Gyroscopic Investing

The background is a little more complicated than Fred lets on, but his conclusions are not far off the mark.

I agree with about 50 or 60% of Fred's essay, mostly the 2nd half, so I guess I feel the same as Ad.

I like the North Dakota idea, Desert, and in fact there is at least one alternative history in which the Jews are moved to Alaska.

Just a thought- instead of moving the Jews out of Israel, what if we were to move a peacekeeping force there? If we could relieve them of their military (we can't, I know) and have bases full of non-Israeli but multinational peacekeeping troops, do you believe that would make it less likely that her Arab neighbors would try to destroy Israel outright? More likely? No difference?

Do you think the same action would make Israel more likely to behave should it get fired upon /get more civilians kidnapped via tunnels? Less likely? No difference?

dualstow wrote: Just a thought- instead of moving the Jews out of Israel, what if we were to move a peacekeeping force there? If we could relieve them of their military (we can't, I know) and have bases full of non-Israeli but multinational peacekeeping troops, do you believe that would make it less likely that her Arab neighbors would try to destroy Israel outright? More likely? No difference?

No difference.

dualstow wrote: Do you think the same action would make Israel more likely to behave should it get fired upon /get more civilians kidnapped via tunnels? Less likely? No difference?

Behave? Not sure what that means in this context.

'Behave' was far too concise. I'm reluctant to get into a discussion about whether this person or that person thinks Israel's actions are justified.  With respect to Fred saying that the country is "hated within and hated without", let's say that behave = wouldn't be forced to take action that would draw criticism. That would be up to the peacekeeping force.

The scum Obama forced the FAA to ban US flights to Israel, in order to isolate them further.

I find Obama's treatment of Israel to be par for the course for this clown.

clacy wrote: The scum Obama forced the FAA to ban US flights to Israel, in order to isolate them further.

I find Obama's treatment of Israel to be par for the course for this clown.

Seriously? After what just happened in Ukraine you want commercial passenger jets flying into a war zone?

Ad Orientem wrote:

clacy wrote: The scum Obama forced the FAA to ban US flights to Israel, in order to isolate them further.

I find Obama's treatment of Israel to be par for the course for this clown.

Seriously? After what just happened in Ukraine you want commercial passenger jets flying into a war zone?

Tel Aviv is not very similar to Ukraine.  Both sides in the Ukrainian conflict are armed with very sophisticated anti-aircraft equipment. 

Hamas is blindly lobbing rockets into residential areas.

Ad Orientem wrote: Seriously? After what just happened in Ukraine you want commercial passenger jets flying into a war zone?

The safety angle certainly has merit, but wouldn't it make more sense for the airlines and potential flyers to make such decisions? I know I wouldn't want to fly into Tel Aviv right now, but who am I to tell someone who may be desperate to go there (or get out, for that matter) that my concern for his safety should trump his ability to make his own decisions?

TennPaGa wrote:

Pointedstick wrote:

Ad Orientem wrote: Seriously? After what just happened in Ukraine you want commercial passenger jets flying into a war zone?

The safety angle certainly has merit, but wouldn't it make more sense for the airlines and potential flyers to make such decisions? I know I wouldn't want to fly into Tel Aviv right now, but who am I to tell someone who may be desperate to go there (or get out, for that matter) that my concern for his safety should trump his ability to make his own decisions?

Well...

Even before the FAA regulatory order, Delta Air Lines, United and US Airways had suspended flights to Israel indefinitely. Delta Flight 468 from New York's JFK airport, a Boeing 747 with 273 passengers and 17 crew members, diverted to Paris on Tuesday after reports of a rocket near Tel Aviv and suspended all its flights indefinitely.

Source: http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/bus ... /12989789/

So I guess it is actually Delta, United, and USAir scum who are isolating Israel.

You're just in the tank for Obummer and Hamas... as if they weren't the same thing, practically.

Desert wrote: My guess is that it wouldn't make any difference.  After some time of living with the Israelis, I'm thinking the peacekeeping force would feel a lot like they do ... besieged by crazy people that want to wipe them off the map.  I'm not saying the Israelis are faultless, but I can understand why they do what they do.

You're probably right.

As for Tel Aviv airport, it's amazing how many French Jews are flying there during this war. None of them are canceling their flights, and many of them are continuing on to border towns right near Gaza. Tunnels and rockets are scary, but they just want to get the hell out of France.

LOL you guys!

But I stand corrected!

dualstow wrote:

Desert wrote: My guess is that it wouldn't make any difference.  After some time of living with the Israelis, I'm thinking the peacekeeping force would feel a lot like they do ... besieged by crazy people that want to wipe them off the map.  I'm not saying the Israelis are faultless, but I can understand why they do what they do.

You're probably right.

As for Tel Aviv airport, it's amazing how many French Jews are flying there during this war. None of them are canceling their flights, and many of them are continuing on to border towns right near Gaza. Tunnels and rockets are scary, but they just want to get the hell out of France.

Like any sane person would not want to get the hell out of France. But yeah, if I were a French Jew I'd definitely feel safer in Tel Aviv with the occasional mortar or rocket being lobbed in than almost anywhere in the Islamic Republic of France.

Not that anyone here really cares, but here's my take on this topic.

HB's philosophy on "control what you can to better yourself" has left me a bit cold towards anyone's "plight" who has the ability to move.  This is a giant, thousand-year, bloody land-dispute.  Who's land is it?  Israeli's?  Palestinians?  Anyone's?  Who the hell knows.  I don't think there is a cogent argument either way. Most people here know that I think "land ownership" is pretty much a myth, but an absolutely necessary social engineering for modern civilization to function.  So that means I have a certain amount of confusion towards people who insist on continuing a land dispute where guns are drawn for an area that is so obviously disputed in terms of ownership... especially in the middle of the damned desert.

Obviously there's the religious holy land aspect that taints this, and as an agnostic-bordering-on-atheist, I am, not unsurprisingly, annoyed with that aspect of all this bloodshed as well.

So this is pretty "micro-economic" thinking of me, but my instinct is to tell individual Palestinians and Israelis to simply "Give It Up."  If your land is disputed, leave.  If it isn't, stay if you want, but quit killing people.  If you think someone else is occupying what you think is yours...

GIVE IT UP, ALREADY!

Obviously, this isn't an actual macro-economic solution.  I don't think one exists that would actually have any chance of passing.  This is purely micro... a message to any individual Israeli or Palestinian who wants to significantly improve their safety and lot in life, and reduce their stress.

But here's where I've gotten with all this... I simply can't care that much any more, in the context of so many other events...

1) I'm not President of the U.S., Israel, or Palestine
2) Even if I could have that kind of influence, I wouldn't know what the f'k to do to produce peace.
3) Even if I could move heaven and earth to make peace, we are essentially talking about two groups of people that REFUSE to move from where they think they have land rights, and are willing to defend their "rights" with guns & rockets.

I would rather try to solve problems where people are actually not being so bloody unreasonable about their position.



And just to show you I'm willing to point my heartlessness back at myself a bit... my uncle lives in Mexico (basically a gringo-farm next to the ocean) on land that I could very well see the government "repossessing" for the Mexican people.  It was disputed land when he bought it.

If my uncle DID have his house repossessed, it would be tragic for him, but if he decided to defend it to his death, I wouldn't defend him.  I certainly wouldn't favor the government's actions, but that is not the f'king point!  He built a house on land that he KNEW was disputed.  He took a risk with property.  If he wants to be a martyr and take on the Mexican government, he might be "right" (though he very well might be wrong, too) but does he still deserve people's sympathy?  Because he MIGHT kinda really own the land, and he's built a house on it?  And then chose to go to war to defend his investment?  I don't think, if you choose to take a life to defend property that you don't reeeaaally have the most 100% solid claim to, that you really deserve world-wide sympathy.

I've just lost a TON of sympathy in the past few years for people who 1) refuse to take very obvious, logical action to improve their situation, but insist on complaining about it, and 2) aren't really standing on a very firm moral-high-ground either.  If you want to occupy knowingly disputed land, and defend that claim at gunpoint, I can't do anything to help you.


Obviously, all of this isn't diving into "war tactics" or details about what Israel's government or the Palestinian authority has done, or hasn't done, or why... I just simply don't CARE about all the details anymore.  If you want my sympathy, 1) get the hell off of any disputed land, if you are currently on it, and 2) stop killing people if you are currently doing so.  If you can't do those two things to save your own life, there's NOTHING I can do, nor should I really stress about.

I know this all probably sounds harsh.  We all get apathetic about certain tragedies after they wear on us enough, so I hope people can understand where I'm coming from.  It's not a place of hatred of either group.  I try not to hate groups.  "Groups don't exist," one might say.   We are all individuals. I get annoyed with individuals who try to illicit sympathy from me when they don't have a very solid moral ground to stand on, and won't do anything to rectify their situation.

I basically agree with you, moda. I will also add an element of pragmatism: the Israelis have won. Disputes like this illustrate the principle of "might makes right" and Israel is mighty enough to keep the land. That's pretty much it. I mean, they took it in the first place during a civil war in 1948, then they defended it and took more in the Six Day war, then they took more in the Yom Kippur war, and so on and so forth. Face it, arabs: you lost. The repeated and combined military might of all of you put together couldn't budge these fanatics. They have better military technology, better training, better organization, and, apparently, they are made of sterner stuff. In the face of an enemy like this, fighting is futile and stupid, as evidenced by their repeated failure to accomplish any of their goals at all. It's for that reason why I have less respect for the arabs in this conflict: they don't seem to acknowledge the reality that they lost a long time ago and they're never, ever going to win with their current strategy.

So if you want to talk about Harry Brownian bowing to reality, to me the worst offenders are the people who fire crude rockets into civilian areas of the the most ruthless and militarily advanced nation in the region. That's just dumb.

I'm sure this is probably obvious but I'd like to point out that most people simply don't have the means to just pick up and leave their country. The Arabs in Gaza are terribly poor and have not exactly been welcomed when they have moved either forcibly or by choice. That said, yes, it seems silly to lob anything into Israel.

Pointedstick wrote: I basically agree with you, moda. I will also add an element of pragmatism: the Israelis have won. Disputes like this illustrate the principle of "might makes right" and Israel is mighty enough to keep the land. That's pretty much it. I mean, they took it in the first place during a civil war in 1948, then they defended it and took more in the Six Day war, then they took more in the Yom Kippur war, and so on and so forth. Face it, arabs: you lost. The repeated and combined military might of all of you put together couldn't budge these fanatics. They have better military technology, better training, better organization, and, apparently, they are made of sterner stuff. In the face of an enemy like this, fighting is futile and stupid, as evidenced by their repeated failure to accomplish any of their goals at all. It's for that reason why I have less respect for the arabs in this conflict: they don't seem to acknowledge the reality that they lost a long time ago and they're never, ever going to win with their current strategy.

So if you want to talk about Harry Brownian bowing to reality, to me the worst offenders are the people who fire crude rockets into civilian areas of the the most ruthless and militarily advanced nation in the region. That's just dumb.

Totally dumb.

I as well have less respect for the arabs.  Not because I think they are more in the wrong, necessarily (if land truly was stolen (debatable premise) that make "civilians" into "invaders."), but they aren't doing anything for themselves.


However, I've seen a lot of Jewish/Israeli calls for sympathy, lately.  I just can't work much of it up.  I tend to have a HUGE pet peeve with people that try to illicit sympathy where they are sort of creating their own problem, and COULD do something to make it go away, but refuse to.  Those three elements basically piss me off.

Don't occupy disputed land (or shoot rockets at people you think are occupying your land)

But if you are, don't beg me for sympathy when people shoot rockets at you (or the school you are shooting rockets from gets blown up).

In the end I feel awful for the children tied up in any of this, but the adults I've lost a lot of patience with.

barrett wrote: I'm sure this is probably obvious but I'd like to point out that most people simply don't have the means to just pick up and leave their country. The Arabs in Gaza are terribly poor and have not exactly been welcomed when they have moved either forcibly or by choice. That said, yes, it seems silly to lob anything into Israel.

Barrett,

This is true... however, Palestinians, as far as I know, aren't being asked by Israel to move off of any more land.  Obviously, the whole area could be considered "disputed," so maybe my advice needs to be a bit more well-thought-out. 

Also, the problem is that my "solution" is a micro-solution, not macro.  It wouldn't work on a macro level for every Palestinian to move to Jordan, or for every Israeli to move to New York, or whatever.  But we are past macro-solutions.  I care more about the people willing to drop their ridiculous religious crusade to occupy disputed land than people who refuse to give up that fight.

TennPaGa wrote:

Pointedstick wrote:

Ad Orientem wrote: Seriously? After what just happened in Ukraine you want commercial passenger jets flying into a war zone?

The safety angle certainly has merit, but wouldn't it make more sense for the airlines and potential flyers to make such decisions? I know I wouldn't want to fly into Tel Aviv right now, but who am I to tell someone who may be desperate to go there (or get out, for that matter) that my concern for his safety should trump his ability to make his own decisions?

Well...

Even before the FAA regulatory order, Delta Air Lines, United and US Airways had suspended flights to Israel indefinitely. Delta Flight 468 from New York's JFK airport, a Boeing 747 with 273 passengers and 17 crew members, diverted to Paris on Tuesday after reports of a rocket near Tel Aviv and suspended all its flights indefinitely.

Source: http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/bus ... /12989789/

So I guess it is actually Delta, United, and USAir scum who are isolating Israel.

Just listened to a University of Chicago economics and international law professor on the radio, basically say the same point I made earlier.  This is nothing more than Obama and Kerry flexing the economic muscles of the US in order to show Israel that they need to participate in a cease fire.

-First, the ban is only 24 hours.  What is going to change in the next 24 hours, other than Kerry is there for the next 24 hours to try to negotiate a cease fire deal.
-The State Department issued a travel advisory to Israel.  There have been MANY similar conflicts in Gaza previously, but no State Dept warnings or FAA bans.

Clearly it would only take a phone call or two to get Delta, United and USAir to issue their own self imposed bans, so that doesn't really change things, IMO.

The real problem is that none of the other arab nations want the Palestinians. That's the cold hard truth. When Israel captured the Gaza strip from Egypt, Egypt didn't want it back in the ensuing negotiations. They're more than happy to stick the Israelis with the colossal mess. It's a win-win situation: Israel is flummoxed by the impossible question of what to do with them and their land (which Israel conquered, but doesn't have enough of a civilian or military presence to actually control), and the arab countries don't have to accept any poor refugees (the Palestinians are the country bumpkins of the middle east).

When it comes to Gaza, I really don't know why Israel doesn't just let them have their little hellhole of a nation. It's not like it would be a threat, and if it were an official country, the Israelis might catch less flack for defending their new borders when the Gazan branch of Hamas (which, let's not forget, the Gazans elected to be their government) inevitably initiate another stupid and ill-thought-out attack.

Desert wrote:

clacy wrote: The scum Obama forced the FAA to ban US flights to Israel, in order to isolate them further.

I find Obama's treatment of Israel to be par for the course for this clown.

Really?  I know we all have to hate Obama around here, but ... uh, oh well.

It's a 24 hour ban that happens to coincide with Kerry's trip to negotiate a cease fire.  I find that very interesting.  Do they think the air port in Tel Avive will be less threatened tomorrow?  Do they think that Hamas will stop lobbing rockets in the next day? 

I find it interesting that no previous conflicts between Hamas and Israel have resulted in an FAA ban or a State Department travel advisory.

Considering more people died from violence in the City of Chicago over the 4th of July weekend, I tend to think this is cover for Obama to send a message to Israel that there will be economic consequences if they don't jump on board Kerry's peace deal.

My perspective: I doubt the conflict will end until the "whip them into a frenzy" leaders, including the media frenzy promoters, stop inciting the masses.  Most people just want to live in peace.  Most people listen to promises that can't be actualized.  Most leaders are in it for something other than what they tell the masses.  Does not bode well for an end to the conflict.

Here is a link to a Jewish perspective on the subject:

http://www.science.co.il/Arab-Israeli-conflict.asp

An excerpt:
Israel became a nation about 1300 BCE, two thousand years before the rise of Islam. The people of modern day Israel share the same language and culture shaped by the Jewish heritage and religion passed through generations starting with the founding father Abraham. Since the Jewish conquest in 1272 BCE, the Jews have had dominion over the land for one thousand years with a continuous presence in the land for the past 3,300 years.

After the Romans conquered Jerusalem about 2,000 years ago, Jewish people were expelled and dispersed to the Diaspora, and the Land of Israel was ruled by Rome, by Islamic and Christian crusaders, by the Ottoman Empire, and by the British Empire.

Throughout centuries Jews prayed to return from the Diaspora to Israel. During the first half of the 20th century there were major waves of immigration of Jews back to Israel from the Arab countries and from Europe. In 1948 Jews reestablished their sovereignty over their ancient homeland with the establishment of the modern State of Israel.

It was only after the Jews re-inhabited their historic homeland of Judea and Samaria, that the myth of a Palestinian nation was created and marketed worldwide. Jews come from Judea, not Palestinians. There is no language known as Palestinian, or any Palestinian culture distinct from that of all the Arabs in the area. There has never been a land known as Palestine governed by Palestinians. Palestinians are Arabs indistinguishable from Arabs throughout the Middle East. The Palestinian National Charter adopted by the PLO states this fact in the first article (See the covenant)

The area called Palestine included the territories of present day Israel and Jordan. Under Lausanne agreement of 1923 Turkey transferred all claims to Palestine to mandatory power Britain. In 1922 Britain allocated nearly 80% of Palestine to Transjordan. In 1947 UN partitioned this remaining land into two states, a second Arab state, Palestine, and Israel. The great majority of Arabs in greater Palestine and Israel share the same culture, language and religion. The Arabs in the area began identifying themselves as part of a Palestinian people in 1967, two decades after the establishment of the modern State of Israel. Virtually all the Arabs in Judea, Samaria and Gaza in the West Bank of Jordan River have complete autonomy under the rule of the Palestinian Authority.

... Mountaineer

Desert wrote: And yes, Israel is responsible for a portion of that hatred, no doubt.  But if they pulled out of Gaza, stopped shelling the bad guys, and basically just tried to be isolationist, their neighbors would continue and even increase their attacks, and wouldn't stop until every Jew was dead.  The Israelis are fighting for their lives; they don't always do it real cleanly, but they are still alive. 

In fact, that's exactly what they did in Gaza. About a decade ago, the Israeli government forcibly evicted all of the Israeli settlers living in there, and then donated 60 advanced greenhouses to the Gazans as a friendly gesture. The result: no change, and more attacks. And a couple of years later, the Gazans formally elected Hamas to be the government. And Hamas's stated goal is the destruction of Israel. You can't negotiate or compromise with someone whose's true goal is your ultimate destruction. It simply doesn't work. The Native Americans learned this the hard way. Every treaty they made, we broke, because we basically just wanted all of their land. Same deal. When the only thing somebody wants is the only thing you can never give up (e.g. your life), you just have to fight them, and kill them if you can. It probably sounds crude, but it's the truth. Unfortunately for Hamas, they have no power to achieve their goal, and in fact it's Israel that is perfectly capable of wiping Gaza off the map anytime the Israeli government decides to want, and luckily for them, chooses not to.

Well, they extended the ban for 24 more hours.  I guess Israel hasn't yet decided to let Hamas win this round. 

What really burns me about those greenhouses, PS, is that they could have used them to help build something of an economy. But, when they got them in'05 they promptly smashed 'em. They had been full of flowers and fruit. :-(

dualstow wrote: What really burns me about those greenhouses, PS, is that they could have used them to help build something of an economy. But, when they got them in'05 they promptly smashed 'em. They had been full of flowers and fruit. :-(

That's because they don't want an economy. They want Israel dead. They prefer international handouts to self-determination in any way other than the military.