Ten years without Yitzhak Rabin

[webfusion]

Again, I notice that nobody took my challenge to illustrate a "whitewashed Israeli misdeed" -- I have Orwell on ignore, so if he attempts to do that, someone should let me know in a PM, so I may have an opportunity to read something of his that resembles a cogent reply.

 

[Orwell]

On this forum, I've always defended Israel to those that would unfairly vilify her.

It, Mycroft, not her. It's a country, a thing.

 

[Orwell]

Again, I notice that nobody took my challenge to illustrate a "whitewashed Israeli misdeed" -- I have Orwell on ignore, so if he attempts to do that, someone should let me know in a PM, so I may have an opportunity to read something of his that resembles a cogent reply.

Here's something I posted in the past, and that you and others ignored back then.

I think a few people here need to be reminded of a few basic facts regarding Israel's role in this mess. Israel is as much a victim of extremism as it is a perpetrator of abuses. Both sides are guilty of a lot of crap, there are no knights in shinning armour here.

Here's the Human Rights Watch report on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict for 2004: http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/01/13/isrlpa9806.htm

Here's the Amnesty International report for 2005: http://web.amnesty.org/report2005/isr-summary-eng

I can fish for older reports if you want me to...

 

[Orwell]

So, Mycroft, am I "unfairly vilifying" Israel? Why? For not buying into this Israel the eternal victim hokum?

I said it once, I'll say it once again: Israel is as much a victim of extremism as it is a perpetrator of abuses. Both sides are guilty of a lot of crap, there are no knights in shinning armour here.

 

[Orwell]

Suuuuuuuuure. When you unfairly criticize israel while ignoring the rest of the middle east, that's just because you care about its freedoms and have a relatively high view of them. And when you beat your wife, that just proves you love her.

Wait--not really. That's just a post-hoc, unconvincing excuse by the israel-basher (or wife-beater) that tries to explain the blatant double standard in his behavior, namely, treating the country (or woman) he "cares" or "appreciates" or "loves" so much so much worse than he treats everybody else. And what better way to "answer" the criticism that your behavior shows you hate israel (or your wife) than by a clever rhetorical argument which claims to show that unfairly bashing israel far more than anybody else, or your wife's head far more than anybody else's head, just "proves" you "really" care?

As this explanation that doesn't require any modification of one's blatant double standard, it's pretty darn popular by the wife-beaters or israel-bashers. But it's still BS. How about changing your double standard instead of finding some clever argument to justify it, eh, Orwell?

Double standards? What double standard? You accusing me of double standards?!

What a load of horse manure! What an hypocrite you are!

And bravoooo, that wife beating crap and hating Israel, boy, that's wicked!

Gee, I wonder how much longer 'till someone calls me an anti-Semite?

 

[Orwell]

I really encourage you jokers to spend some time reading this:

http://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/nationalism/english/e_nat

Maybe you could learn a thing or two.

 

[Mycroft]

I really encourage you jokers to spend some time reading this:

http://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/nationalism/english/e_nat

Maybe you could learn a thing or two.

That's an intresting essay, Orwell. Is that your way of criticizing the Nationalistic ambitions of the Palestinians?

What is your opinion of Palestinian Nationalism in light of the essay?

 

[Orwell]

That's an intresting essay, Orwell. Is that your way of criticizing the Nationalistic ambitions of the Palestinians?

What is your opinion of Palestinian Nationalism in light of the essay?

By ‘nationalism’ I mean first of all the habit of assuming that human beings can be classified like insects and that whole blocks of millions or tens of millions of people can be confidently labelled ‘good’ or ‘bad’(1). But secondly — and this is much more important — I mean the habit of identifying oneself with a single nation or other unit, placing it beyond good and evil and recognising no other duty than that of advancing its interests. Nationalism is not to be confused with patriotism. Both words are normally used in so vague a way that any definition is liable to be challenged, but one must draw a distinction between them, since two different and even opposing ideas are involved. By ‘patriotism’ I mean devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the world but has no wish to force on other people. Patriotism is of its nature defensive, both militarily and culturally. Nationalism, on the other hand, is inseparable from the desire for power. The abiding purpose of every nationalist is to secure more power and more prestige, not for himself but for the nation or other unit in which he has chosen to sink his own individuality.

Note that Orwell distinguishes between nationalism and patriotism.
If we stick to Orwell's definition of nationalism, then I think that all nationalism is bad, and that goes for everyone, palestinians, israelis, americans, canadians...

 

[Mycroft]

It, Mycroft, not her. It's a country, a thing.

Countries, like ships, may be referred to by the feminine personal pronoun. For example, when Irving Berlin wrote ”God Bless America”, his lyrics went:

While the storm clouds gather far across the sea,
Let us swear allegiance to a land that's free,
Let us all be grateful for a land so fair,
As we raise our voices in a solemn prayer. "

God Bless America,
Land that I love.
Stand beside her, and guide her
Thru the night with a light from above.
From the mountains, to the prairies,
To the oceans, white with foam
God bless America, My home sweet home.

Get it?

So, Mycroft, am I "unfairly vilifying" Israel? Why? For not buying into this Israel the eternal victim hokum?

I said it once, I'll say it once again: Israel is as much a victim of extremism as it is a perpetrator of abuses. Both sides are guilty of a lot of crap, there are no knights in shinning armour here.

That’s a good question, are you? Certainly what Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch says is something we should pay attention to, but for this discussion I’m more concerned with the straw-men arguments you’re building with these statements.

For example, who exactly is selling this “Israel the eternal victim hokum”? Have I, Zenity-Nadie, Skeptic, Cleopatra or Webfusion ever said Israel is an eternal victim? Have any of us made claims about knights in shining armor? You say, “both sides are guilty of a lot of crap” but does that mean any of us are wrong in defending any specific action?

 

[kimiko]

The epilogue of Bitter Scent by Michael Bar-Zohar:

One night in October 1995 Jean Frydman watched a television news broadcast in his Savyon home. The main item was a Jewish right-wing rally in Jerusalem, protesting Itzhak Rabin's peace initiative. The camera focused on some young activists who carried signs saying: "Rabin traitor" and "Rabin murderer." Some of them displayed posters representing Rabin in SS uniform.

Frydman was sickened. The supporters of the peace process, he thought, couldn't let this wave of hatred sweep Israel's streets and squares. They had to stand up and be counted. He called several of his friends and persuaded them to organize a huge rally in support of peace. He then met with Itzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres, and described his idea. The prime minister and the minister of foreign affairs reluctantly agreed. They were not convinced that Israel's silent majority would come to the rally, but decided to go along.

Jean Frydman and the former mayor of Tel Aviv, who organized the peace rally, had no doubt it would be a success. The rally was scheduled for Saturday, November 4, 1995. That night a huge crowd filled the Kings of Israel Square in Tel Aviv. Young people from all over the country, Jews and Arabs, displayed signs and slogans supporting the peace process, sang along with the famous singers performing on the podium, and cheered Rabin and Peres when they spoke of their dream of a peaceful Middle East. The rally was a tremendous success. Frydman and ex-mayor Lahat were on the podium, and were warmly thanked by several of the speakers for their initiative.

As the rally ended, Rabin and Peres went down the steps leading from the podium to the parking lot. Rabin suddenly turned back and returned to the podium. He hugged Jean Frydman. "Thank you, Jean," the prime minister said, "for giving me the two happiest hours of my life."

Less than a minute later he was shot in the back by a right-wing assassin.

In deep sorrow Frydman followed the prime minister's car to Tel Aviv's Ichilov Hospital, where he was told that Rabin had died.

Frydman didn't know how he would face Leah Rabin, the prime minister's widow. After all, the rally at which her husband died had been his idea. But when Leah Rabin saw him, she embraced him and said, "Jean, thanks to you Itzhak died a happy man."

 

[Mycroft]

Note that Orwell distinguishes between nationalism and patriotism.
If we stick to Orwell's definition of nationalism, then I think that all nationalism is bad, and that goes for everyone, palestinians, israelis, americans, canadians...

You don't answer my question.

What is your opinion of Palestinian Nationalism in light of the essay?

 

[Orwell]

You don't answer my question.

What is your opinion of Palestinian Nationalism in light of the essay?

Yes, I did answer your question. Read the answer and think about it. if you don't understand it, well too bad. Your question, by the way, was pretty much irrelevant to the subject, and I'll tell you why: even nationalist bungholes have human rights.

 

[Orwell]

Countries, like ships, may be referred to by the feminine personal pronoun. For example, when Irving Berlin wrote ”God Bless America”, his lyrics went:

While the storm clouds gather far across the sea,
Let us swear allegiance to a land that's free,
Let us all be grateful for a land so fair,
As we raise our voices in a solemn prayer. "

God Bless America,
Land that I love.
Stand beside her, and guide her
Thru the night with a light from above.
From the mountains, to the prairies,
To the oceans, white with foam
God bless America, My home sweet home.

Get it?

No I don't, and I don't want to. Countries are things, Mycroft, I just wanted to remind you of that.

That’s a good question, are you? Certainly what Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch says is something we should pay attention to, but for this discussion I’m more concerned with the straw-men arguments you’re building with these statements.

For example, who exactly is selling this “Israel the eternal victim hokum”? Have I, Zenity-Nadie, Skeptic, Cleopatra or Webfusion ever said Israel is an eternal victim? Have any of us made claims about knights in shining armor? You say, “both sides are guilty of a lot of crap” but does that mean any of us are wrong in defending any specific action?

Spin, spin, spin, avoiding the issue, spin, spin... Here's the issue: whenever someone criticises Israel, you defend it, even if the critic is legitimate and just.

 

[CapelDodger]

Yossi Alpher's article from Bitterlemons covers me completely. I find amazing though how many Israelis share the same feelings regarding the famous handshake of Rabin-Arafat and felt Rabin's pain that was obvious all over his face.

More later.

A few points from Yossi Alpher's piece :

From the perspective of a year's distance, Arafat deserves historic credit for coalescing a scattered people and giving it a cause. But he could not figure out how to exploit that success. He missed the boat in 1978 when he turned down the first Camp David offer of autonomy, in territories then devoid of settlements.

There's no sense that Alpher recognises why those people are scattered, or that that scattering gave many of them a cause - Palestinian nationalism - not Arafat. The Palestinians of the occupation, those who were not expelled in the Naqba, have gained it since 1967. Many have since become expellees, as the settlements testify. Arafat brought a majority together that took a pragmatic view and was prepared to acccept a sovereign Palestinian state alongside Israel. What they would not buy - and still won't - was a temporary, non-sovereign, "autonomous region" until such time as a new expansion becomes Israeli policy.

Arafat's real achievement was to generate international recognition of what has been done to the Palestinians in the (continuing) creation of Israel, that the Palestinians have become a national group as a result, and that they have a right to a national body - the PLO - which is a legitimate representative of that national group. The Palestinians are as valid a national group as the European Jews were when Herzl et al claimed them as such. In the Palestinians' case, what they have in common is their interaction with Herzl's nation.

The Israelis never offered the Palestinians a sovereign state. The PA did gain autonomy in territories devoid of settlements, only to see settlements spring up in them and Israeli-only roads cut across them. Arafat's legacy is that a sovereign Palestinian state is now explicit international policy. What chance did there seem of that in 1950? A vanishing one, IMO.

Yitzhak Rabin, on the other hand, knew when and how to change strategies. He had his faults and drawbacks, but he pointed us in the right direction, and we are, willy-nilly and with a lot of zigzags, still on that course of defining ourselves as a Jewish and democratic state and letting the Palestinians go their own way.

Would that zionists had never interfered with the Palestinians, who would have been free to go their own way over the last century. This dismissive attitude is typical of the self-absorbed, blinkered nature of zionism. That's one reason why it hasn't worked and won't. The Palestinians, the aborigines in their projected nation, were not included in the plans. They would be gone, insignificant, no longer a matter of interest to the planners with their mutifarious plans and therefore no longer existent. Israeli relations with surrounding states was a matter of deep discussion, but the Palestinians would have melded with their "Arab" surroundings and be gone. Didn't happen, and of course wasn't going to. 100,000 mostly Sunni Muslim indigents injected into Lebanon in 1949 were going to cause a wave or two. But to the early zionist mind, Lebanon's Arab and they're getting some more Arabs. To some more modern zionists minds as well.

While he adamantly refused to present a detailed vision of a two state solution, Rabin nevertheless made sure everyone knew in what direction he was heading.

This sums up the asymptotic approach of Israel to recognition of a Palestinian State. He couldn't say explicitly what he was doing - Israel's a democracy, after all - but he tried to imply it to the outside world and parts of the inside world. Other parts killed him for it anyway, even if it wasn't actually the direction he was heading, and Netenyahu, who had been very explicit about heading in a different direction (and still is), was elected ASAP. Israel is, after all, a democracy.

Rabin being a broken reed, and still dead, I think we need a thread on the upcoming Israeli election. That won't be short of interesting material.

 

[Mycroft]

Yes, I did answer your question. Read the answer and think about it. if you don't understand it, well too bad. Your question, by the way, was pretty much irrelevant to the subject, and I'll tell you why: even nationalist bungholes have human rights.

Copying a paragraph where Orwell describes the difference between nationalism and patriotism isn't offering an opinion on Palestinian nationalism.

If you read the essay again and are honest, you will likely realize the distinction is just a way of giving him an out, to be able to describe the ideology he approves of with a positive word, while describing the ideology he doesn't approve of with a negative word. What he's really talking about is neither nationalism nor patriotism, but jingoism.

BTW, if the issue is human rights and not nationalism, then your essay by Orwell is irrelevant. Which is it?

No I don't, and I don't want to. Countries are things, Mycroft, I just wanted to remind you of that.

Countries are things which represent people, which makes them more than just “things". Families are things too, but they are not just things.

Spin, spin, spin, avoiding the issue, spin, spin... Here's the issue: whenever someone criticises Israel, you defend it, even if the critic is legitimate and just.

And once again you fail to give an example of my defending a criticism that is legitimate and just, which puts us back to you’re claiming I’m wrong just because I disagree with you.

 

[Skeptic]

The real point CD is making is that jews should do without such "things" as a state, army, and so on--like they used to do for thousands of years--since it annoys the gentiles. Sure, it led to an occassionaly pogrom or massacre, but hey, it's a small price to pay for not being rude and pushy and doing things the gentiles don't like, like those damn zionists.

 

[zenith-nadir]

Arafat brought a majority together that took a pragmatic view and was prepared to acccept a sovereign Palestinian state alongside Israel.

That's funny.

1968:

The Palestinian National Charter - Adopted by the Palestine National Council, July 1-17, 1968:

http://www.pna.gov.ps/Government/gov/plo_Charter.asp

• Article 2: Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit.
• Article 19: The partition of Palestine in 1947 and the establishment of the state of Israel are entirely illegal, regardless of the passage of time,
• Article 20: The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate for Palestine, and everything that has been based upon them, are deemed null and void.

In 1968 the PLO did not recognize Israel, Arafat was the leader of the PLO.

1968-1988: From '68 to '88 the PLO was responsible for 20 years of well-documented international terrorism. Arafat was the leader of the PLO...who still did not recognize Israel.

1989:

PLO COMMITMENTS COMPLIANCE ACT OF 1989 (Senate - April 12, 1989)

http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/library/congress/1989_cr/s890412-plo.htm

The Congress finds that--

(1) United States policy regarding contacts with the Palestine Liberation Organization (including its Executive Committee, the Palestine National Council, and any constituent groups related thereto, (hereinafter referred to as the `PLO')) set forth in the Memorandum of Agreement between the United States and Israel, dated September 1, 1975, stated that the United States `will not recognize or negotiate with the Palestine Liberation Organization so long has the PLO does not recognize Israel's right to exist and does not accept United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338';

(2) section 1302 of the International Security and Development Cooperation Act of 1985 (22 U.S.C. 2151 note; Public Law 99-83), effective October 1, 1985, stated that `no officer or employee of the United States Government and no agent or other individual acting on behalf of the United States Government shall negotiate with the Palestine Liberation organization or any representatives thereof (except in emergency or humanitarian situations) unless and until the Palestine Liberation organization recognizes Israel's right to exist, accepts United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 and renounces the use of terrorism';

(3) the Department of State statement of November 26, 1988, found that `the United States Government has convincing evidence that PLO elements have engaged in terrorism against Americans and others' and that `Mr. [Yasser] Arafat, Chairman of the PLO, knows of, condones, and lends support to such acts; he therefore is an accessory to such terrorism';

In '89 America refuses to deal with Arafat/the PLO because the PLO refuses to recognize Israel and because of PLO terrorism.

1993:

Israel-Palestine Liberation Organization Agreement :

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/mideast/isrplo.htm

The aim of the Israeli Palestinian negotiations within the current Middle East peace process is, among other things, to establish a Palestinian Interim Self-Government Authority, the elected Council, (the "Council") for the Palestinian people in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, for a transitional period not exceeding five years, leading to a permanent settlement based on Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338.

In 1993 after 25 years of international terrorism and two civil wars the PLO finally signs "a deal" to make peace with Israel... and recognize it. The Palestinian Authority is created, Arafat is appointed its chief executive officer, and a plan for eventual self-government by Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza is set in motion. The mega-murderer is suddenly a statesman, an international star, and in 1994, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize!

Security Council Resolution 242 says:

United Nations Security Council Resolution 242

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/un242.htm

Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;

Since there never was a Palestinian state in recorded history that is in reference to Israel, the PLO must recognize the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of Israel.

Security Council Resolution 338 says:

United Nations Security Council Resolution 338

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/un338.htm

Calls upon all parties to present fighting to cease all firing and terminate all military activity immediately, no later than 12 hours after the moment of the adoption of this decision, in the positions after the moment of the adoption of this decision, in the positions they now occupy; Calls upon all parties concerned to start immediately after the cease-fire the implementation of Security Council Resolution 242 (1967) in all of its parts;

So what happened after the PLO signed a deal with Israel in '93 to follow Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338?

(courtesy of The Jewish Magazine.)

More Israelis were killed by Palestinian terrorists after the Oslo agreement was signed than before it. There was continued Hamas, Islamic Jihad and PFLP terrorist activism within the Autonomy and a delay in a crackdown on them. The PLO, now called the Palestinian Authority, would not extradite known terrorists to Israel. But the PA did meet to amend the PLO Charter to recognize Israel....wink wink.

http://www.pna.gov.ps/Government/gov/plo_Charter.asp

The PNC met in a special session on 26 April 1996 to consider the issue of amending the Charter and adopted the following decision:

A. The Palestinian National Charter is hereby amended by canceling the articles that are contrary to the letters exchanged the P.L.O. and the Government of Israel 9-10 September 1993.

B. Assigns its legal committee with the task of redrafting the Palestinian National Charter in order to present it to the first session of the Palestinian Central Council.

The decision was adopted by a vote of: 504 in favor, 54 against, and 14 abstentions.

On January 1998, Yasser Arafat sent a letter to US President, Bill Clinton, outlining the implications of this decision in terms of the specific articles of the Charter that were nullified or amended as a result of that decision. In December 1998, both the PLO Executive Committee and the PLO Central Council reaffirmed this decision

The PA claims it cancelled the articles, but to date, Nov 19th 2005, no amended PLO articles have ever been produced. The PLO charter appears as originally written on the official Palestinian Authority website without amended articles. To which an entire multi-page JREF thread was spent endlessly debating the difference between simply saying the "articles were amended" and actually producing "amended articles".

Then the Palestinian Authority reneged on its promises of democratic reform and establishment of the rule of law. It held elections exactly once and never again since Arafat was overwhelmingly elected. The Palestinian education system continued to instill hatred for Jews and called for the destruction of Israel. Terrorist activity also continued, with the PA ineffectual in halting it - when not encouraging it outright.

On November 12, 2003 Arafat said this:

http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=countries&Area=palestinian&ID=SP64304

"The Israeli government has been spreading false rumors that we do not want peace with the State of Israel. I would like to address the Israeli people and say publicly that this is not true.

Hear me, Israelis! The time has come for us to exit from this continued war of destruction, which provides neither you nor us with security and leads neither you nor us to a safe and just peace.

"The plan of the new [PA] government stresses, in the name of the Palestinian people, full adherence to the peace option and the road map."

Well..ok Mr. Arafat, what are the first 18 words of the Road Map?

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2003/20062.htm

In Phase I, the Palestinians immediately undertake an unconditional cessation of violence according to the steps outlined below;

Mmmmmmm....well...ok... what is being preached on Palestinian TV to the masses?

http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=countries&Area=palestinian&ID=SR2403

Palestinian Authority Sermons 2000-2003

The following report consists of Palestinian sermons from 2000-2003. Each Khatib (preacher) is a paid employee of the Palestinian Authority (PA). The sermons are broadcast live every Friday at noon from mosques under control of the PA and are shown on PA television.

Part I: Common Themes

• Calls for the Destruction of the U.S.
• Shahids & the Rewards of Martyrdom
• Educating Children to Martyrdom
• Antisemitism and Calls to Kill Jews
• Re-conquering Palestine

This status quo remained until Arafat's death in 2004.

And this is why I tire of these threads. You could interpret Arafat's tenure as:

Arafat brought a majority together that took a pragmatic view and was prepared to acccept a sovereign Palestinian state alongside Israel.

Or as I debunked...er...sorry...or as I layed it out. You decide.

 

[webfusion]

ZN- you are missing one very important point --- Arafat was killed by the Israelis who injected poison into his ear, and therefore, it is the vile jews who are themselves responsible for inciting the ongoing hatred against them.

See, many continue to claim the conflict revolves around Palestinian Nationalism and Freedom, but it is really all about hatred of the jews. As it has been from Time Immemorial.
(see: Public statements by the head of the northern branch of the Islamic Movement, Sheikh Ra'ad Salah, who on Sunday morning entered the Al-Aqsa Mosque on Temple Mount)

 

[Orwell]

That's funny.

1968:In 1968 the PLO did not recognize Israel, Arafat was the leader of the PLO.

1968-1988: From '68 to '88 the PLO was responsible for 20 years of well-documented international terrorism. Arafat was the leader of the PLO...who still did not recognize Israel.

1989:In '89 America refuses to deal with Arafat/the PLO because the PLO refuses to recognize Israel and because of PLO terrorism.

1993:
In 1993 after 25 years of international terrorism and two civil wars the PLO finally signs "a deal" to make peace with Israel... and recognize it. The Palestinian Authority is created, Arafat is appointed its chief executive officer, and a plan for eventual self-government by Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza is set in motion. The mega-murderer is suddenly a statesman, an international star, and in 1994, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize!

Security Council Resolution 242 says:Since there never was a Palestinian state in recorded history that is in reference to Israel, the PLO must recognize the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of Israel.

Security Council Resolution 338 says:

So what happened after the PLO signed a deal with Israel in '93 to follow Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338?

More Israelis were killed by Palestinian terrorists after the Oslo agreement was signed than before it. There was continued Hamas, Islamic Jihad and PFLP terrorist activism within the Autonomy and a delay in a crackdown on them. The PLO, now called the Palestinian Authority, would not extradite known terrorists to Israel. But the PA did meet to amend the PLO Charter to recognize Israel....wink wink.

The PA claims it cancelled the articles, but to date, Nov 19th 2005, no amended PLO articles have ever been produced. The PLO charter appears as originally written on the official Palestinian Authority website without amended articles. To which an entire multi-page JREF thread was spent endlessly debating the difference between simply saying the "articles were amended" and actually producing "amended articles".

Then the Palestinian Authority reneged on its promises of democratic reform and establishment of the rule of law. It held elections exactly once and never again since Arafat was overwhelmingly elected. The Palestinian education system continued to instill hatred for Jews and called for the destruction of Israel. Terrorist activity also continued, with the PA ineffectual in halting it - when not encouraging it outright.

On November 12, 2003 Arafat said this:Well..ok Mr. Arafat, what are the first 18 words of the Road Map?Mmmmmmm....well...ok... what is being preached on Palestinian TV to the masses?This status quo remained until Arafat's death in 2004.

And this is why I tire of these threads. You could interpret Arafat's tenure as:Or as I debunked...er...sorry...or as I layed it out. You decide.

Yes yes, I know, hatred, blah, blah, blah, evil, yadda yadda, same old same old... Boring! Ok, here's some more bleeding obvious pointers: the PA is the closest thing the Palestinians have to a government. You might not like them, but if you want peace, that's who you have to deal with.

 

[Orwell]

Copying a paragraph where Orwell describes the difference between nationalism and patriotism isn't offering an opinion on Palestinian nationalism.

Yeah... Hey bud, here's what I said:

Note that Orwell distinguishes between nationalism and patriotism.
If we stick to Orwell's definition of nationalism, then I think that all nationalism is bad, and that goes for everyone, palestinians, israelis, americans, canadians...

I think that's pretty damn clear.

If you read the essay again and are honest, you will likely realize the distinction is just a way of giving him an out, to be able to describe the ideology he approves of with a positive word, while describing the ideology he doesn't approve of with a negative word. What he's really talking about is neither nationalism nor patriotism, but jingoism.

No Mycroft. See, I am being honest. I am telling you exactly what I think, in no uncertain terms. I am using something that Orwell said to make it clearer: I think that your suffer from what Orwell has defined as being "nationalism". Your particular nationalist allegiance lies with Israel, to the point were you are willing to abandon all reason to defend your particular allegiance. And you're not the only one here. You, Mycroft, on the subject of Israel, behave like a partisan hack. See, my position is clear and simple. It is also supported by many many examples, and, I am certain, witnesses.

BTW, if the issue is human rights and not nationalism, then your essay by Orwell is irrelevant. Which is it?

Don't play stupid, it doesn't become you. The essay isn't irrelevant because the essay was directed to you, not the Palestinians. What is irrelevant is if Palestinians are nationalists or not. See, even though I believe you are a partisan hack of the worst kind, I would not approve of you being tortured, jailed without due process, or summarily executed.

Countries are things which represent people, which makes them more than just “things". Families are things too, but they are not just things.

What's that CapelDodger signature? "Nationalism is the love which ties me to the blockheads of my country, to the insultors of my way of life, and to the desecrators of my language" If you are willing to put countries on par with next of kin, then may the Great Zarquon have mercy on your soul.

And once again you fail to give an example of my defending a criticism that is legitimate and just, which puts us back to you’re claiming I’m wrong just because I disagree with you.

This is simply more than just disagreement! You are not intellectually honest when it comes to Israel! You will say one thing, and in fact do something entirely different! You are always willing to make excuses and justify the unjustifiable, and I had it up to here with your crap and the crap from the other partisan hacks! Is that clear or must I repeat it?