Wall a huge failure

[Mycroft]

Either you didn't understand my point, or you insist on redefining the English language; or perhaps both. Race has meaning if you use it correctly, but when you turn into a feel-good catch-all for differences that have nothing to do with race, then you trivialize the real racist issues, and muddy the others into something that nobody any longer has the same words to describe as the person they are talking to. Ever read George Orwell?

As to how people perceive themselves; all jews I know think of themselves as white (caucasian) and they know the difference between their race and their culture and their religion. You and Mycroft apparently don't.

The black jews in Israel, and elsewhere I am sure, also know the distinction between their skin color and their religion and culture. You and Mycroft apparently don't.

Elind, you wrap yourself in semantics and completely miss the point. However you define a people, be it by race, religion, ethnicity, region of their ancestors or even the colour of their hair, if you hold them to different standards because of this identity, it's a form of bigotry.

I believe we, collectively, hold Arabs to a lower standard than we do other people. I believe this is why we see apologists who don't expect the Palestinian-Arabs to play any role whatsoever in the peace process, and place the burden of creating peace on Israel and Israel only.

 

[a_unique_person]

Elind, you wrap yourself in semantics and completely miss the point. However you define a people, be it by race, religion, ethnicity, region of their ancestors or even the colour of their hair, if you hold them to different standards because of this identity, it's a form of bigotry.

I believe we, collectively, hold Arabs to a lower standard than we do other people. I believe this is why we see apologists who don't expect the Palestinian-Arabs to play any role whatsoever in the peace process, and place the burden of creating peace on Israel and Israel only.

Yet any attempt to do the same with Israel is anti-semitism.

 

[zenith-nadir]

Nevertheless, you did omit mentioning the disastrous settlement policy of Israel (in this post anyway), which has given the Palestinians and their multitude of apologists most of their ammunition for all these years.

One has to understand Israel's overall situation, it is a country surrounded by Arab states who want it destroyed. That asymmetry not only exsists in geographic and demographic terms, but also in terms of threat. The basis for the settlement policy way back when.

Way back when Israeli settlements were going to be transferred to Palestinian sovereign control once the Palestinian Authority got it's ◊◊◊◊ together. That became impossible because every nutball islamofascist with a gun or bomb vest still attempts to kill settlers while others still concentrate on blowing up buses and markets inside Israel - eventhough the Palestinian Authority tells them not to.

Ergo the transfer of Israeli settlements to Palestinian sovereign control was put on hold indefinitely. The IDF now uses force to protect settlers and a security barrier has been built on Palestinian land to protect some settlements from Palestinian islamofascists. Yet another injustice for the Palestinians.

 

[a_unique_person]

One has to understand Israel's overall situation, it is a country surrounded by Arab states who want it destroyed.

BS. The Palestinians have been abandoned by all the Arab countries that surround them.

 

[zenith-nadir]

BS. The Palestinians have been abandoned by all the Arab countries that surround them.

In 1967 and prior every Arab country was working overtime to destroy Israel for the Palestinians.

Then after Black September that all began to change, because of Arafat. He started a civil war in Jordan, he was a huge part of the civil war in Lebanon, he backed Saddam during his invasion of Kuwait. That's alot of bad blood in Arab circles.

Arafat has lied, stolen and killed his way across the middle east to the point that yes a_u_p, the Palestinians have been abandoned by all the Arab countries. They don't like Palestinians - that is another reason they live in 50-year-old "refugee" camps - and the Arabs especially do not like Arafat for he has burnt them too many times.

I think one day you will realize that Arafat - an egyptian - has held back the Palestinians and not the excuse du jour, "settlements".

 

[Elind]

I don't know Elind, your dictionary will say something like: Race - people who are believed to belong to the same genetic stock.

The Aryans considered themselves a race. Would you have argued with them that they are the same as Jews? (If so, I'll bet not for long.)

I think there's more to it than you're admitting.

So according to you, most people in any country are a separate race? Your argument is similar to that of a creationist who suddenly realizes he understands everything because, after all, evolution is only a theory.

 

[Atlas]

So according to you, most people in any country are a separate race? Your argument is similar to that of a creationist who suddenly realizes he understands everything because, after all, evolution is only a theory.

Elind, I gave you a dictionary definition. I didn't write the dictionary... it's not "according to me". Aryans thought themselves descendents from Norse stock. I don't know where you got the idea I was speaking about countries.

You'll find Arabs in many countries in the Middle East. But the Persian and Jewish peoples don't see themselves descending from the same stock.

The notion of 3 races Caucasoid, Negroid and Mongoloid went out in the 1800s. Which is what you seemed to allude to. Here is a note on Caucasians...

The people of Europe are sometimes said to be of Caucasian race because of a now-discredited theory that all peoples of the Middle East, North Africa, and Europe (as well as those of European descent elsewhere) originated in the Caucasus Mountains.

What I've been calling race may also not be exactly approporiate for the clearest undestanding of what I (and Mycroft) mean. That is, I think you'd have been less upset had we used the term Ethnicity. Either way, Mycroft's statements were insightful.

Ethnicity is the cultural characteristics that connect a particular group or groups of people to each other.

"Ethnicity" is sometimes used as a euphemism for "race", or as a synonym for minority group.

While ethnicity and race are related concepts, the concept of ethnicity is rooted in the idea of societal groups, marked especially by shared nationality, tribal afilliation, religious faith, shared language, or cultural and traditional origins and backgrounds, whereas race is rooted in the idea of biological classification of homo sapiens to subspecies according to morphological features such as skin color or facial characteristics.

 

[Elind]

Elind, I gave you a dictionary definition. I didn't write the dictionary... it's not "according to me". Aryans thought themselves descendents from Norse stock. I don't know where you got the idea I was speaking about countries.

You'll find Arabs in many countries in the Middle East. But the Persian and Jewish peoples don't see themselves descending from the same stock.

The notion of 3 races Caucasoid, Negroid and Mongoloid went out in the 1800s. Which is what you seemed to allude to. Here is a note on Caucasians...

What I've been calling race may also not be exactly approporiate for the clearest undestanding of what I (and Mycroft) mean. That is, I think you'd have been less upset had we used the term Ethnicity. Either way, Mycroft's statements were insightful.

You weren't talking about countries, but your argument is equivalent. I'm surprised you can't see that. The dictionary defintion that you force me to look up, is in the same category as those used by creationists (theory). Is that really want you base your argument on?

You use the language in Orwellian fashion, to suite your slogans. The notion of three races did not go out in the 1800's, and our laws have "race" crimes that are clearly not targeted to the Irish wanting to beat up the English, for example. If you want to be pedantic there are arguments that there is no "race", while there are others that show medical difference that suggest there are, like responses to medication, or tendency to diseases, like scickle cell anemia.

You belittle true racial hatred and how to deal with it with this kind of language prostitution for your own ends.

 

[Elind]

One has to understand Israel's overall situation, it is a country surrounded by Arab states who want it destroyed. That asymmetry not only exsists in geographic and demographic terms, but also in terms of threat. The basis for the settlement policy way back when.

Way back when Israeli settlements were going to be transferred to Palestinian sovereign control once the Palestinian Authority got it's ◊◊◊◊ together. That became impossible because every nutball islamofascist with a gun or bomb vest still attempts to kill settlers while others still concentrate on blowing up buses and markets inside Israel - eventhough the Palestinian Authority tells them not to.

Ergo the transfer of Israeli settlements to Palestinian sovereign control was put on hold indefinitely. The IDF now uses force to protect settlers and a security barrier has been built on Palestinian land to protect some settlements from Palestinian islamofascists. Yet another injustice for the Palestinians.

"Way back when Israeli settlements were going to be transferred to Palestinian sovereign control ....". You must be joking!!

I remember clearly when the settlements really took off, and the argument (which seemed somewhat rational at the time) was that they needed them as a buffer against future attack....FROM OUTSIDE. Never mind that they populated them with pregnant breeders of the faith,; but under the circumstances it was hard to argue against their right to defend themselves. Clearly however it was a lebensraum policy and there have been posters here in the past who admited that they lived there because it was cheap subsidised housing.

The truth is that the Israelis have suckered us into supporting them, just as a bank has trouble forcing a company into bankruptcy if it is owed too much money; and the Palestinians have been true to their islamist roots and their inventor of modern terrorism.

So, perhaps we should just blame a succession of American presidents for not being tough enough, or the European appeasers of terrorists who pay most of the PLO bills; or perhaps we should just say that this is lot of human failings and say it as it is today; namely what transpires from religion and always has and always will?

 

[Elind]

Elind, you wrap yourself in semantics and completely miss the point. However you define a people, be it by race, religion, ethnicity, region of their ancestors or even the colour of their hair, if you hold them to different standards because of this identity, it's a form of bigotry.

I believe we, collectively, hold Arabs to a lower standard than we do other people. I believe this is why we see apologists who don't expect the Palestinian-Arabs to play any role whatsoever in the peace process, and place the burden of creating peace on Israel and Israel only.

You call your misunderstanding of the language semantics and say I miss the point when you are unable to make it in English?

You sound like some New-Age guru trying to impress the flock with this prattle. Any criticism of any group of people becomes bigotry by your redefintion of language and logic?

I'll tell you a little secret, the Arabs hold THEMSELVES to a lower standard, which is precisely why they and their apologists like you, alway try to blame someone else for their problems and failures.

Bigotry; shmigotry. You are a fool if you think that no one can be critical of a culture of failure, like the Palestinians and their supporters, on pain of being called a bigot.

I had Palestinian friends who risked their lives coming from Kuwait with goods and information during the occupation by Iraq (duely hailed by Arafat as the new age, within thirty seconds of starting). I know the difference between bigotry and respect for people and I don't need a little pontificator like you to teach me. So take your 1984 dictionary and keep it for other posters in the future - respectfully asked of course, with no intent to be racial.

 

[a_unique_person]

In 1967 and prior every Arab country was working overtime to destroy Israel for the Palestinians.

Then after Black September that all began to change, because of Arafat. He started a civil war in Jordan, he was a huge part of the civil war in Lebanon, he backed Saddam during his invasion of Kuwait. That's alot of bad blood in Arab circles.

Arafat has lied, stolen and killed his way across the middle east to the point that yes a_u_p, the Palestinians have been abandoned by all the Arab countries. They don't like Palestinians - that is another reason they live in 50-year-old "refugee" camps - and the Arabs especially do not like Arafat for he has burnt them too many times.

I think one day you will realize that Arafat - an egyptian - has held back the Palestinians and not the excuse du jour, "settlements".

One day, you will remember that Arafat is not my favourite Palestinian, but I don't think it will ever happen.

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Elind
You call your misunderstanding of the language semantics and say I miss the point when you are unable to make it in English?

You sound like some New-Age guru trying to impress the flock with this prattle. Any criticism of any group of people becomes bigotry by your redefintion of language and logic?

This is the point you miss. It is the lack of criticism, the willingness to apologize for and excuse barbarous behavior that I point to as evidence of bigotry. It’s in holding them to a lower standard that we are patronizing.

Originally posted by Elind
I'll tell you a little secret, the Arabs hold THEMSELVES to a lower standard, which is precisely why they and their apologists like you, alway try to blame someone else for their problems and failures.

You think I'm an Arab apologist?! You haven't been following these mideastern threads much, have you?

I agree Arabs hold themselves to a lower standard. I would only add that they hold themselves to a lower standard with the support and encouragement of many who should know better. When AUP and others simper, "What else are they to do?" (than murder people riding a bus or visiting a diner) they applying a lower standard of behavior that is almost no standard at all.

 

[davefoc]

ZN wrote:

One has to understand Israel's overall situation, it is a country surrounded by Arab states who want it destroyed. That asymmetry not only exsists in geographic and demographic terms, but also in terms of threat. The basis for the settlement policy way back when.

ZN, of the various reasons that have been put forward to justify Israel's settlement policies, this is one I can understand. For thousands of years nations either became stronger or they were destroyed by stronger nations. So is this what is going on with Israel's settlement policies? It needs to acquire territory so it can grow, become stronger so that it can fend off a military threat.

There are some problems with this idea
1. The land is largely occupied by non-Israelis. Displacing these people is something that Israel as of yet been unwilling to do en mass. So what Israel has done is to put settlements within non-Israelis, thereby substantially increasing the length of borders that Israel must defend, thereby adding to the demands on its military. The ultimate piece of craziness along this line seems to be in Gaza where tiny Israeli settlements were foisted on a massive existing population. What possible security justification could these settlements have had? I think Sharon wants to give this land up not because he has given up on his Zionist goals but rather because the land gain versus the subsidies and military expenditures are just too large even for him. He may also be doing it as a kind of sop for his American benefactors.

2. The settlements have gradually reduced the viability of a stable Palestinian state. At first this might seem like a military advantage, but only if Israel's long term goal is to maintain the Palestinian occupation forever. Israel security will be enhanced by a properous Palestinian state. People that are enjoying a prosperous lives are not going to want to give that up by sheltering terrorists.

3. The settlement policies have served as a long term propaganda tool for Israel's enemies that has added sustenance to the anti-Israel rhetoric throughout the area which has served to create a new generation of anti-Israel zealots.

4. While Israel seems to have the power to get an American administration, particularly this one, to do just about everything it wants, is it a good idea for Israel to use this power? I don't think so. Israel has become increasingly dependent on the US as its only friend. This is a dependence that could cost Israel dearly if the US decides that the cost of this alliance is too high and some day the US could decide this.

5. The moral ambiguity of Israel's land grab policies is a divisive issue within Israel and acts to divide not unify the country.

6. Some of the Israeli settlers are flat out zealots who have a bilblicaly based goal of the elimination of non-Jews from land they consider to be Jewish land. They act on these beliefs by harassing and at times killing local Palestinians. Israel's security is weakened further as a result of these incidents because they serve to sustain Palestinian resentment and even hatred of Israel as a whole. This is of course the goal of the Israeli zealots who want to foment violence that furthers their long term goal of the elimination of non-Jews from what they see as god-given Jewish land.

So my question remains, who is better off today because of these settlements? What is the moral justification for these settlements?

 

[zenith-nadir]

So my question remains, who is better off today because of these settlements? What is the moral justification for these settlements?

Israel was threatened geographically and militarily. After wars in 48, 56 and 67 Israel responded to that continued threat by settling the areas from which those threats originated, namely the Sinai, Gaza and the West Bank.

I don't like it, you don't like it and the Palestinians certainly don't like it. But that is what happened. The only way to control the ongoing security problems that were originating from the Sinai, Gaza and the West Bank was to control those areas. How do you control those areas? You settle in them and take them over.

Had the combined forces of Egypt, Syria, Transjordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Lebanon not invaded the former Mandate of Palestine in 1948, had Egypt not sponsored raids by fedayeen from the Sinai Peninsula, the Gaza Strip, and Jordan into Israel in the 50s and 60s and had Nasser not ordered the UN troops out of the Sinai, blockaded Israeli shipping and formed an alliance with Jordan and Syria as their combined forces mobilized in 1967 perhaps the amorality of Israel settling the West Bank and Gaza wouldn't be an issue today. But that is just my opinion.

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by Mycroft
I believe we, collectively, hold Arabs to a lower standard than we do other people.

Is that why you personally choose to start so many threads relating to Muslims, Muslim groups, Muslim countries and Islam?

 

[Jim Bowen]

It became too hard to weed out the fundamentalist suicide bombers from the workers who went to work in Israel every day.

Sounds to me as though it is a case not of punishing the guilty, who are hard to find, but just punishing all Palestinians who were gaining their livlihood by helping the Israeli economy.

Jim Bowen (who would have replied sooner if it hadn't been for ntl playing with his net connection)

 

[zenith-nadir]

Sounds to me as though it is a case not of punishing the guilty, who are hard to find, but just punishing all Palestinians who were gaining their livlihood by helping the Israeli economy.

Jim Bowen (who would have replied sooner if it hadn't been for ntl playing with his net connection)

Well several widely-publicized international peace treaties with the Palestinian Authority obligated them to punish the guilty. But guess what Jim...they didn't... and the opposite was true. The Palestinian Authority supported Al Aqsa suicide bombers financially. For the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades is part of Fateh and Fateh is the ruling party of the Palestinian Authority which headed by one Yasser Arafat.

So if the Palestinian Authority refuses to arrest and stop terrorists and the Palestinian people refuse to stop terrorists then Israel has the responsibility to stop them. And they did, by not allowing them to sneak into Israel disguised with Palestinian workers.

Another brilliant coup for the Palestinians...

 

[a_unique_person]

Well several widely-publicized international peace treaties with the Palestinian Authority obligated them to punish the guilty. But guess what Jim...they didn't... and the opposite was true. The Palestinian Authority supported Al Aqsa suicide bombers financially. For the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades is part of Fateh and Fateh is the ruling party of the Palestinian Authority which headed by one Yasser Arafat.

So if the Palestinian Authority refuses to arrest and stop terrorists and the Palestinian people refuse to stop terrorists then Israel has the responsibility to stop them. And they did, by not allowing them to sneak into Israel disguised with Palestinian workers.

Another brilliant coup for the Palestinians...

Fine build a wall, keep all the Palestinians out, and the IDF and Settlers too. Great idea.

 

[Elind]

This is the point you miss. It is the lack of criticism, the willingness to apologize for and excuse barbarous behavior that I point to as evidence of bigotry. It’s in holding them to a lower standard that we are patronizing.

You think I'm an Arab apologist?! You haven't been following these mideastern threads much, have you?

I agree Arabs hold themselves to a lower standard. I would only add that they hold themselves to a lower standard with the support and encouragement of many who should know better. When AUP and others simper, "What else are they to do?" (than murder people riding a bus or visiting a diner) they applying a lower standard of behavior that is almost no standard at all.

Perhaps we don't disagree as much as sometimes appears, but as I recall I was being called a "racist" for being critical in the same vein as you state above. However we disagree that "...they hold themselves to a lower standard with the support and encouragement of many who should know better." I hold that what you call support and encouragement, other than from those in the same group (race to you), is simply people stating the obvious. How can you call criticism patronising (encouragement??)?

As far as I'm aware I have not been patronizing on this issue, I have been condemning and expressing disgust at the degeneration of a culture and a version of a religion.

Where we may also disagree is in the reasons for that degeneration. I have the impression that you find the fault outside that culture; I find it inherent within, namely the religious fanaticism which never has anywhere to go but down; but you seem to think that is a racist position, and not allowed.

They are what they do, and they have had many choices to do different.

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Elind
As far as I'm aware I have not been patronizing on this issue, I have been condemning and expressing disgust at the degeneration of a culture and a version of a religion.

Exactly.

Elind, I know you've been critical of Israel in the past, but you've also been critical of the Palestinian-Arabs. This observation I made wasn't directed at you. Rather it was an observation about a thought process I used to have, and that I observe in others. Overall, I think on many issues you and I are very close.

Originally posted by Elind
Where we may also disagree is in the reasons for that degeneration. I have the impression that you find the fault outside that culture; I find it inherent within, namely the religious fanaticism which never has anywhere to go but down; but you seem to think that is a racist position, and not allowed.

Let me clarify:

I also find fault within the culture. I don't think these problems were created from outside. I also believe the religious fanaticism is terribly destructive and will take them nowhere but down.

What I find racist (or bigoted, if you prefer) are those that fail to condemn this religious fanaticism that leads to terrorism. Those that refuse to recognize the role this fanaticism has played in prolonging this conflict. Those that deny that in order to achieve peace, the Palestinian-Arabs must rise above this fanaticism and victimhood to become partners in creating an environment where peace can happen. Those that expect peace to be something created by the Israelis and the Israelis alone, regardless of what the Palestinian-Arabs do.

Time and time again in these forums (and in other places) we see the argument that terrorism, suicide bombing, sniping, etc. are the only options available to the Palestinian-Arabs. The Fool, AUP, Jim Bowen and even Daveoc are guilty of holding these people to a lesser standard of behavior that is applied to every other population in the world. The racism I speak of is not condemning them for terrorism, but in being incapable of expecting anything else of them. They are human beings, as such they are capable of rising above fanaticism (as other cultures have done).

Originally posted by Elind
They are what they do, and they have had many choices to do different.

Exactly! In recognizing these many choices to do different, you are not guilty of the racism I describe.