The Great Communicator communicates not so greatly *UPDATED*
Bookworm on May 19 2011 at 4:00 pm | Filed under: Barack Obama, Israel, Palestinians
Obama is supposed to be hot stuff when it comes to communicating. I’ve long had my doubts, but his reference in today’s speech to Israel’s 1967 borders should put to rest forever the media created canard that this is a guy who can get his points across. You know why? Because he committed the heinous crime of ambiguity.
You see, Israel’s borders changed roughly halfway through 1967. There are two different 1967 borders. Before the Six Day War, this is what Israel looked like. As you can see, she had a north and a south, but practically no middle. Syria was breathing down her neck on the north, Egypt on the south, and Jordon on the east. After the war, this is what Israel looked like. Israel had gained buffer zones on the north, south and east. These are vastly different configurations, with hugely different security ramifications.
So what does Obama, our resident oratorical genius, say? He says this:
We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. (Emphasis mine.)
What in the world does that mean? Bibi Netanyahu is livid. Given Obama’s long-standing and manifest hostility towards Israel, not to mention his constant pandering to the Palestinians, he (and others) reasonably believe Obama is referring to the borders as they existed before the Six Day War. Others, equally reasonably, are saying that Obama is doing nothing more than making explicit long-standing U.S. policy, which has always hewed to the borders as they existed immediately after the Six Day War. Both arguments are right, because the Great Communicator was criminally ambiguous. (There’s also a very good argument that, by explicitly identify any borders whatsoever, something America quite carefully has never done before, Obama undercut completely Israeli room for maneuver.)
One of the things I’ve told my children, repeatedly, is that 80% of the lawsuits I’ve worked on over my 25 year career have arisen because of ambiguous writing or speaking. When people enter into an agreement that contains a sentence or term that is reasonably open to more than one interpretation, you’ve got a nascent lawsuit. Scarily, when the President of the United States, the man billed as the greatest communicator since Lincoln, says something carelessly (or intentionally, perhaps?) ambiguous, you’ve got a potentially nascent existential war in the making.
Great Communicator? Pfui!
UPDATE: I should add here that I happen to agree with those who believe Obama is referring to the pre-Six Day War borders. It’s important to note, though, that Israel currently doesn’t have either of the 1967 borders. She’s reasonably bigger than she was in May 1967 but, having given away a great deal of land for no peace, she is much smaller than she was in June 1967.
I mention this because, if Israel’s borders were identical to the June 1967 borders, it would be obvious that Obama, by specifically referencing the 1967 borders (with some “swaps”) would be trying to return to a May 1967 status quo. Because Israel is neither a May or a June 1967, however, his reference to 1967 creates ambiguity.
UPDATE II: Brutally Honest has more on Netanyahu’s response to the undoubtedly correct interpretation he put on Obama’s ambiguous words.
The Bookworm Turns : A Secret Conservative in Liberal Land, available in e-format for $4.99 at Amazon, Smashwords or through your iBook app.
Email This Post To A Friend
58 Responses to “The Great Communicator communicates not so greatly *UPDATED*”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Good for you Book. You are thinking right along with me. I immediately asked, rhetorically, “is he talking about the May 1967 borders or the July 1967 borders.”
My wife assumes that he was actually talking pre-1967, as do most of the commentators. I have remarked that it will be interesting to watch the WH try to clarify this. They should be adept at clarifying his idiocy by now. However, it is now 1926 (Navy time) and I haven’t heard anything about the WH trying to walk this back.
There has to come a time when the Media and the Punditry acknowledge that this is one of the most inept communicators to ever stand behind a Presidential podium
Off topic; someone remarked today, tongue in cheek, that Gingrich opined that he will never borrow Obama’s teleprompter again. Cracked me up.
I read it as May 1967 as well.
Surely you cannot expect a man who doesn’t know how many U.S. states there are to know the difference between May and June?
To be fair to the president, I have always thought that he was trying to make a joke about the extent of his travels with the infamous “57 states” remark. If he weren’t humor-impaired, he would have said he had been to 570 states with 63 more to go – that much exaggeration might have been both amusing and clearly a joke. So not only is he not a “great communicator,” he’s really not even a “communicator.”
To be considered a great communicator in the mode of Lincoln, he would have to work without a net, just like Lincoln did.
Greetings:
I grew up in the Bronx of the ’50s and ’60s. Our neighborhood’s largest two demographics were those of Jewish heritage and those of Irish heritage. After Israel’s Six Day War, I asked my father what the Israelis should do with the Arabs. “Take ‘em down to the [Jordan] river, point ‘em east, and give ‘em a decent headstart,” was his reply. Too bad the Israelis didn’t. But late is better than never.
Ever since the Gaza blockade running attempt in which the Israelis soldiers were attacked, I have had the eerie feeling that the Arab-Israeli chessboard had been expanded and that while military attacks by the Arabs would probably continue on a tactical level, the new strategy would involve more passive-aggressive attacks on Israel under the cloak of “human rights” demonstrations. All this fetishistic genuflecting that been going on for the last several months about democracy’s “Arab Spring” seems to me to fit nicely into that strategy.
Many years ago, there was a joke about the Pittsburgh Steelers’ quarterback Terry Bradshaw that he could spell “cat” if you spotted him the “c” and the “a”. Similarly with Arabs and democracy. They have been trapped in the seventh century (A.D.) since Mohammed or whomsoever inflicted Islam upon them. As Fouad Ajami has pointed out, those are the lands of “I against my brother; my brother and I against our cousin; my cousin, my brother and I against the stranger.” There is no peace to be had out there. As long as there is Islam, there never will be.
There really is no other way to read Obama’s remarks other than as referring to the pre ’67 war borders. How else would his talk of land swaps make sense? Having returned Sinai to Egypt, Israel can hardly trade it. (And didn’t Israel try to get the Egyptians to take the Gaza Strip, too?)
The underlying problem, which no US President has admitted, is that the Arab world (in fact the entire Muslim world) does not recognise Israel’s right to exist as home to the Jewish people. Until the Arabs recognise Israel’s right to exist, there is no reason to proceed. Part of recognising the right of Israel to exist is for the Arabs to cease demanding the so-called “right of return” because that would obviously negate Israel as home to the Jewish people.
e-girl, I’ve spotted your difficulty: you’re looking for sense. Not bloody likely.
Prezident Klown.
e-girl; actually, I support the “right to return.”
But only with the two following critical conditions:
First, it has to be recognized that for most the “right to return” is not possible without harming someone else who has lived on the land for a couple of generations. Two wrongs do not make a right. So, for most folks the right to return will have to be financial or other compensation.
Second, and the most important, is that the right to return has to be a TWO-WAY STREET! No one way traffic.
If Israel has to do something about those displaced from its territory; then, those nations that have been clamoring for decades about the “right to return” MUST compensate those who were forced (at gunpoint or other methods) from their “ancestral” homes within their territory.
Total the bill to see which “side” has to pay the larger amount (hint: I suspect that it will NOT be Israel)
But, I’m talking to myself, as none of this will ever come to pass.
Too livid to comment. The linked photo imparts a partial message.
http://iowntheworld.com/blog/?p=76245
The big problem with the right of return, to my mind, has to do with the special and unique defintion of refugee that applies only to those Arabs who left Israel, namely that it includes all of their descendants.
Methinks you’re right, Charles, about the netted off amount of the bills. You make a very good point about the need to close the books on this saga and provide justice to the individuals, both Jews and Arabs, who were affected by it.
Book comments about Israel that, “She’s reasonably bigger than she was in May 1967 but, having given away a great deal of land for no peace, she is much smaller than she was in June 1967.”
And all Israel got for that return of land to Egypt is a very temporary truce, if current events are any indication, thereby proving that there isn’t really anything to be gained by giving any of land legitimately taken back to Egypt, Jordan and Syria (although I suspect that Jordan wants nothing to do with the Palestinians in the West Bank).
As I keep telling people, if they wish for peace, they must win at Total War. This defensive war or this limited war stuff, doesn’t cut it.
11B40: After Israel’s Six Day War, I asked my father what the Israelis should do with the Arabs. “Take ‘em down to the [Jordan] river, point ‘em east, and give ‘em a decent headstart,” was his reply. Too bad the Israelis didn’t.
In fact, the Israelis did expel Palestinians from many areas, such as at Lydda and Ramla. Others fled because of massacres, such as at Deir Yassin, or the fear of being caught in combat. In all cases, they have a right of return.
11B40: But late is better than never.
Ethnic cleansing happens to be a war crime.
Bookworm: Because he committed the heinous crime of ambiguity.
The 1967 borders unambiguously refers to the pre-war borders.
Bookworm: She’s reasonably bigger than she was in May 1967 but, having given away a great deal of land for no peace, she is much smaller than she was in June 1967.
Israel is larger today as it includes East Jerusalem. Also, Israel occupies the West Bank and has moved half a million settlers there (now about a quarter of the population), complicating any peace negotiations.
e-girl: Part of recognising the right of Israel to exist is for the Arabs to cease demanding the so-called “right of return” because that would obviously negate Israel as home to the Jewish people.
Palestinians have the right of return. People don’t easily give up what they perceive as their homelands, and Palestinians have deep roots in the area. Of course, a realistic solution will mean some sort of accommodation. That’s one of the many issues that needs to be resolved.
Bookworm: Brutally Honest has more on Netanyahu’s response to the undoubtedly correct interpretation he put on Obama’s ambiguous words.
“Among other things,” Netanyahu reminded Obama, “those commitments relate to Israel not having to withdraw to the 1967 lines which are both indefensible and which would leave major Israeli population centers in Judea and Samaria beyond those lines.”
Judea and Samaria, also known as the West Bank, and home to two million Palestinians. Israel continues to build settlements there. That’s a crucial obstacle for any negotiated solution.
Danny Lemieux: And all Israel got for that return of land to Egypt is a very temporary truce, if current events are any indication, thereby proving that there isn’t really anything to be gained by giving any of land legitimately taken back to Egypt, Jordan and Syria (although I suspect that Jordan wants nothing to do with the Palestinians in the West Bank).
Current events may not be indicative of what Egypt will do over the long run. Israel should be on the side of the democracy movements, even if the instability is worrisome, even if the neighboring people have animosity towards Israel. Because ultimately, Israelis have to make peace with their neighbors, not with their authoritarian leaders.
Here’s an interesting map that shows the problem of fragmentation in the West Bank.
http://www.balloon-juice.com/2011/05/20/can-islands-of-land-become-a-state/
Palestinians have the right of return. People don’t easily give up what they perceive as their homelands, and Palestinians have deep roots in the area. Of course, a realistic solution will mean some sort of accommodation. That’s one of the many issues that needs to be resolved. - Zachriel
If we want to get historical, Israels historical roots are far deeper and stronger than the Arabs. I sit next to an Arab who claims to be Palestinean. He’s never lived in Palestine– having grown up in Kuwait. His family lives in Jordan– the true Palestinean territory. He’s been in the US since 1980. Are you suggesting he has a right to return to Israel?
This, of course, is the deal breaker. Israel can never agree to such a proposal, since estimate are 400,000-600,000 Arabs left, and some are claiming right of return of 5,000,000. And since there is ambiguity to how many Arabs that left the area due to Israel commandos or left by order of the Caliphate, it will be hard to settle land claims.
Greetings: especially “Zachriel” @13
I don’t wish to appear contentious, but “Deir Yassin” was during the 1948 war, no? I not familiar enough Lydda and Ramla to know if your reference to them is also in regard to the 1948 war.
As to your “war crime” assertion, if your idea “ethnic cleansing” includes hostile population redistribution, then that would be more of a “war misdemeanor” or “war infraction” in my eyes.
I’m currently reading Benny Morris’ “1948: The First Arab-Israeli War” and, if you haven’t already done so, you might want to give it a read. Mr. Morris doesn’t appear to be a flaming Zionist by any means and his book’s cover includes approving blurbs from both The New york Times newspaper and The New Yorker magazine. The 1948 war was a nasty piece of business, a three-way civil war between the British, the Israelis, and the Arabs.
There were war crimes on all sides.
It seems to me that the Arabs, in their many iterations, have waged full scale war with Israel, thankfully unsuccessfully, three times in my lifetime. If they had succeeded, do you think there would have been no “war crimes”? That you raise this issue seems to me to confirm my point about “human rights” cloaking.
Finally, have you ever heard about the expulsion of the Germans from the Sedetenland after WW II?? Or, the Vietnamese from their North to the South? Hostile populations have been separated geographically in the past.
>>Sedetenland>>
SUdetenland. Not an important difference, but typos can make it _so_ much more difficult to find things on Wiki…
Because ultimately, Israelis have to make peace with their neighbors, not with their authoritarian leaders.
Typo? or are you out to prove that you’re an idiot? or both?
The only people with rights are those that can defend them. Otherwise rights don’t exist for those people.
What Z is talking about is entitlement. The Palestinians are “entitled” to return because someone says they do.
How does this whole “right to return” thing work, anyway?
OK: There’s a war. It’s coming to YOUR city. The best thing to do is get the hell out of the way. So throughout history, people have fled… to the countryside. For the safety of themselves and their loved ones. When the war moves on to another city, or ends, they return and pick up their lives.
To the best of my knowledge, those Palestinians and Jews who fled the city to the countryside had no problem returning to their homes and picking up their lives.
But what if the invaders said: “Palestinians! We are coming! We are going to murder every single Jew in our path. We are going to wipe the country clean. Their blood is going to flow through the streets, down the beaches, and into the sea. So get out of the way. Come here and you will be safe. (And there will be no Jews here in the safety zone – we’ll make sure of *that* and so will you.”
And next thing you know, they’re all fleeing to the set aside safety zone specified by the invaders. Confident. Celebrating the imminent victory of the invaders – over their own country! Dreaming and scheming of all the goodies that are going to be there, just waiting for them, once the way is clear after the genocide. Oops, strike that, I did *not* use that word, genocide! How terrible of me.
Right of return? Really?
It seems risky to me in the general sense as well to flee your entire country rather than just flee to the country-side. Isn’t there always a risk that you’re never going to be allowed back in?
Is this a universal human rights principle? The U.N. is up in arms every day, I hear, because the Jews are not allowed to return to Germany, and Poland, and France – for some reason, these nations treat them as they would treat any immigrant wanna-be: File your application, and we’ll get to you. Right to return? Hehehe, nice one. Next! And w’re not even mentioning how the U.N. is demanding that every Jew expelled from Arab countries (or other countries) be allowed back in with full human righs and dignity intact. Every day, the U.N. is demanding this.
Unto how many generations does this universal human right apply? The Moors expelled from Spain a few hundred years ago might be *very* interested. The U.N. is wildly, rabidly, speechifying that one, denouoncing Spain at every turn, I hear. Too many generations, you say? Well what’s YOUR limit, then? As 11B40 pointed out, we’ve got the Sudetenland problem, and the Vietnam problem, just to name two. That precedes the Palestinians by just a few years. The U.N. is rabidly foaming at the mouth, advocating for *them*, every day too, I hear.
Regardless of the vicious, evil double standard being applied to Israel that is applied to noone else across the face of this Earth, perhaps Israel *should* boldly lead the way and set a human rights example on “right to return”: If you can prove you were born here, welcome back. Obviously, you need proof, because you’re not going to accept just anyone walking across the border with their hand held high, saying “Me! Me! I was born here!” But you take them back.
Leaving your country, it’s always a risky thing. Very difficult to return across a sovereign nation’s border without proof you belong. And if I were in charge of immigration, and an applicant had been agitating for the destruction of my country and the murder of its people – if I’d called them no better than vermin deserving extermination – should I let them back in? Interesting…
Maybe I’d be better off letting someone else blaze this bold, new human rights trail, after all.
How does this whole “right to return” thing work, anyway?
What are the chances the administration will apply the same tactics with Mexicans, immigration policy and the ‘right of return’ – after all there is an election next year.
For those unaware of history, the Arab Plan – using the armies of numerous Arab countries – to invade Israel, marching and rolling through her, to murder the Jews in the cities and across the nation, driving those still alive into the Mediterranean Sea, there on the sand and in the surf to be butchered in a blizzard of bullets, didn’t quite come off exactly as planned. Israel defeated that invasion. And two others.
The U.S., like Israel, won Mexican territories by right of conquest. You lose a war, you pays the consequences. Apparently that doesn’t apply when comes to the Joooos.
But as SADIE points out, don’t be surprised if Obama or one of his Marxist czars starts calling for a Mexican right of return (not that Mexicans haven’t been helping themselves to a de facto right of return for a few decades now).
Just like Israel under Palestinian rule will be, Mexifornia will be a progressive, enlightened state, governed by rule of law, with exceptional educational facilities that churn out engineers and scientists like you wouldn’t believe, a political class fiercely dedicated to transparency and equality, clean streets and no gang warfare.
Wait a minute, no need to wait: We already have that in Los Angeles! Viva Mexifornia!
BrianE: If we want to get historical, Israels historical roots are far deeper and stronger than the Arabs.
There is no doubt that many Jews feel an especial affinity for Israel, and this can’t be ignored. That is one reason they were provided an international mandate. However, that doesn’t mean that the people who have lived there for generations suddenly lose their own homes.
BrianE: Are you suggesting he has a right to return to Israel?
Just because he is Palestinian doesn’t mean he has roots in Israel.
BrianE: Israel can never agree to such a proposal, since estimate are 400,000-600,000 Arabs left, and some are claiming right of return of 5,000,000.
That’s probably true. Regardless of whether the inhabitants were forced out, or simply fled the fighting, the legal issue is the same. If someone took your father’s house illegally, you would most likely still think you had a valid claim. And generally you would. Nevertheless, there will have to be compromise, on this, and on many other issues.
Charles Martel, we can’t send each other emails here in Book’s domain, so instead I have to be public and look like a complete suckup. I’m in your unofficial fan club! You are constantly informed, wise, and entertaining. A joy to read. I’m envious. You are on a long-term consistent roll!
Just a shout out of great appreciation.
11B40: “Deir Yassin” was during the 1948 war, no? I not familiar enough Lydda and Ramla to know if your reference to them is also in regard to the 1948 war.
Yes, the 1948 war.
11B40: As to your “war crime” assertion, if your idea “ethnic cleansing” includes hostile population redistribution, then that would be more of a “war misdemeanor” or “war infraction” in my eyes.
Sorry, but forcing people out because of their ethnicity or religion is a crime. A lot of people suffered and died during the expulsions due to heat and lack of water, especially the old and frail. They were forced into refugee camps, and many have remained there since.
11B40: There were war crimes on all sides.
Yes, including terrorist attacks on both sides. You seemingly advocated forced expulsions, or worse. (“Give ‘em a decent headstart.”)
Zachriel: Because ultimately, Israelis have to make peace with their neighbors, not with their authoritarian leaders.
SADIE: Typo? or are you out to prove that you’re an idiot? or both?
If Israel makes peace with authoritarian Arab leaders that are supported by outside powers, then they have not made a lasting peace. In the long run, Israel has to make peace with its neighbors, including the Palestinian people.
Mike Devx: To the best of my knowledge, those Palestinians and Jews who fled the city to the countryside had no problem returning to their homes and picking up their lives.
If true, then they could simply return today, but they can’t, of course. Israelis used terrorism and military force against civilian poplations to force them to leave. The Palestinians have legitimate grievances, as do the Israelis.
Ymarsakar: What Z is talking about is entitlement. The Palestinians are “entitled” to return because someone says they do.
There are still people who have the keys to their houses they were forced from in 1948. Yes, they have a right of return. Yes, they can negotiate for some compromise.
Charles Martel: The U.S., like Israel, won Mexican territories by right of conquest. You lose a war, you pays the consequences.
“To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”
There is plenty of blame in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. There is never any excuse for attacks against civilians or other means of terror. Israel’s continued health as a nation depends on finding a compromise that safeguards their security while providing some measure of justice and self-determination for the Palestinians.
Mike, thank you for a sweet, kind, totally unexpected compliment. I will live off that one for a long time.
But back at you, kid. I consider you one the sharpest, swiftest minds this blog has ever seen. It has been a blast watching you take on the room pests and force them to kick up their name dropping and Wiki plundering something fierce.
Anyway, here’s to a fine bromance.
(PS: Speaking of ripping off Wiki and pretending that pasting a quote constitues an argument, I refer you to Zach’s latest “reply” above to something I said. It’s as pathetic as kids who buy music software that comes with pre-programmed snippets of music that they then string together to produce “original” songs.)
Charles Martel: Speaking of ripping off Wiki and pretending that pasting a quote constitues an argument, I refer you to Zach’s latest “reply” above to something I said.
It is an argument, but it might take a bit of effort on your part to understand the point.
Charles Martel: The U.S., like Israel, won Mexican territories by right of conquest. You lose a war, you pays the consequences.
So are you saying the Nazis were unjustly punished at Nuremberg for the crime of war of aggression? Do you suggest we clear their records in this regard?
In response to Charles Martel 31: Thx back. In another Book post commentary recently that ran 100++, someone kept saying “Charles said…” repeatedly, so I decided to go back and read the entire exchange. Yours and others’ comments were awfully good, and then through today I hit “Mexifornia #26″ and decided I liked it so much I had to shout out.
There are *so many* unique voices here that make coming into Book’s domain a joy. It all starts with Book herself. I’ve shouted out a few days ago as well to those who *do link* and provide detailed argument – Danny Lemieux, Brian E, others – doing real argumentative work the best way. There’s another fellow who I’m sure must disagree with me intensely on a few topics but has some of the very best anecdotes from the past that make fantastic points and are awesome to read. Sadie’s puns and telling asides. Ymar’s indefatigable and insightful looks at propaganda, and knowledge of things Japanese. And on. And on.
I want to give another shout out (while I’m in this one-time-only “I’d like to thank everybody” mode, to all the new commenters who are not only visiting in but joining in, such as Moose, who I’ve never seen before – are you new? – but you jumped right in, promptly took a LOT of abuse from one of our across-the-tracks visitors, but Moose gave back just as good as could be! Didn’t retreat an inch. If that had been my first experience commenting, I’d have been fetal. Hell of a job. So thanks to all the new commenters too! Come on in!
It’s a wonderful, eclectic and heady neighborhood here.
Z, a prediction. You’re going to have to bail, as will I. They are closing ranks and raising the emotional arguments in an “us” versus “them” mentality. At the end of the day, people are not rational. They prefer their beliefs and do not like to know when those beliefs are at odds with the facts. To avoid the mental discomfort of discovering problems with beliefs or the difficulty of factually rebutting all threats to them, people will resort to irrational and emotional responses. That is what is happening now. These discussions are only allowed to occur within a narrow band that reaffirms preordained beliefs. All else is to be mocked and scorned, regardless of its validity. That is how it works. In case you didn’t understand the rules, parameters and outcomes, I thought I’d fill you in on them.
Dr. Martel: “And what seems to be the problem?”
abc: “They’re closing ranks on me!”
Dr. Martel: “Who?”
abc: “The Unwashed. They’re related to the Undead. Every time I try to clean up their thinking, they unite and turn on me.”
Dr. Martel: “Turn on you? How so?”
abc: “They argue with me. They dispute me. They do not accept my attributions or citations although they come from the very best people—people I’ve actually talked to!”
Dr. Martel: “Did you do anything to create hostility between you and them?”
abc: “Nothing! I have been unfailingly polite in every assertion and response I’ve made. You cannot find a scintilla of condescension, or elitism or arrogance in any of the 300,000 insightful words I’ve posted on the Unwashed site since my arrival there.”
Dr. Martel: “Hmmm. Is there some other place you can pick up your marbles and go to?”
abc: “Well, uh. . .”
Dr. Martel: “I see. You’ve been ‘run out of Dodge’ in other places?
abc: “Um, er. . .”
Dr. Martel: “Have these ones asked you to leave?”
abc: “No. For unwashed people they’re surprisingly willing to let me keep descending upon them. But they persist in refusing to accept my terms for engaging them. It just makes me so mad!”
Dr. Martel: “Here’s my advice: You are in a “my way or the highway’ situation. Unfortunately, you seem to believe that you, rather than they, are the highway owner. May I suggest just the teensiest, weensiest alteration in your current perception of reality?”
abc: “You. . .you! You’re one of THEM!”
Zachriel #14
Palestinians have the right of return. People don’t easily give up what they perceive as their homelands, and Palestinians have deep roots in the area.
Tens of millions of refuges have left their former homelands since World War II. They have become citizens in their new homelands. With the exception of Jordan, the Palestinians have not been permitted to become citizens of their new homelands in the Middle East. Do the Sudetenland Germans also have the right of return, with compensation for lost property? Do the Sephardic Jews who left Arab lands with only the shirts on their backs have the right of return, with compensation for lost property? Do the Muslims and Hindus who crossed into Pakistan and India in 1948 have the right of return, with compensation for lost property? You get the idea?
The vast majority of the Palestinians who left in 1948-49 did so at the command of their leaders, with the assumption that they would return after they had pushed the Jews into the sea. Didn’t happen the way they anticipated.
Zachriel, are you going to tell me you were not aware of the above?
I suggest you read The Arabs of Palestine from The Atlantic Monthly in 1961, written by an ex-wife of Ernest Hemingway.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1961/10/the-arabs-of-palestine/4203/
Gingo the Goy.
I’m commenting too much again, sorry, but I just wanted to let Zach know: I haven’t seen *you* engaging in a hundred thousand ad hominem assaults and an endless string of insults and verbal putdowns of the rest of everyone here.
(Occasionally, yes, but we’re all human. I’m guilty of worse. Humans aren’t angels. Mistakes get made.)
Just thought I’d let you know I recognize your reasonably solid record of admirable equanimity. To me at least, you’re not linked in spiritual brotherhood to another commenter here, who it now appears would love nothing more than to be considered your blood-brother in armed combat.
Zach is playing a long game. He has chops. It would be fun to watch him and Ymarsakar play a game of Go.
Gringo: Tens of millions of refuges have left their former homelands since World War II.
Woeful tales of misery date from over through human history.
Gringo: Do the Sudetenland Germans also have the right of return, with compensation for lost property? Do the Sephardic Jews who left Arab lands with only the shirts on their backs have the right of return, with compensation for lost property? Do the Muslims and Hindus who crossed into Pakistan and India in 1948 have the right of return, with compensation for lost property?
Those Germans who could show they were not affiliated with the Nazis were allowed to stay, but surely there were many expelled who were innocent. Jews expelled from Arab lands should have been compensated, of course. Over time, political compromises can allow people to move past these injustices. For instance, in the United States, within living memory, people were subjected to segregation, discrimination, and limited opportunity. Ultimately, people have to forgive to move on, but that is only possible once the problem is recognized, and the fight for justice can be healing in itself. Why, in America, everyone was for Civil Rights—at least that’s how most everyone remembers it now.
Gringo: The vast majority of the Palestinians who left in 1948-49 did so at the command of their leaders, with the assumption that they would return after they had pushed the Jews into the sea.
Not only were thousands forced out by the Israeli military, there were civilian massacres, and the general fear of being caught in a war zone. Many were evacuated, ordered out, but that’s not unreasonable. Nevertheless, they have a right of return, as do all refugees. You don’t lose title to your house just because someone steals it at the point of a gun.
Of course, you point to the millions of other refugees, such as those displaced by WWII. But time and political accommodations have allowed people to restart their lives. Many never wanted to return, but migrated towards better climes. Some complain that the Palestinians have too much fondness for the land. Much of it is pride, no doubt. But the Jews spent two thousand years in exile, and never forgot. That’s why a political settlement is so important.
I don’t know how many of you here have spent much time in the Middle East, but the Palestinians really aren’t wanted in many of the countries where they are located. This idea of Arab unity isn’t what you might think it is.
The Palestinians are considered by many as dirty, uneducated rabble rousers, bent on over-running the established order. Sort of like Jews in some places.
st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) }
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:”";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:”Times New Roman”;
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
Hamas is a totally credible partner for peace.
Everybody (except Israel) wants peace, freedom and democracy for all.
st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) }
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:”";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:”Times New Roman”;
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
Hamas co-founder Mahmoud Zahar on Wednesday told the Maan news agency Hamas would never recognize Israel.
Saying Hamas would accept a PA state based on the “1967 borders,” Zahar made it clear a peace accord would only serve as a prelude to Israel’s destruction.
Zahar, who has served as Hamas’ foreign minister in Gaza since 2006, said Hamas would not recognize Israel because doing so would “cancel the right of the next generation to liberate the land.”
“If the Palestinian state does not encompass all of Israel the next generation will liberate the land,” Zahar said.
http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/05/20/hamas-is-a-totally-credible-partner-for-peace/
Zachriel
Of course, you point to the millions of other refugees, such as those displaced by WWII. But time and political accommodations have allowed people to restart their lives.
You ignored the point I made:
They have become citizens in their new homelands. With the exception of Jordan, the Palestinians have not been permitted to become citizens of their new homelands in the Middle East.
Their Arab hosts have kept the Palestinians in limbo.
I leave the document parsing and the argument backing to Gringo and Danny. They have the stamina for it while I do not. I will sometimes produce a piece of work utilizing something called a thesis and something called supporting sentences, sources, and paragraphs but they are extremely rare in number. Confined solely to the topics that interest me personally and not to anything else. These are “somethings” that the post-modern era seems to be sadly lacking amongst certain members of a certain political class.
Generally speaking the people here have credentials but they are unlike credentials the modern world considers required for being inducted into the Ruling Class. Here, credentials are more based upon personal experiences and accomplishments rather than formulaic and signed documents which say that X is “good” or “certified”. Instead of trusting that X has been in the military for Y years, we instead take and analyze X’s stories. If X was in the military for Y years, then his stories should have merit, as Oldflyer’s and SSG Dave’s do. 11B is more secretive but that’s due to his particular career track.
Credentials like “graduated Harvard” or “been in the military X years” is pretty much meaningless. They aren’t true and they aren’t false. They don’t mean much on the net. On the net, there’s no real way to verify these claims without conducting data mining or RL checks. So what is of worth on the cyber streets is street cred, not fancy documentation acclaiming the holder to be the next coming of Napoleon (a military genius). So street cred. What have you done, personally. What have you taught yourself matters more than what you say others taught you. What you have accomplished matters more than quoting an authority that claims you have accomplished much. What you have seen and done personally matters much more importantly than what you think others have seen or done, even though those are whom which you have never met in your life.
Like interrogations at Gitmo, much can be cleaned from parsing what people write and how they react to the writings of others. However, unlike at Gitmo, you can always stay silent here. Nobody has the enhanced interrogation methods required to motivate you into writing if you do not wish to.
I’m only marginally good at chess (meaning above average in college tournaments), although I’ve played Western and Chinese versions of the game. I am much better at reading human reactions, like females supposedly are able to. This skillset is empathic in nature rather than based upon pure logic or mathematical calculations. Thus I read people far better than I can read into the future utilizing a formulaic rule bound system like chess. When I apply my mental gears to chess calculations, I must be very careful not to make a mistake and it is extremely tiring after minutes of intense focus. This says to me that I am utilizing sectors of my brain that I normally do not utilize. I normally do not utilize pure memorization. I utilize emotional memory and human experience to jump start the calculation process by seeking, in parallel, a set of the most optimum conclusions and decision paths. Attempting to analyze everything from step 1, as in chess, is fatiguing without the experience of a Grandmaster’s 500,000 games to back me up. Extremely so.
I prefer it that way, actually. Since I find reading people to be a more useful skill than pure mathematical logic and calculation speed. It’s also extremely necessary in H2H attack and defense scenarios whether you live in LA, gang land infested Oakland, or peaceful Georgia. I started off being very good at mathematical calculations but very poor at people reading (it’s like bird watching). Now I’m very good at people watching and only marginally good at mathematical calculations. The training of one’s mind has certain consequences one way or another. Just as training one’s body does: good and bad consequences included.
I have heard that shougi, the Japanese version, has more complicated rules of promotion than Western chess as well as more types of pieces and the ability to return captured pieces to the board. That seems like a more clear simulation of human warfare, where captured enemies can be made friends or at least interrogated for intel in order to smash the foe with diligence and decisiveness.
The concepts and the principles behind Go and other strategy games like that, I understand well enough. But I do not devote much time to mastering the rules of such games. I prefer to master the rules of life instead and spend most of my time trying to understand human behavior and motivations. Human nature may be static, but it is curiously variegated and manifold in its fractal branches: as if unto infinity. Chess is much like breaking bricks in martial arts. The point is to understand a principle and to hone it to such a fine degree that you can achieve a practical application utilizing the theory. But once you achieve, you should no longer apply yourself to mastering breaking bricks. Because that is not going to transfer into the skills of smashing human organs and breaking bones, both which have different densities and physics.
There are still people who have the keys to their houses they were forced from in 1948.
Those individuals matter not in the least. They are not in power. They are not the authorities in charge. And they are not the ones behind using the entitlement of return to destroy Israel.
They don’t get a say. They just shutup and do as they are told. Like the other Palestinians when Hamas and HIzbollah and Arafat’s PAC tells them. They are told to jump and they ask “how high ontop a Jew”.
And Z thinks these people have an entitlement to return to places they have “keys” to?
*chuckles* They go where they are told to. NOthing more, nothing less.
“Those individuals matter not in the least.”
You know I have tried to tell my great uncle a similar thing over the years. He still thinks the Soviet Union stole his land in Karelia.
The Russians did win that bit of land in the Winter War. As they won the Sakhalins. The fact that the Japanese still whine about war won real estate strikes me as funny.
The world is full of injustice and it is unfair to boot.
The only thing people can do is to use their own hands to make it otherwise. Forget about utilizing totalitarian and tyrannical government (UN) power to make the world better. Not gonna happen.
And if a person cannot change reality with their own hands, well they can suck that tragedy up themselves.
It’s called life. Not a government pension.
Ymarsakar (post #43)
Perfect pitch and post. You are spot on with your observation ….
…much can be cleaned from parsing what people write and how they react to the writings of others.
11B40
Lydda and Ramla. Few would be familiar with the two villages. Lydda is Arabic for what is now called Lod. The area was an industrial site and the original name of the main airport terminal, now called Ben Gurion International.
Zachriel:
If Israel makes peace with authoritarian Arab leaders that are supported by outside powers, then they have not made a lasting peace. In the long run, Israel has to make peace with its neighbors, including the Palestinian people.
Aha… Israel should not make peace with her neighbors as long as their authoritarian leaders are in place.
Yep, couldn’t agree more.
Gringo: They have become citizens in their new homelands. With the exception of Jordan, the Palestinians have not been permitted to become citizens of their new homelands in the Middle East.
The exception is important, of course, because that’s where the majority of Palestinian refugees have lived. The Jordanian Citizenship Laws of 1928 (residents) and 1954 (refugees) granted citizenship to Palestinians living in the West Bank. Only in 1988 were they then redesignated as citizens of Palestine, when Jordan ceded control of the West Bank to the nascent Palestinian state.
Since then, the Arab League has recommended not granting citizenship to Palestinians, “to avoid dissolution of their identity and protect their right to return to their homeland.” This is an unwise decision, one which should be left to the individual. However, when Palestinians in East Jerusalem were offered Israeli citizenship, the majority refused.
Zachriel: There are still people who have the keys to their houses they were forced from in 1948.
Ymarsakar: Those individuals matter not in the least.
Perhaps not to you.
Y writes:
“Credentials like “graduated Harvard” or “been in the military X years” is pretty much meaningless. They aren’t true and they aren’t false. They don’t mean much on the net. On the net, there’s no real way to verify these claims without conducting data mining or RL checks. So what is of worth on the cyber streets is street cred, not fancy documentation acclaiming the holder to be the next coming of Napoleon (a military genius). So street cred. What have you done, personally. What have you taught yourself matters more than what you say others taught you.”
What have you taught yourself? How do we know it is true and matters? Are you saying facts don’t matter on the web, but only your undefined “street cred”? If you cannot verify a degree or military service, how do you verify “what you have done, personally” on the web??
Mike writes:
“I’m commenting too much again, sorry, but I just wanted to let Zach know: I haven’t seen *you* engaging in a hundred thousand ad hominem assaults and an endless string of insults and verbal putdowns of the rest of everyone here.
(Occasionally, yes, but we’re all human. I’m guilty of worse. Humans aren’t angels. Mistakes get made.)
Just thought I’d let you know I recognize your reasonably solid record of admirable equanimity. To me at least, you’re not linked in spiritual brotherhood to another commenter here, who it now appears would love nothing more than to be considered your blood-brother in armed combat.”
Nice of you to compliment Z. He deserves it. Like me, he is attacked with ad hominems all the time, but unlike me, he doesn’t respond in kind. He is indeed better than me…unlike you or many others here. Now, do you think you can try to marshall facts rather than ad hominems in reponse to Z, myself, and anyone else who disagrees with you? I will try to do the same, although I cannot guarantee I won’t be sent into tit-for-tat if provoked in an uncivil way. I just think rules of civility should apply on both sides, not just to the folks to the left of you…
They don’t matter to you either, Z. Are you trying to claim otherwise? That high horse you rode up on got shot out from under ya. Stop beating it.
Zachriel: There are still people who have the keys to their houses they were forced from in 1948.
Ymarsakar: Those individuals matter not in the least.
Zachriel: Perhaps not to you.
Ymarsakar: They don’t matter to you either, Z. Are you trying to claim otherwise?
Of course, they matter. They matter to us just as much as any other person.
How do we know it is true and matters?
It’s called epistemology. Did you miss that class when learning how to write your thesis?
They matter like Obamacare victims and the victims of Obama’s forced wealth redistribution matters to Z… in that case, that’s the same as Z not caring about the Palestinian plight to begin with.