"Joshua B. Lilly" wrote in
message ...
Yeah, it`s complete nonsense. There are anti-Zionist Israeli citizens
who are also in the religion of Judaism.

Dear Mr Lilly,

Yes, I know some anti-Zionist Jews, some of whom hold Israeli citizenship.
Also, many citizens of Israel (Arabs, Druze) would *not* be considered Jewish
n any sense. The state of Israel does continue to practise substantial legal
discrimination between its Jewish citizens and its non-Jewish citizens.
In my view, Israel evidently has defined itself more as 'the state of the
Jewish people' rather than as 'the nation of the citizens of Israel'.

Zionism is a terrorist movement which started in the late 19th century
under Theodor Herzl.

As I recall, in his Ph.D. dissertation (Princeton University) on Zionism,
Norman G. Finkelstein (a son of Holocaust survivors) characterised Zionism
as a form of romantic nationalism, which came to embody some historical myths
(such as the familiar propaganda claim that Palestine was 'a land without
people for a people without land'). That ludicrous demographic claim
(Palestine was supposedly 'a land without people' before the Zionist settlers
arrived there) was essentially reiterated by Joan Peters in her 1984 book,
'From Time Immemorial', which was lauded throughout the 'mainstream' United
States media and critically condemned (or simply ignored and dismissed)
everywhere else, even by Israeli scholars. 'From Time Immemorial' has no
credibility whatsoever in scholarly circles today, but it remains in print
in the United States and, as far as I know, it continues to be cited with
approval by some ignorant (or dishonest) American supporters of Israel.

"Looking at Zionism without taboos means seeing the hard reality of the
domination and oppression it has created. Out of the original sins of
the world against the Jews grew the original sins of Zionism against the
Palestinians. The issues are often raised through a counting and recounting
of massacres and victims on both sides. The problem is one of principles,
not atrocities. Even if nobody died, there is something wrong with Zionist
principles. The problem is a moral one. Raising the moral question is not
a mark of idealism but of realism.

Israelis seem to be haunted by a curse. It is the curse of the original sin
against the native Arabs. How can Israel be discussed without recalling the
dispossession and exclusion of non-Jews? This is the most basic fact about
Israel, and no understanding of Israeli reality is possible without it.
The original sin haunts and torments Israelis; it marks everything and taints
everybody. The memory of the original sin poisons the bloood and marks
every moment of existence.
....
Admitting the injustice done to the Palestinians is so terrifying that
Israelis will try to avoid it at all costs. Their feeling is that if they
admit any guilt, they will be punished severely and mortally, as the magnitude
of their crime warrants. They are afraid of the natives' wish for revenge.
But there will be no reconciliation without an open admission of the basic
injustice involved in Zionism."

--Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi (Original Sins: Reflections on the History of
Zionism and Israel)

(Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi is a professor at Haifa University in Israel.)

Someone being born in a specific country, or practicing a specific religion,
does not automatically make them a participant or supporter of this movement.

Unfortunately, many of Israel's declared supporters *and* Israel's avowed
enemies wrongly prefer to equate being a Jew with being a Zionist. Indeed,
some anti-Zionist Jewish friends of mine have been denounced for allegedly
being 'traitors' to their people, their faith, or even to the state of Israel.
(How could a Jew who's *not* a citizen of Israel be rightly considered a
'traitor' to Israel?) The late Israel Shahak (a survivor of the Belsen
concentration camp), a professor at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem and
the chairman of the Israeli League of Human and Civil Rights, received some
death threats and apparently even some hateful messages to the effect that
the Nazis would have been right to have murdered him before he came to Israel.

As I recall reading in the chess newsgroups, Wlodzimierz Holsztynski has
equated anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism and evidently asserted that anyone
who's not Jewish has no moral right to criticise Israel, for such criticism
could be motivated, most likely in his apparent view, only by anti-Semitism.

It would be similar to saying ALL Libyans are terrorists just by the
chance of fate that made them be born within those borders.

My impression is that more than a few Americans would support the
'profiling' of *all Libyans* as potential terrorists.

This isn`t a World Championship they`re planning, of course, just another
one of those laughable KO tournaments with the two-game "matches". Not
nearly as interesting as round-robins or even swisses. But still, they
shouldn`t exclude people for idiotic reasons like this. How do they know
that Smirin, for example, is a Zionist? For all I know, he hates Zionism.
Did they ask him?

Would what happen if an Arab who's a citizen of Israel were to attempt to play?

--Nick

("Nick") wrote in message . com...
"Joshua B. Lilly" wrote in
message ...

As I recall, [...] Norman G. Finkelstein

Norman G. Finkelstein is not worthy of
any respect (just like our silly and cheap
leaky bag of quotations, the phony "Nick"
"Bourbaki").

As I recall reading in the chess newsgroups,
Wlodzimierz Holsztynski [...]

"Nick"'s words are of no consequence.
They are meaningless, not worthy any attention,
and certainly not of any other comment or discussion.

The sleazy "Nick" is trying hard to smear my name
in any dirty way he can come up with. He got his
unimportant but sooo important to him ego scratched
a bit and he can't get over it. He abuses my name
over weeks and months, he's a maniac.

He also loooves to rave about his "virtues",
like this was:

nick_the_idiot.self-absorption.misc

and not rec.games.chess.misc

Wlod

I have to say, if someone talks about facts, information, and sources, and
the response is nothing but a simple personal attack, I think I know who`s
probably right.



"Wlodzimierz Holsztynski" wrote in message
om...
("Nick") wrote in message
. com...
"Joshua B. Lilly" wrote in
message ...

As I recall, [...] Norman G. Finkelstein

Norman G. Finkelstein is not worthy of
any respect (just like our silly and cheap
leaky bag of quotations, the phony "Nick"
"Bourbaki").

As I recall reading in the chess newsgroups,
Wlodzimierz Holsztynski [...]

"Nick"'s words are of no consequence.
They are meaningless, not worthy any attention,
and certainly not of any other comment or discussion.

The sleazy "Nick" is trying hard to smear my name
in any dirty way he can come up with. He got his
unimportant but sooo important to him ego scratched
a bit and he can't get over it. He abuses my name
over weeks and months, he's a maniac.

He also loooves to rave about his "virtues",
like this was:

nick_the_idiot.self-absorption.misc

and not rec.games.chess.misc

Wlod

On 12 May 2004 00:34:28 -0700, (Wlodzimierz
Holsztynski) wrote:

("Nick") wrote in message . com...
"Joshua B. Lilly" wrote in
message ...

As I recall, [...] Norman G. Finkelstein

Norman G. Finkelstein is not worthy of
any respect (just like our silly and cheap
leaky bag of quotations, the phony "Nick"
"Bourbaki").

Actually, Norman Finkelstein gets a lot of respect on the neo-Nazi
websites. Just cruise over to www.natvan.com. Here's one respectful
reference: http://www.natvan.com/pub/2000/081200.txt -- there are
many others.

"Joshua B. Lilly" wrote in message ...

I have to say, if someone talks about facts,
information, and sources, and
the response is nothing but a simple
personal attack, I think I know who`s
probably right.

Joshua, I am not going to waste any more time
on "discussions" with an irrelevant idiot.
Check archives (google) and see his
obsession with bad mouthing other participants'
names (including mine), while the coward himself
is hiding behind his phoney signature.

Spilling garbage, like the pseudo-academic
Fischer-like Norman Finkelstein, is cheap.
No wonder, that of the miriads of true scholars
of Jewish history our phony pseudo-mathematician
has chosen Finkelstein. It fits. One gravitates
to his own, and our idiot does.

I don't see any point in correcting the "as I recall"
imbecillic statements. The idiot had showed his
stinky stand on issues, and now he is "recalling".

You, Joshua, have your own brain. If you care you may
check the archives, and if you don't care to put time
and effort in checking on the idiot's rgc* activity--
I understand. But then do not ruch with conclusions.
Even your cautious phrase "I think I know who`s probably"
does not help. It's just a fig leaf. When you have nothing
to say, then say nothing.

Wlod

The problem is, myself or any myriad of others, have no clue as to this
person`s history. He could, as you say, be an idiot. But I don`t know
that. I see only one thing: him making a post, and you responding with a
personal attack. It makes you look bad and unworthy of attention, not him.
I`m sorry, but that`s how it works. I only knew what I saw. If you want
people to not pay attention to him, and have good reasons, then you might
want to take another approach. Maybe I will go look up his stuff, as you
suggest, but as it looks to me (who knows nothing at all about this guy or
his history) is that you just attacked him out of the blue, severely.




"Wlodzimierz Holsztynski" wrote in message
m...

Joshua, I am not going to waste any more time
on "discussions" with an irrelevant idiot.
Check archives (google) and see his
obsession with bad mouthing other participants'
names (including mine), while the coward himself
is hiding behind his phoney signature.

Spilling garbage, like the pseudo-academic
Fischer-like Norman Finkelstein, is cheap.
No wonder, that of the miriads of true scholars
of Jewish history our phony pseudo-mathematician
has chosen Finkelstein. It fits. One gravitates
to his own, and our idiot does.

I don't see any point in correcting the "as I recall"
imbecillic statements. The idiot had showed his
stinky stand on issues, and now he is "recalling".

You, Joshua, have your own brain. If you care you may
check the archives, and if you don't care to put time
and effort in checking on the idiot's rgc* activity--
I understand. But then do not ruch with conclusions.
Even your cautious phrase "I think I know who`s probably"
does not help. It's just a fig leaf. When you have nothing
to say, then say nothing.

Wlod

I agree with you. In my opinion, the personal attacks as a form of argument
are so common on this newsgroup that it is difficult to tell over the long
term who is worth listening to, and who is not, because I often find someone
submitting a post that makes them sound reasonable, and a few threads later,
resorting to the personal attacks you cite here. And none of it has
anything to do with chess.

--
Michael Dean


"Joshua B. Lilly" wrote in message
...
The problem is, myself or any myriad of others, have no clue as to this
person`s history. He could, as you say, be an idiot. But I don`t know
that. I see only one thing: him making a post, and you responding with a
personal attack. It makes you look bad and unworthy of attention, not
him.
I`m sorry, but that`s how it works. I only knew what I saw. If you want
people to not pay attention to him, and have good reasons, then you might
want to take another approach. Maybe I will go look up his stuff, as you
suggest, but as it looks to me (who knows nothing at all about this guy or
his history) is that you just attacked him out of the blue, severely.




"Wlodzimierz Holsztynski" wrote in message
m...

Joshua, I am not going to waste any more time
on "discussions" with an irrelevant idiot.
Check archives (google) and see his
obsession with bad mouthing other participants'
names (including mine), while the coward himself
is hiding behind his phoney signature.

Spilling garbage, like the pseudo-academic
Fischer-like Norman Finkelstein, is cheap.
No wonder, that of the miriads of true scholars
of Jewish history our phony pseudo-mathematician
has chosen Finkelstein. It fits. One gravitates
to his own, and our idiot does.

I don't see any point in correcting the "as I recall"
imbecillic statements. The idiot had showed his
stinky stand on issues, and now he is "recalling".

You, Joshua, have your own brain. If you care you may
check the archives, and if you don't care to put time
and effort in checking on the idiot's rgc* activity--
I understand. But then do not ruch with conclusions.
Even your cautious phrase "I think I know who`s probably"
does not help. It's just a fig leaf. When you have nothing
to say, then say nothing.

Wlod

(Nick) wrote in message . com...(to Joshua Lilly):
"Joshua B. Lilly" wrote in
message ...
Yeah, it`s complete nonsense. There are anti-Zionist Israeli citizens
who are also in the religion of Judaism.

Yes, I know some anti-Zionist Jews, some of whom hold Israeli citizenship.
Also, many citizens of Israel (Arabs, Druze) would *not* be considered Jewish
n any sense. The state of Israel does continue to practise substantial legal
discrimination between its Jewish citizens and its non-Jewish citizens.
In my view, Israel evidently has defined itself more as 'the state of the
Jewish people' rather than as 'the nation of the citizens of Israel'.

(snipped)

"Looking at Zionism without taboos means seeing the hard reality of the
domination and oppression it has created. Out of the original sins of
the world against the Jews grew the original sins of Zionism against the
Palestinians. The issues are often raised through a counting and recounting
of massacres and victims on both sides. The problem is one of principles,
not atrocities. Even if nobody died, there is something wrong with Zionist
principles. The problem is a moral one. Raising the moral question is not
a mark of idealism but of realism.

Israelis seem to be haunted by a curse. It is the curse of the original sin
against the native Arabs. How can Israel be discussed without recalling the
dispossession and exclusion of non-Jews? This is the most basic fact about
Israel, and no understanding of Israeli reality is possible without it.
The original sin haunts and torments Israelis; it marks everything and taints
everybody. The memory of the original sin poisons the bloood and marks
every moment of existence.
...
Admitting the injustice done to the Palestinians is so terrifying that
Israelis will try to avoid it at all costs. Their feeling is that if they
admit any guilt, they will be punished severely and mortally, as the magnitude
of their crime warrants. They are afraid of the natives' wish for revenge.
But there will be no reconciliation without an open admission of the basic
injustice involved in Zionism."

--Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi (Original Sins: Reflections on the History of
Zionism and Israel)

(Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi is a professor at Haifa University in Israel.)

Someone being born in a specific country, or practicing a specific religion,
does not automatically make them a participant or supporter of this
movement.

Unfortunately, many of Israel's declared supporters *and* Israel's avowed
enemies wrongly prefer to equate being a Jew with being a Zionist. Indeed,
some anti-Zionist Jewish friends of mine have been denounced for allegedly
being 'traitors' to their people, their faith, or even to the state of Israel.
(How could a Jew who's *not* a citizen of Israel be rightly considered a
'traitor' to Israel?) The late Israel Shahak (a survivor of the Belsen
concentration camp), a professor at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem and
the chairman of the Israeli League of Human and Civil Rights, received some
death threats and apparently even some hateful messages to the effect that
the Nazis would have been right to have murdered him before he came to Israel.

(snipped)
It would be similar to saying ALL Libyans are terrorists just by the
chance of fate that made them be born within those borders.

My impression is that more than a few Americans would support the
'profiling' of *all Libyans* as potential terrorists.

This isn`t a World Championship they`re planning, of course, just another
one of those laughable KO tournaments with the two-game "matches". Not
nearly as interesting as round-robins or even swisses. But still, they
shouldn`t exclude people for idiotic reasons like this. How do they know
that Smirin, for example, is a Zionist? For all I know, he hates Zionism.
Did they ask him?

Would what happen if an Arab who's a citizen of Israel were to attempt
to play?

Joshua Lilly wrote:
"How do they know that Smirin, for example, is a Zionist.
For all I know, he hates Zionism. Did they ask him?"

I have not asked GM Ilya Smirin what he thinks about Zionism, so,
of course, I cannot be certain of what he believes about it.

Yet it seems to me that there's a prima facie reason to suspect that he could
be at least probably sympathetic toward Zionism. Ilya Smirin was born in
the Soviet Union, where he lived long enough to earn a diploma from the
Belorussian State Institute of Physical Culture (in Minsk) as a chess coach.
Then he decided voluntarily to emigrate to Israel. *If* Ilya Smirin really
'hates Zionism' (as Joshua Lilly has mentioned as a possibility), *then* it
seems less likely to me that Ilya Smirin would have chosen to emigrate to
Israel rather than to another country. Indeed, I have met another former
Soviet Jewish chess-player who decided to emigrate to a country other than
Israel *because*, he said, he does *not* approve of Zionism.

Of course, Ilya Smirin has the right to speak for himself and express
definitively whatever he thinks of Zionism.

In most Western societies, Israeli Jews tend to be perceived as 'fellow
Westerners', and I have been pleased that several writers here (other than me)
have emphasised that the individual humanity of Israeli Jews should be
acknowledged and respected everywhere. On the other hand, I have to say
that I have been disheartened, though unsurprised, that hardly any other
writers here (other than me), as far as I know, have made any efforts to
insist that the individual humanity of perceived 'non-Westerners' (such
as Arabs and Muslims) should also be *equally* acknowledged and respected
everywhere, including in societies such as Israel and the United States.

Israel has long applied its principle of 'collective punishment' (which seems
condoned, if not endorsed, by the United States) against entire Palestinian
communities. For example, Israel may have demolished every house in an area
because some Palestinian lad(s) allegedly threw stones at some Israeli soldiers
or some armed Jewish settlers. To rephrase Joshua Lilly's question about Ilya
Smirin (above), how could the Israelis know that every Palestinian owner of a
house in that area must have approved of what some other Palestinians might
have done down the street?

Since 11 September 2001, the United States has applied an evident principle
of 'collective preventative detention' against many persons of *perceived*
Arab or Muslim heritage (though case(s) are known of non-Arab and non-Muslims,
such as an Indian Hindu, being punished as a suspected 'Muslim terrorist'),
who have been imprisoned indefinitely, with little or no legal recourse.
Also, according to the news reports from the United States, some Sikhs, who
evidently were misidentified as Muslims, have been murdered by 'real' Americans
who were seeking personal revenge for the attacks of 11 September 2001.
To rephrase Joshua Lilly's question about Ilya Smirin (above), did those
'real' Americans even bother to ask the Sikhs whether or not they were Muslims,
let alone 'Muslim terrorists', before those Americans murdered those Sikhs?

Jack Shaheen is an American scholar who has devoted much of his academic
career to studying the (usually ignorant and negative) stereotyping of
Arabs and Muslims in United States cultu

Here are some books by Jack Shaheen:
'Arab and Muslim Stereotypes in American Popular Culture'
'The TV Arab'
'Reel Bad Arabs: How Hollywood Vilifies a People'

'The incapacity of the United States to see Arabs as other human beings
is consistent with the ebbing of universalism within American society.'
--Emmanuel Todd (After the Empire, p. 118)

In my view, it's *equally* wrong to deny the individual humanity (through
common stereotyping such as 'they must be all alike') of a person regardless
of which side of the traditional East-West divide that he or she has been
perceived as 'belonging'.

--Nick

It seems to me...and this is just my opinon...that what is going on over
there is a product of centuries, a lot of centuries. If one looks back there
is this "thing" where Abraham kicks Haggar and Ishmael out in the dessert.
Then, and I have seen this on a documentary on tv...where when the Present
state of Israel was founded and settled the Israelies were not at all kind
to those who were living there at the time. And so it goes..and will
continue to go imho. I also think religion has a lot to do with it...be is
Islam or Hebrew. Any time you have a religion there are always zealots. That
is not saying I do not believe in God...what I do not believe in is the
dogma of organized religions, no matter what the religion is.
"Nick" wrote in message
om...
(Nick) wrote in message
. com...(to Joshua Lilly):
"Joshua B. Lilly" wrote in
message ...
Yeah, it`s complete nonsense. There are anti-Zionist Israeli citizens
who are also in the religion of Judaism.

Yes, I know some anti-Zionist Jews, some of whom hold Israeli
citizenship.
Also, many citizens of Israel (Arabs, Druze) would *not* be considered
Jewish
n any sense. The state of Israel does continue to practise substantial
legal
discrimination between its Jewish citizens and its non-Jewish citizens.
In my view, Israel evidently has defined itself more as 'the state of
the
Jewish people' rather than as 'the nation of the citizens of Israel'.

(snipped)

"Looking at Zionism without taboos means seeing the hard reality of the
domination and oppression it has created. Out of the original sins of
the world against the Jews grew the original sins of Zionism against the
Palestinians. The issues are often raised through a counting and
recounting
of massacres and victims on both sides. The problem is one of
principles,
not atrocities. Even if nobody died, there is something wrong with
Zionist
principles. The problem is a moral one. Raising the moral question is
not
a mark of idealism but of realism.

Israelis seem to be haunted by a curse. It is the curse of the original
sin
against the native Arabs. How can Israel be discussed without recalling
the
dispossession and exclusion of non-Jews? This is the most basic fact
about
Israel, and no understanding of Israeli reality is possible without it.
The original sin haunts and torments Israelis; it marks everything and
taints
everybody. The memory of the original sin poisons the bloood and marks
every moment of existence.
...
Admitting the injustice done to the Palestinians is so terrifying that
Israelis will try to avoid it at all costs. Their feeling is that if
they
admit any guilt, they will be punished severely and mortally, as the
magnitude
of their crime warrants. They are afraid of the natives' wish for
revenge.
But there will be no reconciliation without an open admission of the
basic
injustice involved in Zionism."

--Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi (Original Sins: Reflections on the History of
Zionism and Israel)

(Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi is a professor at Haifa University in Israel.)

Someone being born in a specific country, or practicing a specific
religion,
does not automatically make them a participant or supporter of this
movement.

Unfortunately, many of Israel's declared supporters *and* Israel's
avowed
enemies wrongly prefer to equate being a Jew with being a Zionist.
Indeed,
some anti-Zionist Jewish friends of mine have been denounced for
allegedly
being 'traitors' to their people, their faith, or even to the state of
Israel.
(How could a Jew who's *not* a citizen of Israel be rightly considered a
'traitor' to Israel?) The late Israel Shahak (a survivor of the Belsen
concentration camp), a professor at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem
and
the chairman of the Israeli League of Human and Civil Rights, received
some
death threats and apparently even some hateful messages to the effect
that
the Nazis would have been right to have murdered him before he came to
Israel.

(snipped)
It would be similar to saying ALL Libyans are terrorists just by the
chance of fate that made them be born within those borders.

My impression is that more than a few Americans would support the
'profiling' of *all Libyans* as potential terrorists.

This isn`t a World Championship they`re planning, of course, just
another
one of those laughable KO tournaments with the two-game "matches".
Not
nearly as interesting as round-robins or even swisses. But still,
they
shouldn`t exclude people for idiotic reasons like this. How do they
know
that Smirin, for example, is a Zionist? For all I know, he hates
Zionism.
Did they ask him?

Would what happen if an Arab who's a citizen of Israel were to attempt
to play?

Joshua Lilly wrote:
"How do they know that Smirin, for example, is a Zionist.
For all I know, he hates Zionism. Did they ask him?"

I have not asked GM Ilya Smirin what he thinks about Zionism, so,
of course, I cannot be certain of what he believes about it.

Yet it seems to me that there's a prima facie reason to suspect that he
could
be at least probably sympathetic toward Zionism. Ilya Smirin was born in
the Soviet Union, where he lived long enough to earn a diploma from the
Belorussian State Institute of Physical Culture (in Minsk) as a chess
coach.
Then he decided voluntarily to emigrate to Israel. *If* Ilya Smirin
really
'hates Zionism' (as Joshua Lilly has mentioned as a possibility), *then*
it
seems less likely to me that Ilya Smirin would have chosen to emigrate to
Israel rather than to another country. Indeed, I have met another former
Soviet Jewish chess-player who decided to emigrate to a country other than
Israel *because*, he said, he does *not* approve of Zionism.

Of course, Ilya Smirin has the right to speak for himself and express
definitively whatever he thinks of Zionism.

In most Western societies, Israeli Jews tend to be perceived as 'fellow
Westerners', and I have been pleased that several writers here (other than
me)
have emphasised that the individual humanity of Israeli Jews should be
acknowledged and respected everywhere. On the other hand, I have to say
that I have been disheartened, though unsurprised, that hardly any other
writers here (other than me), as far as I know, have made any efforts to
insist that the individual humanity of perceived 'non-Westerners' (such
as Arabs and Muslims) should also be *equally* acknowledged and respected
everywhere, including in societies such as Israel and the United States.

Israel has long applied its principle of 'collective punishment' (which
seems
condoned, if not endorsed, by the United States) against entire
Palestinian
communities. For example, Israel may have demolished every house in an
area
because some Palestinian lad(s) allegedly threw stones at some Israeli
soldiers
or some armed Jewish settlers. To rephrase Joshua Lilly's question about
Ilya
Smirin (above), how could the Israelis know that every Palestinian owner
of a
house in that area must have approved of what some other Palestinians
might
have done down the street?

Since 11 September 2001, the United States has applied an evident
principle
of 'collective preventative detention' against many persons of *perceived*
Arab or Muslim heritage (though case(s) are known of non-Arab and
non-Muslims,
such as an Indian Hindu, being punished as a suspected 'Muslim
terrorist'),
who have been imprisoned indefinitely, with little or no legal recourse.
Also, according to the news reports from the United States, some Sikhs,
who
evidently were misidentified as Muslims, have been murdered by 'real'
Americans
who were seeking personal revenge for the attacks of 11 September 2001.
To rephrase Joshua Lilly's question about Ilya Smirin (above), did those
'real' Americans even bother to ask the Sikhs whether or not they were
Muslims,
let alone 'Muslim terrorists', before those Americans murdered those
Sikhs?

Jack Shaheen is an American scholar who has devoted much of his academic
career to studying the (usually ignorant and negative) stereotyping of
Arabs and Muslims in United States cultu

Here are some books by Jack Shaheen:
'Arab and Muslim Stereotypes in American Popular Culture'
'The TV Arab'
'Reel Bad Arabs: How Hollywood Vilifies a People'

'The incapacity of the United States to see Arabs as other human beings
is consistent with the ebbing of universalism within American society.'
--Emmanuel Todd (After the Empire, p. 118)

In my view, it's *equally* wrong to deny the individual humanity (through
common stereotyping such as 'they must be all alike') of a person
regardless
of which side of the traditional East-West divide that he or she has been
perceived as 'belonging'.

--Nick

"Curt Seefeldt" wrote in message
k.net...

continue to go imho. I also think religion has a lot to do with it...be is
Islam or Hebrew. Any time you have a religion there are always zealots.
That
is not saying I do not believe in God...what I do not believe in is the
dogma of organized religions, no matter what the religion is.

Those dogmas were founded thousands of years ago. They must be correct. The
people that wrote those things knew things that we don't. I.e. They knew the
world was flat and that the sun and the planets revolved around the earth.

StanB