It is not relevent at all, actually. The point is every state has these kind of groups, but in Israel we have special unites who are able to locate, catch, disarm & dismiss them BEFORE they're becoming a real threat. And when I say real, I mean well orgenized - ready to act groups. What dayan means is: it seems like Ahnimus is doing everything he can to miss the essence of the artical. Instead, he chose to focus on the fact Israel has such groups, a fact that nobody was trying to argue about.
And I can see you feel it's not relevent either. We all have our own views and opinions.
We're all reasonably intelligent adults here and we can each read the article and draw our own conclusions.
Regardless of what Ahnimus' agenda is, he's just as entitled to his personal view and agenda as anyone else is to their own.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
And I can see you feel it's not relevent either. We all have our own views and opinions.
We're all reasonably intelligent adults here and we can each read the article and draw our own conclusions.
Regardless of what Ahnimus' agenda is, he's just as entitled to his personal view and agenda as anyone else is to their own.
Yes he is, but his argument is flawed, and therefore merits a response. He is saying he simply wants to level the playing field by showing that Israel is also not perfect. First, nobody said to begin with that Israel is perfect. Second, this idea of leveling the playing field is ridiculous. The playing field isn't level. Hezbollah is a terrorist group that kills people. The Kahanists are would-be-terrorists that never get to kill people because Israel keeps them under control. That is a distinction. I'm kinda tired, but I'd recommend reading Leon Wieseltier on The New Republis online (http://www.tnr.com). He writes about the difference between moralism and morality. What Ahnimus is exhibiting is moralism but not morality. To paraphrase Wieseltier's last sentence, morality recognizes reality, whereas moralism seeks to shield morality from the real world. Ahnimus's morals are so pure as to be inapplicable to reality, and that is why I have a problem with him.
Yes he is, but his argument is flawed, and therefore merits a response. He is saying he simply wants to level the playing field by showing that Israel is also not perfect. First, nobody said to begin with that Israel is perfect. Second, this idea of leveling the playing field is ridiculous. The playing field isn't level. Hezbollah is a terrorist group that kills people. The Kahanists are would-be-terrorists that never get to kill people because Israel keeps them under control. That is a distinction. I'm kinda tired, but I'd recommend reading Leon Wieseltier on The New Republis online (http://www.tnr.com). He writes about the difference between moralism and morality. What Ahnimus is exhibiting is moralism but not morality. To paraphrase Wieseltier's last sentence, morality recognizes reality, whereas moralism seeks to shield morality from the real world. Ahnimus's morals are so pure as to be inapplicable to reality, and that is why I have a problem with him.
Oh, of course you're entitled to your opinion. As is the author you cited. As is Ahnimus, or myself of anyone else on this board, is what I'm saying.
I hear that you disagree with Ahnimus. I also know one can back their opinion with any source and yet it remains an opinion, to which we're all entitled.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Oh, of course you're entitled to your opinion. As is the author you cited. As is Ahnimus, or myself of anyone else on this board, is what I'm saying.
I hear that you disagree with Ahnimus. I also know one can back their opinion with any source and yet it remains an opinion, to which we're all entitled.
I'm not saying he can't hold an opinion. I'm saying that he is talking about something real and not theoretical, and about which there are therefore objective facts that can be stated. He has presented these facts on this thread in such a way as to twist the reality of the situation so that it is percieved in a way that suits his opinion rather than the reality. I have endeavored to present the reality as it is, in its proper perspective. I am not claiming that he has lied in any way, but that he has ommited facts that undermine his interpretation. To say that he has his opinion and I have mine and that they are both equally valid is overly simplistic. We are speaking about something concrete. If his "opinion," or more precisely, his interpretation of the facts does not present a complete understanding of reality, or does not make use of all the evidence, or is inconsistent with regards to the data, then his interpretation is actually less valid than one which offers a more complete understanding of reality, which incorporates all the evidence in its analysis and is consistent with regard to the data. To offer a very simple analogy, if someone has a blue piece of paper and asks two people what color the paper is, and one says blue and the other says green, you could say that they have two different and equally valid opinions but that would be kind of crazy. You would probably say that one of their opinions conforms better to reality and is therefore more valid. The same is true here, though the situation is obviously more complicated.
I'm not saying he can't hold an opinion. I'm saying that he is talking about something real and not theoretical, and about which there are therefore objective facts that can be stated. He has presented these facts on this thread in such a way as to twist the reality of the situation so that it is percieved in a way that suits his opinion rather than the reality. I have endeavored to present the reality as it is, in its proper perspective. I am not claiming that he has lied in any way, but that he has ommited facts that undermine his interpretation. To say that he has his opinion and I have mine and that they are both equally valid is overly simplistic. We are speaking about something concrete. If his "opinion," or more precisely, his interpretation of the facts does not present a complete understanding of reality, or does not make use of all the evidence, or is inconsistent with regards to the data, then his interpretation is actually less valid than one which offers a more complete understanding of reality, which incorporates all the evidence in its analysis and is consistent with regard to the data. To offer a very simple analogy, if someone has a blue piece of paper and asks two people what color the paper is, and one says blue and the other says green, you could say that they have two different and equally valid opinions but that would be kind of crazy. You would probably say that one of their opinions conforms better to reality and is therefore more valid. The same is true here, though the situation is obviously more complicated.
What information did I omit?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Man, a bunch of Kahanists made a massive bomb and intended to blow up a bunch of little girls at a school.
Why do we hear so much about radical Islamic terrorists, when radical Jewish terrorists are bombing schools? Why don't we ever hear about that?
I don't know where you are from but it used to be the same over here. until some years ago the news was showed from the Israeli stand point. In the last ten years that has shifted somewhat to a more balanced coverage. Still I feel that the world is using two standards in this conflict. If a non western orientated country would do what Israel is doing now I think the consequences would be severe.
« One man's glory is another man's hell.
You’re on the outside, never bound by such a spell.
Together in the darkness, alone in the light.
I took it upon me to be yours, Timmy,
I’ll lead your angels and demons at play tonight......»
You portray the Kahanists as if they are a well organized terrorist group with significant public support, that might very well become popular enough to take over the government, and that poses a very real threat of carrying out terror attacks that good destabilize the region. None of this is accurate, as I have pointed out, to which your sole response has been that it is possible. Well anything is possible, but in this case you are presenting the exceptionally unlikely as reality of the day, and that is disingenious.
I don't know where you are from but it used to be the same over here. until some years ago the news was showed from the Israeli stand point. In the last ten years that has shifted somewhat to a more balanced coverage. Still I feel that the world is using two standards in this conflict. If a non western orientated country would do what Israel is doing now I think the consequences would be severe.
I disagree entirely. If a non-western country were to act as Israel is now the world would ignore it. Just look at Sudan, where there is a genocide being committed, and the only thing the West has done is offer words. One would have thought that maybe we'd learned from Rwanda. Or look at Russia. In they're fight against the Chechins they have leveled whole cities, but virtually no one notices. The sad fact is that when violence erupts around the world the West rarely takes notice, or if they do they rarely care.
I disagree entirely. If a non-western country were to act as Israel is now the world would ignore it. Just look at Sudan, where there is a genocide being committed, and the only thing the West has done is offer words. One would have thought that maybe we'd learned from Rwanda. Or look at Russia. In they're fight against the Chechins they have leveled whole cities, but virtually no one notices. The sad fact is that when violence erupts around the world the West rarely takes notice, or if they do they rarely care.
It's not that we dont take notice or dont care. I think becuase people see Americans right now and associate everything we do with war and carnage and destruction. Regardless if America deploys military members to those other countries for humanitarian aid, some will vew that as were trying to push our way of thinking onto them. I understand that many people dont like us for whatever the reasons, but I truly believe both sides of the table(i.e. republican and democratic) need to come up with some solutions to not just the current problems in the world but how to deal with future ones that will arise.
I disagree entirely. If a non-western country were to act as Israel is now the world would ignore it. Just look at Sudan, where there is a genocide being committed, and the only thing the West has done is offer words. One would have thought that maybe we'd learned from Rwanda. Or look at Russia. In they're fight against the Chechins they have leveled whole cities, but virtually no one notices. The sad fact is that when violence erupts around the world the West rarely takes notice, or if they do they rarely care.
I think I'm still going with the former Israeli Security Chief. He seems to think there is a threat.
"The dream of these extremists"—to blow up the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, one of the most important holy sites in the Muslim world—"should give us sleepless nights," says former Israeli Security Chief Avi Dichter. "Jewish terror is liable to create a serious strategic threat that will turn the Israeli-Palestinian conflict into a conflict between thirteen million Jews and a billion Muslims all over the world."
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I think I'm still going with the former Israeli Security Chief. He seems to think there is a threat.
"The dream of these extremists"—to blow up the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, one of the most important holy sites in the Muslim world—"should give us sleepless nights," says former Israeli Security Chief Avi Dichter. "Jewish terror is liable to create a serious strategic threat that will turn the Israeli-Palestinian conflict into a conflict between thirteen million Jews and a billion Muslims all over the world."
God, would you stop it? You have the former Israeli Security Chief saying in public all of these stuff, hence, the state of Israel takes these phenomenons VERY seriously and is doing (unlike other countries) everything it can to control it. So far, we're doing great, too bad you are continuously ignoring that main point, and insisting to focus on the fact Isearl (like the rest of the world) is having such a knowen & undisputed problem.
I get it, you always see/find the bad sides of Iseael no matter what the topic is, now give it a rest.
God, would you stop it? You have the former Israeli Security Chief saying in public all of these stuff, hence, the state of Israel takes these phenomenons VERY seriously and is doing (unlike other countries) everything it can to control it. So far, we're doing great, too bad you are continuously ignoring that main point, and insisting to focus on the fact Isearl (like the rest of the world) is having such a knowen & undisputed problem.
I get it, you always see/find the bad sides of Iseael no matter what the topic is, now give it a rest.
Indeed, well said. Israel is aware of the threat and does not underestimate the danger and so they act accordingly, the key word there being ACT. You, Ahnimus, are a point-misser. You miss the point. You are a fact-twister. You twist facts. You are a one-side-seeing, apologist-for-the-bad-guys-though-you-mean-well, incapable-of-thinking-outside-your-far-left-liberal-box, ignorer-of-all-arguments-that-prove-you-wrong jackass. Ok, I've exhausted my self. You really should give it a rest. You're pushing a dead-end point, and at this point you're doing it alone and very poorly. Just give it a rest, ok. You'll feel better.
I'm not saying he can't hold an opinion. I'm saying that he is talking about something real and not theoretical, and about which there are therefore objective facts that can be stated. He has presented these facts on this thread in such a way as to twist the reality of the situation so that it is percieved in a way that suits his opinion rather than the reality. I have endeavored to present the reality as it is, in its proper perspective. I am not claiming that he has lied in any way, but that he has ommited facts that undermine his interpretation. To say that he has his opinion and I have mine and that they are both equally valid is overly simplistic. We are speaking about something concrete. If his "opinion," or more precisely, his interpretation of the facts does not present a complete understanding of reality, or does not make use of all the evidence, or is inconsistent with regards to the data, then his interpretation is actually less valid than one which offers a more complete understanding of reality, which incorporates all the evidence in its analysis and is consistent with regard to the data. To offer a very simple analogy, if someone has a blue piece of paper and asks two people what color the paper is, and one says blue and the other says green, you could say that they have two different and equally valid opinions but that would be kind of crazy. You would probably say that one of their opinions conforms better to reality and is therefore more valid. The same is true here, though the situation is obviously more complicated.
What I'm saying here is that the two parties--yourself/Ahnimus--are BOTH looking at the facts through your own personal agendas. It doesn't work just one way. Just like Ahnimus has his interpretation of the facts, you do as well. The thing is you apparently believe that Ahnimus has twisted the reality to suit his opinion. And that he does not make use of all the evidence, or is inconsistent with regards to the data.
Speaking of oversimplification we have the "blue paper" analogy. If you are in any way suggesting/claiming that you or your "side" hold the "God-spoken" truth of interpretation and that others who disagree are talking mere theory that is impractical given the circumstances; and not to mention that you think others are distorting the facts or simplifying etc., what I'm saying is that I don't buy it. We all have distortions and blindspots in our own filters. I don't buy tuning out such distortions and blindspots. It looks like you have a strong vested interest in being "right". I'm personally not interested in right/wrong. I'm interested in understanding all sides and hearing all kinds of information, and not merely the information as it fits one person or one group's image of themselves. I personally get a little uncomfortable when there looks to be any form of monopolising of the information in order to support one side in particular. I'm for freedom of information and the freedom of individuals being supported to assess for themselves.
As I've said I can understand and respect your stance. I can see why you see it and why you are less likely to see the validity of Ahnimus' stance. I, however, see differently. I support calling Ahnimus out on fallacies, etc. for we might all learn something. Or maybe by doing so, you might be calling out your own fallacies. Either way, many of us are here to learn, not to fall into the preconception/pre-set-agenda trap.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
What I'm saying here is that the two parties--yourself/Ahnimus--are BOTH looking at the facts through your own personal agendas. It doesn't work just one way. Just like Ahnimus has his interpretation of the facts, you do as well. The thing is you apparently believe that Ahnimus has twisted the reality to suit his opinion. And that he does not make use of all the evidence, or is inconsistent with regards to the data.
Speaking of oversimplification we have the "blue paper" analogy. If you are in any way suggesting/claiming that you or your "side" hold the "God-spoken" truth of interpretation and that others who disagree are talking mere theory that is impractical given the circumstances; and not to mention that you think others are distorting the facts or simplifying etc., what I'm saying is that I don't buy it. We all have distortions and blindspots in our own filters. I don't buy tuning out such distortions and blindspots. It looks like you have a strong vested interest in being "right". I'm personally not interested in right/wrong. I'm interested in understanding all sides and hearing all kinds of information, and not merely the information as it fits one person or one group's image of themselves. I personally get a little uncomfortable when there looks to be any form of monopolising of the information in order to support one side in particular. I'm for freedom of information and the freedom of individuals being supported to assess for themselves.
As I've said I can understand and respect your stance. I can see why you see it and why you are less likely to see the validity of Ahnimus' stance. I, however, see differently. I support calling Ahnimus out on fallacies, etc. for we might all learn something. Or maybe by doing so, you might be calling out your own fallacies. Either way, many of us are here to learn, not to fall into the preconception/pre-set-agenda trap.
I know what you're response will be but I'm going to say it anyway. In this instance I don't think I have an agenda, or if I do it is simply to show that the picture Ahnimus presents is incomplete in such a way that it smears Isreal unfairly. I do not deny that these people exist, or that they are exactly what Ahnimus says they are. What I am saying is that Ahnimus presents the situation as an indictment of Israel without mentioning the wider context of Israeli society. I simply endeavor to correct for that. I also do not object to fair and balanced criticism of Israeli policies. I do however, object to people looking for an excuse to criticize, digging up an obscure Israeli societal phenomenon, and then blowing it up as a massive indictment of Israel as a whole. If you truly would like to learn and not simply recieve information colored by personal agenda, I would hope that you can understand why what Ahnimus is doing is not helpful. I do not object to a discussion of the Kahanist phenomenon so long as it presents a realistic picture of what that phenomenon is. Finally, if you really want to learn what is going on here I would recommend you come to Israel yourself. I think you'd learn alot. Short of that I would say stop "learning" from a Pearl Jam website. Most of the people here are either cranks or simply ignorant. And I don't only mean the people who attack Israel. This is not the place you should be going to to learn about the conflict in the Middle East.
In this instance I don't think I have an agenda, or if I do it is simply to show that the picture Ahnimus presents is incomplete in such a way that it smears Isreal unfairly.
Each human being filters information through their own individual filters which were created from personal, subjective life experience.
I do not deny that these people exist, or that they are exactly what Ahnimus says they are. What I am saying is that Ahnimus presents the situation as an indictment of Israel without mentioning the wider context of Israeli society. I simply endeavor to correct for that.
It's pretty clear you are personally opposed to the context that Ahnimus is looking at things, here. He's not responsible for putting things into any other context than what he is personally seeing. I hear that you are not pleased with his particularly perspective/context in this thread, and possibly others.
I also do not object to fair and balanced criticism of Israeli policies.
Whose idea of fair and balanced criticism to you propose we accept? Yours? Mine? Ahnimus'?
I do however, object to people looking for an excuse to criticize, digging up an obscure Israeli societal phenomenon, and then blowing it up as a massive indictment of Israel as a whole.
Your perception of what Ahnimus is doing is quite different than my own perception of what he is doing. As I say, I respect your view, I simply disagree with it. A message board supports dissenting views.
If you truly would like to learn and not simply recieve information colored by personal agenda, I would hope that you can understand why what Ahnimus is doing is not helpful. I do not object to a discussion of the Kahanist phenomenon so long as it presents a realistic picture of what that phenomenon is.
You can define whether what Ahnimus does is helpful for you, however you cannot define what I find helpful. You opinion is what it is and does not hold rank over other opinions.
Apparently Ahnimus is putting forth his view as he sees it. I support differences of opinion as I feel it is realistic--the big picture entails many different viewpoints and I value that. You may disagree and I'm okay with that.
Finally, if you really want to learn what is going on here I would recommend you come to Israel yourself. I think you'd learn alot. Short of that I would say stop "learning" from a Pearl Jam website.
I'm sure you are competent in deciding for yourself what is right for you, as I am competent in finding what is right for me.
Most of the people here are either cranks or simply ignorant. And I don't only mean the people who attack Israel.
Wow, you astound me yet again with your utter lack of common sense...Again you spew out inane garbage... But perhaps that's too subtle a distinction for you to grasp... Until then how about you stop trying to smear Israel with something that is truly not relevent at the moment.
You, Ahnimus, are a point-misser. You miss the point. You are a fact-twister. You twist facts. You are a one-side-seeing, apologist-for-the-bad-guys-though-you-mean-well, incapable-of-thinking-outside-your-far-left-liberal-box, ignorer-of-all-arguments-that-prove-you-wrong jackass. Ok, I've exhausted my self. You really should give it a rest. You're pushing a dead-end point, and at this point you're doing it alone and very poorly. Just give it a rest, ok. You'll feel better.
These are your own comments from this thread alone.
I'm quite competent in overlooking personal issues and discerning the information between human foibles. And I respect others and their ability to discern for themselves.
I disagree entirely. If a non-western country were to act as Israel is now the world would ignore it. Just look at Sudan, where there is a genocide being committed, and the only thing the West has done is offer words. One would have thought that maybe we'd learned from Rwanda. Or look at Russia. In they're fight against the Chechins they have leveled whole cities, but virtually no one notices. The sad fact is that when violence erupts around the world the West rarely takes notice, or if they do they rarely care.
That is true. Maybe I should have said a middle eastern country. (oil releated)
« One man's glory is another man's hell.
You’re on the outside, never bound by such a spell.
Together in the darkness, alone in the light.
I took it upon me to be yours, Timmy,
I’ll lead your angels and demons at play tonight......»
God, would you stop it? You have the former Israeli Security Chief saying in public all of these stuff, hence, the state of Israel takes these phenomenons VERY seriously and is doing (unlike other countries) everything it can to control it. So far, we're doing great, too bad you are continuously ignoring that main point, and insisting to focus on the fact Isearl (like the rest of the world) is having such a knowen & undisputed problem.
I get it, you always see/find the bad sides of Iseael no matter what the topic is, now give it a rest.
I don't see the fact that Israel is doing everything it can as the main point. To me the main point is that there is a threat, regardless of what Israel does there will continue to be that threat. If the Kahanists succeed at bombing the temple mount then we will have a much bigger problem on our hands that we do currently. Also, I've yet to hear justification for the 250,000 authorized settlers and what is the distinction between authorized and unauthorized. If I was a palestinian, I'd say the government is Kahanist. Furthermore if we say well, Lebanon is doing everything it can to suppress Hizbullah, that wouldn't satisfy Israel, because the threat is still there.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Each human being filters information through their own individual filters which were created from personal, subjective life experience.
It's pretty clear you are personally opposed to the context that Ahnimus is looking at things, here. He's not responsible for putting things into any other context than what he is personally seeing. I hear that you are not pleased with his particularly perspective/context in this thread, and possibly others.
Whose idea of fair and balanced criticism to you propose we accept? Yours? Mine? Ahnimus'?
Your perception of what Ahnimus is doing is quite different than my own perception of what he is doing. As I say, I respect your view, I simply disagree with it. A message board supports dissenting views.
You can define whether what Ahnimus does is helpful for you, however you cannot define what I find helpful. You opinion is what it is and does not hold rank over other opinions.
Apparently Ahnimus is putting forth his view as he sees it. I support differences of opinion as I feel it is realistic--the big picture entails many different viewpoints and I value that. You may disagree and I'm okay with that.
I'm sure you are competent in deciding for yourself what is right for you, as I am competent in finding what is right for me.
Do you mean like this:
These are your own comments from this thread alone.
I'm quite competent in overlooking personal issues and discerning the information between human foibles. And I respect others and their ability to discern for themselves.
I hear your point of view. I'm a believer in following my own inner dictates, and trusting my own impressions.
For the record I was being facetious when I wrote all the run-on adjectives. As for Ahnimus not being responsible for presenting things in any context other than how he sees things I again have to disagree. Simply because different people see things differently it doesn't mean that there isn't objective data regarding a situation. If someone does not present all the data but only part of it they are presenting a skewed view of reality. This cannot be argued with. By definition a lack of complete data makes ones perception of reality incomplete. As for you being able to judge for yourself what is helpful in terms of understanding the world we live in that's fine. I'm just saying there are alot of very smart people who know alot about the Middle East and none of them are writing on a Pearl Jam website.
I don't see the fact that Israel is doing everything it can as the main point. To me the main point is that there is a threat, regardless of what Israel does there will continue to be that threat. If the Kahanists succeed at bombing the temple mount then we will have a much bigger problem on our hands that we do currently. Also, I've yet to hear justification for the 250,000 authorized settlers and what is the distinction between authorized and unauthorized. If I was a palestinian, I'd say the government is Kahanist. Furthermore if we say well, Lebanon is doing everything it can to suppress Hizbullah, that wouldn't satisfy Israel, because the threat is still there.
You can say that the Israeli government is Kahanist but you would simply be objectively wrong. That is not an opinion. That is just fact. And Lebanon can't be said to be doing everything it can to suppress Hizbullah because they are doing exactly nothing to suppress Hizbullah. For gods sake, Hizbullah is part of the Lebanese government.
I don't see the fact that Israel is doing everything it can as the main point. To me the main point is that there is a threat, regardless of what Israel does there will continue to be that threat. If the Kahanists succeed at bombing the temple mount then we will have a much bigger problem on our hands that we do currently. Also, I've yet to hear justification for the 250,000 authorized settlers and what is the distinction between authorized and unauthorized. If I was a palestinian, I'd say the government is Kahanist. Furthermore if we say well, Lebanon is doing everything it can to suppress Hizbullah, that wouldn't satisfy Israel, because the threat is still there.
There is such threat in every single country on this planet, and Israel is no different nor trying to argue or lie about us having such radical groups. I really don't understand what you want except trying the best you can to emphasize one fact, but ignoring the others in order to create a nice picture to fit your initially biased point of view.
BTW, Lebanon is doing NOTHING about Hizbullah, they have no way to control them and if they had, I wouldn't be talking to you sitting in a shelter for 21 days in a row. Nice "facts", Ahnimus.
There is such threat in every single country on this planet, and Israel is no different nor trying to argue or lie about us having such radical groups. I really don't understand what you want except trying the best you can to emphasize one fact, but ignoring the others in order to create a nice picture to fit your initially biased point of view.
BTW, Lebanon is doing NOTHING about Hizbullah, they have no way to control them and if they had, I wouldn't be talking to you sitting in a shelter for 21 days in a row. Nice "facts", Ahnimus.
OFFICIALLY, THE Israeli government demands that the Government of Lebanon disarm Hizbullah and remove it from the border region.
That is clearly impossible under the present Lebanese regime, a delicate fabric of ethno-religious communities. The slightest shock can bring the whole structure crashing down and throw the state into total anarchy - especially after the Americans succeeded in driving out the Syrian army, the only element that has for years provided some stability.
The idea of installing a Quisling in Lebanon is nothing new. In 1955, David Ben-Gurion proposed taking a "Christian officer" and installing him as dictator. Moshe Sharet showed that this idea was based on complete ignorance of Lebanese affairs and torpedoed it. But 27 years later, Ariel Sharon tried to put it into effect nevertheless. Bashir Gemayel was indeed installed as president, only to be murdered soon afterwards. His brother, Amin, succeeded him and signed a peace agreement with Israel, but was driven out of office. (The same brother is now publicly supporting the Israeli operation.)
The calculation now is that if the Israeli Air Force rains heavy enough blows on the Lebanese population - paralysing the sea- and airports, destroying the infrastructure, bombarding residential neighborhoods, cutting the Beirut-Damascus highroad etc. - the public will get furious with Hizbullah and pressure the Lebanese government into fulfilling Israel's demands. Since the present government cannot even dream of doing so, a dictatorship will be set up with Israel's support.
That is the military logic. I have my doubts. It can be assumed that most Lebanese will react as any other people on earth would: with fury and hatred towards the invader. That happened in 1982, when the Shiites in the south of Lebanon, until then as docile as a doormat, stood up against the Israeli occupiers and created the Hizbullah, which has become the strongest force in the country. If the Lebanese elite now becomes tainted as collaborators with Israel, it will be swept off the map. (By the way, have the Qassams and Katyushas caused the Israeli population to exert pressure on our government to give up? Quite the contrary.)
"Inter arma silent Musae" - when the weapons speak, the muses fall silent. Or, rather: when the guns roar, the brain ceases to function.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
OFFICIALLY, THE Israeli government demands that the Government of Lebanon disarm Hizbullah and remove it from the border region.
That is clearly impossible under the present Lebanese regime, a delicate fabric of ethno-religious communities. The slightest shock can bring the whole structure crashing down and throw the state into total anarchy - especially after the Americans succeeded in driving out the Syrian army, the only element that has for years provided some stability.
The idea of installing a Quisling in Lebanon is nothing new. In 1955, David Ben-Gurion proposed taking a "Christian officer" and installing him as dictator. Moshe Sharet showed that this idea was based on complete ignorance of Lebanese affairs and torpedoed it. But 27 years later, Ariel Sharon tried to put it into effect nevertheless. Bashir Gemayel was indeed installed as president, only to be murdered soon afterwards. His brother, Amin, succeeded him and signed a peace agreement with Israel, but was driven out of office. (The same brother is now publicly supporting the Israeli operation.)
The calculation now is that if the Israeli Air Force rains heavy enough blows on the Lebanese population - paralysing the sea- and airports, destroying the infrastructure, bombarding residential neighborhoods, cutting the Beirut-Damascus highroad etc. - the public will get furious with Hizbullah and pressure the Lebanese government into fulfilling Israel's demands. Since the present government cannot even dream of doing so, a dictatorship will be set up with Israel's support.
That is the military logic. I have my doubts. It can be assumed that most Lebanese will react as any other people on earth would: with fury and hatred towards the invader. That happened in 1982, when the Shiites in the south of Lebanon, until then as docile as a doormat, stood up against the Israeli occupiers and created the Hizbullah, which has become the strongest force in the country. If the Lebanese elite now becomes tainted as collaborators with Israel, it will be swept off the map. (By the way, have the Qassams and Katyushas caused the Israeli population to exert pressure on our government to give up? Quite the contrary.)
"Inter arma silent Musae" - when the weapons speak, the muses fall silent. Or, rather: when the guns roar, the brain ceases to function.
Uri Avnery is an Israeli radical "left winger", this articale supports his biased opinions, not necessarily facts. Now I can have another articale to support my point of view, and claim to be right. Do you see how ridiculous it is?
Now, remind me how anything of this has something to do with the original topic?
Uri Avnery is an Israeli radical "left winger", this articale supports his biased opinions, not necessarily facts. Now I can have another articale to support my point of view, and claim to be right. Do you see how ridiculous it is?
Now, remind me how anything of this has something to do with the original topic?
For the record I was being facetious when I wrote all the run-on adjectives. As for Ahnimus not being responsible for presenting things in any context other than how he sees things I again have to disagree. Simply because different people see things differently it doesn't mean that there isn't objective data regarding a situation. If someone does not present all the data but only part of it they are presenting a skewed view of reality. This cannot be argued with. By definition a lack of complete data makes ones perception of reality incomplete. As for you being able to judge for yourself what is helpful in terms of understanding the world we live in that's fine. I'm just saying there are alot of very smart people who know alot about the Middle East and none of them are writing on a Pearl Jam website.
There isn't one bit of objective data here that isn't being filtered through your subjective filters, or through Ahnimus' or my own.
It sounds like you don't understand the idea of different contexts within any situation and the relevence of rating each context on it's own.
I'm not really interested in any scales of this very smart person, or this objective person or that "right" person. To me, it's bluster and show. The article in question showed the relevence of some of Ahnimus' points. No amount of rank, rightness or show will change the valid points Ahnimus is making. Frankly, your points may be valid as well, yet it's seens quite clear you very much want this issue to not be focussed on or to be focussed on in the manner you approve. That doesn't work for me at all. To each their own, though.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
You are doing it again, we never said Israel is pure, just that at least we are controling etc' these kind of phenomenons. And what Munich has to do with this artical? It's like you're doing everything you can (going way off topic, for example) to see only the bad things around here.
it takes one to know one, doesn't it??
all insanity:
a derivitive of nature.
nature is god
god is love
love is light
There isn't one bit of objective data here that isn't being filtered through your subjective filters, or through Ahnimus' or my own.
Ahnimus suggested that the Kahanists have significant support. They don't. I live in Israel and assure you this is true. Ahnimus seems to think that all of the settlers and possibly even the Israeli government subscribe to a Kahanist idealogy. Again this simply isn't true. Ahnimus, in his original post on the topic, left out entirely the fact that the Kahanists are a fringe group that is heavily policed by Israel so that they won't carry out the sort of terror attacks Ahnimus is afraid they might carry out. I sought to add this. I fail to see how any of what I have said represents a different point of view. It represents either information that was lacking, or a correction of a factual error Ahnimus has made in his presentation. I do of course have an interest in correcting these mistakes. I love Israel and would like very much for people to see her as I do. That said I recognize that Israel is not perfect, and the Kahanists are a good case in point. I have no problem with this being pointed out, but the fact is that there is a certain reality to the situation. In parts of his presentation Ahnimus simply did not represent the reality as it is. He is entitled to his own interpretation of facts, but saying that a fringe group has wide support when it does not is not an interpretation, it is simply wrong. I fail to understand how it can be that you cannot understand this. Here you have Ahnimus, who I assume is in America, stating something about the reality in Israel, and then you have two people in Israel (Shiraz and myself) coming and saying that his presentation is wrong in places and is missing some facts that are important for a full understanding of the situation. Shiraz and I are not right wingers. In fact, judging from the posts I've read we're both fairly moderate if not left-wing. We certainly know more about the everyday reality in Israel then Ahnimus does. We live that reality. I'm just in shock that someone can present false or incomplete information, be called on it, and then be defended because it's his right to have his own opinion. Yes, it is his right to think what he wants. I don't challenge that. I challenge his presentation of the facts.
Oh and one more thing. If anything I hate the Kahanists and have much more reason to fear them then Ahnimus does. They are a stain on my country and on my faith, and any atrocity that they might commit would put my country in jeopardy. Trust me, I know these people and have no love for them. But Ahnimus has simply overstated their importance, and omitted the reality of their suppression by the state.
Sure, just don't call it "facts", nor "I'm doing some research cause I'm trying to understand the whole picture", cause it is what it is - an initial narrow point of view which he wants to back up, nothing other than that.
I'm providing facts and asking real hard questions. If you can't answer them then don't. If you don't agree with the evidence I have provided, find some conflicting evidence. Ok, I have your testimonies, I also have the testimonies of others. Maybe you are wrong, does the Israeli government tell you everything?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Comments
We're all reasonably intelligent adults here and we can each read the article and draw our own conclusions.
Regardless of what Ahnimus' agenda is, he's just as entitled to his personal view and agenda as anyone else is to their own.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Yes he is, but his argument is flawed, and therefore merits a response. He is saying he simply wants to level the playing field by showing that Israel is also not perfect. First, nobody said to begin with that Israel is perfect. Second, this idea of leveling the playing field is ridiculous. The playing field isn't level. Hezbollah is a terrorist group that kills people. The Kahanists are would-be-terrorists that never get to kill people because Israel keeps them under control. That is a distinction. I'm kinda tired, but I'd recommend reading Leon Wieseltier on The New Republis online (http://www.tnr.com). He writes about the difference between moralism and morality. What Ahnimus is exhibiting is moralism but not morality. To paraphrase Wieseltier's last sentence, morality recognizes reality, whereas moralism seeks to shield morality from the real world. Ahnimus's morals are so pure as to be inapplicable to reality, and that is why I have a problem with him.
I hear that you disagree with Ahnimus. I also know one can back their opinion with any source and yet it remains an opinion, to which we're all entitled.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I'm not saying he can't hold an opinion. I'm saying that he is talking about something real and not theoretical, and about which there are therefore objective facts that can be stated. He has presented these facts on this thread in such a way as to twist the reality of the situation so that it is percieved in a way that suits his opinion rather than the reality. I have endeavored to present the reality as it is, in its proper perspective. I am not claiming that he has lied in any way, but that he has ommited facts that undermine his interpretation. To say that he has his opinion and I have mine and that they are both equally valid is overly simplistic. We are speaking about something concrete. If his "opinion," or more precisely, his interpretation of the facts does not present a complete understanding of reality, or does not make use of all the evidence, or is inconsistent with regards to the data, then his interpretation is actually less valid than one which offers a more complete understanding of reality, which incorporates all the evidence in its analysis and is consistent with regard to the data. To offer a very simple analogy, if someone has a blue piece of paper and asks two people what color the paper is, and one says blue and the other says green, you could say that they have two different and equally valid opinions but that would be kind of crazy. You would probably say that one of their opinions conforms better to reality and is therefore more valid. The same is true here, though the situation is obviously more complicated.
What information did I omit?
I don't know where you are from but it used to be the same over here. until some years ago the news was showed from the Israeli stand point. In the last ten years that has shifted somewhat to a more balanced coverage. Still I feel that the world is using two standards in this conflict. If a non western orientated country would do what Israel is doing now I think the consequences would be severe.
You’re on the outside, never bound by such a spell.
Together in the darkness, alone in the light.
I took it upon me to be yours, Timmy,
I’ll lead your angels and demons at play tonight......»
You portray the Kahanists as if they are a well organized terrorist group with significant public support, that might very well become popular enough to take over the government, and that poses a very real threat of carrying out terror attacks that good destabilize the region. None of this is accurate, as I have pointed out, to which your sole response has been that it is possible. Well anything is possible, but in this case you are presenting the exceptionally unlikely as reality of the day, and that is disingenious.
I disagree entirely. If a non-western country were to act as Israel is now the world would ignore it. Just look at Sudan, where there is a genocide being committed, and the only thing the West has done is offer words. One would have thought that maybe we'd learned from Rwanda. Or look at Russia. In they're fight against the Chechins they have leveled whole cities, but virtually no one notices. The sad fact is that when violence erupts around the world the West rarely takes notice, or if they do they rarely care.
It's not that we dont take notice or dont care. I think becuase people see Americans right now and associate everything we do with war and carnage and destruction. Regardless if America deploys military members to those other countries for humanitarian aid, some will vew that as were trying to push our way of thinking onto them. I understand that many people dont like us for whatever the reasons, but I truly believe both sides of the table(i.e. republican and democratic) need to come up with some solutions to not just the current problems in the world but how to deal with future ones that will arise.
Go Cubs!
I think I'm still going with the former Israeli Security Chief. He seems to think there is a threat.
"The dream of these extremists"—to blow up the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, one of the most important holy sites in the Muslim world—"should give us sleepless nights," says former Israeli Security Chief Avi Dichter. "Jewish terror is liable to create a serious strategic threat that will turn the Israeli-Palestinian conflict into a conflict between thirteen million Jews and a billion Muslims all over the world."
God, would you stop it? You have the former Israeli Security Chief saying in public all of these stuff, hence, the state of Israel takes these phenomenons VERY seriously and is doing (unlike other countries) everything it can to control it. So far, we're doing great, too bad you are continuously ignoring that main point, and insisting to focus on the fact Isearl (like the rest of the world) is having such a knowen & undisputed problem.
I get it, you always see/find the bad sides of Iseael no matter what the topic is, now give it a rest.
Indeed, well said. Israel is aware of the threat and does not underestimate the danger and so they act accordingly, the key word there being ACT. You, Ahnimus, are a point-misser. You miss the point. You are a fact-twister. You twist facts. You are a one-side-seeing, apologist-for-the-bad-guys-though-you-mean-well, incapable-of-thinking-outside-your-far-left-liberal-box, ignorer-of-all-arguments-that-prove-you-wrong jackass. Ok, I've exhausted my self. You really should give it a rest. You're pushing a dead-end point, and at this point you're doing it alone and very poorly. Just give it a rest, ok. You'll feel better.
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
Speaking of oversimplification we have the "blue paper" analogy. If you are in any way suggesting/claiming that you or your "side" hold the "God-spoken" truth of interpretation and that others who disagree are talking mere theory that is impractical given the circumstances; and not to mention that you think others are distorting the facts or simplifying etc., what I'm saying is that I don't buy it. We all have distortions and blindspots in our own filters. I don't buy tuning out such distortions and blindspots. It looks like you have a strong vested interest in being "right". I'm personally not interested in right/wrong. I'm interested in understanding all sides and hearing all kinds of information, and not merely the information as it fits one person or one group's image of themselves. I personally get a little uncomfortable when there looks to be any form of monopolising of the information in order to support one side in particular. I'm for freedom of information and the freedom of individuals being supported to assess for themselves.
As I've said I can understand and respect your stance. I can see why you see it and why you are less likely to see the validity of Ahnimus' stance. I, however, see differently. I support calling Ahnimus out on fallacies, etc. for we might all learn something. Or maybe by doing so, you might be calling out your own fallacies. Either way, many of us are here to learn, not to fall into the preconception/pre-set-agenda trap.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I know what you're response will be but I'm going to say it anyway. In this instance I don't think I have an agenda, or if I do it is simply to show that the picture Ahnimus presents is incomplete in such a way that it smears Isreal unfairly. I do not deny that these people exist, or that they are exactly what Ahnimus says they are. What I am saying is that Ahnimus presents the situation as an indictment of Israel without mentioning the wider context of Israeli society. I simply endeavor to correct for that. I also do not object to fair and balanced criticism of Israeli policies. I do however, object to people looking for an excuse to criticize, digging up an obscure Israeli societal phenomenon, and then blowing it up as a massive indictment of Israel as a whole. If you truly would like to learn and not simply recieve information colored by personal agenda, I would hope that you can understand why what Ahnimus is doing is not helpful. I do not object to a discussion of the Kahanist phenomenon so long as it presents a realistic picture of what that phenomenon is. Finally, if you really want to learn what is going on here I would recommend you come to Israel yourself. I think you'd learn alot. Short of that I would say stop "learning" from a Pearl Jam website. Most of the people here are either cranks or simply ignorant. And I don't only mean the people who attack Israel. This is not the place you should be going to to learn about the conflict in the Middle East.
It's pretty clear you are personally opposed to the context that Ahnimus is looking at things, here. He's not responsible for putting things into any other context than what he is personally seeing. I hear that you are not pleased with his particularly perspective/context in this thread, and possibly others.
Whose idea of fair and balanced criticism to you propose we accept? Yours? Mine? Ahnimus'?
Your perception of what Ahnimus is doing is quite different than my own perception of what he is doing. As I say, I respect your view, I simply disagree with it. A message board supports dissenting views.
You can define whether what Ahnimus does is helpful for you, however you cannot define what I find helpful. You opinion is what it is and does not hold rank over other opinions.
Apparently Ahnimus is putting forth his view as he sees it. I support differences of opinion as I feel it is realistic--the big picture entails many different viewpoints and I value that. You may disagree and I'm okay with that.
I'm sure you are competent in deciding for yourself what is right for you, as I am competent in finding what is right for me.
Do you mean like this:
These are your own comments from this thread alone.
I'm quite competent in overlooking personal issues and discerning the information between human foibles. And I respect others and their ability to discern for themselves. I hear your point of view. I'm a believer in following my own inner dictates, and trusting my own impressions.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
That is true. Maybe I should have said a middle eastern country. (oil releated)
You’re on the outside, never bound by such a spell.
Together in the darkness, alone in the light.
I took it upon me to be yours, Timmy,
I’ll lead your angels and demons at play tonight......»
I don't see the fact that Israel is doing everything it can as the main point. To me the main point is that there is a threat, regardless of what Israel does there will continue to be that threat. If the Kahanists succeed at bombing the temple mount then we will have a much bigger problem on our hands that we do currently. Also, I've yet to hear justification for the 250,000 authorized settlers and what is the distinction between authorized and unauthorized. If I was a palestinian, I'd say the government is Kahanist. Furthermore if we say well, Lebanon is doing everything it can to suppress Hizbullah, that wouldn't satisfy Israel, because the threat is still there.
For the record I was being facetious when I wrote all the run-on adjectives. As for Ahnimus not being responsible for presenting things in any context other than how he sees things I again have to disagree. Simply because different people see things differently it doesn't mean that there isn't objective data regarding a situation. If someone does not present all the data but only part of it they are presenting a skewed view of reality. This cannot be argued with. By definition a lack of complete data makes ones perception of reality incomplete. As for you being able to judge for yourself what is helpful in terms of understanding the world we live in that's fine. I'm just saying there are alot of very smart people who know alot about the Middle East and none of them are writing on a Pearl Jam website.
You can say that the Israeli government is Kahanist but you would simply be objectively wrong. That is not an opinion. That is just fact. And Lebanon can't be said to be doing everything it can to suppress Hizbullah because they are doing exactly nothing to suppress Hizbullah. For gods sake, Hizbullah is part of the Lebanese government.
There is such threat in every single country on this planet, and Israel is no different nor trying to argue or lie about us having such radical groups. I really don't understand what you want except trying the best you can to emphasize one fact, but ignoring the others in order to create a nice picture to fit your initially biased point of view.
BTW, Lebanon is doing NOTHING about Hizbullah, they have no way to control them and if they had, I wouldn't be talking to you sitting in a shelter for 21 days in a row. Nice "facts", Ahnimus.
OFFICIALLY, THE Israeli government demands that the Government of Lebanon disarm Hizbullah and remove it from the border region.
That is clearly impossible under the present Lebanese regime, a delicate fabric of ethno-religious communities. The slightest shock can bring the whole structure crashing down and throw the state into total anarchy - especially after the Americans succeeded in driving out the Syrian army, the only element that has for years provided some stability.
The idea of installing a Quisling in Lebanon is nothing new. In 1955, David Ben-Gurion proposed taking a "Christian officer" and installing him as dictator. Moshe Sharet showed that this idea was based on complete ignorance of Lebanese affairs and torpedoed it. But 27 years later, Ariel Sharon tried to put it into effect nevertheless. Bashir Gemayel was indeed installed as president, only to be murdered soon afterwards. His brother, Amin, succeeded him and signed a peace agreement with Israel, but was driven out of office. (The same brother is now publicly supporting the Israeli operation.)
The calculation now is that if the Israeli Air Force rains heavy enough blows on the Lebanese population - paralysing the sea- and airports, destroying the infrastructure, bombarding residential neighborhoods, cutting the Beirut-Damascus highroad etc. - the public will get furious with Hizbullah and pressure the Lebanese government into fulfilling Israel's demands. Since the present government cannot even dream of doing so, a dictatorship will be set up with Israel's support.
That is the military logic. I have my doubts. It can be assumed that most Lebanese will react as any other people on earth would: with fury and hatred towards the invader. That happened in 1982, when the Shiites in the south of Lebanon, until then as docile as a doormat, stood up against the Israeli occupiers and created the Hizbullah, which has become the strongest force in the country. If the Lebanese elite now becomes tainted as collaborators with Israel, it will be swept off the map. (By the way, have the Qassams and Katyushas caused the Israeli population to exert pressure on our government to give up? Quite the contrary.)
"Inter arma silent Musae" - when the weapons speak, the muses fall silent. Or, rather: when the guns roar, the brain ceases to function.
http://www.studien-von-zeitfragen.de/Uri_Avnery/Lebanon_Action/lebanon_action.html
Good article, it's the product of logic.
Uri Avnery is an Israeli radical "left winger", this articale supports his biased opinions, not necessarily facts. Now I can have another articale to support my point of view, and claim to be right. Do you see how ridiculous it is?
Now, remind me how anything of this has something to do with the original topic?
Anyone can get an article to support any view....
It sounds like you don't understand the idea of different contexts within any situation and the relevence of rating each context on it's own.
I'm not really interested in any scales of this very smart person, or this objective person or that "right" person. To me, it's bluster and show. The article in question showed the relevence of some of Ahnimus' points. No amount of rank, rightness or show will change the valid points Ahnimus is making. Frankly, your points may be valid as well, yet it's seens quite clear you very much want this issue to not be focussed on or to be focussed on in the manner you approve. That doesn't work for me at all. To each their own, though.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
a derivitive of nature.
nature is god
god is love
love is light
Ahnimus suggested that the Kahanists have significant support. They don't. I live in Israel and assure you this is true. Ahnimus seems to think that all of the settlers and possibly even the Israeli government subscribe to a Kahanist idealogy. Again this simply isn't true. Ahnimus, in his original post on the topic, left out entirely the fact that the Kahanists are a fringe group that is heavily policed by Israel so that they won't carry out the sort of terror attacks Ahnimus is afraid they might carry out. I sought to add this. I fail to see how any of what I have said represents a different point of view. It represents either information that was lacking, or a correction of a factual error Ahnimus has made in his presentation. I do of course have an interest in correcting these mistakes. I love Israel and would like very much for people to see her as I do. That said I recognize that Israel is not perfect, and the Kahanists are a good case in point. I have no problem with this being pointed out, but the fact is that there is a certain reality to the situation. In parts of his presentation Ahnimus simply did not represent the reality as it is. He is entitled to his own interpretation of facts, but saying that a fringe group has wide support when it does not is not an interpretation, it is simply wrong. I fail to understand how it can be that you cannot understand this. Here you have Ahnimus, who I assume is in America, stating something about the reality in Israel, and then you have two people in Israel (Shiraz and myself) coming and saying that his presentation is wrong in places and is missing some facts that are important for a full understanding of the situation. Shiraz and I are not right wingers. In fact, judging from the posts I've read we're both fairly moderate if not left-wing. We certainly know more about the everyday reality in Israel then Ahnimus does. We live that reality. I'm just in shock that someone can present false or incomplete information, be called on it, and then be defended because it's his right to have his own opinion. Yes, it is his right to think what he wants. I don't challenge that. I challenge his presentation of the facts.
Oh and one more thing. If anything I hate the Kahanists and have much more reason to fear them then Ahnimus does. They are a stain on my country and on my faith, and any atrocity that they might commit would put my country in jeopardy. Trust me, I know these people and have no love for them. But Ahnimus has simply overstated their importance, and omitted the reality of their suppression by the state.
Sure, just don't call it "facts", nor "I'm doing some research cause I'm trying to understand the whole picture", cause it is what it is - an initial narrow point of view which he wants to back up, nothing other than that.
I'm providing facts and asking real hard questions. If you can't answer them then don't. If you don't agree with the evidence I have provided, find some conflicting evidence. Ok, I have your testimonies, I also have the testimonies of others. Maybe you are wrong, does the Israeli government tell you everything?