Arabs need to try nonviolence [Archive]

View Full Version : Arabs need to try nonviolence

Kuchana

01-26-2004, 06:07 PM

Arabs need to try nonviolence
By Stanley Crouch
NY Daily News

I have been thinking, yet again, about the Middle East since that Palestinian mother of two kids decided the time had come to blow herself up and take some Israelis with her.
This kind of violence has been gathering steam over the last year. Terrorism is no longer the business of only male Muslims. Now female terrorists also believe they can fly into the arms of Allah in bits and pieces. I wonder what the female equivalent of the 70 virgins supposedly awarded the male terrorist in heaven amounts to.

It seems to me that if the most extreme Palestinians were not so infected with their conventional attitude toward struggle - kill, kill and kill again - they might have considered the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s tactic: aggressive nonviolence.

Had they ever done that, there would have been a Palestinian homeland long ago. Israel would have had to make a deal with people who refused to spill blood but were quite willing to go to jail in large numbers - men, women and children - until they got their day at the negotiating table.

Men such as Ariel Sharon would not have become important in Israeli politics, because strongmen mean essentially nothing in the world of nonviolence. They can't make threats about using hit squads to kill terrorists, because the only weapons being used are nonviolent disruptions in the streets, the stores, the workplaces. Their tanks would mean nothing unless they were willing to give orders to run over the people seated on the road blocking them. Rubber bullets used on nonviolent people wouldn't play too well on television.

Due to a long and deep moral tradition, the Israeli people would begin to crumble and start to identify - with the women and children first, then the men. Eventually, the Israeli troops would refuse even to tear gas the nonviolent demonstrators. That is the nature of civilized societies - even those born and bred in a climate of hostility.

Though such an approach would have worked - and still would work - it has never seemed attractive to the Palestinian extremists. That's partly because it is unusual. And partly because, like Malcolm X and all the other fat mouths of King's lifetime, they've been influenced by the self-righteous fantasy violence that has been a staple of American entertainment, especially in the costume dramas, Westerns and gangster films that Hollywood has produced in great abundance for more than 60 years.

Nonviolence is the tactic of cowards, the anti-King contingent would say. A real man would stand up to the enemy with his gun in his hand - ready to die, if necessary.

Well, King won. That is something the Palestinians should consider. The human will of the people can always be stronger than the madness of the fools.

Originally published on January 26, 2004

TB4000

01-26-2004, 06:09 PM

Very interesting article. I agree to an extent, but replace the word "Arab" with "every race on the planet" and you might have something there.

Kuchana

01-26-2004, 06:11 PM

Very interesting article. I agree to an extent, but replace the word "Arab" with "every race on the planet" and you might have something there.

Of course:) I got this from the NY Daily News.

nonamerasian

01-26-2004, 06:11 PM

Can we say: "One-sided."

Kuchana

01-26-2004, 06:15 PM

Can we say: "One-sided."

Yeah that's what I thought, too but I thought it would be interesting to post this article since it's from the NY Daily News.

Mo'Taka

01-26-2004, 06:16 PM

malcolm x never really advocated violence. This guy is very naive in his thinking. It's the type of paper you can just paste over 'arab' with 'jew' or 'christians'. This paper gets a THUMBS DOWN.

TB4000

01-26-2004, 06:18 PM

He's got a lot of balls to even mention MLK in the same breath as terrorists. It's like apples and oranges. I've seen him on before on CNN and the Fox News Channel*shudder*. He's even been on BET a couple of times, and I seriously don't think it's in his best interest to toss Dr. King's name around like that.

Kuchana

01-26-2004, 06:18 PM

malcolm x never really advocated violence. This guy is very naive in his thinking. It's the type of paper you can just paste over 'arab' with 'jew' or 'christians'. This paper gets a THUMBS DOWN.

True :smile: I'm not familiar with Stanley Crouch's writing. Here's his info:

Stanley Crouch is a columnist, novelist, essayist, critic and television commentator. He has served since 1987 as an artistic consultant at Lincoln Center and is a co-founder of the department known as Jazz at Lincoln Center. In 1993, he received both the Jean Stein Award from the American Academy of Arts and Letters and a MacArthur Foundation grant. He is now working on a biography of Charlie Parker.

Mo'Taka

01-26-2004, 06:26 PM

True :smile: I'm not familiar with Stanley Crouch's writing. Here's his info:

Hmm, so that's his credentials? Well bravo to the man who apparantly knows how to solve the middle east crisis. *clap*.......*clap*....

The article he wrote is not very insightful and terribly generic. I wonder if he plagerized it? I'm gonna steal it and paste "North Koreans," or "Iraqis" over "arabs" and send it to my local paper. :biggrin:

Kuchana

01-26-2004, 06:35 PM

Hmm, so that's his credentials? Well bravo to the man who apparantly knows how to solve the middle east crisis. *clap*.......*clap*....

The article he wrote is not very insightful and terribly generic. I wonder if he plagerized it? I'm gonna steal it and paste "North Koreans," or "Iraqis" over "arabs" and send it to my local paper. :biggrin:

haha! do that and see what reaction you'll get :biggrin:
who is charlie parker by the way?

TB4000

01-26-2004, 09:04 PM

haha! do that and see what reaction you'll get :biggrin:
who is charlie parker by the way?
Charlie "Bird" Parker - revolutionary jazz musician from WAY back :wink:

AliBabaIncorporated

01-26-2004, 11:25 PM

Yeahman

01-27-2004, 05:12 AM

Geez all you people are so anal. Anybody care to talk about the ideas presented in the article instead of critisizing it as if it was a term paper?

I've had the idea of Palestinian non-violence a few months ago. It probably would work but it'll never be tried. My idea was to round up all the people who wanted to be martyrs and just march them into the settlements singing "We Shall Overcome" or the Arabic equivenlent. And invite TV crews.

Martino

01-27-2004, 07:00 AM

I've had the idea of Palestinian non-violence a few months ago. It probably would work but it'll never be tried. My idea was to round up all the people who wanted to be martyrs and just march them into the settlements singing "We Shall Overcome" or the Arabic equivenlent. And invite TV crews.

Non violence only works against governments that don't have a shoot to kill policy. Unfortunatly the Israeli military has a shoot to kill policy utilising whatever means is available; this includes indiscriminate air strikes against residential areas simply on the suspicion that militants are in the area.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3226600.stm

What good is singing against such reckless hate?

It's not unknown for Israeli soldiers to kill journalists either.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3063665.stm

Yeahman

01-27-2004, 07:16 AM

The point is that they are going to die. It wouldn't be as effective if they weren't killed. My plan would be counting on the Israelis to shoot the Palestinian marchers.
Instead of blowing up a bus, these martyrs just walk into a settlement so that international sympathy sides with the Palestinians when they watch the news and see unarmed Palestinians singing and getting shot one-by-one on their own land. The Israelis will run out of excuses for killing Palestinians.

Martino

01-27-2004, 07:22 AM

Yeahman

01-27-2004, 07:37 AM

These people are going to die for their cause no matter what. Might as well do something that might actually work.

Martino

01-27-2004, 07:40 AM

The Israelis will run out of excuses for killing Palestinians.

They don't have excuses anyway ... demolishing homes, obliterating towns, building their own hi tech Berlin Wall on illegally occupied land, shooting men, women, children, killing journalists, killing UN staff, helicopter gunship attacks, missile attacks ... I don't think simply lining up Palestinian suicide bombers for a game of tin can alley will help matters at all.

Martino

01-27-2004, 07:42 AM

These people are going to die for their cause no matter what. Might as well do something that might actually work.

The purpose of their deaths is to hurt Israel back ... lining up for Israeli death squads whilst singing songs wont help their cause one bit.

Yeahman

01-27-2004, 07:52 AM

The purpose of their deaths is to hurt Israel back ... lining up for Israeli death squads whilst singing songs wont help their cause one bit.
That's gotta be the dumbest thing I've ever heard. You think blowing up a civilian bus helps their cause? International support helps their cause.

The Isrealis are using terrorism as an excuse. This will take away even that excuse.

Martino

01-27-2004, 07:54 AM

That's gotta be the dumbest thing I've ever heard. You think blowing up a civilian bus helps their cause? International support helps their cause.

The Isrealis are using terrorism as an excuse. This will take away even that excuse.

It doesn't matter if that's the dumbest thing you've ever heard, because that's the Palestinian's chosen tactic against Israel. You thinking it dumb doesn't change that fact.

kitty

01-27-2004, 08:20 AM

Yeahman

01-27-2004, 08:24 AM

So the Palestinian cause is not to drive the Israelis out of their land?
Targeting innocent civilians for revenge is a sign of desperation. You may want the Palestinians to live in perpetual desperation but I was just proposing a method that might work to achieve their ultimate goal.

Yeahman

01-27-2004, 08:28 AM

I've gotta agree with Martino here -- yelloman, your idea is just plain unrealistic. I can't believe you're advocating that the Palestinians stage a massacre of themselves -- the very fact that it is planned would undermine the whole 'pity us' response you believe it will evoke.
I said that it would never be done. It was just a hypothetical.
The purpose of my plan is not to be massacred though it is very possible and even probable that it will happen.
How is suicide bombing any less suicidal than peacefully walking on your own land unarmed?! One is morally justifiable and the other is not. Which has the better chance of gaining international acceptance?

Martino

01-27-2004, 09:22 AM

How is suicide bombing any less suicidal than peacefully walking on your own land unarmed?!

What is the purpose of the suicide bomber? It isn't simply to die, but to carry forward the Palestinian response to Israeli terror: intifada. Just dying without hurting Israel would be against the very reason for them dying in the first place.

Passive resistance, which could be used to describe the Palestinian stance before the current intifada, doesn't work. International condemnation doesn't work. The settlements are already illegal under international law.

Walking into Israeli occupied land to defy Israeli guns would get them killed, but at no cost to Israel. This is, after all, a government which allows bulldozers to crush Palestinian's to death in their homes and shoot dead 95 year old women.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2540049.stm

Banana

01-27-2004, 09:32 AM

I enjoy reading, moonlit walks on the beach, listening to big band music, and offering simplistic solutions to complex problems I don't understand.

This reminds me of people asking me why Asian people eat dogs and cats. If they had cows to eat, I'm pretty sure they'd give up dogs and cats. The idea is that if the Palestinians had significant military hardware, do you think that they would only attack civilians?

Banana

01-27-2004, 10:00 AM

EDIT: Nevermind. Getting off topic.

Yeahman

01-27-2004, 10:16 AM

What is the purpose of the suicide bomber? It isn't simply to die, but to carry forward the Palestinian response to Israeli terror: intifada. Just dying without hurting Israel would be against the very reason for them dying in the first place.

Passive resistance, which could be used to describe the Palestinian stance before the current intifada, doesn't work. International condemnation doesn't work. The settlements are already illegal under international law.

Walking into Israeli occupied land to defy Israeli guns would get them killed, but at no cost to Israel. This is, after all, a government which allows bulldozers to crush Palestinian's to death in their homes and shoot dead 95 year old women.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2540049.stm
So you're opposed to active non-violent resistance (not passive) because it doesn't kill any Israelis?

We're looking at this from 2 totally different point of views. I'm searching for possible solutions even if they're purely hypothetical. You want to keep the Palestinians in there place.

Yeahman

01-27-2004, 10:19 AM

huh - how about having israelis practice non-violence?
How are they going to occupy territory non-violently? The Israeli goal is to take land and keep Palestinians out. How do you achieve that peacefully? And why would they do it peacefully when violence has worked so well for them?

That's TOTALLY different from the goal of the Palestinians. They want their land back. Violence has not worked and has only been counterproductive.

Banana

01-27-2004, 11:17 AM

What I got from your post is that Israel is ok because it uses violence to steal land whereas the Palestinians shouldn't use violence to get back what is rightfully theirs.

Like I said, try reading up on the culture and inner workings of the IDF and PLO and you'll notice that there are too many factions to get 1 side to agree on anything. So, not only are they fighting each other, they're fighting different factions in their own societies.

Point being, if you use violence, you're going to get violence in return. However, the Palestinians believe that they can tolerate violence and death much better than the Israelis can.

Kuchana

01-27-2004, 11:54 AM

nevermind. sorry about that.

Martino

01-27-2004, 12:35 PM

So you're opposed to active non-violent resistance (not passive) because it doesn't kill any Israelis?

No, I'm pointing out that your idea isn't grounded in reality.

Martino

01-27-2004, 12:46 PM

We're looking at this from 2 totally different point of views. I'm searching for possible solutions even if they're purely hypothetical. You want to keep the Palestinians in there place.

So you've not been reading my posts then?

kitty

01-27-2004, 01:33 PM

What is the purpose of the suicide bomber? It isn't simply to die, but to carry forward the Palestinian response to Israeli terror: intifada. Just dying without hurting Israel would be against the very reason for them dying in the first place.

Passive resistance, which could be used to describe the Palestinian stance before the current intifada, doesn't work. International condemnation doesn't work. The settlements are already illegal under international law.

Walking into Israeli occupied land to defy Israeli guns would get them killed, but at no cost to Israel. This is, after all, a government which allows bulldozers to crush Palestinian's to death in their homes and shoot dead 95 year old women.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2540049.stm

agreed. a few more things popped into my mind -- if you are advocating a non-violent solution ... does intentional death of oneself count as non-violent, if you're sorta counting on the israeli to react violently?

also, what would prevent the israeli gov't from saying 'hey look! palestinians! thank you for walking into our gun barrels!!", shooting them, and then covering it all up?

which is all beside the point that the palestinian suicide bombers are attempting to act out against an oppressive government... which has received international support despite previous such shows of excessive force, such as numerous instances when israeli police gunned down protesters armed with rocks.

no one did anything then.

Banana

01-27-2004, 01:40 PM

Countries are afraid to actually put their money where their mouth is and condemn Israel for their policies for fear of being called anti-Semitic.

Yeahman

01-27-2004, 02:23 PM

Yeahman

01-27-2004, 02:31 PM

agreed. a few more things popped into my mind -- if you are advocating a non-violent solution ... does intentional death of oneself count as non-violent, if you're sorta counting on the israeli to react violently?

also, what would prevent the israeli gov't from saying 'hey look! palestinians! thank you for walking into our gun barrels!!", shooting them, and then covering it all up?

which is all beside the point that the palestinian suicide bombers are attempting to act out against an oppressive government... which has received international support despite previous such shows of excessive force, such as numerous instances when israeli police gunned down protesters armed with rocks.

no one did anything then.
You wouldn't call MLK and his followers walking into certain police brutality, non-violent?

After a few marches, it's very possible that international pressure would prevent the Israelis from killing the marchers. Or none may be killed in the first place because word of their non-violent intentions would get out. They could just sit around the settlements until they're arrested. That would be almost as good of a PR campaign.

kitty

01-27-2004, 03:22 PM

but you don't address the point that the international community didn't react sympathetically against excessive israeli police brutality before the wave of recent suicide bombing...

Yeahman

01-27-2004, 03:33 PM

I'm not advocating PASSIVE resistance. Passive resistance would have gotten the civil rights movement nowhere. I'm talking about marching into danger in protest. It may or may not work but the current strategy certainly is not working. My idea remains untried.

Martino

01-27-2004, 03:46 PM

You wouldn't call MLK and his followers walking into certain police brutality, non-violent?

I don't recall the US government using air to ground missiles to take out the leaders of the civil rights movement.

Israel has carried out, and continues to carry out, state-sanctioned assassinations against both suspected activists and against the Palestinian leadership.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2305481.stm

Passive resistance of any kind will have not effect whatsoever against this kind of bloody-minded mentality. None.

achtungbaby

01-27-2004, 08:15 PM

That's TOTALLY different from the goal of the Palestinians. They want their land back. Violence has not worked and has only been counterproductive.

Well that's the thing about ideology or religion -- maybe even fanaticism: to them, some things are worth dying for.

And as for the referenced article...not to offend any white folks here, but I always crack up when whites quote Dr. King...hmmm...come to think of it, many times to condemn the present actions of colored people.

Kuchana

01-27-2004, 08:31 PM

And as for the referenced article...not to offend any white folks here, but I always crack up when whites quote Dr. King...hmmm...come to think of it, many times to condemn the present actions of colored people.

Err..the writer's actually African-American :wink:

http://www.thehistorymakers.com/biography/biography.asp?bioindex=107&category=mediaMakers

SunWuKong

01-27-2004, 10:29 PM

achtungbaby

01-28-2004, 12:48 AM

Err..the writer's actually African-American :wink:

http://www.thehistorymakers.com/biography/biography.asp?bioindex=107&category=mediaMakers
So is Ward Connerly:)

rasheedgonzales

01-31-2004, 02:32 PM

Countries are afraid to actually put their money where their mouth is and condemn Israel for their policies for fear of being called anti-Semitic.
this is kinda funny (not your comment, but rather countries being afraid of being accused of anti-semitism) considering arabs are semites too.

robotic

02-01-2004, 08:25 AM

this article doesn't seem to want to go and balance over to a "on the other side of the coin" ;_; i disagree with it, unless people realize and create a metaphor to understand the mindset of terrorists that take part in these suicide bombings. inside, they are just people who are struggling, and are unable to voice their opinions because the world labels them, their race, their religious group as "wrong" or "evil" - it is their way to vent their anger, just like how bush just launched himself upon afghanistan, without having any clue what he was getting himself into.

rasheedgonzales

02-02-2004, 04:43 AM

unless people realize and create a metaphor to understand the mindset of terrorists that take part in these suicide bombings. inside, they are just people who are struggling, and are unable to voice their opinions because the world labels them, their race, their religious group as "wrong" or "evil" - it is their way to vent their anger
i’d say it’s more a combination of things. anger, frustration, desperation, hatred for the “enemy”... along with ignorance of their religion and the blind following of (religiously) deviant groups like hamas and hizbullah.

Mr.Lum

03-23-2004, 05:34 PM

i don't understand how mass non-violent marches will actually work.
even if Israeli troops don't massacre the protesters, the Israeli government can just order them to be confined to the Palestinian side of the seperation wall 24/7. they can protest all they want on the Palestinian side of the seperation wall and it won't disrupt any Israeli activities.
to compare the Israeli-Palestinian situation with past non-violent movements is like comparing apples and oranges. the conditions are totally different.
I totaly agree. this isnt like America, and this isnt like the civil rights movement. this is like the American Indians if at all like america. should they have tried "non violence"? that when applied to the situation is obsurd. they have no rights compared to Israelis who think it is their land. its not. those Jews are not from Palestine. some are, but very few are and it makes me want to puke when I hear people say "God promised it" so he wants you to kill everyone/ he wants you to steal? sorry, need to differenciate between vioces. Israel has this who "eye for and eye" bs. they dont want peace.

BigLew

03-23-2004, 05:46 PM

this is kinda funny (not your comment, but rather countries being afraid of being accused of anti-semitism) considering arabs are semites too.
Come on now we all know that anti-semitism is a commonly understood to mean anti-jewish.

BigLew

03-23-2004, 05:51 PM

On a note to Isreal's imperialistic attitude towards Palestine some people don't understand that according the them it is thier land by right of what god and the Tanakh says.

Mr.Lum

03-23-2004, 05:53 PM

^and its bs. UN is their biatch and so is the US. we need to start being assirtive and disrespectful of Israel rather than legal states.

BigLew

03-23-2004, 06:18 PM

It's not in the U.S. business interests not to side with Isreal. I'm just stating fact here.

Mr.Lum

03-23-2004, 06:33 PM

true. we get more from thr Arabs than the Israelis. they are rather unproductive. except in internal strife that is what they are best at.

BigLew

03-23-2004, 06:36 PM

true. we get more from thr Arabs than the Israelis. they are rather unproductive. except in internal strife that is what they are best at.You gotta understand how many Jewish people are integrated into upper level American power structure.

Mr.Lum

03-23-2004, 06:51 PM

I know how many are. I know thats why were supporting it. but I also know that oil is more useful than personal attachment in acctuality(I am against oil drilling and production however). this is why I dont like the whole "dual citizenship" thing. its stuff like this. Lieberman, who my family knows personaly is a Zionist and citizn of Israel. with that, he would never get my vote for anything, unless the other was crazy/war criminal/realy realy realy bad. this crap needs to end. I would never vote for a dual citizen especialy one of Israel. that means more trouble.

Deadpool

03-23-2004, 10:45 PM

Arabs should try non-violence? Thats pretty much a blanket statement. It could easily say the same thing about Americans. You don't see Arabs invading every other country on the drop of a hat, do you?

mr. x

03-24-2004, 01:40 AM

Is this not the silliest shtuff u ever heard?

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=638&ncid=638&e=8&u=/nm/20040323/en_nm/television_muppets_dc_2

well maybe they'll educate someone but considering this is the most un-peaceful place in the world...

younggiftedandblack

03-24-2004, 04:58 AM

SunWuKong

03-24-2004, 09:33 AM

BigLew

03-24-2004, 10:32 AM

I'm in somewhat in agreement with the title of this thread. I look back at the civil rights movement in America and I see how a nonviolence helped more so then hurt the movement. If Hammas strikes back (which I'm sure they will) it won't help their cause at all. It'll just vilify the image even more in the eyes of alot of people.When you draw near to a city to fight against it, offer terms of peace to it. And if its answer to you is peace and it opens to you, then all the people who are found in it shall do forced labor for you and shall serve you. But if it makes no peace with you, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it; and when the LORD your God gives it into your hand you shall put all its males to the sword, but the women and the little ones, the cattle, and everything else in the city, all its spoil, you shall take as booty for yourseves; and you shall enjoy the spoil of your enemies, which the LORD your God has given you. Thus you shall do to all the cities which are very far from you, which are not cities of the nations here. But in the cities of these peoples that the LORD your God gives you for an inheritance, you shall save nothing that breathes . . .

Deuteronomy 20:10-16

Mr.Lum

03-24-2004, 12:32 PM

VV o n g B a

03-24-2004, 01:18 PM

Mr.Lum

03-24-2004, 01:25 PM

the arabs need to try living in the 21st century. i remember discussing this w/ rasferengi. they don't need to change a single aspect of their existence. its EVERYTHING that they need to change including religion/politics/culture/economics. they don't necessarily have to follow the western model... they could try china. china has certainly gone its own way on many things, and still does althought to a lesser degree b/c of the wto. certainly there's blame to go around... israel and the US don't have clean hands, but the dirtiest hands are still owned by arabs. something is wrong with their entire system and it needs to change.

also, as mentioned by bill maher, maybe all we need to do this is get muslims laid.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2004/03/20/sexweapon/index.html

the Arabs are well into the 21st century. rebellion is all the time. Israelis are the ones talking about how its their because God said so. all you need to do is know a little bit more about who you are talking about.

BigLew

03-24-2004, 04:28 PM

the arabs need to try living in the 21st century. i remember discussing this w/ rasferengi. they don't need to change a single aspect of their existence. its EVERYTHING that they need to change including religion/politics/culture/economics. they don't necessarily have to follow the western model... they could try china. china has certainly gone its own way on many things, and still does althought to a lesser degree b/c of the wto. certainly there's blame to go around... israel and the US don't have clean hands, but the dirtiest hands are still owned by arabs. something is wrong with their entire system and it needs to change.

also, as mentioned by bill maher, maybe all we need to do this is get muslims laid.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2004/03/20/sexweapon/index.htmlSeriously I feel I quoted the that scripture for no reason now. I'll give the cliff notes version.

According to God Jews have rights to the land, they are givin the blessing by said God to aquire this land either by peaceful surrender of thier enemies into a life of servitude to them or by way of compete massacre at the hands of Isreal. It's not written very cryptically.

The Talmud is much more severe in it's superiority rhetoric and it is also much more important in the Jewish faith than the Tanakh.

younggiftedandblack

03-24-2004, 04:55 PM

VV o n g B a

03-24-2004, 04:56 PM

the Arabs are well into the 21st century. rebellion is all the time. Israelis are the ones talking about how its their because God said so. all you need to do is know a little bit more about who you are talking about.
huh? i understood none of what u were referring to. i wasn't really directing my comment to u. i was commenting on the title of this thread.

but if u say the arabs are into the 21st century, then please tell me how they are doing it. when certain countries in the middle east region don't allow women to go to school, is this progress? when they aren't plugged into the rest of the world, is this progress? when they send teenageers to mosques where they learn to hate instead of school where they can learn to do something useful, is this progress? when as an adult man, u are so naive that u can be tortured by being forced to stare at naked women, is this progress?

no, it's not progress. it's ignorance. and i'm sure they know that. the little bit of information they get about the outside world shows them how terribly backward they are and so they get jealous. instead of thinking, "hey, i wanna make myself better" they think, "hey, i wanna tear down everyone else so i don't look so bad." that's sad. and pathetic. and it's ingrained in everything they do. so yeah, they need to try nonviolence. but they also need to try a lot of other stuff.

VV o n g B a

03-24-2004, 04:58 PM

Seriously I feel I quoted the that scripture for no reason now. I'll give the cliff notes version.

According to God Jews have rights to the land, they are givin the blessing by said God to aquire this land either by peaceful surrender of thier enemies into a life of servitude to them or by way of compete massacre at the hands of Isreal. It's not written very cryptically.

The Talmud is much more severe in it's superiority rhetoric and it is also much more important in the Jewish faith than the Tanakh.
i think i jumped into the conversation at an inopportune time since u guys are referring to scripture and i'm totally not. heh... :rolleyes:

Mr.Lum

03-24-2004, 05:04 PM

Why should Isreal try non-violence? They have the upper hand. Every time Isreal is attacked who gets the bad rap, every time a muslim is attacked Isreal gets a little lip service, but they can defend their actions by saying "Hey they attacked us 1st!!"
you can say the same about the Arabs, who is the invador? Israel is.

i understood none of what u were referring to. i wasn't really directing my comment to u. i was commenting on the title of this thread.

the Palestinians are in rebellion. they are fighting what they see as colonizers. to them, the Israelis are the same the colons in Algeria, the British settlers to the Maori, the Anglos to native americans/mexicans.

but if u say the arabs are into the 21st century, then please tell me how they are doing it. when certain countries in the middle east region don't allow women to go to school, is this progress? when they aren't plugged into the rest of the world, is this progress? when they send teenageers to mosques where they learn to hate instead of school where they can learn to do something useful, is this progress? when as an adult man, u are so naive that u can be tortured by being forced to stare at naked women, is this progress?
dont generalize. many of them are plugged into the rest of the world. the "2st century" to you is cultural imperialism to many of them. they dont want what you have to give often times.

no, it's not progress. it's ignorance. and i'm sure they know that. the little bit of information they get about the outside world shows them how terribly backward they are and so they get jealous. instead of thinking, "hey, i wanna make myself better" they think, "hey, i wanna tear down everyone else so i don't look so bad." that's sad. and pathetic. and it's ingrained in everything they do. so yeah, they need to try nonviolence. but they also need to try a lot of other stuff.

are you Arab? have you lived int the Arab world or known anyone closely who has? I do and they are not the heathens you are describeing nor are they "ignorant" to whats going on. they know know full well and they dont want to lose what little they have.

krome

03-24-2004, 05:22 PM

that's not particularly original. Wolfowitz suggested the Palestinians try out some Gandhi last November:
http://www.rediff.com/news/2003/nov/04us.htm
For that matter, how the hell did Mr. Crouch even manage to write that whole article without mentioning the grandfather of nonviolent resistance? "Aggressive nonviolence" may be Dr. King's tactic, but he wasn't the originator of it, unless you subscribe to a wholly America-centric worldview.
Well, please note that Wolfowitz is Jewish, and Crouch is black (hence the Afro-centrism) - and has also been published in Jewish World Review.

So, what they're really both advocating is "Arab" acquiescence to Zionism - not merely "non-violence."
----------
Personally, I think Arabs need to do a far better PR job of explaining and publicizing their cause and motivations to the world - especially the US. People need to see the meaning behind their acts - otherwise they just look like wacko terrorists.

For half a century after Israel was formed and years after 9/11 - I still have not heard prominent Arabs and Muslims here mobilizing and making strong public statements to inform people of their POV. Maybe they are too scared to speak up - but that is no excuse. Hence, "Joe America" simply sees them as purveyors of senseless acts of violence.

If you are going to use any violence - at least be sure as h*ll to justify it in the eyes of your witnesses! The US is a MASTER at this! But, this is where Arabs have failed. Violent or non-violent - you MUST get your message and intent across to the masses!!! Otherwise, your actions are almost futile. Remember, like in Gladiator, YOU MUST WIN THE CROWD!

Mr.Lum

03-24-2004, 05:30 PM

Well, please note that Wolfowitz is Jewish, and Crouch is black (hence the Afro-centrism) - and has also been published in Jewish World Review.

So, what they're really both advocating is "Arab" acquiescence to Zionism - not merely "non-violence."

exactly. they want to passify them. "non-violence". that will never get any of the Palestinian goals achived with Israel. they will be ignored other wise.

younggiftedandblack

03-24-2004, 05:36 PM

Personally, I think Arabs need to do a far better PR job of explaining and publicizing their cause and motivations to the world - especially the US. People need to see the meaning behind their acts - otherwise they just look like wacko terrorists.

For half a century after Israel was formed and years after 9/11 - I still have not heard prominent Arabs and Muslims here mobilizing and making strong public statements to inform people of their POV. Maybe they are too scared to speak up - but that is no excuse. Hence, "Joe America" simply sees them as purveyors of senseless acts of violence.

If you are going to use any violence - at least be sure as h*ll to justify it in the eyes of your witnesses! The US is a MASTER at this! But, this is where Arabs have failed. Violent or non-violent - you MUST get your message and intent across to the masses!!! Otherwise, your actions are almost futile. Remember, like in Gladiator, YOU MUST WIN THE CROWD!

Good points. I've heard others make the same statements. Islam is looked at by alot of the world as an oppressive religon full of terrorist. It's rare that you see anyone stand up to counter those views.

younggiftedandblack

03-24-2004, 05:38 PM

exactly. they want to passify them. "non-violence". that will never get any of the Palestinian goals achived with Israel. they will be ignored other wise.

Then what do suggest they do Mr. Lum?? Even by using violence what they want is still being ignored and met with even more violence.

Mr.Lum

03-24-2004, 05:45 PM

Then what do suggest they do Mr. Lum?? Even by using violence what they want is still being ignored and met with even more violence.
this is true, but at least people know there is a struggle.

If you are going to use any violence - at least be sure as h*ll to justify it in the eyes of your witnesses! The US is a MASTER at this! But, this is where Arabs have failed. Violent or non-violent - you MUST get your message and intent across to the masses!!! Otherwise, your actions are almost futile. Remember, like in Gladiator, YOU MUST WIN THE CROWD!

this is very true. however, US's media is Jewish run basicaly. most wouldnt see either way. :confused:

krome

03-24-2004, 05:52 PM

younggiftedandblack & Lum - Exactly. Point is - they must add MEANING to their violence!

I know our media is Jewish-run and Zionist - but that's the same struggle we face as AMs getting hated on too. Yes, it's a fight. And I think in the long run - it means we have to create our OWN media. Otherwise, it will be a continual battle for dignity and respect - that they will always loathe giving us.

I have been one of the longest-standing media critics on MM - and calling out all the clearly-identifiable, endemic anti-Asian/Arab bias. And getting unfairly blindly labelled a "KKK anti-Semite" in the process. But, when you think about it - you can see how important this really is. If a Palestinian family gets run over by a tank by our media didn't report it - did it happen?

30 years after Bruce Lee and the US media is back to the same chop-socky AM portrayals he was so disgusted with that he single-handedly changed. Unless we boycott them, start and support our own - this gravitational tendency won't change.

VV o n g B a

03-25-2004, 08:52 AM

you can say the same about the Arabs, who is the invador? Israel is.
unless i'm very mistaken, it was the british that were the real invaders and the ones that gave the jewish land. why not bomb the brits? as for the golan heights (which israel has already pulled out of for the most part) and the gaza strip, those were pieces of land captured by israelis after wars started by the arabs.

the Palestinians are in rebellion. they are fighting what they see as colonizers. to them, the Israelis are the same the colons in Algeria, the British settlers to the Maori, the Anglos to native americans/mexicans.
i'm not talking simply about palestinians however. i'd agree tho that palestinians have the worst of it out of pretty much all arabs.

dont generalize. many of them are plugged into the rest of the world. the "2st century" to you is cultural imperialism to many of them. they dont want what you have to give often times.
no they aren't plugged into the rest of the world. no arab country is in the top 20 most globalized countries list. malaysia is on the list but they are simply muslim. they've had problems sure, but they are plugged in. china is not on the list either, but the difference between china 30 yrs ago and now is undeniable. and if u simply considered shanghai or beijing, those cities would probably rank pretty well in terms of globalization. is it that way in saudi arabia? significantly, saudi arabia hasn't expanded their oil production since the 70s when they nationalized the whole process and kicked the foreign oil companies out... the oil companies that built saudi arabia's oil drilling and processing facilities.

are you Arab? have you lived int the Arab world or known anyone closely who has? I do and they are not the heathens you are describeing nor are they "ignorant" to whats going on. they know know full well and they dont want to lose what little they have.
no, i'm not arab. but if they don't want to "lose what they have" (which to me isn't really worth defending anyways) then they should quit whining and start living like the north koreans... completely insulated. just cut off access to the rest of the world and be content with it. otherwise, they need to plug in. they need to put on the "golden straightjacket" and globalize just like every other nation on earth is having to do. globalization ISN'T cultural imperialism. they can insist on seeing it that way, but it's not something the US has complete domination over. if the US started living like the arabs do the economy would collapse, other countries would stop investing, womens rights would disappear, technology would come to a standstill, intellectual development would be stifled, and ppl would have less sex. that last one in particular would make men grumpy and angry and they'd start killing ppl in other parts of the world b/c they couldn't stand their own suck ass lives. it's a straightjacket that no country on earth can take off without significant consequences... including the US. don't u consider it significant that 70% of iranian youths aspire to leave their country and don't think that the situation will change short of a revolution? thats whats sad about the arab condition. thats whats pathetic.

krome

03-25-2004, 12:06 PM

To restate:

The Arabs have to MAKE THE CONNECTION in the masses' minds of the MEANING behind their ACTIONS. Otherwise, their misinterpreted efforts will only continue to backfire in the court of public opinion on them.

The question is, how many Arab-Americans are actively working on this? Are there organized Arab groups making coordinated efforts? The oil-soaked Mid-East is full of money and they really have no excuse not to have created a powerful media there and here, by now. How many rich Arab playboy sons here cruise around in their exotic cars chasing blonde bunnies instead?

I do get tired of being the lone soul trumpeting their cause even though I personally hate the Islam religion and enduring relentless blind accusations of "anti-Semitism" SIMPLY BECAUSE I believe they have some legit gripes and the US public is woefully mis/under-informed on this issue - and so I feel a need to speak up on it. They need to step up and carry their own weight though. Cuz, I ain't the one.
-----------
Anyways, non-violence didn't necessarily work for Ghandi either, despite popular misconception:

Although I don't agree with their conclusion that Gandhi had minimal role in ejecting the British from the Indian Subcontinent, I have to agree with them that the British didn't leave merely because of Gandhi's nonviolent protests and boycotts. They left because they knew the general Indian population was getting fed up with them whities and was getting ready to get violent on their *ss. They got the hell out before the whole place blew up (for example, the huge communal slaughters that happened after independence). - J_Wang (http://modelminority.com/bb/viewtopic.php?t=4540&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=8)
-----------
Another important incident and perhaps the turning point in the freedom struggle took place on February 19, 1946. On this day 78 ships of the Royal Indian Navy, 20 shore establishments and 20,000 ratings of the Royal Indian Navy (RIN) in Mumbai all rebelled against the British citing racial discrimination, poor pay and inadequate food as grievances and attacked a number of British officers. The revolt spread to major naval establishments in Mumbai, Karachi, Kolkata and other places, within 48 hours. The mutineers were in control of the flagship of British Vice-Admiral and had trained the ship guns on the city of Mumbai by February 22nd. Over a thousand men in the Royal Indian Air Force in Mumbai came out on a sympathy strike. When ordered, Indian soldiers refused to fire on the R.I.N. ratings in Bombay as well as in Karachi. Bombay's workers and youth also joined the struggle carrying food to the revolting Indian Navy men. Many even erected barricades and fought pitched battles with armed policemen and British battalions equipped with tanks and armored cars. Between the British army, the police and RIN strikers, there were pitched battles, leaving over thousand injured and 236 people dead in Mumbai alone. It was only Indian leaders urged the mutineers to surrender and assured them that their legitimate demands would be met, on February 23, the strike was called off.

One clear feature of these strikes was both the navy and air force used the slogan 'Jai Hind' and called themselves 'Azad Hindi'. A clear indication that this was not a mere strike against poor pay and discrimination, but that the loyalties of the soldiers had shifted and they longer saw themselves as soldiers of the British Empire but as soldiers of India. With 3 million armed Indian military men, the British did not have any choice but to grant freedom.

Judging from the above incidents and Lord Clement Atlee's words, it would suggest that, though Gandhi's role in the freedom struggle was conspicuous, his contribution was - 'MINIMAL' (http://gandhiexposed.hindujagran.com/independence.html)
-----------
In other words, it was more the growing threat of VIOLENCE, not the existant NON-violence that really got the Brits out.

Napoleon Chynamite

03-25-2004, 12:29 PM

mr. x

03-25-2004, 12:33 PM

Mr.Lum

03-25-2004, 12:59 PM

unless i'm very mistaken, it was the british that were the real invaders and the ones that gave the jewish land. why not bomb the brits? as for the golan heights (which israel has already pulled out of for the most part) and the gaza strip, those were pieces of land captured by israelis after wars started by the arabs.

no it was not. the Jews came in from Europe a while before the UK. 1800s. it was a Russian Jew (never had been to Palestine even) whos idea it was to move in and steal the land. the UK took it and even stopped Jews from coming in for a while. some were sent right back to Germany and other nations. however, they got them to let them in eventually. they came up with the plan with out even consulting the Palestinians. then double talked them into thinking they had the country. UK perpetuated. Israel is the current occupier and the UN gave them the land, you realy cant attack the UN. but guess who you can? Israelis who are occupying the country. the Israeis captured all of Palestine. what happened to Palestine? more theivery. breaking of international laws etc. Israel as far as I am concerned is only makeing trouble for it self. if it would follow the rules, they would have no problems right now likely.

no they aren't plugged into the rest of the world. no arab country is in the top 20 most globalized countries list

globalization is only good for rich people. most Arabs are not rich. "globalized" means "open for imperialism".

no, i'm not arab. but if they don't want to "lose what they have" (which to me isn't really worth defending anyways) then they should quit whining and start living like the north koreans... completely insulated. just cut off access to the rest of the world and be content with it. otherwise, they need to plug in. they need to put on the "golden straightjacket" and globalize just like every other nation on earth is having to do. globalization ISN'T cultural imperialism. they can insist on seeing it that way, but it's not something the US has complete domination over. if the US started living like the arabs do the economy would collapse, other countries would stop investing, womens rights would disappear, technology would come to a standstill, intellectual development would be stifled, and ppl would have less sex. that last one in particular would make men grumpy and angry and they'd start killing ppl in other parts of the world b/c they couldn't stand their own suck ass lives. it's a straightjacket that no country on earth can take off without significant consequences... including the US. don't u consider it significant that 70% of iranian youths aspire to leave their country and don't think that the situation will change short of a revolution? thats whats sad about the arab condition. thats whats pathetic.

Iranians are not Arab. and Islamic law as in Iran is not how anyone realy wants to live. but not everyone wants the wasteful way of life and western Christian culture people here think they do. if youre going to start on Arabs, start on Africans, American Indians in Latin America. "globalize". tell that to someone who's daily life revolves around religion for the most part.oook.

you are obviously ignorant about Arabs and so you should not talk about them untill you have more information about them that is not from the news and propaganda.

Mr.Lum

03-25-2004, 01:00 PM

krome

03-25-2004, 01:26 PM

There's something I don't get. If our media is so completely Jewish-run, how is the tall white blonde hair blue eyed ideal perpetuated? Why is everything so overtly laden with Christian values and undertones (I'm Christian btw) rather than...say...Semitic undertones and values? Then again, I don't know much about Judaist values beyond basic understanding. I know there's a lotta overlap.
Again, we have to recognize racial-gender combos here - NOT JUST RACE. There is likely a gender gap amongst Jews - similar to Asians (although, likely not nearly so wide). So, is our media run by Jewish MEN or WOMEN?

Well, obviously, Jewish men. And thus, the trophy shiksa Barbie ideal is an onscreen projection of their personal s*xual fantasies. In Seinfeld, Jerry worked his way through one Aryan supermodel after another. You also see this on shytcom after shytcom. And note how many Jewish actors and comedians actually marry trophy goyim blondes in real life too - just start with Ben Stiller (and wife Christina Taylor) and keep working back...it's a VERY long list. I mean, their Anglo outmarriage rate likely rivals ours - well, if you want to call marrying another Caucasian really "outmarriage." :biggrin:
http://images.usatoday.com/sports/gallery/03usopen/06stiller.jpghttp://www.terra.com/especiales/oscar2001/img/moda/christinetaylormoda.jpg
http://us.ent4.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/oscars/73rd_academy_awards_preshow_photos/_group_photos/ben_stiller2.jpg
Plus, blondes are pretty. They sell. I'm sure they've done focus groups and ratings testing on all this to the nth degree to determine that they have universal mass appeal - so let's not "blame" it all solely on these Jews. They put pretty faces onscreen that people pay to see - and many of them thus happen to be blondes.*

But, then note how many of the leading MEN are not blond/blue...but, in fact Jewish. Start with the Douglases, Sheens, etc etc. and keep on going and going and going...

Yes, there are plenty of exceptions - but overall, you will find that the Aryan Barbie ideal extends more to WOMEN than men. I mean, it's not even close. Again, Jewish MEN run the show here, not Jewish women. They're concerned with JM power first, Jewish power overall second, JF power 3rd if at all...

Hence, they self-promote JM and their fantasies - Aryan blonde women. Is that empowering to JFs? No. Is that empowering to themselves? Yes.
--------------
* It's not technically trying to look "white," though - but going for a universal archetypal human standard that is often found with the highest frequency in whites. It's not necessarily a "white" look - so much as more whites have it then other races, statistically speaking. (http://modelminority.com/bb/viewtopic.php?t=5655&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=40)

Chinese have long-prized "big" eyes and fair skin (well, moreso for women, at least). When whites came along, they just happened to fit that profile. To blame it all on YT is ridiculous. I mean, personally, I do find larger eyes more attractive than extremely squinty ones. As do many, many Asians (although some don't). That's not objective, but if more people feel that way than the other, then that defines a social beauty standard - which is nothing more than collective statistical preferences.

But when something subjective becomes so widely-held, then it becomes a de-facto "objective" standard for all realistic intents and purposes. There will NEVER be a scientifically-OBJECTIVE beauty standard, but the most prevalent subjective one is the closest we will ever get. We've all had this discussion before, and yet we keep having it. I don't know why?
--------------
The plastic surgeon's "mask" and the "phi ratio..." (http://modelminority.com/bb/viewtopic.php?t=5929&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=96)

Napoleon Chynamite

03-25-2004, 01:30 PM

well its about assimilation, i personally dont think jews go into showbusiness with the PURPOSE of conspiring to jewifiy everything. i mean a lot of asians probly go into show business so they can further some white beauty standard right?

shit thats probly what im gonna be doing years from now

But see that's the thing. My theory is that you don't need to 'want' to 'Jewify' everything, if the industry is so completely run by Jews, the 'Jewification', for lack of better term, will occur naturally. And I think Jewish people, on the whole, don't have this thing for like...kissing white ass or blond-haired/blue-eyed ass at least.

Napoleon Chynamite

03-25-2004, 01:35 PM

Again, we have to recognize racial-gender combos here - NOT JUST RACE. There is likely a gender gap amongst Jews - similar to Asians (although, likely not nearly so wide). So, is our media run by Jewish MEN or WOMEN?

Well, obviously, Jewish men. And thus, the trophy shiksa Barbie ideal is an onscreen projection of their personal s*xual fantasies. In Seinfeld, Jerry worked his way through one Aryan supermodel after another. You also see this on shytcom after shytcom. And note how many Jewish actors and comedians actually marry trophy goyim blondes in real life too - just start with Ben Stiller (and wife Christina Taylor) and keep working back...it's a VERY long list. I mean, their Anglo outmarriage rate likely rivals ours - well, if you want to call marrying another Caucasian really "outmarriage." :biggrin:
http://images.usatoday.com/sports/gallery/03usopen/06stiller.jpghttp://www.terra.com/especiales/oscar2001/img/moda/christinetaylormoda.jpg
http://us.ent4.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/oscars/73rd_academy_awards_preshow_photos/_group_photos/ben_stiller2.jpg
Plus, blondes are pretty. They sell. I'm sure they've done focus groups and ratings testing on all this to the nth degree to determine that they have universal mass appeal - so let's not "blame" it all solely on these Jews. They put pretty faces onscreen that people pay to see - and many of them thus happen to be blondes.*

I always thought of beauty as obviously subjective. Blondes are only attractive to many people cause I believe they are brought up to believe it. Personally, I am not attracted to blondes (especially), nor am I attracted to Asian girls with particularly large eyes. In fact, a lotta times I prefer the squinty eyes. I don't believe that men naturally or innately prefer larger eyes and whiter skin in a woman, there's always some type of social reason behind it. For instance, nowadays tan skin is much more desirable in the U.S. then it once was. The Chinese preferred large eyes and whiter skin on a woman before "whitey" arrived not because of biological predisposition, I'm sure they had their reasons, including larger eyes being more rare as well as whiter skin indicative of higher social status.

krome

03-25-2004, 01:39 PM

BigLew

03-25-2004, 01:39 PM

Holy off topic Batman.

Napoleon Chynamite

03-25-2004, 01:45 PM

^ Well, the "beauty standard" is a separate debate - and definitely deserves it's own thread. It's scope is far too large to fully address here.

Here's another interesting test though:

How much blonde hair dye is sold vs brunette hair dye in this country?
-------------
Anyways, back on topic, you see my point about the gender-split?

Yes I understand. The women regarded as beautiful in mainstream society around the world are often pale, blonde, etc. whereas the men they are with tend to be darker (sometimes a lot darker) or very different looking. The standards between what constitutes an attractive man and an attractive woman definitely vary. For instance...I find that German men are fairly handsome even though I'm not really a good judge for male beauty, but German women are not that great-lookin (to me). It could very well possibly be just because of what society has taught me to believe. This is contrary though to the idea that everyone is taught that blonde is beautiful. But to me, blonde is just a hair color, and hair color doesn't really matter to me.

Napoleon Chynamite

03-25-2004, 01:51 PM

^ Well, the "beauty standard" is a separate debate - and definitely deserves it's own thread. It's scope is far too large to fully address here.

Here's another interesting test though:

How much blonde hair dye is sold vs brunette hair dye in this country?
-------------
Anyways, back on topic, you see my point about the gender-split?

Well that's true, but I'm also guessing that with much of the world population, dark hair is not exactly unique or anything. I mean, people complain about Asian girls dying their hair to a lighter color, but heck, if you think about it, what else are they gonna dye it?? Their hair is already black, you aren't gonna get to a darker color, haha. And white girls dye their hair all the time, usually with blond or red streaks, etc., it's not like Asian women are the only ones trying to change their hair color for beauty/fashion purposes.

krome

03-25-2004, 01:58 PM

Well that's true, but I'm also guessing that with much of the world population, dark hair is not exactly unique or anything. I mean, people complain about Asian girls dying their hair to a lighter color, but heck, if you think about it, what else are they gonna dye it?? Their hair is already black, you aren't gonna get to a darker color, haha. And white girls dye their hair all the time, usually with blond or red streaks, etc., it's not like Asian women are the only ones trying to change their hair color for beauty/fashion purposes.
But why dye it at all, then? Most blonde women may experiment with various colors too, but come to find out that they get the best social reaction by leaving it blonde. Whereas brunettes may come to the opposite conclusion. Perpetual bottle-blonde Lisa Kudrow is a natural brunette. So is Madonna. And so was Marilyn Monroe. And many, many others... Blond ambition is a social career move like getting an M.B.A.

Same thing with colored contacts. How many brown contacts are sold vs light-colored ones? How many brown-eyed people you know wear light-colored contacts vs blue-eyed folks wearing brown contacts?

The "tall, dark & handsome" ideal for men vs the "fair maiden" ideal for women has been going on for far longer than our 20th century media... I mean, how many guys bleach their hair blonde vs women? That in itself reveals the contrast in gender preferences right there.

Again, we are both way off track here now! :eek: So let me steer us back (we can start a new separate thread on beauty):

Just read my sig a few times and let it sink in:

Ironically, with less external racism from whites and forced unity, we now simply experience more internal racism from the opposite gender.

:o

Until we start recognizing the gender in these debates, nothing will make sense. Fact is, it's the COMBINATION of race + gender that largely determines your ID in society - and to ignore one or the other is like putting an eye patch on.
you know, normally i dont agree with you but you've hit the nail on the head with this one. I wish I could paint it in the sky in big red letters because so many people miss the gender significance in race matters.

Napoleon Chynamite

03-25-2004, 02:07 PM

But why dye it at all, then? Most blonde women may experiment with various colors too, but come to find out that they get the best social reaction by leaving it blonde. Whereas brunettes may come to the opposite conclusion.

Okay. I realize that this is continuing on a MASSIVE tangent, haha. But personally my experiences have indicated otherwise. I used to dye my hair with brown streaks just to try something different (not to look white), but in the end, I found that I liked black the best. i've talked to a lotta asian women who feel the same way. I actually don't know that many asian girls that keep dying their hair over and over again unless they're like...under 18 years of age. Furthermore, you'd hafta admit that obviously blonde streaks in brown hair looks better than say...black streaks in brown hair, regarding brunette women. As for Asian women, once again, darker colors are obviously not even an option for experimentation.

krome

03-25-2004, 02:13 PM

Okay. I realize that this is continuing on a MASSIVE tangent, haha. But personally my experiences have indicated otherwise. I used to dye my hair with brown streaks just to try something different (not to look white), but in the end, I found that I liked black the best. i've talked to a lotta asian women who feel the same way. I actually don't know that many asian girls that keep dying their hair over and over again unless they're like...under 18 years of age. Furthermore, you'd hafta admit that obviously blonde streaks in brown hair looks better than say...black streaks in brown hair, regarding brunette women. As for Asian women, once again, darker colors are obviously not an option.
Damn you, gumby! :biggrin: Hey mods, I TRIED to stay on track here, lol!

So, basically you reinforced the "tall, dark and handsome" ideal for men. I mean, would George Clooney be as "hot" if he were a blue-eyed blonde? Someone wanna do a Photoshop simulation for us to compare with here? :biggrin:

Again, remember the gender-split, here...

And you vaguely reinforced the "lighter-is-better" ideal in women (or all people?) by saying that blonde streaks "obviously" look better than darker streaks. Well, if it's really that "obvious," then doesn't that imply a biologically-instinctual inborn beauty standard? Unless you're attributing such "obviousness" to our media? Really, why or how exactly is it so "obvious?"

Ok, this REALLY needs its own thread now! This is supposed to be about Palestinian rebels, for g0d's sakes, lol! :biggrin:

VV o n g B a

03-25-2004, 02:54 PM

no it was not. the Jews came in from Europe a while before the UK. 1800s. ... Israel as far as I am concerned is only makeing trouble for it self. if it would follow the rules, they would have no problems right now likely.well, fine, if u wanna go back that far, then blame the pogroms that drove jews out of eastern europe. bomb the russians. forget the brits. but even w/ the pogroms, most jews didn't go to palestine. they went to the US. and anyways, i have my doubts that israel would be okay if they followed the "rules." it was arafat that had a chance to accept the deal clinton brokered but he rejected it initially and tried to push israel for more concessions w/ violence. that got them where? nowhere really. its not like i'm claiming i support sharon. he's a bastard who'd like nothing more than to level palestine at most times. but palestinians are partly to blame blame themselves for that too b/c its been violence right before an election that pushes the israeli electorate to keep electing these hardline prime ministers.

globalization is only good for rich people. most Arabs are not rich. "globalized" means "open for imperialism". i agree that most arabs aren't rich. and it's gonna stay that way if they refuse to globalize. if u insist on seeing globalization as imperialism, thats fine w/ me. imperialism or not, refusal to globalize means the populations in most middle eastern countries will continue to live in poverty.

Iranians are not Arab. and Islamic law as in Iran is not how anyone realy wants to live. but not everyone wants the wasteful way of life and western Christian culture people here think they do. if youre going to start on Arabs, start on Africans, American Indians in Latin America. "globalize". tell that to someone who's daily life revolves around religion for the most part.oook.good point. i was being lazy. iranians, and i'm assuming afghanis and pakistani's aren't arab. change my argument to refer to "most middle eastern countries." and i totally think africans need to change the way they run their countries. i know certain latin american countries don't like globalization and i don't blame them much. they've been trying to globalize but they've been given some bad medicine by the imf and it hasn't improved their situation. but if they give up, it will go that much harder on them. argentina almost defaulted on its loans. they could have just stiffed their debtors, but at the last minute, they decided not to. that's the attitude that's needed to survive. if argentina defaulted, then they would not be able to get any loans from foreign creditors. everything they needed to buy they'd have to pay w/ cash up front. that would have been a worse pill to swallow than the earlier bad medicine they took.
you are obviously ignorant about Arabs and so you should not talk about them untill you have more information about them that is not from the news and propaganda.maybe so. but u need to quit talking about globalization b/c u are obviously ignorant of that.

Mr.Lum

03-25-2004, 03:03 PM

well, fine, if u wanna go back that far, then blame the pogroms that drove jews out of eastern europe. bomb the russians. forget the brits. but even w/ the pogroms, most jews didn't go to palestine. they went to the US. and anyways, i have my doubts that israel would be okay if they followed the "rules." it was arafat that had a chance to accept the deal clinton brokered but he rejected it initially and tried to push israel for more concessions w/ violence. that got them where? nowhere really. its not like i'm claiming i support sharon. he's a bastard who'd like nothing more than to level palestine at most times. but palestinians are partly to blame blame themselves for that too b/c its been violence right before an election that pushes the israeli electorate to keep electing these hardline prime ministers

Im not going that far back. the Palestinians dont blame the Brits they blame the force behind them and rightfully so. with out Zionists pushing them the Brits wouldnt have dont what they did. and the Zionists have done the most damage to them.

maybe so. but u need to quit talking about globalization b/c u are obviously ignorant of that.

I know about it and I dont like it. and I know enough Arabs to know they dont like it/want it either.

krome

04-04-2004, 02:58 PM

Zionists + Judaism + British Imperialism + Nazis + Oil + Western Anti-Semitism - Palestinians = Israel (http://www.geocities.com/anita_job/israel2.html)

With a new Palestinian Intifada, or uprising, raging in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, the question "Can there ever be peace?" looms unanswered. To understand the current crisis, it is necessary to examine its roots.

The "father" of political Zionism, the idea of a Jewish state, was Theodore Herzl. The idea of a Jewish state was a response to the growing anti-Semitism in Europe in the late 19th century, particularly the Dreyfus case in France. But for Herzl and other Zionists, the answer for Jews suffering from oppression was not to fight that oppression but to retreat from it by leaving their respective countries and uniting with other oppressed Jews to form a Jewish state. The idea of a return to Zion, the Holy Land, has a significant place in Judaism, but it is merely religious, not political. Jewish pilgrims immigrated to Palestine in the late 1800s to form religious communities, not a state.

When the Zionists embarked on their project to found a Jewish state, they didn't allow any religious commitment to Palestine get in their way; in the first years after Herzl founded the World Zionist Organization, the Zionists considered other locations such as Uganda, Angola and North Africa.{1} Herzl himself suggested Argentina in his pamphlet, the Jewish State.{2}

After World War I, Britain gained control of Palestine. In order to appeal to religious Jews, the Zionists chose Palestine as the site for their future state and began to lobby the British government. Zionist leader Chaim Weizmann argued that, "A Jewish Palestine would be a safeguard to England, in respect to the Suez Canal."{3} This option became increasingly attractive to Britain; by establishing a social base of colonists, it would help Britain counter rising Arab nationalism as well as the threat from other imperialist powers in the region. (The British had already used a similar strategy successfully in Ireland, importing Protestants from Scotland to form a pro-British base in the native population in Northern Ireland.)

In 1917, Britain issued the Balfour Declaration. While it didn't create a Jewish state, it encouraged a new influx of Jewish immigration into the region. But contrary to Zionist propaganda that Palestine was "a land without a people for a people without a land," it was the most densely populated area of the Eastern Mediterranean. In 1882, Palestine had a population of 24,000 Jews and 500,000 Arabs. By 1922, after two decades of Zionist sponsored immigration, the country had a population of almost 760,000, 89 percent of it Palestinian Arab.{4}

In the 1930s, with the rise of fascism in Europe and in Germany in particular, massive numbers of Jews fled their homes. The Western powers, which claimed they were fighting Nazism in World War II, closed their borders to the Jews of Central and Eastern Europe, fuelling immigration into Palestine. The Holocaust was the last blow; what more evidence for the Zionist assumption that Jews and non-Jews could not live together peacefully was needed? The Zionists understood that Nazism would further the Zionist cause and cynically used this unforeseen opportunity. A member of the Haganah, the Zionist militia, delivered this message to the German SS in 1937:

Jewish nationalist circles were very pleased with the
radical Germany policy, since the strength of the Jewish
population in Palestine would be so far increased thereby
that in the foreseeable future the Jews could reckon upon
numerical superiority over the Arabs.{5}

Numerous Zionist organizations lobbied against changes in the immigration laws of the United States and Western Europe which would've allowed more Jews to find refuge in these countries. As David Ben-Gurion, the first prime minister of Israel, put it in 1938:

If I knew that it would be possible to save all the children
in Germany by bringing them over to England and only
half of them by transporting them to Eretz Yisrael [greater
Israel], then I would opt for the second alternative.{6}

Zionists today make the claim that they and the state of Israel represent the best interests of all Jews. In reality, the Zionist movement exploited the Holocaust and Jewish persecution for their own ends.

In the period between the Balfour Declaration and Israel's declaration of independence in 1948, Zionist organizations purchased land from absentee Arab landowners and forced Palestinian peasants off the land. Settlements were constructed, complete with a separate economy and government under British auspices. The British aided the Zionists in their task by allowing them privileged access to water and other essential resources and by ignoring Zionist violence against the Palestinian Arabs. They helped establish a Zionist militia and paid Jews higher wages than Arabs for equal work. From the 1920s onward, the British used the Jewish settlers to help suppress mass demonstrations against landlessness, unemployment and for independence. Between 1936 and 1939 Palestinian resistance to British rule and Zionist encroachment peaked: taxes were withheld, there was a general strike of several months, incidences of civil disobedience and even minor insurrections. In response, the British declared martial law and resorted to repression, relying heavily on the Zionist militias. Hundreds of Palestinians were killed or assassinated, thousands were imprisoned and thousands more had their homes demolished.{7}

At the end of the Second World War, Britain was greatly weakened and withdrew from Palestine, leaving the United Nations to decide Palestine's fate. The UN agreed drew up a partition plan, granting the Zionists (who were only 1/3 of the population) control of 55 percent of Palestine and left the Palestinian majority with 45 percent of their own land! But for the Zionists, this was not enough. In 1938, Ben-Gurion declared:

After we become a strong force as the result of the
creation of the state, we shall abolish partition and expand
to the whole of Palestine. The state will only be a stage in
the realization of Zionism and its task is to prepare the
ground for our expansion. The state will have to preserve
order with machine guns.{8}

The Zionist project could only be completed at the expense of the local population, the Palestinians. Joseph Weitz, head of the Jewish Agency's Colonization Department [sic!] put it this way in 1940:

There is no room for both peoples in this country... And
there is no other way than to transfer the Arabs from
here to the neighboring countries. To transfer all of them;
not one village, not one tribe should be left.{9}

Another document, the Koening Report, was even more blunt:

We must use terror, assassination, intimidation, land
confiscation and the cutting of all social services to rid
the Galilee of its Arab population.{10}

In 1948, these words were transformed into deeds. Zionist paramilitary units carried out massacres at Deir Yassin in April and other villages - massacres designed "rid the Galilee of its Arab population", i.e., expel the Palestinians from Palestine. According to a Christian missionary, the Zionist militia, Haganah, had loudspeaker vans and radio broadcasts that repeated the theme, "Unless you leave your homes, the fate of Deir Yassin will be your fate".{11} A book publicly endorsed by Ben-Gurion described the attack on Lydda on July 11, 1948, carried out under the command of Yigael Alon by official Israeli forces:

[They] drove at full speed into Lydda, shooting up the
town and creating confusion and a degree of terror among
the population its Arab population of 30,000 either fled
or were herded on the road to Ramallah. The next day
Ramleh also surrendered and its Arab population suffered
the same fate. Both towns were sacked by victorious
Israelis.{12}

To justify the expulsion of the Palestinians from their land and the massacre of Deir Yassin, Zionists point to the invasion by the armies of Trans-Jordan, Iraq, Egypt, Lebanon and Syria later that year (the invasion occurred in May after the state of Israel was declared).{13} The ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians was not the result of blind rage or revenge for atrocities committed against Jews during the Arabs' invasion, it was part of the Zionist plan for Palestine. The Haganah drew up a plan in case the Arab states invaded:

Mounting operations against enemy population centers
located inside or near our defensive system in order to
prevent them from being used as bases by an active
armed force. These operations can be divided into the
following categories:

Destruction of villages (setting fire to, blowing up, and
planting mines in the debris), especially those population
centers which are difficult to control continuously.

Mounting search and control operations according to the
following guidelines: encirclement of the village and
conducting a search inside it. In the event of resistance,
the armed force must be destroyed and the population must
be expelled outside the borders of the state.{14}

The Zionists planned to use the Arab invasion to kick out the Palestinians and grab the rest of Palestine that the U.N. had not assigned them. The Zionists didn't even wait for this pretext to carry out their plan in Deir Yassin.

By the time the war ended, the Zionists held more than 77 percent of Palestine, including 95 percent of the good agricultural land. The state of Israel stole 80 percent of privately owned Palestinian land and more than 750,000 Palestinians were expelled from their homes and replaced by Jewish settlers.{15} For this reason the Palestinians refer to 1948 as al-Nakbah ("the Catastrohpe").

Was the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians the logical outcome of Zionism or merely a mistake on the part of some Zionists? Judah L. Magnes, president of the Herbrew University of Jerusalem and supporter of a bi-national Arab and Jewish state, argued in 1947:

A Jewish state can only be obtained, if it ever is, through
war... You can talk to an Arab about anything, but you
cannot talk to him about a Jewish state. And that is
because, by definition, a Jewish state means that Jews
will govern other people, other people who are living in
this state.{16}

The Arabs who remained became second-class citizens, while those who fled lived in the squalid refugee camps of various Arab nations throughout the Middle East. While Israel passed "the Law of Return", allowing any person of Jewish descent to immigrate to Israel, it didn't allow the Palestinians to return to their own homeland.

The foundation of Israel in 1947-1948 occurred at the beginning of the Cold War (http://www.geocities.com/anita_job/israel3.html), an era marked by rising nationalism and the division of the globe between the two main imperialist powers, the USSR and the United States.

In 1956 when Britain, France and Israel went to war with Egypt over control of the Suez Canal, the U.S. forced its allies to back down. The U.S. could afford to challenge French and British dominance in the region because it knew that their influence was waning. At the same time, the U.S. wanted to assert its dominance in the region, so it became allies with the reactionary Arab regimes (in this case Egypt) as well as Israel. Yet this became increasingly difficult with the rising wave of Arab nationalism which had overthrown pro-Western regimes in Iraq and in Yemen.

The tide of regional nationalism also brought to power Mossadegh in Iran, who nationalized the country's oil fields. The US could not allow these challenges to its hegemony go unanswered.

The 1967 war, in which Israel single-handedly beat Egypt, Syria and Jordan in six days (hence the name "Six Day War"), proved Israel's value to U.S. interests in the region. A 1958 National Security Council document declared that the "logical corollary" of opposition to radical Arab nationalism "would be to support Israel as the only strong pro-West power left in the Near East." Between 1967 and 1972, US aid to Israel jumped from $6.4 billion per year to $9.2 billion per year. The US also loaned money to Israel, and the US Congress even allowed the Pentagon to ship weapons to Israel without the expectation of payment! House Speaker John McCormack noted in 1971 that "Great Britain, at the height of its struggle with Hitler, never received such a blank check".{17} Thus, the US role in the Middle East and in the conflict with the Palestinians cannot be overstated.

During the 1967 war, Israel seized the parts of Palestine it hadn't conquered, including the West Bank and the Gaza Strip (otherwise known as the Occupied Territories). In the West Bank, 55 percent of the land and 70 percent of the water were seized and placed into the hands of Jewish settlers who constituted only a tiny fraction of the population. In Gaza, 2,200 settlers were given more than 40 percent of the land while 500,000 were confined to crowded camps and slums.{18} Ethnic cleansing by any other name, including Zionism, is still ethnic cleansing.

The Palestinian refugees and the descendents of the refugees from both the 1948 and 1967 wars have never been compensated and have never been allowed the right to return to their own homeland. The dispossession of the Palestinians is the key to understanding the never-ending "peace process", the Oslo Accords and the current crisis.

The "peace process" was initiated by the Nixon administration and has been continued by every U.S. President thereafter. In 1979, Egypt became the first Arab state to recognize Israel. The U.S. gained a new Arab ally for the sum of $3.5 billion in aid to Egypt (which continues to this day). The end of hostilities allowed Egypt to devote more capital for economic development instead of spending massive sums to keep its military mobilized for combat with the most dangerous power in the region. It allowed Israel to unleash an assault on its real enemies: the Palestinians.

In an attempt to drive the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) out of its headquarters in Lebanon, Israel launched an invasion of Lebanon, ironically dubbed "Operation Peace in Galilee", in 1981. Israel's aim was two-fold: to drive out the PLO and to set up a puppet government to keep them out. Within the first 6 weeks of war, 19,000 civilians were killed and 30,000 were maimed. Under protection of an Israeli occupation force, its minority allies in the Christian neo-fascist Phalange massacred more than 2,000 Palestinian refugees in the Sabra and Chatila camps in an attempt to destroy the PLO's social base.{19}

In 1987, the most serious threat to the Jewish state since its founding emerged: the Intifada. The Intifada was the first mass uprising of the Palestinians since they were ethnically cleansed from their homeland in 1948. Centered mainly in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, it helped destroy the network of Palestinian collaborators that Israel relied upon to rule the Occupied Territories. Instead, Israel had to rely on direct military force to keep these areas under control. At the uprising's height, 180,000 Israeli troops occupied the territories. But the arrival of more than 525,000 Jewish immigrants from the former USSR created a huge demand for jobs, housing, schools and social spending. Israel could no longer afford to rule the areas by force, since its military budget ate anywhere between a third and half of the state's budget. Israel decided to cut its costs by giving the Palestinians the job. As Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin explained in an interview with the Israeli newspaper Yediot Ahronot:

I prefer the Palestinians to cope with the problem of
enforcing order in Gaza. The Palestinians will be better
at it than we were because they will allow no appeals to
the Supreme Court and will prevent the [Israeli]
Association for Civil Rights from criticizing the
conditions there... They will rule their by their own
methods, freeing - and this is the most important - the
Israeli Army soldiers from having to do what they will
have to do.{20}

The result of this new approach was the Oslo agreement in 1993. It came in the wake of the Gulf War which was a crushing victory for U.S. imperialism. With the last gasps of the USSR, the US became the unchallenged imperial power in the Middle East; as such, the Arab states scrambled to get on good terms with the US. The PLO supported Iraq during the war, which isolated it from the Arab states who were kow-towing to US power. The Arab states responded to this by expelling hundreds of thousands of Palestinian guest workers. They also, along with the USSR (which was in the process of collapsing), cut off all aid to the PLO. In 1993, the Palestinians were never in a weaker position and the U.S. was never in a stronger one.

The US and Israel gambled that this situation would make Arafat sufficiently pliable, allowing them to subcontract the job of "enforcing order in Gaza" to him and his Fatah wing of the PLO. The gamble paid off. In exchange for renouncing "terrorism" (i.e. rebellion), the US and Israel recognized him as the chief bargaining agent for the Palestinians. The Palestinians received municipal authority over Gaza, Jericho, and a handful of other villages on the West Bank. Yet all of the fundamental issues, the occupation, the status of Jerusalem, the status of the refugees, would be settled in later negotiations! Naseer Aruri observed:

For the first time in history, the Palestinian leadership
endorsed a settlement which kept the Israeli occupation
intact on the premise that all the outstanding issues would
be subject to negotiations during a period of three to five
years hence.{21}

The success of these negotiations depended on "both parties" to follow through on their promises - promises Israel had no intent of fulfilling, promises that the U.S. had no intent of making Israel fulfill. When Benjamin Netanyahu became Prime Minister in 1996, his government refused to re-deploy troops from Hebron as Israel had agreed to do earlier. A band of 400 fanatical Jewish settlers provided the excuse for Israel's continued occupation of Hebron, a Palestinian city of more than 200,000. Israel used the time and the situation to rewrite the terms of the Oslo agreement. The re-deployment was split into two phases, only one of which Netanyahu carried out. In addition, Israel violated the Geneva Convention's bar on settling territory under military occupation by continuing to build settlements in Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem for a total of 400,000 Jewish settlers. Why did Israel do this? To create "facts on the ground", to justify the further militarization of the Occupied Territories.

The Palestinian Authority (PA) created by the Oslo agreement, over the objections of most of the groups within the PLO, has presided over a situation that has become progressively worse for the majority of Palestinians. Within the PA, a small number of Arafat loyalists have repressed their political opponents and made themselves rich. 27 public and private monopolies control the import into Gaza of fuel and basic foodstuffs. Controlled by a handful of PA officials who have close ties to the Israeli military and business establishments, these monopolies have generated revenue for the PA bureaucracy and have helped consolidate its rule. But these monopolies have caused spiraling prices and destroyed local firms. Living standards in PA-controlled areas have dropped by one-third from where they were under direct Israeli occupation! Israel has the power to close its borders with the West Bank and Gaza, which would cut off Palestinians from their low-paid jobs in Israel. The PA can do nothing to stop them. Of the nearly 120,000 Palestinians who commuted into Israel for work before Oslo, more than half have lost their jobs. Nearly one in three Palestinians living in PA areas is unemployed. Forty percent of Gaza residents and 12 percent of West Bank residents live in poverty.{22} This was the fuel for the flames of the new Intifada.

The PA is essentially a bantustan government, similar to the Homeland governments of South Africa. In South Africa, blacks were citizens of Homelands, which were considered independent nation-states. Through this mechanism, the black majority of the population was denied the democratic rights that the white citizens of South Africa enjoyed. The difference in the distribution of power, political, economic and social, between the PA and Israel is astounding. The PA has municipal power and can jail Palestinians (there are 35 prisons in Gaza alone){23} but Israel retains the final say in all important matters and retains the right to intervene militarily when it feels its interests are being "threatened." It is up to Israel to deal with the settlers, which the Israeli army does by protecting them instead of arresting them. Settlers have organized pogroms against Palestinians, and the PA is absolutely powerless to stop them since they are citizens of the Jewish state and therefore fall under Israeli sovereignty. Israel can close its borders, imposing de facto sanctions on the bantustan-state and its people. The Palestinian state under the control of the PA is crisscrossed and checkered by roads, roadblocks, settlements and military installations controlled by Israel - it looks more like a piece of Swiss cheese (The holes being the PA controlled municipalities) than a state.{24} As if all this were not enough, Israel also controls all of the major resources. Israel's chief negotiator at the second Oslo negotiations, Shimon Peres, pointed out:

The deal kept the following in Israeli hands: 73 percent
of the lands of the territories, 97 percent of security and
80 percent of the water...{25}

The state of Israel, from its founding, has been nothing but an apartheid state. It has consistently attacked, killed and oppressed the Palestinians in the longest running military occupation of the 20th century. The "peace process" has never been about justice for the Palestinians; rather, it is a sham, a cover, for the US and Israel to legitimize their dispossession. The "two-state" solution will never work because it merely allows the stronger power, the Jewish state, to dominate the smaller power, the Palestinian state. All this being said, the question, "can there be peace?" has not been answered.

Without justice, without equality, there can be no peace. Instead of the question, "can there be peace?" we must ask "how can the Palestinians win justice? How can the Palestinians win equality?"

The model of South Africa is useful insofar as we speak of the character of the state of Israel and its relation to the PA. This model becomes useless beyond that point because in South Africa the black working class was absolutely crucial in the overthrow of apartheid.

Israel's slogan has always been, "Jewish land, Jewish labor, Jewish produce" and so it has created a Jewish working class that is loyal to the Jewish state and U.S. imperialism. The Jewish working class identifies its interests with that of Israel and its U.S. sponsor because it enjoys Western European-style living standards, thanks to the massive arms subsidies and economic aid that Israel receives from the U.S. Any challenge by Jewish workers to the Jewish state is highly unlikely, and it would easily be crushed on the grounds of "national security".

The Palestinian working class is very weak, politically, economically and as a social force in Israel. Every time there is an increase in the level of struggle, Israel simply closes its borders, effectively putting an economic blockade on the Palestinians. The battle to win equality and justice requires a force outside of Israel and Palestine. No matter how many rocks the Palestinians throw at Israeli tanks or how many of their children are martyred slingshots in hand, they alone cannot defeat the tanks or the helicopters of the state of Israel. The two forces in the region that pose any significant threat to U.S. imperialism and its Israeli watchdog are the neighboring Arab states and the masses who live in those states.

The regimes surrounding Israel are reactionary; some of them are sheikdoms, like Saudi Arabia. They have betrayed the Palestinian cause again and again when it was in their interests to do so. In 1970, King Hussein expelled PLO fighters from Jordan. In 1976, Syria sided with the Lebanese right and against the Palestinians when it intervened in the Lebanese civil war. In 1991, the Gulf states expelled their Palestinian workers to show the U.S. how loyal they were to U.S. imperialism.{26} With each defeat, the PLO lowered its demands. From 1964 to 1974 it fought for the liberation of all of Palestine and a democratic secular state for both Jews and Arabs (the only workable solution). After the 1974 Black September rout in Jordan, it backed the idea of a "ministate" coexisting with Israel. The acceptance of the Oslo Accords in 1993 marked an even further retreat. Clearly the Palestinians cannot under any circumstances rely on the Arab states for support of any kind.

The PLO has never connected their struggle with the only force that can break the hold of Zionism and imperialism in region: the working classes of Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Iran and Lebanon. By divorcing their struggle against oppression from the struggle of the Arab masses against their respective rulers, they've run into the dead end of their nationalist politics at Oslo. This isolation, this dead end, forced them to choose between the interests of the dispossessed Palestinians (whose interests lie with the workers and peasants of the region) and the desire to "get something", to run a tiny statelet.

Fundamentalist organizations have profited from the bankruptcy of the Palestinian secular left. Their politics are backward and reactionary; they blame all Jews for the Palestinians' problems and support individual terrorism (bus bombings and the like) and guerilla warfare as the means to win Palestinian liberation. However, for all their backwardness, they are seen as organizations that are serious about fighting Israel and Palestinian oppression. This is why they have so many followers.

A new strategy for the Palestinian struggle will have to take on Arafat's role as a traitor; this new strategy will require new leadership, free of his betrayals and vacillations. A key component to this new strategy must be an uncompromising stance against anti-Semitism; the Palestinian movement must point out the fact that Jews living in Israel are forced to live in armed encampments (the settlements) and the fact that Jews are probably safer anywhere else in the world than in Israel. Combating anti-Semitism
http://www.geocities.com/anita_job/WestBankmap.bmp

krome

04-18-2004, 01:25 PM

The really hypocritical thing is that Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz (http://www.modelminority.com/article735.html) was such a strong proponent of the Iraq war.

Now, the US has never used nonviolence as a means to solve conflict domestically or abroad. And neither has Israel. So, how can Wolfowitz callously suggest it for Palestine (but not the US or Israel)?

Is that the height of hypocrisy or what? :rolleyes: