On December 01 2012 00:19 Talin wrote: Regardless of who controls it, I have very rarely heard American media criticize Israel's actions over the years, even among the more liberal outlets. Conspiracy theories aside, it is not difficult to accuse them of extreme bias in this case.
When somebody claims that a country being accepted by the UN will somehow lead to escalation and mass murder, it's also not difficult to question the credibility of one's sources and why he believes in what they say. Being accepted into UN is not an act of aggression against anyone, except those who believe that the state in question should not exist at all (which would be a very difficult position to justify from a rational standpoint).
well that is an acceptable position to take, but I still think it's missing some key things. Israel is a recognized state, it has a functioning democracy, more religious and personal freedom than is the norm over there, and actually has gone out of their way to help the Palestinians. have there been mistakes? of course, there will always be mistakes. has Israel had a consistent policy of keeping the Palestinians down or of denying them any chances of statehood? I think it would be hard to argue that they have.
the reason I say it will lead to escalation is because it shows that the world is not requiring that Palestine work with Israel to get a solution hammered out. the Palestinians right now are pretty belligerent (whether they have reason or not is irrelevant), and it's not a stretch to say that they will continue to try to go it alone. the fact is that the rest of the world doesn't have a very good track record with either people, the Jews or the Palestinian arabs, and for them to butt their noses in and start messing with a delicate situation as if they have some mandate is... well, it's a bit much for me anyway. and it's not a stretch to say that it will heighten tensions between Israel and Palestine (and between the US and the rest of the Middle East/world), and that it will further push the Palestinians toward continued belligerence, a scenario that can only lead to war, and eventually, mass death.
it is an aggressive act, what the UN has done, in that it rejects the necessity of Palestine dealing directly with Israel to find a solution to the problem. it rewards belligerence (the launching of rockets/terrorism), and it weakens Israel's position, which is already tenuous, on public opinion. if Israel (and the US) reject the proposal, they look as though they are trying to block Palestinian statehood and those with confirmation bias will take this up in a heartbeat as a "sign" that Israel doesn't want peace, or wants to keep the Palestinians in perpetual limbo. if they accept the proposal then they de-legitimize themselves, their position, and they give credence to the very people who have launched rockets at them. the very people who have sent suicide bombers at Israeli schoolchildren.
for anyone to suggest that this is a good thing, what has occurred.... well to me it shows a serious lack of foresight and naivete. but I am willing to accept that I have a bit of bias and that I could be missing something here.
edit: this is not to say that all Palestinians are belligerent, or that they should all bear the burden of a few people's sins. the problem with the situation is that both sides have legitimate issues with the other side, and it has festered for long enough that it's more than a simple, 1+2 equation here. statehood is possible, and inevitable, but only when both sides work together WITHOUT the interference of the rest of the world. that's my opinion anyway.
I'm sorry, but the whole idea that Palestine needs to work with Israel to come up with a solution is... dumb. That's honestly like a teacher telling a bullied kid that he shouldn't ask for help from teachers, he should kindly sit down with the bullies and give them what they want. Look at a map. Check what Palestine had, and what they have now. Check their resources and compare them to Israels. Now ask yourself, what options do Palestine ACTUALLY have, other than bending down and taking it up the ***?
Actually, what's wrong with taking it up the *** for now?
Cut your losses now, make peace with Israel, then foster economic and social growth in your nation while gathering external support, especially now that international support is stronger than ever. Maybe even harbor plans for revenge in the future.
Yes, it's hard to make such decisions in an oppressed state, but with foresight, they would.
IMO Palestine is still a weak entity that gains little from this move, and might prompt Israel to hasten its 'proceedings'.
How do you do that in a situation where "taking it up the ***" either means moving to a completely different country than the one you and your father and your grandfather grew up in, or living as a second class citizen being hated for who you are?
You have to realize that when a foreign power comes and takes over your land (regardless of Palestinian legal rights to the area), you aren't going to be rational about it. The majority of Palestinians know damn well that they do not stand a chance against Israel in a military struggle, but they have to do something, it's human nature.
The whole problem is obviously extremely complicated, but the fact of the matter is that the Palestinians where living there and got kicked out because of an international (or brittish) decision. Not only that, Israel kept gobbling up more and more territory, making Palestinians more and more desperate. Israel is giving back areas, but it's still far from a real two-state solution.
Point being, most rational people would agree that a two-state solution is the only thing which can actually work. How can it ever be a bad move that the two states are actually BOTH recognized, and not just the one with the vast advantage in military might?
If they wait too long, the Israeli and Palestinian populations will be so mixed (so many Palestinians in "Israel" and vice versa) that separation into two states will be impossible.
On December 01 2012 02:05 KwarK wrote: More Jews were displaced from Arab countries following the foundation of Israel than Arabs displaced from Israeli land in its foundation. The difference is that Israel responded to the Jewish refugees by offering them land and citizenship in Israel whereas the Palestinians received no such support, blame for the ongoing humanitarian crisis some sixty years later has to fall upon the Arab states and the Palestinians themselves for failing to deal with it. Of course it is politically very useful for the Arab states to have an ongoing humanitarian crisis on Israel's doorstep and then blame them for it while doing everything they can to fuel the fire by arming the Palestinians. It doesn't do much to help them though, what the region needs is a multilateral solution in which the Arab states and Israel attempt to resolve the Palestinian humanitarian crisis question while collectively condemning terrorism and accepting the reality of Israel's existence (ie you can't move back into the house your great grandfather lived in).
From the onset of the 1948 Arab–Israeli War until the early 1970s, 800,000–1,000,000 Jews left, fled, or were expelled from their homes in Arab countries; 260,000 of them reached Israel between 1948 and 1951 and amounted for 56% of the total immigration to the newly founded State of Israel.
Note that it is in all the arab countries, from 1948 to 1970, and and only 260 000 were accepted by Israel.
Now only in palestine, "approximately 711,000 to 725,000 Palestinian Arabs left, fled or were expelled from their homes, during the 1947–1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine and the 1948 Arab-Israeli war". http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exode_palestinien_de_1948
I don't really see why the Arabic states should held responsible for suddenly having 700 000 to 800 000 people going at their borders. You are comparing two things completly different, there is one flow of 710 000 people fleeing Palestine to a defined numbers of camp on one hand and a flow of 800 000 to 1 000 000 people fleeing during a period 20 years and going to various places (not only in Israel) on the other hand. You are more talking about little groups of 50 000 to 100 000 of people fleeing left and right from some countries. The logistic problem that those group create, especially for a country such as Israel who has both the territory to welcome them and the money, is completly different from what it happened in neighbour country after the 1948 Palestinian exodus.
I'm sure this is unintentional but what you have done is said that between 1948 and 1970 a million Jews left the Arab nations and that only 260,000 went to Israel by 1951 and then concluded that the other three quarters of a million must have gone some other place. The "Israel by 1951" bit references both a place and a time, they could have gone some other place by 1951, or to Israel after 1951, or to some other place after 1951. Your conclusion does not logically follow from your evidence, it could be any one of the three conclusions offered in the previous sentence, or a combination of them.
Also the suggestion that the logistical problems faced by immigration of refugees into Israel, a small nation in a desert absorbing a population as big as itself, were much smaller than those faced by the Arab world if they would absorb Palestinian refugees is a little odd. Simply in terms of demographics and geography the Arab world has far more land and far more people, the impact would have been drastically lower as would have been the logistical issues.
It's way too simplistic to take the Arab world as a whole in this discussion. It's just nonsense to presume Palestinians fleeing to Indonesia, for example. Or if you do, yes, the logistical problems are going to be huge.
On December 01 2012 00:19 Talin wrote: Regardless of who controls it, I have very rarely heard American media criticize Israel's actions over the years, even among the more liberal outlets. Conspiracy theories aside, it is not difficult to accuse them of extreme bias in this case.
When somebody claims that a country being accepted by the UN will somehow lead to escalation and mass murder, it's also not difficult to question the credibility of one's sources and why he believes in what they say. Being accepted into UN is not an act of aggression against anyone, except those who believe that the state in question should not exist at all (which would be a very difficult position to justify from a rational standpoint).
well that is an acceptable position to take, but I still think it's missing some key things. Israel is a recognized state, it has a functioning democracy, more religious and personal freedom than is the norm over there, and actually has gone out of their way to help the Palestinians. have there been mistakes? of course, there will always be mistakes. has Israel had a consistent policy of keeping the Palestinians down or of denying them any chances of statehood? I think it would be hard to argue that they have.
the reason I say it will lead to escalation is because it shows that the world is not requiring that Palestine work with Israel to get a solution hammered out. the Palestinians right now are pretty belligerent (whether they have reason or not is irrelevant), and it's not a stretch to say that they will continue to try to go it alone. the fact is that the rest of the world doesn't have a very good track record with either people, the Jews or the Palestinian arabs, and for them to butt their noses in and start messing with a delicate situation as if they have some mandate is... well, it's a bit much for me anyway. and it's not a stretch to say that it will heighten tensions between Israel and Palestine (and between the US and the rest of the Middle East/world), and that it will further push the Palestinians toward continued belligerence, a scenario that can only lead to war, and eventually, mass death.
it is an aggressive act, what the UN has done, in that it rejects the necessity of Palestine dealing directly with Israel to find a solution to the problem. it rewards belligerence (the launching of rockets/terrorism), and it weakens Israel's position, which is already tenuous, on public opinion. if Israel (and the US) reject the proposal, they look as though they are trying to block Palestinian statehood and those with confirmation bias will take this up in a heartbeat as a "sign" that Israel doesn't want peace, or wants to keep the Palestinians in perpetual limbo. if they accept the proposal then they de-legitimize themselves, their position, and they give credence to the very people who have launched rockets at them. the very people who have sent suicide bombers at Israeli schoolchildren.
for anyone to suggest that this is a good thing, what has occurred.... well to me it shows a serious lack of foresight and naivete. but I am willing to accept that I have a bit of bias and that I could be missing something here.
edit: this is not to say that all Palestinians are belligerent, or that they should all bear the burden of a few people's sins. the problem with the situation is that both sides have legitimate issues with the other side, and it has festered for long enough that it's more than a simple, 1+2 equation here. statehood is possible, and inevitable, but only when both sides work together WITHOUT the interference of the rest of the world. that's my opinion anyway.
I'm sorry, but the whole idea that Palestine needs to work with Israel to come up with a solution is... dumb. That's honestly like a teacher telling a bullied kid that he shouldn't ask for help from teachers, he should kindly sit down with the bullies and give them what they want. Look at a map. Check what Palestine had, and what they have now. Check their resources and compare them to Israels. Now ask yourself, what options do Palestine ACTUALLY have, other than bending down and taking it up the ***?
Actually, what's wrong with taking it up the *** for now?
Cut your losses now, make peace with Israel, then foster economic and social growth in your nation while gathering external support, especially now that international support is stronger than ever. Maybe even harbor plans for revenge in the future.
Yes, it's hard to make such decisions in an oppressed state, but with foresight, they would.
IMO Palestine is still a weak entity that gains little from this move, and might prompt Israel to hasten its 'proceedings'.
How do you do that in a situation where "taking it up the ***" either means moving to a completely different country than the one you and your father and your grandfather grew up in, or living as a second class citizen being hated for who you are?
You have to realize that when a foreign power comes and takes over your land (regardless of Palestinian legal rights to the area), you aren't going to be rational about it. The majority of Palestinians know damn well that they do not stand a chance against Israel in a military struggle, but they have to do something, it's human nature.
The whole problem is obviously extremely complicated, but the fact of the matter is that the Palestinians where living there and got kicked out because of an international (or brittish) decision. Not only that, Israel kept gobbling up more and more territory, making Palestinians more and more desperate. Israel is giving back areas, but it's still far from a real two-state solution.
Point being, most rational people would agree that a two-state solution is the only thing which can actually work. How can it ever be a bad move that the two states are actually BOTH recognized, and not just the one with the vast advantage in military might?
On December 01 2012 00:58 Crownlol wrote: I'd say that saying "the jewish media has its control over the American population" is more than just hints of antisemitism, its outright antisemitic.
I'd argue it's outright true. Any media in the West (particularly the US) is highly favorable to the Israeli position. You will often hear of the Israelis "defending" themselves (how can you defend yourself in occupied soil?) and the Israeli death toll. It is hilarious to watch coverage of the same news story on American TV versus that of the BBC or Aljazeera. You will see it is highly biased (watch a documentary called Peace Propaganda and the Promised land for an introduction to this practice.)
All you ever hear is the Palestinian "terrorists" attacking the "peaceful, democratic" Israelis. Never does it mention that for every Israeli killed, something like 8 or 9 Palestinians are killed.
Everyone should listen to world renown scholar Noam Chomsky speak on this subject. He is Jewish and spent a great amount of time in Israel, being connected to it through friends and family. He also happens to be the most outspoken critic of Israeli expansion in Palestine. He himself refers to many Israeli practices as barbarous and that Israel has reduced Palestine to an open air prison.
I ask you, if one of the smartest people in the world, Noam Chomsky, who is also Jewish and loves Israel is totally against its foreign policy and stance on Palestine, why is anyone in the West for it? Oh, it's because scholars like Chomsky are shunned from mainstream media because their goal of peace is not the goal of the corporate taskmasters.
On December 01 2012 00:57 sc2superfan101 wrote: it is an aggressive act, what the UN has done, in that it rejects the necessity of Palestine dealing directly with Israel to find a solution to the problem.
I disagree with this premise. Being accepted by the UN doesn't remove that necessity in the slightest.
It does weaken Israel's position, yes, but it does so by putting the two sides in the conflict on similar ground in terms of legitimacy of statehood. This can only do the opposite to what you suggest in the sense that Palestine now has some ground to stand on and fall back to in the negotiations.
For the negotiations to have any meaning, Palestinians need this. If they're forced to negotiate from the standpoint of almost a rogue state, and have to deal only with Israel directly, plus US that's inevitably going to involve themselves no matter what - well that's hardly a fair position to negotiate from, is it? It's more like, "let's talk, but really you can only take what we choose to give you under the conditions we want" kind of negotiations.
Palestinian position without interference of the rest of the world and global recognition of their rights is hopeless. And hopelessness in the Middle East can only breed more extremism and violence, which those with confirmation bias will take as a sign that Palestinians do not deserve statehood and should just be "pacified" instead.
I see your point, and I'll concede that it doesn't remove the necessity. what it does do is very specifically begin the process by which they can have the appearance of removing that necessity, and it is in some ways a rejection of the rightful necessity being rightful. (edit: the necessity being a direct negotiation with Israel, and Israel alone)
it seems (correct me if I'm wrong) that where you and I disagree (and I think there is a lot of room for argument here), is in how we view the position of how the negotiations should occur. I'm glad to see that you do agree that they need to negotiate directly with Israel, because that is really all that matters here when we get right down to it. but back to the disagreement: where you think that they should negotiate as equals or from relatively equal positions, I do not think that is either wise, or appropriate.
Zionism has been responsible for some pretty messed up things. no one will deny that. where it seems to be different is that Zionists are called to be held entirely responsible for every condemnable act ever committed in the name of Zionism. and every one of them is used to justify clear violations of anything resembling humane restraint or civility from the Palestinians and their supporters. the Palestinian quest for statehood is not analogous or equal to the Israeli quest for statehood, and further I do not think we should hold a legal state to the same standards as a somewhat belligerent non-state. the situations of the two people's are not equal, their motives and actions are not, and have not been, equal. they are of course equal in the sense that they are all human and all of equal worth and value, but they have not committed themselves to equal causes, and in that sense I do not think that they have the right to equality in these specific negotiations. every person has the right to be free from persecution, obviously, but that doesn't grant a criminal the right to negotiate with the state or with his victim.
the past being the past, we should remember it, consider it, but also let it go. whatever was done when Israel came into being, and whatever subsequently followed, on either side, can be forgiven. the Palestinians won't find acceptance with the Arab countries, there is only death and persecution there for them. I agree that the Palestinians need a state of their own, and that they deserve a state of their own. but they do not have the right to launch rockets at Israeli towns, and they do not have the right to demand free pass into Israeli lands. and they do not have the right, as of this moment, to demand anything but human decency and respect from Israel.
the day the Palestinian leadership accepts Israel as having a right to exist, condemns any and all forms of aggression against them, and comes to the table looking for a peaceful two-state solution, I will be the first one to stand up and say that Israel needs to be willing to work with them. and the day that the Palestinian government, working with Israel, develops a state of their own, I will be the first one to say that they deserve equality in every respect with the Israeli government. otherwise, there can be no peace or equality of terms, because it is unfair to expect Israel to calmly watch their country and people be threatened without reacting. and those reactions will inevitably lead to overreactions, which will inevitably lead to more aggression from the Palestinians and the neighboring countries.
the question is: do you, or anyone else, think that this UN proposal has made that scenario more likely? will it pacify both sides? will it calm down the rhetoric and encourage peace? or will it lead to a hardening of resolve, and more tension; to even more violence?
I'll go on record here and say that I don't think this will lead to anything good. I've been wrong before, so maybe I'll be wrong again, and I do hope that I am wrong. but this is probably one of the worst things the Palestinians could have done, in a pragmatic sense.
On December 01 2012 00:58 Crownlol wrote: I'd say that saying "the jewish media has its control over the American population" is more than just hints of antisemitism, its outright antisemitic.
I'd argue it's outright true. Any media in the West (particularly the US) is highly favorable to the Israeli position. You will often hear of the Israelis "defending" themselves (how can you defend yourself in occupied soil?) and the Israeli death toll. It is hilarious to watch coverage of the same news story on American TV versus that of the BBC or Aljazeera. You will see it is highly biased (watch a documentary called Peace Propaganda and the Promised land for an introduction to this practice.)
All you ever hear is the Palestinian "terrorists" attacking the "peaceful, democratic" Israelis. Never does it mention that for every Israeli killed, something like 8 or 9 Palestinians are killed.
Everyone should listen to world renown scholar Noam Chomsky speak on this subject. He is Jewish and spent a great amount of time in Israel, being connected to it through friends and family. He also happens to be the most outspoken critic of Israeli expansion in Palestine. He himself refers to many Israeli practices as barbarous and that Israel has reduced Palestine to an open air prison.
I ask you, if one of the smartest people in the world, Noam Chomsky, who is also Jewish and loves Israel is totally against its foreign policy and stance on Palestine, why is anyone in the West for it? Oh, it's because scholars like Chomsky are shunned from mainstream media because their goal of peace is not the goal of the corporate taskmasters.
Or Norman Finkelstein. His take on the situation is interesting as well, especially what he says about the propagandistic use of the holocaust by the Israeli government.
On December 01 2012 02:05 KwarK wrote: More Jews were displaced from Arab countries following the foundation of Israel than Arabs displaced from Israeli land in its foundation. The difference is that Israel responded to the Jewish refugees by offering them land and citizenship in Israel whereas the Palestinians received no such support, blame for the ongoing humanitarian crisis some sixty years later has to fall upon the Arab states and the Palestinians themselves for failing to deal with it. Of course it is politically very useful for the Arab states to have an ongoing humanitarian crisis on Israel's doorstep and then blame them for it while doing everything they can to fuel the fire by arming the Palestinians. It doesn't do much to help them though, what the region needs is a multilateral solution in which the Arab states and Israel attempt to resolve the Palestinian humanitarian crisis question while collectively condemning terrorism and accepting the reality of Israel's existence (ie you can't move back into the house your great grandfather lived in).
From the onset of the 1948 Arab–Israeli War until the early 1970s, 800,000–1,000,000 Jews left, fled, or were expelled from their homes in Arab countries; 260,000 of them reached Israel between 1948 and 1951 and amounted for 56% of the total immigration to the newly founded State of Israel.
Note that it is in all the arab countries, from 1948 to 1970, and and only 260 000 were accepted by Israel.
Now only in palestine, "approximately 711,000 to 725,000 Palestinian Arabs left, fled or were expelled from their homes, during the 1947–1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine and the 1948 Arab-Israeli war". http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exode_palestinien_de_1948
I don't really see why the Arabic states should held responsible for suddenly having 700 000 to 800 000 people going at their borders. You are comparing two things completly different, there is one flow of 710 000 people fleeing Palestine to a defined numbers of camp on one hand and a flow of 800 000 to 1 000 000 people fleeing during a period 20 years and going to various places (not only in Israel) on the other hand. You are more talking about little groups of 50 000 to 100 000 of people fleeing left and right from some countries. The logistic problem that those group create, especially for a country such as Israel who has both the territory to welcome them and the money, is completly different from what it happened in neighbour country after the 1948 Palestinian exodus.
I'm sure this is unintentional but what you have done is said that between 1948 and 1970 a million Jews left the Arab nations and that only 260,000 went to Israel by 1951 and then concluded that the other three quarters of a million must have gone some other place. The "Israel by 1951" bit references both a place and a time, they could have gone some other place by 1951, or to Israel after 1951, or to some other place after 1951. Your conclusion does not logically follow from your evidence, it could be any one of the three conclusions offered in the previous sentence, or a combination of them.
Also the suggestion that the logistical problems faced by immigration of refugees into Israel, a small nation in a desert absorbing a population as big as itself, were much smaller than those faced by the Arab world if they would absorb Palestinian refugees is a little odd. Simply in terms of demographics and geography the Arab world has far more land and far more people, the impact would have been drastically lower as would have been the logistical issues.
It's way too simplistic to take the Arab world as a whole in this discussion. It's just nonsense to presume Palestinians fleeing to Indonesia, for example. Or if you do, yes, the logistical problems are going to be huge.
Indonesia is not an Arab state. When I said the Arab world I meant the Arab world, ie the countries populated by Arabs. Indonesia is not one of those.
On December 01 2012 02:05 KwarK wrote: More Jews were displaced from Arab countries following the foundation of Israel than Arabs displaced from Israeli land in its foundation. The difference is that Israel responded to the Jewish refugees by offering them land and citizenship in Israel whereas the Palestinians received no such support, blame for the ongoing humanitarian crisis some sixty years later has to fall upon the Arab states and the Palestinians themselves for failing to deal with it. Of course it is politically very useful for the Arab states to have an ongoing humanitarian crisis on Israel's doorstep and then blame them for it while doing everything they can to fuel the fire by arming the Palestinians. It doesn't do much to help them though, what the region needs is a multilateral solution in which the Arab states and Israel attempt to resolve the Palestinian humanitarian crisis question while collectively condemning terrorism and accepting the reality of Israel's existence (ie you can't move back into the house your great grandfather lived in).
From the onset of the 1948 Arab–Israeli War until the early 1970s, 800,000–1,000,000 Jews left, fled, or were expelled from their homes in Arab countries; 260,000 of them reached Israel between 1948 and 1951 and amounted for 56% of the total immigration to the newly founded State of Israel.
Note that it is in all the arab countries, from 1948 to 1970, and and only 260 000 were accepted by Israel.
Now only in palestine, "approximately 711,000 to 725,000 Palestinian Arabs left, fled or were expelled from their homes, during the 1947–1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine and the 1948 Arab-Israeli war". http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exode_palestinien_de_1948
I don't really see why the Arabic states should held responsible for suddenly having 700 000 to 800 000 people going at their borders. You are comparing two things completly different, there is one flow of 710 000 people fleeing Palestine to a defined numbers of camp on one hand and a flow of 800 000 to 1 000 000 people fleeing during a period 20 years and going to various places (not only in Israel) on the other hand. You are more talking about little groups of 50 000 to 100 000 of people fleeing left and right from some countries. The logistic problem that those group create, especially for a country such as Israel who has both the territory to welcome them and the money, is completly different from what it happened in neighbour country after the 1948 Palestinian exodus.
I'm sure this is unintentional but what you have done is said that between 1948 and 1970 a million Jews left the Arab nations and that only 260,000 went to Israel by 1951 and then concluded that the other three quarters of a million must have gone some other place. The "Israel by 1951" bit references both a place and a time, they could have gone some other place by 1951, or to Israel after 1951, or to some other place after 1951. Your conclusion does not logically follow from your evidence, it could be any one of the three conclusions offered in the previous sentence, or a combination of them.
Also the suggestion that the logistical problems faced by immigration of refugees into Israel, a small nation in a desert absorbing a population as big as itself, were much smaller than those faced by the Arab world if they would absorb Palestinian refugees is a little odd. Simply in terms of demographics and geography the Arab world has far more land and far more people, the impact would have been drastically lower as would have been the logistical issues.
It's way too simplistic to take the Arab world as a whole in this discussion. It's just nonsense to presume Palestinians fleeing to Indonesia, for example. Or if you do, yes, the logistical problems are going to be huge.
Indonesia is not an Arab state. When I said the Arab world I meant the Arab world, ie the countries populated by Arabs. Indonesia is not one of those.
I'm super silly, my bad. But I presume my point is clear anyway; taking the whole Arab world still doesn't make sense, the insane scale just doesn't make it realistic. The relevance is lost beyond Lebanon, Transjordan and Syria.
On December 01 2012 00:58 Crownlol wrote: I'd say that saying "the jewish media has its control over the American population" is more than just hints of antisemitism, its outright antisemitic.
I'd argue it's outright true. Any media in the West (particularly the US) is highly favorable to the Israeli position. You will often hear of the Israelis "defending" themselves (how can you defend yourself in occupied soil?) and the Israeli death toll. It is hilarious to watch coverage of the same news story on American TV versus that of the BBC or Aljazeera. You will see it is highly biased (watch a documentary called Peace Propaganda and the Promised land for an introduction to this practice.)
All you ever hear is the Palestinian "terrorists" attacking the "peaceful, democratic" Israelis. Never does it mention that for every Israeli killed, something like 8 or 9 Palestinians are killed.
Everyone should listen to world renown scholar Noam Chomsky speak on this subject. He is Jewish and spent a great amount of time in Israel, being connected to it through friends and family. He also happens to be the most outspoken critic of Israeli expansion in Palestine. He himself refers to many Israeli practices as barbarous and that Israel has reduced Palestine to an open air prison.
I ask you, if one of the smartest people in the world, Noam Chomsky, who is also Jewish and loves Israel is totally against its foreign policy and stance on Palestine, why is anyone in the West for it? Oh, it's because scholars like Chomsky are shunned from mainstream media because their goal of peace is not the goal of the corporate taskmasters.
Meh, media bias, even to a large degree, is still nowhere near the blanket statement of "jewish media has its control over the American population".
I don't agree with Israel not retaliating, although I definitely am against the settlements. Chucking rockets into Israel is only going to legitimize their "retaliation", so I would argue it's far better off not to do it. Something like 8 or 9 Palestinians are killed for every Israeli death is because Hamas hides its munitions and soldiers in densely populated areas. This creates a "be damned if do and damned if don't" situation, so Israel exercises its right to retaliate. Tragic, but not entirely their fault.
Your statement insinuating that if "one of the smartest people in the world" is against foreign policy on Palestine, then the western hemisphere should follow suit is riddled with flaws. I'm pretty sure there are people as smart as Chomsky on the other side, that are for even more extreme policies. Smartness does not validate his opinions. Perhaps his morality does, but definitely not his intellect.
On December 01 2012 02:05 KwarK wrote: More Jews were displaced from Arab countries following the foundation of Israel than Arabs displaced from Israeli land in its foundation. The difference is that Israel responded to the Jewish refugees by offering them land and citizenship in Israel whereas the Palestinians received no such support, blame for the ongoing humanitarian crisis some sixty years later has to fall upon the Arab states and the Palestinians themselves for failing to deal with it.
I can't say I agree with that. If someone comes along and kicks you out of your house, the fact that someone else did or did not offer you a new house to stay in is irrelevant. What matters is that they were kicked out.
Blame should include bystanders who did nothing to help, yes. But the primary blame goes to those who directly caused the problem, not those who could have fixed it but did nothing.
This is someone coming along and kicking your great grandfather out of his house. The fact that the great grandson still has nowhere to stay is the fault of his family and his friends. This is not a first generation humanitarian crisis.
What about the new settlements that Israel is making in the occupied territories as we speak? Isn't that an ongoing crisis?
For instance, the 3000 new settlers that were transported to palestinian territories today as a retaliation to the completely legitimate claim from the Palestinians to be recognized in the UN (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/nov/30/israel-build-jewish-settlement-un-palestine). These settlers are in turn convinced about their religious duty to occupy the land of the Palestinians. Who is now throwing who "into the sea", as the set phrase states?
On December 01 2012 02:05 KwarK wrote: More Jews were displaced from Arab countries following the foundation of Israel than Arabs displaced from Israeli land in its foundation. The difference is that Israel responded to the Jewish refugees by offering them land and citizenship in Israel whereas the Palestinians received no such support, blame for the ongoing humanitarian crisis some sixty years later has to fall upon the Arab states and the Palestinians themselves for failing to deal with it. Of course it is politically very useful for the Arab states to have an ongoing humanitarian crisis on Israel's doorstep and then blame them for it while doing everything they can to fuel the fire by arming the Palestinians. It doesn't do much to help them though, what the region needs is a multilateral solution in which the Arab states and Israel attempt to resolve the Palestinian humanitarian crisis question while collectively condemning terrorism and accepting the reality of Israel's existence (ie you can't move back into the house your great grandfather lived in).
From the onset of the 1948 Arab–Israeli War until the early 1970s, 800,000–1,000,000 Jews left, fled, or were expelled from their homes in Arab countries; 260,000 of them reached Israel between 1948 and 1951 and amounted for 56% of the total immigration to the newly founded State of Israel.
Note that it is in all the arab countries, from 1948 to 1970, and and only 260 000 were accepted by Israel.
Now only in palestine, "approximately 711,000 to 725,000 Palestinian Arabs left, fled or were expelled from their homes, during the 1947–1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine and the 1948 Arab-Israeli war". http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exode_palestinien_de_1948
I don't really see why the Arabic states should held responsible for suddenly having 700 000 to 800 000 people going at their borders. You are comparing two things completly different, there is one flow of 710 000 people fleeing Palestine to a defined numbers of camp on one hand and a flow of 800 000 to 1 000 000 people fleeing during a period 20 years and going to various places (not only in Israel) on the other hand. You are more talking about little groups of 50 000 to 100 000 of people fleeing left and right from some countries. The logistic problem that those group create, especially for a country such as Israel who has both the territory to welcome them and the money, is completly different from what it happened in neighbour country after the 1948 Palestinian exodus.
I'm sure this is unintentional but what you have done is said that between 1948 and 1970 a million Jews left the Arab nations and that only 260,000 went to Israel by 1951 and then concluded that the other three quarters of a million must have gone some other place. The "Israel by 1951" bit references both a place and a time, they could have gone some other place by 1951, or to Israel after 1951, or to some other place after 1951. Your conclusion does not logically follow from your evidence, it could be any one of the three conclusions offered in the previous sentence, or a combination of them.
Also the suggestion that the logistical problems faced by immigration of refugees into Israel, a small nation in a desert absorbing a population as big as itself, were much smaller than those faced by the Arab world if they would absorb Palestinian refugees is a little odd. Simply in terms of demographics and geography the Arab world has far more land and far more people, the impact would have been drastically lower as would have been the logistical issues.
It's way too simplistic to take the Arab world as a whole in this discussion. It's just nonsense to presume Palestinians fleeing to Indonesia, for example. Or if you do, yes, the logistical problems are going to be huge.
Indonesia is not an Arab state. When I said the Arab world I meant the Arab world, ie the countries populated by Arabs. Indonesia is not one of those.
I'm super silly, my bad. But I presume my point is clear anyway; taking the whole Arab world still doesn't make sense, the insane scale just doesn't make it realistic. The relevance is lost beyond Lebanon, Jordan and I guess Egypt.
And Syria, Iraq and Saudi Arabia and the rest of North Africa with a combined population hundreds of times higher than the displaced population. Had the Arab world felt inclined to offer the Palestinians shelter it could have easily done so, they did not, choosing to use the propaganda to further their military ambitions against Israel rather than helping resolve the crisis.
On December 01 2012 02:05 KwarK wrote: More Jews were displaced from Arab countries following the foundation of Israel than Arabs displaced from Israeli land in its foundation. The difference is that Israel responded to the Jewish refugees by offering them land and citizenship in Israel whereas the Palestinians received no such support, blame for the ongoing humanitarian crisis some sixty years later has to fall upon the Arab states and the Palestinians themselves for failing to deal with it.
I can't say I agree with that. If someone comes along and kicks you out of your house, the fact that someone else did or did not offer you a new house to stay in is irrelevant. What matters is that they were kicked out.
Blame should include bystanders who did nothing to help, yes. But the primary blame goes to those who directly caused the problem, not those who could have fixed it but did nothing.
This is someone coming along and kicking your great grandfather out of his house. The fact that the great grandson still has nowhere to stay is the fault of his family and his friends. This is not a first generation humanitarian crisis.
What about the new settlements that Israel is making in the occupied territories as we speak? Isn't that an ongoing crisis?
For instance, the 3000 new settlers that were transported to palestinian territories today as a retaliation to the completely legitimate claim from the Palestinians to be recognized in the UN (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/nov/30/israel-build-jewish-settlement-un-palestine). These settlers are in turn convinced about their religious duty to occupy the land of the Palestinians. Who is now throwing who "into the sea", as the set phrase states?
Just another indefensible act in a long, long chain of both sides being dicks. I have no interest in unconditional approval of Israeli policy.
On December 01 2012 02:05 KwarK wrote: More Jews were displaced from Arab countries following the foundation of Israel than Arabs displaced from Israeli land in its foundation. The difference is that Israel responded to the Jewish refugees by offering them land and citizenship in Israel whereas the Palestinians received no such support, blame for the ongoing humanitarian crisis some sixty years later has to fall upon the Arab states and the Palestinians themselves for failing to deal with it. Of course it is politically very useful for the Arab states to have an ongoing humanitarian crisis on Israel's doorstep and then blame them for it while doing everything they can to fuel the fire by arming the Palestinians. It doesn't do much to help them though, what the region needs is a multilateral solution in which the Arab states and Israel attempt to resolve the Palestinian humanitarian crisis question while collectively condemning terrorism and accepting the reality of Israel's existence (ie you can't move back into the house your great grandfather lived in).
From the onset of the 1948 Arab–Israeli War until the early 1970s, 800,000–1,000,000 Jews left, fled, or were expelled from their homes in Arab countries; 260,000 of them reached Israel between 1948 and 1951 and amounted for 56% of the total immigration to the newly founded State of Israel.
Note that it is in all the arab countries, from 1948 to 1970, and and only 260 000 were accepted by Israel.
Now only in palestine, "approximately 711,000 to 725,000 Palestinian Arabs left, fled or were expelled from their homes, during the 1947–1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine and the 1948 Arab-Israeli war". http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exode_palestinien_de_1948
I don't really see why the Arabic states should held responsible for suddenly having 700 000 to 800 000 people going at their borders. You are comparing two things completly different, there is one flow of 710 000 people fleeing Palestine to a defined numbers of camp on one hand and a flow of 800 000 to 1 000 000 people fleeing during a period 20 years and going to various places (not only in Israel) on the other hand. You are more talking about little groups of 50 000 to 100 000 of people fleeing left and right from some countries. The logistic problem that those group create, especially for a country such as Israel who has both the territory to welcome them and the money, is completly different from what it happened in neighbour country after the 1948 Palestinian exodus.
I'm sure this is unintentional but what you have done is said that between 1948 and 1970 a million Jews left the Arab nations and that only 260,000 went to Israel by 1951 and then concluded that the other three quarters of a million must have gone some other place. The "Israel by 1951" bit references both a place and a time, they could have gone some other place by 1951, or to Israel after 1951, or to some other place after 1951. Your conclusion does not logically follow from your evidence, it could be any one of the three conclusions offered in the previous sentence, or a combination of them.
Also the suggestion that the logistical problems faced by immigration of refugees into Israel, a small nation in a desert absorbing a population as big as itself, were much smaller than those faced by the Arab world if they would absorb Palestinian refugees is a little odd. Simply in terms of demographics and geography the Arab world has far more land and far more people, the impact would have been drastically lower as would have been the logistical issues.
It's way too simplistic to take the Arab world as a whole in this discussion. It's just nonsense to presume Palestinians fleeing to Indonesia, for example. Or if you do, yes, the logistical problems are going to be huge.
Indonesia is not an Arab state. When I said the Arab world I meant the Arab world, ie the countries populated by Arabs. Indonesia is not one of those.
I'm super silly, my bad. But I presume my point is clear anyway; taking the whole Arab world still doesn't make sense, the insane scale just doesn't make it realistic. The relevance is lost beyond Lebanon, Jordan and I guess Egypt.
And Syria, Iraq and Saudi Arabia and the rest of North Africa with a combined population hundreds of times higher than the displaced population. Had the Arab world felt inclined to offer the Palestinians shelter it could have easily done so, they did not, choosing to use the propaganda to further their military ambitions against Israel rather than helping resolve the crisis.
Yea, actually quickly checked up, rather Syria than Egypt. Iraq and Egypt indeed could be added but already aren't very relevant in this story, both with less than 1% of the refugees. Northern Africa, Saudi Arabia, and all the other nations/regions/wealth you added are the reason I'm saying you're cutting corners here.
Edit: Today, Israel has roughly double the GDP of those 3 nations combined (Lebanon, Jordan, Syria), to further undermine your reasoning.
On December 01 2012 00:58 Crownlol wrote: I'd say that saying "the jewish media has its control over the American population" is more than just hints of antisemitism, its outright antisemitic.
I'd argue it's outright true. Any media in the West (particularly the US) is highly favorable to the Israeli position. You will often hear of the Israelis "defending" themselves (how can you defend yourself in occupied soil?) and the Israeli death toll. It is hilarious to watch coverage of the same news story on American TV versus that of the BBC or Aljazeera. You will see it is highly biased (watch a documentary called Peace Propaganda and the Promised land for an introduction to this practice.)
All you ever hear is the Palestinian "terrorists" attacking the "peaceful, democratic" Israelis. Never does it mention that for every Israeli killed, something like 8 or 9 Palestinians are killed.
Everyone should listen to world renown scholar Noam Chomsky speak on this subject. He is Jewish and spent a great amount of time in Israel, being connected to it through friends and family. He also happens to be the most outspoken critic of Israeli expansion in Palestine. He himself refers to many Israeli practices as barbarous and that Israel has reduced Palestine to an open air prison.
I ask you, if one of the smartest people in the world, Noam Chomsky, who is also Jewish and loves Israel is totally against its foreign policy and stance on Palestine, why is anyone in the West for it? Oh, it's because scholars like Chomsky are shunned from mainstream media because their goal of peace is not the goal of the corporate taskmasters.
Meh, media bias, even to a large degree, is still nowhere near the blanket statement of "jewish media has its control over the American population".
I don't agree with Israel not retaliating, although I definitely am against the settlements. Chucking rockets into Israel is only going to legitimize their "retaliation", so I would argue it's far better off not to do it. Something like 8 or 9 Palestinians are killed for every Israeli death is because Hamas hides its munitions and soldiers in densely populated areas. This creates a "be damned if do and damned if don't" situation, so Israel exercises its right to retaliate. Tragic, but not entirely their fault.
Your statement insinuating that if "one of the smartest people in the world" is against foreign policy on Palestine, then the western hemisphere should follow suit is riddled with flaws. I'm pretty sure there are people as smart as Chomsky on the other side, that are for even more extreme policies. Smartness does not validate his opinions. Perhaps his morality does, but definitely not his intellect.
I love your point of Hamas hiding in densely populated areas and using schools etc. This is a hilarious representation of mainsteam media. Have you seen how tiny Gaza is? There is nowhere within it that isn't densely populated. I also don't understand the argument that it would be better for the Palestinians not to fire rockets. They do it, because it's all they can do. People with Western attitudes think it would be better for them to stop, but I ask, then what happens? If they didn't do this you would never even hear about Palestine, and the Israeli expansions would continue until one day there is only Israel. I don't agree with suicide bombing or targeting of civilians, but what other recourse do these people have when even the US, the supposed beacon of freedom and liberty, is against you.
On Chomsky, I must say, there are no people on the other side as smart as him. The man is a walking encyclopedia, which is mainly why I referred to his superior intelligence, rather than his superior morality. Chomsky makes mince meat out of anyone he debates.
One of the smartest people on "the other side," is Alan Dershowitz, frankfurter professor at Harvard. Watch this debate
Note how Chomsky uses nothing but facts, and one of the smartest people on "the other side" does nothing but sink to ad hominems almost immediately.
The fact is, when debating this subject, the Israelis can't use facts, because all the facts are against them, so they use clever tactics to sway public opinion and discredit those speaking the truth.
Palestine getting accepted in UNESCO is quite a big step (towards solving the conflict that plagued that area for more than 60 years). Hopefully Palestine will get a full member status in UN too (as both sides will be held responsible for any further hostile actions). Something like "you are both in the same kinder garden, behave". Speaking for myself: I'm not taking any sides here, I just dislike seeing ppl killing each others for a patch of land.
On December 01 2012 02:05 KwarK wrote: More Jews were displaced from Arab countries following the foundation of Israel than Arabs displaced from Israeli land in its foundation. The difference is that Israel responded to the Jewish refugees by offering them land and citizenship in Israel whereas the Palestinians received no such support, blame for the ongoing humanitarian crisis some sixty years later has to fall upon the Arab states and the Palestinians themselves for failing to deal with it. Of course it is politically very useful for the Arab states to have an ongoing humanitarian crisis on Israel's doorstep and then blame them for it while doing everything they can to fuel the fire by arming the Palestinians. It doesn't do much to help them though, what the region needs is a multilateral solution in which the Arab states and Israel attempt to resolve the Palestinian humanitarian crisis question while collectively condemning terrorism and accepting the reality of Israel's existence (ie you can't move back into the house your great grandfather lived in).
From the onset of the 1948 Arab–Israeli War until the early 1970s, 800,000–1,000,000 Jews left, fled, or were expelled from their homes in Arab countries; 260,000 of them reached Israel between 1948 and 1951 and amounted for 56% of the total immigration to the newly founded State of Israel.
Note that it is in all the arab countries, from 1948 to 1970, and and only 260 000 were accepted by Israel.
Now only in palestine, "approximately 711,000 to 725,000 Palestinian Arabs left, fled or were expelled from their homes, during the 1947–1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine and the 1948 Arab-Israeli war". http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exode_palestinien_de_1948
I don't really see why the Arabic states should held responsible for suddenly having 700 000 to 800 000 people going at their borders. You are comparing two things completly different, there is one flow of 710 000 people fleeing Palestine to a defined numbers of camp on one hand and a flow of 800 000 to 1 000 000 people fleeing during a period 20 years and going to various places (not only in Israel) on the other hand. You are more talking about little groups of 50 000 to 100 000 of people fleeing left and right from some countries. The logistic problem that those group create, especially for a country such as Israel who has both the territory to welcome them and the money, is completly different from what it happened in neighbour country after the 1948 Palestinian exodus.
I'm sure this is unintentional but what you have done is said that between 1948 and 1970 a million Jews left the Arab nations and that only 260,000 went to Israel by 1951 and then concluded that the other three quarters of a million must have gone some other place. The "Israel by 1951" bit references both a place and a time, they could have gone some other place by 1951, or to Israel after 1951, or to some other place after 1951. Your conclusion does not logically follow from your evidence, it could be any one of the three conclusions offered in the previous sentence, or a combination of them.
Also the suggestion that the logistical problems faced by immigration of refugees into Israel, a small nation in a desert absorbing a population as big as itself, were much smaller than those faced by the Arab world if they would absorb Palestinian refugees is a little odd. Simply in terms of demographics and geography the Arab world has far more land and far more people, the impact would have been drastically lower as would have been the logistical issues.
It's way too simplistic to take the Arab world as a whole in this discussion. It's just nonsense to presume Palestinians fleeing to Indonesia, for example. Or if you do, yes, the logistical problems are going to be huge.
Indonesia is not an Arab state. When I said the Arab world I meant the Arab world, ie the countries populated by Arabs. Indonesia is not one of those.
I'm super silly, my bad. But I presume my point is clear anyway; taking the whole Arab world still doesn't make sense, the insane scale just doesn't make it realistic. The relevance is lost beyond Lebanon, Jordan and I guess Egypt.
And Syria, Iraq and Saudi Arabia and the rest of North Africa with a combined population hundreds of times higher than the displaced population. Had the Arab world felt inclined to offer the Palestinians shelter it could have easily done so, they did not, choosing to use the propaganda to further their military ambitions against Israel rather than helping resolve the crisis.
Yea, actually quickly checked up, rather Syria than Egypt. Iraq and Egypt indeed could be added but already aren't very relevant in this story, both with less than 1% of the refugees. Northern Africa, Saudi Arabia, and all the other nations/regions/wealth you added are the reason I'm saying you're cutting corners here.
Edit: Today, Israel has roughly double the GDP of those 3 nations combined (Lebanon, Jordan, Syria), to further undermine your reasoning.
And you think that's because the land is just naturally very valuable and that settling the Palestinians anywhere less prosperous than Israel became sixty years later would be robbing them of that destiny? Israel's current wealth belongs to the Israelis who earned it and has more to do with foreign aid than any other factor really, settling the Palestinians in Syria would not be making them especially poorer than they were before, a comparison based upon GDPs 60 years later is meaningless. I'm still not sure why you're suggesting most of the Arab world could do nothing to help alleviate the crisis either.
that this crisis is happening on israel's doorsteps does in itself put responsibility on israel to do something, particularly when active measures are contributing to the ongoing situation.
On December 01 2012 03:21 oneofthem wrote: that this crisis is happening on israel's doorsteps does in itself put responsibility on israel to do something, particularly when active measures are contributing to the ongoing situation.
This would be why Israel gives a colossal amount of humanitarian aid to Palestine?
status and social capital is the new land in a modern economy. fact is, a solution to the problem has to involve some degree of integration that israel is not willing to entertain seriously. thi sis not only a government problem but a pervasive cultural issue.
EPT
