Subject:
|
Re: Poll: Majority Palestinians See Israel's Elimination as Goal
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 18 Jun 2002 03:50:35 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
531 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> 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).
That was not really meant against you or your words personally. (which I did
realize were not yours anyway.)
>
> 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.
Already discussed elsewhere in the thread.
>
> > > > >
> > > > > 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.
The Israeli armour only moved in after 18 months of continous suicide attacks.
>
> >
> > 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.
Well I get the impression that most people ignore the fact that the
Palestinians not only started the whole thing but routinely do worse things. I
fully support critizising both sides bad actions. My overall impression (not
in this group per se, but everywhere) is that most people 'forgive' (or
whatever) the palestinians for what they see as acting out of desperation
despite the fact that they are acting out of hatred. (if I was to belive anyone
was acting out of desperation, it would be the Israelis despite the fact that
they are essentially being universally condemned for defending themselves)
>
> > 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?
Last time I checked it did. Let's review: Barak was elected because at the
time most Israelis supported the peace movement. Arafat figuratively spit in
Barak's face and began the currently on going 2 year terror campaign. Sharon
was elected because Israelis were sick of terror attacks.
>
> > 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?
I have not heard of this before. If that accusation is correct then the U.N.
should just move in and arrest all of the current leaders and military
commanders on both sides.
>
> 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.
Indeed.
>
> Scott A
-Mike Petrucelli
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
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
|
|
|
|
