Simple Question for Those Who Dislike or are Neutral to Israel

[Higgly]

The British are an apple/orange comparison. Palestine was not a colony of anybody.

Huh? Palestine was England's Vietnam. You need to catch up on your reading.

[Higgly]

i-peace

ii-employment

iii-access to fresh water

iv-access to medical care and education.

And number V: Property Rights.

[Higgly]

I've commented on this on several occassions before, but I'll sum it up again. To say that Israel's withdrawl from Gaza was a ploy fopr peace is a willful or unintentional excercise in the dissemination of propaganda. Gaza was a relatively minor sacrifice for the Israelis ...

Gaza was no sacrifice at all. It was hugely expensive, and for little gain. Gaza has been, since before 1948, recognized as an Egyptian property. Israel had no business being in Gaza, and has always known it.

[Higgly]

Similarly, the French, whether in Canada or France, seem to be bedeviled by petty corruption and a largely phony pacifiism.

.

Two words, JBG: Denys Arcand. Start with "Invasions of the Barbarians" and work your way backwards. Follow that up with "Wall Street".

Quel bigot.

[scribblet]

A simple question: "Would the Palestinians, if they controlled this area, be doing the same thing as described in this article? Or would they be looking for scores to settle, people to kill? (link to article)

===============================================================

.

I'd guess no. Remember when Jewish settlers left greenhouses, we know what happened there: the Palestinians destroyed a majority of them instead of reaping the harvest.

The Palestinians would be a lot better off if they concentrated on building up their economy instead of concentrating on destroying Israel.

[Higgly]

I'd guess no. Remember when Jewish settlers left greenhouses, we know what happened there: the Palestinians destroyed a majority of them instead of reaping the harvest.

The Palestinians would be a lot better off if they concentrated on building up their economy instead of concentrating on destroying Israel.

Has it ever occurred to you that you are holding the Palestinians accountable for maintaining Israeli infrastructure?

[scribblet]

I'd guess no. Remember when Jewish settlers left greenhouses, we know what happened there: the Palestinians destroyed a majority of them instead of reaping the harvest.

The Palestinians would be a lot better off if they concentrated on building up their economy instead of concentrating on destroying Israel.

Has it ever occurred to you that you are holding the Palestinians accountable for maintaining Israeli infrastructure?

Huh....the Israelis pulled out leaving the greenhouses etc. intact, useable. Only madmen would destroy something simply because it had been built by Israelis, that would help feed them and their families.

[Black Dog]

I'd guess no. Remember when Jewish settlers left greenhouses, we know what happened there: the Palestinians destroyed a majority of them instead of reaping the harvest.

The Palestinians would be a lot better off if they concentrated on building up their economy instead of concentrating on destroying Israel.

Not so black and white

Less than three months after the Israelis departed, Palestinians have repaired scores of greenhouses left by the settlers, planted an autumn crop and are preparing to harvest an estimated $20 million worth of strawberries, cherry tomatoes, sweet peppers, and an array of herbs and spices. The produce is intended mostly for export to Europe, but some will also be headed to Israel, Arab countries and the United States.

After overcoming numerous obstacles, the Palestinians said their main worry now is the Karni border crossing between the Gaza Strip and Israel, a source of blockage in the past and a focus of negotiations involving the Israelis, the Palestinians, the World Bank and even the U.S. secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice.

More here.

[jbg]

Not so black and white

More here.

Thank you for posting those. Even though my general dislike for Arab militants is well known, I really love hearing about them going to work, earning an honest living, and making things better for themselves.

Keep up the educational good work.

JBG

[frogs]

Why do jews want israel when they have new york? Actually, though, they could change their religion and live there peacefully? Would god go for that? Could the muslims pay the jews to change religions, like christians have done in some countries? Why don't the jews and christians just go live happily in heaven with god right now? End of problem. Singing songs and stuff, what's wrong with that? That's why it's called "heaven". Unless, of course one doesn't believe in that, in which case one isn't really jewish or christian. So, one must go live in heaven now, and all is well. Unless of course one don't believe in logic, ... which is why religions exist in the first place. So, I guess what I am saying is, ... one that doesn't really believe in, what one doesn't really believe in, can't logically be expected to do what one really, or doesn't, really believe in. Or something like that. So, in this particular case, nothing matters. Thank you very much!

[jbg]

Why do jews want israel when they have new york? Actually, though, they could change their religion and live there peacefully? Would god go for that? Could the muslims pay the jews to change religions, like christians have done in some countries? Why don't the jews and christians just go live happily in heaven with god right now? End of problem. Singing songs and stuff, what's wrong with that? That's why it's called "heaven". Unless, of course one doesn't believe in that, in which case one isn't really jewish or christian. So, one must go live in heaven now, and all is well. Unless of course one don't believe in logic, ... which is why religions exist in the first place. So, I guess what I am saying is, ... one that doesn't really believe in, what one doesn't really believe in, can't logically be expected to do what one really, or doesn't, really believe in. Or something like that. So, in this particular case, nothing matters. Thank you very much!

Not sure I catch your drift. But as to the first question (ignoring capitalization errors, unless that's a Canadian language distinction), I live in the New York area. There are many Jews in New York. There are also many Chinese, Hispanics, etc. We hardly "have" New York.

[Figleaf]

Why do jews want israel when they have new york?

I don't think that kind of humor is going to take you very far.

Actually, though, they could change their religion and live there peacefully? Would god go for that? Could the muslims pay the jews to change religions, like christians have done in some countries?

The conflict around Israel is not really about religion, though it plays a part. "The Jewish People" is a complex notion, even to Jews themselves, regarding in what combination 'Jewishness' is a race, an ethnicity, and/or a religion. But we can leave that question aside, because the issue revolves not around the Jewish people, but about a separate, though related, entity the state of Israel.

Israel, like the contending states around it, is a geo-political and socio-economic construct. The conflict between these entities then, is primarily geo-political and socio-economic, not religious.

[jbg]

Israel, like the contending states around it, is a geo-political and socio-economic construct. The conflict between these entities then, is primarily geo-political and socio-economic, not religious.

First, Figleaf, good post. I'm favorably impressed.

Islam, much like Judaism, is both a nation (in the Stephen Harper sense) and a religion. Their view is that no land that was once Muslim can leave the Ummah, much as no person who is born Islamic or converts to Islam can leave the faith and survive, i.e. not be murdered.

[Figleaf]

Israel, like the contending states around it, is a geo-political and socio-economic construct. The conflict between these entities then, is primarily geo-political and socio-economic, not religious.

First, Figleaf, good post. I'm favorably impressed.

Islam, much like Judaism, is both a nation (in the Stephen Harper sense) and a religion. Their view is that no land that was once Muslim can leave the Ummah, much as no person who is born Islamic or converts to Islam can leave the faith and survive, i.e. not be murdered.

The core trouble I see with your comment here is the word 'Their'. Islam is comprised of hundreds of millions of people spread over a vast area, it is a predominating religion in states as diverse as Morocco, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Lebannon. It includes different sects, different leaderships, and different ideas. They do have in common the Koran. So, the only way 'their' makes any sense to me is that you mean 'The Koran says', rather than less specifically 'Their view'. Would that be correct?

Anyway, regarding those muslims who would assert religious claims over international law, the answer to them must be the same answer as to anyone who makes that claim. They will not be indulged in such claims.

[PolyNewbie]

JBG:My point of my posting the article was to contrast the Israelis' emphasis on innovation and building and the "Palestinians'" emphasis on death.

Palistinians have no access to a sea port, they are restricted in the depth of wells they can dig, they get their houses destroyed at random by Israelis, and are subject to regular check points.

If someone took your property, destroyed your house, and restricted the amount of water you could have on your own land, what would you do ?

I don't think you are really qualified to express the Palistinian point of view under your own myopic simple minded view of the world.

Alos see Wikis def'n of humour, which proves you to be a fool in remarking about my spelling in another post. You said I spelled "humour" wrong and that it should be "humor".

[jbg]

JBG:My point of my posting the article was to contrast the Israelis' emphasis on innovation and building and the "Palestinians'" emphasis on death.

Palistinians have no access to a sea port, they are restricted in the depth of wells they can dig, they get their houses destroyed at random by Israelis, and are subject to regular check points searches at check points.

If someone took your property, destroyed your house, and restricted the amount of water you could have on your own land, what would you do ?

I don't think you are really qualified to express the Palistinian point of view under your own myopic simple minded view of the world.

I am qualified to contrast the depraved behavior of people who have surrounded the Hebrews from time immemorial to that of the Hebrews/Jews.

1. Child sacrifice (now called "jihad") vs. G-d staying Abraham's hand in killing Isaac;
   
2. Sodom & Gomorrah v. Abraham's pleading for their lives if there were more than "10 righteous people";
   
3. Making the desert bloom vs. countries around it that are largely wastelands;
   
4. Mormal marriages vs. polygamous marriage and pedophilia;
   
5. Orderly crowds vs. Meccan deadly stampedes
   

Alos Also see Wikis def'n of humour, which proves you to be a fool in remarking about my spelling in another post. You said I spelled "humour" wrong and that it should be "humor".

This is what comes up:

Humour

From Wikipedia' date=' the free encyclopedia

(Redirected from Humor)/quote']

Thus Wikipedia doesn't consider that spelling accurate. It bears the same relationship to English as Chretienese (i.e. the local Canadian language) bore to English.

[Wilber]

This is what comes up:

Humour

From Wikipedia' date=' the free encyclopedia

(Redirected from Humor)/quote']

Thus Wikipedia doesn't consider that spelling accurate. It bears the same relationship to English as Chretienese (i.e. the local Canadian language) bore to English.

The spelling of humour is not another of Poly's conspiracies. It is in fact the English (Canadian) spelling of the word according to the Oxford dictionary, which I think is probably a better reference than Wikipedia when it comes to the language.

humour

[Black Dog]

I can't believe jbg is still riding that fucking "Haw haw Canadians spell words funny haw haw" train. Get a new shtick, budday.

[BC_chick]

My point of my posting the article was to contrast the Israelis' emphasis on innovation and building and the "Palestinians'" emphasis on death.

I'm halfway through Carter's Palestine, Peace not Apartheid right now and I have learned so much that is not mentioned in the official "Israel wants peace" argument....

Read Avi Shlaim's "The Iron Wall" and Tom Segev's "One Palestine Complete". You'll learn a lot more.

Oh, I'm not sure I can. I got about halfway through this one a few weeks ago, it's taken me that long to get to the 3/4 mark. I can't read past five or ten pages without getting nauseated... literally.

Every time an Israeli dies in the hands of a Palestinian, we are bombarded with such images. Everyone, it seems, has the mantra of "Israel has a right to protect itself" and "Israel is a true democracy" down to a tee.

Yet, although I had heard about the Palestinian plight, I had NO IDEA of the depth to which such injustice takes place. Not allowing them to sell their agriculture, building a wall that cuts-off families from other families and entrap the Palestinians geographically by encircling them, the continual settlments and blatant disregard of international law... We all know the Israeli side of the other argument, but the Palestinian argument is an obscure watered-down sound-byte it seems. Even I, who thought I knew more than the average person about the Palestinian side of the argument, had no clue about how bad the situation is.

Reading Carter's book, to me, has been the equivalent of reading about sex-slavery in the Far-East or the famine of Africa. I can't believe it's happening in the year 2007 and nobody seems to care.

[blackascoal]

My point of my posting the article was to contrast the Israelis' emphasis on innovation and building and the "Palestinians'" emphasis on death.

I'm halfway through Carter's Palestine, Peace not Apartheid right now and I have learned so much that is not mentioned in the official "Israel wants peace" argument....

Read Avi Shlaim's "The Iron Wall" and Tom Segev's "One Palestine Complete". You'll learn a lot more.

Oh, I'm not sure I can. I got about halfway through this one a few weeks ago, it's taken me that long to get to the 3/4 mark. I can't read past five or ten pages without getting nauseated... literally.

Every time an Israeli dies in the hands of a Palestinian, we are bombarded with such images. Everyone, it seems, has the mantra of "Israel has a right to protect itself" and "Israel is a true democracy" down to a tee.

Yet, although I had heard about the Palestinian plight, I had NO IDEA of the depth to which such injustice takes place. Not allowing them to sell their agriculture, building a wall that cuts-off families from other families and entrap the Palestinians geographically by encircling them, the continual settlments and blatant disregard of international law... We all know the Israeli side of the other argument, but the Palestinian argument is an obscure watered-down sound-byte it seems. Even I, who thought I knew more than the average person about the Palestinian side of the argument, had no clue about how bad the situation is.

Reading Carter's book, to me, has been the equivalent of reading about sex-slavery in the Far-East or the famine of Africa. I can't believe it's happening in the year 2007 and nobody seems to care.

Excellent post and I agree with every single word.

To the credit of the posters, at least we haven't been bombarded with claims of "anti-semitism" .. which has to be the biggest misnomer, mischaracterization, missed-intelligent word ever spoken. Arabs are every bit as "semitic" as Jews .. as are all people who speak an Afro-Asiatic language. Claims of "racism" are equally as false given that there is no race called "Jews", a religious distinction.

The good news is that the walls of censorship of all things Jewish, particularly in the US, are tumbling down. Although Carter is taking a lot of heat for his honesty, there have been a great many eyes opened by it. The Iraq war has also opened the eyes of many as our sons and daughters march off to needless death and maiming for the welfare state of Israel, which gets billions upon billions of US taxpayer dollars .. and which also needs to come to an end.

[jbg]

Oh, I'm not sure I can. I got about halfway through this one a few weeks ago, it's taken me that long to get to the 3/4 mark. I can't read past five or ten pages without getting nauseated... literally.

Every time an Israeli dies in the hands of a Palestinian, we are bombarded with such images. Everyone, it seems, has the mantra of "Israel has a right to protect itself" and "Israel is a true democracy" down to a tee.

Does Israel sponsor random, suicide attacks whose sole purpose is to kill people, regardless of identity?

Yet, although I had heard about the Palestinian plight, I had NO IDEA of the depth to which such injustice takes place. Not allowing them to sell their agriculture, building a wall that cuts-off families from other families and entrap the Palestinians geographically by encircling them, the continual settlments and blatant disregard of international law... We all know the Israeli side of the other argument, but the Palestinian argument is an obscure watered-down sound-byte it seems. Even I, who thought I knew more than the average person about the Palestinian side of the argument, had no clue about how bad the situation is.

The trouble is that the "Palestinian side of the argument" initially sounds logical and compelling; they say they want a homeland, and that they'll live side by side with Israel. The problem, as we learned with Clinton's attempt to deliver one in 2000, is that they also want a "right of return" which means, in practice, the right to flood Israel (the remaining parts) with Arabs until a majority of its population is Arab. In short, whta they're looking for is a holiday, or "houdna" from Israel's military pressure, and real estate from which they can conduct activities that won't endanger other couintries such as Jordan, which brutally expelled the "Palestininan rebels" during the so called "Black September" of 1970. In other words, the "Palestinian side of the argument" woiuld result in the gradual extirpation of a majority Jewish state.

Reading Carter's book, to me, has been the equivalent of reading about sex-slavery in the Far-East or the famine of Africa. I can't believe it's happening in the year 2007 and nobody seems to care.

I hear that you're right about the book, though it's cued up as the second to next book I'll be reading (after Lipset's book about Canadian/American differences called Continental Divide). Why these "activists" don't worry more about "sex-slavery in the Far-East or the famine of Africa", which are genuine atrocitiies, is beyond me.

[jbg]

The Iraq war has also opened the eyes of many as our sons and daughters march off to needless death and maiming for the welfare state of Israel, which gets billions upon billions of US taxpayer dollars .. and which also needs to come to an end.

I'll tell you what. Having an allied state of Israel is a whole lot cheaper than maintaining the old colonial system. The West has to do something to maintain some semblance of order in that part of the world.

[blackascoal]

Carter Wins Applause at Brandeis

Defends stance on Palestinians; critic speaks later

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines07/0124-10.htm

excerpt ..

Jimmy Carter, in a carefully orchestrated visit, received multiple ovations last night during his speech at Brandeis University. Loud applause greeted his rebuttal of critics who have called him an anti-Semite because of his views on Israel.

Carter had turned down an initial invitation to appear after it was suggested that he debate Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz. Some questioned whether the debate proposal was denying free speech and whether Brandeis was truly open to views critical of Israel. Ultimately, after more than 100 students and faculty signed a petition inviting him without strings, Carter agreed to speak. Dershowitz was kept out of the gym during the speech, but allowed to give a rebuttal after Carter left.

Carter, president from 1977 to 1981, brokered the 1978 Camp David peace accord between Israel and Egypt and received the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002.

In response to the efforts to have him debate Dershowitz, the former president said to loud applause: "I didn't think Brandeis needed a Harvard professor to come" and tell them how to think.

After Carter's speech, roughly half of the audience remained to hear Dershowitz's rebuttal.

[Remiel]

JBG, why should Palestinians *not* have a right of return, when Jews do? Palestinians want to return to their homes from 60 years ago. Jews wanted to return to their home from 3000 years ago. Yet, Palestinians are not allowed to return, while Jews are. In fact, if a two-state solution is the goal, how can you have one state dictating the others policies? Isn't that a contradiction of a sovereign state?

[Black Dog]

I am qualified to contrast the depraved behavior of people who have surrounded the Hebrews from time immemorial to that of the Hebrews/Jews.

How are you qualified? Were you there?

Child sacrifice (now called "jihad") vs. G-d staying Abraham's hand in killing Isaac;

"Jihad" is not child sacrifice in the same sense that the ritualized child sacrifice which was common in Abrahamic times, even among the Hebrews.

Sodom & Gomorrah v. Abraham's pleading for their lives if there were more than "10 righteous people";

For one, it was Lot, not Abraham. For another, Sodom and Gommorah, if they actually existed, weren't destroyed by a vengeful God. I mean: really.

Making the desert bloom vs. countries around it that are largely wastelands;

Ah yes, because access to modern irrigartion equipment and techniques is a racial issue.

Mormal marriages vs. polygamous marriage and pedophilia;

Scriptural evidence indicates that polygamy, though not extremely common, was not particularly unusual among the ancient Hebrews, and certainly not prohibited or discouraged. The Hebrew scriptures document approximately 40 polygamists, including prominent figures such as Abraham, Moses, Jacob, Esau, and David, with little or no further remark on their polygamy as such.

Orderly crowds vs. Meccan deadly stampedes

I'm still trying to get my head around your notion that stampedes are a race thing:

Stampede at Hindu procession kills 150

Soccer Stampede In Ghana Kills 126

I suppose your post could be classified as "humor", but then it's not all that funny, so...

I'll tell you what. Having an allied state of Israel is a whole lot cheaper than maintaining the old colonial system. The West has to do something to maintain some semblance of order in that part of the world.

Yeah becaus ehaving Israel there has been a big time boon to stability in the region.