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   » In the face of extremism can we achieve peace

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: In the face of extremism can we achieve peace
johnpauljones
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7554

posted 02 August 2005 12:22 PM      Profile for johnpauljones     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I was shocked when the attached clip was emailed to me. To achieve peace we must first eliminate racist rhetoric. Whether views are in the minority or not. Rhetoric like this does nothing to make the possibility of peaceful coexistance between different peoples a reality.

extremist sermon teaches hate


From: City of Toronto | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 02 August 2005 12:32 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Okay, so Arabs and Jews in the middle-east hate each other. What else is new? Did you know they often even kill each other?
From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 02 August 2005 12:51 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
That comment could probably be posted in response to pretty much every thread started in this forum, WingNut. Shall we close the forum now?

(P.S. I doubt all Arabs and all Jews in the Middle East hate each other. I know it's nitpicky, but since this forum is a great one for pouncing on stuff like that, then let's not generalize, okay?)


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 02 August 2005 03:00 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by johnpauljones:
I was shocked when the attached clip was emailed to me. To achieve peace we must first eliminate racist rhetoric. Whether views are in the minority or not. Rhetoric like this does nothing to make the possibility of peaceful coexistance between different peoples a reality.

extremist sermon teaches hate


We actually had this discussion about this clip before. I am really happy to know that your Arabic is good enough to translate the piece you have provided.

I am sure you have also thouroughly researched the MEMRI site, which was good enough to provide that clip on the web. Just a couple of questions JPJ?

1) Who ownes MEMRI?

2) Who works there?

See, the thing is about that site, I have looked over it several times, and I have never been able to establish either. Nor does anyone seem to be willing to publicly identify themselves as the translators for the various pieces on the site.

Although there is that:

quote:
P.O. Box 27837
Washington, DC 20038-7837
Phone: (202) 955-9070
Fax: (202) 955-9077

Curious that would be all of the information available for a reputable news source?

Let me ask you this third question: Would you give any company that provided this little information about itself on its web site, your Credit Card information over the web?

It is clearly well funded given the amount of work that must go into translation, as well as the costs for server space, and site upkeep. That page you linked to is pretty sophisticated, don't you think?

Just look at the lead in trailer to the video. Its not cheap. Certainly no hack job. Amazing that this indpendent Middle East Media Research Institute has a better web presence, than say, the government of Syria.

Do you find it interesting that the site, wich identifies itself as the Middle East Media Research Institute has absolutely no translations of material from Hebrew to English, and that every (no doubt absolutely accurate translation) of Arab material reflects negatively upon the original source?

Where are the translations from Al Arham, and Al Jazeera and other less hostile Arab sources?

Interesting isn't it? You would almost think the Middle East Media Research Institute has an agenda and doesn't want people to know who is running it?

Since you seem to be concerned about extremism, perhaps you would be interested in sending a note of your displeasure to this very popular site:

Here is a little sample: ISRAEL'S GROWING CANCER -- WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE ARAB Citizens of Israel!

quote:
It is the primary obligation of the government to protect Jewish lives. Israel is first and foremost a JEWISH democratic State. It is NOT a non-sectarian, democratic country like the United States. As such, it is absurd for anyone other than Jews to be citizens in the first place! That is why Israel MUST revamp its Constitution making Israel unequivocally a JEWISH State… with NO possibility that any other group will ever become the majority. It is insane to have enemies of the Jewish people living anywhere within its boundaries. So how does Israel put a stop to the explosive Israeli Arab population growth? The same way one puts a stop to a growing cancer… REMOVE IT.

Gee, JPJ, if I were to selectively pick a bunch of extremist rhetoric from Pro-Israeli sites, and media and then fill a web site with such material do you think I could create the impression that Israel is filled with crazed racist extremists?

[ 02 August 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 02 August 2005 03:05 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I would be interested in the take of any Arabic speaking Babblers. Is the translation accurate? If so this is quite disturbing.

Yes, some extremist Rabbis have been quoted as saying some ugly and racist things but this is the first time I have seen such a thing on video. It is pretty scary.


From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 02 August 2005 03:10 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Macabee:
I would be interested in the take of any Arabic speaking Babblers. Is the translation accurate? If so this is quite disturbing.

Yes, some extremist Rabbis have been quoted as saying some ugly and racist things but this is the first time I have seen such a thing on video. It is pretty scary.


Didn't you post this link about 2 months ago, and then inform everyone here that you had the translation checked and confirmed?

[ 02 August 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 02 August 2005 03:19 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No I was wrong. You didn't post it, someone else found the clip, but you stated in the previous thread, after I inquired about the translation:

quote:
Can you prove that memri in any way mis-translated this. I doubt it. An Arabic speaking friend of mine heard the sermon and verified it for me. But clearly it suits your agenda to deflect. Let's just recognize your attempt, sadly, for what it is.

Live Sermon from Gaza Mosque...

Fascinating that you should forget about our previous discussion of this footage, and then assert that this is "the first time I have seen such a thing on video," and have even forgotten of the existence of your "Arabic speaking friend," who confirmed the translation for you.

I'd say that it was, well, weird.

[ 02 August 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 02 August 2005 03:34 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I just checked out that other thread (which happened before the new rules) and I just want to stick my nose in here as a "pre-emptive moderating" attempt...that other thread got rather vicious at times, and I'd rather not see that repeated in this thread. This one is going pretty well so far, so let's keep it that way, and let's leave whatever personal attacks that occurred in that thread there. Thanks.

[ 02 August 2005: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
johnpauljones
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7554

posted 02 August 2005 03:38 PM      Profile for johnpauljones     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Cueball, Thank you for the questions. I posted the link for discussion.

I was not aware that their was a previous thread on this topic.

Had I been emailed a similar sermon containing racist rhetoric from a Rabbi, a priest or a spiritual leader of another faith would have posted it as well. This clip is an attack on all those who support peace. It is not an attack on Muslems.

But, let me try to answer your questions:
You asked: “Who ownes MEMRI?”

I do not know. Nor is it relevant to the clip. Are you suggesting that the clip is false? To paraphrase another thread the burden of proof is on the detractor to prove that the clip contains errors and omissions.

You asked: “Who works there?”

Why is this relevant? Once again this thread is about the clip in question not the website the clip came from.

We could and maybe should have a thread discussion about posting clips and articles and the sites they come from.

You said“Let me ask you this third question: Would you give any company that provided this little information about itself on its web site, your Credit Card information over the web?”

I as a matter of practice have never given my credit card info over the web for anything so I am the wrong person to ask this to.

You said: “Since you seem to be concerned about extremism, perhaps you would be interested n sending a note of your displeasure to this very popular site: Here is a little sample: ISRAEL'S GROWING CANCER -- WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE ARAB Citizens of Israel!”

I did just that about 8 months ago. Have you?

“Gee, JPJ, if I were to selectively pick a bunch of extremist rhetoric from Pro-Israeli sites, and media and then fill a web site with such material do you think I could create the impression that Israel is filled with crazed racist extremists?”

Cueball I never attempted to paint all Arabs as extremists. Actually I stated that these extremists whether their view is in the minority or not are a detriment to peace.

Where did I paint all with one brush?

Cueball to find the path to peace we must work together and understand that not every action is one where an attempt to smear an entire people is taking place. I called this clip for what it was. Racist Rhetoric.

This racism must be stopped no matter who it is by and who it is against.

To ignore it is to say that it is ok. To say that it is ok is to allow society to go from one group to another and attack at will.

edited to add: are you addressing the translation questions to me? If so why? I did not even post on the other thread.

[ 02 August 2005: Message edited by: johnpauljones ]


From: City of Toronto | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 02 August 2005 03:39 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Of course.

I just thought that I'd give old Macabee a little jog in the noggin, to revive his memory, so that he doesn't have to once again disturb his "Arabic speaking friend" by asking him/her to translate this piece agains, since Macabees "Arabic speaking friend" has already done him that service before.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 02 August 2005 03:49 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by johnpauljones:
Cueball, Thank you for the questions. I posted the link for discussion.

I agree that if this Imam said what he said, then I have a problem with that.

However I am simply pointing out that MEMRI is actually an anti-arab hate site. It is actually an example of what you are protesting. The fact that it uses it Arab sources as a means to vilify all Arabs by cheery-picking the worst things said by the most regressive members of Arab society is a clear indication of this.

Most of the quotes and incidents provided on the Masada 2000 site, are in fact true or close to true. However it is presented in a manner and form, with the specific intention of vilifying Arabs.

The fact that the MEMRI site does not editorialize the message, does not detract from the fact that the message is there.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 02 August 2005 04:00 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Thank you for jogging my memri (sorry for the pun). I actually thought this was another similar video. Im sorry I forgot but my mind aint what it use to be.

That said JPJ's questions are fair and should be discussed. I also agree fully with Michelle that we should all try hard not to re-engage in the ugly rhetoric of the past.


From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 02 August 2005 04:07 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Can I ask you a serious trying-not-to-troll question, Cueball?

What is the difference between a site that posts negative story after negative story of Arab extremists and abuses, and a site that posts negative story after negative story about Israeli extremists and abuses?

I guess what I'm trying to say is that most media and web sites have their bias on this issue to at least some degree. On babble, for instance, the majority of threads that are started in this forum are ones about Israeli atrocities and abuses. And yet I don't consider babble a "hate site". Where is the line between advocacy of a certain side in a conflict, and a "hate site"?

I feel there IS a line there somewhere. I would like to ferret out where that line is.

[ 02 August 2005: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 02 August 2005 04:17 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Actually, I thought of one answer right off the bat after I hit "send". Sites like MEMRI, unlike most other media, are completely closed sites, with no feedback to the editors and pretty much accountable to no one public, and therefore no way for an alternative point of view to be heard. Whereas most other media not only report both sides (even if they favour one side more than the other), but have a policy of allowing public feedback.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 02 August 2005 04:17 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't. If I were to show picture after picture of Palestinian children killed by Israelis, and set it up as a slide show, with an introductory headline: "This is what Jews do."

I think everyone here would agree that I was disseminating hate propoganda. Nothing in it would be unfactual, and I would not have editorialized hate, but I would still be disseminating that message.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 02 August 2005 04:19 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Memeri from what I can see is not a media site per se. However are we not getting side tracked here from the discussion at hand?
From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 02 August 2005 04:20 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think everyone can agree that if this Imam said what he said, then he is an asshole. However this is thread about extremism, and I think that extremism is a two way street.

JPJ, someone with more time, energy and resources has pursued some of the questions that I asked you, this is what Brian Whitaker of the Guardian uncovered.

quote:
The reason for Memri's air of secrecy becomes clearer when we look at the people behind it. The co-founder and president of Memri, and the registered owner of its website, is an Israeli called Yigal Carmon.

Mr - or rather, Colonel - Carmon spent 22 years in Israeli military intelligence and later served as counter-terrorism adviser to two Israeli prime ministers, Yitzhak Shamir and Yitzhak Rabin.

Retrieving another now-deleted page from the archives of Memri's website also throws up a list of its staff. Of the six people named, three - including Col Carmon - are described as having worked for Israeli intelligence.


The Guardian

[ 02 August 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 02 August 2005 04:24 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Macabee:
Memeri from what I can see is not a media site per se. However are we not getting side tracked here from the discussion at hand?

What were we supposed to be discussing? How bad that sermon was? I think we all agree it was bad. In the other thread we already all agreed it was bad, too. Since we've already established that, and this discussion is related to the link provided, I don't think there's a problem with the direction the discussion is going.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
johnpauljones
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7554

posted 02 August 2005 04:24 PM      Profile for johnpauljones     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
If I were to show picture after picture of Palestinian children killed by Israelis, and set it up as a slide show, with an introductory headline: "This is what Jews do."

Where did I say all Muslem Clergy give sermons like the one posted above?

Where did I attack all Palestinians?

Where did I even attempt to paint all with the same brush?

If people are going to base their opinions of an entire society based upon a clip of a racist segment or element, or read a news story and say that all are like that then we have a bigger problem.

Do you really think that society is naive enough to paint all with the same brush?

If society is that naive then we have a bigger problem and the posting of a series of pictures or articles will not cause anything. Rather it will only go to ensure that the ignorant remain ignorant.

I have better faith in society to look at extremist rhetoric and actions and call it for what it is. Extremism.


From: City of Toronto | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 02 August 2005 04:25 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
JPJ, no one accused you of any of those things. Cueball was talking about the MEMRI site, not you.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 02 August 2005 04:27 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Memeri from what I can see is not a media site per se. However are we not getting side tracked here from the discussion at hand?

Actually, we are not. Johnpauljones uses a Jewish hate site to highlight Arab hate. I'd say it is rather perfect.

Which was my point earlier. I don't see how the process of peace is advanced in the slightest by finding the worst example of extremism and making it a talking point. How does one negotiate with someone who is committed to eradication of a people as a solution?

Well, you don't. You negotiate with those with whom you can find common ground and and marginalize the extremists. I don't see the video and translation serving any purpose except to demonize Arabs and moslems which might explain why it is found on a Jewish hate site.

And I don't think we would even be having any sort of disagreement on this issue if we found a hate mongering Rabbi on a white hate site.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 02 August 2005 04:29 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Given that this particular story about George Galloway, (who has repeatedly been accused of various things on the basis of documents proved to false in court) begins to take on a different meaning:

quote:
One "beneficiary list"—supposedly found in the archives of the Iraqi Oil Ministry and translated by the shadowy Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), a Washington, DC-based group with links to Israel's Likud Party—contained the name Shaker Al-Khafajji, an Iraqi-American businessman who was reported to have given $400,000 to former UN weapons inspector and war critic Scott Ritter to produce a documentary. According to the alleged oil ministry documents, Al-Khafajji was said to have received a 10.5 million barrel oil allocation from Iraq. That same list contained the name of George Galloway, who was listed as a recipient or co-recipient of 19 million barrels of Iraqi oil. Galloway's Mariam's Appeal contributor and later chairman Fawaz Zureikat (the spelling used in the MEMRI documents), was said to have received 6 million barrels. The list was also published in Baghdad by a new independent newspaper named Al Mada,

USAToday

[ 02 August 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 02 August 2005 04:31 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I have to take some exception to referring to MEMRI as a "hate-site". This is potentially libelous and we should show greater care.

Here is the link to MEMRI

MEMRI

On it you will see testemonials from Elie Wiesel a Nobel Laureat, AM Rosenthal, Thomas Friedman, the BBC, UPI, Newsweek, are they all to be seen as accomplices to hate?

SDome may not like what MEMRI posts but from what I see it is verbatim translations.


From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 02 August 2005 04:35 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Don't forget this testimonial:

"… the excellent Middle East Media Research Institute"
-Former CIA director James Woolsey, June 10, 2002

I don't think Mr.MEMRI at P.O. Box 27837, Washington, DC 20038-7837 will want to file a complaint.

[ 02 August 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 02 August 2005 04:38 PM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Actually MEMRI has been known to complain. Not too long ago they threatened Juan Cole with a SLAPP suit. Cole essentially told them to take a hike.
From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 02 August 2005 04:38 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
JPJ, I certainly don't want you to think that I am suggesting any of those things about you. I sincerely don't. I am, as Michelle, pointed out, talking about the site itself.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
johnpauljones
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7554

posted 02 August 2005 04:44 PM      Profile for johnpauljones     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Thanks for clarifying Cueball
From: City of Toronto | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 02 August 2005 04:47 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Do you really think that society is naive enough to paint all with the same brush?

Yes. Ask the European Jews.

quote:
I have to take some exception to referring to MEMRI as a "hate-site". This is potentially libelous and we should show greater care.

Stuff a sock in it Macabee. On more than one occassion you have dismissed entire sites claiming they have published material you deemed antisemitic. Either apply the same standards or don't apply any.


From my perspective, and yours, usually, when their goal is to breed hate, they are a hate site. And that fact they publish article by Thomas Friedman affords them little credibility. Why not say they like Bush?

Also the links by cueball and their role in the misinformation campaign says more about their credibility than anything I could suggest. Why would you be apologizing for them Macabee? Libelous my ass.

[ 02 August 2005: Message edited by: WingNut ]


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 02 August 2005 04:56 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I do not know. Nor is it relevant to the clip. Are you suggesting that the clip is false? To paraphrase another thread the burden of proof is on the detractor to prove that the clip contains errors and omissions.

Regardless of who said it, it's not true. The burden of proof that evidence is credible falls upon the person using that evidence to support their argument.

To present evidence, and assert it is true unless proven otherwise, is a logical fallacy, a type of .Appeal to Ignorance.

Nor is it true that we would "not be having this conversation" if the speaker were a racist rabbi. When I have presented evidence of Israeli misbehavior, here and elsewhere, every aspect of it has come under challenge; some people respond to every inconvenient fact with an attack on the source, even if the information cited is well known and widely repeated.

Bottom line, arguments about the credibility of one's sources are the warp and woof of debate. Often there is no way to verify information, which can then only be judged by the credibility of the source, which, in this case, Cueball has rather effectively destroyed.


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 02 August 2005 06:31 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
"not be having this conversation" if the speaker were a racist rabbi.

But I didn't exactly say that. What I did say was, "I don't think we would even be having any sort of disagreement on this issue if we found a hate mongering Rabbi on a white hate site." And I said that because I think most of us would agree the purpose of such an item would be to portray an event in isolation as being stereotypical. Not unlike the item that began this thread.

From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 02 August 2005 08:55 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by WingNut:

Stuff a sock in it Macabee. On more than one occassion you have dismissed entire sites claiming they have published material you deemed antisemitic. Either apply the same standards or don't apply any.


From my perspective, and yours, usually, when their goal is to breed hate, they are a hate site. And that fact they publish article by Thomas Friedman affords them little credibility. Why not say they like Bush?

Also the links by cueball and their role in the misinformation campaign says more about their credibility than anything I could suggest. Why would you be apologizing for them Macabee? Libelous my ass.

[ 02 August 2005: Message edited by: WingNut ]



Thomas Friedman wrote a testemonial as to MEMRI's importance as did many others with reputations at stake.

You just cannot go around calling something a hate-site just because you disagree with what it publishes. There are rules in society. People and institutions gain reputations. By calling MEMRI a hate site you impugn the names of all those who publicly support it. I wouldnt mind hearing from Jeff House on this issue before Wingnut and others get too carried away.


From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 02 August 2005 09:03 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
WingNut, a reminder to argue without getting personal. I know it's mild compared to what we might see on the rest of the site, but we all know how easily these threads go off course over that sort of thing. Thanks.

Macabee, Jeff House is quite welcome to give his opinion, but I don't think there's a problem with stating an opinion that a site is hateful. It's a subjective statement, and I'm not about to censor a discussion about the content of a media (or information or whatever you want to call it) web site, any more than I would when people make accusations, even hyperbolic ones, about CNN or FAUX.

[ 02 August 2005: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 02 August 2005 09:05 PM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Macabee:

Thomas Friedman wrote a testemonial as to MEMRI's importance as did many others with reputations at stake....

Appeal to authority. Thomas Friedman may occupy an important piece of journalistic real estate but he can still be completely wrong. In fact he can be a complete idiot. He's proven it dozens of times.


From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 02 August 2005 09:05 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I suppose this has been said before, but the way in which MEMRI operates draws the hairy eyeball. It is this which causes people to question its credibility, just as the National Citizens' Coalition, which also acts in a very secretive manner regarding its internal affairs, is suspect when it claims popular support for its right-wing agenda.

Do you see the credibility issue here, Macabee?


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 02 August 2005 09:11 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
WingNut, a reminder to argue without getting personal. I know it's mild compared to what we might see on the rest of the site, but we all know how easily these threads go off course over that sort of thing. Thanks.

Macabee, Jeff House is quite welcome to give his opinion, but I don't think there's a problem with stating an opinion that a site is hateful. It's a subjective statement, and I'm not about to censor a discussion about the content of a media (or information or whatever you want to call it) web site, any more than I would when people make accusations, even hyperbolic ones, about CNN or FAUX.

[ 02 August 2005: Message edited by: Michelle ]


Good point Michelle, though I never suggested censoring. However CNN has never been described as a hate site. And if it were Im not so sure it wouldnt consider legal action. Libel suits have been launched for much less believe me.

From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 02 August 2005 09:14 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by DrConway:
I suppose this has been said before, but the way in which MEMRI operates draws the hairy eyeball. It is this which causes people to question its credibility, just as the National Citizens' Coalition, which also acts in a very secretive manner regarding its internal affairs, is suspect when it claims popular support for its right-wing agenda.

Do you see the credibility issue here, Macabee?


Credibility is one thing describing it as "hateful" is quite another.

As for its credibility, well one man's ceiling is another man's floor. Again the testimonials by many in the mainstream seem to say otherwise.


From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 02 August 2005 09:16 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You may be right. However, I think in this case, I'll take that chance. You can always let Audra know about your concerns though, if you are really worried about it. There is a chance - slim of course! - that I might be wrong about this one.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 02 August 2005 09:43 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well actually Michelle there is no wrong or right. In my experience people can sue for just about anything. Im not suggesting that here only asking that we consider potential consequences before maligning reputable organizations or individuals. Always better safe than sorry.
From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 02 August 2005 10:28 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
A former CIA counterintelligence official, Vincent Cannistraro, said that “they [MEMRI} are selective and act as propagandists for their political point of view, which is the extreme-right of Likud…. They simply don't present the whole picture.” (9) In an article titled “Selective MEMRI,” Brian Whitaker of the Guardian (London) observed: “Evidence from MEMRI's website also casts doubt on its non-partisan status.” (11) Ali Abunimah, vice-president of the Chicago-based Arab American Action Network, cautions that there are sounder voices in the Arab and Muslim communities who try to challenge these kinds of statements, and that some of the language about Muslims and Arabs in the U.S. and Israeli press is equally vile. Yet, he added, that “a lot of anti-Israeli sentiment is indeed mixed with anti-Semitic rhetoric imported from the West.” (12)

Although critics are more concerned with the selectivity of MEMRI’s translations rather than their accuracy, instances of MEMRI’s political bias affecting the accuracy of its translations have on occasion been cited. The Guardian’s Brian Whitaker took MEMRI’s president to task for mistranslating a question that included an implied criticism of Israel. The question was "How do you deal with the Jews who are besieging al-Aqsa and are scattered around it?" But MEMRI translated this as: "How do you feel about the Jews?" (13)

At the same time that MEMRI circulates the most inflammatory comments found in the Arab media, its pro-Israel and pro-Likud positions are equally evident. Carmon says that MEMRI is eager to highlight the role of the “good guys” in the Middle East--the democrats, or near democrats; the liberals, or near liberals--anyone who evinces the slightest interest in reform. According to an adulatory report on MEMRI in the right-wing magazine National Review, “Independence and objectivity are matters of pride here. Staffers work virtually around the clock, with an almost missionary spirit, feeling that their work is vital, that their moment is now.” (14)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Sources
(1) Middle East Media Research Institute: About Us
http://www.MEMRI.org/aboutus.html

(2) http://www.MEMRI.org/subjects.html

(3) “MEMRI: Media Lies,” Arab Media Watch, May 13, 2004 http://www.arabmediawatch.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=436

(4) “Mission Statement,” Middle East Media Research Institute [web archive]
http://web.archive.org/web/19990220054656/www.MEMRI.org/about.html

(5) Middle East Media Research Institute, Form 990, 2001

(6) “Middle East Media and Research Institute,” Wikipedia Free Encyclopedia [citing MEMRI’s archived webpages] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Middle_East_Media_Research_Institute&printable=yes

(7) “Meyrav Wurmser,” Hudson Institute
http://www.hudson.org/learn/index.cfm?fuseaction=staff_bio&eid=Wurmser

(8) Jim Lobe, "Family Ties Connect U.S. Right, Zionists," Dawn, March 9, 2003
http://www.dawn.com/2003/03/09/int11.htm

(9) Marc Perelman, “No Longer Obscure, MEMRI Translates the Arab World: But Detractors Say a Right-Wing Agenda Distorts Think-Tank's Service to Journalists,” Forward, December 7, 2001
http://www.forward.com/issues/2001/01.12.07/news7.html

(10) "Who Shapes U.S. Foreign Policy Toward the Middle East," Guardian, May 2003
http://freelebanon.org/articles/a419.htm

(11) Brian Whitaker, "Selective MEMRI," Guardian, August 12, 2002
http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,773258,00.html

(12) Esther Kaplan, “Antisemitism After September 11th,” Public Eye, vol. 16, n. 2, Summer 2002
http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v16n2/AntisemitismAfter.html

(13) "Email Debate: Yigal Carmon and Brian Whitaker," Guardian, January 28, 2003
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Middle_East_Media_Research_Institute&printable=yes

(14) Jay Nordlinger, “MEMRI: An institute, and its website, bring the Arab world to light,” National Review, May 6, 2002.
http://www.upjf.org/documents/showthread.php?&threadid=1469

(15) MEMRI, Mediatransparency.org
http://www.mediatransparency.org/search_results/info_on_any_recipient.php?recipientID=2085


Published by the Right Web Program at the Interhemispheric Resource Center (IRC). ©2004. All rights reserved.



web page

I would not describe this as a hate website in the sense that Masada2000.org is a hate website. It is not a rally-the-faithful expression of extremist positions. What it is is something far more distrubing: a well-organized, well-funded, wholly unscrupulous propaganda organ producing highly sophisticated distortions of the truth in order to maintain and extend Zionists' near-total control of the American discourse on the middle east, with its attendant rewards in the form of money, arms, technology transfers, trade, diplomacy and the sacrifice of American soliders' lives.


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 02 August 2005 10:37 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
"distortions of the truth"? Not really. Propaganda? Quite possibly. Still no one suggests in all honesty that there are serious mistranslations even by farrel's most biased descriptions.


I dont know, I would never describe AM Rosenthal or Thomas friedman as right wing. As far as Likudists are concerned well it is a legitimate political party in Israel. Though not my cup of tea it is no insult to belong to Likud.


From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 02 August 2005 10:41 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Everyone's biased so of course everyone's going to give descriptions that suit their bias.

And as for better being safe than sorry - well, to be safest of all, we could just never criticize anyone at all for anything, but I don't think that's going to happen. I'm comfortable with the safety level in this thread.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 02 August 2005 10:58 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Macabee:
[QB]"distortions of the truth"? Not really. Propaganda? Quite possibly. Still no one suggests in all honesty that there are serious mistranslations even by farrel's most biased descriptions.

So . . .

quote:
The question was "How do you deal with the Jews who are besieging al-Aqsa and are scattered around it?" But MEMRI translated this as: "How do you feel about the Jews?" (13)

This would not be a "serious mistranslation," then?

You would further claim that selecting only a few of "the most inflammatory comments found in the Arab media," and presenting itself as an objective source of information about "Arab, Farsi, and Hebrew" media does not constitute a distortion of the truth?

I suppose there is "no right answer" , but your defense of the authors of this kind of manipulative, dishonest snow job lowers your credibility without raising theirs.


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 02 August 2005 11:06 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Listen, rsfarrell and Macabee both. We already know that you two don't like each other much. Could you PLEASE leave the personal comments out of it. Both of your points could have been made just as well without the personal attacks. I think this is a great debate to have about Memri, and I think you can both do it without descending into personal attacks. This is the last time I'm going to ask nicely. If we're really serious about not wanting this to be a place where people are attacking each other and making insinuations about each other, then it's up to the participants to make that happen.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 02 August 2005 11:27 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
Here's a question about this nonprofit "informational" organization coincidentally staffed largely by (ex?)Israeli spies. They obviously love to translate extremists' statements, and they promote them by mass e-mailings of their translations. They bill themselves as providing translations of "Arabic, Farsi, and Hebrew." They obviously have no lack of Hebrew-speakers, and if they were short I'm sure Israeli intelligence would be happy to transfer -- I mean, retire some more of them.

It is also common knowledge that radical Zionists, especially the settler rabbis, make extreme, racist statements about Arabs and other non-Jews every day (and I can provide dozens of examples for those who doubt.)

So my question would be, has anyone ever seen these people translate an extremist sermon -- by a rabbi?


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 03 August 2005 12:01 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I would argue that chopping a question like that and publishing it as though it were the true question is at the very least dishonest, and at the worst, deliberately inflammatory.

If I were to quote, let us say, Michelle, out of context like that, it would be (forgive the poor example) like her asking me "Do you like ice-cream, sundaes, or floats, and does your stomach get upset if you eat too much?" and then me chopping that to "Do you like ice-cream, sundaes or floats?"

It changes the meaning of the question, and conveys a different impression. In one, she's asking about my physiology. In the other, she's asking about my taste buds.

Similarly, chopping a question about a specific action to make it look anti-Semitic is definitely worthy of asking whether MEMRI's credibility exists at all.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 03 August 2005 12:11 AM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Macabee asked me a question about whether it's ok to call a site a hate-site even if it isn't.

Yes. It is a matter of opinion what is, or is not a hate site.

----
Cueball posted this info:

quote:
The reason for Memri's air of secrecy becomes clearer when we look at the people behind it. The co-founder and president of Memri, and the registered owner of its website, is an Israeli called Yigal Carmon.
Mr - or rather, Colonel - Carmon spent 22 years in Israeli military intelligence and later served as counter-terrorism adviser to two Israeli prime ministers, Yitzhak Shamir and Yitzhak Rabin.

Retrieving another now-deleted page from the archives of Memri's website also throws up a list of its staff. Of the six people named, three - including Col Carmon - are described as having worked for Israeli intelligence.


I am very interested to learn of the affiliations of these individuals. It is difficult to weigh what they say without knowing this. Hats off to Mr. Cueball.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 03 August 2005 12:55 AM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
Listen, rsfarrell and Macabee both. We already know that you two don't like each other much. Could you PLEASE leave the personal comments out of it. Both of your points could have been made just as well without the personal attacks. I think this is a great debate to have about Memri, and I think you can both do it without descending into personal attacks. This is the last time I'm going to ask nicely. If we're really serious about not wanting this to be a place where people are attacking each other and making insinuations about each other, then it's up to the participants to make that happen.
I agree fully. I just need to know where you feel I insulted farrel. I honstly tried to stick to the subject.


From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 03 August 2005 03:10 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by jeff house:
I am very interested to learn of the affiliations of these individuals. It is difficult to weigh what they say without knowing this. Hats off to Mr. Cueball.

Well, if you had bothered to read the thread, instead of following me around the site so that you could use this as yet another opportunity to pursue you personal pet peeve, you would see that they [MEMRI] don't actually say anything, only translate.

What you do not seem to see is that I have never argued that the personal political affiliations of persons are not relevant to disscussion of motives, however, I have opposed the principle that they are pivotal to arguement as evidence. I hope you see the difference between motive and evidence.

In this case I have not asserted that this site is a hate site, because the persons operating it are former employees of Mossad, rather I have constructed an arguement completely free of that association based on the presentation of the evidence not merely motive, and what is clearly the intended message: "Arabs are bad."

Here is my arguement repeated:

quote:
I agree that if this Imam said what he said, then I have a problem with that.

However I am simply pointing out that MEMRI is actually an anti-arab hate site. It is actually an example of what you are protesting. The fact that it uses it Arab sources as a means to vilify all Arabs by cheery-picking the worst things said by the most regressive members of Arab society is a clear indication of this.

Most of the quotes and incidents provided on the Masada 2000 site, are in fact true or close to true. However it is presented in a manner and form, with the specific intention of vilifying Arabs.

The fact that the MEMRI site does not editorialize the message, does not detract from the fact that the message is there.


Here is my hypothetical example:

quote:
I don't. If I were to show picture after picture of Palestinian children killed by Israelis, and set it up as a slide show, with an introductory headline: "This is what Jews do."

I think everyone here would agree that I was disseminating hate propoganda. Nothing in it would be unfactual, and I would not have editorialized hate, but I would still be disseminating that message.


Those are the whole quotes from the posts stating my arguemnt, no deletions, no editing, nowhere do I suggest that the fact that many of the persons working at MEMRI are former employeess of Mossad, in and of itself determines the arguement. I don't even mention the fact, even though I was well aware of it.

This is the difference between motive and evidence. Both may play role in an arguement, and motive may play a strong one which can be used to reinforce an arguement but motive can not be the arguement. Motive is never the sole means to conviction in court. I am a little suprised that I need point this out.

The principle upon which motive becomes essential to arguement is the point at which spurious Stalanist conspiracies driven by such noxious ideas such as guilt by association, enter the process.

Further, as I have pointed out elsewhere, MEMRI is a public institution, in a manner that individual Babblers are not. Your repeated attempts to "out" certain babblers as communists (please see disclaimer below,) is nothing but an attempt to violate privacy, in the same way I would be violating privacy were I to suggest that John Paul Jones worked for the B'Nai Brith, and that was the reason that he started this thread, and central to any defence he has made of the MEMRI site. Even if he was, his defence would have to be confronted on the evidence, not on his motive. To do such would be not only be scurrilous but also lazy.

For you information, John Paul Jones is neither a communist, nor a B'nai Brith staff member. John Paul Jones is an American Revolutionary war hero and privateer, who worked with the French Navy interdicting British shipping and raiding the British coast in the late 18th century.

This is what he looks like:

Lets not spend to much time chasing the ghost in the machine.

[ 03 August 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 03 August 2005 07:43 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
jeff house, thanks for the advice. Also, could you do me a favour and maybe not bait Cueball, at least in this forum? It has been rather fun watching the two of you argue about this particular topic, because you're both interesting writers, but it's contentious enough as it is in this forum without dragging in ongoing feuds from other threads.

Macabee, I know it was slight ("even by farrel's most biased descriptions"), just as rsfarrell's little dig at you was slight, but I am nipping even the little digs in the bud right away because we know that these are what start the pissing matches in this forum. Thanks.

P.S. Nice hat, JPJ. You should use that picture in your profile.

[ 03 August 2005: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
johnpauljones
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7554

posted 03 August 2005 09:44 AM      Profile for johnpauljones     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Thanks Cueball, you had to post the picture didn't you.

I pose for one picture with a medal that my mommy gave me for cleaning my room and even these many years the picture is still posted.

For the record, Cueball is correct I am neither associated with or work for Bnai Brith nor am I a communist


From: City of Toronto | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 03 August 2005 10:08 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
You just cannot go around calling something a hate-site just because you disagree with what it publishes.


You have.
quote:

There are rules in society. People and institutions gain reputations. By calling MEMRI a hate site you impugn the names of all those who publicly support it. I wouldnt mind hearing from Jeff House on this issue before Wingnut and others get too carried away.

If they choose to associate their names with a site that seeks to demonize Arabs, that is thier choice.

I always find it amazing your willingness to defend sites clearly seeking to promote a view of a people you would never tolerate if the people were Jews. Why is that Macabee?


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
ohara
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7961

posted 03 August 2005 12:07 PM      Profile for ohara        Edit/Delete Post
Wingnut , it seems to me that memri is no more a hatesight than an arab news link I saw posted here on Babble, wafa. Wafa demonizes Israelis in the same way you claim memri demonizes Muslims. Would you agree with me?
From: Ottawa | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 03 August 2005 12:48 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No. WAFA is a PA site. The PA is the recognized advocate the Palestinian people. As the two peoples are in conflict, it is not going to spend much time saying nice things about Israel. WAFA's job is advocacy: In conflict situations means pointing out what you don't like about what the other people are doing. The same goes for all Israeli government sources.

As well WAFA has lots of editorialized comment and when it does it does not editorialize hate. Now MEMRI does not do this either, but the hate is implied through selection of sources.

It is also part of the PA aparatus as a whole, and it can be seen that PA relatioship with Israel is conflict ridden, but does not eschew things like negotiations with Israel or making positive diplomatic gestures, which are duly reported by WAFA.

MEMRI does not assert or imply anything positive about Arabs at all.

Nor does WAFA pretend that it is not an advocacy group, with an explicit politcal agenda like MEMRI.

You would be better to look at a site like Palestine Monitor, but here again you see all kinds of thing that contradict the "all Israelis are bad theme." They do thing like publish Israeli writers whom they like, indicating directly that not all Israelis are bad, and that Israelis and Palestinians can work together positively.

Both WAFA and Palestine monitor introduce positive content either direcly or implicitly.

[ 03 August 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 03 August 2005 02:09 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Wingnut , it seems to me that memri is no more a hatesight than an arab news link I saw posted here on Babble, wafa. Wafa demonizes Israelis in the same way you claim memri demonizes Muslims. Would you agree with me?

I am not familiar with wafa. However, what if someone created a site, obscured or hid its ownership, and presented itself as an independent, objective source for information about the middle east but only ever presented Jews in a negative and extremist light.

Would you think that web site was promoting a fear of Jews?


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
ohara
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7961

posted 03 August 2005 04:49 PM      Profile for ohara        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
MEMRI does not assert or imply anything positive about Arabs at all.


And you think wafa asserts anything positive about Israel or Israelis?

From: Ottawa | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 03 August 2005 04:56 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Whoever they are, they don't have to. Israel is an occupier.
From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
ohara
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7961

posted 03 August 2005 06:06 PM      Profile for ohara        Edit/Delete Post
But that's not the point. I am trying to compare and contrast here. Both sites basically do the same thing
From: Ottawa | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 03 August 2005 06:25 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I decided to have a look.

WAFA describes itself as Palestinian News Agency. Memri describes itself as Middle East Media Research Institute.

So we can see one represents a specific interest unobscured, while the other pretends to be an objective body for research.

One offers a headline such as this:
"Dahlan: Israel to Give IDs to 54,000 Palestinians in Gaza and WB"

While the other offers a headline such as:
"Jul 29 SD# 946 - Lebanese Mufti Dr. Muhammad Ali Al-Jozo: Support for Killing Americans; Suicide Attacks "100% Good"; 9/11, London Attacks by U.S. or Zionists - Not Bin Laden; I "Made Fun" of U.S. Border Patrol"

Here is what MEMRI says about itself:
"Founded in February 1998 to inform the debate over U.S. policy in the Middle East, MEMRI is an independent, nonpartisan,... organization."

Independent? Nonpartisan? You would think that any organization that starts out lying is suspect wouldn't you?

And you think that is the same as WAFA which clearly identifies its bias?


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 03 August 2005 06:36 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
To be fair I think that independent and nonpartisan are US-loaded words, meaning that they aren't a part of the Dems or Repubs, not that they are claiming to be neutral using THOSE words. However in the larger case I do agree with you: MEMRI definitely positions itself as a neutral observer giving us the whole truth, when in fact it takes the worst things out of context. WAFA's purpose is totally different, which is explicitly to give the Palestinian perspective on the issues. And my previous point stands: WAFA's moral obligation is simply lower than MEMRI's or any other pro-Israeli organization.
From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 03 August 2005 07:03 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ohara had it quite right. While MEMRI is not non-partisan even if it may feel it is, it is still as much a hatesite as is wafa. That's the issue.

And BTW I dont believe either is a hatesite.


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

posted 03 August 2005 09:56 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
As we've already gone around the MEMRI mulberry, this discussion topic has been covered before on babble. Nevertheless, as Mandos has said, WAFA and MEMRI are not the same, nor is the intent behind the two sites similar.

WAFA tries to present a Palestinian perspective on the Middle East.

The purpose of MEMRI is to portray the Arab and Muslim world in the worst light possible, thereby increasing ill will towards each group among North Americans, their principal audience. I cannot see how that intent is different than that of a hate site.

Why anyone would soft-pedal that intent is another issue.

[ 03 August 2005: Message edited by: al-Qa'bong ]


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 03 August 2005 10:52 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I cannot see how that intent is different than that of a hate site.

Why anyone would soft-peddle that intent is another issue.



Indeed.

From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 03 August 2005 11:40 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Reminds me of round and round the mulberry bush. There can be no escape from the fact that wafa in whatever guise you wish to put it in presents Israel and Israelis in the most negative terms possible.

MEMRI does the same. Both sites doing the same thing for their perceived cause. Yet you wish to whitewash wafa and tell us that it is something its not. The facts speak plainly for themselves.


From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 04 August 2005 12:01 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
That is untrue. They are not the same at all.
One is quite open about who and what it is and the other attempts to conceal its purpose and its origins. One presents factual news, and the other presents only a single dimensional view of Arabs in a hateful light.

To try and argue they are the same is disingenous -- at best.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 04 August 2005 12:20 AM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by WingNut:
That is untrue. They are not the same at all.
One is quite open about who and what it is and the other attempts to conceal its purpose and its origins. One presents factual news, and the other presents only a single dimensional view of Arabs in a hateful light.

To try and argue they are the same is disingenous -- at best.


Factual news? Right.

wafa is multi-dimensional?

wafa I suppose doesnt show Israelis in a negative light? Please Wingnut we weren't born yesterday.


From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 04 August 2005 12:29 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So when WAFA reports:

quote:
Minister of Civil Affairs Mohammed Dahlan said on Wednesday that Israel agreed to give 54,000 IDs for Palestinians as a step toward family unification in the Gaza Strip and West Bank.

That is not factual? Israel did not give those 54,000 IDs? Or maybe reporting that Israel gave those 54,000 ID's somehow casts Israelis in a negative light. I don't see it, but then I don't have your nose for antisemitism.

As usual, Macabee, you find a way to become an apologist for an organization that seeks to demonizes Arabs. I find it so hard to believe you would condone such outward attempts at demonizing Arabs but you insist on trying to convince me otherwise.

[ 04 August 2005: Message edited by: WingNut ]


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 04 August 2005 07:38 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by WingNut:
As usual, Macabee, you find a way to become an apologist for an organization that seeks to demonizes Arabs.

I've already asked you nicely to stick to arguing your points rather than getting personal. Now it's your first warning. You can make your point without calling someone an apologist for demonizing Arabs. Macabee's not allowed to call people apologists for anti-semitism. You're not allowed to call people apologists for demonizing Arabs. That's how it works.

quote:
Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:
Why anyone would soft-pedal that intent is another issue.

It is these kind of insinuations that we are trying to avoid in this forum, as I've said numerous times before. If you don't want Macabee to be allowed to do it, then you don't get to do it either. Next time gets you your first warning.

[ 04 August 2005: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 04 August 2005 10:01 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, sorry, Michelle, but here is what we can establish with this thread: we can post racist material on babble if we frame in such a way as to pretend to be concerned.

So, the web site hosting the offensive article only paints Islamic Arabs in a negative light and that seems okay with some babblers. The video itself it full of racist commentary but, again, that seems okay with some babblers as it serves not so much to propagate hate against the target but against the speaker.

So, if one of our recent visitors, had created a thread asking, "In the face of such historical revsionism how can there be truth" and then posted the same sort of antisemetic material as was posted and removed, we would all be having a nice civil conversation about it and no one would be banned, right?

Or are only Islamic Arabs fair game for such a stealth approach to race relations?

I am not trying to be difficult but I could just as easily start a similar thread but demonizing another people is something we should all be opposed to and it strikes me as simply unbelievable that it is being tolerated by so many only because it was posted with a veneer of sincerity.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
johnpauljones
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7554

posted 04 August 2005 10:12 AM      Profile for johnpauljones     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by WingNut:
Or are only Islamic Arabs fair game for such a stealth approach to race relations?

I am not trying to be difficult but I could just as easily start a similar thread but demonizing another people is something we should all be opposed to and it strikes me as simply unbelievable that it is being tolerated by so many only because it was posted with a veneer of sincerity.


Please pray tell where did I demonize all arabs? Where did I demonize all Muslems?
Where did I even attempt to slander an entire people?

I am demonizing racial rhetoric from an Iman during a sermon.

I will continue to demonize religious leaders who incite hatred and racism unjustly and use their status as a "man of god" to do so.

Wingnut I can not and do not understand why you see this as an attempt by me - since I started the thread - to label all Arabs, all Muslems, all religious people with one brush.

I have not done so, it was not my intent to do so.

That being said are you really saying that I should turn a blind eye because in discussing a topic I am painting an entire people with the same brush?

I am sorry if I am being strong willed here but racism is the evil that has infultrated our society and continues to infultrate our society. Racism must be outed for what it is. The abuser must be called to repent for their actions. The victim must be able to live without fear.

[ 04 August 2005: Message edited by: johnpauljones ]


From: City of Toronto | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 04 August 2005 11:46 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I am sorry if I am being strong willed here but racism is the evil that has infultrated our society and continues to infultrate our society. Racism must be outed for what it is.

Agreed. But using a web site that only portrays Islamic Arabs in a negative light fails to do that and not only fails but acts to perpetuate racism and hatred against an entire people -- the very thing you say you are opposed to.

Tell me, how many people living under the occupation forces of Palestine without any civil or legal rights?

How many Israeli homes have been demolished in acts of collective punishment by Palestinian mullahs?

How tall and wide and is the apartheid wall being constructed by the Palestinian Authority?

How many Palestinian settlers have pushed their way into Israel seizing land and water and marginalizing Jewish land owners?

Every single people, n very single land have people who hate other people and espouse raw hatred. To expose it is one thing.

To use a web site that only ever offers a single, negative perspective of Islamic Arabs is quite another.

quote:

The abuser must be called to repent for their actions. The victim must be able to live without fear.

Do you think the Palestnian victims of Israeli state racism benefit from your use of that particular web site?

From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 04 August 2005 01:01 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by WingNut:
Well, sorry, Michelle, but here is what we can establish with this thread: we can post racist material on babble if we frame in such a way as to pretend to be concerned.

I have no problem with you saying that the site is racist. I have a problem with insinuations about people posting the site. As we have seen in this forum, there are a wide variety of opinions about whether one source is racist or anti-semitic or whatever. People disagree on these things. The way to discuss this and to tell people that you think the site is racist or a "hate site" isn't to make insinuations about the person for posting it.

I'm sorry, I know this is making me sound really nitpicky, but that's the way this kind of crap starts in this forum. We all know it. So that's why I'm trying to keep it from going down that road. If you want to say a site is racist, go for it. If you want to make insinuations about the person posting it, that's not okay.

See, the conversation you are now having with JPJ - that's fine. In fact, it's great if you ask me, because you're discussing the site, and getting to the heart of your objections with the content on it, and your objection to it being touted as a reliable source of information. That's really great, and I hope the conversation continues in this manner, without the personal comments and insinuations.

[ 04 August 2005: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 04 August 2005 01:04 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
*muttering under her breath*

... oh, no, please, no, not another sympathy strike, no ...

*/muttering*


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 04 August 2005 02:06 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I will continue to demonize religious leaders who incite hatred and racism unjustly and use their status as a "man of god" to do so.

Since that is your goal, perhaps you would favor us with some accounts of the racist rabbis and fundementalist Jews who are inciting racism and hatred today.

Doubtless, racism is no more acceptable when it comes from Muslims. But there has been a very effective propaganda operations to divert attention away from Israeli and American colonialism and towards Islamic radicals, attemtping to present Islam's reaction to Western aggression as if it were the cause of the conflict. These carefully vetted clips are a part of that program.

This treatment is a modern refinement of the old "painted savage" mythology used to justify conquest of native peoples. By presenting them as mindlessly hostile, we justify our continious aggression against them.

If America were still conducting its westward expansion today, doubtless the government would be arguing that it was a "war on scalping," asking why Native American paganism gave rise to the violent extremism of the scalpers, and demanding that "moderate" tribes condemn their violent breathren.

As I said, even the paranoid have real enemies. But cherry-picking for extremism, chopping up speeches and videos and presenting them with suspect translations to audiences which lack the context to understand them, with the clear intent of creating anger and hostility, is morally just the same as lying; it is not more truthful than an outright fiction; it is merely the more media-savvy choice.


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 05 August 2005 01:55 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
*muttering under her breath*

... oh, no, please, no, not another sympathy strike, no ...

*/muttering*


Maybe the trolls are right, and this place is run by hypocrites.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 05 August 2005 09:51 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
rsfarrell wrote:

quote:
But cherry-picking for extremism, chopping up speeches and videos and presenting them with suspect translations to audiences which lack the context to understand them, with the clear intent of creating anger and hostility, is morally just the same as lying; it is not more truthful than an outright fiction; it is merely the more media-savvy choice.

Really well put.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 05 August 2005 10:13 AM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Of course, no one can stop a madman, but one can dry up his support, and the support of his opposite number on the other side, by arriving at a peace ageement.

Yesterday's Globe had a good non-controversial summary of "How the IRA was tamed," ending:

quote:
The IRA statement would also not have been possible without the political compromises delivered in the Good Friday Agreement. This story has significance in places beyond Northern Ireland, including Israel/Palestine and Spain's Basque country. It suggests that erstwhile radicals can be persuaded to become moderates if they are engaged politically, and if their legitimate aspirations are accommodated. Relying exclusively on the "war on terror" would not have worked in Northern Ireland, and is unlikely to be successful elsewhere.

The Irish success story started with John Hume, who ended up Deputy Prime Minister.

Why has Israel never found an Israeli Arab to be Israel's John Hume? Should not the Israeli Arabs be Israel's path to reconciliation with the Palestinians? How can a lasting peace be achieved if no major Israeli party can offer Israeli Arab parties seats in cabinet? Of all the risks that need to be taken to achieve peace, isn't that the simplest? What am I missing here?


From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 05 August 2005 12:58 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes but you see, the problem with the comparison is that England has always been willing to accept Catholics as citizens within its country. Israel's position is predicated on exclusion of Arab as full citizens within the occupied territories.

The English have always had that carrot at the end of the stick, and it has been that way with few ups and downs since Elizabeth.

Note for instance that Israeli Arabs, except in a few extremely rare cases are involved in nationalist violence, even though they are treated as second class citizens. It is not just a matter of "peace," as an happy abstraction, but tackling the underlying injustices that lead to discontent and resistance.

Israel's existance has always been predicated on rejection, right from the 1948 ethnic cleansing til now. In order to rectify the situation it may take a complete overhall of how Israelis conceive of the relationship with the Arab population that they, and their forefathers, have imposed themselve in.

What is needed is an Israeli reformer, not a Palestinian one. There are many Arab Israelis whom have offered their assistance, but Israeli rejectionism is the obstacle.

[ 05 August 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 05 August 2005 01:08 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
While I don't disagree with cueball, I thinj he missed the larger key: Israel is not interested in peace neogotiations.

The key in Ireland (and I think claiming the IRA was "tamed" is a good way to create splinter groups) was negotiations without preconditions.

In Israel, there is always an impossible precondition to prevent any real discussions taking place.

So why doesn't Israel want to negotiate. Well, first, it doesn't have to. The US will continue to pour billions of military and economic aid into Israel regardless of what she does. But equally important is that Israel is still in the process of annexing West Bank land which, in turn, erodes any possibility of a two state solution.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 05 August 2005 01:20 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
MK Asimi Bishara -- here is just such a one who would take the role you suggest.

quote:
The NDA strongly believes in and advocates for universal human values: democracy, freedom, social justice, human rights, and the right of a people to self-determination. The NDA firmly opposes racial, national, religious and gender discrimination.


1. The NDA seeks to transform Israel from a Jewish state into a democratic state, a state with equality for all of its citizens, Jews and Arabs alike, and to eliminate all state institutions and laws which discriminate against Arabs in Israel.
2. The NDA regards Palestinian Arabs in Israel as part of the Palestinian Arab people; and at the same time they constitute a distinguished national minority in Israel. In keeping with the United Nations Charter, the NDA demands that the government of Israel recognize Palestinian Arabs in Israel as a national minority which is entitled to enjoy the rights granted all national minorities. The NDA demands that the government of Israel recognize the rights of the Arab national minority in Israel to self-rule in matters that distinguish it from the national majority. In particular, the NDA demands autonomy over Palestinian education and media.
3. The NDA supports the establishment and development of Palestinian institutions in Israel, and the NDA pledges to actively promote economic, cultural, and political rights by proposing affirmative action programs.
4. The NDA struggles against the confiscation of Arab lands, and the NDA demands that the government of Israel recognize the unrecognized Arab villages.
5. The NDA struggles for the withdrawal of Israel from all occupied Arab territories and the establishment of an independent Palestinian state in the 1967 Occupied Territories with East Jerusalem as its capital.
6. The NDA supports full equality between men and women and the elimination of sectarianism and clan prejudices.
7. The NDA pledges cooperation with all Jewish groups and individuals in Israel who work with it in concord with its PRINCIPLES AND AIMS


Rather than take this hand, the Israeli government has been harrassing Bishari with a series of indictments for doing things like visiting Syria.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 05 August 2005 03:04 PM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Yes but you see, the problem with the comparison is that England has always been willing to accept Catholics as citizens within its country. Israel's position is predicated on exclusion of Arab as full citizens within the occupied territories.

Lack of parallelism there. Does Israel not accept Israeli Arabs as citizens within Israel, that it, within the 1967 boundaries?
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Israel's existance has always been predicated on rejection, right from the 1948 ethnic cleansing til now.

Of Israeli Arabs? In 1948, no doubt. Currently they reject Israeli Arab parties as partners, which is what I am asking about. Other than that, are they currently rejecting or transferring Israeli Arabs?
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
What is needed is an Israeli reformer, not a Palestinian one. There are many Arab Israelis whom have offered their assistance, but Israeli rejectionism is the obstacle.

Both are needed. It was not plausible for Northern Irish unionists of any party to accept Gerry Adams as a partner while IRA thugs were killing people and hiding across the border. John Hume came first, followed by Trimble.

I am not qualified to assess whether MK Asimi Bishara or some other Israeli Arab could be their John Hume. Anyone?


From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 05 August 2005 04:21 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Wilf Day:
Lack of parallelism there. Does Israel not accept Israeli Arabs as citizens within Israel, that it, within the 1967 boundaries?

The point is that Israeli-Arabs are not the core of the insurgency, unlike Catholics in Belfast --they are actually quite passive, and like Canadian native peoples for the most part try to affect their claims through legal process and negotiation.

The differences is that the insurgency comes from Palestinian Arabs who are not citizens, and whom are rejected as citizens by Israel. The situation would be parralel if Britain continued to occupy all Ireland, continued to settle it with Protestants and rejected Irish Catholics as citizens.

So in the case of Ireland and Belfast it is a much easier task to bring Catholics onside, however they feel about unification with Ireland, as they have a realistic expectation of improving their lives, and being accorded basic rights by the government. This is not the case for Palestinian Arabs in the West Bank whose needs and rights are litterally bulldozed under Israel's settler program.

Simply put Hume in this case can represent the insurgent community, becasuse he is part of it but Bishara can not, however much he sympathizes with the cause, because Israeli-Arabs are not insurgent.

The real John Humes of Palestine are mostly in jail.

[ 05 August 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 05 August 2005 04:35 PM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
The point is that Israeli-Arabs are not the core of the insurgency, unlike Catholics in Belfast --they are actually quite passive, and like Canadian native peoples for the most part try to affect their claims through legal process and negotiation.

That is a slander against the Catholics of Belfast, the great majority of whom are are as law-abiding as any First Nation in Canada.

I asked "Should not the Israeli Arabs be Israel's path to reconciliation with the Palestinians? How can a lasting peace be achieved if no major Israeli party can offer Israeli Arab parties seats in cabinet? Of all the risks that need to be taken to achieve peace, isn't that the simplest? What am I missing here?"

So do you have an answer? And what do you propose as the way for Israelis and Palestinians to persuade erstwhile radicals to become moderates, engage them politically, and accomodate their legitimate aspirations?


From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 05 August 2005 04:40 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You are missing that the first thing Britain did was quit the occupation of most Irish territories, and let them have their own state.

Israel has yet to do that.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 05 August 2005 04:50 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And also, it is not slander upon Irish Catholics, in general, to note that there are and have been well organized insurgent cells among the population of Belfast and Northern Ireland, and that there is more or less no activity of this kind among the Arab-Israeli population, for whatever reason.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 05 August 2005 05:01 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You see my problem with your take on things, is that it seems you are thinking that the essential problem is an issue of reciprocated violence, and all that needs doing is a cooling of tempers through a series of cease fires, truces and an end to the blood feud. Fair enough to an extent.

I applaud this fair minded and rational view of things.

But what this view does not address is serious discrepancies between the situation of insurgent Palestinians and Irish Catholics. So while it may be possible to assert that the great majority of Irish Catholics are law abiding, it is also true that whether or not Irish Catholics live in Northern Ireland or Ireland proper, they have citizenship and rights accorded to them by a state, as citizens of that state.

The situation in Palestine, is substantially different, in that the great majority of Palestinians (3.5 million of them) are accorded essentially no legal rights whatsover, so their insurgency is not only a matter of national pride or revenging past wrongs but an urgent reflection of a serious an ongoing abregation of their human rights by the state of Israel as an occupier.

They are neither recognized by Israel as citizens, nor have they been allowed the freedom to lay down the foundations of thier own state, of which they could be citizens. They live under marshal law, and have now for 38 years.

[ 05 August 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 05 August 2005 05:15 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
You are missing that the first thing Britain did was quit the occupation of most Irish territories, and let them have their own state.

Israel has yet to do that.


Critical distinction. Northern Ireland did not even emerge as an issue until the British had turned over 86% of the Irish homeland to the Irish people. The war in Northern Ireland was about the remaining 14%.

If you can persuade the Israelis to turn over 84% of Palestine to the Palestinians (keeping for themselves the Tel Aviv area, where the majority of Jewish Israelis live anyway) I'm sure we can find all sorts of common ground.

The fact of the matter is that Yassar Arafat offerend to concede 78% of Palestine for a demilitarized state in the other 22%, and Israel rejected the offer.

Now what Palestine needs is not a John Hume, but a Nelson Mandela. Nothing else but complete democracy will end this war now the Israel has rejected the generous peace that was offered them.


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 05 August 2005 05:26 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
If you can persuade the Israelis to turn over 84% of Palestine to the Palestinians (keeping for themselves the Tel Aviv area, where the majority of Jewish Israelis live anyway) I'm sure we can find all sorts of common ground.


To be fair, in an Israeli paradigm that would be tantamount to handing over most of England except for the London area, but it is true that the PLO did cede the largest part of the Palestinian claim when he officially reconginzed "Israel's right to exist in peace and security" in 1989.

[ 05 August 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 05 August 2005 05:40 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:

To be fair, in an Israeli paradigm that would be tantamount to handing over most of England except for the London area, but it is true that the PLO did cede the largest part of the Palestinian claim when he officially reconginzed "Israel's right to exist in peace and security" in 1989.

[ 05 August 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


Yes, the situations are different. Both analogies (most of Ireland, and most of Britian) have some truth.

The problem is that the Zionist colonializers do not have a single mother country that is responsible for their welfare and could provide an alternative site of their national aspirations. They have burned their bridges. It's the Palestinians' land, or nothing (for Zionism). I vote nothing.

[ 05 August 2005: Message edited by: rsfarrell ]


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 05 August 2005 05:42 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think that there are probably less drastic solutions.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 05 August 2005 05:54 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Not to mention the fact that a great number of Israelis now have little choice as to the decisions, which their parents made, and thought it is the case any Jew can immigrate to Israel it is not the case that any Jew can immigrate back to the country of their parental origin. So... they have to work something out.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 05 August 2005 06:32 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
That they do, but just as minority whites in Africa had to adjust, and the Sunni minority in Iraq has to adjust, the Jewish minority in Palestine is going to have to as well. I think that Zionism as an ideology is just not flexible enough to accomodate the democratic reality. In the future I hope you will see a 100% Palestinian state -- Christian Palestinians, Muslim Palestinians, Jewish Palestinians, etc.
From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 05 August 2005 09:18 PM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
They live under marshal law, and have now for 38 years.

During which time Israel has tried a variety of approaches, none of which has been successful in getting them out of their historic dilemma: the oppressed have become the oppressors; the victims of aggression have become the occupiers.

For 14 of the 38 years Labour prime ministers such as Golda Meir, Yitzhak Rabin, and Shimon Peres were in charge. For 16 years Likudnicks such as Menahem Begin, Yitzhak Shamir, Binyamin Netanyahu and Ariel Sharon were in charge. For eight years hardly anyone was in charge: in 1984 Peres got 44 seats, Likud 41, and 13 other parties got 35 (how Israel got stuck with the Weimar Republic's failed voting system is another historic dilemma.) And in 1999 Barak's party got 26, Likud 19, and 13 others (led by Shas with 17) got 75 seats. How could they make peace with the Palestinians when they couldn't make peace in the Knesset? But I digress.

No mainstream Israeli wants to annex Palestine, because they would have to give Palestinians the vote and be outvoted. Israel badly needs to create a Palestinian state, and they have surely known that for years. So yes, I see reciprocated violence, and a need to end the blood feud. Doesn't everyone?

I tend not to post in this forum because I don't have a solution to the question asked in this thread: how can we achieve peace? I'm hoping some babblers will quit shooting at each other long enough to focus, at least, on the question. Otherwise, what's the point?

[ 05 August 2005: Message edited by: Wilf Day ]


From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 05 August 2005 11:54 PM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think you've hit upon one of neglected areas Re this issue Wilf, electoral reform is just one small step which could help weaken the influence of the extremists over the state of Israel. The left has been remiss is not considering more useful tactics than endless kvetching. The 'settlers' are not at all popular in mainstream Israeli society, from everything I've seen, and their reactionary politics were probably one of the main reasons why the original Oslo accord was drafted. Racism was therefore far more entrenched in the American South than it is in Israel, and for far less forgiveable reasons, and it was beaten back fairly effectively by nonviolent tactics. (at least in its most ugly manifest forms, which did make something of a difference)
From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 06 August 2005 03:26 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Wilf Day:
I tend not to post in this forum because I don't have a solution to the question asked in this thread: how can we achieve peace? I'm hoping some babblers will quit shooting at each other long enough to focus, at least, on the question. Otherwise, what's the point?

[ 05 August 2005: Message edited by: Wilf Day ]


Your analysis does not accord with the facts. It is filled with theoretical conclusion posed as facts, such as that "no mainstream Israeli wants to annex Palestine." These conclusions are wishful thinking, not facts.

quote:
On July 26, 1967, Defense Minister Yigal Alon presented a plan to then-Prime Minister Levi Eshkol for a settlement with the Palestinians, which came to be known as the Alon Plan. Since its inception, the importance of the Jordan Valley to Israeli security has been deeply imprinted on the collective consciousness of the Israeli polity. Today, as Israel discusses a permanent settlement with the Palestinians, the effects of this logic remains discernible within the popular discourse: it is generally believed that the Jordan Valley remains crucial to Israeli security, and that a permanent settlement must include both Israeli control over the Jordan Valley and the positioning of substantial security forces there. Indeed, there are those who go even further, maintaining Israel must annex the area outright.

Is the Jordan Valley Truly a Security Zone for Israel?

quote:
In 1989 Benjamin Netanyahu told students at Bar-Ilan University:

"Israel should have exploited the repression of the demonstrations in China, when world attention focused on that country, to carry out mass expulsions among the Arabs of the territories."


Israel May "Transfer" Palestinians During the War on Iraq

The reality is that 40% of all Israelis support transfer, as a precondition to annexation.

Benjamin Netanyahu was a recent prime minster of Israel, he is in the same party as the present prime minster, the original plan for occupation, settlement and annexation was official Israeli policy. None of this is accidental. Nor are these people, not in the mainstream of Israeli thought, they are right at the heart of it.

Netanyahu has also, contrary to your claim opposed the creation of a Palestinian state.

Suggesting that Israel's good intentions are dashed upon the rocks of parlimentary squabling is to allow for the game of making a decision by not making a decision and therefore asserting the status quo. The status quo is occupation, more settlement, gradual ethnic cleansing, more settlement and slow de fact annexation.

The same Rabin who signed orders to force Palestinian Arabs from their homes in 1948, is the same one who signed Oslo. He and the people who followed him in office, Peres, Netanyahu, Barak, Sharon all allowed for the greatest increase of Israeli settlement in the West Bank since the 1967 war, a direct act of annexation as opposed to their talk of peace.

Even now, as we are bombarded with triumphal proclamations about Sharon's good intentions being expressed in the Gaza withdrawal, many are unaware that:

quote:
"The significance of the disengagement plan is the freezing of the peace process," Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's senior adviser Dov Weisglass told Haaretz, in an interview for the Friday Magazine.

Weisglass, who was one of the initiators of the disengagement plan, added, "And when you freeze that process, you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, and you prevent a discussion on the refugees, the borders and Jerusalem. Effectively, this whole package called the Palestinian state, with all that it entails, has been removed indefinitely from our agenda. And all this with authority and permission. All with a presidential blessing and the ratification of both houses of Congress."


These are politcal games Israeli parties play amongst each other. It has nothing to do with good intentions gone awry, it is a shell game where it is hard to decide who is the good cop and who is the bad cop.

Peace is not an abstract concept, but a result of changes in the real conditions. Peace will be achievable when Israel makes a concerted effort to quit the West Bank. In order to make this happen the international community must preassure Israel to do it.

The solution, as far as you and I are concerned is to exert preassure upon Israel to negotiate without preconditions, and to quit the West Bank.

[ 06 August 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 06 August 2005 04:34 AM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So to pursue the Irish analogy, are you saying the Palestinians need, not a John Hume, but the McCartney sisters? So that the Americans will pressure the Likudnicks as they pressured the IRA? Interesting thought. Have you passed this on to Mahmoud Abbas?
From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 06 August 2005 11:29 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I am saying that a significant number of Irish Catholics living in Northern Ireland were actively part of the violent resistance to British rule. Therefore Hume is able to be percieved as a legitimate spokeperson of part of the community in revolt, who can articulate their goals and ambitions and be part of a two way communication between the insurgent community and British authority.

Palestinian Arabs are not, as of yet, actively part of the violent resistance to Israeli rule. Therefore Bishra is not able to be percieved as a legitimate spokeperson of part of the community in revolt, who can articulate their goals and ambitions and be part of a two way communication between the insurgent community and Israeli authority.

Observe closely the NDA document mission statement above:

quote:
2. The NDA regards Palestinian Arabs in Israel as part of the Palestinian Arab people; and at the same time they constitute a distinguished national minority in Israel. In keeping with the United Nations Charter, the NDA demands that the government of Israel recognize Palestinian Arabs in Israel as a national minority which is entitled to enjoy the rights granted all national minorities....

The NDA document clearly indicates that while being part of a Palestinian greater whole, Israeli-Arabs* constitute a seperate body within Israel, and the aims of the NDA are directly relevant to that, not the Palestinians of the territories whom they have an indirect an relationship.

*And this is the case partly because there are seperations in Palestinian Arab society, such as Druze and Bedouin and Syrian. The Druze and Bedouin have largely been co-operative with Israeli rule. A comparison might be made to Native Tirbes in Canada siding with British authority against other tribes.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 06 August 2005 12:38 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
That'll have to be the last word. I know this is a couple of posts early, but my computer can only be used a little at a time right now, so I'll close this now.
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