Careful what you wish for.
Reminding academia that they need to put pressure on Intel to only supply all their HPCs from non-Israli-fabbed parts may not have been so clever.
Professor Stephen Hawking has been accused of hypocrisy by an Israeli activist group after he declined an invitation to speak at an important conference in Jerusalem this June, announcing instead that he's joining a growing academic boycott of Israel in protest of its policies towards Palestine. "Hawking's decision to join the …
He should also remove all atoms in his body that have ever been in Israel, stop responding to any gravitational pull from Israel, and not use any mathematical constructs ever developed by an Israeli.
Really, Palestinian supporters? The man is already backing you, stop being silly.
Evidently, both you and 8 other people failed to see my statement was in regards to an action Dr. Hawking should perform, not Nitsana Darshan-Leitner should perform - the suggesting is Dr. Hawking should remove his computer, so why should he not be expected to go all the way.
"His whole computer-based communication system runs on a chip designed by Israel's Intel team"
Yeah, well... it's just the Intel team which happens to be in Israel. It's not like it has been designed by the ultra-right-wingers of the Israeli state. It's not even particulary jewish - or, more the point, zionist (in the worst possible way).
Need to find another argument here.
".....Need to find another argument." Well, you could always wonder why Intel employ a design team in Israel. It's not that the US government paid for it, much as the Fakeistinian supporters like to pretend, and it's not because Intel are run by a bunch of Jewish Zealots. One reason is because Israel has an advanced, stable and developed economy, unlike every one of its Arab neighbours. Unlike Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Abu Dhabi, or any other number of Muslim states, there is not the imminent possibility that Islamist extremists - that all hate American companies - will seize control along with your facilities. Another reason is that Israel has a strong and politically-independent justice system, which means - unlike her Arab neighbours - Intel doesn't have to employ some dodgy prince or sultan to get anything done. And the main reason is because Israel has a lot of very clever engineers, scientists and academics, that can design their own world-beating solutions, unlike their Arab neighbours who just "develop" third hand Western tech (usually with China's or North Korea's assistance).
The Israeli team that developed the Core technology did so in competition with all the other Intel design teams. What the Fakeistinians and the Arabs hate to admit is that Intel cannot put a development team in any Arab nation because they are too under developed, unstable, and uneducated. The best Arab minds usually have to go to Western countries to find education and deployment. Indeed, I bet the one-sided "advice" Hawking got from the Fakeistinian "academics" was from ones living and working in the "infidel" West.
"And America's missiles and space program were designed by "a lot of very clever engineers, scientists and academics" from Nazi Germany....." The German contribution to the US's missile and space programs was considerable, but is often overstated in an attempt to denigrate US scientists. For example, Werner von Braun's work was a development of the pre-War work of US scientist Robert Goddard, and without Goddard's foundation von Braun's achievements would not have happened. Whilst the von Braun fanclub likes to shout long and loud about his achievements, most of them have never even heard of Goddard.
What people like you fail to realise is that development of rockets during the War was on hold in the Allied countries, as they concentrated on realistic projects that could actually be applied to winning the War. In the cloud-cuckoo-land of Nazi Germany, however, any and every idea - that usually had no chance of doing anything other than diverting German resources from actual good designs such as the early Heinkel jets - was followed with gusto. The German rocket program had a negligible effect on the course of the War. Indeed, some German scientists took advantage of the Nazi's poor grasp of science to carry on their pre-War research whilst pretending to make superweapons. Heisenberg was a good example of this when he used Nazi funds and resources to continue his work on nuclear reactor designs whilst telling the Nazis he was building them an atomic bomb. Meanwhile, in the US, where a much tighter control was exercised on scientists, the Allies actually developed the first atomic weapons. But it is understandable that someone like you with no grasp of history would fail to realise the difference between focused research and "blue-sky" projects, and somehow think the former meant the US was unskilled.
" In the cloud-cuckoo-land of Nazi Germany, however, any and every idea - that usually had no chance of doing anything other than diverting German resources from actual good designs such as the early Heinkel jets - was followed with gusto."
Nope, this was for another reason. Research on artillery systems was prohibited by the treaty of Versailles, so the german had to find alternative systems. Rocket systems for example.
"Nope, this was for another reason. Research on artillery systems was prohibited by the treaty of Versailles, so the german had to find alternative systems. Rocket systems for example." Complete cobblers. Hitler and the Nazis carried out research and weapons development in many areas banned by the Treaty of Versailles, including railway artillery (http://www.achtungpanzer.com/german-artillery-of-world-war-ii-railway-artillery.htm). The whole Luftwaffe was a very good example, the Treaty banning Germany from having any air force! Indeed, the Nazis went on to build and use the biggest examples of railway artillery the World has seen. What rocket technology offered was longer range than railway guns and with an even bigger payload, and it appealed to Hitler's "gee-whizz" fascination with projecting an image of Aryan supremacy as Germany having the most advanced scientists in the World.
"In the cloud-cuckoo-land of Nazi Germany, however, any and every idea - that usually had no chance of doing anything other than diverting German resources from actual good designs such as the early Heinkel jets - was followed with gusto. "
The threat to Britain from the V1 and V2 rockets was quite serious. There was no defence against the V2. Historical comments say that it was fortunate that they only came into effect so late in the war. I have a yellowed war-time daily newspaper where the British Government finally gave an accurate public technical explanation for the recent large explosions - previously glossed as "accidents".
The Germans had a very effective fighter in the Me262 twin engined jet. However Hitler would not countenance a defensive role - and ordered it to be primarily developed as a light bomber.
"The threat to Britain from the V1 and V2 rockets was quite serious....." Not really. The short range of the V1 meant that as soon as the Allies swept into Europe and captured the launch sites it became irrelevant. Like the V2 it was an area effect weapon of very limited military value and did nothing to stop the Allied invasion of France. Once the British AA had been re-arranged and the correct fighters (mainly RAF Tempests and Mosquitos) employed the V1 threat was massively reduced. The V1 was effective in that it was cheap and simple to produce, but that also made it easier to intercept.
A grand total of 1,402 V2s hit the UK between September 1944 and March 1945, each delivering a 2,200Lb warhead (though some simply had concrete heads as explosives production lagged due to Allied bombing). Whilst they killed 2,754 civilians in London with another 6,523 injured, the entire V2 campaign failed to hit a single weapons factory. During the same period the RAF alone dropped many tens of thousands of tons of bombs to much greater effect on Germany, massively reducing the German's industrial capability but also smashing their fuel industry, a much greater strategic triumph than scaring British civilians. With the Panzers running out of fuel and their own people starving, it was ironic that the Nazis had to use 30 tons of potatoes to make the fuel for each V2. And that's ignoring that each V2 used up material and resources that could have been used for making German jets, which would have been of greater strategic impact.
".....There was no defence against the V2...." Rubbish. There were three very effective counter-measures. The first, and simplest, was that British Intelligence leaked a story through neutrals that the V2s were mainly falling 10-20 miles beyond London. The Germans fell for it, adjusted the launch trajectories, and the majority of V2s fell in rural Kent. The second was the Resistance and Allied spies, which identified factories, associated stores and launch sites for Allied attack. The third was simply the Allied advance into Germany that finished the War in Europe.
"....Historical comments say that it was fortunate that they only came into effect so late in the war....." You really need to do a bit more in-depth research rather than just watching the Discovery Channel. The entire V2 project used more materials, resources, scientist and technical effort, than the Manhattan Project did in delivering the atomic bomb. Which do you think had the bigger impact on the War? Whilst Churchill worried about civilian casualties, he is on record as acknowledging that each V2 fired by the Germans was the equivalent to one less German jet bomber overhead or a Tiger tank in the frontline. The Germans manufactured over 4,000 V2s, many of which were never launched, so just imagine if they had made 4,000 jets or 4,000 more Tiger tanks instead. The V1 and V2 were just desperate and vindictive attempts at revenge when the Germans had already lost the War.
".....The Germans had a very effective fighter in the Me262 twin engined jet..." The first practical German jet fighter was the Heinkel He.280, which easily bested an FW190 fighter in a demonstration mock dogfight in 1941. The Germans could have massed produced it for 1942 and it would have been superior to all Allied fighters until the arrival of the Gloster Meteor III, and could have maintained air superiority until the arrival of the even better Me262. But the Germans had fooled themselves into the idea the War would be won soon and persisted with the conventional designs they had (another example of poor planning). Hitler's interference in the Me262 program is often mentioned but had a relatively minor impact - by the time the Me262 was available in numbers, even if they had all been used as fighters, they were too few to affect the course of the War. In fact, more fighter Me262s were shot down by Allied piston-engined fighters (usually when the Me262s were low and slow during landings) than Allied aircraft the Me262s managed to shoot down in fighting Allied bomber fleets.
"(2 british passport holding neutral here)"
I thought you needed three British passports these days? Apparently some countries' immigration officials were suspicious of those who might have a duplicate passport with Israeli visas - and started asking "do you have two British passports?". A bright British consular official found that the pedantic way round the problem was to issue two duplicates - giving a total of three.
"prey tell when you were last in any of these "Arab neighbours"?...." Last year, actually.
".....You are seriously comparing Abu Dhabi to Syria?" The underlying problem of a despotic, dictatorial elite ruling over an oppressed people (though you might say the Abu Dhabians have a gilded cage) is fundamentally the same in both Syria and Abu Dhabi, though one is a "revolutionary" dictator and the other is a historic monarchy. The Sunni-Shia schism is playing out in both. In the case of Syria it is the Sunni Gulf States pushing the Sunni clans into unseating the Allawite government as part of their ongoing Cold War with Iran, whilst in Abu Dhabi it is Iran stirring up the Shias against the Sunni rulers. Whilst the Al Nahyan family has the oil money to try and bribe their Shias with social programs, Assad is all out of luck in Syria. The worry for the Sunni Saudis is what happens if one of the Gulf States sees a full-blown Shia revolution, they believe it could have a domino effect across the area, hence their quickly sending their army in to support their fellow Sunnis in Bahrain in 2011, and if the problems escalate in Abu Dhabi then the Saudis will get involved there too. Oh, by the way, the Saudi officer that discussed the very issue with me last year used the domino analogy without realising he was echoing the American tone when they talked themselves into the Vietnam conflict.
But I see you do not contest the idea that Intel would be unable to build a development team in Abu Dhabi, though.
Intel's care of Dr. Hawking is compassionate, not political. And not compassionate for Dr. Hawking, but for the future generations he might yet inform. Also, it is a goldmine of research into care for others of this sort.
Not seeing the Intel connection to the politicized situation here.
"I suggest that if he truly wants to pull out of Israel he should also pull out his Intel Core i7 from his tablet."
I find this attitude deeply disgusting. What next, they'll find out that some components in his wheelchair were also made in Israel, and they'll demand the good professor be tipped out of it.
He should replace the lenovos with a couple of AMD jobs then - just to show them.
Anyway, top marks to Davros for taking a stand.
To suggest that just because something he uses is made there, means he can't disagree with Israel's determined efforts to recreate the Warsaw getto, but with them on the outside this time is moronic.
In my professional dealing I try to avoid all dealings with Isrealli companies for the same reasons.
Yes, my mac has an i7 in it, but I don't remember ticking a box saying ' I agree that by buying an i7 I am happy with Israel's (american funded) policy of eradicating Palestinians from the last part of the county we (the UK) were stupid enough to give you in the 50s.
So I suppose in your professional dealing you also try to avoid all dealings with Chinese companies because of China's brutal occupation of Tibet, or China's less than stellar record of human rights.?
Or is your fake outrage only reserved for certain ethic group, a bit like Hawking who's new found morality didn't put a dampener on his trip to China a few years back?
Speaking of human rights, one wonders why Hawking instead of taking the moral hight ground saw fit to attend a conference in Iran, yes that last bastion of human rights where homosexuality is punishable by death and political dissidents are tortured and hanged.
Hypocrisy, yours, Hawking's equally as ugly.
He “received a number of emails from Palestinian academics”.
Let's see what each side has given to humanity:
Israel and the Jews:
• The Bible
• The ten commandments
• First true humanistic monotheism
• Care obligation for the weak in the society in the ancient world
• Personal hygiene requirements – first in the ancient world
• Einstein’s theories
• Intel chips (from 8080 to Core iX) - design and manufacturing (developed in Haifa, produced in Kiryat Malachi)
• First modern cell phone (Motorola)
• Most of the Windows NT and XP operating systems were developed by Microsoft-Israel
• ICQ, intant messengers
• X-Box Kinect
• B-stent for heart operations
• MRI/Ultrasound/Nuclear scanners
• Drip irrigation which improved the lives of hundreds of millions in drought stricken countries
• large-scale solar energy generating plant in southern California (Mojave desert)
• Disk-on-key, SMS, voice-mail, multi-channel civilian radio recording
• Hundreds of start-ups on Nasdaq
• Dozens of Nobel prize winners in various sciences
And what has the Palestinian nation given to humanity? Let me think, oh yes:
• civilian airplane hijacking;
• international terrorism; and
• the civilian-targeting suicide bombing, as supported by a great majority of the Palestinian society.
Yes, Mr Hawking, you should listen to “Palestinian academics”.
> • The Bible
> • The ten commandments
> • First true humanistic monotheism
I'm sorry, was this supposed to bolster your argument?
I think you also need to realise that there is a distinct difference between the Israeli people and the politics of their government. A clue: they are different.
"We don't have a problem with Jews; we have a problem with Israel."
ever read the Qur'an, man? Let me enlighten you. There is no mention of the State of Israel in the Qur'an, but boy do they have a problem with Jews there. For example, as reproduced faithfully in the Hamas Charter from a hadith (canon interpretation of the Qur'an):
"The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said: "The Day of Judgment will not come about until the Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them), until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: Oh Muslim! Oh Abdullah!, there is a Jew behind me, come on and kill him. Only the Gharqad tree would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews.""
So, my foe, do you still believe that the problem is "with Israel", or you continue to be a naïve fool, a useful idiot?
I think you'll find that you get little sympathy here for that kind of lunacy.
Quoting religious scripture is not evidence of anything. One religious whack job is as bad as any other.
So Muslims and Jews hate each other? Neither Mr Hawking nor many others on this side of the world really give a shit about your petty religious squabbles. They are beyond contempt.
What we do care about is normal decent human beings on both side of the border just trying to live their lives without getting blown up. That single point seems to get lost in the midst of all the rhetoric and silly religious bickering.
Do us all a favour and become atheists. The world would be a better, decent place because of it.
Asher, you know full well that there are many Israeli-Arabs living in Israel without becoming terrorists.
At the same time, how would you feel if your land was invaded, house bulldozed, and the invading force kept building settlements on your land?
".....how would you feel if your land was invaded, house bulldozed, and the invading force kept building settlements on your land?" LOL, do you mean like when the Fakeistinains and six Arab nations invaded the newly declared State of Israel in 1948? Or how Hamas and Hezbollah ans Iran state they want to do so now? Please try and think outside your popularist box.
> .....how would you feel if your land was invaded, house bulldozed, and the invading force kept building settlements on your land?
Probably the same as those unlucky bastards that found themselves living in a new Jewish state just after the war.
Either move out or put the f*ck up with it I guess.
The problem is that it all began when one of them hit the other back.
Israel is behaving like a spoiled brat of a child. It's the playground bully.
Palestinians are living in squalor because Israel won't let them have anything, it's a repeat of the ghetto.
Yes, some of them do fire rockets and set off bombs. Israel fires artillery rounds and air-to-ground strikes.
This tit-for-tat will continue killing forever, unless one side chooses to stop. And the longer it goes on, the more fear and hatred on both sides.
Compare this with Northern Ireland. How did we get them to stop? It wasn't by walling them in, refusing any travel into the area or killing them - although to our shame, that was tried - it was by talking to their political wing.
Killing yet more people on the other side only escalates the violence and never solved a problem like this - unless Israel intends a "Final Solution", and I would hope their citizens wouldn't agree to that.
We want Israel to grow up and become a responsible adult, instead of the petulant child it currently acts like. That's all!
"We want Israel to grow up and become a responsible adult, instead of the petulant child it currently acts like"
Over the years it appears that Israel's political character has moved from a European model - and is becoming more like its Arab neighbours. This has partly been down to the increasing political influence of the large number of Jews who had fled Arab countries where they had been part of the community for many generations.
Another factor is that the ultra-orthodox Jews are opposed to the compromise aims of the Israeli moderate groups. The former apparently don't care about the State of Israel - but only about their own religious aims in occupying biblical areas. Unfortunately they often have enough democratic voting power to hold a balance in the parliament. Currently their sub-culture also produces more offspring - who are rigidly raised in their dogma - than the more liberal groups.
The Arab Spring is rapidly turning into internal sectarian conflicts fracturing societies on mainly religious schism fault lines. Israel could eventually go the same way.
It took Europe a long time to resolve similar "tribal" differences - and sometimes it appears that some cracks were merely papered over.
hmm let's see.
IRA bombings would be preceded with a phone call to minimize the loss of life.
Islamic terrorism? here is the conversation between the terrorists and their handlers. watch the part whey they so gleefully kill two Jewish hostages.
why should Israel or anyone for that matter engage politically with pure evil?
Wishful thinking. We tried that already, the terrorist acts only got bolder as they tend to think that playing nice is a sign of weakness.
Unfortunately the only thing proven to reduce terrorism acts is strong handing them into it. Hopefully one day that would change and they will accept Israel's right to exist.
"".....how would you feel if your land was invaded, house bulldozed, and the invading force kept building settlements on your land?" LOL, do you mean like when the Fakeistinains and six Arab nations invaded the newly declared State of Israel in 1948?"
Newly declared by whom? A bunch of self righteous Western nations. Some of these westerners were eager to atone for Adolf's activities, but many others saw it as a good opportunity to give the Jews somewhere to go in the hope they'd all fuck off. Either way, it wasn't their land to give.
Presumably if an angry mob burst in and throw you out of your house, then you'll be in the wrong by trying to take it back? And by similar logic when the fast growing Arab world eventually turn the Jews out of the Holy Land for a second time, you'll be OK with that? I think not, but that will illustrate your weak grasp of logic.
Personally I look forward to the day when Iran moves from Photoshopping nuclear weapons to actually having some. Then the Israelis can either start behaving with a bit of humility and respect for other people's human rights, or the whole Middle East can become a glowing green crater. I'd be relaxed about either outcome.
"Newly declared by whom? A bunch of self righteous Western nations...." By the UN, actually, you complete ignoramus, which happened to contain a lot more than just Western nations.
".... Either way, it wasn't their land to give....." Actually, it was no-ones - the previous owners were the Ottoman Empire, which had been defeated by the Allies in the Great War. The British referred the matter to the UN as they could not find a solution that satisfied the Jews and the Arabs. The UN promptly came to the same conclusion and decided to impose a solution based on existing areas with Jewish or Arab majorities. This not only means it WAS already Jewish land, but also that many Jewish areas were OUTSIDE the original state designated to become Israel. The Jews accepted an area much less than what they had been promised in return for gaining an independent homeland - prompted by their mullahs, the Arab leaders rejected the Plan in the interest of erasing the Jewish homeland. The Fakeistinians have been paying for the stupidity of their leaders ever since. The Israelis won the 1948 war because they were fighting for their homes, whereas the majority of the Arab combatants were far from home and fighting for the gain of their leaders.
"....Presumably if an angry mob burst in and throw you out of your house, then you'll be in the wrong by trying to take it back?...." Completely different scenario - my home is my land, protected by British law and in the sovereign state of Great Britain. I would simply call the Police to evict the invaders. The "police" in the case of Palestine was the UN that decided on the Partition Plan, which is why the rejection by the Arabs meant they lost legally too.
"....And by similar logic when the fast growing Arab world eventually turn the Jews out of the Holy Land for a second time, you'll be OK with that?...." The Arabs are too busy killing each other, as shown by Syria, Iraq, the Lebanon and Yemen, amongst others, and the powerful Arab nations are preoccupied with the threat of Iran. The Arabs tried and failed to defeat Israel several times when they were united by the Pan-Arab pipe dream, they are unlikely to try when they are disunited. Even should they somehow overcome their differences, Israel has shown many times before that it can face and defeat Arab armies that massively outnumber the IDF, so you'll just have to swallow that bitterness for a long while.
".....Personally I look forward to the day when Iran moves from Photoshopping nuclear weapons to actually having some...." Whatever. Your hatred for Israel and Jews simply stops you from realising that even if the Americans let that happen, it is unlikely Israel will stand idly by. History has shown that Israel is not squeamish about doing what is needed to defend herself. But even if enough Iranian scientists survive long enough to complete the project, it is more likely Iran will be too busy propping up the puppets of Syria and Hezbollah to want to go to war with Israel. Sadly, the more Sunnis and Shias carry on killing each other in Syria the safer Israel remains. Which means you will have to choke on that hatred of yours for a good while longer. Enjoy!
> The UN promptly came to the same conclusion and decided to impose a solution based on existing areas with Jewish or Arab majorities.
So, you agree then that the current occupants were forced to accept imposed rule by a new Jewish state then.
> This not only means it WAS already Jewish land
What on earth do you mean by that? There happened to be some Jewish people living on it, it is "Jewish" land?
There are Jewish people living in Golders Green. Does that make it Jewish land FFS?
I could go on, but to be quite frank, I think it would be pointless.
I swear you're just making this shit up.
".....So, you agree then that the current occupants were forced to accept imposed rule by a new Jewish state then......" Seriously, are you just being deliberately obtuse or do you actually have as little comprehensive capability as your posts suggest? The "current occupants" of the State of Israel as declared in 1948 WERE the Jews intent on creating the State of Israel, so nothing was imposed on them other than the need to defend themselves from the immediate murderous attacks of their Arab neighbours. Christian and Muslim Arabs that stayed in Israeli territory after the 1948 fighting were given Israeli citizenship and freedom to worship as they pleased, unlike the Jews who were illegally evicted by the defeated Arab states.
"Newly declared by whom? A bunch of self righteous Western nations. Some of these westerners were eager to atone for Adolf's activities, but many others saw it as a good opportunity to give the Jews somewhere to go in the hope they'd all fuck off. Either way, it wasn't their land to give."
Ummm nope, it was defintely there's to give. You see it had been entrusted to them by the Islamic Caliphate that was the Ottoman Empire. So they defintely had the right to give it to whomsoever they chose.
Try a history book, they can be terribly helpful when it comes to making statements about historical events.
"At the same time, how would you feel if your land was invaded, house bulldozed, and the invading force kept building settlements on your land?"
AND anyone who complained or resisted was shot in cold blood? (And then called a "terrorist" because, of course, the righteous Israeli forces would never harm anyone who wasn't a terrorist).
""At the same time, how would you feel if your land was invaded, house bulldozed, and the invading force kept building settlements on your land?"
AND anyone who complained or resisted was shot in cold blood? (And then called a "terrorist" because, of course, the righteous Israeli forces would never harm anyone who wasn't a terrorist)."
This is a really pointless argument. Israel only has control of the West Bank, Golan Heights etc. because of an act of aggression by the countries that used to have that land. Yes, I know Israel fired the first shot, but they were going to invade, that much was clear. They lost, so lost land. It's always been that way, throughout history. And, Israel has handed land back; e.g. Sinai; when peace agreements were signed etc.
So, was it really 'their land'? They decided to attach, but simply lost, hence lost the land. Plenty of evidence throughout history that this is acceptable. If you attack someone, you have to take your chances in return. Also, don't forget that the West Bank was taken from Jordan, but the UN has given it to the Palestinians!! So, according to the above logic, the Palestinians don't own it either, Jordan does!!
I'm not saying what the Israelis are doing is right or proper. Far from it. But, the situation pointed out above is nowhere near as clear as made out and is a result of aggressive acts against israel to some extent. However, that's not to denigrate the bad things they're doing now.
However, taking sides will never resolve this conflict. It simply provide more cannon fodder. We need people to see the good and bad on BOTH sides and who can act in a calm and even manner, acknowledging that both are good and bad and that external parties are also having a big effect.
"Yes I know Israel fired the first shot. But they were going to invade"
Hitler said similar things about Poland in 1939. It's rationalisation, and the global community (except USA) doesn't buy it at all.
Look: International law is quite unequivocal about this kind of thing. No matter how 'clear' Israel imagined the threat to be, firing the first shot is an act of aggression, and can be regarded as a war crime (after nuremburg). So Israel was the aggressor in legal terms, and they still insist on playing the victim. This isn't about religion or race, it's about law and common decency.
In fact Israel is the only country in the region that has invaded all its neighbours in recent times. The idea that they are a model of stability is ludicrous.
"Hitler said similar things about Poland in 1939. It's rationalisation, and the global community (except USA) doesn't buy it at all."
Totally and utterly different. Did Poland have all its forces massed on the border? Had it called up reservists etc.etc. No.
"Look: International law is quite unequivocal about this kind of thing. No matter how 'clear' Israel imagined the threat to be, firing the first shot is an act of aggression, and can be regarded as a war crime (after nuremburg). So Israel was the aggressor in legal terms, and they still insist on playing the victim. This isn't about religion or race, it's about law and common decency."
I think we all know that international law is interpreted by the powerful countries and the winners and also should, like all laws, be guidelines, as there are always exceptions. This is precisely what a court is supposed to allow for. So, whilst technically Israel was the aggressor in that it fired the first shot, no sane person is going to hold them liable. It was quite clear the Arab countries were going to attack and Israel simply got in first to prevent it. Anyone blaming Israel or holding them liable for 'starting' that particular conflict is completely missing the point. Also, do bear in mind that the Falklands (for instance) was a conflict and not a war as we never technically declared war on Argentina. So, strict technicalities are pretty irrelevant as I would personally say the Falklands was a war.
"In fact Israel is the only country in the region that has invaded all its neighbours in recent times. The idea that they are a model of stability is ludicrous."
Israel has invaded Lebanon. You can argue about whether the constant bombardment from southern Lebanon gave them just cause. They have only invaded the other countries through attacking before being attacked during the various Arab Israeli wars. So, yes, technically you are correct, but the real intelligent reasoning is not really the same.
"To quote a Gulf Arab friend of mine, "We don't have a problem with Jews; we have a problem with Israel."" LOL! please ask him what exactly is his problem with Israel then? Is it that he thinks there shouldn't be one Jewish nation when there are dozens of Islamic states? Or maybe it's that he thinks Jews are OK, just as long as they are not in the same country as him? Does he think Israel is "wrong" because he dislikes the idea of Jews not being in dhimmitude to Arabs? Maybe he thinks Israel is "wrong" because his parents and teachers brought him up to believe that once a land is conquered by the Islamic horde it is Islamic for ever. The history of widespread support in the Gulf for the Arab wars against Israel suggest he is probably talking porkies.
"I'm guessing the objection is to Israeli policies regarding occupation of Palestinian territories and their forcing Palestinians into refugee status as a result" A more likely correct appraisal of the situation would be that his objection is due to his ignorance or denial of the realities of the situation, probably based on prejudice given his happiness to travel to an event in Iran, and no doubt ignoring the fact the Palestinian Arabs made themselves refugees and were then kept that way by the other Arab states.
"....I think you also need to realise that there is a distinct difference between the Israeli people and the politics of their government. A clue: they are different." Actually the Israeli government is democratically elected so their view reflects the that of the majority of Israelis. Fakeistian "President" Abbas was not elected and holds no mandate, having imposed an extension on his period in office (without a murmur of disproven from the UN, one notes), and the Fakeistinians voted overwhelming for Hamas, which has a stated aim of wiping Israel off the map and ethnically cleansing all of "Palestine" of Jews (and then Christians and any other faith, including minor Islamic ones).
> Actually the Israeli government is democratically elected so their view reflects the that of the majority of Israelis.
Whether that is true or not depends on whether there is a credible choice.
An awful lot of people in the UK would like a referendum on EU membership, but none of the main political parties have it in their manifesto, which is one of the reasons why UKIP have such a relatively strong following at the moment. So, unless you vote for UKIP (which many believe rightly or wrongly a one-issue party) then you effectively have no vote.
Just because you have a fascist government, doesn't mean all the people are actually fascists.
If you want to include Jews, then you have to also include Arabs and other Muslims.
They have invented quite a large number of things, like our number system, lots of developments in mathematics, the first university, lots of stuff related to astronomy, windmills, and I could go on.
".....They have invented quite a large number of things, like our number system, lots of developments in mathematics, the first university, lots of stuff related to astronomy, windmills, and I could go on." No you can't, because you're talking cobblers. The majority of "great Arab achievements" were inherited from the Greeks, Chinese or Persians, nothing to do with the Arabs. Indeed, one clear constant is the decline in academic standards Islam brings to all countries it dominates.
"one clear constant is the decline in academic standards Islam brings to all countries it dominates."
I didn't know the US was dominated by islam. Oh wait.
The issue with respect to declining education standards is religion in general, not islam specifically.
"......I didn't know the US was dominated by islam......" No doubt composed on a PC using technologies and software developed in the US by Americans - duh!
".....The issue with respect to declining education standards is religion in general, not islam specifically." Yes and no. In the West, we had the Enlightenment, which pushed back the barriers erected by the Church. Islam has yet to have its Enlightenment, and given the core messages of Islam - Islam cannot be changed, Mohammed is the final prophet, the Koran should be learned by rote, you cannot leave the religion on pain of death, criticising Islam means death, etc., etc. - there is little prospect of a development of Islam. Whilst moderate Muslims may adopt Western value, teachings and technologies, they will always be beholden to their religion and the anchor it places on them, and subject to the ranting of the larger Muslim majority, which oppose any changes in Islam.
"And I thought we were talking about education...... ". We are. You can see the corrosive effect of Islam on education across the Middle East, especially when it comes to education of women.
".....I don't dispute that Islam is despicable, but I don't pretend that means Christianity, or Judaism, or any other belief systems that belittle human dignity and intelligence aren't." Oh, so you excuse the Fakeistinians desire to wipe out Israel with the claim "well, they're all as bad as each other"? Fail. Please go compare the number of Jewish Nobel Prize winners with those of all the Islamic nations put together and then try and think WHY there are so few Islamic ones when they insist they are so educated. In fact, I bet none of the so-called "Palestinian academics" that "advised" Hawking are on the very short list (http://www.thejidf.org/2010/01/jewish-nobel-prize-winner-vs-islamic.html).
Actually it is a fallacy that the Arabs invented the numbers.
The so called Arabic numerals were actually invented in India by the Hindus. When first introduced to Europeans they incorrectly believed them to be Arabic so they have incorrectly retained the name "Arabic Numerals" ever since.
actually the fallacy that that is a fallacy, is in fact a fallacy
let us begin at the beginning...
write down the Hindu symbol for zero...
(hint: you cant do it with out algebra :-D)
ask any mathematician it's a pretty important concept
"You missed out the fact that both sides want to ban eating bacon [...]"
Many years ago - on a summer working holiday on kibbutz - it was said that the lease of the land from the State did not allow them to raise pigs. Apparently this was regretted as they would have been a very lucrative line.
One lunchtime a rather zealous American volunteer was apparently upset by our referring to the menu's meat patties as "hamburgers". He asked for our elderly supervisor's assurances that they did not contain any ham - which he duly received. Afterwards I asked if that was a known fact - and he just smiled and shrugged his shoulders.
Young Israeli and Turkish visitors to the UK always used to want to try a sausage or some pate. A bit like a vegetarian friend - who makes an occasional exception on smelling an irresistible bacon sarnie.
How the hell is it tolerated at the government level. How do they get away with it.
Any view that isn't completely supportive brings the "you are backing terrorists" official chant. Any official line broadcast involves repeating "terrorists" as if that justified shitty behaviour.
Let's have the shills pop up and call me an anti-semite, because they will anyway but it's simple as this: I don't like bullies.
(and yes there are plenty of stupid Arabs and lots of decent Israelis, of course, and a lot to admire about Israel but evil-bastard policy isn't of them)
I stayed in Tel Aviv for 3 months, with my Israeli Jewish girlfriend, and her opinion (and her peers) matched yours.
As with all situations though, it's the fanatics (on any side) that shout the loudest and get reported by the media the most.
Yaffo (Jaffa) is an Arab dominated part of Tel Aviv which contains a thriving Muslim community complete with Mosques, and calls to prayer etc.
Most Israeli-Jews and Israeli-Arabs life peacefully side-by-side.
It tends to be those (on either side) that quote religious dogma as if it means anything that are usually the ones intolerant of the others.
I just thought I'd inject a bit pendentrary into this wholly logical and completely rational conversation to point out that being anti-Semitic would mean being prejudiced/biased against anyone of a Semitic culture which includes Arabs, Jews and Palestinians and such. The term anti-Semite is often used incorrectly to exclusively define a single people.
But don't let semantics get in the way of this enlightening dialogue about Semitic countries.
"The term anti-Semite is often used incorrectly to exclusively define a single people."
From what I've seen it's pretty much done by members of that single people for the purpose of attempting to discredit anyone who suggests that Israel is doing or ever has done anything wrong, so as to avoid actually having to address that issue itself.
Funny that, if you utter the slightest criticism of anyone Jewish, the state of Israel, or its government, you are rebuked as an "anti-Semite" and hence a racist.
Yet people like Asher Pat can reel off lists of all the wonderful things Jewish people have done, and all their unrivalled gifts to civilisation, without being accused of racism.
Isn't racism the singling out of a particular racial group (assuming that there even is such a thing) in ANY way at all?
Yes, it is. Advancements are generally made by people, more often groups of people. Often these groups are not single religion or even single state, especially these days. So, listing an 'advance' as being from a single country or single religion is really very silly. A lot of the advancements made in the Arab world during their 'golden years' were actually a result of mixed groups. During the crusades, Christian lived in peace amongst Muslims for many decades and were only ever affected if they acted against their hosts. So, some of the advancements made during these 'golden years' were actually from Christians (working amongst Muslims) or even mixed groups!!
How the hell is it tolerated at the government level. How do they get away with it.
They have the backing of the US because of the strong influencial Jewish vote in America.
Israel are in conflict of UN resolutions - The US (and UK) have attacked other countries with a much weaker mandate
They also have the backing of the US because they are a slightly-oppressive, democratic state very friendly to western culture, while the rest of the region is mostly composed of much more severely oppressive, non-democratic states in which even government officials routinely declare the important of defending Islamic values from the corrupting sin of the infidel media.
On a purely pragmatic level, it's probably a good idea to support the country you'd best be able to coexist with in future, even if their human rights record is less than perfect.
"They have the backing of the US because of the strong influencial Jewish vote in America."
And, it seems, because they have America by the balls through having designed (and perhaps inserted backdoors in) all the Intel chips that keep the US government, industry, and banking alive.
Just think of all the fuss about Huawei recently...
"Israel are in conflict of UN resolutions - The US (and UK) have attacked other countries with a much weaker mandate"
I think you'll find that both sides are in violation of various UN resolutions, international treaties and laws. As you say, Israel is in violation of various UN resolutions. However, Hamas and various other Palestinian factions are in violation of the Geneva convention as well. Using hospitals and schools as launch sites. Suicide bombing etc.etc.
Both sides are as bad as each other. Neither has the moral high or low ground. As people have stated before, some organisations find it useful to have a lot of civilian casualties, a tactic long used by various organisations to curry international public opinion.
As to the UK and USA; you are quite right. The reasons for Iraq were a joke. Afghanistan arguably has a better rationale, but I doubt the invasion and occupation will actually make any long term difference to terrorism.
Israel is a state, a country. You aren't an anti-semite because you don't recognise them, or you say they are doing wrong.
You are an anti-semite when you lambast and degrade a Jewish person, or culture. A country isn't a culture
Israel are so, so wrong in what they are doing. And bombing Syria without any condemnation doesn't make Israel look as bad as the UN for allowing it to carry on being the bully of the middle east.
Well done Mr.Hawkins, well f**king done for taking a stand. (No pun intended).
".....And bombing Syria...." Israel, as an internationally recognised state, has the right to self-defence, which means it does not have to wait for Syria to illegally supply Hezbollah and Hamas with weapons, chemical or otherwise, if it has a strong enough case to show they were going to be used against Israel. So far, every weapon supplied bu Syria, including long-range rockets, has been used against Israel. I suppose you would rather wait until Hezbollah or Hamas had fired them at Israeli civilian targets before Israel responded? Gee, I wonder why.
"That must have been the reason Hitler invaded Poland. Self Defense".
Actually, truer than you may realise. Hitler personally announced that Polish forces had crossed the German border, and that was why Germany was at war with Poland. Throughout history, hardly any ruler has started a war of aggression without nobly declaring that it is a necessary defensive effort forced upon him by the overwhelming threat from merciless, inhuman, destructive enemies.
The worst of it is that, quite often, it's true. Historians are still trying to decide whether, if Hitler hadn't attacked the USSR in 1941, Stalin would have attacked Germany just a few weeks later.
There's a difference. Hitler said that Poland had attacked, I seem to recall it was an SS unit who popped across the border to attack back into Germany. However, that was an obvious lie. Also there's no debate that Stalin would have attacked Germany a few weeks after Barbarossa. He certainly wouldn't have. Although neither side trusted the non-aggression pact, with good reason. So he might have a few years down the line.
On the other hand Israel have been attacked by (and have attacked) Hezbollah and Hamas several times in recent years. Who ultimately started it being irrelevant. So Israel has perfectly legitimate reasons not to want even more missiles getting through Syria. Hezbollah only admitted last week that they'd got thousands of fighters supporting the Syrian government, and I'm sure they want to get paid.
Whether Israel has a legitimate right to use pre-emptive strikes (and whether their intel is correct), well that's another matter entirely. But Israel has been pretty consistent in its policy of pre-emption, and that's mostly been successful for them in military terms. Diplomatically it's more complicated.
"That must have been the reason Hitler invaded Poland....." Only for idiots like you that know nothing of history. Hitler's original intention was to "liberate" the German Balts and White Russians from Bolshevik rule and gather liebensraum (land for expansion) in the Bolshevik territories. Hitler was convinced that the other Imperial countries and the US would support a war against the Bolsheviks, despite Britain and France having mutual defence treaties with Poland. Indeed he mistakenly believed that Poland would join him in an attack on Russia, the Poles' traditional enemy, and actually give Germany back the German territories ceded to Poland after the Great War in gratitude. When the Poles - no great fans of the Germans or the Russians - declined his attempts at a treaty, Hitler switched his attention to invading Poland as a steppingstone to a later attack on Soviet Russia. When the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was signed it sealed the fate of Poland. That is why Hitler invaded Poland.
Now, seeing as that is likely just one hole in what passes for your education, I suggest you toddle off to a library and work on filling in all the other holes in your knowledge.
Matt, you're thinking of lebensraum, "space to live." Liebensraum means "room for loving."
BTW, what's the difference between: "Israeli settlements in the occupied territories (commonly referred to as simply Israeli settlements) are the Jewish civilian communities built on lands occupied by Israel during the 1967 Six-Day War. Such settlements currently exist in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and in the Golan Heights." What is the difference between that and LEBENSRAUM?
Hitler's first objectives of lebensraum were the seizure of Austria and Czechoslovakia to protect Germany's eastern and southern flanks.
"......what's the difference between: "Israeli settlements in the occupied territories (commonly referred to as simply Israeli settlements) are the Jewish civilian communities built on lands occupied by Israel during the 1967 Six-Day War. Such settlements currently exist in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and in the Golan Heights." What is the difference between that and LEBENSRAUM?...." Glad you asked. In the case of the Nazi plan for Lebensraum, Hitler intended to invade and occupy land already part of a sovereign nation (Russia) and displace or ethnically cleanse all the locals. There was no sovereign nation in place in the West Bank or East Jerusalem areas outside the area declared as Israel in 1948. There were already extensive Jewish sites in the West Bank and East Jerusalem BEFORE the 1948 war, all of which were seized by the Jordanians and their Jewish inhabitants massacred or evicted, and which the Falkeistinians have claimed since as "Palestinian land". Seeing as the Arabs decided not to accept the UN Partition Plan, there is no legal owning country of the land in the West Bank or East Jerusalem not already inside Israel, which is why there has never been a legal challenge to the Israeli "occupation", despite there being no end of bluster from the Fakeistinian supporters. Indeed, the only body which regularly ejects illegal settlements in the West Bank is the Israeli courts. Unlike the Germans or the Jordanians, the Israelis did not conduct a program of ethnic cleansing, but instead asked the local Arabs to stay and become Israeli citizens. No Arab court has ever convicted any Arab of the illegal seizure of Jewish homes in Jerusalem or the West Bank between 1948 and 1967, let alone the murder of many of the Jewish civilians in those homes.
As regards the Golan, Syria is technically still at war with Israel after Syrian forces invaded in 1948. In war it is perfectly legal to hold on to occupied territory until an eventual peace agreement is signed. Given that the Syrians have refused to negotiate a peace settlement with Israel, Israel is well within her rights to hold onto the better defensive position of the Golan, especially as the Syrians used to use it to shell Israeli civilians.
"There was no sovereign nation in place in the West Bank or East Jerusalem areas outside the area declared as Israel in 1948."
Was this not the fault of the English and their Mandate of Control after the WWI? England itself was responsible for the political condition the Arabs found themselves from after the first world war to 1948.
And if you roll back the carpet of greed and avarice the English were so comfortable reclining on, you'll find oodles and oodles of petroleum.
Oh, am I being to honest? The English would never fuck up another people for their own profit or riches.
The Americans would, but never the English.
".....Was this not the fault of the English and their Mandate of Control after the WWI?...." The British inherited the problem after defeating the Turks, who had chosen to side with the Germans and Austro-Hungarians in the Great War. The Brits tried and failed to find a solution that could be agreable to both Jews and Arabs, and it is widely recorded that it was Arab intransigence that made it impossible. Sick and tired of the whole affair, the Brits passed the buck to the UN in 1947. Britain was tryng to recover from the War and wanted to send troops home, not have them being stuck in the middle of Jews and Arabs shooting at each other.
".....you'll find oodles and oodles of petroleum...." As for oil, there was none in Mandate Palestine. But I don't expect you to actually know facts like that.
"".....you'll find oodles and oodles of petroleum...."
As for oil, there was none in Mandate Palestine. But I don't expect you to actually know facts like that."
Facts like what, Bubbeleh? When was it determined that there was no oil in MP? On the sixth day of creation as told in Genesis? In 1920 when the Brits took the Mandate? In 1933 when prospectors found the largest oil deposits in the Milky Way in nearby Arabia? In 1947 when the Brits gave up the Mandate?
Just because you recently read on google that there was no oil in MP, doesn't mean that that information was carved in runic inscriptions on the horizontal slabs at Stonehenge or soon will be translated from the Dead Sea Scrolls. :o)
".....When was it determined that there was no oil in MP?.....In 1933 when prospectors found the largest oil deposits in the Milky Way in nearby Arabia?....." Just admit it, you got caught out in another lie. There was no oil in Mandate Palestine.
I admit nothing.
Israel's bereftness may be known now. But when would google have known that MP were devoid of oil, if google were around before 1933?
Do you think T E Lawrence communicated that information in a letter to his boyfriend before oil was found in Arabia in 1933? ('Archie dearest, I miss you so terribly much. By the bye, there is no oil in Mandate Palestine. Pity. We could have been on Easy Street instead of Queer Street...') Or did M King Hubbert make that finding in 1943 after hiring on with Shell Oil?
Or is it concealed somewhere in the Book of Exodus?
<Yawn> And yet again, right on cue, Local Dupe spouts absolute male genetalia rather than admit he has lost the argument.
Tell you what, I'll give you an easy one - please explain why, if Stephen Hawking is so moralistic, did he attend a conference in Iran, where he swapped pleasantries with the same authorities that regularly hang gays, stone adulterers, and execute those that blaspheme? Oh, and they also happen to imprison, torture and kill their political opponents. Could it be that Hawking's head is so far up his black hole that he seriously thinks the Iranian regime is somehow applaudable? It just goes to show that stellar intelligence does not equate to being smart.
How would you know as you are neither?
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Stephen Hawking to Travel to Iran for International High School Physics Competition
Renowned physicist Stephen Hawking, best known for his work in cosmology and quantum physics, will attend the annual International Physics Olympiad, a brain-to-brain competition among the top physics high school students of 86 countries. The competition will be held this year in Isfahan, Iran, July 13 - 22.
Students from every continent gather each year to test their knowledge on advanced physics and also to experience the cultures of the countries they visit. This year's Olympiad exemplifies the flow of free scientific exchange between countries. In previous years, students have visited China, Spain and South Korea, where they spent time visiting the families of the local students. The host country often also offers cultural events for these future scientists. The competition will be held at Iran's prestigious Isfahan University of Technology.
The United States Physics Olympiad students will travel to the University of Maryland in June to prepare for the international competition. After a week of lectures, labs and exams, five students will be selected to the traveling team. The students will also experience the nearby attractions of the nation's capital and visit their Senators and Representatives to encourage Congress to support physics.
Historically, the US has done well at the International Olympiad: from 1986 to 2005, the United States Teams have brought home 26 gold, 20 silver, and 26 bronze medals; and 11 honorable mentions.
Hawking will likely address the students at the competition, and many of them already know him as a strong role model for accomplishments in physics. The hosts of the competition will provide more information on Hawking's visit as it becomes available.
The US team is sponsored by the American Association of Physics Teachers, the American Institute of Physics, the American Physical Society and many other scientific organizations and technology corporations."
HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS FROM 86 COUNTRIES, INCLUDING THE UNITED STATES. I WOULDN'T SURPRISED IF SOME 16 YEAR OLD LIMEYS WERE THERE.
Anyone who believes Mona Charen's spewmation, is doubledumb.
I suppose you still won't say when the geologists and petroleum analysts proclaimed the Holy English Mandate barren of oil. But Matt, look.
"Oil exploration in Israel began in 1953. Until 1991 a total of 263 exploration wells and 122 development wells were drilled, 3 oil fields and 5 gas fields were discovered, and 4 noncommercial oil discoveries and 1 noncommercial gas discovery were made. Proven in-place reserves amount to 70 million barrels of oil equivalent (MMBOE). Exploration focused on six main plays: Syrian Arc anticlines; Mesozoic platform-edge, structural-stratigraphic traps; the Dead Sea graben; Early Mesozoic structures; Saqiye Group biogenic gas; and Hula Group biogenic gas. The more significant discoveries are associated with the first two plays. Ninety percent of the proven reserves were discovered by the first 71 wildcats, which constitute 27 percent of all wildcats drilled to date. During this phase of exploration, the average success was 7 percent, and the average discovery rate was 0.88 MMBOE per wildcat. Most of the following 192 wildcats were dry holes. If, as experts claim, significant reserves are still undiscovered, previous exploration must be deemed inefficient. The quantitative model of the discovery process also leads to such an assessment."
Does Mrs Bryant (mother or wife) know exactly how full of bologna you are?
"Stephen Hawking to Travel to Iran for International High School Physics Competition....." Oh, it was an international event that just happened to be held in Iran? I suppose that makes it alright and doesn't make Hawking a massive hypocrit. Silly me! Your non-denial of the fact that Hawking was quite happy to travel to one of the countries in the World that not only has one of the worst human rights records, that doesn't just call for Israel to be wiped off the face of the Earth, but also openly supports, arms and applauds terrorist groups that try to kill Israeli civilians on a daily basis. You're right, it's quite clear that Hawking is nothing more than another bigoted idiot, just like you.
".....Oil exploration in Israel began in 1953...." The British mandate ended in 1948, do the maths you complete moron. There was no oil in the Palestine Mandate, you lied out of vindictive bigotry, you got caught, just admit it and stop dribbling, you're just embarrassing yourself.
"it ended in 1947...." Once again, all you do is expose your lack of knowledge. The Brits originally intended to end their mandate on 1st August 1948, but brought the date forward to 1st May 1948 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandatory_Palestine). Don't you ever get tired of being so quickly and easily exposed as wrong?
The Israelis declared the State of Israel on 14th May 1948 and it was recognised by the US, Soviet Russia, and the majority of UN members, excepting the bitter members of the Arab League.
Dog Obedience School?
The British Mandate of Palestine ended "In September 1947." When the British government announced that the Mandate for Palestine would end at midnight on 14 May 1948. The lame duck period from September 1947 to May 1948 was just used to move England's office furniture onto the HMS Dunkirk in the hopes it could make it back to Jolly Old. The roly poly British Diplomats stumbled aboard with their pencil sharpeners and souvenir hookahs. More importantly, in this lame duck period of 9 months, the Israelis would be armed to the teeth for the War that every one but you knew was going to happen. A War that would establish Israel as the rich, white man's toe hold on land close enough to their oil rich puppet Arab Kings, Princes and Sheiks.
Don't even bother to reply to this but fetch the newspaper at the end of the driveway. Good boy. Roll over and I'll give you a bone. :o)
"The British Mandate of Palestine ended "In September 1947."....." You know, the only thing funnier than when you get proven wrong again and again is when you try wriggling out of admitting you're wrong! Wriggle, wriggle, wriggle. Still, I suppose it's better than your desperate attempts to schwing off onto another topic, though it would be nice if you could actually post some facts for a change, hopefully in a related argument.
".....the Israelis would be armed to the teeth...." And wrong again. Compared to the Arab nations that attacked them, all with established armies with armour, artillery and air forces, the Israelis were barely armed at all. Their first two tanks were from British sympathisers who went AWOL over to the Israeli side and pinched a pair of Cromwell tanks in the process. During the 1948 war, the Egyptians alone fielded 135 tanks and 90 artillery guns. The average Israeli kibbutz had at most a dozen rifles and maybe the odd machinegun to withstand not just the local Arab gunmen but also the organised forces of the Arab invaders. The difference in the air was even less in Israel's favour - at the start of the war, the Egyptians alone had at least thirty combat-ready Spitfires and twenty Dakotas modified as bombers - when the Israeli Air Force was formed a fortnight after the Arabs invaded all they had was a dozen civilian light aircraft. But then that's the facts, so why would you know any of it? LOL! I know it's not PC to laugh at the afflicted but you really are more than a dohnut or two short of a bakery.
Hawking's neurodegenerative disease seems to be progressing, impairing his judgement.
To all the haters in the comments: well, haters gonna hate, but the fact remains: Israel is the only liberal democratic state in the Middle East, and apparently, will remain such for a long time. As to palestinian people - my heart goes out to them, but my mind understands, that their decisions in the course of history were the reason for their suffering, and still are. They decided to massacre Jews before Israel was established, they tried to fight Israel after it was established, and they literally exploded in the face of any peace treaty offered to them. And before you try to claim that terrorists are the minority and don't represent palestinian people - check who won the elections in Gaza.
In case you're too lazy to check the statistics - at the height of 2nd intifada, circa 2001, over 90% palestinians supported suicide bombings. Those are the same people, who danced on the roofs at September 11th, and the same people who were throwing candies and celebrating London Subway bombings. Their suffering is their choice, they can stop any time they want and peace will ensue.
Now downvote me.
"In case you're too lazy to check the statistics - at the height of 2nd intifada, circa 2001, over 90% palestinians supported suicide bombings. Those are the same people, who danced on the roofs at September 11th, and the same people who were throwing candies and celebrating London Subway bombings. Their suffering is their choice, they can stop any time they want and peace will ensue."
Boston, Mass. was a hotbed of IRA support and funding while the IRA were planting bombs in UK pubs killing innocent civilians. What was your point?
".....Boston, Mass. was a hotbed of IRA support and funding while the IRA were planting bombs in UK pubs killing innocent civilians. What was your point?" I think it's more a case of what's your point? The two seem quite different causes, with very different geographical implications. Besides, the IRA had to eventually admit they could not win militarily in Northern Ireland (we have to be careful not to say they admitted defeat as they still get touchie), so maybe you are suggesting the Fakeistinians should just admit defeat and give up their murderous ways?
Hmm. Lots of sites repeating the quote, but none citing an exact source. Nor am I the first to wonder this: Others have also documented their search. None successful. It appears that your quote is in fact nothing more than a blatant lie, repeated around the internet by people who are so pleased to see their beliefs confirmed that they don't think to check the accuracy of what they forward on.
"Hawking's decision to join the boycott of Israel is quite hypocritical for an individual who prides himself on his own intellectual accomplishment," said Nitsana Darshan-Leitner, director of the Shurat HaDin Israel Law Center in a statement."
Or, perhaps you clowns could just stop killing reporters,committing genocide, and ignoring UN resolutions against Israel (22 at last count).
What genocide, which reporters did we kill and what UN resolutions have we ignored that are not one-sided? Don't forget it was Nasser who declared war in 1967 by closing the Tiran Straits to Israeli shipping. If the 'Little King' of Jordan had not been suckered into the war by Nasser, Israel would not have needed to defeat the Jordanian army and we would not be 'occupying' our historical homeland of Judea and Samaria. Jordan would still be the occupiers with the consent of the Brits only, as they were from 1948 to 1967. Before you write rubbish, please, please read some history, so you don't brabble.
The mudslinging that this comment page is descending into, and the political convictions on both sides, aside, I think SH is wrong in this case. Fundamental science should be shared and disseminated irrespective of politics. As long as it's not used for military or other aggressive technology (not much danger in his case) or propaganda (OK, a "Presidential Conference" might be open to that accusation), a boycott is nearly always wrong. If you don't want to support countries whose governments don't live up to our standards of human rights, where do you stop? China? Russia? The USA (Mr O makes friendly noises, but Guantanamo remains open)? Go there and talk to the scientists about science. You can use the opportunity to talk to journalists or politicians about politics. Progress is made by dialogue, not by "I don't talk to you bastards".
I must say I was in 2 minds about the Grand Prix in Bahrain going ahead. Surely a good opportunity to boycott. I'm still undecided about boycotts and sanctions in general.
However it was good that the Bahrain GP did go ahead, as both years it was a complete propaganda screw-up for the government and gave some excellent international publicity for the protesters.
I particularly don't like the boycotting of Israel, as the issue is so much more complicated. It's pretty universal agreed that Apartheid was wrong and had no justification. I'd say the Israeli / Palestinian issue is far more complicated. There's plenty of right (and plenty of wrong) on both sides of the argument. And boycotting Israel alone is pointless. There can be no peace unless both sides agree to it. So only pressuring one side of the conflict is guaranteed to fail.
Israel does not practice apartheid. I am a former South African and have 1st hand knowledge. Even 'The Economist' a magazine which cannot be claimed to be pro-Israel, has stated emphatically that Israel is NOT an apartheid state. The barrier is to stop Palestinian terrorists from crossing into Israel and killing Israelis, preferably Jews. Most, if not all anti-Israel propaganda, is latent antisemitism.
that the fact of him having the temerity to issue one dissenting syllable against one of the worlds leading rogue states, the jewish government would have the greatest living mind isolated and prevented from communication.
how very civilised, and so unexpected from tel aviv.
...that Israel in some skewed mind is more rogue than Syria, Iran, Sudan, North Korea and other rogue states in a very, very long list? Is it really their naivete, or maybe, just maybe, a manifestation of a much deeper, older feeling, one they are ashamed to admit?
Same reason we didn't like South Africa - they look like us, so they make us feel guilty.
Black safars killing blacks safars = we don't care, white safars killing kaffirs = we boycott them
Brown bacon-dodgers killing arabs = we don't care, White bacon-dodgers killing arabs = we boycott them
I see this topic, as usual, gets all the kiddies to fight in the sandbox...
It must be said, though, that the retort by the Israel Law Center was quite juvenile and petty.
If they had any clear, mature thinking, the statement would've read:
"We respect Dr. Hawking's right to his opinion, though we respectfully disagree. If and when the time comes that he would like to visit Israel again, we would welcome his constructive criticism, so we can hopefully resolve these territorial issues sooner rather than later."
Note that no matter which way you think is the way forward, Israel's lack of action -- given their relative wealth & stability -- will force the decision to be made for them, due to inexorable demographic changes. (Meanwhile, amongst the jailed or killed, do we know how many scientists, visionaries, technologists, engineers, astronomers, musicians, dancers, surgeons, artists, filmmakers, comedians, or authors, we've lost...? How many?)
Well, before the Turks came, the Holy Land belonged to the Arabs. But the Turks invaded and conquered it. They let the Arabs live there, but now they had to pay rent on the land they once owned. And then the Turks sold some of that land to the Jews, throwing Arabs off their farms. So that won't made for good relations.
But after that, for which one would think the Turks, not the Jews, were to blame, what was the story?
Before 1948, Arabs rioted doing violence to Jews. So the UN partitioned Palestine, creating the State of Israel.
After 1948, the surrounding Arab nations invaded Israel, trying to drive it into the sea. So the Israelis defended themselves, and wound up with borders considerably larger than those of the partition.
In 1967, with weapons purchased from behind the Iron Curtain, Egypt built up a massive military machine with the aim to be in a position to wipe Israel off the map. Israel reacted to prevent such a fatal blow from being struck, and gained control of the Sinai and the West Bank.
And then, first there were the suicide bombers - and only then came the wall around the Palestinians.
The Israelis were criticized for the blockade around the Gaza Strip - and yet it wasn't tight enough to prevent Hamas from shooting a large quantity of missiles from there recently.
So it seems obvious that the territorial gains of Israel, or the worsenings of the conditions of the Palestinians, are all the consequences of violent attacks on Israel. Seems like the Arab world could learn to cut its losses? Maybe many people there would - but the few who endanger our lives decide what we have to do to protect ourselves.
After September 11, 2001, I certainly have little patience with the discrimination against non-Muslims in places like Egypt and Pakistan. People who think that is the natural order of things won't understand that Jews have the right to refuse to live like black people did under segregation - and thus they'll think God will stand by them in the effort to put the Israelis back under Islamic rule.
Yes, many innocent Palestinians are suffering from injustice, but in general, the idea that Israel is bad and their foes are good seems to me to be an obvious moral inversion.
"Before the Israelites invaded, the Holy Land belonged to the Hittites, the Girgashites, the Amorites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites. But that's not important right now."
It's been settled by all manner of 'tribes' through the centuries, including the predecessors of the Palestinians and Jews. So, saying that the Holy Land belongs or one or other is irrelevant. You could argue it belongs to anyone who has ever settled there.
It's a bit like saying England belongs to the Saxons, Romans, Angles etc.etc. Land belongs to a country and anyone who wants to live there in peace and according to the countries laws should be allowed to, regardless of colour, creed, religion etc.etc.
But from the Roman occupation until the Statehood scam in 1948, Jews never had a controlling majority of the population and electorate.. After 1948, an infinite number of Jews around the world who had never lived there, could return to Israel. But Arabs who had been living there before the so-called Statehood and fled the fighting, could never return. So all the 1948 Palestinians, from their military and political leaders down to the small children of innocent farmers, lost the right to live on the land where they lived before and during the Mandate. .
Now they are clept as Fakestinians, no matter who they are and what they believe.
So be it.
For hundreds of years the Jews were identified with Shylock, Fagin and Melmotte. Fictional characters.
No more. Today when the world thinks of Jews, they just read stories on line about Bernie Madoff and his genetic talent to steal money early in the 21st century, or land if he had been around the Mandate Palestine in the mid 40's.
"But from the Roman occupation until the Statehood scam in 1948, Jews never had a controlling majority of the population and electorate....." WTF? Is there nothing on kids' TV to keep you guys occupied? The Roman, Ottomans and the British never held elections.
".... But Arabs who had been living there before the so-called Statehood and fled the fighting, could never return....." Firstly, they didn't flee, they got out of harm's way at the request of the Arab neighbours that they hoped would drive out the Jews so they could all steal the Jews' lands. Secondly, every war has refugees and it is normal practice for them to be integrated into friendly countries. At the end of WW2 there were 11.5 million Germans alone who were expelled from Eastern Europe and had to be rehomed in the ruins of Western Germany. A special UN body was set up to help resettle the refugees of all the European nations, and despite the scale of the task it was completed in five years. Yet the Arabs, who had passed through the War with their countries relatively untouched, baulked at re-homing any refugees. Instead, they illegally herded them into camps and kept them there. Meanwhile, at least as many (if not more) Jews were expelled from the Arab countries and had to be absorbed into Israel, yet the much smaller Israeli state not only welcomed them but settled them all. The difference was the Jews cared about their own, whereas the Arabs just saw the Fakeistinian refugees as a propaganda tool. And thirdly, you are obviously oblivious to the large number of Arabs that stayed and became Israeli citizens.
"....Today when the world thinks of Jews, they just read stories on line about Bernie Madoff ...." I would suggest "thinking" is a bit strong for your desire to see the worst in Jews. After all, you could look at the long list of Jewish Nobel Prize Winners and their contribution to the World, but then that might upset a bigot like you.
"The Roman, Ottomans and the British never held elections." Look again, Matt, I never said elections. "Election" being a formal and organized process of electing somebody to something. I said "electorate", those people qualified to vote and elect somebody IF and WHEN there's election. The Arabs living in the Mandate after 1922 were so qualified. However, the self-interested British only allowed the people to vote in plebiscites for monarchs the Brits had nominated.
"At the Cairo Conference of 1921, the British set the parameters for Iraqi political life that were to continue until the 1958 revolution; they chose Faisal as Iraq's first King; they established an indigenous Iraqi army; and they proposed a new treaty. To confirm Faisal as Iraq's first monarch, a one-question plebiscite was carefully arranged that had a return of 96 percent in his favor. The British saw in Faisal a leader who possessed sufficient nationalist and Islamic credentials to have broad appeal, but who also was vulnerable enough to remain dependent on their support."
And as for you previous contention that oil was unknown to the region until 1933, look at this:
"Before the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, the British- controlled Turkish Petroleum Company (TPC) had held concessionary rights to the Mosul wilayah. Under the 1916 Sykes-Picot Agreement--an agreement in 1916 between Britain and France that delineated future control of the Middle East--the area would have fallen under French influence. In 1919, however, the French relinquished their claims to Mosul under the terms of the Long- Berenger Agreement. The 1919 agreement granted the French a 25 percent share in the TPC as compensation."
"Beginning in 1923, British and Iraqi negotiators held acrimonious discussions over the new oil concession. The major obstacle was Iraq's insistence on a 20 percent equity participation in the company; this figure had been included in the original TPC concession to the Turks and had been agreed upon at San Remo for the Iraqis. In the end, despite strong nationalist sentiments against the concession agreement, the Iraqi negotiators acquiesced to it. The League of Nations was soon to vote on the disposition of Mosul, and the Iraqis feared that, without British support, Iraq would lose the area to Turkey. In March 1925, an agreement was concluded that contained none of the Iraqi demands. The TPC, now renamed the Iraq Petroleum Company (IPC), was granted a concession for a period of seventy-five years."
You remember "Heisenberg's Certainty Principle?" If one of your neighbors has oil underneath his country, you can be almost certain there's oil under yours.
"you could look at the long list of Jewish Nobel Prize Winners"
Why would I do that? All I have to do is turn on cable tv and somewhere on the 250 channels there is a Jewish talking head reciting them. Like the Jewish prayer for the dead until the body is buried, someone in some language is receiting the names of Jewish Nobel Prize Winners. In perpetuity or the sun becomes a red giant. Which ever comes first.
".... I never said elections. "Election" being a formal and organized process of electing somebody to something. I said "electorate", those people qualified to vote and elect somebody IF and WHEN there's election...." Wriggle, wriggle, wriggle! Just man up and admit you were wrong, your evasions are simply tiresomely boring.
".....The Arabs living in the Mandate after 1922 were so qualified. However, the self-interested British only allowed the people to vote in plebiscites for monarchs the Brits had nominated. "At the Cairo Conference of 1921, the British set the parameters for Iraqi political life"...." Iraq was not part of the Palestine Mandate territories, it was under a separate Mandate of Mesopotamia (also sometimes known as the British Mandate of Iraq). You are so desperate to avoid admitting you were wrong you are trying to apply British measures from a completely different area to your vacuous denials of history.
"....And as for you previous contention that oil was unknown to the region until 1933...." Once again, you are applying the history of a completely different area - Iraq - to that of the Palestine Mandate! You stated that oil in Palestine was a prime consideration of your claimed British backing of the Jewish homeland in the Partition Plan, yet have failed to show any record of such, instead taking examples of oil in Saudi and Iraq and trying to make out they apply to the Palestine Mandate territories. Fail, fail, fail!
".....You remember "Heisenberg's Certainty Principle?" If one of your neighbors has oil underneath his country, you can be almost certain there's oil under yours....." Firstly, it is Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. Secondly, it is a rule of quantum physics, not geology. If you are going to make pseudo-scientific statements please at least try and stay within the correct field. So Heisenberg's principle does not apply, but geology most certainly does, and the geologies of the Palestine Mandate and Iraq areas are so different as to make the likelihood of oil in the Palestine Mandate very unlikely. Indeed, modern oil discovery techniques have found very little oil in either Israel, the West Bank or Jordan, and certainly nothing to compare to the Kirkuk oilfield discovered in Iraq in 1927. To give you an inkling of how stupid your "if one of your neighbours has oil" non-argument is, you may want to consider that California has six oilfields with deposits of over a billion barrels, but neighbouring Nevada has none, because the geology of the two states is completely different. Please add basic geology to your reading list. And please do try and think a lot harder before your next post involving science, otherwise you will come off Constantly looking like a complete Planck (badoom-doom-tish!).
"....Why would I do that?...." I know, you have made fact avoidance a staple of your life. Anything that might upset your carefully constructed fantasy view of reality must be avoided, right? I have news for you - denial is not a river in Egypt, before or after the British Protectorate. Enjoy!
"You, Sir, are a humorless idiot....." On the contrary, I often have a pitying laugh at your posts. And did you miss the Planck joke? Sorry, I suppose only someone with some education higher than junior school physics would get the joke of exposing your Heisenberg error and then adding in a dig with Planck's Constant. At least I suppose you can take comfort in knowing you will never be accused of being a geek or nerd, you're obviously too intellectually limited. But I think it would be far too much to ask you to also add quantum physics to your remedial reading list, seeing as you are already so far behind on geography, history, religion, politics and geology. Don't worry, I'm sure there is someone somewhere that still hopes you may, one day, be able to make a relevant and constructive post.
".....There's little uncertainty about that......" Ah, there's no-one more certain than a fool! In the words of Norman Macdonald (and I know you love a quote, seeing as you seem to realise your one chance of passing off as having the vague semblance of an intelligent thought is to ape the works of others): "They that are fated to be fools, have one consolation, that they are fated also to be ignorant of it." I apologise most insincerely for repeatedly posting evidence that might force you to realise the extent of your own ignorance of your ignorance.
"....The only relevant and constructive post I could make is the one we all want to tie you to before setting fire to the straw at your feet." Well, at least Local Dupe echoes the sentiment of the terrorists he so espouses - when you have lost the argument, threaten violence. Such a shame he is so outclassed in any form of verbal combat, probably even by a five-year-old. I have to wonder if the "we" is a reference to the voices in his head.
Meanwhile, Naom Chomskey, veteran ivory tower anarchist nutjob, has been exposed as the "Palestinian scientist" behind Hawking's decision (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/10/noam-chomsky-stephen-hawking-israel-boycott). You have to ask where was Chomsky's objection when Hawking was jetting off to conferences in China and Iran? After all, Chomsky was an early critic of Indonesia’s annexation of East Timor in 1975. A blind hypocrit leading one just as blind?
".....and was GERMANE to the topic." Sorry, it is unknown for you to post anything even remotely germane in any thread, so I'll have to regretfully decline to believe you. BTW, whilst we're on the topic of German physicists, have you heard of that guy called Albert Einstein? You probably haven't seeing as he was a Jew, once being offered the Presidency of Israel, and was a supporter of Israel right up to his death. Now, I wonder which Hawking would have listened to given the chance, Einstein or Chomsky?
"That would depend on whether or not Einstein read the papers after he died in 1955?" Why? There were just as many vitriolic hate-pieces in circulation then as now. Where do you think the current generation of anti-Semites got their diseased views from if not from the previous generation of haters?
Save your pitiful tales for Oprah, she might feign interest.
I'm more interested in Hawking's support of anti-semitism, given his acceptance of Iran, and where he might have got it from. Maybe it goes back to when Israeli physics student Jacob Bekenstein successfully expanded on Hawking's second law of black hole dynamics before Hawking could, showing that Hawking was actually wrong and that black holes do decay. An ego like Hawking's probably found that hard to handle.
The only observation about black holes I've made, concerns the ginormous one between your ears. If you wake up in the middle of the night and Jacob Bekenstein is sitting on your face, he's just doing a black hole dynamic while Hawking gets even more jealous
As expected, your reply is of note for its extensive and complete appraisal of the historical and political situation, and provides a new and enlightening viewpoint. Oh, no it doesn't, it's just the typical gormless insults shrieked by the sheeple when they can't handle an argument containing facts. This is my surprised face, honest. I'm not even going to accuse you of being an anti-semitic bigot (or homophobe, going by your post) as I suspect your unquestioning following of the herd is more due to an overwhelming desire to belong to the "in crowd" rather than any ability to actually formulate a reason to hate. If anything I just pity you.
"Ah, there's no-one more certain than a fool!"
""They that are fated to be fools, have one consolation, that they are fated also to be ignorant of it."
In the known Universe, only you and Rush Limbaugh meet those qualifications. And it's for this reason we pretend to tremble before your ridiculous opinions.
Matt, you will go down in history as the first Blog Jester.
(At this point an old General wearing a French uniform approaches you, kisses you on both cheeks and pins a lollipop to your smock.)
".....only you and Rush Limbaugh....your ridiculous opinions....." This from the cretin that got caught rebleating Keith Olbermann's hysterical accusation that Anna Ardin was a CIA spy (http://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/1/2013/04/19/assange_meets_schmidt/)! A critique of that accusation here (http://reason.com/archives/2010/12/07/olbermann-assange-and-the-holo). But then I suspect you didn't get it from Olbermann but direct from Israel Shamir's Jew-hating, Holocaust-denying website, or maybe just from Stormfront again.
Hey, look! I managed to expose your anti-Semite sillyness in two topics at once!
"Yes, many innocent Palestinians are suffering from injustice, but in general, the idea that Israel is bad and their foes are good seems to me to be an obvious moral inversion."
Ah! The old, 'you think Israel's actions are bad therefore you MUST think the Palestinian's actions are good." argument.
Actually a lot of us think both sides are as bad as each other, but the pro-Israel side can't acknowledge that fact as it strengthens our argument too much.
If you paint us as nazi-loving anti-semites you don't have to take any notice of what we say - do you?
"It's called Jordon."
Jordan is a country that is often overlooked. By far the most competent, British trained, force during the Arab-Israeli wars - and a player in the peaceful co-operation efforts. They are still edging towards a full western-style democracy.
A political faction in the Palestinian refugees in Jordan tried to usurp power there many years ago. It was a nasty shock to those Jordanians who had offered a temporary safe haven to them. One factor was Jordan's peace agreement with Israel.
Jordan is now taking a massive number of refugees from Syria - and nervously wondering about the long term effects on their own country.
We need to look at history to see what's wrong here. The state of Israel is a modern concept and has no historical (as in before 1940s) context. Same for the 'state' of Palestine, which never actually existed. Palestine has never been more than a protectorate. In reality, looking back into history (hundreds of years), both these 'peoples' have lived on this land at various times, sometimes even side by side!! They are actually closer genetically in many ways than we are to them!!
This shouldn't really be about religion either, as there are Christian Palestinians and Muslim Israelis. So, whilst the majority may be Jewish to Muslim etc., both sides have significant populations of other religions. The vast majority of both populations simply want to live in peace and have meaningful lives. The majority want nothing to do with this conflict and given some time, could probably learn to live alongside each other.
So, what's causing it? Politics!! Pure and simple. The Palestinians are being used by a lot of Arab nations and Israel is being used by a lot of Western nations. Each side is being 'sponsored' by someone. In essence, multiple countries are vying for power in the area and are sponsoring one side or the other to try and get the upper hand. Both Israel and those surrounding it (in quite a wide area) have very dubious histories, including politicians who have controlled mass killings etc. The only reason why Israel currently has the Golan Heights, West Bank etc. is because Arab nations joined together and were going to attack it. Yes, I know Israel fired the first shot, but clearly the Arab nations were going to attack.
Israel has made settlements with Egypt (for instance) and handed back land (Sinai). So, Israel is willing to do deals sometimes. Equally, the various Palestinian organisations have done deals as well. One of the big issues there, is that the Palestinian side if pretty fragmented. At least with Israel you have a single entity to deal with (the government). Even if you get some of the Palestinian bodies to agree, there's always another that won't. So, there's an issue of who can negotiate, which has also happened in Northern Ireland.
Ultimately, the solution has to be political and the first step is for people to get real. Israel needs to stop some of its actions. Hamas etc. need to realise they will never destroy Israel (it will never be allowed) and therefore stop saying that's their aim. All sides need to moderate their language and 'demands' and realise that sometimes you can't have what you desire. Insisting on the destruction of Israel is just stupid, just as expecting the Palestinians to continue in the West Bank and Gaza is stupid. The 'people' need to get the extremists out and get people willing to compromise in place. On both sides. Otherwise, it will just continue and most lives will be destroyed and damaged.
As to the academic boycott. Well, someone as intelligent as SH should look back in history. Did Rhodesia and South Africa get resolved by this? No. Did NI? No. Boycotts (at a country level) have never worked. The reasons is simple. It makes the population feel like they're under attack and makes them more extreme and more determined to survive because of it. SH time and efforts would be much better spent on trying to bring the academics together and talking sensibly rather than spitting bile at each other. The more talking between the various parties, the more understanding of the others perspective and then hopefully, some compromise can occur. It's the only way. Just refusing to deal with someone or another doesn't work; just look at NI as an example. We spent decades fighting the IRA etc., but it was only when we sat down and talked with Sinn Fein that things starting progressing. May well not be perfect yet and god knows there are still issues. But, it's a hell of a lot better than it was.
"The state of Israel is a modern concept and has no historical (as in before 1940s) context."
That is true for much of the Middle East. It was only after 1919 that most of their modern borders, and countries, were defined or even created.
It was slightly before this time that young European Jews - with a very liberal social agenda - started to buy poor agricultural land in what was to become Palestine from the legal Turkish owners. Hydroponics, and draining malarial swamps, were the only way these tracts were eventually made agriculturally viable.
The 1916 secret Sykes-Picot agreement carved up that part of the Ottoman Empire into British and French influences. After 1919 the Allies created many brand new countries by dividing the territory between various factions/ tribes. Generally they assigned them to traditional Arab rulers - although not necessarily one with a strong local following in their allocated area.
Unfortunately many like Iraq were artificially composed from amalgamating several tribal groups who were unlikely to forget their historical conflicts. The same thing happened in colonial Africa - where internal, and external, wars going back several hundred years are still being fought.
It is easy to forget that many European countries, or colonies, were only created in the last 400 years by similar processes of conquer, rule, amalgamation, and secession. Germany, Italy, and Belgium were all created as single entities in the 19th Century - and their internal fracture lines are still visible.
"Yes, I know Israel fired the first shot, but clearly the Arab nations were going to attack."
Two more significant events:
In the 1973 war Israel could not afford politically to make another pre-emptive strike. That meant a more protracted conflict when Egypt and Syria mounted a surprise attack - with Iraqi support later. This time Jordan stayed neutral.
Syria started with a massive blitzkrieg across the Golan Heights - bypassing the UN observers on the 1967 cease-fire line. The objective was to regain the strategic precipitous edge that gave a commanding view over Israel all the way to the Mediterranean Sea. The result was reputed to be the largest running tank battle ever. The successful counter-attack penetrated well into Syria - threatening Damascus before the UN cease fire. After negotiations Israel eventually withdrew to the 1967 UN cease-fire line.
Israel unilaterally pulled out of Gaza occupation in 2005. The Israeli army forcibly ejected recalcitrant Jewish settlers - and left all the settlers' buildings and farms intact These economically useful facilities were subsequently looted and destroyed by people in Gaza. Then the continuing rocket attacks on Israeli civilian populations were launched from those areas. The results of this episode influenced Israeli public opinion against any similar unilateral disengagement from occupied territories.
It was once said of the Palestinian leadership that they "grab defeat from the jaws of victory".
Absolutely true AC.
Anyone seeing this as a one sided question is completely missing the point and does not understand history. Both sides are responsible and both sides have the key to the answer. They have to work together. Both sides have done good and bad. You can argue till the cows come home about who is 'most bad', but it's irrelevant to fixing the problem.
If the various groups stopped firing rockets at Israel and carrying out suicide bombings etc., Israel would leave them alone. If Israel left them alone and ignored the attacks, eventually the attacks would hopefully stop. However, neither side is willing to act without the other. Also, the Palestinians simply can't act as one. This causes an immense number of problems which results in loads of agreements failing.
So the reason that the current crop of Intel processor works well is not because of the work of the individuals involved in it's design and the great many others throughout history and from all corners of the world whose work contributed to the science underpinning them but is actually a direct product of the religious/political climate in force in the area that some of those individuals involved happen to live in at the time it came to market. Interesting.
Gaza War 2009, wiki (US based, using anything else would be biased, and Arabs can't count are too stupid to collect statics etc.)..
Israelis killed: 13 (4 by themselves)
Palestinians killed: 1,417
As a proportion of population, 1m Palestinians, 300m Americans, that's the equivalent of a 9/11 event that kills 450,000. A similar scaling was used by Fox news in it's 'Victims of terror' show that focused exclusively on Israeli victims and made a parallel that Israel is hit by the equivalent of a 9/11 event every so often, using the proportion of population killed as a measure.
One can add the previous four years of Palestinian home made rocket attacks, which killed less than 10 people, and add an indeterminate number of Palestinians, killed in targeted killings etc. which form a constant backdrop, and Israelis needing to avenge having these rockets fired at them.
Then argue about the number of children killed, the Palestinians lying about how many of the dead were armed, how many civilians, etc. ad nauseam. But, anyway anyone looks at it, that was 1417 human beings, very similar to most of us, two parents, maybe a sibling, maybe a partner, maybe some children too.
The only way to justify this is to reclassify them as sub-human, inhuman, violent, illiterate, etc. So we end up with a group of people who think that it's fine to murder that many people, because they are so evil (a certain R, Dawkins repeatedly declares their belief to be evil) , that they deserve to die in that sort of quantity, and so do their children. Clearly Professor Hawkins hasn't quite seen it this way.
But four years on, no one cares much, and most probably don't even remember, given a few more year, people will care even less, and fewer still will even remember. But those who suffered loss, will they forget so easily?
"But those who suffered loss, will they forget so easily?"
No - because the established Middle Eastern tribal culture still demands an "eye for an eye" - sometimes very literally. In conflicts it potentially creates a vicious cycle for perpetuity. Unfortunately martyrdom can always be manipulated as a recruiting campaign by those who wish to perpetuate a conflict.
In a similar way the Christian Churches indoctrinate their young to various degrees - by venerating their religious martyrs and displaying gory works of art of their tortures.
The Israeli governments are possibly politically going "non-European" due to cultural pressures from the diaspora from other Middle Eastern Jewish populations. Alternatively they may believe that an "eye for an eye" is the only attitude their opponents respect.
When the USA invaded Iraq they had obviously not heard the local saying along the lines - "I will support my brother against my cousin - I will support my cousin against my countryman - I will support my countryman against an invader". T.E Lawrence came to understand, and despair of, this philosophy when he was in the Middle East as "Lawrence of Arabia".
The reason Israelis are not being killed on the same scale is Israel has defensive measures like the Iron Dome to stop rockets hitting them, and the rockets that are fired mainly land in the countryside not the city’s as they are just fired randomly in the direction of Israel.
The reason so many people in Gaza died is that while Israel has the weapons and tech to fire a guided missile accurate to a few feet it doesn’t matter when the rocket sites they are targeting are placed on top of hospitals and in residential tower blocks.
Israel doesn’t want to kill everyone in Gaza otherwise Gaza would have be completely levelled years ago.
The people firing the rockets know Israel will respond, so they put them in places to ensure the greatest amount of people can be ‘martyred’ for the cause, therefore showing how evil Israel is.
Terrorist tactics lesson number 1 – The human shield.
“If the Arabs put down their weapons today, there would be no more violence. If the Israelis put down their weapons today, there would be no more Israel'
As pointed out Israel has expanded after gaining land following wars with everyone around them, to say that Israel was the aggressor or the victim is trying to make things a bit to black and white, but it is true that Israel had a very good reason to be worried when every country around you vows to “wipe them off the map”.
Israel’s attacks have been on the back of the reason/excuse that they are being attacked almost every day, again while this is true the difference still remains that if Israel where no longer being attacked, they would not have an excuse, and would stop under international pressure.
The enemies of Israel however don’t use excuses, they don’t say ‘we are fighting an aggressor’ or we are protecting our people, they fire rockets from schools, hospitals, and large residential areas, so the retaliation causes as much damage and death as possible and they win the propaganda war.
We saw this in Iraq
when you come under fire from a mosque, you are not allowed to fire back because they are in a mosque.
When we did start to fire back (this came after a number of deaths) the argument is no longer they shot at us so we shot back, it is ‘look what they did to our mosque’.
The people shooting at us, the same with the people shooting at Israel do not care about how many people are ‘martyred’ in the fight against Israel, the more women and children die ,the worse Israel looks the better it is for them.
In the West we have a hard time grasping this mentality,
If Israel wanted to, Palestine would not exist; it would take them a matter of days, so what’s stopping them? Is it the strength of Palestine? No. are they worried about being hated by the Arab world? No. Is it because they care about the consequences? Yes.
I don’t like what Israel does, I don’t support it, or condone it, but the truth is Israel would stop aggression if it was not needed, or if thouse in charge of the places it gets attacked from were seen to be stopping, not supporting the attacks. the reverse is true for its enemies.
The Arab world uses Palistine as a reason to hate Israel, but they are to blame for the suffering of the people as much as Israel
Very true. Other Arab countries are simply using the Palestinians as a battering ram against Israel. It's the old saying 'Your enemies enemy is your friend'. If they really liked the Palestinians and cared about them, they could have taken them in, or at least would stop using them. Instead, they're a handy battering ram that enables them to be at arms length and therefore avoid a lot of the criticism. Unfortunately, the Palestinians have never really realised or cared that this is the case and therefore believe these people are actually their supporters and do care.
As soon as external parties get involved, it all gets very political and very opaque. The same will occur in Syria. Under the covers, there are external countries and entities influencing things. You've got various anti-Israeli groups in the south fighting for the government in exchange for weapons etc. You've got Iran backing the regime, as they've always been close. With the 'rebels'? Well, you've got various allied groups to Al-Quaeda and to some extent some western countries. It's long ago ceased to be about what the population want.
"If they really liked the Palestinians and cared about them, they could have taken them in, or at least would stop using them."
Jordan and Lebanon both took in large numbers of Palestinian refugees. Then they had problems with Palestinian political factions trying to usurp power. Lebanon was dragged into conflicts with Israel - and civil war. Jordan is therefore very wary about all the Iraqi, and now Syrian, refugees flooding across their border.
The population of Gaza has something like 50% under the age of 14. There is little employment - whereas in the old days many worked daily in Israel - or traded goods. Sitting on a powder keg like that it is essential to find something to distract the young. Factions in Hamas seem intent on imposing "morality" laws with rough summary punishments for adopting the western fashions they see elsewhere. New UN play grounds for children were systematically destroyed because they catered for girls. To be fair - the Israeli Jewish Ultra-Orthodox communities would share their zeal.
"As pointed out Israel has expanded after gaining land following wars with everyone around them"
During the 1973 war the Israeli counter-attack advanced almost to Damascus before the UN cease-fire. After negotiations they withdrew in 1974 to the 1967 cease-fire line.
The strategic value of the Golan Heights is that the edge bordering Israel is a precipitous drop. From that point in Israel it is a fairly flat short distance to the Mediterranean Sea. The Syrian guns used that advantage to harass Israeli farmers and villages. It was considered an impregnable Syrian Maginot Line - and it cost Israel dearly to take it in 1967. It will only be returned if Syria can be hedged with watertight guarantees of peace.
The Golan Heights now has a long cease-fire line fence down the middle with UN observers. Both sides have extensive minefields and anti-tank defences. The old volcanic cones scattered over the relatively flat plateau have spiral tracks for mobile artillery. It is a stand-off - neither side has an obvious big advantage. Syria has a slight access terrain advantage in being able to deploy more tanks quickly as in 1973.
The UN observers man some gates - like the old main Damascus road at Queneitra. The only people who are allowed to use them are locals, split by the conflict, who travel to universities or family gatherings.
In 2005 Israel unilaterally, and sometimes forcibly, withdrew their settlers from Gaza and handed over the settlements intact to Gaza control. Subsequent events are widely interpreted as that being an error in negotiation judgement that was not reciprocated.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019