TECHNOCRAT.NET ®

Bruce

• Re: Can anything be done by the geeks to ease the situation in the middle east? by David Allen on Saturday October 07, @06:04PM

  This sounds suspiciously like an economic conspiracy theory. Not that I disagree. I hadn't actually thought of the Israeli/Arab dispute in terms of world economics, just in terms of everyone dying. While it may be true that other countries wouldn't want the Arabs and the Israelis teaming up, I think there are plenty of other factors, mostly religious zeal that is keeping them apart. They seem to both have backed themselves into a corner where they can't possibly conceed anything important, because it would not only be a black mark on their national pride but on their religion as well. Ego and pride...common problems. :) But for the original poster, what I would say that geeks can do for peace in the middle east is this: ship all of the atheists and non-christian, non-jewish, non-muslim people that we can find into Israel and the middle east in general. Destroy the religious foundations of the governments, (the governments themselves are fine, but IMHO governments that have a strong religious element are not usually the best) and start having serious peace talks putting ego aside. :) Yeah, like that will ever happen.

  [ Reply to this ]

• Re: Can anything be done by the geeks to ease the situation in the middle east? by Ken Arromdee on Monday October 09, @11:07AM

  As another poster has already commented, Israel is generally secular even though there are a lot of Jews there; it's not comparable to governments that proclaim themselves to be Islamic. Which brings up, in my mind, the thing which is wrong with this question: I'm reminded of the time that a group of doctors spoke out for gun control on the grounds that guns injure people and doctors take care of injured people. The fallacy is that doctors have a special interest in injured people once it's determined *that* people are hurt, but they have no special ability to determine *if* people are hurt (or rather, if more are hurt than helped). The gun control issue is really in the second of these areas. Geeks have no more to do with the Arab/Israeli conflict than anyone else. And most of the justifications you can make for why geeks have a special interest in the issue are as flawed as the doctors-on-gun-control example, and for the same reason. Deciding how to help and what to do *must* come *after* learning enough about the issue to have an opinion on it. There really isn't a way to say "I don't know much about the conflict but I want to do something that would be good for the people there no matter who's right". (And if you can't spell 'Israel', you probably don't know enough about the conflict.) Incidentally, if you don't know about the issue, don't say "well, both sides are pretty similar". If you don't know, you don't know. This has already lead to people claiming that Israel and the Arabs have equally secular governments, that they each give the other side similar access to holy places, etc., a lot of which just isn't true.

  [ Reply to this ]

• Re: Can anything be done by the geeks to ease the situation in the middle east? by brian on Monday October 09, @02:34PM

  many opinions expressed/accepted by the general public are not always true israel is generally secular? this is false. it is a theocracy. laws are based on religion. arabs and israelis have been fighting for 1000's of years. sure, throughout history, there have been conflicts. but there has also been many, many more years of muslims and jews living together peacefully. there is no reason it could not happen again. many people think arabs are all terrorists, and have no claim to the 'jewish homeland'. palestinians have a legitimate claim to reparations. the war that israel fought to claim control over all of jerusalem was illegal and condemned by the united nations. the international media was quick to jump onto stories regarding money and items owed to jewish survivors of the nazi campaign against them. when will the media give coverage to the palestinians' right of return and reparations owed them by the israeli government? this is not an arab/israeli conflict. this is a palestinian/israeli conflict. it will spread into an arab/israeli conflict when barak loses control of his government to likud and they end the peace process with arafat and break off agreements with egypt, etc what can people do? demand fair, and factual coverage from your media sources. read the new york times (the only newspaper i have ever read that is fair to the palestinians).

  [ Reply to this ]

• Re: Can anything be done by the geeks to ease the situation in the middle east? by Zachary Kessin on Tuesday October 10, @01:03PM

  Just to note the '67 6 days war was started after Egypt block the Red Sea to Isreali shipping, a clear violation of international law and act of war. And Yes Israel is mostly a secular country. And I will also say that yesterday was the most nervius Yom Kippor since '73. It was very edgy in the congragation I was at.

  [ Reply to this ]

• Re: Can anything be done by the geeks to ease the situation in the middle east? by cyphunk on Thursday October 12, @09:25AM

  > war that fought to ... to claim control > over all of was illegal huh? War is Illegal?

  [ Reply to this ]

• Re: Can anything be done by the geeks to ease the situation in the middle east? by cyphunk on Thursday October 12, @09:27AM

  > war that [snip] fought to claim control > over all of [snip] was illegal huh? War is Illegal?

  [ Reply to this ]

• Re: Can anything be done by the geeks to ease the situation in the middle east? by Malcontent on Tuesday October 10, @12:33AM

  Spelling aside. You don't have to be familiar with the subleties of the region to know that killing is wrong. In just a few weeks thousands of people have been injured and scores have been killed. A lot fo the people that have been killed are children. It's preposterous for you to state I or anybody else can not express outrage or dismay given this fact. It's plain to me that both sides think they are right. They both have claims but they are still killing each other at ghastly numbers (OK mostly the better armed jews are killing rock throwing muslims) but you know what I mean.

  [ Reply to this ]

• Re: Can anything be done by the geeks to ease the by Ken Arromdee on Wednesday October 11, @01:30AM

  >You don't have to be familiar with the subleties >of the region to know that killing is >wrong. Unless you're a certain type of pacifist who thinks that all wars are wrong, and does not accept killing in self-defense, that's just a sound bite--it doesn't really make any sense. Details actually matter.

  [ Reply to this ]

• Re: Can anything be done by the geeks to ease the by Malcontent on Wednesday October 11, @01:48AM

  Ok then you tell me. Under what sort of circumstances is it OK to kill a 12 year old boy and his father when they are cowering behind an object pleading for their lives? Was the sniper defending himself? Where was the self defense? Is it the nation of isreal the most heavily armed nuclear power in the middle east defending itself against a 12 year old boy? You tell me the when killing a 12 year old boy is right and just. Has Isreal declared war on lebanon? Your post seems to indicate that this is a war.

  [ Reply to this ]

• Re: Can anything be done by the geeks to ease the by cyphunk on Thursday October 12, @09:36AM

  > Under what sort of circumstances is it OK to > kill a 12 year old boy and his father when > they are cowering behind an object pleading > for their lives? Was the sniper defending > himself? I wont give justifications for what Israel did. Fact is that indeed it was wrong, outright! The only thing that I can say is that I wish the midst of a conflict were simple black and white -> wish that it where that simple to tell who is your enemy and who is not. Especially when you mix terrorists with civillians in the same place. I return to you with a question: Do you think it is okay for someone to kill 20+ people in a public place by killing themselves (or however they wanted to go about it)? I know you are a decent person and I know your answer. So, see... we agree... there are wrongs on both sides.

  [ Reply to this ]

• Re: Can anything be done by the geeks to ease the by cyphunk on Thursday October 12, @09:36AM

  > Under what sort of circumstances is it OK to > kill a 12 year old boy and his father when > they are cowering behind an object pleading > for their lives? Was the sniper defending > himself? I wont give justifications for what Israel did. Fact is that indeed it was wrong, outright! The only thing that I can say is that I wish the midst of a conflict were simple black and white -> wish that it where that simple to tell who is your enemy and who is not. Especially when you mix terrorists with civillians in the same place. I return to you with a question: Do you think it is okay for someone to kill 20+ people in a public place by killing themselves (or however they wanted to go about it)? I know you are a decent person and I know your answer. So, see... we agree... there are wrongs on both sides.

  [ Reply to this ]

• Re: Can anything be done by the geeks to ease the by cyphunk on Thursday October 12, @09:38AM

  Though I wish it could be clearer and that this weren't required but the final question that everyone will have to determine for themselves is... Who is reacting justly.

  [ Reply to this ]

• Re: Can anything be done by the geeks to ease the by Ken Arromdee on Thursday October 12, @01:31PM

  >Under what sort of circumstances is it OK to >kill a 12 year old boy and his father when they >are cowering behind an object pleading for their >lives? Well, that's not what you said the first time--you were saying that this was wrong *because it was killing* and all killing is wrong. I can't think of anything would justify killing in these circumstances, *but* I *can* think of circumstances which would shift the blame away from the Israelis, not to mention the possibility of inaccurate or biased reporting--and you do need to know about the region to competently discuss those. As for whether it was a war, I was under the impression that most of the Arab states (except for Egypt) never signed a peace treaty with Israel after the first war.

  [ Reply to this ]

• Re: Can anything be done by the geeks to ease the by Electric Monk on Saturday October 14, @09:42PM

  I can't belive you think that 12 year old was killed on purpose. I think that if the soldiers wanted to kill him, they could have done it in the 1st shot, not the 10th. It sounds cruel, but that boy was simply in the line of fire, and I know the soldiers were shoothing to defend themselves against ARMED palestinians. This boy's death was a misfortune. Unlike the lynching of the 2 Israelis in Ramallah.

  [ Reply to this ]

• Re: Can anything be done by the geeks to ease the by Beni Cherniavsky on Sunday October 29, @05:11AM

  People see only one side because Israel isn't fighting the informational (news) war as it should. There are things that people don't know, like the fact that participating in the Intifad gives you money! There is a "Intifad victims help foundation" that pays the "compensation" to all participants _before_ they are hurt. In particular there is a very high compensation that the parents recieve if their child is injured or killed. Now, what do you think of a Palestinian father who brought his 4 children and kept pushing them forward (to throw stones, etc.) to the front line while he was behind? Some of the children were injured, which would bring him a good reward. I clearly think that the father deserved the bullet he eventually got. A nation which finds it normal to put their children in front of themselves under fire and get money and sympathy of the world for that, has no moral rights to accuse us of killing their children! And we do try to avoid it; it's just not always possible when the children are "somewhy" always in the first line, protecting the main group of adults. One of the things geeks _can_ do is using the internet to improve the informness of the world. http://www.rotter.net/israel is a good coverage of the Israely side to start with.

  [ Reply to this ]

• Re: Can anything be done by the geeks to ease the by TomG on Saturday October 14, @10:43PM

  I don't think so, Bruce. The Arab/Israeli conflict does not need outside help to be fueled. It's a feud. A hatred. A slow, aching genocide. It is old. Things like these have momentum. In fact, I'm more likely to think the opposite of what you suggest. I suspect that the other nations of the world would advocate peace, and possibly enforce it somewhat. And I don't like that at all. TomG

  [ Reply to this ]

• Re: Can anything be done by the geeks to ease the situation in the middle east? by Dr. Uranus on Tuesday October 17, @05:08AM

  Oh my god, Bruce, you are such a turd.

  [ Reply to this ]

Many underlying issues in conflicts are born out of, or are related to, ignorance. And ignorance can be fought with information. And the exchange of vast amounts of information is something geeks ARE very good at.

It is said that the entire Northern Ireland peace process started by one priest convincing Gerry Adams that the fighting wasn't going anywhere.

It follows that the right voice in the right place at the right time CAN change everything around.

(Remember, the Irish have been fighting this particular war almost as long as the Palestinians and Israilis have. Even the earliest Irish legends, the "Book of Invasions", is mostly about the Ulstermen fighting everyone else.)

But how can geeks have a real impact? We're not exactly world-renoun public speakers, influential politicians, or fabulously rich. (With a few exceptions in Silicon Valley.)

Geeks and Internet users may not be "public speakers", but really that just means we're more honest than that. Honesty and Information (which Geeks have PLENTY of) is a possible answer.

People often fight out of ignorance, fear, denial, superiority complex, religious fervour, and greed.

Geeks may not be able to solve the world's problems, but we CAN tackle some of those issues.

• Ignorance - if the people involved knew more about each other, and each other's humanity - something technology & the will to use it CAN provide - then their ignorance of the suffering they cause may give way to a desire to stop causing that suffering. Destruction at a distance will never command a person's consience the same way that direct impact can.
  
• Fear - each side is convinced the other is out to erradicate them, and seem to feel that the only way out is to exterminate their opponents first. Again, the more information that is shared, and the more knowledge is FREELY available, the less that fear is going to hold up.
  
• Denial - can't really do anything about this one. People can deny anything, no matter what you say or do. That's where you've got to trust that, given the tools, these people can resolve their own basic issues.
  
• Superiority Complex - same as above. Nothing you, me, or the rest of the world, can do about this one.
  
• Religious Fervour - maybe, just maybe, this is another one geeks can approach. But with caution! The religious wars in the middle east, between the Palestinians and the Israilis =DIRECTLY= violates almost every religious law and edict EITHER side has ever held. ("Thou shalt not kill" does not exactly go hand in hand with bombing a UN shelter, and "Do not covet thy neighbor's property" does not rest easy with forced evictions and home invasions.)
  
• Greed - This, sadly, we can't fix either. But greed is often simply the delusion that the grass IS greener on the other side. By improving the flow of information between ordinary people on the ground, it's entirely possible that some will realise that it isn't. Maybe, just maybe, they will then start to feel that dying & killing over delusions isn't worth the imaginary reward.
  

• Re: Can anything be done by the geeks to ease the situation in the middle east? by Malcontent on Saturday October 07, @07:58PM

  You may be on to something here. Maybe what is needed is to increase internet usage in the region so that more people have access to more information. If people are able to think outside of their worlds and world views maybe it will have an impact. I know how naive this sounds but it might be worth trying because so far nothing else has really worked. How can we seek to educate people half a world away? How do we start the dialogs?

  [ Reply to this ]

• Small Correction re: Ireland. by Arker on Thursday October 12, @05:33PM

  Remember, the Irish have been fighting this particular war almost as long as the Palestinians and Israilis have. A lot longer actually. The Israeli/Palestinian conflict dates only back to the middle of this century. The conflicts in Ulster are just the latest stage of the Anglo-Irish war that began in 1169. That's right - eleven-sixty-nine. The conflict has been more or less continuous from that year forward, generation after generation of Irish lads have fought and died to free Ireland from the invaders ever since. Even if you (wrongly) think you can separate the current conflicts from their roots, you should know that the Ulster colony was planted by England in the 1600s (in a nod to the wisdom of Machiavellis advice to The Prince on the utility of settling colonies among a conquered nation.) However, I agree that the situations do have some parallels - in both cases the conflict has outlasted the first generation, and involves not just conquest but displacement and colonisation, which create a number of problems the two regions have in common.

  [ Reply to this ]

• Re: Bring Linux to Nablus. by Malcontent on Saturday October 07, @08:03PM

  I am the first to admit that I don't understand the subleties of the politics of the middle east. I know for sure that both sides blame each other and more then that refuse to forgive each other which perpetuates an endless cycle of violence. I like your bring linux to nablus comment. It has always surprised me how a project like linux can bring together people with opposing viewpoints for the greater good. Just look at the credits for any large scale open source project and you will see people from all over the world and from differing political and philosophical backgrounds. Maybe that's whats needed some big project that everyone can work on together. Something to help everybody. Can you think of a project that would benefit both israelis and arabs? Something everybody can work on together?

  [ Reply to this ]

• Re: Bring Linux to Nablus. by Lucas Gonzalez on Monday October 09, @11:48AM

  Something they can work on together. This deserves some creative thinking. It also needs some facts that I'm not aware of. Given that I don't have the information, I'll try to guess ... Please don't say I'm foolish, but correct me and make the ideas better. Conflict PO seat. (PO means "provocative operation". I'm using a random word here. Look for Edward de Bono if you want more details. Better still, google edward-de-bono northern-ireland. You can analyse the past, but you have to design the future.) A seat has four legs (at least, more than two). These two groups of people have other people around them - to make a four. Could the UN punish neighbouring nations if there's a war? This way, it would be in their interest to stop it before it's too late. This may be foolish, but it may also be the start of an idea. Can you follow it? A seat can join many other seats to play games. This reminds me of that game where there are n players and only n-1 chairs. Could we design something that makes the last one to play be the loser? It would be something attractive to both, and they who make moves slower take less of the attractive stuff. So I ask, from very far away - what do they both want? Can you try other random words? Can you share your idea-buds? I believe we can make them grow over here. I believe we can lend a hand in helping everyone involved to look forward - many may be wishing to. If someone provides the factual information many of us don't have, then we could start a Design Forum here in technocrat - or somewhere else.

  [ Reply to this ]

• just make buildings you cant bomb! by CiXeL on Wednesday October 11, @05:10PM

  make them out of modern strong materials that make destroying them difficult at least it would begin to create infrastructure. either that or create tech companies with jobs on both sides and threaten to pull out of one or the other if they bomb either side. They want the business to bring up their economies so they wont fuck around as much.

  [ Reply to this ]

• Israel withdraws from all Palestinian-majority regions, including parts of Jerusalem and places where Israelis have made settlements;

• Hamas et al. accept the right of the state of Israel to exist everywhere else.

• Naivete (Re: Land, Land, Land) by Anonymous Cow on Thursday October 12, @02:38PM

  Typical naivete. Two questions: a.) what do you do about places (like most of Israel) where two peoples have lived side by side for thousands of years? b.) If it's that simple, do you support immediate dissolution of the power of federal government to regulate states? states to regulate counties? counties to regulate towns?

  [ Reply to this ]

• Re: Pertinent Top Story @ Salon by Malcontent on Sunday October 08, @04:35AM

  It was this videotape that got me to post this article. When I saw this I was heartbroken.

  [ Reply to this ]

• Re: Pertinent Top Story @ Salon by Shaya Potter on Sunday October 08, @12:10PM

  It might be informative to see this picture to understand how it happened. It's terrible that all these children are being killed. One however has to ask, why are they there?

  [ Reply to this ]

• Re: Pertinent Top Story @ Salon by Neil Rubin on Sunday October 08, @06:12PM

  One however has to ask, why are they there? You ask a fair question. I don't know the answer. I do know, however, that I have had occasion to walk or drive past police stations and military installations on my way someplace else. Perhaps this boy and his father were doing the same and simply ended up being in the wrong place at the wrong time. The (quite excellent) Salon story does not say why the boy and his father were where they were, but I find it hard to believe that the father brought his son there expecting to be shot at. Does anyone here know the whole story?

  [ Reply to this ]

• Re: Pertinent Top Story @ Salon by Malcontent on Monday October 09, @03:36AM

  There is a story here that says him and his dad were going to buy a new car. It really does not matter why he was there or where he was. Most countries military engagement rules state that you should not shoot children let alone civilians. I know most soldiers don't take these rules very seriously and in every war there have been tens of thousands of children killed but still, If I was there and I realized that there was a young boy there I would stop shooting in that direction. According to the footage I saw they were not armed and were not shooting back.

  [ Reply to this ]

• Re: Pertinent Top Story @ Salon by Matthew Francey on Monday October 09, @07:22PM

  During a standoff in Oka, Quebec a number of years ago between a group of Native's and local law enforcement, the government of Canada produced similar looking photographs of fire-fights-to-be. A whole video of some guy sadly reporting on just how well and dug in the Native's were, repeating the same images again and again, saying the same things over and over again. The message was clear: these guys were bad, real bad, oh man, are they ever bad. In the above image, we see all the nasty red arrows pointing in, and only a few blue arrows in response going out. The message is again clear: look at the abuse we are taking, and how level our response is! So I'm predicting that this image came from Israeli intelligence. >One however has to ask, why are they there? Why was that rape victim wearing a thigh-high skirt anyways? And what was that mugging victim doing downtown at that late at night? I mean, we all know that victims have it comin' to them, right? In this case, even the ambulance drive who went to their rescue deserved to be shot too. How dare he! Feh! Sorry, M. Potter, but when a sniper chooses to shoot at a target he can certainly identify in his scope as a non-combatant, NOTHING you can say can wash away the stain of MURDER from his act. Apologetics of your sort we see on the nightly news from so-called international leaders; please spare us your noxious brand of sychophantism, thanks a bunch! [Editor: sorry for the invective, but damnit, I think we can draw the line at so-called justifiable shootings of un-armed people ...]

  [ Reply to this ]

• Re: Pertinent Top Story @ Salon by tftp on Monday October 09, @09:51PM

  when a sniper chooses to shoot at a target he can certainly identify in his scope as a non-combatant The photo above is detailed enough to estimate the distance between shooter and the target. If the road is 20 meters wide then the child was only in 100 meters from the shooter! One does not need to be a sniper to see that far. The shooter saw his target - or he was firing blindly and randomly (which is not any better.)

  [ Reply to this ]

• Re: Pertinent Top Story @ Salon by Shaya Potter on Tuesday October 10, @12:40AM

  In the above image, we see all the nasty red arrows pointing in, and only a few blue arrows in response going out. The message is again clear: look at the abuse we are taking, and how level our response is! You miss the point of the image. The point of the image was to ask. "Why are they walking though a firefight. How did they get there?" They were going to buy a car and walking right by warzone? I don't want to say they are stupid, but what were they trying to be? human shields? Israeli Settlements have bypass roads so the settlers can avoid palestinian population areas. This is at a settlement. Therefore, most likely, it's built on a bypass road. If it is, the story of going to buy a car smells. Though as I don't know all the facts, I wont pass judgement, even though the fact that the area was already a warzone makes the story bothersome to me. >One however has to ask, why are they there? Why was that rape victim wearing a thigh-high skirt anyways? And what was that mugging victim doing downtown at that late at night? I mean, we all know that victims have it comin' to them, right? It's a warzone. There was a firefight going on. Why did they walk into it? It's a shame they got shot, but one has to take responsibility for ones self. If I get robbed because I flash my wallet with $200 cash in it for all to see in the middle of a seedy area, I'm asking to get mugged. Is the mugger still wrong? yes. Am I wrong? I think even more so. In this case, even the ambulance drive who went to their rescue deserved to be shot too. How dare he! And you have evidence that it was the Israeli's shooting the ambulences? I can show you into today's Washington Post, that they quote an Israeli army soldier about how the palestinians are shooting wildly "including at ambulences". But right, this is just more israeli propeganda. Also, I wonder where you assume these are "snipers." Most probably thos soldiers were armed with an m-16, and the m-16 is not a sniper weapon. It's a foot soldier's weapon. I don't know for sure, but my guess is that this is what those soldiers were armed with. The m-16 is fairly accurate (the most accurate gun the Israeli army uses on a regular basis from what I've been told) but when one is getting fired upon and stoned and in general feeling under siege, one doesn't always have as much time to line up their shots as they do on a firing range. The m-16 is big heavy gun, especially the ones the Israeli army has which are vietnam era, and have a solid stock. But again, I'm sure you are an expert on the usage of an m-16 (or any other weapon the Israeli army uses) and can say for sure unless the soldier was incompetent, he shouldn't have hit the child if he was aiming for others.

  [ Reply to this ]

• Re: Pertinent Top Story @ Salon by tftp on Tuesday October 10, @01:32AM

  They were going to buy a car and walking right by warzone? I somehow don't think that the area was closed to the public and attackers posted big warning signs all around it. Of course, not. The area was as peaceful as any other just second before - and became a killing field second after. How could anyone know that? How many parents deliberately take their kids with them to a war? The photo shows a regular intersection of two regular roads, with some buildings. I am not aware at all of subtleties of life in Israel - I would have walked right there without giving a second thought. I even could have carried a black wallet in my hand. Does it make me a legitimate target?

  [ Reply to this ]

• Re: Pertinent Top Story @ Salon by Shaya Potter on Tuesday October 10, @09:38AM

  This intersection is known as a very dangerous spot. Whenever there's rioting (the riots started the day before) there's rioting there. go to google search for Netzarim and Intersection, you will see a lot of jewish/Israeli/settler oriented news that refers to strife at this intersection. People KNOW that this intersection is dangerous when rioting is going on. Those buildings you see around the IDF compound, don't exist anymore. They were demolished so that palestinian gunners would not have places to hide.

  [ Reply to this ]

• Re: Pertinent Top Story @ Salon by Matthew Francey on Tuesday October 10, @01:12PM

  >People KNOW [...] ... that living in the State of Israel is dangerous when rioting is going on. Therefore, you guys are all legitimate military targets. Or did I miss something here? >Those buildings you see around the IDF compound, >don't exist anymore. They were demolished so that >palestinian gunners would not have places to >hide. But M. Potter, when will the IDF stronghold be demolished so the Israeli kid-killing snipers won't have places to hide? Oops: rhetorical question. I withdraw it.

  [ Reply to this ]

• Re: Pertinent Top Story @ Salon by Shaya Potter on Tuesday October 10, @02:04PM

  But M. Potter, when will the IDF stronghold be demolished so the Israeli kid-killing snipers won't have places to hide? When there's a full peace. Israel has already dismantled lots of their bases and strongholds in the west bank/gaza strip. The peace-process was supposed to be just that, a process, gradual, step by step. The peace process stated that the palestinians gave up the right to resort to violence. You might say, the palestinians can use violence if the Israelis are shooting at them. The first question is, who started this fight? The other question is, does it matter anymore?

  [ Reply to this ]

• Re: Pertinent Top Story @ Salon by Matthew Francey on Tuesday October 10, @01:02PM

  Geez, this is awesome! The depths to which a people will go to justify the killings they commit via the proxy of their glorious State! >[the point of the image] I missed it? I think I got it bang on: pure propoganda. Right down to the Palestinian shots that can magically bend around buildings. >[how they got there, what what they were doing] You really believe this matters, eh? I am in awe. I couldn't care less how they got there, why they remained, or what the phase of the Moon was at the time. Irrelevant details, M. Potter. >[human shields] I look at that photograph and can see nothing but a wall to the rear of the kids position. So you argue that the kid was a human shield for a piece of concrete? More generally though, true, this is a difficult problem indeed. Not sure of the solution myself, but when I do come up with one, I'll at least have the intellectual and moral honesty to (a) be able to defend it, and (b) be willing to live with the consequences of same. Until then, I swear I won't be shooting people who pose zero threat to me or my property. >Why did they walk into it? Again, you blame the victim. At least you are blatantly upfront about it. >[more israeli propoganda] Umm ... yeah, if an Israeli soldier says bad things about his enemy, and without further evidence to the contrary, we have to assume it is a pack of lies, or worse, half-truths. A curiosity. An anecdote. *Completely worthless* beyond what minimal entertainment value it might possess. This is sensible and proper. Or at least this is how I've been taught to think; maybe analysis is different in Israel? >[on the definition of a sniper] Sorry, but the evidence is now in and I can say it outright: you, sir, are completely out of touch with reality. A sniper is anyone with a weapon shooting from a concealed position at his enemy. Always has been, always will be. He could be throwing rocks, shooting arrows, an M-16, or a rocket launcher. Except perhaps in the State of Israel, and the person in question is wearing an IDF uniform ... this is not a sniper, but a Social Worker delivering Love and Attention. Whether the subject wants it or not ["We are here to help!"]. Your odious "defence" of the indefensible makes you look *worse* than you are. And you aren't even aware of what you are doing. Probably don't care. FEH! If Israel wants to kill non-combatants, that is their choice. All I ask is they, and their defenders, is to please cease and desist efforts to make their actions "moral" and "just" -- to try and weasle out of the clear violations of what any rational society would consider a crime. What the religious books these people study and revere even say is completely wrong. True, it is a "warzone". But that is not the root-password to moral authority. If you truly believe this, well, the more power to you then. Just keep your inevitable cries of pain or celebration to yourself; I won't be offering much support (or cheering) when you get what you truly deserve.

  [ Reply to this ]

• Re: Pertinent Top Story @ Salon by Dr. Uranus on Tuesday October 17, @05:48AM

  Oh please, what a load of bad pseudo-intellectual crap. You have no doubt heard that fire-fights can be very confusing, haven't you? Otherwise there wouldn't be so many casualties from friendly fire. It's pretty well acknowledged that they were caught in a cross-fire between palestinians and israelis. From the photo it doesn't seem unlikely that they were either confused for gunmen under cover or were otherwise shot by accident. Perhaps you recall the israeli soldiers that were killed by friendly fire a couple of months ago? All this "I was heartbroken" is only cheap sensationalism, the lame sarcasm pretty much rounds it out. This is the sort of crap that I would expect from a thirteen year old girl. You don't seem to mention the fact that the isrealis were in fact being shot at. In fact, you don't seem to mention the fact that israel is a tiny speck on the map surrounded by largely unfriendly powers, which have nurtured terrorism against them. In their place, would you just roll over? Almost nothing in the middle east proposes almost zero threat to their property. so FEH! on your mother you dork.

  [ Reply to this ]

• Re: Pertinent Top Story @ Salon by Elvis Maximus on Tuesday October 10, @04:59PM

  The reason Netzarim Junction is such a hotspot is because it's a junction. In order to get to many places, you've got to go through it, which is also why the Israelis have to defend it. For people who want to be disruptive, it's the best place in Gaza to do it. It may have been poor judgement to venture out under the circumstances, but nobody blamed Israeli victims of past bombing campaigns for being at bus stations, even though everyone understood bus stations to be a dangerous place to be. And of course that is as it should be. The kind of crap above is put out by the Israeli Foreign Ministry to paper over the fact that the IDF is about as disciplined as the LAPD. They're highly trained and as long as they have overwhelming firepower they can get things done, but when it comes to Arabs most of them would rather shoot first and ask questions later, regardless of what the orders are. The kind of propaganda above encourages them that the government will back them up on that impulse.

  [ Reply to this ]

• Re: It's not so simple by Bob Kopp on Saturday October 07, @10:52PM

  This may be so, but it's always bothered me when people have described the Arab/Israeli conflict as a modern extension of a millenia-old religious conflict. Christian anti-Semitism is an extension of a 2000-year tradition; relations between Jews and Muslims were quite comfortable from the establishment of Islamic rule over the North Africa region (around 1000) through the beginnings of Zionist settlement, ending around 1930 or so. Jews and Arabs have a longer history of peaceful co-existence than Jews and Christians do, but that hasn't stop Jews from doing quite well in modern America. Bob

  [ Reply to this ]

• Re: It's not so simple by Shaya Potter on Sunday October 08, @12:55AM

  In 1967 Israel could have bombed the mosque and made it look like it happened during the course of the war. They didn't. Beyond that, they gave a large amount of custodianship to the Muslim Waqf to maintain the temple mount. In 1948 the Jordanians (I won't use a stereotypical "the arabs", even though I might personally believe it) destroyed almost every single jewish synagouge in the old city of jerusalem. They wouldn't let jews pray at the "Western Wall". Israel has gone far and beyond any other nation that has controlled the "Holy" sites in trying to maintain religious freedom and access for all.

  [ Reply to this ]

• General observations, major question. by Dale Pontius on Monday October 09, @08:37AM

  I've also felt that Israel has done well by their administration of the temple mount. Imagine for even a moment if Mecca were in the hands of 'the infidel'. Based on the news coverage during my lifetime, I'm left with the impression that no Moslem blood would be spared until Mecca was back in Moslem control. I'm also under the impression that it's still *death* for an 'infidel' to be caught in Mecca. (I know, there have been pictures taken, I've seen them. But I get the impression that the photographer was putting his life at risk, too. I've also seen the satellite photo of Mecca.) But the major question: Why do we in the West allow ourselves to be so ignorant of the Moslem religion. It has been one of the major shapers of world politics in the last half-century, but our 'education' consists mostly of news bites. Digging a little deeper, I get the impression that the Moslem religion is highly enlightened, but then I have to square that with car bombers and the treatment of women in Islamic Fundamentalist nations. In this matter, I suspect that our ignorance is terribly dangerous.

  [ Reply to this ]

• Re: General observations, major question. by jmauro on Monday October 09, @11:54AM

  But I get the impression that the photographer was putting his life at risk, too. The photographer was Muslim and not at any risk. It is not against their beliefs for someone to see a picture of Mecca who is not a Muslim, but just for someone to be in the city.

  [ Reply to this ]

• Re: General observations, major question. by T.F. Druid on Monday October 09, @09:48PM

  Why do we in the West allow ourselves to be so ignorant of the Moslem religion. It has been one of the major shapers of world politics in the last half-century, but our 'education' consists mostly of news bites. Far more than half a century my friend. During the 'Dark Ages' of Europe, the arab world was far more advanced and civilized than Europe. Most of what we know of classical greek civilization came to us via the libraries of the arab world. We use the Arabic number system, because it was so much better than all those IVs and XXXs the European numbers used. Digging a little deeper, I get the impression that the Moslem religion is highly enlightened, but then I have to square that with car bombers and the treatment of women in Islamic Fundamentalist nations. You have to draw the distinction between the religion and the actions of some of its followers. Is the ongoing mess that is Northern Ireland an accurate reflection of the teachings of Christianity? Is the status of women in most islamic countries any worse than it was in Europe a couple of centuries ago? Or in some of the more 'traditional' Christian societies today? The reality in most islamic nations is not as bad as the propaganda would have you believe. Pakistan has had a female Prime Minister. Indonesia has a female Vice President, something the USA has never had. Not that things are perfect, of course. I've been pleasantly surprised by the honesty, courtesy and generosity of most people in islamic nations I've visited, (the only city in Africa I feel comfortable walking around in after dark is Zanzibar), but would I want to live there ? No. I'd find living by Islamic law far too restrictive in the long term. And I like a little Whisky every now and then. In this matter, I suspect that our ignorance is terribly dangerous. Couldn't agree more.

  [ Reply to this ]

• Re: It's not so simple by Matti Picus on Sunday October 08, @02:17AM

  I'm Israeli. As I travel around my country I see many empty mosques, remnants of previous Arab populations. Few were destroyed during war, now they are preserved as holy sites. Israel pulled out of Joseph's tomb Friday, and within a few hours the site was burned and razed, in spite of a Palisitinian Authourithy promise to protect the site. So who should trust who with its holy sites? Examine the track record. By the way, I believe that only through dialog will we solve the conflict. We must develop a trust based on mutual acceptance. I send my son to a school that is half Israeli-Arab, half Jewish. We are trying, give us a few generations and we may begin to accept eachother.

  [ Reply to this ]

• Re: It's not so simple by T.F. Druid on Monday October 09, @03:43AM

  Key Phrases: As I travel around my country, I see many empty mosques, remnants of previous Arab populations And why, pray tell, did the 'previous Arab population' leave ? Was it, perchance, that they were 'ethnically cleansed' from the area ? Are those 'previous arabs' now living in refugee camps in Jordan, Lebanon, Gaza ? Will Israel allow them to return (as they are obliged to do by The Geneva Convention) ? So who should trust who with its holy sites? Examine the track record. Any jewish holy sites anywhere in Israel/Palestine have survived centuries of Muslim control. The destruction of Josephs Tomb was the result of two factors... 1. Palestinian anger at the murder of palestinians by Israeli soldiers based at the site. 2. The knowledge that the 'holy site' was being used as an excuse for the continued Israeli occupation of the town.

  [ Reply to this ]

• Re: It's not so simple by Omri Schwarz on Monday October 09, @04:29AM

  You ask: And why, pray tell, did the 'previous Arab population' leave ? Was it, perchance, that they were 'ethnically cleansed' from the area ? Yes. But don't get self-righeous. The ethnic cleansing went in both directions. Baghdad was half-Jewish in 1950. Now there are 50 Jews left there. Guess how that happened. And no, the refugees will not be let back in. They can go to Baghdad.

  [ Reply to this ]

• Re: It's not so simple by T.F. Druid on Monday October 09, @07:22PM

  Sorry if I sounded self righteous. My own family are survivors of ethnic cleansing before I was born. I now live half a world away from my ancestral homeland. I've been back to the old country, and seen the half-empty villages and abandoned farmhouses where my ancestors lived, the ruined churches and desecrated graves. It was a deeply moving experience. Please forgive me for not being a big fan of ethnic cleansing, or occasionally sounding self righteous about it. I kinda saw red when I saw one of the ethnic cleansers boasting about how nice his people were not to have bulldozed the mosques of their victims. As to your reference to the dramatic decline of jewish populations in the middle east, yes, many innocent people were hounded from their homes, where their families had lived in peace with the arabs for centuries. This is tragic, and wrong, and I make no attempt to defend it. I simply point out that it happened after several million palestinians were driven from their homes by the Israelis. Using what happened in Baghdad (and other places in the arab world) as an excuse for what you did before those events is pretty lame IMHO.

  [ Reply to this ]

• Re: It's not so simple by Omri Schwarz on Monday October 09, @09:04PM

  I am not trying to establish moral equivalence. The Palestinians are not going to get justice for what happened to them by committing the same act on another population for the second time. It's not nice but it's the reality.

  [ Reply to this ]

• Re: It's not so simple by concerned observer on Sunday October 08, @06:13PM

  First off, the "third-holiest shrine in Islam" is the site of the temple mount, where the old temple resided about a thousand years before Islam came into existance. We're talking before Christ too, btw. Who's occupying whom? Second of all, if the Israelis really wanted to destroy that mosque they would have. Considering that said mosque is sitting on top of the holiest site in judaism, it woudln't be terribly unreasonable for them to have done this, but they didn't. When they recaptured the old city from the Jordanians in 67, Jews were finally allowed to worship at the western wall, a right denied to them by their moslem neighbours. On the other hand, moslem rights to worship at the mosque remain under Israeli rule. Personally, I think it's outrageous that the palestinians can justify this violence because a right-wing israeli minister visited the site. I may find his policies and attitudes despicable, but every jew has the right to visit that place. It was built by jews long before muhammed was convieved, and as a jew he has the right to go there.

  [ Reply to this ]

• Just thought I'd throw in some background here... by T.F. Druid on Monday October 09, @10:17PM

  First off, the "third-holiest shrine in Islam" is the site of the temple mount, where the old temple resided about a thousand years before Islam came into existance. We're talking before Christ too, btw. Who's occupying whom? Yes, the temple mount was a jewish holy site well over 1000 years pre Muhammed. Something I haven't seen mentioned much however, is what makes it a holy site to islam. It's the place where Muhammed bodily ascended to heaven. That makes it a pretty special place, roughly analagous to Calvary in christianity. What bothers me is your assumption that because it is a holy jewish site, that automatically means it should be under Israeli control. If you think that logic applies, then expect a Vatican invasion of Jerusalem real soon now. The Israeli insistence on keeping hold of sections of the occupied territories, because they contain some 'holy site' is one of the major obstacles to peace. Do you want to give up the chance for peace, just because 400 extremist jews choose to live in the 'holy city' of Hebron, a city of over 100,000 palestinians?

  [ Reply to this ]

• Re: It's not so simple by Alex on Friday October 13, @03:08PM

  FYI, the site of el-Aqsa - the Temple Mount - is the sole holies place for Judaism - and when it was occupied by Jordan in 1948 - 1967, Jews could not access it.

  [ Reply to this ]

• Re: Can anything be done by the geeks to ease the situation in the middle east? by jd on Sunday October 08, @03:20PM

  First, read the Old Testament (the Jewish religious text) before getting onto any high horse about others not knowing how long the conflict has been going on. (Unless, of course, King James lived 60 years ago, and the entire thing is an Anglo/Vatican conspiracy to overthrow the Middle East.) The area currently known as Israel is, historically, part of the "Greater Israel" that was "declared" in the time of Moses, which covered most of the countries now surrounding Israel. This land, in the Jewish faith, was given to them for all time and that they have the God-granted right to claim it back, by force of arms if necessary. The settlers who pre-dated the Jewish invasion, after the Great Exodus, naturally had (and still have) very different views on the subject. As for who is innocent and who is guilty, I think that the "bias" in the media is rather understandable. The Palestinians are being kicked out of their homes by radical Jews who want to claim as much territory as possible prior to the new borders being fixed. The Israelis, on the other hand, have murdered one of their Prime Ministers, bombed United Nations civilians, turned non-Jew residents into second-class citizens, deliberately stalled the peace process (as according to United Nations resolutions condemning Israeli actions), and developed nuclear weapons in direct violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Oh, and assassinated dissidents abroad, such as in the United Kingdom and Syria. Poison-tipped umbrellas and slow-acting poisons are not the mark of a civilised nation. In short, Israel is hardly the "innocent" in all this. Mossad and the Israeli army have commited attrocities that would leave any terrorist organisation awe-struck. It is my honest opinion that Israel had better hope there ISN'T a God. The Jewish religious texts document more than one occupation and/or enslavement by other nations, for ignoring their holy laws and turning to evil. Put bluntly, if the Jewish God =DOES= exist, and Israel continues to violate every one of the Laws of Moses =AND= every holy covenant they have made, I'd be looking into real estate at least a thousand miles away. As for the Hizbolah attacking the Jewish settlers - well, the Occupied Territories don't belong to Israel. That's why they're termed "Occupied". They were invaded, conquered and subjugated to provide Israel with living shields and better gunnery positions. But you can't settle wars with more wars. An eye for an eye, and we'd all go blind. If Israel were interested in peace, they'd be talking peace. Instead, the only one to really talk peace was assassinated by a radical student. Murdering your diplomats isn't really a good way to keep the dialogue going. How can the Israelis stop terrorism? Not by force of arms. That's been tried, world-over, and has universally FAILED. Education, Compassion, Honesty, Integrity and easy access to Information. THOSE stop violence, faster than all the tear-gas and riot police in the world. "But the Israelis ARE honest!" you might say. So, why were they forced to admit that they'd sent agents to assassinate people in Syria? (Oh, and send the antidotes.) Why did they have agents flown into Britain, in the 70's, to kill dissidents with poison? For that matter, why have they continually lied about their nuclear program? "They have to have SOME secrets, for their own security!" Security through obscurity is doomed. Some day, intelligence agencies will cease to exist in their current form, because efforts to hide and spy out information are wasted efforts. That could be true today, but the wisdom others have known for millenia seem to escape these wanna-be James Bonds. As for hiding their nuclear program, what good has THAT done? It's terrified at least one paranoid dictator in the area to try and build his own. Who knows who else has developed such weapons, in that region? Has the capacity to obliterate every living thing in the land God made them responsible for made the Jews any more responsible? Not from the looks of it. Gunning down unarmed civilians isn't the mark of an overly-mature culture. Last thought for today - pictures like that cost the United States the Vietnam war. For a good reason. Most Americans may have their own problems, but they're capable of seeing when something is plain morally wrong, and calling it for that. Will these images start to bring home the humans on the other side, to the Jews?

  [ Reply to this ]

• Re: Can anything be done by the geeks to ease the situation in the middle east? by Shaya Potter on Sunday October 08, @04:17PM

  ok I didn't want to get into a big fight over this, but it looks like some people are itching to pick one. I'm not sure if even responding to this is worth it, as your comment is so full of hate and one sideness that shows you have never really studied the issue or seen the true "facts on the ground". Not everything Israel does is perfect, but you don't care to try to understand why they do it. They are not the barbarians you make them out to be. First, read the Old Testament (the Jewish religious text) before getting onto any high horse about others not knowing how long the conflict has been going on. (Unless, of course, King James lived 60 years ago, and the entire thing is an Anglo/Vatican conspiracy to overthrow the Middle East.) I have been learning them for the past 15 years fairly closely. I spent my post high school year in Israel, forgoing college to just study those religious texts. (Though the Vatican was probably not to happy with the King James version of the bible when it came out.) The area currently known as Israel is, historically, part of the "Greater Israel" that was "declared" in the time of Moses, which covered most of the countries now surrounding Israel. This land, in the Jewish faith, was given to them for all time and that they have the God-granted right to claim it back, by force of arms if necessary. The settlers who pre-dated the Jewish invasion, after the Great Exodus, naturally had (and still have) very different views on the subject. Not exactly sure where you get this from. As yes, there was a land of Israel given to the jews/israelites when they entered the land, but most jews don't believe that that "entering/conquering" gave the land a permanent holiness, only the land that was "jewish" with the return from Babylonia was given a "permanent holiness". The 2 maps don't coincide. According to many rabbinic authorities most of the gaza strip, and possibly even Eilat (at the southern tip of Israel) don't have "Kedushat Eretz Yisrael" (holiness of the land of Israel). Now we have to say is their a requirement to take the land back by force? Well, many (not all though) highly religious people have a huge problem with the modern jewish state. They say that there isn't (wasn't?) supposed to be a "jewish" state in Israel untill the messiah comes. Many of these people were around in "Israel" way before the state was formed. I personally feel that there is no problem with the state being a "jewish" state, though I do have other personall problems with it. As for who is innocent and who is guilty, I think that the "bias" in the media is rather understandable. If the media is not telling the entire story, even if they feel they are "right"(tm) they aren't reporting on the news anymore, they are editorializing, which is wrong The Palestinians are being kicked out of their homes by radical Jews who want to claim as much territory as possible prior to the new borders being fixed. They are getting kicked out of their homes by the settlers? Usually (I can't say for sure all the time), the settlers try to take an unoccupied hilltop to start a new "settlement", they aren't kicking anyone out of their homes. The Israeli army has had a policy to try to deter terrorist attacks by demolishing the home of any suicide bomber. One can argue if this policy is correct or not, but the main reason behind it, is because Hamas and other groups usually promise to pay for additions and the like to the house to make the suicide bomber's family more comfortable. Israel wants to deter possibly suicide bombers by showing that if they do make a suicide run, they will be making their famaly very uncomfortable. As I said, you can debate if it's right or wrong to do this. However, if you don't try to understand why they do it, YOU are in the wrong. The Israelis, on the other hand, have murdered one of their Prime Ministers, And no American president has ever been assasinated? As the person who assasinated Rabin went to the same religious school as I attended when I was in Israel (year b4 though, he was at a law school), I can tell you that the school was struck to the core when they found out he did it. They called everyone in, and prayed for forgivness. Everyear on the memorial of Rabin's death they have a speech which the entire school attends about how "Senseless Hatred" is wrong (which would be a good thing for everyoen to hear now). bombed United Nations civilians, They apologized and were sorry. Has any Palestinian ever apologized for blowing up buses in Israel? For using UN Refugee camps as a cover for firing bombs at Israel? The only reason that camp was bombed was because Israel relied too much on their technology to pinpoint where a bomb was launched from and fire back. They didn't realize that Hezbollah would use the camp as cover. The question is, why was Hezbollah using the camp as cover? turned non-Jew residents into second-class citizens, That is a problem. They don't trust the arabs to serve in the army (see recent riots), which automatically makes them second class citizens. The druze who are in the army, do things the jews can't always do, which makes the arabs and the jews have a dislike towards them, which makes them feel like second class citizens. Yes this is a problem, and people do want to fix it. But how long were blacks slaves in the US? 100 years. How long were blacks and Hispanics and othe races (including jews) treated like second class citizens in the US? Some would argue that it still takes place even today. This is a problem all countries face. Should it not exist in Israel? I believe it shouldn't becuase I hold Israel to a higher standard. deliberately stalled the peace process (as according to United Nations resolutions condemning Israeli actions), This is arguable. This is your opinion and the opinion of the countries who voted for the resolution. I have a totally different opinion. I don't see how Ariel Sharon going to the temple mount stalled the peace process, if they really wanted peace, they could have ignored it. Except, they behaved like children. Heck, they let the children out of school specifically to go protest. If they didn't, no children would have thrown stones, and no child would have ended up in the line of fire. developed nuclear weapons in direct violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. As they never signed it, it's hard to be in violation of it. Oh, and assassinated dissidents abroad, such as in the United Kingdom and Syria. Poison-tipped umbrellas and slow-acting poisons are not the mark of a civilised nation. In your opinion. I wonder how much of this you have backed up in fact? Kalhed Meshal they tried to assasinate in Jordan, that's a known fact. They also gave the antidote in the end. However, Meshal is one of the heads of Hamas. Hamas plays dirty, sometimes the only way to play with a bully that plays dirty is to get in the mud with him. You can argue "you started it, no you started it", but that's get you no where. It is my honest opinion that Israel had better hope there ISN'T a God. The Jewish religious texts document more than one occupation and/or enslavement by other nations, for ignoring their holy laws and turning to evil. Put bluntly, if the Jewish God =DOES= exist, and Israel continues to violate every one of the Laws of Moses =AND= every holy covenant they have made, I'd be looking into real estate at least a thousand miles away. In your opinion. As someone who has studied the bible, talmud and rabbinic commentaries for a large percentage of the past few years, I would say that almost every point you would try to bring up would be easily refuted). For example, would you know that when it says don't steal in the 10 commandments, I believe most rabbinic authorties learnt it to mean about kidnapping ("not stealing" property is learnt elsewhere). As for the Hizbolah attacking the Jewish settlers - well, the Occupied Territories don't belong to Israel. That's why they're termed "Occupied". They were invaded, conquered and subjugated to provide Israel with living shields and better gunnery positions. Actually, Hezbollah attacks Israel in Israel proper, they attack from Lebanon into Israel proper (check maps from 1948-1967). If you mean Hamas, or other palestinians. Tell that to my friends who were almost killed in Israel proper during these riots. Yes, I know multiple American citizens who were almost killed in these riots, when there only "crime" was being in Israel. Also, Israel didn't provoke those wars, Israel was either invaded or about to be invaded when each war broke out. Is it wrong to conquer terrority when nations invade you intent on conquering yours? Possibly yes, but as you have probably never lived in a country which has been invaded by an army intent on killing you, you can't understand how they feel. But you can't settle wars with more wars. An eye for an eye, and we'd all go blind. If Israel were interested in peace, they'd be talking peace. Instead, the only one to really talk peace was assassinated by a radical student. Murdering your diplomats isn't really a good way to keep the dialogue going. At camp david this past summer, Clinton thought Barak went far and beyond in making concessions, but it wasn't good enough for Arafat. This same Barak who went far and beyond what anyone expected in trying to make peace, does not believe he has a partner in Arafat anymore. How can the Israelis stop terrorism? Not by force of arms. That's been tried, world-over, and has universally FAILED. Education, Compassion, Honesty, Integrity and easy access to Information. THOSE stop violence, faster than all the tear-gas and riot police in the world. I'm not going to argue with those, as they are true. Israel in many ways messed up with how they handled the west bank, but as a country they must defend their citizens right to live freely, you might disagree with their methods, but you have to understand why they do it. I try to understand the palestinian viewpoint, and I feel bad, I wish I had a solution. "But the Israelis ARE honest!" you might say. So, why were they forced to admit that they'd sent agents to assassinate people in Syria? (Oh, and send the antidotes.) Why did they have agents flown into Britain, in the 70's, to kill dissidents with poison? Check your facts, it was Meshal in Jordan. This is why I feel you are writing mostly out of hatred for Israel, not out of wanting to actually solve the situation. You have these bits of knowledge floating around, but don't know each issue thouroughly. For that matter, why have they continually lied about their nuclear program? Israel's policy has been to not talk about it. That's not lying, that's keeping your mouth shut. Yes, they might have one. It seems most places assume they do, and I have no reason to doubt it. But if you were living in a region where everyone wanted to kill you, and to make wars "to push them into the sea", how would you react? Has the capacity to obliterate every living thing in the land God made them responsible for made the Jews any more responsible? Not from the looks of it. Gunning down unarmed civilians isn't the mark of an overly-mature culture. Unarmed civilians? One, they aren't unarmed, looks at all the pictures of Arafat's police/army carrying their AK/47. Two, rocks can kill just as easily as bullets. Three, In talking with people there, it's seems that its almost a war, 2 armies, one trained (Israel's) and one severly untrained (Arafat's). I have to go, it's almost Yom Kippur, I hope and pray that things are calmer when Yom Kippur is over. I feel miserable that innocent children are getting killed. I wish children would not be used to throw stones and act as human shields for the palestinian shooters. I wish that peace will come to the region, but peace doesn't come from wishing.

  [ Reply to this ]

• Re: Can anything be done by the geeks to ease the situation in the middle east? by Matthew Francey on Monday October 09, @08:02PM

  >[alot of nonsense mixed with accuracy; classic >propoganda technique] > > [...] > >rocks can kill just as easily as bullets. M. Potter, as punishment for making idiotic claims like this, you must either, (a) accept a rock thrown at your chest, or (b) a bullet shot into your chest. You can choose the head as a target if you wish. Please! Do take your time deciding! As a hint: it might first help if you shed the fantasy, la-la-land view of the universe that most high-level so-called "leaders" [*], diplomats, negotiators, and other various government and religious functionaries share. Remember: that they choose to live in a dream world doesn't mean you have to live in one too... [*] Better called "pushers", since these people are invariably found at the *back*, pushing as hard as they can, letting the people at the front (ie, you and me) take the brunt of the attack for them.

  [ Reply to this ]

• Re: Can anything be done by the geeks to ease the situation in the middle east? by Omri Schwarz on Monday October 09, @09:18PM

  M. Potter, as punishment for making idiotic claims like this, you must either, (a) accept a rock thrown at your chest, or (b) a bullet shot into your chest. You can choose the head as a target if you wish. Please! Do take your time deciding! Better give than to receive. We've had two deaths from a rock in Israel just in the last 24 hours.

  [ Reply to this ]

• Re: Can anything be done by the geeks to ease the situation in the middle east? by Matthew Francey on Tuesday October 10, @01:22PM

  >Better give than to receive. Indeed. The easiest way to test the integrity of a metaphysisict is to take him outside and swing a bat at his head: if he ducks, he is a liar. I expect M. Potter to duck the rhetorical bat I've swung at his head... >We've had two deaths from a rock in Israel just >in the last 24 hours. I'm not arguing that rocks don't kill; I criticise Potter's claims to equivalence in lethality, pointing out the complete idiocy they are. "Duck and cover!" Right.

  [ Reply to this ]

• Re: Can anything be done by the geeks to ease the situation in the middle east? by Omri Schwarz on Wednesday October 11, @08:06AM

  So what you're saying is that if I pull a knife on you, you have no right to pull a gun on me and shoot me, since a gun and a knife are not equivalent in lethality. Interesting.

  [ Reply to this ]

• Re: Can anything be done by the geeks to ease the situation in the middle east? by brian on Wednesday October 11, @05:44PM

  if you pull a pistol do i have the right to take tanks and helicopters to your hometown and start shooting at protestors (regardless of what they are protesting)?

  [ Reply to this ]

• Re: Can anything be done by the geeks to ease the situation in the middle east? by Shaya Potter on Tuesday October 10, @12:07AM

  >rocks can kill just as easily as bullets. M. Potter, as punishment for making idiotic claims like this, you must either, (a) accept a rock thrown at your chest, or (b) a bullet shot into your chest. You can choose the head as a target if you wish. Please! Do take your time deciding! How dare you. 2 friends of mine were almost killed because of rocks in Israel. Yes, someone who went to the same high school as me (to give you an idea, my class had 30 students) and someone who went to University with me, were almost killed by rocks. Yes, I have never taken a rock to the head, and I would wish no bullets to the head of a innocent child. But, I have had rocks thrown at me when I've been inside vehicles. No one got hurt, but it is scary. But my friends were innocent. Their crime? One was going with his wife to her sister for the Rosh Hashanah holiday. Their car was shot up, they were pulled out of their car by the mob and severly injured. The other one was going with 2 other friends (and in a picture the AP reported that one of the friends was a bloody palestinian getting beaten by an Israeli police office on the temple mount. (Why I don't view the american press as being pro Israel) ) to the Western Wall for services. The couple has moved to Israel, but the friends who were driving to the wall to pray, are americans who are in Israel studying. What would you do if I got 100 people and started stoning your house? If you had an m-16 and lots of ammo, I would place a bet that a lot of us would end up dead. It doesn't matter if I had a "good"(tm) reason for stoning your house, once I attack you, you have a right to defend yourself. And in truth, if "innocent civilians" go to an area known to be in a fire fight, they are not innocent civilians anymore. So the question you might ask, were my friends in a "dangerous" place. I don't believe so, but you might disagree.

  [ Reply to this ]

• Re: Can anything be done by the geeks to ease the situation in the middle east? by Matthew Francey on Tuesday October 10, @12:13PM

  M. Potter, you ignored my point: your claims that "rocks kill as easily as bullets" is STILL just as stupid as when you first made it. You offer no defence whatsoever for your claim, instead trying to distract with special pleadings and irrelevancies. That rocks *can* kill is beside the point. So can cars, books, a few litres of water, a pocket knife, a baseball bat, or a host of other items that are available to anyone. It is a question of degree we are talking here. Of lethality. If, as you claim, rocks "kill just as easily" as bullets, then we only have to ask why the Israeli's aren't throwing rocks back at the Palestinians. Or it is your position that for the love of the Palestinians that the IDF are shooting back with bullets? We can also ask why the weapon of choice of armies all over the planet is not the common rock. Perhaps you can go into the military consulting business, eh? That you can cite personal anecdote, or even news articles and emergency ward reports of people who are "almost dead" because of a rock, or were killed because of a rock, or were scared because of rocks, or any other irrelevancy is beside the point. I can cite -- I am shocked I even have to say these patently obvious things -- vastly more powerful documentary evidence that proves your claim is total nonsense. Summary: You claimed "easily as". Your claim is stupid. It is totally void of reality. Back to my original point: if you had to choose, which would it be: a) a rock to the chest, b) a bullet to the chest. Well? >And in truth, if "innocent civilians" go to an >area known to be in a fire fight, they are not >innocent civilians anymore. If this is the your opinion, then you truly deserve whatever is coming your way. Hopefully it is good, but with an attitude like this, I really doubt it ... as they say: live by the sword, die by the sword. I mean, really, if you feel you can gun down un-armed non-combatants without remorse -- which is exactly what you are doing when you rationalize away the problem with wishy-washy qualifications about fire-fights and the like -- then why should I, or anyone else, care a damn what happens to you or the citizens of the state of Israel for that matter? Why? Well, your choice. Israel has to live with its own conscience, so do you, as well as I. Good luck!

  [ Reply to this ]

• Re: Can anything be done by the geeks to ease the situation in the middle east? by Shaya Potter on Tuesday October 10, @01:48PM

  Let me throw a question at you. Are you willing to face a mob of 100 people with as many rocks as they want to throw at you, if I hand you an m-16? Would that m-16 make you feel safe in the mob that wants your life? Would you not shoot back? Put yourself in the Israeli position, if you can't even attempt to understand or fathom what they are doing there is no point in talking to you anymore. If I was a palestinian, maybe I'd too be a stone thrower (however, I'd hope my life would be more important to me than that), but you know, the only reason I am able to say that is because I have thought about why the palestinians do what they do. I don't wish anyone to be in a situation where they have to throw a rock, get a rock thrown at, shoot a rifle, or get shot at. so my answer is neither, because your question isn't valid. But you missed the point of what I was trying to say, probably because I didn't say it clearly enough. Intent is what matters. If I throw a rock with the intent to kill, and someone shoots a bullet with the intent to kill. They are equals. Yes bullets are more deadly. But they are equals. If one throws a rock with the intent to kill, and one shoots rubber bullets (instead of "live" ammo) in attempting to defend themselves and disperse rioters, they are not equal, in my honest opinion. Yes, the bullet can still be more dangerous, but which person is showing restraint? You might laugh at this form of "restraint", but if you have never been in a position to have to restrain yourself like that, you don't know what it takes. Now the question is? If I have a more effective way of defending myself than the people attacking me have in their attack why should I limit my ability to defend myself? As long as people want to kill me, I feel I have a right to defend myself. If the Israelis wanted a massacre (and it appears that people consider this a massacre) they would just take a big machine gun, and mow down the "innocent civilians". There are easier ways to massacre people than using an m-16 with rubber bullets. You think the fact that "innocent" (the only truely innocent people, are naive people, and no one in Israel or the west bank/gaza should be naive about the situation) people are getting killed doesn't hurts me? It hurts. I want peace. I have friends and relatives in the Israeli army, and I don't want to see them killed or be killers. I also don't get any benefit from seeing people die, only more heartache that the violence is continuing. Let me leave with you a question? Am I an innocent civilian? Let's say I decide to go to that intersection to see what's happening. And I step in b/w the palestinian and israeli shooters, and I get hit by a palestinian shooter. Who is at fault? I still claim that I have to claim responsibilty for my self.

  [ Reply to this ]

• Re: Can anything be done by the geeks to ease the situation in the middle east? by tftp on Tuesday October 10, @03:26PM

  Are you willing to face a mob of 100 people with as many rocks as they want to throw at you, if I hand you an m-16? Are you willing to kill 100 people to defend yourself? 1000? 10,000? All of them? What religious texts say about that? I personally would put down the rifle - it will do you no good. It will kill you for sure. If many citizens of Israel are all too ready to grab a gun instead of a clue then I understand some of your problems. Weapon is a very dangerous tool, mostly dangerous to its owner. It creates illusion of invulnerability, power. This illusion is wrong. Rules are simple: don't carry the weapon unless you are willing to use it; don't point a weapon at someone unless you want to kill him. Everything else is useless - you can't use weapon to become "brave", or to frighten an attacker. That's why if I am offered a rifle in front of a mob I'd refuse to take it. My options would be to run, to hide, to surrender. The weapon won't help unless you kill all of attackers. But without weapon they might be not attacking you!

  [ Reply to this ]

• Re: Can anything be done by the geeks to ease the situation in the middle east? by Shaya Potter on Tuesday October 10, @03:39PM

  You make a good point. It doesn't matter if that weapon is a rock, or a m-16, or an army. For example. If the palestinians protested w/o throwing rocks or attacking anyone, would that Israeli army have fired on them? If the Israeli army wasn't there, would the palestinians have anyone to throw rocks at or attack? The question to both can be yes and no. If you're a sceptic, you would say both would go looking for a fight. If you're an optimist, you would see nothing would have happened. The question is how do both sides disengage when they both don't trust each other.

  [ Reply to this ]

• Re: Can anything be done by the geeks to ease the situation in the middle east? by tftp on Tuesday October 10, @04:06PM

  how do both sides disengage when they both don't trust each other. Let Jerusalem go. Arafat offered to make it an internationally governed (owned) enclave where everyone is welcomed and no single country has control over. This would be an ultimate solution. All other land disputes are minor compared to that. That's not palestinians who want Jerusalem, that's all Moslem world. You can't win by fighting. The peace process was going quite well until that Jerusalem problem appeared to be a showstopper. It was conquered, taken by force - but everything taken by force gets eventually retaken, also by force. There are compromises to be made, and in my opinion exterritorial status of the city would be most appropriate. Think of it as "Middle East Vatican". Arab countries are willing to do that. Barak refused (probably reflecting public opinion). Is it really that hard for Israel to set up a better conditions for all faithful? Are all Israelis hell-bent on holding onto that half of the city whatever the cost?

  [ Reply to this ]

• Re: Can anything be done by the geeks to ease the situation in the middle east? by Shaya Potter on Tuesday October 10, @04:35PM

  Are all Israelis hell-bent on holding onto that half of the city whatever the cost? And if they are? What happens? I can ask the same question. Why are the palestinians so hell-bent on getting hold of it?

  [ Reply to this ]

• Re: Can anything be done by the geeks to ease the situation in the middle east? by tftp on Tuesday October 10, @08:37PM

  As I said, they aren't. Arafat offered Vatican-like control over the city, and it makes sense because it is a holy place for too many religions. Other arab governments support this idea. They are willing to give up control over Jerusalem - why Israel isn't?

  [ Reply to this ]

• Re: Can anything be done by the geeks to ease the situation in the middle east? by Shaya Potter on Tuesday October 10, @11:59PM

  Because they weren't allowed to go to Jersualem, they were kept away by force. Now that they control it (and let everyone worship freely), they aren't going to give it up easily. And they aren't willing to give up control over jerusalem. The following statement shows why many Israelis don't trust the Palestinians. The following announcement of the Fatah was published in Al-Hayyat Al-Jadeedah, the PA's newspaper, on 8 October 2000 and read on Palestinian television: ANNOUNCEMENT FROM THE SUPREME COUNCIL OF THE FATAH MOVEMENET 1 - The Fatah movements emphasizes the continuation of the Al Quds Intafada in all of its activities. The Fatah movement calls for its brave sons who stand at the front lines in all the disturbances to continue their great struggle and even to increase it in the course of the coming days. ...[11 more points]... [NOTE: Fatah is the "mainstream" organization that dominates the PLO. It is headed by Yassir Arafat, who also heads the PLO and the Palestinian Authority (PA). Al Quds is the arabic name for Jerusalem. Therefore Al Quds Intafada means the fight for Jerusalem.]

  [ Reply to this ]

• Re: Can anything be done by the geeks to ease the situation in the middle east? by Shaya Potter on Wednesday October 11, @12:11AM

  I wasn't clear, when I say "and they aren't willing to give up Jersualem" the they refers to the palestinians/arabs and to further this claim. Here's a direct quote from the Palestinian Authority. "And we repeat here once again that there will be no peace without an independent Palestinian State, with Jerusalem as its capital, and recognition of the Palestinian Refugees Right of Return." 9 October 2000 Lots of Palestinian Propeganda

  [ Reply to this ]

• Re: Can anything be done by the geeks to ease the by tftp on Wednesday October 11, @01:01AM

  (We apparently posted at the same time - I didn't see this message 15 minutes ago). This is exactly what you said it is: propaganda. It is for internal consumption. Did you ever believe what Saddam Hussein said about Kuwait, for example? It is known for a fact (at least as fed to me by Internet news sources and CNN) that during negotiations in Camp David this summer Arafat offered to give up Jerusalem - after he floated the trial balloon toward other arab countries (and they said "whatever"). From the other hand, palestinians can't surrender Jerusalem because this would mean that Israel successfully annexed a territory and map was redrawn by international community. Even worse, palestinians (in my opinion) aren't a strongest voice in the choir. There are bigger and badder arab countries who would hate to settle like that. "Neither to me nor to you" solution would be an acceptable compromise - and rights of all worshippers would be protected best.

  [ Reply to this ]

• Re: Can anything be done by the geeks to ease the by tftp on Wednesday October 11, @12:27AM

  Because they weren't allowed to go to Jersualem, they were kept away by force Come on, it was 50 years ago. Furthermore, Israel does not risk being locked out of places of worship as it was before - world changed. How much influence 50 year old policies of an obscure kingdom toward newcomers (Jews) can have on modern politics of Israel? After all, nobody asks Israel to transfer Jerusalem to Jordan or Syria or Egypt... Instead it could be governed by some sort of religious body - probably formed by UN. If palestinians have any fight with that body - it will be their problem, but Israel will be clearly out of their equations - safe, as it wants to be. With regard to Fatah announcements, that's just politics - apply pressure on Israel and at the same time relieve tensions around delayed declaration of Palestinian state. That's all politics, including riots. Solve the root problem and there will be no riots. I hope so, at least.

  [ Reply to this ]

• Re: Can anything be done by the geeks to ease the by Shaya Potter on Wednesday October 11, @01:03AM

  It wasn't 50 years ago. It was still in may of 1967. Just a little over 30 years ago. Just like there are palestinians that can't forget the "Naqba" (catastrophe) that occured in 1948, Many (most?, all?) Jews can't forget the situation before 67's "6 day war". But that's really besides the point. Israel doesn't trust the UN. It doesn't view international groups as being unbiased. What are the reasons for this? For 50+ years Israel was blocked from joining a "regional group" and having a real voice in the UN. Only recently was Israel admitted as a temporary member into the WEGO group. The International Red Cross refused to recognize the "Red Star of David" as a "ok" symbol and refused entrance to the Israeli version of the Red Cross. This is while Muslim countries can use the red crescent. US Red Cross's page about their Israeli counterpart These are but a few. You say those announcments are just politcs? Those announcments probably convinced palestinians to go out into the streets to get killed. The Israeli public is loosing hope that they have a partner in Arafat and the palestinians.

  [ Reply to this ]

• Re: Can anything be done by the geeks to ease the by tftp on Wednesday October 11, @01:35AM

  Just a little over 30 years ago. Well, 30 years is also a long time. I agree that many people must remember that, and there is no need to forget history. However one can not be led by past forever. After all, Israel now has enough power to enforce agreements it signs. Israel doesn't trust the UN. I see your point. But that's why you should work with the world to promote what you need. Does any Israeli politician seriously want his country to be against everyone else? Israel had too many wars in its short modern history, this could explain animosity toward it, and Cold War probably contributed too. But this changes. In my opinion Israel should forge relationships with other influential countries, then its voice will be better heard. But you shall not take isolationist stance, this can't work. Those announcments probably convinced palestinians to go out into the streets to get killed. Yes, they did. That's how politics is made. Not any different in other places. Just a week ago yugoslavian citizens defied Milosevic and eventually forced him to resign. I see a lot of parallels, just yugoslavian police was wise enough and did nothing. But they could take example of one unnamed middle eastern country... But anyway, I see that Israel has a lot of freudian complexes, some well earned and some imagined. It's hard for me to understand the situation remotely. But Israel should trust more and hate less. Look at North Korea - in a year they practically reintegrated themselves into international community and I won't be surprised if they reunite within few years. And that's NK!!! Israel can do much better job with much less risk and pain. Most importantly, Israel should denounce its Maoist principle that "power comes out of the barrel of a gun" (did you know that Chairman Mao said that?)

  [ Reply to this ]

• Re: Can anything be done by the geeks to ease the situation in the middle east? by Elvis Maximus on Wednesday October 11, @07:26AM

  And no American president has ever been assasinated? Of course. And every country has extremists who are eager to use violence to achieve political aims. The disturbing thing about Rabin's assassination to me, though, was this: Yigal Amir hoped that by murdering Yitzhak Rabin, he would set the stage for a new, right-wing prime minister who would stop the peace process cold and even turn back the clock. So he killed Rabin. There was an outpouring of shock in Israel, but the electorate then ratified Amir's plan and elected Benjamin Netanyahu, whose rhetoric many Israelis felt incited the assassination in the first place. Israel TV showed Amir casting his vote from prison; there could be little doubt who his vote for Prime Minister went to. The peace process stopped cold and the clock was duly turned back. Timothy McVeigh killed hundreds of people in the belief that it would spark a popular uprising against the US Government. Buford Furrow opened fire on a Jewish day-care center, he said, to give Americans a "wake-up call to kill Jews." They did what they did in the belief that the majority of their countrymen would stand with them and actualize their twisted political views. America stood up and proved them wrong. Yigal Amir did what he did in the belief that the majority of his countrymen would stand with him and actualize his twisted political views. Israel stood up and proved him right.

  [ Reply to this ]

• Re: Can anything be done by the geeks to ease the by Matt Hiller on Sunday October 08, @04:58PM

  Hey jd, I agree with Josh - most of the posts here have betrayed a fair amount of cluelessness on the part of the posters. Yours didn't come across as ignorant as such; it's definitely true that some Israelis, and some arms of the Israeli government (the Mossad in particular) have done some very questionable things. This doesn't change the fact that your post treats the actions and opinions of "Jews" (Israelis and supporters of the state of Israel worldwide, I guess you mean?) as though there's no difference of opinion or conflict within the Israeli community on these questions. Nothing could be farther from the truth. You imply that no Israelis understand that Palestinians are individuals with rights and needs -- again, nothing could be farther from the truth. Granted, some Israelis are guilty of stereotyping instead of grappling with these complex issues, but it's hardly unusual to see human beings doing that. In your post you do that yourself - to Israelis. Also -- though I feel really silly pointing it out to a presumably educated readership -- Israel is a secular state. In fact, most Jewish Israelis are not observant at all. Even the reason that Israel exists -- to be a homeland for a people terribly oppressed through most of their history -- can easily be construed in a secular rather than religious manner.

  [ Reply to this ]

• Re: Can anything be done by the geeks to ease the situation in the middle east? by josh on Monday October 09, @09:51AM

  i'm not gonna say much because shaya potter seems to have said it all, but there is so much stuff u have written which is simply WRONG i'm not going to go in to it, before u start expressing an opinion at least get your facts right. the old testament is a religous text and nothing more, any element of truth there once was has most probably been totally obscured by the element of trying to tell a good story. funnily enough, there are actually one or 2 things that i agree with. first, i do think that the palestinians deserve a lot of understanding for feeling like they were forced to leave their homes. if i was one i know i would be extremely pissed off. nobody ever tried to pretend that the isrealis are totally innocent, but i cant see how u can totally overlook everything that the arabs have done. the main difference between arabs and isrealis (as far as this "war" goes) is that isrealis are fighting arab terrorists, arabs terrorists are fighting isreali citizens. arabs are blowing up busses, isrealis are blowing up terrorist bases. inevitably isrealis are going to kill innocent civilians, but that is not who they are targetting. when the arab terrorists bombed all those buses they werent full of armed soldiers planning on killing loads of arabs.

  [ Reply to this ]

• Re: Can anything be done by the geeks to ease the situation in the middle east? by wrong on Sunday October 29, @11:30PM

  who exactly are you ? where do you get history from ? give some evidence of anything you claim specifically killings by israelis and mossad going into other countries like england !!

  [ Reply to this ]

• Re: Can anything be done by the geeks to ease the situation in the middle east? by Neil Rubin on Sunday October 08, @05:11PM

  I am an American with no particular connection to either side in this conflict. My sincerest hope is that the people of Isreal and Palestine (or whatever names you prefer for this land) will find a way to live in just peace and be able to concentrate on living their lives and building their societies as neighbors. That said, I think that it easy for those on either side of this conflict to lose perspective on the level of violence, terror, or repression perpetrated by each side and to not see clearly why the other side may feel agrieved. It is certainly true that Isreal has been willing to give up some of what it gained in the wars of 1967 and 1973. What peace (short of the peace that comes when the other side is all dead) is possible without some concessions? Sure Isreal withdrew from Lebanon. But the twenty year occupation ran contrary any reasonable understanding of International Law. I would just as soon praise Isreal for withdrawing from Lebanon as I would the Soviets for withdrawing from Poland--or the Nazis from France, for that matter. As to the "arab governments refus[ing] to compromise," the Arab governments that matter will go along with essentially anything that the Palestinians agree to, particularly since the U.S. will be behind it. So the real issue is the "refusal" of the Palestinians, as represented by Arafat, to "compromise." To understand this, one must remember the reality of the situation in the Mideast. Isreal is a wealthy and powerful nation. Its citizens (both the majority Jewish population and the over one million Arab citizens) live in a modern democratic state. Middle-class Isrealis have opportunities in life not unlike those of their peers in Western Europe or the United States. (per capita GDP is about equal to Ireland) Isreal is the dominant military power in its region (except perhaps for the United States, I'm not sure). It has repeatedly defeated each of its neighbors in war and is now formally at peace with its most powerful ones. It has a highly capable indigenous arms industry and has ready access to almost any weapon it cares to buy (usually with U.S. aid) from the U.S. conventional inventory. It also has its own deliverable nuclear weapons. As if this weren't enough, it has the firm backing of the most militarily and economically powerful state in the history of the world (go usa...) Contrast this to the Palestinians. They live in occupied territory, taken in 1967. The army of occupation is precisely the army of this wealthy, powerful nation. The Palestinians have no vote, no influence at all over the goverment whose army occupies them, no freedom of movement. This army of occupation can even cut off their access to employment (in Isreal) at will by closing the border. These people are overwhelmingly poor, many of them having lived in refugee camps for over thirty years!!! I understand the behavior of the Isreali government. Given the political realities of their nation, how could they act differently? But imagine that you represent the Palestinians and actually care about the fate of your people. How easily could you accept what you have been offered? (Disconnected chunks of nearly worthless land, nearly impossible to build into a viable state, with no right of return for refugees.) (I have said a lot things which I believe to be facts. If I have made errors in my facts, I would very much like to be corrected.) The current plight of the Palestinians is not entirely the fault of the Isrealis. The Jews have had more than their share of suffering throughout history. People on both sides have committed terrible acts of violence. Some people on each side have deplored the violence done in their names. Given the reality of today, how could a neutral observer possibly side with the side with tanks and helicopter gunships and against the side with rocks? What can geeks do? What can any one person do? Very little. As with almost anything that matters in this world of six billion people, the influence of a single person is unmeasurable. But the combined influence of millions or billions of single people is unstoppable. Do your small part and have faith that the other people will do theirs. Learn about what is really happening and share what you learn with others. Try to convince others that this problem and others like it are not too complex to understand or to solve. To do either is hard but absolutely worthwhile. Don't expect to get the whole picture from the New York Times or any other major news source, any more than you would expect to get the whole picture on DeCSS or Napster. It is not impossible for the Isrealis and the Palestinians to live together in peace. There is no unalterable truth that says that both sides can't have access to the same quality of life as that enjoyed by Isrealis if they are able to work together. In exchange for this, Isreal will be free from living in a state of siege. To get there, both sides will need to let go of unhealthy fears and hatreds. They need to clarify distorted views of reality. This is something that other peoples have achieved in the past and others will achieve in the future. Let's just hope that these two peoples find a way soon.

  [ Reply to this ]

• Re: Can anything be done by the geeks to ease the situation in the middle east? by Neil Rubin on Monday October 09, @02:24AM

  I know that its bad form to reply to your own comment, but I was just reading this again and realized that I managed to consistently misspell the word Israel. I really do know better-- honest. Sorry...

  [ Reply to this ]

• Re: Can anything be done by the geeks to ease the situation in the middle east? by josh on Monday October 09, @10:05AM

  Sure Isreal withdrew from Lebanon. But the twenty year occupation ran contrary any reasonable understanding of International Law. I would just as soon praise Isreal for withdrawing from Lebanon as I would the Soviets for withdrawing from Poland--or the Nazis from France, for that matter. just thought i'd mention that the reason isreal was occupying some of leabaon is because the hizbolah were using that area to coordinate attacks on the isreali border, by the soldiers being there it at least kept the fighting in lebanon and not isreal. as soon as isreal withdrew (which they had been planning to do for a year, not as the hizbolah would claim, they were driven out by them) the hizbolah immediately started attacking the border again. when this was reported in the british media they just said that isreal made fools of themeselves by withdrawing and attacking innocent people on the way out by firing shells at certain buildings. what they neglected to mention was that isreal was attacking the hizbolah buildings which they were using to fire on the isrealis. that is just one example of HUGE media bias over here.

  [ Reply to this ]

• Re: Can anything be done by the geeks to ease the situation in the middle east? by josh on Monday October 09, @10:15AM

  As to the "arab governments refus[ing] to compromise," the Arab governments that matter will go along with essentially anything that the Palestinians agree to, particularly since the U.S. will be behind it. So the real issue is the "refusal" of the Palestinians, as represented by Arafat, to "compromise." To understand this, one must remember the reality of the situation in the Mideast. first, i think ALL the arab governments matter. second, i dont think the palestinians themeselves have a voice. do u see any sort of palestinian leader on television?? no. there are only leaders of other arab countries. i dont think you realise that as powerfull as the u.s. is, the arabs dont care about them. Isreal is a wealthy and powerful nation. Its citizens (both the majority Jewish population and the over one million Arab citizens) live in a modern democratic state. correct me if i'm wrong, but the population of isreal is 1/3 arab. Isreal is the dominant military power in its region (except perhaps for the United States, I'm not sure). It has repeatedly defeated each of its neighbors in war and is now formally at peace with its most powerful ones. if isreal was so dominant there would be an on going problem. it has only defeated its neighbours in war because it's neighbours have never united in war. if it was at peace, what are we all talking about?

  [ Reply to this ]

• Re: Can anything be done by the geeks to ease the situation in the middle east? by Neil Rubin on Monday October 09, @03:52PM

  first, i think ALL the arab governments matter In some abstract sense, perhaps. Suppose that every Arab government but Qatar were to accept complete peace with Israel. Would Israelis still feel that they were in mortal danger? second, i dont think the palestinians themeselves have a voice. do u see any sort of palestinian leader on television?? no. there are only leaders of other arab countries. Yassar Arafat is widely recognized as (a) leader of the Palestinians. He is not the leader of "[an]other arab country," at least until Palestine becomes a state. The then PLO was named the sole representative of the Palestinian people at an Arab summit in 1974. One troubling fact is that Arafat has never, to my knowledge, been elected by his people. i dont think you realise that as powerfull as the u.s. is, the arabs dont care about them. As to the average Arab, I can't say. As to their leaders, several of them owe their existence to the U.S./Britain. Kuwait being only the most prominent example. correct me if i'm wrong, but the population of isreal is 1/3 arab Round numbers (1998): Israeli Jews: 4,500,000 Israeli Arabs: 1,000,000 Palestinians in the occupied territories: 2,500,000 The Israeli Arabs have most of the same rights as Israeli Jews and live decent, normal lives. Palestinians for the most part do not. Israeli Arabs are a significant minority force in the country's politics. Without the support of the major Arab party, Barak's coalition would already have fallen. Interestingly, they are not particularly sympathetic to Palestinian politics. Looking at the numbers, one can understand why Israel doesn't want to give the Palestinians rights. Not entirely unlike the situation facing white South Africans a decade ago, eh? if is real was so dominant there would be an on going problem. it has only defeated its neighbours in war because it's neighbours have never united in war. if it was at peace, what are we all talking about? The current "peace process" is not about a conflict with other Arab countries. As far as I know, the only countries not at peace with Israel are Iraq (hardly relevant with the current sanctions regime), Iran (two countries away and currently moderating anyway), and Syria (more than willing to make peace in exchange for the Golan and not a huge threat). The major military peers of Israel are Egypt (nearly an ally) and Saudi Arabia (as long as the house of Saud is in power, no threat), and the U.S. carefully balances aid to these two countries in order maintain Israeli dominance. Oh, I forgot Turkey, a true military peer, but also firmly part of the U.S.-dominated alliance system. The Israeli nuclear bomb makes the threat of Arab invasion, whether united or not, a non-issue anyway. No, the true issue is demographic. Israelis look at the numbers above and are afraid of what will happen to their lifestyle if they treated their Palestinian neighbors like human beings. Returning to the South African example, the people in power there had a far better reason to be afraid. Whites there were a definate minority (14%), while even if Palestinians were to be made citizens (will never happen), Jews would remain a majority. The crucial difference is that elite Western opinion turned against the South African aparteid system, while such opinion (most importantly in the U.S.) remains in favor of the Israeli government position. It seems that in the U.S. of today it is easier to demonize grubby Arabs throwing rocks or blowing-up cars than it is to demonize black-skinned people doing the same thing. (The ANC used some quite nasty tactics at times.) So what does that say about us... To blame it all on racism isn't quite fair, since U.S. strategic interests in the region largely depend on the Israeli and Turkish armies. Still, I think that the Palestinians would be in far better shape if they had blonde hair and blue eyes.

  [ Reply to this ]

• Re: Can anything be done by the geeks to ease the situation in the middle east? by josh on Tuesday October 10, @10:07AM

  The current "peace process" is not about a conflict with other Arab countries. As far as I know, the only countries not at peace with Israel are Iraq (hardly relevant with the current sanctions regime), Iran (two countries away and currently moderating anyway), and Syria (more than willing to make peace in exchange for the Golan and not a huge threat). isreal are also not at peace with lebanon. there is kind of peace with jordon, but only because they both rely on the same supply of water. (obviously not very much of it in the middle east) i would like to point out that isreal never origanally owned the golan hights, but syria attacked isreal and because the golans are such a huge advantage in war, isreal took them when they defeated syria. it is a lot more complicated than just handing back the land because of the tactical advantage and because of isreali citizens living there. The Israeli nuclear bomb makes the threat of Arab invasion, whether united or not, a non-issue anyway. No, the true issue is demographic. Israelis look at the numbers above and are afraid of what will happen to their lifestyle if they treated their Palestinian neighbors like human beings. first off many arab countries also have nuclear weapons. sadam hussein (remember him!!!) has attacked isreal with scuds a few times in the past and he is well known to have a nuclear/biological/chemical arsenal (originally supplied by the likes of america and britain incedentally to help iraq beat iran in whatever war they were having about 15/20 years ago) Looking at the numbers, one can understand why Israel doesn't want to give the Palestinians rights. Not entirely unlike the situation facing white South Africans a decade ago, eh? do you want to explain that??? i dont see how the middle east situation is even remotely comparable to the aparteid in south africa. It seems that in the U.S. of today it is easier to demonize grubby Arabs throwing rocks or blowing-up cars than it is to demonize black-skinned people doing the same thing. (The ANC used some quite nasty tactics at times.) So what does that say about us... To blame it all on racism isn't quite fair, since U.S. strategic interests in the region largely depend on the Israeli and Turkish armies. Still, I think that the Palestinians would be in far better shape if they had blonde hair and blue eyes. now i am confused. u call the arabs "grubby" then u call everyone else racist, then u say that the u.s. isnt racist. then u say that it is. make your mind up

  [ Reply to this ]

• Re: Can anything be done by the geeks to ease the situation in the middle east? by Neil Rubin on Tuesday October 10, @11:58AM

  isreal are also not at peace with lebanon. there is kind of peace with jordon, but only because they both rely on the same supply of water. (obviously not very much of it in the middle east) Lebanon, how could I possibly have missed them! On the other hand, its hardly suprising that Lebanon is not at peace with Israel given the twenty year occupation. Thanks to decades of efforts by Israel, Syria, etc., Lebanon is barely a state anyway. Does Lebanon even have anything that could fairly be described as an Army? (I really don't know.) If you lived in Beirut and had watched your lovely city transformed from the "Paris of the Middle East" into a synonym for human tragedy, maybe you wouldn't just go sign a peace treaty the month after you chase the occupying army out. Has any Israeli city (at least since Roman times) ever gone through what happened to Beirut? because of isreali citizens living there. I have some sympathy for the plight of settlers, but not much. They knew exactly what they were doing by moving into "occupied territory." If the price for ending the conflict is that they have to move, then too bad for them. first off many arab countries also have nuclear weapons Name one which has successfully tested a nuclear weapon. The only ones who have ever been close are Iran and Iraq. (Iran is Persian, not Arab, but I think they count) There is more information on this sort of thing than you could ever need at the Federation of American Scientists website. They have extremely detailed information on weapons programs with maps and satellite photos of research facilities and information drawn from carefully cited news reports and declassified intellegence reports. do you want to explain that??? i dont see how the middle east situation is even remotely comparable to the aparteid in south africa. Allow me to explain. In both cases, a wealthy and Western oriented group decides to move into land most recently occupied by a different ethinic group. (Sure, Israelis have historical claims to the land, while white South Africans do not--the analogy is not perfect. Also, some of the Israeli-occupied territories are occupied for strategic rather than ecomonic reasons.) Now when say white Americans or Australians did this, they had the "good sense" (I mean this as a sick joke) to effectively exterminate the people who were there before. Neither the white South Africans nor the Israelis did the same. So both Israelis and white South Africans have the problem of how to control these previous residents. Both of these countries are, to the ethnic group in power, modern liberal democracies which guarantee their citizens considerable rights. Both decide that only way to control the prior residents of their land is to deny them these rights. They force them to live together in certain places--townships, Bantustans, the occupied territories, whatever. Since these special places have no functioning economies in any real sense, the only way for the unfortunate souls living in them to make a living is to work in the wealthy, functioning part of the country, the part where they are not allowed by law to live. So the men go to where the work is. The black or colored man from Soweto spends most months of the year away from his family so that he can work in a mine outside Johannesburg. The Palestinian man from Jericho gets on a bus each morning at 4 A.M. so that he can build a house in Tel Aviv for some middle-class Israeli. Both are economically desperate, and both are economically exploited. This comparison between Israel and South Africa is actually something that Noam Chomsky has written a bit about. The epilogue to his 1996 edition of "World Orders, Old and New" (published in the U.S. by Columbia University Press) has the best exposition of this that I can find at the moment. Apparently, the analogy was first drawn by Israeli commentators. Chomsky cites a 1994 article by Tanya Reinhart in Ha'aretz and an article by Norman Finkelstein as examples. now i am confused. u call the arabs "grubby" then u call everyone else racist, then u say that the u.s. isnt racist. then u say that it is. make your mind up Sigh, I guess that I really didn't explain this as well as I should have. "Grubby" was not really my word. I was using it for rhetorical effect, as a sort of a caricature of the sort of unacknowledged racism I was commenting on. I had hoped that would be clear from the context. As to me saying that "the u.s. isnt racist. then...that it is," the fact that elite U.S. opinion came to oppose the apartheid government does not imply that the U.S. is not racist against blacks. I would submit that the situation is a little more subtle than that. The U.S. has a long, shameful history of racism, and racism (against blacks and others) certainly still exists. In case you hadn't noticed, however, the U.S. has been spending the last 150 years learning how to treat people with black skin like the human beings that they are. It is shameful that it has taken as long as it has and that the job is not yet done, but there has been tremendous progress. An overt act of racism by a public figure is now political/career suicide. Elite opinion, in particular, is quite sensitive to this sort of thing. So, I would submit, when a U.S. political leader sees a black person rising up violently against his oppressor with whatever primative arsenal he may have available, that U.S. leader is likely to be able to look at that person and see his humanity--to sympathize with his struggle. This same leader has not had the same training with regard to Arabs. They see an odd manner of dress and hear an odd language, and at some level they fail to see the rioting Palestinian as a human being. That's just my explanation for the situation. I don't have firm evidence and I may be wrong. I hope that this at least explains the contradictions you may have seen in what I said before.

  [ Reply to this ]

• Re: Can anything be done by the geeks to ease the situation in the middle east? by Shaya Potter on Tuesday October 10, @01:08PM

  >first off many arab countries also have nuclear weapons Name one which has successfully tested a nuclear weapon. The only ones who have ever been close are Iran and Iraq. (Iran is Persian, not Arab, but I think they count) There is more information on this sort of thing than you could ever need at the Federation of American Scientists website. They have extremely detailed information on weapons programs with maps and satellite photos of research facilities and information drawn from carefully cited news reports and declassified intellegence reports. In the early 80s, Iraq was very close to making nuclear weapons. Israel decided to bomb their nuclear reactor. They were criticised the whole world over (as usual). Iraq probably would have had nuclear weapons during the gulf war if it wasn't for that preemptive action.

  [ Reply to this ]

• Re: Can anything be done by the geeks to ease the situation in the middle east? by josh on Tuesday October 10, @07:16PM

  I have some sympathy for the plight of settlers, but not much. They knew exactly what they were doing by moving into "occupied territory." If the price for ending the conflict is that they have to move, then too bad for them. if u r going to take that attitude then what is the difference between the palestinians being forced to move and this?? u r a hypocrit. plain and simple. On the other hand, its hardly suprising that Lebanon is not at peace with Israel given the twenty year occupation. Thanks to decades of efforts by Israel, Syria, etc., Lebanon is barely a state anyway. again, the reason that isreal was occupying part of lebanon is because the hizbollah were using that area constantly to attack isreal. this may not be good enough reason, but it is still a reason, they were not doing it for their health. well actually i guess they were in another kind of way. . In both cases, a wealthy and Western oriented group decides to move into land most recently occupied by a different ethinic group. the jews did not decide to occupy this area of land. they did not conquer it. after thousands of years of persecution and finally the extermination of around 6,000,000 people by nazi germany, the u.n. agreed that there should be a jewish homeland and created one where the jews wanted it. i agree that this was unfair that the palestinians lost their land, but they did not have to leave. they were told to leave by other arabs, not by jews. also, let me address the issue of these palestinians living in these camps all these years. why have the arab countries, in which the camps exist, not made any attempt what so ever to house these people and help them make lives for themselves in their countries?? i dont think anyone really knows the answer to that, but lets just say that it is a political advantage to the arabs if isreal is made to look bad like that. The Palestinian man from Jericho gets on a bus each morning at 4 A.M. so that he can build a house in Tel Aviv for some middle-class Israeli. sorry i thought u said that this palestinian wasnt allowed in the same place is jews?? i thought he didnt even have the money to get on the bus?? was this a palestinians only bus??? i think not. clearly this isreal-south africa thing is not going anywhere. do u think that a jew living in an arab state would be treated like a human being? (regardless of how an arab in isreal would be treated) This comparison between Israel and South Africa is actually something that Noam Chomsky has written a bit about. The epilogue to his 1996 edition of "World Orders, Old and New" (published in the U.S. by Columbia University Press) has the best exposition of this that I can find at the moment. Apparently, the analogy was first drawn by Israeli commentators. Chomsky cites a 1994 article by Tanya Reinhart in Ha'aretz and an article by Norman Finkelstein as examples. pardon?? who is noam chomsky and what does he have to do with this? correct me if i'm wrong but ha'aretz means "the vine" so please explain how that sentence make sense? when a U.S. political leader sees a black person rising up violently against his oppressor with whatever primative arsenal he may have available, now, i know u did not mean it like this, but the words u use are very interesting. why would this black person, rising up, have a primitave arsenal? why do u see the u.s. as being so important in everything, sure they have a LOT of power (much more than any one country should have), but u.s. politics are not the deciding factor of everything in the whole world.

  [ Reply to this ]

• Re: Can anything be done by the geeks to ease the situation in the middle east? by Neil Rubin on Wednesday October 11, @01:09AM

  Noam Chomsky is a professor of linguistics at M.I.T. and a well known political disident. He is an American and a secular Jew. He became quite a popular figure during the 1960's as a critic of the U.S. war in Vietnam. He subsequently fell out of favor in certain circles when he turned his attention to U.S. policy in such areas as East Timor, Nicaragua, and, of course, the Middle East. He has studied the issues of Israel and Palestine deeply and written on it extensively. Since I don't have time to write a 200-page treatise on the subject, I was suggesting that the interested person read one of Chomsky's. Ha'aretz is aparently some sort of Israeli magazine or journal. As to this "black person, rising up, hav[ing] a primitave[sic] arsenal," the reason he would have a primative arsenal is not that he is black. If you can't understand why the blacks in South African townships attacked the apartheid government with stones and Molotov cocktails, rather than tanks and cruise missles, there is nothing I can do to help you. U.S. politics are not "the deciding factor of everything in the whole world." Certainly Israeli and Palestinian politics are more important than U.S. politics in the "peace process." If you think that the U.S. role is not critical in this issue, however, you deeply misunderstand the world. Why do I focus on U.S. politics? I am a U.S. citizen. I can do nothing about Israeli and Palestinian politics, but I can do something about U.S. politics. If I believe U.S. policy to be immoral, I feel that I have an obligation to speak out. Furthermore, while many of the most vocal participants here have been Israeli or Palestinian, most of the readers are not. I assume that the original questioner is American along with the preponderance of the readers. As to the other points you made, I think that I have addressed them before and am not in the mood to repeat myself. Let's face it, everyone else long ago grew tired of reading the comments on this story. Those of us who are still writing comments are probably the only ones still reading them. Well, I'm getting tired of it, too. So, please, get in your last word, and we can all get on to something more interesting. While the issue still interests me tremendously, this particular discussion does not.

  [ Reply to this ]

• Re: Can anything be done by the geeks to ease the situation in the middle east? by Shaya Potter on Wednesday October 11, @01:30AM

  I agree. Let's agree to disagree. At least those of us who are willing to actually think about this debate and not view it as total black and white. I'm tired of the debate (just look at how much I've been typing. :) ). The story started how can we prevent this, to a war debating Israel. The story had validity on technocrat, this debate probably does not.

  [ Reply to this ]

• Re: Can anything be done by the geeks to ease the situation in the middle east? by Neil Rubin on Tuesday October 10, @12:07PM

  (something I forgot to mention in other reply) there is kind of peace with jordon, but only because they both rely on the same supply of water. (obviously not very much of it in the middle east) Water is, of course, an issue of vital importance in the Middle East. No understanding of the region and its conflicts would be complete without a recognition of this. However, "both rely on the same supply of water," does not imply that true peace is not possible. Water is an issue of comparable importance in parts of the southwestern U.S. Has there been some war between California and Nevada as a result that I just haven't heard about? The issue of water is a complication, but it is certainly not one that makes peace impossible.

  [ Reply to this ]

• Re: Can anything be done by the geeks to ease the situation in the middle east? by josh on Tuesday October 10, @07:20PM

  Water is, of course, an issue of vital importance in the Middle East. No understanding of the region and its conflicts would be complete without a recognition of this. However, "both rely on the same supply of water," does not imply that true peace is not possible. Water is an issue of comparable importance in parts of the southwestern U.S. Has there been some war between California and Nevada as a result that I just haven't heard about? The issue of water is a complication, but it is certainly not one that makes peace impossible errrr.... i never said that peace is impossible. i just said that the only reason there is peace on the surface is because of the water. there are still deep-seeded problems which must be sorted out. again, california and nevadas water sharing problems if they have any are not comparible to isreal/jordon. if isreal or jordon were to run out of water, where would they get some from??? if somewhere in the u.s. were to run out of water somewhere else in the u.s. would be there in an instant to deliver more.

  [ Reply to this ]

• Re: Can anything be done by the geeks to ease the situation in the middle east? by Shaya Potter on Tuesday October 10, @01:02PM

  The Israeli Arabs have most of the same rights as Israeli Jews and live decent, normal lives. Palestinians for the most part do not. Israeli Arabs are a significant minority force in the country's politics. Without the support of the major Arab party, Barak's coalition would already have fallen. Interestingly, they are not particularly sympathetic to Palestinian politics. Looking at the numbers, one can understand why Israel doesn't want to give the Palestinians rights. Not entirely unlike the situation facing white South Africans a decade ago, eh? Every place Israel has annexed, the people living there were offered citizenship. These are 2 places in praticular. The Golan Heights and "Eastern" Jerusalem. In the Golan Heights many of the native people refused, as either afraid of what would happen to them if Israel ever gave up the golan heights to syria, or out of loyalty to syria. In Jerusalem, most (if not all) accepted, and get the full range of benefits that citizens recieve (including health care) Therefore, it's not the same as South Africa. Israel doesn't claim that the West Bank and gaza strip are Israel proper. Military law rules there, not civilian law. It's not a perfect situation, it's not even a close to good situation. Especially once Jordan and Egypt gave up their claims to the land (way way after 1967 when Israel captured it), who was Israel supposed to negotiate with? the PLO only started becoming "respectable" (depending on whome you ask) in the late 80s early 90s. Syria (more than willing to make peace in exchange for the Golan and not a huge threat) The question most Israeli's ask is. If Syria is so willing to make peace, why aren't they willing to abide by international maps made by britian and france (when they divided up the middle east in the sykes-picot agreement) that didn't give france (aka syria) land up the Sea of Gallilee (sp?) (yam kinneret). If syria's "compromise" (all peace requires compromise) is that they recognize Israel and are at peace with it, than they are saying, "we really don't like you, we don't want to be at peace with you, but I guess we'll say that so we can get the Golan Heights back". Because they are then "compromising" on their beliefs. and to most Israelis that is not peace. On the issue of Egypt, Turkey and Saudia Arabia. Egypt is not nearly an ally. Yes Israel is at peace, but it's a very very "cold peace". There were warmer relations between the US and the USSR during the cold war. Turkey is as close to an ally as Israel has had in the region. Saudia Arabia to me is a wild card. Personally, I think the US has lots of influence, but I am bothered by them. Especially things such as their AWACS, because if there is a war, they could be not engaged, but just floating an AWACS to give the other arab countries a birds eye view of the entire battlefield. Then again, If you don't have air superiority, an AWACS is really a sitting duck. Israelis look at the numbers above and are afraid of what will happen to their lifestyle if they treated their Palestinian neighbors like human beings. Correct to an extent. If Israel would annex the west bank and gaza strip (can't happen now, maybe could have happened in 67), they'd have to let those 2.5mil palestinians become citizens (as that's what democratic countries do) and that would destroy the jewish nature of Israel. Israel is not a theocracy, but it is a state with a strong jewish nature, and they (or at least some) want to maintain it.

  [ Reply to this ]

• Re: Can anything be done by the geeks to ease the situation in the middle east? by Neil Rubin on Tuesday October 10, @06:22PM

  Every place Israel has annexed, the people living there were offered citizenship. These are 2 places in praticular. The Golan Heights and "Eastern" Jerusalem. In the Golan Heights many of the native people refused, as either afraid of what would happen to them if Israel ever gave up the golan heights to syria, or out of loyalty to syria. In Jerusalem, most (if not all) accepted, and get the full range of benefits that citizens recieve (including health care) As I understand the situation, what you say above is correct. All of this certainly mitigates in favor of Israel. They could have been more vicious. As I said before, the plight of the Palestinians is not solely the fault of the Israelis. Arab nations, for their own reasons, made the lives of Palestinians far worse than they otherwise could have been. I guess that the point that I can't get away from is the fact that the Army that currently stands in the way of a reasonable life for the Palestinians is Israel's. Therefore, it's not the same as South Africa. Israel doesn't claim that the West Bank and gaza strip are Israel proper. Military law rules there, not civilian law. It's not a perfect analogy, but it's the best one that I know of. Reasoning by analogy alone is no way to make complicated moral judgements, anyway. I think that it has real utility in that it allows you to really ask the question: what are you basing your moral judgements on? In these two cases, elite American opinion has come to opposite conclusions. What is the essential difference that explains this? Does anyone have a closer analogy they would suggest?

  [ Reply to this ]

• Re: Can anything be done by the geeks to ease the situation in the middle east? by T.F. Druid on Wednesday October 11, @02:20AM

  If Israel would annex the west bank and gaza strip (can't happen now, maybe could have happened in 67), they'd have to let those 2.5mil palestinians become citizens (as that's what democratic countries do) and that would destroy the jewish nature of Israel. Israel is not a theocracy, but it is a state with a strong jewish nature, and they (or at least some) want to maintain it. And here we have the crux of the problem. For over 30 years now, Israels position has been 1. We will treat these territories as if they were part of Israel (when it comes to building jewish settlements on the land) 2. We will treat these territories as if they were not part of Israel (when it comes to granting basic civil and political rights to those who live there) This is a fundamentally untenable position for a country that wants to call itself a democracy. The current Israeli position in the negotiations, which tries to keep the jewish settlers happy (by hanging onto places like Hebron, which have a tiny jewish settlement in the middle of a large palestinian town) cannot possibly succeed, as the settlements are too widely scattered. Once you've excised all of the "holy sites", and the jewish settlements, and a generous buffer-zone around them, and the roads required to guarantee access to Israel proper, there's not a lot left for the palestinians. A palestinian state composed of the left-overs would be little more than a collection of refugee camps, and the palestinians have had enough of that already. The solution ? Take the hard decisions, as was done when the peace deal with Egypt was signed. If the price of peace is dismantling some settlements, so be it. If the settlers don't want to leave, then let them stay and apply for palestinian citizenship.

  [ Reply to this ]

• Re: Can anything be done by the geeks to ease the situation in the middle east? by Shaya Potter on Tuesday October 10, @12:42PM

  Of all the comments that I have read, you seem to be one of the only people that I've seen willing to look at all sides of the issues. I just have a few comments. Some criticisms might sound harsh, but they are meant to make one think. I might be wrong, but if people can think things through instead of just having an emotional reaction, we might make progress. But the twenty year occupation ran contrary any reasonable understanding of International Law. Lebanon was Israel's vietnam. It was very hard to get out, as Israel was afraid that Hezbollah would just move their rockets in closer, and instead of hitting towns right on the border, would be able to hit towns farther in. As the US learnt with vietnam, it's very very hard to get out. It has a highly capable indigenous arms industry and has ready access to almost any weapon it cares to buy (usually with U.S. aid) from the U.S. conventional inventory. Important point. Much of the US military aid that Israel gets, has to be spent in the US. It's not as simple as the US giving Israel a handout. The "handout" supports weapon systems that the US might not be able to fund themselves directly. For example, the US has learnt a lot about anti-missile defenses from the arrow anti-missle project, and currently the nautilus laser anti-rocket project looks very promising as well. The US also uses the aid package to "force" Israel's hand in some cases, such as having the national airline buy from Boeing instead of airbus, when airbus had a better bang for the buck package. Contrast this to the Palestinians. They live in occupied territory, taken in 1967. The army of occupation is precisely the army of this wealthy, powerful nation. The Palestinians have no vote, no influence at all over the goverment whose army occupies them, no freedom of movement. This army of occupation can even cut off their access to employment (in Isreal) at will by closing the border. Who did Israel conquer it from? The Palestinians? No, from Jordan and Egypt. Who set up the refugee camps? Israel? No, egypt and jordan refused to absorb the people in the land they conquered and forced them into camps. Jobs in Israel? Wait a second, you are saying the palestinian have benefits by being under occupation? What happens if they become a state, and the borders are like most country fairly closed? I remember going from Lithuania into Poland in the middle of the night (3am), it took us 3 hours to cross the border with our US passports. These people are overwhelmingly poor, many of them having lived in refugee camps for over thirty years!!! Actually longer, as the camps weren't set up at 67, but in 48 when Israel didn't control those areas. understand the behavior of the Isreali government. Given the political realities of their nation, how could they act differently? But imagine that you represent the Palestinians and actually care about the fate of your people. How easily could you accept what you have been offered? (Disconnected chunks of nearly worthless land, nearly impossible to build into a viable state, with no right of return for refugees.) 1) Barak offered them a real state. Including control over areas in Jerusalem. Read back over what happened at camp david this summer. 2) Israel won't allow massive "right of return" into Israel proper. If the palestinians have a state, they won't (can't?) stop palestinians from going to it. the rest of what you said is good to hear.

  [ Reply to this ]

• Re: Can anything be done by the geeks to ease the situation in the middle east? by Neil Rubin on Tuesday October 10, @05:54PM

  Of all the comments that I have read, you seem to be one of the only people that I've seen willing to look at all sides of the issues. I just have a few comments. Some criticisms might sound harsh, but they are meant to make one think. I might be wrong, but if people can think things through instead of just having an emotional reaction, we might make progress. I take this as quite a compliment. I think that the tone and approach taken in the rest of your comment is absolutely apropriate. I agree with almost all of the rest of what you say. Just a few comments: Jobs in Israel? Wait a second, you are saying the palestinian have benefits by being under occupation? What happens if they become a state, and the borders are like most country fairly closed? I remember going from Lithuania into Poland in the middle of the night (3am), it took us 3 hours to cross the border with our US passports. Sure the Palestinians have benefitted in some ways from their relationship with Israel, but are those benefits worth the cost? It seems to me that the reason so many Palestinians work in Israel is that under the occupation the Palestinian economy is virtually non-existant. Any smart indigenous capital left long ago, and it's not a particularly attractive place for outside investors! Most professionals probably fled long ago, as well. As to the borders closing, the only reason they are open now is because Israel wants the cheap labor. Until that changes, I don't see the border closing just because the occupied territories are now a "state." Barak offered them a real state. Including control over areas in Jerusalem. Read back over what happened at camp david this summer. Well, it is not always possible to know exactly what was discussed at Camp David. We don't, to my knowledge, have copies of formal proposals that were made and rejected. There are domestic political reasons for both sides to be a bit ambiguous about exactly what they were willing to give up. Nonetheless, someone with enough time can pretty much piece things together. The only place I have seen anyone lay out exactly what was proposed territorially was in a July 27 piece by Noam Chomsky. He writes: The intended result is that an eventual Palestinian state would consist of four cantons on the West Bank: (1) Jericho, (2) the southern canton extending as far as Abu Dis (the new Arab "Jerusalem"), (3) a northern canton including the Palestinian cities of Nablus, Jenin, and Tulkarm, and (4) a central canton including Ramallah. The cantons are completely surrounded by territory to be annexed to Israel. The areas of Palestinian population concentration are to be under Palestinian administration, an adaptation of the traditional colonial pattern that is the only sensible outcome as far as Israel and the US are concerned. The plans for the Gaza Strip, a fifth canton, are uncertain: Israel might relinquish it, or might maintain the southern coastal region and another salient virtually dividing the Strip below Gaza City. Unfortunately, Chomsky does not cite a source for this, but it does seem to fit the general pattern. For help in figuring out exactly where all these places are, one may find the Oslo II map helpful. Anyway, it's hard to see how such a state, chopped into five or six peaces essentially surrounded by Israel will ever have any true autonomy. On top of that, the new state will be dependant on U.S. and Israeli economic aid for the forseeable future. That is why I claimed that the proposed state was not "viable." It may well be that this outcome is the best that can be achieved. Still, I think it is only due to a half-century worth of desperation that the Palestinians will be willing to accept it. the rest of what you said is good to hear. The same to you.

  [ Reply to this ]

• Economy by Electric Monk on Saturday October 14, @11:03PM

  I will talk only about economy now: Israel, which was formed in 1948, began as a completly isolated country. It also had to asorb 500 thousands Jewish immigrants who fled from European and Arab states. In 1955, Israel had a rather strong economy, based mainly on agriculture and light industry. Israel even managed to build one of the world's first electronic computers (Albert Einstein was involved in that project). Nowadays, the smallest clash in Israel can upset NASDAQ. (All the major IT firms have development centers in Israel. Intel, IBM, Motorola, Lucent, Qualcomm just to name a few). Economy has to be built from the inside - The people have to create it. Of course you need money, which the Palestinians had from taxes (which they received from Israel), from the European Community and from the International Currency Fund. They could have invested it in building an economy (Remember John Keynes). But they didn't. 7 years already passed, and they are at the exact same place. Israel didn't prohibit openning businesses. Could it be that they were too busy complaining and blaming while doing absolutly nothing about their poor economical condition? Could it be corruption? Where did these billions of dollars and shekels go? p.s. Ha'Aretz is a daily news paper. The name means "The Country"

  [ Reply to this ]

• Re: Can anything be done by the geeks to ease the situation in the middle east? by Gombo on Sunday October 08, @07:11PM

  I really do not know could anybody in the world do anything to stop this conflict. Both sides wanted the same place - Jerusalem - for itself and while none of them gives up this hope fighting will continue, imho. I do not believe in compromise because both sides have its ultras, like Sharon and even worse, who are able to spark whole thing very easily. Though I do not believe in compromise I do believe in talks because while the talks lasts fighting is subdued. So, long live the talks! You never could blame only one side in cases like this, but your statement about media bias hardly has foundation. Never the Western World was on the Arab side of the conflict and the blame it put on Israel is a acknowledgement of facts. Look at this chart at CNN. Quite enlightening, isn't it?

  [ Reply to this ]

• Re: Can anything be done by the geeks to ease the situation in the middle east? by Malcontent on Monday October 09, @03:53AM

  The media may be pro arab in the UK but here in the US it's definately and emphatically pro Israel. I don't really know how it is in the rest of the world. I also want to point out a couple things about your reply to J.D. I think that both sides in this conflict have done horribel things to each other but neither side wants to own up. Your reply to JD seems to equivacate and try to justify immoral acts. For example the fact that there was slavery in the US in no way excuses Israel from treating it's citizens in an inhumane way. Time marches on and we have evolved into thinking that slavery is wrong. If some country currently practiced slavery we could rightfully condemn them. It's important to remember that Israel was born out of terrorism. And now the palestinians are trying a tactic that worked for Israel. This is a prime case of Evil Begetting Evil. Both sides have to own up to every evil act commited and be ready to forgive themselves and each other. What is most ironic in all this of course is the location. At the birthplace of three major religions children are dying.

  [ Reply to this ]

• Re: Can anything be done by the geeks to ease the situation in the middle east? by T.F. Druid on Monday October 09, @09:05PM

  It was orignally the intention that jews and palestinians live in peace and harmony in isreal, but the neighbouring arab governments scared the palestinans in to leaving isreal by saying that the jews would kill them etc. and that they were in danger. so, rightfully so these palestinians were pissed off that they had to leave their home and so the fighting began. So, the exodus of millions of people was all the result of a hoax perpetrated by neighboring arab governments ? Well, a very successful hoax it seems to have been, it even fooled the Israeli government. They launched an inquiry into the activities of the Irgun (a jewish terrorist organisation), and the atrocities they committed against palestinians. The most notorious of these was an attack on a village during the day (when the men were off working the fields) which resulted in the near total extermination of the women and children of the village. Over 200 bodies were found, some of the babies had evidently been held by the ankles and bashed to death against walls. Note: I'm referring to an Israeli government report here, not PLO propaganda. The Irgun made no effort to keep this secret, in fact, they broadcast news of it widely. In the following week, over half of the palestinian population fled, which was clearly the intent of the excersize. And were the perpetrators brought to justice ? No, in fact, the Israeli government only tangible response was to quickly pass a law confiscating the lands of "absentee landlords" (i.e. refugees). The attack on the village was led by Menachim Begin - who later became Prime Minister of Israel. The same man who was PM during the infamous massacres at Sabra and Shatila refugee camps. And who was Begins defence minister during these (later) massacres ? Who did another Israeli enquiry criticise for his role in "failing to prevent" the massacres (i.e. trucking the murderers in, giving them weapons, and standing by as the massacre proceeded) ? Ariel Sharon. Do you now understand palestinian outrage at his visit to their sacred site?

  [ Reply to this ]

• Re: Can anything be done by the geeks to ease the situation in the middle east? by josh on Tuesday October 10, @07:35PM

  So, the exodus of millions of people was all the result of a hoax perpetrated by neighboring arab governments ? i dont think it was a hoax at all. i think that the neighbouring arab countries genuinely believed that these palestinians would be masacred or whatever. i am sure that there were some jews that did not want the palestinians there, but there was no government policy to force them to leave, contrary to popular belief

  [ Reply to this ]

• Re: Can anything be done by the geeks to ease the situation in the middle east? by T.F. Druid on Tuesday October 10, @11:21PM

  No government policy ? 1. The Israeli government did not punish those who committed the massacres, even though their identities were well known. 2. The Israeli government quickly took steps to confiscate land owned by those who fled the massacres. 3. The Israeli government still refuses to allow them to return home. 4. One of the perpetrators of the massacre later became Prime Minister of Israel. In your original posting, you stated that jews wanted to live in harmony with the palestinians, who were convinced to leave by other Arab governments. The facts just don't support your case. The palestinians fled because they had a well founded fear for their lives, a fear based on the actual massacres being committed by the Israelis.

  [ Reply to this ]

• Re: Real geeks don't care. by A. Non. on Monday October 09, @07:25PM

  So, there are no geeks in the midwestern USA ?

  [ Reply to this ]

• Re: Real geeks don't care. by Jade E. on Saturday October 14, @06:35AM

  Well, Utah's main expansion in Arizona (i.e., Flagstaff) is almost entirely Geek free. Both of us moved.

  [ Reply to this ]

• Re: You all don't get it. by Elvis Maximus on Wednesday October 11, @06:53AM

  IMHO, Israel has gone a long way towards understanding "the wrongs" that they have committed. If you haven't seen Israel's new history textbooks or seen the major series on television a couple of years ago looking at the history of the state, you would have no idea about the introspection that Israeli society has done. That's why they wanted the peace process to work. However, can anyone point to any place that the palestinians try to understand the Israeli position? It's true: a lot of good work has been done in this area recently. As you know, though, the new textbooks are very new, very controversial and many schools are refusing to deliver the new curriculum. I say this not as a criticism of the effort; it is part of the process and is to be expected. There's a reason, though, that it has taken 50 years for this to start happening. You can't do this kind of introspection until you feel safe enough, from both security and economic points of view, that you have the luxury of taking a more evenhanded position. The Palestinians are not there yet. Even outside of the current disturbances, Palestinians' lives are significantly disrupted on a daily basis by the presence of Israeli troops and settlers and the uncertainty of not knowing whether even the loose administrative entity they have today will be there tomorrow, or what form it will take. I'd like to see, as you would, a shift in curriculum in the Territories similar to what we're now starting to see in Israel. But for that to happen, there will have to be a fundamental change in the security and economic situations in the Territories. There have been laudable moves in this direction and I'm sure we all hope they will bear fruit. But spend a day in Gaza City, Hebron, or even Ramallah, and then another in Tel Aviv, Haifa, or even Metulla, and I don't think you'll be very surprised that the attitudes are different. And in answer to your presumably rhetorical question, there are a number of places where Palestinians and Israelis are working together toward reconciliation. The Hope Flowers School in Bethlehem has a great program as does Seeds of Peace. Neve Shalom/Wahat al-Salaam does similar work with Israeli Arabs, though last I heard it was floundering somewhat. All of these programs are well-known and if you're genuinely interested I would encourage you to participate.

  [ Reply to this ]

Some here have suggested communication with other people accross the borders. The same suggestion came from a friend in another forum.

FACTS: Many Arabs and Israelis are friends with people of "the other side". This information is lost to public perception.

IDEA: set up a website (perhaps using Squishdot?) where people can say so publicly, giving some objective information regarding one's friends.

Example: "I know that chap accross the border since I was 23. He helped me learn about html, and I taught him how to cook [insert some local food here]."

The website would be specifically devoted to this as the main thing. It would not accept flames, links to negative news-items, or anything like that. For destruction go somewhere else! Collective (or single-person) constructive thinking would be acceptable and encouraged.

Schools that wanted to make friends could publicly say so. Partnership with towns, etc, would also be displayed. The main focus would possibly be person-to-person friendship.

BENEFITS OF THIS IDEA:

• It's simple, easy (if anyone has a couple of hours and some bandwidth), and doesn't hurt anyone.
  
• It could spread like an idea-virus - or shall we call it an idea-seed?
  
• It could make it into the news.
  
• If enough "critical mass" (or shall we call it "cooperative mass"?) is formed, then further actions could be taken. This is not needed for this action to have some impact!
  
• The "experiment" could lead to further ideas.
  

PROBLEMS (AND FURTHER THOUGHTS) WITH THIS IDEA:

• I don't personally have the needed machine, bandwidth, or technical expertise to start this off. OTOH *you* exist!
  
• If I fail to present this idea convincingly enough we won't even know if it has any effect.
  
• It means hassle for the taker. If it succeeds it may mean lots of hassle. Intriguing: can this be parallelised somehow?
  
• People may not want to play this game. There may be fear of retaliation or of "cooperating with the enemy". Could we start with people outside the crisis zone? I mean, many arabs and israelis live in other countries ...
  
• There's a weakness in the idea: language. Should someone translate one paragraph each week or day, just for illustration? Now - *this* is parallelisable!
  

I'd love to see that imagined website being slashdotted!

• Re: Can anything be done by the geeks to ease the situation in the middle east? by T.F. Druid on Tuesday October 10, @07:21PM

  Imagine the palestinian, sitting down at his PC, after seeing his school-mate shot by soldiers, and typing "I have this great recipe for ...." Imagine the Israeli, having survived an attack from a stone-throwing mob, sitting down at her PC and typing "If you added a little garlic to that recipe ..." It all sounds nice in theory, but in practice, real people on both sides are being hurt, real houses are being burned down, real rockets are being fired into real apartment buildings by real helicopter gunships. People are both angry and fearful, they wouldn't be human if they weren't. It's just completely unrealistic to think that you could have any sort of discussion site without these major traumas being mentioned.

  [ Reply to this ]

• Re: Can anything be done by the geeks to ease the situation in the middle east? by Lucas Gonzalez on Wednesday October 11, @04:27AM

  It's just completely unrealistic to think that you could have any sort of discussion site without these major traumas being mentioned. I feel the same way - though surely not as intensely. It's also true that many people do like each other even across the borders. Could we have a site where different things are signaled as different? I mean: "This happened." A fact. At least as one of the people involved sees it. "I feel hurt." A feeling. We all have these. They are important. "I want a better future." Another feeling. Again, we all have these. I feel they are perhaps even more important than the 'i feel hurt' one, but I may be wrong. So let's accept that both feelings do exist - simultaneously. "This is one possibility I see in the options-space - let's explore it." Exploration of ideas. Ideas are ideas. Let's look at them and see if we can build something. Code is ideas that work, so it's not unreasonable to try and code ideas in domains other than software! "I see this good point in that submitted idea." Idea evaluation - different than idea generation. Let's keep them separate, and signal them differently. [Submitted idea = it doesn't matter if I submitted it or if you did - this is open source thiking isn't it? - so regardless of the author of the idea we can all submit patches, etc.] "I see this bad point. I guess that approximately some-number people would be hurt." Another side of idea evaluation. It exists simultaneuosly with the good points. "Let's summarise now, and later let's try and design a way forward." Overview thinking. A bit like main() for those who like to code in C, etc. Those who know what parallel thinking means know what I'm talking about. We need not use Edward de Bono's Six Thinking Hats, because they are puerile - aren't they? Northern Ireland Design Conference. Or maybe the "hats" don't scale well? Of course emotions are important. Doesn't everyone have emotions regarding the future? Constructive (and, at least 1% of the time, creative) thinking - is important if you want to have good emotions for a very long time and for many people.

  [ Reply to this ]

• Re: Josephs Tomb - an update. by Shaya Potter on Tuesday October 10, @09:20PM

  You are wrong. Certian jews believe that it is a holy site. The palestinians destroyed it because they believed it to be a jewish holy site. i.e. because of the belief those jews held. As proof that it was religously motivated, they destroyed and desecrated many religious items that all jews would find sacred that were left behind at the site. And besides, if the palestinians destroyed a site that should be holy to them, I don't think jews would want them taking care of any jewish holy sites.

  [ Reply to this ]

• Re: Josephs Tomb - an update. by T.F. Druid on Tuesday October 10, @11:44PM

  The place may be holy to jews, but the building wasn't. Not only was it too young by a couple of millennia, but it was built by the wrong people. It was the building that was destroyed. The mosque. No ancient jewish monument was damaged. The holiness of the place to jews would, presumably, be enhanced by the removal of a mosque. BTW - what were jews doing occupying a mosque in the first place? It's in an overwhelmingly palestinian neighborhood, so presumably jewish control over the building was established at gun-point. What happened to the much boasted of respect for the religious rights of the palestinians?

  [ Reply to this ]

• Re: Josephs Tomb - an update. by Shaya Potter on Wednesday October 11, @12:36AM

  The holiness of the place to jews would, presumably, be enhanced by the removal of a mosque. Nope. A Mosque is not unholy. Islam is not unclean. Judaism actually has much more respect for Islam than it does for christianity. (the Trinity is a big problem) But you miss the point, why was it destroyed? You see, I don't care about what you end up doing, I care about your motivations. BTW - what were jews doing occupying a mosque in the first place? It's in an overwhelmingly palestinian neighborhood, so presumably jewish control over the building was established at gun-point. Why is their a mosque on the temple mount? Why is their a mosque on the tomb of the patriarchs in Hebron? Many jewish holy sites (actually some palestinians refuse to believe that those sites have any connection to jews) were taken over by the arabs. Let's say they did take it over and didn't respect the rights of the palestinians. Did they desecrate the place? Did they desecrate religious items Islam finds holy at this place. In actuality, it would appear that these Arabs did not find the place to be holy, as they desecrated it themselves.

  [ Reply to this ]

• Re: Josephs Tomb - an update. by Elvis Maximus on Wednesday October 11, @05:59AM

  But you miss the point, why was it destroyed? You see, I don't care about what you end up doing, I care about your motivations. OK. Let's look at that. Joseph's Tomb was used by settler groups as a justification for continued occupation of the area, and there are/were groups intending to use it as the core of a Jewish settlement, similar to what we have in Hebron. This is not just my analysis; Israeli Deputy Defense Minister Ephraim Sneh said that "over the years, the army has protected a small, marginal group that wanted to use this site [Joseph's Tomb] as a foothold for settlement in Nablus, that is the honest truth." The settler movement uses religious sites as political symbols. There should be no surprise that the Palestinians who live near those sites grasp this. If you have a complaint that Joseph's Tomb is currently being treated as a symbol of Israeli political aspirations in the Territories rather than as an site that religious persons of all faiths can safely visit regardless of their political proclivities or ethnic group, please take it up with the YESHA Council. You cannot make a conscious effort to turn a religious site into a political one and then complain that the religious site is being used for political purposes. The settlers in Hebron are as extreme as any party in the conflict. The Nabulsis don't want to see their like in Nablus any more than a resident of Tel Aviv wants a Hamas cell to take over the flat block next door. And when I say please take it up with the YESHA Council, I mean it: please take it up with the YESHA Council. They do what they do in your name, and they engineer facts on the ground so that you will have to intervene, politically and militarily, to achieve their goals. If you don't like to see this stuff happen, you can play a role: don't let the settlers act in your name. I sincerely hope that when tempers cool, the site is reconstructed and not turned back into a political football, this time by the other side. But only time will tell.

  [ Reply to this ]

• Re: Can anything be done by the geeks to ease the situation in the middle east? by CiXeL on Wednesday October 11, @05:48PM

  you are dumb. oob otherwise known as boob. get a clue, get some education. peace is better tard.

  [ Reply to this ]

• A message to OOB by Electric Monk on Saturday October 14, @10:00PM

  Mr. OOB: Why stop with that? Why won't you just put every jew in the world into death camps? I bet your favorate book is probably "Mine Campf", and you have a posters of Hitler, Stalin, Assad and Nazzer on your walls. For your knowledge: Israel was founded based on a UN resolution from 1947, which divided Israel/Palestine (then a British colony) into 2 countrys. The Jews excepted. The Palestinians didn't.

  [ Reply to this ]

• Re: Can anything be done by the geeks to ease the situation in the middle east? by A.Non on Sunday October 15, @03:25AM

  Um, the technical term for a soldier found out-of-uniform behind enemy lines is "Spy" Their treatment under international law is somewhat harsh. BTW - As for the "lost turn" story. One Israeli spokesman referred to them as an "undercover team" - presumably one of the "Death Squads" that have been operating in the west bank continuously since the Oslo accord was signed.

  [ Reply to this ]