Pre-1967? Post-1967?

Many of us, in the name of seeking a lasting middle eastern peace treaty, have long wondered whether Israel could negotiate such a peace by agreeing to give up all the land they have occupied since their decisive victory in the war of 1967. They offered to give up that land then, in exchange for peace and recognition by their Arab neighbours of Israel’s right to exist, but their offer was rejected.

Those who think Israel can “buy” peace by giving up those territories should read this.

…[I]n 1967, Egypt, Syria and Jordan again attacked Israel, again with the repeated announcement that the objective was its “annihilation.” Israel turned the tables and won the war. Soon after that victory, Israel offered the Arabs to hand them all the territory it had regained, in return for peace. At a conference in Khartoum the unanimous Arab reply was: No negotiations. No peace. No recognition….

It was shortly afterward that the movement of Jewish settlers was launched. It is noteworthy that the last defining document that underwrites the legality was the Geneva Convention of 1949. It dealt with occupied territories. Its second clause, stating its scope, makes it clear that it does not apply to the Jewish presence in Judea and Samaria – because Jordan was not a sovereign possessor but an illegal invader, and similarly was Egypt an illegal invader of Gaza. Israel liberated both areas, restoring them to the territory of the Palestine Mandate of 1922.

From the point of view of international law these settlers are as legal as any resident of Manhattan or of Shreveport, Louisiana.

[h/t to BenS]

Pre-1967? Post-1967?

Many of us, in the name of seeking a lasting middle eastern peace treaty, have long wondered whether Israel could negotiate such a peace by agreeing to give up all the land they have occupied since their decisive victory in the war of 1967. They offered to give up that land then, in exchange for peace and recognition by their Arab neighbours of Israel’s right to exist, but their offer was rejected.

Those who think Israel can “buy” peace by giving up those territories should read this.

…[I]n 1967, Egypt, Syria and Jordan again attacked Israel, again with the repeated announcement that the objective was its “annihilation.” Israel turned the tables and won the war. Soon after that victory, Israel offered the Arabs to hand them all the territory it had regained, in return for peace. At a conference in Khartoum the unanimous Arab reply was: No negotiations. No peace. No recognition….

It was shortly afterward that the movement of Jewish settlers was launched. It is noteworthy that the last defining document that underwrites the legality was the Geneva Convention of 1949. It dealt with occupied territories. Its second clause, stating its scope, makes it clear that it does not apply to the Jewish presence in Judea and Samaria – because Jordan was not a sovereign possessor but an illegal invader, and similarly was Egypt an illegal invader of Gaza. Israel liberated both areas, restoring them to the territory of the Palestine Mandate of 1922.

From the point of view of international law these settlers are as legal as any resident of Manhattan or of Shreveport, Louisiana.

[h/t to BenS]

Rape by Israeli Soldiers:Damned If They Do, and Now Damned If They Don’t!

How does NOT raping women de-humanize them? Or how does it mean that the women are already de-humanized in the eyes of the soldiers? Beats me. From Israel National News [h/t to Acad Ronin]:

A research paper that won a Hebrew University teachers’ committee prize finds that the lack of IDF rapes of Palestinian women is designed to serve a political purpose.



…”In the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it can be seen that the lack of military rape merely strengthens the ethnic boundaries and clarifies the inter-ethnic differences – just as organized military rape would have done.”



The paper further theorizes that Arab women in Judea and Samaria are not raped by IDF soldiers because the women are de-humanized in the soldiers’ eyes.

A better explanation might be that the soldiers recognize that rape is wrong. It might also point out that Israeli soldiers know very well there would be negative repercussions for their entire country if they were to rape Arab women.

Rape by Israeli Soldiers:Damned If They Do, and Now Damned If They Don’t!

How does NOT raping women de-humanize them? Or how does it mean that the women are already de-humanized in the eyes of the soldiers? Beats me. From Israel National News [h/t to Acad Ronin]:

A research paper that won a Hebrew University teachers’ committee prize finds that the lack of IDF rapes of Palestinian women is designed to serve a political purpose.



…”In the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it can be seen that the lack of military rape merely strengthens the ethnic boundaries and clarifies the inter-ethnic differences – just as organized military rape would have done.”



The paper further theorizes that Arab women in Judea and Samaria are not raped by IDF soldiers because the women are de-humanized in the soldiers’ eyes.

A better explanation might be that the soldiers recognize that rape is wrong. It might also point out that Israeli soldiers know very well there would be negative repercussions for their entire country if they were to rape Arab women.

Rape by Israeli Soldiers:Damned If They Do, and Now Damned If They Don’t!

How does NOT raping women de-humanize them? Or how does it mean that the women are already de-humanized in the eyes of the soldiers? Beats me. From Israel National News [h/t to Acad Ronin]:

A research paper that won a Hebrew University teachers’ committee prize finds that the lack of IDF rapes of Palestinian women is designed to serve a political purpose.



…”In the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it can be seen that the lack of military rape merely strengthens the ethnic boundaries and clarifies the inter-ethnic differences – just as organized military rape would have done.”



The paper further theorizes that Arab women in Judea and Samaria are not raped by IDF soldiers because the women are de-humanized in the soldiers’ eyes.

A better explanation might be that the soldiers recognize that rape is wrong. It might also point out that Israeli soldiers know very well there would be negative repercussions for their entire country if they were to rape Arab women.

Hoar Frost on Boxing Day

We were fogged in on Christmas night, but the temperatures were so cold that the fog settled as frost in the early morning. And then the sun shone. Boxing Day in Clinton was absolutely gorgeous. The frost was so strong that it attached to MADD ribbons and even stayed adhered to radio antennas of vehicles driven to Tim Horton’s

Hoar Frost on Boxing Day

We were fogged in on Christmas night, but the temperatures were so cold that the fog settled as frost in the early morning. And then the sun shone. Boxing Day in Clinton was absolutely gorgeous. The frost was so strong that it attached to MADD ribbons and even stayed adhered to radio antennas of vehicles driven to Tim Horton’s

Don’t Shop Locally!!

I keep hearing politicians, mediots*, and local shop-keepers telling us we should shop locally and keep our money in the community. It makes me want to drive to Detroit to shop.



Suppose I shop locally when I could get something for a lower price by shopping on the internet. I’d be better off, and I would have some money left over. If I paid the higher price to the local merchant they’d have the extra money instead of me. But they’d be shipping a bunch of the money outside the community, too, to pay for the merchandise they sold and to buy other things for themselves. I don’t see much difference except they’d be richer and I’d be poorer.



And don’t tell me about the jobs they create. We’re almost surely below the natural unemployment rate in Canada — job creation doesn’t mean a blessed thing when there are so many jobs that employers are struggling to fill.



When I hear the ads, I think to myself, “hmmm. I wonder if I can get it cheaper on the internet…”



*mediot: a redundant term for idiot members of the media. First used on rec.sport.baseball in the late 1990s.

Don’t Shop Locally!!

I keep hearing politicians, mediots*, and local shop-keepers telling us we should shop locally and keep our money in the community. It makes me want to drive to Detroit to shop.



Suppose I shop locally when I could get something for a lower price by shopping on the internet. I’d be better off, and I would have some money left over. If I paid the higher price to the local merchant they’d have the extra money instead of me. But they’d be shipping a bunch of the money outside the community, too, to pay for the merchandise they sold and to buy other things for themselves. I don’t see much difference except they’d be richer and I’d be poorer.



And don’t tell me about the jobs they create. We’re almost surely below the natural unemployment rate in Canada — job creation doesn’t mean a blessed thing when there are so many jobs that employers are struggling to fill.



When I hear the ads, I think to myself, “hmmm. I wonder if I can get it cheaper on the internet…”



*mediot: a redundant term for idiot members of the media. First used on rec.sport.baseball in the late 1990s.

Don’t Shop Locally!!

I keep hearing politicians, mediots*, and local shop-keepers telling us we should shop locally and keep our money in the community. It makes me want to drive to Detroit to shop.



Suppose I shop locally when I could get something for a lower price by shopping on the internet. I’d be better off, and I would have some money left over. If I paid the higher price to the local merchant they’d have the extra money instead of me. But they’d be shipping a bunch of the money outside the community, too, to pay for the merchandise they sold and to buy other things for themselves. I don’t see much difference except they’d be richer and I’d be poorer.



And don’t tell me about the jobs they create. We’re almost surely below the natural unemployment rate in Canada — job creation doesn’t mean a blessed thing when there are so many jobs that employers are struggling to fill.



When I hear the ads, I think to myself, “hmmm. I wonder if I can get it cheaper on the internet…”



*mediot: a redundant term for idiot members of the media. First used on rec.sport.baseball in the late 1990s.