PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES

[mkilly]

on a daily basis we hear about atrocities committed in nearly equal numbers by both sides, so why on earth would we condemn one side and support the other?

Because a lot of people have sympathies for one side or the other. Usually conseratives, Christians, conservative Christians, and almost invariably Jews support Israel, but basically nobody can ever utter anything bad about them. Jews overwhelmingly support Democrats, who are more likely to empathize with the Palestinian cause, but they're very limited in expressing support for that side, because Jews make up a good amount of their base. Similarly, Christians empathize with Israel, and probably a fair amount also have anti-Muslim biases. Or at least anti-Palestinian terrorist biases. (This is a pretty dicey issue, but I don't think that either the Israelis or Palestinians are doing very well or honorably or justifiably moral, so please, no flames.) So uh... I guess what it boils down to, is that there's political gain to be had, because people care about it.

[c hack]

Also, Jews have a lot of karma points in reserve from the whole Nazi thing, which is I believe what got us into the whole mess in the first place.

[JonPorobil]

What the fuck are you getting at?

[c hack]

What the fuck are you getting at?

Um, in case you didn't notice, the Nazis gave the Jews kind of a hard time.

[JonPorobil]

Fuck those violent mutherfuckers. If they want to blow each other up over some land, it only invalidates their religions. Our plan is to let them blow each other to kingdom come and then move in and take all their holy oil from that ugly desert wasteland, all the while keeping Alaska clean and pure.

I repeat my question.

[c hack]

Fuck those violent mutherfuckers. If they want to blow each other up over some land, it only invalidates their religions. Our plan is to let them blow each other to kingdom come and then move in and take all their holy oil from that ugly desert wasteland, all the while keeping Alaska clean and pure.

I repeat my question.

Ah, it helps to know what you're talking about. That's the Hackocrats' official stand on the Israel/Palestine issue. Vote us into office this November -- we do not break campaign promises.

[the Jazz]

My, it's certainly hip with the liberals to bash Israel these days. What hypocrisy to say that atrocities commited by the Israeli government are representative of the nation as a whole, and then march against Bush saying the exact opposite thing.

on a daily basis we hear about atrocities committed in nearly equal numbers by both sides, so why on earth would we condemn one side and support the other?

Many reasons to support Israel become apparent when you take some time to study the situation. The most well known reason is that Israel is the only democracy in the middle east (and if anyone tries to call Iraq a democracy I will bludgeon you to death with a baguette). But here are some other things to think about:

- 19 out of 21 Arab nations have never recognized Israel's right to exist, while Israel recognizes 15 official religions, and has Arabic as an official language alongside Hebrew.
- Israel is the only middle eastern country which outlaws "honor killings" of women, and affords legal protection for gays from hate crimes and discrimination.
- 12 out of 120 seats in the Israeli parliament were held by Arabs, last time I checked. This may have changed in the past couple years, as there have been elections.
- The Jewish populations in middle eastern countries declined from 1949 to 2000, by numbers ranging anywhere from 60% (the most generous estimate in Iran) to over 99% in Egypt, Libya, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen. In that same time, Arab population in Israel has grown by over 750%, and between 1949 and 1971 Israel accepted 140,000 Palestinian refugees who have since become full Israeli citizens. So hmmm, let's see... Jews go to Israel... Arabs go to Israel... must be a nice place to live.

Ever heard of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion? Check out the skeptic's dictionary. There is no equivalent anti-muslim counterpart.
http://www.skepdic.com/protocols.html

All the evidence shows that Arab countries spread systematic hate for Jews and Israel. The Saudi Government Daily ran an article in March of 2002 headlined, "Jews Use Teenagers' Blood for Purim Pastries". Read the English translation by MEMRI, an independant non-profit organization, here:
http://www.freeman.org/m_online/apr02/memri.htm

What we have is a stark contrast in the way the two sides (Israel and terrorist groups, or Israel and the Arab nations, whichever you like – there's not much difference) function, and in the foundations of their ideologies. And for Hack to suggest that we side with Israel just because people feel sorry for the Holocaust is at best belligerent nihilism. The Israeli government, spearheaded by Ariel Sharon, is responsible for actions that make me feel embarrassed to be Jewish. On a daily basis! But George Bush's administration has done the same thing, and on a larger scale! How big is Iraq compared to the Gaza Strip and the West Bank? The municipal boundaries of Jewish settlements in the territories cover less than 7% of the land, by the way. Furthermore, in 2000 Israel offered 97% of the West Bank and 100% of the Gaza Strip to the Palestinians, and East Jerusalem as a new Palestinian capital, but the PA rejected the offer and submitted no counter-offer. The outrageous demands made by Israel? Nothing. It was a peace treaty.

Progressives insist upon looking at the situation with Israel as though it were much simpler than it really is. Explain to me, please, how retaliating against terrorists is terrorism. Because innocents are killed? Then the U.S. is a terrorist nation. Can you support the U.S. without supporting the actions of the U.S. administration? Or are radical right-wing pundits right to say that liberals hate America?

[JonPorobil]

Alright. Since tone is notoriously difficult to make clear in a message board post, let's not leave anything to the imagination: indignant and angry.

I'm assuming now, since you're glibly advertising the Hackocratic party, that you are pontificating your own political beliefs. If you're trying to be funny or ironic, then please say so.

Because right now, you're making yourself look like an insensitive prick. Now see, I understand that you're entitled to your opinion, and I'm entitled to disagree, and so on ad infinitum, but Cse, what you believe in this case may very well betray a lot about the kind of person you are.

So. What do you mean when you say, "Jews have a lot of karma points in reserve from the whole Nazi thing, which is I believe what got us into the whole mess in the first place."? Is that some implication that the Jewish history of abuse is the reason for the Palistinian conflict right now?

And when you say, "If they want to blow each other up over some land, it only invalidates their religions," do you mean to say that Israelites should just kneel down and let people crash vehicles into the buildings? "Here's the back of my head, mister? Is the shot clean enough?"

I'm arguing from the Jewish side because I happen to be Jewish, but I'm sure this goes both ways: Palestine is not an elementary school bully. He won't get bored and go away if you ignore him.

"Our plan is to let them blow each other to kingdom come and then move in and take all their holy oil from that ugly desert wasteland..." So it's okay to intervene in ancient conflicts in - say - Kosovo, it's okay to spend exorbitant amounts of taxpayer money to dethrone a dictator who, however horrific his treatment of his own people, wasn't bothering us, but we have no business in Israel, and should just let them all kill each other?

I don't want to believe you said and think these things. Here's your chance to clear yourself up.

[c hack]

but Cse, what you believe in this case may very well betray a lot about the kind fo person you are.

With luck, yes. How am I supposed to find out what kind of person I am otherwise?

So. What do you mean when you say, "Jews have a lot of karma points in reserve from the whole Nazi thing, which is I believe what got us into the whole mess in the first place."? Is that some implication that the Jewish history of abuse is the reason for the Palistinian conflict right now?

The way I understand it, the UN put the Jewish refugees (who were already refugeeing over there anyway) into Palestine because they were being mistreated in Germany post-war, and they figured they deserved their own land after all the shit they went through during the war. I meant that WWII was the original cause for the current conflict, not the Jewish history of abuse. I assume that if there was no WWII, the Jews would have had no reason to emigrate to the area. But I could be wrong.

And when you say, "If they want to blow each other up over some land, it only invalidates their religions," do you mean to say that Israelites should just kneel down and let people crash vehicles into the buildings? "Here's the back of my head, mister? Is the shot clean enough?"

I meant: If you think your religion is telling you to kill a bunch of people over some land, then you're a fucktard.

To answer your question, yes. Because if the Israelites just knelt down and agreed to the borders established in 1967 I don't believe there would be any more violence. Well, at least not relating to this particular issue.

"Our plan is to let them blow each other to kingdom come and then move in and take all their holy oil from that ugly desert wasteland..." So it's okay to intervene in ancient conflicts in Kosovo, it's okay to spend exorbitant amounts of taxpayer money to dethrone a dictator who, hoever horrific his treatment of his own people, wasn't bothering us, but we have no business in Israel, and should just let them all kill each other?

Well that was obviously joking. If I was in office, I'd probably try to find some way to make Israel respect the pre-established borders. But then again, if I was in office, I'd know a lot more about it than I do now, so who knows? And of course, there's no way I'd get into office without supporting Israel, because for some reason people equate being against Israel's actions with being anti-Jew.

As for the second part, it's a totally different situation. Israel/Palestine is not a case where a dictator is oppressing his own people, nor is it a case where a powerful country is conquering weaker ones. Well, actually it sort of is. Here's how it is, the way I understand it (please correct me if I'm wrong -- foreign policy is just a hobby for me):

pre-1940's: the whole area is occupied by the british and settled upon by the arabs (the Palestinians, who are Semetic, IIRC) with a population density of about Vermont. Some Jews also live there.

Also, around this time, high Jewish officals decide to emigrate to the area and use wars to gradually conquer more and more land and eventually take back the land that is promised them in the Bible. I believe this is uncontested, as there are letters documenting it. Now, I don't know how this works into the whole WWII stuff, or when exactly this "plan" was conceived.

1940's: Britian gives the land to the UN, saying "do whatever you want with it." The UN decides to split the land up and give half (argueably the better half) to the Jews, creating a state called Israel and another state called Palestine. This pisses the Arabs off.

post 1940's: lots of wars. I don't know who exactly started them, or if Palestine or Israel was happy with the original boundaries, but I'm pretty sure Isreal wasn't, and began conquering Palestine little by little. Palestine never gets their own state. Israel ignores parts of the Geneva convention and appears to not have to listen to anything the UN says, since the US vetos any UN decision against Israel, even if every other country voted the other way. Arabs feel slighted and start to develop a major hate for the US.

2000: By now, most Israelis and Palestinians just want an end to all the fighting. Rabin is Prime Minister and, under Clinton, has talks with Arafat and they both agree on the borders set in an Oslo agreement. Everyone thinks it's over. Until Rabin gets assassinated by a right-wing Jew. The right-wing side takes over, trashes the agreement, and continues the fighting.

post 2000: Despite the fact that there is little to no seperation of church and state, and the Israeli military is highly revered and well-desciplined, 600 members of the military (refusniks) declare that they'll fight Palestine no more. Ariel Sharon declares he's tired of fighting. Hope springs once more.

But I don't know why I'm talking. The declaration of the Refusniks says it all: http://www.spectacle.org/0302/refuse.html

[Henrietta]

Back to the elections for a minute, I thought this article was interesting: A survey by The Economist (magazine) shows academic economists favoring Kerry's policies well over Bush's policies.

I'll just summarize the survey results for "Overall Economic Plan" for America

<i>George Bush's first term policies were:</i>
Bad or Very Bad = 73%
Good or Very Good = 9%

<i>George Bush's future plan is:</i>
Bad or Very Bad = 55%
Good or Very Good = 16%

<i>John Kerry's future plan is:</i>
Bad or Very Bad = 27%
Good or Very Good = 41%

http://www.economist.com/world/na/displ ... id=3262965

[jack]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s ... d=96378798

this is brilliant strategy. Edwards seriously mops up the others in the charisma department. and this is a huge, key, swing demographic in this election. the women that watch this crap (the view, oprah, jane pauley, etc.) and buy into it daily will eat Edwards (and his sweet lawyerly talk) up. i can't see Cheney going on The View, or Oprah. maybe to talk about his daughter but thats about it. the best the republican's could possibly offer is Condoleeza Rice and she come's off as cold, insensitive, and more or less the president's mouthpiece. Edward's is charming and charming will sway voters, the way that it helped Clinton or Reagan become popular presidents.

if Edward's can pull this key swing vote kerry's way (women 18-35), this could pull the election.

[Henrietta]

Here in Colorado, the Bush Campaign sent Laura to play the role of ambassador- she's just so darn benevolent and non-threatening. Truthfully, I've felt really sorry for her ever since that love poem he wrote for her. Bush writes:

<i>Dear Laura,
Roses are red, violets are blue, oh my lump in the bed, how I've missed you.</i>

George knows how to make a gal feel special. (she's lump, she's lump, she's lump, she's in my bed....)

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases ... 03-22.html

[JonPorobil]

I wrote a really long argument to C Hack, and then erased it after reading The Jazz's thing. Well put, you intellectual genre, you.

[mkilly]

Back to the elections for a minute, I thought this article was interesting: A survey by The Economist (magazine) shows academic economists favoring Kerry's policies well over Bush's policies.

ty: that poll isn't too scientific tiger... but it is interesting
ty: infact its grossly far from it
me: better than our pre-war WMD intelligence
me: zing

(My friend Ty is an economics and math major.)

Truthfully, I've felt really sorry for her ever since that love poem he wrote for her.

Actually, turns out the poem was written by an aide. (cite)[/url]

[c hack]

My, it's certainly hip with the liberals to bash Israel these days.

Crap, I didn't know I was being hip. That's some good info you posted, thanks.

And for Hack to suggest that we side with Israel just because people feel sorry for the Holocaust is at best belligerent nihilism.

Whoa, I never said that. I had no idea why we were siding with Israel. I just implied that if it was because of the Holocaust, that's understandable. The facts you cited provide some insight about it though.

The Israeli government, spearheaded by Ariel Sharon, is responsible for actions that make me feel embarrassed to be Jewish. On a daily basis!

Yeah, I said that the general populace of both Israel and Palestine don't want any more fighting -- it's the governments that are keeping it going.

Furthermore, in 2000 Israel offered 97% of the West Bank and 100% of the Gaza Strip to the Palestinians, and East Jerusalem as a new Palestinian capital, but the PA rejected the offer and submitted no counter-offer. The outrageous demands made by Israel? Nothing. It was a peace treaty.

Are you talking about the agreement that Clinton helped foster? Wasn't that in the bag until Rabin was assassinated?

Still, the (now 1,000 strong) Refuseniks are proof to me that Israel isn't the meek innocent here. Of course, I'm sure Palestine isn't either.

Generic, I don't know why you're calling this an argument. Arguments are like, "Sabbath kicks the Misfits ass any day of the week." I'm not arguing, just saying what it seems like from my viewpoint. That's why I'm reading -- to find out what it looks like from where other people are standing.

Back to the elections for a minute, I thought this article was interesting: A survey by The Economist (magazine) shows academic economists favoring Kerry's policies well over Bush's policies.

Except the thing is, people value certain issues over others. Personally, I could give a shit about the economy -- what matters most to me is how human life is treated. So Abortion, Capital Punishment, and War are the things that will decide my vote. The rest of the country might be more well-rounded though.

[Henrietta]

[Actually, turns out the poem was written by an aide. (cite)[/url]

I didn't know that!! And to think all this time I thought he had the soul of a poet.

[mkilly]

My, it's certainly hip with the liberals to bash Israel these days. What hypocrisy to say that atrocities commited by the Israeli government are representative of the nation as a whole, and then march against Bush saying the exact opposite thing.

I don't know exactly what you refer to here. Atrocities are the fault of those committing them, and many agree that it's also the fault of those condoning them. I'm not a fan of Israel's ruling government. I disagree with people that think they're doing right and well. But I don't think for a second that they're representative--I mean, it's a parliamentary republic, and Sharon's party is only in the majority via partnership with other parties.

Many reasons to support Israel become apparent when you take some time to study the situation. The most well known reason is that Israel is the only democracy in the middle east (and if anyone tries to call Iraq a democracy I will bludgeon you to death with a baguette). But here are some other things to think about:

Turkey's a democracy. Yemen's a democracy. Israel has had some tarnishes on its record as a democracy. (Afghanistan will have elections soon, but if you want to dismiss them as a sham I won't disagree).

- 19 out of 21 Arab nations have never recognized Israel's right to exist, while Israel recognizes 15 official religions, and has Arabic as an official language alongside Hebrew.
- Israel is the only middle eastern country which outlaws "honor killings" of women, and affords legal protection for gays from hate crimes and discrimination.
- 12 out of 120 seats in the Israeli parliament were held by Arabs, last time I checked. This may have changed in the past couple years, as there have been elections.
- The Jewish populations in middle eastern countries declined from 1949 to 2000, by numbers ranging anywhere from 60% (the most generous estimate in Iran) to over 99% in Egypt, Libya, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen. In that same time, Arab population in Israel has grown by over 750%, and between 1949 and 1971 Israel accepted 140,000 Palestinian refugees who have since become full Israeli citizens. So hmmm, let's see... Jews go to Israel... Arabs go to Israel... must be a nice place to live.

These are all reasons to like Israel, though at least the first plays the demonize-Arabs card. I dunno, what gives Israel a right to exist, besides that it's existed for a while? The Torah and Bible saying that it's the holy land for Jews? I don't believe in the Bible, personally, and think it's a pretty crappy reason. Have the nations you cite not recognized Israel, or just not recognized that it ought exist? The last time a country openly acted aggressively towards Israel was several decades ago, anyway, at least in the form of an attack of war.

[mkilly]

Furthermore, in 2000 Israel offered 97% of the West Bank and 100% of the Gaza Strip to the Palestinians, and East Jerusalem as a new Palestinian capital, but the PA rejected the offer and submitted no counter-offer. The outrageous demands made by Israel? Nothing. It was a peace treaty.

From http://www.mediamonitors.net/pnt1.html, a reprint of a FAQ by the Palestinian Negotiating Team:

Why did the Palestinians reject the Camp David Peace Proposal?

For a true and lasting peace between the Israeli and Palestinian peoples, there must be two viable and independent states living as equal neighbors. Israel's Camp David proposal, which was never set forth in writing, denied the Palestinian state viability and independence by dividing Palestinian territory into four separate cantons entirely surrounded, and therefore controlled, by Israel. The Camp David proposal also denied Palestinians control over their own borders, airspace and water resources while legitimizing and expanding illegal Israeli colonies in Palestinian territory. Israel's Camp David proposal presented a 're-packaging' of military occupation, not an end to military occupation.

[j$]

From http://www.mediamonitors.net/pnt1.html, a reprint of a FAQ by the Palestinian Negotiating Team:

Why did the Palestinians reject the Camp David Peace Proposal?

Maybe for the sake of balance you could see if there was a comparative quotation from the Israeli Negotiating Team? Their points are, by neccesity, a little one-sided.

But not in any way hilarious - unlike this: http://www.wketchup.com/

j$

[c hack]

But not in any way hilarious - unlike this: http://www.wketchup.com/

OMG they're for real

ps- nice ranking, j$. I'm impressed.

[j$]

But not in any way hilarious - unlike this: http://www.wketchup.com/

OMG they're for real

ps- nice ranking, j$. I'm impressed.

Yeah, I think/ desperately hope that it's a very clever parody - two things make me think this -

1. from the news page - "Eagle Bridge, NY — August 29, 2004 — W Ketchup announced today that it has sold 100,000 bottles of ketchup since its launch on June 16, 2004. Susie Oliver, COO, commented: “While our largest competitor sells 880 million bottles per year, our success shows how vulnerable their virtual monopoly of the ketchup market is. Americans clearly want a choice to be able to enjoy a thick, delicious ketchup that only supports causes they believe in.” - that is just too funny to be unintentional.

2. They get angry at communistsforkerry.com so they are either very very stupid (cforK being a right-wing parody in itself) or letting us in the joke.

Re ranking> yeah, I'm double-chuffed, me

j$

[c hack]

Yeah, I think/ desperately hope that it's a very clever parody

I dunno, I'd have to say they're real. Why would they go through all the trouble to set up a secure server if they weren't actually selling something? Crazy.