[Vision2020] NYTimes: The Big Hate
Sue Hovey
suehovey at moscow.com
Wed Jun 17 17:11:01 PDT 2009
Rosemary,
One can exhibt empathy for wrongs done to Palestinians without being
offensive, inadequate or historically ignorant. And for sure one can do
that without being anti-Semitic. A most persuasive pieceof literature, and
one worth the couple of hours it takes to read it is, how to cure a fanatic,
by Amos Oz. You can get it from Bookpeople.
Sue Hovey
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rosemary" <donaldrose at cpcinternet.com>
To: <bear at moscow.com>
Cc: "'vision 2020'" <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Sent: Monday, June 15, 2009 9:18 PM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] NYTimes: The Big Hate
> 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
> =======================================================
>
> =======================================================
> 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