BS: PEACE in the Middle East (2)

Subject: PEACE in the Middle East (2)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Apr 02 - 03:44 PM

If we're going to talk about this, this thread started out committed to a more positive way of doing so - "How about some positive suggestions for peace in the Middle East. Regardless of which side you feel compelled to support, if you post to this thread you must have at least ONE positive suggestion that might bring about peace."

So, since it was getting a bit long, here's a part 2.

Part 1

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in the Middle East (2)
From: Ebbie
Date: 30 Apr 02 - 09:26 PM

McGrath, thanks for your links to hopeful actions; I especially like the Palestinian-Jew dialogue. What a great thing. You asked for positive suggestions as to what could and can be done and you have done it in spades. Thank you.

Maybe what the world needs instead of open-ended war is open-ended dialogue. We could coopt the idea of the Olympics: every four years, and as needed, we could have hundreds of nations attend round tables.

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in the Middle East (2)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 May 02 - 06:55 AM

Yes, there are seeds of hope - the tragedy is they get crushed as they start to grow.

Here is a link to a piece about the Palestinian Centre for Non-Violence based in Hebron; and here is another.

Both articles are from last year. I wonder how the people involved have fared in the meantime?

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in the Middle East (2)
From: CarolC
Date: 01 May 02 - 07:21 AM

Here's another group who is doing something positive...

Jews for Peace in Palestine and Israel

I like their motto:

Let us not be the ones to say, "We saw, and we kept silent".

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in the Middle East (2)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 May 02 - 09:29 AM

The links page on that site Carol found there is well worth bookmarking.

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in the Middle East (2)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 May 02 - 04:16 PM

Why do I get the feeling that if this thread was headed "War in the Middle East" it'd be getting more hits?

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in the Middle East (2)
From: DougR
Date: 01 May 02 - 04:33 PM

I can't say, McGrath, but it seems to me just about everything has already been said. That's why I didn't post.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in the Middle East (2)
From: Ebbie
Date: 01 May 02 - 05:00 PM

You know, I think part of the problem is our knee-jerk response to buzz words.

Take the word 'Christian', for instance. Somehow, we glibly say "He's Christian", meaning not Jewish or Muslim or Hindu or Buddhist or a Deist or an Atheist or an Animist or whatever. We don't actually mean that he is a Christian in the sense that he follows the teachings of Jesus, the Christ. We only mean that he is not Jewish or Muslim or Hindu or Buddhist or Deist or an Atheist or an Animist or whatever.

Then down the road we go to war over these designations as though they had validity. And yet, as Tommy Sands wrote, "Your dreams are all the same."

Some years ago my construction superintendent brother-in-law built a retirement complex that later billed itself as accepting only 'Christian' residents. Now, I don't think for a minute that they meant they would keep out Jews or anyone else in that list above. I think they meant 'spiritual' rather than Christian, people who subscribed to an examined way of living.

(In any case, I think it was an offensive, poorly thought out slogan and I would imagine it is actually illegal to hold to any such restrictions in any project built partially with public money, even if someone tried.)

But DAMN. I do wish that the leaders of countries in disagreement would be the ones to do the fighting.

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in the Middle East (2)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 May 02 - 05:14 PM

A lot of the time we argue past each other, and go round and round in circles. Then we get tired and move on, or it starts drifting off into people attacking other people, and at the same time ignoring what they are saying.

I don't think we've begun to say all that could be usefully be said, though maybe quite a lot of what we've said could quite usefully have been left unsaid. Mostly in the threads without PEACE in the title.

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in the Middle East (2)
From: Bobert
Date: 01 May 02 - 10:10 PM

Same song. Different day. The Saudi Proposal is the way to go with one exception. These folks don't like each other and there's some serious bad blood between them. Yes, the Saudi Proposal goes a long way toward ending the crisis, but if you Put a 3 mile demilitarized zone between the parties with an internation peace keeping force manning the check points, then hopefully in time these two combatants will figure out the "peace" part of the deal.

Peace

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in the Middle East (2)
From: Troll
Date: 01 May 02 - 10:21 PM

Yor are right, Kevin. That links site is quite good and pretty even-handed.
But I really don't see a negotiated peace. There is more at stake than just Israel and the Palestinians. There is a shakeout for who will control the Middle-East and The Palestinians and Israelis ane simply the first round.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in the Middle East (2)
From: DonD
Date: 01 May 02 - 10:37 PM

WNYC in New York (Public Radio) describes its call-in shows as "Dialogue, not giatribe".

That's eaht we get -- most;y -- on Mudcat, and wouldn't it be wonderful if only ---

There was a quote in the paper today from an affronted victim of violence: "We will never forget, and we will never forgive!" I don't remember if it was Palestinian or Israeli, or maybe Afghan or Kosovar or ??? It could have been an American on 9/12/01, couldn't it?

As long as that is one of the most universal expressions of human nature, it's hard to visualize a new beginning.

All my E-mails and other correspondence end with the hope of the World Peace Prayer Society: "May Peace Prevail on Earth." One can at least hope, and "let it begin with me".

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in the Middle East (2)
From: Troll
Date: 01 May 02 - 10:50 PM

Ah, yes Bobert, but what country are you going to take this three mile chunk out of? Remember, Israel is only nine miles wide in some places.
Make a strip 100 yards wide and fence it with 10 foot fence. Turn it into a pig farm with guard towers every 50 yards. Anyone caught in the middle gets shot and dies in pig shit. A good deterrent for Muslim and Jew.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in the Middle East (2)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 May 02 - 02:25 PM

If there's no negotiated peace, that means no peace, and in the long run that would mean no Israel. It might take generations for that to happen, but that's how these things work.

And if the outcome of the process started on September 11th is a confrontation between the USA (with a handful of hangers on) and the rest of the world, it would mean that the architects of September 11th will have achieved what they wanted. And in the long run I can't see a good outcome from that, for anybody.

Maybe that's how it will work out. But throwing up the hands and accepting it doesn't seem a good option.

The differences between the two peoples who share the Holy Land are real enough, and intractable enough, but there's a lot in common too. That's part of the problem, family quarrels can be the worst.

That especially goes for Jews and Muslims. (Of course you don't have to be a Muslim or a Jew to be a Palestinian, or an Israeli for that matter, which is where the pig farm idea has a serious flaw.) After all, for Mohammed, Abraham and Moses (as well as Jesus) were seen as Islamic prophets. Many Israelis spoke Arabic before they spoke Hebrew, and in any case the two languages are closely related. The word for peace in both languages is the same - spell it Shalom or Salaam.

Culturally there's an enormous amount in common - music, food. And there's even a shared history of exile and persecution, paradoxically enough. And at the root of the troubles of both is the same evil force - European anti-semitism.

Those are the kinds of things that Jewish-Palestinian dialogue builds on and explores. And for the rest of us we should do whatever we can to encourage it, and to refrain from ever doing anything to encourage the people on both sides who refuse to try to reach out for peace.

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in the Middle East (2)
From: Ebbie
Date: 02 May 02 - 02:42 PM

Last night Ted Koppel from Nightline, who is currently in Jerusalem aired separate interviews with Yasser Arafat and Ariel Sharon.

Left me bemused and almost hopeless. They both are so obviously hurt and angry and determined and worried and vengeful- what is to be made of it, I don't know.

Of the two, it gave what seemed a more intimate view of Arafat. He came across as very human- and strangely enough, rather likeable. While Sharon was in control of himself and very careful in his speech.

There are definitely times when I do wonder at the prophecies given in the Bible. Look ahead a few years, and it's not difficult to picture the scenario given there.

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in the Middle East (2)
From: Troll
Date: 02 May 02 - 03:00 PM

Kevin, I don't deny that this -And at the root of the troubles of both is the same evil force - European anti-semitism.- is part of it, but you really need to look at the status of Jews under Muslim rule in the Middle-East over history. While they were accorded special status as "People Of The Book" there was also persecution and predjudice and the Jews were never regarded as being in the same class as Muslims.
As far as the pig farm idea goes; Hey! no idea is perfect.
Ebbie, I know what you mean. Both sides seem to have good points and arguments in their favor. Lets hope the prophecies are wrong. If they aren't, we've got trouble.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in the Middle East (2)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 May 02 - 03:23 PM

"There was also persecution and prejudice and the Jews were never regarded as being in the same class as Muslims." But it wasn't in the same league as in Europe. And alongside there was plenty to put in the other balance, acceptance and respect. They lived alongside each other for a long time.

My point wasn't that everything was perfect, but that there are shared foundations on which people of goodwill can build. And common enemies, as the rise of Le Pen in France chillingly reminds us.

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in the Middle East (2)
From: Bobert
Date: 02 May 02 - 03:33 PM

You are right, Troll. I reconsidered and think we ought to just give Alabama to the Palestinians, Heck, we still have another 49 states and if we don't want to go thru the mess of figurining out all the star stuff for the flag, we'll grand statehood to the District of Columbia.

I liked your idea of the pig farm, though, except I don't like the idea of an innocent pig going to that big trough in the sky from being at the wrong place at the right time during a gun battle.

But seriously speaking, this DMZ is going to have to be wide enough so folks can't readilly play snipper with rifles. If that is 3 miles then so be it. If a smaller DMZ can be effective then fine but a chain link fence won't cut it. Joke as we may, a buffer is going to be an ingredient in creating any possible chnage for a long range peace.

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in the Middle East (2)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 May 02 - 09:04 PM

A viable Palestine essentially within the 1967 borders, and with all the illegal settlements removed; recognition by Israel that the ethnic cleansing of 19848 took place, and was unjust to the people expelled, and by Palestine that it is irreversable. Help from the outside world to restore the shattered Palestinian state, and to help its people recover.

Given that, there is every reason to believe that there wouldn't be a need for a demilitarised zone anymore than there is between other countries that used to be enemies. And the two nations could get down to living with each other, and learning to recognize the good things in each other.

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in the Middle East (2)
From: Troll
Date: 02 May 02 - 10:08 PM

If there was ethnic cleansing, Kevin, it was done by both sides. Over 600,00 Middle-Eastern Jews fled for their lives from Lebanon, Syria, Egypt and the other states in the Arab League in 1948. Their homes and businesses were taken without compensation. There is no record of how many were killed before they could flee.
While Israel must acknowledge that grave injustices were done to Palestinian Arabs in 1948, the Arab states must also own up to their share of the blame. They persuaded large numbers of Palestinian Arabs to flee the fighting, telling them that the Jews would be defeated and driven into the sea in a few days, the new country of Israel would be no more and they could all come back home.
That was 50 years or more ago and no attempt has ever been made by the Arab states to integrate their fellow Arabs into their countries society. They have left them in wretched camps and not even provided them with food in some cases. Were it not for the charity of the UN and some individual countries, some might well have starved.
When the Palestinian Arabs tried to set up a state in Jordan, several thousand were killed by the Jordanian Army.
I agree that Israel must recognize and admit to the errors that She has made over the years, but it shouldn't be one-sided.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in the Middle East (2)
From: CarolC
Date: 03 May 02 - 12:29 AM

I'd be willing to bet that if Israel would just honor the terms of the Oslo agreement and keep that process going (that process was scuttled after Rabin was killed and when Netanyahu took office), there would be peace in the Middle east. The Palestinians certainly have said they want it, and they were abiding by the terms of it when it was scuttled.

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in the Middle East (2)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 May 02 - 06:45 AM

In any war, and in lots of other situations, you get refugees fleeing their homes. When the troubles are over they mostly go home and try to pick to the pieces.

Whether there is or is not some radio broadcast advising them to go or not is completely irrelevant. They flee because they are frightened, with good reason. In the case of 1948 the massacre at Deir Yassin was quite a big factor in that.

When people aren't allowed to go back home because they are the wrong ethnic group, that's ethnic cleansing. And it is an evil thing to do, whoever does it.

The exiles have every moral right to go back to the places they were driven from, and to have their property restored, and their well being protected. That applies to both Palestinians and Jews, Bosnians, Serbs, Croatians, Albanians...

In the tragic circumstances of the real world, moral rights have to be set aside sometimes. It's impossible to untangle one set of injustices without creating fresh injustices.

But admitting the truth about injustice is always possible, and necessary. At least it's a start.

And when exiles are told that they are only exiles because of their free choice, that's a libel worthy of people like Milosevic, and the butchers of Srbenica.

I mentioned Deir Yassin up there. Here is a link to a page in the site of the PEACE Middle East Dialog Group about that, and here is a quote from the page which is worth pondering:

Each side in the Mid-East has its own history of horrors, and is all too eager to point the finger of blame at the other side. If we are ever to make peace then each side must first point the finger of blame at itself, come to terms with its own conscience, and apologize for the lost lives, the lost loved ones, the dread and the sorrow we have inflicted on each other.

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in the Middle East (2)
From: Deda
Date: 03 May 02 - 12:40 PM

At the site which I think Carol C posted there was a list of a dozen or so Jewish organizations, and mainly or partially Jewish-supported organizations, working for peace and resisting Israeli occupation of the west bank, calling for a return of the settlements, mustering support for Palestinians victims, and otherwise decrying Israeli actions against the Palestinians. There are many Jews around the world who recognize (as in the organization "Not In My Name" etc.) that Sharon's tactics and attitudes have been somewhere between heavy-handed and brutal. I have not seen or heard of any parallel organizations of Palestinians protesting against the use of suicide bombing, or objecting to the targeting of civilians by Palestinians extremists, or offering any kind of sympathy to the families of the victims of those bombings, or condemning the daily burnings of flags and effigies in the streets in every Palestinian city and almost every major Arab city. I haven't seen calls for an end to Hezbollah, or other terrorist organizations who are dedicated to the elimination of Palestine. If there are such, I would like to be shown how to find them.

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in the Middle East (2)
From: CarolC
Date: 03 May 02 - 01:04 PM

Maybe the Palestinians are using all of their resources just trying to stay alive.

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in the Middle East (2)
From: CarolC
Date: 03 May 02 - 01:07 PM

I imagine that would be like asking the black South Africans to do that sort of thing while they were still living under the aparthied system. I'm guessing that sort of thing doesn't rank very high on the hierarchy of needs at this time. Maybe when they aren't so busy just trying to survive.

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in the Middle East (2)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 May 02 - 01:13 PM

Here's once more is a link to an article about one such group, whiuch was operating inside Palestine.

And so far as I am aware all the organisations where Palestinians and Jews come together to work for reconciliation are totally against suicide bombing, and killing of civilians on either side.

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in the Middle East (2)
From: CarolC
Date: 03 May 02 - 01:36 PM

Here's another link from the site McGrath just posted...

Please, Dad, Tell Me: How Do I Stop Being Complicit?

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in the Middle East (2)
From: Troll
Date: 03 May 02 - 03:43 PM

"Maybe the Palestinians are using all of their resources just trying to stay alive."
"I'm guessing that sort of thing doesn't rank very high on the hierarchy of needs at this time. Maybe when they aren't so busy just trying to survive."
I guess that the survival of the Palestinians was uppermost in the minds of their freely elected leader, Yasser Arafat, when his government purchased new Mercedes Benz automobiles for he and his staff. I mean, never mind that the village has no well, the President has to look good as he rides through the refugee camps, right.
Too bad the IDF bulldozed them into a heap of scrap. The IDF should be made to replace them with brand new cars of equal or greater value.
And of course high explosives outrank food purchases.
Or maybe there are so few Palestinian Arab peace groups because they don't feel what the Jewish and Gentile peace groups feel. Compassion, guilt perhaps, empathy, even a sense of fairness. Maybe that just isn't a part of their makeup or maybe they feel justified in murdering women and children with bombs in the name of "self-determination" or whatever.
Yeah, we demonstrated in the '60's for peace and equality and civil rights but we never killed anyone except for the outer fringe nutcases like the Weathermen and they had little support.
So why don't the Palestinians have a strong peace presence? Why is all the peace action coming from the other side of the street?
I've stated a few of my ideas.
Anyone else?

troll

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in the Middle East (2)
From: CarolC
Date: 03 May 02 - 03:48 PM

So you think the Palestinian people ought to be punished and killed and denied every single basic human need and dignity because Arafat bought a Mercedes? Troll, you have picked a good name for yourself. You have shut out every single spark of humanity you ever had in you.

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in the Middle East (2)
From: CarolC
Date: 03 May 02 - 03:50 PM

I don't want to talk to you any more, because I think I'm beginning to hate you. And I don't want to hate anyone.

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in the Middle East (2)
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 03 May 02 - 04:25 PM

thatis one of the lowest arguments for discrimination that there is..that one group doesn't "feel" like others, and doesn't have a share of morality....I personally have met and have heard on T.V. etc. many compassionate Palestinians/ I think if they are there are on the ground there is undoubtedly great pressure from the same terrorists who are terrorizing Israelis...I don't know why we pressured the Israelis to let Sharon oops Freudian slip I will leave in..Arafat go...I would have kept him under house arrest forever with proper food and water but no communication. I would refuse to deal with him in any matter and insist on a civil government of sanitation and water and housing experts...If I were in the U.N. I would take a good look at what the schools are teaching over there and make it clear what the limits were...I would declare Palestine a fledgling democracy, and set limits as to what would be allowed. I would make sure that all the young Palestinian men and teens were either employed or learning a skilled trade, with perhaps a few in college (and opportunities for the women as well). And I would set limits as to the type of behavior that would be allowed in the checkpoints, and I would have checkers from international groups keeping everyone honest. I have heard of too much brutality and provocation for it all to be lies or exagerrations....how do you spell that.. A lot of this is our own foolishness, waiting for peace to spring up from the opponents when that is not likely to happen. We are paying to prop up governments that don't have proper limits and we need to set them. If we don't we probably will die ourselves in a coming war. I served in one war. One is enough. mg

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in the Middle East (2)
From: Troll
Date: 03 May 02 - 04:34 PM

No. I did not say that.
I said that, if their priority was survival on a basic level, then Arafats'ownership of fancy Limos didn't show much compassion for his followers.
In fact, it was you who said that maybe they hadn't formed peace groups because they were too busy trying to survive. I took that to mean survival on the basic human level and not on the political level.
If the survival effort was on the basic level, then the purchase of fancy cars and weapons makes little sense. If it was meant to be survival politically, that's a different story.
My humanity -or lack thereof- does not enter into the equation. I merely responded to what I saw as contradictions. I would respond the same way again. If you don't want to talk to me anymore, well, that's a shame as I rather like you and have learned a lot from the links you have posted. As I said earlier, just because I read it, doesn't mean I have to agree with it.
You have your POV and I have mine. I can disagree with someones stance without disliking them presonally.
If that were the case, Memsahib and I would never have lasted a year instead of celebrating our 20th on the First of May. She is somewhere to the Left of Mao and I think Attila the Hun was a wuss.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in the Middle East (2)
From: CarolC
Date: 03 May 02 - 05:20 PM

troll. I think they're busy trying to not get shot. And busy trying to find someplace to sleep. And busy trying to find their missing family members. And trying to find out if their family members are dead or alive. If you can't understand that, then there really is something wrong with you.

I know that during times of great stress in my own life, when my circumstances were almost more than I could bear, but nowhere near the hellish situation in which they live, I certainly couldn't have gotten the presence of mind together to form organizations.

Those kind, loving, and wise Jewish people who are doing all of the enlightened things that Deda mentioned in her post UNDERSTAND that right now, the Palestinians' need is the greatest. If they can cut those poor abused people a break, and they live there where they are far more at risk than you are, it doesn't seem like too big of a thing for you to show them some compassion too.

AND - those kind, loving, and wise Jewish people who are working so hard on behalf of the Palestinians, are trying to help reduce the amount of hate that people like you are directing at them. When you spread hateful things about Palestinians, even in places like here in the forum, you make the job of those who are trying to help a LOT harder.

So if you can't dipense with the hateful talk, how about just not saying anything at all. I think that/I> would go a long way toward promoting peace in the middle east.

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in the Middle East (2)
From: CarolC
Date: 03 May 02 - 05:38 PM

Ooohh... I just read part of that post of yours again. And I'm still as angry as before. Maybe more angry. You need to go check out the death statistics I posted on the terrorist thread. There are so vastly many more Palestinians who have been killed than Israelis, and so many more Palestinian children and babies who have been killed, and even murdered, some of them by settlers, even. If there is any group involved in this scenario who could be said to lack feelings, it's the Israelis who have been slaughtering the Palestinians for years.

An 85 percent civilian death rate doesn't happen in war situations unless residential areas are being bombed indescriminately, or because the civilians are purposely being targeted. You really are a racist of the worst order.

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in the Middle East (2)
From: CarolC
Date: 03 May 02 - 05:44 PM

These days, troll, I feel most of your posts like a really big hard sickening punch in the gut.

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in the Middle East (2)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 May 02 - 06:55 PM

"How about some positive suggestions for peace in the Middle East. Regardless of which side you feel compelled to support, if you post to this thread you must have at least ONE positive suggestion that might bring about peace."

I can't see much of that in the last few posts. What seems to happen is that people respond to the bits in the post that is hurtful or scornful, and ignore whatever kind of element in it that goe sthe other way.

If you want to make peace and your enemy comes towards you with a club in one hand and an olive branch in the other, take the olive branch.

That's my positive suggestion in this post.

You don't get Sharon or Arafat in groups trying to work for peace and reconciliation, and the people who get involved in groups like that don't have any control over Arafat's choice of car or Sharon's choice car, whatever that may be - or his choice of bulldozer.

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in the Middle East (2)
From: CarolC
Date: 04 May 02 - 12:09 AM

On TV last night, I saw a group of people, Palestinians and Jews (some from Israel and some from the US), sitting in a living room together somewhere in the US. They were talking to together. The Jews were listening to the Palestinians, and the Palestinians were listening to the Jews.

One man, a Palestinian, had a profound look of gratitude and relief on his face. It looked like he might cry at any minute. On the subject of being listened to by Jews - having them hear him and not judge him; and with not a trace of any anger or hatred, only gratitude, he said, "Before, they didn't know anything about me. I was only a shadow. Now, I'm a real human being."

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in the Middle East (2)
From: Troll
Date: 04 May 02 - 12:25 AM

I have never once said anything about hating the Palestinians or anyone else for that matter. Whenever I have posted something that was innacurate and it has been pointed out to me I have always tried to acknowledge that I was mistaken and have taken pains not to make the same error again.
Because I do not react to or interpret data the same way you do; because I do not agree with your conclusions; because I do not accept that the articles on which you choose to base your stance are the only truths about the current Middle-East problems, this in no way makes me a racist.
Am I a racist for pointing out that there are two sides to this conflict? Or is anyone who disagrees with your stand now a racist because, to you, all the victims are on the Palestinian side and anyone who doesn't give them blind, unstinting, and total support must be a racist?
There are victims on both sides Carol and neither side has a monopoly on suffering. You seem, as time goes on, less and less willing to accept that. You seem more and more willing to demonize and thus dehumanize the Israeli people and their supporters.
As I said in an earlier post, some of the links that you have posted have pointed me in directions that I had not considered before and I expressed my gratitude for that. I know that it must have come as a shock to you when I did not come over to your camp.
Life is that way; what you find to be compelling evidence another may dismiss as propaganda or as simply not germain. A racist, by the way, is defined as someone who belives that another race is inherently inferior. I really don't think that any of my posts have denigrated the Palestinian Arabs in that way.
I don't agree with their policies. Suicide bombing with civilians as the targets is wrong. Shooting innocent civilians is also wrong. There is much wrong on both sides.
I happen to believe that the Israelis have a right to live in peace in their country and a right to defend themselves against terrorist aggression. I also believe that sometimes they have stepped over the boundaries and come down harder than was necessary. And I have stated as much. But that doesn't mean that I am now prepared to abandon all support for Israel and support the Palestinian cause, which, according to the PLO charter and statements by Hamas and others, is nothing less than the complete destruction of that small nation and the death of her citizens. And I don't believe you want that either.
There must be two countries, side by side, living in peace, but it may take a generation or two of outside policing before the hatreds die.
This is all a bit rambling, I know, but sometimes the thoughts don't come in clear, concise sound bites.
One other thing. As you are aware, my wife is Jewish and I am not. I have, for years, studied Islam, and have seriously considered converting. Just as there are Jews who do not support the policies of the Israeli Government, so there are Muslims who do not support the Palestinian Authority or Hamas or Islamic Jihad. Just as I do not agree with you.
This does not make me a racist any more than it makes you one.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in the Middle East (2)
From: CarolC
Date: 04 May 02 - 12:40 AM

The following statement is as racist as saying blacks are shiftless and lazy, or not quite as intelligent as whites, or that Jews are by nature greedy and cheap. Or that all Israelis are brutal oppressors. And now I am finished with you.

Or maybe there are so few Palestinian Arab peace groups because they don't feel what the Jewish and Gentile peace groups feel. Compassion, guilt perhaps, empathy, even a sense of fairness. Maybe that just isn't a part of their makeup or maybe they feel justified in murdering women and children with bombs in the name of "self-determination" or whatever.

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in the Middle East (2)
From: Troll
Date: 04 May 02 - 02:03 AM

It did not ocurr to you that what I meant was that the Palestinians do not feel these things because they feel that they are justified in the course of action they have chosen.
No, it's much easier to call me a racist and be finished with me.
Maybe it's not part of their makeup because of the things they have suffered or feel that they have suffered.
No. it's much easier to call me a racist and be finished with me.
It's always easier to demonize those who don't agree with you isn't it Carol. And, of course, the BEST demonizing buzz-word in the American lexicon is "racist".
Did it surprise you when I didn't either apologize and grovel or spend the entire post defending myself against your rather silly allegation? Did you read nothing but that one sentence?
Probably not. I disagree with you, I post links that don't support your position, so easy to see only what you want to see isn't it.
I never said that any of those things were true or that I thought that they were true. I merely posited them as points for discussion.
But you don't want discussion. You want everyone to agree with your position. And anyone who doesn't is a "racist". You really should read the book "The True Believer". It's old but the information is still good.
I cannot control what you or anyone else wants to read into a post. If challenged, I can try to be a little clearer about what I meant but that's all.
I've seen you make statements that you later apologized for when you realized that you had misunderstood what the postee said or meant to say and I believe that I have apologized to you on ocassion. You were very quick to accuse me of racism when it would have been just as simple to ask me via post or PM if that's really what I meant.
I have already explained what I meant. I wanted discussion on the matter, not sound bites; not carefully selected exerpts with pithy little comments appended, carefully calculated to put me down while making you look long suffering and noble but at the end of your vast patience.
See how it works?
If you want to seriously discuss things, fine. That's what I prefer; discussion on how to go about solving problems, not myriad links about who is most to blame.
If it is your preference to sink to the level of name calling, well, that's your business.
Personally, I find it counter-productive.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in the Middle East (2)
From: Troll
Date: 04 May 02 - 02:16 AM

Maybe there is some hope after all.
click here
Peace would be nice for a change.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in the Middle East (2)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 May 02 - 07:22 AM

When a post gets you angry it's a good idea to sit back and cool off before you write a response. And then maybe wait a bit before sending it and rewrite it.

And in any discussion about serious stuff where feelings are high, it's far better to avoid any kind of sarcasm. It's like pouring petrol on a smouldering fire.

That post at 03-May-02 - 03:43 PM comes across as being written in anger; and it definitely adopted a sarcastic tone - "I guess that the survival of the Palestinians was uppermost in the minds of their freely elected leader, Yasser Arafat, when his government purchased new Mercedes Benz automobiles for he and his staff. I mean, never mind that the village has no well, the President has to look good as he rides through the refugee camps, right." And so forth.

And from there on things spiralled, with intemperate replies to intemperate replies that turned this thread, which set out trying to take a more constructive approach, into an interpersonal freefire zone.

To quote once more bert's excellent suggestion when he started this thread: "How about some positive suggestions for peace in the Middle East. Regardless of which side you feel compelled to support, if you post to this thread you must have at least ONE positive suggestion that might bring about peace."

And my positive suggestion in this post is that, in order to enable useful discussion te take place, we should abstain from making any use of sarcasm here, and that we should wait and consider before posting a reply to anything that annoys us.

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in the Middle East (2)
From: Troll
Date: 04 May 02 - 11:10 AM

Kevin, when someone behaves in a condescending manner,I very often respond with sarcasm. It's a failing of mine and I probably should temper it somewhat.
There was a very good question asked on why were there not Palestinian Peace groups. I felt that the answer was both condescending and a bit sarcastic and I responded in kind.
My subsequent posts have been a vain attempt to explain and defend my statement but to no avail.
I have been branded as being hateful, without humanity and, a racist. At no time have I responded in kind except to say that I felt the accusation was "silly".
You are quite correct about one thing, however; I should abstain from the use of sarcasm as a means of making a point in the future since its use is obviously a red flag to some people.
It certainly was to Carol, and -I feel- she began to read into my posts things that were not there; "When you spread hateful things about Palestinians, even in places like here in the forum, you make the job of those who are trying to help a LOT harder." I have not said hateful things about the Palestinians although I have been somewhat critical of chairman Arafat, but because my links have tended to support the Israeli position, I am a racist. I am many things- stubborn, obstinate, sarcastic and sometimes a little quick tempered; but I am not a racist and when, and if, Carol gets over her anger and hurt, maybe she will see that.
And maybe she won't. In the greater scheme of things it makes little difference what she thinks of me or I of her, the sun still comes up in the morning. If either of us has lost sleep over this, well, that's a personal problem, isn't it.
Thanks for your input. I will try to take your advice to heart.
Yes, I do have one.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in the Middle East (2)
From: CarolC
Date: 04 May 02 - 01:08 PM

As I said before, reading troll's posts these days feels like a big, hard punch in the gut. I can't do it any more. It's too painful and it's effecting my health.

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in the Middle East (2)
From: GUEST,Don King
Date: 04 May 02 - 01:41 PM

I think we can settle the Middle East conflict with a boxing match.

In the blue and white corner: Troll.

In the red, white, black and green corner: CarolC.

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in the Middle East (2)
From: GUEST,aSharon
Date: 04 May 02 - 01:46 PM

Troll,

Go easy on CarolC. She may be misguided, but she's a cute little shiksa.

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in the Middle East (2)
From: Skeptic
Date: 04 May 02 - 01:47 PM

Here's the straw "Or maybe there are so few Palestinian Arab peace groups because they don't feel what the Jewish and Gentile peace groups feel. Compassion, guilt perhaps, empathy, even a sense of fairness. Maybe that just isn't a part of their makeup or maybe they feel justified in murdering women and children with bombs in the name of "self-determination" or whatever."

Despite all the spin, I can see how, on it face, it could be taken as racist,

How anyone who knew you only from this forum would leap jump to the assumption that it "proves" that you are racists requires of leap of illogic that amazes me but then I have the added benefit of personal knowledge.

On the other hand, and in part because we are brothers and I do know you, it was an incredibly stupid way to say what you meant to say. The later explanation could (and in CarolC's case did) seem like "spin" as opposed to the explanation you intended.

In the spirit of Kevin's question.

For what its worth, I think there that arguing degrees of evil is futile. The point when there was a "right" and "wrong" side past long ago. The Only rational choice I see is for those nations that retain any sense of rationality and decency at all is to go in and stop the killing of men, women and children on all sides. Preferably yesterday.

Neither side, or at least none of the leadership, seems intent on doing anything but having their own way. Despite all the "spin" out there, neither side has done a lot to resolve anything beyond some basic lip service.

There is plenty of blame to go around. Stopping the killing needs to be our first priority, with or without the cooperation and consent of the Israeli's or the Palestinians.

There really does (IMO) come a time when a nation or group crosses the line and abrogates the right to self-determination. I suggest that all sides to the conflict (as the Arab world is as much a party to this as Israel and Palestine) long ago stepped over the line and the point of compromise is past.

What sane nations remain in the world need to step in and settle it by fiat. Such would be temporary, would require a foreign military presence in the area, would include (for Palestine) something similar to what MacArthur did for and to Japn after WWII) and would probably offend everyone. But it would stop most of the killing and maybe start a real peace process.

I will now go back to what I've been doing for some tine know: Enjoying the music threads (as a professional audience with severely limited musical talent I almost never comment but do enjoy) and avoid even reading the political threads.

Regards

John

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in the Middle East (2)
From: GUEST,YA in Ramallah
Date: 04 May 02 - 01:47 PM

CarolC,

You're our great white hope. Please beat Troll so bad that he gets in his car and drives into the sea.

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in the Middle East (2)
From: CarolC
Date: 04 May 02 - 01:52 PM

What you are, troll, is abusive. You post something abusive toward me, and when I respond, you say I'm in a huff because you "don't agree with me". I tried the PM thing, and that got an apology, but it didn't stop the abuse. It has nothing to do with whether or not we agree or disagree. I just don't like being abused. It hurts.

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in the Middle East (2)
From: CarolC
Date: 04 May 02 - 01:58 PM

And GUEST, you can give it up now. The only people who can hurt me here in this forum are the ones I care about. You can't hurt me because I don't care about you. But I used to care about troll.

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in the Middle East (2)
From: GUEST,GUEST
Date: 04 May 02 - 02:09 PM

CarolC,

I am but a child of God/Allah made in his image. If you do not care about me, then you cannot care about any of God/Allah's children.

GUEST

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in the Middle East (2)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 May 02 - 02:40 PM

"I responded in kind."

That's the normal commonsense thing to do. And it's the reason conflicts build and build and seem impossible to get out of.

In the tragedy in the Holy Land that is especially evident.

Responding in kind, whether that means returning sarcasm for sarcasm, or anger for anger, or in response to verbal abuse, just doesn't work, except as a way of building antagonism. Yes, there are situations where a forceful response can work, a response strong enough to make an attacker back off, but that doesn't apply here in this thread.

And I don't think it applies in the case of the conflict in Palestine and Israel either. I'd like to hope that there could be a move away from suicidal murder among Palestinians, and towards a non-violent struggle with the same willingness to die if necessary, but without the willingness to kill. I think that this could have been a far far more effective way of challenging the Israeli occupation and expansion.

But it is hard to imagine how this can come about. Far more likely is another wave of freelance suicide attacks, fuelled by the onslaught that was presented as a way of stopping them.

The truth is, if there were to be acts of radical non-violent resistance in the present climate, is there any likelihood that they would even be reported?

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in the Middle East (2)
From: GUEST
Date: 04 May 02 - 02:46 PM

Israel itself the obstacle to Middle East peace

Deir Yassin (1948)... Sabra and Shatilla (1982)... Qana (1996)... Jenin (2002) is only the latest in a long list of Israeli crimes against humanity during the zionist state's short but bloody history. Whether or not a UN fact-finding mission is sent to the camp is irrelevant; everyone who watched events there unfolding, and has seen the devastation — in terms of both the camp and the lives of its people — left after the Israeli withdrawal, knows exactly what happened there, without a report that will inevitably be written with political objectives in mind. It should also be remembered that while Jenin was undoubtedly the greatest atrocity of the Israelis' latest offensive, it was by no means the only one. Palestinians in Ramallah, Bethlehem and many others towns, villages and refugee camps have also suffered enormous damage and terrible losses. Indeed, every Palestinian in Palestine is suffering as a result of the Israelis' determination to destroy the infrastructure of Palestinian society and the spirit of the Palestinian people.

Such has been international outrage at the Israelis' actions that even the US has had to speak out against them, although no one takes George W. Bush's criticism of Ariel Sharon very seriously. It is inconceivable that Israel was acting without a prior green light from Washington, or that it will face any meaningful sanction for its actions. When we hear US and Israeli statements, and see their actions, we should understand them as two arms of the same entity, working together to pursue the same objective: the maximization of Israel's size and power, and the legitimization of its control over as much Muslim land as possible.

The talk in recent weeks has been of a return to the negotiating table and the resumption of peace talks aimed first at a ceasefire and then at a comprehensive settlement. However, all the arguments against the peace process, which sceptics have been making since the earliest days of the Oslo process a decade ago, have been validated by the events of the last decade in general, and of the last few months in particular. They can be summed up very simply: that Israel is insincere and untrustworthy in everything it says and does, and cannot be worked with. Many Palestinians have felt this from the start. Very few now have any doubts.

There is, however, a more fundamental reality that we must not forget: that Israel itself is wholly illegitimate and has no right to exist. The pragmatic acceptance of a two-state solution by some Palestinians was based not on recognising Israel's right to exist, but on accepting the reality of its existence. If Israel were willing to co-exist with a Palestinian state, some argued, then the question of its illegitimacy should be put aside for the sake of a settlement. Now that Israel has proved that it is not willing to make an even vaguely equitable agreement, the question of its illegitimacy comes to the fore. The fact that Israeli settlements in the West Bank are illegitimate, occupying entities, created by aggression and dispossession, and are obstacles to a peace is widely recognised; the same is true of the whole of Israel. It is one huge settlement, established by Jews invading Palestine from Europe and elsewhere, and forcing Palestinians out of their lands and properties. No number of UN resolutions, and no degree of international recognition, can change that fact. Even many Israelis now accept that the settlements in the West Bank and Ghazzah will have to be abandoned. The truth is bigger than that: such is the nature of Israel and of the Israeli mindset that peace will only be possible when the settlement that is Israel is itself dismantled. That is the inescapable conclusion of the experiences of the last decade.

Israel is a creature born of zionism, a racist ideology based on a belief in the God-given superiority of the Jews as a race over all other peoples. The parallels between zionist Israel and apartheid South Africa are clear, and zionism will have to go the way that apartheid went. The Jews in Palestine will have to make the same choice as the whites did in South Africa: to remain as equal citizens of a fair, open Palestinian state shaped by the wishes of the majority of its people, or to leave for greener pastures elsewhere. Less than a decade after the end of apartheid, most white South Africans recognize it as an abhorrent phase in their history that should never have happened; some Jews already feel the same about zionism. The problem is that the zionists (not all of whom are Jews) are going to create great deal more conflict and bloodshed before allowing the inevitable to come about.

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in the Middle East (2)
From: Troll
Date: 04 May 02 - 02:49 PM

Carol, I do apologize for hurting you. It was not intentional. Because I do care. Perhaps we should look on what is happening between us as a microcosm of what is happening in the Middle-East. Perhaps, like us, they don't really understand just where the other side is coming from and why.
If we can find a way to make peace, maybe they can too.
Again, I apologize for having hurt you as you say I have.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in the Middle East (2)
From: RichM
Date: 04 May 02 - 03:05 PM

Here's a proposal for peace, from today's Jerusalem Post. Natan Sharansky is the current Deputy Prime Minister of Israel.

Rich McCarthy

May. 3, 2002 Where do we go from here? NATAN SHARANSKY

Today, as the Israel Defense Forces are engaged in destroying the terrorist infrastructure, we must ask ourselves, "Where do we go from here?" Is there any other option besides reestablishing full Israeli control over Judea and Samaria, or resigning ourselves to the fact that Yasser Arafat is the only address that we have?

I believe there is, and it is based on the premise that only democracy and economic prosperity for the Palestinian people can bring security for Israel.

In order to ensure our own security, the Palestinians must be encouraged to form an open and free society that is not burdened by the fear, hatred, and terror that have been sown in recent years by Arafat and his leadership - a society that affords real economic opportunity for all its inhabitants. Only such a society can serve as a solid guarantee for normal relations between the two peoples, and as a promising starting point for negotiations, ultimately leading towards a permanent peace settlement. This cannot happen overnight; for this we need a Transition Period.

Last week, I presented the following seven-point plan of action to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, defining the principles for a three-year Transition Period, leading the Palestinians away from terror and towards peace:

The rest of this proposal is

click here!

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in the Middle East (2)
From: Troll
Date: 04 May 02 - 03:12 PM

Israel is a creature born of zionism, a racist ideology based on a belief in the God-given superiority of the Jews as a race over all other peoples.

Guest, you'd better find out a little more about what the Jews feel it means to be the "Chosen People". One thing for sure, it is NOT a philosophy of racial superiority. The Jews do not feel that they are better than other peoples. They DO however feel that they are different in that God made a covenant with them. That covenant did not promise world dominion. It said simply that if the children of Israel kept Gods commandments that He would sustain them. That's all.
Why not read what they themselves say about it instead of relying on the interpretation of someone who may have a political axe to grind.
It won't change your view of the events in Israel and the surrounding area, but it WILL dispell that old "racial superiority' myth.

troll

BTW, to GUEST, YA in Ramallah:
"High to the Highlands and low to the LowAs the Chieftan of England so bitterly knows,
The Thistle bows not to the Rose."

As far as racist comments go, look up where the term "white hope" came from.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in the Middle East (2)
From: CarolC
Date: 04 May 02 - 03:16 PM

Ok, troll. I accept your apology. But please don't do it any more.

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in the Middle East (2)
From: Troll
Date: 04 May 02 - 03:18 PM

Peel me a grape?

troll

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in the Middle East (2)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 May 02 - 03:25 PM

Well, the tone of that is a bit more encouraging than that of Sharon.

I noted one paragraph that could be interpreted in various ways: "Israel will not be involved in this process, and will only maintain the right to veto candidates to the PAA in the event that such candidates had been connected to terrorist activities against Israel." The thing would be, who would define that, and on what basis? Does resisting the Israeli army count as terrorism? What does "connected with" include, and what doesn't it include.

Now if they could apply that restriction on people with terorist records both ways that would remove Sharon from the picture as well as Arafat, and be a lot more even handed.

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in the Middle East (2)
From: CarolC
Date: 04 May 02 - 04:18 PM

Sure troll. Here's your grape...

O

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in the Middle East (2)
From: RichM
Date: 04 May 02 - 04:24 PM

For anyone interested in understanding the complexities of the Muslim cultures, I recommend Milton Viorst's "In the Shadow of the Prophet".
It's a good read, and an even better re-read... click here!

Currently I am reading "Among the Believers: an Islamic Journey" by V.S. Naipaul. I'll post more about this when I've digested it.
Rich McCarthy

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in the Middle East (2)
From: DougR
Date: 04 May 02 - 04:41 PM

Skeptic: I have read and re-read that statement troll made and for the life of me I cannot see it as a racist statement. I see it only as troll's speculation as to why there are not more Palestinian peace groups than evidently there are. It's just a statement.

McGrath, I applaud your efforts, and Bert's original effort to make a positive statement about how peace can come to the Middle East. Far more learned individuals than most of us are here on the Mudcat have made numerous attempts to bring peace to that region and they have failed. Other than them continuing to fight until one wins, I see no lasting solution.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in the Middle East (2)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 May 02 - 05:26 PM

I've started a part3 to this thread. - and I've started off by including a link to a fascinating young Palestinian singer and musician, with sound files. That's my positive suggestion for now - listen to the music.