31-Jan-11 News -- Rift grows between PA and Al-Jazeera

[John]

31-Jan-11 News -- Rift grows between Palestinian Authority and Al-Jazeera


Millions riot in Egypt as the West fears a Muslim Brotherhood victory

** 31-Jan-11 News -- Rift grows between Palestinian Authority and Al-Jazeera
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/cgi ... 31#e110131

[burt]

Hello:
I think the remark of this article is quite correct, we, in the West, have a different view of the Mulsim Brotherhood that the ones from arabic culture have.
http://bigpeace.com/cbrim/2011/01/30/mu ... nd-arabic/

In fact because they were "tolerated", as long as they staid quiet, we don't know who they are in reality (nobody does) .

[John]

Dear Bertrand,

> I think the remark of this article is quite correct, we, in the
> West, have a different view of the Mulsim Brotherhood that the
> ones from arabic culture have.
> http://bigpeace.com/cbrim/2011/01/30/mu ... nd-arabic/

> In fact because they were "tolerated", as long as they staid
> quiet, we don't know who they are in reality (nobody does) .

I'm well aware of the Muslim Brotherhood's stated policies.

However, the argument that I made has nothing to do with MB's stated
policies. It was based on Egypt's own self-interest, and the
attitudes and behavior of the young generation. From what I've seen,
all of these factors indicate the conclusion that an MB involvement in
Egypt's politics will not mean a change in policies towards Israel.

Ironically, the article you quote even supports that conclusion. The
article points out that the MB's web page in Arabic is much more
bellicose towards Israel than the English language page. The writer
implies that the Arabic page is the "true" policy, while the English
page the "deceptive" page, because it targets a Western audience.

First, I would point out that there's no such distinction in
al-Qaeda's web sites. Everything coming from al-Qaeda, whether in
Arabic or English, reads "Death to America." Nor is there any
such distinction made by the administration in Iran.

So my response to the MB situation is that the evidence on the ground
in Egypt supports the conclusion that it's the MB's English page that
represents the "true" policy, while the Arabic page, targeted to a
broad anti-American Arabian audience, is the one that's deceptive.

I'm guided by what I'm hearing from the kids who are rioting in Egypt.
If suddenly they change direction and start saying "Death to America,"
then I would have to change my conclusion. But right now, the
evidence supports my conclusion.

With regard to your question in another thread, about the 1948 war,
calling it a war between Israel and Egypt doesn't work, because many
other Arab countries were involved -- Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, Iraq,
Saudi Arabia, Yemen. Some historians call it the "Arab-Israeli war,"
but I'm uncomfortable with that because of its lack of symmetry. It
would be most helpful if there were a belligerent-independent name for
the war. For example, everyone knows what the "Crimean War" and the
"Hundred Years' War" are, without having to name the belligerents.
But there's no such name for the 1948 war. Hence, "the 1948 war
between Arabs and Jews" is my characterization of choice.

I would add that nobody besides yourself has ever objected to this
characterization. I once referred to it as "the war between Jews and
Palestinians," and I received complaints about that, for good reason.

John

[burt]

I would add that nobody besides yourself has ever objected to this
characterization. I once referred to it as "the war between Jews and
Palestinians," and I received complaints about that, for good reason.
John

I react because I respect your way of thinking and I begin to integrate some of the principles you gave us.
First is the principle of localization.
So my reaction, and I don't how you feel it, is not againt you, but come with the goal to improve things, in the direction you follow.

With regard to your question in another thread, about the 1948 war,
calling it a war between Israel and Egypt doesn't work, because many
other Arab countries were involved -- Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, Iraq,
Saudi Arabia, Yemen. Some historians call it the "Arab-Israeli war,"
but I'm uncomfortable with that because of its lack of symmetry. It
would be most helpful if there were a belligerent-independent name for
the war. For example, everyone knows what the "Crimean War" and the
"Hundred Years' War" are, without having to name the belligerents.
But there's no such name for the 1948 war. Hence, "the 1948 war
between Arabs and Jews" is my characterization of choice.

What I mentioned is that it makes thinks confuse if you mix a langage (Arab is NOT a community, but a langage) and a religion.
Israel is a country, not a religion, there are not only jews in Israel and not all jews are in favor of Israel.
Mixing a country and a religion makes things very confuse. And as soon as you make things confuse you give tools to hate the others.

So a better denomination should be something as "Eastern Arabs countries - Israel" War, but I agree with you that

It would be most helpful if there were a belligerent-independent name for the war.

This war appeared because Great Britain (after WWII) had no more ressource for controlling Middle East and Because Egypt, Jordanie, Syria ... didn't want a new country to be founded from nowwhere by an external authority (Soviet Union and the the US).
It started with the TERRORISM held by Tsahal against the local population. It looks like everyone forget today that Israel was born as a terrorist country and did kill a lot of resident in the future Israeli territory.
Because of the Cold War and the 60'000 soldiers that the Soviet Union sent to Israel, Tsahal won.
This has nothing to do with being Jews or not, it was a genocidal war decided by the same who were exterminated, it was a human war (a stupid one, beacuse anyway Israel was going to be built), not a religious one. I think it is not a good idea to use religious word in the definition of the conflict.

One of the problem (for us, and on my own point of view), is that it gives a clear message to humanity that "Terrorism can win", but it only happens because of the "cold War".

The words Jews or Palestinians were mostly used as argumentation to make war, the trouble is that Eastern Arab countries were humiliated by their defeat, and once you are humiliated you could search an unuseful revenge (it is still true today, and it looks like there is no exit gate)