thanks cosmo! but i dont like reading. is there an unbiased documentary on the conflict?
on a side note, as a young child i never had any personal contact with ethnic jews. well, i knew a vietnamese kid that was adopted by a jewish family and i went to his manhood celebration thing which was kinda cool. dude got to bust out these old scrolls or something and wear the yamulka and scarf thing that i dont know the name of. then he sang a song and then we ate and fucking PARTIED! well, partied as much as junior high school country bumpkins could.
anyways, my only other contact with jews was the tv. mostly this conflict shit which always scared me. but i was also a huge fan of the tv show "northern exposure" and the main character was jewish. he made it seem cool. the conflict shit made it seem real fucking stupid.
anyways, i was talking with a coworker yesterday about that show "beauty and the geeks" which i might add is a pretty good show. anyways, i was telling her that them beer model girls are so patient and that's attractive to me but then there's that one autistic nerd that is so starved for attention/human contact that he winds up acting like a total ass most of the time. and the coworker girl was like "nah. he's just being jewish." well, i dont really like having long conversations with any of these ladies around here so i just left it at "well, now." and made my exit.
Wait: vVietnamese kid, scarf, war and conflict...are you sure dude wasn't Cambodian and you were witnessing a Kmer Rouge military campaign? Just playing.
If you are outraged that innocent people are targeted by Israel, then you are implicitly saying that non-soldiers should be left alone in war. If one side is recruiting teenagers, strapping them with explosives and sending them off to kill civilians and the other side is taking extraordinary risks to only kill the recruiters and coordinators of these attacks, then I'm using the same morality of the accuser.
Jesus, your logic is twisted. Are you that stoned already? Implcit meaning is interpretation not delivery.
If one side is recruiting teenagers, strapping them with ___________ and sending them off to kill [anybody] and the other side is taking extraordinary risks to [make claims to] only kill the recruiters and coordinators of these attacks, then I'm going to shoot my neighbor and take her parking space..
Everybody:
Right wing talking points are that Amnesty International hates freedom because they critique of our handling of prisoners at Gitmo.
First of all, you are getting awfully personal accusing me of writing propaganda and sounding like the 14corners and twisting what I wrote about Amnesty. It is true that they other human rights groups like Betselem and human rights watch have criticized the organization's methodology in counting civilian victims of Israelis attacks. That has nothing to do with the retarded comments about the gulags of our time. Pointing out that there is an ocean of difference between Soviet Gulags and America's detention facilities is common sense grounded in historical prorportion. The burden is on you, Frank, to explain how to account for the order of magnitude difference in the number of victims of the Gulags and Bagram and Gitmo.
Second of all, your rejoinder makes no frickin sense. Back to the case at hand. Do you think Palestinians do not recruit teenagers, strap them with bombs and send them off to blow up civilians? Do you think Israel goes out of its way to kill civilians? If so, please back it up with something less flimsy than an amnesty report and the indictment of a suicide bomb recruiter.
well since the administration has just recently admitted that there was torture going on at their different prisons, it does look like the assessment of the prisons being gulags is closer to the truth....
1) An anonymous UN source on a committee in part staffed by torture states does not a gulag make. 2) We know about most of the unpleasentness in these places because of oversight reports released by the pentagon and at times leaked by the pentagon. such reports are written in order to correct what is viewed as abberant behavior. 3) Do you know how many people died in the Gulags? 4) Political journalists went to the Gulags. Who is in Gitmo? 5) There have been excesses which no one can defend, most notably abu ghraib. But the comparison is ridiculouos.
1) An anonymous UN source on a committee in part staffed by torture states does not a gulag make. 2) We know about most of the unpleasentness in these places because of oversight reports released by the pentagon and at times leaked by the pentagon. such reports are written in order to correct what is viewed as abberant behavior. 3) Do you know how many people died in the Gulags? 4) Political journalists went to the Gulags. Who is in Gitmo? 5) There have been excesses which no one can defend, most notably abu ghraib. But the comparison is ridiculouos.
Vitamoin
But the administration denied that any wrong doing occurred at Abu Ghraib, and only after the pictures started flaoting around and they couldn't ignore it did they actually start to do anything about it. The sad part is that the only thing that happened was a slap on the wrist for those that are really to blame and a few low level teenage or almost teenage kids shouldered the blame... (and I am not saying the people that actually performed the atrocities should not be held accountable, but I think everyone from the top down needs to be held accountable).
Anyway this is just the first of the story to come out, I expect there will be more stories as this gets played out in the foreign press. I am willing to bet that right now the administration has a kind of blackout going on in the US press, especially since support for this mess is at its lowest point ever... I think Bushy might actally be sweating a little bit now... maybe... perhaps.
this thread reminded me of this map, drawn for Harpers magazine in 2001, now hosted by PBS as part of their analysis of the mideast. Anyways, anyone curious about the land population make up of the area should take a look. It shows the population make-up in 1947 pre-Israel, then 1949 after the war, and the the proposed (and rejected) 2000 offer. File is a PDF. Map
actually, i don't think you know me, fuckturd. why don't ref these "other posts" representing how i don't have a clear bias on this issue. biutcdh mutherfucker.
actually, i don't think you know me, fuckturd. why don't ref these "other posts" representing how i don't have a clear bias on this issue. biutcdh mutherfucker.
damn it, all that and you still got more stars than me.
actually, i don't think you know me, fuckturd. why don't ref these "other posts" representing how i don't have a clear bias on this issue. biutcdh mutherfucker.
Sorry, dude.
What I meant was I didnt think you were making comments based on ethnic prejudice. I read them as objective observations that gave me pause to think about my positions.
this thread reminded me of this map, drawn for Harpers magazine in 2001, now hosted by PBS as part of their analysis of the mideast. Anyways, anyone curious about the land population make up of the area should take a look. It shows the population make-up in 1947 pre-Israel, then 1949 after the war, and the the proposed (and rejected) 2000 offer. File is a PDF. Map
First map from that link is totally misleading.
All that yellow space on the first map is a total illusion. It makes the reader think of the difference in population size between Jewish and Arab in terms of proportion of blue to yellow (which would look to be about a million to one). In fact, most of that yellow land was (indeed is in the case of the Negev desert) uninhabited. These are simply artifically drawn areas where Arabs formed a majority, but there may have been no Arabs living in most of that space.
Nor does it clear things up to specify that the blue areas represent Jewish owned land (which it appears the author of the map is actually trying to show). For this implies that the yellow areas were "owned" by the local Arabs. Totally not true. Most of it was British Mandatory land or else owned by absentee landlords.
And for all the "ethnic-cleansing" language that gets bandied about, peep the third map, representing the day after Israel's War of Independence. Two things to note:
1. The Palestinian Arab population centers remain largely intact, even those that ended up in Israel. (Just because what was yellow on the first map is now blue does not mean any Arabs were expelled from these areas; see my point above).
2. Note the total absence of blue in the West Bank and Gaza. Now that's ethnic cleansing for you. Israel ends up containing a pretty sizeable Arab minority after the war. West Bank and Gaza? Totally 100% cleansed of Jews.
It seems like a lot of evils are getting rationalized or at least defended by comparing them to larger, or more dramatic evils. Gitmo isn't as bad as the gulags? WTF kind of defense is that? Palestine uses kids as suicide bombers and therefore Israel cannot be compared to them in its own terroristic practices? What the hell?
I don't pretend to know anything about this stuff but I can recognize hypocrisy and this thread is full of it. And since I have a hard time tuning out such controversy I think it's time to just dead this.
Bottom line, all religious extremists are assholes and fundimentalism along with money has been at the root of most suffering throughout history. Sorry to state such an obvious, banal truth.
this thread reminded me of this map, drawn for Harpers magazine in 2001, now hosted by PBS as part of their analysis of the mideast. Anyways, anyone curious about the land population make up of the area should take a look. It shows the population make-up in 1947 pre-Israel, then 1949 after the war, and the the proposed (and rejected) 2000 offer. File is a PDF. Map
First map from that link is totally misleading.
All that yellow space on the first map is a total illusion. It makes the reader think of the difference in population size between Jewish and Arab in terms of proportion of blue to yellow (which would look to be about a million to one). In fact, most of that yellow land was (indeed is in the case of the Negev desert) uninhabited. These are simply artifically drawn areas where Arabs formed a majority, but there may have been no Arabs living in most of that space.
Nor does it clear things up to specify that the blue areas represent Jewish owned land (which it appears the author of the map is actually trying to show). For this implies that the yellow areas were "owned" by the local Arabs. Totally not true. Most of it was British Mandatory land or else owned by absentee landlords.
And for all the "ethnic-cleansing" language that gets bandied about, peep the third map, representing the day after Israel's War of Independence. Two things to note:
1. The Palestinian Arab population centers remain largely intact, even those that ended up in Israel. (Just because what was yellow on the first map is now blue does not mean any Arabs were expelled from these areas; see my point above).
2. Note the total absence of blue in the West Bank and Gaza. Now that's ethnic cleansing for you. Israel ends up containing a pretty sizeable Arab minority after the war. West Bank and Gaza? Totally 100% cleansed of Jews.
Hey rootless, I think you're missing that the legend shows two different colours of yellow - one for under foreign occupation and one for self-rule. In this case the fact that it was all owned by the British is shown. Also, about the lack of blue in the west bank and gaza, it looks to me like there was never any blue in those areas.
actually, i don't think you know me, fuckturd. why don't ref these "other posts" representing how i don't have a clear bias on this issue. biutcdh mutherfucker.
Sorry, dude.
What I meant was I didnt think you were making comments based on ethnic prejudice. I read them as objective observations that gave me pause to think about my positions.
Oh shit. And here I was thinking I was getting my BEEF
Wow, I read a page and half somewhere in the middle of this. I think I get the idea.
Let me say there is just one path to peace.
Peace.
Peace is the only way to peace.
Every war ever fought has been fought to bring peace. The Palestinians fight to drive Israel out so they can live in peace. The israelis fight to drive the Palestinians out so they can live in peace.
But only by accepting peace will the world achive peace.
When Israelies and Palestinians, Sunnis and Shii, Kurds and Turks, Irish and British, communists and capitolists embrace peace will there be peace.
I'm not trying to beef with Dan here, but the path to peace is victory. There are certain conflicts that should not be settled through negotiations and accomodation. I am not interested in coming to an accomodation with say al-Qaeda, I would hope this president would reject a peace negotiation with bin laden, I am thankful that President Roosevelt did not seek a peaceful way to end hostilities with the Nazis.
I'm not trying to beef with Dan here, but the path to peace is victory. There are certain conflicts that should not be settled through negotiations and accomodation. I am not interested in coming to an accomodation with say al-Qaeda, I would hope this president would reject a peace negotiation with bin laden, I am thankful that President Roosevelt did not seek a peaceful way to end hostilities with the Nazis.
The path to peace for soulstrut may be for you to LEAVE.
I'm not trying to beef with Dan here, but the path to peace is victory. There are certain conflicts that should not be settled through negotiations and accomodation. I am not interested in coming to an accomodation with say al-Qaeda, I would hope this president would reject a peace negotiation with bin laden, I am thankful that President Roosevelt did not seek a peaceful way to end hostilities with the Nazis.
Again.
These people have no shame!
Evoking al-Qaeda refs in relation to the Iraq invasion!
Well, of course, thanks this bungled-up ham-fisted invasion, al-Qaeda is flourishing in Iraq. Now.
Nice work.
I guess the ends justify the means to justify the means that justify the ends.
Or whatever bullshit ya???ll are making up this week.
If you don't like it, don't read it. But you have no right to tell me to leave. I belong here just as much as anyone. And if you disagree with me, come up with an argument instead of suggesting banishment.
If you don't like it, don't read it. But you have no right to tell me to leave. I belong here just as much as anyone. And if you disagree with me, come up with an argument instead of suggesting banishment.
maybe you should contribute something besides delivering your lil neo-con reach around talking points?
I'm not trying to beef with Dan here, but the path to peace is victory. There are certain conflicts that should not be settled through negotiations and accomodation. I am not interested in coming to an accomodation with say al-Qaeda, I would hope this president would reject a peace negotiation with bin laden, I am thankful that President Roosevelt did not seek a peaceful way to end hostilities with the Nazis.
The path to peace for soulstrut may be for you to LEAVE.
You have a remarkable ability to respond to things I never write to forward the same tired Bush lied/Who died simplicities. Seriously dude, this is like your whole campaign to expand intellectual property right law in order to seek legal reparations for some obscure flute player. You argue in extremes, put words in people's mouths. I'm waiting for your classic: Well then sign up dude. What a brilliant insight. No one ever came up with that before. We know, you're mad as hell and you're not taking it anymore. But I mean it's seriously whack. And In the air tonight completely sucks compared to I cannot believe it's true.
If you don't like it, don't read it. But you have no right to tell me to leave. I belong here just as much as anyone. And if you disagree with me, come up with an argument instead of suggesting banishment.
maybe you should contribute something besides delivering your lil neo-con reach around talking points?
do you like records?
I didn't suggest banishment (and yes I have a right to tell you to leave, I died face down in the mud for that right). I suggested you voluntarily leave, cos everyone is tired of listening to your exhaustively researched reactionary bullshit.
You have a remarkable ability to respond to things I never write to forward the same tired Bush lied/Who died simplicities. Seriously dude, this is like your whole campaign to expand intellectual property right law in order to seek legal reparations for some obscure flute player. You argue in extremes, put words in people's mouths. I'm waiting for your classic: Well then sign up dude. What a brilliant insight. No one ever came up with that before. We know, you're mad as hell and you're not taking it anymore. But I mean it's seriously whack. And In the air tonight completely sucks compared to I cannot believe it's true.
Vitamin
Wrong Feel it In the air is much better... sorry. the drum break down kills it.
But seriously, war is not the answer homie, you conquer one group and another is bound to take up the same or similar struggle. It end up being a pissing contest... Self Defense is one thing, but actively looking for a fight is the real problem... Again why are we in Iraq? please to list the most reasoning, since they were such an imminent threat to our national security...
this thread reminded me of this map, drawn for Harpers magazine in 2001, now hosted by PBS as part of their analysis of the mideast. Anyways, anyone curious about the land population make up of the area should take a look. It shows the population make-up in 1947 pre-Israel, then 1949 after the war, and the the proposed (and rejected) 2000 offer. File is a PDF. Map
First map from that link is totally misleading.
All that yellow space on the first map is a total illusion. It makes the reader think of the difference in population size between Jewish and Arab in terms of proportion of blue to yellow (which would look to be about a million to one). In fact, most of that yellow land was (indeed is in the case of the Negev desert) uninhabited. These are simply artifically drawn areas where Arabs formed a majority, but there may have been no Arabs living in most of that space.
Nor does it clear things up to specify that the blue areas represent Jewish owned land (which it appears the author of the map is actually trying to show). For this implies that the yellow areas were "owned" by the local Arabs. Totally not true. Most of it was British Mandatory land or else owned by absentee landlords.
And for all the "ethnic-cleansing" language that gets bandied about, peep the third map, representing the day after Israel's War of Independence. Two things to note:
1. The Palestinian Arab population centers remain largely intact, even those that ended up in Israel. (Just because what was yellow on the first map is now blue does not mean any Arabs were expelled from these areas; see my point above).
2. Note the total absence of blue in the West Bank and Gaza. Now that's ethnic cleansing for you. Israel ends up containing a pretty sizeable Arab minority after the war. West Bank and Gaza? Totally 100% cleansed of Jews.
Hey rootless, I think you're missing that the legend shows two different colours of yellow - one for under foreign occupation and one for self-rule. In this case the fact that it was all owned by the British is shown. Also, about the lack of blue in the west bank and gaza, it looks to me like there was never any blue in those areas.
No I saw that. It's still not right. The two color shades rightly show that both the Arab and Jewish populations before the War of Independence were under foreign rule, in this case British. But if that's the case, if the whole map was under foreign rule, why are uninhabited areas of the map "Palestinian" and not "Jewish"? Specific areas of Jewish settlement are blue, while the entire rest of the map is yellow, regardless if there is actual settlement (which there couldn't be, because it would mean continous uninterupted Palestinian settlement across the entire yellow area!). See what I mean? The colors are misleading.
And as for the of blue in the west bank and gaza, take a closer look. There are age-old Jewish communities in Jerusalem and south of Jerusalem (in Hebron for instance) that were wiped out in '48. Jews only came back after 1967 when they could. Those dots might seem small but proportionately represent a large percentage of the Jewish population. And that is exactly my point about the misleading colors: While only the geographic areas of Jewish settlement, no matter how densely populated, are shown in blue, the whole rest of the map , whether inhabited or not, is shown as "Palestinian." Get it?
At the risk of insulting your intelligence: Consider an open field. Then there's a highrise apt containing a million Jews that only covers 5% of the area of the field. A million Arabs inhabit the field also, but are spread out over three villages, all distant from each other. The entire field, however, is actually controlled by a foreign power, none of whose residents live there. Using the model of the map you provided, dividing Arab and Jew into yellow and blue, only 5% of the map would be blue while 95% would be yellow, despite equal populations. Misleading? You bet.
If you don't like it, don't read it. But you have no right to tell me to leave. I belong here just as much as anyone. And if you disagree with me, come up with an argument instead of suggesting banishment.
maybe you should contribute something besides delivering your lil neo-con reach around talking points?
do you like records?
I didn't suggest banishment (and yes I have a right to tell you to leave, I died face down in the mud for that right). I suggested you voluntarily leave, cos everyone is tired of listening to your exhaustively researched reactionary bullshit.
Dude, does your computer force you to read only this thread before getting to your email? No. Then shut the fuck up about me leaving then. You don't have to read it. Obviously other people are responding to me. If you tired of reading this, then don't read it.
Comments
Wait: vVietnamese kid, scarf, war and conflict...are you sure dude wasn't Cambodian and you were witnessing a Kmer Rouge military campaign? Just playing.
I'll try to think of an unbiased documentary....
I'm just glad that I had so little work at the office today that I was able to be a part of this beautiful experience.
well since the administration has just recently admitted that there was torture going on at their different prisons, it does look like the assessment of the prisons being gulags is closer to the truth....
in case you missed it:
Story 01
Story 02
Story 03
Interesting that no US press picked this up that I can find...
1) An anonymous UN source on a committee in part staffed by torture states does not a gulag make.
2) We know about most of the unpleasentness in these places because of oversight reports released by the pentagon and at times leaked by the pentagon. such reports are written in order to correct what is viewed as abberant behavior.
3) Do you know how many people died in the Gulags?
4) Political journalists went to the Gulags. Who is in Gitmo?
5) There have been excesses which no one can defend, most notably abu ghraib. But the comparison is ridiculouos.
Vitamoin
But the administration denied that any wrong doing occurred at Abu Ghraib, and only after the pictures started flaoting around and they couldn't ignore it did they actually start to do anything about it. The sad part is that the only thing that happened was a slap on the wrist for those that are really to blame and a few low level teenage or almost teenage kids shouldered the blame... (and I am not saying the people that actually performed the atrocities should not be held accountable, but I think everyone from the top down needs to be held accountable).
Anyway this is just the first of the story to come out, I expect there will be more stories as this gets played out in the foreign press. I am willing to bet that right now the administration has a kind of blackout going on in the US press, especially since support for this mess is at its lowest point ever... I think Bushy might actally be sweating a little bit now... maybe... perhaps.
Map
actually, i don't think you know me, fuckturd. why don't ref these "other posts" representing how i don't have a clear bias on this issue. biutcdh mutherfucker.
damn it, all that and you still got more stars than me.
I curse your children
Sorry, dude.
What I meant was I didnt think you were making comments based on ethnic prejudice. I read them as objective observations that gave me pause to think about my positions.
First map from that link is totally misleading.
All that yellow space on the first map is a total illusion. It makes the reader think of the difference in population size between Jewish and Arab in terms of proportion of blue to yellow (which would look to be about a million to one). In fact, most of that yellow land was (indeed is in the case of the Negev desert) uninhabited. These are simply artifically drawn areas where Arabs formed a majority, but there may have been no Arabs living in most of that space.
Nor does it clear things up to specify that the blue areas represent Jewish owned land (which it appears the author of the map is actually trying to show). For this implies that the yellow areas were "owned" by the local Arabs. Totally not true. Most of it was British Mandatory land or else owned by absentee landlords.
And for all the "ethnic-cleansing" language that gets bandied about, peep the third map, representing the day after Israel's War of Independence. Two things to note:
1. The Palestinian Arab population centers remain largely intact, even those that ended up in Israel. (Just because what was yellow on the first map is now blue does not mean any Arabs were expelled from these areas; see my point above).
2. Note the total absence of blue in the West Bank and Gaza. Now that's ethnic cleansing for you. Israel ends up containing a pretty sizeable Arab minority after the war. West Bank and Gaza? Totally 100% cleansed of Jews.
I am so glad I have not been following this thread.
I appreciate the above #s, accept this is bad statistics The accurate way to figure this # would be cost per us tax payer. Which is something around $500.00 I would think.
I don't pretend to know anything about this stuff but I can recognize hypocrisy and this thread is full of it. And since I have a hard time tuning out such controversy I think it's time to just dead this.
Bottom line, all religious extremists are assholes and fundimentalism along with money has been at the root of most suffering throughout history. Sorry to state such an obvious, banal truth.
Hey rootless, I think you're missing that the legend shows two different colours of yellow - one for under foreign occupation and one for self-rule. In this case the fact that it was all owned by the British is shown. Also, about the lack of blue in the west bank and gaza, it looks to me like there was never any blue in those areas.
Oh shit. And here I was thinking I was getting my BEEF
(halal/kosher--it's all pink on the inside).
soul strut lurkers!
"I like this Fatback. I give him four stars."
"No, Habib, he is hatter infidel. I give him three."
"Both you western bottom bitches don't know shit. I kill him bitch stars!"
Let me say there is just one path to peace.
Peace.
Peace is the only way to peace.
Every war ever fought has been fought to bring peace. The Palestinians fight to drive Israel out so they can live in peace. The israelis fight to drive the Palestinians out so they can live in peace.
But only by accepting peace will the world achive peace.
When Israelies and Palestinians, Sunnis and Shii, Kurds and Turks, Irish and British, communists and capitolists embrace peace will there be peace.
The path to peace is peace.
Dan
I'm not trying to beef with Dan here, but the path to peace is victory. There are certain conflicts that should not be settled through negotiations and accomodation. I am not interested in coming to an accomodation with say al-Qaeda, I would hope this president would reject a peace negotiation with bin laden, I am thankful that President Roosevelt did not seek a peaceful way to end hostilities with the Nazis.
The path to peace for soulstrut may be for you to LEAVE.
Again.
These people have no shame!
Evoking al-Qaeda refs in relation to the Iraq invasion!
Well, of course, thanks this bungled-up ham-fisted invasion, al-Qaeda is flourishing in Iraq. Now.
Nice work.
I guess the ends justify the means to justify the means that justify the ends.
Or whatever bullshit ya???ll are making up this week.
anyone know what the record for longest thread is?
if we included this with the 4 page thread from 2 days ago that this thread was warning us about do we have a new record?
maybe you should contribute something besides delivering your lil neo-con reach around talking points?
do you like records?
Never that. Diversity of views is where it's at.
Dan
Fatback,
You have a remarkable ability to respond to things I never write to forward the same tired Bush lied/Who died simplicities. Seriously dude, this is like your whole campaign to expand intellectual property right law in order to seek legal reparations for some obscure flute player. You argue in extremes, put words in people's mouths. I'm waiting for your classic: Well then sign up dude. What a brilliant insight. No one ever came up with that before. We know, you're mad as hell and you're not taking it anymore. But I mean it's seriously whack. And In the air tonight completely sucks compared to I cannot believe it's true.
Vitamin
I didn't suggest banishment (and yes I have a right to tell you to leave, I died face down in the mud for that right). I suggested you voluntarily leave, cos everyone is tired of listening to your exhaustively researched reactionary bullshit.
Wrong Feel it In the air is much better... sorry. the drum break down kills it.
But seriously, war is not the answer homie, you conquer one group and another is bound to take up the same or similar struggle. It end up being a pissing contest... Self Defense is one thing, but actively looking for a fight is the real problem... Again why are we in Iraq? please to list the most reasoning, since they were such an imminent threat to our national security...
No I saw that. It's still not right. The two color shades rightly show that both the Arab and Jewish populations before the War of Independence were under foreign rule, in this case British. But if that's the case, if the whole map was under foreign rule, why are uninhabited areas of the map "Palestinian" and not "Jewish"? Specific areas of Jewish settlement are blue, while the entire rest of the map is yellow, regardless if there is actual settlement (which there couldn't be, because it would mean continous uninterupted Palestinian settlement across the entire yellow area!). See what I mean? The colors are misleading.
And as for the of blue in the west bank and gaza, take a closer look. There are age-old Jewish communities in Jerusalem and south of Jerusalem (in Hebron for instance) that were wiped out in '48. Jews only came back after 1967 when they could. Those dots might seem small but proportionately represent a large percentage of the Jewish population. And that is exactly my point about the misleading colors: While only the geographic areas of Jewish settlement, no matter how densely populated, are shown in blue, the whole rest of the map , whether inhabited or not, is shown as "Palestinian." Get it?
At the risk of insulting your intelligence: Consider an open field. Then there's a highrise apt containing a million Jews that only covers 5% of the area of the field. A million Arabs inhabit the field also, but are spread out over three villages, all distant from each other. The entire field, however, is actually controlled by a foreign power, none of whose residents live there. Using the model of the map you provided, dividing Arab and Jew into yellow and blue, only 5% of the map would be blue while 95% would be yellow, despite equal populations. Misleading? You bet.
Dude, does your computer force you to read only this thread before getting to your email? No. Then shut the fuck up about me leaving then. You don't have to read it. Obviously other people are responding to me. If you tired of reading this, then don't read it.