header 1
header 2
header 3

Message Forum - GENERAL

Welcome to the Bethesda Chevy Chase High School Message Forum.

The message forum is an ongoing dialogue between classmates. There are no items, topics, subtopics, etc.

Forums work when people participate - so don't be bashful! Click the "Post Message" button to add your entry to the forum.


 
go to bottom 
  Post Message
  
    Prior Page
 Page  
Next Page      

05/03/24 08:23 PM #16985    

 

Jack Mallory

This looks much more detailed, certainly more serious than your earlier recommendation, Joanie.  But no butt pix!

Seriously, though, BESA, the Begin-Sadat Center, doesn't come across as exactly a neutral party, and I'd doubt that their conclusions would present an objective analysis of the situation in the Middle East.

As their web site says,

"The Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies (also known by its acronym, the BESA Center) is an independent, non-partisan think tank conducting policy-relevant research on Middle Eastern and global strategic affairs, particularly as they relate to the national security and foreign policy of Israel and regional peace and stability.

"BESA Center publications and policy recommendations are directed towards senior Israeli decision-makers in military and civilian life, the defense and foreign affairs establishments in Israel and abroad, the diplomatic corps, the press, the academic community, leaders of Jewish communities around the world, and the educated public . . .  The Center conducts specialized research on contract to the Israeli foreign affairs and defense establishment . . ."

Imagine an Arafat Center for Strategic Studies, directed towards senior Palestinian decision-makers in military and civilian life, the defense and foreign affairs establishments in Palestine and abroad . . . Leaders of Palestinian communities around the world . . . conducting specialized research on contract to the PLO foreign affairs and defense establishment.

Would you automatically accept the Arafat Center's version of the history of the Middle East?


05/03/24 09:56 PM #16986    

 

Joanie Bender (Grosfeld)

Jack, I could never equate the Begin Sadat Center with some hypothetical Arafat Center. However, I can see you think they are very biased. The information I got from that site about the turning down of a Palestinian State re the five examples can be backed up, one by one. I like that the Center was based on two men that tried to make peace in the Middle East, Begin and Sadat. Of course Sadat paid with his life for that...Love, Joanie


05/04/24 06:36 AM #16987    

 

Jack Mallory

I'll simply say again: No institution that does contract work for the Israeli government, that is paid to provide analysis for the Israeli defense and foreign policy branches, can be expected to provide unbiased analysis involving solutions to the Palestinian issue. 

Similarly, the RAND Corporation, advisor/consultant to the U.S. security establishment, was never able to detach itself from that role when trying to provide objective analyses during the Vietnam War. It's not just that the results may be biased, but as a result incorrect. The RAND conclusions contributed to erroneous conclusions that prolonged the war and resulted in unknown tens or hundreds of thousands of deaths, American and Vietnamese. Do we want similar, tragically biased understandings of the Middle East?

https://www.escholar.manchester.ac.uk/api/datastream?datastreamId=FULL-TEXT.PDF&publicationPid=uk-ac-man-scw:198764

*********

Behind the house, yesterday. 


05/04/24 12:56 PM #16988    

 

Joanie Bender (Grosfeld)

https://www.independent.com/2023/10/19/lost-opportunities-for-peace-in-palestine/

Jack, Stephen Zipperstein has a very impressive resume. I will insert that next. i'm just saying that the fact that there isn't a two State solution isn't all the Israeli's fault. In fact its explained by this  However, we can have a truce if you want and I can say something totally acceptable. I like your eagle picture.Its really a beauty.

https://history.stanford.edu/people/steven-zipperstein   This is the resume of Stephen Zipperstein. I think he has an impressive background.

As for the campus protests, the groups that are protesting against the catastrophic deaths of civilians in Gaza is so important for free speach but many of these protests are inflitrated with people calling for the annilation of Israel, and death to the Jews. That is not ok...

Love, Joanie


05/04/24 02:05 PM #16989    

 

Jay Shackford

Donald Bites Kristi

 

When Donald Trump bragged about shooting  someone on 5th Avenue and getting away with it, he was talking about shooting a fellow human being — not a dog taking her daily walk to Central Park.  I guess that’s what South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem failed to understand in her new biography where she brags about shooting her out-of-control hunting puppy in an effort to show Trump how tough she is.  

 

“For God’s sake, Kristi, I was talking about shooting a human being like a liberal-leaning student protestor — not a 14-month old dog, stupid,” Trump reportedly told his aides who had informed him that America had more than 65 million dog owners, who spend thousands of dollars a year to take loving care of them. Trump then scratched Kristi from his list of potential VP candidates with his black magic marker usually reserved for writing his $35,000 hush money checks.      

 

Pissing off dog owners is not the best way to build a political career as Kristi is now discovering. 


05/04/24 02:10 PM #16990    

 

Glen Hirose

 

I'm not qualified to render a definitive judgement on whether anti-Zionism is, or is not anti-Semitism. Nor am I a scholar of middle eastern affairs. So IMHO the College campus demonstrations really are anti-Semitic, tainted by dishonest motivations/agendas. This is my belief. 


05/04/24 03:09 PM #16991    

 

Jack Mallory

Joanie, I have never suggested, or even thought, that the lack of a two-state solution is entirely Israel's fault. My point in the last couple of posts is that I am very suspicious of BESA as a likely source of a fair, unbiased opinion about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. 

Glen. I respect your right to hold that opinion. But opinions offered without facts to support them are not at all convincing--you know what they say about opinions.

I would like to know the facts that support your beliefs about the antisemitism of such demonstrations: all of them? If not all, which? All participants? The majority of participants? What is dishonest about their motivations and agendas? And how do we  KNOW the answers to any of these questions? 

 

 


 


 


05/04/24 04:03 PM #16992    

 

Joanie Bender (Grosfeld)

 

Jack, I understand you were not saying its all Israel's fault but if you have time to read the last article I sent by that expert in Jewish studies, you would learn a lot I think about the overall situation in the Middle East. This guy is really an impressive scholar in the area..

Here is a link that explains things on the campus protests....they are not all just the kids protesting against civilian deaths. I agree with Glen that there is antisemitism in many of these protest groups mixed in.  Love, Joanie.

 

 


05/04/24 04:21 PM #16993    

 

Glen Hirose

Yes Jack,

I know what history says about opinions. So the facts are presented in a way that sway opinions, and the world is ruled by OPINIONS, Like SCOTUS for example. Quantum mechanics and general relativity are based in mathematics (facts) yet they have not been reconciled. Care to offer an opinion?

 


05/04/24 04:56 PM #16994    

 

Jack Mallory

Joanie, that link doesn't open for me. Trying to open it gets the message, "Safari can't open the page. URL can't be shown." 

Zipperstein is clearly a more authoritative source than Law and Society Magazine. I trust that you are reading Palestinian perspectives on the situation also. What have you found informative?


 


 


05/04/24 06:11 PM #16995    

 

Jack Mallory

Glen, I don't offer opinions on topics like quantum theory and general relativity or anything else about which I know zero, zip, jack shit, as they say. I recommend this approach to life to everyone.

I believe (admittedly without quantitative data) that the words "I don't know" are the three most underutilized words in the English language. If more of us just said "I don't know" instead of making assertions with little or no evidence the world might be a better place. 
 

Months ago Stephen Hatchett recommended to us the book Anaximander and the Birth of Science. A central tenet of the book is the importance of uncertainty, not being sure one is right, or even that anyone is RIGHT in any final, definitive sense  

"Lack of certainty is anything but weakness. Instead, it constitutes—and has always constituted—the very strength of rational thinking, understood as curiosity, rebellion, and change."

And, when we think we have something REALLY important to say, even though we lack convincing evidence for our assertion, we should make clear that we are just supposing, and not make up bullshit. 
 

So, again, I think we should all say "I don't know" far more frequently than we do. But I don't personally have good evidence to support that.

​But read Anaximander. It makes a pretty damn good argument for uncertainty!

 

 


05/04/24 06:13 PM #16996    

 

Joanie Bender (Grosfeld)

Sorry Jack. Zipperstein's article is really worth taking a look at. I will resend it later. Love, Joanie

05/04/24 06:19 PM #16997    

 

Jack Mallory

Damn. I'm not one for making a big deal about MEANINGFUL coincidences, but I went from hitting submit on my last about uncertainty to FaceBook and found this from my favorite classmate:


 

But Anaximander would warn against investing too much in the perpetual truth of the "truly real."
 


05/04/24 11:41 PM #16998    

 

Joanie Bender (Grosfeld)

Lost Opportunities for Peace in Palestine

Palestinian Leaders Have Chosen to Perpetuate the Conflict

 

By Steven Zipperstein

Jack, this is the article I was talking about. I hope you have time to read it. This scholar has a lot to say and this time I put in someone who has top credenitials about the Middle East. Oh, and John, Jack is a thoughtful person who is trying to have real discussions about key issues. He is our friend. Love, Joanie

 

A historic chance at peace occurred at the White House in 1993 when Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat shook hands, with President Bill Clinton looking on, to acknowledge the Oslo Accords. The two states envisioned in the Accords remain unfulfilled. | Credit: Vince Musi / The White House

In the wake of the October 7 Hamas terror attack on Israeli civilians and Israel’s military response, a narrative is emerging that condemns Hamas for its brutality while blaming Israeli policies toward the Palestinians as the root cause of the Hamas atrocities. This narrative defies historical accuracy. It is time to set the record straight.

First, to ascribe the root cause of the Hamas attacks to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank ignores the century-long history of Palestinian terrorism against their Jewish neighbors, commencing long before the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, and indeed long before the creation of the State of Israel. For example, in August 1929, two decades before Israel existed, Palestinian terrorists massacred 70 Jewish civilians in Hebron. The Times of London carried a chilling report of the massacres in its September 2, 1929, edition, describing how the terrorists slaughtered women and Yeshiva students.

Second, Israel is not to blame for the Palestinians’ lack of statehood. On multiple occasions over the past 85 years Palestinian leaders rejected both the one-state and two-state solutions.

For example, on May 17, 1939, the British Government, serving as “Mandatory” (Trustee) for Palestine since 1922 under the auspices of the League of Nations, offered the one-state solution for Palestine, with Jewish immigration severely restricted and ultimately terminated after five years, Jewish land acquisition largely banned, and the Palestinian Arabs (then comprising a two-to-one majority in the country) achieving statehood after 10 years.

But the Palestinian leader, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem Haj Amin al Husseini, rejected the British offer. He demanded immediate statehood and an immediate halt to Jewish immigration. The Mufti refused to consider anything short of his maximalist position. Had the Mufti said yes, all of Palestine today would be under Arab rule, and no Jewish state would ever have been created.

Following World War II, Britain handed the Palestine matter to the United Nations. The UN convened separate proceedings in 1947 under the auspices of UNSCOP (UN Special Committee on Palestine) and the Ad Hoc Committee on Palestine, both of which endorsed the two-state solution, dividing Palestine into separate Jewish and Arab countries.

The UN General Assembly approved the two-state solution on November 29, 1947. The area allocated for the Arab state was larger than the modern-day West Bank and Gaza Strip. The area allocated for the Jewish state was smaller than modern-day Israel.

The Jews enthusiastically accepted the UN’s November 29, 1947, offer of two states, celebrating by dancing in the streets of Tel Aviv. The Palestinian Arabs, however, flatly rejected the two-state solution and responded by launching a bloody war. In February 1948 the UN’s Palestine Commission reported to the Security Council that “powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein.”

The Palestinians continued their November 1947 renunciation of the two-state solution for months and decades afterward. In December 1948 hundreds of Palestinian leaders met in Jericho and passed a series of resolutions asking King Abdullah I of Jordan to formally annex the West Bank. Jordan accepted the request and annexed the West Bank, occupying the area until the June 1967 Six-Day War. Egypt, meanwhile, occupied Gaza from 1948-1967.

Significantly, not once during the Jordanian occupation of the West Bank and the Egyptian occupation of Gaza between 1948-1967 did the Palestinians ever demand statehood in the West Bank and Gaza. Instead, the Palestinians demanded the destruction of Israel.

Moreover, in May 1964 the Palestinians expressly reaffirmed their longstanding rejection of sovereignty over the West Bank and Gaza, declaring in Article 24 of the original Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) Charter: “This Organization does not exercise any regional sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, or the Gaza Strip.”

The closest the parties came in recent years to reaching a permanent status agreement occurred during the short-lived efforts of former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Arafat’s successor, Mahmoud Abbas, in 2008 to agree on final terms. Unfortunately, the talks collapsed when Abbas inexplicably rejected what Olmert later described as an unprecedented Israeli offer to withdraw almost entirely from the West Bank and the Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem, and to cede the Old City of Jerusalem to international control.

Finally, it is important to recall the Oslo Accords of 1993-1995. Those agreements, which remain legally binding on both the Israelis and the Palestinians, resulted from lengthy and vigorous negotiations between the PLO and Israel. The Palestinians agreed that the West Bank would be divided into three separate areas, leaving roughly half the West Bank under Israeli control. The Palestinians also agreed the Israeli occupation and settlements could remain in place until a permanent deal would be reached down the road regarding “permanent status” issues such as borders, the status of Jerusalem, etc.

The political situation in the West Bank today reflects exactly what the Palestinians bargained for at Oslo.

The Palestinians also agreed at Oslo to renounce violence and terrorism, to stop teaching their children to hate Israelis and Jews, and to pursue their political aims solely through negotiations.

Israel has upheld its part of the Oslo Accords. It handed control to the Palestinian Authority of the major West Bank towns such as Ramallah, Nablus, Hebron, and Jericho. It withdrew completely from Gaza in 2005, going beyond the requirements of the Oslo Accords to withdraw only from the Palestinian populated areas of Gaza. The Palestinians, for their part, have repeatedly breached the Oslo Accords, evidenced most recently by President Mahmoud Abbas’s refusal to condemn the Hamas atrocities earlier this month.

Here’s the bottom line: Israel left Gaza completely in 2005. Hamas has ruled the area with an iron fist since 2006. Hamas has fired tens of thousands of rockets at Israeli civilians ever since, using its population as human shields, placing them in harms’ way when Israeli defends itself.

The Hamas atrocities earlier this month demonstrate once and for all that Hamas and its supporters have no interest in pursuing the two-state solution. Instead, they want the Final Solution, to finish what Hitler began with the Holocaust.

We should grieve for the innocent Palestinians of Gaza, who are solely the victims of Hamas’s policy of using them as human shields. We should support the aspirations of the Palestinian people for statehood in the West Bank and Gaza. We should sympathize with the Palestinian people, whose leaders repeatedly have chosen to perpetuate rather than resolve the conflict.

Hopefully, the Palestinians will return someday to the path they negotiated for at Oslo by abandoning terrorism and incitement, and pursuing diplomacy and statecraft instead.

Steven E. Zipperstein is a Distinguished Senior Fellow at the UCLA Center for Middle East Development. He is the author of “Zionism, Palestinian Nationalism and the Law: 1939-1948” (Routledge, 2021) and “Law and the Arab-Israeli Conflict: The Trials of Palestine” (Routledge, 2020). The views expressed are solely the author’s.

 

05/05/24 06:27 AM #16999    

 

Jack Mallory

A much more reasoned and thoughtful piece, Joanie. A good demonstration how how opinion can be supported by evidence. I hope the multitude of facts presented don't offend John. 

John, presenting opinion without supporting fact may be kind of a fun form of self-expression. But often, for some of us usually, we express opinions in order to influence and convince others, or to simply explain our own thinking processes: facts contribute to those ends. In your last post, your purpose was to explain your distaste for me, an opinion you have every right to hold and which you expressed very clearly.

When I'm having a bad day, I often go through my favorite photos. I offer this one to you, in the hopes today can be less hateful for you. 

A wonderful example of how beauty can be found in the most unexpected places. Sunset from inside a portapotty on a chickee where we camped while kayaking in the Everglades last year. Yeah, I do take my camera just about everywhere!


05/05/24 08:56 AM #17000    

 

Joanie Bender (Grosfeld)

Thats a beautiful photo Jack. Thanks for sending us that. Love, Joanie


05/05/24 09:01 AM #17001    

 

Joanie Bender (Grosfeld)

John, I'm sorry you had that trouble with you shin with the infection difficult to get rid of and hospitalization. Also sorry your wife has colon cancer and is going through chemo. I hope that she will recover fully. Good she is a fighter. Hope you enjoy your vacation plans you mentioned. Hard to believe anyone our age has a great grandchild but I think it does happen. That is exciting and special. Love, Joanie


05/05/24 12:23 PM #17002    

 

Glen Hirose

Jack,

I've considered your argument for facts first before speaking or writing, and determined the only example I can find that fits this criteria without exception is:

Cistercian Order – Holy Cross Abbey

 

But let me also add (because I'm not a Cistercian); I too enjoy your photos/images of the wild creatures in and around NH's waterways.

 


05/05/24 02:30 PM #17003    

 

Joan Ruggles (Young)

Mr Smeby,

I continue against my wishes to be moderator of this forum. I believe that in that postiton I can block certain posters. If you continue to call other posters "idiots" you will be subject to exclusion from the group. We are many people with different views. This doesn't give us permission to assault other members. You are of course welcome to your opinion as is anyone else in the forum, but you are not welcome to attack someone for asking you to support your facts.

I believe this is the first time anyone on this forum has attacked another member and called them names. Perhaps Mr Smeby can inform us why he feels entitled to do so at this time.

respectfully Joan Ruggles Young


05/05/24 02:33 PM #17004    

 

Jack Mallory

I don't think I've ever said that a lack of facts nesessarily precludes thought or speech, Glen. I do argue that speech designed to convince others of one's opinions is best done by providing evidence in the form of facts and reasoning rather than "Yes it is!" "No it's not!" or juvenile name calling. When facts and reason aren't available, "I don't know" may be the better choice. 

Your own example, the judicial system, produces conclusions based on facts.  Guilty or not guilty are decisions made by jurors considering facts. Each juror comes to a decision after listening to the prosecution and defense present evidentiary arguments--the facts of what occurred and what the laws say.

Decisions made by SCOTUS are also based on the facts of law, especially the Constitution, and their historical application in the form of past precedents, original intent, etc. Or at least that's my understanding--I'm not now and never have been a member of the legal profession.

Do things other than fact enter the legal arena? Of course. Like science, law is a human endeavor. In both realms emotion, bias, presentation style, and other hidden human foibles may sometimes confound the formal, fact-based processes of legal and scientific reasoning. 

Do we therefore reject law and science? No, they are the best systems yet developed to produce order and knowledge in human societies. Among the alternatives have been examining the entrails of sacrificed animals and judging accused witches by seeing if they drown when submerged. Or explaining natural phenomena through the actions of gods and attempting to cure disease with incantation rather than medication. I'll take written law produced in a democratic society, guilt or innocence determined by jury, and science-based determination of where earthquakes are likely and how to treat cancer, thank you very much! 

All of which is to say: in some of the most important areas of human behavior, opinion based on verifiable fact is critical. John's opinions about me don't have to be fact-based because they don't mean shit--they have no impact on me or anyone else. But legal and scientific opinion does involve societal well-being. Those opinions need to be based in reality.

Politics, of course, is another form of behavior that impacts human society for better or worse. I will propose that fact in political discourse--opinions supported by honest facts--is essential to our making decisions for the social good. Joe  Biden's or Donald Trump's opinions, and the decisions that flow from them, must be factually based for our national well-being.
 

But that's all just my opinion.

**********

Joan, I appreciate your attempt to maintain some level of civil discourse within the Forum. I've moderated FaceBook pages; it's a thankless task. 

 


05/05/24 02:45 PM #17005    

 

Joanie Bender (Grosfeld)

Jack, I really like the Zipperstein article I sent as he is a real authority on the Middle East and worthy of reading re: his take. However I am very embarrassed that I posted a site that had a big ad about Butt Lifts. I somehow missed that. It would never be something I was trying to promote. Yikes, I have to be more careful what I send but I guess we all could have a good laugh anyway. I didn't know why you referenced butt lifts but now I see exactly why you did as it was on that site...

Jay, I meant to tell you that Kristi Noam really cooked her goose as you were implying as well. To think she thought doing a cold blooded shooting of a defenseless puppy would endear her to Trump and get her the VP job.. As you pointed out, he clarifed that he was talking about shooting a person on fifth avenue, not a dog.

Love, Joanie


05/05/24 03:05 PM #17006    

 

Jack Mallory

Joanie, the bizarre fact is that the butt lift piece was an article, not an ad! Had you seen that, I'm sure you'd have realized you weren't using a serious source as your reference! 

But, again, the Zipperstein article is a responsible piece of journalism. It deals reasonably fairly and factually with a complex topic. I don't agree with all his points--the Palestinians in Gaza are the victims of Israeli policy just as much as Hamas's--but, as Joan requests, we can disagree civilly. 

*******

In fact, as we converse, we should all imagine the osprey below, with that expression, monitoring our tone of voice. 

 


05/05/24 03:48 PM #17007    

 

Joanie Bender (Grosfeld)

Jack I understood part of your sentence that you didn't completely agree with Zipperstein because you said the Palestinians are victims of Israeli policy...and then you say as is Hamas' ..don't know who or what you are referring too when you say as is Hamas'. Could you clarify. Love, Joanie

05/05/24 05:03 PM #17008    

 

Jack Mallory

Sure, Joanie. Zipperstein says "We should grieve for the innocent Palestinians of Gaza, who are solely the victims of Hamas’s policy of using them as human shields." I think the Palestinians were victims of Hamas policy in that sense, but that Palestinian non-combatants--men, women, and children--are equally the victims of a brutal Israeli military policy that uses strategies, tactics, and weapons that do not/cannot/are not designed to distinguish between combatants and the innocent. Sorry, run-on sentence as Miss Casey would surely say. 

One of the revolting aspects of war is that it encourages both sides towards the worst possible behaviors. Nobody's hands come out of war clean. 
 


05/05/24 06:11 PM #17009    

 

Joanie Bender (Grosfeld)

Hi Jack, the Zipperstein article was written on October 19, not two weeks after the October 7 attack when the brutal assault had traumatized the Nation and Israel went in to defend against the terrorists.. Any amount of deaths of civilians is too many. I'm saying that I think on October 19 it was the start when Zipperstein was talking about Hamas hiding behind human shields, and as the war continued, the civilian deaths have mounted to over 30,000 six months later. I will see if he has recent comments about the situation now. I think the hawks in the Israeli government are doing this approach of the end justifies the means but it doesn't. .. Having said that, I never hear anyone much talking about calling for Hamas to stop what they are doing..Hamas started this brutal attack of innocents on October 7. Where is the world outcry. There was no world outcry to the rapes and murders of women in the initial attack. I saw the woman with bloody pants who were later shot in the head. We heard of children witnessing their parents deaths or parents witnessing their childrens deaths. Where was the outcry. Nothing was said about using sex as a weapon and ultimately murdering the victims. . They continue to risk civilians lives by hiding among them in and killing some of the hostages and raping them in their keep. Where are the outcries about them as well as Israels response. I don't hear anyone saying to HAMAS they have to stop the terror, stop hiding among the civilians, stop killing the hostages..Along with Israel's approach that has costed so many Palestinian lives, where is the accountablility for Hamas? Where is the outcry. Love, Joanie


go to top 
  Post Message
  
    Prior Page
 Page  
Next Page