Trump calls the bluff

[Peter]

Or, “Does this bomb make me look splat?”

[anthony]

Palestinians: Israel is One Big Settlement

by Bassam Tawil  •  February 26, 2018 at 5:00 am

(Since this can't be stated often enough).

[Peter]

The Times of Israel May 14, 2018.
As US embassy opens, Netanyahu declares: Trump, you have made history.

With dozens dead in Palestinian riots on Gaza border, American mission is dedicated in Jerusalem in presence of top US, Israeli. Officials protests 10min ago Arab League blasts ‘shameful’ countries celebrating US embassy move By Raoul Wootliff and Marissa Newman Today, 12:31 pm 5

[BaalChatzaf]

8 hours ago, Peter said:

The Times of Israel May 14, 2018.
As US embassy opens, Netanyahu declares: Trump, you have made history.

 

 

With dozens dead in Palestinian riots on Gaza border, American mission is dedicated in Jerusalem in presence of top US, Israeli. Officials protests 10min ago Arab League blasts ‘shameful’ countries celebrating US embassy move By Raoul Wootliff and Marissa Newman Today, 12:31 pm 5

 

 

Who cares what the Arab League thinks?

 

[Peter]

15 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Who cares what the Arab League thinks?

 

I thought the use of the word, “shameful” was interesting. To their thinking they have the moral “high ground.” They need to be segregated from Israelis because they will murder Israelis but to them it is justifiable homicide. When they riot and pillage they only use knives and slingshots but the Israeli military is defending itself with rifles, so the Arab League has the moral high ground. The Israeli’s have created a draconian “theocracy” so they have the moral high ground even though the theocracy they believe in would murder people of other religions unless they converted. So, should anyone care what they think?           

[anthony]

1 hour ago, Peter said:

I thought the use of the word, “shameful” was interesting. To their thinking they have the moral “high ground.” They need to be segregated from Israelis because they will murder Israelis but to them it is justifiable homicide. When they riot and pillage they only use knives and slingshots but the Israeli military is defending itself with rifles, so the Arab League has the moral high ground. The Israeli’s have created a draconian “theocracy” so they have the moral high ground even though the theocracy they believe in would murder people of other religions unless they converted. So, should anyone care what they think?           

 

 

Yes, "disproportionate force" confers automatic moral high ground. Also, disproportionate fatalities. 

It is all orchestrated drama for the West's cameras, Peter, every bit. They have been here before, and are old hands at playing to the built-in bias of the BBC, etc.. Hamas counts its triumphs by the number of their own Gazan people they can get killed by Israel. The more civilians, the better. You bet, Israelis and other Jews are more upset and worried about the death toll than are Hamas leaders.

60 dead the last I saw, Israel says 24 were Hamas operatives, while Hamas admits to only 13.

[Peter]

This is not meant for anyone but I heard an odd expression on TV last night. “There is an ass for every saddle.” That is funny.

I agree with Tony. “Hamas counts its triumphs by the number of their own Gazan people they can get killed by Israel.”

Hamas is a terrorist organization. The Palestinians are not protesters, marching and singing. They are attacking Israel. So I agree with Israel, and our UN ambassador that every country in the UN would destroy anyone attacking it.

However, I still think a theocratic state is wrong. Having a state religion is wrong. So, I think we should support “. . . .  the last and farthest outpost of America,” but urge them to become a secular state. Israel’s unique “history” does not change that.

We should be able to put our embassy where we like, with Israel’s OK, but, the leaders of Israel and the U.S. knew the decision to move would cause strife. So, as Ba’al might say about the Palestinians, “the heck with them.” But I still recognize that they are concerned about “their future.”

And that brings up another diplomatic point. We should cancel our war games with South Korea until after the summit, and nothing would be lost. 

[anthony]

4 hours ago, Peter said:

 

 

 

Hamas is a terrorist organization. The Palestinians are not protesters, marching and singing. They are attacking Israel. So I agree with Israel, and our UN ambassador that every country in the UN would destroy anyone attacking it.

 

 

 

"Hamas is a terrorist organization" - well, exactly. A terror gang which is well armed, but elected for publicity reasons to show only slingshots to the world presently. And yet we see the immorality of EU countries, (and South Africa) and others, and the major media, giving moral support to a terror group over a sovereign, democratic state.

Where have you ever seen this in the civilised world?

I don't know how you can perceive of or advise Israel to become secular, Peter. (Although many Israelis are secular). To do so would mean a demographic upheaval, relinquishing the idea of an autonomous Jewish State, so defeating the specific identity of the country and its original purpose - i.e., at times like now when Jews are under strain in parts of Europe and Britain, with growing anti-Semitism from the ultra Right, the Left and Muslim immigrants - there'd be no place to escape to, as some are now doing.

It is not yet a theocracy, btw. All citizens of all the religions have equal rights and representation in the Knesset. The make up is 75% Jewish, 17% Muslim-Arab Israelis, and then Christian, Druze, Hindu and so on. 

[Peter]

Anthony wrote: I don't know how you can perceive of or advise Israel to become secular, Peter. (Although many Israelis are secular). To do so would mean a demographic upheaval, relinquishing the idea of an autonomous Jewish State, so defeating the specific identity of the country and its original purpose - i.e., at times like now when Jews are under strain in parts of Europe and Britain, with growing anti-Semitism from the ultra Right, the Left and Muslim immigrants - there'd be no place to escape to, as some are now doing . . . . It is not yet a theocracy, btw. All citizens of all the religions have equal rights and representation in the Knesset. The make up is 75% Jewish, 17% Muslim-Arab Israelis, and then Christian, Druze, Hindu and so on.  end quote

Yes Tony. It would be a better and a more moral choice to become a free country and not an autonomous Jewish State, that puts its stamp on all walks of life for the secular Jews, Muslims and Christians. That is not freedom. And Jews could still “escape’ to a secular Israel. I find the idea of a Jewish State as dumb as an American Jewish borough State, or an Italian borough State of Long Island, New York. If a neighborhood in South Africa had a largely Jewish population would it be right to call it a Jewish State? I know there are different tribes in South Africa, but it is still one country, not White Man’s Land or Zulu Land.

America is the best model I know for living freely. Our laws don’t identify us as a Christian Nation. We have welcomed almost everyone since our country’s origin. Any nationality can cluster together if they wish. Many cities have a Little Italy, China Town, or even Vietnamese communities after refugees came here, but we all live freely without restricting or punishing any group of people.

NO. Jews do have a special status in history but that does not give them the right to infringe on the rights of other citizens. You mentioned that you know a lot of Secular Jews inhabit Israel. What would change for them if it became the Free State of Israel? Nothing. The culture would be the same. The languages would be the same. Yet no one would be forced to conform.     

[anthony]

(a recent post from a friend of ours, at minimum indicating the proximity of Israeli civilians to the Gaza border, a mile or two, some places).

 

13 May at 06:42 · 

 

To all my friends and family who have been messaging me to ask if we are ok.

Yes, our wheat fields around the kibbutz are burning, yes another attack tunnel from Gaza has just been destroyed, yes, the Palestinians from Gaza are planning the million man march to break into Israel opposite the kibbutz tomorrow, yes, the Iranians continue to arm themselves with ballistic missiles aimed at Israel and build an atomic bomb.

Our enemies will continue trying to destroy us, will continue living in misery, not producing, not improving their lives and perpetuating ignorance.

But yes, we will continue to build, to invent, make music, improve the standard of living of our people and to defend ourselves.

After 2,000 years of exile and the almost total destruction of our nation, we are finally home in our ancient homeland, speaking our own language, our own culture and religion. Our fate at last, is in our own hands, and not the hands of others.

We have been blessed.

Ralph Lewinsohn

[anthony]

13 hours ago, Peter said:

Anthony wrote: I don't know how you can perceive of or advise Israel to become secular, Peter. (Although many Israelis are secular). To do so would mean a demographic upheaval, relinquishing the idea of an autonomous Jewish State, so defeating the specific identity of the country and its original purpose - i.e., at times like now when Jews are under strain in parts of Europe and Britain, with growing anti-Semitism from the ultra Right, the Left and Muslim immigrants - there'd be no place to escape to, as some are now doing . . . . It is not yet a theocracy, btw. All citizens of all the religions have equal rights and representation in the Knesset. The make up is 75% Jewish, 17% Muslim-Arab Israelis, and then Christian, Druze, Hindu and so on.  end quote

 

 

Yes Tony. It would be a better and a more moral choice to become a free country and not an autonomous Jewish State, that puts its stamp on all walks of life for the secular Jews, Muslims and Christians. That is not freedom. And Jews could still “escape’ to a secular Israel. I find the idea of a Jewish State as dumb as an American Jewish borough State, or an Italian borough State of Long Island, New York. If a neighborhood in South Africa had a largely Jewish population would it be right to call it a Jewish State? I know there are different tribes in South Africa, but it is still one country, not White Man’s Land or Zulu Land.

 

 

America is the best model I know for living freely. Our laws don’t identify us as a Christian Nation. We have welcomed almost everyone since our country’s origin. Any nationality can cluster together if they wish. Many cities have a Little Italy, China Town, or even Vietnamese communities after refugees came here, but we all live freely without restricting or punishing any group of people.

 

 

NO. Jews do have a special status in history but that does not give them the right to infringe on the rights of other citizens. You mentioned that you know a lot of Secular Jews inhabit Israel. What would change for them if it became the Free State of Israel? Nothing. The culture would be the same. The languages would be the same. Yet no one would be forced to conform.     

Peter,

I think this points to the common misconception about Jewishness being only religious.

A succinct reply I found to the question online:

"Jews are an ethnoreligious group, meaning that Jewish identity is both ethnic and religious, or for some, only one of the two. In the same way there is ... both the Hindu religion and the Indian ethnicity, there is the Jewish religion and the Jewish ethnicity".

In short, if one could wave the magic wand and make every Israeli (or any Jews in the world) "secular", nothing changes; they and their descendants will remain "Jewish". For themselves - and as identified by others. What it would mean to secularize Israel would be Jews there being overwhelmed demographically, and if as evident, by surrounding Arabs/Palestinians, soon to be isolated, driven out, and worse. Muslims by and large carry a passed down and learned loathing and superior disdain for Jews, (it didn't help in the matter of hubristic pride that Jews have beaten them in several wars, and have generally demonstrated their better survivability and 'thrivability' - or "self-valuing") and so the distinction: e.g. "This one is not a religious Jew" - would matter not a fig.  He is still "a Jew".

I am not an apologist for "religion" per se, to be clear, and abjure any form of collectivism-tribalism - but I've discovered some religious individuals can be exceptional people, and some atheist individuals anything but. Of course I stand for the right for all to practise their religions without interference. But what I defend strongly above that, is the right of Jews -as a race and ethnicity- to self-determination in an uncertain world which continues yet again to pick out or pick upon Jews one way or the other, for simply being - looking, sounding, acting, and named - etc. - "Jewish". Therefore, the necessity of the Jewish State back then, and in future. 

(btw, I'm puzzled: there is no "forcing to conform"  in Israel that I know of. It's said that if one hears two Israelis argue, one will hear three opinions. There is firm rule of law ( while conceding that the ultra-orthodox minority and their Party are noisesome pests trying to constrict individual liberties.) 

[Peter]

In the long term, can a Jewish state continue to exist? Will America and other countries continue to be struck by Islamic Terrorists? One must assume Barbara agreed whole heartedly with the letter at the end because I can’t tell how much she wrote, other than the heading and her name at the bottom. But the quotes are excellent, and illustrate the conclusions about who we should allow to immigrate to our shores. In the case of Islam, too many of them are glad to see the extremists murder people.

Would you want them living next door to you? We have an enclave of people from Arabia and Persia, Christians and Muslims, living near us and they have succeeding in businesses, and none of them seem to beg for money or commit crimes other than a few who were arrested for buying cigarettes in Virginia and selling them in their Maryland stores without paying the correct taxes. But some of the older women still wear the quaint dresses and head scarfs, which reminds me of a trip into Amish country a few years ago. A little boy, maybe ten was on a corner dressed in full Amish attire, and begging for money. I think he was a fake.

Peter        

From: BBfromM To: atlantis Subject: ATL: Paul Johnson on Islam (Steve: don't read) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 01:12:27 EDT Relentlessly and Thoroughly. The only way to respond. By Paul Johnson, a historian and journalist whose forthcoming book is a history of art. From the October 15, 2001, issue of National Review

Old and uncompromising words were spoken by American (and British) leaders in the immediate response to the Manhattan Massacre. But they may be succeeded by creeping appeasement unless public opinion insists that these leaders stick to their initial resolve to destroy international terrorism completely. One central reason why appeasement is so tempting to Western governments is that attacking terrorism at its roots necessarily involves conflict with the second-largest religious community in the world.

It is widely said that Islamic terrorists are wholly unorthodox in their belief that their religion sanctions what they do, and promises the immediate reward of heaven to what we call "suicide bombers" but they insist are martyrs to the faith. This line is bolstered by the assertion that Islam is essentially a religion of peace and that the very word "Islam" means "peace." Alas, not so. Islam means "submission," a very different matter, and one of the functions of Islam, in its more militant aspect, is to obtain that submission from all, if necessary by force.

Islam is an imperialist religion, more so than Christianity has ever been, and in contrast to Judaism. The Koran, Sura 5, verse 85, describes the inevitable enmity between Moslems and non-Moslems: "Strongest among men in enmity to the Believers wilt thou find the Jews and Pagans." Sura 9, verse 5, adds: "Then fight and slay the pagans wherever you find them.

And seize them, beleaguer them and lie in wait for them, in every stratagem [of war]." Then nations, however mighty, the Koran insists, must be fought "until they embrace Islam."

These canonical commands cannot be explained away or softened by modern theological exegesis, because there is no such science in Islam. Unlike Christianity, which, since the Reformation and Counter Reformation, has continually updated itself and adapted to changed conditions, and unlike Judaism, which has experienced what is called the 18th-century Jewish enlightenment, Islam remains a religion of the Dark Ages. The 7th-century Koran is still taught as the immutable word of God, any teaching of which is literally true. In other words, mainstream Islam is essentially akin to the most extreme form of Biblical fundamentalism. It is true it contains many sects and tendencies, quite apart from the broad division between Sunni Moslems, the majority, who are comparatively moderate and include most of the ruling families of the Gulf, and Shia Moslems, far more extreme, who dominate Iran. But virtually all these tendencies are more militant and uncompromising than the orthodox, which is moderate only by comparison, and by our own standards is extreme. It believes, for instance, in a theocratic state, ruled by religious law, inflicting (as in Saudi Arabia) grotesquely cruel punishments, which were becoming obsolete in Western Europe in the early Middle Ages. Moreover, Koranic teaching that the faith or "submission" can be, and in suitable circumstances must be, imposed by force, has never been ignored.

 

On the contrary, the history of Islam has essentially been a history of conquest and re-conquest. The 7th-century "breakout" of Islam from Arabia was followed by the rapid conquest of North Africa, the invasion and virtual conquest of Spain, and a thrust into France that carried the crescent to the gates of Paris. It took half a millennium of re-conquest to expel the Moslems from Western Europe. The Crusades, far from being an outrageous prototype of Western imperialism, as is taught in most of our schools, were a mere episode in a struggle that has lasted 1,400 years, and were one of the few occasions when Christians took the offensive to regain the "occupied territories" of the Holy Land.

The Crusades, as it happened, fatally weakened the Greek Orthodox Byzantine Empire, the main barrier to the spread of Islam into southeast and central Europe. As a result of the fall of Constantinople to the ultra-militant Ottoman Sultans, Islam took over the entire Balkans, and was threatening to capture Vienna and move into the heart of Europe as recently as the 1680s.

This millennial struggle continues in a variety of ways. The recent conflicts in Bosnia and Kosovo were a savage reaction by the Orthodox Christians of Serbia to the spread of Islam in their historic heartlands, chiefly by virtue of a higher birthrate. Indeed, in the West, the battle is largely demographic, though it is likely to take a more militant turn at any moment. Moslems from the Balkans and North Africa are surging over established frontiers on a huge scale, rather as the pressure of the eastern tribes brought about the collapse of the Roman Empire of the West in the 4th and 5th centuries A.D. The number of Moslems penetrating and settling in Europe is now beyond computation because most of them are illegals. They are getting into Spain and Italy in such numbers that, should present trends continue, both these traditionally Catholic countries will become majority Moslem during the 21st century.

The West is not alone in being under threat from Islamic expansion. While the Ottomans moved into South-East Europe, the Moghul invasion of India destroyed much of Hindu and Buddhist civilization there. The recent destruction by Moslems in Afghanistan of colossal Buddhist statues is a reminder of what happened to temples and shrines, on an enormous scale, when Islam took over. The writer V. S. Naipaul has recently pointed out that the destructiveness of the Moslem Conquest is at the root of India's appalling poverty today. Indeed, looked at historically, the record shows that Moslem rule has tended both to promote and to perpetuate poverty.

Meanwhile, the religion of "submission" continues to advance, as a rule by force, in Africa in part of Nigeria and Sudan, and in Asia, notably in Indonesia, where non-Moslems are given the choice of conversion or death. And in all countries where Islamic law is applied, converts, whether compulsory or not, who revert to their earlier faith, are punished by death.

The survival and expansion of militant Islam in the 20th century came as a surprise. After the First World War, many believed that Turkey, where the Kemal Ataturk regime imposed secularization by force, would set the pattern for the future, and that Islam would at last be reformed and modernized. Though secularism has “so far” survived in Turkey, in the rest of Islam fundamentalism, or orthodoxy, as it is more properly called, has increased its grip on both the rulers and the masses. There are at present 18 predominantly Islamic states, some of them under Koranic law and all ruled by groups that have good reason to fear extremists.

Hence American policymakers, in planning to uproot Islamic terrorism once and for all, have to steer a narrow path. They have the military power to do what they want, but they need a broad-based global coalition to back their action, preferably with military contributions as well as words, and ideally including such states as Pakistan, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt. To get this kind of support is not easy, for moderate Moslem rulers are far more frightened of the terrorists than of Americans, and fear for their lives and families. The danger is that they will insist on qualification of American action that will amount, in effect, to appeasement, and that this in turn will divide and weaken both the administration and U.S. public opinion.

It is vitally important that America stick to the essentials of its military response and carry it through relentlessly and thoroughly. Although only Britain can be guaranteed to back the White House in every contingency, it is better in the long run for America to act without many allies, or even alone, than to engage in a messy compromise dictated by nervousness and cowardice. That would be the worst of all solutions and would be certain to lead to more terrorism, in more places, and on an ever-increasing scale. Now is the ideal moment for the United States to use all its physical capacity to eliminate large-scale international terrorism. The cause is overwhelmingly just, the nation is united, the hopes of decent, law-abiding men and women everywhere go with American arms. Such a moment may never recur.

The great William Gladstone, in resisting terrorism, once used the phrase, "The resources of civilization are not yet exhausted." That is true today. Those resources are largely in American hands, and the nation "the last, best hope of mankind" has an overwhelming duty to use them with purposeful justification and to the full, in the defense of the lives, property, and freedom of all of us. This is the central point to keep in mind when the weasel words of cowardice and surrender are pronounced. Barbara

[Peter]

Anthony wrote: In short, if one can wave the magic wand and make every Israeli (or any Jews in the world) "secular", they and their descendants will remain "Jewish". To themselves - and as identified by others. end quote

Seriously? I don’t think so. It’s a cliché. Once humans have left their tribal mentalities does everyone think of themselves as an Italian South African, or an English American, for example? Do words and expressions “from the homeland” need to pop up in everyday conversations? No. That behavior is learned. Now, someone may cherish or be embarrassed by their heritage (and their heritage clinging relatives) but it is up to them if they want to be considered a hyphenated person such as Jewish-American. I always thought the best, comedic rendering of that notion was on the TV show, “Seinfeld.”

“Ma! Enough already,” said little Jerry.:” Stop it with the dreidels and matzo balls. I want toy soldiers and turkey for the holidays. That’s right! I want to celebrate Christmas.”

I wonder if 7 foot tall, former NBA pro basketball player Kareem Abdul Jabar (formerly Loy Alcindor) would be offended if someone came up to him on the street and asked him if he were a Swahili? He would probably say, “Hell no. I am an American.” But by switching over to Muslim at some point in his life, he was looking for a different identifying attachment. I doubt that he seriously thinks of himself as an African Muslim today, or a Swahili, though I am not sure.

So what is SO inherent within Judaism or Jewishness that makes it a person’s most outstanding characteristic? Oy vey! Do adopted kids with Jewish genes and Swedish adopted parents necessarily think of themselves as Jewish?      

[Peter]

And now Nikki has called “the bluff.”

Peter

Excerpts from Nikki Haley Walks Out of UN As Palestinian Envoy Starts Speaking by Cortney O'Brien Posted: May 16, 2018 8:32 AM

U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley made quite the statement on the Middle East at Tuesday's Security Council meeting - and it had nothing to do with her speech. After the ambassador had finished condemning Hamas for the violence on the Gaza-Israel border this week and Palestinian Ambassador Riyad H. Mansour instead began condemning Israeli forces, she got up and left.

"No country in this chamber would act with more restraint than Israel has," Haley said at the Security Council meeting. "In fact, the record of several countries here today suggest that they would be less restrained."

Who can blame Israel for simply wanting to defend itself? end quotes

[anthony]

On 5/16/2018 at 9:46 PM, Peter said:

Anthony wrote: In short, if one can wave the magic wand and make every Israeli (or any Jews in the world) "secular", they and their descendants will remain "Jewish". To themselves - and as identified by others. end quote

 

 

Seriously? I don’t think so. It’s a cliché. Once humans have left their tribal mentalities does everyone think of themselves as an Italian South African, or an English American, for example? Do words and expressions “from the homeland” need to pop up in everyday conversations? No. That behavior is learned. Now, someone may cherish or be embarrassed by their heritage (and their heritage clinging relatives) but it is up to them if they want to be considered a hyphenated person such as Jewish-American. I always thought the best, comedic rendering of that notion was on the TV show, “Seinfeld.”

 

 

“Ma! Enough already,” said little Jerry.:” Stop it with the dreidels and matzo balls. I want toy soldiers and turkey for the holidays. That’s right! I want to celebrate Christmas.”

 

 

I wonder if 7 foot tall, former NBA pro basketball player Kareem Abdul Jabar (formerly Loy Alcindor) would be offended if someone came up to him on the street and asked him if he were a Swahili? He would probably say, “Hell no. I am an American.” But by switching over to Muslim at some point in his life, he was looking for a different identifying attachment. I doubt that he seriously thinks of himself as an African Muslim today, or a Swahili, though I am not sure.

So what is SO inherent within Judaism or Jewishness that makes it a person’s most outstanding characteristic? Oy vey! Do adopted kids with Jewish genes and Swedish adopted parents necessarily think of themselves as Jewish?      

I'm on a slightly different slant, Peter, so bear with me. All things ethnic, I think, are not "a cliche" when most people actually, in real life, ~believe~ in them and act accordingly. Then, it's a dangerous reality to others. This is what we must face, that most people, in varying degrees, relate to their ethnicities as primary and consuming over their individuality.

Collectivism, when individuals define, identify themselves and others by ethnic (group, etc.) inessentials or superficialities, and who draw from and give up their value to some mystical 'tribal bloodline'.

(I don't think I'm being overly sensitive to what I see and hear in the world today - or forgetful of those many collectivist attitudes prevalent in my younger days, when I conclude that now could be the worst collectivist period for a long time. I don't know when this universalized epidemic of collectivism will bottom out, but it had better turn around, fast).  

Back to your remarks, first, obviously not everyone is American, with a greater amount of personal liberty and that unique "American" characteristic - and second, much fewer are individualist-Objectivists who are explicitly aware of the logical and moral wrongs and injustices of collectivism. You recall I was speaking of specifically European Jews (and South African, who are at this moment facing vicious verbal attacks from this contemptible, collectivist Government -blamed for Israel's recent actions) -- i.e., those Jews who can't escape collectivism and their "Jewishness" even if they wanted to, no matter how well they've assimilated and given top loyalty to their country of birth/adoption. As in the past, they've always integrated very well wherever theyv'e landed up, when allowed to. But each will continue to be seen by many other Europeans as "Jewish", first and always. That special selection almost eliminated them in the past. While not that same existential threat, there are signs of Jews being identified 'apart' over there, again now. So, for solidarity, comfort and security in those largely collectivist European nations, many do cling to their "group identity". That it is a pity, and not how any people should be, it is the reality of what is. I can't blame them for seeking greater freedom to be themselves, religious and secular, in a Jewish homeland. There in greater freedom, too, many will be able to and have indeed become, more completely individualistic.

[Peter]

Anthony euphemistically used a scientifically sounding phrase when he referred to Jews from the holocaust as knowing, “That special selection almost eliminated them in the past.”

Special Selection. I had to think about that. But it does encapsulate the horror without pounding on a drum. Well said, Tony.

I looked up a “male model” who is the only guy other than the host Drew Carey, on my favorite American game show, “The Price is Right,” and he is an Australian actor. On his “hire me page” he says he can speak English like any Englishman, even a Cockney, like an Australian, an American, or a South African.  

Orlando Bloom, “Lord of the Onion Rings.” You can call me Blooming Onion, as I am known to my friends at Outback Steakhouse. Do you have Outback’s in South Africa? 

 

[anthony]

And of course, predictably, the Left-Socialist and Islamist alliance have won this battle. Useless to trot out the facts of Gazan past doings and deadly mission statements, or of life-values contrasted with self-sacrifice, in the face of a major "meme" which has been accepted worldwide in a deluge of articles, social media and programs: The "massacre" by Israelis. For which Jews everywhere will be and are condemned. But I don't see any media follow-up on the fact, admitted by Hamas in an unusual about-face, that 50 of those targeted by the IDF and shot dead out of 62 were their own militant operatives, not civilians. So, the spectacle of one minute's silence at the UN - for terrorists. The UN - who sat still for years of civilian massacres in Syria, and Christians and others, by ISIS. Well done to the courageous Nikky. She and the President have injected *reality* into world affairs I.e. - You have the power to determine your own good futures, and must, if you will be worthy to other nations (and thinking individualists). That cold reality and self-interested morality is clearly what is hateful to many. Now I can return to the fairytale land of Princes and princesses and suchlike...

[anthony]

[Peter]

It's time for an invasion. Obviously, everyone living in Gaza is complicit because they are not stopping the monsters from firing at civilians in Israel, over and over again. Israel will not target civilians. So, go in. Fix the problem. Get out. Re-apply as needed, upping the strength of the dose at each occurrence. I doubt they need to be told to defend themselves.  

[anthony]

https://www.timesofisrael.com/hamas-paid-family-to-say-baby-killed-by-tear-gas-says-gaza-terror-suspect/?utm_source=The+Times+of+Israel+Daily+Edition&utm_campaign=ebc6164b93-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_06_21_11_16&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_adb46cec92-ebc6164b93-54914065

[anthony]

20 hours ago, Peter said:

It's time for an invasion. Obviously, everyone living in Gaza is complicit because they are not stopping the monsters from firing at civilians in Israel, over and over again. Israel will not target civilians. So, go in. Fix the problem. Get out. Re-apply as needed, upping the strength of the dose at each occurrence. I doubt they need to be told to defend themselves.  

I can't say completely complicit, Peter - although the Gazans did 'vote' like sheep for the terror organisation, Hamas, believing it could overthrow Israel as it still promises. They are now at the mercy of their brutal regime and in increasing poverty, but could not oust it even if they wanted to. Something has to give, clearly things can't go on this way year on year, but I don't know the answer. Of course one can predict the global outcry and condemnation if Israel invaded. When Palestinians/Gazans first found out that a Leftist Europe applauds the suffering, self-sacrificial underdog or 'martyrs', over a despised, rational, self-valuing Israel, that put paid to future peace efforts. They can indefinitely continue attacking Israel and getting moral and financial support (in their certainty they will one day overrun Israel). The Israeli skepticism and resistance to Two States (with the West Bank) is predicated on the knowledge of what will certainly happen, as it did with Gaza when Israel pulled out -- Hamas, or any terrorists, will take over from the feeble Palestinian Authority, and Israel will have conflicts on both West and East fronts. You can't grant some people their independence, it seems, it has to be earned. In the mean time Hamas will go on trying to get its own civilians killed for media headlines and the IDF will go on doing its damnedest not to kill any 'innocents' placed in the line of fire.

[william.scherk]

https://www.timesofisrael.com/hamas-prepared-to-make-comprehensive-deal-with-israel-report/

[anthony]

Wonderful. Where else in the world and in history, has one side in conflict offered to trade two captured men and two bodies for an airport and sea port?

[Peter]

Anthony wrote: In the meantime Hamas will go on trying to get its own civilians killed for media headlines and the IDF will go on doing its damnedest not to kill any 'innocents' placed in the line of fire. end quote

And William gave a link that stated that Hamas is ready to make a deal with Israel after murdering more Israelis.

An old letter of mine, edited for clarity.

What would Ayn Rand’s philosophical character John Galt do? What would be rational and objective?” A postulated, fictional President Ayn Rand would require the big picture before answering. So what would she do in today’s real world? The basic humanity in “saving the Jews from genocide” is a cultural and historical necessity. I think Rand’s gut thinking would be, “Wouldn’t you have to?” She would defend Israel.

The “Save the Brains imperative” (that Brant expressed in 2011) is on the level of global, human evolutionary action. Because of her insistence on eliminating any science from her *egalitarian volition* concept this might be a hard sell to Ayn. She said the facts of different groups IQ’s were somehow racist and stock yard collectivism. She despised eugenics as a phony theory. In line with the upcoming Atlas Society debate, I posit a scenario. There is a debate between Ayn Rand, and the top experts in evolutionary psychology. Wolf could moderate. Would she lose the debate? Six months or a year of rethinking might bring her to their scientific position but for different reasons. She would defend Israel (not because European Israelis have an average IQ of 117) but because of its strategic importance in the Mideast. And she would defend *family.* The Jews in Israel are genetically closer to her family. She may have “family ties” in Israel. That is harsh but it is every humans gut feeling: Save my family!

To save the Jews and Arabs of Israel who create technology, is a more personal, profit motive. Would she think it rational to save physicists, creators of computer technology and medical technologists if they are on the cutting edge of human innovation? Yes, it would be in her self-interest. Is it in our strategic interest to protect the oil pipelines from the Middle East? Of course it is. At the same time our protection of Israel would provide protection for Saudi Arabia and other oil producing countries. President Ayn Rand would save Israel.

Is it in our self-interest to keep our mutual defense treaty with Israel? Who else do we have in that area who would risk their lives to rescue one of America’s downed airmen? We could count on the Saudis. Who would also, unhesitatingly provide us with their airspace? If a U.S. military jet crashed landed, who would cheer the survivors? Israel. Who would butcher or hold the survivors for ransom? Iran, Hamas in Israel and Lebanon. What would the average Palestinian do if the cell phones and cameras weren’t rolling? That is in doubt.

Who shares our objective, Western values? Israel. Ayn Rand might reasonable carp about the level of Israel’s socialism, but she would save Israel. Rand always maintained it was “righteous” to shoot a looter, or a murderer, or to destroy a dictator. She said they were the human equivalent of *mad dogs*. The key for a country’s “righteous though extended use of self-defense,” would be: if it is not in my country’s “current” national security interests, what would be the cost to the United States in lives and money? Would a President Rand drone strike or incarcerate the heads of Hamas and all the Palestinian initiators of force? Probably. What do you think John Galt would do? Would Rand stand next to Francisco and John Galt on the borders of Israel with a gun in each hand, shooting the terrorists? Yes she would. Ayn Rand would defend Israel. So would I.

We should improve the “iron dome” we aided Israel to construct. It doesn’t appear to be working except with large, older rockets that invade Israeli air space. Peter Taylor

Some quotes from the speeches of Benjamin Netanyahu: Israel is the last and farthest outpost of America . . . . You don't have to read Robert Frost to know. You have to live life to know that the difficult path is usually the one less traveled, but it will make all the difference for the future of my country, the security of the Middle East and the peace of the world, the peace, we all desire . . . . . And I wish I could promise you, Elie, that the lessons of history have been learned. I can only urge the leaders of the world not to repeat the mistakes of the past . . . . We are no longer scattered among the nations, powerless to defend ourselves. We restored our sovereignty in our ancient home. And the soldiers who defend our home have boundless courage. For the first time in 100 generations, we, the Jewish people, can defend ourselves. This is why -- this is why, as a prime minister of Israel, I can promise you one more thing: Even if Israel has to stand alone, Israel will stand. end quote 

[william.scherk]

2 hours ago, A Great Seer said:

She would defend Israel (not because European Israelis have an average IQ of 117) but because of its strategic importance in the Mideast. And she would defend *family.* The Jews in Israel are genetically closer to her family. She may have “family ties” in Israel. That is harsh but it is every humans gut feeling: Save my family!

I ran my words through "Joanne," as she cannot ever sound angry about anything. I, Joanne talks about Ayn Rand and god's future plans.

William rants about Hamas.

 

In my imaginary Great Seeing, a rational god (or like being with connections and physical threats and torments at hand)  would help out by ending the First World War and the end of the Ottoman Empire with a fairer solution for people who ended up without a country or nationality to this day. Then rational god would prune the bushes and figure out how to deal with messes of military action and human migration.

(migration of tormented peoples like the Jews and the notion of national mythic homelands is not going away, so the foremost ethical minds already decided that Wars are Human Emergencies. Yeah, we knew that. Wars, great wars and boring little civil wars, produce migrations, flows of people who may or may not have any rights anywhere along their journeys or settlements. See: Roma, Jew, prisoner of war, Vietnam, Congo)

If the rational god convened an ecumenical council from all the cults and sects and groupings on earth while keeping veto power over any decisions, the first thing out would be some tired old reiteration of truisms about our species. "We are One Species" puke puke.

That out of the way, on to fixing up the errors in the arenas of highest conceptual conflict. Yup, the old Holy Lands.

Why did the end of the Ottoman Empire leave a former province as a Mandate?  Yeah.

What basic law undergirds all Israeli law? Would that be the law retained from mandatory authorities? Yeah.

God would say, design a set of laws, with basic human rights, one that applies to every individual under your control.  I want a New Deal.

He'd give a deadline, say a hundred years. He would be the Guaranteeing Power, like the USA between DPRK and ROK as they replace a 'temporary' armistice with a robust peace.

Hamas is an Islamist cult wearing the garb of a governing power, thoroughly distorted by its militant mission. Everything that Hamas has touched has turned to shit. There is a stand-off with the only administrative power recognized by the Israeli state:  The PA.  The PA is an undemocratic beast at the best of times, but it has the only doorway propped open to face-to-face dealings. 

Hamas, stupidly, does everything it can to inflame every situation it can influence or bring under its control. It has thoroughly fucked up its relationship with Egypt such that it cannot even be trusted at its own borders. It provokes the hard as nails Israeli military to respond with overwhelming force of fire to anything from a kite to a rocket.  

Hamas, so stupidly entrenched in a bizarre "Does this work?" irrationality, is propped up by Iran, of all places. Now, Iran supports Syria, which makes Hamas slightly split-brained, because the Syrians smashed the fuck out of its own 'uprising' drawing critiques from Hamas, which was booted out of Syria, but everyone is smiling for the cameras now because Israel will pound the fuck out of any Hamas-Hezbollah-Iran 'defenses' built or implanted in Syria. Meaning, Israel flies at will above Syrian airspace to keep Iran a distance from its borders. 

Simple.

Hamas, stupidly, does not examine its own hideous record of doing every wrong thing in a row and then making everything worse. Every escalation makes things worse for its subject peoples.  And they don't get a say or much chance to let us here hear their critiques and laments, because in a One Party State with a tradition of militancy and crazed stupidity, you are a Traitor and disappear into the Hamas version of the gulag.

Hamas, stupidly, has no one to talk for them with any international power to change anything in their favour, except just maybe Egypt. Egypt right now fucking hates Hamas.

So, if god or Rand cannot intervene, and we don't know what kind of deal Jared and Donald and Bibi and Vlad are gonna come up with, I am going to bet on Hamas fucking up even this tiny step toward de-escalation reported sideways in Jerusalem.

If ever ideology has given a better example of Doing It All Wrong, at least this week, I dunno.

 

Edited June 22, 2018 by william.scherk
I, Joanne sounds calmly crazy, but hey. Her only narrative stumble was over "PA," which she pronounces "Pennsylvania," instead of the intended "Palestinian Authority" ...