True, because each time in the past I have tried to read patents, A: they try hard to make sure you don't get what the patent is about B: it is just too tedious.
You have read the patent, I presume. Obvious? Or what is it really about? What is patentable in there, please?
Rephrasing your words: "Ottoman empire was the last legitimate owner of the land, therefore, Arabs of the region had more claims to ownership of the land."
Was the Ottoman empire hold of the land any more legitimate than the British?
I think so, it was "the people who lived in the land", not colonial occupiers.
Is there really a connection between the local Arab tribes in Palestine and the Ottoman rule? I believe the answer to both questions is No, and therefore the situation was symmetrical.
You have not convinced me. Why is colonial rule equivilent to living in the land?
I think the legal question of who owns the land is less important. I think the actual issue was whether the peoples who lived in the land were willing to give up some of the land (about 30% in case of the Arabs) so that the other peoples can have self-rule. The Jews were willing to give up 70% of the area and have a self-run state on 30%, but the Arabs were not, and wanted to control the entire area, including the Jews. If their justification was that the Ottomans who occupied the land before the British were also Arab, I think it is a very weak one.
I disagree with you still, and you have not convinced me your take is better.
Post colonial rule, the Arabs has a recent previous claim to the land, and
occupation in majority of the land. I see those as important in "official ownership"
calculations. I will say that India splitting into India proper and Pakistan
is probably a point in your favor.
Point B: Even assuming it was not right for Jews to take over the lands in Palestine/Israel, is it right to kick 3rd generation Jews who lived in Israel for generations to make room for the many offspring of the refugees?
If I understood you correctly, you tried saying that its exactly the wrong that the Jews did before (which I disagree), but even if that is true - does that wrong (done by the grand-grand parents) justify doing the same wrong to the grand grand children?
I dont see it as an either or situation. I understand why the Palestinians feel the way
they seem to feel. Not that I think they are being completely rational about the whole
thing.
Sure, if the Palestinians manage to conquer the land and perform genocide on the Jews in Israel, and only Palestinians live here, then in 60-100 years, they will gain the moral standing where it would again be wrong to expel them. But that is not the situation now, and it does not make the expelling itself right.
But if the Palestinians did conquer and perform genocide, you would probably understand
a multi-generational hatred on the part of the Jewish directed at the Palestinians, right?
To answer to the refugee question, it does not matter at all if the Jews settlement of Israel was justified or not 60 years ago. What matters now, are the moral consequences of kicking out 6 million Jews to make room for 3 million refugees' offspring. And that is morally wrong. If you believe it is right because 2 wrongs make a right, then your (and Ahmadinajad's) answer to the refugee question is clear. But those who believe that the Jewish settlement was not wrong, OR believe that 2 wrongs do not make a right, know that it is morally absurd to let the 3 million refugees into Israel.
Sure it matters. And nowhere have I esposed the notion that the Israelis should
be expelled. I think you may be making incorrect assumptions about me.
The biggest would be assuming that Ahmadinajad and I are on the same
page in this, and in
"I don't complain about their shooting missiles at military bases as part of war, I complain about shooting at schools and not even attempting to target only the military. Israel has no way to detain those that plan to blow up buses or shoot missiles into it, so its only option is to asasisante them. Note its not due to their pasts as a "legal action", its due to their plans for the future and to prevent further deaths. Israel is only targeting militias, while Hamas and the various terrorist movements of the Palestinians don't even bother to make it appear that way. Their aim - to kill whatever Jews they can find in Israel."
The problem for the Palestinians in this is that they dont have the military power to stand
up to the Israeli army, their only winning move is to make it politically difficult for
Israelis to continue living there. Note, I *dont* like it, but that is the lay of the land.
"Actually, they can target their missiles, suicide bombers, and gunfire at the military, and not civilians. Not to mention that they have the option of peaceful non-violent protests, peaceful strikes, etc. The only reason Israel keeps the checkpoints and control that bothers the Palestinians is those terrorist activities. If Israel removes checkpoints and that does not result in further terror - it may slowly remove the checkpoints and give the Palestinians all the autonomy and freedom they want. The problem is, every time Israel tries to make a tiny move in this direction, the result is abuse by the terrorists who use it to attack Israeli civilians."
Israel's winning move in this case is to ignore ( and I see that that is very very difficult )
those provocations and keep moving forward.
"I think that in actuality, the purpose of Hamas is to keep its power over the Palestinians, which it only has for as long as Israel is an "evil enemy conqueror". So Hamas's interest is that Israel keeps these checkpoints, and that Israel has military presence. That may explain why every peace agreement was followed by a Hamas terrorist bomb going off in a bus."
I agree, but again, Israel needs to neutralize the radicals by making the "we are not the evil enemy conqueror"
idea obviously incorrect. Again, difficult, but the only other way is to try to make a glass
parking lot out of the middle east, which is even more difficult, and has too many after
effects to make viable. And this would have been easier years back, it is getting harder
with time.
"Hamas does not want to free the Palestinian people of occupation, because I think that the leadership of Hamas knows that the fastest road there is through gaining Israeli trust, by not attacking Israel whenever it backs off the occupation."
Quite. And so, in part, as above, there is a portion of the ball in Israel's court
( in my opinion )
"The US already has an official owner. Part of my point about pre-48 Palestine, is that there was no official state. Just locals sitting around. Not sure about what percentages of Jews/arabs were there in 1890, but by 1948 it was about 75%/25%."
This is getting legalistic. Just because the UN, the western world, etc, etc didnt recognize the
people living there as "official owners" doesnt mean they didnt think they were.
"I am not saying what they should feel. I am saying that it would be morally outrageous to kick out a people to make room for another people because those other peoples had (much fewer, btw) ancestors that used to live there and may have been wrongly kicked out. The "moral" reason for the right of return is by now bankrupt and rests on
"Due process?? This is not a legal execution -- it is war. Palestinians are not killed as retaliation, they are killed as a part of a war. "
If it is war, then you cant complain about the Palestinians launching missiles into Israel. Also, aren't there rules and regulations on the treatment of civilians in war? But, at the end of this, I don't see a declaration of war, I think calling it "war" is overly simplistic. The Palestinians dont really have a state of their own to have the conflict with. So, it looks a bit like a civil uprising.
"You are placing blame wrong here, those who are to blame are the terrorists..."
Yes, part of the blame belongs on the terrorists. They dont have the resources to maintain a modern standing army, so what choices do they have? Terrorism, or bow down to the occupier.
The next parts you have are interesting, but do not really match well to my admittedly limited understanding. My understanding is that there were Jews living in the area, but not as much as 25%. Also, if percentage of population is what determines ownership of land, then the US will have to be giving the Southern parts of the US to Mexico. Which way does it work?
"They already have, and the Israelis agreed to partition their homeland so the Palestinian majority can have the majority of the land!"
But that "homeland" was pulled from an area that was Majority Arab, and given to the Israelis without consultation to the peoples there. I cant imagine anyone being surprised about hostility in those conditions. And I don't buy that they have to give up feeling anything about it at the third generation. I wish they would, but I think saying to them "you have no right to feel this way" would be wrong.
"Yes, the Palestinian Fatah was corrupt too. Palestinians suck:-("
I feel that the current American administration is corrupt, does that mean that Americans suck? I think you paint with too broad a stroke. Likely Palestinians are people just about like people everywhere. Some suck, some don't.
"They should take example of the Jews in the 40's. Israel's Hagannah was an almost noble organization that did not use violence except against militias. Never went on the offensive, just defense. When the Israeli terrorist groups (Irgun and Lehi) acted, the Hagannah actually arrested them and handed them to the British! When the terrorist groups wanted independence during the creation of the Israeli state, Hagannah fought them, risking civil war, to avoid the anarchy!"
True, they could take such actions, and that would be to the good.
"During the 40's, they could, like the Jews, accept the division plan. Later, they could just live in peace. In modern times, they could stop terrorism and respect their signed agreements."
It was easy for the Jews to accept the division plan, nothing was taken from the, everything was given to them. If it is so easy to live in peace, and never mind sovereignty issues,t then, as you observe, there was a Jewish presence in those lands before, why couldn't the Jewish live in peace, accept the current government, and stop their terrorism? Hagannah did as you suggest above, but they never did manage to shut down Irgun and Lehi. But when the tables are turned, the Israelis expect some Palestinian Hagannah to stop it all absolutely as conditions for proceeding.
That said, I would agree that under Arafat, and after, not as much as could have been done to stop terrorism was done.
"Israel is paying a fortune to maintain those settlements. If it could peacefully pull them out, it would be happy to do so. The only reason governments kept those settlements, was as a "negotiation card" to use when dealing with the Palestinians. Nobody actually wants to settle those areas."
How much Israel is paying is irrelevant. The desirability of the area is irrelevant. It allowed the settlements, knowing that that would
I believe you were that person also, and I see and understand your point.
I just think about what kind of circumstances there must have been to make someone think that blowing themselves up looks like something they would contemplate.
I definitely don't think that it is OK for any of those scenarios. The whole thing is messed up, and everyone involved probably needs a good spanking, and some time in the corner to reflect.
I can understand why Israel is not enthusiastic about this, but I can also understand why families that lived in some area for long periods of time would want to go back.
Thorny problem. I have sympathy for your position on this, and I would recommend they accept and get on with things, but then again, it is not my ox being gored here.
"Along with the Palestinians that lived in Palestine, Jews did too."
That was my understanding, but what are the percentages?
"My point here, is that its not "black and white"..."
And that was my point also, for the person I was replying to,
On the "it happened generations ago", I dont know that there is a switch that gets thrown after n generations. I agree it *should* be growing less important, but I cant say I blame the Palestinians much for not wanting to let go at this point. While their leadership is not anywhere near a great example of superior qualities, Israel has been shooting Palestinians without due process in Palestine ( Yes, I know, they are suspected of terrorism, and are very
probably guilty of it, there is no due process, no collaberation
( yeah, I know that would be difficult ), just kill them.
Satisfying, I am sure, unless you are relatively innocent
of anything other than sitting in the wrong car when the
Israeli helicopter "take out the target". ).
Yeah, the current generation might not be being moved around, but they would likely know about what was taken from them. From the bitter parents. I can see why they would be a bit unhappy.
"While it is unfortunate for the few local tribes"
They were the majority, I believe.
"that lived here that such a conflict ensued the influx of Jewish migration, the vast majority of arabs affected came to Israel because of that influx, "
Did they?
"could have accepted the UN division plan"
The UN division plan imposed on them by force, without their consent?
"and live in peace (or various peace offers since), but chose to continue to fight regardless."
If the UN decided to partition your homeland, would you accept that, or fight it?
On Hamas, yes, they are an armed terrorist organization, elected by the Palestinians. Mostly, as I recall, on being tired of the corruption of the Fatah party.
People will elect bad people if their plight is bad, and they don't see a light at the end of the tunnel. Germany in the 30's is an excellent example of this.
"Your claim that the Palestinians don't have much choice is moot, they could have respected the agreements they signed."
A: you are conflating the period around partition and now. B: How much choice did they have *then*? C: I would agree that the Fatah party under Arafat was pretty bad.
They should have done a better job, but didn't.
"They could have taken control over the terrorist organizations and applied law and the agreements to them. Israel would have happily gotten rid of virtually all the settlements and gave the Palestinians a free state if they had"
I am not sure about happily. Personally, I think some, probably many in
Israel were glad of the excuse to point at the bad bad bad stuff that
Palestinian terrorist organizations where doing. It is possible that
the Palestinians would have a free state. I think there would have been
much posturing and such from Israel. It was extremely stupid of the
Palestinian leadership not to have put them on the hot seat exactly as
you suggest.
"The reason the agreements failed is not Israel - it is Palestinian terrorism, and it could have been stopped, but the cowards in Ramallah were too afraid to risk civil war, and now they're too late. Their enemies grew stronger, started civil war, and are winning it."
It is both parties. Not just Israel, and not just the Palestinians. And other Arab states get a sliver of blame for not helping in a positive way.
"Not quite. The British split off a very large chunk of the Mandate of Palestine and established an Arab country. It's called Jordan.
The remainder of the Mandate of Palestine was turned over to the UN to decide what to do. After investigating & consulting with Arabs & Jews, the UN decided to split the remainder of the Mandate of Palestine into an Arab state and a Jewish state, with international status for Jerusalem. This was unacceptable to the Arabs, and the Arabs declared war (and lost). Arabs who remained in what became Israel are the freest Arabs in the Middle East."
Ok, thanks for that. But it is still an external entity deciding the fate of that land, and the residents of that land got very little say in how that all went down. If the UN decided to give SoCal back to Mexico, would you expect the US to fight, or say "well, the UN said so, so, lets pack things up!". Or as in my other post, something belongs to you, you have possession of it, someone else claims it by some process, you are given half of it back. Are you happy? Hell no, you are not. You want all of what you had.
"Israel has not annexed those areas. If Israel wanted to annex the West Bank and Gaza, they would have done so a long time ago. Israel is capable of annexation - Israel did annex the Golan Heights, which used to be part of Syria."
Israelis did build in those areas, hoping to force conditions suitable for annexation. Or was is supposed to be a charitable event for Arabs?
"Further, buildings don't mean a thing."
Sure they do. They mean "I intend to live here". And "I intend to be here long enough that it is worthwhile to build a permanent building, rather than setting up a tent".
"When Israel made peace with Egypt and gave back the Sinai, Israel forcibly removed all Israelis, including those who had built in the Sinai. Israel did the same thing when they left Gaza, forcibly removing all Israelis."
OK, but it is still a provocation. Do you really not see that? They felt provoked. None of the press at the time was like "gee, what a surprise, why do they feel like that".
"Not quite. America wasn't a significant supplier of arms or money to Israel until the early 1970s. Prior to that it was mostly the Brits and the French."
It doesn't exist because it all happened after 1970? And do you not see the coupling of Arab hostility and support for Israel? I will say it again, I am not against Israel, I think they should have a homeland there, but I find it strange that the peoples that knew what it was like not to have a homeland cannot seem to empathize with the Palestinian position. And I think their current posturing is hypocritical in light of that.
"However, you could just as plausibly (read: not very plausibly) make an analogy between IP packets and shouting across a crowded room. In that case, anything the gov't hears is fair game"
There is a difference between what the government accidentally hears shouted across a crowded room, and the government actively seeking to occupy all rooms so that they can hear every conversation, whispered, shouted or spoken in code.
I would argue that government should not be so seeking without probably cause and a warrant.
"Well, the post says ALL TRAFFIC. (it does go on to say all of AT&T's traffic, however). Even so, it's not feasible" "We learn in The Internet for Dummies that any two packet do not have to, and probably will not take the same route to get from A to B."
Quibbling. Are they copying data, and should they? That they are possibly not copying *all* has little relevance to the right/wrongness of this.
"First, it was the UN that partitioned that area, not Britain."
OK. It still was not an invitation by the Palestinians to come live with them. It was an external decision imposed on the people living there.
"The Palestinians have a homeland."
And do they have control that that? I recall news articles from after Hamas won the election about Israel cutting off tax revenue to them. Doesnt sound like any kind of real homeland to me. Would you consider it sufficient?
"The UN resolution did not give the land that Palestinians claim was Palestine and give it to the Israelis. They took a piece of land that was British"
A British colony, imposed by force by British arms. The Palestinians were the ones living there.
"and gave half to Israel and half to the Palestinians."
If you have something, someone claims control of that something, and gives half to you, half to someone else, will you be satisfied?
"When Israel was attacked for being there (notice that British were not) by every neighboring Arab nation, they said, "Screw you people, we're taking it all!""
A: Every Arab nation is not Palestine. B: I understand that part of the history. Yes.
And I understand that the Arabs were being very
hostile to Israel, and I understand how Israel
is not really liking that. They have legitimate
security concerns. I get it.
Believe it or not, I am not saying that the Palestinians are 100% right and
the Israeli's 100% wrong in this issue.
"Since then, they have given it back."
Have they?
"Still not good enough evidently. The Palestinians want to claim that all of the land that was once British was really Palestine and they want it all back."
It was Ottoman Empire, then a British colony after the war. Again, it was still Palestinians living there. Africa, India, Pakistan, America, Canada, etc, etc were all once British colonies. What legitimacy do colonial holdings from centuries past have to do with government today, especially with all that has been said about self determination?
In other words, I don't think the Palestinians bought into the "it's British" idea, it was still "theirs". The Western world may have recognized it as British, but they likely didn't.
And once again, if you owned something, someone else claimed it, and divided it and told you you could have half simply because of the force of arms, would you walk away happy? I don't know where you are politically or economically, but if you have ever argued that taxes are stealing, or that they are a government monopoly, unfair and imposed, this is the same thing.
"That was 50+ years ago. At what point to give up? Would you support Native Americans lobbing mortars into New York from Jersey? Would you support them launching missiles into Detroit from a reservation in Michigan? What's the difference (other than this had always been Indian land)?"
Not much difference. There is also the Irish problem as an excellent example. I don't know when to give up.
Also, an important distinction. I am *NOT* saying I *support* any of the above using terrorism. I am saying I *understand* where they are coming from, how they feel they don't have many other choices on the matter. Also, recall that in negotiations, you don't get much from a position of weakness. Reagan and Thatcher both argued that ( correctl
"Next, I don't buy it because it's not feasible. How many NSA agents would it take to monitor ALL Internet traffic."
You assuming at least a couple things here
A: That Agents are monitoring the traffic. Could be they are filtering for keywords. Storing for later review.
B: That they are looking at all the traffic.
And on fighting terrorism, how about we stop sending them money that ends up making them such a valuable part of the world? And I don't know what is wrong with leaving them alone, really. There is some legitimacy to their grievances, you know. What is now Israel was Palestine ( and before that had a variety of owners, none of them Jewish until you get *really* far back ). Britain decides for partition, and you have to give up your homeland, your business, your home so that a bunch of people who have been practicing terrorism in your country can have a home? If it were you, you would be pissed, and fighting back, so would I. Why is that so hard to understand? Now, don't go getting on any "you must hate Israelis" thing, furthest thing from the truth. I understand ( and support ) the idea of Israel having a homeland, but I also understand that the Palestinians want the same, and have been moved to provide it for the Israelis. Not to mention all the building that Israelis have done in the contested areas to attempt to annex those areas.
And America has involved itself in this conflict, supplying arms and money to support Israel.
I don't know what all the answers are, but starting the discussion with ignoring where all the parties are "at" is not wise.
Yeah. We should make electrons be our Police personnel.
They are statistically all over the place, they can just stop being a wave and be a particle when they see a crime being committed, and shock the perp.
I have worked at a couple of places ( San Diego, CA ), where I have been part of the process of selecting candidates for available positions. In my recollection, we had sufficient qualified candidates for these positions, and were always able to fill them. Now, there are lots of candidates who look good on paper, and are not in practice. No doubt. It is real work finding people, they are not going to jump in your lap.
Could it be that your company was offering low wages, and keeping talent away? Is there something about your company other than wages that keeps good people away? Sounds like you are ending up with a bunch of wonks.
Personally, I think the outsourcing and H1B programs have some culpability of late in diminishing the pool of good candidates. Money talks in most societies, and people entering college are looking at the long term prospects, and they are not seeing a career in programming and engineering.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you mean "perpetual emotion machine".
"Reality is that there's a lot of things that are "obvious" in hindsight ""
Dividing the search up among multiple machines if one
machine is not enough is pretty obvious. And not just
in hindsight.
"but who gets to say so?"
I see the problem, but I don't think we should allow that
as an excuse for such things.
True, because each time in the past I have tried to read patents,
A: they try hard to make sure you don't get what the patent is about
B: it is just too tedious.
You have read the patent, I presume. Obvious?
Or what is it really about? What is patentable
in there, please?
Sure you can... Breaking the work up over multiple machines
has got to be about as obvious as can be.
Soon they will be suing the people who came up with RPC,
because it breaks the same patent.
Point A: Situation in 1948 was symmetric or not.
Rephrasing your words: "Ottoman empire was the last legitimate owner of the land, therefore, Arabs of the region had more claims to ownership of the land."
Was the Ottoman empire hold of the land any more legitimate than the British?
I think so, it was "the people who lived in the land", not colonial occupiers.
Is there really a connection between the local Arab tribes in Palestine and the Ottoman rule? I believe the answer to both questions is No, and therefore the situation was symmetrical.
You have not convinced me. Why is colonial rule equivilent to living in the land?
I think the legal question of who owns the land is less important. I think the actual issue was whether the peoples who lived in the land were willing to give up some of the land (about 30% in case of the Arabs) so that the other peoples can have self-rule. The Jews were willing to give up 70% of the area and have a self-run state on 30%, but the Arabs were not, and wanted to control the entire area, including the Jews. If their justification was that the Ottomans who occupied the land before the British were also Arab, I think it is a very weak one.
I disagree with you still, and you have not convinced me your take is better.
Post colonial rule, the Arabs has a recent previous claim to the land, and
occupation in majority of the land. I see those as important in "official ownership"
calculations. I will say that India splitting into India proper and Pakistan
is probably a point in your favor.
Point B: Even assuming it was not right for Jews to take over the lands in Palestine/Israel, is it right to kick 3rd generation Jews who lived in Israel for generations to make room for the many offspring of the refugees?
If I understood you correctly, you tried saying that its exactly the wrong that the Jews did before (which I disagree), but even if that is true - does that wrong (done by the grand-grand parents) justify doing the same wrong to the grand grand children?
I dont see it as an either or situation. I understand why the Palestinians feel the way
they seem to feel. Not that I think they are being completely rational about the whole
thing.
Sure, if the Palestinians manage to conquer the land and perform genocide on the Jews in Israel, and only Palestinians live here, then in 60-100 years, they will gain the moral standing where it would again be wrong to expel them. But that is not the situation now, and it does not make the expelling itself right.
But if the Palestinians did conquer and perform genocide, you would probably understand
a multi-generational hatred on the part of the Jewish directed at the Palestinians, right?
To answer to the refugee question, it does not matter at all if the Jews settlement of Israel was justified or not 60 years ago. What matters now, are the moral consequences of kicking out 6 million Jews to make room for 3 million refugees' offspring. And that is morally wrong. If you believe it is right because 2 wrongs make a right, then your (and Ahmadinajad's) answer to the refugee question is clear. But those who believe that the Jewish settlement was not wrong, OR believe that 2 wrongs do not make a right, know that it is morally absurd to let the 3 million refugees into Israel.
Sure it matters. And nowhere have I esposed the notion that the Israelis should
be expelled. I think you may be making incorrect assumptions about me.
The biggest would be assuming that Ahmadinajad and I are on the same
page in this, and in
"I don't complain about their shooting missiles at military bases as part of war, I complain about shooting at schools and not even attempting to target only the military.
Israel has no way to detain those that plan to blow up buses or shoot missiles into it, so its only option is to asasisante them. Note its not due to their pasts as a "legal action", its due to their plans for the future and to prevent further deaths.
Israel is only targeting militias, while Hamas and the various terrorist movements of the Palestinians don't even bother to make it appear that way. Their aim - to kill whatever Jews they can find in Israel."
The problem for the Palestinians in this is that they dont have the military power to stand
up to the Israeli army, their only winning move is to make it politically difficult for
Israelis to continue living there. Note, I *dont* like it, but that is the lay of the land.
"Actually, they can target their missiles, suicide bombers, and gunfire at the military, and not civilians. Not to mention that they have the option of peaceful non-violent protests, peaceful strikes, etc.
The only reason Israel keeps the checkpoints and control that bothers the Palestinians is those terrorist activities. If Israel removes checkpoints and that does not result in further terror - it may slowly remove the checkpoints and give the Palestinians all the autonomy and freedom they want. The problem is, every time Israel tries to make a tiny move in this direction, the result is abuse by the terrorists who use it to attack Israeli civilians."
Israel's winning move in this case is to ignore ( and I see that that is very very difficult )
those provocations and keep moving forward.
"I think that in actuality, the purpose of Hamas is to keep its power over the Palestinians, which it only has for as long as Israel is an "evil enemy conqueror". So Hamas's interest is that Israel keeps these checkpoints, and that Israel has military presence. That may explain why every peace agreement was followed by a Hamas terrorist bomb going off in a bus."
I agree, but again, Israel needs to neutralize the radicals by making the "we are not the evil enemy conqueror"
idea obviously incorrect. Again, difficult, but the only other way is to try to make a glass
parking lot out of the middle east, which is even more difficult, and has too many after
effects to make viable. And this would have been easier years back, it is getting harder
with time.
"Hamas does not want to free the Palestinian people of occupation, because I think that the leadership of Hamas knows that the fastest road there is through gaining Israeli trust, by not attacking Israel whenever it backs off the occupation."
Quite. And so, in part, as above, there is a portion of the ball in Israel's court
( in my opinion )
"The US already has an official owner. Part of my point about pre-48 Palestine, is that there was no official state. Just locals sitting around. Not sure about what percentages of Jews/arabs were there in 1890, but by 1948 it was about 75%/25%."
This is getting legalistic. Just because the UN, the western world, etc, etc didnt recognize the
people living there as "official owners" doesnt mean they didnt think they were.
"I am not saying what they should feel. I am saying that it would be morally outrageous to kick out a people to make room for another people because those other peoples had (much fewer, btw) ancestors that used to live there and may have been wrongly kicked out.
The "moral" reason for the right of return is by now bankrupt and rests on
"Due process?? This is not a legal execution -- it is war. Palestinians are not killed as retaliation, they are killed as a part of a war. "
:-("
If it is war, then you cant complain about the Palestinians launching missiles
into Israel. Also, aren't there rules and regulations on the treatment of
civilians in war? But, at the end of this, I don't see a declaration of war,
I think calling it "war" is overly simplistic. The Palestinians dont really
have a state of their own to have the conflict with. So, it looks a bit like
a civil uprising.
"You are placing blame wrong here, those who are to blame are the terrorists..."
Yes, part of the blame belongs on the terrorists. They dont have the resources
to maintain a modern standing army, so what choices do they have?
Terrorism, or bow down to the occupier.
The next parts you have are interesting, but do not really match well to my
admittedly limited understanding. My understanding is that there were Jews
living in the area, but not as much as 25%. Also, if percentage of population
is what determines ownership of land, then the US will have to be giving
the Southern parts of the US to Mexico. Which way does it work?
"They already have, and the Israelis agreed to partition their homeland so the Palestinian majority can have the majority of the land!"
But that "homeland" was pulled from an area that was Majority Arab, and given
to the Israelis without consultation to the peoples there. I cant imagine anyone
being surprised about hostility in those conditions. And I don't buy that they
have to give up feeling anything about it at the third generation. I wish they
would, but I think saying to them "you have no right to feel this way" would be wrong.
"Yes, the Palestinian Fatah was corrupt too. Palestinians suck
I feel that the current American administration is corrupt, does that mean
that Americans suck? I think you paint with too broad a stroke. Likely
Palestinians are people just about like people everywhere. Some suck, some
don't.
"They should take example of the Jews in the 40's. Israel's Hagannah was an almost noble organization that did not use violence except against militias. Never went on the offensive, just defense. When the Israeli terrorist groups (Irgun and Lehi) acted, the Hagannah actually arrested them and handed them to the British!
When the terrorist groups wanted independence during the creation of the Israeli state, Hagannah fought them, risking civil war, to avoid the anarchy!"
True, they could take such actions, and that would be to the good.
"During the 40's, they could, like the Jews, accept the division plan. Later, they could just live in peace. In modern times, they could stop terrorism and respect their signed agreements."
It was easy for the Jews to accept the division plan, nothing was taken from the,
everything was given to them. If it is so easy to live in peace, and never mind
sovereignty issues,t then, as you observe, there was a Jewish presence in those lands before,
why couldn't the Jewish live in peace, accept the current government, and stop
their terrorism? Hagannah did as you suggest above, but they never did manage
to shut down Irgun and Lehi. But when the tables are turned, the Israelis expect
some Palestinian Hagannah to stop it all absolutely as conditions for proceeding.
That said, I would agree that under Arafat, and after, not as much as could have been
done to stop terrorism was done.
"Israel is paying a fortune to maintain those settlements.
If it could peacefully pull them out, it would be happy to do so. The only reason governments kept those settlements, was as a "negotiation card" to use when dealing with the Palestinians.
Nobody actually wants to settle those areas."
How much Israel is paying is irrelevant. The desirability of the area
is irrelevant. It allowed the settlements, knowing that that would
I believe you were that person also, and I see and understand your point.
I just think about what kind of circumstances there must have been to make
someone think that blowing themselves up looks like something they would
contemplate.
I definitely don't think that it is OK for any of those scenarios.
The whole thing is messed up, and everyone involved probably needs
a good spanking, and some time in the corner to reflect.
Right of return, yes.
I can understand why Israel is not enthusiastic about this,
but I can also understand why families that lived in some area
for long periods of time would want to go back.
Thorny problem. I have sympathy for your position on this,
and I would recommend they accept and get on with things,
but then again, it is not my ox being gored here.
"Along with the Palestinians that lived in Palestine, Jews did too."
That was my understanding, but what are the percentages?
"My point here, is that its not "black and white"..."
And that was my point also, for the person I was replying to,
On the "it happened generations ago", I dont know that there is
a switch that gets thrown after n generations. I agree it *should*
be growing less important, but I cant say I blame the Palestinians
much for not wanting to let go at this point. While their leadership
is not anywhere near a great example of superior qualities, Israel
has been shooting Palestinians without due process in Palestine
( Yes, I know, they are suspected of terrorism, and are very
probably guilty of it, there is no due process, no collaberation
( yeah, I know that would be difficult ), just kill them.
Satisfying, I am sure, unless you are relatively innocent
of anything other than sitting in the wrong car when the
Israeli helicopter "take out the target".
).
Yeah, the current generation might not be being moved
around, but they would likely know about what was taken
from them. From the bitter parents.
I can see why they would be a bit unhappy.
"While it is unfortunate for the few local tribes"
They were the majority, I believe.
"that lived here that such a conflict ensued the influx of Jewish migration, the vast majority of arabs affected came to Israel because of that influx, "
Did they?
"could have accepted the UN division plan"
The UN division plan imposed on them by force, without their consent?
"and live in peace (or various peace offers since), but chose to continue to fight regardless."
If the UN decided to partition your homeland, would you accept that, or fight it?
On Hamas, yes, they are an armed terrorist organization, elected by the Palestinians.
Mostly, as I recall, on being tired of the corruption of the Fatah party.
People will elect bad people if their plight is bad, and
they don't see a light at the end of the tunnel. Germany
in the 30's is an excellent example of this.
"Your claim that the Palestinians don't have much choice is moot, they could have respected the agreements they signed."
A: you are conflating the period around partition and now.
B: How much choice did they have *then*?
C: I would agree that the Fatah party under Arafat was pretty bad.
They should have done a better job, but didn't.
"They could have taken control over the terrorist organizations and applied law and the agreements to them. Israel would have happily gotten rid of virtually all the settlements and gave the Palestinians a free state if they had"
I am not sure about happily. Personally, I think some, probably many in
Israel were glad of the excuse to point at the bad bad bad stuff that
Palestinian terrorist organizations where doing. It is possible that
the Palestinians would have a free state. I think there would have been
much posturing and such from Israel. It was extremely stupid of the
Palestinian leadership not to have put them on the hot seat exactly as
you suggest.
"The reason the agreements failed is not Israel - it is Palestinian terrorism, and it could have been stopped, but the cowards in Ramallah were too afraid to risk civil war, and now they're too late. Their enemies grew stronger, started civil war, and are winning it."
It is both parties. Not just Israel, and not just the Palestinians.
And other Arab states get a sliver of blame for not helping in a
positive way.
"Not quite. The British split off a very large chunk of the Mandate of Palestine and established an Arab country. It's called Jordan.
The remainder of the Mandate of Palestine was turned over to the UN to decide what to do. After investigating & consulting with Arabs & Jews, the UN decided to split the remainder of the Mandate of Palestine into an Arab state and a Jewish state, with international status for Jerusalem. This was unacceptable to the Arabs, and the Arabs declared war (and lost). Arabs who remained in what became Israel are the freest Arabs in the Middle East."
Ok, thanks for that. But it is still an external entity deciding the fate of that land,
and the residents of that land got very little say in how that all went down.
If the UN decided to give SoCal back to Mexico, would you expect the US to fight,
or say "well, the UN said so, so, lets pack things up!".
Or as in my other post, something belongs to you, you have possession of it,
someone else claims it by some process, you are given half of it back.
Are you happy? Hell no, you are not. You want all of what you had.
"Israel has not annexed those areas. If Israel wanted to annex the West Bank and Gaza, they would have done so a long time ago. Israel is capable of annexation - Israel did annex the Golan Heights, which used to be part of Syria."
Israelis did build in those areas, hoping to force conditions suitable
for annexation. Or was is supposed to be a charitable event for Arabs?
"Further, buildings don't mean a thing."
Sure they do. They mean "I intend to live here". And
"I intend to be here long enough that it is worthwhile
to build a permanent building, rather than setting up
a tent".
"When Israel made peace with Egypt and gave back the Sinai, Israel forcibly removed all Israelis, including those who had built in the Sinai. Israel did the same thing when they left Gaza, forcibly removing all Israelis."
OK, but it is still a provocation. Do you really not see that?
They felt provoked. None of the press at the time was like
"gee, what a surprise, why do they feel like that".
"Not quite. America wasn't a significant supplier of arms or money to Israel until the early 1970s. Prior to that it was mostly the Brits and the French."
It doesn't exist because it all happened after 1970?
And do you not see the coupling of Arab hostility and support for Israel?
I will say it again, I am not against Israel, I think they
should have a homeland there, but I find it strange that the
peoples that knew what it was like not to have a homeland cannot
seem to empathize with the Palestinian position. And I think
their current posturing is hypocritical in light of that.
And, if you believe that she will not stop the monitoring,
how do you feel about Bush setting the precedent that allows
Clinton to use it?
"However, you could just as plausibly (read: not very plausibly) make an analogy between IP packets and shouting across a crowded room. In that case, anything the gov't hears is fair game"
There is a difference between what the government accidentally hears shouted across
a crowded room, and the government actively seeking to occupy all rooms so that they
can hear every conversation, whispered, shouted or spoken in code.
I would argue that government should not be so seeking without probably cause and a warrant.
"Well, the post says ALL TRAFFIC. (it does go on to say all of AT&T's traffic, however). Even so, it's not feasible"
"We learn in The Internet for Dummies that any two packet do not have to, and probably will not take the same route to get from A to B."
Quibbling. Are they copying data, and should they? That they are possibly not copying *all* has little relevance to the right/wrongness of this.
"First, it was the UN that partitioned that area, not Britain."
OK. It still was not an invitation by the Palestinians to come live with them.
It was an external decision imposed on the people living there.
"The Palestinians have a homeland."
And do they have control that that? I recall news articles from
after Hamas won the election about Israel cutting off tax revenue
to them. Doesnt sound like any kind of real homeland to me.
Would you consider it sufficient?
"The UN resolution did not give the land that Palestinians claim was Palestine and give it to the Israelis. They took a piece of land that was British"
A British colony, imposed by force by British arms.
The Palestinians were the ones living there.
"and gave half to Israel and half to the Palestinians."
If you have something, someone claims control of that
something, and gives half to you, half to someone else,
will you be satisfied?
"When Israel was attacked for being there (notice that British were not) by every neighboring Arab nation, they said, "Screw you people, we're taking it all!""
A: Every Arab nation is not Palestine.
B: I understand that part of the history. Yes.
And I understand that the Arabs were being very
hostile to Israel, and I understand how Israel
is not really liking that. They have legitimate
security concerns. I get it.
Believe it or not, I am not saying that the Palestinians are 100% right and
the Israeli's 100% wrong in this issue.
"Since then, they have given it back."
Have they?
"Still not good enough evidently. The Palestinians want to claim that all of the land that was once British was really Palestine and they want it all back."
It was Ottoman Empire, then a British colony after the war.
Again, it was still Palestinians living there. Africa, India,
Pakistan, America, Canada, etc, etc were all once British colonies.
What legitimacy do colonial holdings from centuries past have to
do with government today, especially with all that has been said
about self determination?
In other words, I don't think the Palestinians bought into the
"it's British" idea, it was still "theirs". The Western world
may have recognized it as British, but they likely didn't.
And once again, if you owned something, someone else claimed it,
and divided it and told you you could have half simply because
of the force of arms, would you walk away happy?
I don't know where you are politically or economically, but if
you have ever argued that taxes are stealing, or that they are
a government monopoly, unfair and imposed, this is the same
thing.
"That was 50+ years ago. At what point to give up? Would you support Native Americans lobbing mortars into New York from Jersey? Would you support them launching missiles into Detroit from a reservation in Michigan? What's the difference (other than this had always been Indian land)?"
Not much difference. There is also the Irish problem as an excellent
example. I don't know when to give up.
Also, an important distinction. I am *NOT* saying I *support* any of
the above using terrorism. I am saying I *understand* where they are
coming from, how they feel they don't have many other choices on the
matter. Also, recall that in negotiations, you don't get much from a
position of weakness. Reagan and Thatcher both argued that ( correctl
"Next, I don't buy it because it's not feasible. How many NSA agents would it take to monitor ALL Internet traffic."
You assuming at least a couple things here
A: That Agents are monitoring the traffic. Could be they are filtering for keywords. Storing for later review.
B: That they are looking at all the traffic.
And on fighting terrorism, how about we stop sending them money that ends up making
them such a valuable part of the world? And I don't know what is wrong with leaving
them alone, really. There is some legitimacy to their grievances, you know.
What is now Israel was Palestine ( and before that had a variety of owners,
none of them Jewish until you get *really* far back ). Britain decides for
partition, and you have to give up your homeland, your business, your home
so that a bunch of people who have been practicing terrorism in your country
can have a home? If it were you, you would be pissed, and fighting back,
so would I. Why is that so hard to understand? Now, don't go getting on any
"you must hate Israelis" thing, furthest thing from the truth. I understand
( and support ) the idea of Israel having a homeland, but I also understand
that the Palestinians want the same, and have been moved to provide it for
the Israelis. Not to mention all the building that Israelis have done in
the contested areas to attempt to annex those areas.
And America has involved itself in this conflict, supplying arms and money
to support Israel.
I don't know what all the answers are, but starting the discussion with
ignoring where all the parties are "at" is not wise.
Maybe the room is like TARDIS, bigger on the inside
than on the outside?
Assuming that she was reporting honestly....
"There, did I nail it?"
No, you clipped it.
Yeah. We should make electrons be our Police personnel.
They are statistically all over the place, they can just stop
being a wave and be a particle when they see a crime being
committed, and shock the perp.
Come come now.
Why would we want to reduce the rights of corporations to
merely those of "citizens"?
I have worked at a couple of places ( San Diego, CA ),
where I have been part of the process of selecting candidates
for available positions. In my recollection, we had
sufficient qualified candidates for these positions, and
were always able to fill them. Now, there are lots of
candidates who look good on paper, and are not in
practice. No doubt. It is real work finding people,
they are not going to jump in your lap.
Could it be that your company was offering low wages,
and keeping talent away? Is there something about your
company other than wages that keeps good people away?
Sounds like you are ending up with a bunch of wonks.
Personally, I think the outsourcing and H1B programs
have some culpability of late in diminishing the
pool of good candidates. Money talks in most
societies, and people entering college are looking at
the long term prospects, and they are not seeing
a career in programming and engineering.
No. The first rule of Windows and Internet Explorer is that you don't
talk about Windows and Internet Explorer.
You need to say "up to". See, you sell an
engine, rated at 50 hp, and you say,
"up to 5000 hp". No fraud there now.
I am sure they do, but that would have ruined the joke.
No, they dont. Which makes this agreement very curious.