Victims

[sowhatifit'sdark]

And you can also be the second kind of victim - suffering bad aftereffects psychologically, physically, financially, and so on - and put up a show of strength. In other words self-defense, even effective self-defense does not rule out being both kinds of victim - on a practical, moral legal level and the internal one.

In my mugging example, say I was terrified for a minute. I mean shaken to the core. They were holding a knife. Then one of the came at me with the knife. I fight back. I win - yeah right - and make my citizen's arrest, perhaps even feel pride that I defended myself, but also be a victim in that I wake up scared sometimes or can't sleep or avoid going out at night.

So there are many possibilities, in varying degrees, and not limited to the concepts laid out so far. But here are a few.

Crime victim legally morally victim emotionally did not fight back overwhelmed
Crime Victim legally morally victim emotionally fought back lost
crime victim legally morally not emotionally did not fight back mentally spat at 'them' somehow never felt like a victim, still wants her car back.
Crime victim legally morally and emotionally fought back won, but devastated, lost faith in men, whites, her own ability to judge character, years before a real return of confidence
Crime victim legally or morally not emotionally fought back won
and so on.

And all these people could be victims, heroes, cowards, confident, damaged, perpetratoris ALL AT THE SAME TIME in different ways. Let alone being also chemical engineers or bisexual or good parents or albinos or dyslexic or a very annoying person or a whiner or disconnected or......

etc.

 

[S.A.M.]

Ah but are you a victim in your own eyes or those of others?

I mean if you are the "show of strength" type, will people still give you sympathy?

What if you snap at them in frustration? What if you weep and shudder and sob?

Which one gets you the crown of thorns?

 

[whitewolf]

I said they started buying land there, I never said they paid for the entire territory with cash. But they did fight for it in the Six Day War against not just Palestinians but others as well and they came out victorious. Till this day, they fight for their territory and they have success. Some countries which formerly did not acknowledge Israel now acknowledge it. And the issue is far more complicated than that, with some Palestinians suddenly picking their shit up and leaving, going into a neighboring country and starting havoc there. Those who left Israel weren't welcome anywhere. Why didn't any other neighboring country take them in with open arms? Why didn't Egypt take them?

The land was given to the Israelis on a silver platter. Influential Zionists wrote and signed declarations that became the template for how powerful countries were legally forced to view the Palestine issue (essentially, in favor of the Zionists). They were funded immensely by the U.S., who needed the Israeli presence in the Middle East for Western stability and control.

Fought for and won fairly? Hah! What have the Jews ever fought for and won in their 4,000 year history? They've always been conquered and relocated. Leeching off the world's sympathy for the Holocaust, they were armed and aided in establishing a state through the British-controlled mandate. The Israelis didn't fight for a damned thing.

Read history.

Oh rly?

Gawsh how nice of you to let me know.

Btw, Britain was administering Palestine, they did not own it. And none of the above makes it compulsory for Palestinians to accept what some white man somewhere decided to do with his country.

Indians have seen such colonialists come and go since 5000 years. Weren't worth a damn to us. Israel is just another colonialist.

A victorious conqueror. C'est la vie. Indians drove the British out, but Palestinians didn't, and they have not driven Israelis out in 50 years and counting.

They should move to Latvia. Latvians are very accomodating of immigrants who want a state.

I'm sure if they asked the Russians nicely, they would get it for them.

Its not like Latvians need a state, lots of Caucasians around to accomodate them.

You should take a look at how peacefully native Latvians now reside along with ethnic Russians who were at first considered occupants. Their current relationship is far from smooth perfection but it is an example for Israelis' and Palestinians' coexistence. Then again, you don't like to learn, you like to type.

You need to learn to pick your fights. And it seems you have, with the help of others sent the thread off on a tangent, however important.

The context was set in the first sentence of the OP.

Ah but are you a victim in your own eyes or those of others?

I mean if you are the "show of strength" type, will people still give you sympathy?

What if you snap at them in frustration? What if you weep and shudder and sob?

Which one gets you the crown of thorns?

1. What happens in your own eyes does not matter to anyone. "Victim" is a public recognition.
2. No.
3. If you were "show of strength type," they will laugh at you; if you weren't, they'll grow tired of you eventually. To bring it back to the rest of this post: Palestinians aren't pushing for pity much because of this.
4. Crown of thorns is not popular in the modern day, I wouldn't strive for it.

 

[sowhatifit'sdark]

Ah but are you a victim in your own eyes or those of others?

Both, neither, one or the other.

I mean if you are the "show of strength" type, will people still give you sympathy?

Depends. But if you mean do I give sympathy to those who make a show of strength. Yes.

What if you snap at them in frustration? What if you weep and shudder and sob?

Let me jump to a slightly different issue. I am trying to move to a place where all my sides are identified with. Where I am not presenting one side, to myself and others, when there are more. If I identify as simply strong and not needing sympathy I am less likely to get it. I can expect justice, perhaps, but sympathy is less likely to come my way. There are problems with only reacting as the sad damaged victim too - if one has any room to show, identify with and express anything else. Sometimes there is no room.

Should people see through facades? I think so. But we need to take responsibility for those facades. I am not making some veiled attack on the Palestinians. I have seen a lot of weeping and horrible grief and a lot of defiance and even violence that is reprehensible. The full spectrum. My issue is really general: and a general response to your question. I think if one pretends one does not feel victimized, one should expect less sympathy. I do not think one loses one's rights to justice however, whatever one's attitude, real or feigned.

Which one gets you the crown of thorns?

Jesus got the crown of thorns for something approaching indifference. Which some people take less well than hatred.
But he's no role model for me, at least not in general.
I liked the intervention with the adulteress.

 

[S.A.M.]

] I think if one pretends one does not feel victimized, one should expect less sympathy. I do not think one loses one's rights to justice however, whatever one's attitude, real or feigned.

Correct, unfortunately deciding not to hanker for sympathy can sometimes damage your right to justice.

Which is why the media ignores 120 dead in one place but has pictures of people weeping over 8 for another.

 

[Kadark]

I said they started buying land there, I never said they paid for the entire territory with cash. But they did fight for it in the Six Day War against not just Palestinians but others as well and they came out victorious. Till this day, they fight for their territory and they have success. Some countries which formerly did not acknowledge Israel now acknowledge it. And the issue is far more complicated than that, with some Palestinians suddenly picking their shit up and leaving, going into a neighboring country and starting havoc there. Those who left Israel weren't welcome anywhere. Why didn't any other neighboring country take them in with open arms? Why didn't Egypt take them?

And the point of the map was to show they only owned 7% of the land, meaning that's how much they're entitled to - not the 85% or so they have today. As for their victory in battle, you can thank the U.S. solely for that outcome. They were funding them weapons and money like you wouldn't believe it.

Read history.

Heed your own advice.

 

[sowhatifit'sdark]

The context was set in the first sentence of the OP.

You're quite right. My apolagies. I took wes as being at his usual abstract level and missed the concrete right there before my eyes.

 

[S.A.M.]

And the point of the map was to show they only owned 7% of the land, meaning that's how much they're entitled to - not the 85% or so they have today. As for their victory in battle, you can thank the U.S. solely for that outcome. They were funding them weapons and money like you wouldn't believe it.



Heed your own advice.

Not only that but the truth of what happened to the Palestinians has yet to see the light of day.

http://www.robincmiller.com/pales2.htm

At the beginning of the strife in late 1947, it is likely that the Jewish political leadership in Palestine would have rejected any formal plan to expel the Palestinians. (Although that would change by the following June, as discussed below, when the new Israeli government prohibited the return of all Palestinian refugees.) There was, however, a shared belief by many of the Jewish (later Israeli) military leaders during the war that the entire Palestinian population was the enemy. Acting on that belief, the Jewish militias (the official Haganah and the unofficial Stern Gang and Irgun) engaged in a consistent course of conduct that was intended to--and did--cause the Arab population to flee. (The Israeli myth that the Palestinians left on instructions from Arab leaders has long since been shown to be a fabrication.)[3]

There is ample evidence of forcible expulsions. The most notorious was the Lydda/Ramle death march. On July 12 and 13, 1948, on the direct order of Ben-Gurion, Israeli forces expelled the 50,000 residents of the towns of Lydda and neighboring Ramle. Yitzak Rabin, later to become Israeli Prime Minister, wrote in his memoirs that "there was no way of avoiding the use of force and warning shots in order to make the inhabitants march the ten or fifteen miles" required to reach Arab positions. Before they left, the townspeople were "systematically stripped of all their belongings," according to the Economist newspaper in London. Many of the expelled died in the 100-degree heat during the trek.[4]

Eventually the refugees from Lydda and Ramle made their way to refugee camps near Ramallah. Count Folke Bernadotte, Swedish nobleman and United Nations mediator, attempted to offer aid. He later wrote that "I have made the acquaintance of a great many refugee camps, but never have I seen a more ghastly sight than that which met my eyes here at Ramallah." (Later that year, Bernadotte was murdered by the Stern Gang. One of its leaders, Yitzhak Shamir, became Israeli Prime Minister in 1983.)[5]

Forcible expulsions were commonly practiced by the Jewish/Israeli military during 1948: Qisariya on February 15; Arab Zahrat al-Dumayri, al-Rama and Khirbat al-Sarkas in April; al-Ghabisiya, Danna, Najd and Zarnuqa the next month; Jaba, Ein Ghazal and Ijzim on July 24; and al-Bi'na and Deir al-Assad on October 31, among many others. Israeli historian Benny Morris has identified 34 Arab communities whose inhabitants were ousted. We may never know the full extent of the ejections, though, because, as Morris notes, the Israeli Defense Forces Archive "has a standing policy guideline not to open material explicitly describing expulsions and atrocities."[6]

What people don't know cannot hurt the Israelis. They learned this lesson from the excellent recordkeeping of the Germans.

 

[whitewolf]

And the point of the map was to show they only owned 7% of the land, meaning that's how much they're entitled to - not the 85% or so they have today. As for their victory in battle, you can thank the U.S. solely for that outcome. They were funding them weapons and money like you wouldn't believe it.

Since wen is it against the rules for countries to have allies? Palestinians had allies during that war.

Israel has one of the best-trained armies in the world and I don't hear of U.S. troops aiding them. Israel buys its victories with its own blood.

Russia sells weapons to the Muslim states; you don't think that's unfair.

 

[Kadark]

Sam,

Yeah, I actually wrote an essay before dealing with the nation's secrecy and refusal to make anything public. Sorta like how they have yet to admit to having an arsenal of 200 nuclear warheads.

 

[Kadark]

Since wen is it against the rules for countries to have allies? Palestinians had allies during that war.

It's not against the rules. However, it does show that the Israelis didn't win the war by their own endeavours - they won by the sophisticated weaponry of the world's leading military superpower that gave it to them for free.

Israel has one of the best-trained armies in the world and I don't hear of U.S. troops aiding them. Israel buys its victories with its own blood.

Yeah, except for the fact that the U.S. gives Israel $7,000,000 every single day, almost all of which directly goes to its army. Forgot about that, dincha?

Russia sells weapons to the Muslim states; you don't think that's unfair.

I think it's unfair that they sell us shitty weapons. It was one of Saddam's biggest mistakes, buying crappy Russian weapons, rather than making a nuclear device.

 

[S.A.M.]

Sam,

Yeah, I actually wrote an essay before dealing with the nation's secrecy and refusal to make anything public. Sorta like how they have yet to admit to having an arsenal of 200 nuclear warheads.

The last time they made some things public (and this was stuff not considered inflammatory, like the above), the Israeli historians plastered it all over the media. You won't be seeing any of the inflammatory stuff anytime soon.

Moshe Dayan, Israeli war hero, described this reality succinctly in a 1969 speech: "Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. You do not even know the names of these Arab villages, and I do not blame you because geography books no longer exist; not only do the books not exist, the Arab villages are not there either. ... There is not one single place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population."[20]

You'd have to wonder what would make 700,000 people just run, leaving all their possessions behind.

Finkelstein has wriiten some good stuff. His parents were Holocaust victims and he is an American historian, so he has a different perspective than resident Israelis.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/s...ndex=books&field-author=Norman G. Finkelstein

 

[greenberg]

Correct, unfortunately deciding not to hanker for sympathy can sometimes damage your right to justice.

Yes. And this is what is so insidious if you have been wronged.

If you want justice, you have to crawl and howl and say your life has been ruined forever - or you are often just not deemed a believable victim and not deemed entitled to justice.

But if you do crawl and howl and say your life has been ruined forever, then this speaks badly of your character, and many people will shun you after that.

Bottomline: The victim is often in a multiple no-win situation.

 

[S.A.M.]

Yes. And this is what is so insidious if you have been wronged.

If you want justice, you have to crawl and howl and say your life has been ruined forever - or you are often just not deemed a believable victim and not deemed entitled to justice.

But if you do crawl and howl and say your life has been ruined forever, then this speaks badly of your character, and many people will shun you after that.

Bottomline: The victim is often in a multiple no-win situation.

In my opinion, if you don't have the balls to be hated, you don't deserve to be loved.

 

[greenberg]

There is also the option to simply persevere, don't you think?

Of course.

But -

However, there are no British, Portuguese or Spanish in Mumbai today. Took 200 years of course, but some things cannot be achieved in one generation.

I think this might have something to also with the way Indians, and "Easterners" generally, view time, as opposed to "Westerners".

"Easterners" tend to view time in very long periods, thousands and thousands of years is little to them (esp. Buddhists and Hindus; and also, they have the notion of rebirth/reincarnation which additionally changes the way they see things in comparison to "Westerners").
It seems to me "Easterners" feel less pressured for something to change, they are more willing to persevere and stick out a time of hardship.
"Westerners", on the other hand, seem to be more pushy, more demanding, less willing to give things time.

Both approaches to time have their advantages and disadvantages.

But in the view that we only have one lifetime (to say nothing of the view that the Earth is only some 6000 years old), it is, IMO, extremely difficult to be patient and persevere. If some 70 years is all you can hope to get from life, then the panic upon seeing that even a week would be taken from you, can be debilitating.

 

[greenberg]

In my opinion, if you don't have the balls to be hated, you don't deserve to be loved.

I find the notion of "deserving" tricky, and won't go into this for now.

Fact is, it is beneficial for to maintain a good reputation within the society one lives in. And if it so happens that one falls victim to a crime, one has to manage one's role of being a victim so that one's reputation suffers the least damage.

 

[S.A.M.]

Of course.

But -



I think this might have something to also with the way Indians, and "Easterners" generally, view time, as opposed to "Westerners".

"Easterners" tend to view time in very long periods, thousands and thousands of years is little to them (esp. Buddhists and Hindus; and also, they have the notion of rebirth/reincarnation which additionally changes the way they see things in comparison to "Westerners").
It seems to me "Easterners" feel less pressured for something to change, they are more willing to persevere and stick out a time of hardship.

I agree with you. I never think of change as something that will happen now, but as a gradual cumulative process. Anything worth having is worth waiting and working towards.

 

[greenberg]

I agree with you. I never think of change as something that will happen now, but as a gradual cumulative process. Anything worth having is worth waiting and working towards.

I am a total "Westerner" in this regard. I have been trained to think everything must be done yesterday. I have no appreciation for training and practice - they take too long.

- Not that I like this. In fact, I experience it as a great burden and hindrance. But re-conditioning myself is difficult, especially since this very attitude that I am trying to change is hindering the change.

 

[S.A.M.]

I am a total "Westerner" in this regard. I have been trained to think everything must be done yesterday. I have no appreciation for training and practice - they take too long.

- Not that I like this. In fact, I experience it as a great burden and hindrance. But re-conditioning myself is difficult, especially since this very attitude that I am trying to change is hindering the change.

You should live with Arabs for a while. They have the most relaxed stress free lifestyle. Living in Saudi made me practically comatose.

 

[greenberg]

I'm afraid the stress-free life would make my stress levels skyrocket.