Subject:
|
Re: Poll: Majority Palestinians See Israel's Elimination as Goal
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 17 Jun 2002 16:18:34 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
603 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mike Petrucelli writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > > > All the statistics said was that: "51.1 percent said that the aim of the
> > > > Intifadah is to liberate all Palestinian land (historic Palestine) as
> > > > opposed to 42.8 percent who said the Intifadah's aim is to end the Israeli
> > > > occupation."
> > >
> > > What do you mean by "all the statistics said was that.."? The conclusion is
> > > that over half of the Palestinians want Israel GONE. That seems pretty
> > > significant to me.
> >
> >
> > Not quite, 51.5% think the aim is to liberate all (historic) Palestinian. I
> > expect what you believe may well be true, but that stat does not show that.
>
> There is no (historic) Palestine. There is no such thing as Palestinians. The
> whole concept was made up during the last 50 years so 'we' could stop calling
> them Arab refugees.
It is not my choice of words. I am referring to the wording of the
question... nothing more (see above).
However, you are quite wrong. The Balfour declaration (1917) quite clearly
referred to the area as “Palestine”. I have no idea when it was first called
that, but it is certainly not a post 48’ construct.
> > > >
> > > > However, only 32.5% think the Intifada can end the occupation alone.
> > >
> > > > Do you not support the ordinary Palestinians?
> > >
> > > Define "ordinary Palestinians"
> >
> > Mr/Ms Average
>
> Wouldn't it be cool if your "ordinary Palestinians" actually had the same
> rights and abilities as people living in democracies. Most of the
> pro-palastinian arguments might actually make sense if Palastinians were not
> oppressed by the dictators that rule them. (Oh wait, I forgot everyone seems to
> belive the lies that those dictators tell their people and broadcast on their
> state controlled news agencies; "It's all the 'evil' Israelis fault")
Perhaps it is the their fault? If I were in the West Bank, I'd be more
worried about Israeli armour than my lack of personal freedoms... it is a
matter of priorities after all.
>
> I have said it before, I will say it again Israel is far from perfect and does
> a lot of really stupid things.
Indeed.
> However even the worst democracy has a better
> human rights record than the best dictatorship.
I'm not sure about how true that is. I think it is covered well in a post LP
made a week or so ago.
Let’s face it, Israel’s human rights record stinks. The Palestinians’ may
well be worse, but that does not make Israel’s record any better. Bad is bad.
> In the case of the democracy
> everyone can critizse bad actions and vote accordingly.
I had a look at "democracy" in a dictionary, this is what I got:
"the belief in freedom and equality between people, or a system of
government based on this belief, in which power is either held by elected
representatives or directly by the people themselves"
Does Israel meet those criteria?
> In the case of
> dictatorships one says nothing out of fear for ones life. (As evidenced by the
> number of pro-peace palestinians killed by their own leaders.)
What happens when, in a democracy, a politician incites extremists to murder
peace activists? Did Rabin's widow not accuse Netanyahu of doing just that?
The fact that a murderer like Sharon has been democratically elected does
not make him any more palatable. I’m sure we both agree on that.
Scott A
>
> -Mike Petrucelli
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
23 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
