http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/uriks/article3433138.ece
Don't have an english link yet, but Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten references an article by an "american academic" that claims to have interviewed Jehuda Hiss of the israeli forensic institute Abu Kabir in 2000 who claims that parts were harvested from corpses "often without the consent of the families of the deceased"
I wonder where this story will go next. :lol:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/dec/20/israel-admits-harvesting-palestinian-organs
Good.
What actually happened is a bit different than what you're implying Slargos.
Quote
Channel 2 TV reported that in the 1990s, specialists at Abu Kabir harvested skin, corneas, heart valves and bones from the bodies of Israeli soldiers, Israeli citizens, Palestinians and foreign workers, often without permission from relatives.
The Israeli military confirmed to the programme that the practice took place, but added: "This activity ended a decade ago and does not happen any longer."
Hiss said: "We started to harvest corneas ... whatever was done was highly informal. No permission was asked from the family."
However, there was no evidence that Israel had killed Palestinians to take their organs, as the Swedish paper reported. Aftonbladet quoted Palestinians as saying young men from the West Bank and Gaza Strip had been seized by the Israeli forces and their bodies returned to their families with missing organs. The interview with Hiss was released by Nancy Sheppard-Hughes, professor of anthropology at the University of California-Berkeley who had conducted a study of Abu Kabir.
And how do we know what you quote is true? Is there a reason why you don't link to the source?
"However, there was no evidence that Israel had killed Palestinians to take their organs, as the Swedish paper reported." If you had read the article in question, you'd know what was actually written is a bit different from what your article doesn't imply, but quite expressively says. It was never "reported" that Israel did kill Palestinians to take their organs, nor was it claimed such evidence existed. It is true, as the article continues to say, that Aftonbladet "quoted Palestinians as saying young men from the West Bank and Gaza Strip had been seized by the Israeli forces and their bodies returned to their families with missing organs". But if we now can say that organs have indeed been harvested from dead Palestinians, do we not have every reason in the world to now believe these stories to be true?
No. For one thing they took organs without permission from Israelis as well and I don't see anyone claiming they killed Israelis just for that. Secondly taking organs from a dead body without permission is a negligible crime in comparison to killing someone for the express purpose of using their organs. The later is several orders of magnitude more heinous and reprehensible.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 21, 2009, 02:13:10 AM
No. For one thing they took organs without permission from Israelis as well and I don't see anyone claiming they killed Israelis just for that. Secondly taking organs from a dead body without permission is a negligible crime in comparison to killing someone for the express purpose of using their organs. The later is several orders of magnitude more heinous and reprehensible.
You don't understand. Read this part of my post again: "It was never 'reported' that Israel did kill Palestinians to take their organs, nor was it claimed such evidence existed."
It was
implied that the reporter found credible the stories told to him by Palestinians. In the article he calls for further investiation. That is not to
report "this has happened", which your quote wrongly leads us to believe. And you still don't say where you found it. I assume you have good reason not to.
Anyway, we can now see he was quite correct to find the stories of these Palestinians credible (with all that entails). Despite massive cries of "antisemitism" we are now told Palestinians actually
were harvested for organs. I'm glad to see the journalist was vindicated - if this additional information had not come out the Israeli smear campaign of lies and defamation would have
him known as a liar.
Selective reporting can be misleading without being objectively untrue, Pat.
If the Israelis were harvesting organs from dead people, without regard to their ethnicity, then reporting it as "Israelis harvest organs from dead Palestinians" make it look much more sinister than it really is.
Also, it may be a language barrier issue, but saying "Palestinians were harvested for organs" implies something else than what the article is saying.
This is the original Aftonbladet article in English translation: http://www.aftonbladet.se/kultur/article5691805.ab
Please tell me in what way it is "misleading".
Edit: Certainly the writer makes his personal beliefs quite clear. All that is implied. But you are free to draw your own conclusions.
QuoteAlso, it may be a language barrier issue, but saying "Palestinians were harvested for organs" implies something else than what the article is saying.
Which article do you mean? We are talking about several.
Reading through the discussion again it seems we have, in some ways, been talking past each other.
Edit: though I still stand by all my points, of course - the only thing I'd like to take back is the "You do not understand." part towards jimmy olsen, which might not have been entirely justified as I phrased it (but the claim is of course still entirely justified in other more important ways)
And immediately with the reflexive verbal assaults.
I linked to the first article I read on the subject which was in Norwegian, and I gave a rough outline of what they claimed in the article. I even used the word "claimed" when in fact they stated it as truth and I could've gone the bullshit route of "it's in the paper so it must be true".
Then, I noted that I don't have any links to the article in english, but went ahead and found a link to an English newspaper running the same story.
Since you're referring to the original Aftonbladet story, I will note that I was sceptical in that case aswell.
Of course, you guys obviously shouldn't let the facts get in the way of your point of view. That would be incredibly inconveniencing.
I feel slightly dirty for having to defend myself in this fashion, so to summarize: Fuck you both.
Quote from: Pat on December 21, 2009, 02:46:53 AM
Also, it may be a language barrier issue, but saying "Palestinians were harvested for organs" implies something else than what the article is saying.
Which article do you mean? We are talking about several.
[/quote]
"Palestinians were harvested for organs" means they were picked up and killed in order to have their organs removed. So I meant the articles that are not saying that.
Quote from: Martinus on December 21, 2009, 02:41:56 AM
Selective reporting can be misleading without being objectively untrue, Pat.
If the Israelis were harvesting organs from dead people, without regard to their ethnicity, then reporting it as "Israelis harvest organs from dead Palestinians" make it look much more sinister than it really is.
Also, it may be a language barrier issue, but saying "Palestinians were harvested for organs" implies something else than what the article is saying.
Selective reading comprehension can be misleading as well.
Never once did I even use the word "Palestinians".
Quote from: Slargos on December 21, 2009, 04:42:34 AM
Quote from: Martinus on December 21, 2009, 02:41:56 AM
Selective reporting can be misleading without being objectively untrue, Pat.
If the Israelis were harvesting organs from dead people, without regard to their ethnicity, then reporting it as "Israelis harvest organs from dead Palestinians" make it look much more sinister than it really is.
Also, it may be a language barrier issue, but saying "Palestinians were harvested for organs" implies something else than what the article is saying.
Selective reading comprehension can be misleading as well.
Never once did I even use the word "Palestinians".
I wasn't responding to you, but to Pat. I understand you may have been confused by the fact that I addressed my post to Pat in its first sentence, though.
Quote from: Martinus on December 21, 2009, 04:46:45 AM
Quote from: Slargos on December 21, 2009, 04:42:34 AM
Quote from: Martinus on December 21, 2009, 02:41:56 AM
Selective reporting can be misleading without being objectively untrue, Pat.
If the Israelis were harvesting organs from dead people, without regard to their ethnicity, then reporting it as "Israelis harvest organs from dead Palestinians" make it look much more sinister than it really is.
Also, it may be a language barrier issue, but saying "Palestinians were harvested for organs" implies something else than what the article is saying.
Selective reading comprehension can be misleading as well.
Never once did I even use the word "Palestinians".
I wasn't responding to you, but to Pat. I understand you may have been confused by the fact that I addressed my post to Pat in its first sentence, though.
Sorry.
I could've worded myself differently, but you misunderstood my intent.
Let's just forget it ever happened, you snide fucking faggot.
Quote from: Martinus on December 21, 2009, 04:39:32 AM
Quote from: Pat on December 21, 2009, 02:46:53 AM
Also, it may be a language barrier issue, but saying "Palestinians were harvested for organs" implies something else than what the article is saying.
Which article do you mean? We are talking about several.
"Palestinians were harvested for organs" means they were picked up and killed in order to have their organs removed. So I meant the articles that are not saying that.
[/quote]
No, it doesn't mean that. It means exactly what it says and nothing more - that their bodies were harvested for organs. Please do inform me where you get the "picked up and killed" part from.
We do not have any hard evidence of Palestinians being "picked up and killed" - but the circumstances surrounding the events makes it quite possible, indeed I might even use the word
likely, that things very similar to that have happened. If Israel truly has nothing to hide, it should lay all it's cards on the table and provide full insight into what has been going on. Indeed, if they have nothing to hide, that's the only logical thing to do. It would be in their best interest. Considering this, it will be interesting to see their behaviour. And it is interesting to
have seen their behaviour.
"To harvest someone for something" is not the same as "to harvest something from someone's dead body".
What I said was "Palestinians were harvested for organs". Unless the Palestinians were harvested of their organs while still alive, something I don't think anyone has proposed, I think it goes without saying their organs were harvested from their dead bodies.
Waste not want not
Martinus' understanding of English is superior to his understanding of the law.
Sounds pretty major to me.
Quote from: Pat on December 21, 2009, 05:55:41 AM
What I said was "Palestinians were harvested for organs". Unless the Palestinians were harvested of their organs while still alive, something I don't think anyone has proposed, I think it goes without saying their organs were harvested from their dead bodies.
The allegation was that the Israelis were killing palestinians for their organs. The reality was (assuming the latest allegations are true) that the forensics lab did not have proper ethics guidelines, and was taking corneas etc. from
everyone (Israeli and Palestinian alike) without getting approval from next-of-kin first.
Here's the Guardian article. The Guardian is hardly friendly to Israel:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/dec/21/israeli-pathologists-harvested-organs
Quotehas admitted pathologists harvested organs from dead Palestinians, and others, without the consent of their families – a practice it said ended in the 1990s – it emerged at the weekend.
The admission, by the former head of the country's forensic institute, followed a furious row prompted by a Swedish newspaper reporting that Israel was killing Palestinians in order to use their organs – a charge that Israel denied and called "antisemitic".
The revelation, in a television documentary, is likely to generate anger in the Arab and Muslim world and reinforce sinister stereotypes of Israel and its attitude to Palestinians. Iran's state-run Press TV tonight reported the story, illustrated with photographs of dead or badly injured Palestinians.
Ahmed Tibi, an Israeli Arab MP, said the report incriminated the Israeli army.
The story emerged in an interview with Dr Yehuda Hiss, former head of the Abu Kabir forensic institute near Tel Aviv. The interview was conducted in 2000 by an American academic who released it because of the row between Israel and Sweden over a report in the Stockholm newspaper Aftonbladet.
Channel 2 TV reported that in the 1990s, specialists at Abu Kabir harvested skin, corneas, heart valves and bones from the bodies of Israeli soldiers, Israeli citizens, Palestinians and foreign workers, often without permission from relatives.
The Israeli military confirmed to the programme that the practice took place, but added: "This activity ended a decade ago and does not happen any longer."
Hiss said: "We started to harvest corneas ... whatever was done was highly informal. No permission was asked from the family."
However, there was no evidence that Israel had killed Palestinians to take their organs, as the Swedish paper reported. Aftonbladet quoted Palestinians as saying young men from the West Bank and Gaza Strip had been seized by the Israeli forces and their bodies returned to their families with missing organs. The interview with Hiss was released by Nancy Scheper-Hughes, professor of anthropology at the University of California-Berkeley who had conducted a study of Abu Kabir.
She was quoted by the Associated Press as saying that while Palestinians were "by a long shot" not the only ones affected, she felt the interview must be made public, because "the symbolism, you know, of taking skin of the population considered to be the enemy, [is] something, just in terms of its symbolic weight, that has to be reconsidered."
Israel demanded that Sweden condemn the Aftonbladet article, calling it an antisemitic "blood libel". Stockholm refused, saying that to so would violate freedom of speech in the country. The foreign minister then cancelled a visit to Israel, just as Sweden was taking over the EU's rotating presidency.
Hiss was removed from his post in 2004, when some details about organ harvesting were first reported, but he still works at the forensic institute.
Israel's health ministry said all harvesting was now done with permission. "The guidelines at that time were not clear," it said in a statement to Channel 2. "For the last 10 years, Abu Kabir has been working according to ethics and Jewish law."
Israel is a laughable country. Film at 11.
QuoteThe allegation was that the Israelis were killing palestinians for their organs. The reality was (assuming the latest allegations are true) that the forensics lab did not have proper ethics guidelines, and was taking corneas etc. from everyone (Israeli and Palestinian alike) without getting approval from next-of-kin first.
The circumstances surrounding the events, as presented in the Aftonbladet article, which I, for one, now deem credible, makes it likely that Palestinians were, while (maybe) not "picked up and killed" quite possibly "killed and picked up" and then brought back five days later without any organs. That is bad enough.
The writer tells about the things he has seen with his own eyes and the stories told to him by Palestinians. It is implied that he finds the stories told to him credible, particularly in the light of what he has seen himself. But he doesn't
report "this has happened" or levy any "allegations" against Israel. In the article he calls for further investigation into the matter. And quite rightly so!
For that he was made the target of a viscious smear campaign. I wonder if he will receive an apology?
edit: added a "maybe"
Did any of the alleged victims actually come forward, or is it just a wild speculation at this point?
Quote from: DGuller on December 21, 2009, 05:32:30 PM
Did any of the alleged victims actually come forward, or is it just a wild speculation at this point?
The alleged victims are dead. :lol:
Quote from: Pat on December 21, 2009, 04:15:28 PM
QuoteThe allegation was that the Israelis were killing palestinians for their organs. The reality was (assuming the latest allegations are true) that the forensics lab did not have proper ethics guidelines, and was taking corneas etc. from everyone (Israeli and Palestinian alike) without getting approval from next-of-kin first.
The circumstances surrounding the events, as presented in the Aftonbladet article, which I, for one, now deem credible, makes it likely that Palestinians were, while (maybe) not "picked up and killed" quite possibly "killed and picked up" and then brought back five days later without any organs. That is bad enough.
The writer tells about the things he has seen with his own eyes and the stories told to him by Palestinians. It is implied that he finds the stories told to him credible, particularly in the light of what he has seen himself. But he doesn't report "this has happened" or levy any "allegations" against Israel. In the article he calls for further investigation into the matter. And quite rightly so!
For that he was made the target of a viscious smear campaign. I wonder if he will receive an apology?
edit: added a "maybe"
The answer is "no". And he doesn't deserve any.
Fact is that the obvious
innuendo of his article is the accusation that Israelis are killing folks for their body parts.
This is a fundamentally
different issue than "an Israeli pathologist failed to get informed consent for corneal harvesting" or even
worse misdeeds by pathologists.
Fact is, the latter is old news and the Swedish fellow is hardly breaking a story about it; check out the date on this story: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1173179/
So ... again, what is the point of "calling for investigation"?
Fact is, the
only thing truly "new" about the Swedish story is the allegation-by-strong-innuendo (wholly defamatory and based on
zero actual evidence) that Israeli soldiers were
shooting folks to get their organs.
Quote from: Malthus on December 21, 2009, 05:42:23 PM
Quote from: Pat on December 21, 2009, 04:15:28 PM
QuoteThe allegation was that the Israelis were killing palestinians for their organs. The reality was (assuming the latest allegations are true) that the forensics lab did not have proper ethics guidelines, and was taking corneas etc. from everyone (Israeli and Palestinian alike) without getting approval from next-of-kin first.
The circumstances surrounding the events, as presented in the Aftonbladet article, which I, for one, now deem credible, makes it likely that Palestinians were, while (maybe) not "picked up and killed" quite possibly "killed and picked up" and then brought back five days later without any organs. That is bad enough.
The writer tells about the things he has seen with his own eyes and the stories told to him by Palestinians. It is implied that he finds the stories told to him credible, particularly in the light of what he has seen himself. But he doesn't report "this has happened" or levy any "allegations" against Israel. In the article he calls for further investigation into the matter. And quite rightly so!
For that he was made the target of a viscious smear campaign. I wonder if he will receive an apology?
edit: added a "maybe"
The answer is "no". And he doesn't deserve any.
Fact is that the obvious innuendo of his article is the accusation that Israelis are killing folks for their body parts.
This is a fundamentally different issue than "an Israeli pathologist failed to get informed consent for corneal harvesting" or even worse misdeeds by pathologists.
Fact is, the latter is old news and the Swedish fellow is hardly breaking a story about it; check out the date on this story: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1173179/
So ... again, what is the point of "calling for investigation"?
Fact is, the only thing truly "new" about the Swedish story is the allegation-by-strong-innuendo (wholly defamatory and based on zero actual evidence) that Israeli soldiers were shooting folks to get their organs.
Quite wrong. You link speaks of "sales of body parts". That is also what the Aftonbladet article mentions as previously well known (have you read it? I linked to it earlier in the thread).
There is absolutely nothing in your link about harvesting Palestinians for organs.
And by the way - not only does he deserve an apology; he deserves a prize in recognition of his journalistic work. If this whole mess really is as bad as it seems, I hope he gets one for helping to uncover it.
Quote from: Pat on December 21, 2009, 05:37:26 AM
If Israel truly has nothing to hide, it should lay all it's cards on the table and provide full insight into what has been going on. Indeed, if they have nothing to hide, that's the only logical thing to do. It would be in their best interest. Considering this, it will be interesting to see their behaviour. And it is interesting to have seen their behaviour.
Isn't this a singular forensics lab where there was poor oversight?
Secondly this is a small state surrounded by enemies, paranoid by getting attacked publicly by everybody, rather hostile to Europeans in general, and rather sure at this point that anything they say will be used to attack them. You are naive in the extreme if you think, even if they do have nothing to hide, they are going to freely cooperate. Why would they? As far as they are concerned they are damned either way.
Again I find it puzzling people have such a hard time understanding the state of affairs over there. I mean yes it would be logical for almost every other country in the world to lay everything bare but this is not every country in the world.
Quote from: Valmy on December 21, 2009, 06:24:12 PM
Quote from: Pat on December 21, 2009, 05:37:26 AM
If Israel truly has nothing to hide, it should lay all it's cards on the table and provide full insight into what has been going on. Indeed, if they have nothing to hide, that's the only logical thing to do. It would be in their best interest. Considering this, it will be interesting to see their behaviour. And it is interesting to have seen their behaviour.
Isn't this a singular forensics lab where there was poor oversight?
Secondly this is a small state surrounded by enemies, paranoid by getting attacked publicly by everybody, rather hostile to Europeans in general, and rather sure at this point that anything they say will be used to attack them. You are naive in the extreme if you think, even if they do have nothing to hide, they are going to freely cooperate. Why would they? As far as they are concerned they are damned either way.
Again I find it puzzling people have such a hard time understanding the state of affairs over there. I mean yes it would be logical for almost every other country in the world to lay everything bare but this is not every country in the world.
Oh, but I do think I understand the state of affairs over there. Are you sure that you do?
And if this is a singular forensics lab with poor oversight, is there any reason not to lay all cards on the table? It would be in their best interest to do so. The Israelis are practical, as we have seen. Is there any reason they wouldn't act in their best interest this time?
Quite frankly, I don't give a shit if they harvest stem cells from foetuses cut from the wombs of arab women bred in captivity.
I simply find it delicious that it now seems that despite all the loud protestations to the contrary, there does seem to be something to this story after all.
Maybe it will unfold, maybe it won't. Maybe this is a sinister and cruel harvesting of corpses, or maybe it's just hyped up nonsense. Either way, I get to watch Malty squirm.
Quote from: Slargos on December 21, 2009, 06:32:30 PM
I simply find it delicious that it now seems that despite all the loud protestations to the contrary, there does seem to be something to this story after all.
And the next time Israel start up their anti-semitism machinery in response to something like this, we can safely assume they have something to hide.
Quote from: Pat on December 21, 2009, 06:35:56 PM
Quote from: Slargos on December 21, 2009, 06:32:30 PM
I simply find it delicious that it now seems that despite all the loud protestations to the contrary, there does seem to be something to this story after all.
And the next time Israel start up their anti-semitism machinery in response to something like this, we can safely assume they have something to hide.
We've always been able to safely assume the Israelis have something to hide, be it nukes, phosphor, sunk "allied" ships, reselling of technological secrets etc etc ad infinitum. :P
Isn't saying, "Aha, but the organs were stolen from everyone!" missing the point?
I mean, who were the recipients of the organs?
Quote from: Pat on December 21, 2009, 06:29:26 PM
And if this is a singular forensics lab with poor oversight, is there any reason not to lay all cards on the table? It would be in their best interest to do so. The Israelis are practical, as we have seen. Is there any reason they wouldn't act in their best interest this time?
Why? Israel has made it its policy for a long time not to defend itself from the endless allegations of evil that get tossed its way. If it does this time wouldn't that mean it would have to continue to do so? Or would it be taken that everytime it does not it is implied it is guilty? I mean you already have an explanation and yet you want more just to prove Israel is not guilty of wrongdoing on a systemic level. Is it really a good use of their time to put that much effort towards what appears to them to be a fruitless goal?
If you accuse a country of being evil constantly for 60 years after awhile they simply ignore you regardless of the validity of the situation.
I mean what practical value could explaining this in detail give them? Most people would not believe them anyway.
Quote from: Faeelin on December 21, 2009, 06:41:25 PM
Isn't saying, "Aha, but the organs were stolen from everyone!" missing the point?
I mean, who were the recipients of the organs?
I assume whoever the crooked forensics lab sold them to?
Quote from: Pat on December 21, 2009, 06:35:56 PM
And the next time Israel start up their anti-semitism machinery in response to something like this, we can safely assume they have something to hide.
Oh like that wasn't the assumption already.
Quote from: Valmy on December 21, 2009, 06:43:18 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on December 21, 2009, 06:41:25 PM
Isn't saying, "Aha, but the organs were stolen from everyone!" missing the point?
I mean, who were the recipients of the organs?
I assume whoever the crooked forensics lab sold them to?
Given the way Israeli healthcare works, I suspect it was not a proportionate number of Israelis and Palestinians.
Quote from: Valmy on December 21, 2009, 06:42:36 PM
Quote from: Pat on December 21, 2009, 06:29:26 PM
And if this is a singular forensics lab with poor oversight, is there any reason not to lay all cards on the table? It would be in their best interest to do so. The Israelis are practical, as we have seen. Is there any reason they wouldn't act in their best interest this time?
Why? Israel has made it its policy for a long time not to defend itself from the endless allegations of evil that get tossed its way. If it does this time wouldn't that mean it would have to continue to do so? Or would it be taken that everytime it does not it is implied it is guilty? I mean you already have an explanation and yet you want more just to prove Israel is not guilty of wrongdoing on a systemic level. Is it really a good use of their time to put that much effort towards what appears to them to be a fruitless goal?
If you accuse a country of being evil constantly for 60 years after awhile they simply ignore you regardless of the validity of the situation.
I mean what practical value could explaining this in detail give them? Most people would not believe them anyway.
A fruitless goal? They would clear themselves of some rather heinous allegations. Maybe there's a reason why they have a policy of not even trying to defend themselves? Have you thought about that?
And you're way missing the point here. In your head this seems to all be about Israel vs. Europe (or RotW). Israel has no obligation to Europe. But doesn't Israel have an
obligation of full disclosure to the families of the deceased plundered of their organs without permission, Israeli citizens and Palestinians alike?
Quote from: Faeelin on December 21, 2009, 06:45:22 PM
Given the way Israeli healthcare works, I suspect it was not a proportionate number of Israelis and Palestinians.
So...you are suggesting a forensics lab which was illegally harvesting organs was not distributiing said organs in a just and fair way? What did you expect? Robin Hood and his Merry Band of Pathologists?
I'd like to add, BTW, that the Aftonbladet article writes about Palestinians taken away and the corpses returned without their organs.
It is imaginable that the Palestinians were taken away and died of natural causes in Israeli jail and then plundered of their organs, with the bodies returned to their families who are left to wonder if their loved ones really did die of natural causes.
Quote from: Pat on December 21, 2009, 06:49:09 PM
A fruitless goal? They would clear themselves of some rather heinous allegations. Maybe there's a reason why they have a policy of not even trying to defend themselves? Have you thought about that?
And you're way missing the point here. In your head this seems to all be about Israel vs. Europe. Israel has no obligation to Europe. But doesn't Israel have an obligation of full disclosure to the families of the deceased plundered of their organs without permission, Israeli citizens and Palestinians alike?
Well Israel gets accused of heinous crimes all the time. That is why they do not bother trying to defend themselves. There is simply too much and frankly they have a bunker mentality.
I rather think this is more about Israel and its policies towards outside allegations. Israel may indeed have certain obligations they should be doing...or have already done....or will never do...I don't know. I simply think you have very unrealistic expectations of Israel but then that is the whole problem with the peace process in the first place. Everybody seems to want to pretend there has not been a cold/hot war going on over there for 60 years and that the the Israelis are a wholly western logical prosperous country eager to do the international community's will. The psychological strain on that country is immense and plus they have this mildly corrupt quasi-Russian secretive way of going about government.
I mean I think Israel is great and I like alot of Israelis but lets face it, they are not a warm fuzzy western sort of democracy. They are an armed camp with a mentality to go along with it.
Plus they have been in the Middle East for 60 years. That is not going to be kind to one's sanity.
Quote from: Pat on December 21, 2009, 06:55:08 PM
I'd like to add, BTW, that the Aftonbladet article writes about Palestinians taken away and the corpses returned without their organs.
It is imaginable that the Palestinians were taken away and died of natural causes in Israeli jail and then plundered of their organs, with the bodies returned to their families who are left to wonder if their loved ones really did die of natural causes.
Of course they would because the Palestinians and Israelis are enemies and will usually presume the worst of each other.
Yep, not going to argue with that.
Quote from: Pat on December 21, 2009, 04:15:28 PM
For that he was made the target of a viscious smear campaign. I wonder if he will receive an apology?
I assumed he was a bullshit artist and I was wrong. He has my apology.
Big deal. This is the way of the future.
I'd like to add, however, that even if the Palestinians did die of natural causes in Israeli jail and were returned to their families without organs, that is still pretty damn bad. And considering the circumstances here, that seems, at least to me, to be a sort of best-case scenario for Israel. The truth could be much worse. Israelis and Palestinians are enemies, after all.
Quote from: Pat on December 21, 2009, 04:15:28 PM
QuoteThe allegation was that the Israelis were killing palestinians for their organs. The reality was (assuming the latest allegations are true) that the forensics lab did not have proper ethics guidelines, and was taking corneas etc. from everyone (Israeli and Palestinian alike) without getting approval from next-of-kin first.
The circumstances surrounding the events, as presented in the Aftonbladet article, which I, for one, now deem credible, makes it likely that Palestinians were, while (maybe) not "picked up and killed" quite possibly "killed and picked up" and then brought back five days later without any organs. That is bad enough.
The writer tells about the things he has seen with his own eyes and the stories told to him by Palestinians. It is implied that he finds the stories told to him credible, particularly in the light of what he has seen himself. But he doesn't report "this has happened" or levy any "allegations" against Israel. In the article he calls for further investigation into the matter. And quite rightly so!
For that he was made the target of a viscious smear campaign. I wonder if he will receive an apology?
edit: added a "maybe"
Ladies and gentlemen, we have a new winner of the coveted title "Languish's most gullible!" :woot:
DGullie, if you will email him his crown, that would be most appreciated.
Quote from: Valmy on December 21, 2009, 06:42:36 PM
Why? Israel has made it its policy for a long time not to defend itself from the endless allegations of evil that get tossed its way. If it does this time wouldn't that mean it would have to continue to do so? Or would it be taken that everytime it does not it is implied it is guilty? I mean you already have an explanation and yet you want more just to prove Israel is not guilty of wrongdoing on a systemic level. Is it really a good use of their time to put that much effort towards what appears to them to be a fruitless goal?
If you accuse a country of being evil constantly for 60 years after awhile they simply ignore you regardless of the validity of the situation.
I mean what practical value could explaining this in detail give them? Most people would not believe them anyway.
I must admit that it is fun to watch you get all frothy at the mouth when someone implies someone in Israel has done something wrong.
"Israel," btw, is a legal articficiality. It doesn't have "policies" and cannot be guilty of innocent of anything.
The answer to the question "why should the Israeli government explain wrongdoing by its employees in detail" is "because it is a democracy, and the governments of democracies should not hide potential wrongdoing from the country's citizens."
But don't pay any attention to logic. The frothing is more entertaining.
I'd like to add, also, that I have no great love for Palestinians or their ways (though I do have great sympathy with the small minority of secular Palestinians, though I suppose most of them have fled by now - we have quite a few of them in Sweden and they're very good people). I dislike both the Palestinians and Israel. They both share the same middle-eastern mentality that I find quite distateful. I don't understand how anyone not ethnically or religiously sympathetic can sympathize with either side in that conflict. I will not deny that I take great pleasure in how this affair has now developed, and what it has shown for all to see, but I'd take the same great pleasure in taking away illusions of Palestinian-sympathizers (indeed, in left-wing forums I always take the side of Israel when it is justified).
Quote from: Pat on December 21, 2009, 07:14:54 PM
I'd like to add, however, that even if the Palestinians did die of natural causes in Israeli jail and were returned to their families without organs, that is still pretty damn bad. And considering the circumstances here, that seems, at least to me, to be a sort of best-case scenario for Israel. The truth could be much worse. Israelis and Palestinians are enemies, after all.
It has nothing to do with being the "best case scenario" - it is the scenario. There's no other evidence to suggest otherwise.
Is it pretty damn bad - yes (although we must remember this happened a decade ago). But that's why the focus on the Palestinians is bizarre - it's a nasty little story all by itself. Why try to make it worse?
And Israelis and Palestinians obviously have a dispute going on, but not everything that happens in that corner of the world immediately ties into that conflict.
Quote from: grumbler on December 21, 2009, 07:19:12 PM
Quote from: Pat on December 21, 2009, 04:15:28 PM
QuoteThe allegation was that the Israelis were killing palestinians for their organs. The reality was (assuming the latest allegations are true) that the forensics lab did not have proper ethics guidelines, and was taking corneas etc. from everyone (Israeli and Palestinian alike) without getting approval from next-of-kin first.
The circumstances surrounding the events, as presented in the Aftonbladet article, which I, for one, now deem credible, makes it likely that Palestinians were, while (maybe) not "picked up and killed" quite possibly "killed and picked up" and then brought back five days later without any organs. That is bad enough.
The writer tells about the things he has seen with his own eyes and the stories told to him by Palestinians. It is implied that he finds the stories told to him credible, particularly in the light of what he has seen himself. But he doesn't report "this has happened" or levy any "allegations" against Israel. In the article he calls for further investigation into the matter. And quite rightly so!
For that he was made the target of a viscious smear campaign. I wonder if he will receive an apology?
edit: added a "maybe"
Ladies and gentlemen, we have a new winner of the coveted title "Languish's most gullible!" :woot:
DGullie, if you will email him his crown, that would be most appreciated.
I was entirely agnostic as to the article when it first appeared. It is only now that I deem it credible.
Quote from: Barrister on December 21, 2009, 07:29:27 PM
Quote from: Pat on December 21, 2009, 07:14:54 PM
I'd like to add, however, that even if the Palestinians did die of natural causes in Israeli jail and were returned to their families without organs, that is still pretty damn bad. And considering the circumstances here, that seems, at least to me, to be a sort of best-case scenario for Israel. The truth could be much worse. Israelis and Palestinians are enemies, after all.
It has nothing to do with being the "best case scenario" - it is the scenario. There's no other evidence to suggest otherwise.
Is it pretty damn bad - yes (although we must remember this happened a decade ago). But that's why the focus on the Palestinians is bizarre - it's a nasty little story all by itself. Why try to make it worse?
And Israelis and Palestinians obviously have a dispute going on, but not everything that happens in that corner of the world immediately ties into that conflict.
You should know absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. We know Palestinians and Israelis are enemies. We know they don't like each other. I'm not saying I have any evidence here. I'm just saying it's possible. And of course, if Israel has nothing to hide it would be in their best interest to provide full disclosure. Along with that being the only right thing to do.
And is it really bizarre to focus on the Palestinians? Israelis harvesting other Israelis to give the organs to Israelis isone thing. Israelis harvesting Palestinians to give the organs to Israelis is another thing, because the Palestinians are essentially their subject people who they can treat a little bit like they want. Can you
really not see the difference? :huh:
Quote from: Pat on December 21, 2009, 07:37:35 PM
You should know absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. We know Palestinians and Israelis are enemies. We know they don't like each other. I'm not saying I have any evidence here. I'm just saying it's possible. And of course, if Israel has nothing to hide it would be in their best interest to provide full disclosure. Along with that being the only right thing to do.
And is it really bizarre to focus on the Palestinians? Israelis harvesting other Israelis to give the organs to Israelis isone thing. Israelis harvesting Palestinians to give the organs to Israelis is another thing, because the Palestinians are essentially their subject people who they can treat a little bit like they want. Can you really not see the difference? :huh:
Discussing what's possible is pointless. Anything is possible. Focus on the actual evidece and what it shows.
And what it shows is that this lab had poor internal controls on harvesting organs. There is no evidence they treated Palestinians any differently than Israelis. There's also no evidence they only used these organs on Israelis - Israeli hospitals routinely treat Palestinians.
Yes, I agree we don't have much evidence. Which is why Israel should provide full disclosure. Until then I'll have my suspicions. :)
We in fact have quite a bit of evidence. Numerous news stories and interviews have been conducted. Israel has come clean and admitted what happened.
Quote from: Barrister on December 21, 2009, 07:51:09 PM
We in fact have quite a bit of evidence. Numerous news stories and interviews have been conducted. Israel has come clean and admitted what happened.
I think we can safely say that the mere words of Israel is not "evidence".
But I'm glad they admitted it. Remains to be seen if they will also apologize for their smear campaign of lies and defamation.
Quote from: grumbler on December 21, 2009, 07:29:05 PM
"Israel," btw, is a legal articficiality. It doesn't have "policies" and cannot be guilty of innocent of anything.
Guilt and innocence are legal artificialities, and there are few artificialities that are more artificial than legal ones.
QuoteThe answer to the question "why should the Israeli government explain wrongdoing by its employees in detail" is "because it is a democracy, and the governments of democracies should not hide potential wrongdoing from the country's citizens."
That's silly. Democracies have even more reason to hide potential wrongdoing, due to their fragility.
Barrister, perhaps you can help me with a question of legal technicality: When a defendant admits to only that which is proven, and says "nothing else happened", is that then evidence that nothing else happened?
Quote from: Pat on December 21, 2009, 07:30:50 PM
I was entirely agnostic as to the article when it first appeared. It is only now that I deem it credible.
The fact that you find such preposterous things as that Palestinians were "brought back five days later
without any organs" makes you gullible; let alone that you believe that the reporter did a series of autopsies to confirm the total lack of any organs so he could report on it as something he had "seen with his own eyes" (for without an autopsy, of course, he couldn't see anything of the sort "with his own eyes"). I hope you will consider giving me a medal when I say "bullshit!"
Quote from: Neil on December 21, 2009, 08:01:21 PM
That's silly. Democracies have even more reason to hide potential wrongdoing, due to their fragility.
I would agree, were this political wrongdoing. It isn't though. It is some medical type who got carried away and decided not to let technicalities like NOK permissions get in the way of "science!"
Quote from: grumbler on December 21, 2009, 08:22:00 PM
Quote from: Pat on December 21, 2009, 07:30:50 PM
I was entirely agnostic as to the article when it first appeared. It is only now that I deem it credible.
The fact that you find such preposterous things as that Palestinians were "brought back five days later without any organs" makes you gullible; let alone that you believe that the reporter did a series of autopsies to confirm the total lack of any organs so he could report on it as something he had "seen with his own eyes" (for without an autopsy, of course, he couldn't see anything of the sort "with his own eyes"). I hope you will consider giving me a medal when I say "bullshit!"
"Any organs" were my words, not the article's. A clumpsy way of expressing myself. The article doesn't say that
all the organs were removed, nor is that what I believed (though I did in haste do the mistake of expressing myself in a way that would allow you to make a hen of the smallest little feather of ambiguity).
Have you read the article by the way? The way you express yourself makes me think you haven't.
Warning, possibly NSFW.
BTW, since people don't seem to read the article, and in the interest of people seeing things with their own eyes, here's the picture accompanying the article:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgfx.aftonbladet-cdn.se%2Fmultimedia%2Fdynamic%2F00998%2F17s04bilalaBY_jpg_998448b.jpg&hash=416d851e8d61dae07b88c910f3d38b65153fe3e8)
The boy on the picture was shot and killed by Israeli soldiers. His cause of death was already known, yet they took his body with them to perform an "autopsy".
Oh, and btw:
QuoteOrgans were not harvested if it was believed relatives might discover it, he said, adding that in some cases glue was used to close eyelids to hide missing corneas.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/12/21/israel.organs/
Judging by the picture above, I feel quite safe in my assumtion that the same courtesy was not extended to the families of the Palestinians.
They didn't need the organs anymore. Let's can the fake outrage.
Quote from: Neil on December 21, 2009, 08:42:47 PM
They didn't need the organs anymore. Let's can the fake outrage.
I agree they didn't need the organs anymore. For all I care organ donation could be made mandatory on death (though this is a very different discussion and not one I care to engage in if anyone should have an opposing viewpoint).
I am not faking anything. What even BB, on the other side of the argument, agrees to be the scenario is: "...even if the Palestinians did die of natural causes in Israeli jail and were returned to their families without organs, that is still pretty damn bad"
Which is to say the families of the Palestinians are left to guess if their loved ones really did die of natural causes or not. I don't have to fake anything to find that rather outraging. And I personally believe there to be other possible scenarios, considerably more outraging.
They're Palestinians. Who cares how they died?
Quote from: Neil on December 21, 2009, 09:04:58 PM
They're Palestinians. Who cares how they died?
Their families, I assume.
You don't have to.
Quote from: Pat on December 21, 2009, 09:36:00 PM
You don't have to.
But if I don't care, how can you expect the world at large to be outraged?
I never expected you to care. Is there any atrocity Israel could commit that you would care about?
Quote from: Pat on December 21, 2009, 05:33:38 PM
Quote from: DGuller on December 21, 2009, 05:32:30 PM
Did any of the alleged victims actually come forward, or is it just a wild speculation at this point?
The alleged victims are dead. :lol:
How convenient. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Pat on December 21, 2009, 09:47:54 PM
I never expected you to care. Is there any atrocity Israel could commit that you would care about?
Possibly. If they killed civilized folks, that would certainly earn my ire. And I don't mean running some hippie cunt over with a bulldozer.
Do you consider the Israelis to be civilized folks, Neil?
Quote from: DGuller on December 21, 2009, 09:50:46 PM
Quote from: Pat on December 21, 2009, 05:33:38 PM
Quote from: DGuller on December 21, 2009, 05:32:30 PM
Did any of the alleged victims actually come forward, or is it just a wild speculation at this point?
The alleged victims are dead. :lol:
How convenient. :rolleyes:
Sorry if I read you wrong, was in a belligerent mode and assumed you hadn't read the article.
Quote from: Pat on December 21, 2009, 09:59:38 PM
Do you consider the Israelis to be civilized folks, Neil?
In general, I'd have to say yes. They've had some Russians come in, and there are still the Arabized Jews like Siegebreaker, but they're still a civilized people at their core.
Quote from: Neil on December 21, 2009, 10:15:25 PM
Quote from: Pat on December 21, 2009, 09:59:38 PM
Do you consider the Israelis to be civilized folks, Neil?
In general, I'd have to say yes. They've had some Russians come in, and there are still the Arabized Jews like Siegebreaker, but they're still a civilized people at their core.
OK agreed, but I'd like to add that a civilized people who unquestioningly consider the uncivilized their compatriots and allow them great influence is not wholly civilized. Civlized in general, yes, but wholly, no.
Quote from: Pat on December 21, 2009, 10:22:01 PM
Quote from: Neil on December 21, 2009, 10:15:25 PM
Quote from: Pat on December 21, 2009, 09:59:38 PM
Do you consider the Israelis to be civilized folks, Neil?
In general, I'd have to say yes. They've had some Russians come in, and there are still the Arabized Jews like Siegebreaker, but they're still a civilized people at their core.
OK agreed, but I'd like to add that a civilized people who unquestioningly consider the uncivilized their compatriots and allow them great influence is not wholly civilized. Civlized in general, yes, but wholly, no.
The Russians don't really have all that much influence, except in the criminal fields.
I was trying to give the civilized Israelis some credit by ascribing their uncivilized actions to the influence of their uncivilized compatriots.
Quote from: Pat on December 21, 2009, 10:38:56 PM
I was trying to give the civilized Israelis some credit by ascribing their uncivilized actions to the influence of their uncivilized compatriots.
I'm not familiar with any uncivilized actions taken by Israel, or by Israelis that aren't Siegebreaker.
Well I suppose we probably have different conceptions of what it is to be civilized.
Quote from: Pat on December 21, 2009, 10:42:32 PM
Well I suppose we probably have different conceptions of what it is to be civilized.
Indeed. Your definition is weak-willed and immoral. My definition takes into consideration that no civilization is worth anything unless it can defend itself. Annihilating the Palestians is an act that a civilized society would have to take.
Quote from: Neil on December 21, 2009, 10:51:23 PM
Quote from: Pat on December 21, 2009, 10:42:32 PM
Well I suppose we probably have different conceptions of what it is to be civilized.
Indeed. Your definition is weak-willed and immoral. My definition takes into consideration that no civilization is worth anything unless it can defend itself. Annihilating the Palestians is an act that a civilized society would have to take.
Linking civilization to military might is strange. Were the Mongols more civilized than the societies they annihilated?
Quote from: Pat on December 21, 2009, 10:53:15 PM
Quote from: Neil on December 21, 2009, 10:51:23 PM
Quote from: Pat on December 21, 2009, 10:42:32 PM
Well I suppose we probably have different conceptions of what it is to be civilized.
Indeed. Your definition is weak-willed and immoral. My definition takes into consideration that no civilization is worth anything unless it can defend itself. Annihilating the Palestians is an act that a civilized society would have to take.
Linking civilization to military might is strange. Were the Mongols more civilized than the societies they annihilated?
Considering that the Mongols didn't annihilate any societies, but rather co-opted them or were co-opted by them in turn, I think that's a retarded fucking comparison.
Quote from: Scipio on December 21, 2009, 11:06:15 PM
Quote from: Pat on December 21, 2009, 10:53:15 PM
Quote from: Neil on December 21, 2009, 10:51:23 PM
Quote from: Pat on December 21, 2009, 10:42:32 PM
Well I suppose we probably have different conceptions of what it is to be civilized.
Indeed. Your definition is weak-willed and immoral. My definition takes into consideration that no civilization is worth anything unless it can defend itself. Annihilating the Palestians is an act that a civilized society would have to take.
Linking civilization to military might is strange. Were the Mongols more civilized than the societies they annihilated?
Considering that the Mongols didn't annihilate any societies, but rather co-opted them or were co-opted by them in turn, I think that's a retarded fucking comparison.
Didn't the Mongols raze any city that resisted or am I thinking of a different horde? :huh:
It's not a comparison to anything else in the thread. I'd say the Mongols annihilated quite a few societies. Normally I'd have suggested to you that you'd start another thread if you'd want to discuss this very tangential issue with me, but I doubt I'd be able to have a very meaningful discussion with a retarded fuck as yourself, so I'm sorry to say it's not something I'd be very interested in.
Quote from: Pat on December 21, 2009, 10:53:15 PM
Linking civilization to military might is strange. Were the Mongols more civilized than the societies they annihilated?
It's one of the exceptions that prove the rule.
Military might is usually a by-product of civlization, but it doesn't have anything to do with being civilized. You don't become civilized just by having military might.
edit: I think we can all think of a poignant modern example to illustrate this
Quote from: Scipio on December 21, 2009, 11:06:15 PM
Quote from: Pat on December 21, 2009, 10:53:15 PM
Quote from: Neil on December 21, 2009, 10:51:23 PM
Indeed. Your definition is weak-willed and immoral. My definition takes into consideration that no civilization is worth anything unless it can defend itself. Annihilating the Palestians is an act that a civilized society would have to take.
Linking civilization to military might is strange. Were the Mongols more civilized than the societies they annihilated?
Considering that the Mongols didn't annihilate any societies, but rather co-opted them or were co-opted by them in turn, I think that's a retarded fucking comparison.
Not to mention that Neil didn't claim that the Mongols were a great civilization, he just pointed out that the civilizations that the mongols destroyed weren't worth anything.
Ignore the likelyhood and assume all of Europe is in array and exhausted from internal strife. Mongols suddenly appear and destroy most of European civilization. Does it follow that European civilization isn't worth anything?
This discussion reminds me of a quote, by the way.
Quote
War has returned to its primitive form. The war of
people against people is giving place to another war-- a
war for the possession of the great spaces.
Originally war was nothing but a struggle for pasture-
grounds. Today war is nothing but a struggle for the
riches of nature. By virtue of an inherent law, these
riches belong to him who conquers them. The great
migrations set out from the East. With us begins the ebb,
from West to East.
That's in accordance with the laws of nature. By means
of the struggle, the elites are continually renewed.
The law of selection justifies this incessant struggle, by
allowing the survival of the fittest.
Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest
against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity
would mean the systematic cultivation of the human
failure.
--- A man with a moustasche who wasn't very nice, but at least had a concept of natural law more consistent with history than the other ones variously expressed.
By the way that was also really tangential to the discussion, and I'm not saying Israel = Nazi germany or anything; maybe we should start a new thread if there's interest to continue the "Civilization = Might" subtopic.
Quote from: Pat on December 21, 2009, 08:33:03 PM
BTW, since people don't seem to read the article, and in the interest of people seeing things with their own eyes, here's the picture accompanying the article:
The boy on the picture was shot and killed by Israeli soldiers. His cause of death was already known, yet they took his body with them to perform an "autopsy".
Wow. Gullible beyond belief. :( None of us can see "with our own eyes" that all his organs are missing, and we know nothing from this photo that we didn't know before: that people split open for autopsies are not pretty afterwards.
QuoteOh, and btw:
QuoteOrgans were not harvested if it was believed relatives might discover it, he said, adding that in some cases glue was used to close eyelids to hide missing corneas.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/12/21/israel.organs/
Judging by the picture above, I feel quite safe in my assumtion that the same courtesy was not extended to the families of the Palestinians.
Judging by your postings, I feel quite safe in my assumption that your assumtion [sic] is not based on any desire to be objective about this. After all, your own source notes that
QuoteAfter getting permission from family members to perform an autopsy, "we felt free" to harvest organs, he said.
Your assumption should be, then, that this was true of Palestinians as well. But you assume otherwise. I am not surprised.
1)
I never said he had seen with their own eyes their organs missing. He had, however, seen many other things which made him ascribe credibility to the stories of the Palestinians, and made him write the story with their quotes. The author of the article later claimed to Israeli radio that he doesn't know if the Palestinian claims are true, but that he wanted it looked into.
I'd say it's an act of great journalism, especially since he uncovered something that had been hidden for many years and no one would have heard about if he hadn't written his story. He deserves a prize.
2)
My assumtion is not that the Israelis are telling the truth. That seems to be yours. Who's gullible?
Quote from: Pat on December 21, 2009, 11:35:37 PM
This discussion reminds me of a quote, by the way.
Quote
War has returned to its primitive form. The war of
people against people is giving place to another war-- a
war for the possession of the great spaces.
Originally war was nothing but a struggle for pasture-
grounds. Today war is nothing but a struggle for the
riches of nature. By virtue of an inherent law, these
riches belong to him who conquers them. The great
migrations set out from the East. With us begins the ebb,
from West to East.
That's in accordance with the laws of nature. By means
of the struggle, the elites are continually renewed.
The law of selection justifies this incessant struggle, by
allowing the survival of the fittest.
Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest
against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity
would mean the systematic cultivation of the human
failure.
--- A man with a moustasche who wasn't very nice, but at least had a concept of natural law more consistent with history than the other ones variously expressed.
Do lots of things remind you of sayings by that guy? I've never met anyone who related to him like that before. Most of us dismiss him as emo and uninteresting by our late teens.
I find the argument "might is civilization" somewhat similar in nature to the argument "might is right". Not quite the same thing, but enough similar to remind me of that quote.
Quote from: Pat on December 21, 2009, 11:29:49 PM
Ignore the likelyhood and assume all of Europe is in array and exhausted from internal strife. Mongols suddenly appear and destroy most of European civilization. Does it follow that European civilization isn't worth anything?
I'm sorry, but I wasn't aware that the mongols destroyed western civilization?
Quote from: Viking on December 22, 2009, 12:35:39 AM
Quote from: Pat on December 21, 2009, 11:29:49 PM
Ignore the likelyhood and assume all of Europe is in array and exhausted from internal strife. Mongols suddenly appear and destroy most of European civilization. Does it follow that European civilization isn't worth anything?
I'm sorry, but I wasn't aware that the mongols destroyed western civilization?
Key words are "assume" and "ignore the likelyhood" - i.e. let's say they did.
Quote from: Pat on December 22, 2009, 12:13:20 AM
I find the argument "might is civilization" somewhat similar in nature to the argument "might is right". Not quite the same thing, but enough similar to remind me of that quote.
call me grumbler, but nobody made that argument
Quote from: Pat on December 22, 2009, 12:37:03 AM
Quote from: Viking on December 22, 2009, 12:35:39 AM
Quote from: Pat on December 21, 2009, 11:29:49 PM
Ignore the likelyhood and assume all of Europe is in array and exhausted from internal strife. Mongols suddenly appear and destroy most of European civilization. Does it follow that European civilization isn't worth anything?
I'm sorry, but I wasn't aware that the mongols destroyed western civilization?
Key words are "assume" and "ignore the likelyhood" - i.e. let's say they did.
OK, lets assume you have AIDS and ignore the likelyhood that you are a virgin.
Quote from: Viking on December 22, 2009, 12:37:41 AM
Quote from: Pat on December 22, 2009, 12:13:20 AM
I find the argument "might is civilization" somewhat similar in nature to the argument "might is right". Not quite the same thing, but enough similar to remind me of that quote.
call me grumbler, but nobody made that argument
Seems to be the opinion of Neil. Wasn't directed at anyone in particular though.
Quote from: Viking on December 22, 2009, 12:38:42 AM
Quote from: Pat on December 22, 2009, 12:37:03 AM
Quote from: Viking on December 22, 2009, 12:35:39 AM
Quote from: Pat on December 21, 2009, 11:29:49 PM
Ignore the likelyhood and assume all of Europe is in array and exhausted from internal strife. Mongols suddenly appear and destroy most of European civilization. Does it follow that European civilization isn't worth anything?
I'm sorry, but I wasn't aware that the mongols destroyed western civilization?
Key words are "assume" and "ignore the likelyhood" - i.e. let's say they did.
OK, lets assume you have AIDS and ignore the likelyhood that you are a virgin.
Speaking of STDs, I was just telling Jaron over MSN about the Asian girl who gave me chlamydia. But that, alas, is for another thread.
Quote from: Pat on December 22, 2009, 12:11:00 AM
1) I never said he had seen with their own eyes their organs missing. He had, however, seen many other things which made him ascribe credibility to the stories of the Palestinians, and made him write the story with their quotes. The author of the article later claimed to Israeli radio that he doesn't know if the Palestinian claims are true, but that he wanted it looked into.
I'd say it's an act of great journalism, especially since he uncovered something that had been hidden for many years and no one would have heard about if he hadn't written his story. He deserves a prize.
So he didn't see Palestinians with "all their organs missing" with his own eyes, but he accepted stories from Palestinians that claimed such? And you think that this is acceptable journalism? I can think of no reason whatever for any Israelis to take all the internal organs from Palestinians. What motive does this author ascribe to such bizarre, horror-movie-like behavior?
I'd say it is no great act of journalism, since the story or the harvesting of corneas and heart valves has been around for a while, and the "harvesting of Palestinians" and the removal of "all their organs" seems to be made up either by the journalist or by Palestinians seeking to take advantage of a credulous Swede.
2) My assumtion is not that the Israelis are telling the truth. That seems to be yours. [/quote]
My assumption is that extraordinary claims ("killing Palestinians for their organs" or Palestinians "brought back five days later without any organs") requires extraordinary proof. I also assume that the Israelis have done what they admitted to doing (since such admissions are contrary to their interests) and that denials that serve an interest have to be taken with a grain of salt.
QuoteWho's gullible?
You. Perhaps the Swedish journalist, though I don't know if he believes what has been ascribed to him. I haven't seen anyone else writing such credulous stuff.
Grumbler, you clearly have no intent of arguing honestly. Even though I explain things you still keep writing the same falsehoods and misconceptions over and over.
1) He didn't "accept them as such". I already explained this! Did you read my post? In particular, this part:
"The author of the article later claimed to Israeli radio that he doesn't know if the Palestinian claims are true, but that he wanted it looked into."
You're right extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs. That's why he made no claims. All he did was mention the suspicious circumstances, and ask for further investigation, and for that he was viscously attacked. Well, now it seems there was something to it! He was right to call for further investigation! And if he hadn't, none of us would know of this.
2) I have also already explained "any organs" (wrongly attributed to me as "all the organs" - see, I can also play this game). I'm not going to explain it again.
Quote from: Pat on December 22, 2009, 02:07:57 AM
Grumbler, you clearly have no intent of arguing honestly. Even though I explain things you still keep writing the same falsehoods and misconceptions over and over.
Ah, the
ad hom! We knew
this was coming! :lol:
Despicable comments deserve no response, so: no response
Quote1) He didn't "accept them as such". I already explained this! Did you read my post? In particular, this part:
"The author of the article later claimed to Israeli radio that he doesn't know if the Palestinian claims are true, but that he wanted it looked into."
Dunno who you are quoting in the first part (what does "accept them as such" even mean in this context?). As for the second, one does not call for investigations into organlegging unless one believes there is something worth investigating.
QuoteYou're right extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs. That's why he made no claims.
Ah. You said he claimed that this was worth investigating. If he didn't, then there is no issue.
QuoteAll he did was mention the suspicious circumstances, and ask for further investigation, and for that he was viscously attacked.
Ooo! The attack was viscous? Like what, snot?
Anyway, I thought he wasn't claiming anything (like that there should be an investigation)? Can you make up you mind which story you are going to tell, here?
Quote2) I have also already explained "any organs" (wrongly attributed to me as "all the organs" - see, I can also play this game). I'm not going to explain it again.
So who was saying "without any organs?" You, or the reporter? Who has been claiming that Palestinians may have been "harvested for their organs" and that this charge is credible enough to be worth investigating? You, or the reporter?
The "unreliable narrator" bit works for fiction, Pat, but kills credibility when one purports to be telling truth and one is an unreliable narrator. Don't be that guy. N00bs have very little cred to start with, so wasting any of it is bad juju.
I was saying "without any organs" and he didn't use those words. But of course you knew this already. Because I explained it. And I've linked to the article, so you can SEE FOR YOURSELF what the reporter did or did not write, but I can only assume you still haven't read it.
He never claimed to know the Palestinian quotes to be true, but he obviously found them credible enough to be worth investigating. This is a very simple point to understand, and I can not put your refusal to do so down to anything else than bad faith.
Sorry grumbler, not going to play your games any more than this. I know you won't give up until you feel you've "put me in my place" or whatever your motivation may be (it sure as hell isn't the question at hand, that is for sure).
Quote from: Valmy on December 21, 2009, 06:58:55 PM
Quote from: Pat on December 21, 2009, 06:49:09 PM
A fruitless goal? They would clear themselves of some rather heinous allegations. Maybe there's a reason why they have a policy of not even trying to defend themselves? Have you thought about that?
And you're way missing the point here. In your head this seems to all be about Israel vs. Europe. Israel has no obligation to Europe. But doesn't Israel have an obligation of full disclosure to the families of the deceased plundered of their organs without permission, Israeli citizens and Palestinians alike?
Well Israel gets accused of heinous crimes all the time. That is why they do not bother trying to defend themselves. There is simply too much and frankly they have a bunker mentality.
I rather think this is more about Israel and its policies towards outside allegations. Israel may indeed have certain obligations they should be doing...or have already done....or will never do...I don't know. I simply think you have very unrealistic expectations of Israel but then that is the whole problem with the peace process in the first place. Everybody seems to want to pretend there has not been a cold/hot war going on over there for 60 years and that the the Israelis are a wholly western logical prosperous country eager to do the international community's will. The psychological strain on that country is immense and plus they have this mildly corrupt quasi-Russian secretive way of going about government.
I mean I think Israel is great and I like alot of Israelis but lets face it, they are not a warm fuzzy western sort of democracy. They are an armed camp with a mentality to go along with it.
Plus they have been in the Middle East for 60 years. That is not going to be kind to one's sanity.
Ok here you are getting unreasonable.
So only because Israel has been accused of evil for the last 60 years, they have no obligation to remedy the wrong done by their medical personal to very specific people, by providing a full disclosure of the wrongdoing that Israeli investigation prove to be true? :huh:
Grumbler, I've been thinking about it, and if you want, I can concede that I have made myself guilty of Ad Hom argumentation. Now that you've won a point of small importance, are you happy now?
Anyway, the whole story is kinda funny, if you consider how it played out.
:uffda: (Swedish Journalist): Palestinians say Israel could have been doing A and B.
:Joos : WTF! This is antisemitism! Accusations of ritual murder! Holocaust redux!
ROTW: :ultra:
:uffda: : :Embarrass:
:scots: : Err, guys, you did A to one of our boys. :unsure:
:osama: : And actually, you admitted yourself that you have been doing A. :contract:
:Joos : Ok true. But we never did B. WTF! This is antisemitism! Accusations of ritual murder! Holocaust redux!
ROTW: :unsure:
Also, Valmy, what the fuck are you talking about with "Israel doesn't bother to defend itself"???
After this article was originally published, Israel staged an international shitstorm, including official protests at the highest diplomatic levels. :lol:
What they apparently don't bother with is showing evidence to families of the victims that they are only guilty of one crime, and not two.
:lol:
It's funny how some issues can be boiled down to their core with the apt use of smilies and concise one liners. Good one, Marty. :lol:
Heh. I have to applaude Pat for not giving up. :)
Reminds me of this...
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimgs.xkcd.com%2Fcomics%2Fduty_calls.png&hash=2ac1c8056b8830137cc7ba6bfdb6fd55af055f89)
Maybe this argument is due to language misunderstandings. None of the Palestinians seen leaving Israeli custody were carrying huge musical instruments. That makes sense and satisfies what Pat is saying.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 22, 2009, 05:27:50 AM
Maybe this argument is due to language misunderstandings. None of the Palestinians seen leaving Israeli custody were carrying huge musical instruments. That makes sense and satisfies what Pat is saying.
:lol:
Quote from: Pat on December 21, 2009, 10:53:15 PM
Quote from: Neil on December 21, 2009, 10:51:23 PM
Quote from: Pat on December 21, 2009, 10:42:32 PM
Well I suppose we probably have different conceptions of what it is to be civilized.
Indeed. Your definition is weak-willed and immoral. My definition takes into consideration that no civilization is worth anything unless it can defend itself. Annihilating the Palestians is an act that a civilized society would have to take.
Linking civilization to military might is strange. Were the Mongols more civilized than the societies they annihilated?
There is more to defending a civilization than just military strength, although obviously military strength is also an important indicator of civilization.
Quote from: Pat on December 21, 2009, 10:53:15 PM
Quote from: Neil on December 21, 2009, 10:51:23 PM
Quote from: Pat on December 21, 2009, 10:42:32 PM
Well I suppose we probably have different conceptions of what it is to be civilized.
Indeed. Your definition is weak-willed and immoral. My definition takes into consideration that no civilization is worth anything unless it can defend itself. Annihilating the Palestians is an act that a civilized society would have to take.
Linking civilization to military might is strange. Were the Mongols more civilized than the societies they annihilated?
No, that's a logical fallacy. Civilized societies are militarily strong, but not all military strong societies are civilized.
Quote from: Pat on December 21, 2009, 11:29:49 PM
Ignore the likelyhood and assume all of Europe is in array and exhausted from internal strife. Mongols suddenly appear and destroy most of European civilization. Does it follow that European civilization isn't worth anything?
The Mongol's didn't destroy most of European civilization. They didn't even destroy Rus, for fuckssakes, and they ruled over it for 200 years.
Anyway, when it comes down to it if it's an argument between a Swede and Grumbler I bet on Grumbler.
Quote from: Scipio on December 22, 2009, 07:22:57 AM
Quote from: Pat on December 21, 2009, 11:29:49 PM
Ignore the likelyhood and assume all of Europe is in array and exhausted from internal strife. Mongols suddenly appear and destroy most of European civilization. Does it follow that European civilization isn't worth anything?
They didn't even destroy Rus, for fuckssakes, and they ruled over it for 200 years.
Well, they did destroy it as a civilization.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 22, 2009, 07:25:35 AM
Anyway, when it comes down to it if it's an argument between a Swede and Grumbler I bet on Grumbler.
A practical application of the "in the kingdom of the blind" adage. :yes:
Quote from: DGuller on December 22, 2009, 08:03:08 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 22, 2009, 07:25:35 AM
Anyway, when it comes down to it if it's an argument between a Swede and Grumbler I bet on Grumbler.
A practical application of the "in the kingdom of the blind" adage. :yes:
... "the one eyed man is stoned for heresy"
Quote from: DGuller on December 22, 2009, 08:03:08 AM
A practical application of the "in the kingdom of the blind" adage. :yes:
Didn't Paul not make it over here? :unsure:
Quote from: DontSayBanana on December 22, 2009, 08:22:51 AM
Quote from: DGuller on December 22, 2009, 08:03:08 AM
A practical application of the "in the kingdom of the blind" adage. :yes:
Didn't Paul not make it over here? :unsure:
I think Internet forums need to come up with some kind of a death notification system.
Quote from: Neil on December 22, 2009, 07:26:30 AM
Quote from: Scipio on December 22, 2009, 07:22:57 AM
Quote from: Pat on December 21, 2009, 11:29:49 PM
Ignore the likelyhood and assume all of Europe is in array and exhausted from internal strife. Mongols suddenly appear and destroy most of European civilization. Does it follow that European civilization isn't worth anything?
They didn't even destroy Rus, for fuckssakes, and they ruled over it for 200 years.
Well, they did destroy it as a civilization.
True enough. They turned Rus from an arguably European civilization (since it was settled by Swedes) into a Mongol/Asian one, which shows to this day.
Quote from: Martinus on December 22, 2009, 09:12:43 AM
Quote from: Neil on December 22, 2009, 07:26:30 AM
Quote from: Scipio on December 22, 2009, 07:22:57 AM
Quote from: Pat on December 21, 2009, 11:29:49 PM
Ignore the likelyhood and assume all of Europe is in array and exhausted from internal strife. Mongols suddenly appear and destroy most of European civilization. Does it follow that European civilization isn't worth anything?
They didn't even destroy Rus, for fuckssakes, and they ruled over it for 200 years.
Well, they did destroy it as a civilization.
True enough. They turned Rus from an arguably European civilization (since it was settled by Swedes) into a Mongol/Asian one, which shows to this day.
And then the Russians in turn did the same thing to Eastern Europe.
Quote from: DGuller on December 22, 2009, 09:02:05 AM
I think Internet forums need to come up with some kind of a death notification system.
Joke missed. <_<
Anyway, a "kill button" would be much more entertaining than a "death monitor." :contract:
Quote from: Pat on December 21, 2009, 05:54:48 PM
Quite wrong. You link speaks of "sales of body parts". That is also what the Aftonbladet article mentions as previously well known (have you read it? I linked to it earlier in the thread).
There is absolutely nothing in your link about harvesting Palestinians for organs.
Of course not; because until the Swedish article came out with its inflamatory and zero-evidence allegations, the identities of the cadavers whose organs were harvested without consent was irrelevant.
The Swedish article took a minor story about ethical violations in a pathology lab - allegations investigated a decade ago by the Israelis themselves - and blew it up into a major international incident through gullably swallowing a bunch of innuendo with absolutely no evidence to support it.
This no doubt delights the Slargoses of the world, and re-enforces the ever-popular stereotype of the dumb-as-rocks Swede (Slargos being the poster child for this ;)), but is hardly the occasion to start handing out an award for excellence in journalism. :D
Why are you so mean to rocks, Malthus?
Quote from: Malthus on December 22, 2009, 10:46:08 AM
Quote from: Pat on December 21, 2009, 05:54:48 PM
Quite wrong. You link speaks of "sales of body parts". That is also what the Aftonbladet article mentions as previously well known (have you read it? I linked to it earlier in the thread).
There is absolutely nothing in your link about harvesting Palestinians for organs.
Of course not; because until the Swedish article came out with its inflamatory and zero-evidence allegations, the identities of the cadavers whose organs were harvested without consent was irrelevant.
The Swedish article took a minor story about ethical violations in a pathology lab - allegations investigated a decade ago by the Israelis themselves - and blew it up into a major international incident through gullably swallowing a bunch of innuendo with absolutely no evidence to support it.
This no doubt delights the Slargoses of the world, and re-enforces the ever-popular stereotype of the dumb-as-rocks Swede (Slargos being the poster child for this ;) ), but is hardly the occasion to start handing out an award for excellence in journalism. :D
You are glue, etc.
Or rather, in a perfect world you would be.
Glue.
Or a lampshade.
Quote from: Malthus on December 22, 2009, 10:46:08 AM
Of course not; because until the Swedish article came out with its inflamatory and zero-evidence allegations, the identities of the cadavers whose organs were harvested without consent was irrelevant.
The Swedish article took a minor story about ethical violations in a pathology lab - allegations investigated a decade ago by the Israelis themselves - and blew it up into a major international incident through gullably swallowing a bunch of innuendo with absolutely no evidence to support it.
This no doubt delights the Slargoses of the world, and re-enforces the ever-popular stereotype of the dumb-as-rocks Swede (Slargos being the poster child for this ;)), but is hardly the occasion to start handing out an award for excellence in journalism. :D
I would disagree with calling the original story "a minor story about ethical violations in a pathology lab", as it appeared to be a persistent pattern, and consent has long been held as necessary for organ donation. As such, it was a major lapse and worthy of some comment.
Otherwise I agree with everything you said.
Quote from: Barrister on December 22, 2009, 12:40:58 PM
Quote from: Malthus on December 22, 2009, 10:46:08 AM
Of course not; because until the Swedish article came out with its inflamatory and zero-evidence allegations, the identities of the cadavers whose organs were harvested without consent was irrelevant.
The Swedish article took a minor story about ethical violations in a pathology lab - allegations investigated a decade ago by the Israelis themselves - and blew it up into a major international incident through gullably swallowing a bunch of innuendo with absolutely no evidence to support it.
This no doubt delights the Slargoses of the world, and re-enforces the ever-popular stereotype of the dumb-as-rocks Swede (Slargos being the poster child for this ;) ), but is hardly the occasion to start handing out an award for excellence in journalism. :D
I would disagree with calling the original story "a minor story about ethical violations in a pathology lab", as it appeared to be a persistent pattern, and consent has long been held as necessary for organ donation. As such, it was a major lapse and worthy of some comment.
Otherwise I agree with everything you said.
When the revolution comes you will be treated like the rest of the jews.
He'll be put amongst the Kings of the Earth?
Quote from: Razgovory on December 22, 2009, 01:04:51 PM
He'll be put amongst the Kings of the Earth?
In a manner of speaking. :shifty:
Quote from: Slargos on December 22, 2009, 12:57:09 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 22, 2009, 12:40:58 PM
I would disagree with calling the original story "a minor story about ethical violations in a pathology lab", as it appeared to be a persistent pattern, and consent has long been held as necessary for organ donation. As such, it was a major lapse and worthy of some comment.
Otherwise I agree with everything you said.
When the revolution comes you will be treated like the rest of the jews.
Woohoo!
So, looks like the Israelis are starting early, getting with the new US health scare plan.
Quote from: Martinus on December 22, 2009, 03:20:54 AM
Also, Valmy, what the fuck are you talking about with "Israel doesn't bother to defend itself"???
After this article was originally published, Israel staged an international shitstorm, including official protests at the highest diplomatic levels. :lol:
What they apparently don't bother with is showing evidence to families of the victims that they are only guilty of one crime, and not two.
:huh: That is exactly what I am fucking talking talking about. They do not provide evidence or go into long explanations or show evidence of an internal investigation or whatever. They tend to lash out defensively and handle whatever they decide to do inhouse. They are a secretive bunch with a bunker mentality.
Quote from: Martinus on December 22, 2009, 03:10:00 AM
Ok here you are getting unreasonable.
So only because Israel has been accused of evil for the last 60 years, they have no obligation to remedy the wrong done by their medical personal to very specific people, by providing a full disclosure of the wrongdoing that Israeli investigation prove to be true? :huh:
I am only explaining why it is unrealistic to expect Israel to react as every other country does. Do they have an obligation? Fuck I do not even know if they have even carried out an investigation and if they have what they have done about it. I am simply saying it is naive in the extreme to expect them to provide full disclosure about something and then I explained why I think that.
Also Marty I think you misunderstand me entirely. I am not saying Israel is doing the right thing, in fact I think Israel very rarely does the right thing. However the record will show the few times they do do the right thing the world makes sure they fucking pay for it. See: the Gaza pullout. I do sort of wish Israel would see that full disclosure, cooperating and so forth are in their best interests but generally they suffer far more when they do do those things than when they do not.
The international community's policies towards Israel could not be more focused on continuing the fucked up situation over there better if they tried. No good deed goes unpunished.
Of course Israel has its own problems. You have to remember most of the Israelis came from Arab countries or The Soviet Union and that is reflected in alot of the ways their government works and the way they run it. Secrecy is paramount.
Quote from: Valmy on December 22, 2009, 03:46:20 PM
You have to remember most of the Israelis came from Arab countries or The Soviet Union
:huh: You really hate Jews don't you?
Quote from: The Brain on December 22, 2009, 03:48:40 PM
Quote from: Valmy on December 22, 2009, 03:46:20 PM
You have to remember most of the Israelis came from Arab countries or The Soviet Union
:huh: You really hate Jews don't you?
Well let's just say I think Israel would be a better place if more American and French Jews moved there.
Quote from: Malthus on December 22, 2009, 10:46:08 AM
...and re-enforces the ever-popular stereotype of the dumb-as-rocks Swede
I understand Im putting myself at great peril to additionally reinforce this stereotype, but there is another side to this story that I have not seen much discussed.
The organ-stealing article has been very beneficial to Israel on the international diplomacy-side of things.
Consider this; Sweden became EU-president-nation on July 1st. Carl Bildt is our foreign minister and he has had very high ambitions to make a difference in the Israel-Palestine conflict. He is also known for his hardline stand on Israel. As Obama lost momentum and was tied down in domestic politics, the general idea was that the EU would pick up the torch in the peace process.
The Swedish presidency takes off, Carl Bildt gears up for his peace-treaty-offensive, then the newspaper article hits. The Israelis go balistic, the Swedish ambassador says something controversial, we get a domestic debate, the Israelis demand an apology that we cannot give (anymore than the Danish could apologize for the Mohammed-cartoons). Things quickly deteriorate into a diplomatic quagmire. Carl Bildts trip to Israel is "rescheduled" or "postponed" (officially that is, the rumors off the record are that we were told that he would be refused entry if he showed up). Suddenly, the Swedish presidency is effectively neutered by this quasi-scandal. All of this benefits Israel greatly. The peace process is dead in the water with Obama still tied up domestically, the EU neutralized for now, and with Spain coming up as the next EU-presidency nothing is expected to happen...not to mention the faceless new EU foreign minister who is unlikely to ever do anything important.
All in all, this "scandal" has served Israel well, it effectively neutralized Bildt during the presidency.
Quote from: Bluebook on December 22, 2009, 03:58:16 PM
All in all, this "scandal" has served Israel well, it effectively neutralized Bildt during the presidency.
The status quo is not in Israel's best interests.
Quote from: citizen k on December 22, 2009, 04:22:49 PM
The status quo is not in Israel's best interests.
It could be provided what the alternatives are.
Quote from: Bluebook on December 22, 2009, 03:58:16 PM
Consider this; Sweden became EU-president-nation on July 1st. Carl Bildt is our foreign minister and he has had very high ambitions to make a difference in the Israel-Palestine conflict. He is also known for his hardline stand on Israel. As Obama lost momentum and was tied down in domestic politics, the general idea was that the EU would pick up the torch in the peace process.
:lmfao:
Quote from: Slargos on December 22, 2009, 11:36:25 AM
Quote from: Malthus on December 22, 2009, 10:46:08 AM
Quote from: Pat on December 21, 2009, 05:54:48 PM
Quite wrong. You link speaks of "sales of body parts". That is also what the Aftonbladet article mentions as previously well known (have you read it? I linked to it earlier in the thread).
There is absolutely nothing in your link about harvesting Palestinians for organs.
Of course not; because until the Swedish article came out with its inflamatory and zero-evidence allegations, the identities of the cadavers whose organs were harvested without consent was irrelevant.
The Swedish article took a minor story about ethical violations in a pathology lab - allegations investigated a decade ago by the Israelis themselves - and blew it up into a major international incident through gullably swallowing a bunch of innuendo with absolutely no evidence to support it.
This no doubt delights the Slargoses of the world, and re-enforces the ever-popular stereotype of the dumb-as-rocks Swede (Slargos being the poster child for this ;) ), but is hardly the occasion to start handing out an award for excellence in journalism. :D
You are glue, etc.
Or rather, in a perfect world you would be.
Glue.
Or a lampshade.
Just as long as it is not a fucking
Ikea lampshade named "EKÅS" or something retardedly Swedish like that.
'cause I have my standards.
:D
Quote from: Bluebook on December 22, 2009, 03:58:16 PM
Quote from: Malthus on December 22, 2009, 10:46:08 AM
...and re-enforces the ever-popular stereotype of the dumb-as-rocks Swede
I understand Im putting myself at great peril to additionally reinforce this stereotype, but there is another side to this story that I have not seen much discussed.
The organ-stealing article has been very beneficial to Israel on the international diplomacy-side of things.
Consider this; Sweden became EU-president-nation on July 1st. Carl Bildt is our foreign minister and he has had very high ambitions to make a difference in the Israel-Palestine conflict. He is also known for his hardline stand on Israel. As Obama lost momentum and was tied down in domestic politics, the general idea was that the EU would pick up the torch in the peace process.
The Swedish presidency takes off, Carl Bildt gears up for his peace-treaty-offensive, then the newspaper article hits. The Israelis go balistic, the Swedish ambassador says something controversial, we get a domestic debate, the Israelis demand an apology that we cannot give (anymore than the Danish could apologize for the Mohammed-cartoons). Things quickly deteriorate into a diplomatic quagmire. Carl Bildts trip to Israel is "rescheduled" or "postponed" (officially that is, the rumors off the record are that we were told that he would be refused entry if he showed up). Suddenly, the Swedish presidency is effectively neutered by this quasi-scandal. All of this benefits Israel greatly. The peace process is dead in the water with Obama still tied up domestically, the EU neutralized for now, and with Spain coming up as the next EU-presidency nothing is expected to happen...not to mention the faceless new EU foreign minister who is unlikely to ever do anything important.
All in all, this "scandal" has served Israel well, it effectively neutralized Bildt during the presidency.
As someone once said in another context: "they ain't that smart and they ain't that stupid". :lol:
[It was the launch of New Coke, I believe]
Point of fact - the Israelis do not give a shit about the European Union's foreign policy, because it is utterly impotent. The notion that but for this incident the Swedish presidency would have kicked asses and taken names, and sorted out the whole Arab-Israeli mess to the disadvantage of Israel, thus necessitating manufacturing of such an incident - well, I hardly know where to begin. :D
Quote from: Barrister on December 22, 2009, 12:40:58 PM
Quote from: Malthus on December 22, 2009, 10:46:08 AM
Of course not; because until the Swedish article came out with its inflamatory and zero-evidence allegations, the identities of the cadavers whose organs were harvested without consent was irrelevant.
The Swedish article took a minor story about ethical violations in a pathology lab - allegations investigated a decade ago by the Israelis themselves - and blew it up into a major international incident through gullably swallowing a bunch of innuendo with absolutely no evidence to support it.
This no doubt delights the Slargoses of the world, and re-enforces the ever-popular stereotype of the dumb-as-rocks Swede (Slargos being the poster child for this ;)), but is hardly the occasion to start handing out an award for excellence in journalism. :D
I would disagree with calling the original story "a minor story about ethical violations in a pathology lab", as it appeared to be a persistent pattern, and consent has long been held as necessary for organ donation. As such, it was a major lapse and worthy of some comment.
Otherwise I agree with everything you said.
Oh, I agree. "Minor" only in the sense that it would be purely of domestic interest.
For example, there was a recent scandal here in Ontario about a foresnic pathologist who routinely made up results, leading to a bunch of people being falsely imprisioned on heinous charges (including moms convicted of murdering their babies). You may have heard of it, but I doubt it made the international news. It's a big deal, much bigger a deal than what this Israeli lab people are accused of, but still really only of domestic significance.
Quote from: Malthus on December 22, 2009, 04:59:03 PM
Oh, I agree. "Minor" only in the sense that it would be purely of domestic interest.
For example, there was a recent scandal here in Ontario about a foresnic pathologist who routinely made up results, leading to a bunch of people being falsely imprisioned on heinous charges (including moms convicted of murdering their babies). You may have heard of it, but I doubt it made the international news. It's a big deal, much bigger a deal than what this Israeli lab people are accused of, but still really only of domestic significance.
As you might expect, I have heard *a lot* about Dr. Smith. He didn't however "make up results", but he would draw conclusions (that he was quite sure of) that was unsupported by the actual evidence, and conclusions no other pathologist would draw.
I would hope the story would spread beyond Canada, as it's a powerful little cautionary tale.
Quote from: Malthus on December 22, 2009, 04:59:03 PM
For example, there was a recent scandal here in Ontario about a foresnic pathologist who routinely made up results, leading to a bunch of people being falsely imprisioned on heinous charges (including moms convicted of murdering their babies). You may have heard of it, but I doubt it made the international news. It's a big deal, much bigger a deal than what this Israeli lab people are accused of, but still really only of domestic significance.
Yes but the Israelis didn't do it to Palestinians and thus it doesn't interest people much.
Quote from: Barrister on December 22, 2009, 05:03:58 PM
Quote from: Malthus on December 22, 2009, 04:59:03 PM
Oh, I agree. "Minor" only in the sense that it would be purely of domestic interest.
For example, there was a recent scandal here in Ontario about a foresnic pathologist who routinely made up results, leading to a bunch of people being falsely imprisioned on heinous charges (including moms convicted of murdering their babies). You may have heard of it, but I doubt it made the international news. It's a big deal, much bigger a deal than what this Israeli lab people are accused of, but still really only of domestic significance.
As you might expect, I have heard *a lot* about Dr. Smith. He didn't however "make up results", but he would draw conclusions (that he was quite sure of) that was unsupported by the actual evidence, and conclusions no other pathologist would draw.
I would hope the story would spread beyond Canada, as it's a powerful little cautionary tale.
I'm not sure why "make up results" isn't an acceptable shorthand way of saying "he would draw conclusions (that he was quite sure of) that was unsupported by the actual evidence, and conclusions no other pathologist would draw".
What is a 'conclusion unsupported by evidence' other than something, in effect, pulled out of his ass? (Note: I don't mean
literally pulled out of his ass ...). ;)
Anyway, any tale of wrong-doing can be a great object lesson, but it is in the nature of things that some are less likely to gain international currency than others.
Quote from: Malthus on December 22, 2009, 05:13:39 PM
I'm not sure why "make up results" isn't an acceptable shorthand way of saying "he would draw conclusions (that he was quite sure of) that was unsupported by the actual evidence, and conclusions no other pathologist would draw".
What is a 'conclusion unsupported by evidence' other than something, in effect, pulled out of his ass? (Note: I don't mean literally pulled out of his ass ...). ;)
Anyway, any tale of wrong-doing can be a great object lesson, but it is in the nature of things that some are less likely to gain international currency than others.
"Make up results" implies deliberate falsification. Dr. Smith didn't do that - he honestly believed in his results. It's part of what made him such a great witness. It's a shame he didn't follow the science though...
Quote from: Malthus on December 22, 2009, 04:48:26 PM
Quote from: Slargos on December 22, 2009, 11:36:25 AM
Quote from: Malthus on December 22, 2009, 10:46:08 AM
Quote from: Pat on December 21, 2009, 05:54:48 PM
Quite wrong. You link speaks of "sales of body parts". That is also what the Aftonbladet article mentions as previously well known (have you read it? I linked to it earlier in the thread).
There is absolutely nothing in your link about harvesting Palestinians for organs.
Of course not; because until the Swedish article came out with its inflamatory and zero-evidence allegations, the identities of the cadavers whose organs were harvested without consent was irrelevant.
The Swedish article took a minor story about ethical violations in a pathology lab - allegations investigated a decade ago by the Israelis themselves - and blew it up into a major international incident through gullably swallowing a bunch of innuendo with absolutely no evidence to support it.
This no doubt delights the Slargoses of the world, and re-enforces the ever-popular stereotype of the dumb-as-rocks Swede (Slargos being the poster child for this ;) ), but is hardly the occasion to start handing out an award for excellence in journalism. :D
You are glue, etc.
Or rather, in a perfect world you would be.
Glue.
Or a lampshade.
Just as long as it is not a fucking Ikea lampshade named "EKÅS" or something retardedly Swedish like that.
'cause I have my standards.
:D
Don't worry. I will make it a custom job. It will be very tasteful. :P
Quote from: Malthus on December 22, 2009, 04:53:28 PM
Point of fact - the Israelis do not give a shit about the European Union's foreign policy, because it is utterly impotent. The notion that but for this incident the Swedish presidency would have kicked asses and taken names, and sorted out the whole Arab-Israeli mess to the disadvantage of Israel, thus necessitating manufacturing of such an incident - well, I hardly know where to begin. :D
My impression of diplomacy and international relations is that it is not quite that simple though. While it might be quite easy to make statements like that on the internet under the protection of anonymity while (probably) being without any real influence in international affairs, it is not quite that simple for a nation to publicly take that stance. To snub the EU would have real consequences for Israel economy wise at least.
And while Israel might be very much more dependent on US support than access to the european market, it is definitively not irrelevant to Israel. Especially now, when the unconditional support of the US might not be as certain as under the previous president.
Im not saying that the Swedish presidency would have sorted out the conflict, what I am saying though is that there would probably have been some tough choises facing Israel at a point in time where their list of friends is growing thin, while their need to have international backing grows (because of Iran).
But, that is just my opinion of cource, and undoubtedly I have proven myself to be one of those dumb-as-rock-Swedes. Oh well.
Quote from: Bluebook on December 22, 2009, 03:58:16 PM
Quote from: Malthus on December 22, 2009, 10:46:08 AM
...and re-enforces the ever-popular stereotype of the dumb-as-rocks Swede
I understand Im putting myself at great peril to additionally reinforce this stereotype, but there is another side to this story that I have not seen much discussed.
The organ-stealing article has been very beneficial to Israel on the international diplomacy-side of things.
Consider this; Sweden became EU-president-nation on July 1st. Carl Bildt is our foreign minister and he has had very high ambitions to make a difference in the Israel-Palestine conflict. He is also known for his hardline stand on Israel. As Obama lost momentum and was tied down in domestic politics, the general idea was that the EU would pick up the torch in the peace process.
The Swedish presidency takes off, Carl Bildt gears up for his peace-treaty-offensive, then the newspaper article hits. The Israelis go balistic, the Swedish ambassador says something controversial, we get a domestic debate, the Israelis demand an apology that we cannot give (anymore than the Danish could apologize for the Mohammed-cartoons). Things quickly deteriorate into a diplomatic quagmire. Carl Bildts trip to Israel is "rescheduled" or "postponed" (officially that is, the rumors off the record are that we were told that he would be refused entry if he showed up). Suddenly, the Swedish presidency is effectively neutered by this quasi-scandal. All of this benefits Israel greatly. The peace process is dead in the water with Obama still tied up domestically, the EU neutralized for now, and with Spain coming up as the next EU-presidency nothing is expected to happen...not to mention the faceless new EU foreign minister who is unlikely to ever do anything important.
All in all, this "scandal" has served Israel well, it effectively neutralized Bildt during the presidency.
Could the EU Presidency actually do anything? Aren't they utterly impotent?
Quote from: Bluebook on December 22, 2009, 05:30:44 PM
And while Israel might be very much more dependent on US support than access to the european market, it is definitively not irrelevant to Israel. Especially now, when the unconditional support of the US might not be as certain as under the previous president.
I think Israel would be fine without our support....in any case I doubt we would ever drop it it would be a hugely expensive political move for whoever decides to do it. Israel is, like everywhere, a political hornets nest most US politicians would rather leave alone.
Much better to do nothing while make bold moves down the road map to peace which only the foolishly naive think is going anywhere.
Quote from: Neil on December 22, 2009, 05:31:33 PM
Could the EU Presidency actually do anything? Aren't they utterly impotent?
They are about as important or unimportant as the EU is. And while "not very, then" might seem like the easy answer, and indeed the most attractive one on an internet forum such as this, in reality it is a bit more complicated than that for Israel right now.
Quote from: Bluebook on December 22, 2009, 05:30:44 PM
My impression of diplomacy and international relations is that it is not quite that simple though. While it might be quite easy to make statements like that on the internet under the protection of anonymity while (probably) being without any real influence in international affairs, it is not quite that simple for a nation to publicly take that stance. To snub the EU would have real consequences for Israel economy wise at least.
:lmfao:
Quote from: BluebookBut, that is just my opinion of cource, and undoubtedly I have proven myself to be one of those dumb-as-rock-Swedes. Oh well.
It is starting to look that way, isn't it. :console:
Quote from: Valmy on December 22, 2009, 05:37:29 PM
I think Israel would be fine without our support....
I think not. But that just shows that we have different opinions on the matter. I would like to hear your arguments though.
Quote
in any case I doubt we would ever drop it it would be a hugely expensive political move for whoever decides to do it. Israel is, like everywhere, a political hornets nest most US politicians would rather leave alone.
There is a vast array of alternatives between dropping it and backing them 100% no matter what though. As the difference between Obama and Bush has shown if nothing else.
Quote from: Barrister on December 22, 2009, 05:40:10 PM
:lmfao:
Im sorry, but the last two posts you have done directed at me has consisted of nothing more than that emoticon. Perhaps you would be so kind as to articulate exactly what it is you find so hillarious?
Quote from: Bluebook on December 22, 2009, 05:38:03 PM
Quote from: Neil on December 22, 2009, 05:31:33 PM
Could the EU Presidency actually do anything? Aren't they utterly impotent?
They are about as important or unimportant as the EU is. And while "not very, then" might seem like the easy answer, and indeed the most attractive one on an internet forum such as this, in reality it is a bit more complicated than that for Israel right now.
That's not really true. The EU President isn't actually the leader of the EU, and can't direct the EU.
Quote from: Neil on December 22, 2009, 05:45:24 PM
That's not really true. The EU President isn't actually the leader of the EU, and can't direct the EU.
No, the precidency cannot direct the EU, it speaks for and represents the EU though, and it sets the agenda. While its importance should not be exaggerated, it should not be underestimated either.
Quote from: Bluebook on December 22, 2009, 05:45:22 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 22, 2009, 05:40:10 PM
:lmfao:
Im sorry, but the last two posts you have done directed at me has consisted of nothing more than that emoticon.
That's right. :)
Quote from: Barrister on December 22, 2009, 05:49:50 PM
That's right. :)
I really wish you would put more effort into this.
Quote from: Bluebook on December 22, 2009, 05:41:44 PM
I think not. But that just shows that we have different opinions on the matter. I would like to hear your arguments though.
My opinion is based on the reality that our actual support is rather minimal. They can easily provide for their own defense and carry on their own policies without the chump change money we give them. Naturally they figure it is probably easier to get along with us than without us but they are not united in that opinion. Some would rather get rid of the burden of having to go through the motions of making us happy.
QuoteThere is a vast array of alternatives between dropping it and backing them 100% no matter what though. As the difference between Obama and Bush has shown if nothing else.
There is no practical difference between Obama and Bush. Both wanted to advance a Palestinian State, freeze settlements and so forth and both were and will be completely ineffective. Neither most Israelis nor alot of Palestinians have any interest in a Palestinian State but they will go along with us to humor us and delay delay delay. If any real progress happens the radicals will blow it all to hell like they always do.
Quote from: Bluebook on December 22, 2009, 05:55:28 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 22, 2009, 05:49:50 PM
That's right. :)
I really wish you would put more effort into this.
Funny, I wish the same thing about you. :huh:
You make two statements so outlandishly silly that no real reply is warranted. Really - the idea Israel was quaking in it's boots over the visit of the Swedish foreign minister? :lol:
The EU President is sometimes able to direct EU foreign policy on areas that are somewhat under the radar, but Israel/Palestine is far from that. Britain, France, Germany, aren't going to shift their policies one iota based on anything Sweden has to say.
Quote from: Valmy on December 22, 2009, 06:02:15 PM
My opinion is based on the reality that our actual support is rather minimal.
Has something changed lately? I seem to recall that the US was giving Israel litterary billions in aid every year. Am I wrong?
QuoteThere is no practical difference between Obama and Bush.
I disagree vehemently.
Quote
Both wanted to advance a Palestinian State, freeze settlements and so forth
Ok, now you have listed their similarities, now list their differences.
Quote from: Barrister on December 22, 2009, 06:03:27 PM
You make two statements so outlandishly silly that no real reply is warranted. Really - the idea Israel was quaking in it's boots over the visit of the Swedish foreign minister? :lol:
Quote
Who said anything about them quaking in their boots? I was merely pointing out that they managed to completely disarm the EU for 6 months thanks to this.
Quote
The EU President is sometimes able to direct EU foreign policy on areas that are somewhat under the radar, but Israel/Palestine is far from that. Britain, France, Germany, aren't going to shift their policies one iota based on anything Sweden has to say.
What makes you think that Britain, France or Germany has a different stance on Israel-Palestine than Sweden? Do you even know what policy they/we have? Your posts seems to indicate that the answer is no.
The EU wasn't armed in the first place, so they could not be disarmed.
There was no support for any meaningful 'sanctions' on Israel, then or now. There was and is no risk that steps would be taken that would lead to consequences to Israel's economy.
Quote from: Valmy on December 22, 2009, 06:02:15 PM
My opinion is based on the reality that our actual support is rather minimal. They can easily provide for their own defense and carry on their own policies without the chump change money we give them.
I think 3 billion is a bit more than chump change to a state Israel's size.
Quote from: Barrister on December 22, 2009, 06:35:40 PM
The EU wasn't armed in the first place, so they could not be disarmed.
Again, I belive this to be a somewhat simplified view of international relations in general and the importance/impact of the EU in particular.
Quote
There was no support for any meaningful 'sanctions' on Israel, then or now. There was and is no risk that steps would be taken that would lead to consequences to Israel's economy.
Perhaps you are right, perhaps you are exaggerating somewhat, perhaps you are outright wrong. When it comes to international relations though, the world is never black or white, the list of absolute certainties is very small, and the importance of good relations to as many as possible should never be underestimated.
When it comes to Israel right now, their list of close friends is growing thinner at a point in time when they really need all the international support they can get. I really dont think they would would want to seriously piss off the EU if they could easily avoid it. And that is what this whole organ-stealing-debacle proved to be, an easy way to disable what could have been an ankward political situation.
In what way is there list of friends thinner?
They've had roughly the same number of "friends" for 30 years or so. Maybe more even since they've opened up limited diplomatic ties with some of their beighbors. There certainly has been no meaningful change in Euro-Israeli relations during this time.
Quote from: Barrister on December 22, 2009, 07:24:17 PM
In what way is there list of friends thinner?
They've had roughly the same number of "friends" for 30 years or so. Maybe more even since they've opened up limited diplomatic ties with some of their beighbors. There certainly has been no meaningful change in Euro-Israeli relations during this time.
No, they have lost Turkey since Gaza, and that is a huge blow as Israel saw Turkey as a (potential?) strategic ally.
Also, the US-Israel relations arent exactly improving right now. As for the Euro-Israeli relations, they have been deteriorating steadily in the past 30 years...but the point is that Israel cannot let this slide go on much further.
Relations between Turkey and Israel have cooled, but there's been no change in the economic relationship between the two.
Countries have 'warmed' and 'cooled' their relations with Israel multiple times over the years, but the only meaningful changes to Israel's economy have been positive ones (i.e. limited ties to Jordan). Canada's Conservative government takes a more pro-Israel tone than the previous Liberal government, but "on the ground" that makes no difference whatsoever.
Quote from: Barrister on December 22, 2009, 07:35:53 PM
Relations between Turkey and Israel have cooled, but there's been no change in the economic relationship between the two.
So the economic relationship has not changed. The political relationship however, has gone from "very friendly" to "really bad" in a very short timespan. That should not be underestimated or trivialized. Turkey was Israels closest ally in the region. Was.
Quote
Countries have 'warmed' and 'cooled' their relations with Israel multiple times over the years, but the only meaningful changes to Israel's economy have been positive ones (i.e. limited ties to Jordan).
Yes?
Quote from: Bluebook on December 22, 2009, 05:48:38 PM
Quote from: Neil on December 22, 2009, 05:45:24 PM
That's not really true. The EU President isn't actually the leader of the EU, and can't direct the EU.
No, the precidency cannot direct the EU, it speaks for and represents the EU though, and it sets the agenda. While its importance should not be exaggerated, it should not be underestimated either.
But it really doesn't, as the EU members conduct their own foreign policy.
Quote from: Neil on December 22, 2009, 07:54:49 PM
But it really doesn't, as the EU members conduct their own foreign policy.
Not really anymore. Sure it is "their own" on paper, but the general trend within the EU is to strive more and more towards consensus. This is already happening with the only recent exception being the UK and the US or France and Africa. The interesting part here is that this progress is happening more or less against the will of some of the individual nations really. The choise of foreign minister and president is a sign of how (some) of the member states are starting to fear the union getting too much influence over the respective member states. With the Lisbon treaty, the writing is on the wall though.
Quote from: Bluebook on December 22, 2009, 07:29:08 PM
No, they have lost Turkey since Gaza, and that is a huge blow as Israel saw Turkey as a (potential?) strategic ally.
That had nothing to do with Gaza, and everything to do with the rising Islamism in Turkey.
QuoteAlso, the US-Israel relations arent exactly improving right now. As for the Euro-Israeli relations, they have been deteriorating steadily in the past 30 years...but the point is that Israel cannot let this slide go on much further.
US-Israel relations remain at the same high level they have been for years, and Euro-Israeli relations remain irrelevant because decisions regarding the Mideast are made in Washington, and sanctions are difficult given that all of Europe except for Britain bears the stigma of the Holocaust.
Quote from: Neil on December 22, 2009, 08:07:35 PM
That had nothing to do with Gaza, and everything to do with the rising Islamism in Turkey.
Perhaps. Gaza is the reason given by Turkey though.
Quote
US-Israel relations remain at the same high level they have been for years, and Euro-Israeli relations remain irrelevant because decisions regarding the Mideast are made in Washington, and sanctions are difficult given that all of Europe except for Britain bears the stigma of the Holocaust.
Again, I believe you are oversimplifying matters of international relations. I dont think US-Israel relations remain at the "same high level", nor do I believe that Euro-Israel relations are "irrelevant". International relations are usually vastly more complex and than that.
Quote from: Bluebook on December 22, 2009, 08:02:27 PM
Quote from: Neil on December 22, 2009, 07:54:49 PM
But it really doesn't, as the EU members conduct their own foreign policy.
Not really anymore. Sure it is "their own" on paper, but the general trend within the EU is to strive more and more towards consensus. This is already happening with the only recent exception being the UK and the US or France and Africa. The interesting part here is that this progress is happening more or less against the will of some of the individual nations really. The choise of foreign minister and president is a sign of how (some) of the member states are starting to fear the union getting too much influence over the respective member states. With the Lisbon treaty, the writing is on the wall though.
France and Britain will continue to maintain their own foreign policy. Unlike every other country in Europe, they matter.
Quote from: Bluebook on December 22, 2009, 08:14:10 PM
Quote from: Neil on December 22, 2009, 08:07:35 PM
That had nothing to do with Gaza, and everything to do with the rising Islamism in Turkey.
Perhaps. Gaza is the reason given by Turkey though.
Indeed, but they are lying Islamist scum who should be exterminated down to the last child.
QuoteQuote
US-Israel relations remain at the same high level they have been for years, and Euro-Israeli relations remain irrelevant because decisions regarding the Mideast are made in Washington, and sanctions are difficult given that all of Europe except for Britain bears the stigma of the Holocaust.
Again, I believe you are oversimplifying matters of international relations. I dont think US-Israel relations remain at the "same high level", nor do I believe that Euro-Israel relations are "irrelevant". International relations are usually vastly more complex and than that.
You're attempting to draw broad conclusions based on extremely brief snapshots of data. Your approach is useless for predicting long-term trends.
Quote from: Neil on December 22, 2009, 08:20:54 PM
France and Britain will continue to maintain their own foreign policy. Unlike every other country in Europe, they matter.
I can see that you are saying that. They are trending towards accepting/trying to reach consensus with the other EU-nations though.
Quote from: Neil on December 22, 2009, 08:35:07 PM
You're attempting to draw broad conclusions based on extremely brief snapshots of data.
Not really, Im just telling you what the current situation is.
Quote...predicting long-term trends.
Good luck with that.
Quote from: Bluebook on December 22, 2009, 08:39:11 PM
Quote from: Neil on December 22, 2009, 08:20:54 PM
France and Britain will continue to maintain their own foreign policy. Unlike every other country in Europe, they matter.
I can see that you are saying that. They are trending towards accepting/trying to reach consensus with the other EU-nations though.
It's hard to say. There haven't really been any major foreign policy incidents over the last few years.
Quote from: Bluebook on December 22, 2009, 08:43:35 PM
Not really, Im just telling you what the current situation is.
I already know the current situation. I know all things.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 22, 2009, 07:07:44 PM
I think 3 billion is a bit more than chump change to a state Israel's size.
It is certainly nice but they could easily do without it.
It is chump change to us though.
Quote from: Bluebook on December 22, 2009, 07:29:08 PM
No, they have lost Turkey since Gaza, and that is a huge blow as Israel saw Turkey as a (potential?) strategic ally.
Also, the US-Israel relations arent exactly improving right now. As for the Euro-Israeli relations, they have been deteriorating steadily in the past 30 years...but the point is that Israel cannot let this slide go on much further.
I know isn't that a fucking joke? They pull out of Gaza and they are now hated more than ever.
You know what started this whole thing? The peace process of 1994. Everytime they do something good the whole world jumps on them. No good deed goes unpunished.
So how should they stop this slide? You know the one caused by them trying to cooperate? Answer me that.
Quote from: Bluebook on December 22, 2009, 06:18:25 PM
Has something changed lately? I seem to recall that the US was giving Israel litterary billions in aid every year. Am I wrong?
Wow billions. 3 billion. That is not very much money. Hardly enough to make them "dependent".
Quote from: Bluebook on December 22, 2009, 06:18:25 PM
Ok, now you have listed their similarities, now list their differences.
Since I believe there are no practical differences that would be pretty short list.
Ok here you are:
Quote from: Valmy on December 22, 2009, 11:13:42 PM
I know isn't that a fucking joke? They pull out of Gaza and they are now hated more than ever.
Actually I think the re-invasion in 2008 might have had something to do with it.
Quote
So how should they stop this slide? You know the one caused by them trying to cooperate? Answer me that.
Again, I believe you are oversimplifying. To claim that the slide in Israel-Turkey relations has been caused by the Israelis trying to cooperate with the Palestinians can hardly be called as an accurate description of the current events.
Quote from: Bluebook on December 23, 2009, 05:24:11 AM
Again, I believe you are oversimplifying. To claim that the slide in Israel-Turkey relations has been caused by the Israelis trying to cooperate with the Palestinians can hardly be called as an accurate description of the current events.
Yeah, no shit...
Quote from: Valmy on December 22, 2009, 11:10:25 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 22, 2009, 07:07:44 PM
I think 3 billion is a bit more than chump change to a state Israel's size.
It is certainly nice but they could easily do without it.
It is chump change to us though.
It's only $533 per Jew! What a deal.
Who is Blue Book now?