>> ^Trancecoach:

What Kinsey's book did for the backward notions of sexuality in the 1950s, this book does for the analogous kinds of notions in in the 2010s.


Wow, did not know about this one--Thanks Trancecoach!

“The single most important book about human sexuality since Alfred Kinsey unleashed Sexual Behavior in the Human Male on the American public in 1948.”
— Dan Savage

With a review like this one I'll be going to the library tomorrow.

>> ^Skeeve:

It's description is definitely the Republic of Ireland, or Poblacht na hÉireann in Irish: "Article 2", Republic of Ireland Act, 1948. "It is hereby declared that the description of the State shall be the Republic of Ireland."
That said, the name of the country is Ireland or Éire.
>> ^Deano:
Just watching this again I'm pretty sure it's NOT The Republic of Ireland, just Ireland. IIRC.



My life for Éire.

>> ^moodonia:

Deano is correct, the name is Ireland if you are speaking english, the name is Eire if you are ag caint as gaelige (speaking in Irish).
Apparently the author was unaware of the significance of orange for northern Ireland in the youtube comments, slightly controversial lol
>> ^xxovercastxx:
>> ^Deano:
Just watching this again I'm pretty sure it's NOT The Republic of Ireland, just Ireland. IIRC.

The entire island that contains Northern Ireland is Ireland. The country that makes up the part of the island that's not Northern Ireland is The Republic of Ireland.



I did some more research and it does seem that you and @Deano are correct after all. "Republic of Ireland is a description in use since 1948.

For anyone who is curious, here's a link to the Republic of Ireland Act, 1948, which establishes "Republic of Ireland" as the state's description.

I do have to say being able to call the Irish state "The Republic of Ireland" sure would be handy for differentiating from the island. I suppose there's nothing stopping you, though. It's technically correct to refer to it as "the republic of Ireland" even if that's not its name. It's no different than saying "the state of New York".

It's description is definitely the Republic of Ireland, or Poblacht na hÉireann in Irish: "Article 2", Republic of Ireland Act, 1948. "It is hereby declared that the description of the State shall be the Republic of Ireland."

That said, the name of the country is Ireland or Éire.
>> ^Deano:

Just watching this again I'm pretty sure it's NOT The Republic of Ireland, just Ireland. IIRC.

>> ^MaxWilder:

Can we agree that the 56% was an absurd way to try to end the civil war? Obviously the Arab Palestinians weren't satisfied, and it seems that much more than that is now in the hands of Israel as the result of continued conflict, so the Zionists do not appear to be satisfied either.
Also, bcglorf, you keep talking about a civil war as if that is the natural thing that happens because the Arab population was becoming more oppressive toward the Jewish population. Are you denying the massive influx of Jews pre-1948? I am honestly curious because I am just starting to learn about this period of Israel's history.


I'll gladly agree that 56% for a group that had less than 50% of the population is hardly what one would call fair. In hindsight, I'd even say it would've been better for the UN to offer much, much less, but only on the condition that it would have been enough of a concession to avoid the war that immediately followed. I think most historians seem sure that even giving 1% to the creation of a Jewish state would have still resulted in the same war and outrage from the neighbouring Arab states.

More importantly than being "fair", the UN borders were arrived at by no special formula planned to take advantage of the Arabs. The UN, as it always has since, was simply picking the existing borders of the day and saying let's all call it quits right now and just get along. The 56% the Jewish Palestinians held was the land they had gained fighting with their Arab Palestinian brothers. The 44% the Arab Palestinians held was the land they'd held fighting their Jewish Palestinian brothers. Or to state it more simply, NO ZIONIST CONSPIRACY!

it seems that much more than that is now in the hands of Israel as the result of continued conflict, so the Zionists do not appear to be satisfied either.

I think it's unfair to blame the land Israel gained after declaring independence on Zionist greed. The reality was a war was being fought that left Palestine divided roughly in half with the Jewish side holding the bigger half. The UN recommended ending the fighting and maintaining separate states roughly along those borders.

The Jewish Palestinians said yes, they wanted peace along those borders. Most likely because from any practical standpoint, they were in no position to try and fight for anything better, they were lucky to get as far as they had outnumbered as they were.

The Arab Palestinians for their part were largely ready to say yes as well, only because they were fearful they to would lose in a longer fight. The changing factor was the neighboring Arab states, each of whom vastly outnumbered and outgunned the tiny fledgling state of Israel. All the neighboring Arab states agreed that the conditions for peace were NOT acceptable to them because they were each convinced they could gain more land for themselves from Palestine.

Not even the most zealous Zionist could have seen that not only would they survive such a war, but that they would even manage to gain more land in the process. The expansion of Israel's borders in 1948 can hardly be blamed on Zionist expansion, but instead much more simply on the Arab nations mystifying ability to lose the war they by all rights should have not only won, but won easily. To this day that loss is the single greatest source of shame in much of Arab identity.

Also, bcglorf, you keep talking about a civil war as if that is the natural thing that happens because the Arab population was becoming more oppressive toward the Jewish population. Are you denying the massive influx of Jews pre-1948?
Of course I'm not denying the huge influx of Jews leading up to 1948. It just can't be mentioned without obviously asking why they were coming. The video would suggest a Zionist plot to invade Palestine. I think you can figure out for yourself though if Jews might have had some other reasons around that time to be looking for a new place to live outside of Europe's borders. I was reluctant to bring it up of course because someone would think I'm trying to justify making Arabs pay the price for the Nazi's crimes, which is in no way my point.

My other point regarding the civil war in Palestine is that there were in fact a great many Jews already living in Palestine before the Zionists figured on it being a good place for their own schemes. In fact, one of the reasons it was high on the list was that there were already a very good number of Jewish Palestinians living there. I don't think even the video denies that the conflict in Palestine prior to 1948 was a civil war. They just suggest that it was Zionists that stirred up a Palestine that had otherwise gotten on well for the last century. I think since the time frame we are talking about is the time where Palestine was a British Colony, and where WW1 and WW2 were being waged, that maybe there were other very big factors in Palestine's newly enflamed ethnic tensions. Factors big enough that Zionism was just another symptom rather than an initial cause.

Can we agree that the 56% was an absurd way to try to end the civil war? Obviously the Arab Palestinians weren't satisfied, and it seems that much more than that is now in the hands of Israel as the result of continued conflict, so the Zionists do not appear to be satisfied either.

Also, bcglorf, you keep talking about a civil war as if that is the natural thing that happens because the Arab population was becoming more oppressive toward the Jewish population. Are you denying the massive influx of Jews pre-1948? I am honestly curious because I am just starting to learn about this period of Israel's history.

we are in agreement. Hurray

EXCEPT for your refutation of the my statement on peace.
your refutation is based on my population numbers being wrong.

I'm not sure exactly what your meaning is here. My main beef was with the video. It said your same statement about how everyone had been getting along well for a long time before. Then, at the 6 minute mark it suddenly changed course and declared that "in 1900 there were hardly any Jews in Palestine".

My beef is the video selectively wants to be able to use contradictory sets of facts. It will use the peaceful cooperation between Jews and Arabs as proof that before Zionism, things were fine. Then later, when it wants to paint Zionism as a foreign infiltration of Palestine, suddenly there were very few Jews in Palestine in 1900. Either there were centuries of Jews and Arabs living together peacefully or there were very few Jews, NOT both.

I also objected to the video declaring, again in the first 5 minutes, that the Zionists were unwilling to entertain any idea of sharing any land with Arabs. Quite plainly, the strongest counter argument is that in 1948 they went along with the other Jewish Palestinian leaders in declaring independence along the borders the UN had mandated. Clearly there is a time in 1948 where even the Zionists were content to accept a peace on terms that left 43% of Palestine for the Arab Palestinians. Clearly at this point in time, the neighboring Arab states, and not the Zionists, were the ones that instigated further hostilities. This is so clear, that you'd be hard pressed to find any Arab scholar who disagrees. The neighboring Arab nations were absolutely set and intent on rejecting and removing the newly independent Israeli state, no matter how peaceful or friendly it was willing to be.

I'm merely rejecting the video's view of Zionism as the sole instigator and agitator in the entire conflict. I don't deny in any way that Zionist's committed numerous atrocities, and worked actively to incite violence and conflict. I deny only that the Zionists were hardly the only faction in Palestine doing that after the British withdrawal. Ignoring the Arab majority's own active role in prejudice against non-Arab Palestinians is beyond dishonest, it's sinister. To mention how little land the Jewish Palestinians owned, without mentioning the active programs to legally block non-Arabs from purchasing land is sinister.

Sorry, the first 6 minutes of the video leaving me utterly convinced that it is not only one-sided, but deliberately and knowingly one-sided with intent of biasing it's viewers with half-truth.

Enoch said:there is a huge difference between a person of jewish heritage and a zionist.zionism does NOT equal judaism.

I'm glad we are agreed on this point. It's why I made the very important statement:The Jewish Palestinians were fighting a civil war with the Arab Palestinians.

This is of course important because the video, and several posters including yourself seem to want to label the entirety of Jewish Palestinians as Zionists when talking about the civil war. If you'll accept that there were many Jewish Palestinians fighting the civil war for reason and cause outside of Zionism then we are agreed.

Enoch said:to excuse an entire population by what some OTHER over-zealous political party did

Go read what I said again, because you are inventing an argument I never put forward. I stated the fact that the Jewish minority in Palestine was being mistreated and biased against by the Arab Palestinian majority, a fact even Al Jazeera doesn't dispute. I then stated that created tensions leading to a civil war, were both sides had understandable cause for concern. The Jewish Palestinians had seen how well accepting inequality worked for European Jews, and were willing to fight to be treated as equals. The Arabs were duly concerned about extreme elements of the Jewish population like the Zionist movement.

The point is very simply that a civil war exploded between two ethnic groups of Palestinians, for reasons that were domestic. The Zionists latched on to the cause, as did the surrounding Arab nations, with all sides looking to gain land for themselves out of the deal. Painting it like the entire problem boils down to Zionist aggression making victims of the Arabs is ludicrously at odds with the basic facts. So badly so in fact that even Al Jazeera, a very much pro-Arab network has published several articles on the 1948 war that soundly reject such a notion. The idea is in fact even more racist against Arabs than it is against Jews. It portrays better than 50 million Arabs as being so weak that they were helpless victims in the face of a mere few hundred thousand Jewish Zionists.

Your facts are also blatantly wrong.
3million jews/christians/muslims lived in jeurusalem peacefully until the british empire amended the balfour declaration.
Jerusalem's population was nowhere near 3 million then, the entirety of Palestine was likely under 3 million when the Balfour declaration was signed. Population estimates of the time are sketchy at best.

so while the jewish community owned less than 5% of the land the new amended document gave them 56% and hence we see..to this day..strife in that region.
The Balfour declaration amendment wasn't what gave them 56%, it was the UN's recommendation, put forward by both the US and Russia that proposed the borders with 56% attached. It was also proposed not on the premise of a handout for the Zionists, but as a resolution to the civil war within Palestine, which saw the Jewish Palestinians holding most of that 56% as a result of the fighting.

.the supposed "deal of a lifetime" that was offered to the palestinians was absolute garbage.
That's an opinion, not a fact. And I can't help but point out that your opinion assumes that only Arabs are Palestinians, the Jewish Palestinians presumably being stateless?

You seem to have missed the point that the Jews accepted the 1948 partition because it gave them a huge amount of land that they would have otherwise not owned. The Muslim Palestinians were understandably upset.

No, you seem to have missed the point. The Jewish Palestinians were fighting a civil war with the Arab Palestinians, and BOTH sides were fighting dirty and doing horrible things as one might expect in a war. Importantly, they were also BOTH domestic Palestinians, not foreign imperial invaders as is suggested! Yes, the Arab's were understandably upset that they lost so much land in the civil war to a minority. The Jewish minority of 1948 had a few reasons of their own to be upset with what had been done to them too. The Arab majority was making many moves to restrict the rights of Jewish Palestinians and they had just witnessed how well standing idly by worked out for their families in Europe. Civil wars are so ugly because both sides generally have some very valid concerns.

I think the fact that the Zionists decided to appropriate that land and set up a Jewish state is pretty much everything you really need to know.

I think not. Your statement gives the impression that the sizable Jewish minority in Palestine never had any legitimate claim to any land at all. Surely that's not your intent? It's also important to be clear in the difference between saying they appropriated the land, and that they had gained most of it as part of a civil war. A civil war they were willing to accept an end to then and there, but where instead greeted with not only a war from their larger Arab Palestinian rivals, but by all the surrounding Arab nations as well. Surely you don't consider them to still be the aggressor at that point, do you?

You seem to have missed the point that the Jews accepted the 1948 partition because it gave them a huge amount of land that they would have otherwise not owned. The Muslim Palestinians were understandably upset.

As for the population statistics, yeah, those need sources.

I think the fact that the Zionists decided to appropriate that land and set up a Jewish state is pretty much everything you really need to know. There are other places in the world where there is a similar struggle brewing because the Muslims are setting up Sharia law over the protests over the native population. It's just not right for anybody to do such a thing.

>> ^MaxWilder:

This actually shed a lot of light on a lot of questions I had. I have not at all made up my mind on the subject, and I welcome anyone who would like to argue against the points made in this video.


If you have a lot of questions, history books are a better starting place than a blatantly biased video like this. I made it to minute 6 before the outright lies and falsehoods were more than I needed to know this video was not worth more of my time.

The very opening claim of the video declares Israel has always, since before it's inception seen no legitimate claim for any other people in Palestine except their fellow Jewish people. Historical fact is that in 1948, when the fledgling UN recommended a partition of Palestine into two states, Israel accepted the borders and declared independence. This could have been the end of the civil war in Palestine between Jews and Arabs. It wasn't the Zionists that where aggressive at this point. The entirety of the Arab world declared a united war against the new state of Israel, trumpeting that they would drive them into the sea. My description here is not in question either within the Arab world, Al-Jazeera has an article covering all these points in even more detail.

Now the video decides around the 6 minute mark to contradict itself:
At the end of the 19th century, there were hardly any Jews living in Palestine.
And yet, the video just finished telling us in the introduction that historically Jews and Arabs had been getting along famously. We might wonder how that is imagined to have happened if there were hardly any Jews there to get along with?

Historians largely say the best guess at populations in 1900 Palestine are not possible, and largely inaccurate. The closest commitment they make is to sate there was a significant Arab majority, but also that the Jewish population was by far the most significant minority in the region. Enough so that it is well agreed, even by anti-Zionist pro-Arab sources that the city of Jerusalem itself has had a Jewish majority since the very late 1800's.

So, the video has started by lying about the basic facts of how many Jews where in Palestine when the conflicts started, and about their willingness to accept a rather reasonable partition of the country. Useful answers and insights aren't likely forthcoming from a source like that.

Kitten Natividad (born Francesca Isabel Natividad on February 14, 1948)

Let's See:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Establishment Clause of the First Amendment
The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibits the establishment of a national religion by the Congress or the preference of one religion over another, non-religion over religion, or religion over non-religion. Originally, the First Amendment only applied to the federal government. Subsequently, McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U.S. 203 (1948) incorporated certain select provisions. However, it was not until the middle to late twentieth century that the Supreme Court began to interpret the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses in such a manner as to restrict the promotion of religion by state governments. In the Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet, 512 U.S. 687 (1994), Justice David Souter, writing for the majority, concluded that "government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion."[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

To her Credit, (and I can't believe I'm saying this), it doesn't say the words "Seperation of Church and State."

Israel was a strange country. In the summer and fall of 1992 you'd have found me in either Tel Aviv or within the walls of the old city of Jerusalem. I often went for long walks in the evenings and it happened several times that on Allenby Street or maybe Dizengoff that an Israeli would strike up a conversation and then quickly jump to explain how "we are the same you and me, but the Arabs are animals." Or it was dogs. Or cockroaches. It always shocked me and I'd look at my watch and say something about being late.

I'd been having a wonderful time playing backgammon and chain-smoking Nelsons with the Palestinian and Egyptian friends I'd made at the open-sided cafes in Arab east Jerusalem.

Israeli racism is not unique. Franz Fanon wrote the definitive work on the racism of colonialism. (The Wretched of the Earth)

Gabriel Ash is an Israeli journalist, originally from Romania. Ash's article "Diagnosing Benny Morris: The Mind of a European Settler" is a lucid and powerful indictment.

http://dissidentvoice.org/Jan04/Ash0126.htm


*******

Israeli historian Benny Morris crossed a new line of shame when he put his academic credentials and respectability in the service of outlining the "moral" justification for a future genocide against Palestinians.

Benny Morris is the Israeli historian most responsible for the vindication of the Palestinian narrative of 1948. The lives of about 700,000 people were shattered as they were driven from their homes by the Jewish militia (and, later, the Israeli army) between December 1947 and early 1950. Morris went through Israeli archives and wrote the day by day account of this expulsion, documenting every "ethnically cleansed" village and every recorded act of violence, and placing each in the context of the military goals and perceptions of the cleansers.

Israel's apologists tried in vain to attack Morris' professional credibility. From the opposite direction, since he maintained that the expulsion was not "by design," he was also accused of drawing excessively narrow conclusions from the documents and of being too naive a reader of dissimulating statements. Despite these limitations, Morris' The Birth of the Palestinian Refugees Problem, 1947-1949 is an authoritative record of the expulsion.

*******

>> ^quantumushroom:

There was no such thing as a "Palestinian" before 1948.


"The first widespread use of "Palestinian" as an endonym to refer to the nationalist concept of a Palestinian people by the local Arabic-speaking population of Palestine began prior to the outbreak of World War I, and the first demand for national independence was issued by the Syrian-Palestinian Congress on 21 September 1921."

I didn't downvote your comment, but please consider this enough negative attention to feed off of. It is, if you will, a flotilla of food on its way to Quantumtrollistan.