Skip

Oriana Fallaci of Milan's "Corriere della Sera"
April 20, 2002 9:58 PM   Subscribe

Oriana Fallaci of Milan's "Corriere della Sera" wants people to stop denying that European anti-Semitism doesn't exist. Will other European journalists follow suit?
posted by Stumpy McGee (36 comments total)

 
So after people stop "denying that European anti-Semitism doesn't exist," do they start admitting that it doesn't exist? Why is that useful? (A lot of us think it DOES exist.)
posted by anser at 10:12 PM on April 20, 2002


So after people stop "denying that European anti-Semitism doesn't exist," do they start admitting that it doesn't exist? Why is that useful? (A lot of us think it DOES exist.)

I meant to say "to stop believing," not "denying." Unfortunately, I can't go back and edit.
posted by Stumpy McGee at 10:53 PM on April 20, 2002


Yes, anti-Semitism does still exist in Europe. And it is right and important to object to it. But it is too bad that Fallaci doesn't have a similar problem with anti-Arab racism, which she indulges in even as she denounces racism against Jews.
posted by Rebis at 10:54 PM on April 20, 2002


Anti-arab racism is anti-semetism. Yet another reason to lay that particular term to rest.

Yes, you heard me right - anti-arabs = anti-semetism

Arabs means any of the arabic speaking, semetic peoples from the Arab peninsula.
posted by Settle at 11:06 PM on April 20, 2002


I should point out that being anti semetic (in regard to jews or arabs) is a bad thing.
posted by Settle at 11:06 PM on April 20, 2002


Anti-arab racism is anti-semetism. Yet another reason to lay that particular term to rest.

Yes, you heard me right - anti-arabs = anti-semetism

Arabs means any of the arabic speaking, semetic peoples from the Arab peninsula
.

This is not the first time I see such blatant ignorance and semantic acrobatics. Anti-Semitism means Jew-hatred. Wilhelm Marr coined the term to denote racial Jew-hatred, and nothing else.
posted by Stumpy McGee at 11:11 PM on April 20, 2002


Fallaci emerged from ten years of seclusion shortly after September 11th and launched a scathing attack against Arafat and Arab culture.

behind our civilization we have Homer, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Phydias, for God’s sake. We have ancient Greece with its Parthenon and its discovery of Democracy. We have ancient Rome with its greatness, its laws, its concept of Law. Its sculptures, its literature, its architecture....

what is behind the other culture? ... Damned if I know. I search and search and find only Mohammed with his Koran and Averroe with his scholarly merits ... Your grandparents, my illustrious Mr. Arafat, left us nothing but a few beautiful mosques and a book they’ve been breaking my balls with for the past thousand four hundred years

The response in the European press was a mixture of awe (for her candidness) and embarassment (for her dismissal of an entire culture). Until she starts sounding a bit more sane, no other European journalists will be following suit.

[ps. if this is an Israel/Palestine thread, I am against both sides. I was merely trying to point out that Fallaci, despite her reputation, is a tainted source]
posted by vacapinta at 11:15 PM on April 20, 2002


Anyone opposed to Israel's policies is a devious anti-semitic Jew-hater. Just ask Vanessa Redgrave.
posted by chaz at 11:23 PM on April 20, 2002


What the *christ* are you talking about? I don't care who decided what the term means, because it means anti-semite:

1 a : a member of any of a number of peoples of ancient southwestern Asia including the Akkadians, Phoenicians, Hebrews, and Arabs b : a descendant of these peoples
2 : a member of a modern people speaking a Semitic language

Fine, it was originally termed by someone against jews. All this means is that the term was first used inaccurately. Since it is spelled anti-semite, it should mean anti-semite.

This has been discussed before. Get yourself a new codeword instead of trashing the language for the sake of simplicity.

I believe this issue was covered in a previous thread.

Lord I think *Oxford University* would side with me on this one.
posted by Settle at 11:23 PM on April 20, 2002


Oh, one more thing. Shame on you Stumpy Mcgee, you could have linked to a blog.
posted by vacapinta at 11:23 PM on April 20, 2002


And the pedant of the year award, the Clavin, goes to...Settle!

Let's all just say "Jew-bashers" from now so we don't get in trouble with our intellectual betters again.

.....Hey Chaz, are you ever going to update Shitstorm again?
posted by BGM at 11:55 PM on April 20, 2002


I only mentioned it because
1. It was discussed previously
2. Someone was mentioning anti-semetism and anti-arab racism seperately. I know what people *mean* when they say anti-semetism, but as long as you're going to make a distinction in the same sentence..
posted by Settle at 12:03 AM on April 21, 2002


Settle, my friend, you have a painful life ahead of you...

And what is anti-semEtism? Who are the Semetes?

.....Annoying, isn't it? And ultimately, so pointless.
posted by BGM at 12:32 AM on April 21, 2002


oh lord god please forgive me for all my trespesses
posted by Settle at 12:51 AM on April 21, 2002


So why bother?
posted by davidgentle at 12:51 AM on April 21, 2002


Good point.
posted by BGM at 12:59 AM on April 21, 2002


What the *christ* are you talking about?

Uh, do you not know how to read? I explained already that anti-Semitism (or antisemitism) means Jew-hatred. It usually does not apply to xenophobia directed towards Arabs.

I don't care who decided what the term means, because it means anti-semite:

1 a : a member of any of a number of peoples of ancient southwestern Asia including the Akkadians, Phoenicians, Hebrews, and Arabs b : a descendant of these peoples
2 : a member of a modern people speaking a Semitic language


Are you for real? Is this some sort of a bad joke? I don't want to believe that there are people as moronic and incapable of basic analysis as you.

What do you mean you don't care what the terms means? If it means one thing, and most linguists agree with the assessment that anti-Semitism means Jew-hatred, then that's what the term means. In fact, if you had taken the time to read that etymology link that I provided, you would understand that anyone who uses the term in another sense is an ignoramus.

Fine, it was originally termed by someone against jews.

It was coined by a Jew-hater to mean Jew-hatred. Do you understand that? It did not (save for a few historically illiterate linguists, still does not) apply to anything else. Anti-Arab racism is usually called just that, anti-Arab racism.

All this means is that the term was first used inaccurately.

It wasn't "first used inaccurately," it was coined by a racist Jew-hater to mean racial Judenhasse, German for 'Jew-hatred.' Since the word is based on a now discredited ideology, any broadening of the term to include other groups would lend credence to a racist, pseudo-scientific theory. That's why most linguists say that the term refers to Jew-hatred.

Since it is spelled anti-semite, it should mean anti-semite.

That's circular logic. The ab ovo meaning of any term is most crucial to understading the essence of that term. You're arguing backwards, maintaining that your corrupted and distorted meaning of the term anti-Semitism is the right one because of the spelling of the term. That's downright idiotic. Think before you post.


This has been discussed before. Get yourself a new codeword instead of trashing the language for the sake of simplicity.

What codeword? "What the *christ* are you talking about?" "Thrashing the language?" Again, is this someone's idea of a bad joke? Hello, McFly, ANYBODY HOME?

I believe this issue was covered in a previous thread.

I don't care how many idiots think it means something else, most respected linguists agree that anti-Semitism means Jew-hatred.

Lord I think *Oxford University* would side with me on this one.

I noticed that you merely cited your alleged source, but did not actually provide an entry. You want to back it up?
posted by Stumpy McGee at 1:19 AM on April 21, 2002


Fallaci emerged from ten years of seclusion shortly after September 11th and launched a scathing attack against Arafat and Arab culture.

behind our civilization we have Homer, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Phydias, for God’s sake. We have ancient Greece with its Parthenon and its discovery of Democracy. We have ancient Rome with its greatness, its laws, its concept of Law. Its sculptures, its literature, its architecture....

what is behind the other culture? ... Damned if I know. I search and search and find only Mohammed with his Koran and Averroe with his scholarly merits ... Your grandparents, my illustrious Mr. Arafat, left us nothing but a few beautiful mosques and a book they’ve been breaking my balls with for the past thousand four hundred years

The response in the European press was a mixture of awe (for her candidness) and embarassment (for her dismissal of an entire culture). Until she starts sounding a bit more sane, no other European journalists will be following suit.

[ps. if this is an Israel/Palestine thread, I am against both sides. I was merely trying to point out that Fallaci, despite her reputation, is a tainted source]


Thank you for the info. I did not do an extensive background check on Fallaci - I should've taken my time. But her generalizations are pretty evident in the linked editorial that I provided. Despite her sensationalist style, I do think that she raises some valid points.

And, no, this thread is going to be about European Jew-hatred, and how it is still alive and kicking. It would be pretty naive to think that it disappeared after a massive, pan-European orgy of anti-Semitic violence that took place only sixty years ago.
posted by Stumpy McGee at 1:36 AM on April 21, 2002


Oh, one more thing. Shame on you Stumpy Mcgee, you could have linked to a blog.

I don't get it. Are you implying that you wish you could discuss it there? Or are you totally dismissing my link as being hopelessly biased?
posted by Stumpy McGee at 1:47 AM on April 21, 2002


Yes, anti-Semitism does still exist in Europe. And it is right and important to object to it. But it is too bad that Fallaci doesn't have a similar problem with anti-Arab racism, which she indulges in even as she denounces racism against Jews.

You bring up a good point - however, I do think that Fallaci touches upon some disturbing trends, i.e. the use of classic anti-Semitic stereotypes by mainstream European news sources and their refusal to deal with the Jew-hatred that's emanating from some of the Muslims in Europe.

I do believe that if a source demonizes Israel and Zionism, while incorporating the same accusatory vocabulary common to an anti-Semite's diatribes, they're being simply anti-Jew, and not just anti-Israel. Being simply anti-Israel is also plain idiotic, but let's not digress.
posted by Stumpy McGee at 2:04 AM on April 21, 2002


Oriana Fallaci , author of "Interview with History" has also written a novel about the attack on the US Marine barracks in Beiruit, Inshallah. Fallaci was famous among American feminists in the '70s for her book about a professional woman, "Letter to a Child Never Born"; a topic we are currently revisiting via writers like Maureen Doud ("High IQ Gals Confound E-males").

"I find it shameful that the youth of Holland and Germany and Denmark flaunt the kaffiah just as Mussolini’s avant garde used to flaunt the club and the fascist badge."

I can certainly sympathize with any Jewish person who feels fearful about walking around in Europe by themselves. As a female without male companions, relatives, or the requisite bevy of girlfriends, it is ill-advised for me to walk alone in the park or leave the safety of my automobile after dark. Is the implication here that every non-Palestinian who wears a kaffiyeh is encouraging thugs to beat up on Jews walking down the street? Wouldn't that be like assuming anyone wearing a yarmulke supports beating up on Palestinians?

"I find it shameful that in nearly all the universities of Europe Palestinian students sponsor and nurture anti-semitism."

As David Weinberger has noted, there are strategic reasons for Jews not to equate being concerned about the Palestinians with "anti-semitism." I hope the US pro-Israel lobby comes up with strategies to win support that don't involve guilt-tripping Americans born long after 1945 about "anti-semitism" and personal complicity in the Holocaust. We younger Americans have been complicit in different death squads and genocides, involving Cambodians and Latin Americans, and this is not a propitious moment to re-open the dialogue about Israeli / CIA involvement in Central America-- we must move on to address current realities like Venezuela, Columbia, calls to legalize torture, and the finite lifespan of F. Castro. Although it's tempting to reply to other statements in Ms. Fallaci's article, I'm remembering the precept that "One should not utter words which will cause the community to break."

I'm dicscarding the word "anti-semitism" for the more accurate phrases "critical of Israel," "anti-Jewish," "anti-Israel" and "an enemy of Israel." It will be interesting to see what words the American public chooses, and how the choice of terms influences the dialogue.
posted by sheauga at 3:46 AM on April 21, 2002


Settle, words are alive; meanings change. What value they have is as vessels for communication, and that particular term has a meaning that it's useful not to dilute.

Fallaci's essay is flawed, but I don't think it descends into anti-Arabism. If she's anti-Arafat -- a perfectly legitimate thing to be -- it's because she is determinedly anti-fascist, and there's nothing that his little fiefdom resembles more than a dictatorship. The kaffiyeh is adopted as a symbol of support for peoples who even when they aren't run by a king or a president-for-life choose authoritarian, illiberal governments. To Fallaci, this smacks of abandonment of progressive principles -- something I tend to agree with. I fully recognize the underdog status of the Palestinians, but I don't think choosing the underdog in every dispute is a virtue, particularly when they're as odious as Arafat and his cronydom of terrorists.

Additionally, she alludes but doesn't effectively analyze the double standard. Case in point: Nobel committee wants to take away Peres's prize, not Arafat's. Which one has sent suicide bombs against civilians? If Peres is complicit in the return to conflict, why isn't Arafat? Case in point: 48-point headlines in Euro papers scream about Israeli 'war crimes' but all sources are second-hand and biased. Meanwhile, Arab fighters interviewed in Arab papers admit brazenly to war crimes like using civilians as spotters, false cease-fires, or booby-traps, and aren't held to task for it. (One just blew up a doctor. Whose fault?) One can't help but ask why there is a lower standard for the Palestinians (or for the Taliban, or anyone). If you're dismissing their violations of the same standard, dismiss it with a reason, but don't ignore it. You look like a fool. Or at best, an ostrich. Or at worst, an anti-Semite.
posted by dhartung at 4:49 AM on April 21, 2002


OK, I give! Anyone who roots for the Palestinians is anti-semitic, a potential Nazi, a fan of fascist dictatorship and human rights violations, an Al Quaeda sympathizer who refuses to denounce terrorists, or one of at least 1 billion people in the world who are so seriously deluded that their views don't count. Happy now? Shall we send Black Bloc folks to sign the peace treaty for Palestine, in the name of anarchy?
posted by sheauga at 5:17 AM on April 21, 2002


There seems no need to get overly involved in what the word anti-semite means. Clearly, for those reading the European press and noting what is taking place in graffiti, stone throwing at synagogues and harrassement in a number of countries, what the writer had in mind is an outbreak of the anti-Jewish sentiment rampant during the 30s and 40s...compounded with anti-Israeli sentiment now that many Jews live in that state.
A note: it is exactly this sort of thing--esp. in France--that gave so many Jews the idea that they would only be safe from such things when they had a homeland of their own.
A furnter note: America, to its great credit, has not seen this sort of thing, except for the occassional kook, who will always exist and be against anyone of color or ethnic origin or religious belief if it is not his.
posted by Postroad at 6:19 AM on April 21, 2002


Anti-semitism is a form of racism, and like other racisms it has two main varieties: "aversive," simple discomfort at the presence, appearance or sound of the people in question, and "rational," a theoretical underpinning. Refusing a seat next to one of "them" on a bus might be aversive racism. "I'm not having one of those ____ dating MY daughter!" is aversive racism. "They'll never be as smart as us - they're descended from fruit lemurs you know," or "We keep them in that ghetto for their own good, they're happier in there anyway," or of course "well you know they control all the banks and they have a secret Antarctic base," is rational racism.

Although the German who coined the term Anti-Semitism meant it to apply to Jews, in its aversive form it applies to all Semitic peoples. The rational form used only to be developed for anti-Jewish kookiness, until OPEC was born, whereupon "well, they control all the oil you know" was added to the armory.
posted by anser at 6:31 AM on April 21, 2002


Interesting premise, sheauga, that calling a spade a spade is bad.

Whether they're "homicide bombers" or "martyrs" they're human beings whose tactics of attacking other humans is to strap explosives to themselves, walk into places where the unwary are located, and blow first themselves up and then anyone else they can get.

Calling this bad, apparently, brands you not progressive, because you're supporting the "white" (have you seen any Israelis lately? they look just like those other semites, the Palestinians) oppression by Israel of the "brown" (have you seen any Palestinians lately? they look just like those other semites, the Israelis) people, fighting back the only way they can, by lying, blowing up their children, violating treaties, assassination and other acts of violence.

So, in order to not come off as anti-arab, and to support the billion or so people who are baying for Israel's blood, I must support the tactics of terror, because that's what the billion are telling me must be right.

Part of the fight against terror, unfortunately, is a fight against an idea. That idea is that it's ok to use attacks on civilians, by merely reframing the word content after the attack, using children to perform the attacks. If that is supported for the Middle East process by giving Arafat and his supporters _anything_ then yes, the war on terror is lost.

NOT because the Palestinians have gained things. They should. They should have autonomy and the Israeli's should quit it with the settlements.

Instead, the terrorists have won because the tactics of terror can be seen to have paid dividends. If terrorism is seen to work in the ME, why not FARC use it? Or the Real IRA? What's a few suicide bombers named O'Reilly going to do to world opinion?

We're talking about waging a war against a people whose leaders have said "because they love being alive, we can defeat them." What that translates to is "we do not love being alive, and in fact we prefer death."

This is, classically, what was defined as "Evil."

To reward it, at all, with any sort of concession, is to open the flood gates to World War Three. To a war where a band of determined suicidal maniacs will hold the entire world in their thrall, and a world where the things American's hold dear, and many Europeans claim to (Life, Liberty, Happiness) are impossible to acheive.

No, the Palestinians do not have those things right now. Yes, the Israeli's are making mistakes along the way. No, Oriana Fallaci did not misstate anything. The liberal left in Europe is silent, hoping that the Arabs will finish what the Germans started, allowing the years old fantasy of a world free of Jews to become reality, without the taint of having to do it themselves. That Jews have become afraid when they see people walking around with headdresses. That if the Palestinians have a right to defend themselves against Jewish aggression, then the Israeli's must as well. That Palestinians brag about using civilian shields, considering it a brilliant tactic.

How do you fight against an onanistic foe with a clear goal of extermination of the Jews and a destruction of the current social order with himself at the head of it? Ask FDR. Ask your grandparents. Because Arafat has lately taken to calling himself a Pan-Arab leader, speaking for the arab "street" just as Hitler claimed to be the leader of a master race after the Beer Hall Putsch.

It would all be far less disgusting if the Palestinians didn't deserve statehood. The worst part of it is, they do. There's no reason that they shouldn't have a state. Israel agreed. Camp David happened. Arafat wanted more, in spite of the possibility of peace, coexistence, and a better situation for his people. The Palestinians don't deserve Arafat. The Palestinians deserve a state.
posted by swerdloff at 6:43 AM on April 21, 2002


Interesting premise, sheauga, that calling a spade a spade is bad.

Whether they're "homicide bombers" or "martyrs" they're human beings whose tactics of attacking other humans is to strap explosives to themselves, walk into places where the unwary are located, and blow first themselves up and then anyone else they can get.

Calling this bad, apparently, brands you not progressive, because you're supporting the "white" (have you seen any Israelis lately? they look just like those other semites, the Palestinians) oppression by Israel of the "brown" (have you seen any Palestinians lately? they look just like those other semites, the Israelis) people, fighting back the only way they can, by lying, blowing up their children, violating treaties, assassination and other acts of violence.

So, in order to not come off as anti-arab, and to support the billion or so people who are baying for Israel's blood, I must support the tactics of terror, because that's what the billion are telling me must be right.

Part of the fight against terror, unfortunately, is a fight against an idea. That idea is that it's ok to use attacks on civilians, by merely reframing the word content after the attack, using children to perform the attacks. If that is supported for the Middle East process by giving Arafat and his supporters _anything_ then yes, the war on terror is lost.

NOT because the Palestinians have gained things. They should. They should have autonomy and the Israeli's should quit it with the settlements.

Instead, the terrorists have won because the tactics of terror can be seen to have paid dividends. If terrorism is seen to work in the ME, why not FARC use it? Or the Real IRA? What's a few suicide bombers named O'Reilly going to do to world opinion?

We're talking about waging a war against a people whose leaders have said "because they love being alive, we can defeat them." What that translates to is "we do not love being alive, and in fact we prefer death."

This is, classically, what was defined as "Evil."

To reward it, at all, with any sort of concession, is to open the flood gates to World War Three. To a war where a band of determined suicidal maniacs will hold the entire world in their thrall, and a world where the things American's hold dear, and many Europeans claim to (Life, Liberty, Happiness) are impossible to acheive.

No, the Palestinians do not have those things right now. Yes, the Israeli's are making mistakes along the way. No, Oriana Fallaci did not misstate anything. The liberal left in Europe is silent, hoping that the Arabs will finish what the Germans started, allowing the years old fantasy of a world free of Jews to become reality, without the taint of having to do it themselves. That Jews have become afraid when they see people walking around with headdresses. That if the Palestinians have a right to defend themselves against Jewish aggression, then the Israeli's must as well. That Palestinians brag about using civilian shields, considering it a brilliant tactic.

How do you fight against an onanistic foe with a clear goal of extermination of the Jews and a destruction of the current social order with himself at the head of it? Ask FDR. Ask your grandparents. Because Arafat has lately taken to calling himself a Pan-Arab leader, speaking for the arab "street" just as Hitler claimed to be the leader of a master race after the Beer Hall Putsch.

It would all be far less disgusting if the Palestinians didn't deserve statehood. The worst part of it is, they do. There's no reason that they shouldn't have a state. Israel agreed. Camp David happened. Arafat wanted more, in spite of the possibility of peace, coexistence, and a better situation for his people. The Palestinians don't deserve Arafat. The Palestinians deserve a state.
posted by swerdloff at 6:48 AM on April 21, 2002


Do they deserve a state with its own military? Do they deserve a state without barrier roads cutting across for the exclusive use of a neighbor state, to be crossed only at checkpoints that can be closed during 'times of crisis'? If you were Yasser Arafat, would you be ready to try and sell that to your radical constituency? He apparently didn't feel it would fly. Even if they had agreed to such a semi-state, it's not clear things would be a lot better today. There is no excuse for all this violence, but I don't think the easy out of "oh they could have had a state but didn't want it" really works. They would still go for the Saudi plan I think. That may be what emerges.
posted by anser at 7:33 AM on April 21, 2002


"Interesting premise, sheauga, that calling a spade a spade is bad."

Not sure which premise you meant! My problem with suicide bombers isn't the suicide part, it's the homicide part, hence my attempt to work out some of the implications of viewing these individuals as "homicide bombers" rather than guerilla combatants. Sometimes redefining intractable problems yields a smaller piece that can be solved.

Ms. Fallaci deserves a hearing on the basis of being a NYC resident with an outstanding prose style. However, I feel concern that advocating her lines of thought may not be entirely appropriate here in the US, and could make things worse. Viewing the entire world through a "terrorism - anti-semitism" framework is not necessarily the most promising way to engage with the current situation.
posted by sheauga at 8:35 AM on April 21, 2002


Do you want to talk about what you call the Contrast-between-the-Two-Cultures? Well, if you really must know, it bothers me to even talk about two cultures: to put them on the same plane as though they were two parallel realities of equal weight and equal measure. Because behind our civilization we have Homer, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Phydias, for God’s sake. We have ancient Greece with its Parthenon and its discovery of Democracy.

To me that's the equivilant of admitting to the world that you've never cracked open a history book in your life. Ms. Fallaci's head is so far up in the clouds that she forgets who's shoulders she stands on. It's shocking that that misinformed xenophobic tirade was written by the same person as the original link which is so courageous and very much necessary. Sometimes an igonorant rascist can make sense.
posted by euphorb at 12:22 PM on April 21, 2002


It boggles my mind that some in Europe support what boils down to Islamo-fascism. The very militants they sympathize with want nothing more than to set up Islamic theocracies throughout the middle east, and if they could, the entire world. This extreme worldview desires nothing less than all to submit to allah - at least their view of this god. And sick violence of any means to attain it. We in the West live in the land of war, the other, the infidel.

The world is still waiting for moderate Muslims to beat back this extremism that so colors the Islamic world in its relation to the West. They are not getting much help from so called European "progressives".
posted by scottfree at 1:01 PM on April 21, 2002


sheauga, I didn't say anything like that, and I still fully respect your points of view on the situation. You, for one, don't ignore the failings and outright crimes of Arafatistan. Even War on Terror architect Paul Wolfowitz went to a pro-Israel rally and said that the Palestinian people have a legitimate cause, and I believe that too.

Read again my concluding sentences: If you're dismissing their violations of the same standard, dismiss it with a reason, but don't ignore it. You look like a fool. Or at best, an ostrich. Or at worst, an anti-Semite. This was directed at people like the double-standard standard-bearers at the Nobel Prize Committee, who have their heads so far in the sand it's a wonder they can breathe. They're so wrapped up in their causism, in the religious certainty that by supporting the Palestinians they are blazing the only path to peace, they can't bear to find one word to explain why Arafat isn't held to the same standard as Peres. They look like anti-Semites when they do this. Or maybe just fools.

The best thing, IMHO, that the progressive left could do for both the Palestinians and themselves on this issue is to use their foot in the door of the West Bank to promote alternatives to the terror apparatus and trustworthy negotiating partners. Arafat's blown his wad -- even the dyed-in-the-wool peaceniks in Israel no longer trust him to tear off their toilet paper.
posted by dhartung at 3:31 PM on April 21, 2002


this is a fine thread-really. "The world is still waiting for moderate Muslims to beat back this extremism that so colors the Islamic world in its relation to the West" perhaps this is what the 'extremists' are waiting for. a quoate from Former Pakistan P.M. Bhutto made me think of this.

'One man said to me, "Remember there will only be those who believe and those who will die. There will only be the dead and the believers".

perhaps alot of people are still trying, trying hard to believe. rather then accept the latter.
posted by clavdivs at 4:49 PM on April 21, 2002


swerdloff - what you said. Also: the bombings in the Phillipines seem to be a direct response to the perception that the suicide bombing tactic does work. What's really sad is that this polerization we're seeing in Europe and in the rest of the Arab world, who, if anything have been worse to Palestinians than Israel has in the past, is evidence of success of some kind.

Were the Palestinians to suddenly adopt a peaceful, non-violent strategy along the lines of Martin Luther King, then real negotiations could commence. Unfortunately, its difficult to believe at this point that there are not factions of Palestinians that simply want nothing less than either their own deaths or Jewish extermination.
posted by xammerboy at 9:55 PM on April 21, 2002


This is one example of the mentality of these extremists - from the AP:

"Zacarias Moussaoui, accused of conspiracy to commit terrorism in connection with the September attacks declared in court Monday that he was ending cooperation with his court-appointed lawyers and said he prayed to Allah for the destruction of the United States and Israel."

My friends in Europe, lets get behind these types and support their cause for freedom from oppression by the infidels in the U.S. and Israel.
posted by scottfree at 9:15 AM on April 22, 2002


Briefly, and I'm far from a Black Historian or a Civil Rights movement historian, but I was under the impression that part of the reason that MLK got so far was that there was a violent and very nasty alternative (ironically for purposes of this debate, the nation of Islam)

What Palestine needs is an MLK to counter Yassir Arafat's Elijah Mohammed.
posted by swerdloff at 6:11 PM on May 4, 2002


« Older   |   What Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post