'The Third Intifada has already begun'

[McHrozni]

'Imply' not 'implicate'. The words mean two entirely different things. No, I implied no such thing. I said it was a smart move in a game in which public opinion counts (whether 'allowed' or not). Is Israel 'allowed' to have nuclear weapons? Is it 'allowed' to be planting settlements in the West Bank? Is it 'allowed' to bulldoze people's homes? You can have this fascinating moral discussion with someone else. It doesn't particularly interest me.

What do you mean with the last question? I don't have a problem. Do you? What is it? Maybe I can help.

You do have a problem. It's called acute whataboutism. I'm afraid it's incurable, although lobotomy has been know to alleviate symptoms.

McHrozni

 

[anglolawyer]

You do have a problem. It's called acute whataboutism. I'm afraid it's incurable, although lobotomy has been know to alleviate symptoms.

McHrozni

Thanks for the diagnosis. As with most of these instant, snap judgments, its well wide of the mark but I'm not about to digress into the reasons why since that would be off topic and we all know what happens to me especially when I stray from the narrow bounds of a thread, especially in ways that upset the numerous right wing, knuckle-draggers of the forum.

 

[McHrozni]

Thanks for the diagnosis.

You're welcome.

There is something I'd like to know though. What would you do about Hamas hiding in hospitals? Say you're an Israeli PM and Hamas is attacking Israel with rockets from hospitals. How would you deal with it?

McHrozni

 

[anglolawyer]

You're welcome.

There is something I'd like to know though. What would you do about Hamas hiding in hospitals? Say you're an Israeli PM and Hamas is attacking Israel with rockets from hospitals. How would you deal with it?

McHrozni

I would bomb them, probably, depending on the advice of my military and diplomatic people.

 

[McHrozni]

I would bomb them, probably, depending on the advice of my military and diplomatic people.

Interesting. And how would you deal with the civilian deaths that would undoubtedly result from the attacks?

McHrozni

 

[anglolawyer]

Interesting. And how would you deal with the civilian deaths that would undoubtedly result from the attacks?

McHrozni

I already told you that. My diplomatic staff would have to spin it. Or do you mean something else by 'deal with'?

ETA I ought to clarify - Im not on anyone's side in this conflict. I don't know nearly enough about it. My comments are concerned with the tactics of warfare in the given conditions, that's all. If I were Hamas I would hide in hospitals and try to kill and maim as many Israelis, especially children, as I could and if I were running the Israeli side I would adopt just about any counter-measures to prevent this.

Have you ever seen the Battle of Algiers? I recommend it. It's only two hours of your life.

 

[McHrozni]

ETA I ought to clarify - Im not on anyone's side in this conflict. I don't know nearly enough about it. My comments are concerned with the tactics of warfare in the given conditions, that's all. If I were Hamas I would hide in hospitals and try to kill and maim as many Israelis, especially children, as I could and if I were running the Israeli side I would adopt just about any counter-measures to prevent this.

Interesting. I can understand Israeli tactic fine, but why would you seek to kill as many Israelis and have Israelis kill as many of your own civilians as possible?

It's not like the Palestinians have tried anything else recently, and the results are rather poor. Why would you continue these tactics, in spite of their consistent failure?

McHrozni

 

[anglolawyer]

Interesting. I can understand Israeli tactic fine, but why would you seek to kill as many Israelis and have Israelis kill as many of your own civilians as possible?

It's not like the Palestinians have tried anything else recently, and the results are rather poor. Why would you continue these tactics, in spite of their consistent failure?

McHrozni

I guess self determination and restoration of property are their war aims. They can't defeat Israel militarily so either they lie down and suck it up as someone suggested upthread or pay with blood and put their faith in world opinion. What else is there?

 

[McHrozni]

I guess self determination and restoration of property are their war aims. They can't defeat Israel militarily so either they lie down and suck it up as someone suggested upthread or pay with blood and put their faith in world opinion. What else is there?

Offer peace in return for land? Establish Palestine as a demilitarized state under protection of UN, forego claims on Israel in 1973 borders. Reject terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism. Ask for development assistance to create a functional economy.

In ten years Palestine could be second only to Israel in the region in economy and just about everything else.

McHrozni

 

[anglolawyer]

Offer peace in return for land? Establish Palestine as a demilitarized state under protection of UN, forego claims on Israel in 1973 borders. Reject terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism. Ask for development assistance to create a functional economy.

In ten years Palestine could be second only to Israel in the region in economy and just about everything else.

McHrozni

Why not tell them?

Does that address all issues of dispossession since 1948? I guess that's in the 'forego claims' part. I know what I don't know that I would like to know more about before going all moral on this topic: what, specifically, happened to the land rights of displaced Palestinians (if any) in and after 1948? What was the source of those rights in the first place? What is the source of current Israeli land rights? Im looking for answers that would make sense to a lawyer in real estate. In their absence, it may be a gross mistake and no more than an indication of terrible bias on my part, I speculate that the Israelis stole land that was in the possession of palestinians on the basis of some biblical claim to it from two thousand and more years ago. If that is right, what is being asked of the Palestinians is that they yield to the principle that might is right. If that's so, then if I were a Palestinian, I might say 'fine, we'll see what happens if and when we get the upper hand, enjoy the disputed land while you have the power to hang onto it, but not longer than that'.

 

[Jules Galen]

Offer peace in return for land? Establish Palestine as a demilitarized state under protection of UN, forego claims on Israel in 1973 borders. Reject terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism. Ask for development assistance to create a functional economy.

In ten years Palestine could be second only to Israel in the region in economy and just about everything else.

McHrozni

I doubt it. I think Israel will do anything to sabotage peace - for as long as Israel is fighting, then they have an excuse to steal land. And the Palestinians are stupidly playing into that game.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

I doubt it. I think Israel will do anything to sabotage peace - for as long as Israel is fighting, then they have an excuse to steal land. And the Palestinians are stupidly playing into that game.

So why not break out the Nerve Gas and feed survivors into woodchippers? That was how Saddam dealt with uprisings, as did Hafez Al Assad.

 

[Jules Galen]

So why not break out the Nerve Gas and feed survivors into woodchippers? That was how Saddam dealt with uprisings, as did Hafez Al Assad.

That's a bit hysterical, don't ya' think?

However, I have noticed in he news reports that Israel is developing a sense of Triumphalism: a foolish notion that will probably cause them to eventually do something very stupid - very horrible.

 

[McHrozni]

Why not tell them?

Does that address all issues of dispossession since 1948? I guess that's in the 'forego claims' part. I know what I don't know that I would like to know more about before going all moral on this topic: what, specifically, happened to the land rights of displaced Palestinians (if any) in and after 1948? What was the source of those rights in the first place? What is the source of current Israeli land rights? Im looking for answers that would make sense to a lawyer in real estate. In their absence, it may be a gross mistake and no more than an indication of terrible bias on my part, I speculate that the Israelis stole land that was in the possession of palestinians on the basis of some biblical claim to it from two thousand and more years ago. If that is right, what is being asked of the Palestinians is that they yield to the principle that might is right. If that's so, then if I were a Palestinian, I might say 'fine, we'll see what happens if and when we get the upper hand, enjoy the disputed land while you have the power to hang onto it, but not longer than that'.

They know it all already, I haven't said anything that isn't readily obvious. My solution adequately addresses all legitimate Palestinian concerns (disposession and right to return are illegitimate), save one - Israeli settlers. I'd offer them a choice: they either take Palestinian citizenship, with full rights and responsibilities, move to Israel, or legally live in Palesine as Israeli citizens. The right does not extend to children, who may opt to take Palestinian citizenship, or emigrate.
This solution then addresses all legitimate concerns of either side adequately and approximately evenly unfairly, no one has any right to complain.

Why don't they do it? Because Hamas and even PA don't serve the needs of Palesine, but the needs of their leadership, which are fundamentally different. Once you acknowledge this glaring fact you realize all criticism of Israel - justified or not, there is some of each - is actually counterproductive. Palestinians have a choice, an imperfect peace, or a war they can't win. This is the same choice they had since 1948. Until they choose the former there will be no peace no matter what.

They have 1-2 decades to change their mind. After that Arab oil money will likely run out.

McHrozni

 

[Ziggurat]

Why don't they do it? Because Hamas and even PA don't serve the needs of Palesine, but the needs of their leadership, which are fundamentally different.

Indeed. It's sad how many people don't understand the concept of the principal-agent problem, or recognize it when it occurs. Basically, perpetual war for the Palestinian people is the agency cost of their current leadership.

 

[Allen773]

Isn't Hamas' original claim to legitimacy among Palestinians their no-compromise Islamist ideology, unsullied by "corruption" or the thought of negotiating with the Israeli government? I can imagine their leadership being afraid to "sell out".

 

[anglolawyer]

Indeed. It's sad how many people don't understand the concept of the principal-agent problem, or recognize it when it occurs. Basically, perpetual war for the Palestinian people is the agency cost of their current leadership.

I studied politics at university and I don't recall coming across this fake and useless 'problem'. OTOH there is the iron law of oligarchy which probably covers whatever it is you are trying to say.

 

[Ziggurat]

I studied politics at university and I don't recall coming across this fake and useless 'problem'.

The term comes from economics, though the concept applies to politics as well, which you'd know if you read the link. The fact that you didn't encounter it in your formal studies just means that your formal studies were incomplete. The fact that you think it's fake and useless means that you have been unable to compensate for the deficiencies of your formal education.

Perhaps you should seek a refund of your tuition.

 

[anglolawyer]

The term comes from economics, though the concept applies to politics as well, which you'd know if you read the link. The fact that you didn't encounter it in your formal studies just means that your formal studies were incomplete. The fact that you think it's fake and useless means that you have been unable to compensate for the deficiencies of your formal education.

Perhaps you should seek a refund of your tuition.

It amounts to this - if you entrust any aspect of your affairs to another, watch out because they may not do what you want or what's in your best interests. You call that a principle that people have trouble understanding? Doesn't seem very deep to me. It applies to everything, actually, even to dentistry according to your link (which I did read, actually) - so much so as to be not worth bothering with. Your point is just that the Palestinians aren't well served by their leaders. You might just as well have said so rather than dress it up as a deep insight derived from some supposedly little-known 'principle' that so many fail to grasp due to its sheer profundity. Laughable.

I judge that my education was a lot better than yours and would only have been made worse by wasting time learning this vacuous drivel.

 

[Ziggurat]

It amounts to this - if you entrust any aspect of your affairs to another, watch out because they may not do what you want or what's in your best interests. You call that a principle that people have trouble understanding?

Yes, I do.

Doesn't seem very deep to me.

Correction: the basic concept is not very complex. But the specific causes and ramifications can be. And even simple things can be hard for people to understand when they don't want to.

Your point is just that the Palestinians aren't well served by their leaders. You might just as well have said so rather than dress it up as a deep insight derived from some supposedly little-known 'principle' that so many fail to grasp due to its sheer profundity. Laughable.

Principal, not principle. Did your education cover the difference? And the tragedy I'm trying to point out is precisely that it's not too profound for most people to understand, and yet they still don't. I didn't think my post was too profound for you to understand either, and yet you still failed to do so. That's sad.

I judge that my education was a lot better than yours and would only have been made worse by wasting time learning this vacuous drivel.

Sure, anglo, sure. And yet...