Israel foreign minister says Gaza could become terrorist state

[bemildred]

MOSCOW, January 17 (RIA Novosti) - Israel's foreign minister urged the world on Thursday to back her country's efforts to curb rocket attacks from the Gaza Strip, saying that the Palestinian enclave could turn into a terrorist state.

Speaking at a Moscow diplomatic academy, Tzipi Livni said the international community's failure to back Israel in its fight against Gaza-based insurgents could eventually result in the enclave - currently controlled by the hard-line Islamic group Hamas - transforming into a fully-fledged state ruled by extremists.

Livni's visit to Russia takes place against the backdrop of a vicious circle of rocket attacks on Israel from Gaza and Israeli retaliatory strikes on the enclave of some 1.5 million people.

Palestinian radicals stepped up attacks after an Israeli raid in Gaza killed 19 people on Tuesday. On Wednesday, five Palestinians, including three civilians and a teenage boy, were killed in an Israeli air strike on the territory.

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20080117/97190561.html

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

1. Takes one to know one. nt.

[Boojatta]

3. Do you not know what a terrorist is or are you a terrorist?

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

4. Why don't you enlighten us?

[Boojatta]

13. I'm here to be enlightened. I see no evidence that I am in a position to enlighten others.

[rateyes]

10. A terrorist is someone like

Ariel Sharon who does what he did in Sabra and Shatila.

[Boojatta]

12. You omitted an explanation of why that's an example.

Allow me to guess:

You think "terrorism" means nothing or anything, but you recognize that it has negative connotations. You want to connect Israel and negative connotations. Thus, you can be confident that Sharon -- who is already connected with Israel -- should be considered a terrorist. However, you don't believe that there are any general principles that can be used to confirm that Sharon -- or anyone else -- is a terrorist. It's just a matter of tactics, not a matter of facts.

[LeftishBrit]

15. Sharon *was* IMO an enabler of terrorism

The actual perpetrators of the atrocities were the Lebanese militia. But Sharon allowed them to happen. It's perhaps semantics whether he should thus be called a terrorist - I would personally call him so; - as I would also call Hamas leaders terrorist for enabling bombings, not just for perpetrating them.

He was admittedly moving in a more moderate direction when he became incapacitated.

But Livni is not Sharon. I don't see why all Israeli politicians should be considered as terrorist or criminal by association with Sharon. Should all American politicians forevermore be associated with the misdeeds of Bush? (BTW if I were Israeli, I would vote for people well to the left of Livni.)

ETA: Livni was born in 1958; hence she would have been 24 when the Sabra/Shatila massacre took place, and certainly not in any position of power.

[rateyes]

2. Pot, meet kettle. nt

[ProgressiveMuslim]

5. LOL my thoughts exactly! nt

[rateyes]

8. I get tired of the

"Israel can do no wrong" attitude. If what Ariel Sharon did in Sabra and Shatila wasn't "terrorism," then there's no such thing as terrorism.

[Shaktimaan]

36. It's not about whether or not Israel can do no wrong.

In this case, it's about what your personal definition of terrorism is. It seems as though you are saying that when someone fails to prevent someone else from committing a terrorist act, or if he encourages them to carry out such an act, that it is the same thing as committing terrorism himself. Is that correct?

[breakaleg]

6. There's a lot of that around here. nt

[PetrusMonsFormicarum]

7. Bullshit

Both sides in this most stupid of never-ending struggles are at fault, but I put the the bulk of the blame on Israel. Hamas and other groups in Palestine have little recourse, facing as they are a foe with deep pockets and an unquenchable greed for land that is not theirs. We hear about airstrikes and mortar attacks, but the MSM tends to gloss over the overt economic warfare of the region: Israeli bulldozers keep taking land for settlements and Palestinians are made to be second-class citizens within the borders of their own country. What's more, nobody ever asks "why?"

It's because the continuing rain of bullets and rockets is the primary fuel for Israel's fire. It defines the nation (NOT Judaism). All the settlements, walls, and airstrikes based on loose intel are designed to create endless provocation and to allow Israel to cry on the world's shoulder.

[rateyes]

9. Head of nail, meet hammer.

You drove the point home quite nicely.

[Boojatta]

11. "unquenchable greed for land that is not theirs"

How do you decide whether a resource is being stolen or merely nationalized?

[Howardx]

14. whats the difference?

elaborate

[Boojatta]

16. I did a quick search and found these words on the internet:

"Investors spooked by President Hugo Chavez's nationalization plans (...)"

Does that headline use language that you are unfamiliar with? I doubt that there's any generally recognized technical distinction between stealing and nationalizing, other than the fact that the subject that comes before the verb "nationalize" belongs in the category "government." The object of the verb could be just about anything that can be owned.

(Off-topic thought: could slavery have been ended sooner in the US by first nationalizing the slaves and outlawing private ownership of them and then regularly granting freedom to larger and larger numbers of slaves until they were all free?)

Even in the US, the government has immunity from some kinds of lawsuits. I suspect that, in many countries, any notion of using the courts of country X to successful sue the government of country X and actually get the judgment enforced -- through the courts and via the official law enforcement of country X -- would be pure fantasy.

[bemildred]

17. Property is theft!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_is_theft

The state merely institutionalizes the theft and socializes the defense of the thieves. In fact that is the primary function of the state.

[Boojatta]

18. From whom did J. K. Rowling steal the original manuscripts of her books?

Edited to add a body to this message:

From whom did the government of Switzerland steal its hydroelectric generating stations?

If you were an Amerindian and you owned and lived in a condominium unit, then how would you find out from whom you had stolen the land beneath your unit? How would you find out from whom you had stolen the unit itself?

[bemildred]

21. She stole them? nt

[Boojatta]

24. It's her property.

I thought that you were claiming that you could conclude that it's theft.

Of course, property is a noun and theft is a verb, but I figured that you meant that if she owns it then that automatically means that she stole it from ... someone.

What exactly did you mean?

[Boojatta]

26. Correction: theft is a noun.

However, a significant amount of property is tangible rather than abstract. Even abstract property may produce tangible benefits for the owner (e.g. presumably J. K. Rowling receives cash royalties for her intellectual property and uses that cash to buy ordinary, tangible goods.)

On the other hand, theft is an abstract noun based on the concept of stealing. "To steal" is a verb.

How can tangible property be an abstract noun based on a verb?

[bemildred]

27. Then why did you say she stole them? nt

[Boojatta]

29. I believe that I merely asked from whom she stole them.

Given that "nobody" is a possible answer and given the content of your post that I was replying to, I don't see how you can interpret that question as an allegation by me that she stole them.

You have not yet explained the meaning of your comment about property and theft and its relevance to the message that it was a reply to.

[bemildred]

30. What do you think "she stole them" means, if not she stole them.

I certainly did not say she stole them. I didn't mention her at all.

[Boojatta]

31. If ...

you ever find yourself in a place like Orwell's Ministry of Love (such as because you are on a beach in South Korea and a small submarine from North Korea appears quickly out of the water and you are abducted), then it will be wise to remember something from 1984:

"That was forty," said O'Brien. "You can see that the numbers on this dial run up to a hundred. Will you please remember, throughout our conversation, that I have it in my power to inflict pain on you at any moment and to whatever degree I choose? If you tell me any lies, or attempt to prevaricate in any way, or even fall below your usual level of intelligence, you will cry out with pain, instantly."

Why rely on the assumption that the North Korean government employs people who give warnings in advance that are so clear and explicit?

[bemildred]

32. You do know that 1984 is fiction, right? nt

[Boojatta]

33. Yes. That's the point. It gives warnings that you can't expect to get in daily life. n/t

[bemildred]

34. Good, glad we got that straight anyway. nt

[msmcghee]

19. Can I have your house?

Or do I need a note from my representative first?

(If you say no, are you stealing it from me?)

[bemildred]

22. Why is you being a thief better than me being a thief? nt

[Boojatta]

20. Is food property?

For example, consider edible seeds that are raw and could be used to grow food. Are they definitely not property or might they be property?

[bemildred]

23. Only until you eat it. nt

[Boojatta]

25. Would it be okay for me to take "your" food without permission if I eat it quickly?

[bemildred]

28. You wouldn't do that would you? nt

[Boojatta]

35. No, I wouldn't.

However, what would Chavez do?

CARACAS, Venezuela - President Hugo Chavez threatened on Sunday to take over farms or milk plants if owners refuse to sell their milk for domestic consumption and instead seek higher profits abroad or from cheese-makers.

With the country recently facing milk shortages, Chavez said "it's treason" if farmers deny milk to Venezuelans while selling it across the border in Colombia or for gourmet cheeses.

"In that case the farm must be expropriated," Chavez said, adding that the government could also take over milk plants and properties of beef producers.

If I'm not mistaken, one component of almost every farm is land.

Let's suppose that the government of Israel wanted a Palestinian who was offered a high-paying job in Saudi Arabia to instead work for lower wages in Israel. Let's suppose that the Palestinian who commands high wages takes the higher-paying job and Israel fights back by expropriating the Palestinian's home and the land that the home sits on. Wouldn't that be a problem?

Edited to add source for the excerpt:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld

[bemildred]

37. M. Proudhon explains his reasoning about property.

What do you think about his argument? If you understood Proudhon, you might have a better understanding of Mr Chavez' view of these things, although Mr Chavez does not take as radical view as M. Proudhon.

[Boojatta]

38. You made a claim. Why not explain what you meant by it?

What if someone other than Proudhon was the actual author of the writings attributed to Proudhon? It wouldn't matter. What matters is that you have some ideas in your mind. In an academic setting, there are rules that would require you to include Proudhon as a source. However, I didn't request a source.

I feel no obligation to search for a translation, guess what the translator thinks was meant, guess what I think that the author meant, etc. That author isn't here to answer questions, but you are here.

Could you please explain yourself or stop making assertions in your own voice? If you wish to avoid responsibility, why not replace assertions in your own voice with quotations and references to the sources of the quotations?

[bemildred]

39. I did not make a claim. I quoted M. Proudhon.

I did include a source. It is true I left out the "", I should not have expected the quotation to be recognized, I am prone to that sort of unrealistic expectation. It is a flaw in my makeup.

That is a very funny comment about including sources coming from you. If you don't want to talk about it outside an academic framework, that is your right, but I am quite within my rights too. If you are not interested, then by all means abstain from responding.

M. Proudhon was discussing the relationship between the individual and the society in which one lives as it relates to the legal construct named "property". It is an interesting subject, and it relates to the conversation. If you are not interested in M. Proudhon, then we have nothing to talk about. Why is that a problem?

[Boojatta]

40. Would this whole discussion be shaken at its foundation if it were

discovered that there is strong evidence that Proudhon was not the actual author of the writings attributed to Proudhon?

If you are not interested in M. Proudhon, then we have nothing to talk about.

Why didn't you say that at the beginning? For example: "Disclaimer: beginning subthread only for those interested in M. Proudhon"?

[bemildred]

41. What discussion? nt

[Boojatta]

42. Sorry, perhaps I should have used the word "conversation" as in...

It is an interesting subject, and it relates to the conversation.

[bemildred]

43. Ah, the discussion about property.

Then no, I would not think it mattered much whether Proudhon was the author or not, he is no sort of authority, so disputing his authenticity would not get you much. And it is what he has to say, not who said it that matters. Being fussy about authorship is a relatively modern obsession anyway.

"Many true words have been spoken through false teeth."

[Boojatta]

44. What then does the writing itself say?

Perhaps you could start a thread, in a more appropriate forum, that begins with a reference to some particular writing that you wish to discuss. By reference, I mean both actual excerpts and also a way to access the full work. For example, a way to access the full work may consist of a link to a public domain version or enough information to look for the writing in a library catalogue.

Edited to add: perhaps Economy would be a more appropriate forum. In any case, I and anyone reading this thread would probably appreciate a link to your new thread, regardless of what home you choose for it.

[bemildred]

45. What do you care? Have you read the first link I provided?

And looked at all the other places it links to? I don't see why getting it from me second hand would improve the situation. Here is the link again, it has lots of other links you can explore if you like:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_is_theft

This seems a very appropriate forum to discuss property and property rights and land and the like, it seems like a central subject in the dispute.

And who made you the dictator of appropriateness?
:popcorn::popcorn:

[Boojatta]

46. "This seems a very appropriate forum to discuss property and property rights and land and the like"

Okay, but you're going to need a news article or moderator permission if you have occasion to break anything off into a separate thread.

I wasn't trying to be a dictator of appropriateness. I was, rather, anticipating that some other people might consider I/P to be inappropriate on the grounds that it is much more specific than the general topic of property rights, land, etc.

The stuff at the wikipedia link will probably provoke some questions and I might soon post such questions here in this I/P thread.

Okay?

[bemildred]

47. No, that isn't OK. If you have comments, I might respond to them.

I'm not here to look after your education. If you have something to say, I might respond to it.

You would be absolutely amazed at the stuff that gets talked about down here in the I/P dungeon.

It was you that brought up the subjects of theft and nationalization, and the difference between them, and that seems clearly a matter of law, and law as it relates to ownership of property. It seemed to me that if you were going to attempt to discuss that, a very messy subject it seems to me, you would need first to have a clear idea of what property was, particularly when it comes to nationalization.

[Boojatta]

48. "(...) to discuss that (...) you would need (...) a clear idea of what property was"

Isn't there a difference between "clear idea" and "idea influenced by some particular writings"?

Clear ideas can be independently developed without reference to some historical writings that are thought to be authoritative. Alternatively, clear ideas can be developed by criticizing historical writings.

For example, professors of physics have a coherent conception of space, time, and motion because they recognize the flaws in the scheme of Galileo and Newton and recognize that Lorentz and Einstein developed clear ideas about space, time, and motion that contradict the clear ideas expressed by that proud honey of a man Sir Isaac Newton.

[bemildred]

49. As I use it, it means "well-defined" and "agreed to".

Other people may well use the term in other ways. It is certainly true that people have no idea what they are talking about much of the time, but it is also true that they rarely get anywhere that way.

[Malikshah]

50. She'd know, being a daughter of a terrorist herself.

Such a lovely fruit from a poisonous family tree.

[Boojatta]

51. Her ancestry affects her moral status?

Wasn't the view that ancestry affects moral status something that was put into practice by American states that had slavery?

If you claim that she acquired evil knowledge, then she sounds like Adam's wife Eve, but who were Eve's ancestors?

[Malikshah]

53. Ancestry? Not so lengthy.

Father was in Irgun, but hey that's clearly not going to affect one's political career.

As for evil knowledge-- those are your words, not mine. (Nor would I use those words in such a context)
I would opt for callous disregard for the plight of others.

[Boojatta]

54. That doesn't make what you wrote earlier any more clear.

Are you saying that, because of her opportunities to observe her father, she can recognize callous disregard for the plight of others?

Alternatively, are you saying that, based on what you know about her father, you conclude that she must have acquired a callous disregard for the plight of others?

Perhaps you have some entirely different reason for concluding that, in your opinion, she has acquired a callous disregard for the plight of others?

Here's a website that might interest you:
http://www.freerice.com/

[Malikshah]

56. I'll go for what's behind curtain number 3, Monty.

What is known of her father, what is known of her policies/stances = callous disregard for the plight of others. A hawk, a warmonger.

[aranthus]

52. What does she mean "could"?

Gaza is already a terrorist state.

[Boojatta]

55. I think she means that, for example, it's not a member nation of the UN.