If you oppose the corrupt bigotry of Arab tyrants, why support their positions?

[december]

Equality of women Democracy Rule of law Religious freedom Sexual preference is not a crime Education Industrialization World literature Modern science modern health care freedom of speechcivilian rule

When Israel was formed in 1948, it brought these and other Western values to a part of the world dominated by corrupt dictators, where women were forced to wear burkas and prohibited from working or even driving, where gays could be stoned to death, where Christians and Jews could be deprived of rights, where culture, science, health care, education were at low levels.

Israel shared its values with its Arab neighbors
-- Arabs could be full citizens
-- Female Arab citizens in Israel have full rights, unlike their sisters in Arab lands
-- Hebrew University education has been available to Arabs and Muslims
-- Modern medical care was made available to Palestinians
-- Jobs in Israel have been made available to Palestinians who were not Israeli citizens.

Good treatment of Arabs is a danger to every Arab tyrant. Israel sets an example of proper government, which threatens the rule of these corrupt dictators. No wonder they have been attacking ever since it was founded. Fighting Israel helps these thugs to remain in power.

What puzzles me is this: Why do many posters here routinely take the side of the oppressive bigots against Israel? Are they militarists? Homophobes? Anti-Christian? Do they want women to be oppressed? Do they prefer a corrupt dictatorship, rather than democracy? Do they feel threatened by freedom of speech?

I certainly don't think so. Quite the reverse. So, why do they support people who represent positions that they detest?

Lenin is supposed to have referred to blind defenders and apologists for the Soviet Union in the Western democracies as "useful idiots." Is there a parallel here?

[Apos]

The problem, unfortunately, is primarily based on religious claims to territory.

---Why do many posters here routinely take the side of the oppressive bigots against Israel?---

You are using a pretty broad brush here. There are many many different opinions expressed on these boards, and being critical of Israel does not mean that someone also supports the tyrrany of Arab leaders either.

Personally, I think the hard-line edge of Israel's leadership and the Arab extremists are basically working together: unintentionally. Neither wants peace (the Arabs want to push the Jews into the sea, the hard-liners see peace as simply a dangerous opportunity for terrorists to regroup without Israeli military being able to monitor and assasinate people in Palestine directly, and all ceded land as simply a strategic position from which attacks can be launched on Israel).

[Duck Duck Goose]

many posters here routinely take the side of the oppressive bigots
Cites, please.

And then Buckner can move this puppy to the Pit, since the OP's only premise seems to be that the posters here who routinely side against Israel must be doing so because they must be militarists, or Homophobes, or Anti-Christian, or they must want women to be oppressed, or they must prefer a corrupt dictatorship, rather than democracy, or they must feel threatened by freedom of speech.

[Duck Duck Goose]

In other words, I don't see a debate--only insults.

Pit, please.

[London_Calling]

Originally posted by december
Lenin is supposed to have referred to blind defenders and apologists for the Soviet Union in the Western democracies as "useful idiots." Is there a parallel here?

You shouldn't talk about yourself like that, december. Lord knows others do it often enough for you.

[Sparc]

Chiming in requesting Pit removal, so as to have the ball and chain that weighs my tongue removed.

december I have kindly asked that you go there right away with these type of threads before. For a while you obliged me. Why the change?

Sparc

[wring]

Oh, I'm terribly sorry. I didn't realize that Israel was the only reason that anyone in that region had any rights, freedoms etc.

and I was also completely unaware that the only possible choices for a liberal like me was to either completely support Israel's every action/move or to desire complete subjugation of entire genders, relgions and sexual orientation, in that region.

glad we got that cleared up.

I agree w/DDG

[Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor]

Originally posted by wring
Oh, I'm terribly sorry. I didn't realize that Israel was the only reason that anyone in that region had any rights, freedoms etc.



Actually, it is. Egypt, the Islamic nation physicaly closest to Israel is one of the best respectors of its citizen's rights.

Jordan follows closely. After that, things get a lot worse.

And, if you espouse one standard of morality, and support people who attack that standard on a daily basis, then I can legitimately criticise you and your alleged standard of integrity.

[Sparc]

Biased response Bosda.

Still waiting for freedom of my tongue to reply properly.

[IzzyR]

Sorry guys, there is nothing insulting about this OP. If you feel you have an answer to the question, why not give it a shot? If not, maybe try a different thread - there's lots of them out there.

But I would phrase the question a bit differently: why is it that those who are concerned about human rights of the Palestinians are not similarly worked up about human rights abuses by the Palestinians, and other similar regimes. For some reason, it seems that the Palestinians have become a cause celebre in left wing circles, and while many also oppose a lot of the Arab regimes, it is not with nearly the same fervor. Strange.

[Dumbguy]

Apparently the board has a new filter that highlights Truth and Logic in pretty colors. And since only December’s post is highlighted, I must assume he’s right.

[wring]

Izzy It is precisely because you'd word it differently. As I suggested, it's not an 'either/or' situation. It's perfectly possible/ probable for folks to abhor violence, injustice etc, no matter the source. This fact seems to routinely escape the OP.

[Tamerlane]

Originally posted by IzzyR
Sorry guys, there is nothing insulting about this OP.

I disagree, if nothing else the phrasing was poor and leaned towards the insulting. But it is not worth debating over IMHO, so I'll just leave it at that.

But I would phrase the question a bit differently: why is it that those who are concerned about human rights of the Palestinians are not similarly worked up about human rights abuses by the Palestinians, and other similar regimes.

I certainly am and I think I've expressed that a couple of thousand times by now( okay, maybe only a couple of hundred :) ). Frankly I'm not of the opinion that many of the debaters in GD are all that blase about undemocratic Arab regimes. *shrug* Maybe I'm wrong.

However I think there is a real tendency to hold a democratically elected government like Israel's to a far higher standard of behavior than the murderous thugs running the PLO. Mostly they live up that higher standard, but there are occasional slips. Is it biased to think that way? Well, not to my thinking. I regard it as complimentary. But that may be an issue for another thread.

For some reason, it seems that the Palestinians have become a cause celebre in left wing circles, and while many also oppose a lot of the Arab regimes, it is not with nearly the same fervor. Strange.

Underdogism, perhaps.

But regardless, there are real issues that need to be addressed on both sides. Recognizing that Israel has relatively speaking cleaner hands, does not exempt them from criticism. One can counter december's argument ( and perhaps yours ) by claiming that perhaps the right-wing can be too quick to gloss over questionable Israeli tactics or actions because they find their politics ( and culture ) more palatable.

Bosda: I disagree. I think I'd take the government of Tunisia and Morocco over either Egypt OR Jordan.

- Tamerlane

[wring]

Missed Bosda's post. A. what Tamerlane suggested, and B. the premise also presupposes that no other global entity has any influence in the region. I think that's rather difficult to support. (not that I'm claiming the sort of strong tie that binds say, GB w/USA, but rather that as nations extend themselves into the global economy, educate their students in other nations etc, that influences the behavior/climate at home.)

[Jojo]

Regarding the actual subject matter of the OP, I have no opinion but as regarding the Pit accusations,

I can't believe I'm gonna do this but....

I'm on december's side on this one

This is Great Debates after all. december has presented us with a viewpoint and (as long as he can back it all up with cites etc) there should be no problem.

And I quite liked the colourful bit at the top (must've taken him ages to type).

No idea what he was talking about though.

I like december. I vote we keep him here. He can be like our little pet.

[Sparc]

Izzy,

As you put it I would debate away. As december put it he has made a more or less direct (and unfounded) attack on amongst others me.What puzzles me is this: Why do many posters here routinely take the side of the oppressive bigots against Israel? Are they militarists? Homophobes? Anti-Christian? Do they want women to be oppressed? Do they prefer a corrupt dictatorship, rather than democracy? Do they feel threatened by freedom of speech? That he makes it passably polite by adding:I certainly don't think so. Quite the reverse. So, why do they support people who represent positions that they detest?Is tainted by his history of lashing out at me for holding anti-Israel sentiments and insinuations that I be anti-Semitic despite continuous efforts from my side to show him that I am in fact neither opposed to Israel nor hold any grudge towards people of Jewish creed.

To boot he is wrong in asuming these things about 'many posters'. I have a hard time imagining even a tiny few posters that would support or condone any oppressive regime including Arab ones. It is yet another willful attempt at agitprop polarization serving to paint the Israeli/Palestinian conflict in white and black. This kind of support pandering is offensive and deserves a reply that I cannot give freely in this forum.

Nevertheless I will happily respond to the serious part of the OP the way you rephrased it, but only when I am free to respond to the offensive accusation that I feel has been raised against me.

Sparc

[tomndebb]

What puzzles me is this: Why do many posters here routinely take the side of the oppressive bigots against Israel? Cite?

Can you provide a link to any post in which someone has trumpted the glory of Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Syria, etc.?

Or are you going to claim that because the PA has corrupt leaders (since Israel keeps imprisoning the uncorrupted ones) we should take the side of the oppressive bigots of Likud?

december, you initially looked like an intelligent (if somewhat slanted) poster, but you have become increasingly divorced from reality in the last month.

[december]

Originally posted by wring
It's perfectly possible/ probable for folks to abhor violence, injustice etc, no matter the source. This fact seems to routinely escape the OP. That leads to my follow-up. The magnitude of atrocities by Muslims against Muslims and Arabs against Arabs dwarf the anti-Palestinian actions taken by Israel. E.g., civil war in Indonesia, horrendous war between Iran and Iraq a few years ago, actions by Saddam Hussein against Kurds. Actions by Hafez Assad against his people. The routine execution of moderate Palestinians by Arafat's thugs. The thousands upon thousands of Afghan civilians murdered by the Taliban during their horrible rule.

But I see far less notice of these much more horrible actions. Sympathy for mis-treated Palestinians isn't the basic motivation.

Thanks for the lead-in, wring.

wring isn't my sock puppet. I swear.

DDG, you might re-read the OP, particularly the words, "I certainly don't think so. Quite the reverse."

Tamerlane
However I think there is a real tendency to hold a democratically elected government like Israel's to a far higher standard of behavior than the murderous thugs running the PLO. However, this tendency doesn't apply uniformly. You wouldn't say,

However I think there is a real tendency to hold a democratically elected government like the EU to a far higher standard of behavior than the murderous thug Slobodan Milocevic

Nor would you say,

However I think there is a real tendency to hold a democratically elected government like Spain's to a far higher standard of behavior than the murderous thug Pinochet

Why does this principle apply to Israel, but not the others?

BTW today Israel announced a total ban on Palestinian travel in much of the West Bank, following a series of attacks by Palestinian militants. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2172260.stm
This predictiable result of the terrorism tends to cut Palestinians off from the culture and civil liberties of Israel. This serves the purposes of the tyrants.

[wring]

Some day, I would like december to stop manipulating posters on this board. I would also like him to cease setting up false dichotomies as OP's. And stop the whole 'surely I cannot believe that they'd prefer bigotry, yet that seems to be...' crap.

I also want a pony.

[Tamerlane]

Originally posted by december
That leads to my follow-up. The magnitude of atrocities by Muslims against Muslims and Arabs against Arabs dwarf the anti-Palestinian actions taken by Israel. E.g., civil war in Indonesia, horrendous war between Iran and Iraq a few years ago, actions by Saddam Hussein against Kurds. Actions by Hafez Assad against his people. The routine execution of moderate Palestinians by Arafat's thugs. The thousands upon thousands of Afghan civilians murdered by the Taliban during their horrible rule.

But I see far less notice of these much more horrible actions.

Then in part I think you're blind. But insomuch as the Palestinian situation is more front-page news it is because of the strategic sensitivity of the Middle East and most of all the very close historic andcultural ties of Europe and North America to Israel.

Sympathy for mis-treated Palestinians isn't the basic motivation.

Then what is? Are you accusing many posters here of being closet anti-semites?

However I think there is a real tendency to hold a democratically elected government like the EU to a far higher standard of behavior than the murderous thug Slobodan Milocevic

Yes, I would. I expect no better from Milosevic than to order the slaughter of civilians to further a geo-political agenda. I do not expect the EU to do the same.

However I think there is a real tendency to hold a democratically elected government like Spain's to a far higher standard of behavior than the murderous thug Pinochet

Yes, I would. I expect no better than for Pinochet to have ordered the assassinations of opposition journalists. I do not expect the government of Spain to do the same.

Care to try again?

This predictiable result of the terrorism tends to cut Palestinians off from the culture and civil liberties of Israel. This serves the purposes of the tyrants.

Shockingly, I partially agree. It is indeed the tactics of terrorist organizations like Hamas to foster separation, alienation, and hatred. They thrive on it. That's why, as much as I sympathize with Israel's Catch-22 situation in this regard, actions like this make me wince. It is, in its own peculiar way, appeasing terrorists by doing exactly what they want.

- Tamerlane

[DSeid]

Well december, you have an answer provided by tamerlane. Israel is held to a higher standard because Israel purports to hold those same secular values as the rest of the Western world. Because Israel claims to respect human and civil rights, because Israel espouses a love for freedom and for an open secular society. It is judged accordingly.

Most (?all? I defer to tamerlane here) Arab societies do not claim to hold those values dear.

I've said it before in these threads ... Israel on occasion treats the Arabs under its jurisdiction (including its citizens) almost as poorly as Arab countries treat Arabs .... and that is intolerable.

I've also asked the question before: does this differential standard (when it does occur, not that any particular posters here have ever done that) represent a kind of racism, a diminished set of expectations of Arab societies? I've been told that it does not, but I am unsure.

[Sparc]

You've lost it december. I don't even understand where you're trying to lead us with this anymore.

This for instance is nonsense of the first order.However I think there is a real tendency to hold a democratically elected government like the EU to a far higher standard of behavior than the murderous thug Slobodan Milocevic As a matter of fact the world community did. Many crimes and political acts that would have engendered immediate outrage towards the EU were overlooked in Serbia while we focused on purging the real evils and solving the problem at its core.

You display complete ignorance of world politics and security policy once again.

I guess you felt pretty smug at coming up with an argument that both attacked the EU and seemed to argue your point. Sorry sir you didn’t make it across the finishing line on that one, not even close.

BTW what the hell is up with the vB code fest that you have suddenly launched? Find the virtual color crayons and the fat markers and now you can’t stop scribbling?

Sparc

[Guinastasia]

Oh Og, make it STOP!!!

*sigh*

I too think this should be in the Pit. Or somewhere that they keep the billy goats and the bridges.

[Tamerlane]

DSeid: Well, I think there is a difference between saying "the Palestinian Authority is hopelessly corrupt" and "the Palestinians are inherently incapable of democratic reform". The first I believe, the second I don't - One is indicting a small segment of society, the other is indicting an entire people ( however defined ) and is racism.

For the record I do think that democratic reform can be/has been/is/will be extremely difficult in most ( or all ) Arab countries. But that says nothing intrinsic about Arab character IMO, but rather is the result of number of confounding factors including recent history and the difficulty of removing an entrenched political elite, at least some of whom it can be argued have bought into a culture of political corruption and despotism.

- Tamerlane

[Tamerlane]

Or to clarify slightly - I don't think all criticisms of any given society are necessarily racist. Depends how they are worded/considered. There are plenty of legitimate or semi-legitimate criticisms one can make of other societies, without necessarily thinking the people in those societies are inherently inferior as human beings.

But this is a hijack in a thread that doesn't deserve it, so I'll leave it there.

- Tamerlane

[tomndebb]

This serves the purposes of the tyrants.There we have it. december (finally) agrees that Sharon and his henchmen are serving Hamas and its thugs.

[december]

Originally posted by Tamerlane
Then in part I think you're blind. But insomuch as the Palestinian situation is more front-page news it is because of the strategic sensitivity of the Middle East[[quote]True, but several of the
Arab-on-Arab atrocities I mentioned are also in the Middle East. [quote]... and most of all the very close historic andcultural ties of Europe and North America to Israel. True. Of course, there are now many Arabs living in Europe, so the Europeans have reason to be interested in Arab/Arab atrocities. Then what is? Are you accusing many posters here of being closet anti-semites?I'm saying that the behavior of the Israel critics needs an explanation. My suggestion was that the critics may be akin to Lenin's "useful idiots." This parallel is strengthened because some leftists, who believed in civil liberties, nevertheless apologized for communism. And, some leftists who totally despise the behavior of some Arab governments are nevertheless apologists for their conduct vis-a-vis Israel.Yes, I would. I expect no better from Milosevic than to order the slaughter of civilians to further a geo-political agenda. I do not expect the EU to do the same.However, Sharon has received a lot more criticism for failing to prevent a slaughter in the Middle East than has the EU for failing to prevent slaughter in Europe.Yes, I would. I expect no better than for Pinochet to have ordered the assassinations of opposition journalists. I do not expect the government of Spain to do the same.Compare the treatment of Pinchet and Arafat. Pinchet's forces "disappeared" (killed) something over a thousand Chilean citizens over a period of many years. We all agree that this was an atrocity. Long after he voluntarily gave up power, Spain attempted to imprison him. Spain was praised for their action.

Arafat's forces have probably killed something like 1000 "moderate" Palestinians, not to mention untold Israeli citizens. The killing continues as of today. Yet, Israel would be harshly ciriticized if it jailed Arafat. And, despite his corruption and jis support for (or leadership of?) the al Aksa terrorists, the EU continues to give him money. (Aside from atrocities, Arafat was a much worse leader. He stole millions and has left his people in abject poverty, while Pinochet built a prosperous economy.)

Tamerlane, you many think that Arafat is just as bad as Pinochet and deserves the same sanctions, but many others support Arafat (or, at least, excuse him) and detest Pinochet. Most of these people are leftists.Shockingly, I partially agree. It is indeed the tactics of terrorist organizations like Hamas to foster separation, alienation, and hatred.Thank you.

[Sparc]

Of course, there are now many Arabs living in Europe, so the Europeans have reason to be interested in Arab/Arab atrocities.Generalizing crap. Can’t say more of what I think in this forum.I'm saying that the behavior of the Israel critics needs an explanation. My suggestion was that the critics may be akin to Lenin's "useful idiots." This parallel is strengthened because some leftists, who believed in civil liberties, nevertheless apologized for communism. And, some leftists who totally despise the behavior of some Arab governments are nevertheless apologists for their conduct vis-a-vis Israel.Dito as above.However, Sharon has received a lot more criticism for failing to prevent a slaughter in the Middle East than has the EU for failing to prevent slaughter in Europe.[/quote[What in the name of all the goats milk in the world is this supposed to fucking mean December?[quote]Arafat's forces have probably killed something like 1000 "moderate" Palestinians, not to mention untold Israeli citizens. The killing continues as of today. Yet, Israel would be harshly ciriticized if it jailed Arafat. And, despite his corruption and jis support for (or leadership of?) the al Aksa terrorists, the EU continues to give him money. (Aside from atrocities, Arafat was a much worse leader. He stole millions and has left his people in abject poverty, while Pinochet built a prosperous economy.)You didn’t understand Tamerlane’s point, not wring’s and not mine. Reading skills? Willful ignorance? Tamerlane, you many think that Arafat is just as bad as Pinochet and deserves the same sanctions, but many others support Arafat (or, at least, excuse him) and detest Pinochet. Most of these people are leftists.Obvious baiting and not factually supported.

Sparc

Obligatory disclaimer: Once again I don’t oppose Israel, I am not a ‘leftist’ and I do not think that Arafat deserves a carte blanche to act as he pleases, same goes for Sharon.

[Sparc]

DSeid should be in the list of posters december didn't understand. Typed that out a little too fast and angry I guess.

Sorry DSeid, didn't mean to brush away your well made point.

[Sparc]

And I cocked up this section as well:However, Sharon has received a lot more criticism for failing to prevent a slaughter in the Middle East than has the EU for failing to prevent slaughter in Europe.What in the name of all the goats milk in the world is this supposed to fucking mean December?

I'll go cool off now and I promise you all that I won't post in this thread until or if it is moved to the Pit.

Sorry.

[Duck Duck Goose]

Ahh, okay, that's my limit, I'm outta here.

You frequently rebut my posts by merely telling me to re-read the OP, like that proves your original point somehow.

I never need to, but I will, this time. In this case, the OP says, "I would like to suggest some reasons why many posters here might be anti-Israeli", and then you list some truly heinous, obnoxious, insulting reasons--and then you titter foolishly and say, "But of course I don't really think that they are any of these truly heinous, obnoxious, and insulting things, why, I'm just throwing the concept out there, see who salutes..."

This is called "trolling".

I agree with Tom~. Reality check, December.

And, not that I expect them, but I'd still like to see some cites:
why do they support people who represent positions that they detest?
Why does who support which people? If not actual links to threads, then at least name some names.

[DSeid]

december,
In yet another past thread I had questioned why the false accusations of a massacre at Jenin got top billing in the press and the facts bearing out that no massacre had occurred got scarcely any press. My suspicion was that there was an anti-Israel bias in much of the media. I still believe that, to some extent, there is ... but ... tamerlane made a very good point that I think applies here too: accusations of massacres bring in eyeballs; findings that no massacre occurred does not. The same is true for the Arab upon Arab atrocities versus Israeli upon Arab offenses (or Arab upon Israeli). Arab upon Arab is boring to most readers, it doesn't make for a compelling story of conflict, it doesn't sell papers. And Arab terror upon Israelis is just so done by now. The dissonance of the image of the perrenial victim being an aggressor sells papers. (Just like people will read about the preist who sexually abuses with more lurid interest than the porno actor who does.) Same reason why the middle class white boy killing classmates is headlines and the dozens of inner city Blacks killed that same week in gang warfare was not newsworthy.

Are some motivated by occult Jew hating? I am sure. And some may not hate Jews but would just love to see Jews proven to be just as capable of evil as anyone else. But mostly I think it is just what sells.

And tamerlane I apologize if I implied that I felt Arab societies were incapable of democratic reform. I certainly do not think so and still choose to believe that the mere creation of the self-critical Arab Human Development report is a positive sign (despite its bleak findings) that Arab countries are inching towards joining much of the rest of the world in embracing shared secular values rather than theocracies, dictatorships, and personal feifdoms. My point was only that when Israel violates a human rights standard she can be accused of hypocrisy and of violating values that she says she embraces and that Western readers know and understand. Accusations of hypocrisy sell. Arabs not meeting those standard is in keeping with the negative stereotypes that the West already has of Arabs. It doesn't sell anything. And some believe that we should try hard to "understand" that their values are different, and "understand" why this very foreign culture is the way it is. Instead of appreciating that most Arabs share similar values as the rest of us and really should be held to the very same standards.

[Apos]

---But I would phrase the question a bit differently: why is it that those who are concerned about human rights of the Palestinians are not similarly worked up about human rights abuses by the Palestinians---

I think in part this sort of view is a self-fulfilling phrophecy. NO ONE I know here has expressed the view that terrorism and tyrrany are good things. The reason it doesn't get as much attention is that it's a no-brainer: everyone agrees already. Threads and discussion only last when there are serious differences: and the only thing people really seem to disagree about is Israel's response to terrorism. So that's what gets discussed.

[sailor]

This thread is *not* about Israel and Arabs. The central point of the OP is "Why do many posters here routinely take the side of the oppressive bigots against Israel?" The question is meaningless without concrete examples. It is just a generalized attack intended to discredit anyone and everyone who may disagree on *any* point with december. Either you are with Israel and december on everything or you are with the "oppressive bigots". This should most definitely be in the pit as it is a not so veiled attack on posters who disagree with december.

[Liberal]

In other words, I don't see a debate--only insults.

Pit, please.Maybe you should look again, Duck.

Good treatment of Arabs is a danger to every Arab tyrant. Israel sets an example of proper government, which threatens the rule of these corrupt dictators. No wonder they have been attacking ever since it was founded. Fighting Israel helps these thugs to remain in power.I think that's as fine a debate assertion as I've seen.

[MEBuckner]

Moderator's Note: I don't see any need to move this thread to a different forum. Of course, if other posters wish to start new threads in different forums, they are free to do so.

If you think someone else is committing logical fallacies in his or her arguments in Great Debates (for example, using "straw man" arguments), simply point out what fallacy you think the other poster is committing, and why. If you think someone else's arguments don't make sense, then say so, and why you think so.

[IzzyR]

Originally posted by Tamerlane
However I think there is a real tendency to hold a democratically elected government like Israel's to a far higher standard of behavior than the murderous thugs running the PLO. Mostly they live up that higher standard, but there are occasional slips.Why would this be? I would think moral standards are immutable and should apply to all equally. That's like getting worked up every time a decent citizen commits a minor infraction but letting thugs off the hook for far worse because you hold the decent person to a higher standard. Furthermore, the ostensible impetus for getting worked up about the actions of Israelis or Arabs is not concern about the standards that they are upholding - rather it is concern about the victims - these are the same regardless of the standards to which the oppressors are being held.Originally posted by tomndebb
Or are you going to claim that because the PA has corrupt leaders (since Israel keeps imprisoning the uncorrupted ones) ...What is your basis for this assertion?Originally posted by Apos
I think in part this sort of view is a self-fulfilling phrophecy. NO ONE I know here has expressed the view that terrorism and tyrrany are good things. The reason it doesn't get as much attention is that it's a no-brainer: everyone agrees already. Threads and discussion only last when there are serious differences: and the only thing people really seem to disagree about is Israel's response to terrorism. So that's what gets discussed.There does seem to be a tendency to downplay the evils of Arabs (e.g. the above quote from tomndebb). And the fact that it seems to be part of a phenomenon larger than this board and not limited to merely discussion (e.g. left-wing activism on college campuses, PLO sympathizers joining the besieged gunmen in Bethlehem etc. etc.) suggests that it is not merely a "man-bites-dog" phenomenon.

[Apos]

---I think that's as fine a debate assertion as I've seen.---

Sure, but it's a fairly uncontroversial (and thus, to me at least, uninteresting) point. What people find objectoinable is that the rest of it is surrounded in balls-to-the-wall slander, that all got started off with a 'So, have you stopped beating your wife yet, Tom?" question.

[xenophon41]

Well, since Lib suggests there's a fine debate assertion in the OP, I'll take a shot at it.

december speaks:
Good treatment of Arabs is a danger to every Arab tyrant. Israel sets an example of proper government, which threatens the rule of these corrupt dictators. No wonder they have been attacking ever since it was founded. Fighting Israel helps these thugs to remain in power.
I somewhat agree with this assertion, although it's naively simplistic, and feel it illustrates the absurdity of painting Israel's critics as supporters of Arab despotism. Of course, the underlying assumption here, that Israel's democratic purpose is to fight Arab despotism, is ludicrous. Israel's purpose is a secure and prosperous Israel; they're not in the business of external political reform. However, the assertion that "good treatment" of Palestinians would help reduce the influence of extremist elements within Palestine is quite sound.

In order to effectively counter corrupt leadership in Palestine "good treatment" needs to be supported by major policy and a wide focus on human rights within all areas controlled by Israel.

Has it occurred to the OP to wonder what would happen to Hamas if Sharon had followed/would follow a strategy of political engagement of the PA instead of military engagement and occupation? If Israel were to halt the reprisals and bulldozing of houses after terrorist actions and continue with talks despite the terrorism?

Has it occured to december to wonder how moderate elements within Palestine can ever hope to gain influence when Israel consistently undercuts Arafat's ability to exert control over his own Palestinian Authority, when Palestine security forces are not allowed to enforce their own calls for cessation of bombings, when the extremist elements are routinely rewarded with heightened tensions by Israel whenever they perpetrate terror?

Has it occured to december that criticism of Israeli policies of subjugation and reprisal arise from a desire for the very reforms he believes Israel represents?

Probably, none of these questions has ever clouded the ideological purity of the OP's thoughts. But possibly they should.

[IzzyR]

Originally posted by xenophon41
Has it occurred to the OP to wonder what would happen to Hamas if Sharon had followed/would follow a strategy of political engagement of the PA instead of military engagement and occupation? If Israel were to halt the reprisals and bulldozing of houses after terrorist actions and continue with talks despite the terrorism?No need to wonder - it was done, before Sharon took office. And the results were remarkably similar to what we have now.

Has it occured to december to wonder how moderate elements within Palestine can ever hope to gain influence when Israel consistently undercuts Arafat's ability to exert control over his own Palestinian Authority, when Palestine security forces are not allowed to enforce their own calls for cessation of bombings, when the extremist elements are routinely rewarded with heightened tensions by Israel whenever they perpetrate terror?This is absurd. If these supposed moderate elements had exerted any moderating influence when PA security forces were allowed to enforce their agreements for non-violence, they would not have been sidelined to begin with.

It is true that Israeli retaliation plays into the hands of hard-line militants, and spurs them on to more retaliation. But it is also true that Israeli concessions, peacemaking and negotiations also spur them on to violence - they are motivated to stop the PA from making peace by increasing tensions, i.e. killing as many Jews as they can.

[tomndebb]

What is your basis for this assertion?The imprisonment of Sari Nusseibeh for purportedly spying for Iraq (of all places) when Nusseibeh has been one of the few Palestinians who has had the courage to tell his people that there are things they cannot reasonably expect to demand from Israel.

[tomndebb]

No need to wonder - it was done, before Sharon took office. And the results were remarkably similar to what we have now. Israel has never engaged the center. In every single negotiation for over 20 years, any act of violence has been treated by Israel as their cue to simply walk out. Israel chooses to let the militants and extremists hold the entire process hostage to any act of violence, thereby signalling Hamas and others that they will eventually succeed.

It is true that violence escalated when Habarek began talks. It is also true that the Israeli far right used that violence as an excuse to force the talks to end. Had they continued the talks despite the violence, the Palestinian center would have a reason to believe that Israel was bargaining in good faith and they would provide less support for the extremists. By demonstrating that Israel will quit at any action by the extremists (whom the center can support or not support, but whom they cannot stop), the Isrealis have continually signalled to the Palestinians that they only accept the extremists as legitimate. (The extremists are, after all, the only ones who can prompt Israel to do anything.)

[Sparc]

december,

Since there are parts of the OP that I don’t understand that have naught to do with what you are positing and are not suitable for this forum, I have asked you this question:

What EXACTLY did you mean december? (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=129374) in another place.

Kindly reply.

Sparc

[IzzyR]

Originally posted by tomndebb
The imprisonment of Sari Nusseibeh for purportedly spying for Iraq (of all places) when Nusseibeh has been one of the few Palestinians who has had the courage to tell his people that there are things they cannot reasonably expect to demand from Israel.Tom,

That does not come nearly close to even beginning to support your assertion. You have stated that the reason the PA has corrupt leaders is "since Israel keeps imprisoning the uncorrupted ones". Which implies that were it not for Israel consistently imprisoning the uncorrupted ones, the PA leadership would be uncorrupt. For this you need to show two things. 1) That Israel has a consistent pattern of imprisoning the uncorrupted ones, as opposed to pointing to one single person. 2) That were it not for all these uncorrupted leaders being imprisoned, they would comprise the primary leadership of the PA (which you seem to acknowledge is not the case when you refer to Nusseibeh as "one of the few Palestinians" etc.)

(As an aside, I'm not sure if relative moderate is the same as uncorrupted - but no difference)

[december]

Perhaps the OP ought to have been phrased more broadly. As several posters have pointed out, the question goes beyond posters.

Why do some people who agree with Israel and disagree with their Arab neighbors on a host of vital issues, nevertheless tend to take the side of the Arabs in this dispute?

Poet Robert Frost offered an answer almost 100 years ago. A liberal is a man too broadminded to take his own side in a quarrel.

P.S. the death penalty could be added to the list in the OP. The US is accused of atrocities for having a death penalty. Yet, Israel receives no rhetorical credit for having no death penalty, while many of its Arab neighbor do have one.Sparc
Obligatory disclaimer: Once again I don’t oppose Israel, I am not a ‘leftist’ and I do not think that Arafat deserves a carte blanche to act as he pleases, same goes for Sharon.However, as the OP pointed out, Arafat and Sharon act totally opposite on a host of important issues, from religious prejudice to women's liberation to the death penalty. Why do you not ever focus on these differences?

Duck Duck Goose -- I certainly did not mean to imply that any posters or any liberals are crytpo-homophobes or secret bigots. I meant to dramatize the puzzling question of why some of them support the anti-Israel position of those who do fit that description. Your reaction may be explained by the old saying, If you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas."AposNO ONE I know here has expressed the view that terrorism and tyrrany are good things. The reason it doesn't get as much attention is that it's a no-brainer: everyone agrees already. Threads and discussion only last when there are serious differences: and the only thing people really seem to disagree about is Israel's response to terrorism. So that's what gets discussed.That's a good effort at an explanation, Apos. However, consider that: Many Pit threads do blast "no-brainer" evils, like this one (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=128900) or this one (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=128692). The UN frequently passes resolutions blasting Israel but giving Arabs a free pass. The UN doesn't ignore Arab atrocities because they're "no-brainers" How often do anti-Israel posters criticize one-sided UN resolutions? The European Union doesn't seem to consider Arafat's mis-deeds "no-brainers." xenophon41
In order to effectively counter corrupt leadership in Palestine "good treatment" needs to be supported by major policy and a wide focus on human rights within all areas controlled by Israel.Israel does provide a focus on human rights for Arab and Palestinian citizens. It's difficult for Israel to overcome Arafat's human rights abuses in the areas controlled by the PA. Has it occurred to the OP to wonder what would happen to Hamas if Sharon had followed/would follow a strategy of political engagement of the PA instead of military engagement and occupation? If Israel were to halt the reprisals and bulldozing of houses after terrorist actions and continue with talks despite the terrorism? We don't have to wonder. Israel followed this very policy after the Camp David accords. What happened was that Israel's enemies built up sarge stores of weapons. When they had enough weapons, Arafat delcared an inmtifada. They've been murdering Israelis every since.Has it occured to december to wonder how moderate elements within Palestine can ever hope to gain influence when Israel consistently undercuts Arafat's ability to exert control over his own Palestinian Authority,... First of all, there was a lenthy period when Arafat was left alone. He used that period to premote hatred against Israel and to build weapons.... when Palestine security forces are not allowed to enforce their own calls for cessation of bombings, There was that lengthy period when Arafat had pledged to keep the peace. Instead, he allowed terrorist groups to prepare for war, incouding al Aksa -- the PA-affiliated terrorist group. ...when the extremist elements are routinely rewarded with heightened tensions by Israel whenever they perpetrate terror? No comment.

[IzzyR]

Originally posted by tomndebb
Israel has never engaged the center. In every single negotiation for over 20 years, any act of violence has been treated by Israel as their cue to simply walk out. Israel chooses to let the militants and extremists hold the entire process hostage to any act of violence, thereby signalling Hamas and others that they will eventually succeed.This is hyperbole. Not "any act of violence" was a "cue" to walk out. A consistent pattern of violence.

It is true that violence escalated when Habarek began talks. It is also true that the Israeli far right used that violence as an excuse to force the talks to end. Had they continued the talks despite the violence, the Palestinian center would have a reason to believe that Israel was bargaining in good faith and they would provide less support for the extremists. By demonstrating that Israel will quit at any action by the extremists (whom the center can support or not support, but whom they cannot stop), the Isrealis have continually signalled to the Palestinians that they only accept the extremists as legitimate. (The extremists are, after all, the only ones who can prompt Israel to do anything.)Exactly. So you give up conrol of much territory, offer more. And in return you ask that your citizens not be slaughtered. But that is unreasonable - if you insist too hard then you are not demonstrating good faith. You must accept an unlimited number of killings in order to give the "Palestinian center" reason to believe. This is too much to ask of anyone, and - I believe - more than has ever been asked of anyone.

But beyond this, the alleged "Palestinian center" is by and large fictional. So there is really no one to engage. If the PA could not or would not clamp down on extremists under pressure of negotiations, there is no reason to believe that they would suddenly be motivated to do so after they got the deal done.

[Sparc]

[addressed to me] However, as the OP pointed out, Arafat and Sharon act totally opposite on a host of important issues, from religious prejudice to women's liberation to the death penalty. Why do you not ever focus on these differences?You are still on your strawman. I don't see what that has to do with any debate that we have had on the issue, and I don't see how it impacts my statement. You can oppose people’s agenda for different reasons you know. For instance; I generally hold Israel for a nation that is relatively free, and humane along the lines in the OP, yet I oppose Sharon's policy vs. the Palestinians. Meanwhile I deplore the lack of the same qualities on the PA side AND oppose their policy vs. Israel. Degrees in hell, I guess you could call it. This is not liberalism or leftist december; it’s being aware of real politics.

Sparc

[CyberPundit]

"We don't have to wonder. Israel followed this very policy after the Camp David accords. What happened was that Israel's enemies built up sarge stores of weapons. When they had enough weapons, Arafat delcared an inmtifada. They've been murdering Israelis every since."
This is , as I have said several times, a most dubious account of what happened after Oslo. The fact is: both sides broke their agreements and acted in bad faith and both sides deserve some of the blame for the break-down of negotiations at Camp David and after.
This is clearly shown in this excellent account in the NYTimes which I have put up before:
http://www.peacenow.org/nia/news/sontag3.html

"Arafat and Sharon act totally opposite on a host of important issues, from religious prejudice to women's liberation to the death penalty. "
I am curious: what exactly is the differenc between Arafat and Sharon on issues like religous prejudice and women's liberation; I believe Arafat's wife is a Christian(not 100% sure of this) and I haven't read anything to believe that he is any kind of fundamentalist religious bigot. Of course there are other problems with the man but such is also the case with Sharon.

[tomndebb]

This is hyperbole. Not "any act of violence" was a "cue" to walk out. A consistent pattern of violence. Not from the news reports I've read in the English version of Ha'aretz. I will admit that a single act of violence did not generally trigger every walkout. However, it remains that Israel consistently (persistently) has walked away from every set of talks using the excuse that they won't deal while there is violence going on. They are, effectively, telling the extremists that they encourage violence for the purpose of ending the talks. The typical Palestinian-on-the-street has no reason to believe that Isael will ever negotiate in good faith, because that person knows that any nut can get Israel to quit.

- - -

Nusseibeh (and there have been several others, but I can't remember their names) is not merely a moderate. He is also well-respected throughout the region for his adherence to principle. Being one of the few Palestinians to declare certain topics off-the-table does not make him one of the few moderates; it does indicate that Israel is willing to silence even (only?) their best supporters among the Palestinians.

Now, I may have overstated the case (since I'm having trouble finding the names of the others), but I would chalk that up to reading too many of december's black-or-white threads.

[december]

Originally posted by CyberPundit
I am curious: what exactly is the differenc between Arafat and Sharon on issues like religous prejudice and women's liberation;Sharon heads a regime where Muslim citizens have full rights, identical to any other citizens. There are IIRC Muslims in the Knesset. Arafat heads a regime where Jews are not treated the same as other citizens.

Sharon heads a regime where women have the same exact rights as men. Golda Meir was Prime Minister of Israel from 1969 until 1974.

Women are unequally treated in many Arab and Muslim countries. E.g., at my wife's university, some female Muslim medical students want to get their MD without ever viewing an entire man's body, because that's fobidden in their culture. I would guess that in Arafat's regime, women may also not have equal treatment with men.

[IzzyR]

Originally posted by CyberPundit
"We don't have to wonder. Israel followed this very policy after the Camp David accords. What happened was that Israel's enemies built up sarge stores of weapons. When they had enough weapons, Arafat delcared an inmtifada. They've been murdering Israelis every since."
This is , as I have said several times, a most dubious account of what happened after Oslo. The fact is: both sides broke their agreements and acted in bad faith and both sides deserve some of the blame for the break-down of negotiations at Camp David and after.
This is clearly shown in this excellent account in the NYTimes which I have put up before:It seems to me that you are confusing the breakdown of negotiations (the subject of your article) with the adherence to and results of the Oslo Accords. AFAIK, december's remarks are factual - if you have any evidence that it is untrue, please show it.

Originally posted by tomndebb
I will admit that a single act of violence did not generally trigger every walkout. However, it remains that Israel consistently (persistently) has walked away from every set of talks using the excuse that they won't deal while there is violence going on.I think they've had a harder line about that since Sharon is in office. Under Barak there were temporary breaks, at most. Results were, as mentioned, remarkably similar.They are, effectively, telling the extremists that they encourage violence for the purpose of ending the talks. The typical Palestinian-on-the-street has no reason to believe that Isael will ever negotiate in good faith, because that person knows that any nut can get Israel to quit.I've already responded to this - I'm not sure what you're adding.
Nusseibeh (and there have been several others, but I can't remember their names) is not merely a moderate. He is also well-respected throughout the region for his adherence to principle. Being one of the few Palestinians to declare certain topics off-the-table does not make him one of the few moderates; it does indicate that Israel is willing to silence even (only?) their best supporters among the Palestinians.
Now, I may have overstated the case (since I'm having trouble finding the names of the others), OK, a start. But even if there were others, they were not clearly not in control of the PA. So the suggestion that the corruption of the PA is due to the Israelis has no merit.

Also, what is the meaning of your parenthetical "only?" remark.but I would chalk that up to reading too many of december's black-or-white threads.Ah, never let your opponents get into your head...

[xenophon41]

originally posted by IzzyR:
No need to wonder - it was done, before Sharon took office. And the results were remarkably similar to what we have now.
I disagree. (See tomndebb and CyberPundit's posts above. No need to repeat.)

from IzzyR:
This is absurd. If these supposed moderate elements had exerted any moderating influence when PA security forces were allowed to enforce their agreements for non-violence, they would not have been sidelined to begin with.
So... the assertion that moderate elements are being prevented from establishing influence is "absurd" because... they haven't any influence? You'll have to explain that one again; I've missed your point entirely.

december:
Israel does provide a focus on human rights for Arab and Palestinian citizens. It's difficult for Israel to overcome Arafat's human rights abuses in the areas controlled by the PA.
I guess it's hard to fight human rights abuses when you're busy bulldozing houses, bombing apartment buildings to assassinate military leaders and obstructing humanitarian aid organizations.

First of all, there was a lenthy period when Arafat was left alone. He used that period to premote hatred against Israel and to build weapons.
Cite please, for the "lengthy period." Definition please, for "left alone." This spin is not credible. (I don't doubt the promotion of hatred on Arafat's part; I think it's asinine to claim he or the PA were ever "left alone.")

from IzzyR:
But beyond this, the alleged "Palestinian center" is by and large fictional. So there is really no one to engage. If the PA could not or would not clamp down on extremists under pressure of negotiations, there is no reason to believe that they would suddenly be motivated to do so after they got the deal done.
Certainly there's no reason for believing the PA will clamp down on extremists as long as extremism is seen to work. There's also no reason to believe they can be capable of cracking down on extremists if Israel continues to undercut away their means of doing so.

[xenophon41]

from IzzyR:
So the suggestion that the corruption of the PA is due to the Israelis has no merit.
Could you point me to whoever made that suggestion? I've seen two points argued regarding the OP's take on PA corruption:

a) Criticism of Israel's policies is NOT support for Palestinian corruption

b) Systematic disruption of Palestinian social and economic structure serves to perpetuate corruption within the Palestinian Authority.

I've seen no one claim that Israel has caused such corruption.

[IzzyR]

Originally posted by xenophon41
So... the assertion that moderate elements are being prevented from establishing influence is "absurd" because... they haven't any influence? You'll have to explain that one again; I've missed your point entirely.As a practical matter, those in control are/were not moderates. You are asking that Israel give more concessions and more power to a violent entity (i.e. the PA) based on your speculation that moderates would possibly gain influence. This is not reasonable.

It is also not reasonable to focus on the Israelis not allowing the PA security to crack down on violence, when at times that they did have opportunity to do so, they did not.
Could you point me to whoever made that suggestion?...I've seen no one claim that Israel has caused such corruption.See my exchange with tomndebb

[december]

tomndebb illustrates my point about criticizing Israel while excusing Arafat. He complains about Israel having arrested Nusseibeh, who, he says, "..is not merely a moderate. He is also well-respected throughout the region for his adherence to principle." Now, there is debate about whether Nusseibeh is really a moderate. Furthermore, if he broke the law, he should be subject to arrest. However, I will give tomndebb the benefit of the doubt and assume that Nesseibeh is a moderate who deserves to be free.

Arafat and the Palestinians have killed, not just arrested, hundreds of Palestinian moderates, not just one. tomndebb focuses on the Israeli arrest of a single Palestinian moderate, but ignores all the others. What are the names of the Palestinian moderates killed by Arafat's regime? Were any of them well-respected? Were any of them noted for their adherence to principle? Could they have helped improve the lot of the Palestinian people? Would they have supported a real peace agreement?

See what I mean?

[Collounsbury]

Blind and ugly propagandists for ethnic cleansing might keep their fucking yaps shut.


Israel shared its values with its Arab neighbors

Yes, after a segment of Zionist militias did its level best to expel as many Arabs as possible. Not inherently unreasonable to be frank – one does not make an omelet without breaking some eggs – but hardly the sort of situation which breeds good will. Not to say that good will might have sprung up, but willy

We can leave aside the expropriations, always for “security reasons” of course, the other small insults and larger insults to the Arab population, including population removals.

Again, given the situation, handled about as well as one could hope for (see US and the Japanese in effectively the same time frame) and frankly not that terrible in comparison with other, similar situations (think the Indian partition) but no god damned Disney film either.

 Arabs could be full citizens


Full, second class citizens. Again, not to take away from Israel trying to make good, but the record is hardly unblemished.

 Female Arab citizens in Israel have full rights, unlike their sisters in Arab lands
 Hebrew University education has been available to Arabs and Muslims


IIRC c. 1948 we have fairly decent rights in Lebanon etc. In any case, one is a European colonial society, the others are not. Women, on paper, had fine rights, more or less, in Algeria. Didn’t make the Algerians love the French occupation any more. Same with Senegal. Two different issues in the end, however much one may wish to utilize the issue.


-- Modern medical care was made available to Palestinians
-- Jobs in Israel have been made available to Palestinians who were not Israeli citizens.


Oh this is rich. Jobs were made available. Gastarbeiters. As the (Israeli) mayor of Jerusalem said, “Hewers of wood and drawers of water.” It is indeed rich to see this sort of ad hoc justification. After expropriations – see caveats above and let me note that the body of Arab governments have a rather worse history all in all in re respect of property rights – the P pop is supposed to fucking grateful that they get to be house sandniggers?

December’s “Good Massa” complex is not solely reserved for blacks – he kindly extends it to sand niggers.

In December’s world, I rather would imagine the lazy Irish should have been glad that my dear English forebears extended them the courtesy of allowing them to work the estates as manual labor. Good to their servants and all that.


Good treatment of Arabs is a danger to every Arab tyrant. Israel sets an example of proper government, which threatens the rule of these corrupt dictators. No wonder they have been attacking ever since it was founded. Fighting Israel helps these thugs to remain in power.


Israel’s “good treatment” – something that can be disputed in the context of actual history rather than Zionist romanticism, with all due caveats noted above – is a non-issue in regards to Arab attitudes in general and certainly not something that Arab dictators, autocrats etc. “fear” as some kind of example. The issue is the Arab obsession with colonial history and the deep sense of injustice – some of it which has real basis (one has but to study the ‘priviledges’ Europeans got for themselves in place in Arab countries and the abuses thereof to understand the origins of Egyptian, for example, anger. Of course, this history has post-colonial connections but to put this in this fantasy world “oh they hate us for our freedoms” bullshit (the same self-regarding fantasy framework in re al-Qaeda) fundamentally misunderstands Arab society, general political motivations and real frameworks of politics for Arabs. To be brutally clear, the fact that Apartheid era blacks may have enjoyed an average a slightly better standard of living in South Africa (fallout from a more industrialized economy) did nothing to make other Africans love the Boers or challenge the independence era leaders. Those of you who think in these frameworks have clearly never been on the ground.


What puzzles me is this: Why do many posters here routinely take the side of the oppressive bigots against Israel? Are they militarists? Homophobes? Anti-Christian? Do they want women to be oppressed? Do they prefer a corrupt dictatorship, rather than democracy? Do they feel threatened by freedom of speech?


Why do you engage in empty posturing, ignorant and poorly conceived? Why do you remain so close-minded and ignorant? Why do you find it impossible to posit a position which has some reasonable grounding in fact and logic?

As for Bosda – if you know little or nothing about Arab politics it is best not to characterize…. Lebanon, Morocco, Tunisia, even Bahrain are freer politically and socially. Good democracies, nope, but not that bad when it comes right down to it.

As for Izzy’s question:
If one has something more than a passing familiarity with actual action, rather than nationalist propaganda, one might have noted the arrests of such figures as Baghrouti, who I have never read as being ‘dirty’ and moderates such as the head of al-Quds univ. A clear pattern. One might also point to the policy of using Hamas during the 1980s – and the odd kid-glove treatment it rec’d until very recently.

Ah, but we can just play the game of label everyone 'extremist' or some such and then we don't have to talk to them. All the better to engage in mass deportations and take over the West Bank.

[tomndebb]

See what I mean? I see that you are willing to change subjects and take anything at all out of context to make your points.

I have noted that as a practical matter Israel has disrupted the ability of the Palestinian people to develop a center. I have not excused Arafat for being nasty. I hold Arafat as responsible for this mess as Sharon. The difference is that no one on this message board is arguing that Arafat is an innocent. You are the one who has proposed genocide simply because the Israeli political culture is superior.

As Collounsbury has noted, (supplying a few of the people I could not recall), Israel is, indeed, destroying (deliberately or accidentally) the potential leadership of a Palestinian center.

If Arafat is actively and personally supporting the terrorists (as I think quite possible), then Israel should arrest him and bring him to trial with the evidence, either in Israel or (if jursidiction could be established) The Hague. To "charge" Arafat with violence while playing patty-cake in his compound at the same time that one is arresting people who have actually supported Israeli demands and initiatives does suggest (not prove) a deliberate effort on the part of Sharon to avoid peace.

Asking Israel to continue talks despite extremist violence has historical precedence in Ireland and Spain. I do not claim that is is a guaranteed solution. However, it would seem to have more chance of success than perpetuating endless violence or engaging in genocide.

[CyberPundit]

December,
You have moved from confident assertions that the personal positions of Arafat and Sharon are "diametrically opposed" on religious tolerance and women's rights to generalizations about Arab societies and speculation about what a future Palestinian state would look like. Obviously you don't have any evidence for your assertions.

"Sharon heads a regime where Muslim citizens have full rights, identical to any other citizens"
In theory perhaps but it widely accepted that Arabs face discrimination in the provision of public services and are very uncommon at senior levels of government,business etc. Sharon's coaltion includes right-wing zealots whose statements about Arabs make ,say, Jesse Helms look like a civil-rights hero in comparison.

"Arafat heads a regime where Jews are not treated the same as other citizens. "
There are no "citizens", Jewish or otherwise, under Arafat's control and there are unlikely to ever be too many Jewish citizens in a Palestinian state. However many Palestinian Christians support Arafat's PLO and some senior Palestinian figures like Hanan Ashrawi are Christian. That alone refutes the idea that Arafat is a religious fundamentalist or for that matter some kind of Taliban-style oppressor of women.

As I said there can be many legitimate criticisms of Arafat. The problem with Israeli apologists is that that they seem incapable of restraining themselves and indulge in absurd exaggerations just like you did. Then when disinterested observers try to set the record straight they are accused of being pro-Arab. Of course Palestinian apologists do the same but they are much thinner on the ground in the US.

[CyberPundit]

Izzy,
The article talks a little bit about the pre-Camp David situation as well. In any case Israel continued building settlements in large numbers after Oslo which was at the very least a show of bad faith as well as a violation of UN security council resolutions. It also broke various interim agreements particularly to do with deadlines for withdrawl. Both these were part of the reason why the Palestinians were intensely suspicious of Israeli motives during Camp David and part of the reason those talks failed.

[IzzyR]

Originally posted by Collounsbury
If one has something more than a passing familiarity with actual action, rather than nationalist propaganda, one might have noted the arrests of such figures as Baghrouti, who I have never read as being ‘dirty’ and moderates such as the head of al-Quds univ. A clear pattern. One might also point to the policy of using Hamas during the 1980s – and the odd kid-glove treatment it rec’d until very recently.From http://www.freebarghouti.org/bio.html Israel’s intransigence spurred Marwan Barghouti’s gradual transformation from a committed believer in dialogue to an outspoken and charismatic advocate of a full-fledged struggle against the occupation. He has since been recognized as a prominent leader of the Al-Aqsa Intifada, who not only led much of the “street activism” in the West Bank, but also helped shape its political outlook and formulate its objectives. He advocated a political stance that opposed “cosmetic” negotiations, which to him were only designed to drag on in order to buy time for Israeli grabbing of more Palestinian land and cementing the occupation even further.
As a reaction to Israel’s brutal campaign to suppress the legitimate Palestinian resistance to its occupation, Marwan called for “escalating” the intifada to convince Israel that peace cannot be achieved with occupation.He might be honest though - these are two separate issues, as I've noted earlier. But he is at this time no moderate - I don't think you can rightly assume that his arrest is some sort of plot.

I don't know about the Al-Quds guy.

What was the policy of using Hamas during the 80's? (And I'd like a basis, rather than speculation). My impression is that not much attention was payed to Hamas because they did not have much influence at the time - as they became more and more prominent, more attention was payed to them, as one might expect.

CyberPundit

There's a difference between bad faith and not adhering to the terms of the deal. (Why is it bad faith anyway?).

It is true that the Israelis broke some deadlines for withdrawal, though they ultimately gave up control. But the Palestinians delivered nothing or almost nothing of their end of the bargain. What kind of a deal is it if only one side is expected to deliver - and that side being the side that is making the greater concessions? Doesn't the fact that one side is completely ignoring their end of the bargain allow the other to avoid compliance as well? that's how all deals that I know of work.

(BTW, I've forgotten what the issue was with the withdrawal timetables - if you remember fill me in).

[Alessan]

I'd just like to note that - speaking for myself, of course - as an Israeli, I think that the sort of right/wrong, black/white thinking presented by the OP is foolish, simplistic and ignorant of the vast array of subtleties which need to be mastered before we can solve the awful mess we're in. I do believe my country is in the right (how much that is actually relevant is another question), but I'm well aware that "in the right" is a relative term, and I'm pretty sure that most of my countrymen would agree with me. This isn't WW2.

It occurs to me that there is no Hebrew phrase for "counter-productive". Obviously, the term does not appear in december's lexicon as well.

[CyberPundit]

Izzy,
The Palestinians did crack down on Hamas quite hard on occasion so it is not true that they did nothing though probably not as much as they should have. Their side of the bargain (controlling Hamas) was a lot harder to keep than Israel's which mainly just had to withdraw.

Here is a list of violations listed by an Israeli peacenik group:
http://www.gush-shalom.org/archives/oslo.html

The idea that settlements are unimportant or that Israel made the greater concessions at Oslo is your opinion only. It seems to pre-suppose that Israeli occupation after 1967 was legitimate and recognized by the international community which it wasn't. Withdrawing from territory which is not your own is not some great concession.

[Collounsbury]

Originally posted by IzzyR
From http://www.freebarghouti.org/bio.html He might be honest though - these are two separate issues, as I've noted earlier. But he is at this time no moderate - I don't think you can rightly assume that his arrest is some sort of plot.


As we can see Barghouti
(a) favors recog. an Israeli state
(b) favors a negotiated settlement.
(c) has publicaly favored negotiations and recog of Israeli state on terms not far from the last negot. round (Taba)

He, however, concluded that Israel has been stringing the Palestinians along. A point of view hardly unique to him insofar as that is rather the conclusion of a number of analysts. You may refer yourself to the past several months articles in The Economist for such characterizations. Indeed, they have a pre-set search. Of course I have also cited these in the past, but...

In the context of the situation, he is clearly moderate. That is, he belongs to that class of people who Israel will have to deal with in the end -- and has dealt with.


What was the policy of using Hamas during the 80's? (And I'd like a basis, rather than speculation).


See the Economist. It is widely understood Israeli intel agencies tried to use Hamas --with some success-- against PLO.

My impression is that not much attention was payed to Hamas because they did not have much influence at the time - as they became more and more prominent, more attention was payed to them, as one might expect.


Your impression is as informed as usual.


CyberPundit

There's a difference between bad faith and not adhering to the terms of the deal. (Why is it bad faith anyway?).


Ah, now this is rich.

Why is not adhering to the terms of a deal bad faith?

Ring around the bloody posy.

Bother, a pox on both their houses. (with due apologies to Alessan & others who maintain no small degree of rationality.) I need to off be.

[december]

Alessan -- no doubt my OP was black/white with respect to assignment of blame. However, the point of the OP was not to judge israel, but to inquire why some people tend to strongly back Israel's enemies.

Tomndebb -- let me ask you about a single issue. Israel has arrested 2 or 3 Palestinian (alleged) moderates. Arafat's regime has killed hundreds of Palestinian moderates. You have commented at least twice about the former, but not about the latter. The Palestinian actions are much, much more significant -- because hundreds is greater than two or three, and because death is worse than arrest.

Can you justify your one-sided posting?

[IzzyR]

Originally posted by CyberPundit
The Palestinians did crack down on Hamas quite hard on occasion so it is not true that they did nothing though probably not as much as they should have.I don't know about "quite hard". Generally they arrested a few people under pressure, and waited until the fuss died down to release them.Their side of the bargain (controlling Hamas) was a lot harder to keep than Israel's which mainly just had to withdraw.Possible. (This remains true today). But the bottom line is that if you can't live up to your end of the deal it is not reasonable to expect the other side to do this. The main motivation that the Israelis have to get out of the deal is peace - if the Palestinians can't deliver on this they deliver on nothing.

(I believe we are getting a bit removed from the origin of this discussion which was whether the Israelis not clamping down on the PA would result in tem being more moderate, or give them free reign to strengthen themselves for further battle).

Here is a list of violations listed by an Israeli peacenik group:Can't say for sure here - most of these (I skimmed them) seem to be heavily dependent on interpretation. Also they address the Netanyahu gov - we are discussing whether the terms of the Oslo Agreements had previously been abused and flouted during Barak's leadership.The idea that settlements are unimportant or that Israel made the greater concessions at Oslo is your opinion only. It seems to pre-suppose that Israeli occupation after 1967 was legitimate and recognized by the international community which it wasn't. Withdrawing from territory which is not your own is not some great concession.As a practical matter it was.

Col,

Regardless of what he favored, he was involved in actively leading a war against Israel - I don't think you could call his arrest part of a crackdown on Palestinian moderate leadership. On second thought, maybe you could.

I have no intention of searching through the Economist to verify some claim of yours.

As for my comment to CyberPundit, you have once again demonstrated your frequent inability to comprehend written English. Reread it again, slower this time.

[Beagle]

Months ago I was one of the Palestinain apologists. I used to see things in terms of "poor rock throwing Palestinian children versus Israeli tanks" type analysis. I made some pretty outlandish arguments right here in this forum.

I haven't been there in close to a year. I no longer think either side has clean hands. I detect a similar sentiment among many posters on the SDMB. Therefore, I do not think the premise to this topic - though clever - is legitimate.

[Beagle]

I think as presently constituted the Palestin"ia"n leadership believes in pushing Israel out of "Palestine" completely. I don't see one bit of moderation in Yassir Arafat. Problem is, the Sharon government seems to be no more serious about negotiating away any occupied territory than the Palestinians seem to be about letting Israel survive. Of course, my perceptions are based on news reports interpreted many thousands of miles away from the actual events.

I have no answers to this problem except to suggest everyone in the Middle East get some good reliable body armor.

[IzzyR]

Originally posted by Beagle
I think as presently constituted the Palestin"ia"n leadership believes in pushing Israel out of "Palestine" completely. I don't see one bit of moderation in Yassir Arafat.It is quite possible that the Palestinian leadership is riding the proverbial tiger. Riling up the population is useful in provoking your antagonists - its getting everyone back in the box that it the hard part. Fact is that the Palestinian population is so extreme at this point that the PA is limited in their ability to make major concessions or crackdowns. To the extent that they do so, they lose face, credibility and influence on the street. So focusing on the leadership may be missing the picture, to an extent.

It's also possible that it could be done and that Arafat is a very risk-averse leader, refusing to make the hard choices that would potentially threaten him, and preferring his current hero rebel status to a possibly shakier rulership one.

All in all, your final sentence says it all.

[tomndebb]

You have commented at least twice about the former, but not about the latter. And? You have asserted that Israel is doing nothing to provoke the violence. My observations are simply counter-arguments to your assertion. The actions of the Palestinian extremists are not pertinent to my discussion point.

If the PA is truly killing "hundreds" of moderates (and Israel is standing by letting it happen? Why is that?) then imprisoning other moderates, especially highly visible ones, gives the moderates only three options: 1) join the extremists, 2) die at the hands of the extremists, or 3) sit in an Israeli jail. Israel has effectively joined the extremists in saying that they do not want any moderates cluttering the landscape, thus encouraging the moderates to join the extremists.

In a broad-ranging description of all the problems in the region, noting the Palestinian murder of moderates is a point that needs to be made and understood. In the context of a discussion in which Israel is held up as the paragon of all virtue and we are asked to simply agree to give Israel carte blanche to carry out any policies they choose, noting that the Israeli actions are neither pure nor productive is pertinent; noting the sins of the Palestinians is pretty much irrelevant.

You defined this discussion as one in which all "right thinking" people should join in giving Israel their 100% support. This discussion addresses Israel's virtues; there is no need to discuss Palestinian vices except as they bear on virtuous Israel.

You seem to be operating with a tally sheet mentality in which any mention of an Israeli sin must be matched by a mention of a Palestinian sin (or ten of them). However, crying that they got in more punches does not address the issue. My approach has been to point out a specific course of action that Israel needs to take in order to eventually get past this tragedy. (And I am aware that my suggestion could fail, but I still submit that it has not been tried. The talks need to continue if the situation is ever to be resolved. With only a single exception that I can recall, Israel has been the party to break off discussion on every occasion.)

Your tally sheet mentality has successfully kept the killing going in the Balkans for several hundred years and in Ireland for over 30 years: The shooting must stop, but first we have to avenge cousin Drasiga/Uncle Seamus for their deaths last week in retaliation for our reprisal raid the week before.

[Fang]

Originally posted by tomndebb
Israel has been the party to break off discussion on every occasion.
That depends on how you define "break off discussion". For how much time/through how many bombings should Israel keep talking before "breaking off discussion"? Or should Israel ignore that Arafat himself is at the very least signing off on these bombings (as documented by the 100 pages of "terror invoices" that Sharon presented to the US government and the media earlier this year), and merely discuss until the Palestinians have a state with Arafat and Hamas as the two competing elements for power? It is not reasonable to keep negotiating in the face of continuing terrorism on the preposterous hope that once Arafat becomes more powerful, the terrorism will stop.

[CyberPundit]

"But the bottom line is that if you can't live up to your end of the deal it is not reasonable to expect the other side to do this."
Well exactly the same could be said of the Israelis. We can argue all day about who started breaking their agreements first and more seriously but the bottom line is that both sides did so repeatedly and therefore deserve to share the blame. This is in sharp contrast to December's picture of Israel heroically pursuing peace only to be rebuffed by the treacherous Palestinians .


"Also they address the Netanyahu gov - we are discussing whether the terms of the Oslo Agreements had previously been abused and flouted during Barak's leadership"
Huh? I thought we were discussing Israel's performance during the Oslo peace process in general. I agree that the Barak government was better but it also broke some deadlines and continued settlements.

"As a practical matter it was."
Not sure what you mean by that. Once again you seem to be assuming that Israel's occupation of the West Bank/Gaza was legitimate. By withdrawing Israel only did what UN security council resolutions had demanded for decades. You might view that as a great concession but most independent analysts don't. For instance the Economist ,at the time of Oslo , stated in its editorials that it was the Palestinians who had made the greater concessions, for instance because they were given no indication upfront about the boundaries of their state.

[CyberPundit]

BTW I have to demand a source for the "hundreds of moderates" being killed by the Palestinians. This sounds like a myth if there ever was one. Is this in the last ten years or during the 60's and 70's?

[RexDart]

I'm going to jump into this thread on this second page to respond to the OP, expecting of course that in so doing my post is likely to be missed. Oh well, that'll teach me to hold off.

I believe in Wilsonian self-determination principles. I don't care a lick what type of government the people in a region want to have or what it does. It's not my business until they start projecting their power against me or my country, at which point defensive measures should be undertaken.

So, since the state of Israel was forced upon the region by outside influences, it is not a self-determined state. Therefore I would enjoy seeing it become so, allowing the Palestinians to create their own state. I don't give a hoot what they do with it as long as it's the state the people of Palestine truly want.

I support the Palestinian people in this just as I support the people of Quebec, all the different peoples of the contrived state of "Yugoslavia", and as I supported the republics that split off when the Soviet Union broke apart. How they run their country is their business, my only concern is seeing that they get the chance to be a country of their own determination. It's not my place or our nation's place to impose its value system on other people. Once Palestine becomes a nation-state, if we don't like what they do we aren't obliged to do that state any favors, but I can't justify preventing them from becoming a state in the first place.

[Tars Tarkas]

Originally posted by Fang

That depends on how you define "break off discussion". For how much time/through how many bombings should Israel keep talking before "breaking off discussion"? Or should Israel ignore that Arafat himself is at the very least signing off on these bombings (as documented by the 100 pages of "terror invoices" that Sharon presented to the US government and the media earlier this year), and merely discuss until the Palestinians have a state with Arafat and Hamas as the two competing elements for power? It is not reasonable to keep negotiating in the face of continuing terrorism on the preposterous hope that once Arafat becomes more powerful, the terrorism will stop.

You're assuming Arafat orders suicide bombers to attack while in route to peace conferences. Please:rolleyes:. Although it is highly likely Hamas and other organizations are getting money from the Palestinian Authority, Arafat has little or no control over Hamas's actions. If Arafat becomes more powerful and gains an independant country, there is no excuse for keeping Hamas around, and any smart leader will quietly take them down. the US can give a large cash incentive to end the problems and build Palestine up right. (yes, i know the problem isn't that simple, i'm just mentioning a broader plan)

[IzzyR]

Originally posted by CyberPundit
We can argue all day about who started breaking their agreements first and more seriously but the bottom line is that both sides did so repeatedly and therefore deserve to share the blame.I Disagree. If you make a deal and the other side
does not live up to its commitments under the deal, you are yourself freed from adhering to the deal. As such, who broke the deal first and how significantly is the crux of the issue. Particularly when the issue at hand is how much to trust this same party in the future.Huh? I thought we were discussing Israel's performance during the Oslo peace process in general. I agree that the Barak government was better but it also broke some deadlines and continued settlements.See above. (Are you now asserting that settlements were banned under Oslo? I'd like to see a source for this).

"As a practical matter it was."
Not sure what you mean by that. Once again you seem to be assuming that Israel's occupation of the West Bank/Gaza was legitimate. By withdrawing Israel only did what UN security council resolutions had demanded for decades. You might view that as a great concession but most independent analysts don't. For instance the Economist ,at the time of Oslo , stated in its editorials that it was the Palestinians who had made the greater concessions, for instance because they were given no indication upfront about the boundaries of their state.Who are "most independent analysts" and how do you come by their opinion? My position here is that as a practical matter Israel controlled the WB/G at the time, "legitimately" or "illegitimately" (I'm not even sure what these terms mean in this context). As a practical matter, the net outcome was to have a greater effect on Israel, comparing starting position to ending position than it did on the Palestinians, who stood to gain some sort of autonomy.

In any event, I initially threw this in as a side point - it is not especially significant.

[december]

Originally posted by CyberPundit
BTW I have to demand a source for the "hundreds of moderates" being killed by the Palestinians. This sounds like a myth if there ever was one. Is this in the last ten years or during the 60's and 70's? Some of these killings have been widely reported in the news. A quick search produced

http://www.io.com/~jewishwb/iris/archives/966.html

Seven alleged Palestinian collaborators found dead in Bethlehem - ... (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&q=PALEStinian+murder+of+collaborators&spell=1) (Only the headline is available)

The problems in which the Palestinians wallow – autocracy and its twin brother, corruption; lack of accountability on the leaders' part; lies presented in the classroom as truth; and the brutal suppression of critics and the murder of "collaborators" (http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/viewpoints/stories/062602dnedimurchison.299e1.html)

The al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, which has in the past claimed responsibility for attacks on Israeli targets, issued a statement saying its "anti-corruption" unit had gunned down Hisham Mekki while he sipped tea in a Gaza restaurant. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1123741.stm)

In Ramallah during the last incursion in April-May--it was reported that 11 or 12 Arabs were accused and summarily executed. (http://www.jewishjournal.com/forum/index.php?view=562)

In such a situation, it was easy for internationally-known figures in the field of human rights (such as Eyad Sarraj) to be arrested and mistreated after making critical comments about the Palestinian Authority (PA). Such people have been practically left to their fate by large parts of the human rights community, which, when push came to shove, was reluctant to view human rights in a non-political manner. This harsh critique takes into account the public campaign waged by the human rights community to assist those human rights activists who were arrested. The problem is the extremely small number of public figures willing to openly criticize President Arafat and the Palestinian Authority on their human rights record. (http://www.phrmg.org/articles/15apr1998.htm)

During the recent conflict, the Palestinians have killed many of their own -- so-called "collaborators," who purportedly aided Israelis. No rules of evidence, judges or juries preceded these spontaneous executions.

"Collaborator" may have merely been the fate of Palestinians caught being moderate. (http://www.google.com/search?q=PALEStinian+murder+of+collaborators&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&start=10&sa=N)

the two hooded gunmen who dragged the prisoners from the building shot them all down together in cold blood.

The executions brought to 11 the number of collaborators shot dead in under 24 hours. (http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/cra0296.htm)

There's more violence, and tremendous religious tension. There are stabbings and attempted raids. Stones are still thrown, strikes held, collaborators killed. (http://www.oneworld.org/peacequest/resources/jreport/Danny2.htm)

In promoting its ideology, HAMAS has grown more violent and ruthless toward the people and Government of Israel. Its tactics include drive-by shootings of Jewish civilians and military personnel, firebombings of homes, vehicles, military installations, and civilian businesses, car bombings in commercial and residential areas, and the murder of suspected Palestinian collaborators within HAMAS itself. (http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1993_cr/h930302-terror.htm)

Note that this last source is from 1993. The murder of Palestinians by Palestinians is nothing new.

[DSeid]

A real good faith effort by PA leadership to arrest (and keep arrested) those planning and facilitating terrorist attacks (like Israel has done with those planning terror attacks against Arab targets) would go far. Absolutely controlling Hamas is not a realistic expectation. Trying to is.

[xenophon41]

For the love of Mike, december


a) "collaborater" != "moderate"

b) OpEd piece != credible cite

[IzzyR]

Gotta agree with that - collaborators are NOT the same as moderates.

I think the whole "hundreds of moderates" thing has been called into question.

(It is probably true that Arabs who acted in a parallel manner to Israeli Peace groups would be lynched. But I doubt if there are any such Arabs, so there have probably been no such lynchings).

[december]

Originally posted by xenophon41
a) "collaborater" != "moderate"When large numbers of so-called "suspected collaborators" are rounded up and summarily executed or lynched, then, yes, "suspected collaborator" will mean "moderate."

[IzzyR]

You need to show some basis for that. These collaborators are probably just apolitical guys taking payoffs from the Israelis.

[wring]

total hijack for which I apologize, but I really, really want to know:

december - did your wife join the SDMB (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2342439#post2342439) ?? D & R

[RexDart]

I'm not a big fan of using links from .org websites to get the truth about a matter. Or information about Palestine from a site called jewishjournal.com. Not to discredit december's other links, but those are suspect, IMHO.

[tomndebb]

It is not reasonable to keep negotiating in the face of continuing terrorism on the preposterous hope that once Arafat becomes more powerful, the terrorism will stop. If Israel has actual evidence of Arafat's complicity in terrorism, then they should arrest him and try him and present the evidence in a public forum.

The notion that it is unreasonable to negotiate "in the face of terrorism" is exactly what Britain held for years, prolonging the Northern Ireland situation by providing the IRA (and, indirectly, their Protestant opponents) ongoing material for recruitment drives.

Israel has maintained the same position for over 30 years of escalating violence. Britain and Spain finally turned from that policy, maintained negotiations despite periodic resurgences, and have seen violence begin to diminish.

[Fang]

Originally posted by Tars Tarkas
You're assuming Arafat orders suicide bombers to attack while in route to peace conferences. Please:rolleyes:. Although it is highly likely Hamas and other organizations are getting money from the Palestinian Authority, Arafat has little or no control over Hamas's actions. If Arafat becomes more powerful and gains an independant country, there is no excuse for keeping Hamas around, and any smart leader will quietly take them down. the US can give a large cash incentive to end the problems and build Palestine up right. (yes, i know the problem isn't that simple, i'm just mentioning a broader plan)

For the sake of keeping this discussion somewhat on track, I'm not even going to address the morality of actively promoting a state for the man who thinks it acceptable to use terrorist activities "only" as a means to achieving a state.

And no, I'm not "assuming" anything. Plenty of evidence exists of Arafat's complicity and involvement in terrorist activities against Israel. Forgetting even about his support for Hamas, Tanzim and Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades are both part of his Fatah movement. To say he is not responsible for their actions is sort of like saying Bush is not responsible for the actions of the Justice Department. He might not personally plan or even individually authorize their actions, but his continued acceptance of terrorist groups within his own movement renders him culpable. Your point about power leading to the elimination of Hamas is incorrect and irrelevant; Hamas will still be a force in Palestinian politics, and even if it won't, Arafat will still engage in anti-Israel terrorism, as most of his career has been based on opposition to the existence of Israel. In any case, you still haven't proven that it's a reasonable assumption that more power to Arafat will end terrorist activities, which is the inherent implication of the idea that Israel should totally ignore terrorism against it and keep going on with the "peace process".

Originally posted by tomndebb
they should arrest him and try him and present the evidence in a public forum
Actually, I agree 100%. Unfortunately, the UN and Arafat's EU pals will never go for it. Israel would face massive diplomatic and economic sanctions for trying to put Arafat on trial.

On your IRA point, the IRA was never opposed to the existence of England. Oh, and it didn't have the financial and moral backing of 10 other Irish states.

On the moderate issue, one example you might want to check out (I can't testify to december's "hundreds", though given Arafat's character it wouldn't surprise me) is Zuhair Hamdan (http://www.israelunitycoalition.com/archive/Oct01/PSONFI_011021.htm). I realize the source isn't necessarily the least biased, but a quick search will reveal that the story presented is basically true.

[CyberPundit]

"If you make a deal and the other side
does not live up to its commitments under the deal, you are yourself freed from adhering to the deal."
If the Israeli government felt that the Palestinians were completely ignoring their obligations they should have walked out of Oslo. As long as they continued to work within the Oslo framework they had a responsibility to try to fulfil their obligations which they didn't. Besides you have yet to show how the Palestinians were the larger culprits. All you have done is to assert that the list of violations I gave were a matter of "interpretation"

"See above. (Are you now asserting that settlements were banned under Oslo? I'd like to see a source for this)."
I am not sure what you are saying here. My first reply to December was to his statement along the lines of : the Israelis heroically tried for peace and the Palestinians rejected it. I believe both the NY Times article and the gush-shalom link refute that simplistic analysis.

As for settlements, I don't know if they technically violate Oslo but they violate its spirit and were an act of bad faith in addition to being illegal under UN SC resolutions. They are an act of bad faith because they represent the Israeli government busily grabbing Palestinian land during an interim peace process designed on the principle of "land for peace". Naturally this made the Palestinians suspicious of the peace process.

"Who are "most independent analysts" and how do you come by their opinion?"
Well leader writers for the NYTimes,Economist, WaPo etc. who are not known to have a particular axe to grind.
As for "practical matter" using your argument, you could just as well say that as a practical matter Palestinian terrorism was an established fact at the time of Oslo and that promising to stop it was a "great concession" on the part of the Palestinians. I think , rather , it makes sense to not blindly accept the status quo but inquire into its legitimacy before judging who is making the larger concessions. Neither promising to stop terrorism nor promising to withdraw were great concessions and neither side fulfilled those obligations properly.

December,
Your list doesn't substantiate "hundreds" killed let alone the notion that all those killed are "moderates". Let's chalk this down as another example of Israeli apologists indulging in fantastic claims exactly on par with the worst of the Palestinian apologists. Really, considering that Israel stands for Democracy, Free Speech and Truth, one would think y'all would do better. :rolleyes:

[december]

Originally posted by wring december - did your wife join the SDMB (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2342439#post2342439) ?? D & R [/B]No, but "Dr. Dec" would be an appropriate name for her. Actually she's too hard-working and serious to ever spend time on a message board like this one. And, she's too unassuming to call herself "Dr," except in an academic setting.

[december]

Originally posted by CyberPundit December,
Your list doesn't substantiate "hundreds" killed let alone the notion that all those killed are "moderates". Let's chalk this down as another example of Israeli apologists indulging in fantastic claims exactly on par with the worst of the Palestinian apologists. Really, considering that Israel stands for Democracy, Free Speech and Truth, one would think y'all would do better. :rolleyes: That was simply a quick search. My cites certainly showed that Palestinians have killed at least dozens of other Palestinians, for being moderates or "suspected collaborators."

Back to the OP. Israel has arrested one or two or three Palestinians, who may or may not be moderates, depending on who you believe. Why are some liberals more concerned about these arrests than they are about the murder or execution of at least dozens by other Palestinians? :confused:

I do not oppose the death penalty CP, but I suspect you and tomndebb and Sparc do. I'm sure we all oppose lynching. Yet the execution or lynching of at least dozens of Palestinians by other Palestinians for political reasons concerns you less than the arrest of 2 or 3 Palestinians by the Israelis. What's going on here? :confused:

I suspect that part of the inconsistency is ignorance of Palestinian misdeeds. The problem may be that some of you do not routinely read conservative sources, while liberal sources may censor or downplay a certain amont of stuff that would make Palestinians look bad. E.g., the New York Times underplayed the Palestinians' public celebrations at the "success" of the bombing at Hebrew University. (Second item here (http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110002088))

[CyberPundit]

You are once again automatically assuming that someone accused of collaborating with Israel is a moderate. Why don't you provide a list of such persons killed and their respective positions which make them moderates?

I usually oppose extra-judicial killings of any kind; however Israel has killed dozens, possibly hundreds of Palestinians in the so-called "targetted assasinations" without due process and yet you seem a good deal less agitated about that. So I think the double-standards are on your side not mine. And note that I haven't expressed any opinion about the arrest of the Palestinian moderates. In any case the reason that the arrests drew attention is not that they are an especially heinous act in themselves , but that they are an important signal about the intentions of the Israeli government.

[december]

<<I think the double standards are on your side not mine>>

Yes, CP, I do favor Israel. Most Americans favor israel, because unlike the Palestinians, they share our values, such as
Equality of women Democracy Rule of law Religious freedom Sexual preference is not a crime Education Industrialization World literature Modern science modern health care freedom of speechcivilian rule

They share your values too.

So, why do you favor their enemies?

[jjimm]

Originally posted by december
So, why do you favor their enemies? For the love of all that is good, december, how many times do you need to be told, here and in the Pit, that:

Disapproving of Israeli policy != favoring Arab states

Excuse me while I run off and commit sepku.

[tomndebb]

Back to the OP. Israel has arrested one or two or three Palestinians, who may or may not be moderates, depending on who you believe. Why are some liberals more concerned about these arrests than they are about the murder or execution of at least dozens by other Palestinians? We are not. You are imposing your own biased view on words, here, that have nothing to do with my concern for (or actions in response to) Palestinian sins.

The discussion is why do we "support" (your incorrect word, not mine) Palestinians over Israel. The discussion is not "Who has done bad things in the region?"

When someone wanders in here and posts that Israel is evil and deserves to be overwhelmed by the Arabs (or driven into the sea or whatever), they are met with the same resistance that your genocidal musings have encountered. I recall several spirited exchanges with Sweet Willy and he was only challenging the specifics of the Israeli "Right of Return."

The whole point that Sparc and Tamerlane and numerous others and I have made is that there is enough guilt to go around: now what practical solutions are there?
Your persistent response is to whine "But the other guys are ba-a-a-ad!" We don't deny that. However, when you present horribly lop-sided claims, we respond against your claims. (Because if we do not, if we presented a perfectly balanced reply, you would simply take the pro-Sharon parts out of our presentations and say they outweight any pro-Palestinian points ands claim that Israel should just keep doing the same violence-promoting things it has been doing.) When the anti-ISraeli or anti-Jewish crowd posts, they are met with the same opposition that you meet. You simply ignore those posts (which are rather less frequent than your one-sided complaints) and charge everyone in the middle with being anti-Israel.

[wring]

Originally posted by december
That was simply a quick search. My cites certainly showed that Palestinians have killed at least dozens of other Palestinians, for being moderates or "suspected collaborators."


so 'hundreds of moderates' becomes 'dozens of suspected collaborators', of course assuming that was the motivation. Is this an official retraction of your unsubstantiated claim? Or at least an admission that it's hyperbolic?

[IzzyR]

"If you make a deal and the other side
does not live up to its commitments under the deal, you are yourself freed from adhering to the deal."
If the Israeli government felt that the Palestinians were completely ignoring their obligations they should have walked out of Oslo. As long as they continued to work within the Oslo framework they had a responsibility to try to fulfil their obligations which they didn't.I don't agree with this.Besides you have yet to show how the Palestinians were the larger culprits. All you have done is to assert that the list of violations I gave were a matter of "interpretation"Good point. I think we're at an impasse. This is how I remember it from following it over the years - I can't prove it offhand."See above. (Are you now asserting that settlements were banned under Oslo? I'd like to see a source for this)."
I am not sure what you are saying here. My first reply to December was to his statement along the lines of : the Israelis heroically tried for peace and the Palestinians rejected it. I believe both the NY Times article and the gush-shalom link refute that simplistic analysis.I agree that we are getting a bit tangled up here as we venture far afield. The basic point is whether the Israelis can have reasonable confidence that concessions on their end will be met by peace from the Palestinians. Because the central problem from the Israeli end is that their concessions have the impact of strengthening the Arab ability to harm Israel and Israelis. So unless they can be reasonably sure that their concessions will not be used against them, it is not reasonable to expect them to make them.They are an act of bad faith because they represent the Israeli government busily grabbing Palestinian land during an interim peace process designed on the principle of "land for peace". Naturally this made the Palestinians suspicious of the peace process.I don't think so - it is not reasonable to expect to get anything over and above what is spelled out in the agreement. (The issue may be a bit more complicated - I seem to recall that there is some issue involved over a policy of not creating new settlements but expanding old ones)."Who are "most independent analysts" and how do you come by their opinion?"
Well leader writers for the NYTimes,Economist, WaPo etc. who are not known to have a particular axe to grind.So you are asserting that you have surveyed the opinion of all such writers and most of them agree with you?As for "practical matter" using your argument, you could just as well say that as a practical matter Palestinian terrorism was an established fact at the time of Oslo and that promising to stop it was a "great concession" on the part of the Palestinians.Well yes, if terrorism is so important to you, I guess your life will never be the same after you have to give it up....

[december]

Originally posted by CyberPundit Well leader writers for the NYTimes,Economist, WaPo etc. who are not known to have a particular axe to grind.Actually the New York Times is considered so biased against Israel that a local rabbi organized a boycott to get people to stop subscribing. The boycott was mentioned here. (http://www.current.org/news/news0210wbur.html)Boycotters have threatened to drop subscriptions to the New York Times, Los Angeles Times and Washington Post, and CNN also has come under fire.

[yojimbo]

Ok so lets see

New York Times
LA Times
Washington Post
CNN
BBC
The Guardian
The Independent ( I'm assuming this one. It does have Robert Fisk writing for it ;) )
The Irish Times?
RTE?
London Times?

any other scurrilous rags out there that are bias to the ever misunderstood administration of Israel? BTW I bet there's also a lot of stories about terrorists in them as well but that probably doesn't matter does it. They printed stories that either reported somebody questioning Israel or they had the gall to do it themselves.

You'd think there was a free press or something.

[CyberPundit]

December,
LIke Jimm said, opposing Israel's policies doesn't mean supporting its enemies.

To answer your main point, there is nothing democratic about Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza and while Israel has a right to fight terrorism there is nothing particularly democratic about its disproportianate and cruel methods in that fight . So there isn't the least inconsistency in supporting democracy and opposing Israel's specific policies.

As for the Times, the opinions of a few die-hard pro-Israeli malcontents isn't of the slightest importance in evaluating its coverage and neither are the "findings" of two-bit propoganda outfits like CAMERA. Before they criticize the Times for its alleged lack of objectivity it would help if they learned the meaning of objectivity themselves.

Izzy,
"Because the central problem from the Israeli end is that their concessions have the impact of strengthening the Arab ability to harm Israel and Israelis"
This is debatable. Israel can always reverse any concessions; as for instance it is doing now with re-occupation. And you can equally well argue that if the Palestinians give up terrorism, Israel will respond by grabbing even more land through settlements.

"I don't think so - it is not reasonable to expect to get anything over and above what is spelled out in the agreement"
First of all the settlements are illegal anyway under UNSC resolutions. Secondly you seem to be saying that the concept of "bad faith" or "spirit of the agreement" is meaningless and that if you follow of the letter of the agreement (which Israel didn't anyway) you are fine. So you seem to have a problem with the concept of "bad faith" in itself.

"So you are asserting that you have surveyed the opinion of all such writers and most of them agree with you?"
I think it's accurate to say that I have found that there is a consensus among such writers that the settlements are both illegitimate and counter-productive, yes.

[zigaretten]

Originally posted by CyberPundit

December,
Your list doesn't substantiate "hundreds" killed let alone the notion that all those killed are "moderates". Let's chalk this down as another example of Israeli apologists indulging in fantastic claims exactly on par with the worst of the Palestinian apologists. Really, considering that Israel stands for Democracy, Free Speech and Truth, one would think y'all would do better. :rolleyes:

Ouch!! Not so fast, please.

http://www.freeman.org/m_online/aug97/codevill.htm

"Since the purpose of Western governments' - including Israel's - support of the PA is precisely to encourage moderation and normal relations between Arabs and Jews, the PA's killing of just the Arabs who deal most moderately and normally with Jews obviously defeats Western purposes. And yet Westerners seem ready enough to lend a hand to their own undoing. Unfortunately, this has been going on longer than most of us have been alive."


http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=105001955

"During the uprising in the late 1980s, some 800 "collaborators" were murdered, many of them simply Palestinians who had prospered under Israeli occupation."

"After the 1993 Oslo accords gave him a statelet, Mr. Arafat quickly set about criminalizing "collaboration"--most famously with a law making the sale of land to Jews punishable by death. But those who get a trial are the lucky ones. Seven decades of "collaborator" killings have silenced or driven out many who would be open to coexistence with Israel."

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/pa/isrpa1101-04.htm#P504_81339

"During the first Intifada, before the PA was established, hundreds of alleged collaborators were lynched, tortured or killed, at times with the implied support of the PLO. Street killings of alleged collaborators continue in the current Intifada (see below) but so far in much fewer numbers. During this Intifada, the PA has arrested hundreds of suspected collaborators, tortured many to extract confessions, put some on trial, and televised confessions."

"The term "collaborator" has several broad and sometimes ill-defined meanings..."

There are, however, other meanings of collaborator that were more relevant to the period of the Israeli occupation through 1994. The "intermediary" (al-wasit) helped Palestinians do the complex paper work and security checks the Israelis required before granting most services. The "armed collaborator" (al-‛amil al-musallah) accompanied Israeli Special Forces to identify the houses of wanted activists. Palestinians have also spoken about the "economic collaborators" who tried to promote Israeli products on the Palestinian market, often acting as representatives of Israeli companies, and the "political collaborators" who officially or informally represented Israeli interests, sometimes taking on positions of authority in local administrations.
In the tensions of the current conflict almost anyone fitting these descriptions is at risk of being denounced or killed by unknown attackers or arrested by security forces, even for activities committed many years ago during the Israeli occupation."

From “A History of Israel” by Howard M. Sachar;

Neither did the intifada leave the seven hundred thousand Arab citizens of Israel unaffected. As early as December 21, 1987, a solidarity “Day of Peace” became the occasion for a vast public outpouring......By the end of 1987, however, fully a third of the 2,700 attacks carried out by Palestinian activists were perpetrated against fellow Arabs.”


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1932362.stm

"The Palestinian intifada leader Marwan Barghouti will be put on trial in Israel for the "murder of hundreds of Israelis," Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has said."

"He will be brought before an Israeli court for the murder of hundreds of Israelis, babies, children, women," Mr Sharon said on army radio."

Somehow, if I can accept Collounsbury and tomndebbs characterization of Barghouti as a moderate when he has been legally charged with hundreds of murders (meaning that the Israelis are, in theory, planning to present their evidence in a public trial), then I can also accept that many of the hundreds of palestinians who were killed without benefit of charges, trial or defense were primarily chosen because of their moderate politics.

But, just to turn the tables a little, please show me any evidence that any of these victims was, in fact, a collaborator.

[IzzyR]

Originally posted by CyberPundit
"Because the central problem from the Israeli end is that their concessions have the impact of strengthening the Arab ability to harm Israel and Israelis"
This is debatable. Israel can always reverse any concessions; as for instance it is doing now with re-occupation. And you can equally well argue that if the Palestinians give up terrorism, Israel will respond by grabbing even more land through settlements.Are you seriously arguing this? Of course Israel can "always reverse any concessions". The US can always invade Canada. But as a practical matter, for diplomatic reasons it is extremely difficult to take back the kind of concessions that Israel made. Even what they've done until now has been at enormous cost. (Which is besides for the fact that a lot of the damage has already been done - the terrorist arms build-up has been made possible, in large part, by the Israeli loss of control over those areas. Similarly, if they were to once again completely pull out there is reason to fear that the same will once again occur). By contrast, most or all of the Palestinian concessions are relatively easy to retract.First of all the settlements are illegal anyway under UNSC resolutions.UNSC resolutions are not so meaningful when it comes to Israel - the entire agency seems to be biased against the country. Sometimes the US bails them out - sometimes it does not. I believe there is some question about the "legal" status of the WB/G due to the fact that Jordan renounced it's claims to it and it was never an independent country. But I don't think this is especially relevant anyway, as mentioned (meaning the "practical" issue).Secondly you seem to be saying that the concept of "bad faith" or "spirit of the agreement" is meaningless and that if you follow of the letter of the agreement (which Israel didn't anyway) you are fine. So you seem to have a problem with the concept of "bad faith" in itself.I think bad faith is meaningful when there is something understood by both sides of an agreement. Generally it arises in cases where standard procedures and practices are in place, that the parties rely on in coming to the agreement. In this case, I don't think this happened - the basis that you give for it being bad faith (i.e. the "illegal status" and the fact that the general principle of the agreements was land for peace) were likely not understood by both sides at the time of the agreement as a specific bar to anything not spelled out in the agreement. (In general, it seems that every comma in these agreements is being fought over tooth and nail - I don't think an expansive reading of the terms under a "good faith" principle makes any sense in such circumstances)."So you are asserting that you have surveyed the opinion of all such writers and most of them agree with you?"
I think it's accurate to say that I have found that there is a consensus among such writers that the settlements are both illegitimate and counter-productive, yes.That's not what we're talking about - you were asserting that they felt the Palestinians had made the greater concessions. (Hey, I'll tell you that the settlements were a huge mistake - no argument about that).

[december]

Originally posted by CyberPundit First of all the settlements are illegal anyway under UNSC resolutions. UNSC resolutions are not "laws."

[CyberPundit]

zigarretten,
I think the current discussion is about recent events in the last couple of years or at the very most the post-Oslo period. And your sources still don't really show that collaborators=moderate in any meaningful sense of the word. And no, if December makes specific allegations, it is not up to others to bear the burden to prove him wrong.

Izzy,
OK this discussion is getting rather tedious as we keep going in circles over the same issues.
My main point at the begining was to refute December's romantic picture of Israeli policy during Oslo and I think I have more than done that.

A few points:
As a "practical matter" Israel has reversed occupation many times when it thought it would enhance security, international opinion notwithstanding. There are good practical reasons why full reoccupation isn't in its interest and wouldn't necessarily increase its security. Also the most effective terrorist acts are commited by suicide-bombers not the police forces armed during Oslo. So your assertion that Israeli concessions have significantly increased Palestinian terrorist capacity is dubious at best.

As for the legality of settlements: I believe they violate the Geneva conventions and this was just reiterated by the UNSC resolutions, which incidentally were voted for by the US as well. I will leave it to the lawyers to discuss the legal technicalities but note that UNSC resolutions are most definitely an indicator of international legitimacy and international opinion.
So we have that settlements are:
a)widely considered illegitimate by most of the world.
b)undermined the peace process by alieanting Palestinian opinon and making a final settlement more difficult
So regardless of the technicalities of Oslo, I still say that the settlements indicate a lack of sincerity on the part of the Israeli government. I think many Israeli moderates agree with this as well. In any case I have also given a list of direct infringements of Oslo as well.

"That's not what we're talking about...."
OK. I can remember only the Economist specifically saying that the Palestinians made the greater concessions, but in any case I don't think that is an important point.

[SuaSponte]

by IzzyR
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Tamerlane
However I think there is a real tendency to hold a democratically elected government like Israel's to a far higher standard of behavior than the murderous thugs running the PLO. Mostly they live up that higher standard, but there are occasional slips.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why would this be? I would think moral standards are immutable and should apply to all equally. That's like getting worked up every time a decent citizen commits a minor infraction but letting thugs off the hook for far worse because you hold the decent person to a higher standard. Furthermore, the ostensible impetus for getting worked up about the actions of Israelis or Arabs is not concern about the standards that they are upholding - rather it is concern about the victims - these are the same regardless of the standards to which the oppressors are being held.

This one is simple. In most circumstances you would be right, IzzyR. However, in this instance, Israel has repeatedly taken the position that it has the moral highground/should be supported because it is a democracy/respects human rights/doesn't discriminate/etc. Israel has put the matter to the forefront, and have chosen to base at least some of its legitimacy on those very points. Having chosen the high moral ground to gain an advantage, Israel cannot turn around and act against this moral position when it suits their needs.

by december
Sharon heads a regime where Muslim citizens have full rights, identical to any other citizens. There are IIRC Muslims in the Knesset. Arafat heads a regime where Jews are not treated the same as other citizens.
Curiousity got this cat. december, are there any Jewish citizens of the Palestinian Authority?

Sua

[december]

Originally posted by SuaSponte Curiousity got this cat. december, are there any Jewish citizens of the Palestinian Authority?

Sua I've never heard of any. I have been given to understand that Jews would not be free to travel in most Arab countries. (Although I believe Egypt would now permit Jews to travel there.)

My assumption is that Jews would not be welcome to live under the P.A. We know that Palestinians routinely kill suspected Israel collaborators. I imagine that being Jewish might cause one to be suspected of being a collaborator.

[IzzyR]

Originally posted by CyberPundit
As a "practical matter" Israel has reversed occupation many times when it thought it would enhance security, international opinion notwithstanding.As I've said, these actions have had a diplomatic cost. And if they would permanently reoccupy the cost would be far far greater. (Do you disagree with this?)There are good practical reasons why full reoccupation isn't in its interest and wouldn't necessarily increase its security. Also the most effective terrorist acts are committed by suicide-bombers not the police forces armed during Oslo. So your assertion that Israeli concessions have significantly increased Palestinian terrorist capacity is dubious at best.I don't agree with you here. An actual occupation would allows a far greater degree of control over the amount of weaponry - explosives and arms - that gets brought into the area. When the Israelis had full control over the area there were far far fewer armed attacks against Israelis - knife attacks were more common. Much of the difference is that the PA has imported large amounts of weapons for itself and allowed Hamas and other such groups to import more for themselves as well.

Originally posted by SuaSponte
In most circumstances you would be right, IzzyR. However, in this instance, Israel has repeatedly taken the position that it has the moral highground/should be supported because it is a democracy/respects human rights/doesn't discriminate/etc. Israel has put the matter to the forefront, and have chosen to base at least some of its legitimacy on those very points. Having chosen the high moral ground to gain an advantage, Israel cannot turn around and act against this moral position when it suits their needs.I don't agree. As mentioned, the ostensible cause of protestations about Israeli actions is not concern for the moral character of the politicians committing them, but rather, concern for the victims of these actions. Whether the politicians are also liars/hypocrites is not relevant. Even were this not the case, you would be justified in calling the politicians liars or hypocrites - this should not result in a harsher judgement of the actual actions.

Its not as if it's all some sort of debate or legal jousting where you might sometimes allow strategic maneuvering to outweigh the underlying truth. The moral judgement that you make of a situation should reflect the true moral reality as much as possible, regardless of other factors.

Beyond this, I'm not convinced that your assertions are true. I don't think Israel has claimed to be doing anything other than what it is doing (for the most part, at least). Israel has justified actions that others do not think are justified. They believe that they still have the moral highground. Others may disagree. If you don't think they deserve the moral highground then don't give them support on that basis. But this is no reason to hold them to a higher standard.

Still, what you say may have some validity in explaining the motivations of those who do hold Israel to a higher standard - there a natural emotional tendency to do this. But I don't see it as a justification at all.

[december]

Originally posted by SuaSponte
However, in this instance, Israel has repeatedly taken the position that it has the moral highground/should be supported because it is a democracy/respects human rights/doesn't discriminate/etc. Israel has put the matter to the forefront, and have chosen to base at least some of its legitimacy on those very points. Having chosen the high moral ground to gain an advantage, Israel cannot turn around and act against this moral position when it suits their needs. One of the points empasized by Dale Carnegie is that virtually everyone believes they have the moral highground. His book How to Win Friends and Influence People even gives a quote from some notorious gangster, who maintained that his activities were benefiting society.

The Palestinians also claim the moral highground, and they have some arguments. Land was taken from them. They are forced to lead deprived lives. Israel kills their civilians. They also have some anti-Semitic arguments that are moral from their POV.

[CyberPundit]

"And if they would permanently reoccupy the cost would be far far greater."
Maybe but the point is that even without the diplomatic cost, there are good reasons for Israel not to occupy the West Bank . And don't forget there were diplomatic costs to the occupation before Oslo as well (during the first intifida for instance). So it isn't really the Oslo concessions that cause the diplomatic cost, but the act of occupation itself.

"An actual occupation would allows a far greater degree of control over the amount of weaponry - explosives and arms - that gets brought into the area"
The point is that only a small fraction of the weapons do the most damage. A few hundred suicide bomb-belts can do a huge amount of damage and it wouldn't have been hard to smuggle them in regardless of occupation. I think even if Israel had continued occupation, Hamas would have gotten more and more effective. Israeli occupation in South Lebanon didn't do much in keeping Hejbollah in check for instance.

[London_Calling]

Originally posted by IzzyR
I don't agree. As mentioned, the ostensible cause of protestations about Israeli actions is not concern for the moral character of the politicians committing them, but rather, concern for the victims of these actions. Whether the politicians are also liars/hypocrites is not relevant. Even were this not the case, you would be justified in calling the politicians liars or hypocrites - this should not result in a harsher judgement of the actual actions.

So do I take it, Izzy, you see no linkage between continuous cycles of West Bank occupation, curfews, etc and Sharon's own domestic political agenda, particularly with regard to the coalition Government and the demands of his particular domestic constituency ?

If so, I disagree. The character of politicians is fundamental to progress in the Mid East – Sharon has little history of utilising diplomatic options, or of compromise and he, as well as Arafat, are well known for their personal hatred of each other. This IMHO, in no small measure, is the reason he was elected.

You might argue that Sharon should reflect the views of his political constituency or, instead, manipulate same for some greater purpose, but to suggest there is no linkage between character and action is surely incorrect.

[IzzyR]

Originally posted by CyberPundit
"And if they would permanently reoccupy the cost would be far far greater."
Maybe but the point is that even without the diplomatic cost, there are good reasons for Israel not to occupy the West Bank . And don't forget there were diplomatic costs to the occupation before Oslo as well (during the first intifida for instance). So it isn't really the Oslo concessions that cause the diplomatic cost, but the act of occupation itself.There was some. But by creating a quasi-state, it definitely makes it harder to undo. And by creating an actual state it will be tremendously harder. I'm surprised that you don't agree with this - I guess we're at an impasse here as well.

"An actual occupation would allows a far greater degree of control over the amount of weaponry - explosives and arms - that gets brought into the area"
The point is that only a small fraction of the weapons do the most damage. A few hundred suicide bomb-belts can do a huge amount of damage and it wouldn't have been hard to smuggle them in regardless of occupation.That is not the case, from what I've read. I think even as it is, the terrorists are hard pressed to come up with as much weaponry as they can - though they have quite a lot, unfortunately. And it is a fact that - as I've previously mentioned - there were far fewer armed attacks before the PA, and many more with knives. I think you are simply wrong here (do you have any basis for your assertion?)I think even if Israel had continued occupation, Hamas would have gotten more and more effective. Israeli occupation in South Lebanon didn't do much in keeping Hejbollah in check for instance.Israeli control over Lebanon was never nearly as thorough as its control over the WB.

[IzzyR]

London_Calling, I fail to see any connection between anything I have been discussing and your post.

[CyberPundit]

"But by creating a quasi-state, it definitely makes it harder to undo"
Maybe but I am not sure that undoing the quasi-state adds much to Israeli security anyway. In any case it's just not clear to me that in an alternate world where Oslo never happened, Israel would be any less under diplomatic pressure if it performed the kind of crackdown it's doing now. The same picture of Palestinians dying would go round the world and the same outrage would exist. You may be right but I don't see any really compelling reasons to believe so. I can think of one good reason why the opposite might be true: the credibility that the likes of Peres have accumulated because of Oslo which helps the Israeli government make its case.

"That is not the case, from what I've read"
OK feel free to give your reasons. For instance 200 or so bomb-belts would be enough for years of terrorism. How much space would they occupy in a truck or small boat? How difficult is to smuggle them from across the border or through the sea even with an occupation? Are you saying that the Israeli occupation was so efficient that even over a period of two or three years the Palestinians wouldn't be able to smuggle this many bomb-belts in? I have read that a lot of arms are smuggled from Israel itself so it doesn't seem to me that occupation could eliminate smuggling on such a small level.

I think the big difference between the 80's and now is that there are a lot more people ready to kill themselves. Obviously it's not the concessions which have created that situation. The bottom line is that if you have if you have hundreds of people ready to die it's awfully difficult to stop them from killing.

[IzzyR]

Originally posted by CyberPundit
In any case it's just not clear to me that in an alternate world where Oslo never happened, Israel would be any less under diplomatic pressure if it performed the kind of crackdown it's doing now. The same picture of Palestinians dying would go round the world and the same outrage would exist.I am positing that if Oslo had never happened there would not have been this violent and succesful an uprising. It would follow that the Israeli crackdown would also have been less severe. The first intifada was pre-Oslo and was less violent, featuring rocks instead of bombs and guns, for the most part. The Israelis got bad press then, but nothing close to what they are getting now. Reason is that they did not need F-16s and Apache helicopters and curfews to supress a rock rebellion. And furthermore, they were not viewed as invaders to the same extent as they are now that the PA exists.

"That is not the case, from what I've read"
OK feel free to give your reasons. For instance 200 or so bomb-belts would be enough for years of terrorism. How much space would they occupy in a truck or small boat? How difficult is to smuggle them from across the border or through the sea even with an occupation? Are you saying that the Israeli occupation was so efficient that even over a period of two or three years the Palestinians wouldn't be able to smuggle this many bomb-belts in? I have read that a lot of arms are smuggled from Israel itself so it doesn't seem to me that occupation could eliminate smuggling on such a small level.I don't know the details, but this is what I've read from those who do. I saw an Israeli security official quoted in the NYT recently who said that even as it stands now there would be even more suicide bombings were there more explosives around. So it's not as if getting enough explosives is as simple as you think. And once again, the facts are that there were not this many bombings or shootings until Oslo.I think the big difference between the 80's and now is that there are a lot more people ready to kill themselves. Obviously it's not the concessions which have created that situation.Actually that is not true, let alone obvious. I believe history shows that many times concessions create rising expections which can cause increased anger if they are not fulfilled. Many times people can accept a dismal situation if it has been unchanged for a long time because the feeling is that "that's the way it always has been and that's the way it is always going to be" and the like. By suggesting that the situation can actually change, people become much less satisfied with the status quo.

Examples of this phenomenon would include the race riots in the late 60s, after the desegregation and civil rights legislation of the 50s and mid 60s. Or the Russian overthrow of communism after glasnost and perestroika. And others. (This may be beyond the scope of this thread).The bottom line is that if you have if you have hundreds of people ready to die it's awfully difficult to stop them from killing.You're on to something there. That is the biggest advantage that the Palestinians have going for them. Still, even in terrible situations there's better and worse.

[december]

Apparently Israel is using the threat of re-imposing a military government as a way to try to deter a "mega-attack."Israel's army has made plans to end self-rule in the West Bank and Gaza Strip and re-impose a military government in the event of a "mega" terrorist attack.

The army's co-ordinator of government activities in the territories, Major-General Amos Gilad, disclosed the plan in a briefing this week to the Israeli parliament's Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee.

Meanwhile, Israel's Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, yesterday met top government and military officials to prepare for a worst-case scenario in which Palestinian groups carried out such an attack. But General Gilad insisted the plan to return to military rule over Palestinian civilian affairs would be activated only in an emergency. http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/08/07/1028157963916.html

[CyberPundit]

Izzy,
I think we could discuss hypotheticals about Oslo endlessly so let's agree to disagree.
I didn't find the Israeli official's comments too convincing both because he has a clear incentive to exaggerate the efficacy of Israeli actions and also because, as I said, smuggling a relatively small number of bomb-belts/explosives seems impossible to really control. Especially when so many Palestinians are desperate enough to die .

[IzzyR]

OK (though the comments were made about the difficulty of stopping the bombings due to so many willing volunteers, rather than about Israeli actions). I have seen many statements that indicated as much - I just seized on that one as a recent example that I happened to remember. YMMV.

[zigaretten]

Originally posted by CyberPundit

I think the current discussion is about recent events in the last couple of years or at the very most the post-Oslo period. And your sources still don't really show that collaborators=moderate in any meaningful sense of the word.

Originally posted by december

Arafat and the Palestinians have killed, not just arrested, hundreds of Palestinian moderates, not just one. tomndebb focuses on the Israeli arrest of a single Palestinian moderate, but ignores all the others. What are the names of the Palestinian moderates killed by Arafat's regime? Were any of them well-respected? Were any of them noted for their adherence to principle? Could they have helped improve the lot of the Palestinian people? Would they have supported a real peace agreement?


CyberPundit, let me make it clear that my previous post wasn’t just aimed at you, your qoute just gave me a good intro.

It appears to me, however, that you and some others are trying to force december into defending a position which he didn’t take. I see no reference in decembers statement about any timeframe. (In fact his cites, in a later post, would seem to contradict your position on that point, as would your own question on the subject in one of your earlier posts.) Nor has december specified “moderate politicians” or “moderate leaders” which is what you now seem to want him to produce.

Now we could argue all year about what constitutes a “Palistinian Moderate”. One mans moderate…as they say. So I’ll just state straight out that if Palestinians are being killed for no other reason than “moderate” behavior along the lines of doing business with Israelis or helping other Palestinians to deal with Israel then I am willing to accept that “Palestinian Moderates” are being killed (even though any one of those “moderates” may actually have harbored the most extreme political views). And that is exactly what the report from Human Rights Watch says is happening. I feel this is a reasonable position, though I won't pretend that it is the only reasonable position.

Originally posted by CyberPundit

And no, if December makes specific allegations, it is not up to others to bear the burden to prove him wrong.

I agree. And if you had merely stated that december had failed to prove his position, then I wouldn’t think of asking you to support anything. But you went far beyond a statement along those lines, you stated that these allegations were "...another example of Israeli apologists indulging in fantastic claims exactly on par with the worst of the Palestinian apologists..." while IzzyR stated "These collaborators are probably just apolitical guys taking payoffs from the Israelis."

I'm only asking you to support your allegation that decembers allegations are "fantastic claims exactly on par with the worst of (those by) the Palestinian apologists."

[Sparc]

zigaretten,

I have sad elsewhere that I am out of this debate, but in the other thread started by me I did implicate you in an argument and I guess that it is fair that I clarify what I meant. Since the other matter is concluded in my eyes, I prefer to answer you in here.

No one has questioned whether or not there has been atrocious killing, lynching and prosecution of Palestinians by Palestinians, rather the contrary.

That is not what was asked for cites to corroborate either, december was called on the following statements:december this thread page 1

The routine execution of moderate Palestinians by Arafat's thugs.

december further down on page 1

Arafat's forces have probably killed something like 1000 "moderate" Palestinians,Cites that corroborate killings were produced. Those were called on the basis that there was no proof that these were moderates, but collaborators (whatever that means). You are now handing us a definition of moderate that fits the cites, but not the general understanding of moderate. Hence it remains open to interpretation whether or not the individuals killed were in fact moderates.

In any case moderate is a matter of definition. It would be helpful if december defined moderate in this respect. Being a moderate myself and having been pigeon holed in this matter before I fear that this definition isn’t quite going to find consensus, but that is another matter. In all cases this is a strawman again. If Palestinians have killed each other in the thousands was not the original question. The original question was:From the OP

What puzzles me is this: Why do many posters here routinely take the side of the oppressive bigots against Israel? Are they militarists? Homophobes? Anti-Christian? Do they want women to be oppressed? Do they prefer a corrupt dictatorship, rather than democracy? Do they feel threatened by freedom of speech?

I certainly don't think so. Quite the reverse. So, why do they support people who represent positions that they detest? The OP takes for granted that atrocities have been committed and therefore the discussion of what kind of atrocities becomes somewhat irrelevant. I have responded to the actual question in here and in the other thread in this way:Me elsewhere

As regards my leaning in one direction or the other I have told you over and over again what my position is. If you like to have it in a new way; I support the right of the Israeli people and the Palestinian people to gain the rights laid down in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I oppose anyone on any side that opposes that for their own people, or for the people on the enemy side.

Me in this thread

I generally hold Israel for a nation that is relatively free, and humane along the lines in the OP, yet I oppose Sharon's policy vs. the Palestinians. Meanwhile I deplore the lack of the same qualities on the PA side AND oppose their policy vs. Israel. Degrees in hell, I guess you could call it. This is not liberalism or leftist december; it’s being aware of real politics.


Me elsewhere

The reason you aren’t seeing moderates regularly take the same stance vis-à-vis the PA as vis-à-vis Israel is simply that there is only one known rabid anti-Israel member on the board and he usually doesn’t join the discussion.

Meanwhile december, you and a few others frequently display a strong bias against the Palestinians, which leaves us moderates with only one side to argue against. Basically you could put it this way, it’s not opposition to Israel, it’s not opposition to the Palestinians, but it is opposition to bias.

emphasis addedYou will not find me giving a blanket approval of any side at any point and you will not get me to make a blanket condemnation of any side. I will reserve my judgment to be made on a case-by-case and situation-by-situation basis.

Sparc

[december]

1. How can there be a "collaborator" in a time of peace?

At least since the Camp David accords, Arafat was pledged to cooperate with Israel in preventing terrorism. So, "collaborator" might mean "someone who actually tried to fulfill the Palestinian side of the Camp David agreements."

2. My comment about the killing of "something like 1000 'moderate' Palestinians"

This was based on my memory of the opinionjournal cite that zigaretten found. I was a bit, but basically correct, as that cite gave a figure of 800.

3. What is a "moderate"?

I confess that I can't give an exact definition. Regardless of the precise definition, the murder of 800 people is an atrocity. However, if "moderate" denotes someone who might actually make genuine peace with Israel, then the problem is greater still. No peace can ever occur, if potential peace-makers are killed as soon as they speak out. This is how the situation has been described in various articles, although I do not have cites at hand right now.

4. Have these killings been acknowledged by posters?

Sparc says, "No one has questioned whether or not there has been atrocious killing, lynching and prosecution of Palestinians by Palestinians, rather the contrary." The contrary of questioning the killing of Palestinians by Palestinians would acknowledging it. Other than Sparc's comment above, I do not recall posters doing so.

5. Do people know about these killings?

In the related Pit thread, wring says that she deplores all the violence. OK, but if she's unaware of the magnitide of these murders, then she can't take them into account in making judgments. OTOH some posters go into great detail counting the number of civilians killed by Israel, although we all deplore the death of innocent civilians.

6. Policy implications

I wonder what the EU about these killings. Despite the misdeeds of Arafat against Israeli citizens and against his own citizens, and despite his theft of millions of dollars, the EU continues to give him money. In fact the recently raised his stipend.

7. Modern Mideastern Mobster

In my book, Arafat is essentially a gangster. Gangsters used to make their money the old-fashioned way: They stole it.

Today, the UN and the EU support them. :(

[tomndebb]

Gangsters used to make their money the old-fashioned way: They stole it.Kinda like the West Bank?

Yeah, yeah. Cheap shot.

[DSeid]

Less than a cheap shot. It is repeating the Big Lie. Israel did not steal the West Bank, she won the West Bank from Jordan (who had "annexed" - read "stole" - it from the newly created Palestine years before) in a defensive war and, despite the presence of settlers, the vast majority of Israelis want out of it ... if only there was a way to get out and have long term security. Heck, even Sharon is on record as wanting that.

Israel just doesn't know how to get out, safely. Withdrawl in response to attacks is not an option. Israelis believe that such would signal weakness and open them up to escalating continued attacks against Israel proper by those committed to her total destruction. Some believe that even Arab countries would see withdrawl as weakness and as an opportunity to attack in full military conflict. (I know that many on these boards see these perceptions as unfounded, but they are the perceptions, even in many very liberal circles. Withdrawl will not occur as a matter of retreat.)

Negotiation? Well, negotiation was tried and, from the Israeli perspective, the only thing that would seem to satisfy Arafat were terms that guarenteed the end of Israel as a Jewish state, eg a full right of return. (Again, I'm not wanting to re-open old debates about whether such is an accurate assessment, just to put out what Israelis generally see as reality.)

And now, slowly, the Big Fence is going up to see if that can provide safety so that withdrawl can commence as other than retreat.

Sua asks a pertinent question: what is the legal staus of Jews under the PA? To the best of my knowledge there are no Jewish citizens of the PA and it is, in fact, illegal to sell property to a Jew. Some settlers would love to stay in their homes after an Israeli government withdrawl, as citizens of the PA, provided that they would be protected as citizens and given rights as citizens. Would that be expected to occur? Would the world hold a PA to that standard? Or would the EU fund Arafat and his corrupt cronies no matter what they do?

[Sparc]

DSeid

Or would the EU fund Arafat and his corrupt cronies no matter what they do?What happened here? That’s not like you DSeid! You know very well that financial support for the PA is not unilaterally from the EU. I guess Tom pressed a button there, and your counter argument is well made… up until this last sentence that is. Care to clarify?

[DSeid]

To clarify -

The European press uncritically accepted the portrayal of a massacre at Jenin and to this day I think that if you polled a thousand random EU college students, a majority would say that they believes that Israel committed a massacre there. It is my belief (and we've debated this ad nauseum in the past) that the European Press and public opinion is biased against the Israeli POV, and that such is reflected in funding with no strings attached.

There is little doubt that monies have funnelled through the PA to terror organizations.

http://query.nytimes.com/search/abstract?res=F30B1FF8355D0C748DDDAC0894DA404482
May 17, 2002
[According to a State Department report the] 'weight of evidence' suggests Palestinian leaders knew their subordinates were involved in violence and did little to rein them in or punish them; also notes that senior Palestinian officials were involved in unsuccessful effort to smuggle sophisticated weapons into West Bank and Gaza that could have dramatically escalated level of Palestinian violence; semiannual report, sent to Congress as required by law, does not cover most intense period of Palestinian violence and Israeli raids and reprisals of last two monthsThis report did not report conclusive evidence that Arafat himself ordered the terror. But the evidence later was conclusive that he was personally signing off, such was what provoked Bush's "Arafat must go" stand.
http://query.nytimes.com/search/abstract?res=F60716FF3F5A0C758EDDAF0894DA404482

June 26, 2002
MIDEAST TURMOIL: DIPLOMACY; AIDES TO BUSH SAY ARAFAT FINANCED A TERRORIST GROUP
Senior administration officials say Pres Bush decided to call for Yasir Arafat's removal after receiving intelligence information showing that the Palestinian leader had authorized $20,000 payment to Al Aksa Martyrs Brigades, group that claimed responsibility for most recent suicide attack; say that as result, aggressive diplomacy that had originally been expected to follow Bush's speech, including trip to region by Secretary of State Colin L Powell and Middle East peace conference, will now be delayed

Meanwhile the EU funds the PA.

http://www.thejewishpress.com/news_article.asp?article=1275

EU To Release Funds To Palestinians
Posted 6/26/2002
LONDON — Israel reacted angrily last week to a European Union decision to release $18 million in aid money to the Palestinian Authority.

Israel has accused Europe of funding terrorist activities through its payments to the PA. Those payments are designed to replace tax revenues that the Israeli government withheld following the outbreak of the intifada in October 2000.

After a debate in the European Parliament, the members of the legislature’s foreign affairs and budgetary committees voted to release the latest installment of aid money, which had been on hold pending an EU investigation into Israel’s accusations.

“We have found no evidence of EU funds being used for any purposes other than that for which they were intended,” said EU External Relations Commission Chris Patten.

Patten told legislators the European money was helping to prevent the financial collapse of the PA.

Although the measure passed, several legislators voiced complaints about the PA.

Armin Laschet, a member of German’s center-right Christian Democrat party, said that Europe should not send a message to the Palestinians that “whatever happens, however much tensions escalate, Europe carries on paying.”(Bolding mine)

The EU's position sounds good, superficially-
http://www.europaworld.org/issue62/pattendefends211201.htm

Two things were crucial: first the Palestinian Authority had to take concrete steps to arrest and bring to justice those who commit terrorist acts. The EU would continue to press for this. It had called clearly for the dismantling of the terrorist networks of Hamas and Djihad.
But secondly, it was equally crucial that Israel withdrew its military forces, stopped the extra-judicial killings; and ended the closures and restrictions on Palestinian people, particularly the senseless bombing of property and infrastructure. …
The European Union had contributed more than EUR 3 billion to the West Bank and Gaza Strip since 1994 and thereby provided some grounds for hope. In recent months it had provided EUR 108 million in budgetary aid to keep the Palestinian Authority alive and in place.But it is clear that the EU prefers to pretend that the PA is other than run by a group of corrupt thugs who line their own pockets while being driven around in luxury cars and funnelling money away from real state building and into a perpetuation of the terror reprisal cycle. Those monies are not contigent upon the the PA taking "concrete steps to arrest and bring to justice those who commit terrorist acts", they are there no matter what.

Now if you have some reason to believe that the EU will do other than continue to fund a corrupt structure that minimally allows money to be funnelled to terrorism, and that takes no concrete actions to stop it, then please educate me .... oh, they did threaten over some schoolbooks once ....

[Sparc]

OH Dseid, I won't contest that. That wasn't my point, but yours is well made and I agree that more pressure should be applied to the PA and that the EU is being too flippant on this issue. My point was that the PA receives funds from many sources, the EU being only one. Your previous statement made it look like the PA was a subsidiary to the EU, that it is not.

Sparc

[IzzyR]

Just happened to see this, from the AP: Uprising Leader Marwan Barghouti to Go on Trial Wednesday (http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGAQ8TKTT4D.html)After the Palestinian Authority was established in 1994, Israel stopped arresting and putting senior Palestinian figures on trial. The Palestinian Authority was largely permitted to handle law and order issues in areas under its control, an arrangement that held until the Palestinian uprising broke out.And re Barghouti:Barghouti has not been accused of carrying out attacks himself, and Israel has not yet detailed the evidence it has against him. But Negbi, the legal analyst, said Israel "chose to put him on trial after they made sure there was impressive evidence."Time will tell about that, of course.

[december]

Tayseer, as we'll call him, a 21-year-old Gazan whose constant smile tries to conceal watchfulness, learned early on that to be gay in Palestine is to be a criminal. Three years ago his older brother caught him in bed with a boyfriend. He was beaten by his family, then warned by his father that he'd strangle Tayseer if it ever happened again.

It happened again a few months later. Word gets around a refugee camp, and a young man he didn't know invited Tayseer into an orange grove. The next day he received a police summons. At the station Tayseer was told that his sex partner was in fact a police agent whose job is to ferret out homosexuals. If Tayseer wanted to avoid prison, he too would have to become an undercover sex agent, luring gays into orchards and turning them over to the police.

Tayseer refused to implicate others. He was arrested and hung by his arms from the ceiling. A high-ranking officer he didn't know arranged for his release and then demanded sex as payback. Tayseer fled Gaza to Tulkarem on the West Bank, but there too he was eventually arrested. He was forced to stand in sewage water up to his neck, his head covered by a sack filled with feces, and then he was thrown into a dark cell infested with insects and other creatures he could feel but not see. ("You slap one part of your body, and then you have to slap another," he recounts.) During one interrogation, police stripped him and forced him to sit on a Coke bottle. Through the entire ordeal he was taunted by interrogators, jailers, and fellow prisoners for being a homosexual.

When he was released a few months later, Tayseer crossed into Israel. He now lives illegally in an Arab Israeli village and works in a restaurant. His dream is to move to Tel Aviv. "No one there cares if you're gay," he says. http://thenewrepublic.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020819&s=halevi081902

[capacitor]

The New Republic cares about gay people all of a sudden??? Hah ha ha.

december you are aware that the magazine is the #1 advocate of Palestinian and Arabic cleansing.

[december]

Originally posted by capacitor
The New Republic cares about gay people all of a sudden??? Hah ha ha.

december you are aware that the magazine is the #1 advocate of Palestinian and Arabic cleansing. This response isn't just a river in Egypt. The New Republic is a liberal magazine, not conservative, but they are demonized in order to ignore their message.

What I find striking is the widespread unwillingness to criticize Palestinian culture. I could understand someone posting that they deplore Palestinian homophobia and other negative aspects of their culture, but justice demands supporting the Palestinian position regardless. However, I see no such criticsms.

There is an unwritten political correctness rule that criticizing the culture of certain groups automatically brings forth a charge of "racist." Maybe the Palestinians are one of these groups.

[capacitor]

Oops, got a little confused with The Weekly Standard. These news magazines are not as distinctive as they claim to be anymore. Oh well.

[DMC]

Originally posted by capacitor
The New Republic cares about gay people all of a sudden??? Hah ha ha.

december you are aware that the magazine is the #1 advocate of Palestinian and Arabic cleansing.

While you're incorrect on their stance toward gays, you're not too far off on their analysis of the middle east situation. Of course, when the boss is Jewish, you'd hardly expect them to take the other side.

And december, they're not considered to be a far-left bastion of liberal thought anymore, except by themselves and a few conservatives. With the current staff, including the fairly new second-in-command, they are all over the map in their views, with one exception, that being their middle east stance.

An institution's desire to be associated with a certain mindset doesn't make it so. The Cato Institute would like you to believe that they are "market liberals", but most of us just refer to them as "bought."

[december]

I again find it noteworthy that DMC took the trouble to point out that the New Republic is not far left (although nobody said they were) and that they're pro-Israel. However DMC cannot spare a sentence to deplore the bad treatment of gays by the Palestinian Authority or to acknowledge the better treatment by Israel.

If someone posted an anti-gay statement by Jerry Falwell, a dozen posters would immediately pile on (and rightly so.) But, faced with anti-gay torture by Arafat's government, there's just silence. Does being "open-minded" and not pro-Israel require closing one's eyes to what the Arafat regime actually does?

[Sparc]

I don't think you're going to manage this one december. Nobody wants to be hard balled into taking a stance... that doesn't mean everyone disagrees with you, it just means that your position is getting what it deserves... no comment.

Sparc

[december]

Originally posted by Sparc
I don't think you're going to manage this one december. Nobody wants to be hard balled into taking a stance... that doesn't mean everyone disagrees with you, it just means that your position is getting what it deserves... no comment.
Sparc "Nobody wants to be hard balled into taking a stance" -- That's a good point, Sparc -- now.

However, when the link and quote were first posted, there had not yet been pressure to criticize the PA's treatment of Tayseer. Nobody had been "hard balled" yet.

What I see on this thread is no criticism of the PA without pressure and no criticism of the PA with pressure. In short, no criticism of the PA.

[Sparc]

The OP was already perceived as a pretty hard serve right in the solar plexus of many members.

[DMC]

Originally posted by december
I again find it noteworthy that DMC took the trouble to point out that the New Republic is not far left (although nobody said they were) and that they're pro-Israel.

Actually, you've used them in the past to try and give the viewpoint of the opposite stance you took. Anyone who is truly the opposite of you is about as farrrrrrrrr left as I can imagine. While I don't agree that that describes their viewpoints, your prior use of them in that fashion led me to believe that you did.

However DMC cannot spare a sentence to deplore the bad treatment of gays by the Palestinian Authority or to acknowledge the better treatment by Israel.

The day a poster on this board puts up a thread titled: "Resolved: Gay treatment by the Palestinians is fully justified", is the day I'll tear them a new one. I deplore many things, but I don't make it a habit to put a "me too" post in every thread remarking on them, nor do I list them all in an encyclopedic sized post. It's called Great Debates, not Great Agreements. I have stated many times that I find fault with the Palestinians in many areas, but the difference between you and I is that I also find fault with many Israeli policies. For the record, regarding your thoughts on the Palestinian's treatment of gays, I'll have to say "me too", which is more than you've said regarding the bigotry of the Israelis against their own Arab citizens. Bigotry sucks shriveled donkey balls, but both sides in the Middle East are guilty of it. One proudly claims not to be, and uses that to garner support, so I argue against their position.

Does being "open-minded" and not pro-Israel require closing one's eyes to what the Arafat regime actually does?

No, but supporting Israel in everything it does does require a lowering of the lids. Do I really have to link to every single post I've made denouncing this or that regarding the Palestinians and Arafat? Most of them have been in your threads, so if you'd actually read them, you'd be fully aware of where I stand. If you haven't read them, then at least I have a better understanding of why you seem to never answer most of the questions that are raised.

[DMC]

Originally posted by december
I again find it noteworthy that DMC took the trouble to point out that the New Republic is not far left (although nobody said they were) and that they're pro-Israel.

Actually, you've used them in the past to try and give the viewpoint of the opposite stance you took. Anyone who is truly the opposite of you is about as farrrrrrrrr left as I can imagine. While I don't agree that that describes their viewpoints, your prior use of them in that fashion led me to believe that you did.

However DMC cannot spare a sentence to deplore the bad treatment of gays by the Palestinian Authority or to acknowledge the better treatment by Israel.

The day a poster on this board puts up a thread titled: "Resolved: Gay treatment by the Palestinians is fully justified", is the day I'll tear them a new one. I deplore many things, but I don't make it a habit to put a "me too" post in every thread remarking on them, nor do I list them all in an encyclopedic sized post. It's called Great Debates, not Great Agreements. I have stated many times that I find fault with the Palestinians in many areas, but the difference between you and I is that I also find fault with many Israeli policies. For the record, regarding your thoughts on the Palestinian's treatment of gays, I'll have to say "me too", which is more than you've said regarding the bigotry of the Israelis against their own Arab citizens. Bigotry sucks shriveled donkey balls, but both sides in the Middle East are guilty of it. One proudly claims not to be, and uses that to garner support, so I argue against their position.

Does being "open-minded" and not pro-Israel require closing one's eyes to what the Arafat regime actually does?

No, but supporting Israel in everything it does does require a lowering of the lids. Do I really have to link to every single post I've made denouncing this or that regarding the Palestinians and Arafat? Most of them have been in your threads, so if you'd actually read them, you'd be fully aware of where I stand. If you haven't read them, then at least I have a better understanding of why you seem to never answer most of the questions that are raised.

[ethic]

December:
What I find striking is the widespread unwillingness to criticize Palestinian culture.


Aright, good december. Again, your showing your true colour. It's not only the PA want to criticize, but Palestinian culture per se. Your point seems to be to dehumanize Palestinians, demonstrate how they are inferior in all regards. Their culture is so moraly reprehensible that defending their right to self-determination is defending everything one aught to be against.

You will latch on to any information you can find to achieve this goal. I think Sparc has already mentioned this: if you were to judge entire peoples by single incident of gay bashing, few would come away clean. Certainly, its especially troubling that the authority that is supposed to defend the public was involved. But the problem is that the Rule of Law is so unestablished in Palestine that there are few checks on what individuals in a position of authority do. They are free to live out their darkest fantasies. Which is certainly very troubling. But that the Rule of Law is not esablished is not a consequence of the degenerate nature of Palestinian culture!

If the Rule of Law was not more established in America, we would still be lunching blacks on street corners and shoving broomsticks up every gay person found showing their sexuality in public.

So the question is: how does one begin the arduous process of establishing the Rule of Law in Palestine?

I'm beyond supsecting that "sand nigger" is a word that might accidentally slip from your lips. Have you ever even been in a country with a culture of Arabic origin?

[Sam Stone]

I think we should create a new variant of Godwin's law, for people who must constantly invoke racism. The use of the term 'sand nigger' is particularly offensive, as it seeks to associate anyone critical with the culture in the Arab world or Palestine in particular with a disgustingly virulent form of racism.

I'll be happy to criticize Palestinian culture, thank you. And I don't have a racist bone in my body. The culture in Palestine has nothing to do with ethnicity or skin color or any other defining group characteristic, any more than Amish culture is determined by the white skin color of its main adherents.

Palestinian culture is the result of, A) a long, difficult occupation, B) A state of almost constant lawlessless due to the ineffective policing of the PA, C) Active promotion of hatred by Palestinian leaders over many years. D) the lack of a solid economy, coupled with heavy financial aid from the rest of the world, much of which comes with strings attached (i.e. money for suicide bombers from Iraq and Saudi Arabia).

After all this time, I'm convinced that Palestinian culture is sick. Children play suicide bomber games. Thousands cheer in the streets when innocent children die in Israel or the United States. Non-conformists are persecuted, tortured, and killed.

None of this is defensible in the slightest.

[milroyj]

Originally posted by ethic
If the Rule of Law was not more established in America, we would still be lunching blacks on street corners

I don't think we ever had much of a cannabilism problem in America, Rule of Law notwithstanding.

[december]

Originally posted by ethic
I'm beyond supsecting that "sand nigger" is a word that might accidentally slip from your lips.I had earlier posted, "There is an unwritten political correctness rule that criticizing the culture of certain groups automatically brings forth a charge of "racist." Maybe the Palestinians are one of these groups."

Thank you, ethic for so dramatically confirming the practice of demonizing anyone who criticizes any aspect of Palestinian culture. Perhaps some of you felt intimidated. Maybe you chose not to criticize Palestinian homophobia, because you didn't want to be called a racist. Have you ever even been in a country with a culture of Arabic origin?No. I would have liked to visit some when I was in the Middle East, but most of them would have barred me at that time. I'm Jewish and my passport stamp showed that I had visited Israel.

[december]

According to Palestinian, ex-treasurer, Jawad Ghussein (http://www.nola.com/newsflash/international/index.ssf?/newsflash/get_story.ssf?/cgi-free/getstory_ssf.cgi?a0459_BC_Palestinians-Corrupti&&news&newsflash-international), Arafat moved up to $8 million to his personal account every month and was aware of widespread corruption.

So, why does the EU continue to give Arafat money without adequate controls?

[DMC]

Originally posted by december
According to Palestinian, ex-treasurer, Jawad Ghussein (http://www.nola.com/newsflash/international/index.ssf?/newsflash/get_story.ssf?/cgi-free/getstory_ssf.cgi?a0459_BC_Palestinians-Corrupti&&news&newsflash-international), Arafat moved up to $8 million to his personal account every month and was aware of widespread corruption.

So, why does the EU continue to give Arafat money without adequate controls?

Because, as you say "according to..."

These are allegations, not facts. The documents he has that "proves" it haven't been cited. For the record, they accuse him of stealing $6.5 million. Would you also have us believe that fact, since it's also been alleged?

Some of us would like some evidence, no matter which side it supports.

[ethic]

Agreed Sam Stone. Palestine is in a sorry state. Perhaps it is legitimate to criticize the cultural transformation brought on by occupation and corrupt rule. But one must be blind to not see how December is attributing the inferiority of Palestine in part to its "Arabness".

He has previously used "homophobia" to demonstrate the inferiority of Arabic culture:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2162290&highlight=gays#post2162290


He has never been in an Arabic country. He is (and I only assume this since he has a wife) not homosexual. His assumptions about how Arabic culture views homosexuality is based on stereotypes and out of context bits and pieces he finds here and there. Given how intent he is on painting the picture of the "homophobic Arab" although his knowledge about the issue is as thin as a paper sliver, I can only assume an ulterior racist motive. Accusing me of Godwinism in this case is unwarranted. This is not a rhetorical or inflammatory device. December needs to be exposed for what he is. My feeling is that someone needs to call the kettle black. Should I tip-toe around the issue? December is not a reasonable critic of the Arabic world.

How would you react if someone in this forum started saying things like "Jews suffer from endemic avarice" and then went on "proving" it by quoting cases of corporate greed that involved Jewish people? And then despite numerous posts with facts to the contrary still kept insisting, slipping in remarks about "Jewish greed"...

[december]

ethic, you got me. When it's a government's policy to torture gay people, I will call them "homophobic." If that makes me a bigot, I confess.

In that case, I'm bigoted against other cultures, too. I would call the Ku Klux Klan "racist" and the Nazis "antisemitic." I'm a bigot three times over!

I am aware that according to the standards of post-modern morality, the lynchers, the gas-oven operators, and the gay-torturers are not immoral. They do have different cultures from ours, but all cultures are equally valid.

I know I ought not look down on them, but I can't help myself. I just haven't been able to attain ethic's high level of ethics. :smack:

[Sparc]

december

When it's a government's policy to torture gay people, I will call them "homophobic." If that makes me a bigot, I confess.

In that case, I'm bigoted against other cultures, too. I would call the Ku Klux Klan "racist" and the Nazis "antisemitic." I'm a bigot three times over! Don’t even try.

Item first:

You have not furnished any cite that shows a consistent government policy of any sort in this direction. This has been addressed by others so I’ll leave it.

Item second:december, title of previous post

Palestinian homophobia

Post in page 2 of this thread

Most Americans favor israel, because unlike the Palestinians, they share our values, such as
[…]Sexual preference is not a crime Beyond that you have previously stated that ‘Muslims routinely kill homosexuals’. You try to pretend that you have only attacked the PA in this respect, which is simply not the truth.

Item third:

The Ku Klux Klan and the Nazis are not confoundable with any ethnic group. There is no misunderstanding that when you say the Ku Klux Klan you do not thereby imply Americans in the southern states. Just the fact that you in the above quote refer to these despicable groups as ‘cultures’ in this context infers some pretty hateful sentiments towards other groups that you also refer to as ‘cultures’ in this thread.

Try again december, or better yet just stop brushing up against the borderlines of hate mongering.

Sparc

[december]

Originally posted by Sparc You have not furnished any cite that shows a consistent government policy of any sort in this direction. I emphasized consistent because it's a "weasel word." I furnished a dramatic cite about a gay man, who had the misfortune to live under the Palestinian Authority. Instead of acknowledging the horror I know you feel about his mistreatment, you tried to avoid taking a stand by adding an additional requirement: consistency.

BTW my cite actually did indicate a pattern of mistreatment: Tayseer was told that his sex partner was in fact a police agent whose job is to ferret out homosexuals. If Tayseer wanted to avoid prison, he too would have to become an undercover sex agent, luring gays into orchards and turning them over to the police. Tayseer wasn't the only one. There was a police policy to ferret out homosexuals. Presumably others got similar treatment.

Sparc, if you believe that my example is extraordinary and that my cite was an exception, please say so. And, please supply cites. Otherwise, I wish you'd stop calling me names when I post some unpalatable fact. Name-calling gets in the way of useful debate.The Ku Klux Klan and the Nazis are not confoundable with any ethnic group.You're interested in ethnic groups; I'm not. I also doubt that Tayseer cared about the ethnicity of his torturers. I am interested in cultures.

The Palestinians, the racist South of 100 years ago and the Nazis all represent specific cultures. Fortunately the culture in the American South and in Germany has changed.

[december]

Originally posted by Sparc You have not furnished any cite that shows a consistent government policy of any sort in this direction. I emphasized consistent because it's a "weasel word." I furnished a dramatic cite about a gay man, who had the misfortune to live under the Palestinian Authority. Instead of acknowledging the horror I know you feel about his mistreatment, you tried to avoid taking a stand by adding an additional requirement: consistency.

BTW my cite actually did indicate a pattern of mistreatment: Tayseer was told that his sex partner was in fact a police agent whose job is to ferret out homosexuals. If Tayseer wanted to avoid prison, he too would have to become an undercover sex agent, luring gays into orchards and turning them over to the police. Tayseer wasn't the only one. There was a police policy to ferret out homosexuals. Presumably others got similar treatment.

Sparc, if you believe that my example is extraordinary and that my cite was an exception, please say so. And, please supply cites. Otherwise, I wish you'd stop calling me names when I post some unpalatable fact. Name-calling gets in the way of useful debate.The Ku Klux Klan and the Nazis are not confoundable with any ethnic group.You're interested in ethnic groups; I'm not. I also doubt that Tayseer cared about the ethnicity of his torturers. I am interested in cultures.

The Palestinians, the racist South of 100 years ago and the Nazis all represent specific cultures. Fortunately the culture in the American South and in Germany has changed.

[CyberPundit]

zigaretten,
I missed your post. Look if December had said that the Palestinians killed hundreds of "collaborators" improperly in the 80's I wouldn't have any problem with it. I invited him specifically to clarify the time-frame and he didn't do so. Since , as I said, the context of this discussion is about recent events his statements seem to imply that Palestinians have recently killed "moderates" in the hundreds which is a fantastic assertion.

[Sparc]

I emphasized consistent because it's a "weasel word." I furnished a dramatic cite about a gay man, who had the misfortune to live under the Palestinian Authority.No it’s not a ‘weasel’ word. It’s an attack towards ‘dramatic cites’ that don’t show patterns, statistics or consistency. I could give you ‘dramatic cites’ of homophobia by taking examples of abuse by police officer abuse of gay people in many countries worldwide. It proves only that there are assholes that abuse their position of authority, nothing less nothing more.Sparc, if you believe that my example is extraordinary and that my cite was an exception, please say so. And, please supply cites. Otherwise, I wish you'd stop calling me names when I post some unpalatable fact. Name-calling gets in the way of useful debate.I’ve lectured you in the past on the situation as re gay rights in the Middle Eastern Arabic cultures. Homophobia and abuse of gay rights is a problem in many countries, the gay rights movement disagrees with your uniform black painting, as do I. Refresh you memory with this post (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2088201#post2088201). You're interested in ethnic groups; I'm not. I also doubt that Tayseer cared about the ethnicity of his torturers. I am interested in cultures. Ethnicity and culture are the same thing. Are we going to have to read about blabbering idiocies like eugenics in your next post?The Palestinians, the racist South of 100 years ago and the Nazis all represent specific cultures. Fortunately the culture in the American South and in Germany has changed.You’ve got cause and effect all backwards as usual. Eliminate the possibility of abuse and culture will stop supporting it, culture reinforces and reflects, but does not create. The Klan is not a culture; it is a racist political sect. The Nazis were not a culture; they were a political party. The NSDAP changed the legal possibility of abusing Human Rights, motivated people to do so as a ‘resolution’ to various imagined problems and culture violently changed in Germany after that. If there is a history of abuse, oppression and denigration it is usually easier to get such changes through, anti-Semitism in Nazi Germany strangely enough proves something different. I have recently expounded on this in a thread in GQ; ’ Is Germany largely anti-semetic today?’ (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=130237) - it touches briefly on the history of anti-Semitism before and under the NSDAP.

In fact saying that Nazism was inherently German is bigoted and it’s provably wrong. For instance; Nazism had just as much support in Bulgaria, Austria and Romania, and it gained wide support in many of the other occupied territories. Nazism takes advantage of some very dark sides of human nature not ‘German nature’ (whatever that would be).

Homophobia is also a sad part of humanity, it is widespread in the US for instance, and hence saying that it is inherently Palestinian is bigoted since it singles out one group of people and makes it look as if they are by nature more so than other groups of people.

Come again december. Wiggle and squirm as much as you want, but so far each new post you make reinforces the foundation of the accusation brought against you.

Sparc

[december]

Sparc, we actually agree on several aspects, although we come from different directons.

Originally posted by Sparc Refresh you memory with this post (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2088201#post2088201).OK. You made some good arguments there. However you have not provided a cite contradicting Arab homophobia. Ethnicity and culture are the same thing.I'm using the meaning of culture (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary) as"the customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits of a racial, religious, or social group" Under this definition, culture can refer to a racial or religious group, which may be why you see it as identical to ethnicity. However, culture can also refer to any group of people. In this sense, one can refer to the culture of the antebellum South or of Germany in the late 1930's. Are we going to have to read about blabbering idiocies like eugenics in your next post?Quite the reverse. Since culture is independent of ethinc group, it has nothing to do with genetics. Germans aren't born antisemites, nor are Arabs born homophobes.The Klan is not a culture; it is a racist political sect. The Nazis were not a culture; they were a political party.This is true. For the purpose of the point I wanted to make, I assumed that these groups reflected the values of the cultures which they were a part of. In fact saying that Nazism was inherently German is bigoted I agree. Other countries have favored fascism, and Germans at other periods of time have opposed it. ...hence saying that it is inherently Palestinian is bigoted since it singles out one group of people and makes it look as if they are by nature more so than other groups of people.I can see where that misunderstanding could arise, but I didn't say it and I don't believe it. Palesinians are homophobic by my standards today. There's no inherent reason why that condition needs to persist.

CyberPundit
Look if December had said that the Palestinians killed hundreds of "collaborators" improperly in the 80's I wouldn't have any problem with it. I invited him specifically to clarify the time-frame and he didn't do so. Since , as I said, the context of this discussion is about recent events his statements seem to imply that Palestinians have recently killed "moderates" in the hundreds which is a fantastic assertion.CP suddenly added a new requirement: recently. First of all, I never said, "recently".

Second, I question its relevance. Would you say, The Pinchochet regime murdered 3000 civilians, but that's OK because they didn't kill them recently.? I hope not.

Third, the killing of moderates is ongoing. It didn't end at in the past. A few months ago, there was a dramatric TV broadcast showing the lynching of a group of Palestinians. As long as the Palestinians persist in killing those who take moderate stance, there cannot be leaders who truly favor peace.

Sparc, here's a question. Your cite pointed to a specific post in a thread. How is that done?

[CyberPundit]

The question is not whether you specified "recently" but why you refused to specify the time frame after I specifically asked. It would, of course, have been easy for you to clarify that you were referring to the 80's and that would have removed any possible misunderstanding. It seems you wanted to deliberately cultivate misunderstanding to further tarnish the current Palestinian regime. And of course the time frame matters, given that our discussion is mainly about the current intifada. No one is bringing up the numerous atrocities by the state of Israel over the last 50 years in this thread.

In any event you continue to repeat without proof your claim that the small number of Palestinians who are being killed now are "moderates". That alone underlines the general gap between reality and and your arguments even after repeated challenge.

[Sparc]

december, before I start I’ll answer your vB Code question;

To link to a post add #post[postnumber] at the end of the URL string. The postnumber appears in the bottom left hand corner of your browser when you hold the cursor over the <quote> button in the post that you desire to link to. It should look like this: ...showthread.php?s=&postid=2377840#post235678 for instance

Now over to the actual question at hand;december

However you have not provided a cite contradicting Arab homophobia.How could I? Arabs are humans. Humans are homophobic. Don’t ask me why, because all I come up with when I try to work that out makes my head reel. My point has never been that Arabic cultures aren’t homophobic. My point has been and is that you’re being a bigot for singling them out as homophobic when in fact they are just part of a larger global problem. Here is what the Human Rights Watch has to say about the rest of the world:Human Rights Watch World Report 2002 - Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Rights. (http://www.hrw.org/wr2k2/lgbt.html#Relevant%20Human%20Rights%20Watch%20Reports)

In virtually every country in the world people suffered from de jure and de facto discrimination based on their actual or perceived sexual orientation.

[Europe and the EU] Five of the thirteen countries that had applied for membership--Bulgaria, Cyprus, Estonia, Hungary, and Lithuania--maintained discriminatory provisions in their criminal laws, according to the European branch of the International Lesbian and Gay Association. In July, the Romanian government adopted a decree decriminalizing gay relationships between consenting adults, effectively nullifying a law that allowed sentences of up to five years imprisonment for homosexual relationships "occurring in public or which provoke a public scandal."

In Namibia, President Samuel Nujoma continued to vilify gay men and lesbians, stating, "The Republic of Namibia does not allow homosexuality, lesbianism here. Police are ordered to arrest you, and deport you, and imprison you too."

On July 7, police raided the offices of the Bharosa Trust and the Naz Foundation International in Lucknow, organizations that worked on HIV/AIDS prevention, arresting several staff members. Although subsequently released on bail, the staff members were charged under article 377 of the Indian Penal Code, a provision that prohibited "carnal intercourse against the order of nature."

[Argentina] Sacayan reported being tortured by the police and alleged that that she was arrested not for robbery but for refusing to pay a bribe to the local police. Stigmatization of transgender people made them particularly vulnerable to abuse by the authorities. Transvestites in Argentina were arrested under a law prohibiting the wearing of the clothes of the opposite sex, a prima facie violation of freedom of expression.

[Colombia] The government also argued that Latin American cultures did not tolerate homosexuality. [Argument made while grudgingly agreeing that conjugal visits to prison inmates by same sex partners must be legalized]


[USA] A report released in February by the Judicial Council of California, revealed that anti-gay bias was a major problem in the court system statewide in California.[…] Nearly a third of all court employees believed that it was unsafe for them to be openly identified as gay or lesbian in the workplace. This bias remained even though California was one of the United States' most progressive states regarding lesbian and gay equality.


[USA] Seven years after the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy was codified as law and implemented, the United States military's own surveys and investigations found that training on how to implement the law was deficient and that anti-gay harassment remained pervasive in the military.

The U.S. was increasingly out of step internationally in maintaining restrictions on homosexuals serving in the military.

Each day was a test of survival for many lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender students in U.S. public schools.I left out predominantly Muslim, Arabic and/or North African countries for effect. As regards them there are three or four incidents of imprisonment to add and the debacle in the UN when many of them joined up with some others to try bar a debate on HIV/AIDS prevention from a homosexual vantage point. Since culture is independent of ethinc group, it has nothing to do with genetics.Forget genetics all together. The fact is that ethnicity is practically only useful in a social definition (at least in this case that is certain). Ponder that Palestinians and Middle Eastern Jews belong to the same family lines if you only go back 2000 years or so. Palesinians are homophobic by my standards [I]today. There's no inherent reason why that condition needs to persist.That is my point, you’re being bigoted by saying this. First of all you have shown no proof of this. Second of all it is statistically improbable that Palestinians are more homophobic in reality than anyone else. Third of all as long as the rest of the world is as well, singling them out only serves to vilify them as a people. You will find that some Arabic countries together with India, some Eastern European nations, a few African nation, several Latin American countries and so on as shown above have antiquated and absurd buggery laws as well as some pretty old-fashioned views on sexuality in general. You will find that the US together with a large portion of the world plays with double standards, condemning discrimination on one end and tacitly supporting it on the other, and so on.

That’s your constant problem and the one that spawned this thread. You seem to believe that there is inherent badness to certain cultures; there isn’t - it’s the people that are nasty. Sharon and Bibi are little vermin Arafat is as well, none of that makes the Israelis or the Palestinians on general into the same. It’s not the culture that needs to change first.

Take away the assholes. Promote understanding and cooperation. Contain the violent idiots. Enforce human rights. Culture adapts positively.

Elect the assholes into government. Monger hatred and intolerance. Let loose the dogs of war. Abuse human rights. Culture adapts negatively.

Sparc

[ethic]

This is hopeless. You think I'm a moral relativist? To the contrary. If I did I would 'excuse' your anti-Arab bigotry and rationalize it away as a result of isolation from Arab communities and sensationalistic misinformation. I just happen to have a more intimate knowledge of the culture than you. Though I'm not of Arabic decent, I've studied the language and spent time in their communities. You have time and again leisurely grouped Arab, Palestinians and Muslims, criss-crossing the cultural boundaries at your whim to justify extremist Israeli sentiments.

At one time you defended the late Pim Fortyne's anti-immigration sentiments as reasonable because Muslims were known to be homophobic. It's like arguing what Christians are like based on what Southern Baptist churches have to say about homosexuality. You are obviously unaware of that Arab men are much more comfortable with showing intimacy in public. Though this is not equatable with homosexuality, it demonstrates a greater humanity than can be found in most Protestant based societies regarding how men relate to one another. Now you dig up a story to demonstrate homophobia in Palestine. Muslims, Palestinians, Arabs...

It's deplorable what happened to that young man. But your argument is not that the PA needs to be reformed given its treatment of gay men. Your argument is that homophobia is endemic to Arab culture. You have waved that flag too many times. Actually I have little idea what your argument is. I think it's that Israel has more existential legitimacy than Palestine because it abides to a higher set of morals. I have never been to Palestine. My experience of its culture is only from exiled Palestinians. What I have experienced there is a rather (extremely) well educated and mostly secularized group that does not abide to extremist fundamentalist values. But my experience may be skewed by the nature of exiled groups...

If you take the Quran as a basis for ethics in Arabic communities, their moral values do not differ much from other Semitic religions. However, its belief system is more consistent, stringently monotheistic and all-embracing. But I suppose you have never read the Quran. I have often said to my wife that were I practicing monotheist, I would choose an abrogated form of Islam. My reaction to your continuous onslaught against Palestinians, Muslims and Arabs is not due to a phony misplaced liberal relativism. It's due to a higher understanding of the ethical nature of Islam and Arabic culture.


ETHIC

[december]

Sparc --thanks for the visual basic info. I'm still trying to figure it out. When I hold my cursor over the <quote> button, I do get a sting at the bottom, but it's so long, I cannot see the right-hand end of it. The beginning looks like the thread address, http://boards.straightdope..... etc, but I cannot see a post number. Maybe it's too far to the right.

You wrote:That’s your constant problem and the one that spawned this thread. You seem to believe that there is inherent badness to certain cultures; there isn’t - it’s the people that are nasty. You have correctly characterized my belief. I agree that this is an essential part of our difference of opinion.

I cannot quite follow your distinction between people and culture. One could say, "The antebellum South had a racist culture." or "The people in the antebellum South were mostly racists." What's the difference?

A Question of Magnitudes

You quoted HRW, "In virtually every country in the world people suffered from de jure and de facto discrimination based on their actual or perceived sexual orientation." No doubt this statement is true, but there are big differences in the magnitude of the discrimination. The PA seeks to prevent homosexuality, and tortures gay men who refuse to cooperate. The US today permits homosexuality. Although there are cases of harassement against gays and cases of physical violence against them, in the US, it's the attackers who are behaving illegally and who are punished.

Mr. Tayseer knows there's a difference in magnitude. That's why he prefers an underground existence in Israel to living under the P. A. Which brings me back to the OP.

Your HRC excerpt mentioned several countries, but not Israel. Israel is more enlightened than Arab cultures with respect to sexual orientation, and they are more enlightened in many other respects, which are important to you. But, they seen to get no credit for this.

[december]

Originally posted by ethic
This is hopeless. Yes. These debates seldom change anyone's mind. Still, I often find them educational. You think I'm a moral relativist? To the contrary.OK, I'll take your word for it. I just happen to have a more intimate knowledge of the culture than you. Though I'm not of Arabic decent, I've studied the language and spent time in their communities. Yes, I acknowledge that you know far more than I do about this subject. At one time you defended the late Pim Fortyne's anti-immigration sentiments as reasonable because Muslims were known to be homophobic.Right, this is what I've been led to believe. Arab men are much more comfortable with showing intimacy in public. Though this is not equatable with homosexuality...It sure isn't. . Actually I have little idea what your argument is. I think it's that Israel has more existential legitimacy than Palestine because it abides to a higher set of morals.Not exactly. My argument is that not only do some people have a double standard where Israel and Palestine are concerned, but that their pro-Palestinian tilt is all the more noteworthy because they agree with Israel and disagree with the Palestinians on a host of moral issues. If you take the Quran as a basis for ethics in Arabic communitiesI respect those who have expertise in the Koran, and I appreciate your insights. However, I measure ethics based on people's actions, rather than words. The Christians who fought so viciously in the Crusades and the Christians who have done so much kindness and charity all read the same bible, but they had far different ethics. were I practicing monotheist, I would choose an abrogated form of Islam.OK. For me, the concept of being a practicing monotheist is inconceivable, so strong is my atheism.

Sparc -- I have been able to follow your instructions (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=129239&perpage=50&pagenumber=3#post2378098) by changing the setting of my internet connection to "show friendly urls." Thanks for your help.

[december]

Originally posted by CyberPundit
The question is not whether you specified "recently" but why you refused to specify the time frame after I specifically asked. Numerous Palestinians were killed, some were horribly tortured, and the killings have continued right up to this year. From yesterday's New York Times Magazine (http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/18/magazine/18PALESTINIAN.html?pagewanted=all&position=top) During the first Palestinian uprising, between the end of 1987 and the signing of the Oslo accord in 1993, about 1,000 Palestinians suspected of being collaborators were murdered by other Palestinians, according to the Palestinian Human Rights Monitoring Group. That is nearly as many as the 1,000-plus Palestinians killed by Israeli forces in the same period.

Bassem Eid estimates that fewer than half of the accused collaborators actually worked with Israel in any way. Even rumors could be fatal. Under the cover of charges of collaboration, clan vendettas and old accounts between criminal gangs were settled. Killings were sometimes preceded by torture -- ''nails in the knees, molten plastic in the ears,'' says Roy Politi, the former intelligence operative -- and followed by mutilation.
<snip>
In January 2001, following brief trials, two alleged collaborators were executed by firing squads in Gaza and Nablus. An international outcry led Yasir Arafat to withhold his approval for further executions. Instead, convicted collaborators were jailed, as were many others who were arrested but never tried. When Israel began its massive incursion into West Bank cities this spring, Palestinian vigilantes removed many of the suspected collaborators from prisons to prevent Israel from rescuing them. Between late March and the end of May, at least 26 accused collaborators were murdered. (emphasis added) BTW I may have underestimated when I said the Palestinians had killed around 1000 of their citizens. According to this article, about 1000 were killed just in the period 1987 - 1993.