Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #151  
Old 03-26-2013, 07:40 PM
Ibn Warraq is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 9,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by taxi View Post
Biggest issue for success has to do with a modern vs. conservative mindset. Ban women from the workplace, what kind of effect does that have on the economy? One society is a world leader when it comes to techonology, biology, physics, economics, etc.. the other is becoming more fundamentally religious everyday. Women are expected to bear 6+ children and have little or no access to education. Israel has it's own religious fundamentalists, but they, currently anyways, form a much lower percentage of the population.
Er.... women aren't "banned from the workplace" in the occupied territories.

Perhaps you're thinking of Saudi Arabia, but the Arab societies aren't monolithic.

Their lead negotiator in the 90s was Hanan Ashrawi, a woman, and I believe that women make up a larger percentage of the Palestinian parliament than do women in the US congress.

Anyway this whole thread is pretty revolting.

I'm reminded of Afrikanner intellectuals in the 90s pointing to the conditions in Bantustans and saying "see, we're more civilized and superior to those kaffirs".
  #152  
Old 03-26-2013, 07:41 PM
clairobscur is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 17,885
Quote:
Originally Posted by taxi View Post
Women are expected to bear 6+ children
I wouldn't know for Palestine specifically, but your perception of Arab women child bearing is completely off-base. Birth rates have collapsed in the Arab world, and it isn't a recent phenomenon. You should expect an Arab woman to bear maybe 2.5 children or somesuch nowadays with countries where it might fall below generation renewment rate (2.1) in the near future (or maybe already, I don't keep close tabs on that).

The idea of Arab women having lots of children is about as outdated as the idea of Irish women doing the same.

Last edited by clairobscur; 03-26-2013 at 07:42 PM.
  #153  
Old 03-27-2013, 09:20 PM
Docta G is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 555
Because Israel is a quasi-apartheid state.
  #154  
Old 03-27-2013, 09:48 PM
Trinopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 22,861
"Quasi" having no real meaning, then, sure. Japan is a quasi-capitalist nation. Canada is a quasi-European nation. Whatever.

Israel is not meaningfully apartheid, as the West Bank is under military occupation, since a series of wars. The Palestinians under occupation are not Israeli citizens. The analogy is faulty.

But nice that we've advanced as far as the "quasi-." Who says these discussions never make any progress?
  #155  
Old 03-27-2013, 10:57 PM
Ibn Warraq is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 9,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by Docta G View Post
Because Israel is a quasi-apartheid state.
Really, please explain to be me how the guy who's name sounds vaguely like Henry Wormwood would consider what Israel is doing Apartheid and how his beliefs and the policies he encouraged can be found in South Africa?

If what you're saying is true than the question I posed should be ludicrously simple for you to answer.
  #156  
Old 03-27-2013, 10:59 PM
Ibn Warraq is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 9,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trinopus View Post
The Palestinians under occupation are not Israeli citizens. The analogy is faulty.
Why is the analogy faulty?

The blacks under Apartheid South Africa weren't South African citizens.
  #157  
Old 03-27-2013, 11:41 PM
Trinopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 22,861
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibn Warraq View Post
Why is the analogy faulty?

The blacks under Apartheid South Africa weren't South African citizens.
They were permanent native-born inhabitants of the country. The Palestinians are not native-born inhabitants of Israel. Apartheid was an internal segregation; the occupation of the West Bank is not internal to Israel.
  #158  
Old 03-28-2013, 01:03 AM
Ibn Warraq is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 9,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trinopus View Post
They were permanent native-born inhabitants of the country. The Palestinians are not native-born inhabitants of Israel. Apartheid was an internal segregation; the occupation of the West Bank is not internal to Israel.
Actually, according to maps produced by the Israeli government, Israel's education department, it's tourism bureau and other government agencies Judea and Samaria(AKA the West Bank) are a part of Israel.

Israel has always insisted that neither the West Bank nor Gaza were occupied territories because settlements are illegal.

Similarly, the South African government insisted that blacks were not "citizens" of South Africa but of various Bantustans.

If you want to insist that the West Bank isn't part of Israel then you have to concede that Israel has been engaging in severe international crimes for decades because it's illegal to put settlements in occupied territories.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...es-itself.html


Quote:
One day in the late 1980s, my wife and I visited a staffer at the U.S. consulate in Jerusalem for an off-the-record conversation. The walls of his office were decorated with large maps produced, he mentioned, by the CIA. One showed the West Bank, with the border between it and Israel precisely depicted. Our careful journalistic distance from the interviewee evaporated. We shamelessly begged him for a copy, which he politely gave us.

It was a treasure. In those days, the Israeli government had a near-total monopoly on mapmaking in the country—and government maps never showed the Green Line, the border between Israel and occupied territory. The Internet’s instant access to alternative maps was still in the future.
Why do you think on Israeli maps the West Bank has always been referred to as "Judea and Samaria"?
  #159  
Old 03-28-2013, 08:03 AM
Malthus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 18,184
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibn Warraq View Post
Actually, according to maps produced by the Israeli government, Israel's education department, it's tourism bureau and other government agencies Judea and Samaria(AKA the West Bank) are a part of Israel.

Israel has always insisted that neither the West Bank nor Gaza were occupied territories because settlements are illegal.

Similarly, the South African government insisted that blacks were not "citizens" of South Africa but of various Bantustans.

If you want to insist that the West Bank isn't part of Israel then you have to concede that Israel has been engaging in severe international crimes for decades because it's illegal to put settlements in occupied territories.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...es-itself.html




Why do you think on Israeli maps the West Bank has always been referred to as "Judea and Samaria"?
The answer is pretty well known: the South Africans were engaged in a wholly different form of deception than (some) Israelis.

Reality is that neither the WB nor Gaza are part of Israel, whatever maps the Israeli government put out, and few actual Israelis even want them to be - other than the lunatic fringe. What the Israelis apparently want, is to lop off those bits of the WB that they want and make those bits part of Israel proper; leaving the rest for someone else to deal with - some form of Palestinian self-government under sufficient Israeli vassalage as to be effectively defanged (that is, sufficient to maintain internal control, but not sufficient itself to engage in attacks on Israel).

Palestinains, as you well know, do not wish to become Israeli citizens; so to that extent, what Palestinians want marches with what Israelis want. The difference of course is that the Palestinians object to the Israelis arbitrarily lopping off bits of their country and taking those for themselves.

The difference between both Israeli and Palestinian perspectives, and Western perspectives, is that people in the West have a tendency to view the cease-fire line as if it was a natural and established border that both Israelis and Palestinians ought to respect. The Palistinians don't see it that way in one sense (they have a tendency to view any amount of Israeli occupation anywhere as illigitimate and to be reversed); the Israelis don't see it that way in another sense (they tend to want to lop off bits here and there to "round off" the borders - and they have a point, to an extent: the line runs right through the middle of Jerusalem, an awkward place for an international border).

All of which is different from the form of deception practiced under apartheied: which is that people who would otherwise have all the indicia of citizens were legally considered "not citizens".

In short, in South Africa the deceptions were about what people where. In Israel/Palestine, the deceptions (or more properly "controversies") are over where the borders ought to run. So the "apartheid" analogy is not helpful: the Israeli-Palestinian problem would not be solved by making all WB Palestinians Israeli citizens with full rights - in fact, that would make things worse; it would imply permanent Israeli occupation of the whole of their territory.
  #160  
Old 03-28-2013, 11:33 AM
Docta G is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 555
Your semantic shell game does not change the fundamental reality. But it's a new day for the same old shit, so knock yourselves out.

Boom!
  #161  
Old 03-28-2013, 05:39 PM
Trinopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 22,861
Malthus: thank you! Better answer than I could have given.

(If building settlements on conquered land is illegal...the U.S. has got to give up a LOT of major cities!)
  #162  
Old 03-28-2013, 06:01 PM
FinnAgain is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Howth Castle & Environs
Posts: 16,178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Docta G View Post
Your semantic shell game
Just so ya know, "semantic" means "meaning".
So you're complaining that the term you want to use doesn't have the correct meaning... and you're annoyed at other people for pointing that out.

Perhaps not the strongest debating stance, but at least it's not uncommon.
  #163  
Old 03-28-2013, 06:04 PM
Ibn Warraq is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 9,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trinopus View Post
Malthus: thank you! Better answer than I could have given.

(If building settlements on conquered land is illegal...the U.S. has got to give up a LOT of major cities!)
No, it's building settlements on occupied land that's illegal. So yes, if the US built settlements in Iraq or Afghanistan they'd be in violation of international law.

That's why, despite Malthus' claims its not just "some Jews" or "an extreme fringe" that believes that the West Bank and the Gaza Strip are part of Israel.

In fact, in his book Israel: A Place Amongst the Nations, Benjamin Netanyahu specifically insisted they were a part of Israel and that people who claimed they were "occupied" and called them "the West Bank" instead of "Judea and Samaria" were falling for "Arab propaganda"(at the time of the book's writing he denied the existence of "Palestinians".

The position of every Likud government has been that they are part of Israel.
  #164  
Old 03-28-2013, 07:00 PM
Malthus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 18,184
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibn Warraq View Post
No, it's building settlements on occupied land that's illegal. So yes, if the US built settlements in Iraq or Afghanistan they'd be in violation of international law.

That's why, despite Malthus' claims its not just "some Jews" or "an extreme fringe" that believes that the West Bank and the Gaza Strip are part of Israel.

In fact, in his book Israel: A Place Amongst the Nations, Benjamin Netanyahu specifically insisted they were a part of Israel and that people who claimed they were "occupied" and called them "the West Bank" instead of "Judea and Samaria" were falling for "Arab propaganda"(at the time of the book's writing he denied the existence of "Palestinians".

The position of every Likud government has been that they are part of Israel.
For what it's worth, the much-reviled Ariel Sharon pulled Israel out of Gaza unilaterally, and as far as I'm aware, no serious Israel politicians have any plans for a return. It is true that his plan split the Likud party, leading to the formation of Kadima; but disengagement has become a fait accompli and only the lunatic fringe in Israel politics considers reversing it and (say) re-occupying Gaza.

To make an analogy, it is like the Conservative Canadian position on gay marriage an abortion; they were horribly against both at one time; but now that they are a fact, they have very little political appetite for attempting to revive them from the dead as issues.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%...ngagement_plan
  #165  
Old 03-28-2013, 07:41 PM
Ibn Warraq is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 9,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malthus View Post
For what it's worth, the much-reviled Ariel Sharon pulled Israel out of Gaza unilaterally, and as far as I'm aware, no serious Israel politicians have any plans for a return. It is true that his plan split the Likud party, leading to the formation of Kadima; but disengagement has become a fait accompli and only the lunatic fringe in Israel politics considers reversing it and (say) re-occupying Gaza.

To make an analogy, it is like the Conservative Canadian position on gay marriage an abortion; they were horribly against both at one time; but now that they are a fact, they have very little political appetite for attempting to revive them from the dead as issues.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%...ngagement_plan
Yes, but The West Bank(Judea and Samaria) is not Gaza and AFAIK, the official position of the Israeli government is that Judea and Samaria are part of Israel and that is traditionally how they've put it on their maps to the point where I believe, though I'm not sure, it used to be against the law to even produce maps that displayed the green line.
  #166  
Old 03-29-2013, 07:37 AM
Human Action is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 7,241
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trinopus View Post
Malthus: thank you! Better answer than I could have given.

(If building settlements on conquered land is illegal...the U.S. has got to give up a LOT of major cities!)
It's not conquered land that's at issue, it's occupied land. If the disputed land had been formally annexed by Israel, the protocols below would not apply.

From the Fourth Geneva Convention, Article 2:

Quote:
In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace-time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.

The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.
Article 49:
Quote:
Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.

Nevertheless, the Occupying Power may undertake total or partial evacuation of a given area if the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand. Such evacuations may not involve the displacement of protected persons outside the bounds of the occupied territory except when for material reasons it is impossible to avoid such displacement. Persons thus evacuated shall be transferred back to their homes as soon as hostilities in the area in question have ceased.

The Occupying Power undertaking such transfers or evacuations shall ensure, to the greatest practicable extent, that proper accommodation is provided to receive the protected persons, that the removals are effected in satisfactory conditions of hygiene, health, safety and nutrition, and that members of the same family are not separated.

The Protecting Power shall be informed of any transfers and evacuations as soon as they have taken place.

The Occupying Power shall not detain protected persons in an area particularly exposed to the dangers of war unless the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand.

The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.
Bolding mine.

Do the bolded sections prohibit settlement building? The counterargument is summarized as:

Quote:
Those who reject the application of Article 49 to the situation in the Israeli-held territories argue that even if the Convention did apply, it should be read only in the context of the World War II forcible migrations. It is only intended to cover forcible transfers and to protect the local population from displacement:
Article 49 (1) specifically covers "individual or mass forcible transfers", whereas the Israelis who live in the settlements have moved there voluntarily.
Article 49 (6) only applies when the transfer of the Occupying Powers civilian population involves the displacement of the local population, whereas the Israeli settlements are not intended to, or have ever resulted in, the displacement of Palestinians from the area.

In addition, they state that the Geneva Convention only applies in the absence of an operative peace agreement and between two powers accepting the Convention. Since the Oslo Accords leave the issue of settlements to be negotiated later, proponents of this view argue that the Palestinians accepted the temporary presence of Israeli settlements pending further negotiation, and that there is no basis for declaring them illegal.
  #167  
Old 03-29-2013, 10:25 AM
Malthus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 18,184
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibn Warraq View Post
Yes, but The West Bank(Judea and Samaria) is not Gaza and AFAIK, the official position of the Israeli government is that Judea and Samaria are part of Israel and that is traditionally how they've put it on their maps to the point where I believe, though I'm not sure, it used to be against the law to even produce maps that displayed the green line.
My impression is that the right-wing Israeli position on the WB is similar as on Gaza: that is, at one point (at the high point of their over-optomism) they wanted "it all"; however, in light of subsequent events (and being forced to face harsh reality), they have in fact accepted as an acknowledged fact that having "it all" is impossible and their focus has shifted to grabbing as much as they can realistically get away with. The building of the security wall indicates their true feelings on the matter, whatever they may say about "judea and samaria". You don't wall off land you think is yours.

Not putting the green line on maps is sensible from their POV for the same reason that building the wall is: a desire to establish (or not establish) de facto borders - either in documents or on the ground - that can very easily become de jure.

That's the significance of the green line after all - it really represents nothing more or less than a ceasefire line; but we in the West would very much like to regard it as a de jure international border. The Israelis do not want this, of course, because it would prevent them from manipulating the borders to their advantage. The Palestinians are of two minds about it - naturally they want to prevent the Israelis from taking *even more* than the Green Line; but on the other hand, to acknowledge the Green Line as an international border legitimizes what the Israelis already have.
  #168  
Old 03-29-2013, 10:47 AM
FinnAgain is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Howth Castle & Environs
Posts: 16,178
Also, point of fact: the Green Line was not just an armistice line, but one which was set up explicitly by treaty to not prejudice future negotiations as to where a border would be.
  #169  
Old 03-29-2013, 02:23 PM
Docta G is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 555
Quote:
Originally Posted by FinnAgain View Post
Just so ya know, "semantic" means "meaning".
So you're complaining that the term you want to use doesn't have the correct meaning... and you're annoyed at other people for pointing that out.

Perhaps not the strongest debating stance, but at least it's not uncommon.
Just so you know, I'm a logician and a philosopher of language. No, I'm complaining that you are so hung up on sense that you cannot see the referent. I'm annoyed by cheap sophistry apologizing for unjustified human suffering. So is my Jewish wife.

Perhaps not the strongest debating stance, but then I don't give a shit about debating Guy On Internet.
  #170  
Old 03-29-2013, 05:38 PM
FinnAgain is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Howth Castle & Environs
Posts: 16,178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Docta G View Post
Just so you know, I'm a logician and a philosopher of language. [...] my Jewish wife.
Ah, Internet Credentials, with a Token Jew (wife) to back up your Internet Expertise. I'm sold.

Of course, one might think that somewhere in your extensive training in Philosophy of Language, you encountered the idea that the semantic value of a statement should induce a proper cognitive response that is in accord with reality. As such, if you believe that the situation in an unjust occupation, then that is the correct verbiage to use, and "Apartheid" becomes not only improper, but misleading and actively detrimental to honest discussion. But what do I know, I care about accuracy and truth and not using bombast to sway people's emotions.

However... is your wife like, really, really Jewish? I mean, would eating bacon horrify her? Then your argument would be much stronger. You should tell us about how Jewed up she is, that way we can judge how correct your argument is.
  #171  
Old 03-29-2013, 09:57 PM
Trinopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 22,861
Quote:
Originally Posted by Docta G View Post
Just so you know, I'm a logician and a philosopher of language. . . .
Quote:
Originally Posted by FinnAgain View Post
. . . Of course, one might think that somewhere in your extensive training in Philosophy of Language, you encountered the idea that the semantic value of a statement should induce a proper cognitive response that is in accord with reality. As such, if you believe that the situation in an unjust occupation, then that is the correct verbiage to use, and "Apartheid" becomes not only improper, but misleading and actively detrimental to honest discussion. . . .
I would have thought that someone with training in Philosophy of Language would know better than to use meaningless prefixes such as "quasi" attached to real words. This is something one might expect from a semi-meta-Philosopher of bogus-proto-language.

Hell, the U.S. practices "quasi-Apartheid" in its system of Indian reservations.
  #172  
Old 03-30-2013, 06:43 AM
Molesworth 2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: NSW, Australia
Posts: 341
I'm sure that there are other Australians who give the remotest of flying shits about this stupid conflict. but for me one of the best parts of living in a secular country is that I don't have to.

Except for that dragging-the-rest-of-the-world-into-your-petty-religious-crap thingy. That kind of sucks.

Seriously, Israel and Palestine should just get a private room and sort themselves out, already. Same thing would apply to the Hutus and the Tutsis if that conflict was threatening to become global. Nobody else cares.

PS Killing your foes with more advanced weaponry doesn't give one the moral high ground.
  #173  
Old 03-30-2013, 10:45 AM
Noone Special is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Tel Aviv
Posts: 5,877
Quote:
Originally Posted by FinnAgain View Post
However... is your wife like, really, really Jewish? I mean, would eating bacon horrify her? Then your argument would be much stronger. You should tell us about how Jewed up she is, that way we can judge how correct your argument is.
(bolding mine) Oops... there go my credentials.... (nom, nom, bacon! ) - I don't think that's a fruitful line of argument there.

To the question at hand (well, at least the one we initially started out with!) -- it really boils down to leadership in my mind.
Just look at an example of even closer populations -- N and S Korea. One is one of the most industrialized nations on Earth with a high standard of living, and the other is.... N Korea. It's not like you can say it's the people... or even it's the land and natural resources. It's who is leading you (and possibly who is leading your leaders -- I'm sure S Korea benefited from their post-war Western aegis more than the N Koreans did from their Chinese overlords.) That's really all it is in a nut-shell, IMHO, all the political sabre-rattling aside.

Last edited by Noone Special; 03-30-2013 at 10:46 AM. Reason: it's important to remember what 'is' is
  #174  
Old 03-30-2013, 11:48 AM
Ibn Warraq is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 9,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by Molesworth 2 View Post
I'm sure that there are other Australians who give the remotest of flying shits about this stupid conflict. but for me one of the best parts of living in a secular country is that I don't have to.

Except for that dragging-the-rest-of-the-world-into-your-petty-religious-crap thingy. That kind of sucks... Nobody else cares.
Well, for starters if you live in Australia you don't live in a secular country. Australia isn't Saudi Arabia, but it's not Turkey, the US, or France.

Second the fight between the Palestinians and the Israelis is no more about religion than WWII was. It's about nationality.

Third "they" aren't trying to drag "the-rest-of-the-world" into the fight, "the-rest-of-the-world" is joining in because your claim that "nobody else cares" is utterly silly and demonstrably false considering how much attention in the world media this conflict gets.

Hell, how many posts on SDMB does this conflict have.

I don't think I've seen a single one on the Northern Cyprus situation or any on Armenia's occupation of Azerbaijan.
  #175  
Old 03-30-2013, 02:04 PM
FinnAgain is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Howth Castle & Environs
Posts: 16,178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noone Special View Post
(bolding mine) Oops... there go my credentials.... (nom, nom, bacon! ) - I don't think that's a fruitful line of argument there.
Wait... are you claiming that the Jewishness of someone, or who someone's married to, doesn't alter the quality of their argument? The devil you say!
  #176  
Old 03-30-2013, 09:03 PM
Trinopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 22,861
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibn Warraq View Post
Well, for starters if you live in Australia you don't live in a secular country. . . .
Eh? I know it's just Wikipedia, but they note, "Australia - Section 116 of the Constitution provides: The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth." Sounds rather secular overall. Where's the state religion you see?
  #177  
Old 03-30-2013, 11:40 PM
Ibn Warraq is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 9,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trinopus View Post
Eh? I know it's just Wikipedia, but they note, "Australia - Section 116 of the Constitution provides: The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth." Sounds rather secular overall. Where's the state religion you see?
The Australian High Court disagrees and they're a vastly more reliable source than wikipedia.

Beyond that, public schools in Australia have chaplains which would cause Pat Robertson to start orgasming in his pants.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...n-church-state

There are a tiny number of western countries that are secular and Australia isn't one of them.
  #178  
Old 03-31-2013, 11:38 AM
Docta G is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 555
Boom!
  #179  
Old 03-31-2013, 12:16 PM
Ibn Warraq is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 9,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by Docta G View Post
Boom!
Could I trouble you for a translation?
  #180  
Old 03-31-2013, 01:36 PM
aldiboronti is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Troynovant
Posts: 8,177
As already said, and I think this is the key, Israel from its modern birth was a European culture with European technology, education and expectations, unlike its neighbors and the Palestinian Arabs themselves. It's a little like asking (although of course the gap between was far greater) why the English colonists in America did better than the American Indians, or the colonists in Australia did better than the aboriginals.
  #181  
Old 03-31-2013, 02:01 PM
KarlGauss's Avatar
KarlGauss is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Between pole and tropic
Posts: 8,241
[nm]

Last edited by KarlGauss; 03-31-2013 at 02:02 PM.
  #182  
Old 04-01-2013, 08:53 AM
Malthus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 18,184
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trinopus View Post
Eh? I know it's just Wikipedia, but they note, "Australia - Section 116 of the Constitution provides: The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth." Sounds rather secular overall. Where's the state religion you see?
What's Israel's "state religion"?

You may be surprised by the answer. In point of fact, Muslims and Christians enjoy full religious freedoms in Israel, which has (for better or worse) adopted the pre-existing Turkish "millet" system, by which each religion is given self-governance rights.

In any event, the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians is a very typical ethno-nationalist one. It isn't per se about "religion".
  #183  
Old 01-15-2018, 11:01 AM
Hector_St_Clare is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 3,664
Quote:
Originally Posted by clairobscur View Post
I wouldn't know for Palestine specifically, but your perception of Arab women child bearing is completely off-base. Birth rates have collapsed in the Arab world, and it isn't a recent phenomenon. You should expect an Arab woman to bear maybe 2.5 children or somesuch nowadays with countries where it might fall below generation renewment rate (2.1) in the near future (or maybe already, I don't keep close tabs on that).

The idea of Arab women having lots of children is about as outdated as the idea of Irish women doing the same.
Israel is, fairly unusually, one of the few countries where fertility rates are rising, driven by the Ultra-Orthodox. Jewish fertility is higher than Arab fertility within Israel proper, and it's also higher than Arab fertility within the WB. (Jewish women in the WB have fertility rates equivalent to Afghanistan, last I checked).

That being said, there are some Arab countries (Iraq and to a lesser extent Syria) where fertility rates are higher than you suggest (3-4 children range), but of course those are the highest rates and 6+ in any case is a big exaggeration.
  #184  
Old 01-15-2018, 11:02 AM
Hector_St_Clare is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 3,664
Quote:
Originally Posted by aldiboronti View Post
As already said, and I think this is the key, Israel from its modern birth was a European culture with European technology, education and expectations, unlike its neighbors and the Palestinian Arabs themselves. It's a little like asking (although of course the gap between was far greater) why the English colonists in America did better than the American Indians, or the colonists in Australia did better than the aboriginals.
The founding Jewish population of Israel was mostly European, but they got big waves of immigration from non-European, Middle Eastern Jewish diaspora in the 1950s and 1960s.
  #185  
Old 01-15-2018, 12:30 PM
RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 41,382
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Right. It’s why most of Africa and South America is poor, too. Terrorist leaders do not make good leaders of nations.
It is perhaps noteworthy that African nations that got over the bad part and finally instituted rule of law, democracy, and the like have seen rather remarkable increases in GDP. Namibia saw huge development after independence. Botswana was once the poorest country on earth and is now way, way above the African mean. Ghana has done pretty well, way better than its neighbors. What all these countries have in common are stable, rule-of-law respecting, relatively honest government. Well, Namibia is still working on it, but it's way better than it used to be, obviously.

Any country can be reasonably successful with such a government.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!

Last edited by RickJay; 01-15-2018 at 12:30 PM.
  #186  
Old 01-15-2018, 02:35 PM
Ramira's Avatar
Ramira is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,744
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Right. It’s why most of Africa and South America is poor, too. Terrorist leaders do not make good leaders of nations.
.
The USA and the ISrael did just fine with Terrorist leaders...

but maybe they are not the right skin color to fit your deep "analysis. "
  #187  
Old 01-15-2018, 02:45 PM
Ramira's Avatar
Ramira is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,744
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
It is perhaps noteworthy that African nations that got over the bad part and finally instituted rule of law, democracy, and the like have seen rather remarkable increases in GDP. Namibia saw huge development after independence. Botswana was once the poorest country on earth and is now way, way above the African mean. Ghana has done pretty well, way better than its neighbors. What all these countries have in common are stable, rule-of-law respecting, relatively honest government. Well, Namibia is still working on it, but it's way better than it used to be, obviously.

Any country can be reasonably successful with such a government.
A serious analysis of the development of the effective economic growth will look at the development of the stable institutional structures and ones that have a degree of the corrective feedback to allow a balancing of the interests.

"Terrorist leaders" is a stupid non analysis - the performance of the South Africa under the first presidencies post-apartheid was very good - as the institutions were adopted and adapted well.

The comparative development of the various African countries following the independence has been in the serious economic study examining the internal frameworks.

The bad performances are also exmainable in the framework of the hand-over of the power and the degree to which the power excercised was extractive and if there were local domestic economic interests with an interest in the economic investment versus the rent extractions.

The case of the Cote d'Ivoire contre the Guineau for example - the bad performance for the last or a Nigeria has not one thing to do with "terrorists" leaders since there is no case of revolutionary struggle for the decolonization but the bad incentives in the economic order. The CdI on the other hand had the positive economic system for the interest in the productive reinvestment. Botswana is a similar case.

Of course for the Israel, the human capital transfer of a large component of the population with both a certain degree of the economic wealth capital and connectoins as well as the human capital and networks to well put into work the access to the investment capital networks well developed and accessible via the ethnic routes in a very time tested fashion for the case of immigration, this is a very powerful boost.

It is of course nonsense to compare this to populations under the military occupation and subject to the expropriation or the security risk - it is like comparing the ability of the coloured south africa to accumulate capital with the English south african immigrant...
  #188  
Old 01-15-2018, 02:48 PM
Ramira's Avatar
Ramira is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,744
oh shit it is a zombie and I did not notice....
  #189  
Old 01-15-2018, 04:27 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,557
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
It is perhaps noteworthy that African nations that got over the bad part and finally instituted rule of law, democracy, and the like have seen rather remarkable increases in GDP. Namibia saw huge development after independence. Botswana was once the poorest country on earth and is now way, way above the African mean. Ghana has done pretty well, way better than its neighbors. What all these countries have in common are stable, rule-of-law respecting, relatively honest government. Well, Namibia is still working on it, but it's way better than it used to be, obviously.

Any country can be reasonably successful with such a government.
Yes, altho natural resources and such really help. Note that Israel has few, however.

But yeah, if Palestine had decent leaders it wouldnt be in such a bad state. iT's not the people, it's the leadership.
__________________
I am not a real Doctor
  #190  
Old 01-15-2018, 04:51 PM
Malthus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 18,184
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Yes, altho natural resources and such really help. Note that Israel has few, however.
Interestingly, that may not be the case any more ... very recent discoveries of natural gas may well make Israel relatively "resource-rich". Though, obviously, that has had little impact yet.

http://www.jpost.com/Business-and-In...-status-515293
  #191  
Old 01-20-2018, 12:41 PM
Silver lining is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 738
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glazer View Post
All of the above. Except to say re: 4). It's not that Arabs are lazy but that Israelis have more of an entrepreneurial culture.
Culture as in Democracy and better leadership for sure. And yes better entrepreneurial culture.
  #192  
Old 01-20-2018, 04:35 PM
PhillyGuy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Pennsylvania U.S.A.
Posts: 1,437
Compared to Western Europe, Israel is hardly rich:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...PP)_per_capita

Maybe someone will say that the higher effective per capita purchasing power in dozens of other countries is accounted for by low income of Israeli non-Jews. But other countries also have minorities with lower income that would need to be taken into account. And the Jewish-only income of Israel would still be significantly less than that of everyone in Germany, Australia, or Taiwan.

So I'd reframe this as to why Israel is on the high side of middle income, and the West Bank is on the high side of low income (about same as Ghana), and Gaza is plain low income.

Last edited by PhillyGuy; 01-20-2018 at 04:37 PM.
  #193  
Old 01-21-2018, 04:50 AM
Ramira's Avatar
Ramira is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,744
Quote:
Originally Posted by aldiboronti View Post
As already said, and I think this is the key, Israel from its modern birth was a European culture with European technology, education and expectations, unlike its neighbors and the Palestinian Arabs themselves. It's a little like asking (although of course the gap between was far greater) why the English colonists in America did better than the American Indians, or the colonists in Australia did better than the aboriginals.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silver lining View Post
Culture as in Democracy and better leadership for sure. And yes better entrepreneurial culture.
And yet the Palestinian diaspora is quite successful in the entrepreneurship... out side of the occupation zones

I shall quote from above
Quote:
Originally Posted by aldiboronti View Post
Anyway this whole thread is pretty revolting.

I'm reminded of Afrikanner intellectuals in the 90s pointing to the conditions in Bantustans and saying "see, we're more civilized and superior to those kaffirs".
  #194  
Old 01-21-2018, 04:08 PM
PhillyGuy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Pennsylvania U.S.A.
Posts: 1,437
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramira View Post
And yet the Palestinian diaspora is quite successful in the entrepreneurship...
Very good point. Where there is good governance, yes, Palestinians have high income -- often higher than Jews.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramira View Post
And yet the Palestinian diaspora is quite successful in the entrepreneurship... out side of the occupation zones
Is Gaza an occupation zone?

You'll probably say yes -- but it is clear, at least to me, that Gaza isn't anywhere near as much of an occupation zone as the West Bank. And yet the purchasing power parity per capita income of Gaza is about half of that of the West Bank.

So there are multiple factors. One factor is occupation zone on the West Bank. Another factor is the aggressive military stance against Israel by Gaza resulting in Israel, as self-defense, closing the Gaza airport, etc.

Last edited by PhillyGuy; 01-21-2018 at 04:09 PM.
  #195  
Old 01-21-2018, 10:48 PM
Ibn Warraq is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 9,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramira View Post

I shall quote from above
Weirdly enough, the above quote is me not Aldiboronti.

Quote:
Very good point. Where there is good governance, yes, Palestinians have high income -- often higher than Jews.
I'm not sure there was terribly good governance in Kuwait prior to the Iraqi invasion. If anything it was characterized by corruption and inefficiency. After the invasion they were expelled, or at the least encouraged rather forcefully to leave but prior to this there was a sizable Palestinian community there which did quite well.

There are also many Latin American countries with sizable Palestinian communities which aren't first World countries. In fact, in Chile there are more Palestinian Christians than in Palestine itself.
  #196  
Old 01-22-2018, 03:08 AM
Ramira's Avatar
Ramira is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,744
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhillyGuy View Post
Is Gaza an occupation zone?
Of course it is.

Who controls its borders and controls literally every in and out movement of the goods and bans free flows?

The Israel

Whatever the reasons (and yes the Hamas generates many of its own), it remains an occuption in the same way that the Warsaw ghettoe was an occupation.

Quote:
You'll probably say yes -- but it is clear, at least to me, that Gaza isn't anywhere near as much of an occupation zone as the West Bank. And yet the purchasing power parity per capita income of Gaza is about half of that of the West Bank.
Yes, this tends to happen when you have what is in effect the prison colony economy where there is zero free flow of goods and the economy subsists very much on fucking tunnels dug into Egypt. Tunnels.

Of course the Hamas are complete cretins in government, but this does not change that a small parcel of land with zero viability in the terms of self sufficiency that is under a goods embargoe (and not benefitting as does the West Bank from massive outside aide) will be poorer.

It is the economics 101.

Ibn Warraq has replied to the other asserted observation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibn Warraq View Post
Weirdly enough, the above quote is me not Aldiboronti.
.
Odd why it quoted that way, it was the board software and not me.

Last edited by Ramira; 01-22-2018 at 03:09 AM.
  #197  
Old 01-22-2018, 03:16 AM
Alessan's Avatar
Alessan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Tel Aviv
Posts: 24,519
Gaza isn't occupied, it's besieged.

Occupied = troops on the inside.

Besieged = troops on the outside.

That's not a value judgement - just semantics.
  #198  
Old 01-22-2018, 03:52 AM
chappachula is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 5,732
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramira View Post
Whatever the reasons (and yes the Hamas generates many of its own), it remains an occuption in the same way that the Warsaw ghettoe was an occupation.]
This is a DEEPLY offensive statement. Please stop and think about it for a minute.

Your statement is also illogical.
The Jews were herded into a ghetto against their will.They were imprisoned with the purpose of transporting them to murder camps. The Jews had no options, no freedom to negotiate with their captors.

Gaza has plenty of choices.


(Unfortunately, they chose terrorism.)


Ramira, you've made a lot of good posts in the past. This statement is, I hope, an honest mistake.
But it crosses the line of good taste.
  #199  
Old 01-22-2018, 10:02 AM
Ramira's Avatar
Ramira is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,744
Gaza does not have plenty of choices. Be offended as you want with the selective preciousness.
  #200  
Old 01-22-2018, 10:06 AM
Johnny Bravo's Avatar
Johnny Bravo is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: The Swamp
Posts: 7,759
Quote:
Originally Posted by chappachula View Post
Ramira, you've made a lot of good posts in the past. This statement is, I hope, an honest mistake.
But it crosses the line of good taste.
Comparing the Israelis to the Nazis is never any sort of mistake (honest or otherwise) in these sorts of debates. It's a pointed and purposeful comparison.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:34 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017