Israel

For the serious discussion of weighty matters and worldly issues. No off-topic posts allowed.

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11128
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

Postby Yakk » Tue Apr 03, 2007 12:19 am UTC

Vaniver wrote:
And yes, I'm annoyed. You claimed your reference was in answer to my question, but instead it just wasted my time.
Which was its own small victory :P


So you are trolling? Please don't troll. It isn't polite.

My answer is twofold; first, I do not think anyone has a satisfactory answer,


Really, a yes or a no would be satisfactory. Even an honest "I don't know" would do. I asked a question: my goal wasn't to find a perfectly justified universal truth, my goal was to determine people's opinions and beliefs.

and second, I do not think they do, but not for moral reasons.


Please provide reasons, rather than things that are not reasons.
[SNIP]

If one looks at the dialogue as a prompt instead of a solution, its relevance to the first becomes more clear.


Please communicate thoughts, rather than asking me to read your mind.

[SNIP]
Last edited by Yakk on Tue Apr 03, 2007 1:31 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
3.14159265...
Irrational (?)
Posts: 2413
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 12:05 am UTC
Location: Ajax, Canada

Postby 3.14159265... » Tue Apr 03, 2007 12:29 am UTC

The jews of Iran have pretty good rights I would say relative to the other citizens of that country as well.

K well if Israel is SO great, why don't they just bring in ALL palestiains into the society, DISARM EVERYONE. including Israelis, enforce law big time. bring in public institutions, and give everyone full rights, and give palestians some start money to start building their lives.


Oh wait that was my original idea..

Can't call it Israel either, have to call it something ARabs are cool with, also flag and national language etc.
"The best times in life are the ones when you can genuinely add a "Bwa" to your "ha""- Chris Hastings

User avatar
Rorgg
Posts: 78
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 6:06 pm UTC

Postby Rorgg » Tue Apr 03, 2007 5:12 am UTC

We can't wish the Isralis into a secular and moral people.
[...]
I am not racist,


If you'd say less, you'd have a better chance of being believed.

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Postby Vaniver » Tue Apr 03, 2007 2:26 pm UTC

So you are trolling? Please don't troll. It isn't polite.
No, but I joke about trolling.

Please communicate thoughts, rather than asking me to read your mind.
Sorry.

It is considerably harder to argue from a moral standpoint that power is not inherently linked to responsibility to use that power well. It is easy from a historical standpoint to argue that power is not inherently linked to responsibility to use that power well. But, saying "this is the way things are" is not saying "this is the way things should be". The Melian dialogue brings up both points, and records the way things ended.

DISARM EVERYONE
Making it illegal to have weapons ensures that the only people with weapons will be the criminals. Given the number of Palestinians and others who can already smuggle illegal explosives and use them to inflict significant amounts of harm against an armed populace, what could they do with organized crime and illegal weapons against an unarmed populace?

Keep in mind that the Cave of the Patriarchs massacre had so many victims because only one man had a gun, and didn't stop shooting until he was beaten to death. If all they had to do was shoot him, lives would have been saved.
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

User avatar
3.14159265...
Irrational (?)
Posts: 2413
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 12:05 am UTC
Location: Ajax, Canada

Postby 3.14159265... » Tue Apr 03, 2007 5:44 pm UTC

Yes give everyone guns that fixes everything..... wait no give the police guns only and no one does shit,.... right thats a good idea, specially if the borders are securely monitored by lets say the UN. oh wait thats a great idea.


As for you Rorrg. I would suggest reading through this.

You have just proven you ARE racist. here is why:

Earlier
Vanivier wrote:we can't wish the Palestinians into an educated, secular group


As a response to this type of negligence I put that up, and reasoned that if he says that, it should be ok to say that. It was exactly my point that Racist people as yourself don't even see that they are racist.

You are ok with calling the palestinians relgious fanatic illiterate people but not the Israelies immoral and religiously fanataic. You see both have the same stupid justification, you are only minding one.

This is because you are RACIST. I am not meaning to make you feel bad, just that you should realize that to you Israeli kids are soooo much in every way better than palestinians, that is Racist, and untrue. FIRST Be human, THEN be a jew or Israeli and whatever you want.
"The best times in life are the ones when you can genuinely add a "Bwa" to your "ha""- Chris Hastings

User avatar
Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11128
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

Postby Yakk » Tue Apr 03, 2007 5:55 pm UTC

The humans called "palistinians" are not inheritly non-secular or uneducated.

Statistically, they happen to be currently extremely non-secular and uneducated.

One of the two statements is a racist claim. The other is an observation about the world that doesn't have to be racist.

...

Educating and modernizing an entire people is an insanely hard task. Wishing it to happen won't make it so.

Yes give everyone guns that fixes everything..... wait no give the police guns only and no one does shit,.... right thats a good idea, specially if the borders are securely monitored by lets say the UN. oh wait thats a great idea.


And the police with guns? Who will be the police? Who will police the police?

Securing a border to keep guns out? Are you crazy? Name me one border that was secure enough that someone with millions of dollars couldn't smuggle weapons through it.

The level of economic and physical oppression required to prevent people from having the chance to smuggle weapons into an area is insanely high. But I guess so long as everyone in the region is equally oppressed, you find that acceptable?

It is considerably harder to argue from a moral standpoint that power is not inherently linked to responsibility to use that power well. It is easy from a historical standpoint to argue that power is not inherently linked to responsibility to use that power well.


There is some correlation between having power and using it well: societies that use power stupidly tend to destroy themselves before they gain power. :)

But, saying "this is the way things are" is not saying "this is the way things should be". The Melian dialogue brings up both points, and records the way things ended.


The way things should be can provide incentive to act: to oppose or support a cause.

That is assuming one actually believes in one's morality. Many people don't.

User avatar
3.14159265...
Irrational (?)
Posts: 2413
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 12:05 am UTC
Location: Ajax, Canada

Postby 3.14159265... » Tue Apr 03, 2007 6:03 pm UTC

Yes yakk by the same criterion you use to judge the humans called "Palestians". I can judge the humans and only humans called "The jews of Israel" as IMMORAL and RELIGOUS FANATICS.

That was my point, that the same justification can be used, its just stupid. If you see one as racist, and the other as an observation.... well then, I guess I dont' have to let you know but I will. YOU THINK ISRAELIS ARE BETTER THAN PALESTIANS.


Who will the police be? Palestinians and Israelis, If you people are so untrusting of each other, than the chinese? that good?

Why would people want to bring in weapons, if they live in an unopressed region. I know the palestians the majority of them, just want to live, and so the Israelis. Let them live together.

People who see that as a problem are Kahane members and Hammas members. Both sides have idiots, admit this. Both sides have their idiots, and they are as stupid as each other. Do you know how fast the palestinians would get rid of Hammas if they had a nice society to live in?
"The best times in life are the ones when you can genuinely add a "Bwa" to your "ha""- Chris Hastings

User avatar
Rorgg
Posts: 78
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 6:06 pm UTC

Postby Rorgg » Tue Apr 03, 2007 6:40 pm UTC

As for you Rorrg. I would suggest reading through this.

You have just proven you ARE racist. here is why:

First, it's Rorgg.

Second, I have done no such thing, and I emphatically deny it. Furthermore, I find your habitual accusations of racism draped on everyone who disagrees with you completely repugnant.

Earlier
Vanivier wrote:
we can't wish the Palestinians into an educated, secular group

As a response to this type of negligence I put that up, and reasoned that if he says that, it should be ok to say that.

You're wrong. It's reasonable to make a statement about education, because there are ways to measure such things such as literacy rates and years of schooling. It's a value-neutral, empirical observation that Palestinians, on the whole, do not receive as much education as any Western nation. This says absolutely nothing about them genetically any more than noting the gross national product of Lichtenstein.

As for secularism, that's less easily measured, but it's still generally a value-neutral statement.

You did not parrot his statement, you said "we can't wish the Israelis into an educated, moral group" which is completely different. It's a blatant accusation of systemic personal deficiencies among an entire group. Your statement is the absolute, dictionary definition of bigotry, and you made it as part of an accusation of racism in another. That's not only wrong, it's disgusting hypocricy of the first order.

It was exactly my point that Racist people as yourself don't even see that they are racist.

Statement without foundation. You have made no case that I am racist except for that I disagree with your view and have pointed out your hypocricy and logistical lapses.

You are ok with calling the palestinians relgious fanatic illiterate people

I am? Where? Because I didn't challenge Vaniver's statement? Illiteracy is a measure of education. And by that measure, that group has fewer literate people. This is a fact.
Not secular? There's a wide, wide variation of people who are not secular. The people of the United States are on average less secular than any Western European democracy, and no one would call them "religious fanatics" as a group. You're putting not only words in my mouth, but basing them on my failure to disagree with a statement someone else made?

That's an arguement of not only ignorance, not knowing if I actually, do in fact agree with the statement, but of incredible bad faith and hyperbole, interpreting a value neutral statement in the most derogatory and vicious manner possible in order to make vile accusations.

That's reprehensible.

but not the Israelies immoral and religiously fanataic.

You're right. I didn't call the Israeli people immoral, nor those of any other nation, nor the derogatory appellation of religiously fanatic, exactly as I have not made any statements of this sort regarding any other group.

You see both have the same stupid justification, you are only minding one.

Your statement is not equivalent, as above.

This is because you are RACIST.

I deny this and challenge you to make any rational, supported statement otherwise, which you have thus far failed and will henceforth continue to fail to do, despite your apparent desire to dismiss all those with dissenting opinions as irrational hatemongers.

I am not meaning to make you feel bad, just that you should realize that to you Israeli kids are soooo much in every way better than palestinians,

I have never said or implied that by word or deed, and your outright accusation that I have is grossly unjust and disgusting.

that is Racist, and untrue.

The only true thing you said in this entire rambling post.

FIRST Be human, THEN be a jew or Israeli and whatever you want.

Is it just killing you that you DON'T actually know my background and are therefore unable to make a blanket accusation based on it?

User avatar
3.14159265...
Irrational (?)
Posts: 2413
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 12:05 am UTC
Location: Ajax, Canada

Postby 3.14159265... » Tue Apr 03, 2007 6:49 pm UTC

I don't need to know your background, I was assuming you were one of the few Israelis here.

As for the Israelis being immoral, arlight here goes my reasoning:

1) Creating third generation refugees
2) Dropping cluster bombs on Lebanon
3) Giving weapons to Kahane members are CURRENTLY conducting raids on palestinian villages.
4) Soldiers standing at the border not letting kids go through to their villages till about 7pm after school just for the fun of it. (proof of this, watch "Avenge but one of my eyes" by an Isralie, Avi Mograbi was his name I think.

That is immorality.
Relgious fanatacism, please refer to the given information earlier about how religious israeli's are. Other examples also include groups like Kahane.

so the religion thing is hard to measure just as it is for the palestinian side.
The education, well you create an operational definitoin of education which involved formal schooling and go by it.
I creat an operation definition of morality, that is something along the lines of "Killing humans=bad, making people suffer=bad" Thus making the Israeli government and those who support it by making Aliya or not protesting Immoral.

Me calling you racist has to do with the fact that you can not comprehend this fact that those two statements are just AS STUPID not more not less.
"The best times in life are the ones when you can genuinely add a "Bwa" to your "ha""- Chris Hastings

User avatar
Rorgg
Posts: 78
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 6:06 pm UTC

Postby Rorgg » Tue Apr 03, 2007 7:14 pm UTC

3.14159265... wrote:I don't need to know your background, I was assuming you were one of the few Israelis here.

You may want to question your assumptions.


As for the Israelis being immoral, arlight here goes my reasoning:
1) Creating third generation refugees

Firstly, policy decisions by the government, which cannot be blanketly applied to the people.
Secondly, this is a responsibility that is jointly shared by the Arab nations in the region, a point I made in my very first post in this thread, to which you said you agreed.

2) Dropping cluster bombs on Lebanon

A policy decision by the government, which cannot be blanketly applied to the people.

3) Giving weapons to Kahane members are CURRENTLY conducting raids on palestinian villages.

A policy decision by the government, which cannot be blanketly applied to the people.

4) Soldiers standing at the border not letting kids go through to their villages till about 7pm after school just for the fun of it. (proof of this, watch "Avenge but one of my eyes" by an Isralie, Avi Mograbi was his name I think.

An act by specific people for which there is only anecdotal evidence, and cannot be blanketly applied to the people.

That is immorality.

Congratulations. Assuming we in full agree on your definition of immoral, you've shown that there are some Israelis that have done immoral things.

You have not shown that Israelis are on the whole immoral.

You're conducting the logical fallacy here known as "seculum quid" or the "hasty generalization" as well as the "biased sample" fallacy.
Relgious fanatacism, please refer to the given information earlier about how religious israeli's are.

Unless you define any religiosity as fanaticism, this remains an unproven point.

Other examples also include groups like Kahane.

Kahane was an overzealous nutcase. I thought I agreed with that. And, as such, he was removed from the Knesset and his party was outlawed. That sounds like a repudiation of his policies.

so the religion thing is hard to measure just as it is for the palestinian side.
The education, well you create an operational definitoin of education which involved formal schooling and go by it.

Well, if you have some other definition of "education" from which you choose to argue, go ahead. But the "uneducated" part just happened to be in the middle of "Israelis" and "moral" so it seemed bad form to elide it. If you want to discuss it, though, feel free. It's not really a point of contention.

I creat an operation definition of morality, that is something along the lines of "Killing humans=bad, making people suffer=bad" Thus making the Israeli government and those who support it by making Aliya or not protesting Immoral.

You're making another logical fallacy here, the one known as the "association fallacy" or "package deal." Let's deal with the items seperately.
You call the Israeli government immoral. I don't know how a thing can be moral or immoral, I think "amoral" is probably a better description. You make a rational argument that it's carried out immoral policies, which is fine, and note that I haven't disputed you on this.
You have NOT shown that Aliyah (to use its common transliteration) is immoral, and its conflation with occupation policies is unsupported by rational process.

A very good discussion can be had as to the morality of that policy, but its been bogged down by these ridiculous forays into name-calling.

Me calling you racist has to do with the fact that you can not comprehend this fact that those two statements are just AS STUPID not more not less.

I disagree with your assumptions, style, and rationalization process, and have pointed out several logical failings of your argument. I submit that your accusation of racism is an attempt to dismiss my arguments (with which, mind you, you said you largely agreed at the start of the discussion) via an ad hominem rather than addressing them on their merits.

I still find the allegations baseless and repugnant.

User avatar
3.14159265...
Irrational (?)
Posts: 2413
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 12:05 am UTC
Location: Ajax, Canada

Postby 3.14159265... » Tue Apr 03, 2007 7:30 pm UTC

I did agree with some of your ideas I do remember that.

However you have to understand that my "package deal" is a generalization not a hasty or a wrong one. See If a people continue to support a government doing immoral stuff, those people are immoral. If you don't agree on this with me, I have nothing to give you, that is just obvious to me, that people make and break their governements and whether or not they like it, they are responsible for the action of their government if it is not just a single isolated case.

So according to that anyone who make Aliyah or even votes in Israeli elections is immoral, because the government does immoral stuff which you have not contested, thank you :D.

If you disagree with that I seriously have nothing.

As for religiousity: Letting religion control state is religious, and Israel does this, this is hard to see since Judaism and Jewish culture are mingled, but I say any idea that originiated at Judaism should be conisdered a religous deal. Kahane the group not the perosn, the group that currently has MANY supporters (wanna find me the numbers?) is a religious fanatic group.

If people I think don't acknowledge that Israelies ane palestinians are just as immoral and religious, we can't make any progress.

CURRENTLY I think Israelis are NOT better than Palestinians. This has to be accepted before this argument can continue.
"The best times in life are the ones when you can genuinely add a "Bwa" to your "ha""- Chris Hastings

User avatar
Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11128
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

Postby Yakk » Tue Apr 03, 2007 7:36 pm UTC

3.14159265... wrote:Yes yakk by the same criterion you use to judge the humans called "Palestians". I can judge the humans and only humans called "The jews of Israel" as IMMORAL and RELIGOUS FANATICS.


There are religious fanatics amoung the jews of isreal. There are immoral people amoung the jews of isreal.

Can you please repeat the statistical evidence you put foward that demonstrates such statements apply in general?

That was my point, that the same justification can be used, its just stupid.


If one side can provide statistical evidence, and the other cannot, then one side has justification that the other side does not.

If you see one as racist, and the other as an observation.... well then, I guess I dont' have to let you know but I will. YOU THINK ISRAELIS ARE BETTER THAN PALESTIANS.


Insulting other posters is specifically forbidden by the rules of this forum. Stop it.

User avatar
Rorgg
Posts: 78
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 6:06 pm UTC

Postby Rorgg » Tue Apr 03, 2007 8:21 pm UTC

However you have to understand that my "package deal" is a generalization not a hasty or a wrong one.

I understand that you believe that, but I think it's an unsupported statement making a gross generalization based on notable examples.

See If a people continue to support a government doing immoral stuff, those people are immoral.

I called Israel a functioning democracy (again, something you agreed with) and one of the hallmarks of a functioning democracy is an opposition, which they have.

So according to that anyone who make Aliyah or even votes in Israeli elections is immoral, because the government does immoral stuff which you have not contested, thank you Very Happy.

This is the same conflation I mentioned in my prior post along with being illogical and a complete non-sequitur.

If you disagree with that I seriously have nothing.

I can agree with that.

As for religiousity: Letting religion control state is religious, and Israel does this, this is hard to see since Judaism and Jewish culture are mingled, but I say any idea that originiated at Judaism should be conisdered a religous deal.

Nation-building by ethnicity and language is the single most common method there is. If Jews as a majority ethnic group want to have a nation where one did not exist previously and where they owned most of the territory, I have difficulty with the concept that it's any less legitimate than Finland is.
If you can accept that, then the religiosity of the group is completely irrelevant.

Kahane the group not the perosn, the group that currently has MANY supporters (wanna find me the numbers?) is a religious fanatic group.

Again, a point that has been pointed out, and again I submit that his party was outlawed, a formal repudiation of it.

CURRENTLY I think Israelis are NOT better than Palestinians. This has to be accepted before this argument can continue.

"Better" is a term so broad as to be meaningless in this context, and as such this is a point on which I personally never argued.

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Postby Vaniver » Tue Apr 03, 2007 9:24 pm UTC

wait no give the police guns only and no one does shit,.... right thats a good idea, specially if the borders are securely monitored by lets say the UN. oh wait thats a great idea.
I invite you to look into real gun control laws, instead of imaginary ones. They work rather differently. (You could look into DC if you don't know of anyplace with strict gun control)

It was exactly my point that Racist people as yourself don't even see that they are racist.
But I agreed with you that both of them were true; just that the Palestinians had quite a bit longer to go in educating themselves (look up their literacy rates) and in secularizing themselves.

You see both have the same stupid justification, you are only minding one.
This conflict is not just about religion, and when it is about religion, it is one-sided. Jews have no problem with minding their own business when it comes to religion; Muslims in the third world tend to want to exterminate or convert infidels. If you disagree with this, I'm afraid you know next to nothing about either religion, and may want to do some more research.

FIRST Be human, THEN be a jew or Israeli and whatever you want.
It's kind of hard to be a jew or Israeli when I'm neither; I'm actually predominantly German.

There is some correlation between having power and using it well: societies that use power stupidly tend to destroy themselves before they gain power.
True. I was using a simplified way of modeling it that didn't examine the impact that power usage would have on itself.

Yes yakk by the same criterion you use to judge the humans called "Palestians". I can judge the humans and only humans called "The jews of Israel" as IMMORAL and RELIGOUS FANATICS.
The thing is... we're looking at the same evidence. We're coming to nearly the opposite conclusion that you are. One of us is more wrong than the other; have you considered that it could be you that is wrong? (and yes, by the way, I have considered whether or not I'm wrong. If you pay attention closely, you'll notice tens of edits to my posts after they first come out, smoothing logic or correcting grammatical errors)

YOU THINK ISRAELIS ARE BETTER THAN PALESTIANS.
You're confusing result with methodology.

I can look at two math test scores and say: "The first is an B, the second is a D". I can then hand them back to the students; imagine that, for whatever reason, the first student is white and the second student is black. Was the test racist? Only if the test contained race-specific questions, which a math test probably won't.

Why would people want to bring in weapons, if they live in an unopressed region.
Because crime pays? Because it gives them power over others? Because they enjoy gun ownership?

Both sides have idiots, admit this.
How are we defining sides? The majority of idiots in the Israeli government have been kicked out. Does the Israeli government still "have" them?

Both sides have their idiots, and they are as stupid as each other.
I don't see how you are equating their stupidity without an intelligence test. But, pretending you meant something like "hate-filled" or "violent" instead, they clearly aren't equal.

First, it's Rorgg.
You say that like he's spelled anyone's name except Yakk's correctly.

I don't need to know your background, I was assuming you were one of the few Israelis here.
If only we had some sort of litmus test for racism.

As for the Israelis being immoral, arlight here goes my reasoning:
Have you noted where we disputed points 1, 2, and 3? (I don't think you brought up 4 before)

Other examples also include groups like Kahane.
Did you even bother to read our reasons why Kahane shouldn't be counted as representative of Israelis?

The education, well you create an operational definitoin of education which involved formal schooling and go by it.
... What definition of education does not involve formal schooling? I think you might need a new dictionary.

I creat an operation definition of morality, that is something along the lines of "Killing humans=bad, making people suffer=bad"
And your morality is not complex enough to deal with real situations. Please refine it or stop using it.

Me calling you racist has to do with the fact that you can not comprehend this fact that those two statements are just AS STUPID not more not less.
Racist does not mean "someone who compares". If you think it does, please, look it up in a dictionary.

However you have to understand that my "package deal" is a generalization not a hasty or a wrong one. See If a people continue to support a government doing immoral stuff, those people are immoral. If you don't agree on this with me, I have nothing to give you, that is just obvious to me, that people make and break their governements and whether or not they like it, they are responsible for the action of their government if it is not just a single isolated case.
So, in other words, the Iraqi people approved of Saddam's oppression and prison systems?
Governments are not broken at the drop of a hat. Israelis cannot be held responsible for something their government does; should we execute every American for the reprehensible actions of one American soldier? No. Personal responsibility is the only sane way to do morality.

If you disagree with that I seriously have nothing.
Emphasis mine.
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

User avatar
3.14159265...
Irrational (?)
Posts: 2413
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 12:05 am UTC
Location: Ajax, Canada

Postby 3.14159265... » Wed Apr 04, 2007 12:50 am UTC

K first off, sry If I am pissing you off, I have been pissed at Israel for a week now, for the death of a friend's friend. Who I am quite sure was not a Hammas member or such. So I am gonna try and tone this down and respond. I don't get names right, because I dont' think they matter, u can call me 22/7 its close enough.


I like to base things on personal experience alot, since I can trust it.

Muslims are not tolerant of other religions, especially if they have to deal with other people's religions. Jews are not tolerant either, this I know from talking with alot of Jews in this year as my above examples illustrate.

Ramanujan had barely any formal education, as for what a "correct" definition of education should be.

Kahane is taken out of government not out of life. There are still many supporters of it, whom the Israeli government chooses not to prosecute.

Ok so how religious is Israel? This was posted and I am too lasy to search it, you may.


Iraq's people couldn't overthrow Saddam because he was a dictator, Israel's people can vote a better party in, thats why they are responsible.


Here is my question to you then:
What do you think should be done?
Also include a way to pay back the palestinians for three generations of suffering, and a way of getting palestinians to have easy access to Jerusalem or "Bait-ul-mugades".

Edit: Here I found some stats, they ARE cited in wiki

"in 2005 the population was 76.1% Jewish, 16.2% Muslim, 2.1% Christian, and 1.6% Druze, with the remaining 3.9% (mainly immigrants from the former Soviet Union) not classified by religion."
"The best times in life are the ones when you can genuinely add a "Bwa" to your "ha""- Chris Hastings

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Postby Vaniver » Wed Apr 04, 2007 2:05 am UTC

Jews are not tolerant either, this I know from talking with alot of Jews in this year as my above examples illustrate.
I think we're talking about different tolerants. I don't expect there to be much love for Muslims among Jews, but I don't expect there to be significant numbers of people who actively go out and kill Muslims. The last statement must exclude the military, since they're killing because their superiors told them to, not because of the target; I'm also using 'significant' to mean "a higher incidence of mass murderers than would be normal for a population of that size". It needs to be a systematic thing.

As said by someone else some time ago, "you don't see Jews blowing themselves up in German restaurants".

Ramanujan had barely any formal education, as for what a "correct" definition of education should be.
But, all the famous Ramanujans were literate, were they not? That's the only measure of education that has been brought up in this thread, since degree statistics are somewhat harder to come by.

Kahane is taken out of government not out of life.
Are you suggesting that they should be killed because of their political views?

There are still many supporters of it, whom the Israeli government chooses not to prosecute.
I find it hard to believe that the government chooses not to prosecute them.

What do you think should be done?
I think that Israel should continue to defend itself. I think that, as Israel was not the one who started the wars in which it gained land, it has a legitimate claim to that land. I feel that the Arabs are largely the ones perpetuating the conflict, and Israel is generally happy to not become violent if it is not the target of violence. Until the rest of the Arab world (or, at least, the adjacent Arab world) decides, for itself, that it is better to coexist with Israel than be beaten by Israel, some form of violence is inevitable. Several of the countries nearby have decided to recognize Israel, and they're benefiting from it. But, that isn't something you can force.

I feel that a hard-line stance from Israel increases the chance that their enemies will decide to stop fighting; while it is true that collateral damage makes Israel more enemies, I feel that being soft on its enemies will also make enemies, and make its current enemies stronger. If you lob a rock at me, I will lob a grenade at you, and this will continue until you decide to stop lobbing rocks.
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

User avatar
Rorgg
Posts: 78
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 6:06 pm UTC

Postby Rorgg » Wed Apr 04, 2007 2:22 am UTC

3.14159265... wrote:Muslims are not tolerant of other religions, especially if they have to deal with other people's religions.

In my personal experience, the individual Muslims I know are very tolerant. However, the core religious beliefs are on the whole rather intolerant. That's somewhat subjective, but there's a pretty wide consensus on this.

Jews are not tolerant either, this I know from talking with alot of Jews in this year as my above examples illustrate.

In my personal experience, the individual Jews I know are very tolerant. In addition, the core religious beliefs are rather isolationist and clearly only apply to themselves.

Ramanujan had barely any formal education, as for what a "correct" definition of education should be.

Well, he did obtain a degree from Cambridge, but yes, he was largely an autodidact. But unless you're trying to make the case that the general level of education is a meaningless factor on a society, I don't see what the example of one prodigy is supposed to announce.

Kahane is taken out of government not out of life.

Well, apart from him being dead.

There are still many supporters of it, whom the Israeli government chooses not to prosecute.

Consider that even in the period where it was legal, his party had at most a grand total of one seat in the Knesset. This is strong evidence that they did NOT have a large base of support. Unless you can show actual data, I don't believe that his party's platform had that wide a support, any more than the neofascists run modern Germany.

And remember, the singular of "data" is not "anecdote."

Ok so how religious is Israel? This was posted and I am too lasy to search it, you may.

Wiki's got some good sourced material here:
Gallup International reports that 25% of Israeli citizens regularly attend religious services

How does this compare with the rest of the world? We have data!
25% is slightly below the average of people in the surveyed nations of 26.2%. Via this objective measure, Israelis are on the whole no more religious than anyone else.

Iraq's people couldn't overthrow Saddam because he was a dictator, Israel's people can vote a better party in, thats why they are responsible.

And Israel has changed governments several times. And, as noted several times, they steadfastly refused to vote in the party of the fanatics.
Here is my question to you then:
What do you think should be done?

Damned if I know. I can tell you however that the dissolution of the nation of Israel is a practical impossibility, regardless of the repeated concerted efforts of several of the regional Arab states. It's a complete non-starter, so any plans have to start with that assumption, and as that's completely antithetical to some of the Fundamentalist Muslim groups in the region, actual peace is highly unlikely unless and until that situation changes.

User avatar
3.14159265...
Irrational (?)
Posts: 2413
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 12:05 am UTC
Location: Ajax, Canada

Postby 3.14159265... » Wed Apr 04, 2007 2:29 am UTC

vanivier wrote:It needs to be a systematic thing.

As said by someone else some time ago, "you don't see Jews blowing themselves up in German restaurants".


Its spelled Kahane, and I would have given financial and moral support to jews to go blow themselves up in German restaurants in 1943, If not actively take part in that war.

Vanivier wrote: But, all the famous Ramanujans were literate, were they not? That's the only measure of education that has been brought up in this thread, since degree statistics are somewhat harder to come by.
I don't see why the palestinian public should go after schooling, if they will just killed in a strike anway, and if they were to build a infrastructure of say universities, they would just be cleared away for builiding settlements for Foreign jews coming in, because they so badly need a place to live, because America and other foreing countries they are from are prosecuting them....... moving on from this.

Vanivier wrote:Are you suggesting that they should be killed because of their political views?


No but if they are actively taking part in raids against palestinian villages, they should be arrested
http://news.amnesty.org/index/ENGMDE150992004
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14343.htmhttp://web.amnesty.org/report2005/isr-summary-eng
http://shr.aaas.org/aaashran/alert.php?a_id=212


Some of these are by the military, after all the military are people, and sometimes the soldiers act on their own behalf, not opening the walls of the APARTHEID.


Vanivier wrote:I think that Israel should continue to defend itself. I think that, as Israel was not the one who started the wars in which it gained land, it has a legitimate claim to that land. I feel that the Arabs are largely the ones perpetuating the conflict, and Israel is generally happy to not become violent if it is not the target of violence. Until the rest of the Arab world (or, at least, the adjacent Arab world) decides, for itself, that it is better to coexist with Israel than be beaten by Israel, some form of violence is inevitable. Several of the countries nearby have decided to recognize Israel, and they're benefiting from it. But, that isn't something you can force.

I feel that a hard-line stance from Israel increases the chance that their enemies will decide to stop fighting; while it is true that collateral damage makes Israel more enemies, I feel that being soft on its enemies will also make enemies, and make its current enemies stronger. If you lob a rock at me, I will lob a grenade at you, and this will continue until you decide to stop lobbing rocks.


And so the government of the palestinians should make attacks on the invaders, and the rest of the arab world should help their occupied brothers.... sounds really constructive.
"The best times in life are the ones when you can genuinely add a "Bwa" to your "ha""- Chris Hastings

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Postby Vaniver » Wed Apr 04, 2007 2:30 am UTC

In my personal experience, the individual Muslims I know are very tolerant.
I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that the majority of Muslims you know do not live in officially Muslim countries.

Islam clearly has multiple groups of followers; all religions do. The ones living in secular societies tend to be the ones who don't care so much about Islam's goal to be both politically and religiously dominant, and are far more likely to be moderate.

Now, that doesn't mean moderates don't exist in Muslim countries; just that in non-Muslim countries, the majority of them are moderates (which, is to say, blasphemously liberal by Muslim standards).

Its spelled Kahane, and I would have given financial and moral support to jews to go blow themselves up in German restaurants in 1943, If not actively take part in that war.
You... support suicide bombing? Did you just say that?

And so the government of the palestinians should make attacks on the invaders, and the rest of the arab world should help their occupied brothers.... sounds really constructive.
I'm not sure what makes you think this. I don't expect any Palestinian government to be able to stop Palestinian attacks for a while, especially not the one they just elected.
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

User avatar
3.14159265...
Irrational (?)
Posts: 2413
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 12:05 am UTC
Location: Ajax, Canada

Postby 3.14159265... » Wed Apr 04, 2007 3:02 am UTC

I do support suicide bombing, if you have NO OTHER MEANS of defence available to you.

My communist solution gives peace for the price of pride.
I thinks itz gooood
"The best times in life are the ones when you can genuinely add a "Bwa" to your "ha""- Chris Hastings

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Postby Vaniver » Wed Apr 04, 2007 3:15 am UTC

My communist solution gives peace for the price of pride.
The only way communism gives peace is if it is paired with totalitarianism; totalitarianism is never worth the peace it gives. Economics and politics are different.
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

User avatar
3.14159265...
Irrational (?)
Posts: 2413
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 12:05 am UTC
Location: Ajax, Canada

Postby 3.14159265... » Wed Apr 04, 2007 3:33 am UTC

I didn't say communism, I said communist solution. Look at my idea.
"The best times in life are the ones when you can genuinely add a "Bwa" to your "ha""- Chris Hastings

User avatar
Rorgg
Posts: 78
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 6:06 pm UTC

Postby Rorgg » Wed Apr 04, 2007 3:40 am UTC

I've seen it. It's impossibly impractical.

Hey, if the whole world agreed to a benevolent dictatorship under my reign, wars would stop too. It's got just about as good a chance of happening.

User avatar
3.14159265...
Irrational (?)
Posts: 2413
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 12:05 am UTC
Location: Ajax, Canada

Postby 3.14159265... » Wed Apr 04, 2007 3:51 am UTC

I didn't ask for communism, look at my idea man.

Communism bashing, over at the communist thread.
"The best times in life are the ones when you can genuinely add a "Bwa" to your "ha""- Chris Hastings

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Postby Vaniver » Wed Apr 04, 2007 4:16 am UTC

I didn't ask for communism, look at my idea man.
Well, fine, we lump "total wealth redistribution" into communism.

But still, it's got the totalitarianism problems you haven't addressed.
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

Xial
Posts: 185
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 2:01 am UTC
Location: California

Postby Xial » Wed Apr 04, 2007 4:24 am UTC

3.14159265... wrote:
Muslims are not tolerant of other religions, especially if they have to deal with other people's religions. Jews are not tolerant either, this I know from talking with alot of Jews in this year as my above examples illustrate.


I take offense at this. I am Jewish and have Muslim friends. I am beyond tolerant of them and as far as I know they tolerate me.

However, there certainly are Jews who are intolerant of Muslims and vice-versa; however, to stereotype like that is simply incorrect.

User avatar
3.14159265...
Irrational (?)
Posts: 2413
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 12:05 am UTC
Location: Ajax, Canada

Postby 3.14159265... » Wed Apr 04, 2007 4:25 am UTC

an Unbiased, American scientists lead society with laws enforced by the chinese. I like that better than the current situation.
"The best times in life are the ones when you can genuinely add a "Bwa" to your "ha""- Chris Hastings

User avatar
Rorgg
Posts: 78
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 6:06 pm UTC

Postby Rorgg » Wed Apr 04, 2007 4:40 am UTC

3.14159265... wrote:I didn't ask for communism, look at my idea man.

Communism bashing, over at the communist thread.


Your idea is patently impractical and impossible to implement.

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Postby Vaniver » Wed Apr 04, 2007 4:54 am UTC

However, there certainly are Jews who are intolerant of Muslims and vice-versa; however, to stereotype like that is simply incorrect.
If only there were some litmus test for racism :P

an Unbiased, American scientists lead society with laws enforced by the chinese. I like that better than the current situation.
What incentive would they have to govern well?
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

User avatar
3.14159265...
Irrational (?)
Posts: 2413
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 12:05 am UTC
Location: Ajax, Canada

Postby 3.14159265... » Wed Apr 04, 2007 4:58 am UTC

I am an idealist :D
This is where all fails, my solution to everything is put smart and good people in charge.

I guess none, I wouldn't mind a job like that. Have it pay a bunch....?


@ xial
By intolerant i don't mean they wanna kill each other, just that they dont' like each other. I have many jewish friends too now, and have many athiest and many muslim friends. Though you could still feel the tension, on issues such as this.

Now imagine if you were living in Israel of palestine :D
"The best times in life are the ones when you can genuinely add a "Bwa" to your "ha""- Chris Hastings

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Postby Vaniver » Wed Apr 04, 2007 5:05 am UTC

This is where all fails, my solution to everything is put smart and good people in charge.
Who decides which people should be called smart, and which people should be called good?

Have it pay a bunch....
Why should I pay someone who is disinterested in running my country a large amount to do so when my countrymen are willing to do it for very little?

By intolerant i don't mean they wanna kill each other, just that they dont' like each other.
Ah, that's the thing. I do mean that many third-world Muslims want to kill Jews. It's really not that hard to find them proudly saying so.
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

User avatar
3.14159265...
Irrational (?)
Posts: 2413
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 12:05 am UTC
Location: Ajax, Canada

Postby 3.14159265... » Wed Apr 04, 2007 2:18 pm UTC

Doing so? or saying so?

I am from afghanistan, and alot of Jews immigrated there after WW2. and there were given refugee status. Muslims there started hating them after a while for being very closed. Don't know of any killing though......


NOW in Israel, when Jews are killing palestinians, you call it military I call it murder. now when that happens, I think they are JUSTIFIED in wanting to kill Israelis.
"The best times in life are the ones when you can genuinely add a "Bwa" to your "ha""- Chris Hastings

Xial
Posts: 185
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 2:01 am UTC
Location: California

Postby Xial » Wed Apr 04, 2007 2:40 pm UTC

3.14159265... wrote:@ xial
By intolerant i don't mean they wanna kill each other, just that they dont' like each other. I have many jewish friends too now, and have many athiest and many muslim friends. Though you could still feel the tension, on issues such as this.

Now imagine if you were living in Israel of palestine :D



And by tolerant I mean way beyond not wanting to kill each other. I have discussed Israel, Palestine, Judaism, and Islam with my Muslim friends. We have had disagreements but overall we all agree that a two state solution is the only viable option.

User avatar
3.14159265...
Irrational (?)
Posts: 2413
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 12:05 am UTC
Location: Ajax, Canada

Postby 3.14159265... » Wed Apr 04, 2007 3:03 pm UTC

A few questions actually
Where do you live?
What is the average income there?
How many families do these jews and muslims have living in Palestine/Israel?
"The best times in life are the ones when you can genuinely add a "Bwa" to your "ha""- Chris Hastings

User avatar
Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11128
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

Postby Yakk » Wed Apr 04, 2007 4:54 pm UTC

3.14159265... wrote:K first off, sry If I am pissing you off, I have been pissed at Israel for a week now, for the death of a friend's friend. Who I am quite sure was not a Hammas member or such. So I am gonna try and tone this down and respond. I don't get names right, because I dont' think they matter, u can call me 22/7 its close enough.


Did he rise up in arms against Hamas, an organization dedicated to the destruction of Isreal, who his neighbours elected to represent his people?

I like to base things on personal experience alot, since I can trust it.


Personally, I have witnessed someone molesting children. Dispite this lack of personal experience, I believe they exist.

You can't trust personal experience. Your personal experiences are not typical.

Ramanujan had barely any formal education, as for what a "correct" definition of education should be.


First, he was interesting, but his ability to state true mathimatical statements was flawed: he had good intiution, but he often believed things that where simply wrong. Being unable to generate rigourous proofs, he couldn't correct his beliefs.

Second, he was an exception: a legendary exception. Claiming that formal education is a poor way to measure the education of a large number of people because of rare and anomoulous self-educated people is silly.

Iraq's people couldn't overthrow Saddam because he was a dictator, Israel's people can vote a better party in, thats why they are responsible.


Iraq's people could overthrow Saddam. The cost would be high: many deaths. But Saddam can't, all by himself, hold onto his dictatorship: dictatorships work because of the massive number of people who support the dictator.

That is a high standard of personal responsibility.

Here is my question to you then:
What do you think should be done?
Also include a way to pay back the palestinians for three generations of suffering, and a way of getting palestinians to have easy access to Jerusalem or "Bait-ul-mugades".


Should you include a way to pay back Isreal for being under siege and attacked on all sides for three generations? Should there be consequences for attempting to annihilate a state and failing? Should there be consequences for refusing a peace settlement?

Or should you be allowed to attempt to kill a state, then once you fail say "Cease fire! We will now accept the agreement you offered before we tried to kill you, now that you have the strength to defend yourself. Sure, we broke the last 5 agreements we made, but we'll keep this one: change your borders so that defending yourself is harder, and disarm your military."

Years of trechery require years of trustworthy behaviour before you can expect trust. And every time the Palistinians elect a government whose stated mandate is to drive the Isreali into the sea, they remove any reason for the Isrealis to trust them.

Every time the Isreali kill a mass of Palistineans, they remove a reason for Palistineans to trust them.

Currently, either side could stop the cycle of hate. When Palistine stopped the infata and ceased attacking Isreal, their standard of living started skyrocketing.

Everything didn't become perfect instantly: years of hate require years of trust. Then the uprising restarted.

User avatar
3.14159265...
Irrational (?)
Posts: 2413
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 12:05 am UTC
Location: Ajax, Canada

Postby 3.14159265... » Wed Apr 04, 2007 5:50 pm UTC

The peace treaties offered by Israel are SHIT. They offered the palestinians nothing. Its like accept us as better humans, cuz we are better, and we take what we want and keep what we want cuz we are stronger. Sure thats what the powerful have always done, but Israel also likes to sit and cry and say its the vicitms of hate and arabs are being mean to it with their evil suicide bombings. Then america wants to be the father figure and helps em out with it.

Israel launched some "pre-imptive" attacks, like the pr-imptive attack on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.


Its easier to be opposition in a democracy than a dictatorship. Actually thats kinda the point of democracies, it puts responsibility in the hands of the people as well as the power.

Palestinian lives improved when they stopped the intifada?

Ok so lets say Britian had won the American-British war, and some patriots continued to fight, now if they stopped their quality of life would have gone up, yep good idea, very good.....
"The best times in life are the ones when you can genuinely add a "Bwa" to your "ha""- Chris Hastings

User avatar
Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11128
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

Postby Yakk » Wed Apr 04, 2007 7:49 pm UTC

3.14159265... wrote:The peace treaties offered by Israel are SHIT. They offered the palestinians nothing.


http://focusonjerusalem.com/48warfull.html

Here is a map of both the original lines Israel claimed, and was offered as the boundries of the nation of Israel.

This offer was rejected within 1 day of the founding of Israel.

Israel proceeded to defeat the 5 Arab nations who attacked it, and took the territory from which it had been attacked.

Note that most of British Palistine was made into the east bank, including Jordan. Jordan was one of the 5 nations who invaded Israel during it's founding. The Arab palistinian state was another organization that declaired Israel as illegitimate, and supported the war of annihilation.

Peace was offered. It was rejected.

Isreal won. Over the 7 years after the victory, about 200 Israeli citizens per year where killed by Palistinian raids.

In September 1955, Egypt blockaded the Israeli port of Eilat, in violation of the cease-fire agreement from the previous war: note that a trade blockade is an act of war.

Then Egypt nationalized the Suez canal. France, Britian and Israel went to war with Egypt.

That was that war...

Leading up to 1967:
Nasser's pan-Arabism had numerous supporters in Jordan (in spite of Hussein, who felt it threatened his authority); and so, on May 30, Jordan signed a mutual defense treaty with Egypt, thereby joining the military alliance already in place between Egypt and Syria. President Nasser, who had called King Hussein an "imperialist lackey" just days earlier, declared: "Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel. The Arab people want to fight."[40]

Source.

In 1967, Egypt kicked the UN peacekeeping force out of the Siani (from the previous war), blockaded Israeli ports (same one as last time!), and massed troops on the border with Israel. As did Jordan and Syria.

Israel responded by attacking the Egyptian airforce. Egypt, Jordan and Syria attacked in response

So, was this an unnessicary preemptive act of aggression?

Let's look at Israels tactical situation:
At this point, Jordan controlled the west bank: so their forces where 17 km from cutting Israel in half.

At the end of May 1967, Jordanian forces were given to the command of an Egyptian General Abdul Munim Riad. On the same day, Nasser proclaimed: "The armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are poised on the borders of Israel ... to face the challenge, while standing behind us are the armies of Iraq, Algeria, Kuwait, Sudan and the whole Arab nation. This act will astound the world. Today they will know that the Arabs are arranged for battle, the critical hour has arrived. We have reached the stage of serious action and not of more declarations."


I don't know: this appears to be a preparation for a war of annihilation against Israel.

If someone carrying a gun walks up to you, grabs your wallet and pushes you down, says "if you move, I'm gonna kill you", and starts calling his friends over...

It is self defense, even if you pull out a gun and shoot him.

Nassar wrote:"If Israel embarks on, an aggression against Syria or Egypt, the battle against Israel will be a general one and not confined to one spot on the Syrian or Egyptian borders. The battle will be a general one and our basic objective will be to destroy Israel."


(president of Egypt at the time)

"The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him." However, he reminded his audience of the wars where Arabs were the ones who made the final decision to attack. Each of them took a terrible toll in human lives in Israel, up to 1% of the total population in the War of Independence. In this instance, he felt pre-emption was justified, and therefore quickly added: "This was a war of self-defense in the noblest sense of the term."


The Arabs where not about to attack: Israel feared the consiquences if they waited until the Arab nations where ready.

"was surrounded by Arab states dedicated to its eradication. Egypt was ruled by Gamal Abdel Nasser, a firebrand nationalist whose army was the strongest in the Arab Middle East. Syria was governed by the radical Baathist Party, constantly issuing threats to push Israel into the sea."


When your government makes statements about pushing a nation into the sea, and doesn't acknowledge your state's right to exist, that nation isn't a peace with you.

The USA was busy in Vietnam: it couldn't guarantee Israeli security against a pan-Arab invasion.

Thus the 6-day war.

8 Arab leaders got together in Khartoum after the 6 day war.

The result:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khartoum_Resolution
1. The conference has affirmed the unity of Arab ranks, the unity of joint action and the need for coordination and for the elimination of all differences. The Kings, Presidents and representatives of the other Arab Heads of State at the conference have affirmed their countries' stand by an implementation of the Arab Solidarity Charter which was signed at the third Arab summit conference in Casablanca.
2. The conference has agreed on the need to consolidate all efforts to eliminate the effects of the aggression on the basis that the occupied lands are Arab lands and that the burden of regaining these lands falls on all the Arab States.
3. The Arab Heads of State have agreed to unite their political efforts at the international and diplomatic level to eliminate the effects of the aggression and to ensure the withdrawal of the aggressive Israeli forces from the Arab lands which have been occupied since the aggression of June 5. This will be done within the framework of the main principles by which the Arab States abide, namely, no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it, and insistence on the rights of the Palestinian people in their own country.
4. The conference of Arab Ministers of Finance, Economy and Oil recommended that suspension of oil pumping be used as a weapon in the battle. However, after thoroughly studying the matter, the summit conference has come to the conclusion that the oil pumping can itself be used as a positive weapon, since oil is an Arab resource which can be used to strengthen the economy of the Arab States directly affected by the aggression, so that these States will be able to stand firm in the battle. The conference has, therefore, decided to resume the pumping of oil, since oil is a positive Arab resource that can be used in the service of Arab goals. It can contribute to the efforts to enable those Arab States which were exposed to the aggression and thereby lost economic resources to stand firm and eliminate the effects of the aggression. The oil-producing States have, in fact, participated in the efforts to enable the States affected by the aggression to stand firm in the face of any economic pressure.
5. The participants in the conference have approved the plan proposed by Kuwait to set up an Arab Economic and Social Development Fund on the basis of the recommendation of the Baghdad conference of Arab Ministers of Finance, Economy and Oil.
6. The participants have agreed on the need to adopt the necessary measures to strengthen military preparation to face all eventualities.
7. The conference has decided to expedite the elimination of foreign bases in the Arab States.


Note the bold part. Note that much of the above is an affirmation of policy, not the creation.

This was implemented, including continued border raids with Israel over the Egyptian border.

In 1973, there was an attack by Egyptian and Syrian invasion of Israel. This is known as the Yom Kippur war (it was an attack on a Jewish holy day, probably with the goal of catching Israel with a reduced military defense, much like the earlier Israeli attack on Egyptian airbases in the 6-day war).

This war was more costly on Israels side: for the first 2 days of the war, Egyptian and Syrian forces advanced. After that, the war turned around. It was ended by a UN cease-fire, after Israel had pushed into both Egyptian and Syrian territory.

You can note that Israel suffered much higher casualty rates, because even though it knew war was coming, it decided that a pre-emptive strike was not an option this time around. In exchange, it got resupply from the USA during the war (of ammo and the like).

(note that the Arab sides where using mainly European and Soviet equipment).

This war ended with half of Egypt's armed forces encircled, Israeli troops in shelling range of the capital of Syria, and a Russia/USA/UN backed ceasefire.

This war ended with direct talks and normalized relations between Egypt and Israel.

As mentioned, it also ended with massive Israeli casualties:
n Israel, however, the casualty rate was high. Per capita, Israel suffered three times as many casualties in 3 weeks of fighting as the United States did during almost a decade of fighting in Vietnam


Its like accept us as better humans, cuz we are better, and we take what we want and keep what we want cuz we are stronger.


I would argue "because Israel paid in blood for every foot of territory, and your leaders profess to want to deatroy us" would be a different interpritation.

When you elect or support leaders whose position is "we will destroy your nation and drive it into the sea", you should expect to be considered enemies.

Sure thats what the powerful have always done, but Israel also likes to sit and cry and say its the vicitms of hate and arabs are being mean to it with their evil suicide bombings. Then america wants to be the father figure and helps em out with it.


Being successful at improving your security situation does not mean that you are obligated to surrender your improved security. The death rates that Israel suffered from Arab attacks give testiment to the danger it is in.

Israel launched some "pre-imptive" attacks, like the pr-imptive attack on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.


Not all pre-emptive attacks are the same. While Isreals attack in the 6-day war was pre-emptive, it was after Egypt did a clear act of war: blockading an Israeli port. After making plans and threats to drive Israel into the sea. After refusing to negotiate with, accept the existence of, or make peace with your nation.

Its easier to be opposition in a democracy than a dictatorship. Actually thats kinda the point of democracies, it puts responsibility in the hands of the people as well as the power.


So the man with food who does not feed the starving is evil, while the man with no food who cannot feed the starving isn't?

Ok so lets say Britian had won the American-British war, and some patriots continued to fight, now if they stopped their quality of life would have gone up, yep good idea, very good.....


Are you referring to the American Rebellion against the Crown, or the war of 1812? I'll assume the first...

The American Rebellion against the Crown was a tax revolt, and mainly due to the incompetence of the child-king George (or rather, the greed and stupidity of his advisors). Both sides had good reason to fight, and good points on their sides.

Had the American rebels been crushed, and continued to assasinate and mass murder loyal British subjects, the British would have been justified in a crackdown on the American colonies. It was a price that the Americans knew they might have to pay. In the end, with the help of continental European powers, holding onto America proved too expensive for the British, and they withdrew.

Many loyal British subjects where persecuted, and where forced to flee to the colony of Canada to the north. Other people decided to pretend to be British loyalists, in exchange for the free land being given out by the Crown in Canada to fleeing British Loyalists. :)

Note that had Britian won, the masacre of the American tribes might not have happened: one of the factors that led to the revolt was the desire of the American colonists to shove the natives out of the way, dispite treaties the natives had signed with the British crown.

While British North America did expand westward, much of that expansion was driven by the need to avoid losing territory to the Americans, and often involved treaties with the native tribes that where honoured far more often than the American equivilents.

But that's a tangent. :)

...

Note that I don't consider either side in the Israeli-Arab conflict to be blameless.

Xial
Posts: 185
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 2:01 am UTC
Location: California

Postby Xial » Wed Apr 04, 2007 10:35 pm UTC

3.14159265... wrote:A few questions actually
Where do you live?
What is the average income there?
How many families do these jews and muslims have living in Palestine/Israel?



I live in the San Fransico Bay Area.

The median household income for my county is about $55,000. I live in one of the poorer areas of this county so the median income is probably about $45,000.

Of my Muslim friends one has relatives who live in the West Bank, and two do not (because they are from Bosnia and Iran).

I have family members who live in Jerusalem.

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Postby Vaniver » Thu Apr 05, 2007 1:32 am UTC

Doing so? or saying so?
Are you seriously questioning whether or not Israelis have been killed by Muslims, given the number of times in this thread you have discussed them doing so?

A few questions actually
Where do you live?
What is the average income there?
How many families do these jews and muslims have living in Palestine/Israel?
Your natural assumption appears to be that the people you are arguing with hold positions because of their income, location, or ethnicity. This strikes me as only useful in making personal attacks; 'you are Israeli, and thus your position is flawed', and such. Is my household's income relevant in a foreign policy discussion?

I find it interesting that you have brought up a reason why you could be considered biased (the death of your friend's friend), and yet do not seem to be taking that into consideration when talking about bias.

The peace treaties offered by Israel are SHIT. They offered the palestinians nothing. Its like accept us as better humans, cuz we are better, and we take what we want and keep what we want cuz we are stronger. Sure thats what the powerful have always done, but Israel also likes to sit and cry and say its the vicitms of hate and arabs are being mean to it with their evil suicide bombings. Then america wants to be the father figure and helps em out with it.
Yakk has written out a better history lesson than I could; I beg you to read it.
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

User avatar
3.14159265...
Irrational (?)
Posts: 2413
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 12:05 am UTC
Location: Ajax, Canada

Postby 3.14159265... » Thu Apr 05, 2007 1:48 am UTC

ya i did kinda mention there that i was being biased because of that. Not a friend, it was a friend of a friend.

Yakk wrote:So the man with food who does not feed the starving is evil, while the man with no food who cannot feed the starving isn't?


YES! we seem to think VERY different, and you are a pretty smart guy, thanks for the stuff i learned off this.


All I can say is we think different.


Having family members and ethnicity does put a bias on things, that was my refrence.

Ok so now lets play the other game? What about palestinians, are they doing anything wrong, or lets say the arab nations, have they been doing anything wrong, WITH respect to Israel not palestians. Lets see if this goes anywhere thats not a dead end.
"The best times in life are the ones when you can genuinely add a "Bwa" to your "ha""- Chris Hastings


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests