'The Third Intifada has already begun'

[anglolawyer]

snip

Principal, not principle. Did your education cover the difference?
Snip

Perfect! Diametrically wrong and coupled with another ill-directed sneer at my education too! I recommend in this instance:

A a mirror and
B a dictionary

 

[Ziggurat]

Perfect! Diametrically wrong and coupled with another ill-directed sneer at my education too! I recommend in this instance:

A a mirror and
B a dictionary

Except, of course, I'm not wrong, and the dictionary backs me up. Hell, I'll even use a British one just for you:

http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/151442?redirectedFrom=principal&
"The chief person or party engaged in some transaction, business, or function, esp. in relation to another who acts as an agent or representative; the person for whom and by whose authority another acts."

Oops!

Oh, and you could have saved yourself this further embarrassment by simply consulting the link I previously gave, which even links to a separate entry for principal.

 

[Jules Galen]

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.

This is where I believe the conversation between you and Ziggurat was derailed.

 

[anglolawyer]

Except, of course, I'm not wrong, and the dictionary backs me up. Hell, I'll even use a British one just for you:

http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/151442?redirectedFrom=principal&
"The chief person or party engaged in some transaction, business, or function, esp. in relation to another who acts as an agent or representative; the person for whom and by whose authority another acts."

Oops!

Oh, and you could have saved yourself this further embarrassment by simply consulting the link I previously gave, which even links to a separate entry for principal.

This is what I said:

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.

The principle I was referring to, which you described as 'problem', was that there is always a possibility that an agent will disregard the interests or instructions of his principal. If I had used the word 'principal' in my sentence it would have been rendered meaningless. A principal in this context is a person. One who engages an agent. If you think my sentence makes sense as referring to a person then I suggest you may not be best qualified to be sneering at others, and certainly not at me.

 

[Meed]

So Israel cannot achieve peace by ending the occupation.

They should end it regardless.

 

[Ziggurat]

They should end it regardless.

Why? What motive do they have to end it?

 

[Ziggurat]

This is what I said:

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.

The principle I was referring to, which you described as 'problem', was that there is always a possibility that an agent will disregard the interests or instructions of his principal.

Now I do feel silly, because you are correct, I misread your post. The quotation marks led me to think you were using it to stand in for the phrase "principal-agent problem".

If you think my sentence makes sense as referring to a person then I suggest you may not be best qualified to be sneering at others, and certainly not at me.

Oh, I'll keep sneering at you, because (lest you forget) you began that tone of exchange between us, not me, and you did so based upon your own self-confessed ignorance.

 

[Meed]

Why? What motive do they have to end it?

Peace, ethics.

(I'm aware you disagree on the first point).

 

[Meed]

Peace, ethics.

(I'm aware you disagree on the first point).

Oh and I would also add- a better relationship with the international community / better reputation around the world.

 

[Belgian thought]

This is where I believe the conversation between you and Ziggurat was derailed.

Or they both lost their sense of humous - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-WllKtiMvU

 

[Jules Galen]

Why? What motive do they have to end it?

Because it is the Right Thing to Do!

 

[Ziggurat]

Peace, ethics.

(I'm aware you disagree on the first point).

Of course I disagree on the first point, since I explicitly stated I believed that ending the occupation would not bring peace. And your prior response indicated that there were other reasons to, so obviously that's what I want to hear about.

As for "ethics", I don't agree. Their enemy wants them dead. Making concessions to such an enemy for nothing in return is foolish, and does nothing to promote ethical behavior because it encourages intransigence and violence. You cannot expect Israel to act in a manner which conflicts with their self-interest to such a strong degree.

 

[Ziggurat]

Because it is the Right Thing to Do!

Shouting doesn't make you more convincing, it just makes you sound hysterical. And whether or not it's the right thing to do is precisely the point in dispute, so this does nothing to advance the debate.

 

[Jules Galen]

As for "ethics", I don't agree. Their enemy wants them dead. Making concessions to such an enemy for nothing in return is foolish, and does nothing to promote ethical behavior because it encourages intransigence and violence. You cannot expect Israel to act in a manner which conflicts with their self-interest to such a strong degree.

So what? When you don't give back something that isn't your, it's called "stealing"! So...Israel should give it back. Then, if the Pals get uppity, they can just bomb the snot out of them like they always have done.

Just tell the Pals:

1. Here's your homeland - 1967 Borders.
2. Some UN Peace Keepers are also included to keep an eye on you.
3. If you get nasty, we are going to bomb the snot out of you.
4. Have a nice day. Build a nice country.

No problemo.

 

[fagin]

I think that would be a case of when rather than if. And the when would be rather soon.

 

[McHrozni]

So what? When you don't give back something that isn't your, it's called "stealing"! So...Israel should give it back. Then, if the Pals get uppity, they can just bomb the snot out of them like they always have done.

Just tell the Pals:

1. Here's your homeland - 1967 Borders.
2. Some UN Peace Keepers are also included to keep an eye on you.
3. If you get nasty, we are going to bomb the snot out of you.
4. Have a nice day. Build a nice country.

No problemo.

What is this fascination with 1967 borders anyway? Israel won West Bank and Gaza (and Sinai) in a defensive war, Arabs have no claim to it. Furthermore, whatever claim they might have, they lost it after the sneak attack in 1973.

Giving West bank and Gaza to Palestinians is just a way to prevent another expulsion. Historically nations who won land in defensive wars in that era were allowed to expell conquered populations. Poland expelled 3 million Germans in 1945 and no one complained about that.

McHrozni

 

[Meed]

Of course I disagree on the first point, since I explicitly stated I believed that ending the occupation would not bring peace. And your prior response indicated that there were other reasons to, so obviously that's what I want to hear about.

Which is why I told you my other reasons...

As for "ethics", I don't agree. Their enemy wants them dead. Making concessions to such an enemy for nothing in return is foolish,

Are all 4.4 million Palestinians their enemy? Not occupying a territory is a "concession" in the same way letting someone out of your basement is doing them a favor.

and does nothing to promote ethical behavior because it encourages intransigence and violence. You cannot expect Israel to act in a manner which conflicts with their self-interest to such a strong degree.

Forget "encourages", it is ethical behavior. Or rather, it is the ceasing of unethical behavior. Whether it conflicts with their self-interest is a different question and is dependent on what interests they want to pursue. But I already mentioned what I believe a couple of the benefits would be.

 

[Ziggurat]

Forget "encourages", it is ethical behavior. Or rather, it is the ceasing of unethical behavior. Whether it conflicts with their self-interest is a different question and is dependent on what interests they want to pursue. But I already mentioned what I believe a couple of the benefits would be.

No, it's not ethical behavior. It enables and rewards unethical behavior on the part of the Palestinian leadership. Make no mistake, the misery of the Palestinian people is a direct and intentional result of the choices of that Palestinian leadership. Their current status is dependent upon the constant immiseration of the population. That will not end with the end of an occupation. All that will do is give that leadership a free hand to arm itself for continued hostilities, which will hurt Israel and the Palestinians. We've already seen the pattern with Israel's withdrawl from Gaza. A withdrawl from the West Bank would be no different. Before the Gaza withdrawl, one could justify believing otherwise, but it's simply not possible anymore.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Another informative piece on Middle East Eye: A new intifada for a new generation

[...] The 19-year-old’s [- who stabbed and killed two ultra-orthodox Jews in the Old City of Jerusalem before being shot dead - facebook] message was clear: the time for words is over. The Third Intifada, he said, has already started.

Halabi speaks for his generation. He was born a year after the second Oslo Accord was signed in Taba, which set up an interim Palestinian self-governing authority for the West Bank and Gaza. By the age of four, Halabi should have seen a comprehensive peace agreement in which Israel would have ceded control of the territories in exchange for peace. When Halabi was seven, Israel had begun constructing the wall that was to divide the West Bank into bantustans. By the time he was eight, Yasser Arafat had died, ridding Israel of a Palestinian leader it described as “two-faced”. He was replaced by Mahmoud Abbas, whose one face was, and is, implacably opposed to violence.

Halabi’s generation should have seen peace. It should have benefited from the plans of Tony Blair and Salam Fayyad to regenerate the economy of the West Bank. Instead, what this generation saw was 600,000 settlers, the gradual disappearance of Palestinian East Jerusalem, a Palestinian security force whose role was to stop protest and the daily encroachments of Israeli Jews, who defined themselves initially as tourists, in the Al-Aqsa compound. Instead of a final settlement, Halabi’s generation has experienced the final loss of all hope. [...]

Latest developments.

 

[Jules Galen]

Make no mistake, the misery of the Palestinian people is a direct and intentional result of the choices of that Palestinian leadership. Their current status is dependent upon the constant immiseration of the population. That will not end with the end of an occupation. All that will do is give that leadership a free hand to arm itself for continued hostilities, which will hurt Israel and the Palestinians....

Yeah....whatever. If you want to make excuses for Israel stealing people's land and then brutalizing them - then go ahead. Just please don't try to justify this savagery against the victims as Israel slowly walls them into bantustans - it's very unbecoming.