Israel approves plan to uproot 30,000 Bedouin

Discussion in 'Politics' started by S.A.M., Sep 11, 2011.

  1. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    All individuals bear responsibility for their own intellects. Or, adult ones, anyway.

    So... you're attributing the proliferation of nationalism, to "the zionists?" Or... what?

    Yeah. That's why it's such a dead-end, destructive proposition. It's a means of consolation for the powerless, right up until they become empowered. Then it's a license for depravity. As we've seen in many instances of history, right up to the present, topical examples, no?

    I'm asking that people stop projecting these states and other identity groups onto individuals here, and then abusing them as tokens of such. Dividing the board up into apologists and revolutionaries, and then declaring holy war, as it were.

    Because said faction, in the specific instance of this community, is way more energetic, effective and influential. We've got a revolutionary phalanx with sufficient fury and self-righteousness - I'm trying to shore up the self-consciousness end. This being, as I see it, the major roadblock to a discourse that we could all be proud of.

    Ideally (and eventually), yes. But the priority is much shorter term - develop a shared consciousness with a useful perspective on peace.

    And SciForums, isn't that field. The actual players here are simply individuals of a range of backgrounds and locales, with no particular agency on the field you refer to.

    If one's commentary involves coming here to tear down and vilify some identity group - and involves relating to players here as tokens of such - then you're in the business of haranguing the community to death and should not hope to be treated otherwise in return.

    Nah, I don't buy that. Those puritan types fled Europe because their religion was unpopular with the local states, sure - but would have happily set up their own little theocracies here. It was the practical demands of power and solidarity that got us what separation we have. An America of competing confessional mini-states wouldn't have stood a chance against the European empires, and so they all had to get over it and come up with a state that would accomodate everyone.

    Look, I don't want to stake out an extreme position - people can gain insight from any situation, oppressive or otherwise, and sometimes they even manage to translate that insight into real progress. But if it were the case that victims tended, in general, to gain moral insight and growth from oppression, then the cycle of violence would have no persistence, and we'd be living in utopia already. Violence brutalizes, in every sense - the ultimate horror of oppression is not the immediate suffering involved, but the resultant corrosion of humanity and how this perpetuates violence and iniquity.

    Nah, that's not how the political dialectic works. At no point does anybody, abused or abuser, conceive of themselves as immoral. Everyone maintains a self-image that is justified and defending itself, at all times. Violence, then, weakens and severs the connections between these images, and this both amplifies their holds over their subjects and redefines them in increasingly oppositional terms. Eventually, this reaches the point where they can justify wanton cruelty towards the Other.

    Yes. Do you imagine that he sees me as some kind of ideological ally? If so you should ask him what he thinks - I expect you'll be surprised.

    I'm entitled to my opinion, sure. Am I supposed to feel bad for arguing it forcefully, or something?

    But since you're talking about details of who has agency to assess the appropriate level of "intellectualism," I presume you endorse the basic expectation?

    Or until S.A.M. gets exactly what she wants and that being everyone here toeing her line, apparently.

    And since when do you care about peace here? I thought you were happy with politics and world events as reflective of the underlying strident polarization and debased narratives. So shouldn't any and all threads dealing with Israel/Palestine be characterized by bitter hostility and mutual destruction?

    Look, all this fun bloviating and blogsmanship aside, I don't see where my basic stance is so unacceptable. I propose that S.A.M. can the nationality-baiting program, and in return I'll back her up on raising consciousness about injustice. I think our strengths would complement one another, and that the result would be admirable. I think the current arrangement is a waste of both of our energies and talents, and this frustrates me.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Good thing nobody in this thread did that, then.

    Don't you have a bridge to guard, or something?
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    FFS. Why believe that S.A.M. is trying to get "exactly what she wants"?

    Why not believe that her detractors are trying to get "exactly what they want?

    And what, exactly, is either trying to "get"?

    Reasoned debate? Not here, apparently. Insight? Into what, the opinions of other people? A bad hair day?

    Or is she really cunningly getting certain members to display their own style of bigoted rationale, and show off to everyone just how much they've been indoctrinated, by whatever agency? I think it's time we all grew up and tried to get along.

    But, I also think it isn't going to happen. So, instead, just keep forming your own opinions, of those who seem unable to look past the simplistic arguments. I mean, any actual Israeli will say the situation is more complex than we "westerners" can fathom. But is that just another cop-out, a decoy, an attempt to avoid facing reality?

    We all do that sort of thing, from time to time. But I'm personally getting a bit sick of seeing S.A.M. pilloried by what, to me, looks like a bunch of people with real misconsceptions about who Israelis are, and what the country really wants.

    Isn't that the kind of thing we should be discussing, instead of transparently bigoted opinions? Personally I can't see any difference between Hitler's idea of lebensraum and Netanyahu's idea of having enough land for what he obviously, and many Israelis particularly settlers, see as theirs by dint of birthright.

    It's fucked up, and what's even more fucked up is America's willing participation and its citizen's unquestioning belief in that same right, after they helped defeat Hitler and his aspirations for a greater Germany. I mean, WTF? Isn't that hypocrisy, and WTF is so despicable about saying it is?

    At least stop calling me names, grow a pair and say something meaningful. Admit that Americans seem to be suffering from collective amnesia and stop accusing me, or others, of calling Jews a bunch of Nazis, that is just fucking pathetic.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Oh noes!!!!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    The taboo on being anti-israel+muslim+female+coloured is actually far less now than it was when I arrived in 2006. If I have time I will dig up some old threads which were locked because the admin or moderator determined it as anti-semitic. Compare that with the kind of trash that was spewed about Muslims Christians on the same forum at the time and it was obvious to anyone with a brain cell that discourse at sciforums was/is heavily biased in favour of Jews/Israel/Zionism at sciforums. Of course seeing that I had strong opinions about American foreign policy and am a Muslim to boot, it was a triple whammy

    I've addressed the issue of this bias several times, for example here

    And since, I've discovered that things are much worse, outside in the real world for Palestinians, whose discourse is completely suppressed in the MMS because it is automatically considered antisemitic. In fact, the whole antisemitism taboo has become so ludicrous that it has no connection with the real world or sanity anymore

    See example:

    Now if I were to start a thread on the above, I would call it:

    "‘Jews should be sterilized’" - Sarah Grunfeld, York University student campaigning to have Jewish professor fired.

    because well that underlines the point of the discussion I want to have.
  8. Stoniphi obscurely fossiliferous Valued Senior Member

    Gee Arfy, I don't really know where to begin. :shrug:

    When I lived in sub Saharan Africa I knew many Bedjou. I have no doubt that they are still there, and there were many more than 30,000 of them living there at that time. Nowhere near Israel either. Still aren't, so using phrases like "exterminating the Bedouin" is way out to lunch (that means not real, not pertaining to actual factual reality). When viewed in the context of many previous threads and posts by the same person, it is MOTS, however.

    I have made studying trolls and troll tactics a pastime for many years. SF members and moderators routinely troll the fora here on a daily basis. This thread is rife with trolling bait posts, your post directed at me is just one such, not that there is anything wrong with that.

    I assume that you are relatively intelligent, so your simulated lack of understanding is just that - simulated.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    I deeply apologize if I have overestimated your intellectual capacity and ability to understand what is posted here, however. Unfortunately, I cannot be responsible for others inability to understand what myself and others here write. That is the responsibility of the reader.

    Otherwise, if someone chooses to troll the fora it should come as no surprise that they occasionally get called on that. When someone routinely posts up items that are logically inconsistent it should come as no great surprise to them that other folks do not believe what they say.

    I consider it a courtesy to gently convey my increasing lack of belief in their statements. Then they can consider the type of person I have proven myself to be and in that context they can choose to continue as they are or reevaluate their position as they wish. Many of us would consider this to be what is termed "rational discourse".

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  9. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    A bridge to guard?

    In an Islamic Caliphate some people are taxed differently, are restricted in which jobs they can hold, and are discriminated against by their belief. It's no different than Christendom and no different under Jewish Israeli Law.

    However, European Christians seemed to have moved past this and we have laws that explicitly protect religious freedom. Jews and Muslims in the ME OTOH have exactly the opposite. Why? Because they think it's what the magic Sky God wants! How f*cking stupid is that?

    I'll just take point #1. In response to legal discrimination based on religion expressed by taxing people differently depending on which religion they belong to.

    1. I think everyone should have to pay taxes. For examples, if Muslims are paying religious taxes, like zakat they should still pay federal, state and county taxes. Belonging or not belonging to a religion should not mean exemption from civic duties

    I think everyone should pay tax is a half-hearted attempt at weaseling out of the question. I asked should people be taxed differently due to their religion. So what if everyone should pay taxes. Big f*cking deal. Suppose Blacks were taxed differently to Whites. And the response is: Oh, everyone should pay some sort of tax and do some sort of civic duty. That's pure bullshit and if you cannot recognize prejudiced when you see it, then as I said, expect more war, more religious discrimination and it will go on and on and on and on.

    Not that it matters, but its HYPOCRITICAL and no one's going to take the side of a whining hypocrite. Yeah, people are generally like that.
  10. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Like I said everyone should pay civic taxes but religious tax, hmm, you think everyone should pay religious tax? In Egypt, the government wants to collect the zakat from its citizens and use it towards the country's debts. Now Egypts debt belongs to all its citizens. So, should the Copts pay zakat? What do you think? Should they be taxed differently based on their religion, or not? In such an instance, would you pay the religious tax of Muslims towards your country's debt?
  11. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    You seem to be presenting this as evidence that Israel is not exterminating the Bedouins. I had never heard of the Bedjou, so did a Google search. Google had not heard of them either, so suggested I had misspelled Bedjaoui and told me:

    "Mohammed Bedjaoui (Arabic: محمد بجاوي‎) (born September 21, 1929 in Sidi Bel-Abbes) is an Algerian diplomat and jurist ..."

    What are you talking about?

    When I say Israel has nearly completed its more than three decades long process of exterminating the Bedouins (less than one school bus load of school age kids now live - none in a generation more) I do not mean all the genes of that race are gone. For decades young Bedouin men of military service age have joined the IDF as a way to escape the humiliation and misery of confinement in the Negev "enclosure." Some no doubt have married Palestinians and a few even Jewish girls.

    The nomadic Bedouin culture (herding mainly black goats in the Sinai Negev deserts, with many primitive mud hut villages they occupied in the rainy season when grass was more locally available) was destroyed more than two decades ago. These villages were destroyed by bulldozers too, even their names were removed from all the maps.

    There are quite few Bedouins who fled the Israeli percussion into other Arab lands - they were not very welcome, mainly regarded as settled Europeans regard a band of Roma (proper term for Gypsies) passing thru. I don't know what has happen to them - mainly assimilation, some jailed and murdered, or just dying of their poor conditions, I assume. No where on earth, AFAIK, do Bedouins live in stable harmony with the environment as they did for more than 5000 years prior to the creation of Israel which wanted their land.

    Anyway, since you knew them, tell a little about these Bedjou; what is their life style (especially if they are nomads like the Bedouins). How they earn their living. Where they came from, etc. Then Google should pick up your post and not be, as me, totally ignorant of even the existence of the "Bedjou."
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 20, 2011
  12. Gustav Banned Banned


    the goatman does his thing
    sam fucks with him
    quad see an opportunity to abuse godwin, abuse sam by going off in a wholly unwarranted rant

    who is the real drama queen? who is throwing the hissy fits here?
    the goatman and sam, who focuses on the topic? or quad with his hysterical tangents?

    contrary to his assertions most here appreciate the significance of the holocaust and in no way would any alleged godwin violation minimize said significance. we were not born yesterday. are we fraggle's highschool kids? who exactly is the audience in sci?

    there is nothing extraordinary about the analogy. it references actual instances that are comparable to some degree to what is happening now in the desert. as such it can be allowed to stand

    logic demands it and to hell with personal aesthetics and the consequent emoting. a stiff upper lip please

    he could be drunk, yes? or perhaps a hallucinogen since he seems to have hallucinated a non-existent tribe?

  13. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    I actually agreed with SAM's argument if you hadn't noticed. She changed my mind, she how that works?
  14. Gustav Banned Banned



    and all that is in evidence in this thread? go look at the op, the subsequent dialogue and reconcile with the above

    if it were only that simple. opinion on a topical matter? yes of course. opinion on members? take it to sfog and crucify them. same goes for other procedural matters. and no. i have no expectations of anyone that signs up here except for a reasonable compliance with the tos

    the reason for this suggestion is because you are not content to simply lob a bomb, a one liner, a kickass rebuttal and leave it at that. your harangue at sam has been going on for frikking years(?) and you rather than sam, have become the distraction.

    i do not generally extort people to be anything, quad. what they lay on the table is what i deal with. if i do, it is because of an intent to troll. it is a convenient way of putting them on the defensive and that makes my endgame all the more easier

    lets eyeball your rhetoric for a second.....

    tear down and vilify.....sufficient fury and self-righteousness.........declaring holy war.........stop projecting.........Violence brutalizes.........perpetuates violence and iniquity.........corrosion of humanity.........wanton cruelty......... bitter hostility and mutual destruction.........nationality-baiting program.........injustice.........dead-end, destructive proposition.........license for depravity.........................................................this frustrates me

    ...jaw dropping shit, quad
    Last edited: Sep 20, 2011
  15. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    I consider it trivial to see that you yourself are quite an accomplished troll, in that case.
    You've contributed nothing but trolling. If you're trying to somehow vindicate yourself, it isn't working for me.

    When are you going to say something?
    No, scrub that, I'm not sure you have the ability to overcome your own prejudice, which plainly you are simply projecting here.
  16. Gustav Banned Banned


    posturing is so much more fun.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  17. CptBork Valued Senior Member

    Billy T, I just wanted to say I appreciate your take on the situation. That's how I looked at it too- yet another instance of a people seeking to do more with the land than what its existing inhabitants are doing with it at present, and thus usurping their rights. I'm sure in a properly functioning democracy, the Bedouins would have the means to argue that their ability to do more with the land has itself been hindered and restricted in the first place, but I don't think Israel is at that stage yet, or has certainly regressed if it ever once was.

    One could argue in Israel's favour that the Bedouin are (supposedly) going to be compensated for their troubles, and claim that the quality of life will be better in the more populated areas they're supposed to be moved to. On the other hand, one could easily ask Israelis the following: If it's so easy and painless to move 30 000 people out of an area where their presence is supposedly counterproductive, then why all the complaints about the pain and trauma of evacuating roughly an equal number of Jews out of the warzone in Gaza? Why should such a policy not apply to Jews and settlers in general?

    The settlements in Gaza used to come under rocket fire on an even more regular basis than what Israel proper was normally experiencing prior to Cast Lead, so I'd like to see an Israeli official try to explain how sending civilians to absorb that rocket fire (and stationing an even larger number of soldiers there just to protect them) is more productive for the state than letting a few thousand Bedouins living on a tiny fraction of the Negev just do their own thing. A lot of IDF troops are Bedouin too from what I hear- great way to decrease the loyalty and troop supply at a time when the country supposedly needs it more than ever.

    Edit: A correction is in order- it wasn't even 10 000 settlers they evacuated from Gaza, far less than the 30 000 Bedouins they want to relocate. I'd like to see an Israeli official explain the "logic" here- preferably they should pick an official who doesn't have a South African accent to deliver the "justification".
    Last edited: Sep 21, 2011
  18. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    their hasn't been a caliphate in centuries. so your using an anchronism which incidently only shows your own extreme bias.
  19. nirakar ( i ^ i ) Registered Senior Member

    I think what the European settlers did to the native Americans is a better parallel to what is being done to Palestinians than What the Nazi's did.

    European Settlers wanted the land without it's people and felt that it was Gods will that they should have that land.

    Germany was about creating a Germanness where there had been none. Germans created the word "antisemitism" as a justification of their persecution of Jews. The thirty years war which killed several million people around what would become Germany made religious intolerance taboo in Germany so any intolerance had to be dressed up as the more socially acceptable ethnic or racial Intolerance.

    The point of the intolerance was not a desire for Jewish property. The point of the intolerance was to be used as an aid in creating a German identity. Until 60 years before WW2 there had been no Germany. The question that created the holocaust was "what is a German?". The need to kill Jews as if they were a dangerous disease came from the need to not feel guilt for the expulsion of Jews from German society by justifying the expulsion as necessary for human purification. The Expulsion of Jews in turn was done to try and inculcate the value of Germanness to the people who were adopting a German identity.

    Ironically it is the taboo against ethnic cleansing and genocide that came about as a result of the reaction against Hitler that protects the Palestinians from being treated much worse than they are being treated. This ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians by Israel is remarkably slow and gentle by the standard of historic ethnic cleansings. Israel wants to ethnically cleanse the region under there control without being accused of ethnic cleansing. Quite a difficult task.

    The Bedouins must be moved to a reservation so that Israel can have their land.

    Funny thing is that the Negav Bedouins may be the most genetically Jewish people on earth. If God exists god has quite a sense of humor. If Advaita (what I think is Advaita, bot an expert) is wrong and good, evil, suffering and pleasure are not illusions but rather are real and if god still exists then god has a sadistic sense of humor. Jews, chosen people but chosen for what?
  20. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    There should never be a religious tax. Religious should be kept out of the public sphere - government foremost. If someone wants to donate their personal income to a church, mosque, synagogue, go for it. But TAX them? No. Nope. And No.

    Which means the State must be Secular. Pretty much EVERYONE from East to West figured this shit out like, over a century ago.
  21. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    You don't need a Caliphate to maintain State sanctioned religious bigotry. I'd argue a Caliphate is actually a by product. The problem is the culture of Religious Bigotry and I'm waiting for SAM to denounce State sanctioned religious based TAX. See, if she can't even make that one small step, then you can can kiss goodbye any dream of Jews and Muslims living together in peace. It isn't going to happen.
  22. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Right so you are arguing that everyone should pay civic taxes but not religious taxes. Which is what I said. Note that all religious taxes are paid by all religious peoples to whatever authority they recognise. Whether it is the plate passed around in church, or zakat in Ramadan or whatever tax it is that Jews pay to maintain their religious institutions - these taxes are paid regardless of the civic taxes. In the US the government uses public taxes to maintain religious schools and churches by exempting them from tax. This facility is available to all religious institutions that are tax exempt.

    They could of course, remove the tax exemption and undertake to maintain the religious institutions themselves

    Whats your preference? Currently you live in the same system as under the Caliphate. Those who pay religious dues are exempt from other taxes which everyone else pays and some. In Saudi Arabia, no one, Muslim or otherwise, pays any taxes and everyone gets free healthcare. So taxation or lack thereof is a poor indicator of religious tolerance.

    I find you singularly impractical when it comes to civic sense. I also note that in a thread about ethnic cleansing of the Bedouins you are arguing about religious taxes of an empire that no longer exists and had nothing to do with the Negev Bedouins and is irrelevant in all Muslim majority countries TODAY. Its not surprising that once again, Americans want to punish Palestinians for what they have not done. Its just one more example of how Palestinians are oppressed in western discourse.
    Last edited: Sep 21, 2011
  23. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    No, I'm arguing there should never BE a religious TAX. If one wants to donate to a church that's fine.

    Those are donations not taxes. They are given freely and there that State does not stand between the individual and donation plate.

    Just as donating to a charity is not a TAX; it's a donation.
    When you leave a tip, that's also a donation. It's not a tax.

    A tax is imposed by the State onto the Individual. Do you agree that it would be immoral for the State to impose different types of taxes on different individuals based on their religious belief?

    Whether religious "Organizations" or "Institutions" should pay tax is a different topic. I'm talking about the Individual.

    Should religious discrimination play a role in taxation?
    Should religious discrimination play a role in employment opportunity?
    Should religious discrimination play a role in Citizenship?

    Now, think about Iran, Malaysia, Indonesia, Israel, Egypt, KSA, Pakistan and etc... all of these societies legally discriminate based on religion. In some you are "born" whatever your parents religion is and have little or no chance of changing that. Why? Well, because the people who make up these societies want it that way. If not, it wouldn't be like that. So long as they are, there will always be people of the minority who are shit upon. The thing that I find interesting, is the majority never really gives a crap. They don't care so long as their religion, which is always the Only True One, is on top.

    IMO both people are religious bigots and thus we'll continue to see the sorts of out-comes that are derived from bigotry. Just as we did and do in the USA when it comes to skin-color bigotry. Nothing good ever comes from it. Thank the Gods we at least developed to the point where we erased the skin color bigotry off the books. Could you imagine how worse things would be if we hadn't??? Look at the ME, that's how worse.

    These points are directly relevant to the thread topic as this IS the reason why Arabs (Bedouin or Palestinian) are discriminated against in Israel. However, because Jews and other religious minorities are so heavily discriminated against in the States surrounding Israel, no one really blames them for it because it's seen as a reaction to the sea of religious hate that surrounds them. You can click onto YouTube and easily find mainstream TV where Jews are referred to as pigs - in kiddy shows :bugeye:

    As I said, it's a tiny peace of crap land, nothing compared with the massive continents of "Islamic" states that surround them. And that's how most people view this.

    Me, what I see is two parties that are both immoral and happily so. I do not expect to see any sort of resolution and in that sense I've never been disappointed in my expectations. Sure, it'd be wonderful if people were properly educated, and these states were secular - but we both know that is not going to happen. We're barely able to maintain the uneasy equilibrium we have in the USA. The religious right would only love to reassert itself into public life. Europe, Japan, China, maybe Russia, they seem like they've moved to "being" secular societies as well as states. In the USA this isn't, yet, the case (although it's coming). I imagine it will take a couple more generations in the ME before they get to the state we're at now.
    Last edited: Sep 22, 2011

Share This Page