Harry's Place

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.

“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.

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.

“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.

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!”)

“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.

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.

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.

“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.

Golda Meir’s comment only really means “peace will come once the Arabs surrender”.

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.

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.)

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’.

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.

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.

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”???

The kiss of death:

“I very much agree with this post. The quote is a classic trope of Orientalist thinking.”

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!

Nothing is more Orientalist than critiques of Orientalism.

Yes Joe, that’s what I was getting at. :D

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.

“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.

Evidently Golda Meir was a self-hating Orientalist.

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.

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.

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.

Gene, on the other hand, is 100% right.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

“”"”"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.

“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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

Sorry, this:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/997629.html

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:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/scotland/2236353/Glasgow-as-bad-as-the-Gaza-Strip,-says-SNP-leader.html

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.

“””””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.

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.

“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.

Where did you go so such a gathering?

What sort of meeting was it?

In what context was this said?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Since when did everyone here become experts on Palestinian parenting techniques?

“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.

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?

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.

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.

*Some* of their parents, that is.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 religious leaders) deify suicide bombers is not conjecture. The fact that Hezbollah and Hamas identify and groom (some) children into becoming terrorists or bombers at their ’schools’ is not conjecture. The fact that children are taught songs about the glory of becoming bombers and that they dress up as suicide bombers in parades – not conjecture.

So, what ’s your duty to them? Are you sending packages to them?

farnos wrote:

“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.”

and:

“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.”

I would completely agree, but haven’t you considered that it cuts both ways?

that some people would instinctively distrust Golda Meir and inflate of her comments?

making an effort to portray her in the worst possible light? whereas they wouldn’t necessarily do that to neighbouring politicians?

George Foreman saves time when shouting out his sons names

Foreman has 10 children, and each of his five sons is named George: George Jr., George III, George IV, George V, and George VI.

So, what ’s your duty to them? Are you sending packages to them?

In a round-about way, yes. The US gov’t has donated to Gazans, has it not?

I imagine considering the often wretched state of many of them, either extremely little money or none. In any case, are the Israeli shipments meant only for the children? What about the electricity and water? Can’t Hamas use the electricity and water to maintain themselves while the build more missiles? I look at it as being national suicide.

Your idea seems to be that one can separate out protecting children, a noble endeavor, from supporting their parents and the government around them. This is a classic problem in delivering aid. Look at Burma; look at many aid programs in Africa which are sometimes compromised by vile governments. In Gaza, which is a complete basket case, the government is devoted to one goal: the destruction of Israel and the elimination of Jews from, at least, the area they claim as Palestine. So, supporting the children there must inevitably mean supporting and sustaining Hamas. Same problem during WWII: Killing the Nazis meant killing many German children, who were just as innocent as the Gaza children. Of course, the situation via-a-vis Israel and Gaza is not at the stage things were at during WWII, but only because Hamas is weak.

But to my question: Why shouldn’t the Israelis feed and support the children in Lebanon under Hezbollah control? Syria?

“”"”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.”"”"

well, it’s amazing the level of prejudice a person can show.

hei, JONH P,

guess what:

if we count also the 2nd generation, my parent’s descent already goes in 25 and I hope that other babies will come from our gigantic baby-factories!

soon my family will be so huge that the portuguese government will be forced to declare war on Spain for lack of vital space.

hordes of francos will invade europe!!!

but don’t worry, so that we will not get lost in the shuffle, we will do like Ariadne and Theseus in the Labirinth of Crete.

Now, just think of all the carbon dioxid my parents descent is producing just by the fact that we breathe!!!!

TONS!

and we keep multiplying ourselves!!!

because of our carbon dioxide, there will be no oxigen left for your small descent to survive.

we really should be exterminated, we are a danger not only to human society, but to the survival of the planet itself.

ami:

totalitarians use that argument all the time, either to denounce a conspiracy of babies getting out of baby factories or to intimidate the opponent by threathening them with the ‘demographic weapon’.

totalitarians want to portray themselves as having total power over their subjects, so if their opponents come to believe that their power is such that they have full control over their subjects bodies, they are more than glad.

the question thus is:

reproducing such argument will be helpful to overcome conflicts???

not to mention the underlying danger in such argument.

in guatemala and peru thousands of native women were forced into sterilization, while the populations of european did nothing, because they couldn’t care less, they shared Jonh P. prejudices…

this kind of rethorics is what in the end justifies genocides.

how can we fight fundamentalists and other totalitarians??? by reproducing their own arguments?

this argument of the demographic strategy is a gigantic falacy, aimed against women in general.

people adapt their families size to their own desires as well as to the social needs and economic constraints, so by fostering social change, you will get changes in the composition of families.

emancipated women have the ability to better plan the size of their family without subjecting themselves to the degradation of making abortions.

I tried to advert people to the danger of racist arguments and excessive generalizations, because I believe that fostering peace should start within ourselves and that this means becoming aware of our own prejudices. but obviously some people prefer to stick to their own ideals of superiority by labeling others as inferior.

I really do not want to weigh in on the “should Israel provide utilities to Gaza debate”, BUT

While I agree that it would be a humanitarian disaster for Israel to lay a true and real siege in Gaza,

but

why should Israel provide any resources to its enemies, especially enemies which are engaged in a low level hot war with them?

Would you expect any other nation to be so accommodating?

Secondly, a significant reason that Israel slows the provision of utilites to Gaza is due to non-payment for them. Think about that Israelies are subsidizing the purchase of weapons by their enemies. Every dolor that Israel does not collect for utilitiy services is a Dollar available for corruption and weapons!

A true siege would put pressure on the Gazans to surrender or die. A normal situation would see an adversary employ such a tactic in order to hasten an end to the conflict and a quick victory.

hordes of francos will invade europe!!!

Actually that sounds like a JP fantasy (and would certainly have had another long-term denizen of the comments boxes here shaking with glee.)

I would love to have 12 children.

David T, are you sure you’re not Chareidi?

I imagine considering the often wretched state of many of them, either extremely little money or none.

Wrong. See here:

http://www.america.gov/st/washfile-english/2007/October/20071031114245idybeekcm0.5513727.html

But to my question: Why shouldn’t the Israelis feed and support the children in Lebanon under Hezbollah control? Syria?

I think they would if the need was there and they were given the opportunity and could afford it. Hell, they probably already have.

Well, Joe, I imagine you’ll be called a monster and worse, as am I, simply for asking a question.

“If indeed, to give one example, Hamas hates Israeli children more than it loves Palestinian children, then there is no prospect of peace.”

No shit.

graham, what is a JP fantasy? I am not a native english speaker, and i have never been in Britain so I don’t understand the meaning of such expression.

anyway, we are already invading and spreading our genes in europe, and not only in europe :-)

“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.”

1) Why, or is this just dogma?
2) Seeing as we already have attempted for the past 15 years and it has done nothing but worsen the situation maybe we could attempt something else, like the Israeli state putting Israeli citizens first for once?

Ah don’t worry Sarah. I am just saying that Mr John Pabliuski would probably be delighted with the idea of your namesake the former “El Caudillo” invading Europe!

Yes, John Pabliuski (JP) not doubt regards Generalissmo Franco and his Muslim troops from what was Spainish Morocco as the saviors of Christian Spain from the Godless Jewish/Masonic/Communist Menace!

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”.

This is pedantic even for Muffin.

If one can love their own children and kill them then love is not really a meaningful concept.

Well, Joe, I imagine you’ll be called a monster and worse, as am I, simply for asking a question.

Seymour Paine 3 July 2008, 7:09 pm

Well Seymour, I am actually a little jealous at this point.

Indeed Modernity of course these issues “cut both ways”. Demonisation of Israelis undeniably happens with Palestinian communities up to and including full blown anti-Semitism. Like the orientalisms of cultural explanations of the conflict they offer no way out, and counter productive. Over coming such prejudice will be necessary to deliver peace, and if anyone prompted such a position I would take them to task, however on site no one has so I haven’t.

Moreover we need to acknowledge power relations here. As Seymour’s rant demonstrate most of the power is with the Israelis. The West Bank is complete controlled by the IDF and Gaza the skies are control by IDF as are the boarders. Moreover the IDF leaves and enters Gaza as it pleases. The idea that Gaza has any real independence is a fantasy. Lets be frank – Gaza is a ghetto.

Seen through this perspective the demonisation of Palestinians is worrying, to say the least.

farnos wrote:

“Over coming such prejudice will be necessary to deliver peace, and if anyone prompted such a position I would take them to task, however on site no one has so I haven’t.”

I am sure you would, but then again I didn’t mean the Palestinians.

my point, or more correctly yours of “as long we a recognize the danger of demonizing whole communities.” happens today and much closer to home than you’d think

by that I mean if we were to sample a selection of Western web sites we would see the demonisation of “Zionists” without too much trouble, wouldn’t we?

with a few keywords into google you could find numerous web sites in the UK, not run by “extremists” or anyone remotely connected to the Middle East, but mostly by white male university graduates who are hung up about “Zionists”

by that I don’t mean, evangelical Christians in America, I mean those “Zionists” residing around Tel Aviv or Sderot

and I think that is a problem.

Richard Farnos 3 July 2008, 10:26 pm

What is disconcerting is your outright racisim!

Frankly, you attitude towards Palestinians is contemptible. You do not hold Palestinians accountable for any of their own actions or decisions, rather you transfer that responsibility away from them. You treat the Palestinians as if they were infants, not know right from wrong, and therefor not being able to judge them.

IT IS THIS ATTITUDE THAT HAS PROLONGED THE CONFLICT AND RESULTED IN THE MISERY THAT IS TODAY BEING WITNESSED.

Racist.

Richard Farnos 3 July 2008, 10:26 pm

Truth is that the Palestinians have had ample opportunity to reach a peaceful settlement with Israel. It is they, the Palestinians, that have rejected peace, in favour of absolutest claims.

The fact that you do not hold them accountable for that is “a worrying trend”.

That Israel is powerful, and the conflict has not been resolved, speaks more to Israels restraint than anything else.

In the current power relationship, Israel should, under normal conditions, simply dictate the terms of the settlement. Post World War 2, do you think that the Allies engaged with NAZIs over the terms of the settlement? For that matter, what about the transfer of populations that occured in Europe, where ethnic Germans were forced to flee their homelands. Or Muslims who left Indai? Or Hindus that left Pakistan.

Do you think anyone asked Germany if they wanted peices of it carved up and divided between the Allie powers?

You misunderstand the nature of power and your argument about it is absurd!

Here: “This murdering terrorists don’t love their children, they love Allah. And they are sick, sick, sick.”

I have been an “orientalist”.

And here:

“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)”

I have been an occidentalist, for sure.

I think that TheIrie is an idiot.

As Field noted early in this thread, it should come as little surprise that there are plenty of situations where a society is prepared to sacrifice its children (traditionaly sons, but nowdays both sexes) for their country and/or cause. All our countries have done so in our history and we highly honor those who, in Lincoln’s words:

“gave their lives so that the nation might live ….that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion – that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain – that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom – and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

Is it not so strange then that other countries, peoples are willing to
sacrifice their children for their country/cause?

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has attracted more attention over the last generation then any other even though it is less dangerous then a number of other conflicts, most particularly the other I-P conflict, that of India & Pakistan, both nuclear armed, over Kashmir and certainly a lot less bloodly then most. (The wars in the Democratic Republic of Congo over the last decade that have killed 3 to 4 million people probably qualifies as the bloodiest.) For all the attention given to the Israelis & Palestinians, it does not seem to have brought more desire to settle their conflict, at least on part of the Palestinians, rather the reverse. Perhaps if the outside world would stop insisting that this conflict be solved now, there would be less attention, less posturing and perhaps once the cameras stopped recording the carnage of suicide bombers, a new desire on both sides to come to some sort of settlement. There will not be one as long as the Palestinians have their current false belief that somehow they can outlast the Israelis, who after all, are a pretty determined lot, even if they did not constantly shout it at the top of their lungs.

Joe’s last two comments and Fabian’s last comment pretty well indicate how the Palestinians have been pampered by those who say they support them so that the Palestinians, like spoiled children, never have to take responsibility for their actions.

Joe – where have I ever suggested that Palestinians, like anyone else, are not accountable for their actions?

Modernity – Well evidently, my sausage, we read different blogs. Or rather I don’t think it is extreme or unreasonable to point out that the idea that sovereignty of a state should be determined by what was written in a book a few thousand years ago is dangerous and extreme. Neithertheless there is nothing to be gained (in the long term) by distorting what any ideology – and if people do than, pass their hands and I’ll slap them. However I think that it fair to say that Zionism absent mindedness of two thousand or more years of subsequent history does build in blindness and complete contempt of Palestinian society. To any Universalist, Zionism is certainly an ugly ideology.

Although it is not the same as the Israeli-Palestinian struggle, the conflict in Sri Lanka between the majority Sri Lankans and the minority Tamils is worth taking a look at to see how democracy, majority rule, can result in a minority being driven to rebellion and then commit atrocities of its own in the name of its People’s right to nationhood. A very good, if depressing, look at this can be found in Santosh Sivan’s film, “The Terrorist” (1999), which is based on the assassiniation of Raji Ghandi by a female Tamil Tiger suicide bomber in 1991. The movie shows how a young woman can believe that an act of suicide terrorism is her inescapeable goal in life. It is available on both dvd and vhis. The story with trailer,cast list, etec can be found at http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0169032/maindetails

Richard Farnos, if Zionism is an “ugly idealogy”, what is the Palestinians’ worship of the suicide bomber, a thing of beauty?

Once again, I have screwed up. the web address for “The Terrorist” is http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0169302/maindetails .

David All – grow up

No Palestinians “worship the suicide bomber” – that is a racist fantasy. Like the Tamil Tigers (a secular organisation by the by) suicide bombing was undertaken for logistical reason – principally it is more difficult to stop some who is quite literally prepared to be blow up by their own petard. Cold and cynical, I grant your, irrational or worship, certainly not.

Moreover David I note you avoid the central thrust of my argument. Assuming that your within the twenty-first century understanding of Universalism, that suggests equality to all – how do you square this with Zionism privileging of one community over another?

Muffin you’re right, wrong and in another way, wrong.

Yes it’s true that Palestinians act in their own perceived self interest. But it’s also true that their values and beliefs are so different from ours that the implications of this bode not well at all. They’re acting in what they see as their self interests, and the prospects for real and permanent peace are completely nonexistent.

They will continue to die in this conflict, because ultimately they believe both that there is an immediate payoff to dying from God, and that there is an immediate cost to ending their enmity also directly from God.

Yes it is true that Muslims can and have lived in peace before. But Palestinian society has been caught up in war for long enough that they may not be willing to trade the disadvantages of peace for the advantages of war.

You can not promise them that their children will get a guaranteed place in heaven. But the Koran promises that if they die in battle they will get that, and perhaps bring their families and friends with them.

You can not protect them from the wrath of God if they make peace with God’s enemies.

But you know, maybe Meir understood all that, and when she said that they do not love their children enough, she was speaking in short hand. They hate too much because they believe that God hates. Unless acknowledge such nonsense as getting into heaven and avoiding hell as a real interest then you have to agree with Meir, that they’re not fighting in the interests of their children.

Richard Farnos, if your doctrine of supposed Universalism means anything, then why are the Palestinians rated over Israel?

David All –You seem to have historical facts arse over tit mate! Palestinians (Jewish, Muslim, Christian and Secular) lived the area called Palestinian before the creation of Israel. It is only with the creation of the state of Israel that some Palestinian where force to leave, some privileged over others on the basis of the religion/ethnicity. Non-Jewish Israelis, for example, are restricted to whom they are allowed to marry. Please tell me how on earth does that fit with Universalism?

Richard Farnos, if you believe that there was some sort of equality among the peoples of pre-Zionist Palestine, you really would believe anything that your idealogy tells you to believe, never mind the actual facts.

Your comment about supposed restrictions in Israel are a bunch of twisted lies. Go away and do not come back until you have some straight facts!

Dave All – you are deliberately missing the point. For sure pre-Israeli Palestine was no utopia but how does that justify the inequality of rights in modern day Israel for non-Jewish Israelis? Tell me do you think it is right for non-Jewish Israelis to be restricted to whom they allowed to marry by the state? For example, and how about those forced to leave, don’t they have a right to come back?

Farnos,

well, I wondered when your ideological preconditioning would kick in, and it’s a shame because could ruin a worthwhile exchange of views, but anyone familiar with the history of the Soviet Union would remember that Stalinists use the word “Zionist” when they clearly meant Jew, and they conducted numerous purges of “Zionists”, see the Doctor’s plot, Poland and the GDR.

it is not a terribly difficult political proposition to think that people might want to hide their hatreds under a plethora of euphemisms, is it?

and my point, which seems to have past you by, is:

why is it that people who have no connection with the Middle East, none whatsoever, and who’s actions will achieve nothing positive in the Middle East, seek to have a rather peculiar, not to say obsessional, interest or loathing in “Zionists”?? and basically only them?

I can’t quite work that one out, I don’t think its racial, but I think it is unhelpful and decidedly unhealthy

so when you consider, in one of your more reasonable moods, the demonisation of people you might wonder why some are a little leery when people shout about “Zionists”

there is always the suspicion that those shouting are not terribly concerned with the issues, or that they are motivated by a less than charitable sentiments towards Jews

now I appreciate you won’t understand that, but that’s how some people see it

and if you could step back for a moment, you might see why

Grow up modernity, you raised the question of Zionism not I – are you seriously suggesting that Zionism is not inherently racist? Tell me Modernity, do you think that it is ok to restrict the movement, and rights of soem Isreali citizens on the basis of their religion/ethnity? How does that square with Universalism or even “Modernity”?

Richard Farnos
3 July 2008, 11:49 pm

Joe – where have I ever suggested that Palestinians, like anyone else, are not accountable for their actions?

True you didn’t you only implied that Israel shoulld be held accountable because of the “power relationship” which is an old propaganda canard meant to convey the idea that the conflict would end only if the “powerful” wanted it to end.

It is ironic that in all your rants, your simply false accusations of “Jewish Privilege” and “ethnic cleansing” that you fail to acknowledge that it was Israel, not Jordan of Eygpt that created the Palestinian Authority. The Irony is that Israel is the country that is helping to construct a Palestinian Nation. The Arab world is happy (and I mean joyful) at the prospect of Palestinian living in refugee camps.

You speak of some imagined Israeli “ethnic cleansing” but fail to protest about the unique status that the Palestinians have in the world. After all they are the only ethnic group where refugee status can be inherited. No one, least of all you, protests about the displaced ethnic Germans post World War Two. What about their UNRWA?

Richard Farnos
4 July 2008, 1:13 am

Grow up modernity, you raised the question of Zionism not I – are you seriously suggesting that Zionism is not inherently racist?

Farnos, if Modernity isn’t I am. Zionism is the expressed desire for Jews to have an independent National home.

Now, Farnos, would you seriously try to deny that you are an anti-semitic Cunt without turd for brains?

Farnos,

no, I didn’t bring up the topic of Zionism, because if you look very, very carefully you see I use the word “ZionIST”, not Zionism.

that was to signify an individual, not an ideology, there’s a big difference between the two, did you understand any of my points?

and if so, could you summarise them?

Joe, you should be careful not to insult turds!

David All,

It is acceptable to insult turds since they have no state that will act on their behalf and protect them against persecution. Further, since every nation in the world considers having Turds undesireable, as we increase our persecution of them, no one will accept them.

In short, it is easy to pick on Turds since no one likes or wants them.

TheIrie –

Have you finally got down the library and borrowed a book?

You seem to me writing “Orientalism” or “Edward Said” about every fifth word.

Joe, you are right. Turds are blood sucking scum whom we can mistreat any way we want to!

Here is something to make Farnos, the Irie, etec foam at the mouth:
“Iraqi Leader shakes Barak’s hand” at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7483844.stm

David et al

Just be careful not to mistranslate Turdish otherwise you’ll have the British Turd Initiative threatening legal action.

Joe In the same breath your claim that there was no ethnic cleaning in the run up to creation of Israel and you maintain that Palestinians are “only ethnic group where refugee status can be inherited.” Leaving aside of whether this is true on not, you don’t explain why they are refugees in the first place. Are you seriously suggesting that hundreds of thousand of Palestinians suddenly woke up one morning and decided to abandon their house, farms and security on a whim? Get real.

You also bang on about raising the question of the inequality of power between Palestinians and the Israeli regime, and then you proudly observe that the Palestinian Authority was a creation Israeli power!

Too add insult to injury you rightly observe that the Palestinian have been sold out by their neighbours – Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. And yet for some reason you fail to mention is that this selling out was part of peace treaties with Israel!

Now don’t get me wrong I am not saying that Israelis or Israel is evil – far from it. What I am saying that peace in this region will only be achieved when ALL sides abandon this quasi –theological notions as well as the European early twentieth century notions that the nation state should equate with a single ethnicity, cultural, or religion. ALL societies are multi-cultural as are ALL cultures are multi-layered. As are ALL lands are contested. To try to shoehorn a single culture into a single state and single interruption of that culture into a single land helps no one – least of all the culture being shoehorned.

Now it is not for me to impose my “solutions” to the conflict in Israel/Palestinians – that can only be delivered by dialogue between the communities. However it seems to me that only longer term sustainable solution would be to recognize history and develop a multicultural, multifaith country where current Israeli citizens and returned refugees have equal rights in all aspects of their lives. Wouldn’t that be a real beacon of hope in the middles east?

Modernity – your point seems a tad pedantic to me, the differential between Zionism and Zionist does not seem that stark to me. I am a Humanist not a Memeologist, in that I believe that people have ideas, not ideas people. Therefore an ideology, presupposes a human engaging in thought. Therefore Zionism to exist requires the existence of either Zionists or at least anti-Zionists (if the notion is a straw man argument). Now since you don’t deny the existence of “Zionists” surely it is legitimate to discuss the ideology that defines them as such?

Joe – on what basis do you acuse me of being anti-semitic?

“What I am saying that peace in this region will only be achieved when ALL sides abandon this quasi –theological notions as well as the European early twentieth century notions that the nation state should equate with a single ethnicity, cultural, or religion.”

Richard – which religion do you think is more likely to achieve this first – Islam or Judaism?

Well give that position of majority of the Palestinian movement has historically been for a unity democratic secular state with religious tolerence for all – then you tell me Oniad?

Richard Farnos shows how he is either utterly dilusional or a complete liar with his statement: “that position of majority of the Palestinian movement has historically been for a unity democratic secular state with religious tolerance for all”.
Given the complete opposition of this is the truth, what further discussion is needed with Farnos.

Richard Farnos,

I am truely surprised to hear that Europeans have given up on notions of Nationalism. Obviously someon forgot to tell the Irish, The Bosnians, The Czeck and Slovaks, The Gerogians, The Ukraninas etc.

As for you being an Anti-semite. I will let your own words speak to that point. IT might have something to do with your beleif that the Jewish Nationalist movement is racist.

As for your other analysis, you truely should actually spend a moment of time reflecting in historical realities rather than self delusional fantasies. You do know that the Palestinian refugees are a result of a refusal by the Arab world to reject Israel and initiate an annihilationist against the Jewish Yishuv both befor and after UN partition.

The fact that (a) The neighbouring Arab states invited (i.e. told them that they need to get out of the way of their armies) the aaverage Palestinian into their countries and (b) refused to then settle them in place after the War of Independence is what created the refugee problem of today. True that some refugees were forcibly removed, but these represent a small number compared to the entire refugee population (i.e. those originating from Haifa left Despite a concerted campaign by the local Jewish Community to encourage them to stay.)

Largely those Arabs that stayed were given emancipation, citizenship and full civil rights in Israel.

Richard, the combination of your complete ignorance and your pontfication about the Israel is a “worrying trend”.

I have a suggestion, admit your an ignoramuses (on Israel) appoligise for your stupid comments, and shut up.

S.O.,

Though I often think you’re wrong, I seldom find you silly. This time’s the exception. You start with the flimsiest of foundations — a quote lifted out of context — and on it you build a house of cards.

It’s no surprise you have no context for the quote: no one seems to know the exact wording or exactly when she said it. But there are enough other Meir quotes in circulation for you to know that her views about Israel’s various Arab neighbours were not totally simplistic. She also said, for example, this:

“I am convinced that peace will come to Israel and its neighbors because the tens of millions of Arabs need peace just as much as we do. An Arab mother who loses a son in battle weeps as bitterly as any Israeli mother.”

That seems to be diametrically opposed to the quote you picked. So what are you going to do — write another piece arguing the other side, pretend she never said it, or think about how people (not least politicians) can hold and express contradictory thoughts at different times (and sometimes at the same time)?

Then there’s this:

“In the coming battle, I will not be satisfied to liberate the land. Israel’s arrogance and bluster, which has been going on for 23 years — all this must be terminated. As I have told them: I am ready to pay one million men as the price for this battle. But they too must be ready to pay a million men and more on their side.”

That’s Anwar Sadat in 1972 — the year before the Yom Kippur war. Sounds to me a lot like one of the chief spokesmen for the Arab world offering to sacrifice the children of Egypt for the destruction of Israel. It might have seemed that way to Meir too, because here’s another one of hers, apparently in response to Sadat saying the same kind of thing the next year:

“When President Sadat said the other day that war must go on, and he is prepared to sacrifice a million men every year, one shudders not only at the thought of a million men giving away their lives, but that the head of a people can say it, that he can make this statement is something that makes one shudder.”

I don’t know what was in the heart of Sadat when he said those words, nor of Nasser or Shukairy or Assad when they made countless similar boasts, not of the assorted bereaved parents who laud their late, exploded children’s “martyrdom”. But I think one is entitled to judge people by what they do and what they say, especially when they do and say it so consistently. And I think it’s parochial of you to insist despite the evidence, that everyone is motivated by the same desires and ideals as you and me. If that’s really how people are, how can you possibly explain Egypt, Syria, Lebanon et al. incarcerating their ethnic and religious cousins in shit-hole camps for two generations? No country in Europe would do that. America wouldn’t do that. Israel didn’t do that. How do you explain the Three Noes of Khartoum, when a yes would have given the Palestinians a home and a future? Any country I have any affinity for would have said yes.

The problem is not as you put it, that Arabs are “motivated by the hatred of Israelis/Jews in precedence to their own perceived self-interest”. It is that — despite all the talk about the “Arab nation”, the brotherhood of all Arabs or all Muslims, and Palestinian nationalism — self-interest in the Arab world doesn’t recognise a self that encompasses a whole people. Hamas doesn’t give a rat’s arse about the children of Palestinians, except as bloody trophies to wave in front of TV cameras. Nasser didn’t give a wet slap about the Palestinians: Why would he, when his strongest emotions about Egyptians were contempt and fear. Mubarak is cut from the same cloth. So when Golda Meir talked about Arabs loving their own children, perhaps it was no more than a truthful reference to the ease with which Arab leaders tossed other people’s children into the abyss, and when people in the blogosphere repeat her line, perhaps it is because nothing has changed.

Graham:

“”Ah don’t worry Sarah. I am just saying that Mr John Pabliuski would probably be delighted with the idea of your namesake the former “El Caudillo” invading Europe!”"

:-)

I take it as a sacred mission to drown the name franco in the mud of decent left wing ideals… let’s call it a subversive pleasure.

“Well give that position of majority of the Palestinian movement has historically been for a unity democratic secular state with religious tolerence for all – then you tell me Oniad?”

Farnos doesn’t even know the Charter of the PLO! Which is the first charter the Palestinians ever wrote in which they appropiated for tactical reasons some soundbites from the West.

The same charter, however, states that Jews and their descendants who came to live in Eretz Israel after 1897, must be deported “to their places of origin” because “Judaism is a religion, not a nationality”. Antisemitic crap. Like Farnos.

BTW, because of intermarriage between Jews who where already living in Eretz Israel and Jews who came from the East and the West, every Jew must be deported from Israel, so Palestinians can have their “secular” state, according to the PLO Charter.

And did you know that the Charter was never really abrogated?

I would like to see the new Charter the PLO promised…. where is it?

I am travelling and was out of Internet touch for the last 14 hours – these lines are written in a god-forsaken airport…

I would have liked to reply to all the many points one-by-one, but soon they will call my flight, so I’ll be brief and scatter-gunnish:

• The obligations or otherwise of Israel towards Gaza: While Israel removed settlements and IDF outposts from Gaza, it kept Gaza borders under siege. (With full cooperation of Egypt, that cherishes Hamas/Muslim Brotherhood even less then Israel and is less expected by world opinion to act humanely.) This includes not just land borders but also the sea and air: Gazan “sovereignty” expires some 100 metres above sea level. This means that nothing – no single milliwatt of electricity and not a single grain of rice – can enter Gaza except through Israeli territory or otherwise through Israeli consent. (Likewise for Gaza exports.) This creates an altogether different situation to the scenario of “our neighbour lobes missiles at us, so why should we supply them with electricity?”.

Israel insisted on this total control of Gaza borders to prevent large-scale movement of military ordinance into Gaza. Fair enough, I can see the reason – but there is a quid pro quo.

• Farnos writes “Neithertheless there is nothing to be gained (in the long term) by distorting what any ideology – and if people do than, pass their hands and I’ll slap them.” and then proceeds to distort Zionism totally and completely. Incidentally, adopting precisely the stance that I identified and criticised in Golda Meir’s case: characterising actions of ethnic movements through the keyhole of what they mean to their enemies, not by their intrinsic motivation.

Right, off I have to go and I imagine that all of you, Fabian excepted, will hope for a good flight.

Destruction of Israel means even destruction of Arab minority in Israel.

“Right, off I have to go and I imagine that all of you, Fabian excepted, will hope for a good flight.”

If only for the rest of the passengers, Muffin…

You only think about yourself.

The same charter, however, states that Jews and their descendants who came to live in Eretz Israel after 1897, must be deported “to their places of origin” because “Judaism is a religion, not a nationality”.

Which article of the covenant calls for their deportation?

“Article 6:The Jews who had normally resided in Palestine until the beginning of the Zionist invasion will be considered Palestinians.”

Oh, yes, after they have announced that “The liberation of Palestine, from an Arab viewpoint, is a national (qawmi) duty and it attempts to repel the Zionist and imperialist aggression against the Arab homeland, and aims at the elimination of Zionism in Palestine” and that “armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine”, you confront three alternatives: the Jews come came before 1897 will be exterminated, they will be deported, or they will be stripped of citizenship rights.

Don’t be a pedant with me, you little fucker, these people have written a Charter calling for extermination of another people.

Which, not coincidentally, is always the Jews who need to be erased, and little antisemitic and coward fuckers like yourself who like to “contextualize” calls for the genocide of my people.

Wow. Takes a big, tough man to insult people over the internet.

That covenant may be many things – hopelessly outdated and unworkable comes to mind. But it at no point calls for the deportation or extermination of people.

There is also a commitment to secularism in article 16.

“On the spiritual plane, the liberation of Palestine will establish in the Holy Land an atmosphere of peace and tranquillity in which all religious institutions will be safeguarded and freedom of worship and the right of visit guaranteed to all without discrimination or distinction of race, colour, language or creed.”

You can, with some justification choose to doubt the sincerity of this, but pretending that it says things it doesn’t, really doesn’t do your cause any favours.

Jeez, do you talk to everyone like this?

Fabian, I’m not contextualising, you’re extrapolating, to a rather extraordinary degree one might add.

“Takes a big, tough man to insult people over the internet.”

While my last name is easy to find, I don’t see YOU giving your last name. I would like to know who is the PLO-fucker who writes under the nickname “Mike S.”

“But it at no point calls for the deportation or extermination of people.”

No? Then read it again. It calls for the stripping of rights of all the Jews in Eretz Israel, achieved by force. So it is a genocidal charter with the goal of Apartheid.

Go fuck yourself, PLO wanker.

Again with the language. Do you kiss your mother with that mouth?

I’ll give you that it is many ways a nasty document which legitimises terror, but my argument is that it doesn’t call for deportations or genocide. But as ever, I’m not sure this is a useful discussion to carry on, when you just counter any disagreement with your rather extreme point of view with personal abuse.

Oh, and on a pedantic point, I think the date of the zionist invasion is meant to refer to the Balfour Declaration of 1917, rather than 1897. Not that it makes a huge amount of difference…

“I’ll give you that it is many ways a nasty document which legitimises terror, but my argument is that it doesn’t call for deportations or genocide. ”

Just like “final solution” does not call for gassing the Jews.

You are right, this discussion is not useful because you are a PLO Public Relations officer and I am a Jew.

Grow up.

I would like to, but the Palestinian murderers that you support are after me.

Golda Meir said the Palestinians did not exist as a people but were just Arabs like the others. It is surprising how prevalent this view still is among Israel apologists. How awkward of them to want to return to their land in Palestine.

The conflict is not of course, about who loves their children most but about territory, statehood and resolving an historical injustice. As Margaret Thatcher once said in the House of Commons when Leader of the Opposition “No country can expect to live behind secure and defensible borders if it denies that right to others” Exactly so.
(I am quoting from memory so perhaps there is some obsessive out there with the time to go through Hansard to check the exact words)

HP admin, please can you moderate my recent comment? thanks :)

muffin: Israel insisted on this total control of Gaza borders to prevent large-scale movement of military ordinance into Gaza. Fair enough, I can see the reason – but there is a quid pro quo. So, fair enough, a quid pro quo. But what is the quid on the Gaza side? In return for no Israeli presence, then, why the by now almost 3000 missiles into Israel? And, just for shits and giggles, please name that other country which would tolerate 3000 missiles lobbed into its territory by an avowed enemy it can destroy and not destroy that enemy? Which one?

having no family ties, acquaintaces or any connection whatsoever to the Middle East (except probably a lot of moorish and with certainty at least one jewish ancestors dating from hundreds of years ago),

thus sharing with the people who live there only my human condition

it impresses me a lot to read the content of the comments to this post, and in fact to most posts in blogs

and realize that for most people what is important is just to prove their point, in fact to impose their perspective, without even for a moment measuring their words bearing in mind whether such arguments are likely to contribute positively to the resolution of the problem at stake…

there is something childish in this behaviour. it reminds me of when children play at pretending to be something: like, hei, let’s play indians and cowboys (now children don’t play indians and cowboys anymore, but as I guess that the readers of this blog are adults, I am sure they get the point).

it would be childish if it didn’t include statements like the one that says that the way children from gaza live is not their concern, for instance. when they pass a certain point, these comments become statements of moral relativism. at worse, they become plain hate speech.

naturally, each person is responsible for his/her words.

[my other post got stuck in the moderation queue, too many links]

Farnos wrote:

“Modernity – your point seems a tad pedantic to me, the differential between Zionism and Zionist does not seem that stark to me”

it wasn’t pedantic at all, merely the use of English and the differentiation between an ideology and people, and you need to reread my previous posts to understand what I meant by euphemism

but I’m not going to get irritated by that misreading of my posts, as I appreciate that you may have some reading difficulties, I am going to suggest that you download a browser opera and use its text to speech facility, it will read the posts back to you. It can be downloaded from http://www.opera.com/

To use Opera’s text to speech, go to Tools->Perferences->Advanced->Voice->Details.

Back at the browser window, select a chunk of text via the mouse, then right click and “speak”, the selected text will be spoken back to you via a synthesised voice.

Alternatively, download the free copy of natural reader at http://www.naturalreaders.com/

Part2: [to avoid getting stuck in moderation]

Once you’ve done that I’d be grateful if you would re-read the posts, and in particular the back ground to the doctor’s plot: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rootless_cosmopolitan and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctors%27_plot

Richard, then get back to me about euphemisms and demonisation of people.

Sarah: You are applying general and universal principles to the Middle Eastern conflict, rather than filtering “facts” at your convenience and seeing just one side of the argument. This is absolutely and totally the right thing to do.

Don’t be deterred by all the shrill voices here. Your heart is at the right place, their’s is a mere pump.

Yes, John Pabliuski (JP) not doubt regards Generalissmo Franco and his Muslim troops from what was Spainish Morocco as the saviors of Christian Spain from the Godless Jewish/Masonic/Communist Menace!

Communism killed far more than fascism during the 20th century, and yet there are few if any monuments to the victims of, say, Stalin.

Why is that?

Think about that the next time you fantasize about what I ‘think’.