[cnimbus]

Originally posted by ComputerFix:
cnimbus,

Honor killings are an acceptable practice in much of the Middle East. In fact, there is a growing movement to put them to an end, there are dr.'s that wil "reattach" hymens, others who help these girls escape, etc., etc. This is not a "few backwards people", thus the response both internal to the region and external as well.

Acceptable over a widespread area, but to how many of the people in that area? What percentage of the women thought to have real or imagined indiscretions are killed? In a culture where women would take great pains to hide impropriety, any figure is likely mere conjecture. How many of those killed come middle class, wealthy or educated families?

Those who commit so-called honor killings aren't going to publicly announce their intentions beforehand. Also, a lack of intervention does not necessarily imply approval of someone else's actions. Otherwise, Americans could all be classified as approving murder and having no conscience. After all, how many people went to the aid of Kitty Genovese?

This means that even if you are not going to participate in one, as you are not "backwards", the society as whole is responsible by allowing such crimes to take place legally. No one is painting them with a broad brush, they painted themselves by allowing such acts to remain legal and acceptable.

Umm...yeah, right. It is society's fault. That implies that individuals are incapable of telling right from wrong. Re the initial post in this thread, does anyone seriously believe those involved did not know rape, incest and murder are wrong? If society is at fault, then noone can rightfully be held accountable for any murder in any society.

The cold-blooded murder of thousands of women is a great evil, and needs to be stopped. Unfortunately, these killings are being used to bash an entire people, including those who have never harmed anyone.

There seems to be some confusion in this thread over ethnicity and religion. The terms 'Arab' and 'Muslim' are used interchangeably, but are not always synonymous. There are many Arabs who are Christian or other non-Muslim religions. There are also many Muslims who are not Arabs.

So why are the Arabs/Muslims the only ones mentioned here? The same type of savagery also takes place countries that are neither Arabic or Muslim. Maybe some Arab bashing is going on? And how on earth did the Jews get dragged into this thread?

[DNeurococo]

I wrote a hostile, snippy reply to “why the Jews got dragged into this thread” and posted it, but upon reflection, I thought I would tone down the rhetoric and try one more time to explain the relevance (politely).

I really do believe the situation is what Columbo described in his post #43: “Disagreeing with the Palestinians in relating to the whole ‘Palestinian vs. Israeli’ conflict Therefore; Need to cast Palestinians (as a whole) in a negative light Therefore; Link the Palestinian people to any negative subject/news.”

I felt this thread was an attempt to take sides in the Israeli/Palestine conflict and justify Israeli brutality and occupation on the grounds that the Palestinian people are soulless monsters. So, I asked the question “why single out the Palestinians” when other nations/cultures/people do similar things (such as stoning people for driving on the Sabbath).

To gain a greater appreciation for my position, imagine yourself in Nazi Germany during the 30’s. Imagine someone published an article about Jews cheating someone in business or raping a girl, etc. The stories themselves may even be true. But look at the context they are being published in, and look at the intent.

You might respond to the articles by saying, “Look, this is just propaganda. The Jews are no different from anyone else. Nazi party members ALSO cheat in business, rape women”.

How would you feel if someone said “Why bring the Nazis into it? We were just talking about Jews, and the stories are absolutely true.”

Maybe so, but in the context, it is appropriate to speak to the prejudice behind the printing of the stories seeking to discredit Jews for a clear political purpose. The Nazis ARE involved - - by virtue of their conflict with the Jews at this point in history.

It is sort of like asking: "why bring up Indians when speaking of Custer's Last Stand?". Because they are there and they are relevant. As long as the Israelis insist upon staying in the occupied territories, they are probably going to come up when discussing the Palestinians.

The solution is for the Israelis to leave the occupied territories. Then I won’t bring them up anymore.

#$DN

[aerain]

The solution is for the Israelis to leave the occupied territories.

If they leave, will that stop the attacks against Israelis? I don't think so.

[cnimbus]

Originally posted by DNeurococo:
It is sort of like asking: "why bring up Indians when speaking of Custer's Last Stand?". Because they are there and they are relevant. As long as the Israelis insist upon staying in the occupied territories, they are probably going to come up when discussing the Palestinians.

But the Israelis have absolutely nothing to do with honor killings, or more correctly, dishonorable murders. These killings would have taken place even if the state of Israel never came into being.

Perhaps a better analogy is "why bring up Indians when speaking of the Civil War?". Sure, they were present and presented something of a threat, at least in some regions. For the most part, they had nothing to do with the Civil War.

[AlbertB]

We are aware in this country of honour killings and have been for a long time. This is because we have a large indigenous Muslim popultion. We now have our own honour killings occuring in Britain as was correctly reported before.

Under the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, at least 25 "official" honor killings occur each year, says Emery, but the actual number of deaths is much higher.

LAN's original post.

Every year hundreds of women are known to die as a result of honour killings. Many more cases go unreported and almost all go unpunished.

Amnesty International.

The relevance of the two quotes is that the first, LAN's, applies to Palesinians, the second to Pakistanis! So why was the thread not "Pakistani Civility", or even "Muslim Civility".

I do not believe for an instant that LAN was trying to pull any fast trick in posting this thread, but I do think that it was an indication of the way that the Palestinians are nowadays in the spotlight, and any negative aspect of their culture will be immediately latched onto. I also think that by virtue of this being a Palestinian thread the inclusion of Israeli issues at some time was inevitable. They are simply hot headlines of the day!

Any right thinking civilised Muslim will condemn this practice. Any right thinking civilised Pakistani will do likewise. Any right thinking civilised Palestinian will agree. The other Muslims, Pakistani, Palestinian, British or from anywhere, are wrong, their actions deplorable, and should be punished with the utmost severity should they have any connection to any occurence of this ungodly practice.

We all agree with that last at least, I am sure.

[columbo]

Columbo,

I wonder how many realize that the "step by step" you pointed out is exactly what some were talking about as being the "problem" with CivDeb.

Disagree with Bush being President

Therefore,

Need to cast US Govt in a negative light

Therefore,

Post every negative article so long as it links the US to act, no matter how many may be involved or "doing it" as well. (also never mention or speak against them, only the US).

I hope that I'm not perceived as having done this. I have *tried* to make a point of criticizing certain policy decisions, or actions taken on behalf of the U.S. government, without being filtered or affected by the political affiliation of whatever administration was in the White House at the time (or my personal opinion of members of that Administration).

I recall that you and I once briefly disagreed on matters pertaining to Bosnia and Kosovo, and possibly Somalia (though that may have been LAN). Either way, Clinton was in office at those times, thus much of the criticism would be aimed at his administration. My criticism wasn't/isn't rooted in a personal dislike of Clinton.

Unfortunately, I wasn't on TSG until about a week before 9/11, so I can't prove to you that I wasn't an avid supporter or detractor of any recent administrations.

My interest has always lied more in the history of (and related consequences of) the policy decisions, rather than the affability of those politicians making them. Even if it doesn't seem that way sometimes...

[Stoner]

CF said to Columbo:

I wonder how many realize that the "step by step" you pointed out is exactly what some were talking about as being the "problem" with CivDeb.

Disagree with Bush being President

Therefore,

Need to cast US Govt in a negative light

Therefore,

Post every negative article so long as it links the US to act, no matter how many may be involved or "doing it" as well. (also never mention or speak against them, only the US).

Ha ha ha ha! and there I was! Thought I was as specific as I could get naming names. Sorry for the effort, CF. Perhaps I should shoot my posts of to you for editing and censorship ?

Especially amusing: "(also never mention or speak against them, only the US)
I'll try harder in defining my acusations in the future Ha!

and:"Disagree with Bush being President"

Really, CF......now don't you think most critism is about the policies of Bush and his handlers?


I think, perhaps your complaint is generated by your defending(Bush policy in general) what appears to be indefenseable(the obligatory 'IMO')



Jack


( or were you just stickin' it to Columbo )

[LANMaster]

......... "When a whole society lionizes terrorists, accepts them as its leaders, and rallies to cries to "write in blood the map of the one homeland and one nation" and send "a million martyrs marching on Jerusalem" -- what right do they have to complain when their wish for blood and death is granted?"

As Israel pulls out of the West Bank -- a foolish move that will only allow Palestinian terrorists to regroup -- the media is being flooded with piteous tales about Palestinian victims, who, we are told, are innocent civilians.

But a glance at the stories coming out of the West Bank gives us a flavor for this "innocence."

The bulk of the current news stories are coming from Jenin, a major center of Palestinian terrorism where Israeli troops encountered the fiercest resistance. A typical story is from Khadra Samara, who is quoted in at least three separate newspaper accounts. She complains that her family was forced to flee when the Israelis bulldozed her home. Her instant response: "I was so furious, I felt like committing a suicide bombing against the Israelis."

Jenin, after all, is the same city whose residents attacked their own Palestinian leadership last November when it made a feeble show of cracking down on terrorism. According to a New York Times report, "demonstrators hurled stones, small explosives, and invective at scores of Yasser Arafat's security officers when the Palestinian leader attempted to rein in militants here."

(Incidentally, this woman and 30 others who were with her did survive. How? They emerged from a neighboring house waving white scarves, and the Israelis permitted them to walk to a nearby hospital. So much for reports of an Israeli "massacre.")

Another Palestinian family, pictured on television, points to the spot where their son was shot by Israeli soldiers "for no reason." Next to the bloody stain on the ground was their son's balaclava, a kind of mask commonly worn by Palestinian gunmen.

Another news story tells us of an American citizen, born in Palestine, who moved back to buy an apartment building in Ramallah, making his living as a landlord. During a recent Israeli operation, he was caught trying to drive his family home after curfew. Jittery soldiers at a checkpoint opened fire at the car, killing the man's wife and father, leaving him to walk through the checkpoint alone with his infant son.

This victim had returned to Ramallah after Arafat was installed as the Palestinian leader under the Oslo accords. Here is one journalist's description of Arafat's triumphant 1994 homecoming: "Arafat ... arrived from the Sinai in a long caravan of Chevrolet Blazers and Mercedes-Benzes and BMWs, 70 or 80 cars packed to the rooflines with men with guns. The caravan roared up the thronged roads and down the mobbed streets, with the overfed, leather-jacketed, sunglassed thugs of Arafat's bodyguard detail all the time screaming and shooting off their Kalishnikovs." Is it reasonable to regard the installation of this kind of regime as a sign of future peace and prosperity, as an indication that Palestine would be a safe place to start a family?

Ask Mohammed al-Akhras, profiled in the April 15 issue of Newsweek. He is the father of Ayat al-Akhras, the young Palestine suicide bomber who blew herself up in a Jerusalem supermarket. "Though convention calls for the father of a martyr to express pride in the act, al-Akhras seemed ... overwhelmed by grief."

Who is to blame for this father's loss? According to Newsweek: "Taped to the windshield of his car was a black-and-white poster of Ayat draped in a flowing kaffiyeh," the checkered scarf emblematic of Palestinian killers, "and brandishing a pistol -- the same picture that had begun to appear in the alleys of Dehaishe, inspiring new martyrs to the cause." The magazine also reports on a poll showing that 80 percent of Palestinians support suicide bombings.

When a mother's first thought while evacuating her children from a war zone is that she should join the terrorists who infest her town, what protection can she claim? When a city deliberately makes itself into a haven for murderers, what security can it demand? When a man brings his family to live in a dictatorship led by thugs who fire their guns into the air in celebration, what kind of a future can he expect?

When a whole society lionizes terrorists, accepts them as its leaders, and rallies to cries to "write in blood the map of the one homeland and one nation" and send "a million martyrs marching on Jerusalem" -- what right do they have to complain when their wish for blood and death is granted?

Palestinians are beginning to discover the price of building a national identity based on anti-Jewish terrorism. They are discovering it in the same form that the Germans and Japanese ultimately learned the price of embracing fascism.


Link

[LANMaster]

Palestinian press vilifies U.S.
Official refers to 'triangle of terror and evil – Bush, Sharon and Blair'

Recent reports in the Palestinian Authority-controlled press have vilified the U.S., President Bush and other Western leaders, calling the president and his secretary of defense "bloodthirsty beasts."

Palestinian Media Watch compiled examples of the most extreme comments in recent Palestinian news coverage.

In an article that appeared in the PA daily Al-Ayyam, Shiite religious leaders in Iraq were condemned for not encouraging their people to become "martyrs" by launching terror attacks against American forces. The writer also slams the Shiites for trying "to achieve historic benefit from the presence of these forces ... even if this involves participation in the Ruling Council, which is appointed by the American governor," Palestinian Media Watch reported.

Another article reports on a speech given to the Brazilian Parliament by Basam Abu Sharif, a representative of the Palestinian National Council. Calling for a Brazilian boycott of the U.S., Sharif referred to the "triangle of terror and evil ... Bush, Sharon and Blair" and their policies as "organized terror ... and war crimes."

In a story printed in the daily Al Hayat Al Jadida, a member of the PA Legislative Council says Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld "are human beings whose ambitions have turned them into bloodthirsty beasts."

The official also claimed: "The American soldiers [in Iraq] are collapsing emotionally, because they are fighting a cruel war, that in their opinion has no justification and which appear to have no end. And this, while their enemy believes in their battle …"


Grrrrr

[columbo]

The magazine also reports on a poll showing that 80 percent of Palestinians support suicide bombings.

LAN, could you please provide more information on this statistic? Specifically, the name of the polling organization, as well as a link to their website if possible? I have been trying to cull more information on it from the Net, but can't really find any references to it (I did find a wide range of numbers from a variety of sources, but not a specific poll that said "80% of Palestinians support suicide bombings")...

I would be curious to know:

-How many people were polled?
-Where were they located?
-How was the question phrased?
-Who was polled (by age, income, etc.)?

In matters like this, it usually helps to know exactly how these numbers were reached.

[LANMaster]

Understood. I will attempt to find out.

[LANMaster]

April 15th Newsweek article.
still looking

[LANMaster]

I'll have to come back to this a bit later, but the author of the commentary cites the April 15th Newsweek magazine.

[columbo]

April 15th Newsweek article.
still looking

Yeah I used "Newsweek" and "April 15" as keywords, along with "Palestinians", and "poll", etc...

But no luck

[LANMaster]

No luck here either.
I will find it, however. Just may take a while.
I am also interested in confirming or repudiating the accuracy of the author's commentary.