A Muslim In A Jewish Land

[Colorado Blue]

By: Tashbih Sayyed, Ph. D.
As I boarded EL AL flight LY 0008 for Tel Aviv on November 14, 2005 with my wife, Kiran, my mind was busy arranging and re-arranging the list of things I intended to accomplish. I wanted to use my first visit to Israel to feel the strength of the Jewish spirit that refuses to give in to evil forces despite thousand of years of anti-Semitism. It was not Israel's suicidal sacrifices that I wanted to investigate but the foundations of Israeli determination to live in peace.
There are many things that I wanted to talk about with Israelis, the foremost among them being their reluctance to do something about the bad press that continues to paint them as villains. Although I understand why the media, which reasonably covers most events accurately, chooses to ignore all rules of ethical journalism when it comes to Israel, I could not fathom Israel's reluctance to challenge the negative press effectively. Media bias against Israel reminded me of the Nazi era German press that was recruited by Hitler's Minister of Propaganda, Joseph Goebbels who picked up every hate-laden word against the Jews. Just like the German press who refused to print the truth about the gruesome atrocities in Europe's death camps - or claimed that it was all an exaggeration, the media today also ignores the Arab terrorism. I wanted to see if there was any truth in the media allegations that Israel was an apartheid state, undemocratic and discriminatory.

I knew that a true Jewish State could not be undemocratic since democratic concepts were always a part of Jewish thinking and derived directly from the Torah. For instance when in the Preamble to the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson wrote that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, he was basically referring to Torah that said that all men are created in the image of God. I was confident that Israel cannot be racist or discriminatory since it is based on the idea of the covenant between God and the Israelites, in which both parties accepted upon themselves duties and obligations underlining the fact that power is established through the consent of both sides rather than through tyranny by the more powerful party.

My understanding of the Jewish State was confirmed when the entry form that I needed to fill before landing in Tel Aviv did not ask for my religion as is the law in Pakistan. Also, unlike Saudi Arabia, no one in Israeli immigration demanded from me any certificate of religion.

snip

http://www.muslimworldtoday.com/tashbih.htm

Please read the entire article.

[rockymountaindem]

1. I read the whole thing

Thanks for posting. That was a nice account.

[Colorado Blue]

10. Thanks for the kind words:)

[Coastie for Truth]

2. Very good

Thanks for posting.

[pocket]

3. nice whitewash

Maybe he can write a nice essay on the cheerful liberation of Iraq.

[Scurrilous]

4. He probably already has...

...I read through some of his stuff, got to this part, and gave up.

Articles By Tashbih Sayyed

http://www.paktoday.com/archives.htm#tash

<snip>

"..organizations like European Union, United Nations, countries like France, and Germany and left leaning groups and liberal minded individuals, who believe that the best way to solve the Middle East conflict is to appease the Arabs and condemn the victim are the facilitators of aggression."

[barb162]

36. Whitewash? Any factual errors in his observations or not?

[simcha_6]

75. My reactions, and an invitation to another debating arena

This was a great posting. Although his description of Israel is a bit rosy- I've certainly heard of discrimination- it makes several great points. Those he interviews didn't feel particularly discriminated against, Israel is not the evil nation many posters here make it out to be, and Israel's Arab population is relatively well off (though of course improvement is necessary, as it is everywhere). And it debunks the myth that Israel is a theocracy, so often heard on this website. A theocracy would impose its religious laws on everyone, instead of letting religious minorities hold political office and govern themselves.

For more debates like this one, go to israelforum.blogspot.com and start your debate threads under the latest posting in "comments." If you're interested in making a full-fledged posting (instead of just writing them under "Comments" e-mail it to [e-mail] and I'll put it up.

Israel Forum is meant to be a debating forum, as the name might imply. Visit and start writing.

(Click on the advertisement links if you'd like to help pay for my college tuition as well.)

Thanks,

Simcha

P.S.

[Englander]

5. wth was that!?!

It was certainly pipes-tastic, f'sure!

[Wordie]

6. Neocon Alert! Author is adjunct fellow at Fdn for Defense of Democracies.

The Foundation for the Defense of Democracies is known to be a RW, neocon organization. Here's what Right Web has to say about them:

<snip>
Republican Party insiders dominate FDD's board and staff. FDD's three board members are Steve Forbes, Jack Kemp, and Jeane Kirkpatrick. Its two “distinguished advisers” are Newt Gingrich and James Woolsey, while other advisers include Gary Bauer, Richard Perle, William Kristol, Walid Phares, Charles Krauthammer, and Frank Gaffney—all prominent neoconservative figures with multiple links to the Defense Policy Board, Center for Security Policy, American Enterprise Institute, Weekly Standard, and Project for the New American Century.

The well-funded, well-connected FDD has quickly become one of the leading institutions in necon's web of think tanks and policy institutes. Like all neocon institutes, FDD embraces a militarist pro-Likud position with respect to Israel and Middle East political affairs. Although FDD's mission statement makes no mention of Israel, FDD's public statements and operations mostly concern Israel. FDD associates and staff are outspoken proponents of the hard-liners in Israel. These include such Jewish FDD members as May, Perle, and Kristol as well Christian associates. FDD adviser Charles Jacob, for example, has been a prominent spokesperson for the National Unity Coalition for Israel (NUCI), a group he told the New York Times gives “voice to evangelical Christians who are ardent Zionists.” (5)<unsnip>

[Scurrilous]

7. Also affiliated with the Hudson Institute:

"The writer is editor-in-chief of Pakistan Today and Muslim World Today, California-based weekly newspapers, president of Council for Democracy and Tolerance and adjunct fellow of Hudson Institute."

Hudson Institute

http://www.sourcewatch.org/wiki.phtml?title=Hudson_Institute

<snip>

"While describing itself as "non-partisan" and preferring to portray itself as independently "contrarian" rather than as a conservative think tank, the Hudson Institute gains financial support from many of the foundations and corporations that have bankrolled the conservative movement. The Capital Research Center, a conservative group that seeks to rank non-profits and documents their funding, allocates Hudson as a 7 on its ideological spectrum with 8 being "Free Market Right" and 1 "Radical Left."

Funding (among others):

Scaife Foundations (Scaife Family, Sarah Mellon Scaife, Carthage)

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Colorado Blue]

9. Wow. Who knew. Any good words about Israel whatsoever

bring out accusations of rightwingdom and "fellow travellers".

Are we as bad as the far right? Did ANYTHING this guy wrote make sense to y'all? Or are we DETERMINED to listen only to people who absolutely detest Israel and can't find a damn good thing to say about her or her people?

I can't say I'm exactly shocked but I am sick and sad.

Meanwhile maybe you guys think closed societies and dictatorships are a good idea, that women should be oppressed, that people should have to show their papers every ten minutes and declare their religion upon entry to a country, because it sure doesn't sound as though democracy is something that's really appreciated on Democratic Underground.

[Coastie for Truth]

11. And some of these folks declaring "Neocon Alerts" here today rely on

CATO Institute for "unbiased" attacks.

:puke:

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Wordie]

59. That statement is untrue.

[Wordie]

60. Read about FDD (from SourceWatch, not the CATO institute)

With a few possible exceptions, the members of FDD are predominately conservative and neo-conservative and the articles written by FDD's members and the literature on their site promote a neo-conservative slant.

For example, FDD's page on Iraq provides a list of documents authored by FDD members or documents FDD believes are worth highlighting. All the documents (as of this writing with documents ranging in dates from 8/2002 to 6/2003) support the hawkish view of Iraq. No documents provide any critical perspectives of U.S. policies towards Iraq. Also, some of the documents listed cite "facts" that have been proven to be false, such as the linkage of Saddam Hussein with al-Qaeda and the 9/11 attacks, as well as with Saddam's highly active WMD programs (see Weapons of mass deception for related analysis).

Another indicator of FDD's idealogical bias is provided on their related websites page. They provide links to numerous conservative think tanks like the American Enterprise Institute (which some FDD members are either current or former fellows of) and the Hudson Institute. There is a link to the so-called student group Oxford Democracy Forum which portrays the same hawkish perspective and includes the same rhetoric with respect to Iraq and terrorism as is coming out of the Bush administration and neo-con controlled media. On OxDems' FAQ page, it repeats false information about Iraq, such as its links to Al-Qaeda by citing Colin L. Powell's discredited United Nations speech.

The list of related media links provided by FDD is very interesting, with Fox News listed first, and mostly conservative publications (like fellow FDD member Bill Kristol's Weekly Standard) that follows. CNN and the Washington Post are listed, but these news organizations are moderate at best. The New Republic is the only exception, as most consider it a liberal-oriented publication.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Foundation_for_the_Defense_of_Democracies

[Violet_Crumble]

21. That's not true, CB...

The reason this guy is being called a right-winger is because he's sure as hell talking like one. Having been in this forum a fair while, I'm sure yr aware that left-wingers who say 'any good words about Israel whatsoever' do NOT get called right-wingers. I'll eat my words if I ever see Amos Oz or Peretz being called that...

And that's why what that guy said made perfect sense to me. His fanatical adoration of what he sees as Israeli perfection and his equally intense dislike of anything Muslim showed me that without even having to read another article of his or finding out he's in bed with Daniel Pipes that he's got pretty extremist and intolerant views, and it's people who hold those views and those who condone those views who are a barrier to peace...

Which leads to you saying 'maybe you guys think closed societies and dictatorships are a good idea, that women should be oppressed, that people should have to show their papers every ten minutes and declare their religion upon entry to a country, because it sure doesn't sound as though democracy is something that's really appreciated on Democratic Underground.'

Where is the big leap from pointing out this guy is a weirdo conservakook who believes god promised the land to Israelis ('In fact, Israelis have proved beyond any doubt why God promised them this land – only they could keep it green.') to supporting dictatorships and oppression of women? I'm not seeing the connection there...

There are very eloquent and intelligent folk who can and do say good things about Israel, and manage to do so without demonising Muslims and Arabs at the same time, nor claiming that any criticism of Israel they mention is anti-Semitic....

Violet...

[Colorado Blue]

40. Reading this article, one certainly does NOT get the

impression that he's a wierdo conservakook. The values he appears to support - women's rights, an open society, freedom of religion, freedom from fear - are bedrock democratic principles and are ostensibly supported by PROGRESSIVES.

I get the feeling, if he were writing about ANY country EXCEPT ISRAEL, he'd be applauded in this forum.

[Violet_Crumble]

48. The same can be argued about Bush...

When it comes to the Middle East, he appears to support exactly those same values you claim make this guy a progressive. So, does that make Bush a progressive?

You get the feeling that if he wrote an article of salivating worship about any other country, he'd be applauded? Let's forget for a moment that this is the I/P forum and let's test this out. Bring any article written by him full of the same drooling claims of perfection about any other country, and let's see what the reaction is. I can tell you from my experience that I've seen articles full of very similar drooling praise about Australia by some members of the One Nation party. Just the same as in this article, they couple that rabid supposed love of all things democratic with attacks on Asian countries. When I've read those articles I've headed for the nearest barf-bag, as did many other sane and rational Australians....

I'm still curious to know how pointing out this guy is a bit of a conservakook turns someone into supporting oppression towards women and enemies of democratic values. I'd appreciate it if you could explain that as last time I checked I think the guy is a conservakook and also manage at the same time to oppose oppression of women and think that some of those tin-pot regimes the US props up are bad news..

Violet...

[barb162]

37. Yes, one would presume that REAL Democrats would

applaud equal rights for women in the Mideast, real democracy, freedom of religion, etc.

[Colorado Blue]

38. Right. So here's a MUSLIM who supports those things and

instead of being called progressive he's being nailed as a rightwinger.

Go figure.

[barb162]

42. Figure? I figure there is some strange "thinking"

when long-time democratic ideals and practices get labelled rightwing or neocon. Last time I looked, equal rights for women, for example, was a democratic, liberal, progressive concept.

[Colorado Blue]

47. I know. This happened when Sharansky, who's written

about democracy and thinks open governments would transform the Middle East, had the temerity to open his mouth on the tube. He was debated by that beacon of light Pat Buchanan.

So, whom did many DU'ers support in that debate? You got it. Mr. Better the Dictator You Know Than The Democracy You Don't - Buchanan.

Now - is this simply because Sharansky is Israeli, or what? He is Jewish, a refugee from persecution in the Soviet Union - a person who knows a lot about totalitarian governments and the toll they take on individual people as well as entire nations.

So given his credentials it's a little baffling that people didn't want to hear what he had to say. Maybe people still admire the Soviet Union?

Maybe it's not that he's Israeli. Maybe he's a "neocon"? He was a member of Sharon's government. THAT must be it.

Hmmmmmmm.

Or maybe, people don't really give a rat's ass about democracy, open governments and reform, if they're advocated by or for, "the wrong people?"

Hello?

[Violet_Crumble]

52. When two morons debate, why must we be expected to side with either?

Why must it be one or the other, CB?

Is Sharansky now considered a progressive along with the author of the OP? If someone utters the words democracy must transform the Middle East, does that make them a progressive in your opinion? Because that's why yr going to have to explain to me. Sharansky's views on bringing the shining light of democracy to the Middle East really appealed to Bush, and the reason for that is because over-simplified concepts appeal to a simpleton. Here's Bush's glowing endorsement:

"If you want a glimpse of how I think about foreign policy read Natan Sharansky's book, The Case for Democracy... For government, particularly — for opinion makers, I would put it on your recommended reading list. It's short and it's good. This guy is a heroic figure, as you know. It's a great book."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natan_Sharansky

btw, I noticed you put the term 'neo-con' in dit-dits. I'm wondering what yr definition of that term is, because I suspect it may differ from mine, which is that it's a term used to define the political theory which advocates US exceptionalism, etc...

Violet...

[Colorado Blue]

57. Morons? I don't think either person is a moron. I think they

both have things to say that we should respect.

As far as who's a progressive and who's not, I'm beginning to wonder. The author of the article we're discussing, AND Natan Sharansky, BOTH extol the virtues of democracy, open societies where people are free to speak their minds and worship as they please, where women and minorities have EQUAL RIGHTS and aren't merely "tolerated". Aren't these progressive values?

And if they ARE progressive values then it shouldn't matter that the Emperor Nero, George Bush or WHOEVER endorses them, because they're good and progressive REGARDLESS. Are we supposed to judge ideas simply by who thinks they're good or bad? Or can we think and judge for ourselves?

Meanwhile we have people posting on DU and elsewhere, supposedly progressives, who seem to feel terrorism is A.OK (not you - I saw your comment and I respect and appreciate it.) We have people who are supposedly progressive, who look at foreign policy only in terms of America's self-interest, that's the way they look at the existence of Israel or self-determination for the Kurds or Bush's speech about democracy - all pains in the kazoo in their enlightened opinion. People have posted on DU who think Saddam is just peachy and the Soviet Union, a la Galloway, was a wonderful place.

Democratic values are fine at home but we should prefer tyrants or theocracies abroad - that's the message that comes through loud and clear.

So - you tell me - who are the progressives?

As far as putting "neocon" in quotes, I was using the term as people use it these days, in other words as an all purpose insult which racist overtones, generally employed by folks who DON'T know what it means. You've defined it, I think more or less properly, as promoting US exceptionalism, I would have said something similar, in any case it obviously DOESN'T apply to Sharansky.

And in fact, neither Bush's speech about democracy nor Sharansky's ideas about democracy necessarily promote ANYBODY'S national interests, except those of the nations involved. That's a primary reason people freaked out at that speech. All of a sudden Bush is talking about lighting the fires in people's minds and you've got everybody from the far left to the far right going, holy shit - if everybody goes out and VOTES we - we - WE - won't be able to control them! Ohmigod. Better prop up the dictators for a few more years otherwise WE might be uncomfortable.

See what I mean? So who's the progressive?

[Wordie]

58. The issues aren't so simple or black and white.

Meanwhile we have people posting on DU and elsewhere, supposedly progressives, who seem to feel terrorism is A.OK (not you - I saw your comment and I respect and appreciate it.) We have people who are supposedly progressive, who look at foreign policy only in terms of America's self-interest, that's the way they look at the existence of Israel or self-determination for the Kurds or Bush's speech about democracy - all pains in the kazoo in their enlightened opinion. People have posted on DU who think Saddam is just peachy and the Soviet Union, a la Galloway, was a wonderful place.

I don't know, CB, if you are referring to comments that I supposedly made on these issues, but since certain other posters are so consistently misconstruing and misquoting things I have said, I'll jump in here. Maybe I'll have better luck with you.

Let's look at self-determination for the Kurds. What I am saying is that I don't want the stupid and shortsighted US invasion of Iraq to be the thing that ignites the region (not just Iraq, but also Turkey, Iran, Syria, and there are Kurds in Albania too, although that is rarely mentioned) in a bloody civil war over Kurdish independence. If such a thing were to occur now (as opposed to some other time), it would be a direct result of US foolishness in the region. There has been more than enough blood shed as a result of US foolishness, imho. I have no problem with the idea of Kurdish independence per se. But why should the Kurds achieve independence through bloodshed? Why do you prefer it to occur that way? And if it is to occur inevitably through bloodshed anyway, I don't want it to be as a result of US stupidity, for having not anticipated this obvious potential outcome. I further wish that the US get out of the region, as soon as possible (the debate hinges on "possible"), as I don't see any positive result possible for our continued presence there. If we do not get out soon, and a Kurdish separatist war inflames the entire region, that will mean MORE AMERICAN LIVES LOST! (yes, I'm shouting, I feel that strongly about it.) ...and it would result in the need for us to stay even longer, to try to clean up what we ourselves have brought about. Yet, to hear others tell it, my position is "not progressive," because I am concerned with American interests (the real ones, imho). I have actually been attacked for saying these things. Why is this? Am I wrong because I value American lives too much? We shouldn't have meddled there in the first place; we did so for reasons that were not valid.

Democratic values are fine at home but we should prefer tyrants or theocracies abroad - that's the message that comes through loud and clear.

That is what you are hearing but that isn't what many of those to whom you object are saying (or at least I can say for certain it isn't what I am saying). And, let me ask you a hypothetical question: which would you prefer: an Iraq with Saddam, or an Iraq that is part of a larger theocratic Shia state, with the institution of Sharia law?

You see, as far as I can see, all the pretty words about democracy in the world don't matter a whit, if they don't match the facts on the ground. And most often those of the Bush administration do not. The Iraqis did not "welcome us as liberators," did they? So be careful in believing all those pretty words. The use of them is made at times by people solely for propaganda purposes.

[Colorado Blue]

61. OK. I don't have time right now to respond thoroughly to

all that you've said here. But just one this one issue - I do NOT prefer that the Kurds achieve independence via violence. I abhor violence.

Secondly: As for whether I prefer Iraq under Saddam or under a Shi'a theocracy - the people of Iraq ELECTED a Shi'a dominated government based on sharia law.

Saddam Hussein was a merciless tyrant, who as a matter of fact was empowered and armed by the US, as a counterbalance to the Shi'a theocracy in Iran. A horrible war ensued, between Iran and Iraq, which killed 1,000,000 people. What a waste. All of this was done in pursuit of "the balance of power" in the Middle East.

Simultaneously, a horrible war raged between the Soviet Union and Afghanistan, also for control of the region and its vast and desperately needed resources. This conflict produced both Bin Ladin and al Qaeda, and the extremist government of the Taliban.

So there's no contest. Even though I don't think a theocracy is a great idea and don't approve of it and feel it will probably lead to civil war with the Sunni, who traditionally and FOR CENTURIES have had a bitter feud with the Shi'a, IT ISN'T OUR CHOICE. It is not up to us to determine that the Iraqis would be better off under a horrible but secular dictator simply because he happened to fit our purposes better AT THE TIME.

If I were in charge of the universe, I'd try to forestall a civil war by having a nationwide referendum, in which people would VOTE, region by region, as to whether they really want to remain unified in the artificial construct we call Iraq, or whether they'd prefer a confederation of 3 self-determining states who would share resources, infrastructure and defense capabilities. In my system the Kurds would control themselves, the Sunni could have their own secular government and the Shi'a could govern themselves according to their religion. There would be a governing council composed of men and women from each region, who would TALK TO EACH OTHER instead of blowing stuff up.

Finally, I'd like to say this: the US isn't responsible for these ancient rifts. We shouldn't have gone into this war for the very simple fact that the chaos factor in the M.E. isn't within our control and the violence, once started, can last for decades. But since we did, we must try and support a civilized system of government. And unfortunately it's too late now - we can't rewind the film. What's done is done. What we can do it try to move forward with some rational understanding of the people who live in this area and what THEY need.

It's obvious what the US needs. The US, indeed the entire global economy, runs on oil. Stability in the supply and demand for petroleum products must be considered in any real world model, regardless of one's political orientation. However, we have got to wake up and realize that our commercial interests mustn't be responsible for death on the other end of the pipeline. We must grow as a civilization, in tolerance and respect for others.

And, I think this applies to people on the other side of the mirror as well. Trying to insist that the world remain in the 7th century isn't going to work either. We ALL must try to compromise and learn.

Finally, the fact that the "first world", desperate for oil, has done business for decades with the most corrupt and despotic governments on earth, is a blemish on our souls. It's time to stop thinking of the world solely in terms of what WE need and want, time to find another "balance of power" that will respect all of us on this planet. That's obviously harder and it might take decades, but the fact is we're running of time. If we don't start respecting other people, other animals, down to the level of the one-cell creatures in the sea, we are all dead.

[Wordie]

66. A Kurdish independence movement pursued now, in the context of the US

invasion of Iraq, will lead to tremendous violence, so if you are supporting/encouraging that movement now, you are supporting/encouraging increased violence, imho. I realize that may not be your conscious intent, but since violence would result, that's what you are supporting.

(I have never wanted the Kurds to be oppressed, btw. You did not claim that I did, but I'm making the statement as a general one.)

And although you don't state it directly, you seem to think that the West put Saddam in power in the first place, and that the Iran-Iraq war was started as a result of Western influence. Not exactly true. Although the West was responsible for drawing the boundaries of the nation, after the demise of the Ottoman empire, Saddam rose to power through the Baath party, which became prominent after the overthrow of the Iraqi monarchy in the late '50s. Similarly, the Iran-Iraq war was started by Saddam in an attempt to gain control of a waterway leading to the gulf; although the US ultimately chose sides, it was not started at our behest, or for our purposes.

You did say this:
It is not up to us to determine that the Iraqis would be better off under a horrible but secular dictator simply because he happened to fit our purposes better AT THE TIME.

So, it isn't up to us to determine things for the Iraqis??? Isn't that precisely what we have done by invading and occupying the country? And we did so precisely because it fitted our purposes (as defined by the hawkish neocons).

(The word "neocon" is not racist, btw. I would have to concur that there are a small minority that do use it in that sense, but I would like to suggest that you don't give that small minority the power to shut down the debate. As seen from where I sit, that's what happens when the word neocon itself becomes the topic of the debate.)

[Colorado Blue]

81. A couple of points: Saddam did come up through the

Ba'ath party, as you say - BUT - he was armed and supported vigorously by the US.

Have you read Craig Unger's book, "House of Bush, House of Saud?"

I don't think we should have invaded Iraq.

I also don't think that I am advocating violence. I would, as I said, vastly prefer that people VOTE and negotiate and discuss, to solve their differences. I don't think that we should ignore people's rights though. Our own nation was born in violence. Should we have settled for life in the British Empire? Would Gandhi's path have worked instead of armed revolt? Would it work for the Kurds? I would like to think so but somehow I doubt it.

I do not know why the Middle East seems to be so endemically violent. But it has been at nearly non-stop war, or exhibiting extreme regional violence, since at least the days of WWI. That's just in the recent past.

Millions of people, Armenians, Assyrians, Kurds, Arabs, Jews, Copts, Christians, Iranians, Afghans of many tribes, have been killed or displaced, just in the past 100 years or so. Why is this? I wish I knew. Why is violence considered preferable to diplomacy? I don't know. I do know, no power on earth seems to be able to stop it, and it's all too easy to start. Frankly I don't see an end to it, regardless of what the US does or doesn't do.

Finally, when we discuss whether something suits the US or serves its purposes, I think it's important to realize that while we're a union, we're not a monolith. That which may serve certain powerful commercial interests doesn't necessarily serve the interests of the environmentalists, for example.

So when people speak of this or that serving or not serving our interests, I think we need to be more discriminating.

By the same token, we can't divorce ourselves from the oil industry, no matter how progressive we might be. The only way we can do that is by focusing our national energy and resources on conservation, the creation of alternative fuel sources, mass transit and environmental/energy technology.

Finally, though only a small minority may use the term "neocon" in a racist sense, it's impossible to ignore the impact that vocal and bigoted minority can have, is having, on this dialogue. It's very damaging and I think it would be a mistake to ignore it or the bigotry that lays behind it. History shows that this particular form of bigotry is extremely dangerous and has had horrendous consequences.

I would hate to see the progressive end of the political spectrum hijacked by disinformation merchants. We have enough trouble, with neonazis and extremists like the President of Iran, and people in Iraq who call the very election process "satanic". So, I don't think the solution to bigotry is ignoring it.

[Wordie]

12. Sayyed is a supporter of Daniel Pipes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Pipes

...Pakistani-American Tashbih Sayyed, editor of the Muslim World Today and the Pakistan Times, called Pipes "a Cassandra. He must be listened to. If there is no Daniel Pipes, there is no source for America to learn to recognize the evil which threatens it. Historians will write later that Pipes saved us.

For those who may not know about Pipes, read this, also from wiki:

Pipes's Middle East Forum sparked controversy in September 2002 when it established a website called Campus Watch that claimed to identify five problems in the teaching of Middle Eastern studies at American universities: "analytical failures, the mixing of politics with scholarship, intolerance of alternative views, apologetics, and the abuse of power over students". Students were encouraged to submit reports regarding teachers, books and curricula. The project was accused of "McCarthyesque intimidation" of professors who criticized Israel, when it published a "blacklist" of professors. In protest, more than 100 academics demanded to be listed as well. Campus Watch subsequently removed the list from their website. /09/28/MN227890.DTL <5> <6>

In August 2003, news leaked of Pipes's imminent appointment to the U.S. government-sponsored U.S. Institute of Peace. Soon afterwards, a broad array of Arab-American, American Muslim, and other groups, vehemently denounced the appointment, claiming that Pipes was an "anti-Islamic extremist". An editorial in The Washington Post described his nomination as a "cruel joke". The Arab American Institute, headed by James Zogby, stated "For decades Daniel Pipes has displayed a bizarre obsession with all things Arab and Muslim. Now, it appears that his years of hatred and bigotry have paid off with a presidential appointment. One shudders to think how he will abuse this position to tear at the fabric of our nation." Juan Cole wrote in his blog "I urge academics and others to boycott the United States Institute for Peace this year, as long as extremist ideologue Daniel Pipes serves on it."

...Several Democratic senators, including Ted Kennedy (D-Massachusetts) and Christopher Dodd (D-Connecticut), expressed opposition to the nomination and delayed a committee vote on it, though President Bush bypassed the Senate and proceeded with a recess appointment.

and then there's this:
Arab-Israeli conflict

He wrote in Commentary in April 1990: "There can be either an Israel or a Palestine, but not both. To think that two states can stably and peacefully coexist in the small territory between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea is to be either naïve or duplicitous. If the last seventy years teach anything, it is that there can be only one state west of the Jordan River. Therefore, to those who ask why the Palestinians must be deprived of a state, the answer is simple: grant them one and you set in motion a chain of events that will lead either to its extinction or the extinction of Israel." <17>

[Coastie for Truth]

13. Interesting analysis

The bio comes from wiki, and we know that wiki can be unreliable, , see also and that entries in wiki are subject to partisan manipulation, .

[bemildred]

14. There seems to be something to it:

Maybe that is why Pipes has the support of moderate Muslim leaders. Tashbih Sayyed, president of the US Council for Democracy and Tolerance, says: "Bush won my heart that he is serious about fighting terror and fostering a more peaceful world when he nominated Daniel Pipes... He goes the extra mile to distinguish between Islam, which he respects, and its militant form."

http://www.danielpipes.org/article/1092

Sayyed is easy to Google up, he's a busy guy. It says here he an adjunct fellow of the "Foundation for the Defense of Democracies" which has an interesting page of biographies of other members here. I would speculate he may not still be an adjunct fellow, it's probably not a permanent sort of appointment.

[Wordie]

15. Some quotes from your article...

<snip>
The Washington Post editorialized that Pipes "has long been regarded by Muslims as a destroyer of... bridges" between Islam and the West; that his nomination to the institute "of all places" is "salt in the wound" of Muslims who "are anxious that they are being singularly scrutinized" by the US Justice Department.

The Arab American Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) calls the nomination a "sad, Orwellian" signal from an administration that is "far-right, pro-Likud, neoconservative." Khaled Saffuri of the Islamic Institute complains: "If Pipes fails to apologize for his many bigoted statements and writing, he should withdraw his nomination." And James Zogby, of the Arab American Institute, says: "Daniel Pipes has a problem his obsessive hatred of all things Muslim." In the most telling charge of all, the ADC argues that Pipes "is not a man of peace." The proof? He "is a bitter opponent of the Oslo peace process."

Pipes's Jewish opponents take a similar tack. Don Peretz, professor emeritus at the State University of New York: "I don't think his views are conducive to the objectives of the US Institute for Peace, which are to work for the peaceful resolution of conflicts." And journalist Ori Nir, reporting on the controversy for The Forward, describes Pipes's Philadelphia-based think tank, the Middle East Forum, as being "a sharp critic of American-backed efforts at Israeli-Palestinian peace." <unsnip>

[bemildred]

16. It's not mine, it would seem to belong to Mr. Pipes. nt

[Englander]

17. Bad wiki?

Good wiki!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=124&topic_id=106064#106093

[Behind the Aegis]

18. more examples.......

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=102985&mesg_id=103116

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=102714&mesg_id=102766

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=101122&mesg_id=101415

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=101122&mesg_id=101271

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=90061&mesg_id=90369

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=88868&mesg_id=88869

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=101122&mesg_id=101152

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=101122&mesg_id=101301

[Englander]

23. Oh, bless.

I've got a fan club.

Here's the point, which you appear to have missed;

Who dismissed wiki? Who *also* is quite happy to use wiki?
Hint: think 'big oil'.

[Behind the Aegis]

24. didn't miss it....

You posted: "What would Wiki say?. Then, eyl posted: "From that same link Your, oh so witty, reply was: Out of those ten points,only three (1,3,9)...."are what I would consider serious/convincing arguements, & the rest, are,frankly, taking the piss. Considering that at least one of them originates from HonestReporting,that is not unexpected."

I guess some like "wiki" up to a point, then the rest is "frankly, taking the piss."

[Englander]

25. You didn't grasp it, either.

Comprehension is not an overrated ability, y'know?
HonestReporting = not wiki.
Wiki = not HonestReporting.

I did try & make post #17 as simple as possible, it appears it was
still too complex, or difficult a concept to understand.

[Behind the Aegis]

27. reading not your strong point either...

you only attacked ONE of those 10 points as being "piss"...so the rest, including the other 6..they were...what? Maybe your own complexities are too difficult for you to understand? :shrug:

[Englander]

28. 10 - 3 = 7. n/t

[Behind the Aegis]

29. is this the new math I have heard about?

Three you said were valid and the others you said were "piss" because one was (in your belief) from "Honest Reporting." I asked "so the others were...?" The best you could do was a mathematical equation?

3 good, 1 piss, 6 undetermined. Or were you saying that all 7 were "piss" because ONE was from Honest Reporting?

BTW...how does this support your original 'complaint?' Since you to seem to have taken issue with "wiki?"

[Englander]

30. No.

No.
Yes.
No.
No.

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

[Behind the Aegis]

31. ok....

me: "is this the new math I have heard about?"

u: ""No." (title of your post)

me: "Three you said were valid and the others you said were "piss" because one was (in your belief) from "Honest Reporting." I asked "so the others were...?""

u: No. (So, the others were not "piss?")

me: "The best you could do was a mathematical equation?

you: "Yes."

me: "3 good, 1 piss, 6 undetermined. Or were you saying that all 7 were "piss" because ONE was from Honest Reporting?"

u: "No." :shrug: Then, what were you saying?

me: "BTW...how does this support your original 'complaint?' Since you to seem to have taken issue with "wiki?""

u: "No." So you have no complaints with "wiki," despite your claim that some of their facts are "piss?"

[Englander]

32. You're on your own from now on.

Where's that dead horse smiley?

[Scurrilous]

33. Here:

[Englander]

35. That's the one. Thanks Scurrilous. n/t

[Behind the Aegis]

44. .

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Violet_Crumble]

22. LOL....

Very good point just got made there :)

[Englander]

26. Thanks Vi.

:)

[Coastie for Truth]

34. Generally, when citing Wiki

I usually try to say "and check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ for a start - then proceed with your research from there."

I have seen some appenders accept wiki as the final word.

I had the good fortune to go to a prestigious private Presbyterian university (a Scaife funded commuter school for "locals") where we used the research edition of Malinowski's "Argonauts of the Western Pacific" - especially the first few chapters -- as a lesson in critical reading, analysis, comparing and contrasting, going to multiple sources, etc. All of the hallmarks of a quality "liberal" education.

So, I just use wikipedia as a starting point - then search, compare, contrast, analyze.

[Andromeda]

19. That's a great article, CB...

Very moving. :)

[Colorado Blue]

41. Hi Andromeda:) This article made me feel better on a

terrible day.

[Violet_Crumble]

20. I read it all the way through...

Got the message loud and clear. Israel is perfection personified, Muslims are depraved and evil, and anyone who dares utter the slightest criticism of Israeli policy is anti-Semitic. I long for the day when this forum is filled with more thought-provoking articles from this beacon of progressive thought and tolerance ;)

Violet...

[Colorado Blue]

39. Muslims are depraved and evil? OH PUHLEEZE. The man

is a Muslim, he's writing in a Muslim paper.

For pete's sake, he's extolling progressive values, not saying that Muslims are depraved and evil.

The fact is, there are some extremely corrupt and repressive governments in the Middle East, and some regions of the world where medieval values are still the rule. Take Islam and sharia law, as interpreted by the Wahabi of Saudi Arabia, for one example, the Taliban for another. The Ba'ath dictatorships of Syria and until recently, Iraq, were extremely repressive and so is Iran, though it's a theocracy and the Ba'ath are secular. Do you think these are examples of progressive governments?

THAT is the issue here. The author is pleased that mosques and temples coexist, that women have equal rights and aren't mutilated or repressed, that people say what they wish without fear.

Trying to extrapolate his comments into a condemnation of Muslims is innaccurate, don't you think?

[barb162]

43. The straw man fallacy again

Set up a false or misrepresented man of straw (such as depraved Muslims, perfect Israel, etc) of one's own creation, attack the misrepresentation, then claim victory/ refute the position of own creation. That there were no such extremes mentioned in the article, well, who cares about logic or facts.
That is an excelllent article, Colorado, and thank you very much for posting it. I enjoyed reading it too.


:hi:

[Colorado Blue]

46. That's a good point about the "straw man".

It's a way of attacking an article that was anything but immoderate, and which in fact was celebrating small victories for democracy and mutual respect. Especially when such mutual respect exists in a region where is isn't supposed to exist, this should be regarded as a hopeful sign, perhaps one that we could build on.

Also, I think it's interesting that moderate, forward-looking Muslims, who seem to support religious tolerance and democracy, equal rights for women, etc, are labelled rightwingers.

That IS interesting.

[Englander]

51. When has this happened?

--Also, I think it's interesting that moderate, forward-looking Muslims, who seem to support religious tolerance and democracy, equal rights for women, etc, are labelled rightwingers.--

I've seen egs of rwers labelled rwers, but I haven't seen egs of
'moderate, forward-looking Muslims' labelled as such.

[Violet_Crumble]

54. You don't think he spoke of Israel as perfect??

See, pointing out that he did indeed do that, along with painting Muslims as depraved (I borrowed that word from his article, btw) isn't a straw man fallacy. An example of a straw man fallacy would be where someone argues that Mr. X has written something that is a bit wacky and conservakookish, and someone else comes along and ignores their points and claims their argument is that they support the oppression of women...

Are you talking about Noni Darwish when you speak of 'moderate, forward-looking Muslims' being labelled a right-winger? Um, she's labelled a right-winger because she is one, as well as being bigoted against Muslims. As I said to you in an earlier post, it's very possible to find moderate Muslims who don't pepper their criticism of Muslims with rather bigoted comments and sweeping stereotypes. And it's their arguments rather than the bigoted ones that we should be paying attention to, imo...

Violet...

[Englander]

50. Why would anyone 'enjoy reading' such an article as Sayyeds?

That's what baffles me - why anyone would enjoy reading an article
that is full of prejudiced comments, & is blatant propaganda.
What's with that?

[Englander]

49. You're talking about the article that started this thread?

The one that's full of broadbrush, prejudiced comments?
The one that's full of such comments about the 'Muslim world'?
The *fact* is that this was a biased piece of propaganda.
It is most revealing that anyone would try to claim it was 'extolling
progressive values'.

[Violet_Crumble]

53. That's the article!

But PUHLEEZE, Englander. Didn't you know the man is a MUSLIM???? That's so damn important it can be used to counter any and all incidents where anyone points out that the article was full of nasty stereotyping and inaccurate comments about the 'Muslim world' (I didn't realise till I read it that Indonesians live in a perpetual state of fear and don't live in a democratic state)...

What I find just as disturbing is that there's praise for this guy's irrational and kooky lust for Israel. According to him, he doesn't hear any news of rapes or hold-ups in Israel, therefore they don't happen. How incredibly whacked-out is that? And it gets even more bizarre.

"The land is described repeatedly in the Torah as a good land and "a land flowing with milk and honey". This description may not seem to fit well with the desert images we see on the nightly news, but let's keep in mind that the land was repeatedly abused by conquerors that were determined to make the land uninhabitable for the Jews."

Another thing I noticed is that he claims that anyone who says Israelis live in a state of perpetual fear are anti-Semites, yet immediately goes on to claim that people in Muslim countries (including Indonesia) live in fear. Using his bizarre argument, that claim would make him an Islamophobe. Of course, I should point out that the only people I've seen make claims that Israelis live in perpetual fear are usually those trying to justify bigotry in Israel towards Arabs (though this guy insists there is NO racism in his perfect vision of Israel), or justifying retaliation by the IDF that ends up killing Palestinian civilians...

But he said something about transforming the Middle East with democracy, so he's gotta be a progressive!! Besides, have I already mentioned he's a MUSLIM!!!! ;)

Violet...

Violet...

[Englander]

55. Ha!

But you see the problem, here, Vi? You're using logic, & are trying to
judge Sayyeds comments by using his own standards - don't confuse the
issues. Just be happy to shout *Muslim*, *progressive* & *democracy*!
:)

[Englander]

56. About the author of this propaganda piece -

It's not the 1st time he's been cited here. Seems like it's deja vu
all over again;

From last year;
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=124&topic_id=72252

From '03;
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=124&topic_id=1385

[Colorado Blue]

62. In respect to the last few comments on this thread:

Enough already. The endless cracks about Israel are just about insufferable.

This article pointed out many positive aspects about a very vibrant, open and creative society - which also happens to represent the rebirth of hope for people who've been hunted, persecuted and murdered by the millions for two thousand years. AND - perhaps - just perhaps, if people would stop hating long enough to try and see this, we'd all benefit from it. The entire region could benefit from what Israel, indeed from what people who truly believe in open and democratic governments everywhere, have to offer.

I'm sorry you didn't enjoy the article.

[Englander]

63. There's only one example of 'hate' in this thread.

And it's right at the top, the only 'hate' here is from Sayyed. I'm saddened that you
cannot see that, and that you misrepresent the stated views of other posters - what's
with that?

[Colorado Blue]

67. Englander, will you please quote me something from this

article that indicates hate?

[Violet_Crumble]

69. He was speaking of the last YEAR. EOM.

;)

[Colorado Blue]

70. No, I don't think so. I think he was speaking of the article.

So, I'd like to something from the article which is so hateful and horrible.

[Violet_Crumble]

71. I was being sarcastic...

Just to make the point a little bit clearer for you:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x106526#107142

btw, CB. I've posted quotes from this article, and asked questions that I'd like answered, and have been met with a sound silence each time...

Violet...

[Colorado Blue]

76. OK, give me some post numbers. Also, did you see this

article?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,1665471,00%20.html

For Muslim leaders to admit Islam is in crisis is a bold move, to act on it would be revolutionary, writes Brian Whitaker

Monday December 12, 2005


The opening session of the Third Extraordinary Session of the Islamic Summit Conference in Mecca, western Riyadh.

Leaders of more than 50 Muslim countries met in Saudi Arabia last week for an event billed as "The Third Extraordinary Session of the Islamic Summit Conference". The title was quite a mouthful and it failed to set the western media alight with excitement, but the event itself was extraordinary in every sense of the word.

Speaker after speaker acknowledged that the Muslim world is beset with challenges on an ever-widening range of issues. It is suffering from a deep-seated social, economic and religious malaise with which it has so far proved incapable of dealing. In the words of the summit's final communique: "The Islamic nation is in a crisis".

snip

I think this article reflects some of what the author of the Israel article is trying to say. It wasn't at all meant to be "hateful". Rather, in fact, I think it is meant to be hopeful. Certainly I think the advent of the meeting in Saudi Arabia is extremely hopeful. People of good will can overcome political and religious and philosophical differences. Religious and political systems can and must evolve, they must reform.

It is not wrong to admit that there are problems - it is vital. Otherwise we can't go forward.

One of the benefits of living in an open society, such as the US or Israel or Canada or Australia or France, is the ability of people to be self-critical even if it's painful. And in the case of Israel, there is no shortage of vocal criticism from within as well as from outside, the community. That fact is ensured by the very democratic nature of the place, which the article celebrates.

It isn't wrong to celebrate the good things about Israel anymore than it is wrong to criticize her shortcomings.

[Violet_Crumble]

77. How about you give us some post numbers?

Y'know, where you claimed there were endless cracks in this thread about Israel?

on edit: I've got a bit more to say about yr claim the author of this article was merely saying good things about Israel. Is there something about the unadulterated slavering and LIES of this author (eg, his claim that there's no rape or burglaries in Israel) and his creating a utopia that doesn't exist that's conveniently invisible to some folk. This stuff isn't healthy, nor is it accurate....

Violet...

[Name removed]

78. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Colorado Blue]

80. Of course not. Did you read what I wrote on LU? I'm

horrified by what is happening in Australia. It reminds me of the persecution of the Jews.

I blame ignorance and fear.

And also, I blame terrorists for helping to create, or aggravate, a climate of ignorance and fear.

I'm a little confused by your comment, btw. What does this have to do with the very forward-looking and hopeful meeting in Saudi Arabia? Are we now going to condemn this meeting? That seems to be the implication?

[Violet_Crumble]

85. I don't read bigoted cesspits like LU...

It's disgusting and full of nasty and hatefilled bigots.


I'm a little confused. What does that article you posted have to do with the OP?

btw, yr last sentence is a statement, not a question. And yr statement is totally incorrect...

Violet...

[Englander]

93. Absolutely.

--It's disgusting and full of nasty and hatefilled bigots.--

I lasted about a week there, before I realised trying to argue with bigots,
in an unmoderated forum is beyond futile.

[Coastie for Truth]

83. No - I would blame it on white neo-fascists of European-Caucasian

("Aryan") heritage, just like the morons who did or .

I trust you are being facetious.

[Englander]

74. It's true, I was.

;-)

[Englander]

73. 1st para, 2nd line.

Unspecified 'forces' opposed to Isreal are 'evil'. Using the word 'evil',
illustrates the evidence of hatred on the authors' part.

2nd para. Nazis? Nazis!

&tc, &tc, &tc.

[Englander]

79. Was that sufficient, CB?

Or would you like further egs of the extreme dislike, & prejudiced bias
of the author of this article?

[Colorado Blue]

84. I don't think he's expressing dislike or prejudiced bias, unless

you also think the meeting in Saudi Arabia, which I linked to this forum, is also expressing dislike and/or prejudiced bias.

That meeting is addressing problems within the Islamic world. It is doing so openly and the fact that people are confronting the issues of reform is quite extraordinary.

When you read that article in conjunction with this one, it gives a pretty solid impression, at least to me, that many Muslims are aware of issues like democracy, women's rights, economic injustice, religious bigotry and they're willing to confront them. That's actually a tremendous and positive development.

I don't understand the defensive attitude, frankly.

Something else has puzzled me. We have recent threads in this forum, on topics of great and profound seriousness, like the threats of the President of Iran, and THIS one got far more attention. That's interesting, strange and sad all at once.

Yet, I'm supposed to conclude that this article reflects dislike and prejudiced bias. What seems apparent is that an article calling for the eradication of Israel and the Iranian president's denial of the Holocaust, merits less attention than this one, written by a Muslim, which may in fact be inspiring OTHER Muslims to consider the virtues of reform.

That speaks volumes.

[Violet_Crumble]

86. The article you posted was very different in tone to the OP...

Posting a link to an article that has a reasoned and rational criticism of a religion does NOT make the one in the OP any less hateful. If anything, a reading of both should give anyone a very clear contrast and help to explain why no-one in their right mind should take the OP seriously...

I've already quoted from the OP complete lies and misrepresentations of some countries with a Muslim majority. I've already quoted really disturbing quotes from the OP where he makes false claims in order to paint Israel as perfection, and I've also pointed out his tendency to spout at the mouth with religious mumbo-jumbo. Those are the reasons why the OP is a particularly nasty piece of work, CB...

Nothing defensive at all about pointing that out...

Violet...

[Colorado Blue]

89. WHERE did you quote them? I'm sorry but I can't find the

quotes. My eyes give me a lot of trouble so if you could please just give me the post numbers it would help.

Thank you.

[Violet_Crumble]

90. Here's links to every post I quoted him in...

I'll divide it up into sickening adulation of Israel, which you appear to have argued is perfectly reasonable and normal 'saying something positive' about Israel sort of stuff, and also where his hatred and lies about particular countries that have majority Muslim populations is displayed. I'd really prefer it if you could take the time to address each point and explain why you disagree with what I'm saying:

Sickening and way overdone adulation of Israel -

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x106526#106589


• He states in the article that he believes god promised the land to Israelis - 'In fact, Israelis have proved beyond any doubt why God promised them this land – only they could keep it green.' There's nothing wrong with this??
  
  http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x106526#106762
  
• According to him, he doesn't hear any news of rapes or hold-ups in Israel, therefore they don't happen. How incredibly whacked-out is that?
  
  
• "The land is described repeatedly in the Torah as a good land and "a land flowing with milk and honey". This description may not seem to fit well with the desert images we see on the nightly news, but let's keep in mind that the land was repeatedly abused by conquerors that were determined to make the land uninhabitable for the Jews."
  
  
• He claims in the article there is no racism in Israel.
  
  
  

Hatred and/or lies about countries that have majority Muslim populations

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x106526#106762


• He claims Indonesians live in a state of perpetual fear and insecurity, which is a sweeping and incorrect generalisation about the Indonesian population.
  
  
• Another thing I noticed is that he claims that anyone who says Israelis live in a state of perpetual fear are anti-Semites, yet immediately goes on to claim that people in Muslim countries (including Indonesia) live in fear. Using his bizarre argument, that claim would make him an Islamophobe.
  
  and Englander's post:
  
  http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x106526#107249
  
  1st para, 2nd line.
  
  Unspecified 'forces' opposed to Isreal are 'evil'. Using the word 'evil',
  illustrates the evidence of hatred on the authors' part.
  
  2nd para. Nazis? Nazis!
  
  &tc, &tc, &tc.
  
  Violet...
  
  
  
  
  

[Englander]

91. Well done, Vi.

That presents all the points raised in an easily read fashion, & makes the
critique of Sayyeds article very clear.

[Violet_Crumble]

92. Thanks. I hope I didn't miss anything...

:)

Violet...

[Englander]

94. ~~

[Violet_Crumble]

95. CB, I found the posts for you!

Just thought I'd pop in and make sure you'd spotted my post :)

Violet...

[Colorado Blue]

82. Well, let me ask you something. Why aren't people, who

are determined to kill and destroy a people and a nation, evil? I think he's probably speaking of the government of Iran, for one.

This is going beyond the normal criticism of government policy. We're discussing total destruction, annihilation.

Why isn't that evil?

This is accompanied by some truly disgusting attempts to revise and undermine history itself, even the Jewish religion, the historical roots of Christianity and Islam in Judaism. Tell me, this isn't evil? If it isn't evil, what is it?

[Violet_Crumble]

88. I think he was speaking of all countries with Muslim majorities...

It takes some very creative reading to pick Iran specifically out of his nasty little spray...

Violet...

[Violet_Crumble]

64. Where are 'the endless cracks about Israel' in the last few comments?

Would it be where I pointed out that he spoke about Israel as though it's a perfect utopia? CB, I even posted a few examples of what he'd said in the article. He even claimed that he'd never heard of rapes and hold-ups happening in Israel. Are you saying that's perfectly normal and admirable? And the religious weirdness? That's okay too? I'm sure some of the incredibly bigoted anti-Arab websites contain 'many positive aspects about a very vibrant, open and creative society'; so we should ignore the over-the-top fervour and bigotry and insist they're wonderful articles to?

For the record, as someone who's posts were in the last few comments in this thread, I do not appreciate being told I should stop hating - the implication being that I hate Israel. Considering the extremism of this particular article and it's past appeal to certain posters at DU, I can safely say the only thing I hate is bigotry...

btw, I thought the article was hilarious, but I'm wondering why anyone would take it seriously...

Violet...

[Colorado Blue]

65. I was speaking of the last YEAR. EOM.

[Violet_Crumble]

68. My apologies for misunderstanding yr post...

Which said: ' In respect to the last few comments on this thread: Enough already. The endless cracks about Israel are just about insufferable.' I thought you were actually discussing comments in this thread....

Violet...

[Violet_Crumble]

72. Actually, I didn't misunderstand it at all...

I think you were talking about comments in this thread, so I'd like to see some examples, CB...

Violet...

[Violet_Crumble]

87. Nope, didn't think there were any...

n/t