next »

[Bill Smith]

Palestinian propagandists become easily uncovered when they minimize Palestinian Arab transgressions as someone throwing a rock – no mention of the pummeling of Jewish cities by hundreds of Qassam missles nor the thousands of bombing attempts against Jewish civilians – just an anecdotal incident or two out of context. A real history of Israel – not a revisionist one, is included in the below link called the myth and the reality:  

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=18543

[%sig%]

[JT]

Was it Patton, or some other general that said "Kill them all and let God sort them out? "

[Shiksa]

Well, Bill, let me summarize the main points of the article you refer to, as I gather from skimming it:

Palestinians are and have always been lazy, stupid and mean, and that's why they rightfully got conquered.  But it's been a blessing for them, because now they can have Israeli employers to do s***ty jobs for, whereas before they were too backwards to get real jobs (preferring to work the land while they still had it).  By the way, There Are No Palestinians, so just call them "Arabs."  And they started all the violence; those Zionist pioneers who just wanted to improve everyone's lives in the region wouldn't have dreamed of slaughtering whole villages to encourage people to move away, nor bombing British targets to make the Brits give them Palestine (whoops, there's that name that I shouldn't use because there was no Palestine before Yasser Arafat made it up - sly how he got the Romans to bite on it too).

That'll save time for other readers.  Bill, you say I "minimize Palestinian Arab transgressions as someone throwing a rock."  If I gave that impression, I'm sorry; my point was to say that the youth chucking rocks at soldiers is indeed counted as a terrorist in the American-Israeli lexicon.  Today's news reports a suicide bombing in an Israeli mall, in which two other than the bomber were killed.  I certainly do describe that bombing as terrorism and condemn it, on the assumption that the victims were random civilans.  Now, what actions on the Israeli side are you prepared to condemn?  You "minimize Israeli Jewish transgressions as" -- as what?  I don't recall you uttering a single syllable to acknowledge that Israel has ever damaged the Palestinian infrastructure and economy or that a single Israeli colonist has ever committed crimes against an Arab, much less to disapprove of it.  Do you really believe that there can be a social conflict, involving several million men, women and children on each side, in which one side is completely blameless and the other side completely wrong and evil?  Is there any possible rationale other than racial exceptionalism that could make anyone believe that about any large group of human beings?

[%sig%]

[Bill Smith]

More evidence of falsehoods from her last posting:  Shiksa infers that the people currently called Palestinians were named that by the Romans.  The ancient Romans did indeed name the region Palestine, but not after the Arabs.  The Romans took the name from the Philistines, the ancient sea people who have been extinct for thousands of years.  This is common knowledge.  Shiksa’s view is designed to misdirect those who truly want to understand the conflict.  Her approach:  to make it seem as if the Palestinian Arabs have been in that region since time immemorial to give them claim to the land, is exposed here as the fraud that she is portraying. One can extrapolate to the rest of Shiksa’s arguments as equally false, which serve to confuse, distort, and take events out of context to sway those to the Palestinian view – in spite of the truth.

[%sig%]

[Shiksa]

Bill, Bill, it's hardly "fraud" to say that there was a pre-Zionist Arab culture in Palestine.  Of course there was.  There are reams upon reams of historical evidence to prove that.  You do your cause no good by trying to deny such an obvious historical fact.

There are two schools of "There Are No Palestinians" argument, for those of you who don't know.  One of those says that the Arabs, Beduin, etc. who lived in the area a thousand years ago did not call themselves Palestinian or think of themselves as belonging to a nation called Palestine, and therefore that their descendants do not deserve to live in a nation called Palestine.  Why this means that they deserve instead to be treated as third-class citizens or noncitizen subjects of Israel is beyond me.  The second school wants us to think that the land literally sat empty for centuries, with nobody living or growing crops or grazing animals on it, until the Zionists arrived, and then all the Arabs came flocking in from elsewhere because they wanted to be closer to the Jews, I guess.  (We know there were lots of Muslims and Middle Eastern Christians living around there in the times of the Crusades, so I guess after Europe pulled out, the loss of white companionship distressed them so immensely that they just wandered away into the desert.)

Bill, it's beyond belief to imagine that in a region of the world where people live in stark deserts, any large stretch of land with coastal access and enough fresh water to be worth stealing would sit unoccupied for years.  Perhaps you do not know of the Arab villages that were demolished so that Jewish villages could be built, and even the original names forgotten, but I assure you that Israeli historians do know.  And so far I speak only of the rural areas.  Consider East Jerusalem, which is progressively being made "Arabfrei" by calculated government policies.  Do the buildings and streets there (those that have not yet been bulldozed for separation walls, or Jewish homes, or parks) all postdate Zionism, or will you admit that the Arab neighborhoods were first constructed before that time?  And if the latter, were those buildings standing empty as a ghost town when Theodor Herzl started doing his thing, only to be reoccupied later?  (Why didn't the new "settlers" grab all those buildings then?)

This sounds completely ludicrous, but it is exactly the Big Lie that proponents of Zionism told from the beginning:  "A country without a people for a people without a country" was their slogan.  Many honest and decent Zionist pilgrims in the first half of the twentieth century were genuinely shocked to arrive in Palestine and find that it was not an empty land, but full of goyim living their lives.  They had not expected that the task of settlement would include ethnic cleansing.  They were duped.  Unfortunately, plenty of Americans are still duped.

Anyway, your historical argument would be of limited relevance even if it were true.  In this country, we believe that if two people are born, grow up and live in the same region under the same regime, they should have the same rights; their rights should not depend upon how many generations their ancestors lived there, with a large correctional factor for their ancestors' race or religion.  (There sure as hell were no Russians in the old Middle East, Bill, yet a brand-new colonist from Moscow has more rights than a native-born Arab.)  We also believe that a certain amount of dignity is owed to all members of the human species, whether they are citizens or not, so that even a foreigner just off the boat should not wantonly be physically brutalized and humiliated, or killed, or have his belongings destroyed for sport, etc.  And, unlike certain Zionist fanatics whose preaching is better known in Israel than here, we do count Arabs as belonging to the human species.  If you do not like any of these basic philosophical tenets, Bill, perhaps you would be more comfortable living in a nation like Israel (or some other theocracy of your choice) where they are not so broadly accepted.

[%sig%]

[JT]

I suppose Bill Smith would have us believe that the land was empty before 1948.   That is pure nonsense.


Whether these people are called Palestinians or not has no real bearing on the issue:  There were people living there before the post WWII Exodus,  many of whom have been displaced. Otherwise,  are we to believe that the Crusades didn't happen?

To deny that there are Palestinians, related to the original or not, with common cultural bonds, is simply a lie of the same order as the statement  that the Holocaust did not occur.

[Shiksa]

JT writes:

"To deny that there are Palestinians, related to the original or not, with common cultural bonds, is simply a lie of the same order as the statement that the Holocaust did not occur."

It sure does make you wonder about his philosophy where course content is concerned, doesn't it?

[%sig%]

[Bill Smith]

Jt says “Whether these people are called Palestinians or not has no real bearing on the issue.”  I agree.  

Then why lie about it?  Trying to create a false relationship between the Palestinians and a long extinct people in order to manipulate readers into thinking that the Palestinians have been in that region since time immemorial only leads us to question the rest of the Palestinian argument.

You say that “I suppose Bill Smith would have us believe…” and then you shoot down that thought.  But don’t you see that this entire thought is all your invention –  please stick to the truth.

You also invented that I denied that Palestinians existed.  Would you show me where I said that?  

Since you brought it up, I would appreciate knowing about the “common cultural bonds” of the Palestinians.  I am interested in learning about that.  What is the common language, religion, and customs that differentiates them from other Arabs?  

I am all for a healthy debate but one that is based on truth, rationality, and context.

[%sig%]

[HH]

Here's an experiment for Shiksa to try. Throw rocks at some DC police. See if they respond as  "a powerful, well-armed aggressor state". Let a few suicide killers loose. See which country does not respond as "a powerful, well-armed aggressor state".

Sorry but in this whole situation, Palestinians are generally on the side of killing as many Jews as possible, and Jewsih Israelis are generally on the side of maintaining their own state within defensible borders.

Few enough complaints about an 'Arab State', an 'Islamic Republic' etc, but a mostly Jewish but democratic state, that's racist?


<>

[Shiksa]

HH says:

"Palestinians are generally on the side of killing as many Jews as possible, and Jewsih Israelis are generally on the side of maintaining their own state within defensible borders."

Then it's funny that Arab deaths (by violence, not including those from saline- or sewage-tainted water, poverty-induced disease, etc.) outnumber Jewish deaths three to one, and Arab children killed outnumber Jewish children killed by more like ten to one.  Guess those Ay-rabs really must be inferior types if they all want to kill people yet are doing such a bad job of it.  

Of course, open hostility is usually greater among an oppressed people than among their oppressors (during the days of American slavery, whites did not hate blacks, whereas the reverse was only rational behavior).  Still, there are enough Zionists observed using slogans like "Arabs into the ovens" that I wouldn't assume Jews weren't "on the side of" killing Palestinians either.  

Now, most Palestinians say they could coexist peacefully with Israel if they can have free passage between bantustans and the right to use their airspace, ports and/or borders with the outside world (so that they can sell their goods and produce to someone besides an Israeli).  They just don't want to be walled up like the town of Qalqilya and left to starve.  Unfortunately, Israel does seem to want them to starve, and it's not surprising that that should inspire anti-Semitism.  I bet I would be anti-Semitic if I had spent my entire life in Gaza.

My good buddy Bill Smith says:

"Since you brought it up, I would appreciate knowing about the “common cultural bonds” of the Palestinians. I am interested in learning about that. What is the common language, religion, and customs that differentiates them from other Arabs?"

Well, I presume your argument here is again that they shouldn't be called Palestinians since they are just like all the other Arabs.  If you are going to argue that political status should follow cultural distinctiveness, then if it really were true that there is no difference between West Bank Arabs and Jordanian Arabs, shouldn't the West Bank be part of Jordan, rather than being grabbed by Israel?

Your question also betrays the ignorance of the western Orientalist who thinks that "those people are all alike."  After all, they all speak Arabic and are Muslims, right?  But in fact, Palestinians traditionally differed from some of the inland Arab countries in being better educated and more cosmopolitan, as well as more religiously diverse.  (Many Christian sects had adherents in Palestine; the number of Christians has plummeted as they have felt more willing and able to emigrate and Israel has squeezed their churches to pressure them to do so.)  There are distinct linguistic dialects in Arabic.  And there are social, cultural and artistic differences among Arab groups; for example, there's a particular type of Palestinian embroidery that is very beautiful.  An Arab might very well look at England, the U.S., Canada, and Australia and say "these people are all alike -- after all, they all speak English, are mostly Christian, like to drink beer and watch football, etc."  People who are genuinely familiar with those cultures know better.  One of the reasons Palestinian refugees in Lebanon have been treated badly is that the Lebanese see them as belonging to a distinctly different culture and do not want to assimilate millions of foreigners into their small nation.

But I really resent having to keep going over this territory because it relies upon the chimpanzee presumption that all rights are group rights, and once you have decided which group is to be considered biologically, theologically or morally superior, that's the end of the discussion and nothing they do to the inferior groups should be remarked upon.  I prefer to think that groups have no rights; individuals have rights.  I will stipulate that no Palestinian has any fundamental right to live in a nation called "Palestine" nor a nation governed solely by members of his ethnicity or religion -- without even mentioning "sauce for the goose."  But I insist that every innocent civilian, everywhere in the world, should have the right to not be killed, to own property, to sell the products of his labor, travel, send his kids to school, seek medical care, etc., and that no matter where he lives, he should never be denied those rights because of his ethnicity.

I would like to hear your opinion on individual rights, Bill; do you think people have them, and do you think Arabs living under Israeli occupation have them?  I'll be off internet access for a few days (the real job calls) so unless someone else jumps in to keep things lively the chances are that you will wind up with the last word in this little dialogue, if we may call it that.  You can say whatever you want.  But I would like to press you very hard to start your comment with an answer to the following question:

There have been a few reported cases in the past couple of years where Palestinian schoolchildren have actually been shot while attending school.  (If you wish to deny this fact, anyone should be able to find details with a Google search.)  Do you think that it is regrettable if a small Arab girl is shot by an Israeli soldier or colonist while she sits at her school desk?  Can you feel a twinge of sympathy for her family, or for the children who had to watch their classmate die?  And finally, just as I condemn suicide bombings of civilians, are you willing to condemn the action of the sniper as unjustified violence?  If you don't answer that, Bill, I and other readers will assume that your answer would be negative, so if you had any justification other than naked racism that you would wish us to know about, you might want to mention that.

[%sig%]

[JT]

Smith responds to my earlier A:

You say that “I suppose Bill Smith would have us believe…” and then you shoot down that thought. But don’t you see that this entire thought is all your invention – please stick to the truth.

Sorry, Bill, I'll amend this :

I suppose Bill Smith would have us believe that the land was empty OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE ANY VALID CLAIM TO THE LAND before 1948. [AGAIN] That is pure nonsense.  

To me that is a worse sentiment than my original.

Again Smith states:

Since you brought it up, I would appreciate knowing about the “common cultural bonds” of the Palestinians. I am interested in learning about that. What is the common language, religion, and customs that differentiates them from other Arabs?


Apparently Smith has you have never spent time in Levant and the Arabian Peninsula.    Anyone who has spent time there will understand that the "Arabs" in Lebanon, Palestine, Saudi and Egypt differ in significicant ways.  To take one example, they employ distinct  recognizable dialects, and members of one Arabic speaking group may find it hard to understand dialects other than our own.   These differences in language reflect distinct cultural processes.    To deny that such differences exist reveals ignorance or bias.

[JT]

Nice job on the culture business etc

[Shiksa]

shukran jazeelan.  ;)  Any chance you want to take over Bill-whacking for me?

In regard to your dialogue with Bill, he says we "invented" that he denied Palestinians existed.  I seem to recall that he linked to a highly biased web page that pretty much dismissed Palestinians, with the claim that it was "the" truth, so presumably he stands by its opinions.  Further, he accused me of "fraud" for "mak[ing] it seem as if the Palestinian Arabs have been in that region since time immemorial to give them claim to the land."  I guess this depends on your definition of "time immemorial," a phrase he uses in two messages.  All I've asserted was that Arabs had already been living there for centuries when the Zionist movement began, which no educated person could deny, but since that gives them no right to live there now (according to Bill), "time immemorial" must mean something else.  Since we all came from Africa originally, nobody's ancestors, including the Jews', really lived in the Middle East from "time immemorial" except for Neanderthal Man, and look what happened to him.

[%sig%]

[John]

Gosh--American anti-Zionist philanthropists and educators have been financing and creating Middle East "studies" programs for years and years, so why shouldn't American Jewish citizens get to play, too?  Why is this even an issue?

[%sig%]