[karajorma]

Worthless in what sense? In that they won't change anything? On their own yes. You need to get a very large group of people all saying the same thing before anyone will notice you.

Or you need to convince people on the other side of the argument that they are wrong so that support for their side falls away.

Which is pretty much what is going on here.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Bobboau
you can say it's wrong, it's just your words are prety much worthless for the most part.

That's not true.  On a general principle, there's no reason why you have to 'be there' to be able to comment; in fact it can be considered a hindrance to neutrality.  I wouldn't imagine there are many people if any who have experienced both sides of the conflict (in this specific arguement), so perhaps the best position to be in when making objective judgement is the neutral, 'aloof' one.

It's worth remembering that in all cases the perception of bias does not entail something is actually biased. When it comes to, for example, the media the same story will be viewed in different ways depending on peoples individual experiences.  The source of the story might appear more or less biased depending on the simple juxtaposition of other stories, or independent current events that in some way parallel.

Either way, I don't think it's fair to say you have experience something to understand it.  Sometimes being there to experience something, changes what that 'it' actually is (it's a principle of - IIRC - subatomic physics but I think you can extend it to human perception in general).

[karajorma]

Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle to be precise.

[ShadowWolf_IH]

Kara.....

as a man of intellect i would have thought that you would be among the first to acknowledge that one does not need to fight physically in order to fight.  There are many many ways to fight, we all know this.  Sandwich has chosen his way.  But someone who is behind the lines and attempting to keep logistics, is just as much in the fight.  "Take arms"  were the words i used, and to put them in context of my thoughts at the time, "or to take arms 'gainst a sea of troubles, and by oposing end them?"  Hamlet.  He was the guy who used his brain and only used his sword when it was supposed to be for sport....or when he found a man hiding in his mother's bedroom.  The point is, take arms, does not necessarily mean to fight physically.  However, so many people still cannot get past being physical, that it is the only way that they know of when someone says fight.  I think that the worst part, is that of the times, it's like a man who is trying to physically fight a problem in the marriage.  knowing that it only makes it worse, but refusing to stop nonetheless.   I digress.

The point is, most fights aren't physical, take arms is simply my way of saying fight if your convictions are that strong.  Hope that explains it a bit more

[karajorma]

In which case though trying to argue with Sandwich and convince him that he is wrong is taking arms against him

[Sandwich]

Originally posted by aldo_14
Either way, I don't think it's fair to say you have experience something to understand it.  Sometimes being there to experience something, changes what that 'it' actually is (it's a principle of - IIRC - subatomic physics but I think you can extend it to human perception in general).

Quite right... I'm not saying that your perception, or Kara's perception, of events here, if you were to be here firsthand to witness them, would be the same as mine. Not at all; there are plenty of Israelis who do witness the same events as I do, and yet still have vastly different political leanings.

However, by "witnessing" only those events that the media shows, and then only through the eyes of the media themselves, any conclusions you may reach on any given event are tainted by being filtered theough the eyes of the media. Additionally, the media here is hardly a mere "observer" - the fact that there are cameras pointing this way and that in any given case affects the behaviour of both sides - another principle of physics, if I'm not mistaken (you cannot observe something without affecting it).

Originally posted by karajorma
Are you seriously telling me that there isn't a single media source in Israel that is constantly banging on about how the Palestinians are the problem and harder measures need to be taken against them? Somehow I find that very hard to believe. In fact I find it very hard to believe there aren't several.

Of course they are. They aren't anywhere near mainstream, however - not unlike your Daily Mail. Yes, people can get news from there - if they want news reported by an agency that has openly taken sides in what it reports on.

Originally posted by karajorma
What I'm saying is that every time there is another bombing in Israel everyone yet again blames all the Palestinians which makes it easier to continue to oppress them.

If I've come across that way, I apologize.... a.k.a. Don't put words in my mouth. I have made a concious effort to differentiate between Palestinians, Palestinian terrorists, and terrorists.

Perhaps that's the impression you get through the media's reporting on Israel's reaction to bombings and such, hmm? Tell me, if you don't read the Jerusalem Post, what Israeli news sources do you read? As far as I know, neither Yediot Aharonot nor Ma'ariv have English language news sites. As for Ha'Aretz, it's distribution is very small here - I'd guess even smaller than the Jerusalem Post.

Originally posted by karajorma
I don't hear much feeling for the palestinians in your posts.

I generally don't need to post about how sorry I feel for the Palestinians, as others here tend to fill that role quite sufficiently. However, I'm not a cold-hearted bastard; and it just so happens that I did post about their wretched situation a few pages back:

Originally posted by Sandwich
Unless you have been here, seen with your own eyes the wretched living conditions of the Palestinians, seen their suffering at the eternal lines of the checkpoints...

I do feel for them, don't think that I don't. But the difference between me and (many of) you is that I don't see Israel as being the root of their problems. Palestinian terrorists are.

Israel has the right to defend herself. Palestinian terrorists perform acts of violence against Israeli targets, both military (which is fine / legal / whatever), and civilian (hence the term "terrorists"). They then hide out among the Palestinian civillians. Therefore, when Israel acts against the terrorists, both the terrorists and the civillians suffer.

Originally posted by karajorma
I hear comments about how come one suicide bomber should be treated as representative of the whole palestinian people.

You imply that you hear those comments from me. I resent that implication, challenge you to prove your accusation, and demand that you retract your slanderous statement if you cannot prove it.

Originally posted by karajorma
The Daily Mail is a british rag (I refuse to call it a newspaper) that is constantly spewing rhetoric about asylum seekers and single mothers. It's not government run but it constantly seeks to demonise certain groups for the actions of certain individuals within that group.

Sound familiar? Are you seriously telling me that no one in Israel is doing the same?

See the first paragraph in this post.

Originally posted by karajorma
Propaganda can also come from a religious source. Just because it's your belief doesn't make it exempt. Just exactly how did you arrive at the belief that Israel was the rightful property of the Jews?

Through my faith in the Bible and the One who inspired it. Not exactly a reasoning that I would expect anyone else to have, mind you, but you asked about me.

Originally posted by karajorma
And that's where you've hung yourself with your own argument. How is your view objective if it derives from your ideology that Israel belongs to the Jews? You've basically shut out every single rational argument in favour of your religious "God gave it to me" ones. That's not objective

No, it isn't - I don't think I ever claimed to be completely objective. As far as I recall, I stated that I was in a position to be more objective than people who get all their information filtered through non-local media.

Originally posted by karajorma
Even if you didn't have that belief I'd still argue against your objectivity. I don't think anyone who is being shot at, or having suicide bombers attack their country can be at all objective.

Gee, y'think?

However, that's an off-the-cuff response. Your statement agains shows that you have confused "objective" with both sides being equally right or equally wrong.

Look at it this way (note that this is not supposed to be a parallel of the Israeli-Palestinian sitation, but an example of the difference between objectivity and equally-right/wrong):

A murders B in cold blood, for no reason whatsoever. C is B's brother, and sees the murder take place. D is a random passer-by, who has never before met A, B, or C, but who also sees the murder take place.

Now, C is not an objective observer. D is an objective observer. However, they will both concude the same thing: A was in the wrong.

Being objective does not mean you cannot reach a conclusion one way or another, does not mean you cannot tell right from wrong.

Originally posted by karajorma
You seem to be labouring under the delusion that what the palestinians are able to hear or not hear is in any any way relevent to my argument. It might be if I was trying to claim that they were more objective than the Israeli people but if you look closely I've said nothing of the sort. Of course the Palestinians are less objective. They don't have anywhere near the kind of resources needed to be even slightly objective.

The copmment on the Palestinian media bias was not the point of the portion of my post you quoted. The point was that, contrary to what you seemed to think, the Israeli public is presented with arguments and observations from both sides of the coin.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Sandwich
Quite right... I'm not saying that your perception, or Kara's perception, of events here, if you were to be here firsthand to witness them, would be the same as mine. Not at all; there are plenty of Israelis who do witness the same events as I do, and yet still have vastly different political leanings.

However, by "witnessing" only those events that the media shows, and then only through the eyes of the media themselves, any conclusions you may reach on any given event are tainted by being filtered theough the eyes of the media. Additionally, the media here is hardly a mere "observer" - the fact that there are cameras pointing this way and that in any given case affects the behaviour of both sides - another principle of physics, if I'm not mistaken (you cannot observe something without affecting it).

Yes. Your media isn't an observer. They are in the country themselves which means that they may have their own agenda. I'll come back to this further down.

Originally posted by Sandwich
Of course they are. They aren't anywhere near mainstream, however - not unlike your Daily Mail. Yes, people can get news from there - if they want news reported by an agency that has openly taken sides in what it reports on.

Sadly the Daily Mail is pretty mainstream. No matter how much I may wish it wasn't.

Originally posted by Sandwich
If I've come across that way, I apologize.... a.k.a. Don't put words in my mouth. I have made a concious effort to differentiate between Palestinians, Palestinian terrorists, and terrorists.

I've never said you did. I said your country as a whole does. The fact that they vote for people like Sharon proves it. Even if you don't think he's a hardliner that's because you're comparing him to the bigger ******s in the right.

Originally posted by Sandwich
Perhaps that's the impression you get through the media's reporting on Israel's reaction to bombings and such, hmm? Tell me, if you don't read the Jerusalem Post, what Israeli news sources do you read? As far as I know, neither Yediot Aharonot nor Ma'ariv have English language news sites. As for Ha'Aretz, it's distribution is very small here - I'd guess even smaller than the Jerusalem Post.

I stick to the BBC. As objective as news gets. World renouned for that in fact.

Originally posted by Sandwich
I do feel for them, don't think that I don't. But the difference between me and (many of) you is that I don't see Israel as being the root of their problems. Palestinian terrorists are.

I know that they have problems other than Israel but you're really not helping are you? Israel has constantly interfered to keep the government of Palestine weak. The Palestinians may have problems but do you really think that putting their leader under house arrest for three years helped them any regardless of what reasons you had for doing it to help Israel?

Originally posted by Sandwich
Israel has the right to defend herself. Palestinian terrorists perform acts of violence against Israeli targets, both military (which is fine / legal / whatever), and civilian (hence the term "terrorists"). They then hide out among the Palestinian civillians. Therefore, when Israel acts against the terrorists, both the terrorists and the civillians suffer.

Would the Israeli's have taken it so well if the British response to their terrorism had been the same as what Israel is doing now? I guess it's pretty fortunate that following WWII the British didn't have the resources to do the same thing isn't it?

Regardless of that the fact is that only a fool can't see that every Israeli attempt to defend herself simply triggers more attempts by Palestine to defend herself and on and on. Without committing your own holocaust there is no way for either side to end the problem down this path.
 So do what Northern Ireland did and try talking instead of killing each other.

Originally posted by Sandwich
You imply that you hear those comments from me. I resent that implication, challenge you to prove your accusation, and demand that you retract your slanderous statement if you cannot prove it.

ummmmm. How about this comment from this very thread. I don't care if it's an extreme example. It pretty much fits what I said in my statement.

Originally posted by Sandwich
You know, I've often thought that one extreme solution would be to completely comply with the Palestinian desires, give them a state, Jerusalem, and everything they want. Have internationally recognized borders between Palestine and Israel, with all the responsibility that comes with such.

First shot fired across the border, first mortar shell launched into Israeli space, first Palestinian terrorist crosses the border and blows him/herself up, Israel takes it as an act of war, invades Palestine, and completely takes over. Anyone not welcoming us with open arms is forcibly made into refugees - let one of the multitude of Arab states around us deal with 'em. They had their chance, and they blew it.

Originally posted by Sandwich
Through my faith in the Bible and the One who inspired it. Not exactly a reasoning that I would expect anyone else to have, mind you, but you asked about me.

If you'd gotten the idea from reading a pamphlet saying "The Settlements belong to us" and listing reasons why you'd have called that propaganda right? Okay the bible itself may or may not be propaganda depending on if you believe it or not but lets try to stick to something more concrete.
 It wasn't just the book was it? You didn't read the bible in isolation and arrive at the opinion that the Gaza Strip belongs to you did you?. You listened to the opinions of others who used that interpretation of the bible. You heard that interpretation on the news and agreed with it. etc. Even if the bible is true what you're surely doing is putting one interpretation on what it says. Do you have any concrete evidence that you're supposed to throw people out?

Even if the bible is true and God does want you to have that land maybe he means for you to convert the people already there rather than evict them or displace them with other Jews.

If I'm wrong feel free to point out where the bible say that you should drive people out when recreating the state of Israel. I don't want a vague prophecy open to interpretation though. I want an actual statement saying that a second Israel will arise by casting out the people there at the time. Anything else would be open to doing it by conversion.

Originally posted by Sandwich
No, it isn't - I don't think I ever claimed to be completely objective. As far as I recall, I stated that I was in a position to be more objective than people who get all their information filtered through non-local media.

And that's where I disagree with you. I think your faith and the fact that you're too close to the situation makes you less objective. Which is why objected to your whole "you have no right" rant in the first place.

Originally posted by Sandwich
However, that's an off-the-cuff response. Your statement agains shows that you have confused "objective" with both sides being equally right or equally wrong.

Nope. The whole argument is about whether someone who is distant can be more objective than someone close up. I'm not arguing who is wrong and who is right for the most part cause I think that both sides are bloody idiots (in both senses of the word) and that neither side is right.

Your entire rant was that someone who isn't there can't be objective and therefore should shut up. My entire point is that someone who is there sees a smaller part of the story and therefore is less objective than someone who isn't. Nothing in that rant was about who was right and who was wrong. It's not me who is confused Sandwich.

Originally posted by Sandwich
Look at it this way (note that this is not supposed to be a parallel of the Israeli-Palestinian sitation, but an example of the difference between objectivity and equally-right/wrong):

A murders B in cold blood, for no reason whatsoever. C is B's brother, and sees the murder take place. D is a random passer-by, who has never before met A, B, or C, but who also sees the murder take place.

Now, C is not an objective observer. D is an objective observer. However, they will both concude the same thing: A was in the wrong.

There you go. You're now claiming that the person closer to the story is less objective. That was my entire point.

So unless your whole "you don't have the right" rant was really about "I'm right so shut up" you're pretty much proving my point with your story.

When the case went to trial D's statements would be taken a more important than C's precisely because of the objectivity he has in the matter.

Your entire rant was about objectivity not who is correct.

Originally posted by Sandwich
Being objective does not mean you cannot reach a conclusion one way or another, does not mean you cannot tell right from wrong.

Once again I'm not arguing right and wrong. I'm arguing that you're less objective than I am.

Things that make you less objective

• You're in a country that is being bombed by the other side which tends to encourage a them vs us situation.
• Your faith makes you believe the settlers land is rightfully Israel's and blinds you to any arguments against that or that it was therefore wrong to throw the Palestinians out and take their land.
• Most of your information comes from news sources that may/may not be biased/have an agenda or from speaking to people that may/may not be biased/have an agenda.
• You are constantly exposed to the media spin on events that you yourself may have witnessed/taken part of.

Things that make me less objective

• All of my information comes from news sources that may/may not be biased/have an agenda or from speaking to people that may/may not be biased/have an agenda.

The important matter here is whether the fact that my only point starts with all rather than most out balances all the other points on your list. Quite frankly I don't believe it does.

Originally posted by Sandwich
The copmment on the Palestinian media bias was not the point of the portion of my post you quoted. The point was that, contrary to what you seemed to think, the Israeli public is presented with arguments and observations from both sides of the coin.

Some how I doubt that the condemnation of Israeli attrocities ever equals that of the condemnation of Palestinian attrocities. You could never have elected a war criminal convicted by your own courts if it had.