Gyroscopic Investing

Libertarian666 wrote:

Pointedstick wrote: The thing is, Moda, I really do have sympathy for the Palestinians as a people. I have moderated my stance a lot too, and my current position is that ignoring religion, the Jews basically arrived as at the very least unwanted and at times illegal immigrants. Their written declaration from the British Empire that the land would be theirs after the Ottoman Empire fell was issued years after a similar one went to the Palestinians (those British jerks). So, the fact that the area was predominately peopled by Palestinian Arabs, coupled with the fact that they had a prior promise from the new post-Ottoman owner, means that probably the Palestinians have the greatest right to the land.

But, as all we Americans know, a right to land doesn't mean diddly squad without the power to back up those claims. The history of our own nation proves that! This is a country that today is owned and operated by European-derived peoples, descendants of their African slaves, and more recent Asian immigrants. The people who lived here before we arrived and who really have the greatest right to the land itself are today a small, weak, broken, marginalized people, blighted by poverty, poor nutrition, and disempowerment. "Right" means precisely jack shit when you're not strong and you don't have any benefactors who are. If only it were not so… but it is. That's the world we live in. If you want to be able to assert your rights, you need power. That's what the Palestinians are trying to do today, I think, by attacking Israel. But it's futile. That ship has sailed; at this point, they're never going to have the military power necessary to impact Israel's policy. They didn't even have it in 1948 and they certainly aren't any stronger today. The Palestinians need to acquire power in other ways, and Israel's barbarities provide them ample fodder, if only they would fully take advantage of it! But they are arabs, and as such are a proud people, more inclined to passion and action than the kind of calm non-violence that's needed today. Morality and rights are irrelevant when the chips are down, and they very much are down for the Palestinians. They need a jolt of realism if they want to survive. Time will tell if they're capable of it.

IMHO.

There's another issue that I haven't seen discussed in any detail here, not that the current discussion is too simple.

Namely, where are the Jews supposed to go? Arabs are hardly a tiny minority in the Middle East, and lots of predominantly Arab countries could take in the Palestinians, if they wanted to. They don't want to, for reasons that are possibly outside the scope of this discussion.

But the Jews don't have any other reasonable options than Israel. Should they all move to the US? If they do, what happens if a future US becomes anti-Semitic?

Well the first part of this is to recognize that this is sort of a self-made problem.  ANY culture that grows in any region is going to have to ask that question. Just because Palestinians are Arabs doesn't mean that "well we can move to an Arab state" is a reasonable alternative.  When millions of people have nothing, other cultures who don't have much can't reasonably take them all in... nor should that be where the argument goes... just because Texans could move to Oklahoma & other southern states doesn't mean clearing out the Texan population from their land or depriving them of resources is morally justifiable.

Similarly, moving into a land largely populated by foreign cultures, and dominating members of that culture in your land the way some Israeli influences have, is naturally going to put you in a position of wondering "but where do we move to?" when you're called out for your transgressions in getting there. 

Obviously, you can't separate this issue from the holocaust and similar racist acts against Jews... and that adds another element to it... but I find that to be a pretty weak argument to take over land the way they have.  It was simply a convenient way for the western powers to offload a dilemma in their region.  Jews took advantage of it at the expense of Palestinians, and new it while they did it.

So in the midst of all this "Arabs are proud, unyielding people and it is hurting both them and their enemies."  Well yeah... if people are manipulated and have nothing to lose, they'll quite often be unyielding... because yielding to ruin and starvation isn't really a fun option.  And sure they might be proud, but what do we call, then, Jews who point to a book as justification for Zionism?  That seems like pretty proud behavior to me.

I think you're dealing with TWO proud, unyielding cultures, here.  One has just successfully supplanted the other, and you're seeing the natural result... with the unfortunate caveat that "cultures" don't have moral status.... but individuals do... and individuals in the right wing of both culture's power structures will seek to divide those who seek peace, and will kill a lot of non-violent individuals, including children, to do so.

"It's definitely true that Israel has committed numerous war crimes."

Nonsense.

moda0306 wrote: Obviously, you can't separate this issue from the holocaust and similar racist acts against Jews... and that adds another element to it... but I find that to be a pretty weak argument to take over land the way they have.  It was simply a convenient way for the western powers to offload a dilemma in their region.  Jews took advantage of it at the expense of Palestinians, and new it while they did it.

Can you blame them, though? European powers, who had hated Jews for centuries and one of which had just been caught trying to exterminate them outright, said, "okay, well, you can all go here and live in this piece of land that we actually do legally own, having captured it from its former nation-state owner." Of course they took the offer. Wouldn't you? Wouldn't anyone? It's sort of like how latin Americans are immigrating to the southwestern states of the USA against the wishes of many of the residents of those states, but at the invitation of their ultimate ruler: the federal government. Can you blame them for coming? I mean, really?

moda0306 wrote: So in the midst of all this "Arabs are proud, unyielding people and it is hurting both them and their enemies."  Well yeah... if people are manipulated and have nothing to lose, they'll quite often be unyielding... because yielding to ruin and starvation isn't really a fun option.  And sure they might be proud, but what do we call, then, Jews who point to a book as justification for Zionism?  That seems like pretty proud behavior to me.

This view seems borne of profound ignorance of the history of arabs in the middle east. These cultural traits in no way originated with the Palestinians or arose in response a recent hardship. It's just the way their culture is, same as how our culture is shallow and materialistic, and French culture is obsessed with food and sex.

Reub wrote: "It's definitely true that Israel has committed numerous war crimes."

Nonsense.

When I was in Israel three years ago, a rabbi told me about a war crime that he personally committed, with fondness in his voice. He shot a civilian who he admitted that he knew was not engaged in combat activities while he in the process of effecting a home invasion that resulted in the deaths of two other innocents at the hands of his squad-mates. That's just a one example that I can personally attest to hearing about from a first-party source.

Nonsense.

It's just unpossible, huh? I guess he was lying to me or something, right? Or I'm grossly misremembering out of some kind of self-hating anti-semitism? Please enlighten me.

Reub wrote: Nonsense.

I'd never thought of it like that, Confucius.  Scratch that... Go, Israel!!

Pointedstick wrote: It's just unpossible, huh? I guess he was lying to me or something, right? Or I'm grossly misremembering out of some kind of self-hating anti-semitism? Please enlighten me.

One guy tells you something and it becomes a state sponsored war crime. Wanna buy a bridge?

Reub wrote:

Pointedstick wrote: It's just unpossible, huh? I guess he was lying to me or something, right? Or I'm grossly misremembering out of some kind of self-hating anti-semitism? Please enlighten me.

One guy tells you something and it becomes a state sponsored war crime. Wanna buy a bridge?

What are you talking about?  War crimes don't have to emanate from the prime minister. 

Reub wrote:

Pointedstick wrote: It's just unpossible, huh? I guess he was lying to me or something, right? Or I'm grossly misremembering out of some kind of self-hating anti-semitism? Please enlighten me.

One guy tells you something and it becomes a state sponsored war crime. Wanna buy a bridge?

It was during a supposedly inspirational seminar sponsored by the Israeli government as part of the Birthright program, and in attendance were about 60 people, of whom I was only one. This man's orders came from his government as part of a military operation to catch a suspected terrorist. So… yeah, it was state-sponsored.

One guy telling you something does not constitute a state sponsored war crime. If you used this ridiculous standard every country on the planet consistently commits them.

Reub wrote: One guy telling you something does not constitute a state sponsored war crime. If you used this ridiculous standard every country on the planet consistently commits them.

Is a war crime not a war crime if it goes unprosecuted?

Pointedstick wrote: The really awkward thing about the Israelis vs Palestinians conflict is that it exposes how when it comes down to it, "might makes right" is the most basic and primal way to solve problems. These are groups of people we're talking about who both have legitimate grievances and positions, and both have legal cases that at least started out being fairly legitimate. But when that peaceful process of conflict resolution breaks down, the guns come out, and, well, we donte like to think about it, but there's really no other way.

Certain members on here would think anarcho-capitalism is the ideal solution for resolving the Israeli-Palistine conflict as opposed to throwing kerosene on a fire.

Your "war crime" is my "human rights violation".  Context matters.

Reub wrote: One guy telling you something does not constitute a state sponsored war crime. If you used this ridiculous standard every country on the planet consistently commits them.

Not every country. For example, I seriously doubt there are any in Switzerland, because they don't invade or occupy other countries.
But the US certainly would qualify under that definition (or any other, really, except for "if we do it, it's okay").

Pointedstick wrote:

Reub wrote: One guy telling you something does not constitute a state sponsored war crime. If you used this ridiculous standard every country on the planet consistently commits them.

Is a war crime not a war crime if it goes unprosecuted?

That's the wonderful thing about winning a war: only losers are prosecuted for war crimes!

It's a pleasure to read your writing here, PS. You have both knowledge and open-mindedness, which makes for some great posts.

Thanks Dualstow.

Yes, it's a pleasure seeing someone on here condemn an entire country  (and one that is a democracy and an ally of the United States no less) based on what one guy who he didnt know told him 3 years ago. Bravo! Keep up the good work.

Reub wrote: Yes, it's a pleasure seeing someone on here condemn an entire country  (and one that is a democracy and an ally of the United States no less) based on what one guy who he didnt know told him 3 years ago. Bravo! Keep up the good work.

I was trying to imagine the United States actively supporting the Palestinians instead of Isreal...  and then I had to laugh.  War crimes or not, there's a lot more to the cookie than just rancid walnuts.

Reub wrote: Yes, it's a pleasure seeing someone on here condemn an entire country  (and one that is a democracy and an ally of the United States no less) based on what one guy who he didnt know told him 3 years ago. Bravo! Keep up the good work.

I was having a hard time thinking up a reason why the Israeli government would have gone out of its way to present my group with a personal account of a war crime that didn't happen, but then it hit me: I've been thinking about this all wrong. Israel is Good™, and anything Good™ must be pure 100% good, white as the driven snow, with not a single thing worth criticizing (just like anything that is bad must be utterly vile, ineffable evil lacking any possible redeeming characteristics). Therefore, the potentially Bad™ element of the thing I know is Good™ must be somehow untrue, no matter how tortured the logic used to reach that conclusion may be!

Reub, if PointedStick's reported anecdote is not enough for you, consider Lozowick's Right to Exist, the book I've often referenced in Israel threads. As an archivist for Yad Vashem and now, I believe, for the entire state of Israel, he's about the most patriotic Israeli you'll ever want to meet.

However, he's not patriotic because he's in denial. He loves Israel warts and all, just like many of us do the United States. There's something about refusing to ackowledge any warts -- and they are there -- that may make all future arguments a little bit weaker. Sure it's possible that someone said something untrue to PS, but that doesn't even matter. There are enough statements made by those who actually served in the Israeli military, Mr Lozowick included, to corroborate the allegation that, oh my God, Israel is actually not a flawless nation of flawless people. They do make mistakes. So what.