Israel: Democracy in action.

[Cleopatra]

Yes you can find counter facts. Every week I receive via the mailing lists of Amnesty Internation and Helnsiki Watch at least a coupld of alerts that have to do with violations of human rights in the Occupied Territories , most of them are abuses of power of the police like the ones you encounter in every country( On Monday for example I received an alert for the case of a prisoner who was allowed no visitors).

It's the Israeli policy in specific things that is catastrophic ( the settlements for example,the bulldozers, the compromise of the secular governments with the orthodox jewish right) but on the other part you have a totally untrustworthy and dangerous Palestinian Authority who did the terrible mistake to get involved in the international terrorism.

Also, the palestinian people need recognition that the arab countries have refused to them and they still do( the jordanians and the lebanese hate them) and it's ironic that it will be Israel that it will grant it for them.

 

[The Fool]

This thread is about a wall Israel has had to build because of terrorists like the ones who killed in 1972.

ZN
you are not allowed to call it a wall, mycroft is gonna spank your behind when he finds out.

 

[demon]

ZN reminds me of one of the early computer chess sets I had.
Played a decent game up to a certain point but it lacked that "learning/adaptive" thing they have now.
Basically, it played the same game all the time, kinda stuck in some pre-programmed groove (no doubt a very logical mode to itself).
Of course, this meant that it simply failed to see when it had been out maneuvered...just lacked any inuition and couldn`t break out of it`s program. Made the games less than challenging as you can imagine.

 

[demon]

On a "lighter" note, yesterday I had chance to flick through the latest edition of "Soldier" magazine (delivered free to any soldier who wants it).
In it was an article bemoaning a new study by the US Government, ranking the world's top five battle tanks. Unsurprisngly, the M1 A1 Abrams came first, put poor older Challenger II came a measly fifth (dovetailing neatly with British sporting success so far this year). At three and four were German and Japanese tanks that are 'theoretically' better than ours, despite never having actually been involved in combat.

In at number two was the Israeli tank, the name of which escapes me. What made me chuckle was the single sentence justification for it grabbing the silver. Apparently, the Israeli tank has 'performed very well against the Palestinians'.

So there you have it, the second best tank in the world. When you absolutely, positively gotta protect yourself from every mother####ing stone-throwing kid, accept no substitutes

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I was going to refute him, then I realised it was a waste of time, space and electrons. I was going to try to explain to him, the same as I have other times he has transcribed the same points, that maybe there is more to them than just an inane smiley as a summation. Then I realised that no matter what anyone says to him, nothing will ever get into that impenetrable mind of his. He is his lists. A computer program could do as good a job, and you could run it with the option -nosmiley.

The irony here is I would say virtually the same thing about you. The part about nothing will ever get into that impenetrable mind… Verbatim!

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I am not a scholar on this subject, I have stated many times that I think Arafat does the Palestinians a disservice.

Right, you just don’t want to look at it too closely. On the other hand, if some Israeli uses a pejorative, you’re all over that.

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Here is one point for consideration from his post, Israel was also involved in the tragedy in Lebanon. He has his 'facts', but he wants to know no more than them. He feels safe behind his facts. He can smirk because he thinks he is demonstrating his unimpeachable intellectual superiority with them. But he cannot see that there are two sides to this ongoing tragedy.

Right. Israel was "involved" in Lebanon. That’s all you know, that’s all you want to know. You feel safe in the implication that everyone "involved" must be somehow partly to blame, and looking at actual facts to see who was involved and why makes you uneasy.

Which is how you show your bias. When Israel takes an action, you isolate that action from the context in which it was taken and its purpose, condemning the action for itself. When Arabs take actions (and I say Arabs because it’s inclusive of more than just Palestinian-Arabs), then you’re suddenly willing to place the action in "context" even going so far as to make favorable assumptions not in evidence.

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Scientific facts are objective facts. They all drill down to a consistent base. Historical facts are not the same. They are not derived from a common base, but come at you from many directions. They are tooted in culture and prejudice.

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

Originally posted by a_unique_person
ZN just does not understand, as demon has said, that there are people involved in this tragedy, and these people are experiencing pain on a scale that we do not understand. All these facts do not help these people escape that pain one iota.

If you think somehow that ignoring facts is somehow helpful, I’d like to see your reasoning in that. To me it seems pretty obvious that if you’re concerned about someone suffering, a good first step would be to look at how an why it happens.

 

[a_unique_person]

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

And when inmates of Abu Graib are tortured, you turn the thread into a debate on the exact meaning of the word 'torture'. We all know, including you, that what happened there was beyond all the bounds of human decency. You see this as a good occasion to debate the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin.

Were members of the US torturing inmates? (Objective fact, yes/no). Your response, well, it all depends on your definition of torture. (No longer an objective fact, matter of opinion).

If you think somehow that ignoring facts is somehow helpful, I’d like to see your reasoning in that. To me it seems pretty obvious that if you’re concerned about someone suffering, a good first step would be to look at how an why it happens.

I didn't say it helps to ignore facts. I don't advoctae ignoring facts. I just wonder what goes on in ZNs head. It appears that if you can roll off enough facts, you must be right. Like, the guy with the most facts wins.

If you want to look at how and why things happen, you then need to look at facts in their context and in a causitive manner. That is, we know this event happened, and it's a fact, but why did it happen? Suddenly, we enter the area of opinion. My opinion is that the whole Israel disaster is a direct result of the Holocaust. Which is a result of the Nazis gaining power, which was a result of several events, including WWI, which was a result of.....

In the meantime, people are suffering. How do we end the suffering? We have more than enough facts at our disposal, but they don't appear to help to any extent at resolving the issue. Sharon is building settlements as fast as he can. These become what are known as 'facts on the ground'. People live in the settlements, you can't touch them, they are people who will suffer if you make them leave their homes. Which is pretty funny really, creating facts, like you churn out goods from a factory.

 

[zenith-nadir]

I just wonder what goes on in ZNs head. It appears that if you can roll off enough facts, you must be right. Like, the guy with the most facts wins.

Yes, how dare I use "facts" to back up my argument. How unfair of me to do that at a skeptics message board.

If you want to look at how and why things happen, you then need to look at facts in their context and in a causitive manner.

The problem a_u_p is your "context" does not include the actions of terrorist groups and islamofascists. Your repeated "context" is equivalent to blaming America for oppressing Al Queda and assasinating Al Queda members without ever mentioning who Al Queda is, what they stand for and what they did to America on 9-11.

In the meantime, people are suffering. How do we end the suffering? We have more than enough facts at our disposal, but they don't appear to help to any extent at resolving the issue.

People are suffering because the Palestinian Authority is corrupt, incompetent and refuses to stop the terror groups as they are obligated to do in ten seperate peace treaties since 1993. People are suffering because the Palestinian Authority is run by a dictator who refuses to share power or have elections. People are suffering because Arafat finances terrorism, he embezzles international aid meant for Palestinians and he was the phucking Osama Bin Laden of the 1960s, 1970s and 1980's. 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?

Sharon is building settlements as fast as he can. These become what are known as 'facts on the ground'. People live in the settlements, you can't touch them, they are people who will suffer if you make them leave their homes. Which is pretty funny really, creating facts, like you churn out goods from a factory.

You wouldn't know a fact on the ground if it jumped up a bit your head off. But here's a "fact on the ground" for you;

Egypt demands PA fire corrupt officials - Jul. 8, 2004

Egypt has asked Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat to dismiss 70 senior officials involved in various corruption cases, a PA official said on Tuesday.

The official said Egyptian Intelligence chief Gen. Omar Suleiman, who met with Arafat in Ramallah on June 23, presented him with a list with the names of the top officials, demanding that they be removed from their jobs instantly.

I wonder a_u_p would Egypt ask Arafat to fire 70 senior officials, ( who were never elected in the first place), because Egypt blames Sharon or the settlements?

 

[a_unique_person]

Yes, how dare I use "facts" to back up my argument. How unfair of me to do that at a skeptics message board.

That's the whole point, you don't have an argument, or point of view, to any real extent. You just collect facts like baseball cards. When you can't think of something to say, you just show us your collection.

The problem a_u_p is your "context" does not include the actions of terrorist groups and islamofascists. Your repeated "context" is equivalent to blaming America for oppressing Al Queda and assasinating Al Queda members without ever mentioning who Al Queda is, what they stand for and what they did to America on 9-11.

You like facts, show me that what you just said is a fact, rather than just an opinion. Quote me saying that.

People are suffering because the Palestinian Authority is corrupt, incompetent and refuses to stop the terror groups as they are obligated to do in ten seperate peace treaties since 1993. People are suffering because the Palestinian Authority is run by a dictator who refuses to share power or have elections. People are suffering because Arafat finances terrorism, he embezzles international aid meant for Palestinians and he was the phucking Osama Bin Laden of the 1960s, 1970s and 1980's. 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?

I don't know how many times I have to say it, and I was saying it long before you turned up here, Arafat is not a good leader, and the Palestinians would do better without him. If you got rid of Arafat, however, I don't believe that things would be much better. The extremist Zionists are still going to settle for nothing less than the 'biblical' borders, because that is what god tells them. The Palestinians will resist this. People will suffer.

You wouldn't know a fact on the ground if it jumped up a bit your head off. But here's a "fact on the ground" for you;

Egypt demands PA fire corrupt officials - Jul. 8, 2004
I wonder a_u_p would Egypt ask Arafat to fire 70 senior officials, ( who were never elected in the first place), because Egypt blames Sharon or the settlements?

Yes, that's a very shiny fact, with a nice border, and colours. Do you have any more?

 

[zenith-nadir]

That's the whole point, you don't have an argument, or point of view, to any real extent. You just collect facts like baseball cards. When you can't think of something to say, you just show us your collection.

If you haven't realized that I blame the legitimization of a well-known terrorist organization, the PLO, by the UN, and it's leader, Yassir Arafat, by the Norwegian Nobel Committee, then you possibly have a reading comprehension problem.

I also find it the height of hypocrisy that said terrorist organization and said terrorist leader control the fate of every single palestinian in the world. For there are no elections, there is no freedom of choice for Palestinians, just corruption, greed and death for Palestinians AND Israelis. To blame it on settlers or Sharon is ludicrous to the extreme. There isn't anything you can say that will show that the palestinians are better off today than they were before Arafat was given the helm in 1969.

If you got rid of Arafat, however, I don't believe that things would be much better.

No they wouldn't. It will take at least a generation, maybe two to repair the damage Arafat and the PLO have done to the Palestinians.

The extremist Zionists are still going to settle for nothing less than the 'biblical' borders, because that is what god tells them. The Palestinians will resist this. People will suffer.

Extremist Zionists is you patented excuse for everything. But just for fun what was the West Bank called before 1949 a_u_p? Care to tackle that one? I bet not. Just a hint, it had the same two names for 3000 years before 1949 when Jordan renamed it.

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
And when inmates of Abu Graib are tortured, you turn the thread into a debate on the exact meaning of the word 'torture'. We all know, including you, that what happened there was beyond all the bounds of human decency. You see this as a good occasion to debate the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin.

Were members of the US torturing inmates? (Objective fact, yes/no). Your response, well, it all depends on your definition of torture. (No longer an objective fact, matter of opinion).

One would think that someone who works with computer code for a living would have a greater appreciation for accurate word meanings and not be so confused with ideas that are similar but not the same. My own experience in writing computer code (long out of date) taught me that getting it close just doesn’t cut it, that precision is required.

Here you are confusing conclusions with facts. Pictures of naked Iraqi prisoners, prisoner pyramids, hooded men attached to wires are objective facts not in dispute. That these factual actions constitute abuse is a subjective conclusion (one that I agree with) that all the actions perpetuated against the Iraqi prisoners constitute torture is another subjective conclusion that I questioned in a previous thread.

Do you understand the difference? Objective fact, subjective conclusion. I know there is a similarity between these ideas that is likely to cause you confusion, so I will be patient if you need it explained again.

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I didn't say it helps to ignore facts. I don't advoctae ignoring facts. I just wonder what goes on in ZNs head. It appears that if you can roll off enough facts, you must be right. Like, the guy with the most facts wins.

"Winning" is subjective, but the one with the most facts to support their position is certainly at an advantage. I find it comic that anyone (though it’s less surprising from you) would fault someone for bringing facts into an argument.

Originally posted by a_unique_person
If you want to look at how and why things happen, you then need to look at facts in their context and in a causitive manner. That is, we know this event happened, and it's a fact, but why did it happen?

Right. You display your bias by being willing to only look at context and causative manner for only one side of the conflict. That’s one of the main reasons I think you’re a bigot.

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Suddenly, we enter the area of opinion.

Not entirely. Some opinions are better founded than others. Usually the opinions of those who show a greater concern for the facts.

Originally posted by a_unique_person
My opinion is that the whole Israel disaster is a direct result of the Holocaust. Which is a result of the Nazis gaining power, which was a result of several events, including WWI, which was a result of.....

Right, you’re not interested in pre-Nazi Zionism or pre-Nazi anti-Semitism. You also show a shocking disregard for the role personal choice plays in events, following the trail of "causative events" as though everyone’s fate were predestined.

Originally posted by a_unique_person
In the meantime, people are suffering. How do we end the suffering? We have more than enough facts at our disposal, but they don't appear to help to any extent at resolving the issue.

For starters, we can look at the fact that Palestinian-Arab refugees are considered refugees under a definition that is unique to all the people who have been refugees in the 20th century. Then we can look at the fact of the Palestinian-Arabs who are kept in "refugee camps" for generations, denied such basic rights as citizenship, public services and the opportunity to improve themselves in any way other than being compelled to support a conflict they cannot win. We can also look at the facts of corruption among the Palestinian-Arab leadership, how economic aid is diverted to make a small number of people very wealthy and to continue the conflict that is the root cause of their suffering.

That’s just for starters. It’s disingenuous to ignore these issues while focusing only on settlements or Sharon as a "cause" for their suffering.

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Sharon is building settlements as fast as he can.

Is he? Last I heard he was advancing a plan to remove settlements. Not only are you focusing on the wrong facts, but you’re getting those facts wrong.

Originally posted by a_unique_person
These become what are known as 'facts on the ground'. People live in the settlements, you can't touch them, they are people who will suffer if you make them leave their homes. Which is pretty funny really, creating facts, like you churn out goods from a factory.

The settlements are a real issue, one that will have to be addressed in a lasting peace, but keeping people in refugee camps for generations, denying them the opportunity to be anything other than refugees and denying them even the opportunity to improve their living conditions as refugees is a far more sinister form of creating "facts on the ground" than is building an apartment complex in the suburbs of Jerusalem. The Palestinian-Arabs deserve every iota of our sympathy, but we do them no service by ignoring the primary cause of their suffering just because it comes from fellow Arabs.

 

[demon]

Mycroft:
"The settlements are a real issue, one that will have to be addressed in a lasting peace, but keeping people in refugee camps for generations, denying them the opportunity to be anything other than refugees and denying them even the opportunity to improve their living conditions as refugees is a far more sinister form of creating "facts on the ground" than is building an apartment complex in the suburbs of Jerusalem. The Palestinian-Arabs deserve every iota of our sympathy, but we do them no service by ignoring the primary cause of their suffering just because it comes from fellow Arabs."

Ah, the moral highground from a supporter of ethnic cleansing. It`s the responsibility of the Arabs to make right the ongoing crimes of Israel...add a few hundred more refugees just this past month from Rafah.

Hear the joke that some Jewish people tell about the duplicity of Jewish fundamentalism and the deception that beguiles the Gentile world?..."Some Jews don't believe God exists, but they do believe that God gave them the land."

You are just another cynical version of this joke Mycroft and you`ll remain so until you address the "Greater Israel" question.

 

[Rob Lister]

Mycroft:
You are just another cynical version of this joke Mycroft and you`ll remain so until you address the "Greater Israel" question.

As a somewhat unbiased reader of this thread it is my opinion that Mycroft has addressed every serious issue put to him, in detail, providing references where asked. Is it your opinion that he should also address every possible joke? Is there even a distinction between the two in your view?

 

[CapelDodger]

Hi Cleopatra:

Israel is a democracy. That was a requirement for its formation in the modern world. Which is one of the contradictions that will see the failure of Israel : conceived in one era, born in another.

"Democracy" is, of course, a broad-brush term (though less so than "free world"). The small percentage requirement for representation in parliament may seem very democratic, but it enshrines a party structure and in fact makes parliament very weak against the executive. Deliberately so. Just what the powers of the executive are is difficult to discern, since there is no Israeli Constitution (something I'd have thought you'd mention).

How difficult is for a democracy to function in war time?

The very nature of Israel is war. It was carved out of a hostile Asian coast by Europeans, with military might. Another contradiction : "We're democratic but necessarily militarised". And not just militarised for defence, since the borders of the original scheme have not yet been achieved (a majority on both banks of the Jordan, and northwards to the Litani valley. How Gaza fits in I'm not sure, but for some it's clearly "in"). The claim that Sharon - who ordered the invasion of Lebanon against the wishes of Prime Minister Begin, look it up, people - had nothing to do with it has the smack of infantility that is so much zenith-nadir's style. But I digress.

One result of Israeli democracy is the relative openness of government, which means government and cabinet papers are made public after 30 or 50 years. This has seen the emergence of the "New History" phaenomenon in Israel. Another contradiction : what is revealed is incompatible with the necessary national myths (I'm sure we agree that nations need myths).

Israel is a democracy, and a majority of Israelis want peace, not expansion. Yet they don't get it. Most Israelis opposed the expansion of settlements after Oslo (subsidised by their taxes), but it went on. Something's amiss.

 

[demon]

To Rob Lister:
One of the most important issues in the US/Israel/Palestinian problem is the concept of Eretz Isreal or Greater Israel...goes to the heart of the matter.

If you had followed any of the other threads where I have engaged Mycroft you would also know that I (and others), have asked him about this issue on numerous occasions and it doesn`t get addressed...unless it is to call it a racist question, asked by anti-semites and self-hating or deluded jews.

The "joke" I quote is in reference to my ongoing attempts to get him to explain or admit just how much land he thinks Israel is entitled to or should take.
I don`t expect him to address every joke, just this one.


Rob Lister:
"Is there even a distinction between the two in your view?"
I don`t understand this remark.

 

[Rob Lister]

To Rob Lister:
One of the most important issues in the US/Israel/Palestinian problem is the concept of Eretz Isreal or Greater Israel...goes to the heart of the matter.

If you had followed any of the other threads where I have engaged Mycroft you would also know that I (and others), have asked him about this issue on numerous occasions and it doesn`t get addressed...unless it is to call it a racist question, asked by anti-semites and self-hating or deluded jews.

The "joke" I quote is in reference to my ongoing attempts to get him to explain or admit just how much land he thinks Israel is entitled to or should take.
I don`t expect him to address every joke, just this one.


Rob Lister:
"Is there even a distinction between the two in your view?"
I don`t understand this remark.

I can't say I've followed every thread to the individual post but those I followed leave me to believe, perhaps erroneously, that the pro-P position is not nearly as strong as the pro-I position.

If one were to ask me (and nobody did) how much land Israel is entitled to I would be forced to answer, 'as much as they can take and hold' because to not answer so would make me a hypocrite (as I have no intention of surrendering my land to the great-great grandchildren of those that could not hold it). I would, therefore, answer the same way regardless the particular nation/entity.

There is no 'natural right' to land.

 

[a_unique_person]

I can't say I've followed every thread to the individual post but those I followed leave me to believe, perhaps erroneously, that the pro-P position is not nearly as strong as the pro-I position.

If one were to ask me (and nobody did) how much land Israel is entitled to I would be forced to answer, 'as much as they can take and hold' because to not answer so would make me a hypocrite (as I have no intention of surrendering my land to the great-great grandchildren of those that could not hold it). I would, therefore, answer the same way regardless the particular nation/entity.

There is no 'natural right' to land.

And people from the US wonder why there is so much disrepect towards them? If it is just a matter of who has the biggest guns, then the world is doomed. We may as well all just pack and go home, because the weapons only get more powerful, and the suffering those weapons will cause more awful.

 

[a_unique_person]

If you haven't realized that I blame the legitimization of a well-known terrorist organization, the PLO, by the UN, and it's leader, Yassir Arafat, by the Norwegian Nobel Committee, then you possibly have a reading comprehension problem.

I also find it the height of hypocrisy that said terrorist organization and said terrorist leader control the fate of every single palestinian in the world. For there are no elections, there is no freedom of choice for Palestinians, just corruption, greed and death for Palestinians AND Israelis. To blame it on settlers or Sharon is ludicrous to the extreme. There isn't anything you can say that will show that the palestinians are better off today than they were before Arafat was given the helm in 1969.

No they wouldn't. It will take at least a generation, maybe two to repair the damage Arafat and the PLO have done to the Palestinians.
Extremist Zionists is you patented excuse for everything. But just for fun what was the West Bank called before 1949 a_u_p? Care to tackle that one? I bet not. Just a hint, it had the same two names for 3000 years before 1949 when Jordan renamed it.

Can you give me a clue, I like charades.

 

[a_unique_person]

One would think that someone who works with computer code for a living would have a greater appreciation for accurate word meanings and not be so confused with ideas that are similar but not the same. My own experience in writing computer code (long out of date) taught me that getting it close just doesn’t cut it, that precision is required.

Here you are confusing conclusions with facts. Pictures of naked Iraqi prisoners, prisoner pyramids, hooded men attached to wires are objective facts not in dispute. That these factual actions constitute abuse is a subjective conclusion (one that I agree with) that all the actions perpetuated against the Iraqi prisoners constitute torture is another subjective conclusion that I questioned in a previous thread.

Computer code is about objective facts, that is, pure logic, true or false. (although there is research to get programming past that stage). As such, it is very limited.

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.

Do you understand the difference? Objective fact, subjective conclusion. I know there is a similarity between these ideas that is likely to cause you confusion, so I will be patient if you need it explained again.

"Winning" is subjective, but the one with the most facts to support their position is certainly at an advantage. I find it comic that anyone (though it’s less surprising from you) would fault someone for bringing facts into an argument.

I read an aphorism once that I think explains a lot.

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

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

Right. You display your bias by being willing to only look at context and causative manner for only one side of the conflict. That’s one of the main reasons I think you’re a bigot.



Not entirely. Some opinions are better founded than others. Usually the opinions of those who show a greater concern for the facts.



Right, you’re not interested in pre-Nazi Zionism or pre-Nazi anti-Semitism. You also show a shocking disregard for the role personal choice plays in events, following the trail of "causative events" as though everyone’s fate were predestined.

I thought the point was pretty clear, I could go on forever down the causative line, hence the "......". I was not discounting anti-semitisim as an understandable cause for the rise of Zionism. You're problem is that you have no imagination, which is indicated by your lack of any apparent sense of humour. Everything has to be spelt out in black and white. Any implication that is not blindingly obvious is lost.

For starters, we can look at the fact that Palestinian-Arab refugees are considered refugees under a definition that is unique to all the people who have been refugees in the 20th century. Then we can look at the fact of the Palestinian-Arabs who are kept in "refugee camps" for generations, denied such basic rights as citizenship, public services and the opportunity to improve themselves in any way other than being compelled to support a conflict they cannot win. We can also look at the facts of corruption among the Palestinian-Arab leadership, how economic aid is diverted to make a small number of people very wealthy and to continue the conflict that is the root cause of their suffering.

That’s just for starters. It’s disingenuous to ignore these issues while focusing only on settlements or Sharon as a "cause" for their suffering.

Is he? Last I heard he was advancing a plan to remove settlements. Not only are you focusing on the wrong facts, but you’re getting those facts wrong.

No, Not only are you focusing on the wrong facts, but you’re getting those facts wrong. He is expanding the main settlements, the only ones that are going are those that are untenable. You can't say you are not filling up a bucket of water if you remove a few drops.

The settlements are a real issue, one that will have to be addressed in a lasting peace, but keeping people in refugee camps for generations, denying them the opportunity to be anything other than refugees and denying them even the opportunity to improve their living conditions as refugees is a far more sinister form of creating "facts on the ground" than is building an apartment complex in the suburbs of Jerusalem. The Palestinian-Arabs deserve every iota of our sympathy, but we do them no service by ignoring the primary cause of their suffering just because it comes from fellow Arabs.

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.

 

[Mycroft]

Brilliant! In barely a dozen words, you paint a picture of Jooz (not Israelis, not Zionists, but Jooz!) acting in a lying deceitful way, acting secretly as a group to pull the wool over they eyes of those poor bedazzled gentiles, except for a few renegades, good Jooz, who reveal this duplicity through a joke… I bet these good Jooz reveal the truth about the evil Talmud too, and that terribly exaggerated Holocaust.

Then you have the logical contradiction of claiming to talk about Jooish fundamentalism, but then you say it’s about Jooz who don’t believe in God. Hmm, those Jooz are simultaneously godless atheist and dangerous religious fundamentalists, something to appeal to everyone regardless of their religious leanings. Really, f you don’t get paid for writing this stuff, you should be. You could have a career on Madison Avenue.

Originally posted by demon
You are just another cynical version of this joke Mycroft and you`ll remain so until you address the "Greater Israel" question.

Translation: I can’t figure out how to explain my lack of concern over Arabs keeping Palestinian-Arabs in refugee camps into the fourth generation, so I’ll cough up this red herring and hope it distracts everyone from this issue.

 

[shuize]

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

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?