| Subject: Re: fundamentalism is scary |
Author:
Astrid
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 12:54:58 07/16/02 Tue
In reply to:
Raisinmom
's message, "Re: fundamentalism is scary" on 11:43:52 07/16/02 Tue
>I understand (no pun intended) the difference between
>"understanding" and "condoning," but I stick with my
>original statement. I cannot understand targeting
>innocent civilians as a reaction to the
>Israeli/Palestinian situation. It makes no sense. It
>is incomprehensible. It is killing babies, women,
>children. This is not civilized or moral behavior,
>and I do not understand it, because it is evil. It's
>a far cry from your blacks joining gangs example; that
>certainly isn't a good situation, and may involve
>death or other crimes, but it's not the same level of
>coldly calculated evil as blowing oneself up at a
>pizzeria filled with flirting teenagers.
It is not civilised or moral behaviour, and it is evil, AND I understand it. :-)
I think that raping women in wartime is heinous, AND I understand it (don't condone it at all!)
I can see the logic that follows from having no past, having no future, being taught to hate from the cradle, and strapping explosives on yourself to kill the infidel and get martyr status.
I think it's bizarre thinking, but I can get it.
Maybe it's the psych student in me. I feel compelled to understand the cause of evil, because I think it is the only way we have to ultimately conquer it.
>I don't agree with this often-quoted platitude. One
>need not "understand" to come to a solution, though it
>certainly helps (the whole "Getting to Yes"
>negotiation strategy, i.e., figuring out what the
>other side really wants and giving it). One can take
>something as a dealbreaker with no comprehension of
>why that's the case or any agreement that it's really
>that important.
I don't think that two groups can coexist without understanding. Until europeans had some kind of compassion for the black experience, some kind of understanding of who black people were, they were able to treat them like animals. If you've never met a Jew, it is easy to believe the lies that people spread about them. It takes knowledge and understanding to fight bigotry.
>No. The difference is that Israel currently seeks to
>defend itself from *suicide bombers who are killing
>innocent civilians.* Astrid, this is very, very
>different from Palestinians defending a "way of life"
>(whatever that means) from immigrants.
Defending one's life is much like defending one's way of life. The civil rights movement in the US wasn't about defending oneself against suicide bombers, either--it was about defending the right of the black person to be considered an equal in society.
The Palestinians in the 1920s and 30s believed that they were in danger of becoming an oppressed minority in their own land--their economy was crumbling, and they had been promised an independence that Britain later denied, and they viewed Britain as siding with Zionists in Palestine.
This is much more than just xenophobia.
>Then the Palestinians should turn their anger on
>Britain. The Jews didn't show up and disenfranchise
>the Palestinians -- Palestine was *not* an independent
>country before the Jews got there. And being upset
>that immigrant Jews were coming and changing the
>Palestinian "lifestyle" (and what does this mean,
>anyway?) is not the same as trying to defend a
>country's sovereignty.
Well it would make no more sense for them to attack Britain now than it would for them to attack Jews who they see as having displaced them. And then (as now) they were powerless to attack Britain--it isn't like they had a navy that could have coordinated such an attack.
A way of life... a right to autonomy and self determination. What every group seeks, here and abroad. What the Zionists sought when they settled in Palestine.
>LOL, Astrid, no matter how many times you ask me, the
>answer is still the same. I did not get this
>impression from his piece, perhaps because I found his
>"truth" to be so manufactured itself. Did you know
>that "to Fisk" is blog-talk for parsing a piece and
>pointing out the factual inaccuracies that tend to
>slant the piece in an anti-American/capitalist way (so
>named because Fisk is notorious in some circles for
>this)?
Notorious for slanting his pieces in an anti-American/capitalist way or for pointing out factual inaccuracies? Every writer has his own slant. Tom Friedman, who is my journalist of choice when reading the other side, has his own slant, too.
I haven't heard about "to fisk"--where did you catch that one?
>Re: Canada: We DO love you.
But you find us unbearably dull, too. ;-) It's ok, we understand...
Astrid
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 