Slashdot Mirror


New Mega-Leak Reveals Middle East Peace Process

An anonymous reader writes "There's been yet another mega-leak, this time of 1,600 papers describing the Israeli/Palestinian peace process negotiations. It's independent of Wikileaks and came to light via al-Jazeera, showing perhaps that the mega-leak meme is here to stay whatever happens to Assange. The papers show a weak Palestinian side offering ever greater concessions to Israel, which flatly rejected this as being insufficient: 'We do not like this suggestion because it does not meet our demands,' Israel's then foreign minister, Tzipi Livni, told the Palestinians, 'and probably it was not easy for you to think about it, but I really appreciate it.'"

760 comments

  1. Its really by alexborges · · Score: 4, Interesting

    A whole new game, ain't it now?

    --
    NO SIG
    1. Re:Its really by Magic5Ball · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It only seems like a new game because we've grown accustomed to the non-critical, non-investigative journalism that's handed to us on the nightly news. The news should be surprising to most people since we're mostly not experts in Middle-East relations, but astute readers of Foreign Policy, The Economist, AJ, or even La Presse should find very little new except for the details of individual human speech and interactions (the same can be said of any close transcript of almost any meeting or discussion).

      However, that's not to say that leaked details aren't valuable to somebody. If we were smart about this, we'd ask under what circumstances it's acceptable for professionals in general (who are also accountable to the public) to provide contrasting or conflicting private and public accounts of their professional activities as experts.

      --
      There are 1.1... kinds of people.
    2. Re:Its really by Dunbal · · Score: 2

      "I read about it on the internet so it must be true"

      It strikes me as fairly easy to publish propaganda this way. I wonder who is behind these "leaks".

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    3. Re:Its really by Dolphinzilla · · Score: 4, Insightful

      great post - anyone who travels much and sees the world through their own eyes will quickly realize that most of what we are told on the "news" is highly filtered and twisted to make it palatable to the sheep !

    4. Re:Its really by c6gunner · · Score: 0, Troll

      Exactly. I'm about to publish a leak proving that alien lizards have infiltrated the highest levels of our governments. Just don't ask me for my sources, they're "confidential". Stay tuned to www.UFOleaks.com for more info!

    5. Re:Its really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's nothing new in the sense that anyone who was paying attention already knew what was going on. But there is something new in the sense that it's out in the open now so the apologists for Israel can no longer bleat 'conjecture'. At least, not nearly as much: the capacity for disingenuity appears limitless.

      The people who deny climate change demanded to see the raw data, then they demanded to see the emails between scientists, and now they're still saying that 1998 was the warmest year on record as if it mattered.

    6. Re:Its really by Tacvek · · Score: 1

      Exactly. I'm about to publish a leak proving that alien lizards have infiltrated the highest levels of our governments. Just don't ask me for my sources, they're "confidential". Stay tuned to www.UFOleaks.com for more info!

      I think you mean tune into ABC. They are currently airing a serial documentary abut these very aliens.

      --
      Stylish sheet to fix many problems in Slashdot's D3: https://gist.github.com/801524
    7. Re:Its really by hoggoth · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You go ahead and forge 1,600 documents involving hundreds or thousands of players that intermingles hundreds of verifiable meetings and facts with your fake counter-intelligence. Good luck with that.

      The only chance of actually pulling off something like that would be if you actually got your hands on 1,600 real leaked documents and carefully wove a thread of fake edits throughout it. Oh, and hope nobody ELSE can get the same leak of 1,600 documents that contradict yours.

      --
      - For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat /dev/random (may take some time)
    8. Re:Its really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      alien lizards have infiltrated the highest levels of our governments.

      Dick Cheney isn't in office anymore.

    9. Re:Its really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It only seems like a new game because we've grown accustomed to the non-critical, non-investigative journalism that's handed to us on the nightly news. The news should be surprising to most people since we're mostly not experts in Middle-East relations, but astute readers of Foreign Policy, The Economist, AJ, or even La Presse should find very little new except for the details of individual human speech and interactions (the same can be said of any close transcript of almost any meeting or discussion).

      However, that's not to say that leaked details aren't valuable to somebody. If we were smart about this, we'd ask under what circumstances it's acceptable for professionals in general (who are also accountable to the public) to provide contrasting or conflicting private and public accounts of their professional activities as experts.

      I only wish Al Jazeera was trustworthy. They have been known to fib, fabricate, outright lie, etc... You name it!

    10. Re:Its really by qbzzt · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It would be difficult to forge those 1,600 documents.

      A much easier propaganda use is to go over the documents you do have, and decide selectively which ones to leak - the ones that make your side look good, and the other side look bad.

      --
      -- Support a free market in the field of government
    11. Re:Its really by jamesh · · Score: 4, Interesting

      For sure. It completely baffles me how anyone can have a strong opinion on any issue when they are only fed the information via the mainstream media. War on Terrorism is the main one that springs to mind - so many people wanting the US (and everyone else) out of there and obviously feeling very strongly about it, having only read about it in mainstream media and maybe a few forums. Maybe they're right, maybe there are a whole load of valid reasons why we shouldn't be over there, but how can they know for sure when they are just repeating 'popular opinion'???

      Even wikileaks leaves itself wide open to astroturfing with manufactured 'leaks' to suit someone's agenda. It doesn't even have to go that far if someone somewhere is deciding what to leak and what to bury.

      I don't have a better solution, but it does kind of bug me...

    12. Re:Its really by Socialism+is+win! · · Score: 2

      Once the revolution has been prosecuted, the people will no longer be permitted to live with comfortable delusions.

      --
      You say potato, I say produce of The People's Collective Farm
    13. Re:Its really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Exactly. Notice who looks bad in this situation, and WHO ended up with the leak.

      After watching the 'peace' process break down again and again here. You have to realize *NEITHER* side is really interested in it. It doesnt even take 'digging into it' much to realize this.

      A leak that makes Israel look bad and it comes thru Al-Jazeera color me shocked. This would be like seeing a leak that makes the GOP look bad coming from CNN/MSNBC, or the democrats look bad coming from FoxNews. Those 'news' organizations are about 'if it bleeds it leads' and 'targeting the core audience'. Not about news. I guarantee within the next month or two will be another 'leak' that shows the other side is just as bad. My money is it coming thru CNN and/or FoxNews.

      These are like two children who are fighting over a toy that neither one really wants. You need to pick them both up take the toy away knock their heads together and say 'play nice and dont make me come back in here'.

    14. Re:Its really by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Yeah? Well take a look at Al-Jazeera and then take a look at CNN. With CNN, we have in the second row:

      What a first week
      An eclectic mix of superstar guests this week talked with Piers Morgan about love, war and everything in between.
      Stern: I don't like Jay Leno Video
      Rice: Be ready for 3 a.m. call Video
      Oprah: I'm never getting married"

      Al-Jazeera, who may be biased and ignore pop culture B.S. on the front page; or CNN and FoxNews who give priority to celebrity diversion. I can't take credit for pointing that out, that comparison was brought to light in 4chan's /b/ years ago...and it still hasn't changed.

      Harumph, idiot America.

    15. Re:Its really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which makes them no different to any other news organisation on the planet. In fact, they're actually pretty good when reporting outside the ME. Luckily you don't have to trust AJ, you can read the Guardian who claims to have verified the documents through various means.

    16. Re:Its really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      but how can they know for sure when they are just repeating 'popular opinion'???

      I'd like to know the same thing about people who blindly support it.

    17. Re:Its really by couchslug · · Score: 2

      "You need to pick them both up take the toy away knock their heads together and say 'play nice and dont make me come back in here'."

      Fallacy. The idea that a local problem requires global involvement is absurd. Worst case, one side loses.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    18. Re:Its really by seanadams.com · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If the other side wants to leak something that makes their point then I'm all ears for that too. Fuck it all, leak everything!

    19. Re:Its really by chrisG23 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Last time I checked (a few years ago), Al-Jazeera was a shining example of independent journalism that reports all sides of a story, and is criticized in the West for being too pro-Islam, and very harshly criticized in the Islamic world for being too anti-Islam. Have things changed? Can you please cite me an example of Al-Jazeera having an agenda (other than "the truth", which is what Al-Jazeera means)?

      Al-Jazeera receives funding from the government of Qatar (and is based in Qatar). The government of Qatar is a pretty big ally of the government of the United States. The government of the United State is a pretty big supporter of the Government of Israel. You make of that what you will when you see them report on news that is not taken well in Israel, the United State, or Qatar.

    20. Re:Its really by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      He didn't say Al-jazeera stood alone. What he's trying to convey is that they make Fox News looks like men of honor. Now ponder that...seriously...who says you can't have a good laugh from the Internet.

    21. Re:Its really by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 5, Insightful

      After watching the 'peace' process break down again and again here. You have to realize *NEITHER* side is really interested in it.

      The "peace" process has been Israel and the U.S. telling the people of Palestine to, essentially, "relax and enjoy it". No, the Palestinians are not interested in that, but over and over their leadership has shown an interest in sincerely working for peace. It's not surprising that they cannot find a reliable partner for peace and justice in Israel, any more than the Native Americans nations have ever been able to find a reliable partner for peace and justice with the U.S. government.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    22. Re:Its really by E+IS+mC(Square) · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't get this "because it's al-jazeera, it must be biased".

      Two things:
      1. Al-Jazeera, if you remove your yellow glasses, is actually a very high caliber new organization, unlike most of anything you find in the US. Of course, they belong to a different country, different culture and difference environment, and may not speak your language so to speak, but that does not mean they are not good. Do some research for once for fuck sake. To help you, start with the excellent documentary "Control Room". And don't even try to compare it with CNN.

      2. Even if one assumes AJ is bias, if the document they release prove to be correct, how does that take away the truth in any form?

    23. Re:Its really by u17 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Even wikileaks leaves itself wide open to astroturfing with manufactured 'leaks' to suit someone's agenda. It doesn't even have to go that far if someone somewhere is deciding what to leak and what to bury.

      Wikileaks do their best to verify the leaks before publishing them. IIRC, they sent some people to Iraq to confirm the authenticity of the leaked video, before publishing "Collateral Murder", for example. While it's possible that they will make a mistake sooner or later, I don't think that what you're describing is so easy.

    24. Re:Its really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Have you actually *read* anything on Al Jazeera, or do you just assume it's biased because the name sounds all muslim-y?

    25. Re:Its really by fishexe · · Score: 4, Insightful

      For sure. It completely baffles me how anyone can have a strong opinion on any issue when they are only fed the information via the mainstream media. War on Terrorism is the main one that springs to mind - so many people wanting the US (and everyone else) out of there and obviously feeling very strongly about it, having only read about it in mainstream media and maybe a few forums. Maybe they're right, maybe there are a whole load of valid reasons why we shouldn't be over there, but how can they know for sure when they are just repeating 'popular opinion'???

      I don't know where you get the idea that popular opinion says to end the War on Terror, based on reading the mainstream media. It seems to me that almost every cheerleader of the War on Terror I've met was someone who limited themselves to the mainstream media and limited their discussion of the issue to repeating talking points, and almost every staunch critic of the War on Terror I've met has based their opinion on having done independent research including talking to people from the affected parts of the world on all sides of the issue, and could engage in lengthy and nuanced debates on the subject. Maybe you just assume because their view doesn't match yours that it must be based on lack of information? Or maybe you're in a country where that is the popular opinion and I'm just assuming you're in the US 'cause I'm a dope ;-)

      --
      "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
    26. Re:Its really by fishexe · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Notice who looks bad in this situation, and WHO ended up with the leak.

      Al Jazeera ended up with the leak; the World Health Organization had nothing to do with it!

      --
      "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
    27. Re:Its really by fishexe · · Score: 1

      I can't take credit for pointing that out, that comparison was brought to light in 4chan's /b/ years ago...and it still hasn't changed.

      To be fair, I would lose a lot of respect for CNN if I found out they were reading /b/, so that's probably a good thing.

      --
      "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
    28. Re:Its really by fishexe · · Score: 5, Insightful

      He didn't say Al-jazeera stood alone. What he's trying to convey is that they make Fox News looks like men of honor.

      Which is only true if you take "Muslims are dishonest" or something similar as one of your premises. For all the talk about "fibs" and "lies" on al Jazeera, they are measurably more accurate and less biased than Fox News. It's just that they're biased in a direction that is politically incorrect in present American society, whereas Fox News is biased in a direction that's politically correct (again, within American society) so they usually get a pass.

      --
      "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
    29. Re:Its really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Those 'news' organizations are about 'if it bleeds it leads' and 'targeting the core audience'. Not about news.

      You're right about that. But what NBC, CNN & FOX have to do with Al-Jazeera is beyond me.

      Al-Jazeera isn't a political mouthpiece like the US news organizations. They're actually committed to reporting the truth. In late 2009 Al-Jazeera was expelled from Palestine after being sanctioned by Israel earlier that year. Plenty of middle eastern governments dislike Al-Jazeera even more than the US government. Trying to imply that Al-Jazeera has a stronger relationship with Palestine rather than Israel by drawing vacuous conclusions based on completely un-related organizations is mis-representation based on flawed assumptions and totally unrelated evidence.

    30. Re:Its really by ehack · · Score: 4, Informative

      A point of information: The leak makes the PA look bad. The PA comes out as lying to their citizens

      Israel comes out of it pretty much as they were before, as simply not interested in negotiation that do not give them all they want.

      AlJazeera has demolished the PA with this article. *I* am truly shocked.

      --
      This is not a signature.
    31. Re:Its really by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Al-Jazeera is not a 'shining example of independent journalism'. It is, however, much much better than the usual government-controlled stuff coming out that region (excluding Ha'aretz etc which also have articles from the left and right sides of the political spectrum).

      If you read the Al-Jazeera article being discussed, rather than relying on your pre-formed perception, you would realise it that is was an opinion piece and unbalanced (as would be expect from an opinion). The author essentially considers the main Palestinian negotiator as a 'sell-out' for going for compromise/concessions. The ability for the Palestinians to make up their own mind to find something that could bring peace doesn't seem to enter into the author's head.

      There are two other things worth noting that you may be unaware of (I have travelled a fair bit around that region, including Israel):
      1) What is written and declared by the Palestinians in English generally does not match what is declared in Arabic. There has never been a recognition of Israel's right to exist in Arabic (try finding Israel on a Palenstinian map). In fact, most things (eg. soothing words to the West) are taken as temporary tactics until Israel is finally pushed into the sea and all Palestinian land reclaimed.

      2) Concessions by the Palestinians are remarkable. Generally, offering a concession is viewed as a sign of weakness in many parts of Arab culture, and a sign of weakness means you should hold out for more rather than find a mutually acceptable solution. This is one of the reasons that Ehud Barak failed to achieve a settlement when he offered a very large number of concessions many years ago.

      3) Both sides do not trust each other. It seems that settlement building will never stop, even in regions internationally accepted as Palestinian - so naturally Palestinians do ot trust the Israeli government. Plus even the dovish Israelis also seem to have resigned themselves that the Palestinians do not want peace (after two Intifada) - which is why the bulk of moderate Israelis (who don't want a 'Greater Israel', they just want a nice life) are tolerant of their increasingly hawkish governments. One big change was the unilateral withdrawal from Gaza by the Israelis which did not bring any peace and is now used as a staging post for missile attacks (which seek to 'liberate' the rest of the land, Gaza was only the beginning).

    32. Re:Its really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. They seem to be missing the targets of these leaks. Opponents of Obama. Hillary, Jews, Republicans. Not one mention of the President or any Democrat, save his opposing running mate.

      It's really hard to see how that happens. Not a peep about any of the communist shitbags that are running this supposed government.

    33. Re:Its really by Sonny+Yatsen · · Score: 1

      Despite the implication, nobody looks good with this leak. Among the Palestineans, do you think the news that Palistinean negotiators gave such wide concessions would be very popular?

      --
      My postings are informational and does not constitute legal advice. Act on it at your risk.
    34. Re:Its really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How about referring to the victims of suicide bombers and intifada violence as "martyrs?"

    35. Re:Its really by DeviantxOne · · Score: 2

      ...other than "the truth", which is what Al-Jazeera means?

      While I agree with what you said, I feel compelled to let you know that it means The Island, not the truth. See the Wikipedia Talk page for details.

    36. Re:Its really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The GP is an example of everything that is wrong in America these days. There are no "facts" in America anymore. Anything said that opposes your viewpoint can only have been produced by partisans distorting the "truth" to push an agenda. Anything that agrees with your viewpoint was produced by independent and well respected experts in the particular subject.

    37. Re:Its really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Proof of this? I can't find anything of what you just said. Wikipedia's controversy section seems to be attacks against it rather than things it's done wrong.
      So put up or shut up.

    38. Re:Its really by KingAlanI · · Score: 1

      criticized in the West for being too pro-Islam, and very harshly criticized in the Islamic world for being too anti-Islam.

      When both sides think you're biased against them, that seems to be a fairly good sign that you're indeed balanced. :)

      As for Western media, I get a similar impression of the BBC.

      --
      I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
    39. Re:Its really by meerling · · Score: 0

      Last several times I've seen anything from Al-Jazeera, it seemed to be a major propaganda engine with some heavily stilted news mixed in.

      Kind of like a certain Chinese 'newspaper' you can get to on the net.

    40. Re:Its really by linhares · · Score: 1

      anyone who travels much and sees the world through their own eyes will quickly realize that most of what we are told on the "news" is highly filtered and twisted to make it palatable to the sheep !

      I'm from Rio de Janeiro, and I jog at the beach with a USD5000 watch. Now when I travel to Sydney or Hiroshima or Jordan or Fountainbleau, and I get to tell the local bartender/cab driver that I'm from Rio, first thing they tell me is to watch my back and that they'd never come here because of the crime. *sigh* Yes there's crime (around twice the homicide rate of Chicago). But since the media can only concentrate on the extreme examples and reinforce the stereotype, there is no way to convince people that it's vastly concentrated on pockets of violence here and there, and if you know how to avoid them (which is easy, btw), you'll be just fine.

    41. Re:Its really by chainLynx · · Score: 1

      "Al-Jazeera" means "the Island" not "the Truth." You might be thinking of Pravda. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jazeera (right at the top)

    42. Re:Its really by linhares · · Score: 1

      you have respect for CNN? Body proves Bigfoot no myth, hunters say

    43. Re:Its really by Schlacht · · Score: 1

      It doesn't look at all like he's saying Fox News looks like men of honor, he's saying AJ is reporting content the world would see as valid news vs. the needless information FN / CCN might give us for headlines. But then the information that FN/CNN might distribute is based on what its audience genuinely constitutes as important information. The American media system is just doing its job distracting the blind masses from the realities of the world, while the majority of the world are not subject to that fairy tale.

      Either way, both sides are puppets driven by another mechanism ... and if you trust either one for the truth you're a fool.

      --
      rm -rf ms/*
    44. Re:Its really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Citation?

    45. Re:Its really by Schlacht · · Score: 1

      Actually just like Jack in The Shining, Dick never left the White House and yes, he was actually the president not Bush.

      --
      rm -rf ms/*
    46. Re:Its really by Kjella · · Score: 0

      I don't get this "because it's al-jazeera, it must be biased".

      Please don't take this post as an insult against Al-Jazeera, but more as an explanation. As they're primarily in Arab normally nobody references them as a source. The first time I heard the name, in fact maybe the first ten times I heard the name was after 9/11 and mostly something like "New message from Osama bin Laden (source: Al-Jazeera)". It didn't take much to get the impression they were a pro-Arab al-Qaeda mouthpiece, and I think that first impression has stuck with many. They're far more known by reputation than by people that actually read any of their journalism and is qualified to say whether it's biased or not.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    47. Re:Its really by silentcoder · · Score: 5, Informative

      You know what the saddest thing about the whole Middle-East crisis is ? The people fighting are the same people on both sides.

      Genetic research has shown that the Palestinians and the Israeli's are the SAME people. More specifically the Palestinians are the descendants of the so-called "ten lost tribes" - it's not even conjecture, it's basic proven science. In the years since the diaspora (and the classic story about why that happened is simply not true: the Romans never displaced any culture, so to think they did it in Israel is silly).
      Here's what science says happened: A lot of Jews left Israel during the Roman occupation, settling around Europe in two major groups. The Azkanazi in Eastern Europe and the Sephardi in Spain. These two groups were the two not-lost tribes. What happened to the other ten ? They were not scattered and dispersed or lost, that legend is false. They stayed right there where they were, over time they converted to Islam.
      When the other two tribes started coming back they found a largely Arab culture with an Islamic religion living in the area and claiming it as their homeland.
      They could not believe that these Muslim Palestinians were fellow Jews (especially since it didn't fit their legends that all the tribes left), and the Palestinians would never have thought that their ancestors were Jewish Israelites.
      But the scientific evidence is extremely strong - they share a very direct common ancestry and were one people just about 1700 years ago (in other words, almost exactly when the diaspora started).

      An inevitable war between brothers, over a homeland that historically belongs as much to one as the other... and they still can't figure out a way to get along. Now that is human nature at it's worst, in a nutshell.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    48. Re:Its really by Schlacht · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Exactly as SeanAdams says, if the Isreali side have a counter-leak let us have it. Its total bs to say because it's an AJ leak its invalid and that neither side want peace. The leak shows a flexibility towards peace that we were never made aware of, that the PA are at least willing to make even bigger concessions and the Isrealis just throw it back in their face with a 'thanks but no-thanks attitude. THAT is the news, and as I said if there is an Isreali released and independently verified counter-leak let's see it!

      And to compare this to two children and a toy - well I'd like to spend 5 minutes with you in a boxing ring. You can be blindfolded, no shoes, and with both arms tied behind your back ... then give me a baseball bat and maybe a nice selection of body armor to make sure I don't hurt myself too bad. The way the Isreali army has been using the Palestinians like the center stage attraction at a Mexican birthday party makes me disgusted ... and you call these two opposing forces 'children' -- wtf, open your eyes. At best its a college freshman going to the local kindergarten and kicking around some kids.

      --
      rm -rf ms/*
    49. Re:Its really by omfgnosis · · Score: 0

      As a person who's spent years involved in radical politics and activism, I want to thank you for being so honest about the revolutionary socialist program. What an absolutely morally bankrupt answer to the very real problems Communism is meant to address.

    50. Re:Its really by fishexe · · Score: 2

      you have respect for CNN? Body proves Bigfoot no myth, hunters say

      I stand corrected. I should have said, "I would lose all respect for CNN if I found they gave a bigfoot story serious coverage."

      --
      "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
    51. Re:Its really by kdemetter · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Still , it's dangerous to just assume that everything leaked is automatically valid.

    52. Re:Its really by Schlacht · · Score: 1

      What are you talking about ... victims of suicide bombers are victims of murder, and suicide bombers are usually doing the murdering. Martyr status belongs to those who SUFFER for reasons based on their faith either of their own free will, sometimes self imposed, or sometimes not of their own choice.

      The suffering comes from what puts you in the situation to be blown up or not in that bombing - whether you are carrying the bomb or not. So, who is the martyr ... the teenage girl walking in the shopping mall buying a pair of $150 jeans or the teenage girl who watched her little brother and father killed by an Isreali helicopter, had to watch as Isreali soldiers beat her mother in a midnight raid that left her in a coma, and then decided to die striking back at the people that destroyed everything she loved?

      You may say neither are martyrs because vengance is not part of faith and neither is shopping for jeans -- but if you say that it just means you don't see how Isrealis worship the all mighty dollar and you don't know your Koran.

      --
      rm -rf ms/*
    53. Re:Its really by GooberToo · · Score: 0

      Which is only true if you take "Muslims are dishonest"

      Now, it doesn't mean that at all. They are the Fox News of the arab world. Plus, they are more than happy to not only editorialize completely lies and bullshit like Fox, but also go out of their way to push hate speech and propaganda. Basically, they are what Fox News would be if TV standards didn't prevent.

      To be absolutely clear, I'm not saying Fox is awesome. I'm saying Fox News thus far, seems to have a line which Al-jazeera willingly went passed many, many years ago. Heck, actually for as long as I've known about them they've always been the garbage of the Arab world.

    54. Re:Its really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you please cite me an example of Al-Jazeera having an agenda (other than "the truth", which is what Al-Jazeera means)?

      So gotta be kidding, or blind. Consider the case of Samir Kuntar

      Samir Kuntar was in an Israeli jail for killing a 4 year old child (amongst other crimes). He was later released as part of a prisoner swap with Hezbollah.

      Now, is this newsworthy? Yes. Should Samir Kuntar be interviewed? Sure. But that isn't what Al-Jazeera did.

      Al-Jazeera threw a party for Samir Kuntar.

      Now, regardless of how you feel about conflict in the middle east, civilized people would say that deliberately killing a 4 year old child is wrong, and not something to celebrate.

      Now tell me again that Al-Jazeera is an unbiased news source.

    55. Re:Its really by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 2

      for as long as I've known about them they've always been the garbage of the Arab world.

      Except for all the other arab television stations.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    56. Re:Its really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

      A much easier propaganda use is to go over the documents you do have, and decide selectively which ones to leak - the ones that make your side look good, and the other side look bad.

      Or to report that the documents show Israeli resistance to Palestinian concessions when in fact it's the opposite. A couple of well known facts to historians that the media refuses to report are that Jerusalem and the West Bank are legally undisputed Israeli land that Israel can choose to give away or not at its pleasure, that the Palestinians are a Nazi terrorist organization dedicated to exterminating the Jews, and that the Arab League has cultivated the Palestinians as a weapon against Israel to further the territorial dominion of the Arab race and/or Islam depending on which nut is in power.

      The peace process itself is rarely reported on either. When was the last time a Western newspaper reported that Israel already granted the Palestinians additional territory in the 1990s and the result was a war? When was the last time a newspaper reported that Israel allowed the Palestinians to enter Israel in the early 1980s and granted them power over the Arab cities re-conquered from Jordan and Egypt in exchange for peace, and the Palestinians instead staged a revolt and massacred Arabs who supported peace with the Jews while everyone's attention was turned? When was the last time a Western newspaper reported that the first Intifadah was a bloody purge of peaceful Arabs by the Palestinians? When was the last time a newspaper reported that the Palestinians were founded in 1964 with help from the USSR, that the CIA had for a time backed the Palestinians' predecessor Fatah through its ex-Nazi German agents, and that the Nazis had gained these links to Palestine by supporting a racist preacher's private militia? When was the last time a newspaper pointed out that the "Palestinian" flag was designed by a Brit for the Hejaz army, and those dumbasses are flying it upside-down? And when was the last time anyone questioned whether a flag symbolizing the ethnic supremacy of Arabs over the Turks, which was flown as violent mobs of Arabs committed genocide against any Turks they could find, would have any meaning if it a violent mob of Arabs now flew it in front of their Jewish neighbours?

      Israel gave the Palestinians land, money, power, and weapons in exchange for a promise of peace, and instead got war and a promise reiterated by Mahmoud Abbas about two weeks ago that this war will never end until every Jew is dead. In this context, anything short of a return to the pre-2000 status is an insult. Now let us consider these "concessions" in context.

      "Concession": The Palestinians may be willing to drop the demand that Israel give away its capitol city of Jerusalem, which would include a complete ethnic cleansing of the Jews from the city. Choosing not to do that is not a great concession. It is an insult to Israel to suggest that it should be considered.

      "Concession": The Palestinians may reduce from the current figure of several millions the number of Palestinian-educated Arabs that they will insist Israel accept into Israel after the Palestinians are given a contiguous state from Israeli land. Note that these Arabs are supposed to belong to the Palestinian state and be loyal to it but live in Israel instead of the Palestinian state or the other Arab state that already exists in Palestine or any of the several Arab states in Arabia. Israel is expected to feed and house multiple divisions of fanatics dedicated to the destruction of their country. Again, this offer is an insult to Israel rather than a concession.

      Note that the descendants of Arab refugees from the Israeli war of independence already can return to Israel by acquiring passports and they can apply for Israeli citizenship. Their primary obstacles are the Arab League which discourages giving them passports precisely so they cannot do this, and the Palestinians who will kill them.

      And there's not much else in th

    57. Re:Its really by lixee · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Look...I am from a Muslim country and I can assure you that Fox News is pretty benign compared to Al Jazeera. Maybe you don't watch Al Jazeera in Arabic. It's full of conspiracy theories. Even on the Arab-Israeli issue, I would say that that Fox is less biased than Al Jazeera. I know it's hard to imagine when one ever watched Limbaugh or O'Reilly, but it's sadly verifiable.

      --
      Res publica non dominetur
    58. Re:Its really by lixee · · Score: 1

      Sorry to disappoint you, but you don't have a clue about how biased Al Jazeera (it means "the island", not "the truth"!) is. Its Arabist Islamist slant has never been up to debate.

      --
      Res publica non dominetur
    59. Re:Its really by HuguesT · · Score: 1

      Hello, my experience is the following: after also extensive travels and living and working in several countries, I must say Rio is the only city where I was actually scared.

      The locals seems to indeed know where to step, but the problem was that most of the tourist areas were effectively where the likelihood of crime was highest. I came to Rio for an international conference that lasted 2 weeks. At the end of the conference everybody including ourselves had their little story where they got attacked, robbed or mugged in some way, including indeed on the beach. This was in 2007 BTW. Couple that with the spectacular images of the police helicopter actually gunned down by the local crime lords about 2 years ago, and I think the reputation of the city as a dangerous one is not usurped.

      I'm told things are improving due to a combination of the Olympics, proximity police and the economy improving. Good to hear. I look forward to visiting the city again.

    60. Re:Its really by Malc · · Score: 1

      Al-Jazeera, if you remove your yellow glasses, is actually a very high caliber new organization,

      It started with a lot of staff from the BBC. Go figure.

    61. Re:Its really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So if I understand what you're saying: Al Jazeera is less like Fox News, and more like Slashdot!

      It makes total sense now. Or at least as much sense as the average slashdot rant makes to normal speakers of english! :)

    62. Re:Its really by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      The peace process is basically a joke. It isn't a process towards peace - it's a process of perpetually postponing a major conflict for another year.

    63. Re:Its really by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Do not trust? They hate each other. I don't see how a real peace can be achieved, because both sides desire exactly the same thing (The same patch of land) for unshakeable cultural reasons ("This is the land of my ancestors!" "No, it's the land of MY ancestors!" "God gave it to MY people!" "But then he gave it to MY people!"). The best that might be achieved is some form of division as exists now, but that isn't really peace - it's just delaying war, and allowing a small conflict to simmer with border clashes and rocket attacks.

    64. Re:Its really by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      It's not always about funding and political ties. It's also about the audience. All media tries to say thing that the audience wants to see - it keeps the viewers watching, and the ratings high. Being Arabic language, and with an audience primarily opposing the state of Israel and almost entirely Muslim, that's what Al Jazeera must try to appeal to.

    65. Re:Its really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sorry, but your post sound terribly RACIST to me. In the literal meaning of racist.
      I mean, what difference it makes that their common ancestor is someone in the "lost tribes" or whatever? Aren't WE ALL HUMANS?

    66. Re:Its really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually the worst case is both sides lose. Possibly even in the "everyone dead on both sides" way. Of course that could simply be considered natural selection against violent behaviour but a lot of people don't like that kind of thing.

    67. Re:Its really by alendit · · Score: 0

      So, it would be not as sad, if it had been two genetecally different groups killing each other?

    68. Re:Its really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes and no. Palestinian officials can still point at this and say "See, we gave them a great offer and they still refused because all the want is war" which continues to direct any anger at Israel rather than the officials.

    69. Re:Its really by xded · · Score: 1

      It's not that I find it hard to believe.

      But every time someone mentions "basic proven science", I've got this [citation needed] thing bothering me...

    70. Re:Its really by Tranzistors · · Score: 1

      Well there you have it. One talks about Al Jazeera in Arabic, the other – in English. I have noticed that if one media organization publishes news in two different languages, then they publish different things.
      In Latvia, the Latvian reporters don't write articles for Russian part of their own newspaper and vice versa.
      For some reason I think the Russian media write BS. I wonder what Russians think of Latvian media.

    71. Re:Its really by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      >So, it would be not as sad, if it had been two genetecally different groups killing each other?

      I can see how my post could be construed that way - sorry, it was not what I meant at all. What I meant about it is that it makes both their sets of claims equally just - and thus makes it impossible to find a just solution that does not involve cooperation between them. This makes the problem extremely difficult to solve -and THAT is what is sad.
      The genetic heritage is merely the reason for the difficulty.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    72. Re:Its really by silentcoder · · Score: 2

      Don't blame you. By all means - look up the study if you want to. It was published in nature about a year ago - can't remember the author, some genetics professor from Jerusalem.

      But it took me all of thirty seconds on google to find a link:
      http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/the_way_we_live/article5504478.ece

      This isn't the original article I first read (which was mostly science rather than the political stuff added in the times) but it's a good start.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    73. Re:Its really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Magic, you and Dolphin below both seem to miss the point entirely. You took alex's simple statement and warped it into a lecture in which you were probably preaching to the choir.

      I've seen this a lot on slashdot lately. It is more than stupid to make such broad assumptions about alex's relative knowledge of the situation based on him basically saying 'first' w/o saying 'first' (as to not be modded down).

      Go ahead and keep wasting your time overthinking. The more important point would be that not only is this not surprising, but to anybody with an imagination -- like me -- it is actually surprising to me how FAR the peace process was taken and what all happened, not that it failed. I would expect failure out of greedy capitalist nations trying to argue with one another over land that they cannot agree to share -- never have, and never will.

    74. Re:Its really by imakemusic · · Score: 1

      Leak it all, let blogs sort it out.

      --
      Brain surgery - it's not rocket science!
    75. Re:Its really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you are saying Palestinian people are better off not knowing, what shitty deals their government wants to pull off behind their backs?

    76. Re:Its really by silentbrad · · Score: 1

      Umm... you do know that the Koran views suicide as a mortal sin just like the Catholic Bible does, right? It really doesn't matter whether or not it was an act of revenge.

    77. Re:Its really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      The "peace" process has been Israel and the U.S. telling the people of Palestine to, essentially, "relax and enjoy it". No, the Palestinians are not interested in that, but over and over their leadership has shown an interest in sincerely working for peace. It's not surprising that they cannot find a reliable partner for peace and justice in Israel, any more than the Native Americans nations have ever been able to find a reliable partner for peace and justice with the U.S. government.

      Not quite. The "peace" process has been the Group of Four telling Israel to, essentially, "relax and enjoy it", while the Palestinians commit frequent acts of terrorism against the Israelis, and the Palestinian leadership refuse to concede even the most basic realities (Israel's existence as a Jewish state, and its right to exist as a Jewish state). Another example: a cessation to terrorism is one of the first steps on the Road Map, and yet Abbas (the guy who was supposedly more peace-loving than Arafat) refused to commit to that, claiming that it would cause a "civil war". Then there was the case of Israel leaving Gaza, only to be rewarded with MORE rocket attacks. Some "partner for peace" those Palestinians were.

    78. Re:Its really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Genetic research has shown that the Palestinians and the Israeli's are the SAME people. More specifically the Palestinians are the descendants of the so-called "ten lost tribes" - it's not even conjecture, it's basic proven science.

      ....people just about 1700 years ago (in other words, almost exactly when the diaspora started).

      It would be really nice to have you name your sources. Few people has been the target of so many conspiration theories as the Jews. Please don't add another.

    79. Re:Its really by mrogers · · Score: 1

      Al-Jazeera, who may be biased and ignore pop culture B.S. on the front page; or CNN and FoxNews who give priority to celebrity diversion.

      Interestingly, clicking on the CNN link from the UK redirects you to CNN's international edition, which has a relatively serious front page, comparable to that of Al-Jazeera.

      I guess there's a double standard at work: people "at home" get patronised, whether by Al-Jazeera or CNN, while those "abroad" are treated as adults.

    80. Re:Its really by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      I'm guessing that you're in the USA. The BBC has been citing them as a source for middle eastern news for a long time. I remember hearing the name on BBC radio news in the late '90s.

      It's not really surprising that you didn't hear of them much before 2001, since they'd only existed for five years at that time. Before the WTC attack, most US news sources pretty much ignored the middle east, except to say 'look how all of the evil ay-rabs are persecuting Israel', so didn't have much of a need for local sources.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    81. Re:Its really by aepervius · · Score: 1

      The most interesting paragraph is this :

      "The theory was originally developed by David Ben Gurion, Israel's first Prime Minister. But it has gained a new lease of life since a study into a rare blood disorder shared by Jews and Palestinians revealed a closer genetic match between the communities than between Palestinians and other Arabs."

      It would be interesting (academically) to see if this research result were confirmed/falsified....

      --
      C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
      http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
      visit randi.org
    82. Re:Its really by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      other than "the truth", which is what Al-Jazeera means

      Uh, that'd be Pravda. No, Al-Jazeera means "The Island".

      You're right about the rest of it though.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    83. Re:Its really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most of the new is a non-story, that only gives an indication about the REAL issues. And the news will never keep track of stories for some kind of closure or settlement. If they want to change the subject, people will not care about the past story.

      One thing I did notice was that the only BBC news work watching is late at night, when most people are asleep. If you watch at 18:00 or 22:00 it's dumbed down nonsense, designed for the zombie nation (that refuses to think - just in case you are zombied out).

    84. Re:Its really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Still has more credibility than the official story.

    85. Re:Its really by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      >It would be interesting (academically) to see if this research result were confirmed/falsified....
      If I remember right, the article I first read a year ago was a confirmation - at least about the blood disorder link but honestly I can't remember well enough to say that as an absolute fact so I speak under correction.

      If anybody knows the academic research behind this (without the politicking) that would be really useful.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    86. Re:Its really by master_p · · Score: 1

      Now that is human nature at it's worst

      Not only that, but it's a very strong confirmation that the "real" reality and logic play very little role in actual decisions. Emotions play the most significant role.
      Humanity will never progress until it goes beyond its primitive emotions.

    87. Re:Its really by dkleinsc · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It should also be pointed out that Al Jazeera did the same thing here, doing their best to validate that these were authentic. While they've been demonized in the US mainstream press (largely for not parroting the US view of the Israel-Palestine Conflict), they're the equivalent of CNN or the BBC in the Middle East. Is it 100% credibility? Heck no. But it's a good 95+% credible.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    88. Re:Its really by PhrstBrn · · Score: 1

      It seems to me that almost every cheerleader of the War on Terror I've met was someone who limited themselves to the mainstream media and limited their discussion of the issue to repeating talking points

      This is why I don't listen to people who watch Fox News.

    89. Re:Its really by krou · · Score: 1

      Right, so because of the messenger, the message is obviously false?

      According to the Guardian:

      Many of the 1,600 leaked documents – drawn up by PA officials and lawyers working for the British-funded PLO negotiations support unit and include extensive verbatim transcripts of private meetings – have been independently authenticated by the Guardian and corroborated by former participants in the talks and intelligence and diplomatic sources.

      Also, in case you hadn't noticed, this leak made the Palestinian Authority look terrible, possibly as much as Israel, because they're the ones trying to sell the Palestinians down the fucking river, so I don't quite buy your claim that only Israel look bad. I would go as so far to say that this leak demonstrates just how useless they all are - the US, the UK, Israel, PA, the lot.

      --
      'If Christ had tweeted the sermon on the mount, it might have lasted until nightfall.' - John Perry Barlow
    90. Re:Its really by realityimpaired · · Score: 2

      I'm thinking that he's probably confuzzling the war on terror with the war efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. An easy mistake to make, considering that the wars in those countries were triggered by the war on terror. There's an awful lot of people out there who were completely hawkish about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan who are now saying that the world should pull out of the region, because the human cost is too high. Those people piss me off. They didn't realize that there would be a human cost to fighting a war, and if they weren't prepared to accept it, then they shouldn't have started the war. Pulling out from Afghanistan now will only make things worse than they were 10 years ago.

      Coincidentally, can we please stop calling anti-terrorism a war? It's not a war. Wars can be won, and enemies can be stamped out. Terrorism can never be stamped out completely, because it's too easy to do, and too easy to hide after it's done. Call it a "police action" if you need to call it anything, because that's far more accurate to what it actually is: an effort to police it, and in so doing, to reduce it. That's exactly the reason that the "war on drugs" has been lost, too.

    91. Re:Its really by hjrnunes · · Score: 1

      In fact, I watch Al-Jazeera English, and read it on the web. And I got to say that, apart from perhaps the BBC, it makes western news organizations look like a joke. They touch issues that western outfits don't even dare to touch and, most importantly, issues that western outfits don't give a shit about: How people live in Gaza, Darfur, secret jails in China, Tibet, Somalia pirates, everything western news media sweeps under the carpet. They have quality shows like Witness (roughly the same format of BBC's Dispatches), Frost over the World (in which Sir David Frost interviews interesting guests), or Empire, that are very worth watching.

      "Biased" my ass. When tools say "biased", they really mean - though without knowing it - free of most western lobbies influence, especially the Israeli lobby. That's that. And Israeli top officials are interviewed all the time there. So this isn't even about Israel. It's about the subservience and really poor quality and independence of western news outfits, with Americans leading, and Europeans following closely behind.

    92. Re:Its really by Xest · · Score: 1

      Which Al-Jazeera?

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jazeera

      or:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aljazeera.com

      The latter is basically Fox News meets Islam, the former, the one in this story is more trustworthy than most Western News organisations. I've seen them give much better, more detailed, more correct stories about the rise of Islam in politics in Turkey for example.

      Aljazeera.net is one of the less biased, more trustworthy sites you'll find.

    93. Re:Its really by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Emotions are useful. They form the basis of art, of many good things about us as well.
      The real lessons is learning to harness them as a tool rather than being a slave to them.

      A few people achieve that- proving it's possible, but it could be a long time before MOST people have achieved it.

      When you do reach that, you can use rationality to make those decisions best made with logic and facts, and emotions as information for those decisions where that is useful. It's good to consider emotions in choosing a spouse, it's even better if you can then add rationality in how you approach marriage, especially when (as is unavoidable) you argue about something.

      Trying to deny our humanity is not just idealistic, but would defeat the nobility of whatever goal you think makes it worthwhile. We must progress AS humans, it's logically impossible to do that if we sacrifice our humanity in the process.

      After all mercy, empathy, sympathy and indeed humanity are emotions too. Without them - none of the progress we have made would ever have happened.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    94. Re:Its really by Xest · · Score: 1

      Which is quite ironic, because I tend to find that the BBC itself actually has a greater anti-Israeli, pro-Palestinian bias than Al-Jazeera does.

      Al Jazeera seems to do a much better job of remaining fair and balanced.

    95. Re:Its really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they are more than happy to not only editorialize completely lies and bullshit like Fox, but also go out of their way to push hate speech and propaganda. Basically, they are what Fox News would be if TV standards didn't prevent.

      Eh?! You guys have TV standards (outside of nudity)?! I've heard Fox pushing hate speech and propaganda too, and not only were they not chastised for it - but officially endorsed by continuing to have politicians appear on the network and working with them!

      It's just that what you consider hate speech, might not include blatantly disparaging lies about Muslims.

    96. Re:Its really by Ledskof · · Score: 1

      No, it's pretty much the same game.

      More anti-palestinian rhetoric, just from wikileaks this time. What can you expect though with Assange meeting with the Israeli government to make sure the wrong information isn't leaked? That basically invalidates wikileaks from an Israel criticism perspective.

      I'm not really sure how people even read this stuff without being appalled. Do people just not realize that Israel is an apartheid state? That Israel bulldozes palestian houses to build Jewish only settlements? Do people not realize that Israel has Jewish only highways? Do people really believe that every palestinian is an explosives expert and carries and AK47, and the attacks on palestinian communities is actually justified?

      Any of that happening in the US would be completely unacceptable. But it's ok Israel right? Because of that ridiculous idea the media has sold everyone on known as terrorism, right?

      Wikileaks mostly releases things that everyone should already know, unless you get all your news and information off of TV and the TV news websites. But then they mix it in with propaganda like this. It's like wikileaks is the latest attack on the people who actually realize the media is lying to them, to get them to still keep from learning the truth about these issues. You're still getting all of this wikileaks information from the mainstream media. Do people just believe that the mainstream media has no choice now and they must share all these truths with you? I hope people are cluing in that the mainstream media is just feeding them more of the same, but people who think they are on the right path are just being misguided with the label wikileaks.

      The Pentagon makes this huge public announcement all across the mainstream media about wanting to find and speak with Julian. That isn't how the pentagon functions.
      Julian meets with the Israeli government to ensure the wrong information isn't shared. lol.
      All kinds of people are getting in trouble for leaking information, but not Julian. You keep hearing about it right, because the mainstream media making him out to be some hero, but he isn't getting in trouble. The people who believe in the organization so much are the ones getting in trouble.
      And then you get spoon fed obvious information that those of us ignoring the mainstream media have known for years.
      And you still believe the propaganda, especially when it comes from your beloved wikileaks.

      --
      This is my sig. The post is over.
    97. Re:Its really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Limbaugh does not have a TV show on Fox or any news network. He's a radio personality.

    98. Re:Its really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Al-Jazeera was a shining example of independent journalism

      This the same media outlet that had such great coverage of the causes of the Indian Ocean quake?

      I used to read Al-Jazeera (to try and get both sides of the story) but their handling of that piece (among others) put them off my reading list.

    99. Re:Its really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You guys have TV standards

      The fact you have to ask means your post is nonsense.

    100. Re:Its really by chrb · · Score: 3, Informative

      Not quite. The "peace" process has been the Group of Four telling Israel to, essentially, "relax and enjoy it", while the Palestinians commit frequent acts of terrorism against the Israelis, and the Palestinian leadership refuse to concede even the most basic realities (Israel's existence as a Jewish state, and its right to exist as a Jewish state).

      Not true - the PLO recognised the state of Israel in 1993. Israel – Palestine Liberation Organization letters of recognition: "The PLO recognizes the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security. The PLO accepts United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338. The PLO commits itself...to a peaceful resolution of the conflict between the two sides and declares that all outstanding issues relating to permanent status will be resolved through negotiations...the PLO renounces the use of terrorism and other acts of violence"

      Another example: a cessation to terrorism is one of the first steps on the Road Map, and yet Abbas (the guy who was supposedly more peace-loving than Arafat) refused to commit to that, claiming that it would cause a "civil war".

      I don't know if he actually said that - but if he did, then he was right: Palestinian civil war.

      Then there was the case of Israel leaving Gaza, only to be rewarded with MORE rocket attacks. Some "partner for peace" those Palestinians were.

      Making a basic rocket isn't that hard. There are at about ten different groups that have fired rockets - these groups are not unified, have different leadership, sometimes have conflicting goals, and at times openly war against each other. The rockets are a problem, but to consider these groups as unified is incorrect. I think it was Hamas who said that they can request and reason with the other groups to stop rocket attacks, but these groups are not part of the Hamas military. Hence Hamas ceasefires only apply to groups under Hamas, not to every single Palestinian group. This is not really a surprising situation - look at the "Real IRA" etc. in Northern Ireland, who have carried out a number of attacks despite the IRA/Sinn Fein being committed to the peace process.

    101. Re:Its really by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 2

      Well, like you say, we use the same algorithm as for believing the official story. Critical thinking !

      What algorithm you ask ?
      Well :
      1. Does it match my previous opinion on the matter (e.g. here Jews evil vs Muslims evil ?)
      2. If yes, believe
      3. If no, don't believe

      What I believe you ask ?
      Well, I also believe in compromise.

    102. Re:Its really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's what science says happened: A lot of Jews left Israel during the Roman occupation, settling around Europe in two major groups. The Azkanazi in Eastern Europe and the Sephardi in Spain

      Actually, there is a conjecture that Ashkenazim are not Jews at all, but descendants of those of Khazars who accepted Judaism. In fact, if you ask Palestinians and Arabs in general, they will deny most of the Israelis their Semitic background on racist basis - to Arabs those are "whites", European intruders who have no claim on Middle East land. I don't know if it is some sort of divide et impera scheme to split the Israelis, but it wont work - splitting the populations generally works only in desperate social crises, provided there is no unifying external threat, or if the threat is overwhelming (e.g. Genghis Khan army at your doorstep). So, if it worked, that would be a sign that it isn't needed anymore.

    103. Re:Its really by oliverthered · · Score: 1

      I didn't speak to anyone, I just live in a country where the IRA had a bombing champaign and know how bloody easy it is to make a bomb out of easily available things (like piss and shit and sugar).

      The terrorists don't exist, either that or their really really really really stupid, or they are the government.

      War ON!: Terror.

      --
      thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    104. Re:Its really by oliverthered · · Score: 1

      when short of sugar I could probably just turn my underpants into fine active-carbon powder, either that or the remnants of the excrement.

      --
      thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    105. Re:Its really by WGFCrafty · · Score: 1
      That's fucking sad. Both Abrahamic religions, I.E. both (and Christians) consider Abraham the patriarch or father of their religion. Ignorance is what is killing people and making lives miserable. Some one needs to play "Imagine" by John Lennon on loud speakers, translated of course, in Israel and Palestine.

      On ignorance, a Christian told me recently that the problem with Islam is no one knows that is under a Burqa, they "could be carrying anything, including a gun." WHAT?!?!?

      Why can't we get along?

      Dr. Seuss got it right with "The Sneetches and Other Stories." This is what happens every day. Alienation because some one is different. If you have never read it, it's a great story:

      This story offers varied lessons. It portrays the senselessness of prejudice and discrimination, and also a lesson of materialism and entrepreneurship.

      Sneetches are a group of vaguely avian yellow creatures who live on a beach. Some Sneetches have a green star on their bellies, and in the beginning of the story the absence of a star is the basis for discrimination. Sneetches who have stars on their bellies are part of the "in crowd," while Sneetches without stars are shunned and consequently mopey.

    106. Re:Its really by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Aren't WE ALL HUMANS?

      Some humans are more human than others, I guess.

    107. Re:Its really by zAPPzAPP · · Score: 1

      It is still an additional 1600 documents of information that we now can base our standpoint on.
      If they decided not to release some documents, that does not make the information they did release worthless. You just need to fill in the rest of the picture from a different source.. like always.
      They are not responsible for providing all and every last bit of info to you.

    108. Re:Its really by u17 · · Score: 4, Informative

      They did in fact leave in the fragment where you see people carrying what appear to be rifles. They also gave a clear link to the full unedited version, for people interested in the broader context. The editing is understandable, because few people would want to sit through the whole thing, where mostly nothing happens -- they left in only the most interesting parts.

      Yours is an oft repeated argument, but I just don't see how you can honestly claim such strong bias on their behalf. While they did choose the name "collateral murder", suggesting anti-American military bias, they provided all the necessary information for any intelligent person to make up their own mind about it. The title was just about the only slanted aspect of the release.

      While they could have named the release differently, they certainly did a good job of attracting attention to it, leading to many press articles with more detailed behind-the-scenes information.

      Just as you don't read newspapers that seem wrongly biased to you, you didn't have to watch the Wikileaks release. Pretty much all the media used it as a source and offered their own analysis. But this was only possible thanks to the public service of publishing the leak and drawing attention to it in the first place.

      All things considered, such a service is so valuable that anyone who supports government accountability should be thankful to Wikileaks, even if they disagree with the apparent bias.

    109. Re:Its really by Americano · · Score: 1

      When the problem was created by "global involvement," it's not unreasonable to think that "global involvement" might be required to solve it as well.

      And you're wrong about worst case: worst case is a handful of survivors from each side end up squabbling over a radioactive glass parking lot.

    110. Re:Its really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      when al-Jazeera reveals something about Israel versus Palestine, and it favours Palestine, I've learned to treat is as a fake.

      I mean come on, al-Jazeera is too close to Palestine to be a trustworthy source in this case!

    111. Re:Its really by radtea · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Wars can be won, and enemies can be stamped out.

      Tell that to the dead and consider the cost to the "victor". Wars can have first and second losers, and that's all.

      England and it's allies "won" WWII... at the cost of British economic supremacy. The United States "won" WWII... at the cost of discarding forever its tradiational isolationist policies, putting it on a slippery slope to empire that is still costing American lives today, to say nothing of progressively bankrupting the American state.

      Anyone who thinks wars can be "won" hasn't been paying attention to anything but military-industrial propoganda.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    112. Re:Its really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      huh? the ten tribes are normally said to have disappeared with the assyrian conquest 800 years before the roman sacked jerusalem. if that's a retcon, i'd like to see some evidence.

      (the argument i'm more familiar with, and more inclined to accept, is that the exodus is a big retcon, and judaism evolved organically from the local canaanite religons of the 2nd millennium BC. so yes, they're all related, but not as recently.)

    113. Re:Its really by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 1

      I don't think that what you're describing is so easy.

      It would be far easier if Wikileaks was in on it, not that I'm suggesting something like that, but they're in a position where they could almost fabricate any kind of information they'd want and how many people would bother checking the source if wikileaks "verifies" it?

    114. Re:Its really by I8TheWorm · · Score: 1

      Or Democracy Now, Mother Jones, etc?

      I listen to both, mainly because I want to hear the opinions of both sides, along with researching myself.

      What I keep finding though are people who will say "this is why I don't watch/listen to people who watch Fox News/Democracy Now" which being avid watchers/listeners of the other side.

      Just asking.

      --
      Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
    115. Re:Its really by fishexe · · Score: 1

      Which is only true if you take "Muslims are dishonest"

      Now, it doesn't mean that at all. They are the Fox News of the arab world.

      [citation needed]

      Plus, they are more than happy to not only editorialize completely lies and bullshit like Fox, but also go out of their way to push hate speech and propaganda. Basically, they are what Fox News would be if TV standards didn't prevent.

      I'm pretty sure "TV standards" don't prevent Fox News from anything.

      To be absolutely clear, I'm not saying Fox is awesome. I'm saying Fox News thus far, seems to have a line which Al-jazeera willingly went passed many, many years ago. Heck, actually for as long as I've known about them they've always been the garbage of the Arab world.

      Can you give me specific examples? I've been reading Al Jazeera for years (not religiously, but occasionally), and I've been hearing people say things like you're saying now for years, and I have yet to see it backed up by one shred of evidence. Yes, they have some slanted editorials. Fox News reports that Republicans who get in sex scandals are Democrats. Fox News repeated the claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and links to al Qaeda years after both these claims had been proven false. Fox news has repeatedly reported that Al Jazeera showed terrorist beheading videos, even after it became clear that this was false. This is more than editorializing by Fox News; this is outright lying. So show me the specific outright lies coming from Al Jazeera, and I will gladly accede to your point.

      --
      "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
    116. Re:Its really by radtea · · Score: 1

      It strikes me as fairly easy to publish propaganda this way.

      It strikes me that you and others posting here trying to dismiss all this raw data are just covering your ears and singing "la la la I can't hear you!" as loudly as possible.

      Since only an idiot believes that any information is perfect and complete, pointing out that all information--including information from leaks like this--is imperfect and incomplete is the least interesting thing anyone could possibly say.

      Everyone knows that any information from any source must be processed intelligently. I guess if one were terminally intellectually lazy it might seem like more information is a bad thing: "All these facts to think about! Argh!"

      But to the rest of us, more information is a good thing, and we're all intelligent and worldly enough to realize that no source of information is going to give us the perfect and ideal "Truth", but that's ok, because we're not interested in the "Truth" but merely the truth... the perfectly ordinary kind of truth involved in answering the perfectly ordinary kind of questions we ask and answer every day, like, "Where are my socks?"

      On that basis, the effect of this kind of large leak is to make it harder for intelligence services and others to fake reality, and easier for people to identify failures of news services in their coverage of things like the mess in the Middle East.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    117. Re:Its really by Americano · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The title was just about the only slanted aspect of the release.

      That, and the editing to remove evidence that supported the military's assertion that they appeared to be an armed group of insurgents and that the helicopter that fired on them was completely justified in doing so based on that evidence.

      Yes, they provided a link to the unedited video. How many people actually clicked it, versus how many people watched "Collateral Murder" in its edited form, and simply accepted what they were shown - that the US military was just flying circles over Baghdad lighting up random people. They intentionally omitted the footage showing the men carrying what appear to be weapons, and they named it in as sensational a way as possible to paint the military in a horrific light.

      All things considered, such a service is so valuable that anyone who supports government accountability should be thankful to Wikileaks, even if they disagree with the apparent bias.

      This, I can agree with you on, at least in principle, and I've said so here on Slashdot repeatedly. I think that Wikileaks does provide a valuable service. I do not like Mr. Assange's editorializing about the content they're releasing, and I think it only serves to undermine their mission and make them (and him) less credible. Let the information speak for itself.

      The Collateral Murder video footage was powerful. But they introduced bias to it. Let people watch the full & unedited version, and understand that war:
      1) Requires young men and women with very imperfect information to make quick decisions about the situation they see unfolding in front of them, and act on it;
      2) Is not a series of explosions and fire-from-the-hip Rambo footage. Modern warfare is in fact, large stretches of "mostly nothing happens" interspersed with a few minutes of gut-wrenching "interesting parts".

      That video would have painted a terrifically informative picture of modern warfare for the average civilian... unfortunately, it painted a picture that said "these kids are trigger-happy monsters, and are just looking for an excuse to kill anybody they see walking down the street." Frankly, I'd say that the people who are already predisposed to agree with that message simply use the collateral murder video as a way to reinforce that notion, and never bothered to watch the full unedited video. And in that regard, they're no better than the people who refuse to watch any news source other than Fox.

    118. Re:Its really by fishexe · · Score: 2

      Wars can be won, and enemies can be stamped out.

      Tell that to the dead and consider the cost to the "victor". Wars can have first and second losers, and that's all.

      In the words of the first US Congresswoman, "You can no more win a war than you can win an earthquake."

      --
      "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
    119. Re:Its really by Risen888 · · Score: 1

      Really? This surprises me. I get a fair amount of my news from Al Jazeera's web services (which are yards ahead of their American counterparts', who could all stand to take a page from their playbook wrt digital distribution). It's one of several news sources that I check regularly, and I find it to have a much higher level of reliability and depth than pretty much any mainstream American source. Of course their opinion and commentary are...opiniony and commenty, much like the opinion and comment in any other news source, in whatever media, around the world.

      But back at the point, given a statement like this: Heck, actually for as long as I've known about them they've always been the garbage of the Arab world.... you shouldn't have a problem providing a couple citations.

      --
      Hey, I finally got my first freak! Took you long enough!
    120. Re:Its really by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Every time you use the word sheep, your credibility drops about 5 notches. Just a heads up.

    121. Re:Its really by Risen888 · · Score: 1

      Look...I am from a Muslim country and I can assure you that Fox News is pretty benign compared to Al Jazeera. Maybe you don't watch Al Jazeera in Arabic. It's full of conspiracy theories. Even on the Arab-Israeli issue, I would say that that Fox is less biased than Al Jazeera. I know it's hard to imagine when one ever watched Limbaugh or O'Reilly, but it's sadly verifiable.

      Well then, verify it.

      --
      Hey, I finally got my first freak! Took you long enough!
    122. Re:Its really by kevinNCSU · · Score: 2

      Is it possible that both of you see the people on your side if the argument through biased lens of "clearly they are more intelligent people who have done way more research into the the matter because they reached the same opinion as me, and anyone who reaches a different opinion must not know as much as me or have ulterior motives."

      It is a rare day indeed when you find a person who will admit that someone who disagrees with them has done an adequate amount of research and fact finding and simply has reached a different well informed opinion. We always want to believe people who disagree with us simply don't have all the facts or dismiss their opinions as misinformed ignorant sheep.

    123. Re:Its really by fishexe · · Score: 2

      It seems to me that almost every cheerleader of the War on Terror I've met was someone who limited themselves to the mainstream media and limited their discussion of the issue to repeating talking points

      This is why I don't listen to people who watch Fox News.

      I still listen to them, lest I lapse into bias. If we don't check ourselves constantly for biases, we lapse into dishonest thinking, and if there's one thing I can't stand, it's the act of being dishonest with oneself. So I listen to them, think hard about what they say, and continuously refine my understanding of the situation.

      --
      "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
    124. Re:Its really by fishexe · · Score: 1

      Maybe you don't watch Al Jazeera in Arabic. It's full of conspiracy theories. Even on the Arab-Israeli issue, I would say that that Fox is less biased than Al Jazeera.

      I guess my mistake was to extrapolate (you are correct that I have only read/watched their English-language version). Still, most Americans' opinion of Al Jazeera is influenced by hearing stories that Al Jazeera "is the mouthpiece of terrorists" for playing the bin Laden tapes (which Western media did too, but they don't get criticized for it) and about Al Jazeera playing the terrorist beheading videos (which they didn't actually do, it was a lie from the beginning). Then I hear these accusations repeated over and over again, with no sources or evidence that it's actually true. It's good to hear from someone with direct experience.

      --
      "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
    125. Re:Its really by PhrstBrn · · Score: 2

      I don't listen because all they do is spout talking points and blatant lies that are repeated on some of these shows. Don't get me wrong, I typically conform with more of the liberal views, but I get pissed of whenever one of the mainstream media corps reports on the news. Fox News is just one of the worst.

      I was watching Meet the Press (NBC) this Sunday, and David Gregory were interviewing Eric Cantor. Cantor was doing a good job being a politician (he was spouting "cutting the deficit by $50 billion" over and over). Most people wouldn't see through it. David Gregory never asked him how the entire 10-15 minutes he had to talk with Cantor. It pissed me off to watch him say the same thing over and over (cut spending by $50 billion), but never actually said how. He mentioned cutting Social Security and Medicare, but I think everybody knows that that won't go anywhere. I'd love for them to cut spending, problem is I don't believe him, especially when he won't say what he's going to cut on National TV.

      The media just acts as a forum for crackpots to spout their talking points and other nonsense, but won't actually ask hard questions. They're pretty much all guilty of the same thing. Journalism is dead.

      I realize most of this is off-topic, but answers the parent's question

    126. Re:Its really by Smiths · · Score: 1

      Yeah genetically we're all brothers and sisters..we all share common ancestry. Its a mistake however to look at I/P as people fighting over religion or ethnicity....its not a religious war...its a political one. It would be same fight you'd see in North America centuries ago when the Europeans were taking the land from the native people of this continent...and when they resisted they became violent barbarians in the eyes of the occupier...

      I'll let Bertrand Russell sum it up....

      "The tragedy of the people of Palestine is that their country was ‘given’ by a foreign power to another people for the creation of a new state. The result was that many hundreds of thousands of innocent people were made permanently homeless. With every new conflict their numbers increased. How much longer is the world willing to endure this spectacle of wanton cruelty? It is abundantly clear that the refugees have every right to the homeland from which they were driven, and the denial of this right is at the heart of the continuing conflict. No people anywhere in the world would accept being expelled en masse from their country; how can anyone require the people of Palestine to accept a punishment which nobody else would tolerate? A permanent just settlement of the refugees in their homeland is an essential ingredient of any genuine settlement in the Middle East".

      mondoweiss.net

    127. Re:Its really by alexborges · · Score: 1

      Angry you didnt (yup, didnt... go fish!) get first post? Lighten up!

      --
      NO SIG
    128. Re:Its really by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      We both know it's political - we all know that. We also know that for a lot of the people on the ground in those countries it's been about religion and ethnicity for a very long time.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    129. Re:Its really by Smiths · · Score: 1

      From what I've read the Palestenians have for long seen the PA as being in bed with Israel...as they well are...a few years ago there was a long vanity fair article about how the PLO with US/Israel support attempted a violent coup in Gaza when Hamas legally won the election there. Hundreds maybe thousands died.

      The thing about all these groups, which the US likes to paint as radicals....Hizbollah, Hamas, Iran...is that to the people, the refugees, the victims of state sponsored terrorists...these factions are at are least standing up for them...and in the eyes of the people who deal with Israel, the US, the PLO...the violent hamas is not any more morally terrible than Israel/US...from their perspective, this is unconterversial, its true.

    130. Re:Its really by jackbird · · Score: 1

      You don't need genetic research. The parents and grandparents of most of the hawkish Israeli right fled for their lives to Israel in the 1950s from the arab countries they had lived in for generations after their property was expropriated.

    131. Re:Its really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's the same with the official Chinese news CCTV or whatever they are called. In the local segments in Mandarin they flog a different story than they do in foreign languages like English. The foreign versions are often soft peddled and much more muted/diluted/neutral in order to curry favour with the foreigners.

      That way outside entities will see that China is 'open' and 'democratic' and fair.

      Al Jazeera in English works the same way. It buys credibility for the home networks when an English speaking person talks highly of Al Jazeera since they aren't getting the full rhetoric.

    132. Re:Its really by Smiths · · Score: 1

      How long? Cause if you say, they've been fighting for thousands of years in that area...its not historically correct. People who say that fall into the trap of it being an unresolveable issue.

      Before the Zionists went there to establish a country...there were Jewish Palestenians...Muslim Palestenians and Christian Palestenians...living in peace for centuries...

      they should have kept this arrangement.

      This was Einsteins vision...

      "I should much rather see reasonable agreement with the Arabs on the basis of living together in peace than the creation of a Jewish state. Apart from the practical considerations, my awareness of the essential nature of Judaism resists the idea of a Jewish state with borders, an army, and a measure of temporal power no matter how modest. I am afraid of the inner damage Judaism will sustain – especially from the development of a narrow nationalism within our own ranks, against which we have already had to fight without a Jewish state."

      Eventually I believe this is what will return to the area...maybe it will be called Israel..but there will be Jews, Christians and Arab living in one democracy that is not forced to have a majority for one religion.

    133. Re:Its really by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      A couple of well known facts to historians that the media refuses to report are that Jerusalem and the West Bank are legally undisputed Israeli land that Israel can choose to give away or not at its pleasure

      Are you a moron?

      The Palestinians may be willing to drop the demand that Israel give away its capitol city of Jerusalem

      Yup, a moron. Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel, you idiot.

      The West Bank is undisputed Palestine territory. Jerusalem is also undisputed Palestine territory, although one that is supposed to be under the special protection of the UN.

      Neither Palestine or Israel dispute those facts. (Israel seems to think it can build settlements in land it admits is Palestine, but it really does still agree it's Palestine land.)

      When was the last time a newspaper reported that the Palestinians were founded in 1964 with help from the USSR

      Wow, you are stupid. Palestine was not founded in '1964'. It was created by the UN in 1948, the PLO declared independence in 1988, and it, or at least the Gaza strip, became a 'nation' in 2005. (Although something more akin to a US state than a sovereign country.)

      What you are talking about is the creation of the PLO, and, no, the USSR did not help found it. They supported the PLO between 1968 and the USSR's dissolution, which, you will note, does not include the start of the PLO. (I have no idea what you mean by 'the Palestinians were founded'. The Palestinians are people, and not 'founded' like countries or organizations.)

      So, in short, to answer your question, the reason newspapers aren't reporting your facts is because they are wrong.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    134. Re:Its really by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      >Eventually I believe this is what will return to the area...maybe it will be called Israel..but there will be Jews, Christians and Arab living in one democracy that is not forced to have a majority for one religion.

      Basically that's the single-state option, Israel right now is demanding a two-state option - and yet not sticking to prior agreements on where it's borders should be. A two state solution could also work (provided all citizens of both states have truly equal rights) though I personally think it a superfluous approach. We didn't end appartheid in South Africa by keeping the old homelands as separate nations (which the UN didn't even recognize as such) we did it by merging everybody into one nation. It's not a perfect country but it's a damn sight better than it was in the 1980's.
      Right now the real problem is that neither of these two groups have the kind of leaders we had in De Klerk and Mandela, on each side. A white leader prepared to sacrifice his power for the greater good, and a black leader prepared to let the past go and skip on retribution to instead build a peaceful future.
      That's what Israel and Palestine needs. They've occasionally had a leader on either side who came close - but they've yet to manage one on both sides, until they do, neither a two-state nor a single-state solution will be realized in any workable manner.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    135. Re:Its really by fishexe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Is it possible that both of you see the people on your side if the argument through biased lens of "clearly they are more intelligent people who have done way more research into the the matter because they reached the same opinion as me, and anyone who reaches a different opinion must not know as much as me or have ulterior motives."

      No. I'm basing what I say on careful evaluation of people's arguments and stated justification for their beliefs. If I meet someone who has actually done more research into an issue than I have, I find that out and admit that it is the case; furthermore, I often change my position in response to meeting better and more-researched arguments than my own.

      It is a rare day indeed when you find a person who will admit that someone who disagrees with them has done an adequate amount of research and fact finding and simply has reached a different well informed opinion.

      I don't know where you hang out, but I (and many people I know, many of whom disagree with me on important issues) do it every day. For example, I'm willing to admit right now that you and I have a reasonable difference of opinion on differences of opinion. You're being reasonable enough here that you give me no reason to believe what you say is based on bias, and to give me every reason to believe you're basing what you say on serious thought.

      We always want to believe people who disagree with us simply don't have all the facts or dismiss their opinions as misinformed ignorant sheep.

      True. That's why we have to be very careful in arguments not to lapse into that kind of sloppy thinking. I never just dismiss someone I disagree with without asking enough questions about their position to know why they disagree with me, carefully evaluating their reasons to see if there's something real there, and offering my arguments to see what their counter-arguments are (and also on the off-chance I might convince them of my position; arguments serve a dual purpose here). I don't claim to be perfect or bias-free, but I think the process of careful examination means more of my assessments of people's positions are based on the actual strength of those positions than on my bias, and I regularly criticize people on the same side of issues as myself for not engaging in the same sort of rhetorical integrity (as well as for making weak arguments or just plain being biased).

      --
      "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
    136. Re:Its really by Risen888 · · Score: 1

      ...the Palestinian leadership refuse to concede even the most basic realities (Israel's existence as a Jewish state, and its right to exist as a Jewish state).

      I also refuse to concede your "basic realities."

      I mean, obvious Israel exists as a Jewish state, that's factual. But why on earth should an entity that was manufactured by decree out of whole cloth 60 years ago (on someone else's land no less) have any sort of "right" to exist as a state, Jewish or otherwise?

      --
      Hey, I finally got my first freak! Took you long enough!
    137. Re:Its really by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 1

      Some hate each other. The majority of Israelis I met don't hate the Palestinians - apart from extremists the Israelis mostly want a good life and for the Palestinians to leave them the hell alone. Most would be very happy with a Two State solution, but setting it up has to bring peace. However, the unilateral withdrawal from Gaza showed that conceding land for peace does not work - hence a great deal of mistrust now (even from former doves and moderates).

    138. Re:Its really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a little truth to this, but not what you may think.

      http://www.jpost.com/Features/article.aspx?id=91746

      When compared with European populations, Jews have more genetic similarity to Palestinians. But the closest genetic relations to the Jews are Kurds, Armenians & Anatolian Turks, meaning that Jews originate from the ancient populations of the Northern Fertile Crescent (oddly consistent with the biblical story that Abraham came from Ur, in that same region). The closest genetic similarities are with the muslim Kurds (one of the most ancient groups surviving in the northern Middle East).

      I have also read articles that a number of Palestinian tribes, particularly among the rural peasants and some beduin descend from ancient Jewish tribes that have been forcibly converted to Islam over the years, some as recently as the late 19th century, and they remember this but do not talk about it with outsiders. I think the disconnect is that many of the urban dwelling Palestinians decend from Arab migrants from outside Palestine who arrived in the late 19th and early 20th century to take advantage of the improving economy of the Levant. The urban dwellers always looked down on the rural locals and Beduin as being poor, uncultured, backwards and religiously suspect. I think any genetic relationship between Palestinians and Jew probably comes through the rural and beduin who've lived on the land beyond memory, not the recently arrived urban dwellers.

    139. Re:Its really by caseih · · Score: 1

      Al Jazeera English is a pretty impressive news channel. Their journalists are pretty sharp and honest. There appears to us in the west to be some bias, but in reality I find them to be more impartial than any western news service. Head over to livestation.com and watch it. I think you'd be surprised at how good a job they do. This is not the same Al Jazeera that made their name parroting Iraqi propaganda during the recent American invasion there, for all intents and purposes.

    140. Re:Its really by pigeon768 · · Score: 1

      As a person to whom "conservative" is the most appropriate label, I can assure you that English Al-Jazeera is in fact more accurate and less biased than the television incarnation of Fox News. Beck, O'Reilly, Hannity are all partisan hacks. The online incarnation of Fox isn't bad. I cannot speak for the Arabic incarnation of Al-Jazeera, but have been informed by numerous people who do speak the language that it's biased in a really bad way. This is not to say that English Al-Jazeera is unbiased; there is an obvious slant when it comes to the Israel-Palestine conflict.

    141. Re:Its really by Risen888 · · Score: 1

      As they're primarily in Arab normally nobody references them as a source.

      Al Jazeera English is massive, worldwide, and an excellent source of domestic (American) news. I highly recommend it.

      They're far more known by reputation than by people that actually read any of their journalism and is qualified to say whether it's biased or not.

      True enough.

      --
      Hey, I finally got my first freak! Took you long enough!
    142. Re:Its really by smooth+wombat · · Score: 2

      I believe this study is what you were referring to.

      Unfortunately, because the author put in a bit of opinion on the whole mess, people tried (and still try) to discredit the entire paper rather than just ignore the opinion pieces.

      Since the science holds up, it's obvious that the only real difference between Palestinians and Jews is their religions.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    143. Re:Its really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      not correct analogy

      better analog:
      play ground teens next to play ground kindergarten. kindergarten shooting bullets at teens - but they can't aim very well so they don't hit many and the teacher (world media) doesn't see it - even when they target non-warrior weaker kids (read this as civilians - yes real kids - ya analog could be better).

      You mean to say if your on the teen sides you should NOT take action to neutralize the threat of death to your civilians.

      ya right

    144. Re:Its really by hrimhari · · Score: 1

      Sorry amigo, but you're just under the heavy sedation of familiarity and/or you're really, really lucky.

      As a former Rio inhabitant who used to say "bah, those gringos and their irrational fear", had a US$50 Swatch stolen and a friend killed in a car robbery, I can tell you: violence in Rio has been every bit as reported and more.

      I had to live in Montreal to detox from that sedation. I remember when I was taking the bus (public transportation, not private company) to work and realized how exhilarating it was to not need to scan every person that entered the bus to consider if I should leave and avoid a robbery.

      Sorry to break this to you, but when you can get killed because a stray bullet from the favela 2km away hits you on your living room, or because a thief tried to shoot the driver in the car next to you but missed and hit you instead, no amount of malandragem can save you. Especially when there are so few places not in bullet distance to a favela, but it doesn't matter because there will always be a red traffic light to cover an ambush.

      30 years ago, there used to be "just" pockets of violence. 2 years ago they had all merged into one happy and dangerous city. But that's the funny thing: as long as the cariocas are all sedated like you, happiness prevails. You know the addaggio: ignorance is bliss.

      By the way, I don't know where in Rio you live. But for educational purposes I suggest you take the metro linha 2 up to Pavuna and watch the landscape.

      I hope the UPPs will really help.

      --
      http://dilbert.com/2010-12-13
    145. Re:Its really by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Just to be clear, the '10 lost tribes' were different than the 'remnant' who remained. The bulk of the 10 disappeared 600BC or so. Some remained in Samaria, but the remaining were mostly from the tribe of Judah (and Levi, I believe). 1700 years ago, it's likely most of the people in the region were also from the tribe of Judah and Levi.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    146. Re:Its really by rgviza · · Score: 1

      It's religion mate, not racism. Religion (either directly or indirectly) is responsible for more deaths throughout history than any other cause.

      --
      Don't kid yourself. It's the size of the regexp AND how you use it that counts.
    147. Re:Its really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mentioning the Intifadas is fallacy here, as in the past any deeply oppressive under military occupation has had a tendency turn violent. Even when it's not foreign military occupation, just an abusive government.
      Your post is intelligently and well-written, and you'll forgive me for saying that you might not be completely unbiased here. How were the intifadas different from other stuff here https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Revolt
      I might be pushing my luck here, but can you do my part of the argument as well, please? Just try to play the Devil's advocate for a bit.
      Then you will be arguing convincingly, otherwise you are either failing to get your point across, or doing exactly that ans being biased about it.

    148. Re:Its really by EvilBudMan · · Score: 1

      There are probably less lies but they too have an agenda.

    149. Re:Its really by EvilBudMan · · Score: 1

      Even the bible and Koran say this too, basically half brothers. Of course who God or Allah favored is switched in the stories. So in one book one side was thrown out and in the other book the opposite is true leading to thousands of years of problems.

    150. Re:Its really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "It completely baffles me how anyone can have a strong opinion on any issue when they are only fed the information via the mainstream media."

      Isn't this part of the evolution of individuals though? When I was young, I watched the nightly news and read the local paper. Then I encountered conflicting info, and sought additional sources, and realized a lot of the talking heads and reporters pumped out stories, even knowingly limited or misleading facts.

      Then you hit sites like /., and whether you agree or not with the opinions in the subject matter, the diversity of opinion is good (which is why I hate /. moderation). You grow. I still watch the nightly news, but mostly to see what's being said and to understand how something is being pitched and by whom.

      And, I kid you not, reading and things like anime (the more pseudo-serious stuff), you start to see how things like storylines, tactics, conspiracies, and the like get manipulated, and what a misleading, craphole, simplistic mess regular media is. What you start analyzing how a different arc couldn't have manifested, or can see the joke coming up before the joke is even being made, you're just beginning to perceive the process that comes before it. After all, the people who write a good (fictional) story, are also of the same minds that do this in practice in real life, whether directly as people like politicians trying to get what they want, or of the same ilk as those reporters designing a story.

      Unfortunately, the result so far is that I'm still incompetent, largely powerless, and see there are lot of people looking to FUBAR people for the sake of it (whether by design, greed, and/or incompetence). It's one thing to realize there is sheep, see yourself as sheep, and see there's not much to changing you from being sheered or mutton'd. After all, a sheep who learns to read is still a sheep.

    151. Re:Its really by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      >It's religion mate, not racism. Religion (either directly or indirectly) is responsible for more deaths throughout history than any other cause.

      I'm an atheist as well mate, but that statement is just plain wrong.
      In fact religion is only responsible for about 8% of all wars - nearly all wars are about money or territory. In plain old atrocity - it pains me to say this but thanks to China and the Soviet Union - the record for the 20th century belongs to atheists. Though I personally blame the statism of those nations rather than their lack of religion. Atheists in free countries tend to support freedom of religion - even though their personal choice is to not participate.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    152. Re:Its really by makomk · · Score: 1

      A couple of well known facts to historians that the media refuses to report are that Jerusalem and the West Bank are legally undisputed Israeli land that Israel can choose to give away or not at its pleasure,

      Nope. This isn't even in question - what the Israeli government is doing is in violation of international laws, no two ways about it. While technically Israel doesn't have to grant independence of the West Bank, there are a whole bunch of restrictions they're ignoring on what they can do whilst it's occupied territory. One of those is that they're not allowed to take land from the existing residents to give to their own citizens.

      Even the BBC has had to give up the pretense that there are two equally valid positions on this - it was just making them look stupid.

      that the Palestinians are a Nazi terrorist organization dedicated to exterminating the Jews,

      So what you're saying is that an entire racial and ethnic group is a bunch of evil terrorists. We're supposed to think they're the racist ones?

      and that the Arab League has cultivated the Palestinians as a weapon against Israel to further the territorial dominion of the Arab race and/or Islam depending on which nut is in power.

      Hmm. Maybe, or possibly they just don't want the Palestinians in their territory because it'll give Israel an excuse to invade and annex it again.

      Note that the descendants of Arab refugees from the Israeli war of independence already can return to Israel by acquiring passports and they can apply for Israeli citizenship.

      Of course, their application will likely fail, since they have no more right to citizenship than a random person from anywhere in the world. (Exception: Palestinians actually have less right to claim Israeli citizenship than everyone else in the world.) Doesn't matter if they and all their ancestors were born in the bounds of what's now Israel. Meanwhile, being Jewish grants essentially automatic citizenship.

      To get a sense of what Israel conceded, let someone demand a temporary halt to all Arab construction on Arab land, and a halt to any increase in the Arab population, and see how that idea flies.

      As it happens Israel has already tried to force this on Arabs within the West Bank, Gaza and much of Jerusalem. You may recall the odd media mention of Arab homes being demolished in these areas because they were constructed without permits. The Israeli government has a policy of not granting any building permits to Arabs in these regions.

      Of course, that's not equivalent. If a halt was forced to the expansion of illegal Jewish settlements in the West Bank, any Jewish residents could just go and live in Israel proper. The Arab Palestinian residents have no such option. (Yes, I did mean "Jewish" and not "Israeli" - said settlements are open to Jews from anywhere in the world and non-Jewish Israelis are excluded.)

      Oh, and the really fun bit? Documents have leaked proving the Israeli government has permitted Jewish settlers to build homes on land they didn't actually own, land that the actual Arab owners would never be allowed to build on.

    153. Re:Its really by camperslo · · Score: 1

      There are alternative sources if one looks. Some material may be objectionable, viewer discretion is advised.

      Besides the U.S. commercial and cable broadcasters, there is news service on PBS stations with some streaming and podcasts available from http://www.pbs.org./ Many PBS and other public stations also carry the BBC which has much available on the web too.
      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/

      A great many international newscasts are carried by the non-profit public satellite broadcaster MHz on their WorldView channel. (They have a number of other international channels also)

      This guide is easier to browse than the one on their website:
      http://proweb.myersinfosys.com/day.php?timezone=0&station=world&channel=MHz+Worldview&airdate=

      They have free news and paid programs on-demand streamed through ROKU
      mhznetworks.org/roku

      Many of the news sources they carry have websites with some content available, here are some:

      http://www.dw-world.de/ (Deutsche Welle from Germany)
      http://www.euronews.net/
      http://www.france24.com/en/
      http://www.rt.com/ (Russia Today)
      http://www.aljazeera.net/english
      http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=AlJazeeraEnglish#g/u
      http://www.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/ (NHK Newsline)
      http://www.youtube.com/taiwanmactv

      Not sure where a country is? Here's a good but simple map.
      http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3f/CIA_WorldFactBook-Political_world.svg

      More info and a list of stations carrying WorldView:
      http://www.mhznetworks.org/mhzworldview/

      Sometimes a station has them on a secondary digital channel (Like KCET 28.4 Los Angeles) that isn't on cable. Ask your cable operator to add it if they're not carrying the feed.

    154. Re:Its really by Buelldozer · · Score: 1

      I can't read it but I'm informed by some who can that Al-Jazeera in Arabic is a far different critter than the Al-Jazeera in English. This may have something to do with their reputation.

    155. Re:Its really by Schmorgluck · · Score: 1

      It is a rare day indeed when you find a person who will admit that someone who disagrees with them has done an adequate amount of research and fact finding and simply has reached a different well informed opinion.

      I don't know where you hang out, but I (and many people I know, many of whom disagree with me on important issues) do it every day. For example, I'm willing to admit right now that you and I have a reasonable difference of opinion on differences of opinion. You're being reasonable enough here that you give me no reason to believe what you say is based on bias, and to give me every reason to believe you're basing what you say on serious thought.

      Ditto to that. To put it in Slashdot modding terms, when I have mod points, I tend to reserve the "interesting" positive mod to posts with which I disagree, but are well put and at least seem well thought out. So, basically, I use "+1 interesting" as a "+1 disagree".

      --
      There's nothing like $HOME
    156. Re:Its really by T.E.D. · · Score: 1

      More specifically the Palestinians are the descendants of the so-called "ten lost tribes" - it's not even conjecture, it's

      ... complete and utter horseshit.

      The "lost tribes" of Israel are not lost in the way that your car keys get lost. They are lost in the way that your great-great-grandmother is lost.

      Assyria got ticked at them and killed every fighting man in the country. Then they sacked what was left, and carted the remaining people up to Assyria as slaves. People don't breed well in captivity, and any descendents they did have after a few generations would be so diluted by assyrian material (which really isn't all that differnt to start with), that it effectively no longer existed as a spearate entity anymore.

      [cue the parrot sketch]

    157. Re:Its really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They really aren't the same people. Bloodlines have always been political and hazy at best. Frequently, there were revisions of family trees to fit a newcomer with power. What defines the Jewish settlers is not their bloodline, but their segregative aspirations of nationalism. Palestinians are not up in arms about Jews specifically. Prior to British colonialism middle eastern countries were slowly moving towards removing the poll tax on non-muslims and adopting some western ideals while maintaining Islam. Essentially, the station of Jews was being improved and the biggest limitations imposed in Jerusalem were of the building of temples. After the occupation of Egypt by Britain, zionists and politicians lobbied for a Jewish state to be assembled. The population of Palestine was filled exponentially by western Jews who wanted nothing to do with its citizens. WW2 catalyzed the official creation of a Jewish state and the in 60 years, the population of Jews went from a minority to a majority. The land of Palestine was quite literally invaded by a culture that was different than the eastern Jews already living there who spoke arabic and did regular business with muslims. "They" have not been fighting for centuries contrary to what many people are taught. Israel is an artifact of colonialism, carved out sovereign land by opportunistic politicians. There is plenty reason to fight against it besides religion.

    158. Re:Its really by mjwx · · Score: 1

      A point of information: The leak makes the PA look bad. The PA comes out as lying to their citizens

      Israel comes out of it pretty much as they were before, as simply not interested in negotiation that do not give them all they want.

      Proves (evidence points to) what everyone already figured out for themselves, both states are far too arrogant and belligerent.

      From knowing Australian Jew's, the smart Jew's have left Israel and I'm sure the Palestinians that could, have escaped Palestine.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    159. Re:Its really by nanoflower · · Score: 1

      I think that's the problem. There seem to be two forms of Al Jazeera. The one designed for Arabic speaking people and the one designed for English speaking people. From what I've seen (admittedly little) it seems the English version of Al Jazeera is more moderate than the Arab version. That can lead people that only see the English version to assume that Al Jazeera is moderate and doesn't tend to engage in conspiracy theories.

    160. Re:Its really by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      The problem isn't so much with your logic as with the definition of "mainstream media," which invariably refers to the media sources that the opposing side uses. If you're on the right, then Mainstream = CNN, NYT, and possibly MSNBC. If you're on the left, then Mainstream = FOX News, the WSJ, and possibly CNN. Both sides are justified, because all of those sources can be considered "mainstream," which is basically synonymous with popular, and because those sources subjectively (or objectively) oppose their viewpoints.

    161. Re:Its really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it was Hamas who said that they can request and reason with the other groups to stop rocket attacks, but these groups are not part of the Hamas military.

      Hamas, as the governing authority in Gaza, has the responsibility to stop ordnance from leaving their airspace. It's part of the great responsibility that comes with authority.

    162. Re:Its really by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      I'm thinking that he's probably confuzzling the war on terror with the war efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

      Mikey Steezily? Izzat be you my bruzza from anozza huzza? Wuzza???!!!

    163. Re:Its really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where the Jewish people settling in England related to the Sephardi group? To nitpick, the African groups are missing from this picture.

    164. Re:Its really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they are measurably more accurate and less biased than Fox News

      Lets see the measurements then.

    165. Re:Its really by fishexe · · Score: 1

      The problem isn't so much with your logic as with the definition of "mainstream media," which invariably refers to the media sources that the opposing side uses. If you're on the right, then Mainstream = CNN, NYT, and possibly MSNBC. If you're on the left, then Mainstream = FOX News, the WSJ, and possibly CNN.

      That's really dumb, because those are all mainstream. My point was that people whose information comes exclusively from the bunch of all those you mentioned (on both "right" and "left") along with other similar sources have a greater tendency to support the War on Terror than people who base their opinions on a combination of the above sources plus independent research, independent media, and hearing from various people (with various perspectives) who are directly involved in or directly affected by the War on Terror.

      Both sides are justified, because all of those sources can be considered "mainstream," which is basically synonymous with popular, and because those sources subjectively (or objectively) oppose their viewpoints.

      People who deride the "mainstream media" but then hold either Fox or MSNBC up as a paragon of independence are committing intellectual dishonesty. I try to avoid discussions with such people whether they agree with me on most things or not, and seek out people who value consistency and intellectual rigor more highly than hearing voices that agrees with them. That shit's all mainstream, it all has corporate and (ironically) pro-government biases (though sometimes obscured by anti-government rhetoric) and it all definitely pushes viewers/readers toward group think of one sort or another.

      --
      "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
    166. Re:Its really by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Funny - all those other studies that both myself and other people linked seem to disagree with you. Now whether they are the 10 lost tribes, or just left-overs of the other 2 - doesn't actually matter much anyway. The core point is that Jews and Palestinians were one people - very recently.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    167. Re:Its really by nobodie · · Score: 1

      An old friend of mine had lived in Israel for 25 years and then returned to the US. He spent the first two years screaming at the TV news and complaining to anyone around him that "you just don't understand, it's not anything like that!"

      He was right. Living in Asia and reading news in the west about China (where I am now) or Thailand (where I lived for almost ten years) I am constantly wanting to shake people. You cannot understand how ridiculous your slant on the news is to us. You see the world through your own eyes which are colored by expectations of reality that do not hold water here.

      I am planning to return to the US this year and dread the process. Frankly, I realize that the US that I am returning to is nothing that I can understand. I left before 9/11. Clinton was president. Etc. I will have a lot of trouble seeing your world and expect it to take some time, months at best, before I can see "our" world again.

      So, News is determined by people who do not want to challenge your existing world view, they only want to give you (dare I say it???) entertainment-like pieces of adapted information that you can fit into your existing world-view comfortably. Sadly, I understand why they do it.

      --
      Subversion of spatial scale luxury decoration ideas.
    168. Re:Its really by vnt2011 · · Score: 1

      Chao cac ban! Moi ban tham khao mot so san pham noi that van phong cua cong tu DALOI FURNITURE chung toi. Voi mong muon dem lai nhung san pham tot nhat va dap ung duoc nhu cau ngay cang cao cua khach hang chinh vi vay chung toi thuong xuyen cap nhat nhung mau thiet ke moi cung voi thai do phuc vu chuyen nghiep nhat. Hay den voi chung toi de quy khach duoc tu van va cham soc mot cach tot nhat... Xin vui long lien he: CONG TY TNHH THUONG MAI VA SAN XUAT DA LOI D/C: 352 Giai Phong _ Thanh Xuan _ Ha Noi Dien thoai : 04.66.757.198 - 04.66.757.197 Fax:04.3664 9379 Email : vnt2011@gmail.com Website: http://hoaphat.vn/ http://vachnganvanphong.com.vn/

    169. Re:Its really by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      "mainstream media,...invariably refers to the media sources that the opposing side uses

      Thanks for demonstrating my point so thoroughly.

    170. Re:Its really by fishexe · · Score: 1

      "mainstream media,...invariably refers to the media sources that the opposing side uses

      Thanks for demonstrating my point so thoroughly.

      ?????

      I explicitly included media sources both sides use in my definition of mainstream media.

      --
      "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
    171. Re:Its really by twoHats · · Score: 1

      Bullshit! There is no justification for cold blooded murder. We are not at war in Iraq, but rather just the bully occupiers. We are the ones flying over neighborhoods armed to the teeth looking for trouble, and yet we somehow feel justified in blaming the people who live there, because they ..."look suspicious". I, for one American former serviceman, do not condone this crap, or excuse it in any way. put those pricks on trial!

    172. Re:Its really by Americano · · Score: 1

      I agree, there is no justification for cold blooded murder.

      What you seem to be missing here is that this was not cold blooded murder.

    173. Re:Its really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The danger is in for the recipients not to evaluate the content published and the data generated, to find its truth or to discover its falsity. the outcome should be made known. and its content should be verified or discounted for lack of verification. The Internet is great for verification if only the people will interact until the truth is confirmed.

    174. Re:Its really by fishexe · · Score: 1

      To put it in Slashdot modding terms, when I have mod points, I tend to reserve the "interesting" positive mod to posts with which I disagree, but are well put and at least seem well thought out. So, basically, I use "+1 interesting" as a "+1 disagree".

      I like your approach, so much so that I'm considering adopting it as my own.

      --
      "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
    175. Re:Its really by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Except that it was, of course. Iraqis are allowed to have AK-47's, and the attack happened on an open street, so you don't even have the excuse of them approaching a military base. Then there's the van driver that tries to stop and deliver aid, and the soldiers chortling that they just ran over a body in an armored vehicle.

      But your authoritarian apologia is noted.

    176. Re:Its really by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Proves (evidence points to) what everyone already figured out for themselves, both states are far too arrogant and belligerent.

      Uh, no. It proves that the PA was willing to bend over backwards and even that wasn't good enough for the Israelis, but nice try with the false equivalency.

    177. Re:Its really by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Even better analogy: teens (Israelis) tell the kindergartners to take shelter inside the school....and then promptly level the school.

      Except that actually happened.

    178. Re:Its really by Americano · · Score: 1

      Yes, because nothing happens in any context of the broader conflict we're embroiled in. That video is the only battle American forces have seen in Iraq. They were just flying around Baghdad, saw some guys, and said "hey, let's kill those guys. It'll pass the time."

      But your ignorant naievete is noted.

    179. Re:Its really by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Uh, no. It proves that the PA was willing to bend over backwards and even that wasn't

      Uh, no. It shows that the Palestinians made offers and reneged on them when push came to shove in negotiations. But nice straw man.

      Please read the content you are commenting on, before commenting on it.

      So basically we are back to what I said. Both sides are arrogant and belligerent.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  2. Knowing Al-Jazeera... by a+Flatbed+Darkly · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    ...conveniently omitting any mention of Qatar.

    1. Re:Knowing Al-Jazeera... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      ... conveniently omitting any mention of Peru.

    2. Re:Knowing Al-Jazeera... by alexborges · · Score: 1

      And where did you leave new jersey motherfucker!!??

      --
      NO SIG
    3. Re:Knowing Al-Jazeera... by Foobar+of+Borg · · Score: 5, Funny

      And where did you leave new jersey motherfucker!!??

      We tried to leave it in Antartica, but the penguins sent it back.

    4. Re:Knowing Al-Jazeera... by Cwix · · Score: 1

      Perhaps we could sell it to the Chinese.

      --
      You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
    5. Re:Knowing Al-Jazeera... by Froboz23 · · Score: 1

      The Palestinians just don't appear to be very focused on the peace process. They seem to be preoccupied by something else.

      --
      Take off every Sig. For great justice.
    6. Re:Knowing Al-Jazeera... by thej1nx · · Score: 1

      Too late.

    7. Re:Knowing Al-Jazeera... by fishexe · · Score: 2

      They would send it back too, only they would put lead in it first.

      --
      "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
    8. Re:Knowing Al-Jazeera... by modecx · · Score: 2

      Hmm, That would be a significant improvement. It would give NJ some redeeming value, lead prices are going up after all.

      Let's do it.

      --
      Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
    9. Re:Knowing Al-Jazeera... by zach_the_lizard · · Score: 1

      Take a look at Jersey Shore; I think someone put lead in New Jersey already.

      --
      SSC
    10. Re:Knowing Al-Jazeera... by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 1

      Well yes, you have one side that's at least giving off the semblance of being reasonable and one that's dedicated to the extermination of the other side ... Apparently today's "progressive" politics basically come down to attacking the reasonable side. Why ? Because requiring concessions from the genocidal side of course brings violence ...

      So with the PR-line of avoiding violence, "peace now", rewards intransigence, rewards genocide, rewards starting wars at the drop of a hat.

      This is a very postmodernist way of looking at the world. Real life, and anything outside of your own ideology doesn't exist, and one exploits this difference to amass power. The consequences at the long term ? Who cares, besides, if you prefer your own belief system over reality, nothin will go wrong anyway.

      It's the perfect policy, of course, from a postmodernist point of view. The point of politics, for a politician, is to amass power, and this "peace now" tactic goes like so:
      1. peace now, demand concessions from the reasonable side
      2. it is easily defensible, to dumb idiots, that this leads to peace, but of course in reality emboldens the genocidal party
      3. needless to say, emboldened genocidal idiots ... leads to incidents
      4. clearly these incidents "prove" that more concessions are needed, and that thus the politician involved needs to have more power to press the reasonable party further

      Of course, at some point the situation will explode. But by then, of course, the politician is out of office. And, for example, for Bill Clinton this worked really well.

  3. Good lord... by gmhowell · · Score: 2, Insightful

    How can the following script be repeated for 1600 pages:

    "You started it!"
    "No, you started it!"
    "No, you started it!"

    Nuke them all. Their respective God will provide his true chosen people with the ability to live in the radioactive wasteland.

    --
    Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    1. Re:Good lord... by MichaelSmith · · Score: 2

      I thought maybe isolate both sides for 100 years or so. Give them time to cool off. Of course that is never going to happen.

    2. Re:Good lord... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Maybe this can be combined. Give them both nukes, isolate them, then wait a hundred years or so for the radioactive land to cool off.

    3. Re:Good lord... by Pharmboy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I thought maybe isolate both sides for 100 years or so. Give them time to cool off.

      Yeah, because it's not like the Jews or Muslim to carry a grudge for hundreds of years, right?

      I'm guessing you are a fellow American. We tend to underestimate the longevity of a grudge in the rest of the world. The beginning of the US seems like a long time ago to us, but to the rest of the world, we are still kids. Then again, we haven't gone that far out of our way to prove them wrong.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    4. Re:Good lord... by bertoelcon · · Score: 1

      Nuke them all. Their respective God will provide his true chosen people with the ability to live in the radioactive wasteland.

      Unless they have the same God who abandoned them both after years of bullshit actions in the name of God on both sides.

      --
      Anything can be found funny, from a certain point of view.
    5. Re:Good lord... by peragrin · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Better answer is to nuke Jerusalem so that no one can go there for 2 or 300 hundred years. To be equal opportunity atheist take out Vatican city, and Mecca too.

      Let these people fight over cities they can't even have.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    6. Re:Good lord... by quanticle · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No. Israel is trying to do that unilaterally with its containment wall. The only result (so far) is that the hard-liners on both sides (settlement movement, Hamas) have gained power at the expense of the moderates. Its a lot easier to demonize people you can't see.

      --
      We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it
    7. Re:Good lord... by MichaelSmith · · Score: 2

      I'm guessing you are a fellow American.

      No I am an Australian. I reckon isolating the region so no foreign military aid can get in would help cool things off. If you don't subsidise extremists the moderates may get more mind share.

      Not that this is going to happen in our universe. Foreigners will continue to use the region as a battleground.

    8. Re:Good lord... by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Better answer is to nuke Jerusalem so that no one can go there for 2 or 300 hundred years. To be equal opportunity atheist take out Vatican city, and Mecca too.

      Salt Lake City, Tel Aviv, Riyad, cripes, where do you stop?

    9. Re:Good lord... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh ya, our fighting in WW2, staring down communism during the cold war, our economic might, going to the moon, our literature, our arts, our universities, ... none of that proves them wrong. We're all a bunch of self hating kids. How do you sleep at night?

    10. Re:Good lord... by korgitser · · Score: 1

      Nuke them all. Their respective God will provide his true chosen people with the ability to live in the radioactive wasteland.

      This is not so different from a historic solution: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnaud_Amalric
      Arnaud (or Arnau) Amalric (died 1225) was a Cistercian monk remembered for giving advice during the Albigensian Crusade to a soldier wondering how to distinguish the Catholic friendlies from the Cathar enemies to just "Kill them all. For the Lord knows them that are His."

      --
      FCKGW 09F9 42
    11. Re:Good lord... by TFAFalcon · · Score: 1

      Still a good result for the rest of the world.

    12. Re:Good lord... by seifried · · Score: 3, Informative

      Israel has a huge defense industry, they even make their own tanks (the Merkava, it's huge and carries infantry). The Palestinians are generally doing what they can as well (making their own rockets to fire into Israel, called the Qassam).

      Cutting off military imports to these guys won't work, I suspect even if you removed all the weapons they'd still throw rocks at each other... oh wait.. they're already doing that.

    13. Re:Good lord... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nuke them all. Their respective God will provide his true chosen people with the ability to live in the radioactive wasteland.

      Considering how religious people are in the US why not start on your own home turf and see what happens?

      Fucktard.

    14. Re:Good lord... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But then the survivors multiply, invent a new religion and wipe us out, cleansing the unholy heretics capable of living uncontaminated lands by radiating the rest of the planet for the righteous people of the glow. Hail Glowing Multi-Appendix Wheat-Egg-Water-Salt-Spices Combination!

    15. Re:Good lord... by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      You stop on land that our tribe owns.

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    16. Re:Good lord... by peragrin · · Score: 1

      no one has been fighting over those cities for the last 1500 years or so.

      Stop with cities that people have been spilling blood for the last 2000 years in the name of someone who says though shall not commit murder.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    17. Re:Good lord... by mug+funky · · Score: 4, Insightful

      the optimism, vigour, idealism and basically cocky precociousness of youth can explain all those achievements.

      "kids" is not necessarily derogatory. just look at any old person who envies the youth that have overtaken them.

      however, i fear the USA has now entered adolescence and is more concerned with yelling at it's mum and sitting in it's room listening to terrible music and blaming everyone but itself...

    18. Re:Good lord... by Dunbal · · Score: 2, Interesting

      We tend to underestimate the longevity of a grudge in the rest of the world.

            The rest of the world? I constantly have World War I and II shoved into my British face by every American I meet. We've had almost 100 years of "You would be speaking German if it wasn't for us". So I wouldn't limit grudges to "the rest of the world" only.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    19. Re:Good lord... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... I was the one with the fucktard comment:

      And you're even moderated +3 insightful? WTF? Why not troll?

      Here I'm posting as AC just because I can figure out how the mostly american population of Slashdot would respond to my comment even though it was just about consistency.

        / aliquis

      Couldn't post because the submissions are to close to eachother in time. And now you're up to +4. Why not "-5, Retard"?

    20. Re:Good lord... by mug+funky · · Score: 1

      the US has dropped more nukes on itself than it has on the rest of the world.

    21. Re:Good lord... by aliquis · · Score: 1

      Yeah, because it's not like the Jews or Muslim to carry a grudge for hundreds of years, right?

      He said isolate though. If you get rocks thrown on your kids from the Israeli side or military within your borders disturbing the peace / try to scare people or various combinations whereof it's probably pretty hard to let things settle.

      Meanwhile if you don't have any of that for 100 years then close to everyone which was used to it is dead and the new people don't necessary know about it or see a purpose in keep doing it. So maybe they wouldn't.

      Not a very convenient or fast solution though.

    22. Re:Good lord... by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Trade and donations into the region provide money for the production of weapons on both sides. As you say they could always throw rocks.

      Maybe the problem would go away if countries in the region separated church and state, while guaranteeing freedom of religion. That way it wouldn't really matter where the borders are drawn.

      Not that I expect that to happen either.

    23. Re:Good lord... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Implying this is not exactly what they want

    24. Re:Good lord... by couchslug · · Score: 0

      There is a way to resolve such disputes. It is called War.

      The modern idea that most of those should be put off at any cost merely prolongs the squabbles.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    25. Re:Good lord... by aliquis · · Score: 1

      Nuke them all. Their respective God will provide his true chosen people with the ability to live in the radioactive wasteland.

      Unless they have the same God who abandoned them both after years of bullshit actions in the name of God on both sides.

      I assume he meant neither would gain that ability and both would fail, as would their gods, since they don't exist.

    26. Re:Good lord... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      it's not about an ancient grudge. What's happening in Israel is the same thing that happened in America a hundred years ago: destruction of the aboriginal culture and denial that it ever existed.

      Israel is doing everything short of giving out smallpox blankets.

    27. Re:Good lord... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yeah, because it's not like the Jews or Muslim to carry a grudge for hundreds of years, right?

      I appreciate what you are saying, but don't forget that the Muslim-Jewish problem in the Middle East is a new one.* It predates the establishment of Israel in 1948, but only by a few decades. It really started with the start of mass immigration by European Jewry in the early 20th century and didn't really get going until after WWI.

      * You can find instances of conflict throughout history, but they were minor in comparison with Muslim-Christian and Christian-Jewish conflict over the centuries.

    28. Re:Good lord... by aliquis · · Score: 1

      Still a good result for the rest of the world.

      The question is what people should be free to stay alive if you reason like that?

      The buddists? Monks and eskimos?

      It's not like europeans, still here or emigrated (USA/whatever..) is perfect, or even close to.

    29. Re:Good lord... by KingMotley · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Hmm... I highly doubt that Americans just walk up to you at random and say that. From what I've seen it's usually a provoked response, typically started from anti-American comments by British/Europeans that feel they are superior to the rest of the world.

    30. Re:Good lord... by aliquis · · Score: 1

      There is a way to resolve such disputes. It is called War

      Too bad the religious fights over Jerusalem and that area has kept going on for thousands of years.

      Good idea though ..

    31. Re:Good lord... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We tend to underestimate the longevity of a grudge in the rest of the world.

            The rest of the world? I constantly have World War I and II shoved into my British face by every American I meet. We've had almost 100 years of "You would be speaking German if it wasn't for us". So I wouldn't limit grudges to "the rest of the world" only.

      Haha.... the Americans say that!?!? Interesting........ and amusing at the same time.(no, i'm not British)

    32. Re:Good lord... by c6gunner · · Score: 0

      Maybe the problem would go away if countries in the region separated church and state, while guaranteeing freedom of religion.

      Israel has effectively done that. Other nations seem to be trying to get there - for instance, Lebanon - and are having some level of success. Amongst the more fundamentalist nations ... not so much. The biggest throwback is Iran, which continue to fund radical parties in Syria, Palestine, and Lebanon (amongst other nations). Iran is the key to peace in the middle east, but they quite obviously have no interest in it.

    33. Re:Good lord... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm guessing you are a fellow American.

      No I am an Australian.

      Oh, Australians ... the ones LEAST likely to carry a grudge ... hundreds of thousands of convicts, who happen to be some of the most down to earth ppl on the planet. ;)

    34. Re:Good lord... by tragedy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Oh come on. A good chunk of the US still seems to practically define itself through resentment at the North over the civil war. Forget what Dunbal said about WWI and WWII, lots of Americans seem to be holding a grudge over colonial times and the War of Independence. They also seem to carry a massive grudge against the French for no reason I can figure out.

    35. Re:Good lord... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right, that's long enough. We'll go back to saying that you would be speaking French if it wasn't for us.

    36. Re:Good lord... by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1, Funny

      but, no one likes the french. its a universal constant. proves nothing.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    37. Re:Good lord... by nomadic · · Score: 1

      I'm guessing you are a fellow American. We tend to underestimate the longevity of a grudge in the rest of the world. The beginning of the US seems like a long time ago to us, but to the rest of the world, we are still kids.

      The US, as far as political entities go, is far older than most countries. In fact, you'll note that the countries that tend to hold these grudges the most tend to be fairly new ones.

    38. Re:Good lord... by whitehaint · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Huh? Perhaps I am misinterpreting what you said, but it appears you are saying Israel, a nation which defines itself as inherently Jewish has separated religion from state?

    39. Re:Good lord... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's even on the Simpsons.

      Moe: Oh, a British boy. You know we saved your ass in World War II.
      Hugh: Yeah, well we saved your ass in World War III.
      Moe: That's true.

    40. Re:Good lord... by hedwards · · Score: 1

      I suspect they would, but as long as they aren't US funded rocks, that's really their own business. What does bother me is that they're using US provided weapons in the pursuit of making the ultimate asses out of themselves.

      Neither party is clean in all this, but if they really are that dead set on having at it, they can do it without our help.

    41. Re:Good lord... by hedwards · · Score: 0

      If the French had left helping us out at that or continued to be civil we likely wouldn't. But we've had to contend with their collective ego ever since. Then when it didn't end when we liberated them after WWII it just got more ingrained.

      The whole thing is kind of silly, but it's not like they're banging down our door demanding to be friendly with us.

    42. Re:Good lord... by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      Some problems with your theory...

      Judaism waited to return to Jerusalem for just over 1900 years after the ROMANS kicked them out the first time. Patience is something Judaism has - in frickin' spades.

      With Islam, you'd have to nuke Mekah, Madinah, Jerusalem (whoops - you already got that one), Qom, and at least two dozen other 2nd-string Muslim holy sites spread across the Mideast and Asia.

      Christianity and all its various sects? You get to nuke Rome, Salt Lake City, the entire Southern United States, at least four dozen Catholic holy sites (Lourdes, Guadalupe, Fatima, etc), Bethlehem, well - the entire frickin' Galilee region, in both Israel and Syria...

      Oh, and you forgot a few religions: Hindus revere damned near anywhere in India, but nuking the entire Ganges river from headwaters to delta should do it. Buddhists have major sites spread throughout Asia... somewhere in the hundreds, if not thousands.

      I think you'd run out of nukes before you got to Shinto, Wicca, Sikh, Druze, and the like.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    43. Re:Good lord... by qbzzt · · Score: 2

      Israel was started predominately by East-European Jews who rejected the religion, and considered Judaism to be an ethnic group. But the religious Jews in Israel are out-breeding the seculars, so I expect in a few decades it will be a religiously Jewish state.

      --
      -- Support a free market in the field of government
    44. Re:Good lord... by c6gunner · · Score: 4, Informative

      I said "effectively". Maybe the meaning was unclear. Would you prefer "essentially"? How about "more-or-less"?

      Given that there are more Muslims in the Israeli Parliament than there are in the US Congress, I'd say they're probably more secular than the US in reality, if not on paper. They have complete freedom of religion, and have had Muslims and Druze serving in all aspects of the government, including as Supreme Court judges, ambassadors, and army generals. When the only thing making them non-secular is that they self-identify as a Jewish state, it's fair to say that they ARE secular for all intents and purposes.

    45. Re:Good lord... by BZ · · Score: 5, Informative

      Pretty close to it, yes. Courts in Israel are civil courts, not based on Jewish religious law. Legislation is passed by a civil legislative body, not a religious one. Religions are considered equal before the law. There is no official state religion, and there is freedom of religion and of worship.

      There is one weirdness, which is marriage. There is no "civil" marriage in Israel; there are only religious marriage under the auspices of the various religions practiced by the people being married. This can cause problems for non-Orthodox Jews, for interfaith marriages, etc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_in_Israel has details.

      Also note that in Israel being Jewish is not necessarily a religious matter; it's an ethnic matter. You can be an atheist and still be considered Jewish ethnically.

      This can matter for things like military service, where ethnic minorities are generally exempt from the draft (though accepted as volunteers).

      In any case, I suppose it depends on your definition of "separation of religion and state". It's not exactly a black-and-white line; there are gradations. Would you say that religion and state are separated in Germany, say?

    46. Re:Good lord... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Huh? Perhaps I am misinterpreting what you said, but it appears you are saying Israel, a nation which defines itself as inherently Jewish has separated religion from state?

      Exactly.

    47. Re:Good lord... by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 1

      Just like the United States is a Christian nation. ;)

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
    48. Re:Good lord... by MoonBuggy · · Score: 1

      The modern idea that most of those should be put off at any cost merely prolongs the squabbles.

      Thing is, there's a very real reason for that idea - technology has rendered the stakes of modern warfare much greater than they could possibly be in the past. If things remain 'contained', the death toll can be enormous. If things get beyond control (as much as one can have control in a war), there is a non-zero chance of total global catastrophe.

      It's like asking why people don't have duels any more, and then handing them each an assault rifle in a crowded park and telling them to go for it.

      Unless both sides agree to voluntarily limit the 'terms' of their war (beyond the limits already outlined by the Geneva convention), the stakes are too high. If both sides do agree to limitation, you've just set up a classic prisoner's dilemma.

    49. Re:Good lord... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      You don't have to practice Judaism in any way, shape or form to be considered a Jew by the State of Israel. They practice ethnic nationalism, not religious discrimination.

    50. Re:Good lord... by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 1

      personally, I envy those who have learned how to capitalize their sentences.

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
    51. Re:Good lord... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How can the following script be repeated for 1600 pages:

      "You started it!"
      "No, you started it!"
      "No, you started it!"

      Nuke them all. Their respective God will provide his true chosen people with the ability to live in the radioactive wasteland.

      Holy shit, you can apparently read really fast if you got that from all 1600 pages.

    52. Re:Good lord... by Brett+Buck · · Score: 0

      Ih come one, indeed. Nobody is thinking about the revolutionary war on a second to second basis, even history professors.

    53. Re:Good lord... by Pharmboy · · Score: 1

      Like Iran? Iraq? They might be "new" countries, but their culture goes back even before Islam. The Ottoman Empire ended 100 years ago, which is the source of many of those countries, before Britain and others carved them up. You have people in the middle east still pissed off about the Spanish Inquisition.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    54. Re:Good lord... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Instead of isolating them, getting them to interact with each other would help. Like after a game of sports, both sides all walk by and say "hey, good game" and it's over.

    55. Re:Good lord... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Butters, did you just self-convert again?

    56. Re:Good lord... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but, no one likes the french. its a universal constant. proves nothing.

      No, no, no. It shows that the universe is finely-tuned for us. The chances of everyone in the world hating the French is so small that God must exist in order to provide such a world for us. Therefore, God exists. Q.E.D.

    57. Re:Good lord... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Separating between religion and state is not only a matter of law, it is also a matter of perception. Things are changing here, there is a nasty nationalist wave, and suddently people are talking more about religion. There are religious parties making demands, the city of the jerusalem is becoming and more and more religious and more and more secular people are leaving. In fact, fuck it, the wackos [define wackos as dark-age-like-jews or dark-age-like-mulsims] are breeding too fast. When the majority will speak in the name of allah/god, no written law will help, our separation will be trumpled just like your consitution.

    58. Re:Good lord... by Pharmboy · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Oh come on. A good chunk of the US still seems to practically define itself through resentment at the North over the civil war.

      Maybe 30 years ago, but you really don't see much of that now. You DO see southerners who don't like yankees, not because of the Civil War, but because their culture makes them come off as assholes to southerners. It isn't hard to tell who isn't "from around here" by simply talking to someone. Northerners tend to be more pushy and aggressive in their speaking. Many northerners assume southerners are dumb redneck hillbillies. It isn't about the Civil War, its about the differences in culture. I live in one of the least progressive counties in North Carolina, where whites will still complain about blacks (not in public, like 20 years ago), but you rarely see confederate flags any more, as an example. The rhetoric is very different than when I was 20 (I'm mid 40s now).

      I've lived all over the USA, in both metro and rural areas, and the Civil War isn't even a topic of conversation anymore. Your less educated and more racist element still thinks all blacks are lazy and on welfare, but again, no one even mentions the Civil War. They don't question civil rights. Their attitude is simply "you stay in your neighborhood, and I will stay in mine". And to be fair, not all undereducated people feel that way. They rag about Latinos mainly, because they are taking the jobs that no one wants, but even that is muted compared to just a couple decades ago.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    59. Re:Good lord... by copponex · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The solution is to arm both sides equally. I'm sure negotiations would be much more productive if the Palestinians had helicopter gunships, tanks, jet fighters, and billions in military aid every year instead of barely enough food to eat. It would also stop the suicide bombing, since they would be able to target what they really want to hurt: the IDF.

    60. Re:Good lord... by mug+funky · · Score: 1

      you must be exceedingly old then :)

      i consider myself more a social democrat than a capitalist. all letters are created equal, and should not get special treatment simply because of the position they were born in (ie, at the start of a sentence or some nouns, or in titles.)

      you should read me resume.

    61. Re:Good lord... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about we stop subsidising the Israeli facists? I'm sick of my money going to those bastards.

    62. Re:Good lord... by Desler · · Score: 1

      Because the last thousand plus years of fighting between both sides has really helped solve things, right?

    63. Re:Good lord... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I don't even get it. America spent a good chuck of both world wars sitting on the sidelines profiting from the situation. They didn't even declare war on Germany in WW2 until after Germany declared war on them.

    64. Re:Good lord... by moonbender · · Score: 2

      Modern wars may be even more destructive, but "non-modern" wars were also horrifying enough that the GP is gut-wrenchingly misguided either way. I really hope more people don't think like him. There is this strange notion that wars before the 20th century were somehow clean and of limited scope, two armies meeting on the battlefield under the eyes of their generals, duking it out. But casualties among soldiers and civilians were massive back then. Famine and disease were rampant; this was before modern medicine, and, for that matter, humanitarian law. Also before the nuclear bomb, granted.

      --
      Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
    65. Re:Good lord... by Bruha · · Score: 1, Informative

      The brits are responsible for what happens in Israel just as much as the US if not more. I'm sorry but history shows who lived in palenstine long before the mass Israeli illegal immigration. Encouraged as a final solution to the Jew problem by England, maybe the Jews were not killed like the Nazi's did, but they have done nothing, but murder and create their own ghettos and stuffed them with the palenstinean people.

      Israel has always been the primary agressor, these people they have displaced barely have anything to fight back with and because they use bombs against a populace that 90% have served in the military and are required to stay in the reserves for quite awhile I would not consider them entirely civilian.

      You corner an animal it will fight back and use every dirty trick it knows.

      Feel free to look it up it's called the Palenstien Mandate.

    66. Re:Good lord... by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      10% of the population leaves the country to get married, as the state defers to the churches on who is allowed to marry.

      I also don't think there can be meaningful separation in a place defined as "A Jewish and Democratic State" (at least they added "Democratic" 25 years ago). I do feel this applies in the US, and that the "Christian State" segment does not get too much power.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    67. Re:Good lord... by corbettw · · Score: 1

      WWI and II? Fuck that, I'm still pissed about that Stamp Act bullshit, you limey bastard!

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    68. Re:Good lord... by corbettw · · Score: 1

      I'm guessing you are a fellow American.

      No I am an Australian.

      Meaning you come from one of two Anglophone nations with a shorter history than ours. What was your point again?

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    69. Re:Good lord... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, I did..

    70. Re:Good lord... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would be easier to nuke the parent commentor's home. Only one target.

    71. Re:Good lord... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Dominican Republic, French is taught to most highschoolers because the caribbean country we're sharing the island with speaks it. At least Latin America is not aware of this USA-led agenda. This is arguably an English-speaker's meme.

    72. Re:Good lord... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They also seem to carry a massive grudge against the French for no reason I can figure out.

      Two words: French Indochina.

      It was France's botched colonialism that led to the Vietnam War and all the negatives that came from that.

    73. Re:Good lord... by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 1

      As an American patriot, I give my thanks to your common sense.

      May the religious nutbags wipe each other out. Let them re-enact the Revelation they've been itching for. Let them find their rapture in their deaths.

      If you know what life is worth, you will look for yours on Earth

      -- Bob Marley

    74. Re:Good lord... by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      10% of the population leaves the country to get married, as the state defers to the churches on who is allowed to marry.

      Eh. That's an issue, sure, but relatively minor. Several European nations which most people consider secular have mandatory taxes that go straight to the church. Then there's ireland - effectively secular, but they passed a law outlawing blasphemy. Secularity isn't a clearly defined line - more of a spectrum.

      I also don't think there can be meaningful separation in a place defined as "A Jewish and Democratic State"

      You could say the same about a state which has "in god we trust" on it's money, and "endowed by their Creator" in it's constitution. If you're going to use those kinds of standards, you'll end up with only a handful of nations on the planet which are secular, and your list will be topped by countries like North Korea (which I personally think is heavily religious, despite being secular on paper).

    75. Re:Good lord... by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      I'm guessing you are a fellow American.

      No I am an Australian.

      Meaning you come from one of two Anglophone nations with a shorter history than ours. What was your point again?

      Depending on how you read it our history could be the longest in the world.

    76. Re:Good lord... by corbettw · · Score: 1

      Not the Anglophone bit....

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    77. Re:Good lord... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My question is: What would Jesus do?

      Nevermind... he'd probably be crucified.

    78. Re:Good lord... by jjohnson · · Score: 1

      Three wars involving Israel since 1945 (and numerous smaller conflicts like the multiple invasions of Lebanon) have done wonders "resolving" things, haven't they?

      --
      Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
    79. Re:Good lord... by KingMotley · · Score: 1

      I've spent time in nearly every state, and I have never, not once, heard anyone talking about the civil war. I'm not sure where you got your information, but I think someone was feeding you a bunch of garbage. Guess there really is someone that gullible.

      As for the french, recently that's likely because they refused to cooperate with the UN when the US was trying for a diplomatic solution in the middle east, and the French would consistently veto any resolution we put forth, or dragged it on so long that it would have been literally years before anything at all would have been done. This forced the US to declare war on IRAQ without being able to try stricter sanctions first in any sort of timely manner.

      The older generations probably remember the french getting their asses handed to them and the germans conquering the country in a week. We loaned a lot (tens of billions) of money and equipment to france, which were never repaid. Of course we sent a lot of men to die to liberate their country, only to be stabbed in the back at every turn in the UN today. I'd say there are SOME that have a grudge against the French, but I don't think it's a large portion, but then again they have some pretty valid reasons to be upset.

    80. Re:Good lord... by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

      Yeah, because it's not like the Jews or Muslim to carry a grudge for hundreds of years, right?

      It's convenient to dismiss the problem of Palestine as a problem between Jews and Muslims that's been going on for hundreds of years.

      It's also wrong.

      When Spain and Portugal persecuted Jews in the late 15th/early 16th century, the Ottoman empire welcomed them. Jews and Muslims lived together in Palestine in relative peace until the British Mandate and the Balfour declaration of 1917. The thrice-dammed British decided that stealing land from Arabs and giving it to Jews would advance the interests of their Empire. Somehow, the Arabs found this idea upsetting and starting fighting back.

      Most of the conflicts now going on in the Middle East and Europe have their roots in the colonialism of European powers. We're still fighting out the aftermath of WWI.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    81. Re:Good lord... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Oh come on. A good chunk of the US still seems to practically define itself through resentment at the North over the civil war.

      Maybe 30 years ago, but you really don't see much of that now. You DO see southerners who don't like yankees, not because of the Civil War, but because their culture makes them come off as assholes to southerners. It isn't hard to tell who isn't "from around here" by simply talking to someone. Northerners tend to be more pushy and aggressive in their speaking. Many northerners assume southerners are dumb redneck hillbillies. It isn't about the Civil War, its about the differences in culture. I live in one of the least progressive counties in North Carolina, where whites will still complain about blacks (not in public, like 20 years ago), but you rarely see confederate flags any more, as an example. The rhetoric is very different than when I was 20 (I'm mid 40s now).

      I've lived all over the USA, in both metro and rural areas, and the Civil War isn't even a topic of conversation anymore. Your less educated and more racist element still thinks all blacks are lazy and on welfare, but again, no one even mentions the Civil War. They don't question civil rights. Their attitude is simply "you stay in your neighborhood, and I will stay in mine". And to be fair, not all undereducated people feel that way. They rag about Latinos mainly, because they are taking the jobs that no one wants, but even that is muted compared to just a couple decades ago.

      HA! Then you haven't been anywhere near the rural areas of the south. Let me tell you, in a supposedly civilized city like Tampa, Florida, there is a giant confederate flag flying at the intersections of I-4 and I-75. This was placed there by the Sons of the Confederacy. The throw parties for Robert E. Lee's birthday. (I as there, which is a whole different story) I got to see some guys playing banjos singing songs about KILLING Yankees. SERIOUSLY?!
      They completely believe the south should have won and are upset that it didn't. They think slavery is cool.

      They may not be as visible, but they are there.... and its not who you would expect.
      Political correctness drove these people underground, it didn't change their hearts and minds.

    82. Re:Good lord... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What does bother me is that they're using US provided weapons in the pursuit of making the ultimate asses out of themselves.

      So what? So are the Americans.

    83. Re:Good lord... by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Americans seem to be holding a grudge over colonial times and the War of Independence.

      So that's why the English are the American's strongest allies, because Americans still hold a grudge over... wait what?

      It's complete nonsense.

      The only time this stuff comes up is when one person can't think of a better response in an argument (that was almost certainly retarded to begin with - case in point, this thread). Generally it is limited to one or two wars, because most people don't know all that much about history anyway.

      The truth is relationships between countries is very complex and ever-evolving. For the 60 years prior to independence France was the biggest enemy of the colonists. There were two wars fought against them. After the Declaration of Independence Great Britain was (for obvious reasons) the greatest enemy to the colonies, and France was suddenly our ally.

      The United States of America would almost certainly not exist without the help of France.

      After that the US was largely on its own, dealing with internal conflict, along with Mexico and Cuba.

      For world war one the US came in late and "saved the day" (the Triple Entente probably would have won anyway), siding with the countries who, based on the number of wars fought, had been enemies more often than allies.

      For world war two Japan made a slight miscalculation, bringing the US into the war when it really should have just let things be. Europe probably didn't need the US's help, since Germany was spread too thin, and Russia was willing to throw as many men at the problem as it took to win. Though, judging by the way Russia treated Germans and Pollacks after the war, you probably wouldn't have liked it if they were the ones who clinched the victory. The US took care of Japan largely by themselves. Had Japan been attacking Russia instead of the US, it's possible things could have ended differently, but Japan wanted the US, since the Russia closest to Japan sucks.

      Hey guess which two countries are on real good terms 50 years later? If you guessed Japan and the US, you get the prize!

      Honestly, the best response to the "you'd all be speaking such-and-such if we hadn't saved you" nonsense is to roll your eyes and move on. It's a juvenile argument, you win by ignoring it (or mocking it, mocking it is fun too).

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
    84. Re:Good lord... by tsm_sf · · Score: 2

      I think you could just say that Fundamentalists are outbreeding rationalists and be correct for any population on earth.

      We need to wake up and realize that religious fundamentalism of every stripe is the root cause of most of the world's problems, and then effectively deal with it.

      --
      Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
    85. Re:Good lord... by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      On point 2, I agree to a point. Especially that a good portion of the political leaders believe (wrongly IMO) that the US is a a "Christian nation" (though both your examples could be Jewish, Zorastrian, or Muslim).

      You are also referencing the Declaration of Independence as the constitution. This is relevant because one is law, the other a historical document that lays out the reasons for breaking existing law.

      A bunch of Christians because "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights," is not being applied fairly to worshipers of the Roman gods, and then establish a guideline for government that does such (in fact in the US said document exists, it is the constitution, that only makes reference to God when giving a date, and specifically separates the state from religion).

      Please do not think that the Declaration of independence is law, as it is a justification for war, not a document of law.

      Regarding marriage I think Israel does it right, with the exception that they should also offer civil ceremonies.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    86. Re:Good lord... by Surak_Prime · · Score: 1

      Indeed. I live in South Carolina, and if I leave the house I can see the Confederate flag being flown several times *daily*.

      --
      :::The Spear in the heart of the Other is the Spear in the heart of You; You are He - Surak of Vulcan:::
    87. Re:Good lord... by camperdave · · Score: 1

      Christianity has no holy sites.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    88. Re:Good lord... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Personally, I think you should be speaking German. I think America's entry into WWI was wrong, and we should have stayed out of it. The only reason we got involved was because a bunch of American banks and businesses had an economic interest in Britain winning (they had loaned them a lot of money). The entire war was the result of nothing more than stupid nationalism and a big attempt at grabbing territory and power; all the European countries who got involved did it out of selfish motives.

      We should have just let the chips fall where they may. This would have resulted in Germany winning, and Hitler never coming to power, and WWII never happening. Sure, a bunch of stupid US banks would have gone under due to their bad investments, but that's their problem, and not a reason to send men to their deaths in war.

    89. Re:Good lord... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Not exactly. My understanding is that America's banks had loaned a lot of money to Britain, and not much to Germany, and were worried it'd never be paid back if Britain lost the war (WWI), and that's the real reason the US got involved, because at that point it looked like Britain and France were going to lose. So we got involved, and Germany lost. Then, the Allies punished Germany severely, which caused all kinds of economic problems and frustration of the German people, and led directly to the rise of Hitler, and yet another war even worse than the last one.

      So, if we had never gotten involved in WWI, there never would have been a WWII. Of course, Germany would be a superpower, and America probably wouldn't, but oh well.

    90. Re:Good lord... by c6gunner · · Score: 0

      You are also referencing the Declaration of Independence as the constitution.

      You know, I actually knew that. It was a silly mistake. Must be getting late.

      Regarding marriage I think Israel does it right, with the exception that they should also offer civil ceremonies.

      I don't think the state should be in the business of controlling marriage at all - they should just be in the business of contract-enforcement / mediation. If I want to sit down with 5 other people and draw up a contract for a group-marriage, that's my business. So yeah, Israel does it right in that they let the various religions sort out their marriages; the only problem appears to be that - like most nations - they're also in the business of dictating what is and isn't a religion. It's a practice which I'd like to see all secular government abandon.

    91. Re:Good lord... by TheoMurpse · · Score: 1

      lots of Americans seem to be holding a grudge over colonial times and the War of Independence

      I have lived in the US for 26 years, have been to 30 states, have family in 10+, and have literally never met a single person who even comes close to "seeming to bear a grudge" against England.

    92. Re:Good lord... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      there are more Muslims in the Israeli Parliament than there are in the US Congress

      So, two?

    93. Re:Good lord... by fishexe · · Score: 1

      I thought maybe isolate both sides for 100 years or so. Give them time to cool off.

      Yeah, because it's not like the Jews or Muslim to carry a grudge for hundreds of years, right?

      Well, have they? It took Christians in most places 1900+ years to get over Jews supposedly killing Jesus, but until the 19th Century Jews and Muslims lived peacefully side-by-side in almost all Muslim countries, at least most of the time. There were occasional pogroms, but since these were better than Europe's frequent pogroms, the Jews tended to forgive and forget. It was only once the Brits and French came in and started telling people where to go that they started gunning for each other.

      --
      "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
    94. Re:Good lord... by wpi97 · · Score: 1

      You may want to read up on those wars and see who started them. You should also look up exactly how many times Israel invaded Lebanon, and what exactly prompted it to do that.

    95. Re:Good lord... by fishexe · · Score: 1

      We've had almost 100 years of "You would be speaking German if it wasn't for us".

      Man, those must have been some dumb Americans at the beginning of that period, given that Britain was never even remotely close to threat of German invasion during WWI.

      Not that I put it past some of my countryman to be that ignorant, or anything...

      --
      "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
    96. Re:Good lord... by Skidborg · · Score: 1

      I might point out that this current grudge is far less than a hundred year old at current. Forcing the two sides to stop blaming their problems on each other for even a decade would probably work wonders.

      --
      Supporter of the +1 Over Dramatic mod option. In memory of apk.
    97. Re:Good lord... by tragedy · · Score: 2

      iRight, you probably didn't hear them mention the civil war because they probably call it the "war of Northern Aggression" instead. I've largely gotten my information from my own experience living here. When I was growing up out of the US, we generally referred to people from the US as Yanks. I have learned that it's a very, very bad idea to call Southerners this.

      As for the French, I was in France when Gulf War I started, well before the events you describe. The kids from the family I was staying with had previously stayed with us in the US. I vividly recall the unfounded hostility they got from some Americans. Not all of them certainly, but definitely some. Also, some, not all, Americans were, while not precisely hostile, pretty clearly prejudiced against the French with no apparent source for their hostility.

    98. Re:Good lord... by fishexe · · Score: 1

      Oh come on. A good chunk of the US still seems to practically define itself through resentment at the North over the civil war.

      Maybe 30 years ago, but you really don't see much of that now. You DO see southerners who don't like yankees, not because of the Civil War, but because their culture makes them come off as assholes to southerners.

      I see a lot of southerners who don't like yankees, not because of the Civil War, but because of the War of Northern Aggression.

      It isn't hard to tell who isn't "from around here" by simply talking to someone. Northerners tend to be more pushy and aggressive in their speaking.

      I think that depends on what part of the north they're from. I know a lot of midwesterners who are about as far from "pushy and aggressive in their speaking" as is humanly possible. But as for northeasterners, I'm inclined to agree.

      Many northerners assume southerners are dumb redneck hillbillies.

      That's probably true, and it's probably a case of northerners unfairly stereotyping. However, it's probably also due to a higher proportion of actual dumb rednecks coming from the deep south as opposed to other regions of the country.

      It isn't about the Civil War, its about the differences in culture. I live in one of the least progressive counties in North Carolina, where whites will still complain about blacks (not in public, like 20 years ago), but you rarely see confederate flags any more, as an example.

      Then I seriously doubt it's actually one of the least progressive. Never been to North Carolina, but I know there are plenty of places in the south (and, scarily, plenty of rural areas of the north) where confederate flags are proudly flown all over the place. I'm sure it varies quite a bit from place to place, but there are definitely places where the resentment against Lincoln and Sherman still runs strong.

      --
      "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
    99. Re:Good lord... by fishexe · · Score: 1

      While we're at it, can we hit Gold Base? Please, pretty please???

      --
      "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
    100. Re:Good lord... by fishexe · · Score: 1

      I think you'd run out of nukes before you got to Shinto, Wicca, Sikh, Druze, and the like.

      I think you underestimate the size of the world's nuclear stockpile.

      --
      "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
    101. Re:Good lord... by fishexe · · Score: 1

      This is seriously and honestly the most brilliant solution to the problem I have ever heard. I'm going to quote you.

      --
      "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
    102. Re:Good lord... by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

      Israel has effectively done that.

      What? You must be joking. Israel defines itself as Jewish state. Its laws grant official recognition just to the Abrahamic religions descended from Judaism, and only to certain sects of those. Only religious marriages are recognized. Israeli law forbids Jews to work on the Sabbath. People who convert to Judaism are granted automatic citizenship and residence rights.

      If Israel separated religion from government, it would have to acknowledge that some invisible dude in the sky did not in fact promise that piece of real estate to the descendants of Abraham. That kind of screws up their whole nation's raison d'etre.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    103. Re:Good lord... by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

      Maybe 30 years ago, but you really don't see much of that now.

      I still see plenty of assholes who think that displaying the flag of the terrorist organization that styled itself the "Confederate States of America" is cool. And I don't mean in the deep South, I mean in Maryland (which was not a Confederate state) and even Pennsylvania (which is north of the Mason-Dixon line and is in no one's definition a "southern" state). I recently had to write a letter of protest to a national vendor who thought that pro-slavery terrorist logos were cool enough to put on their merch.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    104. Re:Good lord... by KingMotley · · Score: 1

      Hmm.. I'm guessing walking around calling Americans Yanks is your problem. Considering that a "Yankee" was originally someone from the New England area, but during the civil war it was what the southerners called the northerners. Outside of the civil war context, I don't believe I have heard the word except in movies/tv shows originating from England usually used in a derogatory way to refer to Americans.

      As for your friends kids, I can't tell you what the issue was, I wasn't there. But good way to generalize all of America based on the experience of a few kids 20 years ago.

    105. Re:Good lord... by KingAlanI · · Score: 1

      genetics, evolution, demographics
      It seems ironic that the peoples doing best at this often aren't science-y types.
      It is a concern, to lose by force of numbers

      --
      I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
    106. Re:Good lord... by meerling · · Score: 1

      The USA is not a christian nation, it's a nation with a huge christian demographic.

    107. Re:Good lord... by CosmeticLobotamy · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that's a pretty common thing to say over here in the States whenever anyone from Europe doesn't kiss our butts hard enough. Please know that while Americans that aren't jerks are a minority, we're a very large minority. Unfortunately we tend to just be quietly cool about things, so we're less well-known than our loudmouth brethren. But trust me, we exist, we're numerous, and we want to punch those morons in the neck from time to time just as much as you do. But we don't, 'cause that wouldn't be very cool.

      But anyway, sorry about those guys.

    108. Re:Good lord... by downhole · · Score: 2

      What makes you think that the IDF is what they really want to hurt? The Palestinians have always had the ability to target the IDF with snipers and suicide bombers, but they target civilians instead. Or that they have barely enough food to eat.

      --
      I don't reply to ACs
    109. Re:Good lord... by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      "They practice ethnic nationalism, not religious discrimination."

      South Africa did that, it didn't work out very well for my ancestors either.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    110. Re:Good lord... by silentcoder · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You know... the French could justifiably turn your whole "Do you speak German" thing around and ask: "Are you ruled by the Queen of England" to Americans.
      How sad that almost nobody in America knows that the only reason your country even EXISTS is because the French funded your war of independence and kept you going (granted, they did it mostly to spite England but still). Ironically in doing so they impoverished themselves tremendously - directly leading to the French Revolution.

      Yeah you HELPED liberate them in World War 2 (you know there were soldiers at D-Day from ALL the allied nations including Britain and even my little South Africa right ?) - they liberated you 300 years ago.

      How about you both just call it even and learn to STFU about it ?

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    111. Re:Good lord... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it were a containment wall it would be built on their border, or just inside of it so it can be patrolled on both sides. It's not because its an annexation wall. The result is that Israel plans on annexing all of the land inside the wall, which cuts deep into Palestinian territory.

    112. Re:Good lord... by jjohnson · · Score: 1

      Who started the wars is irrelevant to the question of "did they resolve anything"? No, they didn't, even though Israel stomped the shit out of the countries who started those three wars (yes, I know my mid-east history), and blasted Lebanon into dust several times in response to aggression from Hezbollah. Each time they respond militarily, they win, and nothing much changes. It certainly doesn't bring peace, does it?

      --
      Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
    113. Re:Good lord... by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      because they are taking the jobs that no one wants

      That's only one side of the story. At first, American DID want those jobs in the past, but quickly got undercutted by companies not following the labor laws. This led to a positive feed-back cycle that involves both illegal immigration and a change in the American work ethic culture in two ways.

      1). Companies hire illegally to skip both payroll taxation and pay below minimum wage.
      2). The first reason lead to an entire work force culture that's mainly Hispanic and speaks Spanish.

      Mike Rowe provided an excellent presentation at TED, but he clearly missed the point as to why American's started down this path. The story MSNBC recently did dove-tales into this.

      http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41182482/ns/business-us_business/

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    114. Re:Good lord... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny how the Qassam wikipedia article shows a picture with the name "File:A rocket fired from a civilian area in Gaza towards civilian areas in Southern Israel.jpg"

      Why isn't the Merkava article showing a picture how it demolishes homes of innocent Palestine families in Palestine so Jewish settler can build their villas there?

    115. Re:Good lord... by LS · · Score: 1

      Nuke them all. Their respective God will provide his true chosen people with the ability to live in the radioactive wasteland.

      Your half-conscious response is just as stereotypical as theirs.

      --
      There is a fine line between being a cultivated citizen and being someone else's crop. - A. J. Patrick Liszkie
    116. Re:Good lord... by TheMiddleRoad · · Score: 1

      Yes, as long as Jews die in greater numbers, we will have peace. Right? RIGHT!

    117. Re:Good lord... by cold+fjord · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The solution is to arm both sides equally. I'm sure negotiations would be much more productive if the Palestinians had helicopter gunships, tanks, jet fighters, and billions in military aid every year instead of barely enough food to eat.

      So you think that would turn out better than when the surrounding Arab nations and the Arabs in Palestine went to war with Israel? '48, '56, 67, '73?

      It would also stop the suicide bombing, since they would be able to target what they really want to hurt: the IDF.

      Don't be ridiculous, it has nothing to do with the IDF - it is about killing and terrorizing Jews. Why do you think they sent suicide bombers into pizza parlors? Couldn't find an army patrol?

      The Arabs living in Palestine would be better off if their leaders would give up two things: 1. Kleptocracy as a governing and organizing principle. 2. The fantasy of trying to destroy Israel.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    118. Re:Good lord... by cold+fjord · · Score: 2

      You corner an animal it will fight back and use every dirty trick it knows.

      You mean a couple of million Jews surrounded by 100,000,000 Arabas & Muslims?

      I'm sorry but history shows who lived in palenstine long before the mass Israeli illegal immigration.

      You mean the other Jews and some Arabs?

      , maybe the Jews were not killed like the Nazi's did, but they have done nothing, but murder and create their own ghettos and stuffed them with the palenstinean people.

      Actually you can thanks the Arab nations surrounding Israel for that. They told the local Arabs to leave while they slaughtered all the Jews.... but it didn't quite work out that way. Then they were stuck with the situation. Sadly, the Arab nations that caused the mess haven't allowed their brother Arabs from Palestine to normalize their relationship and settle where they are. It is Arabs keeping Arabs in the camps.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    119. Re:Good lord... by lixee · · Score: 0

      Arab != Muslim.

      --
      Res publica non dominetur
    120. Re:Good lord... by Micklat · · Score: 1

      It's not an either-or proposition. The main thrust of public pressure to build this wall was people seeking an effective measure against the rampant suicide bombings (I know, because I live here and I was reading the papers at the time). The Sharon government eventually adopted the plan, but carved it in its own (expansionist) image. At the time, there were moderate left-wingers calling for a wall on the green line, and there were settlers calling for greater annexation. In retrospect, it's surprising that he annexed as little as he did.

    121. Re:Good lord... by Serious+Callers+Only · · Score: 1

      The US funds Israel to the tune of 3 BILLION a year for military use. That's an insane amount of money PER YEAR, and if you removed it I suspect the 'huge defence industry' of Israel would collapse overnight. The US could at least stop being part of the problem here.

      It's time the US took responsability for meddling so comprehensively in the region, and started winding down military aid to all players, including Saudi, Israel, Iraq, and anywhere else which is a possible future tinderbox.Imagine if all that military aid was transformed into building hospitals, schools and in both Israel and Palestine.

      Finally, can the US even afford to spend that much money on a foreign country every year, given their ballooning deficit? Avoiding foreign entanglements has never sounded such a good idea.

    122. Re:Good lord... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Civil what? I believe you mean the War of Northern Aggression, you uncouth carpetbagger!

    123. Re:Good lord... by sourcerror · · Score: 1

      Yeah, being racist is much better.

    124. Re:Good lord... by Draek · · Score: 1

      Yeah. Pity that the standards for what passes as an "anti-American comment" are so damn low, though.

      Ohh, and in case you didn't know, Britain is part of Europe.

      --
      No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
    125. Re:Good lord... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Yeah, because it's not like the Jews or Muslim to carry a grudge for hundreds of years, right?"

      Actually, "Arabic antisemitism" is a fairly modern phenomenon, and Jews considered the Muslim world as a haven throughout most of its history. Antisemitism appeared in the Arab world when Zionism was invented at the end of the 19th century (prior to that there were Jewish communities in Palestine, but they were not claiming to build any kind of sovereign state), and took hold after World War II when the creation of Israel became an established fact.

    126. Re:Good lord... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Yes, as long as Jews die in greater numbers, we will have peace. Right? RIGHT!"

      Well, as much cynical as it may sound, basically yes.

      Not because they are jews but because it always happens that way: give them enough weapons to both sides and the problem will vanish along. Either because they becoming self-aware of the unsustainability of their death rate which forces them into peace negotiations or because everybody dies and there the problem ends.

    127. Re:Good lord... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the French had left helping us out at that or continued to be civil we likely wouldn't. But we've had to contend with their collective ego ever since. Then when it didn't end when we liberated them after WWII it just got more ingrained.

      The whole thing is kind of silly, but it's not like they're banging down our door demanding to be friendly with us.

      Haha, because it was so snobish of them not to get involved in our brilliantly conceived and executed Iraq war....

    128. Re:Good lord... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Well, we British traditionally don't like them because we've been at war with them for most of the last thousand years. They (well, technically, some Norse invaders who settled in France for a bit) invaded our country and took over, we ruled most of France for a few decades and so on. I think the last century was the first where we didn't at least have a proxy war with the French - we spent over 100 years almost constantly at war with them. The Spanish, Dutch, Portuguese and Italians have an excuse for not liking the French because they've also been at war with them several times, including that time when Napoleon conquered them.

      America? The only wars the country has ever won - including the War of Independence - have been fought with the French as allies. The US system of government was heavily inspired by French ideas. Of all the countries that could hate the French, the USA has the least reason for doing so.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    129. Re:Good lord... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      I got to see some guys playing banjos singing songs about KILLING Yankees.

      Meh. I've sung Irish songs about killing English people with a small band. It doesn't mean I actually endorse killing English people (since I am English, that would be a bit suicidal), it just means that they're good songs. They're also an important part of history for both sides - the English behaved particularly badly towards the people in Ireland, and it's important to remember how that backfired.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    130. Re:Good lord... by hjrnunes · · Score: 1

      We need to wake up and realize that religious fundamentalism of every stripe is the root cause of most of the world's problems, and then effectively deal with it.

      I disagree. This is a fallacious way of seeing the problem. The root cause of most of the world's problems is a mix of misunderstandings, inevitable cultural xenophobia, and intentional mischief. Religious fundamentalism feeds and thrives on this cocktail.

      So, killing all the fundamentalists (I'm not saying that you're saying), isn't going to solve any problem at all. And neither will trying to discredit them. It only aggravates the problem. Makes more people join their ranks.
      If you want to get rid of fundamentalism - be it religious or otherwise - you have to get rid of the causes for it. You have to make sure you clear misunderstandings; explain people that, while it's normal to distrust different cultures (and it is), it's to everybody's benefit to be at least somewhat open to learn about them; and expose and criticize mischief when we see it.

      Nothing like this is being made. Western news and politicians seem to want to convey the message that fundamentalists appear out of thin air, and are different from everybody else. As if they're almost not humans. As if these politicians actions have nothing to do with the alleged surge of fundamentalism across the World.

    131. Re:Good lord... by mangu · · Score: 1

      What's happening in Israel is the same thing that happened in America a hundred years ago: destruction of the aboriginal culture and denial that it ever existed.

      You are aware that the "aboriginal culture" in Israel is the Jewish culture, right? When Moahmmed started his religion, Israel had already existed for about two thousand years.

    132. Re:Good lord... by heathen_01 · · Score: 1

      The Spanish Inquisition? I didn't expect that.

    133. Re:Good lord... by heathen_01 · · Score: 1

      Too bad nobody told the crusaders that.

    134. Re:Good lord... by sam_nead · · Score: 1

      there are more Muslims in the Israeli Parliament than there are in the US Congress

      So, two?

      More like 10 out of 120 total members. Check out http://www.knesset.gov.il/mk/eng/mkindex_current_eng.asp

    135. Re:Good lord... by heathen_01 · · Score: 1

      Violence is like xml. Therefore instead of using more voilence the Israelis need to start using annotations instead.

    136. Re:Good lord... by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      The beginning of the US seems like a long time ago to us, but to the rest of the world, we are still kids.

      That's possibly because a lot of us have been in buildings that are older than your country.

    137. Re:Good lord... by dcherryholmes · · Score: 1

      Dude, you *have* no holy land.

    138. Re:Good lord... by copponex · · Score: 1

      Yes, as long as Palestinians die in greater numbers, we will have peace. Right? RIGHT!

    139. Re:Good lord... by copponex · · Score: 2

      So you think that would turn out better than when the surrounding Arab nations and the Arabs in Palestine went to war with Israel? '48, '56, 67, '73?

      I didn't say arm all the Arab states. I said arm the Palestinians. If the tanks and bulldozers that cross into Palestine to destroy homes were confronted with tanks and bulldozers, I'm sure there would be more productive dialogue once Israel stopped being able to ignore Palestinian will.

      Don't be ridiculous, it has nothing to do with the IDF - it is about killing and terrorizing Jews. Why do you think they sent suicide bombers into pizza parlors? Couldn't find an army patrol?

      It has nothing to do with terrorizing Jews. The Jews were far more terrorized by Christians in Europe than by Arabs in the Levant. That's why for hundreds of years before the formation of Israel, Jews, Christians, and Arabs lived together in relative peace.

      And yes, if the Palestinians had a fighting chance at meeting IDF forces and killing them, they would much rather do that than blow themselves up in pizza parlors.

      The Arabs living in Palestine would be better off if their leaders would give up two things: 1. Kleptocracy as a governing and organizing principle. 2. The fantasy of trying to destroy Israel.

      Yes, the Palestinians could use better leadership. But Israel should know, as it is completely predictable by now, that when you destroy Arab Nationalism you will end up with Arab Fundamentalism. It happened in Lebanon, it happened in Iran, and after sixty years of occupation in Palestine, their insistence on stealing Palestinian land under the false pretense of security can only lead to more violence.

      The Israeli government does not want peace. They want more land.

    140. Re:Good lord... by KingMotley · · Score: 1

      Yes, I know the redcoats are part of Europe. I specifically mentioned them because that is where the majority of them come from. Noone here watches a lot of movies or tv from the rest of Europe.

    141. Re:Good lord... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The solution is to arm both sides equally.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7pc3_TAi7c

    142. Re:Good lord... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "One nation, under God..."

      It may be a 'new' addition to the pledge, but it's been accepted and repeated for 50+ years now.

      Source

    143. Re:Good lord... by qbzzt · · Score: 1

      We need to wake up and realize that religious fundamentalism of every stripe is the root cause of most of the world's problems, and then effectively deal with it.

      The religious impulse seems to be hardwired into most people. It has evolutionary advantages.

      Short of a dictatorship of the atheists (enforced by what army), I doubt this is possible. You could pull a USSR and outlaw religion, but then you just get a particularly virulent state religion.

      --
      -- Support a free market in the field of government
    144. Re:Good lord... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Please know that while Americans that aren't jerks are a minority, we're a very large minority

      If my experience is representative, you're probably a majority, but one jerk draws more attention to himself than ten non-jerks.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    145. Re:Good lord... by alta · · Score: 1

      It's funny, I clicked the link for the tank, and with all the colored flags, I thought it was for sale at a car dealership.

      --
      Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are subtle, and quick to anger.
    146. Re:Good lord... by alta · · Score: 0

      If I recall, there were 2 world wars that involved germans in france... Two to one.

      --
      Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are subtle, and quick to anger.
    147. Re:Good lord... by nomadic · · Score: 1

      Well, "culture" is something else; you follow any culture back through its predecessors and they're all old.

    148. Re:Good lord... by TheMiddleRoad · · Score: 1

      There's no symmetry to this. You're just mimicking in some childish attempt to make things equal. Your statement was that giving the Palestinians more and greater weapons would lead to peace. All that would lead to is dead Jews, lots of them. We've seen what happens when Muslim governments have weapons or what they feel is superior force - they invade Israel. It happened multiple times in the 20th Century. Your "solution" will lead to more dead Jews. Of course, if enough Jews die, then you'll have the peace you so desire. Just a few million more dead Jews, right? RIGHT!

    149. Re:Good lord... by silentcoder · · Score: 2

      >If I recall, there were 2 world wars that involved germans in france... Two to one.
      And if you think the first one owes most of it's thanks to America then you need to read some books.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    150. Re:Good lord... by Nadaka · · Score: 1

      How can NK be a secular state when its leader is a god king?

    151. Re:Good lord... by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Out of curiosity, what's the other? Canada?

    152. Re:Good lord... by I8TheWorm · · Score: 1

      Don't nuke them. Instead, declare the whole area UN territory and move the headquarters there (get them the hell out of the US).

      Make it a theme park and call it Holy Land. Then all religions which claim landmarks there could visit any time.

      You could have the Jump for Jesus Bounce Room, the Jehovah Heights Roller Coaster, the Aqua Allah Water Slide.

      You could even make it a not for profit organization whose proceeds go to all of those displaced by religious right.

      --
      Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
    153. Re:Good lord... by copponex · · Score: 1

      Your statement was that giving the Palestinians more and greater weapons would lead to peace. All that would lead to is dead Jews, lots of them. We've seen what happens when Muslim governments have weapons or what they feel is superior force - they invade Israel.

      Oh, that's right. Israel has never, ever, ever invaded Lebanon or Palestine or Egypt, and never killed anyone with their bounty of military technology. Wait a second, let me check with reality:

      Israeli Casualties: 1505 (143 children)
      Israelis Displaced: a few thousand if you count abandoned settlements

      Palestinian Casualties: 8023 (1596 children)
      Palestinians Displaced: in the millions

      Hey look! You're full of shit. For some reason I am not surprised.

      You may want to remember that Christians have killed far more Jews than Arabs have in the last 500 years, even if you don't count the holocaust and just look at the centuries of pogroms across Russia and Europe. I know this reality will be unsettling for people who are deeply invested in racism against Arabs, but the reality remains.

    154. Re:Good lord... by kevinNCSU · · Score: 1

      We need to wake up and realize that religious fundamentalism of every stripe is the root cause of most of the world's problems, and then effectively deal with it.

      No, this sentence with a different group targeted is the cause of most of the world's wars. And it's only the cause because it convinces people who do not like the targeted group to let it happen and even join in. The root cause it the motives of the person who uses this sentence to get everyone else on board even though their actual goal might simply be nationalistic pride, wealth, or territory.

      • We need to wake up and realize that terrorists of every stripe is the root cause of most of the world's problems, and then effectively deal with it. - Current Wars
      • We need to wake up and realize that communism of every stripe is the root cause of most of the world's problems, and then effectively deal with it. - Vietnam, Korea
      • We need to wake up and realize that Jews of every stripe is the root cause of most of the world's problems, and then effectively deal with it. - World War 2

      Congrats, you're exactly what you're railing against with a different color paint.

    155. Re:Good lord... by kevinNCSU · · Score: 1

      It would also stop the suicide bombing, since they would be able to target what they really want to hurt: the IDF.

      Yea, I'm sure the suicide bombers attack crowded lunchtime cafes because they just can't possibly find an IDF checkpoint.

    156. Re:Good lord... by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Well, to be fair, Eddie Izzard and "A Bit of Fry And Laurie" make up for a LOT. :)

    157. Re:Good lord... by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      I'll see your "Crafted world" argument and raise you "external testicles."

      'Intelligent design,' my ass...

    158. Re:Good lord... by DavidTC · · Score: 2

      Technically, we probably wouldn't still be ruled by England, considering what happened with Canada and Australia. Although I guess they're still ruled 'by the Queen of England', so so would we...but we'd be an independent nation, probably part of Canada. (Or, rather, Canada would be part of us.)

      Of course, a huge section of the US wouldn't be part of the US at all. France never would have sold Louisiana to the English, and without that, it's unlikely we'd have even been in Texas to 'revolt' and have it join the US.

      Without us being that far south, it's unlikely we'd get California either. 'Canada' would be the east coast of the US plus the current location of Canada, Mexico would be California, with the great Plains going either way, or possibly with a French country in the middle.

      I think there was actually an episode of Sliders with this premise, where the Revolutionary war failed and all the fertile land (Or at least California) was part of Mexico, and illegal immigrants from Canada kept sneaking south.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    159. Re:Good lord... by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      Stopping US corporations from failing is always a good reason to send men to their deaths.

      According to US corporations, that is.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    160. Re:Good lord... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because they eat cheese!

      No, but seriously, the vast majority of Americans don't have any ill-will towards the French, we just think making fun of them constitutes clever comedy for some reason.

    161. Re:Good lord... by dogmatixpsych · · Score: 1

      Great solution. Let's arm Iran, North Korea, Venezuela and a lot of other countries equally with the U.S. It should help with any future negotiations, eh?

    162. Re:Good lord... by Noughmad · · Score: 1

      Well, maybe the IDF is, you know, defended. It's somewhat harder to get to soldiers than to civilians.

      --
      PlusFive Slashdot reader for Android. Can post comments.
    163. Re:Good lord... by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      Judaism waited to return to Jerusalem for just over 1900 years after the ROMANS kicked them out the first time.

      The Romans didn't 'kick anyone out'. They just destroyed the Temple. Almost all the Jews stayed there. Some, very few, Jews wandered off.

      Those wandering Jews talk about the 'ten lost tribes', like we don't know where they got to. Uh, we do know. They just stayed in the area after the Temple fell, and outlasted the Roman Empire.

      After Rome fell, they needed a strong leader...and Muhammad showed up, and everyone eventually converted to Islam. What happened is not rocket science, it's not some secret. Jews, in Israel, converted to Islam.

      From the Muslim point of view, the land was promised to them thousands of years ago, they got the land, stayed, various prophets like Jesus and Muhammad showed up and gave them more info about God, and they still live there.

      I don't really believe God 'gave them land' but, looking at it objectively, I'd argue that if God gives you something and you keep it and use it for thousands of years, vs just wandering away, the first group deserves it. The group that wandered away doesn't get to come back two thousand years later and argue it's really 'theirs' or attempt to divide it up without the people who stayed behind's permission.

      So even if we accept the premise that God gave 'the Jewish people' that land...they're still on that land. They've been there all along. They just identify different, and have evolved their religion, which might make them 'bad Jews', but God didn't give the land to Jews 'as long as they worshiped him correctly', he just gave it to them. Jews have repeatedly 'failed' God, and not once has he threatened to take their land away. Even within the context of Judaism, the 'Jews who stayed behind', aka, Muslims, have just as much right to the land.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    164. Re:Good lord... by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      That sounds like a line from Futurama, it just needs finishing.

      <bender>I'm nuking Jerusalem. With Vatican City and Mecca. And Gold Base. In fact, forget Jerusalem and Vatican City and Mecca.</bender>

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    165. Re:Good lord... by Risen888 · · Score: 1

      You corner an animal it will fight back and use every dirty trick it knows.

      You mean a couple of million Jews surrounded by 100,000,000 Arabas & Muslims?

      No one "cornered" them there. They moved in to a bad neighborhood full of people who didn't want them there.

      --
      Hey, I finally got my first freak! Took you long enough!
    166. Re:Good lord... by fishexe · · Score: 1

      That sounds like a line from Futurama, it just needs finishing.

      <bender>I'm nuking Jerusalem. With Vatican City and Mecca. And Gold Base. In fact, forget Jerusalem and Vatican City and Mecca.</bender>

      Shit. Clearly I need to watch more Futurama. I've actually never seen that one.

      --
      "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
    167. Re:Good lord... by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Oooh a fellow sliders fan ! I loved that show as a teenager !

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    168. Re:Good lord... by EvilBudMan · · Score: 1

      The French didn't do as much in the Revolutionary War for us as we did for them in WWII. That was the Nazi's. The real reason we won the Revolutionary War is that the UK didn't care. They got to trade with us anyhow which is basically all they really wanted. The US was the only colony to break away from England ever with or without help from the French or whomever. The British just gave up until we were dumb enough to try to fight them again for the heck of it. The War of 1812 was a loss yet they still left us alone. I guess they needed their tobacco and cotton back then.

    169. Re:Good lord... by silentcoder · · Score: 1, Informative

      >the US was the only colony to break away from England ever

      How self-centered can you get ?
      In 1802 the Cape Colony did it under the treaty of Amiens (though they took it back in 1806). The British attempt to Annex and colonize the two Boer Republics (the OVS and ZAR) in 1890 and were defeated - they tried again in 1900 and ultimately won - though the country as a whole became self-ruling in 1910 and a wholly independent republic in 1961.
      India won their independence through a revolt, initially largely peaceful (since the leader Mahatma Ghandi was a pacifist) it became violent later on - but India won in the end.
      Technically even Hong Kong qualifies and somewhat earlier China certainly does.
      Zimbabwe was the former British colony of Rhodesia before they became an independent republic through a war of independence in 1980.

      In fact you will find that the vast majority of British colonies won their freedom on the battlefield and only a small number got "granted" independence - most of those were after 1980 when the system was pretty much falling apart.

      Now what is true is that the USA were among the first to do so - but don't think you're particularly unique in doing so, not in the least. In fact, your early history is remarkably similar to South Africa's - you were a Dutch colony (New York was originally called New Amsterdam and a great many American surnames are of Dutch descent - every single one with "Van" in it for starters) before being taken over by the British (at the exact same time as the Cape Colony and for the exact same reason: Britain's response to the aftermath of the French Revolution). Unlike the Cape - you made no effort to repel them at the time however and became quite happy British citizens right up until your own revolution. The Cape however had a huge anti-British feeling which is why the majority of the Dutch (and to a lesser degree French and German) descended Boers traveled inland away from British rule to establish new republics that would be self governing by 1838. Republics they would subsequently defend from being occupied by Britain again not once but TWICE. Winning the first one and only surrendering the second one due to the British concentration camps causing massive loss of civilian life (women and children).

      But being early is by no means the same as being the only one. Quite frankly - most of the world were colonies of either France or Britain not long ago - the vast majority of them won their freedom back by revolution - not diplomacy. Neither the British nor the French felt any need to consider negotiations that would cost them assets worth huge fortunes - the rightful owners of those lands had to take it back by force, or settle for the two great European powers taking it all.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    170. Re:Good lord... by TheMiddleRoad · · Score: 1

      You keep proving my point over and over. You somehow see more Jews dying as a way to solve this conflict. You see weapons in Palestinian hands as a way to peace. Is this insane? Yes, clearly. Is it antisemitic? Possibly not intentionally, but it still is antisemitic.

    171. Re:Good lord... by makomk · · Score: 1

      Given that there are more Muslims in the Israeli Parliament than there are in the US Congress

      Which might have something to do with the fact that there's a much higher proportion of Muslims in Israel than in the US. You're neglecting the fact that, every election, a group of Jewish Israeli politicians get together to try and ban all the Muslim parties, and have to be stopped by the courts.

      (Also, in case you haven't figured it out yet, the US has spectacularly failed to seperate church and state itself. That's why you don't get very many politicians who aren't either Christian or Jewish.)

    172. Re:Good lord... by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      I was just paraphrasing the 'start my own casino' line from the second episode.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    173. Re:Good lord... by locallyunscene · · Score: 1

      I find it very hard to believe radical Palestinian groups would suddenly stop targeting civilians if they had access to high powered weaponry. That cat is all ready out of the bag and the easier targets are still easier.

    174. Re:Good lord... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why are you perpetuating this myth of Jews and Muslims having always been at war? Israel was created by UN as a Jewish nation sixty-odd years ago. Prior to that there was a nation called Palestine created by the British empire a few decades earlier who encouraged Jewish immigration to the area against the wishes of the existing population. Before that it was a part of the Ottoman empire and populated by Muslims and Christians with a minority of Jews all living in relative harmony (Many Jews moved there as they fled persecution in Europe and Russia). Things didn't fall apart until the first world war as the Ottoman empire itself crumbled.

    175. Re:Good lord... by fishexe · · Score: 1

      I was just paraphrasing the 'start my own casino' line from the second episode.

      Oh. I did see that episode. I thought you were saying there was actually an episode where Bender talks about nuking religious places. Which I wouldn't put past him, nor would I put it past him to use the same structure to refer to multiple topics. Clearly, my understanding unit malfunctioned. You gotta give me a do-over!

      --
      "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
    176. Re:Good lord... by copponex · · Score: 1

      No, I see the Israeli state having to deal with a population more militarily capable as a way to solve the conflict. If they keep taking Palestinian land and breaking international law without consequences, there's no reason for them to stop.

      Despising the Israeli state does not make me anti-Semitic. It makes me anti-colonialist.

    177. Re:Good lord... by SnarfQuest · · Score: 1

      They also seem to carry a massive grudge against the French for no reason I can figure out.

      It has to do with that grail thing. And those wise cracks about Arthur's coconuts.

      --
      Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
    178. Re:Good lord... by TheMiddleRoad · · Score: 1

      Israel has had to deal with militarily capable Muslims since its inception. The history is clear - militarily capable Muslims desperately try to kill all thew Jews. Jews have had to deal with militarily capable Muslims since the Muslim colonists arrived. Jews have been in the area for thousands of years; they're not colonists. The Muslims are a recent arrival, relatively speaking. The Palestinians are a recently made-up people, most of whose ancestors arrived from other parts of the region over the past couple hundred years. Israel without the Jews has been a relatively barren place, shunned by Muslims as long as there aren't any Jews to kick out or subjugate.

      Your understanding of the whole history is upside-down, backwards, reversed, inside-out, and hilariously ignorant. Your understanding of Muslims with weapons having peaceful intentions is laughable. Are Hezbolah and Hamas stockpiling rockets and mortars for peace? They fire indiscriminately at Israel, dancing in the streets when a Jew gets killed.

      So you watch the military build up, nod your head approvingly and sagely, and smile, all the while knowing that it means dead Jews.

      Chomsky is what I like to call a smart idiot. He runs around, thinking himself into small corners of idiocy, ignoring common sense and facts. He hasn't had a good idea since the '50s.

    179. Re:Good lord... by TheMiddleRoad · · Score: 1

      So what you're implying is that Israelis should be far, far more brutal to the Palestinians so that the Palestinians learn to give up?

    180. Re:Good lord... by copponex · · Score: 2

      Jews have been in the area for thousands of years; they're not colonists.

      In 1917, there were 60,000 Jews, 70,000 Christians, and about 500,000 Palestinians. In 1948, there were less than 2,000 Jews outside of the original partition. Now there are 500,000. If that's not evidence of colonialism, I'm not sure what would be.

      Are Hezbolah and Hamas stockpiling rockets and mortars for peace? They fire indiscriminately at Israel, dancing in the streets when a Jew gets killed.

      Is the IDF stockpiling nukes and receiving fighter jets and helicopter gunships for peace? When they lob shells at Gaza, are they not firing indiscriminately?

      You think that Israelis have a right to arm themselves and wage war, but you don't think Palestinians have that right. I'm pretty sure it's because you're a racist, but maybe you're not that bad. Maybe you're just fucking stupid.

    181. Re:Good lord... by tragedy · · Score: 1

      I don't walk around calling people from the US Yanks usually. It's a good way to get killed if you say it to the wrong person. Plenty of people around the world use it to refer to people from the US with absolutely no insult intended, but lots of people in the US get very touchy about it, especially people from the south. "Yankee" was probably originally a native american corruption of the French word for englishmen "Anglais". It was only later that it came to mean, within the United States, people from New England or, more generically, Northerners.

      I don't think I'm generalizing all of America based on just those experiences. Plenty of people were quite friendly, in fact, but others were incomprehensibly hostile. I brought it up specifically because you blamed France for the second Gulf war and said this was the reason that people from the US were hostile to the French. I was pointing out, by example, that such hostility predates those events. Most of the people being hostile were also far too young to have anything to do with WWII. All this started because Pharmboy said "We tend to underestimate the longevity of a grudge in the rest of the world." and was contradicted by someone pointing out that the people of the US are also perfectly capable of carrying ridiculous grudges for many, many years. All of my experiences tell me that this is definitely true and I was throwing in my two cents. I don't think that anyone is trying to say that people from the US hold a grudge longer than other humans, just that they are, in fact, humans and seem to hold grudges just as long as everyone else.

    182. Re:Good lord... by jafac · · Score: 1

      Cutting off military imports to these guys won't work, I suspect even if you removed all the weapons they'd still throw rocks at each other...

      I doubt it.

      I think that if the PROFIT were taken out of this killing business, people would turn over to some other profitable business, like living.

      People eventually get sick and tired of this stuff, and eventually, if left alone, will go and live their lives peacefully. The problem is - people are being denied basic freedoms, the ability to have a stake in their own destinies.

      I mean: the British burned down the White House in 1812 - so why did we turn around and help them in WWI, WWII, and them us in Iraq? Because we had better things to do than fight the British. We weren't stepping on their interests in Canada, and they weren't stepping on our interests on our territories. So we're best buds with Britain now. Right? So; just as soon as Israel stops building settlements where they're actually not allowed to or supposed to be building them, and as soon as the Palestinians are allowed to travel freely, build, open businesses, get food, have lives, I'm sure you'll see some isolated groups that won't let go of their hate for maybe a generation or so, but it'll die out, and eventually these two people will be living in peace together.

      Frankly; Israel inflicting Collective Punishment on the Palestinian people, violates the Geneva conventions, and it's merely perpetuating the conflict. Has any of it stopped the violence? No. Never in the history of the world has this ever worked. It prolongs the suffering on both sides. The only people profiting are the arms suppliers.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    183. Re:Good lord... by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      YHBT. YHL. HAND.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    184. Re:Good lord... by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      What? The Spanish Inquisition? I didn't expect anyone to bring that up in this discussion.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    185. Re:Good lord... by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      And rape. Don't forget the rape.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    186. Re:Good lord... by downhole · · Score: 1

      Yup, they are. So what? Israel could easily pound the Palestinians 24/7 with indiscriminate artillery and airstrikes at almost no risk to themselves whenever they felt like it. Instead, they send in soldiers to put their lives at risk making their best attempt to kill only the actual terrorists. And for this, they get essentially no credit from the peace crowd. Meanwhile, the Palestinians almost exclusively target civilians when they could attack the IDF, albeit at somewhat higher risk to themselves, and somehow they're the good guys. Israeli soldiers risk their lives to keep the bad guys away from the women and children, even on the other side, while Palestinian soldiers risk their women and children's lives to protect themselves. Both sides do have ample reason to be royally pissed at the other, but look at what they do in response to their anger. As far as I'm concerned, that's all I need to know to figure out who are the good guys and who are the bad guys.

      --
      I don't reply to ACs
    187. Re:Good lord... by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      STFU

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    188. Re:Good lord... by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      Hey, you were the one missing the days of the GNAA...

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    189. Re:Good lord... by RewriteQuran · · Score: 0

      Inter-faith marriage between Arabs and Jews will permanently solve middle east crisis. Govt should give incentives to inter-religious marriages.

      --
      Govt must constitute a panel to rewrite US Constitution and Quran
    190. Re:Good lord... by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      I just think the GNAA trolls were slightly more intelligent than some of the serious posts on /. these days.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    191. Re:Good lord... by EvilBudMan · · Score: 1

      I was talking about through warfare obviously and we got it the first time. Maybe self centered but I did give them credit for letting us win.

    192. Re:Good lord... by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Even if you limit it to warfare you still weren't the ONLY one. Zimbabwe for one did the exact same thing, the exact same way - in a longer and bloodier war.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    193. Re:Good lord... by EvilBudMan · · Score: 1

      They lost. The UK gave up their colonies after WWII. That's a different issue. Two super powers changed places.

      We'll now the same thing is going to happen to us because we owe too much money. We will be defeated economically first. In fact we already are. Devaluing your currency to pay foreign debt is a big no no.

    194. Re:Good lord... by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Rhodesia was still a colony until 1980 - when Robert Mugabe's organisation finally won the war, and it became the republic of Zimbabwe. Kindly don't comment on things you don't know anything about. I live right next door to the place ! Mugabe was the hero of the hour and the darling of Western Governments for the next 18 years - when he finally proved that having the same person in power for that long is a very bad idea and the country started to rapidly fall apart. Here we are 12 years later- and he's still there and still messing it up. The grand irony of Zimbabwe is this - it used to be known as the bread-bowl of Africa. It was the largest food producer on the continent (it actually outproduced the larger and more modern South Africa - not least because of it's better climate) now the population is starving.

      As for your opinions about what's happening in the USA. I'm with you there, but the problem goes back a lot further than that. Capitalism doesn't work if the most productive members of society are consistently the lowest paid members of that society. It makes the ROI on becoming a skilled worker simply too low.
      Result: The USA produces more lawyers every year than scientists and engineers combined- in fact more than any other job. Because lawyers and stockbrokers make all the money - and they are not productive members of society. You need a few around, more than a few - and you just get leeches.

      That's happening in many places though. In countries where skilled producers are still the highest paid members - those countries are growing (even if those skilled workers earn less than in the US - they earn more than their neighbours - and that makes all the difference). A prime example is Germany.
      Joe Biden asked Angela Merkel a while ago "How did Germany manage to survive the recession so well, with almost no job-losses and an economy that kept growing albeit at a slightly reduced rate ?"
      Merkel replied: "Mister Biden, we still MAKE STUFF".

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    195. Re:Good lord... by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      I didn't say I was a fan.

      That show had so much wasted potential. I wish they'd done more 'for want of a nail' alternate histories like that, and actually explored them.

      I don't think we ever found out what happened in the 'no US' world, and half of the statements I gave about that were just logical deductions. No one ever stated why illegal Canadians were sneaking in, and I'm not sure anyone figured out what happened to the American revolution.

      I'd have liked to see a British one (We did see that, actually, which might be where I got the American Revolution failing), a Canadian one, a Mexico one, a Spain one, a Russian one, a Native American one, etc.

      All those are historically plausible Californias...and, of course, no one says they have have to be that plausible.

      Sliders was a textbook example of how not to do a science fiction TV show. The whole 'timer' was stupid and artificial, as were the villains. It should have been them skipping among a few safe havens trying to find home and do some good, and possibly confronting some shadow organization that already was sliding and didn't want to share.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    196. Re:Good lord... by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Dude, it was a SIFI show aimed at early teens. As a thirteen year old, I enjoyed it greatly.
      I never suggested it was of the same calibre as Star Trek or Babylon 5 or even Firefly because it wasn't - but it was for the audience it was aimed at - exactly right.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    197. Re:Good lord... by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      Dude, it was a SIFI show aimed at early teens.

      Uh, no it wasn't. It was aimed at adults.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    198. Re:Good lord... by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      >Uh, no it wasn't. It was aimed at adults.

      Well... here where I live, it was broadcast by the youth stations in their early-teen slots. That's where I watched it...
      Maybe in the USA networks marketed it at adults - which if I was an adult American I would find rather insulting - seeing as the rest of the world obviously thought the show was for teenagers.

      Mind you - there is some definite (and interesting) cultural matters determining that. Another example was the Buffy spin-off Angel. In South Africa it was marketed to the high-school market. In Britain it was a late night show considered to mature and violent for anybody but adults.
      A friend of mine who lives in London was shocked to the core when she found out that what was shown as an 11pm Adult Horror series there - was a 5pm teenage action series here.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
  4. This Is Not News For Nerds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why in the fuck is this article on slashdot? The Middle East situation is not a nerd story, its not something that matters here. Tagging this story under security and internet makes no sense whatsoever. You can find this news anywhere else, not on an ostensibly tech oriented blog.

    Slashdot, you are jumping the shark with this. BTW, before you mod this down -1 consider its an ontopic meta comment.

    1. Re:This Is Not News For Nerds by alexborges · · Score: 1

      Chill dude...

      --
      NO SIG
    2. Re:This Is Not News For Nerds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is an example of a negotiation technology and protocol, backed by military tech, in action. Kinda like reverse Star Trek.

    3. Re:This Is Not News For Nerds by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Well its in the politics section and the subject is the leaking of information.

      Though personally I am more interested in who leaked the leak and why. Who benefits from this? It doesn't sound like the Palestinians would have done it. They don't benefit.

    4. Re:This Is Not News For Nerds by flyingkillerrobots · · Score: 1

      The person who contributed the summary used the word 'Wikileaks'.

      --
      "It is a good thing for an uneducated man to read books of quotations..." -Winston Churchill
    5. Re:This Is Not News For Nerds by fishexe · · Score: 1

      Why in the fuck is this article on slashdot? The Middle East situation is not a nerd story, its not something that matters here. Tagging this story under security and internet makes no sense whatsoever. You can find this news anywhere else, not on an ostensibly tech oriented blog.

      Yeah, fuck those policy nerds, and history nerds, and sociology nerds. If it's not strictly tech-nerd or sci-fi nerd, GTFO!

      But seriously, from TFS:"...showing perhaps that the mega-leak meme is here to stay whatever happens to Assange."
      Speculating on future trends in interactions between media, governments, and society is an inherently nerdy activity, and doubly so when the trend is started by an organization with "wiki" in its name.

      Slashdot, you are jumping the shark with this. BTW, before you mod this down -1 consider its an ontopic meta comment.

      Sure. That doesn't stop it from being Flamebait.

      --
      "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
    6. Re:This Is Not News For Nerds by meerling · · Score: 1

      Slashdot fell out of nerdspace years ago...

  5. I've got this one... by Haedrian · · Score: 4, Funny

    The person who leaked this has raped me.

    Please arrest him immediately. Thanks.

    1. Re:I've got this one... by Fluffeh · · Score: 4, Funny

      Were you in Sweden at the time, and did you make him breakfast and throw him a party later in the day? Just asking...

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    2. Re:I've got this one... by alexborges · · Score: 1

      No sir. What your had was an alien abduction and now you want to blame the Muslims.

      --
      NO SIG
    3. Re:I've got this one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So Assange is a muslim?!
      Damn, the things we learn each day. Thanks Slashdot!

    4. Re:I've got this one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was a Muslim, so it's okay.

    5. Re:I've got this one... by doubtless · · Score: 1

      hey hoooo it was only surprised sex instead okayyy!

      --
      geek page at KY speaks
    6. Re:I've got this one... by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      yeah, right. israel slept with one of its arab neighbors and had quite a good time, but then its other fuck-buddy found out and they both teamed up to seek revenge.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    7. Re:I've got this one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I"m the second person that was raped by the leaker. And they didn't use a condom and before they said they would.. and now I learn that Haedrian was also involved! Seriosuly! RAPE!!!!!

    8. Re:I've got this one... by fishexe · · Score: 2

      Well, to be fair, the rape was retroactive, and so GP didn't know it was happening at the time or for a few days thereafter.

      --
      "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
    9. Re:I've got this one... by sourcerror · · Score: 1

      Did he use a "rubberhose" during the act?

  6. Terrorism, anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder if there will be the calls for treason and terrorism arising from this, with the Big Media not coming to their aid. al-Jazeera is even closer to our American media than Assange is by their own standards they gave when not defending him. Eventually, those who do not like free press will come for Big Media too.

    1. Re:Terrorism, anyone? by repapetilto · · Score: 1

      that second sentence was terrible

  7. Adaptation and Propaganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    How long before the world's secret services adapt to the "megaleak" phenomenon, and start using it as a tool to spread propaganda? Wikileaks might be an independent arbiter, but will other start-ups be so? In time, the space will become so polluted with lies, that the real leaks will be treated as lies, along with the rest of it.

    1. Re:Adaptation and Propaganda by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "How long before the world's secret services adapt to the "megaleak" phenomenon, and start using it as a tool to spread propaganda?"

      Possibly the phenomenon BEGAN that way.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    2. Re:Adaptation and Propaganda by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Already have...

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    3. Re:Adaptation and Propaganda by Foobar+of+Borg · · Score: 4, Interesting

      How long before the world's secret services adapt to the "megaleak" phenomenon, and start using it as a tool to spread propaganda?

      What do you mean "start"? False flag and disinformation campaigns have been a staple of foreign policy for at least as long as recorded history.

    4. Re:Adaptation and Propaganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The "megaleak" is new in that the onset of the Internet allows it to be 1) bigger in size and more comprehensive than anything before, and 2) direct to the public, rather than being published piecemeal via a commentator.

    5. Re:Adaptation and Propaganda by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      You mean... like this one?

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    6. Re:Adaptation and Propaganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How long? This is in itself is propaganda! Al Jazeera is always spreading anti-Israel propaganda. I don't see how mud slinging hatred makes its way to Slashdot. Is Slashdot on its way down?

    7. Re:Adaptation and Propaganda by Skidborg · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I have a fairly hard time accepting al-Jazeera as an honest source of a leak. They don't have a stake in this situation, no sir.

      --
      Supporter of the +1 Over Dramatic mod option. In memory of apk.
    8. Re:Adaptation and Propaganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shoot, false flag and disinformation campaigns ARE recorded history...

    9. Re:Adaptation and Propaganda by radtea · · Score: 1

      False flag and disinformation campaigns have been a staple of foreign policy for at least as long as recorded history.

      Shh... you'll disturb the complacency of the people here who are saying, "Thinking is hard! Let's go shopping!"

      I guess it should be no surprise really, that large leaks of complex documents that would be incredibly hard to fake should be met by intellectually slothful people saying, "Well, it isn't mathematically certain so I can ignore it!"

      As if anything interesting is mathematically certain, and as if we don't all get along just find every day without anything approching mathematical certainty on everything from what our name is to where we parked the car.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    10. Re:Adaptation and Propaganda by EvilBudMan · · Score: 1

      Just read up on the CIA. They have been doing this for years and the FBI under Hoover. It makes you wonder who and what the good guys are?

  8. Re:It's not a meme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You dun accidentally in my base goofed and consequences will never gonna give you up be the same!

  9. ever greater concessions by Culture20 · · Score: 2

    "'We do not like this suggestion because it does not meet our demands,' Israel's then foreign minister, Tzipi Livni, told the Palestinians"

    Things like right to exist probably aren't in it yet.

    1. Re:ever greater concessions by TFAFalcon · · Score: 1

      Things like right to exist probably are in it.

      Fixed that for you.

    2. Re:ever greater concessions by aliquis · · Score: 1

      Yeah because the palistinians try to exterminate the jews and for no good reason?

      CNN much?

    3. Re:ever greater concessions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      not sure what you mean, but the concessions were something like "you can wipe the jerusalem districts were 120k palestininans live". I guess Israel will not accept anything but the destruction of any other culture in the middle east.

    4. Re:ever greater concessions by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Do you mean Israel's right to exist or Palestine's right to exist?

      (Dreadful source, but the map is accurate)

      --
      Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
    5. Re:ever greater concessions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Your map is missing out Jordan

    6. Re:ever greater concessions by mr100percent · · Score: 1

      NOBODY has this mythical "right to exist." Do you think India accepts Pakistan's "right to exist?" No, they've tried laying down every UN obstruction they can think of. Gandhi famously said he accepts the reality that Pakistan exists, but would never say it had a right to.

    7. Re:ever greater concessions by omfgnosis · · Score: 1

      Yeah? And? So? What?

    8. Re:ever greater concessions by omfgnosis · · Score: 1

      The problem with this argument is that it's two issues bundled up as one, and it obscures the actual relevance of the entire "right to exist" conception. It is one thing to say that a *nation* (that is, a people, not a political organization) has a right to exist; to deny this is to condone genocide. It's quite a different thing to say that a *state* has a right to exist. Israel is the only *state* which claims a right to exist and demands that its co-belligerents declare their support for such a calculation. The rejection of that right is not a rejection of any nation, but of the *Jewish state* as a political entity. The "right to exist", as declared by nations (including the Palestinians) is not an assertion of the right of any political entity, but the right of a cultural group to remain unmolested in their existence and mutual identification as such.

      To deny this right, as above, is to condone genocide. It's to say that a people can be justifiably eliminated, whether by extermination or by severance. States are artificial constructs created opportunistically for the maintenance of certain political prerogatives; they have *no* rights except by consensus. Nations are living social constructs that form the foundation of human cohabitation; to propose that their elimination by force can be justified is to ensure destruction and misery.

    9. Re:ever greater concessions by Trepidity · · Score: 1

      It'd be interesting to make those maps for various regions, actually. For example: Greek-owned, Jewish-owned, and Turkish-owned land in central Istanbul, 1900-2011.

    10. Re:ever greater concessions by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 1

      Done :)

      --
      Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
    11. Re:ever greater concessions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, that map is ridiculous. First of all, the first map conflates political sovereignty with private ownership. By that token there shouldn't be any green OR white, as the entire area was under the British Mandate. Second, the "palestinian loss of land" occuring in the second map was solely due to total Arab rejection of the UN partition plan, while the Israelis accepted it. And again, the West Bank and Gaza were captured by Israel in a war of self-defense during which the Arabs promised a bloodbath and total destruction of the Israeli state.

    12. Re:ever greater concessions by yariv · · Score: 3, Informative

      The map is correct? Each of the for maps use a different definition of Jewish/Palestinian land!

      I don't even know what is the definition of the first map, probably attempt to use private ownership, or maybe the Jewish settlements are in white and everything else is considered Palestinian. The negev desert (bottom half) was largely unpopulated at the time (and very sparsely populated today).

      The second map is of the UN decision, not of anything actually there. The Palestinians didn't accept this decision until 1988, and the result was the Israeli war of independence.

      The Third actually depicts something somewhat meaningful, this are the borders by the end of mentioned war. However, the "Palestinian land" in this map wasn't Palestinian, it was either Jordanian or Egyptian (Gaza was under Egyptian control, the west bank Jordanian), the area didn't have any special status in those countries.

      The fourth map is the result of the Oslo agreement, and it is basically the opposite of the first map. The agreement, since it was supposed to be only a step towards a permanent agreement, established the PA, and gave it control in most Palestinian populated areas. All further discussions between Israel and the PA assumes that these areas will remain under Palestinian control and almost all the occupied territories will be passed to them as well. If you accept the definitions of this map, it is a big step from the situation in 1967-1993, all white map.

      Dreadful source, and in the maps as well (although each map, maybe except the first, can be said to be correct by some definition, comparing them is a lie).

    13. Re:ever greater concessions by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 1

      I have no particular sympathy for either side; if you can provide a better geographic illustration, please do.

      --
      Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
    14. Re:ever greater concessions by cyclomedia · · Score: 1

      Israel has stolen a slab of Jordan too. And Syria, And Lebanon. (Google for citations) And they also think it's fine to raid ships on international waters within the Mediterranean too. I'm wondering, at the past century's rate of growth, how long it'll be before Israel has annexed the whole planet.

      --
      If you don't risk failure you don't risk success.
    15. Re:ever greater concessions by grimJester · · Score: 1

      "'We do not like this suggestion because it does not meet our demands,' Israel's then foreign minister, Tzipi Livni, told the Palestinians"

      Things like right to exist probably aren't in it yet.

      From reading some of the documents, it seems like the settlements Ariel and Ma'ale Adumim are the main things missing. They're fairly detailed and not that far from agreement. An Israeli proposal had 82% of settlers on land ceded to Israel, the Palestinian proposal had 63%. Those two have over 10% of the settlers.

    16. Re:ever greater concessions by yariv · · Score: 1

      I don't have any geographic illustration, but I think trying to reduce the process to a list of maps is not feasible. If you, or anyone else, wants to learn about this subject wikipedia seems like a reasonable starting point. You can find maps there, but they would mean different things, so there is no point in putting them next to each other.

    17. Re:ever greater concessions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suppose if you're going to go to Al Jazeera for reliable information about Israel, you might as well also visit David Icke. It's not like the information is going to get less reliable...

    18. Re:ever greater concessions by omfgnosis · · Score: 1

      It may be that was AC's point, in which case I take back my snotty Bill Hicks quote, but usually when Jordan is used as the retort to a defense of Palestinians, it's because many Zionists assert to this day that *Jordan* is "the Palestinian state". This is often coupled with "your map is missing the rest of the Muslim World" or "your map is missing the rest of the Arab World" or "your map is missing the expulsion of Jews from the rest of the Middle East", all of which are completely beside the point besides being either racist or needlessly reductionist or both.

      Again, if I misinterpreted the AC, I take it back.

    19. Re:ever greater concessions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you mean Israel's right to exist or Palestine's right to exist?

      (Dreadful source, but the map is accurate)

      Holy crap is it a dreadful source. If you click on the link, I implore you to close it immediately following viewing, and not be tempted to think 'What else is in this truth coalition?'

    20. Re:ever greater concessions by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 1

      I don't have any geographic illustration, but I think trying to reduce the process to a list of maps is not feasible.

      You mean to tell me absolutely nobody has a clear idea of what territories have been controlled by Palestinian and Israeli over time? I find that extremely hard to believe, since the UN devotes so much time to the dispute, mostly censuring Israel in the process.

      And on that, I should point out that the Wikipedia article you linked to isn't particularly flattering; while it proves the flaws in the illustration, it confirms that Israel has expanded well beyond it's original UN sanctioned bounds (and annexed territories officially recognised as parts of other sovereign nations). I would submit that the reason no countering illustration is available is not due to information, but because any realistic representation would still be embarrassing to Israel.

      --
      Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
    21. Re:ever greater concessions by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      The map is correct? Each of the for maps use a different definition of Jewish/Palestinian land!

      Because, as the zionist apologists will tell you, there was no Palestinian nation and the area was controlled by various empires. How else would you make a comparison but based on who owned what prior to 1948?

      The Palestinians didn't accept this decision until 1988, and the result was the Israeli war of conquest.

      FTFY. Just as any talk of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons should mention the fact that Israel already has at least 200 warheads, any mention of the UN partition plan should include the fact that it gave less than 40% of the population nearly 60% of the land.

      When the vast majority of that 40% were first generation immigrants. It would be like handing most of Florida over to Cuban immigrants and then feigning surprise when the existing, majority population objected.

    22. Re:ever greater concessions by yariv · · Score: 1

      I'm not going to compare anything to Florida (or anything else, for that matter), but judging by area alone is quite foolish. Most of the area was the negev desert, (this was almost half of the mandate area). It was unpopulated then, it still is unpopulated now. If I was to split Canada to two parts, a strip of width 100km on the southern border, and the rest, the second part will dwarf the first by area. Which part would you prefer? In the proposed map the Palestinian state was supposed to contain most of the useful area, anything but the established Jewish settlements and the desert, more or less (and Jerusalem was supposed to have some special international status. Jerusalem had a small Jewish majority). One more important note, the Palestinian rejection was not a rejection of this map, it was a rejection of any partition plan, this is quite important. Remember the "Three 'No's" of Khartoum (sep. 1967), this was the Palestinian formal approach until 1988, any Jewish state in this area had no right to exist. As for the maps prior to 1948, I would not make any map, since it was meaningless. At most I would make a map of population distribution in two colours, leaving most of it uncoloured. Also regarding those immigrants, they were mainly first generation refugees, the UN decided to use this area to solve the problem of Jewish refugees (both from Europe and from Arabic states), mainly because it seemed feasible. You can oppose this, of course, but which solution would you prefer?

  10. We do not like this suggestion because by unity100 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "we are the the most psychopath right wing coalition that can ever come into being in a country through a democratic process", Tzipi Livni should have said.

    no really, its beyond fathoming, the nature and formation of this ungodly coalition is. my israeli friend (colleague too) says that the exterior minister of this coalition, liebermann, is known as outright mafia in israel. not in a manner of speaking, but, literally. he says the entire coalition is filled with similar right wing zealots and psychos, came to being as a coalition government only through an unholy alliance they have set up among each other after the scattered elections. they, naturally, dont even reflect the true will of the majority of israeli people.

    its no surprise to me to hear these leaks, after being told about the situation in israel and nature of these people by my friend, tho it may be worthy of news to some people.

  11. Farhud by otis+wildflower · · Score: 0

    http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/297544-1

    Worth watching in its entirety to get a good idea what Israel is up against.

    1. Re:Farhud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do realize that NOBODY who was old enough to be in power in 1941 is still in power or likely even living today, right? GET THE FUCK OVER THE DISTANT PAST AND MOVE ON. Fuck, so many of our world's problems come from people feeling wronged about shit that happened before they were ever born.

    2. Re:Farhud by otis+wildflower · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You mean like the Arabs that lost the west bank and gaza during the six day war and the yom kippur war did?

      So we set the marker in the ground only where _YOU_ think we should start over?

    3. Re:Farhud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah, set it in the ground where I think we should start over. Round up every Jew in the Israel and ship them all off to Patagonia. Problem solved. European Jews aren't even descended from Israelites.

    4. Re:Farhud by Skidborg · · Score: 1

      To the victors go the spoils. The Arabs started both those wars and the arabs can live with the consequences.

      --
      Supporter of the +1 Over Dramatic mod option. In memory of apk.
    5. Re:Farhud by Mongoose+Disciple · · Score: 2

      To the victors go the spoils. The Arabs started both those wars and the arabs can live with the consequences.

      ... is what we would say, if we were six years old and/or unfamiliar with the concept of a pyrrhic victory.

    6. Re:Farhud by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 1

      FYI, World War 2 ended 65 years ago. Almost everyone involved is dead.

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    7. Re:Farhud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only thing you prove when you talk about arabs as if it was a single group is how ridiculously biased you are. It's somewhat like saying that if Japan had won the war against the US, it would be ok for them to take over Europe as well because we're all westerners.

    8. Re:Farhud by Smiths · · Score: 1

      The 1967 war was a 'pre-emptive' war.

      Israel attacked first.

      The law is very clear. You do not get to keep territory you take during war, especially not when you attacked first!

      http://open.salon.com/blog/judith_green/2009/01/09/truth_against_truth_the_six_day_war

    9. Re:Farhud by Skidborg · · Score: 1

      I don't you get this: If your ethical system is based on might-makes-right, as is believed throughout most of the middle east, then yes, they have every right to roll into Europe and take that land too.

      That aside, every one of Israel's neighbours is arabic in nature. It's a generalization like saying that "Hitler attacked Europe". A convenient way of stating the fact without listing every country in the area.

      Also, in case you're woefully ignorant of the situation in the middle east: in every major war that Israel has fought and taken land in, the first shots were fired by their enemies on Israeli soil.

      --
      Supporter of the +1 Over Dramatic mod option. In memory of apk.
    10. Re:Farhud by Smiths · · Score: 1

      "in every major war that Israel has fought and taken land in, the first shots were fired by their enemies on Israeli soil."

      oh such disgusting revisionism.

      The Zionists and later the Israelis have had to use violence every step of the way to get their greater Israel...every war but one 1973 was pre-emptively started by Israel.

      the war on the gaza refugees - 2008
      the war on lebanon - 2006
      the occupation of lebanon - 1982
      the bombing of iraq nuke plant - 1981
      the land grab of 1967
      the attack on egypt along with britian and france in order to get the suez canal - 1956
      the unilateral declaration of statehood and destruction of arab villages - 1947/48

      mondoweiss.net

    11. Re:Farhud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      who launched the surprise attack that started that war again. . . ?

    12. Re:Farhud by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      The Arabs started both those wars and the arabs can live with the consequences.

      Wrong. Israel started the 1967 war with a sneak attack on the Egyptian air force. Their stated justification was the Egyptian blockade of the Straits of Tiran - but guess what, slick, that means that attacks on Israel in response to the blockade of Gaza are perfectly justified.

  12. Re: LOL, "End Of Days" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    LOL, "End Of Days":

    Please take your sorry, shitty, flawed, religion and kindly go fuck off and die.

    Internet = the true voice of the people > your corrupt culture that rules by fear, ignorance, and submission.

  13. Seriously, Fuck Israel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Those assholes are the ones who left their land in the first place. Then they come back, get upset that they don't have it, so they start taking it over. When the Palestinians are all like, "hey, we have a right to be here too", the Israeli's tell them to eat shit and die. This conflict has gone on far longer than it should have.

    1. Re:Seriously, Fuck Israel by otis+wildflower · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Actually, if you read your history, you'd know that they were driven out or forced into dhimmitude when Mohammed conquered Jerusalem.

      Additionally, Medina was originally a Jewish city, its name was Hebrew, and Mohammed murdered every Jew there.

      Oh, BTW, Mohammed was also a fucking degenerate child rapist.

    2. Re:Seriously, Fuck Israel by sigzero · · Score: 0

      Seriously, you have *zero* clue about middle-eastern history.

    3. Re:Seriously, Fuck Israel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Didn't realize the JIDF had invaded Slashdot...

    4. Re:Seriously, Fuck Israel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does driven out no longer mean they left?

    5. Re:Seriously, Fuck Israel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I find your post every insulting about Mohammed.
      You didn't go to the effort of drawing a picture of this ;-)

    6. Re:Seriously, Fuck Israel by copponex · · Score: 1

      Actually, if you read your history, you'd know that they were driven out or forced into dhimmitude when Mohammed conquered Jerusalem.

      And if you really knew your history, you'd know the Jews reveled in genocide just as much as any other tribe of their day.

      Oh, BTW, Mohammed was also a fucking degenerate child rapist.

      Shit, I didn't know he was a Catholic priest.

    7. Re:Seriously, Fuck Israel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let me guess, the usual lies don't don't work anymore?

    8. Re:Seriously, Fuck Israel by mr100percent · · Score: 1

      Wrong, wrong, and wrong. How can you put so much incorrectness together?

      First, Muhammad didn't conquer Jerusalem. He died in 632CE, and Jerusalem was conquered in 638CE. Second, there was no driving anyone out; in fact the new Muslim rulers let the Jews back into the city (the previous Christian ruler Heraclius had banned Jews).

      The Rashidun caliph Umar ibn al-Khattab signed a treaty with Monophysite Christian Patriarch Sophronius, assuring him that Jerusalem's Christian holy places and population would be protected under Muslim rule. When led to pray at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, the holiest site for Christians, the caliph Umar refused to pray in the church so that Muslims would not request converting the church to a mosque. He prayed outside the church, where the Mosque of Umar (Omar) stands to this day, opposite the entrance to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.

      As for Medina, no it was not a Jewish city, it was settled by Assyrians and Yemenis before the Jews first arrived in the 2nd Century CE. Second, Muhammad didn't "murder every Jew" like you claim. Many Jews in Medina believed he was the foretold Prophet in their scriptures and converted to Islam, the rest lived under religious freedom according to the Charter of Medina. There's an unsubstantiated story where a Jewish tribe known as the Banu Qurayzah turned on the Muslims, but a Jewish judge Sa'd ibn Mua'dh ordered their execution.

      Lastly, I'm really tired of this false rumor that Muhammad was a child rapist. He was not a pedophile, 1400 years ago the standard was to marry shortly after puberty, women in the family suggested the marriage to him, the marriage was partly political like most marriages of royalty in Europe, they didn't consummate the marriage until she was older, and she was the same age as Mary in the Bible when she married Joseph.

  14. Re:It's not a meme by Omestes · · Score: 4, Informative

    You realize the term "meme" predates its modern usage of describing "LOL cats", and other internet ephemera, right? The guy who coined the term, Richard Dawkins, coined it to explain much larger phenomena, like the evolution of society as a whole, and pretty much all evolving intellectual and sociological phenomena that is not immediately traceable to genetics.

    --
    A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
  15. Israel has the right to exist in peace... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...but not the right to expand by force.

    1. Re:Israel has the right to exist in peace... by hedwards · · Score: 2

      Which is the problem. The Palestinian Authority also has the right to exist, assuming that it can do so peaceably. The view by zealots on both sides that anything other than a 2 state solution or one in which both groups share the same nation is possible is just plain fantasy.

      They lived like that for a long time until the balance was upset by outsiders.

    2. Re:Israel has the right to exist in peace... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The U.S. has clearly set a great example for them over the past hundred years.

    3. Re:Israel has the right to exist in peace... by rhizome · · Score: 1

      Which is the problem. The Palestinian Authority also has the right to exist, assuming that it can do so peaceably

      Oh yes, always the only conditions are those imposed on the Pals.

      --
      When I was a kid, we only had one Darth.
    4. Re:Israel has the right to exist in peace... by timmarhy · · Score: 0

      israel should never have been created it's true and they shouldn't be pushing arab's out of their own land. HOWEVER, the fact that you see not killing other people as some kind of condition imposed on you talks a lot to what a bunch of savages the current palestinian regime is.

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    5. Re:Israel has the right to exist in peace... by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Which is the problem. The Palestinian Authority also has the right to exist, assuming that it can do so peaceably. The view by zealots on both sides that anything other than a 2 state solution or one in which both groups share the same nation is possible is just plain fantasy. They lived like that for a long time until the balance was upset by outsiders.

      When exactly was that? When the area (which at the time included what is now Jordan) was occupied by the British? or before that when it was occupied by the Ottomans? Palestine/Israel has not been a nation since before the Roman Empire occupied the land, and they didn't have a modern understanding of what a nation was then.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    6. Re:Israel has the right to exist in peace... by Skidborg · · Score: 2

      You haven't been to Israel, have you. There are parts of the country where it is illegal for a person of Jewish decent to set foot on pain of death but are open to Palestinians. Nobody of the Jewish faith is allowed to pray on the temple mount. And while Palestinian settlers can pick any valley they want to to build houses in and they don't even have to pay taxes on them, it is illegal for Jewish settlers to do the same on barren, rocky hilltops.

      --
      Supporter of the +1 Over Dramatic mod option. In memory of apk.
    7. Re:Israel has the right to exist in peace... by Rayonic · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ...but not the right to expand by force.

      Every other nation seems to have claimed this right at some point in history. That's basically how most of today's large, well-defined nations formed. At some level it's just humans defeating other humans, and then later saying they're sorry.

      I'm just playing Devil's Advocate here, but it seems like Israel is getting flak for acting in a more humane way than historical standards. Had they just kept the land they won through war and drove everybody out, we might not even be talking about it today. It'd just be another sad footnote.

    8. Re:Israel has the right to exist in peace... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      ...but not the right to expand by force.

      Ok. And yet the original UN partition plan to establish two states, one Arab & one Israeli, was rejected by the Arabs. The Arabs chose war.

      And before the 1967 war, the Arabs continued to attack Israeli.

      Frankly, Arab actions show that they don't want Israel to live in peace under any circumstances.

      Incidentally, Israel never annexed the west bank & gaza or claimed they were part of Israel. Unlike many Arabs who claim all of Israel belongs to them.

    9. Re:Israel has the right to exist in peace... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhh, did you forget the part of history where one nation tried to dominate the entire world, invaded multiple nations, systematically murdered approximately ten million people in death camps, and started a world war that lead to the deaths of over sixty million, including hundreds of thousands that were killed in an instant by two nuclear weapons? How about the part where the entire world got together after that and said "Never Again" and entered into an agreement that made such things, and especially the acquisition of territory by force, impermissable? Yeah, too bad Israel didn't commit all of their crimes before that happened, they might not have taken so much "flak."

    10. Re:Israel has the right to exist in peace... by omfgnosis · · Score: 0

      It's treated as a condition imposed upon Palestinians because no one expects the same of Israel, which not only bears the responsibility for the majority of the violence (both the direct responsibility of engaging in the majority of it as well as the moral responsibility as aggressors) but is the only party with the means to actually prevent it. Apart from the collaborationist PA, which is a US-Israel trained and endorsed counter-insurgency militia that operates in a tiny section of the West Bank, Palestinians have been systematically denied the functional accoutrements of a state that would be necessary to even begin to meet the completely immoral demand that they stifle their own population's resistance to aggression while the aggressors refuse any kind of peace, even that offered by their most belligerent foes.

      Side note: I'm sure you don't realize how appropriate your use of the word "savages" is, but it might be worth thinking about.

    11. Re:Israel has the right to exist in peace... by Smiths · · Score: 1

      What are Israels borders. Does anyone know. According these papers...its all of Palestine...air rights, check points, the Jordan valley...but yet the Israelis they arent responsible for the people who live there...sounds kind of like a batswana to me. Seriously could you imagine the outrage if the Israelis were asked to accept a deal like this?

      forget this two state bull.

      One state. Equal rights for all...I dont see how anyone can say argue against it. Nothing else will work.

    12. Re:Israel has the right to exist in peace... by leromarinvit · · Score: 1

      Nobody of the Jewish faith is allowed to pray on the temple mount.

      To quote the fount of all knowledge: Although freedom of access was enshrined in the law, as a security measure, the Israeli government currently enforce a ban on non-Muslim prayer on the site.

      So it's apparently not the Palestinians who have a problem with Jews praying there.

      And while Palestinian settlers can pick any valley they want to to build houses in and they don't even have to pay taxes on them, it is illegal for Jewish settlers to do the same on barren, rocky hilltops.

      Citation please? The way I keep hearing that story seems to be quite the opposite. Jewish settlers are offered financial incentives (source, source), while the majority of Palestinian building permits are turned down (source).

      A friend of mine visited the West Bank last summer. She worked at a small Palestinian farm which was denied electricity and running water. She saw families who lived in caves because their houses had been torn down and they weren't allowed to build new ones. The village she worked in was ~10km away from the next. What would normally be a 10 minute drive had been turned into a 1 hour journey because the separation wall conveniently deviated from the 1949 border, along which it was supposed to be built, to include a Jewish settlement.

      Yeah, I totally see the Israelis being oppressed here...

      --
      Proud member of the Ferengi Socialist Party.
    13. Re:Israel has the right to exist in peace... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To quote the fount of all knowledge [wikimedia.org]: Although freedom of access was enshrined in the law, as a security measure, the Israeli government currently enforce a ban on non-Muslim prayer on the site. So it's apparently not the Palestinians who have a problem with Jews praying there.

      Which was his point. The israeli government is oppressive to everyone, not just the palestinians.

      She worked at a small Palestinian farm which was denied electricity and running water. She saw families who lived in caves because their houses had been torn down and they weren't allowed to build new ones. The village she worked in was ~10km away from the next.

      There are jewish farmers in the same condition because of the withdrawal from the gaza strip.

    14. Re:Israel has the right to exist in peace... by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Ok. And yet the original UN partition plan to establish two states, one Arab & one Israeli, was rejected by the Arabs.

      As they should have. The partition plan gave less than 40% of the population (the vast majority of whom were immigrants) almost 60% of the land. Funny how you left that part out.

      And before the 1967 war, the Arabs continued to attack Israeli.

      Also funny how you left out who started the 1967 war and for what reasons. Hint: it was Israel. And their stated reason was a blockade. Which means that according to Israeli logic, military attacks in response to the blockade of Gaza are perfectly justified.

    15. Re:Israel has the right to exist in peace... by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      I'm just playing Devil's Advocate here, but it seems like Israel is getting flak for acting in a more humane way than historical standards.

      Yes, standards. We operate under far different ones today, which make Israel the Biff Tannen of the Middle East. Romans invading Carthage and salting their fields might have been cool 150 BC, not so much now.

  16. Re:palestinians bending backwards... by MrHanky · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yeah, except they were willing to give up parts of their own land, and you didn't bother to read the story since it doesn't fit your moronic prejudices.

  17. Re: LOL, "End Of Days" by mug+funky · · Score: 1

    Internet = astroturf, banner ads, malware, lots of porn, more malware, torrents, lolcats and the true voice of the people.

    and memes. lots of them.

  18. Re:It's not a meme by countertrolling · · Score: 1

    Everything is a meme, and everybody is an avatar.

    Of course you are my bright little star,
    I've miles and miles of files
    Pretty files of your forefather's fruit
    and now to suit
    our great computer,
    You're magnetic ink.

    --
    For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
  19. Re:palestinians bending backwards... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    RTFA you Fucking Moron. Seriously, get your head out of your ass and fucking READ IT. The Palestinians are the ones doing all the giving here, Israel is still WAY outside it's fucking borders, but stupid fucking racist retarded cunts like you are the reason it can get away with it.

    One day in the future we'll all be saddened that Israel was the child of ethnic cleansing and racism, and chose instead of becoming a beacon to inflict misery upon a new set of innocents.

  20. LIAR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You were willing and happy at the time.

  21. Re:palestinians bending backwards... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    both sides = crazy weirdos

    The US should NOT be helping Israel in this mess.

  22. Re:It has been said many times by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It seems it does not negotiate at all.

  23. Re:palestinians bending backwards... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    al-Jazeera, your source for objective leak cherry-picking.

  24. Re:palestinians bending backwards... by theVarangian · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    RTFA you Fucking Moron. Seriously, get your head out of your ass and fucking READ IT. The Palestinians are the ones doing all the giving here, Israel is still WAY outside it's fucking borders, but stupid fucking racist retarded cunts like you are the reason it can get away with it. One day in the future we'll all be saddened that Israel was the child of ethnic cleansing and racism, and chose instead of becoming a beacon to inflict misery upon a new set of innocents.

    Isn't it just amazing how the elegance, persuasiveness and logical soundness of an argument grows exponentially every time the author works another vulgar expletive into it?

  25. Re: LOL, "End Of Days" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If the the internet is really the voice of the people, then perhaps extinction isn't such a bad thing. The internet is a sewer.

  26. Re:palestinians bending backwards... by doshell · · Score: 0

    and by absolutely not destroy them...they mean, hey, let's have a bit of peace, for now at least, we still don't recognize your right to exist, and hey we might try to annihilate you AGAIN in the future, like we tried to do in '48 and '53 and '67 and '73 and so forth...you know those wars when we original lost the land...but for now...hey let's all just get along.

    Are you talking about Palestine or Israel? Because, you know, apart from the specific years you quoted, your discourse would totally apply to the other side of the conflict.

    --
    Score: i, Imaginary
  27. Wikileaks Greatest Contribution To Society by definate · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's independent of Wikileaks and came to light via al-Jazeera, showing perhaps that the mega-leak meme is here to stay whatever happens to Assange.

    I think history will find that Wikileaks and by association Julian Assanges greatest contribution to the world, will not necessarily be the Wikileaks service, but helping to cultivate a greater culture of leaking, by showing that it can be done effectively, and that your message will be heard.

    Now that, is something extremely valuable, that's almost impossible to be taken away.

    --
    This is my footer. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    1. Re:Wikileaks Greatest Contribution To Society by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 1

      You know leaks of this nature have existed for a long, long time, right?

      Assange didn't contribute much, it was simply a new forum for the same old thing.

      Seriously, why is that every time some old concept is suddenly "on the internet" it's suddenly groundbreaking and world changing?

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
    2. Re:Wikileaks Greatest Contribution To Society by definate · · Score: 1

      I know. He/They contributed so little, that he/they aren't in the news regularly, nor have more documents than ever been leaked, nor have they gained more attention than before.

      You're right.

      </Sarcasm>

      It being on the internet doesn't particularly matter, but it being a centralize location, providing the privacy and safety to leak your data, makes it easy for people to leak documents.

      There is no way you could be looking at the recent history of Wikileaks and say "Yeah, nothings changed, services like this aren't helpful".

      --
      This is my footer. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    3. Re:Wikileaks Greatest Contribution To Society by fishexe · · Score: 1

      It's independent of Wikileaks and came to light via al-Jazeera, showing perhaps that the mega-leak meme is here to stay whatever happens to Assange.

      I think history will find that Wikileaks and by association Julian Assanges greatest contribution to the world, will not necessarily be the Wikileaks service, but helping to cultivate a greater culture of leaking, by showing that it can be done effectively, and that your message will be heard.

      Just wait until there are so many leaks everybody gets bored with them and flips back to American Idol the moment newscasters say the word "leak"

      --
      "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
    4. Re:Wikileaks Greatest Contribution To Society by definate · · Score: 1

      I'm not so sure.

      I am generally pessimistic about a positive change like this, but having a centralized repository, makes releasing the information more competitive.

      This means that given they see any value in the information, or how its being released, the news outlets will fight over being first, and with any luck this will provide momentum.

      Either way, it's just another option, and while we can have too much information, I'd rather err on the side of that, than too little.

      --
      This is my footer. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    5. Re:Wikileaks Greatest Contribution To Society by Threni · · Score: 1

      Exactly. It's papers such as the Guardian who are publicising this. The wikileaks site has been down more than up for the last few months. Wikileaks got all this stuff from Manning, and they've been a little slow in compensating/helping him as agreed.

      More details at www.cryptome.org

    6. Re:Wikileaks Greatest Contribution To Society by fishexe · · Score: 1

      Either way, it's just another option, and while we can have too much information, I'd rather err on the side of that, than too little.

      Yeah, me too, I was just being facetious. I do think the masses will eventually stop caring and start considering leaks "boring" but it's still an asset when the people who still care and want to act have access to the information.

      --
      "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
  28. Wiki site by ew5engineer · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    This is an invitation to all to check out www.merlinslibrary.com, a wiki site where you can upload all your favorite links to help each other find good sites. All you need to do is just find the appropriate topic or create a new article and upload the link. It's that easy! So check out www.merlinslibrary.com

  29. Re:It's not a meme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Give yourself a peanut for being a jeenyus. You've just defined it to be so broad as to have no meaning.

  30. Re:palestinians bending backwards... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Right now it doea not matter that they lost the war and it does not matter that they were in the right to defend their own land. Israel will just wipe them and in a few decades we will start to see that his was just another mindless massacre. Maybe we can give the survivors some other land chosen at random on a map. Some african country where they do not have civil war yet.

  31. Re:We do not like this suggestion because by hedwards · · Score: 1

    The only thing in that which is even the slightest bit shocking is that the Israelis know Lieberman to be full of it.

    I think most Israelis know that building settlements in the disputed territories isn't helping the cause of piece and is certainly provoking further attacks. I think they also realize that unnecessary provocation isn't going to serve their interests in the long term. Whether they're more aware of that or scared of the FUD is not something I have any clue about.

  32. well by unity100 · · Score: 1

    my friend told me that actually even that psycho coalition is trying to get rid of liebermann, because he is way 'far out' in his radicalness. but, so far have not been able to.

  33. The good thing about moving Israelis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is that it would be a carte blanche to expel all immigrants from Europe.

    If a lifetime in an area is insufficient to get such an attachment that you cannot be removed from it, then spending 5-6 years as an asylum seeker on the run is a laughably short time to get any short of attachment.

  34. Re:palestinians bending backwards... by pspahn · · Score: 1

    Hell fuckin' yea!!!

    --
    Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
  35. Not hard at all. Make small changes & publish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not that hard at all. Get the documents. Make important but small changes. Publish. Call the next guy to publish a liar. Really - how hard is that. remember that changing just one word changes, "that's not easy." to "that's easy." I cannot find the reference, but I believe a war was either fought or almost fought because of a missing comma.

  36. Re:palestinians bending backwards... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It doesn't matter because no one in the palestinian side has enough authority to make any concession. It would be irrational to sign a peace agreement with someone who cannot speak in the name of the whole palestinian people. Even if the Hamas also signed these agreement, new movements would be created and start denouncing the agreements. We could discuss what is the moral thing to do but the rational thing to do for Israel is to sign no agreement with the palestinians as the palestinian leaders party to the agreement would just get replaced by hardliners in a matter of weeks.

  37. Oh joy: by Hartree · · Score: 1

    As if a left/right=Rebublican/Democrat flame war wasn't enough.

    Let's drag in one of the most vicious, long running and intractable disputes in the world.

    This should be good for a few hundred highly polarized replies. ;)

    1. Re:Oh joy: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True, this is classic Slashdot flamebait.

      But the comments all seem to be polarised one way.

      Try to find one - just one - that supports Israel and hasn't been modded down to invisibility.

    2. Re:Oh joy: by Hartree · · Score: 1

      How about:

      http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1963090&cid=34978270

      Currently modded at +5 informative.

  38. Re:We do not like this suggestion because by operagost · · Score: 0, Troll

    Yeah, and my sister's friend's hairdresser says that Jews drink the blood of children!

    --

    Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  39. Sure....great.... by bussdriver · · Score: 1

    Lets just separate them for 100s of years until they cool down... 2 nations with a big wall.... that will work! We just have to get them to agree where to put the wall ;-) How about along the legal borders? oh...wait...

    1. Re:Sure....great.... by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      I didn't claim that my idea was practical...

    2. Re:Sure....great.... by camperdave · · Score: 1

      The wall isn't along the legal border, which is part of the problem.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  40. Re:double win by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    lol what? Truth hurts? Is Kleenix still made in America?

  41. Re:It's not a meme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You realize the term "meme" predates its modern usage of describing "LOL cats", and other internet ephemera, right? The guy who coined the term, Richard Dawkins, coined it to explain much larger phenomena, like the evolution of society as a whole, and pretty much all evolving intellectual and sociological phenomena that is not immediately traceable to genetics.

    Actually, you are both wrong. The English word "meme" has its roots in the French word "même".

  42. Solution for Middle East Peace by Greyfox · · Score: 1

    Lock the Palestinians and the Israels in a room with some bricks. The winner (the ones who come out of the room on their own) get to stay there, the losers have to move to Utah. You're welcome! Nobel Prize, please!

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    1. Re:Solution for Middle East Peace by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      You are not far off. Let both sides fight it out with anybody else who wants to play allowed to join in. When one side gives up, whatever the borders are at that moment, those are the borders. The only way there will be peace in the Middle East is if they have a full blown war that ends when one side is completely worn out. If that side is Israel, there will be no more Jews in the Middle East. If that side is the Arabs (because this is not just about the Palestinians--there were no "Palestinians" when this started), Israel will control all of the land between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River plus a chunk of what is now Lebanon and Syria. It would be interesting to see how it played out if both sides were allowed to take the gloves off completely. I think Israel might nuke Mecca at some point.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
  43. The leak is fake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ask yourself who benefits from these allegations. How can these papers claim that the PLO offered most of Jerusalem to Israel when no less than a year earlier Olmert offered *them* most of Jerusalem? What these papers claim is completely illogical.

    Hamas and their supporters leaked these fabricated papers in other to simultaneously smear the Palestinian Authority and Israel. What better way to kill two birds with one stone?

    All this talk about settlements, territorial concessions and refugees are all a distraction. The real conflict is about religion and oil. You won't see peace in the middle-east until *those* topics are discussed.

    Ask yourself why Muslims were slaughtering Jews in Israel as far back as 1929: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1929_Hebron_massacre

  44. Re:palestinians bending backwards... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's there because as long as the islamists are busy bombing israel, they're not bombing us. In the current situation, Israel is the ennemy of our ennemies so we support them.

  45. Compare and contrast by dkleinsc · · Score: 2

    Al Jazeera

    New York Times

    Any question on why Americans and Arabs have completely different perceptions of the same conflict?

    --
    I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    1. Re:Compare and contrast by Smiths · · Score: 1

      Ethan Bronner the NY Times to Mid-east reporter has a son in the IDF.

      Everything Americans know about the Middle East has been described to them from a biased source...just look at their movies

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mi1ZNEjEarw

  46. Re:It's not a meme by moonbender · · Score: 1

    Actually, he didn't offer any kind of definition.

    --
    Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
  47. Re:palestinians bending backwards... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't it just amazing how the elegance, persuasiveness and logical soundness of an argument grows exponentially every time the author works another vulgar expletive into it?

    Yep. Look at how his argument weakens when you substitute more genteel phrasing:

    RTFA my good friend. Seriously, get your glasses out and carefully READ IT. The Palestinians are the ones doing all the giving here, Israel is still WAY outside it's original borders, but tragically misinformed and deceived observers like you are the reason it can get away with it.

    One day in the future we'll all be saddened that Israel was the child of ethnic cleansing and racism, and chose instead of becoming a beacon to inflict misery upon a new set of innocents.

  48. Re:Jews: 3,700 years of not living cooperatively by pcolaman · · Score: 0

    nice AC post...coward. And I guess Hitler killing millions of Jews was their fault too, eh?

  49. Re:palestinians bending backwards... by phantomfive · · Score: 0

    I read the story, and I didn't see Palestine offer the one thing that will force Israel to compromise: a credible commitment to peace.

    There are a lot of different groups in Israel who want a lot of different things; some want to keep or expand the settlements, but the vast majority want safety in their country. As long as the Palestinians can't promise to leave them alone, Israel will not let them go. Once Palestine commits to peace, Israel will not be able to keep them.

    The quotes in the article really did make the Palestinians look weak. Hillary Clinton says the Palestinians are "always in a chapter of a Greek tragedy." The fact is they really don't have any power in the situation, which is why we feel sorry for them, but as soon as they gain a little power, they use it to attack Israel. Not good. We've seen this in the Gaza strip. It's a miserable situation, but it is part of a pattern seen throughout the middle east.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  50. Re:Jews: 3,700 years of not living cooperatively by Supurcell · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Try replacing "Jews" with any group. Most social groups are incapable of seeing their own shortcomings.

  51. Re:Jews: 3,700 years of not living cooperatively by KugelKurt · · Score: 5, Interesting

    And I guess Hitler killing millions of Jews was their fault too, eh?

    If you ask an ultra orthodox Jew, you might even get a Yes as answer. A minority opinion among them is that European Jews were punished by god for not living orthodox.
    (Just to be clear: I don't agree with that. I merely wanted to answer your question.)

  52. Re:We do not like this suggestion because by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Israeli politics has its share of problems, of that I have no doubt.

    What I *do* doubt is the word of your Israeli friend. Let me put it this way: there is a strong left-wing leaning in Israeli culture. The Israeli courts are pretty much all left of center. The government itself swings from left-wing to right-wing over the years, as do governments of many countries around the world. What I dislike very much is how left-wing people (by the sound of it, your friend being one of them) categorize anyone to the right of their political views as "zealots and psychos" and right-wing people categorize anyone to the left of their political views as "traitors". Neither accusation holds water.

    If Lieberman really had mafia connections, as you allege, evidence of it would have come out by now and he'd be out of the government. The left-wing courts would be more than happy to oblige. It might interest you to know that every single political party (whether on the left or right) had similar accusations leveled at them. Most of it is just political mudslinging.

    I wish people would stop treating foreign countries as 3rd-world countries. Every single country in the world has its share of problems. What matters is that we act in good faith and do our best to make the world a better place.

  53. Re:Jews: 3,700 years of not living cooperatively by KugelKurt · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Um, there were no Jews 3,700 years ago. A monotheistic religion that would later become Judaism was just getting started. Even the first "proto Jews" weren't strictly monotheistic (the Hebrew Bible / Old Testament contains fragments of polytheism, eg. Psalm 82) which -- at least by today's standards -- would not qualify them as Jews...

    As for your Pharaoh comment: There is not a single piece of archeological evidence that hundreds of thousands of people migrated away from Egypt and wandered through the desert for 40 years.
    So either the Exodus never happened and the story is just made up or the ancient people of Israel were the cleanest people ever by not leaving any pottery, weapons, etc. behind....

  54. Extreme action advice (instead of suicide bombing) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Quick word of advice to anyone who may be reading this and has reached the point at which the injustice is more important than their life.

    Suicide bombings are a very poor way to attempt to gain a measure of justice. They only give Israel further justification for their action and provides distraction for the rest of the world (and that doesn't take much) from the continual strangulation of the Palestinian people.

    A much more effective approach would be public self-immolation recorded on video for broadcasting along with an explanatory note of the no-hope situation underlying the act. The unimaginableness of this makes it something that cannot be ignored. It leaves people no distracting details like they killed all these people, and instead forces them to confront the depth of despair and hopelessness that necessarily exists behind such an act.

    I would also give the same advice to any Israel whose life has become meaningless suffering under the continual oppression by the Palestinian people, except I really don't believe their would be any of them that desperate, and I believe that says something about the situation.

  55. Re:It's not a meme by twebb72 · · Score: 1

    He didn't offer a definition because Wikipedia is not a dictionary!

  56. Re:It's not a meme by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 1

    Hey, quit forcing your education on others! That's not cool man!

    --
    Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
  57. Re:We do not like this suggestion because by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 1

    I can't read your post because your lack of capitalization makes me angry.

    It's hard to describe, but I get the feeling that someday somebody is going to write another illiterate post like yours and I'm going to snap, find out where they live, and gouge their eyes out.

    Anyway, whatever you said, I'm sure it made sense.

    --
    Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
  58. Re:palestinians bending backwards... by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 1

    But they aren't willing to give up the parts that Israel wanted. Israel doesn't care about the rest of it. Of course, the Palestinians aren't willing to give up that particular bit of land either, for the exact same reasons as the Israelis.

    They are both doing exactly the same thing for exactly the same reasons, but Israel is in the stronger position so they naturally look like the bad guy. The truth is if the Israelis were less civil they would have driven the Palestinians out by force a long time ago. Instead they have been adamant but patient about getting what they want, occasionally fighting skirmishes with them instead of just blowing them all to hell and back, like they are completely capable of.

    --
    Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
  59. Re:how the Jews (Israel) has come full circle by Wumpus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's actually a lot more complicated than that. My advice when people ask me about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is that if you think either side is right, it's because you don't know anything. Spend any time really studying the issues and you realize that there's nothing but shades of grey in this conflict.

  60. except for state welfare for ultra-orthodox by SuperBanana · · Score: 5, Interesting

    , I'd say they're probably more secular than the US in reality,

    They have complete freedom of religion

    Riiiight. Pay no attention to the fact that TWO THIRDS of ultra-orthodox men live on welfare and don't work (and amongst the women, 50% don't work, whereas 25% in general Israeli population don't.) If you elect to go into such studies, the government gives you automatic welfare AND excuses you from military service (where it is ordinarily compulsory) AND gives you a complete tax break.

    Did I mention that these ultra-orthodox freeloaders are causing most of the upheaval and supporting hard-line policies? And multiplying like rabbits, marrying young and having huge families?

    If that's "Secular", then I guess you'd be OK with the federal government giving welfare to people who decide to become ultra-right-wing Christians?

    1. Re:except for state welfare for ultra-orthodox by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      If you elect to go into such studies, the government gives you automatic welfare AND excuses you from military service (where it is ordinarily compulsory) AND gives you a complete tax break.

      So .... just like the US, then?

      Come to think of it, I can't think of any nation where approved religions don't get automatic welfare. I'm not saying I support that - far from it - I just don't see how classifying every nation as non-secular would help. Ideally, I'd like to see all churches everywhere start paying taxes, and stop receiving perks (like being exempt from the draft). But to claim that a nation is non-secular because it provides some allowances for certain religions is silly, and expecting it to change any time soon is even more so.

    2. Re:except for state welfare for ultra-orthodox by JoshuaZ · · Score: 1

      Did I mention that these ultra-orthodox freeloaders are causing most of the upheaval and supporting hard-line policies?

      Most of what you said is correct but this is just wrong. Much of the ultra-orthodox population doesn't think that there should be a Jewish state until the messiah comes. They care more about their welfare funding and will form a government with whomever promises them more money. The religious group that generally supports hard line policies is the dati leumi (literally, religious nationalists) who are religiously moderates.

    3. Re:except for state welfare for ultra-orthodox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please site your statistics...

      oh wait, this is slashdot. Never mind. We make it up on the spot.

    4. Re:except for state welfare for ultra-orthodox by EvilBudMan · · Score: 1

      --If that's "Secular", then I guess you'd be OK with the federal government giving welfare to people who decide to become ultra-right-wing Christians?--

      That might be better than AIG, etc.

    5. Re:except for state welfare for ultra-orthodox by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Facepalm. Tax exempt != direct subsidy from taxpayers.

  61. Re:Jews: 3,700 years of not living cooperatively by Pstrobus · · Score: 1

    As for your Pharaoh comment: There is not a single piece of archeological evidence that hundreds of thousands of people migrated away from Egypt and wandered through the desert for 40 years.
    So either the Exodus never happened and the story is just made up or the ancient people of Israel were the cleanest people ever by not leaving any pottery, weapons, etc. behind....

    Or perhaps their culture (nomadic shepherds) did not have much to leave behind? Seriously, we have stuff on the scythians because of their burial mounds which we wouldn't have found if they didn't build giant kurgans as markers. Without the graves and military accounts of them we'd have nothing on them either, of course, the old accounts also describe Amazon warriors.

    Also, there was significant trade throughout the area and the egyptian styles were pervasive for instance, there were egyptian outposts near the Dead Sea. Trade moved both ways and in order to prove the presence or absence of group A there would have to be a definable style different from the trade. The proto Jews came from an Egyptian context which means that their material culture would be diverging from egyptian and 40 years is not a long time for divergence.

    And yes, the hundreds of thousands is hyperbole, but you knew that already.

    --
    "The conduct of neither [party], if strictly examined, will be irreproachable." -Elizabeth Bennet
  62. Re:We do not like this suggestion because by wpi97 · · Score: 1

    Is this the only Israeli friend you have? If you talk to another Israeli you are likely to get a diametrically opposite opinion. There are over 30 political parties in Israel, a country of 7 million people. Also, you really should see what Lieberman has to say before calling him "psycho".

  63. Re:Extreme action advice (instead of suicide bombi by ibsteve2u · · Score: 1

    A much more effective approach would be public self-immolation recorded on video for broadcasting along with an explanatory note of the no-hope situation underlying the act. The unimaginableness of this makes it something that cannot be ignored.

    Oh, I don't know...the "hard right" has devolved. Our right - America's, that is, for the international viewer - would never have dared to lie us into a war once upon a time. Now I fear they would think something like "Another Muslim devil gone..." after glancing at a picture similar to the Buddhist priest of lore in Vietnam and turn to the funny pages.

    And Israel's hard right? They have devolved even faster.

    --
    Orwell: "In a Time of Universal Deceit, telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act"
  64. Re:Jews: 3,700 years of not living cooperatively by ProfessionalCookie · · Score: 5, Funny

    vi users? *Ducks*

  65. Re:It's not a meme by fishexe · · Score: 0

    The "correcting people who think 'meme' is some kind of internet slang" is clearly alive and well. Keep it strong, it may someday save us all (from devolution into /b/tards).

    --
    "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
  66. Re:It's not a meme by fishexe · · Score: 0

    The "correcting people who think 'meme' is some kind of internet slang" meme is clearly alive and well. Keep it strong, it may someday save us all (from devolution into /b/tards).

    (my other post clearly shows I'm part of the devolution)

    --
    "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
  67. Re:It's not a meme by fishexe · · Score: 1

    Please, Internet, stop trying to force your sorry culture on the real world. This has nothing to do with memes.

    Yeah, one person leaking some stuff and then inspiring another person to leak some stuff has nothing to do with "ideas or beliefs that are transmitted from one person or group of people to another" and "spread through the behaviors that they generate in their hosts." Nothing whatsoever. Totally different things.

    --
    "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
  68. Re:It's not a meme by fishexe · · Score: 0

    You realize the term "meme" predates its modern usage of describing "LOL cats", and other internet ephemera, right? The guy who coined the term, Richard Dawkins, coined it to explain much larger phenomena, like the evolution of society as a whole, and pretty much all evolving intellectual and sociological phenomena that is not immediately traceable to genetics.

    Actually, you are both wrong. The English word "meme" has its roots in the French word "même".

    But it was Dawkins who made it an English word. Yes, he partly based it on the French word même, but that doesn't make it wrong to say he "coined" it, because it wasn't an English word prior to him making it so.

    --
    "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
  69. Re:Jews: 3,700 years of not living cooperatively by meerling · · Score: 3, Funny

    Ducks and Beavers have their little tiffs, why do you think the yearly game between them is referred to as the 'civil war'.

  70. Re:palestinians bending backwards... by fishexe · · Score: 2

    I read the story, and I didn't see Palestine offer the one thing that will force Israel to compromise: a credible commitment to peace.

    What exactly would they have to offer that you would find a "credible commitment"?

    --
    "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
  71. Re:Extreme action advice (instead of suicide bombi by Skidborg · · Score: 1

    I suspect any jewish Israelis who would take you up on your offer would be doing because of the oppression of their own government. Living in Israel isn't fun for anyone.

    Jews are not the problem in Israel, neither are the Palestinians. The largest problem is governing bodies on both sides with short-sighted goals and a desire for power that eclipses any compassion for the people they are ruling over.

    The other problem is meddling from outside rulers who think they know the right solution for a complex situation after spending mere hours being briefed on it.

    --
    Supporter of the +1 Over Dramatic mod option. In memory of apk.
  72. The containment wall by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    greatly reduced number of suicide bombings by palestinians in Israeli cities.

    --
    sorry- too lazy to create an account.

    1. Re:The containment wall by dread · · Score: 0

      greatly reduced number of suicide bombings by palestinians in Israeli cities.

      --
      sorry- too lazy to create an account.

      Correlation != causality.

      How hard is this to remember when you hear talking points like this one?

      --
      I've had a wonderful time, but this wasn't it -- Groucho Marx
    2. Re:The containment wall by Micklat · · Score: 1
      You're right, correlation isn't causality. But the evidence is stronger than mere one-time correlation.

      In a March 23, 2008 interview, Palestinian Islamic Jihad leader Ramadan Abdallah Shalah complained to the Qatari newspaper Al-Sharq that the separation barrier "limits the ability of the resistance to arrive deep within [Israeli territory] to carry out suicide bombing attacks, but the resistance has not surrendered or become helpless, and is looking for other ways to cope with the requirements of every stage" of the intifada.[36]

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_West_Bank_barrier#Effects_on_Israeli_security

    3. Re:The containment wall by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, there's no peace like genocide after all.

    4. Re:The containment wall by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Problem with that reasoning: the wall doesn't prevent Qassam rockets, yet Hamas has stopped firing those as well as suicide bombings.

    5. Re:The containment wall by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And why do you suppose Hamas (mostly) stopped firing rockets as well as the suicide bombings? Do you reckon that Hamas became a peace-seeking organization, that it abandoned its proclaimed goals of establishing an Islamic state over the whole land, and eliminating all of its Jewish inhabitants in the process, as explicitly proclaimed in its charter? Where might be further evidence of such a fortunate development? Or might it possibly be related to these facts:
      1. both Gaza and the west bank are surrounded by walls
      2. the west bank is effectively controlled by the PLO and the IDF
      3. Israel has established effective deterrence through multiple military operations
      How would you go about determining which explanation better suits the evidence? might correlation be a useful instrument in testing these hypotheses?

  73. Re:Jews: 3,700 years of not living cooperatively by Schlacht · · Score: 1

    It is most interesting that I find this Jews:3700 thread to be most interesting by the two extremists ...

    If we were to put together a metaphysical based Hollywood style story of battling gods and surviving heroes you could easily imagine the super-race of Jews. Put on this world to enlighten the world with their discoveries, superior mental facilities, wit and focus - only to be thwarted in life's game of survival by lacking the strategic understanding that cooperative and harmonic relations with neighbors and competitors alike is necessary for survival. Otherwise banished to wander the globe or battle for one little corner of the earth to call home.

    But that's just Hollywood, it couldn't have any real value...

    --
    rm -rf ms/*
  74. Truth wants to be free by natoochtoniket · · Score: 1

    The truth wants to be free. When the old media is full of lies and propaganda, the truth finds other outlets. This is not something that can be stopped or controlled. It will just happen, as it has just happened in previous generations.

    By trying to stop it, the government and the old media (newspapers, radio, and TV) are merely contributing to the problem. By attacking wikileaks with silly trumped-up charges, they have not stopped anything. They have only guaranteed that the new media will develop diversity of paths.

    Individuals who have knowledge, even documents, that they believe should be made public, will always find a way to do so. Before the "news" media became consolidated and controlled, they would just send it to the Washington Post or some other newspaper. Now, they will publish it themselves.

  75. The two world wars by KingAlanI · · Score: 1

    I tended to see WWI as a stalemate that the Americans helped the Allies tip the balance of; it may have ground down in the Germans' favor in an alternate timeline.
    I can also see a isolationist US continuing to be that way sans a Pearl Harbor; WWII in Europe would depend on whether Britain can hold out like they did in reality, who breaks Molotov-Ribbentrop and how, and whether & how Japan actually wants to tangle with the USSR or vice versa.

    Yeah yeah, too many variables.

    --
    I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
  76. Re:It's not a meme by meerling · · Score: 0

    chill, most people think 'leet' and txt slang was invented for the net or cell phones. In actuality both are just more modern dialects of the old code-speak.
    Code-speak was used by programmers and other hackers to imbed messages in programming and media. It usually wasn't viewable unless you used a hexeditor to look at the actual code. Most of the 'wierdness' of it's spelling was because of the massive memory limitations of the day. (Your program or computer memory might have been measured in bytes. Just bytes, no gig, no meg, no k, just bytes.) And this was the early 80s when I encountered it, and it probably goes back to the days of big iron.

    And that's the useless history lesson for today, living languages aren't static things, everything about them change.
    Learn it, accept it, live it, or die stupid and ignorant, your choice.

  77. Re:Jews: 3,700 years of not living cooperatively by silentcoder · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "of course, the old accounts also describe Amazon warriors."

    You do realize that there is significant evidence that at least part of the Amazon myth is based on reality right ? Genetic evidence at that. Based on the oldest writings about them - they had entered Europe and Greece from the Russian Steppes to which they later returned. In the steppes are Burial Mounds in which were found the bodies of woman with the adornments of warriors. That's already a big hint.
    It gets better, we know for a fact that the people who lived in those parts of the steppes later migrated from Russia toward Asia - and were the ancestors of Genghis Kahn's hordes. To this day their descendants expect women to fight as well as men - and here it gets really interesting. A small minority of Mongol children are born as blonds, and as far as we know - it's only EVER daughters. Apparently suggesting a female-only gene that causes blondness in a small minority. Genetic testing of some of them found a clear mitochondrial DNA link (that is maternal only) with the bodies found in the Steppes.

    It's not absolute, nothing in science ever really is - and less so in archeology because evidence is *always* incredibly sparse, but right now the evidence we do have, suggests that at least part of the amazon legend as written by the first Greek historians was, in fact, true.

    --
    Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
  78. Re:Jews: 3,700 years of not living cooperatively by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I know. They should realize how much better Vim is.

  79. Cancel their Mastercard/Visa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    More media leaking documents. Seems like vi need to cancel al-Jazeera and the Guardians Visa and Mastercard accounts.

  80. Re:palestinians bending backwards... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When Israeli declared statehood, the Palestinians did not, and their land was absorbed by Egypt and Jordan. The '67 war, in which Israel actually annexed the disputed territory, was started by these (and other) countries. The Palestinians has no voice in this, since they were basically second class citizens.

    (In fact, even this is not strictly true, since _Israel_ actually started the '67 war--but with good justification, since all intelligence confirmed that Israel's neighbors were about to attack, and there was a massive Arab troop buildup on Israel's borders.)

    I'm Israeli. I'm glad you are on "our" team, but comments like yours are ignorant, and only aggravate the situation.

  81. Re:Jews: 3,700 years of not living cooperatively by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    vi users? *Ducks*

    vi users are not ducks, you insensitive clod!

  82. Re:Jews: 3,700 years of not living cooperatively by mabhatter654 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you go back and read the same Bible most of the West does, you'd see the Jews are constantly their own worst enemy.... they rise to the occasion under extreme suffering, only to wallow in the gutter when everything goes their way. It's like a micro cell of humanity... it's happened before, it will happen again... 60 years ago somebody tried to exterminate one part of their ethnic group, yet they can't have any kind of grace or honor with people lesser than them. It's straight out of Dickenson where somebody with everything claims injury because they had to clean a little poor kids guts off their carriage and it ruined their day.

    The problem is that most of the "Jews" that ended up in Israel after WW2 would best be termed "carpet baggers". Most of them were from other well-to do places. It was founded as a "fairy tale" religious state... like if Pat Robertson and Dick Cheney had their own country. I think part of why Americans are starting to find it so vulgar is that it mirrors what the Americans did to the Indians not that long ago... and they're starting to realize it was a mistake.

    From a purely "biblical" point of view, the land being squabbled over is the same land Israel failed to take back in the time of King David and the Philistines. There is a prophesy that it would NEVER be their land... and 4000 years later it's still the case. They are trying to take land their OWN religious text says they won't ever get.... They're trying to starve them out, to cheat on their peace treaties, etc, etc. when 60 years ago those people were just "folks" of the land. In ANY western country (like Bosnia, Serbia, Kosovo, etc) we'd call out Israel for "Ethnic Purges" which is exactly what they're doing. It's high time they stop getting a free pass to randomly execute residents of their country... we overthrew Saddam for the same kind of crap.

    Babylon, Persia, Greece, Rome, Crusaders.... all gave the jewish people a chance to participate in their cultures, then wiped them out... then the next guy gave them another chance, rinse n repeat. The UK/USA is another in a long line of big world players that felt the Jewish people earned great respect.... watch them squander it all just as fast!!!

    My opinion is that in the next 5-10 years Israel is going to step over the line with Iran and the US will have to put them down for their own good (and to save our own face with the UN), wipe out all the stuff we've sold them... or 8 other countries will try to wipe them out. Iran is playing a game of talking big, but being careful not to actually violate any international laws, while at the same time stepping up response to minor violations on their own borders. It's a clever game to talk smack, but make sure the other guy throws the first punch. Russia and China have too much invested in Iran to let the US knock it over too... I think those two would hit the veto button on any military action against them.

  83. Re:We do not like this suggestion because by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, lets see what Avigdor Lieberman has had to say.

    # In 1998, Lieberman called for the flooding of Egypt by bombing the Aswan Dam in retaliation for Egyptian support for Yasser Arafat.
    # In 2001, as Minister of National Infrastructure, Lieberman proposed that the West Bank be divided into four cantons, with no central Palestinian government and no possibility for Palestinians to travel between the cantons.
    # In 2002, the Israeli daily Yedioth Ahronoth quoted Lieberman in a Cabinet meeting saying that the Palestinians should be given an ultimatum that "At 8am we'll bomb all the commercial centers ... at noon we'll bomb their gas stations ... at two we'll bomb their banks ..."
    # In 2003, the Israeli daily Haaretz reported that Lieberman called for thousands of Palestinian prisoners held by Israel to be drowned in the Dead Sea and offered to provide the buses to take them there.
    # In May 2004, Lieberman proposed a plan that called for the transfer of Israeli territory with Palestinian populations to the Palestinian Authority. Likewise, Israel would annex the major Jewish settlement blocs on the Palestinian West Bank. If applied, his plan would strip roughly one-third of Israel's Palestinian citizens of their citizenship. A "loyalty test" would be applied to those who desired to remain in Israel. This plan to trade territory with the Palestinian Authority is a revision of Lieberman's earlier calls for the forcible transfer of Palestinian citizens of Israel from their land. Lieberman stated in April 2002 that there was "nothing undemocratic about transfer."
    # Also in May 2004, he said that 90 percent of Israel's 1.2 million Palestinian citizens would "have to find a new Arab entity" in which to live beyond Israel's borders. "They have no place here. They can take their bundles and get lost," he said.
    # In May 2006, Lieberman called for the killing of Arab members of Knesset who meet with members of the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority.

    Hmm, mass murder and ethnic cleansing. Sounds pretty psycho to me.

  84. Re:palestinians bending backwards... by Mongoose+Disciple · · Score: 1

    I think you're crazy -- it seems pretty clear to me that at this point Israel's government has gone off in a direction that has no interest in coexisting in two separate states with Palestine than China has in the same arrangement with Tibet. They want to stall for time, build settlements, and ultimately end up with everything contested.

    Frankly, if America was a good friend to Israel, at this point it'd stage an alcoholic-style intervention -- Israel's current actions just can't get it what it wants. With the course it's currently on, at some point it either needs to give up on the idea of being a Jewish state (which I think most pro-Israel people would call a loss) or it becomes a true apartheid state (which I don't think ultimately serves its interests, either.)

  85. Re:Extreme action advice (instead of suicide bombi by amorsen · · Score: 1

    Self-immolation is not all that uncommon, it just rarely makes the world news. I do not think self-immolation by Palestinians would make anything significant happen, unless it happened in large numbers.

    --
    Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
  86. Re:palestinians bending backwards... by Mongoose+Disciple · · Score: 1

    They are both doing exactly the same thing for exactly the same reasons, but Israel is in the stronger position so they naturally look like the bad guy.

    Well... yeah. If you and I hate each other but I'm stabbing you because I have a knife and you don't, that probably doesn't just make me look like the bad guy, it actually makes me the bad guy.

    It's true that Israel is in a rough position and it's surrounded by a lot of people that mean it harm; it's also true that that rough position doesn't make right all manner of ills they inflict in a misguided attempt to be safe.

    The truth is if the Israelis were less civil they would have driven the Palestinians out by force a long time ago. Instead they have been adamant but patient about getting what they want, occasionally fighting skirmishes with them instead of just blowing them all to hell and back, like they are completely capable of.

    Another angle might be that committing relatively blatant genocide might not be worth the price in intellectual political capital. Especially when you're a country that was originally created by largely external powers in response to someone else trying to commit genocide against you.

  87. Re:Jews: 3,700 years of not living cooperatively by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

    You should duck... calling vi users "social" is a bit risky.

    --
    Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
  88. Re:how the Jews (Israel) has come full circle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    More like if you think _neither_ side is right then you don't know anything.

    This is a tragedy of malicious external and internal forces conspiring against two sides who truly want peace.

  89. Re:Jews: 3,700 years of not living cooperatively by Sproggit · · Score: 1

    Do YOUR due diligence and read up a bit on Feyman's opinion of your position.
    He felt that making a distinction of the Jewish people on technological achievements, and making a distinction of the Jewish people on perceived (however insane the idea) global domination starts with the same erroneous (and frankly bigoted) stance of making an arbitrary distinction of the Jewish people.

    The next time you want to go around proclaiming that the Jews are 'separate' / 'different' / 'special' or 'unusual', just remember some other f*cking lunatics that did the exact same thing.

  90. There are other sources of news by FoolishOwl · · Score: 1

    There are lots of sources of alternative media, on the Internet especially.

    Beyond that, many people in the US have personal ties to people elsewhere in the world. Many of my co-workers and fellow students have friends and relatives elsewhere in the world, and those friends and relatives pass on both first-hand accounts and news from their parts of the world. The grapevine is not reliable, but it does shake up complacency with mainstream US media from time to time.

  91. Prefix inflation by Mathness · · Score: 1

    1600 papers you say, then it is a kilo leak. ;P

    Reporting works so much better without hyperbole.

    --
    Carbon based humanoid in training.
  92. Re:palestinians bending backwards... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    I think you're crazy -

    Why thank you, I always do enjoy being insulted.

    it seems pretty clear to me that at this point Israel's government has gone off in a direction that has no interest in coexisting in two separate states with Palestine than China has in the same arrangement with Tibet.

    You are right, they have no interest in coexisting. Would you? Imagine you had neighbors who wanted to kill you. How anxious would you be for them to gain the power to do so? it's not surprising at all that Israel doesn't want the Palestinians around; and frankly, from a historical perspective, Israel has shown remarkable restraint. Other civilizations would have killed every one of the Palestinians by now. Hopefully we are more enlightened in our day, but it is still not an easy problem: how to deal with people who want to kill you.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  93. Re:palestinians bending backwards... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    Bury their weapons and take an oath never to raise them again, except in self-defense.

    Seriously, it's a hard problem. There has to be a change in Palestinian culture. There probably isn't anything the negotiators themselves can do; a big change like that is hard.

    But it's important. Until the Palestinians can be willing to not kill their neighbors, there will never be peace.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  94. You dare to call others "moron"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    they were willing to give up parts of their own land

    Excuse me, but was there ever a "Palestinian" country?

    There was Israel but there was no-such-thing as "Palestine".

    NO-SUCH-THING

    Not then, not now, not ever !

  95. Do MSM-only consumers really still exist? by istartedi · · Score: 1

    People all over the internet are so fond of pointing out that you would be uninformed if you only watch MSM. I've gotten so tired of this; because I wonder how many people still exist that are MSM-only viewers.

    I'm not saying that there's *nobody* who just watches NBC Nightly News and considers themselves informed. It just seems that it's rapidly diminishing number of people. I don't have statistics to back it up though. I suppose ratings would be a good place to start; but you need some kind of rating that's not just a "TV rating", which is obviously out of date for such a study.

    At any rate, the very fact that so many people no longer consider primetime news a serious source, kindof makes the "MSM-only viewer" a bit of a strawman.

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    1. Re:Do MSM-only consumers really still exist? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Yes, they really do. Get off Slashdot some time and you'll find a lot of people - particularly above the age of around 40 - who get all of their news from television, radio, and newspapers. Even the ones that read news online quite often just use websites from the same companies that produce the TV or newspaper news.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  96. Re:palestinians bending backwards... by MrHanky · · Score: 1

    Wrong. Israel demanded a totally demilitarised Palestine, with no exception for self-defence.

    Also, Israel's culture is in just as much a need of a change. It's militaristic and racist, with a sense of entitlement for ever expanding Lebensraum. You can't expect their occupied territories to just bend over.

  97. Re:Jews: 3,700 years of not living cooperatively by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He said -social- groups *Ducks*

  98. Re:We do not like this suggestion because by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds like your Israeli friend is a typical Israeli leftist -- when the left is in power, dissent is dismissed as "against the rule of law", but when the right is in power, it's all about "they're destroying our democracy", "they don't reflect the will of the average voter", etc. In fact, look at the results of the last Israeli election, and you'll see that the current government definitely reflects the will of the Israeli citizen. A recognizable majority of Israelis are right, and the right's numbers are only growing as more Israelis realize the failure of the peace-at-any-cost philosophy. cf. the recent complete breakdown of the Labor party.

  99. Re:We do not like this suggestion because by Micklat · · Score: 2

    May I suggest another first-hand perspective?

    Livni should not have said your version of the sentence, because it is not true - the current government that came to power shortly the aforementioned negotiations was markedly more right-wing than the one in which Livni served.

    Look, I don't like the current government. I didn't like the Olmert and Livni government either. But to claim that it was not democratically elected, or that it does not reflect the will of the people, would be misleading. A small majority of the Knesset seats is held by parties clearly identified as the "right wing" - Likud, Yisrael Beytenu, Shas, etc. Many, and possibly most of the voters of these parties outright object to the creation of a Palestinian state in the west bank. The rest of these voters want a government that is "tough", and do not care much if the Palestinian state is created or not - they're not sufficiently interested in it to vote to any party that is seriously committed to a 2-state solution.

    It's true that Yisrael Beytenu ostensibly claims to support some form of a 2-state solution - as does parts of the Likud - but you can see from the lack of willingness to negotiate just how uncommitted they really are. From decades of experience of living in this country, I can assure you that almost no right-wing voter is going to protest the lack of peace talks.

    Now, if you claimed that the elections do not represent the will of the people because the west-bank Palestinians don't get to vote, then you'd be somewhat correct (some of the Palestinians do have their own government now, of a sort). But as long as you're talking about Israeli citizens, the current government has very firm implicit support for its line of no-serious-negotiations. The main pressure they feel from the electorate is not to cede any territory.

    A final note - none of them is a psycopath. It's just that these governments and their voters do not care much about democracy. The way some of them see it, the Arabs were pretty much ready to murder every Jew in this land back in 1948, and to repay those Arabs with anything less than genocide is being "generous". I don't agree with that point of view, but I can see where they're coming from.

  100. Translated... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > "We do not like this suggestion because it does not meet our demands"

    We hold the knife by the handle.

  101. Different versions by olman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There's English Al Jazeera which you can buy at least in Finland as a part of pay tv packages. Apparently they're by far more balanced with their reporting than the Arabian version is. Not too surprising, perhaps, considering their target audience.

  102. OMG by sourcerror · · Score: 1

    Oh my God, I already speak German! (not an ethnic German)

  103. US colony by dugeen · · Score: 1

    So long as Israel continues to function as a US military colony there will be no resolution of this issue - except by the extermination of the Palestians, which the Israelis are gradually working towards.

  104. Leaking what was already public knowledge? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just to pick a few points from the guardian article..

    "How Israeli leaders privately asked for some Arab citizens to be transferred to a new Palestinian state." - yes indeed, lieberman and his ilk have long said this.. nothing private about it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lieberman_Plan

    "The intimate level of covert co-operation between Israeli security forces and the Palestinian Authority." - security cooperation has long been part of the deal with the PA, nothing new about that.. it collapsed during the intifadas but otherwise has continued at various levels. It is also mentioned in the 2001 Tenet plan.. http://www.mideastweb.org/tenet.htm

    "How Palestinian Authority (PA) leaders were privately tipped off about Israel's 2008-9 war in Gaza." - huh? Were they not watching TV? Or looking out the window? It was not exactly a surprise. Anyway again it is public knowledge and a matter of record that there is security cooperation between israel and the PA.

    It also suggests the pals were basically handing over all the land israel wanted except for a handful of settlements yet still the nasty israelis rejected it. Actually those few "settlements" included cities such as Ariel which has a University and 10,000 students, jewish and arab.. It's no surprise the israelis were not going to just abandon it.. they abandoned all of gaza already and that didnt exactly help the peace process. Of course some would say it shouldn't be there in the first place but anyway..

  105. Re:how the Jews (Israel) has come full circle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So that way you don't get anywhere ever.

  106. Re:palestinians bending backwards... by sourcerror · · Score: 1

    The truth is if the Israelis were less civil they would have driven the Palestinians out by force a long time ago.

    You mean like how the nazis did it with the Jews?

  107. Fuck Israel and fuck you americans.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fuck Israel and fuck you americans how support them. To bad the jews survived WW2, they now use it as a pretext todo the same to others (Palestinians). I look forward to Iran throwing the bomb. Nope Im not a muslim, Im a european atheist.

    1. Re:Fuck Israel and fuck you americans.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Big surprise that you're some worthless eurotrash. Scum like you are a large part of the reason people on other countries laugh at the EU. Now go back to your group therapy and let intelligent people discuss these issues, they are obviously way above your level.

  108. Re:Jews: 3,700 years of not living cooperatively by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The next time you want to go around proclaiming that the Jews are 'separate' / 'different' / 'special' or 'unusual', just remember some other f*cking lunatics that did the exact same thing."

    Like, uh, those governing Israel?

  109. Re:how the Jews (Israel) has come full circle by Draek · · Score: 1

    From where I stand, it's all shades of black instead, not too much grey around.

    --
    No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
  110. Re:Jews: 3,700 years of not living cooperatively by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Try replacing "Jews" with any group. Most social groups are incapable of seeing their own shortcomings.

    I'm pretty sure emacs has a macro for that...

  111. Re:Jews: 3,700 years of not living cooperatively by TheRaven64 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The Hitler excuse is starting to wear pretty thin. Some of my relatives died in the death camps (my mother's family were German Jews who left the country in the '30s, but not all of them got out in time), so I'm not exactly unbiased on this issue, but every time someone calls Israel to task for their behaviour the reply is always 'but... Hitler killed loads of Jews'. He also killed loads or homosexuals and gypsies, but these groups don't seem to get to use him as an excuse for behaving like asshats several generations later.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  112. Re:Jews: 3,700 years of not living cooperatively by sznupi · · Score: 1

    Though you gotta give them credit for impetus; a really well done, thorough job. Consider: while some local mythologies used largely also as a justification for atrocities are by no means an unusual phenomena, particularly during ages in question - theirs didn't stop there, it now forms the outwardly apparent core of faiths and "we're the best" morality for ... what, 2/3 of the world? Funnily enough, also among descendants of populations against which it was originally targeted :p

    (and they didn't exactly have problems everywhere - of course there often was an unfortunate clash of cautious approach to assimilation vs. generally much more xenophobic times, but where the latter was true it didn't really bother itself much with the question if somebody was a Jew or some different "other"; some places were reasonably favorable to multiculturalism, for practical reasons)

    --
    One that hath name thou can not otter
  113. Re:Jews: 3,700 years of not living cooperatively by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

    I won't bother responding to your semi-racist blather, but:

    It's straight out of Dickenson where somebody with everything claims injury because they had to clean a little poor kids guts off their carriage and it ruined their day.

    Who's this Dickenson chappie?

    --
    Watch this Heartland Institute video
  114. Re:We do not like this suggestion because by yariv · · Score: 2

    Except that the leak is about the previous government...

    I can't believe you were modded interesting (and not off-topic), but of course, it's /..

  115. Re:Jews: 3,700 years of not living cooperatively by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    *Throws stapler*

  116. Re:It's not a meme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fuckwit.

  117. Re:Jews: 3,700 years of not living cooperatively by Schlacht · · Score: 1

    Why is it so wrong and bigoted to see and accept differences in races? We are different, some for better some for worse - having our advantages and disadvantages. There is nothing frankly bigoted about seeing differences ... lighten up Francis! To deny the achievements of .3% of the human population because of your hypersensitivity and need for some dream-like "world order" of perfect racial balance is just naive.

    --
    rm -rf ms/*
  118. Re:Jews: 3,700 years of not living cooperatively by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Parent is racist garbage, I have no idea how it's modded insightful.

  119. It was never palestinian land either. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It was never palestinian land either. That area has been "owned" by the other larger tribes in the area, neither the Jews nor the Palestinians ever owned it except as the chattel of others.

    Add to that most of "Palestine" is under Sudan and Sudan (and Jordan) treat the Palestinians no better than the Jews treat them and you have a lot of "so what" going on.

    If the leaks are correct, though, here the Jews are being arseholes. That's nothing to do with what right either side has with the ground.

    1. Re:It was never palestinian land either. by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      It was never palestinian land either. That area has been "owned" by the other larger tribes in the area, neither the Jews nor the Palestinians ever owned it except as the chattel of others.

      Nevermind that the Palestinians have been living there for centuries, and the vast majority of Israelis are either immigrants or the children of immigrants.

  120. why it wasn't leaked on wikileaks? by marcuz · · Score: 1

    And now my question is - why it wasn't leaked by Assanage? I worry that Assanage might be not so honest as he is being protrait to be - he might have some agenda and leak only things people behind him want to leak. Its just these little things I base my judgments on but its exactly this kind of news I was expecting not to see on wikileaks.

  121. Re:Jews: 3,700 years of not living cooperatively by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A famous Englishman, he's the saviour of the fake tan industry. And he probably drives a carriage. Most people in England do.

  122. Ah, but did you read the followup? by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 2

    Hamas is pissed off and is claiming this shows that the Palestinian authority is in bed with Israel. So what side was exactly willing to make more concessions? It would be like the democrats agreeing to do X knowing full well the republicans can and will block it anyway.

    Diplomacy, it is a lot more complex then people think. There are rarely just two sides to deal with.

    For instance, one of the simplest solutions to all this would be to build a wall around Israel and make the occupied bits the problem of the Arab nations on whose ground they are. Yeah, because Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon want that... NOT!

    How many Palestinians want to have Israel become arab land BUT with Jewish wealth. We could relocate all the jews to a safe place. But then Israel would be the poor dustbowl it has always been. Not many Palestinians keen on that. Why do you think blockades that stop them going into Israel hurt their economy so much?

    Diplomacy doesn't just deal with a dozen parties with different needs but parties that themselves have different and often conflicting needs and wants.

    These leaks show very little of that. Because they are still the public musings of career diplomats who have made it their trade to hide the truth.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:Ah, but did you read the followup? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We could relocate all the jews to a safe place. But then Israel would be the poor dustbowl it has always been.

      There is not way you could be sure of that.

      Not many Palestinians keen on that. Why do you think blockades that stop them going into Israel hurt their economy so much?

      Because the barricades also stop them from going to other palestinian places? They will not be palestininans for long of course. There is no police system, no free election and almost no way to farm without blowing up on a mine: Palestine does not exist as a state because Israel never recognized the right to have an Arab state in the region.

      For a nation created by a UN decision you would expect that they at least follow the countless UN resolutions against them and respect the UN established borders. They never did.

  123. Re:Jews: 3,700 years of not living cooperatively by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He also killed loads or homosexuals and gypsies, but these groups don't seem to get to use him as an excuse for behaving like asshats several generations later.

    Don't forget communists - entire towns worth of people killed because they dared to hold a different opinion.

  124. Re:Jews: 3,700 years of not living cooperatively by Entrope · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If you read a little more closely, you might have noticed that "Hitler killed a lot of Jews" was in response to "Jews have had problems with their neighbors for 3700 years" -- it was challenging the strong element of one-sided blame in the latter.

    If the critics of Israel being asshats spent a little more time criticizing Israel's neighbors when the neighbors were being asshats, instead of coming across as stereotypical haters (technically, anti-Semitism isn't quite accurate here), then perhaps both Israel and its neighbors would have a better sense of when their behavior was outrageous.

  125. The real problem by sciencewatcher · · Score: 1

    These 'leaks' are just the usual carefully crafted agitprop that we have come used to in the mainstream media. Anyone who wants to be informed about the details of the many power struggles in the Middle-East reads academic journals, follows the statements by the foreign ministries closely, and corresponds with the negotiators, which is surprisingly easy and informative. The fact that the mainstream media fails to inform the public well is caused by human inability to grasp the consequences of other societies (America, Europe, Middle-East) being different in structure. Both the inability of journalists as well as readers/watchers. The only real problem upholding an agreement between Israel and the Arab population in the former British mandate of Palestine are neighboring countries of which the leadership cannot tolerate a democratic flourishing Arab state, because it would undermine the stability of their own rule. We once had a semi democratic Arab state that did well, which was Lebanon. We all know how that was finished by rulers like al-Assad. Once the price of oil gets below $25 a barrel for a sustained period of time, countries like Iran will no longer be able to spend billions of dollars per year in destabilizing Gaza and the West Bank and other territories. It is horrible to see that the governments in Europe and the US fail to address their opponents in the Middle-East, while a few dictators find our weak spots consistently and exploit them to the fullest.

  126. Re:We do not like this suggestion because by unity100 · · Score: 1

    he doesnt have any 'leaning' whatsoever other than night clubs and playing music in them as dj.

  127. Re:We do not like this suggestion because by unity100 · · Score: 1

    yeah, he sounds like a leftist alright. and how did you come up with that half assed conclusion ? pulled out of your butt ?

    he doesnt have any leanings politically.

    and heres avigdor liebermann for you.

    http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1963090&cid=34978892

  128. Re:We do not like this suggestion because by unity100 · · Score: 1

    that's pretty much psychopath for me :

    http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1963090&cid=34978892

  129. Re:We do not like this suggestion because by unity100 · · Score: 1

    a noticeable amount of the previous government is in this government. livni was in the earlier coalition too.

  130. Re:Jews: 3,700 years of not living cooperatively by Marble1972 · · Score: 1

    Even the first "proto Jews" weren't strictly monotheistic (the Hebrew Bible / Old Testament contains fragments of polytheism, eg. Psalm 82) which -- at least by today's standards -- would not qualify them as Jews...

    Psalm 82:1, 5 and 6 are the main verses in question starting with
    82:1 God presides in the great assembly; he gives judgement among the 'gods':
    ...and then with God quoted as saying...
    82:5 The 'gods' know nothing, they understand nothing...
    82:6 I said, 'You are "gods"; you are all sons of the Most High.'

    There is debate on this verse over is who exactly is being referred to by 'You'. Is it a) Israel's rulers - normal people, b) angels, c) some other 'Gods'?
    Psalm 82 is about chiding these sons of the Most High for being corrupt and not defending the oppressed. This in the greater context (ie all the Psalms / Prophets and the rest of scripture) would generally be construed to be the people of Israel and/or their rulers (as a reoccurring theme of their behaviour), the O.T. sometimes closely ties rulers/judges with the term God (check a literal translation of Ex 21:6, 22:8), and also note that Hebrew Scripture generally doesn't spend time chiding disaffected angelic beings through prose. (BTW on that last point note that I'm of the view that Isaiah's 'morning star' reference is prose directed to a pompous human king - not some angelic being named 'Lucifer' - whose claims of existence are probably owed more to the questionable King James translation (or lack of rather) of the latin term for 'morning star'.)

    So while I see you prefaced your polytheistic claim with the word 'strictly', I think it might be a little pre-emptive to attempt to make a such a 'strict' claim based on a Psalm that is probably within context, referring to the rulers of Israel as 'gods' in a somewhat figurative (but not novel) sense, without further evidence to support the claim.

    In any case this verse in no way sanctions 'worship' of these 'gods'.

    In fact in Psalm 81 (by the same author Asaph), repeats the 1st commandment saying
    81:9 You shall have no foreign god among you; you shall not worship any god other than me

    So perhaps I should refine my comment a little. Judaism (particularly from Moses onwards - but also from Abraham) was about monotheistic worship, and the 'host of heaven' - angels, cherubs etc, were all created by God and not to be worshiped as such, despite there being among them (by human standards) powerful beings. I'm not aware that Judaism presents a clear definition of a what/who constitutes a (lower case) god, nor does it have clear presentation upon the make up of the host of heaven. Such information is not what the Hebrew Scriptures were about. So to argue a strict claim of polytheism depends on your definition of what constitutes a 'theos', and even then - I don't think the scriptures are concerned with attempting to answer the question as to what beings would qualify bar One.

    Generally I expect that when people refer to Judaism as monotheistic, they tend to mean 'monotheistic worship', along with the worshiped God being the 'omni-everything' one.

    If interested I used: Tyndale O.T. Commentaries Vol 16; TNIV; Youngs Literal Translation

  131. Sources by chrb · · Score: 2

    If anybody knows the academic research behind this (without the politicking) that would be really useful.

    Summary and citations.

  132. Re:Jews: 3,700 years of not living cooperatively by wilder_card · · Score: 1

    So your first example of Jews "not living cooperatively" is when they objected to the Pharoah's slavery? Really?

  133. Re:Jews: 3,700 years of not living cooperatively by KugelKurt · · Score: 1

    (The main purpose of my post was obviously to debunk the AC who posted antisemitic claims. One can't accuse the Jews to be troublemakers for 3,700 years if there were no Jews for that long.)

    The currently known scientific evidence points to the conclusion that monotheism developed gradually.
    I'm abbreviating now because I don't want to get into a mile-long discussion that is only partially related to TFA:
    Monotheism probably started in Egypt when at some point only one of their ancient gods was praised. That probably later transformed into the commandment that only one god must be praised (while not claiming that there are no other gods but just forbidding to pray to them). However, some early proto Jew sects also believed that YHWH had a goddess as wife (a branch of that later developed in to the gnostic "pantheon" belief with Sophia as higher goddess and an evil lower god, the demiurge, as the one described in the Old Testament).
    The early orthodox movement then worked to purge any traces of polytheism and transformed the system to the belief that there is only one god.

    Personally, I feel it's save to say that it's that point were actual Judaism begins.

  134. Re:Jews: 3,700 years of not living cooperatively by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Excellent post except this:

    Russia and China have too much invested in Iran to let the US knock it over too... I think those two would hit the veto button on any military action against them

    - what pray have Russia and China against the will of the USA?

    USA can kick Russian and Chinese asses altogether while wiping the Iran off the map as well.

    Nothing can stop USA, communist and islamist pig-dogs included

  135. Statistics fail. by chrb · · Score: 1

    Given that there are more Muslims in the Israeli Parliament than there are in the US Congress

    Statistics fail : Israel has a greater percentage of Muslim citizens than the U.S. (about 10 times more) i.e. you are comparing values without accounting for population demographics.

    I'd say they're probably more secular than the US in reality

    Do you really think that a system of government that includes state religious schools is more secular than the U.S., where the Constitution explicitly prohibits that kind of thing?

    1. Re:Statistics fail. by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Statistics fail : Israel has a greater percentage of Muslim citizens than the U.S. (about 10 times more) i.e. you are comparing values without accounting for population demographics.

      Irrelevant to the point being made.

      Do you really think that a system of government that includes state religious schools is more secular than the U.S., where the Constitution explicitly prohibits that kind of thing?

      Ok: more secular than Canada, then.

  136. Re:Jews: 3,700 years of not living cooperatively by geminidomino · · Score: 1

    Pfft. Emacs users WOULD need a macro for a simple global replace...

    Triple-jointed, twelve fingered barbarians, the lot of them.

  137. Re:We do not like this suggestion because by yariv · · Score: 1

    Livni was in the previous coalition, she is now the head of the opposition.

  138. Re:We do not like this suggestion because by unity100 · · Score: 1

    when did that happen ?

  139. Re:Jews: 3,700 years of not living cooperatively by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And now for the politically incorrect addendum : muslims agree with that too.

    After all, islam states the following in it's "holy" text (this is part of sharia law) :

    "Judgment Day will come only when the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them, until the Jew hides behind the tree and the stone, and the tree and the stone say: ‘Oh Muslim, Oh servant of Allah , there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him’"

    Just so you know, judgement day is supposed to be good - the beginning of eternal heaven on earth - so this is a most desirable prospect. And while it may be a stretch to interpret this as saying that when muslims "complete the holocaust" (to quote the palestinian parliament), allah will create heaven on earth - that is exactly how sunni islam interprets this (according to the authorities on the subject - ie. al Azhar)

    Do you agree with this ? Can one allow a religion that commands genocide ? What matters more ? Facts, as in written down history, or whatever one thinks currently adherents actually do ? (and how does one deal with "unwritten" religions, like, say, communism or various forms of atheism ? Or worse, how does one deal with "inevitable consequences" of things that, in and of themselves, don't seem all that objectionable ... e.g. the obvious link between "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" and what this represents - slavery)

  140. Re:We do not like this suggestion because by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Except that Livni was the foreign minister in the previous government, and is currently in the opposition...

  141. Leaking mud by elkstoy · · Score: 0

    The whole art of negotiation is changing due to these leaks. You would think that a greater transparency would be a byproduct, but there is also the result of increased security and cloak and dagger type of behavior. Then you have leaks that were controlled to either provoke a response or pass on misinformation. All this leads to a level of complexity that surely will hamper any negotiation process. Until we get to a point where the politicians and diplomats can no longer hide anything, (good luck with that) I think these leaks just muddy up the process.

  142. Re:palestinians bending backwards... by Mongoose+Disciple · · Score: 1

    Except you have, at the very least, a chicken and the egg problem here.

    Look at it from the Palestinian side for a moment. Do you think that, for example, colonial Americans were right to have a revolutionary war and win freedom from England? There's absolutely no question that Israel is treating Palestine a lot worse than England ever treated colonial America. How much does a nation need to oppress you before you're willing to do something about it?

    Israel's in a shitty position, no question of that -- but a shitty position does not justify all wrongs.

  143. Re:Jews: 3,700 years of not living cooperatively by vegiVamp · · Score: 1

    Darling, I'm gay. I don't need an excuse to behave like an asshat.

    (and, yes, I really am, so I'm allowed to make fun. nuh. *sticks out tongue*)

    --
    What a depressingly stupid machine.
  144. Re:how the Jews (Israel) has come full circle by elkstoy · · Score: 0

    Everyone is right in from their own viewpoint. Until people in the area try to understand each others viewpoint and just agree to disagree and move forward peacefully, there will continue to be violent conflict... This post sounds extremely ignorant of the complex conditions that exist in the region, but this it really comes down to this issue. Two theocracies will never get along.

  145. Re:We do not like this suggestion because by yariv · · Score: 1

    The election were held in 10th Feb 2009, the current government was established in 31th of March. So, about 2 years ago.

  146. Re:Jews: 3,700 years of not living cooperatively by Americano · · Score: 1

    Well... in the city you're correct - they all ride carriages and wear swell top hats. But they don't drive carriages when they're hunting foxes, and that's pretty much all they do when they're not working or living a live-action Jane Austen piece.

  147. Re:Jews: 3,700 years of not living cooperatively by Americano · · Score: 1

    Oh, but surely that was just a difference of opinion. The Pharaoh wanted slaves, the Jews didn't want to be slaves. They could have compromised and sold HALF of their family into slavery, while the other half remained free. After all, it's not like being sold into slavery to the ancient Egyptians was a *bad* thing. But the Jews, they lacked the essential spirit of compromise, you see.

    (/tongue firmly in cheek, before I have to come back and "woosh" someone.)

  148. Re:palestinians bending backwards... by TFAFalcon · · Score: 1

    Being the victim of a crime does not give you the right to commit crimes.

  149. Re:Jews: 3,700 years of not living cooperatively by trewornan · · Score: 1

    Just in case you hadn't realised - the bible is full of shit and there's no evidence whatsoever that the jews were ever slaves in Egypt, spent 40 years wandering the Sinai, etc.

  150. Re:Jews: 3,700 years of not living cooperatively by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And I guess the Jews performing genocide on the Canaanites was somehow different from Hilter's genocide?

    Samuel 15:2-3
    "This is what the Lord Almighty says: 'I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.' "

  151. Re:We do not like this suggestion because by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Israel has been moving to the right quite dramatically over the past decade or so, with every point of friction being exploited perfectly by nationalists like Netanyahu and Lieberman both to extend the conflict and build support for it within Israel. Left and right are always very fluid terms, but on the Palestinian issue Israelis have been adopting the views of it's right wing, with some polling now indicating that a majority of Israelis oppose a two-state solution.

    As for Lieberman, he has repeatedly been the subject of corruption investigations by the Israeli police resulting in recommendations for indictment. His influence peddling, bribery, fraud, money laundering, and ties to shady Russian business organizations are all by now very well documented.

  152. Re:how the Jews (Israel) has come full circle by Wumpus · · Score: 1

    I feel this is an oversimplification. There are certainly elements in both societies that want peace. Then there are elements who want peace in the sense of getting rid of the other side by whatever means they deem appropriate. This isn't so much a results of forces conspiring to do anything as the result of significant stupidity and lack of effective leadership on both sides.

  153. Re:We do not like this suggestion because by Pharmboy · · Score: 1

    I can't read your post because your lack of capitalization makes me angry.

    Seriously, what is it about some people that can't stand informality in an informal forum? You are really incapable of considering someone's opinion or facts simply because of the informal method they use to describe it? Should /. reject all submissions that have sentence fragments, poor punctuation or flawed grammar as well? I am simply sick of all the grammar spelling nazis whose only contribution to the conversation is to nitpick about the way someone else presented their ideas. Leave if it is that difficult to comprehend, or at least stfu about it.

    --
    Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
  154. Re:palestinians bending backwards... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The western media is all biased in favour of Israel! Fortunately we are all so smart that we realised this, and that's why we all hate Israel so much.

    /facepalm...

  155. Re:Jews: 3,700 years of not living cooperatively by I8TheWorm · · Score: 1

    I think the day after judgment day is supposed to be good. The day itself, and those leading up to it, are supposed to suck.

    --
    Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
  156. Re:Jews: 3,700 years of not living cooperatively by pcolaman · · Score: 1

    This. Exactly what I was getting at. Said it even better than I did.

  157. Re:how the Jews (Israel) has come full circle by Smiths · · Score: 1

    I've studied I/P for a decade. I first saw it in shades of gray, but its become only starker the more I learned.

    In terms of International Law wise its not complicated what should happen. You can't keep land you win in war and refugees have a right to return after the war. This is the law. If it were any other people, we'd all reconize the law...but Israel is rich/powerful and they tell us we arent going to concede to law so we find ways to bend the Palestenians to give up their rights.. .generations of people have lived and died in refugee camps...you think this would be tolerated if it was another group of people? Come on...thats the other thing..its only complicated because we refuse to see the Arabs as having the same rights as we'd give another group of people.

    None of the great thinkers of the 20th century, from Ghandi, to Einstein, to Orwell and Russell saw I/P in shades of gray either. Its terms of morality, its was clear cut to them as well. A group of people used the shadow of British guns to go in an establish their own nation in someone elses land, using the Bible as a deed.

    mondoweiss.net

  158. Our (US) major media is embarassing by tkprit · · Score: 1

    [from what I can tell] ALL the U.S. media outlets skim over or completely ignore world issues (esp like what happened in Tunisia last week). This weekend, Wikileaks tweeted about the NYTimes being a shill for the US government (because NYT didn't ask pressing questions about Quantico treatment of prisoners), and my initial reaction was an eyeroll (there's a difference between incompetence and "shilling"), but I imagine that's how most of the world sees US press.

    Problem w/ that is, Americans [voters] are being left somewhat unawares of how we're being represented and handling diplomatic issues (or even what the issues are!). We're being fed [alarmist] stories about the economy and politicians, celebrities, and other crap that the media outlets believe drive up ad revenues, but if we don't have some kind of real world news, so we can hold our reps accountable, the idea of representative democracy fails.

    I have a higher opinion of Americans than the news outlets, and wish the mass media would toss in some mid-east stories throughout their "2012 will it be the end" reports. Not every viewer would be interested, sure, and I guess freedom of the press means the press doesn't have to report anything of real value, but the press OUGHT to feel it's somewhat their job to keep Americans informed of worldwide issues.

  159. Re:palestinians bending backwards... by fishexe · · Score: 2

    Bury their weapons and take an oath never to raise them again, except in self-defense.

    See, there's a problem already even in the first sentence. Given how the Israelis are treating the Palestinians (choking off inflow of critical supplies, bombing civilian architecture such as power plants and claiming it's in "self-defense", retaliating against every attack by killing more civilians than the attack killed, et cetera) how is the Palestinian use of weapons not already in self-defense? It's a community using weapons to defend itself against outside aggression and violence. Even if the Palestinians do concede that what they're using weapons for now is not self-defense, how do you handle it when Israel acts aggressively again, and you and the Palestinians have a different definition of where the "self-defense" line lies?

    Note that I don't take the Palestinian side in this. I think both sides need to make changes. But I see Palestine held to a literally impossible standard by Israel apologists, and I have a problem with that.

    --
    "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
  160. Re:Jews: 3,700 years of not living cooperatively by zazzel · · Score: 1

    Oh please don't forget that gypsies, homosexuals, etc. were more of an ideological "by-catch". Though the Nazi ideology hit them, too, the main theme was "Kill the jews! And do it thoroughly!". That's kind of a difference.

    I will start reading on the Al-Jazeera leaks soon enough, though I don't see the point in there. Why would Israel want to give up land to neighbors that are not of the "rational kind"? They were attacked first, their neighbors (official propaganda) are - plainly spoken - the closest to "nazi" you can get these days, and there's not much of a guarantee for Israel's security in what these failing states have to offer. Israel has to keep certain areas for strategic reasons alone, if they don't want to be run over.

    That is, unless some of their neighbours develop a civic society that know more than just burning flags and keeping their neighborhoods "judenrein"!

    The "peace process" is a joke unless not Israel, but their neighbors refrain from violence. Israel will have to do so the minute they are no longer threatened, because they ARE held accountable through public opinion. Their neighbors? They don't f****** care.

  161. Bias by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I believe the description is a bit biased.
    On what basis does it claim the Palestinian side weak ?
    In my humble opinion years of government sponsored terrorism has made them quite a guerrilla force.
    The Palestinians would easily take down many European countries and Canada as well.
    The Israelis have been fighting for 50 years so they aren't as easy that's all,
    but the Palestinians aren't weak at all.

  162. Re:palestinians bending backwards... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    Note that I don't take the Palestinian side in this.

    And there's your problem. You have trouble thinking of it except in terms of sides.

    But I see Palestine held to a literally impossible standard

    I don't think it's impossible. 99% of the countries on the earth live next to each other without trying to kill each other.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  163. Pizza?! What pizza? by Smiths · · Score: 1

    This is why they say negotiating for your state while Israel is building settlments is like negotiating for a pizza pie while the other person is eating the pizza.

    "The Palestinians affirmed their position that negotiations are based on UNSCR 242 and 338, while the Israelis continued to assert their claims to land within the 1967 line and stressed they are not "giving" anything back. The Israelis backtracked on swaps and would not discuss swaps unless Ma'ale Adumim, Givat ze'ev and Ariel are discussed."

    The Israelis are making a mockery of justice and the Palestenians have no one with enough power to stand up for them. I hope the Boycott movement catches on and does what the governements of the world have not done.

    http://mondoweiss.net/2011/01/israel-rejects-the-biggest-yerushalayim-while-palestinian-negotiators-plead-what-more-can-i-give.html#more-34124

  164. Re:palestinians bending backwards... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    Except you have, at the very least, a chicken and the egg problem here.

    Indeed. It's not an easy situation.

    There's absolutely no question that Israel is treating Palestine a lot worse than England ever treated colonial America.

    True. And Israel treated the refugees much better than Egypt, Jordan, or Lebanon did.

    Israel's in a shitty position, no question of that -- but a shitty position does not justify all wrongs.

    It doesn't justify anything. This isn't a moral argument I'm making here, it's practical. I'm saying Israel would be insane to give Palestine their freedom when so many Palestinians have the goal of destroying Israel. I'll go further and say that if an Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank ends up like the withdrawal from the Gaza strip, then the Palestinians are better off with Israel in charge than Hamas. The Palestinians on the Gaza strip don't know how to take care of themselves.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  165. Re:We do not like this suggestion because by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As an Israeli I tell that there's a growing right wing majority in Israel.
    Israelis have had enough of peace talks. Most Israelis think that Israel should exploits is military superiority to achieve it's political goals even if that means harming the Palstinian assperatiotion for independance.
    A large majority of the social elite, media academe etc are left wing though. Meaning they are willing to give up land for the sake of peace and betterment of Palestinian lives.

         

  166. Re:palestinians bending backwards... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    You can't expect their occupied territories to just bend over.

    I don't, I expect them to stop trying to kill their neighbors. Israel would be foolish to give freedom to a group of people who wants to kill them.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  167. Why the US is in Iraq by Smiths · · Score: 1

    Former US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice reassured Israel that the US military presence in Iraq should calm any Israeli security concerns "from the east," minutes from a 2008 trilateral meeting between Rice and the Israeli and Palestinian negotiation teams reveal.

    Discussing the needs of Israel regarding Palestinian security forces in a future-Palestinian state, former foreign minister Tzipi Livni expressed concern over a third-party military force protecting a Palestinian state's external borders. Secretary Rice inserted, "At this time there is no threat from the east because our forces are in Iraq and will stay there for a long time." Chief Palestinian Authority negotiator Saeb Erekat added, "For a very, very long time."

    http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=204986

    Will this be on CNN? Fox? Will the leaders of our government respond this?

    No. Cause thats the type of democracy/freedom we have...we only learn what our government is doing when government documents are leaked on the internet....

  168. Re:palestinians bending backwards... by Mongoose+Disciple · · Score: 1

    I'm saying Israel would be insane to give Palestine their freedom when so many Palestinians have the goal of destroying Israel.

    And Palestinians would be insane to stop hating Israel as long as Israel is oppressing the shit out of them.

    At some point, your choices either are genocide, or somebody has to be the bigger man -- and it has to be the somebody who has all the power.

    I'll go further and say that if an Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank ends up like the withdrawal from the Gaza strip, then the Palestinians are better off with Israel in charge than Hamas. The Palestinians on the Gaza strip don't know how to take care of themselves.

    You might also ask why a Hamas is in power in Gaza in the first place. That doesn't happen in a vacuum either. Talking doesn't seem to be getting them anywhere with Israel, so people get frustrated and back violent solutions.

    People in Gaza also might be able to take better care of themselves if they weren't severely blockaded.

    It's strange to me that so frequently in history we see one country decide that some enemy group or country will crumble if hit hard enough or oppressed long enough, even though the first country believes it wouldn't give up under the same conditions. I mean, we have (in America) movies like Red Dawn that are fantasies about fighting an invading power at any cost, and yet we're somehow surprised when we invade an Afghanistan and the same thing happens to us? Similarly I bet if you polled Israelis about whether they'd give up if they were living under the shitty conditions in Gaza, nine out of ten of them would tell you it would only make them more stubborn about giving up -- and yet somehow they think what they're doing to Gaza will force a regime change rather than put ever more violent people into power? I don't get it.

  169. Re:Jews: 3,700 years of not living cooperatively by EvilBudMan · · Score: 1

    There is a prophesy that it would NEVER be their land--citation please

    You really can't compare the bronze age to what we have now. Iran may only be talking but I would be sure to find out for sure.

  170. Re:Jews: 3,700 years of not living cooperatively by makomk · · Score: 2

    Oh please don't forget that gypsies, homosexuals, etc. were more of an ideological "by-catch". Though the Nazi ideology hit them, too, the main theme was "Kill the jews! And do it thoroughly!". That's kind of a difference.

    Nope, not really a by-catch at all. Nazism had a particularly nasty, but otherwise fairly typical, eugenics-based ideology. All of the killings - of the Jews, the gypsies, the homosexuals, the disabled, etc - were aimed at one goal: purifying the population.

  171. Re:palestinians bending backwards... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    At some point, your choices either are genocide, or somebody has to be the bigger man

    Or just as likely, they'll just keep doing what they're doing for the next 30 years.

    and it has to be the somebody who has all the power.

    Seems you have a plan for how Israel should do this. What is it? Should they sit around and just take it when the Palestinians lob missiles at them? Do you really believe that if Israel just left Palestine alone, the Palestinians would do the same?

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  172. Al-Jazeera launches leaks portal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Looks like al-jazeera has launched a portal for leaking documents...something called the "Al-jazeera transparency unit"
    http://www.ajtransparency.com/

    http://www.ajtransparency.com/how-submit
    In order to protect the identity of the submitters they recommend

    -encrypting files to be uploaded using PGP with their public key
    -using the Tor network to protect the identity of the submitter....
    -also the submission forms are ssl secured..

    Well they certainly seemed to have covered their bases

  173. Re:palestinians bending backwards... by fishexe · · Score: 1

    Note that I don't take the Palestinian side in this.

    And there's your problem. You have trouble thinking of it except in terms of sides.

    You're right, I have the problem that I think of a conflict between two groups of people who are trying to kill each other in terms of the two sides. Never mind that I take a position which is obviously neither of the two; I used the word "side", so it must be impossible for me to think of it as a continuum!

    But I see Palestine held to a literally impossible standard

    I don't think it's impossible. 99% of the countries on the earth live next to each other without trying to kill each other.

    That wasn't your standard. Your standard was never to raise weapons except in "self-defense", where the definition of "self-defense" is likely to be strategically re-defined as necessary to exclude whatever action Palestine takes and include whatever action Israel takes.

    Also, your statistic is clearly false. There are 193 internationally-recognized sovereign countries in the world of which more than ten are currently involved in civil wars and more than forty have been experienced civil wars in the last 20 years, and many others involved in foreign wars. Even the United States found it tough to live on the opposite side of the world from Iraq without invading and killing Iraqis. And that's not even giving counting Europe's two world wars last century. So the true measure is probably closer to 50%. Yet you're somehow willing to hold the Palestinians to a more stringent standard than the rest of the world gets held to. Hmm.

    --
    "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
  174. Re:palestinians bending backwards... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    lol well you sure proved me wrong. Good job. If you ever want to stop attacking strawmen, let me know.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  175. Re:palestinians bending backwards... by fishexe · · Score: 1

    lol well you sure proved me wrong. Good job. If you ever want to stop attacking strawmen, let me know.

    How is what you literally said a strawman? You said "99% of the countries on earth live next to each other without trying to kill each other." I attacked that premise. If you didn't actually believe it, why did you say it to justify your position?

    --
    "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
  176. Is it true only Jews can own land? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I heard that somewhere

  177. Re:We do not like this suggestion because by EvilBudMan · · Score: 1

    If I remember right Hitler was elected at first.

  178. The Middle-East in a nutshell. by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    we're mostly not experts in Middle-East relations

    There's not much to be an expert about. Arabs are stupid assholes and they'll sell each other out at the first opportunity. Jews are smart assholes and they'll sell anyone who isn't a Jew out at the first opportunity.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  179. Re:palestinians bending backwards... by MrHanky · · Score: 1

    Israel is more than capable of defending itself. Pretending this is "self defence" is utterly ridiculous.

  180. Re:palestinians bending backwards... by Mongoose+Disciple · · Score: 1

    Do you really believe that if Israel just left Palestine alone, the Palestinians would do the same?

    Maybe, maybe not.

    What's certain is that if Israel keeps doing what it's doing, it's going to keep getting what it's been getting in the form of suicide bombers and rockets and what not.

    I don't know if a workable two-state peaceful solution is possible; I do know that it's really the only way Israel can survive as a democratic-ish Jewish state, which it seems to want to do. Their other options are: genocide/ethnic cleansing, ceasing to be a Jewish state (if they have all the land, such as all of Jerusalem, they're essentially wanting to claim as part of Israel, they no longer have a Jewish majority), or ceasing to be at least nominally a democracy (and becoming an explicitly Apartheid state.)

    I don't think any of those other options is ultimately good for Israel, and I don't think at this point the ruling/majority forces in Israeli politics are able to see or admit to it, so I think it falls to ally nations like America to tell Israel it can't have what it wants, because what it wants right now is not good for it. Just as you don't give a heroin addict more heroin even though it's what they really want (if you're a good friend to them), America shouldn't support Israeli policy that's ultimately going to be self-destructive to it. Unfortunately, I'm not sure that the political will for that exists yet in America, either.

  181. Clue... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It was Colonel Mustard, in the library, with the pipe.

  182. Re:We do not like this suggestion because by wpi97 · · Score: 1
    Your "quotes" are from electronicintifada.com, hardly an unbiased source. Actual quotations, together with context would be much more helpful.

    I will only comment on one other point. What exactly is wrong with the offer to transfer parts of Israeli territory with predominantly Arab population to the Palestinian Authority? Your "source" refers to "Israeli territory with Palestinian populations". If these people are Palestinians, then is it not reasonable for them to live in the Palestinian state? And if they absolutely must remain Israeli citizens, then why are the called "Palestinians"?

  183. Re:We do not like this suggestion because by wpi97 · · Score: 1

    Here are some actual quotes from Lieberman's inaugural speech: http://www.danielpipes.org/6258/avigdor-liebermans-brilliant-debut Does not sound like a psycho to me. Sounds like someone who is actually seeing the reality of the situation.

  184. Re:We do not like this suggestion because by makomk · · Score: 1

    Lieberman proposed that the West Bank be divided into four cantons, with no central Palestinian government and no possibility for Palestinians to travel between the cantons.

    That's even worse than the original Israeli proposal (3 sections, Israeli army controls travel between them, external borders, ports and airspace, and can shut them at will).

  185. Re:We do not like this suggestion because by makomk · · Score: 1

    Your "quotes" are from electronicintifada.com, hardly an unbiased source. Actual quotations, together with context would be much more helpful.

    Don't be so lazy, go look for yourself. Every one of those was quite thoroughly covered by mainstream media within Israel at the time. For example, try searching the Haaretz website.

  186. Re:We do not like this suggestion because by wpi97 · · Score: 1
    I did, even though it is up to the one making a claim to back it up. The only references to the 1998 quote about bombing the Aswan Dam I could find were reprints of this very list from electronicintifada.com. I certainly believe he said something to that effect, however I want to know the exact words and their context. Otherwise, what we have is a list of out-of-context quotes without sources being endlessly copied and cited.

    The point is that in his capacity as the foreign minister Lieberman has been making statements that make sense, even though his manners can use a lot of work. http://www.danielpipes.org/6258/avigdor-liebermans-brilliant-debut

  187. Re:Jews: 3,700 years of not living cooperatively by T.E.D. · · Score: 1

    [citation needed]

  188. Re:We do not like this suggestion because by unity100 · · Score: 1

    yes

  189. not the only result... by schlachter · · Score: 1

    That's not the only result... Suicide bombing and deadly terror attacks emanating from the West Bank have dropped dramatically since the wall went up. The wall is not a long term solution...but it certainly helps to reduce violence in the near term.

    --
    My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
    1. Re:not the only result... by quanticle · · Score: 1

      The problem with the wall is exactly that. Its not a long term solution, since it enforces a state of apartheid between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Eventually, the wall will have to come down, but the longer the wall stays up, the harder that process will be. The short term reductions in violence are seductive, but I worry that Israel may be losing its democratic character by de facto annexing Palestinian territories without giving the citizens of those territories voting rights.

      --
      We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it
  190. Re:Jews: 3,700 years of not living cooperatively by airdweller · · Score: 0

    So, where's the evidence? :)

  191. Single state solution in Israel by qbzzt · · Score: 1

    A single state solution is what Lebanon has. It didn't work out very well (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanese_Civil_War).

    --
    -- Support a free market in the field of government
    1. Re:Single state solution in Israel by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      In South Africa - it DID work out well. It's a matter of how you do it. More importantly - context of situations are different, that's why there is no single cure-all for conflicts, the right solution for a given conflict depends on the specific realities of that conflict. It's also why I didn't say a single-state solution is definitely right in Israel, I merely said I think it may be better there - and I also said how a two-state solution could work, because both have merits, which one is right (and how to achieve it) is rather too complex a discussion for a slashdot post methinks.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
  192. Re:Jews: 3,700 years of not living cooperatively by dmesg0 · · Score: 1

    The problem is that most of the "Jews" that ended up in Israel after WW2 would best be termed "carpet baggers". Most of them were from other well-to do places. It was founded as a "fairy tale" religious state... like if Pat Robertson and Dick Cheney had their own country. I think part of why Americans are starting to find it so vulgar is that it mirrors what the Americans did to the Indians not that long ago... and they're starting to realize it was a mistake.

    From a purely "biblical" point of view, the land being squabbled over is the same land Israel failed to take back in the time of King David and the Philistines. There is a prophesy that it would NEVER be their land... and 4000 years later it's still the case. They are trying to take land their OWN religious text says they won't ever get.... They're trying to starve them out, to cheat on their peace treaties, etc, etc. when 60 years ago those people were just "folks" of the land. In ANY western country (like Bosnia, Serbia, Kosovo, etc) we'd call out Israel for "Ethnic Purges" which is exactly what they're doing. It's high time they stop getting a free pass to randomly execute residents of their country... we overthrew Saddam for the same kind of crap.

    You clearly don't know what you are talking about. All you wrote doesn't make even the tiniest sense. On the other hand, since when an outright propaganda should make any sense or be based on any facts?

  193. Re:Jews: 3,700 years of not living cooperatively by Marble1972 · · Score: 1

    For the record I absolutely agree with ethos re opposing antisemitism.

    And I understand if you dont want to continue the discussion. Having said that...

    Do you have any evidence for this 'orthodox revisionist' movement? Because I'm struggling to see how it worked. Such a movement would have spawned a culture of scriptural revisionism - and as far as I'm aware - the Jews were far from revisionist. Even their duplicating practices (of scripture) were extremely strict - to the point of implementing a rudimentary 'checksum' to ensure the scribes copied the scriptures correctly. And there is also quite a bit of obscure scripture/theology that a revisionist would naturally want to 'clarify'. The fact there is obscure text and errors to some extent, points to the authenticity rather than away from it.

    Then there is the content of the scriptures which itself argues against a revisionist practice. The O.T. *really* does not paint a good picture of the Jews - any of them. Even Moses and David have their (sometimes dire) failings recorded. Even starting from as early as the leaving of Egypt - the hewbrews immediately start worshipping other gods. If you wanted to enshrine monotheism in your fictional national foundations document - you'd want the evidence for a singular powerful God to be convincing - not have the people turn back to those weak Egyptian gods as soon as Moses' back was turned!.

    And then there are external documents such as the Mishnah which recorded debate and rulings based on the Torah. This document would be a natural first port of call for (later) revisionism - in that it leaves the original untouched. I would expect to see some evidence of either revisionism there - or even references of the transformation from revisionism to non-revisionism.

  194. Blind spots: by Hartree · · Score: 1

    Try replacing "Jews" with any group. Most social groups are incapable of seeing their own shortcomings.

    Slashdot readers. Definitely.

    (And yes, I include myself in that.)

  195. Re:Jews: 3,700 years of not living cooperatively by KugelKurt · · Score: 1

    The Hebrew Bible as complete book is relatively new. The some of canonization even took place at the same time as the canonization of the New Testament. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_Jewish_Bible_canon and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_New_Testament_canon
    Before the canonization (and then unaltered copying) texts were likely in some cases heavily modified: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis

    When I was talking about polytheistic proto Jews, I meant the time before the canonization. Strong monotheism was likely developed during the Babylonian captivity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monotheism#Hebrew_Bible
    That development was likely a measure to counter the growing cult about YHWH heaving a wife (Asherah): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asherah#In_Israel_and_Judah

    (I don't originally have my info from Wikipedia but I honestly cannot recall where I got it from -- some mixture of books, articles, and TV documentaries. So I did quick searches on Wikipedia to get at least a few links.)

  196. Re:Jews: 3,700 years of not living cooperatively by KugelKurt · · Score: 1

    When you say that Muslims (in general) agree then it's the same racist bullshit as the other AC's antisemitic claim that Jews are troublemakers since 3,700 years.

    The nutjobs of a religion are not representative of the whole religious community.

  197. Long time lurker.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pardon for posting AC in a controversial topic -- I lost my account a decade ago.

    There were lots of ruckus regarding the peace talks within the leaked embassy cables, if you happened to read them.

    The major pet-peeve was with Egypt being the arbiter between the players; an incompetent arbiter while at that. This notion was repeated several times by different diplomats and politicians, whom claimed in unison that the continuous Israeli conflict was most notable destabilizing force within the Middle East. Suggestions were made regarding potential alternatives whom could actually get the process moving. However these complaints have been largely ignored.

    Now, going all conspiracy theorist here..
    But at the End of the Six Day War, Israel (with United States diplomatic "assistance") made a pact with Egypt. Egypt avoided the complete slaughter of their cornered army divisions, and Israel got something in return.

    This event is a major turning point in Egyptian foreign politics. I claim it has a major effect to the situation at hand. Is this unthinkable?

    Ps.
    Whomever claims the situation is nothing but shades of grey, with both sides standing on equal footing -- wake up. Even a ten year old could tell its not quite like that when presented with undisputable facts (such as treaties, events, maps, numbers -- irrefutable evidence). Propaganda is a strong tool, blessed are those not corrupted by it.

  198. oy vey do you even read Hebrew? by Alimony+Pakhdan · · Score: 1

    I have to call you out on your reference to Pslam 82. This is not in fact at all a reference to polytheism any more than the use of multiple names of God in the Hebrew texts are. Please be aware that this type of theory comes from Christian athorities who wish to "prove" that they, not the Jews, had the one and only contract with God. Rather than trust Wikipedia on this, please consult with your local Orthodox Rabbi, he will most likely be more than happy to explain this matter.

    1. Re:oy vey do you even read Hebrew? by KugelKurt · · Score: 1

      Rabbis are not scientists. A Rabbi would also tell me that the Exodus is a fact.
      I'm sorry if I hurt your religious feelings but I don't trust any mumbo jumbo just because the book that says it is old.
      Psalm 82 was just an example I had in my head. There is strong scientific evidence that today's Judaism grew out of a polytheistic religion and that early "Jews" did not completely abandon that belief.

      If you are a Jew: Fine. Be happy with your religion (just as I'm happy without any superstitious belief system). But don't bitch at people who counter antisemitic rants with actual arguments.

  199. How's that brown shirt fit you? by Alimony+Pakhdan · · Score: 1

    Wow, just wow. Did you copypasta this from stormfront or come up with it all on your own?

  200. Re:Jews: 3,700 years of not living cooperatively by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

    I took some time to read up and that's exactly what's going on though. Over half of of the Prime Ministers weren't even born in Israel. Waves of Jews immigrated, sometimes illegally, and they did it with an agenda dating back to at least the 1920's long before "Palestinians" had any say in the matter. It's much like how the USA handled native peoples, signing treaty after treaty, then sending in the next wave of settlers illegally anyway.... According to Wikipedia, during the independence wars Jews displaced 750k Palestinians... and IMMIGRATED 700k NEW JEWS from other parts of the world in the next 20 years while not letting the displaced people return to their homes or property.

    I'm not racist, I think the Jews should be in that spot of the world... but historical fact is just getting worse and worse the more I educate myself. Like I keep saying.. spoiled children.. most of the world has no problem.. but the Jews can't seem to treat their OWN NEIGHBORS with any kind of dignity when they have the upper hand. These aren't the "native" Jews.. they're returnees from the Europe and America that expect to be at the top of the food chain with no "natives" to share with.

    As a side note, this effect is also what's wrong with Arizona right now also. it's full of upper middle class folks that cashed out their pensions for "midwest suburbs" built for "trailer park" prices... (on top of socialist cheap water and power too) and now that money is getting tight, they're starting to realize they moved to "Mexico-lite" not to "mini-Vagas".

  201. Science? Really? by Alimony+Pakhdan · · Score: 1

    This is the same "science" that talks about how the Ashkenazi are really Khazars.

    1. Re:Science? Really? by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Genetic evidence with a large sample size is among the least refutable scientific statements in the world today. Courts accept it as proof of guilt. I think your dislike of the results are not all that impressive.
      Genetic research showed me that my surname - quite unique among Afrikaans surnames in that it doesn't seem to have a direct equivalent family in Europe (and is therefore believed to be a local adaptation with significant changes) are in fact of Viking descent - and matched it specifically to those Vikings that invaded Poland in the 13th century. Their descendants made it as far as Hamburg Germany by the 17th century - since that was where the first known Venter was born.

      Well it rather means that I'm an oddity in my own culture. In a culture of Dutch, Flamish, French and a tiny minority of German descendants, a culture of Germanic roots... my earliest known ancestors are Norsh. I take a bit of pride in that fact.

      Reality has never cared whether it suited what you would like to believe - it certainly hasn't ever cared about coinciding with any holy books before -why should it do so now ?

      Besides both Islam and Judaism claim direct to be direct descendants of Abraham (who based on being from "Ur" would have been Mesopotamian) - all the science says is that the two bloodlines are much more recently still mixed - clearly the two groups did interbreed after Abraham... a LOT.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    2. Re:Science? Really? by Alimony+Pakhdan · · Score: 1

      Its not a question of shared genetic material amongst semetic peoples, its your "ten tribes" claims where things get weird and non sciencey.

    3. Re:Science? Really? by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      I already conceded earlier in the discussion that this part was probably a misunderstanding of the article by me. Who gives a damn ? It was literally the single most UNIMPORTANT sentence I wrote and had absolutely NO impact on the validity of the point I was making.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    4. Re:Science? Really? by Alimony+Pakhdan · · Score: 1

      If I missed your concession, mea culpa. Who gives a damn? Lots of Jews. We have our own system of determining who is or is not part of our population. Whether the outside world likes or accepts our system is their issue not ours.

    5. Re:Science? Really? by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      I have several Jewish friends, ranging from "it's a culture and I'm an atheist" to fully Orthodox. If there is one thing I've learned from them it's that there's about as much consensus on what it means to be Jewish among (born) Jews as there is consensus among Christians about what it means to be one of them (hint, they don't agree on very much).

      One of my friends considers it an ethnicity. Another considers the faith to be the core part. Both agrees that somebody who converts to Judaism also becomes ethnically Jewish REGARDLESS of their birth culture. Or at leas, that their children should be considered as such.

      One of my Jewish friends is black. Reality though is that in terms of genetic ethnicity - Palestinians and Jews are the exact same race, the exact same people. That much is simple fact.

      How do you define Jewish ? It is a race ? What about the Black Jew I go drinking with then ? He is more devoted to his religion than most of the born ones I know. Is it a faith ? What about the atheists ? Or Jews who adopt a different religion ? Is it a culture ? What about the degree to which Jews all over the world have adopted and integrated their host cultures ?

      Like any matter of racial or cultural identity the lines are blurry and certainly not scientific in the least. Science pretty much roundly rejects the idea that races really exists - because it can prove that ALL humans share a common ancestry and really not that long ago (in evolutionary terms a hundred thousand years is a blink of an eye).
      I'm sorry if my minor misunderstanding of the article offended you but frankly I believe that offense came from oversensitivity on your part.

      I'm actually quite familiar with recent Jewish cultural history as I'm busy writing a science fiction novel where the protagonist is the grandchild of Sephardic holocaust survivor (yes, I know that the vast majority of Holocaust victims were Ashkanazi - that's sort of the point) and her grandmother's heritage is quite crucial to the plot. Result: I've spent huge amounts of time researching Jewish culture, learning bits of Yiddish and studying more recent Jewish history. Since my novel is also about evolution and genetics - I also read up what studies I could find on Jewish genetic studies as I did not want to write something into my story that would be scientifically impossible with current knowledge.

      My Jewish friends have proofread the drafts so far, and love the idea of a secretive line of Sephardic super-heroes that are actually based in real science with powers that don't violate the laws of physics and are all based on valid and current scientific possibilities (if not realities). Somehow I get the feeling if I sent the current draft to YOU - you'd hate it.

      Kind of like Stan Lee was dead nervous to publish the first DareDevil comic because he was afraid that blind people would feel stereotyped - instead almost all the feedbak he ended up getting from the blind was how gratifying it was that he could create a blind superhero for them (even if the couldn't read the comic).

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    6. Re:Science? Really? by Alimony+Pakhdan · · Score: 1

      At my shul on any friday night you will see a range of Jews including Ethiopian, Askenazi, Sephardi, Mitzrai and Asian. The halacha is quite clear on who is a Jew: born of a Jewish mother or converted. It is not an ethnic thing, it is a "national" thing as in the nation of Israel (not the State). Go ask your Orthodox friends about the "am yisroel" or "k'lal yisroel". As for the oversensitive bit? Thats just annoying. About as annoying as "some of my best friends are Jewish". Stop it. Also if your character is Sephari, why not use Ladino instead of Yiddish?

    7. Re:Science? Really? by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      I never used the phrase "some of my best friends are Jewish" - I said I have Jewish friends with whom I have discussed this as cultural identity is something of personal interest of mine - and that I had them read my drafts to make sure it wasn't offensive.
      That's a VERY different thing to say.

      "it is a "national" thing as in the nation of Israel"
      Odd that's one that none of them has ever suggested. On the contrary, without exception every single one of them thing that nationality has NOTHING to do with Jewishness (keep in mind they are all at least second-generation immigrants to South Africa) that Israel the country should never have been founded and that their Jewish heritage is a matter of personal choice. Much as I say I am only an Afrikaner to the extent that I choose to be, I have adopted elements of several other cultures into my personal lifestyle - and I consider those as much part of my identity a the one I was born into.

      "Also if your character is Sephari, why not use Ladino instead of Yiddish?"
      Wow - an intelligent question ! Simple- she is of Sephardic descent but her ancestors left Spain for Germany several generations earlier (hence her Grandmother having been a resident there during the Holocaust - the book starts with her escape from Berlin). They are English speakers who use some Yiddish slang because of having lived in a Yiddish Askenazi community for several generations. By the time of my character and her daughter, they are living in Cape Town where the vast majority of the Jewry are Askenazi and Yiddish is the common slang among them. Being Jewish in Cape Town is minority enough, not blending in with the others would make no sense.
      In her attempts to learn more about the secretive line she comes from (they call themselves Oysers - From the Yiddish word "oysergeveyntlekh" meaning "exceptional") she does also go to Spain to try and learn more about the history there, desperate to get her hands on as many Oyser gene samples as she can - because unlike any of her forebears, she's a geneticist and she wants to understand what it is that makes them different- not just from other Jews but from other people.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    8. Re:Science? Really? by Alimony+Pakhdan · · Score: 1

      The "nation" thing is not easy for non Jews to get at first. I pointed out that it does not relate to the State of Israel in that it has nothing to do with what passport/papers a Jew holds. It is about our unity as a people either inside the land of Israel or in the diaspora. Again, get one of your Orthodox friends to explain those two phrases I mentioned above. Even atheists/secular Jews are still Jews by halacha and count for a minyan. But it is not like any post modern concept of group identity of liking the same music or wearing a certain t-shirt. One can only choose to be Jewish by converting according to the halacha.

    9. Re:Science? Really? by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Yes, you're very special. And I'm bored now.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    10. Re:Science? Really? by Alimony+Pakhdan · · Score: 1

      Stay ignorant then. Your choice.

    11. Re:Science? Really? by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Seriously - would YOU trust the advice of somebody called "Alimony" ?

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    12. Re:Science? Really? by Alimony+Pakhdan · · Score: 1

      Its a rough transliteration of "Anonymous Coward" in Hebrew.

    13. Re:Science? Really? by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Okay, that's actually funny - but you do realize that in English it's the word for "child support payments" right ?

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    14. Re:Science? Really? by Alimony+Pakhdan · · Score: 1

      I certainly do. I'm a native speaker of American English who grew up partially supported by alimony payments.

  202. Re:Jews: 3,700 years of not living cooperatively by silentcoder · · Score: 1

    Citations provided by myself and others in the follow up posts of the discussion - numerous citations in fact.

    --
    Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
  203. Re:palestinians bending backwards... by phantomfive · · Score: 1
    There's a saying in Israel (at least there was a few years back): Democracy, greater Israel, Jewish majority; choose two. Obviously it's a bad situation, but there's no such thing as a good situation when your neighbor wants to kill you.

    What's certain is that if Israel keeps doing what it's doing, it's going to keep getting what it's been getting in the form of suicide bombers and rockets and what not.

    What is also certain is that if Palestine keeps doing what they are doing, sending suicide bombers and rockets, it will end up worse than them than for Israel. The best option for them is to decide to live in peace. In fact it may be the only thing that can be done.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  204. Re:palestinians bending backwards... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    I'm sorry you have trouble seeing other viewpoints than your own. Lack of empathy is a serious disability.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  205. Re:palestinians bending backwards... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    Do you seriously think "not trying to destroy your neighbor" is too high a standard to hold anyone to? Please. Get serious.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  206. Herp And Derp by Alimony+Pakhdan · · Score: 1

    How does the conditions of the Charedi refute c6gunner's point?

  207. not really by Alimony+Pakhdan · · Score: 1

    At one time the USSR was more than happy to arm its Arab proxy client states and their Arab non state actor proxies. We all know how well that worked out. Also as far as "barely enough food to eat": first that is propagandist non fact, secondly, how would arming people give them more food?

  208. Humans started writing 5000 years ago. by RewriteQuran · · Score: 0

    Humans started writing 5000 years ago.
    http://goo.gl/eSqS

    Hence no religion is older than 5000 years.

    --
    Govt must constitute a panel to rewrite US Constitution and Quran
  209. Did they publish a new dictionary? by Alimony+Pakhdan · · Score: 1

    Evidently you use a different definition of "accurate" than others.

  210. Re:Jews: 3,700 years of not living cooperatively by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    My grandad died in a concentration camp. He fell of his guard tower :(

  211. Re:palestinians bending backwards... by fishexe · · Score: 1

    Do you seriously think "not trying to destroy your neighbor" is too high a standard to hold anyone to? Please. Get serious.

    No. That wasn't your standard. Your standard was that they bury their weapons and not use them again except when it meets your arbitrary definition of "self-defense". I think that is too high a standard, and I don't know any country in the world that would meet it. Would Israel meet that standard that you conspicuously don't hold them too? Let's see...Israel has been conducting massacres (yes, documented and proven military operations killing thousands of proven-unarmed civilians) for several decades now. So no. You only hold Palestine to your one-sided standard. Let me know when you've decided to expect Israel to make a "credible commitment to peace". Also, let me know when you're tired of attacking straw men.

    --
    "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
  212. Re:palestinians bending backwards... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    My standard was 'Make a credible commitment to peace.' Burying their weapons was one way they could accomplish it.

    You suggest that I hold Israel to the standard of "make a credible commitment to peace" as well. That is fine, but it wouldn't really solve anything because it is not what the Palestinians want.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  213. Peace. Riiight. by Celestialwolf · · Score: 1

    "Middle East peace" will be an oxymoron until radical Islamic Jihadists are exterminated. At the rate they're blowing themselves up, hopefully it will be sooner than later.

  214. Re:Jews: 3,700 years of not living cooperatively by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whoa. That is a pretty big write off ... "There is not a single piece of archeological evidence" ?

    There are a number of pieces of evidence. http://considertheevidence.wordpress.com/

    I realize the nature of archaeological evidence is that it has to be contextualized and analyzed in light of all other evidence. But what you have just done is a pretty dramatic brush off of all the stuff that does exist.

    I appreciate that you have your own opinion and you are obviously very passionate about your beliefs. Take care that the passion doesn't lead you to blindness by ignoring things that are really there.

  215. Re:palestinians bending backwards... by Mongoose+Disciple · · Score: 1

    What is also certain is that if Palestine keeps doing what they are doing, sending suicide bombers and rockets, it will end up worse than them than for Israel. The best option for them is to decide to live in peace. In fact it may be the only thing that can be done.

    The problem is that the country of Israel can decide it's not going to be South Africa for the new millenium, but that even, say, Hamas can't decide that no one in the Gaza Strip is going to get sick of being treated like shit and do something violent.

  216. Re:palestinians bending backwards... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    The problem is that the country of Israel can decide it's not going to be South Africa for the new millenium,

    You are trying to use a propaganda technique by framing Israel as 'the South Africa for the new millenium.' There is a huge difference between Israel and South Africa, in that apartheid was based entirely on race. The isolation of the Palestinians is not based on race (for either side: the Palestinians were ejected from Jordan, for example, after trying to overthrow the government there).

    It is true Israel has most of the power in the situation, which is why we feel sorry for Palestine. Using that power to resolve the situation is not easy, though. They aren't going to leave a hostile Palestinian country free to do as it wishes.

    Hamas can't decide that no one in the Gaza Strip is going to get sick of being treated like shit and do something violent.

    Nor do they desire to do that. Exactly opposite, actually.

    PS. This new Slashdot layout is awful.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  217. Re:palestinians bending backwards... by fishexe · · Score: 1

    You suggest that I hold Israel to the standard of "make a credible commitment to peace" as well. That is fine, but it wouldn't really solve anything because it is not what the Palestinians want.

    Well, all the Palestinians I know want that. Maybe if we hold both sides to that standard, it will happen. As it is, Israel has never been held to that standard, at least by the US, which sycophantically supports every move Israel makes. It doesn't really matter how many other countries criticize Israel as long as their closest ally is the world's only military superpower; they can do whatever they want.

    --
    "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
  218. Re:palestinians bending backwards... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    Well, all the Palestinians I know want that.

    I think I see one of your problems. Try to get a better source of information than your circle of friends and acquaintances.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  219. Re:Jews: 3,700 years of not living cooperatively by Uberbah · · Score: 1

    If the critics of Israel being asshats spent a little more time criticizing Israel's neighbors when the neighbors were being asshats, instead of coming across as stereotypical haters (technically, anti-Semitism isn't quite accurate here), then perhaps both Israel and its neighbors would have a better sense of when their behavior was outrageous.

    Slight problem with your comparison: Israels neighbors aren't given BILLIONS in military and economic aid from the U.S. each and every year. Israel's neighbors don't have their atrocities automatically shielded with a Security Council veto pen, each and every year. Israel's neighbors are either invaded or threatened with military strikes for even a hint of wanting nuclear weapons while it's an open secret that Israel is in the possession of at least 200 nuclear warheads.

  220. Re:palestinians bending backwards... by Uberbah · · Score: 1

    Feel free to pull your head out of your ass at any time. Israel has at least 200 nuclear warheads. Hamas has gunpowder rockets with no guidance systems that even the IDF admits are more of a psychological threat than a military one. Israel receives billions in military aid from the U.S. each and every year for the latest and greatest toys. The people in Gaza are blocked from having so much as concrete or wheelchairs.

  221. Re:palestinians bending backwards... by fishexe · · Score: 1

    Well, all the Palestinians I know want that.

    I think I see one of your problems. Try to get a better source of information than your circle of friends and acquaintances.

    I'll work on that. Meanwhile, you might try to get a better source of information than your own feeling of hatred for an entire nationality.

    --
    "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
  222. Re:palestinians bending backwards... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    I don't hate anyone. Not sure why you would think that.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  223. Re:palestinians bending backwards... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    I'm not sure what your point is. But you have accurately characterized the power differential between Israel and Palestine. No one doubts that Israel would win if they tried an all-out fight.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  224. Re:palestinians bending backwards... by fishexe · · Score: 1

    I don't hate anyone. Not sure why you would think that.

    Well, some of us are calling for Israel and Palestine to both lay down their arms. You, on the other hand, are calling for Palestinians to unilaterally lay down their arms and allow themselves to be gradually wiped out. You claim that peace "is not what the Palestinians want," which is one of the most bigoted generalizations I have ever seen. You might as well say that there's a race gap in America because success is not what blacks want, or that rape occurs because it's what women want. So maybe 'hate' is too strong a word, and maybe 'utter disrespect' or 'irrational distrust' would be a better fit.

    --
    "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
  225. Re:palestinians bending backwards... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    I didn't call on Palestine to lay down their arms. I called on them to make a credible commitment to peace. If they want to do that by laying down their arms, that is fine. If they want to do it some other way, that is fine with me too. If they want to start, they can desist from making this kind of cartoon. (uh, if that link doesn't work, you might have to copy and paste it: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/03/jon-stewart-takes-aim-at_n_447296.html )

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  226. Re:Jews: 3,700 years of not living cooperatively by KugelKurt · · Score: 1

    There are a number of pieces of evidence. http://considertheevidence.wordpress.com/

    Yeah, because some random religious blog certainly contains facts...
    Next thing you try to convince me is that the already disproved "intelligent design" hypothesis is fact and that evolution is not the best tested scientific theory of all (in fact evolution is actually understood while gravity is not and no religious nutjob actually tries to convince everyone that "intelligent falling" is the true attractive force of planetary bodies....)

    Just be happy that I counter antisemitic rantings and spare me of your religious hokum.
    I the unlikely case that there is an actual god, he can punish me after death and deny me the eternal life promised in the bible for my non-religious strong stance against antisemitism and other forms of racism...