Go Back   I-Mockery Forum > I-Mockery Discussion Forums > Philosophy, Politics, and News
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #26  
Abcdxxxx Abcdxxxx is offline
Mocker
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Abcdxxxx is probably a spambot
Old Jan 16th, 2007, 05:30 PM       
Since when does supporting Israel make you right wing?

U R Dumb. Kewl.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
NightOfTheLivingDon NightOfTheLivingDon is offline
Member
NightOfTheLivingDon's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Monroeville Mall
NightOfTheLivingDon is probably a spambot
Old Jan 16th, 2007, 06:56 PM       
Alright, let me rephrase what I mean so that we can avoid getting personal about politics, the u r was cute by the way:

The problem I have is with the article itself. It is true that Carter has ties to Arab money and he is not the friendliest of people when it comes to the Jews. I never said that supporting Israel was right wing, though that is the tendency. Any ties, supposed or actual, with money coming from the Middle East is met with the harshest of criticisms from the right side. See also Cynthia McKinney (2004) who did get Arab money, but her opponent's funding came from Israeli groups. Again this is not too strictly, black and white, say supporting Israel is right wing, however it was overlooked that Denise Majette ran an overly racial campaign and whose money came from equally as anti-other Israeli groups. Going back to Gus' original point, the response is a bit over exaggerated and it is the article that I don't like. Maybe it’s because Free Republic is a breeding ground for ultra-conservatism or maybe because the article, in so many words, completely denounces Carter for anything and everything he ever did to the point were we should sell him as a former president. Also that his book, which may be somewhat factual (really, none of us can make claim that we know for sure), is nothing more than a "Jews control the media" diatribe. I just felt as if the article is one of those that tell you how to feel by painting Carter as a blood money washed icon for anti-Semitism. Is that kewl wit u?
__________________
René Descartes walks into his favorite bar. The bar tender asks "Would you like your usual drink, Monsieur Descartes?" Descartes replies, "I think not." POOF! He vanishes in a cloud of logic.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Abcdxxxx Abcdxxxx is offline
Mocker
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Abcdxxxx is probably a spambot
Old Jan 16th, 2007, 08:09 PM       
Say what you want about Alan Dershowitz, but he doesn't represent the Right Wing. Free Republic was one of many outlets to reprint this editorial.

"Also that his book, which may be somewhat factual (really, none of us can make claim that we know for sure) , is nothing more than a "Jews control the media" diatribe."

1) You would have to be arguing that there's no such thing as a "fact" then. His book contains factual errors, and 15 Carter Center fellows including his long term advisor on Mid-East affairs quit as a result. Simply put, the Jews who worked for Carter would disagree with your summation of the situation. The Carter Center has also come under attack from non-Jews who were invited to consult on ways to ease tensions with the Jewish Community. Alan Dershowitz was the first to publish a break down of facts, and then challenged Carter to debate the errors contained in his book.

2) Carter's been making a point of feeding a " Jews control the media diatribe" in every interview he's done to promote the book. He has continously said:


Quote:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP...lkl.01.htmlAnd it's not something that has been acknowledged or even discussed in this country. The basic purpose of... KING: Why not?

CARTER: I don't know why not. You never hear anything about what is happening to the Palestinians by the Israelis. As a matter of fact, it's one of the worst cases of oppression that I know of now in the world

Quote:
And I think what's happening in the West Bank and in the occupied territories is completely contrary to the basic principles of the Israeli religion and completely contrary to the basic principles of Israel as a nation when it was founded.
Quote:
KING: Do you think it will continue to be as pro-Israel as this past Congress?

CARTER: I would guess so, Larry. It's almost inconceivable for any members of the House and Senate to take any position that would be critical of Israel.

That's one reason I wrote my book, is just to precipitate some controversy, to use your word, or provocation, that is to provoke debate on the issue and to let the people of America know that there are two sides to many issues in the Middle East, and that in order ever to have peace for Israel, Israel will have to comply with international law.
If that wasn't clear enough, on December 8th, the Los Angeles Times published Carters letter which said:

Quote:
For the last 30 years, I have witnessed and experienced the severe restraints on any free and balanced discussion of the facts. This reluctance to criticize any policies of the Israeli government is because of the extraordinary lobbying efforts of the American-Israel Political Action Committee and the absence of any significant contrary voices.

It would be almost politically suicidal for members of Congress to espouse a balanced position between Israel and Palestine, to suggest that Israel comply with international law or to speak in defense of justice or human rights for Palestinians. Very few would ever deign to visit the Palestinian cities of Ramallah, Nablus, Hebron, Gaza City or even Bethlehem and talk to the beleaguered residents. What is even more difficult to comprehend is why the editorial pages of the major newspapers and magazines in the United States exercise similar self-restraint, quite contrary to private assessments expressed quite forcefully by their correspondents in the Holy Land...

Book reviews in the mainstream media have been written mostly by representatives of Jewish organizations who would be unlikely to visit the occupied territories, and their primary criticism is that the book is anti-Israel.
Now we all know that's bullshit. It's outright false. So what is he implying?

As for Cynthia Mckinney... she had plenty of problems going for her, so if you're insinuating a witch hunt out of Israeli interests was responsible for her downfall , you should probably check yourself, or just call yourself Geggy2 and leave it at that. Also - please don't bother to respond unless you've read these various articles, and editorials in full. K, thx. p.s. Fuck John Carpentar and your latex friends. Put your posts in the right forum you retard.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Preechr Preechr is offline
=======
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NA
Preechr is probably a spambot
Old Jan 16th, 2007, 09:36 PM       
CARTER: I don't know why not. You never hear anything about what is happening to the Palestinians by the Israelis. As a matter of fact, it's one of the worst cases of oppression that I know of now in the world

To say it's the WORST? I disagree, though maybe he doesn't know of any other cases of oppression... I think there are a helluva a lot of Israelis that would agree Palestinians actually have been oppressed by Israel, and there's an argument to made as to whether doing so at times was warranted and even abusive. Was it as bad as their oppression by Egypt or Jordan? Probably not... I would say that Israeli oppression and occupation, when combined with the freedoms offered by living in and around the state of Israel, was instrumental in the evolution of Palestinian nationalism.

And I think what's happening in the West Bank and in the occupied territories is completely contrary to the basic principles of the Israeli religion and completely contrary to the basic principles of Israel as a nation when it was founded.

Again, he's partially correct. In the religious sense, it's my understanding that the Chosen were commanded to remain in diaspora, which pretty much rules out the establishment of a Jewish State. This is an open debate, however, and Carter looks like a fool (again) for throwing that into his rhetoric. Politically, Zionism has three requirements, and it seems Israel will only ever be able to achieve two of them at any given point: A Jewish state that encompasses all of Israel and that is based in freedom. It's clear Israel's current intention is to give up on allowing further settlements in favor of a smaller and freer Jewish state, so again, Carter is just a fool.

CARTER: I would guess so, Larry. It's almost inconceivable for any members of the House and Senate to take any position that would be critical of Israel.

That's one reason I wrote my book, is just to precipitate some controversy, to use your word, or provocation, that is to provoke debate on the issue and to let the people of America know that there are two sides to many issues in the Middle East, and that in order ever to have peace for Israel, Israel will have to comply with international law.


Here I can almost entirely agree with him, and I don't think I'm the least bit anti-semitic and I know I support Israel fully. Where I disagree completely is in what he didn't say but he obviously believes: The Jews control America.

I think the harder pill to swallow is much closer to the truth: Americans for the most part truly do not care enough to sort fact from fiction, preferring instead to simply pick one side or the other for essentially the same reasons they root for their favorite baseball team or apple pie baker. We are just an incredibly self-centered and reading averse people. We like our conflicts black and white. Good guys and bad guys. Cowboys and Indians, baby.

Neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians are evil, and neither are either morally pure as the driven snow. The thing is, they both know this, and Carter isn't adding a damn thing to the discussion.

Of course, he has a long history of pointlessness. He is the quintessential progressive, and he is as rabidly useless as the movement he represents.
__________________
mburbank~ Yes, okay, fine, I do know what you meant, but why is it not possible for you to get through a paragraph without making all the words cry?

How can someone who obviously thinks so much of their ideas have so little respect for expressing them? How can someone who so yearns to be taken seriously make so little effort?!
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Abcdxxxx Abcdxxxx is offline
Mocker
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Abcdxxxx is probably a spambot
Old Jan 16th, 2007, 10:45 PM       
Preechr, I agree with most of your response, but the contention is that Carter not only labels the Palestinian case “the worst” but that he claims it’s some hush hush issue when we know it recieves far more scrutiny in the media, and at the UN then any other attrocity today. I think we agree on that one.

Zionism, especially political Zionism, doesn’t have three requirements, just one - a Jewish homeland. The rest would all depend on which particular Zionist you were speaking to. As it’s not a theocracy, there is no such thing as an “Israeli Religion”, and since you can be a multitude of religions as an Israeli, Carter is incorrect. It’s not just a matter of poor terminology. He’s talking about the modern population of Israel, not the Israelites mentioned in the Bible. His book also claims that Israel has targeted it’s Christian population, which we know is false.


“It's almost inconceivable for any members of the House and Senate to take any position that would be critical of Israel. “

So has any member in the House or Senate ever taken a position critical of Israel? The question can be answered yes or no. Why can't Carter conceive of this?
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Preechr Preechr is offline
=======
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NA
Preechr is probably a spambot
Old Jan 17th, 2007, 12:01 AM       
Well, of course he can. That's why we call it rhetoric.

I do agree that the level of condemnation directed at Israel by the media and the UN is ridiculous, but I also admit that Israel does actually deserve special recognition as the only modern, Western Democracy that is involved in the sort of occupation/conflict it has maintained for the last 20 or so years... and I'm really only counting the period of time since the intifada began.

It's a unique situation all around, and it deserves special attention. I think it's sad that the anti-Israeli factions have such a developed and time-tested series of arguments they can apply to condemn Israel's every move while the pro-Israel factions seem to operate on a system based much more in something like faith than anything resembling moral rectitude.

Yes, I know how much they have bent over to end the conflict, but I am also a little less willing to give Israel a lot of leeway for the kind of abstract and uninformed public debate we enjoy here in the states. They have a mandatory service requirement and a pretty much militarized lifestyle. Maybe this conflict has dragged on just a little longer than it ever should have, and maybe Israel, being the bigger man by far, should have warmed up to the idea of peace and true freedom in a more fruitful way something more like 20 years ago... The level of organization and spirit of nationalistic unity was there, though what was missing, in my opinion of course, was a healthier measure of respect for the rights of the Palestinian people... the castoffs of the Arab world... for the rest of you, their version of our Mexican Illegals, basically.

By working harder to win them over, the Israelis could have made everything much easier. It would have been possible, but they chose a more arrogant or maybe old-fashioned, more colonialistic path, again, in my opinion and with all due respect. I fully admit I am just an arm-chair quarterback here, and that the best I can do is only most likely gonna insult the hell out of anyone that's actually directly involved in this on either side.

This has gone way past any sort of discussion of Jimmy Carter's idiocy and hypocrisy, but I think dismissing anyone's attempt to shine a more honest and thoughtful light on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict... even if it's Jimmy Carter's and it's ill-intentioned... shouldn't be so quickly discarded as unbearable before it's completely milked for any honest and positive debate it might inspire.
__________________
mburbank~ Yes, okay, fine, I do know what you meant, but why is it not possible for you to get through a paragraph without making all the words cry?

How can someone who obviously thinks so much of their ideas have so little respect for expressing them? How can someone who so yearns to be taken seriously make so little effort?!
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Abcdxxxx Abcdxxxx is offline
Mocker
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Abcdxxxx is probably a spambot
Old Jan 17th, 2007, 01:15 AM       
Well that sounds like you're arguing in favor of a double standard imposed on Israel's role in a two way war, because you hold them to the standards of a Westernized nation. Okay. The problem with that is it's a war that Israel has reluctantly taken part in, and the truth is, they weren't all that Westernized even 20 years ago....and still today, they are a melting pot that hasn't melted so cohesively, and add to this the fact that the majority of their citizens do not come from Western socities. I doubt this changes who you feel deserves the majority of burdern for peace. The problem with the notion of peace, and the suggestion that Israel can do or say anything to provide peace, is it disregards the history and the truth about these Arab people in question, which we now call Palestinians. They have had many opportunities to coexist, and that's about as much as Israel can offer them, right? What do you think would appease Israel's enemies realistically?

I don't think there's a shortage of debate on the topic so much as a shortage of honest and INFORMED debate.....neither of which Carter offers up with his book. I'm sure if we counted up the many threads in this forum concerning Israel it would be a disproportionate number, and that's all fine.... but it's a complex topic and it's easy to be tripped up in the rhetoric. If the information comes from someone like Carter, who spends his time as a humanitarian, then it shouldn't be biased, nor should it be malicious. That serves no good purpose - not even in bettering the Palestinian Arabs.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Preechr Preechr is offline
=======
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NA
Preechr is probably a spambot
Old Jan 17th, 2007, 09:50 AM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abcdxxxx
Well that sounds like you're arguing in favor of a double standard imposed on Israel's role in a two way war, because you hold them to the standards of a Westernized nation. Okay. The problem with that is it's a war that Israel has reluctantly taken part in, and the truth is, they weren't all that Westernized even 20 years ago....
Well, sure I am, at least in one respect. I'm talking about their conflict with the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank primarily, which is the intifada. For anybody else that's reading this, intifada is not the same as jihad. It roughly translates to something like "separation," not war. The intifada was not a product of the larger Arab world... not even Yassir Arafat. If it was a war at the beginning, it was as much a war against Palestinians against themselves as it was against Israel's occupation.

Once Arafat got involved, however, a larger war that had been pretty much diffused since Israel's (and our) first foray into Lebanon began to re-ignite. Arafat's refusal to accept any deal that recognized Israel's right to exist was rooted largely in his self-proclaimed leadership position over ALL the people pf Palestine, including those displaced by Israel's existence that were and are living in the refugee camps in Lebanon, Jordan and Palestine. The refugees wanted their homeland back, and that could not happen as long as Israel continued to be.

For Arafat to claim ownership of the intifada, he finally had to recognize Israel as something other than "the Zionist Entity." The intifada actually softened his position. The intifada shook Israel awake to the realities of their occupation of the Palestinian territories and the settlement mentality of some of their people. The Gazans and West Bankers divorced themselves from Israel. They had become Israeli Palestinians, much as their parents had once been Jordanian or Egyptian Palestinians, and they rejected that.

While it was once true that the Palestinians weren't really a people themselves, the intifada changed that. Without the intifada, there would never have been peace, in my opinion. Once the Gazans and West Bankers became self-aware and unified into a real Palestinian community, the two-state solution became a reality for both Israel and the Arab world, and we are now on the doorstep of that transition to peace.

Now, Israel is also involved in a jihad, just as we are now. That's a different thing altogether, though it does affect the roadmap to peace between Israel and Palestine. I believe they can and should be treated as two separate things, and not doing so only muddies the waters of an already murky discussion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abcdxxxx
...and still today, they are a melting pot that hasn't melted so cohesively, and add to this the fact that the majority of their citizens do not come from Western socities.
The same can be said of Japan, yet Japan is a Westernized nation and it too is held to a higher standard than, say, North Korea.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abcdxxxx
I doubt this changes who you feel deserves the majority of burdern for peace. The problem with the notion of peace, and the suggestion that Israel can do or say anything to provide peace, is it disregards the history and the truth about these Arab people in question, which we now call Palestinians. They have had many opportunities to coexist, and that's about as much as Israel can offer them, right? What do you think would appease Israel's enemies realistically?
The reality as I stated it above. The peace process is messy, but it is still alive. Let me ask you, what are the chances for peace down any other path?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abcdxxxx
I don't think there's a shortage of debate on the topic so much as a shortage of honest and INFORMED debate.....neither of which Carter offers up with his book. I'm sure if we counted up the many threads in this forum concerning Israel it would be a disproportionate number, and that's all fine.... but it's a complex topic and it's easy to be tripped up in the rhetoric. If the information comes from someone like Carter, who spends his time as a humanitarian, then it shouldn't be biased, nor should it be malicious. That serves no good purpose - not even in bettering the Palestinian Arabs.
He's no humanitarian. He's an egalitarian and an altruist that has always rejected reality and sought to attain his goals for the world through unrealistic and dishonest means.

Other than that, I agree with that last bit entirely.
__________________
mburbank~ Yes, okay, fine, I do know what you meant, but why is it not possible for you to get through a paragraph without making all the words cry?

How can someone who obviously thinks so much of their ideas have so little respect for expressing them? How can someone who so yearns to be taken seriously make so little effort?!
Reply With Quote
  #34  
mburbank mburbank is offline
The Moxie Nerve Food Tonic
mburbank's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: right behind you
mburbank has disabled reputation
Old Jan 17th, 2007, 09:58 AM       
"Code Pink/New Left crowd"
-Alphaboy

That's why he's MY hero.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Jan 17th, 2007, 10:06 AM       
So Max, one of your bigger gripes with President Bush seems to be his business relationship with the Saudis.

Would you say Carter's relationship with that regime shades your opinion of him as well?
Reply With Quote
  #36  
mburbank mburbank is offline
The Moxie Nerve Food Tonic
mburbank's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: right behind you
mburbank has disabled reputation
Old Jan 17th, 2007, 12:42 PM       
Yes. It's prominent on my list of Carter's Cons, above even his micromanagement. In my lifetime, no one capable of being elected President has been anything I was happy with. They've all had serious strikes against them.

But some of them have had lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots more strikes than others.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Girl Drink Drunk Girl Drink Drunk is offline
Official forum judge
Girl Drink Drunk's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Canada
Girl Drink Drunk is probably a spambot
Old Jan 17th, 2007, 01:46 PM       
Didnt the Carter administration also provide financial support to the Khmer Rouge regime when they were defending themselves from Vietnam, when they were also initiating mass genocide?
__________________
"Ignoring all the retarded anime shit and Guitar Woman fawning over a drawing to say that Toobin' is the best Tube similation since Virtual Bart."- Gadzooks
mockery.com/halloween/bag/costumequiz/default.php
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Abcdxxxx Abcdxxxx is offline
Mocker
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Abcdxxxx is probably a spambot
Old Jan 17th, 2007, 03:31 PM       
Preechr, Here's the problem with you breakdown of the conflict: It hinges on a 25 year period where the Palestinians united simply to play for the cameras, and manipulate the history books...and as a result, I guess you're buying into the mythology they've laid out for you.

Your timeline between the Intifada (1987) and our first "foray" into Lebanon (Sabra Shatila, 1982. Beirut barrack bombings, 1983) is way off. Arafat represented at best only 20,000 Arabs calling themselves Palestinians in 1973 when Israeli peaceniks first called for talks.

The meaning of intifada is to shake off, awake, or if you stretch it, they'll say it means the struggle, or ultimately "uprising". The was no true desire to "seperate" so much as milk the system. Their jobs, and social care was provided by Israel well into the Oslo era. Even today, Israel provides them with utilities without pay. These are Arabs who never had such ammenities before Israel's existance. Most importantly, there weren't millions of Palestinians living in the conquered territories 20 years ago.

That first intifada was a Fatah affair with Arafat organizing it from Tunisia, using Iraqi and Saudi money. Additional support came from the Arab League which made the PLO a member in the 70's. It was the first time they sent children to the front lines, and don't mistake it, even the rocks were imported. Hamas came on the scene just before that first Intifada, when they refused to take part in the planned strike days and organized their own attacks. There was nothing honorable or organized about it. Four Palestinians in Jabalya got hit and killed by a car, and the rumor was it was revenge for an Israel that had been stabbed the day before. Three days later, Palestinian teens were throwing Molotov cocktails, and the IRA were teaching pipe bomb making classes. The Unified Leadership of the Intifada, as the organization was called, was the PLO.

Anyway I guess we can pretend that Mel Gibson sparked debate too, eh?
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Preechr Preechr is offline
=======
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NA
Preechr is probably a spambot
Old Jan 17th, 2007, 09:34 PM       
Intifada should be broken down to it's three letter root: nun, fa', dad, or nafada. Nafada means to shake off, dust off, or in conversational terms, to shake off one's laziness or to end a relationship that should not be. The Hans Wehr Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic translates intifada as a "tremor, a shudder or a shiver." It should be noted that the word "thawra," as in the popular PLO guerrilla song, " Thawra, thawra, hat al-nasr," - Revolution, revolution, until victory - was not the choice to describe the uprising that emerged spontaneously from within the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.

You want to talk about mythology and manipulation of history? I would love to see you provide some evidence that Arafat had anything to do at all with the emergence of the intifada. He was in Tunis, following the news via fax machine along with the rest of the PLO leadership. For some reason, it is convenient for you to paint with a broad brush here and label all of the Palestinians with the same sticker despite the historical fact that Arafat had only ever represented the refugees up until this point. He never even publicly uttered the word Israel before he shoved himself in front of the intifada movement. He had to, as the intifada began in Israel, not anywhere else, and he realized that this was where he needed to be in order to remain the face on the Palestinian cause.

Arafat only began to be concerned with the Palestinians living in Israel when those Palestinians began their own uprising. Before that time, he had rarely even been there, and since he'd left Beruit, his power and importance had been steadily waning. Hell, he'd just been rejected almost entirely at the 87 Arab Summit... This was the point in time at which the pendulum shifted. Here was where it became evident that the Palestinian movement had two factions, one that could never recognize Israel and one that was willing to deal, and the PLO leadership most definitely began to add weight to the constituency that happened to allow some sort of hope for peace.

Why do you need to avoid this very important distinguishing characteristic of the conflict? I will nail it down for you, and I want to hear your answer to just this one question before we go further: Is there a difference, in your opinion, between the causes of the Palestinian refugees, the Palestinians living in Israel, and the jihadis fighting a proxy war against the West via the Palestinian conflict? If so, how so?
__________________
mburbank~ Yes, okay, fine, I do know what you meant, but why is it not possible for you to get through a paragraph without making all the words cry?

How can someone who obviously thinks so much of their ideas have so little respect for expressing them? How can someone who so yearns to be taken seriously make so little effort?!
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Preechr Preechr is offline
=======
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NA
Preechr is probably a spambot
Old Jan 17th, 2007, 09:50 PM       
Oh, and by the way, it was a truck, not a car. A big ol, semi-truck.
__________________
mburbank~ Yes, okay, fine, I do know what you meant, but why is it not possible for you to get through a paragraph without making all the words cry?

How can someone who obviously thinks so much of their ideas have so little respect for expressing them? How can someone who so yearns to be taken seriously make so little effort?!
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Abcdxxxx Abcdxxxx is offline
Mocker
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Abcdxxxx is probably a spambot
Old Jan 17th, 2007, 10:46 PM       
Uh. You sure you should be fact checking anyone?

Quote:
Arafat only began to be concerned with the Palestinians living in Israel when those Palestinians began their own uprising
FALSE. Read transcripts of Arafat's address to the UN General Assembly in November, of 1974.

Arafat "And still, the highest tension exists in our part of the world. There the Zionist entity clings tenaciously to occupied Arab territory; Zionism persists in its aggressions against us and our territory. "

http://electronicintifada.net/bytopi...ches/305.shtml
http://www.mideastweb.org/arafat_at_un.htm

Then there's the PLO charter circa 1968:

Article 1: Palestine is the homeland of the Arab Palestinian people; it is an indivisible part of the Arab homeland, and the Palestinian people are an integral part of the Arab nation. http://www.iris.org.il/plochart.htm

Let's stop there. If you don't have the basic timeline down, then there's no reason to debate Arafat's activity in Tunisia. Most accounts accept that at worst, the PLO was directing the the first Intifada using leaflets, early on if not from the get-go.


Quote:
Is there a difference, in your opinion, between the causes of the Palestinian refugees, the Palestinians living in Israel, and the jihadis fighting a proxy war against the West via the Palestinian conflict? If so, how so?
Can you rephrase that question? I have no idea what you're asking. Maybe I'm slow tonight, or maybe you worded that wrong. Are there different Arabs with different ideals and beliefs? If that's the distinction you want me to make, then sure.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Preechr Preechr is offline
=======
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NA
Preechr is probably a spambot
Old Jan 17th, 2007, 11:26 PM       
Nice sourcing, but am I suddenly supposed to accept the words of Yassir Arafat as credible... from you?

I mean, seriously... No offense, BUT!

Am I now supposed to accept Arafat as a man of his word?

Come on.

Arafat was a salesman, and he was most interested in selling what was easiest to sell. The Palestinians living in Israel had always pretty well off, as you indicated before. Who built those settlements? Who ran the stores? I compared the Israeli Palestinians to the American Mexicans, and I stand by that. I addressed that comparison to the other readers because I thought you had an understanding of the reality of Israel. The West Bankers and the Gazans had become the functional backbone of the Israeli state, but they did so by essentially becoming Israelis. They spoke Hebrew for Christsakes! They built the settlements!! Come on!!!

The Israeli Palestinians were not what Arafat was holding up to the world as the representation of the evil that was the Zionist Entity. He stood for the right of RETURN, not the right of shrugging off the coil of oppressive occupation.

Are you really going to sit here and try to tell me that the occupied territories were the hotbeds of MidEast violence prior to 1987?

Here's your clarified question, and I will pose it in two parts: Is there any difference at all between the demands of the Palestinians that live in the occupied territories and anybody else that opposes Zionism? The second part is this: Whether yes or no, why do you think so?
__________________
mburbank~ Yes, okay, fine, I do know what you meant, but why is it not possible for you to get through a paragraph without making all the words cry?

How can someone who obviously thinks so much of their ideas have so little respect for expressing them? How can someone who so yearns to be taken seriously make so little effort?!
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Abcdxxxx Abcdxxxx is offline
Mocker
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Abcdxxxx is probably a spambot
Old Jan 18th, 2007, 02:11 AM       
I don't know if you're fucking around or what....

If the question is wether Arafat was interested in Israel pre-Intifada, then you can't get a more credible source then the PLO charter, and Arafat's own coming out party at the UN. If anything, the Intifada marked the first time Arafat started to disguise his intentions, and formed spin off divisions of the PLO to play good cop bad cop. It also marks the first time Palestinians played to the media in an organized fashion, and his "driving Jews into the ocean" rhetoric was traded in for talk of Peace and a two state solution.

The settlements were built under Jordanian, and Egyptian rule, so that all pre-dates Israel. Prior to 1987 the conquered territories were full of turmoil - Americans, and Israelis wouldn't go into many villages out of fear of starting an international incident. There wasn't much there for one thing, and attacks on Israeli civilians, along with other more political terror activities were fairly common. Not as frequent as today, but they still happened. Remember, "Palestinians" had already turned neighboring nations into warzones, and took credit for terror attacks all across the globe. Bus bombings, airplane hijackings, assissinations, truck bombings.... what am I leaving out?.....all that stuff pre-dates the Intifada. The big difference is the world view was that this was a small group of wingbuts who didn't represent the Arabs, and who were actually disliked as a result. If the intifada acomplished anything, it was to sell the myth. Jean Luc Godard tried to make a film on the Palestinians in the 70's so there was fringe interest....but you didn't see theater companies in the US doing award winning productions which were sympathetic to the PLO and the Palestinian "plight" till around 87. It's also the first time these people wanted to start calling themselves Palestinians, and the territories were flooded with Saudis, Jordanians, Iraqis, Kuwaitis, Egyptians...etc.

See, Arafat was irrelevant by the time Oslo came around, in terms of who and what the Israelis should have been dealing with - but on a street level, the PLO had redefined their stronghold on these communities. Arafat declared the West Bank "Palestine", and the PLO started killing off Arabs who didn't cooperate.

Quote:
Is there any difference at all between the demands of the Palestinians that live in the occupied territories and anybody else that opposes Zionism?
Wouldn't that depend? There are Palestinians who oppose Israel because they want their olive tree back....and there are some who hate Jews. The opponents of Zionism are making a larger statement, and that is one against a Jewish state anywhere for any reason. Wether they know it or not, that is what it means to oppose Zionism. There are Palestinians who would be fine with a two state solution, I'm told....in that case, the anti-zionist would hold far more extreme seperatist goals. Unfortunately, while you're asking me to make a distinction between an anti-Zionist, and a run of the mill peace seeking Palestinian, I don't think Palestinians make the same distinction themselves.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Abcdxxxx Abcdxxxx is offline
Mocker
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Abcdxxxx is probably a spambot
Old Jan 18th, 2007, 06:03 AM       
You asked me to source Arafat's direct involvement in these uprisings.... check the UNLI's own communiques as summed up by this fairly sympathetic report:


Quote:
An assessment of other communiques, particularly beginning with Communique No. 15 (30 April 1988) would indeed tend to support this. In addition to tone and content, a more simple "index" might be used, that being the number of references to the "PLO," "PNC," "Mr. Arafat," and so forth. The early communiques, developed from within the OT acknowledged the role of the PLO as the sole legitimate representative of all Palestinians, usually through a single reference in the preamble. Israel was, after all, attempting to fictionalize the Palestinians, and to separate Palestinian voices inside from those outside the OT. For this reason alone, the local UNLU was careful to open no cracks for Israeli manipulation. In Communiques No. 1-14, the average number of references to the PLO is one. With Communique No. 15 there is a subtle change in tone and perspective and in the number of references to the PLO itself. Five or six paragraphs focus on external, international issues and speak of "thwarting the U.S.-reactionary conspiratorial schemes;" of the "joint Soviet-Palestinian agreement to render successful the convening of an international conference;" of the "UN Security Council Resolution No. 605;" of the "Palestinian, Algerian, Libyan, and Soviet efforts;" of using "Syria to embody a relationship of militant alliance with the PLO;" and of "the sons of our steadfast people in the Lebanese arena." By contrast, in Communique No. 13 (10 April 1988) there is a single paragraph which states in fairly indefinite terms, "Now we can feel the increase in the international support of our cause and of our legitimate rights." Moreover, Communique No. 15 makes reference to the "PLO" a total of seven times and mentions "Brother Abu 'Ammar" by name; Communique No. 13 refers to the "PLO" twice, and makes no mention of Arafat. Communique No. 16 (11 May 1988) refers to the "PLO" no less than ten times, in conjunction with phrases such as: "The originator of our snuggle, the PLO;" "the presence of the PLO and the continuation of the Palestinian struggle within its framework;" "declaring the PLO as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people everywhere" (stated twice in the communique); "through a commitment to the PLO;" "toward developing the unity of the PLO;" and, "to realize a national consensus within the PLO." There seems to be a clear attempt at bolstering the position of the PLO vis-a-vis the events of the Intifada within the Territories, with the apparent intention of wresting the internal policy-making function from the UNLU, through factional representatives on the outside. This trend of more frequent references to both the "PLO" and "Mr. Arafat" continues, as does the change in tone and the concern with world events external to the OT.
http://www.essaypool.com/...Blueprin...ommunique.html

There's also a bitter irony in describing it as a people's uprising, in that it marked the beginning of the end for what had been a largley Marxist Palestinian movement.

The truth is the uprisings had more to do with Jordan's witholding of funds from the Palestinians, and freezing their accounts in preperation for cutting all ties with the WB and Gaza.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
NightOfTheLivingDon NightOfTheLivingDon is offline
Member
NightOfTheLivingDon's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Monroeville Mall
NightOfTheLivingDon is probably a spambot
Old Jan 18th, 2007, 04:08 PM       
Hey man, say what you want about me, but can't we leave John Carpenter out of this?

__________________
René Descartes walks into his favorite bar. The bar tender asks "Would you like your usual drink, Monsieur Descartes?" Descartes replies, "I think not." POOF! He vanishes in a cloud of logic.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

   


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:45 PM.


© 2008 I-Mockery.com
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.