|
14 May 02 - 04:48 PM (#710914) Subject: On This Day Jews Rejoiced From: GUEST 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: http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/big/0514.html#article |
|
16 May 02 - 07:51 AM (#711490) Subject: RE: BS: On This Day Jews Rejoiced From: GUEST This was posted just before the servers went down, so I thought I'd refresh it, what with current interest in the Middle East being what it is here. The NY Times "On This Day" site is a good one to know too. |
|
17 May 02 - 02:25 AM (#712105) Subject: RE: BS: On This Day Jews Rejoiced From: GUEST KristalNacht>? |
|
17 May 02 - 07:36 PM (#712615) Subject: RE: BS: On This Day Jews Rejoiced From: BH Cute?! Stupid?! Take your pick from the usual anonymous "guest". I would now give a brief history lesson---but you all might get bored. Suffice it to say---The Brits have not a clear conscience here, but the U N voted, land was purchased legally, the Arabs started a war (and refused their brethren entry into their "kingdoms"). They lost. Today's issues come from a different persepective--but, asa with all history, it harkens back to the past. Israel exists. Period. Once that can be recognized by the Palestinians and other non-welcoming to Palestinians Arabs --peace could come. Settlement removal should also be considered. Then again----in history---how many times has anyone ever heard of the attacked party being victorious against all odds(3 or 4 times) and then giving up the victory? Against all odds Rabin offered just that solution. He was murdered. Barak offered something close---Arafat made not counter proposal and left. So now we have the "hawks"---on both sides. And let us not forget one thing---a number of years ago Israel made a premptive strike against Iraq |
|
17 May 02 - 07:42 PM (#712617) Subject: RE: BS: On This Day Jews Rejoiced From: BH Looks like I mistakenly hit the send button---Iraq to destroy its nuclear capability. Something, I am sure, we would do if politics and international considerations did not effect our decisions. Bottom line. Terrorism has to be fought----their "freedom fighters" are our "terrorists". Think of the porcupine---small with a lot of bristles---that is Israel. He (porcupine) does not attack anyone--he defends himself. Bill H (not "guest") |
|
17 May 02 - 07:52 PM (#712625) Subject: RE: BS: On This Day Jews Rejoiced From: CarolC You sound defensive Bill H.
I would just like to make one point. In my opinion, it's a big mistake for anyone to require support of Israel as a condition for friendship to take place. There are a lot of people who want to keep their Jewish friends, but who cannot in good conscience support Israel in the form in which it exists at this time. Please don't make us choose. |
|
18 May 02 - 06:50 PM (#713099) Subject: RE: BS: On This Day Jews Rejoiced From: BH Carol C.---I appreciate that you are not "guest". You, however, seem a bit defensive also. I never asked one should take sides---in fact you may look a little further up the line here you will note that I agreed with the Palestinian State proposal---and the dismantling of the "serttlements". As did Rabin--- sadly murdered by another zealot (Israeli). Now Carol, nowhere did I ask for friendship. Your note sounds almost like---"...some of my best friends are Jewish". Where have I heard that before? Oh yes---Germany/Austria circa 1938. What I suggest is that there is fault on many sides, but the right to self defense is not just a U S right. And, our (and the world's glee) at the fact that a number of years ago Israel took out Iraq's nuclear capability is just another sign that---as the old saying goes--"...dirty work but someone has to do it". We surely are not---we stopped when we had the advantage and were defending Kuwait (and possibly Bush the First) oil interests. You might also check out the holdings of the Carlyle Group and who sits on the board of this Corp.---you will be quite amazed. Bill H
|
|
18 May 02 - 07:30 PM (#713131) Subject: RE: BS: On This Day Jews Rejoiced From: CarolC Bill H, Playing the anti-semite card with me, no matter how subtly (or unsubtly) you employ it, isn't going to work. And I would suggest that it is a counterproductive thing for anyone to do if done as recklessly as you have here. Remember the boy who cried wolf?
What makes you think I was talking specifically to you when I said what I did about friends?
I don't want to get into a debate about this with you. Suffice it to say, I hear a lot of fear in the words of Jewish people whom I know and care about, and some whom I don't know so well, but I care about anyway. This fear seems to be centered around the idea that another holocaust can happen to Jews throughout the world, and that unconditional support of Israel is the only way to prevent such a thing.
And I think, based on things I've heard people say, and things I've read, that a lot of Jews connect any unwillingness to support Israel with anti-semitism. This thread might have been started by a troll. On the other hand, this thread might have been started by someone who was genuinely afraid. Innocent Jews are being targeted with violence in many parts of the world today. I think a lot of people are quite rightly afraid.
However, I also think that most people who don't support Israel in the way it has been conducting itself, are not anti-semites, and their disagreements with Israel are based on humanitarian concerns.
So. Why did I post what I did? Because I think when people have fears that are at least partly based on actual circumstances, it's helpful to make sure that those fears are aleviated to whatever extent they have been generalized to circumstances that don't apply. And I've already done plenty of reasearch on the subject of the middle east. You and I have very different understandings of the history and reality of the region. I'm not interested in trying to convince you to think differently than you already do. What you think and believe is up to you. |
|
18 May 02 - 10:48 PM (#713222) Subject: RE: BS: On This Day Jews Rejoiced From: CarolC One last point. Perhaps it has never occurred to you that finding oneself in a situation in which it becomes necessary to choose between one's conscience and one's friends can be a painful experience. It's so much easier to automatically attribute sinister motives to people whom you percieve to be different from yourself. I think that shows that you are the one who is operating with biases and stereotypes. |
|
19 May 02 - 05:52 AM (#713328) Subject: RE: BS: On This Day Jews Rejoiced From: CarolC Ok. One last point. What the hell makes you think I support the "war on terror" being conducted by the Bush administration? However, there is one difference between what Bush's people are doing and what Israel is doing. At least Bush's people are using the cover of making some poor oppresed people's lives just a little more tolerable in order to lend the tiniest little bit of legitimacy to their operation.
What Israel is doing is nothing more than a blatant and thinly disguised land grab, and they aren't improving anyone's life with that policy. All they are doing is causing massive suffering for the Palestinian people, and endangering the lives of Jews and Americans all over the world in the process. Now I think I should go away and be quiet for a while. |
|
19 May 02 - 08:09 AM (#713364) Subject: RE: BS: On This Day Jews Rejoiced From: CarolC Ok, I lied. Here's another point.
When I post things that are critical of the US government, which I do whenever I feel it's called for, the worst thing I ever experience in terms of responses to what I post, is DougR complaining that he thinks I delight in bashing the US.
During the time that I have been involved in discussions about the middle east, I've been called ignorant, and hateful, I've been told to rot in hell with Osama Bin Laden, people have insinuated on more than one occasion that I am an anti-semite, and I've been ridiculed in several other ways.
And this is for speaking out on behalf of people (the Palestinians), who I felt needed someone to speak out for them. On the occasions when I've spoken out for Jews here in the forum, I've never had anything hateful directed at me in response.
So it seems to me that if I get ridiculed and abused and told to rot in hell for speaking up for Palestinians, someone is sending me a pretty clear message that I should either keep silent or expect to lose friends and gain some enemies. And that makes me sad. Because the part of me that prompts me to speak up for people like the Palestinians when I percieve them to be in need, is the very same part of me that has in the past, and will continue in the future, to speak up for Jews or anyone else who needs it. And that part of me is my humanity.
I'll tell you a little porcupine story. This really happened. I used to be a zookeeper. One of the animals I was responsible for was a porcupine named Jo Jo. The zoo where I worked had some problems with the way they designed the lighting in the enclosures. And used sand instead of an absorbant substrate, and there were problems with the ventilaton and the air conditioning. It was a perfect environment for breeding fleas.
After a few months, I noticed Jo Jo scampering around a lot and squealing. He seemed to be in distress for some reason, but I couldn't tell from looking what was wrong. So I took him to the zoo vet to have him checked out. It turns out that he was covered in fleas, but because of his quills, he couldn't scratch the way other animals could, and there was no way for me to see the fleas. So I didn't have any way of knowing that he had a flea problem. And in the end, he died of anemia because of the fleas.
So the moral of the story is that sometimes being a porcupine isn't all that it's cracked up to be. And sometimes having quills causes more problems than it solves. And now I really am going to go away and be quiet for a while. |
|
19 May 02 - 10:31 AM (#713422) Subject: RE: BS: On This Day Jews Rejoiced From: GUEST To CarolC, I am a Palestinian attending college in Michigan and would like to thank you for the support you give to our people. This Mudcat forum is visited by many jews and its important to remind them that they cannot control everything. It is comforting to know that not all Americans have been seduced by the zionist propaganda in the media. The moral support you offer to our freedom fighters and martyrs means a great deal to us. It may take another generation or two, but with your support we will prevail and the jews will be forced to surrender and we will create a glorious Palestine in all of the lands held by the zionist entity. One day soon, when the Palestinian flag flies over Tel Aviv, we hope that you will come and visit us. With all of the jews at this Mudcat forum, you are a brave defender of the great Palestinian cause. |
|
19 May 02 - 10:36 AM (#713423) Subject: RE: BS: On This Day Jews Rejoiced From: GUEST I'm the Guest (14 & 16 May posts only) who originated this thread, as I have others with references to news articles on the Mideast and other subjects of interest to me. I had no particular "agenda" for posting this particular one, although I do at times for others I post. I thought it would be interesting for people to read the story for historical perspective, considering how involved some in the forum have been in discussions about the current situation in the Mideast. We tend to forget how dire the circumstances were for Jews in the era after WWII in Europe and the Middle East when no one would take the refugees, I think. That, more than invocations of Holocaust survivors is what drives the fears among the Israeli people, whom I believe to be quite brave and courageous as a rule. I can find myself agreeing with both BH and CarolC, though I feel CarolC is pretty naive about politics on the ground, and seems to have a slippery grip on historic facts. Which is too bad, because she is backing the right horse in the debate, IMO. BH, OTOH, rightly points out the political realities of our support of Israel in the region. Israel does for the US what it can't do politically itself in the region. Like the bombing of Iraq. However, I disagree with his points about the reasons why the Rabin philosophy should be abandoned. Assassinations of pro-Palestinaian state Israeli leaders will continue until (and possibly after) there is a Palestinian state. There has always been that shady right wing military element which is barely under anyone's political control in Israel. Which is why the situation is so dire. As we saw in this latest crisis, the Bush administration WAS NOT calling the shots for that shady, quasi-legal right wing military element in Israel. The problem is, the more isolated Israel becomes in the world community (and they are currently as isolated as they have been since the 67 war IMO), the greater the danger of extra-state vigilantism on the part of the Israeli right wing paramilitarists, operating with or without CIA/US consent and knowledge. Why is that such a major concern to the rest of the world? Well, look who is doing nuclear business in the region today with states like Iran? The Russians. Who are now one of the "group of five" who are doing the above board diplomatic negotiating (ie, the US, the UN, the EU, the Arab League and Russia) in the region and moving in more and more all the time to regain their foothold in the region. The Russians aren't going to directly threaten the US in Afghanistan (and elsewhere in the Caspian Sea oil region the Bush/Cheney oil cartel is lusting to get at), so they are making their moves to gain leverage in other oil rich regions of the Middle East. The geopolitical dimension is rarely looked at in discussions here in Mudcat, which is dangerously naive. And CarolC, not all of us back the Palestinian cause of statehood for "humanitarian" reasons. That is warm and fuzzy "can't we just all get along" sort of empty posturing. I back both the Palestinian and Israeli rights to exist as sovereign states because justice needs to be served in order for security and stability to take hold in the region. It is about justice and fairness, not "humanitarianism". I believe many Israelis understand the inherent unfairness of the "Palestinian settlement" made by world powers when Israel was granted statehood. They know they will never be secure if those injustices against their now neighbors, who truly were the main inhabitants of the region before WWII and British withdrawal from the region made them perpetual refugees with nowhere to go. Many Israelis understand that the Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza are being held in despicable living conditions as perpetual prisoners of the state of Israel. But until some of the Zionist leadership like Sharon get put out of power once and for all, there is truly no room in Israeli politics for reasonable, just end to Israeli occupation. Shrill arguments where people are arguing that Jews are racist and Arabs are anti-semites are engaged in by people interested in the status quo, like Sharon and Netanyahu, Bush and Cheney. It is not the sort of arguments made by principaled, trustworthy Palestinians, including certain prominent members of Hammas (whom the Israelis will soon be doing business with, despite their most recent declaration that they will continue suicide attacks), nor by Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres, who responded to the recent Likud party debacle this weekend with a peace proposal which DOES include Palestinian statehood (likely with a transitional international peacekeeping force). |
|
19 May 02 - 12:54 PM (#713516) Subject: RE: BS: On This Day Jews Rejoiced From: RichM Flying a flag over Tel Aviv? Well, it could happen... but not likely. This kind of assertion doesn't lead toward accommodation, and a just peace between two peoples. And it's the kind of rhetoric that has turned me away from sympathizing with the Palestinian "cause" that exhorts winning at all costs. Martyrs, indeed... |
|
19 May 02 - 07:53 PM (#713713) Subject: RE: BS: On This Day Jews Rejoiced From: CarolC GUEST, Date: 19-May-02 - 10:31 AM...
Nice try but it won't work.
GUEST, Date: 19-May-02 - 10:36 AM... I'm not going to get into a debate with you. RichM, I agree with you. That that kind of assertion doesn't lead toward accomodation. The troll who posted it knows it too. That's why he/she posted it. That isn't what the Palestinians are asking for and the GUEST knows that he/she can stir up more bad feelings toward the them by making it look like it is. |
|
20 May 02 - 10:39 AM (#713873) Subject: RE: BS: On This Day Jews Rejoiced From: GUEST,YMF That isn't what the Palestinians are asking for and the GUEST knows that he/she can stir up more bad feelings toward the them by making it look like it is. One assumes that CarolC is referring to the post about the Palestinians wanting their flag to fly above Tel Aviv. If that is the case, CarolC is either extremely naive or an outright liar. Otherwise, how does she excuse, yesterday's murderous, suicide bombing in Netanya. Of course, the best proof of CarolC's naivite or lies is the PLO Charter, which despite any other statements by Arafat or CarolC has never been renounced or amended to allow for the existence of Israel. Article 1: Palestine is the homeland of the Arab Palestinian people; it is an indivisible part of the Arab homeland, and the Palestinian people are an integral part of the Arab nation. Article 2: Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit. Article 3: The Palestinian Arab people possess the legal right to their homeland and have the right to determine their destiny after achieving the liberation of their country in accordance with their wishes and entirely of their own accord and will. Article 15: The liberation of Palestine, from an Arab viewpoint, is a national (qawmi) duty and it attempts to repel the Zionist and imperialist aggression against the Arab homeland, and aims at the elimination of Zionism in Palestine. Absolute responsibility for this falls upon the Arab nation - peoples and governments - with the Arab people of Palestine in the vanguard. Accordingly, the Arab nation must mobilize all its military, human, moral, and spiritual capabilities to participate actively with the Palestinian people in the liberation of Palestine. It must, particularly in the phase of the armed Palestinian revolution, offer and furnish the Palestinian people with all possible help, and material and human support, and make available to them the means and opportunities that will enable them to continue to carry out their leading role in the armed revolution, until they liberate their homeland. Article 19: The partition of Palestine in 1947 and the establishment of the state of Israel are entirely illegal, regardless of the passage of time, because they were contrary to the will of the Palestinian people and to their natural right in their homeland, and inconsistent with the principles embodied in the Charter of the United Nations, particularly the right to self-determination. Article 20: The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate for Palestine, and everything that has been based upon them, are deemed null and void. Claims of historical or religious ties of Jews with Palestine are incompatible with the facts of history and the true conception of what constitutes statehood. Judaism, being a religion, is not an independent nationality. Nor do Jews constitute a single nation with an identity of its own; they are citizens of the states to which they belong. Article 21: The Arab Palestinian people, expressing themselves by the armed Palestinian revolution, reject all solutions which are substitutes for the total liberation of Palestine and reject all proposals aiming at the liquidation of the Palestinian problem, or its internationalization. Article 22: Zionism is a political movement organically associated with international imperialism and antagonistic to all action for liberation and to progressive movements in the world. It is racist and fanatic in its nature, aggressive, expansionist, and colonial in its aims, and fascist in its methods. Israel is the instrument of the Zionist movement, and geographical base for world imperialism placed strategically in the midst of the Arab homeland to combat the hopes of the Arab nation for liberation, unity, and progress. Israel is a constant source of threat vis-a-vis peace in the Middle East and the whole world. Since the liberation of Palestine will destroy the Zionist and imperialist presence and will contribute to the establishment of peace in the Middle East, the Palestinian people look for the support of all the progressive and peaceful forces and urge them all, irrespective of their affiliations and beliefs, to offer the Palestinian people all aid and support in their just struggle for the liberation of their homeland.
|
|
20 May 02 - 12:28 PM (#713949) Subject: RE: BS: On This Day Jews Rejoiced From: GUEST Guest YMF, no one in these threads is attempting to excuse suicide bombings, or any other kind of bombings, including those state-sponsored military operations as we've seen in recent months carried out by the Israelis in the OT. Your language choices are clearly intended to be inflammatory and provocative, which is unfortunate, since you likely could engage in a meaningful argument with others if your pro-Zionist stance didn't have you so blinded with hatred for everything Palestinian. |
|
20 May 02 - 12:32 PM (#713954) Subject: RE: BS: On This Day Jews Rejoiced From: GUEST And BTW Guest, YTF, the Palestinians recognized Israel's right to exist in 1993. I hereby quote Arafat's letter to Rabin, taken from Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs website at http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH00pz0: Israel-PLO Recognition: Exchange of Letters between PM Rabin and Chairman Arafat 1. LETTER FROM YASSER ARAFAT TO PRIME MINISTER RABIN: September 9, 1993 Yitzhak Rabin Prime Minister of Israel Mr. Prime Minister, The signing of the Declaration of Principles marks a new era in the history of the Middle East. In firm conviction thereof, I would like to confirm the following PLO commitments: The PLO recognizes the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security. The PLO accepts United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338. The PLO commits itself to the Middle East peace process, and to a peaceful resolution of the conflict between the two sides and declares that all outstanding issues relating to permanent status will be resolved through negotiations. The PLO considers that the signing of the Declaration of Principles constitutes a historic event, inaugurating a new epoch of peaceful coexistence, free from violence and all other acts which endanger peace and stability. Accordingly, the PLO renounces the use of terrorism and other acts of violence and will assume responsibility over all PLO elements and personnel in order to assure their compliance, prevent violations and discipline violators. In view of the pormise of a new era and the signing of the Declaration of Principles and based on Palestinian acceptance of Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, the PLO affirms that those articles of the Palestinian Covenant which deny Israel's right to exist, and the provisions of the Covenant which are inconsistent with the commitments of this letter are now inoperative and no longer valid. Consequently, the PLO undertakes to submit to the Palestinian National Council for formal approval the necessary changes in regard to the Palestinian Covenant. Sincerely, Yasser Arafat Chairman The Palestine Liberation Organization
|
|
20 May 02 - 01:17 PM (#713974) Subject: RE: BS: On This Day Jews Rejoiced From: GUEST,YMF Nameless, gutless lying Guest describes me as blinded with hatred for everything Palestinian. A typical amti-Semitic lie. Nowhere, have I ever said anything hateful about Palestinians. Nameless, gutless lying Guest also produces a letter from Arafat "recognizing" Israel's right to exist. If Arafat meant what he said, then the PLO would have removed the passages calling for the destruction of Israel from its Charter. It has not done so. Furthermore, there are organizations within the PLO, such as the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, that have stated they will never stop terrorist attacks as long as Israel exists in any form. If Arafat meant what he said in that letter he would expel the PFLP from the PLO. He has not. Of course, there are other terrorist groups, such as Hamas, bent on the destruction of Israel that are more popular among the Palestinians than Arafat's PLO. And today there was another suicide bombing in Israel. BTW, one of the murdered victims in yesterday's suicide bombing in Netanya was a waiter who survived the Passover Seder massacre. |
|
20 May 02 - 01:28 PM (#713984) Subject: RE: BS: On This Day Jews Rejoiced From: M.Ted GUEST of ORIGIN, Thank you for your thoughts, and thank you especially for reminding us of the direness of the cirumstances that resulted in the establishment of Israel--your points and reflections are also appreciated--they seem fair and well considered--a rarity in this time when fairness and reason are regarded as signs of treason-- And CarolC, hang in there! Don't let the bastards get you down--and if there is any doubt who the bastards are, I am sure that they will surface again-- |
|
20 May 02 - 04:06 PM (#714073) Subject: RE: BS: On This Day Jews Rejoiced From: GUEST Guest YMF, so why did you lie about the Palestinians not recognizing Israel's right to exist? And before you answer, you might want to remember the letter I quoted is from ISRAEL'S MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS WEBSITE? You've got a racist, hate-filled troller agenda--pure and simple, and I was happy to come into the thread and expose you for the fraud you are. |
|
20 May 02 - 04:38 PM (#714088) Subject: RE: BS: On This Day Jews Rejoiced From: GUEST,YMF To the nameless Guest above: I most certainly did not lie about the Palestinians recognizing Israel's right to exist. I said the PLO Charter, which despite any other statements by Arafat or CarolC has never been renounced or amended to allow for the existence of Israel. Are you too stupid to read the words despite any other statements by Arafat? Any other statements includes that letter you quoted. Almost nine years after Arafat wrote that letter, not one word in the PLO Charter has been changed. I have never said anything racist against anyone or any group. Your baseless, ANONYMOUS accusations say nothing about me but much about you. I'm out of here. |
|
20 May 02 - 06:24 PM (#714150) Subject: RE: BS: On This Day Jews Rejoiced From: Little Hawk Two very fine words are on my mind today. SHALOM and SALAAM. One is Jewish and one is Muslim (Arabic). They both mean "peace". May peace be with all of you. I care not who did what to whom in the past. Peace be with you now. - LH |
|
20 May 02 - 06:52 PM (#714163) Subject: RE: BS: On This Day Jews Rejoiced From: GUEST Peace isn't possible without justice first. |
|
20 May 02 - 07:10 PM (#714180) Subject: RE: BS: On This Day Jews Rejoiced From: Joe Offer I'm afraid you're wrong, Guest. In most cases, "justice" and "vengeance" are synonymous in the minds of people. We can never receive adequate repayment for past injuries. It's best to accept the present as reality and build upon it. Peace is the only answer, and it demands generosity and forgiveness from both sides. -Joe Offer- |
|
20 May 02 - 07:20 PM (#714186) Subject: RE: BS: On This Day Jews Rejoiced From: GUEST You're a wise man Joe |
|
20 May 02 - 07:54 PM (#714211) Subject: RE: BS: On This Day Jews Rejoiced From: CarolC The Palestinians want their own state within the pre 1967 borders. They want the part of east Jerusalem that they occupied pre 1967 to be their capital. And they want the settlements to be removed from the West Bank and Gaza. They also want to have the use of the water in the aquafer under the West Bank which is currently being used mostly by Israel.
That's what they want. They've said it over and over and over and over, and some people still don't want to hear them when they say that. They have given up on any ideas of having all of their previous homeland, and they are willing to settle for what they had after 1948 and pre 1967.
Some people just can't take yes for an answer.
The suicide bombers do what they do because they believe that this practice will help them get what they want, a Palestinian state within the pre '67 borders, etc. I do not support any practices that result in the deaths of innocents. Period. I just don't support the killing of innocents on either side.
However this leaves the Palestinians with a bit of a problem. How are they going to persuade the Israelis that occupation and aparthied comes at a cost? The Israelis usually don't feel the cost because they are almost completely separated from the Palestinians who live in the occupied territories, and the US government and US taxpayers provided the money that makes the system in Israel possible. So the Palestinians and the US taxpayers are the only ones who would feel the cost in the absence of things like suicide bombers.
Last night, I came up with an alternative to suicide bombing. Like the Buddist monks who used to immolate themselves as a form of protest, I think the Palestinians should adopt a practice similar to that one to the extent that they want to sacrifice their lives for their cause. They can't do it like the Buddist monks did, because the IDF would have them removed before they completed their protest and it would result in no effect at all.
So what I think they should do is to blow themselves up in places where their act will be visible to a lot of people, but where it will not cause any physical harm to anyone except themselves, and will cause a minimum amount of property damage. I don't know what sort of places would work for this. It might be difficult to find such places. But I think if they are going to blow themselves up, that's the way they should do it. I think that would provide a very shocking and graphic representation of the cost that the Palestinians bear as a result of the occupation and apartheid in Israel/Palestine. |
|
20 May 02 - 08:23 PM (#714238) Subject: RE: BS: On This Day Jews Rejoiced From: artbrooks Agree. Any individual, Palestinian, Israeli, Saudi, radical IRA, Provo, Columbian "rebel", Al-Quaida member, ANYONE, who thinks that blowing up other people without giving them any warning or opportunity to defend themselves is basically wasting the air they breath. They should all be gathered together in some desolate spot, with full satellite TV coverage, and be given the opportunity to voluntarily make the supreme gesture. Then they should be buried in the mass grave that they just created and a large monument erected with the inscription "Give Peace a Chance". |
|
20 May 02 - 08:46 PM (#714248) Subject: RE: BS: On This Day Jews Rejoiced From: GUEST I don't think Joe Offer sounds wise at all. I think he sounds as dangerously naive as everyone else spouting peace and humanitarian rhetoric. Apparently, people here haven't studied much in the ways of peace and reconciliation efforts in hard places like South Africa, Northern Ireland, El Salvador, Somalia, Bosnia, etc. In every one of those countries, there has been a recognition of the need for justice to be administered WITHOUT vengeance, in order for peace and and stability to take hold. Those societies which have foregone vengeful retribution have also been the more successful with their transitions from war to peace. The idea that the word justice is equatable with vengeance is pretty strange, to my way of thinking. And I don't think I am necessarily in the minority because I hold that view. When I hear the word justice, I think of many things such as "what is just" or "rule of law" or "determining right from wrong" or "what is merited or due"--the concept of punishment and vengeance don't even come to mind, to be honest. |
|
20 May 02 - 09:09 PM (#714259) Subject: RE: BS: On This Day Jews Rejoiced From: CarolC I can't quite agree with you artbrooks. TV is too sterile. It's too easy for people to think that what they are seeing is not real. And, unfortunately, a lot of people would just see it as "entertainment". |
|
20 May 02 - 09:21 PM (#714263) Subject: RE: BS: On This Day Jews Rejoiced From: BH I rcvd the below item as an e mail---it might be of interest. I don't think I have anything to add to the discussion---I thank our "guest" for his partial agreement with me---one error---I agreed with the dismantling of settlements. I also believe that we can talk ourselves blue in the face-the power brokers will have the last say. It may well be that there was a simpler time and a patriotic time----at this time, however, I think we have to go back to the novel (about radio) that talks of the"great unwashed". Say it---they will believe it. So, read below and think on it---I do not---repeat--do not endorse or believe (without mnore proof) the allegations. But, as the header said---food for thought. Remember---your "freedom fighter" is some one else's "terrorist". But killing innocent civilians by blowing yourself up---better you should have seen an expensive "shrink". You only seem to be a crazed fanatic. By the way, as an aside, I see in today's NY Times that the Israelis luckily discovered a car bomb planted by Settlers to blow up a Palestinan school. They foiled that and arrested the perpetrators. So---let us now say --what about you Yasir? He seems to have as much control over his citizenry as his razor. Bill H The below is a copyrighted piece: . Subject: IT IS COMING NOW. The September 11th Attack: Pearl Harbor or Reichstag Fire? By Mark Ortiz The version of the events of September 11th that most people in the United States have accepted is a lie. This twisted version of recent history has utterly distorted millions of peoples view of the current situation. It has paved the way for a war of conquest in central Asia and the acceptance of police state measures in the US. To deal appropriately with the current situation, we must get beyond the official mythology and face the true implications of the evidence. Our rulers would have us believe that the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were an unprovoked act of war, perpetrated by maverick Islamist reactionaries out of hatred for democracy, secularism, and progress, with the support of Afghanistan. We are told that this event is a historical parallel to the Pearl Harbor attack of 1941, and that it justifies not only a war against the largely unrecognized government of Afghanistan, but an open-ended campaign against the ill-defined foe of terrorism. In the course of this campaign, we are told, we must be prepared to abandon divisive politics, give up civil liberties, and rally unquestioningly behind our leaders. People who question any of this are being branded as traitors, fired from their jobs, denied access to air travel, and forced to wonder what greater repression the future will bring. Sadly, most voices raised in opposition have focused on the relatively peripheral and moralistic points of whether the attack may have been provoked by our countrys imperialist foreign policy, whether it is ever appropriate to answer violence with violence, and how much curtailment of our freedoms is acceptable in such a serious emergency. Both the supporters of the war on terrorism and most of its detractors are ignoring the strong evidence of flagrant mass deception in this situation. In fact, a much closer parallel than Pearl Harbor would be the Reichstag Fire in Germany in 1933. Some readers may be unfamiliar with this event, so Ill recap briefly. Less than a month after Hitler was appointed Chancellor, somebody set fire to Germanys legislative hall. The event served as Hitlers pretext for dissolving the legislature, declaring himself dictator, and initiating a crackdown on his political opposition. The Nazis blamed the fire on the Communists, and immediately began rounding up progressives of all stripes. Most historians now agree that the Nazis probably set the fire themselves as an engineered provocation, or at the very least put the perpetrators up to it. This has never been conclusively proven, but the circumstantial evidence is strong enough so that most people now accept the belief that the Nazis set the fire. The reasoning that historians use in that case is based on an examination of the act itself, of who had the means and opportunity to do the deed, and who predictably benefitted. Similar analysis of the events of September 11th, 2001 indicates that: The attacks could only have occurred as they did if normal procedures used to safeguard US airspace were suspended at the highest levels of command. The alleged mastermind of the attack worked for the apparent victims in the past, and very likely still does. The national powers allegedly behind the attack had nothing to gain by it, and much to lose. The targets chosen are consistent with a provocation, and inconsistent with the opening attack in a war. The absence of followup attacks traceable to the alleged aggressors, and the presence of the anthrax incidents and hoaxes, are also consistent with a campaign to frighten the American people, and inconsistent with a war. The Bush administration and its corporate backers have politically benefitted from the events of Sept. 11 in numerous ways. The grim but unavoidable implication is that our rulers very probably engineered this event themselves to divert the course of history in a way that magnifies their own power and wealth. This makes those who perpetrated this provocation the real traitors, not those who have opposed the subsequent war and curtailment of freedom. The no air defense lie We are expected to believe that somebody could hijack four airliners, and use three of them as missiles against the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, in a country where no airliner had been hijacked for 12 years, over a time span of nearly two hours, with no response from the US Air Force. Thats ridiculous, and no thinking person should believe it. The truth is that all major powers monitor and defend their air space at all times, especially the air space around their major cities and national capitals. This is necessary not only for military security, but for aviation safety. We are told that there was no response because no procedures were in place to deal with such a situation. The truth is that the Air Force routinely intercepts civilian aircraft that diverge from their flight plan or become unresponsive to radio communication. This ordinarily doesnt mean the Air Force shoots these planes down -- only that they get them in sight and in range, see who is flying them, and in many cases escort them to an airport. No presidential order or other special clearance is needed for this, and FAA rules spell out standard procedures for such actions, including signals to pilots who dont respond to radio. There are even guidelines for when to shoot a plane down, although normally presidential authorization would be required for that in the case of an airliner with hundreds of passengers. We are told there was no response because there were no air bases with planes ready within range of the targets. The truth is that there is an air base, Andrews Air Force Base, just outside Washington, DC, with two combat-ready fighter squadrons operated by the Air National Guard and the Marines. Andrews is also home base to Air Force One, the presidential plane. It is unthinkable that the US Government would leave this installation, and its own headquarters, completely undefended. The suggestion that the government couldnt put fighters over DC from Andrews is ludicrous. Furthermore, the Air Force, the Air National Guard, the Marines, and the Navy have fighters not only ready but airborne all the time. These planes are conducting routine training and patrol flights. It is standard procedure to divert planes from these missions when an interception is required. This makes perfect sense; since when does a nation need to scramble a squadron of fighters to deal with a lone, unarmed civilian aircraft? Readers may recall, for example, the October 1999 case of Payne Stewarts private jet that lost cockpit pressure shortly after takeoff in Florida, and flew on autopilot with all occupants dead until it ran out of fuel and crashed in North Dakota. The plane was escorted all the way from Florida by a succession of diverted military aircraft, based in Florida, Oklahoma, and North Dakota. This is normal procedure, even for a small private plane. For this procedure not to be followed with an airliner, especially one known to be hijacked -- and especially when two hijacked airliners had already been used as weapons the same morning, as with AAL Flight 77, the plane that hit the Pentagon -- would have required active intervention at a high level of command. And if anybody below the level of the White House had suspended the normal procedures, we would be reading about that persons court martial. These clear facts mean that we have more evidence against George W. Bush in this case than we have against the Nazis in the Reichstag Fire. If Hitler had ordered the Berlin fire department not to put out any fires the night of February 27, 1933, or if the fire department had mysteriously failed to respond, the evidence would be comparable. The Osama doesnt work here anymore lie Our government never has shown us the evidence it says it has that Osama bin Laden and his network al Qaeda were behind the September 11th hijackings. But if they were, that is entirely consistent with an orchestrated provocation. It is public knowledge that our CIA supported and trained Osama bin Laden, the Mujahedin, and the Taliban. We are asked to believe that in 1996, Osama bin Laden turned on his handlers, quit the CIA, took to hiding in caves, and began a campaign of guerrilla warfare against the US. We are told that the CIA often knows where he was an hour ago, but never where he is now. A little reflection will show this story to be almost as implausible as the official account of undefended US skies. It may be that a lower-echelon operative like Philip Agee can quit the CIA and write exposes, and live -- if he or she is willing to put up with threats, harrassment, visa problems, and various other headaches. But a man in a position of command and control in highly sensitive covert operations, overseeing and coordinating thousands of people and millions of dollars, cannot be allowed to turn with impunity. He knows too much. He cant even be allowed to calmly walk away, much less declare a private war on the United States. Most of us dont need our bosss permission to quit a job. Would Osama bin Laden need the CIAs permission to quit? Yes, he would. A man like Osama bin Laden is not a one-man show. He operates with countless contacts and subordinates. For him to thumb his nose at his taskmasters and go hide someplace, all these other people must turn with him, at the same time. Otherwise, one or more of them can surely be persuaded, bribed or coerced to turn him in or take him out. The odds are minuscule that anybody thus entangled with hundreds or thousands of others, many of these undoubtedly answerable to the CIA through multiple channels, can simply disappear. On October 31st, 2001, the French daily Le Figaro reported that in July, 2001, Osama bin Laden was treated for a kidney infection at the American Hospital in Dubai. According to the report, bin Laden was there for ten days, and was visited by family members (so much for his being a black sheep) and the local Chief of Station for the CIA. The report was pulled from Le Figaros online archives and retracted the next day, but various online investigative sites saved copies of the article while it was up, and hardcopies of the paper remain. Why was the article pulled? Maybe it was false information. Or maybe it was true, and highly embarrassing to Le Figaros parent corporation, Carlyle. Carlyle is the 11th largest defense contractor in the United States. It employs former President George H. W. Bush as an advisor, in which capacity he traveled to Saudi Arabia in 1998 and 2000. The bin Laden family owned a hefty interest in Carlyle until September 11th. The family hastily sold all that stock as soon as the exchanges opened following the attack. Whether the Le Figaro report was factual or not, the official story of Osama bin Laden turning on his handlers is unbelievable on its face. The insider trading Speaking of stock deals, somebody knew about the attack in advance, in enough detail to know which airlines would be used, and what buildings would be targeted. This is evidenced by the huge volume of put options (stock trading contracts amounting to a bet that a stock will go down) placed on American Airlines, United Airlines, and companies with lots of office space in the WTC, including Merrill Lynch, in the three business days immediately preceding September 11th. A large share of the put options on UAL were purchased through Deutschebank/AB Brown. CEO of AB Brown until its 1998 absorption by Deutschebank was A. B. Buzzy Krongard, presently Executive Director of the CIA. While this does not necessarily prove CIA foreknowledge of the attack, it does suggest that; it is probable that there remain friendships and personal contacts through which inside information could have traveled, if there was such foreknowledge. This insider trading was reported in the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times. The only secret is who bought those put options. Clearly, this is a trail that could lead to the perpetrators of the crime. Yet our government -- supposedly so bent on bringing the culprits to justice that it will kill any number of Afghan civilians to do it -- so far refuses to investigate this insider trading, despite an organized letter-writing campaign to Congress urging such an investigation. What was in it for Afghanistan or the Taliban? The only thing Afghanistan and the Taliban regime have gotten from the attack and its aftermath is their own destruction, and more mayhem in their country. This was perfectly foreseeable. So if the Taliban had a role in the attack, what was their motive? Were they really so daft as to believe they could defeat the United States in a war? Or were they paid and ordered to participate in a provocation? In May, 2001, Colin Powell delivered $43 million to the Taliban, purportedly to finance that predecessor of the war on terrorism, the war on drugs. Was that the whole story, or was this their payoff to take a fall? The oil angle Some of the largest known reserves of oil and natural gas lie around and under the Caspian Sea. That landlocked body of water is situated northwest of Afghanistan and north of Iran. It is bounded by Russia, Iran, and the former Soviet republics of Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, and Azerbaijan. Further huge reserves lie beneath the plains of Kazakhstan, directly north of Afghanistan. The known reserves in each of these areas, separately, exceed those of Saudi Arabia. The oil is mostly near the surface and cheap to extract. The problem is how to get it to American, European, or Asian markets. On February 12th, 1998, John J. Maresca of Unocal Corporation (now known as TOSCO) addressed the House Committee on International Relations, Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific. He argued strongly that the international oil industry needs not only one pipeline but multiple ones from central Asia to ports on the Black Sea and the Indian Ocean. He described a plan by a consortium of oil companies to build a pipeline to the Black Sea, and another plan by his own company to build one to the Indian Ocean. Routes to the Indian Ocean must pass through either Afghanistan or Iran -- and Iran is currently closed to this because of US sanctions legislation. Even if sanctions against Iran were lifted, multiple routes would be desirable because of the political instability of the whole region. Speaking of the situation in Afghanistan, Maresca emphasized, ...construction of our proposed pipeline cannot begin until a recognized government is in place that has the confidence of governments, lenders, and our company. In spite of this, a route through Afghanistan appears to be the best option with the fewest technical obstacles. It is the shortest route to the sea and has relatively favorable terrain for a pipeline. A damn strange way to launch a war Suppose for a moment that you were a small nation, or handful of small nations, halfway around the world, with no navy and next to no air force, and you had chosen the goal of destroying the USA by warfare. (Please dont laugh -- we are actually being asked to believe thats what we face.) Suppose you wanted to gain an initial advantage in this war by launching a surprise attack. First of all, your objective would logically be to cause maximum loss of life, and maximum destruction of your adversarys ability to wage war. Symbolic importance would be a secondary concern at best when selecting your targets. I dont mean to deny the significance of 5,000 or more human lives, but wouldnt it have made more sense to take out two or three nuclear power plants with those planes? That would have killed millions, and rendered major population centers uninhabitable. It would not have taken a genius to think of this. (It still wouldnt -- a good argument against nuclear power.) Second, you would presumably try to avoid killing citizens of countries other than your target. Launching a war against a major power is ambitious enough. You wouldnt want the whole world mad at you at once. Yet the occupants of the World Trade Center came from a huge variety of nations. The only building in the United States with more cosmopolitan occupancy would be the United Nations. The Pentagon is an actual military target, and clearly a US asset. But would any one actually expect to disable the US military just by damaging part of this one huge facility, with no followup attacks on other installations? Again, a symbolic blow, but by itself not much of a war. Now suppose you were an anti-imperialist, or anti-secularist, or anti-progressive guerrilla organization that had found sanctuary in a poor, backward country but was not really an instrument of its foreign policy. Suppose that you decided to strike at targets symbolizing what you oppose, in the hope of inspiring like-minded people throughout the world to take up your struggle. Then you might choose targets for symbolic value. But wouldnt you also explain your acts to the world? Wouldnt you seek to blunt the inevitable efforts to denounce your group as murderers? Wouldnt you seek to advance some kind of identifiable political program or agenda, behind which you could rally support? Without these communicative ingredients, how could you create a snowballing world uprising -- without which the whole thing would be an exercise in futility? For these reasons, guerrilla movements generally issue communiques explaining their actions. Even the demonstrably bogus Symbionese Liberation Army of the 1970s had to do this, if only to be a halfway convincing hoax. A campaign of terrorism or guerrilla attacks with a total absence of any communication is highly unusual. Also, a guerrilla movement, which must by nature play for popular support, ordinarily makes an effort, or at least the appearance of an effort, to minimize the loss of innocent life. It makes no sense to do otherwise in an attack or campaign that is first and foremost an armed propaganda operation. Finally, imagine yourself as a pro-corporate leader of a great world power with a major oil addiction, a corporate elite bent on global economic domination, and at the same time a revolutionary libertarian tradition, a constitution forbidding police state measures, an inescapable need for the approval of world opinion, and within your own borders a strong, growing movement against imperial intervention and global corporatism. Suppose that your familys fortune was made in the oil industry; that the worlds largest reserves of oil lay landlocked halfway around the world; and that the only practical way to get that oil out was to build a militarily vulnerable pipeline through a part of the world that could only be politically stabilized through intervention by the major powers. Suppose, further, that you were in office thanks to a rigged election, and that this was public knowledge; that the economy was sinking into a long-overdue slump; and that your approval rating was around 50% and falling. You would have an urgent need for an excuse for military intervention where that pipeline had to go; for a pretext to crack down on troublemakers in your own back yard; and for some big event that would make you look heroic and rally the public behind you. Suppose that you decided to create an attack that would accomplish the above objectives. What would you look for when choosing your targets? The destruction would have to be horrific enough to severely shock people, to turn the tide of public opinion massively in your favor, and to form a bulwark against possible accusations that you planned it yourself. The destruction would have to involve enough loss of life to be convincing, but there would be no need to kill people by the millions. Symbolic value of the targets would be important, since emotional impact on the public would be crucial. It would be highly desirable to have people of many nations die. This would allow you to rally not only domestic opinion but global opinion against whoever you pinned the deed on, and provide international support for the subsequent military intervention where the oil pipeline needed to be. To make the event serve as a pretext for a crackdown on the global justice movement, you would want a symbol of global corporatism to be among the targets. You would also want to make sure that the US military was hit -- not hard enough to seriously diminish its ability to wage war, but convincingly enough so you could claim that an act of war had occurred, not merely a crime. This would be important so that you could justify the use of the military in a response, and also because there is precedent in the US for suspension of civil liberties in times of war, but not in response to a crime. Clearly the targets chosen for September 11th fit these requirements to a tee. As for the communications side of the operation, you would want to make sure the corporate media whipped the public into a jingoistic frenzy, while you yourself postured as a calm voice for restraint. There could be a contrived statement from the alleged perpetrators -- but if everything else went well enough, this would be unnecessary, and leaving the exact motives and identity of the purported culprits a question mark could be highly advantageous. It would mean you could declare a war against an amorphous foe, and then flesh out the bogeyman profile to fit your political adversaries as needed, for years. War? Where? If you set out to subdue the neighborhood bully, would you walk up and punch him in the nose, and then just quit fighting and stand there? If you launched a war with a surprise attack, would you conduct that attack, and then stop? Surely you would have further plans. Surely you would immediately press on with the war. At this writing, it has been almost a quarter of a year since the attack, and we have (knock on wood) seen no followup attack at all. This is inconsistent with a war, or even a guerrilla campaign. Actually, there have been lots of attacks since September 11th -- in Afghanistan, by the US and its allies of the moment. The size and scope of the operations there strongly suggest that they were in the works for a long time. Where is al Qaedas war effort? What about the anthrax? It is interesting, in a number of ways. However, even our government isnt attributing it to foreign-based terrorists. It appears to be a relatively crude, home-grown effort. That said, its timing is worth noting. So is the targeting, and so is the communication side of it. As far as we know, all actual anthrax cases have occurred since September 11th. Yet there were numerous anthrax threats in this country for years before that, chiefly against abortion clinics. I heard a public health official from Indianapolis on the radio saying there had been over 30 such incidents in Indianapolis in 2000 alone. Also, even since September 11th, bogus anthrax threats have outnumbered actual cases more than a hundred to one. Thus, there are some common threads running through the September 11th attack and the anthrax situation: The timing -- one right after the other; The absence of anybody taking responsibility or explaining purpose -- which, as previously noted, is highly unusual; The evident emphasis on creating panic rather than accomplishing any actual military objective. I make no claims to biological weapons expertise, but from a common-sense standpoint, if I were contemplating using biological weaponry as part of a war effort, I would do the following: Be stealthy, not provocative. Use a disease that occurs naturally in humans all the time. Try to make the campaign look like a naturally occurring epidemic. Make no threats, certainly not false ones. Target military personnel, and perhaps public safety personnel. Target people who have a significant role in the military and in civil defense, but are not in the limelight. Avoid targeting media people and public figures. Choose an agent that causes lingering illness, not quick death. Fill up the enemys hospitals and drain their resources. Soften the target country up with this covert campaign before any overt attack. Follow the disease up with other measures, not vice versa. Taken together, the September 11th attack and the anthrax situation do have the appearance of an integrated effort -- but its an integrated effort to panic the American people into accepting war and political repression, not an effort to militarily defeat the USA. Moreover, the whole operation - not just the anthrax part -- appears to be, at its roots, the work of home-grown perpetrators. At least as regards the September 11th events, these would necessarily have to include the man in the Oval Office and his advisors. Who benefits? We have already noted that the Taliban regime and al Qaeda have gained nothing and lost much from the events of the last few months. What has been the effect for George W. Bush and his corporate backers? Unless we count the property destruction and loss of life as blows to them (not logical really, since they werent killed or injured, and they may not even have lost any investments), the effects have been a long list of solid gains. Bushs formerly flagging popularity has soared. Issues of the day have been forgotten or pushed to the back burner. Many groups that were actively opposing the administrations policies have dropped their campaigns. The US has gained a military foothold in Central Asia, with virtually none of the political fallout that usually would accompany such an intervention. A climate of jingoist hysteria has been created that threatens all voices of sanity and social progress. A scapegoat, or at least a partial excuse, for the economic slump already in progress has been created. A pretext for extensive corporate welfare measures has been created. The left has been profoundly divided over its response to the situation. A pretext has been created to treat as potential or suspected terrorists all people opposing the global corporatism that the World Trade Center symbolized. A pretext has been created for an ongoing campaign against the Bill of Rights. The erosion of constitutional rights since September 11th has been rapid and drastic, and is still in progress as this is written. So far, we have seen detention of thousands of people without charges, and without even disclosure of their names or the number of detainees. At least one activist against the war has been denied the right to fly, on the basis of computer files that the government denies it has. The USA/Patriot Act openly attacks attorney-client privacy. Less openly, attorneys are already being denied the right to contact clients in US penal institutions. Political prisoners, including Philip Berrigan, have been held incommunicado in solitary confinement for weeks on end, with no explanation. The new legislation also legalizes surreptitious entry and search, and expands electronic eavesdropping. These things clearly violate the first, fourth, and fifth amendments to the United States Constitution. But theyre happening. And contrary to official propaganda, victims of these measures definitely include US citizens. Conclusion The impossibility of the official version of recent events, and the use that our rulers have made of them, should make it clear what is going on: mass deception, and the fascization of our country. In this situation, progressives and people of good will have nothing to gain by timidity. Despite the outrageousness of the truth, despite the fact that it will anger people, we must speak it, loud and clear. Read more The following sites have great articles on the events of Sept. 11th and related subjects: http://tenc.net -- The Emperors New Clothes. Good details on our airspace security system. http://globalresearch.ca -- Good articles, including one on insider trading by Michael Ruppert http://www.copvcia.com -- some articles free, some available to paid members only John Marescas congressional testimony about piping oil through Afghanistan can be read on the website of the House of Representatives, or at http://www.sumeria.net A good widely-circulated article on inconsistencies in the official story is Stan Goffs Summary of Thoughts on the Infinite War. I will forward this upon request to markortiz@vnet. Copyright 2001 by Mark Ortiz Reprint and retransmit freely for non-commercial purposes. For commercial publication rights, mailto:markortiz@vnet.net |
|
20 May 02 - 10:03 PM (#714281) Subject: RE: BS: On This Day Jews Rejoiced From: Joe Offer Yeah, I suppose it's naieve to hope for peace. The reality is that people will keep killing each other in the name of their precious justice. There are no "right" sides in the conflict in Israel/Palestine. The Jewish people have a historic claim on the land, and so have the Arabs. The current reality is that both peoples live on the land, and they have to find a way to live on the same land without killing each other. Each side has a different view of "justice." I think they need to forsake their claim for justice for past offenses, and find a way to live in peace in the future. If retribution is justice, then I believe that both sides have had more than their share. The Middle East view of justice is that the combatants kill a number of noncombatants, and claim they deserved to do it in the name of justice. the ones who get killed rarely had done wrong to anyone, and the guilty ones invariably escape to kill again (or get elected to political office). I was in Israel in November, 1999, and it was a delightful place. People in the streets seemed to be having a good time of life. There were only limited signs of tension in Nazareth (Israel), and in Bethlem and Jericho in Palestine. Arabs and Jews seemed to get along reasonably well. It seemed to me that it was possible that both peoples could live in peace and have a good life - but then, I did not visit the West Bank and Gaza. Some of you may know a friend of mine named Bob Fitch. Bob went to Israel and Palestine in July of last year, and had a totally different experience - so now I don't know what to think. I grew up an admirer of Israel, Ben Gurion, and especially Golda Meir. Israel was a place of hope for people who had suffered so terribly during the Holocaust, and it was one place in the world where Democratic Socialism actually seemed to work. There were a few wars, but they were nice, clean ones that Israel won quickly with little bad press. I guess I didn't really think about the concerns of the Palestinians. Then came the 1980's, and it seemed the right wingers had conqured the world - Germany, the US, Great Britain, and even Israel. All of a sudden, it was once again fashionable to wage war to protect the interests of rich people (as if that had ever gone out of fashion). A side effect, I suppose, was that the Palestinians realized that they had no hope under Israeli rule, so they started to fight back - and they actually gained a number of concessions. Now we have the New Millennium, the new Age of the Warmongers. Now it's fashionable to wage war for "justice," whatever that is. The trouble is, when both sides see their position as just, how can anyone have moral superiority? I know peace is an unrealistic goal - but is the alternative any more realistic? I'm disillusioned with Israel, and I'm disillusioned with the Palestinians - but I still believe that peace is the only answer. -Joe Offer- |
|
20 May 02 - 10:26 PM (#714289) Subject: RE: BS: On This Day Jews Rejoiced From: CarolC Joe, I have to respect your desire for peace. I share that desire. What I would ask you is what you would do if someone parked their car on you foot, and wouldn't remove it? Would you just stand there and smile? The reality the Palestinians live with isn't too different from that. They are asking to be allowed to live in freedom within an area that is less fifty percent of the land that used to be their home. They are willing to let go of any claims to more than fifty percent of the land that was once their home. What they want is the same rights, freedom and liberty that you and I and the Israelis enjoy, within the borders of that less than fifty percent. They aren't looking for retribution for past injustices. They just want to have the same human and civil rights as you and me. |
|
20 May 02 - 10:47 PM (#714299) Subject: RE: BS: On This Day Jews Rejoiced From: Joe Offer I dunno, Carol. There's a lot of empty space in what Israel has been willing to give to the Palestinians as a homeland. I can't agree with the right-wing Jewish settlers who insist on settling that land - but the moderates in Israel can't deal with them until the Palestinians can demonstrate that concessions will bring real peace. If you can't give the common-sense people something real to hold onto, the extremists will continue to have their way. The battle in Israel/Palestine is not a battle between reasonable people. It's the extremists on both sides who are causing the bloodshed. There is no "right side" in this conflict. Both sides are wrong - horribly wrong. If the Palestinians want an end to the conflict, they must stop attacking moderate Israelis who want peace. They need to attack their real enemy, the right-wing extremists on both sides. -Joe Offer- |
|
20 May 02 - 11:07 PM (#714303) Subject: RE: BS: On This Day Jews Rejoiced From: CarolC If the Palestinians want an end to the conflict, they must stop attacking moderate Israelis who want peace. They need to attack their real enemy, the right-wing extremists on both sides. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that you're right about that. How do you think they should go about doing it? |
|
21 May 02 - 09:19 AM (#714539) Subject: RE: BS: On This Day Jews Rejoiced From: GUEST Yes Joe, there is a lot of empty space that Israel offered to the Palestinians. It is called desert. And Israel kept the water. Fair deal? Hmmm, can't imagine why the Palestinians turned down the offer to live in a desert with no reliable water sources, surrounded by armed guards who had total control of their every movement. And according to the pro-Israel pundits, it was the "best offer" they were ever going to get from Israel too. |
|
21 May 02 - 09:35 AM (#714545) Subject: RE: BS: On This Day Jews Rejoiced From: Wolfgang According to the online world factbook there are roughly 5,000,000 Jews living between the river Jordan and the sea in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza. According to the same source, 4,200,000 Arabs live in the same region. One of the organisations responsible for the suicide attacks is the Hamas. There was an interesting interview with their leader in a German newspaper last week. He didn't ask for a Palestinian state beside Israel, he asked for a Palestinian state instead of Israel. He reiterated the well known policy of Hamas that Jews that have been living in Palestine in 1917 (and their offspring) have a right to stay. When asked what should become of the roughly 5,000,000 other Jews living now in that region he said: "That is not our problem." When I hear such a man I understand though do not support Israel politics of strength. Wolfgang |
|
21 May 02 - 09:49 AM (#714554) Subject: RE: BS: On This Day Jews Rejoiced From: CarolC Yes, Wolfgang, that kind of talk from Hamas is pretty problematic. And what's even more problematic is that there are plenty of right wing extremists in Israel, including in the government, who want all of the Palestinians removed (one way or another) from the occupied territories. I say more problematic because the Israelis are in a much better position to carry out such ethnic cleansing than the Palestinians could ever be. When you take into consideration the Palestinians who have already been displaced to other contries, and add those numbers to the ones the right wingers would like to see removed from Israel/Palestine, the numbers of displaced persons is pretty staggering. The Israeli right wingers seem to be adopting the same sort of "That is not our problem" attitude that your Hamas guy seems to have. |
|
21 May 02 - 09:51 AM (#714556) Subject: RE: BS: On This Day Jews Rejoiced From: GUEST Rhetoric is rhetoric. Hamas is no different than anyone else in that regard. To suggest that this rhetoric is somehow new is ridiculous. Israel would rather get Arafat, the democratically elected Palestinian parliament, and the Palestinian Authority out of the way so they could mount a propaganda war against Hammas as the "new" generation of Palestinian leadership. While negotiating with them behind closed doors, in secret. The cat is out of the bag about a new Palestinian state, and you can't put it back in by demonizing ANY Palestinian organization with a history of providing social services to the West Bank and Gaza--not Hamas, and not the Palestinian Authority, regardless of how corrupt they are. They are the only game in town, until Israel ends it's military occupation, and allows the formation of an independent Palestinian state controlled by an independent Palestinian economy, ruled by Palestinians.
|
|
21 May 02 - 11:03 AM (#714606) Subject: RE: BS: On This Day Jews Rejoiced From: GUEST Those population statistics you are citing Wolfgang, grossly distort the population realities of the region. Here are some facts which more accurately represent the intentional Zionist political settlement of the Jewish population in the region: Population and Modern Palestine of the 1920-1947 British Mandate Period: In-Migration and Demographic Transformation: Palestine in 1882 had a small, native, and migrant religious Jewish community of roughly 24,000 among a Palestinian population of nearly 500,000. There were several waves of politically inspired immigration into the country. The first occurred between 1882 and 1903 and totaled about 25,000. The second, between 1904 and 1914, brought in around 35,000 immigrants, which resulted in a total Jewish population of 85,000. The third wave between 1919 and 1923 brought another 85,000 immigrants, mostly Polish and middle class. The December 1931 British census of the country showed that of the 1.04 million people, 84 percent were Arab and 16 percent were Jewish. While the increase in the Jewish population was due largely to in-migration, the Palestinian population increased naturally at 2.7 percent per year. Because of the rise of Nazism, 174,000 Jews migrated to Palestine between 1932 and 1936. Suddenly the Jewish population in Palestine rose to an estimated 28 percent of the total inhabitants. This radical change, occurring in a brief span of only five years, must certainly be recognized as an important cause of the Palestinian Arab rebellion of 1936 against British Mandate authorities. Both legal and illegal Jewish immigration (according to Mandate authorities) into Palestine increased during World War II and its aftermath. By the end of 1947, Palestine Mandate government estimates indicate that of a total population of 1.9 million, Jews made up only 31 percent. Thus, only a year before the state of Israel was unilaterally declared, the Jewish population constituted less than one-third the total inhabitants. Nevertheless, the Jewish minority in Palestine became a powerful community.
|
|
21 May 02 - 11:44 AM (#714635) Subject: RE: BS: On This Day Jews Rejoiced From: McGrath of Harlow Peace and justice can't be separated in practice. For one thing the absence of peace in itself is itself an enormous injustice.
Moving towards peace and justice has to happen together, that's the lesson from Northern Ireland, and that was the dynamic of the Oslo Peace Process.
It can start with words, such as recognition in words of injustice, move on through practical cooperation on things where there's mutual advantage, bring in symbolic gestures around cultural activities and so forth. And if it doesn't get disrupted, and if people keep their word, it can move on in time to a true peace, with true justice. Not complete peace, and not complete justice, because they are out of anybody's reach in a situation like this, at this time anyway.
But the momentum was lost, the process disrupted, the promises broken, and the hope of peace coming out of the Oslo process was thrown away. It's got to start all over again, and God knows how many years and how many deaths it will take. "Friends" from outside who throw oil on the fire have a part in the blame for what has happened.
A non-violent struggle by the Palestinians would threaten the extremists who are in power in Israel in a way that the terror bombing of civilians never can. In fact the extremists are in power in Israel as a direct result of terror bombing.
In the same way a rejection of terror as a technique by the Israeli army would be a far more effective way of bringing an end to the unofficial hegemony of organisations which organisations favour terror bombing against civilians, because that hegemony is founded on the experience of Israeli punitive attacks.
It's a vicious circle. Non-violent resistance is probably the only way it could be broken - and inevitably that will mean a great deal of violence against whoever adopts it in an effective way, violence which will be carried out from both sides by people whose political survival it would be threatening. |
|
21 May 02 - 01:29 PM (#714701) Subject: RE: BS: On This Day Jews Rejoiced From: GUEST McGrath said: "A non-violent struggle by the Palestinians would threaten the extremists who are in power in Israel in a way that the terror bombing of civilians never can. In fact the extremists are in power in Israel as a direct result of terror bombing." Well, the non-violent struggle never did a thing for the people of El Salvador, except enrage the death squads and cause even more death and suffering. And in El Salvador, it certainly couldn't be said that the FMLN was the reason for it either. Non-violence is not a panacea for political violence, especially when state sponsored violence is being waged against impotent, oppressed communities. The political violence waged against civilian populations by despotic militaries and paramilitaries in Central and Latin American countries is living proof of that. "We Shall Overcome" sorts of non-violent movements and efforts were met with a reign of terror unprecedented in El Salvador's history in the early 1980s. Gandhi didn't get it right either, despite the lovely sentiments. Unless of course, you think the current nuclear stand-off between Pakistan and India is a positive result of non-violent protest.
|
|
21 May 02 - 02:22 PM (#714741) Subject: RE: BS: On This Day Jews Rejoiced From: McGrath of Harlow I can't say that I ever heard that violent resistance in El Salvador worked too well either.
Of course non-violence isn't a panacea. Did anyone ever claim it was? Sometimes you lose whatever you do, in the short run, and even in the long run.
Whether it's violence or non-violence it means death and suffering in this kind of situation. I think non-violence would have a far better achieving something than the type of violent struggle we've seen, where the vast proportion of the suffering is on the part of the Palestinians. I think there are a large number of Israelis and supporters of Israel who would not have the stomach for killing children who were not throwing stones, for example, or driving tanks over people standing there with empty hands.
|
|
21 May 02 - 02:32 PM (#714760) Subject: RE: BS: On This Day Jews Rejoiced From: CarolC McGrath, I don't know if you were aiming for exquisite irony with that last sentance of yours, but you certainly acheived it. (If you hadn't considered it in ironic terms, think about what you left unsaid with that sentence, and I think you might see what I mean.) |
|
21 May 02 - 02:49 PM (#714781) Subject: RE: BS: On This Day Jews Rejoiced From: GUEST McGrath, The troubles with humanitarian, non-violent and pacifist responses to political violence are complex, particularly in the changed post-Cold War world, where there is often an expectation that the good UN and peace loving humanitarians everywhere can solve armed conflicts with peaceful intentions. If that were the case, I'm sure the 5.5 million people killed in armed conflicts worldwide between 1990 and 1996, over 75% of whom were civilians, would be alive today, wouldn't they? This magical non-violent, humanitarian impulse, shared by the majority of middle class Westerners, too often ignores the realities on the ground which must be considered before any sort of effective interventions can take place, non-violent or otherwise. Most "just wa" theory developed in the past 50 years doesn't even take into account those realities of what can be done before the operational and financial issues are confronted. There are ethical and political questions to be asked, which are themselves reflected at the operational and economic levels of intervention. The political problems Western governments face lie in the balance of risk entailed in choosing either to use resources (including domestic political capital) on risky and costly intervention or to stand by and do nothing in the face of public outrage at injustice and suffering. This political calculation is made on the basis of the strength of competing ethical claims that Westerners crying out for peace have no notion of, and even worse, have little to no patience for sorting out. Isn't it time we all got our well-intentioned, but disturbingly narcissicistic humanitarian impulses under control, and looked deep for some of the root causes of these complex problems? Like the global small arms trade, just for one? Many of the armed conflicts active in 1996 are protracted: over 60% have lasted more than five years, and one-third have lasted longer than 20 years. Most of these wars are fought with relatively low-technology weapons, and most of the killing in them is done at close quarters – quite unlike the high-tech media event of the 1990–91 Gulf War with its video-recorded, computer- and laser-guided missiles. In these wars the sophistication often lies in the techniques of selecting victims and manipulating terror, rather than in the technology of killing. How do you suppose non-violence can address those sorts of violent conflicts? There is no way to educate the people currently involved in armed conflicts how to effectively use non-violent strategies to defuse violence in their midst, and that is the only non-violence can be made to work--through mass educational efforts of the populace. You will only ever find a handful of martyrs willing to sacrifice their lives for the supposed "higher" principles of non-violent resistance, so it can never be effective enough against state militias particularly, once violence has become entrenched in a society. El Salvador remains one of the most violent societies in the Western hemisphere, despite the supposedly successful "peace process" forced upon the country without justice. The current president is a son of a death squad commander, the poverty and squalor remains unchanged, small arms continue to proliferate, women and children continue to be terrorized and brutalized by intimate family members--that is exactly the kind of "peaceful solution" that comes from peace being imposed by Westerners with no interest in the region where the violence occurs, beyond the fact they don't like watching people suffer on their nightly news?
|
|
21 May 02 - 02:53 PM (#714787) Subject: RE: BS: On This Day Jews Rejoiced From: GUEST Sorry--above 3rd par. 2nd sentence should read "just war" theory... |
|
21 May 02 - 04:30 PM (#714858) Subject: RE: BS: On This Day Jews Rejoiced From: Ebbie 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. |
|
21 May 02 - 04:56 PM (#714877) Subject: RE: BS: On This Day Jews Rejoiced From: McGrath of Harlow That clear distinction between those who are willing to kill others and those who are willing to sacrifice themselves isn't so clear as all that. The IRA hunger strikers who gave their lives were not pacifists.
Yes there may be those who favour non-violence because of what GUEST 21-May-02 - 02:49 PM calls "narcissicistic humanitarian impulses". But there are others who recognise it as potentially the most effective way of fighting in many situations.
Incidentally Gandhi was one such; he once said that if he thought guns would be a better way of achieving what was needed, in the circumstances in which he was involved, he'd be the first to use them. But they wouldn't.
Maybe there are circumstances where guns and bombs are the best way and the only way, maybe there are not - that's a theoretical discussion. But in the Holy Land as present guns and bombs are definitely not any kind of way for the Palestinians to win a more just and tolerable future. And the same is true for the Israelis in a less obvious way. |
|
21 May 02 - 05:55 PM (#714926) Subject: RE: BS: On This Day Jews Rejoiced From: GUEST McGrath, you are miscontruing my comments. Nowhere have I advocated violence or force. I've simply said that there is a strong element of middle class narcissist naivete to arguments suggesting that communities like the Palestinians in the OT, should use solely non-violent means to fight the assaults on their communities by the Israeli occupying forces. Non-violence is always preferable, and all reasonable people know that. But it isn't reasonable, or even necessarily preferable, for us to expect people under military siege to be able to organize a widespread, grassroots non-violent movement and train people in non-violent resistance tactics. I think that is much too much to expect, especially when these communities are awash with guns. I also disagree that Palestinian armed struggle is futile. It wasn't futile for the IRA, for the Sandinistas, for the ANC, or a lot of other organizations which have won concessions from occupiers and oppressors in the last 25 years using armed resistance. They've all gotten results too. |
|
21 May 02 - 08:31 PM (#715000) Subject: RE: BS: On This Day Jews Rejoiced From: McGrath of Harlow The fact that a tactic works in one place (and there's a lot of argument as to whether that applies to all those cases) doesn't mean it will work in another place and time and in totally different circumstances.
In Northern Ireland I think probably the most effective single military action taken by the IRA was the one that involved the Ten dying on hunger strike. And the most disastrous day for the occupying army was Bloody Sunday.
If the young Palestinians who died as suicide bombers had died publicly, but in ways designed to avoid killing or physically threatening other people (and in ways that would have made it impossible for them to be described as "failed suicide bombers", of course), they would have done far more to advance their cause, instead of strengthening the hold on power of the extremists in Israel. |
|
21 May 02 - 08:49 PM (#715005) Subject: RE: BS: On This Day Jews Rejoiced From: CarolC 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. |
|
21 May 02 - 08:55 PM (#715007) Subject: RE: BS: On This Day Jews Rejoiced From: CarolC 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. |
|
21 May 02 - 09:22 PM (#715017) Subject: RE: BS: On This Day Jews Rejoiced From: CarolC 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. |
|
21 May 02 - 09:35 PM (#715019) Subject: RE: BS: On This Day Jews Rejoiced From: Ebbie "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. |
|
21 May 02 - 10:43 PM (#715038) Subject: RE: BS: On This Day Jews Rejoiced From: CarolC 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. |
|
22 May 02 - 12:01 AM (#715065) Subject: RE: BS: On This Day Jews Rejoiced From: Ebbie 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. |
|
22 May 02 - 12:34 AM (#715075) Subject: RE: BS: On This Day Jews Rejoiced From: CarolC 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
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. |
|
22 May 02 - 01:15 AM (#715084) Subject: RE: BS: On This Day Jews Rejoiced From: Ebbie sheesh Sorry I bothered. |
|
22 May 02 - 01:30 AM (#715086) Subject: RE: BS: On This Day Jews Rejoiced From: CarolC 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. |
|
22 May 02 - 05:20 AM (#715154) Subject: RE: BS: On This Day Jews Rejoiced From: Wolfgang 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 |
|
22 May 02 - 08:18 AM (#715227) Subject: RE: BS: On This Day Jews Rejoiced From: GUEST 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.
|
|
22 May 02 - 08:23 AM (#715228) Subject: RE: BS: On This Day Jews Rejoiced From: GUEST 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." |
|
22 May 02 - 11:31 AM (#715375) Subject: RE: BS: On This Day Jews Rejoiced From: CarolC 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. |
|
22 May 02 - 11:53 AM (#715391) Subject: RE: BS: On This Day Jews Rejoiced From: McGrath of Harlow 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.
|
|
22 May 02 - 11:55 AM (#715392) Subject: RE: BS: On This Day Jews Rejoiced From: McGrath of Harlow 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. |
|
22 May 02 - 12:40 PM (#715418) Subject: RE: BS: On This Day Jews Rejoiced From: artbrooks 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". |
|
22 May 02 - 12:50 PM (#715423) Subject: RE: BS: On This Day Jews Rejoiced From: CarolC 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. |
|
22 May 02 - 01:30 PM (#715446) Subject: RE: BS: On This Day Jews Rejoiced From: CarolC 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. |
|
22 May 02 - 02:16 PM (#715483) Subject: RE: BS: On This Day Jews Rejoiced From: Joe Offer 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- |
|
22 May 02 - 03:11 PM (#715534) Subject: RE: BS: On This Day Jews Rejoiced From: CarolC 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. |
|
22 May 02 - 05:30 PM (#715640) Subject: RE: BS: On This Day Jews Rejoiced From: McGrath of Harlow "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. |
|
22 May 02 - 06:27 PM (#715703) Subject: RE: BS: On This Day Jews Rejoiced From: GUEST 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. |
|
22 May 02 - 07:09 PM (#715753) Subject: RE: BS: On This Day Jews Rejoiced From: McGrath of Harlow 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) |
|
23 May 02 - 04:01 AM (#715908) Subject: RE: BS: On This Day Jews Rejoiced From: Wolfgang 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 |
|
23 May 02 - 06:08 AM (#715960) Subject: RE: BS: On This Day Jews Rejoiced From: McGrath of Harlow 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. |
|
23 May 02 - 09:45 AM (#716048) Subject: RE: BS: On This Day Jews Rejoiced From: Pied Piper 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. |
|
23 May 02 - 10:12 AM (#716066) Subject: RE: BS: On This Day Jews Rejoiced From: Wolfgang 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 |
|
23 May 02 - 11:17 AM (#716118) Subject: RE: BS: On This Day Jews Rejoiced From: Mary in Kentucky 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. |
|
23 May 02 - 02:38 PM (#716267) Subject: RE: BS: On This Day Jews Rejoiced From: GUEST,Noah Webster 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. |
|
23 May 02 - 03:36 PM (#716307) Subject: RE: BS: On This Day Jews Rejoiced From: McGrath of Harlow "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. |