ISRAEL has finally conceded that air power alone will not defeat Hezbollah. Over the coming weeks, it will learn that ground power won’t work either. The problem is not that the Israelis have insufficient military might, but that they misunderstand the nature of the enemy.
This feeds into something which has been discomforting me as of late. My initial reaction to Hizbollah was as another group in the ideological breed of Hamas - psychotically Islamic fundamentalist, woman-hating, rabidly anti-Semitic, usual stuff.
The more I read, the more it seems that, if nothing else, there's a lot more to them than simply another Islamist terrorist group.
-------------------- Hello, I love you - won't you tell me your name? Hello! I'm good for nothing - will you love me just the same?
posted
I wasn't aware that Hamas was particularly women-hating. It'd be quite strange considering that lots of women must have voted for them.
Posts: 411 | From: California | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:In terms of structure and hierarchy, it is less comparable to, say, a religious cult like the Taliban than to the multidimensional American civil-rights movement of the 1960’s.
I wonder if the writer has spoken with any of Dr. King's children to see if they feel it is fair to compare their father's actions with those of Hezballah.
Regarding the identity of suicide bombers:
quote:Shockingly, only eight were Islamic fundamentalists. Twenty-seven were from leftist political groups like the Lebanese Communist Party and the Arab Socialist Union. Three were Christians, including a female high-school teacher with a college degree. All were born in Lebanon.
Not all Palestinian opponents of Israel are Muslim extremists- for example, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine is considered a secular, quasi-communist group. Israelis have long known that there are right-wing Israel haters, left-wing Israel haters, Christian Israel haters, and even Jewish Israel haters. What they are concerned about are stopping those who hate Israel from turning their hate into concrete acts of violence committed against Israeli citizens.
quote:What these suicide attackers — and their heirs today — shared was not a religious or political ideology but simply a commitment to resisting a foreign occupation.
If this were true, we would have seen Hezballah suicide attacks against Syria. The fact that the protests aginst Syria for assasinating the Prime Minister of Lebanon were overwhelmingly non-violent (as opposed to Hezballah's violent acts against Israel) should say that perhaps the ethnic/religious identity of the "occupier" is more important than the writer seems to let on.
quote:Nearly two decades of Israeli military presence did not root out Hezbollah. The only thing that has proven to end suicide attacks, in Lebanon and elsewhere, is withdrawal by the occupying force.
First of all, Israel initially occupied southern Lebanon in 1982 because the P.L.O. (the leading militant anti-Israel faction at that time) was using southern Lebanon as a base for attacks against Israel. Had the P.L.O. not been attacking Israel, Israel would not have invaded and occupied southern Lebanon to begin with.
Interestingly enough, the statement that "the only way to prevent suicide bombing is to end the occupation" is actually somewhat true. Since Israel withdrew from both Gaza and Lebanon (they've been out of Lebanon since 2002), the primary method of killing Israeli civilians by both Hamas and Hezballah has been by the use of short-range rockets and mortar fire, not suicide bombers. However, I suspect that the families of the dead Israelis don't exactly feel better knowing that their loved ones were killed by a rocket instead of a suicide bomber.
quote:Thus the new Israeli land offensive may take ground and destroy weapons, but it has little chance of destroying the Hezbollah movement. In fact, in the wake of the bombings of civilians, the incursion will probably aid Hezbollah’s recruiting.
I suspect that Hezballah was well aware of this. Both Hezballah and Hamas are trying to destroy Israel. In order to sustain their membership, they need to be seen as the strongest military opponent of Israel- and the best way to do so is to be actively involved in combat operations. Israel fully knows this- and they know that haven't found a way to stop it. As we have seen recently, there is only so much any Israeli govenment can take vis a vis attacks by terrorist organizations before it must militarily respond- had Olmert not taken military action, his government would have surely collapsed (and it is highly unlikely the replacement government would have been more dovish). And yes, Hezballah is aware of this too (which is why it is called a cycle of violence)...
quote:Given Syria’s total control of its border with Lebanon, stemming the flow of weapons is a job for diplomacy, not force. Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan, Sunni-led nations that want stability in the region, are motivated to stop the rise of Hezbollah. Under the right conditions, the United States might be able to help assemble an ad hoc coalition of Syria’s neighbors to entice and bully it to prevent Iranian, Chinese or other foreign missiles from entering Lebanon.
And exactly what would we offer Syria (or scare Syria with) to do this? Assad knows that the US will not invade (too much manpower is needed for Iraq and Afghanistan). Furthermore, why would the Saudis (or any other financial backers of Syria) have any interest in stopping the arming of Hezballah? (The Saudis don't particularly like Hezballah, but they don't exactly like Israel much either). And finally, forget about the Golan Heights- Israel will only give up those territories (which are of critical strategic importance) for something very major (like a full-fledged peace treaty and normalized relations with Syria) and not in exchange for mere promises not to provide missiles to a terrorist organization.
quote:Unless it calls off the offensive and accepts a genuine cease-fire, there are likely to be many, many dead Israelis in the coming weeks — and a much stronger Hezbollah.
Israel would like to have a cease fire- but they simply do not trust Hezballah enough to accept a cease fire on face value (and Hezballah has not done anything to show that they can be trusted to not attack Israel again).
quote:The problem is not that the Israelis have insufficient military might, but that they misunderstand the nature of the enemy.
I suspect that despite his academic credentials, the writer doesn't have a good understanding of the nature of the enemy either.
-------------------- Is here no telephone? Posts: 323 | From: Brooklyn, NY | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by asnakeny: From the referenced article:
quote:In terms of structure and hierarchy, it is less comparable to, say, a religious cult like the Taliban than to the multidimensional American civil-rights movement of the 1960’s.
I wonder if the writer has spoken with any of Dr. King's children to see if they feel it is fair to compare their father's actions with those of Hezballah.
To be fair, the author is talking about "structure" and "hierarchy," not activities or righteousness or anything like that. Presumably he's trying to make the point that Hizbullah is a multidimensional mass movement with truly broad grassroots support amongst the Lebanese Shi'a, and to put that point in terms that he thinks Americans are likely to understand.
Having said that, I still think the comparison is stupid.
quote: Regarding the identity of suicide bombers:
quote:Shockingly, only eight were Islamic fundamentalists. Twenty-seven were from leftist political groups like the Lebanese Communist Party and the Arab Socialist Union. Three were Christians, including a female high-school teacher with a college degree. All were born in Lebanon.
Not all Palestinian opponents of Israel are Muslim extremists- for example, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine is considered a secular, quasi-communist group. Israelis have long known that there are right-wing Israel haters, left-wing Israel haters, Christian Israel haters, and even Jewish Israel haters. What they are concerned about are stopping those who hate Israel from turning their hate into concrete acts of violence committed against Israeli citizens.
I think that's more or less the point the author's driving at, though. The drivers of the extremist ideologies that lead to revolutionary and terrorist violence aren't the ideologies themselves. The drivers are concrete political and economic realities. People don't embrace the political platforms of radical Islamist parties because they themselves are already radical Islamists; they embrace radical Islamist parties because they already share those parties' concrete political platforms. Or, as a general principle, people become extremists first, and adopt whatever the extremist ideology de jour happens to be second.
(Where were the bomb-throwing Islamists in 1900? Where are the bomb-throwing syndicalists now? To steal vocabulary from past revolutionaries, it's the substructure, and not the superstructure, that drives the turn to radicalism and violence.)
quote:
quote:What these suicide attackers — and their heirs today — shared was not a religious or political ideology but simply a commitment to resisting a foreign occupation.
If this were true, we would have seen Hezballah suicide attacks against Syria. The fact that the protests aginst Syria for assasinating the Prime Minister of Lebanon were overwhelmingly non-violent (as opposed to Hezballah's violent acts against Israel) should say that perhaps the ethnic/religious identity of the "occupier" is more important than the writer seems to let on.
Agreed, but two caveats. First, it could be said that Hizbullah and the Shi'a never really experienced a Syrian occupation. The Shi'a areas in the south, of course, didn't see much of the Syrian occupation at all. The Bekaa, on the other hand, was full of Syrians--but the relationship between the Syrians and the local Shi'a wasn't that of an occupation and the occupied, in the same way that the relationship between American GIs and the British in 1943-1944 wasn't a relationship between occupation and occupied. The Syrian presence kept the other Lebanese factions down and thus strengthened the Shi'a, who had the good pragmatic sense not to mind.
Dovetailing with that idea comes the second caveat: when the Israelis entered southern Lebanon in 1982, the Shi'a actually greeted them as liberators. Because the south Lebanese Shi'a had long been poor and neglected, they'd never been a politically-important group of Arab;s they were thus never an important part of the Arab side of the conflict with Israel and didn't carry much in the way of that baggage. The PLO occupation of south Lebanon had, true to form, been brutal and stupid; the Shi'a were glad to be rid of it and appear to have been genuinely grateful to the guys who did the job.
They were only grateful for a little while (that's how foreign occupations that don't turn into foreign sponsorship tend to go). The Israelis didn't really think the Shi'a were worth caring about: like I said, these guys had always been the poor losers on the fringes of things, so why waste time on them when it might jeopardize the project to install a friendly regime in Beirut? As a result, the Israeli occupation of the south itself became clumsy, then stupid, then brutal (this occupation, too, being depressingly true to form); the Shi'a went from angry to hostile and then over the edge into militancy. The tipping point came with a particularly nasty altercation during Ashura observances in Nabatiye. And then some advisors from the Iranian Revolutionary Guards showed up and persuaded all the new resistance organizations popping up to come together as a single party, and, well...
Posts: 1640 | From: New Haven, CT | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Publius: Where were the bomb-throwing Islamists in 1900?
I checked the New York Times index for 1900 and, if you believe that even back then they were reporting All the News That's Fit to Print, Arab anti-Jewish terrorists did take a vacation that year. One reason, if there really was such a vacation, could have been that Jews in those lands were willing to accept routine daily humiliations, even in petty matters such as always giving the right of way to a Moslem. Here's something describing a situation that could easily have happenned at the same time to a proud black man in the American South -- and that was only reported because the victim was a US citizen. From "The Moroccan Indemnity," New York Times, 20 December 1900, page 8:
quote:On Thursday, June 28, MARCUS ESZAGUI, a native Jew of Fez, who had obtained American citizenship by residing in the United States; was proceeding on horseback from his store to his home in the Mellah, or Ghetto, when he met a Tafilet Arab who disputed the right of way with him. The Arab struck Mr. Eszagui a blow with a stick which felled him from his horse. While lying on the ground and fearing violence from the crowd, Eszagui drew his revolver and fired twice at his assailant. The second shot took effect in the leg of a bystander. The crowd then fell upon him and beat and stoned him to death. . . . It is doubtless true that the Morrocan government made no effort to trace the crime for the reason that the attempt, if successful, would have been followed by a general outbreak of fanaticism . . .
I don't know if this was due to the substructure or the superstructure, but I do think it is a tiny picture of what will happen to the Israelis*, in the last small corner of the Arab world still containing a substantial number of Jews, should Israel fail to defend itself effectively.
And I welcome asnakeny to these discusions. (Sorry if you have been here a while and I did not notice.)
_____________________________ * Israeli in this sense refers to the Jews of Israel, plus Arabs who have thrown in their lot with Israel, such as those in the Israel Defense Forces, and those in Arab towns known for sending their sons into the Israeli military.
-------------------- "Hillel says yes, naturally, and Shammai says no, and Maimonides is perplexed, and what do I know?" Julius Lester Posts: 5780 | From: Suburban Philadelphia, Pennsylvania | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jane's World Insurgency and Terrorism (which was an intranet source for me, so I can't provide a URL) had this to say about Hizbollah:
quote: Alias/Front Organisation Party of God, Revolutionary Justice Organisation, Organisation of the Oppressed, Islamic Jihad for the Liberation of Palestine. Hizbullah assumed most of the apparatus and remaining personnel from the 1980s umbrella coalition of groups known as Islamic Jihad. The guerrilla wing in Lebanon is Islamic Resistance (IR) and Israeli sources claim there is also a semi-autonomous unit called the Lebanese Platoon. Aims/Objectives Hizbullah's initial aim was the establishment of a radical Shia Islamic theocracy in Lebanon and the destruction of the state of Israel. Since the end of the Lebanese civil war, it has evolved into a socio-political movement, setting aside its plans to transform Lebanon into an Islamic republic and banishing ideological firebrands like former Secretary General Sheikh Sobhi Toufeili. It has gained political legitimacy, with a credible holding of seats in Lebanon's parliament and a social service that far outperforms the state's cumbersome bureaucracy. The movement is now driven by the dispute with Israel over the Shebaa Farms area and support for the Palestinian intifada.
Then there's this:
quote: Command structure Hizbullah is more than a guerrilla organisation, it is a political, social, welfare, commercial and educational network. The ruling body of the organisation is the Higher Consultative Council, and there are three regional councils based in Bekaa, Beirut and South Lebanon. IR is a small, highly effective guerrilla organisation trained and directed by Iranian Revolutionary Guards. IR commanders do not necessarily inform Hizbullah's Higher Consultative Council of strategy. Hizbullah's overseas network is even more secretively run; known loosely as Hizbullah-International, it is directed by Imad Mughniyah.
-------------------- You fool! That's not a warrior, that's a banana! - a surreal moment in a role-playing game Posts: 2480 | From: Australia | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Steve Eisenberg: The Arab struck Mr. Eszagui a blow with a stick which felled him from his horse. While lying on the ground and fearing violence from the crowd, Eszagui drew his revolver and fired twice at his assailant. The second shot took effect in the leg of a bystander. The crowd then fell upon him and beat and stoned him to death....
A crowd lynched someone who attempted a murder. What does that have to do with terrorism, apartheid, antisemitism, or whatever else we are discussing in this thread?
Or are you trying to tell us that for the fact of being a Jew, someone does have the right to shoot someone who provoked him with a petty insult?
Luís Henrique
Posts: 4498 | From: Brasília, Distrito Federal, Brazil | Registered: Oct 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:A crowd lynched someone who attempted a murder. What does that have to do with terrorism, apartheid, antisemitism, or whatever else we are discussing in this thread?
Do you think a crowd would typically set upon and beat to death an innocent person who had just been attacked and was defending himself (while ignoring his attacker), or do you suppose there was something more to the incident?
And, of course, your use of the word "murder" is unjustified hyperbole, since there's nothing in the article to support the idea that the victim was trying to *kill* his attacker (as opposed to trying to wound him, drive him away, or keep the crowd at bay).
quote:Or are you trying to tell us that for the fact of being a Jew, someone does have the right to shoot someone who provoked him with a petty insult?
Are you trying to tell us that it's acceptable to beat to death someone who is trying to defend himself from attack, for the mere fact of his being a Jew?
And if you think that being felled from a horse is merely a "petty insult," then you don't have much experience with horses. I suppose next you'll tell us that forcing someone's vehicle off the road is similarly just a "petty insult."
quote:Originally posted by snopes: Do you think a crowd would typically set upon and beat to death an innocent person who had just been attacked and was defending himself (while ignoring his attacker), or do you suppose there was something more to the incident?
A person who reacts like Mr. Eszagui did is not "innocent", by no stretch of imagination.
Could there be "something more" to the incident? I don't know. The burden of evidence is on those who make the claims.
quote:And, of course, your use of the word "murder" is unjustified hyperbole, since there's nothing in the article to support the idea that the victim was trying to *kill* his attacker (as opposed to trying to wound him, drive him away, or keep the crowd at bay).
Sorry: the use of a gun, in a circumstance like that, points directly to the intent to murder. What it doesn't point to, is to the idea that Mr. Eszagui feared violence from the crowd: what kind of defence can a gun provide against a multitude?
quote:Are you trying to tell us that it's acceptable to beat to death someone who is trying to defend himself from attack, for the mere fact of his being a Jew?
Broad assumptions, hm?
It is not acceptable to beat someone to death, period. Even if the victim was a serial killer caught in the act of his latest crime.
It is not justifiable to do anything to a Jew that is not justifiable to do to a goy.
But you know that, you know that I think like that, why are you asking me?
quote:And if you think that being felled from a horse is merely a "petty insult," then you don't have much experience with horses.
Anything except a direct attempt against my life is petty insult when compared to gunshots.
quote:I suppose next you'll tell us that forcing someone's vehicle off the road is similarly just a "petty insult."
Are you seriously trying to make me believe that in this circumstance Mr. Eszagui was riding at full speed?
Luís Henrique
Posts: 4498 | From: Brasília, Distrito Federal, Brazil | Registered: Oct 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd like to take this opportunity to give Luis a petty insult. Somebody hand me a two-by-four.
-------------------- "Liberalism is a philosophy of consolation for western civilization as it commits suicide." - Jerry Pournelle Posts: 14567 | From: Pennsylvania | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Luis, mayhaps you have deleted from your memory the concept of protecting one's own life. Eszagui was attacked, and fearing the loss of his OWN life, he drew a weapon and fired.
Self protection - without the use of a white flag - as the white flag in this case would have been used to drape his own body.
-------------------- Opinions aren't excuses to remain ignorant about subjects, nor are they excuses to never examine one's beliefs & prejudices...
Babies are like tattoos. You see other peoples' & they're cool, but yours is never as good & you can't get rid of it. Posts: 5622 | From: Jax, Florida | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'd like to take this opportunity to give Luis a petty insult. Somebody hand me a two-by-four.
Will he be allowed to respond with a firearm?
Sorry, but you made it all too easy. I simply could not let that one pass me by.
Luis's own statements say that a man attacked in such a manner is NOT allowed to, so no, he can't.
Should have let it pass by, you fell into my trap.
-------------------- "Liberalism is a philosophy of consolation for western civilization as it commits suicide." - Jerry Pournelle Posts: 14567 | From: Pennsylvania | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Luis's own statements say that a man attacked in such a manner is NOT allowed to, so no, he can't.
But the question was if you would allow him to respond with a firearm?
For me, it's simple. In a stick fight, you fight with sticks. In a firefight, you fight with guns. These should not be mixed up, as it tends to give an unsportsmanlike advantage to one side.
-------------------- /Troberg Posts: 4360 | From: Borlänge, Sweden | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Luis's own statements say that a man attacked in such a manner is NOT allowed to, so no, he can't.
But the question was if you would allow him to respond with a firearm?
For me, it's simple. In a stick fight, you fight with sticks. In a firefight, you fight with guns. These should not be mixed up, as it tends to give an unsportsmanlike advantage to one side.
For me, it's even simpler. In battle, the object is to destroy the enemy and come home alive. To that end, do whatever you have to do.
What you're missing is that it WAS a firefight. It's just that the idiot with the stick didn't know that.
Or as internet legend Sean Connery's character so aptly observed in "The Untouchables":
*Gangster pulls a knife* *Connery's character pulls a gun* Connery: "Isn't it just like a wop, to bring a knife to a gunfight?" *shoots him*
First "actually, it IS wise to bring a knife to a gunfight... but as a backup, just in case there's anyone left standing when you run out of bullets." of Two
-------------------- "Liberalism is a philosophy of consolation for western civilization as it commits suicide." - Jerry Pournelle Posts: 14567 | From: Pennsylvania | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Fusca 1976: A person who reacts like Mr. Eszagui did is not "innocent", by no stretch of imagination.
Could there be "something more" to the incident? I don't know. The burden of evidence is on those who make the claims.
Whenever a black man in the American South was lynched, rumors posing as absolute certainty would sweep the area, stating that the victim had committed some terrible outrage. Same with antisemitism. Why isn't the burden on the New York Times of 1900 to show that they weren't taken in by the justification given by hate crime perpetrators?
The victim was a Jew confined at night to a medieval Arab ghetto.* He knew he was supposed to know his place. Perhaps he didn't quite know it well enough. Exactly how it played out, we don't know. But we do know that what the New York Times referred to as an "outbreak of fanaticism" didn't have to wait for 1967, or even Zionism.
__________________________________ * Except, it wasn't medieval, having been established in 1808. I believe that this is the period to look back into for the origins of the conflict between Arabs and Jews today. See The Roots of Antisemitism.
-------------------- "Hillel says yes, naturally, and Shammai says no, and Maimonides is perplexed, and what do I know?" Julius Lester Posts: 5780 | From: Suburban Philadelphia, Pennsylvania | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
One person knocked the man off his horse, and a crowd began to beat him. Is there no point at which that beating crosses over from "petty insult" to a direct attempt on his life, from which he is entitled to defend himself?
Or does he have an ethical obligation to lie there and be beaten to death by the crowd?
-------------------- How homophobic do you have to be to have penguin gaydar? - Lewis Black Posts: 8322 | From: Columbus, OH | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:For me, it's even simpler. In battle, the object is to destroy the enemy and come home alive. To that end, do whatever you have to do.
The few times I've been attacked, I've tried to keep things balanced, weaponry wise, or even slightly in favour of the opponent. Not only does that make the victory more spectacular, it also makes me less likely to have legal problems after the fight. One has to think ahead.
-------------------- /Troberg Posts: 4360 | From: Borlänge, Sweden | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If your primary concern when being attacked was having a "spectacular" victory, then it's probably safe to say that you weren't really in any serious danger. Either that or you're missing the basic fight-or-flight instincts and just got really lucky. It sounds to me like you were fighting for honor rather than self defence.
I know if I was ever attacked by someone who intended to cause serious harm, I'd do whatever was necessary to stop my attacker. The last thing I'd want to do would be to give my assailant an advantage so I could feel like more of a badass after the fight.
quote:One person knocked the man off his horse, and a crowd began to beat him. Is there no point at which that beating crosses over from "petty insult" to a direct attempt on his life, from which he is entitled to defend himself?
Or does he have an ethical obligation to lie there and be beaten to death by the crowd?
I think you got the order wrong. It goes something like this:
1. Argument over right of way 2. Stick is used 3. Stick is responded to with firearm 4. Crowd responds to firearm 5. Things get severely out of hand
quote:If your primary concern when being attacked was having a "spectacular" victory, then it's probably safe to say that you weren't really in any serious danger. Either that or you're missing the basic fight-or-flight instincts and just got really lucky. It sounds to me like you were fighting for honor rather than self defence.
I know if I was ever attacked by someone who intended to cause serious harm, I'd do whatever was necessary to stop my attacker. The last thing I'd want to do would be to give my assailant an advantage so I could feel like more of a badass after the fight.
OK, I exaggerated a little. The main reason is legal. The Swedish police tend to always side with the guy on the ground, regardless of circumstances. A friend of mine got jumped by three guys, with plenty of witnesses supporting that he was not the agressor. He punched them out (he's well trained and former boxer), and despite being alone against three attackers, he was damn near getting into serious trouble for that, as well as taking a totally uncalled for beating from the police. If his father hadn't been a police (in another city), he would have been in really deep shit.
I don't agree with that policy, but sometimes you just have to accept the way things are and play by the rules even if you don't like them.
That said, I'm not that scared of losing a fight. There is no shame in going down in a good fight. I'd prefer not to, but I don't compromise with who I am to avoid it.
Who knows, maybe the vikings were right and that is the ticket to Valhalla? I could stand feasting forever with the gods.
-------------------- /Troberg Posts: 4360 | From: Borlänge, Sweden | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
My mistake, Troberg. Let me re-state the question:
Once the "stick has been used" to knock him from his horse to the ground, where he is menaced by a crowd, does he have an ethical obligation to wait for them to start beating the crap out of him before he defends himself against their greater force?
Would they have beaten him if he hadn't fired? I don't know, and neither do you, and neither did he.
-------------------- How homophobic do you have to be to have penguin gaydar? - Lewis Black Posts: 8322 | From: Columbus, OH | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Would they have beaten him if he hadn't fired? I don't know, and neither do you, and neither did he.
Correct, but it was he who chose to escalate the conflict, not the crowd. Had he waited and they had attacked him, the guilt burden for the escalation would be on their heads, but as it stands now, he has to bear it.
-------------------- /Troberg Posts: 4360 | From: Borlänge, Sweden | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Steve Eisenberg: Whenever a black man in the American South was lynched, rumors posing as absolute certainty would sweep the area, stating that the victim had committed some terrible outrage. Same with antisemitism. Why isn't the burden on the New York Times of 1900 to show that they weren't taken in by the justification given by hate crime perpetrators?
Because black men (or women, or children) who were lynched in the American South were lynched in organised riots, lead by an organisation called Ku-Klux-Klan, about which we know enough to be satisfied that it was not an Urban Legend.
The incident you brought onto our attention shows absolutely no signs of having been premeditated. While a lynching is always something horrible and despicable, what we know about this, based on the source you provided by yourself, shows that, yes, the victim did make something outrageous, or, at least, that could be interpreted as outrageous, without any need to resort to racist cathegories.
quote:The victim was a Jew confined at night to a medieval Arab ghetto.* He knew he was supposed to know his place. Perhaps he didn't quite know it well enough. Exactly how it played out, we don't know. But we do know that what the New York Times referred to as an "outbreak of fanaticism" didn't have to wait for 1967, or even Zionism.
He was a man mounted and armed with a gun. If he was allowed to ride a horse and carry a gun, what's the theory that Jews were discriminated in Morocco? If not, why wasn't he arrested, and why would the Moroccan authorities need to hid behind the fear of an uprising to avoid investigating?
I think you are reading Ukraine into Morocco, Steve.
Luís Henrique
Posts: 4498 | From: Brasília, Distrito Federal, Brazil | Registered: Oct 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lainie: One person knocked the man off his horse, and a crowd began to beat him. Is there no point at which that beating crosses over from "petty insult" to a direct attempt on his life, from which he is entitled to defend himself?
Or does he have an ethical obligation to lie there and be beaten to death by the crowd?
Lainie, I read that story like this:
1. Man fells other from horse with stick; 2. Fallen man shoots back at his aggressor, misses and hits a bystander; 3. Crowd lynches fallen man.
You seem to believe steps 2. and 3. should be reversed. Why?
Luís Henrique
Posts: 4498 | From: Brasília, Distrito Federal, Brazil | Registered: Oct 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Troberg: Had he waited and they had attacked him, the guilt burden for the escalation would be on their heads, but as it stands now, he has to bear it.
Since part of my job includes occasionally editing other people's writing for accuracy, I feel free to fix this statement.
Had he waited and they had attacked him, he would probably have been beaten to a pulp, if he was lucky, and killed if he wasn't.
-------------------- "Liberalism is a philosophy of consolation for western civilization as it commits suicide." - Jerry Pournelle Posts: 14567 | From: Pennsylvania | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Fusca 1976: In case you were foolish enough to attack me physically (which I doubt), I would try to avoid being equally foolish.
Hopefully, I would fail.
Luís Henrique
If I were foolish enough to attack you, I wouldn't use a stick and you wouldn't get a retaliatory strike in. You forget I'm a strong believer in overkill.
Not to worry, though, I'm quite sure there's no stick big enough to knock you from the height of your horse.
-------------------- "Liberalism is a philosophy of consolation for western civilization as it commits suicide." - Jerry Pournelle Posts: 14567 | From: Pennsylvania | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lainie: One person knocked the man off his horse, and a crowd began to beat him. Is there no point at which that beating crosses over from "petty insult" to a direct attempt on his life, from which he is entitled to defend himself?
Or does he have an ethical obligation to lie there and be beaten to death by the crowd?
Lainie, I read that story like this:
1. Man fells other from horse with stick; 2. Fallen man shoots back at his aggressor, misses and hits a bystander; 3. Crowd lynches fallen man.
You seem to believe steps 2. and 3. should be reversed. Why?
Luís Henrique
If steps 2 and 3 were reversed, he would have to shoot back after being lynched. Not only do I not believe that's what should have happened, I don't think it's possible.
My point was that he had the right to defend himself from the lynching.
-------------------- How homophobic do you have to be to have penguin gaydar? - Lewis Black Posts: 8322 | From: Columbus, OH | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Fusca 1976: Because black men (or women, or children) who were lynched in the American South were lynched in organised riots, lead by an organisation called Ku-Klux-Klan
Often wrong. The lynch mobs were sometimes organized, sometimes spontaneous, which is why they were called "mobs."
quote:He was a man mounted and armed with a gun. If he was allowed to ride a horse and carry a gun, what's the theory that Jews were discriminated in Morocco? If not, why wasn't he arrested, and why would the Moroccan authorities need to hid behind the fear of an uprising to avoid investigating?
That... makes no sense. Just because you can do something minor like ride a horse or carry a gun that doesn't mean that you're not discriminated against.
-------------------- "Liberalism is a philosophy of consolation for western civilization as it commits suicide." - Jerry Pournelle Posts: 14567 | From: Pennsylvania | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Despite this thread's drift into the realm of the absurd, I would like to drag it kicking and screaming back to the subject of Hizballah. My reading of a book on Lebanese politics and Hizballah 82-present indicates that although Hizballah are a Shi'a Islamist group, their main goal is the driving of Israeli forces from Lebanon, the removal of Israeli occupation from Palestine and in many cases the destruction of the state of Israel itself. In this respect they are happy to do business with Christians, Sunnis, secularists, so long as said group shares their view on Israel. Large support from Iran has created fears of Hizballahs theocratic aims but in the pluralist Lebanese political system this simply isn't viable. Such deals are perhaps more political expediency rather than a rejection of Islamist doctrine, but it has led to Hizballah being willing to work with anyone in Lebanon bar the South Lebanon Army.
Posts: 1985 | From: Reading, England | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lainie: My point was that he had the right to defend himself from the lynching.
I see, but this implies that he was actually under the threat of being lynched before he shoot a bystander. I don't see why this should be true; my impression is that he was lynched because he shot twice.
Luís Henrique
Posts: 4498 | From: Brasília, Distrito Federal, Brazil | Registered: Oct 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lainie: My point was that he had the right to defend himself from the lynching.
I see, but this implies that he was actually under the threat of being lynched before he shoot a bystander. I don't see why this should be true; my impression is that he was lynched because he shot twice.
Luís Henrique
And my point was that he fired because he believed his life to be in danger.
-------------------- How homophobic do you have to be to have penguin gaydar? - Lewis Black Posts: 8322 | From: Columbus, OH | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Fusca 1976: While a lynching is always something horrible and despicable, what we know about this, based on the source you provided by yourself, shows that, yes, the victim did make something outrageous, or, at least, that could be interpreted as outrageous, without any need to resort to racist cathegories.
Of course it could be interpreted as outrageous, just as in the example of the post-slavery American South:
quote:Most of the race riots* were the result of Negro retaliation to white acts of persecution and violence. However, in most cases, because of the overwhelming white numerical superiority, Negro armed resistance was futile.
Back to Luís:
quote:If he was allowed to ride a horse and carry a gun, what's the theory that Jews were discriminated in Morocco?
I have no idea whether his having a gun was legal -- or if the charge that he had one was true. Apparently, for a Moroccan Jew, having a horse was legal. The American South example follows here also -- blacks could have a horse, but whether it was legal for a black to carry a pistol varied depending on jurisdiction.
quote:At the beginning of the 19th century, around 1807, the pious sultan Sulayman forced Jews to move to mellahs in the towns of the coastal region, in Rabat, Salé, Mogador, and Tetouan. The new Jewish quarters were called mellahs everywhere except Tetouan, where the Spanish word juderia was used. In Salé, the new Jewish quarter was a long avenue with a total of 200 houses, 20 shops and trading booths, two kilns and two mills. In 1865, the mellah of Mogador, having become over-populated, was permitted to extend.
Jews resented their transfers to mellahs as a sudden and bitter exile and as the manifestation of segregation. Frequently, those who were unwilling to abandon their homes and businesses avoided the resettlement by converting to Islam.
___________________ * Not the 60's urban riots, but the earlier white mob attacks on black neighborhoods.
-------------------- "Hillel says yes, naturally, and Shammai says no, and Maimonides is perplexed, and what do I know?" Julius Lester Posts: 5780 | From: Suburban Philadelphia, Pennsylvania | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Since part of my job includes occasionally editing other people's writing for accuracy, I feel free to fix this statement.
Had he waited and they had attacked him, he would probably have been beaten to a pulp, if he was lucky, and killed if he wasn't.
Sure, but he wouldn't be the one that escalated the conflict. Also, we DO NOT know if the crowd would have attacked if he hadn't started discharging a weapon. We don't even know if they attacked him in support of the stick man or if they did it because they felt threatened, and we don't know if ethnic background actually played part of the decision. A gun tends to obscure most other issues.
But then again, I think we are reading way too much into an isolated incident. Once a fight starts and guns are drawn, people usually get angry/hurt/killed, regardless of other issues. It could just as well had been opposing football supporters and the result would have been similar.
-------------------- /Troberg Posts: 4360 | From: Borlänge, Sweden | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Troberg: But then again, I think we are reading way too much into an isolated incident.
Reading into it? Definitely. Isolated incident? Only isolated in the aspect of the victim being a US citizen, making it a minor international incident. Unfortuntely, the whole article is not available on the open internet, but, if it was, we would still would be reading into it based on understanding of historical context.
Here, to provide some of that context, are a few highlights from Jewish-Moroccan history in the era:
quote:1884-1888 – 307 Jews murdered over four years by Muslims, yet no Muslims put on trial.
1897 – Moroccan rabbis, in contrast to most Ashkenazi rabbis, support First Zionist Congress in Basel.
1903 – 40 Jews killed by Muslims during riots in Taza. More killed in Settat.
1907 – In Casablanca, 30 Jews killed, 200 women, girls and boys abducted, raped, then ransomed.
1909 – Hivat Zion (Lovers of Zion) organization established in Fez.
1910 – 12-year-old grandson of Fez’s Rabbi Abensur abducted and forcibly converted to Islam.
1912 – Franco-Moroccan Treaty signed in Fez makes Morocco a French protectorate. Muslim rioters massacre 60 Jews in Fez, leave 10,000 homeless.
You'll note that there generally was some Zionist or Western annoyance, involving arguably pushy Jews, preceeding outbreaks of fanaticism. For example, going back to the establishment of Moroccan Jewish ghettos in 1807-8, that was just eight years after Napoleon, rumored to be a Jew, invaded Egypt, proclaiming (however hypocritically) equality for mankind.
-------------------- "Hillel says yes, naturally, and Shammai says no, and Maimonides is perplexed, and what do I know?" Julius Lester Posts: 5780 | From: Suburban Philadelphia, Pennsylvania | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
If steps 2 and 3 were reversed, he would have to shoot back after being lynched. Not only do I not believe that's what should have happened, I don't think it's possible.
