More On Conspiracy

In fact, my family has been repeatedly attacked and members killed. There have been attempts to submit my family by force. My family is not welcome here. I get that.

Yet the casualties of your neighbours is much higher, so perhaps you are more aggressive or intent on causing as much damage as possible?

I would recommend The Holocaust industry by Norman Finkelstein as a book. The documentary Two blue lines was also interesting and I would recommend that too.

The very simple point remains to be addressed:
Why apply scruples of borders and territory exclusively to the Israelis?
What about the Falklands?
Or the Basque country?
Or even the Australian aboriginees?

tokeless wrote:Yet the casualties of your neighbours is much higher, so perhaps you are more aggressive or intent on causing as much damage as possible?

It is asymmetrical warfare. There is a militant organization inside the blockaded room, embedded amongst, and part of, the civilian population. Label this organization "terrorists" or label them "freedom fighters" but either way they have vowed to eradicate your family.

In war, I'm not sure why equal levels of aggression is a measure of success. I certainly hope you want to cause as much damage as possible to your enemy. Ideally you want to kill as many of them while sustaining as few losses as possible.

It is important to reinforce that, as part of the asymmetry, the militant organization is "embedded amongst, and part of," the civilian population. When a person in the blockaded room is killed, they can be both a militant and a civilian. They can be a barber by day and launching a missile at night. The idea of "freedom fighters" being both a civilian and a warrior, embedded in the local population is nothing new.

I would recommend The Holocaust industry by Norman Finkelstein as a book. The documentary Two blue lines was also interesting and I would recommend that too.

I'll check them out. Thanks.

Nikita Kruschev was one of the liberators of the camps. He wrote his memoirs later in life.

"Самые жуткие комнаты — с женскими волосами (они за стеклом). Много-много человеческих волос — больше двух тонн. Фашисты использовали волосы в промышленности."

"The most terrible rooms - with female hair (they are behind the glass). Many, many human hair - more than two tons. Fascists used hair in industry."

"Sergei Nikitich Khrushchev (Russian: Серге́й Ники́тич Хрущёв, July 2, 1935 – June 18, 2020) was a Russian engineer and the son of the Cold War-era Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev and his wife Nina Petrovna Khrushcheva. He moved to the United States in 1991 and was a naturalized American citizen.[1]"

davidbanner99@ wrote:The very simple point remains to be addressed:
Why apply scruples of borders and territory exclusively to the Israelis?
What about the Falklands?
Or the Basque country?
Or even the Australian aboriginees?

I provided my 'two cents' in a previous post, but use the analogy of the "home" being a nation and/or border.

Richard@DecisionSkills wrote:I say "the home" because it is not their home. It is not my home. It is not the landlords home. The very idea of claiming a homeland, to own a home in perpetuity, is nonsense. It assumes a static universe with unlimited resources, with equal access, where disease, natural disasters, droughts, war, and other dynamics cease to exist. Time stands still.

I'm realistic. I see a dynamic world constantly in flux, full of tough situations.

IMO, there is no authority for anyone to claim ownership of a piece of land in perpetuity. In nature, as the seasons change, as animals migrate and gather around the communal "water hole," so does humanity. It is an ongoing cycle.

Richard@DecisionSkills wrote:

davidbanner99@ wrote:The very simple point remains to be addressed:
Why apply scruples of borders and territory exclusively to the Israelis?
What about the Falklands?
Or the Basque country?
Or even the Australian aboriginees?

I provided my 'two cents' in a previous post, but use the analogy of the "home" being a nation and/or border.

Richard@DecisionSkills wrote:I say "the home" because it is not their home. It is not my home. It is not the landlords home. The very idea of claiming a homeland, to own a home in perpetuity, is nonsense. It assumes a static universe with unlimited resources, with equal access, where disease, natural disasters, droughts, war, and other dynamics cease to exist. Time stands still.

I'm realistic. I see a dynamic world constantly in flux, full of tough situations.

IMO, there is no authority for anyone to claim ownership of a piece of land in perpetuity. In nature, as the seasons change, as animals migrate and gather around the communal "water hole," so does humanity. It is an ongoing cycle.

Then do you think the native American Indians are the indigenous population of America? How would you apply the Middle East parallel to that scenario?.Or indeed Australia.

Then do you think the native American Indians are the indigenous population of America? How would you apply the Middle East parallel to that scenario?.Or indeed Australia.[/quote]

I guess, certain populations see something they want and decide they're having it regardless of who claims to be the indigenous population. If they have the power, then they make the rules and decide what's lawful. Seems to be the belief in such situations.

davidbanner99@ wrote:Then do you think the native American Indians are the indigenous population of America?

North "American Indians" are lumped into 10 different regions, consisting of 500+ distinct tribes that continuously fought territorial battles. Most certainly some of these wars were claims of "we were here first".

This is roughly the same in Australia, with 500+ aboriginal clans. These clans, similar to North America, would engage in warfare over territory/resources, etc. Most certainly some of the claims were a "we were here first" argument.

davidbanner99@ wrote:How would you apply the Middle East parallel to that scenario?.Or indeed Australia.

In application, the "we were here first" argument is nonsense. I certainly understand and can respect the basic idea, but at the end of day it is a rather worthless, naive argument. When push comes to shove, that argument has failed since the dawn of humanity and will always fail. It is the weakest of any claim.

tokeless wrote:I guess, certain populations see something they want and decide they're having it regardless of who claims to be the indigenous population. If they have the power, then they make the rules and decide what's lawful. Seems to be the belief in such situations.

Exactly. But, I would clarify it is less "certain" populations, but rather all populations when it is to their advantage. The claim, "we were here first" is the weakest of all claims. It is a claim of last resort, an appeal to the sympathies of those that are contesting their claim.

If your tribe has the "water hole" and my tribe needs water, the fact you were there first is irrelevant.

Richard@DecisionSkills wrote:

tokeless wrote:I guess, certain populations see something they want and decide they're having it regardless of who claims to be the indigenous population. If they have the power, then they make the rules and decide what's lawful. Seems to be the belief in such situations.

Exactly. But, I would clarify it is less "certain" populations, but rather all populations when it is to their advantage. The claim, "we were here first" is the weakest of all claims. It is a claim of last resort, an appeal to the sympathies of those that are contesting their claim.

If your tribe has the "water hole" and my tribe needs water, the fact you were there first is irrelevant.

But wasn't your point about the Israeli v Palestinians exactly that. They owned the mansion first and were just taking it back because the current occupiers were using it? Or have I got that wrong and it's just a power grab?

. As this takes place the backdoor of the room is blockaded...BY YOUR NEIGHBOR.


This back room is not a prison. It is being blockaded for a very good reason. You don't want members of your family or any of the people that are living in other rooms of the mansion to be killed.

Just read this again... can I clarify that you believe the Palestinians caused the blockade so they have caused their own exile or imprisonment? Yet, you then argue it's there for a very good reason.

Could you clarify this point and can we use Israeli and Palestinian so as not to confuse who the residents are? Thanks.

tokeless wrote:But wasn't your point about the Israeli v Palestinians exactly that. They owned the mansion first and were just taking it back because the current occupiers were using it? Or have I got that wrong and it's just a power grab?

No. I think we must have talked past each other a bit, probably in part, due to using analogies. But, I prefer the analogies in an effort to avoid discussing potentially contentious political issues.

No one "owns" the mansion. I understand the "we were here first" is an emotional appeal that is old as time itself, but that argument, in and of itself, is entirely irrelevant. So is the argument, "Possession is 9/10ths of the law."

Stranded in the middle of the desert, you have a bottle of water. You put it down. You come back and someone else is now in possession of the bottle of water. You make the claim, "The water was originally mine." They reply, "Well, now it is mine. I'm in possession."

Both arguments are understandable, yet naive. Possession at any given point in time, without the power to retain possession, is irrelevant.

Or have I got that wrong and it's just a power grab?

A power grab? With both people wanting the power to control the bottle? Okay, that might be a good way to frame it.

You have a gun and the other person a knife. The other person doesn't agree to give you any water unless you give them the gun and even then they are not promising you will get any water. So, given you are not willing to risk not getting any water you use force and take the water bottle. You now control how much water the other person can have. You have the power.

Understandably, the other person isn't happy about the situation. But neither are you. You are now in a very difficult, nearly intractable problem. You don't trust them and they don't trust you.

tokeless wrote:Could you clarify this point and can we use Israeli and Palestinian so as not to confuse who the residents are? Thanks.

There is a 3rd party. There is a militant organization coming out of Egypt that seized power in Gaza (Hamas). Egypt blockading one side and Israel blockading the other side in response to this "power grab".

But, I prefer the analogies in an effort to avoid discussing potentially contentious political issues.

Why is it contentious if it's legitimate? I think the concern goes back to my original point of not being able to discuss it because it's almost become taboo to do so. I still think Israel holds the key because of their power and ability to set the terms. These terms at present are not balanced, but Palestine can't make them do anything that they won't be agreeable to. In some ways, maintaining the conflict works in Israel's favour because they can claim to be the victims of antisemitism.

The strip’s two million inhabitants already live inside what they call the “world’s largest prison”, with more than 50% unemployment, a collapsed healthcare system, sometimes-poisonous water, and relentless power cuts.
Israel and Egypt, Gaza’s other neighbour, have maintained a crippling blockade, locals say “siege”, for 14 years. Israel, which recalled its forces occupying the area in 2005, says the restrictions are for its security. But the UN says the blockade constitutes collective punishment.

Taken from today's Guardian newspaper.