CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Anti-semitism Canary Choking
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Anti-semitism Canary Choking

post #1 of 55
Thread Starter 
Europe's oldest hatred revives

Violence in the Middle East is provoking a rise in anti-semitism across Europe, reports Ian Black

Friday April 26, 2002

Synagogues vandalised in France; a firebomb attack on a kosher deli in Brussels; assaults on Hasidic men in Germany; gravestones desecrated; swastikas daubed on Jewish schools; racial abuse in Manchester and the Netherlands: just examples of the incidents that add up to a worrying revival of Europe's oldest hatred.

Events like these have been almost a daily occurrence over the past month, and this week galvanised anxious community leaders from across the continent to hold emergency consultations about how to respond.

Terrible memories were stirred when police in Berlin - the site of the Nazis' infamous Kristallnacht pogrom in 1938 - advised Jews to avoid wearing skullcaps, Stars of David and other identifying objects.

The World Jewish Congress reported bluntly that it was seeing the biggest wave of anti-semitic attacks since the second world war. "There are Holocaust survivors who are telling their children: 'Look, this is exactly how it happened in the 1930s,'" warned its president, Avi Beker.

Alarmist? Perhaps. But the European Union was concerned enough to issue an unprecedented declaration condemning anti-semitism, racism and xenophobia, pointing out that such views were contrary to the values and beliefs on which the EU - itself a response to fascism and Auschwitz - was founded.

Thursday's statement was prompted directly by the rising number of anti-Jewish attacks linked to the escalation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

It was planned before the startling success of Jean-Marie Le Pen, leader of France's far-right National Front, in the first round of his country's presidential elections.

But the performance of a man who once dismissed the gas chambers as a "detail of history" only added to the feeling that Jews living in the most tolerant and multi-cultural societies they have ever known were once again facing threats and fears long dismissed as a nightmare from Europe's dark age - albeit from a new direction.

France alone, whose 600,000 Jews make up the biggest community outside the US and Israel, chalked up hundreds of incidents over the past year. Perhaps the most shocking was the one when hooded men shouted "Death to Jews" at a soccer team in suburban Paris.

But the phenomenon spread wider after March 29, when the Israeli army went on the offensive in the West Bank against the spate of attacks by Palestinian suicide bombers, the most lethal of which killed 28 Israelis as they sat down to their Passover meal.

"At a time of acute international tension, especially in the Middle East, it is vital to preserve the spirit of harmony, entente and inter-cultural respect within our societies," the EU urged, pledging concrete measures to tackle extremism.

European governments are right to be worried: for the furies spawned by the Arab-Israeli conflict are reaching their own streets, vicious little sideshows in the "war of civilisation" many fear will be the deadly legacy of the September 11 attacks on the US.

Leaders of France's five million Muslims have warned against stigmatising an entire community, condemned attacks on Jews and called for peaceful protests in solidarity with the Palestinians.

But it is widely believed that many of the culprits are indeed angry, alienated young Muslims, often of North African origin, venting their frustration on easy targets. And horrified, of course, by the success of Le Pen. Elsewhere, police have speculated about the possible involvement of neo-Nazi groups, especially around April 20, Hitler's birthday.

Middle Eastern politics and ancient prejudice make for a volatile mix. Americans and Israelis have blamed EU governments for showing bias by maintaining support for the Palestinian leader, Yasser Arafat, who is dismissed by Ariel Sharon's government as a terrorist.

European political and media outrage has focused intensely on events in the Jenin refugee camp, where Israel has rebutted allegations of a massacre and warned of a dangerous mood of "delegitimation" of the Jewish state.

Exchanges have been heated and hostile: when Terje Larsen, the Norwegian UN envoy, said he was shocked by what happened in Jenin, an Israeli spokesman snapped back that he would not take lessons in morality from the country that produced Vidkun Quisling, who led Norway's wartime collaborationist regime.

Shimon Peres, Israel's normally mild-mannered foreign minister, told EU colleagues in Valencia that he saw a link between attacks on synagogues and the union's tilt towards the Palestinians. "You must understand this," he said. "The issue is very sensitive in Israel ... We ask for memory."

Europeans dismiss such uncomfortable connections. "Please don't confuse anti-semitism with legitimate criticism of policies of the current Israeli government," was the confident retort of the Spanish foreign minister Josep Pique. "It is ludicrous to imply that any criticism of the way the Israeli government conducts policy reflects hostility to Israel," the EU's British external affairs commissioner Chris Patten, told Guardian Unlimited. "That sort of argument is beneath contempt."

But it is hard to deny that there is a murky grey area between questioning Israeli policy and the insensitive use of words and images that suggest old-fashioned hatred of Jews.

The liberal Italian daily La Stampa, for example, depicted a baby Jesus looking up from the manger at an Israeli tank, saying, "Don't tell me they want to kill me again." In Denmark, a Lutheran bishop delivered a sermon comparing Sharon's policies toward the Palestinians to those of King Herod, who ordered the slaughter of all male children under the age of two - in the same Bethlehem under siege by the Israelis today.

And in Edinburgh, an Episcopalian clergyman was forced to defend a mural showing a crucified Jesus flanked by Roman soldiers - and modern-day Israeli troops. It was not anti-semitic, he insisted, but designed to make his congregation think about current conflicts.

Highly emotive issues are in play here so it is important to be clear about what is at stake. Israelis and Palestinians desperately need to make peace. There is no alternative. Jews and Israelis are not the same, but the links between them are strong.

Many European Jews are deeply dismayed by what is happening and dislike Sharon. But they also know that even a more doveish Israeli government could not ignore the ghastly suicide bombings in its restaurants, supermarkets and streets.

Many Muslims identify with Palestinians, who deserve justice after so long. But all would do well to remember this: Europe's terrible past - just like the past of the Middle East- is not yet another country

- Guardian
post #2 of 55
"Isreali brutality"?
post #3 of 55
post #4 of 55
Ok, if the things that happened in Jenin turn out to be true -which there are just as many allegations of Palestinians bringing bodies in from other places, storage of bodies etc- then what? Completely write off two thousand years of oppression because the Isrealis of the modern day have been asserting their right to exist?

If the level of "atrocities" -an extremely overused word- is as bad as the pro-Palestinian media would have you believe then the Isrealis genuinely have something to answer for.

But in the face of the recent call for "globalization of the Intefada" I feel the level of atrocity will be minimal on the part of the Isrealis and higher on the part of those who want the Isrealis dead.

But who's counting, right?
post #5 of 55
post #6 of 55
<a href="http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/119/nation/Claims_of_massacre_go_unsupported_by_Palestinian_f ightersP.shtml" target="_blank">But...</a>
Quote:
Claims of massacre go unsupported by Palestinian fighters

By Charles A. Radin, Globe Staff and Dan Ephron, Globe Correspondent, 4/29/2002

JENIN, West Bank - Palestinian Authority allegations that a large-scale massacre of civilians was committed by Israeli troops during their invasion of the refugee camp here appear to be crumbling under the weight of eyewitness accounts from Palestinian fighters who participated in the battle and camp residents who remained in their homes until the final hours of the fighting.

In interviews yesterday with teenage fighters, a leader of Islamic Jihad, an elderly man whose home was at the center of the fighting, and other Palestinian residents, all of whom were in the camp during the battle, none reported seeing large numbers of civilians killed. All said they were allowed to surrender or evacuate when they were ready to do so, though some reported being mistreated while in Israeli detention.

Palestinian Authority leaders have asserted that more than 500 people, mostly women and children, were killed in the camp and that many of the dead were buried by Israeli forces in mass graves. Investigators for Amnesty International said that Israel failed to provide safe passage from the camp to noncombatants.

The Palestinian allegations led to the creation of a UN fact-finding team for Jenin, but Israel yesterday barred the team from arriving amid allegations of an anti-Israel bias.

Israel says that those Palestinians killed in the Jenin battle were almost all fighters, that none were buried in mass graves, and that ample chance was given to fighters to surrender and for civilians to leave. It initially estimated the death toll at 100 to 200, and has since revised that toll downward to 50.

Meanwhile, a British military adviser to Amnesty, Reserve Major David Holley, was quoted yesterday by Reuters news service as dismissing the Palestinian allegations of a massacre and predicting that no evidence would be found to substantiate them.

Jamal al-Shati, who was appointed by Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat to document events at the camp, said last night that 52 deaths have been documented, including those of three women and five children under 14. He asserts that the Israelis secretly removed bodies from the battleground.

Munir Arsam, 15, a member of Islamic Jihad, said that during the siege, which began April 3 and ended around April 11, he did scouting work for older militants, threw homemade pipe bombs, and helped with ambushes of Israeli troops. He said he was one of 50 boys, divided into groups of 10 by militant leaders, who were assigned these tasks.

In contrast with allegations by some Palestinians and Amnesty investigators, Arsam said women and children were able to evacuate the camp before the climactic battle began. Even at the height of the struggle, fighters were able to put down their weapons and surrender, he said, though he also said, as did the Amnesty investigators, that those who surrendered were beaten and otherwise mistreated while in detention.

Arsam said he knew of five fighters in houses bulldozed by the Israelis, at least two of whom were wounded and screaming for help when the bulldozers came. ''The men in the tanks and bulldozers could not hear them,'' he said.

He said he saw Sheik Ri'ad Abu Abd, 57, of Tulkarem, one of the Palestinian heroes of the battle, wounded with a bullet in the leg near the end of the fighting, and asked him if he wanted to surrender.

''He said `No, I want to die, I want to fight and die,' and a while later that house was bulldozed,'' Arsam said. On the last day of the battle, with no ammunition left, Arsam buried the weapon he had acquired during the fighting and surrendered.

''They destroyed all the houses in Hawashin,'' he said, describing a now-demolished neighborhood in the camp. ''I was in the last house, and they called out, `Surrender or we will fire at you.' There were only two of us, so we left, and they destroyed the house.'' He said the Israeli soldiers held him for four days, frequently beating and kicking him to make him confess to membership in Hamas or Islamic Jihad, then released him.

Asked if he felt any massacre had occurred, Arsam said: ''We killed them and they killed us, but we were victorious.''

Abdel Rahman Sa'adi, 14, another Islamic Jihad grenade-thrower, said he was one of a group of 11 adults and seven young men who surrendered upon Israeli demand. He said they were confined in a courtyard near the camp to which the Israeli troops brought dozens of other men and women.

''They told all the small kids to just leave, and they let all the women go after they checked their bags,'' said Sa'adi, who has braces and was wearing a baseball cap. ''None of them were kept for questioning.''

''Of course the Palestinians won'' this battle, he said, because ''they did not shake our morale. This was a massacre of the Jews, not of us.''

Prompted by bystanders, he revised his statement. ''I think there was a massacre here - maybe 100 people,'' he said.

Khalid Mohammed Taleb, 70, lay on a concrete slab from his ruined house, shaded by a makeshift plastic awning, watching with a blank expression as people clambered over the rubble yesterday and buried mines and grenades occasionally exploded.

''I come every day,'' he said. ''I lived here 50 years.''

Taleb and his extended family of 11 people stayed in the camp rather than evacuating because ''we thought it would be like the first invasion, they would make an incursion and leave. I used to say I wouldn't leave even if they buried me in this house, but I saw the bulldozers killing people and I left.''

That was around midnight, on the day before the battle ended.

Taleb said he raised a white flag and walked at the front of a group of 20 people - his own family and those of two neighbors. The destruction of his house and the surrounding buildings occurred after the civilians left, he said, when only fighters remained.

He said several times that no civilians were killed, but after repeated questioning from reporters and bystanders, he said: ''Well, maybe one or two. It was a big battle.'' Was it a massacre? ''Perhaps,'' he said. ''Both sides lost.''

An Islamic Jihad leader, who insisted on anonymity, said he was wounded as the battle drew to a close, and crawled 300 yards to where other fighters were gathered.

''There were 35 of us, and they were bringing down houses on us, so we surrendered,'' he said. Israeli soldiers ''threw me on the garbage near the hospital at noon'' on the last day of the battle, ''and I remained there until 1 a.m.'' The Israelis did not attempt to confine or question him, and he returned to the camp Saturday, he said.

All the fighters said that the Israelis failed to wipe out the militant leadership in the camp, which long has been known as an Islamic Jihad stronghold.

''Of course we are reorganizing,'' said the Islamic Jihad leader, who walked with a cane and was thronged by comrades near the wreckage. ''I don't know what is the plan, what is the strategy, but people are full of hatred.''

Arsam, the 15-year-old fighter, said leaders of Islamic Jihad and other factions were taking new groups of youngsters to a hill near Jenin every day for military training, teaching them to fire automatic weapons and to make bombs.

A spokesman for the Israeli army asserted, meanwhile, that Palestinians were moving bodies of people not killed in the Jenin fighting into graveyards around the camp ''to score points with the UN committee due to arrive to investigate the happenings in the Jenin refugee camp.'' The military said this charge was based on information received from Israeli intelligence agencies, and refused to elaborate.

This story ran on page A1 of the Boston Globe on 4/29/2002.
© Copyright 2002 Globe Newspaper Company.
post #7 of 55
Quote:
devilf:
Quote:
Kronos:
"Isreali brutality"?
<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/middle_east/newsid_1937000/1937048.stm" target="_blank">http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/
middle_east/newsid_1937000/1937048 .stm</a>
Riiiigghhhttt...same people that said that the al-queda prisoners were being treated unhumanely [sp?].

Not a good source and bad credebility...

post #8 of 55
Thread Starter 
The BBC is a solid, publicly held company. They are as credible an organisation as any news source can be.

Kronos, I think you're mis-reading the articles I'm posting. Or looking for something that isn't there. The "Israeli Brutality" quotations are baffelling me.
post #9 of 55
As I have previously stated...I find it fairly incredible the epithet "brutal" being placed anywhere near the Isrealis -and to a greater degree, the Jews. These are people who have had the most horrendous atrocities committed against them as a race yet they stand alone surrounded by those who still want them dead.

Even a columnist in the New York Times recently characterized what the Isrealis have been doing as "retaliation" and not aggression.

This is a race of people against whom a Government tried to commit genocide. This is a race of people that at least a quarter of the planet wants to see dead. This is a race of people who have suffered unarmed on their knees against hatred for two millenia.

And now that they are becoming strong, now that they have finally said enough is enough they get tagged with the characterization of "brutal".

HAH!
post #10 of 55
And the reason I re-quoted the "Isreali Brutality" line here was to give a little contrast or maybe a cynical look at how they are being characterized even in the face of reignited brutality against them in the European Union...whatever that is.
post #11 of 55
Quote:
Adam Warren
[QB]The BBC is a solid, publicly held company. They are as credible an organisation as any news source can be.
[QB]
actually, it's not the BBC I'm refering to, its Prof Derrick Pounder (who is referred to).
post #12 of 55
Kronos, what does the past 2000 years have to do with anything? What does it especially have to do with the Palestinians?

Your argument here is pretty close to the argument that some people have for slavery reparations. But for some reason you have no respect for the hundreds of years of oppression blacks have faced. Interesting to see what your heirarchy of racial preference is.
post #13 of 55
Thread Starter 
Quote:
nelson
Riiiigghhhttt...same people that said that the al-queda prisoners were being treated unhumanely [sp?].

Not a good source and bad credebility...
Your use of the plural may explain my confusion.
post #14 of 55
Thread Starter 
Kronos, as Mr. Beaks stated in the other thread, the writer of that article was using a 'subvertive' tone. The Globe and Mail article was actually critical of people using terms such as "Israeli Brutality," and suggested the events in Jenin were being blown out of proportion. Thus your quote became somewhat questionable, as it is completely out of context with the article.

As for your premise, it is possible to criticise Israel and not be anti-semetic, or daft. If this criticism entails using the word brutal, it is hardly invalid because whatever atrocities Jews have faced in the past.
post #15 of 55
Ok, I'll bite: Who here said anything to anyone about reparations of any sort?

That's a convoluted statement at best...and another whole argument that isn't appropriate for this particular exercise.

And contrary to what you think you have no idea what my racial ideals or whatever are. You keep telling everyone I'm a racist. How dare you? You see, this is what the problem is with people such as yourself. You couch every argument in terms of racism. Then you draw people into "defending" themselves on the basis of an accused or perceived racism on the part of the accused.

And now that I've commented I have succumed to this tangent, thereby ruining this thread.

Also, the beautiful black woman I met and gave my number to this morning at a local Rite-Aid store -true story- would probably dispute your claims that I am racist.

And Devin, you fail to see the picture: Calling the Jews brutal is what my point was that you didn't get. They have been the victims of ultimate brutality for 2000 years. And once they stand up to the World they get called brutal. I don't get that. I don't get that on any basis...except that the World is racist in wanting them dead.

My God man! A huge part of the World has worked and organized their people for generations toward the systematic extermination of the Jews and you seem to defend the accusation of Isreali brutality or the tagging of the term brutal against them as being correct. Don't you see?
post #16 of 55
You're right - a child who is sexually abused can't sexually abuse others.
post #17 of 55
BTW - plenty of slave owners had sex with black women.
post #18 of 55
That was out of bounds.
post #19 of 55
Your desire to fuck black women doesn't make you some kind of ambassador to the races.
post #20 of 55
Why do you do this?
post #21 of 55
Thread Starter 
Devin, tone down the rhetoric. One can hardly achieves an end with such means.
post #22 of 55
My rhetoric? I find the idea that someone uses their sexual interests as proof that they are not racist ludicrous.

And I think that my abuse analogy is exactly correct in this case.
post #23 of 55
Who said anything about sexual interest? I met a new friend. I gave my business number not even my personal one.

And yes, your sexual abuse analogy is indeed valid...and not germane to this exercise in futility.

post #24 of 55
Oh, and just because you label someone racist does not indeed make them racist.
post #25 of 55
Thread Starter 
Quote:
devilf:
My rhetoric? I find the idea that someone uses their sexual interests as proof that they are not racist ludicrous.

And I think that my abuse analogy is exactly correct in this case.
It may be, however, using a less inflamitory tone to raise this point would be wonderfull for the health of this forum.
post #26 of 55
Ugh.

Before this degenerates further, let's look at this in unheated terms.

Kronos suggests that there's an inherent silliness in anyone claiming that the Israelis are "brutal" for standing up for themselves, due to generations of Jews being brutally slaughtered.

I guess my stance on this would be dictated on how much the Palestinians were truly oppressed under the Israelis and whether this was truly unwarranted.

Devin's comparison to slavery reparations is somewhat valid, if we're going to take into consideration the entire history of the Jews. If we're going to support the Jews based only on past atrocities committed upon them, I think the same holds true for American blacks.

Half my family is Jewish, and I still have no problem admitting that both the Israelis and Palestinians are being unreasonable at times, history of oppression or not.
post #27 of 55
I'm only talking about the micro-fine characterization of the Jews as brutal. It seems laughable considering.

I have yet to say they may not have been. However: The eveidence is sketchy at best regarding the recent allegations agains them.

They were indeed going house-to-house.
They did indeed kill a number of Palestinians.
They have indeed used violent means to acheive their current ends.

They went house-to-house why? In order to not wholesale kill "innocents". You won't find a more compassionate people with regard to this. The Isrealis have been brutalized over their history. Do you really think that they want to be seen as brutal themselves? No. Therefore they go house-to-house in order to not kill those who are non-combatants...even though those apparent non-combatants could come back with a suicide bomb tomorrow...
post #28 of 55
Quote:
DaveB:


Devin's comparison to slavery reparations is somewhat valid, if we're going to take into consideration the entire history of the Jews. If we're going to support the Jews based only on past atrocities committed upon them, I think the same holds true for American blacks.
t.
But the problem is that this thread is not about slavery reparations (as much as Devn would like it to be).

Horray for Devin, always derailing the issue at hand.
post #29 of 55
Well, I think Devin was calling for a sort of ethical consistency, and I think that's important in determining what's "right" in these situations.

Compares and contrasts are all we have to go by in determining the rights and wrongs of the situation at hand.

The calls of "racism" were absolutely unwarranted, I think, but the comparison of the two situations wasn't out of left field, since history was brought up as an important point.

However...

Good post, Kronos. I think that clarified your position a little better by including that bit about the modern-day Israelis not wanting to be brutal based on the history. That makes a stronger case for their side than history taken on its own merits does.
post #30 of 55
Devin, like Adam said, can you find some other way to make your point instead of personally attacking and mudflinging?
post #31 of 55
I imagine it's possible. I don't see much of a reason, though.

post #32 of 55
I think the main problem in comparing this to slavery is that, in the United States, slavery has been abolished. If slavery was still going srong, and one day the slaves decided to rise up and kill their masters in an effort to be free, I wouldn't hold it against them.
post #33 of 55
I don't think genocide is allowed.

The point is that using past history to justify present actions is fine, as long as you are going to be consistant about it.
post #34 of 55
I think it's the present actions against them which are justification for Isreali action.
post #35 of 55
I'd agree that genocide should not be allowed. But has there been real evidence to support that genocide, or the attempting of such, is taking place? I'm no expert on the matter, so I'm asking this as a real question. It doesn't seem to me like there is. Just seems like a war, which is not necessarily genocidal.

I saw going to say "inherantly," but I'm not sure about my spelling. I think I spelled it wrong, didn't I? "Inherently?" I think the second.
post #36 of 55
Genocide is the systematic or attempted systematic elimination of a species or race.

I don't believe for the purposes of this discussion that the Isrealis can be accused of doing such a thing.

post #37 of 55
Quote:
Kronos:
I think it's the present actions against them which are justification for Isreali action.
I agree with you on that point, even though I question the long-term effectiveness of this most recent offensive, especially when the Israelis still persist in pushing forward with the settlements (and don't get me started on what a headache it's going to be when/if the U.S. gets around to prodding the Israelis to do away with these heavily entrenched camps).

Another thing that drives me nuts in the Israeli/Palestinian debate: do the Palestinians expect the Israelis to *not* respond in a "brutal" manner when they're killing innocent civilians? Do they expect them to wave a white flag when they force them into a posture of self-defense?

Another question, and this one's purely left-field, but I saw Tom Friedman bring it up in the NY Times a few weeks back: what if the Palestinians had settled upon non-violent resistance to combat past Israeli incursions?
post #38 of 55
Quote:
Another question, and this one's purely left-field, but I saw Tom Friedman bring it up in the NY Times a few weeks back: what if the Palestinians had settled upon non-violent resistance to combat past Israeli incursions?
Does the name Ghandi mean anything?
post #39 of 55
Utterly facetious comparison. The British empire was waning when Ghandi was doing his peaceful protest.
post #40 of 55
Would it not be better if the Palestinians had not begun bombing and terrorism?
post #41 of 55
There would be no palestinians.
post #42 of 55
Quote:
Seahawk®:
Devin, like Adam said, can you find some other way to make your point instead of personally attacking and mudflinging?
remember the tale about the duck & the scorpion?

It's his nature.
post #43 of 55
Quote:
devilf:
There would be no palestinians.
I see you're not too fond of non-violent protesting, eh?
post #44 of 55
Quote:
There would be no palestinians
That's simply not true. The people there who now call themselves Palestinian were -and still are- living and working among the Jews. The refugee settlements were originally created after the Isrealis were attacked by four different countries in 1967.

The Jews have never practiced anything resembling genocide.

How can you possible support such blatantly false statements? There never has been a race of people known as Palestians.

post #45 of 55
There would be a jewish state that would be more like segregated south africa than anything today.

what you people seem to not be able to understand is that one can disagree with the israelis and not be an anti-semite or pro-terrorism.

and nelson, it isn't just my nature. it's funny. and you people respond so well.
post #46 of 55
Quote:
what you people seem to not be able to understand is that one can disagree with the israelis and not be an anti-semite or pro-terrorism.
On this...agreement.
post #47 of 55
[quote]Clarence Beaks:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kronos:
[qb]
Another question, and this one's purely left-field, but I saw Tom Friedman bring it up in the NY Times a few weeks back: what if the Palestinians had settled upon non-violent resistance to combat past Israeli incursions?
I love that article. It nails it right on the spot.

<a href="http://college3.nytimes.com/guests/articles/2002/03/06/904439.xml" target="_blank">http://college3.nytimes.com/guests/articles/2002/03/06/904439.xml</a>

********************************************
"This is not to say that U.S. policy is blameless. We do bad things sometimes. But why is it that only Muslims react to our bad policies with suicidal terrorism, not Mexicans or Chinese? Is it because Arab-Muslim conspiracy theories state that Jews could not be so strong on their own — therefore the only reason Israel could be strong, and Muslims weak, is because the U.S. created and supports Israel?

The Muslim world needs to take an honest look at this rage. Look what it has done to Palestinian society — where the flower of Palestinian youth now celebrate suicide against Jews as a source of dignity. That is so bad. Yes, there is an Israeli occupation, and that occupation has been hugely distorting of Palestinian life. But the fact is this: If Palestinians had said, "We are going to oppose the Israeli occupation, with nonviolent resistance, as if we had no other options, and we are going to build a Palestinian society, schools and economy, as if we had no occupation" — they would have had a quality state a long time ago. Instead they have let the occupation define their whole movement and become Yasir Arafat's excuse for not building jobs and democracy. "

***********************************
post #48 of 55
Quote:
devilf
[QB]
what you people seem to not be able to understand is that one can disagree with the israelis and not be an anti-semite or pro-terrorism.

QB]
Just like someone could say "nig*er, sp*c, d*go, w*p, m*ck, and r*ghead" and not be rascist, right?
post #49 of 55
Quote:
Kronos:
Would it not be better if the Palestinians had not begun bombing and terrorism?
Quote:
devilf:
There would be no palestinians
Dev, while I definitely disagree with your views on this issue, I always appreciated your input and thought I enjoyed discussing it with you. But your above statement proves to me that you really don't know what you're talking about. I'm pretty sure you developed your point of view on the issue, then decided to try to back it up however you could, even if that involved spouting entirely invalid and irrational opinions and ideas like this one. In response to your later post, your take on the issue doesn't lead me to believe you're an anti-semite or pro-terrorism in the least. I just think you're misled, and misleading yourself if you really believe what your previous statement suggests you mean.

Correct me if I'm wrong: You think that if the Palestinians had, instead of spending 50+ years protesting against the Israelis with terrorism, protested peacefully ala MLK or Ghandi, they would be a)wiped out, b)forced to live in reservations or camps, or c)forced to leave the country? I really don't know what you meant, the absurdity of your proposition just confuses my vision of your views so much that I can't tell how much more absurd they could be.
post #50 of 55
[quote] posted 05-01-2002 05:44 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Clarence Beaks:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kronos:
[qb]
Another question, and this one's purely left-field, but I saw Tom Friedman bring it up in the NY Times a few weeks back: what if the Palestinians had settled upon non-violent resistance to combat past Israeli incursions?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I love that article. It nails it right on the spot.

<a href="http://college3.nytimes.com/guests/articles/2002/03/06/904439.xml" target="_blank">http://college3.nytimes.com/guests/articles/2002/03/06/904439.xml</a>

********************************************
"This is not to say that U.S. policy is blameless. We do bad things sometimes. But why is it that only Muslims react to our bad policies with suicidal terrorism, not Mexicans or Chinese? Is it because Arab-Muslim conspiracy theories state that Jews could not be so strong on their own — therefore the only reason Israel could be strong, and Muslims weak, is because the U.S. created and supports Israel?

The Muslim world needs to take an honest look at this rage. Look what it has done to Palestinian society — where the flower of Palestinian youth now celebrate suicide against Jews as a source of dignity. That is so bad. Yes, there is an Israeli occupation, and that occupation has been hugely distorting of Palestinian life. But the fact is this: If Palestinians had said, "We are going to oppose the Israeli occupation, with nonviolent resistance, as if we had no other options, and we are going to build a Palestinian society, schools and economy, as if we had no occupation" — they would have had a quality state a long time ago. Instead they have let the occupation define their whole movement and become Yasir Arafat's excuse for not building jobs and democracy. "
You see, that makes just far too much sense. If the Palestinian people had done this, and if the Isrealis had committed an unprovoked attack such as that in Jenin, then World Opinion would be so far away from support of Isreal as to make them a real pariah...and a political liability.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Anti-semitism Canary Choking