#191 when Obama first ran for office he was soundly (and effectively) beaten up for not being black enough.

"Barack Obama went to Harvard and became an educated fool. Barack is a person who read about the civil-rights protests and thinks he knows all about it." -- Bobby Rush,

#200, they were all just happy to be here.

One note on Palestinian nationhood: they did not see themselves as a people until Jewish Zionists move in to their neighborhood. In other words, without the creation of the Jewish state, you don't have something called Palestinian national aspirations. Up until 1948 (and perhaps later than that), the Arabs of that region saw themselves more as Arabs than as a subsect of the Arab nation called Palestinians.

I think that is an important fact because to this day having their own nation seems less important than kicking out the Jews (the favored policy of some) or just dominating the Jews (the favored policy of a majority). Living side by side with the Jews is not a favored option. Accepting that there is a Jewish state and there will permamently be a Jewish state roughly where it now exists does not seem to be part of the equation for a majority of Palestinians or at least for those who speak out publicly.

I think every fair-minded person in Israel and elsewhere understands that the ultimate solution to this conflict will involve two states: one mostly Jewish, the other mostly Muslim. (Christian Palestinians have been fleeing the West Bank and are now all but gone from Gaza, due to the rise of Islamism, which has made them unwelcome.) The borders of Israel will be roughly what was agreed to in the Clinton plan (and later agreed to by Israel in the Olmert Plan, which gave the Palestinians more land than the Clinton Plan did and gave them a capital in E. Jerusalem).

However, what is stopping peace is this: the Palestinians do not want peace, because they don't want the two-state solution. They rejected the Clinton Plan and more recently they turned aside the Olmert Plan. I think the three major factors why the Palestinians have rejected peace are:

1) the dream of a large Palestinian-Arab state (including Amman) with a full return of Arabs who fled 62 years ago and the descendants of those people who have chosen to live in other Arab countries as refugees or who have been rejected by those countries and forced to live as refugees and never allowed to integrate into those countries. If the PLO agrees to peace, that dream dies;

2) Islamism, which is increasingly very popular among Palestinians and teaches that there can never be any compromises and that Jews are evil, etc. A country which elects Hamas into power is not a country interested in making a deal; and

3) Israel's continuing settlements policy, which has pushed middle-of-the-road Palestinians to think Israel opposes peace and therefore peace is not an option.

Israel, of course, wants peace. Israel is a successful country. It is wealthy. It is a thriving democracy with great institutions. It has twice accepted workable peace plans. It has withdrawn its people entirely from the Sinai, Gaza and wherever else it had to to make peace. Some Israelis are just as uncompromising as the Palestinians. But the vast majority of Israelis just want to live in peace with their neighbors. Unlike the Palestinians (and Jordanians, Syrians, Iraqis, etc.), they are a happy, successful people.

Peace will only come when the Palestinians want it. So far, they don't.

Serbian Culture is obsessed to the point of insanity with the idea of victimhood

I can second this. When I was in Grad school, a Serbian post doc there was convinced that the real story of the Holocaust was all the Serbs they killed!

(And to be fair - the Serbs _were_ victims of the Nazis, not collaborators like the Croatian government)

Individual Palestinians and Individual Israelis are certainly capable of seeing Individual Israelis and Individual Palestinians as human- what the seem incapable of is seeing the otherside collectively as human or as a "people"

What's interesting about this is that 90% of the Israeli's or Arabs (of all stripes) are perfectly normal and don't really hold this tribal hatred that, collectively, their nations do. Much of the anti-palestinian Jewish sentiment comes from Brooklyn, NY.

Oh, and re: original article. Torii probably should not have said what he meant to say the way that he actually said it. But that's why I basically don't pay attention to what athletes say.

If they'd wanted to, they could have a generation or two after the destruction of the Temple - no-one was stopping them.

I think they were still there (The Levant) a generation or two after the Temple's destruction, then Hadrian decided to rebuild Jerusalem as a Roman City with A Roman Temple on the Temple Mount- that lead to another Jewish revolt- and that revolt was crushed and then the Romans decided to suppress the Jewish Religion (but only in the Levant, a Jew living in Alexandria or Greece or Rome itself could still practice his religion) and banish the Jews from that area- which the Romans renamed Palestine (apparently after the Ancient Philistines and as a part of a deliberate campaign to de-Jewify the area). The Romans saw Judea/Israel as being a more rebellious province than most, and they saw that rebelliousness as being directly connected to the Jewish Religion...

So no, they were forced out and kept out- I don't think they were let back in any numbers until the early Muslims seized Jerusalem/Palestine from the Byzantines.

Is that experience unique? No it's not, it's what was done to many Native American groups, both North and South America- Its what Stalin did to some Central Asian groups in the 40s and 50s, It's what China is doing to Tibet and to the Uighurs (though they haven't decided to expel Tibetans or Uighurs YET- but the sentiment is there and growing).

What's almost unique about the Jewish experience is their stubborn perseverance over millennia. Has any other refugee/exile culture sustained itself this long? The Roma? Nope they've got hundreds of years to go- and we're not even sure who/where they came from, the best guess is that they evolved from a Hindu Military Caste- they themselves have lost contact with their origins- they don't pine for a lost homeland...

(And to be fair - the Serbs _were_ victims of the Nazis, not collaborators like the Croatian government)

Yes they were*, and they were, I daresay NOBLE, (foolish but noble), they STOOD up and emphatically said NO to Hitler, and, well got their heads bashed in. What's interesting was that Serbs may have suffered the greatest % loss of any nationality in WWI, had no chance of standing up to Nazi Germany, but did so anyway.

*well there were eventually individual Serbs who were collaborators.

Rich - everyone wants peace, just on their own terms. It's very unfair to say that the Palestinians don't want peace because they won't sign up to proposals Israel finds acceptable - you may as well say it's Israel that doesn't want peace because they won't follow international law and allow the right of return. And on a purely practical level, it's surely the Palestinians who suffer most from the ongoing limbo.

I think the two issues stopping peace are 1) the right of return, as you said and 2) the lack of anyone for the Israelis to negotiate with. There's no one individual or organisation who can credibly claim to represent "The Palestinian People" right now, so even if an acceptable compromise could be drawn up there's no-one to "deliver" the Palestinians.

Why do you dismiss the right of return as a "dream"? This attitude is kind of a problem, because it's basically the #1 thing the Palestinians want, way more important than precise borders.

Point of view is definitely shaped by experience. For instance, the entire black population of any descent in Canada is 2 percent, 2/3 are of carribean origin, and likely concentrated in several big-city enclaves. The same holds true for large parts of the US. One of my co-workers tells me there was one black kid in her entire school in upstate NY, another that she didnt see a black person (colored was her term) until she was an adult growing up in Kansas.

In both my hometown and where i live now, the Black population is over 25 percent. I believe you are much more conscious of race and race issues when you are in close contact with people of a different race than if you are not. And in my case, I had the not uncommon experience of a Black woman as my primary caregiver as a young child. It's influenced my perceptions of race, and has to account for the comfortable affection I've always felt with Black women. But I would never pretend to be colorblind or uninfluenced by a racist culture or completely free of prejudice.

Israel, of course, wants peace. Israel is a successful country. It is wealthy. It is a thriving democracy with great institutions.

No justice no peace :-)

I'm not trying to justify or apologize for Palestinian terrorism, but some may take exception to:

"It is a thriving democracy with great institutions."

The Israeli Government took control of "the West Bank" and the Gaza Strip in 1967.
If you live there and are Jewish, you are an Israeli Citizen with an Israeli Passport and get to vote in Israeli elections, if you live there and you are not Jewish you are not an Israeli Citizen (though from time to time many have gotten Israeli issued passports and been allowed to travel with some degree of freedom in Israel), and you can't vote in Israeli elections.

Then came the PA, the non-Jewish residents of Gaza and the West Bank were/are allowed to vote in PA elections, but what is the PA? Is it a Government? A Sovereign? It doesn't even control its own borders- Israel does. Regulate commerce? No, Israel does.

Am I going to compare the PAs areas to the South African Bantustans? NO. What Israel is doing to the Palestinians is in many ways similar to what the US did to Native Americans, and what we did wasn't right. We of course eventually gave citizenship to Native Americans and let them vote and gave them protections under the US Constitution, but perhaps we only did that because they were so badly outnumbered their vote didn't threaten us.

Anyway, the Israelis currently occupy the land of and rule over a wholly separate people from themselves- how long do you really think that can last?

Peace will only come when the Palestinians want it. So far, they don't.

The Israelis* (I mean the Settler Movement actually) continue to push the Palestinians in the West Bank, they take the land, they cutoff access to land, they control the roads, relentless pressure- and they always point to Palestinian misbehavior as a reason and excuse- but the religious settlers would be doing this even if the Palestinians stopped all violence yesterday.

*Not all Israelis, many, especially the secular would be happy to pull out of the West Bank- there are religious groups however, who want the West Bank - to them it is Jewish Land, period, the non-Jews are interlopers, peoples to be forced into subservience or forced out just as they believed their ancestors did to the Canaanites. The settler movement is not a part of "a thriving democracy with great institutions". It is a backward looking religio-fascist movement which will destroy Israel unless the rest of the Israelis wake up and tell them, "no, we may have common ancestors and names with you, but we do not believe in what you believe in, we do not believe in what you are doing, go fcuk yourselves you are on your own".

Why do you dismiss the right of return as a "dream"?

From the Israeli POV it would be national/demographic suicide.

This may be the most intractable part of the problem- we are now 60 years on- not allowing a "right of return" to the Palestinians IS unjust and unfair, but at the same time, allowing it would also be unjust and unfair to the majority of those now living in Israel.

To be brutal about it, these things happen, after WWII millions of Germans were forced to move from their ancestral homes- not all of them were active Nazis, do they get a right of return? (Well if the EU become a United Sates of Europe, they may one day have a de facto right...) Their were other ethnic realignments as well- all of which were brutally unfair to the individuals and groups involved.

There's a point when undoing those injustices is not possible- attempting to do so simply creates a new injustice to be undone. What we (the US) did to Mexico was unjust and unfair, let's give them California back as compensation- that very well may be fair to Mexico- it would not be fair to the millions of inhabitants of California. (I am however willing to give an unrestricted right of "return" to let anyone whose ancestors were Mexican 150 years ago to move into any part of the US we stole from Mexico.)

From the Israeli POV it would be national/demographic suicide.

No, it's only national/demographic suicide if you are intent on having an exclusively Jewish state. If you're happy to have a tolerant, multicultural society which is in particular welcoming to Arabs (the people in every surrounding country) it should be absolutely no problem. The problem is that the Israeli government has no interest in this - it wants to be a hostile outpostm because that justifies its colonisation plans.

As for the fact that unfair things happen - no doubt**. But the fact that unfair things have happened in the past is not a reason to do more now. Besides which the Israeli government has denied the right of return all these years precisely with the aim of being able to eventually say "well, there's a new status quo, it would be too hard to return to the status quo ante." It is unconscionable to reward serious and long-term breaches of international law in this matter.

Besides which, if the refugees are denied the right of return, what the hell happens to them? This is not an issue you can just wave way. It is in no way unfair to the people of Israel to allow the Palestinians a right of return, unless you think it's "unfair" to expect the Israeli people to deal with their neighbours.

Is the Israeli government likely to grant a right of return? No they won't, I agree. But the reason for that is because they have an army, and the Palestinians don't, so they can afford to be unfair as it suits them. But let's not pretend that Rich's "fair-minded observer" is anything of the sort.

**All Germans already have the right to live and work anywhere in the EU - a German who wants to go live and work in the Sudetenland or Danzig or wherever must be allowed to do so. What they don't have is the right to compensation for their illegally seized property. In this case I'd agree that they shouldn't have the right to compensation, as there's no-one really for them to take compensation from, and it would be unjust to put that burden on the current governments of the Eastern European countries. Incidentally all this was a big factor in the delays of Czech ratification of the Lisbon Treaty. But these factors don't apply in the Palestinian situation. If the Israeli government won't give them their homes back, let them pay compensation at fair market rates.

(I am however willing to give an unrestricted right of "return" to let anyone whose ancestors were Mexican 150 years ago to move into any part of the US we stole from Mexico.)

The real scandal was the way the new US territorial administrations dispossessed resident Mexicans of their property because the Mexican land claims were not as carefully drawn up as the US courts/government was willing to accept.

Rich - everyone wants peace, just on their own terms.

Fair enough. However, the "peace" I believe is workable for both sides and obvious -- a two-state solution with the Palestinian state existing in Gaza, the West Bank and a capital in Arab East Jerusalem and the Jewish state covering most of today's Israel proper -- is not yet desired by the Palestinians or their leaders or both. (I think both, right now.)

"Why do you dismiss the right of return as a "dream"? This attitude is kind of a problem, because it's basically the #1 thing the Palestinians want, way more important than precise borders."

Speaking for myself (and presumably a majority of Jewish Israelis agree with me on this), I have no problem with so-called* Palestinian refugees living in other Arab countries moving into Gaza or the West Bank or Arab East Jerusalem. I don't think that is what they want. They want to live in Israel. They want Israel, by their presence, to be a majority Muslim population. And if that happens, you no longer have a Jewish state.

Also, I don't know how many millions of these so-called* refugees there are now. However, due to a very high birth rate, I know it is a large number. And the problem with that is that Gaza and the West Bank are now quite crowded (outside the farms). So it will be very hard practically for an impoverished Palestinian state to incorporate these millions of people.

----

*I realize using the term "so-called" is derisive. My reason for using it is because only a very small percentage (1%?) of the "diaspora Palestinians" are old enough to have ever lived in what has been Israel for the last 62 years. For the most part, these folks were born in Jordan, Egypt, Syria, etc. However, unlike immigrants from just about anywhere else in the world -- such as Vietnamese refugees who moved to the United States in the 1970s -- the Arab host countries and the refugees themselves rejected the idea of integration. My view is that their best option would be to just become integrated citizens in the countries they were born in over the last 62 years. Some of them should now be 4th generation Syrians, Saudis, Yemenis, Algerians, etc.

By the way ... think how strange it would be if Cubans who had moved here in the 1960s or Salvadorans who came in the 1980s decided to live in refugee camps, to reject becoming Americans (and we forbade them to become Americans). That is the route the Arabs went. The logic behind that move was that they believed they would soon enough destroy the Jews and control Palestine. That dream needs to die.

If you're happy to have a tolerant, multicultural society which is in particular welcoming to Arabs (the people in every surrounding country) it should be absolutely no problem.

I have some sympathy for Palestinian Arabs in regard to Israel's policies and actions in the occcupied territories, but how long do you think an Israel with a majority Arab population would remain open and tolerant towards a Jewish minority?

"how long do you think an Israel with a majority Arab population would remain open and tolerant towards a Jewish minority?"

As long as it takes to say: ??? ?? ???? ????? ???? ????!

No, he stupidly used that word to say that baseball covers up the lack of US blacks by using latino ones. Thus, it's a poor choice of words.

It's more than a poor choice of words. It implies that the reason dark-skinned Latinos are in baseball is because the owners are trying to pull some sort of "bait and switch" on the fans.

The presence of dark-skinned Latinos in baseball has much to do with the structure of international vs. American amateurs and absolutely nothing to do with some desire to fill some necessary "darkie" quota with alternative players that are cheaper. Baseball teams are looking for the best players, not the best players that fit a certain pie chart of ethnic diversity, or the appearance of ethnic diversity.

Failing to acknowledge and retract that baseless accusation means that it's not really an apology with any serious sincerity. I say that as a person that generally gives people the benefit of the doubt.

BBC is saying "Blacks feel that opportunities that formally went to them are now being outsourced, and that sucks." I certainly respect that feeling. Hunter is saying "the reason this is happening is because Latin players are cheaper and can be passed off as Blacks" which is not only false, but defamatory. Notice that his "apology" is not really to the right people; he's not retracting anything so much as clarifying who is the bad guy... (white) ownership.

Let's not sugarcoat what Hunter said. His position is not the same as BBC's, and no matter how much we'd like to try and be sympathetic to the cultural differences that might form that position, it isn't particularly defensible.

Notice that his "apology" is not really to the right people; he's not retracting anything so much as clarifying who is the bad guy... (white) ownership.

As it happens, Hunter plays for a Latino owner.

As long as it takes to say: ??? ?? ???? ????? ???? ????!

Good old google translate....

No, it's only national/demographic suicide if you are intent on having an exclusively Jewish state. If you're happy to have a tolerant, multicultural society which is in particular welcoming to Arabs (the people in every surrounding country) it should be absolutely no problem. The problem is that the Israeli government has no interest in this - it wants to be a hostile outpostm because that justifies its colonisation plans.

Historically, there isn't a whole lot of evidence of Muslim countries that support "tolerant, multicultural society," and the Palestinians in general, particularly the outspoken Palestinians and their self-proclaimed leaders, have been closer in ideology to the less tolerant states in the region.

The Israelis are never going to be tolerant of a group of people who, by nature of their religion and its practice in the surrounding states, seek to destroy them as a people. Israel is not blameless, but you would be hard-pressed to find any nation throughout history that has as strong a commitment to human rights while facing such overwhelming hatred from its neighbors.

In college, when I was with the Chinese-American Student Association, I sometimes wore a "Hug me, I'm Chinese" button. I got a lot of hugs (awesome), but also many quizzical looks. "You're Chinese? I thought you were ....."

Happens to everyone. My wife is of Japanese-American heritage (her grandparents came over; her father was born in Hawaii and in the "Home Guard" here in WWII). She went to college in Colorado -- where she was promptly call a "wet-back" by passing 'Muricans.

My wife is Chinese- and she has a hard time telling- unless she hears their name or hears them speak.

My wife insists she can always tell -- Local from Japan-Japanese from Ktonk from Chinese from Korean.

Me, since I don't really care, I don't really try. and with more and more hapa kids every year, it matters less and less.

it is arbitrary to me that people who do not believe in God and say that the Bible is nothing but myths and fairy tales invented by a bunch of males to keep control over others call themselves "jewish".

Hey, I resemble that remark!

The term is secular Jew. It sounds much better with a lower east side accent.

distant past

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Wow! This thread has evolved in a political/historical direction, and I don't have a strong opinion to express.

Well done guys, I didn't think that was possible.

No, it's only national/demographic suicide if you are intent on having an exclusively Jewish state. If you're happy to have a tolerant, multicultural society which is in particular welcoming to Arabs (the people in every surrounding country) it should be absolutely no problem.

If you think a government run by Hamas would be "tolerant, multicultural", then there is no point to this conversation.

It is unconscionable to reward serious and long-term breaches of international law in this matter.

That assumes, as you obviously do, that the Palestinians were all driven out by the Israelis and refused return for the entire 60+ years. If in fact they left of their own accord, and waited many years before asking to return -- because they assumed that any day, the Arab Armies would slaughter the Jews, and they could just walk in and take everything -- that is a different story. I only recall hearing about a "right of return" after it became clear that this slaughter of the Jews, which they supported, would not take place.

101 posts, eh? O/U 230.

My line seems to have been set too low.

Of course, this post is only reinforcing that.

#225 Let's stipulate that we're talking free and fair elections in the Israeli model (ie proportional representation)

Hamas (or some front party) would clearly do well but color me doubtful that they'd ever make it into a government. They're in "the does not play well with others" spectrum.

I have a really tough time envisioning a functioning state even before considering the problems of the bitter enders.

Hamas (or some front party) would clearly do well but color me doubtful that they'd ever make it into a government. They're in "the does not play well with others" spectrum.

Ron, you do know that Hamas won a majority of seats in the Palestinian parliament?

It's more than a poor choice of words. It implies that the reason dark-skinned Latinos are in baseball is because the owners are trying to pull some sort of "bait and switch" on the fans.

Yes. My comment about it being just a "poor choice of words" was in reference to the idea that the word "impostor" to describe latino blacks was negative towards them, not about his attitude toward the teams. I agree that he foolishly thinks baseball is pulling a bait and switch and his statements reflected that.

228 Sure. In a (basically) two party setup. No way there's only two parties in a proportional setup. Any kind of equitable first past the post setup would be a different matter.

Further, much/most of their support was based on revulsion for the only other choice on offer -- Fatah, which was seen as that joyful mix of incompetent and corrupt.

Even further, most of Fatah's resources which had been used for a reasonably efficient charity setup are gone.

All in all it's doubtful that their true level of support exceeds 30%. And I'll bet they'd splinter.

Moot because there's no way we get to that point any time soon and I'll bet that any Governmental structures would look a lot like Belgium. And work about as well (unstable coalitions that would take months to form)

No, it's only national/demographic suicide if you are intent on having an exclusively Jewish state. If you're happy to have a tolerant, multicultural society which is in particular welcoming to Arabs (the people in every surrounding country) it should be absolutely no problem. The problem is that the Israeli government has no interest in this - it wants to be a hostile outpostm because that justifies its colonisation plans.

Well, no. It's national/demographic suicide because the people who want to return are intent on not having a Jewish state at all. Israelis already have a tolerant, multicultural (though not perfect) society.

I laugh at all the people who simultaneously talk about a right of return but think Jews ought to be ethnically cleansed from the territories. Why exactly does only one side get this right? Or do people not realize that Jews lived in what is now the territories before 1948?

That assumes, as you obviously do, that the Palestinians were all driven out by the Israelis and refused return for the entire 60+ years. If in fact they left of their own accord, and waited many years before asking to return -- because they assumed that any day, the Arab Armies would slaughter the Jews, and they could just walk in and take everything -- that is a different story. I only recall hearing about a "right of return" after it became clear that this slaughter of the Jews, which they supported, would not take place.

Srul is 100% right here. For once. ;-)

I laugh at all the people who simultaneously talk about a right of return but think Jews ought to be ethnically cleansed from the territories. Why exactly does only one side get this right? Or do people not realize that Jews lived in what is now the territories before 1948?

Who is saying that? There's a big difference between a bi-national state and ethnically cleansing Jews.

And no, I do not believe that Palestinians in a binational state would seek to ethnically cleanse Jews. A binational state on its own would badly damage Hamas's support - as Ron said above, a lot of Hamas's support is because they aren't Fatah. Most Palestinians know the Jews aren't going anywhere.

Let's not sugarcoat what Hunter said. His position is not the same as BBC's, and no matter how much we'd like to try and be sympathetic to the cultural differences that might form that position, it isn't particularly defensible.

Maybe Tori Hunter was just fond of sentimental quotes from "Gangs of New York"? "I don't see no Americans. I see trespassers, Irish harps. Do a job for a nickel what a [negro] does for a dime and a white man used to get a quarter for." Bill the Butcher would be proud and revolted at the same time.

And of course, my obligatory boxing hijack attempt - the "real" Bill the Butcher, William Poole, actually fought for the semi-legitimate bareknuckle boxing title of America against the recognized champion of the day, John Morrisey, and got the better of him before a general brawl broke out in the crowd.

Maybe Tori Hunter was just fond of sentimental quotes from "Gangs of New York"? "I don't see no Americans. I see trespassers, Irish harps. Do a job for a nickel what a [negro] does for a dime and a white man used to get a quarter for." Bill the Butcher would be proud and revolted at the same time.

And of course, my obligatory boxing hijack attempt - the "real" Bill the Butcher, William Poole, actually fought for the semi-legitimate bareknuckle boxing title of America against the recognized champion of the day, John Morrisey, and got the better of him before a general brawl broke out in the crowd.

Further proof that boxing ain't what it used to be, alas, although that was still an entertaining movie.

But since you're now the resident Bill the Butcher historian, in real life how good of a knife thrower was he? Would you have let your daughter be one of his props?

Who is saying that? There's a big difference between a bi-national state and ethnically cleansing Jews.

When people rant about the "settlers," what do you think they mean? They mean that Jews shouldn't be/aren't allowed to live in the territories.

And no, I do not believe that Palestinians in a binational state would seek to ethnically cleanse Jews. A binational state on its own would badly damage Hamas's support - as Ron said above, a lot of Hamas's support is because they aren't Fatah. Most Palestinians know the Jews aren't going anywhere.

Is there any basis for your belief? And is there any reason why it would be rational for Jews to be willing to take the gamble that your belief is accurate?

Further proof that boxing ain't what it used to be, alas, although that was still an entertaining movie.

I've read a few firsthand accounts of the bout (which was actually pretty big news of the day), Bill fought dirty even by the lax rules of that era. The old "London Prize Ring" rules which governed serious bareknuckle prizefights since the 1830s allowed for upper-body throws, but no leg-takedowns and no hitting a downed opponent - Bill broke both rules, and probably headbutted Morrisey on the ground as well. Morrisey's seconds appear to have objected to the infractions, but they were heavily outnumbered by Poole's Nativist backers and beaten badly when the brawl broke out.

The fight took place on a New York wharf pier, with Bill the Butcher supposedly escaping the mob fracas by rowboat. You can't make this stuff up!

I certainly respect that feeling.

Well....

I agree that Hunter is wrong is the idea that there is some type of semi/pseudo. I don't see it as "defamatory", however, partly because of what he said later. I am not sure by what you mean by the "right people." If you mean MLB owners and MLB in general, then, to be honest, I am not particularly worried about their feelings. If you are, that's fine, but it is a sensibilities issue, not a right and wrong issue. If you mean Latino players, then I can certainly respect that feeling, but I think he cleared it up, albeit not to your and Ray's satisfaction.

These issues are usually questions of sensibilities much more than questions of logic. In this case, because of the cost and player acquisition issues, applying a "logic" model works better than usual, but what generally happens in these discussions is people making arguments about their personal sensibilities which are camouflaged by faux-logic. I have never really "defended" or "sugarcoated" what Hunter said; as Andy and others have pointed out, you guys tend to argue these disputes in a legalistic way. This is right, this is true, this is wrong, this is false, this is defensible, that is indefensible. With race issues, that approach is generally reductionist and weak. My point is that I can see why a guy with Hunter's angle would say what he said, and there are elements of that angle that you don't get. Doesn't mean he's right or he "should" have said it.

I was going to answer Ron's SS deal and Ray's stuff, but other people already addressed some of it and the foreign policy discussion is more interesting anyway.

Bill [the Butcher] fought dirty even by the lax rules of that era. The old "London Prize Ring" rules which governed serious bareknuckle prizefights since the 1830s allowed for upper-body throws, but no leg-takedowns and no hitting a downed opponent - Bill broke both rules, and probably headbutted Morrisey on the ground as well. Morrisey's seconds appear to have objected to the infractions, but they were heavily outnumbered by Poole's Nativist backers and beaten badly when the brawl broke out.

The fight took place on a New York wharf pier, with Bill the Butcher supposedly escaping the mob fracas by rowboat. You can't make this stuff up!

Once again Yankee Redneck comes through with the real dirt. Now I have to dig out my old copy of the Asbury book to see what he has to say about it. What an absolutely amazing period of history that was.

That assumes, as you obviously do, that the Palestinians were all driven out by the Israelis and refused return for the entire 60+ years. If in fact they left of their own accord, and waited many years before asking to return -- because they assumed that any day, the Arab Armies would slaughter the Jews, and they could just walk in and take everything -- that is a different story. I only recall hearing about a "right of return" after it became clear that this slaughter of the Jews, which they supported, would not take place.

They weren't all driven out of their homes by Israelis, no (although some were). Most fled because there was a war going on (1947-48 Arab-Israeli War) and they were right in the middle. This happens all the time in wars, which is why there is international law on this matter, which says that when a war is over you have to let the refugees go home. When the war ended they tried to go home but the new Israeli government wouldn't let them (Prevention of Infiltration Act) and seized their property (Absentees Property Act, etc).

If you have only started hearing about this issue recently then I'm afraid that's your ignorance and nothing else.

Some people believe this:

That assumes, as you obviously do, that the Palestinians were all driven out by the Israelis and refused return for the entire 60+ years.

and some people believe this:

They left of their own accord, and waited many years before asking to return -- because they assumed that any day, the Arab Armies would slaughter the Jews, and they could just walk in and take everything ....a "right of return" after it became clear that this slaughter of the Jews, which they supported, would not take place.

Obviously if you believe one story you will not believe the other, and I really do not see how a productive conversation would work between the two camps. It is my belief that some of the Palestinians were driven out and their land seized, and some left "voluntarily"* fully expecting to return when the Arab armies drove the Jews into the sea.

I also think that an effort should have been made to resettle as many refugees as possible- as was done, would later be done, and is still done today** when people are displaced by conflict- instead the apparent intent- from day 1- was to NOT re-settle- and I may be naive but I'm pretty sure that intent was not formulated by the women and children affected

*I'm not sure what voluntarily means in this context, there was a war, there was fighting- does that mean that anyone who get out of the way forfeits all right to their homes and property?

** Many/most Afghan refugees in Pakistan during the Soviet occupation were not permanently settled in Pakistan- rather they were kept in camps for the duration- those camps became the breeding grounds for the first generation of Taliban foot soldiers. Lesson? Keeping refugees in camps for generations is a very bad thing for ALL concerned.

When people rant about the "settlers," what do you think they mean? They mean that Jews shouldn't be/aren't allowed to live in the territories.
Well, they shouldn't. If you're going with the two-state solution then you need to let the PA assert its sovereignty and set their own immigration policy.

Is there any basis for your belief? And is there any reason why it would be rational for Jews to be willing to take the gamble that your belief is accurate?
I have Palestinian friends. One lives in Palestine and cover Palestinian life as a journalist.

It would be rational because it would make everybody's lives in that region a hell of a lot easier, and Israel and Palestine could go on and grow economically from it instead of having to dispense a big part of GDP on security. This is hardly a crazy worldview - people in Israel talk about this concept all the time.

This is hardly a crazy worldview - people in Israel talk about this concept all the time.

And then the Palestinians blow something else up, and shatter the silly dream. When most Palestinian mothers love their own sons
more than they hate Jews, there will be a shot at peace.

For instance, Arafat was offered virtually everything he was asking for, and rejected it. Same thing now--they don't want peace. They want the area swept of Jews.

When Charlize Theron fills out her census form, should she check the box for African-American?

When a young African-American male considers a relatively sheltered apprenticeship in college football or basketball versus riding buses through small towns in minor league baseball which one is he going to choose?

The only way to make baseball more attractive to African-Americans is to make more college baseball scholarships available. The NCAA isn't going to do that. Even if that involved more investment, leading to greater television exposure leading to more revenue. MLB isn't going to increase scholarships because they perceive the colleges to be competitors. The only solution I can see is former players making a large contribution to the NCAA to increase baseball spending across the board. But that's not likely to happen either.

And then the Palestinians blow something else up, and shatter the silly dream. When most Palestinian mothers love their own sons
more than they hate Jews, there will be a shot at peace.

This is a ridiculous statement. You believe that >50% of Palestinian mothers want their children to die for the fight?

This is a ridiculous statement. You believe that >50% of Palestinian mothers want their children to die for the fight?

The issue here is the same as in Afghanistran or Iraq. You have to have a large enough percentage that not only won't join the extremists, but will fight and die to stop them.

An independent, sovereign Palestine that can live in peace with Israel will require an army that will hunt down and kill the Hamas fanatics.

Ol' #9 will always bring his can o' gasoline to these discussions. The issues are complex, both sides have bloody hands, but Israel has always had the upper hand because of the economic strength of its people. In some ways, it is history repeating itself from biblical times..or pretty much anytime - the people who can create the facts on the ground shape any later negotiated settlement. Israel did make peace with Egypt, but the West Bank is neither the Sinai nor the Gaza Strip..it's a vital territory strategically and economically that Israel will never completely relenquish.

Ol' #9 will always bring his can o' gasoline to these discussions. The issues are complex, both sides have bloody hands, but Israel has always had the upper hand because of the economic strength of its people. In some ways, it is history repeating itself from biblical times..or pretty much anytime - the people who can create the facts on the ground shape any later negotiated settlement. Israel did make peace with Egypt, but the West Bank is neither the Sinai nor the Gaza Strip..it's a vital territory strategically and economically that Israel will never completely relenquish.

Israel has had the upper hand b/c they're better soldiers, and b/c they are fighting for their survival.

Israel had no economic/materiel edge in 1947 or 1956 or 1967 or 1973. The Soviets provided the Arabs with oodles of their latest hardware. In 1967 they were fighting modern Soviet T-55 tanks with upgraded WWII Shermans.

The Arab armies, except the Jordanians, have always been lousy. Soviet style centralized command with uneducated/untrained conscript soldiers.

The Israelis adopted German-style maneuver tactics, and smallk unit initiative. They also knew that if they lost, they died, while the Arabs could always retreat home, or surrender and be repatriated.

The issue here is the same as in Afghanistran or Iraq. You have to have a large enough percentage that not only won't join the extremists, but will fight and die to stop them. An independent, sovereign Palestine that can live in peace with Israel will require an army that will hunt down and kill the Hamas fanatics.

The problem with this analysis is that it pretends the other side were always fanatics of a sort, and disappears the actions of 'our side' that had a part in spawning a blowback. Warfare always works to eliminate any middle ground, leaving a dominant group, a swath of powerless victims, and a minority who'll fight with the limited means of their disposal. What's the difference between a suicide bomber and a drone killing civilians? No difference, except the former actually demonstrates personal courage in achieving his aim.

Again, a perfect example of how our own violently immoral acts disappear under ideological camouflage. At least the Israelis have the justification of self-defense. What's our ####### excuse?

DN: "I laugh at all the people who simultaneously talk about a right of return but think Jews ought to be ethnically cleansed from the territories. Why exactly does only one side get this right? Or do people not realize that Jews lived in what is now the territories before 1948?"

With the exception of Jewish settlements in the West Bank which are essentially contiguous* with Israel proper, I think the sensible two-state solution results in the destruction (or "cleansing") of all Jewish settlements in the West Bank built after the 6-Day War, just as they were destroyed in Gaza, the Sinai, etc.

I have thought in the past that when a Palestinian state is formed, the so-called settlers should have the right to live in "Palestine" as a minority, much like a minority of Israeli citizens are Arabs. However, it's impractical.

There is just no doubt that the PA will not protect Jews living under their auspices. Violent Muslim fanatics (whose ideology drives them to kill all Jews in all places) will target the Jews in the West Bank and either kill them or cause a lot of havoc trying. That outcome is just obvious. Israel, being the Jewish state, will feel obliged to move in to protect Jews unprotected by the PA. And that will ruin relations between these so-called separate states. So the Jews in the West Bank must leave.

(It's just the opposite for Arab citizens of Israel. First, Jews are not trying to kill them. Second, Israel protects them. And third, they might not be loyal Israelis, but they realize that life in Israel is a much better life than life would be for them in "Palestine.")

As I said above, Israel has no obligation to permit the so-called Palestinian refugees (99% of whom were born in Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, etc.) to move to Israel, become citizens of Israel and subsequenty destroy the Jewish state. The Right of Return for people who never lived in Israel makes no sense.

However, if the PA wants these millions of people to move into the West Bank and Gaza, that is their choice. But anyone who really thinks the PA wants these people to come back is mistaken: they don't. It's all rhetoric. The Palestinian territories are terribly overcrowded and terribly poor. What good does it do them to have millions of poor, ignorant, violent fanatics move into their country?

A minority of these so-called refugees are prosperous. Those are the "refugees" least likely to want to move to the West Bank. Why move to a place with a bad government and a dysfunctional economy when you are doing well in Jordan or Lebanon? So the only folks who would return to the West Bank and Gaza would be the poorest of the poor, making it that much harder for a Palestinian state to succeed.

*The Olmert Plan, which Abbas rejected, would have given some of the Israeli Negev to the Palestinians (and a secure passage from Gaza to the West Bank) in exchange for moving the 1967 line a bit east to incorporate the contiguous settlements into Israel. I think that is as fair a deal the Palestinians will ever get. Olmert also agreed to cede the Arab parts of East Jerusalem as a Palestinian capital. The rest of Jerusalem would be Israeli territory. (I don't know how he dealt with the Temple Mount.)

Better two-state solution:

Take Hamas supporters and the Fanatical Jewish Settlers and give them the West Bank. They can fight it out on cable TV.

The normal people can live in the rest of Israel in peace and harmony (with full citizenship for non-Jews)

Actually, this is basically the idea I got from my Graduate advisor, a Brooklyn Jew who himself went to Grad school in Israel in the 60s, and actually fought in the '67 war (somewhat illegally, as he was an American citizen).

Peace will only come when the Palestinians want it. So far, they don't.

Faster-than-light travel. And not a century before.

delete

One thing that amazes me is how much broader a range of acceptable opinions on this issue there are in Israel than in America. In America every politician is racing to be the most hostile, Anti-Palestinian voice possible.

The problem with this analysis is that it pretends the other side were always fanatics of a sort, and disappears the actions of 'our side' that had a part in spawning a blowback. Warfare always works to eliminate any middle ground, leaving a dominant group, a swath of powerless victims, and a minority who'll fight with the limited means of their disposal. What's the difference between a suicide bomber and a drone killing civilians? No difference, except the former actually demonstrates personal courage in achieving his aim.

Again, a perfect example of how our own violently immoral acts disappear under ideological camouflage. At least the Israelis have the justification of self-defense. What's our ####### excuse?

Well the Taliban, Hamas and Al Qaeda are fanatics.

Have imprudent actions on the part of the US caused others to make common cause with them? No doubt.

But don't kid yourself that there is any way to deal with the real hard core (and it's a big hard core with lots of Saudi $$$$ backing it up) besides killing them.

The Taliban/Hamas/Al Qaeda won't stop killing people (Muslims and non) in pursuit of their extremist Muslim, sharia-law based law vision of the world until they conquer or are destroyed. If they conquer one country, they will just go after the next.

BTW, the difference between the drone and the suicide bomber is the drone is not trying to kill civilians. The civilian deaths are an unfortunate byproduct of attempting to kill enemy combatants. The goal of many of the suicide bombers is to kill civilians and spread terror. Also, non-uniformed combatants are illegitimate under the rule of law (b/c of the danger they bring upon civilians through the confusion they cause) and can be executed upon capture.

I have never really "defended" or "sugarcoated" what Hunter said; as Andy and others have pointed out, you guys tend to argue these disputes in a legalistic way. This is right, this is true, this is wrong, this is false, this is defensible, that is indefensible. With race issues, that approach is generally reductionist and weak. My point is that I can see why a guy with Hunter's angle would say what he said, and there are elements of that angle that you don't get. Doesn't mean he's right or he "should" have said it.

I do "get" it. Blacks had a very shitty deal as Americans and there are still repercussions of that very shitty deal that affect their opportunities today, and therefore, there are legitimate trust issues. (Much like Israel is right to have legitimate trust issues vis-a-vis the Palestinians' desire for peace.)

I don't agree with your premise regarding right/wrong and true/false. It is demonstrably false that owners are using Latino players as cheaper substitutes to fill some sort of darkie quota. Regardless of the social context under which Hunter makes those remarks, it really is just that simple. He's wrong, and he's speaking falsely. That is motive-independent.

I'm not suggesting we burn Hunter at the stake for heresy, but he should be criticized for implying a particular repulsive motivation to people without better evidence. I can go a step further than defensible/indefensible. It's counter-productive.

If Hunter made the same basic points (fewer Blacks in baseball, we should be working more effectively to recruit young Blacks to baseball, Blacks and Latino blacks are not culturally similar), he'd be more likely to get the sort of results that lead to actually having more Blacks in baseball. Instead, he comes off as a conspiracy theorist that doesn't merit being taken seriously, and that is not going to help his cause.

I worked in an office where, hearing that I needed to take off for Yom Kippur, a fellow employee (who was annoyed because the group was going to be short another man for the second week in a row right after a layoff) said "didn't you just take off for that holiday last week"? I laughed and said that it just happens to be that two major Jewish holidays hit within a week of each other, and explained the difference between the two. I didn't think "he wouldn't have asked a Christian that question if Easter happened to be one week after Christmas, so he must be an anti-Semite." (Yes, there are very sensitive Jewish people who would react that way, some of whom are family members of mine.)

One thing that amazes me is how much broader a range of acceptable opinions on this issue there are in Israel than in America. In America every politician is racing to be the most hostile, Anti-Palestinian voice possible.

I expect that a big part of that Americans generally hear about only one type of Palestinian, and that's the one who straps a bomb to himself and gets onto a public bus. Israelis have the advantage of actually encountering regular Palestinians going about their daily business without murdering people.

WJ: "One thing that amazes me is how much broader a range of acceptable opinions on this issue there are in Israel than in America."

WJ, please tell me one opinion which is "acceptable" in Israel but unacceptable in America?

can go a step further than defensible/indefensible. It's counter-productive.

This is actually a step sideways, and a big improvement on the clipped lawyerly binary technocratic moralistic stuff. That stuff is easy to formulate and even easier to argue--that approach is, as you like to say, simple. Reality in this area seldom actually is simple.

I do "get" it.

In a sense you do and in another sense of course, you can't. Also, notice the difference in what I said and your response.

It is demonstrably false that owners are using Latino players as cheaper substitutes to fill some sort of darkie quota. Regardless of the social context under which Hunter makes those remarks, it really is just that simple. He's wrong, and he's speaking falsely

Like I said--what, four times now? In this particular case your approach works better than it generally will on these issues, because of the structural nature of what Hunter said. I would agree that what Hunter said is counterproductive, and he more or less said that himself in the quote I posted in #172. That is a far better starting point than, "He's wrong. Next case."

When the war ended they tried to go home but the new Israeli government wouldn't let them (Prevention of Infiltration Act) and seized their property (Absentees Property Act, etc).

When did the war end? In 1949, when armistice agreements were signed, but no country would sign a peace treaty with Israel or recognize its existence?

None of Israel's Arab neighbors would actually sign a peace treaty with it until 30 years after the founding of the state (Egypt), and that came only after decades of military defeat at Israel's hand. The next one (Jordan) came 15 years later. Still waiting for Lebanon, Syria and the rest of the Arab countries.

I am pretty sympathetic to the Palestinian cause, and certainly Israel did not handle the situation ideally. But I understand the reasons why and am sympathetic to those as well..

WJ, please tell me one opinion which is "acceptable" in Israel but unacceptable in America?

Omri Casspi is better than LeBron James.

The goal of many of the suicide bombers is to kill civilians and spread terror. Also, non-uniformed combatants are illegitimate under the rule of law (b/c of the danger they bring upon civilians through the confusion they cause) and can be executed upon capture.

It's easy to fight fair when you will win a fair fight. I'll bet any of those terror groups you mentioned would be happy to slaughter uniformed combatants instead of innocent civilians, but innocents are easier to kill.

And you are just as dead if you are killed or maimed as "collateral damage" as via an intentional terror attack.

War is war. War is killing people to achieve political aims. Not to say that all sides are equally morally culpable in any given war - but the method of slaughter, in my opinion, is not typically a worthy barometer of the overall "rightness" of a struggle.

There has not been much "honor" in warfare in centuries, and probably wasn't a lot back in the day, either.

In the "most moral" war of all, the Allies did not hesitate to commit acts of violence that would slaughter non-combatants by the thousands. Whether their "purpose" was said slaughter is immaterial.

It's easy to fight fair when you will win a fair fight. I'll bet any of those terror groups you mentioned would be happy to slaughter uniformed combatants instead of innocent civilians, but innocents are easier to kill.

It doesn't work that way. If you can't win fighting fair, and if your oponent is not trying to do soemthing absolutely horrible (e.g. wipe out your population) you have to give up when you lose the fair fight.

Nothing about the governments the US has imposed in Iraq and Afghanistan is so horrible that it justifies violating the rules of warfare to oppose them. That is true even if our motives for imposing them are 100% evil.

This is standard just war stuff, and I believe in it.

Non-uniformed combatants in these wars are terrorists, pure and simple, and deserve nothing better than to be executed once their interrogations are over.

In the "most moral" war of all, the Allies did not hesitate to commit acts of violence that would slaughter non-combatants by the thousands. Whether their "purpose" was said slaughter is immaterial.

I concur that terror bombings against Germany/Italy/Hungary etc. were violations of the rules of war. They served no real military purpose (we couldn't hit what we were aiming at) and intentionally killed civilians.

Japan is a murkier issue, given that they were not participatories to the Geneva conventions, and did not follow them in dealing with Allied prisoners or civilians. Also, their fight to the death mentality, which included civilians, deeply blurs the line between military and civilian targets in a way that did not apply in Europe.

War is killing people to achieve political aims.

When there aren't any political aims, war and the attendant killing entirely lose their already marginal justification. The extent to which a society/civilization revels in killing for its own sake -- e.g., the hags dancing in the streets with joy on 9/11 -- also tells us something about the legitimacy of the aims. Whatever you say about our excesses/crimes in conducting wars, our people don't revel in the deaths our war machinery cause.

Al-Qaeda has no political aims, beyond the tautological, essentially prehistoric desire not to have Jews or Americans around.

Hamas is not as nihilistic, and actually accomplishes practical things for their tribe, but are their killings of Jews aimed at anything other than killing Jews? If they are, it's tough to see.

When there aren't any political aims, war and the attendant killing entirely lose their already marginal justification.

They have to be moral political aims as well.

Nothing about the governments the US has imposed in Iraq and Afghanistan is so horrible that it justifies violating the rules of warfare to oppose them. That is true even if our motives for imposing them are 100% evil.

1. The US has practiced torture and assassination of civilians in Iraq. If you break your own rules of warfare, you can't cry foul when others do the same to you.

2. The Iraqi security forces (armed, trained and equipped by the US) have definitely done things horrible enough.

Hunter should have mentioned the lack of white players on the Angels, not black, to owner Art Moreno.

Before Art bought the team in 2003, Garrett Anderson was the token black guy, and catcher Benjie Molina the token Latino, Ramon Ortiz was the token non white pitcher.

The rest of the position players consisted of 1B Spezio, 2B Kennedy, 3B Glaus, SS Eckstein, CF Erstad, RF Salmon, DH Fullmer
Even their pitching staff - K-Rod came up in late 2002, Washburn, Appeir, Sele, Shields, Donnelly, Weber, Schoneweis, Percival.

Now we have a single two headed white catcher with the rest of the position players non-white.
The pitching staff just lost Lackey, but there are still some white guys left there.

Amazing what changing ownership from Disney to Moreno will do to your diversity.

Nothing about the governments the US has imposed in Iraq and Afghanistan is so horrible that it justifies violating the rules of warfare to oppose them. That is true even if our motives for imposing them are 100% evil.

This is standard just war stuff, and I believe in it.

Are you familiar with the last two pope's position on the Iraq War, and modern wafare as waged by the US in particular?

Benedict on Iraq

Our war on Iraq was illegal - there was no lawful justification for the invasion, and the case for the war was utter bushite.

Turn your proposition around - even if al qaedas motives were 100 percent evil, nothing justifies our violation of the rules of warfare. Do you really want to compare the number of civilians killed by the US to those killed by the 'terrorists'? We target entire cities knowing there will be massive civilian casualties, and drones are basically a continuation of Vietnam freefire zones. Can it really be justified for the President to target an individual for assassination? Are rendition and torture acceptable because our opponents are 'evil'? Isnt that always the justification for committing violent acts?

And as for celebrating death, when Americans arent oblivious that we are fighting wars, how many people express the idea that we ahould just nuke 'em and be done with it? After all, we've done it before (160,000 civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, many more in firebombing raids)

Not to mention adding Los Angeles to the brand name. I also believe they fired announcers Physcioc and Hudler, and brought in Rojas.

Moreno should have just bought the Dodgers and got rid of Sculley.

"Omri Casspi is better than LeBron James."

Very good.

If a Jewish athlete were ever as gifted as LeBron, I think the chief rabbis would add a 6th book to the Pentateuch: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy and LeBron.

FWIW (I will post this on the NBA thread, too), yesterday I was looking up some post-draft grades to see what experts thought of the Kings' draft immediately after the fact. Here are some grades and comments:

Dave Del Grande, CBS Sports, on Tyreke Evans as the 4th pick: D. "Francisco Garcia, Quincy Douby, Spencer Hawes, Jason Thompson the last four years ... Addition of Memphis tweener one for the thumb -- a thumb's down."

DDG on Omri Casspi: F. "Two uninspired choices put franchise in pole position in race for No. 1 pick next June ... Perhaps hoping point guard of future -- Patty Mills from nearby St. Mary's College -- slips to second round."

DDG on Ricky Rubio: A. "Franchise-energizer should have gone three picks higher ... Will go down as guy stolen from Wizards in Manhattan-type deal."

Sam Khan in the Houston Chronicle on Memphis: A. "Thabeet should contribute immediately on the defensive end with his size, rebounding and shot-blocking ability."

Robert Ferringo of Doc Sports on Milwaukee: "F. Is this team about to fold? They traded Richard Jefferson for absolutely nothing and then drafted a guy that was mediocre in an Italian pro league. Seriously, no idea what this team is doing and I don't think that they have a clue either."

RF on Sacramento: "C. Maybe Tyreke Evans will pan out. Maybe not. Who knows? Same goes with Mori Casspi. Who knows? I do know that they passed on some better players - they could have had Flynn and Ellington in those spots."

RF on Minnesota: "A. The Timberwolves had the best night of anyone."

Matt Steinmetz in Fanhouse on Memphis: "B-. Despite all the discussion about Thabeet, he isn't likely to be a star and he probably won't be a bust, either."

Steve Xiong of Bleacher Report on Sacramento: "C+. The first pick I really didn't like with Rubio on the board. The Kings started the legendary Beno Udrih last season and they're due for an upgrade."

One more note: a great number of draft graders loved Philly's pick of Jrue Holiday at the 17th spot. He's a very young guy and has upside, but so far he looks lost on the court to me. I don't get the love.

These issues are usually questions of sensibilities much more than questions of logic. In this case, because of the cost and player acquisition issues, applying a "logic" model works better than usual, but what generally happens in these discussions is people making arguments about their personal sensibilities which are camouflaged by faux-logic. I have never really "defended" or "sugarcoated" what Hunter said; as Andy and others have pointed out, you guys tend to argue these disputes in a legalistic way. This is right, this is true, this is wrong, this is false, this is defensible, that is indefensible. With race issues, that approach is generally reductionist and weak. My point is that I can see why a guy with Hunter's angle would say what he said, and there are elements of that angle that you don't get. Doesn't mean he's right or he "should" have said it.

What you say is interesting but I don't really understand it. I get the point that binary logic doesn't work for a lot of things. I'm one of those binary thinkers/everything can be debated with logic types naturally, but I'm also very slow, for example, to criticize people for being offended - if you say something's offensive, I'll take your word for it because I don't know your sensibilities. And as you mature you become more open-minded (or more closed-minded for some) because you learn that people's experiences sometimes supersede logic. Is this what you're getting at?

Rich,
I'm talking about for politicians. Because Israel has a Parliament, it actually has a much more diverse range of opinions. Incidentally, I would guess more than half of the Israeli popualtion thinks that the Sharon/Lieberman government is an embarrassment and a catastrophe. They really are a digusting bunch of toads and most Israelis know it. They didn't even win the last election.

Snapper's blindness to the crimes of the western world is utterly amazing.

The thing about Palestinian or Iraqi or Afghan terrorism is that it by definition cannot have any legitimate (or moral) political aim, because it hurts any such aim. Is there any doubt that Palestinian terrorism has hurt just about any conceivable cause they could have, other than the cause of wiping out the Jews?

Even if the Iraq war and occupation were illegal, even if the U.S. has practiced torture there, if anything terrorism has prolonged the occupation and exacerbated the torture.

Who has killed more people - post 1967 wars - the Israeli government or Palestinian terrorists?

Hamas is not as nihilistic, and actually accomplishes practical things for their tribe, but are their killings of Jews aimed at anything other than killing Jews? If they are, it's tough to see.

I would think that for groups like Hamas, committing atrocities helps keep the situation polarized. I believe that (like most asymmetrical or guerrilla wars) they hope to exhaust their more capable, wealthier opponent.

They strike at Jewish citizens, not because this is the most effective tactic, but it's one of the few tactics available to them that can cause any damage at all.

It doesn't work that way. If you can't win fighting fair, and if your opponent is not trying to do soemthing absolutely horrible (e.g. wipe out your population) you have to give up when you lose the fair fight.

Not necessarily. Revolutions, Rebellions, and Guerrilla wars have been justified on much weaker grounds than "fear of genocide". One could just as easily argue that the Israelis want terror attacks to stop they should give in to all Palestinian demands short of Jewish extermination or enslavement.

Of course that's extortion - but all war is basically extortion. "Submit or die".

I would think that for groups like Hamas, committing atrocities helps keep the situation polarized. I believe that (like most asymmetrical or guerrilla wars) they hope to exhaust their more capable, wealthier opponent.

They strike at Jewish citizens, not because this is the most effective tactic, but it's one of the few tactics available to them that can cause any damage at all.

It certainly can work in some situations, but it seems obvious that the Israeli-Palestine conflict is not one of those situations. The Israelis are not leaving, no matter how many civilians are killed by suicide bombers. The very best they can do is perpetuate a conflict between people who would otherwise have settled their differences long ago.

It is in the interest of terrorist organizations that care nothing for the plight of the Palestinians to encourage repeated violence against Israel in the hopes that the Jewish state will be provoked into action that allows these radical groups to recruit more fundamentalist warriors. It isn't in the interest of the Palestinians, who run the risk of angering the citizens into electing more "hawks."

We could argue that the WTC bombing was a successful terrorist attack because it not only bloodied the nose of the United States, but also led to a good deal of civil unrest, distrust of our government, and wasted money. I doubt that we have done a tenth of the damage to terrorist organizations that they have done to us (and we have done to ourselves in fighting).

They strike at Jewish citizens, not because this is the most effective tactic, but it's one of the few tactics available to them that can cause any damage at all.

But to what end -- political or otherwise -- are they causing damage?(*) Does it have a goal beyond damage (**) itself?

(*) No one can seriously suggest that if the Hamas violence stopped and they embraced peace, that the Palestinians would be in physical danger from Israel.

(**) "Damage," here, a euphemism for intentionally slaughtered Israeli civilians.

Even if the Iraq war and occupation were illegal, even if the U.S. has practiced torture there, if anything terrorism has prolonged the occupation and exacerbated the torture.

Zb pretty much answers this above, but are you serious? There is no terrorism (more properly guerrilla insurgency) in Iraq if there is no illegal war.. and when the US draws down its troops , it'll set up permanent shop in the Green Zone (an invisible 'permanency). Did you know we currently have 700 bases in Afghanistan?

Eventually, the only jobs left for any of us will be tied to our worldwide military occupation. If you sign up directly with the armed forces, you should be read this disclaimer (courtesy Wm Bloom):

The United States is at war [this statement is always factually correct]. You will likely be sent to a battlefield where you will be expected to do your best to terminate the lives of whole, separate, unique, living human beings you know nothing about and who have never done you or your country any harm. You may in the process lose an arm or a leg. Or your life. If you come home alive and with all your body parts intact there's a good chance you will be suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. Do not expect the government to provide you particularly good care for that, or any care at all. In any case, you may wind up physically abusing your spouse and children and/or others, killing various individuals, abusing drugs and/or alcohol, and having an increased risk of suicide ideation and suicide. No matter how bad a condition you may be in, the Pentagon may send you back to the battlefield for another tour of duty. They call this 'stop-loss'. Your only alternative may be to go AWOL. Do you have any friends in Canada?

I would guess more than half of the Israeli popualtion thinks that the Sharon/Lieberman government is an embarrassment and a catastrophe.

Did you mean Netanyahu?

Despite the idiotic display and actions in Israel this past week when Biden was there -- I should note that while I am a Zionist I don't find Israel faultless and feel Israel is partly to blame for the fact that the Palestinians have never wanted to make peace -- Netanyahu has in fact blocked almost all new settlement activity since he assumed the PM job, this time. And no one since Menachim Begin has removed more settlements than Sharon did, in his term in office.

But to what end -- political or otherwise -- are they causing damage?(*) Does it have a goal beyond damage (**) itself?

Are you serious?

The aim is to make the Israeli government and people suffer, in the hope that the price to Israel in terms of "damage" will make them reconsider their policies towards the Palestinians. So enough Israelis will say "Building settlements is all well and good, but we shouldn't do it if it causes us to get attacked by suicide bombers" and so Israel will stop its settlements policy (for instance). This is the essential purpose behind most terrorist campaigns - make the powers that be give in because acceding to your demands is easier than fighting you and putting up with the "damage."

"If you're mean to me I'll be mean to you, until you stop being mean." It's the same thinking behind, say, putting economic sanctions on Iran to discourage them from nuclear weapons.

Leaving aside whether this kind of terrorism is morally justified, it's certainly been effective in many situations, and it has had some success with respect to Israel - not so much for Hamas, to be fair, but overall in the history of the conflict. The first Intifada in paricular.

Not necessarily. Revolutions, Rebellions, and Guerrilla wars have been justified on much weaker grounds than "fear of genocide". One could just as easily argue that the Israelis want terror attacks to stop they should give in to all Palestinian demands short of Jewish extermination or enslavement.

Do you honestly think that would stop Palestinian terrorism? I don't.

If you cant muster any sympathy for Iraqi and Afghan and Pakistani victims of these wars (including completely innocent people held indefinitely in jails and concentration camps), hundreds of thousands of American men and women and their families have been devastated by these wars. I personally know some of them, and PTSD is no joke. All so unbelievably unnecessary to stand and fight against terrorism.

Zb pretty much answers this above

Where?

but are you serious? There is no terrorism (more properly guerrilla insurgency) in Iraq if there is no illegal war..

So? You're missing my point. Remember one of the top criticisms of Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld after the war was that they didn't prepare for the post-war security needs, i.e. they didn't anticipate the need or plan for the type of military occupation we ended up with. I don't see how that's controversial, as bogging the U.S. military down in long-term occupations was basically one of Al Qaeda's stated goals.

and when the US draws down its troops , it'll set up permanent shop in the Green Zone (an invisible 'permanency).

Don't you think the security situation there has something to do with this? I think your argument would be more effective if Bush were still in office.

So enough Israelis will say "Building settlements is all well and good, but we shouldn't do it if it causes us to get attacked by suicide bombers" and so Israel will stop its settlements policy (for instance).

You made my point for me with the "for instance." You have to speculate about their aims, the world has to speculate about their aims, and there's no proof that their terrorism is aimed at stopping the settlement policies. Nor is there any reason to believe that Hamas's policy would change if Israel shut down every settlement tomorrow. When Israel forcibly removed its settlers from Gaza, not a thing changed.(*)

I don't see how you can possibly support the intentional slaughter of civilians in pursuit of unstated, ambiguous ends -- assuming any exist beyond death itself, which there's ample reason to doubt.(**)

The aim is to make the Israeli government and people suffer

Well, yeah ... that's what I said. Making the survivors suffer is inherent in killing for killing's sake.

(*) It's obviously dreadfully immoral to intentionally slaughter civilians if your aim is simply to end the Israeli settlements.

(**) None of this, of course, is to suggest that the Palestinians don't have legitimate grievances. Many peoples do, and they're no different.

And no one since Menachim Begin...

Was it Begin or Shamir who was a part of the Stern Gang?

Today's terrorists could be tomorrow's statesmen...or is it the other way around?

If you cant muster any sympathy for Iraqi and Afghan and Pakistani victims of these wars (including completely innocent people held indefinitely in jails and concentration camps), hundreds of thousands of American men and women and their families have been devastated by these wars. I personally know some of them, and PTSD is no joke. All so unbelievably unnecessary to stand and fight against terrorism.

I have tremendous sympathy for all the victims in these conflicts. It's one of the reasons why I have so little tolerance for the terrorists who prolong these conflicts and make them much more devastating than they would otherwise be.

EDIT: I should add that I'm perfectly comfortable using the word "terrorism" to describe certain actions of the U.S. and its allies during these conflicts as well. I have little tolerance for the people who advocated and perpetrated those actions either.

The aim is to make the Israeli government and people suffer, in the hope that the price to Israel in terms of "damage" will make them reconsider their policies towards the Palestinians.

If that's the goal, it hasn't worked real well. If anything, it's had the exact opposite effect.

I think your argument would be more effective if Bush were still in office.

Bush/Cheney was bad, and they are responsible for Iraq and all thats followed. But if anything, the current Admin is worse, a pretty face on the same grotesque foreign policy. Those two were cartoons of themselves, but now you have all the nice liberals promoting war and sliming Dennis Kucinich for standing against the Afghan and health care boondoggles. I think I hate the current self-righteous bastards worse. They dont give a flying #### about anything beyond their lousy political careers.

They dont give a flying #### about anything beyond their lousy political careers.

If that's the case, don't you think they'd love to get us completely the #### out of Iraq? What political career goal is being served by this unpopular war? The people who want us to be there forever wouldn't vote for Obama anyway.

You have to speculate about their aims, the world has to speculate about their aims, and there's no proof that their terrorism is aimed at stopping the settlement policies.

No, you can speak to the terrorists and say, what would it take to end your campaign, and you negotiate over it... (and then you have to hope the people you're negotiating with can actually "deliver" their followers). In this case, Hamas has clearly stated aims. They've even got a website ffs.

I don't see how you can possibly support the intentional slaughter of civilians in pursuit of unstated, ambiguous ends -- assuming any exist beyond death itself, which there's ample reason to doubt.

I didn't say I supported terrorism as a tactic. But the simple fact is, sustained terrorist campaigns are very often successful. The reason, for instance, that Eire is a country is because a bunch of thugs went around bombing and murdering civilians and policemen until the British had enough and just gave in. Do I approve of that? No. But, from the perpetrators' point of view, it worked. Hell, a large part of the reason that Israel is a country is because of Zionist terrorism. Presumably Menachem Begin felt the ends justified the means.

Now, ends don't justify means, terrorism is wrong. But given the tatics used by the Israeli government, and its regard for international law, I'm not going to get too hung up condemning Hamas, to be quite frank with you, at least not in this thread.

Was it Begin or Shamir who was a part of the Stern Gang?

That was Shamir. Begin was in a different terrorist group.

Zenbitz line was 'submit or die'..I dont think its accurate to call insurgents who target military 'terrorists'..and as i alluded to regarding past Israeli leaders, one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter.

All evidence would suggest the democrats are just as much in favor of the American Imperial Project as the Republicans - they just want to do it with a kinder and gentler machine gun hand.

Obama got more defense money than McCain did.

No, you can speak to the terrorists and say, what would it take to end your campaign, and you negotiate over it... (and then you have to hope the people you're negotiating with can actually "deliver" their followers). In this case, Hamas has clearly stated aims. They've even got a website ffs.

Thanks for the link; on my browser, when you hit "English," it doesn't work.

I think you're putting the onus on the wrong party. It's not the obligation of the victim of barbarities to run to the barbarians and ask them what it will take them to stop. It's the obligation of the terrorists to make clear to the world what political result would make the barbarities end. All this presumes, of course, that the Hamas barbarities are merely a temporary exigency -- which is (repeating) uncertain.

Now, ends don't justify means, terrorism is wrong. But given the tatics used by the Israeli government, and its regard for international law, I'm not going to get too hung up condemning Hamas, to be quite frank with you, at least not in this thread.

Violations of international law don't ipso facto justify the intentional slaughter of civilians.

As to settlements in particular ... watching a group intentionally slaughter civilians because they want territories they might one day condescend to accept, to be ethnically pure when they do doesn't exactly set the liberal humanist heart atwitter.

All evidence would suggest the democrats are just as much in favor of the American Imperial Project as the Republicans - they just want to do it with a kinder and gentler machine gun hand.

Fair enough (not that I agree, but I'm not going to argue that point at 9:30 on Friday night). However, that's different than saying they don't care about anything besides their political careers. They do care about something--just not what you care about.

I dont think its accurate to call insurgents who target military 'terrorists'..and as i alluded to regarding past Israeli leaders, one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter.

Funny that you juxtapose those two thoughts...while I am not a scholar on the Irgun, the organization that Begin led, their "terrorist" activities were against British occupation forces, not civilians. Even the King David Hotel was a military and governmental target, not a civilian one. I'm not defending them, and I don't know the history well enough to claim they never targeted civilians, but they weren't out there bombing pizza parlors or haphazardly launching rockets at civilian targets. To posit the Irgun as merely the Jewish equivalent of Hamas is simply incorrect. It would be more accurate to say that the Irgun was what Hamas' defenders would like to pretend it is.

You never heard of Deir Yassin? Seriously? Go educate yourself.

I am done with this thread. The calculated indifference to Palestinian suffering is really quite sickening.

"The calculated indifference to Palestinian suffering is really quite sickening."

I am sympathetic to the minority of Palestinians who have stood for peace. They have routinely been slaughtered by the violent Islamists and Palestinian nationalists for the last 50 years because they saw that the terrorist route would be a losing one--and they were right. The main losers of PLO and Islamist campaigns of terror have been the people who have supported it--the Palestinian people.

I am, moreover, not convinced that any of the so-called supporters of the Palestinians in the larger Muslim world care about them. Their "concern" seems to only arise because the enemies of the Palestinian Muslims are not Muslims. The larger Muslim world seems to turn a blind eye to the savagery committed against all other Muslims by Muslims, as in Iran or Libya or dozens of other countries. That savagery is an intentional attack on civiilian populations--in stark contrast to Israel's policy of self-defense--yet when was the last time the so-called Arab street stood up to protest attacks against Kurds?

You never heard of Deir Yassin? Seriously? Go educate yourself.

Again, Israel is not blameless. There is some debate over what exactly happened in Deir Yassin, though, and to what degree the warriors acted without the assent of the pre-Israel government and military.

I am done with this thread. The calculated indifference to Palestinian suffering is really quite sickening.

Nobody suggests that the Palestinians have it easy or that Israel is perfect. However, Israel's record with regard to human rights compares quite favorably to other nations, especially when considering their actions towards those who are actively trying to kill them. Israel looks particularly benevolent as a state when compared to its immediate neighbors, states where human rights violations are not only tolerated, but endorsed by being a matter of state policy.

#275 One explicit goal of Hamas is to derail any negotiations. No soft options, no compromise. The other point they'd make is that in a nation of reservists civilians can be seen as soldiers not currently in uniform and as such a legitimate target. (To be clear, I don't buy this, just advancing their argument)

It's easy to fight fair when you will win a fair fight. I'll bet any of those terror groups you mentioned would be happy to slaughter uniformed combatants instead of innocent civilians, but innocents are easier to kill.

So perhaps the problem is Israel's shortsightedness in fighting "fair" against an enemy who won't. You aren't doing yourself any real service by strictly adhering to the Marquis of Queensbury rules against a foe who has made it clear they consider groin kicks and eye gouges to be standard tactics. Do you want to win, or do you want to advance the good name of Sir John Graham Chambers?

The other point they'd make is that in a nation of reservists civilians can be seen as soldiers not currently in uniform and as such a legitimate target. (To be clear, I don't buy this, just advancing their argument)

I've heard similar arguments before; we didn't kill women and children in Iraq, we killed terrorist sympathizers and future terrorists.