“The first thing we are doing is to link together greater Jerusalem. The second thing is strengthening the Jewish majority in Jerusalem.” a quote by Netanyahu from his time as prime minister, sure sounds like ‘Jerusalem for the Jews’. The underlying law was justly denounced by the UN, and it was only a threatened US veto that prevented a Security Council resolution demanding that the law be rescinded.
Add to that the quote about mass expulsions (not explosions, as the previous poster accidentally quoted) from 1989.
At the same time, numerous current and former IDF commanders have been cited with comments like ‘We have to learn from the Nazi’s cleansing of the Warsaw ghetto’, or about '“thin out the number of Palestinians living in the territories,” (Eitan Ben Eliahu, former Israeli Air Force commander)
There is plenty of support for mass deportations, several members of parliament support it. Far from a majority, but enough people support it to get you elected on such a platform. However, such numbers games are clearly misleading since radical opinion to no small degree are born out of direct frustration. While one may argue whether the real vs. perceived causes for the frustration are the same, it’s not really relevant to the case.
As such, it is evident that the side with the greater frustration also has the more radical opinion. That being said, complete destruction desire by Arabs is widely overreported. The goal, for example, of the Al Aqsa brigades, despite being a radical militant organisation, is not a complete destruction of Israel, but to drive Israeli forces out of Palestinian territories on the West Bank and Gaza and establish a Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital. (Cf. eg. http://www.cbc.ca/news/indepth/mideast_struggle/al-aqsa.html ). Thus, not even all radical factions advocate a complete slaughter or the catchy term of ‘Driving the Jews into the sea’, and at the latest since the recent Saudi offers, there can hardly be any justified accusations of ‘the Arabs’ striving for the destruction of Israel.
Arab (well, more precisely Islamic) mainstream thought, according to current polls, is that there is no hope for the Palestinians while Israel exists. http://www.iht.com/articles/98479.html
If there were still Indian tribes engaging in attacks on White settlers, then, yes, there would be the same response. In fact, I think it would be far, far worse. Americans are more vicious than Israelis. Ask the residents of Hiroshima about that. Or maybe the poor bastards who were in that restaurant where the Americans thought that Saddam was meeting. No apologies from Bush for that, not like Sharon’s apologies when Israeli assassination attacks miss their intended target or cause collateral damage.
And picking the Cherokee was a particularly bad choice, as they were deported from their ancestral land in Georgia to Oklahoma in the 1830’s (after the Supreme Court said they could NOT be deported, BTW). Now, if Cherokee want to go back, buy land in Western Georgia, and live peacefully, they are free to do so. If they want to suicide bomb Atlanta or shoot mortars into Macon, well, I will guarantee you that what the US does to them will make the Israelis look like Ghandi.
And speaking of refugee camps and no political rights, there was the Japanese internment during WW II. Based on information in the PURPLE messages that there were a few Japanese saboteurs in America, ALL of the Japanese on the West Coast were rounded up and shipped off to camps. That lasted until the war was over. It would be like Israel rounding up all of the Israeli Arabs until the Intifada ends.
Ain’t necessarily so. During the Mariel Boat Lift, Castro put criminals and the insane on rafts and sent them to America. Over 100,000 Cubans landed in America within six months (the offical Coast Guard number is 124,776). No Cuban military action was necessary. And yes, I know not all of the Cubans in the boat lift were criminals or insane.
Hey, considering how much Castro is loved by Europeans, the more Sharon can emulate Castro, the better he would be in their eyes, right? First he needs to put Palestinians onto rafts in the Mediterranean. Next step: Sharon can lock up the reporters and execute his political enemies!
I’ve also noticed that Europeans like the Palestinians a heck of a lot. So, again, if the Palestinians were to be expelled (and I’ll say again that I don’t want this to happen), why not put them in the houses of the Jews that the Europeans murdered? Or maybe you can settle them where the Muslims were murdered in Bosnia while the rest of Europe yawned? Or are the Europeans who benefit from Europe’s periodic mass murders unwilling to move from the houses they looted?
Superficial is right - It’s all a scam. I’m actually completely irrational :p. Just ask anyone.
Actually, I’m not precisely sure I know who you mean. God? Muhammed?
I’m guessing from the rest of your post and the general tone and focus of some of your other posts that you are referring to Muhammed. But I believe in none of the above, really ( well, I believe Muhammed existed as a historical entity, but I don’t believe he was actually a prophet of God ). I am believer in peoples right to worship or believe as they will, but for myself I’m actually a non-believer.
I’m interested in history, political geography, societies and peoples. Among other things, anyway. If there is one thing I have come to a conclusion on, it is that none of the major religious creeds are wholely evil or even mostly evil. They are various flawed ( in my estimation, YMMV ) attempts to grapple with the unknown and achieve social consensus by normal, everyday people. Despite their flaws, all strive to be humanistic in their own way and by their own definitions - If they didn’t, they would never have become as popular as they are. There are also all vulnerable to being interpreted into thoroughly unwholesome entities. But I’m not a big believer in throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
So why do I spend time defending Islam ( in a rational and balanced way, I hope, acknowledging its flaws ) on this board? A couple of reasons.
Sheerly by coincidence I am moderately well-informed on the topic. This doesn’t stem from any serious interest in Islam as a spiritual guide, but rather from an interest in history. Studying the history of the Mediterranean and Middle East, one soon finds themselves inexorably drawn into a study of Islam at some level, because Islam, an overtly political religion from the get go, is perhaps more than usually intwined in the history of the region. Unless you want to stay at a purely superficial level, one can’t understand what the Nizaris ( “Assassins” ), for example, were about unless you understand their religious background and motivation.
Second, Islam is not a religion that most westerners are well-informed on. It’s only in recent years that Muslims have become at all visible in western society ( overall, some European countries obviously had a larger Muslim presense earlier than say the U.S. ) and so through simple lack of exposure, many folks have an erroneous or skewed view of Islam. That or no view at all. With the sudden explosion in interest in the aftermath of 9-11 in particular, I’ve found my rather meager expertise of occasional use in answering questions and correcting flawed notions. I’m hardly the only person around capable of doing so, but there aren’t tons, so for awhile I felt it incumbent on me to participate ( that, and like a lot of people who frequent message boards like this, I probably like to hear myself talk ). Though as it is, I’ve grown less interested in dealing with the militantly or stubbornly ignorant and so participate a little less these days.
Now why don’t I spend as much time defending or explaining say, Christianity or Judaism? Because on those topics I am woefully outclassed by other folks on these boards. I know something about Catholic doctrine, but I’m not even within spitting distance of tomndeb. I know a bit about Judaism, but not even a fraction as much as zev steinhart. etc. I am a) better informed on Islam as a historical entity than other religions to begin with, and b) there are folks here who are simply vastly more knowledgeable of other doctrines than I. That’s not to say I might not stick in my $.02 if, say, a discussion of the Hussite movement in Bohemia came up, or some other topic of particular historical interest. You’ll note me taking an occasional interest in other religious or religiously-related topics from time to time on this board, particularly if I can take the opportunity to spew out some of the historical minutiae I have so lovingly accumulated and never get the chance to talk about otherwise. But in terms of everyday practices, other folks are better advocates.
Sorry, but your cite fails to support your claims. Having no hope for Palestinians and Israel to coexist is quite a distance from demanding the destruction of Israel. Polls are a ficklish thing and a lot depends on the phrasing. Having no hope while Israel exists can be founded in consistent disappointment of such hopes by Israel. Even the acceptance of Palestinian statehood, after all, so far exists only verbally, and as such, trust in its acceptance can only be as high as trust in other promises by the Israeli government -which have practically routinely be disappointed when not enforced by outside pressure.
Having no hope for peaceful coexistence with Israel in no way supports your claim for the destruction of Israel being a widely supported goal. It merely demonstrates a high degree of fatalism or pessimism.
Next we have “O God, destroy the Zionist Jewish occupiers”, also broadcast on Official Saudi TV from the Great Mosque in Mecca on July 1, 2003: http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=17443
I guess that the Great Mosque in Mecca is just some out-of-the-way subversive place, right? Well, I guess we’ll have to look for sermons from some other places. Here are a bunch from Yemen, Jordan, Syria, and Qatar titled “O God, destroy the usurper Jews, the vile Crusaders, and infidels. O God, destroy them along with their supporters.” They date from June 16, 2003: http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=17280
Also on June 16th, we have this charming number from official Palestinian broadcasts. It’s called “O God, destroy the Jews…the United States and its allies”: http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=17279
I could keep going, if you’d like, but I hope that I’ve made my point. Fact is that genocide against Jews is the mainstream viewpoint in the Muslim world. I’m sure it pleases your liberal heart to deny this, but it simply isn’t true.
I would if someone reasonable had posted cites from credible sources, but propaganda material from demonstrably highly biased sources posted by you is barely worth a comment.
In case you don’t understand Jon’s point: a site can be biased but if their information is accurate and referenced, it may still true. If you are claiming that his cite fabricated the info, then that is one thing, but that it merley biased in its presentation is quite another. And if you are claiming that then you had better be able to support such a charge.
Another “biased” cite for you. That references all of its primary information.
Once again, these are not just a few radicals. This is a real problem. Jews (yes, Jews, not just Israelis) have been extensively vilfied by large segments of the Arab media and mainstream. Some minority segment may believe that peace is possible. Some significant portion of the Arab populus may believe that Israel should exist in more than a mouth service way on-route to furthering its destruction or absorbtion. But to deny that Jew hating and a sincere desire for Israel’s total destruction is not a well established view among a significant portion of the general Arab populus today is dangerous naivete and fails to appreciate the difficulties that lie ahead in building a peaceful solution over the long-term. This kind of hate won’t disappear overnight. It will take a long experience of trust-building steps from each side and one-on-one contacts to slowly neutralize it.
You would be right if Jon had referenced original statements. He hasn’t. He has referenced translations cited by a biased source. There is a)no evidence that the statements were actually made and b)that the meaning was not tainted in the translation. There is a reason why there are certified and sworn translators for the translation of official documents: It is easy to make translations mean what they never were supposed to mean and still be able to have translated the statement ‘accurately’ by using synonyms with slightly different tone.
Given that Jon has already resorted to generalized insults to the degree of throwing victims of Nazi persecution in one pot with their tormentors, his statement that by any debating society’s standards, I would have lost, he merely has shown that he expects civil conduct only of opposition, but reserves the right for himself and those he supports to use any means necessary to achieve their goal -which is not too surprising given his position in this debate.
Another “biased” cite for you. That references all of its primary information.
It is strange that this last statement of yours is in total contradiction of the entirety of your argumentation so far. You speak of trust building steps from both sides, yet have put the responsibility so far flat on one side. You have accused one side of genocidal desires, despite the fact that it is the other which has engaged in massacres, such as the one Kafr Kasem. You are apparently well-versed in source material suggesting Palestinian responsibility, but at the same time seem completely oblivious to official, objective assessments on Israel, such as by Israeli courts or public investigations. You speak of one-on-one contacts, but while complaining about radicalism on one side, have as your sole sources radicals of the other.
If you indeed consider one-on-one contacts to be beneficial, I suggest you read some of Amira Hass’ writings. She is a jewish Israeli journalist living in Gaza, the child of Holocaust survivors.
You speak about radical, murderous cites from Palestinians, but here’s what threats Amira Hass gets to hear “I get messages saying I must have been a kapo [a Jewish camp overseer for the Nazis] in my first incarnation. Then I’ll get an e-mail saying: ‘Bravo, you have written a great article – Heil Hitler!’ Someone told me they hoped I suffered breast cancer. ‘Until we expel all Palestinians, there will be no peace,’ some of them say. I can’t reply to them – there are thousands of these messages.” These are messages by Israelis, not Palestinians, with which she peacefully lives door to door. She gets thousands of such messages, and as such, I think you should reevalue your statement about certain opinions merely being held by insignificant minorities in Israel. If the Palestinians very really so lodged in murderous anti-semitism, she would rather get more such threats from THEM, wouldn’t she? But instead, while she is “listening to the Palestinian curses heaped upon “the Jews” for their confiscations and dispossessions and murder squads and settlements”, these are very specific complaints about very specific grievances, and at the same time she experiences:
“From the start, Hass recalls, there was “something very warm about the Palestinian attitude – there was a lot of humor in these harsh conditions.” When I suggest that this might be something she had recognized in Jews, Hass immediately agrees. “Of course. I’m an east European Jew and the life of the shtetl is inbuilt in me. And I guess I found in Gaza a shtetl. I remember finding refugees from Jabalya camp, sitting on a beach. I asked them what they were doing. And one said he was ‘waiting to be 40 years old’ – so he’d be old enough to get a permit to work in Israel. This was a very Jewish joke.””
If there is such a murderous attitude, how come Amira Hass survives, first in Gaza, then on the West Bank? How come she recalls so warmly many experiences? Could it be that it is very much possible for Palestinians and Jews to live peacefully door to door, under the condition that both sides are good neigbors?
Why do you not cite http://www.seruv.org.il/defaulteng.asp , the site by real IDF reservists who served in the territories, if indeed individual contacts are so important to you?
Why is it given that you were shown that ethnic cleansing is supported by Israeli mainstream politicians, that you still claim that there is a significant difference between the attitude both sides have towards each other, supporting your arguments solely by the statements of radicals?
You seem to be rather selective about what is biased and what is not, apparently dismissing items you don’t like as biased and dismissing it out of hand. What is an “unbiased” source in your opinion?
I am rather selective. It’s my job as a scientist to be very selective as to what conclusions a given piece of data supports. I am not dismissing items I don’t like as biased, I am dismissing items that are clearly agitatory as biased. I suggest you take a look at the websites cited, rather than just engaging in blind mudslinging.
An organization which produces commented headlines such as “[Letting the terror swamp refill] IDF commanders note slowdown in W. Bank operational activity” is hardly an objective source. Rather, such titles show that IMRA is not beyond twisting titles and statements to fit their agenda. IMRA does not distinguish between reporting and the stating of opinions, but subverts reports with interjectory comments -not just occasionally, but as a rule. Take a look at the numerous ‘Ha’aretz (and IMRA)’ cites on their website. These show that IMRA is unwilling to cite others without changing the cite in a fashion suitable to their agenda. As such, trusting their translations is a foolish thing to do.
As for unbiased sources, I suggest, for example, civilian Israeli courts. It is telling that the most ardent critics of the Palestinians point at Israel as a democracy while scoffing at the civilian courts’ decisions.
It rather seems strange to me that those who accuse others of trusting only sources suitable to their agenda themselves dismiss anything contrary to their opinion outright. I cited several other sources which have little reason to be biased pro-Palestinian, being Israeli Jews, and some of them being charged with Israel’s security. Strangely enough, their positions are far from the vociferous rants produced by IMRA. By academic standards, an explanation is only credible if it explains ALL available data. As already pointed out, the suggestion that Arabs are possessed with a virulent, murderous anti-semitism does not explain the peaceful coexistence of many Israeli jews with them.
It scares me to think that science is being done by people who think like you. You do not like the conclusion so the data must be faked. Boy.
The Middle East Media Research Institute also fakes and distorts translations? No. This a reputable organization which translates a variety of source material without comment to allow others to know what is being said about a variety of subjects in the Arab press.
In any case you misinterpret the point. I have every confidence that Joe Palestinian can learn to live peacefully with Joe Israeli and visa versa. But there are different sorts of roadblocks in the way on each side.
On the Israeli side there is a small group that has eyes on a greater Israel. There is a smaller number who just hate Arabs at this point. But mostly there are a large number of people who want peace, are willing to give up most of the West Bank and to compromise on Jerusalum, and give money at least to settle the so called “Right to Return” issue, if they were sure that peace would result. But many are hardened by the failure of negotiated approaches in the past and have become nearly convinced by much rhetoric from the other side, as well as actions of the few, that negotiations can never work. Winning these people back to the side of hope in a peaceful solution that does not involve resorting to forced seperations or worse will not be easy. Still a majority believe that negotiations can work and believe that the PA is currently sincere in the effort to get there.
On the Arab side you have a variety of leadership that has used Israel bashing for their own purposes for years. You have individuals who want to live in peace. But you have many religious leaderships playing the Jew-hating card, you have national media outlets (these are not free presses) exhorting hate. You have a majority believing that peace is not possible while Israel exists. More people in the occupied terrotories support Hamas than Abbas … for now. More trust Bin-Laden as a world leader than anyone else. (That same Pew Research poll). This is not the same road to hoe as on the Israeli side.
To me this implies that no hug fest will be forth coming; it will be incremental steps. The PA’s steps may be ineffectual at first but any real attempt at action (rather than words alone) should be met with significant concessions in return. As the PA can actually really deliver security then even bigger steps can be made by Israel.
Oliver, I must echo dreid’s sentiment that the other guy’s sources are dismissed as biased if you don’t happen to agree w/them. moreover, it is self serving to cite as unbiased sources Israelis who take issue w/government policies. I have witnessed Americans argue anti-American canards who are hardly unbiased. They are just biased in your direction and are hardly credible as they don’t explain ALL available data.
So, let’s pose the question a different way. What sources do you deem credible that do not agree with your world view?
Never said such a thing. I said the cites don’t prove a thing.
Your statements are contradicted by Israeli election results.
It isn’t? The Israelis, after all, trust Sharon to bring peace. The same man who has been found to share responsibility in the slaughter of hundreds of Palestinian refugees by an official Israeli investigation.
To deliver security, you need a security infrastructure. That same infrastructure has consistently been destroyed by the Israelis. The PA has repeatedly engaged in armed conflicts with militants. Live bullets. Real dead people on both sides, and occasionally even bystanders. As such, talking about the PA delivering real attempts at action rather than words alone as an event that is still to happen is declaring that dead people are negligible, and that shootouts are sandbox games. It is strange that Israel’s extrajudicial executions by using anti-tank missiles against cars is seen as legitimate self-defense, but Palestinian security putting their lives on the line is happily ignored. I do not deny that there have been serious problems, but there have also been plenty of problems that have been actively caused by the Israelis, such as militants being released from prison by their comrades when the security personnel had fled the building as it was bombed.
I am sorry, but if you dismiss court decisions as anti-anything diatribes, I don’t think we can ever come on a common basis.
As for your talk about Americans arguing anti-American canards, you are either talking paradox, or you are considering YOUR world view as the only American world view. In which case I once again see little chance for us to come to a common basis.
I am sorry, but the arguments you have presented in this post suggest to me a serious lack of support for democratic principles and the rule of law. It also suggests to me that you hold others to higher standards than yourself. So far, all you have done is precisely what you have accused me of doing, and as such, your accusations hold little ground.
Once you can accept that someone criticising a government is not anti-anything, let alone a nation, and once you stop considering regular courts as biased political agitators, there might be some headway to make. But as long as all you can say is that ‘Anyone who supports my opinion is unbiased, and anyone who doesn’t think so is biased’, there is little chance for a productive exchange of opinions.
I have shown why I consider IMRA biased, and why I consider their translations untrustworthy. It might be that they comply with your standards of good journalism, but most certainly not with mine.
This did happen WAY back (after the Oslo accords, in the 1990’s). Please show me where the PA has actively “engaged in armed conflicts with militants” at any time since September 2000. I must have failed to see it from where I am standing. Maybe it’s the smoke (from the suicide bombs) getting in my eyes. Sorry, I can’t help ranting just a little.
Also, you earlier mentioned Amira Hass as an example of an Israeli getting along with Palestinians but not with other Israelis. You fail to mention that Amira Hass is to Israeli Journalism roughly what Salman Rushdi is to Islamic Literature. I.e., very interesting, often (but far from always) right in the face of much chauvinism, but WAY controversial in both her topics and the treatment of them. And having read her, I’d have to say that (perhaps unlike Rushdi) she seems to enjoy the role of enfante terrible immensely. She also has a major daily newspaper platform to write upon. Not exactly an example of your average Middle-of-the-Roader being kicked in the teeth by the Establishment.
Which is not to say that a solution, entailing MAJOR concessions on BOTH sides, won’t have to be reached eventually. But that’s a completely different topic. I’ll stick with the (hijacked) one of who hates whom harder. At this the answer is probably (and unfortunately) “both”.
). Though as it is, I’ve grown less interested in dealing with the militantly or stubbornly ignorant and so participate a little less these days.