Israel and Palestine in Crises Mode

[eric/]

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

Yes it does, because no-one in China and India has any expectation of large government pensions and other benefits.

did you not read the article? Even if that were true, that doesn't mean that millions of old Chinese people are going to just happily work until they die on the job.

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

Most of the problem in the west is because the retirement age is too low.

Maybe in Greece

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

In China and India that will be solved automatically.

You're literally sitting here saying that an age demographic problem will be "solved automatically" because some old people don't expect to receive some sort of pension. I don't even know how to respond to that.
Even if they didn't expect it, it doesn't mean that they still don't need the money.

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

Y
Which others? And I don't think UK, Germany and France will be Israeli allies anymore - they wouldn't threaten to withdraw their ambassadors if they were allies.

Being diplomatically upset about something, doesn't mean you want support somebody militarily. You're overplaying a symbolic move as if its the end of the world for Israel.

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

Y
Its ultimately irrelevant, the Turks thought it wasn't appropriate and that torpedoed their relationship.

Then why bring it up?

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

Y
If Israel was a civilised country they would have managed to stop the boat without killing anyone. Every other developed country would have managed that.

Yup. They make a mistake, and now the aren't a civilized country with welfare, advanced manufacturing and Starbucks.

[NT1440]

Originally Posted by thewitt

This is a myth.

You think we, the US, gives away our missiles without at least having a say in the technology behind the launch and control systems? I apologize though, the launch systems are a joint partnership with NATO, not the UN (don't try to remember acronyms while your half asleep).

[Eraserhead]

Originally Posted by unlinked

I think you are mistaking rubber stamping whatever Israel wants to do with
being allies.

Given we have diplomatic relations with all but a tiny handful of countries and we haven't threatened to withdraw them from the vast majority then unless you are going to define us to be allied with basically everyone I'm not sure that is true at all.

Originally Posted by eric/

did you not read the article?

Of course, I just didn't think it had much merit.

Originally Posted by eric/

Even if that were true, that doesn't mean that millions of old Chinese people are going to just happily work until they die on the job.

Why not? That's what they would always have done in the past.

Originally Posted by eric/

Maybe in Greece

Nope, everywhere in the West - the Economist thinks 70 is a good starting place.

Originally Posted by eric/

You're literally sitting here saying that an age demographic problem will be "solved automatically" because some old people don't expect to receive some sort of pension. I don't even know how to respond to that.
Even if they didn't expect it, it doesn't mean that they still don't need the money.

So if they don't have pensions and are still working what exactly is the issue with more people who are older? They have a lot of skills that they've learnt over their lifetime.

Originally Posted by eric/

Being diplomatically upset about something, doesn't mean you want support somebody militarily.

We'd militarily support them against what? You've already agreed that no-one would do a land invasion.

Originally Posted by eric/

Then why bring it up?

Because I was explaining why the Turks withdrew diplomatic relations.

Originally Posted by eric/

Yup. They make a mistake,

If it was a mistake and they were a civilised country then they'd have apologised.

[unlinked]

Originally Posted by NT1440

You think we, the US, gives away our missiles without at least having a say in the technology behind the launch and control systems? I apologize though, the launch systems are a joint partnership with NATO, not the UN (don't try to remember acronyms while your half asleep).

Israel was selling US missile tech to China in the 90s so I'm sure they keep an eye on it now. Most of the stuff supplied by Nato is defensive and wasn't what was used to bomb Gaza.

----------

Originally Posted by eric/

Yup. They make a mistake, and now the aren't a civilized country with welfare, advanced manufacturing and Starbucks.

There are no Starbucks in Israel.

[thewitt]

Originally Posted by NT1440

You think we, the US, gives away our missiles without at least having a say in the technology behind the launch and control systems? I apologize though, the launch systems are a joint partnership with NATO, not the UN (don't try to remember acronyms while your half asleep).

Like I said already, this "control of Israel's weapons systems" by NATO, or by the US, is a myth.

Israel is in complete control of their arsenal, both offensive and defensive. No one else.

[Macky-Mac]

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

They already have gone against their founding charter by publicly stating that 1967 would be enough....

apparently not;

GAZA, Dec 8 (Reuters) - Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal, making his first ever visit to the Gaza Strip, vowed on Saturday never to recognise Israel and said his Islamist group would never abandon its claim to all Israeli territory.

"Palestine is ours from the river to the sea and from the south to the north. There will be no concession on an inch of the land," he told a sea of supporters at an open-air rally, the highlight of his three-day stay in Gaza.

"We will never recognise the legitimacy of the Israeli occupation and therefore there is no legitimacy for Israel, no matter how long it will take."...

[eric/]

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

Of course, I just didn't think it had much merit.

Then there is an intellectual misunderstanding that I cannot help you with. Until you are able to see and understand this fundamental issue on your own, you'll continue to hold the same view, which is incorrect.

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

Why not? That's what they would always have done in the past.

Only because they've had no choice in the matter, and because they had enough children to support them as they aged.

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

Nope, everywhere in the West - the Economist thinks 70 is a good starting place.

The Economist is but one view among many.

Our fundamental problem isn't retirement age, though that's certainly an upcoming issue, it's providing funding and healthcare for retirement. The reason for the need to increase the age stems from the lack of workers paying into the system, or mismanagement by governments.

Furthermore, Europe and America have a distinct advantage in that people actually want to come live here. That's why you've seen immigration policies in Europe change to be more immigrant friendly, until recently where there are issues with xenophobia and what not.

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

So if they don't have pensions and are still working what exactly is the issue with more people who are older? They have a lot of skills that they've learnt over their lifetime.

This is naive, and you didn't even respond to the question. I hate to sound rude, but frankly you either misunderstand how the world works, or you are just arguing to attempt to be correct on the matter instead of actually trying to learn something.

The issue isn't skills. In fact, skill base is completely irrelevant. The issue is the healthcare of elderly people.

Think about this for a minute: Why do old people need social security or retirement benefits?

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

We'd militarily support them against what? You've already agreed that no-one would do a land invasion.

Anything that they would require military support for, such as helping Israel construct and maintain the Iron Dome defense system.

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

Because I was explaining why the Turks withdrew diplomatic relations.

And what was the point?

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

If it was a mistake and they were a civilised country then they'd have apologised.

If they believed it was a mistake.

What's your criteria for being civilized? Taking actions you agree with?

Do you agree with gay marriage, or drug legalization? Are the countries that don't allow it uncivilized since you do or do not agree?

----------

Originally Posted by unlinked

There are no Starbucks in Israel.

Ok. McDonalds.

Pick whatever you want, the point still stands.

[thewitt]

Except McDonalds is in Israel. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald's_Israel

[eric/]

Originally Posted by thewitt

Except McDonalds is in Israel. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald's_Israel

That's what I'm saying. They are there, hence a thing that civilized societies have.

[thewitt]

Originally Posted by eric/

That's what I'm saying. They are there, hence a thing that civilized societies have.

Sorry, I misread your OK for an OR

[eric/]

Originally Posted by thewitt

Sorry, I misread your OK for an OR

Hey, no problem

[Eraserhead]

Originally Posted by Macky-Mac

apparently not;

You're seriously expecting a group whose leader you've just assassinated to hold a reasonable opinion on peace?

Do you also expect Afghanis whose wedding you've just bombed to support the US military, or Hawaiians in 1942 to support Japanese business interests?

Seriously?

Originally Posted by eric/

The Economist is but one view among many.

Source for anyone serious who thinks the current retirement age is high enough in "the West" for long term pension stability?

Originally Posted by eric/

Furthermore, Europe and America have a distinct advantage in that people actually want to come live here.

Only because they were richer.

Originally Posted by eric/

Think about this for a minute: Why do old people need social security or retirement benefits?

In general I have no idea why 65 year olds need social security and retirement benefits. At 75+ sure, because they are too old.

Originally Posted by eric/

Anything that they would require military support for, such as helping Israel construct and maintain the Iron Dome defense system.

Who (other than possibly the US) is helping them with that?

Originally Posted by eric/

And what was the point?

To explain why the Turks have now dropped diplomatic relations with Israel.

Originally Posted by eric/

If they believed it was a mistake.

If they think it is OK to kill unarmed protestors from a foreign power conducting a customs offence then they certainly aren't civilised.

Originally Posted by eric/

What's your criteria for being civilized?

Originally Posted by eric/

Do you agree with gay marriage, or drug legalization?

There's certainly an argument that countries who haven't legalised homosexuality shouldn't be considered developed.

My criteria for being civilised is to avoid killing the citizens of other countries without a conviction in a court of law. Every state which has a vague control over their territory other than Israel and North Korea manages to achieve this.

I certainly don't think the presence of a low quality fast food chain implies civilisation.

[eric/]

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

So the presence of a rather poor fast food chain shows you are a civilised society?

Still missing the point I see. The presence of established corporations is a characteristic of a civilized society.

Actually, I'm not even going to discuss this anymore. If you don't think that Israel is a civilized society, continue thinking something incorrect. It's so obvious that I'm not going to continue trying to argue it.

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

Right, so when they have no choice in the future, as there is no serious other option what will be the problem?

How are old Chinese and Indian people with 0 money going to pay for healthcare, get to work everyday, and pay for food?

Do you not understand why people obtain these types of benefits in the first place, and why elderly people receive them so much?

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

Source for anyone serious who thinks the current retirement age is high enough for long term pension stability?

As I stated. The Economist (which I regularly read) is but one view among many. I believe the retirement age should be raised, but that isn't an all encompassing solution. You also have to ensure that there are enough people paying into the system.

Poor countries, such as China and India, don't have such systems, or don't have the ability at the moment to implement such system.

So then you have a whole bunch of old people, 65, 75, whatever, whom don't have access to care that is taken for granted here in the West.

Your argument is essentially "let them work till they die" which is naive at best.

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

Only because they were richer.

Are richer. And because we have stable democracies, with retirement and social security, and welfare.

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

OK, so as there is weak healthcare provision then those old people will die a bit sooner. The end of life care that is very expensive frankly is cruel.

How does this address what I said?

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

In general I have no idea why 65 year olds need social security and retirement benefits. At 75+ sure, because they are too old.

The actual age isn't relevant. At all. Because the people we're talking about are not going to have any benefits at any age.

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

Who (other than possibly the US) is helping them with that?

NATO. US allies. The corporations across the world that sell arms to Israel.

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

To explain why the Turks have now dropped diplomatic relations with Israel.

And why does that matter?

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

There's certainly an argument that countries who haven't legalised homosexuality shouldn't be considered developed.

No there isn't.

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

My criteria for being civilised is to avoid human rights abuses, and to avoid killing the citizens of other countries without a conviction in a court of law. Every state which has a vague control over their territory other than Israel and North Korea manages to achieve this.

Well you would have to exclude the US, China, the entire Middle East, Russia, South America, South East Asia, the UK, and France as being civilized countries.

So excluding the fact that you aren't the arbiter of which countries are civilized, your criteria is far too stringent.

[Eraserhead]

Originally Posted by eric/

Well you would have to exclude the US, China, the entire Middle East, Russia, South America, South East Asia, the UK, and France as being civilized countries.

See my edit, in which case source for any of those countries breaking that condition?

----------

Originally Posted by eric/

Still missing the point I see. The presence of established corporations is a characteristic of a civilized society.

Is it?

Originally Posted by eric/

As I stated. The Economist (which I regularly read) is but one view among many. I believe the retirement age should be raised, but that isn't an all encompassing solution. You also have to ensure that there are enough people paying into the system.

So how, other than raising the retirement age are you going to achieve that?

Originally Posted by eric/

Are richer.

Not really, actually. The sort of people with the money and ability to travel to the UK or US are the sort of people who can do rather well at home these days.

Originally Posted by eric/

And because we have stable democracies, with retirement and social security, and welfare.

All of which are covered by schemes which aren't exactly sustainable without significant reform.

Originally Posted by eric/

NATO

Source for NATO supplying weapons to Israel?

Originally Posted by eric/

The corporations across the world that sell arms to Israel.

Arms dealers sell to everyone.

Originally Posted by eric/

And why does that matter?

Because it means that the Israelis have no diplomatic relations with any of their neighbours, which makes them incredibly isolated.

In fact it seems from the latest Palestinian statehood bid that only the Czech Republic, US and Canada voted in support of Israel. That is a pretty small group.

[Macky-Mac]

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

You're seriously expecting a group whose leader you've just assassinated to hold a reasonable opinion on peace?

.....

Seriously?....

Seriously.....I expect you shouldn't delude yourself about what is being said by the various parties involved, especially by their leadership. Frankly you seem to latch onto the most optimistic and pro-hamas interpretation that any analyst says and believe in it firmly as god's own truth.

(edit; and this isn't anything new for Hamas's leaders to say. You've simply misunderstood what they've said in the past)

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

....Do you also expect Afghanis whose wedding you've just bombed to support the US military, or Hawaiians in 1942 to support Japanese business interests?

Seriously?....

Seriously.....when it's israelis on the receiving end, all the time you say it's not important and they should ignore it. Indeed, your position seems to be that the israelis are wrong for being upset

[eric/]

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

See my edit, in which case source for any of those countries breaking that condition?[COLOR="#808080"]

There's a thread right here in PRSI which talks about Russia's anti-gay laws.

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

Is it?

It is.

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

So how, other than raising the retirement age are you going to achieve that?

Increase rates. Increase immigration rates.

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

Not really, actually. The sort of people with the money and ability to travel to the UK or US are the sort of people who can do rather well at home these days.

No no. The US and Europe are by far more wealthy than any other region in the world. It's not even a comparison. To attempt to say otherwise is intellectual dishonesty.

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

All of which are covered by schemes which aren't exactly sustainable without significant reform.

But we're reforming them, and we can make them work. Compared to countries like China and India which aren't able to.

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

Source for NATO supplying weapons to Israel?

Sell =/= supply.

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

Arms dealers sell to everyone.

Ok? So don't you think that if the UK had a real problem with Israel they wouldn't sell them weapons?

They sure as hell don't sell weapons to Hamas.

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

Because it means that the Israelis have no diplomatic relations with any of their neighbours, which makes them incredibly isolated.

Which can be attributed to hostilities against "the jooooos"

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

In fact it seems from the latest Palestinian statehood bid that only the Czech Republic, US and Canada voted in support of Israel. That is a pretty small group.

Doesn't mean they aren't right.

[Eraserhead]

Originally Posted by Macky-Mac

(edit; and this isn't anything new for Hamas's leaders to say. You've simply misunderstood what they've said in the past)

And the serious news sources I quoted as well were also confused .

Originally Posted by Macky-Mac

Seriously.....when it's israelis on the receiving end, all the time you say it's not important and they should ignore it. Indeed, your position seems to be that the israelis are wrong for being upset

When Hamas assassinates any prominent Israelis then I'll agree that you have a point.

Originally Posted by eric/

There's a thread right here in PRSI which talks about Russia's anti-gay laws.

How does that mean that non-Russian citizens are being killed by the Russian state?

Originally Posted by eric/

Increase rates. Increase immigration rates.

Taxes are already pretty high, and finding enough room for enough immigrants is basically impossible - as well as persuading people, who live in other increasingly rich countries, to come and live here.

Originally Posted by eric/

No no. The US and Europe are by far more wealthy than any other region in the world.

Not these days they aren't. New immigrants will generally come in at the bottom, and I'm not really convinced that the very poor in (for example) London are better off than the middle class in India.

And if you are a highly educated immigrant I'm not really sure how exactly you are significantly better off in the UK than in Shanghai or Bangalore.

Originally Posted by eric/

But we're reforming them

Not in any serious way we aren't.

Originally Posted by eric/

Which can be attributed to hostilities against "the jooooos"

I think this is insulting to the large number of Jews who dislike Israel.

And it ignores the historical reality with Turkey where they got on just fine with Israel until it started murdering its citizens.

----------

Originally Posted by eric/

Ok? So don't you think that if the UK had a real problem with Israel they wouldn't sell them weapons?

They sure as hell don't sell weapons to Hamas.

Fair point.

[eric/]

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

How does that mean that non-Russian citizens are being killed by the Russian state?

Well when they caught those pirates off Somalia...

anti-gay persecution laws, etc...

But fine, what about the US then? Drone strikes around the world on non-US citizens.

So.... we're not a civilized country?

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

Taxes are already pretty high, and finding enough room for enough immigrants is basically impossible - as well as persuading people, who live in other increasingly rich countries, to come and live here.

Again, this is a disconnect here with your knowledge about current events and what is your opinion.

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

Not these days they aren't. New immigrants will generally come in at the bottom, and I'm not really convinced that the very poor in (for example) London are better off than the middle class in India.

They definitely are better off.

And the influx of immigrants, means that there are more people paying into the system.

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

And if you are a highly educated immigrant I'm not really sure how exactly you are significantly better off in the UK than in Shanghai or Bangalore.

Far better opportunities. More freedom (for example in China you don't have full access to the Internet, political crimes, etc....)

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

Not in any serious way we aren't.

That's your opinion, which is contrary to fact.

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

I think this is insulting to the large number of Jews who dislike Israel.

I don't.

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

And it ignores the historical reality with Turkey where they got on just fine with Israel until it started murdering its citizens.

Well, you're implying that Israel continues to murder Turkish citizens, when that isn't the case.

And your implying that what Israel did wasn't the correct action, which is subject to debate.

[NT1440]

Originally Posted by eric/

Well when they caught those pirates off Somalia...

anti-gay persecution laws, etc...

But fine, what about the US then? Drone strikes around the world on non-US citizens.

So.... we're not a civilized country?

In that, and many other regards, as an American citizen I'd say no, our institutions are not civilized in so many ways.

That isn't to say we are on the same level as other countries, but I've always been appalled at our collective idea of "well, we're better than these awful places, so thats good enough."

It's clear that we fall flat on many of the very virtues we tout from the rooftops to anyone who will listen. Remember that as far as US international relations are concerned, its the message and power projection that matter, not the facts.

"The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

[eric/]

Originally Posted by NT1440

In that, and many other regards, as an American citizen I'd say no, our institutions are not civilized in so many ways.

That isn't to say we are on the same level as other countries, but I've always been appalled at our collective idea of "well, we're better than these awful places, so thats good enough."

It's clear that we fall flat on many of the very virtues we tout from the rooftops to anyone who will listen. Remember that as far as US international relations are concerned, its the message and power projection that matter, not the facts.

"The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

Ok. Define your criteria for a "civilized society".

That's what this really boils down to. Nobody here is saying America (or any other country) doesn't have faults.

[Macky-Mac]

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

And the serious news sources I quoted as well were also confused ......

confused isn't the right word.....rather they've mislead themselves.

It's a bit like our recent election where republican leaning analysts convinced themselves that the polls showing obama leading had been skewed.......when in fact those polls were correct. A lot of people believed their claims until reality intruded

[NT1440]

Originally Posted by eric/

Ok. Define your criteria for a "civilized society".

That's what this really boils down to. Nobody here is saying America (or any other country) doesn't have faults.

A society that puts the needs of people ahead of business. And not merely at the expense of "others" for our own gain.

In other words, capitalism has never been civilized, instead it merely puts the problems in other places in the world. There is no denying that all of our institutions and leaders are trying to prop up that model because they still think that there are benefits to be had. That is of course up until it blows back and puts us exactly where the world stands at this period of time.

[eric/]

Originally Posted by NT1440

A society that puts the needs of people ahead of business. And not merely at the expense of "others" for our own gain.

In other words, capitalism has never been civilized, instead it merely puts the problems in other places in the world. There is no denying that all of our institutions and leaders are trying to prop up that model because they still think that there are benefits to be had. That is of course up until it blows back and puts us exactly where the world stands at this period of time.

So no country on earth, except maybe North Korea or some other comparable country is civilized?

[Eraserhead]

Originally Posted by eric/

Well when they caught those pirates off Somalia...

anti-gay persecution laws, etc...

How do these laws affect non-citizens?

Originally Posted by eric/

But fine, what about the US then? Drone strikes around the world on non-US citizens.

So.... we're not a civilized country?

Arguably the US isn't a civilised country thanks to the drones, no.

But there is actually a difference between the US actions (and arguably some Israeli actions in Palestine) which is that the areas the US uses drone strikes are essentially lawless.

Of course if you want to claim that Palestine is lawless, then that justifies some Israeli actions (but not the ones against the Turkish ship). However it also means that you can't plausibly expect the Palestinian government to control the various militia.

Originally Posted by eric/

Again, this is a disconnect here with your knowledge about current events and what is your opinion.

So are you on the record as saying that taxes in the West are far too low for everyone. Sure some taxes should increase to close the deficits, but if you want to keep pensions sustainable without raising the retirement age then there will need to be massive tax rises.

Originally Posted by eric/

Far better opportunities.

Such as?

Originally Posted by eric/

More freedom (for example in China you don't have full access to the Internet, political crimes, etc....)

In China you have less political freedom, but you also have more opportunities due to the high growth economy. In India you have less social freedom, but most of it is based on familial pressures, which Indians in the West also have to deal with.

Originally Posted by eric/

That's your opinion, which is contrary to fact.

So what exactly is being done?

Originally Posted by eric/

And your implying that what Israel did wasn't the correct action, which is subject to debate.

Not in any sensible way. You've failed to present even the slightest argument in favour of it.

----------

Originally Posted by Macky-Mac

confused isn't the right word.....rather they've mislead themselves.

How have they misled themselves?

Originally Posted by Macky-Mac

It's a bit like our recent election where republican leaning analysts convinced themselves that the polls showing obama leading had been skewed...

Which if you treat the 2008 election as an aberration, seems like a reasonable viewpoint. Especially as Obama's 2008 campaign was one of the best campaigns I've seen for a long time in any country.

Until the 2012 results happened it wasn't ridiculous to say that 2008 was an aberration. Presuming now that it wasn't an aberration the reason the Republicans are in trouble is that all things being equal aside from the demographic changes then the Democratic's will pick up another ~3% of the vote next time and the time after that.

----------

Originally Posted by eric/

So no country on earth, except maybe North Korea or some other comparable country is civilized?

North Korea doesn't put the needs of the people first...

[Macky-Mac]

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

...

How have they misled themselves?

...

by not paying attention to the actual words of the authors of those statements. Instead they've offered spin to match what they wish had been said.

Mashaal's recent words are no different than what has been said by Hamas officials many times in the past.