News Understanding the Evacuation of Gaza Strip: An In-Depth Discussion

[Curious6]

Just pointing out the irrelevance of such a claim.

No, it's very relevant; it's a direct comparison in size so that you get an idea of how ridiculous their claim to the land actually is.

 

[Curious6]

Interesting you say they called on the women and children to leave. Obviously tactics change with time because in the Sabra and Shatila massacre it was the other way around. They waited until the men had left as part of the terms of a ceasefire agreement and then massacred the women and children left behind.

Isn't it amazing how you constantly have to refer to an act of massacre not even perpertrated by Israelis to make your point? The outrageous massacre was committed by Lebanese Christian Phalangist militia, as a vindictive act motivated by the assassination of their leader and because of the abuses they suffered during years of PLO occupation of Lebanon. The responsibility Sharon had was overlooking the dangers of revenge by the Phalangists, so he bears indirect responsibility at most, even though Sharon himself claims that he could not have known that they were about to commit such an atrocious massacre and believes the entire classified Kahan Commisssion documents should be released. Anyways, the difference is that this appaling occurrence was heavily critisiced by Israeli society, and a demonstration followed that included over 300,000 Israelis demanding the resignation of Sharon and a commission of inquiry. I sincerely doubt such a reaction would ensue from the Palestinians, as their custom is to glorify terrorist martyrs and to then reconstruct the scene of terrorist attacks as expositions in universities!

BTW If you like I'll start sourcing my information from the likes of stormfront. They're at least as reliable as the drivel you quoted.

If you are incapable of discerning between the reliability of these two sources then allow me to call into question your ability to find factual information. The site I mentioned has a pro-Israeli bias undoubtedly, but all that it says is based on rock-solid evidence and can be corroborated by numerous other documents.

Funny that you should refer to the original inhabitants of the land as rioters? Rioting against whom? Wouldn't it have been the jews who were rioting given that they were the visitors to someone elses land?

No, the rioters were the Arabs. Again, pick up a history book and read about it.

Then what you have read is wrong because it is historically verifiable from the 400 Tel-El Amarna tablets.

Please provide proof of this. It could be true, but I would like to see a page with this informtion explained.

Please explain how 2 races intermix and the majority one disappears whilst the minority one remains pure. Sounds like an interesting new twist to genetics.

Simple explanation. Does not require any sort of convenient twisting of genetic processes as you imply. The Hebrews simply mixed with the population living in Canaan at that time. The ratios of Hebrew to Canaanite are probably impossible to calculate, but the resulting population was to be dispersed from the land in 70 AD and then in 135 AD, and was the ancestral population of today's Jews (again, this is in terms of ethnicity).

 

[Curious6]

By the way, Yonoz say we
bought these lands, curious6 say they have the right to be in Palestine because these lands had belonged to them 2000 years ago.

Two reasons for the claim of the land which do not contradict each other, but rather reinforce our case.

 

[Curious6]

You don't have to any more ... you just gave us the answer: "Modern homo sapiens are descended from various waves that left Africa close to 60,000 years ago and slowly filled the world."

What that does is to prove my point.

No, it doesn't at all. If you looked carefully at my posts, the native populations of each country are mainly descended from the first peoples to reach the areas with minor contributions from successive waves of migrators. Anyways, the last final wave of migrations affecting Europe, N. Africa and the Middle East occurred close to 10,000 years ago, and the populations at about that time were very similar to the native populations of each country nowadays. (With native I am talking about the populations present before 1492, before the age of explorations, conquests and settlements.)

If these 'waves' all originated in Africa, which I presented to YOU by the way (even though you are trying to sound superior).

I am sorry to burst your bubble but genetics and anthropology is one of my interests, and am quite knowledgeable of it. I have read multiple books, papers, and articles regarding the evolution of hominids, the emergence of modern and archaic Homo sapiens, the Out-of-Africa versus the multiregional hypothesis, and the spread of hominids to populate the world. I suggest you pick up Cavalli-Sforza's 1994 masterpiece 'The History and Geography of Human Genes', or start with a book by Spencer Wells as a good introduction to the subject.

If then based on your assumption that the genetics of the ANCESTORS of people who lived in certain areas implies a right to claim land at their point of origin then it follows that all homo sapiens have the right to claim land in Africa.

If you think that is absurd then I ask you to look at your own contention that an ANCESTOR from 2,000 years ago gives you the right to claim the land you call Israel.

I want South aftica for the Diamonds and Krugerands ... Smurf, what do you claim?

No, it is in no sense absurd. What I am talking about is the native populations of the lands or regions in which they have lived for tens of thousands of years. You can keep mocking what I've said, but try to keep an open mind about the issue. As examples, you can look at Spaniards, Greeks, Nigerians or French, all descended majoritarily from the native populations of those countries that have resided their for tens of thousands of years.

 

[arildno]

The Jews had no reasonable claim on the ancient lands of Israel.
They asserted they descended from people living there 2000 years ago, but they didn't have any documentation like deeds to prove it so.
Therefore, whether or not the descendance assertion is true or not, Jews lost long ago any sort of right to claim the lands their ancestors reputedly held.

In particular, the Jews had no right to displace the ones already living there, and had the deeds to prove they own the lands.

.

 

[Smurf]

Simple explanation. Does not require any sort of convenient twisting of genetic processes as you imply. The Hebrews simply mixed with the population living in Canaan at that time. The ratios of Hebrew to Canaanite are probably impossible to calculate, but the resulting population was to be dispersed from the land in 70 AD and then in 135 AD, and was the ancestral population of today's Jews (again, this is in terms of ethnicity).

Wait wait wait.. if you're not the same ethnicity as the jews that were promised the land, what gives you any more right to it than someone else? Even if this were a valid reason you can't honestly say that modern judaism deserves it because they mingled with the original inhabitants (the ones they didn't kill) thousands of years ago.

 

[Lisa!]

Two reasons for the claim of the land which do not contradict each other, but rather reinforce our case.

Actually what you're saying, doesn't give any right To Jews to claim the lands. Perhaps it just says why Jews decided to come to Palestine.

 

[The Smoking Man]

No, it is in no sense absurd. What I am talking about is the native populations of the lands or regions in which they have lived for tens of thousands of years. You can keep mocking what I've said, but try to keep an open mind about the issue. As examples, you can look at Spaniards, Greeks, Nigerians or French, all descended majoritarily from the native populations of those countries that have resided their for tens of thousands of years.

Good then I am sure that the genetics involved in the black population of north America gives them the right to sue for slavery then.

All native populations of places like Mexico, the Philippines, North and South America, the Natives of Hawaii, New Zealand etc. who were all 'enslaved' post 1492 have the right to sue.

You see, your knowledge of genetics and hominid evolution although professed to be 'superior' don't mean sh!t.

This is a legal issue which concerns the ownership of land and holds about as much water as Intelligent Design.

You see, even though my birth certificate shows the name of the town and the hospital where I was born, it does not give me the right to move into the maternity ward as my home.

Oh, and where do you get this magic number of 1492? You contend the discovery of America was the turning point in history?

The Romans had fallen centuris before. The first crusade was 1095-1099. Marco Polo had hit China in the 1200's. The Vikings had discovered Iceland, Greenland and Sable Island off the coast of Canada well before that.

What you are attempting to do is provide a legal basis for land ownership based in Genetics. QUESTIONABLE genetics at that since the 'genes' only travel down the female side of the family as is contended by the religious laws of the race and is therefore dilluted by 2000 years if intermarriage.

It is also based on the flawed premise that it is a 'race' thing and not a 'religious' thing.

So ... for your theory to work, you will have to prove several things ...

• That only genetically pure people have been given land in Israel
• That no person from any intermarriage in history has been given that land
• That the Jewish law of genetics is the basis for the current understanding of genetics or supercedes the secular view of genetics (ie. if your mother is Jewish, YOU are 100% Jewish)
• That the rest of the world is not entitled to similar consideration based on their genetic build-up
• That Jewish law supercedes all other systems of laws on earth

If you contend that this is NOT anything to do with the religion, then people who have 'converted to Judaism' are not entitled to land because they are not genetically linked to the area and already HAVE a genetic homeland.

Also, if there has been intermarriage they ALSO have a genetic homeland.

Then, to make the circle complete, you must explain to Kudzu plants all over America that it's genetic make-up makes it illegal to live outside it's natural habitat and must pull up it's roots post haste and return home.

Yes, that is the absurdity of basing ownership and rights based on 'genetics'. It goes against all human rights definitions and the basis for legal systems of the modern world.

 

[Smurf]

... and if it IS about religion then you're no better than the Jihadi's or ancient crusaders.

 

[The Smoking Man]

No, it doesn't at all. If you looked carefully at my posts, the native populations of each country are mainly descended from the first peoples to reach the areas with minor contributions from successive waves of migrators. Anyways, the last final wave of migrations affecting Europe, N. Africa and the Middle East occurred close to 10,000 years ago, and the populations at about that time were very similar to the native populations of each country nowadays. (With native I am talking about the populations present before 1492, before the age of explorations, conquests and settlements.)




I am sorry to burst your bubble but genetics and anthropology is one of my interests, and am quite knowledgeable of it. I have read multiple books, papers, and articles regarding the evolution of hominids, the emergence of modern and archaic Homo sapiens, the Out-of-Africa versus the multiregional hypothesis, and the spread of hominids to populate the world. I suggest you pick up Cavalli-Sforza's 1994 masterpiece 'The History and Geography of Human Genes', or start with a book by Spencer Wells as a good introduction to the subject.

PS ... Did you notice my finger spinning madly in the air in a frantic 'whoopee' gesture?

Let's put it this way ... The people who came up with Intelligent Design were also very well versed in Darwin.

They too imposed their f'cked-up theories into scientific theory.

What you have just done is told me that you understand genetics and that it is genetics that now rules over morality and legality and that where genetics fails you, you will apply Jewish 'laws' of succession to make it fit.

Now I suggest you take all your superior attitude and muster up the courage to take away all your personal baggage and read all your books again and get a true understanding of the science.

You are mixing the law of man with natural law to prove your agenda.

You are using false science.

HINT: NEVER try to bluff about scientific theory on a board populated by scientists. We'll cut you to shreds.

 

[Smurf]

Don't be too harsh TSM, you were new once too.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Don't be too harsh TSM, you were new once too.

You think I have changed or has the board changed with me?

 

[Smurf]

satirical smiley now properly added. we really shouldn't be so mean though

 

[Curious6]

The Smoking Man, your reply clearly demonstrates a frustrating sense of ignorance. I refuse to keep talking to a man who won't understand or expand his horizons to take a glimpse at the meaning involved in what I said. Keep creating straw men and hassle them, but until you take a valid shot at my arguments you don't have the leading edge in this discussion.

 

[Curious6]

Anyways, it seems pointless to talk to someone who can't even comprehend why 1492 was a turning point in the ethnic composition of the regions of the world.

 

[The Smoking Man]

The Smoking Man, your reply clearly demonstrates a frustrating sense of ignorance. I refuse to keep talking to a man who won't understand or expand his horizons to take a glimpse at the meaning involved in what I said. Keep creating straw men and hassle them, but until you take a valid shot at my arguments you don't have the leading edge in this discussion.

LOL ...

You are creating a reputation for yourself far worse than 'straw men'.

You are trying to explain a legal issue with bogus science.

Your feigned 'education' has nothing to do with land ownership. It is GENETICS not real estate law.

You do know the difference don't you?

Your frustration is with the fact that your science is an observation of nature and has no basis in LAW.

Your frustration stems from the fact that you can't actually attack my argument since your evidence is irrelevant and self contradictory.

You don't even know the facts about what degree I hold and you turn on your self-promoting device ... your mouth ... and refuse to look at the arguments against your whole approach which is based on the fact that you have an 'interest' and have read some books!?

Tell me before you go: What does genetics have to do with land ownership?

People, unlike animals who require habitat to support their existence can survive by changing their habitat in other locations ... and ... they have free will.

The people who you refer to LEFT the area in question 2,000 years ago. THEY DECIDED to abandon their homeland. (Like the Innuit of Canada)

Cripes, if I own a house in London and don't have anyone in it and some squatter moves in, HE gains the right to live there.

You are contending that people who have not even seen the place, who speak with a New York English accent, Russian, German and a host of other languages (and don't speak the local dialects) have the right to come into an area with an indiginous population where THEY were born, boot them off their land and set up their own nation and laws based on 2,000 year old dilluted freaking genes!?

Somebody should make you eat those textbooks of yours for all the good they are doing you.

Maybe the extra fibre will make you a tad less anal.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Anyways, it seems pointless to talk to someone who can't even comprehend why 1492 was a turning point in the ethnic composition of the regions of the world.

LOL ... 1492 merely brought North America into our perceived world.

The rest of the world was accessible by foot and ridiamentary boats.

Again, do some research into the ASEAN nations for the migration of cultures. Heck, read something by Thor Heyerdahl. They are always good for a laugh.

I actually watched a mildly interesting program on the National Geographic Channel the other night exploring the 'myth' of the Amazons and how this race of warrior women had moved through Europe.

It was surprising to see them take a sample from a burial site in western Europe in a female warrior grave and a genetic sample from a young blonde Mongolian girl in northern China and find that the two were genetically related. (This was supported by designs in cultural artifacts too so it wasn't a case of beong 'boffed' by a recent explorer).

So, does she have land rights in Europe or do Europeans have land rights in Mongolia?

Now if that is what you refer to as a 'straw man' then you are sadly mistaken.

It has the SAME academic validity as your claim with one exception: YOUR eyes do not see the word JEW in any of the evidence.

Now, if you want to test your theory ... This is your control experiment.

Argue this young girl's case as fervently as your current infatuation.

And remember she has actually had genetic samples taken where most of the people you talk about have a theoretical claim, a gun and a picket sign to prove their genetics.

 

[Curious6]

The Smoking Man, you can keep holding onto your obstinate thoughts as hard as you want to, but your posts (in case anybody else hadn't really noticed) are just a bunch of false accusations, an array of straw men arguments, and what's probably worse, a (futile) attempt to prove your superiority.

 

[Yonoz]

You told us you bought the lands from Palestinians, so why are you leaving them now?

First, let me clarify - some posters are rather chronologically and geographically erratic and it's hard to keep track of the actual subject. I was referring to the lands settled before Israel's independence - the Gaza Strip was conquered in the 6-day war in 1967. There were pre-independence settlements in the Gaza Strip but those were evacuated when Egyptian forces overran them, and the rebuilding of those was the beginning of the post-1967 settling of the the Gaza Strip. I'm not sure about the status of the lands the newer settlements were built on, but I can tell you most of them resided on vacant sand dunes, of no use to anyone until they were developed by the settlers. You can look at aerial photographs of the Gaza Strip, such as the ones on Google Earth, and see this for yourself.
I cannot speak for Israel - I'm not a spokesperson and we do not have a collective conscience. Israel's unilateral disengagement from the Gaza Strip is mainly the brainchild of Ariel Sharon. You can read his address to the nation (and other disengagement documents) and make up your own mind as to his reasons. As a left-wing Israeli I can say we have been waiting for this moment for a long time. It's not a happy action (it's actually sadder than I thought it would be), but a necessary one. From an Israeli standpoint, the primary argument in favour (and the one that Israelis who share my views have been trying to get other Israelis to understand) is that it's necessary for Israel's future. I won't go into the reasoning for this as it seems no one here really wants Israel to have a future. The other arguments in favour are quite obvious - it is a very valuable concession to be made, and hopefully it will strengthen Mahmoud Abbass' control over the territories and enable him to act more vigorously against terrorist organisations such as Hamas. This will pave the way for a stable peace process, and I am hoping nothing will get in the way. It is a very delicate time and there are many forces who are trying to harm the chances for peace. You can see that even as Israel is carrying out an unprecendented move, there are already attempts to diminish its significance and various leaders are already shouting out threats to keep attacking Israel until it withdraws from the last bit of what they consider Palestinian land.

And another question, sure enough Palestinians didn't sell Kods too. So what are you doing there?

Kods? Maybe you mean al-Quds - the Arabic name for Jerusalem. (do you speak Arabic?)
Israel held the Western part of Jerusalem since the War of Independence. According to the UN Partition Plan, Jerusalem was to be internationalized. Since war broke out, it would have been unacceptable for Israel to reliniquish its part of Jerusalem and leave the other in Jordanian hands. The rest of Jerusalem, including the Temple Mount, was taken in the 6-Day War and is actually managed and controlled by the Waqf as it was before Israel held it. The Temple Mount is the holiest site in Judaism (it is mentioned countless times in the Old Testament, but not even once in the Qur'an and nor is Jerusalem), and the fact that Israel has kept the Islamic control over it proves beyond a doubt it has no aims to rebuild any sort of Biblical Jewish empire. We just want to live peacefully and we have just uprooted several of our own communities for that purpose, and nothing else.
[Added:]Furthermore, when Jerusalem was taken no one was removed from their lands. Eastern Jerusalem is still predominantly Arab-populated.[/Added]

And you say we're in lands which we bought from Palestinians, I heard that you were going to stretch Israel. Even Egypt would be part of Israel. So are you going to buy all these lands even from Egypt?

I think I already answered that question. No sane Israeli wants to stretch Israel. If you'd like to direct me to whatever source gave you that idea I would be happy to comment on it.

 

[The Smoking Man]

The Smoking Man, you can keep holding onto your obstinate thoughts as hard as you want to, but your posts (in case anybody else hadn't really noticed) are just a bunch of false accusations, an array of straw men arguments, and what's probably worse, a (futile) attempt to prove your superiority.

And THAT was a pure ad hominem attack not addressing a single point brought up in my previous post.

You brought in Genetics to this argument and when I present you with a case where DNA was actually taken and processed, YOU accuse me of creating a 'straw man'.

I have attempted to debunk your 'genetics myth' about the right of people to own land and you constantly walk away from the controversy stating you have had superior knowledge because you 'read some books' and it is an 'interest of yours'.

You have yet to prove that genetics is a basis for land ownership and since that has been your only argument so far, you have failed in your task.

You have resorted to personal attacks and accusations of 'straw men' when you have been questioned as to how your theory would be applied.

Please for once and for all cite SOMETHING that states genetics is a basis for land ownership.

 

[Lisa!]

I won't go into the reasoning for this as it seems no one here really wants Israel to have a future.

It's strange that you think no one wants Israel to have a future. And if what you're thinking is right, so perhaps there's something wrong with Israel or with them.

Kods? Maybe you mean al-Quds - the Arabic name for Jerusalem. (do you speak Arabic?)

No, I don't speak Aabic.
Is that true that Israel attacked prayers while they were praying in Al-Quds?

I think I already answered that question. No sane Israeli wants to stretch Israel. If you'd like to direct me to whatever source gave you that idea I would be happy to comment on it.

I said I just heard it. If I was sure about it, I wouldn't ask you.

 

[Lisa!]

Yonoz, you are always talking about peace, so what do you want to tell us about what happened in Sabra and Shatila in 1982 by Ariel Sharon and lots of similar events?
I myself have no information about that and I just found it through web. Don't tell me, only Sharon is guilty about it.

 

[Yonoz]

Is that true that Israel attacked prayers while they were praying in Al-Quds?

I can't recall any such incident right now but if you can be a little more specific maybe I can find out.

Yonoz, you are always talking about peace, so what do you want to tell us about what happened in Sabra and Shatila in 1982 by Ariel Sharon and lots of similar events?
I myself have no information about that and I just found it through web. Don't tell me, only Sharon is guilty about it.

The Sabra and Shatila massacre was carried out in September 1982 by Lebanese Maronite Christian Militias. This was during the Lebanese Civil War, a complex conflict in itself. To understand this topic fully there's a lot of reading to do, but to make a long explanation short: the PLO and the Israeli-supported Maronite Phalange were fighting each other during this civil war. The IDF invaded Lebanon in 1982 and for a while held Beirut, where the Sabra and Shatila camps are located. It was during this time that the Phalanges entered the camps, in coordination with the IDF under the pretext of clearing out PLO fighters, and massacred the civilian population, consisting mainly of Palestinians and some South-Lebanese. This was one in a series of massacres by the Maronites and PLO during the Civil War and was sparked by the assasination of Bachir Gemayel, the pro-Maronite president elect of Lebanon.
Following the massacre, Israeli public opinion swayed strongly against the war and government. An unprecedented number of 300,000 Israelis demonstrated in Tel-Aviv against the war and for the withdrawal of the IDF in a rally organised by the "Peace Now" movement. An official inquiry into the massacre headed by the Chief of the Supreme Court, the Kahan Commission, found Israel indirectly responsible for the massacre and recommended the Defence Minister - Ariel Sharon, Chief of Staff - Rafael Eitan, and the Director of Military Intelligence be dismissed, as they were. Ariel Sharon was prohibited from ever again serving as the Defense Minister. Sharon and was said to have fooled and disinformed the government, headed by Menachem Begin, into entering the war. Following the massacre and outcome of the war, Begin despised and felt betrayed by Sharon. He was so distraught, he spent the remainder of his life in seclusion. In 1991 the Israeli newspaper Haaretz published a story which claimed Sharon deceived Begin, and was sued by Sharon, who lost the trial.

Personally I feel the massacre is a terrible tragedy and is a shameful chapter in Israel's history - along with the rest of the Lebanese campaign. I know many Israelis feel the same way. However, the massacre is too often portrayed as if it was carried out or orchestrated by Israel - which is completely false. This becomes much clearer if you research the Lebanese Civil War, but that is very difficult as there are many factions and they all formed and broke alliances and carried out massacres on each other many times during the war, and so many people just follow their hearts and think all these claims are entirely true. The odd thing is that the actual perpetrators and orchestrators of the massacre lived in Lebanon after the war and never got a fraction of the hatred and attention that Israel did. Other massacres during the Lebanese Civil War and in Lebanon and Syria in general are largely forgotten. With all due respect to the unfortunate victims, it seems this massacre is cynically used to discredit Israel by its opponents, and that justice is not really sought - which is a rather sad metaphor for the role of the Arab and Israeli nations in the Palestinian tragedy.

 

[Smurf]

the Defence Minister - Ariel Sharon, Chief of Staff - Rafael Eitan, and the Director of Military Intelligence be dismissed, as they were. Ariel Sharon was prohibited from ever again serving as the Defense Minister.

Huh, and now he's serving as PM of Israel.. Kind of like that guy responsible for the nanjing massacre and then served as PM of Japan!

 

[Lisa!]

Yonoz, thank to be patient with my quuestion. I know it takes a lot time to answer them.

I can't recall any such incident right now but if you can be a little more specific maybe I can find out.

You mean it's never happened? Another thing, have you ever misrespected Islam?(I'm just asking I have no particular event in my mind)

The Sabra and Shatila massacre was carried out in September 1982 by Lebanese Maronite Christian Militias. This was during the Lebanese Civil War, a complex conflict in itself. To understand this topic fully there's a lot of reading to do, but to make a long explanation short: the PLO and the Israeli-supported Maronite Phalange were fighting each other during this civil war. The IDF invaded Lebanon in 1982 and for a while held Beirut, where the Sabra and Shatila camps are located. It was during this time that the Phalanges entered the camps, in coordination with the IDF under the pretext of clearing out PLO fighters, and massacred the civilian population, consisting mainly of Palestinians and some South-Lebanese. This was one in a series of massacres by the Maronites and PLO during the Civil War and was sparked by the assasination of Bachir Gemayel, the pro-Maronite president elect of Lebanon.
Following the massacre, Israeli public opinion swayed strongly against the war and government. An unprecedented number of 300,000 Israelis demonstrated in Tel-Aviv against the war and for the withdrawal of the IDF in a rally organised by the "Peace Now" movement. An official inquiry into the massacre headed by the Chief of the Supreme Court, the Kahan Commission, found Israel indirectly responsible for the massacre and recommended the Defence Minister - Ariel Sharon, Chief of Staff - Rafael Eitan, and the Director of Military Intelligence be dismissed, as they were. Ariel Sharon was prohibited from ever again serving as the Defense Minister. Sharon and was said to have fooled and disinformed the government, headed by Menachem Begin, into entering the war. Following the massacre and outcome of the war, Begin despised and felt betrayed by Sharon. He was so distraught, he spent the remainder of his life in seclusion. In 1991 the Israeli newspaper Haaretz published a story which claimed Sharon deceived Begin, and was sued by Sharon, who lost the trial.

Personally I feel the massacre is a terrible tragedy and is a shameful chapter in Israel's history - along with the rest of the Lebanese campaign. I know many Israelis feel the same way. However, the massacre is too often portrayed as if it was carried out or orchestrated by Israel - which is completely false. This becomes much clearer if you research the Lebanese Civil War, but that is very difficult as there are many factions and they all formed and broke alliances and carried out massacres on each other many times during the war, and so many people just follow their hearts and think all these claims are entirely true. The odd thing is that the actual perpetrators and orchestrators of the massacre lived in Lebanon after the war and never got a fraction of the hatred and attention that Israel did. Other massacres during the Lebanese Civil War and in Lebanon and Syria in general are largely forgotten. With all due respect to the unfortunate victims, it seems this massacre is cynically used to discredit Israel by its opponents, and that justice is not really sought - which is a rather sad metaphor for the role of the Arab and Israeli nations in the Palestinian tragedy.

Well I don't know wht to say. I guess Palestinians can never forget what happened in 1982 and makes it difficult to get the peace btw 2 groups.
Now whta do you think of Sharon? You've already answered my question, but I want to know how did he get to be your prime minister?

 

[Yonoz]

Yonoz, thank to be patient with my quuestion. I know it takes a lot time to answer them.

No worries. It doesn't take long to answer them, I work long hours and have other things to do on my spare time.

You mean it's never happened?

I mean your description is very broad, and I cannot think of a particular event that meets it - maybe you can be more specific?

Another thing, have you ever misrespected Islam?(I'm just asking I have no particular event in my mind)

Again, that's a very broad statement. I don't think Israel as a State can ever misrespect Islam, there have been disrespectful actions by Israelis, but not as a state policy.

Well I don't know wht to say. I guess Palestinians can never forget what happened in 1982 and makes it difficult to get the peace btw 2 groups.

Each side has its own reasons to keep fighting - but that won't get us anywhere. The disengagement is a step towards peace - hopefully the Palestinians can put their anger aside and take meaningful positive action.

Now whta do you think of Sharon?

On a personal level, I do not like Sharon. I think he's corrupt and an opportunist. However, I cannot deny the disengagement is a brave move that requires great leadership. Very few Israelis thought that he would carry it out. We were very sceptical of his motives and thought it would be reduced or canceled due to the pressures from within his own party. It was carried out, and it was carried out well and on time. It was not an easy goal but he managed to achieve it, and that is something everyone should be thankful for (everyone but the settlers).

You've already answered my question, but I want to know how did he get to be your prime minister?

Sharon was elected to be Prime Minister in February 2001, following the fall of Ehud Barak's Labour government. The elections came at a time Israeli public opinion was very much fed up with Palestinian inaction to stop terrorists and repetitive rejection of Israeli offers at negotiations. Israelis felt betrayed by the Palestinian violence that followed what Israelis believe to be genuinely generous offers by the Labour government.
Israel is a parliamentary democracy - we vote for parties, not individuals. Ariel Sharon headed the center-right Likkud party. Since his party had the largest vote count, and thereby won the most seats in the Knesset, Sharon was given the task of forming the new government.

Huh, and now he's serving as PM of Israel.. Kind of like that guy responsible for the nanjing massacre and then served as PM of Japan!

It's a sad state, but unavoidable. Ariel Sharon could not have been prohibited from serving as Prime Minister, and this paradox is something that was often brought up during the elections and the start of his term.
It should be viewed as a sign of the state of distress of the Israeli society following the failure of the peace process. Simply because we don't send out suicide bombers and purposefully fire at civilians does not mean we are not disapproving of the current state of the peace process.

 

[Lisa!]

I mean your description is very broad, and I cannot think of a particular event that meets it - maybe you can be more specific?
Again, that's a very broad statement. I don't think Israel as a State can ever misrespect Islam, there have been disrespectful actions by Israelis, but not as a state policy.

Well I have no particular event in my mind, but I think if it's ever happened, no excuse would be accepted.

Sharon was elected to be Prime Minister in February 2001, following the fall of Ehud Barak's Labour government. The elections came at a time Israeli public opinion was very much fed up with Palestinian inaction to stop terrorists and repetitive rejection of Israeli offers at negotiations. Israelis felt betrayed by the Palestinian violence that followed what Israelis believe to be genuinely generous offers by the Labour government.

Don't you think that Sharon could cause people feel bad about Israel since Palestinians claim that he's a war criminal?

 

[Yonoz]

Well I have no particular event in my mind, but I think if it's ever happened, no excuse would be accepted.

Why would it happen then?

Don't you think that Sharon could cause people feel bad about Israel since Palestinians claim that he's a war criminal?

Maybe so but who's got the right to tell Israelis who to elect?

 

[arildno]

Maybe so but who's got the right to tell Israelis who to elect?

I'm sure you're happy with the Austrians electing Kurt Waldheim as president..

 

[Yonoz]

I'm sure you're happy with the Austrians electing Kurt Waldheim as president..

I'd love to answer that question but every time I bring up the holocaust I'm greeted by a bunch of eye-rolling "stop trying to win sympathy" comments.

 

[arildno]

I'd love to answer that question but every time I bring up the holocaust I'm greeted by a bunch of eye-rolling "stop trying to win sympathy" comments.

Since, in fact, the holocaust is utterly irrelevant as to the moral judgments to be made in regard to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, such eye-rolling will often be justified.

 

[vanesch]

Unfortunately there are 1.4 million Palestinians who would then be homeless compared to less than 8000 jews. Maybe not so fair.

That's why one should NOT evacuate them before nuking :-)

 

[Yonoz]

Since, in fact, the holocaust is utterly irrelevant as to the moral judgments to be made in regard to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, such eye-rolling will often be justified.

So you may bring up the subject but any anwer on my behalf will be discarded as irrlevant...
BTW considering your previous ethnic cleansing comments I would be very doubtful of any "moral judgment" by yourself.

 

[arildno]

To say that holocaust in any way is mitigating for the ways Israelis have treated Palestinians is about the same as saying:
"Aaw! I had such an awful childhood! Hence, I have the right to become a serial killer!"

 

[Lisa!]

well Yonoz, I think my question is almost finished now. Thank you to spend time to answer them.

Why would it happen then?

I don't know why I thought I heard of that.

Maybe so but who's got the right to tell Israelis who to elect?

No one, but you know when people elect a criminal war, well it causes others feel bad about these people too and think they may support him in doing his crimes.

 

[vanesch]

You are contending that people who have not even seen the place, who speak with a New York English accent, Russian, German and a host of other languages (and don't speak the local dialects) have the right to come into an area with an indiginous population where THEY were born, boot them off their land and set up their own nation and laws based on 2,000 year old dilluted freaking genes!?

I think they have that right, for the following reason. There are 3 ways to gain legal land ownership:
- go to unoccupied land and claim it (given the finite size of the Earth, that's finished now)
- make a deal with the previous occupier (he gives it to you, you buy it, it's an agreement for any other reason, with mutual consent)
- have bigger guns (or friends with bigger guns) and oust the previous occupier. Often, in this case, tell a story about the reason why this was justified morally. The last point is an option, you don't have to; what counts is the size of the gun.

Israel is based upon a mixture of the 3: the Brits were the previous occupiers, there was unoccupied desert land and all the rest they took with bigger guns. There's nothing wrong with that, this is how land has changed owners since early history. The gene story is part of the option.

 

[Yonoz]

well Yonoz, I think my question is almost finished now. Thank you to spend time to answer them.

You're welcome.

I don't know why I thought I heard of that.

Yeah there's a lot of stuff like that going around - sometimes half-truths, sometimes blatant rewritings of history. Just remember there's 2 sides to every coin, and try and understand not everyone has interest in peace.

No one, but you know when people elect a criminal war, well it causes others feel bad about these people too and think they may support him in doing his crimes.

Maybe, but try and see what brought a large part of a nation to elect this person you allege is a war criminal. Additionaly, so far he's carried out a very brave and difficult concession that others before him could not. Maybe it wasn't such a bad choice?

 

[Smurf]

There's nothing wrong with that, this is how land has changed owners since early history. The gene story is part of the option.

Notice that in modern times we're trying to move away from this and use more humane, more moral methods of interacting in the world. Everyone thought slavery was okay 100 years ago too, you wouldn't justify slavery with the same argument.

"It's always been this way" is not a justification.

 

[Lisa!]

Maybe, but try and see what brought a large part of a nation to elect this person you allege is a war criminal. Additionaly, so far he's carried out a very brave and difficult concession that others before him could not. Maybe it wasn't such a bad choice?

Well perhaps you're right. But I don't know if it would make getting the peace btw 2 sides more difficult. He reminds Palestinians of what happened in 1982.

 

[vanesch]

Notice that in modern times we're trying to move away from this and use more humane, more moral methods of interacting in the world. Everyone thought slavery was okay 100 years ago too, you wouldn't justify slavery with the same argument.

"It's always been this way" is not a justification.

You should look upon things in a more historical perspective
The 20th century will maybe be remembered as that strange epoch when slavery was considered "bad" and when power was not thought to come out of the barrel of a gun. Just a short pause in the natural course of things.

Edit: also, also... all our wealth, current "legal" situation and so on is simply the result of historical "powerful guns". So it is easy to say that others shouldn't act that way, while you're still profiting from those acts by your ancestors.

 

[Smurf]

You should look upon things in a more historical perspective
The 20th century will maybe be remembered as that strange epoch when slavery was considered "bad" and when power was not thought to come out of the barrel of a gun. Just a short pause in the natural course of things.

Well, now that we've established that the future is going to be exactly like the past and the current is just a temporary retrieval from it, we should all just give up trying to be nice and slaughter each other in the search for glory and power.

Edit: also, also... all our wealth, current "legal" situation and so on is simply the result of historical "powerful guns". So it is easy to say that others shouldn't act that way, while you're still profiting from those acts by your ancestors.

What is this? Some sort of guilt argument? You might be able to make this argument for someone from France or Britain or especially the US, but I think you'll be hard pressed to show Canada's 'big guns' bringing it any wealth at all, let alone showing myself being a direct beneficiary of it.

But that is all pointless anyways as this is an ad hominem argument.

 

[arildno]

hmm..there weren't any Englishmen or Frenchmen in what became Canada??

Can't see vanesch's point, though.

 

[Smurf]

Also Vanesch, slavery first started being abolished in the 18th century.

 

[Smurf]

hmm..there weren't any Englishmen or Frenchmen in what became Canada??

Well if we're going to trace it back beyond borders you mine as well state that we all originate from prehistoric hunter gatherer tribes in which case none of us have not gained from the belligerent acts of our ancestors, so we're all guilty. Therfor, by logical extension we're all equally credible, just because our ancestors did better than yours doesn't make yours any more credible. Blah blah blah.

Can't see vanesch's point, though.

Yes, that's because there obviously isn't any point to it or anything that has come of it, as I have hopefully just demonstrated.

 

[vanesch]

Well, now that we've established that the future is going to be exactly like the past and the current is just a temporary retrieval from it, we should all just give up trying to be nice and slaughter each other in the search for glory and power.

Because the current is not "slaughter each other in the search for glory and power" ? I think the argument "be nice now" is often just used to negociate status quo. By the one who has advantages in keeping status quo.

What is this? Some sort of guilt argument? You might be able to make this argument for someone from France or Britain or especially the US, but I think you'll be hard pressed to show Canada's 'big guns' bringing it any wealth at all, let alone showing myself being a direct beneficiary of it.

But that is all pointless anyways as this is an ad hominem argument.

I don't see how this is "ad hominem" ?? I only wanted to argue that "legal possessions" are, in many cases, just a historical artifact. There's nothing wrong with that, but there is no deep moral justification for "ownership", especially for "ownership of land". You just happen to own it and the other one doesn't, and we've set up an entire system (legal system) which uses force just to keep it that way because it seems tidy. By what fundamental ethical standards do some people possesses fortunes and others die of hunger ? Did they start out in the same conditions and one had "merit" and the other one "blew it" ? No, we've just instored a kind of game, in which certain people, for historical reasons, "possess" stuff, and others don't and when someone doesn't agree with that, he gets to deal with a lot of violence. However, if he WINS the violent conflict, then he now has gained the new possessions he was fighting over. Some play according to those rules, and increase their havings, creating more possessions for their kin. Again, there's nothing WRONG with that, but it hasn't gotten any fundamental moral basis.
So there is no "fundamental right" for people calling themselves Jews to claim a part of the ME, except that they WON it through conflict, in the same way the colonists in northern America WON the land from the native people over there, or made agreements with them or whatever, and won it from their parent nations (like the Brits).

The only right Israel (like any nation) has to exist, is that it exists, and is strong enough (both military, and with alliances) to defy any other pretenders who don't have any right either to claim the land. The day they loose that strength, and, say, the palestians win, oust the Jews, and make an own state, well that Palestinian nation will then have the right to exist and we won't be talking anymore about Israel. The only difference between the current situation and the historical situation is that now, the power game is not only locally played with guns, but also with alliances negociated in the corridors of international organisations.

 

[vanesch]

We all originate from prehistoric hunter gatherer tribes in which case none of us have not gained from the belligerent acts of our ancestors, so we're all guilty.

That's the point. Except that you shoudn't call it "guilty". There's no "guilt" to it. But no moral right either. It just happened that way. Maybe the fundamental difference in our points of view is simply that I think that our current epoch is in no way significant different from what has happened throughout history, while you may think that we're in for something new ?

 

[DM]

By what fundamental ethical standards do some people possesses fortunes and others die of hunger ? Did they start out in the same conditions and one had "merit" and the other one "blew it" ? No, we've just instored a kind of game, in which certain people, for historical reasons, "possess" stuff, and others don't and when someone doesn't agree with that, he gets to deal with a lot of violence.

So, this "game" of violence is justified as merely history?

Some play according to those rules, and increase their havings, creating more possessions for their kin. Again, there's nothing WRONG with that

Rules vs Morality

 

[vanesch]

So, this "game" of violence is justified as merely history?

It is ethically indifferent, it is not justified, it just is. The Romans won, period. That's why they had to say what was "right" and "legal" and what was not. The Roman law was the "right" law simply and only because they won on the battlefield, not because it was ethically justified or not. And of course life was better if you belonged to the descendants of the winners than the losers.
If I compare myself with a kid born somewhere in Ethiopia, or with a prince of Saoudi Arabia, there is no ethical justification why I'm much wealthier than that poor kid, and why that prince is much wealthier than I am. It just is. It is not a matter of merit or wrong choices. It is not ethically wrong either, it is indifferent, ethically. I have no ethical reasons to claim the fortune of that prince for myself, and the kid who is dying of hunger has no ethical right to claim my wellbeing either. At least, the rules are such.
In the same way, if the people making up a NEW nation (and clearly, in one way or another, they had to deal with the nation to which, by the rules, the land of that nation belonged to before) manage to make their rules hold within that nation, and have it accepted by others, well then that is then their nation. This has always been so, and will remain so.

So I find it total bull to justify, morally, the setting up of Israel because of some would-be historical fact 2000 years ago. But it is just as wrong to say that because such a justification does not hold, Israel shouldn't exist. There was no a priori justification for Israel to exist, but now that they managed to make it, as long as they can keep it, it has the same rights as any other nation. Because, at the end of the day, "rights" come out of the barrel of the biggest gun.

EDIT: (to continue my ranting :-) I think that what is sometimes considered as "ethical", "right", "lawful" and so on on a "modern, international" scale, is a kind of snapshot of the current situation as "boundary conditions" that is the "right" way for things to be. The current nations then are graved in stone, and "from now on we start to deal nicely with each other, only mutual agreements and business, no guns anymore". Although that is of course a solution that will avoid wars and bloodshed, it is also rather unfair to carve the current situation (which is a historical accident) forever in stone. Only a total redistribution of land and wealth over all people would generate true morally justified "initial conditions".

 

[Smurf]

No one is questioning Israel's de facto right to exist simply because they don't have a reason to.

Just because they managed to kill thousands of people and set up a government over them doesn't excuse them of the fact that they killed thousands of people to set up a government over them.

 

[vanesch]

Just because they managed to kill thousands of people and set up a government over them doesn't excuse them of the fact that they killed thousands of people to set up a government over them.

My point was: this can be said of about any nation ; the only difference is that this killing for most other nations is much further back in time.