response 25 of 269:

Apr 20 09:15 UTC 2002

It is unfortunate that oval didn't provide the source of her anti-Semitic
tirade in #1, or the references embedded in the text.

The concept of the "Super Jew" was not Ahad Ha'am's (a pseudonym meaning,
literally and figuratively, "one of the people") but Jabotinsky's. But
the concept is delivered out of context. The "super Jew" wasn't superior
to the rest of the world, but to the "yid", the old-world Jew.

http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/r/rubinstein-herzl.html

Then we have a reference to The Khurazi, written in Spain in 1080.

http://judaism.about.com/library/glossary/bldef-p_judahhalevi.htm

So according to a letter published in a magazine that was referenced
in another journal, an introduction to it spoke of Jews as "chosen" and
"superior". I've never heard of "Israel Imperial News" (being a news whore,
that says a lot) and the only web hit was for a fraudulent story about
Arabs not being allowed to bathe in Israel's beaches, a story I can refute
from personal experience -- and since Matt thought it was funny that devout
Muslim women would bathe in their "dress", I have photos to prove this if
it must really come down to that.)

So in any event, building upon a common misconception of the "Chosen People"
(See agora36 item 121), and based on a handful of quotes (some wrong,
some highly suspect) spanning many years, out comes the conclusion that
Jews think of themselves as a superior race -- just like nazi concepts of
the superior Aryan race.

Even if all the references were true, accurate and in context, the conclusion
would be false. For one counter example, consider that every year, during
Passover, Jews methodically preach that they are the descendents of slaves.

Grexers readily let this pass, condoning it with their silence, but are
quick to ponder if the story in #0 is real or propaganda. It's actually an
old story (I referenced it on Grex over a year ago), dating from 1998 and
it is true. The local FOX station carried the report along with commentary
from local Arabs. None questioned the source -- and with good reason.

While Grexers might find the existence of such programs shocking and thus
defensively question the credibility of such reports, those more familiar
with the region (the Arab professor in Florida, local Arabs in Detroit)
realize that it's par for the course.

The Saudi religious police did force girls back into a burning building,
to their death, lest their uncovered face be seen in public.

A Saudi professor, writing in a government controlled Saudi paper, wrote
of Jews using Muslim blood for holiday food. Egyptian TV broadcast a
"documentary" about this, too.

The NY Times wrote that a PA newspaper opined that those who speak against
the use of children at violent demonstrations are "collaborators" and
should be dealt with accordingly (murdered).

But we shouldn't believe that a program such as the Children Club would be
aired by Palestinian TV -- the same TV that runs commercials of "martyred"
children calling for other children to come join them in paradise?

For confirmation of the story and more examples of such stories, see:

http://www.matckh.org/articles/Jihad_for_kids_on_PLO-TV.htm
http://www.nclci.org/Issues/palestinian_tv_and_radio_teach.htm
http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Arab_anti-semitism
http://www.jcpa.org/jl/vp441.htm

response 27 of 269:

Apr 21 15:11 UTC 2002

None have - but when have Russ or Leeron ever cared about the facts?

response 29 of 269:

Apr 21 20:55 UTC 2002

****big red shiny button on leeron****

response 31 of 269:

Apr 21 21:02 UTC 2002

"wind him up and watch him *squeal*"

response 33 of 269:

Apr 22 16:17 UTC 2002

I still doubt #0 and I have no comments about #25 or #28.

response 35 of 269:

Apr 22 19:25 UTC 2002

I dont doubt that such a tape exists and that it was produced with the 
intent of having lots of Palestinian children see it. I do doubt that 
it was broadcast as part of the Palestinian main stream media. 

response 37 of 269:

Apr 22 20:44 UTC 2002

How would you know, oval? Have you ever had *YOUR* house bulldozed???

response 39 of 269:

Apr 22 22:53 UTC 2002

I think it may be inciteful (er, insightful) to look at history, Lynne.
Do you know what caused the 1929 riots in Hebron in which the Jewish
population was massacred?

Was it Arab complaints that Jews were stealing the land?  No.
As various commissions of inquiry concluded that Jews were purchasing
uncultivated land and that it was the increase in the Arab population
(drawn from surrounding country by Jewish development) that was causing
a squeeze.

In 1929, the "grand" mufti of Jerusalem created forged photographs of
the Al Aqsa mosque, pictures that showed it being destroyed by Jews.
The doctored photos were then distributed and, voila, instant riot.

The same motif continues today. The wave of terrorism that began anew
in 1994 wasn't the result of "occupation" or "brutal oppression".
Surely, after 27 years the timing seems wrong -- just after the signing
of the Oslo Accords and in a period of new hope.

Nor could it possibly explain terrorism prior to 1967.

Nor can it explain terrorism in 2000, following the dismantling of
Israel's rule in the territories (I noticed an interesting thing on
the ICRC's web site: they do not consider the areas under PA Authority
to be "occupied" -- recall that 98% of the Arabs of the territories
already live under PA rule).

So while western apologists rush to provide different explanations and
excuses for Arab terrorism, seemingly pushed into irrelevance is the
terrorists' own stated reasons -- clearly outlined in the PLO Convenant,
the PNC's Two-Phase plan, the Hamas Covenant -- and reiterated by Arab
leaders in Arabic on a daily basis.

The painfully simple truth is that the terrorists oppose compromise
and peace with Israel. They strike at Israel because it exists.
As they themselves say, they don't need any other reason, excuse,
rationalization or justification.

response 41 of 269:

Apr 23 00:30 UTC 2002

no, see _that_ brews hatred on the _other_ side. the one-up game never works..

response 43 of 269:

Apr 23 14:06 UTC 2002

It reminds me of those legendary multi-generational feuds that used to
happen in the U.S.  Someone insults someone's mother, and the battle
goes on for generations, until the people involved can't even remember
exactly why they were originally fighting.  Both sides have gotten to
the point where hating each other is a core part of their group identity.

response 45 of 269:

Apr 23 15:32 UTC 2002

Lynne, you say:

> Every time Israel refuses to negotiate with the more moderate Palestinian
> element they essentially give the suicide bombers what they want which of
> course rewards the bombers and encourages them to continue their action.

First, you have already forgotten the point with which you agreed: the
terrorists will do what they do regardless of what Israel does, just by
virtue of Israel's audacity to exist because their goal is to destroy Israel.

What also bothers me about your argument is that you seem to view terrorism
as "proof" of Israeli "brutality" and thus your line about "if only Israel
would play nice...." Perhaps 60 years ago, faced with hiter's "final
solution", you'd have similarly opined that "if only Jews would play nice,
not having a dis-proportionate amount of wealth and running the major
corporations...." (BTW, neither of those statements were true; it was part
of Goebbels "Big Lie" to create hatred of Jews.)

My other question: When did Israel refuse to negotiate? In accordance with
the Mitchell Plan, Sharon wanted Arafat to at least call for a cease-fire
leading to a cooling off period prior to negotiations. Many on Grex thought
that was too much of a hurdle for Arafat. But that wasn't Arafat's issue.
For when Sharon agreed to relinquish that condition -- Arafat was still
unwilling to negotiate, imposing new conditions. (And when Israel met those
in the form of the Zinni bridging proposal, Arafat introduced new demands.)

Lastly, Lynne, can you name a few "moderate" Palestinian leaders?
Faisal Husseini was considered one, but since he described Oslo as a
"Trojan Horse" designed to infiltrate Arab fighters into the disputed
territories (and is now dead) he's surely off the list.


Marcus, I'm not dwelling on 1929 nor calling for revenge for that massacre.
I explained that the massacre was incited by anti-Jewish propaganda spread
by Arab leaders. Just as is happening today.

Perhaps we shouldn't dwell on PA TV running "public service" commercials in
which young martyrs address children, encouraging them to take up the
struggle and join them in Paradise.

response 47 of 269:

Apr 24 00:10 UTC 2002

re:  "I believe that if Israel were more fair with the Palestinians as a
whole"  What constitutes "fair?"  Not defending yourself against murderous
attacks?  That's not fair.  That's just plain stupid.

re:  "What you arent getting is that the suicide bombers are trying to get
a reaction from Israel. Their primary goal seems to be to disrupt the peace
process."  Exactly!  & that is why Arafat keeps sending them.  Because he has
no interest in a peace agreement.

re:  "The Palestinians are convinced they can win this next war."  Now, maybe
I am confused.  Who has the opposition leader surrounded as a captive in his
headquarters?

response 49 of 269:

Apr 24 08:21 UTC 2002

There are a *lot* more palestinians than there are Isralis, and they
are, to put it crudely, breeding far faster than the Israelis.  They
also value life differently than the Israelis (or than we do for that
matter).  We think of life as valuable, improving this world to be good,
and suicide as bad.  They think that to die in battle with evil people
is to get a 1st class pass to heaven, and that the next world will be a
better place to live than this one.  They also see the Israelis as being
few, weak, and afraid to die.  And lastly, of course, they think Allah
is on their side.  This may not seem rational to you and me, but they
are honestly convinced that their side is right, and that they will win,
in the end, if they remain strong and unflinching.

So, ya, they do think they'll win, and it's pretty clear that if the
Israelis do kill Arafat, at least in *this world* he'll instantly become
a martyr.

None of these beliefs is especially unique to the Arab world.  The
vikings and germans in the middle also believed that if they died in
battle, they went straight to valhalla.  Fish friday in our culture
today may be distantly related to this belief (although this is probably
more properly a fertility rite).  Watchers of Star Trek may be familiar
with the warrior pattern another way - through the Klingons, who are
said to say "Today is a good day to die" before going into battle.  In
fact, this is exactly what the Sioux said before they went into battle.
They probably didn't have time to say this on the day when they killed
Custer, as Custer more or less blundered into their midst and was vastly
outnumbered.  They did, however, have plenty of practice, in the
subsequent events that lead up to the Ghost Dance rebellion in 1890.