Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Hudson Jones

Israel's war crimes in Gaza

Recommended Posts

I think it's due to the Palestinian Cause being born out of anti-Semitism. When that's the modus operandi of a given political movement, one expects the supporters to support the core values.

"Born out of anti-Semitism"? What is a "Semite" if it does't include those of Palestine too? Is not the Israeli cause anti-Palestinian? "Antisemitism" itself is a term which is begging if those who are presumably "Semite" are themselves provisionally allowed to discount their own "Anti-" isms. Is Antisemitism one who is anti-Israeli or one who is anti-Jew?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Born out of anti-Semitism"? What is a "Semite" if it does't include those of Palestine too? Is not the Israeli cause anti-Palestinian? "Antisemitism" itself is a term which is begging if those who are presumably "Semite" are themselves provisionally allowed to discount their own "Anti-" isms. Is Antisemitism one who is anti-Israeli or one who is anti-Jew?

Antisemitism is a word coined by Wilhelm Marr to describe hatred of Jews. Not something else.

The Mufti al-Husseini was the founder of the Cause and a dyed-in-the-wool antisemite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Antisemitism is a word coined by Wilhelm Marr to describe hatred of Jews. Not something else.

The Mufti al-Husseini was the founder of the Cause and a dyed-in-the-wool antisemite.

You are capitalizing "Cause" as if it is some specific movement. If so, perhaps Wilhelm Marr also is a 'founder of some Cause' in equal measure of concern. Why not simply resort to saying, "Anti-Jew"? It seems more indicative of what those accused of it are supposedly believing than to create a term that acts with such lack of clarity. It seems itself a term used to obscure whether one has some specific opposition to some arbitrary belief (say, of the religion, "Judaism") rather than impose some intentional meaning of bias to ones genetic inheritance (being related ancestrally to one who did believe in Judaism).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are capitalizing "Cause" as if it is some specific movement. If so, perhaps Wilhelm Marr also is a 'founder of some Cause' in equal measure of concern. Why not simply resort to saying, "Anti-Jew"? It seems more indicative of what those accused of it are supposedly believing than to create a term that acts with such lack of clarity. It seems itself a term used to obscure whether one has some specific opposition to some arbitrary belief (say, of the religion, "Judaism") rather than impose some intentional meaning of bias to ones genetic inheritance (being related ancestrally to one who did believe in Judaism).

It was/is a specific movement/cause started by al-Husseini due to the rising number of Jews moving to the Levant. This was a result of the Ottoman Land Code of 1858 which allowed the buying and selling of land inside the Ottoman Empire. Capitalized upon by the Zionist Movement (both word capitalized). The Jews bought land...lots of it. The Arabs...not so much as it meant paying taxes and serving in the Ottoman Army.

The so-called secondary reason for al-Husseini starting the Cause is that he wanted a piece of the post-WW1 Ottoman pie, too. His Hashemite rivals were keen on making themselves masters of al-Aqsa (Jerusalem)...and since both the Hashemite and al-Husseini clans felt themselves relatives of Mohammad...a feud developed....which ultimately led to Black September in Jordan in 1970.

But, I don't expect you to have this sort of historical knowledge if you didn't know who Wilhelm Marr was. So, I take that into account.

The feud continues to this day.

Edited by DogOnPorch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hajj Amin al-Husseini's first official public act was the Nebi Musa Pogrom/Riot (1920) which followed his accent to Grand Mufti. A move rubber-stamped by the British in an attempt to control al-Husseini. That didn't work, of course. The British effectively went to war with the Mufti post appointment...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1920_Nebi_Musa_riots

Edited by DogOnPorch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was/is a specific movement/cause started by al-Husseini due to the rising number of Jews moving to the Levant. This was a result of the Ottoman Land Code of 1858 which allowed the buying and selling of land inside the Ottoman Empire. Capitalized upon by the Zionist Movement (both word capitalized). The Jews bought land...lots of it. The Arabs...not so much as it meant paying taxes and serving in the Ottoman Army.

The so-called secondary reason for al-Husseini starting the Cause is that he wanted a piece of the post-WW1 Ottoman pie, too. His Hashemite rivals were keen on making themselves masters of al-Aqsa (Jerusalem)...and since both the Hashemite and al-Husseini clans felt themselves relatives of Mohammad...a feud developed....which ultimately led to Black September in Jordan in 1970.

But, I don't expect you to have this sort of historical knowledge if you didn't know who Wilhelm Marr was. So, I take that into account.

The feud continues to this day.

The names of the particular people of this history are not logically valid. I follow Darwin's logic for Natural Selection but don't revere his Christianity as it is not relevant to the logic of evolution.

What DOES matter with regards to Israeli history is that those initially 'settling' in Palestine, had the SINCERE intent to take over those lands from those inhabiting it with disrespect of them. You mentioned the fact that the Ottoman Empire was whom these initial Israelis 'purchased' such lands from. Yet if this was an intolerant regime, it was equally intolerant against those Palestinians and so any 'purchase' made to respect the Ottomans is not made in good faith to those Palestinians inhabiting that region.

The Israeli 'settlements' also created their own 'settlements' with exclusion to Islamic respect of that Empire regardless as if it WAS understood even by the Ottomans that such 'purchases' were also implying these people were non-Nationals of that Empire NOR of the Palestinians, the Israeli claim is purposely deceptive and invalid. Even by our present standards of 'statehood' with respect to some hosting country, we don't think that when or where some foreign nationals purchase land, that this implies the land itself is no longer sovereign to the country hosting their right to purchase.

That is, if I as a Canadian, went to the U.S. and purchased a house, that house is still necessarily American, no matter what my foreign sovereignty is of. I can't then presume that MY own laws of the country I came from MUST be recognized in that American home. I cannot declare that house as NOW CANADIAN territory with exclusivity to me or other Canadians.

This is what Israel did with clear and decisive intent to steal the land from the Palestinians. And if you question this, than do you not also question a Nazi being charged for some crime as asserting they were 'just following orders' (according to the legal status of their land) as equally valid? Is it not the case that you think the 'settlers' had purpose and intent to take advantage of the Palestinians as not a crime regardless of the Ottoman laws that may have permitted such 'purchases'? In good faith, were the Zionists there not both against the Ottomans AND the Palestinians because they intended to exploit the laws only to co-opt that land as a foreign owned sovereignty (not of either the Ottomans nor of Palestinian allegiance)?

Edited by Scott Mayers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I deal only in history. History is on my side for that reason. The Zionist Movement didn't steal land. They bought it at cut-throat rates from Ottoman land speculators and then paid the Jizya to keep it.

And if you question this, than do you not also question a Nazi being charged for some crime as asserting they were 'just following orders' (according to the legal status of their land) as equally valid?

The Mufti was the equivalent to a Major-General in the SS...a real Nazi. He along with his friend, Adolf Eichmann, were responsible for the Holocaust post Reinhard Heydrich getting assassinated. Particularly in the Axis Minor countries in the Balkans. Millions of dead are partly his responsibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not OWN land here in my country. Does this mean I am NOT Canadian? Does it mean I simply opted NOT to buy?

And, if foreigners, whether they had some 'country' or not, come here with fiscal power to purchase land here to any extent of their fortune, and then attempt to impose their 'ownership' as a right to declare themselves a sovereignty distinct from Canada and then discriminate against me via their segregate laws (not of Canada nor of my non-ownership status),is such 'owners' privileged to co-opt my own right to this land? ....to segregate laws for themselves and me (or my kind) as if I am the 'foreigner' here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I deal only in history. History is on my side for that reason. The Zionist Movement didn't steal land. They bought it at cut-throat rates from Ottoman land speculators and then paid the Jizya to keep it.

NO, history and the logic I spelled out here demonstrates that the Jewish settlers of Palestine OR of the Ottoman empire is suspect regardless of the supposed 'legality' involved. See my above reference to myself as not 'owning' a piece of the land in Canada I'm born into. I did not CHOOSE NOT to have such ownership and cannot compete with those who do. But should some culture, ethnicity, or any other group have such a fortune to buy up the lands around me, do they have a right to expel me of this land? Do they have a right to assert themselves as 'some other Nation' privileged to their own laws in disrespect of Canada? And if Canada was taken over by some other sovereignty, does that sovereignty have the right to dictate that my right to be here regardless of the change of sovereignty requires appropriately treating me an equal in this or any other government that takes over?

The Palestinians (who did not have official 'ownership' by some other sovereignty) were still Palestinians. And to treat them as now subject to be dismissed for some 'legality' is not different than accepting the same for those asserting formal legitimacy of whatever sovereignty existed. This is why I pointed out the Nazi scenario. The Nazis who were tried afterwards for the Holocausts based such declarations of 'legitimacy' (the present Nazi laws) as invalid because their internal personal moral compass clearly demonstrated either hatred OR at minimal, some INDIFFERENCE to the concerns of the Jews fate. This is PRECISELY what the Jews settling in Palestine/Ottoman Empire did to those Palestinians.

The legitimate 'ownership' of the Palestinians too where they DID exist were and still are treated as illegitimate simply based on the Jewish-only legal system designed to favor Jews exclusively at the expense of any other people there.

Mufti or other people you may mention have no significance here. The Palestinians are also individuals and are not 'owned' by some particular leader's actions or their beliefs. I'm an evolutionist. It doesn't mean I 'own' Darwin's Christian beliefs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is it that ANY dissenting opinion on Israel always defaulted to presuming it ANTI-JEW? This is absurd rhetoric and is not accounted for considering such sources are relatively non-existent in contrast to the rest of our Western media promoting an unusual biased support for Israel.

One-sided condemnation doesn't arise from anyone with a sense of fairness, but with an axe to grind. Anti-Jewish sentiment is endemic throughout the middle east, and any 'reporter' who does a story condemning Israel's anti-Palestinian teaching without referencing the anti-Jewish teaching in ALL Arab schools is clearly not someone who has any fondness for Jews.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One-sided condemnation doesn't arise from anyone with a sense of fairness, but with an axe to grind. Anti-Jewish sentiment is endemic throughout the middle east, and any 'reporter' who does a story condemning Israel's anti-Palestinian teaching without referencing the anti-Jewish teaching in ALL Arab schools is clearly not someone who has any fondness for Jews.

You're being evasive here. I've given you logical examples of equivalence to the occurrences of which you are not answering to. Instead, you've just restated your opinion without attending to my argument. You have to go back to the logic of the Jews to have even justification for settling in Palestine in the first place. They have done so with UNFAIRNESS to the Palestinian people with clear and logical means to take over that land as their own, regardless of the concern of the people there.

To establish fault of the Palestinians requires proving they themselves had violated the Jews first. This has not been done because the Zionists intent was to co-opt the land of the Palestinians FIRST. This IS the crime the State of Israel has with respect to the same virtues they admitted others must recognize of themselves through history. The Palestinians were NOT the particular peoples who violated the Jews in the diaspora for which they are being penalized for. And the same union of countries who also contributed to such past discrimination are now supporting a Jewish state only to 'pay' for such guilt BUT at the expense of the Palestinians as a scapegoat. The rest of the world didn't have the right to legitimize theft 'elsewhere' or to volunteer what was not theirs to give.

Edited by Scott Mayers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're being evasive here.

No, I'm just disagreeing with you.

I've given you logical examples of equivalence to the occurrences of which you are not answering to.

No, you haven't.

Instead, you've just restated your opinion without attending to my argument.

You didn't make one except to suggest western media are biased. But we're not talking merely about media but subject matter.

You have to go back to the logic of the Jews to have even justification for settling in Palestine in the first place.

You mean by legally moving there and legally buying land? How is that 'the logic of the Jew"?

They have done so with UNFAIRNESS to the Palestinian people with clear and logical means to take over that land as their own,

regardless of the concern of the people there.

They bought the land and the UN granted them independence. You really want to go on beating a dead horse?

To establish fault of the Palestinians requires proving they themselves had violated the Jews first.

Well, there were enough violent anti-Jewish pogroms in old Palestine to do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scott Mayers, on 10 Mar 2016 - 6:46 PM, said:

You're being evasive here.

No, I'm just disagreeing with you.

That goes without saying. You have evaded responding to my response to your accusations and assumptions of who is abusing who in the Middle East.

I've given you logical examples of equivalence to the occurrences of which you are not answering to.

No, you haven't.
Stating I haven't doesn't prove I haven't and is more about trying to evade it.

Instead, you've just restated your opinion without attending to my argument.

You didn't make one except to suggest western media are biased. But we're not talking merely about media but subject matter.
That was a response to your accusation that Aljazeera is a phony organization with its own biased motive without qualification and to the fact it is of a severe minority with respect to Western media. Your purpose is to disqualify ANY dissenting view by dismissing that media as a whole with severe prejudice. My comment is not against our Western media with absolution but the weight of such is politically biased itself and so if Aljazeera should be accused of this, it is in hypocritical disrespect.

You have to go back to the logic of the Jews to have even justification for settling in Palestine in the first place.

You mean by legally moving there and legally buying land? How is that 'the logic of the Jew"?
Your accent placed to the 'logic of the Jew' is not one I endorse as you are inappropriately presenting me as implying ALL Jews have some common logic. The 'logic' is the rationale of the Zionist Jews who PARTICULARLY initiated the take over of Palestine and have succeeded. The 'legality' is moot as is the 'legality' of those committing atrocities of the Holocaust. The explanation given by those accused of Nazi crimes was that "they were just following orders". That is, the LAW of the present Germany they were a function of LEGITIMIZED (that is, LEGALIZED) their right to behave. If you are holding on to the belief in 'legality' based on the political reality of some place and time, it would be hypocritical again to assert the Nazis who were convicted had done anything 'wrong' in kind.

They bought the land and the UN granted them independence. You really want to go on beating a dead horse?

Whose "dead horse"? This is precisely at issue and you can't simply pick and choose which things you recognize at fault of those you favor. Who are you to assert which issues are closed universally?

A does wrong to B who then does wrong to A who then does wrong to B who....

You simply pick favor to A and knowing A initiated a cause that is understood to be originally wrong, dismiss it as a "dead horse" so that you can place B as the initial source of all fault. The Israelis (the 'A', here) began the problem relative to the Palestinians. The declaration of its "legality" for their purchase is suspect since their understood and clear AIM was to take over Palestine as is even the very clear function of the Zionist purpose to create a Jewish-only State. If they were at least 'fair' why would they not declare this in the countries they were coming from instead? Germany, for instance, should have been the 'homeland' of those Jews emigrating from there and actually for those to even leave it seems to suggest that those like Hitler were justified in their claims of Jews to be 'foreign'.

Why did the U.N. sanction Jews to have a right to Palestine instead of to the lands that they were from? Why didn't the U.N. demand that the Jews who were abused in Germany require a right to return to Germany?

The reality is that the U.N. was NOT a function of ALL nations at that time and had their own discriminatory and arrogant beliefs, especially of the Palestinians, considering they sanctioned such 'legitimacy'. Such 'legitimizing' did NOT involve the Palestinians and so the U.N. is just as at fault for such. But those Zionists knowing this only 'optimized' their circumstances by accepting the U.N. for precisely their favor. And then they DIRECTLY acted to monopolize Palestine as their own.

To establish fault of the Palestinians requires proving they themselves had violated the Jews first.

Well, there were enough violent anti-Jewish pogroms in old Palestine to do that.
Really? You already admit of some 'legality' to which you feign is as much FROM the Palestinians as by the Ottomans and to the foreign coalition (the U.N.). If the Palestinians were so 'unkind' prior to the Jewish settlements, how the hell did such a body of people have even 'legitimized' the Jewish presence in there in the first place? This is absurd and contradictory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's it. After many many years of consideration, I have decided to become Jewish. My Christian family supports me in this (of course) and look forward to visiting me when when I move to Jerusalem. I haven't told them yet that I cant actually move to Jerusalem, but, I can get grants and subsidies to move into the areas close to Jerusalem in the the West Bank. The best part is, not only will I be able to own my own Ak-47 but the IDF will always be there so I don't have to use it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, I just noticed the link at the bottom. It says, "Back to The Rest of the World"! I thought this was rather funny. Did anyone else notice?

I do notice that you get very long-winded and convoluted when discussing history. Baffle 'em with BS?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do notice that you get very long-winded and convoluted when discussing history. Baffle 'em with BS?

You mean that YOU cannot follow the depth (or the big words?). Please don't attempt to insult what you yourself may be incapable of understanding. If you have a question, ask it and I can try to put it in words you might be able to understand. But I'm not going to speak Twitter (sound bites)or presume one has at best a kindergarten vocabulary in order to appeal to the lowest common denominator. I prefer to assume by default the best of one's potential education and go from there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You mean that YOU cannot follow the depth (or the big words?). Please don't attempt to insult what you yourself may be incapable of understanding. If you have a question, ask it and I can try to put it in words you might be able to understand. But I'm not going to speak Twitter (sound bites)or presume one has at best a kindergarten vocabulary in order to appeal to the lowest common denominator. I prefer to assume by default the best of one's potential education and go from there.

No...that's not the issue. It's more getting a simple answer that's difficult. But that's neither here nor there.

As mentioned, I deal only in history. I'm not a particular fan of Israel other than their winning ways re: the military which the Arabs can't beat for the life of them. They don't need me to be a fan-boy for them as you are with their enemies. My connection to this conflict...and I have one of sorts...is that I had a family member that served under the Grand Mufti in the Balkans during WW2 as an SS officer in one of the Mufti's SS units.

You're free to tell me what skin you have in this game...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No...that's not the issue. It's more getting a simple answer that's difficult. But that's neither here nor there.

As mentioned, I deal only in history. I'm not a particular fan of Israel other than their winning ways re: the military which the Arabs can't beat for the life of them. They don't need me to be a fan-boy for them as you are with their enemies. My connection to this conflict...and I have one of sorts...is that I had a family member that served under the Grand Mufti in the Balkans during WW2 as an SS officer in one of the Mufti's SS units.

You're free to tell me what skin you have in this game...

I don't like Nationalism of any sort and believe this factor is the number one underlying problem of conflict everywhere, next to differences of economies. I'm broad-ranged and so the Israeli conflict is only one of many things I prefer to tackle. Note Nationalism to me is the Ego- or Ethno-centricity that underpins politics based on group associations. But it includes those who might be Feminists or Masculinists (rare) instead of Humanists, for instance. I include concerns of other groups too who assert some form of 'ownership' to some class, (like homosexuals, for instance) who assert some genetic AND combined cultural truths belonging to that class.

Israel is a big one because it defines much of the problems in the Middle East. I am as equally skeptical of others, like the Muslims or Palestinians but find they are in a phase of Nationalism from the grass roots level (beginning stage). So in order to stop the continuous cycle, we need to target those most in power to recognize that it is they, and not the presumed 'terrorists' (usually those at the bottom of some economic ladder) who are required to voluntarily change first. Israel was a reaction to the prior era of the Holocaust but became the very abusers they resented out of fear of it occurring. But so was Germany before them and what gave rise to their Nationalism.

Both must stop but the ones at top economically presume innocence while the ones at the bottom are considered terrorists. Would you have better success asking the starving person(s) at the bottom to do all the sacrificing when they can't even sacrifice what they haven't got? No, you ask the ones who CAN afford the risk to take the chance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's simple for me...

-Hajj Amin al-Husseini started the Palestinian Cause as the dust of the Ottoman Empire was still settling.

-He joined Hitler and participated in the Final Solution (The Holocaust)...then went on to start the Arab-Israeli Conflict. His nephew, Arafat, used international terrorism to further the Palestinian Cause's dastardly aims.

-Nazis are bad and I do not support them. Nor their pet Jew-free causes.

-His fascist Cause should eliminated (Hamas and Fatah...et al) and the "refugees" resulting from his aggression absorbed by neighboring Arab nations that haven't imploded as of yet...but did participate in the conflict. Jordan and Saudi Arabia being the logical culprits to enjoy this privilege.

-Gaza should rejoin Egypt. The West Bank...turn it into a giant theme park. Religious Nut-bar Land. Charge admission.

...last bit a joke. Maybe....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's simple for me...

-Hajj Amin al-Husseini started the Palestinian Cause as the dust of the Ottoman Empire was still settling.

-He joined Hitler and participated in the Final Solution (The Holocaust)...then went on to start the Arab-Israeli Conflict. His nephew, Arafat, used international terrorism to further the Palestinian Cause's dastardly aims.

-Nazis are bad and I do not support them. Nor their pet Jew-free causes.

-His fascist Cause should eliminated (Hamas and Fatah...et al) and the "refugees" resulting from his aggression absorbed by neighboring Arab nations that haven't imploded as of yet...but did participate in the conflict. Jordan and Saudi Arabia being the logical culprits to enjoy this privilege.

-Gaza should rejoin Egypt. The West Bank...turn it into a giant theme park. Religious Nut-bar Land. Charge admission.

...last bit a joke. Maybe....

I'd like to see the Middle East and many old world areas evolve to be universally of everyone's. I agree with the giant theme park idea but would like to see the whole area as one embracing an economy of museum-towns (like Upper-Canada Village, for instance). People could embrace their cultures but treat them as 'owned' by everyone. Perhaps, a 'Folk-fest' type of park. I'd even suggest rebuilding old monuments where possible, like the pyramids in Egypt, rather than simply keep things untouched. For the Temple in Jerusalem, create a combination structure (so not to destroy those structures there already).

As it is now though, OUR human history is being destroyed for economics, religion, and ethnicities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You mean that YOU cannot follow the depth (or the big words?). Please don't attempt to insult what you yourself may be incapable of understanding. If you have a question, ask it and I can try to put it in words you might be able to understand. But I'm not going to speak Twitter (sound bites)or presume one has at best a kindergarten vocabulary in order to appeal to the lowest common denominator. I prefer to assume by default the best of one's potential education and go from there.

Again you display this false sense of self-an inflated one where you pose yourself as smarter than those who disagree with you and try insult and patronize them when they disagree with your opinions,, Again you display a narcissistic defect and are unable to discuss the issues presented to youw without referring back to youself and inflating your sense of self,.

In your latest missive you want to turn the Middle East into a fantasy world. You show in using your concept where your head is at in terms of deeling with the conflict, reducing it to a costumed trivilialization and fantasy world. That of course may be your device for turning the world into Disneyland to make it seem less threatening to you but it shows a remarkable lack of awareness as to the Middle East.

You sum it up Mayer, someone who tries to trivialize world conflicts to make it suitable to his own fantasy plan.

No amount of insulting and patronizing others with insults can mask what you write and give it credibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's simple for me...

-Hajj Amin al-Husseini started the Palestinian Cause as the dust of the Ottoman Empire was still settling.

-He joined Hitler and participated in the Final Solution (The Holocaust)...then went on to start the Arab-Israeli Conflict. His nephew, Arafat, used international terrorism to further the Palestinian Cause's dastardly aims.

-Nazis are bad and I do not support them. Nor their pet Jew-free causes.

-His fascist Cause should eliminated (Hamas and Fatah...et al) and the "refugees" resulting from his aggression absorbed by neighboring Arab nations that haven't imploded as of yet...but did participate in the conflict. Jordan and Saudi Arabia being the logical culprits to enjoy this privilege.

-Gaza should rejoin Egypt. The West Bank...turn it into a giant theme park. Religious Nut-bar Land. Charge admission.

...last bit a joke. Maybe....

The thing is Doggy you talk tongue in cheek, others actually do want to live in a fantasy land and impose it on others in an air of arrogance and presumption.

I am not sure what is more dangerous, a terrorist extremist or a narcissist when it comes to dipping themselves into conflicts. When the two morph into one concept with cult leaders as if often the case, its even more difficult to defuse. Ben Laden is a classic example of a narcissist who embraced terrorism to be able to express his inflated sense of self and inability to deal with a world that would not reflect back what he wanted. He panicked when the world he was brought up in no longer served him and thrust himself into a world where he tried to make everyone obey him and ended up in a self inflicted prison running an imaginary war to enslave the world and recreate the world he once knew and felt taken away from him-a world where he was the centre of attention and no one said no.

Most politicians are of course to varying degrees narcissistic and to satisfy their narcissism when they feel they are not being agreed with and respected. maladapt and so react with passive aggressive responses suchas hissy fits and manouvers like firing cabinet ministers and getting people fired. Trudeau has prolonged his honeymoon period of being adored with numerous photo ops. They seem to for now be placating his enormous sense of self importance which he need to have fed back daily with adoring fans cheering him.

So far he's had no opposition. I do give him credit for that by not engaging in negative language to or about anyone so far. He has shown an ability to be non threatening and amicable. I think that side of him is genuine. I also think however there is an arrogant nasty side we haven;t seen yet and will only surface in time when he finds his views challenged to a wide spread degree.

With Trump and Clinton we can see the signs of how thin skinned and nasty they are.

In terms of the ME, most of the terrorist leaders have no face and so when they implement their terror whether it be in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen, Sudan, Southern Sudan, the West Bank, Bahrain, etc., no one sees them or what they are ordering.

The real day to day operative leaders on the ground of Taliban, Al Quaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, ISIL, Fatah Hawks, deliberately remain invisible and do not make their plans known-they issue orders on a need to know basis so that no one they give orders to knows the full plan. This keeps their cells easier to control and if captured unable to reveal complete details to provide counter intelligence to their captors.

That technique was made popular in the civil war in Algeria and what we see today in all conflicts of the ME are the same tactics used in that Algerian uprising against the French and its based on Middle East Arab warrior culture where each klan that fought, had its own leader who remained independent of any other klan and their leader. Klans came together temporarilly to fight for the same cause, then just as quickly broke up when that same cause was serviced.

The terrorism and conflict in the ME is about thousands of klans or tribes or cells, each with its own leader, forming and then disbanding temporary alliances depending on the agenda of the moment. There is no one central command.

This is why its impossible to sit and talk peace with ME leaders. There is no one leader capable of speaking for the Arab world or for that matter all Arab extremists. This is why it is said in the ME political developments continually shift with the direction with the wind is blowing like sand dunes and as everyone knows, you can't build a foundation with sand. You can't build anything with sand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mayer stated in post 919:

" I don't like Nationalism of any sort and believe this factor is the number one underlying problem of conflict everywhere, next to differences of economies."

The writer provides another subjective opinion with no reference as to the methodology he used to measure, and then determine, that;

a-economic conflict is less common than nationalism conflict; and/or

b-that the two are even distinct.

Therefore the above statement remains in question without any basis to determine its veracity or accuracy.

If someone says the sky is purple but can' explain and they don't hurt or try hurt themselves or others with that

belief, then I am sure they will find other purple sky followers and who knows, contact Prince and have him sing "Purple Rain"

to them. I like Prince myself.

The writer then stated:

"Israel is a big one because it defines much of the problems in the Middle East."

The writer referenced "big one" but does not make it clear what is big, how he determined its big, and why it belongs to the state of Israel, let alone how he concluded it defines much of the problems in the Middle East.

its a strange comment. If I was more Freudian in my analysis of the comment, I might conclude the writer is discussing the collective penis size

of Israelis. How he would have measured them is anyone's guess. Now in regards to determining whatever he thinks Israel has that is big defines much of the problems in the Middle East is not logical.

The following conflicts were not started by or involve Israel and constitute the majority of the problems in the Middle East at this time:

1-civil war in Syria

2-civil war in Iraq

3-civil war in Bahrain

4-civil war in Yemen

5-war between Kurds, Syria, Iraq, Iran

6-conflict between Saudi Arabia and its Sunni Muslim state allies(Kuwait, Egypt, UAE, Kuwait, Jordan) and

Iran and its shiite state allies (Syria, Lebanon)

7-further to 6, a conflict between Sunni and Shiite Muslims that has carried on since the conception of Islam thousands of years ago

8-conflict between Palestinians as to land title ownership on the West Bank

9-conflict between Jordan, Egypt and the Muslim brotherhood

10-inability of the Arab League states to deal with internal corruption as to the running of their goverrnments

11-lack of democracy including freedom of speech, open elections, free press;

12-discrimination against females, homosexuals and lesbians

13-discrimination by lighter skinned Muslims against darker skinned Muslims

14-disparity in wealth levels between extreme rich and poor

15-the use of Africans, (i.e. people of Dahomey, Senegal, Mali, Tanzania), Filippinons, Indonesians,

Pakistanis, Bangladeshis as slave labour in the UAE, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia

16-lack of proper medical programs to deal with malaria, sleeping sickness, aids, zita virus, tuberculosis,

std's, bubonic plague, rickets, diabetes

17-rampant poverty, malnutrition

18-lack of water

19-lack of farming land

20-lack of sewage systems, sanitation systems

21-decline in tourism.

None of the above problems are caused by Israel and so it would appear the writer advances a stale technique to scapegoat

Israel for all problems in the Middle East.

The writer stated:

"I am as equally skeptical of others, like the Muslims or Palestinians but find they are in a phase of Nationalism from the grass roots level (beginning stage)."

and

"So in order to stop the continuous cycle, we need to target those most in power to recognize that it is they , and not the presumed 'terrorists' (usually those at the bottom of some economic ladder) who are required to voluntarily change first. "

I would contend the writer used the first set of words to introduce and preface a rationalization he then goess on to make in the second set of words to justify his discriminating against Jewish nationalism and in favour of Palestinian Nationalism.

The above comments provide no explanation, basis, to explain:

i-what definition he derives from the term"grass roots level";

ii-the methodology he then used with that term to determine Jewish nationalism has less "grass roots level" than Palestinian nationalism"

iii-the methodology he used to determine that having less "grass roots level" makes any form of nationalism negative;

iv-the methodology he used to determine that having more "grass roots level" makes any form of nationalism positive;

I would contend that in the absence of i-iv the comments above are just another subjective opinion expressing the writer's bias.

I would point out the words, "those most in power" and "they" refer to the state of Israel, Israelis, Zionists, Jewish nationalists, anyone who is perceived by Mayer to support the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state). I wouid point out Mayer assigns all such people power. He doesn't state how he assumed they have power but presumably he means over Palestinians and anyone who disagrees with them. He also does not explain how a terrorist is "presumed" but not "actual" and who he is referring to as having wrongfully presumed but not proven the people they call terrorist are in fact terrorists. It does though appear he is stating that anyone who calls an anti Israeli terrorist a terrorist is wrong with no explanation why.

I would say the pethora of assumptions and biases the writer tosses out when he writes, speak to their lack of value by being couched, that is to say written ambiguously to cast stereotypes (bias assumptions of others thoughts and values).

I then ask. How is it in any way logical let alone coherent to make a claim that differences in grass roots level (whatever he means t-I will assume he may mean expression of nationalism by people in the streets) makes one form of nationalism more acceptable than another?

I would contend that all forms of nationalism have differing levels of grass roots development, and so why would having more or less of it determine its validity or morality? Someone making the sweeping pronouncement it does as Mayer has done should at least attempt to explain why it does. I would argue his statement makes no sense because we know that nationalism is the expression of a common set of values or identity. That is and has always been the basic simple definition of any kind of nationalism. Whether it begins or ends in the streets or in a government office or political movement's gathering does not necessarily make it moral, immoral, worthy or less worthy of criticism - it is the reactions to it or what it incites, that determines its context and therefore meaning.

The writer also stated:

"Both must stop but the ones at top economically presume innocence while the ones at the bottom are considered terrorists."

The above syntax remains incoherent in its ambiguity. The writer has stereotyped that all Israelis, Jewish nationalists, supporters of Israel, anyone who disagrees with him or uses the word terrorist, define themselves as innocent. .

In the writer's world anyone who calls a terrorist a terrorist is not innocent and of course stupid because the whole lot of them can't tell the difference between a poor person and a terrorist.

He also posed the stereotype that terrorists are poor so they can't be called a terrorist, they must only be called poor even if they engage in terorism.

The writer's line of reasoning speaks for itself as to its absurdity. It selectivity ignores whether someone is violent and excuses their violence as simply an act of poverty and since its an act of poverty, we are to automatically condone it by not calling it terrorism.

Osama Ben Laden f course was not poor. Neither was Yasir Arafat or Mr. Abbas. They were/are in fact wealthy people from privileged environments.

Interestingly psychological profiling of terrorists who the writer tries to restate as "poor" to condone them shows they share the very charteristics of the nationalist collective mentality he claims to be against:

http://www.wnd.com/2015/01/profile-of-a-terrorist-what-makes-people-blow-themselves-up/

http://www.apa.org/monitor/2009/11/terrorism.aspx

The profiling also contradicts the writer's unsubstantiated stereotype that all terrorists are poor, i.e.,

"Today's terrorist comes from an affluent middle‐ or upper‐class family that enjoys some social prestige"

source: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10576107708435394?journalCode=uter19

Someone might ask how the writer is not aware Mr. Abbas, Yasir Arafat, and Osama Ben Laden were all children of

elitist privilege.

Finally I would like to address the following comment the writer made:

" like the Muslims or Palestinians but find they are in a phase of Nationalism from the grass roots level (beginning stage)."

To be fair the writer repeats a popular line of historic analysis that defines the above as being at ts beginning stages, i.e.,

http://iias.asia/iiasn/10/Regional/10CBCA01.html

http://www.aljazeera.com/focus/arabunity/2008/02/200852519420197834.html

It is most certainly possible to go on the internet and find no shortage of alleged experts on Islamic history, and Palestinian history, who have the present day conflict with Israel and Palestinians starting in the 1920's and making Islamic and Palestinian nationalism one and the same.

That's a technique called "snap-shooting". It focus in on a certain time line. The problem is historic events don't start with that time line-there is a complicated series of events consisting of causes and effects of those causes that lead up to the time line then isolated for consideration and

if one remains to focused on just the selected portion of the time line considered, it can lead to distortion by removing historic events from

their actual context thereby erroneously changing their meaning.

An historian looks at evens through a never ending continuing chain of events. An historic editorialist and historic revisionists, isolate a specific time line at the events in that time line without considering the preceding events. In the case of the editorialist that subsrcribe a meaning to the historic

event without full context to suit their political opinion. With a revisionist they go further and actually change what happened.

True historians only report what happened not editorialize but today when discussing Middle East history, what we have are editorialists. They go on the internet, take a look at a hew sites that conform to their subjective opinions and then quote them or assume it makes what they say right and not in need of proving.

Internet gives a false sense of authority-it now enables some to think they know all with a touch of the button.

The problem is to properly understand Islamic, islamic nationalism, Palestinian nationalism, one needs to do more than just look at a few sites.

Islam does not separate state from religion and so necessarily expresses its religion through the state-Sharia law the law of Islam is applied through state structure and organization. There is no distinction between its spiritual practice in Mosques on that collective prayer basis and through its states.

Its necessarily nationalist because of its expression through Muslim states.

The writer will not and still has not applied the standard he does to Jewish nationalism that he does to Muslim nationalism. Interestingly Jewish nationalism, Zionism, and its expression through the Israeli state, unike Muslim nationalism as expressed through Muslim states does not define Muslims or Christians as legally inferior citizens as Islam does to Jews and other non Muslims in its states.

Muslims are not defined as khafir or dhimmi in Israel as they are in Muslim states. Unlike the legallly defined inferior Jew in Muslim states based on that religion, Muslims in the Jewish state can and do own land, and have the option of dealing with any religious matter or family law matter in their own religious courts. Unlike Jews, their Mosques are not restricted in height and size. Unlike Jews in Muslim sharia law states, Muslims can testify in court, do business with Jews directly. In Islamic sharia law states of the Middle East, a Jew can't testify in court because they are considered incapable of telling the truth. They can't own land. They can't go to a hospital, school, public institution where Muslims are. In Israel Muslims go to the same hospitals, public schools if they so choose and Arabic is an official language of the government.

When the writer states Israel was created as a reaction to the holocaust he deliberately ignores it was also created to provide Jews of the Muslim world a state where never again they would be defined as a second class inferior. The writer can't acknowledge that because in his world Jews did not liberate themselves from Muslim and Christian states they are Nazis as he stated.

Throughout the history of Islam there have been ever continuing manifestations of its nationalism through states as well as its using those states to

discriminate against Jews and other non Muslims. To suggest its new is farsical. The Palestinian version of it is but one of numerous sub types of Islamic nationalism that comes and goes.

One of the problems in discussing Islam and its origins in history and how it has evolved expressing itself collectively through nations is that it needs to be traced back. Just snap shooting a small period of its time line won't provide a proper basis to understand it let alone discuss it.

In the Middle East, Muslim nationalism is often called "Arabism". Its a specific kind of Muslim nationalism and it differs from the Muslim nationalist concepts of Persia/Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan-Bangladesh or Nigeria, the Phillippines or Indonesia but does include Morrocco, Algeria, Libya, Tunisia, Chad, Niger, Dahomey, Senegal, Sudan, South Sudan, Djibouti,. Mali, Tanzania, portions of Eritrea and Ethiopia, and many other

places in Africa. At one point Saudi Arabia was attached to Africa.

People of the Arabian peninsula whether they were Muslim. Jewish, Druze, Beduin, Christian, Alawite, Zoroastrean, berber, Kurd, on and on

were it stands to reason at one point African and probably also lined in ancestry to the ancestors of the Hindus.

Arabism depends on who discusses it and what time line they want to focus on.

The pan-Arabism of Nasser is not the same Arab nationalism T.E. Laurence dealt with or the Muslim nationalism of centuries before that.

Sharia law refers to the method or "way" or " path" of how one practices being a Muslim.

it sets down a legal framework to impose a legal system based on Islam.

So it necessarily deals with all aspects of day-to-day life.

So it deals with politics,economics, all laws, sexuality, military and social issues. everything.

The problem is no Sharia law state today enforces it the same way.

You won't find codified uniform set of laws that all Sharia law states use.

Each state has its own version. Iran's and Saudi Arabia's are far different.

The more modern a Muslim state, the more likely it will have fused other legal concepts to sharia law.

Iraq, Egypt and Syria incorporated Nazism and its laws restating it as Bathism.

The Muslim Brotherhood is full of differing views of how Islam should be applied ranging from a very Masonic view of non religious financial networking to ultra orthodox clergy council.

So to state its new or modern is horsecrap.

Its been evolving for thousands of years.

In regards to Palestinian nationalism it simply is a restatement of it, focused to being used as a concept to believe that where Jordan, Israel ad the West Bank are today, should be ANOTHER Sharia law state. In fact two Palestinian states already exist, Jordan (Muslim sharia law where Jews are prohibited as citizens) and Israel (a Jewish state of Palestine).

The reference to Palestine today refers to the West Bank. In fact if one listens to the PA or reads its charter or reads or listens to its representatives, it states it believes Israel, Jordan and the West Bank must be one SHARIA LAW MUSLIM state. It has made clear it will never ever recognize Israel as a JEWISH state. It does say if Israel disbands itself as a Jewish state and agrees to take in any Arab who claims to be Palestinian as a citizen, then and only then it will recognize Israel as a state and that is seen as the first stage in reuniting Israel with Jordan and the West Bank into one sharia law state.

In fact the PLO the precursor to the PA ridiculed the notion of being Palestinian. It saw Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, th West Bank, Israel and Saudi Arabia, as well as Kuwait, the UAE, Bahrain. Yemen, Qatar, Oman as one Sunni state interfere with by colonialists.

In strict Islam, Shiite or Sunni, one Muslim council rules the world with no individual states. In Hamas' charter it believes what the PA does as a first stage in establishing a world wide caliphate (Muslim world wide state).

The Palestinian nationalism of today does not recognize Israel as a Jewish state and has made clear the only peace discussions it will consider are those that start with the assumption Israel will not remain Jewish.

Original Palestinian nationalism split in two because one part wanted to merge Palestinians into a greater Arab and Muslim whole, but another form wanted Palestinians self determined in their own state.

Today's Palestinian nationalism which only started in 1967 after Arafat failed to seize Jordan from King Hussein and first began using the words to mean Palestinians in their own nation is no different than Zionism in how it states itself.

In its modern expression its presented as Palestine always having existed as a nation but being conquered in times past by ancient Egyptians, Hittites, Philistines, Israelites, Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Romans, Muslim Arabs, Mamlukes, Ottomans, the British, and now the Zionists.

In fact there was no Palestine. It was a geographic name for the region now called Israel, Jordan and the West Bank and the bottoms of Syria and Lebanon bit in the new revised Palestinian nationalism it was once a nation if not in reality, based on a spiritual collective said to exist between its inhabitants.

I subscribe to the theory many Arabs and Palestinians do that I 17th-century religious leader, Mufti Khayr al-Din al-Ramli (1585–1671)[12] who lived in Ramla is the first Palestinian leader. and the 1670 document al-Fatawa al-Khayriyah, referring to Palestinian in a legal way. It was here he used the word Filastin, biladuna to mean his country and not just a geographic zone.

Some argue the 1834 revolt in Palestine was the first politically collective expression of Palestinian nationalism.

What is clear is that the writer is not aware of any of the above nor are most people and they think Palestinian nationalism just magically happens because Jews magically appear taking land which then angers them into fighting.

That's crap, has always been crap and is advanced so it can promulgate this simplistic Jews bad, Palestinians good script which I would contend is just

crap to pad as this latest script from Mayer did, condonnation of terrorism against Israel and the discrimination against Jewish nationalism but no other nationalism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Israelis continue to implement their "barbed wire" integration policy in this occupied lands:

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/03/harrowing-walk-school-palestinian-children-160307080105966.html

"I should be here because of the traffic," one teacher, who requested anonymity, told Al Jazeera. "This is a busy road and cars fly by, but that's not my main role here. [We] stand out here to make our presence known, in the hope that the soldiers don't try and intimidate the children."

Intimidate them while still young so they accept captivity as adults. Besides, children seldom shoot back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...