Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

6636Re: [existlist] Re: A Real Life Application? The Media's Role

Expand Messages
  • John Taft
    Apr 6, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      James,

      Well written, I can't find one iota of contention about your thoughts on
      your perception of the relation of the Palestinians and the Israeli's.

      This is the 70% that makes up American thought, which though has
      preconceived ideas about what an Israeli is and same for a Palestinian, yet
      basis their perception on the actual situation that is in play. Suicide
      bombers are terrorists to the receiving party, even they may be political or
      religious heroes to the sending party, this is all that matters.

      I can't help feel that the moderate Palestinians are going along with what
      is happening in the hopes of getting a windfall gain at no expense of their
      own, hopefully not though, and I hope they are just the silent majority that
      only wants fair play.

      John
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "james tan" <tyjfk@...>
      Sent: Saturday, April 06, 2002 8:51 PM
      Subject: [existlist] Re: A Real Life Application? The Media's Role


      > From: "Christopher Bobo" <cbobo@...>
      > Reply-To: WisdomForum@yahoogroups.com
      > To: "Wisdom Forum" <WisdomForum@yahoogroups.com>
      > Subject: Re: [WisdomForum] Re: A Real Life Application? The Media's Role
      > Date: Sat, 6 Apr 2002 14:23:39 -0800
      >
      > Tommy wrote:
      > >>The point is though that they do not. What I am calling your
      > attention to is not the question of whether it is right or wrong to
      > kill other people but the scale of the action that is being employed
      > by the Palestinions. Perhaps if they had nuclear weapons they would
      > nuke Israel in a grand, final gesture of hopelessness. But the point
      > is, they do not. They don't even have any tanks!<<
      >
      > In don't think that the scale of the Israeli actions are disproportionate
      to
      > the threat. The Israeli's have not wantonly been killing women, children
      or
      > the unarmed. They have engaged in battle with men firing at them with
      > AK-47s. The Palestinians should not start a fight with a superior force
      and
      > then claim the fight is unfair. Just look at the Taliban and Al Qaeda.
      > They found themselves in a similar situation. I'm curious to know if that
      > is an especial feature of Arab or Islamic culture. I'm really growing
      > increasingly curious about the value system such acts express. And I
      think
      > it's a good thing that the Palestinians don't have nuclear weapons, since
      > they seem to be prone two what I might regard as irrational acts. I'm not
      > as concerned about the Israeli's, however, employing the nuclear weapons
      > that they do have against the Palestinians, because as far as I can see,
      the
      > Israelis appear to be behaving rationally.
      >
      > The U.S. certainly does not refrain from using B-52, B-1s, Tommahawk
      Cruise
      > Missles, AC-130 gunships, daisy cutter bombs, bunker buster bombs and
      > thermobaric bombs against those who do not have them. What rationale
      would
      > the Israelis have to leave their tanks and armored personnel carriers at
      > home when they go off to fight. And Tommy, that you could even complain
      > about this point makes me wonder about your views, when the entire object
      of
      > warfare since the practically the dawn of time has been to have better and
      > more sophisticated weapons than your opponent and to use them to you
      > advantage to defeat your enemy. Surely you remember the passage from the
      > stone age to the metal age, and the passage from bronze weapons to iron,
      > from calvary to armored tanks. Why should the Israelis commit suicide to
      > satisfy your idea of fairness in a fight.
      >
      > And I think all this talk about Palestinian "hopelessness" is pure
      > propaganda and non-sense. You should examine it more carefully. Take,
      for
      > instance, the 18 year old girl who decided one day to become a suicide
      > bomber. She was engaged to be married and was planning to go to college.
      > In what way was she hopeless? I don't think hopeless people have video
      > cameras and TV sets for the purpose of making and showing suicide bomber
      > last wills and testaments. American TV interviewed one of the families of
      > one of the early suicide bombers and he seemed to come from a nice home,
      he
      > was educated, he had nice clothes, his family was well fed, oddly enough
      he
      > had a think for Disney knick knacks and had a lot of Mickey Mouse statues,
      > posters and memorabilia in his room. In what sense was he hopeless. In
      my
      > book, truly hopeless people are starving, homeless, lack basic comforts,
      > wear tattered clothes, etc. None of these indicia of hopelessness apply
      to
      > the Palestinians that I have seem. Rather, I suspect there is something
      > going on behind this unsupported rhetoric of hopelessness. People are
      just
      > making choices about how to achieve their aims. That 18 year old girl was
      > offered a choice--get married and got to college or go straight to heaven
      as
      > a suicide bomber. She choose to go straight to heaven. The choice was
      > hers. To lay the blame on others for that choice is simply bad faith.
      >
      > Tommy said:
      > >>A country can only take responsibility for its actions if it has a
      > border and an army capable of defending it. Palestine has neither of
      > these things but its people are discriminated against on account of
      > their race and culture and confined into refugee camps which have
      > become their permanent homes.<<
      >
      > But the Paletinians do not yet constitute a country, and I think you are
      > wrong about this. The Palestinians Authority, I believe, has a security
      > force of some 30,000. What have they done with it. Absolutely nothing to
      > secure peaceful co-existence with its neighbor, Israel.
      >
      > I have been reading Kant's Perpetual Peace lately and come across these
      > worlds "We ordinarily assume that no one may act inimically toward another
      > except when he has been actively injured by the other. This is quite
      > correct if both are under civil law, for, by entering into such a state ,
      > they afford each other the requisite security through the sovereign which
      hs
      > power over both. Man (or the people) in the state of nature deprives me
      of
      > this security and injures me, if he is near me, by this mere status of
      his,
      > even though he does not injure me actively; he does so by the lawlessness
      of
      > his condition which constantly threatens me. Therefore, I can compel him
      > either to enter with me in a state of civil law or to remove himself from
      my
      > neighborhood....All mem who can reciprocally influence each other must
      stand
      > under some civil constitution." And here the Israelis are with respect
      to
      > the radical Palestinians--either they we place themselves under a civil
      law
      > with the Israelis, or the Israelis will be compelled to attempt to remove
      > them from the neighborhood.
      >
      > Tommy wrote:
      > >>The situation is directly analogous to that of South Africa ten years
      > ago. There is almost universal agreement after the successful
      > election of the ANC to power that what Mandela and his black
      > compatriots did was just and right. But look at the right wing press
      > prior to the fall of apartheid and you will find all sorts of
      > justifications for its continuation, mainly based around the general
      > premise (however well disguised) of "you can't trust the blacks". The
      > violence that was taking place in the townships, both black-on-white
      > and black-on-black, was cited as one of the reasons that the blacks
      > weren't to be trusted. This is exactly the argument Israel is using
      > to justify its continued racist oppression of a subjugated people.<<
      >
      > But Tommy, the situation is nothing like that in South Africa. The ANC
      was
      > negotiating with the white majority government peacefully. The ANC was not
      > fire-bombing restaurants or killing civilians, as far as I recall. Even
      the
      > blacks in the white townships were fighting the South African security
      > forces, I don't recall them bursting into wedding and banquets and killing
      > every white person they could find, although there were no doubt instances
      > of lawless murder motivated by racial hatred. The two situations are
      > incomparable. No one is saying you can't trust the Palestinians. Even
      the
      > right wing is saying there are Palestinians who want peace and who they
      can
      > negotiate with, but it may be highly likely that Yasser Arafat is not that
      > person. Arafat is no Mandela. I think he's amply proved that. Mandela
      > rejected even his own lifelong mate and wife when it became apparent that
      > she was involved in a political murder, whereas Arafat is the sponsor of
      > murderers.
      >
      > If he were a leader the stature of Mandela, I believe this conflict would
      > never have reached the level of violence and wanton destruction that it
      has,
      > and what's more, it would have resulted in a final peace by now. Arafat
      has
      > done absolutely nothing effectieve to indicate a willing to make peace
      with
      > the Israelis or to stop suicide bombing. At best, he plays lip service to
      > peace when he speaks English for the Western press, but when he speaks
      > Arabic to his supporters he's ordering them to Jihad, Jihad, and more
      Jihad
      > and acquiring weapons and bombs from Iran.
      >
      > Tommy wrote:
      > >>Back to communicationalism: we must trust the Other (currently being
      > defined, generally, as "Arab", "terrorist", "Al-Quaeda" etc.) not to
      > nuke us or otherwise make our citizens dead and our countries
      > uninhabitable. This trust will not be achieved by preventing the
      > Other from developing "weapons of mass destruction", such as those
      > possessed in the large part by the US and Israel, but by ensuring
      > that the Other has as much of a stake in the overall health and
      > wealth of the world as we do. This quite patently not presently the
      > case. We will only begin to understand all the reasons why the Other
      > doesn't feel as if s/he has as much of a stake in the overall health
      > of the world as we do once we start taking on board the factors that
      > go into the decision of someone to strap explosives to his or her
      > body to attack an oppressive enemy.<<
      >
      > The great statesman Henry Clay once said "Cultivate calmness of mind but
      > prepare for the worst." Ronald Reagan prudently observed that we should
      > "Trust but verifiy." The stakes are too high to be naively optimistic, or
      > to allow ourselves to be misguided by idealism. I agree that the other
      > should have as much at stake in the world as do we. What's more, I think
      > that they do have as much at stake in the world as we do but that they
      > motivations and reasons for action are very different from what you
      suppose,
      > Tommy. You know, Osama bin Laden did not seek to wage war against the
      U.S.
      > because he was poor, or that Arabs were poor or suffering, but because
      U.S.
      > troops are in what he regards as the sacred land. Bin Laden and his Sheik
      > friends are multimillionaires. They have more money than you and your
      > neighbors can even dream of. They are not poor and desperate. And
      neither
      > are the terrorists. Many of them were educated, had jobs, family and
      money.
      > They are engineers and computer programmers. They are motivated by
      > hopelessness or desperation and you should stop deluding yourself that
      they
      > are. You've been listening to their rhetoric far too long and not
      observing
      > the facts. They have thousands of dollars to spend on bombs, millions on
      > weapons, and plenty of cash to feed and equip armies of terrorists.
      >
      >
      > Tommy asked:
      > >>Dropping communicationalism for the moment and thinking instead about
      > pragmatic solutions to the problem of the Middle East, why don't you
      > create a homeland for the Jewish People in America and let the
      > Palestinians have Palestine? It would be cheaper in the long run and
      > there is really quite a lot of land in the US, a lot of it better
      > than what you will find in Palestine. And you folks do seem to get
      > along remarkably well with one another. Just think of the economic
      > benefits of having all those clever people under the one roof so to
      > speak. Sharon could be given a ranch in Idaho. We in Europe will
      > agree on our part to change our immigration laws to permit more Arabs
      > to settle here (there already are quite a few, especially in France).<<
      >
      > Palestinian Muslims as well as Muslims from all of the world are free to
      > immigrate to America and have been welcomed here, as have been Jews from
      all
      > over Europe. They have all been guarantee the equal protection of the
      laws
      > and life free from discrimination and persecution because of their race,
      > creed or national origin. There are about 3 million Arab Americans here
      and
      > 8 million Jewish Americans. And that is more Arabs than are in the West
      > Bank and more Jews than are in the entire state of Israel. They all
      already
      > have a homeland here. The only thing asked of them--in addition to paying
      > taxes, of course--is that that respect the creed that this is one nation
      > under God with liberty and justice for all, or in other words they pledge
      > allegiance to the constitution of the United States, which requires a
      > separation of church and state. Because this is one nation, there cannot
      be
      > other nations within it--except for Native American Tribes, which are
      > themselves sovereign nations which pre-existed the U.S. We know from our
      > history, in particular the Civil War, that we cannot have separate nations
      > in the U.S. and that once a state enters the Union, it cannot leave. I'm
      > sure we'd take in the rest suffeing in Israel today, as this country is
      > already home to over 24 million people who were not born here, but were,
      of
      > course, welcomed. To be sure, they'd have to agree to live in peace and
      > obey the laws of the land, but that's not a very burdensome requirement
      > after all.
      >
      > And I'm serious, as usual.
      >
      > Chris
      >
      > ----- Original Message -----
      > From: Tommy Beavitt
      > Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2002 3:37 PM
      > To: WisdomForum@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: Re: [WisdomForum] Re: A Real Life Application? The Media's Role
      >
      > At 9:47 am -0800 4/4/02, Christopher Bobo wrote:
      > >Tommy observed:
      > > >>I don't think we can reasonably complain that people who have lived
      > >for more than a generation in a refugee camp take exception to their
      > >plight, strap explosives to their bodies and obliterate a handful of
      > >those who must directly be considered their oppressors.<<
      > >
      > >I do and I think we must so complain. The world is populated with
      > >people who believe they have gotten a raw deal from one party or
      > >another. If all the aggrieved peoples of the world were to start
      > >strapping explosives to their bodies and obliterating those who they
      > >considered their oppressors, there would be mountains of dead people
      > >all over the world and no end to the carnage. Which is why such
      > >conduct is clearly beyond the pale of any notion of civilization and
      > >is so unprecedented. Perhaps all Europeans in Africa would be piled
      > >together and slaughtered. Perhaps all Chinese in Tibet or Singapore
      > >would be next. All Koreans in Japan might feel inclined to start
      > >killing Japanese. Native Americans would start killing everyone is
      > >sight who wasn't a native American. Under your philosophy, we might
      > >as well just nuke the planet and be done with it now.
      >
      > The point is though that they do not. What I am calling your
      > attention to is not the question of whether it is right or wrong to
      > kill other people but the scale of the action that is being employed
      > by the Palestinions. Perhaps if they had nuclear weapons they would
      > nuke Israel in a grand, final gesture of hopelessness. But the point
      > is, they do not. They don't even have any tanks!
      >
      > A country can only take responsibility for its actions if it has a
      > border and an army capable of defending it. Palestine has neither of
      > these things but its people are discriminated against on account of
      > their race and culture and confined into refugee camps which have
      > become their permanent homes.
      >
      > It is only Israel that can be considered capable of acting
      > responsibly to change this situation because only it has both borders
      > and an army.
      >
      > The situation is directly analogous to that of South Africa ten years
      > ago. There is almost universal agreement after the successful
      > election of the ANC to power that what Mandela and his black
      > compatriots did was just and right. But look at the right wing press
      > prior to the fall of apartheid and you will find all sorts of
      > justifications for its continuation, mainly based around the general
      > premise (however well disguised) of "you can't trust the blacks". The
      > violence that was taking place in the townships, both black-on-white
      > and black-on-black, was cited as one of the reasons that the blacks
      > weren't to be trusted. This is exactly the argument Israel is using
      > to justify its continued racist oppression of a subjugated people.
      >
      > Dropping communicationalism for the moment and thinking instead about
      > pragmatic solutions to the problem of the Middle East, why don't you
      > create a homeland for the Jewish People in America and let the
      > Palestinians have Palestine? It would be cheaper in the long run and
      > there is really quite a lot of land in the US, a lot of it better
      > than what you will find in Palestine. And you folks do seem to get
      > along remarkably well with one another. Just think of the economic
      > benefits of having all those clever people under the one roof so to
      > speak. Sharon could be given a ranch in Idaho. We in Europe will
      > agree on our part to change our immigration laws to permit more Arabs
      > to settle here (there already are quite a few, especially in France).
      >
      > Only joking. Kind of.
      >
      > Tommy
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > _________________________________________________________________
      > Join the world's largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
      > http://www.hotmail.com
      >
      >
      >
      > Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
      > (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)
      >
      > TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send an email to:
      > existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      >
      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      >
      >
    • Show all 16 messages in this topic