The United States of Shame

Vincent,

If you check my posts you’ll find that I’ve regularly berated Tigerman for his anti-Arab prejudices. I’ve also criticized Israel’s relationship with the US and spoken out against America’s policies in the Middle East. Probably as much or more so than anyone else here.

Your attack on all Jewish people is far worse for its perniciousness and potential for evil than anything I’ve complained about though. The fact is that we’re all just human beings and all these classifications and divisions that we imagine are real and set us apart in some basic way are just delusions existing in our minds alone.

There are no ‘Jewish people.’ There are no ‘Palestinian’, ‘Gentile’ or ‘Chinese people’ either. There are only people who imagine themselves to be something better or worse or different than other people because of their fears, delusion and prejudices.

The case you’ve stated above is not going to make the world a better more just and truthful place. It’s only going to add to the falsehoods, division and fear that dominate everyone’s thinking today. You’ve got to break out of this false choice between Zionism and Anti-Semitism that you’re locked into if you’re going to accomplish anything good rather than just be a mirror image of the evil you complain about.

Gee, Rascal… could it be due to the fact that Israel has a unique security situation?

Ok, very naive for me to think of aid like in humanitarian aid … :blush:

Surely you are right about the security situation though.

No comment to make. Just liked this quote, that’s all.

Himmler had a lot to say about the Jews as well and he was an arsehole that was full of shite too.

Gavin,

What are you talking about. I take offense at your characterization of my views as prejudiced against Arabs.

I’m certain that you are aware that “prejudice” derives from the word “prejudge”. I don’t claim to know everything. However, I am certainly sufficiently informed regarding the Israeli-Palestinian/Arab situation to form an opinion that should not be described as “prejudiced”.

I am aware that some dictionaries define “prejudice” as a “bias”, but the primary meaning refers to prejudging an event or situation, without knowing the facts or considering the circumstances.

But, even if you meant merely that I am biased, I resent that also, as we are all biased and you cannot “berate” me for that unles you do the same to everyone.

We may disagree, but please grant me the courtesy of acknowledging my objectivity, despite my bias.

How do you know?

I don’t follow your logic.

Hogwash.

No. But it isn’t very nice to hate them either.

Being pro-Israeli does not necessarily equate with being anti-Palestinian. Really.

Boo! :smiling_imp: Enemies everywhere. :smiling_imp: They’re out to get you… Boo! :smiling_imp:

Please explain.

Only recently, the Clinton Administration brokered a deal that offered the Palestinians sovereignty over 98 percent of the West Bank and Gaza. Arafat said no and his people are still living with the consequences. :unamused:

I think we have to be careful about who is criticising what.

Mr T. has in several threads criticised the Palestinian leadership as embodied by the PLO. He may (or may not) have referred to them in the shorthand as “The Palestinians” but I am sure everyone understood the label for what it was.

Surely this distinction is obvious in his comment:

In addition, there was a thread which attacked religious intolerance in the Middle East. (Or attacked it more generally, just using an example from the Arab-Israeli conflict.)

None of these criticisms were made in the same absurd (deliberately absurd) way that Vincent made his remarks.

I think we all (GJ, Mr T, myself) agree that a solution to the Middle East requires two states - one Israeli, one Palestinian. Now, if I am mistaken, then I think that anyone who does not take this stance has to justify their extremist position. One problem with the Palestinian leadership is that too often it does not seem to accept that it must allow an Israeli state to exist for there to be peace.

[quote=“tigerman”]

Only recently, the Clinton Administration brokered a deal that offered the Palestinians sovereignty over 98 percent of the West Bank and Gaza. Arafat said no and his people are still living with the consequences. :roll:[/quote]

Or as Abba Eban put it, the Palestinians had a tradition of "never having lost a chance to miss an opportunity.’’

Tigerman, the reason VINCENT’s posts are not logical is because his hatred is not logical. He is, as ironlady suggested, just another … oh let it be. He will never change. Illogical is as illogical does …

He has found his bogeyman and he will never let go. Can’t. Hatred like that does not come from a logical,or healthy,place. Let him be. Sad, that views like his still exist in this world. But maybe he mirrors a huge silent majority we never hear from. Yes, the Jews are to blame for everything bad in this world, for sure. Vincent, we all know that already!

[quote=“LCN”][quote=“tigerman”]

Only recently, the Clinton Administration brokered a deal that offered the Palestinians sovereignty over 98 percent of the West Bank and Gaza. Arafat said no and his people are still living with the consequences. :unamused:[/quote]

Or as Abba Eban put it, the Palestinians had a tradition of "never having lost a chance to miss an opportunity.’’[/quote]

I admit to be somewhat mystified as to why Arafat rejected this deal. I am aware of some people who claim that he never did walk away from the deal. But at the same time, his actions were such that they supposedly caused even Clinton to declare that he could not do business with Arafat.

The (perceived?) rejection by Arafat of this deal is I guess the reason why George Bush thought he could not do business with Arafat and is the reason perhaps behind Sharon’s rise to prominence again.

So, it would be instructive to try and learn why the deal failed and to hear the views of all sides of the argument.

a ny times reporter today writes:

“In the history of the world, no one has ever washed a rented car.”

see below

"As the decision on Iraq approaches, I, like so many Americans, have had to ask myself: What do you really think? Today I explain why I think liberals under-appreciate the value of removing Saddam Hussein. And on Sunday I will explain why conservatives under-appreciate the risks of doing so ?and how we should balance the two.

What liberals fail to recognize is that regime change in Iraq is not some distraction from the war on Al Qaeda. That is a bogus argument. And simply because oil is also at stake in Iraq doesn’t make it illegitimate either. Some things are right to do, even if Big Oil benefits.

Although President Bush has cast the war in Iraq as being about disarmament ?and that is legitimate ?disarmament is not the most important prize there. Regime change is the prize. Regime transformation in Iraq could make a valuable contribution to the war on terrorism, whether Saddam is ousted or enticed into exile.

Why? Because what really threatens open, Western, liberal societies today is not Saddam and his weapons per se. He is a twisted dictator who is deterrable through conventional means. Because Saddam loves life more than he hates us. What threatens Western societies today are not the deterrables, like Saddam, but the undeterrables ?the boys who did 9/11, who hate us more than they love life. It’s these human missiles of mass destruction that could really destroy our open society.

So then the question is: What is the cement mixer that is churning out these undeterrables ?these angry, humiliated and often unemployed Muslim youth? That cement mixer is a collection of faltering Arab states, which, as the U.N.'s Arab Human Development Report noted, have fallen so far behind the world their combined G.D.P. does not equal that of Spain. And the reason they have fallen behind can be traced to their lack of three things: freedom, modern education and women’s empowerment.

If we don’t help transform these Arab states ?which are also experiencing population explosions ?to create better governance, to build more open and productive economies, to empower their women and to develop responsible media that won’t blame all their ills on others, we will never begin to see the political, educational and religious reformations they need to shrink their output of undeterrables.

We have partners. Trust me, there is a part of every young Arab today that recoils at the idea of a U.S. invasion of Iraq, because of its colonial overtones. But there is a part of many young Arabs today that prays the U.S. will not only oust Saddam but all other Arab leaders as well.

It is not unreasonable to believe that if the U.S. removed Saddam and helped Iraqis build not an overnight democracy but a more accountable, progressive and democratizing regime, it would have a positive, transforming effect on the entire Arab world ?a region desperately in need of a progressive model that works.

And liberals need to take heed. Just by mobilizing for war against Iraq, the U.S. has sent this region a powerful message: We will not leave you alone anymore to play with matches, because the last time you did, we got burned. Just the threat of a U.S. attack has already prompted Hezbollah to be on its best behavior in Lebanon (for fear of being next). And it has spurred Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Abdullah to introduce a proposal to his fellow Arab leaders for an “Arab Charter” of political and economic reform.

Let me sum up my argument with two of my favorite sayings. The first is by Harvard’s president, Lawrence Summers, who says: “In the history of the world, no one has ever washed a rented car.” It is true of countries as well. Until the Arab peoples are given a real ownership stake in their countries ?a real voice in how they are run ?they will never wash them, never improve them as they should.

The second is an American Indian saying ?“If we don’t turn around now, we just may get where we’re going.” The Arab world has been digging itself into a hole for a long time. If our generation simply helps it stop digging, possibly our grandchildren and its own will reap the benefits. But if we don’t help the Arabs turn around now, they just may get where they’re going ?a dead end where they will produce more and more undeterrables.

This is something liberals should care about ?because liberating the captive peoples of the Mideast is a virtue in itself and because in today’s globalized world, if you don’t visit a bad neighborhood, it will visit you.

[quote=“tigerman”]
Gavin,
What are you talking about. I take offense at your characterization of my views as prejudiced against Arabs.[/quote]
Tigerman,

I’ve got plenty of evidence that you’re harboring anti-Arab prejudices.

It’s a well-known fact by everyone here at Segue.

It’s not up to me to provide any “smoking gun” evidence though.

It’s up to you to prove that you’re not anti-Arab.

Your pattern of denial is really proof enough though that you’re trying to hide your prejudices.

[quote=“imyourbiggestfan”]I admit to be somewhat mystified as to ahy Arafat rejected this deal. I am aware of some people who claim that he never did walk away from the deal. But at the same time, his actions were such that they supposedly caused even Clinto to declare that he could not do business with Arafat.

The (perceived?) rejection by Arafat of this deal is I guess the reason why George Bush thought he could not do business with Arafat and is the reason perhaps behind Sharon’s rise to prominence again.

So, it would be instructive to try and learn what the deal failed and to hear the views of all sides of the argument.[/quote]

I think the reason that Arafat and the PA rejected the deal is that once a Palestinian state is established, of what use will Arafat and his unelected and corrupt organization be?

I support President Bush’s endorsement of the idea of a Palestinian state… and I support and wholeheartedly agree with the conditions Pres. Bush placed on US support and assistance for the same… (1) drop Arafat, (2) establish democratic institutions, (3) adopt the rule of law.

The Palestinian people are in dire straits for many reasons… and one of the important reasons is the corruption rampant in business dealings which are nearly all regulated by Arafat’s PA.

[quote=“Gavin Januarus”]
Tigerman,

I’ve got plenty of evidence that you’re harboring anti-Arab prejudices.[/quote]

Let’s see some of it.

Has there been a meeting on the matter?

Oh. Its not up to the accuser to provide the evidence of the accused’s act? Do you have any idea how absolutely hypocritical you come across?

Why? You made an accusation.

:shock: So, if I accuse you of being a child molester, and you deny the same, is that proof enough that you are trying to hide your history of child sexual molestation? :unamused:

[quote=“Gavin Januarus”]
Tigerman,

I’ve got plenty of evidence that you’re harboring anti-Arab prejudices.

It’s a well-known fact by everyone here at Segue.

It’s not up to me to provide any “smoking gun” evidence though.

It’s up to you to prove that you’re not anti-Arab.

Your pattern of denial is really proof enough though that you’re trying to hide your prejudices.[/quote]

Very smart. Very witty. But the comparison is fatally flawed.

The UN knows Saddam has used weapons of mass destruction in the past. The UN has the first proof of the existence of such weapons and of the willingness to use them. If you want to make an analogy to legal process and the burden of proof, I suggest the following is imperfect but more accurate:

“We know Saddam is dangerous. He has done this before. We have convicted him and locked him up (sanctions). Now, the onus is on him to show that he is no longer a danger to the community, otherwise we will make sure he is not let out. EVER.”

[quote]So, you are against any group that would act similarly? Banding together within a “foreign” land, trying to protect their own values and way of life via the well-known nefarious practices of VOTING, FUND-RAISING, and NETWORKING.

I take it then that you will be speaking out against similar “enclaves” such as San Francisco’s Chinatown and Taipei’s Tien mu?[/quote]

Not at all. It’s human nature to form this type of group. It’s also human nature for the groups to compete with one another–for the interests of some groups to go against the interests of other groups. So we have to ask ourselves, who are my people? With whom, and against whom, do I stand.

Gavin thinks that we are all people, and all the differences don’t amount to much, or shouldn’t. This is what my old church taught. But why should species membership be assumed to trump group membership? Why not just say hell with it, humans and monkeys are all bipeds, we have to accept them as equals–no, not just equals, a part of us? After all, humans and chimps share upwards of 90 percent of the same DNA.

Subtle differences are important. And even if there were no differences, group identity would still matter.

[quote=“imyourbiggestfan”][quote=“Gavin Januarus”]
Tigerman,

I’ve got plenty of evidence that you’re harboring anti-Arab prejudices.

It’s a well-known fact by everyone here at Segue.

It’s not up to me to provide any “smoking gun” evidence though.

It’s up to you to prove that you’re not anti-Arab.

Your pattern of denial is really proof enough though that you’re trying to hide your prejudices.[/quote]

Very smart. Very witty. But the comparison is fatally flawed.

The UN knows Saddam has used weapons of mass destruction in the past. The UN has the first proof of the existence of such weapons and of the willingness to use them.[/quote]

Its more than just that! The UN knows what weapons and materials Iraq received in the past and has asked Iraq to account for the same. So far, Iraq has not done so.

In fact, the UN is not looking for a “smoking gun” at all. UN Security Council Resolution 1441 is quite clear on the Iraqi arms declaration, for example, saying “false statements” or “omissions” constitute a “material breach.” But people such as Gavin have made it obvious that they don’t consider Iraq’s blanket denial to be a cause for war, when in the parlance of diplomacy, “material breach” is a cause for war.

“My idea is that every specific body strives to be master over all space and to extend its force (its will to power) and to thrust back all that resists its extension. But it continually encounters similar efforts on the part of other bodies and ends by coming to an arrangement (“union”) with those of them that are sufficiently related to it: Thus they conspire together for power.”–frederick nietzsche

An unfortunate, yet instrumental, trait.

With regards to “The generous offer,” given at Camp David and Arafat’s rejection of it.

A quick search on the internet will find countless articles that present another side of the story.

Below is just an excerpt from one of them and a link to a map outlining the proposed boundaries.

David Clark
Wednesday April 10, 2002
The Guardian
With Israel, it will be necessary to challenge some deeply held illusions about the peace process and why it broke down. Chief among these is the assertion that the Palestinians rejected a “generous” Israeli offer at Camp David two years ago. It is a view that spans the Israeli political spectrum, uniting the hard right with born-again rejectionists like Ehud Barak, confirming all in their belief that political dialogue has been exhausted and that Arafat is an inveterate terrorist. It is time for some constructive revisionism.
Barak’s proposal for a Palestinian state based on 91% of the West Bank sounded substantive, but even the most cursory glance at the map revealed the bad faith inherent in it. It showed the West Bank carved into three chunks, surrounded by Israeli troops and settlers, without direct access to its own international borders.
The land-swap that was supposed to compensate the Palestinians for the loss of prime agricultural land in the West Bank merely added insult to injury. The only territory offered to Palestinian negotiators consisted of stretches of desert adjacent to the Gaza Strip that Israel currently uses for toxic waste dumping. The proposals on East Jerusalem were no better, permitting the Palestinians control of a few scattered fragments of what had been theirs before 1967.
Barak offered the trappings of Palestinian sovereignty while perpetuating the subjugation of the Palestinians. It is not difficult to see why they felt unable to accept. The only surprise is how widely the myth of the “generous offer” is now accepted.
For this, Bill Clinton must accept responsibility. With the end of his presidency in sight, Clinton saw time running out along with the hope that he might be remembered in history for something more dignified than blow jobs in the Oval Office. He needed a quick deal rather than a just deal and chose to attempt to bounce Arafat into accepting Israel’s terms. When this failed, Clinton vented his wrath at the Palestinian leader.

map of proposed boundaries
http://www.stanford.edu/~bgiddens/campdavidmap.htm

This website
http://www.robincmiller.com/melinkfr.htm
has links to a lot of articles on the Israeli Palestinian conflict.
From what I can tell, most of them seems to outline the Palestinian position. But it might be valuable reading to people trying to “understand” the two sides of the story.

Tell you what. You go screw a monkey (not our esteemed member, I hope). If it conceives a child, I’ll consider your ‘logic.’

Guys, he’s a troll (and a pissant troll at that). Just doesn’t look like one because he thinks about the crap he’s spewing way too much before he types it, instead of most trolls who try not to imitate logic. Ignore him.