Israel: Democracy in action.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by The Fool
I proposed Australian land rights legislation as a model that would bring justice to Palestinians. I doubt if you would agree with this model being implemented as Israel would not be able to take any more of thier land.

If you would like to describe it as a point for discussion, by all means go ahead. From the sound of it, unless Australia is planning to create an independent nation for Aboriginal-Australians, I suspect it wouldn’t be satisfying to the Palestinian-Arabs.

Originally posted by The Fool
I still fail to see the relevance...Are Australians forbidden to have opinions on Middle East politics due to Australian historic factors?

How many times should I explain this? If you make a comparison between Australia and the Middle East, then looking at Australian history is relevant in that discussion. You can’t very well complain about unfavorable comparisons when you’re the one who initiates the line of discussion.

Originally posted by The Fool
Damn, that was close....you nearly gave an answer. Once more for luck...What is, in your view, the justifiable limits of Israeli expansion.

Already asked and answered. If you don’t remember the answer and are too lazy to look it up, I’ve already told you under what conditions I will repeat myself.

Originally posted by The Fool
Yep, they may not believe in god but they sure believe god gave them the land.

That’s a very pithy comment you picked up from Demon. What was your opinion of his other statements about "Jewish duplicity that beguiles the gentile world"?

Originally posted by The Fool
I mean people like you...those that give unquestioning support to Israel in perpetuity…

If there were propagandists vilifying Australia in the same way Israel is vilified, claiming Australia has no right to exist as an English state, claiming that Australian troops were purposefully targeting civilians in any conflict Australian troops might be involved in, calling its defensive military actions "terrorism", claiming that any defensive measures Australia takes are illegitimate, exaggerating minor conflicts into massacres, libeling past military service of its leaders as "war crimes" and claiming there was some secret Australian conspiracy to perpetuate genocide against its indigenous population, then Australia would have the same support I give Israel. Wherever such libels are presented, I would research the truth and counter them. Bigotry of all kinds is offensive to me, especially when it comes from liberals who claim to be against it.

For me, it’s not about religion, the Holy Land or being anti-Arab, anti-Islam or even anti-terrorist. It’s about seeing people motivated by bigotry who are willing to tell half-truths and lies in order to spread hate. It’s about the duplicity of those who take it upon themselves to "spread the word" about issues they themselves have not learned about and have no interest in learning about. It’s about disgust at liberals who become blind to this duplicity and bigotry simply because it’s not the right kind of bigotry that’s fashionable to recognize.

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
However, there is a big difference. The number 2 will always be 2, true will never be false. Words change their meaning. Language is dynamic. The concepts behind the treatment of the inmates of Abu Graib were more advanced than those of the Spanish Inquisition, but the treatment was readily identified by everyone who saw what was being done, and how, it was torture. That was the first word that leapt to everyones lips when they tried to describe it.

Word definitions do change with usage, but we all understand that when I describe as "torture" being forced to sit through an episode of "Dr. Phil" with my wife, that we’re not really talking about something that would be considered a violation of the Geneva Conventions. (It would, however, be a great advance to civilization if the Geneva Conventions could be modified to address this issue. There are some things Y chromosomes should not be forced to endure, it should be a basic right.)

As for Abu Graib, yes, people of a specific political leaning had no problem adapting the word to cover actions it hadn’t previously. To shift us back on topic, the abuses themselves are objective facts, clearly recorded for everyone to witness. Their designation as "torture" is the subjective part.

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I read an aphorism once that I think explains a lot.

Data is not information.
Information is not knowledge.
Knowledge is not wisdom.

Cute aphorisms are not wisdom either.

Originally posted by a_unique_person
ZN thinks if he collects enough facts, he will be wise. It doesn't work like that.

You haven’t exactly demonstrated you’re in a position to say how it does work. You’re own understanding of the issues seems pretty shallow.

Originally posted by a_unique_person
The Arabs are not causing their suffering any more than any other nation on the world is. All countries around the world are obliged to offer these people a place to live. All countries are just as guilty of not doing so as any other.

When Arabs block the dismantling of the refugee camps, they are doing more to cause the suffering of the Palestinian-Arabs than are other countries. When your family has lived in a country for four generations, a country that shares the same language and cultural identity as you and you still can’t get citizenship, that is doing more to perpetuate the suffering of the Palestinian-Arabs than another country who simply limits the number of immigrants they will accept. When funds are available to rebuild, expand and improve conditions within the refugee camps and the Arabic governing authority prevents it, that is certainly causing the suffering of Palestinian-Arabs, more so than the countries that provide the funds.

Clearly you are lacking in facts here, and your lack of facts is preventing you from understanding, and your lack of understanding is preventing you from displaying wisdom.

One could certainly argue that facts alone do not equate wisdom, but it’s virtually impossible to achieve understanding without them. You could use a few more facts, perhaps your real objection to Z-N’s facts are that they don’t fit well within your world view.

 

[zenith-nadir]

You could use a few more facts, perhaps your real objection to Z-N’s facts are that they don’t fit well within your world view.

a_u_p hates facts. For the reason you just illustrated. I am noticing that CapelDodger also hates facts. JREF is a funny place for them to "hang out" considering they are such fans of fiction.

You mean expelled form Jordon, don't you?

CapelDodger won't even admit that the PLO and Arafat had a hand in the Lebanese civil war, and that is why Lebanese lothe palestinians, you expect him to admit that Palestinians tried to take it over Jordan, killed over 3000 in a ten-day civil war, including the Jordanian Prime Minister and were expelled into Lebanon? I say CapelDodger will never admit that happened. But it did.

That`s a reference to the "Greater Israel" question is it? Still waiting...crickets etc

No matter how many times you say something doesn't make it true. You can say "greater Israel", you can say "the ultimate borders of Israel", yet the r-e-a-l-i-t-y is those are just propoganda buzz-words you are parroting.

 

[CapelDodger]

from Mycroft:

It doesn't do any good to ask when a target was changed if the target was never established to begin with.

At the Versailles Peace Conference in 1919, the Zionist Organisation presented a map which defined the projected borders of the Jewish State. This was the same Zionist Organisation (of Weizmann et al) which was given control of the Jewish Agency of the British Mandate. Said Jewish Agency was given a degree of authority over all the Jews of the Mandate. It later morphed into the Israeli state machinery. The northern border of Israel on this map is the Litani valley. Has that ever been changed?

There have been plenty of lines drawn and discussed.

The only one (to my knowledge) presented by Israel is the 1919 map. It was confirmed in evidence to the Peel Commission (1937, 11 years before the war) as the map of Israel. Israel never accepted partition, so the UN proposal is just some lines some people drew up. The Green Line is just the ceasefire line, not recognised by Israel as a border. If Israel wants peace with its neighbours, it will have to set out its territorial aspirations. Otherwise, who can trust it? Will Israel explicitly give up its claim to Southern Lebanon? To do so would be to antagonise the traditionalists. So, no Israeli map will be presented.

History is full of injustices and tragedies, your's are not any worse than mine.

What is happening in Palestine today, and will be happening tomorrow, is not history. It is something that can be changed, and for which people must be held responsible. And not just Arabs.

 

[a_unique_person]

a_u_p hates facts. For the reason you just illustrated. I am noticing that CapelDodger also hates facts. JREF is a funny place for them to "hang out" considering they are such fans of fiction.CapelDodger won't even admit that the PLO and Arafat had a hand in the Lebanese civil war, and that is why Lebanese lothe palestinians, you expect him to admit that Palestinians tried to take it over Jordan, killed over 3000 in a ten-day civil war, including the Jordanian Prime Minister and were expelled into Lebanon? I say CapelDodger will never admit that happened. But it did. No matter how many times you say something doesn't make it true. You can say "greater Israel", you can say "the ultimate borders of Israel", yet the r-e-a-l-i-t-y is those are just propoganda buzz-words you are parroting.

Not buzz words, facts. Settlements are still growning, and this has always been the case, even after Oslo. Rabin was killed for wanting to remove them.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/07/12/1089484302410.html

Atop a stony ridge, neat rows of concrete nubs sprout from a tract of freshly scraped earth. The concrete stumps, which serve as foundations for mobile homes, can accommodate about a dozen homes - enough to double the size of this tiny Jewish community south of Jerusalem.

Local Jewish leaders say that is the plan, with the hilltop absorbing newcomers from the neighbouring settlement of Efrat.

But signs of new construction dismay Israeli peace activists and Palestinians who contend that such clusters - offshoots of Jewish settlements, commonly called outposts - are meant to be dismantled by Israel, rather than expanded.

The West Bank outposts, some fully fledged neighbourhoods with paved roads and electrical services and others barely more than a few crude trailers, have become a growing source of friction between the United States and Israel.

Under terms of the US-backed diplomatic initiative known as the road map, Israel is to remove all outposts built since March 2001 and to freeze expansion of established settlements. Although Israel says it has dismantled a number of outposts, which critics call impediments to peace, US officials have expressed impatience with the pace of those efforts.
Advertisement Advertisement

That was evident last week during a meeting in Washington between US Secretary of State Colin Powell and Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom. Mr Powell described the Bush Administration's frustration in unusually blunt language: "We have some disappointment in the rate at which the outposts have been removed."

Mr Shalom said Israel had dismantled "tens" of outposts - a figure he later said was 81 during a briefing with Israeli reporters. But Palestinians and Israeli activists who track the growth of Jewish settlements in the West Bank reject the Israeli Government assertions. The Israeli group Peace Now says Israel has effectively removed about 25 outposts during the past two years. That leaves about 100, nearly half of which should be dismantled under terms of the road map, according to the group.

But a list of outposts that Israel recently provided to US officials contains a much lower number, 28.

That list does not include Givat Hatamar, served by a paved road and hooked to the power grid. "Not only is it not on the list, it's expanding," said Dror Etkes, head of Peace Now's settlement-watch project.

This is a useful fact, it actually relates to the topic we are debating. It is not irrelevant, for example, it builds towards a logical conclusion. Your use of facts is that, when you are stumped, to reach for a handy bunch lying around and throw them into the debate to cause confusion and muddy the water.

Maybe when you grow a little older and mature in your reasoning, you will understand.

 

[a_unique_person]

Word definitions do change with usage, but we all understand that when I describe as "torture" being forced to sit through an episode of "Dr. Phil" with my wife, that we’re not really talking about something that would be considered a violation of the Geneva Conventions. (It would, however, be a great advance to civilization if the Geneva Conventions could be modified to address this issue. There are some things Y chromosomes should not be forced to endure, it should be a basic right.)

As for Abu Graib, yes, people of a specific political leaning had no problem adapting the word to cover actions it hadn’t previously. To shift us back on topic, the abuses themselves are objective facts, clearly recorded for everyone to witness. Their designation as "torture" is the subjective part.

Language is subjective, it is always changing, the world in which it exists is always changing. It reacts to the world, it helps create the world. A tomatoe used to be a love apple.

What happened at Abu Graib is torture. You readily call it abuse, but equivocate over torture. That says more about you than anything else, I'm afraid.

Cute aphorisms are not wisdom either.

It's not just cute, it's true. I have worked on computers and information processing for years. The moment I read it, I realised just how true it was.

The raw data on a disk is useless unless it can be accessed in an orderly and organised manner, data is useless unless it can be seen as information.

Information by itself is useless. This is the stage that ZN is at. Whenever he is at a loss, he just thows in facts that are not relevant. He knows they must be useful, they are facts.

Facts by themselves are not enough, knowledge is the organisation of facts in a useful way. I can have all the facts in the world, they are useless if I cannot arrange the facts and use them, that is, relate them in a meaningful way, take those facts and achieve a complex task, such as creating a computer application that works.

Wisdom is one step more up. Given all the data, all the facts, all the knowledge, how do we, for example, achieve peace, educate a world, feed a world, etc. What will our corporate strategy be to stay in business, how should we treat our workers. How should we raise our children?

Data, information, knowledge are not enough to answer these questions, but all are required to do so.

You haven’t exactly demonstrated you’re in a position to say how it does work. You’re own understanding of the issues seems pretty shallow.

I don't just trawl through partisan sites, despite what I am accused of doing. I try to look at the big picture, eg, justice for people, and see read what I have to to validate or disprove that in a given situation. More of a top down approach. ZN is more of a bottom up, collect a mass of facts, then throw the ones that suit you at random at an argument.

When Arabs block the dismantling of the refugee camps, they are doing more to cause the suffering of the Palestinian-Arabs than are other countries. When your family has lived in a country for four generations, a country that shares the same language and cultural identity as you and you still can’t get citizenship, that is doing more to perpetuate the suffering of the Palestinian-Arabs than another country who simply limits the number of immigrants they will accept. When funds are available to rebuild, expand and improve conditions within the refugee camps and the Arabic governing authority prevents it, that is certainly causing the suffering of Palestinian-Arabs, more so than the countries that provide the funds.

A stateless person is just that, all states in the world have an obligation to provide a state to that person. Once again, why only Arab states? Or again, why doesn't Israel let them go home, where they came from?

Clearly you are lacking in facts here, and your lack of facts is preventing you from understanding, and your lack of understanding is preventing you from displaying wisdom.

One could certainly argue that facts alone do not equate wisdom, but it’s virtually impossible to achieve understanding without them. You could use a few more facts, perhaps your real objection to Z-N’s facts are that they don’t fit well within your world view.

No, it's just that I don't have to put up with a 'random fact attack', or respond to it.

 

[CapelDodger]

from Mycroft:

You mean expelled form Jordon, don't you?

No, I mean expelled from Palestine.

Exanding on a post by zenith-nadir (yes, really):

Yes, I know. Your response illustrated the irony that an accident of location somehow should make a significant difference in a persons self-identity, and that same self-identity should have such a profound impact on a person's political rights. I would only point out that the definition of "Palestinian" doesn't have anything to do with where one was born, but with their location in the two years prior to Israeli independence, and by being born to someone who fits this criteria. As such, the definition includes many people who were born in many locations, as well as a number of people who have never been to "Palestine". It doesn't alter the point you were making in the slightest.

The vast majority of the Palestinians driven out of their homes were members of long-established families. What makes the difference in the refugees self-identity is their experience of expulsion, of helplessness, of defeat, of loss. The experience of the Lebanese was an influx of desperate, angry, confused Sunni refugees who were going to steal their chickens and possibly their land. There was no way Lebanon could absorb and support them, and no way they could support themselves. If the UN hadn't taken up the slack who knows what would have happened. That would just be the usual reaction to mass migration, but in Lebanon there was also the fragile political equilibrium between Christian, Sunni, Shia and Druze, which an influx of radicalised Sunnis would disturb. So they were not given political rights - for which they are often criticised. But the civil war didn't really kick-off until 1975, which is 26 years later, and was a knock-on effect from Jordan.

In Jordan, the refugees were given political rights because Jordan annexed Arab Palestine - with overwhelming majority support from the population. The alternative was a short-lived province under Haj Amin, and nobody wanted that. The only defence the West Bank had was the Jordanian army. So the population of Jordan became almost majority Palestinian, not, shall we say, Transjordanian. And the dislocations caused by this led to the expulsion of the PLO and a purge of the government.

These are the sorts of places that, it is claimed, should have absorbed the refugees "because they're Arab". They were not in a position to do so. Things are calmer nowadays, after decades of adjustment. But 700,000 people were driven out of the most fertile terrain and most developed cities south of Beirut into underveloped waste and a crowded Lebanon. Subsequent instability in the region was a no-brainer.

You seem to have no understanding of the tribal nature of mankind. Even the US has its problems where mass migration is concerned, and that's not a continent that's been filled tight for a couple of thousand years. You can't just move blocks of people around the world like game-pieces. People aren't inert. This is probably more obvious to a European that it is to an American.

 

[CapelDodger]

from zenith-nadir:

Foreigners? Those damn "foreigners" have been living in Lebanon for over 40 years! Additionally Palestinians in Lebanon do not recieve Lebanese social assistance, they cannot vote, they cannot own land, they are not eligible for citizenship. But as you so eloquently state, "they are foreigners taking up space and resources". Are Brits who originated elsewhere but have lived in Britain for over 40 years still foreigners to you CapelDodger? Should they leave? Are they just taking up British space and resources? Why doesn't the British government send all "foreigners", who have lived in Britain for 40 years, home already!

The Lebanese civil war that you gratuitously threw into the debate started in 1975, which would be 26 years, not 40. One generation, and only 8 years after 1967. While Palestine was relatively urbanised, it wasn't majority urban, so the sudden influx was unable to support itself - the towns didn't have enough jobs, the fertile land had been subject to inter-village feuding for thousands of years. The government, whcih had only attained independence two years previously, was in no position to cope. The political structure had often been fragile, with periods of communal violence the rest of the time. And yet they kept a kind of peace - and prosperity - for 26 years.

You compare this with immigration to Britain (which does actually cause some friction, by the way) which is a rich, urbanised country and has never experienced destitute immigration on anything like the scale that Lebanon experienced. It's puerile.

 

[CapelDodger]

from Mycroft:

The goal was a homeland, that has been achieved

So the homeland (call a spade a spade, the state) includes the Gaza settlements? In which case, the goal is about to be given up.

 

[Skeptic]

Does the Star of David national flag count as a writing?

Of course it does. Which, naturally, means that Norway, Finland, Denmark, England, Greece, Switzerland, Sweden, and a few others I could name are Apartheid-style democracies, since they have a cross in their flag, so that means nobody except Christians is REALLY a citizen.

 

[Skeptic]

Of course the wall will have an effect on the terrorists ease of movement. My question was more in regard to what does the underscoring of Israel's democratic nature, due to this ruling, reveal? What does it reveal which wasn't known 20 years ago?

It reveals that, despite being engaged in a terror war that claimed thousands of lives--the equivalent, per capita, of something like 30 or more 9/11s, the courts in israel still care, and consider seriously, the legality of israeli actions in this war.

It reveals not so much that israel is officially a democracy, but that it remained so under extreme provocation.

 

[Skeptic]

All countries around the world are obliged to offer these people a place to live.

But, AUP, whenever other nations do that--for instance, Canada recently offered Arafat to give 30,000 or so Palestinians visas--THE ARABS REFUSED TO ACCEPT THE OFFER. Why? Because they DON'T want the Palestinians in the refugee camps they have set up to have a "place to live"... unless it is on the smoking ruin of the genocided jewish state. That's the only acceptable solution.

That's all there is to it, really.

 

[Skeptic]

Nonsense. History is filled with objective facts. Events happened, decisions were made. The only difference is history can’t be duplicated for experimental purposes.

You don't understand. For AUP, the real reason "history has no objective facts" is because he prefers the Arab propaganda worldview, and that worldview does indeed lack in the facts department.

So he invents BS "philosophical" arguments why he is not a liar for doing so: if there are "no historical facts", how can he possibly be accused of distorting them?

 

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by Rob Lister:

In AUP's opinion, his land belongs to the originals, yet he will not return it. He talks the talk but doesn't walk the walk.

AUP's thoughtful reply:

If you wonder why there is a lot of anti-american sentiment around the world, this is a prime example. You are a coward, hiding behind a bully.

TO LISTER: I'd say you hit the nail right on the head there... as evident by AUP's content-free foul-mouthed reply.

 

[Skeptic]

He has caused tens of thousands of deaths since 1964 a_u_p, t-e-n-s of t-h-o-u-s-a-n-d-s. Hasn't that sunk into your tiny Australian skull yet?

You don't understand, ZN. AUP doesn't admire Arafat DESPITE the fact that he's the greatest killer of jews since Hitler, but BECAUSE of that fact.

 

[Skeptic]

Just out of curiosity, AUP, do you own or rent?

I only ask because I remember reading past posts in which you've stated how badly you think the Aboriginees have been done and how much you support returning their land to them.

I'm sure you must feel the same way about opening your doors to the Palestinians as you do about returning any bit of what you own to the Aboriginals, right?

AUP should put his money where his mouth is; he should give up his home to a Aboriginie-Palestinian couple. The Aboriginie (sp????) deserves it because it's land stolen from them, and the Palestinian because Australia, like "all of the world", has a duty to find them a place to live.

He could move into a refugee camp himself, instead; sure, it's uncomfortable, but AUP will surely realize that such a life is merely fitting punishment for his sins of being an European colonialist who enjoyed land violently stolen from native people.

There are many positive sides to this plan, but the best one is that AUP will lose his internet posting ability.

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
At the Versailles Peace Conference in 1919, the Zionist Organisation presented a map which defined the projected borders of the Jewish State….blah, blah, blah…

I know, I’ve seen it. I’ve also seen concept cars designed by Detroit and exhibited, model "homes of the future" from the 1960’s, and speculations by NASA from the 1970’s on what the space program would be like in the year 2000. As a child I watched "The Jetsons", in my grade-school years I watched Star Trek, and remain a fan of the genre of science fiction today. I’ve read dissertations on model societies, strange economic theories that were supposed to solve the problems of poverty, and utopian dreams of all sorts. It is the nature of humans to dream and dream big, and if the vast majority of those dreams never materialize, it is the ones that do that matter.

Did you know the roof structure of the Empire State Building was designed to be a mooring for Zeppelins? Looking at it, one wished it had been made to work.

So yes, there was a map at the Versailles Peace Conference in 1919. What's your point?

Originally posted by CapelDodger
The only one (to my knowledge) presented by Israel is the 1919 map…

You run hot and cold. Sometimes you seem terribly smart, and at other times I cringe with embarrassment for you. You do remember that there were no "Israelis" until some 30 years later, don’t you? You do realize that these men who attended the Versailles Peace Conference in 1919 are all dead, don’t you?

 

[zenith-nadir]

The Lebanese civil war that you gratuitously threw into the debate started in 1975, which would be 26 years, not 40. One generation, and only 8 years after 1967.

Thousands of Palestinians came in 1948, some in 1967, some in 1971. None came in 1975. I can think of no other people on earth who have been kept in refugee camps for 56, 37 or 33 years respectively.

While Palestine was relatively urbanised, it wasn't majority urban, so the sudden influx was unable to support itself - the towns didn't have enough jobs, the fertile land had been subject to inter-village feuding for thousands of years.The government, whcih had only attained independence two years previously, was in no position to cope. The political structure had often been fragile, with periods of communal violence the rest of the time. And yet they kept a kind of peace - and prosperity for 26 years.

Wow, that almost sounds believable, yet...Lebanon was run by France from 1920 until independence in 1941, full autonomy was granted in 1944. During 1948 thousands of Palestinians fled the war into Lebanon. Fast forward 16 years, the PLO is formed in '64, most of it's military training centres are located in southern Lebanon. The PLO fighters begin making raids into Israel. Fighting also begins between Palestinian fighters and the Lebanese army over Lebanese threats to stop Palestinian activities in Lebanon. Then there is the Nahariya/Avivim School Bus Attack, the Munich Olympics massacre, the Lod airport Massacre, the Kiryat Shmona massacre, all perpetrated by Palestinian groups based in Lebanon. The PLO, following its expulsion from Jordan, sets up its major base of operations in southern Lebanon. By 1975 a full-scale civil war breaks out between the Christian-Maronite Lebanese Forces and the National Movement backed by the PLO. In 1978 another terrorist attack, this time Palestinian terrorists murder 35 people on a bus in Israel, so Israel invades southern Lebanon to strike at PLO terrorist bases south of the Litani River.

Anyhow I tire of repeating myself, Palestinians suffer in Lebanese refugee camps decades after the fact because the Lebanese blame them for what the PLO & PLFP did to Lebanon, it has nothing to do with your psuedo-economics. The entire reason Lebanon came up in this thread about the Israeli Supreme Court's decision and the difficulty for Israel to function in war time was as an illustration of the chaos Arafat and the PLO have wrought on the middle east. First in Jordan, then in Lebanon and now in the West Bank and Gaza.

 

[Skeptic]

And if I bothered, I could find facts to counter those facts.

Originally posted by a_unique_person
There are no historical facts

Originally said by Homer Simson to Lisa Simpson
Facts, schmacts. You can prove anything that's even remotely true with facts!

AUP has a mysteriously "Homer Simpson-ish" view of facts when it comes to justifying his view of israel and jews (and the US). Obviously, there's no point to confuse him with facts when he already knows "the truth".

 

[Skeptic]

Yeah, that was very white of you.

Of course, you waited until their numbers were too small to make any difference.

If there is one thing that AUP will never, EVER admit, is that the real reason the aboriginies are not fighting the white colonialists is not that they are trreated farily and given rights now, but because the white colonialists killed off 99% of them first and then graciously offered the remaining 1% civil rights.

If israel had simply killed off 99% of the Palestinians, it too could afford to be humane and magnanimous towards the remaining 1%...