[Vision2020] NYTimes: The Big Hate
Rosemary
donaldrose at cpcinternet.com
Mon Jun 15 21:18:09 PDT 2009
Bear,
Your argument betrays a bias that I find offensive, factually inadequate,
and historically ignorant.
The following short article offers a fact-based response to your concern
about the borders of Israel.
"What determined Israel's borders after the 1948 War of Independence?
At the conclusion of the War of Independence, in 1949, all of the Arab
countries who invaded Israel signed cease fire agreements with Israel,
starting with Egypt on February 24 and concluding with Syria on July 20.
These agreements specified the interim borders between Israel and the Arab
states, as decided by the outcome of the battles.
In the negotiations with Jordan over Jerusalem, the Israeli representatives
were very concerned with Jewish access to the Old City. The Israel-Jordan
Armistice Agreement, signed on April 3, 1949, called for the establishment
of a Special Committee to plan for "free access to the Holy Places and
cultural institutions and use of the cemetery on the Mount of Olives."
Expectations that Jews might visit the Western Wall for Passover 1949 were
dashed when the Jordanians violated the Armistice Agreement. These clauses
were never honored and Jews did not again have access to the Western Wall
and other Jerusalem sites until 1967. The United Nations was of no
assistance in this issue, and ignored the discrimination and violations of
the Armistice Agreement. Although UN debates on the internationalization of
Jerusalem continued despite the de facto Jordanian usurpation, there was no
further mention of the inaccessibility of Jewish holy sites. The Vatican
also ignored requests to intervene in order to allow Jews to visit their
religious sites.
The Armistice Agreements brought the fighting of the War of Independence to
an end, but did not actually end the war between Israel and its Arab
neighbors. The Arab states didn't recognize Israel and considered the
armistice as only a pause. The Arab regimes considered the existence of
Israel in their midst to be unacceptable and they continued to work toward
Israel's destruction. They created and sustained a total boycott of Israel
in all spheres of political and economic activity. They continued to support
armed aggression against Israel, although not again by formal armies until
the Six Day War in 1967.
In the Armistice Agreements, the ceasefire lines are defined as follows:
* 5(2). In no sense are the cease-fire lines to be interpreted as
political or territorial borders and their delineation in no way affects the
rights, demands or positions of any of the parties to the cease-fire
agreements regarding the final disposition of the Palestine question.
* 5(3). The fundamental objective of the cease-fire lines is to serve as
a line beyond which the armed forces of each of the parties will deploy.
Thus Israel has no "safe and recognized" borders under these agreements, and
the cease-fire lines, as the above agreements signed in Rhodes in 1949 make
clear, are unacceptable to the Arab countries. The November 1947 borders
specified in the UN partition plan could have been the borders, but those
borders were rejected by the Arabs at the time, and were not acceptable to
Israel later since they proved indefensible against armies and porous to
terrorists. Until the Israel-Egypt Peace Agreement of 1979 there was no
change in the formal situation as of the 1949 Armistice."
http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1948to1967_land_1948.php
Further, to suggest that the state of Israel in any way mimics the behavior
of the Nazi's and their willing, indeed enthusiastic collaborates in eastern
and western Europe is simply beyond belief. Help me to understand where
exactly the Nazi's "resettled" undesirables?
And, just for the heck of it, what is "liberal" (and I sense that you pat
yourself on the back for that intellectual generosity) about giving tacit
support to holocaust deniers and defenders of slavery? Those who hold those
beliefs perpetuate bigotry, ignorance, and not infrequently, hateful
behavior. Being liberal doesn't mean that lies should be given an equal
platform with the truth.
Rose Huskey
-----Original Message-----
From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com [mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com]
On Behalf Of bear at moscow.com
Sent: Monday, June 15, 2009 7:37 PM
To: Paul Rumelhart
Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] NYTimes: The Big Hate
I'm going to jump into this one with a confused train of thought. I'm a
liberal enough to believe with all my heart that people are allowed to
believe what they want and say what they want no matter how outlandish and
wacky it is. Doug W. believes that anti-bellum slavery was not as bad as
it's made out to be. OK, HE can believe that and say it all he wants to.
Others deny the existence of the holocaust and the death camp, so be it.
I've walked the grounds of both Auschwitz and Birkenau, and have to tell
you that after spending a couple of days there I will go to my grave with
that memory. BUT I also believe that someone that doesn't believe it has
the right to not believe and to speak out.
I guess what has me thinking about this today is that what is going on in
Israel now, is just as bad as what happened throughout Europe under the
Nazis. Ethnic cleansing, wether it is taking place in
Germany/Poland/Eastern Europe in the 1930's and 40's is just as bad as
ethnic cleansing in Israel today. The Germans moved out undesirables
(read that as Jews) from the country and resettled Aryans in their place.
How is that different from Israelis moving out undesirables (read that as
Arabs) and resettling Israelis in their place?
And while I am very much in favor of a "Two-State" solution in the middle
east, until the borders are returned to the status quo of 1948 it will
never be a just solution. Nor will the Israeli demand for the State of
Palestine to "disarm" ever be a swallowable pill for the Palestinians
(unless of course Israel is also willing to disband it's armed forces!).
And what about the demand that Palestine acknowledge that Israel exists as
a "Jewish State"? TelAviv isn't asking for just acceptance as a state, but
the demand be acknowledged as a Jewish State, therefore disenfranchising
the non-jewish Israeli citizens!
Comments?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------
> Joe Campbell wrote:
>> Paul,
>>
>> It is hard for me to figure out where our disagreement lies. I've
>> never criticized anyone whose beliefs have never been manifested in
>> any kind of action. After all, how would I know?
>
> I was responding to this:
>
> "Are you saying that people are ENTITLED to believe that the holocaust
> never happened? That seems like a radical view to me. I feel
> comfortable drawing the line on the other side of crazy, thank you very
> much. "
>
> I do believe that people are entitled to their opinions, even if you
> think they are crazy. You sounded to me to be incredulous that someone
> might believe something you think is obviously wrong, which is what
> prompted my reply.
>
>>
>> Nor do I mind disagreement. It would be difficult to be successful in
>> the field of philosophy if I didn't tolerate disagreement! Goggle
>> "Joseph Keim Campbell free will" if you don't believe that I'm
>> successful. That's my area.
>
> I've been debating free will on an Internet forum, it's an interesting
> topic, and I look forward to reading what you've written.
>
>>
>> Part of your problem is that you seem to equate belief with speech but
>> the two are not the same. There is a big difference between someone
>> who BELIEVES that I am fat and someone who SAYS that I am fat,
>> especially if he says it in a way that he doesn't care whether or not
>> I hear it. Someone who says it, not caring whether I hear it, is being
>> offensive. Offensive speech is an ACTION, not just a BELIEF.
>
> So it's OK to hold a contrary opinion as long as you shut up about it?
> That's not the world I want to live in. People need to grow thicker
> skin. I understand your point that speech (offensive or not) is an
> action. I don't want many restrictions placed upon free speech,
> though. If someone has a viewpoint that is offensive to someone else, I
> would still like them to be able to share it. I'm not talking about
> what is polite, I'm talking about their right to believe something that
> others do not and to be able to say so. If they experience ridicule for
> it, so be it. If they receive a shit storm of emails on a discussion
> list because of it, so be it. What I don't want to see, though, is some
> kind of attempt by the majority to silence them.
>
>>
>> I am not in favor of laws against offensive speech, loving free speech
>> as I do. But I obviously have no problem criticizing offensive speech.
>> After all, any criticism is just more SPEECH.
>
> It looks like we agree here. I support your criticism of holocaust
> deniers, slavery apologists, or whatever group you disagree with.
>
>>
>> Paul, what more have I DONE as opposed to SAID in this regard than,
>> say, Pastor Wilson? (I'm just using him as a local example of the kind
>> of hate speech I'm talking about here.)
>
> I have no idea. It sounds like you've both simply communicated your
> ideas.
>
>>
>> You can't complain about what I SAY about Wilson or about anything
>> else I say if what I say is no more than my BELIEFS -- for those are
>> innocuous and beyond criticism. That is why you think you don't need
>> to speak out against Wilson, right?
>
> I certainly can complain about what you say, it's my right as well. I
> don't feel the need to speak out against Doug Wilson because I don't
> particularly care about his theology or whatever beliefs regarding it he
> might have. It's no more odd to me than many other beliefs I've heard
> expressed.
>
>>
>> On the other hand, if you agree that if someone SAID I was fat, I'd
>> have a right to complain about it, then you'd have to agree that I
>> have a right to complain about Wilson. After all, talk about slavery
>> "As it Was" has got to be even more offensive to blacks in general
>> than talk about my fatness is to me. Still, my complaints are no less
>> speech (or writings, in either case) than are his offensive words.
>
> You do have the right to complain about it. I'm not trying to take that
> away from you. As for your example, I'm overweight myself and I'd
> rather that people didn't feel frightened to bring up the topic in my
> presence for fear of my being offended.
>
>>
>> So what I don't get is why you remain more or less silent about
>> Wilson's hate speech yet have no problem criticizing me. The story so
>> far does not wash.
>
> For one thing, I don't see it as "hate speech". I haven't read
> everything he's written, so maybe I'm missing it. To believe that
> slavery was a kinder gentler historical phenomenon than what is
> currently taught in history class is not "hate speech". I can
> understand people disagreeing vehemently with the idea - but it's still
> not hate speech.
>
> The reason I criticize you more than Doug, I think, has to do with the
> fact that I've never seen Doug post here. If he posted about his theory
> here on the Viz, I might be inclined to tear it apart. I also criticize
> you more because you and I are both (in my opinion) liberals. To me,
> the liberal creed has a lot to do with acceptance of other viewpoints
> and other belief systems. I expected to see more tolerance expressed
> here on the Viz about Wilson and his church, and I'm rather disappointed
> in the amount intolerance I see. Criticism I expect to see, but people
> here seem to go too far. I'm afraid I tend to lump you in with the
> crowd that produces websites like "not on the Palouse, not ever" or
> whatever it's called, or that shuns Kirk-member owned businesses. If
> that's unfair to you, I apologize.
>
> To me, they are just another group I don't agree with, like the Flat
> Earth Society or the people that want to ban violent video games.
>
> Paul
>
>>
>> Joe Campbell
>>
>> On Jun 14, 2009, at 5:15 PM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Joe,
>>>
>>> I'm not Dan, but I'd like to answer this one.
>>>
>>> My response to this is somewhat ironic, because I admonished you
>>> earlier for drawing lines in the sand. But... there is one line I
>>> do draw:
>>>
>>> What goes on inside your skull is your own business.
>>>
>>> So if someone does believe that the holocaust never happened, then I
>>> do think they are entitled to their opinion. The same thing goes
>>> with the supposed Shangri La of southern slavery. I may think they
>>> are wrong (which, as it happens, I do), but they are still entitled
>>> to their opinions. They are entitled to speak about it publicly, and
>>> they are entitled to try to sway others to their cause. People who
>>> believe differently are free to critique their ideas.
>>>
>>> I'd hate to live in a world where not simply stating a contrary
>>> opinion, but even just holding a contrary belief is not acceptable.
>>> Paul
>>>
>>> Joe Campbell wrote:
>>>> Dan,
>>>>
>>>> Are you saying that people are ENTITLED to believe that the
>>>> holocaust never happened? That seems like a radical view to me. I
>>>> feel comfortable drawing the line on the other side of crazy, thank
>>>> you very much.
>>>>
>>>> I find it interesting that you and Paul and others have no trouble
>>>> calling me out for my beliefs -- I'm biased because I think
>>>> historical revisionism is wrong, or whatever your reason was -- but
>>>> you don't want to say anything against those who deny the holocaust
>>>> or who claim that slavery wasn't so bad.
>>>>
>>>> That is one strange -- or politically convenient -- set of beliefs!
>>>>
>>>> Joe Campbell
>>>>
>>>> On Jun 14, 2009, at 2:46 PM, "Dan Carscallen" <areaman at moscow.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Joe,
>>>>>
>>>>> I think people are entitled to their opinion.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't necessarily have to agree with their opinion. Nor do I
>>>>> have to
>>>>> agree with yours.
>>>>>
>>>>> As Paul wondered earlier, why do we have to draw lines in the
>>>>> sand? Why
>>>>> must we search for divisiveness? I'd just as soon get along.
>>>>>
>>>>> DC
>>>>>
>>>>> p.s. my initial post was lighthearted in nature. I thought you'd
>>>>> "get"
>>>>> it. Sunil and Carl would have!
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Joe Campbell [mailto:philosopher.joe at gmail.com]
>>>>> Sent: Sunday, June 14, 2009 2:27 PM
>>>>> To: Dan Carscallen
>>>>> Cc: <vision2020 at moscow.com>
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] NYTimes: The Big Hate
>>>>>
>>>>> Is it that I'm biased or that you are too afraid to buck the Wilson
>>>>> camp for fear of losing votes?
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, we can test it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Don't you think that Wilson's revisionism about US slavery is just as
>>>>> bad as the denial of the holocaust; if not, why not?
>>>>>
>>>>> My guess is you won't answer this question -- which is a bit of the
>>>>> very problem I'm trying to note.
>>>>>
>>>>> Joe Campbell
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jun 14, 2009, at 1:27 PM, "Dan Carscallen" <areaman at moscow.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Joe,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your bias is showing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> DC
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com
>>>>>> [mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com] On Behalf Of Joe Campbell
>>>>>> Sent: Sunday, June 14, 2009 1:21 PM
>>>>>> To: g. crabtree
>>>>>> Cc: <vision2020 at moscow.com>
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] NYTimes: The Big Hate
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I haven't heard of half these people. Of these, most are not
>>>>>> mainstream in the Fox is; of the others they are not as bad as Fox.
>>>>>> Nor do I expect someone who defends Wilson's book in slavery to be
>>>>>> able to notice how offensive Fox is.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Joe Campbell
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Jun 14, 2009, at 10:41 AM, "g. crabtree" <jampot at roadrunner.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you imagine that MSNBC with Olbermann, Madow, and Mathews,
>>>>>>> Newsweek and Evan Thomas, and taxpayer funded NPR with Jeffery
>>>>>>> Dvorkin, Nina Totenberg, Terry Gross and Michele Norris doesn't put
>>>>>>> a particularly and decidedly liberal spin on its "information" then
>>>>>>> you're even thicker than I previousimg20090614171449533ly
>>>>>>> imagined. No mean feat, that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> g
>>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joe Campbell"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> <philosopher.joe at gmail.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To: "Paul Rumelhart" <godshatter at yahoo.com>
>>>>>>> Cc: "g. crabtree" <jampot at roadrunner.com>; <vision2020 at moscow.com>
>>>>>>> Sent: Sunday, June 14, 2009 5:41 AM
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] NYTimes: The Big Hate
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Paul,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And what does this have to do with anything I've said? You're
>>>>>>>> obviously reading something into my post that I did not say.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Fox news is a disgusting example of bias, different in degree from
>>>>>>>> any other news organization, IMO. That you would follow Tom's post
>>>>>>>> with some claim that "Everyone does it" strikes me as
>>>>>>>> irresponsible since it just muddys the water. Not every
>>>>>>>> organization is biased in the way Fox is. Someone needed to point
>>>>>>>> that out and I did so. That is all there is to it. I made no
>>>>>>>> comments about conservative news organizations in general, just
>>>>>>>> the one bad apple.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Joe Campbell
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Jun 14, 2009, at 1:21 AM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Joe Campbell wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This is precisely why I'm disagreeing with Paul. Folks like you
>>>>>>>>>> have got him convinced that the NY Times is as bad as Fox News.
>>>>>>>>>> What a joke!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nowhere did I say that the NY Times is as bad as Fox News. All I
>>>>>>>>> said was that all news has bias. That includes both the NY Times
>>>>>>>>> and Fox News, but it says nothing about the amount of bias
>>>>>>>>> relative to each other.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You've drawn a line in the sand. There is a "right" that watches
>>>>>>>>> only Fox News, and there is a "left" that reads only the NY
>>>>>>>>> Times. The truth is, that line doesn't really exist as a line.
>>>>>>>>> If you really look at it, the right and left ideologies cover so
>>>>>>>>> much territory that you can't help but agree with a few concepts
>>>>>>>>> "across the line".
>>>>>>>>> If we're ever going to come back together again as a country, we
>>>>>>>>> have to throw that crap out the window. All of us have to do
>>>>>>>>> this. Instead of looking for where we might agree, we're
>>>>>>>>> highlighting the differences.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Paul
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> =======================================================
>>>>>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>>>>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>>>>> http://www.fsr.net
>>>>>> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>>>>> =======================================================
>>>>>>
>>>>>> =======================================================
>>>>>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>>>>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>>>>> http://www.fsr.net
>>>>>> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>>>>> =======================================================
>>>>>>
>>>>> =======================================================
>>>>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>>>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>>>> http://www.fsr.net
>>>>> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>>>> =======================================================
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> =======================================================
>>>> List services made available by First Step Internet, serving the
>>>> communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>>> http://www.fsr.net
>>>> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>>> =======================================================
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> http://www.fsr.net
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
=======================================================
List services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
http://www.fsr.net
mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list