Another disturbing point: Hearn said very few bitcoin nodes are run through Tor. I don't know if that's true, but I think people who run full nodes from an IP that can be traced to them are very naive.

One part of the interview that concerned me: they asked Mike Hearn if he planned to give control of XT over to Gavin Andresen, and Hearn avoided giving a direct answer. It feels a little like witnessing a coup.

I'm skeptical. That really doesn't sound like something Doctor Who would be involved with.

Last reply to the monster May 1 post. This is regarding Israel's mistreatment of the Palestinians. You listed a lot, but I thought it was enough to focus on one to make my points. Obviously I could list any number of examples of Palestinians committing atrocities against Jews/Israelis going back a century. It's not a one sided fight.


Note that this case caused an uproar in Israel. Often the criticisms of Israel start in Israel.

It looks bad, of course, but in comparison to what? The world is a violent place. We could look at the surrounding countries and find similar or worse examples. The difference? That's Muslim on Muslim violence, so it's not treated the same way. When Jordan kills a few thousand Palestinians, Jordanian embassees aren't attacked and hatred towards Jordanians doesn't manifest itself.

The fact that people criticized Israel in this particular case is reasonable, in my opinion. I wouldn't attribute that to Jew-hatred. However, I would say Jew-hatred was the reason for the resulting attacks on Israeli businesses and embassies around the world after this story aired. Here's a description of it from one of the articles you linked to. It describes clear examples of Jew hatred.


The surrounding countries are currently engaging in military action against ISIS. If the media wanted to play supporters of ISIS as being sympathetic, I'm sure they could. They could also find some people who weren't in ISIS but were killed or wounded in a battle. At the moment, the consensus seems to be that ISIS is not only bad but savage, and that fighting them militarily is understandable. The same thing used to be true about Hamas. Maybe we'll live to see the say that Syria and Jordan are being encouraged to negotiate with the "political arm" of ISIS to make a peace deal with the "militant arm" of ISIS.

Israel is held to a higher standard by the rest of the world. This is dangerous. Israel is even held to a higher standard by itself. I suspect this may end up being a suicidal strategy.

Well, that analogy doesn't work as well because Germany lost land to Poland because the Germans were Nazis who lost the war.

Still, I'm willing to discuss it. Suppose some group of Polish nationalists started to hijack airplane and bomb pizza parlors with the demand to return Lwów from Ukraine to Poland. I suspect these Polish nationalists would get little to no sympathy from the world. With the current Russia-Ukraine there's no telling what would happen, but I doubt they'd make serious headway. Maybe Putin would fund some Polish nationalist terrorists or maybe he would kill them all. The rest of the world would probably hardly notice.

The reason this all sounds farfetched is because modern Germans and Poles are reasonably civilized. The same can't be said for modern Palestinians. Barbarism should neither be encouraged nor excused.

The idea of the Palestinian state gradually gaining authority over their territory sounds reasonable. They haven't shown so far that they're capable of living in peace with Israel or fighting terrorists.

If you find the Camp David deal unacceptable or unreasonable, that's fine. But don't be surprised by the results of choosing continued conflict over the deal.


Negotiations work this way right? Barak insists on having A and B and would like C. Arafat insists on having B and C and would like A. Barak offers C and part of B. It reads like you think Barak should've offered Arafat B, C and part of A.


In general, offering the Palestinians less in each successive peace deal sounds like a way to encourage the Palestinians to accept a deal. Leading them to believe rejecting peace deals leads to more generous deals being offered would encourage the opposite.

This specific case is more complicated, of course. Barak already offered more than many Israelis would be willing to accept, and lost the next election as a result. Expecting Sharon to offer more than Barak is irrational.


Disengagement sounds like a reasonable strategy when the other side is unwilling to make peace. Maybe the pro-Palestinian side should sponsor programs to convert Palestinians into Finns.


This doesn't change the conclusion that the Palestinians chose at Camp David to continue the conflict. They may have been right to do so. As I keep saying, I think in the end they will win. The world loves dead Jews, and hates live ones.


They supported Arafat. They elected Hamas. They've voted for a Fatah politician who goes by the nickname Hitler. They name schools after terrorists. They put their children in plays in which they pretend to behead Jews.

The Palestinians do not have a culture which allows them to live in peace with Jews, and they are doing nothing to develop such a culture. They're encouraging a culture of open Jew-hatred. And it'll probably work out for them.

Re whether or not the Palestinians want a peace deal:


I don't trust Hamas. Maybe we feel differently about that. Even so, the quote from the Hamas leader you included isn't particularly promising.


Hamas believes all the land is occupied. An "end of the occupation" for them implies the destruction of Israel. Any "truce" Hamas makes only until they are strong enough to fight for more land/dead Jews. I agree that in your quote above Mustafa of Hamas said in 2006, "calls for the end of the occupation, not the destruction of Israel." Hamas was lying in order to further their position. There's a long history of this in the Islamic religion, dating back to Muhammed. Taqiyya.

Here's a further quote from the Haaretz article you linked to:


If Palestinians voted in a referendum to accept a two-state solution, it's clear Hamas would not accept it. If they pretended to accept it, it would only be as a temporary measure to move to the next stage of the Jihad.


40% sounds plausible. I'm skeptical of the other polls showing higher percentages for more specific questions you included, but maybe someday we'll find out.


I reject the idea that Palestinians are playing a minor role in these issues. They are the ones choosing to place such a focus on hating Israel/Jews instead of being more productive.


I don't think it's a moot point. Whether or not Hamas would continue to hold power in the new government, Hamas would continue to attack Israel. Israel would respond. The world would rise up in anger against Israel attacking a "sovereign state of Palestine" as opposed to the current anger about Israel attacking "occupied territory." Basically Israel would have to give some things up and would get nothing in return. Not even good will from the world.

Re the Gaza sanctions:


I'm happy to let you have David Cameron on your side. It looks like Gazan children have been able to import their crayons for a few years now. Good to know. I wonder what kind of pictures they're coloring?

People should keep in mind that 2007-2010 followed the dual conflicts in 2006, one of which was in Gaza following the kidnapping/capture of Gilad Shalit. Gilad Shalit was being held prisoner during all of that time. Hamas (who had been elected by Gazans in 2006) had a huge card they could've played to lessen the sanctions. They didn't play that card until 2011, and even then Shalit was released to secure the release of about 1000 Palestinian terrorists held by Israel.

As with everything else, one always has to ask what alternatives Israel had. It's clear that they would be condemned regardless.


Reading this positively, it says Israel wanted to avoid a humanitarian crisis. Obviously they could've responded by fire bombing Gaza. I'm not sure what good options Israel had after Hamas took control of Gaza.

The people of Gaza voted for Hamas, more decisively than Germans voted for the Nazis. I don't feel bad for the Germans who died as a result, and I don't feel bad for the Gazans who live under sanctions as a result.


As your sources say, the sanctions are far less restrictive and the blockade has been eased. Has Israel gotten more positive press as a result?

The only reasonable strategy I could imagine for dealing with Gaza is for the U.S./Israel to pay Egypt a few extra billion dollars (on top of the billions Egypt already gets from the U.S.) to annex Gaza. It was previously under Egypt's control already. In an effort to avoid a war with Israel Egypt might be willing to fight Hamas and other terrorists in Gaza. This would likely involve killing 100,000 or so people in Gaza, but if Egypt did it the world would likely look the other way. Egypt got rid of their Jews a long time ago. Even this wouldn't really work. Even if Egypt took care of Gaza, the world would spin it as the Jews being their usual puppetmasters and so on. Jordan killed several thousand Palestinians in 1971 and the Palestinians still blamed the Jews for it (Black September).

@u9y42: This morning I spent time to read your post of May 1. Since the post is already very long, I don't think it's a good idea to respond to it in a single post, so I'll do it in more than one.

Let me start with this:


We disagree about whether or not acknowledging the role of Jew-hatred in the conflict would help solve it.

You wrote a lot, but sentence quoted above provides the best summary of what I think you're saying. You think Israel's actions should be different. In particular, you think they should engage in less military action and be willing to make more concessions to reach some final status agreement. Is that fair to say? Would you like to be more specific about what actions you believe Israel should take and what the likely responses to those actions would be?

I could imagine the conflict ending if the Palestinians generally accepted that they have lost the war. Germany didn't accept its loss from WWI, but has accepted its loss in WWII. Frankly I'm skeptical that anything could convince the Palestinians they've lost. However, suppose if there were a military campaign against the Palestinians similar to the one against Nazi Germany, a campaign that included events similar to the fire bombing of Dresden. Suppose as a result the Palestinians essentially gave up. Suppose most moved to Jordan or Egypt and the ones who remained were given, say, 50% of the disputed territory to form one or two Palestinian states. In that case, would the WWII level military campaign have been worth it? Everyone has to decide for themselves, of course. I don't feel bad about the military campaign against Nazi Germany, and I see the modern Palestinians as occupying a lower moral plane than the Nazis.

It's natural that the Palestinians haven't accepted that they've lost. They haven't lost. In the end they will probably win, and six million Jews will be dead. I think this is the most likely way the conflict will end. The only silver lining for people like me will be watching Hamas and Fatah (or whoever the tribes are at that point) fight for control in the aftermath. Well, that and watching the nanorobots bring about human extinction.

It hasn't been disproven. There are video clips of it that was shown on 9/11 and surpressed shortly afterwards. It's easy to find on youtube now. But I assume you're not saying such video doesn't exist. By "disproven" you probably mean it's been "proven" that the video shows something else. The first version of this I heard around 2003 and said the Palestinian celebration video was just showing a wedding celebration. That's ridiculous, of course, to anyone who sees the video. There's another version now that says cameramen offered Palestinians candy to randomly celebrate for the camera. That's not such an outlandish claim since there's plenty of evidence that Palestinians are accostomed to playing for cameras (Pallywood). However, even in this version, the Palestinians are celebrating 9/11, right?

I understand that it's important for Palestinian supporters to paint them as sympathetic and that acknowledging Palestinians celebrate terrorism and the deaths of thousands of innocent people harms that cause. Consequently, Palestinian supporters sometimes make attempts to deny the obvious: Palestinians support terrorism.

Palestinians name their schools after suicide bombers. Why is it difficult to believe the people who name their schools after suicide bombers would celebrate 9/11?

Let's be honest:

The Palestinians celebrated 9/11. They celebrated 9/11 because they were happy about it. They were happy about it because they see the U.S. as the "great Satan" supporting Israel the "little Satan." They celebrate successful terrorist attacks against either the U.S. or Israel. Every sentence I've written in this paragraph is well-known and obvious, even to everyone on this thread.

It may be useful propaganda for Palestinian supporters to pretend the Palestinians didn't celebrate 9/11, but it doesn't change the obvious truth.

@tins: I took very little interest in the Arab-Israeli conflict before 9/11. Seeing the Palestinians celebrate on 9/11 was a turning point for me well. That's when I started reading about the conflict and realizing what a cartoonish version of the conflict is typically told.

Maybe those of you who support the Palestinians should learn something from those of us who side against them in the post-9/11 world. Maybe it's worth your while not to create more people like me. One way to accomplish this might be to try to train Palestinians not to celebrate and reward terrorism. Otherwise the next time there is a major terrorist attack and they celebrate it, there will be more people who see it and think: who are these monsters?

I can explain why I ask. No analogy is perfect, of course, but in many ways the status of Wrocław (which I'm provocatively referring to as Breslau) mirrors the status of the land west of the Jordan river.

As Bryant Coleman pointed out, Breslau was part of Germany and was ethnically overwhelmingly German in 1900. It continued to be a major German city until after WWII. As part of the post-war reparations, this part of Germany was given to Poland. The reason it is now called Wrocław and is overwhelmingly Polish is simply because the German population was essentially expelled after WWII.

This happened in the late 1940s, the same time period in which the British mandate for Transjordan ended and the state of Israel declared independence. This is the same period of time in which many Palestinians left their homes in the new state of Israel. (Those against Israel would say they were "expelled" while those pro-Israel point to the fact that neighboring Arab countries warned Palestinians to leave in advance of Arab countries going to war with the newly declared state of Israel.)

In the late 1940s, Germans lost Breslau to Poland and part of that involved a significant population displacement. It happened as a result of losing WWII. As I've pointed out before, significant Palestinian leaders were allied with Hitler. In this sense, at least, they were also on the losing side of WWII. The two cases are quite similar.

The situations are also different. There is no outcry to return Wrocław (Breslau) to Germany. There certainly could be. Germans unhappy with the outcome of WWII could start hijacking airplanes and bombing restaraunts. One of their demands could be the return of Breslau. The fact that this isn't happening is largely due to the vast majority of Germans being (apparently) reasonable people who accept the loss of WWII and its consequences. But lets suppose some small minority of German neo-Nazis started committing acts of terrorism to try and return Breslau to Germany. Would international bodies start taking the case more seriously? I doubt it. First of all, the German authorities would obviously say that Wrocław is a Polish city and take steps to catch and imprison the neo-Nazi terrorists. The neo-Nazi terrorists would not be the "militant arm" of any political force in today's German government.

In essence, terrorist acts by German neo-Nazis would be counterproductive if the goal were the return Breslau to Germany.

Why have terrorist attacks by Palestinians resulted in their demands being taken more seriously? I think this is largely due to prejudice against Jews, but also prejudice against Arabs. Of course, many people (including many Jews) who have a problem with Jews, reflexively side against the Jews. In addition, whereas Germans are expected to be civilized, many people do not have the same expectations of Arabs. This is itself a form of bigotry. When Palestinian Arabs commit terrible acts of terrorism, instead of seeing it as something that should undermine their cause, it is seen by many people as the result of throwing someone in a lion's cage. No one's surprised when a lion kills and eats someone. It's a lion. I would prefer it if Arabs were held to the same standards as, say, Germans. But they aren't.

Another very important difference is that Germany explicitly agreed to the reparations at the end of WWII. The conflict is over. This is not the case for the middle east conflict. However, this implies that the conflict is, in fact, ongoing. The fact that Israel takes a series of military measures including bombing campaigns, blockades and checkpoints is hardly surprising when one accepts that they are in an ongoing conflict. The fact that one of the natural conclusions of this conflict would be the destruction of Israel and the murder of the millions of Jews there actually makes Israel's actions seem quite measured.

There is a related question I've brought up more than once:

Is Breslau occupied by the Poles?

There are consequences to losing wars.

But I do think I understand the position of many of those who say that the "West Bank" is Palestinian land occupied by Israel but Breslau is not German land occupied by Poland. Many people believe in some concept of "international law" which means that these kinds of questions are answered by certain "international bodies" (often offshoots of the United Nations). So the West Bank is occupied because certain "international bodies" say so, and Breslau isn't occupied because there aren't "international bodies" who say it is. I find this to be a scary way to look at the world, outsourcing one's judgement to "international bodies" -- but many people find it more comfortable than thinking things through for themselves.

I saw your post(s) but haven't finished reading it yet. Thanks for the effort you put into writing them. I will simply have to wait until I have enough free time to devote to them before responding.

PS: I now recognize Vatican City as land rightfully belonging to Palestinians and will fully support those who apply all means available to return that land to its rightful owners.

Given the strength you claim the Jews have on the internet (like an octopus with the world in its grasp), it's a little surprising there isn't some sneaky Jew Zioagent on this thread, right? Threads like this draw out people like you who hate Jews, so it seems like a good target for those who want to fight Jew hatred, counter support for terrorism, promote knowledge and advocate for Israel.

Or maybe there is such an agent. Someone who's pretending to hate Jews on the thread to engender trust on bitcointalk while at the same time slipping subliminal Jew supporting (Jewporting?) suggestions into his overtly Jew hating posts. If you want to find the Jewgent on the thread, try to think more sneakily.

You mean the U.S.? Eh, like with most conflicts, the U.S. does support both sides. Obviously the U.S. gives support to Israel, but the Palestinians get a shitload of aid from the world. I expect a great deal of that money can be traced back to the U.S., either directly or through international agencies or through third party countries that get direct aid from the U.S.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_aid_to_Palestinians

It helps to understand that a large portion of the pro-Palestinian side believe that, for example, the attacks of September 11 were committed by Jews and/or Zionists and/or parts of the U.S. Government. But definitely not Muslims, because Islam means peace and stuff.

They're literally living in a different reality, so it's not surprising they come to different conclusions.

Wait, is this thread still going? I thought we resolved everything.

There are really three distinct questions.

1. What happened in the past?

2. What is happening now?

3. What are possible futures?

It's clear that the two "sides" have very different narratives as answers to Question 1. It seems to me that it would help if both narratives were well understood. On the other hand, I'm open to the possibility that a peaceful solution is more likely if people just stopped talking about the past. For example, I find it terrible how little attention the Armenian Genocide (committed by Turkey) gets. But it's possible the world is more peaceful today because most people pretend it didn't happen.

The two "sides" also have very different answers to Question 2. This is largely a question of focus. If someone is pro-Palestinian, then they focus on checkpoints, prisoners, settlements and pictures of dead Palestinian kids. If someone is pro-Israel, they focus on suicide bombings, rocket attacks and hostages. If someone is anti-Palestinian, they focus on videos showing Palestinian kids in schools learning to hate Jews and performing in plays pretending to behead Jews. If someone is anti-Israel, they focus on Israeli kids playing with toy guns. It's not that all of these things aren't happening. It's just that if you are on one side then you make sure to focus on the parts that are favorable to the side you favor.

Regarding Question 3. The most likely outcome I can see is 6 million dead Jews, followed by celebrations around the world (including by many of you), followed by an army of nano-robots attacking the human reproductive system. Another outcome might be a two state solution. A two state solution seems like it would require so many things to change (including some fundamental cultural changes for the Palestinians) that it's hard for me to imagine. I'm certainly not convinced that Israel is taking actions that make this outcome "less likely" -- but with the goal so far away and the terrain so complicated it's hard to tell which direction leads towards it and which direction leads away from it.

(Actually, I'm not really sure the phrase "2 state solution" is appropriate. The territory was part of "Transjordan" after WW1 when the British took over. It included what is now Jordan. Jordan is a state with a lot of Palestinians. It seems like Israel-Palestine-Jordan would be a "3 state solution," but whatever.)

Let's suppose a "2 state solution" is the most desirable outcome. To be clear, this means agreed-upon borders and an end to hostilities. (Yes, I know, stop laughing.) Is such a "2 state solution" more likely if people stop trying to answer Questions 1 and 2? Especially regarding Question 1, it should be clear that there will never be agreement about what happened.

People who are anti-Israel only tell one side of the story. I'm making sure someone occasionally points out part of the other side.

I don't think Palestinians have evolved significantly since they allied with Hitler. If anything, the Jew hatred is more open and more intense than it was back then. If you want something more recent I could point to a Palestinian politician with the nickname "Hitler". I first heard of him when he ran in an election with that nickname in 2006, and won (of course). Apparently he's still around.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/12/palestinians-cheer-local-hitler-we-are-all-hitler-we-are-with-you-even-to-death/

And that's Fatah, the "moderates."

And why should Palestinians believe or behave less like Nazis? The world doesn't seem to mind.

Thanks for the pointer. I'll look into them. In the meantime, enjoy my modification of the snake picture you posted previously.


What lies? Well, the main lie David Duke tells is that he is white. It's now clear when one contrasts the color of his truly white beard with his suspiciously dark skin, David Duke is of mongrel blood. This is clear even after the treatment he underwent to make his facial features look more whitey.