mokhtar@ubc-vision.UUCP (Farzin Mokhtarian) (03/03/86)
Subject: The Zionist Double-Standard Last week I wrote about an act of terrorism by the Haganah in which many jews were killed. Some time ago, I wrote about several acts of terrorism by the Haganah and the Irgun and the Stern in which many Arab civilians died. In both cases, there were no shouts of "liar, liar", no cries of anti-semitism, just the good old "Collective Silence Treatment". What does this silence mean? Why can't the zionists and other supporters of Israel out there condemn zionist terrorism the same way that they condemn Palestinian terrorism? Isn't Israel democratic and don't democratic nations pride themselves in their capacity to accept real criticism? -- Farzin Mokhtarian ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Each one seeks to be stronger in his hatred."
jjboritz@watnot.UUCP (Jim Boritz) (03/03/86)
In article <95@ubc-vision.UUCP> mokhtar@ubc-vision.UUCP (Farzin Mokhtarian) writes: >Subject: The Zionist Double-Standard > >Last week I wrote about an act of terrorism by the Haganah in which many jews >were killed. Some time ago, I wrote about several acts of terrorism by the >Haganah and the Irgun and the Stern in which many Arab civilians died. >In both cases, there were no shouts of "liar, liar", no cries of >anti-semitism, just the good old "Collective Silence Treatment". What do you want people to do? First of all there is not total silence on the matter. I have just read several postings dealing with the first act you mention where several jews were killed. Secondly you cannot expect someone with any sense of reality to try to dsiprove facts. It appears to me that you want to evoke some sort of response from someone. Do you want someone to call you a liar? True facts cannot be denied. It is only when people post false facts and rumors that we (colectively) are urged to tell you and others that you have been reading too many propaganda papers. > >What does this silence mean? Why can't the zionists and other supporters of >Israel out there condemn zionist terrorism the same way that they condemn >Palestinian terrorism? Isn't Israel democratic and don't democratic nations >pride themselves in their capacity to accept real criticism? Perhaps you would like to tell me how many democratic Middle Eastern Arab nations there are out there. I can only think of one or two out of more than 25, and I cannot even remember their names. > > -- Farzin Mokhtarian >------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >"Each one seeks to be stronger in his hatred." > I agree --^ Jim Boritz
drsimon@watlion.UUCP (Daniel R. Simon) (03/04/86)
In article <95@ubc-vision.UUCP> mokhtar@ubc-vision.UUCP (Farzin Mokhtarian) writes: >Subject: The Zionist Double-Standard > >What does this silence mean? Why can't the zionists and other supporters of >Israel out there condemn zionist terrorism the same way that they condemn >Palestinian terrorism? Isn't Israel democratic and don't democratic nations >pride themselves in their capacity to accept real criticism? > > -- Farzin Mokhtarian >------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >"Each one seeks to be stronger in his hatred." > Glad you brought this up, Mr. Mokhtarian. Not so very long ago, a group of Israeli radicals took it upon themselves to attack innocent Arab civilians on the West Bank, hoping to terrorize the local population into leaving. In particular, they planted a bomb aboard a local bus carrying Arab civilians, killing several. I believe they were responsible for a few other terrorist incidents as well. Israeli police infiltrated the group and broke it up. The members all received long prison sentences; several got life imprisonment (the death penalty has been abolished in Israel). This sharp, effective response to radical Zionist terrorism was widely applauded both in Israel and abroad. So you see, Mr. Mokhtarian, Israel and her supporters have no problem "condemn(ing) Zionist terrorism"; in fact the Israeli government takes positive action to prevent it. The real question is, "why do many Arab countries aid and abet terrorism, offering sanctuary, funds and arms to terrorists, rather then rounding them up as criminals (which they are) and punishing them?" When Israel's neighbours have the same attitude towards terrorism directed against Israelis (and others) as Israel has towards terrorism directed against Arabs (and others), then I believe that peace will be very near in the Middle East. Do you not concur? Daniel R. Simon
hijab@cad.UUCP (Raif Hijab) (03/05/86)
> >Isn't Israel democratic and don't democratic nations > >pride themselves in their capacity to accept real criticism? > > > > -- Farzin Mokhtarian > > > > Perhaps you would like to tell me how many democratic Middle Eastern Arab > nations there are out there. I can only think of one or two out of more > than 25, and I cannot even remember their names. > > Jim Boritz If we take the Western European, or more charitably, the U.S. form of democracy as our reference, then there are no regimes in the Middle East which are democratic AND open, including Israel. First a brief comment on Israel's democracy. It is evident to serious observers that whatever rights and freedoms the system provides apply only to Jewish subjects of the state, even when you exclude the Arab Palestinian population of the occupied West Bank and Gaza. If you add to this the emergency regulations which were extended from the British Mandate days and have yet to be rescinded, the extended zones WITHIN Israel which have a special security status because of their large Arab population (mainly in the Galilee), the myriad of laws that provide services, education, housing and development funds on the basis of affiliation to clearly Jewish organizations or groupings, the ever increasing number of laws linking the state ever so tightly to religious guidelines, what emerges is a system of APARTHEID not different in spirit and - if you include the occupied West Bank and Gaza - in brutality, from that of South Africa. As to other regimes in the Middle East: If you consider as your standard the existence of free speech, a free press and the freedom to congregate and form political parties, then no state in the region has all that. Some states have some of these trappings, although their effectiveness is not very clear. However, if you posed the question differently, you would arrive at what might seem a surprising answer. Several regimes, THOUGH NEITHER DEMOCRATIC NOR OPEN, nevertheless possess a substantial degree of legitimacy expressed by the consent of the governed and their (mostly passive) support in a wide range of issues. It is true that such a state of affairs does not allow for open minority challenges to the system, and favors evolutionary change to radical reform. That is why the rulers tend to become oblivious to the pile-up of problems, often the result of modernization, until they become so acute that only a revolution or a coup d'etat relieves the pressure. Of course when problems reach such an acute stage, then the regimes can be legitimately described as undemocratic, as they attempt to supress the now swelling opposition. Some examples are in order: Saudi Arabia is an autocratic oligarchy. Freedom of speech, etc. are severely restricted. An ascetic, fundamentalist interpretation of Islam is in place (a movement started by Mohammad abdel Wahhab in the 19th century) which, until the advent of Khomeinism, was the most dogmatic form of Islam anywhere in the Muslim World. Nevertheless, the Saudi regime derives substantial legitimacy from its close identification with Wahhabism, and its status as guardian of the holy places in Mecca and Medina. It also derives legitimacy from its adherence to tradition, which means that it is attentive to the desires of the leaders of the various (traditional) clan, tribal and regional groupings. There is a council of elders which advises the king, and can depose him if it deemed that necessary (This happened with King Saud in the Sixties, who was removed and replaced by his brother.) As Arabian society has changed, the regime has applied the brakes in places, and adjusted in others. Its main protection against change is the oil wealth, which it spreads around to quiet dissent, particularly co-opting the loyalties of the expanding cadre of young educated Saudis. Is Saudi Arabia a democracy? Certainly not. However, I do not see (as yet) the swelling of popular discontent that could sweep the regime away, the way Marcos was swept away in the Philippines. How about Egypt? Nasser deposed the corrupt Farouk monarchy in 1952, in an army based uprising which had a fair degree of popular support. No one questions the legitimacy of Nasser's regime among the Egyptians. He was extremely popular, in Egypt as well as in the rest of the Arab World. He made major reforms in Egypt, most notably land reform. He tried to set up a viable political system. He was hampered by a weakness which many capable people have: the incapacity to delegate. He was also hampered by the United States, which he had sought to befriend, made him its enemy number one in the region, siphoning away much of his energy in deflecting a long series of plots against him, and precluding the possibility (assuming he wanted to pursue it) of his setting up independent democratic institutions. In the end his real enemy was the massive poverty that beset Egypt, the most densely populated Arab country, as well as the exhaustive state of war with Israel (which he tried many times to resolve peacefully, contrary to popular misconception in this country.) Sadat inherited Nasser's problems, but none of his charisma. As his popularity decreased, the brutality of his regime increased. He tried to convince the Egyptian people that peace with Israel and friendship with the United States, along with "open doors" economic policy, were going to bring prosperity. He failed miserably: He was severely shortchanged in his dealings with Israel (at least that bis the Egyptian and Arab perception). U.S. help was proscribed (the manner and kind of economic aid, and no military aid to speak of). His open doors policy only brought back the greedy carpetbaggers of the pre-Nasser era, creating instant millionaires with Mercedes Benz autos, and an inflation rate that hit the ceiling. Mubarak is trying to do a patch job, and to avoid Sadat's mistakes. However, his only way of keeping a tight hold on the situation at present is through a vigilant internal security apparatus. Egypt has a rubber stamp parliament, and a press (once a very vigorous and independent press) that criticizes only hesitantly. Of course the religious groups are getting increasingly vocal, being the hardest for the regime to suppress. Libya is another interesting example. Contrary to prevalent conceptions, Qaddafi is a popular ruler. He would win an election handily tomorrow, if he held one. His source of legitimacy is complex. He comes from a poor Bedouin family. He toppled the learned Idrissi family that ruled Libya for a long time. His strength lies in his identification with the poor (he has done a lot for them), his humble origin, his assumption (rightly or not) of the mantle of Nasser, who was the most popular Arab ruler in the twentieth century. He also derives strength from his defiance and a certain charisma which appeals to the Libyan masses (of course Libyan intellectuals, particularly of the Western variety, despise him). He also derives legitemacy from having "recovered" Libya's oil wealth from the control of foreign companies, and from his vocal support for the popular Palestinian cause. He also repeatedly asserts that he is not really in charge, but that the "people's committees" are. Indeed, in matters affecting the daily life of Libyans, the committes have a fair say. The army and foreign affairs, however, are primarily run by Qaddafi and his council. Finally a look at Syria. Here the legitemacy derives from the ruling Ba'ath party. A party with a secular, progressive and nationalist character, with just a hint of Euro-socialism, it was formed in the forties by two fellow Syrian students at the Sorbonne in Paris. The party structure is very elaborately and deeply ingrained in Syrian society. Although the Ba'ath started out in 1963 with a promise of pluralism, that quickly ended with its liquidation of its other progressive partners, the Arab Nationalists (Nasserists) and the Communists. Still, the ideology and goals of the regime are popular in Syria, even though there is a lot of grumbling from the out groups. The weakness in the regime lies in the fact that a disproprtionate number of people in high places are Alawites (Assad's religious sect). In part this was a historical accident, since the poor Alawites tended to enlist in the army, while the affluent Sunnis bought their way out of conscription. With the rise of the military under Assad, it was natural for all these now highly placed officers to gain power. The system provides a democratic outlet through the party cadres and congresses, not unlike other one party systems. assad's government makes sure it listens to the desires and complaints of the masses in this manner. That, coupled with a tacit understanding with the private sector, gives Assad enough support and popularity to chart an independent and ambitious course for Syria. What I have tried to demonstrate is that legitemacy is not totally lacking in Arab regimes, even though they may not be democratic, at least in the Western sense. It is easy to see that this state of affairs is not unique to the region, but can be seen, in various forms, in other parts of the Third World. It is more a problem of development and cultural clash, along with the inevitable shuffle in the social order, than a problem of the lack of democratic institutions, which are a recent creation even in the industrialized countries of Europe and North America.
simon@simon_pc.UUCP (Simon Shapiro) (03/05/86)
In article <95@ubc-vision.UUCP>, mokhtar@ubc-vision.UUCP (Farzin Mokhtarian) writes: > Subject: The Zionist Double-Standard > > Last week I wrote about an act of terrorism by the Haganah in which many jews > were killed. Some time ago, I wrote about several acts of terrorism by the > Haganah and the Irgun and the Stern in which many Arab civilians died. > In both cases, there were no shouts of "liar, liar", no cries of > anti-semitism, just the good old "Collective Silence Treatment". > > What does this silence mean? Why can't the zionists and other supporters of > Israel out there condemn zionist terrorism the same way that they condemn > Palestinian terrorism? Isn't Israel democratic and don't democratic nations > pride themselves in their capacity to accept real criticism? > > -- Farzin Mokhtarian > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > "Each one seeks to be stronger in his hatred." > Who is quiet? I was not, and few others with me. You do spread lies, you do tell half truths, we do respond but maybe you seem to miss them. I do not approve of terrorist attacks, wether they are done tody, or were done many years ago. I do look into what actually happened, in its FULL context, before I labels (oh so conviniently) as one thing or another. I do have my facts together (from beeing there, having my father or someone I know beeing there and I do plead, repeatedly to stop this hatread spreading and You are the one "...seeks to be strong in his hatred"! I pleaded before for a stop of this slandering and spreading of hate and I will do it again. I am strongly motivated to tell you "I will not respond to you and your hate spreading anymore. The reason that noone responds is that noone takes you seriously and you are beeing ignored" But I know that were I to let you go unheaded more of your postings will go on just like this one and maybe someone will start beliving you and your lies (I have not seen you, yet, denieing or explaining why terrorists do what they do, only questionable examples of "The jews did it too, therefore it is OK for us also.) You must hold the Early jewish 'terrorists' in high regard and admiration if their actions (?) are the only reasoning for yours, and if you hold them in such high regard and admiration, why are you so bent on murdering, killing and destroying them? Anyway, your lies will be answered! When the day comes and you want to recite some old stories about how jews and arabs are getting along just fine today, how help is rendered, how does the education system help arab nationals in Israel to progress, where did most the agricultural experts in the arab countries get their education, who were my mother- in-law best friends, and what can we DO to stop the hate and bring peace to this part of the worls, be assured: I will be there! I will ignore (and eventually forget) your slander and lies, I will make peace with you and treat you as a friend and a brother. But be warned! I am not stupid. I am careful. I will still be as strong as I have been until now and protect myself and my family very strongly if the need will ever come again. I want to make peace because I am strong, confident and know we can both prosper and be happier if we have peace. I am not calling for peace because I am weak. I hope that the eventsa of the last 5000 years managed to convince you that I am not the one to be impressed by brutal force. Yhe events of the last 50 years should convince you that military solution to political problems tend to benefit Israel greatly, and that political reversal of militart results is slow, painful and rather impossible at times. So wake-up guy, stop this nonsense and let's start talking. It is never too late! My love to you, Simon.