Arab Apartheid

[Mosby]

In recent months, Egyptian authorities have finally began granting Egyptian citizenship to children born to Egyptian mothers and Palestinian fathers.

So far, according to Palestinian sources, more than 500 children have been issued Egyptian passports that enable them legally to live and work in Egypt without having to worry about being detained or deported. The Palestinian population in Egypt is estimated at approximately 100,000.

Egypt is only one of several Arab countries that have always subjected Palestinians to apartheid systems and discriminatory laws.

With the exception of Jordan, the Arab countries have refused to grant their citizenship to Palestinians. Arab governments claimed that this measure was aimed at "protecting the Palestinian identity" of the Palestinians so that one day they would be able to return to their original homes inside Israel.

http://www.hudson-ny.org/2695/arab-apartheid

[vminfla]

1. A positive step forwards to integration

This pattern of enforced victimhood of arabs with "palestinian identities" needs to come to a stop. No other multi-generational "refugee" crisis exists in the world. Yet, the arab world inflicts it upon their own gleefully.

[Violet_Crumble]

3. 'Arabs with "palestinian identities"?

Why not just say Palestinians? Would you have a problem with it if someone were to start refusing to refer to Israelis as Israelis, but called them 'Jews with "israeli identities"'?

btw, of course there's other multi generational refugee crisis's. Just because you aren't aware of them doesn't mean they don't exist. There's Burma and the long-running refugee crisis there...

[Mosby]

15. do the burmese refugees have their own UN refugee org?

Last edited Sun Dec 25, 2011, 12:19 AM - Edit history (1)

No they don't.

They are also being resettled in other countries (including the US) which is typical for refugees of a conflict. Palestinian refugees seem to be an exception to all the UN rules.

[Violet_Crumble]

39. My point was to show the person I replied to that their claim was incorrect...

I'm really not interested into getting into it with someone who thinks every refugee group should have its own special organisation at the UN. I suggest you do some reading on the establishment of both the UNHCR and UNRWA to understand why UNRWA was established...

btw, yr totally incorrect in yr last comment. Palestinians refugees have moved here and settled into new lives, so I'm not sure what point, if any, yr trying to make...

[King_David]

47. No , actually he is 100 % correct.

And the reasons 'for' are irrelevant to the fact that Palestinian refugees are uniquely the only refugee group with their own special organization at the UN.
To their detriment.
Disbanding it would be best.

[Violet_Crumble]

49. What do you think who was 100% correct about?

There were two incorrect claims that I addressed in this sub-thread. The first was the incorrect claim that there's no other multi-generational refugee crisis elsewhere in the world. The second was that Palestinian refugees don't settle in other countries, unlike other refugees. So, which of those claims are you trying to say is 100% correct? Or do you think both of them are correct?

[Scootaloo]

57. And what happens when conflict is over in Burma?

Certainly those Burmese refugees have the option to go home in that case. They are afforded the right of return to their homeland, as are all refugees, under UN law.

What happens if the conflict ends between Israel and Palestine?

...Anyone? Anyone at all?

[Shaktimaan]

73. No.

There is no such thing as internationally recognized right of return for refugees who have resettled.
Nor is there even such a thing as "UN law". With a few rare exceptions UN resolutions are not even legally binding.

What happens if the conflict ends between Israel and Palestine?

That depends on the terms of the treaty ending the conflict, obviously.

[Scootaloo]

74. Oooooh, okay

The John Bolton school of thought. Gotcha.

[Shaktimaan]

75. typical.

People who can back up their assertions with facts don't usually have to resort to name-calling.
People who know they're wrong but don't want to admit it resort to name-calling.

[Scootaloo]

76. By all means, back up your facts

Refugees have the right of return. It's that simple.

Your response to this fact is to go "No they don't! And if they did, it doesn't count, because I say it doesn't. And even if it counted, no one has to pay attention to it."

That is, the John Bolton school of UN diplomacy. That's how Mr. Bolton worked in his position as the US representative to the United nations.

I'm sorry if you take being compared to a US Representative to the UN as an insult, but it doesn't change the truth of the matter; you hold that human rights, as defined by the UN, do not necessarily apply to people who you do not want them to apply to.

[Shaktimaan]

77. How does one prove a negative?

If refugees have the right of return then you should be able to show me why and what law grants it. There would be a history of events that are linked to it... both leading up to the law's implementation and then, later, examples demonstrating it being upheld or enforced.

But since there is not a law that explicitly RESTRICTS any right of return, I'm not sure what you expect me to show you as evidence.

I feel like I'm arguing with a creationist. "Prove that there's no God" he cries!
"I can't prove a negative." I respond. "How can one demonstrate that something does NOT exist?"
"Thus the fact of God's existence is proved again!" he exults with a faith unburdened by any need for verification.

Your response to this fact is to go "No they don't! And if they did, it doesn't count, because I say it doesn't. And even if it counted, no one has to pay attention to it."

Really? I just looked at what I wrote and it didn't look anything like that. To me, it looked like I was informing you that some of your ideas (like UN Law), were not really "facts" as you described them, but were actually "imaginary" (which is a very different thing than a fact), and in fact contradicted some of the UN's basic regulations. (Such as an almost absolute respect for member states' sovereignty, which a law like your "right of return" would necessarily violate.)

I'm sorry if you take being compared to a US Representative to the UN as an insult,

I accused you of name calling. Which is exactly what you did... refer to me using John Bolton's name. Beyond that, why are you sorry? You clearly meant it as an insult, didn't you?

but it doesn't change the truth of the matter; you hold that human rights, as defined by the UN, do not necessarily apply to people who you do not want them to apply to.

Wow, so that's the "truth of the matter" is it? An interesting "truth" to arrive at seeing as how you know virtually nothing about me and especially considering that I didn't say anything that even remotely supported your accusation. In the two sole posts I wrote to you I never revealed anything that indicated my personal beliefs at all, I merely corrected some of your erroneous assumptions by relaying relevant facts. You do know what a fact is, right? It is intrinsically unbiased; a fact is neither liberal nor conservative. A fact merely "is." For you to draw conclusions about my beliefs based on nothing more than my knowledge of certain UN protocols and refugee laws is more than just intellectually dishonest. It is absurd. But to draw such a SPECIFIC (and hateful), conclusion, (accusing me of supporting racism and oppression), and to then refer to it as "the truth of the matter" is both deeply weird and actually pretty worrisome.

But it does help to put your beliefs within a certain context. You clearly had no problem inventing this fallacy that I think human rights should only be applied to certain people and seemed comfortable calling it "the truth" and posting it in a place where the people who read it actually know me, and know how absurd a statement it is. Thus, you seem to really believe that it IS the truth. You really do think that I hold that belief, don't you?

I find that both strange and fascinating. But WRT our discussion it sheds a lot of light on how you came to think that the UN writes laws and that a universal right of return for refugees exists, and even why you believe in them so fervently. You seem to have the ability to make something up, (even if it is a totally imagined thing, lacking ANY evidence of its existence whatsoever), and then somehow BELIEVE in it for REAL, accepting it as objective, factual, truth!!!

It reminds me of how in India sometimes newly invented Gods or Goddesses are introduced during scripted movies only to then become accepted Gods in their own right by virtue of people actually believing in them and worshipping them. I think one was a Goddess in charge of electric washing machines. And now she's a real Hindu God! Cool, huh?

[Scootaloo]

78. Ever heard of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

Or the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights?

Of which, the US and Israel are signatories to both? This would very strongly imply that these two nations agree to the principles found in both and apply them in their own lawmaking?

What I know about you is that, by your own statement, refugees have no right of return.
"There is no such thing as internationally recognized right of return for refugees who have resettled. " to quote.

Which is factually incorrect. Every nation that has signed the UDHR and the ICCPR recognizes such a right, to all refugees. Multiple nations = International. See how that works?

Your argument, therefore, is a denial of human rights. Don't go accusing me of being "hatteful," when you're the one pointing at people and saying "No, people like you do not get human rights."

And no, I meant the reference to John Bolton as exactly what it was; he too believes that the UN conventions that the US has signed on should be selectively observed, depending on personal whim and belief. As you yourself are doing. You do not think that refugees have the right to return to their home, therefore you assert that such a right does not exist, if it does, then it doesn't apply, and if it applies, it shouldn't be followed.

Which makes me wonder.

What the fuck is your problem with the refugees of Burma, man?

[shira]

79. Experts: No legal basis for Palestinian refugee demands

"The interesting thing is that this approach is currently gaining more and more support in the UN. The international community's position that it is preferable to fully settle disputes than to recognize refugees' right of return supported by a recent ruling by the European Court of Human Rights. The court debated the right of the Greek refugees who were expelled from northern Cyprus in 1974, and five months ago it ruled that due to the time that has passed, it would be wrong to rectify the situation by allowing them to return to their homes and expelling those who currently live in the area."
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3931910,00.html

====================

That's legal precedent. A European Court of Human Rights recently ruled Greek refugees have no right of return. The Palestinians don't either.

[Scootaloo]

83. The European court ruled wrongly, then

Sucks to be a Greek Cypriot, I guess.

Sucks more that you're happy with such an obviously mistaken decision that fucks over a whole bunch of people, because it helps you "score points" or something.

So long as you're happy, I guess.

[shira]

85. Who says I'm happy? That's legal precedent. You're wrong. n/t

[Scootaloo]

88. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights says one thing.

The European court ruled against that for matters of political conveniance.

You're here supporting the court's decision, stripping human rights from Greek Cypriots, because you think it strengthens your own position that Palestinians should also be stripped of such human rights.

I would think that most people on a progressive site would be abhorred by a court decision telling someone "No, you do not have human rights, because they would be inconvenient."

Apparently I'd be wrong.

[shira]

89. Those interested in human rights realize repatriating Greek cypriots will open up old wounds...

...that will just lead to more fighting and bloodshed.

The same would happen WRT Palestinians/Israelis. THOSE human rights take precedence.

Besides, Palestinian refugees aren't being held in Arab camps for humanitarian reasons and you know that. Several generations now have been used as political weapons for the past 60+ years. There are Gazan refugees in Jerash Jordan right now who should be able to go back to Gaza now that the IDF is no longer there to stop them. So what's the problem? Do you actually care or are these people pawns you couldn't give a crap about?

[Scootaloo]

91. Your argument isn't holding up too well.

The argument itself is flimsy. It's like saying "Well, ma'am, we know that burglar stole all your diamonds, but, well you see, he gave them to his own girlfriend, and she'd be so upset if we confiscated them from her..." Basically just telling people being victimized "it's more conveniant for us to not get involved."

One would think that an international peacekeeping organization dedicated to the principles of human rights would be able to spare a few blue helmets to guard against said bloodshed and violence in the course of ensuring the human rights of others. But, well... Rwanda... Sudan... I guess not. Why do you suppose that is?

Your own worries over reopening wounds and more bloodshed are a little strange in the context being discussed as well. Does not Israel allow repatriation of any Jewish person from anywhere in the world? of course, this is Israel's right to choose to do so, but doesn't this flow of immigrants directly contribute to the colonization of non-Israeli land in the West bank? Doesn't that continue to keep wounds open, doesn't it continue to cause fighting and bloodshed?

And I'm sure that you, like so many others, are going to bluster about how you don't support that colonization. Good for you, but your opinion doesn't seem to be halting it. So we have a situation where one party has its right to theft and abuse protected, and the victims of these actions are told that it would just be too inconvenient to defend their rights, so suck it up.

And then, finally, you wish to lay sole blame at the feet of the other Arab nations. No, they don't give the Palestinians they harbor a fair shake. One only needs to look at the actions of Kuwait after the gulf war to know this. But... The Palestinians aren't really these nations' responsibility, either. They could be more gracious hosts, but they're still just hosts. The parties that created these refugees are the responsible parties. The parties charged with protecting the rights of these refugees are responsible.

As for the Jerash refugee camp, I don't know. Isn't Jordan on the east side of Israel, while Gaza is on the West? Doesn't Israel exercise control over the borders of Gaza? Has Israel said, "Hey, Jerash refugees, come on through"? You tell me.

[Shaktimaan]

94. why doesn't the UN get involved protecting people more often?

Pretty simple really... it's fucking dangerous and they have no real stake in it. Are YOU going to go risk your life to protect someone from a country you've never heard of whose plight has no impact whatsoever on your life or your nation's interests? Does it matter if you knew that the militants might force you to eat your comrades if you get captured? Who the fuck would want to get involved in that?

Just look at how well the UN upheld its responsibility in Lebanon to keep Hezbollah from rearming. They got a mandate and a huge influx of troops to do the job and then... immediately said "Fuck THAT! We'll hang out here but we're not engaging ANYONE and we sure aren't going to try and keep those Hezbollah guys from rearming. They'd KILL US!" Aaaand so much for UN peacekeepers.

But... The Palestinians aren't really these nations' responsibility, either.

Oh BULLSHIT!!! Give me a BREAK! I'm so sick of that hedge. Od course they're responsible. They put them in CAMPS for chrissake. I'm sorry, but you can't excuse 60 years of oppression and disenfranchisement by saying "Oh but they don't have any responsibility to refrain from crushing them." Sorry. That doesn't fly. Every Arab state was deeply involved with creating this situation, many moreso than Israel. They're responsible alright.

The parties that created these refugees are the responsible parties. The parties charged with protecting the rights of these refugees are responsible.

So, who then? Egypt and Jordan? They're the ones who expressly prevented a Palestinian state in the OPT in 1949 through 1967. And Jordan had something like 2 million Palestinian citizens that it just dumped in 1988. You're saying that these states had no responsibility for their own CITIZENS!?

All these states also expelled their Jewish citizens, who were absorbed by Israel. So somehow all these wealthy states with tons of land get off scot free in your assessment while tiny Israel becomes responsible for absorbing every refugee from both sides of the conflict AND THEN ensuring the formation of a Palestinians state as well. So the Arabs get to expel everyone, Israel must become an Arab majority state, a second Arab majority (Arab ONLY really) state is installed next door and the Jews lose their right to self-determination because, of course, that's the only ethical thing to do.

[shira]

95. And yours is simply disingenuous...

The last time Palestinians and Jews lived together before any refugee crisis, there was a very bloody civil war going on. Allowing all sorts of Hamas and Islamic Jihad terrorists into Israel will, without question, lead to a bloodbath. This is what Arab leadership has called for since 1948. This has been their gameplan all along.

I'm amused that you and your colleagues seem to think that's the "humane" approach. The Hamas/Islamic Jihad, Iranian, Syrian "humanitarian approach". Sure, let's just start a bloodbath so we can claim we're caring humanitarians. Rightwing humanitarianism. I'm not impressed.

As for Gazan refugees from Jerash Jordan, they can get through the Rafah crossing that Egypt controls. Israel can do nothing to stop them. As for Palestinian treatment in other Arab lands (for example Apartheid in Lebanon) I expect a little more outrage and criticism from the pro-Palestinian crowd. I see nothing but excuses. You see, most refugees in those camps under Apartheid conditions were actually BORN in those countries. Many are 2nd and 3rd generation. In all other circumstances, those people would be citizens of those countries. THAT makes them the responsibility of the nations using them as political pawns.

[Shaktimaan]

96. The issue comes down to self-determination vs. territorial integrity

But there's no conflict of interest there. In that case territorial integrity always takes precedence as per according to the Helsinki Final Act of 1975, the UN, ICJ and international law experts. The sovereignty of existing states always wins out over slef-determination/assumed right of return.

There's no reason to think that I/P would be any different.

[Shaktimaan]

80. give me a break

The UDHR grants individuals the right to return to their own country. That's not a right of return for refugees.
For one thing, Palestinians don't have Israeli citizenship, nor did they ever.

ps- I have nothing against the refugees of Burma. I know quite a few and their families, having spent quite a bit of time in Burma. I'd be willing to wager I know quite a bit more about their plight than you do.

But based on your total misreading of the UDHR it appears that you have zero issues with making assumptions about anything, not bothering to even do a google search.

[Scootaloo]

84. Burma no longer exists; it's now Myanmar

Is that the basis of your assertion that the Burmese refugees have no right to go back to their home? Seems to be the basis for your stance on the Palestinians, of course; a semantic argument that deprives people of the rights clearly offered to them as human beings.

[Shaktimaan]

86. haha.

Hey dude,

you're the one supporting the military junta's version of national identity, not me. And when did I say that Burmese refugees have no right to return to their homes?

Now then, in terms of legality, semantics are crucial. If they merely meant "the area" or "their place of origin" then why didn't they SAY that? Because it isn't what they meant. They meant their COUNTRY. And there's no way that you can reasonably argue that the Palestinian refugees are actually Israeli.

If so then you'd also be arguing that most Pakistanis are Indian citizens. As are many Bangladeshis. And many Indians are Pakistani or Bangladeshi.

Or IS that your point?

[Scootaloo]

87. Now it's your turn to give me a break

You can't speak out both sides of your mouth. "They can't go home because the map says Israel now!" is your argument. By any path of logic, that also holds then that the refugees of Burma can't go home because there is no longer a "Burma." No Palestine, no Palestinian refugees, thus, no Burma, no Burmese refugees.

And you stated that there is no right to return for refugees. In your initial reply to me. Did you forget? Eat more salmon, omega 3 fatty acids are good for the memory.

I suppose you believe the same for refugees from the Punjab or Kashmir regions; there's no such countries, so they aren't entitled to return home? (Not that you believe that such an entitlement even exists anyway, of course)

Of course, you have to make the argument that the refugees of these places are for, some reason, exempt from their rights to return. Because if they're entitled to that human right, then so too are those Palestinians. And we can't have that, now can we? But, at least you're consistent in denying basic human rights to everyone, rather than just asserting that the group you hold a personal antipathy towards are a "special exception" to the rules.

[Shaktimaan]

90. I'm hardly changing my argument.

When you mentioned Burmese refugees I assumed you meant ethnic hill tribesmen like the Shan or Karen who have re-settled across the border in Thailand due to persecution. These people SHOULD qualify for re-settlement back in Burma (or Myanmar, whatever you wish to call it.) The name of the country changed, but it is very much the same country. With Israel we are talking about a split that occurred between ethnic groups, a series of international wars, and a population exchange between Arabs and Jews. It's totally different. That said, no RIGHT for them to re-settle back in Myanmar exists against the will of the current government. But WHY would they even want this? They fled persecution at the hands of the current regime. Should this government change then there's a good chance that they'll be welcomed back with equal rights.

Regarding Punjab and Kashmir, the specifics depends what refugees you're talking about. Do you mean refugees from partition? Because in that case, of course they don't have any right of return. THAT scenario is much more like Israel's. A single landmass split into two (then three.) A population exchange occurred and the refugees were subsequently given citizenship in their new respective homes.

But if you mean internally displaced refugees, they still don't qualify for any right of return but for different reasons. Internally displaced citizens of a state aren't technically refugees. They are still residing in their national state. There's no guarantee that someone living in a specific part of a specific state will always be able to live there.

Lastly, you left off an option. What about people like the former citizens of Jordan who were stripped of their citizenship in 1988 but left in their homes? In this case, as I understand it, while it is against the law to expel citizens like this, nothing guarantees them a right to return to Jordan. One of the issues that comes up regarding a situation like this is that nations have a very wide degree of autonomy within their own borders. If they say that a group of people are no longer citizens then there's not much anyone can do to change that. Sovereignty pretty much trumps all else in these cases.

Regarding Israel, the Palestinians SHOULD have a right of return, just not to Israel. These are Palestinians. They identify as such and should be able to return to whoever area the future Palestine occupies. Yes, some of them will end up living 20 or 30 miles from where they once were originally. Such is the price of war.

Now seriously, can you show my any similar case where a group of refugees was able to sue for right of return successfully?

[Scootaloo]

92. Yes, you are.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11341328#post57
"There is no such thing as internationally recognized right of return for refugees who have resettled. "

That's your argument. From your post. That you have claimed is not your argument, that you never said.

Of course it's "totally different." Because you want it to be. You keep making up new and more convoluted excuses for why "those people" don't actually get to have human rights. Excuse after excuse, shaky rationale after shaky rationale as to why some people are more human than others, and thus deserve their human rights more than others.

Aristotle is quoted as saying "The least initial deviation from the truth is multiplied later a thousandfold." That is, lies have a tendency to pile up, one after another, as the liar tries to defend each of their previous untruths.

People have a right to go back home once the fighting is done. People have a right to not be stolen from. People have a right to not be killed indiscriminately. All people, whether you like their religion, skin tone, language, or favorite style of haberdashery. All. People.

If you're going to keep arguing that this is not the case, at least you could do everyone a favor and come clean about your reasons for such arguments; it's not because of fiddly minutae in this document dating from that year in section 2, Article III, certainly. You just grasp that stuff as an excuse, a fig leaf.

[Shaktimaan]

93. Did you even read my post?

Because in every example I had a pretty consistent response.

Burma IS different because it is an example of a government oppressing its own citizens. As opposed to a civil war resulting in a partition and population exchanges. The Burmese would have a right to return provided they did not accept another nation's citizenship. (I think.) But that is on an individual basis. Point being, the distinction is what I always said it was... Burmese refugees were/are citizens of Myanmar.

Of course it's "totally different." Because you want it to be. You keep making up new and more convoluted excuses for why "those people" don't actually get to have human rights. Excuse after excuse, shaky rationale after shaky rationale as to why some people are more human than others, and thus deserve their human rights more than others.

Actually, my argument has always been exactly the same with no exceptions at all. It's pretty much just what I quoted from the UDHR.

People have a right to go back home once the fighting is done.

That depends on what you mean by "home." They have a right to return to their nation, sure. But they are not afforded the right to necessarily return to their exact house from before. That's absurd. In the examples we are talking about the wars all began as a result of ethnic strife. Returning to the status quo would be reinstitution the causes of the war in most cases.

If you're going to keep arguing that this is not the case, at least you could do everyone a favor and come clean about your reasons for such arguments; it's not because of fiddly minutae in this document dating from that year in section 2, Article III, certainly. You just grasp that stuff as an excuse, a fig leaf.

I'm not sure what you mean but the implication seems to be that you think I see the Palestinians as less than human or something equally odious. We're discussing simple facts, my opinion isn't very relevant. When Israel has broken the law I don't hesitate in pointing it out. But in this case you just happen to be wrong.

That said, you have thus far been unable to offer any tangible proof to support your position or any examples of your position being upheld and enforced. Why do YOU continue to cling to it?

[Ruby the Liberal]

16. There is the whole heritage vs religion question in there.

Lots of Jews (by heritage and/or religion) do not feel an association with Israel.

Arabs (as a people) can be from many regions.

No different, IMO, than Persians with Iranian identities. Not all Persians feel a connection to the country, but some do.

[vminfla]

26. Exactly

Arabs share a common heritage and culture, integration into Egypt, Jordan, and Syria that are underpopulated should be a simple thing. Yet, because the UNRWA has proven to be an ineffective interlocutor of Mideast peace, this has not occured.

[Ruby the Liberal]

36. There is a huge difference between

a community choosing not to assimilate and lose historical familiarity and one who is refused, denied and put into segregation camps. The Jewish heritage is to be a separate people, not to imtermix, intermingle or intermarry. Assimilation was unwelcome in the diaspora, but that was "accepted" (at least by my European family) as they did not want to assimilate into the secular communities and give up century old traditions in lieu of those of the host nation.

IMO, the whole "lest they lose their identity" is a bullshit ruse designed to keep a second class peoples so that the local norms, political representation and social services are not watered down due to a mass influx.

I may not have expressed this well, but my flame proof suit is engaged and I welcome discussion to clarify.

[vminfla]

44. Again, exactly

We have an arab population in Egypt that is not encouraged to assimilate, legally forced to remain distinct against their will, "lest they lose their identity". This arab apartheid is one of the greatest tragedies that one arab population has inflicted upon another.

[shira]

45. It's easy to distinguish between pro-Palestinian folks from...

....those who are anti-Israel.

Those who are anti-Israel will at best pay only a little lip service to Palestinian refugees living under genuine apartheid conditions forced upon them by the greater Arab world.

They couldn't care less about Palestinians as their interest in IP is motivated primarily by anti-Israel hate.

[Violet_Crumble]

40. No there's not. Look at the post I was replying to...

This is what was said: 'This pattern of enforced victimhood of arabs with "palestinian identities" needs to come to a stop. ' For some reason there's an inability or unwillingness to utter the nationality Palestinian unless it's in dit-dits, because in doing so, some people think they're successfully negating the Palestinians as a nationality. Why not just say Palestinian? My guess is for the same reason that some people can't utter the word 'Israel' and insist on calling it 'the Zionist entity' instead.

Sorry, but I haven't seen anyone refusing to refer to Iranians as Iranians, so it's not the same thing at all...

[vminfla]

46. Iranians are ethnically persian

If someone were to call Iranians "Iranians", they are refering to their national identity. If someone were to call Persians "Iranians", that may be an error if the Persian group in question is not nationally Iranian.

[Violet_Crumble]

50. I wasn't aware of anyone denying an Iranian nationality, ...

See, I've never encountered anyone who refuses to utter the word Iranian the way some folk refuse to refer to Palestinians as Palestinians, but instead call them Arabs or arabs with "palestinian identities".

I've got a question for you. Do you believe Palestinians have a national identity deserving of the same rights as other national groups?

[Ruby the Liberal]

48. Well, that wasn't what I was responding to, but since you brought it up

are you saying that the 60 years of 'refugee camps' was a boost (or in any way a positive influence on) the Palestinian cause?

How is it different than to to compare Iranians in exile? I obviously don't claim to speak for them as a group, but know more than a few quite well from the green revolution of 2009 (Europeans as well as Americans) who voluntarily make the comparison.

[Violet_Crumble]

51. Well, that WAS what I was responding to...

And you responded to me pointing out that someone who refuses to utter the word Palestinian unless it's got dit-dits around it or they're called Arabs, or even 'arabs with "palestinian identities" ' is attempting in a really clumsy way to deny the Palestinians are a national group, by comparing it to Iranians. As far as I'm aware, there aren't many folk who deny the Iranians are a national group and who refuse to utter the word Iranian.

Attempts to deny a nationality, whether it's Palestinian or Israeli (I've already mentioned those who do it by referring to Israel as the 'Zionist entity') are pretty ugly, imo. I'd be hoping there'd be very few here at DU who'd disagree with that...

That's the only thing I've brought up, btw....

[Ruby the Liberal]

55. You are right - I got confused as to which post was in response to which.

As for the Iranians, the ones I have worked with view their 'exile' from Iran as one that is self imposed - mostly from their parents or other elders - and they do not seek to set up Iranian camps, they assimilate into the country of their residence and live and work amongst everyone. No one has suggested that they will lose their "Iranian identity" for assimilating in this manner - yet no one seems to want to allow the Palestinians the same opportunity. I am speaking to Lebanon, Syria, Jordan - those who built cages around acreages and put up tents in order to "preserve" a sense of "nationality".

I realize this is a broad brush statement as I am attributing the characteristics of a handful of Persians in the UK, Switzerland, US to an entire group - but will give weight to that as the people I am referring to are in the media/translation industry and are activists in the green movement, so do tend to be the spox for their communities. What was the most striking to me in working with these folks was a deep love of their homeland and the desire to one day be able to return without being jailed as dissidents.

So, you may disagree that there is a correlation there, but it is off the charts on my scale of obvious.

[Violet_Crumble]

56. That's easy enough to do in longish threads...

I get the feeling we're talking past each other right now.

My initial point was about folk who refuse to utter the word Palestinian unless it's in dit-dits, as that's their way of clumsily denying that Palestinian is a nationality etc. You brought up Iranians as a comparison, but the thing is (and this is the crux of it), people aren't denying the existence of the Iranians as a people and a nationality. The poster I initially replied to hasn't uttered the word Palestinian once, though I might have missed the post where he slipped up and maybe did it once or twice. They're consistently referred to as Arabs, which gets confusing when he was talking a while back about the war of 1948, because I had no idea which Arabs he was talking about. If (pulling a name out of a hat here as an example) Shakti had said 'Arabs with 'Palestinian identities', that'd be a whole different matter, as Shakti does recognise the Palestinians as a nationality.

The attempts to deny the existence or nationality of a people by refusing to refer to their nationality is exactly the same as with those folk who refuse to utter the word 'Israel' and instead call it the 'Zionist entity'. I had the misfortune to encounter one of those people in RL in a tute for international relations where Israel and Sharon's relationship with the US neo-cons came up. After listening to her insist that Sharon was a neo-con (wrong because by its very nature only American politicians could be neo-cons) and hearing 'Zionist entity' for what seemed the zillionth time, I asked her why she couldn't just say Israel, especially as there's a lot more effort involved in getting out six sylabbles as opposed to two. Of course she didn't answer my question, but thankfully shut up after that and let the rest of us have a go talking

[Ruby the Liberal]

59. LOL! And point taken.

[Violet_Crumble]

70. On the subject of Iranians, have you watched Don't Tell My Mother I'm In Iran?

I'm a big fan of Diego Bunuel, and next to the episode when he was in North Korea, this was the most interesting episode of the series. If you haven't seen it, here's the link:

[Ruby the Liberal]

71. No, I have never heard of it and greatly appreciate the embed.

I am a huge fan of Persian culture. Sadly, the last movie I watched in the Iranian specific genre was Soyaya M, about 6 months ago. The actress who played Soraya was phenomenal - took my breath away. Her stoning scene took 5 days to film and she said she had nightmares for weeks afterwards from looking at the projected hatred from the male actors in that scene. It was definitely raw.

I need to watch something more positive.

[Ruby the Liberal]

72. Just finished this - and I like this guy.

Very personable.

It would have been very cool to have an interview with the wife of that basketball player (given his ring, and assuming she came to Iran with him).

The only two comments I would have are (i) the curiosity of the Qur'an reading/pronunciation contest given that Farsi and Arabic are distinct languages, as are the regional dialects in play and (ii) the attempt to promote a lack of religious persecution. Likely it is because the Bahá'u'lláh claims to be the next prophet after Mohammed, but for whatever reason, Baha'i are not exactly welcomed and are in fact targets of the authorities in Iran. Evin is full of them.

That said, this is really offtopic at this point, but this is why I really, really want a general Middle East forum here for this kind of stuff. Cultural items, regional news that isn't LBN/GD territory, and a place to house items of interest like this that aren't specific to I/P.

Thanks for sharing this - I enjoyed it.

[jimmie]

2. "protecting the Palestinian identity"=

" we really don't want you here...so get lost"

[King_David]

4. LOL

Everything is 'Apartheid' nowdays. LOL

[azurnoir]

5. I don't even have to look to know Khalid Abu Tomeh wrote this right?

for some "he one a da good 'ones'", I guess? nothing better than an Arab who makes career dogging other Arabs is there?

[pelsar]

6. ...don't go against your ethnic group.....

being condemned for not believing in what "your supposed to believe in because your an arab"....hmmm sure stinks of something, doesn't it....

[azurnoir]

9. Guess I right huh? if your familiar with abu Tomeh you know his work

and there is much criticism of both Palestinian leaders and other Arab leaders coming from Arab sources however unlike other Arab or Palestinian sources abu Tomeh has built his entire career on it

[pelsar]

27. no actually i didn't even read the whole article or bother with the author...

i just noticed a comment that basically says: if you don't go along with the ethnic group think that you were born into, then something is wrong with you.
_________

i find that type of statement, that kind of reaction rather reveling, thats all

[azurnoir]

29. ah so an Arab that makes his career being negative towards Arabs is okay with you I take it

hardly a surprise, tell us do you feel the same about say Gideon Levy?

[pelsar]

30. yes...an arab that is negative towards other arabs is perfectly fine with me....for a day or years

and i have no problem with Gideon Levy writing what he does, nor with Amira Hass. I may disagree with everything they write, but i have no problem with the fact that they are writing what they believe..... irreguardless of the cultural peer pressure etc for them to stop thinking and do whatever one else does and believes.

but i certainly enjoy your honesty...i wonder if your willing to actually write it out clearly, that you seem to believe in group think and that people should not have beliefs, let alone publish them when they go against their own ethnic identity.

i guess we can conclude from your posts that your not really a big fan of freedom of speech, freedom of thought and freedom of beliefs......neither are those on the right.

[azurnoir]

31. well you can conclude whatever you like however

I did not say abu Tomeh shouldn't write did I? nope I said I knew it was him due to the negative tone and the publication on which the OP was based, its named in the IP address in the link

[pelsar]

32. oh come on..now your "walking back"

just read back in your posts.....you clearly don't like the idea of an arab journalist who disagrees with much of the arab world and continually writes about.

you don't have to turn yourself in to a pretzel and pretend you didn't clearly write what you wrote. I have no idea why you don't like the concept of an arab who disagrees with what he sees in the arab world and writes about it, he certainly has better knowledge than some white, ivy league educated NY journalist......but we all have our biases, and yours have been exposed here...thats all, nothing special.

[azurnoir]

33. as I said you can draw your own conclusions

but that doesn't make them correct

[azurnoir]

37. lol where did I say abu Tomeh should not publish

you put stuff in that isn't there I pointed out that abu Tomeh writes negative stuff about other Arabs anything else is your own input and suppositions, which as I already pointed out

[pelsar]

41. english writing 101

so an Arab that makes his career being negative towards Arabs is okay with you I take it

this type of sentence is called having an implication....your implying via the question that you do not approve of an arab who makes a career about being negative towards other arabs.

(combined with your follow up, questioning my opinion towards israelis who do the same)

the beauty of such a statement/question is that, when called out on it, for what it is, the writer gets to put on their "who me?" expression and claim its just a simple question with no implications.

of course that works in courts of law, where the written word takes president over "implications", is standard with slimy politicians that talk to much as well as with 2yr olds who are just learning the language.

the rest of us, clearly understand the implications of such a statement for what it is. You don't like the concept of arabs who have a negative view of much of the arab culture, to which they were born and have the audacity to write about in attempt to change it.

one wonders if its just arabs writing against arabs you have a problem with or other ethnic groups?

[azurnoir]

42. your accusations say more about you than me your digging a dry well sir

I pointed out a truth about an journalist nothing more nothing less

[King_David]

34. That is EXACTLY the point !

You just never knew it when you posted that.

[azurnoir]

35. ah okay for Arabs but not Jews as at least one of your posts here points out

as you very plainly equate criticism of Israel with antisemitism

your right I did not know but strongly suspected that it did not work both ways for some thank again for the confirmation

lol though all it took was me saying that I knew it was abu Tomeh because of the negative tilt towards Arabs I purposely left out that it was also because he frequently writes for that publication too and lookey at the response it seems some are a bit over the top defensive/accusatory but do keep going its fun for me anyway

this has been a revealing thread indeed

[King_David]

38. Now this post of yours has the opposite meaning of your other post.. lol

Just saying.

[azurnoir]

43. which other post ? n/t

[King_David]

7. Ha Ha

The Chomsky ,Finklestein and Gilad Atzmon of the Arab World huh?

I guess it cuts both ways?

Thats it, right?

Ha Ha

[azurnoir]

8. Interesting that you put Chomsky and Finklestein who criticize Israel in the same category as

Gilad Atzmon an known antisemite

thanks that in itself says oh so much

in answer to "King_David
7. Ha Ha


The Chomsky ,Finklestein and Gilad Atzmon of the Arab World huh?

I guess it cuts both ways?

[King_David]

10. You seem to think abu Tomeh is a 'good Arab'

Same thing.

[azurnoir]

12. thanks again I guess I right about it being abu Tomeh? n/t

[King_David]

11. Strange you said he is not an antisemite and just an anti Zionist.

No?



http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=146734&mesg_id=146742

azurnoir (1000+ posts) Thu Aug-31-06 05:26 AM
Response to Original message
5. Even though I don't
necessarily agree with his analysis of the recent"war", Gilad Atzmon isn't an anti-Semitic. he is an anti-Zionist Israeli Jew who has served in the IDF.http://www.gilad.co.uk/

[azurnoir]

13. yes I did 5 years ago when I had not previously heard of him

but thanks for that pulling something from 5 years ago to what "get me" with smacks of whats the word.......

[King_David]

14. OK thanks for the explanation nt

[azurnoir]

28. well your diligence in searching is admirable not mention entertaining

as you had have gone through a number of posts to ferret out that one whether DU2 or Google was used

[LeftishBrit]

19. Atzmon???

Atzmon is an antisemitic lunatic, and comparing Chomsky with him, or for that matter comparing Abu Toameh with him, is a bridge too far.

[Dick Dastardly]

20. Here is some interesting video of Atzmon at the world famous Dingwalls in the Camden area of London.

&feature=related

[Dick Dastardly]

21. I dont know if we are allowed to post video like this but I just put a link in the post and it

seemed to automatically embed rather than just show the link?

[LeftishBrit]

18. 'Dogging other Arabs'?

I often disagree with Khalid Abu Toameh; but he's right on this one. The Arab states have generally treated Palestinians abominably, and yet got a free pass on it where Israel is (rightly) criticized and the Palestinian leadership is (also rightly) criticized. There's a fair bit of hypocrisy there, and I suspect that some of it is spelled O.I.L.

[azurnoir]

23. as of yet I have never read an article by abu Tomeh that was not negative towards other Arabs

as I pointed out there are other Arab journalists that are more even handed than Tomeh

[shira]

52. Ironic that this "Arab dogging" Toameh is a better advocate for Palestinians...

..than so-called pro-Palestinian advocates who are indifferent to what the Arab world has done to Palestinian refugees the last 63 years.

The difference between pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel. The latter only uses the Palestinian cause as a stick to beat Jews over the head with.

[Little Tich]

22. The Hudson Institute is a neocon think tank.

The article is also written by Khaled Abu Toameh. If there is any substance at all to the charges that are put forth, I'm sure there are other sources than the crappy Hudson Institute to cover them.

Btw, apartheid is a Big Word, and should not be used lightly.

[King_David]

24. The word APARTHEID is used liberally in this conflict. nt

[Little Tich]

25. I know what you mean. I wouldn't, however. nt

[vminfla]

53. 15 years of restrictions on construction in Lebanese PalArab camps

On January 1, 1997, the Lebanese government put into effect regulations that severely restrict bringing construction materials into Palestinian Arab camps in southern Lebanon.

For fifteen years, these camp residents who live in already dilapidated houses have had almost no recourse to repair it.

UNRWA downplays the issue:

Not only that, but in 2001 Lebanon passed a law outlawing Palestinian Arabs from purchasing land or for transferring land they already owned to their children, so the little amount of land that Palestinian Arabs do own in Lebanon is disappearing as the owners die.

The 15th anniversary of these regulations is coming up. Good luck reading about this anniversary in any English-language media besides here.

http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2011/12/15-years-of-restrictions-on.html

How many BDS proponents here are now willing to boycott Lebanon for this arab apartheid?

[Mosby]

54. The Nahr al-Barad camp is still in ruins

Last edited Fri Dec 30, 2011, 01:53 PM - Edit history (1)

after it was shelled by the lebanese army 4 1/2 years ago. If I recall correctly about 300 Palestinians were killed.







http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/gallery/2007/oct/30/internationalnews#/?picture=331112218&index=0

[shira]

58. And the silence of the "pro-Palestinian" camp is deafening.

Israel can't be blamed so who cares about these Palestinians?

[vminfla]

60. I'm still waiting for the comments...

Maybe someone will chime in about this arab on arab brutality.

[shira]

61. If the MSM, major NGO's, politicos, and academics aren't raising a big fuss...

...over what's happening with Palestinians in Lebanon, it's as if it never happened.

[King_David]

63. Shocking..

But no one cares... Unless the Jewish state is involved... In a bad way,.

[azurnoir]

65. and yet more taking full advantage of the new jury system as pictures were not allowed in I/P on DU2

rules apparently mean nothing these days ?

[King_David]

66. Photoshop ?

[azurnoir]

68. it should have read I/P apologies

if you were unable to comprehend that I do have sympathy and it has been edited if you need anything else clarified do let let me know ok?

[azurnoir]

64. well it is gratifying indeed to see the new jury system being taken full advantage of

Eldar of Zyon was not allowed on DU2 so kudo's

[azurnoir]

67. New schools, houses for Nahr al-Bared September 29, 2011 as opposed to 1/10

BARAKSAT/NAHR AL-BARED, Lebanon: More than four years after fighting forced Nahr al-Bared’s nearly 30,000 residents out of their homes, Wednesday saw the inauguration of the first set of new houses and schools in the camp.

But amid the pomp and circumstance surrounding the ceremony at what was once the country’s second most populous Palestinian refugee camp, including dance, song, ribbon cutting and speeches, frustration was also evident on the pavilion outside the newly opened schools.

A small group of protesters chanted in between and occasionally during the speeches, complaining of delays, small houses and alleged poor construction. One woman streamed across the crowd, demanding an audience – which she received – with the Palestinian ambassador.

On at least one concern raised by the dozen protesters, the existence of extensive delays, everyone agrees.

The first sector of the camp to be built, home to some 500 of the camp’s 5,500 families (around 30,000 people), was supposed to be completed in December 2010. At Monday’s inauguration UNRWA announced that 369 families, or 1,200 people, have returned to new homes.

The massive displacement and destruction that UNRWA and donor countries and agencies are now working to rebuild is the result of fighting between the Lebanese Army and Fatah al-Islam, which lasted from May to September 2007.

Read more: http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Local-News/2011/Sep-29/149990-new-schools-houses-for-nahr-al-bared.ashx#ixzz1i4SCzQX9
(The Daily Star :: Lebanon News :: http://www.dailystar.com.lb)

[shira]

69. Only 4 years later is Lebanon starting to rebuild there. Where were the flotillas? n/t

[azurnoir]

99. well I guess we'll stop hearing about how HRW is antiIsrael ect won't we

the stuff you've linked to proves that theory to be quite untrue thanks

[Mosby]

81. No Jews Allowed

Political movements and parties to protest Abu Hasira Festival

A number of political groups in Egypt announced Monday that they plan to protest at the Abu Hasira festival near the delta city of Damanhour.

The festival, scheduled for 9 to 10 January, is held on the annual anniversary of the death of Abu Hasira, whose mausoleum is located in the village of Damtu outside Damanhour.

The groups said they will form human shields to prevent any "Zionist" visitors from visiting Abu Hasira's tomb in the near future, saying that such a visit was unpopular, and unacceptable legally and politically, state-run news agency MENA said.

MENA reported that the groups also announced they would be organizing a public conference in Damtu to discuss development of the village, which suffers from a lack of basic services.

http://www.almasryalyoum.com/en/node/591936

[shira]

97. The so called pro-Palestinian crowd is really upset about this video. n/t