Speaking of Israel...

[Seamus Fermanagh]

We invented your democracy - you're welcome...

Not completely, but certainly the idea that a public forum for debate was good and that a bicameral legislature was useful for checks and balances were stolen from your "Mother of Parliaments." A lot of the rest was cribbed from Republican Rome with a dash of romanticized ancient Greece. Jemmy loved the classics.

We pretty much owe you the entirety of our system of jurisprudence though. I am happy however, that I don't have to see our Personal Injury Lawyers wearing perukes in their advertisements. Morgan & Morgan and Pendas ads are bad enough as things stand.

All-in-all, a "thanks" is appropriate.

There ARE times I wish we had imported the Questions session your Commons uses. All for holding the Executives feet to the metaphorical fire a bit. Of course, you do have those expensive but smoothly decorative royals that can handle some of the silly ceremonial duties that choke our President's schedule -- gives the PM a few hours a week where she/he can be grilled.

[Papewaio]

It's not too late to become a Commonwealth country. Considering that the rest of the five eye nations are...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

PVC He's already bowed out, kindly reserve your mud slinging for someone who is actually asking for it.

OK.

Everything you write sounds like me at 16, before I knew any better.

Happy?

[Noncommunist]

We invented your democracy - you're welcome.

Industrialisation also had no impact on the slave trade because slaves were only used in the colonies, which did not industrialise until much later.

Palastine is actually at least as much YOUR fault because the US funded the Jewish terrorists who forced out the British forces and then started a war against the Arabs.

Africa? Please, don't even start, the parts of Africa that really stink now were run by Belgium, we ran SA and Kenya as well as Zimbabwe - you guys invented Liberia because you hated black people.

India and Pakistan? The Pakistani's refused to live in a country not run by Muslims (they only accepted a multi-religious India under the British jackboot).

Internal British Government papers from the 20's predicted Indian Independence around 1960, as it was thought we would need 40 years to bed-in democracy, so we got started, created the Indian Parliament... then along came Ghandi to accelerate the timetable and it all went wrong.

But we made it actually include people that weren't the 1%. Sure, it took a while to include just about everybody but it was a good bit faster than over on that side of the pond.

Once industrialization hit, the most powerful people weren't the slave owners and they could actually listen to their conscience on that issue instead of stuffing their ears with money.

We may have done that but we didn't set up the entire situation by conquering some large chunk of the Middle East.

Mandela and Klerk saved South Africa from being a repeat of Liberia/preview of Zimbabwe, not some magic British voodoo influence.

They managed to live okay when they were ruled by the Sikhs. And when they were running the show under the Mughals, they did show a fair bit of religious tolerance.

[Greyblades]

I put these together to break through the ever-expanding number of quotes per post and because all of it is related in a way.
First of all, is it cynical to accept a reality? You say the person I am is a result of all the stimuli I got up to this point in life, yet you think we can determine who we are and what we do?
If the mistakes of those who follow us cannot be blamed upon us, yet they can take pride in being formed by our legacy, then I think we have a logical conflict.
Maybe you can take pride in what you do with the legacy of your forefathers, if you have any great say in what you do, but more likely you can be thankful for what they left you with and how they raised you, although that may not be their achievement either but just a function of the stimuli they received themselves. In the end though, even if your brain is an automaton, it is still you and you are your brain. If there were a soul without any physical manifestation that can make completely free decisions, then there would be a sane person behind every mentally ill person or person with brain damage that would be able to determine the damage on a meta-level, like a soul trapped inside a broken machine. This seems impossible to prove however and I'm not aware of any indicators that this may be the case. For all intents and purposes, a decision is the result of the working of the neural network we call our brain. Psychiatrics and others work with the repeatable and predictable patterns that most of these machines show in order to fix them if they have adopted thought patterns that are detrimental to the individual or society.

Pride is a mechanism of this machine that ultimately deludes the machine into thinking that it has reached some sort of superiority over the other machines of its kind, or at least, superiority over a subset. Therefore the fact that I blame Britain for this or that should in no way affect your thankfulness for the improvements your forefathers left you, it can only affect your sense of pride and therefore your feeling of superiority if you delude yourself into thinking, even if subconsciously, that you are somehow superior to e.g. me now because of the things your forefathers did or did not do and the things my forefathers did or did not do.
To me however, the things your forefathers did or did not do do not change my idea of overall equality between the two of us today. If you become a banker or lawyer for HSBC tomorrow, that may change however.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

This post is a result of ongoing brain processes and was written without further refinement or self-review. If you find any fault in the logic of this post, please help my brain rewire and prevent such faulty behavior in the future by pointing out the fault. Thank you.

The idea of the human automaton is a concept that I have heard several times in the last few years and it is a concept that causes both rage and despair in me. Despair because I find it a most horrible idea that would drive me to suicide if I bought into it completely, and it is at a level of complexity that I cannot refute with confidence. It causes Rage because I know that if and when it becomes mainstream there will be a influx of little shits who will see that idea as permission to ignore thier already weak conscience and cause misery because they now believe they have no real responsibility for thier actions.

Correction: further influx of little shits.

My rejection of it shaky in reason and mainly out of emotion, however even though I reject this I cannot deny that the world we live in has it's effects in how we think. Thus came the comment that inspired this; it is basic alternate universe theory, ignoring the unlikelyness of your parents, and thier parents before them, meeting and concieving in the exact same way to produce you without the industrial revolution pushing them together in cities; you would most likely be tending a field or learning a craft in some small german kingdom. You likely wouldnt be able to read, unless you have some aristocratic blood you have yet to share and It would be impossible for you to have the level of proficiency you exhibit now in economic, politic and philisophic fields.

It is the point where the word's influence ends and yours begins that is the question that overhangs the issue, you in that world may make similar decisions in his life, giving to the poor or tolerating a sibiling's antics (insert your actual life here) but he would not be you because he did not grow up in the surroundings of a united industrial Germany, he wouldnt bristle as you do if I called him a nazi or feel a glow if I compared him to Bismark, because neither would have been anywher near as prevelant in his understanding of the world(if they existed at all) if humanity never progressed from the semi feudalism of the 18th century. I choose to believe that the instinctual thought and past experience (experience observed not learnt through academia) is down to you surroundings but you who chooses what actions you take in response to those thoughts, the choice betwen punching or ignoring an offending person is what makes the soul.

As for pride, a lot of my reactions are probably irrational, in the vein of a university rivalry. You might have only joined Oxford yesterday and you might not believe yourself better than camebridge students but when your institute is accused of nazi sympathies by a cambridge student because in the 1930's oxford might have included some nazis, (that Cambridge most likely did as well) rational thought isn't going stop you being hurt by it because through even the slightest association with the college's past you identify insults to the whole as an insult to you.

I like to believe I am not dumb enough to think being a part of what I see as the best whole makes me instantly better than the parts of other wholes. The hope is that through being the end product of the assumed best institute we call the british nation (harder and harder to assume these days, damn germany making the rest of us actually work for our laurels) I have been given an advantage over the others but I prefer to think it is what you do with that advantage that proves superiority between individuals. Sad to say, haven't been using my advantage to the fullest, yet. I'm still going to get defensive when the source of that advantage is degraded, rightly or no.

Then Rory_20_UK comes along and not only kicks the idea that the superior institution has survived into the present to the curb, he also destroyed the defense mechanism of assuming jealosy of the detractor. A wake up call that kicked me into an existential panic and is still making me rethink a lot of things.

OK.

Everything you write sounds like me at 16, before I knew any better.

Happy?

Thinking I am smarter than I really am? Yes I expect that I am somewhere in that phase, but you?

I used to think of you as a role model, so smart and coherent with a touch of wisdom that was seemingly undeniable. You have your moments. But that chip on your shoulder, that knee jerk reacton to retaliate to a percieved slight against you or your national identity even while the insulter has withdrawn his comments, well, if I remind you of your 16 year old self then in this case you most certainly have not learnt better in the years hence.

Ugh. Even I get sick of my fellow britons at times, good people, quite a few who are smarter than they look, but so many of us have the cultural sensitivity (and eysesight apparantly) of a dump truck.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Greyblades reminds me of how angry I was at things just a few years ago.

[Husar]

The idea of the human automaton is a concept that I have heard several times in the last few years and it is a concept that causes both rage and despair in me. Despair because I find it a most horrible idea that would drive me to suicide if I bought into it completely, and it is at a level of complexity that I cannot refute with confidence. It causes Rage because I know that if and when it becomes mainstream there will be a influx of little shits who will see that idea as permission to ignore thier already weak conscience and cause misery because they now believe they have no real responsibility for thier actions.

Correction: further influx of little shits.

But nothing would change, responsibility would still exist because we still wouldn't want troublemakers to roam around freely. Even today responsibility of individuals only exists either in theory or if the rest of society actually holds people responsible through force. And none of that would change. If you hit me in the face, society will lock you up, whether you made a free decision or whether your brain was wired that way. What might change could be the ideas and efforts to reprogram the brains of troublemakers in order to rewire them into society-compliant individuals. I'm sure you like that idea.

It is the point where the word's influence ends and yours begins that is the question that overhangs the issue, you in that world may make similar decisions in his life, giving to the poor or tolerating a sibiling's antics (insert your actual life here) but he would not be you because he did not grow up in the surroundings of a united industrial Germany, he wouldnt bristle as you do if I called him a nazi or feel a glow if I compared him to Bismark, because neither would have been anywher near as prevelant in his understanding of the world(if they existed at all) if humanity never progressed from the semi feudalism of the 18th century.
[...]
I choose to believe that the instinctual thought and past experience (experience observed not learnt through academia) is down to you surroundings but you who chooses what actions you take in response to those thoughts, the choice betwen punching or ignoring an offending person is what makes the soul.

But if there is a soul that is me, then even the Feudal Husar with my soul would be me, even though his body and mind may be different, he would be me, and there would be no alternative to prove otherwise. It's only when you take away the soul that a different development of body and mind would lead to a different me, because the mind is what basically makes me me then.
As for what you choose to believe, the way you phrase your post, it is not a choice in any way, more like a reaction you have for fear of the alternative. In other words, input -> existing wiring -> output. Fear would even be one of the most basic animalistic reactions where it is pretty much scientifically proven that that part of the brain where fear-induced decisions are made can hardly be said to make any logical decisions based on throrough deliberation. It's like saying the rabbit chose to run away from the wolf. You'd hardly take that as the prime example of free choice.

Oh and that part about me bristling is a lie, not sure where you got that from. I used to get angry when people called me gay, but nowadays I'm okay with both for the most part since what other people call me does not change who I am.

As for pride, a lot of my reactions are probably irrational, in the vein of a university rivalry. You might have only joined Oxford yesterday and you might not believe yourself better than camebridge students but when your institute is accused of nazi sympathies by a cambridge student because in the 1930's oxford might have included some nazis, (that Cambridge most likely did as well) rational thought isn't going stop you being hurt by it because through even the slightest association with the college's past you identify insults to the whole as an insult to you.

No, why? My current university is not very prominent, but I take neither pride nor shame from that and would rather rate it by the things I am taught. If I learn something useful and logical, then that's great, certainly better than basically buying your degree in some prestigious institution that gives grades based on how much money your daddy paid for the library.
A lot of the other things people learn at successful universities are about how to manipulate others into thinking you're great because that is what you mostly learned at your university.
And nazi insults are just a last resort that usually comes up when they have no actual argument anyway.

I like to believe I am not dumb enough to think being a part of what I see as the best whole makes me instantly better than the parts of other wholes. The hope is that through being the end product of the assumed best institute we call the british nation (harder and harder to assume these days, damn germany making the rest of us actually work for our laurels) I have been given an advantage over the others but I prefer to think it is what you do with that advantage that proves superiority between individuals. Sad to say, haven't been using my advantage to the fullest, yet. I'm still going to get defensive when the source of that advantage is degraded, rightly or no.

But what does that mean? Does it mean that you can rightfully feel superior to the Africans whose lives you ruined as a successful investment banker by gaining food subsidies that let your clients undermine the profit of local African farmers?
Is that making the best out of the advantage you were given? Or is it dismantling the superiority of your own nation over others in order to allow others to rise and have a better life as well? Or something in between?

Then Rory_20_UK comes along and not only kicks the idea that the superior institution has survived into the present to the curb, he also destroyed the defense mechanism of assuming jealosy of the detractor. A wake up call that kicked me into an existential panic and is still making me rethink a lot of things.

As I said before, panic and fear are bad advisors for rational thought because they completely circumvent it.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Thinking I am smarter than I really am? Yes I expect that I am somewhere in that phase, but you?

I used to think of you as a role model, so smart and coherent with a touch of wisdom that was seemingly undeniable. You have your moments. But that chip on your shoulder, that knee jerk reacton to retaliate to a percieved slight against you or your national identity even while the insulter has withdrawn his comments, well, if I remind you of your 16 year old self then in this case you most certainly have not learnt better in the years hence.

Ugh. Even I get sick of my fellow britons at times, good people, quite a few who are smarter than they look, but so many of us have the cultural sensitivity (and eysesight apparantly) of a dump truck.

ACIN's post was full of historical inaccuracies which I rebutted - with my tongue half in my cheek - and Seamus finished the loop but pointing out that my first point was somewhat fallacious.

I read ACIN's post and responded, I didn't see the later post until after anyway, you're being childish by making a big thing out of it. If I thought ACIN was being an arsehole I would have said so.

You're now being a Premadona AND and Arsehole, quite an achievement.

Honestly, if you ever saw me as a role model you're a terrible judge of character because I'm obviously a high functioning socio-path who's also highly moral and therefore suffers from crippling self-loathing.

[Kadagar_AV]

OK.

Everything you write sounds like me at 16, before I knew any better.

Happy?

Everything and anything else aside, this is for me the best PVC post of the decade...

I love him with gloves on... I effin LOVE him with gloves off

[a completely inoffensive name]

Everyone first hates the world they are presented with. And they become angry. Then, after some time, they realize the intractable nature of the way things are. And they become despondent. Then, after even more time, they begin to see the good in what they initially dismissed and choose to identify themselves in the institutions they hated. And they become proud. Then, with a lot more time, they see society pass them by and finally understand the fragility of things and the malleability of institutions over time. And they become scared. Then, with a little more time, they die. And they become happy for once.

Save yourself from this morbid trip Greyblades and just skip step 1 and 2 and become proud, stubborn assholes like the rest of us, or be apathetic like the majority of society.

[Greyblades]

You mean I'm not already a proud, stubborn asshole?

But nothing would change, responsibility would still exist because we still wouldn't want troublemakers to roam around freely. Even today responsibility of individuals only exists either in theory or if the rest of society actually holds people responsible through force. And none of that would change. If you hit me in the face, society will lock you up, whether you made a free decision or whether your brain was wired that way. What might change could be the ideas and efforts to reprogram the brains of troublemakers in order to rewire them into society-compliant individuals. I'm sure you like that idea.

As politics have shown us time and again there are plenty of ways for the budding psychopath to cause mysery to his fellow man without incurring a corrective response from society. The way I see it the entire concept is nhilistic, "the soul is the deulsion of the brain, nothing really matters" which would be fine if it couldnt easily turn into: "so lets get rich off the misery of others".

Each benefit you predict coming from I see as easily coming without it, boiled down it looks like yet another hollow, yet pervasive, justification for the selfish to rationalise being selfish. I loath everything about it and yet I cant dismiss it completely because I don't have the confidence in my own capacity to disprove it.

But if there is a soul that is me, then even the Feudal Husar with my soul would be me, even though his body and mind may be different, he would be me, and there would be no alternative to prove otherwise. It's only when you take away the soul that a different development of body and mind would lead to a different me, because the mind is what basically makes me me then.

I fear I am getting to the limits of ability to remember the twists and turns this conversation have taken over the last week, one more post and I might end up forgetting how we ended up talking about alternate universes.

The soul being a point of contention that 2000 years have yet to solve, lets forget the certainty of him being you and instead look at him as a potential doppleganger. This man of his era is a sexist, racist, homophobic bigot, he has not been touched by the aftermath of two world wars and thus is ignorant to the potential harm his views could cause his fellow man.

Less philisophical: he lives in dirt and defecates into his main source of drinking water, his family has likely lost most of it's children at birth and by his 20th birthday his bilogical mother likely died in childbirth.

If I remember correctly this started out as a wish that the industrial revolution never happened, so you, the 21st century man with the consequences of predjudice fully etched on your psyche and a penchant for hygene utterly alien to this man, do you A) want this man to be considered you and B) do you really believe you would want to trade places with him?

I might be remembering it wrong, and instead of a wish for the industrial revolution to never have happened you merely wish that someone else achieved industrialisation first, in which case I wonder what I was thinking when I replied to it.

Oh and that part about me bristling is a lie, not sure where you got that from. I used to get angry when people called me gay, but nowadays I'm okay with both for the most part since what other people call me does not change who I am.

No, why? My current university is not very prominent, but I take neither pride nor shame from that and would rather rate it by the things I am taught. If I learn something useful and logical, then that's great, certainly better than basically buying your degree in some prestigious institution that gives grades based on how much money your daddy paid for the library.
A lot of the other things people learn at successful universities are about how to manipulate others into thinking you're great because that is what you mostly learned at your university.

Everything good germany did and everything it has done since cannot be counted as beneficial because between 1936 and 1945 men who you do not know and are only marginally related to committed atrocities that had been done many times in history by many people including the ones now condemning you. Anything any german ever did or will do deserves to be dismissed with a callous wave towards a 9 year period. Why you and not everyone else who comitted atrocities? Because you are german and you are monsters.

The twinge of guilt and shame I felt while writing that blatantly wrong paragraph is likely miniscule to the amount of rage and indignation that you felt and that anyone would feel if I had replaced German with British/American/French/Dutch/Ukranian/Norwegian/Turkish/whatever group the reader considers him/herself. In my understanding of the world there is no human alive or dead who would not feel anything when thier nation, state, county, villiage or tribe is insulted. It might be dulled through repetition, ignored through logic or brushed off, and being able to resist showing it affected you and not retaliating is be something to congratulate. To claim you felt nothing at any level however is frankly impossible for me to comprehend, especially because in the 6 years I have observed your veneer of unflappability crumble on occasion.

And nazi insults are just a last resort that usually comes up when they have no actual argument anyway.

That's because it's overused, it's easy to ignore, though when there is a element of truth even that overused insult can sting, and the embarrassing prevelance of nazi sympathies in 1930's britain might actually hit that insecurity in an oxfordian.

As for what you choose to believe, the way you phrase your post, it is not a choice in any way, more like a reaction you have for fear of the alternative. In other words, input -> existing wiring -> output. Fear would even be one of the most basic animalistic reactions where it is pretty much scientifically proven that that part of the brain where fear-induced decisions are made can hardly be said to make any logical decisions based on throrough deliberation. It's like saying the rabbit chose to run away from the wolf. You'd hardly take that as the prime example of free choice.

But what does that mean? Does it mean that you can rightfully feel superior to the Africans whose lives you ruined as a successful investment banker by gaining food subsidies that let your clients undermine the profit of local African farmers?
Is that making the best out of the advantage you were given? Or is it dismantling the superiority of your own nation over others in order to allow others to rise and have a better life as well? Or something in between?

As I said before, panic and fear are bad advisors for rational thought because they completely circumvent it.

As you might have noticed my last post was half reply half introspection; the concept of pride in the thing that raised me being one of the things I was rethinking. I mean it's obviously founded in emotion, but that doesnt exactly detract from it's prelevance. I feel, like fear, it should be controled but to ignore it completely would be detrimental.
I'll get back to you, but dont expect me to shed it completely.

[Greyblades]

Getting back on topic, I dont think we've covered Netanyahu's most recent antic yet.

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/02/...hu-speech.html

[Hooahguy]

The whole thing makes me utterly disgusted. Just deny Bibi entry, charge Boehner under the Logan Act and be done with this fiasco.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

How can we deny Bibi entry? We can deny him a visit to Congress etc., but he's welcome at Disneyworld....

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Everything and anything else aside, this is for me the best PVC post of the decade...

I love him with gloves on... I effin LOVE him with gloves off

Right back at you buddy, but if you sleep with my sister I will travel to Sweden where I will commission a traditional blacksmith to forge me an +Ulfber+t blade, and then I will use it to kill you.

After all, if you're going to gaol you might as well field test an historical weapon of unmatched awesomeness.

[Hooahguy]

How can we deny Bibi entry? We can deny him a visit to Congress etc., but he's welcome at Disneyworld....

Yeah thats what I meant. Even most Israelis hate what hes doing. If he actually goes its going to set off a storm that I will gleefully follow.

[Kralizec]

Bibi also pissed off France and Denmark when he urged all European jews to migrate to Israel after the latest terrorist attacks...because there's no chance of such a thing happening in Israel, ever.

Pretty much everyone outside of Israel seems to dislike the man, except US Republicans (who are wrong as usual, if you ask me). But he's pretty successful at getting himself reelected. Does he have any redeeming qualities? I confess I know next to nothing of his domestic policies

[Husar]

If I'm not mistaken, a lot of Israelis like tough guys like him because they're afraid the Palestinians will be all over them if they elect someone "weak".

[Hooahguy]

Bibi also pissed off France and Denmark when he urged all European jews to migrate to Israel after the latest terrorist attacks...because there's no chance of such a thing happening in Israel, ever.

Pretty much everyone outside of Israel seems to dislike the man, except US Republicans (who are wrong as usual, if you ask me). But he's pretty successful at getting himself reelected. Does he have any redeeming qualities? I confess I know next to nothing of his domestic policies

US republicans and religious Zionists are basically his only fans abroad. I know nothing of his economic policies but lets face it, everything is kind of secondary to how he deals with the conflict. Whats worse is that his potential successor, Naftali Bennett is actually worse, saying that under his watch a Palestinian nation will never happen, and how they will basically be always under occupation.

If I'm not mistaken, a lot of Israelis like tough guys like him because they're afraid the Palestinians will be all over them if they elect someone "weak".

The country is pretty split I think. The ones who like him are also the ones who are more nationalistic anyways and they have those notions about Palestinians even without a tough guy" leading the country.

[Kadagar_AV]

Right back at you buddy, but if you sleep with my sister I will travel to Sweden where I will commission a traditional blacksmith to forge me an +Ulfber+t blade, and then I will use it to kill you.

After all, if you're going to gaol you might as well field test an historical weapon of unmatched awesomeness.

[Fragony]

If I'm not mistaken, a lot of Israelis like tough guys like him because they're afraid the Palestinians will be all over them if they elect someone "weak".

And they are absolutily right to think so.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

And they are absolutily right to think so.

That would end up being a chicken/egg kinda argument Frags. Are the Palestinians radicalized necessitating strong, aggressive Israeli leaders or are strong, aggressive Israeli leaders leading to Palestinian radicalization?

[Kralizec]

In the past, the IDF used to demolish houses of Palestinian families if one of their relatives had been involved in terrorism. It was discontinued by the IDF because there was no proof it acted as a deterrent. In fact, there were clues it had the opposite effect. Netanyahu reinstated the policy to make himself tough.

And in another episode, the Mossad advises the USA against sanctions on Iran because they predict it would be counterproductive. Netanyahu had pressed for these sanctions vigorously, with US republicans following his lead.

But sure, Israel is in safe hands with a tough guy like Netanyahu and his flock of pliant republicans. It wouldn't do to have weak-minded organisations like the IDF or the Mossad deciding how to do things.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Hah! The Mossad. Clearly a bunch of starry-eyed pollyannas.

[Fragony]

That would end up being a chicken/egg kinda argument Frags. Are the Palestinians radicalized necessitating strong, aggressive Israeli leaders or are strong, aggressive Israeli leaders leading to Palestinian radicalization?

The Palestinians are refugees from Libanon. Arabs are discriminated in Israel but that is a social issue, it's wrong but when put in perspective of the hate against Israel it becomess neglectable. They just hate jews and must kill them wherever they find them. Israel grabs no land, it is perfectly fine with what they got after just about the entire arab world attacked them, and the arabs lost because their camels routed. Are we going to reshape the map of Europe as well.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The Palestinians are refugees from Libanon. Arabs are discriminated in Israel but that is a social issue, it's wrong but when put in perspective of the hate against Israel it becomess neglectable. They just hate jews and must kill them wherever they find them. Israel grabs no land, it is perfectly fine with what they got after just about the entire arab world attacked them, and the arabs lost because their camels routed. Are we going to reshape the map of Europe as well.

Yeesh. Just to set things at closer to acknowledged fact in the interest of clear discussion....

Some Palestinian Arabs lived, and still liv, in Lebanon. Many live in what is today Israel. Many live in refugee 'camps' in neighboring Jordan, as well as in the West Bank and Gaza which are -- to some extent at least -- under Palestinian authority. Quite a number of them come from families who vacated what is today Israel to get out of the way of the fighting -- at the request of Arab neighbors -- in 1948.

Israel not only established itself without waiting for the official imprimatur of the UN, but also annexed territory they had acquired during the 1948 conflict that went past the proposed UN boundaries of 1947. Israel then acquired more land -- Gaza, the West bank, and Sinai -- after their successful offensive war in 1967. The Sinai was subsequently returned to Egyptian sovereignty, while most of Gaza and the West Bank were remanded to the Palestinian authority. Jerusalem, also acquired in 1967, has not been returned and has been designated by Israel as their capital. Feel free to argue that Israel may keep any of these lands by right of conquest (and even agree with Israel that they attacked in 1967 only to forestall an -- admittedly likely -- Arab assault), but do not live among the sidhe and continue to believe that "Israel grabs no land."

Palestinians are not, in their entirety, haters of Jews and need not "kill them wherever they find them." I had at least one Palestinian in a class last year -- a conflict management class by-the-by -- and none of my Jewish students in that same class expressed any concern -- nor did they have to go to the student health center to get patched up.

In short, stop stereotyping an entire culture in a couple of sentences. Your sniping at Palestinians has all the verifiable "truth" of any other stereotype -- like all those Dutch wearing wooden shoes and skating everywhere they go.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The Palestinians are refugees from Libanon. Arabs are discriminated in Israel but that is a social issue, it's wrong but when put in perspective of the hate against Israel it becomess neglectable. They just hate jews and must kill them wherever they find them. Israel grabs no land, it is perfectly fine with what they got after just about the entire arab world attacked them, and the arabs lost because their camels routed. Are we going to reshape the map of Europe as well.

We reshaped the map of the Middle East and planted a colony in Palastine - expecting the Palastinians to be "over it" is crass and stupid - even so they aren't all rabid Jew killers, though I'd wager they do hate the Jews for taking their land.

This bloody fracticidal war has been going on for decades, and the Jews started it - and will happily kill their own brothers and sisters just because they converted to Christianity of Islam a thousand odd years ago.

[Kralizec]

(and even agree with Israel that they attacked in 1967 only to forestall an -- admittedly likely -- Arab assault)

Was an Arab attack really a probable scenario then? I've read much about it but my impression was that it probably wasn't. The troops that Egypt sent into the Sinai were more for propaganda purposes than anything else. It was about visibly/theatricly retaking the land after it had been a UN administered buffer zone forcibly imposed on them after the Suez crisis, which unquestionably was an unprovoked attack by Israel (& friends). And the Arab performance during this war suggests that they were not just surprised but completely unprepared for any sort of war, unlike the Yom Kippur war several years later.

In any case, it's hard to see why Palestinians should pay for the policies of their Arab neighbours.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Was an Arab attack really a probable scenario then? I've read much about it but my impression was that it probably wasn't. The troops that Egypt sent into the Sinai were more for propaganda purposes than anything else. It was about visibly/theatricly retaking the land after it had been a UN administered buffer zone forcibly imposed on them after the Suez crisis, which unquestionably was an unprovoked attack by Israel (& friends). And the Arab performance during this war suggests that they were not just surprised but completely unprepared for any sort of war, unlike the Yom Kippur war several years later.

In any case, it's hard to see why Palestinians should pay for the policies of their Arab neighbours.

I saw some history channel stuff that said that Egypt and Syria, in particular, were forward deploying air assets and were putting afv's through their "fresh tracks to be ready" maintenance. There is also some suggestion that efforts were being made to up morale prior to an assault. It is, of course, every bit as probable that this was part of the ongoing posturing common to that era. The general assessments that I have read -- admittedly from sources neutral to or even supportive of Israel -- suggest that an attack was likely. Nobody can prove that one had been ordered and the various Arab states publicly asserted that they had no such intention.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Kad, you wouldn't survive the attempt, Em, would kill you.