Some Palestinian moods...

"On August 27, 2006, Hakim Ersan, a 12 year old boy from the village of Beit Fourik near Nablus, was shot by an Israeli colonist from the Aitmar settlement near his home. Hakim was playing with two friends, ages 8-9, when the boys spotted 3 Israeli colonists approaching them. The boys began to run away, and Hakim tripped and fell; when he stood up, the colonist man, aged approximately 40, shot him through his lower back. The bullet exited through his upper groin area, and the younger boys carried him to his home. Hakim is currently in critical condition and awaiting surgery at Raffidia Hospital in Nablus; the extent of damage to his internal organs is yet undetermined.
Colonist violence is nothing new for Beit Fourik; four years ago, an elderly man was farming his land when colonists attacked him and beat him to death with a stone."

This was taken from ISF. For more examples on the injustice of the Israeli governmnt towards Palestinians check this site. More and more and more examples we have posted before as well as points and issues we have addressed.

I am not very surprised that some Israelis insist that there is nothing wrong with Israel today. There will always be people who are not necessarily capable of showing feelings of empathy to fellow human beings on the 'other' side of the conflict. Some of these people are not capable of humane feelings in the absolute sense of the word. They are driven by a need to thrive economically and politically at the expense of others. Others cannot dissociate from their inclinations towards a deeply rooted racial or religious ideology that morally allows them to diregard the wellbeing of the 'others' and to dismiss them as people of an equal social or intellectual status.

People as such are extremists and in parallel to them, we have to acknowlege that extremists exist in all religions and in all races and cultures. Needless to say that many exist who do not exhibit an active role for their mere lack of interest in being a part of any fight (the people who just want to raise their kids in peace). Hopefully many many others do actually take a stand and play a positive role in opposing and defying the oppressive rules of their government that do not morally serve them or the 'others'.

What i do not understand is that sadly there are Arabs out there (Lebanese and others, and yes Lebanese are Arabs) who have adopted the same posture as some of our Israeli friends. Even when those Arabs do not necessarily believe in fighting for their fellow Arabs (nationalism is a decision all the Arabic countries have to make combined), and regardless of how they were raised and who they identify with (based on their tribal loyalties), how can a human being be willing to make peace with a nation on his border that treat his fellow human beings with utmost disregard for all considerations of human decency, fairness, equality and freedom.

Awfully naïve of course but let's start here shall we?
If you do not have a problem with the state of Israel, where do you stand on morality?

powered by ODEO


At Sunday, September 03, 2006 8:37:00 AM, Blogger hashem said...

It's sad ya Mirvat in today's world, the standards are upside down.
But neither the long injustice, nor force can make what is right wrong, and vice versa...
they failed in the past, and will fail this time. El-ha2 ha2...forever.
naive? maybe....but time will prove it true.
ideal? maybe, but I dream no less than ideal.
A dream? maybe...but I'll always dream what I want.

At Sunday, September 03, 2006 9:41:00 AM, Blogger Gosudarynya said...


Your question as to why there are Arabs out there who seem to identify or even side with right-wing Israelis (I know enough left-wing Israelis to mention the difference) on matters you mention in your post is one that baffles me also. During phases of your country's civil war and occupation by Israel and then Syria I could see why many did not much dwell on the Palestinians' ongoing problem of being occupied; after all the PLO did not make life easy in Lebanon, and you were dealing with your own injustices from all sides.

But now it should be quite clear to everyone who lived through the recent 34 days of bombs and "daring commando raids" on shopkeepers named Nasrallah. Israel's occupation of the West Bank is not only abominable for its many violations of the laws of occupation; it is an affront to all who have the misfortune of being Arabs in the area and clearly no invitation to peaceful coexistence with those still occupied or those so recently bombed and still blockaded. Many Israelis who have adopted the "my country, right or wrong" stance toward the WB and Gaza often do not have a clue what actually happens there and prefer their government's propaganda with back-up from the US. Why some Arabs, whether Lebanese or friends of Ahmed Chalabi, would choose to agree with this policy or the economic blockade is a complete puzzle to me.

Israelis and Arabs (and anyone interested who speaks Arabic, Hebrew or English) who honestly do not know could learn a lot just by referring to B'Tselem or Machsomwatch in addition to sites you mention already. Ma'an News collects numerous articles from sources worldwide and has area reporters as well. Ma'an is one-stop shopping for anyone not afraid of the truth in Palestine. To make it easy for them I'll post the sites in html.



Machsom Watch

Christian Peacekeeper Teams

At Sunday, September 03, 2006 10:07:00 AM, Blogger Gosudarynya said...

Uri Avnery

When Napoleon Won at Waterloo

NAPOLEON WON the battle of Waterloo. The German Wehrmacht won World War II. The United States won in Vietnam, and the Soviets in Afghanistan. The Zealots won against the Romans, and Ehud Olmert won the Second Lebanon War.

You didn't know that? Well, during the last few days the Israeli media has paraded a long series of experts, who did not leave any room for doubt: the war has brought us huge achievements, Hizbullah was routed, Olmert is the great victor.

The TV talk-show hosts and anchormen put their microphones at the service of professors, publicity experts, "security personnel" and "strategists" (a title not denoting generals, but advisers of politicians). All of them agreed on the outcome: an honest-to-goodness victory.

Yesterday I switched on the TV and saw a person radiating self-assurance and explaining how our victory in Lebanon opens the way for the inevitable war with Iran. The analysis, composed almost entirely of clichés, was worthy of a high-school pupil. I was shocked to learn that the man was a former chief of the Mossad. Anyway, we won this war and we are going to win the next one.

So there is no need at all for a commission of inquiry. What is there to inquire into? All we need is a few committees to clear up the minor slips that occurred here and there.

Resignations are absolutely out. Why, what happened? Victors do not resign! Did Napoleon resign after Waterloo? Did Presidents Johnson and Nixon resign after what happened in Vietnam? Did the Zealots resign after the destruction of the Temple?

JOKING ASIDE, the parade of Olmert's stooges on TV, on the radio and in the newspapers tells us something. Not about the achievements of Olmert as a statesman and strategist, but about the integrity of the media.

When the war broke out, the media people fell into line and and marched in step as a propaganda battalion. All the media, without exception, became organs of the war effort, fawning on Olmert, Peretz and Halutz, waxing enthusiastic at the sight of the devastation in Lebanon and singing the praises of the "steadfastness of the civilian population" in the north of Israel. The public was exposed to an incessant rain of victory reports, going on (literally) from early in the morning to late at night.

The government and army spokespersons, together with Olmert's spin team, decided what to publish and when, and, more importantly, what to suppress.

That found its expression in the "word laundry." Instead of accurate words came misleading expressions: when heavy battles were raging in Lebanon, the media spoke about "exchanges of fire." The cowardly Hassan Nasrallah was "hiding" in his bunker, while our brave Chief-of-Staff was directing operations from his underground command post (nicknamed "the hole").

The chicken-hearted "terrorists" of Hizbullah were hiding behind women and children and operating from within villages, quite unlike our Ministry of Defense and General Staff which are located in the heart of the most densely populated area in Israel. Our soldiers were not captured in a military action, but "abducted" like the victims of gangsters, while our army "arrests" the leaders of Hamas. Hizbullah, as is well known, is "financed" by Iran and Syria, quite unlike Israel, which "receives generous support" from our great friend and ally, the United States.

There was, of course, a difference of night and day between Hizbullah and us. How can one compare? After all, Hizbullah launched rockets at us with the express intent of killing civilians, and did indeed kill some thirty of them. While our military, "the most moral army in the world," took great care not to hurt civilians, and therefore only about 800 Lebanese civilians, half of them children, lost their lives in the bombardments which were all directed at purely military targets.

No general could compare with the military correspondents and commentators, who appeared daily on TV, striking impressive military poses, who reported on the fighting and demanded a deeper advance into Lebanon. Only very observant viewers noticed that they did not accompany the fighters at all and did not share the dangers and pains of battle, something that is essential for honest reporting in war. During the entire war I saw only two correspondent's reports that really reflected the spirit of the soldiers - one by Itay Angel and the other by Nahum Barnea.

The deaths of soldiers were generally announced only after midnight, when most people were asleep. During the day the media spoke only about soldiers being "hurt". The official pretext was that the army had first to inform the families. That's true - but only for announcing the names of the fallen soldiers. It does not apply at all to the number of the dead. (The public quickly caught on and realized that "hurt" meant "killed'.)

OF COURSE, among the almost one thousand people invited to the TV studios during the war to air their views, there were next to no voices criticizing the war itself. Two or three, who were invited for alibi purposes, were shown up as ridiculous weirdos. Two or three Arab citizens were also invited, but the talk-masters fell on them like hounds on their prey.

For weeks, the media suppressed the fact that hundreds of thousands of Israelis had abandoned the bombarded North, leaving only the poorest behind. That would have shaken the legend of the "steadfastness of the rear".

All the media (except the internet sites) completely suppressed the news about the demonstrations against the war that took place almost daily and that grew rapidly from dozens to hundreds, and from hundreds to thousands. (Channel 1 alone devoted several seconds to the small demonstration of Meretz and Peace Now that took place just before the end of the war. Both had supported the war enthusiastically almost to the finish.)

I don't say these things as a professor for communications or a disgruntled politician. I am a media-person from head to foot. Since the age of 17 I have been a working journalist, reporter, columnist and editor, and I know very well how media with integrity should behave. (The only prize I ever got in my own country was awarded by the Journalists' Association for my "life work in journalism".)

I do not think, by the way, that the behavior of our media was worse than that of their American colleagues at the start of the Iraq war, or the British media during the ridiculous Falklands/Malvinas war. But the scandals of others are no consolation for our own.

Against the background of this pervasive brainwashing, one has to salute the few - who can be counted on the fingers of both hands - who did not join the general chorus and did indeed voice criticism in the written media, as much as they were allowed to. The names are well-known, and I shall not list them here, for fear of overlooking somebody and committing an unforgivable sin. They can hold their heads high. The trouble is that their comments appeared only in the op-ed pages, which have a limited impact, and were completely absent from the news pages and news programs, which shape public opinion on a daily basis.

When the media people now passionately debate the need for all kinds of inquiry commissions and examination committees, perhaps they should set a personal example and establish a Commission of Inquiry to investigate the actions of the media themselves at the time of supreme test.

IN GOETHE'S "Faust", the devil presents himself as the "force that always strives for the bad and always produces the good." I do not wish, God forbid, to compare the media to the devil, but the result is the same: by its enthusiastic support for the war, the media deepened the feeling of failure that came afterwards and which may in the end have a beneficial impact.

The media called Hizbullah a "terror organization", evoking the image of a small group of "terrorists" with negligible capabilities. When it became clear that this is an efficient and well-trained military force with brave and determined fighters, effective missiles and other weapons, that could hold out against our huge military machine for 33 days without breaking, the disappointment was even more bitter.

After the media had glorified our military commanders as supermen and treated every one of their boasts with adulation, almost as if they were divine revelations, the disappointment was even greater when severe failures in strategy, tactics, intelligence and logistics showed up in all levels of the senior command.

That contributed to the profound change in public opinion that set in at the end of the war. As elevated as the self-confidence had been, so deep was the sense of failure. The Gods had failed. The intoxication of war was replaced by the hangover of the morning after.

And who is that running in front of the mob clamoring for revenge, all the way to the Place de la Guillotine? The media, of course.

I don't know of a single talk-show host, anchorman. commentator, reporter or editor, who has confessed his guilt and begged for forgiveness for his part in the brainwashing. Everything that was said, written or photographed has been wiped off the slate. It just never happened.

Now, when the damage cannot be repaired anymore, the media are pushing to the head of those who demand the truth and clamor for punishment for all the scandalous decisions that were taken by the government and the general staff: prolonging the war unnecessarily after the first six days, abandoning the rear, neglecting the reserves, not sending the land army into Lebanon on day X and sending them into Lebanon on day Y, not accepting G8's call for a cease-fire, and so on.

But, just a moment ---

During the last few days, the wheel may be turning again. What? We did not lose the war after all? Wait, wait, we did win? Nasrallah has apologized? (By strict orders from above, the full interview of Nasrallah was not broadcast at all, but the one passage in which he admitted to a mistake was broadcast over and over again.)

The sensitive nose of the media people has detected a change of the wind. Some of them have already altered course. If there is a new wave in public opinion, one should ride it, no?

WE CALL this the "Altalena Effect".

For those who don't know, or who have already forgotten: Altalena was a small ship that arrived off the coast of Israel in the middle of the 1948 war, carrying a group of Irgun men and quantities of weapons, it was not clear for whom. David Ben-Gurion was afraid of a putsch and ordered the shelling of the ship, off the coast of Tel-Aviv. Some of the men were killed, Menachem Begin, who had gone aboard, was pushed into the water and saved. The ship sank, the Irgun was dispersed and its members joined the new Israeli army.

29 years later Begin came to power. All the careerists joined him in haste. And then it appeared, retroactively, that practically everybody had been on board the Altalena. The little ship expanded into a huge aircraft carrier - until the Likud lost power and Altalena shrunk back to the size of a fishing boat.

The Second Lebanon War was a mighty Altalena. All the media crowded onto its deck. But the day after the war was over, we learned that this was an optical illusion: absolutely nobody had been there, except Captain Olmert, First Officer Peretz and Helmsman Halutz. However, that can change any minute now, if the trusting public can be convinced that we won the war after all.

As has been said before: in Israel nothing changes, except the past.

At Sunday, September 03, 2006 10:13:00 AM, Blogger Emil , Jerusalem said...

Hi Mirvat and also Gosudarynya ,

See , for me it is a little bit difficult to discuss internal Israeli politics here , I mean people & orgs. like B'tselem , Mahsom Watch , Women in black , Uri Avnery. I would like only to say, that these guys are marginals and even the left-wing Meretz ( 5 seats of 120 ) doesn't support them.

Since I don't want to get Mirvat angry with my opinion about Palestinian issues ( respecting her I even don't put the word Palestinian into quotes ) , I would only like to bring her quote :

>What i do not understand is that sadly there are Arabs out there (Lebanese and others, and yes Lebanese are Arabs) who have adopted the same posture as some of our Israeli friends.

-Well , let me quote just 3 Lebanese sources (maybe not from Lebanon , but surely not from Israel - Israel does regard Lebanon as an Arab country):

A. http://www.lgic.org/en/faq.php#1 :
Are Lebanese Arabs?
Lebanon is a mix of ethnic groups. Part of the Lebanese are Arabs; 20-30% of the Lebanese in Lebanon and 10-20% of Lebanese in Diaspora are Arabs. Most of the Lebanese are the descendents of the Canaanites who inhabited Lebanon from around five thousand years ago.

They were called Phoenicians by the Greeks and Punic by the Romans. When the Muslim Arabs conquered the North of the Arabian Peninsula in the seventh century AD, they couldn’t conquer most of Lebanon due to its mountainous nature.

Some Arabs settled in coastal cities and mixed with the inhabitants while some of the Phoenicians converted to Islam, which made them Muslims not Arabs, i.e they changed their religion not ethnicity.
The Canaanites/Phoenicians, the Arabs, and the Syriac-Arameans are the three major ethnic groups in Lebanon. Armenians, Greeks, Hebrews, Assyrians, Kurds, Persians and other groups form the rest of the Lebanese community.

B. http://www.cedarland.org/identity.html
A great deal of debate has gone on regarding the identity of the Lebanese, many state that the Lebanese are Arabs and that Lebanon is an Arab state, whilst many argue that this is not the case, that the Lebanese are not Arab.

We are Lebanese-Americans, Assyrian-Americans, Kurds-Americans, Aramaic-Americans, and some are Arab-Americans. Therefore, the inclusive, sensitive, and politically correct term to use when referring to all these groups is the Middle Eastern-Americans. Thus, we ask Mr. Zogby not to label us according to what suits his interest, for we have already labeled ourselves each according to his/her ethnic background.

End of quotes .

Well Mirvat and Gosudarynya , you both live in USA and so do some of my friends and relatives. To my best knowledge , Jews and Lebanese have good relations in USA and Canada.

At Sunday, September 03, 2006 1:48:00 PM, Blogger John Smith said...

The problem with Israeli peace makers is that they have no vision. I say send Bar Refaeli (google her for pics) to Nasrallah and Assad for one night. I can guarantee they’ll be talking differently about Israel the next morning. Let Nasrallah pay for the limo. Let Assad pay for dinner. Let Israeli tax payers pay for Bar’s mental health care in the next 5 years. Every super model and miss universe say their goal is world peace. I say, go girls. You’ll bring the peace, I’ll bring the wine bottle and condoms.

At Sunday, September 03, 2006 7:09:00 PM, Blogger apokraphyte said...


Are you trying to educate the Lebanese about their own history by browsing the internets and then copying and plastering?

Does your condescension have no limits?

Do you have any inkling as to how foolish your comment is?

Are other Israelis just as clueless about Lebanon and the history of its "arab" identity? Or is it just a personal phenomenon?

Do tell ... and forgive my tone ...

At Sunday, September 03, 2006 8:55:00 PM, Blogger Mirvat said...

hey hashem, nshallah kheir eh?

Gosudarynya, thank you for your comment. i enjoyed uri avenery's article as i do most his writings. i'm sure the article would be a nice rebuttal to the previous opinions presented in the previous post. the dynamics in the country in terms of causes is surely different than 82, HA are lebanese. back then it was easier in the confusion of the PLO burden (when it got to oppose the lebanese interests on an internal level) for certain groups to go as far as being a proxy for israel against the presence of a palestinian resistance in lebanon.
if had hoped against all odds that this ideology is long gone. HA are lebanese and this is a completely different issue now. lebanese have to have a clear idea on where they stand from the arabic world and where they stand from israel. during the war, people keep a united front. i understand that now is the aftermath but i would like it for once if people tried to decide on a their position from israel in regards to the way this country treats the palestinians.. forget they're arabs call them anything.. how can they trust a country that has the capacity to treat people of their same race for once with such degradation, in many instances, based on feelings of racism..

hi emil,
so these people a a minority, hopefully they'll get louder and affect more people around them yes?

lebanese, indeed a phoenicians who are originally canaanites and these, though not descendants of arabs, did intermarry with the arabs to the point where it became impossible to tell the difference. skipping to modern history, the maronites in lebanon wanted to protect their power in lebanon as a minority in the arab world and that's why they hesitated to consider lebanon aranbic. but hey, what is it then? european? to me if you speak arabic you're arabic.
as for living in the US.. lebanese and any race and religion are good friends anywhere!! this is about politics right? has nothing to do with a hate for a people..we have nothing against jews.. we are against the current policies of israel to put it in very mild terms so you won't get mad :)

At Sunday, September 03, 2006 9:37:00 PM, Blogger Emil , Jerusalem said...

Hi , apokraphyte

No way I try to teach Lebanese people their history.

I brought links and copied & pasted very short passages in order to show that there is an argument , whether Lebanon should be an Arab country or not. I admit , that until the last conflict I considered all the people of Lebanon as Arabs , although from different faiths ,and was very surprised to know about the issue.

The odd thing is that in Israel Lebanon i s considered by almost anyone as an Arab country , even a little bit different ( no desert , 18 religious communities etc.).

I wish to have a quick peace in order to maintain a lot of cultural ties in order that every Israeli will know more about Lebanon.

One of the reasons why the question of Arabness was surprising to me is that in Israel there are Druze , Christian and Bedouin minorities. Although they preserve their uniqueness - they consider themselves Arabs.

And why does the question of "Arabness" bothers me ? 1st of all it's a little hard to be the only non-Arab minority in the area. 2nd of all I found an explanation of ties between Israel and Maronites.

3d and most important : Mirvat and others bring a reason for not signing a peace agreement with Israel , which is the Arab solidarity. And I ask again : Egypt is an Arab country (5% non-Arabs ) , Jordan is 100% Arab . So do Qatar and Tunisia. So why Lebanon should be the last , if a very significant part of its people doesn't consider themselves as Arabs at all.

And the last but not the least : earlier I mentioned Druzes and Bedouins. As a jew , I'm proud of those citizens , whose men serve in the IDF and turn to be excellent soldiers. The same is to be said about most of Arab Christians . I consider those guys as better Israelis than people like Uri Avneri , Mahsom watch , Yesh Gvul , who are jews by birth but ... well I don't want to anger Mirvat and others .

At Sunday, September 03, 2006 10:10:00 PM, Blogger Mirvat said...

your last sentence is not for me to frown upon. you're free to define your nationalism as you please.
same goes for us.

some people stick to the nonarab identity as a way of a self-preservation especially in the past. we're over this phase.
so to answer your question, it's not parts of lebanese who are phoenicians for example, not one religion or sect.. it's a large part including muslims.. these phoenicians integrated with the arabs and became one.

so yes lebanon is arabic.

to answer your question about egypt for once, please refer to sherif nashat's comment in the previous post, i'll let an egyptian answer that. as for jordan, hashemites are historically allies with israel. jordan, in your leaders' words, has been a historical ally for israel.

At Sunday, September 03, 2006 10:15:00 PM, Blogger Sherif Nashaat said...

Egypt is an Arab country (5% non-Arabs) , Jordan is 100% Arab. So do Qatar and Tunisia.


"Arab" identity a la Emil way. I really wonder what your Arab / non-Arab ratio based on.

At Sunday, September 03, 2006 10:23:00 PM, Blogger apokraphyte said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

At Tuesday, September 05, 2006 12:11:00 AM, Blogger Neil Williams said...

Mobilize for the 4th National & International week Against The Apartheid Wall!

Called for by the Palestinian Grassroots Anti-Apartheid Wall Campaign.
Every year in some 30 countries all over the world, movements and organizations speak out and protest against the Wall and Israeli Occupation and Apartheid during this Week of Palestinian resistance and global action. We call on you to stand with the Palestinian people and join the Global Week of Action:
Show solidarity with the Palestinian struggle against the Apartheid Wall
Expose Israeli colonialism, apartheid and occupation
End global support for Israeli Apartheid Strengthen the Movement to Isolate Apartheid Israel and organize action in response to the Palestinian call for boycott, divestment and sanctions!
As the ghetto walls close around our people, the voice of the Palestinian and Arab resistance continues to echo within the Bantustans and beyond. Like every year since bulldozers started to level our land for the Wall’s path, the Week against the Apartheid Wall (November 9-16) will unite Palestinian communities struggling against the land grab and expulsion in mass protests. Under the rubble of our homes, on the fields still bearing fruit behind the wall, within the besieged villages and the ailing city of Jerusalem, Palestinian existence has been transformed into an act of daily resistance.
5 years after the Occupation started its destruction of our lands for the Wall, 2 years after the International Court of Justice called for the dismantling if the Wall.
We will stand steadfast against the Apartheid Wall, an enormous monument to Zionist racism, a colonial edifice that encages Palestinians and a desperate attempt to drive us from our lands.
Full artilce at:

You can read other artilces like this on The Respect Supporters Blog (George Galloway is the UK Respect MP)at:


Neil Wiliams
Respect Blog (UK)

At Tuesday, September 05, 2006 1:19:00 AM, Blogger John Smith said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

At Tuesday, September 05, 2006 1:22:00 AM, Blogger John Smith said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

At Tuesday, September 05, 2006 1:49:00 AM, Blogger John Smith said...

Although I vote for an Israeli left wing party I must say one thing about the ‘occupied territories’:
I have a cute son about 2.5 years old. Sometimes in his kindergarten when he plays with 2 toys, another kid comes demanding one of his toys. There are many toys there but you know kids… Sometimes I tell him to give the other kid one of his toys just in order to avoid the conflict. The fact that I’m ready to give one of my (his) toys to another kid, doesn’t mean it was his in the first place. The ‘occupied territories’ should be called the ‘disputed territories’. We believe it’s ours, you believe it’s yours. The fact that some of us (myself included) are ready to give them up as a part of a peace agreement does not mean it was yours in the first place.

You’ll be amazed how a kindergarten can serve as a micro cosmos for so many other issues.


At Tuesday, September 05, 2006 2:25:00 AM, Blogger Shannon said...

I'm sorry, but I have to take this article with "a grain of salt". While this event may be true, I am less likely to trust the media who reports it to not include all the facts leading up to the shooting. We saw how media falsely doctored photos and we see on a daily basis how the media likes to write in its own words how events take place without speaking to both sides. Without hearing from the Israelis, I have a hard time believing this as completely truthful.
While Israel is not perfect, the efforts the country has made towards peace throughtout history and treating its citizens, both Arab and Jewish, as humans with freedoms not seen in other countries is what seems to distinguish it from other middle eastern countries. I wonder if anyone who is so critical of Israelal has actually been to Israel -- where speaking openly and favorably toward Arab and palestinan rights is part of the mainstream. Anyone who has actually visited Israel would see this. Israel freely allows Arabs to practice their religion. Israel allows Arabs to be in their Kenesset. What country in the Arab world allows jews to do the same? This is not to say that there are not Jewish fanatics -- and they are to be condemned and jailed for all crimes they commit. But to say that this is a country that does not stand on morality only serves to distort the truth and prevent people from coming together in a peace process. If people are really interested in peace, time is far better spent making alliances with the Israelis who support Palestinian rights than trying to make enemies out of those who could be your greatest ally.

At Tuesday, September 05, 2006 3:17:00 AM, Blogger John Smith said...

I'm with Shannon.

At Tuesday, September 05, 2006 3:41:00 AM, Blogger Chas said...

I agree with the general drift of your blog.
I have found myself increasingly disappointed with the Israeli response to the war.
I actually post on and contribute to an Israeli peace peace blog so I hope my Israeli friends will understand.
When the truce was first in place there was a lot of talk about soul-searching in the media. But it seems that all it amounted to .. talk. The drastic re-think that was so obviously needed never materialized .. and meanwhile in Gaza just more of the same.
On the other hand I do find myself agreeing to some extent with Shannon. There are a lot of good things about Israel and Israeli society.
So, a challenge:
From the Israeli posters ..
a clear and unqualified acknowledgment of the disproportionate suffering inflicted in Lebanon.
From the Lebanese posters ..
a clear and unqualified acknowlegement that allowing Hez to flourish in S.Leb was a real andt present danger to your southern neighbour.

Please note the word "unqualified".
And there is another rule. You cannot make any suggetions for the "other" side .. only your own.
And you cannot use the word "but"

Try it, even if only as a thought experiment.

Peace, Chas emspeace.blogspot.com

At Tuesday, September 05, 2006 3:40:00 PM, Blogger Emil , Jerusalem said...

Hi everybody ,

Thank you all for replies. Although it took me some time to prepare the answer , I feel it as necessary.
So ladies first :

Mirvat , I accept your opinion about the Arabness of Lebanon. I just wanted to show , that there are others who don’t agree . There ( to my best knowledge ) is no dispute in the Arab republic of Egypt , Syrian Arab republic or Libyan Arab Jamahiriyya.
You tell , that for you – if somebody speaks Arabic he is an Arab. What would you say about the IRA and the identity of people of Ireland , who speak English? Are they Englishmen ?

But that is not the main issue. You ( and PM Siniora ) tell , that Lebanon will be the last to sign a peace treaty. So it is nessesary to point , that in 1996 Assad the father almost signed the peace treaty. That was even before the peace talks for a final agreement with Arafat in 2000 , which gave nothing.

The issue was the Sea of Galilee and Golan. Israel was ready in principle to withdraw from Golan to International border line ( pre 1948 colonial border ) i.e. the Sea of Galilee stays inside Israel. But Assad demanded the armistice borders 1949-1967 , which include Syrian access to the only major water source of Israel. The difference was about 100 meters (!) in a strip of max.10 km. long.

So imagine , that solution is found ( dutyfree zone , joint souvereignity , lend for 99 years etc. ) and Syria falls in love with USA ( remember 1990 when USA permitted Syria to occupy Lebanon in exchange to anti-Iraqi coalition) . Peace treaty Israel – Syria. My question : would Lebanon wait for Palestinians ? I bet no !

Lebanon haven’t sign yet a peace agreement with Israel because of Syria and not because of Palestinians !

Of course there are people like Sherif Nashaat who would say , that Egypt had made a mistake signing the peace treaty. There are also people in Israel ( not me ! ) who would say that Begin was a traitor by “selling” Sinai , and there was better to stay with Sinai without the peace with Egypt . But the history is the best Judge. Technically , there is a peace already from 1975. So the state of Israel was in state of a war with Egypt 27 years until 1975 , 4 years was a peace de-facto , and for another 27 years there is a formal peace and growing economic ties .

BTW , Sherif got an answer in the previous post. I agree with that answer , adding that of course Egypt is far from democracy but if we compare Egypt ( and Jordan ) with Libya , Syria , Saudi Arabia or Sudan – the regime of this country is quite benign and this is the reason for vast foreign investments.

As to Neil Williams and other British “peacemakers” : Hey guys , your govt. ( together with France - 1916 ) created artificial states , tossed borders according to your interests. Even if Britain had some credit for Balfour declaration ( a private letter !) , it lost it after the 3 white papers which prevented the rescue of jews in ww2. I’m personally convinced , that Britain brought nothing good to the Middle East . It has to be remembered , that the first 2 repatriation waves of jews ( aliya ) , the first kibbutzes , the first Hebrew cities ( even Tel-Aviv -1909 ) were founded during the Turkish Ottoman rule , and the process could run further without any interference of Britain , that of course looked only for its interests.

And thanks to John Smith and Shannon . It would be worth mention , that a lot of people in Israel vote left parties ( like Meretz ) because of social , anti-clerical and environmental issues , rather then their political views. Even if so , Meretz has only 5 seats out of 120. Although some Israelis ( incl. Me ) consider Avoda as a left party , it takes part in the government. It’s another proof of marginality of persons , like Uri Avnery , Tali Fahima ( the mistress of the terrorist Zakariya Zbeidi) , women in black etc.

And finally , I would like to bring a link to an article of Lebanese citizen , Michel Behe. http://www.menapress.com/article.php?sid=1479

I made a copy of it inside my blog.

Wishing peace to all ,


At Tuesday, September 05, 2006 4:50:00 PM, Blogger hillz said...

Lebanon didn't sign a peace with israel because of Lebanese not because of syria.

We feel that we have at least an ethical commitment towards the palesinians although of what hapened during the civil war and despite our political opinions of what happened during the lebanese war.

Yeh we know about all the internal clashes between arabs and between the Lebanese themselves, but that doesn't make the palestinian case un just. And untill final and complete peace between palestine and israel and after the return of all the arabic lands taken after the 67 (despite our opinion about the regimes and how they handle such problems), Lebnaon won't sign a peace treaty with israel and people won't normalize the relations.

At Tuesday, September 05, 2006 8:36:00 PM, Blogger apokraphyte said...


1) "the regime of this country [egypt] is quite benign and this is the reason for vast foreign investments"

lol ... yeah, American tax payers keep Mubarak afloat cause he is such a sweetheart ... Really, Emil, I mean come on ...

2) Are you aware that most of Palestinian refugees in Lebanon are 48ers? Does this give you some clue about why Lebanon will be the last country to sign a peace deal with Israel? Take them back and disarm the IDF in northern Israel and I bet you would have a willing partner in Lebanon ...

3) I would agree there is hardly a political party in Israel that makes its way by offering an alternative foreign policy. I guess that it is because its relations with its neighbors have been so successful ...

4) What do you expect Arabs to think of the state of Israel when the Minister for the Diaspora calls for the immigration of over 1 million Russians by 2010 (or 9 -- I forget) while categorically refusing the right of return to Palestinians and expanding the settlements in the West Bank -- love that "thickening" expression ...

5) Please re-read the history of the first Israelis. They understood well that the Arabs would have to be idiots to recognize Israel and sign a peace agreement with the Jewish state. If anything, rejectionists such as Hizbullah, are following the strategic logic of the Zionist success ...

6) Also some attention to the American-Israeli security plan would be in order. You know full well that the policy has been uber-deterrence, where Israel remains more powerful than the collective might of all its neighbors ... Do you think this militarism has had a beneficial effect on Israel? Have you noticed the sea change in US-Israel relations since the early 1970s when Israeli belligerence became a cash cow for US defense contractors? Does that alarm you? Is it any surprise that Israel has turned toward unilateralism and fortress Israel?

7) Finally, I hope you are aware that identities -- whether ethnic or religious -- are social fictions that mutate according to historically-contigent social, economic and political forces.

At Tuesday, September 05, 2006 9:13:00 PM, Blogger apokraphyte said...

I would add that Israel has undergone a profound demographic shifts in the last 15 years, the political ramifications of which are still unknown, but one can bet that with the dramatic increase in ethnic and religious diversity and the gradual shrinking of the role of the state in the Israeli economy, Israeli politics -- at least on the national level -- will focus, like other states, on cultural and religious issues and foreign "threats." This, I think, is why the evacuation of the settlements in the West Bank, is a virtual non-starter in Israel. It would focus political attention on what exactly Israel is (does it have borders, and if so where?), what does Zionism mean, what is a Jew ... etc ...

These are highly contentious issues in Israel and in the worldwide Jewish community and that the political class in Israel -- on the national level -- chooses to avoid them by focusing on "Israel's enemies" is highly predictable, as similar phenomena are observed elsewhere.

Please notice how Olmert is trying to resolve his current difficulties over Lebanon by renouncing convergence and authorizing the expansion of settlements in the Jerusalem area.

I would agree that for the majority of Israelis the hope is normalization or peace, but to suggest that the ideology or political strategy of Israel's neighbors and enemies is morally inferior suggests a profound unwillingness to examine what might be going on inside the region's only super-power ...

You know well that Israel can say "we want peace ..." It is not that hard when you can annihilate your foes and your regime is invulnerable ... Such is not possible for Arab states, parties or movements ...

I dont care if Israel wants to advance its interests in the ME, but the moralizing is hypocritical, avoids the real history of the region and makes real peace impossible.

At Tuesday, September 05, 2006 10:46:00 PM, Blogger Gosudarynya said...

As to Neil Williams and other British “peacemakers” : Hey guys , your govt.

Emil, you do not know anything about Neil's party. The Respect folks have NOTHING but contempt for Western colonialism! Check out the websites he offered you. Respect is very left-leaning; George Galloway left Labour over Labour's increasing "centrism" or whatever one might call their descent into stupidity.

Galloway was the first Western politician to visit southern Beirut and towns further south. He's a very people-oriented and internationally concerned leader and not afraid of much, either. Hence, he is despised by the right both in UK and US.

Great debater, btw. Destroyed a few American idiots.

At Wednesday, September 06, 2006 1:14:00 AM, Blogger Shannon said...


To somehow hold Israel to a higher standard while at the sametime ignore the security threat by fanatics who continue to plot attacks, "wipe Israel off the map", and at the sametime use media to accuse Israel of false attacks (such as phosphorus in lebanon) to persuade people away from seeing Israel as truly interested in peace is Wrong. These same people ought to be recognized to the same higher standard that Israel is. Yes, Israel may have increasing diversity within its borders, but that does not mean it is using security as an excuse when we hear the rhetoric that continues to be used by those outside its borders.

I'm not going to argue with you about historical facts, because clearly both sides answer the same questions differnelty. I think it is always important to be critical about Israel's response and by no means do I suggest or support military power to be the solution. But It is far more easy to be critical than to actually come up with a working solution that ensures peace for Israel and all those who want it that it hasn't already tried. The fact that Israelis are so activly engaged in this discussion and has multiple groups that advocate for Palesinian rights should not be ignored or diminshed in any way. What good does supressing that for the sake of making the point that Israel has internal diversity needs to be addressed (what country doesn't) and using historical context that cleary both sides will explain differently.

If peace is what people really want then it takes more than just being crittical about both sides actions. I would hope that people are able to come together to resolve their differences and see that it begins with people recognizing and accepting each others perpective just a little bit more.

At Wednesday, September 06, 2006 9:42:00 AM, Blogger Gosudarynya said...


The reason Israel and the US are to be held to higher standards than the countries it endlessly demonizes is precisely that these countries are both hypocritical to an extreme.

Both countries play the holier-than-thou propaganda game, claiming such bunk as "we do not torture," "we believe in freedom" etc. etc. ad nauseum while bombing, occupying against the rules of occupation to which both countries are signatories, spying on citizens without warrant (US) etc. etc.

Israel just a couple days ago refused to confirm or deny its nuclear weaponry for purposes of nonproliferation rules and regs. Oh, please....

Furthermore the US criticizes selectively to a point which would be laughable were the unmentioned atrocities not so severe. The US is currently painting the mullahs in Iran as evil and dangerous while staying completely silent on Saudi Arabia. Venezuela is also on the hit list due to its nationalized oil. (The US backed a coup there a few years ago but it ultimately failed.)

I have not heard such highfalutin' claptrap from Arab countries.

At Thursday, September 07, 2006 3:07:00 AM, Blogger Shannon said...

I agree that there are a lot of problematic leaders out there, George Bush being one of them, but nobody is saying that the US shouldn’t be held to the same standard it claims to live by. At the same time, this does not legitamize or hold anyone who calls for the annihilation of a group of people to be more moral. It would go against any sense of morality for people to call on the US or Israel's actions without acknowledging to the same extent the gross attack on human life from other nations be it jew or non- jew. If anything, by not doing so has the exact opposite affect that I would suppose people would want to come of it -- to end the isolationist perspective of countries/people that function without concern to outside views. Rather the American and the Israeli people will become even more convinced by their leaders that they will need to continue security operations since the rest of the world doesn’t even acknowledge true threats nor exhibit any capability of doing anything about them but complain about the way things go.

The rhetoric people use matters. To say one group is held to a higher standard while at the same time justifying another speaking hatred towards others is just as hypocritical. It does nothing but harvest anger that can then lead to violence and attacks -- this is no moral high ground and yet people speak of it as if it were acceptable or even justified. Just as I fault anybody who calls all Muslims “islamofascits" or "terrorists", the same fault can be applied to those who scoff at security threats to Israel – neither recognize the truth. It may be harder to recognize the other perspective, but each side has valid concerns and inciting hatred towards others is not the answer nor is it going to bring peace. In the very least, we would be far more productive by using language that we can all relate to-to resolve these issues. Without it, its nothing but a never ending cycle that we can blame ourselves for contributing to.

At Thursday, September 07, 2006 10:12:00 AM, Blogger Mirvat said...

hey shannon
i don't know how well acquainted you are with the history of the region. believe me as lebanese we are well aware of the fact that more than one side is needed to start a struggle. but you also have to understand that we do not hold israel to a higher moral standard for the mere fact that we're well aware of the israeli policies since 1978 in lebanon, (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2815363660306953223&q=the+war+of+lebanon+episode). we had a close experience first hand. a quick remark, we do not accuse israel of immoral war crimes based on what we see on the news but based on what we lived. israel used illegal weapons including cluster bombs even in 1982, in fact the vaccum bombs were first being tested in beirut.
when you see this episode, and if interested in knowing more you can watch the full documentary, you can see the recurrent pattern of the israeli military and political practices in the region.

although i can't hold only israel to be responsible for the war in lebanon, i hold it fully responsible for the palestinian situation today. you have to have a distinction between an action and a reaction. you're right in saying that the cycle has to stop but how will it stop when the issue remains the same. during the PLO days, the principle was to liberate palestine. we are all fully aware that this idea is long gone. you know very well that the palestinians are asking to end the occupation of gaza and the west bank based of the UN resolution and the 2 state solution.

also from the events in the previous invasion of lebanon and specifically the events presented in this episode of the lebanese war, you can see how sharon's stubborness and how the israeli arrogance led to the birth of the lebanese resistance even after the PLO completely withdrew from lebanon.

the point is that we paid the price and still did years after the first invasion in 1978. when you do someone wrong, the least you can do is to undo it. instead israel never fully withdrew from lebanon and for the mere fact that it's militarily superior continued its operations in the south even after 2000 when it was forced to leave. this attitude is what started the resistance in the first place. even when all of lebanon was not ready to harbor the palestinian resistance anymore, including the far left, israel's actions against the lebanese led to the only natural reaction and that is the creation of the lebanese resistance.

the same goes for palestine today and this is where hamas comes in.
again the cycle of violence is not the answer but while israel had the chance to really withdraw from gaza and the west bank and accept the democratically elected government in gaza, it started a war on lebanon and destroyed it and started all these raids and massacres in palestine.

i don't hold the israeli command neither the government at a higher moral standard, i have lived and witnessed to many injustices and traumas and disasters to do so, i hold the people at a higher moral standard than their governments.

At Friday, September 08, 2006 4:00:00 AM, Blogger jooj said...

"If you do not have a problem with the state of Israel, where do you stand on morality?"

Mirvat, I just wonna say that the way you ended your article is excellent.

At Saturday, September 09, 2006 3:22:00 AM, Blogger Mirvat said...

thank you jooj
sad to see that nothing gets through..

At Wednesday, December 31, 2008 11:33:00 AM, Blogger sexy said...




色情A片,A片下載,色情遊戲,色情影片,色情聊天室,情色電影,免費視訊,免費視訊聊天,免費視訊聊天室,一葉情貼圖片區,情色視訊,免費成人影片,視訊交友,視訊聊天,言情小說,愛情小說,AV片,A漫,av dvd,情色論壇,視訊美女,AV成人網,情色文學,成人交友,成人電影,成人貼圖,成人小說,成人文章,成人圖片區,成人遊戲,愛情公寓,情色貼圖,成人論壇,色情



Post a Comment

<< Home