.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Rantings of a Sandmonkey

Be forewarned: The writer of this blog is an extremely cynical, snarky, pro-US, secular, libertarian, disgruntled sandmonkey. If this is your cup of tea, please enjoy your stay here. If not, please sod off

Thursday, January 19, 2006

Being the devil's advocate

Here are a couple of statements that I would like to put out there and see what your reaction to them will be, ok? Ok! Let's go: 1) Could it be, that despite the hundreds of millions of dollars given to the PA to help them built better housing for their refugees, that the only reason why no such housing was ever put in place is that its better to keep the palestinian people in a humanaterian crisis-thus put more and more pressure on the israelis- than let them have the better living conditions that this money entitles them to? 2) Could it be, that the main reason why american black civil rights activists never mention that there is slavery and slave trade in Africa till this day (Mauritania and Sudan for example) is because american blacks would realize how good they have it in evil opressive america as opposed to the african motherland? 3) Could it be, that the reason why Amr Moussa opposes the US democracy initiatives in the middle-east has nothing to do with arab nationalism and american imperialism and more to do with the fact that his salary is paid mainly by arab dictators? 4) Does anyone find it interesting that the founder of the Planstinian resistance movement was an egyptian intelligence officer in Ghaza and that Yasser Arafat was born and raised in Cairo? Or is it just me? 5) If the MB is so opposed to the zionist entity, then howcome their palestinian branch, which is also known as Hamas, was helped and funded in its begining by the israeli Mossad as an alternative to Fath? Wouldn't that mean that the clean honest MB actually collaborated with the Mossad and thus are collaborators with the " zionist enemy"? Just wondering....


At 1/19/2006 02:05:00 PM, Anonymous Vox P said...

Yes - yes -yes - yes -yes

At 1/19/2006 02:58:00 PM, Anonymous Jokerman said...

1- Ofcourse.
2- Yes i guess, or that they dont care.
3-Yes indeed.
4-Not really, i dont think its much to do with Egypt behind him, & you might have added Saddam too studied in Cairo University but never graduated.
5- I am not sure about the palestinian wing of the MB but anyway, they would lie & twist facts to appear rightly & godly in the end.

At 1/19/2006 04:25:00 PM, Anonymous chellebelle said...

I found a good sight that discusses the long history of Pan Africanism in the USA. check it out http://www.newint.org/issue326/simply.htm

I am sorry the idea that people that are the descendents of slave have no concern about slavery in Africa is insulting but we are not the ones in power in the USA. Do you get that?

I must say it was African Americans that led the battle against the USA's support of the goverment that created Aparthied in South Africa.

You seriously need to study African American history and a response from you would be welcomed.

At 1/19/2006 04:41:00 PM, Blogger Solomon said...

Devil's Advocate? Sounds more like the "Lord's work."

At 1/19/2006 06:26:00 PM, Blogger Lazarus said...

1 - partly.
2 - completely off. that's equivalent to saying that people shouldn't fight for human rights because there are people in other places who are suffering.
3 - obvious.
4 - his birth in cairo is still questionable. he has two birth certificates, one of which is in jerusalem.
5 - things keep getting more interesting no?

At 1/19/2006 07:33:00 PM, Anonymous masshole said...

as usual the sandmonkey is right on target. maybe someday people will wise up. till then we have the sandmonkey to bitch slap them into consciousness.

At 1/19/2006 09:33:00 PM, Anonymous vox p. said...

Note that, Arafat was a Palestinian despite its birth in Cairo. He was probably born in Cairo and his parents did another birth certificate when they came back to Palestine, a common practice then. But this does not mean that he is Egyptian. My uncle is Lebanese born in Syria from Lebanese family, I have Lebanese friends born in Egypt.

Arab is not a nationality and the Arab countries are not interchangeable, if you are born from Egyptian parents in KSA or Dubai you're still Egyptian.

At 1/19/2006 09:52:00 PM, Blogger Solomon2 said...

the only reason why no such housing was ever put in place is that its better to keep the palestinian people in a humanaterian crisis

Socialism is bad. Aren't you an economist, Sandmonkey?

Nothing for the Palestinians!

At 1/20/2006 02:58:00 AM, Blogger cairo otaibi said...

Sandmonkey has a brain, and it is not going to waste.

conjecture is never wrong, and asking "what if?" is always a good idea, especially the reactions to such questions will reveal much.

the crisis in the "middle east" can be understood very easily, it is just that nobody with anything at stake in the region has any interest that anybody would. disinformation and propaganda takes many forms.

At 1/20/2006 03:11:00 AM, Anonymous Andrew Brehm said...

I was under the impression that "Arab" is a nationality, like "German" is.

As for whether somebody is Egyptian or Palestinian, I suppose it depends on how you define either.

If you apply, as American law does, Jus Solis, an individual born in Egypt, whatever his religion or ethnic background, is an Egyptian. And an individual born in Palestine, whatever his religion or ethnic background, is Palestinian.

I think the idea of a Palestinian nation (which, I understand, excludes Jewish inhabitants of Palestine) is fairly new. Whereas the idea of an Arab nation is fairly old.

Doesn't the constitution of Iraq specifically say that the Arab citizens of Iraq are part of the Arab nation?

Isn't pan-Arabism about the Arab nation?

To be honest, I prefer patriotism (love for your country) over nationalism (love for your nation), and when I lived in Germany I always felt more connected to my home state than to the federation or the "German nation", which, traditionally, also includes Austrians and Luxemburgers and one part of the population of Switzerland, and, depending on your particular attitude, Ashkenazi Jews.

At 1/20/2006 03:45:00 AM, Blogger Cindy said...

It is know as PVS

Perpetual Victim Syndrome.

At 1/20/2006 04:15:00 AM, Anonymous Lee McDaniel said...


Just a supplement to your #2 statement.
A close friend was living in Cameroon for several years. In her organization she noted that blacks in the states defiantly referred to themselves as AFRICAN-AMERICANS. It was her experience that after one to two weeks in the Cameroon, they were just as emphatic to quickly note that they were AMERICANS when addressed as native to Africa.

Really depends upon whose ideolocgical Ox is being gored, does it not?

At 1/20/2006 04:24:00 AM, Anonymous Jameel said...

Keep wondering, I wish everybody would ask themselves these and many other questions before accepting things for what they are presented to be.
Being the Devil’s advocate is an unpopular and unrewarding job, but somebody’s got to do it.
Keep it up.

At 1/20/2006 06:42:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


I think you are giving the Mossad a little too much credit for the establishment of Hamas. True, they were happy to see a rival to Fatah, but not to the extent that they gave them any money. That's an urban legend.

At 1/20/2006 06:52:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

re Arafat's "provenance"... ...his father was a textile merchant from Gaza. His mother died when Yasser was four years old and he was sent to live with an aunt in Jerusalem. More important than where he was born, is his kinship to the notorious Mufti of Jerusalem, Hitler's best buddy in the Arab world.

People moved around that part of the Ottoman Empire a lot in the late 1800s and early 1900s, largely for economic reasons, whether they were Jews, Muslims or Christians and the Ashkenazic Jews of Eastern Europe were not alone in coming from a distance or being ethnically different from the "locals". There were Greeks, Turks and Burbers too, not to mention many Arabic Muslims who came to benefit from an expanding economy that followed the arrival of the development-minded European Jews. The notion of Palestinian nationality is somewhat nebulous to say the least.

At 1/20/2006 10:57:00 AM, Blogger programmer craig said...


"I was under the impression that "Arab" is a nationality, like "German" is."

"German" is both a nationality and an ethnicity. The ethnicty is "Germanic" and would remain valid whether there was a nation clly "Germany" or not. Same as Slavic, Nordic, Gaelic, Celtic and a number of other European ethnicities.

Arab (Arabic?) is also an ethnicty, but not a nationality (yet) because there is no single country associated with it. I think pan-Arabism is the belief that there SHOULD be a single nation assocaited with Arabs? I don't know anything about this though.

"As for whether somebody is Egyptian or Palestinian, I suppose it depends on how you define either."

Those are both nationalities, not ethnicities. The child of American citizens living in Japan would automatically be American, because of the nationality of his parents. He would aslo be Japanese (or not) depending on the laws in Japan. I believe in the case of Japan, the child would only be American, and would not have dual citzenship in Japan.

"To be honest, I prefer patriotism (love for your country) over nationalism (love for your nation)"

I don't beleiev there is a real difference between "country" and "nation" - are you associating government with "nation" but not with "country?" If so, I'd go along with you.... Patriotism would be better.

But there's another "ism" that is associated with ethnicity. That one is called "racism" - and that's not a good ism, at all. And it seems to me that you were implying ethnicity is the distinction between nationailsm and patriotism you just made?

At 1/20/2006 04:41:00 PM, Blogger Gary Aminoff said...

Chellebelle, you say, "I am sorry the idea that people that are the descendents of slave have no concern about slavery in Africa is insulting but we are not the ones in power in the USA. Do you get that?"

Do you mean that African-Americans (descendents of African slaves) are not the ones in power in the USA and therefore they can't do anything about slavery in Africa today? If that is what you are saying, I have to disagree. African-Americans can raise their voices and be heard, and inspire the white majority populations to condemn slavery anywhere anytime. A small, but vocal, minority in a free democracy can make a big difference.

At 1/21/2006 08:44:00 AM, Anonymous ArmyArtilleryWife said...

I've heard 1 & 2 before...

While I wouldn't be so cynical as to state them as absolutes, I can't help but think there is a kernel of truth in there.

If the PA is truly keeping Palestinians in squalor to perpetuate their cause, that is a great evil.

Ignorance about African slavery does have another couple of factors involved:

1. In the 60s through 80s, history was kept simple in high school, so as to not "confuse" us. Some teachers are now rebelling against that, but with limited time and a wide subject area, topics like African slavery get limited treatment.

2. Although African slavery in modern times has grown into something at least as awful as the transatlantic slave trade, historically African slavery was quite different from slavery in the colonies...still slavery, though.

3. Most Americans, black ones included, have incredibly short attention spans about foreign affairs in general. It is not because we are stupid or callous (despite what some may think), just because international problems can be a bit overwhelming to us. Once you start thinking about slavery in certain parts of Africa, there are a million other problems to worry about. How much do people in other nations worry about foreign problems? Somehow since we are America, though, everyone expects us to take action on everything...but not too much action...just exactly the amount they want us to take.

4. During the 60s and 70s, Pan-Africanism needed to find some sort of uniting feature, the negritude movement. I can't really blame them for selectively choosing bits and pieces that support a positive image--isn't that what every nation does to build initial unity?

That being said, it is wrong to stifle dissenting voices as "Uncle Toms." It is also time for the movement to develop a more complex picture of its history, now that it is no longer in its infancy.

At 1/21/2006 08:48:00 AM, Anonymous ArmyArtilleryWife said...

The way it is taught in American schools...

a country is a political entity, which may or may not be composed of one nation.

a nation is a group of people with a shared heritage, language, culture, history, who may or may not have an independent government or sovereign land, but usually wants one if they do not.

a nation-state meets both requirements.

So, Egypt is a nation-state. Palestine is a nation that is not quite yet a nation-state. The Kurds are a nation, but not a country or nation-state. The US is a country that is debatable as a nation.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home