I assure you I understand the point of view that the Muslim Palestinians are the underdogs and that they supposedly are a modern "ressistance" movement.

But I think the crux of the question is whether Muslim (or Christian) Arabs can live peacefully among Jewish people or if Jewish people can live peacefully among Muslims. I use religious terms here because, unfortunately, some people are still convinced that "prophecy" is relevant when in fact we've got people working with chromosomes and gene sequencing as we speak.

My opinion, looking at the current state of affairs, is that Palestinians would be far better of living in Israel than Israelis living in Palestine. Unfortunately the likelihood of this happening is beyond probability.

>> ^Farhad2000:
Look the onus is on you to justify the numerous deaths and destruction the IDF has unilaterally applied to all Palestinians.


My argument, to answer your question, is that Israel is a very responsible state in that it adheres to what is generally acknowledged as the peak of "civilization" in the form of political, economic, personal, social, educational and spiritual liberty. Did you know that there are even "anti-discrimination" laws in the Israeli penal code?

As for armed combat... war is horrible, but the soldier who has the courage to wear a uniform has more honour than the man hiding behind women and children. There's no argument against that.

I think its a bit more complicated than the video suggests - there is both pro-Israel and pro-palestinian bias in the U.S. media (probably more pro-israel though). The pro-israel bias may partly come from corporate and political elite interests, but I think its mostly telling Americans what they want to hear. Israel is white, relatively rich, and the victim of Arab terrorism. Kind of like us, right? Americans tend to identify with Israel, and this is strengthened by the fact that they partly share the same God with Christians, and it is a holy land for Christians.

So if you're a media organization looking to make some $, what do you do : portray Israel as a good guy or bad guy? Good guy obviously - since Americans identify with them, its like saying Americans are the good guys. Conversely, portraying Israel as the bad guys is interpreted by Americans as saying Americans are bad guys. That doesn't attract American viewers, meaning less $ for the media organizations.

Its not 100% pro-israel bias though - nothing is ever that simple. Taking the palestianians' side sometimes is also a viable strategy for making $. While Americans tend to identify with Israel because they are attacked by Arab terrorists, there is also an inherent human tendency to identify with the underdog. And its pretty obvious that palestianians, dressed in rags, are the underdogs compared to Israel with their tanks and fighter jets. The kind of David-versus goliath stuff sells well also. Doing a little of both pro-israel and pro-palestinian bias enhances the drama, which also attracts viewers.

We should keep in mind that the media is not one giant unified entity, but a bunch of different entities with their own agendas. Even within a single media entity there are different personalities and factions. What they all share though is a love for cash. Nothing is ever reported for the sake of "informing" people - it is SOLD for its entertainment value. If the palestian-israeli conflict were not entertaining to people, it would not be reported on.

"Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it" - Joseph Geobbels

This video advances the big lie put forward by the Palestinian partisans that their cause is an underdog. In truth, international media coverage constantly glosses and spins the atrocities committed by the Palestinian terrorist corps against the Jews and dissident Palestinians alike.

Organizations like Rueters, BBC, AFP, Al Jazeera are the worst of a bad lot. American news organizations are only marginally better. One could say that they at least try to maintain a facade of being "Fair and Balanced."

Is it any wonder that Israel is cognizant of this poisoned atmosphere, and devotes resources to attempt to combat it?

Read the posters and commenters here on VideoSift. They run about 50% Pally-koolaid drinkers, 40% ambivalent, and 10% Israel-supporting. This reflects the success of the Anti-Western, Pro-Palestinian propaganda machine rather than any truth on the ground

Seems like they are doing all right...

I'm not sure where your scorn for Singapore comes from. It's used as an example because when it declared independence in 1965 it was the ultimate underdog, lacking all assets considered necessary to form a viable nation-state.

Under the far left's view of the world, they should have begged for western charity and taken up arms against whatever historical forces resulted in their situation. Because they didn't, today they're wealthier per capita than the US and their former colonial ruler, Britain. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita

Human ingenuity. Go figure.

"If Israel is only $3 billion dollars away from being unable to even field an operation this small, they are the biggest underdog in the entire Middle East. They of course are the singularly strongest military in the region and losing US aid would only make them the strongest by a smaller margin."

Phyllis Bennis did not claim that Israel is "$3 Billion dollars away from being unable to even field an operation this small..."

US aid amounts to $3 Billion/year.

Bennis is the megatonne brain behind the Iraq war primer from IPS.

http://www.ips-dc.org/

It's sure the hell better than FOX(gag), CNN and MSNBC. I still find they have a bias, but at least they are vastly more informative at the same time.

This particular interview though isn't enormously enlightening like most of RealNews presentations. This interviewee states there is no question Israel couldn't pull this offensive off without American military aid. If Israel is only $3 billion dollars away from being unable to even field an operation this small, they are the biggest underdog in the entire Middle East. They of course are the singularly strongest military in the region and losing US aid would only make them the strongest by a smaller margin.

Sorry, some specific errors should be pointed out.

The documentary declares that when the UN partition was defined, Arabs owned over 92% of the land. In fact, Arabs owned just under 50% of the land, and the STATE owned another 40 something percent of the land, with Jewish people owning 8%. That the video sees fit to declare STATE owned land as Arab owned and not Jewish is telling, it also declares the partition unfair because the arab population outnumbered the jewish population 2-1.

Then just a short while later later, it talks about the continuing civil war between the arab and jewish populations. They mention not a single arab atrocity and are content to describe only the worst atrocity committed by the Jews. They then state that 300,000 arabs fled as a result of the Jewish aggression before a single arab soldier set foot in Palestine. But wait a minute, wasn't the arab population in palestine supposed to outnumber the jews 2-1? No, the video expects one to believe that not a single arab palestinian was in any fashion a soldier. Not only did the Israelis decide to cleanse the country without any provocation, they were too incompetent to successfully cleanse it even though there wasn't a single soldier in the entire country that tried to oppose them.

Then we are told about when the Arab nations 'finally intervened', and the very first arab soldiers set foot in Palestine after Israel declared it's independence(no mention is made of Israel accepting the UN mandated borders as part of this declaration). We are again told that Israel(outnumbered 2-1 within Palestine) was able to field more soldiers than Palestine, Egypt,Iraq,Jordan and Syria combined. The alliance of all surrounding arab nations and the Arab Palestinian population are again made out as the underdogs.

There is lots of important footage and witness accounts in this documentary and it's worth watching. But the extreme bias against showing any blame on anyone but Israel makes this more propaganda than documentary.

So if we're going to take Hamas to task on their ambulances then let's go, and unless we want to be branded as hypocrites then we'll want the Israeli government in the Hague and behind bars for their decades of war crimes against the Palestinian people as well.


Finally something I think we can both agree on, at least mostly. I'd say that would be a good first step, but you simply can't limit the Israel-Palestine conflict to just those two nations, I think that overly simplistic to the point of being false.

Let's be honest about the conflict. Even if Hezbollah, Hamas and all the palestinian people united to make a well co-ordinated surprise assault on Israel, the IDF would have it stomped out entirely within the week. The fighting between Israel and Palestinian militants is a real security threat to both, but I think it is only a small part of a bigger picture. It's like looking at the Korean or Vietnam wars without talking about the tensions between the US and USSR.

The real tension around Israel then is in fact between them and Syria and Iran. Syria and Iran together pose a vastly more credible threat to Israel. Both Syria and Iran fund Hezbollah and Hamas as proxies to strike at Israel without mounting direct military action. Hamas and Hezbollah then become sacrificial lambs/martyrs to Syrian and Iranian goals. Dying as underdogs to make Israel play the role of the bad guy. Israel for it's part plays right into it, as their foreign policy can accept collateral civilian casualites more readily than it can weakness. It's all a big mess like most conflicts in the world, but simply saying that Israel should be condemned and Hamas forgiven is throwing wood on the fire.


And if we want to talk about Hamas' charter which calls for the destruction of Israel, then let's talk about it:

In 2006 Ismail Haniyeh became Hamas prime minister. He offered the Bush administration a truce in return for an end to the illegal Israeli occupation. He was completely ignored.


Well let's talk about Hamas' charter then. Ismail Haniyeh's offer for a truce may not have been taken seriously because his foregin minister(and a Hamas co-founder) stated the following after their election "dreams of hanging a huge map of the world on the wall at my Gaza home which does not show Israel on it...I hope that our dream to have our independent state on all historic Palestine (including Israel). This dream will become real one day. I'm certain of this because there is no place for the state of Israel on this land". Surely Hamas own charter and statements by other co-founders like Abdel Aziz al-Rantissi(who also denies the holocaust) stating their goal is "to remove Israel from the map" make negotiations with them difficult to neigh on impossible.

I know you strongly disagree, but I am willing to understand Israeli relutance to trust a truce with an organization with that kind of leadership. A truce that is openly discussed as acceptable only because 'a phased liberation of all historic Palestine may be necessary' just doesn't strike me as in Israels best interests.

Sometimes when that little yippy bloody dog keeps nipping at your heels you just need to sink the boot in and punt the little git over the fence.

Believe in what you will, but either way you look at this conflict, neither party is wrong in what they are doing. However, assuming that the majority of people that would comment on this really have no idea on the topic, it's easy to see how you could take sides and place your backing on the 'underdog' as teh case may be.

Propaganda like this does nothing for the real issue.

We are all well aware of the "friendship" you and thepinky have. Don't play dumb, just because you are.

>> ^LittleRed:
>> ^kulpims:
everybody - CHICK FIGHT!!!
because i enjoy being a male pig

Maybe so, but I will not take back what I said, and I also will not apologize. That was absolutely uncalled for. She specifically asked not to be quoted, IN CAPITAL LETTERS, and then was quoted in full. The response was directly underneath her capital-letter request. I believe thepinky deserves an apology just as public as her request not to be quoted. - If not for her, then for all the other females here that have been victims of sexual abuse and may not want to be quoted saying such.


http://femme.videosift.com/member/LittleRed#comment-483899

Et cetera. Et cetera. Et cetera. Et cetera.

Why do you have to be such a liar, as well? I'll never understand the need people have to lie, especially about things that are easily proven true. Once again, LittlePuss, learn to read.


In reply to this comment by LittleRed:
I'm her hypocritical sidekick now? That's good to know - I was unaware of said fact until now.

In reply to this comment by EDD:
No thanks necessary, especially since I wasn't so much standing up for you as trying to obliterate thepinky's trusty sidekicks' hypocritical defense. Besides, to any sane and rational person you're not the underdog in that situation, because you're not the troll

In reply to this comment by UsesProzac:
Thank you.

I'm her hypocritical sidekick now? That's good to know - I was unaware of said fact until now.

In reply to this comment by EDD:
No thanks necessary, especially since I wasn't so much standing up for you as trying to obliterate thepinky's trusty sidekicks' hypocritical defense. Besides, to any sane and rational person you're not the underdog in that situation, because you're not the troll

In reply to this comment by UsesProzac:
Thank you.

No thanks necessary, especially since I wasn't so much standing up for you as trying to obliterate thepinky's trusty sidekicks' hypocritical defense. Besides, to any sane and rational person you're not the underdog in that situation, because you're not the troll

In reply to this comment by UsesProzac:
Thank you.

>> ^quantumushroom:
Most people wish to see good deeds and work rewarded and bad deeds and evil punished. That's how we roll on earth. I find it amusing that you wouldn't care about rewards versus punishment for MT and Hitler, yet you find the 'golden parachute' concept upsetting.

---
They're dead, so their eternal suffering, joy or nothingness affects only them. As far as our need to see rewards and punishments: I do not believe eternal suffering, nor eternal reward to be an aspect of justice, for it serves only the purpose of satisfying a lust, not a function. If their postmortem reward or punishment (not the idea of it, but the truthful existence of it) affected us in a positive, progressive way, only then would it be a worthwhile system of dealing with what we consider injustice. However, because it is uncertain that there is a force which doles out afterlife justice, we have no business worrying about it. We can appreciate what dead people did while they were alive, or be glad they're dead because they were a hinderance to the progress of life.

I don't disagree (ha!) with the idea of religion; I believe it serves a function, especially at our point in evolution, where we are only beginning to come to terms with these absract concepts. But religion all too often is a closed system, causing divides that need not exist. Yes, religion has done good -- let's keep that aspect; but it needs to be fluid. All philospohy of worth should be as an ocean, whether it be concerned with possible existence/nonexistence of gods or scientific understanding of our universe.
---

Yes, for most people, God serves in part as a kind of Keeper of Scorecards, but rewards and punishment may be only one aspect of an "afterlife" which technically is consciousness after this life.

You're perhaps assuming that the endgame of religion is to
follow rules now to live in a Heaven forever, which would mean
some sort of consciousness apart from a Creator. That may not
be it at all. Buddha described Nirvana as 'the end of
suffering' and left it at that. Buddhism is atheistic.

---
I'm assuming that the interpretation of the majority of mainstream religions are to live in a Heaven forever, because that is how I have encountered them with almost everyone I've ever known or known about. I'm not opposed to the idea of an afterlife, I simply find it a moot point. As the living, we should be concerned with life, not death.
---

You claim moral relativism exists, but for the atheist, does evil exist?

Which way of living demands more responsibility, the
religious person trying to follow moral precepts or someone who
doesn't necessarily care what happens because nothing finally
matters; death is the End? I don't want to live in a society
where everyone makes their own rules up as they go along; few
atheists would either.

Since for the atheist there is no Prime Mover behind what
society commonly defines as "goodness", why would an atheist
seek to enforce any kind of (self) responsibility at all? If
you felt bad about hurting someone because you didn't treat
them according to the Golden Rule, why not just kill them? If
there was no afterlife they would simply cease to exist along
with their pain and the question of right or wrong would be moot.

Yes, I'm being a tad silly, but hopefully I've made some half-assed point that, "Morality has to come from somewhere."

---
Your points are not silly at all, merely common interpretations -- and I don't mean that pejoratively. I do not believe in evil in such a rigid, unrealistic way. Evil could be considered any action which seeks or causes an end to life. But evil is not necessarily bad. Cancer kills, human dies, human returns to earth, new life begins. From "evil" comes "good". A supernova could be considered evil, but it also gives birth to new life, which is good. I believe our existence within a realm of constant destruction dictates to us the sanctity of life, and thus morality. Life is the underdog in this universe, which will become apparent (to whatever exists in this solar system) when our sun decides to stop behaving as it is now. It's not always a struggle for power, but a struggle for life itself. Yes, in a relative universe you may decide to kill your fellow man, but on a macro level you become in conflict with life, in favor of destruction. Just as truth is valued over the lie, life is favored over death for very practical, and often poetic reasons that need not stem from God.

Concepts such as "morality" exist on the human level to illustrate and teach. Ideas and concepts are not so rigid as to dictate what is always right and wrong, nor should they ever be used to represent an absolute; espcially one as silly as "evil".
---

You are perhaps basing your argument against either the
existence of God or belief in God on the idea that since
religions provide conflicting statements, all of them must therefore be
false.

Religions are not God. Religion is a human endeavor and
therefore flawed, whereas the nature (or concept) of God is
perfection.

---
God as perfection is an assumption lacking observation. The nature of God (assuming it exists) cannot possibly be determined; though I'm not in opposition to the idea of that possible explanaion, let's not kid ourselves that the idea is anything but assumed. (Assumption not necessarily being a bad thing, but also not something to base your existence on.)
---

If I say, "We are breathing air" in English and you say it in
French, is one of us 'lying?'

Also, to many atheists why is 'lying' only a feature of religion? You mean atheists never tell lies--even little ones--when it suits them?

---
Lies are available for all to use. I wouldn't dream say otherwise.
---

Faith is not logical and much of religion isn't either, but to dismiss them all out of hand seems rather absolute, in a world where "there are no absolutes".

We can all agree when out brains die, if there is nothing, we will "experience" nothing forever. If there is an afterparty, atheist and believer alike will go "somewhere" even if it's only within their own consciousness.

---
On the contrary, faith is perfectly logical. I have faith in my senses enough to walk outside on a cool, winter day and not expect to walk into lava. Unless I smell sulfur... then I'd become suspicous, maybe I'd notice the increase in heat, and my faith will change. No longer can I have complete faith that outside is a good place to go. Just as my faith in Santa Claus went to zero, and my faith in God went to near zero, based upon observation and learning.

As humanbeings, we do not have the capacity to say anything with 100% certainty, so we must be careful to organize our minds into tiers of belief/faith. (Forgive my semantics; tier is perhaps not the best word, but I'm tired right now) Your immediate senses being on the top tier, followed by recognized patterns from experience, down to intellectual knowledge from schooling, on down to some philosophical interpretations, religion, God or gods, etc. (The existence of smurfs being, obviously far down at the bottom -- much farther than God even.)

Humans are unique in that we are deeply affected by ideas; but ideas have no corporeal nature that we are aware of (yet), so we cannot let any one idea rule our lives, but rather let us rule them. We are the makers of dreams, and need not suffer otherwise -- unless Kai'ckul visits my dreams and says otherwise.

I disagree. I don't think a third party vote is a waste. I think it shows future politicians where some voters stand. In this election year in particular pollsters are trying to find every swing voter they can. And 3rd parties is a good way for annalists to see what the underdog has going for him that the red and blue don't. Besides I can't in good conscience vote for McCain or Obama, And I'd rater give my vote to someone who I feel well do the best job in the position, regardless of the overwhelming number of voters who only see two parties.

The scary thing is that some people might actually believe her :-S She definitely is a "Maverick" by now and the American people seem to love the underdog cliché. *cues rocky music

The fact that the media was too caught up with disassembling Palin to take a look at the candidate's actual policies might be a boon for the Republican party. If it looses it is not because of its policies, but because of "Palin/liberal media" and the stock-market crash (disaster without cause). Ready and reloaded for the next election it is?

2 party systems suck :-P