Dare To Inquire: Islamism (Political Islam) = Cultural Sewer    
 Islamism (Political Islam) = Cultural Sewer33 comments
22 May 2004 @ 12:06, by Bruce Kodish

'Tis pity that so many 'progressive' people are still willing to make excuses for the death cult that has taken over a significant portion the Arab/Islamic world and threatens to engulf the rest of us.

The prevailing powers of the Arab/Islamic world have managed to turn their culture into a sewer of hatred and victimhood. Encouraging those Arabs and Muslims who want something different (not all Arabs and Muslims have bought into the Islamist death-cult) will not result from pretending otherwise.

To quote Proverbs, "As a man thinketh, so is he…" And as a culture thinketh, so is it…

'Progressive' read this article by Alan Dershowitz and get annoyed….or educate yourself:


Does oppression cause suicide bombing? ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ May. 20, 2004

Some overprivileged Muslims support a culture of death, while impoverished Tibetans celebrate life

As suicide bombings increase in Iraq, in Saudi Arabia, and in Israel, more and more people have come to believe that this tactic is a result of desperation. They see a direct link between oppression, occupation, poverty, and humiliation on the one hand, and a willingness to blow oneself up for the cause on the other hand. It follows from this premise that the obvious remedy for suicide bombing is to address its root cause - namely, our oppression of the terrorists.

But the underlying premise is demonstrably false: There is no such link as a matter of fact or history. Suicide bombing is a tactic that is selected by privileged, educated, and wealthy elitists because it has proven successful.

Moreover, even some of the suicide bombers themselves defy the stereotype of the impoverished victims of occupation driven to desperate measures by American or Israeli oppression. Remember the 9/11 bombers, several of whom were university students and none of whom were oppressed by the US. They were dispatched by a Saudi millionaire named Osama bin Laden.

Bin Laden has now become the hero of many other upper-class Saudis who are volunteering to become shahids (martyrs) in Iraq, Israel, and other parts of the globe.

Majid al-Enezi, a Saudi student training to become a computer technician, recently changed career plans and decided to become a martyr; he crossed over into Iraq, where he died. His brother Abdullah celebrated that decision. "People are calling all the time to congratulate us, crying from happiness and envy. There are many young men who wish they could cross over into Iraq, but they can't. Thank God he was able to."

These rich kids glorify the culture of suicide, even in distant places. As Tufful al-Oqbi, a student at the elite King Saud University, described this situation, young people are wearing T-shirts with bin Laden's picture on them just the way people used to wear pictures of Che Guevara, the Cuban revolutionary. According to a recent news account, wealthy women students sport Osama bin Laden T-shirts under their enveloping abayas to show their approval for his calls to resist the United States.

Why do these overprivileged and well-educated young men and women support this culture of death, while impoverished and oppressed Tibetans continue to celebrate life despite their occupation by China for half a century?

WHY HAVE other oppressed people throughout history not resorted to suicide bombings and terrorism? The answer lies in differences among the elite leadership of various groups and causes. The leaders of Islamic radical causes, especially the Wahhabis, advocate and incite suicide terrorism, while the leaders of other causes advocate different means.

Recall Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr., whose people were truly oppressed but who advocated non-violent means of resistance. It is the leaders who send suicide bombers to blow themselves up. No suicide bomber ever sent himself to be blown up.

The bombers accept death because they have been incited into a frenzy of hatred by imams preaching "Kill the infidels." Sheikh Muhammad Sayed Tantawi, the leading Islamic scholar at the elite Al-Azhar University in Cairo (which is not occupied), has declared that martyrdom operations - which means suicide bombings - are the highest form of jihad and an Islamic commandment.

Even more mainstream role models, such as Yasser Arafat's wife, who lives in a multimillion-dollar residence in Paris, has said that if she had a son, she would want him to become a suicide bomber because there is no greater honor than to become a martyr.

Young children, some as young as 12 and 13, are incited and seduced into strapping bombs around themselves by these older and better-educated elitist leaders. The children are promised virgins in heaven, praise and money for their families here on Earth, and posters portraying them as rock stars. It is an irresistible combination for some, and the blame lies squarely at the feet of the elitists who exploit them, use them, and eventually kill them.

There is absolutely no evidence to support the claim of a direct relationship between occupation and suicide bombing. If anything, occupation makes it more difficult to launch successful terrorist attacks. This is not to argue for occupation; it is to separate the arguments regarding occupation from the claim that it is the fact of occupation, and the oppression it brings, that causes suicide bombing.

Indeed, were Israel to end its occupation of Gaza and most of the West Bank (as I have long believed it should), it is likely that terrorism would actually increase as terrorist commanders secure more freedom to plan and implement terrorist actions. The same might well be true in Iraq, were the United States to pick up and run.

The time has come to address the real root cause of suicide bombing: elitist incitement by certain religious and political leaders who are creating a culture of death and exploiting the ambiguous teachings of an important religion.

Abu Hamza - the cleric who tutored Richard Reid, the convicted shoe bomber - recently urged a large crowd to embrace death. Islamic young people are in love with death, claim some influential imams; but it is these leaders who are arranging the marriages between the children and the bomb belts.

Perhaps, now that suicide bombers have attacked Saudi Arabia, responsible Islamic leaders will better understand that it is their people who will be the ultimate victims of this tactically imposed culture of death.

The writer is a professor of law at Harvard. His latest book is The Case for Israel.

This article can also be read at [link] Copyright 1995-2004 The Jerusalem Post - [link]


[< Back] [Dare To Inquire]

Category:  

33 comments

30 May 2004 @ 00:49 by Jimm @209.179.198.149 : Didn't you just claim there was a
If there is a war, why quibble over the tactics? Didn't the US kill hundreds of thousands through incineration bomb raids in major cities of Germany and Japan in WWII? What has changed, since then, that now makes similar tactics on a smaller scale an "act of evil"?

You're not thinking rationally, my friend. As a defensive and irrational defender of Israel, though Israel is worthy of some defense, you rationalize and justify everything that Israel does, as an occupier, while condemning what the little Davey in this Goliath situation does, since they don't have equal arms, all arms shipments are cut off, and they have no chance to fight on an equal playing field.

The U.S. has revolutionized innocent civilian mass murder in WWII. The question you must answer is what has changed since then, other than the Geneva Conventions which we disparage and violate today ourselves when it fits our needs and interests?

Bruce's Comments: Gee, thanks for enlightening us as to the true villians of WWII. That nasty U.S. Goliath and its allies against the Japanese, German and Italian Davids, and their allies. Wow, does Noam Chomsky know?  

30 May 2004 @ 00:50 by Jimm @209.179.198.149 : surely George Bush has sacrificed nothin
Put many people in the line of fire, and danger, but the man himself is above such situations.  

30 May 2004 @ 01:27 by b : The claim is about a cult of death
Arab clerics who have created a cult of death among Arab young people that gloifies suicide and murder promising a reward in the afterlife which needs a meat body to fufill. There's no cult of death in America's youth is there Jimm? Just straight rock and roll, a little dope and give your girls to the hiphop guys, right?  

30 May 2004 @ 01:51 by Jimm @209.179.198.149 : you watch way too much TV
First, who's giving what girls to the hip hop guys? Is this a marriage? Who controls these women? Perhaps themselves? And there's plenty of other pop cultural trends that excite our little ladies out of their pannies that you don't seem to want to focus on. Just the "black" pop cultural phenomenon...

I'm not defending Arab clerics creating cults of death, just pointing out that one could just as easily view these creations as cadres of resistance. Either way, I don't agree with the either (traditional) side here, and neither would any free or rational thinker.

As far as glorifying suicide and murder, I would paint that in about as bad a light as "oovering up" and "downplaying" suicide and murder by our side.

You're a zealot...it reveals itself in the elementary and schoolhouse memes you focus on.

Bruce's Comments: Yes those Jewish, Christian and American hijackers and suicide bombers do have the whole world shaking in its boots, don't they.  

31 May 2004 @ 14:39 by bkodish : No Moral Equivalency
The Palestinian Authority (put in place by Israeli concessions during the Oslo Accords) follows a policy of terrorism (deliberate targeting of Jewish civilians) as a principle tactic of its war to create fear, force concessions, and destroy the Palestinian Jewish state of Israel.

The Israeli military pursues a policy of striking at the terrorist forces, i.e. military targets, and despite what some so-called 'progressives' believe goes out of its way to avoid civilian casualties. Difficult in urban warfare in densly populated areas where Palestinian Arab terrorists hide behind non-combatant human shields.

Jimm, stop your verbal runaround which lets you make excuses for Palestinian Arab terrorists who deliberately try to murder as many Israeli civilians as they can and sometimes succeed.  

1 Jun 2004 @ 12:02 by The devil @69.33.46.10 : The devil's advocate:
"Neither Jewish morality nor Jewish tradition can be used to disallow terror as a means of war... We are very far from any moral hesitations when concerned with the national struggle. First and foremost, terror is for us a part of the political war appropriate for the circumstances of today..." — Yitzhak Shamir (in an August 1943 article titled "Terror", written for Hazit the journal of Lehi, the terrorist organization he belonged to. He later became leader of the Likud and eventually Prime Minister of Israel. Yitzhak Shamir conspired with his colleagues in the Stern Gang to assassinate Count Folke Bernadotte, the UN mediator, in Jerusalem. Likud thus has the dubious distinction of counting among its leaders a man who assassinated a UN peace envoy. )  

1 Jun 2004 @ 12:09 by The Devil's Advocate @69.33.46.10 :
To quote Proverbs, "As a man thinketh, so is he…" And as a culture thinketh, so is it…  

1 Jun 2004 @ 12:12 by The Devil's Advocate @69.33.46.10 :
The unraveling of the Oslo accords began with the assassination of Rabin and the rise to power in May 1996 of a Likud Party government headed by Benjamin Netanyahu. Likud regarded the Oslo accords as incompatible with Israel's security and with the historic right of the Jewish people to the whole of the land of Israel. Netanyahu spent his three years in power in a largely successful attempt to derail the Oslo process and to demonize its principal Palestinian architect.

Israel has a remarkable record of accepting peace plans in theory and subverting them in practice. The latest victim of this dual strategy is the "road map" to peace initiated by the quartet - the United States, the United Nations, the European Union and Russia - on May 1. The Palestinian Authority embraced the road map and started implementing it even before it was issued. Sharon obtained from Bush three delays in issuing the road map and then submitted 14 amendments designed to wreck it.

The road that Sharon is pursuing is not the one charted in the road map. He is driving down another road on which the main signposts are expanded settlements, a security wall that bites deep into Palestinian territory on the West Bank, and targeted assassinations of Palestinian leaders. It is these actions, and in particular the attacks on Hamas leaders, that fuel the cycle of violence and make it impossible to pursue the road map to peace.  

1 Jun 2004 @ 13:39 by vibrani : Oh I see
I guess the cycle of violence would have absolutely NOTHING to do with bombings, and suicide murderous attacks against Israels for the past 15 years? More excuses, more b.s. for the real cause.  

1 Jun 2004 @ 14:07 by b : Fact: There is no Palestinian territory
Palestine exists on no map. Palestinians are stateless Arabs squatting in disputed territories waiting for their next handout. Arabs are from Arabia. When Arabs talk about Arab lands that is land that they migrated too, raided, pillaged and forced the population to accept their religion of Islam and they told the conqured populations to surrender to Islam or Die. Some choice! Lands like Egypt a thousands of years old civilization which was conqured by Arabs who now say they are the ancestors of ancient Egyptians whose ancient religion is underground, practiced in secret from Arab mullah/imman thought police. In Israel, the ruins of the only Temple to the One God are suppressed by Arab mosques on the site preventing the rebuilding of the JU's only Temple to God. Also Christians are suppressed by the Arabs holding their holy site. Arabs and Islam are the only religion in the 21st century that defile and desacrete churches, temples, graves, shrines of other religions. The Arab religion of Islam is also the only religion on the planet that glorifies suicide and murder on nonmuslims.  

1 Jun 2004 @ 14:24 by The Devil's Advocate @69.33.46.10 :
"I guess the cycle of violence would have absolutely NOTHING to do with bombings, and suicide murderous attacks against Israels for the past 15 years? More excuses, more b.s. for the real cause. "—enamrani, "Oh I see" ( 1 Jun 2004 @ 13:39)

LOL

A chicken and an egg are lying in bed. The chicken is smoking a cigarette with a satisfied smile on its face. The egg is frowning and looking very frustrated.

The egg mutters, to no one in particular, "Well, I guess we answered THAT question!"  

1 Jun 2004 @ 14:43 by The Devil's Advocate @69.33.46.10 :
Hmmm...enamrani, b, - who else? What's the matter Bruce? The cat got your tongue?

What about some good old {link:http://www.kcmetro.cc.mo.us/pennvalley/biology/lewis/crithink.htm|Critical Thinking}. Do you condone b's comment? Oh, I see ... lol ... b is not talking about ALL Arabs or ALL muslims - I guess it makes it all okay, then.  

1 Jun 2004 @ 16:32 by vibrani : Done plenty of
critical thinking and using my heart, as well. If interested, check out my log and web site. They pretty much say it all.  

1 Jun 2004 @ 17:29 by vibrani : More
How about some of your "facts" Devil...

Here are some key points of the Oslo Peace Treaty. Clear up some misconceptions for you?

ISRAEL-PLO RECOGNITION

1. LETTER FROM YASSER ARAFAT TO PRIME MINISTER RABIN: September 9, 1993 Yitzhak Rabin Prime Minister of Israel Mr. Prime Minister, The signing of the Declaration of Principles marks a new era in the history of the Middle East. In firm conviction thereof, I would like to confirm the following PLO commitments: The PLO recognizes the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security. The PLO accepts United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338. The PLO commits itself to the Middle East peace process, and to a peaceful resolution of the conflict between the two sides and declares that all outstanding issues relating to permanent status will be resolved through negotiations. The PLO considers that the signing of the Declaration of Principles constitutes a historic event, inaugurating a new epoch of peaceful coexistence, free from violence and all other acts which endanger peace and stability. Accordingly, the PLO renounces the use of terrorism and other acts of violence and will assume responsibility over all PLO elements and personnel in order to assure their compliance, prevent violations and discipline violators.

In view of the pormise of a new era and the signing of the Declaration of Principles and based on Palestinian acceptance of Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, the PLO affirms that those articles of the Palestinian Covenant which deny Israel's right to exist, and the provisions of the Covenant which are inconsistent with the commitments of this letter are now inoperative and no longer valid. Consequently, the PLO undertakes to submit to the Palestinian National Council for formal approval the necessary changes in regard to the Palestinian Covenant. Sincerely, Yasser Arafat Chairman The Palestine Liberation Organization.

2. LETTER FROM YASSER ARAFAT TO NORWEGIAN FOREIGN MINISTER: September 9, 1993 His Excellency Johan Jorgen Holst Foreign Minister of Norway Dear Minister Holst, I would like top confirm to you that, upon the signing of the Declaration of Principles, the PLO encourages and calls upon the Palestinian people in the West Bank and Gaza Strip to take part in the steps leading to the normalization of life, rejecting violence and terrorism, contributing to peace and stability and participating actively in shaping reconstruction, economic develoment and cooperation. Sincerely, Yasser Arafat Chairman The Palestine Liberation Organization.

3. LETTER FROM PRIME MINISTER RABIN TO YASSER ARAFAT: September 9, 1993 Yasser Arafat Chairman The Palestinian Liberation Organization Mr. Chairman, In response to your letter of September 9, 1993, I wish to confirm to you that, in light of the PLO commitments included in your letter, the Government nof Israel has decided to recognize the PLO as the representative of the Palestinian people and commence negotiations with the PLO within the Middle East peace process. Yitzhak Rabin Prime Minister of Israel.

THE ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN INTERIM AGREEMENT ON THE WEST BANK AND THE GAZA STRIP Washington, D.C. September 28, 1995.

ARTICLE XII Arrangements for Security and Public Order 1. In order to guarantee public order and internal security for the Palestinians of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, the Council shall establish a strong police force as set out in Article XIV below. Israel shall continue to carry the responsibility for defense against external threats, including the responsibility for protecting the Egyptian and Jordanian borders, and for defense against external threats from the sea and from the air, as well as the responsibility for overall security of Israelis and Settlements, for the purpose of safeguarding their internal security and public order, and will have all the powers to take the steps necessary to meet this responsibility.

ARTICLE XV Prevention of Hostile Acts 1. Both sides shall take all measures necessary in order to prevent acts of terrorism, crime and hostilities directed against each other, against individuals falling under the other's authority and against their property, and shall take legal measures against offenders.

**********************************************************************************************************
After Oslo was signed, and the Palestinians got Israeli land for themselves, the PLO began homicide bus bombings in Israel. That is how they kept their word for peace and dismantling terrorism. That's how they showed their gratitude. Since then, it's only gotten worse. The PLO never gave money to the Palestinian people, did not change their education or have fairly elected leaders. So why is the world continually condeming Israel - who is damned no matter what they do? Israel was created by the U.N. through guilt over the Holocaust. And now, the U.N. wants to remove their guilt by removing Israel. Israel should not apologize for its existence, nor be forced into extermination for and by liars and terrorists! Yes, by all means, do what should have been done before 1993 - get rid of Arafat. The madman stated today (Sept. 11, 2003) that the Israelis "can kill me by their bombs" but that he will "definitely not" leave. He still thinks he can dictate to Israel. Are there any Palestinians around that have a brain and a heart, and can keep their promises? Hello?  

1 Jun 2004 @ 17:49 by The Devil's Advocate @69.33.46.10 :
What's the matter E. N. Amrani? You don't like the quote I picked (you did invite me to check out your website, didn't you?)

For those who might be unfamiliar with the final solution Amrani is suggesting in the article which I quoted above ("If the Arab and Muslim world do not seriously take responsibility for stopping terrorism, and solve the Palestinian problem which they and a few U.S. presidents and the Israeli Left had a large hand in creating (and offer to take back the so-called Palestinians to the Arab countries that previously kicked them out), there can be no peace." ") it is also referred to as "transfer."

What is "population transfer?" The concept dates from 19th century Zionism, and refers to removal of the Palestinians from their land, in order to make room for (or enlarge) Israel. How does Israel propose to do this?

One way is to create conditions that motivate the population to leave. These include 24-hour curfews for months on end, seizure and destruction of farmland and crops, diversion of water resources, systemic road closures, house demolitions, and other methods of denying livelihood. Referring to the Palestinians as a "{link:http://www.masada2000.org/cancerwithin.html|cancer}" and to the repressive measures imposed in the occupied territories, Moshe Ya’alon, leader of Israel’s armed forces, recently stated, "There are all kinds of solutions to cancerous manifestations. Some will say it is necessary to amputate organs. But, at the moment, I am applying chemotherapy." [Ha'aretz, August 30, 2002] The implication, of course, is that "amputation" may be next.

Reduction of the Palestinian population through repression may be too slow, however. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has said for 54 years that the war of 1948 was "unfinished" because only three-fifths of the Palestinian population were driven from their land at the time.  

1 Jun 2004 @ 18:00 by vibrani : Why are you afraid
to show your real face and name? Hmmmm? I don't care what quote you used from my article, you didn't respect my copyright. Please remove the quote and here's a link instead {http://www.vibrani.com/Palestinians.htm}. Second reason for doing that is you're taking it out of context therefore people who have not read the complete article will not get the full reason why I wrote that. If you don't remove it, I ask Bruce to remove it for you.  

1 Jun 2004 @ 19:57 by b : Population Transfer - devil!
Devil, you say population transfer is a zionist thing. Like the population transfer of Israelis from Ancient Egypt back to Israel? Or after the defeat of Hamen, the population transfer back to Israel from Babylonia? Too far back? How about the population transfer of Burundi to Rewanda? How about the Saudis from Iraq to Arabia or the Hasamite from Arabia to TransJordan? Nonsense from a no profile attacker of a personal log at NCN. Show your face!  

1 Jun 2004 @ 20:01 by The Devil's Advocate @69.33.46.10 :
????????????????? a lot ado about nothing... lol

Suit your heart, enamrani, it looked like fair use to me and I DID provide a link to the original article so that people could read it in its entirety (I don't quote people out of context.) I don't know how to edit the comment myself, but if the quoted passage makes you uncomfortable and if it can set your heart at peace, I hereby give Bruce permission to edit my comment dated: 1 Jun 2004 @ 17:17 so as for it to read:

===================================================================
1 Jun 2004 @ 17:17 by The Devil's Advocate

"Done plenty of critical thinking and using my heart, as well. If interested, check out my log and web site. They pretty much say it all. " — enamrani (1 Jun 2004 @ 16:32)

LOL

Indeed they do (Truly enchanting...) :

{link:http://www.vibrani.com/Palestinians.htm|The Raw Truth about Arafat and the Palestinian: A Worldwide Threat} by E. N. Amrani

NB: This comment has been edited by Bruce Kodish at E. N. Aramni's request and with the Devil's Advocate permission so as to no longer display the two paragraphs from amrani's article that the author of the post had originally chosen to quote in his comment.

The editing has been agreed upon by the author of the post out of consideration for E. N. Amrani's stated concern that the quoted passage could possibly be read out of context and its true intent misunderstood by the uninformed reader.
==================================================================    

1 Jun 2004 @ 20:25 by The Devil's Advocate @69.33.46.10 :
I apologize, b, indeed, my comment could be construed to imply that the concept of "Population Transfer" was a "Zionist thing." It is not a copyrighted Zionist invention of course. What I meant to say is the concept of "removal of the Palestinians from their land, in order to make room for (or enlarge) Israel dates from 19th century Zionism."

Here is a better definition of the word "Transfer" from {link:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_transfer|wikipedia.org}:

"Population transfer is a term referring to a policy by which a state undertakes the forced removal of a large group of people from a region, invariably on the basis of ethnicity or religion. No other basis has been attested in any historical population transfer. "Transfer" generally refers to the removal of the people to another region, which may not be adjacent or even suited to their way of life, and being forced, causes substantial harm to the people.

When two populations are transferred in opposite directions at about the same time, the process has been called a population exchange. Such a rare exchange took place as late as the early 20th century, as part of agreements between post-Ottoman Turkey and Greece.

According to political scientist Norman Finkelstein "transfer" was considered as an almost humanist solution to the problems of ethnic conflict, up until around WWII and even a little afterward, in certain cases. Transfer was considered a drastic but 'often necessary' means to end an ethnic conflict or ethnic civil war.

Population transfer differs more than simply technically from individually-motivated migration, though at times of war, the act of fleeing from danger or famine often blurs the differences. If a state can preserve the fiction that migrations are the result of innumerable "personal" decisions, then the state may be able to justify its stand that it has not been culpably involved. Jews who had actually signed over properties in Germany and Austria during Nazism found it nearly impossible to be reimbursed after World War II.

Given the logistics of a forced "transfer," it is widely thought of as a euphemism for ethnic cleansing, which in turn, carries the connotations of violence and genocide. In its most idealistic connotation, "transfer" is the mildest form of ethnic cleansing —a peaceful relocation of a compliant people from one area to another. Nationalist agitation and its supportive propaganda are typical political tools by which public support is cultivated in favor of population transfer as a solution to conflict."  

1 Jun 2004 @ 20:42 by vibrani : Twisting the facts
the ethnic cleansing is done against the Jews - it is part of the Palestinian Charter as their goal. And of course you are assuming there are anything in history called Palestinians, and there never were. The name "Palestinian" wasn't even used until the 1960s. They are Arabs who lived in many locations and many were nomads. They never lived there consistently as the Jews have. The Arabs were not removed from their lands. Those Arabs who lived in Israel in the 19th century sold their land to Jews willingly and at inflated prices. Nothing was stolen and if you read anything on that page of mine it was to show you that the Arabs were welcomed to co-live in Israel with the Jews and not to leave. Those who left did it OUT OF CHOICE, with the intention to return to wipe out all the Jews who lived in the land the Arabs turned didn't want. By the way, you need to look up the definition of fair use.  

1 Jun 2004 @ 20:54 by The Devil's Advocate @69.33.46.10 :
I am not saying that you are deliberately twisting the facts, enamrani, but your prejudices show, you know, and your reaction, and b's reactions, when faced with the slightest opposition to your version of things is telling, and so is the way you gang up on anyone who dares to disagree with you.  

1 Jun 2004 @ 21:53 by vibrani : I think that would be
a great self-description for you, devil, as you seem to enjoy projecting and judging and manipulating. As far as I can see you are a coward, afraid to expose who you really are, and your agenda is to criticize any who are objective, supply facts not just feelings, and yet support Israel. You have your opinions, and I have mine. I see you didn't bother to comment to my log entry on Egypt - that shows me your biases and blindness. But please don't bother as of now I am not allowing comments from those who come in from the outside and are too afraid to use their real names.  

2 Jun 2004 @ 11:49 by bkodish : Get Thee Behind Me, Devil!
I removed the quote that enamrani requested I remove.

It would take an encyclopedean effort to pick through the levels of misrepresentataion in The Devil's Advocate 's arguments which echo Arab propagandists and their mostly far-left apologists.

It seems to me that enamrani has done a good job with the main points.

The Palestinian Authority has kept virtually none of the promises it made in the Oslo Accords. It never changed its charter which calls for the destruction of Israel and continues incitement of the grossest antisemitism in its state-run schools, mosques and media. It has encouraged the destruction of ancient Jewish religious sites in Judea and Samaria. It has supported a terror campaign targeting Israeli civilians. These are all facts that anyone can check for themselves--if they care to read other than Arab, left-wing, and antisemitic propaganda sources.


Yasir Arafat said that he did not want to go down in history as the one who made peace with Israel and he has overwhelmingly succeeded in this goal while destroying the hopes of his people for a decent life anytime soon.  

2 Jun 2004 @ 12:39 by vibrani : Thank you, Bruce
for removing what I requested.  

2 Jun 2004 @ 15:37 by The Devi's Advocate @69.33.46.10 :
"Get Thee Behind Me, Devil!
I removed the quote that enamrani requested I remove."
—bkodish (2 Jun 2004 @ 11:49)

...lol... what, are you walking on water now? ...lol...

Actually what you did, Bruce, is remove the entire comment altogether rather than just simply edit it to remove the quote as I had agreed to and as would have been fair of you, but that's okay with me...lol...your Blog, your rules.

At this point the thread seems to have degenerated into ad hominem arguments. (I bear my share of reponsibility for it...lol...I caught enamrani with her little rhetorical pants down and she got pissed at me—It was immature of me, cornering people in such a way has never made for a good debate and I normally know better than that. What can I say? The devil made me do it...lol...) I think you will agree with me that harsh words and name calling are not a very constructive way to handle a debate, but as I said...lol...your blog, your rules. And if it makes you more comfortable to pretend to be above the fray while b and enamrani do the dirty job and try and provoke and drag into the mud whomever happens to be posting on your Blog, that's okay too...lol...

I am sure that you know, as I do, that speaking last doesn't make one right, nor does repeating one's viewpoint over and over as a mantra. Simply dismissing differing viewpoints as "Arab, left-wing and antisemitic propaganda" is not particularly helpful either, nor is cherry-picking one-sidedly whatever argument one happens to find useful in reinforcing one’s own prejudices (as we've learned from the Bush administration—are we learning yet?) or viciously attack anyone who disagree with you.

You’ve become so obsessed in your self-appointed campaign against "Arab propaganda and left wing propaganda" that you’ve become yourself almost as bad as the propagandists you think you are fighting. Considering your background in General Semantics, I find it hard to believe that you do not know what you are doing. Have you become a propagandist now, Bruce?

I think that you'll agree with me that the Israel/Palestinian conflict is far more complex than b, enamrani, bkodish, or the Devil's Advocate, or any propagandist either for the right or for the left, Palestinian or Israeli, would like to make it seem. And you are right, there is plenty of literature around from either side (some of it, fortunately, far more balanced than anything I have been reading on your Blog) and people have and will keep making up their own mind (as they should) no matter what either you or I can say about it. What is happening in Israel/Palestine is not a game. There have been many horrors committed by either side and a lot of duplicity too, and pointing out one side’s failings while denying that any such failings, or ill will and wrongdoing, exist in the other side is not only revealingly biased and one sided, but irresponsible. I am not your enemy, Bruce, nor am I enamrani or b’s enemy (despite their belief to the contrary) and if my playing the part of the devil’s advocate on this thread makes you feel like I am, well, then that’s too bad. There are many people out there working for peace and trying to make the world a better place against overwhelming odds, I can only regret that a man of your obvious education has not chosen to turn his intellect in support of such a worthy cause instead of deriding such efforts.  

2 Jun 2004 @ 15:48 by vibrani : NO
you have a mighty big ego to think what you do, Devil. You didn't catch me with my pants down. My article has been up on the internet on my web site for years, so don't give yourself credit for that. I didn't like your disrespect for taking part of it and posting it here without my permission, as I stated earlier. As for the dirty work, not my department - here's a broom, sweep up your mess.  

2 Jun 2004 @ 15:51 by b : Gobbligook devil -
Let's make the complex ME you discribe simple instead of propaganda. Fact: JU's have been in Israel for plus 5700 years. Fact: they have a history and moreover they have been writing it for thousands and thousands of years. That Judaism history is not accepted by Arabs who defile other religions churches, temples, graves, shrines and lie about it or by Christians where that history conflicts with Christian suppression of Judaism.
It is good to see that you admit to coming on to Bruce's personal log at NCN and attacking him. We have a room for this at NCN it is called Mediation Room but you better have a profile showing if you start this shit there.  

2 Jun 2004 @ 16:06 by The Devil's Advocate @69.33.46.10 :
??????????????????????

Sorry, no comprendo b-speak (Maybe you, b, should try the Meditation Room and calm down a bit...lo...Is there a meditation room around here?)

Seriously, b, I think the thread on Bruce's Blog is actually quite good (to Bruce's credit) in the measure that it allowed for an interesting display of viewpoints on the Isareli/Palestinian conflict (not much actual dialogue, though, but this is usually typical when the Far and Middle-East come up in a debate. There are people out there who are trying to change that.  

3 Jun 2004 @ 00:49 by b : debate is good but not with the devil
We just want to be able to see you as you can see us in profile. We are members of NCN and you???  

3 Jun 2004 @ 12:55 by The Devil's Advocate @69.33.46.10 :

"Dialogue", b, not "debate." Not all debates are dialogue. Dialogue is shared exploration towards greater understanding, connection, or possibility. Here are some {link:http://www.co-intelligence.org/P-dialogue.html|guidelines} from the Co-Intelligence Institute for dialogue in its most basic form.

I understand you are proud to be a NCN member, b, and this is good. I have no beef with NCN and I have no beef with you. As a matter of fact, there is very little I know about you. I know that you are “b”, and that’s enough for me. I am not “attacking” people based on what personal information happens to be publicly available about who they are, or what face they have chosen to show the world or not, BUT I do respond to information they chose to make available about themselves when (and only if) they make it clear that they consider this information relevant to the debate (e.g. enamrani invited me to read her website, she thought it was relevant to the debate, and so I did. Bruce Kodish has brought up his background in General Semantics repeatedly on his Blog in several related threads and related topics and so I brought it up.) See? I am not on a witch-hunt or any such thing. Are you?

Call me devil if you want to but it will be "Mr. Devil Advocate," to you, if you don’t mind…lol… (only kidding, “devil” suits me just fine.) I posted on this Blog just because I thought it was okay (it’s called "Dare to Inquire," right?) and I thought it would be interesting to see how people react to the presentation of divergent viewpoints to what appeared, to me, as a systematic demonization of the "so-called" Palestinians, the Arabs, Islam, and the political left (both here and in Israel) by Mr. Bruce Kodish (but not "all" Arabs, Islamists, "so called" Palestinians and Looney lefties, thanks goodness…lol…), hence the handle, "The Devil’s Advocate." The reactions where interesting, to say the least, but I award 50 point to Slithering…lol…for being tolerant of other viewpoints. Well, er, okay, may be "tolerant" is not exactly the right word here…lol…what I mean to say is that I am happy to see that there is no censorship on this Blog (except, maybe, for the summary deletion of the comment which offended enamrani, but that’s no biggy.)

I understand it must feel safer for you to debate only with people you know in a surrounding like NCN which feels familiar to you, but really, b, I think you ought to go out more often and start seeing other people, form time to time and start debating (or, who knows, even “dialoguing” perhaps) with people who have a good grasp on the issues (if this is what you want, of course.)

I can recommend a few good forums to you. Here is {link:http://www.salam-shalom.net|one} that is easy enough. Or if you like something more adversarial (which seems to be the style that you favor), you can also try to talk some sense to the people on this {link:http://www.middleeastinfo.org/about.php|other one} (don't worry, I don't agree with all of them either.)

Here is also a {link:http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/israel/large/israel.htm|link} to the Truman Presidential Museum and Library, which has some very well made pages and interesting {link:http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/israel/large/documents/index.php?documentdate=1945-06-16&documentid=63&collectionid=ROI&pagenumber=1|records} (for the history buffs) on The Recognition of the State of Israel. (You never know when it might come handy or when you’ll need to peremptorily slam one of your "Facts" card on the table…lol…)

Enjoy, ...and, who knows, maybe we’ll run into each other again somewhere out there on the World Wide Web, okay?  

3 Jun 2004 @ 12:57 by koravya : Question
By a person's words, so shall he or she be known,
sounds like a familiar standard.
By what parameters or markers shall the participants in this exchange between semantic configurations be known?
Will a snapshot suffice? Or listing the place of residence?
Perhaps the means of earning one's income? Political party affiliation?
Gender and/or sexual orientation? Religious affiliation?
Level of recognized academic achievement?
Are the participants in this discussion qualified to speak,
and be heard, and let their words stand for themselves, on their own,
subject to the critical scrutiny of rational discourse?
Or are the lines that are written less valid for their severence
from identifiable identity markers such as the information provided on our driver's licenses and identity cards?
Perhaps if the name was Bambi, there would be a difference in the progression of the exchjange.
I can understand the significance of a difference in cultural origin,
especially regarding the language barriers, but as near as I can tell, the participants here are functionally equivilent in standard American English as a first language.
As an interested third party observer of the continuing dialogue on this Issue,
I personally follow the language, and leave the identities of the various writers to their own devices. I am looking for insight and knowledge, and if Bambi's got the word, I'm the listener.  

4 Jun 2004 @ 02:42 by b : OK with me Koravya
Then you talk to it. I only suggest another venue.  

18 Mar 2009 @ 05:06 by DR Francis Essilfie @117.200.19.221 : as
Looking for online professional and university level programs that are convenient yet affordable and of the highest quality  

Your Name:
Your URL: (or email)
Subject:       
Comment:
For verification, please type the word you see on the left:

Other entries in
24 Jan 2009 @ 00:36: History's Tragic Farce
22 Jan 2009 @ 19:56: Sowell On Our New President
20 Jan 2009 @ 02:53: The Bush Legacy
4 Jan 2009 @ 19:56: Israel' Response Is Disproportionate!
13 Nov 2008 @ 04:09: I'm Goin' To New York...
10 Nov 2008 @ 17:33: "A letter to the president-elect from a Middle East realist" by Barry Rubin
31 Oct 2008 @ 18:02: Running against Bush by Caroline B. Glick
8 Oct 2008 @ 19:18: Yom Kippur Greetings
6 Oct 2008 @ 22:10: One Reason That I'm Voting For McCain
7 May 2008 @ 22:51: Happy Birthday, Israel!


[< Back] [Dare To Inquire] [PermaLink]?  [TrackBack]?