User loginLive Discussions
Google searchMost popular threads
Weekly Archives
Blog linksAfrican American Political Pundit |
Tip jarThe Public LibraryReality checksNews sourcesLink CollectionsDropping KnowledgeLibrary of Congress African American Odyssey Who's new
Who's onlineThere are currently 3 users and 12 guests online.
Online users
...Syndicate |
A question for Mr. JacobySubmitted by Prometheus 6 on July 31, 2005 - 8:21am.
on Race and Identity | War Nazi reminders in Gaza? Let us disengage from specific ethnic labels for a moment. Is this the first time in the last 60 years that a modern Western nation has forcibly uprooted a whole population? Let us not limit this to Jews. Can we, for instance, find an instance of an Arab population being forcibly uprooted in the last 60 years? You humans have no depth perception in temporal dimensions, do you? I also have not read any Palestinian claim that Palestine should be Judenrein. "But a Palestinian official said they would be welcome.
"Unlike Zionism which is religiously exclusive, Palestinian nationalism is not," said Diana Butto. "So if these settlers wish to come in and be subject to Palestinian law, then of course we welcome them" http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L18364376.htm Comparing Zionism to Apartheid, its striking how much more effective African Americans are as a political force here than Arab Americans. If Palestinians were black, sheeeit, Israel and the occupied territories would be one country with a black president by now. (Of course, if Palestinians had been white, there never would have been an Israel in the first place.) Since the settlements were illegal, I thought the settlers were being moved only because the Israeli government started to enforce their laws.
The settlers for the most part do not regard the settlements as illegal and neither did Ariel Sharon or the Israeli Supreme Court. The settlements were illegal of course under international law but that counts for little in the reckoning of the Israeli government, most Israeli politicians and all of the settlers. "I also have not read any Palestinian claim that Palestine should be Judenrein." The Palestinian Authority would not argue for this to happen but there are Palestinian-based organizations such as Hamas and others who have strongly advocated such a position. Their anti-Semitism does not, however, justify, IMHO, Israel's treatment of the Palestinians although many, many Israelis believe that it does. The Palestinian Authority would not argue for this to happen but there are Palestinian-based organizations such as Hamas and others who have strongly advocated such a position. I call. Let's see a link that shows that any Palestinian organization calls for any area on earth to be Judenrein. Hamas has called for the removal of Jews from Palestinian lands which, of course, includes what is now called the state of Israel. It views the takeover of Palestinian lands for the purpose of establishing the state of Israel as a transgression and a crime under international law that can only be corrected by returning these lands to their Palestinian owners. I have no idea whether Hamas or any Palestinian-based organization has ever used the term "Judenrein" in their private or public discussions of this issue. I would tend to think not bcause the term "Judenrein" tends to reflect a degree of antipathy and hostility toward Jews that was not prevalent or predominant in the Arab world prior to the creation of the state of Israel. There were nationalist Arab leaders, however, who did support the Axis powers during World War II. How much of their support had to do with their desire to sever their countries colonial relationships with Western powers such as Britain and France and how much their support may have been based on their dislike for Jews is difficult to say. I would tend to think that their anti-colonial and nationalist beliefs was what chiefly motivated them rather than anti-Semitism. By the way, this isn't my site and I don't make any rules or policies for anyone who visits and posts messages but if you would like to contiue this discussion with me I would prefer that you sign in and give yourself a handle. I'll take that as a fold. If an organization has strongly advocated such a postion as you said originally, then I would guess you could have provided a link to something that indicates that an organization has advocated that position. That position didn't have to include the term "judenrein", which is a German term used only to associate anti-Zionism with Naziism, but "such a position" which you were the first to say Hamas "strongly supports" was that Palestine, (but I broadened it to include 'or anywhere else'), should have no jews. Palestine was not judenrein before Zionism was born. You asserted that Hamas strongly supports a position that Palestine should be judenrein, but you can produce no reason to believe Hamas supports that position at all. You can't just make up positions and ascribe them to other groups without any foundation and then wonder how much those positions are motivated by anti-Semetism. I wonder to what degree your feeling of entitlement to just make up positions and assign them to Palestinian groups is motivated by Anti-Semitism on your part. Get the last word. I won't be continuing to post on this thread. You can call me "One Black Man" if you want a handle. I wasn't aware that we were playing poker. I was also not aware that I owed you a duty to find a link somewhere on the Internet that demonstrated that Hamas called for "Judenrein". I am not aware that any feelings of entitlement that I might have would lead me to ascribe positions to Palestinian-based organizations that those organizations do not in fact possess. I never asserted that Hamas wanted Palestine to be free of Jews or judenrein, however, Hamas, since its creation, has held fast to its objective of creating an Islamic state in the territory called Mandatory Palestine, which means creating an Islamic state from the Jordan River all the way to the Red Sea. If I were Jewish, I believe that it would be a reasonable preumption on my part to assume that Hamas would prefer that this proposed state be free of Jews whether or not Hamas actually calls for such a condition as "Juderein" to come to pass or not. Okay, so I got the last word. Who cares? "That position didn't have to include the term "judenrein", which is a German term used only to associate anti-Zionism with Naziism," Are you saying that the word "judenrein" was concocted by Jews as a way of equating or declaring that anti-Zionists shared the same beliefs or sentiments about Jews that were held by Nazis? This is what I found at Wikipedia: "A similar term with the same intent was used by the Nazi administration in Germany under Adolf Hitler. When an area under Nazi control had its entire Jewish population removed, whether by driving the population out, by deportation to Concentration Camps, and/or murder, the area was declared judenrein (lit. Jew Clean): cleansed of Jews. (cf. racial hygiene.)" I wrote: "The Palestinian Authority would not argue for this to happen but there are Palestinian-based organizations such as Hamas and others who have strongly advocated such a position." My error. What I should have written is that it would be reasonable to infer that Hamas and other Palestinian-based organizations hold such a position. I have to apologize for breaking my word and post here again. 1- The new position that it is reasonable to infer that Hamas holds such a position is, at bottom, no different from the old position. What makes it reasonable to infer that Hamas holds such a position? This is still just making up a position and asserting that it is reasonable to infer that Hamas holds it. 1a- Was it reasonable to infer that the ANC wanted South Africa to be whiterein? I don't see how, if one concedes that one does not know of anywhere where Hamas has either said that or said something that logically requires that, one can reasonably infer that Hamas believes it. 1b- If Hamas did hold that position, and I do not see evidence that it does, do more Palestinians believe Palestine should be judenrien or do more Jews think Palestine should be Palestinerein? 1c- To reword 1a, if the argument is that Hamas does not accept the existence of a Jewish state, so far no one has been able to show me a real difference between Hamas not accepting a Jewish State and Mandela not accepting a white South African state. It is not a valid conclusion that not accepting a Jewish State means that the region should be judenrein. 2- I meant earlier that the term Judenrein was used to gratuitously link anti-Zionism with Naziism. The Palestinians do not speak German. The Knesset does not speak German. Who involved in this would use the term Judenrein? Why use that term in the article except as smear that those who oppose Zionism are related to Nazis? But I didn't claim the term was concocted for that reason, just used - and I meant used in that article which is the first place I've ever seen the term. But then we get the wikipedia link (that I didn't follow but am trusting your quote). It seems the germans used a "similar" term. Wait a minute, if the Germans used a "similar" term, who "concocted" that specific term? Maybe now I can start claiming that the term was concocted for the reason I think it was used in that article. I have started giving the last word when I've pretty much said what I have to say to make sure a pointless back-and-forth flamewar does not start. The idea that nothing my opponent says can go unanswered has wasted a lot of time and bandwidth over the Internet and I want as little part of that as possible. Palestine was not judenrein before Zionism was born. Correct. In fact, the past 1000 years or so of the middle east show a similar pattern in most Islamic territory toward Jews. The first thing we can note from this history is that there were Jews. They were not summarily killed. Eventually, post 1948, nearly all of them have moved to Israel such that there are few if any left, but there were hundreds of thousands alive in 1948. One thing though: a brief history of Real Zionism. Zionism has meant and continues to mean a variety of things, some accurately describing widespread Jewish belief in the period after WWII, and some not. What indisputably occurred is that the Jews sought and obtained a state under UN charter in 1947, and subsequently cemented by military victory in 1949. If that's what one means by Zionism, fine; nearly every Jew in Israel supports that. The 1949 war created the "Palestinians" (who hadn't been called that before 1949). Assured of a quick Arab victory, many of the Arab (non-Jewish) inhabitants of what is now Isreal left, intending on victoriously returning. Didn't work out that way, and the ones who stayed were shown more insightful than the ones who left. The now homeless ones were encouraged to wait until next time by nearby Arab states, who largely declined to assimilate them as Israel was assimilating Jews. Next time came in 1967, when Israel preemptively attaced the armies of several Arab countries which were massed along its border. When this one was over, Israel controlled considerably more territory than it had before 1967, including lands which had become occupied by those Arabs who had left Israel in 1947. Now we get to a second, more aggressive form of Zionism (which was really born of the 1967 war), the belief by some Jews that they should control all territory between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River/Dead Sea, territory which includes what we now call the "West Bank" and the "Gaza Strip". These Jews began to establish settlements in the newly conquered territory, financed largelty by American Jews and with the general agreement of the Israeli government. Naturally, the local inhabitants resented the settlements, and violence became commonplace. Israel supplied military security to the settlements. The popularity of the settlements in Israel has been highly contentious all along. Many Jews do support the Zionist agenda, something like the Manifest Destiny which granted Americans control of a slice of N. America which went from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Many other Jews point to the immense cost, measured in all of money, lives, and political currency it costs to maintain these settlements, and suggest that it's not worth it. Still other Israelis oppose the settlement on the basic Palestinian premise, that the Jews should leave the Palestinians in peace. You asserted that Hamas strongly supports a position that Palestine should be judenrein, but you can produce no reason to believe Hamas supports that position at all. Back to the history of Jews under Islamic rule. Islamic rulers have tolerated Jews to varying degrees; nearly always, they were second class citizens (simply because they were not Muslims, if they converted, they were usually assimilated in). Sometimes they were allowed to own real estate and conduct commerce, frequently not. This model was repeated in all Islamic countries. Jews were tolerated, but needed to know their place. I suggest that Hamas would be conducive to such an arrarangement. Hamas is mainly concerned with the power of Jews, not Jews themselves. If the Jews lost control of the territory of Israel, Hamas' mission would be complete. While Jews retain any power in the middle east, Hamas will use any and all means, including killing random Jewish children and old people, to attack Jewish interests. So in that context, it's not really meaningful to discuss Hamas' tolerance or intolerance of Jews living in Palestinian territories. Any tolerance Hamas might discuss is predicated on removing all Jews from any power. "What indisputably occurred is that the Jews sought and obtained a state under UN charter in 1947, and subsequently cemented by military victory in 1949." DW, this is only a very partial explanation of what occurred. From the point of view of many people, most importantly the Arabs, the U.N. had no right, at least not any rights not backed up by Western military power to create a state for the Jewish people from land that was occupied by the Arabs. If Europeans and Americans wanted to make amends for the murderous campaign against the Jews that had recently taken place in western and eastern Europe, at least from the Arab point of view, then it would have been more fitting if land had been annexed from Germany, Austria and Poland to create a Jewish homeland. The decision to allow the creation of a Jewish state in the middle of Arab lands has almost certainly guaranteed a process of endless conflict that one day may engulf all of us. The decision to allow the creation of a Jewish state in the middle of Arab lands has almost certainly guaranteed a process of endless conflict that one day may engulf all of us. I agree with everything you said, PT, especially the quoted part.
"So in that context, it's not really meaningful to discuss Hamas' tolerance or intolerance of Jews living in Palestinian territories. Any tolerance Hamas might discuss is predicated on removing all Jews from any power..." DW, I think that I understand the point that you are trying to make but, unfortunately, it only leads to the logical conclusion that if Hamas has to kill every Jew living in the Palestinian territories in order to achieve its aims then it will do so. I'm not sure that Hamas actually has any desire to carry out such a plan but I am absolutely sure that Hamas wants to create an Islamic state. (Let's not forget that Hamas grew out of the Muslim Brotherhood which was "dedicated to the Islamization of Arab societies.") To the extent that Jews whether as power brokers or second class citizens impede this goal their lives would be in danger. In other words, at a certain point it does not matter if Hamas holds anti-Semitic views or not because if you were a Jew and opposed their plans your life would be at risk. I am absolutely sure that Hamas wants to create an Islamic state. PT you and I have to work hard to scrape up a disagreement here. Your analysis is excellent. That said, I think I'm just a bit more harsh on Hamas than you are: I see them as both wanting to establish an Islamic state but also wanting to eliminate the Jewish state, at least as it might exist in any part of its current territory. A Jewish state in Nebraska, maybe, but never in Asia minor. That wouldn't leave any Jews in the position of "power brokers".
The 1949 war created the "Palestinians" (who hadn't been called that before 1949). Assured of a quick Arab victory, many of the Arab (non-Jewish) inhabitants of what is now Isreal left, intending on victoriously returning. Didn't work out that way, and the ones who stayed were shown more insightful than the ones who left. The now homeless ones were encouraged to wait until next time by nearby Arab states, who largely declined to assimilate them as Israel was assimilating Jews. Was there any ethnic cleansing at all in your version of this story? Next time came in 1967, when Israel preemptively attaced the armies of several Arab countries which were massed along its border. When this one was over, Israel controlled considerably more territory than it had before 1967, including lands which had become occupied by those Arabs who had left Israel in 1947. There was a time the German army preemptively attacked the armies massed across the Polish, then French then Russian borders. The Japanese navy preemptively attacked the US forces massed in Hawaii. I'm sure you would not agree that the side that crosses borders to attack is the aggressor. And here is another point that was touched on above: The middle east was not always muslim. Muslims conquered the land and ended possibly hundreds of different religions, with former practitioners of those religions converting to Islam (including many native Jews who are now Palestinians). But while they ended many religions, they did not end Judaism, not because they couldn't have, but because of their relative philo-semitism. But for me, those are not the interesting issues. I'd rather concentrate on this question: What is the essential difference between Hamas not accepting a Jewish state and the ANC not accepting a White South African state. (Mandela might accept a white state in Nebraska, but never in Southern Africa) Of course the exact same hysterics about they want to kill us all were made using the same exact words by apologists for apartheid. But where is the argument that a desire to create an Islamic state in a region where Muslims are the majority of the population necessarily implies killing non-Muslims any more than Mandela's desire to create a majority black state implied killing non-Blacks? What is the argument that the threat posed by Hamas to Jews in Israel is greater than the threat posed by the Pan-Africanist Congress to Whites in South Africa? If you cannot argue that, then how is it possible to be an apologist for Zionism? Signed, One Black Man "That said, I think I'm just a bit more harsh on Hamas than you are: I see them as both wanting to establish an Islamic state but also wanting to eliminate the Jewish state, at least as it might exist in any part of its current territory. A Jewish state in Nebraska, maybe, but never in Asia minor." To be honest, I don't bear any ill will toward Hamas although I don't agree with the goal of establishing a religious-based state no matter what the religion is called. Establishing a Jewish state in the middle of Arab lands was an untenable action and despite the clear military advantage that Israel currently possesses I don't think this will prove of much value in the future. One of the more common responses among those who support Israel to people who take my position is to ask whether or not we believe that Israel has a right to exist. My problem is that if you answer in the affirmative you are supporting and sanctioning the process by which Israel was created, i.e., through the forceful taking, backed by the U.N., of lands owned and occupied by Arabs. If you answer in the negative, it appears that you support the destruction of Israel, which over time has become so conflated with the destiny of the Jewish people that the two have become coequal and coeval at least in the minds of many Jews. I am unalterably opposed to having Americans die on behalf of Israel and having American interests inextricably linked with Israeli interests. I don't think it is deniable that Hamas would prefer to see the destruction of Israel and its citizens. Hamas, I believe, sees Israel as a contingent fact on the ground, not an immutable presence in the Arabian landscape. The entire process by which Israel was created only serves to bolster Hamas' position. Israel and its supporters, namely the U.S., believe that the violent conflict through which Israel was created should cease. Hamas and its supporters have a different take on this issue; it was, after all, their people's land that was taken. I've obviously misread at least one participant in this thread. I would guess that there are some Palestinians who would prefer to see the destruction of Israel, but I would not attribute that view specifically to Hamas without a reason. I am sure there are Israelis who hold an analogous view, but I would not attribute that view to any specific group without more information about the particular group. I also do not see any reason to believe the median Palestinian has a greater tendency towards this view than his opposite Israeli number. It was somewhat facetious when I made my first statement that if Palestinians were Black there would be one country with a Black president by now. It is true that African Americans put more effective pressure on the United States than Arab Americans. On the other hand, Jewish Americans are a much more formidable opponent than White South Africans in the fight over US policy. But while they are better financed and better politically organized, they are fighting for the same cause as far as I can see. -One Black Man Let me make an analogy: There are some white americans who would prefer black people leave the country. Those whites would be considered "right-wing." The republican party is the more right wing of the major US political parties. I could not claim that the republican party would prefer black people leave the country unless I read something that at least points in that direction in their platform or public or reliably reported private statements. Groups speak for themselves. You cannot assign views to specific groups just because it makes sense in your world. -One black man. With dazzling precision, one black man exposes the preposterous hypocrisy of the hegemon and leaves it nekkid as a jaybird..., "I've obviously misread at least one participant in this thread." I don't know who you are referring to but whether you read correctly or misread anyone's statements doesn't give you carte blanche to insult people and impugn their motives. "I would guess that there are some Palestinians who would prefer to see the destruction of Israel, but I would not attribute that view specifically to Hamas without a reason." This is a distinction without a difference. Hamas would prefer to see the destruction of Israel rather than have Israel continue to occupy Arab lands. It is not necessary to provide any documented evidence in this thread to show that Hamas is opposed to the Israeli state. The basis of their objections are entirely justified but we should stop denying their desire, whether practical, sensible, realistic or not, is to restore the lands currently occupied by Israel to Arab ownership. At the same time Hamas has always balanced its verbal and armed attacks against Israel with social and religious programs directed to the relief and benefit of the Palestinian people. And to date it has not engaged in armed struggle against fellow Palestinians. Hamas is a relevant player in the so-called Middle East peace process and Israel, America and the European Union must recognize and accept this as a major fact, in that now shopworn and cliched phrase, on the ground. The fact that the Palestinian Authority has delayed the second scheduled national elections, which were scheduled to be held last month because its leaders feared that Hamas might win a parliamentary majority and, perhaps, the presidency is a sign of its influence and support among large segments of the Palestinians. "You cannot assign views to specific groups just because it makes sense in your world." Hamas since its inception has engaged in armed struggle against the Israeli state and it has done so without ever renouncing or modifying its stated goal of creating an Islamic state from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. Since we all know that the Jordan River begins in southwest Syria and runs for 200 miles before emptying through the Sea of Galilee into the Dead Sea I find it hard to understand why anyone does not see that the western border of this proposed Islamic state would include what is now called the state of Israel. I don't think that Hamas has ever denied or shied away from this geographic fact. The situation in the Middle East has now become so crazed and polarized that one cannot simply state what everyone knows to be true without being denounced. The Jews, backed by a bogus U.N. sponsored process, seized lands that were owned and occupied by Arabs. Nearly sixty years later many Arabs are still chafing at this process and they intend to either reverse it or so cripple Israel in the process that it amounts to the same thing.
All the nekkiddidity ain't in the hegemon. What is the essential difference between Hamas not accepting a Jewish state and the ANC not accepting a White South African state. It's a case of the past vs the present. Israel asserts no contemporary aggression toward the Palestinians, but holds territory once held by Palestinians. The Hamas position seeks to reverse the results of historical aggression. Apartheid SA asserted contemporary aggression by disenfranchising the majority of its citizens. The ANC position sought to repel aggression going on right then. It is just not valid to say that because a group does not believe there should be a Jewish State, that group believes in removing Jews. The ANC does not believe there should be a white state in Southern Africa. The leap from "they don't believe there should be a Jewish state" to "they believe in killing the current Jewish inhabitants" is just not a logical leap. I'm willing to concede and that Hamas does not believe there should be a Jewish state. Let me ask for the fourth time. What is the essential difference between that and Mandela's belief that there should not be a White State? A related question, that I am also asking here more than once is once we stop proving Hamas does not believe there should be a Jewish State, how do we go on to prove Hamas wants to remove all or most or some of the Jewish people currently in Israel? ptcruiser: Do you really not see that you are skipping the step from "Hamas wants the entire region to be under Islamic rule" to "Hamas wants to remove Jews" the region under Israeli control contains more Muslims than Jews. Just installing a one-person/one-vote democracy would result in an Islamic state. I'm not interested in your argument/proof that Hamas wants the entire region to be under Islamic rule. I want to hear your argument that Hamas wants to remove Jews. Proof of one just is not proof of the other. p6: Weigh in - Where is the rest of the nekkidity? Maybe you just misunderstood something that was said. -One Black Man.
Define "aggression"? please don't. I just couldn't suppress the urge to instigate superfluous nekkidistic contortions..,
Depends on your definition of "contemporary." Your argument assumes the initial assumption of power is a done deal...Hamas et. al. do not. As long as they see the situation as unresolved they will see the aggression as contemporary. Common viewpoint among humans: see Kouncil of Konservative Kitizens, Sons (and Daughters) of the Confederacy and the whole Neoconfederacy. One of the more common responses among those who support Israel to people who take my position is to ask whether or not we believe that Israel has a right to exist. I think it's fair to ask such people who grants "the right to exist as a state"? Or is it just a matter of opinion, we got yours, mine, p6's, Saddam Hussein's, ....? Here's what I answer: no state has a "right to exist". The closest we might get is the willingness of some other state to join in defense, but there's a big gap from that to "right to exist". dwshelf: White South Africans proposed to make Black South Africans citizens of other countries. The plan was that there would be so few black citizens in "South Africa" that it they could have a "white democracy". Mandela turned down that proposition, and held the extreme view that there should be one country from the Limpopo river to the cape, and that country should be black ruled. I guess you are arguing that Israel has already accomplished what the South Africans proposed - but I don't see an essential difference between Mandela rejecting it as a proposition and Hamas rejecting it as a situation on the ground. Mandela would have rejected it as a situation on the ground also, for all of the same reasons he rejected the offer when it was made. -One Black Man
It's not in this thread. Just sayin', is all. By the way, I'm away from keyboard most of the day tomorrow. That means I won't be around to approve anonymous comments. Common viewpoint among humans: see Kouncil of Konservative Kitizens, Sons (and Daughters) of the Confederacy and the whole Neoconfederacy. Talk is cool. Violence needs to be suppressed.
Excellent point. In fact, I'd apply a test similar to that which I'd apply to an abortion case: is the entity capable of existing independently? A "no" means the entity is either an appendage, an organ, a parasite or a developing child of the supporting entity.
I know you didn't just now call Israel a foetal alien (facehugger spawn). dayyum, it's gettin hot in hurr..., What reason do you have to believe that the Jews who currently live in Israel, whether they are observant or not, would be willing to live in an Islamic theocratic state as envisioned by Hamas? I could be mistaken but I don't think their anxiety would be assuaged by Hamas' assurances that it would prefer that the Palestinian people decide to establish an Islamic state through a democratic process, i.e., voting. I was born and raised in a northern state where the voters once upon a time through the initiative process repealed the state's fair housing laws. The process and the vote was entirely democratic and lawful but it was still, at bottom, motivated by racist sentiment and antipathy toward blacks and other minorities. None of the proponents of this measure ever publicly spoke in a disparaging way about black people and none of the voters who cast their ballots for this onerous initiative ever publicly admitted to feeling any hostility toward blacks. Given all this, were black people supposed to assume that people's negative feelings and attitudes about us was nothing more than our paranoia? Again, what reason would Jews have for remaining in an Islamic state either led by or greatly influenced by Hamas? It's a case of the past vs the present. Others have made the point that Hamas may not view the expulsion of Palestinians as the past. But even aside from that, I don't see the essential difference. The White South Africans offered the ANC that they would make enough black people citizens of other countries that they could have a "white democracy". The ANC turned that offer down, and insisted on the extreme vision of one country from the (limpopo) river to the sea (southern cape) that was black ruled. It seems you (dwshelf) are arguing that Israel has already accomplished what the White South Africans proposed. But the ANC didn't turn down the offer because it hadn't yet been accomplished. If it had already been accomplished, the ANC would have worked to reverse it. So what is the essential difference between the visions: The vision of a Black state in all of South Africa and the vision of an Islamic state in all of the land currently controlled by Israel? P6: Did I get the hint? Anyway this post is a lot like a post I made anonymously, so feel free to not moderate the other post. Hamas has no responsibility to accept a Jewish state. Hamas has never accepted the legitimacy of a Jewish state on Arab lands. Hamas does, however, have a problem. To the extent that it chooses to participate in the Palestinian political process, which could very well lead to it controlling the parliament and the presidency, Hamas will be under tremendous political pressure to make some sort of accommodation with Israel. This pressure will come from external forces and from the Palestinian people themselves. And Hamas historically has shown itself not to be in favor of tactics that increase and add to the burdens already being endured by their people. What reason do you have to believe that the Jews who currently live in Israel, whether they are observant or not, would be willing to live in an Islamic theocratic state as envisioned by Hamas? If you are arguing that Hamas believes in removing Jews, I still ask how do you support that argument? The fact that Hamas does not believe there should be a Jewish state by itself does not prove that Hamas believes in removing Jews. If you are arguing that Hamas believes in creating a state that some Jews may not want to live in so those Jews may leave on their own, I'll concede that, but now we are very, very far from the judenrein stuff that started this thread. A lot of whites left South Africa. Some now write that they are glad they did. More power to them. I don't think it is fair to say they were forced out by the ANC or even that the ANC made them leave. As long as everybody gets one vote per person, I think the people under Israeli rule should decide democratically what kind of government there should be. If there are Jews who'd rather leave than face that then I say good riddance. Their refusal to live under majority rule is no reflection on Hamas. The policies that Hamas's advocates will result in the removal of Jews. If these policies are implemented it would make little difference if Jews left voluntarily or under duress. If the U.S. government decided that next week it would begin testing black people to determine who among us would be genetically predisposed to commit crimes and offered to give free passage out of the country to blacks who objected to this test, whites could claim, using your reasoning, that no black people are being forced to leave the country. There is not an analogous parallel between the Middle East and South Africa. The ANC from its inception was a multiracial party that specifically declared its intent to build a multiracial and multicultural society in South Africa. There are no openly declared Jews in Hamas and Arabs who live in Israel are regulated to second class status. I see not little but a lot of difference between the policies that the ANC implemented that resulted in the removal of White South Africans and ethnic cleansing. The main "policy" was whites-don't-get-to-rule-the-country. If Hamas proposes that synagogues are to be banned, which they have not as far as I can see, and Hamas gets enough votes to pass that in a situation where every Jewish person can vote then that might be analogous to your genetic testing scenario. But we are not there yet and I have not seen an argument that Hamas proposes and would be able to pass anything like that. But if Black Americans say "I refuse to live anywhere unless political power is controlled by Blacks" they are free to leave. Under those circumstances no blacks are forced to leave the country. The Palestinian authority specifically says that Palestinian Nationalism is not based on religion and that Jewish people can live in peace in land under their control. (See my first quote) The Pan-Africanist Congress in South Africa before liberation did not include white members and was about as anti-White as you claim Hamas is anti-Jewish. I'm still waiting for an argument that Hamas believes Jews should have to leave Israel. I don't think I've seen one. Are you still claiming it is reasonable to infer that Hamas holds that position? If so what makes it reasonable? If not, we have nothing left to argue about.
I just thought the conversation would suffer from your responses being delayed a couple of hours. We are going way 'round Rosie's house to get to a point that we could have reached some time ago. In the Islamic state that Hamas envisions Jews, Christians, Hindus, Scientologists and Mormons, for example, would not get to rule the country. Muslims would rule the country and their position would be assured by a vote of the people. In Israel, Jews rule the country and Muslims, Christians, Hindus, Scientologists and Mormons must take the low road. And the Jews' position is, again, assured by a vote of the people. The point is that each side proposes policies and practices that the other side would find extremely distasteful and antithetical to their religious, social and cultural practices and beliefs. If Hamas prevailed then the Jews would leave what is now the state of Israel. If the Jews learned nothing else from the run up to the Holocaust they have learned not to put too much faith in how far human beings might go in displaying their dislike for the Jews. Each side and their supporters in this struggle want to claim the high ground over their opponents. The problem is that the growing mound that everybody wants to stand on is getting higher because of all the dead bodies being stacked up under their feet. "I'm still waiting for an argument that Hamas believes Jews should have to leave Israel. I don't think I've seen one." If Israel ceases to exist as a state then it doesn't matter whether Hamas calls for the removal of Jews since Hamas favors the destruction of the Israeli state. But there is another point, which is that if everybody involved gets to vote, one side would win. So one side depends on everybody involved not getting to vote. The US is a Christian country. Not as Christian as Jerry Falwell would like, but non-Christians take the low road in some respects, and if the US was 51% Muslim there would be a lot of differences in policies. The US is a white country. Not as White as David Duke would want, but non-Whites take the low road in some respects, and if the US was 51% Black there would be a lot of differences in policies. Some differences White people would not like. Maybe they'd even rather leave. If a Black person leaves America because Black people do not have enough power, that's on them. There is no reasonable way to say Blacks are forced to leave. If a white person proposes to make a single white country from the atlantic to the pacific between canada and mexico, that is not enough evidence to claim that white person is in favor of forcing Black people to leave. That proposition in itself is not proof that the white person wants to force Black people to leave. I cannot claim that a person who wants there to be a majority-White country where the US currently stands is strongly advocating that Black people leave. If someone asks me to support my claim that an organization advocates that Black people leave, I have to show, in some form, a statement such as "We believe Black people should leave the United States". If Israel ceases to exist as a state then it doesn't matter whether Hamas calls for the removal of Jews since Hamas favors the destruction of the Israeli state. Well now we've passed the point where this is being fueled by "No argument of my opponent can go unaddressed" I really did not intend to continue posting here last time but there was a substantial concession on the issue of what Hamas advocates and I thought there was a different half-way interesting topic that sprung up about using/concocting the term judenrein. I concede that Hamas calls for ending the Jewish State. I do not concede that Hamas calls for removing Jews. If Jews would rather leave than live in a country that is not a Jewish state, I do not consider that being forced to leave since the region under Israeli control is not majority Jewish. So I'll grant you the last word, and accept that there will be some points made by my opponent that will be unaddressed. I imagine you see where I stand and if you had to, you could do a good job at figuring out how I would respond to pretty much anything that is written on this topic. There is no reason for me to continue using bandwidth. I haven't made any concessions on a lower or higher frequency regarding Hamas' position with respect to Israel and the Jews in Israel. A call for ending the Jewish state is a call for removing Jews since if there were no Jewish state it is highly unlikely that Jews who were attracted to live in a Jewish state, whatever their political or religious differences, would remain in the land formerly encompassed by that state. I think that only way we are going to get some clarity about the situation in the Middle East is for both sides to stop trying to place themselves in a morally superior position. It is disingenuous in the extreme for supporters of Hamas to claim that Hamas does not call for the removal of Jews when Hamas advocates the destruction of the Israeli state. When words and terms are used in this euphemistic way the purpose is not to clarify but to obfuscate and hide policies that could not stand up to closer scruitny and the light of day. I believe that Hamas has extremely legitimate grievances and it had every right to take up arms to defend its people but let's not avoid the implications of its call for the destruction of Israel. It doesn't lessen the legitimacy of Hamas' quest for justice but it helps us to understand exactly what price it wants to extract for the wrongs that have been visited upon its people. It seems you (dwshelf) are arguing that Israel has already accomplished what the White South Africans proposed. But the ANC didn't turn down the offer because it hadn't yet been accomplished. If it had already been accomplished, the ANC would have worked to reverse it. Let's consider a hypothetical history of South Africa. In our history, various whites come from Europe, conquer some territory somwhere in Africa, kick out all the blacks, and start a democratic country. In our history, the former inhabitants of that territory attack a few times, but lack technology, and fail to seriously threaten the country. Comes the third millenium, and some of the descendents of those former inhabitants are still pissed off. Still lacking military technology, they appeal to the rest of the world for sympathy. I say they get very little sympathy. The history of the world shows conquering territory to be the norm. The old world conquered the Americas. The Muslims conquered the middle east. The Romans conquered. And so on. It's neither right nor wrong, it's reality. Like polar bears eating seals. The only thing unique about it would be the lack of assimilation. In some random space, that might get some points. So let's go one more. Let's say that the new whites establish the border, blocking cross-border assimilation, but they don't kick out the original inhabitants. However, the number of whites which arrive greatly exceeds the number of indigenous blacks, such that when they interbreed, yielding a mixture from white to black, with the typical person being say 80% white and 20% black. Now, in the next country over, some pure black guy demands that they leave. Yawn. The reason SA was unstable was the active suppression of people, not the historic conquering of territory. "The reason SA was unstable was the active suppression of people, not the historic conquering of territory." Are you asserting that if the whites who came to South Africa had simply been content to control the land and not suppress the people who were living on the land before their arrival that everything would have worked out fine? How does a newly arived conquerer make a distinction between controlling the land and suppressing its habitants? Wouldn't you have to suppress the people in order to control the land?
When does sympathy expire? Because Israel (which is NOT the biblical nation of legend, regardless of the verbal delusion invoked by assuming the biblical nation's name) is no where near that three millenia in age.
Worse, he's implying Israel isn't actively suppressing the Palestinians. Lost all contact with reality with that one.
‘Israeli terror is worse’ says former Education Minister Shulamit Aloni..,
"Worse, he's implying Israel isn't actively suppressing the Palestinians. Lost all contact with reality with that one." I have a slight disagreement here. I think that DW is trying to create an alternate reality and wants to substitute that alleged story of historical events for what has actually occurred. The Palestinians, for example, have and do receive a great deal of sympathy from people and governments around the world.
Well, maybe after 3000 years... What business is it of Chirac?
Are you asserting that if the whites who came to South Africa had simply been content to control the land and not suppress the people who were living on the land before their arrival that everything would have worked out fine? How does a newly arived conquerer make a distinction between controlling the land and suppressing its habitants? Wouldn't you have to suppress the people in order to control the land? Consider the difference between historic suppression and active suppression. Consider a story which goes more like Mexico.
Comes the third millenium, Sorry. I was being overly clever here, what this meant was "comes the year 2000". I wasn't trying to suggest any significant connection between todays Israel and Biblical Israel.
The Palestinians, for example, have and do receive a great deal of sympathy from people and governments around the world. Indeed they do, because the world considers their cause as active rathe than historic. However, when they equate their cause with the destruction of Israel, they retain sympathy only from those people and governments who would like to see such destruction, or don't care. Much of the modern world is in the latter category. If Isreal accepted a pressured settlement, and 15 years from now was successfully invaded because their trade of security for peace didn't turn out, these people wouldn't feel any sense of loss. I think most people feel sympathy for the Palestinians. I do. However, so long as they see the destruction of Israel as their main goal, I can wish them only continued pain. At such time as they find peace to be preferred over destroying Israel, I'll join their cause.
Worse, he's implying Israel isn't actively suppressing the Palestinians. When someone is trying to kill you, you have to kill them first. Israel can't call the police and get the bad guys hauled off to prison. They can't pray to God and get security. The only thing which works is to suppress those attempting murder. I agree, the settlements are an aggression. The Gaza pullout, and the fence are big steps in the right direction. I believe that Israel is highly willing to leave the Palestinians in peace so long as the Palestinians leave the Jews in peace.
"However, so long as they see the destruction of Israel as their main goal, I can wish them only continued pain." I don't, for a moment, believe that the majority of the Palestinians favor the destruction of Israel. I think this is largely a myth pushed by the Israeli government (no matter which party is in power) and others too numerous to name here. I think the Palestinian people want peace but they refuse, and I support them, to accept the conditions that Israel, the U.S., the European Union and even their fellow Arabs in other Middle East countries want to prescribe for them. They have been treated like the wretched of the earth. "I believe that Israel is highly willing to leave the Palestinians in peace so long as the Palestinians leave the Jews in peace." Not true, DW, not true. The Palestinians were living in peace prior to the illegal taking of their land. I'm sorry, my man, but you just can't take people's land and expect them to roll over and do nothing about it. The Israelis are no less murderous than the Palestinians. In fact, they are more violent. How can anyone justify, for example, destroying the homes of people whose relatives may or not have engaged in violent acts against Israel? How do you justify such behavior? We should blow up Timothy McVeigh's sister's house because he is a terrorist? I'm sorry, my man, but you just can't take people's land and expect them to roll over and do nothing about it. I believe history will show that you can. How can anyone justify, for example, destroying the homes of people whose relatives may or not have engaged in violent acts against Israel? Does it seem like terrorism is a modern invention? Why don't we read of terrorist attacks over history? There's an answer. The traditional reaction to a terrorist act was to kill the entire family of the terrorist(s). This had a deterrent effect. We should blow up Timothy McVeigh's sister's house because he is a terrorist? Historically, not only would McVeigh's sister be dead, but also his mother and grandmother. Just to set the historical context, PT.
As if this were only about propaganda and controlling the language in which this terroristic aggression and land appropriation is framed. A facehugger was not an epiphytic symbiont, it was instead an insidious and lethal parasite.
Jewish terrorist kills four on bus in Arab town
instead an insidious and lethal parasite A fascinating link, cnulan.
Anyone who finds credibility in this analysis should be prepared for all political disputes to be resolved via terrorism. If terror can be shown to work, such as in Spain, we can expect it to become the norm. In your town. By your house. I don't want that, which is why we need to have one goal: show that terrorism can never succeed. "Anyone who finds credibility in this analysis should be prepared for all political disputes to be resolved via terrorism." Okay, DW, then substitute the word "violence" for "terrorism". What these proponents of asymmetric warfare have learned and have learned well over the last nearly 60 years is that violence does indeed work. In fact, although you are not a proponent of violence, you have, nonetheless, in several recent postings in this thread argued that violence has been used successfully to conquer indigenous people and take control of their lands. And more importantly, you went on, because of the level of violence that was visited on them it rendered them incapable of mounting a successful effort to retake their lands. What exactly do you see as the difference between the terrorist bombings that took place two weeks ago in London that killed 52 people and the state sanctioned bombings that accompanied the U.S.'s illegal invasion of Iraq which killed tens of thousands of Iraqis? "I'm sorry, my man, but you just can't take people's land and expect them to roll over and do nothing about it. "I believe history will show that you can." History prior to 1945 might well be filled with examples that support your thesis but after 1945 the possibilities of exacting revenge has changed quite dramatically as a result of (1) the break up of the colonial system, which was largely accomplished through violence and (2) the profileration of conventional and nuclear weapons, which has been largely abetted by the United States and other western powers (the BBC reported tonight that in 1959 the British government, apparently without the knowledge and approval of Prime Minister Harold MacMillan or the U.S. sold 20 tons of heavy water to Israel that was presumably used to produce weapons grade plutonium). I think the Chechens and others are slowly but surely reversing the assumed historical trend. In the past people might have rolled but they don't anymore.
Oh Lawd!!! A nekkididity factor of staggering proportions could be involved with answering this kwestin..., History prior to 1945 might well be filled with examples that support your thesis but I'm taking that line out of context PT, but it's not to malign your thought. 1945 was indeed a watershed year: Both Germany and Japan surrendered, and submitted to a peaceful, successful reconstruction. No terrorism, no insurrection. We promptly forgot the intense ugliness which preceded those surrenders, and focused on the pretty reconstruction part as the way to resolve conflicts. We've been trying and trying to resolve conflicts without the ugliness ever since. And yes, that creates opportunities for the uncivilized to strike blows. I think the Chechens and others are slowly but surely reversing the assumed historical trend. The naive post 1945 Pollyanna view of conflict resolution is indeed being reversed. It only takes so many 911's, so many school massacres by Chechens, so many subway bombings, to get the point to sink in: we cannot allow an uncivilized enemy to use our own civilization as a weakness against us. If given a choice between "most of them dead" or "1% of us dead", we'll pick the former. We'd like to find a better bargain, but we're going to have to face the reality that we can't get out of this without a more intense application of force than we've offered so far. What exactly do you see as the differnce between the terrorist bombings that took place two weeks ago in London that killed 52 people and the state sanctioned bombings that accompanied the U.S.'s illegal invasion of Iraq which killed tens of thousands of Iraqis? Terror is political violence with no military intention. War is political violence with a military intention. Killing 52 subway commuters does not reduce England's military capacity. Bombing Iraq had a direct military purpose. War we have a chance of containing. If left unsuppressed, terror threatens to dominate the daily lives of everyone. (we seem to have momentarily slipped into the all-italic zone)
A nekkididity factor of staggering proportions could be involved with answering this kwestin..., I'll leave that part to those guys on TV, cnulan. I guess people really do buy that stuff, or the ads would go away.
like One Black Man's precision stripping of hypocrisy..., "All Hail Excuse Makers" seems well worth reading again "Terror is political violence with no military intention." A new book written by Professor Robert Pape, a political scientist at the University of Chicago, argues the opposite case. Pape'a analysis is based on what he calls the "first comprehensive database of every suicide terrorist attack in the world from 1980 until today." Pape makes the following conclusions based on his research: 1. "Suicide terrorism is not primarily a product of Islamic fundamentalism." 2. "The world's leading practitioners of suicide terrorism are the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka-a secular, Marxist-Leninist group drawn from Hindu families." 3. "Ninety-five percent of suicide terrorist attacks occur as part of COHERENT CAMPAIGNS (emphasis added) organized by large militant organizatons with significant political support." 4. "EVERY SUICIDE TERRORIST CAMPAIGN HAS HAD A CLEAR GOAL THAT IS SECULAR AND POLITICAL: TO COMPEL A MODERN DEMOCRACY TO WITHDRAW MILITARY FORCES FROM TERRITORY THAT THE TERRORISTS VIEW AS THEIR HOMELAND (emphasis added)." 5. "Al-Qaeda fits the above pattern. Although Saudi Arabia is not under American military occupation per se, one major objective of al-Qaeda is the expulsion of U.S. troops from the Persian Gulf region, and as a result there have been repeated attacks by terrorists loyal to Osama bin Laden against American troops in Saudi Arabia and the region as a whole." 6. "Despite their rhetoric, democracies-including the United States- have routinely made concessions to suicide terrorists. Suicide terrorism is on the rise because because terrorists have learned it is effective." Professor Pape's book is entitled "Dying to Win - The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism" There was no military occupation on 9/11/01. Claiming "friendly relationship" == "occupation" is one of those nonsense word games. Are you claiming that there were no American troops stationed in Saudi Arabia and the adjacent region on September 11, 2001? From the point of view of the so-called Saudi royal family the presence of the American troops was well and good. I mean you can never tell when you might have to quash an uprising among your own people and having the U.S. Marines to call on in such an emergency would be a lifesaver for the so-called Saudi royalty. From the perspective of those like bin Laden who regarded the Americans as infidels their presence in the land that contains the holiest sites in Islam was an affront of the most profound sort. Are you claiming that there were no American troops stationed in Saudi Arabia and the adjacent region on September 11, 2001? Did I claim anything of the sort? No. From the perspective of those like bin Laden who regarded the Americans as infidels their presence in the land that contains the holiest sites in Islam was an affront of the most profound sort. If all weird perspective need to be taken seriously, we're beyond communication. If the way a weird perspective gains respect is by murdering civilians, we can expect an increasing rate of murdered civilians.
The problem is, it's not a weird perspective. It's a fairly common one worldwide. I submit the truly weird perspective is the one that insists it need not consider common perspectives that differ from its own. I fully understand that of the world's 4 billion people, fully hundreds of millions of them hate the United States and everything we stand for. It's common. So long as they remain non-violent, all's well. When they decide to try to kill American civilians, we need to deny them the opportunity. It just doesn't matter what their beef is. Not because their beef is known a priori to be without merit. We need to deny them the opportunity because if we try to appease them, we encourage more killing of American civilians. Basically, there exist an infinite supply of people with an anti-American beef. We can't make them all happy. We can't pay them all off. We can't stay out of their way. If they behave in a civilized manner, we should treat them as peers, with respect. When they're actively trying to kill us, we need to kill them first. What I'm saying is the weird perspective thing is just incorrect. Especially since your subsequent argument shows you aren't even trying to communicate. The whole thing is a fake argument. And I'm puncturing fake arguments. That done, you can carry on.
Add to this the mystifying tricknology of dopamine distraction theatre which exists to keep the weirdo's feeble attention off of the real issue at hand and voila! In his recently published book "Twilight in the Desert: The Coming Saudi Oil Shock and the World Economy," author Matthew Simmons argues that Saudi Arabia will be unable to maintain its current level of oil production, with large-economic repercussions. Simmons also examines the political and social climate of the nation and its desire to conceal the potential shortfalls from global consumers. The fact that the weirdest {because so very solipsistic} perspective in the world is incapable of questioning itself - while frustrating - can rather easily be understood by the vigilant black man. We have lifetimes of experience with understanding this perspective. The dead giveaway of the weird is the paradox of his ACTIVE AVOIDANCE of the study of human nature and realpolitik. It is equivalent to his aversion to nekkididity. Genuine understanding - like jaybird nekkididity - is associated in the mind of the weird with the extremely unpleasant emotion of shame. The weird is deathly afraid of shameful nekkidness and consequently, he is genetically biased against knowledge of self and knowledge of realpolitik. Some of the weird can *seem* as if they understand, because, intellectually, with their forebrain word manipulations, they *do* understand. But down at the hindbrain level, where they really live and comprehend the world, there is no understanding at all. None. (How many times have you observed this P6?) The weird cannot comprehend their own incomprehension. Any attempt to get one of them to start to understand this problem, results in the equivalent of turning his eyes toward a bright light. The light hurts. The weird closes his eyes and turns away. If the light continues to shine, he begins to get angry. Every day, in every newspaper in this country, you can read about a weird man, usually between the ages of 35 and 55, who has killed his family, and then himself, because his marriage is on the rocks, his wife is going to divorce him, and take his children and home and life--as he knows it--away from him. Some men deal with this as best they can, without resorting to violence. But the weird men, more than you'd think, cannot accept this violation of their hindbrain's understanding of reality. They would rather kill, and die, than understand it. "Basically, there exist an infinite supply of people with an anti-American beef. We can't make them all happy. We can't pay them all off. We can't stay out of their way. If they behave in a civilized manner, we should treat them as peers, with respect. When they're actively trying to kill us, we need to kill them first." What's with all this "we" and "us" talk. I was born here (thanks to the kidnapping of my ancestors), but I don't support this shit. Often I think of my late father who enlisted in the Navy the day after Peal Harbor was attacked. He refused to be a mess steward (a Navy job designated for blacks) and was made a fireman aboard his ship. After retuning to the US (from the Pacific Theater of Operation where he served) he was still called nigger, and still had to challenge and confront an apartheid system that denied him basic human and civil rights. He never could reconcile the contradiction of his service to the US and its disservice to him. He was only 39 when he died. But, then again, he was probably luckier than some, considering the number of black GIs who were lynched after returning (some still in their uniforms). Also, al Queda, et. al., are behaving in a "civilized" manner. They kill indiscriminately for an ideology and to maintain or promote their way of life. Looking back across the bloody landscape of US history, that's exactly how and why the Euro invaders conquered and occupied this land from coast to coast. "If all weird perspective need to be taken seriously, we're beyond communication." Why do you believe that it is weird for an extremely large number of people worldwide who subscribe to Islam feel that the land that contains the holiest shrines in their religion should not have foreign troops from a non-believing nation stationed there? There are reasons why you might disagree with their perspective b ut why do you believe their perspective is weird? Osama bin Laden and his followers, for example, have not expressed the slightest complaint about our country having troops stationed in Germany, Japan or England. Why do you consider their feelings about American troops stationed in Arab lands weird? "If all weird perspective need to be taken seriously, we're beyond communication." Do you mean weird perspectives like believing that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction? By the way, al-Qaeda has been extremely clear in communicating what it is about our behavior that troubles them. They want us to get out of their countries, stop supporting corrupt leaders in Arab nations, e.g., the so-called Saudi royal family and stop giving the Palestinians a hard way to go every time they turn around. Sounds like a simple plan to me. "Basically, there exist an infinite supply of people with an anti-American beef. We can't make them all happy." Ah! See, the problem is that they don't want us to make them happy. They don't believe that Allah decreed that our role was to make them happy. They want us to leave them alone and to stop interfering in their internal affairs. How we fuel our SUVs just ain't their cross to bear. By the way, al-Qaeda has been extremely clear in communicating what it is about our behavior that troubles them. They want us to get out of their countries, stop supporting corrupt leaders in Arab nations, e.g., the so-called Saudi royal family and stop giving the Palestinians a hard way to go every time they turn around. Sounds like a simple plan to me. If there's some doubt, we should be extremely clear in communicating what it is about their behavior which troubles us. If they persist in that behavior, we should kill them and those who support them. That's the entire terror equation, it's definitely a simple plan. If they want to negotiate without the threat of violence, then we should listen and be reasonable. I'm no friend of the house of Saud.
... fully understand that of the world's 4 billion people ... Whoa. That's all.
"If they persist in that behavior, we should kill them and those who support them." Disaffected and angry Arabs have been clearly communicating their likes and dislikes about public policy issues to the West at least since the end of World War I and the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire. In the early 1930s when the citizens of the newly created state of Iraq began expressing their dislike of the puppet government the British had imposed upon them, the Brits responded by dropping bombs from airplanes on them. I guess the newly minted Iraqis were getting a bit cheeky and needed to be reminded of who was in charge. Years earlier when the Egyptians dared to challenge the Brits right to rule over a country that had been in existence for more than 3,000 years hundreds of them were mowed down with machine guns in the street. We have already been killing Arabs by the stadium load for many, many decades. I don't think that killing more of them is quite the solution that will allow us to persuade them not to plant bombs in our movie theatres or cafes. You believe that it will. You are more than welcome to take my place on the killin' floor.
Arabs shouldn't have to apologize
|
|
This site best viewed with a jaundiced eye
|
||
Wasn't much of the land that is now considered Israel emptied of Palestinians and Arabs? Maybe Jacoby wants to hang his hat on the phrase "the first modern, Western nation" in contradistinction to the forced relocation of the Palestinian people, which was done under the auspices of the United Nations, which was created and dominated by the United States and it victorious Western allies.