Richard Dawkins: The God Delusion.

Discuss music production with Ableton Live.
Tone Deft
Posts: 24152
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:19 pm

Post by Tone Deft » Fri Feb 23, 2007 12:37 am

glu wrote:I can't leave campus without passing by some street preacher shouting to (no one listening) about the glory of our lord god. It makes me want to take off my clothes and run around them in circles screaming/singing to be saved...but then I would proably get expelled.
At UC Berkeley in the early 90s there was a guy who'd stand near those preachers and do the 'Flying Spaghetti Monster bit' but use Dracula instead, repeating everything the preacher said. It went on for years.


MW - yeah, ironic isn't it, Bob's music is full of religious lyrics, not a bad idea though.


edited 'cause I messed up a /quote.
Last edited by Tone Deft on Fri Feb 23, 2007 1:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
In my life
Why do I smile
At people who I'd much rather kick in the eye?
-Moz

Machinesworking
Posts: 11551
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2004 9:30 pm
Location: Seattle

Post by Machinesworking » Fri Feb 23, 2007 1:17 am

shtreimel wrote:You can read Chomsky...Oren...they've all got their take on why/how Israel exists. Her creation is the result of politics, theology, prayer, anti-semitism and european guilt.
Believe me, european guilt really has nothing to do with it, and I'm sure you're quite aware what I think about the prayer aspect....
It's simply a matter of moving the jewish people into the firing line, and with the religious convictions of the devout that was easy. You guys are Operation Human Shield for our fuel driven battles. What's awesome for the power elite is you actually believe it was european guilt.
Believe me I would love to think that racism and xenophobia are dead in the ruling class, but it's simply a lie. The poor in Americas south are simply a front line distraction for the real base of bigotry and oppression. Still, even that is of little consequence here, it's about the bottom line period. Power rules this, not any sense of righteousness.
I don't think Israel should be dismantled, but to ignore the fact that Israel was allowed to form for less-than-altruistic reasons is to play into the hands of the people who are using your people as pawns in a chess game.

shtreimel
Posts: 476
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2004 12:45 am

Post by shtreimel » Fri Feb 23, 2007 1:28 am

Machinesworking wrote:Believe me, european guilt really has nothing to do with it.
Believe you? Historians brighter than you and I have indicated guilt, anti-Semitism and, oddly enough, religious sentiment (Jews returning to their homeland), as major factors leading to the state of Israel.
Machinesworking wrote:our fuel driven battles. What's awesome for the power elite is you actually believe it was european guilt.
Me? No. Simply many, many ME historians who've dedicated their lives to writing about the region. You've been reading too much Chomsky perhaps.
Machinesworking wrote:I don't think Israel should be dismantled, but to ignore the fact that Israel was allowed to form for less-than-altruistic reasons is to play into the hands of the people who are using your people as pawns in a chess game.
You state these things like you had lunch with Ben Gurion, Roosevelt, and Churchill. Can you direct me to a mainstream historian who sees the founding of Israel as a "pawn in a chess game?" I mean, someone other than Zinn, Chomsky...

Machinesworking
Posts: 11551
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2004 9:30 pm
Location: Seattle

Post by Machinesworking » Fri Feb 23, 2007 1:52 am

Anti Chomsky eh? that's sad, a political analyst who offers up an unpopular opinion, and has the credibility to back it up is rendered off limits by your accounts???? Also, how is it that you want an answer, then decide what constitutes a proper come back? That's dammed egoistic of you?

Chomsky to me is one of the few honest political thinkers out there, along with William F. Buckley and others who don't care if they offend the left or right, come to their own conclusions etc.
Honestly, and I'm sure you'll be surprised by this, I don't even know Chomskys stance on Israel. I read a few books years ago, and thought the personality that comes through with The Manufacture of Consent was of a deep and caring person.

my opinions on Israel's reasons for existence after WWII are simply observations based on the evidence at hand, and I think it's too obvious to ignore, but if you want to argue that political analysts with vested interests in a viewpoint are of course of a higher standard than any person you talk to etc. go ahead.
I have ZERO vested interest in Israel, I don't think of it in any way other than a philosophical quandary. The thing is you keep arguing against the idea that Israel might be being used as a chess piece, and I wonder why that wouldn't be a concern that you would want to think about? but hey... I am not you.
It's not like this will ever come out to the public like the CIA operations in Iran did, this is deeper, and harder to prove, but hey, if it suits you to ignore that in almost every case, the bottom line has been and always will be about power, and not your people's power, then I'm well aware I'm not the one to convince you. Years from now you might think back on this and maybe see what I'm trying to say, but I distinctly get the impression I'm wasting my time with this debate...

shtreimel
Posts: 476
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2004 12:45 am

Post by shtreimel » Fri Feb 23, 2007 2:20 am

Machinesworking wrote:Anti Chomsky eh? that's sad,
Actually, I'm very much enjoying an audio cd interview with him.
Machinesworking wrote: this is deeper, and harder to prove, but hey, if it suits you to ignore that in almost every case, the bottom line has been and always will be about power, and not your people's power, then I'm well aware I'm not the one to convince you. Years from now you might think back on this and maybe see what I'm trying to say, but I distinctly get the impression I'm wasting my time with this debate...
There's conspiracy theories abound. I'd like to read one mainstream (not too whacky to the left or right) historian that believes that Israel was founded according to reasons you mentioned. Seriously, I'd be willing to give that book a read.

b0unce
Posts: 5379
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2006 4:16 pm

Post by b0unce » Fri Feb 23, 2007 2:28 am

why would we need to find a published historian, not too whacky, not too left - not too right, who has written this in print ?....some people are happy to take the facts and make their own conclusions.
Besides, I'm confident some research will yield credible results...tho in what form I cant predict, but like I said....I'm one of those people who is happy to take the facts and computate his own opinion through a process of intricate algorhitmic calculations, cross multiplied with star charts and horse racing form.



by the way machinesworking, your past couple of posts have totally nailed and closed the point I was driving.

So.
spreader of butter

shtreimel
Posts: 476
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2004 12:45 am

Post by shtreimel » Fri Feb 23, 2007 2:33 am

b0unce wrote:some people are happy to take the facts and make their own conclusions.
Facts...are you being serious? I could paste 4 pages of "facts" that would "prove" the British were antagonistic towards zionists, and favored Arabs. Not unlike yourself, the "facts" have led me to appreciate that zionism/israel has a long, long history and Britain is one small part of it.

b0unce
Posts: 5379
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2006 4:16 pm

Post by b0unce » Fri Feb 23, 2007 2:43 am

britain is it. It was just an idea without britain.

Hows about me and my buddies have ourselves an idea, hmmm hey - hows about we get Ulster back...No, thats not a britain approved idea.


You seem to justify and give much more credence to the guys with the Ideas, and not the people who made it happen - and why they made it happen.
Thats all thats important, old bean. The rest is fluff.

and by the way, knock yourself out - lets see the pages of facts and see if they stand up to mild scrutiny....facts to prove whatever it is you want to prove, that zionism was an idea for a while before it became interesting to britain ?
spreader of butter

Machinesworking
Posts: 11551
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2004 9:30 pm
Location: Seattle

Post by Machinesworking » Fri Feb 23, 2007 3:08 am

shtreimel wrote:There's conspiracy theories abound. I'd like to read one mainstream (not too whacky to the left or right) historian that believes that Israel was founded according to reasons you mentioned. Seriously, I'd be willing to give that book a read.
Right, basically it's an impossibility. A mainstream political analyst will come up with the conclusion that it was maybe a matter of anti semitism, (as in let's put all the jews anywhere but our country etc.), but not real political maneuvering.
It's easier to think that the powers that be, politicians and the wealthy behind them actually care, one way or the other about people, than to entertain the idea that they do not care. I think it's obvious to any real thinker that the wealthy that are powerful enough to have a real vested interest in the outcome of WWII, as in they were aware that Hitler would screw them big time, were also aware that Hitler planned on killing off the jews, and homos, and gypsies, and their elderly, and mentally ill etc. Yet they did nothing to help jewish people into their countries. this is genocide as well, any person reading Mein Kampf would know how deeply Hitler hated jews, and be aware of what looking the other way entailed.
They didn't have a change of heart after WWII, they simply came up with another way of using people to their advantage. that seems so blindingly obvious to me as to not require any text books for back up.
The extermination of the jewish people was an obvious step after the concentration camps, given the hatred amassed against the jewish people that it's just silly for people to think otherwise.
Seriously, take a look at England's history, and you will see a nation that has consistently used nations and ethnic rivalries as chess pieces. the altruistic nature of the english upper class should always be viewed as suspect. Yet for some reason people want to believe in the goodness of man etc. which is admirable, but not with british politics.
Sure, it's possible they even fooled themselves ala 'White Mans Burden' etc. but in the end it's obvious that it was a move intended to benefit the west, more than a fairy tale offering of square miles of land out of guilt. Since when has a powerful war like nation given up property without expecting something back?
Hey, it's not like they offered Russia property, and Russia lost as many people, and though it was a legitimate war, it was very antii-slavic, anti commie driven.
I'm no anti-anglo person, honestly really like their culture, but the ruling class there are total jerks IMO, proven history of abuse of power etc. my ethnic heritage is 1/4 english actually.

Also, to me it's as important, if not more, to look at the political stance of the far right and the far left as it is the middle. Often the middle are sheep, and though the bias is strong in either direction you can get information that the middle sadly neglects. It's up to you to decide what you take in, but I think the most obvious is honestly almost always the truth.

b0unce
Posts: 5379
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2006 4:16 pm

Post by b0unce » Fri Feb 23, 2007 3:18 am

Food for thought on the topic of britain, genocide, selective guilt;
(doh - no pun intended!)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Pota ... f_Genocide
spreader of butter

Machinesworking
Posts: 11551
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2004 9:30 pm
Location: Seattle

Post by Machinesworking » Fri Feb 23, 2007 3:57 am

bounce is on point here. Study irish english history, and tell us that less than 30 years after dividing up Ireland on lines that secured british rule in the part they wanted, and 100 years after letting millions die in their own back yard for what amounts to political reasons.... that the english woke up one morning caring about people? That the obvious rift that would be almost a guaranteed result of millions of foreigners (sorry, but if you live in northern europe for a thousand years or more, you're a foreigner to the natives) moving into the area just was overlooked by the worlds greatest military minds?
They knew Israel would clash with the arabs. That it's advantageous to europe and America is obvious to no end. You even stated that the english were siding with the arabs previously, it's obvious that Iraq has been made into both an ally and an enemy when needed by the superpowers, but hey, no way would they do that to the jews eh? Again, why that is down played as the real reason for Israel's creation by you can only be attributed to the fact that it isn't necessarily a positive view, and nobody wants to think of their people as pawns.

shtreimel
Posts: 476
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2004 12:45 am

Post by shtreimel » Fri Feb 23, 2007 4:29 am

Anyway guys, I'm walking away from this one. Suffice to say it's nice, and I mean this sincerely, that this didn't descend into muck...like most ME east discussions. 'Night all.

Machinesworking
Posts: 11551
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2004 9:30 pm
Location: Seattle

Post by Machinesworking » Fri Feb 23, 2007 5:44 am

shtreimel wrote:Anyway guys, I'm walking away from this one. Suffice to say it's nice, and I mean this sincerely, that this didn't descend into muck...like most ME east discussions. 'Night all.
Thanks for remaining decent yourself.
Hopefully you give this some thought though. Israel could turn the whole middle east chess game upside down if they wanted to, but it would take a real change in current attitude, and a distinctly different perspective. 8)

b0unce
Posts: 5379
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2006 4:16 pm

Post by b0unce » Fri Feb 23, 2007 7:13 am

and a *tug tug* here.
and a *tug tug* there.
spreader of butter

knotkranky
Posts: 4336
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 7:08 pm
Location: la

Post by knotkranky » Fri Feb 23, 2007 7:39 am

How about the solution argument. Should it stay as it is or should something give a little, so the world doesn't explode?



Arabs say Israel is not just for Jews
A manifesto argues that the nation's minority is entitled to share power in a binational state.
By Richard Boudreaux, Times Staff Writer
February 22, 2007

NAZARETH, ISRAEL — A broadly representative elite of Israel's Arab minority has rejected the idea of Israel as a Jewish state and demanded a partnership in governing the country to ensure that Arab citizens get equal treatment and more control over their communities.

In a manifesto that is stirring anger and soul-searching among Jews, Arab leaders have declared that Israel's 1.4 million Arab citizens are an indigenous group with collective rights, not just individual rights. The document argues that Arabs are entitled to share power in a binational state and block policies that discriminate against them.

Arab citizens, who make up about one-fifth of Israel's population, have always felt alienated by the Star of David on Israel's flag and a national anthem that expresses the Jewish yearning for a return to Zion. They have long protested the disproportionate Jewish share of budget resources, public services and land.

Until now, though, only small groups of Arab intellectuals had dared to advocate collective equality or the abolition of Jewish national symbols.

"The Future Vision of the Palestinian Arabs in Israel" is the first such sweeping demand by Israel's Arab mainstream. The manifesto was drafted by 40 academics and activists under the sponsorship of the Committee of Arab Mayors in Israel and has been endorsed by an unprecedented range of Arab community leaders.

As such, it has set off alarms.

As Jewish leaders learned of the document, which was issued in December but not widely circulated until last month, they seized on it as evidence of a growing militancy by a minority that, by and large, openly sympathized with Hezbollah guerrillas fighting Israel in last summer's war in Lebanon.

The document does not address the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But critics argue that adoption of its proposal to redefine Israel as a binational state would undermine Jewish support for a separate Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, a solution to which Israel's government is formally committed.

Commentators on the right have denounced the manifesto as the work of an internal enemy that threatens Israel's identity as a haven for Jewish self-determination. On the left, Jews who have advocated equal treatment of Arabs within a Jewish state say they feel disheartened.

"Is this the beginning of a new demand for the establishment of a state within a state?" Hagai Meirom, treasurer of the Jewish Agency for Israel, asked at a public forum last month. "Is it still possible to mend the Arab minority's feelings of belonging?"

The document's sponsors say most of the criticism misses the point.

Shawki Khatib, head of the 64-member Arab mayors group, said the manifesto was not an ultimatum but an effort to catalog Jewish discrimination against Arabs and provoke debate over how Israel's two largest communities should live together.

"The main message is that we do not accept our situation as second-class citizens," Khatib said in an interview at the group's headquarters here. "We want to change that situation, and we prefer to change it through dialogue."

He said he would invite Israeli officials to take part in an assembly next month to discuss the eight-chapter document.

The walls outside Khatib's office display mementos of Arab alienation. One poster reads "We will not forget" alongside portraits of 13 Israeli Arabs killed by riot police in October 2000 while demonstrating in solidarity with a Palestinian uprising.

Driving home from Nazareth, Khatib stopped his car to illustrate another grievance: entrenched discrimination that contributes to sharp inequalities between Israeli Arabs and Jews.

Across the highway from Yaffa a-Nasra, the Arab village he has governed for 16 years, Khatib pointed to a modern industrial park, home to electronic and biotechnology plants. It lies within the Jewish municipality of Migdal Emek.

"Whenever the central government builds a new industrial area, it gets located in a Jewish town instead of an Arab town," he said. "The Israeli towns get the local tax revenue and the jobs. Look, this highway separates our reality from theirs."

Central government allocations for public services further skew the income gap. In public education, for example, the state invests about twice as much per Jewish pupil as per Arab pupil.

Nearly half of Israel's Arabs live below the poverty line, and their rates of unemployment and infant mortality are twice the national average. They face obstacles securing residency permits for Arab spouses who are not Israeli. Exempt from military service, they do not qualify for thousands of higher-paying jobs reserved for veterans. They make up only 10% of Israel's university undergraduates.

Arab leaders also chafe at limits on local autonomy, such as the Education Ministry requirement that all public schools use textbooks that teach history from a Jewish perspective.

Arabs take part in Israeli politics and vote in elections but have almost no power in the central government. Arab parties hold seven of the 120 seats in parliament, sitting in opposition. Another three seats are held by Arabs belonging to the Jewish-led parties in Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's coalition. An Arab-Jewish Communist Party has two seats.

Last month, Raleb Majadele of the Jewish-led Labor Party became the first Muslim Arab to hold a Cabinet position, only to be criticized by Arab political parties as a token minority in a racist government.

Arab leaders acknowledge that recent Israeli governments have recognized a need to tackle the inequalities.

"But they focus on individual rights," said Aida Toma-Suleiman, a women's rights activist on the Supreme Follow-up Committee for the Arab Citizens of Israel, a broad leadership group that includes mayors, members of parliament and heads of civic organizations. The group has endorsed the manifesto.

"Our view is that citizens cannot enjoy individual civil rights if their ethnic group does not fully enjoy equal collective rights," Toma-Suleiman said.

To that end, the manifesto urges Israel to adopt a "consensual democracy" like that of Belgium, which reconciles its Flemish- and French-speaking communities through power sharing, proportional representation and local autonomy. The system proposed by Israel's Arabs would give Arab communities control over decisions about education, culture and religious affairs.

The idea of a governing partnership has wide support among Arab citizens. A recent poll by the Yafa Institute found that 57% of Israeli Arabs want a change in the character of the state to put their community on an equal footing; 14% want Israel to remain a Jewish state.

A separate survey by the Institute for Policy and Strategy showed that Arab citizens identifying themselves as "Arab patriots" outnumbered those who called themselves "Israeli patriots" by nearly 3 to 1.

The Arabs' assertiveness has provoked anger on the right.

Avigdor Lieberman, who joined the Cabinet last year as head of the Israel Is Our Home Party, warns repeatedly that Israel's Jewish character faces a long-term "demographic threat" from Arab population growth. He favors a proposal to strip more than 150,000 Arabs of their Israeli citizenship by redrawing Israel's eastern boundary to put them in the Palestinian-controlled West Bank.

In a recent speech, he appeared to validate the manifesto's claim that Israel's Jewish and democratic values are inherently contradictory.

In any such clash of priorities, Lieberman said, "it is more important that we remain a Jewish state."

But the Arab proposals have also elicited anxious debate among Jews over how to accommodate the restive minority.

At last month's annual Herzliya Conference, a leading forum for Israeli experts on national security, Toma-Suleiman defended the manifesto before a Jewish audience. She came under attack from a fellow panelist, Dan Schueftan, deputy director of the National Security Studies Center at Haifa University.

"Equality is not the issue," Schueftan said. "As far as the Arabs are concerned, nothing short of the destruction of the Jewish enterprise will be enough, even if Israel closes the gap."

Dov Lautman, a textile factory owner whose workforce is half Arab, took issue with Schueftan.

"I don't agree with everything in the manifesto, nor do I agree with all of what my Jewish compatriots say about it," he said. "To have a dialogue, you have to start from extreme positions."

The exchange prompted Meirom of the Jewish Agency for Israel, who was the moderator, to observe that Israel faces a threat more challenging than any external enemy.

"This threat is not the Arab minority itself but rather the fragile relationship between Arabs and Jews in this land," he said. "The solution to this threat lies in dialogue. It is my view that we do not need to forgo the essence of the state of Israel. There is still a possibility to create coexistence."

Post Reply