Blog Tools
Edit your Blog
Build a Blog
RSS Feed
View Profile
« October 2006 »
S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31
You are not logged in. Log in
Entries by Topic
All topics  «
Misc.
Poker
Politics
Religion
Television
Sleepless in Fulham: Rambling and gambling by David Young
Thursday, 12 October 2006
Minimise casualties or minimise regret?
Topic: Politics

If you know anything about the 'basic strategy' of blackjack, you'll find it painful to watch people play the game in a UK casino. Unlike the US, most people here know nothing whatsoever about the correct tactics and therefore lose at a much faster rate than they should. Watch any table where the same people have been in action for a long time and you'll notice a semi-circle of miserable faces. They're barely even gambling. Most are just giving their money away.

There's a common mistake that most of them make. It comes in situations where they are forced to choose between the lesser of two evils, or in this case, between two plays, both of which are negative equity. An illustration would be the common situation where you have a 15 facing a dealer's upcard 10. It's essential that you hit here. Although the probability is that you'll bust, you'll win more often than you will if you stand and hope that the dealer busts. So why do so many people stand? I think it's because their main concern is to minimise regret. In their reasoning, if they take the card and bust they have brought the loss on themselves, while if they stand and the dealer beats them, it was just an unlucky turn of the cards. Standing pat, while failing to minimise the loss, does succeed in minimising regret.

I didn't think I suffered from any variant of this flaw until I recently read about a couple of moral dilemmas, both of which involve making decisions about whether to kill one person in order to save the lives of others. In situation one, you're standing next to a railway track and you see a runaway train about to collide with five people on the track. If you do nothing they will all die. Near you is a lever that will divert the train to another track. The five will live, but there is a man on the other track who will be killed. Do you pull the lever? My answer is yes. The second situation involves the same out of control train, except that this time you are standing on a footbridge next to a very fat man. You realise that you could push him onto the track in front of the train and it would save the five on the track, but kill him. Do you push him over? Strangely, my answer is different. Even though I can see logically that it's the same question posed twice, my emotions override the logic. Pushing the man over feels like murder, yet pulling the lever doesn't.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2006/08/06/blood_on_the_tracks/?page=full

I'm interested to know how this affects people's attitude's to war - in particular why the war against Iraq has provoked massive outcry around the world, yet the failure to intervene in the 1994 Rwandan genocide (when 800,000 people were killed) got nothing like the condemnation, even though it killed more people. Or why far more people hate George Bush for the Iraq War than hate Madelaine Albright, who claimed that the death of 500,000 Iraqis due to sanctions was a 'price worth paying'.

This week all eyes are on North Korea. What will our leaders do, faced with a choice of minimising casualties or minimising regret?


_ DY at 3:48 AM BST
Updated: Thursday, 12 October 2006 3:54 AM BST
Post Comment | View Comments (23) | Permalink

Thursday, 12 October 2006 - 11:27 AM BST

Name: "anonymous"

Madelaine Albright may have had a point.

 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6040054.stm

Twice the number killed by Saddam in a sixth of the time.

Before you dismiss the report's findings, I'd like you to  give detailed analysis of where it's wrong. It should be noted that it's regarded by experts in the field as rock solid research. No one has questioned the method used to arrive at this statistic - no one at all. Except people who are not involved in epidemiology, not statisticians and not knowledgable about how body counts from war zones are calculated (this is the same methodology used in every recent conflict, notably Darfur, Congo and Bosnia - none of those reports were described as controversial, or indeed called into question in any way at all.S

Thursday, 12 October 2006 - 3:13 PM BST

Name: "Mr X"

People are against the war in Iraq because we went in on complete false pretences. You are a complete wanker.

Sunday, 15 October 2006 - 9:04 AM BST

Name: "anonymous"

Michael Portillo has something to say to you.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2088-2404182,00.html

Sunday, 15 October 2006 - 12:03 PM BST

Name: "Mahmood"

"anonymous" wrote:

Michael Portillo has something to say to you.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2088-2404182,00.html
 
 

Michael Portillo states that “The 21st century has brought us many disappointments. We have had to lower our ambition. Democracy is not going to flower throughout the Muslim world and nuclear weapons will continue to proliferate.”

Democracy is not the means to an end. It is not a tool for creating a society but it is a mechanism/tool for maintaining the society that respects human rights and promotes open government.

 Politicians in every country are captive to slogans. Sadly, all the “democrats” failed to challenge the flawed slogan of “Democratic Middle East” that was promoted by Bush and the neo-cons. Bush, and to my surprise Blair, managed to advance an erroneous concept that presents democracy as a tool for creating a civilised society.

 

The premature imposition of the Blair and Bush type of democracy will lead directly to an intensification of ethnic and religious polarization in countries that have not established the conditions needed to enjoy the benefits of a functioning and stable democracy. The experience of Iraq and Afghanistan is sad proof of this fact.

 Lets us look at the “achievements” of Blaire and Bush in Iraq. They claim that their biggest achievement in Iraq was to hold free and democratic elections. In reality the elections were their biggest mistake. Iraq was governed, with the aid of very efficient security services, by a ruthless dictator, who killed, imprisoned and tortured anyone he suspected of opposing his rule. The only form of organized secular opposition to his dictatorship was in Iraqi Kurdistan. Organised opposition in the rest of Iraq was led mainly by the religious parties because of their ability to meet in Mosques. Therefore, holding elections two years after the “liberation” of Iraq was the worst thing that could have happened to Iraq. The secular politicians needed at least five years in order to form popular political parties capable of persuading the shattered Iraqi society to vote for democracy. By holding premature elections, the Iraqi opinion formers who believed in democracy were subjected to tests they could not pass.

 Thus the premature elections enabled the Shi’ite Mullahs, who are by the way supported by the Iranian Mullahs, gain a very strong foothold in the Iraqi political scene. I can imagine the Mullahs in Iran shouting “thank you America for handing Iraq to us”. Iraq now has a very weak government with ministers who do not cooperate with each other and a prime minister who has little authority outside the “Green Zone” in Baghdad. A minimum of ten militia forces controls the streets of Iraq. The country will not achieve the stability its people deserve until all the militias are disbanded, which is highly unlikely, or one militia dominates the country, which is even more unlikely. Therefore, unless the American and British governments reinforce their forces in Iraq with over 500000 soldiers and order their armies to defeat all the militias, the presence of the British and the US armies becomes the problem and not the solution. We are subjecting our soldiers to unnecessary dangers and wasting the British taxpayers’ money, as well as prolonging the agony of the Iraqi people by keeping our forces there.


Sunday, 15 October 2006 - 3:18 PM BST

Name: "David Young"
Home Page: https://members.tripod.com/overlay_uk3

Mahmood, I don't see how the coalition could have held off staging elections for five years. It would have been impossible, even if desirable. Obviously religious groups had an advantage for the reasons you say: they could meet in mosques during the Hussein era (and their manifesto was written in the 7th century). But at some point, they will lose their monopoly of opposition. That's the key point about the democratisation of the middle east - the danger inherent in granting religious fanatics a monopoly of political opposition, which was the case and still is the case in much of the middle east. Radical islam is only ever going to be defeated by moderate islam, and for that to happen there has to be a marketplace of ideas. That has at least started now, however shakily.

Your idea of a five year wait to give the secular parties a chance to gain influence might have been the best possible solution, but it wouldn't have been the best solution possible. How did things get in this mess anyway? I'm surprised nobody has mentioned Gertrude Bell in all of this:

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

for she, as a British administrator in Arabia, decided that Iraq would be created with a Sunni minority controlling a Shiite majority:

Quote - "I don't for a moment doubt that the final authority must be in the hands of the Sunnis, in spite of their numerical inferiority; otherwise you will have a ... theocratic state, which is the very devil."

The problem with Bell's 'solution' is that by giving the Shiites no political power or experience, they remain 'theocratic' in outlook. What else was there for them? Had she not done this, out of a patronising and paternalist desire to protect shiite arabs from themselves, they might by now have developed a greater separation of mosque and state. It has to start somewhere. 

DY

Monday, 16 October 2006 - 2:33 PM BST

Name: "Mahmood"

"David Young" wrote:

Mahmood, I don't see how the coalition could have held off staging elections for five years.

David-  You missed the point I was trying to make. I repeat democracy is not a tool for building a society. It is a mechanism for maintaining a society its people want to preserve.

The premature imposition of democracy, in countries that have not established the conditions needed to enjoy the benefits of a functioning and stable democracy, will lead directly to an intensification of ethnic and religious divisions. This is exactly what has happened in Iraq. In any case, it is naïve to think that you can have free elections in a country that is dominated by militias. The Iraqi shi’ite militias visited every household in the areas under their control, days before the elections, and forced eligible voters to swear by the “Holy Koran” that they will vote for their candidates. Of course, if you don’t honour that pledge, damnation awaits you. Naturally, on the day of the elections, observers at the polling stations reported that everything looked ok. 

The Iraqi infrastructure was, and still is, grossly underdeveloped. Iraq needed a stable government of technocrats to plan and execute the appropriate program of infrastructure building. This requires a stable government for a period of at least ten years; up to five years of planning and awarding contracts and another five years of building power stations, roads, schools, water treatment plants, sewage systems, hospitals…etc. Changing the government, by holding elections every five years, is the best way to disrupt the much needed development of the country’s shattered economy. 

A functioning and stable democracy requires social and political interacting conditions that it cannot survive without. A strong and stable middle class, enjoying the benefits of a thriving economy is an essential requirement. A growing middle class is the foundation of social stability in any country. Its culture rejects both the radical tendencies of the extremists and the inclination of the ruling rich to maintain reactionary practices designed to sustain their hold on wealth and power.

History tells as that as the people of any country become more prosperous, they will develop the inevitable desire for determining their affairs through democratically elected governments. A stable and growing economy will strengthen the political commitment of the opinion makers to human rights and the separation of God from Caesar, as well as reinforce the willingness of the people to honour differences of birth and religion. HISTORY HAS ALSO SHOWN THAT DEMOCRACY IN UNDER-DEVELOPED COUNTRIES COMES AFTER ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT NOT BEFORE

Thus the process of democratization is dependent on nurturing the potential of a free market economy, fuelled by local and international capital. However, for reasons that are quite understandable, capital, especially that of the foreign variety, is renowned for its cowardice and its tendency to shy away from unstable regions. Free enterprise thrives in stable societies only. Therefore, the above social and political conditions that are needed to democratize a country cannot be maintained in the absence of security in that country. 

A sustained state of security demands a favourable international environment. This means that the foreign policies of the regional and international super powers must be conducive to the creation of democracy in that region. Without that essential commitment democracy becomes a pipedream.


Monday, 16 October 2006 - 3:28 PM BST

Name: "David Young"

Mahmood,

What about Algeria? It cancelled elections in 1992 for fear that Islamic fundamentalists would gain power. The result was a decade long civil war that killed about 150,000. What about Iran under the Shah? Wasn't there a growing middle class there in the late seventies? What happened in 1979?

DY

Monday, 16 October 2006 - 6:54 PM BST

Name: "toryboy2"

"David Young" wrote:

Mahmood,

What about Algeria? It cancelled elections in 1992 for fear that Islamic fundamentalists would gain power. The result was a decade long civil war that killed about 150,000. What about Iran under the Shah? Wasn't there a growing middle class there in the late seventies? What happened in 1979?

DY


I think Dy has too much time on his hands...What lever would you press if on 1 side there were 5 anti-americans and on the other track 1 Dominic?

Monday, 16 October 2006 - 8:39 PM BST

Name: "Mr X"

lol

Tuesday, 17 October 2006 - 10:35 AM BST

Name: "Mahmood"

"David Young" wrote:

Mahmood,

What about Algeria? It cancelled elections in 1992 for fear that Islamic fundamentalists would gain power. The result was a decade long civil war that killed about 150,000. What about Iran under the Shah? Wasn't there a growing middle class there in the late seventies? What happened in 1979?

DY


David- In countries like Iran, Algeria, Egypt, Jordan...etc, power and wealth were and still are in the hands of the few. Thus the rich gets richer and the poor becomes poorer. You cant escape the fact that Bush's concept of a new and demcractic MidEast is doomed to failure becuase it assumes that free elections will give rise to democracy which in turn will create civilised societies that will give in to Israeli demands.

Dannant and many others believe that the democratisation of Iraq is ambitious. They have come to that conclusion because of the flawed current strategy. Iraqis, Egyptians,...etc don't belong to an inferior race. I am sure that, with the aid ofcurrent technology, the Arabs  can build thriving economies in their respective countries within ten years. Then you can't stop the tide of democracy.

 

Tuesday, 17 October 2006 - 1:04 PM BST

Name: "anonymous"

Mahmood is so on the money it's unreal.

David, you should spend some time studying the failure of western style  democracies (especially the Westminster model) in Africa in the 1960s and 70's. There's been plenty of studies conducted on this subject, so it won't be too difficult to do the research. 

The idea that the imposition of democracy upon Iraq was some kind of panacea always struck me as a little fanciful. The fact that such a solution was to be imposed by the invading nation was always going to be problematical. That the US seemed to have no real contingency plans for the post-Saddam era looked shortsighted in the extreme.

Combine the three and throw in a tenacious adversary and you get an idea as to why many people were sceptical about the entire enterprise in the first place. It was a scepticism which subsequent events have done nothing to eradicate. 

Tuesday, 17 October 2006 - 1:21 PM BST

Name: "Richard123"

"Mahmood" wrote:
 which in turn will create civilised societies that will give in to Israeli demands

 

That is what it is all about. 

 

Tuesday, 17 October 2006 - 2:07 PM BST

Name: "David Young"

Civilised countries accede to Israeli demands? Are you saying that countries that don't accede to Israeli demands are by definition uncivilised? What are you saying here? If you think that democracy will make arab governments less hostile to Israel, then you must think that pro-Israel policies would be electorally popular with the general public. Well if that's the case, what's wrong with that? If not, then how will a pro-Israel party get support?

Personally I'm with Nathan Sharansky when he said that an anti-Western democracy is better than a pro-Western dictatorship. As far as Israel's concerned (and please let's not bring it into everything. We're talking about the 200+million arabs in the middle east, not the five million jews) I think that democratising the region would make Israel a safer place, not because it would bring pro-Israeli politicans into power (It could easily do the opposite) but because it would make the leaders of these countries have to respond to their people's needs to a far greater degree than is currently the case. This would perhaps involve better investment in infrastructure, more money for schools, a fairer distribution of land. Maybe less money wasted on racehorses and suicide bombers, more on things that the man in the street actually wants.

I don't mind arabs disliking Israeli policies if they have valid reasons. What bothers me at present is that Israel bashing takes place because it's the only outlet for the frustrations of the oppressed people of the middle east. They can't complain about the corruption of the politicians. They can't complain about their incompetence. But they can burn the Israeli flag in front of CNN cameramen at 2pm on a weekday afternoon. Why? Because they don't have JOBS! The economy isn't growing fast enough to employ the increasing number of young males leaving school, because in these countries you don't go far if you don't have the right contacts with the politicians or the royal family. This 'glass ceiling' holds back their economies and slows growth. Unless that is ended by forcing Middle Eastern economies open, young people with too much free time on their hands will continue to be drawn towards extremism.

DY

Tuesday, 17 October 2006 - 4:49 PM BST

Name: "NickC"

I've watched these rows take place with interest. Normally i watch DY fight his losing battle with some mild sympathy but I had 5 minutes spare to chip in ;-D

These facts you wont like. Israels $100bn economy is greater than that of all its neighbors combined. Israel has the highest ratio of university degrees per captia in the world. The per captia income is higher in Israel than in the UK. This despite Israel spending more per captia on defending its nation than any other country on Earth.

Israel provides  a very real threat to the Dictatorships in the Middle East. Not in the form of a tiny little Jewish inconvenience on the map of course. In this baron little patch of dessert with no oil, Israelis (only 75% Jews) live well compared to thier neighbors. They do this under constant threat of war. They have only been their for 58 years yet the difference between Israel and her neighbors is massive. I expect this difference does not go unnoticed by the youngsters of Jordan, Egypt, Syria and Lebanon.

Would'nt it be something if Iraq followed suit. Would'nt it be something if an Arab state provided for its people rather than used them. Would'nt it be something if the eyes of Islam saw thier futures in peace, in prosperity and in health. A wonderful vision perhaps or the biggest fear of the wealthy and privileged?

 May your God go with you, as long as he toes the party line.

 

Tuesday, 17 October 2006 - 7:59 PM BST

Name: "anonymous"

"toryboy2" wrote:

I think Dy has too much time on his hands...What lever would you press if on 1 side there were 5 anti-americans and on the other track 1 Dominic?

 

I would worry for the train if it were heading towards Dominic.

Derailment and hundreds of mutilated passengers. 

Tuesday, 17 October 2006 - 8:00 PM BST

Name: "anonymous"

Iraq could not follow suit. Iraqis do not control Americas foreign policy for example. They will not recieve the mass amount of money that Israel receives.

 What planet are you on?

Tuesday, 17 October 2006 - 8:16 PM BST

Name: "anonymous"

Israel currently recieves $2.56bn in aid from the US.  $2.28bn of this is military assistance, without which would probably mean the destruction of the country and the 7 million people in it.

I wonder how much Iraq's oil is worth to the Iraqi people should they benefit from it?

As for foreign policy, I dont see the rest of the middle east striving forward in leaps and bounds.

Wednesday, 18 October 2006 - 1:32 AM BST

Name: "David Young"

"anonymous" wrote:

Iraq could not follow suit. Iraqis do not control Americas foreign policy for example. They will not recieve the mass amount of money that Israel receives.

 What planet are you on?

He's on a planet in which the US gives about $1.3bn a year (minimum) to Egypt, in return for its peace with Israel.

That's the same planet you and I are on, Mr Anonymous.

One article plucked from a Google Search-

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0412/p07s01-wome.html 

 DY

 

Wednesday, 18 October 2006 - 1:13 PM BST

Name: "Mahmood"

"David Young" wrote:
"anonymous" wrote:

Iraq could not follow suit. Iraqis do not control Americas foreign policy for example. They will not recieve the mass amount of money that Israel receives.

 What planet are you on?

He's on a planet in which the US gives about $1.3bn a year (minimum) to Egypt, in return for its peace with Israel.

That's the same planet you and I are on, Mr Anonymous.

One article plucked from a Google Search-

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0412/p07s01-wome.html 

 DY

 

I mentioned Israel for the following reasons. Iraq was invaded because the new-cons believed that they could impose a friendly pro-USA government that will recognise Israel. This, they argued, will then lead to more comprehensive peace treaty between the other Arab governments and Israel. This fact was confirmed by Clinton in an interview with Richard and Judy of Channel Four (Afternoon program); Clinton came to the UK to promote his book. The other main reason was Saddam’s support to the PLO and the suicide bombers. Recognition of Israel has nothing to do with democracy in the Middle East. I am convinced that the Arabs must live in peace with the Israelis because this is the only way Zionism can be defeated in the Middle East. A peaceful Mid-East will lead a prosperous region in which religion is less important and the racist concept of a  “Jewish state” becomes obsolete; Israel will be just another Middle Eastern state within a generation. This is why the Israeli politicians have avoided reaching a sensible peace agreement with the Palestinians after the Oslo accord."NickC" seems to think that Israel is the beacon of democracy in the region. Lets look at some facts    Israeli Population6 million, including the 187000 settlers in the West Bank, 20000 in the Golan heights and about 117000 in east JerusalemEthnic breakdown is 80.1% Jews of which 20.8% are Israel-born, 32.1 are USA/Europe born, 14.6% are African born, and 12.6% are Asian born.18% of population live below the poverty line.Israeli Economy in 2002GDP in 2002 = $117 billion, Imports = $30.8 billion, Exports = $28 billion, debt = >$42 billion.  Military Budget = $9 billion Work force 2.5 million  USA Aid to IsraelSince 1987, the US congress has annually been approving a foreign aid bill totalling an average of $3 billion of American taxpayers' money to Israel, $1.2 billion in economical aid, and $1.8 billion in military aid. After the gulf war in 1991, the US has additionally been offering Israel $2 billion annually in federal loan guarantees, which brings the total US foreign aid to Israel to about $5 billion.Other forms of aid to Israel are a result of "consequential" aid, such as the approximate $1.5 billion in total tax-deductible private donations from numerous Jewish charities and individual donors. "Consequential" aid to Israel adds up to an approximate $8 billion in total. Thus nearly 10% of Israel’s GDP comes from foreign aid. Three quarters of the military aid to Israel goes for importing US-made military equipment such as F-16 and Apache attack helicopters. This creates a job market for US citizens and transforms Palestine into a test ground for US made weaponry, used daily against Palestinians. Israel has cooperated with the US arms industry to develop more effective military equipment at affordable costs to the US. About one quarter of the military aid to Israel is contributed towards military research and development, where several innovative jet fighters, missiles and navigating and targeting devices have been manufactured and sold back to the US.

Israel also has a vibrant domestic military industry. It became the third biggest arms exporter in the world in 2002, when its military exports reached $4.18 billion, a nearly 70 percent rise compared to 2001 overseas weapons sales of $2.5 billion.

Israeli ArabsIsrael exercises sovereignty over its own territory through a system of citizenship in which rights and entitlements are allocated by religion. Israeli Arabs make up one fifth of the Israeli population. Although the Declaration of Independence guarantees them equal rights, they are victims of institutionalised discrimination. Arab towns and villages receive lower levels of government funding than their Jewish equivalents. Arab citizens earn lower salaries than their Jewish counterparts; Jewish employees’ pay is on average twice as much as Arab wage earners. The large gap in equality between Israeli Arabs and other Israelis is still prevalent, according to a report by Sikkuy, the Association for the Advancement of Civic Equality in Israel. The report focuses on decisions or actions taken by the Israeli government. In 2002, a bill was submitted to the Knesset that encouraged Arab emigration to Arab countries. A law was also passed in 2002 overturning a previous Supreme Court ruling that permitted Arab settlement in Jewish villages. Israeli Arabs are excluded from the system of social benefits, such as public sector employment, subsidized housing and the like because they were exempted from obligatory military service. Thus the Israeli Arabs became largely disenfranchised, on the bogus basis that they did not comply with the duties of the "average citizen." Hence, while Jews in Israel experience full citizenship, Israeli Arabs experience "citizenship lite."EducationInequality also exists in education. The Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics reported in 1999, that gaps exist in the teaching, education levels, and the provision of expenditure on education between Jews and Israeli Arabs. The percentage of Jews with 13 years or more education rose from 28.2% to 37.3%, while among other religions the percentage rose from 9.1% to 15.7%. The percentage of Jews aged 18-29 continued to university rose slightly from 6.3% in 1990 to 7.5% in 1996, while the percentage continuing to graduate education rose from 1.2% to 1.7% and going for Ph.D.s (aged 25-54) rose from 0.25% to 0.33% over the same period. The percentage of Arabs studying for BAs rose from 1.6% to 1.9%, while the percentage studying for MAs and Ph.D.s declined slightly from 0.23 to 0.22% and 0.4 to 0.3% respectively over the same period. I suppose the Israeli Arabs belong to an inferior race.

Wednesday, 18 October 2006 - 5:47 PM BST

Name: "NickC"

Mahmood, in fairness perhaps you should be comparative.

There are approximately 1 million muslim Arabs living in Israel. There are approximately 20,000 Jews in Iran, 20,000 in Turkey and other than that you would be hard pushed to find more than 100 in any other Arab country. I would imagine life is significantly beter for the Mohamed familly living in Jerusalem than for the Cohen's of Syria.

In Israel, the Arabs have thier own soccer team, An arab Israeli was voted Miss Israel, thier is an Arab on the Borad of the Israeli Supreme Court, thier is an Arab University. The sole distinction is that Arabs do not have to take up military service like thier Jewish brother. However many do and infanct the Arabs and Druze have thier own successfull unit within Zahal. They have the vote.

The only terrorist involvement on record committed by an Israeli Arab has been as a victim. Thier is no record in history of any sabotage or diloyalty by an Israeli Arab citizen during any of Israels wars.

They received better healthcare than in the neighboring countries, far better education, far far superior employment opportunities and although the average Arab wage is 60% lower than the average Jewish wage, the cost of living in Arab areas is 60% lower and the wage in comparison to neighboring countries is like chalk and cheese.

In addtion literacy for Arabs is greater in Israel than in any other Arab country, infant mortality is lower than in any other Arab country, life expectancy is greater than in any other Arab country and well we probably should not go into the standard of life for an Arab female in Israel compared to that on offer elsewhere in the region should we.

I suppose the muslim Arabs belong to an inferior race?

Thursday, 19 October 2006 - 11:00 AM BST

Name: "Mahmood"

"NickC" wrote:

Mahmood, in fairness perhaps you should be comparative.

There are approximately 1 million muslim Arabs living in Israel. There are approximately 20,000 Jews in Iran, 20,000 in Turkey and other than that you would be hard pushed to find more than 100 in any other Arab country. I would imagine life is significantly beter for the Mohamed familly living in Jerusalem than for the Cohen's of Syria.

In Israel, the Arabs have thier own soccer team, An arab Israeli was voted Miss Israel, thier is an Arab on the Borad of the Israeli Supreme Court, thier is an Arab University. The sole distinction is that Arabs do not have to take up military service like thier Jewish brother. However many do and infanct the Arabs and Druze have thier own successfull unit within Zahal. They have the vote.

The only terrorist involvement on record committed by an Israeli Arab has been as a victim. Thier is no record in history of any sabotage or diloyalty by an Israeli Arab citizen during any of Israels wars.

They received better healthcare than in the neighboring countries, far better education, far far superior employment opportunities and although the average Arab wage is 60% lower than the average Jewish wage, the cost of living in Arab areas is 60% lower and the wage in comparison to neighboring countries is like chalk and cheese.

In addtion literacy for Arabs is greater in Israel than in any other Arab country, infant mortality is lower than in any other Arab country, life expectancy is greater than in any other Arab country and well we probably should not go into the standard of life for an Arab female in Israel compared to that on offer elsewhere in the region should we.

I suppose the muslim Arabs belong to an inferior race?

“NickC” said the Israeli Arabs “received better healthcare than in the neighboring countries, far better education, far superior employment opportunities and although the average Arab wage is 60% lower than the average Jewish wage, the cost of living in Arab areas is 60% lower and the wage in comparison to neighboring countries is like chalk and cheese.”

 

NickC’s comparisons are exactly the same as those used by the South African regimes of the eighties to justify their apartheid policies, which were designed to achieve ethnic segregation with a view of maintaining the “white race” supremacy. The Africans in South Africa were getting better salaries, better work opportunities and maybe even superior healthcare than their counterparts in the neighbouring African states, so I suppose it was OK if they were treated as second class citizens in their own country by European immigrants. Two wrongs don’t make a right.So the Israeli Arabs have their own football team but their wages are 60% lower than the average Jewish wage because the cost of living in the Arab areas is 60% lower. Why this huge disparity in the cost of living in a country as small as Israel. Is the standard of living 60% lower too?  Nick you have just proved my point, Israel is a racist state. It exercises sovereignty over its own territory through a system of citizenship in which rights and entitlements are allocated by religion. You have also proved that you are a racist because you are prepared to accept this enormous difference in the standard of living between the Israeli Arabs and the Israeli Jews because the Arabs in the neighbouring countries have lower living standards.

Thursday, 19 October 2006 - 11:16 AM BST

Name: "NickC"

Incorrect. It's illegal for an Israeli to pay an Arab labourer a different wage to a Jewish labourer for the same job. The reason the Arabs earn 60% less in wages on average is that they are on average 60% less skilled. Its not like Israel is getting a wave of doctors and IT geniuses flying across the border is it?

Plus you say its a racist state. They live well in a country that accepts them as a legitimate part of the infrastructure. How long do you think a Jew would last in Syria or Lybia? Are these not racist states too then? Do you think the Arab Israeli soldier earns a smaller wage than an Israeli one?

You brought Israel into this debate and although I conceede that Israel is far from perfect and has its faults, the fact of ther matter is that 1 million Israeli Arabs live better and happier than many of thier Arab cousins.

Are there problems that need ironing out in Israel? Yes. Perhaps you should conceede though that the problems Arabs inflict on other Aabs far outweigh them.

Friday, 20 October 2006 - 12:33 AM BST

Name: "chaos"

When did you go anonymous? You're very brave. I finally look in and I see you're having a conversation we had a couple of years ago. Incidenatally, Blackjack served as an illustration of counterfactual regret by one academic.  I'm a little rusty but as I recall, such regret, is more prevalent/heavier in acts of commission rather than ommission. Essentailly, in doing something. So for example there is always greater regret expereinced when an unfortunate event occurs as result of a change in routine, rather than when it happens as a consequence of not changing one. With the war, as I mentioned sometime ago, it has much to do with the killing reference point of going to war, and not the issue of saving lives. As you well know it's about culpability, blood on our hands. These are costs we don't wish to bear.

Unfortunately, 'the do nothing option' is seen as zero cost, but of course it isn't but when it comes to the masses, if it seems that way then it's good enough. Ultimately, we care about what we experience: what happens to others is a transferrable experience to us and so evetually it's the costs that we perceive that actually are that make the difference. And in complicated problems where the numbers can't be put down on paper, then we settle for the impressions those experiences leaves us with to guide us.

It is quite remarkable that people form such sure strong opinions about such complex problems that they can't  understand (in which I utterly include myself); they latch on to one thought or metric'it's wrong to kill', 'it's wrong to for innocent people to die', 'those people wouldn't have lost their lives if it wasn't for us', 'George Bush is bad' and so on.

 There's no doubt the frames of referenesdilemmas of the sort you cite, indicate how weak minded and susceptible we all are. Cognitive dissonance plays an enormous role when people form opinions on such immotive issues such as war. One thing for sure, there are no images of lives saved to offset visual cost of the lives lost. The benefits are of such an operation are often concealed, where costs are not.

I think part of the problem with your dilemma is not so much the act of pushing him, but perhaps, that in the first instance he is an integral part of the problem - he's tied up on the tracks - in the second you are effectively introducing him - an act of commission.   

As for the war, the only opinion I would venture is to say that if we are ever going to know whether the decision was right, it wasn't going to be now. Crudely simplistic, but it's akin to paying for goods well in advance of receipt - the benefits, in the most part, for Iraq were always likely to come well after the, horrific, costs.  Of course those weren't al together the claims, or possibly the beliefs of Bush, Blair et al.

I must admit I am uttery anti Bush, but very pro-Blair (thought his speech at the conference was outstanding & on the money).   It says something about the states that the current presidents brother could be facing the previous one's wife in the next election.  It's alarming to think the security of the world comes down to razzmatazz.

 

View Latest Entries