Who doesn't want a Palestinian state? Palestinian leaders, that's who

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

I am quoting tw's post from June 2002:
Via history, we now have our answer. This turns out to be incorrect.
For the first time, a Hamas leader has publicly revealed that Arafat personally ordered the Second Intifada. Via a Palestinian reporter:

Palestinians were only doing what they had to do in response to aggressors. After events made Palestinian's reaction inevitable. Even a time line makes that obvious. Why did you ignore history's chronology to endorse lies? Long before Intifada II started, Sharon and the wacko extremists were working to create Intifada II. That timeline is historical fact.

Did Arafat order it? Hearsay from one person says yes. Hudson New York is somehow a responsible fact source? Nonsense. Numerous contradictions in that piece are identified. So many will simply ignore details to believe only what they wanted to hear.

First, *opinion* is not factual source. Second, where is the always required confirmation ? Third, that speculation contradicts history's chronological events. Three reasons demonstrate why some can separate hearsay from responsible news sources.

Point One: Hudson New York entertains any opinion to "Amplify dissident voices worldwide". It does not claim honest, responsible, or credible posts. Publishing even hearsay and lies is its purpose. A forum to entertain urban myths and wild speculation. UT would represent Hudson New York as fact?

To be honest and to possess facts means ignoring hearsay - especially when hearsay violates below points two and three. Hudson New York is where unsubstantiated rumors are advocated and entertained. Wild speculation - same thing that proved Saddam's WMDs.

Point Two: where are the so many responsible news services that confirm those claims? An opinion board is your only source? What kind of logical reasoning is that?

Point Three: One must ignore chronology to believe that lie. Long before Intifada II started - four years before - wacko extremists were aggressively undermining the Oslo Accords. Then publicly encouraging the assassination of Rabin. Intentional opening of a tunnel under Temple Mount to aggravate hate. Sharon even personally desecrating that mosque with 200 of his 'closest friends'. He even said he did so to encourage friendship. Hundreds of intentional actions to create hate long before Intifada II started. Or did you - UT - forget those earlier events to "endorse hearsay as fact"?

Those events were the equivalent of burning Korans to create peace and goodwill. Intentional provocations long before Intifada II started to intentionally undermine the Oslo Accords.

Did Arafat also order Jews to create hate? Sharon and other wacko extremist successfully created hate long before Arafat is *rumored* to have called for Intifada II. How much chronology do you ignore to endorse a Hudson New York accusation?

Responsible source means one can see the difference between facts and an obviously opinionated editorial. Why does the article even include this intentional distortion?

Because of him, thousands of Palestinians were massacred by the Jordanians in the early 1970s.

One starts by asking some damning and relevant questions. Why did wacko extremist Israelis so repeatedly do things that would only create hate ... long before Intifada II started? Why does UT ignore chronology?

Likud remembers what happened in the Sinai. Likud openly defines the West Bank as their land. #1 threat to Likud's objectives was the Oslo Accords. Likud did things necessary to subvert those Accords. Created hate among the Palestinians by doing what is today called 'burning a Koran'. Even encouraged and got the assassination of Rabin. If Arafat ordered Intifada II, well, according to your own sources, it happened after Intifada II had started. And more than four years after wacko extremists Israelis started actions to create so much hate.

So how many responsible news sources are cited to confirm wild speculation in Hudson New York? Zero.

This is not about some blogger who invented speculation. This is about some so easily manipulated and deceived as to promote unconfirmed speculation - a blog - as fact. Same process also proved Saddam's WMDs. This is about why some people do not entertain lies. And why others cannot separate speculation from hard reality - by ignoring three points.

[xoxoxoBruce]

After events made Palestinian's reaction inevitable

Nothing is inevitable, even if it's predictable.

Addressing the point would be easier, and less verbiage, than bouncing around making excuses why you sort of weren't really wrong.

[seer]

Scred, I'm not so sure about that guy you linked to. His last few sentences are extremely questionable. He says things like this:

"No, what makes you Nazi-like is the worship of power, particularly the power to murder, especially when you don't have it. You don't have to commit genocide to be a Nazi; you just have to want to commit genocide." That sounds like Tank Shells in the Marketplace to me. What about this: "They're the ones who see and hear about the things going on in the Middle East every day, but continue to hide behind silly libels against America and phrases like "Israeli oppression.""

So, to him, there is no such thing as Israeli Oppression. He even puts Occupied Territories in scare-quotes, as if they aren't occupied.

Personally, from all I've read, it sounds to be that there are some MAJOR people in power in Israel that don't believe that Palestinians have the right to live there at all. Statements like "The West Bank belongs to the Jews" and such make me believe that it's not just the Palestinians who are aiming to completely distroy the other... it's just that Israel has American weapons and money backing them.

--------------------

Something else I've noticed: Right Wingers don't need facts. If they say something enough, it must be true. I'm sure there are some Left Wingers who are the same way, it's just that the host of that CNN show (hell, even PBS's New Hour, a show I like!) doesn't let it slip on by.

Ever notice that? I'll come back with a good example next time I hear one.. shouldn't be too long. :-)

Share the day,
Seer (former Philly boy)

[elSicomoro]

I wanted to think about my response to the latest bombing for a couple days before posting...just to give it some serious thought and clarity.

I read a bit of Cactus48 the other day...interesting site.

I find myself growing apathetic towards the conflict. I would probably not feel this way if I had more of a personal stake in this (a friend who is a diehard Israeli/Jew or Palestinian). Maybe it's because I watch and read too much news, but I find myself getting desensitized to it all. At this point, I entertain two main streams of thought:

1--Let the Israelis and Palestinians kill each other off...the US can stay out of it.

2--The US should invade Israel and Palestine, beat down both sides, and claim the land as a new colony.

Many of you might be familiar with Congressmen Dick Armey (the House Majority Leader) and Tom DeLay (the House Majority Whip). They're both Republicans from Texas. (I'm putting in the last part for background only. To give an idea of where they MIGHT stand.)

The last time each has been on Hardball, I have been amazed by what has come out of their mouths. Wednesday, DeLay said that there is no need for a Palestinian state, that Palestinians should join Israel.

A few weeks ago, Armey was saying that the West Bank and Gaza are Israel's, and not for the Palestinians...I believe he was advocating a Palestinian state somewhere else on the Arabian Peninsula.

I don't doubt that part of it was soundbiting, but these guys genuinely seem to believe what they are saying.

Although Israel has a 20% or so Arab population, there is no way that the Palestinians would join the State of Israel...not after all the fighting that has been done.

As far as a homeland somewhere else, that won't happen either. Both peoples have been on the land for ages.

How much faith can really be put into Arafat in the end? He's not really a "leader" per se; he's more of a spokesperson a la MLK or Gandhi.

I've been moving away from the "desperation" argument of the suicide bombers. It seems that these bombers simply want to hurt people, and they don't care who (well, they want to hurt Israelis, but no one in particular). The father of Wednesday's (the first one) bomber was like, "He's (the son) a martyr. We can only hope that God will take care of him" (or something along those lines).

As I understand modern warfare, great pains are taken to avoid innocent civilians...you attack military targets. And while the suicide bombers do this on occasion, it's been civilians recently. There is simply no justification for going on buses or into clubs and injuring and killing people. Period.

Perhaps the Palestinian extremists have not heard of, or don't care for, the principles of nonviolence. Maybe they could care less about MLK or Gandhi. At the rate things are going, the Palestinians will never achieve independence...because IMO, they're going about it the wrong way. I would say that the Palestinians have been treated unfairly by Israel, and I'm sure that Israeli soldiers have killed innocent Palestinian civilians. But you can't fight fire with fire.

Arafat could be the great statesman of our time. He could get on television and make grand speeches about his vision of a Palestinian state. He could speak of not "stooping down" to the level of the Israelis. He could speak of Israelis and Palestinians living together side by side in peace...they could hold marches with both peoples walking side by side, hand in hand down the main street in Tel Aviv. He could use a great quote like this, and make it his own:

"We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force. The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny and their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom. We cannot walk alone."--MLK

I'll be the first to admit that I am a ridiculous optimist and idealist. But we already know that when both sides are peaceable, progress can be achieved (Oslo). Although there are years of anger and hatred between them, I honestly believe that if both sides sit down, talk honestly, focus on commonalities, treat each other as equals, and keep the lines of communication open, we could see two states side-by-side living in peace. They don't have to like each other, but they should be able to respect each other's right to be where they are.

[Nic Name]

I'll be the first to admit that I am a ridiculous optimist and idealist. But we already know that when both sides are peaceable, progress can be achieved (Oslo). Although there are years of anger and hatred between them, I honestly believe that if both sides sit down, talk honestly, focus on commonalities, treat each other as equals, and keep the lines of communication open, we could see two states side-by-side living in peace. They don't have to like each other, but they should be able to respect each other's right to be where they are.

If you're talking about Arafat and Sharon ... I'll be the second to admit that you're a ridiculous optimist and idealist.

[spinningfetus]

Originally posted by Nic Name
If you're talking about Arafat and Sharon ... I'll be the second to admit that you're a ridiculous optimist and idealist.

Thats why you have to get them wasted first...

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by spinningfetus
Thats why you have to get them wasted first...

Some of you might remember the Sharon-Arafat boxing match.

[jaguar]

You're trying ot tell me i can't argue without conceding the point? *sighs*

The cultural disconnect, I think, is that the Palestinians see mercy and/or lack of ruthlessness as a weakness.

Anotehr cultural context where people ahve been denied thier right and resorted to armed struggle? No others? LOL. Hmmm letsee Northern Ireland, Vietnam (Franch), Kashmir, Chechnya, do i need to go on? There is nothign ewn about it, nothign new about killing civvies, nothing new about killing kids, nothing unique, nothing any more or less barbaric either.

There's a subtext to the kid throwing the rock at the tank that I didn't understand before, and that is that the kid won't be there unless he knows for sure that he's not gonna get a mortar through the chest for his efforts.

Bullshit. Tons of kids have been shot protesting by the IDF, its not uncommon. They simply don't care - they have nothing else to live for. Tahts the bit you don't seem to be able to get.

[Undertoad]

"Don't seem to be able to get" are words that do not flatter you. I encourage you not to use them, or words like them; that sort of approach will not serve you well.

This whole idea of desperation is debunked tonight by USS Clueless. The critical point:

We shouldn't think of our enemies as mindless animals, but we can't assume that they're motivated by the same things that we are. It's important to understand just how much different their culture is from ours, so as to understand how they will interpret our actions entirely differently than how we intend them to be interpreted.

How different is that culture? I keep pointing it out. You keep trying to find the similarities. "If *I* were treated that way, I'd go violent too!" But when pressed with the complete act -- killing the five-year-old -- you stop. You won't go there. You won't even think about it and surely you won't discuss it.

That's how different the cultures are. One of the bombers last week was a 22-year-old graduate student in a well-off family. He was not desperate. He had everything to live for. But his motivation was in his afterlife; in a religious fervor, he truly believed that his act was sacred, and that the more people he killed, the more awesome would be his reward from his god.

One thing that should strike you is that his position is not really negotiable. "Ahmed, what concessions can Israel give to convince you not to continue your violence?" "They can sacrifice several hundred Jews to Allah in my name." "What, no land or charitable contributions??"

[Nic Name]

It's important to understand just how much different their culture is from ours, so as to understand how they will interpret our actions entirely differently than how we intend them to be interpreted.

How different is that culture? I keep pointing it out. You keep trying to find the similarities.

There may be differences in culture between Americans and Aussies, too, which might account, in part, for the different interpretations of the debaters.

[jaguar]

Ok i have played this out out badly, sorry i haven't had the time to really write anythign decent, the last week i've spent of a 3000 word paper on power relationships between North/South korea and external influences.

Ok lets start over.

Yea there is something rather fucked up about killing 5y.os and no, i cannot understand the mentality, but i can take a fair shot at the logic.

Terrorism like that works on exactly that, terror.'Tactics liek killing random members of the public, or families when peoples backs are turned are remarkably effective. Im not prone to being angry enough to kill kids, but couple decades of indocternated hatred of someone who is runing your life, mix in a little relgious fevour that feeds so easily on repressed people and man, i can see where they are coming from. See what i mean? Of course i can't directly identify, but i can understand the mentality and what causes it and more importantly how fundamentally it is the result of Isreali actions.

Originally posted by jaguar
Of course i can't directly identify, but i can understand the mentality and what causes it and more importantly how fundamentally it is the result of Isreali actions.

Or, perhaps, Israeli actions are the result of Palestinian extremists' actions.

That's why we can argue this all day. Neither side is willing to accept any blame. Couple that with the fact that Arafat will not <b>lead</b> his people to where they want to be... situation normal: all fucked up.

[Nic Name]

Couple that with the fact that Arafat will not lead his people to where they want to be... situation normal: all fucked up.

Couple that with the fact that Sharon will not lead his people to where they want to be ...

[Undertoad]

Well at this point, Jag, you'll have to go over to today's thread in Image of the Day because the topics merged and I put some thoughts in replying to Yelof there. Sorry.

Originally posted by Nic Name
Couple that with the fact that Sharon will not lead his people to where they want to be ...

Sharon will be gone soon enough. He is hardly the biggest problem in this mess. He is big, no doubt. But he does not have the longevity of Arafat.

Imagine how much different the middle east would be if Arafat would crack down on militants and lead peaceful, non-violent protests of Israeli occupation. Put Gandhi in as the leader of the Palestinians and see how different it is. Arafat sits back and spews rhetoric, interspersed with the occasional condemnation of suicide bombing which he does hardly anything to stop. There is a world of difference between saying and doing. There is a world of difference between sitting at the top and leading.