|
Grex > Agora41 > #37: What can be done in the middle east? | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 604 responses total. |
lk
|
|
response 550 of 604:
| 
Jun 15 16:50 UTC 2002 |
No one said you are "sick and bigoted" because you have unsuccessfully
attempted to dispute what I say. Perhaps you should reread what Russ said
and see if you can respond to it rather than raise another red herring.
Nor is it that you lack the time to debate the issues -- you lack the
arguments. Previously you tried to get past that by going to such a
highly biased source that you initially refused to reference it
(electricintifadah.com). Yet since I quickly pointed out the falsehoods
in that material, you now have no recourse. (The supposition that someone
with the time and inclination would be able to respond to these arguments
is also not true; check out the Nightline forum and see for yourself.)
Instead, you have launched a smear campaign designed to silence the
messenger. Not because the message is unconvincing, but precisely because
it is convincing and precisely because you cannot respond to it.
Your ongoing attacks against me just prove me right. If you want to prove me
wrong, your options are either to debate the issues or, if you don't have
the time, to not respond with your vile attacks or simply forget the item.
Hmph, why is it that scott has endless time to engage in his attacks and
meta-discussion but not to debate the issues? Maybe if he quit the former
he'd have time for the latter?
Sindi, the population between the Jordan river and the sea has grown
200x over the past century and a half. Obviously this is the source of
some friction, but it should be manageable. The population has only
surpassed the number of people who lived in the same region 2000 years
ago in the last few decades.
|
scott
|
|
response 551 of 604:
|
Jun 15 21:43 UTC 2002 |
Let's compare number of words entered and see if Leeron can accuse me of
having "endless time".
|
mdw
|
|
response 552 of 604:
|
Jun 16 00:37 UTC 2002 |
I'm beginning to think it's a good thing Leeron is here
and not in Israel. No telling what bad things he'd incite
over there.
|
keesan
|
|
response 553 of 604:
|
Jun 16 14:14 UTC 2002 |
Re 550, seems like the past few decades are when most of the friction has
occurred. I did read somewhere about the refugee population being ten times
what it was. How much as the Israeli (non-Arab) population increased?
Is Israel self-sufficient in food?
|
lk
|
|
response 554 of 604:
|
Jun 16 16:21 UTC 2002 |
Scott, I am more verbose, but that's because I'm not entering personal
attacks against another user. Yet again we see that you have the time
for meta-discussion but not for issues. (And nice to see Marcus joining
in with a gratuitous ad hominem rather than just mooing in the wind.)
Sindi, the friction goes back to at least 1921, but it was only (I'm
guessing) in the 1980s that the population increased beyond what it is
estimated to have been in the first and second centuries CE. Obviously
with modern technology and farming techniques, a higher population density
should be possible -- especially with people living in desert areas that
previously were sparsely populated.
The troubles in the 1920s and 1930s were in part due to the perception
of Arabs that they were losing land to Jews. Yet the Peel commission
wrote that the Jews had mostly purchased desolate land that the Arab
owners either couldn't or had no interest in developing and that the
in actuality the local Arabs were being displaced by other Arabs.
Studies of population growth between the world wars indicate that the
Arab population grew precisely in areas of Jewish development (290%
in my home port of Haifa but only 42% in Nablus -- compared with
about 25% growth in neighboring countries).
|
lk
|
|
response 555 of 604:
|
Jun 16 16:30 UTC 2002 |
16:03 Egyptian academics and intellectuals open seminar in Cairo called
`After the Demise of Israel`
|
scott
|
|
response 556 of 604:
|
Jun 16 17:55 UTC 2002 |
Leeron's first paragraph in #554:
"Scott, I am more verbose, but that's because I'm not entering personal
attacks against another user. Yet again we see that you have the time
for meta-discussion but not for issues. (And nice to see Marcus joining
in with a gratuitous ad hominem rather than just mooing in the wind.)"
Those familiar with irony will perhaps enjoy the above paragraph.
|
lk
|
|
response 557 of 604:
|
Jun 16 20:13 UTC 2002 |
Those familiar with irony, and even those not so inclined, will realize
that Scott's #556, like so many of his earlier entries in this item, does
not even feign to discuss the issues.
One could summarize what Scott has said regarding mideast issues in this
item in 0 lines of text. Yet he continues his meta-discussion vendetta,
even while claiming he doesn't have the time to discuss the issues.
It's not surprising that I am interested in the mideast or have much to say
about it. My family has endured violence and terrorism for 3 generations,
over 60 years: My grandfather left Jerusalem for the safer haven of Tel Aviv
after Arab terrorists placed bombs in a Jerusalem theater and market in the
late 1930s. In the 1940s, in Tel Aviv, my dad was shot at by Arab snipers
on his way to and from school. In 1948, an uncle was killed. In the early
1980s a cousin was killed by terrorists in Lebanon. In the late 1980s my
parents were a few hundred yards away from being machine gunned to death
by terrorists who attacked a beach near my sister's kibbutz. In 1996, with
peace ostensibly on the horizon, my sister was seconds away from being
blown to bits by a suicide bomber, having just completed an ATM transaction
she had walked into a store which provided cover from the blast (the woman
and her two children who were waiting to use the ATM were not so lucky, as
my sister gruesomely discovered when she exited the store). Earlier this year
a suicide bomber struck down the street from my mom's office in Jerusalem,
a cafe I was in last summer was blown up as was a bus line I used to
ride when I lived in Haifa.
What could possibly explain Scott's motivation and behavior?
|
scott
|
|
response 558 of 604:
|
Jun 16 21:02 UTC 2002 |
What could explain my motivation and behavior? That's a pretty good question,
but with several different answers.
I guess from (what I perceive to be) Leeron's perspective, I must be some sort
of contemptible idiot for not clearly seeing the Arabs for the scum they
obviously are.
From my own perspective, I'm attempting to provide some counter-programming
to Leeron's heavily biased assertions on the situation. I don't believe that
the Arabs are villianous scum, any more than I believe that the Israelis are
the next Nazis.
No, I can't argue in Leeron's style, because I'm unwilling to spend hours a
day (as he apparently does) on a few items in backwater of the Internet
(Grex's Agora). That being said, I've hit Leeron a number of times with
things he systematically ignores. What's that, an example? I've posted
examples of that before, and I'm not going to waste my time doing it again
at Leeron's request.
Frankly, I think these items are a good thing. Better an argument than
silence! And Leeron may be convincing some people of the rightness of
Israel's actions, but (I suspect) he's also convincing others that Israel's
supporters are a bunch of people who have to engage in overly verbose
arguments (and demonization of opponents such as me) because a direct
discussion would show Israel to be more in the wrong.
I think we're both preaching to our own choirs here, though.
|
russ
|
|
response 559 of 604:
|
Jun 16 21:04 UTC 2002 |
The difference between Leeron and Scott is that Leeron spends a lot of
time (and space) documenting facts and pointing out where others are in
error. Leeron spent a lot of time refuting errors in Scott's sources.
Scott just assumes he's right and spends his time doing... well, things
like #556. Scott, you'd have a lot more moral stature if you actually
admitted that your sources are faulty and/or suggested something that
might benefit the situation in the region.
Since I make no pretences to political correctness, I'll come right out
and say that the problem is almost exclusively due to the Muslim doctrine
of "Dar al Islam", which I believe translates to "Land of submission".
(The rest of the world is "Dar al Haq", Land of War [against infidels,
I gather - that's us].) The fundamentalist Muslims cannot abide any part
of the Middle East which isn't under their exclusive control (religious
and matters we would regard as secular - they see no difference), so the
existence of any non-Muslim state in the region is cause for jihad
whether it is Jewish, Christian, secular or what-have-you. This is why
Hezbollah etc. are not going to make or respect peace treaties.
Islamic theology badly needs a reformation and a concept of separation
between religious and civil matters. Unfortunately, the time for that
was running out 200 years ago; Islam is now about 400 years behind and
falling further all the time. The biggest risk I can see is that the
fundamentalists get nuclear weapons and use them, and the rest of the
world has to get rid of the threat by any means necessary.
|
slynne
|
|
response 560 of 604:
|
Jun 16 21:34 UTC 2002 |
Please. Saying that "all Muslims" believe that a non-muslim state is a
cause for war is like saying that all christians believe that the bible
tells them to pass around poisonous snakes.
russ is at least as much of a bigot who is full of hatred as he accuses
Muslims of being. He is so full of hatred that he cant even imagine a
people who arent.
|
lk
|
|
response 561 of 604:
|
Jun 16 23:34 UTC 2002 |
Lynne, you speak as if the people in (most) Muslim states have individual
rights.
Scott says:
> What could explain my motivation and behavior? That's a pretty good
> question, but with several different answers.
Yet doesn't proceed to offer real answers, raising his tired old red herrings
instead while ostensibly suggesting that Grexers are so stupid that they need
his personal attacks "to provide some counter-programming". If that was your
intention, then by all means you should discuss the issues!
> I guess from (what I perceive to be) Leeron's perspective, I must be some
> sort of contemptible idiot for not clearly seeing the Arabs for the scum
> they obviously are.
I have never said the Arabs are scum or made any statement to that effect.
I do not believe it to be true. I have criticized Arab terrorists and
Arab death squads and the PA leadership that chooses not to curtail these,
on the contrary encouraging and supporting such activities (as they have
for generations).
> I don't believe that the Arabs are villianous scum, any more than I
> believe that the Israelis are the next Nazis.
While no one as argued the former, you have quoted from a web site that
argues the latter. I'd have to read back through items to see if you
yourself have made comments to that effect, but you certainly did not
object when others have.
> No, I can't argue in Leeron's style, because I'm unwilling to spend hours
My style is presenting arguments and sources (mostly western) whereas you
have quoted from one source that was so biased you refused to share it
(not because I would claim it is biased, but because others would realize it).
Nonetheless, I shredded every argument you cut-and-pasted from electric-
intifadah.com. Once again we see that you are willing to spend hours
misrepresenting what I have stated and attacking me, but not addressing
the issues.
> That being said, I've hit Leeron a number of times with things he
> systematically ignores. What's that, an example? I've posted examples
> of that before, and I'm not going to waste my time doing it again
> at Leeron's request.
Liar. Each time I have requested examles, you have avoided them. Surely if
you had any valid examples you could have easily rattled them off in less
space than it took for you to enter your excuse for not presenting examples.
Scott, are you really so delusional that you believe that you are saving
Grexers from me? Are we to believe that this is your motivation for wasting
hours on meta-discussion attacking me while claiming that you don't have
time to address the issues of substance?
Wouldn't it be simpler and more honest for you to admit that you can't
respond to my rebuttal of your cut-and-paste job? (See Winter item #20,
responses 344-347 and 360-361.) That you have shamefully turned to attacking
the messenger precisely because you can't argue with the message?
|
scott
|
|
response 562 of 604:
|
Jun 17 01:01 UTC 2002 |
Liar, yourself. You never "shredded every argument" I presented. You picked
a few you could win, and ignored the rest. Please reprint the entire set of
arguments if you wish to prove otherwise.
|
scott
|
|
response 563 of 604:
|
Jun 17 01:57 UTC 2002 |
<sigh>
I really must stop entering responses when I'm doing something else in another
window.
Leeron, would you mind explaing why it's OK for you to make personal attacks
on others, but not OK for others to even question how you argue?
While you're at it, please stop claiming I spend even a fraction of the amount
of time you spend on these items:
" Once again we see that you are willing to spend hours
misrepresenting what I have stated and attacking me, but not addressing
the issues."
Actually I spend less than 15 minutes a day. As I have said (repeatedly),
I'm not that interested in being a zealot.
If I was to make any response at all to your belief that I'm attempting to
lead some anti-Israel crusade here on Grex, perhaps as some sort of personal
vendetta, it's that you shouldn't consider yourself that important to me.
As a final thought... has it ever occurred to you that you really start
sounding like a hardcore zealot when you've got somebody like me to argue
with? That it might be to my advantage to push your buttons a bit?
|
bhelliom
|
|
response 564 of 604:
|
Jun 17 16:00 UTC 2002 |
Re: #541
"Frankly, if I'd been dealing with the kind of murderous hate that
Israelis have been dealing with since even before modern Israel
was founded, I'd have returned it in full force. Yet despite being
at the mercy of Israelis for years, the Palestinian Muslims still
exist; the reverse is not true."
Regarding your last sentence, Russ, what exactly do you mean by that?
Existing is nothing compared to what they should be entitled to as
human beings. The muderous hate that Jews have encountered should not
be dished out to one single group of people with whom they have
contact. I've got your obvious point, but what examples are you
thinking of that send you to that conclusion? The Palestinians have
never been in control, so the wording of your statement may be a little
off. In the past, conquering islamic groups usually didn't force
conversion onto those people living in conquered territory. The locals
were allowed to practice their beliefs as they saw fit. Since non-
Muslims were charged a higher tax, the ruling parties had greater
incentive not to insist upon conversion. The Jews would have been no
exception to this policy.
For discussion. . . how long would you argue that this conflict has
actually gone on? Certainly it doesn't start in '48, so where would
you argue is the beginning of the "modern" conflict between Jews and
Arabs?
|
lk
|
|
response 565 of 604:
|
Jun 17 16:39 UTC 2002 |
bhelliom:
> Existing is nothing compared to what they should be entitled to as
> human beings.
Arabs living in Israel have all the legal rights granted to Jewish Israelis.
It's been true since 1952, a decade prior to the Civil Rights movement here.
Yes, there are social issues, but much of that is exacerbated by 50+ years
of warfare from surrounding Arab states. (Can you imagine how much worse
would be the fate of Hispanics in the US if Mexico had launched multiple
wars against us in recent decades and we were constantly being attacked by
Mexican terrorists?)
Even the Arabs in the territories (when they were ruled by Israel) enjoyed
more rights than the Arab populations of Arab countries. They didn't live
as well as white Americans, but few around the world do (even in America).
> In the past, conquering islamic groups usually didn't force conversion
> onto those people living in conquered territory. The locals were allowed
> to practice their beliefs as they saw fit.
False on many levels. Islam condems pagans to death. Jews and Christians,
being "people of the book" were granted protected status as dhimmis. Yet
as you point out, they were officially discriminated against (higher taxes
being just one example) and as I've referenced before, frequently the
targets of pogroms and massacres.
Look into the plight of Christians in Iraq (why do you think there are so
many Chaldeans here?) and Lebanon (~70% of Detroit's Arab population is
Lebanese), Coptic Christians in Egypt, Jews in Syria, Bahais in Iran....
|
lk
|
|
response 566 of 604:
|
Jun 17 16:49 UTC 2002 |
> I spend less than 15 minutes a day.
Fifteen minutes a day? That adds up fairly quickly to "hours". So you
have the time to act as a button-pushing twit but not to address issues?
> Liar, yourself. You never "shredded every argument" I presented. You picked
> a few you could win, and ignored the rest. Please reprint the entire set
> of arguments if you wish to prove otherwise.
Still no examples? Not ONE point that you can show us which I failed to
address? One would think that if I avoided some points that you would have
pointed it out at the time. But you didn't then and you can't now! The burden
of proof remains upon you (unless you want to relegate yourself to being a
zealot twit), as it has been for the past 4 months. Perhaps you should
re-read Winter Item 20, responses #344-347 and #360-361 and see if you can,
finally, enter a substantive response.
> it might be to my advantage to push your buttons a bit?
Which would lead right back to the question you couldn't answer: what is
your motivation to push buttons? So you don't really believe that you are
providing Grexers with valuable "counter-programming" by attacking me rather
than my arguments -- you're just being a button-pushing twit? Are you
really such an asshole that you enjoy pushing someone's buttons on what to
them is literally a life-or-death issue? While you are at it, why don't
you make fun of my cousin who was killed by Arab terrorists? Why don't you
laugh at my sister who is still in therapy and on meds following her near
miss and the awful carnage that surrounded her that day nearly 5 years ago?
That every time there is a bombing in Israel I call my sister (now in
Chicago) to make sure she's mentally OK before I call my mom (in Israel) to
make sure she's physically ok?
|
scott
|
|
response 567 of 604:
|
Jun 17 16:59 UTC 2002 |
So it's "hours" because it adds up? Sheesh, that's the more pathetic evasion
I've seen from you in quite some time.
As for why I would want to push your buttons... it's because it make *you*
act like a twit.
And while it's awful for people to have to live under the conditions you
describe, haven't you given any thought to how your hardline attitudes don't
help the peace process any? I might argue that by attempting to further the
conflict you've got the blood of your fellow Israelis on your hands, but I
won't be that trite.
|
lk
|
|
response 568 of 604:
|
Jun 17 17:02 UTC 2002 |
Today's news:
08:01 Ben-Eliezer: Israel knows of five suicide bombers planning attacks
inside country
08:47 Suicide bomber explodes near Israeli Arab village in north; no
casualties reported
11:29 Mortar shell lands near settlement in Gush Katif bloc in Gaza Strip
16:19 IDF detonates booby-trapped car outside home of wanted Hamas activist
in village of Yamoun, near Jenin
16:39 Palestinian intellectuals, activists launch national movement for
democratic and welfare reform in PA
18:00 Moroccan authorities arrest sixth person suspected of plotting
terrorist attacks on U.S. and British ships
18:40 Palestinian proposal: Israeli sovereignty over Jewish Quarter of
Jerusalem, waiving right of return for refugees
Finally, after 23 months, a non-violent counter-offer to the Clinton plan?
19:23 Al-Jazeera: [16-year old suicide] bomber carried HIV virus
|
lk
|
|
response 569 of 604:
|
Jun 17 17:21 UTC 2002 |
Re#567: You are that trite, Scott, and more. When I said that you spent
hours being a twit (whereas you claimed that you didn't have time to address
issues of substance), you explained that you only wasted 15-minutes per
day. Well, that adds up to "hours" pretty quickly. Over 7 hours per month.
Why don't you do yourself a favor and stop acting like a twit in these
items and instead dedicate a day to go to the library and research the issues?
> haven't you given any thought to how your hardline attitudes don't
> help the peace process any?
That's another red herring. I have not expressed a "hardline attitude".
As klg just pointed out to you, I fully supported the Oslo peace process
and the Camp David / Taba proposals that would have established an Arab
state in ALL of Gaza and 97% of the "West Bank" (see item 125 for details).
> As for why I would want to push your buttons... it's because it make *you*
> act like a twit
That's nonsensical. Why would you want to make me act (allegedly) as a twit?
Why would you prefer to do so than to address issues of substance -- unless
it was because you can't respond to what I say? Once again I note that you
still can't reference a single point you made which I failed to refute.
|
scott
|
|
response 570 of 604:
|
Jun 17 18:18 UTC 2002 |
So, how many hours a month do *you* spend on these items, Leeron?
|
lk
|
|
response 571 of 604:
|
Jun 17 22:26 UTC 2002 |
Another red herring? I'm not the one pretending that time is an issue
precluding me from responding on topic. I'm not the one with endless time
to be a twit but purportedly no time to discuss issues of substance.
If I were to add the hours I've spent on this topic, including classes at UM,
reading countless books, spending evenings pouring through old volumes in the
Graduate Library, it would be much more time than you have spent avoiding
discussion on the issues. So what?
What Scott is hoping we would forget:
1. That 15-minutes a day somehow doesn't quickly add up to "hours".
2. That Scott can't mention even ONE issue which I failed to address.
[See Agora40, item #20, response 344-347, 360 and 361.]
3. Scott's admission that he's into "pushing buttons".
4. That Scott stated that he wants to make me act (allegedly) as a twit?
Why would Scott prefer to do so than to address issues of substance?
Unless it was because he can't respond to these issues?
Scott won't be able to address this list any more than he can the issues which
were being discussed. His fate is in his own hands. Let's see if he does
himself a favor and stops responding or even has what it takes to apologize
for his behavior.
|
scott
|
|
response 572 of 604:
|
Jun 17 23:37 UTC 2002 |
Well, looks like my job here is done. :)
|
lk
|
|
response 573 of 604:
|
Jun 17 23:49 UTC 2002 |
Glad to hear it. Hope we can now return to discussing substantive issues.
00:08 Palestinians fire mortar at Gush Katif settlement; one house damaged.
01:52 Government sources: U.S. President Bush to hold Middle East speech on
Thursday
|
lk
|
|
response 574 of 604:
|
Jun 18 15:53 UTC 2002 |
They just don't get it:
13:55 PFLP slams EU decision to place it on `terror` blacklist,
vows to continue attacking Israel
Not-funny news:
18:26 19 KILLED IN JERUSALEM SUICIDE BOMBING; HAMAS CLAIMS ATTACK
50 injured, 5 seriously; bus from Gilo was filled with high school
students; bomber 22-year-old student at Nablus university.
|