Israel slammed for child deaths

[Black Red Devil]

35 minutes ago, Black Red Devil said:

Hamas has declared they re willing to work with Israel on the 1967 borders.  Considering Israel hasn't even accepted a Palestinian State as yet Hamas has probably done more towards the peace process than the Zionist Govt of Israel will ever do for the Palestinians.  It's pretty rich to keep on declaring Palestine at fault in the peace process when all the fundamental requests I listed before have not even been considered by the State of Israel and while this is happening they keep chipping away at Palestinian land.  Yeah, very smart.

I actually noticed an error.  Correct amendment above.

[RoofGardener]

1) HAMAS has NOT said that it will work with Israel on the 1967 borders. HAMAS has said that it would accept a PALESTINE based on the 1967 borders, but only if Israel allows all of the original refugees... AND THEIR DESCENDENTS.. into Israel. (which would effectively destroy the State, as HAMAS knows full well).

1a) HAMAS has done NOTHING towards any peace proposal, other than the peace of the grave. 

2) The PLO don't recognise the State of Israel as having a right to exist. 

3) Israel DOES (or rather, DID) recognise the PLO as the representative of the Palestinian people. 

The bit about 'not recognising a Palestinian State' is technically quite correct, because at THAT stage (1995) there WAS no Palestinian State. It was the Oslo accords that - effectively - called the Palestinian State... or at least a pre-cursor to it ... into existence. 

The following countries STILL do not recognise the existence of a "Palestinian State":

The United States,  Israel, Switzerland, Canada, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, Australia, New Zealand, and most of the European Union, among others.

[Black Red Devil]

1 hour ago, RoofGardener said:

1) HAMAS has NOT said that it will work with Israel on the 1967 borders. HAMAS has said that it would accept a PALESTINE based on the 1967 borders, but only if Israel allows all of the original refugees... AND THEIR DESCENDENTS.. into Israel. (which would effectively destroy the State, as HAMAS knows full well).

 

The right of return of the refugees which was one of the main initial Oslo Accord points of negotiations which Israel refused to consider despite the PLO doing their part in recognising Israel.  Who were the ones interested in peace again?

1 hour ago, RoofGardener said:

1a) HAMAS has done NOTHING towards any peace proposal, other than the peace of the grave. 

 

See above

1 hour ago, RoofGardener said:

2) The PLO don't recognise the State of Israel as having a right to exist.

Neither does Israel recognise Palestine

1 hour ago, RoofGardener said:

3) Israel DOES (or rather, DID) recognise the PLO as the representative of the Palestinian people.

But doesn't recognise the State of Palestine

1 hour ago, RoofGardener said:

The bit about 'not recognising a Palestinian State' is technically quite correct, because at THAT stage (1995) there WAS no Palestinian State. It was the Oslo accords that - effectively - called the Palestinian State... or at least a pre-cursor to it ... into existence. 

So?  That's not recognition.

1 hour ago, RoofGardener said:

The following countries STILL do not recognise the existence of a "Palestinian State":

The United States,  Israel, Switzerland, Canada, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, Australia, New Zealand, and most of the European Union, among others.

Yet 137 (71%) countries in the world recognise it, including 8 of the 10 most populous which includes the top two that make up 1/3 of the world population.

Edited June 21, 2019 by Black Red Devil

[RoofGardener]

1 hour ago, Black Red Devil said:

The right of return of the refugees which was one of the main initial Oslo Accord points of negotiations which Israel refused to consider despite the PLO doing their part in recognising Israel.  

A right of return of the refugees - AND ALL THEIR MALE DESCENDENTS - - would destroy Israel. Be realistic. Anyway, the PLO did NOT recognise Israel. They promised to do so in the near future, but never actually did it. 

1 hour ago, Black Red Devil said:

.......Neither does Israel recognise Palestine....But doesn't recognise the State of Palestine

Neither does Australia, or the USA, or most of the European Union. 

1 hour ago, Black Red Devil said:

.....Yet 137 (71%) countries in the world recognise it, including 8 of the 10 most populous which includes the top two that make up 1/3 of the world population.

Really ? Gosh. And what a basket of deplorables THEY are ! Muslim-majority sharia failed-states like Algeriea, Somalia and Belgium ! 

I'm sorry BRD, but until the Federated States of Micronesia recognise the Palestinian State, then it doesn't exist !  

 

[Black Red Devil]

6 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

A right of return of the refugees - AND ALL THEIR MALE DESCENDENTS - - would destroy Israel. Be realistic. Anyway, the PLO did NOT recognise Israel. They promised to do so in the near future, but never actually did it. 

 

 

If they allowed them back straight after the war like they should have their descendants would hve been born in Israel.  What's the difference?  Why you saying MALE DESCENDANTS, are the female ones OK to return?

6 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

 

Neither does Australia, or the USA, or most of the European Union. 

Really ? Gosh. And what a basket of deplorables THEY are ! Muslim-majority sharia failed-states like Algeriea, Somalia and Belgium ! 

I'm sorry BRD, but until the Federated States of Micronesia recognise the Palestinian State, then it doesn't exist !  

 

India, China, Russia, Brazil Govts....just these 4 representing over 1/3 of the world population.  I understand they aren't Her Majesty's Royal United Kingdom but some fool gave them a stool at the United Nations table which automatically gives them a right to vote.

[RoofGardener]

9 hours ago, Black Red Devil said:

If they allowed them back straight after the war like they should have their descendants would hve been born in Israel.  What's the difference?  Why you saying MALE DESCENDANTS, are the female ones OK to return?

Them's the rules that UNRWA set down. Male line only. Because its a muslim society, presumably ? Descendents of males are refugees. The female line are NOT refugees. (unless they are married to a male palestinian, THEN they are refugees, even if they live in a penthouse in New York, and have never been to Palestine in their lives).  

And it's worth mentioning that this is the ONLY time in the history of the UN that descendants of refugees are considered refugees as well. In all of the refugee crisis's since the inception of the UN, before or after the Palestinian refugee crisis, this criteria has NEVER been applied. One rule for the Palestinians, a different rule for everybody else. 

9 hours ago, Black Red Devil said:

India, China, Russia, Brazil Govts....just these 4 representing over 1/3 of the world population.  I understand they aren't Her Majesty's Royal United Kingdom but some fool gave them a stool at the United Nations table which automatically gives them a right to vote.

Well what silly fool allowed THAT to happen ? UN membership should be restricted to SENSIBLE countries that can be relied on to vote CORRECTLY ! .  

[Alchopwn]

On 6/21/2019 at 6:43 PM, Sir Smoke aLot said:

If feels to me that @Alchopwn took every myth about this conflict and wrote all of it in few posts. Some of the stuff written here is really old misinformation dating back to early Zionist propaganda, stuff which even Israeli academics debunked long time ago.

Think what you like.  I have actually lived in Israel, and I have formed my own opinions based on what I experienced.  I don't much like Israelis, but Palestinians are worse in every respect.  I much prefer diaspora Jewry.  As to the actual issues, I have done my own research with primary sources and formed my own conclusions. What's your excuse?

[Sir Smoke aLot]

19 minutes ago, Alchopwn said:

Think what you like.

Your story is not plausible i was merely asking question and you did not provide the answer.

23 minutes ago, Alchopwn said:

I don't much like Israelis, but Palestinians are worse in every respect.

It's good to have formed opinion but with so much experience that you claim you poses it feels ironic to have such opinion.

20 minutes ago, Alchopwn said:

primary sources

That's overstatement.

20 minutes ago, Alchopwn said:

What's your excuse?

Library of books about conflict from authors on both sides but do not take my word for it, check my post history and prove me wrong. While reading your posts here i was reminded of some authors, many of which are found on sites of questionable integrity but you've topped it all with ''Muslim convert''  Majority of your points which you presented here on this topic were already discussed before and while some are debatable many of those beliefs were refuted here either by me or by other members.

Majority of what you wrote is stuff which was promoted by pro Israeli sources many decades ago and they've updated their Hasbara ministry and guide books since, why didn't you  

[Alchopwn]

On 6/21/2019 at 7:38 AM, Setton said:

First of all, thank you for a mature and considered response. Its refreshing. 

To your points:

1. As you say, others can make the same claim but certainly a valid point why Jews have a right to be there but does it give them a right to establish their own nation there? To my mind, they are subtly different questions. 

2. A very valid point but not one I know enough about to comment on. Again though, does owning land entitle you to make it a country? If I buy a house, can I declare it a separate country from the UK? 

3. Absolutely. If we can take one thing from the holocaust it's that the Jews need their own country. But why there? Obviously, its of great significance to them but it is to many other religious and ethnic groups. 

4. This is certainly the reality of the situation but does it equal the 'right'? In other words, does might truly make right? 

Thanks for the considered reply, and for the sake of the argument, I'll play devil's advocate and defend the Israeli position.  

1.  So the issue of whether the claim of continuous habitation gives one the right to form a nation.  As I wrote before, the Jews don't have the sole claim to the territory as the Amalekites were there before the Jews even finished wandering in the Desert.  On the other hand, if you read between the lines in the book of Judges and Exodus, the Jews were barely monotheist, and might even be described as henotheist in the period.  Tribal lines often became somewhat blurred.  We also know that the real Captivity was never in Egypt but in Babylon, and Hammurabi was the real Moses who allowed the Jews to return to the region.  Do I regard these folkloric roots to be important?  It isn't up to me.  It is an ideological connection that the Jews use to justify their actions to themselves and their own community.

2.  After a fashion, I would have to say "yes".  I mean, you have to admit land purchase is a lot more valid than Britain's claim to the territory.  You also need to remember that the Palestinian claim was very spurious indeed by comparrison.  The Palestinians had no notion of themselves as a nation whatsoever, and had always considered themselves arabs, and under whoever happened to be in charge at the time in the region.  Palestine had been an occupied province of Egypt, Babylon, Phonecia, Persia, Macedon, Seleucia, Sassanids, the Abbasids, Outremer, the Seljuks, the Ayyubids, the Ottomans, Rome, Byzantine Rome, you name it.  One might even say that every Imperial power has occupied it as a crossroads of the world that sits between three continents, and as such, nobody really has much claim to it except by force of arms.  Few pieces of territory have changed hands so often.  Certainly, this did nothing to cement the identity of the Palestinians, who had no distinct characteristics save living there, to mark them as a nation separate to the others in the area, or that gives them a distinct claim to the territory.  The fact that the Jews made a point of actually buying the land from the present owners was a definite point in their favor, just as the determination of the Palestinians to attack them with a view to stealing the land and the money was a definite point agains the Palestinians.

3.  Be fair.  The Jews have never obstructed the religious observance of any other religious group.  Muslims definitely have, and have done so repeatedly.  The fact is that the Jews through force of arms could bulldoze the Dome of the Rock, as their religions suggests they should,  and build a new temple, but the don't.  This shows a great deal of restraint and tolerance.

4.  On the contrary, look at the politics of the region.  Might is Right is pretty much the central tennet of Islam, and those are the problematic neighbors with whom Israel must contend.  What right did Khalid and the Arabs have for taking Palestine Secunda from the Byzantine Romans?  Islam is a religion founded on violence, and in that context, the fact that Israel continues to exist, is a firm argument that it should continue to do so.  Some Arabs describe Israel as a crusader state, but that is unfair.  Israel is way ahead of any of the other nations in the region, despite their oil money.  It is an oasis of intellectual and cultural achievement adrift in a sea of vicious, perverted idiots.  It seems less than brilliant for the Jews to want to live in Israel, to me as an outsider, given that I see the Middle East as an open air Mental Asylum, but I suppose every mental asylum needs doctors, nurses and orderlies.

[Alchopwn]

18 minutes ago, Sir Smoke aLot said:

That's overstatement.

I have spoken in depth about the situation with members of all sides.  I have spoken with Conservative and Liberal Israelis, and Citizen Arabs in Israel, as well as members of the PLO and Hammas, as well as apolitical people in the region.  I have visited the British Museum and looked over a good few of the documents pertaining to the British Mandate, including the original Sykes Picot Agreement in the British Museum WW1 Archive, and the Balfour Declaration amongst many others in my gloved hands.  I have also seen British documents and correspondence pertaining to their investigations into the Stern Gang.  I have been to Austria's Globe Museum and seen a good deal of very old Zionist Pamphlets, and seen more in Tel Aviv.  Some involved parties have even asked me to write on the subject.  I have read widely on the subject and argued the point with a lot of interested parties, as I enjoy polemic discussions and seek out knowledgeable people.  As an academic level translator I have had a lot of doors open to me, and I am naturally curious, and have a love of history and archaeology.  As to what I am doing here?  I have an abiding interest in folklore and an open mind towards the supernatural.  As I am a speed reader and have a typing speed of about 90 wpm, this is a window on my computer I keep open for amusement sake as a hobby in the hopes of meeting interesting people with interesting opinions that I might not find elsewhere.  The fact that I disagree with your perspective shouldn't be taken as an insult, but you are not well informed, and frankly your own credentials haven't been stated at all.  Why should I take your opinion as being more valid than my own?  Please make your case.

Edited June 22, 2019 by Alchopwn

[Sir Smoke aLot]

11 minutes ago, Alchopwn said:

I have spoken in depth about the situation with members of all sides.  I have spoken with Conservative and Liberal Israelis, and Citizen Arabs in Israel, as well as members of the PLO and Hammas, as well as apolitical people in the region.  I have visited the British Museum and looked over a good few of the documents pertaining to the British Mandate, including the original Sykes Picot Agreement in the British Museum WW1 Archive, and the Balfour Declaration amongst many others in my gloved hands.  I have also seen British documents and correspondence pertaining to their investigations into the Stern Gang.  I have been to Austria's Globe Museum and seen a good deal of very old Zionist Pamphlets, and seen more in Tel Aviv.  Some involved parties have even asked me to write on the subject.  I have read widely on the subject and argued the point with a lot of interested parties, as I enjoy polemic discussions and seek out knowledgeable people.  As an academic level translator I have had a lot of doors open to me, and I am naturally curious, and have a love of history and archaeology.  As to what I am doing here?  I have an abiding interest in folklore and an open mind towards the supernatural.  As I am a speed reader and have a typing speed of about 90 wpm, this is a window on my computer I keep open for amusement sake as a hobby in the hopes of meeting interesting people with interesting opinions that I might not find elsewhere.  The fact that I disagree with your perspective shouldn't be taken as an insult, but you are not well informed, and frankly your own credentials haven't been stated at all.  Why should I take your opinion as being more valid than my own?  Please make your case.

I do not really bother with personal beliefs or means by which either of us shaped their opinion. That's irrelevant my friend, irrelevant but i do respect others opinions and always love to read a good story.

We are here to talk about events, either current or those from history and we deal with statistical data from credible organizations (either independent or those within UN), reports from journalists and we try to determine what is right or wrong. Regardless of difference of opinion, especially that which i have with my dear Zionist @and then , discussion makes me learn to be objective and to fact check all that can be checked (because not everything is possible to unveil). On UM i learned a lot but most of what i learned is to respect opinion which those who defend Israel have, before i was not so tolerant and have became black sheep on many boards. Sometimes they are right too you know and you have strong opinion that ''Palestinians are worse in every respect'' so that i found a bit too strong.

I am sorry if my reply to you sounded a bit harsh, it was not my intention but from my perspective things are very different and you haven't even addressed my earlier reply to your earlier post.

This ain't contest and i do not claim to have some ultimate truth or enormous knowledge about the conflict, that is not in my nature but neither should you and that's how i see it.

Time of Mandela, Martin Luther King Jr, Ghandi... That time has passed and i am not sure if any moral authority exists in the world right now?

So all that matters is statistical data, reports which are backed by fact and situation on the field with respect to international law. I do not wish to get into other kind of discussions about the subject, especially not in discussion about ''who's got the bigger tool''. 

 

[Black Red Devil]

1 hour ago, Alchopwn said:

Thanks for the considered reply, and for the sake of the argument, I'll play devil's advocate and defend the Israeli position.  

1.  So the issue of whether the claim of continuous habitation gives one the right to form a nation.  As I wrote before, the Jews don't have the sole claim to the territory as the Amalekites were there before the Jews even finished wandering in the Desert.  On the other hand, if you read between the lines in the book of Judges and Exodus, the Jews were barely monotheist, and might even be described as henotheist in the period.  Tribal lines often became somewhat blurred.  We also know that the real Captivity was never in Egypt but in Babylon, and Hammurabi was the real Moses who allowed the Jews to return to the region.  Do I regard these folkloric roots to be important?  It isn't up to me.  It is an ideological connection that the Jews use to justify their actions to themselves and their own community.

2.  After a fashion, I would have to say "yes".  I mean, you have to admit land purchase is a lot more valid than Britain's claim to the territory.  You also need to remember that the Palestinian claim was very spurious indeed by comparrison.  The Palestinians had no notion of themselves as a nation whatsoever, and had always considered themselves arabs, and under whoever happened to be in charge at the time in the region.  Palestine had been an occupied province of Egypt, Babylon, Phonecia, Persia, Macedon, Seleucia, Sassanids, the Abbasids, Outremer, the Seljuks, the Ayyubids, the Ottomans, Rome, Byzantine Rome, you name it.  One might even say that every Imperial power has occupied it as a crossroads of the world that sits between three continents, and as such, nobody really has much claim to it except by force of arms.  Few pieces of territory have changed hands so often.  Certainly, this did nothing to cement the identity of the Palestinians, who had no distinct characteristics save living there, to mark them as a nation separate to the others in the area, or that gives them a distinct claim to the territory.  The fact that the Jews made a point of actually buying the land from the present owners was a definite point in their favor, just as the determination of the Palestinians to attack them with a view to stealing the land and the money was a definite point agains the Palestinians.

3.  Be fair.  The Jews have never obstructed the religious observance of any other religious group.  Muslims definitely have, and have done so repeatedly.  The fact is that the Jews through force of arms could bulldoze the Dome of the Rock, as their religions suggests they should,  and build a new temple, but the don't.  This shows a great deal of restraint and tolerance.

4.  On the contrary, look at the politics of the region.  Might is Right is pretty much the central tennet of Islam, and those are the problematic neighbors with whom Israel must contend.  What right did Khalid and the Arabs have for taking Palestine Secunda from the Byzantine Romans?  Islam is a religion founded on violence, and in that context, the fact that Israel continues to exist, is a firm argument that it should continue to do so.  Some Arabs describe Israel as a crusader state, but that is unfair.  Israel is way ahead of any of the other nations in the region, despite their oil money.  It is an oasis of intellectual and cultural achievement adrift in a sea of vicious, perverted idiots.  It seems less than brilliant for the Jews to want to live in Israel, to me as an outsider, given that I see the Middle East as an open air Mental Asylum, but I suppose every mental asylum needs doctors, nurses and orderlies.

For someone that claimed in a previous post they don't like Israelis, that's some presentation.

[Sir Smoke aLot]

6 minutes ago, Black Red Devil said:

For someone that claimed in a previous post they don't like Israelis, that's some presentation.

By discrediting Islam one can not excuse wrongdoings of Israel. Even if we assume that Islam is ''so bad'' does it mean that crimes against Muslims are legal, moral and just thing to do?

That is shallow reasoning. One simple fact holds, Jerusalem and Palestine as whole were cultural and religious center of Jews, Muslims and Christians of the region and they lived in peace for centuries and then Zionists came to the land, movement which changed everything and holds to this day.

This video is known here on UM and it was recorded at the time of first Zionist congress, in 1897. There are Popes, Muslim hats, Jews... I do not see them killing each other. Palestine photo project and some other sites provide much more content of the life there over the years.

[Alchopwn]

9 hours ago, Black Red Devil said:

For someone that claimed in a previous post they don't like Israelis, that's some presentation.

Israelis are really rude, and for no reason.  It's hard to take.  They are also ridiculous America worshippers.  Their family life is generally a suffocating nightmare that compares unfavorably with Mob families.  I loathe their alcohol, especially their foul excuse for beer. Oh ,and while I can speak Hebrew, much like Arabic, it is a really unpleasant language to my overly gentle linguist's ear.  When I was in Israel I much preferred immigrant Jews to locals.  I also sometimes wonder whether the Jews have so much mental illness because so many are psychologists, or they have so many psychologists because of all the mental illness.  I suppose I lived in Israel long enough to fall  out of love with the place, and into a state of mild disgust.  On the other hand, it is so much better than the rest of the M.E.

Edited June 22, 2019 by Alchopwn

[Alchopwn]

 

10 hours ago, Sir Smoke aLot said:

. Sometimes they are right too you know and you have strong opinion that ''Palestinians are worse in every respect'' so that i found a bit too strong.

The only objective metric I think the Palestinians might be better in is overt politeness, but then they will try to pull some creepy/shabby grift to involve you in some hairbrained scheme that will get them killed, and you too if you get involved.  Worse still, when their stupid obvious plan fails obviously like you obviously told them it would, they will accuse you of betraying them.  I personally find that extremely rude, and any points they get for the buttering up process are immediately lost with major deductions.  To describe the Palestinians as sexually predatory gangsters is an injustice to some of the very personable (but sexually predatory) gangsters I have met over the years.  The Palestinian community is so creepy it makes me a little nauseous.  I sometimes think that when kids die in the bombing that it might somehow be for the best... that's how creepy it is. I used to be pretty pro-Palestinian back when I was a uni student, then I met them IRL.  I was so wrong.

10 hours ago, Sir Smoke aLot said:

I am sorry if my reply to you sounded a bit harsh, it was not my intention but from my perspective things are very different and you haven't even addressed my earlier reply to your earlier post

No, that's perfectly fine.  I completely understand your position and it is a reasonable one.  I don't like having nothing positive to say about a group of people either.  It seems extremely unreasonable of me.  I can only suggest that you go out and get some hands-on in-depth human-to-human experience with Palestinians in the Occupied territories and then see how you feel.  While in most cases humans are humans and pretty much alike in certain ways wherever you go, every normal distribution curve has outliers.  I don't like apparently "blaming the victim" in this stiuation, as the Palestinians have this "victim underdog cred" they trade on, but this isn't just in Gaza, this is also going on in "Citizen Arab" communities and in the West Bank.  I haven't been to any refugee camp areas in Jordan or Lebanon so I cannot comment about those, but I can make an educated guess.

[Alchopwn]

10 hours ago, Sir Smoke aLot said:

So all that matters is statistical data, reports which are backed by fact and situation on the field with respect to international law. I do not wish to get into other kind of discussions about the subject, especially not in discussion about ''who's got the bigger tool''. 

You say that, but really, that isn't the same as the reality of what is actually going on.  If the world could meaningfully be reduced to statistics then the USA would have won the Vietnam War in 1966. 

"Some individuals use statistics as a drunk man uses lamp-posts- for support rather than for illumination" - A.E. Housman.

Stats have their value, but they are far from the whole story.  And in this instance, I didn't know you were getting your tool out.  If all you can fall back on for support is statistics is some UN yearbook data, then you have no case to make.  Qualitative data will always win out over quantitative.

[Sir Smoke aLot]

13 hours ago, Alchopwn said:

You say that, but really, that isn't the same as the reality of what is actually going on.  If the world could meaningfully be reduced to statistics then the USA would have won the Vietnam War in 1966. 

"Some individuals use statistics as a drunk man uses lamp-posts- for support rather than for illumination" - A.E. Housman.

Stats have their value, but they are far from the whole story.  And in this instance, I didn't know you were getting your tool out.  If all you can fall back on for support is statistics is some UN yearbook data, then you have no case to make.  Qualitative data will always win out over quantitative.

Do not be silly. It's exactly statistics which show what happened and what could have happen in Vietnam. It was terrible war for all sides and as one general of US army said, that they need more troops because it's not enough to outnumber guerrilla by margin of 4 but you need 10 times more troops to wage such war. Some evaluates put the number around million needed troops while US had about 400.000 troops there in Vietnam. So i agree, if US leadership was bothering with statistics the war would be won but not because ''statistics are drunk man toy'' but because military strategy and academy is not there for amusement but for study and improvement.

You trivialize things too much, as in your earlier remarks about Palestine.

There is one saying i always respected, ''each to it's own'' because i have no time or nerves to show you how disgraceful is to dismiss statistics. But statistics alone show one of violations which Israel does in this conflict - disproportional use of force which is war crime under international law. 

Without international law there would be no State of Israel, especially without right of self determination and statistics behind horrors of World War 2 so at least respect that which made Israel without applying double standards.

[Alchopwn]

11 hours ago, Sir Smoke aLot said:

Do not be silly. It's exactly statistics which show what happened and what could have happen in Vietnam.

Clearly you don't know the story.  Sec of Defence Robert McNamara was compiling the stats to see when the USA would beat N Vietnam, in 1967 and the stats returned that we had won the year before.  Stats more often than not aren't telling anything like a story about reality.  People use stats as if they are proof of things, but they simply aren't.  There was a time when leaders looked at the stories that stats were telling, then compared those results to people's lived experiences by talking to them, and then got policy to work.  The fact was that while McNamara thought he had the relevant info (and the Vietnam war saw a collosal quantity of data collected), they had no way of turning that info into a picture of the war that matched anything like the reality of the experience.  This is a normal state of affairs.  In this period of time, despite semi-sentient algorithms it is getting worse not better too.

11 hours ago, Sir Smoke aLot said:

You trivialize things too much, as in your earlier remarks about Palestine.

Lived experience from an informed position is a better way to understand any situation than any number of books alone, and certainly far better than reliance on the blunt tool of statistics.  Too many people trivialize other people's lived experience for my liking.

11 hours ago, Sir Smoke aLot said:

There is one saying i always respected, ''each to it's own'' because i have no time or nerves to show you how disgraceful is to dismiss statistics. But statistics alone show one of violations which Israel does in this conflict - disproportional use of force which is war crime under international law. 

I have done plenty of study of statistics and I know a vaaaast number of ways they are routinely abused.  How can you be so very uncritical of them?  How naive are you?

11 hours ago, Sir Smoke aLot said:

Without international law there would be no State of Israel, especially without right of self determination and statistics behind horrors of World War 2 so at least respect that which made Israel without applying double standards.

I disagree on this point.  While international law grudgingly accepts the existence of the state of Israel, the fact is that is due to the realpolitik of the situation, that nobody with the will to try to dislodge Israel has the ability to do so.  For example in an alternate reality where Israel and the USA find themselves in armed conflict, I think Israel may find its continued existence severely threatened, but there are no regional Muslim powers with anything near the military force capable of destroying Israel, so Israel persists.  International law serves as an afterthought alone.

[docyabut2]

On ‎6‎/‎17‎/‎2019 at 3:23 AM, RoofGardener said:

International aid organisations, including Oxfam and Save The Children, heavily criticsed Israel yesterday following an air raid on Gaza city that killed six civilians, including four children.

The raid was in response to a Palestinian attack using five commercial drones, which where detected approaching Ben Gurion international airport.

The media was also heavily critical of the response, labeling it "murderous and disproportionate.". A special session of the UN General Assembly has been called to discuss the Israeli attack.

Except it hasn't, and they didn't. Because this was NOT an attack against Palestinians by Israeli's. It was an attack by Saudi's against Yemeni's, in response to the Houthi's attempting to attack Abha airport in Saudi Arabia. The Saudi's launched an air attack that killed six Yemeni's, including four children. And the world was silent. The BBC mentioned the Saudi air strike in paragraph 8 of a story, which focused on the attack against the airport.

If this HAD have been Israel, then the media would be trumpeting the Palestinian deaths from the rooftops. But because it was one set of Muslim Arabs attacking another set of Muslim Arabs, the world is silent, and there is no criticism of Saudi.

About 7000 Yemeni's have been killed since the Sunni intervention 5 years ago. That is more than the total number of Palestinians killed by Israeli security services in the last 25 years.

And yet the world is silent.

Hypocrites !

 

Because the Palestinians have killed many Israel's in the past and why the Palestinians are always starting the dammed wars:(

[docyabut2]

Its a dammed war for a thousand years of which two brothers want that land. The one brother  Israel want to share that land, but  the dammed  brother the Palestinians do not want to share any of the land  and they do used their children  as human shields

Edited June 24, 2019 by docyabut2

[+and-then]

8 hours ago, Alchopwn said:

This is a normal state of affairs.  In this period of time, despite semi-sentient algorithms it is getting worse not better too.

The desire to see what we expect is powerful, always has been.  All a wise person can do is be aware of it and be willing to question their own motives, IMO.  It's usually damned difficult to do.

[+and-then]

19 hours ago, Sir Smoke aLot said:

Without international law there would be no State of Israel,

Would that be law that was cobbled together by the international community?  I'd say that same international community would love to delegitimize Israel officially and disperse the inhabitants of the country.  It is the military might and willingness to go to any length to survive that preserves Israel, Not any half-assed legal tenets.

[Sir Smoke aLot]

50 minutes ago, and then said:

Would that be law that was cobbled together by the international community?  I'd say that same international community would love to delegitimize Israel officially and disperse the inhabitants of the country.  It is the military might and willingness to go to any length to survive that preserves Israel, Not any half-assed legal tenets.

Considering how many resolutions condemned Israel and there was not any punishment and even binding resolutions were simply rejected by Israel, again, without punishment. That alone tells us a different story.

Most essential point in making State of Israel and recognizing it by other nations was right for self determination which is denied to Palestinians. If international law was so biased against Israel then how did Israel ''survive'' their alliance with South African apartheid regime to became one of most successful nations? Where were the sanctions which arose from alleged delegitimization attempts?

It's a bit tough to say that international community would love to destroy Israel because if it did there would be no Israel. As much as i care for Palestinian civilians i also care for Israeli innocent civilians and their life, Israel is reality for over 70 years now and no one wants to destroy it lol

9 hours ago, Alchopwn said:

Clearly you don't know the story.

Vietnam was never my prime interest but i know how to swim in that pool too.  Yeah it was Mcnamara who did that study and he was proven correct, USA never got into head to head battle (which it would win, no doubt) and guerrilla warfare tactics used by Vietcong needed much more troops to be countered. Considering how public opinion also shifted against the war in the USA it was hard situation to dig out from.

9 hours ago, Alchopwn said:

Lived experience from an informed position is a better way to understand any situation than any number of books alone, and certainly far better than reliance on the blunt tool of statistics.  Too many people trivialize other people's lived experience for my liking.

I happened to experience war first hand, was 4 years under siege and when i discuss the things which i felt, seen and lived through, well, only argument i can make is that which is backed by statistics and facts. Some things i debated, even on domestic sites here - were dismissed by people simply by calling me a liar  But i had nothing but my story to offer for the case when sniper shot my neighbor's kid. There were witnesses, quite few of them but story was never reported anywhere. When others argue how we sniped ourselves imagine how i feel as i snipers from Lukavica shot on few kids who were gathering strawberries, where little girl got shot.

''nice story'' is the best answer i ever got for that terrible experience but for argument it was always worthless.

That is why i trust good source and statistic. I learned good amount of history of my country from foreign authors, not from experience which is important in other aspects of life. So yeah, we disagree about that but it's fine.

9 hours ago, Alchopwn said:

I have done plenty of study of statistics and I know a vaaaast number of ways they are routinely abused.  How can you be so very uncritical of them?  How naive are you?

You imply that i am uncritical towards statistics in general.

There is a reason why it's hard to get truth but if we compare statistics from both sides and base opinion on that - i'll rather take that than to rely on assumptions.

Again you oversimplify things. 

9 hours ago, Alchopwn said:

While international law grudgingly accepts the existence of the state of Israel, the fact is that is due to the realpolitik of the situation, that nobody with the will to try to dislodge Israel has the ability to do so. 

There was no Israel as a state when Jewish refuges and Zionist movement fought for right to self determination and right of return. Both were given to them. You just can't dismiss the importance of world community and the role which world powers, League of Nations and UN played in making environment for Israel to became reality.

[Alchopwn]

1 hour ago, Sir Smoke aLot said:

Vietnam was never my prime interest but i know how to swim in that pool too.  Yeah it was Mcnamara who did that study and he was proven correct, USA never got into head to head battle (which it would win, no doubt) and guerrilla warfare tactics used by Vietcong needed much more troops to be countered. Considering how public opinion also shifted against the war in the USA it was hard situation to dig out from.

My point was to use the McNamara story to prove that stats are completely unreliable if you don't have a proper conception of what you are measuring.  I don't think the UN and the world community has any idea what they are measuring, or how to measure it, consequently I wouldn't trust the UN stats to be relevant.

1 hour ago, Sir Smoke aLot said:

I happened to experience war first hand, was 4 years under siege and when i discuss the things which i felt, seen and lived through, well, only argument i can make is that which is backed by statistics and facts. Some things i debated, even on domestic sites here - were dismissed by people simply by calling me a liar  But i had nothing but my story to offer for the case when sniper shot my neighbor's kid. There were witnesses, quite few of them but story was never reported anywhere. When others argue how we sniped ourselves imagine how i feel as i snipers from Lukavica shot on few kids who were gathering strawberries, where little girl got shot.

So you were in Sarajevo.  It is a very different situation to what is going on in Israel and the OT. Gaza is a lot more like Northern Ireland than Sarajevo.

2 hours ago, Sir Smoke aLot said:

''nice story'' is the best answer i ever got for that terrible experience but for argument it was always worthless.

That is why i trust good source and statistic. I learned good amount of history of my country from foreign authors, not from experience which is important in other aspects of life. So yeah, we disagree about that but it's fine.

On the contrary, eyewitness testimony counts for a lot in a court of law, and more than statistics.  You were just "doing it wrong".

2 hours ago, Sir Smoke aLot said:

You imply that i am uncritical towards statistics in general.

Yes.  I think you think that statistics are true.   They are, in fact, very unreliable.

2 hours ago, Sir Smoke aLot said:

There is a reason why it's hard to get truth but if we compare statistics from both sides and base opinion on that - i'll rather take that than to rely on assumptions. Again you oversimplify things. 

That is a terrible approach.  You are hoping that two opposing lies will reveal the truth thru statistical averaging.  If I am oversimplifying things, that is because I haven't seen any proposition being put that is sufficiently detailed that it needs a detailed analysis.

2 hours ago, Sir Smoke aLot said:

There was no Israel as a state when Jewish refuges and Zionist movement fought for right to self determination and right of return. Both were given to them. You just can't dismiss the importance of world community and the role which world powers, League of Nations and UN played in making environment for Israel to became reality.

By the time the world recognised the state of Israel, they had already taken armed control of most of the territory.  All the world community did was to decide they weren't going to fight about what had already clearly happened and rubber stamp it.  That is called pragmatism.

Clearly diplomacy was important in getting the Balfour Declaration and similar pre-conditions for Israel, but it was ultimately the Israeli military who did the heavy lifting in the creation of the state of Israel in the face of armed opposition on all sides and from all Arab states.  You would think that all those Arab nations would be able to use world opinion to dislodge the fledgling state within the world community, if the world community was important, as they outnumbered Israel on any measurement you care to name, but they failed.  So, based on the evidence, guns mattered, and opinions voiced over cocktails at diplomatic receptions did not matter nearly as much. That is the realpolitik of the situation, and remains so.   For example, why do you think Iran wants nuclear weapons?  Specifically because they want to destroy Israel, but if they try, Israel will nuke them, and Iran knows it.  Why do you think Saddam Hussein fired rockets at Israel?  Much the same nonsense.  Whenever Muslims are desperate to seem important they attack Israel and fail.  I think Israel shows remarkable patience.

[+and-then]

8 hours ago, Sir Smoke aLot said:

Israel is reality for over 70 years now and no one wants to destroy it lol

You really are either naive or trolling.