The Football Rules of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict:
RULE 1: Israel has the right to play on both sides of the field, but the Palestinians can only play in their own half.
RULE 2: During the match, Israel has the right to build a wall anywhere across the field to enforce the above rule.
RULE 3: Should the referee ever whistle a foul against Israel he shall promptly be denounced as an anti-Semite.
RULE 4: The Palestinians are encouraged to shoot into their own goal. Players who refuse will be nominated as terrorists and will not be allowed to play.
RULE 5: For security reasons, Palestinians do not have the right to pass the ball to each other.
RULE 6: Israel can occupy any empty space on the field by bringing in a new player.
RULE 7: All Israeli goals are valid. Even those scored during the half-time break.
RULE 8: The Palestinians will only receive their sponsorship money if they agree to let Israel win.
RULE 9: The Palestinians can only play in flip-flops.
RULE 10: There will be no goal post on the Israeli side.
Via 7adaara. Thanks, SP.
This is just insanely false. Victims, victims, victims. You will never find any peace in your lives until you grow up and stop blaming everyone else.
Rule # 11: If anyone should point out the obvious imbalance of rules governing the two sides, Israeli nerds will spam every sports website’s comments section to insist that the conditions offered to the Palestinians were better than any they could have had in domestic matches, and accuse them of focusing too much on the half-pitch and lack of goalpost and not enough on their own play.
Hmm, yeah. Everyone, stop whining, grow up, and get a gun. Mike’s bored with hearing you complain.
good buIIlshit, exactly what sipleminded arabs like to hear.
i would love to know what Homer Simpson says about Palestinians. there must be a lot of “funny truth” also. Or is he just afraid of Springfield imam’s killing fatwa?
RULE # 12: Use chutzpah with abadnon: Israel supporters do not have to note the mountain-sized irony when pointing out Palestinians as being perpetual “victim-whiners”.
RULE 13: Use words like “fatwa” and “jihad” and mention 9/11 alot.If you’re really weird, try “moonbat”.
comon guys, make yourself happy with some more rules, i would be too surprised if u have talked about something more practical…
to mch: where have u read that im israeli supporter? ooh, yes, arabic logic again, i forgot where i am. i would really like to cheer palestinians in this match, but they are just so dumb and naive, im so sorry, i cant.
to dirt: im also sorry to you,but i learned all these bad words during friday prayers under my cairene window.
All my life I been tryn to be neutral, I almost successded in such attemp, but I do find the irony in this post is very close to the truth, but hey!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! whoever got the power should use it !!!!!!!! dont blame Israeli for being strong, blame the Arabs for being weak!!!!!
RULE 1: The Palestinians have the right to deny Israel has a team, a right to a team. When Israel plays at all, the Palestinians have the right to whine about football in general.
RULE 2: During a match, the Palestinians have a right to lob footballs at the audience.
RULE 3: Should the referee ever whistle foul against the Palestinians, his life will promptly be threatened; occasionally, ended.
RULE 4: The Palestinians have and exercise the right to multiple teams. These teams will play one another in “Elimination Rounds” until one wins. The Palestinians then have the right to consider playing Israel, if any Palestinian players survive.
RULE 5: For security reasons, Israelis have the right to inspect the Palestinian players for shivs, and explosives-laden footballs.
RULE 6: The Palestinians have the right to whine about how Israel uses the stadium it has built for itself. They have but do not exercise the right to build a stadium themselves.
RULE 7: All Israeli goals are valid. (Natch!)
RULE 8: The Palestinians will receive sponsorship money when they agree to use it for football, rather than weapons Mercedes’ for the teams’ owners.
RULE 9: Israel must apologize to spectators every time it does anything, ever, in any game, for any reason, in any way, at any time, forever and ever, no matter what.
RULE 10: The Palestinians will have the right to erect a goal post on the Israeli side, once the Palestinians agree upon a goal.
But really, Issandr, I don’t dig the metaphor cos it implies a zero-sum game. Unless it’s an Olypmic style event, in which case I’d happily let Israel win the gold and the Palestinians the silver. 😉
(ps. yeah yeah I know, mine’s not as funny but … I’m in a rush.)
On 1: The Israelis also deny, with the full force of their position, that the Palestinians have a team, the right to have a team, or that they even exist. (Golda Meir)
On 2: Have you looked at the statistics on civilian deaths on both sides lately?
On 3: Did you ever follow the Israeli bombings at Qana, in 1996 and 2006′?
On 4: Dare I mention the non-Israeli teams who play, in their own countries, Israel’s game?
On 5: I you want to talk weapons control, ever heard of Dimona? Or some of the emerging technology weapons being tested in the West Bank?
On 6: The Palestinians had a stadium. Europeans came and took it, with the referee’s help, called it Israel, and are now trying to convince the Palestinians that they should be reasonable and just keep the locker room.
On 7: You make my point.
On 8: Do Israelis have no corruption whatsoever and Palestinians have it all?
On 9: No one wants an apology. An apology is not good enough.
On 10: The Israelis side of the pitch seems to continually expand.
I think considering recent events, we know who’s playing a zero-sum game.
Oh and, #5, MCH: your rule twelve is equating whining about millenia of persecution capped by the Holocaust, with whining about ~60 years of Israeli-Arab conflict? Nice! You really scored a point with that one!!
(It should go without saying that at least I think comments like #4 and #7 are stupid, by the way. For those who care.)
awww nuts, Issandr, my point was that I think there’s plenty of criticism to go around both sides, rather than just one of them. My list is not meant as just a *replacement* for the one posted.
But just on one point —
“The Israelis also deny, with the full force of their position, that the Palestinians have a team, the right to have a team, or that they even exist. (Golda Meir)”
She said a lot worse than the Palestinians don’t exist. She also said horrible things about Arabs in general, as I’m sure you know. But the important thing about Golda Meir, today, is that she’s dead. And at the moment, it’s Ismail Haniyeh and whatshisname, with the pretty eyelashes, in Damascus, who head up Hamas and deny Israel’s right to exist. And as far as I can tell, when multiple members of the Israeli cabinet, including the Premier and his two Vice Premieres (or whatever they’re calling Livni and Peres) publically and consistently insist on a two state solution, and the leaders of the Palestinians publically and continually insist on no recognition of Israel, then putting the blame on the Israelis becomes, at the least, a more sketchy proposition, even given the Wall, checkpoint humiliations, settlement expansion, and “statistics”.
How about all those Israelis (including a few cabinet ministers in recent years, as I remember) who do not want a two-state solution and have been fighting it tooth and nail? Have you ever read Benny Morris’ documentation of the letters of Ben Gurion and other leaders who very frankly discussed the “transfer” of Palestinians and made it very clear they were not there to set up a multi-ethnic or multireligious state or to coexist with Arabs?
Israelis insisting they are all fairness and sweet reason is a bit rich, and there’s a lot of projection going on, a lot of blaming Palestinians for exactly the sort of sentiments that Israelis hold (and for projects they have carried out rather more effectively).
Since israel is a bit more pluralist country than any other arab country, including Palestine, one, even being minister, can have an opinion, that you do not like. but the final decision is made by taking in account more opinions, and as a result, final policy is a compromise – a word rather unknown in the arab world.
i really enjoy your arguing by Golda Meir and Ben Gurion. it looks like progressive thinking par excellence to me, and deffinitelly the right path for achieving peace. bravo
to issandr: imagine that some brave resistance heroes, by total miracle, will manage to blow up all Haifa and kill some hundreds of thousands and as a result, turn your overall statistics upside down. what would it change? it does not matter who wins or loses in statistics for palestinians. i dont think they would feel somehow sorry,but rather make an advantage of it.
i just dont understand, why they declare the war against israel in the name of all palestinians everyday, and than they are surprised that someone wes killed.
Yes, a “bit more pluralist country” in which citizenship is based almost exclusively on religous affiliation and descent, which explicitly has two tiers of citizens and works overtime to limit the second tier (and would kick it out given half a chance). And Ben-Gurion was completely irrelevant to the formation of modern Israel. When the elected ministers of Hamas say the same things as right-wing Israeli ministers, they are of course, apples and oranges.
It must be nice to live in la-la land (with no grammatical or verbal coherence requirements either, apparently).
i would like to inform mr. sp, that there are some people on our planet, to whom english is not the mother tongue. in we even have a right to participate on internet discussions. if u dont mind reading hungarian, russian, czech, just let me know. yes, these r mine lala lands,,and i think i know which one is yours 😉
you still havent told us about more pluralist country in the arab world. sorry for my impatience.
Apples = ALL Hamas ministers say the same stuff and NONE of them recognizes israel. they act and speak like a herd, without any sign of individual thinking.
Oranges = there are A FEW right-wing ministers who say their bullshit, while others do not agree with them. this is plurality, as far as im concerned.
im not going to start the topic of citizenship in the gulf states here. and i bet, that other arab countries do not provide a citizenship randomly. syrian ARAB republic, egyptian ARAB republic..this does not sound strange to u?
Manialovic, my esteemed reactionary friend – first of all, do not assume everyone here is a man (though probably in your la-la land you’d rather not have to deal with inconvenient things like women and Palestinians); secondly, do not assume that everyone who is critical of Israel is necessarily Arab or Muslim.
Hamas ministers do not act and speak like a herd – the press has run several stories about more technocratic Hamas officials who want to focus on governance and realise they will need to make some compromises in order to do so – I suggest you do a quick search of the New York Times in the last few months. I also suggest you read about the political influence of Israeli rightists who refuse to negotiate with the Palestinians and who believe in the divine right of Israel to a mythical biblical land. The sad truth is that even with democracy, Israel has been fairly unwilling to negotiate with Palestinians and has violated agreements repeatedly. The pious fiction of Israeli nationalists that they have been tolerant and law-abiding and peaceful is far removed from reality.
If you want to ask about pluralism in the Arab world, then say so, instead of whining about Israel being a “bit more pluralist” country. Egypt has a 10% Christian population, and while it is not a model of tolerance and secularism, at least it does not consign Christians to second-class citizenship while giving automatic citizenship to any Muslim who parachutes in from any part of the world. Lebanon is a very pluralistic country, much more so than Israel, and has had its own problems, yes, but again it does not formally define citizenship by religious affiliation. Algeria and Morocco have significant Berber populations – who, as far as I know, are not required to live in restricted camps and legally prevented from intermarrying with the majority group the way Arabs are in wonderful liberal Israel.
If your concern about pluralism refers to political pluralism, that is a more valid point, though Israel and the US have been notably opposed to political pluralism and democracy in inconvenient places like Algeria, Jordan, Palestine and Lebanon, have shored up monarchies and have made deals with authoritarian regimes like that of Egypt specifically to secure their own interests, so it rings hollow for Israelis to claim they would like to see more political pluralism or democracy in the region. Plus, Israelis helped fund Hamas in the early days to counter the influence of Fatah and the secular nationalists and they may well be doing the opposite now as they see Hamas as the greater threat – they don’t seem to comfortable with popular will and pluralism when actually confronted with their results. If you genuinely believe more political pluralism and democracy in the Arab world will produce peace, well, put your money where your mouth is and lobby your government to support democratic forces rather than undermining them.
sorry, i couldnt imagine that a woman can be so narrow-minded.
Maniaclogic-
What is it going to take for you to get lost? Shall I sound the Gestapo sirens?
nice try. maniacs like to stick together..so im staying here with u.
If you cannot make reasonable arguments and must instead resort to racist name-calling and phrases like “simple-minded Arabs” and “Arab logic” and “narrow-minded,” M, you are hardly making a good PR pitch for the Israeli viewpoint – quite the opposite.
Dan, on the question of who wants a two-state solution, there’s a difference between talk and action – the Israeli political leadership makes statements about a two-state solution but they quickly backtracked on their Oslo promises and have made it clear that the only sort of two-state solution they will agree to is one in which they get everything they want, and which allows them to lock-in their gains. It’s rather like punching someone, and once they are down, insisting that the game is over and there is to be no hitting from now on. If Israel has won its territory militarily, and is not prepared to make negotiated concessions, surely it should not expect Palestinians to meekly accept the status quo? I mean, if you’re going to do things through force and realpolitik, you can’t credibly take a high moral stance on law and order the moment you’re in a position of strength (though strategically it makes sense – but Israelis like to argue morality, which is just ridiculous).
Hey SP.
a) Thanks for rebuking Manialovich. I felt if I’d said what you said, you’d all think I was being disingenuous to score nice-guy points, or something. (And Manialovich, she’s right about the PR angle, too. Diss Arab politics: okay. Diss Arab “minds”: racist. At the very least, know your audience.)
b) “…but they quickly backtracked on their Oslo promises…”
I’ll admit I don’t know enough about Oslo — I was too young back then to follow the politics so closely — but I am 100% certain (I mean, I’ve read enough to feel comfortable in asserting) that, if you (not you specifically but the general you) want to talk about Israeli backtracking, I could come back at you with Palestinian failures to take even the steps that might later be backtracked upon. I don’t have a list of Palestinian Oslo failures handy, but I’m sure it wouldn’t be too hard to assemble.
(More generally, peace, in this case, will prove itself to be an interative thing. Oslo, I think, will eventually be thought of as the first draft. Creating something this original and so it’ll last — that’s going take another couple of efforts, at least. Novelists go through multiple drafts of books, and the first draft is always garbage. Picasso often painted the equiv of fifty paintings on every canvas before settling on a finished product. Peace can’t be anything but like that. The point of which is: Oslo’s failure, and each side’s specific failures, are not guarantees of future failures, but rather, probably, or at least hopefully, the opposite.)
“…have made it clear that the only sort of two-state solution they will agree to is one in which they get everything they want…”
And the Palestinians/Arabs “have made it clear” that the only sort of solution they will agree to is one in which they get everything they want — no The-Jewish-State-Of-Israel. Both positions can’t be anything but opening negotiating positions. (Or maybe it’s just my wishful thinking?) If I were PM, for example, I’d be a super duper softy in general, but I’d still start out my negotiations with saying I’m keeping every single one of those nutty religious Greater Israel settlers in every single one of those nutty settlements, and I would stress how I’d never, EVER, accept any form of the right of return, and blah blah blah, and more blah. And my counterparts would make a lot of noise about their own blah blah blah. And then. At the end, after I came close to throttling my counterparts, and they me, we’re end up with the settlement pretty much everybody knows we’re going to end up with, at some point, somehow: ’67 borders, West Bank settlements mostly pulled out (and any kept would only be in exchange for a fair amount of Israeli-land), and some fudging on the (ehem, so called) right of return, which would allow the Palestinians to say they got it while not endagering Israel’s Jewish idendity. And we’ll know it was successfull if everybody leaves the negotiation equally unhappy. And it’ll happen no matter what the opening gambits are. Anyway. No I don’t think Israel’s actions have made its opposition to 2-state solution abundantly clear. (I’ll agree they could have given plenty of room for doubt, but that’s a very different thing.) Also, I think Israel’s talk, and it’s population’s continual and generally strong support for 2-states, *have* made Israel’s support for a 2-state solution clear.
“It’s rather like punching someone, and once they are down, insisting that the game is over and there is to be no hitting from now on”
I am speaking as an Israeli when saying the following: THEY STARTED IT! Israel did not throw the first punch. Israel wasn’t sitting there, just itching to take over the West Bank and Gaza, in 1967, or wishing to get attacked by multiple Arab armies. What you’re saying is like, how dare Israel win a war it didn’t start and then expect the losers to understand that when you threaten to push a country into the sea, and then actually try to do it, and fail, you’re going to be f*cked, someway, somehow, even if you’re fighting an army of bona-fide angels.
Laaaaaaaaaastly! As for moral high grounds… I’m not sure I personally lean on morals, too often, in my arguments. If the tables were turned, I’m sure I’d be quite inclined to support “terrorist” tactics.
—-
Oh and, Mr. * — how very very clever of you. Oh ho ho ho — GESTAPO sirens! I truly wish I had such intellect. No, seriously, I sit up nights, in my backyard, watching the stars in the rich, dark, New Jersey sky, at night, and think: man, oh man, I wish I could be more like those people who make Nazi references to Jews.
Dan-
I simply “responded” (or, even better, “retaliated”) to Maniclovich’s attack on Arabs. Maybe I was indiscriminate about it, but it got the job done, kind of like Israeli air strikes.
Oh, and you’re right about Maniclovich and his lack of PR training. He’s not sophisticated enough to say one thing and think another. Kind of like how you harbor racist beliefs about Arabs and meanwhile try to sell the Zionist li(n)e to them.
Blast it, I showed my true self again. I’m going have to go back to the Elders’ 12-Step training program (part IV: Show False Empathy For Thy Enemies Now So That You May Smite Them Easily Later), and then come back to this blog with a new name. Shi-it.
Oh but not before I drink some Christian baby’s blood, use my world networks’ many tentacles to topple a few central banks, dictate policy to my state’s senators, and beat up the Palestinian toddler I have in my basement, who I keep there just so I can kick him when blog comments get me frustrated. Cos I’m a Zionist and that is what we do. You better watch out, cos I control the ISP Issandr’s blog is running on, and I know your IP. We’re coming to get you, *. Run. Run!! We take no prisoners. We show no mercy. Resistance Is Futile!
(sorry I can’t help myself)
hey guys, i didnt know you come here to do PR, i thought we rare here to share our opinions..now i understand.
what is racist on “arab logic”? i hope u agree with me that there does exist something like that. only difference is, that u perceive it positivelly, me not.
..and dont be so happy, just because i was off for one day, please.