New Mega-Leak Reveals Middle East Peace Process 760
An anonymous reader writes "There's been yet another mega-leak, this time of 1,600 papers describing the Israeli/Palestinian peace process negotiations. It's independent of Wikileaks and came to light via al-Jazeera, showing perhaps that the mega-leak meme is here to stay whatever happens to Assange. The papers show a weak Palestinian side offering ever greater concessions to Israel, which flatly rejected this as being insufficient: 'We do not like this suggestion because it does not meet our demands,' Israel's then foreign minister, Tzipi Livni, told the Palestinians, 'and probably it was not easy for you to think about it, but I really appreciate it.'"
Its really (Score:4, Interesting)
A whole new game, ain't it now?
Re:Its really (Score:5, Insightful)
It only seems like a new game because we've grown accustomed to the non-critical, non-investigative journalism that's handed to us on the nightly news. The news should be surprising to most people since we're mostly not experts in Middle-East relations, but astute readers of Foreign Policy, The Economist, AJ, or even La Presse should find very little new except for the details of individual human speech and interactions (the same can be said of any close transcript of almost any meeting or discussion).
However, that's not to say that leaked details aren't valuable to somebody. If we were smart about this, we'd ask under what circumstances it's acceptable for professionals in general (who are also accountable to the public) to provide contrasting or conflicting private and public accounts of their professional activities as experts.
Re:Its really (Score:5, Insightful)
great post - anyone who travels much and sees the world through their own eyes will quickly realize that most of what we are told on the "news" is highly filtered and twisted to make it palatable to the sheep !
Re:Its really (Score:5, Interesting)
For sure. It completely baffles me how anyone can have a strong opinion on any issue when they are only fed the information via the mainstream media. War on Terrorism is the main one that springs to mind - so many people wanting the US (and everyone else) out of there and obviously feeling very strongly about it, having only read about it in mainstream media and maybe a few forums. Maybe they're right, maybe there are a whole load of valid reasons why we shouldn't be over there, but how can they know for sure when they are just repeating 'popular opinion'???
Even wikileaks leaves itself wide open to astroturfing with manufactured 'leaks' to suit someone's agenda. It doesn't even have to go that far if someone somewhere is deciding what to leak and what to bury.
I don't have a better solution, but it does kind of bug me...
Re:Its really (Score:5, Informative)
Even wikileaks leaves itself wide open to astroturfing with manufactured 'leaks' to suit someone's agenda. It doesn't even have to go that far if someone somewhere is deciding what to leak and what to bury.
Wikileaks do their best to verify the leaks before publishing them. IIRC, they sent some people to Iraq to confirm the authenticity of the leaked video, before publishing "Collateral Murder", for example. While it's possible that they will make a mistake sooner or later, I don't think that what you're describing is so easy.
Re:Its really (Score:5, Insightful)
Still , it's dangerous to just assume that everything leaked is automatically valid.
Re:Its really (Score:5, Insightful)
It should also be pointed out that Al Jazeera did the same thing here, doing their best to validate that these were authentic. While they've been demonized in the US mainstream press (largely for not parroting the US view of the Israel-Palestine Conflict), they're the equivalent of CNN or the BBC in the Middle East. Is it 100% credibility? Heck no. But it's a good 95+% credible.
Re:Its really (Score:5, Informative)
They did in fact leave in the fragment where you see people carrying what appear to be rifles. They also gave a clear link to the full unedited version, for people interested in the broader context. The editing is understandable, because few people would want to sit through the whole thing, where mostly nothing happens -- they left in only the most interesting parts.
Yours is an oft repeated argument, but I just don't see how you can honestly claim such strong bias on their behalf. While they did choose the name "collateral murder", suggesting anti-American military bias, they provided all the necessary information for any intelligent person to make up their own mind about it. The title was just about the only slanted aspect of the release.
While they could have named the release differently, they certainly did a good job of attracting attention to it, leading to many press articles with more detailed behind-the-scenes information.
Just as you don't read newspapers that seem wrongly biased to you, you didn't have to watch the Wikileaks release. Pretty much all the media used it as a source and offered their own analysis. But this was only possible thanks to the public service of publishing the leak and drawing attention to it in the first place.
All things considered, such a service is so valuable that anyone who supports government accountability should be thankful to Wikileaks, even if they disagree with the apparent bias.
Re:Its really (Score:4, Insightful)
That, and the editing to remove evidence that supported the military's assertion that they appeared to be an armed group of insurgents and that the helicopter that fired on them was completely justified in doing so based on that evidence.
Yes, they provided a link to the unedited video. How many people actually clicked it, versus how many people watched "Collateral Murder" in its edited form, and simply accepted what they were shown - that the US military was just flying circles over Baghdad lighting up random people. They intentionally omitted the footage showing the men carrying what appear to be weapons, and they named it in as sensational a way as possible to paint the military in a horrific light.
This, I can agree with you on, at least in principle, and I've said so here on Slashdot repeatedly. I think that Wikileaks does provide a valuable service. I do not like Mr. Assange's editorializing about the content they're releasing, and I think it only serves to undermine their mission and make them (and him) less credible. Let the information speak for itself.
The Collateral Murder video footage was powerful. But they introduced bias to it. Let people watch the full & unedited version, and understand that war:
1) Requires young men and women with very imperfect information to make quick decisions about the situation they see unfolding in front of them, and act on it;
2) Is not a series of explosions and fire-from-the-hip Rambo footage. Modern warfare is in fact, large stretches of "mostly nothing happens" interspersed with a few minutes of gut-wrenching "interesting parts".
That video would have painted a terrifically informative picture of modern warfare for the average civilian... unfortunately, it painted a picture that said "these kids are trigger-happy monsters, and are just looking for an excuse to kill anybody they see walking down the street." Frankly, I'd say that the people who are already predisposed to agree with that message simply use the collateral murder video as a way to reinforce that notion, and never bothered to watch the full unedited video. And in that regard, they're no better than the people who refuse to watch any news source other than Fox.
Re:Its really (Score:5, Insightful)
For sure. It completely baffles me how anyone can have a strong opinion on any issue when they are only fed the information via the mainstream media. War on Terrorism is the main one that springs to mind - so many people wanting the US (and everyone else) out of there and obviously feeling very strongly about it, having only read about it in mainstream media and maybe a few forums. Maybe they're right, maybe there are a whole load of valid reasons why we shouldn't be over there, but how can they know for sure when they are just repeating 'popular opinion'???
I don't know where you get the idea that popular opinion says to end the War on Terror, based on reading the mainstream media. It seems to me that almost every cheerleader of the War on Terror I've met was someone who limited themselves to the mainstream media and limited their discussion of the issue to repeating talking points, and almost every staunch critic of the War on Terror I've met has based their opinion on having done independent research including talking to people from the affected parts of the world on all sides of the issue, and could engage in lengthy and nuanced debates on the subject. Maybe you just assume because their view doesn't match yours that it must be based on lack of information? Or maybe you're in a country where that is the popular opinion and I'm just assuming you're in the US 'cause I'm a dope ;-)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm thinking that he's probably confuzzling the war on terror with the war efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. An easy mistake to make, considering that the wars in those countries were triggered by the war on terror. There's an awful lot of people out there who were completely hawkish about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan who are now saying that the world should pull out of the region, because the human cost is too high. Those people piss me off. They didn't realize that there would be a human cost to fighti
Re:Its really (Score:5, Insightful)
Wars can be won, and enemies can be stamped out.
Tell that to the dead and consider the cost to the "victor". Wars can have first and second losers, and that's all.
England and it's allies "won" WWII... at the cost of British economic supremacy. The United States "won" WWII... at the cost of discarding forever its tradiational isolationist policies, putting it on a slippery slope to empire that is still costing American lives today, to say nothing of progressively bankrupting the American state.
Anyone who thinks wars can be "won" hasn't been paying attention to anything but military-industrial propoganda.
Re: (Score:3)
Wars can be won, and enemies can be stamped out.
Tell that to the dead and consider the cost to the "victor". Wars can have first and second losers, and that's all.
In the words of the first US Congresswoman, "You can no more win a war than you can win an earthquake."
Re: (Score:3)
Is it possible that both of you see the people on your side if the argument through biased lens of "clearly they are more intelligent people who have done way more research into the the matter because they reached the same opinion as me, and anyone who reaches a different opinion must not know as much as me or have ulterior motives."
It is a rare day indeed when you find a person who will admit that someone who disagrees with them has done an adequate amount of research and fact finding and simply has reach
Re:Its really (Score:4, Insightful)
Is it possible that both of you see the people on your side if the argument through biased lens of "clearly they are more intelligent people who have done way more research into the the matter because they reached the same opinion as me, and anyone who reaches a different opinion must not know as much as me or have ulterior motives."
No. I'm basing what I say on careful evaluation of people's arguments and stated justification for their beliefs. If I meet someone who has actually done more research into an issue than I have, I find that out and admit that it is the case; furthermore, I often change my position in response to meeting better and more-researched arguments than my own.
It is a rare day indeed when you find a person who will admit that someone who disagrees with them has done an adequate amount of research and fact finding and simply has reached a different well informed opinion.
I don't know where you hang out, but I (and many people I know, many of whom disagree with me on important issues) do it every day. For example, I'm willing to admit right now that you and I have a reasonable difference of opinion on differences of opinion. You're being reasonable enough here that you give me no reason to believe what you say is based on bias, and to give me every reason to believe you're basing what you say on serious thought.
We always want to believe people who disagree with us simply don't have all the facts or dismiss their opinions as misinformed ignorant sheep.
True. That's why we have to be very careful in arguments not to lapse into that kind of sloppy thinking. I never just dismiss someone I disagree with without asking enough questions about their position to know why they disagree with me, carefully evaluating their reasons to see if there's something real there, and offering my arguments to see what their counter-arguments are (and also on the off-chance I might convince them of my position; arguments serve a dual purpose here). I don't claim to be perfect or bias-free, but I think the process of careful examination means more of my assessments of people's positions are based on the actual strength of those positions than on my bias, and I regularly criticize people on the same side of issues as myself for not engaging in the same sort of rhetorical integrity (as well as for making weak arguments or just plain being biased).
Re: (Score:3)
It seems to me that almost every cheerleader of the War on Terror I've met was someone who limited themselves to the mainstream media and limited their discussion of the issue to repeating talking points
This is why I don't listen to people who watch Fox News.
I still listen to them, lest I lapse into bias. If we don't check ourselves constantly for biases, we lapse into dishonest thinking, and if there's one thing I can't stand, it's the act of being dishonest with oneself. So I listen to them, think hard about what they say, and continuously refine my understanding of the situation.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't listen because all they do is spout talking points and blatant lies that are repeated on some of these shows. Don't get me wrong, I typically conform with more of the liberal views, but I get pissed of whenever one of the mainstream media corps reports on the news. Fox News is just one of the worst.
I was watching Meet the Press (NBC) this Sunday, and David Gregory were interviewing Eric Cantor. Cantor was doing a good job being a politician (he was spouting "cutting the deficit by $50 billion" ov
Re:Jews: 3,700 years of not living cooperatively (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Jews: 3,700 years of not living cooperatively (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Jews: 3,700 years of not living cooperatively (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Jews: 3,700 years of not living cooperatively (Score:5, Interesting)
Um, there were no Jews 3,700 years ago. A monotheistic religion that would later become Judaism was just getting started. Even the first "proto Jews" weren't strictly monotheistic (the Hebrew Bible / Old Testament contains fragments of polytheism, eg. Psalm 82) which -- at least by today's standards -- would not qualify them as Jews...
As for your Pharaoh comment: There is not a single piece of archeological evidence that hundreds of thousands of people migrated away from Egypt and wandered through the desert for 40 years.
So either the Exodus never happened and the story is just made up or the ancient people of Israel were the cleanest people ever by not leaving any pottery, weapons, etc. behind....
Re:Jews: 3,700 years of not living cooperatively (Score:5, Interesting)
"of course, the old accounts also describe Amazon warriors."
You do realize that there is significant evidence that at least part of the Amazon myth is based on reality right ? Genetic evidence at that. Based on the oldest writings about them - they had entered Europe and Greece from the Russian Steppes to which they later returned. In the steppes are Burial Mounds in which were found the bodies of woman with the adornments of warriors. That's already a big hint.
It gets better, we know for a fact that the people who lived in those parts of the steppes later migrated from Russia toward Asia - and were the ancestors of Genghis Kahn's hordes. To this day their descendants expect women to fight as well as men - and here it gets really interesting. A small minority of Mongol children are born as blonds, and as far as we know - it's only EVER daughters. Apparently suggesting a female-only gene that causes blondness in a small minority. Genetic testing of some of them found a clear mitochondrial DNA link (that is maternal only) with the bodies found in the Steppes.
It's not absolute, nothing in science ever really is - and less so in archeology because evidence is *always* incredibly sparse, but right now the evidence we do have, suggests that at least part of the amazon legend as written by the first Greek historians was, in fact, true.
Re:Jews: 3,700 years of not living cooperatively (Score:5, Interesting)
And I guess Hitler killing millions of Jews was their fault too, eh?
If you ask an ultra orthodox Jew, you might even get a Yes as answer. A minority opinion among them is that European Jews were punished by god for not living orthodox.
(Just to be clear: I don't agree with that. I merely wanted to answer your question.)
Re:Jews: 3,700 years of not living cooperatively (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Jews: 3,700 years of not living cooperatively (Score:4, Insightful)
If you read a little more closely, you might have noticed that "Hitler killed a lot of Jews" was in response to "Jews have had problems with their neighbors for 3700 years" -- it was challenging the strong element of one-sided blame in the latter.
If the critics of Israel being asshats spent a little more time criticizing Israel's neighbors when the neighbors were being asshats, instead of coming across as stereotypical haters (technically, anti-Semitism isn't quite accurate here), then perhaps both Israel and its neighbors would have a better sense of when their behavior was outrageous.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh please don't forget that gypsies, homosexuals, etc. were more of an ideological "by-catch". Though the Nazi ideology hit them, too, the main theme was "Kill the jews! And do it thoroughly!". That's kind of a difference.
Nope, not really a by-catch at all. Nazism had a particularly nasty, but otherwise fairly typical, eugenics-based ideology. All of the killings - of the Jews, the gypsies, the homosexuals, the disabled, etc - were aimed at one goal: purifying the population.
Re:Jews: 3,700 years of not living cooperatively (Score:5, Insightful)
If you go back and read the same Bible most of the West does, you'd see the Jews are constantly their own worst enemy.... they rise to the occasion under extreme suffering, only to wallow in the gutter when everything goes their way. It's like a micro cell of humanity... it's happened before, it will happen again... 60 years ago somebody tried to exterminate one part of their ethnic group, yet they can't have any kind of grace or honor with people lesser than them. It's straight out of Dickenson where somebody with everything claims injury because they had to clean a little poor kids guts off their carriage and it ruined their day.
The problem is that most of the "Jews" that ended up in Israel after WW2 would best be termed "carpet baggers". Most of them were from other well-to do places. It was founded as a "fairy tale" religious state... like if Pat Robertson and Dick Cheney had their own country. I think part of why Americans are starting to find it so vulgar is that it mirrors what the Americans did to the Indians not that long ago... and they're starting to realize it was a mistake.
From a purely "biblical" point of view, the land being squabbled over is the same land Israel failed to take back in the time of King David and the Philistines. There is a prophesy that it would NEVER be their land... and 4000 years later it's still the case. They are trying to take land their OWN religious text says they won't ever get.... They're trying to starve them out, to cheat on their peace treaties, etc, etc. when 60 years ago those people were just "folks" of the land. In ANY western country (like Bosnia, Serbia, Kosovo, etc) we'd call out Israel for "Ethnic Purges" which is exactly what they're doing. It's high time they stop getting a free pass to randomly execute residents of their country... we overthrew Saddam for the same kind of crap.
Babylon, Persia, Greece, Rome, Crusaders.... all gave the jewish people a chance to participate in their cultures, then wiped them out... then the next guy gave them another chance, rinse n repeat. The UK/USA is another in a long line of big world players that felt the Jewish people earned great respect.... watch them squander it all just as fast!!!
My opinion is that in the next 5-10 years Israel is going to step over the line with Iran and the US will have to put them down for their own good (and to save our own face with the UN), wipe out all the stuff we've sold them... or 8 other countries will try to wipe them out. Iran is playing a game of talking big, but being careful not to actually violate any international laws, while at the same time stepping up response to minor violations on their own borders. It's a clever game to talk smack, but make sure the other guy throws the first punch. Russia and China have too much invested in Iran to let the US knock it over too... I think those two would hit the veto button on any military action against them.
Ah, but did you read the followup? (Score:3)
Hamas is pissed off and is claiming this shows that the Palestinian authority is in bed with Israel. So what side was exactly willing to make more concessions? It would be like the democrats agreeing to do X knowing full well the republicans can and will block it anyway.
Diplomacy, it is a lot more complex then people think. There are rarely just two sides to deal with.
For instance, one of the simplest solutions to all this would be to build a wall around Israel and make the occupied bits the problem of the
Re:Its really (Score:5, Interesting)
What a first week
An eclectic mix of superstar guests this week talked with Piers Morgan about love, war and everything in between.
Stern: I don't like Jay Leno Video
Rice: Be ready for 3 a.m. call Video
Oprah: I'm never getting married"
Al-Jazeera, who may be biased and ignore pop culture B.S. on the front page; or CNN and FoxNews who give priority to celebrity diversion. I can't take credit for pointing that out, that comparison was brought to light in 4chan's /b/ years ago...and it still hasn't changed.
Harumph, idiot America.
Re:Its really (Score:5, Insightful)
He didn't say Al-jazeera stood alone. What he's trying to convey is that they make Fox News looks like men of honor.
Which is only true if you take "Muslims are dishonest" or something similar as one of your premises. For all the talk about "fibs" and "lies" on al Jazeera, they are measurably more accurate and less biased than Fox News. It's just that they're biased in a direction that is politically incorrect in present American society, whereas Fox News is biased in a direction that's politically correct (again, within American society) so they usually get a pass.
Re:Its really (Score:5, Interesting)
Different versions (Score:5, Insightful)
There's English Al Jazeera which you can buy at least in Finland as a part of pay tv packages. Apparently they're by far more balanced with their reporting than the Arabian version is. Not too surprising, perhaps, considering their target audience.
Re: (Score:3)
for as long as I've known about them they've always been the garbage of the Arab world.
Except for all the other arab television stations.
Re: (Score:3)
you have respect for CNN? Body proves Bigfoot no myth, hunters say [cnn.com]
I stand corrected. I should have said, "I would lose all respect for CNN if I found they gave a bigfoot story serious coverage."
Re: (Score:3)
"I read about it on the internet so it must be true"
It strikes me as fairly easy to publish propaganda this way. I wonder who is behind these "leaks".
Re:Its really (Score:5, Interesting)
You go ahead and forge 1,600 documents involving hundreds or thousands of players that intermingles hundreds of verifiable meetings and facts with your fake counter-intelligence. Good luck with that.
The only chance of actually pulling off something like that would be if you actually got your hands on 1,600 real leaked documents and carefully wove a thread of fake edits throughout it. Oh, and hope nobody ELSE can get the same leak of 1,600 documents that contradict yours.
Re:Its really (Score:5, Insightful)
It would be difficult to forge those 1,600 documents.
A much easier propaganda use is to go over the documents you do have, and decide selectively which ones to leak - the ones that make your side look good, and the other side look bad.
Re: (Score:3)
"You need to pick them both up take the toy away knock their heads together and say 'play nice and dont make me come back in here'."
Fallacy. The idea that a local problem requires global involvement is absurd. Worst case, one side loses.
Re:Its really (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Its really (Score:4, Informative)
Al-Jazeera receives funding from the government of Qatar (and is based in Qatar). The government of Qatar is a pretty big ally of the government of the United States. The government of the United State is a pretty big supporter of the Government of Israel. You make of that what you will when you see them report on news that is not taken well in Israel, the United State, or Qatar.
Re:Its really (Score:4, Insightful)
Al-Jazeera is not a 'shining example of independent journalism'. It is, however, much much better than the usual government-controlled stuff coming out that region (excluding Ha'aretz etc which also have articles from the left and right sides of the political spectrum).
If you read the Al-Jazeera article being discussed, rather than relying on your pre-formed perception, you would realise it that is was an opinion piece and unbalanced (as would be expect from an opinion). The author essentially considers the main Palestinian negotiator as a 'sell-out' for going for compromise/concessions. The ability for the Palestinians to make up their own mind to find something that could bring peace doesn't seem to enter into the author's head.
There are two other things worth noting that you may be unaware of (I have travelled a fair bit around that region, including Israel):
1) What is written and declared by the Palestinians in English generally does not match what is declared in Arabic. There has never been a recognition of Israel's right to exist in Arabic (try finding Israel on a Palenstinian map). In fact, most things (eg. soothing words to the West) are taken as temporary tactics until Israel is finally pushed into the sea and all Palestinian land reclaimed.
2) Concessions by the Palestinians are remarkable. Generally, offering a concession is viewed as a sign of weakness in many parts of Arab culture, and a sign of weakness means you should hold out for more rather than find a mutually acceptable solution. This is one of the reasons that Ehud Barak failed to achieve a settlement when he offered a very large number of concessions many years ago.
3) Both sides do not trust each other. It seems that settlement building will never stop, even in regions internationally accepted as Palestinian - so naturally Palestinians do ot trust the Israeli government. Plus even the dovish Israelis also seem to have resigned themselves that the Palestinians do not want peace (after two Intifada) - which is why the bulk of moderate Israelis (who don't want a 'Greater Israel', they just want a nice life) are tolerant of their increasingly hawkish governments. One big change was the unilateral withdrawal from Gaza by the Israelis which did not bring any peace and is now used as a staging post for missile attacks (which seek to 'liberate' the rest of the land, Gaza was only the beginning).
Re:Its really (Score:5, Informative)
You know what the saddest thing about the whole Middle-East crisis is ? The people fighting are the same people on both sides.
Genetic research has shown that the Palestinians and the Israeli's are the SAME people. More specifically the Palestinians are the descendants of the so-called "ten lost tribes" - it's not even conjecture, it's basic proven science. In the years since the diaspora (and the classic story about why that happened is simply not true: the Romans never displaced any culture, so to think they did it in Israel is silly).
Here's what science says happened: A lot of Jews left Israel during the Roman occupation, settling around Europe in two major groups. The Azkanazi in Eastern Europe and the Sephardi in Spain. These two groups were the two not-lost tribes. What happened to the other ten ? They were not scattered and dispersed or lost, that legend is false. They stayed right there where they were, over time they converted to Islam.
When the other two tribes started coming back they found a largely Arab culture with an Islamic religion living in the area and claiming it as their homeland.
They could not believe that these Muslim Palestinians were fellow Jews (especially since it didn't fit their legends that all the tribes left), and the Palestinians would never have thought that their ancestors were Jewish Israelites.
But the scientific evidence is extremely strong - they share a very direct common ancestry and were one people just about 1700 years ago (in other words, almost exactly when the diaspora started).
An inevitable war between brothers, over a homeland that historically belongs as much to one as the other... and they still can't figure out a way to get along. Now that is human nature at it's worst, in a nutshell.
Re: (Score:3)
Don't blame you. By all means - look up the study if you want to. It was published in nature about a year ago - can't remember the author, some genetics professor from Jerusalem.
But it took me all of thirty seconds on google to find a link:
http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/the_way_we_live/article5504478.ece [timesonline.co.uk]
This isn't the original article I first read (which was mostly science rather than the political stuff added in the times) but it's a good start.
Sources (Score:3)
If anybody knows the academic research behind this (without the politicking) that would be really useful.
Summary and citations [fieldofscience.com].
Re: (Score:3)
Unfortunately, because the author put in a bit of opinion on the whole mess, people tried (and still try) to discredit the entire paper rather than just ignore the opinion pieces.
Since the science holds up, it's obvious that the only real difference between Palestinians and Jews is their religions.
Re:Its really (Score:5, Insightful)
The "peace" process has been Israel and the U.S. telling the people of Palestine to, essentially, "relax and enjoy it". No, the Palestinians are not interested in that, but over and over their leadership has shown an interest in sincerely working for peace. It's not surprising that they cannot find a reliable partner for peace and justice in Israel, any more than the Native Americans nations have ever been able to find a reliable partner for peace and justice with the U.S. government.
Re:Its really (Score:4, Informative)
Not quite. The "peace" process has been the Group of Four telling Israel to, essentially, "relax and enjoy it", while the Palestinians commit frequent acts of terrorism against the Israelis, and the Palestinian leadership refuse to concede even the most basic realities (Israel's existence as a Jewish state, and its right to exist as a Jewish state).
Not true - the PLO recognised the state of Israel in 1993. Israel – Palestine Liberation Organization letters of recognition: [wikipedia.org] "The PLO recognizes the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security. The PLO accepts United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338. The PLO commits itself...to a peaceful resolution of the conflict between the two sides and declares that all outstanding issues relating to permanent status will be resolved through negotiations...the PLO renounces the use of terrorism and other acts of violence"
Another example: a cessation to terrorism is one of the first steps on the Road Map, and yet Abbas (the guy who was supposedly more peace-loving than Arafat) refused to commit to that, claiming that it would cause a "civil war".
I don't know if he actually said that - but if he did, then he was right: Palestinian civil war [wikipedia.org].
Then there was the case of Israel leaving Gaza, only to be rewarded with MORE rocket attacks. Some "partner for peace" those Palestinians were.
Making a basic rocket isn't that hard. There are at about ten different groups that have fired rockets - these groups are not unified, have different leadership, sometimes have conflicting goals, and at times openly war against each other. The rockets are a problem, but to consider these groups as unified is incorrect. I think it was Hamas who said that they can request and reason with the other groups to stop rocket attacks, but these groups are not part of the Hamas military. Hence Hamas ceasefires only apply to groups under Hamas, not to every single Palestinian group. This is not really a surprising situation - look at the "Real IRA" etc. in Northern Ireland, who have carried out a number of attacks despite the IRA/Sinn Fein being committed to the peace process.
Re:Its really (Score:5, Informative)
A point of information: The leak makes the PA look bad. The PA comes out as lying to their citizens
Israel comes out of it pretty much as they were before, as simply not interested in negotiation that do not give them all they want.
AlJazeera has demolished the PA with this article. *I* am truly shocked.
Re:Its really (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly as SeanAdams says, if the Isreali side have a counter-leak let us have it. Its total bs to say because it's an AJ leak its invalid and that neither side want peace. The leak shows a flexibility towards peace that we were never made aware of, that the PA are at least willing to make even bigger concessions and the Isrealis just throw it back in their face with a 'thanks but no-thanks attitude. THAT is the news, and as I said if there is an Isreali released and independently verified counter-leak let's see it!
And to compare this to two children and a toy - well I'd like to spend 5 minutes with you in a boxing ring. You can be blindfolded, no shoes, and with both arms tied behind your back ... then give me a baseball bat and maybe a nice selection of body armor to make sure I don't hurt myself too bad. The way the Isreali army has been using the Palestinians like the center stage attraction at a Mexican birthday party makes me disgusted ... and you call these two opposing forces 'children' -- wtf, open your eyes. At best its a college freshman going to the local kindergarten and kicking around some kids.
Re:Its really (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't get this "because it's al-jazeera, it must be biased".
Two things:
1. Al-Jazeera, if you remove your yellow glasses, is actually a very high caliber new organization, unlike most of anything you find in the US. Of course, they belong to a different country, different culture and difference environment, and may not speak your language so to speak, but that does not mean they are not good. Do some research for once for fuck sake. To help you, start with the excellent documentary "Control Room". And don't even try to compare it with CNN.
2. Even if one assumes AJ is bias, if the document they release prove to be correct, how does that take away the truth in any form?
Good lord... (Score:2, Insightful)
How can the following script be repeated for 1600 pages:
"You started it!"
"No, you started it!"
"No, you started it!"
Nuke them all. Their respective God will provide his true chosen people with the ability to live in the radioactive wasteland.
Re: (Score:3)
I thought maybe isolate both sides for 100 years or so. Give them time to cool off. Of course that is never going to happen.
Re:Good lord... (Score:5, Insightful)
I thought maybe isolate both sides for 100 years or so. Give them time to cool off.
Yeah, because it's not like the Jews or Muslim to carry a grudge for hundreds of years, right?
I'm guessing you are a fellow American. We tend to underestimate the longevity of a grudge in the rest of the world. The beginning of the US seems like a long time ago to us, but to the rest of the world, we are still kids. Then again, we haven't gone that far out of our way to prove them wrong.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm guessing you are a fellow American.
No I am an Australian. I reckon isolating the region so no foreign military aid can get in would help cool things off. If you don't subsidise extremists the moderates may get more mind share.
Not that this is going to happen in our universe. Foreigners will continue to use the region as a battleground.
Re:Good lord... (Score:4, Informative)
Israel has a huge defense industry, they even make their own tanks (the Merkava [wikipedia.org], it's huge and carries infantry). The Palestinians are generally doing what they can as well (making their own rockets to fire into Israel, called the Qassam [wikipedia.org]).
Cutting off military imports to these guys won't work, I suspect even if you removed all the weapons they'd still throw rocks at each other... oh wait.. they're already doing that [reuters.com].
Re:Good lord... (Score:5, Insightful)
The solution is to arm both sides equally. I'm sure negotiations would be much more productive if the Palestinians had helicopter gunships, tanks, jet fighters, and billions in military aid every year instead of barely enough food to eat. It would also stop the suicide bombing, since they would be able to target what they really want to hurt: the IDF.
Re: (Score:3)
What makes you think that the IDF is what they really want to hurt? The Palestinians have always had the ability to target the IDF with snipers and suicide bombers, but they target civilians instead. Or that they have barely enough food to eat.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The solution is to arm both sides equally. I'm sure negotiations would be much more productive if the Palestinians had helicopter gunships, tanks, jet fighters, and billions in military aid every year instead of barely enough food to eat.
So you think that would turn out better than when the surrounding Arab nations and the Arabs in Palestine went to war with Israel? '48, '56, 67, '73?
It would also stop the suicide bombing, since they would be able to target what they really want to hurt: the IDF.
Don't be ri
Re: (Score:3)
So you think that would turn out better than when the surrounding Arab nations and the Arabs in Palestine went to war with Israel? '48, '56, 67, '73?
I didn't say arm all the Arab states. I said arm the Palestinians. If the tanks and bulldozers that cross into Palestine to destroy homes were confronted with tanks and bulldozers, I'm sure there would be more productive dialogue once Israel stopped being able to ignore Palestinian will.
Don't be ridiculous, it has nothing to do with the IDF - it is about killing and terrorizing Jews. Why do you think they sent suicide bombers into pizza parlors? Couldn't find an army patrol?
It has nothing to do with terrorizing Jews. The Jews were far more terrorized by Christians in Europe than by Arabs in the Levant. That's why for hundreds of years before the formation of Israel, Jews, Christians, and Arabs
Re: (Score:3)
Jews have been in the area for thousands of years; they're not colonists.
In 1917, there were 60,000 Jews, 70,000 Christians, and about 500,000 Palestinians. In 1948, there were less than 2,000 Jews outside of the original partition. Now there are 500,000. If that's not evidence of colonialism, I'm not sure what would be.
Are Hezbolah and Hamas stockpiling rockets and mortars for peace? They fire indiscriminately at Israel, dancing in the streets when a Jew gets killed.
Is the IDF stockpiling nukes and receiving fighter jets and helicopter gunships for peace? When they lob shells at Gaza, are they not firing indiscriminately?
You think that Israelis have a right to arm themselves and wage war, but you don't think Palestinians hav
Re: (Score:3)
Israel was started predominately by East-European Jews who rejected the religion, and considered Judaism to be an ethnic group. But the religious Jews in Israel are out-breeding the seculars, so I expect in a few decades it will be a religiously Jewish state.
Re: (Score:3)
We need to wake up and realize that religious fundamentalism of every stripe is the root cause of most of the world's problems, and then effectively deal with it.
Re:Good lord... (Score:5, Informative)
I said "effectively". Maybe the meaning was unclear. Would you prefer "essentially"? How about "more-or-less"?
Given that there are more Muslims in the Israeli Parliament than there are in the US Congress, I'd say they're probably more secular than the US in reality, if not on paper. They have complete freedom of religion, and have had Muslims and Druze serving in all aspects of the government, including as Supreme Court judges, ambassadors, and army generals. When the only thing making them non-secular is that they self-identify as a Jewish state, it's fair to say that they ARE secular for all intents and purposes.
except for state welfare for ultra-orthodox (Score:5, Interesting)
, I'd say they're probably more secular than the US in reality,
They have complete freedom of religion
Riiiight. Pay no attention to the fact that TWO THIRDS of ultra-orthodox men live on welfare and don't work (and amongst the women, 50% don't work, whereas 25% in general Israeli population don't.) If you elect to go into such studies, the government gives you automatic welfare AND excuses you from military service (where it is ordinarily compulsory) AND gives you a complete tax break.
Did I mention that these ultra-orthodox freeloaders are causing most of the upheaval and supporting hard-line policies? And multiplying like rabbits, marrying young and having huge families?
If that's "Secular", then I guess you'd be OK with the federal government giving welfare to people who decide to become ultra-right-wing Christians?
Re:Good lord... (Score:5, Informative)
Pretty close to it, yes. Courts in Israel are civil courts, not based on Jewish religious law. Legislation is passed by a civil legislative body, not a religious one. Religions are considered equal before the law. There is no official state religion, and there is freedom of religion and of worship.
There is one weirdness, which is marriage. There is no "civil" marriage in Israel; there are only religious marriage under the auspices of the various religions practiced by the people being married. This can cause problems for non-Orthodox Jews, for interfaith marriages, etc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_in_Israel [wikipedia.org] has details.
Also note that in Israel being Jewish is not necessarily a religious matter; it's an ethnic matter. You can be an atheist and still be considered Jewish ethnically.
This can matter for things like military service, where ethnic minorities are generally exempt from the draft (though accepted as volunteers).
In any case, I suppose it depends on your definition of "separation of religion and state". It's not exactly a black-and-white line; there are gradations. Would you say that religion and state are separated in Germany, say?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
We tend to underestimate the longevity of a grudge in the rest of the world.
The rest of the world? I constantly have World War I and II shoved into my British face by every American I meet. We've had almost 100 years of "You would be speaking German if it wasn't for us". So I wouldn't limit grudges to "the rest of the world" only.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Hmm... I highly doubt that Americans just walk up to you at random and say that. From what I've seen it's usually a provoked response, typically started from anti-American comments by British/Europeans that feel they are superior to the rest of the world.
Re:Good lord... (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh come on. A good chunk of the US still seems to practically define itself through resentment at the North over the civil war. Forget what Dunbal said about WWI and WWII, lots of Americans seem to be holding a grudge over colonial times and the War of Independence. They also seem to carry a massive grudge against the French for no reason I can figure out.
Re: (Score:3)
iRight, you probably didn't hear them mention the civil war because they probably call it the "war of Northern Aggression" instead. I've largely gotten my information from my own experience living here. When I was growing up out of the US, we generally referred to people from the US as Yanks. I have learned that it's a very, very bad idea to call Southerners this.
As for the French, I was in France when Gulf War I started, well before the events you describe. The kids from the family I was staying with had p
Re:Good lord... (Score:5, Insightful)
You know... the French could justifiably turn your whole "Do you speak German" thing around and ask: "Are you ruled by the Queen of England" to Americans.
How sad that almost nobody in America knows that the only reason your country even EXISTS is because the French funded your war of independence and kept you going (granted, they did it mostly to spite England but still). Ironically in doing so they impoverished themselves tremendously - directly leading to the French Revolution.
Yeah you HELPED liberate them in World War 2 (you know there were soldiers at D-Day from ALL the allied nations including Britain and even my little South Africa right ?) - they liberated you 300 years ago.
How about you both just call it even and learn to STFU about it ?
Re: (Score:3)
Technically, we probably wouldn't still be ruled by England, considering what happened with Canada and Australia. Although I guess they're still ruled 'by the Queen of England', so so would we...but we'd be an independent nation, probably part of Canada. (Or, rather, Canada would be part of us.)
Of course, a huge section of the US wouldn't be part of the US at all. France never would have sold Louisiana to the English, and without that, it's unlikely we'd have even been in Texas to 'revolt' and have it join
Re: (Score:3)
>If I recall, there were 2 world wars that involved germans in france... Two to one.
And if you think the first one owes most of it's thanks to America then you need to read some books.
Re:Good lord... (Score:5, Insightful)
the optimism, vigour, idealism and basically cocky precociousness of youth can explain all those achievements.
"kids" is not necessarily derogatory. just look at any old person who envies the youth that have overtaken them.
however, i fear the USA has now entered adolescence and is more concerned with yelling at it's mum and sitting in it's room listening to terrible music and blaming everyone but itself...
Re: (Score:3)
You corner an animal it will fight back and use every dirty trick it knows.
You mean a couple of million Jews surrounded by 100,000,000 Arabas & Muslims?
I'm sorry but history shows who lived in palenstine long before the mass Israeli illegal immigration.
You mean the other Jews and some Arabs?
, maybe the Jews were not killed like the Nazi's did, but they have done nothing, but murder and create their own ghettos and stuffed them with the palenstinean people.
Actually you can thanks the Arab nations surrou
Re:Good lord... (Score:4, Insightful)
No. Israel is trying to do that unilaterally with its containment wall. The only result (so far) is that the hard-liners on both sides (settlement movement, Hamas) have gained power at the expense of the moderates. Its a lot easier to demonize people you can't see.
Re: (Score:3)
Modern wars may be even more destructive, but "non-modern" wars were also horrifying enough that the GP is gut-wrenchingly misguided either way. I really hope more people don't think like him. There is this strange notion that wars before the 20th century were somehow clean and of limited scope, two armies meeting on the battlefield under the eyes of their generals, duking it out. But casualties among soldiers and civilians were massive back then. Famine and disease were rampant; this was before modern medi
I've got this one... (Score:5, Funny)
The person who leaked this has raped me.
Please arrest him immediately. Thanks.
Re:I've got this one... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
ever greater concessions (Score:3)
Things like right to exist probably aren't in it yet.
Re:ever greater concessions (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you mean Israel's right to exist or Palestine's right to exist [wholetruthcoalition.org]?
(Dreadful source, but the map is accurate)
Re:ever greater concessions (Score:4, Informative)
The map is correct? Each of the for maps use a different definition of Jewish/Palestinian land!
I don't even know what is the definition of the first map, probably attempt to use private ownership, or maybe the Jewish settlements are in white and everything else is considered Palestinian. The negev desert (bottom half) was largely unpopulated at the time (and very sparsely populated today).
The second map is of the UN decision, not of anything actually there. The Palestinians didn't accept this decision until 1988, and the result was the Israeli war of independence.
The Third actually depicts something somewhat meaningful, this are the borders by the end of mentioned war. However, the "Palestinian land" in this map wasn't Palestinian, it was either Jordanian or Egyptian (Gaza was under Egyptian control, the west bank Jordanian), the area didn't have any special status in those countries.
The fourth map is the result of the Oslo agreement, and it is basically the opposite of the first map. The agreement, since it was supposed to be only a step towards a permanent agreement, established the PA, and gave it control in most Palestinian populated areas. All further discussions between Israel and the PA assumes that these areas will remain under Palestinian control and almost all the occupied territories will be passed to them as well. If you accept the definitions of this map, it is a big step from the situation in 1967-1993, all white map.
Dreadful source, and in the maps as well (although each map, maybe except the first, can be said to be correct by some definition, comparing them is a lie).
We do not like this suggestion because (Score:4, Interesting)
no really, its beyond fathoming, the nature and formation of this ungodly coalition is. my israeli friend (colleague too) says that the exterior minister of this coalition, liebermann, is known as outright mafia in israel. not in a manner of speaking, but, literally. he says the entire coalition is filled with similar right wing zealots and psychos, came to being as a coalition government only through an unholy alliance they have set up among each other after the scattered elections. they, naturally, dont even reflect the true will of the majority of israeli people.
its no surprise to me to hear these leaks, after being told about the situation in israel and nature of these people by my friend, tho it may be worthy of news to some people.
Re: (Score:3)
Except that the leak is about the previous government...
I can't believe you were modded interesting (and not off-topic), but of course, it's /..
Israel has the right to exist in peace... (Score:3, Insightful)
...but not the right to expand by force.
Re: (Score:3)
They lived like that for a long time until the balance was upset by outsiders.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
...but not the right to expand by force.
Every other nation seems to have claimed this right at some point in history. That's basically how most of today's large, well-defined nations formed. At some level it's just humans defeating other humans, and then later saying they're sorry.
I'm just playing Devil's Advocate here, but it seems like Israel is getting flak for acting in a more humane way than historical standards. Had they just kept the land they won through war and drove everybody out, we might not even be talking about it today. It'd ju
Wikileaks Greatest Contribution To Society (Score:5, Insightful)
It's independent of Wikileaks and came to light via al-Jazeera, showing perhaps that the mega-leak meme is here to stay whatever happens to Assange.
I think history will find that Wikileaks and by association Julian Assanges greatest contribution to the world, will not necessarily be the Wikileaks service, but helping to cultivate a greater culture of leaking, by showing that it can be done effectively, and that your message will be heard.
Now that, is something extremely valuable, that's almost impossible to be taken away.
Compare and contrast (Score:3)
Al Jazeera [aljazeera.net]
New York Times [nytimes.com]
Any question on why Americans and Arabs have completely different perceptions of the same conflict?
Re:It's not a meme (Score:5, Informative)
You realize the term "meme" predates its modern usage of describing "LOL cats", and other internet ephemera, right? The guy who coined the term, Richard Dawkins, coined it to explain much larger phenomena, like the evolution of society as a whole, and pretty much all evolving intellectual and sociological phenomena that is not immediately traceable to genetics.
Re:palestinians bending backwards... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, except they were willing to give up parts of their own land, and you didn't bother to read the story since it doesn't fit your moronic prejudices.
Re: (Score:3)
I read the story, and I didn't see Palestine offer the one thing that will force Israel to compromise: a credible commitment to peace.
What exactly would they have to offer that you would find a "credible commitment"?
Re: (Score:3)
Bury their weapons and take an oath never to raise them again, except in self-defense.
See, there's a problem already even in the first sentence. Given how the Israelis are treating the Palestinians (choking off inflow of critical supplies, bombing civilian architecture such as power plants and claiming it's in "self-defense", retaliating against every attack by killing more civilians than the attack killed, et cetera) how is the Palestinian use of weapons not already in self-defense? It's a community using weapons to defend itself against outside aggression and violence. Even if the Pales
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
RTFA you Fucking Moron. Seriously, get your head out of your ass and fucking READ IT. The Palestinians are the ones doing all the giving here, Israel is still WAY outside it's fucking borders, but stupid fucking racist retarded cunts like you are the reason it can get away with it.
One day in the future we'll all be saddened that Israel was the child of ethnic cleansing and racism, and chose instead of becoming a beacon to inflict misery upon a new set of innocents.
Re:Knowing Al-Jazeera... (Score:5, Funny)
And where did you leave new jersey motherfucker!!??
We tried to leave it in Antartica, but the penguins sent it back.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Adaptation and Propaganda (Score:5, Interesting)
How long before the world's secret services adapt to the "megaleak" phenomenon, and start using it as a tool to spread propaganda?
What do you mean "start"? False flag and disinformation campaigns have been a staple of foreign policy for at least as long as recorded history.
Re:Farhud (Score:5, Insightful)
You mean like the Arabs that lost the west bank and gaza during the six day war and the yom kippur war did?
So we set the marker in the ground only where _YOU_ think we should start over?
Re: (Score:3)
To the victors go the spoils. The Arabs started both those wars and the arabs can live with the consequences.
... is what we would say, if we were six years old and/or unfamiliar with the concept of a pyrrhic victory.
Re:how the Jews (Israel) has come full circle (Score:5, Insightful)
It's actually a lot more complicated than that. My advice when people ask me about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is that if you think either side is right, it's because you don't know anything. Spend any time really studying the issues and you realize that there's nothing but shades of grey in this conflict.