Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: They are poor, and the vast majority of them have absolutely no education whatsoever. People who are uneducated are easily swayed by corrupt leaders and ideology.
Yet again I wonder where you get your facts, I can't confirm this but a quick search shows...
quote
The Palestine refugee community has traditionally placed great emphasis on education as the key to a better future. Despite often difficult circumstances, Palestinians are one of the most highly educated groups in the Middle East. This achievement has been made possible in large part by the contribution of UNRWA in educating three generations of refugees.
Also an interesting read as it seems according to this Jewish Website a study found that a majority of Palestinians polled would recognize a Jewish state. Admittedly it would be nice to see it a larger margin but encouraging none the less.
quote
But in June 2010, before direct peace talks began, results were more positive. At the time, 58% of the Palestinians said they would be willing to accept Israel as a Jewish state under the aforementioned terms, while just 39% objected.
Issa Zalibi, a 45-year old farmer from Beit Ummar, told Yedioth Ahronoth, "Israel is already a Jewish state. I don't mind recognizing it as such if this means I can live in my own nation, Palestinian or Muslim."
IP: Logged
10:33 PM
May 25th, 2011
cliffw Member
Posts: 35951 From: Bandera, Texas, USA Registered: Jun 2003
Originally quoted by newf: The Palestine refugee community has traditionally placed great emphasis on education as the key to a better future. Despite often difficult circumstances, Palestinians are one of the most highly educated groups in the Middle East. This achievement has been made possible in large part by the contribution of UNRWA in educating three generations of refugees.
Originally posted by Pyrthian: do we submit to the UN or no? I normally hear about how the UN should NOT be acknowledged, but it seems when conveinant - it is reffered to as authourity...so - is it? or aint it? (the UN a authourity to be acknowldged as the world power?) should the US submit to UN authourity? pretty sure thats an overwhelming NO - but - let us see.....
Submit, ? Do you have any brains ? Referred to as authority ? Any linked source, from any entity, is usually referred to as authoritative. One has to test the source. The UN, ... let's see. Mohamar Kadafi of Libya as head of the Human Rights Council (If I recall correctly), the UN ban on Iraqi oil sales, only to be covertly facilitating the same. How stupid can you be to suggest we should consider the UN as an authority, more so acknowledged as a world power. So newf, that out of the way, you suggest that the Palestinians place great emphasis on education as a key to a better future. Meh ... sounds good. What are they being taught ? Death to Israel, death to America. Propaganda. Though nothing new to nations who wish to enslave their own people. North Korea does it by brainwashing it's entire population to love "Dear Leader". You also suggest that the Palestinians are one of the most highly educated groups in the Middle East. If I were to believe that, you could knock me over with a feather. The poor, dumb, Israelis. Just imagine how much better of they could be if they were smarter than the Palestinians, . Then you suggest this ...
quote
This achievement has been made possible in large part by the contribution of UNRWA in educating three generations of refugees.
heh heh heh, oh my. The whole thing sounds like a self sales job.
IP: Logged
12:26 PM
82-T/A [At Work] Member
Posts: 22805 From: Florida USA Registered: Aug 2002
The Palestine refugee community has traditionally placed great emphasis on education as the key to a better future. Despite often difficult circumstances, Palestinians are one of the most highly educated groups in the Middle East. This achievement has been made possible in large part by the contribution of UNRWA in educating three generations of refugees.
You're too trusting with your sources... the key word here is "one of the most highly educated groups in the Middle East."
What does that mean? That's like saying you're one of the most highly educated groups in Somalia. There is some wealthy up and down the Gaza strip, but there is MASSIVE class warfare throughout the middle east. I know the time I've spent in North Africa, that the overwhelming majority of the people there were dead-poor in Egypt. You had a less than 1% aristocracy, and then a very, VERY small middle-class. Saying that you're one of the most highly educated in the Middle East is not saying much... I don't make light of that, but it's true what I'm saying.
Those who are fighting for borders are really doing nothing more than attempting to disrupt the Jewish state. The fact is, they just don't care... any border is too much of a border, and as I've spoken with many Israelies here... they tell me that most educated Palestinians who live within the borders don't care about this fight, and just want to live their lives. As your article states, they would support a Jewish state because they know that if the Israelis relinquish their borders, the property in the hands of the Palestinians will go to **** and will pretty much look like Kosovo or Somalia...
It's just hilarious to me that this religious conflict in the middle east has been going on for over a thousand years now, and you're convinced somehow that going back to 1967 borders will make a difference. You've got to realize that it's a cultural problem with palestinians that perpetuates throughout the generations.
Here's some videos for you from Hamas / Palestinian TV:
CliifW--Newf did say "one of"--not "the" most educated, tho I do have to wonder what the comparison means. (If a person can say his A-B-Cs and 90% of his neighbors cannot, he is certainly one of the most educated in his area, but it doesn't really mean a whole lot when compaed to a larger group. Just an example)
Again--refugees. Considering, that the largest number of Palestinians are living right on the very land they were born on, more often than not in the same town and even in the same house, I see a bit of ? about that term. The same term could be applied to 100 different groups right here in N. America, if the same definition the UN devised was applied. When a person and his father have lived their entire lives in one location, I have to wonder how the term "refugee" fits--other than it was convienent for the UN. Generally speaking, refugees are those who were driven from their homes by war, famine, or economic reasons, and are living somewhere other than their homeland, When they, as the majority of the Palestinians are, have lived in exactly the same spot their entire life and have never in that life been driven from anywhere, it just doesn't seem to fit the normal definition--regardless of what the Great Impotence known as the UN says. I suppose it depends how much in reverance one views the UN.
When Iraq took over Kuwait on a long standing claim that it belonged to them, did all the citizens of Kuwait suddenly become refugees overnight? Hardly.
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 05-25-2011).]
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: You see, it's not about the borders... it's about the fact that they don't believe in Islam. Wake up dude... seriously.
It REALLY is just that simple. Maybe Newf is not an infidel.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: You're too trusting with your sources... the key word here is "one of the most highly educated groups in the Middle East."
What does that mean? That's like saying you're one of the most highly educated groups in Somalia. There is some wealthy up and down the Gaza strip, but there is MASSIVE class warfare throughout the middle east. I know the time I've spent in North Africa, that the overwhelming majority of the people there were dead-poor in Egypt. You had a less than 1% aristocracy, and then a very, VERY small middle-class. Saying that you're one of the most highly educated in the Middle East is not saying much... I don't make light of that, but it's true what I'm saying.
Those who are fighting for borders are really doing nothing more than attempting to disrupt the Jewish state. The fact is, they just don't care... any border is too much of a border, and as I've spoken with many Israelies here... they tell me that most educated Palestinians who live within the borders don't care about this fight, and just want to live their lives. As your article states, they would support a Jewish state because they know that if the Israelis relinquish their borders, the property in the hands of the Palestinians will go to **** and will pretty much look like Kosovo or Somalia...
It's just hilarious to me that this religious conflict in the middle east has been going on for over a thousand years now, and you're convinced somehow that going back to 1967 borders will make a difference. You've got to realize that it's a cultural problem with palestinians that perpetuates throughout the generations.
I suppose I could go find a guy and ask him what the education level in the Middle East is, that seems to be good enough for some people, who needs actual sources, hey?
You might be surprised about the education of some Middle Eastern countries. Literacy rates are the most common benchmark of education levels.
quote
the average rate of adult literacy (ages 15 and older) in this region is 76.9%. In Mauritania and Yemen, the rate is lower than the average, at barely over 50 %. On the other hand, Syria, Lebanon, the Palestinian Territories and Jordan record a high adult literacy rate of over 90%.
What article did you read to make that assertion?? Your sweeping generalizations of others are fascinating, I believe what the gentlemen said was that Israel is a state so why would recognizing it be a change especially if he were to live in his own state and not a occupied territory.
It's pretty much accepted as far as I can read that a peace plan that is workable includes the '67 borders with certain new realities, it's been the basis of U.S. foreign policy on the regional dispute for years according to what I can find.
Yup, it's hilarious alright. I keep forgetting you figured it out and it's cultural, that people can't change, I mean there is no examples in history where sworn enemies have made peace is there? ahhhh but I guess it wasn't cultural for them.
BTW what is the purpose of the linked videos? Are you trying to convince someone that Hamas is/has been responsible for a lot of the turmoil and hatred?
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 05-25-2011).]
Ah--the old "anecdotal evidence" thing. First person experiences don't count anymore--if it isn't in an "official" study or report, it's meaningless. (altho all those studies and reports rely almost 100% on individual 1st person answers, experiences and surveys)
scenario: (I can see a tornado, watch it destroy my house, but if the weather service didn't see it on their radar and document it, "It didn't happen".
That doesn't change the fact that a tornado did destroy my house, and I witnessed it with my own eyes tho. OTOH, if there were no witnesses, and a house was destroyed, and if the weather service saw a tornado return on their radar, it is accepted without question that a tornado did destroy said house.
(no tornado around my house--above is simply a ficticious example of how far we have moved in the ridiculous need to have some "entity" validate every little occoruance in the world--otherwise--they didn't happen)
Ah--the old "anecdotal evidence" thing. First person experiences don't count anymore--if it isn't in an "official" study or report, it's meaningless. (altho all those studies and reports rely almost 100% on individual 1st person answers, experiences and surveys)
scenario: (I can see a tornado, watch it destroy my house, but if the weather service didn't see it on their radar and document it, "It didn't happen".
That doesn't change the fact that a tornado did destroy my house, and I witnessed it with my own eyes tho. OTOH, if there were no witnesses, and a house was destroyed, and if the weather service saw a tornado return on their radar, it is accepted without question that a tornado did destroy said house.
(no tornado around my house--above is simply a ficticious example of how far we have moved in the ridiculous need to have some "entity" validate every little occoruance in the world--otherwise--they didn't happen)
Great example however we aren't talking about localized weather events are we, we are talking about things that are much more easily documented. Use the line of thinking that we should just believe what anyone says as the truth and on wonders what do you not believe.
Anecdotal evidence is great for certain things. How about you saw this tornado but it wasn't picked up by the weather service and there was no physical evidence? People might be suspect of your claim, however if you and 10 (arbitrary number) others from your area said they saw the same thing and there was a track of destruction where you claimed it was that was similar to other tornados damage then it would be much more believable.
I'm sorry but some guy I don't know who says something because he may have heard is somewhere from someone else is not that convincing especially in terms of generalizing for a group of people.
I don't see it as ridiculous to rely on certain entities for help in learning facts, anecdotal evidence can support those facts which is even better. I guess I'm more skeptical than others when it comes to just believing what another says as automatic truth. Hell if I did I might think the Fiero was the greatest car ever manufactured.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 05-25-2011).]
IP: Logged
04:11 PM
82-T/A [At Work] Member
Posts: 22805 From: Florida USA Registered: Aug 2002
Great example however we aren't talking about localized weather events are we, we are talking about things that are much more easily documented. Use the line of thinking that we should just believe what anyone says as the truth and on wonders what do you not believe.
Anecdotal evidence is great for certain things, such as if you saw this tornado but it wasn't picked up by the weather service and there was no physical evidence people might be suspect of your claim however if you and 10 (arbitrary number) others from your area said they saw it and there was a track of destruction where you claimed it was that was similar to other tornados then it would be much more believable.
I'm sorry but some guy I don't know who says something because he may have heard is somewhere from someone else is not that convincing especially in terms of generalizing for a group of people.
I have to remind myself that in the end, it doesn't really matter whether or not you believe me... this is after all, just a message board, and you'll probably still have false hope that it's all a big misunderstanding, and not misguided religious fundamentalism.
[This message has been edited by 82-T/A [At Work] (edited 05-25-2011).]
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: There's stuff I'd probably not be interested in sharing on here, but suffice it to say, it's not anecdotal. Regardless, I have to remind myself that in the end, it doesn't really matter whether or not you believe me... this is after all, just a message board, and you'll probably still have false hope that it's all a big misunderstanding, and not misguided religious fundamentalism. It's interesting for someone to arm-chair from Canada and tell someone who's been to the middle East, and has family that has lived in the middle East, that somehow what I say is anecdotal.
Very confusing.
False hope? You do realize that it's not just my position that there can be peace between Israel and the Palestinians, correct? It's something that has been at the forefront of U.S. foreign policy for decades. It's something that various world leaders have tried to encourage. It's something that the two peoples seem to want (according to various polling). It's something that many leaders of both peoples have attempted to gain (whether one thinks it was sincere or not).
Maybe you should share your info with those who are wasting their time trying to achieve peace if you know without a doubt trying is futile.
Oh and please don't take it as some kind of personal insult that I don't believe you on certain statements, you're not exclusive in that category as shown on PFF many times I assure you . I question where people get there information all the time, it's not meant to offend, it's meant to help me understand and also (at times) to hopefully challenge the person who makes certain claims to question thier own beliefs/sources. I have no problem with anyone believing whatever it is they like (for the most part) however I would hope they would not expect me to believe them because they just say so, rightly or wrongly. I have been shown to be wrong plenty of times, I don't particularly enjoy it but that's life.
I'm honestly hope you don't think I'm insulting you or anyone else by asking questions or debating, if so it's not my intention, I actually enjoy many of the discussions I have on here because it helps me question what I believe and learn more about subjects.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 05-25-2011).]
IP: Logged
04:24 PM
PFF
System Bot
rinselberg Member
Posts: 16118 From: Sunnyvale, CA (USA) Registered: Mar 2010
Interesting report from Aljazeera's English language website ...
Recent polls show that many (perhaps even a majority) of Israeli Arabs want to remain "Israeli" instead of becoming "Palestinian". They don't want to relocate (or be forcibly relocated) to a new Palestinian state. They don't want to be "land-swapped" into a new Palestinian state. Even though they think that they are at a disadvantage within Israel (vs. the majority Jewish population), they think that their prospects are better as Israeli Arabs than they would be if they became part of a new Palestinian state.
Interesting report from Aljazeera's English language website ...
Recent polls show that many (perhaps even a majority) of Israeli Arabs want to remain "Israeli" instead of becoming "Palestinian". They don't want to relocate (or be forcibly relocated) to a new Palestinian state. They don't want to be "land-swapped" into a new Palestinian state. Even though they think that they are at a disadvantage within Israel (vs. the majority Jewish population), they think that their prospects are better as Israeli Arabs than they would be if they became part of a new Palestinian state.
Makes sense, unemployment is a huge problem in Palestine and the Israeli Arabs don't have to deal with the occupation or as much discrimination that the Palestinians do. Not to mention having to deal with the radicals and Hamas aligned people, I would think they are better off as low key Israeli Arabs. Shows that as much as we like to think we know about "them"(Israeli Arabs and others) for the most part want what the majority of other people do.
quote
Israeli Arabs routinely face discrimination when applying for jobs, and their towns and villages often receive a lower level of government funding than Jewish communities.
In its 2009 report, the Association for Civil Rights in Israel described the discrimination faced by Arabs as "open and explicit", and warned that the government is threatening "their most basic rights – to equality, education and employment – as well as their very citizenship".
Asked why, many cited economic reasons; even the jobless thought their future prospects were better in Israel.
"Our circumstances here are better than there, even though here we don’t feel that we are in the community, or in the society of the Jewish people," said Bashar al-Alimi, an unemployed 38-year-old.
"It’s a difficult question," said Mounir Abu Hussain, a 34-year-old mechanic. "But my job is here, the work is good here, and maybe it would be hard to go into a Palestinian state."
"[Israel] is a Western country, it’s more developed, there are more options, less corruption," said Ismail Athmani, 34. "And I was born in Israel. I’m not leaving."
But the economy wasn’t the only reason why Baqa al-Gharbiyya residents said they prefer Israel to Palestine. Several described the West Bank as a police state, and said that – despite the discrimination they face – they prefer the level of political freedom in Israel.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 05-25-2011).]
IP: Logged
06:28 PM
82-T/A [At Work] Member
Posts: 22805 From: Florida USA Registered: Aug 2002
Makes sense, unemployment is a huge problem in Palestine and the Israeli Arabs don't have to deal with the occupation or as much discrimination that the Palestinians do. Not to mention having to deal with the radicals and Hamas aligned people, I would think they are better off as low key Israeli Arabs. Shows that as much as we like to think we know about "them"(Israeli Arabs and others) for the most part want what the majority of other people do.
That's exactly what I was saying. The ones left who seem to fight this are the ones who are driven by religious fundamentalism... not because they're really all that concerned about borders, but because their corrupt religious leaders tell them that all Jews need to die.
Israelis and Palestines co-exist in harmony within Israel... there are hundreds of Mosques there, inclduing the Dome of the Rock one which is built on the ruins of King Solomon's temple.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: That's exactly what I was saying. The ones left who seem to fight this are the ones who are driven by religious fundamentalism... not because they're really all that concerned about borders, but because their corrupt religious leaders tell them that all Jews need to die.
Israelis and Palestines co-exist in harmony within Israel... there are hundreds of Mosques there, inclduing the Dome of the Rock one which is built on the ruins of King Solomon's temple.
It's a strange dynamic but there are examples of Jewish and Christians living in harmony, as you say, where the Palestinians live as well. The fundementalist voice about all Jews having to die etc... are IMO totally, unequivocally wrong and only are harming themselves.
In fact isn't this a interesting perspective ...
quote
In a 2007 letter from Congressman Henry Hyde to President George W. Bush, Hyde stated that "the Christian community is being crushed in the mill of the bitter Israeli-Palestinian conflict" and that expanding Jewish settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem were "irreversibly damaging the dwindling Christian community".[19][20]
Most Christians in Gaza blame the Israeli occupation pre-2005, the current siege on the city and the war on Gaza 2009 to be the reason for their exodus from Gaza. During the recent war on Gaza, three churches—Baptist, Orthodox, and Catholic—were damaged by Israeli shelling, and many Christians lost their lives during the Gaza offensive.[21] There have been a few reports of attacks on Palestinian Christians in Gaza from Muslim extremist groups. Gaza Pastor Manuel Musallam has voiced doubts that those attacks were religiously motivated.[22] However, the Palestinian President, Prime Minister, Hamas and many other political and religious leaders condemned such attacks.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 05-25-2011).]
IP: Logged
08:44 PM
Formula88 Member
Posts: 53788 From: Raleigh NC Registered: Jan 2001
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: I have to remind myself that in the end, it doesn't really matter whether or not you believe me... this is after all, just a message board, and you'll probably still have false hope that it's all a big misunderstanding, and not misguided religious fundamentalism.
newf continues to illustrate he's not as much interested in the topic of discussion as he is the argument itself. All of his "discussions" progress in pretty much the same manner.
newf continues to illustrate he's not as much interested in the topic of discussion as he is the argument itself. All of his "discussions" progress in pretty much the same manner.
Do explain professor.
I'd also like to know what your intention or purpose was for changing your avatar to the Newfoundland flag? While I did enjoy the support of my home Province I was unsure why you felt like you should help represent this great land, thanks though.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 05-25-2011).]
IP: Logged
08:56 PM
cliffw Member
Posts: 35951 From: Bandera, Texas, USA Registered: Jun 2003
Originally posted by maryjane: CliifW--Newf did say "one of"--not "the" most educated, tho I do have to wonder what the comparison means.
Educated, or, assimulated ? You are right though, point noted, although newf did not claim to support the information he shared. My post was for thoughts sake. Heh, you have a good point also. You can't be a refugee if you still live there. Adding to it, refugees usually get protections of some sort. The Palestinians have never needed none.
The last poll I read (Palestinians) said overwhelmingly, that they wanted no peace plan that excluded them their "assumed" right to return to their homeland, which I found odd, considering that the largest majority of them already were living at home. Poll results 17-19 March 2011
Analysis-10 April 2011.
These are the results of the latest poll conducted by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research (PSR) in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip between 17-19 March 2011.
The part regarding the peace Process is as follows.
(keep in mind tho, that you may not accept these poll results, as all the answers to the questions were by individuals, thus are anecdotal evidence.)
quote
(8) The peace process:
A majority of 69% prefers to have the Rafah border crossing with Egypt, rather than the Gaza border crossings with Israel, open for movement of goods on permanent basis; 27% prefer the opposite 32% support and 63% oppose the attack in the Itamar settlement After the US veto in the UNSC, 69% oppose a large American role in the peace process 56% support and 41% oppose the Arab Peace Initiative 48% support and 50% oppose a Palestinian-Israeli mutual recognition of national identity In the absence of negotiations, 33% prefer going to the UNSC while 25% prefer return to armed confrontations, 18% prefer non violent peaceful confrontations, and 17% prefer dissolving the PA Palestinian attempt to go to the UNSC for recognition of statehood will be met by a US veto according to 75% of the public A unilateral declaration of statehood will change conditions for the better in the eyes of only 24% Peaceful popular revolution against occupation and settlements will succeed in ending occupation and stopping settlement expansion in the eyes of only 31% Two thirds believe that the chances for the establishment of a Palestinian state next to the state of Israel in the next five years are slim or non existent 70% are worried that they or members of their families will be hurt at the hands of Israelis in their daily life or that their land will be confiscated or homes demolished 60% believe that Israel’s long term goal is to extend its state to the whole area between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River and to expel its Palestinian population while 21% believe the goal is to annex the West Bank and to deny political rights to its population. Only 17% believe that Israel’s long term goal is to ensure its security and to withdraw from all or parts of the West Bank.
Interesting that so many object to the 1967 borders and insist on the 1948 borders, which mean an end of existance for Israel:
quote
The largest percentage (45%) believes that the first most vital Palestinian goal should be to end Israeli occupation in the areas occupied in 1967 and build a Palestinian state in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip with East Jerusalem as its capital. By contrast, 27% believe the first most vital goal should be to obtain the right of return for refugees to their 1948 towns and villages, 17% believe that it should be to build a pious or moral individual and a religious society, one that applies all Islamic teachings, and 10% believe that the first and most vital goal should be to establish a democratic political system that respects freedoms and rights of Palestinians.
The largest percentage (38%) believes that the second most vital Palestinian goal should be to obtain the right of return for refuges to their 1948 towns and villages. 25% believe that the second goal should be to establish a democratic political system that respects freedoms and rights of Palestinians, 22% believe that the second goal should be to end Israeli occupation in the areas occupied in 1967 and build a Palestinian state in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip with East Jerusalem as its capital, and 15% believe the second most vital goal should be to build a pious or moral individual and a religious society, one that applies all Islamic teachings.
Also interesting, the # of people that support violence against Israel:
69) Concerning armed attacks against Israeli civilians inside Israel, I….
1) Strongly support Total: 9.2 West Bank: 6.9 Gaza: 13.2
2) Support Total: 33.8 West Bank: 25.7 Gaza: 47.2
3) Oppose Total: 43.4 West Bank: 50.4 Gaza: 31.8
4) Strongly appose Total: 11.2 West Bank: 14.6 Gaza: 5.4
5) DK/NA Total: 2.4 West Bank: 2.4 Gaza: 2.4
With only 11.2% strongly opposing violence against Israel, and 2.4% don't know or have no opinion, that means that in Gaza, with a 1.2 million Palestinian population, that 60.2% of the population of Gaza supports to at least some degree, the violence that has been emanating from Gaza and the West Bank. So much, for the claim by some, that a very large percent of Palestinians in the Wset Bank and Gaza being peacefull. The numbers can be argued of course, but they are going to be above a small minority no matter how you slice it, in support of violence against Israel. 60.4% either strongly support or support violence against Israel. (according to this "official" anecdotal evidence)
I'd also like to know what your intention or purpose was for changing your avatar to the Newfoundland flag? While I did enjoy the support of my home Province I was unsure why you felt like you should help represent this great land, thanks though.
Educated, or, assimulated ? You are right though, point noted, although newf did not claim to support the information he shared. My post was for thoughts sake. Heh, you have a good point also. You can't be a refugee if you still live there. Adding to it, refugees usually get protections of some sort. The Palestinians have never needed none.
When I stayed thru Hurricane Ike, in my home, I was not a refugee. When I departed after a couple days with no electricity, very little fuel, or water, and went to stay with my brother in Arkansas, I became a refugee from Ike. (I have a peice of Govt paper that says so) Once I returned home after nearly 2 weeks, I was (again--according to a piece of Govt paper--no longer a refugee.
The last poll I read (Palestinians) said overwhelmingly, that they wanted no peace plan that excluded them their "assumed" right to return to their homeland, which I found odd, considering that the largest majority of them already were living at home. Poll results 17-19 March 2011
Analysis-10 April 2011.
These are the results of the latest poll conducted by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research (PSR) in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip between 17-19 March 2011.
The part regarding the peace Process is as follows.
(keep in mind tho, that you may not accept these poll results, as all the answers to the questions were by individuals, thus are anecdotal evidence.)
Also interesting, the # of people that support violence against Israel:
69) Concerning armed attacks against Israeli civilians inside Israel, I….
1) Strongly support Total: 9.2 West Bank: 6.9 Gaza: 13.2
2) Support Total: 33.8 West Bank: 25.7 Gaza: 47.2
3) Oppose Total: 43.4 West Bank: 50.4 Gaza: 31.8
4) Strongly appose Total: 11.2 West Bank: 14.6 Gaza: 5.4
5) DK/NA Total: 2.4 West Bank: 2.4 Gaza: 2.4
With only 11.2% strongly opposing violence against Israel, and 2.4% don't know or have no opinion, that means that in Gaza, with a 1.2 million Palestinian population, that 60.2% of the population of Gaza supports to at least some degree, the violence that has been emanating from Gaza and the West Bank. So much, for the claim by some, that a very large percent of Palestinians in the Wset Bank and Gaza being peacefull. The numbers can be argued of course, but they are going to be above a small minority no matter how you slice it, in support of violence against Israel. 60.4% either strongly support or support violence against Israel. (according to this "official" anecdotal evidence)
OK again I'm confused. Why would any of this be anecdotal evidence? I explained my position on anecdotal evidence (I thought) pretty clearly. This is a poll as far as I can see and polls are usually a good representation of opinion.
As for the numbers, they are very concerning and disheartening and IMO more reason for a strong push for a negotiated peace. However these polls are further eveidence (to me) that "They" are not all the same.
IP: Logged
10:59 AM
82-T/A [At Work] Member
Posts: 22805 From: Florida USA Registered: Aug 2002
OK again I'm confused. Why would any of this be anecdotal evidence? I explained my position on anecdotal evidence (I thought) pretty clearly. This is a poll as far as I can see and polls are usually a good representation of opinion.
As for the numbers, they are very concerning and disheartening and IMO more reason for a strong push for a negotiated peace. However these polls are further eveidence (to me) that "They" are not all the same.
I think you need to turn on the radio... the weather service is trying to tell you that a tornado just destroyed your house.
Each poll question is asked of an individual for them to express their personal view upon, just as you, I, and Todd's acquantance does when asked a question--even if it is asked by our own mind. ALL, are anecdotal evidence, since none of us know the person answering the question.
quote
I'm sorry but some guy I don't know who says something because he may have heard is somewhere from someone else is not that convincing especially in terms of generalizing for a group of people.
I also found it interesting, that in the peace process analysis, the writer added the words
quote
"In the absence of negotiations, 33% prefer going to the UNSC while 25% prefer return to armed confrontations, 18% prefer non violent peaceful confrontations, and 17% prefer dissolving the PA.
"In the absence of negotiations" was NOT (as far as I saw) in the actual question in the poll that was printed out on the same page the quotes came from and I linked to. "Anecdotal thoughts" on the writer's part?
Yes, they are disturbing #s, that show there are way more than a "few" that support the terrorism in Gaza and West Bank. While it is true, "they aren't all the same", it is also true that if just 1 in 1000 opposed violence, it would also prove that "not all the same" point.
Again, every poll, every survey is made up of individual pieces of anecdotal evidence--always. Why are some people so prone to throw it out on an individual or small scale, but will happily accept it if it is on a larger scale? Why the trust in one instance, and the instant discard out of hand in the other? It's all the same evidence.
The Jews & Bedouins are more the people of Palestine ,,HOW FAR do you have to unwind your head up into your dark anal tract to support Baby,children killing murdering evil Moslems,does one have to creep into your home & slit the throat of a child??,& you still do not see the truth ,,even the far left press reports on the atrocities The Palestinians are the best educated ,most intelligent of the Moslems,yet act like Typical moslem murdering MORONS. I knew support for Israel would dwindle for the comming WAR,but to many support thier own enemies. Cleaning the hate filled vermin moslem filth out of Ontario, Canada in a few years ,most leftist will Yawn & ignore. The B.C. Chinese plan is to silence them with force,the Chinese scum ,know the Moslems are Slithering Liar Scum.
Again, every poll, every survey is made up of individual pieces of anecdotal evidence--always. Why are some people so prone to throw it out on an individual or small scale, but will happily accept it if it is on a larger scale? Why the trust in one instance, and the instant discard out of hand in the other? It's all the same evidence.
No, it's not the same at all. When a poll is conducted why is it necessary to poll more than one person? Why can't we judge a people by the actions or opinions of one?
Main Entry: anecdotal evidence Part of Speech: n Definition: non-scientific observations or studies, which do not provide proof but may assist research efforts Example: This chapter provides anecdotal evidence from personal interviews, public hearings, and surveys. Etymology: from the sense of anecdote 'unpublished narratives or details of history'
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 05-26-2011).]
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: I think you need to turn on the radio... the weather service is trying to tell you that a tornado just destroyed your house.
Well if one person tells me that, it HAS to be true.
Edit: I just listened to my radio and there was no report from the weather service.... however I know that that can't be correct because you said so. I need no further proof.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 05-26-2011).]
No, it's not the same at all. When a poll is conducted why is it necessary to poll more than one person? Why can't we judge a people by the actions or opinions of a few?
Main Entry: anecdotal evidence Part of Speech: n Definition: non-scientific observations or studies, which do not provide proof but may assist research efforts Example: This chapter provides anecdotal evidence from personal interviews, public hearings, and surveys. Etymology: from the sense of anecdote 'unpublished narratives or details of history'
So, one person "may" not provide proof, but more than one automatically does? Of course not.
Question: Exactly how many people have to be involved in giving data before it is NOT considered anecdotal?
It's basically, only anecdotal, if it is in opposition to one's own opinion, and it's a convenient method of throwing out a portion of any argument or discussion.
There's no difference in this, than stickling one's head in the saned and just thinking one line of thought regardless of any contrary data or information.
So, one person "may" not provide proof, but more than one automatically does? Of course not.
Question: Exactly how many people have to be involved in giving data before it is NOT considered anecdotal?
It's basically, only anecdotal, if it is in opposition to one's own opinion, and it's a convenient method of throwing out a portion of any argument or discussion.
There's no difference in this, than stickling one's head in the saned and just thinking one line of thought regardless of any contrary data or information.
I think you must be missing the definition of Anecdotal Evidence.
If the anecdotal evidence supports or opposes ones own opinion is meaningless in regards to whether something is true or not.
Use your own tornado example. If one person says there was one and the another says there was not. Who do you believe? According to you they are both correct.
quote
Originally posted by maryjane:
There's no difference in this, than stickling one's head in the saned and just thinking one line of thought regardless of any contrary data or information.
So one persons opinion is considered sufficient data or information for proof of something?
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 05-26-2011).]
IP: Logged
02:49 PM
82-T/A [At Work] Member
Posts: 22805 From: Florida USA Registered: Aug 2002
Well if one person tells me that, it HAS to be true.
Edit: I just listened to my radio and there was no report from the weather service.... however I know that that can't be correct because you said so. I need no further proof.
Hahah... I don't believe that you believe me. I need proof.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Hahah... I don't believe that you believe me. I need proof.
Nice try but that doesn't compare on the same level.
How about this? I'll get you the daily broadcast records from whatever radio station you say was reporting this and get you testimony from a bunch of the stations workers and quotes from many listeners.
Then we'll put this up against your statement about what they were reporting.
IP: Logged
03:10 PM
PFF
System Bot
82-T/A [At Work] Member
Posts: 22805 From: Florida USA Registered: Aug 2002
Nice try but that doesn't compare on the same level.
How about this? I'll get you the daily broadcast records from whatever radio station you say was reporting this and get you testimony from a bunch of the stations workers and quotes from many listeners.
Then we'll put this up against your statement about what they were reporting.
How about I don't share these pictures I have of you in a compromising position with everyone... and then you just go along with what I say?
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: How about I don't share these pictures I have of you in a compromising position with everyone... and then you just go along with what I say?
You have a pic of me in a compromising position with everyone???? Yikes
So one persons opinion is considered sufficient data or information for proof of something?
It is, when it, and all others are added together, but you never throw out individual evidence, because the individual evidence is what makes up the whole. People DO throw out individual evidence and data all the time, which is how you get lopsided poll and survey results that simply don't fly when compared to actual circumstances and events in the real world.
IF, individual evidence is flawed simply on the basis that it is anecdotal, then the entire survey or poll result is equally flawed as the entirety is made up of individual "anecdotal" evidence.
So, again, I ask the same question: How many does it take before individual evidence is not "anecdotal"? 2, 1000, 50,000--or until a specified or hoped for results are reached?
It is, when it, and all others are added together, but you never throw out individual evidence, because the individual evidence is what makes up the whole. People DO throw out individual evidence and data all the time, which is how you get lopsided poll and survey results that simply don't fly when compared to actual circumstances and events in the real world.
IF, individual evidence is flawed simply on the basis that it is anecdotal, then the entire survey or poll result is equally flawed as the entirety is made up of individual "anecdotal" evidence.
So, again, I ask the same question: How many does it take before individual evidence is not "anecdotal"? 2, 1000, 50,000--or until a specified or hoped for results are reached?
You can ask it as many times as you want. There is no answer to that question. Or one could argue that it is all anecdotal.
It's just as easy to say how much anecdotal evidence does it take to prove something true?
quote
The expression anecdotal evidence refers both to evidence that is factually unreliable, as well as evidence that may be true but cherry-picked or otherwise unrepresentative of typical cases.[1] In other words, there are two distinct meanings:
(1) Evidence in the form of an anecdote or hearsay is called anecdotal if there is doubt about its veracity; the evidence itself is considered untrustworthy.
(2) Evidence, which may itself be true and verifiable, used to deduce a conclusion which does not follow from it, usually by generalizing from an insufficient amount of evidence. For example "my grandfather smoked like a chimney and died healthy in a car crash at the age of 99" does not disprove the proposition that "smoking markedly increases the probability of cancer and heart disease at a relatively early age". In this case, the evidence may itself be true, but does not warrant the conclusion.
In both cases the conclusion is unreliable; it may not be untrue, but it doesn't follow from the "evidence".
And then there is the confusion with a Logical Fallacy...
quote
Some anecdotal evidence does not qualify as scientific evidence because its nature prevents it from being investigated using the scientific method. Misuse of anecdotal evidence is a logical fallacy and is sometimes informally referred to as the "person who" fallacy ("I know a person who..."; "I know of a case where..." etc. Compare with hasty generalization). Anecdotal evidence is not necessarily representative of a "typical" experience; statistical evidence can more accurately determine how typical something is.
Accounts of direct personal experience are commonly equated to anecdotal evidence where this form of evidence is not one of the above categories of anecdote, hearsay or conclusion deduced from generalisation. Unlike anecdotal evidence the reliability of accounts of personal experience is normally capable of assessment for legal proceedings.
When used in advertising or promotion of a product, service, or idea, anecdotal reports are often called a testimonial, which are banned in some jurisdictions.[citation needed] The term is also sometimes used in a legal context to describe certain kinds of testimony. Psychologists have found that people are more likely to remember notable examples than typical examples.[2]
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 05-26-2011).]
IF, individual evidence is flawed simply on the basis that it is anecdotal, then the entire survey or poll result is equally flawed as the entirety is made up of individual "anecdotal" evidence.
I still think you are missing the point. Anecdotal evidence or logical fallacies are what they are, they fail to PROVE anything. As for polls or surveys the results are merely a representation of peoples feelings or opinions for the most part. I don't disbelieve them but they need to be shown in context, related to something and have stringent polling methods. Take a poll of people who believe Elvis is still alive. I bet you get a percentage that say they do, some that don't and others that don't know. Which percentage is correct? How can it be proven? If it happened that the poll resulted in the majority of people thinking he was still alive does that prove they are correct?
Do you believe everything that is said by someone? Do you never require verification if one person tells you something? How about two? three? When do you question peoples statements? Only when they don't agree with your own opinion or all the time?
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 05-26-2011).]
IP: Logged
04:39 PM
htexans1 Member
Posts: 9110 From: Clear Lake City/Houston TX Registered: Sep 2001
The Jews & Bedouins are more the people of Palestine ,,HOW FAR do you have to unwind your head up into your dark anal tract to support Baby,children killing murdering evil Moslems,does one have to creep into your home & slit the throat of a child??,& you still do not see the truth ,,even the far left press reports on the atrocities The Palestinians are the best educated ,most intelligent of the Moslems,yet act like Typical moslem murdering MORONS. I knew support for Israel would dwindle for the comming WAR,but to many support thier own enemies. Cleaning the hate filled vermin moslem filth out of Ontario, Canada in a few years ,most leftist will Yawn & ignore. The B.C. Chinese plan is to silence them with force,the Chinese scum ,know the Moslems are Slithering Liar Scum.
Stop holding back Uhlanstan, tell us how you really feel. LOL (JOKE)
IP: Logged
04:48 PM
82-T/A [At Work] Member
Posts: 22805 From: Florida USA Registered: Aug 2002
I still think you are missing the point. Anecdotal evidence or logical fallacies are what they are, they fail to PROVE anything. As for polls or surveys the results are merely a representation of peoples feelings or opinions for the most part. I don't disbelieve them but they need to be shown in context, related to something and have stringent polling methods. Take a poll of people who believe Elvis is still alive. I bet you get a percentage that say they do, some that don't and others that don't know. Which percentage is correct? How can it be proven? If it happened that the poll resulted in the majority of people thinking he was still alive does that prove they are correct?
Do you believe everything that is said by someone? Do you never require verification if one person tells you something? How about two? three? When do you question peoples statements? Only when they don't agree with your own opinion or all the time?
Speaking of Elvis... do you guys remember that statistics poll that came out about 6 months ago? It stated that more people in the United States believed that Elvis was still alive, than the percentage of people polled who believed that the 787 billion dollar stimulus package had actually created jobs.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Speaking of Elvis... do you guys remember that statistics poll that came out about 6 months ago? It stated that more people in the United States believed that Elvis was still alive, than the percentage of people polled who believed that the 787 billion dollar stimulus package had actually created jobs.
Seriously are you trying to break my brain? (Or whatever is left of it )
IP: Logged
05:10 PM
Patrick Member
Posts: 36432 From: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada Registered: Apr 99
Speaking of Elvis... do you guys remember that statistics poll that came out about 6 months ago? It stated that more people in the United States believed that Elvis was still alive, than the percentage of people polled who believed that the 787 billion dollar stimulus package had actually created jobs.
Not to take this thread on another tangent, but perhaps that "poll" is more of an indication of what the overall level of education is down there.
? Do you have any brains ? Referred to as authority ? Any linked source, from any entity, is usually referred to as authoritative. One has to test the source. The UN, ... let's see. Mohamar Kadafi of Libya as head of the Human Rights Council (If I recall correctly), the UN ban on Iraqi oil sales, only to be covertly facilitating the same. How stupid can you be to suggest we should consider the UN as an authority, more so acknowledged as a world power.
.
