This is pretty terrifying:

Palestenian Gays

Even more terrifying is that similar things still happen here.

A very attractive Palestinian waiter works in a local restaurant in the gay neighborhood here in Philly, and though there are no rumors that I know of that he's gay, I think he's increased the cleintele considerably.

Maybe we could contribute to peace in the middle east by offering refuge to guys like "Tayseer."

I don't suppose torture because of sexual preference alone would qualify for asylum.

Actually sportinlife, torture because of sexual orientation can qualify the victim or potential victim for political asylum here. In short, asylum is granted if the applicant can show that he has a "well-founded fear of persecution" based on race, religion, national origin, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion if returned to his country of nationality. 8 USC s.1158. Torture counts as persecution, and since 1994, homosexuals have been considered a "particular social group."

More info can be found at the website for the Lesbian and Gay Immigration Rights Task Force.

Thanks Skiguy. Would palestinians and other arabs be able to learn about this and have assistance, which they would probalbly need, negotiating the bureaucracy?

Wonder if they are aware of or have exposure to information like this available on the site you linked.

[quote]Originally posted by sportinlife:

Maybe we could contribute to peace in the middle east by offering refuge to guys like "Tayseer."

---

Just keep in mind that it's especially difficult for Arab immigrants and refugees--Muslim or Christian--to get hearings in the U.S. these days.

[quote]Originally posted by fantomas:


Just keep in mind that it's especially difficult for Arab immigrants and refugees--Muslim or Christian--to get hearings in the U.S. these days.

---

We can thank George W for that.

[quote]Originally posted by fantomas:
Just keep in mind that it's especially difficult for Arab immigrants and refugees--Muslim or Christian--to get hearings in the U.S. these days.

---

True but that starts to get a bit circular. It's "difficult" because of 9/11 which, so the alleged perpetrators claim, was due in large part to the Palestinian situation.

The circle's got to be broken somewhere and we're the strongest party. Even if there is no progress by the current administration, at some point the middle east conflict will have to be confronted.

Asylum for persecuted Palestinians would be an excellent start. They get to flee persecution. We get a friend who speaks fluent arabic and knows his homeland.

Actually, my understanding is that bin Laden is much more concerned with the American military presence in Saudi Arabia than with Palestinian issues. U.S. ties to Israel certainly feed Arab anti-American feeling, but it's a secondary issue for Al Qaeda.

This is why the Internet is a life saver for sp many oppressed LGBTs around the world. At least, it's a way to buy some time until the people/politicos increase their terrorism on the Web.

[quote]Originally posted by JC:
Actually, my understanding is that bin Laden is much more concerned with the American military presence in Saudi Arabia than with Palestinian issues. U.S. ties to Israel certainly feed Arab anti-American feeling, but it's a secondary issue for Al Qaeda.

---

True perhaps, but by ignoring the Israeli- Palestinian conflict we handed him a convenient issue that drew some sympathy from around the world, both from arab and non-arab quarters.

[ August 17, 2002: Message edited by: sportinlife ]

The U.S. seems to be the only true ally Israel has. Left to their own devices, Arab states would have exterminated Israel by now, or at least done their damnedest, while European states would do what they've done in the past - nothing.

It is this "intrusion" into Middle East affairs that Bin Laden spoke of in the video where he stated his reasons for attacking the U.S. First and foremost was U.S. support of Israel, second was U.S. military presence in the land of Mecca (uh, didn't they invite us in?), and third was the decadence of American pop culture (damn that Madonna! and I can't imagine Osama's a big fan of Queer As Folk either).

I think it was the Saudi's who 'invited' us to Suadi Arabia not the Palestinians.

We accepted because it was in our interest not on humanitarian grounds. We also support Israel in our interest and I believe if the situation in the Middle East continues to deteriorate, it will not be in anyones "interest".

sorry for the unclear pronoun, but by "they", I did mean the Saudis. You can bash America all you like, if that's what gets you off, but they (SAUDIS) did invite us in. And what the hell is so wrong with a nation employing its military for its own interests? Why else does a national defense exist except to serve that nation's interests?

We support and will continue to support Israel because Jews make up a key voting bloc in a number of large electoral vote states. I'm sure that's even more fodder for America-bashers, so swing away.



Sorry, but I'm just in no mood for America-bashers today. I'm fed up with Americans who sop up all the benefits, opportunity, and good our great nation provides for its citizens as if it were all one gigantic entitlement, then turn around and screech criticism nonstop like selfish ingrates. Of course, they defend their sourness as their freedom of speech and obligation to dissent. Well, let me exercise my rights and freedoms a bit by dismissing the screeching as the rants of children trapped in adult bodies.

[quote]Originally posted by BoSoxRudy:
And what the hell is so wrong with a nation employing its military for its own interests? Why else does a national defense exist except to serve that nation's interests?

---

It's not a question of simple national interest, but of what we're willing to do in that interest. A nation's military is inextricably linked with killing people. There's good reason for this throughout history. So whenever the military is involved in any action "in the national interest" the implication is that they will kill for that interest. Well, when is killing acceptable? It's very hard to argue that it is never acceptable. Very few will argue that if you have a loaded gun in your hand, and someone is trying to stab you to death, you should stand there and take it because dying is better than killing. However, many people get queasy when their governments institutionalize death either through the justice system or the military.
Right now the Bush administration is arguing that the detainees in Camp X-Ray have no rights. It's important to understand that this means the only two things holding our government back from torturing these men to death: the political price they would have to pay and the hope that there is useful information to come out of these men.
It is claiming this kind of power and claiming to wield it rightously that disturbs sincere thinkers in America and abroad. I'm not saying that the answers are easy. The lines are very difficult to draw, if not impossible, and they shift from situation to situation. But the current US policy, and the past cavalier support by the US of authoritarian regimes opposed to other authoritarian regimes perceived somehow as worse, has made the world sceptical of American moral leadership.
The only people who are culpable for the actions taken on 9/11 are those directly involved in the plot. American foreign policy did not force them onto those planes with boxcutters and fake bombs. The introspection into American foreign policy is regardles of 9/11. If what we've done in this world is wrong, it's wrong without reference to the backlash against America. It's wrong because we put Manuel Noriega and Sadaam Hussien in power. It's wrong because we created the Taliban to oppose Soviet influence in Afganistan.

[ August 18, 2002: Message edited by: jqueer ]

jqueer, I respect everything you had to say in your post ... your argument shows intelligent, critical thinking coupled with a degree of distance and dispassion that reasonable analysis demands.

It's getting late here on the East Coast. I'll discuss the meat & bones of this particular issue another time. But for now I did want to say that I appreciated what you wrote.

BoSoxRudy wrote:

[quote]Sorry, but I'm just in no mood for America-bashers today. I'm fed up with Americans who sop up all the benefits, opportunity, and good our great nation provides for its citizens as if it were all one gigantic entitlement, then turn around and screech criticism nonstop like selfish ingrates.

---

It doesn't make you an "America-basher" to disagree with or question the policies of the American government and the military. If you're "not in the mood" to have people disagree with you, fine. But it's silly and lazy to accuse them of being un-American for their dissent.

[quote]Originally posted by conor500:
It doesn't make you an "America-basher" to disagree with or question the policies of the American government and the military. If you're "not in the mood" to have people disagree with you, fine. But it's silly and lazy to accuse them of being un-American for their dissent.

---

Intelligent dissent is one thing; mindless, incessant bashing of our great nation is quite another. When the motivation of dissent is to make this country and this world a better place (like I think jqueer is doing in his post), then that's great. But some people (including some in in this thread) just bash America for anything and everything it does, nonstop, no matter what. I have no idea why they have such a chip on their shoulder, and frankly, I don't give a flying f*ck because I've long since lost patience with that ilk. As long as you engage in intelligent dissent, then criticize away, for that's part of what has made this country so great. But if while criticizing you don't also love this country, even in light of its myriad flaws and imperfections, then I stand by my statement: you are a selfish, ungrateful child with an angry sense of entitlement.

BoSoxRudy, there's no America bashing on this thread at all that I can discern. Why is it bashing to point out that many Arabs hate America's support of Israel, and some dislike the military presence in Saudi Arabia?

Yes, the Saudi regime invited us (did anyone say otherwise? However, many Arabs (including many Saudis) don't like the Saudi regime. And I doubt either of us would like to live under it either.

Middle East policy decisions are complex. Having made the decision to intervene in the area, the U.S. cannot avoid making enemies. But I'd like to see the administration give a clearer definition of what American interests are...and less of the good guy/bad guy stuff.

There's also a question of long term vs short term interest. It may have served American interests at the time to keep the Shah of Iran in power, but he was replaced by a virulently anti-American regime. Maybe that would have happened anyway...but maybe not. Although I did support the move of American troops to Saudi Arabia at the time, I worry that we may be repeating this whole scenario again in Saudi Arabia. Granted, I'm not sufficiently familiar with the Saudi political scene to offer a better solution. Perhaps there are moderate reformist elements that could be fostered, if the U.S. were to pressure the Saud family to allow more dissent.

I'm not so sure Israel would have died without American aid. For one thing, while the U.S. has provided lots of money, it has not been forced to directly intervene in its wars. Israel has by far the most powerful military in the region, and I think the external threats to Israel's existence have diminished greatly since the '70's. The Arab nations are more divided, and much less solvent than they were then (mostly due to the collapse in world oil prices), and of its neighbors only Syria is hostile enough to worry about. Should the U.S. support the existence of Israel? Sure. Should they support all Likud policy? I don't think so. Is it Anti-American, or Anti-Semitic to say so?

OK, back on target (somewhat) ...

JC, you contradict yourself somewhat in the last paragraph. Why do you think Israel has by far the most powerful military in the region? Part of the reason is its citizens devotion to national defense, certainly; but a lot of it is the $3+ billion in "foreign aid" that the U.S. gives Israel annually. That $3+ billion either goes directly into Israel's national defense or allows Israel to divert money tht would go toward other programs into defense instead. IMO, without the $3+ billion in military assistance and without the world's greatest superpower at their back, Israel would be exterminated. And guess what? No European nation would care.

Is this to say that the U.S. has handled this issue flawlessly? Of course not. Early on in this conflict, the U.S. turned a blind eye to a number of Israeli atrocities against Palestineans, which galvanized anti-U.S. sentiments amongst Palestineans and arguably all Arab states. But come on, even if the U.S. had handled this issue better, even perfectly, OBL would be just as outraged.

I get so damn steamed when "intelligent dissenters" (as they would deludedly like to fancy themselves) claim that the U.S. brought the 9/11 terrorist attacks upon itself. Just listen to the three reasons Osama Bin Laden gave (on video, so it's from the horse's mouth) -- U.S. support of Israel (the U.S. is the only other nation in the world that seems concerned by the extermination of the Jewish state, and the U.S. is wrong here?); U.S. military presence in the land of Mecca and Medina (the needed us there, they wanted us there, and they invited us in); and U.S. cultural decadence (can't imagine OBL is a big fan of Pride parades, and why isn't Britney Spears wearing a bhurka?).

BoSoxRudy wrote:

[quote]I get so damn steamed when "intelligent dissenters" (as they would deludedly like to fancy themselves) claim that the U.S. brought the 9/11 terrorist attacks upon itself.

---

I think, however, that this argument was usually in response to people who simply could not comprehend why people in other parts of the world would dislike America. Whether we believe the reasons for their hatred are valid or not, we should at least try to understand them.

[quote]Originally posted by BoSoxRudy:


Intelligent dissent is one thing; mindless, incessant bashing of our great nation is quite another. When the motivation of dissent is to make this country and this world a better place (like I think jqueer is doing in his post), then that's great. But some people (including some in in this thread) just bash America for anything and everything it does, nonstop, no matter what. I have no idea why they have such a chip on their shoulder, and frankly, I don't give a flying f*ck because I've long since lost patience with that ilk. As long as you engage in intelligent dissent, then criticize away, for that's part of what has made this country so great. But if while criticizing you don't also love this country, even in light of its myriad flaws and imperfections, then I stand by my statement: you are a selfish, ungrateful child with an angry sense of entitlement.

---

Who are you to decide who does and does not love their country just because they criticize it, and their criticism isn't to your liking? Would you like it if someone assumed YOU didn't love this country?

Also, let's be sure to draw distinctions between governments and countries (or people). For example, I can criticize actions by the US government without lessening my love for this country. It's actually because I'm a patriot that I sometimes feel compelled to criticize actions that our government takes. (And, yes, that pesky First Amendment protects both my rights and yours to do so.)

Similarly, the Saudi government (a repressive, dictatorial monarchy) invited the US military in to respond to Saddam's invasion of Kuwait. Our government said yes for lots of reasons. But the Saudi people, and at least a significant number of Arab and Muslim people in general, do not like the idea of foreign troops in the same country as Mecca and Medina.

And as for the original topic (Palestinian gays), it just goes to illustrate what an incredibly complex issue the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is. Israel, a democracy, is slowly changing into an anti-democratic apartheid society in both Israel proper and the occupied territories. Americans naturally side with those who are oppressed. And yet the Palestinian culture and government are, as a rule, extremely homophobic. Solution? Hey, if it was simple, it would have been solved by now.

[ August 19, 2002: Message edited by: Lots-of-us ]

[quote]Originally posted by BoSoxRudy:
and why isn't Britney Spears wearing a bhurka?).

---

I, for one, wish she would.

Remember that Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance.


[quote]Originally posted by William1865:
This is pretty terrifying:

Palestenian Gays

---

Maybe we should adopt his anti-gay, anti-woman, anti-western policies to appease him as well. Since when to we cater to terrorists to avoid giving them an issue?

[quote]Originally posted by sportinlife:


True perhaps, but by ignoring the Israeli- Palestinian conflict we handed him a convenient issue that drew some sympathy from around the world, both from arab and non-arab quarters.

[ August 17, 2002: Message edited by: sportinlife ]

---

Why does confronting the Isreal-Palestine conflict have to be appeasement? It's a necessary goal in and of itself.

Sorry if I made it seem like appeasement but if everyone uses the excuse of an appearance of weakness to avoid seeking peaceful solutions, where does the violence end?

[ September 06, 2002: Message edited by: sportinlife ]