U.S. Liberal Arabic Website Rebuttal to Mahathir's Speech

- cut -

"Everywhere in the world, and in Israel as well, people, politicians, and Christian and Jewish clerics go to demonstrations and declare their solidarity with the Palestinians and the Arabs. And what, in contrast, is happening on the Arab and Islamic side? It is not the Israelis who elected Sharon as Israeli prime minister but the Arabs and Muslims. It is not the Israelis who are working to build the separation fence, but the Arabs and Muslims.

"When we hear of spontaneous marches in the streets of the Arab and Muslim countries condemning the suicide and terror operations aimed at innocent people in Israel and other places, and demands for trials for those who encourage them – then the fence will fall without using a single axe.

"When we hear of an Arab leader standing and delivering a speech fervently before his people, saying that the time has come to reach out to the Israelis and cooperate with them in order to create a just peace in the region for us and for them, then Sharon will retire and open a coffee shop in Tel Aviv.

"When we hear of an imam in a mosque giving a sermon to the worshippers and saying to them that the most supreme form of worship is for them to go out and shake the hands of their Jewish and Christian neighbors, or bear in their hands olive branches and throw them rather than stones – then the separation fence will fall by itself and the Israelis will beat their tanks into plowshares for building both Israel and Palestine. "Then the memory of Mahathir Muhammad and his ilk will fade into the dustbin of history."


http://www.memri.org/bin/opener_latest.cgi?ID=SD61803

sells the fact that peace will be a compromise where the main "give-up" by the PA is "right of return".

the whole Jerusalem thing...

Israel HAS a state and all the attendant rights thereof, the Palestinians do not. If they wish to gain a state, they will need to compromise.

Compromise is giving up the right of return (which is the right udner international law) and then compensating (by being eastern Jerusalem Palestinian, as stated in the Geneva Accord). Compromise means both sides giving up certain things...

Lithos and I discussed this. The borders will be reworked in any deal, you should just accept it. Remember, Israel will be giving up more than just establishing the Palestinian state. How do you plan on getting Palestinians from Gaza to the West Bank for example?

when they have only gained more by occupation, illegal settlements while Palestinians were the ones losing their land and homes and forced to go elsewhere? Israel got after WW2 their state and land, all the rest was gaining at the expence of others. And this is giving up, what is not even yours?

The status quo is the result of Israel's neighbors and their attacks on Israel. But whether you agree with that or not, the status quo exists. To change it, the Palestinians must be prepared to give as well as get.

Unless Israel wants to exterminate these people they need to do something. They aren't big enough to stand alone and if they did what they need to do to hold on to that land for their romantic amusement without their own people dying every day they would die economically. The US couldn't hold them together anymore if we were their last trading partner. I'm willing to say that this cowardly country couldn't care less if Israel did exterminate them but the rest of the world will.

It's the Israeli's who have something to lose, the Palestinians don't.

Can simply continue. The pro-Pal posters are the ones who always say things must change.

Israel won't lose its state without a devastating war. You say the Palestinians don't have anything to lose, but they do. They have the dream of statehood, which they chip away at every day through their support of terror.

Israel isn't their master who might be bribed by good behavior into bestowing some fifedom upon a compliant Palestinian population.

If that's Israel's attitude I hope the "status quo" does continue. I just wish everyone who had that viewpoint had to wear a big sign around their neck that said "I think I'm God of the middle east" so the right people would wind up paying for it.

Or they can't create a state. That's just a fact.

Personally, I support a total Palestinian state, not a fiefdom. But to accomplish that, the Palestinians have to give as well.

Why should the Palestinians give anything to Israel? Israel is not their boss, they have no moral right to bargain Palestinian land away in the first place. All of this stuff they are "bargaining" with is something they took with a gun. It's like bargaining with a home invader to keep your unfinished basement and let the burglar control the front door and the rest of your place.

But welcome to the real world. Israel captured land in a war with neighbors who wanted to destroy it. If you think the Palestinians will suddenly just get all that land well, just because, then think again.

Besides, as obvious from the latest peace plan, the Palestinians want more. Like a corridor connecting the West Bank and Gaza, air rights, water rights, etc. Such things require working together.

Those are essential things and if you deny them that right, well I have a word for such people I am not going to mention here...

Air transit into the West Bank typically would involve passing through Israel for instance. Water rights are just damn complex.

Human beings aren't interested in your notion of collective right and wrong. They are interested in what effects them as people. They will continue to kill to keep their possessions and regain what's been taken from them. Welcome to the real world.

Well, the human beings who happen to be Palestinian and continue to do that screw their own people and prevent them from having a state. Seems kind of stupid to me.

Israel is responsible for what Israel does. Period. What in hell is so hard to understand about that? It's like the husband asking his wife why she makes him beat her. It's gross.

And the 75% who support terror and the many who participate in it.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

They can't treat them as third class human filth which you seem to believe with no basis in reality is something that came after human bombs and seem to believe is a sort of fit punishment for their disobedience.

If they as a people have this coming as you have spelled out, then why haven't Israeli's bought their own ticket to punishment via some random bomb since they didn't do enough to stop their governments from performing their atrocities on the Palestinians?

Y'know, polls. Those things that yr always saying can't be believed. So why is this particular poll so believable to you and why do you always tout that figure as though it's set in concrete?

Palestinians are NOT responsible for the occupation. To suggest they are is just like blaming a rape victim for being raped, as far as I'm concerned...

Violet...

the whole Jerusalem "thing"?

- eastern Jerusalem as opposed to some in Israel wanting the whole of Jerusalem...

any parts of the Old City in your "thing"?

I am not sure how that is solved by the Geneva Accord...

Maybe you should let us know to whom you are referring to then when you say "some"

I do not know all the details but I do know that there are some that oppose it and that wouldn't give even an inch of Jerusalem to Palestinians, or is that new to you? :shrug:

That you didn't know any of the details, maybe your statement might have made any sense. It sure sounded like you were being very knowledgeable.

:shrug:

I was talking about some opposing it, not about how it will actually be agreed on GabbysPoppy! :hi:

Where did bluesoul say he didn't know ANY of the details? He didn't. He said he didn't know ALL. I know they're both words that start with 'a' and both contain three letters, but they're very different words. Bluesoul's comments in this thread have made perfect sense, and I think if yr having trouble understanding what people are saying, maybe you should do what I do when I read something I don't understand, which is go back and reread it carefully the second time around. When people do that, they don't run the risk of reading words as being other words, etc...


Violet...

but since he's a Sufi and an American, I guess it doesn't count.

do you have a link on that??

"liberal" isn't quite the word I'd use for it (or maybe I would, but not in a positive sense). Many reprints of Daniel Pipes, Ziad "God Bless George Bush" Abdelnour (of www.freelebanon.com, aligned with the US neocons & Zionists), Ralph Peters, etc..

Let's shoot the messenger. Three balls for a quarter. Kill the messenger and win a kewpie doll personally autographed by Arafat & Sharon.

Focus - MESSAGE
Focus - MESSAGE
Focus - MESSAGE
Focus - MESSAGE
Focus - MESSAGE
Focus - MESSAGE
Focus - MESSAGE
Focus - MESSAGE
Focus - MESSAGE
Focus - MESSAGE
Focus - MESSAGE
Focus - MESSAGE
Focus - MESSAGE
Focus - MESSAGE
Focus - MESSAGE
Focus - MESSAGE

Is that too hard to ask?

David Duke says something, or Aryan Nations, it doesn't matter who the messenger is? Ditto for all those anti-Arab sites that have a long history of their hatred for Arabs and even Muslims in general...

where a person comes from, the company they keep, and those they use as preferred references has quite a bit to add to what they say. MEMRI left those parts out, and having been familiar with such myself, I offered to fill those gaps. It was not so much "kill the messenger" that I was aiming for, but rather making a note of who this messenger was.

It's more like conservative Christian Arab website.

indeed it is, that explains a few things..

...it's a Christian site, which is fine - but I think it does read somewhat differently when you know it is non-Muslims criticising Muslims.

If we're just supposed to focus on the message and not the messenger, why would Memri point out that it is a "liberal Arab" site? Everybody looks at the messenger, I don't think it is just me. If an Israeli Jew says "Free Palestine", the meaning is different from when a skin-head-swastika-tatoo-Nazi says it.

Yuk, check out this putrid heap from the same site:
http://www.annaqed.com/english/viewpoints/god_bless_our_cowboy.html

As for content, at least one of Mahathir's quotes is taken way out of context:
"We need guns and rockets, bombs and warplanes, tanks and warships for our defense."

...is where the author stops, which sounds pretty violent. But the rest of the quote is like this:

"But because we discouraged the learning of science and mathematics etc. as giving no merit for the akhirat, today we have no capacity to produce our own weapons for our defense. We have to buy our weapons from our detractors and enemies."

What Mahathir is saying is not that the Muslim world needs more weapons, but rather that they have fallen so far behind that they are dependent on outsiders - and the purchase of weapons from non-Muslims is one manifestation of this.

They are a translation service. If there translations were not factual they would be held accountable by someone with a little more gravitas then you or I possess. The FACT IS you don't like who they choose to translate. The FACT IS you don't like what they choose to translate.

credibility as Jpost. Almost none...

Their translations aren't horrible. There are times when a certain phrase or word could go two ways and they opt for the most bloodcurdling as a reflex but they have never fabricated anything and I've watched for it.

but their selection is biased to say the least. When you select only stuff to make someone look bad, that's called demonizing because they fail to show the whole picture and not the black-white image they'r trying to sell. That is just so common among many media outlets...

If you don't like what MEMRI translates, give them less ammunition.

about anyone who only chose "stuff" to make someone look bad I'm sure you would be the first person to stand up and accuse them of demonizing. Great I'll watch for that.

:crazy:

If there was an outlet devoted to translating the nastiest bits of the Hebrew press to reinforce every nasty Jewish stereotype you can think of I doubt you would feel the same way.

the one bringing up things like how someone smells and stuff...

You don't think if your charge was true that there wouldn't be one?

Maybe you would like to give an example or two to back up your statement? Or is a generalization without anything to substantiate it enough for you?

the thing with the smell was mentioned here by one of the posters...

Maybe it's early but I don't understand what you are saying.

"on the flip side..


If there was an outlet devoted to translating the nastiest bits of the Hebrew press to reinforce every nasty Jewish stereotype you can think of I doubt you would feel the same way."

I said I doubted you would approve of it or think that Jews should just quit saying nasty things if they didn't want to wind up on the scandal sheet, I could be wrong :shrug:

If Sharon or some other nut job said something in Hebrew and another in English I would be pissed pure and simple. But I am sure you are aware of the op-editorials that abound in the Israeli press, they wouldn't let that go unchallenged in a second and you know it.

Unfortunately the "media" in other countries in that area play by different rules then we would expect of ourselves and Israel. So it's necessary for an organization like MEMRI to exist.

"Our whole history is bound up with these places . . . Shiloh, Beit El," he told the Israeli newspaper Haaretz. "And I know that we will have to part with some of these places. There will be a parting from places that are connected to the whole course of our history. As a Jew, this agonizes me."

The other day -- a different month, a different newspaper, the same language -- Sharon said something different to the Jerusalem Post. When asked whether Jews would continue to live in Shiloh and Beit El, he replied, "Do you see a possibility of Jews living under Arab sovereignty? I'm asking you, do you see that possibility?" A moment earlier he flat-out said about Beit El, "Jews will live there."


http://www.peacenow.org/nia/news/post051503.html

Most MEMRI translations aren't public figures anyway they are usually religious figures making nasty remarks about Jews.

And ARE public figures.

You just described a politician playing to his audience. Something like "I'm a uniter and not a divider".(Sound familiar)

I am describing a person who says white in one language and says black in the other and claims to be saying the SAME thing.

As far as your last statement, you unfortunately know less about MEMRI than you think you do.

What would your response be to some place that cataloged people like Rabbi Ginsburgh's "If a Jew needs a liver, can he take the liver of an innocent non-Jew to save him? The Torah would probably permit that. Jewish life has an infinite value. There is something more holy and unique about Jewish life than about non-Jewish life." "Jewish Weekly" (New York) on 26 April 1996 (or Haaretz Hebrew edition

Say they just tagged along with Gush Eminum rabbi's with a mike and taped what they said all day and then presented it all as "news from the Middle East"?

You would be able to hear the screaming all the way back in Israel from here in the states. I wouldn't care if they did, and I don't care about what MEMRI does but the hypocrisy of it all floors me.

Maybe you might want to state your expertise first.

I don't know what your problem is?

I wan't to talk about what your reaction would be to someone following around the Gush Eminum rabbis and reporting it flat faced like that's the news in Israel.

"If Sharon or some other nut job said something in Hebrew and another in English I would be pissed pure and simple. But I am sure you are aware of the op-editorials that abound in the Israeli press, they wouldn't let that go unchallenged in a second and you know it."

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

BlackFrancis' point is very clear: the issue is bias through the selective presentation of statements - not Torah discussions.

I cannot believe that you are not attentive enough to see this, so it definitely appears that you are trying to change the subject.

are the one with the high standards of objectivity and never demonizing anyone...

but rather at Annaqed.

n/t

here complain about EI articles if the messenger doesn't matter. Double standards? Nah couldn't be...

While not necessarily invalidating, a chosen messenger can often be as much a statement as what is said.

It is nothing more than the lowest typical American praganda site - full of contributions by racist American Islamophobic neo-cons of the type of Daniel Pipes...

For example they portray Mohammad as a pedophil...I wonder what these kind of people would have done to Yehoshua Ben Nun or King David or the Prophet Eliyahu concerning the incident with the priests of Ba'al - had they 'tempered' with 'our side' instead of with Mohammad and Islam...

It is a shameful site - not even worth of criticism as it is beyond any decent level... One positive aspect however is that we can all see what kind of materials are being coeculated by Memri under the cover of Liberal Arab thought....Usually they desguise their motives quite skillfully - but this time they disclosed their real identity.

One needs to be either extremely igoranat or plainly ill-intentioned to spread this kind of mind-poison and thrash.

(Yehudith Harel)