Letters posted here are associated with the following Salon Premium Member:
Published Letters: 499
Editor's Choice: 19
Dayenu, your math doesn't matter if your categories are false.
Arabs and Jews are the same race; Semitic. ( excepting non-Semites who converted to Judaism or married into the Jewish faith. )
Of course there have always been Jews living in Palastine, there have been Jews living just about everywhere in the years following 73 A.D.
The fact is, Arabs have *always* been in there, they just haven't always been Muslims.
But the state of Israel was founded by European Zionists, and has swelled with immigrants from all over the world, especally from other Arab countries. Many Palastinian Arabs were expelled by various means.
It's not much different then America, except that Arabs weren't vulnerable to Western diseases like smallpox, which reduced the native American population dramatically.
The Zionists had no such "luck." But they *did* have financial and military support from the West.
Dayenu, why do you call Jews "kikes?" That's a racial epithet, one favored by anti-Semites. I told you I love Jews, and it's the truth. I don't much care for any kind of monotheism, but the many American Jews I know are fine people. They're generally humble, funny and *smart*, which I admire a lot.
OTOH, what the state of Israel is doing now is anything *but* smart.
I don't deny the importance of history at all, I merely deny your biased historical spin.
And cardshark, unlike "Japs," "Jews" isn't an epithet, it's a word Jews use to descibe themselves. If you don't understand the phrase "I love Jews," it may be because you're expecting cynicism and extremism.
Of course I can tell the difference Dayenu, why do you insist on being insulting? Don't you think a man can sincerely say he loves Jews?
The word "Semitic" refers to a class of languages *and* ethnicity. If you're going to be picky, there *is* no such thing as race, but it's pretty clear that Jews and Arabs share a common heritage and history, as well as a few genes.
Why be so picky about whether the Jews moving to Palestine, ( whether in the first, second, third or fourth Aliyahs or the 'illegal' Aliyah ) were "refugees," "immigrants," or "invaders?" All three can be true, or any combination. The important fact is that there *were* non-Jewish residents there who lived there for hundreds of years and who were not happy about the newcomers arrival. If not for the Ottoman Turks and later the British, these Arab residents, ( 90% of the Palestinian population in 1900 by Ottoman count, ) would have most likely kicked the refugee-immigrant-invaders out.
Your assurances of the financial and military superiority of the Arabs, whether true or not, are beside any point I'm interested in.
To go back 1000 years to paint the Muslim conquerors of the Middle East as particularly heinous is silly. If you've read more then one history book you know that sort of nastiness is the common heritage of us all, especially at that time.
To point: the horror of the Holocaust doesn't justify bad behaviour on the part of the victimized ethnic group.
It seems as though you're caught up in the strong emotionalism of the story of the return to Zion as a reward for the suffering of the Holocaust. As satisfying as that story is, the reality is much, much messier.
----------------
cardshark, of course you're correct about creds, but I still mean what I say.
( there are a few people I detest who happen to be Jewish, but I don't let them spoil my rosy opinion of the self categorizing subset of humanity in question. )
Time to renew my Salon subscription.
I would point out that the "skeptics" here are full of crap, but all they would do is scream "Anti-Semite! Anti-Semite!," or pretend to be reasonable with reasonable-seeming crap like Xanthro does.
CNN is not reliable, nor is Fox. If you read reporting from other countries, you can discover how biased and dishonest the American mainstream media is. It's too bad so many self-appointed experts swallow it.
This story is completely believable. 'domini', on the other hand, is not.
"So Bolton is an unmade bed and he is gruff. So what?"
Gruff? What a cute name for a serial stalker of his female subordinates, who screams at his underlings in the face and threatens to attack them. Real cute.
Not.
Lou Grant is gruff, Danny Devito is gruff, Yoda is gruff.
John Bolton is sociopathic.
So why not make fun of the beligerent sociopath's hairstyle, especially since the Democratic party is too wimpy to filibuster yet another insane Bush appointment?
I thought I saw Dayenu and did a cut and paste. my mistake.
If you killed my child, I would very much want to kill you.
If you killed my child and wife, I would want to kill you slowly.
If you killed my child and wife and mother, I would want to kill you and your family.
If you killed my child and wife and brother, I would want to kill your whole town.
If you kill any more of mine, I will destroy all like you.
----------------------------------------
A general can order an airstrike that he knows will kill innocents and not be a monster. Revenge is enough. Anger and hate make monsterous actions, but men are not monsters.
Same for a "terrorist"
"Terrorism is the war of the poor, and war is the terrorism of the rich." - Peter Ustinov
---------------------------------------
All we Americans know about the Middle East are stories. Even those who visit there really only know mostly stories. We don't live there, it isn't our home.
The stories we're told yank our emotional chains. The angrier we get, the more irrational we become, and the easier the chain is to yank.
It's pretty clear who in this discussion is the most tightly bound to the chains of their anger.
Very *very* funny.