Arabs Butcher Arabs in Darfur-Israel's fault, maybe?

[jbg]

Who is to blame for this mess. Israel's fault, maybe? Or Bush's? Or Harper's?

One would expect large contingents of concerned troops from wealthy Arab oil lands to be offering military and clerical assistance. Where are the peace-seeking clerics? Are those only self-hating Christians and Jews who preach against Western efforts at self-defense?

Where is the relevant clergy when we need them? Exerpts below (link to article):

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

September 3, 2007

Arab Tribes Battling in Darfur Over Spoils of War

By JEFFREY GETTLEMAN

NYALA, Sudan, Aug. 28 — Some of the same Arab tribes accused of massacring civilians in the Darfur region of Sudan are now unleashing their considerable firepower against each other in a battle over the spoils of war that is killing hundreds of people and displacing tens of thousands.

In the past several months, the Terjem and the Mahria, heavily armed Arab tribes that United Nations officials said raped and pillaged together as part of the region’s notorious janjaweed militias, have squared off in South Darfur, fighting from pickup trucks and the backs of camels. They are raiding each other’s villages, according to aid workers and the fighters themselves, and scattering Arab tribesmen into the same kinds of displacement camps that still house some of their earlier victims.

United Nations officials said thousands of gunmen from each side, including some from hundreds of miles away, were pouring into a strategic river valley called Bulbul, while clashes between two other Arab tribes, the Habanniya and the Salamat, were intensifying farther south.

Darfur’s violence has often been characterized as government-backed Arab tribes slaughtering non-Arab tribes, but this new Arab-versus-Arab dimension seems to be a sign of the evolving complexity of the crisis. What started out four years ago in western Sudan as a rebellion and brutal counterinsurgency has cracked wide open into a fluid, chaotic, confusing free-for-all with dozens of armed groups, a spike in banditry and chronic attacks on aid workers.

****

Among Arabs, one of the most egregious examples of the recent infighting happened on the morning of July 31 near Sania Daleibah, in southern Darfur. Terjem leaders said that hundreds of Terjem had gathered to bury an important sheik. Then they were suddenly surrounded. It was Mahria tribesmen, and according to United Nations reports and witness accounts, the Mahria opened fire with rocket-propelled grenades and belt-fed machine guns and mowed down more than 60 Terjem.

“It was a massacre,” said Mohammed Yacob Ibrahim Abdelrahman, the top Terjem leader. “By our brothers.”

The Arab-Arab violence is impeding the slow recovery process that had begun in some parts of Darfur. Around 2.2 million people are stuck in displaced persons camps, though some had been taking the first steps to leave, like villagers from Jimaiza, north of Nyala, who walked out of their camp in July to go back to plant their peanut fields. They were not worried about Arab militias coming to raid their village, they said. Those days seemed over. But then the Terjem-Mahria feud erupted.

Edited September 4, 2007 by jbg

[jbg]

I detect a breathtaking silence here. Higgly, BlackDog, where are you?

[scribblet]

Most Muslim deaths are caused by other Muslims, the large majority of Arabs killed during Israeli-Arab conflict were killed as a result of wars instigated by the Arabs and as a result of their refusal to recognize the U.N. decision re the establishment of the State of Israel - or their refusal to recognize the Jews’ right of self-determination.

http://www.gamla.org.il/english/article/2007/sept/news1.htm

How the deception works

The tragedy is that in Arab and Muslim countries a massacre is happening. A genocide protected by the silence of the world. A genocide protected by a deception that is perhaps unparalleled in the history of mankind. A genocide that has no connection to Israel, to Zionism or to Jews. A genocide of mainly Arabs and Muslims, by Arabs and Muslims.

[jbg]

The tragedy is that in Arab and Muslim countries a massacre is happening. A genocide protected by the silence of the world. A genocide protected by a deception that is perhaps unparalleled in the history of mankind. A genocide that has no connection to Israel, to Zionism or to Jews. A genocide of mainly Arabs and Muslims, by Arabs and Muslims.

Jews, as always, make handy people to blame. At least Americans now share that role, as well as Israelis.

[buffycat]

jbg, maybe no one else has responded to this due to the nature of your opening line

Here's an interesting tidbit for you and Scriblett to digest:

According to Alex de Waal, the "world authority" on Sudan,

Characterising the Darfur war as 'Arabs' versus 'Africans' obscures the reality. Darfur's Arabs are black, indigenous, African and Muslim - just like Darfur's non-Arabs . . . Until recently, Darfurians used the term 'Arab' in its ancient sense of 'bedouin'. These Arabic-speaking nomads are distinct from the inheritors of the Arab culture of the Nile and the Fertile Crescent.

'Arabism' in Darfur is a political ideology, recently imported, after Colonel Gadaffi nurtured dreams of an 'Arab belt' across Africa, and recruited Chadian Arabs, Darfurians and west African Tuaregs to spearhead his invasion of Chad in the 1980s. He failed, but the legacy of arms, militia organisation and Arab supremacist ideology lives on. (The Observer, July 25, 2004)

and

Tensions in Darfur, in western Sudan, have existed since the 1970s. Forced by drought and scarce resources, the nomadic cattle herders in the north ventured into lands populated by the more settled communities in the south.

Renewed fighting broke out at the very moment when a peace agreement was about to be signed which would have ended 21 years of conflict between the government of Sudan, and the Sudan People's Liberation Army (SPLA) in southern Sudan.

Darfur's tribes rebelled against the government complaining that the Sudan government had failed to develop the area. It is alleged that the rebels, aware of the terms of the proposed peace agreement between the government of Sudan and the SPLA, hoped to strike a favorable deal for themselves.

Southern Darfur, like southern Sudan, is rich in oil. The Chinese National Petroleum Corporation holds the large oil concession in southern Darfur. Chinese soldiers are alleged to be protecting Chinese oil interests.

So, by your reasoning - maybe it's the Chinese eh?

Anyway for those interested here's a link to the above piece as well as many more articles from various sources below.

I think this conflict is vastly misunderstood. While I don't agree with the whole article which I cited above, I do think it raises some very good points - as it does attempt to put things into context. Too many op eds wrt Sudan and Darfur present the issues as coming from a vacuum - or simply blaming the 'Arabs' or 'Muslims' for all woes instead of looking at the 'thugs' behind the scenes - which is no different than those who do blame the Jews for everything - same $hit different day. There are alot of blind folk here who trumpet the blame the Arab approach and fail to see their utter hypocrisy.

[scribblet]

Jews, as always, make handy people to blame. At least Americans now share that role, as well as Israelis.

Sure, and everyone else is to blame except those who commit the atrocities in Sudan. The slaughter is and has been perpetrated mainly by Arab Muslims as are most of the victims.

[Bonam]

Sure, and everyone else is to blame except those who commit the atrocities in Sudan.

That unfortunately seems to be the attitude of a lot of Western organizations and media, not only to Sudan but to other conflicts.

Sunnis blow up Shias (and the other way around) in Iraq by the tens of thousands. Whose fault is it? The USA, of course, not the terrorists.

Palestinian terrorists shoot rockets at Israel. Who is to blame? The Jews, of course, not the terrorists.

Arabs slaughter each other by the hundreds of thousands in Sudan. Who is to blame? The west for its silence and lack of action, of course, not the Sudanese government or the murderers themselves.

[jbg]

Sure, and everyone else is to blame except those who commit the atrocities in Sudan. The slaughter is and has been perpetrated mainly by Arab Muslims as are most of the victims.

I guess animals that act on an instinctive level are never to blame for their actions. It's similar to why taming a wolf rarely works out well for the owners or the neighbors.

Note, I am not saying who's an animal here.

[JB Globe]

I would argue that you're employing the same either-or logic here as those you say are using the US and Israel as a scapegoat . . .

Sunnis blow up Shias (and the other way around) in Iraq by the tens of thousands. Whose fault is it? The USA, of course, not the terrorists.

Actually, it's the fault of both parties. The US for its arrogance and ignorance regarding post-war Iraq, and the incredibly way in which it bungled the entire operation - which created a situation where there was no rule of law - thus creating an environment where the previously underlying communal tensions could flare up into their current state.

The US created the environment where it is easy for Iraqis to pull the trigger. Both deserve equal amounts of blame.

Palestinian terrorists shoot rockets at Israel. Who is to blame? The Jews, of course, not the terrorists.

Again, both are to blame. Anyone who truly believes that any one side is "good" and any one side is "evil" in that conflict are either ignorant of the history of it or so fanatical to their respective ideology that they stopped caring about the facts long ago.

It's this notion of some sort of "cosmic battle" between good and evil which is the main fuel for continued violence in the region. After all - peace is eternally impossible if you believe the other side is pure evil.

Arabs slaughter each other by the hundreds of thousands in Sudan. Who is to blame? The west for its silence and lack of action, of course, not the Sudanese government or the murderers themselves.

Again - both deserve blame. The Sudanese government is despicable, but so are Western oil companies that continue to invest in it, if not directly than through subsidiaries. So are Western nations who claimed "never again" after the Holocaust, then "never again" after Rwanda, and are currently twiddling their thumbs, whistling and looking the other way anytime anyone says anything about genocide in Darfur.

[White Doors]

Again, both are to blame. Anyone who truly believes that any one side is "good" and any one side is "evil" in that conflict are either ignorant of the history of it or so fanatical to their respective ideology that they stopped caring about the facts long ago.

It's this notion of some sort of "cosmic battle" between good and evil which is the main fuel for continued violence in the region. After all - peace is eternally impossible if you believe the other side is pure evil.

What pure twaddle this is.

So you think the Durban conference was successfull? I mean the UN uses the VERY MODEL you espouse where no one is the bad guy. That kind of thinking is what has gotten tus to this very point. If you or the UN cannot even have the moral foresight and courage to call evil, evil or bad actions, bad actions and so on and so on, there will be no end to this shit.

You want to morally equivelize yoru whole culture to extinction, you go ahead but don;t sit here and prattle on who each are equally bad because that is the just a bunch of BS.

Has Israel done 'bad' things? of course. Has Palestinians and the majority of the Arab neighbours been consistently worse since Israel's inception? WITHOUT QUESTION.

No where does Israel have an open declaraition of genocide against the Arab/Muslim people. Yet their 'bargaining partner' does? This is not even close to being a good candidate for moral equivelency.

It's akin to blaming the rape victim for kicking the shit out of her attacker because she was trained in self defence.

It is utterly ridiculous and I can only begin to think of the underlying reason behind it.

[jbg]

The US created the environment where it is easy for Iraqis to pull the trigger.

*****

It's this notion of some sort of "cosmic battle" between good and evil which is the main fuel for continued violence in the region. After all - peace is eternally impossible if you believe the other side is pure evil.

Again - both deserve blame. The Sudanese government is despicable, but so are Western oil companies that continue to invest in it, if not directly than through subsidiaries. So are Western nations who claimed "never again" after the Holocaust, then "never again" after Rwanda, and are currently twiddling their thumbs, whistling and looking the other way anytime anyone says anything about genocide in Darfur.

Do I wake up in morning and find it "easy...to pull the trigger"? Don't most people have rivals, competitors and/or enemies?

[bush_cheney2004]

Again - both deserve blame. The Sudanese government is despicable, but so are Western oil companies that continue to invest in it, if not directly than through subsidiaries. So are Western nations who claimed "never again" after the Holocaust, then "never again" after Rwanda, and are currently twiddling their thumbs, whistling and looking the other way anytime anyone says anything about genocide in Darfur.

But not the Chinese? So much blame for the "West"....when "credit" is due elsewhere:

China National Petroleum Corp. owns 40 percent -- the largest single share -- of the Greater Nile Petroleum Operating Co., a consortium that dominates Sudan's oil fields in partnership with the national energy company and firms from Malaysia and India.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004Dec22.html

Edited September 14, 2007 by bush_cheney2004

[JB Globe]

Do I wake up in morning and find it "easy...to pull the trigger"? Don't most people have rivals, competitors and/or enemies?

Of course, but when you live in a state where there's rule of law, and other means to settle disputes, it makes either the thought of armed conflict not worthwhile, or the risk of jail is too great.

Take any society with underlying communal tensions, and then strip away the rule of law, and eventually those who are normally kept in check by the legal system and police are free to pursue their agendas by means of violence.

If you lived in a nation where someone could kill your brother and there was no police or legal system for you to turn to, you'd be much more likely to pick up a gun and go looking for revenge than if you knew there was a chance that the person would be caught and jailed.

[JB Globe]

What pure twaddle this is. So you think the Durban conference was successfull? I mean the UN uses the VERY MODEL you espouse where no one is the bad guy. That kind of thinking is what has gotten tus to this very point.

Actually it's government inaction that's gotten us to this point. Darfur simply is not a prioirity.

If you or the UN cannot even have the moral foresight and courage to call evil, evil or bad actions, bad actions and so on and so on, there will be no end to this shit.

When trying to resolve disputes it's never a good idea to use emotional/morally-based terms and language. That said, Darfur fits the legal definition of genocide, so you can call a spade a spade in legal terms, which really accomplishes the same goal of condemning the actions of a government, without making the dialogue about emotion and morals.

You want to morally equivelize yoru whole culture to extinction, you go ahead but don;t sit here and prattle on who each are equally bad because that is the just a bunch of BS.

I don't understand what you mean by "morally equivalize my culture to extinction," and if you believe my arguement is BS, that's fine, but I don't really care about someone's unsubstantiated opinion.

Has Israel done 'bad' things? of course. Has Palestinians and the majority of the Arab neighbours been consistently worse since Israel's inception? WITHOUT QUESTION.

Actually there are many questions about that, hence the intense debate about the conflict. It all stems from how do you categorize and rank different forms of oppression and violence. In terms of suicide bombs, it's easy to tally up the death toll, but how do you tally up the impact of living in a virtual prison for several decades, which is the experience of Palestinians?

Also, since the Israelis and Palestinians are in such radically different positions, there's really no way to compare what the other would do if they were in the other side's shoes? Would Israelis be using suicide bombs? We know they did bomb European Embassasies and made assasinations - but since then their experience has been shaped by their situation - why engage in guerilla warfare, which reduces your international standing, if you can defeat all of the region's military with your own? If Palestinians could defeat Israel militarily, would they continue to use suicide bombings?

Of course, some groups of people are in the same situation the Palestinians are in and they don't engage in suicide bombings - so it's not a clear case of the environment determines the tactics.

Pretty much, the entire situation is a huge moral mess, which makes proclaiming good guys and bad guys useless, it also makes moral equivalence useless, which means that any solution to the conflict should be free from moral arguments, and based purely on legal grounds which can be debated more easily than a case of "who is more evil" can.

No where does Israel have an open declaraition of genocide against the Arab/Muslim people. Yet their 'bargaining partner' does? This is not even close to being a good candidate for moral equivelency.

I assume you're referring to Hamas, which of course is far more complicated an organization than you suggest. Hamas' military wing is staffed by competent people, which is why they've been successful - and they know that there's no chance of wiping Israel off the map. That's empty rhetoric, and they know it, but it's useful as a political tool. Being such a big organization, there's much dissension about this rhetoric, which many believe to be holding the organization back from being a bigger player - ie: accept the existence of Israel, and get on with the peace talks already.

And seeing as how Fatah is now viewed as a Western-puppet regime, any negotiations have to include Hamas if you want them to work - so, the best thing would do would be to make their acceptance of Israel's existence mandatory for peace talks, but to not outright ban them for life from peace talks, no matter if they accept Israel or not.

It's akin to blaming the rape victim for kicking the shit out of her attacker because she was trained in self defence.

That's a terrible analogy, mainly because it completely leaves out the Israeli Occupation, which is the nuclear reactor of the whole conflict.

[jbg]

Of course, but when you live in a state where there's rule of law, and other means to settle disputes, it makes either the thought of armed conflict not worthwhile, or the risk of jail is too great.

But that begs the question. Do I even think of pulling the trigger and then make a cost-benefit analysis?

If you lived in a nation where someone could kill your brother and there was no police or legal system for you to turn to, you'd be much more likely to pick up a gun and go looking for revenge than if you knew there was a chance that the person would be caught and jailed.

Then how come, when I was walking on silent, quiet New York City streets at 3:00 a.m. (when I lived there) and I could have gotten away with literally anything I didn't find the urge to kill homeless people sleeping near my apartment. After all, they smelled bad.

[White Doors]

Actually it's government inaction that's gotten us to this point. Darfur simply is not a prioirity.

actually, I wasn't talking about Darfur. I was talking about Durban. For a self proclaimed expert interested in facts, it may help you to slow down and actually read what others post.

When trying to resolve disputes it's never a good idea to use emotional/morally-based terms and language. That said, Darfur fits the legal definition of genocide, so you can call a spade a spade in legal terms, which really accomplishes the same goal of condemning the actions of a government, without making the dialogue about emotion and morals.

I agree that it does. I wasn't addressing that point however.

don't understand what you mean by "morally equivalize my culture to extinction," and if you believe my arguement is BS, that's fine, but I don't really care about someone's unsubstantiated opinion.

You are jewish. If you don't understand that Israel may not be around in 40 years, especially if opinions such as yours gain traction IN Israel, then you are foolish.

Pretty much, the entire situation is a huge moral mess, which makes proclaiming good guys and bad guys useless, it also makes moral equivalence useless, which means that any solution to the conflict should be free from moral arguments, and based purely on legal grounds which can be debated more easily than a case of "who is more evil" can.

Well, I prefer to talk about reality, not 'what if scenarios' so you have fun on that journey to never never land. The reality is that Israel COULD wipe out the Palestinians if they wanted to. They have the capability to do so, but do not.

If the Palestinins had the same capability what do you think would happen?

You should really think about that one.

That's a terrible analogy, mainly because it completely leaves out the Israeli Occupation, which is the nuclear reactor of the whole conflict.

Disagree. Israel has been attacked since their inception. The 'occupied territories' are simply buffer zones to keep their country a country. Spoils of war if you will. Btw, there were no such thing as a palestinin nation before Israel.

Why isn't Jordan complaining about the 'land grab'?

Edited September 17, 2007 by White Doors

[ScottSA]

Actually, it's the fault of both parties. The US for its arrogance and ignorance regarding post-war Iraq, and the incredibly way in which it bungled the entire operation - which created a situation where there was no rule of law - thus creating an environment where the previously underlying communal tensions could flare up into their current state.

The US created the environment where it is easy for Iraqis to pull the trigger. Both deserve equal amounts of blame.

Again, both are to blame. Anyone who truly believes that any one side is "good" and any one side is "evil" in that conflict are either ignorant of the history of it or so fanatical to their respective ideology that they stopped caring about the facts long ago.

It's this notion of some sort of "cosmic battle" between good and evil which is the main fuel for continued violence in the region. After all - peace is eternally impossible if you believe the other side is pure evil.

I agree with WD. This is pure twaddle. In fact, it's the product of far too many years of inculcated relativism...there's no real thought behind it; it's simply an automatic grasp for the middle road; the assumption that if two sides are in conflict, the sides are equally valid by virtue of being two different sides. The alternative to this thoughtless leftism is not to see things as a cosmic battle between good and evil, but to see the two sides for their relative worth.

Simply siezing the middle road in a knee jerk reaction is about as fruitful as the courts approaching criminal cases on the a priori assumption that if the mugger mugs, the victim must have done something to deserve it, and therefore what is needed is behavioural changes on both sides. Pure twaddle.

[JB Globe]

But that begs the question. Do I even think of pulling the trigger and then make a cost-benefit analysis?

Then how come, when I was walking on silent, quiet New York City streets at 3:00 a.m. (when I lived there) and I could have gotten away with literally anything I didn't find the urge to kill homeless people sleeping near my apartment. After all, they smelled bad.

Are you trying to deny that there is no link between rule of law and the amount of violence in a country?

Really?

You don't think that if the NYC police force vanished and you could get away with anything, things wouldn't start to go south pretty quickly?

[Higgly]

I detect a breathtaking silence here. Higgly, BlackDog, where are you?

Holy cow! I am defeated!

Here's one for you...

Christians slaughter Christians in Europe! Germany invades Poland!

So your thesis is that because the west cannot be implicated in everything, it is reponsible for nothing?

Maybe you should be posting in ScottSA's forum.

[buffycat]

The reality is that Israel COULD wipe out the Palestinians if they wanted to. They have the capability to do so, but do not.

If the Palestinins had the same capability what do you think would happen?

You should really think about that one.

That's a terrible analogy, mainly because it completely leaves out the Israeli Occupation, which is the nuclear reactor of the whole conflict.

Disagree. Israel has been attacked since their inception. The 'occupied territories' are simply buffer zones to keep their country a country. Spoils of war if you will. Btw, there were no such thing as a palestinin nation before Israel.

Why isn't Jordan complaining about the 'land grab'?

Again nothing but nonsense from White Doors who will never admit that certain Israeli administrations have not been too nice (understatement). Of course Israel could wipe the Palestinians off the map - or into the 'sea' (sort of like what they are doing in Gaza currently) - but even Israel with her big brother the US couldn't survive that PR nightmare.

As far as the occupied territories being bufferzones - excuse me but they ARE NOT Israel's lands - she is ILLEGALLY OCCUPYING THEM!!

Learn some friggin' history to add to your version of reality White Doors.

As far as fake countries go I think that Israel takes the cake - where would she be if she wasn't dependent on the US for over 3.5 billion $$ a year? Hmmm? She is albeit a reality - but she could have made it a far more peaceful reality and a far more just reality - for both Israeli Jews and Arabs (including Christians - who are practically non-existant since they've been so nicely ethnically cleansed - and Muslims (oh they aren't people according to you).

Time to learn a little more history White Doors - may I suggest you read some Ilan Pappe, Raul Hillberg, or any other of the many brave Israeli historians who most likely know alot more than you do - or ever will. Or you could simply start by reading sites such as B'TSelem - oh but I suppose those Israelis who work for real peace with their Palestinian brothers and sisters are just self haters to you eh>

Pffft...

Edited September 25, 2007 by buffycat

[Higgly]

As far as the occupied territories being bufferzones - excuse me but they ARE NOT Israel's lands - she is ILLEGALLY OCCUPYING THEM!!

You go girl.

[jbg]

Are you trying to deny that there is no link between rule of law and the amount of violence in a country?

Really?

You don't think that if the NYC police force vanished and you could get away with anything, things wouldn't start to go south pretty quickly?

They would. My point is that not everyone needs a police presence to keep their behavior in check.

[ScottSA]

As far as the occupied territories being bufferzones - excuse me but they ARE NOT Israel's lands - she is ILLEGALLY OCCUPYING THEM!!

Learn some friggin' history to add to your version of reality White Doors.

I love this...the perfect juxtaposition. Screaming at someone to "learn history," while displaying an abysmal ignorance of it in a loud bellow one sentence away. Hilarious!

I suppose the left has about as much chance of telling the difference between propaganda and reality as it does tellling the difference between the utterly meaningless UNGA resolutions that the agitprop is based on, and UNSC resolutions, which is what "ILLEGALLY!1!11!!!" is based on in the real world.

Edited September 26, 2007 by ScottSA

[buffycat]

I love this...the perfect juxtaposition. Screaming at someone to "learn history," while displaying an abysmal ignorance of it in a loud bellow one sentence away. Hilarious!

I suppose the left has about as much chance of telling the difference between propaganda and reality as it does tellling the difference between the utterly meaningless UNGA resolutions that the agitprop is based on, and UNSC resolutions, which is what "ILLEGALLY!1!11!!!" is based on in the real world.

Uh Scott are you saying that the Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands is not illegal? You might want to check on that.

But given your overwhelming amounts of falsehoods you spread like cream cheese on a bagel around here I am not surprised by your stupid comments.

I used to be just as ignorant of these issues Scott, growing up in a full tilt Zionist household where Israel could never do wrong. I feared the Muslim just as you do now (yes YOU do fear them - hence the intense hatred). Then I began to ask questions, my own questions. I sought answers to what I found so difficult to rectify and since have learned a great deal. Maybe one day you will too - though I won't hold my breath - since at 48 years of age it should of happened already.

Want to read a nice story?

This is a piece about Sukkot - very moving:

COMBAT IGNORANCE AND DWELL IN PEACE

A week long holiday in Israel called Sukkot, or The Feast of the Tabernacles, begins tonight at sundown. We eat all of our meals in little booths and the ceilings are usually made of tree branches, allowing the sky to be visible. It is a reminder of the 40 years we roamed in the desert and dwelled in such structures. It is actually quite a fun holiday and a very community oriented one, it is one of my favourites.

I had some flashbacks this morning to my Sukkot celebrations in Brooklyn. As a child, they were much different than here in Israel. Here there is a Jewish community and a Palestinian one. In the neighbourhood I grew up in, there was an Eastern European Jewish Community (Ashkenazi) and a community made up of Spanish Jews and Jews from Northern Africa (Sephardi). Both communities had their own traditions and practices, but basically both were members of the same religion. One of the major differences between the two communities at the time were language, the Ashkenazi Jews spoke Yiddish; a language with Germanic roots, while the Sephardi Jews spoke a language called Ladino; a mixture of Hebrew and Spanish.

What I remembered this morning was the following; the Synagogue of the Sephardi community was situated very close to the home of my grandparents. They used to build a large enough booth to accommodate their entire congregation. As a child, I used to help them with the preparations. I remembered my grandmother screaming at me from her window to get away from them, not to play with their kids…. I could never understand why.

It seemed that a great part of her ghetto mentality remained with her after so many years of living in America... this mentality dictated a distrust for anyone that was in any way different. These people were different than we were, as mentioned; they spoke a different language and, for the most part, had darker skins than the Ashkenazi Jews. My generation did not see these differences as our common language was English and skin colour was never an issue with me or my immediate family. I therefore could never understand my grandmother's logic, or lack of…. So I secretly maintained my friendships with the kids there.

Today, I started thinking about prejudice, why it exists, how to overcome it…. It seems to exist because of ignorance and fear, two very real factors. How can we overcome them? Learn about each other and the fear factor will be eliminated. Very simple! It worked in my case.Things are slightly different today, in Israel at least. The Jewish community celebrates together. We have a common language, Hebrew. There are still some remnants of the old world prejudice, but for the most part it's gone.

Now to find ways to overcome the prejudices between the Jewish and Palestinian communities here. My way is to open my booth, as well as my home, to ALL members of the community, both Arab and Jew. The Muslims are fasting now for Ramadan, but many do join us in our booth for the evening meal. It's the best guarantee to end the hatred… live together!

So, instead of fearing the differences of the others, my philosophy is to say VIVA LA DIFFERENCE! Let us all live together as neighbours and brothers.Shalom-Salaam!

To My Jewish Brothers and Sisters.... Sukkot Sameach!

To My Muslim Brothers and Sisters.... Ramadan Kareem!

The above was originally posted two years ago ...

image

Keep your hatred and vitriole to yourself. Argue merit, facts and not the bigottry you constantly espouse.

Edited September 26, 2007 by buffycat

[Bonam]

Definitely, getting to know people of other groups can lead to greater understanding and peace. And it works great when members of all said groups can trust that the worst thing that will happen as a result of such attempts would be a misunderstanding and perhaps hurt feelings. Unfortunately, when one group has a history of suicide attacks and other forms of violence against the other, an understandable safety concern arises over inviting each other over for dinner...

Now, some people may choose to take the risk and go for it anyway, for the sake of peace. But for the typical person, who cares more about personal safety than abstract political ideals, that won't be the case.

And yes, the above "prejudice" comes from a sense of fear. But just because something is based on fear, doesn't mean it can't possibly be justified. Some things pose a genuine safety concern, a genuine risk, and fear is the natural and correct human response to such things. An Ashkenazi Jew living in America fearing a Sephardi Jew (as in the above example) may not have been justified, but an Israeli Jew living in a border town just might be justified in having a certain level of apprehension with regards to a Palestinian Arab living across the border in the West Bank. Particularly if that Arab thinks of that Jew as a "Zionist occupier" and cheers on as his "brothers" set up a rocket launcher to launch rockets at that Jew's house.

In summary, the ideal of getting to know those you fear or hate to dissolve the conflict is a good one, when it comes to racism or intolerance within a cohesive society. Like, for example, that's a good approach for us to use between different groups within Canada, or in the US. But in a place where the two groups are starkly divided, where violence is constant and continuing hatred is based on the deaths caused by that violence, peace has to come before understanding. If security can be imposed from without for a generation, so that a generation can grow up without the constant violence, then perhaps that generation could begin to go out and understand each other. But when you're grieving over the deaths of your family members, that's not the best time to go have a cup of tea with their killers.