myata

Bah, me really? Oops, how could we not see it? It's even easier than "mufti", don't even have to go far. OK you know what, now that you opened my eyes, and only for the sake of greater peace, I'll contribute my part and say all what you want to hear: 1) there's absolutely nothing wrong with colonizing, then splitting then creating a new state on lands already populated by other people. And of course, 2) any state can seize (procure, secure, whatever) any territory it likes and build its fully and absolutely legal settlements in it. There you go. Now, please go and check back in the Middle East, all their problems should now be solved. That was easy! It's OK, no thanks needed.

"Fair" in most people's common sense of course means "negotiated and agreed by us", rather than "fair, as we defined it for you". Default argument #0 (when out of any more plausible ones). Of course I cannot dispute on this level. But you're free to continue with a mirror, you'll do very well.

The obvious direction in which the solution lies is "out there": 1) Admit the injustices of the past (and offer compensation); 2) Propose fair plan of separation; 3) Guarantee of peace to both parties and offer material aid; We (Isreal and its supporters) appear to be having problems in the #1 and #2 departments. Hence, the elephants.

Certainly Hitler was a monster, but a lesser one, in the shade of that truly evil "mufti". Only that could explain, in terms of normal human logic, why his (mufti's) people had to be punished by permanent reallocation of a half of their lands to the persecuted, while other, lesser culprits (like Mussolini; Romania's whatever the name is; probably a host of others; and not to forget, granted, Hitler himself), got away with only personal responsibility. Yes, very convincing. Whatever works (45 minutes, WMD, Tonkin, .....), as long as we (want to) believe. Of course, the more we squirm, close our eyes, plug our ears, erase memories, the longer and costlier the road to the eventual settlement will be. But who cares, right? Maybe it (the settlement) isn't even the point?

Mufti, no mufti, apoufti, any reason is good, as long as it gets us where we need to get. Compare "45 minutes ballistic threat", "WMD attack by Iraq", and earlier "Vietnam boats attacking US military", "Cuba as an imminent danger to our democracy", "nationalist government in Iran is a big no", yada, etc. Whoever had (and still has?) any doubts.

Of course these fingers must be pointed somewhere (else), or how else would we justify (otherwise very very doubtful, for a polite term) "process" of creation? It's not like we know that all was done nicely, cleanly and legally, so there had to be a good, solid reason! But guess what. If my sh.. can be justified by him doing it, it also works the other way around. So, it goes. The endless cycle of sh.. hitting the fan. Hardly surprising, and don't expect it to change anytime soon. Because nobody here (even the most moral and humanly liberators of all and everywhere) is about to abandon the old tricks.

And of course, it's veeeeeeeeeeeeeery objective and impartial (by any stretch - of imagination). Still does not change the fact that nobody has neither legal nor "moral" right, or authority, to "create" a new state in an area already populated by other people. Without their consent that is.

I'd like to introduce a standard phrase token; it doesn't really matter which words would go in it, let's say "four decades world". It'd refer to this very credible idea (that some really (want to) believe) that the world was created in about 1949, and then the lights went up on the Day 1, the situation was as we know it now, with an angelically blameless newlyborn entity on one side, and a host of hellish fiends on the other. It's been discussed to death, so whenever one of these floating threads would pop up, I'll just use the phrase token as a shorther, and environmentally friendly substitution of any number of threads related to historical origins of the issue.

Of course, feel free to get busy with bashing "murderous" polemics while the reports of dozens civilians killed by our "liberating" (of duresses of life?) efforts are rolling the media as we speak. Certainly, death itself should feel different, nice, fresh, and liberating, not really the same, from the hands of the great freedom givers.

Well I'm certainly not looking to turn this into another endless see-saw thread. Enough is to say that to anybody who'd care to look at the matter with a grain of objectivity, the story of creation of Isreal would appear as murky, shady and questionnable from both moral and legal points of view, as a story of "creation" of a new state could be. The point I wanted to make is the following. It's interesting and alarming to observe that two events, one of the relatively recent past, and another of today, clearly demonstrate the same, solid, never changing and going anywhere rock-hard blunt hypocrisy and sheer self righteousness, that first created an immense human maelstrom, and now keeps feeding it, and in most likelihood will continue to for years and decades to come, because there's no sign of that blazing "we know best" approach to the world's problems to change or abate in any way.

Sounds like entirely legitimate way to solve the problem, does it? I mean we (really, really) want to believe! Just vote (of course democraticall) and there you go. Alaska - to China; Gibraltar - Spain; Folklands - Argentina. Florida - Venezuela? Complete democratic understanding and entirely peaceful acceptance (and compliance). What a dream (of a world)!

Nicely done, quick learner! Well, looks like my travail here is finally done. Fewhhh!

Still doesn't change the basic fact that one cannot impose their version of reality on others (even one individual, not to say, people), no matter how strongly they believe in it (or want to, or pretend to), or how hard they try. Short of physically removing that individual (as per Stalin's), they'd always have their own vision of the world. Either find something common - of fight to bitter end. No other options.

One can always win all contests, discussions and arguments. I'll share it, no charge (will be our little secret). Just convince yourself that you're right, on the side of good, fighting evil, etc, and walk out, proudly.

But of course, somebody else would be always to blame. But this isn't about blame game, but simple and obvious reality of the world we happend to be in. Can't impose, force your version of reality on somebody else, no matter how much you want to belive in it yourself. Either find a common shared ground, something that accommodates both points of view; or fight till bitter end. Voila, c'est la vie, don't blame the messenger.

And why would I want to accept that if none, zilch, zero of the individuals aforementioned has managed to provide even resemblance of a logical argument to support their position? If things in this world were decided solely by a majority vote of (selected) individuals, we'd probably be still carrying clubs, and dressing into stinking hides. Or maybe, even swimming in the primordial soup, depending on when our ancestors would have decided to adopt that survival strategy (for better or for worse, they haven't. It's up to us now, whether we want to change that).

There's also another elephant in the room - the issue of how the state was created in already populated by other people lands. As is the case with our highly selective visions of this world, we like to pretend (maybe even believe?) that when the world was created (about 4 decades back) and the lights went on on Day 1, the state was already there, surrounded by all those vicious fiends. Like nothing (and nobody) was there, and nothing has happened before. Good luck. Till Israel (and the West with is, as its staunch and unconditional supporter) find some way of dealing with the unpleasanties of the past, all and without exceptions and omissions, I wouldn't raise much hope for a lasting peace in the region.

The UN is only a reflection of the world, as it is - no better, and hardly worse. We're quick to find faults somewhere else, where at issue is our own hypocrisy, and persistent inability to live by the same standards we like to be applied to others. This incident is only another token to that, out of countless more.

No, wrong again, it's not the race and ethnics what are equivalent and interchangeable, but discrimination against individuals by either. And, correct, I stated my arguments one time too many, so if they haven't settled in by now, there isn't probably a strong chance that they would, on yet another repetition. By walking out, us, the freedom loving West, has spoken loud and clear that for us, it's not about dealing with discrimination, racial, ethnic, but about playing games, keeping scores, and saving our own. Will sure come right back the moment somebody from here steps out to read another cermon about peace and tolerance somewhere in a remote part of the world.

Correct. Correct. Wrong. If I don't like the way certain people live, I'll attempt to not live there. Maybe not even to go there, or have any dealings with official representatives of that society. I will not attempt to discriminate against individuals simply because of the fact of their ethnicity. This is still wrong, and in fact, absurd. You may have a dissident from that culture that shares the same views with yourself, but you'd still be bound to discriminate against them, because of their ethnicity. This is a complex question, because there many types and levels of discrimination, abuse, and violence. I think the place to start is to recognize discrimination in all forms, but to never create it ourselves, at least in the forms that we already know. Such as racial discrimination (including discrimination by ethnicity), sexual and all other kinds. This is definitely the place to start, and get busy with it for a few generations. We simply aren't in any credible position to instruct others about their faults, while we still have this far less than stellar record ourselves; and until we get our own act together, I doubt there would be many interested students to our incessant moralizing. That is the standard excuse, however there's no avoiding that observation that so many of the grossest mass crimes were perpetrated by ethnic lines. Could it be a simple logical consequence of accepting possibility of abusing individuals on the basis of their appearance? I'm not going to enter into discussions of race and ethnicity, because it's irrelevant. If one excuses abuse and violence against individuals based solely on their appearance, it wouldn't matter one bit what those individual think, would it? We like to cloud it into some thoughtful formulas. This is also a familiar trend. So is it OK to abuse that particular individual, from "antithetical" ethnic group, before you even speak to them? And if you happen to like them, as an individual, would it mean that they lost their "antithetical" ethnicity that very moment? Otherwise, you'd still be bound by your "antithetical" principle. Or that their ethnicity ceased to be antithetical to you? Would that feeling extend to other individuals, of the same ethnicity? Is it racist (I really to not care much about this loaded term) to "oppose" an individual only for the fact of their ethnicity? Before you even have a chance to speak to them? Or, you would know exactly how an individual would think, based solely on the fact of their ethnic origin?

Of course, yes, certainly, please do spell. That's being asked like a few times already (three; five? I lost count). Such a delicate nature.. straight from Les Institutes des Ingenues ... or is it, forgetful? Whatever.

Of course until you provide previously requested (on multiple occasions, shall we add) specific examples of 1) discrimination against individual based only on their visible physical traits being upheld in public interests; and 2) violence against individual based only on their visible physical traits being perpetrated, or upheld, or excused, for the same; there will be no discussion of my "tangled web" of otherwise. Not that I'd abandon my previously stated position (discrimination against individual based only on their visible physical traits should is wrong, regardless of the nature of traits), but we should have those (specific examples) for the record all the same.

Sorry, I've no time for obtuse discussions; nor for deliberate or otherwise substitution of subject ("Discrimination against, ..."); nor for endless repetition of obvious facts (discrimination is different from discrimination against, in particular, violent discrimination against ethnic group, that is the subject of this thread), repeat 1,000 times, overlooked questions questions we forgot to answer - in our innocence, of course (specific examples of disrimination against, by physical principle and in public interest), obvious statements noticied only from the n+1-th attempt (reading disability?) ("AGAINST"), and so on, and etc, and yada, and blah. In this kind of "discussions" you folks can absolutely and uncontestably consider yourselves gold medal winners and world champions.

Of course! When our "moral" position is called into question by the same criteria we like to apply to others, we like to muddy up waters with issues of homosexuals, transgenders, and other "freedoms". See, if you're like us, absolutely and 100%, you'd be with us. No, you'd be us. And if you're not, there would be a difference, we'll call it "a freedom" and use it as a pretext to accuse you of anything we like (and excuse us of anything we do). Smart. But oh so old and very, very unoriginal. I'm still not exactly clear what kind of discrimination against trasgenders is upheld in public interest, perhaps you can clarify your thoughts on the matter - but maybe in a different thread?

No I've never admitted that, but I'm sorry to say it's a limitation in somebody's comprehension skills (inability to understand irony and other subtler means of expression. It's OK, nothing serious). All I'm saying is that one either does not accept ethnic discrimination in priniciple, and any form, or looses any claim to calling specific instances of it illegitimate. One cannot credibly say that this ethnic abuse is wrong, but that one - OK, because it's based on one's own perspective, and from the receiving side it'd probably be the exact opposite, so both would be justified in perpetrating abuse, for a long, long time. Just what we see. No surprise.