Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 02:03:08 -0700 From: Sam Habash <the@llama.com> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> Cc: chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Islam (was: Religions (was Re: helping victims of terror)) Message-ID: <20011022020308.A13531@llama.com> In-Reply-To: <3BD34EFC.D97448B4@mindspring.com>; from tlambert2@mindspring.com on Sun, Oct 21, 2001 at 03:41:00PM -0700 References: <1003617187.3bd1fba3d31ff@webmail.neomedia.it> <1003617187.3bd1fba3d31ff@webmail.neomedia.it> <4.3.2.7.2.20011020213927.048a1780@localhost> <200110211547.f9LFlIB27704@dungeon.home> <3BD32635.EC54F003@mindspring.com> <20011021135816.A12222@llama.com> <3BD34EFC.D97448B4@mindspring.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Oct 21, 2001 at 03:41:00PM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote: > Sam Habash wrote: > > I didn't know that Palestinians in the occupied West Bank had > > citizenship. > > Your word usage makes your bias quite clear... It's not occupied, > it's territory won in war. To be occupied, a war would have to > be active right now: No, the word usage is accurate and factual. I did not mean for it to connotate a charged meaning, since you are attempting to ascertain my "bias". The CIA Factbook supports my usage. http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/we.html See the caption to the picture at the top. "West Bank is Israeli occupied with current status subject to the Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement - permament status to be determined through further negotiation." With that said, I see no apparent contradiction between us here. A territory can be both won in warfare and occupied by the victors. > | Main Entry: oc·cu·py > | Pronunciation: 'ä-ky&-"pI > | Function: transitive verb > | Inflected Form(s): -pied; -py·ing > | Etymology: Middle English occupien to take possession of, occupy, > | modification of Middle French occuper, from Latin occupare, from \ > | ob- toward + -cupare (akin to capere to seize) -- more at OB-, HEAVE > | Date: 14th century > [ ... ] > | 3 a : to take or hold possession or control of <enemy troops occupied > | the ridge> > > So either it's not "the occupied West Bank", or you are claiming > that there is an active war in progress, in which case, they are > defending themselves. I find the dictionary reference somewhat unnecessary. The word "occupied" isn't exactly obscure. Again, I see no contradiction, I would certainly expect Israel to defend Jewish settlers in Judea and Samaria whether or not I or anybody else believes that their presence in that region is justified or not, so I fail to see exactly the point you are trying to make. > > Maybe Israel should have just annexed "Judea and Samaria", so > > that the "Palestinians" there could have done just that. > > I think they didn't because the Palestinians there didn't > attack them, so the Israeli's didn't kick their butt and > take their land, like they kicked the butt of the Palestinians > on the West bank. Er, Terry, "Judea and Samaria" refers *to* the West Bank, as those are the biblical names of the land in question. That you didn't recognize their equivalence is somewhat significant. ;-) The term is typically used by Israelis in an attempt to justify full annexation by alluding to the historical Jewish presence there, but it seems that the usage may be fairly mainstream, as the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, a government website, uses the term. http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH0hbb0 has a nice map showing which areas purport to be under the full control of the PA, which areas still have Israel retain "overriding security authority.", and which areas are as yet pending negotiation. I don't know how fluid the lines are in reality, the map in question is a year and a half old. (Of course, that the government consists of a Likud-led coalition still does not negate the offical nature of the usage) > > If the Israels didn't have to deal with that very question, > > they would have done so long, long ago. 34 years later, we see > > the consequences of leaving the question of the West Bank and Gaza > > up in the air. > > You're right. It was a huge strategic blunder, which I'm > sure they regret. My point is that they have had 34 years to rectify this. Israel -did- annex East Jerusalem, and gave the option of residency or citizenship to the residents there, which was taken up by more than half of the inhabitants. However, the September 1995 interim agreement between Israel and the Palestinians was to have Israel agree that residents of East Jerusalem could vote and run in elections for the Palestinian Legislative Council. The elections actually occured in early 1996. (source: http://www.jqf-jerusalem.org/journal/1999/jqf5/usher.html) It goes without saying that had Israel annexed the West Bank and Gaza as well, we would not have seen such maneuverings. I'm sure the best interests of the residents were not factored in (they're the losers, right?), but it would have saved both Israel and the Palestinians from much of the suffering we see now for the lands seized from Jordan and Egypt in the 1967 war. I should reread the history of Israel during that era... > > Relatively little is mentioned in the US about the Israeli Arabs > > who -have done- and -do- just as you been asking. > > That's because we don't have news stories about things that > work, only about things that don't work. Be that as it may, it is still noteworthy. I would guess that Israeli Arabs feel they have much more to lose than the ones that reside in the West Bank and GAza. > > Oh, but they aren't Palestinians then, right? > > I think that they could probably be fairly identified as > Palestinian-Israeli's. Is that a usage similar to "African-American"? I initially thought so, but 'African' obviously doesn't refer to a nationality, but to the continent that was home to the descendants of slaves. The most common term I've heard for them is "Israeli Arabs"...for a long time, use of the word "Palestinian" was verboten, since it depicted a national group that had a competing claim to Israel proper. An equivalent term for a group in the US would be "American Indians"... which of course while not being totall unacceptable, isn't the most "politically correct" term. > I think it would be idiotic to do that; it seperates you > from the people around you when you hyphenate the name of > your nationality to put another nationality first. There would be very specific historic circumstances that would preclude that particular usage, as I've noted above. I have relatives that live in Israel proper, and I've never heard such hyphenization. I doubt if they even would recognize such a construction. They most likely see themselves as Arabs who live in Israel, while citizens by law, they cannot be a part of Chosen people, and thus are diminished culturally and nationally. I'm reaching for analogies, the best one I can come up with (which is still fairly weak) is how a non-Mormon would feels living in Utah. > Much of the (much milder) problems in the U.S. stem from > self identification into groups, and the leaders of those > groups keeping the seperation intact in order to obtain > some measure of political or economic power, at the expense > of the people the "lead". This is a common theory American conservatives have put forth. I'm not sure the problems have been much milder for all cases, given the history of the descendents of slaves that were brought here as well as the descendents of the native peoples that were subjugated and forced to live on reservations. I think it's true with respect to the measure of political or enconomic power in play, but there also may be cases of this being a collective decision rather than the machinations of "race leaders". I'm thinking of Irish or Italian-Americans specifically...perhaps in those cases, self identification stems from a desire to preserve some bit of cultural identity, since as time went on, there was very little stigma associated with the ethnicities, which is of course not the case with some of the other groups. The saddest case is that of the Yiddish-speaking community, which I believe must be almost completely extinct by now, having been subsumed by both the adoption Hebrew/Zionist/Israeli ideals and by outright assimilation. > If it were up to me, it would be illegal to ask for any > information on ethnicity, former nationality, etc., even > on government forms -- including census forms. People > are not their enthicity, nor are they their former > nationality, once they have citizenship. Very well, but there are aspects to citizens' lives where ethnicity/nationality can do come into play that no amount of legislation can erase. Just ask citizens of Arabic extraction who have been stopped and detained at airports. I presume this should be illegal as well, while the authorities are denying this is going on, there's enough anecdotal evidence to question the official account. > Some of the problems in Oakland, CA, which has the highest > concentration of Afghani immigrants of any city in the U.S., > are because we are identifying these people as being in a > group distinct from all other Americans: Afghan-Americans. > It damn well doesn't matter where they came from: they are > just Americans, now, like the rest of the U.S. citizenry. Maybe. I wonder how they feel. I suspect that they are more ambivalent than you might be, even though most are probably here because Afghanistan has been in turmoil long before the group known as the Taliban came to power. > > I find this interesting reading: > > > > http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/Society_&_Culture/arabstat.html > > Me too. The results of a seperatist educational system are > fairly clear in the resulting society. Perhaps one of the > reasons the U.S. has been so successful at homogenizing its > people is the forced integration of schools, beginning in > the 1960's. Well, the two most interesting statements in that piece were: "Israelis all recognize that Arab villages have historically received less funding than Jewish areas and this has affected the quality of Arab schools, infrastructure, and social services." (emphasis on the first three words) and... "Israeli Arabs also face their own conflicts as Palestinians in a Jewish state. While identifying with the Palestinian people and disputing Israel's identification as a Jewish state, they see their future tied to Israel. They have adopted Hebrew as a second language and Israeli culture as an extra layer in their lives. At the same time, they strive to attain a higher degree of participation in national life, greater integration into the economy and more benefits for their own towns and villages." It sounds like they have to work harder to maintain their dual identification. I'm not sure the separatism is entirely by choice... the historical circumstances, as well as fairly limited social contact with the dominant group keeping intermarriage rare. Not to mention that some segments of Israeli society remain prejudiced against Arabs...whether this prejudice is justified or not is a different question that I don't need to address for the purposes of this argument. I'm glossing over some points, this reply is becoming long enough as it is. > > Overall, it's bad to look to Israel as a "guiding light" in > > such matters...I really do not care to adopt the tactics of a > > garrison state, despite what the Israeli lobby in the > > United States would like for Americans to pay, er, think... > > assssination and collective punishment have no place in societies > > dedicated to preserving the rule of law, period...the terrorists > > would like for nothing better than to have their purported victims > > continue their dirty work. > > This is a common anti-death-penalty stance, regardless of > the method of imposition. We need to remind ourselves that > the purpose of any penalty, ge it a fine, imprisonment, or > even death at the hands of the state, is _not_ rehabilitation > of the criminal, and _not_ punishment of the criminal: it is, > instead, intended as an object lesson to the society, of the > penalty for antisocial behaviour. In fact, to this day, we > still call it "the penal system". I know. However, I question whether the object lesson qualifies as anything more than a drop in the bucket given the high degree of entropy in societies that, for better or worse, continue to misaddress the roots of violence. This is not to say that there are some people that are sociopaths even under the best of circumstances...I have somewhat anarchistic leanings...find all of them an island (space will work in the future) and let them figure out their own rules or kill each other off. The price of the lesson, especially given the families of victims waiting years for the wheels of the justice system to grind, with no closure, and that the color of one's skin or the quality of legal representation are factors, not to mention situations where innocents have been put to death, may be too high to make it worthwhile. Not to mention that all of this is monstrously expensive. > > Yes, I am a US citizen. Yes, I am "Palestinian" by national origin. > > No, you're not a Palestinian. You are an American. If your > national origin was Plastinian, it doesn't matter: when you > obtained U.S. citizenship, you forswore all loyalties to all > other nations. I meant to say I am a Palestinian Arab by national origin/ethnicity. not by birth...I was born in San Francisco. Is it safe to say that identifying my family national origin/ethnicity is germane for the purpose of this discussion? I don't know. Maybe not. But we would find it silly to make the same argument for those born to German parents...it's certainly safe for them say they are of German stock. > > I do not believe that a state run by Arafat's Fatah would be in the > > best interest of anybody who values freedom and democracy, since > > Arafat and his organization are corrupt, murderous thugs that > > have used the plight of the Palestinian people for their own > > advantage. > > Yes. Exactly as the self-identification seperatist organizations > in the U.S. are used by their leaders. Ah, I see what you were getting at earlier. I don't think there's anything special about self-identified separatist organizations that make them particulary susceptable to corruption, except maybe for the need of the followers to have charismatic leadership, which may leave them in a more vulnerable position. I am also not completely comfortable with the 'freedom and democracy' formuation as put forth by certain American interests...there have been too many instances where these were really codewords for "American hegemony" (protecting oil interests in Saudi Arabia or Kuwait, neither of whom are particularly democratic or free) > > However, I am not one to contest the will of the people there, as > > misguided as I feel that it is. > > Clearly, this is the general U.S. perspective, or we would > have intervened in the internal affairs of many more nations, > and Afghanistan in particular, well before events dictated we > must. I also suspect that America does not act overtly unless its material interests are threatened. But I also suspect we are engaging ourselves in Afghanistan due to the masterminds behind the terrorist attacks wanting us to get quagmired in inhospitable, forbidding territory. All it took was a single suicide bomber killing hundreds of soldiers to cause us to withdraw our peacekeepers in Lebanon in the early 80s. > > Or are we truly against self-determination because Palestinians > > are all terrorists and deserve to have their houses demolished, > > their people arrested, beaten, and tortured, etc.? > > Clearly not. The U.S., I think, is all for the participation > of citizens in the duly constituted governmental processes of > the region in which they reside. Insofar as the Israeli lobby in the United States has not exerted their substantial influence to counteract this. Do we care about reassuring those who we are brokering for that we can support them, or do we have to be honest about whatever biases we bring to the table for these sorts of negotiations. > What this means for Palestinians is that, so long as they > live on Israeli soil, they are subject to Israeli rule. > They may not like the fact that it's Israeli soil, but > Israeli soil it is, and that is unlikely to ever change. The interim agreements have complicated all this, unless you were referring to Israel proper. > > The Israelis, as rotten as their record has been--Ariel Sharon himself > > is *directly responsible* for thousands of civilian deaths (c.f. > > http://electronicintifada.net/forreference/keyfigures/sharon.html)-- > > at least *have* a track record as a pluralistic, multiethnic society. > > Only partially; your earlier reference indicated a distinct > lack of multiethnicity in the primary education system. I think neither Arabs nor Jews there care to co-mingle very much, since they don't live amongst one another. I didn't read anything. about Israeli busing Arab minority children around to predominantly Jewish schools (or vice-versa). > I have to say that your Intifada reference backs up my past > conclusion that Israel has been strangely tolerant. > > Historically, most nations winning land in war have either put > the indiginous population to the knife or forcibly naturalized > them (destroying their cultural individuality, in the process). > The U.S. did this with a vengence on several occasions, as have > most nations which have survived to this day. I think you make a good case here, but an occupation that is only about a tenth as violent as a typical case still has enough violence to keep those who keep track of such things busy until the end of their days. One doesn't have to peek into the sausage factory to decide to remain ignorant about what goes into the frank. I'm just puzzled why they did not outright annex their winnings? I know this question sounds odd given where I'm from and what I'm expected to support (that's why I mentioned my origins). The cynic in me would argue that keeping the residents of Gaza and the West Bank marginalized would act as a burr in the side of the other Arab nations, and be used as a pretext for Israel to solicit US military and financial aid. > > Despite the massive economic and emotional toll their occupation of the > > West Bank has inflicted, and the shocking level which the Israeli > > lobby will go to protect continued US aid, and the corrupting influence > > of said aid, I hold a fleeting hope that Israel will come to its senses > > and not continue on its path of brutality and aggression. > > > > I liked it much better when the chat was about FreeBSD, but there's no > > chance of that happening any time soon, is there? > > I think the sooner people realize that the U.S. is not > playing at a war on terroism, the sooner they will quit > trying to cast the events of September 11th as a result > of U.S. policy, and realize that the terrorists ultimately > are responsible for their own actions, regardless of what > "provocation" may or may not exist. The U.S. _will_ hold > them responsible for their actions, and the U.S. _will not_ > permit terrorist acts to control U.S. foreign policy. That remains to be seen, though I don't follow that the casting of what happened on 9/11 as a result of U.S. policy means that the U.S. response will be half-hearted, on the contrary...the U.S framed the events as not just a crime, but an act of war, which certainly agrees with the way antagonists have decided that all Americans are fair game in their struggle. I suspect that despite the original enthusiam to stage massive forces, that this war will be fought by remote (aerial bombardment) and proxy (Northern Alliance troops) for as long as possible, in order to minimize American casualties, both in the fighting and to reduce the possibility of further terrorist attacks on the troops themselves. However, this can backfire if the Taliban or whoever is still around a few months from now. > Do not expect the U.S. position on the Israeli/Palestinian > situation to change as a result of the attack; expect the > U.S. position to become even more firmly entrenched. If we > even suspect that the motivation was over a particular U.S. > foreign policy issue, expect a knee-jerk reaction opposite > of the one the terrorists wanted to force us into. I would expect that the U.S position would move even closer to the Israeli position as the mainline Fatah movment loses influence in favor of the more extremist groups, some of whom surely aided or at least were sympathetic to the goals and aims of the terrorist groups identified as the culprits behind the 9/11 attacks. I suspect this is fine with Israel, as the PLO at least could play the sympathy card to get the support from the usual bunch suspects, whereas the extremists have little support outside of their people. Of course, the Israeli position is what is the true moving target, since the Israelis have little interest in anything other than the status quo, if my earlier wild speculation was anywhere near the target, even factoring in the cost of committing military personnel to the West Bank and Gaza, as well as watching them pushed aside to the sidelines so as not to antagonize the "coalition- building" among some of our Arab "allies". There were reports earlier today of both Senator Lieberman and McCain questioning whether Egypt and Saudi Arabia have done all they could to support the U.S. cause...is this an indicator that most of the Arab states have long harbored terrorists? Now that would be a shocker, about as much as the U.S aiding the Pakistani dictatorship as well as the bandit warlords that oppose the Taliban theocracy. Interesting times ahead. Take care, --Sam To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20011022020308.A13531>