Their and our children
This is a guest post by S.O.Muffin
The late Golda Meir famously said that “peace will come once Arabs love their children more than they hate ours”. Since then the pithy quote has been endlessly repeated and recycled (recycling of quotes being a great contribution of blogdom to saving the environment), mostly as a convenient discussion gambit. I wish, however, to ponder briefly its meaning, in a more general sense (ranging beyond the particulars of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict) and claim that it represents the sort of mote in the eye which is inimical to proper understanding of conflicts, to say nothing of their resolution.
The kernel of Meir’s argument is that “Arabs” (presumably, Palestinian Arabs) are motivated by the hatred of Israelis/Jews in precedence to their own perceived self-interest, that they are indeed willing knowingly to sacrifice their self-interest and the future of their kith and kin if they can only damage their enemies. Similar argument is advanced by the sort of “anti-imperialists” that proliferate on CiF when the moon is full, who claim that the “Zionists” (fill-in “Zio-Nazis” or “Zio-Cons” or “Jews”, bloody or otherwise, if you wish) came to the Middle East in order to dispossess and expel Palestinians/Arabs/Muslims – thereby incurring warfare and death to themselves because, presumably, they hate Arab children more than they love their own.
The simple truth is that, almost invariably, in ethnic conflicts people love their children dearly, to the exclusion of everything else. Indeed, they love them so much that they are perfectly willing to do ill by their enemy and their enemy’s children. Actors in ethnic conflicts act in their own understanding of self-interest and their own perception of their historical rights, their victimhood, their dreams and, yes, their children. Their perception might be a caricature of reality, but it is a caricature that, by the dint of being embraced by individuals ruthless or desperate sufficiently to kill and die in its name, shapes reality.
Now, this is why it is, I believe, so important to understand this simple point and reject the implicit assumptions behind Golda’s quote. Because if she is right and actors in ethnic conflicts (whether only Arabs/Palestinians or all players in all conflicts) indeed hate their enemy even if it contradicts, in their own minds, their own self-interest, then there is no point in seeking conflict resolution. If indeed, to give one example, Hamas hates Israeli children more than it loves Palestinian children, then there is no prospect of peace. All that remains is to sit the conflict out, wait till in a next generation, or perhaps in the next-but-one, or perhaps never, they will love their children more than they hate ours. However, if Golda was wrong, if Hamas (like other actors in all ethnic conflicts) is willing to do awful, inhumane deeds to Israeli children precisely because, in their minds, they do so for the sake of Palestinian children, then there is hope (perverse as it might sound). There is room to persuade, to create conditions and understanding whereby they can do well by their own children without doing ill by ours. Alternatively, to wean the mass of their supporters by offering them a future in which, through compromise, they can do better by their own children.
Not that it is simple or straightforward. Perhaps it is destined for failure. Perhaps it is a noble, yet naive sentiment. Yet – and this is precisely the point – it is possible in principle. And, given the chance, small as it might be, of resolving the conflict, of bringing peace and security and justice to both sides, it must be attempted. This precisely is the reason why it is so important to nail down the misconceived assumptions underlying Golda Meir’s quote.
Comments
| 3 July 2008, 2:08 pm |
“if Hamas (like other actors in all ethnic conflicts) is willing to do awful, inhumane deeds to Israeli children precisely because, in their minds, they do so for the sake of Palestinian children”
WTF Muffin? They do it for the sake of Allah, not for the sake of their children! You son of peacenik goody good Kibbutznikim…
Golda was right. And you aren’t.
| 3 July 2008, 2:12 pm |
It seems that you can only find true fundamentalists in Haredim, Muffin.
But when you talk about Hamas you contextualize, and the worst you can say is that they might do bad things because they are wrong. You Spinozist idiot!
If tomorrow the world ended and Mahoma came back from the skies to smite the Jews and end the world (and yes, end the world of Hamas’s children too) they would be jumping in ecstasy.
This murdering terrorists don’t love their children, they love Allah. And they are sick, sick, sick.
And you are being stupid on purpose.
| 3 July 2008, 2:20 pm |
“If indeed, to give one example, Hamas hates Israeli children more than it loves Palestinian children, then there is no prospect of peace.”
Have you never seen Hamas TV? How can you conclude otherwise than that they hate Israeli children more than they love their own. If they loved their own they would never try and inculcate such savage and ugly thoughts in their heads (about suicide bombing and so on).
I think you forget that within living memory millions of UK parents willingly send their boys off to fight on the continent and in far flung places around the world. They really did value Empire, King, and their culture above the lives of their children.
Even now many of us feel it is worth enduring some risk of death to defend democracy and liberty.
So rather than being an uncommon feature of life I would say it is quite a common one and most Palestinians being Muslims are told almost from birth that to sacrifice yourself for Islam is one of the greatest things a person can do.
| 3 July 2008, 2:22 pm |
What where the last words of the murderer?
“I do it for my children, just like SOMuffin argues!”
“I do it for the wellbeing of my neighbors in Jabel Mukaber!”
or
“Allahu Akhbar!”? (”Allah is a mouse!”)
| 3 July 2008, 2:27 pm |
“I think you forget that within living memory millions of UK parents willingly send their boys off to fight on the continent and in far flung places around the world. They really did value Empire, King, and their culture above the lives of their children.”
field is right. But SO Muffin cannot get out of his bubble.
What we know about our recent past, the XIX century, in which the father was cold and distant, the mother did not breast feed the infant, but gave him to the milk-nanny, and there was no love in the house (and that was the bourgeoisie, in the working class homes, the child was a worker, and not many children were expected to survive childhood), Muffin cannot translate to Muslim society.
Somehow, knowledge is lost here, and some idiots think that every Muslim has fully thought out, written and signed the Rights of Man and of the Child at the UN.
| 3 July 2008, 2:33 pm |
I very much agree with this post. The quote is a classic trope of Orientalist thinking. This concept of Edward Said is, I think, well described by Brian Whitaker here. It is, essentially a mode of discourse and understanding which “otherises” “them”, attributing to “them” certain presupposed qualities (in this case, of course, that they all hate Jews), which are unquestioned, and form the backdrop to all discussion, policy and so on. I think this term is also particularly appropriate to Harry’s Place (with exceptions - certainly Muffin), and particularly to David T. In pretty much every single post he writes, you can find evidence of the underlying Orientalist thinking.
| 3 July 2008, 2:36 pm |
muffin, I’m afraid the cold, brutal truth is that the willingness of Hamas et al to sacrifice Palestinian children in the struggle against Israel has no equivalent on the Israeli side. Now I suppose it might be possible, in a very perverse way, to see this willingness to sacrifice their children as a symbol of love for their children, but I’m not up to the mental gymnastics.
| 3 July 2008, 2:42 pm |
“muffin, I’m afraid the cold, brutal truth is that the willingness of Hamas et al to sacrifice Palestinian children in the struggle against Israel has no equivalent on the Israeli side.” Absolutely classic Orientalism, yet again.
| 3 July 2008, 2:43 pm |
Golda Meir’s comment only really means “peace will come once the Arabs surrender”.
| 3 July 2008, 2:49 pm |
muffin is wedded to the idea that there is some hope for peace in Israel with the Palestinians. He ignores or minimizes or explains away all evidence to the contrary. Now it is certainly true, I believe, that not all Palestinians hate Israelis more than they love their own children, but clearly many of them do. Their children are raised on a steady diet of fanatical hatred of Jews, much like the Hitler Youth. The PA and Hamas has made no effort to stop teaching hatred.
Regarding Gaza, the only way to eliminate the threat of it is for Israel to stop supporting them. Just stop. Doesn’t require much in the way of weapons. Just stop the electricity, the water, food, medicine, in short, everything. Just shut it down from the Israeli side. Let the Egyptians handle it if they want. Perhaps if conditions are bad enough, they will leave on their own.
| 3 July 2008, 2:53 pm |
Muffin,
You have let your idealism and ideology cloud your interpretation. You recognize that obsessive hatred in antithetical to peace, therefor you must conclude that it is irrational to hate your enemy more than you love yourself. While it is true that it is irrational, reality can and is irrational.
Your error is to believe that because you don’t want “x” to be true, “x” is not true.
Historically we know actors in a conflict act against their own best interest if they think that the outcome will be worse for their enemy than themselves.
To invoke Goodwin again. There is ample evidence that the NAZI’s diverted resources away from the war effort in the latter stages of World War II towards the Holocaust (with a capitol H, or a ha). Or the fact that Hitler and his NAZI ideologue actually preferred to see Germany destroyed and the German people annihilated than surrender, when placed in a hopeless position.
To my mind, the overall Arab strategy in fighting the West is to rely on the idea that the West have not got the stomach to fight the war of carnage that is necessary. If they (The Arab Terrorist) make prolong the attrition long enough, the Western combatant will simply loose the will to fight, pack up his bat (as the say) and “go home”. The strategy revolves around the idea that Western sensibilities place a higher value on all (human) life than any abstract ideology.
Thus the truth of Golda’s statement.
(p.s., you might want to ask a social psychologist about protagonist strategies in Games.)
| 3 July 2008, 2:53 pm |
I very much agree with this post. The quote is a classic trope of Orientalist thinking.
err… Golda Meir was born in the Ukraine, and had lived in Palestine for about 50 years when she made the quote.
Yet somehow she’s an ‘Orientalist’.
| 3 July 2008, 2:55 pm |
Golda Meir’s comment only really means “peace will come once the Arabs surrender”.
ChrisC 3 July 2008, 2:43 pm
While your comment was probably meant pejoratively, you are correct. Peace will come when the Arabs decide that the cost of fighting and attrition exceeds the ideological imperative behind the conflict.
| 3 July 2008, 2:56 pm |
Just stop the electricity, the water, food, medicine, in short, everything.
The fact that they don’t says a lot about Israeli society. If the roles were reversed, I have little doubt that Hamas would do exactly as Seymoure Paine suggests…and much worse.
| 3 July 2008, 2:57 pm |
orientalism schmorientalism. like the great ibn warraq (a far superior writer and ideologue than most of the motley bunch the neocons have “co-opted”) this is just a pathetic accusation nothing short of intellectual terrorism, a fancy way of screaming “racist!” while sounding as if you are not hysterical.
Fabian, please explain what you mean by “spinozist idiot”???
| 3 July 2008, 2:57 pm |
The kiss of death:
“I very much agree with this post. The quote is a classic trope of Orientalist thinking.”
| 3 July 2008, 2:57 pm |
Boogski,
If the roles were reversed there would be non need for the Hamas lead Palastinians to provide utilities to a Jewish Gaza. Simply, there would be non-Jews alive in Gaza to need those supplies!
| 3 July 2008, 2:58 pm |
Nothing is more Orientalist than critiques of Orientalism.
| 3 July 2008, 2:59 pm |
Yes Joe, that’s what I was getting at. :D
| 3 July 2008, 2:59 pm |
I will not respond to Fabian, except for advising that he removes the specks of foam from round the mouth and starts behaving as a grown-up.
field makes a serious point. Societies and political groupings of all shades of opinion are certainly willing to put their children in harm’s way in the name of greater objectives. But this, exactly like Gene’s comment, is completely tangential to my argument. I have no doubt that Hamas is willing to sacrifice Palestinian children for “the struggle”. The point I was making is that they don’t do so because “they hate Jewish children more than they love their own”. By the same token, parents in West Bank settlements, or in Sderot or the kibbutzim nearby who allow their children to live in relative danger don’t do so because they hate Palestinian children more than they love their own.
| 3 July 2008, 2:59 pm |
“muffin, I’m afraid the cold, brutal truth is that the willingness of Hamas et al to sacrifice Palestinian children in the struggle against Israel has no equivalent on the Israeli side.” Absolutely classic Orientalism, yet again.
TheIrie, notice the reference to “Hamas et al,” not to all Palestinians. Please watch the Al-Aqsa TV clips here, especially from the chidrens’ programs, and get back to us.
| 3 July 2008, 3:00 pm |
Evidently Golda Meir was a self-hating Orientalist.
| 3 July 2008, 3:09 pm |
The point I was making is that they don’t do so because “they hate Jewish children more than they love their own”. By the same token, parents in West Bank settlements, or in Sderot or the kibbutzim nearby who allow their children to live in relative danger don’t do so because they hate Palestinian children more than they love their own.
I’m not convinced, muffin. And I think that’s a false equivalence, especially with regard to Sderot. “Allow” their children? It’s their home. Are they supposed to pick up and move their children further and further from Gaza, until the Qassams are capable of hitting Tel Aviv? Where do they go then? On the other side we have Hamas actively encouraging Palestinian children to become shaheeds.
| 3 July 2008, 3:10 pm |
Spinoza thought that people can only do bad things out of ignorance. He was wrong. Some people are willing and knowing murderers. Muffin thinks that if Muslims knew that we can all live in peace and share the land, they would never sacrifice their children. That they only do that because they are wrong, and think that they are saving them somehow by sacrificing them. But Muffin can be an idiot as much as the rest of us.
In fact, he is a little unhinged. The other day he jumped at me because I suggested that Jews could find a democratic way of solving the problem of Religion and State in Israel by getting together and working out some principles. He called me a right-wing nutter or something like that.
But when we discuss Hamas, he is suddenly very understanding, and is capable of mental gymnastics to excuse them.
He made me sick. I am glad that he doesn’t live in Israel.
| 3 July 2008, 3:11 pm |
TheIrie, notice the reference to “Hamas et al,” not to all Palestinians.
Basically, you guys don’t understand the concept, so let me demonstrate. Some Israeli civilian’s (settlers) have murdered innocent Palestinian’s on Palestinian land. No one would dispute the accuracy of that factual statement. If I was an inverse Orientalist I would therefore say “Israelis murder Palestinians.” It defines them. That is just what they do. Everything else we discuss has this presupposition in the background, and any policy must assume that given the chance, this is what the Israelis will do. But, of course, its completely wrong because it takes individual events and generalises them. Well, this is exactly what you do. “Hamas et al.” whoever the et al are, have probably sacrificed children (whether deliberately or willingly is another matter). However, only the orientalist then defines these groups as child sacrificers. For the orientalist, sacrificing children defines Hamas (”et al”, whoever that is). I wish, Gene and others, you would reflect on this.
| 3 July 2008, 3:13 pm |
Seymour: “Just shut it [Gaza] down from the Israeli side. Let the Egyptians handle it if they want. Perhaps if conditions are bad enough, they will leave on their own.”
Gene: “It’s their home. Are they supposed to pick up and move their children further and further from Gaza, until the Qassams are capable of hitting Tel Aviv?”
Somewhere, there’s a crossover here.
| 3 July 2008, 3:13 pm |
My comment was meant to mean exactly what it said, not to be perjorative. I suspect peace will come only if and when:
a. the Palestinians recognise they’re not going to win (something the IRA had to accept before peace was possible in Northern Ireland); and
b. the Israelis make a few sincere concessions e.g. regarding settlements, status of Jerusalem, to provide the requisite fig leaf for the Palestinians to do a deal.
Neither of those looks like happening anytime soon.
| 3 July 2008, 3:14 pm |
TheIrie,
have you read a book recently? or even opened any of Edward Said’s works?
of course not, the idea of understanding these issues with any subtlety is beyond you
so why don’t you, instead of screaming “Orientalist” at people, pop down to the library and pick up some basic books on the Middle East?
| 3 July 2008, 3:16 pm |
Mod - are you capable of understanding basic concepts? Is my definition and explanation of Orientalism deficient in some way? If so, please explain how and why, and I’ll correct it. Otherwise, don’t be such an snide idiot.
| 3 July 2008, 3:17 pm |
With regard to Seymour suggested solution of “Just stop[ping] the electricity, the water, food, medicine, in short, everything,” to Palestinians in Gaza - wouldn’t that be genocide?
| 3 July 2008, 3:18 pm |
“”"”"many religious Islamic women see themselves to exist primarily as baby-making machines. “”"”"”
sorry, racist arguments are not likely to bring peace.
A mere look at the images from 20 years ago and the way palestinian women dressed is enough to make clear that fundamentalism is a much more recent phenomemon than the israel-palestine conflict.
it is a consequence rather than a cause of conflict… Arafat was not a fundamentalist, nor was carlos the chacal, etc, and let’s look at their record.
we are talking about women who live in societies that are no longer traditional societies, but neither are modern societies.
so they have lots of children as their mothers, grandmothers, etc, did, but neo-natal children and mother’s death rates have been falling and it is very good that they are.
if palestinian women, or albanian, or northern irish (I remeber this argument being used agains catholic irish women) were using their bodies to produce little terrorist, FOR SURE the world would have much more terrorists than it actually has.
many parents whose children commit terrorist attacks have a genuine grief for such acts. others sublimate their grief by considering them shahid. others simply don’t care, but they fall in the cathegory of abusing parents, something that unfortunatelly exists in every human society.
let’s be more carefull with generalizations please.
people who believe that their positions are morally right are not allowed to use immoral arguments.
the argument of the so called ‘birthrate strategy’ is nothing more than a way do dehumanize the ennemy.
it is racist and it leads nowere but to the incessant renewal of the cicles of violence fed by resentment.
it usually includes also a sexist patriarchical prejudice and resentment against the women from the ingroup, who are tacictly blamed for being less efficient as baby factories.
MUFIN:
I think that prase is nothing more than a soud bite. it’s important to desconstruct it because of the fact that it does has an impact by being so often quoted.
the question is what are the sources of such hatred, and why do people exclude others from their moral universe.
while territory and lust for power rather than race issues are usually at the source of conflicts, racial divisions, prejudices and the dehumanization of the perceived enemy are important instruments of domination.
if we come to believe that it is not worth working for peace because it’s a waist of time, then we have three choices left:
1- kill ourselves, because we really don’t want to live in such a world;
2- support the extermination of the baby-factories because really they don’t deserve to be considered humans as they themselves perceive their bodies as nothing more than baby machines;
3- simply turn our back on the conflict because anyway those people are biologically determined to kill each other to the point of mutual extermination, and anyway the world is over populated…
Clearly the less damaging choice is the first one.
In my case, as it happens that I enjoy life too much to kill myself, I stick to the naive belief that nasty things such as racism, ethnic violence or violence tout cour, conflicts of any kind can be overcome (but not by reproducing the language of racism or the apology of violence).
In every society, even those traumatized by the worse totalitarian experiences there are people who managed to resist the dinamics of hatred and violence. It is the duty of those who are free to find them and support them in amy possible way. ok, this also sound like a sound bite, but it can be turned into real action, unlike the phrase by golda meir, or the racist statement the reader from the first comment made.
| 3 July 2008, 3:27 pm |
“it is a consequence rather than a cause of conflict” This really is the key. So much of what happens in I-P, on both sides, is attributed to the very nature of the un-human enemy. Its utter nonsense. This is what war and occupation do to people. Gaza isn’t Surrey - not because the people are barbarian’s, but because they have been brutalised. But this possibility - that it is the conflict that is at the root of the horribly ideologies, words and actions - is studiously ignored by the Orientalists, desperate not to understand or solve the conflict, but to find an explanation that blames the other side.
| 3 July 2008, 3:28 pm |
Richard Farnos: Why is ceasing to aid and abet your enemies genocide? Israel delivers supplies to Gaza WHILE it is being bombed from Gaza. Palestinians shoot a delivery trucks, for god’s sake. What do you owe your mortal enemies? Since Israel left Gaza, Palestinians have fired over 2000 missiles at Israel. I mean, WTF? This madness only continues because Israel deals with them as if they were decent people. Why it does is a mystery to me. What other country in the world would do this?
| 3 July 2008, 3:37 pm |
farnos,
Seymour Paine is a sociopath (a mirror image of those who would attack Israelis, for existing), Paine seems to get some perverse pleasure by putting forward this grotesque notion.
Paine has been taken to task on this man times, yet is incapable cogently responding, he doesn’t want peace in the Middle East he seems to get some cheap thrill from bloodshed and conflict, much like his mirror images, who attack Israelis with glee.
| 3 July 2008, 3:38 pm |
TheIrie, clearly you know nothing of Jewish or Arab culture. If you had the slightest experience of what you are bullshitting on about, you’d know that a Jewish parent would never encourage their children - or anyone else’s - to become a suicide bomber. The fact that Israelis are willing to trade hundreds of prisoners just to get back the remains of their fallen should tell you all you need to know. Get back in your pseudo-intellectual box and shut the f*ck up.
| 3 July 2008, 3:42 pm |
This madness only continues because Israel deals with them as if they were decent people.
I think it’s because the Israelis are decent people. Maybe I’m wrong, but I think there’s something just a teeny bit noble about having at least some compassion for your enemy. I agree it can be frustrating at times, though.
| 3 July 2008, 3:50 pm |
Golda Meir hit the nail on the head.
The Taiwanese are unable to achieve independence but they concentrate on expanding their economy and building their society.
The Palestinians, or at least their leaders, have often preferred to fight Israel rather than concentrate on improving their own society.
The Gazans have a choice. They could declare a ceasefire and concentrate on building a successful society and probably an independent state or they could continue to lob missiles at Israel and condemn their children to another forty years of war and suffering. It’s their choice.
| 3 July 2008, 3:50 pm |
Mod - please answer my question above addressed to you. You saw fit to insult me about my understanding, so why not be a bit specific for once about what I got wrong?
| 3 July 2008, 3:50 pm |
Mod - are you capable of understanding basic concepts? Is my definition and explanation of Orientalism deficient in some way?
Yes…..and yes!
Your charges of ‘orientalism’ are nothing but cheap attempts to shut down debate and to deflect from certain basic truths.
In fact, seeings what is shown on Hamas T.V. and to take notice of what is being preached by islamist clerics in many, many mosques, one can’t help but conclude that the only ‘orientalists’ present on earth the are the arabs themselves, never missing an opportunity to reinforce negative stereotypes to the point of caracature.
the argument of the so called ‘birthrate strategy’ is nothing more than a way do dehumanize the enemy.
I’d love to believe that, but many clerics and islamist leaders boast of the fact ‘their’ women are outbreeding the kuffur.
Merely reporting, in an honest and straighforward manner, on what these clerics and ’scholars’ are saying about demographics is NOT AT ALL an instance of dehumanising the enemy.
It is an instance of ACCURATE reporting.
When canadian writer Mark Steyn quoted a norwegian imam’s gleeful comments about ‘muslims taking over by breeding like mosquitos’, no one took the imam to task for his pro-pos, but everyone piled on Steyn for ‘islamophpobia’ simply for having repeated, VERBATUM, the good imam’s ‘orientalist’ statements.
The higher the birthrate, the less children tend to be valued.
The lower the birthrate, the more children are cherished.
That’s not ‘orientalist’, that’s basic logic and common sense.
| 3 July 2008, 3:52 pm |
Boogski: Yes, it does seem noble; it might even be noble in some weird Christian sense, but why sacrifice your own people so your enemies can eat and sleep? I’m not saying level Gaza with bombs; just stop supporting them. What obligation does Israel have towards its enemies? What’s next? Medical care for Hezbeollah? Or the Iranian Revolutionary Guard? And if not, why not?
| 3 July 2008, 3:56 pm |
Here’s another bit of reverse Orientalism - I could cite this as proof that Israel is an institutionally racist society. It wouldn’t necessarily be a rational conclusion though, would it.
| 3 July 2008, 4:08 pm |
Edward Said was concerned with academic western “constructions” of Eastern culture and accepted himself that such paradigms had virtually died out by the time he wrote his famous work in 1977.
Gaza isn’t Surrey
It may however be Glasgow:
| 3 July 2008, 4:10 pm |
Oh yeah and Alec (before you ask) the murder of the two French Imperial College students was about half a mile away - I have even been to a party in those buildings.
| 3 July 2008, 4:15 pm |
“””””many religious Islamic women see themselves to exist primarily as baby-making machines. “”””””
sorry, racist arguments are not likely to bring peace. “”””””
It is not racist to tell the truth.
| 3 July 2008, 4:19 pm |
many clerics and islamist leaders boast of the fact ‘their’ women are outbreeding the kuffur. Not only clerics; I have been at a large gathering of women in England where a young modern British Muslim woman shouted, to cheers, that we are going to outnumber you so don’t mess with us.
| 3 July 2008, 4:32 pm |
“I have even been to a party in those buildings.” - when was that then, 1974? Seriously though, this was a horrible incident. There are loads of French students at Imperial at the moment, and I was scared for a moment it might have been one of my colleagues. Why on earth would anyone murder two French students? They’re not exactly loaded. Very disturbing.
| 3 July 2008, 4:32 pm |
Where did you go so such a gathering?
What sort of meeting was it?
In what context was this said?
| 3 July 2008, 4:33 pm |
GREG,
as The Irie was quoting me, i would like to anwser you.
I really don’t know much about israel and palestine, I have never been there, and in my entire life I only met one israeli and i have never met any palestinian.
Also i wasn’t yet born when the Holocaust happened, not to mention the Inquisition.
It happens that I am myself the 10th of 12 children, and I got tired of having to cope with the stygma that only promiscuous people have lots of children.
so this is where I base my moral authority to feel outraged by racist comments about certain cathegory of people not being capable of loving their children the way decent people do.
this is where I feel personally offended as a woman and as the daughter of my parents.
It is a proof of dignity that the israelis are willing to exchange hundreds of denainees in order to recover a single hostage. It reveals respect for the ingroup. but this is not enough.
you only make peace if you are able to reach your opponent, and dehumanizing your opponent is not going to help bring him to the side of reason.
racism only produces more racism.
and we must beware of generalizations.
should we stigmatize people for being poor, uneducated, alienated or opressed by totalitarian religious and political leaders? is this the right attitude to work for peace?
sorry, I don’t think so.
| 3 July 2008, 4:44 pm |
It happens that I am myself the 10th of 12 children, and I got tired of having to cope with the stygma that only promiscuous people have lots of children.
I would love to have 12 children.
Until the middle of this century, lots of people had families of this size.
What changed was:
- a culture of contraception, and recreational sex
- an economy and culture which meant that women could work
- low death rates
Very few people are able to have families of 12 nowadays. You can just about do it, if the state subsidises you to: but otherwise, few people would be able to maintain families of much above 3 or so kids.
| 3 July 2008, 4:46 pm |
Seymour,
Like I said, I agree it can be frustrating. What you suggest just seems over the top in this day and age. Surely the Israeli government has studied the possible repercussions of taking the actions you suggest?
I doubt the majority of Israelis would support such measures. Besides, it’s much more satisfying to see the Israelis catch those rocket-launching fuckers in the act and turn them into red Hamas mist. The Israelis certainly have technology on their side.
| 3 July 2008, 4:48 pm |
It was a weekend celebrating womanhood together, for women of all cultures, with a substantial Jewish and Muslim contingent, and each person had to rise and say what was great about her identity. I can’t identify the group more specifically online for privacy reasons.
| 3 July 2008, 4:49 pm |
I don’t think Golda Meir was meant to be taken literally. What she was proposing was that Palestinians were more interested in trying to destroy Israel and kill Israel rather than building a peaceful and prosperous future for themselves and future generations, regardless of Israel’s stance.
| 3 July 2008, 4:51 pm |
Since when did everyone here become experts on Palestinian parenting techniques?
| 3 July 2008, 4:51 pm |
“I have even been to a party in those buildings.” - when was that then, 1974?
Early nineties (when I was still louche enough to merit the attentions of a mad German woman.)
Why on earth would anyone murder two French students? They’re not exactly loaded. Very disturbing.
The word on the streets (trust or discard as you like) involves dealers in little pills.
| 3 July 2008, 4:52 pm |
This is certainly a decision by the Israelis and only by them. As for taking action, actually my way is inaction. What does Israel owe Gazans?
| 3 July 2008, 4:58 pm |
For the Irie’s oriental eyes.
http://pointdebasculecanada.ca/spip.php?article494
I would love to have 12 children.
No you wouldn’t.
Very large families like that are a detriment to society.
Having such large numbers of children just leads to abuse and neglect.
Someone always gets lost in the shuffle.
| 3 July 2008, 5:00 pm |
What does Israel owe Gazans?
The adult Gazans? Perhaps nothing. But there is a presumption of innocence when it comes to young children. They can’t help it if their parents are fucking assholes.
| 3 July 2008, 5:03 pm |
*Some* of their parents, that is.
| 3 July 2008, 5:04 pm |
Ami
It was a weekend celebrating womanhood together, for women of all cultures, with a substantial Jewish and Muslim contingent, and each person had to rise and say what was great about her identity.
And she said, what, “Watch out - we’re going to outbreed you”?
What, in a jokey way? In a threatening way?
Email me if you can’t say online.
| 3 July 2008, 5:04 pm |
Seymour – We are not talking about some standing army here, the vast majority of Palestinians in Gaza are non-combatants. If you deny people the basic requirements of life such as food and water they will die in days. In other words you would be responsible for deaths of a million or more innocent people. Is that not genocide?
Modernity – grant you Seymour may well be far out on plant hate, however the rational he is using is the same track as that implied in Golda Meir infamous remark. Namely by presenting the on going conflict in pseudo psychological or “cultural” explanations rather than a political conflict over sovereignty, the “Palestinian problem” magically becomes a problem within Palestinians. So we get glib generalizations about their breeding (sic) habits, as if they were rabbits or something. Or “most Palestinians being Muslims are told almost from birth that to sacrifice yourself for Islam is one of the greatest things a person can do.” And so on.
Now whether we call this orientalism or just old fashion racism is neither here or there, as long we a recognize the danger of demonizing whole communities. Seymour may be the terminus but Ethan, Ami; Field et al are stations along the way.
| 3 July 2008, 5:04 pm |
So Israel owes something to the children of Gaza? Why, exactly? I get it that children are supposedly innocent (although Gaza’s children are taught vehement Jew hatred from an early age), but so what? Why does Israel owe something to Gaza’s children? Why not, say, Egypt or Canada? And what does Gaza owe to Israel’s children? Like those in Sderot?
| 3 July 2008, 5:06 pm |
And why “perhaps”? You (and certainly modernity) have not explained why this is Israel’s responsibility, especially considering that Hamas’s goal is the elimination of Israel and the expulsion of Jews from the area.
And let’s say, for the sake of argument only, that Israel should help the children of Gaza. How do you help the children of Gaza but not at the same time help those who want to dead?
| 3 July 2008, 5:13 pm |
So Israel owes something to the children of Gaza? Why, exactly?
Because it’s the duty of ALL adults not to (or at least TRY not to) abuse or deprive children of food, water, and medicine.
| 3 July 2008, 5:22 pm |
There will be peace when the Palestinians realize that their Arab “brothers”, the same ones who made them the world’s first permanent refugees, have abandoned the struggle and are grudgingly making peace with Israel. Untill then, the Palestinians are like Frankenstein’s Monster, abandoned by its creator and left to roam destructivley on its own.
| 3 July 2008, 5:44 pm |
David T: Its a tricky one to guage- the context was you were meant to be saying important truths about yourself- it was said in a tone of innocent triumph, not quite jokey, but not quite threatening, if that makes sense. Maybe will email you offline sometime- it is a rather different group from most people’s experience.
| 3 July 2008, 5:46 pm |
How do you help the children of Gaza but not at the same time help those who want to dead?
I don’t know, Seymour. I think we’re into ‘paradox’ territory.
| 3 July 2008, 5:52 pm |
Why should Israel take Palestinian kid’s into account, Britain didn’t take German or Japanese kid’s into account in world war two and neither should they.
I think it was Clauswitz who wrote that the worst mistakes in war were those made for reasons of soft heartedness, Being considerate of the enemy only means your own people pay a higher price.
| 3 July 2008, 5:55 pm |
I really don’t know much about israel and palestine, I have never been there, and in my entire life I only met one israeli and i have never met any palestinian.
So shut the f*ck up then (or even better, do some research). The self-righteous exhibiting moral outrage on subjects they know shit-all about is at best arrogance and at worse entirely detrimental to reconciliation.
And I believe it was Golda Meir who said “We can forgive them for killing our children, but we can’t for making us kill theirs” OWTTE. Can you imagine the other side expressing that sentiment?
And as for racism, it isn’t racism to state the truth (though it might not be PC - despite what you read in the Independent, there is a difference).
The fact that the leadership of the Palestinians (not to mention religiou
I’m going to be very cold and somewhat inhuman in this reply. Forgive me should I cross an unspoken line.
Demographically, Israelis have fewer children than Palestinians do. Much like Europeans around the turn of the last century, there is a large population excess in the West Bank and Gaza.
Although it would be false to say that Palestinians do not love their children at all, it would also be false to say that they are not perfectly willing to sacrifice their excess children on the altar of ‘resistance’ moreso than the Israelis are willing to sacrifice their (far smaller number of) children.
After all, many religious Islamic women see themselves to exist primarily as baby-making machines. Hamas (as well as the MB in Europe) has capitalized on this. Although minorities now, larger birthrates as well as a brainwashed attitude biased toward sacrifice of one’s personal well being for the Ummah can lead toward an unending conflict in Israel. This can also cause significant problems in Europe as well.
Golda’s quote, although not completely accurate, captures the correct sentiment. Hamas doesn’t care about a long term plan at all. They consider only the short term - destruction of Israel. What happens after? Islamic empire? Theocracy? Squabbling inter-tribal conflict? Destruction of Israel means destruction of the entire Israeli economy. Hamas isn’t going to be able to rebuild the high-tech or manufacturing sectors - their future is one of genocide, then extreme poverty likely under a tin-pot dictator.
Perhaps, a better quote would be this: When the Palestinians care about the future as much as we do, then the conflict will end.