Greetings, Roger,
I am not following your argument with others, so can't comment on it.
I have seen the kinds of assertions that you repeat here, and have seen no
evidence to support them, and quite a bit to suggest they are erroneous. It
is as if when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict the norms of
accuracy and thoughtfulness have been suspended, in favor of a torrent of
abusive and silly posturing. It is not surprising that those who don't
actually know much about the region, those who haven't studied it, should be
taken in by it, I suppose.
I thought that your 'test' was a spoof, at first. Please tell me you don't
really believe that this was a collection of your understandings. If so, let
me ask a direct question: how much of your time do you want to invest in
studying the conflict for real? If you want to, let me know how many hours,
and I will try and fasion an appropriate reading list. But (a warning
<smile> ) it is a big subject with many facets, and for some has meant a
lifetime of study, quite literally. If there are themese, or specific
questions you would like to look into, I'll try and focus on readings that
are relevent to those. You will forgive me if I don't try and help you on
these questions by email: it would take hours, which I don't have to spare.
Another possibility you might consider is taking a course on the Middle East
at a local university. I know this may be asking more than you want, but
this is really what is needed.
Please be aware that 'the popular news' in the United States is hideously
biased on this matter, with the exception of Lehrer, Koppel, Rose, and a few
others.
I looked at the CMIP web site. It was pretty interesting, thanks. Please
note that it's personnel are closely affiliated with Israel, the Government
of Israel, and the World Zionist Organization ("About Us"). Even so, I can't
find in the report support for the statements you made regarding 'kill the
others'. I have no doubt that Palestinian textbooks are, when it comes to
describing Israel and the the conflict, anti-Israeli. I would be surprised
if it were otherwise, wouldn't you? Anger at Israel -- and especially its
current government, is pervasive within the Palestinian community. But this
doesn't amount to 'indoctrination' -- Israeli seizure of land and property,
the treatment of Palestinians, Israel's denial of the existence of the
Palestinian people -- all this accounts for the anger. In the same way,
Israelis are angry at the Palestinians. Historically, jewish immigrants to
Palestine thought they had found refuge there, only to find that the land
already had a people, the Palestinians, and that their goals for a Zionist
state were not welcome. This must have been heart-breaking. The Center
states that Israeli textbooks try and treat Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims
with dignity, which is excellent and they are to be commended. Their report
does not give enough information to know whether the history of the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict is covered fairly or in detail, which is of
course critical. For the record, I doubt that Palestinian text-books treat
this with objectivity, either!
Re. the millions dead, scenario: I think the concern you outline is
possible. Which is one of the reasons I spend my time in these discussions
with strangers on-line. It helps me think through how to express what has
and must happen in the region, and to help others deepen their own
knowledge, so that we can all assist, if only with our support for an
eventual settlement.
BTW, Israel already has a sizable nuclear bomb arsenal. The USSR and USA
spent much time and money trying to figure out how not to use their
arsenals. I worry that with the passions running loose around the
Palestinian-Israeli conflict, such caution and management care may not be
excerised.
I'm perplexed by the 'muslim textbook' phrase, and where it came from.
I went back and checked your original email: you did not use the phrase
'muslim textbook,' just 'textbook.' So I think you are owed an apology, and
I do so apolopgize for picking up on the wrong mutation of the phrase and
its attribution to you.
But, I do still find your 'test' and the answers you gave it a 'flight of
fancy' -- in that some of the answer are plain wrong, and others give a spin
to the situation that is not warranted.
Again, I wish I could do more, but I will give you a focused reading list if
you want to delve into all of this in a deeper way. It is a tremendously
interesting area, the Palestinians and Israelis both deserve our
understanding, and, on the part of Americans, our help in the
extraordinarily difficult job that lies ahead, crafting a viable peace
settlement.
Best regards,
Lawry
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk
> [mailto:owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk]On Behalf Of RISKYBIZ9@aol.com
> Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2002 11:29 PM
> To: moq_discuss@moq.org
> Subject: Re: MD Middle East Bias -- A Test
>
>
> Hi Lawry!
>
> Roger, I think it is important to confirm facts before posting them here,
> especially on a subject as tendentious as the Israeli-Palestinian
> conflict.
> And it is the obligation of the person asserting a fact, as the source of
> it, to back it up, not the person questioning it. The reason for this
> obligation is simple: you presumably have at least one example of such a
> textbook, and all you have to do is point to it, provide a three line
> citation. If you put the burden on your readers of disproving your
> statement, you are of course suggesting that the reader search all
> Palestinian textbooks, and only after this immense labor, assert that
> nothing that supports your assertion could be found. No, the burden of
> proof must rest with the person making the assertion. Can you imagine it
> being any other way?
>
> Lawry,
> I find this discussion kind of bizarro (due to no fault of yours
> though).
> First, Gav, David and Rod write in that those that disagree with them are
> victims of Orwellian brainwashing. In response to this unsupported
> rhetorical *assertion,* I collected a series of what I believed
> to be facts
> and presented them up for criticism, specifically asking them
> exactly where
> they see me as being brainwashed. They of course won't answer my
> post. You
> graciously jump in, but are now asking me to support the facts
> that I got off
> the popular news. All I can do is point you to sources on the internet.
> This of course doesn't prove a thing.
>
> As for the specific question, I found dozens of sources on Palestinian,
> Syrian and Arab textbooks, including an article on CNN where MS. Clinton
> expressed her dissapointment with the Palestinians on the issue.
> (and she is
> to the left of Gav)
>
> Here is one source:
> http://www.edume.org/
>
> More are available if you want. It seems unlikely that the story could be
> completely manufactured, but again, let me know if you think it was.
>
>
> L:
> When you say, a 'muslim textbook', you must say what you are referring to,
> if not the Qur'an. Look at it this way: if we saw a high school textbook
> about American history, would it make sense to characterize it as a
> 'christian textbook'? Please be aware that about 40% of the Palestinian
> refugees are Christian. Or would you say that Palestinian kids study from
> textbooks that are '40% christian and 60% muslim'? You see, it
> makes little
> sense. Now, factor in the reality that of all the Arab populations, the
> Palestinians are probably among the most secular. Why not just say 'a
> textbook' -- why slip in the note that it is 'muslim' when that is
> inaccurate?
>
> R:
> More Bizarro! I never wrote a "muslim textbook." Nargess wrote that!
> Please go back to the original text which was pasted at the bottom.
>
> As for your comment that "The future will not be brighter until both
> Palestinians and Israelis
> decide that a negotiated compromise peace settlement is best, and they
> pretty much have to decide this at the same time," I must
> disagree with the
> practicality of this idea. As stated earlier, there are too many
> forces that
> don't want peace. A settlement won't be reached with the current
> players.
> This is why I support starting off by giving them something
> significant and
> working toward final borders over time -- based upon peaceful
> behavior and
> control of terrorism.
>
> Finally, you write " More will die, yes. But millions? What is
> your thinking
> on a scenario
> that leads to millions dying?" My reasoning is that in 20 years
> or less one
> of the unstable states in the region will get a nuclear weapon
> (or extensive
> biological/chemical capabilities) and use it against Israel. Israel will
> strike back. Unless peace is attained and democracy is spread in
> the region,
> I see this scenario as frighteningly possible. Don't you?
>
> Rog
>
>
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:11 BST