Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 13:07:27 -0500 (EST)
From: dan combs <dcombs-AT-bloomington.in.us>
Subject: Re: malodorous unveils his truth for palestine


On Mon, 7 Oct 2002, Maldoror wrote:

> all ppls are a myth. benedict anderson has a book that
> talks about how nationalisms are created through the
> use of the newspapers which create communities out of
> the circulation areas whose ppl then read common
> events from a common perspective, and pretty soon
> nations are born from the commonality.
>
> create a flag, create a god, get enough ppl to believe
> in them and before long there's a community centered
> around the totem. as it gets larger the number of ppl
> get larger and pretty soon certain customs etc begin
> to define that ppl.

Holy cow.  You said something that makes sense.  That's a lot of verbage
to read through to get a nugget of, um, McChicken.

> all bickering aside though (if that's even possible
> now) back to the palestinians though there is plenty
> of literature that talks about the history of the area
> and the ppl of palestine, which was the only colony
> left by the british that was not given statehood but
> instead given to the jews after ww2 because britain
> and the US felt bad aboutthe holocaust. however
> zionists had the idea of creating israel long before
> their gift was bestowed and this is well documented by
> arab and jewish academics alike. chomsky has talked
> about this in books and articles as has edward said.

This is not news.

> if anything israel was more of a myth and longing for
> the history of a mere 72 yrs that occured over a
> millenium ago, when david supposedly defeated the
> canaanites. however after those yrs passed arabs
> filtered into the land and were there for nearly 1500
> yrs prior to the british and french colonization and
> later israeli colonization. ifyou want to keep this
> going i can send you info that verifies this and was
> compiled by jewish scholars. there's endless
> information that testifies to this fact and if you
> notice the only real info to dispute it comes after
> 1948.

Where this all leads to the slippery slope is in the belief that somehow
people today can or should attone for the sins of generations past.   The
jews never left the area in totality, the romans primarily dismantled
their social orders.  But that's a sidebar.  The question is whether the
arabs have a superior claim to the region.  This is very much akin to the
same claim The Indigenous People What Were Here Before The White Guys Got
Here have on the americas.  True, it's a claim; but it's a real iffy call
if one social order carries precedent over another based on timing alone.

> > Most of the people who desire to
> > 'return" to the alleged land
> > of "palestine" have never been there
>
> it couldn't possibly be because they were forced out
> could it?

No.  The people who were forced out of "palestine" were forced out of
Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Israel and they are dead.  What the alleged
"palestinian people" refuse to do is recognize that if there is a claim to
israel there are also claims to these other places.  I could give a rat's
arse about israel.  However, the anti-semitic nature of the choice on who
to hate is racial and ethnic in origin.  How do the brave palestinian
people justify racism?


> it's not so much choosing sides as it is looking at
> the reasons for things instead of looking at the
> effects.

Mumbo jumbo.

>
> i mean the death toll is nearly 3 palestinians to
> every one israeli and palestinians are painted as
> monsters (i'm not saying you are doing the painting
> here). there's a considerable discrepancy in defense
> while israel creates the image of suffering. the
> suffering is considerably disproportionate, but yes
> suffering still the same.

Oh, so "injustice" is something we can figure on a scorecard?  Will it be
all better if the ratio is reversed?


> > I'm just not sure they
> > hate israel for the
> > right reasons.
>
> which would be what out of curiosity?

Non-ethnic based bashing of the sort caused by israel being capitalist.




>
> > Mostly the whole "return to
> > palestine" movement came about
> > AFTER israel developed the place.
>
> that's pretty obvious considering it was israel who
> kicked them out.

I do believe it was the UN and the League of Nations.  Shouldn't the brave
palestinian people hate the UN too?



>
> > I'd have been
> > more impressed if they'd
> > go after Jordan too.
>
> some did and jordan butchered many of them.

And this is reason to stop?



> > So you own home-grown fascists can take over?
>
> 1. how am i a fascist? 2.why would i want to take over
> anywhere?

The machine ate the "r."  As in "So your home grown fascists can take
over."  "Home grown" being hamas and hezbollah and the jihad bunch and all
of those aboslute fascists who think god has given them some special
insight that allows them to lord over others.  If there is a people's
movement in the middle east it is hard to see for all of the people who
believe their religion is infallible and a must-do for everyone else.


>
> i'm not for country at all, ideally. i'm for ppl being
> allowed to live where they want to without fear of
> being oppressed by brutal dictatorships (ie country).
> the world would be a much better place with no borders
> with ppl allowed to move freely from one place to
> another. i've said that for years, but the fact of the
> matter is we live in a world that chooses borders so
> with that in mind why shouldn't the palestinians be
> allowed to have a state?

Who exactly are the palestinians?  Is not Jordan a palestinian state?  And
if the palestinians should have a homeland then can you explain to me why
the jews shouldn't?

All in all, I make this prediciton, if israel is handed back to the
palestinians, within 20 years The Great Equalizer will be at wirk (WIRK?)
and the land and state will be as rotten to the core as every other arab
state.  I just can't get excited about that.




> > You fail to
> > address the nationalistic
> > implications of the intifada.
>
> there are very nationalistic tendencies which are
> dangerous. i never said there weren't but given
> there's millenia of history of arabs living there why
> should israel have it when they can lay claim to
> roughly 72 yrs over a millenia ago.

See above:  Why should americans claim the new wirld?


>
> nationalism is always dangerous as it creates
> competition and resentments between ppls and nations.
> lookat the US with its 'we're better than the rest of
> the world and deserve to rule it' attitude which leads
> many to despise immigrants and ppl from other
> countries.
>
> ideally the world would have no borders but
> realistically i see no way that could ever happen
> though i'd love to hear some ideas on how the borders
> could begin to fracture and disappear.


> > You fail to address
> > how this even remotely
> > belongs on the anarchy-list.
>
> food for thought? :)

Not really.



> > Here's A Big Prank for you to pull:  Islamic
> > Feminist Movement.   Let the
> > mullahs get hold of that.
>
> naerly, if not, all religions are patriarchal. i never
> defended islam or any religion on grounds of
> male-female equality.

But your arab/palestinian brethren almost universally seek to impose a
second class status on wmyn.  I don't care if they're patriarchial or not:
The enemy of womyn are my enemies.


carpo