#193000 ben Thu Jun 26th 14:50:03 2008
will
re 192992
very nice long post whose points may be valid, albeit argueable. what i find more nteresting is for someone who can write pages of understanding about how fear drives people during war to do "crazy" things including war crimes, i didn't see a bit of that understanding expressed in 992.
#193003 Thu Jun 26th 16:22:10 2008
Anorak (slang)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For the clothing article, see anorak.
In British slang an anorak is a person, typically a man, who has unfathomable interest in arcane, detailed information regarded as boring by the rest of the population, and who feels compelled to talk at length about this information to anyone within earshot.
In the United Kingdom, people who wear anoraks in their social life are often stereotyped as trainspotters or persons with unimaginative and dull pastimes/hobbies.
The closest American slang is perhaps \"nerd\".
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anorak_(slang)
#193004 eugene Thu Jun 26th 17:33:10 2008
No a single Palestinian would ever think any Jews are wild animals.
this is true - because dogs, monkeys and pigs are not wild animals.
#193005 Steve Ganot Department of the Obvious Thu Jun 26th 18:46:34 2008
Will: ...I'd like to get some more of your insight on how Ireland is a bastard of a rape...
All quotes from Wikipedia:
Ireland was first settled by people from Britain.
"...the first known settlement in Ireland around 8000 BC, when hunter-gatherers arrived from Great Britain and continental Europe, probably via a land bridge..."
Ireland's overwhelmingly dominant, and all but official religion, was imported by a Brit:
"Saint Patrick, a Roman Britain-born Christian missionary" brought Christianity, and specifically Catholicism, to Ireland.
England has been deeply involved in Irish affairs for hundreds of years:
"The coming of Cambro-Norman mercenaries under Richard de Clare, 2nd Earl of Pembroke, nicknamed Strongbow, in 1169 marked the beginning of more than 700 years of direct Norman and, later, English involvement in Ireland."
In the 16th and 17th centuries, "thousands of English and Scottish Protestant settlers" arrived in Ireland.
This led to a sectarian conflict that, to some degree, continues to this day. "By the end of the seventeenth century all Catholics, representing some 85% of Ireland's population then, were banned from the Irish parliament. Political power rested entirely in the hands of a British settler-colonial, and more specifically Anglican, minority while the Catholic population suffered severe political and economic privations. In 1801, this colonial parliament was abolished and Ireland became an integral part of a new United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland under the Act of Union. Catholics were still banned from sitting in that new parliament until Catholic Emancipation was attained in 1829, the principal condition of which was the removal of the poorer, and thus more radical, Irish freeholders from the franchise."
Ireland (that is, the southern 26 counties) didn't achieve independence from the UK until 1922; the 6 northeastern counties remain part of the UK to this day.
And to this day, Irish society is predominantly English-speaking; the Irish language is very much secondary in importance.
Was "the father of Ireland a British imperialist"? You'd better believe it. Britain sent multiple waves of colonists to settle the country. The overwhelmingly dominant religion was imported from Britain. The dominant language was imported from Britain. Britain dominated and directly ruled Ireland for hundreds of years, and continues to rule part of Ireland. The long struggle for independence was (for according to some Irish, still is) against Britain.
So, yeah, if any country on the planet could be called the bastard child of British imperial "rape", it's Ireland. That "rape" has been going on since prehistoric times, and it continues today.
Compared to this long and overwhelmingly sad history, British imperial involvement in Israel was extremely brief and relatively speaking, a walk in the park. British rule only lasted about 30 years; from the beginning it was, at least in theory, supportive of Jewish national rights in our homeland; it was reluctantly accepted by most of the local Jewish population as useful in the struggle for liberation from Turkish imperialism and an important bridge toward independence; and even those who faught against it only had to wage a relatively short armed struggle before Britain left.
And when they left, they left. They didn't leave behind British settlers or culture or language or religion.
What did we inherit from them? A parliamentary democracy as our system of government? The Zionist movement was democratic before Britain got involved. Initially, many of our laws were of British origin, but the British influence on our legal system has declined steadily over the years. Our civil service, public radio and television, and various other aspects of public life were initially strongly influenced by the British model. But in these areas, too, British influence is waning. British culture? Manners? Don't make me laugh.
Heck, we even drive on the right side of the road. You don't.
Unlike the history of British involvement in Ireland, the Israeli situation doesn't sound like rape to me. More like a brief relationship that was mainly good for a while and then ended poorly.
#193006 eugene Thu Jun 26th 23:09:33 2008
in other news:
http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/april05/slime-mold.bush.cheney.ssl.html
#193007 Joe Fri Jun 27th 01:46:50 2008
Eugene -
I see BDS is alive and well on most college campuses. Gotta keep those kids busy with extra curricular activities
#193008 eugene Fri Jun 27th 01:51:13 2008
joe, i see you still reply without reading the links.
#193009 Steve Ganot steve.ganot@gmail.com Fri Jun 27th 10:01:44 2008
Oh, btw, George, re 192931, the UNICEF website makes it clear that the Photo of the Year doesn't celebrate, but calls attention to the problem of, forced childhood marriages.
#193010 ben Fri Jun 27th 10:27:01 2008
replying without reading is bad enough. but posting a link without reading it?
#193011 ben Fri Jun 27th 10:28:42 2008
steve/efraim
any comments on this week's politics? business as usual, a good deal, barak barakh (barak fled)?
#193012 Will Attack of the Griffin Fri Jun 27th 17:32:06 2008
what i find more interesting is for someone who can write pages of understanding about how fear drives people during war to do "crazy" things including war crimes, i didn't see a bit of that understanding expressed in 992
ben, I didnt write pages I made a single statement. " Evil makes fear replace the good" You have already established that a godlike personage of proper moral stature yields not an inch to evil and spits wrath on the heads of all before him who quaketh in their boots. I am but mortal so i cannot see the world through your perspective but Im not sure that evil holds the same sway in the Shalit equation as it does with your birdloving absolute monster creatures scenario.
#193016 Efraim Pressure on Barak Sat Jun 28th 09:54:47 2008
Ben,
I don't know what happened elsewhere but from the Western Negev and the Agricultural sector in general, there was a lot of pressure put on Barak to let him know that no one was interested in having an election at this time. The truth is that people and community leaders in Otef Azza have a great many more important concerns than whether or not Olmert received cash filled envelopes six years ago. There are a lot of things that have to be done in the way of budgeting for increased security construction and general economic development and everyone knows that everything will be frozen if an election is called.
Efraim
#193017 Will Sat Jun 28th 22:15:30 2008
Dear Steve,
Could you fill me in on where this Bastard of rape phraseology came into things ? Did I say it ? And the "the father of [Israel] a British imperialist" quote , did I say that ? I mean it's true but do you have the context of all this cached somewhere in your anorak ? If you do could you please refresh my memory just so I know who is quoting who with all these quote marks. I wrote lots of things back then and I was drunk for most of it, so Im going to need help.
Thanks
Yours sincerely
William Andy Smythe
#193018 ben Sat Jun 28th 23:17:02 2008
I believe in the general goodness of people, even war time Germans, in that given the choice most people will pick up an injured bird from the side of the road and actually feel sympathy. Wars are evil and evil has a way of cornering people into places were fear replaces the good.
the above is your statement, when talking about the germans during ww2. poor little victims of fear. fear pushed them into killing the jews, into invading russia and slaughtering millions, into doing all the things that they did. it wasn't cool headed planning, it was an entire bureaucracy making decisions in a very methodical way, deciding to enslave millions, kill populations, etc. it wasn't highly intelligent people using their skills to figure out the best way to destroy. it wasn't 2000 years of antisemitism. it was fear. and these people were basically good.
that is called whitewashing.
#193019 Will Sun Jun 29th 00:41:59 2008
Ben,
If all you want to do is distill the sense of everything down to a point where you can say "Will tried to exonerate the Nazis" then good luck.
However the record will show amidst all of your hyperbole, I have made one basic statement of fact which is :
> Europe did not kill six million Jews, the Nazis did.
Another basic statement of opinion, which is :
> I believe in the general goodness of people.
If I believe in the general goodness of people then it would be absolutely ridiculous and racist of me to even consider whether the Germans should be included in that. It would also be ridiculous of me to imagine that perhaps for the duration of world war II they became temporarily evil. It's logic, Ben. So for that reason I would disagree with the logic that Germany killed six million Jews.
Sure we have figures of speech, such as Germany invaded Poland, or Germany beat Israel 2-0 in the World Cup and in an open honest discussion where nobody is trying to assassinate another person's character, it is never necessary to add "Oh by the way I do mean the German and Israel football teams, old bean".
But because you and your buddy Godwin are hellbent on warping an argument about European support for the creation of Israel into an examination of my moral standpoint on the holocaust, you have given me no choice but to continue to refute your absurd generalisations as counter-factual . Incidentally I would like to re-post some of Steve's earlier story to back up my position in the origianl argument with Jaron before you introduced the holocaust argument, which in my mind has nothing to do with what Jaron and I were discussing. Your argument, that Anti-semitism and the holocaust effects the relationship between Israel and Europe, is separate and you have not even been courteous enough to ask for my opinion on that.
Anyway, Steve said :
British rule only lasted about 30 years; from the beginning it was, at least in theory, supportive of Jewish national rights in our homeland; it was reluctantly accepted by most of the local Jewish population as useful in the struggle for liberation from Turkish imperialism and an important bridge toward independence........More like a brief relationship that was mainly good for a while and then ended poorly.
#193020 Steve Ganot steve.ganot@gmail.com Sun Jun 29th 03:26:13 2008
William Andy Smythe: Could you fill me in on where this Bastard of rape phraseology came into things ? Did I say it ?
Yes.
William Andy Smythe: And the "the father of [Israel] a British imperialist" quote , did I say that ?
Yes.
#193021 george Sun Jun 29th 08:32:44 2008
193009 Steve Ganot
Usually "btw" is a continuation. I don't see on this page (has it been paged out?) that you addressed me about anything to justify a "btw". Did miss it?
Regarding the UNICEF photo. It was allegedly a prize winning photo. Too bad it was not good enough to tell the viewer the alleged intended message unless the viewer read the "fine print". I wonder how many people really bother with it.
#193022 george Sun Jun 29th 08:38:24 2008
he has married an Israeli Arab woman who is an activist on behalf of terrorist prisoners. As the wife of a prisoner, she gets a monthly stipend from the government
He is not explicit here. Does this mean that he married her while he was in prison? And is this monthly stipend paid by the Israeli government or another government? And is she an Israeli citizen? And if so, does show hold multiple citizenships?
www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A2740-2003May17
And seeing as Yigal Amir married while in prison (that did happen, didn't it?), does this mean Amir's wife gets a government stipend?
#193023 george Sun Jun 29th 08:42:57 2008
An article so pricelessly Canadian:
www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080620.blatchford21/BNStory/specialComment/home
#193024 ben Sun Jun 29th 11:40:09 2008
george
that detail about the pension is absolutely the least important detail in that story. what is important is this woman's cri d'couer about the people who killed her family. kuntar is about to be released. i only wish that olmert had the brains that rabin had.
#193025 ben Sun Jun 29th 13:41:12 2008
"Will tried to exonerate the Nazis"
exonerate, no. watering down the horror to some extent, yes that what it seems to me. writing off the rest of europe's contribution to what happened, oh yeah.
#193026 Jaron Sun Jun 29th 14:11:19 2008
I believe that 193019 was written by the actual Will.
In 193019 Will wrote: "But because you and your buddy Godwin are hellbent on warping an argument about European support for the creation of Israel into an examination of my moral standpoint on the holocaust, you have given me no choice but to continue to refute your absurd generalisations as counter-factual . Incidentally I would like to re-post some of Steve's earlier story to back up my position in the origianl argument with Jaron before you introduced the holocaust argument, which in my mind has nothing to do with what Jaron and I were discussing. Your argument, that Anti-semitism and the holocaust effects the relationship between Israel and Europe, is separate and you have not even been courteous enough to ask for my opinion on that."
IIRC your general argument was that since Europe supposedly supported the creation of Israel over 50 years ago, this has some relevance today in current diplomacy. Firstly, the US and USSR were far ahead of Europe in recognition of Israel in 1948. Secondly, by the end of the Mandate, the Jews fought a war to get the Brits out of Palestine that resembled nothing more than your 1921 struggle to get the Brits out of Ireland, in some instances with the Brits employing an identical playbook to stomp the locals. If you have an interest, I suggest Terror Out Of Zion by J. Bowyer Bell on that struggle. This is useful because Bell is an expert on that sort of conflict and has also written one of the standard histories of Republican resistance.
But that is history. My contention is that TODAY, the EU is far more critical of Israel than of any other democratic state. Part of my evidence (other pieces can be addressed separately, but I don't want this argument to lose focus) for this is their support for Palestinian nationalism. You then contended that the EU is doing very much for Palestine.
So I again ask you to address two direct points:
1. The EU pays a goodly percentage of the PNA budget. Can you name me any stateless ethnic nationalism OTHER than the Palestinians that the your taxes bankroll?
2. Can you name me even one stateless ethnic nationalism OTHER than Palestinian that the EU supports creating a state for?
Those are two simple questions. Well?
#193027 Jaron proofread, this time Sun Jun 29th 14:14:15 2008
#193026 Jaron Sun Jun 29th 14:11:19 2008
I believe that 193019 was written by the actual Will.
In 193019 Will wrote: \"But because you and your buddy Godwin are hellbent on warping an argument about European support for the creation of Israel into an examination of my moral standpoint on the holocaust, you have given me no choice but to continue to refute your absurd generalisations as counter-factual . Incidentally I would like to re-post some of Steve's earlier story to back up my position in the origianl argument with Jaron before you introduced the holocaust argument, which in my mind has nothing to do with what Jaron and I were discussing. Your argument, that Anti-semitism and the holocaust effects the relationship between Israel and Europe, is separate and you have not even been courteous enough to ask for my opinion on that.\"
IIRC your general argument was that since Europe supposedly supported the creation of Israel over 50 years ago, this has some relevance today in current diplomacy. Firstly, the US and USSR were far ahead of Europe in recognition of Israel in 1948. Secondly, by the end of the Mandate, the Jews fought a war to get the Brits out of Palestine that resembled nothing more than your 1921 struggle to get the Brits out of Ireland, in some instances with the Brits employing an identical playbook to stomp the locals. If you have an interest, I suggest Terror Out Of Zion by J. Bowyer Bell on that struggle. This is useful because Bell is an expert on that sort of conflict and has also written one of the standard histories of Republican resistance.
But that is history. My contention is that TODAY, the EU is far more critical of Israel than of any other democratic state. Part of my evidence (other pieces can be addressed separately, but I don't want this argument to lose focus) for this is their support for Palestinian nationalism. You then contended that the EU is NOT doing very much for Palestine.
So I again ask you to address two direct points:
1. The EU pays a goodly percentage of the PNA budget. Can you name me any stateless ethnic nationalism OTHER than the Palestinians that the your taxes bankroll?
2. Can you name me even one stateless ethnic nationalism OTHER than Palestinian that the EU supports creating a state for?
Those are two simple questions. Well? If the EU isn't doing so much for Palestine, then why is Palestinian nationalism so special that it alone deserves that level of EU support where no other stateless ethnic nationalism does?
#193028 Will Sun Jun 29th 17:14:08 2008
Jaron,
Not wishing to give too much legitimacy to your Walt Disneyfied version of reality and your complete reversal of fact to fiction and vice versa the answer to your questions is Kosovo.
#193029 Will The end is nigh. Sun Jun 29th 18:05:25 2008
More lies Ben ?
Your argument here has been a continuous string of attributing positions and statements to me that I never made or expressed in an attempt to put my morals on trial in your Kangaroo Court of Self-righteousness. I dont need Godwins Law in order to have already claimed the victory over your low tactics and you have completely overplayed your empty hand at this stage.
With reference to my stated position on how evil affects people's morals in war you should watch a film that I watched myself just last night. It's called Taxi to the Dark Side.
Its an Oscar winning documentary which depicts in graphic detail how the mild-mannered American soldiers from All American backgrounds descended slowly into depravity and murder. They readily admit in open conversation although obviously ashamedly, how with little or no coaxing they each found themsleves ever more willing to participate in the dehumanisation, torture, humiliation and utlimately killing of innocent people. Stripping them naked, setting dogs on them, sexually abusing them keeping them in Razor-wire enclosures for no reason. It became natural for them. They became totally immune to the suffering they were causing. You should see these guys now. Teddy Bears.There was a line in the film that went something like orders go down the line quckly in the US Army. Some guy in charge in Washingtom says get confessions and pretty soon you have ordinary soldiers torturing and murdering innocent people in Iraq
They didnt have the moral equipment that you expect of everybody.They are just ordinary men , personally, i'd consider it to be narcisistc and self righteous to judge them individually on the premise that I would never ever do such things.I just dont know what I would do.Apparently you are above all this Human weakensss. Super dooper for you, Ben.
#193030 Will Some Historian Sun Jun 29th 18:28:33 2008
Steve,
Your story about British involvment in Ireland is certainly a story of Rape. But when Ireland was raped it didnt give birth to itself that analogy does not hold up. The imperialist British Father raped Ireland for centuries and eventually gave birth to the Northern Irish entity, No?
It seems from the bit of the record posted above from many years back that it was Joe who introduced the rape analogy to the conversation. No ?
#193031 Jaron Ordinary people Sun Jun 29th 18:40:47 2008
RE your 193029.
Israel's neigbors are no less human than those US "Teddy Bears" you describe. Yet you seem unable/unwilling to ascribe to Hamas or other Palestinian actors bad intentions or actions. Furthermore, your "resistance" folks are imbued by culture and religion (or a misinterpretation of religion according to some Islamic scholars) with a hatred of the "other" (Jews in this situation) that makes any views held by Americans seem mild by comparison.
Ah, but I forget. The Palestinians are the innocent doe eyed victims and Israel is the evil bugbear. Nice and simplistic that way.
#193032 Jaron Sun Jun 29th 18:42:05 2008
Will,
Why do you believe that Ireland has a right to exist as an independent state?
#193034 george Sun Jun 29th 19:48:53 2008
The front web page of Haaretz has so many opposing stories. Let's see if I understand any of this. The Cabinet has approved the release of Kunter plus an additional "four illegal Lebanese fighters", the remains of dozens infiltrators (another version says only 10), an unspecified number of Palestinian prisoners, plus a report on 4 missing Iranian diplomats. This is in exchange for Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser, both presumed dead, plus a report about Ron Arad.
Apparently this is a deal to be agreed by Hezobollah? Has anyone from Hezobollah agreed to those terms?
Regarding Gilad Shalit, presumed alive (?) but not sure (they lied before about dead soldiers being alive), this requires a deal with Hamas? Hamas wants 1000 live prisoners (inclduing Marwan Barghouthi) in exchange for one Gilad Shalit, while Israel is ready to offer "only" 450 live prisoners for one Gilad Shalit.
I still can't get over that message. Is that really Hamas' value system: one live Jew is worth 1,000 live Palestinians (non-Jews, presumably Muslims).
#193035 Wilklk Sun Jun 29th 20:20:26 2008
My contention is that TODAY, the EU is far more critical of Israel than of any other democratic state.
Israel is not a democracy.
#193036 Will Sun Jun 29th 20:23:42 2008
Above is mine
#193037 Jaron Mon Jun 30th 01:07:48 2008
Will,
Huh?! I guess Ben and Efraim are not voting in not real elections for a not real Knesset? I think you might be the one in disneyland.
Kosovo is a good case to cite. Do you believe that the EU supports Kosovar statehood and the general cause of the Kosovar Albanians?
As for a sense of reality, you draw you lens to focus so myopically that from a forced microscopic perspective you see only Israel and the Palestinians. You miss the entire framework which looks broadly like this:
1. In support of Israel - the US. That is about it.
2. In support of Palestinian nationalism - the entire Muslim and Arab worlds to varied degrees, the EU, the UN, the western left, the media, the Jewish left, those states whose economies run on Arab oil and anti-semites (active and latent) across the globe.
Rather than just airily dismiss that out of hand, I would like to see you enumerate the resources available to both Zionism and Palestinian nationalism. No long sermons, just a concise list on where you believe both cause can draw support from. Lets see if you are off in disneyland where fact is fiction.
#193038 Jaron Ack! editing Mon Jun 30th 01:11:15 2008
Will,
Huh?! I guess Ben and Efraim are not voting in not real elections for a not real Knesset? I think you might be the one in disneyland.
Kosovo is a good case to cite. Do you believe that the EU supports Kosovar statehood and the general cause of the Kosovar Albanians?
As for a sense of reality, you draw your lens to focus so myopically that from a forced microscopic perspective you see only Israel and the Palestinians. You entirely miss the grand strategic framework which looks broadly like this:
1. In support of Israel - the US. That is about it.
2. In support of Palestinian nationalism - the entire Muslim and Arab worlds to varied degrees, the EU, the UN, the western left, the media, the Jewish left, those states whose economies run on Arab oil and anti-semites (active and latent, with Palestine just the excuse) across the globe.
Rather than just airily dismiss that assessment out of hand, I would like to see you enumerate the resources you see as available to both Zionism and Palestinian nationalism. No long sermons, just a concise list of where you believe both causes can draw support from.
#193039 Jaron Mon Jun 30th 01:18:58 2008
In 193034 George wrote: "I still can't get over that message. Is that really Hamas' value system: one live Jew is worth 1,000 live Palestinians (non-Jews, presumably Muslims)."
I think an interviewed Palestinian militant said it best. His statement (in a documentary) was along the lines that they would win because the Jews embraced life while they had no fear of death and embraced it instead. A slight cultural difference, to say the least. Just don't tell Will that, since the Palestinians are purely innocent doe eyed victims of Zionist agression here. It just wouldn't do to challenge that particular orthodoxy.
#193040 ben Mon Jun 30th 09:25:10 2008
i'm not sure what is this moral equipment that you think that I am expecting of everybody. not committing a war crime is asking so much? granted i am not an expert but dehumanisation, torture, humiliation and utlimately killing of innocent people sounds like a war crime to me. that type of behavior is supposed to be forgiven, put aside, overlooked, not judged, not punished because the soldiers committing them were scared out of their minds? crimes against humanity or worse should "be understood" because they come in a context of fear?
being scared, afraid, terrified only goes so far. years ago there was a participant here who justified what happened to baruch goldstein after he massacred those people. basically he was knocked unconscious and then his body was ripped to pieces. his eyes were cut out of their sockets. the claim made was they acted out of terror. not good enough, imo. ie maybe they indeed did act out of terror, but that is not good enough. the danger had passed, completely. they, being human beings, are expected to have some ability to control themselves. if they can't, there should be a price to pay. same thing in war time.
btw i also disagree that fear is the moving factor in a lot of these crimes. fear isn't what drove the serbs in their mass rape campaigns or the various african armed groups who cut off limbs.
Some guy in charge in Washingtom says get confessions and pretty soon you have ordinary soldiers torturing and murdering innocent people in Iraq
that line of defense went out the window a long time ago.
#193041 Jaron Mon Jun 30th 13:38:40 2008
Ben,
IMO It has more to do with who the actors are rather than the actual crime against humanity. In a recent example on this page, Hamas can throw a bound Palestinian to his death from a rooftop. No problem from Will on that one. Had an Israeli done the same thing...instant war crime. Even if the same guy is just as dead from the same fall.
RE Baruch Goldstein. From my understanding (maybe I am wrong here), the guy got so radicalized from his past experiences that he basically "became Palestinian" in his belief that it was justified to kill any of the "other" simply because of their identity, even if they were non-combatants. That is IMO the most important crucial qualitative difference between us and them. It is the difference between sending commandos after a specific named Hamas leader and there being collateral damage (a rather ugly euphemism that provides no comfort to families) and your piece partners sending a brainwashed kid to deliberately blow up a commuter bus.
IMO, Goldstein then got what he deserved and should have expected no less. Was it justified for him to get shredded in the way you describe? Not according to law. Neither was his sectarian massacre of non-combatants. Law becomes a fungible political tool when discussing this kind of thing. You are the only people who would actually give Marwan Barghouti a REAL criminal trial with lawyers. Human nature suggests Goldstein's fate was to be expected. The specific context (Palestinians with their hands on a live Jewish settler who had just killed several of them) ensured it.
If a terrorist had just shot your family member, and was now unarmed and bound in front of you....would you take them prisoner? The traditional Jewish answer is yes, take them prisoner as they are not a current threat. The human answer is to rip their head off. The Palestinian answer would be kill a Jew just because he is a Jew, no matter if he was just walking down the street (see the various sectarian attacks on civilian Jewish hikers during the Oslo process).
A common feature of ethnic/tribal conflict is a lessening of humanitarian standards. One rare case where I will give the eternally gullible Jewish left credit is in the way they prevent Israel from becoming Palestinian in its approach to the "other". Of course, you will get no credit from Will or the like for this restraint, but it is important for internal standards.
Fear isn't what causes atrocity (except at an amorphous metaphysical level far beyond the scope of this post). Culture and human nature are IMO the driving enablers.
Tohar haneshek. That sort of thing.
#193042 Steve Ganot steve.ganot@gmail.com Mon Jun 30th 14:29:00 2008
Will: Your story about British involvment in Ireland is certainly a story of Rape. But when Ireland was raped it didnt give birth to itself that analogy does not hold up. The imperialist British Father raped Ireland for centuries and eventually gave birth to the Northern Irish entity, No?
No.
If we really wish to extend this absurdly simplistic, tendentious, and frankly offensive "rape" analogy, we could say that Britain gave birth to Ireland in prehistoric times, and has been raping it ever since.
The British rape of Ireland started before Ireland was Ireland. To put it another way -- and this isn't so absurd -- the "father" of Ireland is a British imperialist. The mother, that is, the isle itself, was "raped" in order that the seed be planted. Ireland, as a country with a particular character, history, and culture, is very much -- how did you put it? -- the bastard child of British rape.
No, the bastard isn't just the "Northern Irish entity". Look at the Republic: Ruled by Britain for hundreds of years? Check. Dominant language imported from Britain? Check. Dominant religion imported from Britain? Check. Population largely descended from British settlers? Check. Drives on the left side of the road? Check.
Heck, even your electric plugs, keyboard layout, auditing standards, time zone and daylight saving calendar, are based on British standards. Check, check, check, check, check....
So, yeah, British imperialism was the most influential force in creating Ireland as we know it today. Before the British showed up, what was on the isle of Eire that we would recognize today as specifically Irish? Pretty much nothing but the land, itself. This is very different from the Israeli case.
As British Prime Minister Disraeli said, "when the ancestors of the right honourable gentleman were brutal savages in an unknown island, mine were priests in the temple of Solomon."
Will: It seems from the bit of the record posted above from many years back that it was Joe who introduced the rape analogy to the conversation. No ?
I have no idea.
#193043 Steve Ganot steve.ganot@gmail.com Mon Jun 30th 15:59:07 2008
ben: any comments on this week's politics? business as usual, a good deal, barak barakh (barak fled)?
I imagine that what Efraim wrote about in 193016 -- the feeling that people don't want elections now -- is more widespread than just in his Qassam-battered region, particularly among members of parties such as Labor that are down in the polls.
No, I wouldn't call it "Barak barach"; just politics as usual.
George, re 193021, no, you didn't miss anything. Sorry if I used an unjustified "btw".
It was definitely, not just "allegedly", a prize winning photo. I don't know what you mean by "fine print". The link you provided was not to a UNICEF website, but to someone's blog complaining about the photo. And that blog now acknowledges that the UNICEF photo "seems to be a call to attention to raising awareness of a worldwide problem. So have to let the UN off on this one."
Seems to be? Anyone viewing UNICEF's site (see www.unicef.de/foto/2007/english/index.htm ) would understand that it is -- there is no room for a mushy, bet-hedging "seems to be" interpretation here.
George: I wonder how many people really bother with it.
And do you also wonder if people think that the lesser prizes went to photos celebrating child labor, poverty and malnourishment, crippling diseases, and war?
#193044 Will Insulting people is tricky Mon Jun 30th 16:12:55 2008
Dear Steve,
At least you got that much right , you have no idea. When I read your post for the second time it made much more sense when I bore that fact in mind.
If we really wish to extend this absurdly simplistic, tendentious, and frankly offensive "rape" analogy, we could say that Britain gave birth to Ireland in prehistoric times, and has been raping it ever since.
It's Ok Steve, Im not offended but I will pass on your concerns to the people of Ireland. But I suggest if you are feeling a bit sensitive about it then you should just stop trying to offend me.
I'm not sure where this rape analogy of yours applies. It would appear that any cause giving rise to an effect is a rape giving birth to a bastard in your mind. That would not be healthy from a psychological point of view, if it were the case. I am going on the basis that the offspring of the rape must be a third seperate entity. You know? mammy, daddy and baby bastard , so to speak. Hence Northern Ireland being the offspring of the centuries of rape in the Island of Ireland, not necessarily a bastard , mind, as the mother and father have now adopted it.
Perhaps I misunderstand, could you try and develop your offensive "bastad of a rape" analogy in a more specific manner so I can get a better flavour of where the insult is supposed to be coming from?
#193045 Steve Ganot steve.ganot@gmail.com Mon Jun 30th 16:25:39 2008
Jaron: My contention is that TODAY, the EU is far more critical of Israel than of any other democratic state.
Will: Israel is not a democracy.
Funny, that's not what the EU says. (See, for example, ec.europa.eu/world/enp/pdf/country/enpi_csp_nip_israel_en.pdf and shop.ceps.eu/downfree.php?item_id=1379
Will, what in your view makes Israel non-democratic?
#193047 Will Mon Jun 30th 17:43:39 2008
There are many reasons Steve, why Israel in my pinion falls far short of what we would generally expect in a democracy. Chief among them being in the areas of equal rights for all citizens and equal access to power for all citizens equal services and equal provision of security etc.
But even when it comes to voting it is clear that not all people living in the territory controlled by Israel are entitled to a vote.