Correction: Israelis and Palestinians. Because even amongst some of the Israelis who identify as Jewish, it is a faith that is only skin-deep, not unlike many "Bobblehead Jesus" Christians. In this case, there is only one word for this type of person: zionist nationalist. I've had the slight misfortune of meeting such a person, once, and while it was strictly over the internet, and we even had a few political stances that overlapped, for the most part we did not overlap in political beliefs. Also, he was either really cynical (in both senses of the word), or was so narcissistic that it inhibited his ability to interact with others, at least online.

That correction is NOT accepted.

Presently the government of Israel DEMANDS to be recognized as a Jewish state. That is its official position. Anything Israel does is therefore interchangeable with Jewish because that is the way Israel wants it.

Specifically Israel's present formulation to steal more land and avoid peace is to have Palestine for the Palestinians and Israel for the Jews NOT Israel for the Israelis.

Israel is what Israel is. Apologists cannot argue away what Israel says.

Sort of amusing the claim of Jews that they support minority rights but we learn from Israel that is only true when Jews are a minority. In Israel minorities can go fork themselves.

 

 

 

You are NOT going to get much sympathy from much of the west concerning Palestine. The biggest reason is that they are ruled by religious nutcases who have no interest in setting up a western style democracy. Understanding why they do what they do, AND I DO, will never cause me to allow them to have their own theocracy.

This is not either or for me. I do not see this ending any time soon, but the biggest hurdle for both sides is losing the religious crap. If both sides on a political level, would do that, and see the other as fellow human beings, then I could see peace happening.

But both sides have used "this is not about religion" lying their asses off when after attacks we hear "Allah" this and "Jewish state" that.

I am sick of both sides, but between the two, Israel reflects much more a western democracy and that is not the goal of the rulers in Palestine.

Palestine has the most power to stop this but until they see that unless they lose their attitude of an Allah run government, I will never support them having their own country.

I totally disagree. Yes, the Palestinians share blame for the mess, but Israel is most responsible. Palestine has no and can have no democracy while they are occupied. Any leadership that forms is largely ignored, and occasionally assassinated. They are always rebellious and vicious, because that is what they need to be.
If the US tried to annex bits and pieces of Canada or Mexico the way Israel constantly steals land you'd be getting worse than tiny rockets that rarely hit anything being thrown back.
And now they went and pissed off the only ally they had in the area. Turkey has suspended all trade and military agreements with Israel, and are stepping up naval patrols through the Mediteranean so as to prevent Israel from attacking Turkish assets and allies.
Every single time Israel has a chance to do the right thing and be a legitimate and respectable nation they go in the opposite direction. Fuck Israel. Fuck Palestine too, but fuck Israel more.

p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

Indeed, the usual suspect have their panties in a bunch, yet again. I really doubt that this will be solved this time around any more than it ever has before.

 

Here is an idea, why not revisit the whole partition thing all over again. We give the Palestinians the land that they have today. Basically Gaza and that bit on the eastern side of Israel. If they really want to call two disconnected bit of ground one nation, I am fine with that. Hey, it works for Michigan.

 

The only obligation that they would have is that they have to stop attacking Israel. Then they can get on with the business of building a viable economy if they can.

 

In turn, Israel will have the requirement that they cut out their aggression against the Palestinians.

 

If either side breaks the deal, then NATO is automatically granted the right to intervene however they see fit. It has to be NATO because the whole world knows that UN troops are basically useless. Now that Russia is an associate member of NATO, we let the Russians take part in the exercise. Right! The very people who are known for dealing with terrorists by destroying both the terrorists and the hostages.

 

If both sides know that the deal is that they will have their asses kicked, do you think that they might decide to finally play ball?

 

Nony: The thing that you are missing here is that Israel has nuclear weapons. They still refuse to admit it but everyone knows what the deal is. Including the world court. The implication to your “legal” solution is that the Palestinians will end up with nukes. Let's all join hands and say: AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN.

 

Past that, there is your assertion of legal ownership of the land. Let me explore that.

 

Do you remember in the 90's when Clinton had his highly illegal war in the former Yugoslavia? He never went to congress to get approval, he just did what he felt like and was never questioned because he could do no wrong.

 

Well, at one point, I remember one of the combatants being interviewed on CNN asserting that the other side was occupying a bit of land that was his. The basis of his claim was that his people had won a battle like seven hundred years ago. Great. Now tell me whose land it was before that battle? Oh wait! That would be the people they took it from.

 

Land ownership does not work like other property. Treaties are for after the ownership has changed. I took your stuff and you can't take it back. Here are the transfer documents, sign them.

 

The US was super nice to Japan after WW2. We could have continued the occupation as long as we wanted to. They might have become the 49^th state. We did not do that but it was our option to do so at the time.

p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

Actually Luminon, it is not a little known fact that they have nukes. It is widely known that they have what are known as 2.5 stage weapons. What you would call a hydrogen bomb (but the latter term is technically void of meaning).

 

There is the rub. What are we supposed to do with them? Let the Palestinians have them? Right. That is a viable solution.

'K, but you do understand that a) Death and destruction doesn't have the same weight on Palestinians that it has on Israel. b) If everything goes south, the people of Israel and Palestine will resolve to let their children rectify (read: knock the living fuck out of the other side) the situation, and failing that, their children's children. Both predominant religions associated with these two states basically greenlight this sort of thinking. Some people amongst Palestine may want peace, but just as many want vengeance for a dead family member, a dead friend, or an occupying force strangling the freedom and prosperity out of the natives. Which brings up another thing: do you propose that Israel completely evacuate the West Bank and tear down the walls encircling the various towns and cities there, or do they stay there and continue settling on land that wasn't even partitioned to them?

 

Yeah, I'm sure this all looks like a swell plan on paper, but reality might have a few words with you about it. And yes, the U.N. is pretty damned useless, not just it's troops. Even amongst pacifists it is known as the guard dog with no teeth.

Bad example. I really should bite my tongue on anything else I have to say about this...

A well estibalished principle in US law is that contracts made under duress can be overturned. If you look real hard you can find two or three cases to overturn a treaty or provisions of a treaty. Without hardly a google you can find hundreds filed by the Indians to enforce the provisions of the treaties.

You may try to make a case based upon the currently popular Hollywood treatment of Indians but the reality is only in the law. And the case history of the Indians before the courts has been in favor of the treaties. You can't make a real case when the people you claim to be defending are against your position.

Similar to your defense of genocide of the Palestinians, you raise the issue that NO ONE in Hollywood at least objects to the Indians having killed off as many invading Europeans as possible. You defend the Palestinians killing off as many Jews as possible ABSENT a peace treaty of any kind.

In this case the Jews went to Palestine after 1923 with the openly stated intention to steal the land and kill off the native population. Should such crimes be supported?

As to population growth, it has never been natural. The Jews have brought in their fellow thieves and murderers from around the world, millions of them, deliberately overpopulating the land. One cannot plead natural needs from self-inflicted wounds.

However this does not preclude paying for water. Nor does it justify the criminals squatters getting seven times the water as the people it is being stolen from.

In no way can it justify a jewish tyranny over people with no civil or human rights whatsoever whom Jews murder almost at whim and with trivial consequences if any at all.

 

The israeli government has declared publicly that it speaks for all the Jews in the world and its actions are for all the Jews in the world. Israel presently demands it be recognized as a jewish nation, a nation of the Jews.

I have followed this extensively. Other than the old line groups like Naturi Karta that few have even heard, the largely defunct Not In Our Name and an occasional embarrassed Jew here and there who pretends to be an atheist I have come across ZERO objection to these statements and the demand.

When it comes to committees and organizations per capita, Jews are second only to the B'hais. Other than the above mentioned there has not been a single objection to the position of Israel. Organizations which could be considered "major" such as the ADL and the AJC go out of their way to defend such claims by the government of Israel.

The jewish government of Israel even hides behind (lies about) being "jewish" when it whines that Israel is hated because it is "jewish" not because of its on-going atrocities against non-Jews.

IOW, Fuck Israel == Fuck the Jews because Israel has said it and no one objects.

As to the Palestinians, there is no attempt to canonize them. They are people too. Problem is Jews refuse to treat them like people.

However I say they deserve exactly the same standard of justice Jews demand for themselves. All Palestinians have the right to the same justice from the Jews that the Jews continue to demand from Germany, Poland and other countries in regard to events related to WWII. Both Palestinians and Israelis have a right to self-determination. Religions do not have such rights therefore Jews do not have that right.

I'm not defending genocide or anything. I'm just saying it's an expected outcome of population pressures. Even if there were no Jews there, the Palestinians would be killing each other to control the land.

My point is that your attacking the effect of population pressure(Jewish aggression) and not the cause. I think rational people need to say we need to have rational controls on population size and rational sharing of natural resources. If societies don't do this then expect genocide, war, famine, housing shortages and all kinds of misery.

I don't think saying this is 100% a Jewish problem does any good. All of humanity has this common problem. We either work together for a rational solution, or just expect war to be the outcome as it always has been.

I don't think your ancestors had been so innocent about not 'stealing and waging war' to get what they wanted. Otherwise they would have never survived.

Why isn't the high Palestinian birth rate as much an obstacle to peace as anything else?

http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2002-04-21/news/0204200468_1_palestinian-self-rule-birth-rate-west-bank

 

First off it is false and always has been since that fool Malthus first voiced it. Population increases AFTER the food supply increases not before it increases. The human condition is to live in subsistence level poverty absent industrialization.

Second there is not a single example in all of history where mere population pressure has lead to conflict. What has lead to conflict and governs this case is to gain a better life at the expense of the conquered. Stealing their land, water, resources and having a captive market is the way it is done these days. Taking slaves and demanding tribute is out of fashion although the results are the same.

So your basic premise is false or at least unique to this one conflict as it has not occurred before in human history.

Now lets look at the real problem as I mentioned above, ABSENT INDUSTRIALIZATION.

The Jews keeping the Palestinians in poverty guarantees a high birth rate. The only known way to reduce birth rate is economic improvement based upon industrialization. This requires education.

If Israel had conducted a lawful occupation, administering the land solely for the benefit of the occupied people, then it would be nearly as advanced as Israel by now and would have a birth rate equivalent to that of Israel now. But you cannot have it both ways.

It is the same problem Israel has because of its racist laws against non-jewish citizens of Israel. The laws keep them uneducated and in poverty and they have a high birth rate. And Israel permits them only 1% of the housing increases even though they are 16% of the population so they are forced into even worse conditions which increases the birth rate.

Human nature deals with racists in its own way.

 

It is incredibly amusing to hear the izziehuggers saying the US cannot condemn slavery because the US once had the legal institution of slavery.

Excuse me.

It is incredibly amusing to hear the izziehuggers saying the US cannot condemn the genocide of the Palestinians because it once genocided the Indians. 

In fact it is just a matter of time before Jews demand the right to own Palestinian slaves because the US once had slavery.

This is not to say there is a material difference between the current condition of Palestinians and slavery.

 

One would guess the same answer as to the other theocratic rogue state of Iran.

 

There is always preasure for the population to increase. Industrialization can lead to greater productivity, but then you get an influx of poor immigrants(al la USA) and a continued high birth rate amoung uneducated classes. This is why the USA can never win the war on poverty.

 

When has it not been a factor? We go to war in Iraq because we don't have enough oil for the popualtion we have now. There is a basic human instinct to horde because this can lead to greater sucess at the expense of those you're competing against.

I agree, people have to find a way to share resources for there to be peace. But you can't have a plan to share with Palestinians like Arafart that tell women 'have 12 children for Palestine and Allah'. All there can be is war and famine. But the leftists give him a Nobel Peace prize and want welfare states that reward women that do this.
 

What are the Jews supposed to do then to stop "keeping the Palestinians in poverty"? There children need land and water, and their god also tells them to "be fruitful".

I agree if they could get an education, the birth rates would drop. Right now their in the cycle of poverty and war. The only way to get out  of the cycle is for both the Jews and Palestinians to agree to limit family sizes by mandatory means.

No, you don't see that neither is a good thing to do. Just because one bad thing already happened, we have the right to do another? We're supposed to show some progress, not repeat old mistakes. 
In this case, USA should at least stop vetoing the countless OSN resolutions and sanctions agaist Israel, which it well deserves. That would teach them.

What poverty? Equality is not poverty. 
And Israelites? They are well-capable of becoming poor on their own, as shown by recent pro-social demonstrations.  The gap between the rich and poor increases quickly even there, among Jews who are supposed to know something about savings and investment. 
I like socialism. It may not generate wealth, but it preserves it for a long time and eliminates extremes in poverty and wealth.

More reasons to return Palestinians what they took from them, cut down the military expenses and use the money for the people. 
They may not live along each other in one mutual state, but if Israel estabilishes itself only on 50% of original Palestinian territory (instead of the current 90%) Palestinian leaders should agree. That is a fair offer, compared to the jokes they were offered in the past.

Maybe because Apaches and Mexicans aren't willing to blow up buildings, airplanes, themselves and people around, all around the world, to emphasize their point. 
The conflict of Israel and Palestine is a reminder for Muslim states around to be as mean to their enemies as they can, which means there never can be peace in the world, as long as this conflict exists. There is much to be gained by ending this conflict with justice, recognizing and punishing the true aggressors, at least in humanistic propaganda, diplomatic leverage and military savings. 

 

And the Palestinians took the land from some other tribe, that took it from some other tribe, that took it from some other tribe, and so on...

Why not abandon the whole concept of land ownership altogether? I mean they all believe these lands were promised by their invisible sky daddy that is OK with genocide of the other side, so we see what kind of rationality we're dealing with. THEY'RE ALL NUTS.

The Palestinians and Jews both believe all of the 'promised land' is theirs. How can they now say their OK with half their 'promised land'? For their to be peace:

1. They would both have to abandon their religions and their 'promised land' delusions.

2. They would have to agree to share the land and water for the mutual benefit of everyone, no more states based on religion or ethnicity.

3. They would have to all agree to limit family sizes.

 

It probably ain't going to happens so I say fuck both sides, they can all just kill each other if they don't agree to this, just ignore them all. Build a big fence to keep nutty religious breeders and their 'promises' from sky daddy away from me.

 

OK so the Apaches and Mexicans don't get 'their' land(that they took from others) back only because they don't commit terrorism like the Muslims??? So the lesson is terrorism works, if you want something start throwing bombs and you'll give them whatever they want. We have ware because war works.

 

This is not about land ownership. This is about feeling at home, about building a house, living there, raising a family, and the injustice of being forced to abandon it all. Injustice is the main cause of terrorism. No wonder they're all nuts, out of rage. You would be too. All the bullshit with national pride and religious promises from god is fueled by that rage.

There are three points. Firstly, Jews and Palestinians were 2000 years ago closely related nations, races, tribes, or something like that. This is why they had no problem to live in the same area. 

Secondly, that is now impossible, because Jews invaded the place with military force and grabbed the land through the tactics of building illegal settlements with guarded roads between them. Too much blood was shed and now these two ethnicities can't live within the same border. 

Thirdly, there are laws and laws are good. Aggression of a state against another state is a crime. Punishing that crime is a justice. States and their leaders, governmental and military must be held responsible for their crimes, just like any other criminals. Justice removes injustice, the main cause of terrorism. Allows us to solve conflicts peacefully and constructively. This is what we want, because next time you may be in a similar situation. You get cornered by a 100kg mugger with a big gun and bystanders deem you unworthy of the justice I'm talking about, because, quoting, 'fuck both sides, they can all just kill each other if they don't agree to this, just ignore them all.'
This shouldn't happen, because you're a citizen and you have rights. Imagine, that states are like citizens of the planet and they have rights too.

 

Of course terrorism works, this is why it's so popular. I mean the rich man's terrorism, employed by USA and by Israel. Well-financed terrorism uses modern weaponry for political goals.

The problem with poor man's terrorism is, that there is no way how to get bomb to the target, except by suicide bombers. This is why there must be extreme amount of injustice, so people become desperate enough to be willing to do that. Otherwise normally they don't, that's what having a good life is about.

Terrorism is not the root of the problem, actually. The problem is the disorder causing injustice, causing terrorism. If there is so much disorder to cause violence in folks that would be otherwise glad to live peacefully, (dunno how many men, but 100% of mothers and children) it really really deserves international attention and intervention in favor of the oppressed. Confiscating all weapons of BOTH sides in the process looks like a good idea.

 

Hey EXC, please don't take it personally, but it looks to me like you find it diffcult to use empathy. Most of the answers I write to you are a simple ethics people learn at kindergarten. My guess is you have a light brain damage, which disabled your empathic abilities. This is a common condition often found among succesful stock market gamblers. They are more succesful than others, because they can invest or withdraw funds completely regardless of any ethical inhibitions, purely according to intellectual estimates of profit. Nowadays they're replaced by computers who can make the same rational decisions. Perhaps you might consider a new career, if the stock markets wouldn't be doomed to fall in several years.

Their acceptance is immaterial to the fact that Israel murdered an American citizen in international waters and the US kisses its kosher (and democratic) ass.

That said the referral to the WCJ is a heads' up on coming attractions.

 

The Palestinians are people whose ancestors converted from Judaism to Islam.

Gift of a mountain (not sky) god is an exclusively jewish fantasy. The Palestinian claim is based upon ownership of the land. That they did own the land is confirmed by Israel's Absentee Owners laws which were passed in 1949. Under color of law they were used to steal some 87% of the land from its rightful owners. If they tried to return to their homes Jews murdered them. If those in the Israeli concentration camps were found outside them after curfew they were murdered. It is the fact of murder which makes it theft under color of law.

So please stop saying the Palestinians are a stupid or as thieving and murdering as the Jews. They clearly are not. 

Anti-zionism is a moral imperative. By definition all zionists are murderers and thieves. If you do not understand that you know nothing of zionism. If Israel wished to be called a zionist nation that would absolve the Jews. However Israel wished to be called a jewish nation without objection from Jews. Jews bathe in their own murder and theft.

That is because you are ignorant of the side of the victims. It would be good if you were to remedy your ignorance.

No one forced Jews to go to Palestine. It was their free choice which started in the 1890s, shortly after the Franco-Prussian war. That means they caused it. It was their choice and their choice alone.

It was also their public policy to kill or expel the Palestinians since the early 1920s. That is not a secret. Polite society just isn't supposed to talk about it.

p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

Have you actually read the report? It never once says that the ships were not headed for Gaza. What it says on that account is that the ships were indeed headed for Gaza and that they ignored four warnings over a period of six hours. One of them did change course but not until the IDF had already engaged them, and even then, it is possible that that would have been a more direct rout into the Gaza area.

p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

Indeed, I can read a map. At that point 185 would put them on course to El Arish which was their backup port. However, if that was the plan, would it not have been prudent to get on the radio and tell the Navy what the plan was? Oddly enough, they actually did the maneuver right at the point where they had been planning to come to 140 for the run in.

 

Another problem was that it was only the ship with the contraband that made the course change. According to the report, the rest of the flotilla stayed at 222 which would actually have sent them to the middle of nowhere. You don't think that that could have been seen as a diversionary move to see if they could get the Navy to chase the other ships while the actual run in was being made?

p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

I have the report as well. I see that you are taking uncritically the Turkish part of the report. I am working from the findings.

 

104. We have made it clear that we consider that Israel was entitled to impose the

naval blockade. It follows that Israel was also entitled to enforce it. The manner of its

enforcement, however, raises serious issues of concern.

 

105. Although it has been suggested that an understanding was reached through

diplomatic channels that the flotilla would, if necessary, divert to the Egyptian port of Al-

Arish 335 any such understanding was not reflected in the port records or the responses the

Israeli Navy received from the ships of the flotilla when they were challenged. Port

Authority Records supplied by Turkey state that the intended destination of the vessels

was Gaza. 336 Material in both national reports confirms that repeated messages were

transmitted from the flotilla that they were sailing to Gaza and that the Israeli Navy had

no power to stop or order them to change course while they were in international

waters. 337

 

106. The first warning radioed by the Israeli Navy to the flotilla invited the vessels to

head for Ashdod port where the humanitarian supplies could be delivered. 338 The second

warning requested them to change course and not enter the blockade area. 339 Two

subsequent warnings were delivered emphasizing that “all necessary measures” would be

taken to enforce the blockade, including through the boarding of the vessels. 340

 

107. Material before the Panel indicates that between 10.58 p.m. and 11.58 p.m. on 30

May 2010 the Mavi Marmara changed course from a bearing of 222o to one of 185o. 341

However, there is dispute about the significance of this. The Turkish report states that

this course was directed towards a point between Al-Arish and the Suez Canal; 342 while

Israel maintains it in fact turned the vessels more directly towards Gaza. 343 Given the

distance of the vessels from shore, it is hard to draw a firm conclusion as to their

intention from their course alone. Significantly, although the Israeli Navy continued to issue warnings, no radio message was transmitted by the flotilla indicating that its course

or intended destination had been changed.

 

108. On the best view we can form of the matter we believe it was reasonable in the

circumstances for the Israeli Navy to conclude that the vessels of the flotilla intended to

proceed to Gaza. That is what they repeatedly said. That intention was consistent with

an intention to breach the blockade.

 

109. For Israel to maintain the blockade it had to be effective, so it must be enforced.

That is a clear legal requirement for a blockade.344 Such enforcement may take place on

the high seas and may be conducted by force if a vessel resists. To this point in the

analysis no difficulty arises. But the subsequent steps taken raise serious questions as to

whether the enforcement was executed appropriately in the circumstances.

So the Jews should just put a gun to the heads of the Palestinian leaders and force them to sign a treaty making themselves the lawful owners. Then they can kick out all the Palestinians because their leaders signed this treaty just like the Indians and Mexicans.

Who the fuck is to say what is lawful, it's just whoever has the biggest guns make the laws.

Ideals are eternal. But only very recently the humanity has global technologies and culture that make them possible.

Ethics is not tradeoff, it's a sacrifice of the primitive behavior in favor of the advanced. It's tough, but worth it.

Of course I want to see the real results in the world. Maybe I am a junkie of brain chemistry, but my main drug is not empathogen, it's just plain endorphine triggered by music. Empathy is an inner motivation, but what I really want is harmony (people getting along reasonably well) achieved through order in the system and motivating people to want to fit in. 

The world is in disorder, because our key elements in the system are set to create inequality and expansion.  That wasn't a problem in the past, because the nature and unconquered or weaker countries acted as a buffer, which is gone by now. Now we need to radically change most of areas of our lives, by deliberately focusing on what's best in us and getting organized in such a way, that it will be viable. You already mentioned sharing of resources. That is the essential first step. 

And why do you think I'm not in favor of this? Who propagates the two greatest promoters of resource sharing, The Zeitgeist Movement (and Venus Project) and Ben Creme's Share International? Who studies public administration and laws? My country is in disorder, because the people on the top use the disorder to cover their thievery. Don't mind my idealism, it's the best protection agaist bribery. If outer values lead to corruption or dependence on status quo, we must derive pleasure from inner values. If I ever get anywhere public, I want to play on public opinion with spotless white shield, while still showing brains enough to organize things correctly. 

Very well. But are you correct in trusting it as it is? Science is good, but it serves market forces of the status quo. What if  I want science and reason applied on global and state management AND non-violent replacement of the current primitive notions of nationalism and government. What state would pay for such a research?

This is why, when I'm finished with the public administration, I want to study sociology, plus related areas, psycho-and politology. You may see people realistically, but you don't influence people with magnetic and electric fields. System and science is one thing, but you galvanize and magnetize them with charisma, good will, art, shared purpose, vision of an ideal and trust in regular delivery of results. That is a science, or should be.