BS: On This Day Jews Rejoiced

Subject: RE: BS: On This Day Jews Rejoiced
From: CarolC
Date: 21 May 02 - 08:49 PM

Ebbie, I disagree with you. You are attributing motives to the suicide bombers that we here in the US have had spoon fed to us by the propaganda machines. That is a stereotype that persists because it serves someone's purposes for us to think that. I don't think it is at all correct to think that all or possibly even most of the suicide bombers in Israel/Palestine are doing it for hate.

In fact, I think it's quite the opposite. I think that most of them believe that they are making a great sacrifice on behalf of their people. If you had any idea of how desperate the conditions are under which they live, and how entirely lacking in hope their situation is, I think you would understand this.

In the case of many, if not most of these people, suicide bombing is a desperate act of sacrifice in the hope of bringing about a different future for their people. And I do believe that if they thought they could help create a better future for their people by killing themselves without taking anyone else with them, they would do it.

Subject: RE: BS: On This Day Jews Rejoiced
From: CarolC
Date: 21 May 02 - 08:55 PM

Let me rephrase that just a little. I believe that if they thought they would get better results if they killed themselves without taking anyone else with them, they would do it.

Subject: RE: BS: On This Day Jews Rejoiced
From: CarolC
Date: 21 May 02 - 09:22 PM

Or to look at it from a slightly different angle... if I were a betting person, I would be willing to bet you money that if those people were given these choices: 1) a better future for their children and families without having to kill themselves, 2) a better future, but they have to kill themselves to get it, and 3) killing themselves for any reason other than to help bring about a better future for their children and families, my bet would be that one hundred percent of them would pick number 1 first, and number 2 second.

And before anyone starts throwing the "naive" word around, let me just say that I think anyone who thinks I'm naive for thinking this is profoundly naive him or herself.

Subject: RE: BS: On This Day Jews Rejoiced
From: Ebbie
Date: 21 May 02 - 09:35 PM

"I think"; "I don't think"; "I believe"; "I don't believe"; "I'd bet"; "I disagree"- CarolC, don't you see that you too are giving your opinion?

You are not the only one on the 'Cat who reads, studies, thinks, agonizes... and I'd be willing to bet (my opinion!) that you don't have half the experience of living amongst the violence that some of the 'Catters have.

You need to lighten up. My opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: On This Day Jews Rejoiced
From: CarolC
Date: 21 May 02 - 10:43 PM

You're entitled to your opinion, Ebbie. Re: your first point, I conceed that I haven't put any documentation on this thread. I posted pretty much all of the documentation that I feel comfortable posting on some of the other threads.

Re: your second point. I'm sure you do read, study, think, and agonize. But does that mean that I can't disagree with something you say? Your post was, after all a disagreement with something I said.

Re: your third point. You'd be surprised at some of the things I've experienced in my life. Suffice it to say, I have not lived a sheltered life. I think that's all I'm going to say about that.

Re: your last point: "You need to lighten up. My opinion."

Easy for you to say. Each of us has to follow our own conscience. I'm following mine to the best of my ability. That's all I can do.

Subject: RE: BS: On This Day Jews Rejoiced
From: Ebbie
Date: 22 May 02 - 12:01 AM

Dear heart, it was you who disagreed with me, when you took exception to my saying suicide bombers are acting out of hatred. Remember?

I have no problem with your having all the opinions you wish, CarolC. (And I believe I have read all of the threads from the start where you make your case (repeatedly!) for your views.) I agree with many of the conclusions you have drawn. I would only suggest that you come across as just a bit strident and condescending, and that you might keep in mind that a great many of any person's views are drawn from those who have convinced us. It doesn't necessarily mean that the views that have been promulgated are correct, they may be only convincing.

Keep in mind that we're all on the same side here. If you do that, your tone will be friendlier. (Dare I say, in my opinion?) My point, I guess, is that like most people, I like debate- some of the best thoughts come through it- but I don't like the feel of a bludgeon. So again, I say, lighten up. Please.

Subject: RE: BS: On This Day Jews Rejoiced
From: CarolC
Date: 22 May 02 - 12:34 AM

There really isn't anything I can do about how people percieve my tone. I know what my tone is when I write, and it isn't strident or condescending. (Although I will cop to some degree of irritation in a couple of my posts earlier in this thread.) But there are some people who choose to read my posts in that way.

I've met a number of Mudcatters whose concept of me based on my posts was different from what they discovered when they met me. And there are a lot of people who don't percieve me to be condescending in my posts. So I guess the only thing I can do is write the way I write, and let you take responsibility for how you perceive it.

Dear heart, it was you who disagreed with me, when you took exception to my saying suicide bombers are acting out of hatred. Remember?

This post of yours looks like a response to one of my earlier posts in which I discussed the subject of people killing themselves for the symbolic effect. I even mentioned the self immolation of the Buddist monks.

Subject: RE: BS: On This Day Jews Rejoiced
From: Ebbie
Date: 21-May-02 - 04:30 PM

Frankly, I doubt that people who plan to blow themselves up along with their targets would be 'happy' to do it for only the symbolic effect. I have always wondered why people so often kill the one who 'wronged' them before killing themselves. If you literally can't live without that person, why not just remove yourself from the world and let the other person be? If you're gone, you needn't concern yourself with that person anymore, right?

The same way with attempting to achieve political goals: it takes a good deal of hatred before you are willing to off yourself along with others. Not to mention the dehumanization/demonization of your targets.

The self-immolation by monks, primarily, in political protest is quite different. They generally have been done by people who believe in peace.

All my opinion, of course.

I don't know, Ebbie. Maybe we are all on the same side. But I will tell you how I experience you telling me how to write. It feels condescending and patronizing to me when you do that. But that's my perception and I guess I'll have to take responsibility for that.

Subject: RE: BS: On This Day Jews Rejoiced
From: Ebbie
Date: 22 May 02 - 01:15 AM

sheesh Sorry I bothered.

Subject: RE: BS: On This Day Jews Rejoiced
From: CarolC
Date: 22 May 02 - 01:30 AM

I'm not here to live up to your expectations, Ebbie. I have my own reasons for doing the things I do. I'll do my best to be polite and to not make any personal attacks on anyone. Beyond that, if you don't like reading what I write, I invite you to not read it.

Subject: RE: BS: On This Day Jews Rejoiced
From: Wolfgang
Date: 22 May 02 - 05:20 AM

It is difficult for some to accept that others read the same data, history, articles but still come to different conclusions.

As for peace, McGrath's ideas seem to me the most constructive, reasonable and best. Either side could stop or break the vicious circle if they really want. I personally would demand this move from Israel, because they are in a stronger position right now but I don't expect the present government to have enough sense.

Of course, the settlements have to go and a state of Palestine has to come in the short or long run, for peace to come.

And of course, the Palestines have to accept the right of Israel to be where it is (which doesn't necessarily mean each single square mile they hold at present).

I know the population statistics of the past but I consider them not helpful compared to the present facts. As long as leaders of Palestinian groups are as uninventive as saying about 5,000,000 Jews living now in that region "that's not our problem" there also will be no peace.

If in Europe some post-war new realities had not been accepted by a broad majority of displaced persons we might live in a much less peaceful period. Citing population statistics from e.g. 1939 would not be helpful at all.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: On This Day Jews Rejoiced
From: GUEST
Date: 22 May 02 - 08:18 AM

McGrath, I think the situation with the IRA in Northern Ireland is much too recent for British and Irish citizens to examine it with any sort of objectivity, so I am not surprised at your views.

However, there are many in the international solidarity movements around the world who have supported the use of armed struggle to rid one's communities of occupying forces, who believe that if the IRA, the ANC, and the Sandinistas HADN'T used armed struggle, there would have been no substantial social and political change for the better in their countries. Considering that all three of those countries HAVE seen historic change (and note I am not suggesting that these societies have eliminated all their problems) in regards to how people are being ruled, and by whom.

Not all of us are pacifists, and IMO, too many middle class Westerners will insist that resistance movements be non-violent, while their own government's militaries are guilty of carrying out some of the most violent, worst acts of aggression against civilian populations all over the world. Now, I know many of the people who oppose armed struggle because they are pacifists are operating from principle. That I can respect. What I don't respect are the vast majority of Westerners currently condemning those resistance movements which choose armed struggle, while doing nothing to stop the violence used against the communities. That is pure hypocrisy, and I find it detestable.

Subject: RE: BS: On This Day Jews Rejoiced
From: GUEST
Date: 22 May 02 - 08:23 AM

Sorry--I'm just typing too fast. Last par, 2nd to last sentence, ending should read:

"...to stop the violence used against those communities by state militaries."

Subject: RE: BS: On This Day Jews Rejoiced
From: CarolC
Date: 22 May 02 - 11:31 AM

This may sound a bit defensive, but it might be worth saying anyway. To the extent that I post to the threads on the middle east, I am not interested in changing what anyone thinks about this issue, as I have stated at least a couple of times in this thread.

But I do feel that to the extent that the Israeli side of this issue is represented here, there should be a corresponding representation of the Palestinian side of the issue. That's all. Nothing more.

Subject: RE: BS: On This Day Jews Rejoiced
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 May 02 - 11:53 AM

The idea that you have to hate someone to kill them isn't consistant with the experience of a lot of people who have felt it necessary to fight in wars. A bomber pilot flying over Germany didn't need to hate the people he was killing, knowing all the time that he was very likely going to be killed himself.

Subject: RE: BS: On This Day Jews Rejoiced
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 May 02 - 11:55 AM

True enough there are people who think that in Northern Ireland for example, the violence achieved things that could have been achieved in no other way.

There are other people who think that the violence held up for a generation changes that could have been achieved more effectively by a non-violent campaign.

Again, there are people who believe that while a sustained non-violent campaign would have been more effective, it was not in fact possible, and that an armed campaign, while less effective, was better than acquiescence.

And there are people who believe that a sustained non-violent campaign could in fact have been achieved.

But in any case Palestine is not Ireland, and it's never possible to transfer lessons wholesale from one context to another. And the only people whose views on all this really matter are the people on the ground.

Subject: RE: BS: On This Day Jews Rejoiced
From: artbrooks
Date: 22 May 02 - 12:40 PM

So far, I have seen pro-Palestinian comments and anti-Israeli comments on this and other threads. However, I have seen no pro-Israeli threads or, for that matter, pro-Israeli comments except in response to the inflamatory statements made by others. Those of us who believe that both sides are wrong and both sides have to make positive moves toward reconciliation are a distinct minority in this "dialogue".

Subject: RE: BS: On This Day Jews Rejoiced
From: CarolC
Date: 22 May 02 - 12:50 PM

I think how you see that sort of thing is going to depend on which side of this issue you find yourself, artbrooks. I'll use this thread as an example. The opening post to the thread, indeed, the purpose this thread was started, was pro-Israel. Here's the opening post...

On May 14, 1948, British rule in Palestine came to an end, and the independent state of Israel was proclaimed at 12:01 the following day.

The entire article can be viewed at the New York Times "On This Day" website:

It did not say, "On This Day Palestinians Wept", which would have been the Palestinian point of view.

Subject: RE: BS: On This Day Jews Rejoiced
From: CarolC
Date: 22 May 02 - 01:30 PM

On May 14, 1948, Palestinians commemorate what they call the "Nakba" (catastrophe). If anyone is interested in what they have to say about it, they can either do a google search on "Nakba" or I can send them a link.

Subject: RE: BS: On This Day Jews Rejoiced
From: Joe Offer
Date: 22 May 02 - 02:16 PM

It has become fashionable recently to lionize the Palestians, and to condemn Israel as heartless butchers. I suppose it's the way of the world, demonization and polarization - but it never improves life for anyone but a few profiteers.

If I understand correctly, the Palestinians of 50 years ago chose to live in refugee camps instead of accepting the reality of Israeli rule. Arabs who accepted Israeli rule became part of the nations economy and society, and now have a fairly good standard of living. The Palestinians have continued to fight the reality that is Israel, and their fight has brought them nowhere.

Are the Palestinians innocent victims of Israeli imperialism, or are they victims of their own stubborn refusal to accept reality?

I guess I really don't know what it is that the Palestinians want, and how they propose to make it work.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: On This Day Jews Rejoiced
From: CarolC
Date: 22 May 02 - 03:11 PM

Joe, the history that you have related in your post is not an undisputed history. I could provide plenty of links to credible sources of information that present an entirely different version of events. Many of these sources of information are Jewish. And many of those Jews are Israelis.

I have already posted quite a few links to some of these sources, and I don't see any point in posting them again. And I would rather not post any of the others for the simple reason that I feel that, beyond what I've already posted, if people are really interested in this information, they will find it through their own efforts.

But I have to take exception to the idea that speaking up for Palestinians fits this characterization of yours "It has become fashionable recently to lionize the Palestians, and to condemn Israel as heartless butchers".

That characterization is entirely unfair and not even a little bit accurate. Some of us feel that there is an immense truth out there that has been entirely buried here in the US and in Israel, and we would like to see that truth brought to light in the interest of fairness and in the interest of what's good for humanity in general. You have every right to disagree with this position, but you don't have any right to dictate our motives to us.

It would relieve me greatly if I could now remove myself from this discussion with a clear conscience knowing that I have contributed everything I have to offer in this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: On This Day Jews Rejoiced
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 May 02 - 05:30 PM

"If I understand correctly, the Palestinians of 50 years ago chose to live in refugee camps instead of accepting the reality of Israeli rule. Arabs who accepted Israeli rule became part of the nations economy and society, and now have a fairly good standard of living."

My understanding of what happened is a little different. What happened was that in the 1948 war hundreds of thousands of Palestinians fled from their homes. When the war was over the Israeli government did not allow them to return to their homes in what was now Israel. Hundred of villages were physically destroyed.

In certain parts of Israel, more especially Galilee large numbers of Palestinians stayed put and did not go into exile. They have continued to live within Israel and have political rights. If the refugees who fled had stayed put or been allowed to return, the history of Israel wold have been very different.

At various tines it has been claimed that the refugees lost their right to return because they left voluntarily, and there have been claims that they were told to do so by Arab leaders in radio broadcasts. There is considerable doubt as to whether these broadcasts were ever made - but in any case that is irrelevant.

In a war situation there will always be refugees and it is a misuse of language to suggest that their flight is in any real sense "voluntary" - more especially when it happens against the background of episodes such as the massacre which took place at the village of Deir Yassin by Israeli irregulars of the Irgun and Stern Gang. At the end of the fighting it is a basic principle of international law that refugees should be allowed to return home, as has happened to Muslims driven from their home in Kosovo in not dissimilar circumstances.

Maybe it is too late to undo the injustice which was done then - but it is not too late to recognise that it took place, and to seek to counter the distorted version which is even recognised as false by some supporters of Sharon.

There has been injustice done to and by both sides. In the case of the Jewish Israelis the main injustice was done by the Western nations, and the Palestinians have paid the price for that. History cannot be undone, and grubbing over the past to find justifications for things that are done today is a destructive obsession (though correcting false versions of what happened can be valuable - and there are some dangerously false versions on the Palestinian side as well).

Cheering on "our" side from a safe comfortable distance is not helpful, whichever "our" side may be. It didn't help with Ireland, and it doesn't help with the Holy Land. It gets in the way of seeing if there is anything we can do to help people get through it and get past it.

Subject: RE: BS: On This Day Jews Rejoiced
From: GUEST
Date: 22 May 02 - 06:27 PM

You know what would be really helpful McGrath? If you would throw in an IMO every now and then. I absolutely mean no offense to you here. But you do seem to love to pontificate. Please, join the ranks of the reasonable, and admit that you are expressing your opinion, despite the absolutist tone of your posts.

Subject: RE: BS: On This Day Jews Rejoiced
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 May 02 - 07:09 PM

It goes without without saying that when we express our opinions, that is what they are, so why say it? If it wasn't my opinion I wouldn't say it.

There might perhaps be some point, when it comes to a matter of fact, in pointing out that this time it's not a matter of opinion; but that isn't really necessary either.

And again, there might be occasions when we want to present some argument, as an argument, which we do not actually believe is true, and I do think that in such cases it is a good idea to point that out. (And in that sentence it seemed appropriate to add the qualifying phrase "I think".)

Incidentally though "you know what would be really helpful GUEST Date: 22-May-02 - 06:27 PM" - if you stuck a name or a number or something on your post as a matter of good manners and convenience to other people. (For example there is no way of knowing whether GUEST Date: 22-May-02 - 06:27 PM is the same as GUEST Date: 22-May-02 - 08:23 AM or GUEST Date: 14-May-02 - 04:48 PM or GUEST Date: 17-May-02 - 02:25 AM; not that it matters a great deal, but it is inconvenient, and distracts from rather more significant matters.)

But I think both those possibly fascinating topics are ones that might perhaps better be explored in a separate thread, rather than allowing them to hijack this thread. (And, perhaps rather naively, I'm assuming that was not the intention of GUEST Date: 22-May-02 - 06:27 PM)

Subject: RE: BS: On This Day Jews Rejoiced
From: Wolfgang
Date: 23 May 02 - 04:01 AM

After the last war, Germany has lost roughly a quarter to a third of its pre-Hitler territory. Up to 95% of the German population in those parts was evicted. There are no camps of refugees at the border for recruiting suicide terrorists but the refugees have been housed and found a new life in the rest of Germany.

Some of the refugees have harboured bad feelings for a long time but the official politics of Germany (all relevant parties in agreement) has been that there never will be any demand to get back the land nor to claim any damages. Despite that, there was never an official statement from the countries involved recognising injustice.

You may say that was a special case with Germany involved and with a look at the much bigger crimes done by Germany (Germans) in those countries. OK, I agree.

But then look at Finland that has lost a big part of its territory to the Soviet Union (Russia) or Poland that has lost the Eastern part of Poland to Russia with the inhabitants being evicted and sent to the former German part of Poland. In none of these cases there has been any acknowledgement of injustice from Russia to the best of my knowledge, and for a good reason. This acknowledgement would weaken their position in an international court case.

Have you ever heard of Finnish suicide bombers or of Polish people raiding now Russian villages?

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: On This Day Jews Rejoiced
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 May 02 - 06:08 AM

Interesting parallels. All situations are different, but it is useful sometimes to try to work out what are the relevant differences in matters like this.

One of the main differences, in all those cases Wolfgang gave, is that neither Germany nor Finland nor Poland ceased to exist as countries. Another difference is that, in all these cases, it was a matter of massive border changes between neighbouring countries, rather than of a new country being carved out by settlers with the previous inhabitants being dispossessed and exiled. (A new country with some historic links to a very old country, but a new country for all that.)

I agree that the positive lesson to draw is that in certain circumstances it is necessary to set aside the injustices of history and get on with life as best you can. That doesn't mean forgetting them, or allowing a rewriting of history that conceals them, as with the Holocaust.

And so far as I can see the Palestinians, in general, have essentially accepted the necessity of setting aside the injustice involved in what happened in the past, and to seek to establish a Palestinian state next-door to Israel rather than to restore a Palestinian state including what is now Israel.

Recent events have probably reversed that process quite a lot - when the present becomes intolerable one way to cope is to live in the past and to try to recreate it. In one sense, it seems to me, that was a major element in the origin and growth of the Zionist enterprise of restoring the ancient state of Israel.

Subject: RE: BS: On This Day Jews Rejoiced
From: Pied Piper
Date: 23 May 02 - 09:45 AM

I would just like to make a comment about the use of the words "anti-Semitic". Semitic is a term applied to a linguistic group. Both the Palestinian Arabic, and Hebrew are Semitic languages, hence their many similarities. The term does not refer to "race", what ever that's supposed to mean. Salaam Shalom PP.

Subject: RE: BS: On This Day Jews Rejoiced
From: Wolfgang
Date: 23 May 02 - 10:12 AM

PP, when Wilhelm Marr first used the word "Antisemitismus" in his 1879 pamphlet 'Der Sieg des Judenthums über das Germanenthum' he coined that term as a euphemism for 'hate of jews'. He used it in a racial sense and his target group were the (German) Jews and nobody else.

You are right, he could have used a better term for what he meant but he hasn't and since that year this word has been used in this sense and in no other until very recently.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: On This Day Jews Rejoiced
From: Mary in Kentucky
Date: 23 May 02 - 11:17 AM

When I read a post from McGrath of Harlow, I KNOW it's the opinion of McGrath of Harlow, someone I've come to enjoy reading. Not so with Guest.

Subject: RE: BS: On This Day Jews Rejoiced
From: GUEST,Noah Webster
Date: 23 May 02 - 02:38 PM

I would just like to make a comment about the use of the words "anti-Semitic". Semitic is a term applied to a linguistic group. Both the Palestinian Arabic, and Hebrew are Semitic languages, hence their many similarities. The term does not refer to "race", what ever that's supposed to mean. Salaam Shalom PP.

You are correct that both Arabic and Hebrew are Semitic langauges.

However, the terms "anti-Semitic," "anti-Semitism" etc. are used exclusively to describe prejudice against Jews. Don't take my word for it though, check any reputable English-langauge dictionary.

Subject: RE: BS: On This Day Jews Rejoiced
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 May 02 - 03:36 PM

"The terms "anti-Semitic," "anti-Semitism" etc. are used exclusively to describe prejudice against Jews."

Well, they aren't actually, as Wolfgang recognises when he said "this word has been used in this sense and in no other until very recently." Dictionaries describe how words are used, and they are always likely to be a few years behind actual usage.

What has happened is that a number of people have come to the same assumption as Pied Piper about the etymology of the word "anti-semitic", and have seen similarities between some aspects of anti-Arab attitudes and cartoons etc, and prejudice and hatred against Jews.

I imagine there weren't many Arabs in Germany in 1879, and if there had been they'd very likely have been thought of as just another sort of Jew. But in any case, language changes.

If the extension of the term "anti-semitism" to include persecution of and prejudice against Arabs as well as Jews does anything to help people, including Arabs and Jews, recognise that both types of prejudice are to be resisted at all times, that is surely a reason to welcome such an extension. At a time when there is evidence of attacks on both Jews and Arabs, and growing prejudice, using the same word to describe both abominations seems to me to make sense.

Here is an article discussing this kind of thing - and it includes as an illustration a cartoon that I think most people would recognise as classically anti-semitic, even though it is a cartoon of an Arab face.