As it so happens, there are other things one can do with a camera phone during a revolution besides filming gun battles.
I recently arrived late to a very good party, the party of Jiim Siin’s brilliant and wickedly satirical monologues about the Syrian uprising. Recorded on an iPhone by an anonymous Syrian fellow living in the diaspora, the series entitled وقائع طنجرة الضغط (“Chronicles of the Pressure Cooker”) is a collection of short audio clips of sketches, political allegories, and satirical musings on the revolution. You can listen to the entire series on his blog.
Among my favorites:
- Boiling up a new Constitution
- Don’t go…alone: A letter to Bashar al-Assad.
- Re-reading Syria as a sieve, rather than a pressure cooker…
- The most recent clip, excoriating the new Syrian constitution’s requirement that any presidential candidate be married to a Syrian woman.
- You know what? Do yourself a favor and listen to them all.
What I love about these clips is the language: a rich, pungent, evocative vernacular… basically colloquial poetry. Yes, I know I’m getting carried away, but I can’t really think of a more creative response to the situation than this.
I got in touch with Jiim Siin via Twitter. He tells me he was inspired by Arabic radio programs and by Monty Python’s Flying Circus, “for the absurdity…” His weekly missives bring to mind Jacques Barzun’s famous definition of decadence: “When people accept futility and the absurd as normal, the culture is decadent. The term is not a slur; it is a technical label. A decadent culture offers opportunities chiefly to the satirist…”
In Jiim Siin, the Syrian revolution has a very talented one indeed.
Qifa Nabki 
My response 3 days ago: The former… Nasrallah planning to annihilate Israel and marching to Jerusalem was MUCH WORSE by orders of magnitude.
Today’s response: Well it depends on whether your views represent the views of the Majority of Israelis or not. If yes.. then Nasrallah’s position is the Righteous one, and the overflights are MUCH WORSE. If not, then my response from 3 days ago still holds.
Posted by Gabriel | April 1, 2012, 12:05 pmGabriel,
Well, why don’t you just spell out why you got insulted, and not based on some thing you imagined I said or some fact that we both agree on? If I didn’t get it, I am sure that many readers did not get it also (if anyone else reads what we are writing).
What are you some fragile flower? Do you want me to write BS saying how I don’t support over flights when it is the best thing to do in the bad situation we are in? Do you want me to give you lame excuses like Ras Beirut gave me about the “Lebanese state being weak”? Do you want me to tell you BS about international law when I think it is a joke and reality supports me? Do you want me to feel compassion for the Palestinians after the second intifada? Do you want me to view Hamas with nothing but contempt? You have come to the wrong place. Just like they screwed up Lebanon, the Palestinians attempted to screw up Israel and got hurt badly in the process. When you make mistakes, you pay for them.
Posted by AIG | April 1, 2012, 12:11 pmGabriel,
First of all, why would your position depend on what the majority of Israelis think? That is not a principled position.
Second, why would you change your mind if most Israelis think like me that violating Lebanese air space is required in order to keep Hezbollah in check? Care to explain why that would make you change your mind?
Posted by AIG | April 1, 2012, 12:15 pmAP in 388
As far as a peace agreement between Lebanon & Israel. Lebanon’s official position (and rigtfully so) has been, that it should only happen as part of a comprehensive agreement.
The piecemeal approach a la Egypt and Jordan has been proven as innefective on many levels, especially to the central core of the dispute, i.e. the palestinian issue is far from being resolved.
A comprehensive and all inclusive deal is the only way to go based on the ’67 line (with some minor negotiated adjustments). This has been the goal of the Quartet and the UN, and it makes lots of sense. Israel has been the obstacle to this, as it has a diificult time letting go of occupied land.
I’ll remind you that when Egypt signed the peace treaty with Israel, Egypt had to fend off the critisizm from the rest of the arab contries, by indicating that the treaty requires Israel to finish a peace deal with the rest and resolve the palestinian issue soon after that. Instead, Israel kept on building settlements with obviously no intention to live up to their promises made in the treaty.
Posted by Ras Beirut | April 1, 2012, 12:20 pmAIG:
Why I got insulted?
Is spelt out in detail in #375.
Take the time and read it over an over again. As I suggested previously, swap out Arab and Jew in the narrative. Then read it again.
Then forget for a moment that you are gracing QN’s forums to win a shouting match… Just read it, absorb it, appreciate the repercussions of your worldview and what it would mean to Jews/Israelis if the table were turned.
If you haven’t changed your mind, read it again, and again.
If you still haven’t changed your mind, there is no point for me to try and explain it.
If you manage to change your mind, then and only then will you truly understand what offended me.
Posted by Gabriel | April 1, 2012, 12:33 pm#398:
For response, read #400, which refers you to #375.
Treat #375 as you would the Torah. Wait, you’re an atheist like me. Treat it like you would treat the Principia!
If you understand #375, you would understand why my position would appear to be different in both cases (in reality my underlying position is consistent).
Posted by Gabriel | April 1, 2012, 12:49 pmGabriel,
It is really easy to hide sloppy thinking behind long and rambling posts. Claiming to be insulted while not willing to explain succinctly why is quite suspicious.
Why don’t write in a few sentences why you were insulted? If you can’t it is a pretty strong indication about the validity of your point. As I told you many times, I swap Arab and Jew and it is still very benign. You seem to be offended by the facts we agree upon, that Israel needs to over fly over
Lebanon to collect intelligence on Hezbollah.
Posted by AIG | April 1, 2012, 1:02 pmRas Beirut,
Do you actually listen to what Hamas are saying?
Listen to this:
http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/3257.htm
Is Israel really the problem? This is Ismail Haniya, not some inconsequential guy. And it is not 20 years ago, it is this January. You want me to believe that after I give him the West Bank there will be peace?
Posted by AIG | April 1, 2012, 1:09 pmIf anyone else is following this debate, I would appreciate an explanation from anyone why what I wrote is insulting.
Posted by AIG | April 1, 2012, 1:20 pm404.
One last tiime. And this time. No Lebanon and No Israel.
Two Countries. Country A and Country B. They are at War. But they have a Ceasefire Agreement.
Country B, until relatively recently was occupying Country A.
Despite the fact that there are agreement between Country A and Country B, country B decides that what it says are in the interest of Peace, it shall unilaterally decided to Violate the airspace of Country A.
Technically, Country A has Casus Belli, and could, if it wanted to scrap the ceasefire agreement.
Country A could send its Forces into Country B, do a reverse “Occupation” of Country B. Perhaps throw anyone from Country B into Jail if they oppose this “Occupation”.
Actually, Country A could very well technically keep parts of Country B’s territory, because technically, Country B gave Country A a Casus Belli.
Because Country B lost land in a War it started, it has no grounds to complain. After all, Country B started the war, and if it valued the land so much, it shouldn’t start a war.
Next Post Coming Up by Yours Truly… We will replace Country A and Country B by various Arab Countries and Israel.
Posted by Gabriel | April 1, 2012, 1:39 pmScenario 1
Country A = Lebanon
Country B = Israel
This scenario is in fact the one we have been talking about all along. In this scenario. You have given Israel free License to violate Lebanon’s airspace.
While you conceded that this action was Casus Belli for Lebanon, you maintain that the only Action that Lebanon could in fact do is try its best to shoot down Israeli planes.
Other actions, like an invasion of Israel, would constitute a Casus Belli for Israel, hence allowing it not only to Re-invade Lebanon, but also occupy Lebanese territory.
There is nothing in the logic of your argument that would in fact stop Israel from claiming, if it wanted to, that it can keep any portions of Lebanese territory, because as you maintained, you disagree with portions of the Geneva Convention that states that a country cannot in fact keep land it amassed through war.
When I protested the how ludicrous this argument is, you decided to bring my father into the equation.
While you didn’t bring my father in, in the context of the Lebanon- you conveniently shifted the conversation to the Palestinians- you said;
Gabriel. Your father was a smart man. Instead of sticking around in Lebanon and fighting against the Invasion Occupation in 1982 (which you conceded was a war under false pretenses)… he decided to scurry off to the Gulf, to get a job, put me through school, sent me off to Canada to get a Passport.
That, in your mind, would have been the Right thing for my father to do.
But in 1973, when the Syrians and Egyptians were killing Jews in the Yom Kippur war, I would rather suspect that you would not think that the right thing for Jews to do is to run off from Israel, so that they can get jobs elsewhere and send their children off to Canada.
No.. you dear Sir, proudly served in the IDF, to protect your land and people. I suspect since you constantly say you are worried that Hizballah may overrun Jerusalem and “annihilate” Israel, you would think it more honorable that Jews serve Israel.
That insinuation is what was Insulting.
Posted by Gabriel | April 1, 2012, 1:50 pmScenario 2
Scenario 1 above was actually a true reflection of events in the last 20-30 years between Lebanon and Israel.
This next scenario will be a hypothetical to really drive the point and to demonstrate that the world view that you constructed, and as defined by the Rules that YOU SET, and summarized in #404, is not in fact a worldview that you really support.
To achieve this aim, this time, I shall make;
Country A = Israel
Country B = Lebanon
In our hypothetical example, Lebanon has decided to in fact Invade Israel. By some miracle of Yeshua, it turned out, it had a hidden stash of the latest Stealth technology developed 2000 years ago by the Phoenicians!
This Lebanon is Run by his Eminence, Hassan Nasrallah, who decided that he would Annihilate Israel and Over-run Jerusalem.
And so he does. Lebanon invades Israel and occupies it. It puts its people in Jail when they form a resistance movement to fight against Lebanon’s brutal occupation of Jewish territory.
By chance, AIG and Gabriel find themselves in a hypothetical QN forum discussing the occupation of Israel.
During the course of this conversation, AIG complains to Gabriel and says that he takes exception with the fact that the Lebanese are occupying Israel in violation of this or that UN or Geneva principle of International law.
At that point, Gabriel (in this parallel universe) retorts:
Well AIG, it’s not my problem that the Phoenicians hid this stash of stealth fighters that you can’t keep up with.
And really, remember those overflights you were doing back in the day?
Well those were a Casus Belli.
So really, you shouldn’t complain… because you asked for it.
Posted by Gabriel | April 1, 2012, 1:58 pmScenario 3
Scenario 3 will take us back to 1967, and the argument as it started. Because really, the argument started at this point, which is the blocking of the Straits of Tiran.
Country A = Egypt (or Jordan)
Country B = Israel
In 1967, much as has happened in our Hypothetical scenario #2, Israel did in fact decide to use its forces to Occupy land. So ludicrous as Scenario 2 may have sounded on First reading, it in fact reflects a reality as it happened a few decades ago.
Israel has now used (much as Lebanon has in Hypothetical Example 2), the event of the Closing of the Strait of Tiran as Casus Belli for Expropriating territory. (Instead of the overflights).
Given that you have taken exception to the Idea that Nasrallah wants to “annihilate Israel” and “overrun Jerusalem”, I can only assume that in fact, you would not want Jerusalem to be wrestled back out of Israel’s control.
So what does that mean in the context of this scenario?
Well it means again that you don’t think Arabs have any honor. Because in this scenario… you reject the right of the Arabs (Egyptians, Palestinians, Jordanians) in this case to complain that they lost land.. because they gave Israel Casus Belli, by blocking the Straits of Tiran.
Posted by Gabriel | April 1, 2012, 2:09 pmScenario 4
Country A = Egypt
Country B = Israel
In scenario 4, we have an identical situation to scenario 3. Except in this case we shall re-interpret the “blockade” of the strait of Tiran as a violation by Israel of Egyptian territorial waters.
The same historic event, when viewed in this different way, presents a scenario no less bizarre than the outcome of Scenario 1.
If we all agree that the Strait of Tiran are in fact Egyptian territorial waters, then Israel:
1) Violated Egyptian territory
2) Decided to go to war with Egypt over its own violation of Egyptian territory
3) Took land from Egypt under the auspices that Egypt started a war with Israel.
Posted by Gabriel | April 1, 2012, 2:16 pmI won’t carry on. But you can see how instructive this formulation can become. For all those scenarios, flip Country A and Country B, and follow through the logic.
Hey, come up with some scenarios of your own… as they are derived from the Rules that you yourself set out.
And if you don’t find the outcome of those scenarios ludicrous, then all those years serving in the IDF may have fried your brains.
Posted by Gabriel | April 1, 2012, 2:19 pmAIG says,
“The Arab Israelis on average, have more rights and are more educated and also richer than the average Lebanese not to mention the average Palestinian in Lebanon that are really second class residents because you won’t grant them citizenship. So cut your BS.”
Now Mr. Know it all. Prove it or you stop that BS. You would love for the Palestinians to be naturalized so that they forget about their own country. No way dude!!
“As for the West Bank and Gaza, they are not part of Israel. ” If that’s the way you look at time. Swell! then your Israel should stop raping the Palestinian lands and dislodging people out of their land. Stop building settlements on lands that don’t belong to you! In common language and based on your assertion above;Israel is a common thief!
Posted by danny | April 1, 2012, 2:25 pmMy apologies, 408 should read:
country a: israel
country b: egypt/jordan
Posted by Gabriel | April 1, 2012, 2:49 pmBefore you get ahead of yourself and start talking Peace Agreements, let’s stick to a situation when neither side violates basic common sense principles.
OK Gabriel. I just think it’s a shame Lebanon can’t sign a peace treaty with Israel since there isn’t really a border dispute. If Lebanon is waiting for a peace with Israel and the Palestinians, that’s understandable too. My point is, Israel isn’t going to stop overflights while UNSC 1701 is being broken. Hezbollah under the current state of affairs, shouldn’t be able to bring illegal weapons into the area while Israel leaves itself vulnerable.
So, please take up your issues with AIG, and have him explain to you, Jew to Jew, why he feels it should be ok for Israel to violate ceasefires on the one hand (giving Lebanon Casus Belli, for which he proudly admits they have no reasonable recourse for), and having the Lebanese run to Israel to sign a peace treaty on the other hand (or as Ras Beirut put it… he’s expecting the Lebanese to send him a dozen roses come Valentine’s Day).
Gabriel, I have a lot of respect for AIG. Unlike our old friends, Shai and Yossi, I agree totally with AIG’s vision and his reasoning. He is much more articulate than I am. Personally, I have a different approach and I am more likely to just agree to disagree. In cases where I’m wrong, or I haven’t thought out my responses well, I’ll say so (like I did recently with Danny).
AIG and people like him are what HA loves!
Gee, I thought HA loved Iran and Assad. It’s nice to be loved;)
Bullying and thinking that anyone but Jews don’t have any rights! i like simple and clear conversation. Not forever going back and forth at Wiki…
Danny,
What “bullying” are you referring to? Who doesn’t have rights? Aren’t we talking (now) about the state of war between Lebanon and Israel?
Let me ask you a question. If you had a million Jews in Egypt that were treated as second class or third class humans (mind you not citizens) would any Israeli government say; screw this shit! Let’s have peace and let other people die.
If I understand your question, Israel does a lot to help Jewish communities outside of Israel (Ethiopia, Yemen, etc and opened her borders to all jews who were in trouble and wanted to immigrate). But your question displays a hypothetical situation that is so different than our current realities. If jews were such a large group, we wouldn’t need Israel as a safe haven.
Therefore, Israel was willing to sign peace agreements with leaders, governments, and monarchs who had a strong enough control over their governments to render the agreement worthwhile.
In light of the arab spring, most Israelis and jew are CAUTIOUSLY OPTIMISTIC, but no one can predict the future.
Do you think Lebanon; even if it had a real ‘independent” one…would be in such ease to have a neighborly relations with Israel all the time having 20% of its population of Palestinian refugees with relatives in Israel.?
I think HA prevents peace with Israel. But I certainly could be wrong. Perhaps the Lebanese hate Israel so much that they would never vote for it with or without HA. It’s a shame, but it is certainly a reality. I don’t think AIG expects Lebanon to make peace with Israel. AIG is a realist unlike us pie-in-the-sky Yanks.
As far as a peace agreement between Lebanon & Israel. Lebanon’s official position (and rigtfully so) has been, that it should only happen as part of a comprehensive agreement.
Ras Beirut,
I get it. Just MHO, that is why the Palestinians are happy with the status quo, because they get millions in aid and lots of political support. Considering how close the agreements were a decade ago, it is a shame it wasn’t signed.
Also, I imagine what would be if, say, today, the Palestinians had an agreement with Israel. Would HA, Hamas, Lebanon, and Iran behave any differently toward Israel?
I don’t think so. There’s always something!
Posted by Akbar Palace | April 1, 2012, 2:54 pmGabriel,
As usual you start with wrong assumptions and therefore reach wrong conclusions.
You say:
“Other actions, like an invasion of Israel, would constitute a Casus Belli for Israel, hence allowing it not only to Re-invade Lebanon, but also occupy Lebanese territory.”
You really have to start reading carefully. I never said that Lebanon’s action would be a cassus belli for Israel. I stated that Israel would defend itself and perhaps invade Lebanon. And it would do so even without a cassus belli, just out of the principle of self defense and preferring to fight a war on the enemies land. And since this premise of yours is just incorrect, all your argument falls apart. Apart from that, you never address the fact that Israel is not flying over Lebanon for the fun of it and it is related to Hezbollah’s action.
You claim I am making some kind of insinuation that what your father did is not honorable. I never did that. I do not judge people whose situation I am not familiar with and my thinking rarely if ever involves the concept of honor. I think in terms of duty. I think it is my duty to raise my kids well as is my duty to defend my country. It is just not reasonable that when I just describe what your father did in factual manner and without any judgement, that you take it as an insult. And of course I think what your father did is right, because the duty to your family comes before the duty to your country and fighting Israel was a losing proposition and suicidal. Lebanon was just not organized enough to do so and in the middle of a civil war. I am sure your father felt a duty to protect his country but there was no realistic way of doing it. That is not the case in Israel were one can fulfill both duties with a very good chance of success.
Posted by AIG | April 1, 2012, 4:01 pmGabriel,
Let’s move to scenario 2. Again it all falls apart because you are making a false premise. AIG (me) would never make an argument that Hezbollah was occupying Israel against the Geneva Convention since it is clear to me that the “game” between Israel and Hezbollah is not played according to the rules of the Geneva Conventions. I would never be as naive to believe that such an argument makes any sense or could change anything. Hezbollah do not play according to the Geneva Conventions and complaining about that is like complaining that lions are not vegetarians. So again, your whole argument falls apart.
He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword and that applies also to Israel. We better be prepared and make sure the scenario you describe does not happen, but if it does, we will have no one but ourselves to complain to.
Posted by AIG | April 1, 2012, 4:12 pmI stated that Israel would defend itself and perhaps invade Lebanon. And it would do so even without a cassus belli, just out of the principle of self defense and preferring to fight a war on the enemies land. And since this premise of yours is just incorrect, all your argument falls apart.
That makes the whole story soooo much better.
Thanks for clarifying that Israel would in fact just start a war without a Casus Belli.
May we have many many more years with this wonderful beautiful neighbor.
I think every day the Israelis should send a Token Jew to each of the borders has with the surrounding Arab countries.
In turn each of those Arab countries should send an army of volunteers to line up, and take turns Prostrating and kissing that Jew’s a$$… and make sure to thank them for leaving us alone.
Once we’ve managed to kiss every Jew’s A$$… we can start all over again.
AIG, you really don’t know when to stop.
Posted by Gabriel | April 1, 2012, 4:17 pmGabriel,
Moving on to scenario 3.
You write:
“Well it means again that you don’t think Arabs have any honor. Because in this scenario… you reject the right of the Arabs (Egyptians, Palestinians, Jordanians) in this case to complain that they lost land.. because they gave Israel Casus Belli, by blocking the Straits of Tiran.”
Where did I ever say that Arabs have not right to complain? It is just childish to do so. I said that they had only themselves to blame, which is very different. It is just stupid to give your enemies a cassus belli when you are so weak militarily. And if Israel does the same, we will have only ourselves to blame also. It is stupid to start wars or raise the probability of a war that there is a good chance you will lose. If you think you will win because you underestimated your enemy, that is your fault also.
You seem to think I would think differently if Israel did something stupid, but that is just false. In war you control what you do, not what your enemies do. And if you screw up, the fault is yours, whether you are Israel or an Arab state.
Posted by AIG | April 1, 2012, 4:22 pm#415
Thanks for clarifying.
So in future don’t ask me a stupid question as you did in #393.
And that was a stupid question indeed.
If you are comfortable to belong to a belligerent state that lives by the sword… and are prepared to die by the sword…
… then man up and don’t complain when Hassan Nasrallah says he will annihilate Israel. You deserve nothing more than that.
The only problem I have with this is that I personally don’t believe most Israelis are like you. I believe there are many good people in Israel who do not want to live by the sword… but you are here speaking on their behalf… and willing to sacrifice them in your twisted logic.
Posted by Gabriel | April 1, 2012, 4:22 pmGabriel,
As for #416 you completely ignore the issue of Hezbollah which complicates the issue of overflights. The concept of cassus belli was created in the framework of strong states that controlled all violence coming from them. This is not the case with Lebanon. This does not mean that Lebanon has ano cassus belli, it just means that the situation is more complex than the accepted procedures had imagined. Israel is justified in getting intelligence about Hezbollah. But it can’t do it without flying over Lebanon. Hence the dilemma. You address the issue in a very simplistic manner and fail to take into account the facts on the ground which is that both the leaders of Lebanon and Israel understand that the overflights are a necessity to stop another war and are in the interests of both countries even though technically they are a cassus belli.
And yes, Israel will defend itself if attacked which is quite different from what you are saying which is that Israel will attack without a cassus belli. You really need to take a deep breath and think before you answer.
Posted by AIG | April 1, 2012, 4:31 pm#418
Where did I write that I want to live by the sword? I certainly do not. The more we progress the shoddier your argumentation becomes. I have to live by the sword because that is what the situation is now. Israelis of course have the option of moving away but if we stay we are making a decision to live by the sword, there is just no other option. Hezbollah and Hamas are not about compromise and anyone who lives in Israel must know that he has to fight. Those that don’t like it, leave. But if you stay in Israel you are of course aware that Hezbollah will try to destroy you and only the sword can stop that.
Posted by AIG | April 1, 2012, 4:38 pmAIG:
You’ve given me a headache. You say something, then you say you didn’t say it. Really, there is no point to this.
Go find some other forum to bust chops in.
Posted by Gabriel | April 1, 2012, 4:55 pmGabriel,
It is really quite simple. To accept that “if you live by the sword you die by the sword” does not mean you want to live by the sword. Sometimes you have no choice. If Jews want a country in the middle east, we will have to live by our sword until Arabs accept the idea of a Jewish state in the middle east. And not just a majority of them, but all extremist groups who are willing to use force to get rid of Israel. And it would be stupid for any Israeli to say that we are not at risk of dying by the sword unless our sword is bigger. So we live by the sword and may die by it, but that does not mean we are happy with the situation. If you are not convinced show me ONE place where I said I want to live by the sword.
Your problem Gabriel is that you do not know how to read an argument. You jump to unwarranted conclusions and you assume things which just are not there. Before you write anything, just think if what I wrote really implies what you think it does. If you are not sure, ask, instead of jumping to conclusions and getting insulted without any real reason.
Posted by AIG | April 1, 2012, 5:16 pmActually, AIG,
I fully understand what you are trying to say, and I completely disagree with it.
I don’t doubt there are many Palestinians who would rather their children became doctors and scientists and musicians. They would rather not die by the sword.
I am sure there are many Lebanese in the South, who for years would have preferred their children were doctors and philosophers.
But an accident of space and time meant they were in the wrong place and in the wrong time. And when you so nonchalantly say that you would rather take a battle to the Enemy’s turf, and even without a Casus Belli, you are lazily dismissing all those people.
And those peoples’ children wake up every morning and see you- someone living by the sword.
And so they too become forced to live by the sword.
That’s how the vicious cycle happens. And when you continue thinking the way you do, then this cycle never finishes.
So don’t sit there and say that you have no option- that circumstance has forced you to live by the sword.
That’s a cop out of an answer.
What’s worse is that you come to a forum full of people who have a more nuanced view of things. People like me. And you have managed to do naught but alienate the very people who you should be depending on de-escalating.
When you do that, you are dis-empowering the very people who want to build peaceful bridges.
In this thread, you have robbed me of every intellectual argument I can use against someone like Mo. I cannot ever again, in good conscience argue against the “Resistance”.
Posted by Gabriel | April 1, 2012, 5:30 pmThere are no arguments to use against Mo or the resistance. And why would you want to side with a people who started the Six Day war and invaded Palestine in order to steal its territory?
Posted by dontgetit | April 1, 2012, 5:48 pmGabriel,
Your argument is just complete nonsense. Israel attempted to stop the vicious circle by withdrawing fully from Lebanon in 2000. That was clearly a move of de-escalation, and it was not reciprocated by Lebanon. So if you are against the vicious circle, do something to stop it. I am committed to de-escalation. Israel supports the existence of Lebanon in peace. Lebanon does not support the existence of Israel in peace. Because of the “resistance” you can’t even take the first step in de-escalation which is to accept the existence of your rival. So your talk of a vicious circle is absurd.
And why if I live by the sword does that force anybody else to live by the sword? It is just false and really nonsense. How was Hezbollah forced to do what they did in July 2006? Do you really believe Israel would have attacked Lebanon unless attacked by Lebanon?
If you cannot argue against the”resistance” because of my position, you never had a good argument against them anyway. Frankly, who cares? It is not as if the “resistance” cares what you think. You cannot even convince them to accept the existence of Israel let alone agree to peace!
Posted by AIG | April 1, 2012, 5:50 pmAIG:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Lebanon_conflict_(1982%E2%80%932000)#2000:_Israeli_withdrawal
This kind of withdrawal/action doesn’t count. Certainly when yourself stated that the original invasion in 1982 was done under false auspices.
On your last paragraph… there are enough Lebanese people who have stated that they prefer diplomatic options to warfare to deal with outstanding issues.
Why don’t you challenge yourself and take a poll of this forum and see what the different people think?
Posted by Gabriel | April 1, 2012, 6:02 pmGabriel,
Why doesn’t the 2000 withdrawal count? Just because you say so? Of course it counts as a MAJOR de-escalation move. One of the major bones of contention was occupation of Lebanese land and Israel removed this obstacle. What did we get back from Lebanon? War and more war. And why does it matter why Israel was in South Lebanon? That was part of the vicious circle we are trying to break. The way you break a vicious circle is by one side taking a small move back and then the other and so on. Well, Israel took a huge step back and it was viewed in Lebanon or at least by Hezbollah as an opportunity to ESCALATE instead of de-escalate.
But the very first step in reaching a compromise is accepting the survival of the party you are compromising with. Because if you want to annihilate the other side, what is there to compromise about? And you can’t even get Lebanon to say that it accepts Israel under ANY conditions.
What does it matter what you think if Hezbollah holds power over these decisions in Lebanon? What matters is what they think. If you could influence them, that is one thing. But you can’t.
Posted by AIG | April 1, 2012, 6:13 pmIt doesn’t count because it was forced. Or at least that is what the perception was.
It doesn’t help when the withdrawal happens under the auspices of a victorious HA rag-tag army, and then you turn around and say… ” Hey look what we have done to de-escalate!”. You don’t get brownie points for that.
You get brownie points for making moves when you are in a clear position of strength.
As for your last sentence. You’re right, there was a good chance I could not influence them before. But now, there’s not a chance in hell I can influence anyone. (And this doesn’t just go for me, but for many people like me).
That’s the difference.
Posted by Gabriel | April 1, 2012, 6:21 pm… PS….
This is why in the beginning of the thread I made the statement that if Israel made Peace overtures just as a new regime emerges in Damascus, there is a very good chance that things turn around.
I believe that if Israel were to take the opportunity to rise up and make those types of concessions now, (as opposed to talking as you did about maintaining the status quo)… you’d get a lot of takers in the Arab world.
I could be completely wrong about this, but it is what I believe. I’m willing to bet that most people at least in this forum would agree with me.
Posted by Gabriel | April 1, 2012, 6:26 pmGabriel,
No one is asking for brownie points. You claim a vicious circle. I show you how Israel tries to break it. You come back with a ridiculous claim that if there is even a perception that the de-escalation move was done because of force it does not count. Would you hold Israel to the same standard and say that if Israelis perceive that a move of de-escalation by the Arabs is because they were forced into it then Israel should not reciprocate? Of course not. You would criticize me for not taking an opportunity to move towards peace. You are arguing a hopeless case here. And by the way, when did the Arabs believe that Israel was in a clear position of strength? It seems you are arguing that no move by Israel ever counts.
Israel did not have to leave South-Lebanon. It was one of the main issues of the election that Barak won. He was for withdrawal and Bibi was against because he said exactly what you are saying, that it would not be viewed correctly by the other side. And guess what? Bibi was right. By the way, I was for the withdrawal exactly because I thought it was a good first step in breaking a vicious circle. Guess what, I was wrong. There was no other way for Israel to make this move. There was no one to negotiate with. It was either unilateral withdrawal or staying. Is your position that Israel should have stayed? Would that have been more conducive to peace?
Before there was zero chance you could influence Hezbollah and now there is zero chance you will. If you can’t convince them to accept the existence of Israel, what can you convince them of?
Posted by AIG | April 1, 2012, 6:42 pmPS
If Israel makes concessions history is very clear that it will be viewed as weakness. What your buddies will say is that Israel is afraid of a democratic Syria or an Islamist Syria. They will find some excuse to explain why Israel is “weak” just like in the case of the withdrawal from Lebanon or Gaza. In the mind of many Arabs Israel is “spider web” that is disappearing tomorrow.
Posted by AIG | April 1, 2012, 6:51 pmWhat concessions could the Arabs make under duress, even if they wanted to!?!?
It is not Jews that are in encampments, or living under occupation in the West Bank and Gaza.
So what precisely are you suggesting as an example?
Bibi vs. Barak. This argument doesn’t work. Israel was in Lebanon in the first place under false pretenses, as you yourself stated (where you said the 82 war was of Israel’s choosing). So both Bibi and Barak were wrong, but at least Barak was more right.
Maybe he should have considered stopping the overflights too? (what you claimed are casus belli?).
And he could have marketed it as such. But he didn’t.
The withdrawal could have been perceived as something other than what Bibi warned it would have been perceived as… but that would have required true sincerity on the part of the Israelis, and unfortunately that is what was not forthcoming,..
Posted by Gabriel | April 1, 2012, 7:04 pm#431
OK.. and you’re right, certainly some people will say those things. So continue to be brash and belligerent in your approach.
But don’t say you’re not choosing to live by the sword.
I guarantee less people will say those things if sincere attempts are made at reaching a deal.
Eiither way, you can’t have it both ways AIG.
Posted by Gabriel | April 1, 2012, 7:07 pmYeah right, that Arabs cannot make any concessions. For example, Miqati could offer to come talk at the Knesset (Israel’s parliament) like Sadat did. Or Miqati can say that Lebanon does not want the destruction of Israel. You know, some simple thing like that.
Israel had many justifications to enter Lebanon to stop PLO attacks. The one in 1982 was not a very good one but there were plenty others that were quite good. So no, Bibi was right and Barak was wrong. And I noticed that you didn’t address the issue of double standards in your argument.
Why should Israel stop the overflights? Will it make Hezbollah stop threatening Israel or will they gloat how they were able to scare Israeli to stop flying over Lebanon?
The withdrawal from Lebanon was marketed as a de-escalation and a reason why Hezbollah will stop attacking Israel. This was also conveyed by many countries to the Syrian government in Lebanon that of course ignored it.
And now to some real BS on your part: “true sincerity”. What does that even means and how can you judge it? Actions are what count and Israel left every square millimeter of Lebanon. Imagine Israel demanding “true sincerity” from the Palestinians about their intentions towards Israel as a demand in the negotiations. Would you support that?
Posted by AIG | April 1, 2012, 7:20 pmGabriel,
I will continue with my approach while Hezbollah controls Lebanon. When it is controlled by QN or someone with his views, my approach would be completely different. You speak for an insignificant minority and completely ignore reality. All I am asking Hezbollah as a first step is to accept that I can exist. They can’t even make that move. Is it really my choice that I am living on my sword?
If a stable Syrian government recognizes Israel and demands to discuss the Golan, I would be for negotiating with them. But that has been the position of every single Israeli government since Oslo. We are open to negotiations with any Arab country.
Posted by AIG | April 1, 2012, 7:26 pmAIG: #434
There’s a simple solution to your question.
Adopt my worldview.
Stop considering the Overflights a Casus Belli.
But you want to consider them Casus belli, and you want to shove them down the Lebanese peoples’ throats.
You want to have your cake and eat it too.
By that same token, stop being a hypocrite, and don’t treat the Egyptian blockade of the Straits of Tiran Casus Belli… thereby taking ownership of a war that Israel started. (1967)
But as I said, you want to have your cake and eat it too.
A simple refinement to your position would make you less of a hypocrite and make engaging with you worth the effort.
If you really feel Israel is “living by the sword” because it has no choice. Fine. Live by the sword, but as Ras Beirut said earlier… don’t expect that bouquet come Valentine’s Day.
Posted by Gabriel | April 1, 2012, 8:19 pmRas Beirut presented what I thought was Lebanon’s official position in:
https://qifanabki.com/2012/03/08/satire-the-syrian-revolution/#comment-34443
Did Miqati ever say he/Lebanese government wants the destruction of Israel? If so, can you please provide a link?
And if he didn’t say so… what do you want him to do exactly in the Knesset? Suck Netenyahu off?
So really… what unilateral concessions do you want the Arabs to make. The ball is squarely in Israel’s court.
Posted by Gabriel | April 1, 2012, 8:32 pmGabriel,
Why should I adopt your world view? You live in a fantasy world of your own making. It is not you or I who decide what is cassu belli. It is years and years of cases and discussions that have resulted in the current definition. You seem to really have a problem dealing with reality.
And the overflights are not shoved down the Lebanese throat. Thinking people understand their benefit to averting war.
How many times do I have to repeat that I do not expect anything from my enemies, especially flowers?
Part of Miqati’s government is a faction that explicitly says it wants to destroy Israel. So it is really up to him to state that this is not Lebanon’s position. In the Knesset he should say whatever he wants. He can make demands of Israel and criticize but show that he accepts the existence of Israel.
Oh yes, the old “the ball is in Israel’s court”. If you had read a little more history, you would know that there was no time, even pre-67, when most Arabs didn’t believe this ridiculous claim. The Arabs never think they need to make concessions. In 48 the Jews had to concede by going back to
Europe. After 48 they had to accept back the refugees and then leave. Slowly but surely Arabs made concessions, but always because they were weak so according to you they don’t count. Go study what Sadat did. That is how to get results from Israelis. In the Knesset in his famous speech, Sadat did not concede anything, but he built trust.
And as for the “comprehensive peace” attitude of Lebanon. That was basically forced on Lebanon by Syria. Bashir Gemayel thought differently. The reason a “comprehensive peace” is a BS approach, is because you are always at the whim of the most extreme entity in the Arab world at that time. If it vetoes peace, there is no peace. It is basically letting the extremists dictate what can be. Israel and Lebanon can easily sign a peace agreement stating that the final status of the Palestinians will be determined only when an agreement is reached with them and that the Israeli-Lebanese peace agreement does not in any way annul any rights the Palestinians have under international law. Again, I don’t expect it to happen, but don’t defend a really stupid strategy.
Posted by AIG | April 1, 2012, 8:59 pmAIG,
What level of support do you think the state of Israel currently has amongst:
a) The Levantines in this region.
b) The Christian community of this region.
c) The Sunni community of this region.
d) The Shi’te community of this region.
e) Do you think there is any regional Levantine “community” in any way supportive of the state of Israel and its raison d’etre today?
f) The Europeans.
g) The Chinese.
h) The Russians.
i) Most of the connected world, in general.
Do you think the fundamental problem to the current negative view of Israel in the world today is due to Al Qaeda and Iran ?
Posted by Monolith | April 1, 2012, 9:06 pmThat you call yourself an Atheist is case study in itself, AIG.
One day soon, I am sure, you will invent a psychological term to describe your current symptoms of self delusion … and sue humanity and the UN for it!
Posted by Monolith | April 1, 2012, 9:27 pm@439
Israel doesn’t want Peace. What Israel really wants is piece by piece.
This is the course that you are basically advocating which is an approach
That the Arab nations are no longer willing to condone precisely because
Of the Sadat/Egypt history….
The common sense approach is the Arab initiative of 2002, which Israel nipped in the bud!
Posted by Linear | April 2, 2012, 2:15 amMonolith asks:
What level of support do you think the state of Israel currently has…
My answer:
Enough.
Posted by Akbar Palace | April 2, 2012, 6:39 amLinear said:
Israel doesn’t want Peace.
Everyone wants peace. But not everyone wants to pay the price. That includes Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, Syria and Iran.
What Israel really wants is piece by piece.
If Israel didn’t evacuate the Sinai, parts of the Arava, Gaza, parts of the West Bank and Southern Lebanon, I would believe you.
Posted by Akbar Palace | April 2, 2012, 7:40 amAIG:
My reading of your position was bang-on about 100 posts ago. You are simply taking this argument around in circles. Post #369 could not have described your worldview more correctly even if I tried!
The solution to Israel’s problem and following your logic really is quite simple. You should just throw all your Arab neighbors in the sea.
The alternative seems to me to be as you put it, Israel would have to live for years with uncertainty of the most reactionary, most extreme and least willing faction causing trouble.
And since Israel always reserves the right to take the war to whichever country surrounds it, then you might as well do it now and get it over with.
Just don’t come here and say that you don’t want to live by the sword.
That somehow it has been forced upon you.
Re: Miqati and the Knesset. What actual war is happening between Lebanon and Israel that you want Miqati to go address the Knesset for?
How about Bibi come to the Lebanese parliament and speak to the Lebanese about what he is prepared to commit to to achieve peace.
Since you brought up Gemayal, you obviously know the route of signing a Peace treaty has been tried before- and it failed.
What exactly are you after? Another Civil War in Lebanon? Again, as I said many posts ago, that wouldn’t surprise me. You don’t care about anything except Israel’s well-being. And you don’t really care if the people around you are dying.
Posted by Gabriel | April 2, 2012, 8:13 am#447:
All that Sea of Blue of support… and still.. how come Israel fares so poorly in UN general assembly resolutions?
Posted by Gabriel | April 2, 2012, 8:17 amAIG in #353:
90 posts later, in #443:
I wrote this in #306
AIG, no one can actually have a discussion with you. There is no one set of coherent AIG Rules book that can be followed, from beginning to end, There is always a catch.
As I wrote in #449, and previously in #369…
… what better way to avert war for Israel than to clear off the populations neighboring Israel. They are a volatile bunch. Send them off to Mars. You’ve already resigned yourself to the idea that they will always hate you anyways. You don’t know what and when something will set them off and they do something unpredictable.
Don’t you see? If you just kill them off now, you will only avert future wars.
Posted by Gabriel | April 2, 2012, 8:33 amAll that Sea of Blue of support… and still.. how come Israel fares so poorly in UN general assembly resolutions?
Gabriel,
Maybe because AIPAC controls the world? I’m not sure.
Posted by Akbar Palace | April 2, 2012, 8:56 amGabriel,
Is it really that hard to understand my position on the overflights? Based on the definition of cassus belli, the over flights are a cassus belli. That does not mean that they cannot be good for both countries. The middle east is a complex place. The Saudis are anti-Israel but were delighted that Israel beat Nasser in 67 and stopped Arab nationalism dead in its tracks. There are all sorts of counter intuitive results. Thinking Lebanese know that over flights are a cassus belli but at the same time they also know that they avert another war. So they accept them as a way to prevent a greater bad. There is no catch, but debating me does require being able to walk down the street while chewing gum. You should be able to hold two thoughts in your brain at the same time and understand that they are not contradictory.
Bibi would be delighted to go to the Lebanese parliament and speak with them. The problem is that they have not extended an invitation while it is a tradition in the Knesset for the Israeli PM to extend an invitation to any Arab leader willing to come. It is almost boiler plate material in speeches where the PM discusses foreign policy.
If Israel believes in throwing its neighbors into the sea, we would not have peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan and we would not have withdrawn from Lebanon. You keep trying to define my position contrary to what I have written over and over again. Israel wants peace with its neighbors but not at the expense of giving up the idea of a Jewish state.
Your view is that the only two options are to kill your enemies or make stupid concessions that get you nowhere. There is also the possibility of just deterring them, as is the case with Hezbollah. Hezbollah has done nothing since 2006 except cause internal problems for Lebanon. In the last 6 years Hezbollah has been more of a problem for Lebanon than for Israel.
Why does Israel want a civil war in Lebanon? How will that help us? If peace with Israel will lead to a civil war, don’t make peace with us. But at least be honest why you are not making peace.
It does not stop to amaze me that some Lebanese urge Israelis to take risks for peace that are clearly stupid. It is as if you don’t know your own history. How smart was Lebanon in agreeing to the Cairo agreement? Do you want Israel to repeat the same mistakes as you?
Posted by AIG | April 2, 2012, 9:45 amAP…
That can’t possibly be it. If so, Israel would never have a resolution against it.
Posted by Gabriel | April 2, 2012, 9:47 amAs for the UN General assembly resolutions, that and a cup of coffee will get you a cup of coffee. For many years the General Assembly voted that Zionism is racism. No Israeli takes the general assembly seriously.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_3379
Even the resolution to form Israel by partitioning Mandatory Palestine was not worth anything because the Arab countries did not accept it. Israel only exists because it won the war of 1948. No country sent ONE soldier to help Israel in that war.
Posted by AIG | April 2, 2012, 9:52 amAIG:
I understand your position. Reference or Quote rules when it suits you… and when it doesn’t introduce the nuance.
This is not Quantum Mechanics AIG, you are complicating it well beyond what is necessary.
My point stands. The rules don’t really matter because there are always exceptions to the rules. Yes- formally the overflights are technically, a “Casus Belli”, but hey… a whole bunch of people in Lebanon and the Saudis and others would not like to see HA get strong, so let’s do a little Wink-Wink and bend the rules.
I personally cannot have this argument with you simply because I follow principles and rules. And with you, there are no rules to follow. Or at least, when I tried to follow your rules, I ended up with a different set of rules for Jews and Arabs, and that is not something I find acceptable.
Posted by Gabriel | April 2, 2012, 9:58 amThat can’t possibly be it. If so, Israel would never have a resolution against it.
Gabriel,
I don’t care about UNGA support for Israel. I’m more concerned about Danny and Vulcan’s support for Israel.
Posted by Akbar Palace | April 2, 2012, 10:00 am#457…
If you don’t care about UNGA support…
Don’t post a link to a Map of Blue “Support” for Israel on this Forum.
Very simple.
Posted by Gabriel | April 2, 2012, 10:04 amCasus Belli and Bending the Rules
If in 1967, Israel “bent” the rules of Casus Belli (when Egypt apparently violated the “agreement” and closed off the strait of Tiran), and did not unilaterally decide to attack Egypt and take the War to the enemy… who knows…
We may have averted:
1) a Lebanese Civil War
2) The war of 1973
3) Countless Intifadas
It is always difficult to forecast the future. Except when we have AIG in our midst to tell us what one action today may or may not avert in the future.
Posted by Gabriel | April 2, 2012, 10:17 amGabriel,
You haven’t given ONE example where I think the rules are different for Jews and Arabs. You keep making this ridiculous claim that is absolutely false. Just give ONE example? Can you do that?
And again you are confused. Where did I say that I expect or demand any Arab country or entity to obey the Geneva Conventions or follow any rule? If they want, any Arab country can attack Israel even without a cassus belli. I do not control them nor can I force a set of rules on them. All I can do is be prepared for the worse.
And you say you believe in “rules”. So which Arab country is an example of rule based society that Israel should learn from? Or are you just speaking in theoretical terms with no anchor in reality?
Posted by AIG | April 2, 2012, 10:18 amGabriel,
We already went over this. Most if not all Western countries agreed with Israel’s interpretation that closing the straits of Tiran was a cassus belli. It was a reasoned Israeli position and nothing was “bent”. Just read a serious history book.
And blaming the Lebanese Civil War on Israel is pathetic. The Lebanese have only themselves to blame for the war. If you agree to the Cairo agreement it is your fault what happens afterward.
Posted by AIG | April 2, 2012, 10:28 amSee #459.
So you don’t believe in Rules period. (You already stated you allow Israel to attack without a Casus Belli).
So how do you expect me to have a conversation with you then, when there are no rules?
If there are No Rules anyway, why make a point of Egypt giving Israel Casus Belli in 1967? Obviously it doesn’t really matter.
Anyways, as I said in #456, I am not the person to have this debate with. I am a simpleton. My brain is binary. It is logical. It requires Rules of Engagement.
You freely admit to there being none. So I humbly admit to not being able to contribute or follow this conversation any longer.
No rules for you. No rules for the Arabs, and No rules for Hizballah.
It’s a Free for All.
Posted by Gabriel | April 2, 2012, 10:34 amAs I wrote above, See #459.
Example: Closing Strait of Tiran & Overflights in Lebanon.
Both events are Casus Belli.
For Jews: Good to start a war with Egypt as a result of Casus Belli
For Arabs: Even though they have a casus belli, they shouldn’t “start a war”, because really, if they had any brains, this Casus Belli actually is “averting a war”.
As I wrote explicitly in #459:
If in 1967 instead of responding to the Casus Belli with War and Expropriation of more territory… any thinking person would come to the conclusion that Not Exercising the Casus Belli would have averted future wars.
CONCLUSION: The Rules are different for Jews and Arabs.
Posted by Gabriel | April 2, 2012, 10:52 amGabriel,
Of course I believe in rules, but only in the context of a system in which they can be fairly arbitrated and enforced. International law is NOT such set of rules. Therefore, it is a joke. If the Arab countries ignore the UN partition resolution and go to war, what are the “rules” worth? Was there a UN resolution allowing them to intervene in the civil war in Palestine? Of course not. It was against the “rules” for Nasser to block the straits of Tiran and against the “rules” for him to kick out the UN out of the Sinai.
You are completely in la-la land. The Arabs rejected from the start the set of “rules” you propose and you want me to accept them? If you want people to play by the rules why don’t you have the Arabs actually play by them for a start? But until then your position is just hypocritical and a double standard. Obey the “rules” yourself and then maybe you will have a leg to stand on.
Posted by AIG | April 2, 2012, 10:55 am#464.
AIG, you really are infuriating.
Yes, of course, we all believe in Rules and Justice, and Love and Peace. If only we live in a world where they are properly arbitrated.
But hey that’s not the Real world (I agree with you).
Where I cannot possibly agree with you is that this invalidates our need to follow rules. We have to set an example. And when this example proves to be working like a charm (and it will prove to work like a charm), then more and more people will follow suit.
If for practical reasons you don’t want to follow the rules, there is no point for you to come here and say that in your heart you would like to follow the rules.
It doesn’t matter what is in your heart.
What matters is what you do.
So follow the rules (and you and I can converse about something), or don’t follow the rules (and I have to excuse myself from the discussion because clearly I will be 0 value added).
There is no in between (for me). And it’s not because I don’t have nuance (I do), but because you will lose me somewhere in one of those Wiki articles you post, and are unlikely to get me back. That may suit your purposes quite well, but frankly would be nothing but a waste of my time.
Posted by Gabriel | April 2, 2012, 11:03 amAkh…
How about we wrap this one up fellas?
Posted by Qifa Nabki | April 2, 2012, 11:04 amI’m waiting for a “thinking Lebanese” to express gratitude for the IAF’s war preventing practice bombing runs over Lebanese territories.
AIG, do you have any concrete quotable examples of the above “thinking Lebanese” sentiments?
Posted by lally | April 2, 2012, 11:26 am#466.
My apologies for taking over your forum. It’s wrapped up on my end.
Posted by Gabriel | April 2, 2012, 11:48 amGabriel,
Who is stopping you from following the rules? The fact is Arab countries do not follow them, so where do you find the nerve to ask others to do so? Why are you preaching to others when at home you do the same thing? Fix your own home and you will have a leg to stand on. Your problem is first and foremost with other Arabs, not with Israelis.
QN,
Thank you for being a gracious host.
Posted by AIG | April 2, 2012, 11:54 amEverything in Moderation
How about we wrap this one up fellas?
QN,
If Alex was moderating, AIG and Gabriel would have been baned eons ago.
Posted by Akbar Palace | April 2, 2012, 12:17 pm“People, I just want to say, you know, can we all get along?” 🙂
Posted by Vulcan | April 2, 2012, 12:58 pmcan we all get along
Vulcan,
Yes, as long as Jews aren’t independent.
Posted by Akbar Palace | April 2, 2012, 1:56 pmAP #447,
How do you see that map evolving throughout the next 100 years?
Posted by Monolith | April 2, 2012, 2:59 pmHow do you see that map evolving throughout the next 100 years?
Monolith,
I think the map will be pretty close to the current one, except that the borders will be clearly defined and agreed to.
Posted by Akbar Palace | April 2, 2012, 5:23 pmahhh…a lull in the fighting, we can cross the road now. Damn Arabs and Jews.
AP,
You are underestimating the might of the Zionists. The Arabs outclass you in this respect. In a hundred years time, there will be a Zionist/Neocon/Masonic/Satanist led Government to rule over the world.There won’t be countries on the map, just territories, cantons, camps, etc.
Posted by Maverick | April 3, 2012, 12:16 amMaverick,
I understand the might of the ZIonists; I go to the JCC.
The Zionist/Neocon/Masonic/Satanist led government isn’t as bad as you make it out to be.
Posted by Akbar Palace | April 3, 2012, 6:32 amThis article has a pretty comprehensive picture of the events leading up to the Six Day War, focussed on what may have been driving Nasser’s actions: http://www.paulbogdanor.com/israel/gat1967.pdf
This is a chapter on the Six Day War from Martin Gilbert’s book: http://www.sixdaywar.co.uk/nassers_challenge-martin-gilbert.htm
For what it’s worth, when I asked around for a neutral, accurate fact-based book on israehell, Gilbert’s was recommended.
Posted by dontgetit | April 3, 2012, 9:00 amHelen Thomas wins a prize despite the intense pressure exerted by the Joos
http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=264561
Posted by Akbar Palace | April 3, 2012, 9:05 amdontgetit,
Thanks for proving the pro-Israel POV on the Six Day War:
Nor was he [Nasser] indulging in political manoeuvres; and he was certainly not dragged unwittingly into war. Rather, Nasser was following a
predetermined and deliberate strategy, its aim to once and for all close
the Arab account with the Zionist state.
Who should I cut the check to?
Posted by Akbar Palace | April 3, 2012, 9:41 amNice one from Ibrahim Al Amin, we can also use the same reasons to conclude how and why all the Arabs and Palestinians move from failure to failure, with no questions asked.
http://www.al-akhbar.com/node/61555
Posted by Vulcan | April 3, 2012, 8:44 pmigetit
we can also use the same reasons to conclude how and why all the Arabs and Palestinians move from failure to failure, with no questions asked
Vulcan,
It seems to me when all arab governments are controlled by a family who lines its pockets with the country’s wealth, and the people continue to have no say in the government, there is no motivation to do anything constructive.
The best minds, those that care about the welfare of the country and who get voted in or out of office depending on their success are not part of the arab experience and haven’t been for centuries.
When that changes, the failures will go away.
Posted by Akbar Palace | April 4, 2012, 9:15 amWhy Does Russia always get A Free Pass from Arabs NewZ?
So let’s see if I understand this:
1.) Russia and China prevent the UNSC from doing anything against the Assad regime.
2.) 70 Syrians died yesterday despite a “peace agreement”.
3.) Russia is saying that nothing will help to replace the Assad regime.
4.) The “resistance camp” (Iran, Hez, etc) could care less and are not dissatisfied at the Russian actions; in fact they support the Russians.
5.) If the US does something to help prevent killing fields, if the US takes down a murderous despot like in Iraq, the US will be criticized by the arab world (aka “street”).
6.) Where is the arab street with respect to Russia?
http://news.yahoo.com/u-n-ceasefire-moves-fail-deter-syria-violence-103017069.html
Posted by Akbar Palace | April 4, 2012, 10:55 amHere’s a snippet of the culture of total stupidity of Lebanon.
Re: Bullets fired at LF leader Samir Geagea
Tourism minister who represents the FPM said:
“Abboud also said that “an operation in which only two bullets were shot should not be called an assassination attempt.
To read more: http://www.nowlebanon.com/NewsArticleDetails.aspx?ID=383824#ixzz1rA64zHVw
It’s called a foreplay unless it hits the target! What a moron.
Posted by danny | April 5, 2012, 6:53 amIt seems even the zionazi press realizes AIG’s claim that the Lion of Damascus’s army is built only for internal disputes is incorrect: http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=265060
Posted by dontgetit | April 5, 2012, 11:20 pmMisplaced Nazi NewZ
dontgetit,
The zionazi press also didn’t mention that Syria, like Nazi Germany, doesn’t have freedom of speech, doesn’t have free multiparty elections nor civilian rule.
But hey, it’s only important what the Joos do, not us…
Posted by Akbar Palace | April 8, 2012, 12:27 pmc’mon AP, you know very well that dontgetit is a “staunch” zionist like you do,,,, using irony. but of course, it’s pretty easy to have your buddy on the same side of the fence talking about nazism, so you can easily rebuke him…haha, happy easter by the way
Posted by 3issa | April 8, 2012, 2:37 pmAP,
Please don’t insult the Nazi’s by comparing them to the Baath regime. At least they had a vision of a future, even though it embodied Evil, still there was a method to the madness.OTOH, the Baath regime, does not have a vision, or goal other than staying in power even if it means the total rape and massacre of their own citizens and their country.They love Stalin up there, oh yes they do!
Posted by Maverick | April 8, 2012, 4:24 pmMaverick #487, soooooo funny and scarily true
Posted by 3issa | April 8, 2012, 6:33 pmPlease don’t insult the Nazi’s by comparing them to the Baath regime.
Maverick,
No to worry, I was just responding to dontgetit’s “ZioNazi” BS. 😉
Both regimes were/are horrible, yet, Syrians still seem split between the opposition and the Baathists. OTOH, no one had a choice. You either backed the regime or you were under the threat of losing everything, including your life.
Be Well,
AP
Posted by Akbar Palace | April 8, 2012, 7:49 pmIt’s kind of funny that the latest landlord in the neighborhood thinks he can dictate what is what in with the biggest weapons on the block … or else !
Posted by Monolith | April 10, 2012, 3:57 pmIt’s kind of funny that the latest landlord in the neighborhood thinks he can dictate what is what with the biggest weapons on the block … or else !
Posted by Monolith | April 10, 2012, 3:58 pmQN,
I’m looking for an argument. Perhaps you can start a new thread and say something critical about Israel.
Posted by Akbar Palace | April 11, 2012, 4:34 pmAP,
The argument will arise if he says something nice about Israel. 😛
Posted by danny | April 12, 2012, 7:05 amQN knows better than to diss the dear cousins.
Posted by lally | April 13, 2012, 1:17 amThe argument will arise if he says something nice about Israel.
danny,
Now that would be a change…
QN knows better than to diss the dear cousins.
lally,
I know! QN is a Zionist in sheep’s clothing. All he does is diss the Baathists in Syria.
Go figure!
Posted by Akbar Palace | April 13, 2012, 7:47 amlibnan el asfar libnan, erfani eldinyi erfani blibnan el asfar
7abaytak wekrehtak wekteeri el eyam, 3akrooti el dinyi 3akrooti blibnan el a7qar
akalt el namoora wil sekar 7erzan wel3ani el dinyi wel3ani blibnan el ash2ar
ya arz el rab wel majd el sekran daawkhani el denyi dawkhani blibnan el akhdar
ya wayli ya wayli min sahar el a7lam ya msha7ar ya msha7ar ya watni el te3ban
dakhilik ya Maria get me ara here baby my coordinates are zero zero bellow zero zero
Posted by Vulcan | April 20, 2012, 6:38 pm3a sat7 el baladiyi law maythadoo fiyii kanet ra7et 3layi 3a sat7 el baladiyi
Posted by Vulcan | April 20, 2012, 6:42 pmok
Posted by 3issa | April 21, 2012, 7:52 amWell OK, it’s a little slow. Shouldn’t that be license for me to bring up the topic again?
AIG:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-17808954
It appears there are on-going issues with Egypt regarding these pesky Pipelines. Israel is talking about rolling blackouts (Lebanese Style). Heaven forbid the Israelis should put up with this.
Apparently, Israel feels that Egypt is violating an economic annex of the 79 Peace treaty.
Is this grounds for war?
Posted by Gabriel | April 23, 2012, 12:06 pmWho Needs the UN NewZ
Is this grounds for war?
Gabriel,
All decisions on war go through Barrack Obama and the American Administration. A decision cannot be rendered until after the General Election in November, so nothing will hinder His re-election.
Posted by Akbar Palace | April 23, 2012, 3:12 pmSorry, the title of my last entry should have been:
Casus Belli NewZ
Posted by Akbar Palace | April 23, 2012, 3:16 pmGabriel,
If closing the straits of Hormuz and stopping the oil from the Gulf is a grounds for war, they why isn’t stopping natural gas to Israel a grounds for war? Why the double standard? Or if the Iranians close the straits of Hormuz you would not think it is a grounds for war? In any case the Egyptians are playing with fire just like Nasser did in 67 and are quite dumb. It is not as if they can sell this gas to anyone else.
Posted by AIG | April 24, 2012, 12:34 amSeveral points AIG:
First, the assertion that democracy in the region is good for Israel. It seems there are some rumblings in the area that are not necessarily very good for Israel when “Democracy” was ushered.
As for the Strait of Hormuz, I didn’t realize that it was Iranian property, or that Iran had any say on who the Persian Gulf countries get to sell their oil to.
How is that, in any shape/form or manner similar to a decision that Egypt can choose to take to not sell Gas to Israel?
I’m not clear on where the double standard is there (even if I thought closing the Strait of Hormuz was grounds for war).
And what’s it to you who they sell the gas to, or if they just leave it unused, or burn it? Isn’t it their gas to do with as they please?
Posted by Gabriel | April 24, 2012, 1:37 amMorning gift
http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DBNoydU4wDrk&v=BNoydU4wDrk&gl=FR
Posted by 3issa | April 24, 2012, 2:15 amGabriel,
Yes, democracy in the Arab world is excellent for Israel. Eventually Arab voters will eventually figure out that throwing away hundreds of millions of dollars per year that could be spent on making the lives of Egyptians better, is not a great move and that politicians that do that should be kicked out. And if they don’t, their countries will remain very weak and under developed.
The Strait of Hormuz falls in Iranian territorial waters. How quickly you forget the arguments you yourself have made. The principle is the same. In both cases Iran and Egypt would be reneging on agreements to allow energy to be supplied to other countries. We are not talking about Louis Vuitton bags, but a basic good. So there is a clear double standard.
“And what’s it to you who they sell the gas to, or if they just leave it unused, or burn it? Isn’t it their gas to do with as they please?”
So a few un-elected officials in Egypt “own” the gas and can deprive the Egyptian people of hundreds of millions of dollars that Egypt really needs just for a publicity stunt and to manipulate public feelings? You are right, I shouldn’t care. Because of decisions like these our neighbors are in the sad state they are in and are so weak relative to Israel. But I do care because I am not a short term realist and I want to see a democratic and thriving middle east, not a petty one in which Egyptians live in cemeteries and starve.
You do know that Israel has discovered a huge field of natural gas off shore that will come online in about 3 years? What the stupid Egyptian decision means is that Israel will use more coal in the meantime, which means more pollution but very likely there will be no blackouts. So the Egyptians are cutting off their nose to spite their face. Israel is their biggest market for natural gas exports and they are giving Israel a reason not to buy anything from them in the future (Israel’s electricity company committed to buying Egyptian gas till 2028 but now it can buy only Israeli gas). Oh well.
Posted by AIG | April 24, 2012, 9:33 am2 Tickets to Paradise
Gabriel,
Have you ever thought of converting to Judaism? Don’t laugh.
This could mean automatic citizenship to one of the few remaining democracies left on the planet.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4220712,00.html
Posted by Akbar Palace | April 24, 2012, 12:50 pmAIG:
I am not a Geography expert.
On Google Maps, it appears the Strait of Hormuz, as a body of water has Iran on one end, and the Gulf countries- UAE, Oman, Qatar, etc, on the other end. How that makes the strait exclusively under Iranian territorial control is something you will have to explain.
I suppose that if the UAE and Oman and Qatar all got together and decided that they will collude with Iran to stop the flow of oil through the Strait, then no one has the authority to say that this is grounds for war.
Posted by Gabriel | April 24, 2012, 2:01 pmAIG:
I’m not an Egyptian. But the Arab spring has supposedly swept “democracy” into this land of the Pharaohs.
Are those officials “unelected”? Then the people of Egypt should continue to rise up against those Dictatorial forces.
Are you declaring the Arab Spring a failed democracy experiment in Egypt?
Posted by Gabriel | April 24, 2012, 2:04 pmAP#506.
I am gladly a citizen of one of the “few remaining democracies” on this planet. Maybe the Palestinians in Lebanon/Jordan/Syria can take you up on your offer… LoL.
It solves the refugee problem in one fell swoop!
Posted by Gabriel | April 24, 2012, 2:09 pmI am gladly a citizen of one of the “few remaining democracies” on this planet. Maybe the Palestinians in Lebanon/Jordan/Syria can take you up on your offer… LoL.
Gabriel,
Yes, if they are Jewish palestinians in Lebanon/Jordan/Syria, they can most certainly take up the offer at their nearest Israel embassy. Of course, they’ll need some proof that they are Jewish: a letter from their neighborhood rabbi or a certification found in most magazines like Popular Mechanics.
BTW – here’s a website where they can get any question answered quickly and confidentially…
http://www.nbn.org.il/index.php
Posted by Akbar Palace | April 24, 2012, 2:22 pmGabriel,
“I suppose that if the UAE and Oman and Qatar all got together and decided that they will collude with Iran to stop the flow of oil through the Strait, then no one has the authority to say that this is grounds for war.”
Well, that is an idiosyncratic point of view that no reasonable person I know supports. Blocking international shipping lanes is akin to piracy. But you are welcome to your strange point of view.
“Are those officials “unelected”? Then the people of Egypt should continue to rise up against those Dictatorial forces.”
Yes, the officials are un-elected. They are functioning under the authority of the ruling military authority. They will be replaced or approved by the new President and government when the military cedes power to them. You can be sure that if the military does not cede power as they promised, the Egyptian people will rise against them. Whether Egypt has become a democracy we will only know in a few years. It is not yet there but perhaps it will succeed. It is still a work in progress. What the Arab Spring has done is give democracy a fighting chance. What actually happens, we will see.
Posted by AIG | April 24, 2012, 2:30 pmAIG:
As I said, I am no Geography expert. There’s territorial waters. There’s “international” Waters, etc. I don’t know what the legal status of the Strait of Hormuz is.
So yes, if portions of the Strait of Hormuz are technically “international waters” then even if the Gulf countries and Iran decided to band together and block it, they would be doing so illegally.
Posted by Gabriel | April 24, 2012, 2:40 pmWiki article on “Territorial waters”:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_waters
According to Wiki. Iran can only possible claim up to “12 nautical” miles from its coast as “territorial” waters. In fact, at its narrowest, the Strait is 21 nautical miles.
So by definition, the Strait of Hormuz is not the entirely the “Property” of Iran.
Posted by Gabriel | April 24, 2012, 2:46 pmGabriel,
Well, you have undermined your whole argument because the Straits of Tiran are international shipping lanes just like the Straits of Hormuz. Make up your mind and try again.
Posted by AIG | April 24, 2012, 4:02 pmAIG:
The strait of Tiran is 7 nautical miles wide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straits_of_Tiran)
This means that by definition, it is in Egyptian territorial waters.
No argument undermined.
Posted by Gabriel | April 24, 2012, 4:11 pmAP:
I think before they get to the stage of Aliyah, those Palestinians need to figure out if they can legitimately become “Jews”, or ought I say “Judaic”.
The “Are Jews a People or a Religion” debate seems not to be settled yet. AIG, self-professed atheist, is also a self-professed Jew. And here you are suggesting that I can easily get some Rabbinical blessing, and a little foreskin snipped to become one. I am not sure if he would be pleased about this proposition.
Posted by Gabriel | April 24, 2012, 4:25 pmBy the way, AIG:
There is a distance measurement tool that Google Map provides.
The distance from the southern most point of Israel to the mouth of the Strait of Tiran measures at 171 km. In Nautical miles, that is 92 Nautical Miles.
So whatever else we may be able to say about this little outlet, we can safely say that Israel can lay no claim to those waters.
Posted by Gabriel | April 24, 2012, 4:33 pmRandall McMurphy at your Service
And here you are suggesting that I can easily get some Rabbinical blessing, and a little foreskin snipped to become one. I am not sure if he would be pleased about this proposition.
Gabriel,
Yes, AIG is a little anal, but in a good way. Just think if everyone could change the rules.
But I say rules are meant to be broken! I would suggest finding the right Rabbi, find the right Mohel, and definately use the N’Fesh B’Nefesh website and let the chips fall where they may. What do you have to lose?
You may be surprised.
Posted by Akbar Palace | April 24, 2012, 4:44 pmAP:
Between you and me, I am quite the fan of that little extra bit of skin ;).
Or as Lady Gaga says: I’m beautiful in my way, Cause Yehweh makes no Mistakes….
But if you’re up for picking a Mohel, can you help me find the right one and steer me well clear of such situations?
http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/html/std/std-bris.shtml
Posted by Gabriel | April 24, 2012, 4:49 pmGabriel,
Of course you undermined your argument because you stated;
“I suppose that if the UAE and Oman and Qatar all got together and decided that they will collude with Iran to stop the flow of oil through the Strait, then no one has the authority to say that this is grounds for war.”
And then you said:
“So yes, if portions of the Strait of Hormuz are technically “international waters” then even if the Gulf countries and Iran decided to band together and block it, they would be doing so illegally.”
Since the Straits of Tiran are international waters just like the Strait of Hormuz then you admit that Egypt blockaded it illegally.
And the technicality about how wide the Straits of Hormuz are is just stupid. If the straits were only 11 miles wide, would Iran have the right to close them? Of course not because as you admit, Iran + UAE +Oman do not have the right to close the straits anyway. And if the Straits of Hormuz are too wide for you, let’s try the Bosphorus that is less than 2 miles wide. If Turkey closes the Bosphorus to shipping for Russia and Ukraine, it will of course be grounds for war.
So make up your mind and try again.
Posted by AIG | April 24, 2012, 4:50 pmGabriel,
The Jews are a nation, whose customs are its religion. That is completely settled. And yes, you can join our nation by going through a conversion process that should more aptly be name a tribal initiation process. The rabbi doing it will figure out if you are serious or not about tying your future to that of the Jewish people. If you are, then welcome! The process takes months, so good luck.
By the way you don’t have to believe in God to become a Jew. You are never asked that question during conversion and it is not a requirement. You just have to follow the customs and way of life the rabbis teach you.
Posted by AIG | April 24, 2012, 4:56 pm#520:
That does not constitute an undermining of the argument. I prefaced my point by saying that I am no “Expert in Geography”.
This is why I suggest you use the wonderful Google Maps distance measurement tool.
Let us say that the Strait of Hormuz were 100 Nautical miles wide at its narrowest point. Then Iran can only legitimately claim 12 miles off its coast as “Territorial”, and Oman can only claim 12 miles off its coast as “Territorial”. Legally, there would be no argument…. the remaining 76 nautical miles would be “International Waters”, and neither the Gulf countries nor Iran have any rights to that lane way. Having said that, they may still band together, form a union of sorts and declare those waters “Internal Waters”, as they may very well do. Refer to the definition of Internal Waters in the Wiki link provided previously.
As it happens, the Strait of Hormuz is 21 Nautical Miles. What we can say that even if Iran had some legal basis to make claims to “Territorial Waters”, it can only do so for 12 Nautical miles off its coast. This leaves a whole 9 Nautical miles for which the US, Oman, the UAE can band together and say that any blockade the Iranians perform that limit their access to waters at least 12 miles off their own coasts constitute an act of War.
The Strait of Tiran, as discussed above is at its narrowest only 7 nautical miles off the Coast of Egypt, and almost 100 Nautical miles off the coast of Israel. So if anything at all, it is Egyptian territorial waters, and the Israelis should commission Itzhak Perlman to play them a sad violin dirge for being SoL.
Posted by Gabriel | April 24, 2012, 5:01 pmSort of like the Cosa Nostra 😉
Posted by Monolith | April 24, 2012, 5:03 pm… and where pray tell do those “Customs” come from, AIG?
Posted by Gabriel | April 24, 2012, 5:06 pmGabriel,
You are now scraping the bottom of the barrel. Don’t you see that the width of the straits does not matter whatsoever? Is that why you ignored the Bosphorus example? WHATEVER the width of the strait, the countries it falls in cannot blockade it. Quite simple. Just like Turkey cannot block the Bosphorus without it being grounds for war, Egypt could not block the straits of Tiran. Unless your position is that Turkey can block the Bosphorus and that if Hormuz were less than 12 miles Iran could block them. Again, you are welcome to this strange position that no reasonable person I know accepts.
Posted by AIG | April 24, 2012, 5:13 pmGabriel,
Where does the custom for female circumcision come from or for honor killing? They come from the same place. It is just tribal traditions. Some of the traditions involve stories about God, and that is what you call “religion”. Some of the tribal traditions are justified based on God, and again you call that “religion”. The traditions come from one generation passing them to another.
Posted by AIG | April 24, 2012, 5:20 pmAIG:
I didn’t read your entire post. I didn’t “ignore” the Bosphorus example. I checked on Google Maps… it appears at its narrowest the Bosphorus is in fact about 400m! And both ends of the Bosphorus are a country called… wait for it…
Turkey!
Yes, in my view, Turkey can choose to close this path any time it wishes.
I agree with you, when you have a body of water, for which on each end of this body, there are two different countries, and if this body of water is less than “12 Nautical” miles wide, then this One-Size fits all rule is not directly applicable. The Territorial waters then can reasonably be understood to be a “Smaller” number.
In other instances, where you have large bodies of water, the math may be a little different.
Take Lake Ontario, on which I live!
http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=43.751257,-77.338257&spn=2.321178,4.938354&t=m&z=8
It clearly shows the border between “Canada” an the US. Yes, portions of those waters are “Canadian”, and portions are “American”.
And where the Waters empty from lake Eerie, into Lake Ontario, through Niagara Falls:
http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=43.245078,-79.048648&spn=0.018288,0.038581&t=m&z=15
Much like the example of the Bosphorus, that little stretch of Water has one of it labelled “Canada”, and the other end labeled the “US”.
This is not Quantum Dynamics AIG.
Posted by Gabriel | April 24, 2012, 5:29 pm#526:
You didn’t answer the question.
Where do the “Customs” (the Jewish ones) come from. Now you say it’s tradition. Does it come from the Religious texts?
Is Male Circumcision a “Custom” you think someone must abide by in order to become legitimately, a Jew?
How about Not eating Pork, or being “Kosher”? Is that a “Custom” that someone must abide by to legitimately become a Jew?
How about following the rules on the Sabbath? Is that a “Custom” that someone must follow?
Any other customs that are particularly Jewish that you may want to share- just in case I take AP up on his offer.
None of these are predicated on a belief in God. Please expand!
Posted by Gabriel | April 24, 2012, 5:33 pm“Yes, in my view, Turkey can choose to close this path any time it wishes.”
Again, you are welcome to this ridiculous view which is not accepted neither by Canada nor the USA or any European country.
Posted by AIG | April 24, 2012, 5:36 pm#529: I don’t care much about what others think. I am providing my personal take on these issues. Where can I find Canada’s official position on the Bosphorus?
PS, From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosphorus
Provides a rather colorful history of the area, the most recent of which states that:
Any idea why Canada, the US, and Europe have not been all up in arms yet about Turkey restricting the “Naval” traffic of Greece and Algeria.. as those are “International Waters”.
Or have they?
Posted by Gabriel | April 24, 2012, 5:44 pmGabriel,
You got the causality wrong, the “religious” texts were written based on tradition. The customs were passed from generation to generation until someone wrote them down.
To be a Jew you need to self identify as one and tie your destiny to that of the Jewish people. That is all. No need to even be circumcised. I know perfectly good Jews that aren’t. You confuse being a Jew with having a right to become a citizen of Israel. Since the Israeli government cannot read minds, it had to make a concrete definition for the purpose of the Law of Return. The law says that, and I stress, only for the purpose of the law, a Jew is defined as someone whose mother was Jewish or who properly converted (they have a document from a rabbi).
There are many people who can become Israeli citizens under this law and who are not Jewish. For example, people whose mother is Jewish but are Christians and do not identify as Jews. They can “abuse” the law if they want. And so can you. Just fool a rabbi for a few months and you can become an Israeli citizen without becoming Jewish.
Posted by AIG | April 24, 2012, 5:47 pmGabriel,
Again you undermine your argument. Turkey cannot restrict the right of passage in the Bosphorus to nations who have ports in the Black sea just like Egypt cannot restrict passage in the Straits of Tiran to nations who have ports in the Gulf of Eilat (Gulf of Aqaba) like Israel. See the analogy?
So thanks again for making my point even stronger. You just showed that even in the cases where a country maintains a right to block some traffic it cannot block traffic to countries with ports in the area which the blocked strait leads to.
Posted by AIG | April 24, 2012, 5:53 pmNope. I didn’t get the causality wrong. In fact, I got it right. Yes those texts were written based on “Tradition”. And those “Customs” you spoke of come, I assume from “Traditions”, or do they? That’s why I asked you where you thought they came from.
You said, in #521, that to “convert” to be a Jew, you only have to follow the “Customs” and “Way of Life” that a “Rabbi” teaches you.
What “Customs” and “Way of Life” will this proverbial Rabbi ask me to follow, should I wish to take AP up on his offer?
Well you scrapped one of those items- I don’t need to be circumcized. That’s great.
Can I eat Pork and Non-Kosher items? Or will a Rabbi not give me a Free pass?
Can you kindly summarize which Customs and Way of Life I need to follow so that a Rabbi gives me the certificate?
Posted by Gabriel | April 24, 2012, 5:55 pmOnly the Black Sea? How about the Aegan Sea?
Based on your response to the first question… can you explain why the Wiki article suggests that as of 2011 Turkey restricts traffic from Greece? And if so, why, the US, Canada and Europe who believe this stretch of Water is International has not done anything about it?
Posted by Gabriel | April 24, 2012, 6:00 pmGabriel,
Again, you are confused. The certificate from the rabbi only makes you a Jew for the purpose of the law of return. It does not really make a Jew. Only you can make yourself a Jew.
Posted by AIG | April 24, 2012, 6:00 pmSo answer both scenarios, and maybe I will be less confused!
What criteria must one meet to get a ‘Certificate’ from the Rabbi?
What criteria must one meet to “really” become a Jew?
Posted by Gabriel | April 24, 2012, 6:04 pmGabriel,
Ok, I’ll repeat it for you in the small hope you will understand.
To receive a certificate from an orthodox rabbi, you have to live like an orthodox Jew for a few months with all that entails, keeping kosher, praying etc. In order to be able to do that, you have to learn many things, and it can take longer for slow learners.
To really be a Jew you have to self-identify as one and be willing to tie your destiny to that of the Jewish people.
Posted by AIG | April 24, 2012, 6:19 pmAIG:
Don’t be a prick and answer the question properly.
Let’s say I “self-identify” and am “willing to tie my destiny to that of the Jewish people” (whatever that means!)… will that get me a certificate from someone saying that I am now really a “Jew”?
And so what practically verifiable “measures” can I take to demonstrate that I have properly “Self-Identified” and that I am sincere in tying my “Destiny” to that of the Jewish people?
Posted by Gabriel | April 24, 2012, 6:24 pmAlso, please answer the question on the Aegan sea.
Do you think Turkey has the right to restrict traffic from ports on the Aegan?
Posted by Gabriel | April 24, 2012, 6:24 pmGabriel,
Are you playing dumb on purpose? You cannot get to the Black Sea ports without passing through the Bosphorus. You cannot get to the port of Eilat without passing through the Straits of Tiran.
And both the Canadian and US position regarding the Straits of Tiran was and is that Egypt cannot block them to traffic to Eilat. So it is you that has to explain why YOUR position is so different from that of your country.
Posted by AIG | April 24, 2012, 6:26 pmGabriel,
I answered the question properly. You are just being dense on purpose. How can I verify that you are really loyal to Canada? I cannot read your mind. I can only judge by your actions. Same with being a Jew. If you say you identify as a Jew and are willing to tie your destiny to that of the Jewish people, I believe you at first and then judge you by your actions. If you donate money to Jewish causes, my conviction grows stronger. If you learn Hebrew and send your kids to learn Hebrew my conviction grows stronger. If you send money to Hezbollah or forbid your kids to learn Hebrew, my conviction gets weaker that you are a Jew.
Why do you need anyone to give you a diploma that you are Jewish? Being Jewish is a state of mind, not a piece of paper. Only you know for sure if you are a Jew or not.
Posted by AIG | April 24, 2012, 6:34 pmGabriel’s Question & Answer Session, Part 2
I answered the question properly. You are just being dense on purpose.
AIG,
Your explanation was perfect. Even though Turkey has total control of the Bosphorus, it is illegal for them to close it off. Tiran is no different.
Gabriel,
My experience with conversion is as follows:
My son gets married this August to a Brazilian woman who he brought to the US on a Fiance petition. She was born Christian. My Israeli ex-wife asked her to convert and she wants to. She meets with my ex’s orthodox rabbi, learns about our customs, takes verbal tests, answers questions, reads books and when the rabbi deems her ready, she will go to the ritual bath (aka “mikveh”).
When I was married in Israel back in the 80’s, I had to present to the Israeli government religious authorities (aka the Rabbanut”) proof that I was jewish. A letter from my orthodox rabbi is what it took, even though the official muttered under his breath that I was not a “real” jew. He asked me if I was a Cohen, Levi or Israel to which I answered, “I don’t know, I’m not a Cohen or a Levi so I guess I’m Israel”.
In the end, I was married, and I guess it was my ethic look that saved the day;)
Gabriel,
I find your harping on Israeli laws, customs and actions to be a bit tiresome. Why not hassle your own people – they seem to need your “help” more than we need yours.
Just my observation.
Posted by Akbar Palace | April 24, 2012, 8:28 pmAIG#540.
No need to be profane or impertinent. I asked you about traffic from Aegean ports through the Bosphoros and whether Turkey should be entitled to limit it or not, and you have not explicitly answered.
Is the Bosphorus International waters or is it not? If it is International, as you claim.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreux_Convention_Regarding_the_Regime_of_the_Turkish_Straits
from which I quote:
You are the one who brought up the Bosphorus.. so please continue with asinine arguments.
So back to Aegean ports… should Turkey be free to constrain the flow of Greek ships from Aegean ports, through the Bosphorus to ports and locations on the Black Sea?
Yes or No?
(Your post seems to suggest you believe the distinction is applicable because ships in the Black sea ports have nowhere else to go but through the Bosphorus).
Posted by Gabriel | April 24, 2012, 11:46 pmAIG: The other post on becoming a Jew.
Again, please stop being asinine and answer the question like a mature adult. I asked you what measures and steps I can take to becoming a Jew, and all you’ve come up with is incoherent drivel.
To demonstrate…
In https://qifanabki.com/2012/03/08/satire-the-syrian-revolution/#comment-34715
you wrote:
By the way you don’t have to believe in God to become a Jew. You are never asked that question during conversion and it is not a requirement.
And yet, in #537, you wrote, and I quote:
To receive a certificate from an orthodox rabbi, you have to live like an orthodox Jew for a few months with all that entails, keeping kosher, PRAYING etc.
I capitalized the praying. Who is this “Rabbi” checking to see that you are praying to. Obviously, it is not to God, since you said you are never asked that question during conversion. Is it the Fairy Godmother, or the Easter Bunny?
When you are ready to put together a serious and honest response to the question, please go ahead and do so, But don’t try to pass off this incoherent drivel as a serious response.
So I repeat the question…
What steps do I need to take, what customs do I need to follow to be able to become a “Jew”.
PS- the process to become a Canadian is quite simple. Apply for a Landed Immigrant status. Get accepted. Live for 3 years. Apply for a passport.
Everyone of those steps is concrete and measurable. Yes, you don’t know if someone become a Canadian in their “Heart” or not. But that is a silly question that you presented. What matters is whether you become a Canadian in identity or citizenship.
Posted by Gabriel | April 24, 2012, 11:58 pmAP#542…
Since you are the one who brought up the conversion question, you should man up and finish the discussion instead of boring as easily as you appear to be.
Since you seem to have some personal experience in the question of conversion, why don’t you educate us all in what is involved. Perhaps that way, you can set AIG straight on whether believing in God, being Circumcized, keeping Kosher etc are Pre-requisites for being a Jew or not.
If they are not… Great. Please list the Pre-Requisites. That way I can at least be more educated and who knows, I may take you up on your offer!
Posted by Gabriel | April 25, 2012, 12:01 amGabriel,
In both cases you are just trying to divert the arguments but I will not let you off the hook.
1) Why did both Canada and the US consistently support the position that Egypt cannot block the Straits of Tiran? They supported this position in 1967 and still do now under all governments bar none. Can you explain why this is the case? You are trying to defend a ridiculous position that no serious person supports. Until you explain why you know better than all US and Canadian administrations since 1967, there is no use continuing this argument. What makes you an expert and so many successive administrations idiots? Good luck explaining that.
2) How many times do I have to explain to you that praying in Judaism is a community activity. You need at least 10 Jews to pray because the purpose of praying is not to talk to God but to perform a community activity. As for how to become a Jew, I explained it in detail. You do not understand the concept that a being a Jew is a state of mind, it is not something that involves any certificate. That is the difference between being Jewish and being Israeli. The Jewish nation existed well before the state of Israel existed and well before there was anything like a passport. The Jewish nation existed also when the Jews had no piece of land they could call their own.
Posted by AIG | April 25, 2012, 9:00 amAIG:
1) I don’t expect you to let me off the hook. I expect you to answer my questions honestly. You are the one who brought up the Bosphorus example, and it appears the International consensus agrees with me.
With respect to your question… why does Canada & the US consistently support the position… What does it matter? It’s like asking why does Russia/China consistently support the Syrian regime in its continued actions against protesters.
The Laws that govern the UN and how countries vote are not like the Laws of Physics. Drop a ball.. it falls. It falls every time!
If it were, then in the example of the Bosphorus example the Canada & the US would insist that the waterway would be international, and that Turkey would never be entitled to limit any sort of traffic through it (Peacetime or Otherwise). The law would then be consistent.
If you want to win this argument, what you really need to do is pull out the Rules book on what constitute territorial waters, Internal waters, and do a grounds up analysis of its applicability in the various examples.
2) At no point did you “explain” to me that “Praying” is a community activity. This is the first time. So please don’t ask an asinine question that begin with “How many times…”. I am asking an honest question, not to be an arse, but because I am genuinely curious.
Praying for all “faiths” is a community activity. That’s why there are places of worship. What exactly is expected to be said during those prayers? Do you, as a Jew, “pray”? And if so, can you describe the prayer?
I can understand that being a Jew is a state of mind. I get that bit. But in life AIG, it doesn’t matter what one thinks of themselves, but how others perceive them.
Under normal circumstances, of course, I could go around telling anyone that I am Jew, and it would not be true, and well, really ,it doesn’t matter. I am sure no one would question the assertion.
But if I wanted to go a step further.. get involved in the community perhaps. Or practice my “Jewish” right to Israeli citizenship… unfortunately “State of Mind” is not a proper answer, because there is no way that you can quantify it properly.
Your state of mind, even as a Jew, is not the same of Noam Chomsky or Finklestein or or. Unless you feel I am wrong on this point, in which case, please explain to me how the “State of Mind” is quantified and defined .
It the whole point is moot because the only way to be identified as a Jew is that ultimately you need a paper from a Rabbi, then my original point stands.
Posted by Gabriel | April 25, 2012, 9:29 amBy the way, AIG.
As a point to stress with the above, while I don’t personally agree with your position that the Strait of Tiran should be legally considered international waters.. I don’t have a problem with the fact that you think it should me. Nor do I have a problem if the US or Canada agrees with your position.
But for the purpose of the forum and the debate, what I have an issue with is inconsistency. As long as I see that in your thought process you are following a set of rules, and that you do it consistently, I wouldn’t even argue the point with you.
But my real sense (as it was previously) is that you pick and choose the rules book, for all issues discussed in terms favorable to Israel. Which of course is fine and to be expected. Just come out and say so, instead of trying to turn it into some sort of sound legal argument.
Posted by Gabriel | April 25, 2012, 9:41 amGabriel,
Again you are scraping the bottom of the barrel. The principle is simple and consistent and that is why why both the US and Canada agree with my position. The principle is that you do not block shipping lanes even if they fall inside your territorial waters especially after agreeing to leave them open before. And this applies to Israel also. Where did I ever say this principle does not apply to Israel?
“But in life AIG, it doesn’t matter what one thinks of themselves, but how others perceive them.”
That is absolutely false. To you what others think matter about these issues, but not to me.
“unfortunately “State of Mind” is not a proper answer, because there is no way that you can quantify it properly.”
In the future, when neuro and brain sciences advances we will be able to quantify it, but that does not mean that it is not a proper answer. You just refuse to accept it because you are narrow minded on this issue. You say you get it on one hand and then refuse to accept it. Just like “being in love” is not currently quantifiable, that does not mean it is not a useful concept. You have to convince the person you love that you indeed love them just as you need to convince other Jews that you are a Jew but that does not mean you are not in love or not a Jew. In the future, you will be able to bring a brain scan and prove your state of mind, but for now you need to convince by other means.
Posted by AIG | April 25, 2012, 10:42 amAIG:
1) Let me ask you a hypothetical question. Let us say that Israel was not situated where it was, but instead, it was transposed from its current location and current size to an equivalent area, to the present location of Istanbul. That is, half the country is cut off by a 400m Strait called the Bosphorus. Imagine in this hypothetical example that the Black Sea is populated with Hostile countries a la Iran/Syria, and with perhaps other hostile countries in the Aegean, which as they are today are involved in a cold War of sorts with this country of Israel.
Are you saying, with a straight Face that Israel should consider the “Bosphorus” strait a free for all Shipping Lane!
Bear in mind when you respond to this question that not too long ago, the Israelis boarded the Mavi Marmara in International Waters.
Please, have the courtesy of at least being honest in your arguments.
2) I didn’t say the “State of Mind” argument was not a useful concept. I am also not narrow minded on the topic. Sure being in Love in not quantifiable, but there are ways you can convince someone you love that indeed you love them. Buy them flowers, support them in their time of need, etc.
My question to you was simple. What things does one have to do if they had the “Jewish state of mind” to convince others that they are a Jew? Clearly it’s not simply “supporting” them. So can you list some actions that one can do?
Bear in mind that the end goal of this question is that you convince fellow Jews that you are a Jew so that the State of Israel accepts your innate right to claim Israeli citizenship.
Posted by Gabriel | April 25, 2012, 11:39 amAlso, please respond to my question on praying. Do you pray? Do you pray regularly? What is involved in your prayers?
Posted by Gabriel | April 25, 2012, 11:41 amGabriel,
1) If you want an honest discussion, then at least make your hypothetical examples honest. Egypt had agreed to keep the Straits of Tiran open and then after years in which they were open, they changed their minds. So the relevant example would be the case you site plus Israel allowing shipping for years and then for no apparent reason changing its mind. And the answer is simple. No, Israel would not act like that. If it declared it would keep shipping lanes open and followed that policy for years, it would not change its position since that would be a casus belli.
2) “Bear in mind that the end goal of this question is that you convince fellow Jews that you are a Jew so that the State of Israel accepts your innate right to claim Israeli citizenship.”
Again, you just don’t understand the point do you? The State of Israel gives citizenship to people that are defined in the language of the Law of Return, not to Jews. If you want to become an Israeli citizen, you have to fulfill the conditions of the Law of Return. But what you are not able to grasp is that these conditions are not the conditions of being Jewish. You can convince people that you are Jewish but still not be eligible based on the Law of Return. And of course you can convince no one that you are Jewish but just prove that you have a Jewish mother and become a citizen even if you detest Jews and the last thing in the world you want to be is a Jew.
So I hope you understand your question is nonsense because convincing other Jews that you are a Jew has nothing to do with getting an Israeli citizenship. Genetics and conversion do not make a Jew. They are just inaccurate approximations that state of Israel uses because it has to use some test.
3) I don’t usually pray but if I am asked to fill a minyan (so there are at least ten Jews) I always oblige (for example in an airport or in a conference with few Jews). The “prayer” involves reciting Hebrew texts. Your misunderstanding comes from the unfortunate use of the same word for two different acts. One is talking or asking God for something which is how you mean the word and the other meaning is having at least ten Jews stand together and read the same text which is what Jewish prayer means. It is an act of community that an atheist like me feels completely comfortable with. Jews did not “pray” when the Temple in Jerusalem stood. After the Second Temple was destroyed by the Romans the rabbis substituted “prayer” for Temple services.
Posted by AIG | April 25, 2012, 12:28 pmKasim Hafeez no longer demonizes Israel.
What’s his secret? Does he have relatives living in Syria, Egypt or Lebanon…who knows…
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4220976,00.html
Posted by Akbar Palace | April 25, 2012, 1:00 pmAIG Response Point (1).
You are not arguing principles. Or at least your principle is not a principle. It is Might Makes Right, and that is no principle at all, because Right is whatever Might dictates it to be.
In Post #540, you insinuated that the reason the Bosphorus had to be considered “International Waters” was that you couldn’t get to the Black Sea Ports without going through the Bosphorus.
Now it seems that this is not the Principle that informs your decision on whether a Waterway should remain open or not (access to ports).. What informs your decision is Status Quo. So as long as you can get away with defining a new Status quo, then a waterway can either be considered International or Not!
Posted by Gabriel | April 25, 2012, 1:31 pmResponse to Point (2).
I am not an expert on the Law of Return. In fact I know nothing about it. Please explain the conditions of the Law.
This whole discussion on becoming Jewish was started, and let me stress this, not by me, but by your Co-Religionist, or Co-Nationalist, or Co-Whaever… AP, in post#506, in which he wrote, and I quote:
Based on this posting, it seems at least AP believes that becoming “Judaic” in faith automatically grants you Citizenship to Israel.
Does the Law of Return only apply to those people who demonstrate their Mothers are Jewish? If not, why bring up the rhetorical point that you could be “technically” Jewish but self-loathing as well. This is an irrelevant point that adds 0 value to the discussion.
If AP is correct, and the Law of Return applies to you if you become “Judaic”, then are you automatically considered a Jew, if you are Judaic in faith?
Please explain.
Posted by Gabriel | April 25, 2012, 1:38 pmGabriel,
Israel did not force Egypt to open the straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping. It was a commitment made by Egypt to the international community because they accepted the principle I articulated, so your argument is complete nonsense.
Posted by AIG | April 25, 2012, 1:41 pmResponse to Point 3
You cannot say I misunderstood something, when you didn’t explain that something, for which you can say I misunderstood it in the first place.
I asked you what this Prayer was. And still you have not answered it. On what basis are you saying that I misunderstood your point?
What are those “Hebrew Texts” that you are reading. Can you post a snippet of it, an English translation if possible?
I’m not being difficult or argumentative. I am ignorant of what “Ten Jews” stand together and read. I really don’t know. I am asking you to point me to the Text that you and 9 Other Jews read when you perform Minyan.
Or is that a big secret that can’t be shared?
Posted by Gabriel | April 25, 2012, 1:43 pm#556…
Articulate the principle once again. I missed it. What “Principle” did Egypt use to commit to the International Community that it would keep the Strait open?
Is it the principle that:
PRINCIPLE *: any Port city should always have access to allow goods to enter and to exit
And if that is the principle, can you please take another stab at answering the Hypothetical.
(Please don’t say that the principle is PRINCIPLE* with the Caveat that the Status quo was that it was open. Because that means the PRINCIPLE* is easily bent. For instance, if as a result of the War, Israel Lost, then Egypt could Rightfully state that that Israeli ships cannot pass through the Strait, and that would be the new Status Quo, hence demonstrating that your principle is really only just Might makes Right).
Posted by Gabriel | April 25, 2012, 1:48 pmGabriel,
Yes, getting a certificate of conversion from a rabbi allows you to get citizenship in Israel. But of course you are wrong when you jump to the conclusion that if you convert you become a Jew. You become eligible for Israeli citizenship, that is all. A conversion certificate may be a good indication you are a Jew but it certainly is not proof you are a Jew nor does it make you a Jew. Only you can make yourself a Jew.
Posted by AIG | April 25, 2012, 1:51 pmGabriel,
There is no secret whatsoever about what Jews read and you can find that here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siddur
And yes, you are being difficult and argumentative because I clearly defined what it means to pray in a Jewish sense and it does not matter one bit what the texts that the Jews read are.
Posted by AIG | April 25, 2012, 1:56 pm#560.
Of course it matters what the texts are. And the frequency which you do it in too.
Thanks for the link. The first bit of educational information you posted.
Relevance of Words (taken from your link):
When you pray, you say things like
This means that your assertion:
Was an outright LIE.
Relevance of Frequency of Prayer:
It’s one thing to say that you indulge in “religious” services as a matter of respect for tradition. Attending a Bar Mitzvah, Snipping AIG Junior, etc.
But really, if you are getting up every morning and “Praying” what seems to be prayers that are not different from what Muslims and Christians say, then it really doesn’t matter if you call yourself, in your heart that is, an atheist!
If “religious” traditions inform your behavior, actually believing in God is a mere technical detail… if your behaviour in every other shape form or manner is in ways where the religious people believe He dictated they should be.
Posted by Gabriel | April 25, 2012, 2:05 pm#559:
Nonsensical, irrelevant drivel that adds 0 value to the Discussion. You talk about what is in Peoples’ hearts as though it is the end-all and be-all of identity.
Yes of course it is important. But Rights, Responsibilities, Citizenship are not functions of what is in ones’ heart.
Posted by Gabriel | April 25, 2012, 2:07 pmGabriel,
Again, you are scraping the bottom of the barrel. All rights of shipping is based on agreements between countries. The general agreement is that all routes should be kept open, unless there is international agreement otherwise in specific cases. There was complete and utter agreement regarding the Straits of Tiran. The Egyptians entered these agreements voluntarily. Therefore, closing the straits was a cassus belli.
Posted by AIG | April 25, 2012, 2:07 pm#563.
They apparently entered the Agreement voluntarily are were to be bound for it for eternity.
They continue with the agreement at Risk of War and being blown to bits if they choose to deviate from said agreement!
It’s OK, you can say it. You believe that Might is Right. There’s no shame in stating the obvious.
Posted by Gabriel | April 25, 2012, 2:10 pmGabriel,
You continue with your nonsense. Of course reciting a text that references God does not make you a believer in God. And asking someone to recite such text is not asking them to believe in anything, it is asking them to recite a text.
You just see things that are not there. Not once in a conversion process are you asked whether you believe in God and it is not a requirement.
Posted by AIG | April 25, 2012, 2:12 pm“They apparently entered the Agreement voluntarily are were to be bound for it for eternity.”
So what is your principle? That you can enter an agreement and then leave it whenever you like without consequences?
“They continue with the agreement at Risk of War and being blown to bits if they choose to deviate from said agreement!”
No, they can ask to renegotiate the agreement instead of taking one sided actions. Quite simple.
Posted by AIG | April 25, 2012, 2:14 pmBy the way… can you point me to a document that shows when Egypt formally agreed that the Straits are to be “international” routes?
Posted by Gabriel | April 25, 2012, 2:15 pm#565…
Belief is a technicality that is irrelevant. Because belief is inherent and personal and can only be measured by the individual. What you say is in “One’s heart”.
#566…
So Israel would have agreed to “re-negotiate” the agreement? LoL.
AIG, who’s scraping the bottom of the barrel?
Posted by Gabriel | April 25, 2012, 2:18 pm#566:
The principle is countries have defined borders, waterways, etc.
They have every right to do with their borders as they please. If Israel wants to use the Strait, it should make the effort to ensure that it reaches agreements on the negotiating table with the parties involved in the space it would like to use- not to use the might of its army to dictate what those terms are, and the backing of Superpowers to justify that position. That principle is called Might is Right.
Posted by Gabriel | April 25, 2012, 2:21 pm“So Israel would have agreed to “re-negotiate” the agreement? LoL.”
Of course it would. You are mistaking willingness to renegotiate with agreement in advance to accept the other sides positions. A negotiation is a negotiation, not an agreement. In fact it is you that supports might is right because you support the Egyptians using force to close the straits after agreeing to leave it open.
“Belief is a technicality that is irrelevant.”
You argue that reciting a prayer is equivalent to believing in God. And then you argue that belief is irrelevant. Make up your mind and try again.
Posted by AIG | April 25, 2012, 2:25 pm“They have every right to do with their borders as they please.”
Unless of course that goes against international agreements they are party to .That is the principle.
” If Israel wants to use the Strait, it should make the effort to ensure that it reaches agreements on the negotiating table with the parties involved”
Of course it was the Egyptians that refused to negotiate with Israel, before the 67 war and after it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khartoum_Resolution
Posted by AIG | April 25, 2012, 2:30 pm#571.
You are contradicting yourself. First you say Egypt “agreed” to open the strait to Israel, and now you say that Egypt refused to negotiate with Israel before and after 67.
Egypt likely never really “agreed” to anything. And if there was any paper agreement it was likely because of arm twisting and diplomacy and being attacked over years that informed its reluctant position.
Which once again re-affirms my position that your guiding principle is MIGHT is RIGHT.
Stop dragging this on AIG. Just own up to your principle and move on. There is no shame in it.
Posted by Gabriel | April 25, 2012, 2:38 pmYou argue that reciting a prayer is equivalent to believing in God. And then you argue that belief is irrelevant. Make up your mind and try again.
That wasn’t my argument. I was arguing against your position that God didn’t have anything to do with becoming a Jew.
For all I know, Pope Benedict doesn’t “really” believe that Christ died for our sins, or that he rose again. Maybe he doesn’t “really” believe that he was born of a Virgin mother. Maybe that is not- as you put it- what is in his heart!
Maybe the real reason he’s the head of the Catholic church is he has a liking to little altar boys!
I don’t know.
It doesn’t matter.
It doesn’t make him any less “Catholic”.
You come here and you say that you are an Atheist, and that you don’t believe in God. How do I know that is what is in your heart? That it is true? Only you can know that. And quite frankly, only you should care what is truly in your heart.
If you woke up every morning, found yourself 9 other Jews, all so that you can get together an “Thank God” for this or that, then either the whole bunch of you are getting together in a concerted and orchestrated act of self-delusion and time Wasting: Thanking a deity you don’t believe exists for your daily bread. Or you are giving those 9 other Jews the wrong perception that you are actually a Believer.
(If you do it once in a while for respecting tradition, etc, then it’s not a big deal… that’s why the question of Frequency was, as I said, quite relevant)
Posted by Gabriel | April 25, 2012, 2:46 pm“Egypt likely never really “agreed” to anything. ”
False as usual. I wrote above, Egypt made such commitments to the international community and then used force to change the situation. I never said they signed an agreement with Israel. Of course Egypt agreed, that fact is that it left the straits open for years when it could have closed them whenever it wanted to. And of course you assume that any Egyptian agreement is because of “arm twisting”. How about because it was a reasonable compromise which is a much better explanation? In any case, this is like most of your arguments, you jump to conclusions based on false premises.
Egypt was clearly in the wrong here and gave Israel a legitimate casus belli. The result of the war was determined by might, but might has nothing to do with the fact that Israel had a legitimate casus belli.
Posted by AIG | April 25, 2012, 2:47 pmEgypt was constantly in war… and occupation. From Ottoman days, to Napoleonic days, to the British, to the 47 creation of Israel, to the Suez war, to the War of 67.
Enough AIG. When a democratically elected government in Egypt exercises its rights over its territory and is given full control on allowing the terms of use of its territory.. THEN and ONLY THEN can you say that Egypt agreed to anything.
Otherwise.. good luck demonstrating that this or that “Agreement” was not derived from Military arm-twisting.
Posted by Gabriel | April 25, 2012, 2:53 pmEgypt made such commitments to the international community….
Please post a link to the relevant commitments. Meeting of Minutes. Wiki Leaks. Whatever.
Posted by Gabriel | April 25, 2012, 2:54 pm“If you woke up every morning, found yourself 9 other Jews, all so that you can get together an “Thank God” for this or that, then either the whole bunch of you are getting together in a concerted and orchestrated act of self-delusion and time Wasting: Thanking a deity you don’t believe exists for your daily bread. Or you are giving those 9 other Jews the wrong perception that you are actually a Believer.”
Completely wrong. Being part of a community is important to some people and the act of doing so called “useless things” together is just a way to strengthen a sense of community and many Jews enjoy it very much. It gives them a sense of being part of something bigger than themselves.
“It doesn’t make him any less “Catholic”.”
Again, you are trying to smuggle in through the back door your own definition of what Catholic or a Jew is. You want a definition that can be verified 100%. Well there isn’t one. Learn to live with it. Only the person can know if he is really Jewish or not.
Posted by AIG | April 25, 2012, 2:56 pmGabriel,
So basically your point is that whatever Egypt agrees upon is not worth the paper it is written on. No it is worse, your point is that no non-democracy has to keep its agreements. I hope you realize how ridiculous your position is.
Posted by AIG | April 25, 2012, 2:59 pm#577:
No No No. What you have attempted rather feebly to do is to suggest that the “Judaic faith” for Jews is somehow so very different from how “Christians” or “Muslims” perceive their own faith.
Belief in scripture is not important if you are following scripture/traditional religious practices. The belief is the detail that can never be verified. It is between you and “God” (if you believe he exists). It is what is in your proverbial heart.
So you say you folow scripture to give you a “sense of community”. I know a lot of Catholics who identify as Catholics, and say they don’t “believe” many Catholic tenets, but that like you follow “scripture” and tradition for a sense of community.
Don’t make this very basic point more sophisticated than it really is. R2D2 was right many eons ago. You really should stop calling yourself an atheist, and say that you are a man of faith.
#578:
No. That’s not what I said. I suggested that Egypt probably never “agreed” to letting Israel use the Straits in the first place. Not that it is not bound by its formal agreements (which by the way, you have yet to produce and provide a link to).
What I am saying is that if any such “agreement” ever took place, it was a direct by-product of this country being pushed and bullied. What I took exception to was your rather nonchalant description of Egypt’s “agreements” as though most of them could have been described as being byproducts of anything but War!
So back to my core point. Your principle- as far as you have any- is that Might is Right!
Posted by Gabriel | April 25, 2012, 3:42 pmPS:
Being part of a community is important to some people and the act of doing so called “useless things” together is just a way to strengthen a sense of community and many Jews enjoy it very much
You can get together in a spirit of community and do community events, actions, yadda yadda…
.. without invoking ‘God”, “Deity”, etc.
Posted by Gabriel | April 25, 2012, 3:47 pm“No No No. What you have attempted rather feebly to do is to suggest that the “Judaic faith” for Jews is somehow so very different from how “Christians” or “Muslims” perceive their own faith.”
Completely wrong again. The Jews are a nation, not a faith based community. You are trying to push your narrow minded definitions on issues you have no understanding in.
“So you say you folow scripture to give you a “sense of community”.”
No, I say that when asked I recite texts with my fellow Jews out of a sense of community and not because of belief in God. I don’t “follow” anything.
“Don’t make this very basic point more sophisticated than it really is”
The basic point is simple. You keep conflating the faith in God with belonging to the Jewish nation or people. You keep trying to tell me (a Jew) what a Jew is. And you keep using very bad arguments and distorting what I say. Things are really simple. Jews are what the Jews say they are.
“No. That’s not what I said. I suggested that Egypt probably never “agreed” to letting Israel use the Straits in the first place. Not that it is not bound by its formal agreements (which by the way, you have yet to produce and provide a link to).”
So are you saying that Egypt has to abide by its agreements or not? Your whole point is moot of course. Egypt never agreed to the mere existence of Israel and declared war on it to annihilate it. To then complain that it is Israel that is using the might is right paradigm is sheer lunacy while all the time Egypt was trying to get rid of Israel using force.
Posted by AIG | April 25, 2012, 4:09 pm“ou can get together in a spirit of community and do community events, actions, yadda yadda…
.. without invoking ‘God”, “Deity”, etc”
Who are you to tell Jews how to spend their time together? You are really losing it.
Posted by AIG | April 25, 2012, 4:10 pmLoL. You say that I don’t understand what Jews are… that they are a Nation and not a Faith based community. The implicit point is that the Muslims and Christians are faith based communities and, not, Nations.
Who the hell do you think you are to define how Christians and Muslims define themselves to be: nations or faith-based communities?
And how is that different from Christians and Muslims. How do you know that when Pope Benedict recites Christian prayers that he actually “Believes in God”. How do you know what is in his heart.
Ditto for a Billion Christians. Ditto for a Billion Muslims and their Priests!
Maybe they too- like you- only do it to get a sense of Community!
So yes- if in fact you a regular partaker in “Religious” activities- then you are defact “Following Scripture”, irrespective of whether you actually believe it or not.
You have yet to tell me what Jews are.
So far, you’ve said that if I get a certificate from a Rabbi, there’s a good chance that I am a Jew.
Getting that paper involves me saying and following all sorts of Religious Jewish practices- not least of all- PRAYER. To God.
Then you said that this Prayer is just words. That I don’t actually have to believe what I am saying in those Prayers.
That is to say- you told me that I can become a Jew by getting a Piece of Paper, which I can get by saying a bunch of words, which I don’t sincerely believe to be true. This paper is apparently a Necessary but NOT sufficient condition to be truly a Jew. Although it is a Necessary AND Sufficient condition to be eligible to the Law of Return.
If there is any confusion in this matter, it is all your own doing.
String together a Cohesive sentence, and perhaps there would be no confusion.
Yes- Egypt (and all other countries) should abide by agreements. Otherwise, there would be Anarchy.
If those agreements are reached by Force- that doesn’t make them any less applicable. But there is no reason to dress the Pig with Lipstick and suggest that it was anything but that! An agreement forced on that particular country.
Also I agree that Egypt never agreed to Israel’s existence, which is why I thought your insinuation that Egypt gladly allowed Israeli traffic through the Strait rather ludicrous.
Posted by Gabriel | April 25, 2012, 4:36 pmI am not telling “Jews”. I am telling you- my QN Penpal friend- an self-professed Atheist (like me!). If the only way you seem to find to build a sense of community with your Fellow Jews is by Reciting words you don’t actually believe and to relate with your Fellow Jews through a God you actually believe is a Figment of their imagination… then you are lying to yourself.
I just don’t understand why you don’t partake in other community building exercises that don’t involve you having to utter words that you don’t actually believe.
Posted by Gabriel | April 25, 2012, 4:42 pmlol
R2D2, I think it’s the right time for you to jump in the conversation.
Please explain to Gabriel (who doesn’t want to make up his mind) that there is absolutely no problem for an atheist to gather with other men to be grateful to a God he denies. For the simple reason that he wants to belongs to a community that projects him higher than his own self.
Also Gabriel doesn’t see the obvious: it is way more fulfilling to call to God while being an atheist than unite around the maple leaf.
Posted by 3issa | April 25, 2012, 5:10 pm3issa…
Are you an atheist?
Posted by Gabriel | April 25, 2012, 5:13 pmnope
Posted by 3issa | April 25, 2012, 5:18 pm3issa:
Of course there is no problem for anyone to live their lives whichever way they please.
I just think it’s rather ridiculous if you spend a good portion of your time getting together with other like-minded individuals… “Pray” together, and call on a “God” you don’t believe exists… then spending the rest of the time denying that this God exists!
Or at the very least… don’t come to this forum and pull an AIG and suggest that “Pray” for Jews is a completely different verb than for Christians and Muslims and others. That their “Prayers” somehow don’t necessitate belief- simply because he, as an “atheist” partakes in them! As if there are no Christian/Muslim atheists who Partake in “Prayers” from their faith groups!!!
Posted by Gabriel | April 25, 2012, 5:23 pmYour reading comprehension skills are minimal. You want to understand what you want. Basically you want to make the old argument that Jews are not a nation and no facts will stand in your way. Most Christians and Muslims do not see themselves as a nation. Most Lebanese Christians and Muslims identify themselves as belonging to the Lebanese nation. That is just a fact. Jews on the other hand mostly identify as part of the Jewish nation. That is also just a fact. I have told you ten times what a Jew is: It is someone that self identifies as a Jew and ties his destiny to that of the Jewish people. You don’t like or can’t understand this simple definition.
I explained that the only way to become a Jew is to make yourself one. No rabbi or genes can make you one. You cannot grasp this concept. You also fail to grasp that getting an Israeli citizenship based on the Law of Return does not mean you are a Jew. You are also completely confused about the difference between taking part in religious ceremonies and believing in God. The two are completely different. If you can’t see the difference, I can’t help you.
Just to illustrate your lack of comprehension. You write:
“So far, you’ve said that if I get a certificate from a Rabbi, there’s a good chance that I am a Jew.”
No, what I said is that if you get that certificate it is an indication for other people that you are a Jew. Since you already now if you are a Jew or not, your sentence is nonsense.
And to show that you are being difficult on purpose. You write:
“Getting that paper involves me saying and following all sorts of Religious Jewish practices- not least of all- PRAYER. To God.”
I defined what Jewish prayer means several times, yet you distort what I say on purpose.
“Also I agree that Egypt never agreed to Israel’s existence, which is why I thought your insinuation that Egypt gladly allowed Israeli traffic through the Strait rather ludicrous.”
You know very little history. Since Egypt agreed to the armistice agreement of 49 in which it agreed to stop fighting, it makes sense that it agreed to allow traffic to Israel through Tiran. That is what stopping hostilities means. What is ridiculous is you blaming Israel for using the might is right principle when you agree that it is Egypt that was trying to annihilate Israel by force!
Posted by AIG | April 25, 2012, 5:24 pm#587..
So on what basis are you suggesting that it is more “Fulfilling” to rally around God, instead of the Maple Leaf?
I find it quite a bit more fulfilling to rally around the Maple Leaf.
Am I not entitled to define what I find more fulfilling for myself? Should I take you up on your suggestion on what I should find more fulfilling?
PS- On that Law of Return. Since the Palestinians are itching for it… and our token QN forum Jews have suggested a rather Medieval solution to the Refugee problem.. has there been any chatter within Muslim Arab communities on why those refugees don’t simply become Jews.
All they need is a paper from the Rabbi. They’re snipped. They don’t eat pork. They like to grow their beards! And hey it’s just a bunch of Prayers they have to say that they don’t necessarily have to believe in!
Posted by Gabriel | April 25, 2012, 5:26 pmGabriel, well, I guess you didn’t grasp the irony in my message. I cannot agree more with you.
I have rarely seen a non sense such as the one AIG is trying to depict. I say rarely because you rarely get the opportunity to have an atheist jew telling us how much he likes praying.
What’s the strongest word in English in the lexical field of “paradox” ? I look for that word.
Posted by 3issa | April 25, 2012, 5:30 pmI wrote above that I pray infrequently, only when asked to complete a minyan. Again, you distort what I say. And yes the concept of prayer in Judaism is completely different from that in Christianity and Islam. Just ask yourself, why do you need at least 10 Jews to pray? If praying is talking to God, why can’t one Jew do it? Why do you need ten?
Posted by AIG | April 25, 2012, 5:32 pmWhere did I say I liked praying? I said I am happy to do it as part of my duty to my community. You guys are really quite slow.
Posted by AIG | April 25, 2012, 5:34 pmAIG. I suspect no-one can really understand this concept. Not just me. It’s not Nature. It’s not Nurture. It is apparently something else altogether.
That is unfortunately NOT an agreement, however much you would like to construe it as one. You are simply stating that by agreeing to the end of Military hostilities.. it has defacto conceded Israel’s right to use the Strait. Egypt signed the treaty because it suffered Defeat.
So in your view.. your Principle is.. Once again.. Might makes Right!
Just grow up and concede the point.
Posted by Gabriel | April 25, 2012, 5:34 pmAIG #593
OK like, be happy, wathever. Here is a rephrase for your liking:
There is on this planet an atheist Jew who is happy to pray. And that is me, Groucho Marx.
Posted by 3issa | April 25, 2012, 5:38 pm#592, #593:
AIG: I already said that I think if this is an “acitivity” that you do infrequently, and to “show respect” to various traditions, I don’t see anything particularly strange about your position. I am not misreading you, nor misrepresenting your views.
It is when you started defending the general position that somehow this “Prayer” activity- because it is a “Community building exercise”- and did so quite naturally… that’s when the Alarm bells sounded. Community Building exercises that use a lot of Religious traditions and actions are Religious Community Exercises.
Posted by Gabriel | April 25, 2012, 5:39 pm“Egypt signed the treaty because it suffered Defeat.”
It suffered defeat in a war it started (which you conceded). It decided to use the might makes right argument. And you insist it is Israel that is employing this argument. You are obviously wrong. It is the principle that the Egyptians decided to base the solution upon, and now you say it is an Israeli one. You can keep pusing your failed logic, but it will get you nowhere. Egypt decided that might makes right and decided how things will evolve.
Posted by AIG | April 25, 2012, 5:39 pm“AIG. I suspect no-one can really understand this concept. Not just me. It’s not Nature. It’s not Nurture. It is apparently something else altogether.”
Sigh. For a moment I thought you understood what a state of mind is (like being in love). But you just don’t. And you suspect wrong. Most people have no problem understanding this intuitive concept because they intuitively understand what self-identification means because most people self-identify as something.
Posted by AIG | April 25, 2012, 5:42 pmAIG#589.
Please don’t get defensive- just be coherent.
You wrote earlier:
Now you write:
No of course not! But you wrote earlier that the Conversion Certificate is a Good Indication that you are one.
I’ve asked you what check marks you have to tick to get this certificate, and you mentioned things like “Keeping Kosher”, and “Praying”…
If there are other non-religious activities boxes that you need to tick.. you have yet to mention them. That you did not list them is not my doing! It’s your doing.
So why “might” this Certificate be a “Good Indication” that you are Jew? You have already conceded that the premise under which you get this Certificate may be entirely FALSE, and that there is no problem with it. Since all the Prayers you have to recite in order to get this Certificate do NOT have to be sincere (since you can be a Jew who DOESN’T believe in God).
For the record, I actually do think that “Jews” form a nation. So your assertion is completely false. I believe Jews are a By-Product of both Nature and Nurture (Gene & Faith). And I also agree that the conflation of those two concepts is what makes it difficult for you to argue your position cohesively. . So your comment is rather baseless.
You AIG, on the other hand, want to have your cake and eat it too. This is why you can’t string together a cohesive sentance- not on the Egypt Tiran question, and not on this Faith question.
You seem to have difficulty conceding that your position is not derived from Universal Principles, except maybe the principle of propagation/self-preservation. Taking positions that you perceive are best for your country/community.
There is nothing wrong with this. Just don’t try to throw legalese into the mix, and make your position anything more than it is: Self-preservation and Self-Interest.
Posted by Gabriel | April 25, 2012, 5:58 pm#597.
I agree. The Egyptians did try to use the Might makes Right principle. But in War, they proved they were not the Mighty Side.
In Peace, Israel lived by the Might is Right principle.
Posted by Gabriel | April 25, 2012, 6:00 pm