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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
[QUOTE]
*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.
True. Of course, there are now many Arabs living in Europe, so the Europeans have reason to be interested in Arab/Arab atrocities.
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.
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.
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.
Generalizing crap. Can’t say more of what I think in this forum.
Dito as above.
You didn’t understand Tamerlane’s point, not wring’s and not mine. Reading skills? Willful ignorance?
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.
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 courseI 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 does who support which people? If not actual links to threads, then at least name some names.
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.
—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.
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.
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.
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.
What is your basis for this assertion?
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.
—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.
Well, since Lib suggests there’s a fine debate assertion in the OP, I’ll take a shot at it.
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.
No need to wonder - it was done, before Sharon took office. And the results were remarkably similar to what we have now.
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.