Palestinians Demanding Reform From Arafat Kidnap French Aid Workers

[Monte Smith]

And kidnap also the Gaza chief of police, who Arafat promptly fires, sort of.

Everyone got let go, after masked militants fired shots in the air.






No comment.

[Jesse]

Originally Posted by Monte Smith

And kidnap also the Gaza chief of police, who Arafat promptly fires, sort of.

Everyone got let go, after masked militants fired shots in the air.






No comment.

I could look at this until a two state solution is realized, and have no idea a) what the context is, b) why you posted it, c)yet still smell a gratuitous swipe at the Palestinians.

[Ron Thorne]

Originally Posted by Monte Smith

No comment.

What a ludicrous assertion.

[pollo loco]

Commented by placing it on the board. Perhaps he doesn't understand that.
PL

[Monte Smith]

GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip (AP) -

Gunmen angry over Yasser Arafat's overhaul of his security forces burned down Palestinian Authority offices in Gaza on Sunday.

No comment.

[bluenoter]

Originally Posted by Jesse

I could look at this until a two state solution is realized, and have no idea a) what the context is, b) why you posted it, c)yet still smell a gratuitous swipe at the Palestinians.

Jesse--

You have a good "sense of smell"!

[Jesse]

Originally Posted by bluenoter

Jesse--

You have a good "sense of smell"!

Thanks, bluenoter. This is an area of concern where I conciously exercise restraint around diving into the melee that passes for discussion. The popular conversation viz. Israel/Arabs is so contaminated with villification, shoddy scholarship and a baseline, ahistorical bias, that I generally walk on by. Monte, however, enjoys the agent provocateur thing considerably. I thought I had seen similar postings, on a similar (contextless) slant,in my brief time in the ol' Alley. I ran the list of threads started by Monte, as a reality check for my olfactory vigilance. Of 200 threads launched by Monte, 36 contain in their title explicit reference to Arabs, often derisive and sneering. It's understandable he posts 'no comment'-his schtick apparently includes seeing no need to offer thoughtful responses to this tragedy, only swipes at a people and several countries caught up in a very old story.

[Monte Smith]

Originally Posted by Jesse

Of 200 threads launched by Monte, 36 contain in their title explicit reference to Arabs, often derisive and sneering.

And I'm off on my own in this. No one in the world sees the menace but I. Oh, the lot of the lone prophet.

Meanwhile, do you think the violence in Gaza (one should call it an uprising against Arafat, the kidnapper in chief--since he holds the destiny of his people hostage) will lead to reform?

I solicit comment, expecting none.

[Jesse]

Originally Posted by Monte Smith

And I'm off on my own in this. No one in the world sees the menace but I. Oh, the lot of the lone prophet.

Meanwhile, do you think the violence in Gaza (one should call it an uprising against Arafat, the kidnapper in chief--since he holds the destiny of his people hostage) will lead to reform?

I solicit comment, expecting none.

Uh, this focus on the inevitable unraveling of Arafat's white-knuckled grip on the P.A. (and probably reality) is not the gist of my post. The frequency of your snotty and baiting threads where Arabs are concerned, was. I am confident you wouldn't have reached the 36 post milestone with this flavor, if they referenced African-Americans or Jews. For the record, not a salvo to try and alter your white-knuckled grip on Middle East conflicts.

Arafat is finished and, your entitled claim to prescience aside, every one remotely infomed with the arc of his story has known this for some time. He has been marginalized and humiliated, as well as dusted off and invited to the "talks", countless times. The picture of him huddled in a bullet splayed bunker in Ramallah, sending out pathetic posts to the world via a cell phone, would signal his status pretty well. The Fatah members driving toward some sort of inclusion and wider participation in representing Palestinians will produce some kind of sea change in that organization. Most Palestinians are past fed up with the nepotism, cronyism and (this is key), lack of security for their families, and impute these conditions to Arafat. Israel's relentless battering of the Gaza infrastructure, her assasination of Ahmed Yassin, and brokering of Palestinian real estate with the Bush administration, without a Palestinian present at the party,would also signal time for change. In short, it is a convergence of U.S. and Israeli will and Arafat's bone-headed lack of leadership that will manage the fait accompli.
But where I'm hailing from, Monte, the ol' U.S.A., citizen and vilgil-keeper not of the Arabs, nor more obsessively, the Palestinian Authority, but of the government I have a stake in, I am concerned with what my government does. Opinions, moral vantage points and philosophical argument about what the Palestinians do, are all fodder for academic debate. What is not academic to me is what my country does. And in the 56 year arrangement with Israel, my country has funded, facilitated and looked the other way as Palestinians have been dispossesed, demonized and continually stymied in both their saner and more desparate attempts to negotiate without giving away everything.This is hardly Arab cant: it's been expressed as the reality for Palestinians by Israeli hawks, Israeli peace groups, and scholars all over the political continuum. It's quite easy and accessible to anyone who does the footwork to read the documentation of the Israeli governments scorn for Palestinians, their intention to drive them out of Israel's borders, and even countless admissions that were the roles reversed,Israelis would never concede what the Palestians have already. From Meir's infamous negation, "There is no such thing as a Palestinian.." to Moshe Dayan's "We know why their fighting; we took their land," this has never been unclear, if you're paying attention to anything other than corporate/cable mdia coverage. Every credible international legal authority has condemned the U.S. and Israel's behavior and called for justice on the Israeli side. Watching and reading the mainstream news for years, I thought the Palestinians were all terrorists, and Israel was defending (albeit, with a bit of overkill) her people.The perspective in much of the debate in this country is so skewed along these simplistic lines, that to complexify the debate with the facts is to be called anti-semitic; then you get to defend yourself against name-calling, and the facts are lost again. Obfuscation, baby, except it doesn't work.It's the callowest form of argument and the realities of how the Jews and Arabs got to this point are,uh,available.
O.K.-you can resume your baiting headlines, with the conviction that repetition brings to the willingly ignorant. I am well aware that I am "pro-Israel "(if that means peace and security within her borders), and (bonus!), pro-democracy for Israel (it would literally be a first).
I am also a reader and thinker without a "side"in the mutually perpetuated terrorism escalating there. Elementary logic, humanity and clarity must mean I would want for the Palestinians the same life I have long hoped for for the Israelis. No sides. Truth.
This skein of mockery of Arabs, this posting of selective and tragic consequences, is a real drag.
You and I cannot discuss the Israeli/Arab tragedy in any real, substantive way,as it would require (my ground rule) that you abdicate cheap shots and engage from the only moral point of view I think we can take action on-that which engages our country in a discussion of it's morality and uses of power.

The Palestinians get to decide their own story. Like us, see?

This is pre-emptive, but I hope no one resorts to the other refuge of scoundrels (besides that of calling you anti-semitic, whatever your ethnicity, if you bring up Israeli war crimes), that of asserting I am unaware or unresposive to, the murderous terrorism of those Palestinians who strap on and walk into Sabbaro's to kill innocents. I am aware of it weekly and weep over it when I'm not temporarily benumbed; I exclude references to it in this post only because I am (foolishly) confronting 36 (!) posts by one Alley cat that caricatures and, imo, trivializes, Arabs.

[Gentle Giant]

Here's my comment: The Israelis have shown willingness to be a peace partner in the past. Arafat never has. In his vacuum, no other Palestinian leader has talked peace. My biggest problem with the PA (other than the fact that when they were called the PLO their primary political platform was the absolute and total destruction of the State of Israel) is that no one has ever articulated a vision of peace and autonomous rule. They have to plan for it, work for it, and most important, they have to be willing to make peace. For too long, they've sat back and played the victim, waiting for the Arab world to come to their rescue. Hasn't happened, and won't because Arafat has no more cred in the Arab world than he has in the west. That's not Israel's fault, it's his. Rabin gave his life, and Barak his political life, trying to make peace with Arafat. His removal is long overdue.

Palestinians rage against their leaders
Protesters trade gunfire with police
By Dan Ephron, Globe Correspondent *|* July 19, 2004

JERUSALEM -- Palestinian demonstrators burned government offices and traded gunfire with security officers in the Gaza Strip yesterday on the third day of demonstrations against what the protesters see as corruption and cronyism in Yasser Arafat's administration.

The violence, which appeared to reflect the breakdown of law and order and a power struggle ahead of an Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, spread from Gaza City south to Khan Yunis and Rafah, two of the Strip's poorest districts.

In the West Bank town of Ramallah, the resignation of Prime Minister Ahmed Qurei was scheduled to take effect today, turning his Cabinet into a caretaker government and deepening the political crisis.

Qurei told colleagues yesterday he would not withdraw his resignation, despite pressure from Arafat.

"Technically speaking, starting tomorrow at noon we will all be lame ducks," said Ghassan Khatib, minister of social welfare in Qurei's Cabinet. According to Palestinian law, the Cabinet will continue governing until Arafat names a new prime minister and a new Cabinet is approved.

Yesterday's clashes marked the fiercest rebellion in years that Arafat has faced from his own people.

In Rafah, hundreds of gunmen opened heavy fire on a security precinct controlled by Mousa Arafat, who is Yasser Arafat's nephew and his latest choice to head security in Gaza.

Some policemen fired back on the gunmen, many of whom were masked. Palestinian medics said at least 18 had been wounded, one critically, Reuters reported.

Hours earlier in Khan Yunis, protesters set fire to another security compound and marched through the town chanting, "Where are the reforms you promised, Arafat?"

As president of the Palestinian Authority, Arafat controls at least eight security agencies in the West Bank and Gaza. Palestinians frequently complain that the agencies are ineffective and that their leaders take kickbacks, run monopolies of key commodities, and appoint only friends and relatives to top positions.

When gunmen in Gaza abducted police chief Ghazi Jabali on Friday, fingering him as one of the biggest offenders, Arafat reshuffled positions and gave Mousa Arafat a key posting.

But the protesters, many of them renegades from Arafat's own Fatah faction, insisted that Mousa Arafat was even more crooked than his counterparts. One senior security official, navy chief Juma Ghali, stepped down in objection to the appointment.

A leaflet issued by the Jenin Martyrs' Brigade, a previously unknown group that appears to be organizing the protests in Gaza, described Mousa Arafat as "one of the corruption chiefs" and called on his bodyguards to stop protecting him.

"We will fight anyone who tries to get in our way, because our path is unalterable," said the leaflet, distributed in Gaza.

Behind the rhetoric, some Palestinians saw a jockeying for power among political rivals, including the former Gaza security chief, Mohammad Dahlan. Dahlan, who has been openly critical of Arafat, is widely expected to play a key leadership role in the strip after Israel's withdrawal, which Prime Minister Ariel Sharon of Israel wants to complete by the end of next year.

But even some government officials usually loyal to Arafat were incensed by his nephew's promotion. "This is infuriating," Sufian Abu Zaida, a deputy minister in Qurei's Cabinet, told Israel Radio. "This shows disregard for people and their opinions. This is intolerable disregard, and in Gaza thousands will rise up against the decision."

Khatib, the Palestinian Cabinet member, said that ministers at today's meeting would discuss measures to ease the friction in Gaza. But he said Qurei's resignation would make it difficult for the Cabinet to function.

Qurei, who was named prime minister just 10 months ago, handed Arafat his resignation letter Saturday morning. At a Cabinet meeting later that day, he said the Palestinian Authority had lost its ability to maintain law and order, and could not solve the economic and political problems facing Palestinians, according to Khatib.

"He read out the letter, and then we all had a chance to talk," Khatib said in an interview. "Most of us said [that] it was not a wise idea to step down and that it would leave a large power vacuum."

Qurei, a leader of the Palestine Liberation Organization almost since its founding in the 1960s, replaced Mahmoud Abbas as prime minister last September. Abbas clashed frequently with Arafat over powers and quit after just four months. One key dispute, whether control of the security agencies should be left in the hands of Arafat or transferred to the Cabinet, remained unresolved.

Qurei has had fewer public confrontations with Arafat, but Palestinian officials said yesterday that the outgoing prime minister felt stifled by Arafat's centralist leadership style.

Israel has kept Arafat confined to his Ramallah headquarters for more than two years, a restriction that has hampered his ability to maneuver politically. But he is still considered more popular and influential than any other figure in the West Bank and Gaza.

Most Palestinians believe that Arafat has not personally been enriched by graft in the Palestinian Authority, according to polls conducted in the West Bank and Gaza, but that his administration is plagued by corruption.

"The Palestinian Authority is reaping what it sowed in terms of lawlessness and corruption," said Kayed al-Ghoul, a political analyst in Gaza and a member of the opposition Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.

"This is a conflict among leaders of the security apparatuses who want to keep their prestige and powers," he said. "They do not want to lose the wealth and power they've accumulated."

[jeff54]

Originally Posted by Jesse

And in the 56 year arrangement with Israel, my country has funded, facilitated and looked the other way as Palestinians have been dispossesed, demonized and continually stymied in both their saner and more desparate attempts to negotiate without giving away everything.This is hardly Arab cant: it's been expressed as the reality for Palestinians by Israeli hawks, Israeli peace groups, and scholars all over the political continuum. It's quite easy and accessible to anyone who does the footwork to read the documentation of the Israeli governments scorn for Palestinians, their intention to drive them out of Israel's borders, and even countless admissions that were the roles reversed,Israelis would never concede what the Palestians have already. From Meir's infamous negation, "There is no such thing as a Palestinian.." to Moshe Dayan's "We know why their fighting; we took their land," this has never been unclear, if you're paying attention to anything other than corporate/cable mdia coverage.

I would be curious to see examples of times when "Palestinians have been dispossesed, demonized and continually stymied in both their saner and more desparate attempts to negotiate"
After the '48 and '67 wars the Arabs not only flat out refused to negotiate but after '67 issued the decree "no peace, no recogntion no negotiation". Israel on the other hand showed that they are more then happy to negotiate and indeed give up land for peace as they did with Egypt nad Jordan.

You have taken Meir quote out of context and left off the end of it which is "Before 1948, we were the Palestinians". What she was refering to was the fact that until the creation of Israel the people who now consider themselves Palestinians never considered themselves a people separate in any way from the rest of the Arab population in the ME. As a matter of fact they considered what is now Palestine to be part of Syria. So what she said was indeed fact. Your parsing of the quote is either an attempt to change her meaning or out of ignorence of what was actually said. I would also like to see a source for the Dyan quote.

As far as being called anti-semitic on this board for taking an anti-Israeli viewpoint that's just flat out BS. In the 3 years I have been posting here I have never seen that tactic used once by anyone on this board. However what I have found interesting is how many times I have seen that charge made when in fact at least on JC there is no basis for it.

Jeff

[Jesse]

[QUOTE=Gentle Giant]Here's my comment: The Israelis have shown willingness to be a peace partner in the past. Arafat never has...

As I stated, Arafat will go, a result of his own increasing lack of "cred" with his own people. This is an internal affair, with an internal inevitability. Whatever my opinions on his "leadership", it is the U.S.'s behavior that I can claim some moral stake in and perhaps do something about.

The willingness of Israel to be a peace partner? I cannot see how you would square that abstraction "willingness" with the realities of the present:despite condemnation from the U.N., Human Rights Watch, the International Court, the Geneva Accords, the Jewish press (Haaretz, Tikkun), and Jewish scholars unread outside of the academic and scholarly journals that continue to challenge the prevailing myths (Israel Shanak, Benjamin Beit Hallahmi, Martin Buber, Erich Fromm, Judah Megnes at Hebrew U., to cite a few), Israel continues to illegally occupy land illegally grabbed during all of the peace negotiations referenced (Camp David, Oslo,et. al.). What possible difference does it make to reiterate a "willingness", when your actions are clearly a subterfuge of the rhetoric? The Geneva Accords condemned Israel last week (they are the latest body to weigh in applying international laws the U.S. is a signatory to): the most basic issue was cited: you cannot acquire land and exercise pop. transfer and construct walls that imprison an occupied people, and talk legitimate peace negotiations. Meanwhile, the body counts of Palestinians continue at a ratio of about 100 killed for every Israeli killed. It's not an ouch contest, but these numbers, outside the BBC, are never reported here. Hence, people blinkered to the realities there can talk "willingness", while expansion of settlements, apartheid walls and daily kill rates of Palestinians scaled to population equalling 177 Americans killed daily.
In 1948, when the Jewish refugees were partitioned by the U.N. into their new 'state', they owned 6% of the land in the area called Israel. That's not an opinion nor a wish nor even a political statement.
The fundamental illusion of your asserting Israel is happy to negotiate is the implicit arrogance and self-righteousness afforded an occupying force: of course they're willing to negotiate-they have the extant population of Palestinians who haven't fled living in squalid banustans, surrounded more than ever by a standing army defending the settlers, with the nominal "leadership" of the P.A. in shambles, and a U.S. administration providing daily financial support (without which Israel, as we know it, would collapse, lacking anything like this level of support from anyone else) for their occupation.

Quote:
They have to plan for it, work for it, and most important, they have to be willing to make peace. For too long, they've sat back and played the victim.

Sorry, G.G., but in the hard light of history and scholarship, I think it's condescending and ahistorical to state the missing requisites to peace can be imputed to "sitting back and playing the victim." Can you think of one other example globally where you would maintain that the burden of initiating and executing a viable peace plan would be on the occupied? If so, are you supportive of this level of asymmetry? Would you have said that viz. South Africa? Vietnam? Aside from decrying the terrorist acts of an occupied people, would you really expect a people without potable water, jobs or sane leadership should be held to take charge from their illegally occupied hovels?
I hope you might take the time (it really takes a chunk of time, I know) to examine the history of the region a little deeper, and include scholarship, Israeli and Arab, that is credible and well documented. There is no way for us to hold our government accountable without that level of effort. This was a requisite in understanding and opposing our adventures in Vietnam and South Africa, to name two that offer some real analogs of U.S.power. It is as necessary on the Israel/Arab crisis, perhaps arguably more so, as the U.S. alone funds and sustains the Sharon actions, and almost solely is condemned by the rest of the world for doing so.

Peace
Jesse

[Jesse]

Originally Posted by jeff54

I would be curious to see examples of times when "Palestinians have been dispossesed, demonized and continually stymied in both their saner and more desparate attempts to negotiate"
After the '48 and '67 wars the Arabs not only flat out refused to negotiate but after '67 issued the decree "no peace, no recogntion no negotiation". Israel on the other hand showed that they are more then happy to negotiate and indeed give up land for peace as they did with Egypt nad Jordan.

You have taken Meir quote out of context and left off the end of it which is "Before 1948, we were the Palestinians". What she was refering to was the fact that until the creation of Israel the people who now consider themselves Palestinians never considered themselves a people separate in any way from the rest of the Arab population in the ME. As a matter of fact they considered what is now Palestine to be part of Syria. So what she said was indeed fact. Your parsing of the quote is either an attempt to change her meaning or out of ignorence of what was actually said. I would also like to see a source for the Dyan quote.

As far as being called anti-semitic on this board for taking an anti-Israeli viewpoint that's just flat out BS. In the 3 years I have been posting here I have never seen that tactic used once by anyone on this board. However what I have found interesting is how many times I have seen that charge made when in fact at least on JC there is no basis for it.

Jeff

Jeff:
I would refer you to the above post to see "examples" of the conditions that affect the Palestinian's negotiating position. I am willing to sift through the entire history of the establishment of Israel as a state as a historical discussion (not here, of course), but the only time relevant to the Israelis and Palestinians besieged by terror is now.

Again, the assertion that Israel is, and has always been "happy to negotiate" is flawed by her continual expansion of seized lands, a violation of international law, relevant U.N. charters, and, submitted for your reflection, common sense.

"The land for peace" reference is, placed in context, to Israel returning to Egypt land conquered (Sinai), not a gift. Scared Israelis overwhelmimgly support "land for peace" in opinion polls within Israel. That's why they support their government withdrawing from the occupied territories. They know better than the U.S. the terror they live under as a result, partially, of Sharon's expansion of settlements, and the impact on employment,health care and education the deployment of the IDF in protecting these settlers has. (Sound familiar?).
The Meir quote was , of course, out of context. It is impossible to post here the hundreds of such statements available to anyone reading the history of the region, and, more specifically, the platform of Zionism that launched the dispossession of the Palestinians. I didn't intend to distort her meaning: the meaning ( you have it as fact) that the Jewish refugees flowing into Israel were "the Palestinians" is specious. Whatever you call them, the 700,000 Arabs living there were, uh, living there. They occupied the real estate. The U.N. partitioning in '48 was the begining of a long history of driving the Arabs out. That's why international law and the relevant U.N. charters intervened with a right of return. Again, this wasn't a gift. Messianic Jews within Israel (as well as Messianic Christians in the U.S. providing incredible amounts of financial support to Sharon's gov't) deny the Arabs ever had a right to exist there. Outside of the religious fundamentalists (sound familiar?), no one has erased that Arab presence. The issue of what Palestinians call themselves is, again, not a matter of U.S. foriegn policy, any more than the Jews scripture based claim to the turf should be. An excellent scholarly work by a Palestinian Christian ("Bitter Harvest", Hadawi) takes up these identity issues without recourse to Bible interpretation.
For on the record remarks by Meir, Dayan, Ben-Hurion, et al. on the triumphalism of Zionism, and their view of Arabs in the conquered lands there, you might cf. The Founding Myths of Israel (Zeev Sternhall), Holocaust (Finkelstein), or look at the scholarship collected at Jews For Justice (Berkley, Ca). I assure you Ms. Meir delivered herself of comments on Arabs more hair-raising than the negation I think is intended by my partial quote, and your expansion on it.

It was a Dyan (Moshe) quote cited, not Dylan.

I might not have been clear re: the anti-semite label as a response to criticizing Israel's crimes: I did not say this has or will happen on this bbs. I said it is such a regular charge in my experience, that I was anticpating it might show it's ugly head here.
And to parse one of your sentences, I am not anti-Israel: I try and be concious of referring to the current Israeli regime, to cite the data showing that regime does notrepresent the will of most Israelis, and to reference Israel's behavior, not her soul.

Peace,
Jesse

[groover]

Jesse, that still doesn't explain why the French Aid workers were kidnapped, except maybe that wounded animals tend to lash out at anyone that gets near, even those who are offering help. It's dangerous and difficult to have any direct peaceful discourse with people in this mental state.

[Gentle Giant]

I'm tired of hearing Israel be criticized for having their own country. (In 1948, when the Jewish refugees were partitioned by the U.N. into their new 'state', they owned 6% of the land in the area called Israel. That's not an opinion nor a wish nor even a political statement. The fundamental illusion of your asserting Israel is happy to negotiate is the implicit arrogance and self-righteousness afforded an occupying force: of course they're willing to negotiate-they have the extant population of Palestinians who haven't fled living in squalid banustans, surrounded more than ever by a standing army defending the settlers.)

It's time to look beyond this basic issue: Israel is a nation, the Palestinians are a sorry lot of people with no self-rule and leaders who are not only in bed with terrorists but are heavily influenced by them. Israeli Jews aren't going to leave Israel for Germany, Poland, or Russia so that the Palestinians can take over. Nor are you and I going to pack up for wherever we come from (Russia in my case) and let the native Americans take over. So let's just take this as a given: Israel is a nation, it has a right to exist, and any solution has to encompass the idea that Israel is forever.

I agree with you in that I would like my country to put more pressure on Sharon and to slap his wrists more often. Unfortunately, my country is headed by an evangelical, right-wing Christian who is waiting for the Second Coming, which requires a belief that Jews must inhabit the land of Israel. While I support the goal, I categorically reject the reason. I am doing what I can to change the US leadership.

Arafat had a workable and very generous peace offer placed in front of him by Ehud Barak. Had it been accepted, no doubt Barak would've been assassinated by Jewish extremists. When Arafat refused it, not only did he piss off Israel and the US (both countries having invested and risked a great deal in the peace process to date), but he also pissed off the other Arab leaders. The Saudis, the Egyptians, and Jordanians all thought he was insane. I don't have the documentation here in front of me, but this has been reported on Frontline and in The New Yorker. Minus Arafat, peace is possible. Not guaranteed, but possible.

Body counts. A military strategy based on suicide bombing almost guarantees a greater rate of attrition. Let's face it, this isn't even a real war. There's only one Army fighting, after all. If the Arabs stopped trying to inflict terror on Israelis, no Palestinians would get killed. I am angered by the "collateral damage" Israel has caused in its blunt targeting of Hamas officials. But there's a reason Israel is trying to root out the Palestinians' terrorist networks: Israel is being terrorized! Sharon is a master provocateur, but the military policy has been largely reactive. When the bombings lull, the Israeli Army chills out. When the bombings increase, the Israeli Army goes to work - just as any country's armed forces would do when attacked. Body count is a non-issue. Israel beat back a coalition of Arab armies in 1948 and 1967. You don't think they could eliminate the PA in a milisecond if they wanted to? Israel is fighting with one hand behind its back because it's not a fair fight. If the PA had any brains, they'd knock it off and negotiate a seat at the table.

But they don't have brains. They don't see that the other Arab nations are leaving them to hang out and dry. If the Arabs don't take up the Palestinian cause, why should Israel? Or the US? That's an amazing thing that people who criticize Israel never address. Where the hell's the Arab world? Sure, they meet once a year and denounce Zionism, they threaten to cut back oil production, they cast their votes in the anti-Semitic United Nations, but where's the unified advocacy bloc? Where's the military assistance? Where's the behind-the-scenes politicking? Nothing. The Palestinians are the lepers of the Middle East. That's a sad state of affairs, to be sure, but as long as innocent Israelis riding on a bus are being blown to bits by teenagers who are taught in their schools that Jews are the devil, my sympathies lie with Israel.

[jeff54]

Well I just got back from having dinner in Woodstock with my dear friend Steve(the Lil). He gave me the Beatles Anthology book for my birthday I can't wait to get into it but first.

Originally Posted by Jesse

Jeff:
I would refer you to the above post to see "examples" of the conditions that affect the Palestinian's negotiating position. I am willing to sift through the entire history of the establishment of Israel as a state as a historical discussion (not here, of course), but the only time relevant to the Israelis and Palestinians besieged by terror is now.

Wait a minute Jesse you made the claim that "Palestinians have been dispossesed, demonized and continually stymied in both their saner and more desparate attempts to negotiate without giving away everything."
I asked for examples that proved your claim, you have given none. Rather then provide this proof you make generalizations that contain no facts.
You list authors that you claim make your case but site no specifics of what they wrote. I have Buber's 'On Zion' right here with me so why don't you tell me where Buber makes your case about Israel's willingness to negotiatate so I can read it again. When you where reading Shahak, btw it's not "Shanak" did you happen to read where he claims in his book "Jewish History, Jewish Religion, that Jewish children are taught "whenever passing near a cemetery, to utter a blessing if the cemetery is Jewish, but to curse the mothers of the dead if it is non-Jewish." (pages 23-24) or where Shahak accuses Jews of worshiping Satan: "both before and after a meal, a pious Jew ritually washes his hands, uttering a special blessing. On one of these two occasions he is worshiping God ... but on the other he is worshiping Satan ..." (page34)

For someone who posts "The popular conversation viz. Israel/Arabs is so contaminated with villification, shoddy scholarship and a baseline, ahistorical bias" I think that by citing Shahak you are proving your point except not in the way you intended.

BTW of course tha Palestinians don't have the as strong of a negotitating positition as the Israelies. Countries that start a war and then lose never do. Why should it be different in this case.

Again, the assertion that Israel is, and has always been "happy to negotiate"

You put that expression in quotes so I assume you are quoting someone but I saw no one write that here. I certainly never claimed that Israel was "always happy" to negotiate but certainly they tried after the '48 and '67 wars and again at Camp David with Carter and then again with Clinton. Barak put propsals on the table Arafat had no plan of his own and made no counter offer. Inspite of this Israel continued to press on and went to Talba and made more concessions only to have the 2nd infatada break out as the way of an answer.

"The land for peace" reference is, placed in context, to Israel returning to Egypt land conquered (Sinai), not a gift.
Scared Israelis overwhelmimgly support "land for peace" in opinion polls within Israel. That's why they support their government withdrawing from the occupied territories.

No one said it was a gift. It was land conquered in a defensive war. The Israelies gave it back not because they were scared but because Egypt was serious about peace. Unlike Arafat who after Oslo excused his signing the agreements by claiming in a speech, that he thought wasn't being cover by the press, that this was just the first step in his plan to eventually take all of Palistine from the Jordan river to the sea. He also never kept any of the agreements he made at Oslo.

The Meir quote was , of course, out of context. It is impossible to post here the hundreds of such statements available to anyone reading the history of the region,

I'll settle for one Jessie, surely someone who has studied this as much as you have can provide it if there are indeed hundreds. And what do you mean "of course out of context" If you knew it was out of context and there are indeed hundreds of other quotes why post that one obviously a distortion for someone who claims to have an issue with "shoddy scholarship" this is quite hypocritical

The U.N. partitioning in '48 was the begining of a long history of driving the Arabs out.,

Oh really Jessie gee I wasn't aware of that suppose you provide examples of where Arabs were forced from Palestine before '48. If anything quite the opposite was true. Before '48 the English put no restrictions on Arab immigration into Palestine and the Arab population increased significantly on the other hand they did indeed restrict Jewish immigration. Also if you want to talk about removal by force, the city of Hebron was ethnically cleansed of Jews in the 1920's and these were not recent immigrants but Jews whose families had lived there for centuries. But of course you say there was a long history of Arabs being forced off their land before '48 so it should be no trouble for you to provide specific example right Jessie.

For on the record remarks by Meir, Dayan, Ben-Hurion, et al. on the triumphalism of Zionism, and their view of Arabs in the conquered lands there, you might cf. The Founding Myths of Israel (Zeev Sternhall), Holocaust (Finkelstein), or look at the scholarship collected at Jews For Justice (Berkley, Ca). I assure you Ms. Meir delivered herself of comments on Arabs more hair-raising than the negation I think is intended by my partial quote, and your expansion on it.

Again Jessie you are generalizing. You gave a quote that you claimed was from Dyan. I asked you for the source of that quote you seem to be unable or unwilling to provide it. Why? If you have read these books then cite the specific source. If you can't, retract it. That's the way these things work.
Do you think it's should be up to me to find the source for your quote?

Come on Jessie work with me here. If you really want to have a meaningful discussion based on scholarship and facts, then provide some facts or refute mine. If you only want to claim that you do and would perfer to deal in gut feelings thats fine too, only don't protest that the other side never deals in facts but only in emotions.

Jeff

PS One more thing Jessie your claim of a ratio of 100 to 1 deaths is total BS
Again I find this type of outlandish claim strange for someone who claims to be interested in scholarship. I like to see your source for such a statistic. Here's mine. Your numbers aren't even close

http://www.mepc.org/public_asp/resources/3year.asp

[Jesse]

Let me say something in response to your oft repeated complaint that I have not printed full quotations and the business of 'out of context.' This is a bbs, not a forum (to me) in which to attach endless lists of URLS and lengthy reprints. That does not mean the resources do not exist to support my claim that wider scholarship and analysis exists that would lead one to a different perspective on the Mideast crisis and the Palestinian peoples than provided by G.G. above, and by yourself. The perspective from many international sources (as well as from within Israel) is that Israel is engaged in crimes against humanity and state terrorism. My entry on this churlish thread was to slam the smarmy intention, as I read it, behind Monte's 36 threads with derisive one-liners about Arabs, generally followed with a smug, "no comment."
It is not my intention to "disprove", as you insist, your assertions. It is to amplify on the discussion about Israel/Arabs beyond a simple endorsement of one side over the other. You state very clearly that you see Israel as beneficent and "right" and you have incredible power and might on your side. As I asserted several times in prior posts, that power and might is made possible essentially by U.S. funding and materiel, so it is awesome indeed. If you subscribe to the theory that terrorists are the ones with dynamite cumberbunds, and that what Israel does so rapaciously under the current regime is not terrorism, because it is carried out with the highest tech weaponry, by a state, g-d help you. It is all terrorism, fueled by the inculcation of hatred in the very young for the "other." Jews receive this at their parents' knees, as do the Palestinians. You sign off with "do you think it should be up to me to find the source of your quote?" I think it's up to all of us to do research, analyse what we find, and think independently. I know what this entails,as I mentioned above, as I once reduced the crisis to Israel=victim/good, Palestinians=terrorists/evil. This is one of the "prevailing myths" I cited earlier that is afforded a child (or Bush, who accounts for war making as destroying the evil-doers), but not a serious and free thinking adult.
I thought it a kind of folly to enter into such a complex and polarized discussion on a bbs, but jumped in anyway. I will not satisfy your demand for full textual citations for each point I made, but can certainly point you to resources that do just that. Let me, though, clear up a few of your misreadings (not disagreements in good faith, misreadings of what I actually said).
#1:
J54:I have Buber's 'On Zion' right here with me so why don't you tell me where Buber makes your case about Israel's willingness to negotiatate so I can read it again.

This was not my assertion in referencing Buber. Buber was listed as an example of Jewish intellectuals who "challenge the prevailing myths" about Israel. I would cite this, from Buber, "A Land of Two Peoples."
"We made no attempt to reach an agreement with the Arabs of this land regarding the basis and continuation of Jewish settlements. As a result, many of the more thoughtful Arabs viewed the advance of Jewish settlements a kind of plot designed to dispossess future generations of their people of the land necessary for their existence and development. We went ahead and demanded rule over the whole country. By this step, we with our own hands provided the Arab camp with aid and comfort of the most valuable sort-the support of public opinion-without which the military attack launched against us would not have been possible."This analysis owns alot more culpability for the Palestinian's rage than G.G.'s assertion that Palestinians are "lepers" and "a sorry lot of people." This characterization comes shortly before he condemns the same race for demonizing Jews.

#2:

J54:For someone who posts "The popular conversation viz. Israel/Arabs is so contaminated with villification, shoddy scholarship and a baseline, ahistorical bias" I think that by citing Shahak you are proving your point except not in the way you intended.

I cited Shahak, (I'm repeating my intentions) as a critical voice of Israel. Even if you think him a moron, he is one of many sources cited, so dismissing my credibility (your choice) on that basis is lazy. I know from study and anecdoteally from Jewish colleauges and friends ( and personal experience)that inculcation of vile and base stereotypes about Arabs is abundant in many Jewish homes. Would you tell yourself otherwise?

#3:

J54:BTW of course tha Palestinians don't have the as strong of a negotitating positition as the Israelies. Countries that start a war and then lose never do. Why should it be different in this case.

Uh, Arabs didn't "start a war"-700,000 of them were there , then not there.And you can't have it both ways-they are a country that started a war, but they are not really a country ,but terrorists acting without a country, who started a war. Israel has ( a point of great pride in Israel, and a point of great terror and resentment to onlookers like the U.N., the Int'l Court in the Hague, the Geneva Accord, many dissenting Jews) an awesome,ass-kicking, mandatory service, high-tech army, posted 24/7 everywhere Palestinians breathe. Asymmetry has never looked more one-sided (perhaps David/Goliath ?). Is this "war"? To me, the Palestinians have terrorists (not an army), and the Israelis' an army, increasingly employed for terrorism. Again, J54, this is hardly an isolated view; read anything outside of the U.S. filter on it.

#4:
J54:You put that expression in quotes so I assume you are quoting someone but I saw no one write that here. I certainly never claimed that Israel was "always happy" to negotiate

"Israel showed on the other hand that they are more than happy to negotiate." Let's not parse the word "always." I think its safe to conclude that someone reading your posts, and those of G.G.,would come away thinking you have maintained Isreal has played fair, and the Palestinians have not, as "willingness" goes.
#5

J54:No one said it was a gift. It was land conquered in a defensive war. The Israelies gave it back not because they were scared but because Egypt was serious about peace.

The acquisition of other peoples land in a war is illegal, under the Geneva Accords. You can state it was returned due to the Israeli's "deciding Egypt was serious", but aside from the arrogance implicit in any State power deciding when to obey international law on that subjecive, self-serving basis, there's a problem you have steadfastly ignored in all of my posts. Israel continues to be censured for just this, by the above referenced parties, for its expansion of settlements on Palestinian lands, and its erection of an apartheid wall that segments Palestinians into non-contiguous ghettos, unable to look for work or fetch potable water, or get medical servises for children. No one disputes the illegality and peace destroying nature of this, outside of the right wing Israelis.

#6:

J54:Oh really Jessie gee I wasn't aware of that suppose you provide examples of where Arabs were forced from Palestine before '48. But of course you say there was a long history of Arabs being forced off their land before '48 so it should be no trouble for you to provide specific example right Jessie.

Uh, J54, you couldn't have been reading me closely at this point, at all. Here's exactly what I said:"The U.N. partitioning of Israel in 1948 was the begining of a long history of driving the Arabs out."

#7:
J54:
Again Jessie you are generalizing. You gave a quote that you claimed was from Dyan. I asked you for the source of that quote you seem to be unable or unwilling to provide it. Why? If you have read these books then cite the specific source. If you can't, retract it. That's the way these things work.
Do you think it's should be up to me to find the source for your quote?

Yes, generally I think if you're going to weigh in on an already distorted and dangerous crisis, you should arm yourself by your own efforts. I will satisfy your passive challenge that I provide some documentation here. From now on you have to do your own research!
Moshe Dayan, on the record:
"We came to this country which was already populated by Arabs, and we are establishing a Hebrew, that is a Jewish state here. Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. There is not a single community in the country that did not have a former Arab population."
Or,
"Before the Palestinian's very eyes we are possessing the land and the villages where they, and their ancestors, have lived. We are the generation of colonizers, and without the steel helmet and the gun barrel we cannot plant a tree and build a home."
These 2 pith quotes are found in Original Sins: Reflections on the History of Zionism and Israel, Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi, Israeli scholar at Haifa University, Olive Branch Press.
One more?
"Why should the Arabs make peace? If I were an Arab leader, I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country. Sure, G-d promised it to us, but what does that matter to them?Why would they accept that?" David Ben-Gurion, The Jewish Paradox, Nahum Goldman, president of the World Jewish Congress.
I can't do any more of this citation gathering for you. It's all available, if you look.

#8:
I will not delve into the body count debate, as it becomes an ouch contest. I will point out the URL you attached contains the following:
"Though 3 times as many Palestinians have been killed than Israelis, the numbers do not reflect the impact each death has on its respective population. Each Palestinian death eliminates a larger percentage of the Palestinian population than does an Israeli death." I will accept your findings as "outrageous" enough. In intellectual self-defence, however, I will add that the figures I refer to, among other data bases, are from the Red Crescent Society, the Red Cross equivelant in the occupied territories, and are drawn from the hospitals and medical personnel treating the wounded and dead.

In closing (whew!) I would tell you I think these exchanges are pretty futile, as I have no where seen in your, or G.G.'s posts any engaging with the core points I made re: the impasse of peace talks. At every turn where I state the obvious and uncontroversial point that every int'l body monitoring and attempting to intervene in the crisis cites Israel's side of the impasse-the illegal occupation of Palestinaian lands, the wall, the use of high-tech overkill in "retaliatory" strikes against terrorists-as key to the impasse, you both go off on a tantrum about Arafat. This, despite the fact that I opened both my posts with the opinion that he is a thug, a bone-head, and will soon be removed. In short, I focus on Israel (again, because my country sustains Israel, making the U.S. culpable for her crimes)and you focus on Arafat. Are you aware of the other Arab/Palestinian intellectuals and activists, or their Jewish colleauges, who work tirelessly to find a resolution to the crisis? You cite no one but this decompensating loser, and so remain caught in the parameters of debate that keep the polarity intact. This doesn't mean, fwiw, that I won't read any further posts, J54: but I am not willing to keep arguing for my country's reform (and so Israel's), and provide you with data you can retrieve yourself, only to meet with diatribes against Arafat. If you are an American, and pro-Israel, wouldn't it behoove you to challenge the parties you have influence over and a stake in?

With that, here's a public service short list of resources including scholarship, opinions, and history.

Jewish
Norman Finkelstein has an excellent web page. Google it.
Jews For Justice In Israel in Berkley/Ca. Google it.
Tikkun.com
Haaretz,on-line edition
Noam Chomsky has a blog and a web site.

Arab
Edward Said Archives. google it. Said died last year, the most brilliant and passionate critic of Arafat and advocate of the Palestinians.
Many links under the Z Net banner.
Shalom
Jesse

[jeff54]

Originally Posted by Jesse

Let me say something in response to your oft repeated complaint that I have not printed full quotations and the business of 'out of context.' This is a bbs, not a forum (to me) in which to attach endless lists of URLS and lengthy reprints.

No one is asking for endless lists and url just the complete statement if it will change the meaning.
You did this again with your quote from Dayan below the actual
quote is taken from an address Dayan gave to Technion University students on March 19, 1969. A transcription of the speech appeared in Ha'aretz on April 4, 1969.
“We came to a region that was inhabited by Arabs, and we set up a Jewish state. In many places, we purchased the land from Arabs and set up Jewish villages where there had once been Arab villages. You don't even know the names [of the previous Arab villages] and I don't blame you, because those geography books aren't around anymore. Not only the books, the villages aren't around...”

Dayan's conclusion was that the solution to the Arab-Israeli problem is to learn to coexist with them.

In the misquote, what you left out Jessie is the key phrase “we purchased the land from Arabs” and thus Dayan's meaning is misrepresented. Dayan was not saying that Arabs were dispossessed. On the contrary, he was indicating that though Arabs sold the land of their own free will, given their one-time presence in the land of Israel, the Israeli goal is to live peacefully together with them.

Are you saying that you took out a 6 word pharse from the middle of the quote to make it less lengthy??? Are you trying to claim that it doesn't change the context??? Gimme a break Jessie why don't you just admit when you are wrong instead of comming up with convoluted excusses.
The Mier quote was wrong. Your first Dayan quote was just plain made up, and your second Dayan quote was willfully abridged to change it's meaning.
For someone who claims that "wider scholarship and analysis exists" you sure are having a heck of a time finding a quote that isn't made up or changed.

My entry on this churlish thread was to slam the smarmy intention, as I read it, behind Monte's 36 threads with derisive one-liners about Arabs, generally followed with a smug, "no comment."

Well if that was your intent you should of left it at that. But the fact remains that you made a claim that you couldn't back up concerning the Palestinians willingness to negotiate. Either get some facts that back this up or admit you where wrong. But don't keep insisting that scholarship backs you up if you can't find actual facts.

It is not my intention to "disprove", as you insist, your assertions. It is to amplify on the discussion about Israel/Arabs beyond a simple endorsement of one side over the other. You state very clearly that you see Israel as beneficent and "right" and you have incredible power and might on your side.

It may not be your intention to disprove what I posted but if I post something that directly refutes what you claimed, as I did, it's up to you to either refute my claims or admit that you were wrong or at least provide some evidense to back up your claim. Don't you think that's resonable.
Where did I ever say that I see Israel as "beneficent and "right"" in every respect. I have many issues with many of Israel's actions. Why do you jump to this conclusion based on discussion of a few points? The only incredible power I have on my side is that I have actually studied the history of the conflict and can cite actual facts. If that is a problem for you I'm sorry but as someone that writes "The popular conversation viz. Israel/Arabs is so contaminated with villification, shoddy scholarship " I would think you would appriciate a discussion based on facts. I think you are proving your point in this regard but not the way you intended. Wouldn't you have to classify misquotes and fabricated quotes and grossly inflated statistics like you have provided "shoddy scholarship"

You sign off with "do you think it should be up to me to find the source of your quote?" I think it's up to all of us to do research, analyse what we find, and think independently.

But your first Dayan quote was fabricated by you or someone and you think it's up to me to go find it give me a break Jessie.

I cited Shahak, (I'm repeating my intentions) as a critical voice of Israel. Even if you think him a moron, he is one of many sources cited, so dismissing my credibility (your choice) on that basis is lazy.

I didn't say he was a moron I provided quotes from his books that show the man is an outright liar and bigot. How the hell is that lazy. What's lazy is you not even reading him and just getting his name off a web site and then citing him as a source without even giving an example of one thing that he said which backs up your claim.

I know from study and anecdoteally from Jewish colleauges and friends ( and personal experience)that inculcation of vile and base stereotypes about Arabs is abundant in many Jewish homes. Would you tell yourself otherwise?

Really Jessie you did a study? How was it conducted and what the they results. My experience has not been the same so yes I would tell myself otherwise. You better answer for yourself on this one or I think I will be forced to conduct my own study with a poll asking others what they think of the claims concerning the "vile and base stereotypes about Arabs is abundant in many Jewish homes"

Uh, Arabs didn't "start a war"-700,000 of them were there , then not

Again more proof that despite your claimed scholarship you clearly know nothing about this confliict. There most definatly was a war the armies of Eqypt, Jordan and Syria as well as the Arab legion attacked the new state of Israel with the stated intent to annihalate them. Not only wasn't this just a rabble of terrorists without a country but they where armed by the English and French and some of their brigades where lead by English generals. and the people who would later call themselves Palestinians did indeed take part. I suggest you read "o' Jerusalam" by Larry Collins and Dominique Lapierre

an awesome,ass-kicking, mandatory service, high-tech army, posted 24/7 everywhere Palestinians breathe. Asymmetry has never looked more one-sided (perhaps David/Goliath ?). Is this "war"? To me, the Palestinians have terrorists (not an army), and the Israelis' an army, increasingly employed for terrorism.

Well first of all saying that the IDF is 24/7 everywhere the Palestinians breath is quite an over statement. But since you brought it up did you know Jessie that before the second infatda therewas almost no IDF presence in the WB and Gaza. It was all administered by the PA .

The acquisition of other peoples land in a war is illegal, under the Geneva Accords. You can state it was returned due to the Israeli's "deciding Egypt was serious", but aside from the arrogance implicit in any State power deciding when to obey international law on that subjecive, self-serving basis, there's a problem you have steadfastly ignored in all of my posts.

First of all your wrong on 2 counts the acquisition of other peoples land in a war is not illegal, under the Geneva Convention. I suggest you read it Jessie it's easy to find on the internet and it's not all that long. Secondly it not the Geneva Accords that is something different.So I think maybe the problem is you don't have a handle on the facts.

Uh, J54, you couldn't have been reading me closely at this point, at all. Here's exactly what I said:"The U.N. partitioning of Israel in 1948 was the begining of a long history of driving the Arabs out."

OK you got me there you did say since 48. So ok show me where after the initial refugees that left or were forced out in '48 where more were driven out?

#7:

In closing (whew!) I would tell you I think these exchanges are pretty futile, as I have no where seen in your, or G.G.'s posts any engaging with the core points I made re: the impasse of peace talks. At every turn where I state the obvious and uncontroversial point that every int'l body monitoring and attempting to intervene in the crisis cites Israel's side of the impasse-the illegal occupation of Palestinaian lands, the wall, the use of high-tech overkill in "retaliatory" strikes against terrorists-as key to the impasse, you both go off on a tantrum about Arafat.

Gee Jessie where is your evidense of a tantrum? I have to mention the man because he is the leader of the Palestinians and if I provide facts about his 'lack of willingness to negotiate in good faith counters your claim that the Palestinians have "continually stymied in both their saner and more desparate attempts to negotiate without giving away everything." which in spite of all your posting you have still not provided one piece of evidence to back this up.

You cite no one but this decompensating loser

Jessie I know indeed there are Palestinians working toward a peaceful solution but unfortuantatly Arafat is the man they chose to lead them and makes all the decisions. That's just the fact and there is nothing I can do about it. Who else can I cite if he is the primary Palestinian representitive.

This doesn't mean, fwiw, that I won't read any further posts, J54: but I am not willing to keep arguing for my country's reform (and so Israel's), and provide you with data you can retrieve yourself, only to meet with diatribes against Arafat.

This is a major league cop out Jessie there has been no diatribe you just couldn't provide the facts to make your claim and most of the little in the way of facts you did provide I proved was wrong.

If you are an American, and pro-Israel, wouldn't it behoove you to challenge the parties you have influence over and a stake in?

I challenge it all the time. And I research to the best of my abilities both sides. Someday if your ever in New York we can meet for coffee and I'll tell you about some exchanges I had with your friend Mr Finkelstein, a bright but very disturbed man.

But I would also think that after I showed you the errors in the things you posted you might want to question your resources and wonder why if their claims are so strong and they have so much evidense to back them up that they need to fabricate things.

Peace
Jeff

[bluenoter]

Jeff--

This isn't a comment on any of the assertions in this thread, but for cryin' out loud, as you post your long messages demanding accuracy, please spell Jesse's name correctly. It's not Jessie.

[groover]

The real mystery is why the Israelis aren't more aggressive regarding the Palestinians, considering the stated aim of the resistance is Israeli genocide. If the U.S. were suffering the same degree of terror attacks, I'm sure Bush would respond far more harshly than Sharon ever has. In fact, Bush has already done so!

[jeff54]

Originally Posted by bluenoter

Jeff--

This isn't a comment on any of the assertions in this thread, but for cryin' out loud, as you post your long messages demanding accuracy, please spell Jesse's name correctly. It's not Jessie.

What!!! Can you prove that.


Only kidding. My Bad. Sorry for the misspelling Jesse

[bluenoter]

Originally Posted by jeff54

What!!! Can you prove that.

Yes. Thanks.

[Jesse]

Thanks G.G.
I do enjoy your posts.

Jesse

[jeff54]

Don’t feel too bad Jesse, your not the first person to find out that everything they’ve read on the internet is not true. Your not even the first person on this BBS to say they were interested in the discussing the facts about the Israeli/ Palestinian situation to run away when actually confronted with them. I hope maybe now you will do some actual study from actual scholars and stay away from web sites that quote bigots and quacks like Shanak .

Also just one more thing if you really are concerned about someone raising the charge of anti -Semitism you would be wise when backed into a corner not to bring up with no relevance to the subject things like “I know from study and anecdoteally from Jewish colleauges and friends ( and personal experience)that inculcation of vile and base stereotypes about Arabs is abundant in many Jewish homes. Would you tell yourself otherwise?” First of all you sound silly making a claim that you studied this when you didn’t, and secondly it’s really not true. It also makes you sound like your just lashing out at Jews in general in an attempt to move the discussion away from your errors and some people could take that the wrong way.

Peace,
Jeff

[Jesse]

Originally Posted by jeff54

Don’t feel too bad Jesse, your not the first person to find out that everything they’ve read on the internet is not true. Your not even the first person on this BBS to say they were interested in the discussing the facts about the Israeli/ Palestinian situation to run away when actually confronted with them. I hope maybe now you will do some actual study from actual scholars and stay away from web sites that quote bigots and quacks like Shanak .

Also just one more thing if you really are concerned about someone raising the charge of anti -Semitism you would be wise when backed into a corner not to bring up with no relevance to the subject things like “I know from study and anecdoteally from Jewish colleauges and friends ( and personal experience)that inculcation of vile and base stereotypes about Arabs is abundant in many Jewish homes. Would you tell yourself otherwise?” First of all you sound silly making a claim that you studied this when you didn’t, and secondly it’s really not true. It also makes you sound like your just lashing out at Jews in general in an attempt to move the discussion away from your errors and some people could take that the wrong way.

Peace,
Jeff

Jeff54:
As seductive as gloating and reiterating claims to your righteousness are, please note G.G. and Jesse have left the thread.

You're right-I am an anti-Semite, an internet tourist, a devotee of Shahak, and join the fleeing Others, who encountered your acumen on all issues relevant to the Israeli crisis, and had no other option than to flee, chastened, vanquished, repentant. There can be no other reason people drop off engaging you on the issues than your inherent facility with facts, discernment of who is a "crackpot" and who provides valid scholarship, and the intangible caring with which you send the defeated to reschool themselves in the correct narrative.
(I used to have "teachers" like you).

Thanks for spelling my name correctly.

I am also confident, which I said in my last post to you, that you and I will not profit from any interchange.
Let go now.
Jesse

[jeff54]

Jesse, I never said or even implied that your an anti-semite. But I'm glad we agree on the rest of it.

PS are you going to be speaking for GG on all maters now or is that only for this thread.

[Gentle Giant]

Jeff, in #23, Jesse is replying to a post by me that was sufficiently insulting and mean-spirited to have been promptly deleted by the management. Taking the hint, I PM'd Jesse to apologize and, realizing that our views were polarized, said that I would not continue to post on this thread.

FWIW, I began my post by praising your patience and scholarship. Because I lacked both, I settled for invective, and now I'm looking to participate in less volatile threads.

(Edited for clarity.)

[bluenoter]

Originally Posted by Gentle Giant

FWIW, I began my post by praising your patience and scholarship. Lacking neither, I settled for invective, and now I'm looking to participate in less volatile threads.

GG--

You meant "Lacking both" or "Having neither," right? (That's not an insult from me. It's the conclusion I drew from the context.)

[Enforcer]

Originally Posted by bluenoter

GG--

You probably meant "Lacking both" or "Having neither."

What if he didn't? Ouch!

[bluenoter]

Originally Posted by Larry Nagel

What if he didn't? Ouch!

Yeah, I just realized that and edited my post. But from the context, I'm fairly confident that that's what he meant.