Integration Works When Wanted And Left Alone

From the desk of George Handlery on Fri, 2010-09-24 17:13

bj-logo-handlery.gif

For some time now, an issue creates waves in Europe. It is caused by the expulsion of some Gypsies from France.  The case, but especially what is meant while left unspoken, is telling.

EU rules allow for the free movement of the citizens of member countries and of the Union’s associated states. This means that anyone can go anywhere and stay for three months. The analogy of older times is an automatic tourist visa. Those able to find a job prior to their move or during their legal stay can settle.

Their presence is tolerated as long as they remain employed or have earned the right to unemployment benefits. This arrangement is a practical one. A similar deal –free migration- has worked before World War One when anyone could stay on wherever he pleased. The scheme’s working out  hinges on whether an assumption behind the rule holds up.

To some the premise mentioned is unfashionable. Here PC demands that the hosting society’s duties to newcomers be mentioned. Such as a warm reception and total tolerance. One that stolidly ignores what might be unfashionably labeled as the guests’ anti-social behavior.

In fact, immigrations have been successful once newcomers saw themselves as individuals and not as representatives of a closed group committed to remain alien in a new context. Significantly, this did not prevent some of the successful settlers to preserve their linguistic identity and those cultural characteristics that did not hinder integration. Such newcomers have also distinguished themselves by trying to find a niche into which they could fit and used that position to upgrade their own or their offspring’s offering to society. In any case, they were willing to make a societal contribution on the terms of their adopted environment and did what they could to improve their qualifications to maximalize their input. Not by accident, among the innovators and inventors immigrants played a significant role.

In adapting, these settled migrants naturally did not consciously pursue a multicultural model. What made their personal strategy and society’s needs match was the pursuit of individual happiness. At the same time, the personal advantage gained through betterment, the willingness to give something in exchange for a rewarding advantage, had personal interests as its motor. As with most migrants of the present, the chance in life and to prosperity was thought to lead through a service to a community that would thereby emerge as improved. Only in recent times had this pattern, one that has determined the writer’s family history reaching back to the 1600s, began to totter. Wealthy countries with social services to match have lured a new type of immigrant. His goal was not to escape poverty at home in favor of a new chance in a more open social order. Much rather, the motivation has been to continue with lacking skills wrapped in an imported subculture to perform services without a perspective. However, changing times made, regardless of the low wages asked, unskilled employees redundant. At that point, the motive for migration and for continuing in a culture that remained, even after generations an alien one, became the access to easily allotted welfare services.

No self-contained group fits the short generalization more accurately than that of the so-called Gypsies. For the last six or seven centuries they have preserved, or more precisely, they have developed a subculture that resisted the world that evolved around them. A similarity between this Indian Diaspora and that of the Jews is likely to occur. If so, it is the differences and not the similarities that are striking. Yes, a “Jewish culture” survived for two thousand years. In general, however, it did so not in opposition to but as a parallel to the way of life of the indigenous. This explains the inordinately significant and pioneering contribution of Jews to Western Civilization and therefore to the making of the modern world.

President Sarkozy’s forced return of Roma to their land of origin has created an outraged echo. To condemn the French who merely applied the law of their land that conforms to the praxis shared with other countries as racist persecutors is inappropriate. So are the admonitions that Romania and Bulgaria shall finally integrate that minority. The genial idea of integration proposed now has occurred eons ago in all states that harbor Roma minorities. However, for the offered integration to work the Gypsies must want it. That presupposes attending school, and to pursue socially approved careers. Integration through compulsory government-run training programs fail. Quite regardless of whether the intended beneficiary is a Roma or a member of another group. Integration depends not on courses but on personal decisions to join and to participate.

An accompanying feature is that settlers shall not see themselves as members of a tribe that functions as a closely-knit gang. For individual responsibility to develop and to pursue personal careers, the emerging Roma leaders need to convince their following to identify themselves as individuals. This is difficult as the Roma see such a process as causing the loss of identity and the abandonment of the scavenging way of life, which is said to define the group. A consequence of this and the resulting refusal of schooling is that the Roma lack perspectives. Once a Gypsy becomes successful –many do- he not only breaks with his background but is also viewed as an apostate by the clan he had to exit to join the modern world.

Is there a way out? If so then the support of governments where Roma reside can bear fruit. But this will hold true only if it can facilitate a movement expressing a new internal consensus among the Gypsies themselves. Uniting to attain more welfare payments is not a strategy with a perspective. Until now, as the case of France shows, all societies have developed reservations regarding Gypsies once these appeared in their midst. This condition is not an accidental correlation or merely a fault of hosting societies. The failure comes from the leaders. Most detect opportunities not in the process that overcomes poverty and creates prosperity but in the exploited commiserationof the well-meaning  that benefits the laggards.

The EU had been created to prevent the repetition of the wars of a frightening past. (1914-1918, 1939-1945.) Genially, the institution was to facilitate economic reconstruction and then progress in a larger and hindrance-free market put in the service of compatible members. Thanks to the USSR’s threat and the USA’s protection, the wars of the past have, from the outset, not represented a genuine threat. No one could afford the luxury of local spats with global consequences. Furthermore, no country benefiting from the given-for-free-military protection of the Americans had the need to afford the luxury of a superfluous aggressive great power role. After 1945, the Germans had little fight left in them. It matched the combativeness of the French in whose case this condition went back to 1918 –or for that matter 1940 when they got themselves overrun. Anyhow, although partly based on false assumptions, the avoidance of these history-fed notions is still being cited as an accomplishment.

On the economic front, the Union proved to be a success. That was because the project utilized the genuine demand of real economies to unify what fitted together and to rationalize the results. Consequently, the EU brought together what matched naturally and then welded together parts that already dovetailed and which, in unison, would function better than separately. Therefore, success came about by bringing together components that fit together.

The past record of success contrasts with the European Union’s current tactics. The false assumption that greater is also better and more secure led to an expansion of the EU. As in the case of the difference between original Marxism and Leninism, a desired process of development not yet achieved by nature is replaced by a political act of government. The action’s purpose is to quickly bring about through ordinances the conditions that life has failed to create. The result is the expansion of the EU to include areas that do not meet the criterion of membership. The hope is that after the formal inclusion into the system, the candidate can, through an accelerated development, be nudged to close the gap between reality and the desired condition.

The result is lack of cohesion, a strong bureaucracy, a weak currency and a need to pressure reluctant non-members to sign up and to put their fortune into the thinning common purse.

And The Last Word Is...?

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Thu, 2010-10-14 18:58.

@ kappert: Checkmate

@ Capo: Check (back from time to time), mate! (And you'll notice that) I'll have Kappert Isle locked down tighter than the Gaza Strip...

Last Word

Submitted by Capodistrias on Thu, 2010-10-14 17:21.

In honor of the HMS Kappert once again circumventing the Truth and reaching the safe harbor of Kappert Isle:

 

Integration Works When Wanted And Left     Alone

Black & White (Some? Could? IF?)

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Tue, 2010-10-12 23:07.

"SOME success" you say."COULD be a better world" you say. "IF the 'luvvies' would be heard" you say. Okay then answer me this question. Would the alleged pacifism of any of the people you cite have had sufficient deterrent capability to avert conflict with a determined military machine as strong and as ruthless as, say, Hitler's Nazis, the United States of America, or the IDF?

I think we BOTH know the answer to that question, but I'd still like to see your answer in black and white.

Defang 'em (3)

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Tue, 2010-10-12 17:40.

AKA: Hoisted by your own knicker elastic.

The mobilisation of public opinion didn't stop Hitler during his prolonged bout of 'bad behaviour', nor, too, did it stop the invasion of Iraq by the US and its allies.(Do you remember those millions of 'luvvies' who marched through all the major Capital cities of Europe and elswhere chanting "Not in our name"?). And it most certainly has NEVER managed to stop the Israelis from giving a bloody nose to any of its uppity Arab neighbours whenever they step out of line. God knows there are enough anti- Israeli voices in the world only too ready to 'mobilise' themselves against the dreaded 'Zionist Entity'.

Question: Where did it (your 'viable' pacifism) all go wrong?

elastics

Submitted by kappert on Tue, 2010-10-12 21:46.

At Hitler's time a 'mobilisation of public opinion' was not en vogue, you had to believe what the radio told you, which is not comparable to present times. You are right, public opinion does not receive the merit weight compared to warmongers, criminals and 'strong men'. Yet, some figures of peace have had some success, like Gandhi, Luther King, Willy Brandt, Xanana Gusmão, Gorbatchev, Mandela, to name only a few. So pacifism does not all go wrong, but sure, it could be a better world if the 'luvvies' would be heard.

The Moral Obligation to Defang 'em (2)

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Tue, 2010-10-12 09:31.

I didn't ask you for "quizzy proposals", nor did I ask you what "We" could do, I asked you a specific question. What would YOU, the pacifist, suggest we should do? I suspect your answer is 'option' b). If it is, kindly say so.

@siegetower

Submitted by kappert on Tue, 2010-10-12 09:13.

Thanks for your contribution. I simply added some other voices to your listing from 'Big Lies'; I thought it might be of interest to hear some original israeli comments. What you call 'backwards' is a tricky thing; the sewing system of Milan counts as the worst in Europe, does that make Italy backwards? You can find countries with death penalty, civil unrest and economic failures also in western cultures, does that make Texas, Northern Ireland or Greece backwards? What's the scale or rating you apply? Religious quarrels are mostly all cheap propaganda, like Bild-Zeitung or the burning of flags, and I appreciate you dismissal of religious sects as 'old man's social club', I like to agree on that. Your comparison of the bible and the koran is not so convincing, whether these atrocities apply only once or forever or 'in the future' I cannot tell, but even if it does apply only once, the act is not excusable. Your assumption of 'we learnt from those mistakes so that they never happened again' is wishful thinking, too often historical pattern are repeated and our collective memory is highly filtered and censored, as you know.

My last words as this has gone on long enough

Submitted by siegetower on Wed, 2010-10-13 00:52.

I have family from Italy. The whole point of their emmigration out of Italy was that, yes, it IS a backwards country. Ask them any question on Italian politics, economy, judicial system and policing and they answer with a face that looks like its' in pain. They still are faithful Catholics and only really eat Italian food but despite all that, they would still say Italy is a better place than any of the arab/islamic nations. And that's their right to say so. There is a scale of how advanced each country is. That's the point of Nations setting borders isn't it.

The civil unrest in Northern Ireland started for valid reasons but most civil wars don't go for three generations. Ask any Englishman or Irishman in the know and they'll agree with me that it went on for so long as it did as the IRA degraded into a drug pushing enterprise, delaying the inevitable politicl accomodation that follows armed conflict, by a couple of generations.

Greece is in the position it is because of socialist economic policy. Socialism is an invader to western civilisation because it seeks to totally replace western civilisation. So not a valid reason to make Greece backwards unless the Greeks totally stand by socialism over all other aspects of their lives.

I don't expect an atheist to agree with anything with me over religion. Religion is a part of the human condition whether you like it or not and closing your mind to that, I would argue, makes you blind to being able to understand the same considerations a faithful person has.
___

Defend Christendom. Defend Jewry. Oppose socialism in Europe.

Wehret den Anfängen

Submitted by kappert on Tue, 2010-10-12 09:11.

What can we do?

I'll give you some quizzy proposals:

A) hire a death squad and eliminate them

B) mobilise public opinion

C) join them

D) emigrate

VIable # 4

Submitted by marcfrans on Mon, 2010-10-11 22:32.

@ Atlanticist

Are we still engaged in shadow-boxing with windmills?  Consider the following two.

1) Kappert actually thinks that Saddam was removed from Kuweit BECAUSE various nations were 'taking cost-free verbal positions' at the Security Council.  Can you imagine that?  That is like believing that crime is solved in France BECAUSE politicians are making gratuitous remarks in the French parliament.   But, do not doubt, Atlanticist that I AM bothered by "legal issues".  The difference is that I do know the difference between (a) WHY something is going to happen, and (b) WHETHER it is going to be considered "legal", or not, in someone's particular mind.

2) We now have (2nd) confirmation that Kappert actually believes that the survival of Canadians' freedom (throughout, say, the 20th century) actually rests on a particular (temporary) British victory in the early 19th century. Isn't that grand!?. That's like saying that the people in Belgium are free today because Wellington (not Blucher) beat Napoleon in Waterloo. Go figure!

Wehret den Anfangen vs The Moral Obligation to Defang 'em.

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Mon, 2010-10-11 21:49.

If I understand you correctly you appear to telling me that prevention is always better than cure and which sane person could possibly argue with that? But in the real world, more often than not, the "trouble maker" refuses to be "disenchanted" by mere words. In such a familiar scenario as this, what does the pacifist propose as a viable antidote to the infection which, if not successfully treated, is likely to become pandemic?

@marcfrans

Submitted by kappert on Mon, 2010-10-11 19:21.

Legal issues do obviously not bother you. The intervention called Gulf War 1990/1991 had the approval of the United Nations to use „all necessary means“ (Resolution 678), although, on 14 January 1991, France proposed that the U.N. Security Council call for "a rapid and massive withdrawal" from Kuwait along with a statement to Iraq that Council members would bring their "active contribution" to a settlement of other problems of the region, "in particular, of the Arab-Israeli conflict and in particular to the Palestinian problem by convening, at an appropriate moment, an international conference" to assure "the security, stability and development of this region of the world." The French proposal was supported by Belgium, Germany, Spain, Italy, Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, and several non-aligned nations. Without surprise, the U.S., Britain and Soviet Union rejected that. Nevertheless, in view of international law, the intervention of coalition forces to remove Iraqi military from Kuwait was a legal affair.
A different story is the Second Gulf War, when Bush the Kid and Blair invented some hairy reasons to go for Baghdad. It seems you forgotten these facts or you have a mental difficulty to accept the truth. As for Canada (you mentioned it before), the war of 1812-14 was the one the U.S. lost to the British, even Washington was burnt down. Yet, from your words, I suppose that this does not appear in your education system.

Viable # 3

Submitted by marcfrans on Mon, 2010-10-11 16:56.

@ Atlanticist

I think we agree that there is no point in tilting at hopeless windmills like Cervantes' Don Quichote.  But, it remains fascinating to see the warped mind in action.

The original 'Viable' started out with the assertion that "peace is quite common".  But, remember, Kappert does not distinguish between 'the peace of the free' and the 'peace of the grave'.  To him it is all: "peace". 

After asserting that peace is quite common, he then gives a selective list to unwittingly prove that it is NOT common, and that war and conflict are prevalent. To make rational deductions from this information one must be able to make honest judgements about observable facts. This, Kappert is manifestly unable to do. Take his example of the First Gulf War, where he writes... "we had the UN in response to the Kuwait occupation". That is like living in alternative universe. The fact is, of course, that Saddam got evicted from Kuwait, not by the UN, but by George Bush senior, whose main instrument was a general from Florida called "Schwartzkopf" (possibly a distant relative of Kappert). And those of us who at the time were already grown up remember that Bush senior was "wobbling" in Margaret Thatcher's immortal phrase. But, Kappert likes to think that it was the "UN reaction" that removed Saddam from Kuwait. It makes you wonder if the German media and the education system in Germany today have been trained by North Korean 'advisors' under personal supervison of the 'Great Leader'.

And, what do you think of his response to the observation of the survival of Canadian freedom next to US warmongers? He thinks it is based on the British-American war of ...1814!! Isn't miseducation great to watch in action?

infection

Submitted by kappert on Mon, 2010-10-11 11:59.

I'm sure you know that the ideological framework of the Nazis was not restricted only to Germany, as racism, militarism and imperialism was wide-spread over Europe for decades. The examples of 'St. Louis' and 'Exodus' on this page give you a hint on that matter, and even yourself already mentioned a certain Quisling. For more, read Jean Kahn, Présidente Consistoire Centrale Israélite de France.  What to do against it? Wehret den Anfängen – and disenchant trouble makers like Wilders, Sarrazin, Strache and many more. And what was your 'original' question?

Viable (2)

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Mon, 2010-10-11 09:57.

I'm sure it could be argued that there was a large presence of 'peaceful people' living in Germany before, during and after the rise of National Socialism but it didn't stop the 'infection' eventually spreading beyond Germany's borders, did it? Nor did the presence of said "peaceful people" solve the dilemma, "What to DO about the problem when it spilled over Germany's borders to adversely affect the lives of millions of other "peaceful peoples" in surrounding countries, did it?

All of which brings me to my final point. You have still not answered my original question, have you? Please do so now.

I switched off after Kappert responded to quotes with quotes...

Submitted by siegetower on Mon, 2010-10-11 08:14.

...rather than actually address the original quotes themselves. How do you create a circular arguement that never ends? Endlessly add new material that distracts all and sundry from the original material.

Kappert...there is no secular arab or muslim country besides what nationalists organised in model of the successful liberal Western democracies in the early 20th Century. In case you hadn't noticed, most islamic or arab countries have a powerful movement in them that seeks to turn all those secular achievements backwards, and return to a 'golden age' of strict islam. And there is no Pacifism in Islam.

“We will put terror into the hearts of the unbelievers (i.e. non-muslims).
They serve other Gods for whom no sanction has been revealed.
Hell shall be their home; dismal indeed is the dwelling place of the evil-doers”.
Koran 3:149

If it isn't Erdogan in Turkey, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Hamas, Hezbollah, Ahmedinajad's regional ambitions, and let's face it, most of the normal population in places like Yemen and Pakistan and Saudi Arabia...they want no secular influences in their government, they want islamic government. How many flags of Western nations do they have to burn before we believe them??? Do you remember the  US embassy invasion in Pakistan in 1978? That was revenge for the Shiite Siege of Mecca that the US didn't even have a role in.

And to continue on from Marcfrans: ""Let's face it, Atlanticist, Kappert hasn't got a clue what it means to be a Hazarra in Afghanistan, a Coptic Christian in Egypt, a Berber in Algeria, a fatah-follower in Gaza, a professed 'atheist' in Iran..."" We could continue the list. Kalash or Sikh or Catholic in Pakistan, Animist Malay or Protestant in Malaysia, Indigenous West Papuan or Christian Malaccan in Indonesia, Zoroastrian in Persia, Armenian in Turkey, Greek in Turk-occupied Cyprus...the list of oppressed minorities in muslim-controlled countries is endless. If you do indeed know a Persian Jew, ask him what happened to his family in 1950 - to bring back what I said about the Jewish refugees of that year at the start of this whole posting binge.

___

Defend Christendom. Defend Jewry. Oppose socialism in Europe.

switch on

Submitted by kappert on Mon, 2010-10-11 09:55.

First, I'm wondering why your citations are 'original', while my citations are merely 'distractions'.
Second, your presupposition that Western democracies are successful is not plausible for most non-westerners, therefore it is absurd to proclaim Islamic countries as 'backwards'. Indeed, also in Western countries exist powerful movements to foster old religious traditions (backward?).
Third, compare the Koran with the Holy Bible: God often ordered the Israelites to go to war with other nations (1 Samuel 15:3; Joshua 4:13). In a world filled with sinful people (Romans 3:10-18), war is inevitable. God ordered the Israelites to “take vengeance on the Midianites for the Israelites” (Numbers 31:2). The birds will eat the flesh of all those who oppose Him (Revelation 19:17-18). He has no compassion upon His enemies, whom He will conquer completely and consign to a “fiery lake of burning sulphur” (Revelation 19:20). So, please leave this crap or acknowledge that all three monotheistic religions are potentially dangerous.
Forth, even Western democracies reveal from time to time a dangerous approach to totalitarianism (maybe you remember the Indian Removal Act), and religious movements are not reliable when it comes to 'freedom', what you possibly proclaim as a constitutional raison d'être. Last point, talking about the 50s, ask your black neighbour how his family felt in the U.S. of A., and please talk to Rich Idiot (or what's his name), jumping around in SS-Uniforms. To learn something about Jews in Iran in the 50s, see: http://www.geschichteinchronologie.ch/as/persien-iran/EncJud_juden-in-Pe...

Kappertian Semantics

Submitted by siegetower on Tue, 2010-10-12 03:09.

Is your tactic in a discussion or argument to merely wear down your opponents in a Fabian way, rather than ever confront the central issues of a debate. Head on?

By reference to what I put forward as 'original' I mean 'firstly'. You did not address anything, just create a useless circular argument. Please quote where I said your quotations were a 'distraction'.

Secondly, yes I proclaim islamic countries as backwards. My country has universal sewage connections, Yemen does not. My country has publically owned domestic high tech industries serving the domestic and export markets, Saudi Arabia (to my knowledge) does not. My country has elections where the representatives of the people generate legislation and debate it for the common weal. Syria does not. My country enjoys domestic peace and a high level of social order. Algeria/Sudan/Lebanon/Yemen/Iraq/Afghanistan/Pakistan do not. My country has a domestic automotive industry. Dubai does not. My country/culture frowns upon honour killings and female genital mutilation. All the above, when it suits Sharia, do NOT. All backwards, mate. Please list the Western movements aiming to turn the clock back to old religious traditions that compare with the violence of Hamas/Hezbollah or the political clout of the Muslim Brotherhood and Hizb ut Tahrir. Freemasons? A dying old mans social club.... Hereditary Order of the Knights Templar of Brittania? Meditation group.... Vatican? Continually apologising to muslims for 'insults'. Big scary Catholics!

Thirdly, most of the Old Testament tells of lessons the Jews learned when they or other people forgot Gods Word, and subsequent recording of the results. God did not tell the Israelites to take vengeance on the Midianites for all eternity, but at that point in time alone. Allah told muslims to do exactly that to all non muslims for ALL eternity. Where is the comparison. And quoting from Revelations...well that is Jesus speaking of the future, when the whole world has turned away from God and haveing to face the consequences of mankind's choices...Including atheists. Disbeliever.

Fourth. Is the Indian Removal Act something from American History? If so I've never learnt that sorry, I'm not an American. You assume I am. All nations have made mistakes, the good thing about the West is that until socialism robbed us of learning from our collective history, we learnt from those mistakes so that they never happened again. And felt sorry for them. As opposed to the socialist doctrine of just pointing the finger and yelling hysterically: "Evil white man! Express sorrow by giving affecte group X allllll your money!!"

I will read your reference on Iran in the 1950s. Please show me the same courtesy and read mine, at the bottom of this page.......

Defend Christendom. Defend Jewry. Oppose socialism in Europe.

Very clear

Submitted by marcfrans on Sun, 2010-10-10 22:40.

@ Atlanticist

But, it becomes all very clear when one refrains to begin sentences with "if" and, instead, makes empirical observations to test the fanciful "if".

"If pacifism is viable, no weapons needed".  That is like saying "If it rains we get wet".  The relevant question is whether pacifism is viable.  And to answer that question you have to look at people's actual behavior in various cultures.  In Kappert's warped mind there is "peace" in Iran today, and he doesn't care about freedom.  

In the 1930's Belgium had a 'neighbor' like Israel has today - the cultural similarities are remarkable, including the presence of a 'Supreme Leader' - and Belgium reasoned like Kappert. Let's put our trust in "pacifism", the silly Belgians said, and they declared themselves 'neutral'. The rest is...history (including the 'liberation' of Belgium by those damnable American warmongers!). It makes you wonder how the Canadians have survived as a free people!

viable

Submitted by kappert on Mon, 2010-10-11 07:46.

The presence of peace is quite common, despite some fierce individuals who like to proclaim a war for any dubious reason. Regarding the Middle East, we had the madman Saddam Hussein and his wars against Iran, Kuwait and the Kurds, we had the UN in response to the Kuwait occupation, and an Anglo-American war against Iraq based on unproofed accusations. We had the Arab war against the proclamation of Israel and a bunch of follow-up wars by Israel against all neighbours. As you see, there are only a few aggressors, most countries and certainly its populations prefer to live in peace, therefore it is rather viable. As to Canada, in 1814 the British repelled several US invasions sucessfully ... but I'm sure you know the story.

Still not clear

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Sun, 2010-10-10 19:42.

I wonder if what you write here is written more in hope than expectation. Or let me put it another way. Are you secretly agreeing with me when I say that pacifism, although a wonderful concept in theory, is highly UNlikely to work in practice?

Quite clear?

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Sun, 2010-10-10 19:07.

Kappert:I'll let Marcfrans speak for himself, but what is still not clear to me is how any of that even begins to answer the question I asked you. Try again.

quite clear

Submitted by kappert on Sun, 2010-10-10 19:21.

If pacifism is viable, no weapons needed. I hope Palestine gives an example declaring the territory weapon free. Maybe other countries follow the example, we could save A LOT of money.

quite clear

Submitted by kappert on Sun, 2010-10-10 18:51.

Nicely put, marcfrans is the typical old-fashioned positivist, claiming himself to have empirical and personal knowledge of THE reality. Even his BMW example is illustrative: if he does not invent the million bullet machine gun, another one will. Yet, I suppose in his fantasy he proclaims Americanism as 'the best' solution for the whole world. Unable to differentiate positions, he does not accept that other people may think different, using blunt defamation saying that I 'obviously have no clue'. The 25000 Jews in Iran can practise their religion, build new kinisa (synagogues), the Jewish Hospital in Tehrān received a government donation, and have no intention to migrate to Israel, as they root 2500 years in this country. As for dictators, I'm sure marcfrans uses any opportunity to be on the winning side.
As for weaponry, the recent purchase of Saudi-Arabia and Israel proof that marcfrans' beloved democracy delivers newest military technology into the unsafest and potentially war zones on this planet. I have no illusion that stupidity prevails and traditional martial response is fostered by people who call themselves democrats and proclaim to live in a 'free world', obliged to 'defend' it; the war mongers even invented a 'security council' at the UN – that's pretty pervert!

Further clarification (2)

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Sun, 2010-10-10 17:42.

If pacifism is, as you contend, a VIABLE (i.e. realistic ) alternative to the traditional martial reponse to real or perceived threat, you have yet to explain to me WHY the new Palestinian state would even consider squandering its treasure on the purchase of useless (i.e. redundant) weaponry from ANY source. Your explanation, please.

legal law # 2

Submitted by marcfrans on Sun, 2010-10-10 17:01.

@ Atlanticist

Note the "would" in his first sentence.  It is the eternal mistake that naive-lefties make. They cannot distinguish between the normative and the positive (or factual).  And note his 'diagnosis': he likes to think that peace is threathened by "war industries in other countries".  That is like blaming BMW in Bavaria for the drunkdriving of some BMW drivers in Australia and China!

But, I suspect that Kappert is of the sort that would easily find 'accommodation' with dictators (be they religious or secular), just like those "Christian Iraqis and Chinese capitalists" that he claims to know.  Come to think of it, his grandparents' generation in Germany did the same thing. And, even though he claims "Jewish Iranian" friends, he obviously has no clue what happened to the bulk of Iran's tiny remaining Jewish community over the years.

legal law

Submitted by kappert on Sun, 2010-10-10 16:07.

A secular Palestine would be of advantage for the whole Middle East. Naturally the war industries of other countries will pour millions of dollars in the region, just the same as they do now. So the danger of aggression continues and it is logical (in your sense) that armed forces will be raised. Personally I think that's stupid, but I'm a pacifist. An Arabian country does not necessarily mean religious law (most Islamic countries use a pluralistic system of French(European) law and Islamic law), and the population would not be obliged to give any oath (as now decided in Israel, or practised in the USA). As for marcfrans' wisdom, I personally know Moroccan Berbers, Persian Jews, Christian Iraqis, Turkish Germans, and Chinese Capitalists.

Challenge (2)

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Sun, 2010-10-10 15:50.

Kappert: If you won't/ can't answer my question, perhaps you know somebody smarter than yourself who could. For example, one of your brighter students might wish to take up the challenge and attempt to succeed where you have clearly failed. Honestly, I really DO want to believe in the tooth-fairy again, so ANY suggestions you might have would be much appreciated.

Leavin' it with ya, 'Hen'.

@ marcfrans

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Sat, 2010-10-09 18:02.

Nor does Kappert know or seem to care what it must have been like to be a victim of the Ottoman, Aztec and Inca empire builders etc., so as you rightly say, let's not get too far ahead of ourselves.

But to be honest I'm so happy to have got something, anything, out of the old bird, I do believe I feel a song coming on.

1,2, Baby Steps. 3.4, Baby Steps... startin' over again.

Come on Kappert, at least hum along

Breakthrough!

Submitted by marcfrans on Sat, 2010-10-09 17:22.

@ Atlanticist

You did it Atlanticist!  You have managed to get Kappert to take a clear position...the Arab one, of course!   Unconsciously he has also admitted to his real goal..."Israel will not survive"!   What more is there to discuss, for Israelis, if one's survival as free individuals is at stake?

Now, let's not get carried away. The fact that we now can see Kappert's goal on paper (on screen, so to speak) does not mean that he can see the fault in his reasoning. He actually seems to believe that Israelis could live "in peace" if...they were to "acknowledge being in an Arabian country". Yep, he thinks that particular "admission" will give them "peace". The implication is that Kappert confuses "peace" with...loss of freedom of speech, with arbitrary dictatorship, with 'sharia law' and its special provisions for 'tolerated' infidel categories...

Let's face it, Atlanticist, Kappert hasn't got a clue what it means to be a Hazarra in Afghanistan, a Coptic Christian in Egypt, a Berber in Algeria, a fatah-follower in Gaza, a professed 'atheist' in Iran...

But, do not despair. Eventually, give it a bit more time, he will get a clue...in Germany!

Further clarification

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Sat, 2010-10-09 16:57.

I happen to agree with your assessment that Israel is unlikely to survive but I do so for reasons other than the one you cite. However, if the Israeli Jews were to accept your view that they can only live in peace by acknowledging that they need to become citizens of an Arabian country, I'm intrigued to know how you think the population of that new entity should, NOT would, seek to defend itself from any future outsider aggression. There would seem little point (logic) to the belief that Jews and Palestinian Arabs should settle their personal differences only for both peoples to fall prey to the machinations of some third-party interloper. MY solution would be to create a national army, navy and airforce but I know YOU don't agree with that suggestion, so all I wish to know from you is, if you won't accept MY solution, what is YOUR proposed solution? If you want people to take your opinions seriously you owe it to yourself, just as much as you owe it to others, to face up to difficult questions such as this.

Well?

Conflict resolution ...

Submitted by kappert on Sat, 2010-10-09 16:16.

... is a process of resolving the dispute in which Israel and all its neighbours are (apparently) engaged for decades. Ultimately, the best solutions for conflict are home grown, so I do not claim to have a solution, only an opinion which I stated already. A 'conflict mode' on my side is not evident, rather the contrary if you read the comments and insinuations (Quisling, obesa cantavit) in this blog, as most contributions do not refer to the matter. Nevertheless, I see no point why or what you should ask me, when you obviously have another approach (our old dispute on warfare and peace), and most of your remarks are not related to the discussed Palestine issue. So, once again, in my opinion the Jews in Israel can only live in peace when they acknowledge being in an Arabian country. The continuity of a Jewish enclave called Israel will not survive.

clarification

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Sat, 2010-10-09 13:45.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you appear to be telling me you just want to argue for the sake of arguing. I thought you were one of those people who believes in the concept of 'Conflict Resolution'. (Example: Jews and Arabs should stop arguing and start listening more to each other and by doing so better understand the other side's point of view). Am I wrong?

The only way I can ever hope to understand the logic of your position on any given set of issues, assuming there is some logic to be found, is if I am allowed to question you about them. The best way for you to help me in this endeavour is to respond to my questions in a frank and honest fashion (I, in return, agree to reciprocate). But YOU appear to want to remain in permanent 'conflict mode'. Is this a fair assessment of your position? If not I'd appreciate an explanation from you as to why it is not.

Thank you.

no quiz

Submitted by kappert on Fri, 2010-10-08 09:38.

I'm convinced BJ does not want to be degraded to a quiz show. If you have an opinion or an argument on the Palestine issue, you are free to tell us.

Challenge

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Thu, 2010-10-07 22:52.

Kappert: If I agree to answer any and all questions you wish to put to me on the events which took place in Palestine in the year 1948, will you agree to answer any questions I might choose to put to you on any relevant topic of my choosing? If you are up for the challenge, please provide me with, say, three questions and I will

a) provide you with my answers to those questions.

b) set out in brief, unambiguous language the three questions I
require answers to from you.

Do we have a deal?

@atl911

Submitted by kappert on Thu, 2010-10-07 16:32.

So far you (and your pal) produced only warm air (not even hot) with your questions, remarks and Freudian problems. Maybe you contribute with something substancial on the ocurrencies in Palestina 1948. I would appreciate.

Re: nothing else

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Thu, 2010-10-07 10:10.

But WHY do you have nothing else to say on these and other important issues when pressed to do so? I venture to suggest to you that it is because to do so would force you to face the truth about yourself and your professed 'values.' If said 'values' are incapable of standing up to peer scrutiny they can't be worth a damn and you know it.

Seesaw, or sea change? (3)

Submitted by Capodistrias on Tue, 2010-10-05 22:06.

I predict an excessive amount of seaweed, large amounts of which can be deadly.

While the Bermuda Triangle is famous for ships disappearing, legend has it, that in the Kappert Circle ships continually go round and round...

Seesaw, or sea change?

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Tue, 2010-10-05 15:19.

Kappert: Does your sudden conversion to balanced and objective reasoning and debate extend beyond the current discussion about the origins of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? The rise as well as the fall of the Ottoman, Inca and Aztec empires to name but three examples, or are you more likely to revert back to type with your foolish tirades against everything and everyone rooted in Western tradition and Christian values? We'll see, as time alone will tell.

voices and views

Submitted by kappert on Tue, 2010-10-05 11:51.

Citing historical voices
gives at least a view on circumstances which are normally covered by
mainstream opinions and myths. The collection of arabian and jewish
voices may provide some light on the circumstances of the creation of
Israel in 1948. The simplistic black-white perspective of one good
and one bad side is irrational and indeed insane.

Insane (4) : Paradox

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Mon, 2010-10-04 22:34.

I started this thread with a quotation from the conservative journalist, author and British patriot Peter Hitchens, and for the sole purpose of seeking to educate Kappert in the ways of the world the way it really is and not the way she and her fellow utopianists might wish it to be, I'll conclude with another quotation from the same excellent source.

'If the world were as liberal idealists imagine, Zionism ought to have been forgotten long ago as a foolish idea, a cranky and hopeless project as unrealistic as Esperanto. And if mankind were ruled by reason, then Zionism would indeed have gone the way of Esperanto. You might have thought that secularism, by making Judaism a matter of involuntary race rather than voluntary religion, would have resulted in near-total integration and assimilation. This did not happen. The opposite did. It is therefore important to remember that most right-thinking people believed with utter certainty that assimilation would happen and Zionism would fail.They believed this, during the years before 1914, in a period of history similar to our own because of its illusory stability and its materialist optimism...'. (Written in late 2003).

In other words, kappert, if it's nothing else the survival of the 'Zionist Entity' is living testimony to the abject failure of foolish (kappertian) utopianism. Lesson learned? In your case, probably not.

insane # 3

Submitted by marcfrans on Mon, 2010-10-04 21:08.

Listing endless individual voices is meaningless.  One could do that for any 'side' or argument.  It is the 'big picture' that matters. 

And the big picture is one of a genuine democracy (with freedom of speech and regular power alternation) that is being beseeched by a totalitarian surrounding culture.     

more voices

Submitted by kappert on Mon, 2010-10-04 14:21.

Maybe some other voices may contribute to the story.

"What would they do with the 50,000 civilians in the two cities ... Not even Ben-Gurion could offer a solution ... and during the discussion at operation headquarters, he [Ben-Gurion] remained silent, as was his habit in such situations. Clearly, we could not leave [Lydda's] hostile and armed populace in our rear, where it could endangered the supply route [to the troops who were] advancing eastward .. Ben-Gurion would repeat the question: What is to be done with the population?, waving his hand in a gesture which said: Drive them out! 'Driving out' is a term with a harsh ring ... Psychologically, this was one of the most difficult actions we undertook." (Yitzhak Rabin, Soldier of Peace, p. 140-141)
Poor guys, what a difficult action. Other military leader did not have many remorses:
"Do all you can to immediately and quickly purge the conquered territories of all hostile elements in accordance with the orders issued. The residents should be helped to leave the areas that have been conquered." (October 31, 1948, Moshe Carmel)
Quickly, a most appreciated explanation surged:
''The migration of the Arabs from the Land of Israel was not caused by persecution, violence, expulsion [but was] deliberately organised by the Arab leaders in order to arouse Arab feelings of revenge, to artificially create an Arab refugee problem." (Jewish National Fund official Yosef Weitz, 1948)
In vain, UN officials criticised the Israeli position on the refugees, today there are 238 resolutions criticising that position.
"No settlement can be just and complete if recognition is not accorded to the right of the Arab refugee to return to the home from which he has been dislodged. It would be an offence against the principles of elemental justice if these innocent victims of the conflict were denied the right to return to their homes while Jewish immigrants flow into Palestine, and indeed, offer the threat of permanent replacement of the Arab refugees who have been rooted in the land for centuries." (Count Folke Bernadotte , Sep.16, 1948)
And to leave no doubts, 'ethnic cleansing' is pretty much that what Moshe Dayan describes in the following:
"We came here to a country that was populated by Arabs, and we are building a Hebrew, Jewish state. In a considerable portion of localities we purchased the land from the Arabs. Instead of Arab villages Jewish villages were established. You even do not know the name of the villages and I do not blame you, because those geography books no longer exist. Not only the books, but the villages no longer exist. Nahalal was established in the place of Mahalul, Gevat in the place of Jibta, Sarid in the place of Hanifas and Kefar Yehoshu'a in the place of Tel Shaham. There is not a single settlement that was not established in the place of a former Arab village." (Moshe Dayan, March 19, 1969; as quoted in Haaretz, April 4, 1969)

War Crimes (2)

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Sun, 2010-10-03 23:37.

Well, how about the first and second examples you cite, just to be going on with?

(I assume you refer here to the Spanish conquest of the Inca and Aztec empires.)

Rule number one: If you are going to embark upon an empire building programme of your own, don't be surprised, or complain, if somebody else decides to embark upon an empire building programme of THEIR own, at YOUR expense.

How on earth do you think the Incas and Aztecs got THEIR empires in the first place?

See the following quotes from a couple of websites chosen at random that are extremely sympathetic to both the Inca and the Aztec civilisations:

INCA: A LITTLE HISTORY

At first, the Incas were simply a small tribe that lived in the city of Cuzco.. Around 1430 C.E. a neighbouring tribe attacked the Incas. The Incas won! That was the beginning of the Empire.

AZTEC:

At the height of its power, the Aztec Empire was organised and strong, but ruled with fear.

It is said that the major Aztec weapon could chop off the head of a horse with one blow!

Human sacrifice was practised... both the empire's own people, and their enemies were sacrificed.

CONCLUSION:

Two perfect examples which proves the saying, "what goes around comes around".

In War There Are No "Nice stories"

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Sun, 2010-10-03 11:07.

Kappert: Can you cite ONE example, throughout the course of human history, in which one side caught up in ANY military conflict has been responsible for ALL crimes and misdemeanors, while the other side has been guilty of NONE?

Just ONE example will do, Kappert, just ONE.

war crimes

Submitted by kappert on Sun, 2010-10-03 19:47.

ONE and NONE is one of your favourite dualisms I don't agree with. Nevertheless, how about Incas, Aztecs, Lakota, Apache, Nez Perce, Numians, Aborigines, Jews in Nazi-Europe, Hottentotes, Xhosa, Herere, Tamils, ... all these peoples encountered an enemy incredibly strong, there were without any hypotheses to win 'the war'.

big lies

Submitted by kappert on Sun, 2010-10-03 10:16.

Nice story you tell. Testament of success: Palestinians were (democraticly?) expropriated and deported to the West Bank and Gaza strip, let's say around 800.000 citizens. Their fields (surely you know the famous Yaffa oranges) and houses switched to jewish immigrants coming from Europe (where they were largely expelled or murdered, remember) and Middle East countries, building what you call 'mainstream israeli society' (I suppose there is only one ideology, but marcfrans discovers more). That's why jewish population in Morocco, Tunisia, or Iran today only counts a few thousands. So, don't bother with your right wing myth, your proclaimed 'freedom of speech' also guarantees a 'Ministry for Propaganda' and surely does not avoid to tell lies.

@ Kappert and lies

Submitted by siegetower on Mon, 2010-10-04 07:34.

Read the words of the Palestinians themselves if you don't believe me. Go the "Big Lies" reference below and look at pages 24 - 29, for 26 historical accounts of the Arabs/Palestinians leaving either of their own free will or at the insistence of the Arab armies. Yes, many of those references are from Western newspapers giving contemporaneous accounts of events, but others including Egyptian newspapers, and direct quotes by Mahmoud Abbas and King Hussein of Jordan (deceased). If you're going to deny something at least know what it is you're denying and not be totally ignorant.

And to back myself up on this with some actual evidence (Feel free to do the same) this summarises the accounts nicely from page 28:

23. In listing the reasons for the Arab failure in 1948, Khaled al-
Azm (Syrian Prime Minister) notes that “…the fifth factor was the call
by the Arab governments to the inhabitants of Palestine to evacuate
it (Palestine) and leave for the bordering Arab countries. Since 1948,
it is we who have demanded the return of the refugees, while it is
we who made them leave. We brought disaster upon a million Arab
refugees by inviting them and bringing pressure on them to leave. We
have accustomed them to begging...we have participated in lowering
their morale and social level...Then we exploited them in executing
crimes of murder, arson and throwing stones upon men, women and
children...all this in the service of political purposes...” -- Khaled el-Azm, Syrian prime minister after the 1948 War, in his 1972 memoirs,
published in 1973.

Does this challenge your preconceptions at all?????????
___
Defend Christendom. Defend Jewry. Oppose socialism in Europe.

whole story

Submitted by kappert on Mon, 2010-10-04 09:17.

Maybe we should tell a little bit more of the story: After the end of the British occupation, the plan was to build two independent states. The unilateral proclamation of Israel provoked the Jordanian occupation of the West Bank and immediate acts of violence by the Arab Liberation Army and the Jewish Irgun terror organization. In this chaos, Palestinians fled to the West Bank, leaving everything behind. The second phase, 'Plan D': destroy on resistance, drive off inhabitants, was designed to unite Jewish settlements and the consequent exodus of Palestinians (example: the controversial Deir Yasin massacre), provoking a massive Palestinian exodus, the violence culminated with the violent conquest of Jaffa.
At that time, the slippery Mr. Azm was Syrian ambassador in France, organising arms for Syria, and visited the UN in New York. Back in Syria, he toggled between Prime Minister and prison, dealing with West and East (Americans called him the Red Millionaire) and was the perfect opportunist.

Whole Story?

Submitted by siegetower on Mon, 2010-10-04 12:00.

Well if you won't read the words of the arabs themselves....from the Big Lies reference:

13. “The Arab states which had encouraged the Palestine Arabs to leave their homes temporarily in order to be out of the way of the Arab invasion armies, have failed to keep their promise to help these refugees.”
– The Jordanian daily newspaper Falastin, February 19, 1949.

14. “The Secretary General of the Arab League, Azzam Pasha, assured the Arab peoples that the occupation of Palestine and of Tel Aviv would be as simple as a military promenade...Brotherly advice was given to the Arabs of Palestine to leave their land, homes, and property to stay temporarily In neighboring fraternal states, lest the guns of invading Arab armies mow them down.” --Al Hoda, a New York-based Lebanese daily, June 8, 1951.

15. “Who brought the Palestinians to Lebanon as refugees, suffering now from the malign attitude of newspapers and communal leaders, who have neither honor nor conscience? Who brought them over in dire straits and penniless, after they lost their honor? The Arab states, and Lebanon amongst them, did it.” -- The Beirut Muslim weekly Kul-Shay, August 19, 1951.

16. “We will smash the country with our guns and obliterate every place the Jews seek shelter in. The Arabs should conduct their wives and children to safe areas until the fighting has died down.” -- Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Said, quoted in Sir An-Nakbah (“The Secret Behind the Disaster”) by Nimr el-Hawari, Nazareth, 1952

17. “The Arab Exodus …was not caused by the actual battle, but by the exaggerated description spread by the Arab leaders to incite them to fight the Jews. …For the flight and fall of the other villages it is our leaders who are responsible because of their dissemination of rumors exaggerating Jewish crimes and describing them as atrocities in order to inflame the Arabs ... By spreading rumors of Jewish atrocities, killings of women and children etc., they instilled fear and terror in the hearts of the Arabs in Palestine, until they fled leaving their homes and properties to the enemy.” – The Jordanian daily newspaper Al Urdun, April 9, 1953.

18. “The Arab governments told us: Get out so that we can get in. So we got out, but they did not get in.” A refugee quoted in Al Difaa (Jordan) September 6, 1954.

19. “The wholesale exodus was due partly to the belief of the Arabs, encouraged by the boasting of an unrealistic press and the irresponsible
utterances of some of the Arab leaders that it could be only a matter of some weeks before the Jews were defeated by the armies of the Arab states, and the Palestinian Arabs enabled to re-enter and re-take possession of their country”. -- Edward Atiyah (Secretary of the Arab League, London, The Arabs, 1955, p. 183)

20. “As early as the first months of 1948, the Arab League issued orders exhorting the people to seek a temporary refuge in neighboring countries, later to return to their abodes ... and obtain their share
of abandoned Jewish property.” -- Bulletin of The Research Group for
European Migration Problems, 1957.

21. “Israelis argue that the Arab states encouraged the Palestinians to flee. And, in fact, Arabs still living in Israel recall being urged to evacuate Haifa by Arab military commanders who wanted to bomb the city.” -- Newsweek, January 20, 1963.

22. “The 15th May, 1948, arrived ... On that day the mufti of Jerusalem appealed to the Arabs of Palestine to leave the country, because the Arab armies were about to enter and fight in their stead.” -- The Cairo daily Akhbar el Yom, October 12, 1963.

How much more do I need to go and find?
___
Defend Christendom. Defend Jewry. Oppose socialism in Europe.

insane # 2

Submitted by marcfrans on Sat, 2010-10-02 17:11.

What is insane is mislabeling an existing democratic state as "a theocratic state", when "democracy" is measured by freedom of speech and regular power alternation between different ideologies. 

What is futher insame is refusing to acknowledge that there is not a single genuine  democratic state in existence today in muslim-majority countries. 

Both examples show that the refusal to make empirical observations leads to holding "insane" viewpoints.   

German teacher vs Arab Professor & Historian

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Fri, 2010-10-01 22:41.

German teacher (of what, precisely?): "A Palestine for Arabs and Jews, AS IT WAS SO LONG IN HISTORY" - Kappert, 2010.

Or

Arab Historian: "There is no such thing as Palestine in history, absolutely not". - Professor Philip Hatti, 1946.

Facts and fantasy (6)

Submitted by kappert on Sat, 2010-10-02 08:50.

The 'elimination of Israel' (your words) would only abolish a one-sided religious jewish state (as democratic as the other ones, Iran, Malaysia and Vatican). Please note, that most Jews left their (arabian) homelands to migrate to Israel after 1948, and that Jews suffered misery first of all in Europe, and that over centuries! (A fact even marcfrans must admit). The lack of knowledge on the Ottoman Empire is deplorable, iraqi, syrian and egyptian influences regulated the 'occupation of the turks', tell me how many wars were fought inside the Ottoman Emprire! And Prof Hatti is right, modern 'Palestine' is (of course) an invention of the British-European occupiers, but it was a Roman province and 'Filastin' is the arabic name for the region otherwise called 'Eretz Israel', 'Terra Sancta', or 'Cisjordania'. Sorry, that these facts do not fit in your image.

Re: Kappert

Submitted by siegetower on Sun, 2010-10-03 02:35.

Kappert, the Jews of the Middle East did not leave their (arabian) homelands to migrate to Israel after 1948 freely. After the total failure of the arabs to conquer and destroy Israel by military means, in 1950 all the arab states plus Turkey and Iran expelled and revoked citizenship of most of their Jewish citizens. Of course there was only one place for these refugees to go - Israel.

It is testament to the success of Israel that there are no refugee camps from 1950 full of destitute Jews awaiting return to their homes, they have been absorbed into mainstream Israeli society.

Compare that to the pathetic 'refugee camps' blighting the Gazan/Egyptian, Jordanian and Lebanese landscape and the failure of the much larger arabic society to absorb the largely Egyptian-in-origin 'Palestinians' who willingly fled their homes in 1948 to facilitate the hoped for arabic drive to genocide the Jews of Israel and drive them into the sea.

Big Lies: Demolishing the Myths of the Propaganda War against Israel

http://archive.frontpagemag.com/media/pdf/biglies.pdf

Four Leftwing Myths about Israel:

http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2009/09/three-left-wing-myths-about-isra...
___
Defend Christendom. Defend Jewry. Oppose socialism in Europe.

@ kappert

Submitted by traveller on Sat, 2010-10-02 14:11.

I "like" your choice of words: "would only abolish..." like Hitler "only abolished..."

Are you insane?

insane

Submitted by kappert on Sat, 2010-10-02 16:00.

Maybe you like the word 'regime change' much better, I'm sorry. So, Israel should suffer a regime change from a theocratic state to a democratic state, that's not so insane.

Fantasy (5)

Submitted by marcfrans on Fri, 2010-10-01 21:06.

No "border problems" between Lebanon and Syria?  Ignorance, or malicious pretense, may be understandable in the mouth of a military commander of the PLO.  But in the mind of a German teacher?

A Palestine for Arabs and Jews..."as it was so long in history"...?  What 'history' could that be?  History before the Roman empire occupied 'Palestine' (when 'Arabs' as such did not yet exist)?  Or the particular history between the Roman Empire and the more recent Ottoman Empire (run by 'Turks')?  German teachers, who apparently know nothing about real (i.e. factual) history, are especially dangerous for contemporary Jews.

Fantasy vs Reality (2)

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Fri, 2010-10-01 11:14.

Kappert: Perhaps your imaginary state of Palestine could prepare for 'nonviolent resistance against possible invasion and occupation attempts', and would include 'the establishment of a national Department of Peace, and an unarmed service corps trained in strategic nonviolent defense and equipped for mobilization anywhere in the world'. Why not? It 'works' for The U.S. Pacifist Party. The poblem is, I can't find a similar organisation with a similar policy anywhere in the Arab world. I wonder why that might be.

"There are no differences between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. We are all part of one nation. It is only for political reasons that we carefully underline our Palestinian identity... yes, the existence of a separate Palestinian identity serves only tactical purposes. The founding of a Palestinian state is a tool in the continuous battle against Israel". - Zuhair Muhsin, military commander of the PLO Executive Council.

"Natural" borders YOU say.

"Viable" YOU say.

Fantasy vs Reality (4)

Submitted by kappert on Fri, 2010-10-01 15:29.

The military PLO commander gets it right: no borderproblems with Jordan, Syria and Lebanon, and no two-state-solution. A Palestine for Arabs and Jews as it was so long in history.

Getting down to brass tacks

Submitted by KO on Fri, 2010-10-01 18:00.

That is certainly not an evasive position. The elimination of Israel would leave Israeli Jews open to suppression, oppression, and dispossession by the Arabs, as has happened in every other Arab nation. Jews do not thrive in Moslem lands. If you want nothing but misery for Israeli Jews, you have found the right solution.

Fantasy vs Reality

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Thu, 2010-09-30 11:13.

@ Kappert

Perhaps your answer could attempt to differentiate between what you would wish to be reality and reality itself. For example, after 2 years 47 weeks and counting, are you still a 47 year old teacher, or are you a teacher who wishes she was still 47? You get the idea.

Greatness by decree

Submitted by KO on Thu, 2010-09-30 17:16.

The Europhiles thought they could create a strong, prosperous, independent, liberal United States of Europe by administrative fiat. Instead they are creating a dysergy that is less than the sum of its parts, and making each part weaker, less independent, less prosperous, and less liberal in the process. ("Liberal" in the sense of fostering liberty.) It all seems a terrible travesty, though doubtless someone is making money off it.

(Questioning the question of ) Viability (1)

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Thu, 2010-09-30 08:55.

Kappert:

Within these (natural) borders, a VIABLE Israeli-Palestinian STATE should be established. ALL WILL BE HAPPY, NO FURTHER MILITARY ACTION NEEDED.

Or

Guarantee forever no aggression?... There will BE ALWAYS jerks who want to kill, and people will react as always.

Which is it? BOTH statements can't possibly be true .

Head in the shifting sand

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Wed, 2010-09-29 17:28.

I- So you DO believe in the concept of national borders. I'll remind you of this fact the next time you start prattling on about the need to abolish national borders in Western Europe and North America, something you have certainly argued for in the past.

II- How can you GUARANTEE that this nascent state of yours would remain FOREVER free from foreign aggression? And what would be your Plan B should the (un)expected ever happen?

I'll take your answers after the football.

still no borders

Submitted by kappert on Thu, 2010-09-30 08:03.

I said 'natural' not 'national'. And yes, 'national borders' should be abolished, see U.S. of A., European Union. Let's end the farce of colonial drawings. Guarantee forever no aggression? We are talking about humans - the beasts. There will be always jerks who want to kill, and people will react as always - shout for a leader who'll punch them on the nose. Sad history, that.

No border (4a)

Submitted by kappert on Wed, 2010-09-29 16:35.

The natural borders
which define Palestine are the desert in the south, the Jordan river
and the mountains in the North. Even the colonial border creators
noticed that fact. Within these borders, a viable Israeli-Palestinian
state should be established. All will be happy, no further military
action needed. Let's watch football.

Lines in the shifting sand

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Wed, 2010-09-29 12:43.

Kappert: In your last comment you wrote: Anyone who has brains must come to the conclusion that in the end an understanding of jews and arabs is indispensable, then, I hope, they agree to a common state.

Ok. And I'm saying that anyone who has brains will need to accept the fact that a state, ANY state, requires borders which clearly define and differentiate that state from any surrounding state, or states and that those borders need to be defended from any potential outsider aggression.

So, I am asking you to explain to me where you believe the borders to the "common state" you wish for should be drawn and how those borders should be defended. If you use YOUR brains answering that question shouldn't be too difficult

Thank you.

The numbers game

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Wed, 2010-09-29 11:01.

Well, if you want to go down that path I could always argue that the Jews were originally nomadic themselves (Gypsies of sorts) until they settled the land of Canaan. Moreover, if I understand your nomad argument correctly, in addition to having a homeland of their own, they should also be allowed to wander across most modern day states in the Middle East, unhindered, should they wish to do so, paying little regard for local Arab national borders, customs or traditions and paying nothing toward their upkeep.

But that's not my point as you well know. I'm asking you to explain to me how you can be both for and against international borders when it suits your argument to do so and I have used the Israeli-Palestinian problem as the perfect example to highlight the hypocrisy and illogicality of your position on that specific subject.

So, thank you for your initial response but perhaps now you'd be brave enough to answer my original question.

Perhaps you'd also care to give it its appropriate title, No Borders ? (3).

no borders (4)

Submitted by kappert on Wed, 2010-09-29 07:36.

I'm wondering why you talk of Jews when the topic is about gypsies. But you must have your thoughts about that. Regarding the recent Netanyahu/Lieberman circus at the UN, a solution for the conflict is a mirage. So Israel continues the war and the other side throw their stones. Nevertheless, anyone who has brains must come to the conclusion that in the end an understanding of jews and arabs is indispensable, then, I hope, they agree to a common state.

No Borders? (2)

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Tue, 2010-09-28 21:58.

Kappert: The conservative journalist, author and British patriot Peter Hitchens once (in my opinion) correctly observed that 'ANY principled position is admirable even if it's wrong. It's rigid positions taken for corrupt and disreputable reasons or because you are a coward which are to be scorned'. YOU need to ask yourself the question, is my position principled, or do I take it for disreputable reasons or because I am a coward? If you are not a coward you can attempt to prove you are not by answering my question. What say you?

No Borders?

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Mon, 2010-09-27 22:34.

Kappert: Do you actually believe that antibureaucratic's approach is more "out of reality" than some of the positions you adopt on various issues from time to time?

For example, you claim to support a single STATE solution to the Israeli-Palestinian problem, a single STATE in which Jews and Arabs would govern, but you refuse to say where the borders of that STATE would begin or end. If it's a STATE, a STATE requires borders to define the STATE, right? And if you are going to create borders you need to defend those borders from any would-be foreign aggressor, no? But you refuse to say HOW those borders should be defended. But, then again I forgot, you don't believe in borders, do you? But if you don't believe in borders how can you claim to support a single STATE solution to the Israeli-Palestinian problem? Well, I'm asking you, HOW?

Open Borders

Submitted by antibureaucratic on Mon, 2010-09-27 04:07.

"Open borders" is a fine concept, but highly susceptible to abuse.  The culture of any "nation" or "nation-state" or "region" (eg Flanders) needs to be respected by any visitor, and not stayed in simply to abuse a superior social welfare system.  Gypsies are being sent back home presumably because they are not engaging in meaningful work.  So too should refugees be sent home if their intention is only to multiply and live off the taxes of others.  

Regarding news from Bruxelles today - is there any possibility that the explosion in Scaerbeek is the work of terrorists?  Or is it just an accident, or incompetent local authorities?   

no borders

Submitted by kappert on Mon, 2010-09-27 17:34.

Where on earth you want to 'sent home' nomads? Isn't your approach somewhat out of reality?

sending home the nomads

Submitted by antibureaucratic on Tue, 2010-09-28 03:06.

I would only send them home if it can be demonstrated that they do not wish to be a contributing part of the society they have wandered too... If they are self sufficient and are not adversely affecting the quality of life, then perhaps they do have something to contribute, however I suspect this is often not the case.

Re: Gypsies as Thieves?

Submitted by siegetower on Sun, 2010-09-26 13:26.

This is a gross generalisation, but every time we came across Gypsies while on Italian holiday when I was a teenager, they would try to rob my mother.  In broad daylight I might add. It's 10,000 other peoples' exact same experience that leads to such 'stereotypes'.

_____

Defend Christendom. Defend Jewry. Oppose socialism in Europe.

Gypsies as Thieves?

Submitted by dchamil on Sat, 2010-09-25 14:04.

Gypsies are regarded as thieves where they are present in significant numbers. What do you suppose is the basis for this stereotype?