On August 30th, Azeem wrote:
> OK, the claim that Muslims pray with their backs to Jerusalem: the fact is
> that they face Mecca when they pray, there is no instruction to face AWAY
> from anywhere. And if they are in Aden, for example, they will be facing
> both Jerusalem and Mecca. The statement is untrue.
Thumbs up for a terrific demonstration in geography Azeem.
I would never have thought anybody would nitpick on such a semantic glitch.
Actually the fact that there is such a "glitch" makes me believe the
original letter was written by a cultured layman, not by a semantic expert.
>
> While I'm at it, the other statement that I immediately raised doubts
about
> the list's supposed impartiality was that the Koran does not mention
> Jerusalem once; while this is true, it is highly disingenuous in its
> inference. The Koran only mentions Mecca once, yet nobody would dispute
that
> Mecca is the holiest site in Islam.
I have a letter written by an American Arab journalist, which I will retype
soon, which states that the Koran mentions Mecca hundreds of times and
Medina countless times. But I'm no expert on the Koran myself.
"..........half-truths and misconceptions are told about the jewish
race........"
As everybody knows, Judaism is a religion, not a race.
Neither Sartre nor Nietsche could define the jewish race, but I'm glad to
see you had more success.
Also on August 30th, Colin wrote:
> One of these posts about why Jews needed their own homeland, because of
being
> foreignors everywhere else and treated badly could equally have been
written about
> gay people because we too have been universally treated appallingly all
over the
> world at all times. It could also be said of people of colour but not so
> universally.
Although the analogy is a little farfetched, there are similarities whenever
hate, bigotry and intolerance come in ( the 3 great stimulants).
> Both letters implied that anyone not agreeing 100% with the said postion
is
> antisemeitc, which is ridiculous(anit semetic covers Arabs as well I
might, they
> being semitic people).
>
I never implied that, everybody can have their opinion.
All I'm saying is the media, especially in France and the U.K. (I watch BBC
news often) are presenting any story they feel like. Sometimes out of
ignorance and sometimes for other reasons. I can't speak about the U.S.
media since I only see Time magazine and haven't noticed anything in it.
Please consider these examples:
Paris Match, famous weekly news magazine, printed on its cover when the
intifada broke up a picture of an Israeli policeman threatening with a stick
a dark haired young man with blood running down his face.
Soon thereafter, a U.S. physician from Chicago wrote to explain the young
man was his son who had been mugged by a group of Arabs and and by chance an
Israeli patrol came to the rescue. The Israeli policeman was simply trying
to get the Palestinians to back off and defend the wounded youngster.
You see my point, the moment a photographer presses its shutter, the choice
of cropping the pictures, building a story that fits that picture are all
subjective decisions.
Moreover, freedom of the press is not so great on the arab sides.
All journalists report that whenever they shoot anything that may be
detrimental
to the Arab cause, they are most often threatened to surrender the film, if
not much worse. Remember the dismembering of 2 Israeli reservists was shot
by an HIDDEN Italian TV crew.
The Palestinians are expert at staging a great TV show, sometimes waiting
for the cameras to roll to start throwing stones.
By the way, is using children as bullet shields and as victims/martyrs a
laudable tactic?
Another great media story was the killing of little Mohammed, age 4, in his
father's arms in front of the camera.
Well it turns out there has been an official inquiry including ballistic
experts which proved that the boy had been killed by a Palestinian bullet.
I doubt many of you have heard this follow up? It's not a good media story.
At the same time a little Arab girl was killed by a bullet. It turns out
that her father was a Palestinian policeman who accidentally killed her
while cleaning his gun. This story was confirmed by the Palestinian side,
but the media damage was done.
So the bottom line is: the media makes stories with the images they've got.
And since they're only free to shoot under Israeli rule, then they've got
plenty of one kind of material only to build stories around.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the situatuion, the killing by israeli's
of Arab
> children, women and men is appaling. As is the killing of Israelies. None
of thids
> evil can be excused. the constant quest for revenge is sickening on both
sides.
> the aftermath of the recent suicide bombing is purely wicked, just as the
bombing
> itself was. To then in reatilaition go and kill indiscriminately is just
as evil.
> As a result of all this childish and wicked beahviour, neither side has my
> support. I think you all get what you desevre. You live by the sword, you
die by
> it. if they can't behave like civilised people, why should they expect the
rest of
> us to support them?
I think you're missing the point.
For Israel it's a matter of survival, period. Just look at a map of the
area and you'll understand.
The safety zone around major Israeli towns is ridiculously tiny.
Remember, they're surrounded by over 100 million arabs.
Also, I believe that the fact that there has been more or less 600 arab
deads in nearly 1 year of rioting shows the incredible restraint that
Israelis are using. Are you kidding, in most countries of the world the
police thinks nothing of killing thousands in 1 day!
on August 30, Slarty wrote: "both sides are fighting over issues from
Biblical times"
First, the Palestianians claim that this is their land, so the other side
counters this claim.
Second, you make a good point: the differences are irreconciliables for many
future generations.
Did you see the TV shows about Palestinian schools where small children are
taught hate + martyrdom?
to be continued...
Laurent
