River Jordan

[a_unique_person]

http://www.theage.com.au/news/World/...489417729.html

Quote:

Moses never crossed it but Joshua did. Jesus was baptised in it and - the gospels say - walked upon its waters where they fill the Sea of Galilee.

And next northern summer, unless something changes drastically, you might be able to do the same: environmentalists say the River Jordan is dying, and will soon cease to flow.

The main problem, as with Australia's Murray River, is excessive use of water for agriculture and domestic consumption. Unlike the Murray, the Jordan is further threatened by the competing demands of four different peoples who don't always get along - the Israelis, Palestinians, Syrians and Jordanians.

In recent years the nations have worked frantically to claim the biggest possible share of the river's water, building dams, irrigation canals and pumping stations to hold back as much of the flow as possible.

This is, after all, a desert region, and for Palestinians, Jordanians and Israelis the Jordan is the main source of surface water.

Friends of the Earth (Middle East), one of the region's few cross-border movements, estimates that human diversion has reduced the river's annual water flow to 50 million to 100 million cubic metres - 10 per cent of its flow 50 years ago.

One of the real background issues of the whole middle east argy bargy. You can't live without water, and it appears there just isn't enough of it to go around. Even if peace was to happen today, I think you can see trouble brewing not too far into the future. Since peace isn't going to break out, it just adds to an already unstable situation.

[webfusion]

This is the "river" in question:




A minor stream, really --- a piddling, meandering brook.

And it leads to a Dead Sea, with no vegetation, no fish, no nutrients whatsoever.

The Kinneret Lake (Galilee) is where the Jordan river loses it's water. Beyond, to the south, is essentially just a trickle.

[Bikewer]

Two years ago, I got a nice "coffee table" book put out by the National Geographic folks, and they went into some detail on the water-shortage problem in that region. It's rather scary.

Even more scary is the fact (recently announced) that at least a third of the Earth's population does not have access to a reliable source of clean drinking water.

[Mycroft]

Quote:

Originally posted by a_unique_person
One of the real background issues of the whole middle east argy bargy. You can't live without water, and it appears there just isn't enough of it to go around. Even if peace was to happen today, I think you can see trouble brewing not too far into the future. Since peace isn't going to break out, it just adds to an already unstable situation.

So how come when Skeptic or I point out the similarities between Abbas and Arafat you claim we are somehow ensuring peace will never happen, yet you're not when you claim the conflict will continue for years to come over water?

[Tony]

Why can't water be imported?

[aerocontrols]

Quote:

Originally posted by Tony
Why can't water be imported?

Piracy on the high seas.

[Skeptic]

The Jordan is probably the most famous river in the world, due to its prominense in both the old and new testaments; but it never was more than a tiny stream using most of the world's definition.

[TragicMonkey]

Quote:

Unlike the Murray, the Jordan is further threatened by the competing demands of four different peoples who don't always get along - the Israelis, Palestinians, Syrians and Jordanians.

You'd think four peoples, all of whom seem to have fairly strong religious inclinations, would stop to wonder if their deity is sending them a lesson in the form of a parable here. Something like, "learn to get along, or die"?

Obviously too subtle. It'll take a Rain of Frogs to get their attention, only they'll probably blame it all on genetically-modified crops or US military experiments.

[Skeptic]

Quote:

Originally posted by Mycroft
So how come when Skeptic or I point out the similarities between Abbas and Arafat you claim we are somehow ensuring peace will never happen, yet you're not when you claim the conflict will continue for years to come over water?

Because it's hard to blame Abbas' holocaust-denial or genocidal intentions on the jews, while it is quite possible to blame water shortage on "israel stealing Palestinian water" or the equivalent.

Since the "root cause" of the conflict just HAS to be the jews' fault, the latter is a possible "root cause" while the former is not.

Simple, isn't it?

[a_unique_person]

Quote:

Originally posted by webfusion
This is the "river" in question:




A minor stream, really --- a piddling, meandering brook.

And it leads to a Dead Sea, with no vegetation, no fish, no nutrients whatsoever.

The Kinneret Lake (Galilee) is where the Jordan river loses it's water. Beyond, to the south, is essentially just a trickle.

Exactly, it is now down to 10% of it's original flow, and everyone takes as much from it as they can.

[a_unique_person]

Quote:

Originally posted by Tony
Why can't water be imported?

The cost would be too high. Water weighs a lot, and humans use much more of it than we often realise. Eg, we have water pipes to our homes, but can make do with a trip to the petrol station once a week.

[Mycroft]

Quote:

Originally posted by Skeptic
Because it's hard to blame Abbas' holocaust-denial or genocidal intentions on the jews, while it is quite possible to blame water shortage on "israel stealing Palestinian water" or the equivalent.

Since the "root cause" of the conflict just HAS to be the jews' fault, the latter is a possible "root cause" while the former is not.

Simple, isn't it?

That was my first guess, but I was looking forward to hearing AUP's twisted explanation. I should have known he would just ignore the question.

[The Fool]

Quote:

Originally posted by Skeptic
Since the "root cause" of the conflict just HAS to be the jews' fault, the latter is a possible "root cause" while the former is not.

Simple, isn't it?

what has this got to do with the jews? Do you imagine all jews somehow support the policies of the Israeli government on the Issue of the Jordan river or are somehow responsible for its actions....quick, show me where that has been claimed?

[Mycroft]

Quote:

Originally posted by The Fool
what has this got to do with the jews? Do you imagine all jews somehow support the policies of the Israeli government on the Issue of the Jordan river or are somehow responsible for its actions....quick, show me where that has been claimed?

Not all Jews, just the thirsty ones living in the Jordan River valley.

[Cleon]

Props to AUP for not responding to "Skeptic" and Mycroft's attempts to bait him and derail the thread.

[Mycroft]

Quote:

Originally posted by Cleon
Props to AUP for not responding to "Skeptic" and Mycroft's attempts to bait him and derail the thread.

Oh you give him props anyway. You and I both know the whole thread is just AUP practicing his favorite sport.

[Cleon]

Quote:

Originally posted by Mycroft
Oh you give him props anyway. You and I both know the whole thread is just AUP practicing his favorite sport.

Yes, how incredibly anti-semitic of him, drawing attention to a dwindling water supply in a populated region. The bastard. Off with his head!

[webfusion]

"Why can't water be imported?"

Israel is negotiating with Turkey.
And the event that New Palestine is created as a State in the West Bank, Israel would want to insure water in the underground aquifier is also made available to her, just as Jordan made sure by treaty that it gets a fair share of the water from the Jordan River & Kinneret diverted eastward (by Mekorot, the Israel National Water Carrier).


Also:
a_u_p says that the Jordan is down to 10% of it's "original flow"?? Where is that information from?

Not from HERE:
http://exact-me.org/overview/p30.htm

No such statistic HERE, either:
http://www.d-n-i.net/al_aqsa_intifada/collins_water.htm

I know that the River has undergone serious degradation (and the Dead Sea has suffered from this).
I just wonder where you obtained that specific data of 10%?

[Mycroft]

Quote:

Originally posted by Cleon
Yes, how incredibly anti-semitic of him, drawing attention to a dwindling water supply in a populated region. The bastard. Off with his head!

Cleon, you're such a kick.

[aerocontrols]

Quote:

Originally posted by webfusion
Also:
a_u_p says that the Jordan is down to 10% of it's "original flow"?? Where is that information from?

From Friends of the Earth (Middle East).

[The Fool]

Quote:

Originally posted by Mycroft
Not all Jews, just the thirsty ones living in the Jordan River valley.

then maybe you could explain that to "skeptic"? He thinks Jews are the borg.

[a_unique_person]

Quote:

Originally posted by Cleon
Yes, how incredibly anti-semitic of him, drawing attention to a dwindling water supply in a populated region. The bastard. Off with his head!

The region has enough problems as it is, serious environmental ones are all it needs.

The reference to the river in Australia is because this is also a mostly desert place, and the water resources are also being devestated. The Murray cannot even make it to the sea by itself any more. Fortunately (?), it is all the one country, the differences are all internal between states.

[Skeptic]

Quote:

Originally posted by Mycroft
That was my first guess, but I was looking forward to hearing AUP's twisted explanation. I should have known he would just ignore the question.

Which will it be, though, I wonder?

The "since the water situation is bad, it is ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT to point out the evil israeli stealing of...." version, or the "the water situation clearly shows that in the future, the artificial and illegitimate israel will collpase due to..." version?

Place your bets, ladies and gentlemen...

[Cleopatra]

Quote:

Originally posted by Cleon
Yes, how incredibly anti-semitic of him, drawing attention to a dwindling water supply in a populated region. The bastard. Off with his head!

I am sorry. Apart from drawing attention to the problem and starting an interesting conversation, he posts a personal opinion as he has every right to do so:
( bold face mine)

Quote:

originally posted by a_unique_person
Even if peace was to happen today, I think you can see trouble brewing not too far into the future. Since peace isn't going to break out, it just adds to an already unstable situation.

No problem with that BUT Mycroft is right to point out the inconsistency in unique's stance.

He believes that it's ok for him to draw conclusions about the future of the peace process without aknowledging the same right to Mycroft and Skeptic.

[a_unique_person]

Quote:

Originally posted by Cleopatra
I am sorry. Apart from drawing attention to the problem and starting an interesting conversation, he posts a personal opinion as he has every right to do so:
( bold face mine)



No problem with that BUT Mycroft is right to point out the inconsistency in unique's stance.

He believes that it's ok for him to draw conclusions about the future of the peace process without aknowledging the same right to Mycroft and Skeptic.

I think I have despaired at the prospect of a real peace ever being achieved before. I have heard the following joke is heard both sides of the issue.

A man asks God "Will there be peace in the Middle East"?
God answers, "Yes, but not in my lifetime".

If you want to trust in Mycrofts mind reading powers, look at this thread http://randi.org/vbulletin/showthrea...threadid=55105 , now he even knows what books I have or have not read. Is there no end to his supernatural abilities?

[Mycroft]

Quote:

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I think I have despaired at the prospect of a real peace ever being achieved before. I have heard the following joke is heard both sides of the issue.

Excellent. You really are brilliant in your own way. The way you subtly shift the topic when it suits you. Can we forgive an old man for momentarily succumbing to despair? Of course, it's silly to even ask.

Only that wasn't the topic.

You were not being criticized for predicting continued strife in the Middle East. That would be silly. Everyone predicts that.

No, you were being criticized for applying different standards to yourself than you apply to Skeptic and I.

It's not an important issue, but useful in illustrating how you work.

Quote:

Originally posted by a_unique_person
If you want to trust in Mycrofts mind reading powers, look at this thread http://randi.org/vbulletin/showthrea...threadid=55105 , now he even knows what books I have or have not read. Is there no end to his supernatural abilities?

I think it's impossible to read half a book that disputes the effects of global warming without realizing it doesn't deny global warming. I think that's an easy mistake to make if you only know of a book by reputation or reviews, but impossible if you've actually read it.

Having stated that position, I realize it's a negative that can't be proven beyond all doubt, but your demonstrated ignorance of the content of the book is enough evidence that I feel comfortable with the assertion.

[a_unique_person]

Quote:

Originally posted by Mycroft


I think it's impossible to read half a book that disputes the effects of global warming without realizing it doesn't deny global warming. I think that's an easy mistake to make if you only know of a book by reputation or reviews, but impossible if you've actually read it.

Having stated that position, I realize it's a negative that can't be proven beyond all doubt, but your demonstrated ignorance of the content of the book is enough evidence that I feel comfortable with the assertion.

This post is more an example of how you work. You have deduced things you have no idea about at all, based on sheer guesswork. Perhaps you can learn something from this.

The book is huge, it has many sections, numerous footnotes and references. The global warming section is one of about a dozen topics it addresses.

You get the idea, after reading about five topics, what his methodology is and why it is so flawed. I own the book, I have spent many hours reading it, and many more chasing down references that he uses to justify his claims.

You, on the other hand, have absolutely no idea, but you can make these absurd claims about what I think and what I have done and when I have lied. This claim is just as baseless, vapid and ignorant as all your other claims about me.

I am, however, grateful that you have used your usual standards of logic and debate in an area outside of your usual ones, because it crystalises just how empty you are of logic and rigour.

[gnome]

Maybe this has been covered before... can someone send the info on Abbas holocaust denial?

[The Fool]

Quote:

Originally posted by a_unique_person
This post is more an example of how you work. You have deduced things you have no idea about at all, based on sheer guesswork. Perhaps you can learn something from this.

The book is huge, it has many sections, numerous footnotes and references. The global warming section is one of about a dozen topics it addresses.

You get the idea, after reading about five topics, what his methodology is and why it is so flawed. I own the book, I have spent many hours reading it, and many more chasing down references that he uses to justify his claims.

You, on the other hand, have absolutely no idea, but you can make these absurd claims about what I think and what I have done and when I have lied. This claim is just as baseless, vapid and ignorant as all your other claims about me.

I am, however, grateful that you have used your usual standards of logic and debate in an area outside of your usual ones, because it crystalises just how empty you are of logic and rigour.

A_U_P
my advice would be to ignore the little prick. He is simply tag teaming with skeptic to try to bait you..

[CapelDodger]

Quote:

Originally posted by Mycroft
Not all Jews, just the thirsty ones living in the Jordan River valley.

As if those Jews are just there, not immigrants from well-watered homelands introducing the civilised concept of "lawn" to a place entirely alien to them, where water has always been a constraint. People who seem to regard pumped artesian water as newly created, rather than extracted from the water-table that feeds the Jordan (and the Dead Sea). People whose leaders cast their eyes greedily toward the Litani River - which could so easily, by dint of Israeli technological wizardry and somebody else's money, be diverted into the headwaters of the Jordan. People who grub up olives and grow subsidised cucumbers for the European market.

People have lived sustainably along the Jordan for many thousands of years, Jews amongst them, but not zionists. And I'm sure they will do again, after this current nonsense plays itself out.

[Mycroft]

Quote:

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I have spent many hours reading it, and many more chasing down references that he uses to justify his claims.

I was going to let this drop, but c'mon! You?! Chasing down references?

Previously the only evidence I had for my hunch (and I do admit it was only a hunch) was the unlikelyhood of your having read half a book and somehow comming away with the impression that it denied global warming when in fact it discussed effects of global warming.

It seemed unlikely. Not impossible, but unlikely. I called "B*llsh*t." I didn't have proof, but I was willing to lay down the evidence before the jury of our peers and let the judgments fall where they may.

But now you give me more evidence.

Exhibit A: We've all seen examples of your scholarship.

Let me rephrase that.

We've all seen examples of your "scholarship." You claim you were checking references? C'mon, we all know you don't do that.

Exhibit B: You claim to have forgotten the book didn't deny global warming, but you also claim to have paid enough attention to have checked its references.

I don't know about you, but I only check a books references when the subject is very controversal and I'm interested enough in the subject that I might want to argue (for or against) its points later. Clearly this book is controversial, clearly you're interested in global warming. What I find incredable is that you were so interested in the book as to check its references, yet you forgot it didn't actually deny global warming.

And let's be honest: global warming is your primary environmental interest. It's not likely to be the thing you forget.

Exhibit C: We might believe you decided to exceed your normal scholarly standards this one time and check this books references, but what's impossible to believe is you showed this much interest this one time, but only read half the book!

So there we have it. Four reasons (exhibits A through C, plus my initial doubts) not to believe you read this book. I freely admit none of this evidence is in and of itself conclusive, but taken all together...well, let's just say the prosecution rests.

[Mycroft]

Quote:

Originally posted by CapelDodger
As if those Jews are just there...

Oh yeah. Thanks, CapelDodger for connecting the dots AUP didn't quite have the guts to do on his own.

[The Fool]

Quote:

Originally posted by Mycroft
I was going to let this drop, but c'mon! You?! Chasing down references?

Previously the only evidence I had for my hunch (and I do admit it was only a hunch) was the unlikelyhood of your having read half a book and somehow comming away with the impression that it denied global warming when in fact it discussed effects of global warming.

It seemed unlikely. Not impossible, but unlikely. I called "B*llsh*t." I didn't have proof, but I was willing to lay down the evidence before the jury of our peers and let the judgments fall where they may.

But now you give me more evidence.

Exhibit A: We've all seen examples of your scholarship.

Let me rephrase that.

We've all seen examples of your "scholarship." You claim you were checking references? C'mon, we all know you don't do that.

Exhibit B: You claim to have forgotten the book didn't deny global warming, but you also claim to have paid enough attention to have checked its references.

I don't know about you, but I only check a books references when the subject is very controversal and I'm interested enough in the subject that I might want to argue (for or against) its points later. Clearly this book is controversial, clearly you're interested in global warming. What I find incredable is that you were so interested in the book as to check its references, yet you forgot it didn't actually deny global warming.

And let's be honest: global warming is your primary environmental interest. It's not likely to be the thing you forget.

Exhibit C: We might believe you decided to exceed your normal scholarly standards this one time and check this books references, but what's impossible to believe is you showed this much interest this one time, but only read half the book!

So there we have it. Four reasons (exhibits A through C, plus my initial doubts) not to believe you read this book. I freely admit none of this evidence is in and of itself conclusive, but taken all together...well, let's just say the prosecution rests.

will you be applying for the million? Changing your name to the mystic Mycroft? Tell us O visionary one.....

and you were never going to let anything drop, being a prick is your hobby.

[Mycroft]

Quote:

Originally posted by The Fool
will you be applying for the million? Changing your name to the mystic Mycroft? Tell us O visionary one.....

I've laid out my evidence. I gave reasons why I believe he didn't read the book that have nothing to do with psychic powers. I'll admit it's not "beyond all shadow of a doubt", but I think it passes "preponderance of the evidence."

Quote:

Originally posted by The Fool
and you were never going to let anything drop, being a prick is your hobby.

Maybe, but it's a hobby we share.

[a_unique_person]

Quote:

Originally posted by Mycroft
I was going to let this drop, but c'mon! You?! Chasing down references?

Previously the only evidence I had for my hunch (and I do admit it was only a hunch) was the unlikelyhood of your having read half a book and somehow comming away with the impression that it denied global warming when in fact it discussed effects of global warming.

It seemed unlikely. Not impossible, but unlikely. I called "B*llsh*t." I didn't have proof, but I was willing to lay down the evidence before the jury of our peers and let the judgments fall where they may.

But now you give me more evidence.

Exhibit A: We've all seen examples of your scholarship.

Let me rephrase that.

We've all seen examples of your "scholarship." You claim you were checking references? C'mon, we all know you don't do that.

Exhibit B: You claim to have forgotten the book didn't deny global warming, but you also claim to have paid enough attention to have checked its references.

I don't know about you, but I only check a books references when the subject is very controversal and I'm interested enough in the subject that I might want to argue (for or against) its points later. Clearly this book is controversial, clearly you're interested in global warming. What I find incredable is that you were so interested in the book as to check its references, yet you forgot it didn't actually deny global warming.

And let's be honest: global warming is your primary environmental interest. It's not likely to be the thing you forget.

Exhibit C: We might believe you decided to exceed your normal scholarly standards this one time and check this books references, but what's impossible to believe is you showed this much interest this one time, but only read half the book!

So there we have it. Four reasons (exhibits A through C, plus my initial doubts) not to believe you read this book. I freely admit none of this evidence is in and of itself conclusive, but taken all together...well, let's just say the prosecution rests.

I think your standard of evidence in making accusations against a JREF poster are now quite evident. When it comes to making anti-semit claims against someone, then the highly charged nature of the debate may make some err on the side of caution, and trust you. When exactly the same methodology is used in an area where it is more easy to be objective, then your lack of any rigour or standards is crystal clear. Four pieces of your 'evidence' carries just as much weight as one million pieces, that is, none whatsoever. I know the truth, I have stated it, and you cannot disprove it.

[Mycroft]

Quote:

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Four pieces of your 'evidence' carries just as much weight as one million pieces, that is, none whatsoever. I know the truth, I have stated it, and you cannot disprove it.

Absolutely. I freely admit I cannot prove my allegations beyond all doubt.

However, I'm satisfied an observer, upon a simple preponderance of the evidence as I've presented it, would find my hypothesis the more likely.

Of course, the observer is probably more amused by our bickering than he is likely to care if you've read the book or not.

For the record, I don't mind. I understand sometimes some people exagerate a little bit. If yuo want to claim to have read a book you only looked at, it's harmless enough. It's okay.

[Cleopatra]

I have heard that water shortage is the number one threat all over the globe. Maybe I haven't heard well. Is there another place on the planet where two groups of people are expected to fight over water or the case of Palestinians and Israelis is unique?

Speaking about UNIQUE. Your avatar gets scarier and scarier...

[CapelDodger]

Quote:

Originally posted by Mycroft
Oh yeah. Thanks, CapelDodger for connecting the dots AUP didn't quite have the guts to do on his own.

Care to join up the dots and explain what you mean by that?

[Mycroft]

Quote:

Originally posted by CapelDodger
Care to join up the dots and explain what you mean by that?

I meant you stated what AUP inferred from the beginning.

You know, the once mighty Jordan River (except maybe it wasn't) now reduced to a trickle by those greedy water-stealing Zionists. Those people who by all rights shouldn't be there as they were supposed to have stayed and died where they were, as opposed to those mystical idealized natives who would magically live in harmony with nature (even though there is no particular evidence anywhere else in the Arab world) despite the comming of industrialization and the increased population density that comes with increased survival through modern medical care, so by God let's hate the Zionists.

Sorry, I thought my meaning was obvious.

[CapelDodger]

Quote:

Originally posted by Mycroft
I meant you stated what AUP inferred from the beginning.

You know, the once mighty Jordan River (except maybe it wasn't) now reduced to a trickle by those greedy water-stealing Zionists. Those people who by all rights shouldn't be there as they were supposed to have stayed and died where they were, as opposed to those mystical idealized natives who would magically live in harmony with nature (even though there is no particular evidence anywhere else in the Arab world) despite the comming of industrialization and the increased population density that comes with increased survival through modern medical care, so by God let's hate the Zionists.

Sorry, I thought my meaning was obvious.

You continue with the hoary myth that Israel was created as a refuge. The recent Russian immigrants weren't faced with that option or death. The immigrants from the US weren't fleeing murderous pogroms in New York. The founders of Israel, the soldiers that conquered the country and drove out the inhabitants, and their leaders were already there pursuing their nationalist cause.

That cause was to create an artificial state populated by people who had no understanding of the land, but a firm Western belief in the powers of technology. Short of water to grow familiar European crops? Dig deeper wells : we have the technology. Jordan running dry? Divert the Litani into it : we have the technology. And somebody will cough up the money. After all, what about the Holocaust?

Arabs have lived sustainably in water-limited regions for thousands of years because that's where they've always lived. Theirs was not a culture that developed lawns and golf-courses. Camel-racing is more the local thing. Control of water as a fundamental part of society is another part of the local culture. If you think back to the Bible stories you may have heard, wells and watering rights feature quite a few times. (Can anyone with a Cruden's Concordance help me out on that?) Olives feature a bit as well. Most modern Israelis hate olive trees - they make the place look so foreign, for one thing.

The particular evidence for Arabs working with nature and understanding water constraints is there in the existence of Arab communities after thousands of years to screw it all up in. Sixty years of Israel and the place is drying out. But technology will fix that : de-salination, the next great white hope. Heaven forbid styles of life might have to change to fit the environment. How many Israelis are going to stay under a water-regime like Amman's? Best not find out, eh?

Further "particular evidence" can be found in Moorish Spain, where the conquering Christians were amazed at the local skill in water management. Since the reconquista it's mostly become desert, of course. That's what happens when a land gets conquered by people who are fleeing from constant bloody raining.