Doesn’t seem very tolerant either.
So, question for you:
Since it’s obvious, just from the sections you’ve quoted to put together an incomplete portrait of the situation, that the ‘culprit’ here, the one ordering the digging up of the ‘graveyard’ and who is currently suing for the right to do so, is the Simon Weisenthal Center, an American non-profit center mostly funded by Americans - which you mention directly in your OP…
why the fuck is the title of this thread “Israelis to build”?
You’re right; you don’t.
I wouldn’t know how strong an issue it is, nor what is the religiou basis for it, I only know it’s a recurrent issue with muslims dying in France.
Because this also is a recurrent issue when Israel is criticized. Did he say anything about Jews? Why would you assume such a thing? Why couldn’t I equally assume that all posters who disagree with the OP do that because they’re racists who hate Arabs? Why wouldn’t I make such thinly veiled accusation? It’s not like there’s a lack of harsh criticism of both muslim countries and the muslim religion on this board. Are half of you racists? If you perceive yourself as neutral, do every harh statement about Islam leads you to post an accusation of racism? If not, why not? Because you don’t like the Arabs yourself, maybe?
So long as you don’t dig her up. they are cool with that:
I can understand that you find that inconsistent, but tolerance sometimes requires that we accept the beliefs of others even when the don’t make sense to us.
“I know you are, but what am I?” Is that what you are reduced to? What’s next, “I’m rubber you’re glue!”
So? It doesn’t seem a bad idea to me. It certainly beats a controversial “museum of tolerance” that actually causes discord.
Bolding mine. What if it harmed tombs and didn’t honor Jewish law concerning cemeteries?
Again, he took a balanced news story and presented only the half that suited his diatribe against Israel and the Weisenthal Center. If he had presented a fair argument and examples like you did, I would never have suspected a secret agenda. I happened to have listened to the story on the way in today and so I responded to the omissions.
Your question about whether I defend anti-Arab posts are fair, but in all honesty I would if the Op only gave half the story and I knew the other half. I spent a long pit thread defending Al Sharpton* against almost every other poster. Including many I consider friends. I actually am very even handed about my objections.
I am generally anti-religion, but I do not dismiss any religion out of hand.
Do you really think the Op was well constructed or fairly stated, given the other side of the story? Do you understand why it is hard to get to upset with the “Israelis” for building on a parking lot. It was the Museum that stopped building and tried to everything correctly. They are now in a no win situation where the objections may be objections for the sake of objecting.
Jim
- not a Muslim, but a commonly hated figure.
So I take it my O’Hare cite is being accepted without comment?
I think **Fear ** either missed it or ignored it.
Were they asked if they liked it when the cemetery was razed, apparently in ** 1948 ** ? Somehow I suspect not.
Besides, though I wouldn’t know, moving the remains migt indeed be a more serious issue than parking cars on top of the tombs.
Finally, your argument sounds to me like “we’ve already disrespected the graves, so why not disrepect them some more?”
By the way, I already mentionned the parallel with amerindian burial grounds. Are those only an issue when they’re recent and well remembered, or also when forgotten and ancient sites are discovered? I believe it’s the latter.
But what if the aggravated party thinks that your proposal doesn’t respect their ancestors and their beliefs regardless how reasonnable it seems to you? What if they don’t think it’s fair?
I remember this issue being discussed on this board, and I don’t remember any accusation of racism against amerindians being used in the arguments.
And once again, what if, instead of a school, it was a “Center for Intercultural Understanding”? Wouldn’t it appear nonsentical?
But Clairobscur, are you stating–like Fear Itself did–that it’s not surprising that Muslims hate Israelis, when they do stuff like build museums on forgotten cemetaries, and when the workers find the cemetaries they stop work, and only when the museum construction crew notifies people that there are muslims buried there do the muslims start crying about it?
It is an interesting story, and how the issue should be resolved is pretty difficult.
But **Fear Itself ** presented the story in such a biased, dickish way, that I find it hard to believe he actually read the story in a newspaper or heard it on the radio. Or maybe he’s like Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter and only hears what he wants to hear?
So are Israeli’s assholes for building a museum and stopping when they find an abandoned cemetary? Are they assholes for asking what kind of accomadation can be reached? Or is any Israeli building project the work of assholes, because they shouldn’t even be in Jerusalem in the first place? Or what?
Who’s the asshole here? Besides Fear Itself, I mean?
And reading the previous post that refers to Sharia law, it seems to be actually the case. So, there’s no “fair compromise” that would be respectful for muslim religious sensibilities here.
Missed it.
Because the Wiesenthal Center has offices in Jerusalem, staffed by Israelis, who will be more closely involved in the project than those in the LA office. But, if it makes you feel better, I will change the title of my OP to the “The Simon Wiesenthal Center to build…” but I don’t think it will fit.
The Wiesenthal Center is intolerant for not offering to cease development on the cite occupied by Muslim graves.
This part, as far as i remember, is the only objectionnable sentence in the OP.
But you know, I’ve read so much shit stated about Arabs and muslims on this board with barely anybody (or just plainly nobody) protesting, that you won’t convince me that there isn’t an elephant-sized double standart here that people are ignoring, either beliberately, or, more likely and more dissapointingly, because they just don’t notice it.
Congratulations. The FAA is just as intolerant as the Simon Wiesenthal Center. But tolerance is not in their charter, so I guess we can’t hold them to the higher standard espoused by the Wiesenthal Center. And I still maintain that is does not happen all the time, though I give you props for finding a cite.
Fear itself, you are misinterpreting the cite. It is about where to put the bodies after removal. It is not at all related to needing permission to remove the body.
In fact, Brian Ecker’s is explicit. Permission of family members is NOT required, and not even requested. Here is the relevant portion:
IE, the government must at minimum publish a 30 day notice of their intent to disinter the bodies, and schedule a hearing to listen to any objections from family members of the deceased. That’s it, and assuming they keep to the minimal procedurak standards of excavating graves, they can go right ahead.
It might be argued that there is a further obligation to make a greater attempt to notify surviving family members, but only if they are know, which would suggest this occasionally happens to fairly recent graves. I would interpret this, however, as providing an oppotunity to the family to move the body to a place of their own choosing, rather than some relatively anonymous location chosen by the government. Because the family certainly can’t stop it.