Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Orwell, Blinding Tribalism, Selective Terrorism, and Israel/Gaza
The fight against Islamic radicals always seems to come around to whether or not they can, in fact, be deterred, because it's not clear that they are rational, at least not like us. But to wipe out a man's entire family, it's hard to imagine that doesn't give his colleagues at least a moment's pause. Perhaps it will make the leadership of Hamas rethink the wisdom of sparking an open confrontation with Israel under the current conditions.
That, of course, is just a slightly less profane version of Marty Peretz's chest-beating proclamation that the great value of the attack on Gaza is to teach those Arabs a lesson: "do not fuck with the Jews."
There are few concepts more elastic and subject to exploitation than "Terrorism," the all-purpose justifying and fear-mongering term. But if it means anything, it means exactly the mindset which Goldfarb is expressing: slaughtering innocent civilians in order to "send a message," to "deter" political actors by making them fear that continuing on the same course will result in the deaths of civilians and -- best of all, from the Terrorist's perspective -- even their own children and other family members.
To the Terrorist, by definition, that innocent civilians and even children are killed isn't a regrettable cost of taking military action. It's not a cost at all. It's a benefit. It has strategic value. Goldfarb explicitly says this: "to wipe out a man's entire family, it's hard to imagine that doesn't give his colleagues at least a moment's pause."
That, of course, is the very same logic that leads Hamas to send suicide bombers to slaughter Israeli teenagers in pizza parlors and on buses and to shoot rockets into their homes. It's the logic that leads Al Qaeda to fly civilian-filled airplanes into civilian-filled office buildings. And it's the logic that leads infinitely weak and deranged people like Goldfarb and Peretz to find value in the killing of innocent Palestinians, including -- one might say, at least in Goldfarb's case: especially -- children.
* * * * *
One should be clear that this sociopathic indifference to (or even celebration over) the deaths of Palestinian civilians isn't representative of all supporters of the Israeli attack on Gaza. It's unfair to use the Goldfarb/Peretz pathology to impugn all supporters of the Israeli attack. It's certainly possible to support the Israeli offensive despite the deaths of these civilians, to truly lament the suffering of innocent Palestinians but still find the war, on balance, to be justifiable.
Those who favor the attack on Gaza due to that calculus are certainly misguided about the likely outcome. And many war supporters who fall into this more benign category are guilty of insufficiently weighing the deaths of Palestinian innocents and, relatedly, of such overwhelming emotional and cultural attachment to Israel and Israelis that they long ago ceased viewing this conflict with any remnant of objectivity.
I can't express how many emails I've received in the last week from people identifying themselves as "liberals" (and, overwhelmingly, American Jews); telling me that they agree with my views in almost all areas other than Israel; and then self-righteously insisting that I imagine what it's like to live in Southern Israel with incoming rocket fire from Hamas, as though that will change my views on the Israel/Gaza war. Obviously, it's not difficult to imagine the understandable rage that Israelis feel when learning of another attack on Israeli civilians, in exactly the way that American rage over the 9/11 attacks was understandable. But just as that American anger didn't justify anything and everything that followed, the fact that there are indefensible attacks on Israeli civilians doesn't render the (far more lethal) attacks on Gaza either wise or just -- as numerous Jewish residents of Sderot themselves are courageously arguing in opposing the Israeli attack.
More to the point: for those who insist that others put themselves in the position of a resident of Sderot -- as though that will, by itself, prove the justifiability of the Israeli attack -- the idea literally never occurs to them that they ought to imagine what it's like to live under foreign occupation for 4 decades (and, despite the 2005 "withdrawal from Gaza," Israel continues to occupy and expand its settlements on Palestinian land and to control and severely restrict many key aspects of Gazan life). No thought is given to what it is like, what emotions it generates, what horrible acts start to appear justifiable, when you have a hostile foreign army control your borders and airspace and internal affairs for 40 years, one which builds walls around you, imposes the most intensely humiliating conditions on your daily life, blockades your land so that you're barred from exiting and prevented from accessing basic nutrition and medical needs for your children to the point where a substantial portion of the underage population suffers from stunted growth.
So extreme is their emotional identification with one side (Israel) that it literally never occurs to them to give any thought to any of that, to imagine what it's like to live in those circumstances. Nor does this thought occur to them:
I was trained from an early age to view this group as my group, to identify with them emotionally, culturally, religiously. Maybe that -- and not an objective assessment of these events -- is why I continuously side with that group and see everything from its perspective and justify whatever it does, why I find the Dick Cheney/Weekly Standard/neoconservative worldview repellent in every situation except when it comes to Israel, when I suddenly find it wise and vigorously embrace it.
Those who defend American actions in every case, or who find justification in attacks on Israeli civilians, or who find simplistic moral clarity in a whole range of other complex and protracted disputes where all sides share infinite blame, are often guilty of the same refusal/inability to at least try to minimize this sort of ingrained tribalistic blindness.
* * * * *
Still, there is a substantial difference between, on the one hand, basically well-intentioned people who are guilty of excessive emotional and cultural identification with one side of the dispute and, on the other, those who adopt the Goldfarb/Peretz psychopathic derangement of belittling rage over widespread civilian deaths as mere "whining" or even something to view as a strategic asset. The latter group is a subset of war supporters and evinces every defining attribute of the Terrorist.
Those who giddily support not just civilian deaths in Gaza but every actual and proposed attack on Arab/Muslim countries -- from the war in Iraq to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon to the proposed attacks on Iran and Syria and even continued escalation in Afghanistan -- are able to do so because they don't really see the Muslims they want to kill as being fully human. For obvious reasons, one typically finds this full-scale version of sociopathic indifference -- this perception of brutal war as a blood-pumping and exciting instrument for feeling vicarious sensations of power and strength from a safe distance -- in the society's weakest, most frightened, and most insecure individuals.
Here's right-wing blogger (and law professor) Glenn Reynolds revealing that wretched mindset for all to see:
“Cycles of violence” continue until one side wins decisively. Personally, I’d rather that were the Israelis, since they’re civilized people and not barbarians.
Or, as Goldfarb put it: "it's not clear that they are rational, at least not like us."
If you see Palestinians as something less than civilized human beings: as "barbarians" -- just as if you see Americans as infidels warring with God or Jews as sub-human rats -- then it naturally follows that civilian deaths are irrelevant, perhaps even something to cheer. For people who think that way, arguments about "proportionality" won't even begin to resonate -- such concepts can't even be understood -- because the core premise, that excessive civilian deaths are horrible and should be avoided at all costs, isn't accepted. Why should a superior, civilized, peaceful society allow the welfare of violent, hateful barbarians to interfere with its objectives? How can the deaths or suffering of thousands of barbarians ever be weighed against the death of even a single civilized person?
So many of these conflicts -- one might say almost all of them -- end up shaped by the same virtually universal deficiency: excessive tribalistic identification (i.e.: the group with which I was trained to identify is right and good and just and my group's enemy is bad and wrong and violent), which causes people to view the world only from the perspective of their side, to believe that X is good when they do it and evil when it's done to them. X can be torture, or the killing of civilians in order to "send a message" (i.e., Terrorism), or invading and occupying other people's land, or using massive lethal force against defenseless populations, or seeing one's own side as composed of real humans and the other side as sub-human, evil barbarians. As George Orwell wrote in Notes on Nationalism -- with perfect prescience to today's endless conflicts (h/t Hume's Ghost):
All nationalists have the power of not seeing resemblances between similar sets of facts. A British Tory will defend self-determination in Europe and oppose it in India with no feeling of inconsistency. Actions are held to be good or bad, not on their own merits, but according to who does them, and there is almost no kind of outrage — torture, the use of hostages, forced labour, mass deportations, imprisonment without trial, forgery, assassination, the bombing of civilians — which does not change its moral colour when it is committed by ‘our’ side ... The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them
For those who evaluate moral questions from that blindingly self-regarding perspective, anything and everything becomes easily justifiable.
- Posted in
126 Comments so far
Show AllThat, of course, is just a slightly less profane version of Marty Peretz's chest-beating proclamation that the great value of the attack on Gaza is to teach those Arabs a lesson: "do not fuck with the Jews."
Marty Peretz, like George Wanker Bush, Cheesedick Cheney, Consolidated Rice-A-Roni, Tom (Suck on this!) Friedman and all the swinging dicks called Neocons are the world's greatest collection of Michael Herr's immortal term "closet throatstickers". Do you think Peretz or Bush or Cheney or Richard Perle or Bill Kristol would pick up a gun and risk their lives in Gaza or Iraq? Never happen! Their minds are cesspools of dime novel toughness and nothing more. When the shooting starts, they'll be the first ones running the other way. George Wanker Bush will be way out in front, feeding everyone else his dust.
Bang on. Bush et al are the wankers that exhort others to run towards the fight, while wearing their 'arrowproof' helmets far out of range of hostile fire. As it has ever been, those who call for death are least likely to get their own hands bloody (at least with the real gore of killing, even as they soak the world in the blood of their victims.)
Sioux Rose
MORDECHAI: Your analysis is good but it doesn't link why sexual terminology is the basis for the concept of acquiring power or dominion, and what this says of the feminine receptive force... the fact that well-known commentators would use sexual imagery in their depictions is misogynistic, too. And although many in this forum buck against the use of mystical terminology, or the basic ancient model of the Zodiac, there is a wisdom to its 12 decisive archetypes. Where Mars promotes violence and the me-first competitive status, Venus seeks compromise and negotiated efforts that spread the good around. Venus is a Divine feminine influence and intended as counter-balance to Mars. Thus the degree a society identifies with the force of Mars is generally indicative of its "Venus deficit."
When men and cultures come to understand the importance of the Sacred Balance, shown in the model of DNA to which our physical essences are assembled, then we have a beginning chance to remodel our social arrangements on the basis of true equality. From the relationship of Yin to Yang, all other relationships follow. And from these are generated the political, economic and religious principles that organize any and all societies.
Someone earlier pointed out on this site that the Vedic Era in India was one of those few eras in ancient history where women not only had equal rights and opportunities as men but also had equal access to leadership. It was only at the end of that period that women were degraded and then after that period ended, Hindus and Muslims practised male dominance just like the West. Funny that the East actually believed in gender equality long before the West even tried and yet they abandoned it.
My understanding is that in recent years, there is an attempt in India at defining what the so-called 'Vedic Era' was like. Apparently it is fashionable to invent a mythical past when things were kind of perfect. But I find this amusing because I think few people know even what is in the 'Vedas' - after all, the so-called 'Vedic Era' refers to the period when the Vedas were written or were in vogue. The caste system was in place even before the Muslims arrived, and was perhaps one of the major weakening factors that allowed the conquest of India by various invaders. In fact, the caste system itself seems like the perfect tool that would be used by a conqueror to keep 'natives' in their place. But it is not easy to know about ancient history of Aryans, natives, Dravidians, etc., because, like in many parts of the world, history is quite distorted according to who writes it. One of the scriptures called Manu Smriti has some really interesting codes of behavior, I understand. I have also read somewhere that genetically, the northern and southern Indians are quite different, with those in the north closer to the Europeans, and those in the south, closer to Africans.
It is quite possible that there was more gender equality in ancient India. But to somehow link that, like all good things, to the Vedas is rather disingenuous - apparently a popular thing in today's India, I understand. It is quite likely that Muslim invasion changed the role of women in society - but these effects seem more pronounced in Northern India (where traditional Hindu women also cover their head - even the current President does so), but not so in the south - may be the south was not so influenced by Islam.
Why do write this response? It is to caution against historical revisionism. There is much to learn from Eastern teachings - but a blanket whitewashing of history is not something we need.
Highintel: Can we do better?
I dunno but a Indian born Muslim chick who came from India told me about the Vedic Era and she wished she could enjoy the same rights as those women in the Vedic Era. Her family moved to Afghanistan earlier and before the Taliban came to power moved back to India. I don't know about the Vedic Era but I don't see the Christian, Muslim, or Hindu males treating women any better for the last 1000 years.
If the reader will casually study the history of the Jews, Muslims, and Christians, it will reveal a history of conflict, aggression, genocide, treachery.
The 'tribalism' mentioned by the author is in reality only secondary to the core of the conflict.
In the Americas tribes that were once in conflict would often Allie themselves against the common enemy presented by the 'invader'.
When the 'Jews' of the Roman era lost their title to the territory they deemed having been awarded by their "God", the Romans had little reason to recognize that title. The Romans were more concerned with a group who would not maintain treaties signed in good faith, after the Jews lost three wars with the Romans. Wars that the Jewish 'God' certainly did not intervene on their behalf in.
When the early Muslims treated the three tribes of Israel in their area with respect, and inclusion, the Jews participated with the Muslims only long enough to be able to 'once more' violate a treaty and use their 'God' as an excuse.
The Christians made war on the Muslims with the instigation of the Pope initially, then the Monarchs of Europe for the purpose to 'rescue' the "Holy Lands' from the 'infidels'---and the conflicts continue.
The nationalism of the authors insistence is I believe a misnomer. He speaks of Nationalism in the terms that none of the examples have displayed. If a 'Nation', is not one based on integrity and therefore does not keep its word, then it must be titled something else. If the 'nation' is based on a concept delivered by a religious concept, such as Israel, and even the USA who often promotes itself as a Christian Nation, and the Muslim Nations who claim to enjoy the 'only true faith'; then that nation is doomed to failure, since no one can seem to agree on which religion is valid, except of course to the adherent.
The abolition of Religion will be the one true step toward civilization that human kind will need to make in order to survive. With the capability now of total destruction of the planet via Nuclear weaponry, any human survivors of that 'last great conflict' would have little to live for even if they could maintain long enough to learn from the mistakes.
We do not have the luxury of taking our time.
The record clearly shows that if a people believe themselves to be "chosen" over others , whether by birth or by proxy, they will conduct themselves accordingly.
We must abolish Religion from the public discussion at least, or we are doomed, and will take the other life forms with us into the abyss of extinction.
Amen to that!
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" -Epicurus
Sioux Rose
PERCEPTION: I find it unbelievable that you seem to take masculine human characteristics and consider them fitting for something as incomprehensibly vast as The Infinite? Your logic applied to the qualities of the Deity are rather narcissistic. Do all men look in the mirror and think they have found God there?
There is nothing gendered in what "perception" posted it is a succinct logic puzzle that is gender neutral that points out one of the many fallacies of religious belief systems.
countcoup
You've got some good points and thoughts in this post.
"The abolition of Religion will be the one true step toward civilization"
This wasn't one of them of course. Only you agnostic's/atheist's would believe that. But it would be nice if we could adhere closer to the tenets we believe wouldn't it, whoever we are, unless your religion preaches war and agression.
Sioux Rose
Religion should be practiced like sex: in private, or if no one is around, have a little ritual outside!
hahahaha good analogy SiouxRose
Abolish religion. You may as well attempt to abolish hunger for power, or money. I'd love to know how you would do it without creating just another 'tribe'. I always get nauseous when I hear someone claim that religion is the root of all evil, when in fact it is the love of money. Money is power, after all. Although, to be fair, in some cases it is possible to just bypass the money altogether, and just grab power. Count up all the wars of history and find me one single war that wasn't really about money, power, land, or some geo-strategic nonsense, yet used religion as cover and as propaganda to fool Johnny into marching off to war. Show me how religious ideology is any more or less bloody than greed for money and/or power. I say all ideologies are bloody, and if you count the dead over the 20th century (far surpassing all of the blood spilled in all previous wars combined) you will find that economic ideologies win the day in terms of blood spilled. In fact, if you look into the stated beliefs of the war mongers in general, not a one of them actually acts consistent with them. I'd bet dollars to donuts that if every religious person, every secular person, every government acted in accord with their stated beliefs, their stated code of moral conduct, that 90% of all the bloodshed would stop. What I see is a world filled with people who do the opposite of what they claim to believe, and that goes for secular as well as religious ideologues. How exactly can religion be abolished without recourse to exactly the kind of tribalism you claim to hate? If atheists start a war against religious people, I would call that a religious war.
Money is the root of all evil. Religion is the fertilizer.
Sioux Rose
EZE: If that quote is your own, it belongs on a Tee-shirt, copywritten. Bravo!
Money is the root of all evil. Religion is the fertilizer, and the farmer is government power always desiring more land to farm on.
Two sentence history of the west. :(
Organized religion and economic/political levers are all used by the elites to oppress the people. The left should stop arguing either/or and agree to the truth that the elite will use anything and everything available as a tool of oppression. Institutions and organizations may be hijacked and co-opted. Ideas and belief systems may be used to inflame fears/hatreds. Media and information channels spew the propaganda. Myths, customs, traditions, relationships, emotions, wants, needs, habits, weaknesses, strength are exploited. The elites view everything as a potential tool to advance their control over the society. So let's stop the debate about which is the lever du jour and focus on the elites, the group harboring the intent to exploit.
Sioux Rose
The nation's founders having seen evidence of the religious purges throughout Europe indeed did set up what they took for a firewall between church and state in this nation. That's why the evangelical direction of the U.S. air force, the imbecile Boykin stating "I knew my god was bigger than his god," Obama having a biased minister give an opening prayer at his world-will-be-watching "opening act," Bush speaking of his Father in heaven, owner of Blackwater, Eric Prince citing himself a born-again Christian, the rise of the 700 club on television with so many megachurches disbursed throughout the land, added to a very ambitious Christian publishing industry (sales over a billion 2 years ago when I read the statistics), to Christian rock stations & recording labels, to voting inside churches, and $ to abstinence programs rather than intelligent birth control/family planning, added to the presumption churches should feed the poor since state treasuries have been largely emptied to pursue a war cloaked in religious delusion and deception. This is a partial list, but it's offered as ominous portent to the breakdown of that all-important fire wall between church and state. A Christian theocracy for our homeland would be the rose that didn't smell too sweet.
There is no such "firewall" The only thing the founding fathers did was to ensure that the government would have no state religion. That is the only constraint. No official state religion.
"A Christian theocracy for our homeland would be the rose that didn't smell too sweet." as you say would however be a disaster for our country.
Fanatical supporters of the three Abrahamic religions have been responsible for much global misery and suffering over the last 1000 years. It is time for humanity to shake of th shackles of these violent and imperialistic belief systems
The reason I identify more with the people in Gaza than in Southern Israel is because Gaza is OCCUPIED by a terrorist nation. The rules are different when you are being victimized by vicious psychopaths. Watch "The Battle Of Algiers" by Gillo Pontecorvo (1966).
...to wipe out a man's entire family, it's hard to imagine that doesn't give his colleagues at least a moment's pause.
Yes indeed, just as it did to the scant score of Saudis on 11 September 2001.
American and Israel are going to have an 'interesting' albeit short future. Bad Karma!
Professor Bruce Wilshire has written a brilliant book focused on the dynamics of genocide and genocidal thinking, called "Get 'em all! Kill 'em! : Genocide, Terrorism, and Righteous Communities."
It shines a powerful and fresh light on this more monstrous element of being human. I found it a challenging and illuminating read.
"the fact that there are indefensible attacks on Israeli civilians doesn't render the (far more lethal) attacks on Gaza either wise or just -- as numerous Jewish residents of Sderot themselves are courageously arguing in opposing the Israeli attack."
This is the truth of the whole thing.
Listening to the bland and bloodless Israeli spokesman speak about attacking the "Hamas military machine" in a news snippet recently, it is obvious that the people of Israel are frightened, very frightened.
It goes a bit deeper than nationalism. It is Jewish identity that defines Israeli national identity. That is what gives it its tribal quality
In the US segregated south, most white racists were likewise comforted by the murder of blacks and their systematic suppression. If the Confederacy had been successful, racism would have morphed into national policy, just as antisemitism is national policy for Israel. The relentless murder of other Semites assuages Israeli fear by reassuring them of their own superior status. Blacks were believed to pose an existential threat in the US South, as the Palestinians with their rag tag army and rockets that terrorize more than they kill vis a vis Israel. Imagined fears evoke the same hysterical response as real ones.
Hence, the "Hamas military machine".
It is the patience of the Palestinians and the capacity to take a lickin' but keep on kickin' that terrifies the Israelis. The Jews understand the implacable will of the victim and they resort to total war behind a news black out in the belief they can break the will of the victims.
They are right to be afraid because they have seriously bungled their attempt to create a "Jewish democracy". Israel is not sustainable. It was created through terrorism, deceit, theft, murder, and a cosmic arrogance. Israeli, the regional super power, is isolated behind its fortifications, a small island of arrogance and self-righteousness in a vast sea of hatred. Its continued existence depends entirely on the support of the US, the rapidly disintegrating super power.
The hysteria of Israel, perfectly reflected in the thinly concealed psychosis of the bitch, Livni, is based on the neurotic certainty that they will never outrun their own victim hood. The murder of the scapegoat Palestinians will not erase Jewish victim hood. The fear level will only increase with the barbarity of the total war that has been declared.
If the US cannot recognize that the client Israel is mentally ill and impose a steady hand to keep it from running amuck, the US will be victimized as well.
The Arabs are patient. They know how to suffer and die, patiently. But they are implacable. The Israelis will reap all the hatred they have sown and the Jewish state will be reduced to rubble.
Hopefully, they won't drag the rest of the world down with them.
Very good comment but you might want to revise your assumptions about the Confederacy had it been successful. It really wasn't all about slavery as we're taught in school. Lincoln was not that much different than Bush. Freeing the slaves, at that time in history, was pretty much along the lines of today's WOT. History is always written by the victor. It's sad that a defeated, destroyed and exploited South had to bear the stigma it does today, much like the once glorious ME does today after the Crusades, WWI and the meddlesome Brits.
Sioux Rose
CRUXPUPPY: Do you think if Israel had developed a more inclusive policy towards Palestinians, shared the wealth/land more equitably, that they might have reconciled their existence with their Arab neighbors? I've heard it said that the Israelis believe the only language the Arabs understand is that of power through force. Having shown their muscle long before the disatrous Lebanese massacre and today's similar occurence in Palestine, in theory, Israel alraeady proved its prowess. Thus again I pose the question, had Israel been able to "rest on its laurels" and used its intelligence & initiative to share technology with its neighbors, to seek to BE a better neighbor, do you suppose the fatalistic moves might have avoided the outcome to which you lend credence?
We can "suppose" all day, the pertinent question is what are we DOING about Israel's murderous aggression against the trapped people of Gaza?
Sioux Rose
HOOTOWL: A. The question was not addressed to you, and B. As usual you transpose your issue onto what I am speaking about. "That's not it at all."
Its merely the problem humans have of tending to view "their group" as better than others.
Animal rights activists have been trying to highlight that(would "subhuman rat" be an insult if humans realized that all the worst traits of living beings are embodied in one species--while other species have exhibited some of the best traits--altruism, parenting, restraint etc--so humans cant claim they embody both the good and bad).
To me the way the Israel/Palestine debate is framed is similar to the animal research argument.
In both cases we are told that a group has been wronged(jews by Hitler and antisemitism/patients by disease and Nature) and the hand wringing solution is something we dont like but have no choice(colonizing land/torturing members of innocent species).
But two wrongs dont make a right.
You dont get praise for helping Peter by killing Paul.
You dont help a homeless man by kicking a family out of their house and then say its altruistic.
In both examples a)Israel is not safe after 60 years and b) animal research still requires human test subjects-without it, you get Thalidomide, since using non humans as comparative anatomy for humans is like using giraffes to study disease in elephants).
The foundation of the pro Israel argument ignores the root moral problem with it(when the Iranian pres asked why a jewish homeland wasnt carved out of Europe the comments were completely ignored--the truth hurts).
Animal research is the same way. The most hated criminal is treated better than your standard lab animal--that's warped. But like zionist jews, pro vivisection who hold onto a "our group is everything" belief are blind to it.
Some things defy basic moral common sense and fairness, but people who normally know that 2 + 2 = 4 will keep saying it equals 5 if they are stuck in that mindset.
Whether you can convince them otherwise--that's the question.
"One should be clear that this sociopathic indifference to (or even celebration over) the deaths of Palestinian civilians isn't representative of all supporters of the Israeli attack on Gaza. It's unfair to use the Goldfarb/Peretz pathology to impugn all supporters of the Israeli attack."
Spot on!
Sociopathic pathology is exactly what many are displaying, yet it's important to realize that those on the receiving end of the rockets - the Israeli civilians - are feeling the same fear and rage that Palestinians in Gaza are feeling. Of course, the difference is that the Israelis have somewhere to run.
No conclusions here other than that terrorism is a sociopathic pathology - no matter who is using it.
"All Nature's difference keeps all Nature's peace." Alexander Pope
Nicely said. Let's also remember that this didn't just happen in the last eight days or since Hamas resumed its rocket attacks. This is a long and protracted war in which leaders on all sides have been all too willing to sacrifice Israelis and Palestinians for their political agendas. See: Global Investment Watch at http://globalinvestmentwatch.com/2009/01/04/israel-the-caged-animals-must-be-punished/
It is repellant to hear Islamics moan about being victims when they and their armed forces have attacked Jews and Christians mercilessly over the past several decades.
Those who are interested in the truths of history know that Saudi Arabia is a new state, created in 1932, and recognized by the British when Abdullah the terrorist argued that the lands he conquered on the Arabian Peninsula should be recognized as a theocratic monarchy with himself as its first "king" because the Brits had already recognized Palestine as a Jewish Homeland. Then the struggle began over developing the then recently discovered oil fields underlying the Arabian Peninsula. Controlling them, or at least keeping them from being controlled by the Third Reich, was crucial. And so it began, with the West and Europe slowly enriching the Islamic elite in Saudi Arabia and the UAE, who are, by the way, sponsoring the propaganda against Christians in Indonesia and Jews "wherever and whenever they are to be found."
The Saudis are Janusian in their skill at manipulating governments--including the US. The former Saudi ambassador to the US (Bandar) reportedly bragged about the Saudis ability to purchase favors via bribery.
However, you should all understand that if the Saudis succeed in dismantling Israel, which the Islamics see only as a boulder on their path toward conquering the Mediterranean, you can expect the Islamics settled in Europe to "uprise" in Spain and France and disrupt their governments using the same means the Islamics used to conquer the Arabian Peninsula (1932) and disrupt the Philippines and Bali with the same terrorist tactics Abdullah "the First" profitably utilized in 1932. The Islamics are solidly lodged in the UK and the Brits know it but they don't know what to do to eradicate the Islamic poison infecting their own dispossessed and/or displeased. So, some of the disaffected and their Islamic supporters join up with their would-be oppressors to save their own skins--and some quite obviously only do so for to revive their notareity.
However, you should all understand that if the Saudis succeed in dismantling Israel, which the Islamics see only as a boulder on their path toward conquering the Mediterranean,
Bwa ha ha! With what army are they going to do that? The only thing the saud's have is oil. They have no industry to build world conquering weapons, they have no aircraft manufacturers, they don't have an army. Iran might have an army, but it buys all of it's arms from Russia and China. A new caliphate is not going to happen, your post is delusional.
I agree the previous poster is living in a fantasy world if they think a caliphate is a real threat, the empirical reality is that ISRAEL is gunning down a helpless trapped population which is a war crime. Leaflets that say leave your houses and flee, where to EXACTLY. Those are the facts on the ground and they are vile and disgusting.
20,000 Hamas gun men and thousands of air to ground missiles isn't exactly an unarmed civilian population. Hamas has killed thousands of it's own people in the Civil strife between it and the PLO. You make this sound as if the PALS are some unarmed AmeriInd. tribe on a reservation. These people are armed to the teeth as u will shortly see.
"And the minute Israel's latest genocide ends, the rockets will keep firing into Israel"
That is not a happy thought.........
Oh yea I love Benito!! That makes u a vile Communist scum and lover of Stalin! This is so stupid. You want my people DEAD and I want u dead. Ok, it's called WAR and where enemies.
Not armed enough to inflict mass casualties on Israelis soldiers who fight on behalf of land theft and quashing Gazan democracy sadly enough. Hopefully Hamas at least have some well positioned snipers so Israel doesn't have a total cakewalk.
And why aren't you over fighting for Israel if you think their cause is in the right Bluto (the cartoon bully)? Could it be because you are a chickenshit chickenhawk who is too spoiled and wealthy to fight and who sees that as a job for undermenschen?
Could be...
Final question that no Zionist apologist has been able to answer for over 24 hours, where is Israel's border EXACTLY? Be sure to account for further construction of the "separation wall" and expanding settlements, remember dude real countries have real borders, right? Is Israel a real country with a real border as recognized under international law or an amoebae that attempts to absorb everything around it, curious minds want to know
Not armed enough to inflict mass casualties on Israelis soldiers who fight on behalf of land theft and quashing Gazan democracy sadly enough. Hopefully Hamas at least have some well positioned snipers so Israel doesn't have a total cakewalk.
And why aren't you over fighting for Israel if you think their cause is in the right Bluto (the cartoon bully)? Could it be because you are a chickenshit chickenhawk who is too spoiled and wealthy to fight and who sees that as a job for undermenschen?
Could be...
Final question that no Zionist apologist has been able to answer for over 24 hours, where is Israel's border EXACTLY? Be sure to account for further construction of the "separation wall" and expanding settlements, remember dude real countries have real borders, right? Is Israel a real country with a real border as recognized under international law or an amoebae that attempts to absorb everything around it, curious minds want to know
Not armed enough to inflict mass casualties on Israelis soldiers who fight on behalf of land theft and quashing Gazan democracy sadly enough. Hopefully Hamas at least have some well positioned snipers so Israel doesn't have a total cakewalk.
And why aren't you over fighting for Israel if you think their cause is in the right Bluto (the cartoon bully)? Could it be because you are a chickenshit chickenhawk who is too spoiled and wealthy to fight and who sees that as a job for undermenschen?
Could be...
Final question that no Zionist apologist has been able to answer for over 24 hours, where is Israel's border EXACTLY? Be sure to account for further construction of the "separation wall" and expanding settlements, remember dude real countries have real borders, right? Is Israel a real country with a real border as recognized under international law or an amoebae that attempts to absorb everything around it, curious minds want to know
The guy clearly hasn't been anywhere in the Persian/Arabian Gulf. Had he been there he would know that many Saudis, Kuwaitis etc. hardley lift a finger to do any work. They have maids, cooks and drivers that they pay them to do all that. They are all "managers" and not lowly workers. They drink tea or coffee all afternoon and get off work by 2PM. The women shop. There are exceptions to this of course but this is my general observation. Everyone also has thier alcohol dealers in these countries where they purchase the outlawed liquor behind the scenes and also thier American and western movies. The poster talks about an army? Is he kidding? That would require work and leaving their air conditioned malls and palaces and cars. It would mean an end to summering in London, and Paris. Its 120 degrees there in the summer there afterall.
The Bible is a collection of fables plus some history. However, it has a one constant theme: tribalism. It's been the cause of more violence in the world than good. The Bible is actually a record of extreme violence - the Book of Joshua in particular.
The Bible provides the rationalizations. However, the objectives have always been the thefts of land, water and resources from the heathens. It happened in North America, starting with Columbus, who brought sword and cross to the New World. The early European colonists celebrated Native American massacres with Thanksgiving feasts.
The religious right in the United States today tacitly accepts the violence of the Bush administration and its new "crusade" in Iraq and other countries. (For instance, evangelist preacher Franklin Graham was busy exchanging baptisms for clean water in post-invasion Iraq.) It's time to reject Christianity as a failure to communicate. It doesn't work. A few good history lessons would better lead people to peace than following fairy tales in the Bible.
Maybe try Buddhism, although we've seen the Buddhist government in India sanction extreme violence. In general, the melding of the state or nationalist sentiments with religion leads to fascism.
If you find yourself differentiating yourself from others on the basis of your "faith," then you're part of the problem. Instead, one should broaden one's understanding and oppose the violence of the state.
-TIA
Sioux Rose
THOUGHTS INTO ACTION: Very well said. I agree with your thesis.
>>The Bible is a collection of fables plus some history
Your statement is only partially correct - that is, if you include the so-called 'Old Testament' as a package. I have no problems in accepting, and even attempting to follow, the teachings of Jesus. In fact, it does not even matter if there was a historical Jesus - because I do not care to prove to anyone of anything. What matters to me is peace now - and there are certainly several pointers to that effect in the teachings of Jesus. I have read some recent 'interpretations' of those teachings by Eckhart Tolle and Deepak Chopra - and I think we should be free to come up with our own understanding of those teachings, rather than following dogmatic (and often bigoted) assertions by people who I cannot accept as role models.
I have often wondered - how did the so-called 'Old Testament' get so neatly packaged into one unit, along with the teachings of Jesus - because I do not see anything in common, at all. I know a lot of canonization went on (including a bit of forgery?) at a very early stage, and the Gnostic part of the spiritual teachings of that period was pretty much banished.
Given this rather shady past, it is unfortunate that more and more people are converted to accept this 'package' with its pseudo-history, rather than just the 'teachings'. And a lot of the recent converts come from lands where Buddhism had spread early on, but got morphed into yet another religion with its rituals and so on, and there was a vacuum in Communist China, which is now being zealously filled with this 'package'.
Highintel: Can we do better?
"Buddhist government of India." What the heck are you talking about? The government of India is secular, and the major religious constituents are Hindu and Islam.
Perhaps, you are thinking of the Buddhist government of Sri Lanka, or Burma, or even Thailand, each of which has committed extreme violence and therefore could fit your description.
I have heard that American's are poor geographers. I guess so.
Sorry, it's a Hindu party in power in India. That's what I meant. Don't blame Americans - it's my mistake.
I was thinking of Buddhism as the best example of a religion that hasn't generally strayed into violence against others.
By the way, Burma (Myanmar) is controlled by a military junta. So, no, not thinking of that.
-TIA
For your information (I know, sometimes we stray into areas without knowing enough :) the party in power in India is NOT a Hindu party - the Congress (I) party, like almost ALL parties in India, is SECULAR, and some of them, like this party, go out of their ways to prove their secular credentials, often infuriating the hardliners in the Hindu majority. Even the 'other' major party in recent years, the BJP, only brands itself as a 'nationalist' party, and NOT as a Hindu party. In the 60+ years of independent India, there has not been any government at the federal level that was headed by any party affiliated 'officially' to any religion. Of course, it is common knowledge that most supporters of BJP belong to the the Hindu religion, and the party itself has gained quite a bit of mileage by raking up controversial and divisive issues by accusing other parties as pandering to the minority (Muslim - but it's not a small minority - approaching 150 million) vote bank. But, here again, the most popular President (who is little more than a figure-head) in India was a Muslim, who was 'nominated' by the BJP party (the one that has mostly Hindu supporters)...I know, I know...Indian politics is not easy to explain...
Highintel: Can we do better?
OK, thanks for the clarification. I thought the BJP was the majority party in power in India but I don't keep current with what's going on there. I'm glad to hear that India is staying away from injecting religion into politics.
The United States has taken many backward steps in that respect under the Bush administration. The U.S. Christian right wing is manipulated for electoral purposes, but despite that, it's still a regressive political force. They're big backers for pouring monetary aid into Israel, too - in support of an imagined post-apocalypse time.
The United States was founded on the principle of separation of church and state. The Republican Party here has found, though, that it can harness Christian right-wing voters by campaigning on social issues.
-TIA