Activism Change

SPEAKING OF SLIME…

Question:

|  And every time I tell you that I use them for my own |  internal purposes and suggest you try real hard to ignore |  them.   Actually, no, not *once* have I ever seen a response from you explaining that you use the article numbers for your own internal purposes.  If you posted it in talk.politics.mideast, than I didn’t see it, since (as I’ve pointed out in previous postings) I don’t read talk.politics.mideast.  Perhaps you can forward to me one of your previous responses in which you told me what you claim to have told me?   In any case, Jack, the fact that you use article numbers for your own internal purposes (a dubious excuse, at best, for posting excess cruft to the net in every one of your responses) does not explain why you do not ALSO include References: lines in your messages, so that the rest of the world can figure out to what you’re responding in your messages.   I will repeat my previous assertion.  The only reason I can think of why you would omit References: fields from your messages, despite my repeated requests that you use them, is that you want to make it more difficult for people to find the messages to which you are responding.  If there is another reason, please let me know what it is.  If there isn’t, then please start using References: lines properly. |  "No Arab country gives their own citizen any Rights!. They |  kill, steal, rape etc. with impunity!. Look what the Arabs |  do to each other!. |   |   While I find his generalization distasteful (It is almost |  certainly untrue that "no Arab country" acts differently |  from his description.), he is nevertheless at worst only |   |  It is about as racist as saying that Jews drink baby blood.   |  If you can’t see that, you are blind.   Ah, yes, the classic Jack Schmidling argument, "If you don’t agree with me, you’ve obviously got something wrong with you, since I know the One True Way."   Jack, there are many documented cases of the governments of Arab countries killing, raping, and stealing from their citizens or the citizens of neighboring Arab countries.  The use by Saddam Hussein of poison gas against residents of Iraq is just one example of this.   On the other hand, there is not ONE TRUE CASE IN HISTORY of Jews drinking baby blood.  It is FACT that the blood libel accusations against Jews were anti-Semitic drivel with no real evidence to support them.   Therefore, as I said in my last posting on this subject, Silver’s accusation is AT WORST only partially correct.  On the other hand, blood libel accusations against Jews are AT BEST not correct at all.  If correctness can be used as a measure of racism in an accusation (and I believe it can), then it logically follows that Silver’s comments are less racist than blood libel accusations against Jews. |    This, I think, is the pot calling the kettle black.  It |  is OK for you to imply that all Israelis are "bloodthirsty, |  amoral, expansionist morals", but when Silver implies the |  same thing about Arabs, you are up in arms.  If he’s |  being racist, then so are you. |   |  I doubt that I ever used quite those terms but the |  difference is the Israeli barbarity has the support of the |  majority of the people.  It is a "democracy", remember?   Well, now, let’s see.  Are you denying that you have accused Israel of being expansionist?  I doubt it, and in fact you *have* used the term expansionist in the past, so we can leave that one out.   Are you denying that you have accused Israel of being immoral, or amoral? Well, you have repeatedly complained about how Israel claims to share "moral values" with the United States, apparently while attempting to show that they do *not*.  Assuming that you think that American morals are "correct", I think it’s fair to assume that you therefore think Israeli morals are *not*.  Hence, I think it’s fair for me to claim that you have accused Israel of being amoral.   Finally, the "bloodthirsty".  In a recent message in talk.politics.mideast (I can’t give the Message-ID number since, as usual, you didn’t include it in your response to the message, and I never saw the original message.), Elizabeth S. Tallant talked about a protest in which students were carrying signs which said, among other things, "Israel Prefers Blood"  In your response to her message, you expressed support for what the students were doing, that you believe that Israel prefers blood [to peace, perhaps?].  That seems pretty close to the definition of bloodthirsty, which is, "eager for the shedding of blood."   Finally, here’s the last time you proved yourself in misc.headlines to be an anti-Semite, and my response to it.  I think your words proof that you think |  Right and now the Jews are planning a temple on top of the |  Dome of the Rock.  Religion is the root of all evil and |  what I really detest is my tax dollars supporting this stone |  age feuding.   I couldn’t care less if these howling savages |  want to kill each other but when I am told, on a regular |  basis, that we share moral and cultural values with them, I |  get real pissed. I Responded: =  Point one: You have repeatedly claimed that you are not anti-Semitic.  Well, =maybe I’m misunderstanding something, but it seems to me that making =stereotypical comments about "the Jews", calling religion (in a paragraph =discussing Jews) "the root of all evil", and calling Jews "howling savages" is =just a bit anti-Semitic. You never responded to my response. |  I am talking about a government and the people responsible |  for its policies.  He is attacking every Arab on Earth. |   |             IT IS RACISM!!!!! PERIOD   He did not attack every Arab on earth, he attacked the government of every Arab country on earth.  There is a big difference. |  In my postings about the recent Wailing Wall conflict, I |  have pointed out at least once (and, I think, several more |  times than just once) that although the Israeli response |  was wrong, the Arab stone-throwing at worshipers was also |  wrong.  However, you have not acknowledged this fact.   |  Indeed, you have completely ignored it. |   |  For good reason.  It is not clear to me that it was "wrong" |  when considered in context.  Certainly, the degree of |  wrongness compared with the Israeli response, is trivial. |   |  Yes, one should not throw rocks at people, it is wrong in an |  absolute sense.  But as a form of protest, for years of |  oppression, terror and de-humanizing?  I will not be quick |  to condemn them for doing something that I just might do if |  in the same position.   First of all, if the Arabs had not started throwing rocks, the Israelis would never have shot anyone.  Therefore, the actions of the Israelis were at least to some small extent CAUSED BY the actions of the Arabs.  As an Israeli columnist wrote shortly after the incident, "Amid the tensions that form the Arab-Israel conflict and the violence into which it flares up periodically, it is essential that the players in this deadly game be profoundly aware that anyone demented enough to attack armed policemen or soldiers is taking his life in his hands."  What did the Arabs expect when they started throwing rocks at the worshipers AND at the police?  Should the police have given them presents?   Second, I am sure that you will agree that Israeli responses to Arab violence have become more violent as the Intifada has progressed.  It seems pretty clear to me that the increasing violence by Israelis is BECAUSE of the Intifada.  The Israelis are sick of it, and they sometimes take out their anger on the Arabs, who are the easiest targets.  Just as (as you claim) the Arab protests are "a form of protest, for years of oppression, terror and de-humanizing," the Israeli violence is a response to the years of terror and de-humanizing.  And I don’t think the unnecessary Israeli violence is any more justified than the unnecessary Arab violence.   We can spend all day arguing about who "started" the Intifada.  We can spend all day arguing about whether or not the Intifada started as "justified protest."  That is no longer the point.  The point is that *both* the Israelis *and* the Arabs are prolonging the Intifada at this point.  The Israelis, because they can’t seem to figure out how to control Arab violence without over-reacting, and the Arabs, because they can’t seem to figure out how to stop the violence.   The Arab violence on the Mount was wrong, because as long as there is violence, by either the Israelis OR the Arabs, there will be no peaceful resolution to the conflict.  If the Arabs had not thrown stones, the Israelis would have had NO OPPORTUNITY to shoot at them, and the whole incident would never have occurred.   Third, you have repeatedly claimed that you are not biased in your discussion of the Arab-Israeli conflict.  And yet you continue to condemn any acts of violence by Israelis while at the same time claiming that acts of violence by Arabs are justified.  Jack, the Arabs may be the underdogs in this conflict, but that doesn’t mean they can’t do anything wrong (their oppression does not give them carte blanche to do any act they choose and call it "justified response to oppression, terror and de-humanizing"). |  However, I DO know that I would NOT open fire with a machine |  gun on people throwing stones at me, particularly if they |  were running away.  And I would NOT shoot into ambulances |  that were trying to help those I had already shot.   So, if you had a gun in your hand, and a group of twenty people started stoning you with rocks ranging in size up to the size of grapefruits, you would just stand there and let them stone you until one of them finally got lucky and fractured your … read more »

Response:

Finally, I have already stated that I do not yet fully believe the claims that ambulances were shot at.

I found the Newsweek issue that reported that but forgot to bring it in. I believe it was the issue of October 22nd.  Anyway, it said an ambulance leaving the area and headed to a hospital with a shooting victim had its warning light and a tire shot out. Al Haq (Law in the Service of Humanity) says: "The first ambulance arrived at around 11:00 a.m.  It drove through Lions’ Gate and to the front yard of Al Aqsa.  The doctor who came out of the ambulance to give medical aid to an injured was immediately shot in the leg.  Shooting was also aimed at the ambulance and another nurse, Fatima Abu Khdeir, 35, who was severely injured.  Another nurse was arrested.  Muuhammed Abu Rayyala, 25, a nurse at Makassad Hospital, was shot while trying to help an injured and therefore was prevented from giving medical treatment needed.  The injured person he was trying to help later died." The Association of Israeli and Palestinian Physicians for Human Rights criticized Israeli police and soldiers for preventing medical personnel from providing care to the wounded at Al Aqsa mosque.  According to an Israeli radio report, the doctors’ association also denounced the army for shooting tear gas into Makassed Hospital following the massacre, and blamed Israeli border police for shooting at ambulances in the mosque area. [source: Al Quds, October 12th, excerpted in Al Fajr October 22nd] A statement given to the Israeli human rights organization B’tselem by a doctor says the soldiers deliberately shot at ambulances, sometimes from a distance of less than 30 feet and continues "I went back and forth between the hospital and Temple Mount several times.  Each time they shot at ambulances."  There have other reports to B’Tselem as well, including one from a nurse shot twice in the chest, but my typing fingers are getting tired….

Response:

Filed under: Human Rights

Related Posts

• Rights are unalienable
• Wrong Interpretation of Islam
• American Workers can safely say, Bye, Bye to the Slice of the American Pie
• Green Card Lottery
• Drugs to Watch Out For.
• The Purpose Of Life - (Quoted from KNT hrp&p - {HRI 20040927-V2.7})
• Work inside the Repub. Party, Dems kaput!
• How to DO something about sex ratio.
• Iraqi Detainees Forced to Denounce Islam
• Bastille Day Weekend