A lighter topic: Palestine and Israel

[Oranjoose]

While there is so much to say about the conflict,
the non-ignorant Israel-supporters boil down to roughly
three groups:
- Some Evangelical Christians who believe that it is the Jews' God-given land, so screw whoever is there who aren't Jewish (watch Waiting for Armageddon).
- Land-hungry Israelis (in contrast to Israelis who are against taking Palestinian land).
- Political bodies tied to Zionism (those funded by the Zionist lobby, the White House
Chief of Staff, Rahm Emmanuel, former Israeli Defense Force volunteer, etc)

Everyone else just hasn't really read up (or cared to) on the conflict's history,
the UN resolutions and the accumulated UN Security Council vetoes by the US
in favor of Israel (for a list of all UNSC vetoes by US:
http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/geoff/UNresolutions.htm), this, this, and that.

Really, it's a crappy situation, kind of like the horrible US history with the Native
Americans. That's long gone now. Sadly, there's not much we can do to peacefully
give back land to those who owned it before. In the case of Palestine, there are
many new generations of Israelis living in occupied land who had nothing to do with
the atrocities of the past.
At this point now, the only humane fix seems to be for Israel to just stop. I mean, really,
just stop taking land, and stop constructing new settlements. It's hard for anyone to
take Israel seriously in the "peace process" when they have no intention to stop pushing
forward. Nothing can get done until then.

[ricercar]

some of that hentai stuff is really disturbing

In full agreement there. (why did it have to be tentacles, Jacques?)

[Rajagra]

non-ignorant Israel-supporters boil down to roughly three groups:...

Right. So Israel-supporters are either ignorant or bastards. Thanks for that helpful, unbiased explanation.

[Oranjoose]

Right. So Israel-supporters are either ignorant or bastards. Thanks for that helpful, unbiased explanation.

First, I never implied that insult on Israel-supporters. To be fair, I do
admit that it was obvious from my post what "side" I'm on. However,
I will say though that despite my generalizations about Israel-supporters,
any of the three who would belong to that group would not disagree
with my description of them.
The many "rapture-ready" Evangelical Christians do think that Israel is the
"promised land" for the Jews, and do believe that they are justified in taking it.
Ask one, he/she will proudly agree.


These dudes^, as well as other Israelis who want to take more Palestinian
land wouldn't hesitate to stand for this colonial disposition.
Ask one, he/she will proudly agree.
Political bodies that have been funded or created by Zionist organizations
would obviously tell you that they favor Israel's land-grab, where it is
politically correct to do so.

So, after explaining how none of these groups would be offended by my
description of them, I find no guilt in my "bias."

In a sense, your automatic recognition of what may seem like obvious slander,
that the targeted parties would see as accurate, unoffending truth, says something about the ethics of the entire situation.

If you disagree with my assessment of those supporting Israel's border
extensions and settlements, then please, this time give an argument.
I'd appreciate it.

[mike]

Right. So Israel-supporters are either ignorant or bastards.

Sounds about right to me.

Of course to be fair you have to point out (also quite rightly) that Palestinian-supporters are also either ignorant or bastards.

[Half-Saint]

Sounds about right to me.

Of course to be fair you have to point out (also quite rightly) that Palestinian-supporters are also either ignorant or bastards.

It is only natural for people to take sides. Calling everyone either ignorant or a bastard seems a little bit over the top.

[quadibloc]

Everyone else just hasn't really read up (or cared to) on the conflict's history,

Really, it's a crappy situation, kind of like the horrible US history with the Native Americans.

I don't have a quarrel with your conclusion that Israel should stop building new settlements.

But when it comes to the history of the conflict, I don't draw the same conclusions from it as you do.

In the case of Native Americans - there were a few massacres of settlers by some tribes of Indians, who did also cart off their women as brides. The error was holding all the Native Americans responsible for the savagery of a few tribes, when the different tribes had different languages and cultures. That and the side some of them took in the Revolutionary War.

There are no 500 different tribes of Palestinians.

"From time immemorial", Muslims considered it their god-given right to abuse Jews. So, partitioning Palestine, as happened in 1947, so that the Jews would no longer be subjected to violence and abuse by the Arabs there soes not seem to me to be an historic wrong.

But the surrounding Arab countries descended on Israel to drive it into the sea. That's what led to Israel expanding to its pre-1967 boundaries, creating the original Palestinian refugee problem. The descendants of those refugees are still in refugee camps throughout the Arab world.

So the first step to peace in the Middle East is to stop that nonsense, and require those refugees to be accepted as citizens of the countries in which they are located. As long as that isn't done, there are people who have nowhere to go to live in a land of their own until Israel is thrown into the sea.

The second step is to make it possible for the West Bank and Gaza Strip not to be under Israeli control... without them becoming places where groups like Hamas can intimidate the people living there, and regroup for the purpose of driving Israel into the sea. If they could be returned to the control of the Egyptian and Jordanian governments, that would be one way to achieve this, but as that option is not on the table, another way to make peace possible would be for the U.S. to send sufficient troops to those areas to occupy them in sufficient force to make terrorist activity there impossible.

If no one is willing to prevent the occupied territories from becoming a lawless area from which rockets and suicide bombers are launched into Israel, why should Israel be expected to make it easier?

[mike]

It is only natural for people to take sides. Calling everyone either ignorant or a bastard seems a little bit over the top.

Maybe so. I wasn't the first to introduce the word "bastard"; I was merely pointing out that if there are unreasonable attitudes on one side there are also unreasonable attitudes on the other.

[Oranjoose]

@quadibloc
Let's put the history you skimmed over in perspective.
Imagine that Israel successfully drives out all the Palestinians. After which, they
had no home whatsoever. Meanwhile, a group called the Yathris had been
rallying support through political bodies for the migration of persecuted
Palestinians to Uganda (by the way, one of the countries that the Zionists
proposed for their colonialism). The Yathris lobbyists began to pay off, as key
countries began to offer support in the relocation of the Palestinians.
Over time, Palestinian refugees emigrated to settlements in Uganda that the
Yathris now called Ismand. At first, everything was peachy, but hundreds of thousands of immigrants started pouring in, despite the Ugandan and
International calls to limit immigration. Out of frustration of this immigration and lack of their involvement in diplomacy, local Ugandan communities started
to riot against the settlements. Backed heavily by outside military forces and
Ismandis equipped by external military entities, special operatives, as well as
thousands of Ugandan police officers, the relatively small uprising was
completely destroyed with substantially uneven losses. The settlement
expansion continued to grow to harbor the Palestinians persecuted in the
Palestinian expulsion of Israel.
The Yathris then summoned the countries for whom they have political
influence to start a UN resolution that would officially divide Uganda into
Ismandis and Ugandans. Many countries decided to not participate in the
vote. Between the participating nations, many found it appalling that they
could rule on the fate of Uganda so readily. Others decided to support the
wealthier nations voting for the new Arab state. After all, no one wanted to
accept all those refugees, and after all that has happened to the
Palestinians, they deserved a new home. Surrounding African nations found
the resolution unfair to the Ugandans and warned that if it passed, then they
would react aggressively. The UN voted a majority favor of the new Arab
state in Uganda, and thus, the surrounding countries mobilized.
At first, none of the countries attacked, except for Kenya that started to
assault Ismandi settlements outside the Ismandi border. Meanwhile, both
Kenya and the Democratic Republic of Congo had their own interests in the
Uganda land. Secret meetings were held between Kenya and Ismandi
politicians to negotiate a deal where Kenyans would not get involved if they
were given some Ugandan land.
The African natives of the Ugandan region organized forces to attack
settlements. The offensive strikes were held off by the Ismandi defense
forces. Shortly thereafter, the Ismandi military started to push on the
offensive outside their borders with a couple decisive battles. The Ismandis,
as a message to the Ugandans and the African community completely
massacred and cleared out civilians of a small Ugandan village that even
important Ismandi figures considered to be "not unlike the massacre and
persecution of the Palestinians by the Israelis."
The war ended, but Ismandis continued to push their borders farther and
farther into UN-defined Uganda land accompanied by a few inevitable
skirmishes in the surrounding area. A couple decades later, the Ismandis
started a new war, attempting to secure areas close to The Democratic
Republic of Congo. The war was short, and the UN stepped in to try to
settle the disputes and bring peace to the region. The UN passed a new
resolution that officially gave Ismandis far more land than they owned by
the former resolution.
Following the Ismandi success in taking territory, for the next several
decades, Ismandis continued to persecute Ugandans and take land.
/End of story

We could argue all day about this and that event of Israel's tumultuous
start, but it really isn't worth it.
The most important line of that entire story is the last one.
The real problem lies in that Israel has been continually pushing its borders
and taking land illegally for the last half-century and more. Any diplomatic
attempt by the UN to stifle Israel's deplorable actions has been halted by
singular, but absolute, vetoes by the US, Israel's biggest ally and guardian.

Let's focus on the now. A popular pro-Israel remark is that these terrorist
need to stop blowing themselves up and shooting rockets; otherwise, how
can the peace process take place? The statement would be fair if, and only
if, Israel was peacefully sitting within their borders, and not oppressing the
Palestinians by their blockade, etc, but they are not.

[microsoft windows]

Listen you all. The Palestinians are free to build wherever they want. Why shouldn't the Jewish be the same?

[Oranjoose]

Listen you all. The Palestinians are free to build wherever they want. Why shouldn't the Jewish be the same?

Lol, wut?

[keyboardlover]

Welcome to MW's programmable logic stack.  You feed something in and ya never know what will come out.

Sometimes 1 + 1 can equal 3. Impossible logic is fun =)

[ricercar]

Calling everyone either ignorant or a bastard seems a little bit over the top.

Anyone driving faster than me is an idiot; everyone driving slower is a moron.
- G Carlin

[itlnstln]

That's what "*****" is for.  Just be careful when you use it.

[mike]

"From time immemorial", Muslims considered it their god-given right to abuse Jews. So, partitioning Palestine, as happened in 1947, so that the Jews would no longer be subjected to violence and abuse by the Arabs there soes not seem to me to be an historic wrong.

This is more than a little unfair. Historically, Muslims have been far more accepting of Jews ("people of the book") than the Christian world. Despite the Jewish diaspora (which happened in pre-Islamic times), there has been a continuous Jewish presence in Palestine; whatever 'abuse' there may have been, there was no sustained episodes of "ethnic cleansing" as happened in Europe at the time.

There was violence towards the Jews from Palestinians before the partition (and after the collapse of the Ottoman empire) but nothing anywhere near as extensive as we imagine. Indeed it is hardly surprising given that the region was under the thumb of a bunch of superpowers showing signs of handing over control to a bunch of recent immigrants.

As an example, the biggest act of violence by the Palestinians was the Grand Arab Revolt of 1936-9 when 5,000 Palestinians were killed, "over" 300 Jews killed, and 282 British troops and civilians killed. Whilst Jewish settlements were attacked, it would seem they didn't go out of their way to kill Jews (or there would be a lot more than 300 Jews killed). In the words of Ben-Gurion: "fighting dispossession... The fear is not of losing land, but of losing the homeland of the Arab people, which others want to turn into the homeland of the Jewish people."

In response to this, Irgun began carrying out reprisal attacks, eventually killing hundreds of Palestinians. Whilst it could be argued that they didn't kill as many Palestinians as the Palestinians killed Jews, it certainly can't be argued that Palestinians couldn't do with some protection against Zionist extremists.

The partition was intended amongst other things to give some level of protection for both sides.

Obviously this is all vastly more complex than I have space to go into, and there's a vast amount of black propaganda around. Whatever the truth of the situation, it is a vast oversimplification to blame one side or the other; there is blame enough for both sides.

[wellington1869]

Whatever the truth of the situation, it is a vast oversimplification to blame one side or the other; there is blame enough for both sides.

i'd disagree with that. I think its an easy way out when faced with a complex situation to say "well everyone is to blame".  In the broadest possible sense this may be true, in that in the cycle of reprisals everyone has overreacted at some point. But that broadest possible sense isnt all that useful if we want to understand the dynamics of the conflict.  And it lends itself too easily to moral equivalences in a situation that has such clear notions of morality at stake in the conflict.

Fact is jews have always been numerically far smaller than their islamic and christian cousins, and so always at a massive disadvantage. This is as true in the past as it is today. There's no doubt that jews have suffered in the past at the hands of the church, but that too has been episodic, as it has been in their relations to islam. Jews have also benefited greatly under christian lands, and the closer you get to modernity (and the modernized church -- a modernization that we have yet to witness in the muslim world at large) the better is their situation in the christian world.  Not so for jews in the muslim world.

In addition to the numerical inferiority, which continues today, jews also suffer in a different way in the shadow of the muslim world in the middle east. And thats because of the modernization of the jewish world too (democracy, jewish liberalism, modern institutions and modern expectations) which the jews developed rapidly and decisively as the 20th century approached. Again something we are still waiting to see develop in the quasi-medieval politics and values in the muslim world today.  In the contest between medieval barbarism and modern civilization, it is the latter that is perpetually on the defensive. Nowhere is this more clear than in the middle east today, where even progressive muslims are hunted down and slaughtered by other muslims.

These sorts of nuances cannot become visible if we merely (and too easily) say "well there's blame all around". Sure, there is, no doubt. There's also though a clear side -- the side of modern democracy and its processes -- that any civilized person today must side with.  Whether that means siding with jewish democracy or siding with progressive muslims, it doesnt matter. What matters is siding with democracy wherever it is found. And that means - indeed - choosing a side despite the violence on all sides.

[wellington1869]

p.s., oranjoos' deeply anti-democratic read on the middle east situation is no surprise, given his lunatic conspiracy theories of 9/11. Entertaining, though.

[wellington1869]

there's another fundamental flaw in seeing this as palestine vs israel.  Fact is muslim civil war, and the oppression from sorrounding muslim states, has had as much -- or more -- to do with the current plight of palestinians.  I can pile on the links if you like, but this is common knowledge for any liberal not currently blinded by the rhetoric of palestinian nationalism.

its a ***** to be a muslim today. You get attacked by your fellow muslims and you're not allowed to talk about that, else risk being labelled a 'traitor' and murdered for it.

[Oranjoose]

p.s., oranjoos' deeply anti-democratic read on the middle east situation is no surprise, given his lunatic conspiracy theories of 9/11. Entertaining, though.

To give you the benefit of the doubt, I'll just assume you're being sarcastic.

However, if you're not, then I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and just
assume that you simply don't know much about Israel, and how anti-democratic
they are.
In fact, it's hard to keep a laugh down when I hear someone say that they
support Israel because they support democracy in the middle-east.

You should brush up by reading Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid by
former President Carter (I hope he's doing okay at the hospital). I don't expect
you to read an entire book, so you can also go here: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=17940 as a reference.

I would really appreciate if you'd like to back up your claim. I don't think
that anything I wrote in that entire reply was anti-democratic. In fact, I
am trying to support democracy by pointing out how any member of the UNSC
has absolute power over vetoing any resolution even if every single country in
the entire UN votes for it. That level of central control is akin to dictatorship,
you know, the opposite of democracy...
If you disagree, then you are announcing your hypocrisy, and I know you know that.

Before you start saying Arab nations this, Islam that -remember- you wouldn't 'stoop' to a relativist argument would you?

[wellington1869]

lol, oranjoos, since you blame the cia (or whatever) for 9/11, you can be sure I'm going to take your book recommendations with quite a few grains of salt.

[microsoft windows]

former President Carter (I hope he's doing okay at the hospital).

Don't worry; Jimmy Carter got released from the hospital earlier today.

[wellington1869]

Don't worry; Jimmy Carter got released from the hospital earlier today.

Dammit.

[microsoft windows]

Well, Carter wasn't the best president, but that don't mean he's a bad person.

[Oranjoose]

From the strict viewpoint of structural engineering the World Trade Center was fascinating.  The WTC towers were both designed to withstand the impact of a 707.

However they left jet fuel out  of the equation.

From the NIST investigation.

Ripster, I just want to say that not enough people give you credit for the
amount of work you put into putting these hilarious images all over the place.
You're seriously a character, and it really brightens the mood of geekhack,
when you make something everyone is being so serious about look silly.
Serious props, and I mean it. I await your next surprise.

I also want to thank you for making an honest argument. For the longest time
I was on that boat, using NIST as a source to finally conclude the official
story of the attacks.
Unfortunately, it was brought to my attention that Underwriter Labs, the
company that did the scientific investigation for NIST, told NIST that the
fire did not burn at a temperature to not only not be able to melt the steel,
but not "soften" it either.
The report says that the fire could not indeed melt steel, but could soften it.
Outraged by NIST publishing contrary information, Kevin Ryan, former
manager at Underwriter Labs spoke out against NIST, which costed him his
job. The others stayed quiet.

Before Wellington bulldogs on here about me being a "lunatic conspiracy
theorist," consider that everything I've said is straight historical fact, plain
and simple, as opposed to theory, so please save it.

For good measure, I'd like plop this on here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0iQgjFdwvN0&feature=player_embedded#!

Now, shall we get back on topic?

[Oranjoose]

Well, Carter wasn't the best president, but that don't mean he's a bad person.

Thank you. Whether or not you agree with someone, you can wish the best
for their health.

[microsoft windows]

Ripster, I just want to say that not enough people give you credit for the
amount of work you put into putting these hilarious images all over the place.
You're seriously a character, and it really brightens the mood of geekhack,
when you make something everyone is being so serious about look silly.
Serious props, and I mean it. I await your next surprise.

Ripster's posts used to be kind of funny, but, just like just about anything else, they got old after seeing the same thing more than 15,000 times.

[Oranjoose]

lol, oranjoos, since you blame the cia (or whatever) for 9/11, you can be sure I'm going to take your book recommendations with quite a few grains of salt.

Since when did I point blame for the events on September 11th, 2001?
Look, if you're unwilling to learn about the topic and have nothing
constructive to add, then please find a different thread to add replies to.

I'm still waiting for you to explain how my reply was "anti-democratic," and for you to challenge (or not) the defense of my reply.

[wellington1869]

deeply anti-democratic, but you're right, the last thing i want to do is 'seriously engage' a conspiracy theorist (because thats not possible to do). So i'm just making a statement and moving on to responding to other folks here who arent bat-**** conspiracy theorists.

[wellington1869]

ripster, he's looking forward to your next surprise. Do not disappoint him.


ok, i meant to move on to addressing other folks. Sorry. Couldnt resist.

Its possible that conspiracy theorists, like evangelicals, mean well. But it doesnt make them any easier to seriously engage, unfortunately thats not enough.

[quadibloc]

How come women can call men bastards and get away with it?

I guess they should know. But then that says more about them than about men...

[Oranjoose]

ripster, he's looking forward to your next surprise. Do not disappoint him.


ok, i meant to move on to addressing other folks. Sorry. Couldnt resist.

Its possible that conspiracy theorists, like evangelicals, mean well. But it doesnt make them any easier to seriously engage, unfortunately thats not enough.

Short history:
1. I make a post relevant to the topic
2. You make a baseless comment about it being "anti-democratic," and
attempt to divert the subject by calling me a conspiracy theorist.
3. I request that you backup your claim regarding the relevant post.
4. You take the low road and cower away from explaining yourself.

I'm not surprised. You're a predictable folk.

Do you also not talk to girls because they have cooties?

[wellington1869]

Short history:
1. I make a post relevant to the topic
2. You make a baseless comment about it being "anti-democratic," and
attempt to divert the subject by calling me a conspiracy theorist.
3. I request that you backup your claim regarding the relevant post.
4. You take the low road and cower away from explaining yourself.

I'm not surprised. You're a predictable folk.

Do you also not talk to girls because they have cooties?

hahahahahahaha! Dude, please dont make me expend the energy to respond to your 'argument' such as it is. You are anti-democratic, can you seriously not see that?  Let me give you a hint: what are you systematically omitting in your analysis of "palestine vs israel"?
THink man, i know you can do this because you're a liberal. Its something dear to your (our) liberal values. You're omitting it. Think! Think!

Put aside your (liberal) hatred of america and israel for just one moment. You can pick it up again afterwards, i wont stop you. But just for one moment.

[keyboardlover]

Since when did I point blame for the events on September 11th, 2001?
Look, if you're unwilling to learn about the topic and have nothing
constructive to add, then please find a different thread to add replies to.

I'm still waiting for you to explain how my reply was "anti-democratic," and for you to challenge (or not) the defense of my reply.

Welly is known for often assuming strange things from what people post and then blaming them for thinking or being something that they're not. I tend to either ignore him or reply with funny pics for the lulz.

[wellington1869]

OJ, I guess you've never read Edward Said.
.
.
.
.

[I'll wait for the gasp of indignation ]

[wellington1869]

Welly is known for often assuming strange things from what people post and then blaming them for thinking or being something that they're not. I tend to either ignore him or reply with funny pics for the lulz.

everybody, keyboard and I are friends again.

[keyboardlover]

everybody, keyboard and I are friends again.

Never were.

But whatever, I guess he doesn't hate me anymore.

[wellington1869]

Never were.

But whatever, I guess he doesn't hate me anymore.

amazing what a few pm's can do.

[Lanx]

Welly is known for often assuming strange things from what people post and then blaming them for thinking or being something that they're not. I tend to either ignore him or reply with funny pics for the lulz.

His last campaign to convince me to go the full veggie wasn't convincing, i still have a slab of steak a week, some pork chops, and always having da chicken. But man i really miss fried super bad food for you, only get that once a month if ever, gonna hit 32 soon =/

[wellington1869]

hey i ate a full box of entemenns chocolate chip cookies last night. so much for eating healthy.

[wellington1869]

so one of the interesting things about the left and israel is how the left went from adoring israel in the 50's and 60's (all those kibbutzes and making flowers bloom in the desert) to hating its guts by the 70s.

Its similar to how the left loved gandhi and hinduism in the 50s and 60s and hated both of their guts by the 70s.

Its similar to how the european left loved america in the 50s and 60s and went to hating its guts by the 70s.

Seems to me this post-wwii transition on the part of the left is kind of 'wholesale'. Something happened between the 60s and 70s basically to turn the left into a self-loathing, deeply conservative, and deeply violent entity.  I say this as a leftist (tho one who harkens back to the left of the 50s and 60s as the classical left, not the 'postmodern' relativist, nihilistic, cynical, anti-humanist, anti-democratic, and self-loathing left we see today).

[ch_123]

Welcome to MW's programmable logic stack.  You feed something in and ya never know what will come out.

I hear Macs are to blame for the problems in the West Bank.

[keyboardlover]

Welly sure likes to talk.

About what, I have no idea.

[wellington1869]

Welly sure likes to talk.

=) says the guy with 19,439 posts.

[itlnstln]

I think if you looked at total words, Welly still wins.  Ripster just has a bunch of one-liners.

Just sayin'.

[wellington1869]

When I hit 20,000 I get a cookie.

i'll send you an entenmanns.

i actually like freihofers better.

[itlnstln]

Well, they are Finest Quality and, apparently, made by the Amish.

[wellington1869]

made by the amish - that would explain the delicious taste.
my evangelical christian girlfriend's mom made the most delicious cookies i've ever tasted.  I've concluded that religious people make the best cookies for some reason.

[keyboardlover]

made by the amish - that would explain the delicious taste.
my evangelical christian girlfriend's mom made the most delicious cookies i've ever tasted.  I've concluded that religious people make the best cookies for some reason.

I bet you and her have some really interesting conversations.

[wellington1869]

I bet you and her have some really interesting conversations.

we did. it was really eye opening. was my first up-close experience with the evangelical sub-culture in this country. it was pretty shocking

[itlnstln]

we did. it was really eye opening. was my first up-close experience with the evangelical sub-culture in this country. it was pretty shocking

It might have been eye-opening, but it doesn't sound like it was all that leg-opening.  You might want to work on that.