The Israeli-Palestinian issue

[jeffrey smith]

There is a common perception among the more hardline Israel supporters that the surrounding Muslim countries do not offer the Palestinians support, and actively do not want Palestinians to develop, because they are useful to hold up as victims to the world in their Anti-Israel crusade. The worse off the Palestinians, the better they like it.

This is a very complex situation.

The Palestinians living in other Arab countries surrounding them are in fact refugees, refugees in any country are only given limited rights to work and live and most decide to become citizens if such countries allow them to. However, the Palestinians don't want to become citizens of other countries though, they want to go back to their own country that they were forced out of in 1948 and 1967 due to war, much of the reasons why they fled was due to fears of massacres by Zionist fanatics, when news spread that this happened and the fanatics said they'd carry out more the people fled for their lives.. This was a part of the Zionist plan from the beginning because they believed that they couldn't keep a secure Israel if the Jewish population was only at 60%. Then when the Palestinians fled for their lives and the Israelis didn't let them back in, the Israelis enacted absentee property owners acts which allowed them to take all of the land of the Palestinians that had fled..

The above is, if not accurate, at least backed up by credible evidence, except for the sentence I italicized, which is pure speculation. You also leave out the impact which Arab leaders had in urging Arab Palestinians to leave their homes so as to stay safe from the fighting while Arab armies, in the expectation of returning once Arab victory was secured. (Obviously these people are still waiting). You are also leaving out the fact that had the Arabs accepted the proposed partition plan--which the Jews did accept--there would have been no war at all.

And you are also leaving out the other refugees of 1948:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_exodus_from_Arab_lands

t is estimated that 800,000 to 1,000,000 Jews were either forced from their homes or left the Arab countries from 1948 until the early 1970s; 260,000 reached Israel between 1948–1951, and 600,000 by 1972.[1][2][3] The Jews of Egypt and Libya were expelled while those of Iraq, Yemen, Syria, Lebanon and North Africa left as a result of physical and political insecurity. Most were forced to abandon their property.[2] By 2002, these Jews and their descendants constituted about 40% of Israel's population.[3] One of the main representative bodies of this group, the World Organization of Jews from Arab Countries, (WOJAC) estimates that Jewish property abandoned in Arab countries would be valued today at more than $300 billion[4][5] and Jewish-owned real-estate left behind in Arab lands at 100,000 square kilometers (four times the size of the state of Israel).[1][5] The organization asserts that the Jewish exodus was the result of a deliberate policy decision taken by the Arab League.[6]

Notice the last sentence, an assertion that exactly mirrors your own speculation on Zionist motives.

But contrast the current state of these refugees with those of the Palestinian refugees.

The question regarding support is also interesting, Palestinians in Lebanon, Jordan and Syria have limited support by the UN, neither Syria, Jordan nor Lebanon can afford to pay for everything, especially Syria because they now have a few million Iraqis living there in their cities.. These aren't rich countries at all. Palestinians in other countries in the Mid East however do provide immense support to Palestinian refugees including free scholarships etc, I met many Palestinian refugees in Qatar studying with me in university whilst I was there.

But the issue of support has another side, the reason why Palestinians aren't given more support than they already are is because many Zionists already claim that simply because Jordan is now 60% Palestinian, that the Palestinian state should be in Jordan instead of Palestine.. So the more support that the Palestinians get and the Zionists see, the more excuses they use to say, well let them have a state in those lands.

The pertinent point here is that originally Jordan was part of Mandatory Palestine--it's called Transjordan because it's literally the part of Palestine that is over (meaning east of the Jordan). This unity goes back at least to biblical times, when, out of the original Twelve Tribes of Israel, two and a half tribes settled in the areas east of the Jordan (see the Book of Numbers for details). Transjordan came into existence by British fiat; they wanted to give the Hashemite family some territory to make up for their loss of the Arabian Hejaz to what is now the Saudi royal family. For the same reason, the British also installed a member of the family on the "throne" of Iraq.

So the Palestinian claim to Transjordan is not a fantasy.

Others also claim that the 'Arabs' have so much land in the Middle East and the Jews had no country of their own there, so why not give a portion of it to the Jews to create their own state in lands which were due to be made a Palestinian State according to the British Mandate for Palestine as if that's some kind of legitimate excuse to force people from their lands, steal it and then create a state in them.

The phrase I italicized is erroneous, as evidence by, among other things the Balfour Declaration, which called for a Jewish National Home, and the UN Partition plans.

This is why I don't get it when some Libertarians state that there was a right to create Israel under these circumstances.. How is that just at all?

Adonis, you don't seem to understand one important point: in 1929 (I'm picking that year as the first year when major communal violence occurred, to avoid any possible misunderstandings) Jews were there, living peacefully and legally. They didn't get there by force, by what you called "military occupation" or anything else a libertarian should object to. They have the right to be there, to form their own state, because they were there, living in peace (or as much peace as Arab violence would allow). Palestinian permission was not needed. Any more, I should add, than Israeli permission is needed to declare a Palestinian state.

Do we then also believe that simply because someone has worked hard and earned a lot of money, that simply because they have a lot of money and I do not, that I should have a RIGHT to that person's wealth? No.. If it's not voluntarily given then you have no right to take it, if the Palestinians didn't voluntarily come to an agreement with the Zionists to give up on the mandate give the land over to create a state for Israel then there was no right to create it no matter what the UN or other governments said.. It broke a previous treaty.

In answer to your rhetorical question, the answer is of course, "no". But there is no real parallel between your question and what actually happened.

BTW, what treaty are you referring to?

If you want to punish someone for Holocaust, punish the Europeans, British and Americans who provided immense support for the Nazis and cut a piece of land from Europe, Britain or the US to create a Jewish state in, otherwise leave it as a Palestinian state which was supposed to occur, that was the mandate and the legality of it.

As noted above, the mandate was not to establish a Palestinian state in the sense you are using it. (Are you aware that for most of the pre-1948 period, Palestinian was a term that was applied to both Jewish and Arab residents of the territory?)

And what, by the way, in your opinion, could be rightfully claimed by the Jews who were living in Palestine before World War II, who wanted their own country?

Back to victimhood, I, for one, do not feel much sympathy for a "victim" who launches bombs on civilians, or otherwise attacks the innocent, and I am loathe to recognize such a person as a victim or as an innocent. Frankly, I want such a person shut down so he will harm the innocent no more.

Then you must also be against sanctions like those that were put on Iraq from 1991-2003 that killed more than 1.5 million Iraqis, more than 500,000 of which were children under the age of 5.

Sanctions are just as deadly, if not more than war..

The difference was that Hamas' attacks on Israeli cities were due to their lack of guided weapons and their understanding that Israelis will go into their bomb shelters, meaning that civilians would stay off of the streets.. They did this to bring them to the negotiating table because they refused to negotiate a new fair ceasefire..

You talk as if rockets were the only possible alternative....and that Israel had no reason to believe the potential ceasefire would be honored for long.

Jeffrey S.

Edited February 13, 2010 by jeffrey smith

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

But let's not forget that the US government imposes the dictator Saddam Hussein on the Iraqis by funding him, training him and his secret police, giving him weapons of mass destruction to use against Iran and the Kurds and then gave him approval to invade Kuwait and then said that he did the wrong thing and that he should leave Kuwait.. Then when he didn't the US used depleted uranium weapons the Iraqis and destroyed the infrastructure of Iraq, then to top it off they imposed a 10 year block of crippling sanctions on the Iraqis that killed more than a million Iraqis while the government lives in luxury still?

How about the US take some damned responsibility for its actions there.. The US created the Monster and entire infrastructure that was Saddams regime, how on earth could the people fight against that?

They tried and the vast majority of people lived under oppression under his rule and couldn't do anything about it..

In fact when they, at the encouragement of George Bush Snr who promised support for them they rose up during the Gulf War against Saddam and took Iraqs second largest city Basra, did the US come through with support? NO.. They allowed Saddam's forces to retake the city with their Gunships and Tanks and thousands and thousands were massacred while the US just sat by and did nothing..

What could they do?

Adonis,

You are correct on this point. I spoke too soon.

The USA had no business funding Saddam Hussein in the first place.

I've seen that kind of crap in South America. Funding dictators and their secret police forces is one of the habits of the USA government that has turned my stomach. I think that stuff has mostly stopped, or at least it is not nearly like it used to be.

This is one of the reasons I greatly distrust conservatives, even though I lean right politically. They want raw materials and cheap labor from other countries and look the other way when these are obtained at the price of blood and bribery. That is... some of them look the other way. Others outright promote it and sponsor it.

I'm glad we took Saddam Hussein out, though. I'm sorry it had to happen the way it did, but at least he got taken out. That was a good thing.

Most Palestinians aren't Bedouins, the behavior you discussed is the type of thing a Bedouin would do but not an average Arab

Something keeps the Arabian people poor while the tiny elites get richer in the Middle East. Whatever it is that an "average Arab" does, excel at producing is not one of those things. And moving the boulder and planting a garden is not, either.

This is something I hope will change. And, as all great producers the world over have discovered, it starts with attitude. Not with handouts. Not with leadership from a politician. Not with charity. People have to want to produce almost as second nature. They have to value it.

It is the job of intellectuals and artists to spread that message. They have the task of focusing on admirable people and creating admirable characters to look up to who produce because they love doing it.

This is a natural human state, so this message is not very hard to sell.

Michael

[Libertarian Muslim]

First off, let me note that your phrase "military occupation" is, to put it mildy, a fantasy. But that's something for another post (literally--I intend to reply to another of your posts after I finish this one). Where in fact has Hamas offered a two state solution (meaning without evasion offered to recognize Israel as a Jewish state coexisting peacefully with a Palestinian state, which is how most people think of a "two state solution")? I know of no such offer, or anything remotely like it, beyond offers of a "truce", meaning no fighting but no recognition and no giving up of the overall ambition to have an Islamic Palestine. Can you point me to such an offer.

HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO POST THIS ABOUT HOW HAMAS HAS OFFERED A FAIR PEACE AGREEMENT?... DON'T YOU READ ANY OF THE LINKS I GIVE YOU OR AT LEAST WATCH THE YOUTUBE CLIPS?

Regarding a military occupation, you believe that it's not a military occupation, but if we don't recognize it as a legitimate state yet until there has been a peace agreement between the Israelis and Arabs like the Arab Peace Initiative then it can be considered nothing other than a military occupation of the Palestinian's land..

That comes several paragraphs after this lovely little quotation of a Hadith:

Hamas is one of the links in the Chain of Jihad in the confrontation with the Zionist invasion. It links up with the setting out of the Martyr Izz a-din al-Qassam and his brothers in the Muslim Brotherhood who fought the Holy War in 1936; it further relates to another link of the Palestinian Jihad and the Jihad and efforts of the Muslim Brothers during the 1948 War, and to the Jihad operations of the Muslim Brothers in 1968 and thereafter. But even if the links have become distant from each other, and even if the obstacles erected by those who revolve in the Zionist orbit, aiming at obstructing the road before the Jihad fighters, have rendered the pursuance of Jihad impossible; nevertheless, the Hamas has been looking forward to implement Allah’s promise whatever time it might take. The prophet, prayer and peace be upon him, said: The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him! This will not apply to the Gharqad, which is a Jewish tree (cited by Bukhari and Muslim).

Do you understand this hadith at all and the time and situation that this is referring to? Do you even understand the science of Hadith and how week the chain of narration on this one is?

Hamas isn't just saying 'Let's all go and kill some Jews because it's in a hadith'..

Perhaps you should study a little more about it.

Well, stopping the use of suicide bombers and Qassam rockets, would be a start.

They have stopped suicide bombings..

Regarding the Qassam rockets, well they stopped using them when the Israelis agreed to a ceasefire and stuck to it until the Israelis broke the ceasefire.. How about the Israeli government start adhering to the ceasefires they agree to and stop the blockade on the Palestinians which is causing them to starve and then the rockets will stop.. Or do you believe that only non-Arabs have the right to use violence to solve conflicts?

Now, please tell me, with whom are the Israelis supposed to negotiate? The Palestinian Authority seems to lack either the capacity or the desire to do so on behalf of all Palestinians. Who is going to bring the extreme rejectionists like Hamas to heel? I see no sign of anyone inside Palestinian society even attempting to do so.

NEGOTIATE WITH THE ELECTED GOVERNMENT OF PALESTINE, THEY ARE THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN GIVEN AUTHORITY BY THE PALESTINIANS THEMSELVES TO ACT ON THEIR BEHALF THROUGH POPULAR ELECTION.

And, for my own information, what exactly do you personally consider a proper fair and just peace agreement? You seem to indicate that you think the only proper, fair and just result would be a unified state in which Jews and Palestinians live side by side. I hate to tell you this, but the Israelis are not going to accept, for the simple reason that they don't trust the Palestinians to keep the peace once the state is established. Palestinians have been resorting to communal violence since the 1920s--the 1936-39 revolt was simply the most serious and longest lasting of those episodes. And Palestinian statements from non-PA sources don't exactly refute that notion.

I haven't asked for a one state solution, it's too impractical.. Do you even read my posts before you comment or do you just assume that I believe certain things?

From the beginning I've stated quite clearly that I believe that the Arab Peace Initiative which Hamas HAS agreed to is a fair deal. Have you even read into the iniative?

"The Arab initiative unanimously endorsed in Beirut in March of this year is a very serious attempt to squarely face the needs of both sides, and to satisfactorily address them. Consider the language of the Arab initiative regarding Israeli needs:

“Consider the Arab-Israeli conflict ended”:

For the first time, Arab states commit to a collective offer to end the conflict with Israel. This is probably one of the most important demands of the average Israeli citizen--the knowledge that the conflict is terminated, and that no further claims on Israel or its territory will be put forward by Arabs--all Arabs.

“Enter into a peace agreement with Israel, and provide security for all states of the region”:

The security of Israel, according to this article, would be guaranteed through one collective peace agreement with full security provisions, and would be assured not only by neighboring Arab states, but by ALL Arab states, none excluded. This has always been a key Israeli demand. Despite Arab fears of Israel, brought about by Israel’s occupation of parts of three Arab states, one cannot deny the existence of a genuine fear on part of the average Israeli regarding his or her own safety. The above article assures Israel that its security fears are understood, and will be addressed by all Arab states.

“Establish normal relations with Israel”: This signals full recognition of Israel and the establishment of normal relations, such as those between an Arab state and any other state in the world.

“Achievement of a just solution to the Palestinian refugee problem TO BE AGREED UPON in accordance with UN General Assembly Resolution 194”: For the first time, the Arab world commits itself to an AGREED solution to the refugee problem, thus addressing Israel’s concern that the demographic character of the Jewish state not be threatened. To be sure, the initiative calls for achieving a just solution of the problem in accordance with UNGA Resolution 194, but it points out that the implementation of that resolution has to be agreed. The key point here is that Arabs understand well that the implementation has to be both fair and realistic, and certainly agreed upon. In other words, there is no possibility of a solution that will lead to the changing of the character of the Jewish state. Fortunately, there have been many suggested solutions, at Taba and elsewhere between Palestinian and Israeli interlocutors that point to the possibility of reaching a pragmatic settlement to this problem. It is true as well that the Arab initiative also addresses Arab needs: Israeli withdrawal from all Arab territories occupied in 1967, and the establishment of an independent Palestinian state, with East Jerusalem as its capital. But previous negotiations between Israel, Palestinians and other Arab states have shown that these goals are well within reach.

These are powerful pledges by all Arab states which should not be ignored. To those who are skeptical of Arab intentions, let me point out a seldom mentioned point. Notwithstanding all the violence of the past year, and the hardening of positions in the Arab world (as well as in Israel), not one Arab state has asked to withdraw its signature from the Arab Initiative, though there were many opportunities to do so. The Arab Initiative is proving its resilience day in, day out.

There has been another new and positive element despite this bleak environment: The emergence of a pro-active, pragmatic Arab diplomacy, led by three Arab states that are key to the conflict: Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan. One should not underestimate the positive contribution that Saudi Arabia has brought to the process. With their huge Arab and Islamic credentials, the Saudis have consistently signaled a willingness to play a very pro-active role in the process, bringing along with them the consent of most of the Arab and Islamic worlds. Here we should remember that Jordan and Egypt have already signed peace treaties with Israel. The involvement of Saudi Arabia, which does not have any territorial disputes with Israel, should not be underestimated.

Arab diplomacy has not stopped with the launching of the Arab initiative, however. Ever since President Bush made his speech on June 24, 2001, committing the United States to a two-state solution in three years as a solution to the conflict, key Arab states have tirelessly worked with the US and the Quartet to develop a realistic plan to see this vision implemented. It is a plan that fully realizes Israel’s security needs, and deals with them. The plan should be strong enough to guarantee that children can board a bus for school without fear. It should also be strong enough to guarantee children under the age of five a life free of malnutrition. Jordan has made clear its opposition to suicide bombings on moral and political grounds. But while we understand the emphasis on security FIRST, it cannot be security ONLY. We need to give people hope that they will live free of occupation, and that their children will not only survive, but prosper as well.

The road map offers all that. It outlines a series of mutual commitments by both parties, targets to meet these commitments, and a monitoring and assessment mechanism by the Quartet to ensure that commitments are being fulfilled in time. To be sure, it is not perfect. All sides have reservations about parts of it, but it does have all the elements for a successful resolution of the conflict if it is adhered to, and accepted as a package. It does offer a tunnel, bumpy at times, but one that leads to light.

This road map should also lead to a successful conclusion not only on the Palestinian-Israeli track, but on the Syrian and Lebanese tracks as well. We do not view comprehensiveness as a concession to Arabs, as some have attempted to do. Comprehensiveness means the ability to trigger all the elements of the Arab initiative, in particular the ones I outlined above. We hope, therefore, that the three-year framework will apply to the Palestinian, Syrian, and Lebanese tracks with Israel in a way that can bring a permanent, comprehensive peace by mid-2005.

Optimistic, maybe, but certainly doable. Today, we have a clear international consensus on how to solve the conflict, going further than UNSC Resolution 242 did. It offers a two-state solution within a fixed time period, two elements missing from that famous resolution. More importantly, we have a willingness, and a contractual commitment, from all Arab states, to see an end to the longest conflict of the twentieth century. "

Source: http://www.jordanembassyus.org/arab_initiative.htm#ai

I wasn't referring to his statement, but others statements by members of the mullahcracy over the years. The real question is not whether Iran, the main backer of Hezbollah, has threatened Israel, but whether if it obtains nuclear weapons it will actually carry through on those threats.

Jeffrey S.

They call death to Israel and death to America.. I disagree with these statements, but it's rhetoric due to the interference of the US in Iran and due to the occupation of Palestinian land.. The Iranians aren't planning to attack Israel.. Israel however is practicing to attack Iran and has just dispatched two warships to the Gulf and also has a submarine there.

Regarding Hezbollah, I personally believe that Hezbollah has as much right to fight against the Israeli government as the Palestinians, the Israelis occupy Southern Lebanon and have done so since 1982, they have taken thousands of innocent Lebanese as their prisoners who are rotting in prisons without even being charged in most cases.. That's why Hezbollah captures Israeli soldiers and negotiates prisoner exchanges and I believe that unless the international community intervenes to remove Israel from what it still controls of Southern Lebanon and secures the release of those prisoners, then Hezbollah should continue its operations against the Israeli military.

Edited February 13, 2010 by Adonis Vlahos

[Libertarian Muslim]

I'm glad we took Saddam Hussein out, though. I'm sorry it had to happen the way it did, but at least he got taken out. That was a good thing.

Hey, I'm happy too that we did! The question however is, why did we? In who's interests were we acting?

We overstayed our welcome and didn't allow the Iraqis to properly manage their own affairs and became an occupying force.. That I don't agree with..

The Iraqis aren't barbarians at all, they're a highly educated and sophisticated people and don't need the US to administer them..

There's a saying that goes, books are printed in Egypt but read in Iraq.. We're talking about the cradle of civilization here..

Something keeps the Arabian people poor while the tiny elites get richer in the Middle East. Whatever it is that an "average Arab" does, excel at producing is not one of those things. And moving the boulder and planting a garden is not, either.

This is something I hope will change. And, as all great producers the world over have discovered, it starts with attitude. Not with handouts. Not with leadership from a politician. Not with charity. People have to want to produce almost as second nature. They have to value it.

It is the job of intellectuals and artists to spread that message. They have the task of focusing on admirable people and creating admirable characters to look up to who produce because they love doing it.

This is a natural human state, so this message is not very hard to sell.

Michael

The Palestinians were very prosperous people, in fact the same could be said for Arabs in general, they are the center of trade and also have good agriculture. The reason why the Palestinians have less now is because of blockades and land being taken from them.

They don't need handouts, if they were to just have their own state like that which has been proposed it wouldn't be an issue.. They'd be very successful.

In terms of the rich elite, well I mean, it's a little hard to have anything else when there's no freedom or rights in the region.. Whether it's a Western backed or home grown dictatorship or monarchy it's bad for any type of prosperity..

The people have been brainwashed into not being able to question authority, there is no critical thinking nor analysis in their thoughts, I really came across this in Qatar which almost made me beat people with a stick.. They went from excelling in all manners of science to not being able to question something that they were told..

That's why I'm really devoted to promoting Libertarianism in Islam, it's just a natural fit.

In fact, the good Dr. Michael Vlahos, a non Muslim professor at Johns Hopkins University(no relation) recently stated to me:

Americanism and Islamism are in many ways mirrors of each other (more on that in my book)."

Edited February 13, 2010 by Adonis Vlahos

[Selene]

Adonis:

obiwan the diminished is in search of the Sacred Narrative.

He and his advises do not even know how to unfold a map, let alone read a compass!

Adam

[jeffrey smith]

First off, let me note that your phrase "military occupation" is, to put it mildy, a fantasy. But that's something for another post (literally--I intend to reply to another of your posts after I finish this one). Where in fact has Hamas offered a two state solution (meaning without evasion offered to recognize Israel as a Jewish state coexisting peacefully with a Palestinian state, which is how most people think of a "two state solution")? I know of no such offer, or anything remotely like it, beyond offers of a "truce", meaning no fighting but no recognition and no giving up of the overall ambition to have an Islamic Palestine. Can you point me to such an offer.

HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO POST THIS ABOUT HOW HAMAS HAS OFFERED A FAIR PEACE AGREEMENT?... DON'T YOU READ ANY OF THE LINKS I GIVE YOU OR AT LEAST WATCH THE YOUTUBE CLIPS?

I just went throough all previous 13 pages of this thread, and found no links having to do with Hamas' alleged offer of peace (in fact, none of your links seem relevant to Hamas at all), and one youtube that doesn't embed properly in my browser--btw, neither do the clips you link/embedded in your answer tonight.

And you seem to have forgotten that I don't view the Arab Peace Initiative as anything more than a propaganda exercise, because the terms are either too vague to have any worth as a peace document, or don't rule out the rejectionist demands. But as far as I know, Hamas has not even gone that far.

Regarding a military occupation, you believe that it's not a military occupation, but if we don't recognize it as a legitimate state yet until there has been a peace agreement between the Israelis and Arabs like the Arab Peace Initiative then it can be considered nothing other than a military occupation of the Palestinian's land..

That comes several paragraphs after this lovely little quotation of a Hadith:

Hamas is one of the links in the Chain of Jihad in the confrontation with the Zionist invasion. It links up with the setting out of the Martyr Izz a-din al-Qassam and his brothers in the Muslim Brotherhood who fought the Holy War in 1936; it further relates to another link of the Palestinian Jihad and the Jihad and efforts of the Muslim Brothers during the 1948 War, and to the Jihad operations of the Muslim Brothers in 1968 and thereafter. But even if the links have become distant from each other, and even if the obstacles erected by those who revolve in the Zionist orbit, aiming at obstructing the road before the Jihad fighters, have rendered the pursuance of Jihad impossible; nevertheless, the Hamas has been looking forward to implement Allah’s promise whatever time it might take. The prophet, prayer and peace be upon him, said: The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him! This will not apply to the Gharqad, which is a Jewish tree (cited by Bukhari and Muslim).

Do you understand this hadith at all and the time and situation that this is referring to? Do you even understand the science of Hadith and how week the chain of narration on this one is?

Hamas isn't just saying 'Let's all go and kill some Jews because it's in a hadith'..

Perhaps you should study a little more about it.

Correct. It's saying "let's kill Jews" and using the hadith as an excuse.

Well, stopping the use of suicide bombers and Qassam rockets, would be a start.

They have stopped suicide bombings..

Regarding the Qassam rockets, well they stopped using them when the Israelis agreed to a ceasefire and stuck to it until the Israelis broke the ceasefire.. How about the Israeli government start adhering to the ceasefires they agree to and stop the blockade on the Palestinians which is causing them to starve and then the rockets will stop.. Or do you believe that only non-Arabs have the right to use violence to solve conflicts?

I believe that no one has the "right" to use violence to solve conflicts.

And a ceasefire during which Hamas rearms itself as quickly as possible is not a true ceasefire.

Now, please tell me, with whom are the Israelis supposed to negotiate? The Palestinian Authority seems to lack either the capacity or the desire to do so on behalf of all Palestinians. Who is going to bring the extreme rejectionists like Hamas to heel? I see no sign of anyone inside Palestinian society even attempting to do so.

NEGOTIATE WITH THE ELECTED GOVERNMENT OF PALESTINE, THEY ARE THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN GIVEN AUTHORITY BY THE PALESTINIANS THEMSELVES TO ACT ON THEIR BEHALF THROUGH POPULAR ELECTION.

meaning either negotiate with a body that can not guarantee its promises will be kept at all, or with Hamas with its rejectionist charter.

And, for my own information, what exactly do you personally consider a proper fair and just peace agreement? You seem to indicate that you think the only proper, fair and just result would be a unified state in which Jews and Palestinians live side by side. I hate to tell you this, but the Israelis are not going to accept, for the simple reason that they don't trust the Palestinians to keep the peace once the state is established. Palestinians have been resorting to communal violence since the 1920s--the 1936-39 revolt was simply the most serious and longest lasting of those episodes. And Palestinian statements from non-PA sources don't exactly refute that notion.

I haven't asked for a one state solution, it's too impractical.. Do you even read my posts before you comment or do you just assume that I believe certain things?

From the beginning I've stated quite clearly that I believe that the Arab Peace Initiative which Hamas HAS agreed to is a fair deal. Have you even read into the iniative?

Yes, and as indicated above, found it wanting.

And after going through those previous dozen pages, you seem to think that the one-state solution is the just and proper solution, and if you referred to the two state solution as acceptable, I missed it. So concluding you favor a one state solution was logical, but based on incomplete evidence.

I wasn't referring to his statement, but others statements by members of the mullahcracy over the years. The real question is not whether Iran, the main backer of Hezbollah, has threatened Israel, but whether if it obtains nuclear weapons it will actually carry through on those threats.

They call death to Israel and death to America.. I disagree with these statements, but it's rhetoric due to the interference of the US in Iran and due to the occupation of Palestinian land.. The Iranians aren't planning to attack Israel.. Israel however is practicing to attack Iran and has just dispatched two warships to the Gulf and also has a submarine there.

You have some secret knowledge about Iranian intentions? Because no one knows what they are planning, including possibly the Iranians.

Jeffrey S.

Edited February 13, 2010 by jeffrey smith

[BaalChatzaf]

Hamas is a thug, killler organization. Thier so-called fair offers of peace are lies.

It is as simple as that.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Libertarian Muslim]

I just went throough all previous 13 pages of this thread, and found no links having to do with Hamas' alleged offer of peace (in fact, none of your links seem relevant to Hamas at all), and one youtube that doesn't embed properly in my browser--btw, neither do the clips you link/embedded in your answer tonight.

The links I posted tonight were of Khaled Mashaal, the political leader of Hamas giving a two part interview to Al Jazeera, I posted both of them, did you not see them at all? Has anyone else been able to see them?

And you seem to have forgotten that I don't view the Arab Peace Initiative as anything more than a propaganda exercise, because the terms are either too vague to have any worth as a peace document, or don't rule out the rejectionist demands. But as far as I know, Hamas has not even gone that far.

The terms of the Arab Peace Iniative are VERY clear. It even goes as far as stating borders and is very specific in every point.. How much clearer do you expect it to be?

If you don't like the Arab Peace Initiative then what do you propose that is different?

Correct. It's saying "let's kill Jews" and using the hadith as an excuse.

That's not true at all and stop trying to make misconstrue the conflict to be a war against Jews who are being attacked simply for being Jews.. The hadith has nothing to do with the conflict at all..

Do you think the Palestinians need more excuses to fight against the Israelis than they already have? Their land has been occupied since 1948 and the whole world can agree on the fact that the occupation since 1967 is illegal according to international law and the use of settlers is illegal according to the Geneva Convention. The Palestinians have a just reason to fight against the occupation of their lands..

I believe that no one has the "right" to use violence to solve conflicts.

And a ceasefire during which Hamas rearms itself as quickly as possible is not a true ceasefire.

Oh please, yet you only speak out when it's the Palestinians who are using violence and don't criticize Israel.. Why is that I wonder?

Don't forget that Israel ALSO rearms during ceasefires.. It's called preparing for war while hoping for peace.. EVERY responsible nation would do the same thing.

meaning either negotiate with a body that can not guarantee its promises will be kept at all, or with Hamas with its rejectionist charter.

Hamas has adhered to ceasefires and has proven itself capable of sticking to agreements, the Israeli government however has not.

And after going through those previous dozen pages, you seem to think that the one-state solution is the just and proper solution, and if you referred to the two state solution as acceptable, I missed it. So concluding you favor a one state solution was logical, but based on incomplete evidence.

Are you serious? Perhaps you have some issues reading but I have stated very clearly that whilst that might be an idealistic thing to have and perhaps should have happened in the first place, it's highly impractical right now and would never work.

You have some secret knowledge about Iranian intentions? Because no one knows what they are planning, including possibly the Iranians.

No, I have no knowledge about the Iranian intentions however I have a good enough understanding of their ideology and government and know that it is definitely not in the Iranian governments interests to attack Israel.. If however Israel attacked Iran first, then they'd have no option but to fight back because Iranians, even those against their government wouldn't sit idly by whilst their country was attacked.. They'd demand a military response..

That's contrary to the ideas and actions of the Neo-Cons, the Israelis and the Nazis who believe that pre-emptive war based on the 'possibility' of something occurring that has no real factual backing is the best course of action to take..

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

The Palestinians were very prosperous people, in fact the same could be said for Arabs in general, they are the center of trade and also have good agriculture. The reason why the Palestinians have less now is because of blockades and land being taken from them.

They don't need handouts, if they were to just have their own state like that which has been proposed it wouldn't be an issue.. They'd be very successful.

Adonis,

There is a lot of blame to go all round. The situation is a mess and nobody over there has a certificate of sainthood.

So what do you do with a mess? You make more and claim that your mess is not the real mess, that the only real mess is the other guy's? Or that the only reason you make a mess is because the other guy makes a mess?

This is a discourse that needs to be abandoned for one reason only: it is not productive. I don't believe you will ever convince anyone that Palestine needs to be a state on its own terms by pointing a finger outwards and saying it's all the fault of this person or that--and until the evil meanies admit they are scumbags, nothing can be done, etc., etc., etc.

There is a far better discourse, one you address below, although you did not use the term. It is called self-reliance.

That discourse will resolve stuff. The one above will not. Look at history in general for my evidence. A scapegoating discourse always implodes over time. Self-reliant people always prosper. And self-reliant people generally do not ask for permission to be self-reliant.

In terms of the rich elite, well I mean, it's a little hard to have anything else when there's no freedom or rights in the region.. Whether it's a Western backed or home grown dictatorship or monarchy it's bad for any type of prosperity..

The people have been brainwashed into not being able to question authority, there is no critical thinking nor analysis in their thoughts, I really came across this in Qatar which almost made me beat people with a stick.. They went from excelling in all manners of science to not being able to question something that they were told..

That's why I'm really devoted to promoting Libertarianism in Islam, it's just a natural fit.

Now you are talking my language.

A self-reliant mentality questions authority by default. The people who do not question authority did not learn to be that way from anywhere other than their local culture. Self-reliance begins with the individual, then spreads to the local culture, then entire regions, then countries.

Not questioning authority goes the same path, but the game is submission. Those who do not question authority have learned to submit to man, not just Allah. No dictator on earth, nor any external factor, can force a man to submit from within to other men like that. This is not done by force. The best force can do is oppress. The submitter submits from within because he chooses to do so. It is part of his chosen philosophy. Submitting to other men is how he understands Islam.

You know I speak the truth on this. I have seen this with my own eyes and so have you.

And, from what I have understood of Islam so far, granting another man the same stature in authority as Allah is blasphemy. The submitters don't do this in their words--since words like that are monitored in the very culture--but they do in their deeds.

If the submission to man mentality is to be changed, the submitter's very understanding of Islam has to be changed. He needs to become aware of the blasphemy he practices.

We discussed the persecution mentality of Jewish people. While it is true that this is a strong component, and one that needs to change, self-reliance is another. The Jews did not make a garden in the desert (to use my ex-father-in-law's term) because they were fighting persecution and blaming the world for their woes. They did that part because they value self-reliance.

There is a lesson to be learned from this and I rarely see it discussed from the Palestinian side.

Even the documentary, Defamation, comes from a young Israeli who is questioning authority. He is self-reliant in his very deed. The ADL made a statement of disapproval and I have no doubt Shamir's film is not popular among the traditional authorities he questioned. But, from what I understand, Shamir still lives and works in Israel.

The more traditional Israelis may not like his film, but they value self-reliance enough to allow a documetary like that to have space. That is not because they want to spit on their own faces. It's because they know the film comes from an attitude of self-reliance. Look at ADL's statement. It did not call the film evil and Shamir an enemy of Judaism or Anti-Semite or traitor to Israel or anything like that. It said things like, "the film fell far short of our expectation," and "there was so much more Shamir could have and should have done," etc.

I cannot imagine a similar film being done on the victim mentality of, say, Hamas, and the film maker continue living among Hamas members. From the reports I have read, that is one authority that does not tolerate being questioned by one of its own in such a fashion.

More than ever, I believe that Palestinians need to question that authority in whatever degree they can. That goes for any oppressive Muslim authority. Muslims will not integrate self-reliance as a fundamental attitude by any other means.

It's no use to point the finger at Zionists or Western intervention or anything else on this issue. It is a contradiction to say, "We would be self-reliant if only those evil people over there would let us." Self-reliance is not granted by permission. It is taken. Self-reliance comes from within the soul of each individual and it is the responsibility of the individual to look after his own soul.

Muslim despots want sheeple. They've got sheeple. You have seen these sheeple with your own eyes so you know they exist. You know they are many. You know they do not produce anything beyond a relatively low level of subsistence. If some individuals among them want something more advanced, they have to import it. They can't get if from sheeple.

Here is a bitter truth, but it needs to be taken seriously. Far more than what I have seen. There is no way to keep the despot and teach sheeple to not be sheeple. Reality will not permit it.

Let people demonize the West, Zionists, or whatever they wish. But may they demonize the Muslim despot for the scum he is.

When it becomes common and mainstream in the Muslim world to say that a Muslim despot is no better than any other despot, that all despots are evil, period, that will be a sign that self-reliance is starting to take.

Michael

[9thdoctor]

I don’t know if anyone provided a link to the Yoav Shamir film, it looks like you can watch it for free here: http://wideeyecinema.com/?p=7208

Netflix lists it but apparently it’s not been released yet. I might get around to watching it later today. This thread has reinforced my view that the problems in the Middle East are insolvable, but I can’t resist a (facetious) suggestion that mass implementation of the Ludovico technique would do the trick.

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="

name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="

type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

[Libertarian Muslim]

A self-reliant mentality questions authority by default. The people who do not question authority did not learn to be that way from anywhere other than their local culture. Self-reliance begins with the individual, then spreads to the local culture, then entire regions, then countries.

Not questioning authority goes the same path, but the game is submission. Those who do not question authority have learned to submit to man, not just Allah. No dictator on earth, nor any external factor, can force a man to submit from within to other men like that. This is not done by force. The best force can do is oppress. The submitter submits from within because he chooses to do so. It is part of his chosen philosophy. Submitting to other men is how he understands Islam.

You know I speak the truth on this. I have seen this with my own eyes and so have you.

And, from what I have understood of Islam so far, granting another man the same stature in authority as Allah is blasphemy. The submitters don't do this in their words--since words like that are monitored in the very culture--but they do in their deeds.

If the submission to man mentality is to be changed, the submitter's very understanding of Islam has to be changed. He needs to become aware of the blasphemy he practices.

You're right, it is not as easy as it seems however as the people have lived under such bonds of tyranny for so long that they don't really understand the concepts of freedom, critical thinking and analysis.. They don't really understand the idea of questioning authority..

Some know that something is wrong in the picture but very few can put a finger on it and properly describe it.. It's easy to say that they should be able to see it while we're looking from the outside into there, but that isn't really appropriate as they haven't seen what we've seen nor have they heard what we've heard and studied what we've studied.. These ideas need to be brought to them..

The issue is this.. Their tyrannical governments say that the West is the enemy because the West wants to invade the Muslim lands and destroy Islam or dominate and subjugate the Middle East and Persia and instead of the West showing the Arabs and Persians that this is not the case by not interfering in internal politics of states, not funding and supporting dictators and monarchs and not invading and occupying land there, they do the complete opposite and by doing so they show the people of these lands that the tyrants were right, the West does want to do that in their lands and it legitimizes the leadership because the people believe this is the only way to keep the West out..

If however, the West and in particular the US was to withdraw completely and not support dictatorships and instead promote good relationships with all countries and show an EXAMPLE of liberty that didn't interfere then the governments of the region would not be able to say the US and West is wanting to invade the Middle East and occupy it and subjugate the people and so the people would realize that the government they have are liars and fakes and they would eventually remove such governments and come running towards Libertarian ideals..

But that doesn't happen.. Why not? Because it's not financially beneficial for the big corporations and the military industrial complex in the US to have that, it is beneficial for the US, Israel and everyone in the world to use my suggestion because it would mean that genuine people could come to the negotiating table but it's a bit hard to do that while the people believe they need their dictators.. Especially whilst US trained terrorists are setting bombs off in the streets and mosques of Tehran..

We discussed the persecution mentality of Jewish people. While it is true that this is a strong component, and one that needs to change, self-reliance is another. The Jews did not make a garden in the desert (to use my ex-father-in-law's term) because they were fighting persecution and blaming the world for their woes. They did that part because they value self-reliance.

There is a lesson to be learned from this and I rarely see it discussed from the Palestinian side.

Perhaps you need to go and check Michael, the Palestinians have used every resource they could to be self reliant.. Even in the face of major blockades and Israeli destruction of their farmlands..

Even the documentary, Defamation, comes from a young Israeli who is questioning authority. He is self-reliant in his very deed. The ADL made a statement of disapproval and I have no doubt Shamir's film is not popular among the traditional authorities he questioned. But, from what I understand, Shamir still lives and works in Israel.

The more traditional Israelis may not like his film, but they value self-reliance enough to allow a documetary like that to have space. That is not because they want to spit on their own faces. It's because they know the film comes from an attitude of self-reliance. Look at ADL's statement. It did not call the film evil and Shamir an enemy of Judaism or Anti-Semite or traitor to Israel or anything like that. It said things like, "the film fell far short of our expectation," and "there was so much more Shamir could have and should have done," etc.

I cannot imagine a similar film being done on the victim mentality of, say, Hamas, and the film maker continue living among Hamas members. From the reports I have read, that is one authority that does not tolerate being questioned by one of its own in such a fashion.

Okay, well let's make a comparison..

First of all, you CAN question Hamas in the Gaza strip and nothing will happen to you. The only time there has been major violence between Gaza and other groups is when those groups have tried to incite armed conflict within Gaza such as when Al Qaeda tried to declare an 'Islamic State' in Gaza and when Fatah refused to give up power after being elected and started kidnapping and torturing Hamas supporters in addition to another few incidents when Fatah, backed by the Israelis tried to overthrow the Hamas government.

Secondly, the two examples of Israel and Palestine are different, currently there are no Jews in concentration camps or being oppressed and being murdered by a force that wants to wipe them out.. There is however Palestinians who's lands are under occupation at the very least since 1967 breaking international law who have been denied their rights and are resisting that.. They are persecuted and ethnically cleansed and many Israeli human rights groups and academics have stated that.. The whole idea of creating settlements in the West Bank is to eventually annex the whole territories as a part of Israel..

So to say that the Palestinians are displaying a victim mentality is a bit unfair because currently, they ARE being victimized by the Israelis and not enough attention is brought to that.. Did we tell the Jews during WW2 to stop having a victim mentality and just get on with it? No.. Sure we can say now that to keep bring up the Holocaust to justify everything Israel does is to have a victim mentality, but to have said that to the Jews who were actively being persecuted by the Nazis in WW2 would have been insensitive and completely wrong in my opinion. Just as it's silly to say to the Palestinians who are resisting the occupation of their lands..

I suggest you watch the following documentary on how the US News Media portrays the Israel-Palestine issue, this documentary has very prominent Jewish and Israeli human rights workers and academics who reveal many important points about what is happening.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6604775898578139565&ei=e8F2S7j0LIHSwgOv28HYBw&q=propaganda+peace+and+the+promised+land&view=3

I'm also curious to know, did you happen to watch the Palestine 101 documentary I posted?

I searched for the Case for Israel one that you spoke about but unfortunately I couldn't find it. Do you have a link?

More than ever, I believe that Palestinians need to question that authority in whatever degree they can. That goes for any oppressive Muslim authority. Muslims will not integrate self-reliance as a fundamental attitude by any other means.

It's no use to point the finger at Zionists or Western intervention or anything else on this issue. It is a contradiction to say, "We would be self-reliant if only those evil people over there would let us." Self-reliance is not granted by permission. It is taken. Self-reliance comes from within the soul of each individual and it is the responsibility of the individual to look after his own soul.

Which is why I'd really like to promote the ideas of Libertarianism in Islam to show people that, however Western Intervention makes it very difficult to promote such ideas because of the reasons I mentioned earlier..

Muslim despots want sheeple. They've got sheeple. You have seen these sheeple with your own eyes so you know they exist. You know they are many. You know they do not produce anything beyond a relatively low level of subsistence. If some individuals among them want something more advanced, they have to import it. They can't get if from sheeple.

Here is a bitter truth, but it needs to be taken seriously. Far more than what I have seen. There is no way to keep the despot and teach sheeple to not be sheeple. Reality will not permit it.

Let people demonize the West, Zionists, or whatever they wish. But may they demonize the Muslim despot for the scum he is.

When it becomes common and mainstream in the Muslim world to say that a Muslim despot is no better than any other despot, that all despots are evil, period, that will be a sign that self-reliance is starting to take.

It's hard to realize your own government are despots when you don't really see better examples and the only other examples you see are more despots and foreigners who are invading your lands and giving you 'Freedom' at the barrel of a gun and are a terrible example of that freedom themselves?

How do you expect the people to view the US as being friendly to them when they're constantly being threatened with war and occupation?

Edited February 13, 2010 by Adonis Vlahos

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

It's hard to realize your own government are despots when you don't really see better examples and the only other examples you see are more despots and foreigners who are invading your lands and giving you 'Freedom' at the barrel of a gun and are a terrible example of that freedom themselves?

How do you expect the people to view the US as being friendly to them when they're constantly being threatened with war and occupation?

Adonis,

The USA was not founded by people who think like this. And this is exactly what I am talking about.

If people find freedom hard to realize and their own intellectuals tell them that it's all someone else's fault, then they will continue without freedom. That's reality, I don't care how many times you or anyone else says it's all someone else's fault.

It might make you feel better to say that, but that does those people little good. The result in reality is that they will continue without freedom.

The USA founders did not wait to be shown what freedom is supposed to look like. And they had the greatest power in the world against them back then.

Say what you will about Jews, but they were in pretty bad shape after WWII.

These folks didn't wait for someone to come along and show them anything. They got sick of suffering and did what they had to do.

I could go on and on about others who shrugged off despots and gained freedom without relying on a role model country to tell them how to do it, or for ideal conditions to be granted to them from someone else.

If you want freedom for the people you care about, stop giving them an excuse to avoid cultivating self-reliance. Encourage it instead. Believe me, they will do the rest. They're not stupid. They can learn it. Everyone who has gone the route of self-reliance has done the rest, even under the harshest of conditions.

It's not the USA's job to teach them anything. It's yours. You, and others like you, are their intellectuals. So it's your job.

Or...

Fold you hands and say it's tough and it's all someone else's fault...

It's your choice.

I know I am making mine.

As to the documentaries, I will get back to you before too long. I need more time and I am a bit swamped in my work. But I will get to them. That's a promise.

As to "The Case for Israel," I have to look. How I often find these things is by typing the title into Google using quotes, then choosing the "video" link on the top left. I just now did this and several options showed up.

Michael

[anonrobt]

It's hard to realize your own government are despots when you don't really see better examples and the only other examples you see are more despots and foreigners who are invading your lands and giving you 'Freedom' at the barrel of a gun and are a terrible example of that freedom themselves?

How do you expect the people to view the US as being friendly to them when they're constantly being threatened with war and occupation?

Adonis,

The USA was not founded by people who think like this. And this is exactly what I am talking about.

If people find freedom hard to realize and their own intellectuals tell them that it's all someone else's fault, then they will continue without freedom. That's reality, I don't care how many times you or anyone else says it's all someone else's fault.

It might make you feel better to say that, but that does those people little good. The result in reality is that they will continue without freedom.

The USA founders did not wait to be shown what freedom is supposed to look like. And they had the greatest power in the world against them back then.

Say what you will about Jews, but they were in pretty bad shape after WWII.

These folks didn't wait for someone to come along and show them anything. They got sick of suffering and did what they had to do.

I could go on and on about others who shrugged off despots and gained freedom without relying on a role model country to tell them how to do it, or for ideal conditions to be granted to them from someone else.

If you want freedom for the people you care about, stop giving them an excuse to avoid cultivating self-reliance. Encourage it instead. Believe me, they will do the rest. They're not stupid. They can learn it. Everyone who has gone the route of self-reliance has done the rest, even under the harshest of conditions.

It's not the USA's job to teach them anything. It's yours. You, and others like you, are their intellectuals. So it's your job.

Or...

Fold you hands and say it's tough and it's all someone else's fault...

It's your choice.

I know I am making mine.

As to the documentaries, I will get back to you before too long. I need more time and I am a bit swamped in my work. But I will get to them. That's a promise.

As to "The Case for Israel," I have to look. How I often find these things is by typing the title into Google using quotes, then choosing the "video" link on the top left. I just now did this and several options showed up.

Michael

http://www.thecaseforisrael.com/

http://books.google.com/books?id=Dunx_i1P6fMC&printsec=frontcover&dq=the+case+for+israel&source=bl&ots=uo4tzsDciz&sig=0dJaNGa-6vK1MzpQYFPffWHCMH4&hl=en&ei=-GV3S6GHHM2PtgfUvpCoCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CAsQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=&f=false

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Case_for_Israel

http://vodpod.com/watch/1544754-the-case-for-israel-docu-trailer-message-film

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1899267555870962994#

Edited February 14, 2010 by anonrobt

[jeffrey smith]

This seems on point for this discussion

http://www.spring.org.uk/2010/02/why-the-media-seems-biased-when-you-care-about-the-issue.php

It's about a 1988 study focused on perceived bias in the media regarding the Arab Israeli conflict.

Summary--whichever side you're on, you will perceive the media coverage to be biased against you.

Some of the participants recruited for the study were moderate in their initial views, others were specifically recruited from both the pro-Arab and pro-Israeli student associations. Each was asked for their views about the conflict, its history and where their sympathies lay. Here's what they found:

* 68 were pro-Israeli,

* 27 were pro-Arab,

* 49 had mixed feelings.

All the participants then watched a series of news segments taken from US networks (NBC, ABC and CBS). Afterwards they were asked to rate whether overall it was for or against Israel. They used a scale of 1 (heavy pro-Arab bias) to 9 (heavy pro-Israel bias) where a rating of 5 was fair and impartial.

The results

Here are the average ratings for the news coverage from each group:

* Pro-Israeli: 2.9 (perceived a marked pro-Arab bias)

* Neutral: 3.8 (perceived a slight pro-Arab bias)

* Pro-Arab: 6.7 (perceived a marked pro-Israeli bias)

As you can see the pro-Israeli participants thought the news reports were biased against Israel while the pro-Arab participants thought the news reports were biased against Arabs. This is impressive because everyone was watching exactly the same news reports. Even more surprising was that each thought that when someone neutral saw the coverage, it would persuade them to side with the opposite position.

Notice that those who claimed to be neutral thought the coverage had a slight pro-Arab bias. This could be a hint of actual media bias or could be just an unacknowledged bias in those initially declaring themselves neutral.

Causes of the hostile media phenomenon

The study demonstrates what the authors call the 'hostile media phenomenon': people's tendency to view news coverage about which they hold strong beliefs as biased against their own position.

There were two mechanisms at work here:

1. The truth is black and white: partisans generally thought that the truth about the Arab-Israeli debate was black and white. Any hint of shades of grey in the news reports was interpreted by partisans as bias towards the other side. In other words: any balanced report will seem biased to partisan viewers.

2. The news report was too grey: as well as thinking the Arab-Israeli issue was either black or white, partisans also perceived that the specific news report they watched was too grey.

Put simply: when we care about an issue, we tend not to notice all the points we agree with, and focus on the ones we don't.

Jeffrey S.

Edited February 14, 2010 by jeffrey smith

[Libertarian Muslim]

This seems on point for this discussion

http://www.spring.org.uk/2010/02/why-the-media-seems-biased-when-you-care-about-the-issue.php

It's about a 1988 study focused on perceived bias in the media regarding the Arab Israeli conflict.

Summary--whichever side you're on, you will perceive the media coverage to be biased against you.

Some of the participants recruited for the study were moderate in their initial views, others were specifically recruited from both the pro-Arab and pro-Israeli student associations. Each was asked for their views about the conflict, its history and where their sympathies lay. Here's what they found:

* 68 were pro-Israeli,

* 27 were pro-Arab,

* 49 had mixed feelings.

All the participants then watched a series of news segments taken from US networks (NBC, ABC and CBS). Afterwards they were asked to rate whether overall it was for or against Israel. They used a scale of 1 (heavy pro-Arab bias) to 9 (heavy pro-Israel bias) where a rating of 5 was fair and impartial.

The results

Here are the average ratings for the news coverage from each group:

* Pro-Israeli: 2.9 (perceived a marked pro-Arab bias)

* Neutral: 3.8 (perceived a slight pro-Arab bias)

* Pro-Arab: 6.7 (perceived a marked pro-Israeli bias)

As you can see the pro-Israeli participants thought the news reports were biased against Israel while the pro-Arab participants thought the news reports were biased against Arabs. This is impressive because everyone was watching exactly the same news reports. Even more surprising was that each thought that when someone neutral saw the coverage, it would persuade them to side with the opposite position.

Notice that those who claimed to be neutral thought the coverage had a slight pro-Arab bias. This could be a hint of actual media bias or could be just an unacknowledged bias in those initially declaring themselves neutral.

Causes of the hostile media phenomenon

The study demonstrates what the authors call the 'hostile media phenomenon': people's tendency to view news coverage about which they hold strong beliefs as biased against their own position.

There were two mechanisms at work here:

1. The truth is black and white: partisans generally thought that the truth about the Arab-Israeli debate was black and white. Any hint of shades of grey in the news reports was interpreted by partisans as bias towards the other side. In other words: any balanced report will seem biased to partisan viewers.

2. The news report was too grey: as well as thinking the Arab-Israeli issue was either black or white, partisans also perceived that the specific news report they watched was too grey.

Put simply: when we care about an issue, we tend not to notice all the points we agree with, and focus on the ones we don't.

Jeffrey S.

1988? That study was more than 20 years ago..

This was during the Lebanese Civil War and Israel's greater occupation of South Lebanon, only 6 years after the Sabra and Shatila massacres that Israel allowed to happen, a lot has changed since then and the role and impact of Israel's PR machine has become far more pronounced..

[Leonid]

Leonid,

Where has Adonis called for a new Holocaust? Or shown ignorance or hatred of Jews?

He has shown ignorance (or at least massive oversimplification) of Zionism and hatred of that as he understands it.

You vastly weaken your own arguments when you mischaracterize what another person says.

I have no doubt many readers will read things like "So your diatribe and the call for the new Holocaust have no real base and may have only two possible reasons: your astonishing ignorance or your hatred for Jews," and think, "Oh well. More back and forth bickering and name-calling. I wonder if it will ever stop."

And they will not read your arguments.

I don't when I see that stuff. I skim and skip it all.

That goes for this last post by you and many others (not just by you) that take the scapegoating and name-calling party line approach to discourse.

I admit that when I see the "evil Zionist" argument in Adonis's posts, I skim and skip that stuff, too.

Do you guys want to discuss serious issues or throw stones at each other?

Is anything productive happening here?

Seriously...

Michael

[Leonid]

MSK "Where has Adonis called for a new Holocaust? Or shown ignorance or hatred of Jews?"

And how do you call his idea of an expulsion of all Zionists from Israel, all 6 million of them? Leisure tour to Europe? Expulsion means forcible removal. If you translate Adonis' suggestion into practical action you'll get nothing less, than Holocaust. If Adonis isn't Jew-hater, than he's immature, infantile ignorant. However I don't think so. The idea of expulsion isn't invention of Adonis. He just borrowed it from Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who seems to be his source of inspiration and guidance. Compare Adonis talks on expulsion and evil of Zionism with Ahmadinejad's talks

"Some Europeans countries insist on saying that Hitler killed millions of innocent Jews in furnaces…Although we don't accept this claim…If the Europeans are honest they should give some of their provinces in Europe-like in Germany, Austria or other countries-to the Zionists and the Zionists can establish their state in Europe." [76] (Dec. 8, 2005)"The real cure for the conflict is elimination of the Zionist regime." [68] (Aug. 3, 2006); “I warn you to abandon the filthy Zionist entity that has reached the end of the line… accept that the life of Zionists will sooner or later come to an end.” [43] (Jan. 30, 2008)"; "With God's help, the countdown button for the destruction of the Zionist regime has been pushed by the hands of the children of Lebanon and Palestine. By God's will, we will witness the destruction of this regime in the near future." [55] (June 3, 2007)

http://www.theisraelproject.org/site/c.hsJPK0PIJpH/b.2951397/k.6E9B/President_Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_In_His_Own_Words.htm

Adonis's choice of Iran as the only proper solution of the conflict is here for reason. This is the answer to your question “Why do you talk now about Iran?"

MSK "I don't when I see that stuff. I skim and skip it all.

Evasion is not the best policy. And this is exactly what Adonis and his ilk count on. Nobody takes Ahmadinejad's talks seriously today. Nobody took Hitler seriously 76 years ago.

Edited February 14, 2010 by Leonid

[Libertarian Muslim]

And how do you call his idea of an expulsion of all Zionists from Israel, all 6 million of them? Leisure tour to Europe? Expulsion means forcible removal. If you translate Adonis' suggestion into practical action you'll get nothing less, than Holocaust. If Adonis isn't Jew-hater, than he's immature, infantile ignorant. However I don't think so. The idea of expulsion isn't invention of Adonis. He just borrowed it from Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who seems to be his source of inspiration and guidance. Compare Adonis talks on expulsion and evil of Zionism with Ahmadinejad's talks

No we wont be massacring people like the Zionists did to the Palestinians in the Nakba to create and exodus and scare the Zionists out of the lands..

I hope you know that firstly, I didn't say that all Zionists should be expelled from Israel, I said that if the Israelis didn't give a just peace agreement to the Palestinians and the humanitarian situation for the Palestinians became so bad whilst the world sat by and did nothing and a diplomatic solution could not be found then the situation would require military intervention by one or more powers them in the region to bring Israel back to the negotiating table, and if military intervention doesn't bring Israel back to the negotiating table then such powers would have no other choice but to take Israel over and dismantle the state in favor for a state where all people regardless of religion or race could come and live and practice their religion and live in peace. Zionists would then have a choice, do they want to be part of such a state? If yes, then great! They can stay, if not then they are more than welcome to leave.. If they use military violence to return things to the way that they were then they will be tried and punished for their crimes and then forcibly expelled.

I also hope you realize that there are many non Zionist Jews that would gladly live in such a state and I also believe that the Beta (Ethiopian) and Sephardi Jews in particular would also be glad to stay in such a state, in fact I really hope they would and believe that they Beta Jews would be treated better under such a state than they currently are in Israel.. The only people I doubt would want to stay are the fanatics from the Ashkenazi that were from Russia and the US, the Settler types who in many cases don't even fit the Halakha definition of a Jew..

I have no problem with Jews. They're in fact perhaps the closest group to Muslims in terms of religious practice and our histories are very intertwined.. I just don't like racial and religious supremacists who believe that they have more right to a piece of land than the people who've lived on it and owned it for generations like the Settlers in the video below..

"Some Europeans countries insist on saying that Hitler killed millions of innocent Jews in furnaces…Although we don't accept this claim…If the Europeans are honest they should give some of their provinces in Europe-like in Germany, Austria or other countries-to the Zionists and the Zionists can establish their state in Europe." [76] (Dec. 8, 2005)"The real cure for the conflict is elimination of the Zionist regime." [68] (Aug. 3, 2006); “I warn you to abandon the filthy Zionist entity that has reached the end of the line… accept that the life of Zionists will sooner or later come to an end.” [43] (Jan. 30, 2008)"; "With God's help, the countdown button for the destruction of the Zionist regime has been pushed by the hands of the children of Lebanon and Palestine. By God's will, we will witness the destruction of this regime in the near future." [55] (June 3, 2007)

http://www.theisraelproject.org/site/c.hsJPK0PIJpH/b.2951397/k.6E9B/President_Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_In_His_Own_Words.htm

I don't agree with everything that Ahmedinejad says and do believe he shouldn't be Iran's leaders any longer but I most definitely agree with the things he states in the video below:

Adonis's choice of Iran as the only proper solution of the conflict is here for reason. This is the answer to your question “Why do you talk now about Iran?"

I have never said that Iran is the only proper solution to the conflict.. In fact I said that it is in Iran's interests not to try and invade Israel or go to war against Israel.

However, I will definitely stand and say that Iran has a right to defend themselves against aggression from another country and believe that if Israel does in fact attack Iran, then Iran should strike back with the full force of its military and Revolutionary Guard as such an attack should be considered an act of war and Iran has the right of retaliation.

Iran hasn't done anything wrong and doesn't deserve to be attacked, it has the right to develop nuclear technology just as much as any other nation does and any other nation that believes that it should infringe on Iran's rights by militarily intervening should be held accountable.

Israel is the one with more than 200 undeclared nuclear weapons that haven't been inspected by the UN.

I also say this, attacking Iran would be the worst mistake anyone ever made, Iranians are starting to stand up against their government now and to attack Iran would make even the staunchest reformists rally behind their nation and demand retaliation, they are a proud people.. Let them sort out their own selves, things will change in Iran as it's inevitable, but attacking would only put those changes back further and further..

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

MSK "I don't when I see that stuff. I skim and skip it all.

Evasion is not the best policy. And this is exactly what Adonis and his ilk count on. Nobody takes Ahmadinejad's talks seriously today. Nobody took Hitler seriously 76 years ago.

Leonid,

This is predicated on the premise that you know what is in my mind because I disagree with your generalizations.

And it is predicated on the insulting premise that I don't have enough sense to know a Hitler when I see him.

I suggest different premises if you want me to take you seriously.

I say you are not a mind-reader. I often find your sources and reasoning sorely lacking. And your behavior borders on the insulting. That's why I mostly skim your stuff and ignore it when I detect that.

I'm not eternal, nor do I need to spend the precious hours of my life examining incompetent arguments just because someone thinks I need to hate as he does.

Michael

[Leonid]

And how do you call his idea of an expulsion of all Zionists from Israel, all 6 million of them? Leisure tour to Europe? Expulsion means forcible removal. If you translate Adonis' suggestion into practical action you'll get nothing less, than Holocaust. If Adonis isn't Jew-hater, than he's immature, infantile ignorant. However I don't think so. The idea of expulsion isn't invention of Adonis. He just borrowed it from Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who seems to be his source of inspiration and guidance. Compare Adonis talks on expulsion and evil of Zionism with Ahmadinejad's talks

No we wont be massacring people like the Zionists did to the Palestinians in the Nakba to create and exodus and scare the Zionists out of the lands..

I hope you know that firstly, I didn't say that all Zionists should be expelled from Israel, I said that if the Israelis didn't give a just peace agreement to the Palestinians and the humanitarian situation for the Palestinians became so bad whilst the world sat by and did nothing and a diplomatic solution could not be found then the situation would require military intervention by one or more powers them in the region to bring Israel back to the negotiating table, and if military intervention doesn't bring Israel back to the negotiating table then such powers would have no other choice but to take Israel over and dismantle the state in favor for a state where all people regardless of religion or race could come and live and practice their religion and live in peace. Zionists would then have a choice, do they want to be part of such a state? If yes, then great! They can stay, if not then they are more than welcome to leave.. If they use military violence to return things to the way that they were then they will be tried and punished for their crimes and then forcibly expelled.

I also hope you realize that there are many non Zionist Jews that would gladly live in such a state and I also believe that the Beta (Ethiopian) and Sephardi Jews in particular would also be glad to stay in such a state, in fact I really hope they would and believe that they Beta Jews would be treated better under such a state than they currently are in Israel.. The only people I doubt would want to stay are the fanatics from the Ashkenazi that were from Russia and the US, the Settler types who in many cases don't even fit the Halakha definition of a Jew..

I have no problem with Jews. They're in fact perhaps the closest group to Muslims in terms of religious practice and our histories are very intertwined.. I just don't like racial and religious supremacists who believe that they have more right to a piece of land than the people who've lived on it and owned it for generations like the Settlers in the video below..

"Some Europeans countries insist on saying that Hitler killed millions of innocent Jews in furnaces…Although we don't accept this claim…If the Europeans are honest they should give some of their provinces in Europe-like in Germany, Austria or other countries-to the Zionists and the Zionists can establish their state in Europe." [76] (Dec. 8, 2005)"The real cure for the conflict is elimination of the Zionist regime." [68] (Aug. 3, 2006); “I warn you to abandon the filthy Zionist entity that has reached the end of the line… accept that the life of Zionists will sooner or later come to an end.” [43] (Jan. 30, 2008)"; "With God's help, the countdown button for the destruction of the Zionist regime has been pushed by the hands of the children of Lebanon and Palestine. By God's will, we will witness the destruction of this regime in the near future." [55] (June 3, 2007)

http://www.theisraelproject.org/site/c.hsJPK0PIJpH/b.2951397/k.6E9B/President_Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_In_His_Own_Words.htm

I don't agree with everything that Ahmedinejad says and do believe he shouldn't be Iran's leaders any longer but I most definitely agree with the things he states in the video below:

Adonis's choice of Iran as the only proper solution of the conflict is here for reason. This is the answer to your question “Why do you talk now about Iran?"

I have never said that Iran is the only proper solution to the conflict.. In fact I said that it is in Iran's interests not to try and invade Israel or go to war against Israel.

However, I will definitely stand and say that Iran has a right to defend themselves against aggression from another country and believe that if Israel does in fact attack Iran, then Iran should strike back with the full force of its military and Revolutionary Guard as such an attack should be considered an act of war and Iran has the right of retaliation.

Iran hasn't done anything wrong and doesn't deserve to be attacked, it has the right to develop nuclear technology just as much as any other nation does and any other nation that believes that it should infringe on Iran's rights by militarily intervening should be held accountable.

Israel is the one with more than 200 undeclared nuclear weapons that haven't been inspected by the UN.

I also say this, attacking Iran would be the worst mistake anyone ever made, Iranians are starting to stand up against their government now and to attack Iran would make even the staunchest reformists rally behind their nation and demand retaliation, they are a proud people.. Let them sort out their own selves, things will change in Iran as it's inevitable, but attacking would only put those changes back further and further..

[Libertarian Muslim]

Just curious Leonid, why do you keep quoting comments and not putting a response on there?

[Leonid]

Adonis: "No we won’t be massacring people like the Zionists did to the Palestinians in the Nakba to create and exodus and scare the Zionists out of the lands...”

I've already provided enough evidence in regard to the massacres committed against Jews and non-Jews prior, during and after creation of Israel, in Israel and abroad, from the nursery school in Maalot to the Twin Towers in New York. I'm not going to repeat it. You can look it up yourself and then ask yourself whether you can repeat your statement with the clean conscience. Your talks about military intervention and dismantle of Israel in order to restore people's rights is sheer madness, since Israel is the only country in the Middle East in which all people enjoy full rights regardless their religion, ethnicity and gender. Besides, even most of the Arab nations, after 60 years of failed attempts to dismantle Israel, eventually understood that military invasion is not an option. If Iranians still don't get that, they will learn it in the hard way. However, I don't think, as you do, that Iranians will fight in order to liberate Palestine from Jews. They rather would fight to liberate themselves from tyrannical oppressive fanatical regime of Ayatollahs as they already do today. BTW, can you dream up any reason why Israel should attack Iran, the country about ten times bigger than Israel which even doesn't have common border with it? If Israel will ever do it, it will do it in self-defense, in order to eliminate Iranian nuclear threat. However, most probably Americans will do it first. I'd like to see Islamic Revolutionary Guard to fight them. Apparently it will be little bit more difficult than to shoot defenseless dissenters on the streets of Teheran.

I don't know how much you know about Ethiopian or Sephardic Jews. Probably not much. For your information the previous Israeli president, Moshe Katzav was Iranian, Sephardic Jew. One cannot go higher than that. Ethiopian Jews used to have many problems to incorporate themselves in the modern Western society, but most of these problems are resolved by now. In any case Ethiopian Jews enjoy many privileges which other Israelis cannot even hope to dream about-like free housing, free education and health service, preferential treatment in many fields etc...(I don't approve on all this).

Adonis:" I just don't like racial and religious supremacists who believe that they have more right to a piece of land than the people who've lived on it and owned it for generations like the Settlers in the video below...”

I also don't like them and in Israel it constitutes crime punished by law. However the only "proof" that settlers steal land in your short video is that the journalist said so and refused to listen to any explanation-pretty much as you do.

Adonis:” I don't agree with everything that Ahmedinejad says and do believe he shouldn't be Iran's leaders any longer but I most definitely agree with the things he states in the video below:"

I'm not surprised that you agree with Holocaust denier. So far you follow the party line from Teheran with religious devotion.

Edited February 14, 2010 by Leonid

[Leonid]

MSK "I don't when I see that stuff. I skim and skip it all.

Evasion is not the best policy. And this is exactly what Adonis and his ilk count on. Nobody takes Ahmadinejad's talks seriously today. Nobody took Hitler seriously 76 years ago.

Leonid,

This is predicated on the premise that you know what is in my mind because I disagree with your generalizations.

And it is predicated on the insulting premise that I don't have enough sense to know a Hitler when I see him.

I suggest different premises if you want me to take you seriously.

I say you are not a mind-reader. I often find your sources and reasoning sorely lacking. And your behavior borders on the insulting. That's why I mostly skim your stuff and ignore it when I detect that.

I'm not eternal, nor do I need to spend the precious hours of my life examining incompetent arguments just because someone thinks I need to hate as he does.

Michael

[Leonid]

MSK

I regret that you feel insulted, but I wonder how do you know that my arguments are incompetent if you evade them? Are you mind reader? In regard to the sources I use-they are not mine. They are works of serious researchers and freely available to everybody who has genuine interest in the subject matter. How you concluded that I predicate that you don’t have enough sense to know a Hitler when you see him is beyond me. It doesn't follow from my post.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Leonid,

"Evade" is a fighting word in Objectivism. Maybe you are not aware of this.

But let's take a look at the kind of generalization I object to. You said: "... I wonder how do you know that my arguments are incompetent if you evade them?"

There is so much wrong with that, so much over-generalization, I almost don't know where to start. Here are some thoughts:

1. I consider speculations presented as fact (such as claiming someone is in favor of the Holocaust when he both says he isn't and gives every indication in his attitudes that he isn't, and I have read you doing that) to be totally incompetent--that is if I am in a generous mood and believe that this notion comes from a sincere desire to communicate an idea. Often this is nothing more than mud-slinging and bullying on a personal level.

2. You include a presumption of all-inclusiveness that steps outside of anything you can observe on this forum. Where, in any of my posts anywhere on this forum, have I ever claimed that ALL of someone's ideas are this or that, or that I "evade" ALL of something someone writes? You won't find it. Even above, I said that I skim and ignore your stuff when I detect incompetent arguments. Yet your rhetorical question insinuates an all-inclusive kind of avoidance.

3. There are other standards I use, and have stated clearly, for competence, one of which is giving independent sources. If you are engaging someone you consider hostile, quoting a source that is radically on your side is not a very convincing source to that person. If your purpose is argument, in other words, trying to convince someone (or the reader) of something, it is incompetent to do that. If a fact is a fact, it will be able to be found in respectable independent places. But if your purpose is simply to bash and spread hatred, well, that is another matter. Giving a whole bunch of speculations as fact when the facts are contested without giving any sources is also incompetent arguing.

I could go on, and I could go back through this thread for examples, but that will do for now. The kind of rhetorical question you made and I quoted is far too general and oversimplified for the kind of attention I just gave it. But I wanted to give you an example of my reasoning as to why I do not take this kind of discourse seriously.

Michael