Slashdot Mirror
Man Invents Alternative To Cooking Gas
An anonymous reader writes "Gazan resident Abed Ar-Rahman has revealed what he is claiming as an alternative to cooking gas that he developed since Israel has prevented deliveries of cooking gas to Gaza. He invented a device using chemical substances available in Gaza, which burn when mixed and brought into contact with oxygen. The first component is a metal filter that controls the interaction between 40% of the oxygen in the surrounding air, the inflammable substance and some other substances."
What about Calcium Oxide (CaO), which yields quite a bit of heat when exposed to water?
All you have to do to get CaO is burn limestone, which people have been doing since antiquity.
"It is a denial of justice not to stretch out a helping hand to the fallen; that is the common right of humanity."
This would be neat if true -- a garbage disposal sized obvject providing 40 days of cooking gas for 40 NIS, but just reading alerts every single "perpetual motion" bullshit detector in my head -- the 40% figure, the secret ingredients, etc.
Dude, I think I can see my house from here.
You know what they have a lot of in Gaza which will burn nice and hot? Solid state rocket fuel.
--interaction between 40% of the oxygen in the surrounding air, the inflammable substance and some other substances."
Inflammable means flammable!
If the palestinians weren't being oppressed brutally with Nazi-like tactics, this article would not exist. Israel commits human rights crimes on a daily basis that get covered up by a zionist-friendly media.
This article contains no information but to me it looks just like a gas cylinder with a regulator you'd use on a BBQ.
I can't imagine cooking without gas.
Heating food without gas? I just can't fathom this.
Not flammable?
He refused to reveal the exact substances used, fearing that they will not be allowed into the Gaza Strip.
Possibly because the "militants" are using the same thing to make rockets to fire at Israel?
I wonder what these 'substances' that are so abundant in Gaza are normally used for.
Flamebait for sure.
The entire coastline of Gaza is barricaded by Israel, and has been so for a very long time. Not only that, but anything coming into or going out of Gaza, whether by land or sea, is controlled by Israel. (The only exception to this would be things smuggled back and forth via tunnels, etc., between Gaza and Egypt.
Just because you border the sea, doesn't mean FedEx delivers. Be serious.
It's widely known Palestine is considered slightly more than a 4th world nation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza (just look for the words "import materials")
While I suffer some shame at resorting to wikipedia, no other sources are given as much credit, on /., to being impartial and correct. Neither of which, wikipedia, deserves. If you could point out somewhere this is contradicted, I would be very interested.
Often wrong but never in doubt.
I am Jack9.
Everyone knows me.
While I congratulate him for his invention, he could have used dung from the millions of sheep and camels in the region to make biogas. As a matter of fact these folks are already doing it.
I hear waste from humans works too. The trouble with it being the stench and the potential for Hepatitis A spread.
He can always gas them.
Hmmm... I am 100% certain that deliveries by sea are restricted by Isreal also. Come to think if it, I am 100% certain Isreal security forces can even prevent fishermen from going out.
I am sure that some shipments are allowed into Gaza, but I am also sure that the difficulty of doing so (both in and out, they have to sell stuff to buy stuff you know) is causing shortages.
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/128625
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/10/29/mideast/mideast.php
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1228728125788
If Israel doesn't want you moving goods into Gaza, you are going to find it very difficult to do so...
"Palestinian witnesses said Thursday that Israeli aircraft had dropped leaflets on southern Gaza Strip, warning to destroy underground smuggling tunnels that extend out to Egypt. ...
Israel imposed a blockade on the Gaza Strip in June 2007 after Islamic Hamas movement seized control of the territory. ...
The tunnels are used to smuggle a long list of products, starting from fuel and cooking gas to mobile phones."
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-12/25/content_10559193.htm
And sorry for the dyslexia.
what the hell is so amazing about this that it's news worthy? so something other than gas burns. big deal. "He refused to reveal the exact substances used, fearing that they will not be allowed into the Gaza Strip. " - that just screams bullshit.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
charcoal.
I'm very skeptical of this (due to the complete lack of details). That said, here is what jumped out at me from the article (emphasis mine):
Why not just cook with the electricity in the first place? Either the electricity in the area is reliable enough that you could, or it's not stable in which case this device won't operate. Is the electricity just too expensive?
It's perfectly possible to cook with electricity. I do it every day. I don't have any gas appliances at my place. There is the standard electric cook top (like a hot plate, or most electric stoves), then there is induction cook tops which are supposed to be much better.
I realize cooking with electricity is not ideal (I'd prefer gas to the electric burners I have, although I might change my mind with an induction cook top), but it would work.
Besides, if this thing is real and sells, don't you think that Israel would get their hands on one stop shipments of whatever chemicals it uses, or at least slow them (if they are common enough) pushing the price way up? If a government is trying to stop you, switching off one substance to another one won't fix your problem. The government will just make the second thing hard to get.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
http://www.btselem.org/English/Statistics/Casualties.asp
Four Palestinians are killed for every dead Israeli. If this isn't systematic genocide and Gaza isn't a ghetto for Arabs then please enlighten me.
...he faced many difficulties in obtaining specific metals such as aluminum that are not allowed into Gaza
Yeah who will think of poor Israel with 75% of its military budget handed out by the US?
Oh wait, I forgot. Treating Jews as equal with everyone else is tantamount to gross anti-Semitism. They must be compensated forever because one time the world wasn't fair to some people that identified themselves by the same moniker.
He added that he spent 3,000 Jordanian dinars developing the device, and stressed that he faced many difficulties in obtaining specific metals such as aluminum that are not allowed into Gaza.
Oh, wait...
Sounds like it might be a form of the Fischer-Tropsch process, a catalyzed chemical reaction in which synthesis gas (syngas), a mixture of carbon monoxide and hydrogen, is converted into liquid hydrocarbons of various forms. You don't have to end up with liquid products. The catalysts are the things that would be the hardest to get in the Gaza area. You need electricity to run the process, but only intermediatly, to build up the product. The Germans made a lot of progress on this during WWII when their access to petro-products was cut off, yet the demand for POL was still high. The feedstock could be almost any organic material that can be volatilized, not necessiarily syngas, but the catalysts needed and the temperatures/pressures are a booger to work out.
Chaos maximizes locally around me.
Never has the "flamebait" label seemed more appropriate....
Hmmm... I am 100% certain that deliveries by sea are restricted by Isreal also.
Well, maybe if they'd stop launching rockets into Israel and join the civilized nations of the World they'd be able to trade with the rest of the World.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
well, those arabs sure multiply faster than rabbits
You don't think maybe the launching of rockets has a little something to do with the fact that Israel has displaced its former inhabitants, or the fact that there's absolutely no justification for its having been established at that particular location in the first place?
What the fuck is a fourth world nation? The First World refers to America and it's Cold War allies. The Second World refers to the Soviet Union and its allies. The Third World refers to everyone else.
"Aluminium alloys form vital components of aircraft and rockets as a result of their high strength-to-weight ratio"
and
"Powdered aluminium is used in paint, and in pyrotechnics such as solid rocket fuels and thermite."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminum#Applications
or the fact that there's absolutely no justification for its having been established at that particular location in the first place?
Take it up with the UN. The UN created Israel as I recall. The Arabs have done their worst and she's still around. Don't blame me if you can't win on the battlefield.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
To make this really take off (pun?) you need to find a way to continue killing innocent Jews. Then they would embrace it fully.
Does not stop Israel-bashers from demanding, that: "Israel respect UN-resolutions". That the country's enemies refuse to accept this very first resolution on the subject is rarely noticed.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
FTA "he faced many difficulties in obtaining specific metals such as aluminum that are not allowed into Gaza."
So... he has an alternate fuel source, and a new invention to cook with, but no means to mass-produce the new invention because you can't import aluminum into Gaza??? Where's the breakthrough?
"Yes, I have a Disaster Recovery Plan. It's called my Resume"
Yeah. smuggling one or two backpack sized rockets is the same as providing a whole landscape with life necessities.
Not to mention: The Gaza strip blockade is a fact. No political leaning in mentioning that fact.
The day after a Christmas dinner, most guys are producers of lots and lots of bio-gas.
Or you could take a man or two, put them in a vacuum-sealed vessel, and boil off the hydrocarbons. Sort of like a "reverse gas chamber". If you don't want to be inhuman, use politicians - even PETA won't complain ...
I can only think of the phrase "you brought a knife to a gun fight" after reading your post.
All points of time and space are connected.
unless I am reading this wrong the air in gaza would be great for a nitrox dive to 99 feet for 50 minutes.
Of course, the idea of a particular person owning a particular piece of land is a bit crazy to begin with.
Man in Gaza smuggles cooking gas for lucrative "Secret Herbs and Spices" invention.
written by Bihni Jawboot.
Systematic genocide would require relatively equal distribution in death statistics. Instead the palestinian death statistics are confined almost exclusively to males age 13 and higher. Unlike the israeli statistics with show a much more normal distribution among gender and age, almost as if someone was attempting to commit genocide and just failed cause they suck at it.
Both you and the AC are imbeciles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Least_Developed_Countries
Since when did genocide have such an even ratio of fatalities? Did 2.4 million Nazis die as a result of the Holocaust? (note: Holocaust, not WWII)
Brilliant! Never heard that one.
Does not stop Israel-bashers from demanding, that: "Israel respect UN-resolutions". That the country's enemies refuse to accept this very first resolution on the subject is rarely noticed.
Interesting contrast isn't it? Israel is condemned for not following UN-resolutions while her neighbors remain at war with her (honorable exceptions: Jordan and Egypt) and the Palestinians choose to be represented by a group whose charter specifically calls for the destruction of Israel.
Disgusting isn't it?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
The Israeli's have something a little bit more impressive than knives or guns if it comes to it......
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Which came first? Jerusalem's Grand Mufti in 1948 (al-Husayni) did. While he was in prison at the time for war crimes including his collusion with Hitler, he still had enough influence to have his followers start attacking Jewish settlements and begin the Arab Israeli War when partitioning took place in Palestine. He also was a main lobbyist and negotiator for organizing the Arab countries that declared war on the new state of Israel. He is the one responsible for ordering Palestinians to leave the area for refugee camps in Gaza and the West Bank. That is even after the new Israelis recognized their rights to land and living in the area now known as Israel. The Palestinians living in the Israeli side of the partitions were guaranteed to keep all their lands and sources of income by the Israelis. The Arab leaders, including al-Husayni, started the fight and told the Palestinians to move aside while they kicked the Jews into the sea... which of course didn't happen. When they were unsuccessful, Jordan annexed the West Bank portion of the Palestinian homeland outlined in the partitioning treaty, and Egypt took the Gaza strip. And they refused to let the Palestinians stay anywhere outside the refugee camps for the longest time. In some places they were never allowed to live outside the refugee camps... never allowed to become citizens of the countries where the camps existed. Yes, Arab countries treated the Palestinians worse than the Israelis would have. The Israelis would not have done anything other than let the status quo of life as usual happen.
And by the way, there was NO country called Palestine before annexation, and the Palestinians didn't lose anything. They were living in areas claimed by other countries and never had the status (for a couple thousand years) of citizens of a Palestinian state in all that time. Partitioning carved a space out for both sides. But no-one had to move. The choice was their own. And now they have the Gaza strip and the West Bank back. But they still want to fight for something they never had before, simply because the others there are Jews. They should grow up, get control of their emotions like a civilized people, and stop with the bullshit rocket attacks. Then there will be peace. The Israelis, like anyone being beaten by a person who can't contain their own hysteria, can only take getting hit so many times before replying in kind.
So which came first? The Grand Mufti's thugs and prideful Arab countries were the cause of the Palestinian's grief.
"Take it up with the UN. The UN created Israel as I recall."
Yes. I'm well aware that the UN is directly responsible for Israel's creation, and it does nothing to change my view that it should never have been established in the first place. It's not as if Israel's creation gains any moral legitimacy due to being established by the UN.
Imagine a high-density city with half a million people in the United States (say El Paso, Texas) being surrounded and blockaded by Chinese troops. And there are no effective restrictions on firearms ownership within the city. Could you guarantee that no Americans would get together and build weapons to fire at the Chinese guys? Even if the majority of citizens wanted to comply with the Chinese guys (and that's a big if), there would still be a small minority who would want to fight. Would it be right for the Chinese to punish every citizen of El Paso in retaliation for the small minority involved in violent resistance?
What former inhabitants? It was a wasteland/desert!! Oh, you mean those 'Palestinians' who rushed across the border from Jordan claiming to be refugees? Well, they don't quite cut it in my opinion given their transparent motives.
Read this post: A Brief Politically Incorrect But Truthful History.
You have no logical argument stating anyone stole any land from a Palestinian. Unless of course you want to point that accusation at Jordan or Egypt. You don't have any argument. Your statement is pure bullshit.
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
Imagine a high-density city with half a million people in the United States (say El Paso, Texas) being surrounded and blockaded by Chinese troops
Did the United States try three or four times in the last century to conquer China and drive the Chinese people into the ocean? No? Your comparison is absurd.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
It's not as if Israel's creation gains any moral legitimacy due to being established by the UN.
I hope you remember that the next time you whine about Israel not following UN resolutions.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
>Would it be right for the Chinese to punish every
>citizen of El Paso in retaliation for the small
>minority involved in violent resistance?
this is a bad analogy, it's more like if the mexicans were shooting rockets into texas. i imagine there would not be much of mexico left, no matter what the french and res of the EU crowd would have say about it.
the only people to blame for this situation are the Israelies, because they should have already buldozed the villages that are sending out rockets.
if the arabs don't stop this terrorism, it means that they have support of the population. they are all responsible.
"Does not stop Israel-bashers from demanding, that: "Israel respect UN-resolutions". That the country's enemies refuse to accept this very first resolution on the subject is rarely noticed."
Perhaps those people care more about the resolutions themselves than they care about the fact that they happen to be UN resolutions? It's perfectly possible to agree with the UN's position on issue X *and* disagree with its stance on issue W. That you seem to think otherwise makes me wonder whether your own attitude is to favor sides over arguments.
Congratulations on totally missing the point. I will try to spell it out in more simple terms: In any city, but particularly one that is somewhat lawless with competing political and militia factions, it is not possible to control the actions of a minority. Manufacturing and launching these simple rockets could be carried out by less than 10 people. Punishing a city of 500,000 people for the actions of 10 is absurd.
I am struggling to make the point clearer. Maybe a car analogy would help.
"I hope you remember that the next time you whine about Israel not following UN resolutions."
I don't "whine about Israel not following UN resolutions". If I complain, I complain about Israel's actions themselves, not about whether their actions violate UN resolutions. "Tribal" is not my thing, so I never side with the UN just because it happens to be the UN.
... BULLSHIT !
You can tell from the blurb the guy is doing nothing more than burning any old shit (you know dead dogs, faeces - it's the Gaza strip after all) he finds lying around. How is this a breakthrough ? What kind of fumes are produced ?
Well, if you're going to use an analogy, use an appropriate one. Such as the residents of El Paso electing a government whose goal is to slaughter the surrounding Chinese, and that government actively participating in the firing of missles at Chinese civilians.
By the way, how the hell did the Chinese manage to capture Texas?
You might have a point if the United States military controlled Mexican airspace, seaspace, all borders, and prohibited the import of metals and oil into Mexico. And in that hypothetical situation, some small number of Mexicans chose to fire rockets into Texas. Does that make collective punishment right? And to switch the players around - if Texas were under the military control of Mexico, and its ports blockaded, and some Americans fired rockets across the border, would it be still right for the Mexicans to punish all Texans?
So, every single individual in a nation is responsible for the actions of all other individuals? The Germans said the same thing in WWII occupied France - if a resistance cell killed German soldiers, the soldiers would round up all of the people from the nearest village and execute some (or all) of them.
Why was collective punishment wrong when carried out by Germans 60-odd years ago, but right when carried out by Israelis now?
I'm surprised that on Slashdot of all places, with its Libertarian-leaning politics, I'm having to actually argue that treating half-a-million people as one homogenous group is a bad idea.
No, but genocide does tend to not be specific to age or gender, dumbass.
I have an alternative to cooking period...takeout!
It wasn't one time, and "not fair" is really flippant attitude. Jews have been repeatedly killed off or evicted from various nations around Europe multiple times over the last 1500 years and at various times, forbidden to own land, segregated, marriage restricted from non-Jews, or forbidden to engage in skilled trades. But things never change, everyone seems to love to hate Jews for no reason at all.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
I agree.
Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
The summary is the article.
Sig this!
Ron Paul is right. All of this money delays peace and creates no change in those countries.
Do you think that Americans would vote differently in the same situation? If an American city were controlled by a foreign military force, and during incursions foreign soldiers had killed hundreds of civilians over the years? That entire extended families had been wiped out by shell fire that was just "a mistake"? Do you really think the American public would vote for a moderate leadership under those conditions?
i did not RTFA but i own a coleman heating devie that rates at 5000 BTU that uses a titanium mesh filter and standard propane (something I guess they can still egt in some quantity) the two of which create some magical reaction to produce heat without fire. I don't know if this means no CO gas produced but the package claims it is safe for use in confided areas (such as a camping tent). This heater has run for for over 8 hours on one small bottle of propane now and the heat it generates would be more then enough to boil water or brown a small skillet of beef so i imagine this is what he is calling an invention
It must be a new Hanukkah miracle! 40 days and 40 nights the people ate cold food. Then the discovery was made...
From my limited view:
If a Greenman attacked a Purpleman because he is a Purpleman. That's Racism, and other criminal acts. Yes?
If a Greenman kills a Purpleman because he is a Purpleman but with no intent to destroy all Purplemen. That's Racism and Murder. Yes?
If a Greenman kills, or plans to kills, many Purplemen because he is a Purpleman. That's Racism and mass murder, or the plotting there of. Yes?
If a Greenman kills or plans to kill every/most Purplemen in a region or the world. That's Geneocide, or the plotting there of. Yes?
So...
If Greenmen attacked Purplemen because the Greenmen were angry because of the situation that the [Purplemen and Greenmen forefathers] put them in and cannot make peace with themselves, thier forefathers, and thier neighbors(Purplemen) then when/if the Purplemen retaliate against the Greenmen attack(s) and possibly 'innocent' Greenmen (hurt/killed) that were anywhere near the Greenmen that probably attacked the Purplemen is that Genocide? No. It means they are fighting and there was possibly 'innocent' Greenmen were hurt/killed.
If in that situation for every four Greenman and there is one Purpleman that is killed in the [Greenman attack and the corrosponding Purpleman retaliation] isn't Peace, even a bitter one, better? Unless the Greenmen are planning to continue no matter the cost, and/or genocide of the Purplemen is really the intent.
But lo!, then the Bluemen come along and say "That is not a fair fight!! The Greenmen used rocks, and sticks, but the Purplemen used swords and wore armor!" So what?
Stop picking fights with the big kid in the schoolyard if he's happy to leave well enough alone, and eyes won't be blackened and noses won't be bloody. Sure, get lucky in the fight once in a while but "WHY?!", especially if the the little kid in the playground is trying to make the big kid get the little kid's kitten out of the tree that the little boy's grand-father scared into the tree in the first place, and then get the big kid to chop down the tree for the little boy so that his kitten can never get stuck in the tree again?
The Greenmen don't have to forgive, they don't have to forget - do the best with the cards they are delt! Perhaps diverting the energies of War to the energies of Peace, Education, and infrastructure would give a better chance at change? Yes? Maybe?
Perhaps the Greenmen know education and infrastructure is EXPENSIVE to make work. It's EXPENSIVE to make a good life starting from scratch; but it has to start some where. But sadly, it's cheaper to go to blame others, and make War with the Purplemen and hope that something magical would happen when it's all over that it'll be better for the Greenmen. In the end, nothing changes.
*sigh*
It really doesn't matter even because everyone has to switch colors for the next fight and start the process over...
1. Greenmen fight Purplemen!
2. Purplemen fight Greenmen!
3. * magic happens!(or doesn't...) *
4. Greymen profit!
5. Goto 1
~Aahzimandious
--------------------
PS: Vote for me for "World Dictator and Evil Overlord!" I PROMISE it will be a much better and happier World! The firing squads will continue until everyone is Happy! Are you Happy? Yes/No?
--------------------
Some poor fellow apparently demonstrated that a gas mixture other than traditional LPG (Liquefied Petroleum Gas=Butane+Propane) could burn in a stove, coming out of a metal cilinder and controlled by some sort of electronics. He thinks this will help solve the lack of LPG in his region. But he gives no clue as to what is his gas mixture, and there's no info on whether his apparatus is safe from accidents/explosions, environment-friendly, unharmful to one's health in home usage, economical to produce/sell and energy-efficient.
When I opened TFA I was expecting much more. Usually the pecking order (economics and supply problems notwithstanding) for cooking is: Electricity -> Piped Natural Gas -> LPG (Propane/Butante) -> Kerosene/Parafin -> Coal -> Wood/charcoal/dry dung
How does his solution compare (economically, and in health/safety aspects) in this sequence, especially in his intended local market? That I would like to know.
Unless the specific goal of /. was to flame-bait around the perennial arab/israeli problem, this post was a waste of time.
Quem a paca cara compra, paca cara pagará.
and it means enflame too.
What a language!
Regarding "Wasn't one time"; I think you missed the Step 5 in my 5 step program. Go to Step 1. Repeat. People have been fighting like this for that land for 3000+ years, how anyone can think this has been one time I'd never know. Everyone change colors and start this all over again. Regarding "Not fair"; I think you missed something there? Bluemen were what I labeled as saying "Not fair!" I've seen such articles in the press in the United States and the world press when Palestinians threw rocks at Israeli soldiers who responded with escalated retaliation. So, I was trying to say "Someone else that is not Purplemen, or Greenmen were making comment about it like this." ~Aahzimandious
If you care to read the Balfour declaration of 1917, stating that the British government "view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people", you would realize that there was indeed a land called Palestine since 1917. Go back even further, the crusades, where do you think they were headed? Read an accurate history book for a change. And let me enlighten you one last time, Winston Churchill, before the Palestine Royal Commission, said the following: "I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place." In effect, Palestinians are the dogs in your manger, been there for 2000 years give or take. It is interesting to see how you chose to dispose of them.
Hrm.. Browser issues it seems. It showed your message linked to mine, not as a reponse to someone else's comment. Never mind. *sigh*
From wikipedia:
Trying to point your finger at one part of this incredibly long and tragic timeline of conflict and calling it the "start" is an exercise in futility. There's plenty of blame to go around.
With reasonable men I will reason; with humane men I will plead; but to tyrants I will give no quarter. -- William Lloyd
It would've been reasonable, if X and W were orthogonal. They aren't.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
I think you'll find (and it would behooof you to look this up) that it was the subsequent Israeli *expansion* into the newly created land called Palestine, which actually caused all the bullshit in the first place. The initial creation of Israel in the area actually came about with minimal fuss, considering.
oh PLEASE mod parent up. I'm sick of the colonialist argument used by Israel that there was no palistine - there was a people there before israel, and they WERE recognised
Well, at least we agree that the analogy of trying to track down some secret terrorists in El Paso is complete nonsense.
From the article:
Ar-Rahman Farajallah revealed an alternative to cooking gas that he developed at a press conference on Thursday.
Now either he's really quick at developing alternative fuels...
or
That was a really long press conference.
I say don't drink and drive, you might spill your drink. Before you get behind the wheel just stop and think.
Maybe rocket fuel or some explosives-building component. Those seem to be in large supply in Gaza.
The funny thing is that although Christians can recognize Jews and Moslems as a culture we do not in any way admit any validity to their religions. Whether either of these cultures have any legitimate place in the Holy Land is debatable at best. Perhaps if we cleared the area of all Jews and Moslems and kept it as a Christian only area the problem would be solved.
Frankly the Jews have suffered deep wounds which causes them to be a bit off the wall in their attitudes and the Moslems have been contaminated by an absurd right wing branch that has effectively poisoned their faith to a point where it is no longer operative. The Moslems best answer would have been to purge their right wing with a vengence.
"It would've been reasonable, if X and W were orthogonal. They aren't."
The sad thing is that you actually think you just said something insightful. Tell me, how does opposing the establishment of Israel incompatible with opposing its unlawful expansion or its treatment of Palestinians?
The UN created a situation it's now trying to fix. I have no love for the UN, but it's possible to disagree with what they stood for yesterday, yet agree with today's resolutions.
So what? There are more criminals than cops killed every year too. Does that mean the cops are out hunting people down? No. Israel is trying to stop terrorists; the terrorists are trying to kill any and all Israelis.
So when Arabs fire a rocket at Israel and instead it falls on a house in Gaza killing two kids (like today), does that count against Israel?
How about when Arabs huddle around a rocket launcher to watch the spectacle and Israel blows it up, killing bystanders?
Or when terrorists put the rocket launcher in or on an apartment building, and Israel blows it up?
Or when the terrorists are making a bomb and it blows up, does Israel get blamed for that too?
Is there ANYTHING that isn't Israel's fault?
This post is tremendously over-simplistic to the point of being nothing but Israeli propaganda. Please read the Wikipedia article about the Palestinian exodus to understand what really happened. It is not entirely clear why the majority of the Palestinians left, but there was a lot more going on than the Mufti.
oh PLEASE!!! Talk about "denial"! Next you'll start claiming that it was a terra nullus. Are you seriously trying to claim that there was no one living there? Or perhaps that, yes people lived there but there was no nation? Lots of colonial efforts have claimed all of those things. Today's Israel is as much a colonial govt as South Africa, the USA or Australia. Today's Israelis inhabit areas which WERE occupied by people who's parents, grandparents great-grandparents etc etc lived. They kicked the locals out, stole the land and force the Palestinians on a march which the current colonials try to suppress in history. There is no honor in Israel. There's not a great deal of difference between their raciest practices and the old south africa. Fortunately, as generations pass, the rest of the world is starting to wake up to that.
I've read the link in your sig, and if for some reason you're concerned that there will be a difference in the Middle East policy of the Obama administration, I assure you there won't be.
Since the Palestinian population is growing you have a very low bar for "systematic genocide", or I guess Israel is spectacularly unsuccessful at it.
When people armed with rocks attack soldiers armed with automatic rifles and attack from within civilian areas you would expect the casualty count to be unbalanced, even when adding in the civilians on the well armed side having rockets launched at them and bombs blown up around them.
The problem with that, is Christianity is a relatively new religion to the people in that particular region of the world. No no, don't get yourself in a tizzy... Christianity did not exist before Christ... or are you saying that it was sheer luck that he happened to bear the last name that is the corner stone of the name of the religion that holds him in such High Esteem?
So these are people who as a people, have lived in that area before Christ was an itch in Big Daddy's pants (assuming that God wears pants). Trying to use *THAT* Religion as the determining factor in this, is like throwing Napalm over your house to make it fire-proof.
And some FYI to others that may read this... Romans used the term Palestine in reference to the very same region now referred to as Palestine. So the idea of Palestinian land dates back MUCH further than late 19th/early 20th century as some have suggested here. The Muslim Presence in Jerusalem began in the 7th century with the Arab conquest of Jerusalem. Oh, and also, as I've read here, apparently since they continue to fight, these people are accused of loving violence over food and over their children. Well, Christians must LOATHE their children, after rounding up 35,000 of them between the 4th and 5th Crusades and sending them off to fight a war. Of course, there was no Children's crusade, because those children were sold into slavery long before they ever got to the Holy Land. So neither side has clean hands in this. Not the participants, nor the observers.
"I love deadlines. I love the whooshing sound they make as they fly by." -D. Adams
The irony is that most people who are classified as Palestinians have never been to Palestine and neither have their ancestors - ie they're genetically diverse and not at all a "people group".
The "Palestine" people are mostly just Arabs from Egypt, SA, Jordan, and the other surrounding Arab countries who were slow to revert from nomadic lifestyles - basically, Arab gypsies. They were a nuisance to the Arab states, and Israel provided a seemingly convenient (in that they could use them against the Jews) place to get rid of them.
The actual "Palestinians" are mostly integrated amongst Israelis; if it wasn't for the media's focus on the Palestinians as a group, they likely wouldn't even be identifiable as anything other than "naturalized secular Arab-Israeli" by this point.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
I don't know how impartial it is, but it's likely pretty accurate - the CIA World Factbook provides all of this information.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
Hold on now, just because there was an area called "Palestine" doesn't mean that it was a country, much less a sovereign one. For the Allies to use their military and political position to create a new country without the consent of those already living there is morally questionable, but so is any use of force, and one way or another, Israel exists now. Regardless of of how racist Churchill or anyone else was, regardless of how horrible the situation was on all sides (and it was pretty damn horrible), the people living in Israel now need to come to some sort of agreement, and for some elements of the "Palestinian" people to think that resorting to terrorism is a good idea is just idiocy. Would you support the Native Americans if they chose to do the same? I don't particularly like Israel (I oppose religiously-defined governments on principle, and their recent dealings with the palestinians have been horrendous), but all sides need to be seeing what they can do with a bad situation. People are always going to try to take the land and property of other people if they think they can make better use of it, but the answer isn't to turn things into a cycle of endless retribution, it's to try to work out some sort of equitable solution. The palestinians can gain from the existence of the modern infrastructure and government Israel has to offer, and if Israel can overcome its own paranoia and racism, maybe something good could come from it.
Bobb9000 - raised by the wolves,
Oxford education as phrased by the wolves.
The problem with that, is Christianity is a relatively new religion to the people in that particular region of the world. No no, don't get yourself in a tizzy... Christianity did not exist before Christ... or are you saying that it was sheer luck that he happened to bear the last name that is the corner stone of the name of the religion that holds him in such High Esteem?
So these are people who as a people, have lived in that area before Christ was an itch in Big Daddy's pants (assuming that God wears pants). Trying to use *THAT* Religion as the determining factor in this, is like throwing Napalm over your house to make it fire-proof.
And some FYI to others that may read this... Romans used the term Palestine in reference to the very same region now referred to as Palestine. So the idea of Palestinian land dates back MUCH further than late 19th/early 20th century as some have suggested here. The Muslim Presence in Jerusalem began in the 7th century with the Arab conquest of Jerusalem. Oh, and also, as I've read here, apparently since they continue to fight, these people are accused of loving violence over food and over their children. Well, Christians must LOATHE their children, after rounding up 35,000 of them between the 4th and 5th Crusades and sending them off to fight a war. Of course, there was no Children's crusade, because those children were sold into slavery long before they ever got to the Holy Land. So neither side has clean hands in this. Not the participants, nor the observers.
The problem with that, is Christianity is a relatively new religion to the people in that particular region of the world. No no, don't get yourself in a tizzy... Christianity did not exist before Christ... or are you saying that it was sheer luck that he happened to bear the last name that is the corner stone of the name of the religion that holds him in such High Esteem?
So these are people who as a people, have lived in that area before Christ was an itch in Big Daddy's pants (assuming that God wears pants). Trying to use *THAT* Religion as the determining factor in this, is like throwing Napalm over your house to make it fire-proof.
And some FYI to others that may read this... Romans used the term Palestine in reference to the very same region now referred to as Palestine. So the idea of Palestinian land dates back MUCH further than late 19th/early 20th century as some have suggested here. The Muslim Presence in Jerusalem began in the 7th century with the Arab conquest of Jerusalem. Oh, and also, as I've read here, apparently since they continue to fight, these people are accused of loving violence over food and over their children. Well, Christians must LOATHE their children, after rounding up 35,000 of them between the 4th and 5th Crusades and sending them off to fight a war. Of course, there was no Children's crusade, because those children were sold into slavery long before they ever got to the Holy Land. So neither side has clean hands in this. Not the participants, nor the observers.
...not to mention that the whole point of the Christian crusades mounted in 1099 were in response to the Islamic jihadist crusades that had been pounding ruthlessly for 300+ years on the doors of Europe. After the Christian Crusades, Islam again started a second wave of jihadist crusading that was finally halted in Vienna in 1683 by the Polish king. oh yeah. and that date was Sept.11, 1683. and no, Islam had not been in palestine until mohamed decided to start a political/warfare campaign against everyone not bowing down to him and his idea of god. Islam's war has been waging for 1400 years against anything not itself. Hamas, Hezbollah and the modern mujahideen and jihadist fighters are not crazy radicals that have hijacked a religion. These people are following Muhamad's ideology to the core. Read your Koran sometime, and remember two things: the Islamic doctrine of abrogation lets earlier commands be overruled by later commands
Four Palestinians are killed for every dead Israeli. If this isn't systematic genocide and Gaza isn't a ghetto for Arabs then please enlighten me.
I'll bite. If you start a war against a foe that is better equipped and better trained than you are, then you are going to get out-killed. This is still a war, intentionally fought. That is not what genocide is.
Genocide is when a group is killed, not because of their actions (they were holding a weapon or planning an attack), but because of affiliation (specifically, racial or people affiliation). In order to show genocide you have to show that Israel is deliberately killing civilians that do not participate in the war effort against Israel. Merely pointing out kill ratio is not enough.
But even merely looking at kill ratio is enough to disprove your point, or at the very least call it into question. The kill ratio you mention is not unheard of in combat situation, but it is fairly unheard of in undisputed genocide cases. I doubt the Nazis lost more than a hundred soldiers in their Jew killing operation (even assuming a thousand, this is a 6000:1 ratio, a far cry from your quoted 4:1 ratio). I do believe you will find similar ratios in other genocide cases.
Shachar
> The hilarity is the internal media of Israel presents a more varied view of
> Palestinian/Israeli interaction than most of the media outlets of the west.
I notice a non-hilarious omission, here: I take it that the internal media of the Palestinians is just as one-sided (but inversely) as the media outlets of the West?
I suppose this is because the various Israeli parties aren't trying to violently eliminate each other?
The problem is that there is no easy solution.
First of all, while indeed only a minority of the Gaza population practices warfare, this practice is considered legitimate and desirable by a great majority of the population. This includes the government. It would have been impossible to maintain the labs and manufacturing required to shoot these missiles otherwise.
Had Gaza been a sovereign state, things would be relatively simple. Israel could address the government and say "you are shooting missiles at us. This is an act of war. Stop it (or, at the very least, take steps to) or we will retaliate". I think even you would agree that one state has the right to do that to another, even if the majority of the citizens in the other state are not participating in actual war activities. The problem here is that the Palestinian government keeps claiming that it is not possible for it to stop it, because they are not organized enough as a sovereign state.
On the other hand, if this were an area of no-sovereignty at all, this would still be (relatively) simple. Israel could simply step in with military force and try to take over the place, and then police it like that government should have. Of course, at this point in time, this is a political impossibility
Which leaves us with only bad courses of action. Israel cannot take responsibility over the area, and Hamas will not. The result is that the residents suffer. Yes, this is a very sad situation. However, at the moment, it is somewhat unavoidable.
If you have a solution, go ahead and offer it. Please bear in mind that Israeli residents of nearby cities have every bit as much right to live their lives without being bombed, however. Also, any solution that asks both sides to do something simultaneously is bound to fail as soon as it is being suggested.
Shachar
When the UN created the country, Israel demands that everyone respect that resolution.
When the UN passes resolutions that it doesn't like, it feels free to ignore them.
Leading to the "logical" conclusion that:
When the others point out the hypocrisy, the other people are the ones being inconsistent!
The Gaza poluation is about one and a half (1,50) million.
Well, lets think about what is available in the Gaza strip:
-Seavater
-Sand
-Rocket fuel
-C4
-sewage
-gunpowder
And now lets try to guess the secret ingredients:
Sand is out since it is hard to pump. and seawater has little energy. It could be methane derived from sewage, but that requires a big process, so the three ingedients must be Rocket fuel, C4 and gunpowder.
On another note, Mars and Mercury is probably more hospitable to human life than the Gaza strip. Strange that anyone survives there.
don't cut it off www.mgmbill.org
Palestine is just another name for "Judea", land of the Jews. After the first revolt against the Romans in AD 66, Judea enjoyed freedom of sorts before the Romans came back in AD 70 and crushed the rebellion (also destroying the 2nd temple). To spite the Jews, they renamed "Judea" to "Palestine", because the Philistines were enemies of the Jews. You might as well call Palestinians "Judeans".
The irony is that most people who are classified as Palestinians have never been to Palestine and neither have their ancestors - ie they're genetically diverse and not at all a "people group".
The "Palestine" people are mostly just Arabs from Egypt, SA, Jordan, and the other surrounding Arab countries who were slow to revert from nomadic lifestyles - basically, Arab gypsies. They were a nuisance to the Arab states, and Israel provided a seemingly convenient (in that they could use them against the Jews) place to get rid of them.
The actual "Palestinians" are mostly integrated amongst Israelis; if it wasn't for the media's focus on the Palestinians as a group, they likely wouldn't even be identifiable as anything other than "naturalized secular Arab-Israeli" by this point.
How preposterously ignorant. Look at most leaders in Israel today, all of them older than 45 years old were born in Ukraine, Russia or any other country in East Europe. There are NOT arab gypsies, otherwise they would not have been cities in Haifa, Jerusalem, Gaza, Nablus, Beithlahem. If you are going to lie, at least try to make it more convincing. No history here, and certainly NO truth.
I am in favour of the colonialist argument, it is NEGATIONIST IDIOTS like you that tend to forget that before what you refer as to Palestine there was the Kingdom of ISRAEL right there ... or maybe you believe the valley of the temples was build by the demon overnight in 1914????
So take for granted there were Israelis first, then beduins, and then when the israelis were settled back the islamist clerics were rightly scared: the people were about to be shown the effects of democracy and progress instead of blidfolding religious belief. The only way to prevent progress and keep the masses under the influence was guess what... war.
Ha, mr Idiot, Now that we are at it: Can you post a recogniement document of "Palestine" for the period you are referring to from any other government? Or maybe an a apology for your bullshitting?
Look at most leaders in Israel today, all of them older than 45 years old were born in Ukraine, Russia or any other country in East Europe. There are NOT arab gypsies,
And despite the hitler campaing this fact is a proof that brilliantly exposes the superiority of european/jew culture. Take a look at the conditions of the surrounding countries run by arab leaders and make up your mind. (Hint: Lebanon, Egypt, Syria, Iran...)
The Kingdom of Israel was a result of an invasion from Egypt by former slaves who at the time may or may not be considered Jews. At least Moses had his troubles convincing them not to worship golden calfs while he was away picking up the latest news from God ... The Philistines were there when they first arrived.
send + more == money?
The irony is that most people who are classified as Palestinians have never been to Palestine and neither have their ancestors - ie they're genetically diverse and not at all a "people group".
Another irony is that neither the Israeli and the Jews, in general, can trace their ancestry back to the area - ie both groups are genetically diverse and not at all a "people group".
Finally we know what the Romans did for us. They caused the Middle East Misery.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Clear to explain to the majority in that region who are Muslims?
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Currently, Palestinians face a quite hopeless situation. Even if a great majority [1] wants peace and quiet for a change (and I am sure most would take it offered a credible chance), a stifling blockade (however justified) and a complete lack of institutions makes this hard to achieve. And the extremists will make sure that Israel's "no terrorism" conditions are never met [2] and the situation stays put. The future, from a Palestinian point of view, is not bright at all.
From the Israeli side of the equation, a great deal of political courage is required to stop the current knee-jerk response [3] to terrorism (namely: blockade and retaliation). However, Israel is the only side that can actually change the dynamics of the situation. Unless Palestinians see a "true chance" of stable peace, in spite of the inevitable terrorists [4], the current state of affairs will go on and on. Israel has well-established institutions and can actually enforce its own decisions.
I really believe that only great generosity on the Israeli side can put a stop to things. I don't care who started what - but the only way out of this hole is to either eliminate one side entirely (proposed by some, but unlikely and abhorring) or peaceful coexistence. Coexistence requires a compelling future for both. The Israelis have it (in spite of a constant trickle of deaths); the Palestinians don't.
[1] I don't care what statistics say about Palestinian bloodthirstyness - most humans like raising their kids in peace and prosperity. Palestinians are no different; however, when this is impossible, all humans will wish ill towards whoever they see as "preventing" this.
[2] Yes, some like things the way they are and profit from terrorism. Religious fanaticism, power, prestige, or plain greed. All the worse when combined. However, point [1] still stands.
[3] When rockets rain on a civilian neighborhood, it is perfectly understandable to want to beat the crap out of whoever is launching them, and to make sure that rocket-building materials are hard to obtain. But, in the longer run, this can backfire.
[4] Palestinian terrorism will continue, even if Israel lifts sanctions and gives Palestinians a future worth caring about. It will, given time and sound policy, peter out. Peace is a long-term strategy.
Adding the benefit of non-flamable base compund?
Wait a minute... Paraffine/wax does not burn without a wick either and as such are safer than alcohol burners or gas containers for camping.
White gas liquid fuel stove:
http://www.brunton.com/product.php?id=619
More on fuel types:
http://stovecollector.tripod.com/fuel_types.htm
The Chinese didn't actually capture Texas. It was given to them by the UN as a sorry excuse for the wrongdoings by the Japs in WW2 ...
send + more == money?
Mass murder by any one is bad.
Be it with a Nuke, or slow release uranium in the air that might kill millions over years, or even GM food, that will reduce sterility in humans over generations, there by reducing populations by billions over decades (GM staff have voiced that desire)
Tho if youre an individual , supporting a group to kill your neighbours is low and sub human.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
If I can publish a non-fiction book or a series of papers and stick in a number of inaccuracies, I can source the book on wikipedia. Wikipedia facts can be bought and are, through this method. Citiation is, by policy, the only way to add to wikipedia from the public, while this is not the case for wikipedia editors or popular submitters. All in all, no once source should be considered definitive. A source claiming to be BASED on wikipedia is now even more suspect and prone to inaccuracy. YMMV
Luckily English is a high-context language and you can infer meaning from hybridized concepts. You recognize what "4th world" means immediately in context, but choose to ignore it from a sense of self-importance. A need to be noticed as being correct on some level due to your own inadequacies is sublimation, that leads to the Internet Fuckwad Theory.
But what do I know, you may be a genious instead of a random kidiot.
Often wrong but never in doubt.
I am Jack9.
Everyone knows me.
That's too bad, I had been hoping that instead of an international agreement it had been done the way all other national groups ended up on their particular patch of dirt, by superior firepower.
Hey I've just eaten a huge bowl of brussel sprouts - no doubt I'll have a plentiful supply of gas for the next few days...
First of all, congratulations. No sarcasm here. You rose to the challenge of offering a solution where you picked a side based on objective considerations (i.e. - Israel's greater ability to impose a consistent policy), and that plan only relates to one side.
I am sad to tell you, however, that I don't think this plan will work.
There are two problems with it. The first is that Israel's resilience is not infinite. What you suggest was tried before by various governments, and it invariably failed. It failed for two reasons.
First, the extremists on the Palestinian side saw their political power dwindle, and as a result started producing ever more deadly attacks. In other words, many of the attacks on Israel are meant SO that Israel can respond, and thus gain political power to the extremists. Right before the time Binyamin Netanyahu was elected prime minister we have had weeks where we would have several suicide bombers on buses, with tens killed, every WEEK. It was wrecking havoc on any presumption of normality of life in Israel, affecting the economy and was really unbearable.
The second reason this failed is that the more Israeli civilians get killed while the government does not retaliate, the more the Israeli citizens view, with a great amount of justice, that their own government is failing to protect them for some obscure hope that things will be better along the road. A TV satire from the time I talked about earlier showed Shimon Peres, then prime minister, with VR goggles on talking about "a new middle east, peace in our times", while the background showed burning buses. No country should be asked to withstand that, and no politician in any democracy can afford to.
Personally, I think the key to ending the conflict is not by agreeing to tolerate terror, but by raising the standard of living for the Palestinians. Give them hope. The problem is that so long as the government there is not only tolerating but actively advocating terror, letting any resources flow there is an act of suicide.
The real problem is that while not many people are actively fighting against Israel, the great majority of the population views these activity as not only legitimate, but actually desirable. As such, calling it "the acts of a few" is a little naive.
Another part of the problem is that the Palestinians have lost sight of what their objectives are. Analyzing their actions show that "having their own state", "living in safety" and "economical prosperity" cannot conceivably be their goals, as their actions do not further and of them.
Maybe the solution is to continue doing what we are doing with Gaza, while doing everything we can to make life in the west bank better. Let the Gaza residents see that their fellows in the west bank are living several levels of income, personal safety and other quality of life above them, and then hope they come to their senses and change their own goals. Maybe there simply is no solution.
Shachar
Probably because instead of responding by collecting everyone in gaza and killing every tenth person, Israel is responding with economic sanctions, for the purpose of protecting its own people. Again, in response to members of a militia attacking civilians at random.
You know, as opposed to germany, which responded by killing civilians for minor damage to soldiers (they just had to be fired at, not killed).
I find it disgusting that you can't recognize the difference.
That was sorta my point..... it is the others I refer to
All points of time and space are connected.
I agree that there is no easy solution. A long term solution would involve either creation of a new state, merging with Egypt, or the population of Gaza becoming Israeli citizens. There are obviously problems with each of those solutions. In addition, some equivalent to the Marshall Plan might be desirable, or a regional free-trade area that allows movement of goods and people (like E.U./U.S.), to give the people a chance to become prosperous in order to increase the standard of living and ultimately strengthen government institutions. Both of those also have significant political problems. Any solution is also going to have to deal with the fact that known terrorists, or terrorist sympathisers, are likely to be placed into government positions of power - experience from Northern Ireland shows that this is quite galling for a large segment of the population, but they are willing to accept it in return for a more peaceful existence.
This is criminal. People getting away with starving an entire nation. The world powers have become useless to stop such atrocities. When will the world wake up?
Okay now before we begin I would like to say that the whole conflict deeply saddens me, but you have to take an objective look at the history.
Now if you want to go way back to the biblical/Torah references all you have to look at is exodus in which Moses led the Jews out of enslavement in Egypt, upon which Joshua took over leadership and attacked and exterminated (genocide) the Canaanites in order to secure the "promise land"
1. Part of it wasn't the Jews to begin with
2. They killed people in order to get it.
3. This is in Jewish text.
Now as to the modern conflict. Well we have some major issues here. History did not begin in 1948 as the post references.
Now really the modern day conflict begins around in the early 1900's with the Zionist congress in Switzerland, but let's move forward to 1937 with the Peel commission in 1937. The land now that encompasses modern day Jordan and Israel was then known as the British Mandate of Palestine. That's where the Palestinians get their name.
Now due to an influx of Jewish immigration (encouraged by the Zionist Congress) to the area this sparked lots of conflicts between the resident Arab population leaders and the new Jewish immigrants. Hostilities flared up on both sides and as the Mandate was soon to expire granting sovereignty to the region an agreement was to be sought. Given the populations at this time the Peel commission met to formulate the arrangement and this is what was proposed:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Peel_map_pd.png
As you can see from the map it looks very different from today's common recognized maps of the region. The peel commission was not agreed upon by the Arabs or the Jewish immigrants as both sides wanted more than what was offered. The largest mistake was in part due to the Arab leaders stating that they could not assure the protection of the Jewish immigrants.
Now as we move forward in history this was debated back and forth as skirmishes still continued to flare up by both sides attacking the other until World War II broke out.
Now Britain, who still claimed the land as a province, was in dire need of financing for it's war with Germany. Members of the Zionist Congress in Switzerland helped in financing Britain's economic needs under pretense that a more favorable arrangement could be made regarding the Jewish Settlements.
In the meantime massive Jewish immigration began
to descend upon the British Mandate of Palestine exploding the population.
This of course sparks more conflicts with Arab leaders and residents in the area.
Now once the dust settles on WWII the British Mandate of Palestine expires and the moment it ends Israel declares it's independence. on May 14th, 1948. Now this declaration of independence doesn't sit well with the Arabs in the region as it was still thought to be up for discussion and arrangement.
With the aid of the British forces in the region whom the Arabs had no reason to believe would be allied with the Jewish population they were able to maintain there independence by defeating any aggressive forces put forth by the Arab population.
Here is a UN partition plan for Israel in 1947 a year before independence was declared.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:UN_Partition_Plan_For_Palestine_1947.png
Now what followed after that were a few short wars in which Israel defended it's claim for sovereignty.
In doing so Israel aggressively went forward trying to bring in new western allies to aid in it's desire to bring forth a nation that included ways to try and bring in the United States to support the effort. A major issue at the time was that of the Suez Canal
This led to some successful, and one very unsuccessful attempt in the Levon Affair
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavon_Affair
Now the Sue
Let me say this first so people don't get the wrong message: Firing rockets into civilian populations is wrong and should not be done. Attempting to kill your neighbor is a bad thing and those responsible should be punished.
To me the US sentiment is that you take my land over my dead body and I'll fight you tooth and nail if you take my things away from me. That's what's happened to those in Gaza - the Israelis have taken away their land by force and they're fighting back. How many of you would just lay down your guns and say "Oh well, I guess it's theirs now" when your home gets taken away?
I can never approve of the methods used, attacking civilians is never right, but there are two sides to every conflict so try to open your eyes to the fact that just because they're jewish doesn't mean they're innocent. Truly drop the racist attitude and allow yourself to see the wrongs committed by BOTH sides in this. Israel is committing horrendous acts against those in Gaza, forcing them out of their homes, making land-grabs into their territory and laying siege to masses of innocent people. If someone throws a rock from a crowd the correct response does not involve throwing a hand grenade back into the crowd.
Handling manure safely is not a trivial problem. Manure Pit Gas Hazards
Managing digesters can be a full-time job for someone who really knows what he is doing.
You need to work with tons of this - shit - to generate a significant amount of fuel. Biogas is one of those things which have never made sense as a backyard project.
Much easier solution.
Stop taking pot shots at Israel, denounce terrorism open up some sea side casinos and hotels and then start trading with Egypt and Israel.
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
You do realise that the Germans used the same argument - that collective punishment of the locals meant that they were less likely to help or join the resistance, and hence collective punishment helped to protect German lives?
And you do realise that sanctions on food, fuel, medical supplies and electricity lead to indiscriminate deaths? Hospitals need electricity and medicine, without it innocent people will die. And people need food too, without it, innocent people will die: "So too have the Israelis reduced the calorie intake of the Palestinians in Gaza. According to a UN report, it is presently at 61 percent of the average daily requirements." source, "Palestinians in Gaza were being "starved to death" and received fewer calories a day than people in the poorest parts of Africa." source
Nov 26, 2008 16:36
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1227702331514
First, try this edit on for size:
The irony is that most people who are classified as Jews have never been to Israel and neither have their ancestors - ie they're genetically diverse and not at all a "people group".
Second, I think you forget that under the Ottomans, and in fact, throughout the history of the Middle East, the area now thought of as Palestine was one of the most cosmopolitan and dense areas in the region, due to the presence of important ports along the coast, as well as important religious sites (i.e. Jerusalem). It was a mercantile region focusing on crafts and trade as well as agriculture. To imply that the area west of the Jordan river was sparsely populated solely by bedouin nomads is not historically accurate.
And export the beef.
Such is life when scum sided with the Nazis during WWII and LOST! This of course ignores the claims which are on equal footing which date back for several millenia. Such is life when said scum then decides to constantly MURDER innocent people, especially over fairly invalid claims to land, and then complain they are treated like animals. Don't want to be treated like subhuman animals? Stop acting like subhuman animals every time someone treats you like humans! Period!
Until they decide to act like HUMANS, you can't kill enough of them! This is one of the few cases where genocide is justified!
Yeah, throughout history, TALKING has resolved many conflicts...
I see a headline about an alternative to cooking gas devised around necessity and immediately the ignorant masses turn it into an orgy of jackassery.
If we don't protect the freedom of speech how will we know who the assholes are?
You do realise that the Germans used the same argument - that collective punishment of the locals meant that they were less likely to help or join the resistance, and hence collective punishment helped to protect German lives?
First of all, that isn't true. Germans never made such an argument. Secondly, the germans were trying to commit genocide, using the Jews as scapegoats, not protect themselves. Third, Israel isnt sanctioning the palestinians in an effort to shut down resistance, but rather to protect both Israeli and palestinian lives.
And you do realise that sanctions on food, fuel, medical supplies and electricity lead to indiscriminate deaths? Hospitals need electricity and medicine, without it innocent people will die. And people need food too, without it, innocent people will die: "So too have the Israelis reduced the calorie intake of the Palestinians in Gaza. According to a UN report, it is presently at 61 percent of the average daily requirements." source, "Palestinians in Gaza were being "starved to death" and received fewer calories a day than people in the poorest parts of Africa." source
While I realize that any area that has a lack of food, fuel, medical supplies or electricity can lead to death, that is due to the govermental system of the plo. Hamas does not properly distribute food, fuel, medical supplies, or electricity. If there were no economic sanctions by Israel, palestinians would still have these issues.
If a child is poking you with a stick, and you ask him to stop, and he doesnt listen, you take away the stick. You don't let him keep poking you, even if some idiot standby person says you are stifling his creativity. You certainly dont replace the stick with a baseball bat.
Do you know why people in the poorest parts of africa dont have economic sanctions from Israel? I have a couple of guesses, but I'll give you a chance to figure it out for yourself.
"As commander of a Nazi einsatzgruppen death squad in occupied Poland, Dr. Werner Best came to believe that the most effective response to terrorism was collective punishment. After the fall of France he went on to draft the Third Reich's counterterrorism policy for countries occupied by Germany. Towns where acts of "passive" resistance such as the cutting of telegraph cables had taken place were placed under curfews, fined and slapped with travel restrictions. "Active" resistance--the killing of a German soldier--would be met by reprisal killings of local civilians.
Dr. Best was trying to protect German troops. Rather than be cowed, however, leaders of European resistance groups saw Best's ruthless policy as their chance to radicalize moderates who were still on the fence about their German occupatiers. The insurgents stepped up assassinations of German troops. The killings prompted the Germans to shoot more local businessmen and political leaders. The cycle of violence was spiraling out of control.
Eventually Hitler himself got into the act. Convinced that collective punishment was failing because it wasn't severe enough, the fuhrer issued a September 1941 order to use "the harshest measures" against civilians in areas where the Resistance was active. Arguing that "only the [collective] death penalty can be a real means of deterrence," Hitler ordered that 50 civilians be executed for each German soldier killed.
Some in the German high command argued that punishing innocent civilians in large numbers would alienate the local population and lose the battle for hearts and minds. Although they were eventually proven correct, they were overruled. New reprisals, each worse than the last, strengthened the resolve of the resistance and gained them new recruits. By the end of the war, reprisals had assumed grotesquely lopsided ratios of murdered locals to dead Germans. Entire villages--Lidice in the Czech Republic (340 killed), Oradour-sur-Glane in France (642), Kortelisy in Ukraine (2,892)--were wiped out." - source:
Why? To the Muslims, Jesus Christ is no more than a historical figure. Islam was alive and kicking and doing just fine in the grand scheme of things long before Christianity came into being. If we were to personify the religions, Christianity was a newborn in the manger, while three kings from far off lands, these kings maybe being Islam, Buddhism, and Confucianism... came to visit and gawk at the new kid on the block.
Why would I have to explain to the Muslims in the region that in the grand schemes, Christianity is a relative new-comer to that region... considering how long the religions that were there all along have been there... I think the Muslims already know.
"I love deadlines. I love the whooshing sound they make as they fly by." -D. Adams
You appear to have made my point - germany didnt kill people to fight resistance, but rather were committing genocide.
Unless of course you have the insane belief that killing 50 for 1 is a deterrent.
... with the world's most wrongfully imprisoned.
Let's try an experiment. Wrongfully imprison a few million people, blockade aid from their borders and threaten to invade. Keep it up for a generation...
How many people would respond similarly? How many people would learn to pick up rockets?
There was no German policy of genocide towards the French people. There was a policy of collective punishment towards the French people. If the policy was genocide, then the policy would be to massacre all villages, simply because they exist. The policy was collective punishment - villages were massacred because of resistance assassinations.
I think you misunderstand the meaning of the word genocide - "Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group" - It was not German policy to kill all French people.
Rogue individuals or groups engaging in violence should be treated as a police matter.
If the local territory is unwilling or unable to reasonably pursue such people as an internal police matter, then the people/nation being attacked must externally militarily deal with it.
Or would you like to present an argument that an individual or group should be permitted to engage in unending limitless murder? And that the people being murdered have no right to actively defend themselves?
The military option is far messier and much less effective than domestic policing, it is not an option to take lightly, but when no reasonable policing option is available then the military option is the final resort.
Punishing a city of 500,000 people for the actions of 10 is absurd.
And actually the situation is worse than you suggest. Hamas is the democratically elected government in Gaza. Hamas considers themselves at war with Israel, and Hamas is engaging in military rocket attacks on Israel. So the government is actually waging war on Israel and the people who democratically elected that government are at war with Israel.
So yeah, if one were to seriously respect the legitimacy of the Palestinian democratic elections, then we are talking about war being waged and Israel having every right to respond with full military war.
Yes, it sucks when civilians suffer or get killed in war, but the citizens of a nation are inevitable and legitimate casualties when that nation wages war, and those people are particularly responsible when they democratically elect a government with the explicit policy of waging a war.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
The germans wanted to kill anyone who wasnt german...just because they attempted to commit genocide against multiple groups doesnt make it not genocide.
First of all, congratulations. No sarcasm here. You rose to the challenge of offering a solution where you picked a side based on objective considerations (i.e. - Israel's greater ability to impose a consistent policy), and that plan only relates to one side.
Thanks; you have also managed to keep your text free of claims of historical righteousness. No mean feat with the conflict so near to your doorstep.
A TV satire from the time I talked about earlier showed Shimon Peres, then prime minister, with VR goggles on talking about "a new middle east, peace in our times", while the background showed burning buses. No country should be asked to withstand that, and no politician in any democracy can afford to.
I have always wondered how the problem is reported in Israeli media. I did expect something similar, but can't really judge how widespread that "stop it now, no matter how" sentiment was and is. On the other hand, there are bound to be people on the Israeli side that will be opposed (either by principle, political profit, or plain greed) to any peace gesture. I never said the "being generous" plan was easy, but I can't think of any other.
I think the key to ending the conflict is not by agreeing to tolerate terror, but by raising the standard of living for the Palestinians. Give them hope.
Completely with you on the hope side. No hope means nothing to lose. On the other hand, terrorists will keep terrorizing regardless of what you do (either to keep their stranglehold or to avenge Israeli raids). If you fight them heads on and any damage spills (and it will, and it does), you are feeding their ranks with new desperadoes. You *do* need a lot of courage to hold back fire, but I don't see any other long-term answer; except keeping things like they are now: a slow trickle of deaths, for a long, long time.
Another part of the problem is that the Palestinians have lost sight of what their objectives are. Analyzing their actions show that "having their own state", "living in safety" and "economical prosperity" cannot conceivably be their goals, as their actions do not further and of them.
So what would their goals be? My bet is that Gazans thought that anything would be better than their previous corrupt politicians. They probably saw some kind of hope in voting for Hamas: after all, Hamas seemed like half-way competent (as in not stealing so blatantly), and besides, how much worse could things get? Don't underestimate the effect of nationalistic propaganda and lack of options on desperate people. Anything that makes them less desperate will increase chances for rational thought.
Maybe the solution is to continue doing what we are doing with Gaza, while doing everything we can to make life in the west bank better.
Good for the West Bank, but you won't convince too many Gazans that way. Stiff blockades breed a lot of resentment, and it is always easier to blame the guys imposing the blockade than to blame your own people. And nobody likes to be called a traitor.
Shoot ALL the lobbyists, then turn them into bio-diesel.
...hamas faced many difficulties in obtaining specific metals such as aluminum that are not allowed into Gaza
So what would their goals be?
Your average Muhammed simply wants, to quote GWB, to put food on his family. For the higher-ups, it varies. Some want political power, some really believe in the supremacy of the Islam, some want Israeli annihilated. Hamas has a large chunk of people who want all three, in no particular order.
Good for the West Bank, but you won't convince too many Gazans that way. Stiff blockades breed a lot of resentment, and it is always easier to blame the guys imposing the blockade than to blame your own people. And nobody likes to be called a traitor.
Actually, my original idea had one more element. Allow people to immigrate between the two area, with the condition that the local government be allowed to "deport" anyone who moves under said treaty back to the part he came from. Hopefully, this will draw the cool-heads to where life is better, leave the fanatics to brew in their own juice. I am sure of neither how well this will work, nor of how wise/moral it is to bank on people leaving their homes.
I have to say I'm not particularly optimistic. I've had a chance to talk to several people from the Arab world (usually not Palestinian) through blogs and such. The inherent distrust for all things Jewish and Israeli is embedded in their bringing up. I was taught in school many things that were biased, but I was also taught about things Israel (and, earlier, the Jewish settlement) did that were less than favorable, and in some cases downright atrocious. The Arab mistakes/immoralities are NEVER taught in schools in the Arab world.
As a rule, Arabs grow up to being taught that Israel is the ultimate evil, more racist than the Nazis and South Africa in their worst times, and cannot be trusted. Even the the bright and liberal ones, those that understand that Israel has the right to exist and that a peaceful solution must be found, cannot (as a rule) bring themselves to acknowledge that it may not be racist, or that the terrible things that happen in Gaza are not done due to an honest wish for self defense and nothing more.
It is easier with free software activists (I dabbled my hands into BiDi support). There was an initial distrust, but things got down and technical pretty quickly. Then again, I deliberately avoided bringing the subject up, and I believe that so did they.
Shachar
No they didn't. Read New Order. The Germans wanted to enslave and exterminate non-Aryans (primarily the Jews and Slavs). They wanted a treaty with Great Britain that gave Germany control over Europe, and Britain control over the seas and British Empire. They aimed to conquer the other Aryan nations, but there was no plan to exterminate fellow Aryans. Asia was to be divided between the Japanese Empire and Germany - there was no plan to exterminate the Japanese. Incidentally, Mussolini opposed Hitler's view of racial domination - he had a Jewish lover, and one in three adult Italian Jews were members of his National Fascist Party.
Well, if the "incursions" always happened after a missile was launched from an American city onto the neighboring civilian objects (cities, villages etc) - sure as hell the sane public would vote for a moderate leadership that would, for starters, stop firing missiles and see if that makes things better (practice shows that it does), and then try to bargain with those other guys.
Especially when all you have is those crappy missiles and AKs, and the enemy is extremely well equipped & trained, and could go over you like a steamroller if really wanted... with the only thing stopping it is some weird ethical reasons such as aversion to large-scale massacre of civilian (even if mostly hostile) population...
What we need to do to cut down on fuel costs is mine heavy-ass rock.
Actually, from 18th June until 19th December 2008 there was a Gaza ceasefire which Hamas agreed to. The rocket attacks in that period were launched by other groups. Wikipedia says that the following groups also manufacture missiles and shoot them towards Israel: Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Popular Resistance Committees, and Tanzim. During ceasefires Hamas asks the other groups to halt missile attacks. In that article, Abu Obieda, the top Hamas commander in the Gaza strip, said "To shoot rockets into Israel is not a goal of Hamas; it is not a real target. But when Israel attacks us, it is our only way to respond. We do not hope to kill people in Israel with these rockets but it's a necessary response." Apparently Islamic Jihad fire the most rockets in to Israel, and Hamas does not control them - there have been armed clashes between Hamas and Islamic Jihad.
It's a tricky situation - Israel wants to undermine Hamas by destroying their power base and support through economic sanctions, and then encourage other groups to remove them from government, but at the same time Israel complains when Hamas doesn't have the power to prevent those other groups from firing missiles across the border.
In the battle of Mogadishu, 30 Somalians were killed for every dead American. Yet it does not mean that there was a systematic genocide of Somalians by Americans. It only means that, when Somalians (or rather, a specific faction of them) were stupid enough to attack Americans, Americans fought back, and turned up being 30 times better (trained, equipped etc) in that.
Simply put, comparing the casualty numbers doesn't tell you who's right and who's wrong. It only tells you who's winning and who's losing.
I think it was all stolen from the Canaanites. Unless we consider that the Canaanites usurped it from the Sumerians.
Land grabs - sorry to be cynical, but that's just the sad busyness-as-usual for the human race.
Pathological kinda promises Path + Logical - but instead, you get stuck with pathetic.
From your own sources you are wrong.
Hitler wanted to conquer britain. The plan was to capture and send members of the british empire overseas as slaves. The women were to be used in population farms. This was broken up when the united kingdom won the battle of britain.
I dont really see why you think that sending off all the men and mating with the women isnt a form of genocide, but if you are going to be a pedant, at least do some research first.
To actually understand what hitler was trying to do, you might have to actually do more than partially quote wikipedia.
As for mussolini, he didnt understand what hitler was trying to do. He went as far as to point out that he has never read mein kampf, stating that it was too boring to read. Rather than explicitly disagree with hitler, mussolini just said that mein kampf was full of little more than commanplace cliches. Indifference is not opposition.
Because I associate genocide with killing - the postfix "-cide" means "to kill" in Latin. I understand that there are many different definitions of genocide. What you are saying is that you think slavery is genocide. Possibly even that destruction of a culture, by any means, would be genocide? Yes, some people think that China is currently commiting genocide against the Tibetan people. And by the reasoning that slavery is a form of genocide, then white Americans commited genocide against the ancestors of modern day African-Americans. It's a valid claim - I might not agree entirely, since the Tibetans and African-Americans are still alive, but I can understand the reasoning.
Mussolini said that Jews had lived in Italy "since the days of the Kings of Rome" and should "remain undisturbed". He also said "Race! It is a feeling, not a reality: ninety-five percent, at least, is a feeling. Nothing will ever make me believe that biologically pure races can be shown to exist today... National pride has no need of the delirium of race."
"Opposition" might be too strong a word, since he did actually bring in the Manifesto of Race, but it is clear that Mussolini did not personally agree with Hitler's ideas of race.
Actually, pre-1948, the word Palestine and Palestinian referred to Jews, not the Muslims who referred to themselves as Arabs and considered the word "Palestine" to be a foreign or even Jewish-associated appelation.
In fact, today's Israeli newspaper, "Jerusalem Post", was called the "Palestine Post" in pre-state Israel.
The word "Palestine" (or Palestinea) was coined by the Romans to try to wipe out and replace the nationalistic name "Judea" which the land was then called. The new name was meant to hearken back to the "Philistines" and demoralize the Jews who had been defeated.
The notion of a separate(Arab) Palestinian identity did not take root until after 1948. Even then, until after 1967, when Judea/Samaria/Gaza were under Jordanian & Egyptian rule, the arab world referred to them mostly as Arabs since the last thing they wanted was to create a new nationalist movement that would compete with their own territorial ambitions.
Also, most of today's "Palestinians" immigrated into the are in the last 100 years spurred by the economic growth and opportunity created by the burgeoning Jewish populace. In fact, visitors in the mid 19th century (like Mark Twain) found the Holy Land to be depressingly desolate and depopulated. Many of the surnames of today's Palestinian families can be traced back to their (recent) origins in neighboring Arab countries.
Disgusting that such a racist barrage is modded 4 Interesting.......
The poster should open a map. Gaza borders on Israel AND EGYPT. The man could have only been prevented from getting cooking oil of both countries blockaded him!
But what do I know, you may be a genious instead of a random kidiot.
"genious"? Are you trolling for spelling lames or something?
Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
As an Israeli that has completed his combat army service, I can tell you that the situation is much to complicated to be described in words. I wouldn't know even where to start. But the fact is, that on the day to day basis no one cares who started what, but what we need to do to survive. The Gaza strip has been taken over by the Hammas terrorist organisation, that has decided to take every resource it can get to arm it self and attack Israel, much at the expsense of the palestinian population that are starving living in one of the most dense places on earth. However instead of uprising against Hammas, the feed on its indocrination. Hammas continually fires rockets on Israel towns and cities targeting population. We have bit our lips for a long time, and now it is time to put a stop to it. London didn't put up with germans bombing it in WW2, its a parelal situation. And about the siege that caused the lack of supplies to Gaza, it seems the lately everytime Israel was about to lift the siege Hammas fired more rockets almost as if they wanted their people to suffer, as they feed on sufering for their political power. Israel has no plan to take over anything, we just want to live in peace without having rockets and poeple blowing up all over the place.
Huh?
Muhammad began preaching around 630 AD... Catch that end bit AD... That means about 600 years AFTER Christ was born.
So unless Muhammad was also a time traveler Islam is younger than Christianity.
"You can't make a race horse of a pig"
"No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
Palestine has been known as Palestine since Roman times. That does not mean that it was anything approaching a country or organized people group. It has always been a crossroads and melting pot of genetic diversity, warfare, travelers, and trade.
Back to the whole 'naming' thing. The "Palestine" region has indeed been called "Palestine" (or some language-specific variant) since Roman times. Why? Because that's what the Romans renamed the Judean area after the Judean uprising: Palaestina (as an insult to the Jews who were predominant in the area at the time, in reference to the past peoples of the Philistines which the Jews defeated).
The "Palestine" mispronunciation did not come about until Arabs came to the area circa 650AD or so. (Thus, the Palestinians should, ironically, be called Philistines in English.)
I'm not sure what you were getting at with your Churchill quote; yes, my reading comprehension is OK, thanks. It seemed fairly non sequitur.
My personal opinion is that Israel should knock the shit out of the Palestinians, on the simple basis that they're culturally and technologically superior in every way. By "superior" I mean "like me" and "not prone to 3rd world tribal religious fanaticism and genocide". This would not be a matter at all, if the Palistinians didn't insist upon throwing the whole effort of their peoples (not government, as they've shown they have no such legit thing) behind the destruction of Israel.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
Furthermore, those statistics likely include Palistinian-inflicted, food-shortage-inflicted, and blew-self-up type deaths as a part of the total.
That's a stupid argument. The UN says "Let there be Israel!" then "Uh, Israel, please don't be a fuckwad... stop bombing people" and you say that it's hypocritical to only support the second statement because they came from the same source? I am, frankly, offended by how little thought went into your post.
Grammar Nazi
So if he were a historical figure, how could Islam be older then said figure? Somebody else already pointed out when Islam was started.
Also Jezus is NOT just an historical figure, he is a prophet, just like Mozes or Mohammed. It is that Mohammed is the last one, according to Islam.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Yes, because those subsequent ones favor people, who reject the first one. As soon as those people accept the first one, Israel will accept the subsequent ones — natural order, is not it?
Yes, of course. There is no hypocrisy in Israel's behavior here. Only in that of her enemies.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
As soon as those people accept the first one, Israel will accept the subsequent ones -- natural order, is not it?
And many Palestinians would say the same thing - if Israel left the West Bank and stopped blockading Gaza most of them would be content to leave Israel alone, even if they weren't happy about the situation.
There is no hypocrisy in Israel's behavior here.
Right, because demanding that other people follow the rules while at the same time violating those rules isn't hypocrisy. Most of the world outside of Israel and the US understands that this isn't a conflict with clear good and bad guys.
Only in that of her enemies.
And from the other side, there's a bunch of Palestinians and an occupying military force. Using the dehumanizing word "enemies" to describe people who merely disagree with how a government behaves sounds very much like propaganda.
Hopefully he is not too far off from discovering Greek Fire again, maybe then the rightful owners of that land can burn off the filthy jew infestation as the ovens in europe should have done in the early 1940s.
Maybe all you zionist morons should turn off faux news and try looking at the wholesale atrocities committed by infested jews there and then ask yourself how you would react. Fact of the matter is that jews are the aggressor and cause of many problems globally through their murderous and treacherous mossad organization and around the land they squat on owned by the Palestinians. They run over unarmed peaceful protesters with bulldozers which are out to knockdown homes of families in their own country and this is when their snipers are not picking off children and unarmed protesters and pretending nothing happened.
Fuck you israel, may you be wiped from the face of the map and damn soon.
Microwave anyone ?
"Many" is weaselese, which can not be substantiated. Most Palestinians would not say that, as evidenced by their overwhelming support for Hamas in the most recent elections. You see, all those subsequent UN-resolutions, some of which Israel refuses to obey, call on the State of Israel to do this-and-that. However, according to Hamas and its friends, there is no "State of Israel" — there is an evil "Zionist Entity", which temporarily occupies Northern Palestine.
It would've been, if "the rules" were unrelated (orthogonal). They aren't — until you recognize my right to exist, I'm going to ignore pleas on your behalf, even those pleas comes from the same entity, that granted my existence.
Bzzz, false. 2004 called and wanted that non-argument back. In 2005 Israel left Gaza completely — and nothing has changed for the better. Nothing... Evidently, you are one of those, who (knowingly?) misunderstand, what occupation means in Hamas-speak...
But let's not get distracted from the hypocrisy of Israel's enemies, demanding the country obeys UN-resolutions, while rejecting the very first resolution establishing the country itself.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
We have weapons to dispose of them, but since we're so whipped to the UN and keeping international peace, we don't.
Most Palestinians would not say that, as evidenced by their overwhelming support for Hamas in the most recent elections.
Yeah, they don't like Israel, we get it. But I honestly think that most would be willing to stop the violence if they had a chance at actual freedom - and not an oversized prison like Gaza.
It would've been, if "the rules" were unrelated (orthogonal). They aren't --
Someone else already pointed out the silliness of that argument.
That makes no sense. As long as you follow only the rules you want to, you have no right to insist that anyone else follow them, period.
In 2005 Israel left Gaza completely...
But kept up the blockades - Gaza is still very much under the control of the Israeli military, just in a slightly more indirect way.
I don't know were you got your perspective on this situation, but it seems quite one-sided. I mean, what do you think the rest of the world's opinion of Israel is based on? And why do you think the US ends up as its sole supporter in many situations? Do you think that most Europeans' (and others') views on this conflict are completely crazy, or just very misinformed?
I would've asked for facts to back up this opinion, but it is unrelated to "hypocrisy" charge, so whatever...
No, they didn't: "Tell me, how does opposing the establishment of Israel incompatible with opposing its unlawful expansion or its treatment of Palestinians?"
The answer is very simple and was already given in this thread. Israel's enemy's reject the country's right to exist, and is actively working on ending this existence. That existence was brought about by, among other things, a UN resolution — the very first one on the subject of Israel. It is perfectly logical, clean, legal, and moral for Israel to pay no attention to subsequent UN-resolutions, which concern Israel's interaction with its enemies, until the said enemies accept that very first UN-resolution.
A particular aspect of Israel's policy over the decades of war may or may not be right. But UN-resolutions remain irrelevant to that, until, once again, Israel's enemies accept the very first one.
That's childish nonsense. This is not a game, but a matter of life and death — for Israel. If the enemy wants you dead, you'd be an idiot to grant him any quarter. Israel's inhumanity is a sign of such idiocy, but they aren't totally crazy. Their enemy cares not for UN or similar bullshit — just look at what's happening in Sudan and Afghanistan, while the Arab League and other "respectable" enemies of Israel look the other way. Having lost "fair and square" on the battlefields of several wars in the 20th century, the Arab regimes are now trying to win with terrorism on one hand and propaganda on the other. Judging by your posts, they aren't doing so bad — despite being utterly and obviously insincere.
Yeah, right. "One-sided" is bad, because everything has two (and equal) sides to it — or so your humanities professors told you, didn't they...
Well, sometimes, you know, life presents not "shades of gray", but a perfectly distinguishable contrast between evil black and honest white. Even if, after trying hard, you can find a spec of white on the black side, or some marring dust on the white side, it does not change the whole story. Israel's moral high ground is sky high. Unlike the enemies, they aren't out to kill anybody, they just wish to survive and prosper on their side of the border.
Very large Arab and Muslim minorities in Europe vs. vocal and strong Jewish lobby in the US is what explains the differences in attitude. Neither is and indicator of truth in itself.
I'm not posting any more here. We are done with "hypocrisy" nonsense, and the larger conflict itself will settle only — as Golda Meyer predicted decades ago — "when the Arabs begin to love their children more than they hate ours ".
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
I am, frankly, offended by how little thought went into your post.
I'm frankly offended at how many people around here eat up Hamas propaganda and make excuses for their terrorist attacks. This guy said it far more eloquently than I can. Until Israel's enemies accept that she has the right to exist I really don't see why she should feel compelled to obey UN resolutions that relate to those enemies.
The Arab's would seem to have three choices:
1) Build enough military superiority to defeat Israel on the battlefield. This doesn't seem particularly likely and even if they managed it there's the little matter of MAD to consider.....
2) Keep engaging in tit for tat attacks and accept disproportionate casualties on your side. They launch some rockets, kill or wound a few Israelis. The Israelis retaliate and kill hundreds of Palestinians.
3) Accept that Israel has the right to exist and end the violence.
Option 3 seems like the best one to me but what do I know?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Which part of the my current sig could possibly be related to Middle East policy or any other aspect of foreign policy at all? Yes, there may or may not be concerns — as with any new President — but nothing on that page talks about anything remotely related to anything abroad...
Barack Hussein? Is this you?! No?.. Then what the fook am I to do with your worthless "assurance"?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Talk about eating up propaganda... you say that people "make excuse for [Hamas's] terrorist attacks" and then you do the same thing with Israel's! Reality is, they're both wrong. If you can't see that (which apparently you can't) you're not being honest. Then you appear to go on to advocate that might makes right? That because any option but accepting Israel results in Israelis killing Palestinians (in itself wrong) that it should be done? How would you feel if I went in to your house with a gun and shot you and your family because you don't agree with me? It's the same logic but I would bet that you would be considerably less accepting then...
Grammar Nazi
In several Asimov novels the characters are eating dinner, and they take a sealed container of food, press a lever or contact, and the food heats up. The character then removes the cover and eats.
IIRC Starbucks tried something like this a few years ago. They had a container with (again iirc) the bottom closed off, with two compartnebts with water and CaO. It was supposed to work just like the Asimov bowls.
They had two problems with it. First, reheated coffee SUCKS. Take yesterday's coffee and microwave it, it's worse than instant. Second, a few of the containers deteriorated and the coffee got contaminated with CaO.
Free Martian Whores!
That existence was brought about by, among other things, a UN resolution -- the very first one on the subject of Israel. It is perfectly logical, clean, legal, and moral for Israel to pay no attention to subsequent UN-resolutions, which concern Israel's interaction with its enemies, until the said enemies accept that very first UN-resolution.
So because Iraq didn't follow UN resolutions, the USA doesn't have to follow later resolutions about the treatment of prisoners in Iraq? I still believe that no matter what the order the resolutions were passed, if you're going to base the majority of your legal and moral right to exist on US resolutions, you should treat all other UN resolutions as equally important.
This is not a game, but a matter of life and death -- for Israel.
No, this is a matter of life and death for human beings.
Unlike the enemies, they aren't out to kill anybody, they just wish to survive and prosper on their side of the border.
And if they only crossed that border to carry out surgical strikes on people who were attacking them, I would say that they were doing the best they could. A 40-year occupation, land-grabbing settlements, playing cutesy with whether or not they have nuclear weapons - that's not acceptable no matter what the situation.
Well, sometimes, you know, life presents not "shades of gray", but a perfectly distinguishable contrast between evil black and honest white.
Yes, that's true. It just doesn't apply when the "good" guys deliberately block food and medical supplies from getting to civilians.
Israel's moral high ground is sky high. Unlike the enemies, they aren't out to kill anybody, they just wish to survive and prosper on their side of the border.
No, for many people it isn't that high, it's reputation is right above North Korea's - 3rd from the bottom in Newsweek's international poll, if memory serves.
"when the Arabs begin to love their children more than they hate ours ".
Nothing leads to peace faster than dehumanizing those that disagree with you (they don't even love their children!).
I'm not posting any more here.
We've obviously reached the "agree to disagree" point - we're just running in circles. Best of luck.
Ummmm. No. Arabs attacked when Israel was mandated by the U.N. That would make the cause of the bullshit to be on the Arabs heads.
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. Politically correct fuckwad. Your kind will never end any issues just propagate them because you are afraid to go after the root of the real issues for fear of offending someone. Get over it. You are among those who will only ever talk and never take action, since that is the only way not to offend someone. But your specious mouthing off and lack of action is in its own form an action in its own. The action of status quo: doing nothing. Nothing of action. That offends ME. The world needs more people willing to pull the skeletons out of the closets, not leave them in there to fester. Your kind of thinking will lead to more problems than not.
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.