Tyranny of the Minorities

I think the "only one of them made headlines" part is particularly pertinent in light of the many recent discussions. These things happen... Muslim moderates are out there, and they are speaking out here and elsewhere. But that is not where most of the mainstream press coverage is, and then people say it doesn't happen. There is a difference between whether it happens and whether it is covered in the mainstream press.

0 Replies

Quote:

Muslim moderates are out there, and they are speaking out here and elsewhere. But that is not where most of the mainstream press coverage is,

You're so right. Sad

And it is so very unfortunate.

0 Replies

Shavit's piece is remarkable sane. There have been voices like his in Israel all along, but we often hear a more strident voice over here in North America...the "Israel right or wrong" crowd.

It's tough to know how the pivotal power of the extremists in Israel might finally be overcome. Sharon doesn't have a lot of credibility as someone who might actually change tact and move against them substantially. He also lacks credibility in the area of settlement, as he's long been connected with folks who wish settlement to increase and expand, and his words and deeds are more commonly in oppoisition than in agreement on the issue.

At the same time (sorry fox), we need to be alert to these same tendencies in the US. Extremist theocratic-leaning voices have gained considerable power in the Republican party as well. They, of course, don't see themselves as a civil danger, rather the opposite, in the same way that extremists in Israel and in Muslim nations believe they are the true solution.

For the last couple of decades, folks like Isaiah Berlin have been suggesting that the modern world was displaying tendencies to organize itself less around national identities and more around religious and ethnic identities. It's worrisome.

0 Replies

I think people almost everywhere have largely become too polarized to have constructive debate.

What if the 'theocrats' were afforded the same respect as the 'anti-theocrats' and vice versa? What if we could have dialogue acknowledging that both have some valid points of view worthy of consideration. What if we would commit to reasonable compromise instead of oneupmanship?

For instance, when Sharon, supported by Bush, proposed to relinquish control over a good deal of the occupied lands controlled by Israel, this was a reasonable compromise. It did not spit in the face of those who believed Israel had no duty to relinquish any land and it afforded opportunity to non Israelis who wanted more control of their destiny.

But alas. The militant Zionists of Israel were in no mood to compromise nor were those forming the loud chorus of "foul!" when ALL the occupied lands were not relinquished.

And the net result was that nobody was any better off than before.

0 Replies

"when Sharon, supported by Bush, proposed to relinquish control over a good deal of the occupied lands controlled by Israel, this was a reasonable compromise"

Foxfyre how is this a reasonable compramise. the unilateral withdrawal is against the roadmap to peace. what sharon has done in building his wall and announcing his plan to pull out of gaza only undermines the peaceplan. and by the way it is not accupied land under israeli control, it is land occupied by israel. the settlements there are illegal under the genava accords and also in violation of UN resolutions, yet you still have the audacity (and the ignorance) to call that a reasonable compromise. bush's support of sharon on this issue has once again demonstrated that the us is not an honest broker of peace, and it is taking sides.

By the way if you read my last post in the following thread

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=675397#675397

you may gain a little perspective on the palestinian-israeli conflict. and also I am still waiting for an answer to the question I pose to you in that post.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I think people almost everywhere have largely become too polarized to have constructive debate.

What if the 'theocrats' were afforded the same respect as the 'anti-theocrats' and vice versa? What if we could have dialogue acknowledging that both have some valid points of view worthy of consideration. What if we would commit to reasonable compromise instead of oneupmanship?

For instance, when Sharon, supported by Bush, proposed to relinquish control over a good deal of the occupied lands controlled by Israel, this was a reasonable compromise. It did not spit in the face of those who believed Israel had no duty to relinquish any land and it afforded opportunity to non Israelis who wanted more control of their destiny.

But alas. The militant Zionists of Israel were in no mood to compromise nor were those forming the loud chorus of "foul!" when ALL the occupied lands were not relinquished.

And the net result was that nobody was any better off than before.

Indeed. And sadly.

0 Replies

yilmaz, you make my point. There are strong arguments for both sides: a) Israel successfully fought off an unprovoked and aggressive assault; the occupied lands are valid spoils of war and necessary to Israel's security and Israel has no duty to relinquish them vs b) Israel has no right to the occupied lands and should relinquish them immediately.

How in the world is it a bad thing for anybody for Israel to relinquish part/most of the occupied territory? How is it better to relinquish none?

How is not giving a little now and then continuing the negotiations toward additional compromise not a good way to go?

Why do some people insist on all or nothing in both little things and big things?

0 Replies

I'm fascinated by all this intellectual criticism of Israel refusing to give back all the land that was legally captured after they acted in self defense. After they were attacked by Arab countries-------where is the outrage that Syria is still occupying Lebanon-----yes the word is occupation but here it is not a dirty word like it is for UGLY AMERICAN OCCUPATION OF IRAQ.

WHAT A DISGUSTING DOUBLE STANDARD EXHIBITED ON THESE PAGES

0 Replies

This thread seems more appropriate under the International News link.

0 Replies

fox

It seems quite apparent that your suggested compromise is precisely the sort of notion which Sharon and others have been counting on.

That is, at whatever future point where the status quo became broadly agreed to be untenable, then Israel would have already occupied huges areas of Palestinian land. So they could give back some small portion (not including the areas with water, for example) and say, "Look how we are just asking for a fair compromise."

If it were my ambassadorial task to resolve this matter, I don't know how I'd do that. But what Sharon, and the others who have supported these settlements (and the path of the wall, and the tearing down of so many homes, etc) have engaged in is a grave injustice. And, as yilmaz says, it has been illegal under international accords.

0 Replies

the bitter truth here may be (and i say 'may' since i have no evidence) that the current thrust of the 'press' in general, in spite of the fact that it tends to gravitate toward the 'sensational', seems to be to maintain the negative pressure on the "W" administration, to minimize the chances of his re-election.

While i totally support this 'tilt' to the news (in spite of the fact that there should be no 'tilt' to news) as it reinforces my wishes, the result is that the more sane voices of moderation in the world are not heard.

0 Replies

Bo

I don't interpret it that way.

Modern press/media is changed from what it was two decades ago or more. Hardly anyone has a foreign office any longer, for example. Corporate notions have overtaken earlier notions of press as watchdog. Foreign offices are expensive, so they get cut. Investigative reporting is expensive, so it doesn't get well funded. These aren't absolutes, but the trends are real.

A consequence of this (along with the electronic factors) lead to a new media which is in follow-the-pack mode. That goes a long way to explaining the press concentrating on the Clinton sex scandal, on OJ, and now on Bush. It is not best understood (a caveat in a bit) as anti-Bush, but simply as knee-jerk and despicably shallow.

That applies to the mainstream. The caveat is what Alterman and others describe...that a second tier (we might say) media has been purposefully created to forward a deeply conservative PR line and agenda.

0 Replies

Blatham, your remarks would suggest that you may support those who oppose Israel and do not see Israel's point of view who sees that the occupied lands were the result of an unprovoked military attack fostered by the very ones who now still oppose them. This is the paradox that must be addressed before any solutions will be forthcoming I think.

It is the same paradox that provokes a dedicated outrage against Israel for how they address their 'Palestinian problem' when there is no corresponding outrage at the Palestinians who seem to provoke extreme reaction from the Israelis and no corresponding outrage at surrounding countries who treat their people with much more disrespect and/or disdain.

How can any compromise be forthcoming when compromise is not seen as a valid option?

And BoGoWo I agree wholeheartedly. I understand those who oppose GWB and (perhaps secretly?) cheer the liberal media who engineers news reporting to further his ouster. But I think you (and maybe also Blatham)also recognize the paradox there. A media that does it to the 'other guy' is also capable of goring your ox as well. (Terrible metaphor I know but I gotta get to work and can't come up with anything better.)

0 Replies

Interesting, BoGoWo, as I'd say the opposite -- that it is in Bush's interest to keep the human side of Muslims out of the press, to keep them angry and dangerous ciphers. The coverage I've seen of moderate Muslims has tended to be from the left-leaning press.

I certainly agree with the all or nothing aspect, Foxfyre.

Another random thought, if it's OK (this thread is already going a few different directions), that one thing I have thought of while reading the recent discussions about "why don't the moderate Muslims say something??" is the discussion you and I had, Foxfyre, about criticizing Bush. To generalize, the people who are saying "Where are those moderate Muslims??" are the same ones who rarely or never say anything bad about Bush. Is there really nothing bad to say? Or is it maybe some of the same aspects, that they don't want to concede in the face of pressure from the "other side"?

0 Replies

in spite of the fact Fox; that your metaphore gave me a sore 'ox';
i know what you mean! Laughing

0 Replies

Quote:

Blatham, your remarks would suggest that you may support those who oppose Israel and do not see Israel's point of view who sees that the occupied lands were the result of an unprovoked military attack fostered by the very ones who now still oppose them. This is the paradox that must be addressed before any solutions will be forthcoming I think.

How much land and oppression does that long ago attack justify? How ought the UN resolutions and other international agreements to fit into the equation?

Clearly compromises have to be made. But the term itself can be rather badly misused. I kidnap five of your kids and agee, as compromise, to give three back.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

Interesting, BoGoWo, as I'd say the opposite -- that it is in Bush's interest to keep the human side of Muslims out of the press, to keep them angry and dangerous ciphers. The coverage I've seen of moderate Muslims has tended to be from the left-leaning press.

I certainly agree with the all or nothing aspect, Foxfyre.

Another random thought, if it's OK (this thread is already going a few different directions), that one thing I have thought of while reading the recent discussions about "why don't the moderate Muslims say something??" is the discussion you and I had, Foxfyre, about criticizing Bush. To generalize, the people who are saying "Where are those moderate Muslims??" are the same ones who rarely or never say anything bad about Bush. Is there really nothing bad to say? Or is it maybe some of the same aspects, that they don't want to concede in the face of pressure from the "other side"?

this whole 'schmozzle' seems to be the reversal of opposites!

and there seem to be a lot of 'moderate' Republicans 'posturing' for a position at the rail for when time comes to leave the sinking ship!

0 Replies

Quote:

are the same ones who rarely or never say anything bad about Bush. Is there really nothing bad to say? Or is it maybe some of the same aspects, that they don't want to concede in the face of pressure from the "other side"?

I have occasionally posted in several different threads my problems with Bush and some of the policies he has put out there. It was almost amusing that some were so anxious to discredit me that they took HIS side when I criticized him though. Smile

Generally any effort to actually discuss something goes right over too many people's heads and they go right on with mindless bashing or making ME the issue with no interest in debating an issue, especially if the outcome might actually favor the bashee. This makes discussions unproductive and boring as hell, at least for me. So I usually just move on. I would really like to be able to discuss issues without that kind of polarization. If we could manage some threads like that, I think we 'right wingers' would appear a little less extreme in our viewpoints.

But as the thesis of this thread implies, it is too often the minority that controls the debate. (Present company excepted. I am enjoying this discussion.)

0 Replies

The whole middle east/Israel thing smacks to me of "guilt trip".

The western world allows hideous atrocities to be perpetrated upon the European Jewish community (the Hollocost), and looks the other way!
and then many years later, a guilt ridden world looks on tacitly while upon nothing more than an ancient, religious claim, the land of the Israelites is reclaimed by a people many many generations removed from the original users of this land, and the current legitimate settlers are 'cast out' to use the biblical term, from what by any legitimate court, would be their birthright, not by evil people, but by the remnants of a severely mistreated genetically related group.

Where is justice here, and what place does compromise have in its reclamation?

If one were to attempt to make an insoluble puzzle, where would one find more suitable 'pieces'?

0 Replies

Tyranny of the Minorities

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know