StarDestroyer.Net BBS

http://www.yaleherald.com/article.php?Article=933

Gay Palestinians suffer under Arafat

BY DAVI J. BERNSTEIN

Chatting with a 21-year-old Palestinian man in a gay bar in Tel Aviv was the most interesting moment of my summer vacation. There isn't much social interaction between Arabs and Jews these days because of the ongoing terrorist war against Israel, but the gay scene is a little bit different. Why do Arab and Jewish homosexuals mix in Tel Aviv? Because Israel is the only country in the Middle East where homosexuals can live in freedom.

It is not widely known that, along with its war against Israel, the Palestinian Authority is conducting a vicious campaign against its own homosexual population. The New Republic, in its Aug. 19 issue, exposed hideous human rights violations by the Palestinian Authority, which employs special police squads to capture men who have sex with each other. The lucky ones are forced to stand in sewage water up to their necks or lie in dark cells infested with insects; others are simply starved to death.

These horrific crimes have motivated hundreds of Palestinian homosexuals to flee to Israel. To be sure, these people have not become Zionists. But at the end of day, they know that "in Tel Aviv no one cares if you're gay," as one Palestinian who fled to Israel said, while in Palestinian Gaza, "the police will kill me, unless my father gets to me first."

If any gay solidarity exists, it must be to defend the nations that permit us to live and denounce the regimes that do not. When so many around us are deliberately misunderstanding the reality of the Middle East, we must be honest and state clearly that Israel is the only country in the region that tolerates our existence.

It is fascinating that Palestinian statehood can be a "progressive" cause, when the state they seek is one in which terrorism is tolerated but gay people are not. Such a state is totalitarian, not progressive. It is this same totalitarian impulse, not any Israeli "occupation," that continues the conflict with Israel, because the Palestinian leadership respects nothing—not homosexuals, Jews, or inalienable rights—only its own will.

While those on the Left indulge Palestinian totalitarianism, President George W. Bush, DC '68, rejects it. His vision is the only hope for freedom—and peace—in the Middle East: defending Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state while supporting a democratic Palestinian state that eschews terrorism. Such a vision gives Palestinian homosexuals a chance at a life in their own land because a Palestinian government accountable to its people will be attuned to their most basic needs, not busy encouraging suicide bombing and rounding up homosexuals as Yasser Arafat's dictatorship is now doing.

Every decent person must take a position. Do you stand with the Palestinian Authority and its totalitarian ethos that seeks to destroy Jews and homosexuals today and who knows what else tomorrow? Or do you stand with Israel— whose government you may or may not support—but whose people share our fundamental values of life and liberty?

I put this question to my new Palestinian friend in that bar. He answered: "Where you sit is where you stand, and I'm sitting in Tel Aviv." It is inspiring to me—as a Jew, as an American, and as a gay man—to know that Palestinians are coming to the Jewish state for the freedom to live as God created them.

Let us condemn the barbarism of the Palestinian Authority, and let us pray for the intrepid Israelis and Palestinians who are fighting for the right to live according to Micah's prophecy: "Every man shall sit under his vine and under his fig tree; and none shall make them afraid" (Michah 4:4).

Davi J. Bernstein is a senior in Ezra Stiles.

Ah, MkSheppard. You're a classic example of the knee-jerk reflexive debater. Without even bothering to figure out what your opponent's position is, you leap to assumptions because it's not the same as yours, and then you attack the resulting strawman.

Did I ever say that I like Islamic theocracies or the PA? No. I said that the region needs completely secular government with no racial or religious overtones, and that's the ONLY thing which will ever solve their problems. So how does this little article about PA mistreatment of gays refute anything I've ever said?

Short answer: it doesn't. Israel's mindless cheering section in America is always fond of assuming that if someone doesn't like Israel's ruthless treatment of Palestinians or its apartheid policies, that he must be a big fan of Arafat and the PA. Look up "black/white fallacy" sometime.

Once, the UN held a conference condemning Isreal for human rights violations. If they're going to condemn Isreal's human rights record, they should acknowledge the human rights violations in the rest of the Middle Esat, and I thinkn that was the point fo Shep's post.

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi wrote:Once, the UN held a conference condemning Isreal for human rights violations. If they're going to condemn Isreal's human rights record, they should acknowledge the human rights violations in the rest of the Middle Esat, and I thinkn that was the point fo Shep's post.

No, it was Mike's point, although you do raise an intresting point. However, people don't want to hear about this sort of rights violations.

Irony being the supreme law of the land, I hear Arafat is gay

Azeron wrote:Irony being the supreme law of the land, I hear Arafat is gay

And your source is...?

The isrealis released a report on it a little while back. Said he had a long time lover, an attache attached to his personal staff (military section)

Said his marriage was a sham, wife spends all her time in paris, they never see eah other or spend the same night in bed

Basically it might true, I guess. There is no reason why it would be impossible. Then again I wouldn't really believe everything what an Israeli report says, not unless I see photos of Arafat and this attache kissing each other or something like that.

On another hand when I think of it more, I wouldn't like to see those pics either.

Ahhhh... the Israelis released it...

By Azeron:

The isrealis released a report on it a little while back. Said he had a long time lover, an attache attached to his personal staff (military section)

Said his marriage was a sham, wife spends all her time in paris, they never see eah other or spend the same night in bed

So you couldn't answer the question and name the source. How am I not surprised??????

"According to the former head of Romanian intelligence, Lt. Gen. Ion Mihai Pacepa, one of the highest ranking communist defectors of all time, Rahman al-Qudwa became an important political ally of the communist bloc following the death of Egypt's president, Gamal Abdul Nasser, in 1970. Gen. Pacepa's account of Rahman's intimate relations with the communist bloc is related in a book entitled 'Red Horizons'. As it happens, Pacepa tells us that the communists trusted Rahman because he was a voracious homosexual. This alone made him a workable Kremlin puppet, because once the Romanian intelligence services had taped Rahman's sex sessions with men and boys, he was completely in their hands. Afterwards, Rahman's friendship for the communist bloc would be permanent -- if he valued his growing popularity in the Arab world. "

"Rahman al-Qudwa is better known as Yasser Arafat, the chairman of the PLO since 1968 and the president of the Palestinian Authority -- which is now at war with Israel. According to Gen. Pacepa's account, communist dictator Nicolae Ceausescu ordered his people to bring Arafat over to Romania. In late 1970 the chief of Romanian intelligence in Egypt, Gen. Constantine Munteanu, arrived in Bucharest with Arafat in tow. Munteanu had gathered an extensive file on Arafat, which characterized the PLO leader as 'so much cleverness, blood, and filth all together in one man.' Pacepa says that this was Munteanu's 'standard definition of Arafat.'


http://www.cuttingedge.org/news/n1429.cfm

"Title: WORLDNETDAILY REPORTS THAT ARAFAT IS: 1) NOT AN ARAB; 2) FLAMING HOMOSEXUAL; 3) TOOL OF THE ILLUMINIST RUSSIAN KGB

Subtitle: Arafat is now exposed as the Illuminist-controlled pawn we have always claimed he was. Since the Illuminati is already controlling Israel's Barak and President Clinton, we can see it is also controlling Arafat. Surely, the Plan continues unabated. This is proof that the entire Oslo Peace Accord has been staged from the beginning, with the outcome never in doubt."

While I do not know the credibility of WorldNetDaily (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/) from where this cuttingedge.com site got its information from, the quoted parts of the text I presented make the whole thing look laughable. Illumnati?

"3. Communist Romanian Intelligence described Arafat as "so much cleverness, blood, and filth all together in one man". This is probably an accurate description of Arafat, and so it fits that he would become a willing tool of the Illuminati, who fit this description perfectly in their heart of hearts. Since there is never any "honor among thieves", I would imagine that the Illuminati plans to murder Arafat as soon as they are finished with him. Is this the reason Arafat has completed construction of a 40-foot deep concrete command bunker that can withstand any hit other than nuclear?"

Wow what a reliable source. A christian fundamentalist tabloid.

ohh I just did a keyword search, and scanned randomly scanned what I found for more detail. Donlt read cutting edge though, it does sound "interesting"

Worldnetdaily is fine. it has a right slant, but honest. They have made some major scoops in the past year.

I view Isreal as a beackon of ligh and hope in the middle east. The government may not be good and I am not fond of either side of this struggle. The way I see it Isreal is the one we have a chance at changing, if it stays out of Islamic control.

Alyrium Denryle wrote:I view Isreal as a beackon of ligh and hope in the middle east. The government may not be good and I am not fond of either side of this struggle. The way I see it Isreal is the one we have a chance at changing, if it stays out of Islamic control.

There is no beacon of light and hope in the Middle East. Until both sides there are willing to embrace true humanist government, it will always be a shithole.

I don't think Israel is a particularly enlightened government, Alyrium. In fact, I think it is really a terrible place to be. On the other hand, I cannot possibly support the PLA in this issue. I think that both sides have tremendous and deeply founded problems.

True and I hate thier current system However at least for me, it is better than most other places in the middle east. And it seems to be the most receptive to change. It will take a while.

But for obvious reasons if I ever was forced to live in the middle east. I would prefer to live in isreal(essentilly I consider it a beacon of light ad hope because I will not be arrested and stoned while there)

When I was living in Saudi Arabia it wasn't nearly so bad as everyone here makes it out to be. It reminded me (culturally) of Switzerland. Of course, the climate sucks, but I think it is one of the nicer places to live in the ME. I didn't like Israel so much, when I visited. I'd rather go to Turkey or Egypt.

Well you wont be stoned or otherwise executed in those countries.

While I try to remain as neutral as possible when it comes to Middle-East, I often find myself blaming the Israeli. After all, the state of Israel is a firmly established democratic nation. The Palestinian nation on the other hand is in a shitty condition to say the least, and has a weak goverment that has no concrete control over its people. Therefore, the Israeli should refrain from overly agressive counter-attacks against the Palestinians, which cause massive collateral damage. An aerial strike by IAF F-16 to a Palestinian village where one suspected terrorist might live is in no way better than a suicide bombing of a Tel Aviv cafe, not if it is commited by a country that supposedly has a western mindset as is the case with the Israeli. They rarely seem to want to use a subtle way when dealing with the terrorists.

Oberleutnant wrote:While I try to remain as neutral as possible when it comes to Middle-East, I often find myself blaming the Israeli. After all, the state of Israel is a firmly established democratic nation. The Palestinian nation on the other hand is in a shitty condition to say the least, and has a weak goverment that has no concrete control over its people. Therefore, the Israeli should refrain from overly agressive counter-attacks against the Palestinians, which cause massive collateral damage. An aerial strike by IAF F-16 to a Palestinian village where one suspected terrorist might live is in no way better than a suicide bombing of a Tel Aviv cafe, not if it is commited by a country that supposedly has a western mindset as is the case with the Israeli. They rarely seem to want to use a subtle way when dealing with the terrorists.

You last bit would seem to suggest that if Isreal was say a dictatorship or Communist, somthing non western, then its current methods would be more acceptabul? I hope thats not what you mean.

As for subtle, they've tried that, and it always results in rather large fire fighters and armor having to be called in along with air support. Better to send in a swarm of tanks and avoid a fight compleatly through shear superiority then to send in a limit force andh ave it shot to bits. The folloy of doing that was demonstratied most graphically in Somolia, and in several Isrealie operations in the 70s and 80s.

Sea Skimmer wrote:You last bit would seem to suggest that if Isreal was say a dictatorship or Communist, somthing non western, then its current methods would be more acceptabul? I hope thats not what you mean.

I think he's saying that when you're relatively wealthy and comfortable, you have fewer excuses for acting like a savage.

The Israelis exert such strict dictatorial control over the Palestinians in the occupied territories (none of whom can vote in the government of their overlords) that they actually ration the individual Palestinians' daily use of WATER.

If it were any other group, we would call them "freedom fighters" (that's what the US used to call terrorists whenever the government was communist) and overlook their excesses because desperation breeds savagery, and we all understand that ... sometimes.

Darth Wong wrote:Ah, MkSheppard. You're a classic example of the knee-jerk reflexive debater. Without even bothering to figure out what your opponent's position is, you leap to assumptions because it's not the same as yours, and then you attack the resulting strawman.

Stop trying to over-analyze everything, Mike.

I saw an excerpt of this in yesterday's Washington Times,
and I thought that this was a wonderful incongrugity to
show you, Mike.

You don't like Israel because they oppress palestinians, but
on the other hand, the Palestinians oppress homosexuals
violently, while the Israelis don't.

It's the kind of paradox that makes your head hurt if you think too much
about it....just more proof that the world is really fucked up and works in
256 shades of gray, and not black/white.

If I wanted to debate this Mike, I would have made some
smart ass comment about how 'civilized' the Palestinians are,
but I didn't.

I just posted this on SD.net to see some people's brains get
short circuted slightly at the paradoxes inherent here.

Sort of like how the USA backed military dictatorships all
over the world during teh Cold War because they were
anti-communist, and gave Saddam all the weapons of
Mass destruction he has now...

Paradoxical, eh?

EDIT:
This article really does redefine the term "Politics makes strange
bed-fellows"

Darth Wong wrote: The Israelis exert such strict dictatorial control over the Palestinians in the occupied territories (none of whom can vote in the government of their overlords) that they actually ration the individual Palestinians' daily use of WATER.

Water is a vital and precious resource in the Middle East - Arguably considerably moreso than oil, at least to the people who live there. It's no surprise that the Israelis regulate Palestinian use of water; they wouldn't want the Palestinians taking to much, and of course they would want enough to maintain their own lifestyle.

At the rate the Palestinian population is expanding there probably won't be enough water for it in the region, even minimalist survival amounts; the Israelis will have to build extensive desalinisation plants to support the Palestinian State, which means that even if this situation is resolved, the Palestinians will always be at Israel's mercy - A simple fact of the natural resources and population dynamics.

Honestly if I were in charge of Palestine I'd accept the previous offer but also demand an unlimited supply of water from Israel and let the Israelis find ways to get it for me. That's really what Palestine needs more than additional territory.

As for the entire situation I just think it is a pity that the Allon Plan was not adopted; as I think it would have been the best chance to bring a lasting peace to the region. Now, though, we have the reality of a Palestinian State in the future, unless the future is indeed very unpleasant - and I believe the question of how it is to be resolved is not one that both those embittered sides sitting down together will ever result in an agreement upon.

In the meantime, I would say that Mark's article is simply evidence of the need for secular, democratic reform in the Arab world, something that so far has been achieved only in a single Muslim country - Mustafa Kemal Ataturk's Republic of Turkey. I do not think it really reflects on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; as a conflict between two nations. It is a domestic matter, though, and shows how vile one of those nations is.

(One must remember that in theory the operations against the Palestinians are in the realm of affairs between nations; and so do not reflect the internal nature of Israel - Though of course that makes them more brazen.)

But considering how rarely the combination of secular and democratic reform has been achieved (Both Tunis and Algeria are secular as well, but neither are democratic, and Algeria faces serious problems with fundamentalist guerillas), and how it struggles in other countries; like in Pakistan, where even if the interior might reject Sheriat law, the fringes are as bad as Afghanistan - I fear that the secularisation of Islam within the forseeable future could possibly only be accomplished by outside force. And to bring about such a military response as that will probably require an event more ghastly than one would care to think about.