< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 7276 OF 7276 ·
|Aug-03-15|| ||Bureaucrat: <alexmagnus: The two contradict each other>|
No, they don't.
|Aug-03-15|| ||Abdel Irada: What <perfidious> posted above about Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor is more or less exactly what I said in my own posts, although for whatever reason, <Chess Is More> seems to read it differently.|
|Aug-03-15|| ||Abdel Irada: <alexmagnus: <Colonel> I didn't talk about "land without people" (except for the mentioned Israel southwards of Negev, which in fact were so low-populated that it could pass for that) when I talked about Palestine. I said that the <word> "Palestinian" in its modern meaning did not exist back then. Palestinian back then meant just "belonging to the historical region of Palestine", while today it means "belonging to a certain Arab sub-ethnicity" ("sub-", because, in my opinion, the Arabs are <one> ethnicity, artificially divided by state borders). The Arab sub-ethnicty in question didn't define itself as one until 1964 (at least not in written sources), so talking about "Palestinian land" in in 1947 is absurd, if "Palestinian" is meant to be "Arab". "Arab" is correct.>|
Whether or not there was an *independent* nation of Palestine prior to 1948 is not relevant.
There were nearly a million people, of Arab-Semitic descent and belonging to both Islam and Christianity, occupying the land designated by the British (and before them the Romans) as Palestine for centuries. They had coins incised in Arabic, Hebrew and English; one could buy plane tickets to "Palestine."
Living peacefully alongside a Jewish minority, these people included some Bedouins (nomadic pastoral desert dwellers) along with many farmers growing olive trees (some of them ancient) and numerous cities, towns and villages (most of which were later taken over and renamed after Israel declared its independence in 1948).
The land was unevenly populated because of its topography and because the aggregate wealth was insufficient to embark on large-scale terraforming projects. Nonetheless, it was far from "empty"; even the deserts were home to nomadic herdsmen.
The land was designated as Palestine, and the residents considered (and still do consider) themselves Palestinian. To call them "Arabs" is to delegitimize them, to discount their identity as a people, and to fall in with a propaganda campaign intended to support a false narrative of "a land without a people for a people without a land."
|Aug-03-15|| ||Abdel Irada: [Part 1 of 2]
<al wazir: <Abdel Irada: So, you would say the Palestinians should drop that right, even though it is supported by international law and treaties?> Yes.
<Why should they?> Because it isn't going to happen.
<And what, in any case, would be the results of such a return?> I showed the impracticality of it. Read my post.>
I did read your post. You failed to convince me. Perhaps your logic isn't as ironclad as you'd like to think?
<Yes. That's what *I* want. But it's not what the Israelis and Palestinians -- especially the hardliners, who are running their respective shows on both sides -- want.>
The Israeli hardliners have long made it clear that they will accept nothing less than wiping Palestine off the map in the name of building a religio-ethnocratic dominion filling all of biblical Eretz Yisrael. Thankfully, they don't speak for all of Israel.
The Palestinian hardliners would accept nothing less than the obliteration of Israel and the full restoration of traditional Palestine. Thankfully, *they* don't speak for anyone but themselves and hold no power and very little influence.
If no aid and no exclusive diplomatic cover were being provided to either side, realists in both camps would gain the necessary traction to negotiate a fair solution, which would mean either two coexisting states with mutual guarantees of security or one shared state with equal power for all parties.
It is apparent that the two-state solution is no longer possible, so what does that leave?
<Never say "never" in geopolitics. Vietnam, Cuba, and (for a few brief years) even Russia are counter-examples vis-a-vis the U.S.>
That previously hostile nations have come to terms with one another is not a demonstration of reason to believe what you assert: that Russia will accept Israel as a client state.
<You used the word "fold." Look it up in a good dictionary.>
This is what is meant by an "incidental metaphor"; the attempt to put flesh on the metaphor remains yours.
<Yes. When it comes to flaunting treaties, violating international law, "disproportionate use of force," etc., you rag on Israel *all the time*. But what does that amount to in the face of the lawlessness of the various rag-tag sectarian armies and militias I listed?>
I asked you before what you would have us *do* about that situation, and you agreed that our best course was probably to stay out of the way. As I keep reminding you, the situation in Israel/Palestine is quite different. There we *can* do something positive simply by withdrawing unprecedented military aid and unilateral diplomatic cover from one party and leaving the two to come to terms in equal negotiations.
[End part 1]
|Aug-03-15|| ||Abdel Irada: [Part 2 of 2]
<Right. You post a hundred words about the wrongs of Israel and its American supporter for every one you post about IS. Reversing the ratio would be about right.>
I dispute that ratio and call it an enormous exaggeration. But even if it were accurate, there is reason for that. See above.
<You must be the world's leading expert on what you think are my biases.>
Your bias is evident to anyone who reads your hundreds of posts on the topic.
<But I was specifically referring to the West Bank, and implicitly since the 1967 war.>
Solely in the West Bank and since 1967, Palestinian land has been divided into bantustans separated by settlements, walls and (Jewish) Israeli-only highways. Refer to the map on the page I linked for <alexmagnus>.
<You aren't counting the millions living in Jordan (where they are a majority of the population), Syria (at the tender mercy of IS and Assad's warriors), and the West?>
What would that have to do with the population now seeking to subsist in Gaza and the West Bank, which is what I'm talking about?
<Oh, I see. Doing that would mess up your population density figures.>
It would invalidate such figures, because you don't count as part of the population of a given space the millions of people not living in that space.
In any case, my point was not about population density so much as subsistence. When Palestinian farmers are denied access to their own croplands by walls of separation, and when their olive trees are uprooted en masse, and their wheat crops burned by settlers just before harvest (as just happened, if you missed it in the news), this compounds a problem already created by diminishing agricultural land available to a growing population.
Palestinians can't grow enough to feed themselves, food they try to import is delayed at the border until it rots or kept out altogether by period closures, and the taxes collected from them to fund their government are collected by Israel and disbursed to them at Israel's discretion — or *not* disbursed, if the Palestinians have offended Israel by such evil acts as obtaining observer nation status at the UN.
|Aug-03-15|| ||Abdel Irada: <Bombing of Gaza children gives me “orgasm”: Israelis celebrate slaughter on Facebook>|
Does anyone still want to argue that it is only the Palestinians who teach their children to hate?
|Aug-03-15|| ||ljfyffe: The use of the words "Palestine", and "Israel" go back to the "bible" and beyond--Joel: <Yea, and what have ye to do with me, O Tyre, and Zidon, and all the coasts of Palestine?|
|Aug-03-15|| ||ljfyffe: goes back - saves <Irada> the time to correct me (lol)|
|Aug-03-15|| ||cormier: http://www.usccb.org/bible/readings...|
|Aug-03-15|| ||Petrosianic: <Abdel Irada>:
<I did read your post. You failed to convince me. Perhaps your logic isn't as ironclad as you'd like to think?>
Could failing to convince a rigid ideologue to reconsider his ideology really be considered much of a failure?
|Aug-03-15|| ||Petrosianic: <ljfyffe>: <The use of the words "Palestine", and "Israel" go back to the "bible" and beyond>|
True, although of course it had nothing to do with Islam or Muslims before the conquests of the Middle East. And especially not before Islam even existed. Today's Palestinians have as much to do with Biblical ones as the current New York Mets have to do with the 1880's Mets franchise.
|Aug-03-15|| ||john barleycorn: <Petrosianic: ...
Could failing to convince a rigid ideologue to reconsider his ideology really be considered much of a failure?>
Not a failure but the wrong approach.
Don't waste time and effort in arguing with <OG I>. It is a simple rule in dialectic that you cannot convince anybody against his will.
|Aug-03-15|| ||al wazir: <Check It Out: I suppose you could word smith your way through any post the winner sees fit to have you rescind.> I think I see what you're griping about. You want to know what I mean by promising that <I will apologize for any of my posts the winner chooses and renounce the views I expressed therein.<<>>>|
At the risk of being accused of playing the "definition game," I will try. "Apologize" is unambiguous. I will express regret, using words like "sorry." (I never said anything about *feeling* true regret.) Likewise, I'm not promising to give up my *personal* beliefs. <A man convinced against his will / Is of the same opinion still.> I am promising that, once the winner identifies a particular post of mine, I will never again post whatever opinion(s) I expressed in that post *in this forum*. Is that clear enough?
A lot of others could beneficially make (and keep) similar vows.
|Aug-03-15|| ||Jim Bartle: My favorite is, "I apologize to anyone who was offended."|
|Aug-03-15|| ||Abdel Irada: <al wazir>, that has to be the narrowest, most carefully phrased promise I've heard to date.|
In other words: "I will say 'sorry' but not really mean it, and the views I expressed will remain unchanged."
I see no benefit to anyone in such a "vow."
This is like starting a chess tournament with a "guaranteed million-dollar prize fund" and revealing after the games start that the prizes will be awarded in Monopoly money.
|Aug-03-15|| ||Chess Is More: Palestinians: The Invented People
<“The history of the Palestinian people goes back as far as”… This is where Arab “historians” disagree. Some say the “Palestinian people” have a proud 4000-year history; others say 10,000 years, 30,000 years, and even –don’t laugh- 200,000 years, which makes the Neanderthals pretty young people compared to the “mysterious Palestinians”. But although Arab historians do not agree on the “insignificant” details like the age of the “Palestinian people”, they do agree that this people is incredibly ancient-far more ancient than Jews, Romans or Greeks.
In the glorious history of the “Palestinian people”, there is only one “small” problem; nobody in history ever found them.>
|Aug-03-15|| ||Petrosianic: <john barleycorn>: <Not a failure but the wrong approach.
Don't waste time and effort in arguing with <OG I>. It is a simple rule in dialectic that you cannot convince anybody against his will.>|
Certain people, maybe. I've been convinced against my will on things. It's not an everyday thing, but there are such a thing as facts, and they sometimes make a viewpoint untenable.
|Aug-03-15|| ||al wazir: <ljfyffe: The use of the words "Palestine", and "Israel" go back to the "bible" and beyond--Joel: <Yea, and what have ye to do with me, O Tyre, and Zidon, and all the coasts of Palestine?>>|
This proves only that the word "Palestine" was used in 17th-century England. I think it derives from the older "Philistines," a Greek word for a nationality referred to elsewhere in the Bible.
Interestingly, the cited passage contrasts "Tyre, and Zidon [Sidon], and all the coasts of Palestine" (i.e., Phoenicia) with "Judah" (the kingdom of the biblical Israelites). This is evidence that what is now called Israel was then part of a hostile nation, and that the Jews then occupied the land now called the West Bank.
|Aug-03-15|| ||al wazir: <Abdel Irada: I see no benefit to anyone in such a "vow." This is like starting a chess tournament with a "guaranteed million-dollar prize fund" and revealing after the games start that the prizes will be awarded in Monopoly money.> You're in no danger of having it inflicted on yourself. You haven't even come up with an entry.|
|Aug-03-15|| ||Abdel Irada: <Palestine in the ancient world was part of the region known as Canaan and, later, the region where the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah were located. Palestine is a designation of an area of land, which the Philistines occupied a very small part of (the Canaanites/Phonecians and the Israelites, among others, having established themselves in the area much earlier). The name `Palestine’ is thought to derive from either the word “plesheth” (meaning `root palash’, an edible concocotion carried by migratory tribes which came to symbolize nomadic peoples) or as a Greek designation for the nomadic Philistines. The author Tom Robbins, and others, have suggested the name originates from the ancient androgynous god Pales who was widely worshipped in the region known as Palestine. If this is so then the name of the region means `Land of Pales’. That there was an androgynous god with the head of a donkey who was popularly recognized as Pales by the Canaanites, Israelites and Philistines is known but there exists no firm documentation from ancient times linking the god to the name of the region and, most likely, the name derives from the Greek for `the Land of the Philistines’. |
The Philistines (thought to be from Crete and, certainly, from the Aegean area) landed on the southern Mediterranean coast of the region known as Canaan in circa 1194 BCE after being repulsed in their invasion of Egypt (along with the Sea Peoples) by Rameses III. By 1185 BCE they had established themselves firmly in settlements along the coast known as Philistia. Other, older, settlements were already thriving in the area upon their arrival and the Philistines went quickly to work....>
|Aug-03-15|| ||Abdel Irada: <al wazir: <Abdel Irada: I see no benefit to anyone in such a "vow." This is like starting a chess tournament with a "guaranteed million-dollar prize fund" and revealing after the games start that the prizes will be awarded in Monopoly money.> You're in no danger of having it inflicted on yourself. You haven't even come up with an entry.>|
Really? I wonder why. :-D
|Aug-03-15|| ||al wazir: <In the House, 150 Democrats signed a letter last month supporting the concept of an Iran deal. If all were to vote in favor of the deal, it would be enough to sustain an Obama veto. But opponents think they will be able to pick off supporters as they publicize weaknesses — in particular, the lack of “anywhere, anytime” inspections, the prospect of lifting a conventional arms embargo, and uncertainty about private agreements between international nuclear arms monitors and the Iranian regime.|
In the Senate, as in the House, there is little doubt that a majority opposes the deal. Of 54 Republican senators, only Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) has signaled that he might support it.> http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...
If the agreement is ratified promptly by the U.S. government, that will make the Iranian leadership think it must be bad for them. But if the Iranians accept it with alacrity, that will convince wavering U.S. legislators to vote against it.
So it will be a while before anything gets decided.
|Aug-03-15|| ||al wazir: <Abdel Irada: I wonder why> I ascribe it to an impoverished imagination. But I could be proven wrong ...|
|Aug-03-15|| ||Petrosianic: <al wazir>: <I think it derives from the older "Philistines," a Greek word for a nationality referred to elsewhere in the Bible.>|
Not sure about that part, but the Roman province was named Syria Palestina, and the word was used by the ancient Greeks as well. Not sure what it derives from.
|Aug-03-15|| ||Colonel Mortimer: If the deal isn't ratified by Congress, it will further weaken America's international standing.|
Most of those opposing the deal do so out of ideology - they haven't read the details of the deal.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 7276 OF 7276 ·