In Ramallah, West Bank, Palestinian police say that a family hanged a 15-year-old boy because they believed that he might be a collaborator with Israel. The police doubt that he was a collaborator due to his young age.
Police report that the boy was hanged by his own father, uncle, and cousin. One account says that the boy was tortured before being hanged.
For the full story, click here.
Carlyle writes: I say, I used Google to search for an article that I had read previously on Shin Bet forcing sick Palestinians to collaborate.
me: yeah, I get that. do you get that it isn’t true? and that what you did was to find the convenient lie and then make sure that you had an article to verify the lie?
you: However it seems to me that for you any article that implies criticism of Israel or Israelis cannot be credible and its author and publisher must be evil liars.
me: no, not so. I read articles that are critical if Israel all the time and reflect things to which I agree. what i don’t do is go to non-Israeli sources and the most virulently anti-Israeli sources at that for my news.
You: Nowhere did I say it is wrong for Israel to withhold medical treatment from those who refuse to collaborate, this is normal behaviour for an occupying power just as executing real or suspected collaborators is normal behaviour for an occupied people.
me: it is wrong for israel or any other nation to withhold medical care in exchange for collaboration. I don’t care if you think this is SOP for Irael or any other nation.
You: Human nature is what it is. Human nature is not what some think it ought to be or what we ought to aspire to or what we mistakenly think is the nature of brave, good, noble people like us as opposed to the brutish nature of cowardly, evil, ignoble people like those from whom we are stealing. Both Palestinians and Israelis are behaving according to human nature, just as the Nazis were and not surprisingly both commit what dispassionate observers interpret as atrocities.
Me: what you accuse israel of has nothing to do with your supposition that we are knuckle-draggers who dont know right from wrong or who choose wrong for our own purposes. that you compare israelis to nazis was never anything I thought you’d do.
you: In your replies too my comments you keep accusing me of saying things that I have not in fact said. You see that CM says X, and you think that X implies Y therefore CM is saying Y. However it may be that I do not think that X implies Y. Because many people who believe X believe that X implies Y does not mean that I believe that same thing.
me: huh?
you: Learn to distinguish things that people actually say from implications that you read into their speech. The implications arise in your mind because of your beliefs.
me: your speech? I read what you write. I have not heard a word you’ve said. If anything I may be reading you too literally. Now go stand in front or a mirror and repeat that line about “implications arise in your mind because of your beliefs” to yourself. smile when you do it. sell it.
you: Because most people take their beliefs from prepackaged sets – for example someone who opposes abortion probably supports the death penalty – it is tempting to assume that someone who asserts X would take his beliefs from a set that includes beliefs X and Y, but that may not be so. There do exist people whose opinions are not taken from the one of the few opinion sets from which most people choose, and I like to think that I am one of them.
me: maybe you take your information in pre-packaged sets. doesn’t mean everyone does. not everyone who is against abortion is also for the death penalty even if that’s what you assume. as for opinion sets… there is no such thing. everyone has an opinion. some folks have more than one that means there are billions of opinions about any topic you may choose.
my ideas about the situation in Israel is based in experience and fact. again, have you ever been there? know anyone who has? plan to go sometime in the future, do you? when you go there and see for yourself then we can talk. as long as you are justified that what you scan from a google search is accurate we really don’t have anything to talk about.
you: Killing most Germans and expelling the rest and turning Germany over to the Jews may not have been workable but it would have been just. The people paying for the crimes of antisemites would have been antisemites. Their is a difference between Christian antisemitism and Muslim/Arab antisemitism. Christian fear and hatred for Jews was never justified by anything Jews had actually done to Christians, Arab/Muslim/Palestinian antisemitism on the other hand is a predictable reaction to things that Israel has done to the Palestinians, namely murder and robbery with violence.
me: just? you think that killing and expelling Germans would have been just? where did you read this? in Convenient Theories For You Monthly?
there is no difference at all between christian anti-semitism and muslim anti-semitism. the end result are dead jews. btw, the grand mufti of jerusalem was a big fan of hitler’s.
See all comments on this post here:
I see that you are NOT an honorable individual. You are fresh and disrepectful.
I actually gave you a compliment because unlike the arrogant that you are I can take each commwent on their face and not let past or personal feelings get in the way of my analysis of a commentary. Something you are obviously incapable of doing.
Do NOT think for a milli-second you are the smartest guy in the room because you are not. I do NOT even understand what you are trying to impart with your tag-line (Buddha) because if you are a practicing Buddhist you are probably like all the “new-age” types who don’t know squat about the practice.
Your fresh personal attacks do not reflect someone aware of Siddhartha’s teachings.
I felt we could have an honest discussion but it seems you only want to talk to people who act as a sychophant to you.
If you had half a brain you would see that my original position to on this blog was very similar to yours about the “psuedo”-Palestinians. My post on my blog exposes the “psuedo”-Palestinians as just that.
Once again you are a fresh, arrogant, ignorant individual incapable of discussing anything unless you can get others to bow down to you. Don’t bother even posting a reply to save yourself from exposing your continued ignorance.
I say troll and you magically appear.
You do the math.
Buddha,
Is this the same Buddha who called me a “Troll” a few days ago?
I actually agree with your current post. It was a very thoughtful and cogent analysis.
I love term “psuedo”-Palestinian. The record is clear that there is no such thing as a native/soveriegn/indigenous Arab/Muslim/Palestinian state or people. Untill the current day Palestinians come to terms with that fact or stop allowing themselves to be brainwashed by their leaders there will be no peace. Untill the Palestinians relent on their insistence to an exclusivity to the Land and Abraham and God their will never be any peace.
The past is the past.Those involved should move forward from the present circumstances. The problem is that no one will let go of their past grievances. That problem of past grievances just gets exaccerbated because the Arab/Muslims base all their past grievanes on a revised and in some cases completely fabricated history.
We can all live and let live but it must start now and not have the past drudged up when dealing with the situation.
I say this in all humility when I tell you I have a very thourough post on sicilian1 on wordpress describing the whole Land situation.
Wow, a STFU from the semi-troll.
If you’re going to bitch about ‘blase’, you shouldn’t contribute to it, sport. Mike returned fact and analysis and you returned what exactly? Snark? Hell, it’s not even good snark. What’s next? How about a couple of rounds of nanny nanny boo boo.
Mike Spindel:
Until Arab dictators quit ginning the mill we will have discord. Israel needs to be supported by every right thinking person in this country. And the survival of Israel is a cause worthy of Americas blood and treasure. This is not from a christian or religious perspective either.
All you numb nuts that believe in moral equivalence, Israel is morally superior to any Arab dictatorship. In fact its’ legitimacy should not even be questioned. The Grand Mufti sided with the NAZI’s during WWII and deserved to be thrown out of Palestine. Sucks to have been on the loosing side, so take your licks and STFU about Israel. Its a done deal.
Mike S,
Thanks for the reply and no apologies needed. I figured you were still in computer semi-limbo. I did not know the Grand Mufti was so tight with Hitler. You came down about where I thought you would and it confirms my suspicion that a lot of Jordan’s reluctance is “saving face” after their past acts. Hard to act honorable now. Saving face, however, doesn’t explain Egypt letting SA and Syria set their policy especially in regards to borders as that is a key element of sovereignty. I don’t disagree with your analysis a bit as to the cause, but to me is still doesn’t sync with Egyptian action – especially post Sadat. Unless it’s a outright bribe from SA that keeps them from asserting their legitimate claim(s). Yeah, it’s a little black hat, but let’s be honest about how vile the regime in SA is and the depths to which they’ll go to extend the reach of their theocracy. We should also be honest about Egypt being so poor as to find such payment attractive. It’s not out of the question. Provocation is provocation even when by proxy.
Glad to see your house is fully wired again. 😀
“I wonder if the 2 sides could ever get together and just share the land without boundaries or exclusionary zones.’
IS,
From a Jewish perspective a Jewish State is needed as a refuge/haven for Jews, if as has happened for 2,000 years the people in the country of their residence turn against them for being Jewish. For that reason and the ones I laid out in the posts above, a two state solution is the best answer.
Carlyle,
First of all I personally never use the term antisemitism. This is because that term originated by Jew haters in the 1880’s as part of the vile eugenics movement and was later adopted by the Nazi’s. That’s why you’ll notice in my writing the term anti-Jewish.
“There was a time I am not sure how long ago when political correctness was an honest term with a valid meaning.’
Your explanation is quite correct and that was how I understood you were using it in the post in point and I agreed with it.
“Killing most Germans and expelling the rest and turning Germany over to the Jews may not have been workable but it would have been just.”
I see your point but disagree with it.
First of all think about it. If I as a left wing Jew, born towards the end of WWII with only distant relatives killed by the Shoah, will never visit Germany, or buy a German made product, what would someone who actually survived the Shoah feel about living there?
Secondly, I do believe that the vast majority of Germans either supported Hitler, or believed in his cause. However,
after his ascension to power as Chancellor and the power
consolidation that followed, it would have taken a very courageous person to have opposed the Nazi’s, even if they disagreed strongly with their policies. Most of us humans don’t have that courage of our convictions and as much as I am sickened by the Shoah and the German public’s compliance, I think displacement would have just been an extension of the inhumanity that had already occurred.
Thirdly, as I stated in the previous post, I think anti-Jewish feeling would have been much greater today than it is now.
“Arab/Muslim/Palestinian antisemitism on the other hand is a predictable reaction to things that Israel has done to the Palestinians, namely murder and robbery with violence.”
Leaving aside your charges of “murder and violence,” which as you know is a point of disagreement between us, most especially in the nuances of the reality, Muslim anti-Judaism has a history dating back almost 1,400 years.
Mohamed, specifically targeted the Jews of the Arabian peninsula (and indeed all Jews)for conversion and acceptance of his “Prophethood.” Like Martin Luther, when they didn’t immediately convert, he turned against them. While the Koran states that Muslims should respect the “people of the book”
(which included Christians)above other infidels, these “people” are clearly to live in subjugation to the Muslim.
The Dome of the Rock was built purposely above the site of the foundation stone of the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem (the most important Jewish holy site) to make the statement that Islam had replaced Judaism. Like Christianity, Islam borrows extensively from the Torah and purports to replace it. The problem is if the Jewish Torah beliefs are correct and the Jews don’t convert to follow the new Prophets, either Jesus or Mohamed, then the legitimacy of either Christianity or Islam is compromised.
In truth of course, like all such religious arguments, the roots lie in the resentment of the non-believer, for their non-belief. Long before 1947 Islamic anti-Jewishness was thriving, after 1947 just another rationale was added to the list of grievance from the Muslim perspective.
“I was wondering if you’d elaborate on why you think Jordan and Egypt are unwilling to go back to the pre-67 borders.”
Buddha,
Sorry for the delay in reply but I am avidly awaiting the arrival of my wife’s new laptop and so have been in a sharing mode for the last week or so.
The reason I stated the above has to do with what is now called “Black September.” It was a time in 1970 where the Jordanians expelled the PLO and its’ followers violently. From the Jordanian viewpoint the PLO had set up a separate “State within a State,” that was undermining the authority of the central government and in essence threatening to displace it perhaps entirely. The expelled people then went to Lebanon, where a similar process began, albeit with a less stable governmental entity. Egypt, which is having problems of its own in the tremendous struggle for power against Mubarek by Islamic fundamentalists, knows the history and wants no part of an autonomous and rowdy group within its’ borders. Think about it. Isn’t it curious that although Israel captured both the West Bank and Gaza in the 1967 war, neither Jordan nor Egypt is demanding the return of that land? Why is that? I don’t believe the answer lies in the selflessness of either government.
To discuss these issues one must differentiate them. On the one hand there is the Organization known as the PLO and its’ now diverse parts. On the other hand there are the valid aspirations of (I use the following because this was not the case until after 1967 and a Saudi financed PR barrage)those who are called the “Palestinians” for a place of their own.
Regarding the PLO it has been in essence the same as a criminal gang, masked by a patina of legitimacy in wanting to fulfill its people’s aspirations. Yassir Arafat, its’ leader for so much of its’ history was an Egyptian born nephew of the anti-Jewish Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. The Mufti spent the WWII years voluntarily as a guest of Hitler in Berlin. His aim and then that of his nephew Arafat, was gaining political/religious power over what is now called Israel. Arafat, while posing as a serious political leader, was amassing billion$ in Swiss bank accounts and purposely keeping “his people” in abject misery, the better to fan the flames of their hatred and thus control them. The primary source of Arafat’s/PLO’s funding came from the Saudi’s and Syria, with the addition of Iran, after its’ revolution.
As for the needs of the peoples, I call pseudo-Palestinians (you can call them as you like) the bulk of them came from the 1947 war for Israeli Independence (you may call it something else)when the attacking Arab States called for them to leave the land to allow the Arabs to “sweep the Jews into the sea.” There was though, perhaps 25% of that group that was expelled by the Israeli’s as security risks. Through the years and generations this group has grown in numbers and also from some people whose ancestors never lived in the area. These people have been kept in a state of poverty and misery that is deplorable. However, that was a
necessity in order to keep them hating Israel and desperate enough to neglect their own lives in an effort to strike back at what they saw as their hated oppressor.
These people have been grievously used as political pawns by everyone involved in the ME. Clearly their needs have to be met. This is why a two state solution seems the only viable option. In truth I think a re-absorption of the disputed areas by Jordan and Egypt would be ideal for them, but for the reasons I gave above that isn’t going to happen. A one state solution isn’t going to happen either, because Israel is just as chary of it as the Jordanians and the Egyptians.
Below are two Wiki links on these issues. Being Wiki of course one has to meditate on its’ accuracy and lack of bias.
Given my laptop situation I did the backup quick and dirty, though from my experiences and complete readings I think they are mostly valid and would be agreed to generally.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_September_in_Jordan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PLO_in_Lebanon
Mike
There was a time I am not sure how long ago when political correctness was an honest term with a valid meaning. It referred to situations where people took good ideas about human rights but stretched them to such absurd lengths that the effects were toxic to necessary free discussion of ideas.
Later the term was adopted by the rabid right and converted into a weapon to win any argument against treating untermenchen as if they were entitled to human rights without explicitly stating their opposition to human rights. “Politically Correct” became a slogan used as code for “Ha Ha Ha some idiot has said something that implies blacks/arabs,terrorists/druggies/poor people/other despised and marginalized group/…. are entitled to human rights such as the protection of the law for themselves and their property and protection from abusive use of the law, what a silly idiot he/she/it is, Ha Ha Ha, Ha De Ha.”
In Australia the term was very popular with the previous Australian Government, that of John Winston Howard and its supporters to dismiss any proposal involving treating the descendants of the unlawful migrants who arrived 40,000 years before the rightful owners as if they were entitled to the same rights as real citizens.
GWLawSchoolMom.
You say “so because it was first on a google list it must be accurate?”
I say, I used Google to search for an article that I had read previously on Shin Bet forcing sick Palestinians to collaborate. It gave a hit list, I then started going through the hit list to find that article or another with the same or similar content. As it happened the first item in the hit list had the information for which I was looking, so I did not need to proceed any further, had it not been relevant I would have gone further through the list. If after examining a certain number I did not find the content I wanted I would have refined my search string and tried again. The reason that the first hit was relevant is that Google’s search algorithms are successful in putting content most relevant to the question near the top which is a credit to the programmers at Google, it says nothing whatever about the credibility or reliability of the content located.
However it seems to me that for you any article that implies criticism of Israel or Israelis cannot be credible and its author and publisher must be evil liars. Nowhere did I say it is wrong for Israel to withhold medical treatment from those who refuse to collaborate, this is normal behaviour for an occupying power just as executing real or suspected collaborators is normal behaviour for an occupied people.
Human nature is what it is. Human nature is not what some think it ought to be or what we ought to aspire to or what we mistakenly think is the nature of brave, good, noble people like us as opposed to the brutish nature of cowardly, evil, ignoble people like those from whom we are stealing. Both Palestinians and Israelis are behaving according to human nature, just as the Nazis were and not surprisingly both commit what dispassionate observers interpret as atrocities.
In your replies too my comments you keep accusing me of saying things that I have not in fact said. You see that CM says X, and you think that X implies Y therefore CM is saying Y. However it may be that I do not think that X implies Y. Because many people who believe X believe that X implies Y does not mean that I believe that same thing.
Learn to distinguish things that people actually say from implications that you read into their speech. The implications arise in your mind because of your beliefs. It may be that a writer who asserts X also believes that X implies Y and that this will be obvious to his readers and he intends that they receive two meanings the explicit meaning X and the implied meaning Y and this is how innuendo and dog whistling work. However it may also be that the writer is simply asserting X. Because most people take their beliefs from prepackaged sets – for example someone who opposes abortion probably supports the death penalty – it is tempting to assume that someone who asserts X would take his beliefs from a set that includes beliefs X and Y, but that may not be so. There do exist people whose opinions are not taken from the one of the few opinion sets from which most people choose, and I like to think that I am one of them.
Because I adapt a sarcastic tone does not mean that I do not think that the statements I make are valid. I just like sarcasm, it is my hobby.
Mike.
Killing most Germans and expelling the rest and turning Germany over to the Jews may not have been workable but it would have been just. The people paying for the crimes of antisemites would have been antisemites. Their is a difference between Christian antisemitism and Muslim/Arab antisemitism. Christian fear and hatred for Jews was never justified by anything Jews had actually done to Christians, Arab/Muslim/Palestinian antisemitism on the other hand is a predictable reaction to things that Israel has done to the Palestinians, namely murder and robbery with violence.
I wonder if the 2 sides could ever get together and just share the land without boundaries or exclusionary zones.
Probably too much to hope for.
Story update:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1244371100264&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/Printer
It’s being reported that the victim Raed Sawalha, uncle and brother are suspected of his murder. Per the article, villagers in the town of Hijjah, reported to the boy’s father that he was observed speaking to an Israeli Border Police soldier.
Are the villagers giving feedback to the father to be believed?
“Sawalha’s uncle, told police investigators that he “lost his temper” when some boys in the village told him that his nephew had waved to a Border Police soldier as he drove by.” – Jerusalem Post
It reminds me of gang bangers in economically depressed anywhere USA.
Flash the wrong signs, colors what have you or are suspected of such behavior and you become a target. Who knows, it could’ve been the fifteen year old hormones, he waved at a pretty face driving by.
His family is ripped apart… brutal, the misery and suffering continue for all involved.
Ken in Tucson writes:
It seems to me that the root of the murder in question isn’t really religion. Religion is just the “flag” used to separate the two sides in what amounts to a conflict between tribes. The Palestinians are angry because they feel they’ve been displaced and marginalized in land their direct ancestors inhabited – and they have been.
Me: religion has alot to do with it. the israeli settlers feel that god gave them the land. that is religion. what might have been tribal centuries ago has grown into an economic problem exacerbated by differences of religious belief. to separate religion from the problem does not solve the problem. and yes, the Palestinians are angry. they were lied to and used as political pawns for decades. had they simply stayed in Israel they’d be citizens with a vote and representation in government but instead they fled to arab countries who never emancipated them, but tossed them into refugee camps, gave them track suits and guns and taught them that israel should be pushed into the sea. they were promised that and they were promised all of israel in return for their militarism. when that did not work they were promised 72 virgins and an income for their families for becoming martyrs. I have skipped over alot of history here, but you get the idea.
You: The Jewish Israelis feel that their very existence is threatened by Palestinian terrorism. The murder of innocent teenagers and shoppers is inexcusable for any reason.
me: their existence is threatened. I don’t know how to live that way and I have to say that when i am there my whole sense of where I walk and who I see is heightened.
you: I’m a supporter of Israel’s right to exist, and the right of the citizens to safety and security. But that doesn’t mean that the Palestinians don’t have legitimate grievances. Grievances that would likely disappear if they would stop supporting those who commit acts of terror, but real grievances nonetheless.
me: both sides have legitimate grievances. when you talk to the average palestinian in gaza, all they want is work, purpose, the ability to support their families and peace. hamas, hezbollah don’t want this. their cause is backed by syria and iran.
you: For the record, I think people should avoid using terms like “zionist” in any civil discussion. Whatever the denotative definition of the word, today it has clearly negative connotative implications. Using it to describe any modern Jew or Israeli makes you appear to be a anti-semite, even if you’re not.
me: why? what’s wrong with the word “zionist” ? calling someone a zionist doesn’t mean they are an anti-semite or that you are an anti-semite. I’m a zionist. and I want peace.
you: Because I do not approve of all the actions taken by the state of Israel in response to Palestinian terrorism, it took me many years of study and contemplation to come to the point where I could consider myself a supporter of Israel.
me: humans make mistakes. governments make them also. I don’t know why it took you years of study to support the right of the only democracy in the region to exist. the US supports Israel not because we have some belief that Jews need a home of their own but because Israel has strategic value. It doesn’t hurt that we share medical and technological endeavors.
You: (Note that being opposed to some of the actions of the state of Israel does not make you a anti-semite, but many anti-semites will use this opposition to mask their anti-semitism.)
me; being a jew hater makes one an anti-semite.
you: To get back to the point of the original post, there are many differences that divide the Israelis from the Palestinians. Religion is probably the largest, but westernization, education and other factors also play a part.
me: who does not want westernization… and by this I think you mean materialization…. the palestinians want this. they want everything we want. cable tv, broad band, cars, better housing, clean air and water. good schools. they want what israel has and what their government denies them. keeping them impoverished helps the cause of hamas. a solid middle class doesn’t have the will to blow themselves up as readily as a impoverished one does.
YOu: I may understand why the Palestinians felt a need to kill this 15 year old, but I can never accept it. It is an act of immoral and unethical savagery. The people who did are the worst sort of barbarians, but their motivations are more political than religious.
me: I don’t get what brings a parent to kill their child and I will never get that.
you:Thanks
me: you are welcome.
It seems to me that the root of the murder in question isn’t really religion. Religion is just the “flag” used to separate the two sides in what amounts to a conflict between tribes. The Palestinians are angry because they feel they’ve been displaced and marginalized in land their direct ancestors inhabited – and they have been.
The Jewish Israelis feel that their very existence is threatened by Palestinian terrorism. The murder of innocent teenagers and shoppers is inexcusable for any reason.
I’m a supporter of Israel’s right to exist, and the right of the citizens to safety and security. But that doesn’t mean that the Palestinians don’t have legitimate grievances. Grievances that would likely disappear if they would stop supporting those who commit acts of terror, but real grievances nonetheless.
For the record, I think people should avoid using terms like “zionist” in any civil discussion. Whatever the denotative definition of the word, today it has clearly negative connotative implications. Using it to describe any modern Jew or Israeli makes you appear to be a anti-semite, even if you’re not.
Whatever the situation now, in the aftermath of WW2 there was a strong desire to create a Jewish state in what is now Israel. The nation exists. Nothing is going to change that. The Palestinians have so far been unable to accept this simple fact. No amount of terrorism will drive the Jews from Israel. No amount of terrorism will help them garner sympathy among the majority of Americans.
Because I do not approve of all the actions taken by the state of Israel in response to Palestinian terrorism, it took me many years of study and contemplation to come to the point where I could consider myself a supporter of Israel. (Note that being opposed to some of the actions of the state of Israel does not make you a anti-semite, but many anti-semites will use this opposition to mask their anti-semitism.) For me the defining issue is that the Israeli government does not target Palestinian non-combatants for killing. Many Palestinians do die in Israeli police actions and military responses, but that is not the intention of the state actions. In fact, the Israelis are better then the USA when it comes to investigating abuses and bringing malefactors to justice.
To get back to the point of the original post, there are many differences that divide the Israelis from the Palestinians. Religion is probably the largest, but westernization, education and other factors also play a part. I think it is simplistic at best to blame this killing on religion, when it is really an issue of two different peoples attempting to live together. I know that it is significantly more common for Israelis to want peaceful coexistence than for Palestinians, but there are some very vocal groups among the Israelis who aren’t tolerant of the Palestinians. Typically, obnoxious and loud voices, even when in a minority, will carry a weight disproportionate to their actual support in the populace as a whole.
I may understand why the Palestinians felt a need to kill this 15 year old, but I can never accept it. It is an act of immoral and unethical savagery. The people who did are the worst sort of barbarians, but their motivations are more political than religious.
Thanks
GWLawSchoolMom
I am sorry, you cannot have a conversation with anyone without personally attacking them. Forget the ideal of theory. You must attack viciously.
I am only kidding. Roflol. It is good that you did not get scared off.
Micheal S writes: GWLSM,
I’ve been avidly following your dialogue with Carlyle and the back forth has been quite interesting. As he knows I mostly side with you on this, but I think you did misunderstand his point above. My sense is that he was using “political correctness” as the catch phrase of the bigots, who have been using it as cover to express their own bigotry. Carlyle has, since he began first posting here, maintained a consistency in his opinions and I believe he is truly not Anti-Jewish per se. Where I differ with him and where you have made a great case is in how he views the situation vis-a-vis Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish State. I think he understands the need for a Jewish State, which is to his credit, but flounders rhetorically on just where that state should have been established, as you have pointed out.
I’m not looking to have anyone take sides, mine included. I don’t mind finding places where people agree but pretty much insist that agreement on areas of fact takes precedence. I still don’t know what political correctness means. I don’ t know what it means when the bigots use it to defend their views. Do they mean that if you are not supportive of civil rights then you are not being politically correct?
Carlyle has been consistent but has not wanted to check his facts. I don’t think he is a jew hater and I can find one under just about any rock, I just think that he is unaware of what zionism is, what the reality of living is Israel is like for jewish and israeli arabs and that if the palestinians want a state they are closer than ever to having one. but they have to do two things and I can’t understand why these two things are so objectionable and why people like Carlyle can’t wrap their heads around it. oh, those two things are 1) recognize Israel’s right to exist and 2) end the violence.
I wonder if Carlyle can recognize Israel’s right to exist.
GWLawSchoolMom;
My comments related to the Palestinians’ being driven mad by the situation with Israel because this story was about a Palestinian family, not because I do not recognize that the people of Israel are also under extreme prssure from the situation.
Please don’t be so defensive – every mention of one side’s troubles does not necessarily ignore the suffering of the other side.
Carlyle writes: read about Shin Bet forcing sick Palestinians to collaborate by withholding access to medical treatment in Israel some time ago.
me: not everything you read is true. quoting from the guardian proves that.
you: The reason that I referred you to the Guardian article is that it was the first on the hit list that Google gave and had the appropriate content. If you read the article you would notice that it is an Israeli Human Rights organization that is making the allegations.
me: so because it was first on a google list it must be accurate? there are israeli organizations that oppose peace with the palestinians. there ae some who think they should all be rounded up and sent to arab countries. these are people with radical points of view that are not representative of any Israeli government position or policy any more than the KKK is representative of any US position or policy
you: As to where the Jewish homeland should be. If the death penalty is appropriate for murder then the penalty for genocide should be genocide. The proper thing to have done in 1945 would have been to reopen the death camps and process the non-Jewish Germans through them until they had been thinned down by the same proportion as had European Jewry, then to expel the rest and make Germany the Jewish homeland.
me: do you get how sick that is? it’s also not Jewish thing to do and this is crucial to the conversation. so giving Germany to Jews is really your solution in 2009?