poll: majority Israelis and Palestinians want the "Clinton Plan" borders

[MGB8]

Steve,

Enough. We get it. You don't like Muslims.

I can agree that there are real problems with Islam. To label "Muslims" as a whole incapable of this or that, etc. - its flat our racist. Muslims are just people, like any other, who subscribe to a particular belief set. That set may be more prone to violence/intolerance than some, you can argue much more prone, even, but you've gone beyond that with your recent set of posts.

I don't find that acceptable. Your point is made - you don't think true Islam is compatible with what the West considers decent human behavior. I strongly disagree. Don't belabor the point.

[Reffo]

I assume this comes from the preferred assumption that dissent does not exist, therefore they believe that this is the reality.

No, I beg to differ. I would like to see TRUE dissenting voices among the Palestinians in the WB and Gaza. I am sure that people with such opinions are there but they currently are afraid to speak out. This is what I mean by TRUE dissenting voices (my post 285):

Sumud, here are some examples of modified Chomski like statements:

Like the Arab's 1948 invasion of the new state of Israel leaving thousands of Jews killed, these actions and others in Israel were not undertaken in self-defense but rather for political ends.

There is no doubt that it was a very violent expulsion of Jews, more like an ethnic cleansing, a purification of the land, which was in keeping with the Arab ideal; redemption of the land. To do this, the Arabs had to get rid of the alien entity.

Arabs should know that the Jews used to live in the holy land, and they should not be attacked or killed for returning to live in Israel

This is what I answered (post 289) to your question when you asked: "I am not sure what a modified Chomsky statement is":

I just took some actual statements that Chomski made about Israel and substituted the word "Arab" instead of "Israel" (maybe with some additional minor mods). Why did I do this ? Just to give you some examples in order to answer your earlier questions. As I said before, I do believe that at this tage it's just a debating point because no one says things like that openly in the Palestinian society. This is not necessrily because no one wants to say this but rather the few who would say this are too scared to do so. What would be the value of them saying such things ? At least it could generate some healthy debate in Plestinian society. Even more importantly, it would demonstrate that Palestinian society too can tolerate a diversity of opinions and can function as a proper democracy.

You might find another example in the person of Nonie Darwish who was born and raised in the ME but now lives in the US. See the following url: http://www.noniedarwish.com/pages/745453/index.htm and here is an extract from it:

Terrorism is the direct result of the radical Islamist culture that is flourishing all over the Arab world and promoted by Arab media, governments, educational system and religious leaders. Terrorists are given training camps, money, power and respect for doing God’s work for Jihad. Arabs’ understand that they cannot win a war against the West and all they can succeed doing is to indoctrinate one generation after another for martyrdom. Their secret weapon is the anger and rage of the Arab street. It is a powerful weapon that they treasure, and they will not allow the West to unmask the lies of the daily dose of fear and anger fed to the beast on the Arab Street waiting for the next explosion. How can anyone expect them to apologize for a deep-rooted cultural and religious mission to defeat or kill infidels, especially Jews? Most Arabs still blame Israel for 9/11 and even 3/11 in Spain. How can we expect these countries to sincerely cooperate with the international community to end terror and its barbaric brutality? Americans should stop judging other cultures with the American value system, and especially stop expecting Arab/Moslem culture to respond rationally according to Western standards. Arab power is derived from oil, terror and manipulative PR campaigns. They know it and we know it, so let us stop kidding each other with false expectations.

By the way Sumud, I have to thank you for actually clarifying your exact position at long last. I do tend to agree with MGB8 that you tended to "duck and weave" with quite a few of your posts. For example your post 293:

Is it just possible that you're simply not aware of what you claim doesn't exist?

At any rate your choice of comparison is a bit poor. The basis of it was something like that Noam Chomsky can say critical things against Israel without being threatened. But he can't - he's been subject to death threats over his views.

caused me to believe that you are saying that "Chomsky like" dissent does not exist in the WB and Gaza. Obviously I now understand that you are not saying that. However your suggested dissenter Haider Abdel Shafi of Gaza is certainly not a mirror image of Chomsky. To be sure, he does seem to be more of a moderate than some others in the PA and Hamas but he certainly is not an apologist for Israel in the same way that Chomsky or his clones are apologists for the Arabs. Surely you can do better than that since Haider Abdel Shafi is clearly pro Palestinian and anti Israeli although he does not seem to favour violence to achieve similar (but perhaps not exactly the same) goals as the more militant Palestinians.

[SteveMetch]

Steve,

Enough. We get it. You don't like Muslims.

I can agree that there are real problems with Islam. To label "Muslims" as a whole incapable of this or that, etc. - its flat our racist. Muslims are just people, like any other, who subscribe to a particular belief set. That set may be more prone to violence/intolerance than some, you can argue much more prone, even, but you've gone beyond that with your recent set of posts.

First of all Islam is a belief, like fascism or communism not a race. When Muslims play the race card they actual expose their own rampant racism endorsed in the Koran.

Not all people who say they are Muslim practice fundamentalist Islam. The central point here is that the barbaric practices of Islam comes directly from the teachings of Islam. Peaceful Muslims are the anomaly. Showing me peaceful Germans and Russians does not diminish the universal evil of Nazism and Communism.

I don't find that acceptable. Your point is made - you don't think true Islam is compatible with what the West considers decent human behavior. I strongly disagree. Don't belabor the point.

This “is” the central point of this whole conflict not some distraction from it. Everything you tend to think of as important are actually only symptoms of this root schism in humanity. The end of this conflict is equally critical as it will ultimately determine the fate of Israel and maybe even set the course of humanity. Given that one fifth of all humanity is currently Muslim, with even more on the way, it hard to see this as just some wacko fringe movement that will naturally correct itself.

The Iranian’s are on record as saying that the solution to Zionism is one bomb away. False bravado? Hitler talked about Jewish extermination in even more subtle ways many years before his regime built and operated the gas chambers. There were far too few people like me with even modest amounts of intellectual courage to call evil by its name until it was too late. At which point significant amounts of physical courage and the lives of many freemen were required to ultimately defeat this evil. Both Nazism and Communism went from only an idea to the systematic murder of millions in less than a generation. Hitler could have only dreamed of the murderous power that the declared enemies of Jewish Israel and Christian America now have.

We have tried your approach to Violent Ideologies before and it leads straight to the Gulags and gas chambers. An even worse fate of Nuclear Terrorism awaits all of us if we continue to ignore and explain away the underlying ideology of Islam. Go ahead try to explain it way, try to understand it, try to reason with it, try to appease it, say it’s just a lunatic fringe it will go away your pick. Unfortunately you and your fellow travelers are helping to leading us right back into a 21st century gas chamber. The only difference is that this gas is at about 1 million degrees. Never again? Never say Never.

[Reffo]

Sumud

Haider Abdel Shafi of Gaza just advocated different tactics than Arafat. To compare his type of dissent to Chomsky's dissent against his own people is false. In fact, calling Haider Abdel Shafi's disagreement of tactics as dissent is analogous to calling John Kery's policy disagreements with Bush as dissent.....

I don't want us to continue playing these game of semantics, so let me spell it out. Chomsky's dissent (and othes of his ilk) is several magnitudes stronger than just disagreements between various political leaders about suitable tactics to essentially achieve similar objectives. Chomsky challanges the very foundations of his society. He advocates wholesale changes, he is virtually a "mouthpiece" of his society's enemies.

So, my questions to you Sumud were: Do you think such people exist in the WB and Gaza ? If so then who are they and why don't we hear from them ? What do you think would happen to them if they would challenge the very foundations of contemporary Palestinian society in the same visible public way that Chomsky challenges his society ? In fact, let me make the question even a bit more real: What do you think would happen to Nonie Darwish if she settled down somewhere in the WB or Gaza and continue to espouse her views publicly ? How long do you think she would last ?

[MGB8]

Lets try this again... from post #336:

If you admit that the consequences of anti-nationalist dissent are much more severe in the Pal-Arab and Arab states, such that those dissenters are chilled, and those who are not chilled are either exiled, imprisoned or killed, then, clearly, I must have been mistaken as to your point, a much more narrow and a bit meaningless point of "some people have disagreements in the Arab world, too." (Given how trite a point that is, it would be a reasonable mistake on my part to assume you were trying to say something of consequence...)

If you can't admit to the very different consequences of anti-nationalist dissenters (if any, and I really would love for you to show us the Palestinian Noam Chomsky living in Gaza, or the Syrian Ward Churchill), then you have made my point, Sumud.

Which is it?

Lets see what you do to evade the question this time...

[water]

what we can not go back now
the poles may say one thing but you can not beleive it
there were offered every thing and then the truth comes out that the only thing that would make them happy was to see all jewish Israel pushed in to the sea
i dont know what the solotion is but lets start with the turth that the arabs are causeing this to go on and on

[Sumud]

By the way Sumud, I have to thank you for actually clarifying your exact position at long last. I do tend to agree with MGB8 that you tended to "duck and weave" with quite a few of your posts. For example your post 293:
caused me to believe that you are saying that "Chomsky like" dissent does not exist in the WB and Gaza. Obviously I now understand that you are not saying that. However your suggested dissenter Haider Abdel Shafi of Gaza is certainly not a mirror image of Chomsky. To be sure, he does seem to be more of a moderate than some others in the PA and Hamas but he certainly is not an apologist for Israel in the same way that Chomsky or his clones are apologists for the Arabs. Surely you can do better than that since Haider Abdel Shafi is clearly pro Palestinian and anti Israeli although he does not seem to favour violence to achieve similar (but perhaps not exactly the same) goals as the more militant Palestinians.

You're getting as confused as MGB8. I just said it was a poor comparison because it was.

Your Chomsky point never made any sense, not in the way you meant. You asked for "Chomsky-like" dissent in Gaza and the WB. But that's a totally different comparison. Noam Chomsky doesn't live in Israel, he lives in the US. So the equivalent would be a Palestinian living in the US who critises the political leadership in the WB and Gaza. And you have already stated that this is the case. So what.

I ignored this and responded to the substance of your point, as I understood what you were getting at (or so I thought).


The "Chomsky" point, it's just a little strained anyway don't you think?
One individual says X about Israel so someone else must say exactly the same about Palestine, otherwise it's proof of a lack of dissent within Gaza and the WB. It's a fairly crude argument, but it does have it's precedents. There is a line very similar to this in media analysis, which is just as flawed. Its the one about balance - balance being when you give equal time to 2 diametricaly opposed points of view. The obvious flaw in such a crude reckoning is that it can elevate the lie to the same level as the truth and lacks breadth.

I'm not sure why the Palestinians should be held to account for the views of an American citizen. If your point is that Palestinians should aspire to US-style freedoms of speech, than I agree. But if that is it, you have a funny way of putting it.

[MGB8]

Lets try this a third time... from post #336:

If you admit that the consequences of anti-nationalist dissent are much more severe in the Pal-Arab and Arab states, such that those dissenters are chilled, and those who are not chilled are either exiled, imprisoned or killed, then, clearly, I must have been mistaken as to your point, a much more narrow and a bit meaningless point of "some people have disagreements in the Arab world, too." (Given how trite a point that is, it would be a reasonable mistake on my part to assume you were trying to say something of consequence...)

If you can't admit to the very different consequences of anti-nationalist dissenters (if any, and I really would love for you to show us the Palestinian Noam Chomsky living in Gaza, or the Syrian Ward Churchill), then you have made my point, Sumud.

Which is it?

Lets see what you do to evade the question this time...

[Sumud]

The funny thing is, the best Sumud could do, after more than a week of evading the questions (which he still is doing, as he did not answer mine), is come up with one "dissenter" who, far from being an anti-nationalist - just accepts Israel's right to exist!

I was very clear, as was Reffo, that we were speaking about Chomsky-esque anti-nationalists. Nice try, but that's a foul ball, at best.

Yes very clear. After joining the discussion at post 291, MGB8 finally introduces the phrase "anti-nationalist dissent" about 30 posts later in post 319 and has pretended ever since that this was his inital point.

It wasn't, and it wasn't what I first challanged you on. I know that you've since progressed to, what, Version 5.1 of your claim? But remember MGB8 what your intial claim was? - "the consequences are so severe that the only dissenters are either dead, in jail (and tortured), or in EXILE.".

I challenged you on this and got nothing but evasion.

Yes, it was a severe case of over-reaching, which is why you've been desperately reinventing your argument ever since.


But you are right that I haven't addressed your more recent point about "anti-nationalist dissent". But it's so silly that I thought I was doing you a favour.

You seem to be suggesting that there should be Palestinian equivalents of Chomsky's "anti-nationalist dissent". But there are. They're everywhere!!

Chomsky supports a Jewish state. So the Palestinian equivalent is someone who supports a Palestinian state.

Anymore totally stupid comparisons you want me to comment on?

[MGB8]

Lets try this again, for the FOURTH time... from post #336:

If you admit that the consequences of anti-nationalist dissent are much more severe in the Pal-Arab and Arab states, such that those dissenters are chilled, and those who are not chilled are either exiled, imprisoned or killed, then, clearly, I must have been mistaken as to your point, a much more narrow and a bit meaningless point of "some people have disagreements in the Arab world, too." (Given how trite a point that is, it would be a reasonable mistake on my part to assume you were trying to say something of consequence...)

If you can't admit to the very different consequences of anti-nationalist dissenters (if any, and I really would love for you to show us the Palestinian Noam Chomsky living in Gaza, or the Syrian Ward Churchill), then you have made my point, Sumud.

Which is it?

Lets see what you do to evade the question this time...

[Rivka]

"Clinton Plan"? Oy To go back to the days of Clinton!

[Reffo]

You're getting as confused as MGB8. I just said it was a poor comparison because it was.

Your Chomsky point never made any sense, not in the way you meant.

You are very funny (amusing) Sumud , you seem to know what I meant better than me, so how come you are not addressing my repeated questions ?

You asked for "Chomsky-like" dissent in Gaza and the WB. But that's a totally different comparison. Noam Chomsky doesn't live in Israel, he lives in the US. So the equivalent would be a Palestinian living in the US who critises the political leadership in the WB and Gaza. And you have already stated that this is the case. So what.

Actually, I cleared this up fairly early in my post 280:

I was talking about "Chomsky like" dissent within Palestinian society. Sumud, I am sure you heard about Noam Chomsky and his many Jewish clones. These people attack the very foundations of Israel and they are at least as severe in their criticisms as the less moderate Arabs. Although disliked (and even hated by many), these critics have not been silenced and certainly none of them have been harmed. I think that Palestinian society will be on a healthier footing towards democracy once they allow their own Chomskies to operate and debate and severely criticise Palestinian actions and attitudes against Israel without fear of death, arrest or assassination.

Note the words "many Jewish clones". I used Chomsky only because he is more widely known than most but you know very well that there are many Chomsky like opinions in Israel as well. I will name just three, but there are more.

• Dr Ilan Pappe (Professor at Haifa university)
• Uri Avnery (Israeli fringe left wing politician)
• Shulamit Aloni (Israeli fringe left wing politician)

Sumud, you know very well that these three people who reside in Israel are as outspoken as Chomsky. To be sure, they are hated by many but their careers are in tact and they have certainly not been harmed physically even though they have been criticising Israel severely and very prominently. Many would argue that they have been doing severe damage to Israel's cause, certainly among left wingers world wide.

The "Chomsky" point, it's just a little strained anyway don't you think?
One individual says X about Israel so someone else must say exactly the same about Palestine, otherwise it's proof of a lack of dissent within Gaza and the WB. It's a fairly crude argument, but it does have it's precedents.

I have told you before, "they don't have to" but it's likely that such people exist among 3 million Palestinians as well, there are extreme points of view in any society. Nonie Darwish, who is an Arab, is such a voice but she lives in the US, what do you think would happen to her if she settled to live in Gaza or the WB and still continued to be as outspoken against the current behaviour of Arab's ? But Sumud, if you feel that such views don't exist in the WB or Gaza, you can end this discussion just by saying that you don't believe that they exist, although I would still like you to answer my question about Nonie Darwish.

If your point is that Palestinians should aspire to US-style freedoms of speech, than I agree. But if that is it, you have a funny way of putting it.

American AND Israeli style freedoms of speech.... I don't know why was it a funny way of putting it, but I will take your word for it if you say so. In any case, now that you understand my point, I hope you can give me a straight and consistent answer without equivocating .....

So, my questions to you Sumud were: Do you think such people exist in the WB and Gaza ? If so then who are they and why don't we hear from them ? What do you think would happen to them if they would challenge the very foundations of contemporary Palestinian society in the same visible public way that Chomsky challenges his society ? In fact, let me make the question even a bit more real: What do you think would happen to Nonie Darwish if she settled down somewhere in the WB or Gaza and continue to espouse her views publicly ? How long do you think she would last ?

[Reffo]

Sumud

Just as a matter of interest, Womble posted (post 283) this as an example of Palestinian Journalists saying unpalatable things and what was the result ? They were threatened by everyone including the Palestinian Authorities (PA). Eventually they had to stop reporting the facts. These journalists were not even displaying extreme dissent, they were just reporting facts as they saw these. What do you think ?

Palestinian journalists receive death threats
By KHALED ABU TOAMEH

Palestinian journalists covering the ongoing crisis in the Palestinian Authority complained over the weekend that they had received death threats from the various feuding parties.

As a result, many of them said they have stopped covering the internecine fighting. Others said they were continuing to report on the power struggle, but without having their names mentioned for fear of reprisal.

"Many Palestinians working with the foreign media in the Gaza Strip are being threatened," a journalist in Gaza City told The Jerusalem Post. He said the threats were coming from all the parties involved in the internal strife.

"The Palestinian Authority is putting a lot of pressure on the journalists to refrain from covering the anti-corruption protests," he added. "The Fatah gunmen and the security forces are also making threats."

Last Thursday, many Palestinian journalists received phone calls warning them to stay away from a rally organized in Gaza City against PA Chairman Yasser Arafat's decision to appoint his cousin, Musa Arafat, as overall commander of security forces.

The journalists said they believe that Musa Arafat loyalists were behind the threats. "We were told that any journalist who goes to the rally will meet the same fate as Nabil Amr," said another journalist who works on a regular basis with an international news organization. Amr, a Palestinian legislator, was shot and severely wounded in Ramallah last week shortly after he called for reforms in the PA during a television interview.

The Gaza City rally was either downplayed or completely ignored by the Palestinian media. Al-Quds, the largest daily newspaper, instead carried a story in which it said Palestinians throughout the West Bank and Gaza Strip continued to express their support for Yasser Arafat by staging marches and issuing statements.

The New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) said it was alarmed by the new threats against Palestinian journalists, "the most recent in a months-long series of actions by Palestinian militants and forces intended to stifle independent reporting." The campaign against journalists reached its peak three months ago with the assassination of Khalil Zaban, the editor of the monthly Nashrah magazine in Gaza City.

Journalists working for the Qatar-based satellite channel Al-Jazeera and the Dubai-based satellite channel Al-Arabiyya told CPJ they received telephone threats last week from men identifying themselves as PA security personnel or Fatah activists. The threats were directly linked to the stations' coverage of the fighting in the Gaza Strip.

Saif al-Din Shahin, a correspondent for Al-Arabiyya, said a person claiming to represent the PA security forces threatened to burn down the station's bureau if the station was not careful about what it reported. Earlier this year, masked gunmen assaulted Shahin outside his Gaza City office after he reported that Palestinians were unhappy with the use of weapons during rallies held by Fatah militiamen.

A correspondent from Al-Jazeera said a caller identifying himself as a representative of a Fatah group told the journalist the station would "bear responsibility" for what it had reported.

The Palestinian Journalists' Syndicate in the Gaza Strip last week warned its members against reporting on the intra-Palestinian fighting.

The syndicate, which is controlled by Arafat loyalists, said the pictures of gunmen marching in the streets to protest against the appointment of Musa Arafat were harmful to the Palestinian cause. It called on the journalists to focus instead on demonstrations that "consolidate national unity." Several Palestinian journalists condemned the ban, describing the syndicate as a "department in Yasser Arafat's office."

The full article can be read here: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...=1078397702269

[FOGOMAINS]

the thread shows that negotiations with PA can not be successful in near future. It's an absolutly corrupt government, still influenced by the "Freedom-fighter " Arafat RIH*.

When ever i hear the palestinian spokesman in Germany A.Frangi talking about his tortured people i get ill. This "smooth" gentleman is a threat

* Hell

[Sumud]

Sumud
I don't want us to continue playing these game of semantics, so let me spell it out. Chomsky's dissent (and othes of his ilk) is several magnitudes stronger than just disagreements between various political leaders about suitable tactics to essentially achieve similar objectives. Chomsky challanges the very foundations of his society. He advocates wholesale changes, he is virtually a "mouthpiece" of his society's enemies.

So, my questions to you Sumud were: Do you think such people exist in the WB and Gaza ? If so then who are they and why don't we hear from them ? What do you think would happen to them if they would challenge the very foundations of contemporary Palestinian society in the same visible public way that Chomsky challenges his society ? In fact, let me make the question even a bit more real: What do you think would happen to Nonie Darwish if she settled down somewhere in the WB or Gaza and continue to espouse her views publicly ? How long do you think she would last ?

If you admit that the consequences of anti-nationalist dissent are much more severe in the Pal-Arab and Arab states, such that those dissenters are chilled, and those who are not chilled are either exiled, imprisoned or killed, then, clearly, I must have been mistaken as to your point, a much more narrow and a bit meaningless point of "some people have disagreements in the Arab world, too." ..................
If you can't admit to the very different consequences of anti-nationalist dissenters (if any, and I really would love for you to show us the Palestinian Noam Chomsky living in Gaza, or the Syrian Ward Churchill),

Hopefuly it will save time if I answer you both at the same time as your repsective points seem to be esentialy the same.

The reason I said that the Chomsky example was such a poor one, is that Chomsky does not represent an example of "anti-nationalist dissent". He supports a Palestinian state along side Israel. In fact, he disagrees with those who call for a bi-national state, which you would probably characterise as an "anti-nationalist" position. So as I said earlier, there are in fact plenty of "Noam Chomsky[s] living in Gaza". That you continue to make this point shows that you are very poorly informed.

On the specific point of real anti-nationalist sentiment, who might be surprised to find that the incidence of it in the WB and Gaza might be comparable to what you'd find in Israel. Neither group find themselves in much more than a tiny minority.

And if Nonie Darwish settled in Gaza, maybe she would be popularly elected to the Palestinain parliament, as was Haider Abdel Shafi, on the basis of calling for internal democratic reform and respect for human rights by the PA.