Re: Eyes Wide Open (was Failing to make distinctions)

[Ray Evans Harrell]

I think you are right about this Bill.   However, one of the things that I have noticed is how dangerous bourgeois people are when they are threatened.    If they have paid for the weapons they will use them.     They really don't care about anything but to be left alone to do their own stories.    The Palestinian bourgeoisie that Lawry speaks about is interesting and very "shall we walk amongst the olive trees in the morning at five o'clock if you wish to commune with me"  in their style.    The Christians are unlike other Christians in that they seem not to be as predatory and more at home with themselves and the Arabs seem almost embarrassed when you speak to them about Islamic violence or militant evangelism.    They show a certain grace in spite of the fact that they believe I am sending my children to hell since I'm not of their Faith.      The other night I had one say to me that Jesus called everyone and that I just wasn't listening.     Another claimed that there was no such thing as a non-Christian Indian these days.    What do you say to these people?   What do you say to people who consider paying for a child relative's abortion to be murder and that abortion is just another example of the way that you don't care about children and their going to hell since you aren't a Christian or some other Internationalist religious agenda.     If Islam ever truly got control of a Nuclear arsenal how safe would you feel if you weren't Moslem?      If you aren't American, how safe do you feel knowing that religious folks of similar bourgeois predilection have control of the button over here.    All and all I would say that it is a very dangerous world and everyone carrying a gun in the Middle East is not nearly as dangerous as one Texan in the White House with his finger on that red button.     It is indicative of their naivet� that they believe that Israel is a major world army or power and that it matters one whittle what they do if America should happen to accidentally go to red alert, settle in Cheyenne Mountain and empty 1/3 of the missile silos still in existence.    The Nuclear Winter to follow would make them all die horribly, as well as all of us and the fanatics would still believe that they had been right all along.     As Bertrand Russell said at one point.    If the monsterhood of Hitler was that he killed 90 million people in the second world war, how much more of a monster are our petty tyrants today that could wipe out five billion?     There are no heroes here, only villains.    And that includes all of the governments, religions, academics, scientists, philosophers and corporations in existence.    Christianity is a flop and Islam is a 15th century Arabian dream.   Grow up!   Or are you, as Arthur says, all "Handmaidens"?     How interesting that his post was simply ignored and you went on speaking as if anything you said would make a difference.     The only difference you can make is if you clean up your own personal act and that is all you've got and that goes for me as well.      Did you ever notice how quickly Carl Sagan died after he wrote about Nuclear Winters?      Maybe we should have Ursula Leguin on the list.    We could read the "Word for the World is Forest" to understand the root of our impotence and depression.     I think about home in Oklahoma and how the people who went away like to fool around in the politics back home and make messes that they don't have to live with or pay for.    I've made a conscious decision to only make messes in houses that I live in.     Ray Evans Harrell The Village Crank     ----- Original Message ----- From: William B Ward To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 6:25 PM Subject: Re: Eyes Wide Open (was Failing to make distinctions) Harry - Balfour Declaration  www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH00pp0   You need to view Hamaas more like the IRA. They are not in it for the money. Arafat is afraid of them and does not control them. Israel is afraid of them and cannot control them.    Arab nations support the Palestinian cause a little to quiet pro-Palestinian elements in their countries.   Bill Ward     On Mon, 30 Sep 2002 14:25:17 -0700 Harry Pollard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Karen, > > As always good commentary. > > We should identify some players. > > "The Official Palestinians" - led by Arafat. > > "Hamas "- I've called them the Mafia, implacably hostile to Israel, > a state > within a state, the bestower of goodies on the population - goodies > that > are almost certainly provided by the US. You'll recall that the > Mafia in > the US was where poor people in the urban ghettos would go for help > - along > with the church. > > There are other terrorist groups (or freedom fighters) - the Islamic > Jihad > and suchlike, but Hamas seems to be the instigator of suicide > bombing. They > appear to be unaffected by what Arafat does. (I would not be > surprised if > Arafat is more terrified by Hamas than by the Israelis. > > "The Arab Nations" - have been quite open in the past about their > intention > of driving the Israelis into the sea, though now they are a teensy > little > bit more circumspect. However, their maps don't show Israel and they > have > never recognized Palestine as an individual state (and won't until > Israel > is gone). > > However, the Arab nations give very little to help the Palestinians > - about > 2% of the subsidy that keeps the state on welfare. The Saudis give > about > $1.8 million - which shows how little the rest give. (The US gives > $84 > million.) > > "Jordan" - there is always someone off-stage ready to take front and > center. > > "The Israelis" > > The immovable object - the solid mass - is Israel. The Jews are not > going > to leave. They have always been in Palestine that for centuries > (millennia > ?) was composed of Jews and Arabs. The Jews always wanted a > homeland. The > British promised them one back in WWI. > > (Keith, for the life of me I can't remember the name of the > agreement, or > letter of intent, or whatever. I think it began with H - the name of > a > politician. Know what my feeble mind is searching for?) > > The Brits didn't want to offend the Arabs, so nothing much happened > until > after WWII. Then, we will recall the Brits were unwilling to > establish a > Jewish homeland. The official attitude, which might have been true, > was > that they feared the Arabs by the millions would kill all the Jews > and the > Brits would be blamed. > > But, bombings and shootings, plus shiploads of immigrants, > eventually > changed their minds. Red faces accompanied the pictures of the Royal > Navy > turning back ships full of women and children. > > This led to the spectacle of five Arab armies launching the attack > that > would destroy Israel and kill all the Jews. It failed. Another five > armies > attacked later, again failing. > > The Jews will not go quietly into the good night. > > Yet, apparently they must or, at the very least, hide behind a wall > > These are the major characters in the play. > > I would suggest that the point of attack in this scenario is the > money. > > Just as the Saudis are welfare cases, so are the Palestinians.  > Internal > welfare for the Saudis is comparable to  external welfare for the > Palestinians. The money from UNRWA should perhaps be directed to the > > official Palestinian state - Jordan (itself a manufactured entity > like > Israel). Let the Jordanians be the manager of the money. > > Or, it would be interesting if every time a suicide bomb went off in > Israel > $5 million was deducted from the UNRWA stipend. It should be noted > that > since the beginning '90's the Palestinians are a kind of official > state. > Almost 98% of Palestinians have been part of this. > > The Jews can hardly be blamed for what is happening there. They have > the go > ahead to make themselves a state. They get the money from outside. > They > could become prosperous with a little attention directed to their > welfare > rather than Israel. > > Arafat was given the green light to form a 40,000 strong police > force. Can > it not be used to break up Hamas? > > Well, Arafat has done a little, but not much. So, the money (or its > withdrawal) might be an incentive to move things forward. > > If that were attempted, I can hear "All Things Considered", and > suchlike, > waxing apoplectic with rage at this attack on women, and children, > and the > poor, and the helpless. But, if it works, it might reduce the > attacks on > women, and children, and the poor, and the helpless. > > If anything can. > > Oops! I've just got Lawry's post. Whenever I am called ignorant, I > smell > propaganda. I'll read it more carefully in a while, but note how > "the mass > of the Palestinians" is melded into the antics of the leaders. > > That may be a universal problem - thinking that national policies > are the > same as the wishes of the people. > > Meantime we will both hope the brick wall is crumbling. > > Harry > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Karen wrote: > > >HP wrote asking BW: > >Are you suggesting the suicide bombers are a war against Sharon? > >These are people whose open intent is to sweep Israel into the sea. > People > >to whom the Arabs have never given a homeland because Israel is > where they > >will be when the Jews are all killed. > >We are in error to personalize things. Sharon isn't the problem, no > matter > >the convenience it provides newsmen and politicians to emphasize > >individuals. > > > >Harry, I will not challenge your statement at length, that we are > in error > >to personalize things, but it sounds very much like history being > understood > >by science: here is a solid mass that will not budge and over here > is a > >single entity that has no affect on it and cannot possibly make the > solid > >mass move, dissolve or change in any way. > > > >This comes back to the old question of do men as individuals affect > history, > >or is history such a solid mass that individuals are pulled along > by it but > >never able to drive history a certain way? > > > >Of course, we all agree that individuals matter in their local, > regional and > >now global histories.  Sharon is certainly part of the problem.  He > gives > >the wall or solid mass of desperate Islamic hate a target on the > world event > >stage, just as Arafat is a target for the global defenders of > Israel. > >Identifying the I - P problem as an unmovable, impenetrable object > (open > >intent to sweep Israel out to the sea) only contributes to the > problem, it > >makes it seem impossible to change, just as Tom Walker wrote re: > Emery Roe's > >Analytical Tip opinion that environmentalists and economists can > make doing > >anything about global warming or global poverty seem too large a > problem to > >deal with by individuals or individual states. > > > >When we condense historical events down to a formula to understand > it, we > >often miss the mythos that is involved.  Your statement is > practical, using > >logos, and reflects (what I think is) your intellectual > training/preference, > >but both mythos and logos are involved in life and the unfolding > drama of > >mankind. > > > >If the right CEO can make or break a corporation, if one professor > and not > >another can attract more students to a department, if a single > talented > >researcher can make the difference in a breakthrough in medical > science, if > >one lawyer can make a jury see the evidence in a different way, > then why > >should we not blame Sharon and Arafat for contributing to this > political > >problem?  I see the I - P issue as a crumbling brick wall, not a > solid one, > >and I am focused on the crack in my line of sight that I can do > something > >about.  - Karen > > > ****************************** > Harry Pollard > Henry George School of LA > Box 655 > Tujunga  CA  91042 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Tel: (818) 352-4141 > Fax: (818) 353-2242 > ******************************* > >