il/plochart.htm ). It essentially calls for the destruction of Israel by armed struggle and the expulsion of pretty much all jews from the region. No doubt under the enlightened rule of the Hamas the few remaining jews would enjoy their freedom and human rights similar to what jews living under other arab regimes in the region have enjoyed (or even arabs living under those same regimes). So what is it the Palestinians are actually saying that I am missing here?

Israel does not impose judaism, or jewish law, on anybody, let alone citizens of other religions.

Muslims do seem to have a tendency of imposing muslim law in their countries, e.g. Saudi Arabia and Iran.


From: Delta, BC | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
GhostOne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6109

posted 15 June 2004 12:20 AM      Profile for GhostOne     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by liminal:

And I have yet to see a big Israeli demonstration against terrorism committed by their founding fathers (who were bombers, albeit not suicidal, but I guess in Israeli curricula, it's ok. It's not like they're killing each other when they kill 72 civilians in King David Hotel).

But wait, Israeli freethinkers elect those terrorists as prime ministers.


People demonstrate about current events, not history. If you can't come out with a better argument I don't think people will find you very convincing. Not to mention that same "terrorist" signed the peace agreement with Egypt and returned Sinai.

As far as history is concerned, check out this link:
http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/History/King_David.html

A lot of Israelis might today call Begin and Shamir terrorists and even at the time they did not represent the majority of people. Find me one Palestinian who calls Arafat (Or Yassin) a terrorist.


From: Delta, BC | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
badhaddad
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5662

posted 15 June 2004 12:24 AM      Profile for badhaddad        Edit/Delete Post
I see the usual suspects are clinging to the idea that the 3 million descendents of the 1948 Arab refugees should have the right to move to what is now Israel.

People who insist on this "right" are simply insisting on eternal war.

Over half of Israeli Jews are descended from Middle Eastern Jews - refugees from Arab countries.

I don't think you're going to convince them that an Israel with an Arab majority is going to be a democratic secular state in which Jews will participate as equal citizens.

Indeed, anyone arguing that bringing 3 million descendents of the orignal Arab refugees into Israel would produce a democratic secular state is obviously arguing in bad faith.

The two state solution is the only solution. And a two-state solution means one state is Jewish; the other a Palestinian. It is a pity that on the palestinian side that the two-state option has such weak support.

By the way, full equality for Palesinian Israelis will obviously develop more quickly in a state of peace than during the on-going Palestinian war against Isreal.

Also, obviously, no one expects equality for Jewish Palestinians in any future Palestinian state. Indeed, no one expects any Jews to be stupid enough to try lving in any Palestinian state. But given peace and enough time, that could change, too.


From: Toronto | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 15 June 2004 01:03 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by CMOT Dibbler:
Well, see, I haven't read any of his stuff, but I had heard from what I now recognize to be a incredibly biased source, that Morris was quite liberal and as far from being a Zionist as it's possible to be. In which of his books does the schill condone ethnic cleansing?


This is old babble ground. It's hard to say who walked there first.


The Chilling Interview of Benny Morris

Ha'aretz interview

quote:
Ben-Gurion was a "transferist"?

"Of course. Ben-Gurion was a transferist. He understood that there could be no Jewish state with a large and hostile Arab minority in its midst. There would be no such state. It would not be able to exist."

I don't hear you condemning him.

"Ben-Gurion was right. If he had not done what he did, a state would not have come into being. That has to be clear. It is impossible to evade it. Without the uprooting of the Palestinians, a Jewish state would not have arisen here." When ethnic cleansing is justified


I admire his honesty.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 15 June 2004 02:15 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by GhostOne:
Israel does not impose judaism, or jewish law, on anybody, let alone citizens of other religions.

Oh, you mean like how you have to get married by an Orthodox Rabbi as the only legal way to get a valid marriage by Israeli law unless you get married outside Israel's borders?

Gee, that sure sounds like an imposition of religious law to me.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
GhostOne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6109

posted 15 June 2004 02:59 AM      Profile for GhostOne     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by DrConway:

Oh, you mean like how you have to get married by an Orthodox Rabbi as the only legal way to get a valid marriage by Israeli law unless you get married outside Israel's borders?

Gee, that sure sounds like an imposition of religious law to me.


Only if you are jewish! Yes, jews have a hard life in Israel. People are fighting this though and a lot of people do take a short flight to cyprus and get married there by civil marriage.


From: Delta, BC | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
GhostOne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6109

posted 15 June 2004 03:10 AM      Profile for GhostOne     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:

Bullshit.

The analysis of bias in the Palestinian school system is entirely one sided. For instance, it is said that Palestinians maps do not indicate the existence of Israel, as the Prismgroup.org web site states: "Negating Israel’s existence through its non-placement on maps, etc." Yet of course we are not told that Israeli maps, as a rule, do not indicate the disputed nature of the WB and the gaza strip. If it racist and incitful of violence to draw maps that exclude the the 'others' paradigm then Israel is just as guilty.

This map from the official Go Israel site does not indicate that there is any distinction between Palestinian areas and Israel:

[ 14 June 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


Double bullshit. Before your posting I've never seen an Israeli map that doesn't show the "green line", the border with the occupied territory. I've seen dozens of maps. Every Israeli knows that border. Israel has been negotiating with Syria over the future status of the Golan heights and everyone knows that just as well. I'll admit there are some right wing extremists who see judea and samaria and the gaza strip as an integral part of Israel, most Israeli's don't. Israeli law doesn't.

Your pathetic attempts to equate a moral, free and open society that Israel is with the palestinian society is ridiculous. Israel has its share of crazies and rednecks like everywhere else but to focus on them and not see anything else you've got to be blind.

p.s. I have edited this post after realizing that in the heat of the argument I have made some unfortunate choice of words, I apologize for that.

[ 15 June 2004: Message edited by: GhostOne ]


From: Delta, BC | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
GhostOne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6109

posted 15 June 2004 03:37 AM      Profile for GhostOne     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by liminal:
The well balanced curriculum exists in Dorothy's hole. You chose to let the contents of the report to which I posted a link pass over your head. You still have the audacity to talk about the well balanced curriculum, when you have not bothered to refute the contents of the article. And then you go to rationalize that a 7 year old kid can pick up Haaretz for balance. I can't blame you, you might be one of those "free thinkers'.
Another shining example of a "free thinker':

"It's a war, in a war these things happen...It's just a bucnh of Arabs. Why are you taking it so hard?"
Israeli army seargent whose artillery battery shelled the UN headquarters in Quana in South Lebanon, killing over a 100 refugees, qoted in the Israeli weekly Kol Ha'ir 10 May 1996

On one hand, suicide bombers are condemned by Arab League summits, on the other, Israeli "freethinkers" of the ilk of our friend whom i qouted become prime ministers.

[ 14 June 2004: Message edited by: liminal ]


You know something, I'm not sure you read your own report. The report speaks about books that were uses in between 1950 and 1970, that is almost fifty years ago. We are talking about today and you bring this link about books from fifty years ago. You really should do better than that. Surely, you must be kidding.

The report is based on research done by an Israeli professor in Tel Aviv university. I fail to understand how, after being indoctrinated with such hatred, it is possible for an Israeli to do this, so it must be false.

Please keep bringing more examples of narrow minded Israelis, indoctrinated, no-thinking Israelis like the professor in the report.

Now regarding the south lebanon example, you are basically saying it was OK for the hezbollah to daily shell the north of Israel with rockets (only due to sheer luck we didn't suffer 10 fold the casualties). You are saying Israel should sit and not respond. If Israeli artillery fires back someone might get hurt, oh no. Very easy to say, I'm sure you've never been under a rocket attack.
By the way, the hezbollah are still conducting attacks against Israel even after it withdrew to the UN accepted border.

The initiator, in this case hezbollah bears the full responsibility for the results. Just the same as the initiator of the current round of the conflict, the palestinians bear the responsiblity for the results of the current round. Israel did not target those people, Israel was returning fire to the source of enemy artillery (That chose, as usual, to take a human shield).

I really feel sorry for the people who died and their families. I really feel sorry for the palestinians. There will be future suffering on both sides unless they accept the right of the Israelis to live a secure life, abandon terrorism and violence as the way of achiving their goals, and both sides work together for a sensible solution.

[ 15 June 2004: Message edited by: GhostOne ]


From: Delta, BC | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
GhostOne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6109

posted 15 June 2004 03:46 AM      Profile for GhostOne     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And regarding the Arab League's voice about suicide bombings. It's quite a weak one and it took them 10 years to get there. Its a start though and I applaud it. Are they still considered Shaids? Does it mean that Iran will stop paying money to the families of suicide bombers? Maybe a palestinian apology for targetting and hurting innocents will follow? Now what are the chances of that?

[ 15 June 2004: Message edited by: GhostOne ]


From: Delta, BC | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 15 June 2004 04:01 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by GhostOne:

the palestinian blood loving society

Usually when someone posts something this outrageous he'd face accusations of racism.

In any case, this poster has just lost any credibility he may have ever had around here.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
GhostOne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6109

posted 15 June 2004 04:16 AM      Profile for GhostOne     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:

Usually when someone posts something this outrageous he'd face accusations of racism.

In any case, this poster has just lost any credibility he may have ever had around here.


I'm editing my original message here, written in the heat of the moment and offering my apology for the original choice of words. I will edit my original message as well. Again, I plead an emotional responds and the heat of the argument, sorry.

[ 15 June 2004: Message edited by: GhostOne ]


From: Delta, BC | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 15 June 2004 04:38 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by GhostOne:
Your pathetic attempts to equate a moral, free and open society that Israel is with the palestinian blood loving society is ridiculous.

GhostOne, this is completely unacceptable. If you want to write racist stuff about Palestinians, do it on some other board. Not here.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
beluga2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3838

posted 15 June 2004 05:13 AM      Profile for beluga2     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Can we get a twofer deal and toss "badhaddad" while we're at it? Racist monikers suck.
From: vancouvergrad, BCSSR | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
GhostOne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6109

posted 15 June 2004 05:18 AM      Profile for GhostOne     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by GhostOne:

I'm editing my original message here, written in the heat of the moment and offering my apology for the original choice of words. I will edit my original message as well. Again, I plead an emotional responds and the heat of the argument, sorry.
[ 15 June 2004: Message edited by: GhostOne ]


From: Delta, BC | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
GhostOne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6109

posted 15 June 2004 05:26 AM      Profile for GhostOne     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:

GhostOne, this is completely unacceptable. If you want to write racist stuff about Palestinians, do it on some other board. Not here.


All I can do at this point is also offer you my apology for my poor choice of words in the heat of the argument. I do have very strong feelings about these issues. Sorry again.


From: Delta, BC | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 15 June 2004 05:27 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by beluga2:
Can we get a twofer deal and toss "badhaddad" while we're at it? Racist monikers suck.

I didn't ban GhostOne. I don't ban people, Audra does. And I agree with you about badhaddad and his stupid, racist moniker.

Thank you for the edit and the apology, GhostOne.

[ 15 June 2004: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
liminal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5617

posted 15 June 2004 07:09 AM      Profile for liminal        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by GhostOne:
And regarding the Arab League's voice about suicide bombings. It's quite a weak one and it took them 10 years to get there. Its a start though and I applaud it. Are they still considered Shaids? Does it mean that Iran will stop paying money to the families of suicide bombers? Maybe a palestinian apology for targetting and hurting innocents will follow? Now what are the chances of that?

[ 15 June 2004: Message edited by: GhostOne ]


When will an Israel issue an apology for the Palestinians for what it has done, and will go on doing? When will the Israelis admit to their unabetted crimes against humanity from 1948 till now? Huh, I don't see you lobbying for that, freethinker.
And you say people demonstrate against current events not history? Well, well, this history seems to be institutionalized, glorified, and still in practice. This history is still in action day in day out. A state founded by terrorists , and still ruled by terrorists.
But of course, freethinkers always say that their such terrorists (Begin, Shamir, and Sharon to name a few), whom they elected don't represent them. Who voted for them then?


From: the hole I just crawled out of | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
liminal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5617

posted 15 June 2004 07:26 AM      Profile for liminal        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by GhostOne:

You know something, I'm not sure you read your own report. The report speaks about books that were uses in between 1950 and 1970, that is almost fifty years ago. We are talking about today and you bring this link about books from fifty years ago. You really should do better than that. Surely, you must be kidding.

The report is based on research done by an Israeli professor in Tel Aviv university. I fail to understand how, after being indoctrinated with such hatred, it is possible for an Israeli to do this, so it must be false.

Please keep bringing more examples of narrow minded Israelis, indoctrinated, no-thinking Israelis like the professor in the report.

Now regarding the south lebanon example, you are basically saying it was OK for the hezbollah to daily shell the north of Israel with rockets (only due to sheer luck we didn't suffer 10 fold the casualties). You are saying Israel should sit and not respond. If Israeli artillery fires back someone might get hurt, oh no. Very easy to say, I'm sure you've never been under a rocket attack.
By the way, the hezbollah are still conducting attacks against Israel even after it withdrew to the UN accepted border.

The initiator, in this case hezbollah bears the full responsibility for the results. Just the same as the initiator of the current round of the conflict, the palestinians bear the responsiblity for the results of the current round. Israel did not target those people, Israel was returning fire to the source of enemy artillery (That chose, as usual, to take a human shield).

I really feel sorry for the people who died and their families. I really feel sorry for the palestinians. There will be future suffering on both sides unless they accept the right of the Israelis to live a secure life, abandon terrorism and violence as the way of achiving their goals, and both sides work together for a sensible solution.

[ 15 June 2004: Message edited by: GhostOne ]


I have read the report. Have you, or did you stop after the first paragraph?

quote:
Cohen’s book is a study of the nature of children’s upbringing in Israel, concentrating on how the historical establishment sees and portrays Arab Palestinians as well as how Jewish Israeli children perceive Palestinians. One section of the book was based on the results of a survey taken of a group of 4th to 6th grade Jewish students at a school in Haifa. The pupils were asked five questions about their attitude toward Arabs, how they recognize them and how they relate to them. The results were as shocking as they were disturbing:

Seventy five percent of the children described the “Arab” as a murderer, one who kidnaps children, a criminal and a terrorist. Eighty percent said they saw the Arab as someone dirty with a terrifying face. Ninety percent of the students stated they believe that Palestinians have no rights whatsoever to the land in Israel or Palestine

Cohen also researched 1,700 Israeli children’s books published after 1967. He found that 520 of the books contained humiliating, negative descriptions of Palestinians. He also took pains to break down the descriptions:

Sixty six percent of the 520 books refer to Arabs as violent; 52 percent as evil; 37 percent as liars; 31 percent as greedy; 28 percent as two-faced; 27 percent as traitors, etc.

Cohen points out that the authors of these children’s books effectively instill hatred toward Arabs by means of stripping them of their human nature and classifying them in another category. In a sampling of 86 books, Cohen counted the following descriptions used to dehumanize Arabs: Murderer was used 21 times; snake, 6 times; dirty, 9 times; vicious animal, 17 times; bloodthirsty, 21 times; warmonger, 17 times; killer, 13 times; believer in myths, 9 times; and a camel’s hump, 2 times.


The research was conducted recently not in 1950. And as for you gloating because I showed an Israeli scholar who is not a racist. Well, unlike you, I have never demonized the whole society and lumped them together as blood savage animals like you insinuated(though I honestly respect the fact that you apologized for blabbing it out in clear words, but insinuations are not less culpable). I at least have the decency to assess individuals according to their own merit, not their background. Can you?
As for being bombed everyday, you should save your questions to the poeple of southern Lebanon. They have a first hand experience. It's always someone else's fault. Of course, it was the Lebanese army occupying and invoking hell in northern Israel, not to mention putting Tel Aviv in flames. Damn Lebanese and their heavily funded army.


From: the hole I just crawled out of | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
liminal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5617

posted 15 June 2004 07:31 AM      Profile for liminal        Edit/Delete Post
Learn to love me, assemble the ways
Now, today, tomorrow, and always
My only weakness is a list of crimes
My only weakness is..well never mind, never mind

Freethinkers of the world, unite and take over
freethinkers of the world
Hand it over
Hand it over
Hand it over

oops wrong board.


From: the hole I just crawled out of | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
audra trower williams
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2

posted 15 June 2004 10:25 AM      Profile for audra trower williams   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I've banned badhadad.
From: And I'm a look you in the eye for every bar of the chorus | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Publically Displayed Name
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5642

posted 15 June 2004 11:00 AM      Profile for Publically Displayed Name        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by liminal:

When will an Israel issue an apology for the Palestinians for what it has done [...} their unabetted crimes against humanity from 1948


Referring to the quote above because it's handy, not because it's even close to the first incident (and certainly not because the attitude is found only on one side, or only in discussions about Israel/Palestine).

The "When will ____ apologize for X" rhetoric, is right up there with "Where was the outrage when ... ?" in snooze inducement. The location of the outrage and the timing of the anticipated apologies are irrelevant to improving peoples' living conditions.

Why don't we all just assume that the outrage wasn't there and the apologies we want will never come. I want an apology for the way my first girlfriend broke up with me, but I know I'm not going to get it. The likelihood of wringing one out of the leaders on either side of this conflict seem much slimmer than that.

Whatever Israel's historical origins, I'd think enough Israelis have been born in Israel by now that they have legitimate and unquestionable claim to live there as they choose. I also think Israeli claims about not starting the current round of violence are weakened as long as there are check points and settlements in the West Bank and Gaza.

And while I understand the difficulties of dealing with multiple factions with different aims and tactics, in the past few years Israel has done more (to my eye) to prolong Palestinian factionalism than to change it. Yeah, I know what the Israeli gov. did, they did in an effort to increase Israel's security. But I think they blew it.

There is very little moral high ground on either side (hell, there isn't even a coherent "side" on the Palestinian side).There are only actions which will ease retaliatory violence or make it worse.

It sure would be nice if the Palestinians had a functional, secure civil society where free and open debate could occur and a proper peace opposition could grow, but as is frequently pointed out, societies like that in the Middle East are few, and far between.


From: Canada | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 15 June 2004 11:45 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Publically Displayed Name:
It sure would be nice if the Palestinians had a functional, secure civil society where free and open debate could occur and a proper peace opposition could grow, but as is frequently pointed out, societies like that in the Middle East are few, and far between.

Gosh, it sure would be nice if Israel didn't keep buggering up that "functional, secure civil society".

You do know that in one of the frequent IDF raids into the West Bank, that the soldiers involved confiscated most of the records and computers that the Palestinian Authority used to keep its governmental bureaucracy going?

A government can't run if it keeps getting its elbow joggled by someone else, to use a rather poor comparison.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 15 June 2004 12:02 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
You do know that in one of the frequent IDF raids into the West Bank, that the soldiers involved confiscated most of the records and computers that the Palestinian Authority used to keep its governmental bureaucracy going?

Funny how some folks never mention that eh, Doc?

Film that includes footage of the aftermath of such an IOF attack on Palestinain societal and cultural infrastructure

The scene in question starts at about the 3:40 mark of the clip.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Publically Displayed Name
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5642

posted 15 June 2004 12:10 PM      Profile for Publically Displayed Name        Edit/Delete Post
Dr,

That was (in part) my point--I wanted that to be clear in light of the paragraph above about factionalism. I guess it wasn't.

Now, if I were betting cash money in Vegas on whether the Arafat government would have developed a functioning democratic civil society ready to work for peace, had the IDF not been up for a rumble, I would only take three-to-one, maybe two-to-one odds.

But that doesn't weaken the point that if the Israeli government really wants someone with whom they can deal, there are more effective ways to go about it.

I think the most productive conversations on this topic take place when everyone, for the duration of the discussion, takes the same base POV--say, of an average Israeli, or an average Palestinian, or the Israeli leadership, or one of the Palestinian leaders, or the US gov, or the Canadian gov. Otherwise you get a bunch of people talking at at cross purposes.


From: Canada | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Publically Displayed Name
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5642

posted 15 June 2004 12:12 PM      Profile for Publically Displayed Name        Edit/Delete Post
Edited to delete a double post.

Thanks to Cut-Me-Own-Throat.

[ 15 June 2004: Message edited by: Publically Displayed Name ]


From: Canada | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Publically Displayed Name
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5642

posted 15 June 2004 12:16 PM      Profile for Publically Displayed Name        Edit/Delete Post
Sorry, double post. Is there a way to correct that oneself?
From: Canada | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 15 June 2004 12:50 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Just delete the text in the second message.
From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
GhostOne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6109

posted 15 June 2004 02:58 PM      Profile for GhostOne     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by liminal:

The research was conducted recently not in 1950. And as for you gloating because I showed an Israeli scholar who is not a racist. Well, unlike you, I have never demonized the whole society and lumped them together as blood savage animals like you insinuated(though I honestly respect the fact that you apologized for blabbing it out in clear words, but insinuations are not less culpable). I at least have the decency to assess individuals according to their own merit, not their background. Can you?
As for being bombed everyday, you should save your questions to the poeple of southern Lebanon. They have a first hand experience. It's always someone else's fault. Of course, it was the Lebanese army occupying and invoking hell in northern Israel, not to mention putting Tel Aviv in flames. Damn Lebanese and their heavily funded army.


I did read everything. My point, which hopefuly you were the only one to miss, is that Daniel Bar-Tal's study is of books from 1950's. I didn't say the study is from the 1950's. I was discussing the situation today and you are discussing the 50's. The rest of the "report" seems extremely biased and written with a definite agenda. Having personal knowledge of Israeli literature, educational and otherwise, I find the claim that Israeli's are indoctrinated with hate ridiculuous. Yes you will find bias. Yes there will be some books that portray the arabs in very negative colours. Just like any scientific research the results depend on conducting the correct experient, choosing the right sample size etc. If I hand pick books published in the west I can prove any indoctrination theory. There is a wealth of hebrew literature depicting the suffering of the palestinians (most notably david grossman's) and Israeli's are daily exposed to a wealth of information from all major media. They are also sometimes quite intimately exposed to suicide bombings, rocket attacks and other events that form their political attitudes.

Just as an anecdote I would say that it seems the strongest supporters of the peace process and opposers of the occupation come from within the age group that was educated at the time. (Just from my memories of the half-a-million strong demonstration supporting Rabin to continue the peace process even though busses were exploding in the streets of Tel-Aviv).

I was not gloating over the fact the you gave an example over a non-racist israeli (is there some insinuation in your words? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here). I am pointing out the twisted logic that in the same sentence can portray Israelis (as a whole) as indoctrinated with hate, non-democratic, not-free-thinkers, and then bring out two examples of Israelis that think different than what you attribute to them.

A quick read through this thread will bring many instances of attribution of negative qualities to Israeli's as a whole, but that's ok because they're wrong and evil.

Israeli occupied south lebanon as self defense measure against daily rocket attacks (there was also some element of retaliation against the murder of the Israeli embassador to England). When the Israeli army went into Lebanon its soldiers were greeted with flowers and candy. The situation did become more complex later on though. (Yes, including the christians settling some accounts with the palestinians while Israel was looking the other way, which it shouldn't have done).

Free thinkers within the democracy of Israel, once it was clear that occupying southern lebanon was no longer necessary for its security, brought about the withdrawl of Israel from Lebanon back to the international accepted border (Only to have the attacks renewed).

Hezbollah is also quite heavily funded, and as is constantly proven it doesn't require a lot of funding to produce a lot of death and misery.

I do have the decency to assess individuals according to their own merit. How do we assess groups of individuals acting in concert?

[ 15 June 2004: Message edited by: GhostOne ]


From: Delta, BC | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
GhostOne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6109

posted 15 June 2004 03:07 PM      Profile for GhostOne     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:

Funny how some folks never mention that eh, Doc?

Film that includes footage of the aftermath of such an IOF attack on Palestinain societal and cultural infrastructure

The scene in question starts at about the 3:40 mark of the clip.


Israel is currently targetting the palestinian authority and publicly admitting so. It's no secret.

Israel has created, funded, trained and armed the palestinian authority. While the peace process was on-going Israel was supportive of the palestinian authority. Once those same guns were killing Israelis and the funds that Israel helped the Palestinians acquire were used for armed struggle against Israel what would a reasonable person like you expect Israel to do?


From: Delta, BC | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
GhostOne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6109

posted 15 June 2004 03:14 PM      Profile for GhostOne     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by GhostOne:

Israel is currently targetting the palestinian authority and publicly admitting so. It's no secret.

Israel has created, funded, trained and armed the palestinian authority. While the peace process was on-going Israel was supportive of the palestinian authority. Once those same guns were killing Israelis and the funds that Israel helped the Palestinians acquire were used for armed struggle against Israel what would a reasonable person like you expect Israel to do?


Responding to myself I'll be the first to admit that in retrospect some (most?) of Israeli's reactions aren't smart and aren't productive.

That said, the palestinians actions, in my opinion, are even less productive and they are just as responsible (if not more) for us all ending in the miserable situation that we are in today. And let's not go back to the 1950's again please, I am talking about events since the failed talks with Ehud Barak.


From: Delta, BC | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
liminal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5617

posted 15 June 2004 03:44 PM      Profile for liminal        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by GhostOne:
[QB]

I did read everything. My point, which hopefuly you were the only one to miss, is that the study is of books from 1950's. I didn't say the study is from the 1950's. I was discussing the situation today and you are discussing the 50's

I was not gloating over the fact the you gave an example over a non-racist israeli (is there some insinuation in your words? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here). I am pointing out the twisted logic that in the same sentence can portray Israelis (as a whole) as indoctrinated with hate, non-democratic, not-free-thinkers, and then bring out two examples of Israelis that think different than what you attribute to them.
[QB]


This is pitiful. Once and for all, read what people actually write. The study is not about books from the 1950s, but about the current school curricula. It started the survey with what books in the 1950s, and went on to the current indoctrination machines. The study about young children was done recently to exhibit what those children are learning NOW, not in 1950. Don’t twist your way out by saying that the study is recent, but it tackles previous curricula. It examines contemporary ones.

What is more pitiful is that you take exceptions as rules. Having un-racist individuals in Israel does not by any means exonerate the Israeli schooling system, and for every example of dissention like this, there are many in the opposite. An individual like the professor who has conducted this research does not imply that the whole system does not preach hate. But unfortunately for you, and ignoring your propaganda talk about assessing individuals for their deeds, which most people do here on Babble, who point out to different organizations and people, we see you emerging as a shining example of “freethinking” (not to mention not reading what people write) when you say:

“The difference in the curricula and the education system is evident in its product. Free thinkers on one side, suicide bombers on the other”.
Don’t say that you are not lumping and making absurd generalities (in both cases) when you utter such words. This sentence in itself is racist, and if I wanted to stoop this level of rhetoric, I would point out, as corroborated by what the Israeli student said (go ahead, say that he epitomizes Israeli upbringing), that if on one side “Palestinian curricula” produce suicide bombers (not Colonialist policies that that have been massacring for the past 56 years, and continues to murder and make refugees out of people for the third time, just because those people happen to be misfortunate as to exist in the way of its grand designs and its ideology), on the other side, you have homegrown bloodthirsty boys who can’t wait to join the IOF and kill as many people as possible. However, since they belong to a regular army, and are equipped with tanks and planes, I guess that makes it alright!


From: the hole I just crawled out of | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
GhostOne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6109

posted 15 June 2004 04:04 PM      Profile for GhostOne     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by liminal:

This is pitiful. Once and for all, read what people actually write. The study is not about books from the 1950s, but about the current school curricula. It started the survey with what books in the 1950s, and went on to the current indoctrination machines. The study about young children was done recently to exhibit what those children are learning NOW, not in 1950. Don’t twist your way out by saying that the study is recent, but it tackles previous curricula. It examines contemporary ones.

What is more pitiful is that you take exceptions as rules. Having un-racist individuals in Israel does not by any means exonerate the Israeli schooling system, and for every example of dissention like this, there are many in the opposite. An individual like the professor who has conducted this research does not imply that the whole system does not preach hate. But unfortunately for you, and ignoring your propaganda talk about assessing individuals for their deeds, which most people do here on Babble, who point out to different organizations and people, we see you emerging as a shining example of “freethinking” (not to mention not reading what people write) when you say:

“The difference in the curricula and the education system is evident in its product. Free thinkers on one side, suicide bombers on the other”.
Don’t say that you are not lumping and making absurd generalities (in both cases) when you utter such words. This sentence in itself is racist, and if I wanted to stoop this level of rhetoric, I would point out, as corroborated by what the Israeli student said (go ahead, say that he epitomizes Israeli upbringing), that if on one side “Palestinian curricula” produce suicide bombers (not Colonialist policies that that have been massacring for the past 56 years, and continues to murder and make refugees out of people for the third time, just because those people happen to be misfortunate as to exist in the way of its grand designs and its ideology), on the other side, you have homegrown bloodthirsty boys who can’t wait to join the IOF and kill as many people as possible. However, since they belong to a regular army, and are equipped with tanks and planes, I guess that makes it alright!


I've actually edited my original reply, please re-read it. The professor's study is about books from the 50's, the "report" (which is not an academic study but rather heavily opinionated, is not). Even academic studies will often show conflicting viewpoints. My opinion on the matter is based on familiarity with the books and with Israeli's and so I don't need someone on the web telling me my hands-on experience is wrong and they are right.

I admit to taking things to the absurd, somewhat as an argumentative technique to counter absurdeties posted by the other side of the argument. Maybe I wasn't a 100% successful here.

With pretty much half the population of Israel supporting the peace process and a country for the Palestinians how many more free thinkers do you require?

Perhaps if every Israeli supported your view you'd concede that they are free thinkers.

I am not taking exceptions as the rule, I am taking advantage of the higher number of Israeli's you can easily quote to support your view as evidence of a free society.

And by the way you did just stoop to this level of rhetoric, but then you've actually been saying the same in different words the all time. Israel is not and has not, as a rule, been massacaring palestinians as you try to portray.

Can you at this point offer anything constructive? Any ideas for solutions?

[ 15 June 2004: Message edited by: GhostOne ]


From: Delta, BC | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 15 June 2004 04:34 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by GhostOne:
[QB]

I would need some pretty strong body of evidence before I accept international law as the equivalent of morality.


I didn't say it was. I suggested that it was a decent place to start as it represents an attempt to enforce moral standards agreed upon by a plurality of people - as represented by their state leaders.

quote:
The world, as a whole, is not a moral place. International law is a result of power struggle and politics.

But so is what we commonly call "morality".


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
GhostOne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6109

posted 15 June 2004 05:01 PM      Profile for GhostOne     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Courage:

But so is what we commonly call "morality".


So where does this get us? Should I align my moral compass to what the leaders of Iran and China (just e.g.) have to contribute?

Lets also investigate the role of context, can certain actions be moral under one context and immoral under another?


From: Delta, BC | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 15 June 2004 05:18 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by GhostOne:
[QB]
So where does this get us? Should I align my moral compass to what the leaders of Iran and China (just e.g.) have to contribute?

This is not a logical corrallory of what I said. You point it wherever you want, but simply know that your ability to point it (and even the values on which you base your idea of where to point it) are determined largely by violence, power, and politics.

quote:
Lets also investigate the role of context, can certain actions be moral under one context and immoral under another?

Yes. Beating you senseless just for the hell of it, or for spamming us with trite propaganda, is morally wrong. Beating you senseless because you have a knife to my throat is - I would say - morally acceptable.

[ 15 June 2004: Message edited by: Courage ]


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 15 June 2004 05:26 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
BTW, on the issue of immigration to Palestine previous to the British Mandate, we are talking about a few thousand people out of millions. And even so, the point is moot. All I was pointing out was that your suggestion that there was a pervasive desire to return to Israel experienced symmetrically by the entire Jewish 'nation' was clearly false based on the records of Jews' opinions on the matter, and on the record of their behaviour. In other words the ol' ditty, "We've been waiting 2000 years" is a prime example of an older cultural meme (like the Seder prayer) being recast in the romantic nationalist mode of modern industrial society. One of the key modes of nationalist thought is to attempt to extend itself backward over the entire history of the supposed 'nation' and to revise the record and memory into the new 'nationalist' myth. This undertaking tends to obscure the recent genesis of the nationalist trope, giving it roots in some ancient, uncertain past. It also tends to obscure the massive rifts and diversities within the 'national' community itself, which is conceivably the most prime social function of this kind of myth - hence it's connection with the promulgation of common vernacular tongues (take revised Hebrew, for example).

Essentially, to suggest that a Jew in Bagdhad during the Selucid Sultunate, and a Jew living in Jerusalem under the Ottomans, and a Jew living in France in the time of the Inquisitions, and a Jew assimilated into German national society in Berlin in the 1890's all 'felt' their connection to Israel in the same heart-wrenching way as those imbued with a century of Zionist mythology is flat out crazy-talk.

[ 15 June 2004: Message edited by: Courage ]


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
liminal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5617

posted 15 June 2004 05:31 PM      Profile for liminal        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by GhostOne:

I've actually edited my original reply, please re-read it. The professor's study is about books from the 50's, the "report" (which is not an academic study but rather heavily opinionated, is not). Even academic studies will often show conflicting viewpoints. My opinion on the matter is based on familiarity with the books and with Israeli's and so I don't need someone on the web telling me my hands-on experience is wrong and they are right.

I admit to taking things to the absurd, somewhat as an argumentative technique to counter absurdeties posted by the other side of the argument. Maybe I wasn't a 100% successful here.

With pretty much half the population of Israel supporting the peace process and a country for the Palestinians how many more free thinkers do you require?

Perhaps if every Israeli supported your view you'd concede that they are free thinkers.

I am not taking exceptions as the rule, I am taking advantage of the higher number of Israeli's you can easily quote to support your view as evidence of a free society.

[ 15 June 2004: Message edited by: GhostOne ]



This is sophistry, and I am beginning to feel so ashamed for taking part. The report says:

“Professor Daniel Bar-Tal of Tel Aviv University studied 124 elementary, middle- and high school textbooks on grammar and Hebrew literature, history, geography and citizenship. Bar-Tal concluded that Israeli textbooks present the view that Jews are involved in a justified, even humanitarian, war against an Arab enemy that refuses to accept and acknowledge the existence and rights of Jews in Israel.”
“He concluded that Israeli textbooks PRESENT” (not presented), and then the report went to ground this in historical contexts when it started its surveys on books from the 1950s. It’s like a study that goes to analyze smoking habits of Londoners that commences its analysis by the number of smokers in 1950-60-70 or the Middle Ages for all I care. Does it mean that the research’s focus is the precedents?? If you think it does, then debating with you is futile.
You question the objectivity of the report (and you have every right to scrutinize sources), but instead, you counter it by talking about your first hand experience. Sorry, but your experience means nothing to me (a stranger on the web. I agree with you on this point) , and is at best as credible as the report, so arguing further about what you learned vis-à-vis what the report says will lead no where. You seem to be fond of using yourself as a reliable source when Cueball shows a map from the official site of the Israeli ministry of tourism by claiming that the maps you have seen are not similar. In this case, whose word should we take, the Israeli governmental version or a stranger’s on the web? I wonder. (I am tempted to say that even the Jerusalem post map which distinguishes the West Bank and Gaza, does not do so in the case of the Golan)
And then you try to discredit me by attributing fallacious claims to me. No, people concurring is not my criterion of “freethinkers”, but it is obviously the case for you. If the Palestinians ignore their ethnic cleansing by Zionist endeavors, and greet armed settlers who confiscate their land, not to mention the ferocious tanks of the IOF, with flowers, if Palestinians deny their existence and get out of their way so that Israel can steal more land, would you start classifying them as freethinkers? I, however, will not issue such an atrocious accusation (no matter how tempted I am). You mention how I keep getting what happened in 1948, and you dismiss it as if it is only an inconsequential incident that took place, not an organized campaign that never stops to this day. It is this murderous establishment that was founded in 1948 along with the state of Israel that seems to have hold of power today, and continues its endeavors since 1948. Still, you have a considerable number of Palestinians that would forfeit Palestinian rights, and lay off claims of being done justice for peace with Israel. I wonder if any other society who was crushed, dispossessed, and ethnically cleansed be as forgiving with the perpetrators.

Dr. Conway, does “freethinker” merit its TM?

[ 15 June 2004: Message edited by: liminal ]


From: the hole I just crawled out of | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
GhostOne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6109

posted 15 June 2004 05:33 PM      Profile for GhostOne     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Courage:

This is not a logical corrallory of what I said. You point it wherever you want, but simply know that your ability to point it (and even the values on which you base your idea of where to point it) are determined largely by violence, power, and politics.



This is really kind of sad if you think about it.
Perhaps the first step for a solution in the middle east is an agreement of what is moral and what is not.
quote:

[/QB]
Yes. Killing you just for the hell of it is morally wrong. Killing you because you have a knife to my throat is - I would say - morally acceptable.[/QB]

So I guess one thing we're discussing here is how close does the knife have to be to the throat? Some people might say that killing isn't even justified in this case.

Are you also saying here that war is immoral?


From: Delta, BC | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 15 June 2004 05:39 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This thread is almost a hundred posts, and well off the original topic of the thread anyhow, so I think I'll close it.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Open Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca