Today I was watching a news show on the CBC called The Hour hosted by George Stroumboulopoulos (not to be confused with Clinton’s press secretary George Stephanopoulos). The show featured a recap of last night’s Golden Globes and pointed a certain verbal slip during the listing of nominees of the Best Foreign Film category and the announcing of it’s winner: Paradise Now of Palestine.
George ran a clip of presenters Matthew Mcconaughey and Sarah Jessica Parker saying “Palestine” twice and then said something along the lines of Palestine not existing and no one at the Golden Globes had pointed that out or fixed that error. This is what the whole conflict is about George said.
This comment interested me because a few weeks ago I attended a debate between university students about the Israeli Arab conflict and one Israeli student suddenly declared in the middle of all the arguing “Palestine doesn’t even exist!”. Everyone in the audience was taken aback by this comment, regardless of their stance on the conflict. The professor at the time said something very interesting as the referee of the debate. “To deny the existance of Palestine is to deny the existance of Palestinians…”
It’s an interesting question to pose though: what constitutesexistance?
Do people have to live on the land? Does the land have to be defined by the historical existance of those people with relation to their ethnicity?
Is there a paper you have to sign to be acknowledged by the world as a country that exists?
And if George and that guy who spoke up during that debate are right, does the “fact” that Palestine apparently doesn’t exist mean it is fictional? Is Palestine the new Neverland?
Is there a secret handshake? Do you get a t-shirt?
It seems to me that the world has in fact acknowledged the existance of Palestine (based on the 67 borders) and the right of Palestinians to exist.
Does “state” mean “nation”?
If you’re stateless does that mean you’re nationless?
Should we be literally politically correct when it comes to “Palestine”?
If so, then perhaps Matthew Mcconaughey and Sarah Jessica Parker should’ve said “And the Winner is Paradise Now! From…that-piece-of-land-with-a-bunch-of-people-living-on-it-between-Jordan-and-Israel-and-is-occupied-by-the-latter.”
Maybe the Golden Globes people were just trying to save time.
But it makes me wonder what we’re fighting for these days.
Very well said Nas, you just said it all!
nas, move away from the edge! Do not ever question what the fight is for…once u loose that illusion that we are in fact fighting for recognition, a part of sacred land, and the right to self determinism, then they win.
Ù?Ù? اÙ?أطÙÂاÙ? Ù?Ù?Ù?دÙ?Ù? داخÙ? اÙ?Ù?Ø·Ù?… Ø¥Ù?اÙ? اÙ?Ø·ÙÂÙ? اÙ?ÙÂÙ?سطÙ?Ù?Ù? ÙÂØ¥Ù? اÙ?Ù?Ø·Ù? Ù?Ù?Ù?د ÙÂÙ? داخÙ?Ù?.
I’ve heard this long time ago and I can’t forget it… But I believe in one thing… Palestine will rise again… itâ??s only a matter of timeâ?¦
to be simplistic against the tide of complexity: “everyone just wants a place they call home”.
Great post. I’ve run into the same type of argument before. To deny Palestinian existence is to deny their humanity.
Palestine exists and it is being occupied in some parts. and they have renamed some parts to a tasteless name: Israel. 🙂 As far as I am concerned, anything between Jordan and lebanon is Palestine. The first spokesman for the Palestinian cause was Jesus, as He told the Jews that they are not the all in all. and stressed that God’s Kingdom is for everyone. Especially the weak and exploited people. Palestinians are the First in His Kingdom.
the “fighting for” hyperlink is incorrect, it’s a link to edit that post not view it.
sorry, couldn’t help it.
thank you all for your comments, some interesting pov’s
SC, thanks, feel free to do that often, I’m not the best when it comes to editing 😀
I’ll stay away from my patriotic comments and stick to a simple “sigh”…
Nice highlight Nas, as always:)
I just wanna say that after googling that stroum-bulous guy+palestine, I almost found nothing relating to his controversial comment on his extremely ridiculous show. So this shows how apathetic people are regarding such outrageous remarks! You were the only one to react! Something should be done about this!
It’s NOT the â??fighting forâ? hyperlink that is incorrect, it’s the “Paradise Now” one … 😛
In the featured book “Arab Voices Speak to American Hearts” by Samar Dahmash Jarrah, every Arab in the book says that Palestine matters to them. So spread the word about the book at every blog in the USA so they would know that Palestine still mattersâ?¦.Americans who read the book are fascinated by it.
Unfortunately you are all guilty of anti-semitism. What I would have said to your teacher is that he is denying Israel and Israelis. However it is comforting to see that the Muslim desire to push the Jews into the sea is still alive and well and that the rest of the world should continue to dismiss with contempt the lies of the Islamofascists!
neoleftychick, you are the most intelligent commenter I have seen around here.
the palestinians need to grow up. the wall is being built and time for a negotiated settlement is running short. soon israel will settle this matter once and for all unilaterally. no one is going to wait forever for hamas to come to its senses. once the israelis have secured the west bank the palestinians will be left to do nothing but sulk about their national fate and drift off into the islamist nightmare of rabid religiosity and sharia law the taliban … er, I mean hamas and its ilk would like to impose over gaza and the west bank.
the palestinians and the rest of the arabs have brought this on themselves by their long history of unwarranted aggression, their incredibly poor choice in leaders, and their refusal to abandon violence even when violence is no longer needed to bring attention to their cause. too bad.
those who think that the day will come when palestinians control not only the west bank and gaza but all of what is currently israel are dreaming. it is this sort of dream that has inspired the unrealistic attitudes that have gotten the palestinians where they are today (which is nowhere). time to wake up.
dane
I would not go that far. The plight of the Palestinians will only be solved “politically.” I despair that the poor refugees have been so scandalously abused by vile Islamic dictators and meglomaniacs like Arafat over the years, but nobody is doing them any favours by telling them that this is a “legal” issue; it isn’t.
I think you have a very wrong way of understanding the term “anti-semitism”. Anti-semitism is a form of racism. Most of the people you’re talking to on this blog are actually semites, and I would say almost all are not racist.
Israel is a country, and Israeli’s come from different races not just one; some came from Europe, some came from Asia, some came from Africa etc. The president of Israel is actualy Persian, so would you call a Persian muslim racist just for speaking against the president of Isreal who happens to be Persian as well?
There’s nothing in speaking against Israel that is racist. And there’s nothing in speaking against zionism that is racist just as there’s nothing racist in you speaking against what you called “Islamofascism”. Even speaking against Judaism itself (a religion) has nothing racist in it just as speaking against Islam has nothing racist in it.
I wish people get their vocabulary straightened out before they start inventing new vocabulary of their own.
her understanding of the word anti-semitism is fine. anti-semitism was a phrase coined in Europe long ago that refers specifically to hatred of jews; it has not ever referred to hatred of Arabs or other Semitic people. you can argue that the original derivation of this word is incorrect, but it is a standard and acceptable term used in the english language. if you want to take it up with somebody, take it up with webster: http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/anti-semitism
Actually Dane, her and your understanding of the term is still wrong strictly because of you what you admitted, which is the erranous derivation of the term, and more importantly, because of the fact that anti-semitism is pushed on the world as a form of racism. Even though you’ve quoted the Miriam Webster definition of the word I fear you still don’t fully understand it. According to the Miriam Webster definition that you quoted, anti-semitism is not all a form of racism, so there should be no concluding that someone is racist based on on the fact that they are anti-semitic, but you know and I know that’s not the case today; anti-semitism is always strictly thought about as something wrong because it’s “racist”.
Basically, the world has to choose one of two options:
– Either correct the meaning of the word anti-semitism and stick to rejecting it as a form of racism, in which case the Miriam Webster definition has to be changed.
– Or drop the “anti-semitism=racism” argument because according to the “accepted meaning of the word”, anti-semitism isn’t entirely contained within the boundaries of racism.
In either case, there’s nothing wrong or racist in criticism of the state of Israel, zionism and even Judaism.
hamzeh, don’t be silly. let us take a look at what webster has to say about various terms:
anti-semitism:
hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group
racism:
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination
prejudice:
1 : injury or damage resulting from some judgment or action of another in disregard of one’s rights; especially : detriment to one’s legal rights or claims
2 a (1) : preconceived judgment or opinion (2) : an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge b : an instance of such judgment or opinion c : an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics
Therefore:
anti-semitism: hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group
racism: 2 : racial prejudice or discrimination
prejudice: 2 (2) c: an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics
1) racism is racial prejudice or discrimination
2) prejudice is what causes discrimination
3) anti-semitism is discrimination – often based on race or ethnicity.
it certainly follows that anti-semitism is often a form of racism (though it can also be religious hatred – very often the two are intertwined when it comes to jews).
by contrast, how many times have you heard muslims denounce westerners as ‘racist’ when they oppose islam. this despite the fact that a wide range of ethnic groups practice islam – from albanians to indonesians (not to mention white western european and american converts like john walker lindh). it is muslims who frequently abuse the term ‘racist’ to denounce anybody they don’t like.
If you consider the following statement: “anti-semitism is not entirely formed of racism”, which doesn’t contradict with your “analysis”, and then count the instances in which people where “anti-semitic” according to the erranous definition that you’re choosing to base this discussion on, and even count in the cases that were dubbed “examples of anti-semitism” even though the erranous definition itself didn’t include them in anti-semitism (for example, cases that are based on political inclination such as criticsm of Israel and zionism which have been always called out as anti-semitism even though they’re not according to even this definition), you’ll find out that most of these instances are not based on racial discrimination. Most of them are cases of opposition to the country of Israel (not a race), the zionist movement (not a race), or Judaism (not a race), generally the occupation (which is not carried out by a race).
There is actually rarely any case of racial discrimination involved in opposition of Israel and zionism today, since both Israel and Zionism, in addition the Jewish faith, contain members of more than one race, and as a matter of fact they share a lot of racial background with the same people who project the criticism.
So the conclusion is that anti-semitism is not often based on race, and therefore the cases of anti-semitism that can be described as racism are not at all many. I would say even negligible.
And this is all based on the same erranous definition that you would like to use.
And this is all besides the main point that I tried to make, which is that “According to the definition of the word anti-semitism that you’re willing to accept, being anti-semititc isn’t necessarily a bad thing”, and I’ve showed you in this comment why “cases of anti-semitism (according to your definition) today are almost always not cases of racism”.
Capisce?
About Muslims using the word “racist” in the wrong place; you’re absolutely right, but it’s not used in the wrong place as much as the “anti-semitism/racism” card is used by Israel and zionism apologists.