Winograd, from another perspective
The following cartoon appeared in Al-Quds Al-Arabi newspaper (thanks to Jaddwilliam for the heads-up) reflecting an alternate perspective on the findings of the Winograd Commission. However, it failed to stop me in my tracks.
The bubble says: “They admit their defeat and they hold their negligent accountable!! God curse the Zionist fads which intrude on our genuine Arab traditions!“
I am unfortunately very familiar with this situation, as is the case with almost every other Arab, I suspect. Our situation is that if we do identify grave negligence or even culpability in nefarious initiatives which could destroy whole societies and puts whole countries in turmoil, is elevate those implicated and pretend that the situation never actually happened. We just continue to spout useless platitudes about our “true Arab heritage” and that “those fads are not of our make-up”. What’s more is that the very people who were elected to ensure the application of proper oversight actually become tenacious defenders of the offenders! They methodically destroy any chance at our progress as a responsible human race.
Sweeping things under the carpet is an age-old tradition.
Maybe it’s high time that we did away with old and completely bankrupt ways and learnt to face our problems head-on in order to learn from experiences and get on to a better future. If that lesson comes from whom we call enemies, then so be it. But for God’s sake let us be courageous enough to at least attempt to solve our problems.
Without accepting and recognising failures, success will continue to be elusive.
Ibn;
Your analogy with illegal Mexicans is poo. The US gave amnesty and legal residence to millions of undocumented Mexicans in the 1980s. Americans happily hire them to the point that 10 million of them are living in the US. In addition, the US grants the American born children of those illegal Mexicans citizenship, provides them with education, and government assistance if needed. The treatment of the Palestinians by the Arab countries is not even comparable.
The Arabs were hardly the only people to see land lost to foreigners during the wars of the last century. Other people have lost a lot more territory than you have(see a map before and after the world wars). Rather than harp on age-old grievances, or pander to hypernationalist prejudices, the governments and populations concerned have agreed that what was lost was unrecoverable, and the best way forward was to reconcile and make peace with old enemies, rather than continue with irrendentist claims that encourage a self-defeating and endless state of conflict. The millions of refugees created by those wars were resettled in new places, and they and their descendants granted citizenship. They were not left in camps for generations to be used for jingoistic propaganda or to be torqued up by demagogues into self destructive extremism. Nor do the various governments, six decades later, insist on a right of return for their descendants to the second, third, and fourth generation.
There’s a lesson to be learnt here.
A certain group of people aggressively claimed a right of return after millenia. Was that OK by you?
Sorry, “millennia”.
Thank you commentator number 49 for the article by Gabriel Alumni. What a great article!
Recently a female Gulf academic have stated similar things and suggested that an Arab Winograd report should be commissioned.
She has criticized Hezbollah for triggering the war and for claiming a “godly victory” amidst the mass destruction.
The response to her has been mostly negative and she even received threatening calls for daring to be critical. What a difference? A tale of two cities perhaps! A city that looks at a not so complete victory as a defeat and a city that looks at a complete defeat as a victory!
Annony;
No.
Aliandra,
Aliandra, the Mexican amnesty program launched in the 1980s was primarily due to cold war motivations, and not because anyone felt sorry for the poor Mexicans.
You see, in the 1980s, Reagan realized that illegal Mexicans were crossing the border for work, for prosperity, and for freedom. With their naturalizations, came the message that people would go through hell and back, just to come ashore to the USA for freedom and work. This was directed towards the communists, and was intended to show the superiority of the capitalist system.
Back then, no one made as big of a fuss about “national suicide”, there was no minutemen movement nearly as large as today’s that patrolled the border on the look out for “felons”, and Americans on the right-wing didn’t seem too concerned about the “cultural and linguistic slow death” of the United States. They were all to happy to point out that Communism blows – just look at how many people risk their lives to come to our shores – and we welcome them as well.
Fast forward 20 years, there is currently no organized ideological resistance to capitalism and the US per se, so today not a day goes by without O’Reilly and his allies making sure they take a stab at those pesky “illegal felons” who are “invading” the United States.
Thus, your assertion that the 80s amnesty occurred – while true – does not have its groundings on anything altruistic at all. Rather, it was just another convenient tool to exploit against the biggest enemy at the time – Communism.
Aliandra, American people happily hire them, but the American government tries everything in its power to penalize those same Americans who do try to hire them. Why is that? (And when you answer that, note that it’s the same in the Arab countries vis-à-vis the Palestinians. In that, the government will try to make them un-hirable, but ordinary people will always give them under the table jobs).
Furthermore, your point here that the US gives citizenship to children of illegal aliens is a moot point – the US gives immediate citizenship to anyone who is born on its soil, illegal or not. In contrast, Arab countries do NOT give immediate citizenship to anyone who happens to be born there, again, illegal or not. It’s an immigration policy, and every country has the right to set its own.
So, it’s not like the US woke up one day and said “Oh you poor poor Mexicans! Come! Immediate citizenship for your babies!”. It’s just always been the case – the 14th amendment asserts it. (Originally meant to guarantee citizenship for descendants of former slaves). The same amendment, that you neo-cons are trying to modify today, understandably so, because the thought of Hispanic “anchor babies” would in fact send chills down the spine of any card carrying xenophobe.
And lastly, you claim that the US gives those illegals welfare, and education, and while true, this would not be so if the same people harping about the Palestinian treatment by Arabs had their way – namely, and end to welfare for illegals, and an end to free medical/educational privileges, as paid for by the American tax payer. But even this is a moot point, because Palestinians are in fact allowed to go to school in their host countries anyway. (It would be in the hosts’ country’s interest to allow them schooling, than have umpteen youths roaming the streets with nothing to do).
Aliandra, this is not an age-old grievance. It’s a rather new grievance, barely a century old. Furthermore, the Palestinian problem – while not unique in its refugee effects certainly – has the distinct honor of being labeled the only conflict where the aggressor is so blatantly supported by the world community. Furthermore, unlike previous engagement that resulted in mass exoduses of people, this one continues to happen today. One only need study the Israeli actions in the West Bank. (I don’t think FOX has any documentaries on the subject matter however).
Fighting an occupier makes someone hypernationalist? Hmm. Never thought of it that way.
…So why don’t you take them?
As someone already pointed out, we live in a world where it is morally acceptable for certain groups to come “back” after 5000 years. Well, this group wants to come back after 50. They had a right to bomb their way in? We have a right to bomb them back out. 10 times over.
-Ibn
Nine,
Read that interview with two grains of salt. Usually, anyone who claims that “we are the decendants of Phonecians” is nothing more than a Phalangist nationalist.
The Phalagists were/are a Christian faction that played a big role in the Lebanese civil war. Her claims that Lebanon “opened the door” to the Muslim Palestinian refugees is simply untrue.
Furthermore, bear in mind that Phalangists closely allied with the invading Israeli forces during the invasion of Lebanon in 1982. They were also the culprits in the massacre of Sabra and Shatilla, in which over 3000 Palestinian men, women and children in those refugee camps were taken out of their homes, separated, and then sysmematically mowed down with machine gun fire over 18 hours.
I should add the disclaimer however, that although the Phalangists claim they are a “Christian” militia, they are “Christian” only like the mafia or Don Corleones are Christian. In other words, by name only.
Her interview on FrontPageMag is a typical phenomenon these days, in which right-wing Western Presses will target and interview “locals” from the middle east, usually those who have an ax to grind with some other group. Its a win-win. The one middle eastern dissenter gets to taint another group, while the Western Press can claim “authenticity” because they are in fact interviewing a middle easterner, so they must know what theyre talking about. Its the equivalent of me going to Berkely, and asking for their view on the American right-wing, which I am sure will be completely biased.
For further information on the Lebanese civil war, I would recommend “From Beirut to Jerusalem”, by Thomas Friedman. I do not care for the author himself too much, however he does provide an eye-account of the war’s intricacies, as they unfolded. Usually, one group would play the other off in the eyes of some Western agency. As I read his book he was mostly preaching to the choir, but for someone like you, I would highly recommend it as a great introduction.
-Ibn
“It’s an immigration policy, and every country has the right to set its own.”
Including Israel?
“Well, this group wants to come back after 50. They had a right to bomb their way in? We have a right to bomb them back out. 10 times over.”
Ibn, I do so enjoy reading your “stuff”. The expression “have your cake and eat it too always comes to mind” after all these years.
Two wrongs make a right? We differ, Ibn. The cost in terms of civilian dead is way too high.
Forgive me Aliandra but you seem to be very one-sided on this issue.
What has been visited upon Palestine (for want of a better name) since 1948 is just plain wrong – however badly the Palestinians have behaved since then. The whole issue needs an honest appraisal and non-partisan discussion with all the interested parties of the world. That has yet to happen.
That is true. The ‘world community’ has supported the Palestinian struggle for some time now. It is actually quite hard to find someone who is completely and utterly supportive of Israel to the point of brooking no criticism of it. It’s very easy to find someone who will justify the murder of Israelis.
I’m replying to one right now. Hi Ibn!
Let me know how that goes. Seems like ‘bombing them back out’ has led specifically to the destruction of Arab armies, the crushing of Arab cultures and polite society under the yoke of ‘emergency laws’ and the wide support of barbarism across the Middle East; not to mention the human toll of the Palestinians who have to suffer from overpopulation and war because of their fellow Muslims’ pride.
Israel on the other hand, during that same time, has developed more useful technological innovations, world-renowned scientists and books than the whole of the Arab world has produced in say.. the past
millennium.
Seems like keeping the cycle of violence going by ‘bombing them 10 times more’ is not exactly a winning policy. I suppose that Allah’s getting his martyrs, and that’s all that really matters, right? ‘We love death’ and all that. I’m sure he’s just -loving- it.
Or maybe it’s an obvious sign that he’s unhappy. Maybe the Jews were his ‘chosen people’ after all. Now wouldn’t that be ironic?
Mdc,
I said country, not terrorist cell.
Aww, so sweet of you mdc! Im glad that you enjoy it mdc. Its nice to hear that my hard work raises a readers’ intellect from time to time. You make me blush, my dear.
Hi Ethan! Tell me, were you part of the 50% of Americans who “justified dismantling Iraq thus justifying the murder of Iraqis”?
I am told that approximately 5000 Iraqi military personnel were killed during the invasion. How did you respond to their “murders”?
Ethan, there are many ways to skin a cat. On a tactical and strategic level, the past Arab wars were nothing to be proud of. (Egypt did make impressive gains in the 1973 war, at least initially), but all in all, the Arab wars against Israel were not maintainable from the beginning. The lack of respect of individual rights in Arab countries means that its population of 300 or so million could never be mustered against a racist gang of 4 million colonizers. That is the real tragedy. Arab armies are more fit for domestic squashing than for real defense in any sense of the word.
However, where past Arab actions and political systems in the past have been lacking, their motivations have been pure in regards to the issue of Israel – its total annihilation. In this sense, we have the moral right, but currently, with no means to realize them. This obviously needs to change, if the Arab world is ever going to be able to defend itself from foreign invaders, both in the short term and the long term.
To be fair however, the Arabs did manage to muster something impressive in 1973 under Sadat, and thank god for Operation Nickel Grass, (thanks America!) lest the Zionist dream would have entered the history books.
True. It doesn’t hurt to have the world superpower giving you approximately $3 billion a year in military equipment and $ 7 billion a year in economic assistance, along with $500 million per year of free tax revenues from occupied Palestinians who must pay taxes towards the occupying state but never see a penny of it. All this, divided over a population of 6 million. But im sure that has nothing to do with it.
However, in the interest of being fair again, the Arab world does need a massive economic overhaul. Capitalism must be embraced, and old socialistic tendencies which breed state control need to be removed. Free trade will allow the Arab world to leverage its 300 million strong populous towards becoming the next economic power house. We have the brain power. We have the natural resources. We have have the capability.
Agreed, one needs to make sure his own house is in order, before attacking his enemy. Plus, im not a big fan of cycles of violence – a defensive war must be executed either fully, or not at all. This means no potshots. While they may be morally right, they don’t really accomplish much.
Like South Africa, Israel will need to dismantle its Zionist enterprise. If this happens by its populus reading books over hot chocolate, or through a mushroom cloud over Tel-Aviv, then so be it. I certainly would prefer the former method, but if it came down to the latter, my only concern would be which direction the wind was blowing in that day. Otherwise, I would sleep just dandy.
Hmm, a god that puts 6 million of his human creations into ovens. Maybe he meant “Chosen for termination”?
Oh, and I replied to your other texts in Post # 50.
Good day!
-Ibn
Hi Ibn! Tell me, do you know of the logical fallacy called tu quoque? It’s knocking at your door!
Also, deaths of soldiers in a war between uniformed armies is not murder. Maybe you should read the rules of war sometime.
I can call for genocide too! Look..
However, where past Papist actions and political systems had been lacking, their motivations have been pure in regards to the takeover of the Holy Land by infidel Muslims – their total annihilation.
Wow. That was refreshing. Blind hatred is so easy, no wonder some many fall into its sway – you don’t have to think, you just classify some group as non-human and then make the spilling of their blood legal!
True. It doesn’t hurt to have the world superpower giving you approximately $3 billion a year in military equipment and $ 7 billion a year in economic assistance, along with $500 million per year of free tax revenues from occupied Palestinians who must pay taxes towards the occupying state but never see a penny of it. All this, divided over a population of 6 million. But im sure that has nothing to do with it.
Last I checked, the petrostates that cry crocodile tears about the ‘plight of the Palestinians’ have trillions in liquid assets.
Why didn’t they do the same thing for Palestine? Oh right. They don’t want a resolution so they can continue to repress and destroy their people in the name of religion and resistance. Way to go Ibn. You’ve bought into the animal farm. Are you one of the Pigs?
I’m sure you would. Myself, I would sleep just dandy if the nukes didn’t stop at Tel Aviv and hit Jerusalem, Ramallah, the Gaza Strip, Medina, Mecca, and Damascus.
You know, just to be fair and all that. They’re just brown people in a far away land. I mean , gosh.. I wouldn’t want to be racist now would I? Who needs those silly Jews and Muslim holy sites anyway? They’ve never given anything good at all to the world. I SCOFF AT THE MILLIONS OF DEAD. HA HA HA.
I read your post in #50, found it too long and not snarky enough, so I have ignored it. Inshallah, I’ll get to demolishing your primitive barbarian world-view some more later.
Ibn,
I am sorry but I think you got it wrong in your comment no. 57 to me. You compelled me to read the article by Gabriel Alumni again. I could not find any references to “we are the decendants of Phonecians”. It seems you were referring to another article!
Having said, I am glad that I have re read the article by Gabriel Alumni. It makes compelling arguments as to who won the war that Hezbollah triggered. Hezbollah not only lost but it lost catastrophically.
hate shapes you.
Nine,
I know what the source of confusion is: You thought I was talking about Gabriel the author. I was actually referring to Briggite Gabriel, referenced in post # 43. (The interview).
Ethan,
Ethan, every civilian in Israel is a soldier. Every citizen in Israel is conscripted to join the army for at least two years. Both males, and females. There is no distinction, even they say so themselves.
But lets say you’re right, that the death of soldiers in war is not murder, but the death of civilians is. How is that different than what happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Were civilians not intentionally targeted? As usual, a westerner will say: “Yes .. but..”.
Here you have a case where the West targetted and massacered about 200,000 Japanese civilians, for the bombing raid of Pearl Harbour. Had Japan not surrendered, the US would have annihilated the entire country, without flinching. “Yes Ibn, but that wasnt racist! You see, we just wanted to uhh… end the war! Yeah thats right.”
Whereas here, we have a colonizer force who has not just done a pin prick equivalent of Pearl Harbour, but had the audacity to actually settle on our land after 5000 years.
Imagine that. Japanese forces bomb Hawaii, and then settle in Seattle. What would you do? ‘Negotiate’ with them while ‘renouncing’ violence?
What hypocrisy. How utterly, utterly disgusting. You want the Arabs to “renounce” violence so that anything you dictate to us in the West is followed word for word – without us daring to raise objection or resist.
You would like nothing than for the entire Arab world to become your puppy dog bitches and kiss your shoes. (Kinda like the way it currently is). We dare object to Israel – its ideology – its actions – its existance, and our culture is drawn into question, our religion desecrated, and our countries sanctioned.
It was but 50 or 60 years ago before we saw the last disgusting vestiges of official Western colonialism, but somehow WE are the violent conquerors because of actions taken 1400 years ago.
For every Israeli occupier that is killed, an Israeli aircraft sees it fit to level an entire gaza city block. You apply a 1:100 ratio to us, but how dare we apply the same to you. You applied the 1:1000 ratio to Japan, but all the sudden we are Jew-hating racists if we decide to be the numerator of that ratio in our own defensive conflict.
It is us who should be interrogating you, us who should be questioning you, who should be quizzing you, on your ulterior motives, on your violent history, and on your talent for justifying every incursion in to Arab land. As colonizers. Are zionists. As ‘liberators’. It’s always something with you people.
The West claims it is Christian. Israel claims it is Jewish. None is technically true. You people do not worship the monotheistic god of Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Mohammad.
No, you worship Mars. God of bloodshed, war, and eternal civil strife. He is your true god. Every Israeli, a walking breathing altar to him.
And here you are lecturing us.
-Ibn
Ibn,
Confusion is sorted out thank you and I even managed to read the interview with Briggite Gabriel!
The interview is one sided but I shall reprint one sentence. She says that while at school in Lebanon “All I heard was Israel is Satan, Israel the devil, Israelis are demons, and they are the source of the problem in the Middle East. The Jews are evil, they are unstoppable and they want to control the world. I heard nothing but hatred toward the Jews.”
Is it not true that is what Arab kids learn at school?
Uniformed soldiers. A soldier not in uniform is not a uniformed soldier, and is a civilian.
Is it that hard for you, Ibn? Or do you really “hate Jews that much that common sense trumps your understanding of Law?
Please, Ibn, oh wise and moral guide who is equal to Allah in his own mind, please do put words in my kufr mouth.
Yes. In fact civilians were targeted (although there is some evidence that Truman was told that Hiroshima was a military target), and a state of declared war existed between the Empire of Japan and the United States at that time. The attack of Nagasaki was not in retaliation for a bombing of Pearl Harbor, as your inferior education may have taught you. Pear harbor was a tactical error on the part of the Japanese. The declaration of war was not presented before the attack as it was supposed to have been.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a desperate ploy to end the war before the proposed X-Day invasion, which would have been an intolerable loss of life on both sides.
It is also important to note that as WW2 dragged on, each side of the battle violated many of the norms of warfare. May I point out the Rape of Nanking, the Blitz, and the Holocaust. However, the Fourth Geneva convention was not ratified until 1949.
Actually, it should be the Berbers, the Syriacs, the Chaldeans, the Copts, the Gnostics, the Zoroastrians, the Jews, the Yazidis and others who should be doing the questioning if you want to talk about violent history.
I seem to recall there being 1400 years of violent history that is ongoing between Arabs and those groups which once were the civilization of the lands that you claim as the Waqf.
Don’t start in to lecture on history, Ibn. You’ll find that the wholesale slaughter of indigenous peoples, destruction of their civilization and replacement by the victors is not a Western or Mongol trait alone.
The West hasn’t claimed itself “Christian” for a long time.
But you’re right at least in one thing. The God claimed by Western Christians is not the “duo-monotheistic” Allah/Mohammed. According to any reading of the Bible, Mohammed is not, and cannot be a Prophet. Therefore he is a liar.
He, you see, denies the divinity of Christ – according to Christian theology, a prophet that denies that is a “wolf in sheep’s clothing”.
Joseph Smith, on the other hand, is a Prophet. Interesting that. I don’t see Mormons blowing up anything. I see a lot of Muslims acting out the wolf-part.
As for the Jews? They deny both Christ and Mohammed as innovations. So the New Testament and the Koran is just so much worthless squiggles to them. Who should they care if you don’t think they worship the same God as you? They obviously don’t.
Ibn – well said, some very very good posts.
Ibn;
So why don’t you take them?
Um, because we think that those who complain the loudest about the Palestinian Cause™ should be the ones putting their money where their mouths are.
IBN: It doesn’t hurt to have the world superpower giving you approximately $3 billion a year in military equipment and $ 7 billion a year in economic assistance, along with $500 million per year of free tax revenues from occupied Palestinians who must pay taxes towards the occupying state but never see a penny of it. All this, divided over a population of 6 million. But im sure that has nothing to do with it.
You’re right, it doesn’t. The Palestinians have received more international aid per capita than any other people in the world*. The Palestinians have stolen it, pissed it away in corruption and cronyism, given it to the families of suicide bombers, etc. Arafat had millions stashed in private accounts all over the world. Suha Arafat walked off with 20 million USD when he died. Surely, that money could have used to give every Palestinian a college education, or even a nice villa in Dubai.
The Palestinians are not poor and miserable because they lack funds. They are poor and miserable because they consistently choose theft and corruption over development and responsible governance.
On a secondary point, you should note the fact that the most prolific spillers of Arab blood are other Arabs, not Imperialist Crusader Pigs or Extremely Evil Zionists. Your angst needs to re-proportionalized.
* link
ed: above link reformatted for clarity
Loki,
Bless your heart.
Aliandra,
Aliandra, we arent the loudest ones complaining about the Palestinian Cause – Israel is. The Israelis dont seem to like it very much. But I agree. Maybe they should heed your advice and take in all the Palestinian refugees.
Why not in Haifa?
Hmm …Responsible Governance…
You will get no argument from me that much of the Palestinian leadership is awash in cronyism and corruption.
That being said however, “development” and “responsible governance” means you have a country to start off with. Secondly, when you do get your country and its under occupation, a “responsible government” will take it upon itself to defend the country and destroy the occupier.
“Responsible Governance” in the Palestinian case means a strong capitalist system takes hold. This means that Palestinians have 100% control over their own imports, and their own exports. Israel will never accept this.
“Responsible Governance” in the Palestinian case means a strong educational and economic system be fostered, whereby Palestinian students major in anything they damn well please, without being dictated to by the Jews next door.
“Responsible Governannce” in the Palestinian case means the state development in a strong police force, Domestic Gaurd, and National Army. The police will take care of crime and petty disputes, assuming they do not need to stop at Israeli checkpoints that is. The Domestic Gaurd will make sure Israeli spies from Shin-Bet who infiltrate the homeland and play off one Palestinian family against another at gunpoint are rounded up and punished. And the National Army will take it upon itself to prepare for, study, and defend the homeland from any incursion whatsoever. Somehow I again doubt our Jewish friends next door would like that.
But lets switch gears:
The type of “responsible governance” Israel would accept, would be the building of Palestinian universities that ban students from majoring in Aerospace and Nuclear Engineering. Instead, botany and PhD’s on the sexual behavior of jellyfish will be emphasized. (In fairness to the Israelis, the Mediterranean is in fact full of jellyfish).
A “responsible government” in the eyes of our Israeli masters would also report and submit to Israeli dicate on imports and exports. The importation of tactical and military or even industrial know-who would be banned, but god-bless the Israelis, they do allow us to import rugs from Iran.
A “responsible government” in the eyes of our Israeli big brother would not allow us to develop industries that compete with their own. The water rights of water tables directly underneath our feet will be contested. No, do not create your own factories for industrial equipment, machinery, or vehicles – just stick to your falafel and hummus stands.
This is life in your (and Israel’s) idea of “responsible governance”.
This, my dear Aliandra, is what you and your ideological Israeli allies would like to see:
You do not want us to gaze into microscopes and telescopes for the sake knowledge in and of itself. You want us to gaze into them, because you do not want us to to look up every once in a while, see your true colors, and start gazing at you instead.
-Ibn
Oh, and Aliandra,
I dont know if it was your intention to make me howl in laughter, but no sonner had I clicked on your link to “Honest Reporting” and begun to read the article, that I got an ad from the site telling me to:
“Support Israel. Earn rewards”.
Well, I guess they are honest – honest about their pro-Zionist stance that is.
And honesty, I can respect.
-Ibn
Ibn,
Still waiting to hear of your response to my question above (comment no. 67).
Regards,
Nine,
My apologies – I had completely forgotten about your post.. but here goes:
Well Nine, that is a big question. My short answer to you is that I do not have sufficient information on all (or a statistically sound sample) of current school cirricula in the Arab world, which numbers about 300 million people across 22 nations.
What I can do however, is relay my personal experience, as well as that of other colleagues I have had. (If Mahmood sees this maybe he can talk about this subject from his school days as well, along with that of his kids).
One variable here also is time – from the looks of her, I would say she is old like 50 something, whereas I am in my mid-20s, so things might have changed.
Amazingly, yet another seemingly inconsequential variable here is semantics: For example, you may or may have not noticed this, but a lot of Arabs refer to Israelis/Zionists as simply “Jews”. To be honest with you, I dont like this, because it muddles the conflict, but at the same time, I understand where it comes from. It is akin to current Americans on the right-wing who simply refer to terrorists as “Muslims”, or, when trying to talk about a terrorist attack, will simply say “It was done my Muslims”. Thus, in the same vein, Arabs throughout the conflict have just come to call the Zionist occupiers as simply “Jews”, which is technically true.
With that in mind, what the author is saying is that there was a lot of hate/anger directed towards Israelis, growing up. If you are asking me how prevalent that anger is, I would have to say very much. If you are asking me how prevalent is teaching cirricula demonizing “Jews”, (which 80% of the time is meant to refer to Israelis/Zionists), then I would say that is probably prevalent very much so as well, but probably more so along those countries bordering or near the Zionist Entity.
From my personal experience, I didnt really care for politics as an adolescent, and didnt really hear much about the Israeli-Arab conflict growing up either.
Hope that helps.
-Ibn
Ibn,
Thank you for your response. I must admit that I too do not have many details about what goes on in Arab schools but I think there is a lot of truth in her statement. There is a lot of hate directed towards the Jews and this has been going on well before the creation of the State of Israel. Not that the Arabs are unique in that. However, the Europeans have come to terms with their history, have admitted their mistakes and tried to make amends with the Jews. Perhaps the Arabs should do the same. After all they were not particularly as bad towards the Jews as the Europeans were. I for example, read somewhere that the Jews fled with the Arabs when the last of the Arab kingdoms fell in Spain!
Nine,
Nine, thats quite a loaded statement. What evidence do you have to support this position?
Remember, since day one, this has been a conflict against Zionists. This started in 1917, with the Balfour declaration. In 1948, the Zionists became Israelis. The fact that they happened to be Jews is irrelevant. They could have been Norweigian transvestites, and you would still have the same conflict. Because at heart, it is territorial.
Now, lets switch gears and talk about non-Zionist Jews, in recent history: Arab Jews never had it as bad as their European counterparts. During the Inquisitions, Jews took refuge in the Muslim Ottoman Empire. When the German government asked the Morrocan King to hand over his Jews during WWII, the King told them to go f*** themselves. During the holocaust, the government of Iran forged Iranian passports to Jewish escapees so that they could leave France and Germany and come to Iran. In fact, the whole point behind Jewish-Zionist pioneers even coming into Muslim/Arab land was because they were not going to be persecuted. Ironic isnt it?
So do not muddle the issues. There are Zionists. There are Jews. The conflict centers around the former, not the latter. It was only after the creation of the state of Israel that the line demarkating the two became muddled, but there was no “Jew hatred” as you understand it to speak of.
Nine, you are comparing apples with oranges. The Europeans’ hostility towards the Jews was based on nothing but racist bigotry. However, the Arab bigotry towards Zionists (who happen to be Jews) was and is based on territory.
They are two completely different issues.
To make it even simpler: A group is demoized because they are ethnically different. This is not the same as that same group being demonized because they are occupiers and conquerors.
They are worlds apart.
-Ibn
Ibn,
I respectively disagree. Year one was not 1917. Rather, I would say it was around 600 AD. That was 14 centuries ago!
There is no point denying this. Arabic literature be it religious or not is full of it.
There is also no need to talk about Arab / Muslim acceptance or leniency towards the Jews in comparison with the Europeans. I had already mentioned that in my earlier post above. This is at least on thing that we agree on.
So let’s not muddle the issue as you say!
The Europeans’ hostility towards the Jews may have indeed been based on racist bigotry but the Arab bigotry towards the Jews was definitely not based on territory, not prior to the 20th century anyway. It is goes deeper than that.
Nine,
Nine, I ask that you not mince words:
1) The ZIONIST (Z-I-O-N-I-S-T) – Arab conflict started in 1917.
2) Muslim VS non-Muslim tensions started in 600 AD.
It bequethe’s you to be accurate.
Before I go on, lets clarify your statement(s), and what you want to talk about. Are you talking about Zionists-Arab tensions? Or are you referring to Muslim-non-Muslim tensions?
-Ibn
Ibn,
The whole discussion started when I asked you about what Briggite Gabriel said ” I heard nothing “at school” but hatred toward the Jews.”
I think the statement is very clear and I was very clear too. However, you seem to want to muddle the issue by talking about Zionists, the Belfore Declaration and Arab hospitality towards the Jews. Anything but the issue!
You want to make a distinction between the Jews and the Zionists. Well there may be a distinction but that is not the issue my friend here. The issue is Arab hatreds towards the Jews.
You say it started in 1917 or perhaps there never was one. I say it has been there from 6oo AD. You can not deny that. It is well documented.
Nine,
Well Nine, it looks like youve got it all figured out!
Umm, ok – yes yes, you are 100% right, us Arabs have always, currently do, and always will “hate Jews” as you say.
Thank you. Obviously, you have the spirit of a true scientist.
-Ibn
Ibn,
I shall take that as an admission!
Now that we have agreed on that we should figure out as to how to overcome those historical hatreds and prejudices.
I truly believe that the first thing that we should all do wherever we are is to teach our children that all people are the same, that human life is precious and that all humans should be treated with respect and dignity. I am sure you will admit to that too.
Regards,
Like I said, youve got it all figured out.
-Ibn
Tut tut, Ibn.
The brave person admits that they are wrong, not merely admits that Nine is right.
Ethan,
My only error, was not trying hard enough to portray my past two posts’ severe sarcasm. Afterall, it is somewhat hard to do over an comments’ box on the internet.
-Ibn
Ibn,
I rest my case.
It was great debating you.
Good luck.