I got an email today that made me feel really disgusted. And it wasn't the kind that tells me how I can make my peni$ three inches bigger! The message text and my response follow...
---------
The message:
Interesting article written by a Japanese person on the "Palestinians." This letter written by someone with no vested interest in either side really nails it. Please take the time to read it, and if you agree with its importance perhaps you will consider distributing it to your e-mail distribution lists. It is important for people to know the truth....... If you are so sure that Palestine, the country, goes back through most of recorded history I expect you to be able to answer a few basic questions about that country: .
When was it founded and by whom?
·What were its borders?
·What was its capital?
·What were its major cities?
·What constituted the basis of its economy?
·What was its form of government?
·Can you name at least one Palestinian leader before Arafat? ·Was Palestine ever recognized by a country whose existence, at that time or now, leaves no room for interpretation?
·What was the language of the country of Palestine?
·What was the prevalent religion of the country of Palestine? ·What was the name of its currency?
·Choose any date in history and tell what was the approximate exchange rate of the Palestinian monetary unit against the US dollar, German mark, GB pound, Japanese yen, or Chinese Yuan on that date.
·And, finally, since there is no such country today, what caused its demise and when did it occur?
If you are lamenting the low sinking of a once proud nation. Please tell me, when exactly was that nation proud and what was it so proud of?
And here is the least sarcastic question of all: If the people you mistakenly call Palestinians are anything but generic Arabs collected from all over -- or thrown out of -- the Arab world, if they really have a genuine ethnic identity that gives them right for self-determination, why did they never try to become independent until Arabs suffered their devastating defeat in the Six Day War? I hope you avoid the temptation to trace the modern day Palestinians to the Biblical Philistines: substituting etymology for history won't work here. The truth should be obvious to everyone who wants to know it. Arab countries have never abandoned the dream of destroying Israel; they still cherish it today. Having time and again failed to achieve their evil goal with military means, they decided to fight Israel by proxy. For that purpose, they created a terrorist organization, cynically called it the Palestinian people and installed it in Gaza, Judea, and Samaria. How else can you explain the refusal by Jordan and Egypt to unconditionally accept back the West Bank and Gaza, respectively? The fact is, Arabs populating Gaza, Judea, and Samaria have much less claim to nationhood than that Indian tribe that successfully emerged in Connecticut and California with the purpose of starting a tax-exempt casino: at least that tribe had a constructive goal that motivated them. The so-called Palestinians have only one motivation: the destruction of Israel, and in my book that is not sufficient to consider them a nation -- or anything else except what they really are: a terrorist organization that will one day be dismantled. In fact, there is only one way to achieve peace in the Middle East. Arab countries must acknowledge and accept their defeat in their war against Israel and, as the losing side, should pay Israel reparations for the more than 50 years of devastation they have visited on it. The most appropriate form of such reparations would be the removal of their terrorist organization from the land of Israel and accepting Israel's ancient sovereignty over Gaza, Judea, and Samaria. That will mark the end of the Palestinian people. What are you saying again, was its beginning? You are absolutely correct in your understanding of the Palestinians murderous motives. I am afraid however that you, along with 99% of the population of this planet, have missed the beginning of WW III (they call it Jihad) quite a few years ago. The siege of the US embassy in Tehran in 1979, an event to which the latest Nobel Peace Prize winner had so miserably failed to respond, can be very well used as the day WW III stepped out of the pages of the Koran and into the current events. I pray the United States and Israel lead the world to victory in this war. Come to think of it, there is no choice, be you a Christian, a Jew, or even, believe it or not, a Muslim.
This letter was written by Yashiko Sagamori on Nov 6, 2002.
My response:
Hoax? Well, I'm sure it is actually somebody's opinion, and they are entitled to their opinions... but to be blunt, I think this is hate-fomenting trash, and I'm frankly really upset that anybody is taking it seriously. A five-minute search on Google for this guy's name made it pretty clear to me that he's not a reliable authority on this issue. Just a few points that leap out:
-- "This letter written by someone with no vested interest in either side" -- that should set off warning bells right there. Besides, the guy is not Japanese -- he uses a pen name, by his own admission. http://www.middleeastfacts.com/yashiko/
-- His entire premise is faulty. It's one thing to condemn the attacks on Israel. It's another thing to say that because a group of people don't have their own currency, by definition, their claim to nationality is void. Israelis themselves had no currency of their own until relatively recently in history! -- Nor is language in and of itself a defining feature of nationhood.... if that was the case, there would be no Canada or U.S.; we'd just be part of the U.K. still.
-- The fact that people can't name Arafat's predecessors speaks more to our lack of knowledge of history than of their lack of existence. -- He makes hyperbolic statements without backing them up or giving evidence. For example, here's an excerpt from another article by this guy. "In the face of the Islamic invasion, Westerners remain blissfully ignorant about Islam. Really, what do we know about it besides the fact that it has sponsored most mass murders of the last two decades? Not much. Following September 11, 2001, we've been reminded multiple times that Islam is a religion of love and piece, although the few excerpts from the Koran that have become widely known to the Western public suggest that the love of the Moslems is directed exclusively towards the faithful, while we, the infidels, are dealt with by ways of jihad -- a "holy" war whose goal is to free the world from our vile presence" (http://www.middleeastfacts.com/Articles/Yashiko/Hadith101.htm) This is a blatant distortion of Islam, bordering on hate speech, IMHO.
Remember, not everyone who supports Israel (Tom DeLay comes to mind) has good motives for doing so, and I think writings like this do a lot of harm.
Dear kjfalk,
I must’ve written an excellent article, considering that it continues to evoke angry comments more than two years later. Since it was one of the very first I’d ever written (second, to be exact), and English is not even my first language, I must be really good at it. Thank you.
I don’t think any of my articles compelled anyone to change their opinions of Israel, Islam, overall situation in the Middle East, etc. I’ve been trying to show people on my side that what they do is perfectly valid way beyond the normal human right to self-defense. Those on the other side have so far offered two types of arguments against my view of “Palestinians”. One consisted of blatant lies (“Arafat was born in Palestine”: he was in fact born in Cairo, Egypt) and outright stupidities: (“Palestinians used to have their own currency call ‘ the pound’”: yes, and it was issued by the British authorities.) The other consists of a variety of statements whose meaning boils down to “It can’t be true because I don’t like it.” Your comment definitely belongs to the second category.
Your suspicion about me was correct: Yashiko Sagamori is just an unfortunate choice of a pen name. I do not attempt to feign evenhandedness. I am not responsible for statements introducing me as a Japanese journalist or having “no vested interest”. If you read my other articles, you must know that I show where my vested interests are without any hesitation.
Having said that, what reason do you have to call my article a “hoax”? It poses simple enough questions. In more than two years that elapsed since its first appearance on the Net, no one managed to answer even one of them. Most people, like yourself, didn’t even try, finding their satisfaction in calling me a racist.
Let me make a suggestion. Try to approach my article as a theorem. This way you will be able to concentrate on facts it brings to light rather on the personality and motives of the author, which, in my view, shouldn’t even be relevant. If you find an inaccurate statement, tell me — as well as everyone else — why it is inaccurate. I promise to you, and may every reader of this blog be my witness, that if I find your arguments compelling enough, I will publish them on my website for everyone to see. By “compelling” I mean basically reasonable, rather than supporting my point of view. The purpose of that qualification is merely to save me from temptation to make you a laughing stock for my readers, although they could certainly use a little levity.
Sincerely,
Yashiko Sagamori
Thank you for your comments. I do hope you appreciate that I didn't contact you directly or try to post something on your site -- you wisely don't give other people a forum to express views that you would find repugnant. I am very flattered that my post struck such a chord with you, though!
First of all, I used the term "hoax" because I didn't know who had appended the words "Interesting article written by a Japanese person on the 'Palestinians.' This letter written by someone with no vested interest in either side...", but I knew that this was a false statement. As you acknowledge, you aren't Japanese and you do have a vested interest in one side. You don't want lies to go uncorrected, do you?
Though you didn't notice, or at least didn't acknowledge it, I actually did give some examples of what I saw as faulty logic in your arguments. I pointed out that language is not a reliable indicator of nationality, since many nations speak English. I might also add that currency is not a good indicator either.
Look at your first sentence. "If you are so sure that Palestine, the country, goes back through most of recorded history..." You basically set up a straw man and pose a set of questions that only you can answer, and you view other arguments according to one set of standards -- yours. I'm not surprised you find my views unconvincing.
Your straw man blows over: who said anything about Palestine being a country through most of recorded history? How many countries have actually existed in their current form throughout recorded history? And if they didn't, should they therefore not exist? Shall we erase the United States, Canada, Turkey, Mexico, etc., etc.? When did their residents start thinking of themselves as Turks, Canadians, Mexicans, and Americans, rather than mere subjects of a far-flung empire? Certainly Americans have a strong sense of identity, as do Canadians, yet our history is relatively brief. Also, Canada and the United States both use the dollar as currency -- so they must not be separate nations, then!
I think one of the fundamental flaws in your argument is that you fail to acknowledge that there have been people living in Palestine for thousands of years. They were living there when the first Zionists came in the 1800s. Yes, they weren't a country per se. But there were communities, towns, farms, and above all, people.
There's a little thing called "Human Rights", you see. It's not called "Country Rights" or "Company Rights". And there have been human rights violations which cannot be swept under the rug just because Palestine isn't a country.
I'm sure you and I agree on a couple of points. I very much believe in Israel's right to exist and to defend itself. But that doesn't mean I approve of everything they do, and I don't think pushing a group of angry, frustrated, powerless people into a corner is conducive to a good resolution.
And you're right. I don't like your arguments. I'm sure you're a very smart person, just as I'm sure that some of the minds behind theories of racial superiority were of high quality. But I cannot separate the words from the context or see your attempts to dress up your deep-seated prejudices as an abstract "theorum." At the end of the day, there are real people and real lives involved, and to turn them into an abstraction unworthy of serious consideration or human rights is simply disgusting. There may be people on your side, but it's an ugly one indeed. Enjoy their company as best you can.
The article in question was not originally intended for publication. It was a response to a letter that lamented the demise of "the once proud country, Palestine that had existed throughout the written history". The recipient forwarded my response to a few people, they sent it further, and eventually it became famous. There goes your "straw man".
Human rights, in case you haven't noticed, heavily depend on the behavior of the human being in question. Try attacking your neighbors, and you will promptly see your human rights severily restricted in proportion with the outcome and persistence of your attacks. Do you believe Arabs trying to destroy Israel should be exempt from such responsibilities?
The right to self-defense, as defined by law in every civilized country, is limited. If your attacker stops after you show him your gun, you have no right to shoot him. If you succeed in incapacitating him by breaking his knee with a baseball bat, you have no right to club him to death. But as long as he keeps attacking you, you have a right and legal obligation to act to stop him, even if it means killing the attacker. Are you saying that Arabs have stopped attacking Israel? My personal opinion is that Israel hasn't done even 1% of what's necessary to eliminate the clear and present danger to its citizens and its very existence.
As for your comment on the ugliness of my side, I sincerely thank you for sharing your aesthetic values with me.
What counts here, however, is that you haven't even attempted to argue against a single actual point of my letter beyond announcing your disagreement.
Wow, the guy's post is a mind-bender. I'd say his views place him somewhere near Neptune in the universe of ME discourse. I'm pretty much an expert in the vituperative rhetoric of militantly pro-Israel propagandists. I even heard a few things here I'd not heard before.
Kathy, you were either brave & forthright in attempting to address Yashiko (or whatever his real name is) or foolhardy. I wouldn't have wasted my time (but only because I've made vast numbers of attempts to engage the hard-right pro-Israelis on various blogs & ME forums). I've found it only ends in anger, hostility & the most horrible & foul types of name calling (visit Charley Rose's website or the NYT ME forum for a flavor of this--& I could tell you a thing or two about the types of horrible behavior they're capable of).
His arguments aren't worth responding to. They're completely out in left field. His list of questions is completely bogus & drivel. All of his questions revolve around his view that the Palestinians are not a nation or people in the normative use of those terms because they have never had a state of their own. Ridiculous.
The Palestinians do not need to justify their existence, their rights or their claims to this guy or any other hard right ideologue. They are a people & 99% of the world accepts this view. They will eventually get a state of their own regardless of his views. Yashiko & some people in Likud & the harder right reject their [Palestine's] existence. But that's their problem, not the Palestinians' or the world's problem.
Once peace is successfully concluded bet. the Palestinians & Israelis (may it happen quickly & in our day--bimhayra b'yamenu), their views will be consigned to the dustheap of history where they belong.
I also believe that anyone who can't stand behind their own name & identity in writing about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict doesn't deserve much credibility.
Dear "Mr. Sagamori",
I'm fascinated that you keep coming back and posting on my site! Well, here we go again...
Your first argument can be distilled down to "The Palestinians don't deserve to have their own country because they never were a nation before." Your second argument can be summarized as, "Since they want to kill us, we can do whatever the hell we want."
As part of your first argument, you set up a number of ridiculous criteria for the right to statehood, and I took issue with them and pointed out their problems. You've failed to respond to any of my points and then complain I didn't answer yours. Whatever.
So you've changed the subject. Now for your second point: you're right, the right to self-defense is limited. If some criminal breaks into my house, do I have the right to drive over to their house and beat up his little brother and his mother? If a gang keeps trying to attack me, do I have the right to go after the gang members' neighbors? If there are international rules governing the conduct of war and the treatment of prisoners, do I have the right to just ignore them whenever I feel like it? And even if I decide I do have the right, what good is it going to do me in the long run? Even our own Donald Rumsfeld recognized that there's more to fighting terrorism than continuing to throw tanks and bombs at the problem (see http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/executive/rumsfeld-memo.htm)
Yes, you can't appease terrorists and you can't reason with them, but there's a whole lot of Palestinians out there who aren't terrorists. Do you treat them all the same or do you try different approaches? This goes for the Palestinians too. I don't see that they've gained themselves a thing by going into Israel and blowing up innocent people. It's just an endless cycle of "We're attacking you because you attacked us because we responded to you because you attacked us..." This ongoing situation silences the moderate majority and causes extremists like those in Hamas to rise to the top, leads to clashes like the ones I just read about at UC Berkeley (http://www.eastbayexpress.com/issues/current/feature.html) and allows people with views like yours get the ear of Tom Delay and the Bush administration. The extremists on both sides disgust me.
What you so casually dismiss as "aesthetic values", I call ethics or morals. What happens to a society when they decide they can jettison their fundamental principles to fight an enemy? I think we're finding out, and that scares me. We rightly condemn terrorists for their indiscriminate killing of innocent citizens. How can we turn around and do the same thing? The satiric website The Onion ran a story this week "U.S. to fight terror with terror" (http://www.theonion.com/news/index.php?issue=4020&n=1) Past a certain point, you can't continue that way without destroying yourself too. What makes a Jewish state Jewish if it turns its back on its beliefs? You call that defending Israel? Bottom line: killing innocent civilians is wrong. I don't care who does it. "But he started it!" carries no weight with your mother when you're a kid. When entire countries decide might makes right and that it's OK to play dirty, there's really a problem, but for some reason, you don't see that.
I don't really care whether your letter was intended for publication or not. The fact is that you've chosen to publish it on your site, and your point of view is certainly consistent! You write under a pseudonym, which I can completely understand... but you could have picked one that didn't mislead people into assuming you were Japanese! I have a hard time believing that was unintentional.
I find it curious that you keep coming back here and trying to convince me you're right. It's very clear we're not speaking the same language here, I don't think either of us is going to be able to change the other's mind, and I don't feel like having the same conversation over and over. My blog is my forum for my views, just as your site is a forum for yours.
You can console yourself with the fact that many people agree with you, that your letter was unthinkingly forwarded widely, and I was apparently one of the first to object to it (why else would you spend so much time here?) I will console myself with the hope that someday sanity will regain the upper hand and things will get better. Meanwhile, I'm done with this discussion and the post is locked.