Quit “LYING.”
I said you would brook no criticism of Israel. Not the same thing.
Lying in order to claim I’m lying.
You’re so meta, spoke.
Your lie is thin and transparent. Brook has a meaning. Saying that I won’t tolerate any criticism of Israel means, indeed, that I haven’t voiced any. Obviously if I’ve criticized Israel then I’ll brook criticism of Israel. And obviously, as I have, you are lying.
Glad I could clear that up for you.
Going to defend the factual accuracy of Carter’s work or why all the “honest mistakes” happen to serve the cause of distorting the truth in order to demonize one side and exonerate the other? Any time now spoke. Any time now.
Neither was Henry Ford, until you dragged him in. To insinuate what you, apparently, haven’t the nerve to say openly. Slanderous insinuation is the style of the weasel, and I look forward to the day when such tactics are beneath you. Today, alas, is not that day.
For fear of being buried under the furious posting going on in here, I wanted to repost this to see if elucidator would address his opinion and my response, as I think its a salient point.
ETA: Upon rereading, I thought elucidator was referring to the 1967 line, but maybe he meant Palestinian lands.
Yes, it means “tolerate.” Not “engage in.”
I have never seen you tolerate criticism of Israel.
Maybe because only one side has gone through it with a fine-toothed comb looking for errors?
Oops, I mean “AGENDA-DRIVEN LIES!!!”
Listen you intellectual prostitute, use your brain. I already told you why I brought up Ford. Perhaps you were too busy backing up spoke’s dishonesty to notice? Again, I used it to rebut the charge (which you were supporting) that philanthropy was a shield against charges of prejudice. You want to have a scrap of intellectual integrity, then why don’t you stop supporting spoke’s dishonesty and you tell him that he’s full of shit when he claims that philanthropy is a defense against substantiated charges of bigotry. Or, why don’t you find another clear example of a bigoted philanthropist if you’re just going to whine at me about Ford. It’s telling that you’ve dreamed up some idiocy about how I’m too timid to insult someone (you poor, poor whore), and can’t even bring yourself to note that, yeah, I did just rebut spoke’s persistent dodge where he tried to avoid Carter’s record as an anti-Israel bigot.
You poor schmuck, at this point you’re arguing that I’m coy and can’t bring myself in insult someone? That I really want to say that Carter is an anti-semite but just can’t bring myself to? What the fuck is even wrong with you?
I already explained all this to you, your ignorance is feigned.
I’ll also point out that in addition to your general revolting character flaws, you’re now engaging in hypocrisy. You’re slandering me by alleging that I’ve suggested Carter is an anti-Semite, and you’re doing so because you are a fucking asshole who can’t bring himself to disagree with someone if agreeing with them gives you an opportunity to try to annoy me. You can’t just say “Gee spoke, you’re wrong, philanthropy is no barrier to bigotry, stop saying that.” Instead, you supported him. And as soon as I showed, conclusively, that spoke was using an irrational dodge, you invented charges of dishonesty.
One of us is a weasel, and it’s the one in clown makeup.
Wrong, and you’re still lying. Folks who don’t tolerate a behavior rather obvious does not engage in it themselves.
Has your dishonest really gotten you to the point where you’re saying that someone who engages in a behavior can honestly be said not to tolerate it?
Does being an asshole, partisan whore ever tire you out? (And does this signal that you are, finally, going to actually address the factual errors and how they all, invariably, support one side and demonize the other?)
You’re lying when you claim it required a “fine toothed comb”, they’re all very obvious to those who know wtf they’re talking about. You’re being a dishonest schmuck when you claim that there might be a whole slew of issues that cast the Palestinians as demons as the Israelis as blameless, you’re just making that it with your standard Conspiracy Theorist JAQing off “Well, so all the lies that were found demonize Israel and exonerate the Palestinians, but what if there are a bunch more that demonize the Palestinians? I’m Just Asking Questions here, folks.”
To say nothing of the fact that without identifying the “honest factual errors”, how they could be made by someone researching in good faith, and why all of them (other than the ones your JAQing off about) do indeed evince an agenda that they’re propping up… well, you’re pretty much just serving as a partisan whore then. But we all knew that already. Well, except lucy. He’s enough of a prostitute that he’ll jump on anybody’s side, even scum like Sevastopol, as long as they’re arguing against me. You’ve got that whore solidly in your corner.
While I’m not elucidator (eschewing the obvious expressions of gratitude) - I’d say your point is salient, but arguably no longer relevant.
Based on the past behavior of nations, Israel has every right to hold onto territory captured in wars, and more so as it was the aggressee and not the aggressor. It loses that right if other nations stop believing the behavior is justifiable (even if their reasoning is less than admirable in certain cases). “We’ve always done it that way” doesn’t necessarily hold.
Thus we have seemingly hypocritical behavior - as in the case of Britain chiding Israel for not taking forceful enough steps to relinquish captured territory, while simultaneously doing its damnedest to hold onto the Falklands over the protests of Argentina. And Japan probably thought it had reasonable cause to conquer its neighbors right and left in the '30s and '40s, and little reason to listen to countries like Britain, France and the U.S. that had engaged in colonial conquests in the past. But the clock had started running out on that particular activity.
Israel has to play by the new set of rules.
That’s a highly simplified version of reality, but still true, I think.
Could you post that again Finn? The spittle obscured some of the text.
Thank you. But as you say, in the case of the 1967 conflict, Israel was not the aggressor. I’m not sure if elucidator meant that particular conflict or some other one. It snot like the region is lacking for conflict.
What I don’t really understand is how both the Israelis and Palestinians cannot comprehend that their mutual aggression isn’t conducive to long-term security. It just keeps blood swirling down the drain and its like both peoples are in a state of stasis, maintaining some bizarrely violent status quo that doesn’t look like it will ever end if both sides don’t come to the negotiating table in good faith with a mind to try to end this nonsensical conflict.
I suppose I just don’t understand the depths of religious/ethnic hatred that are at play. I just wonder why someone, somewhere over there doesn’t just ask “what in the hell are we doing here?”.
Here, I’ll encapsulate it:
Address the ‘honest errors’ already, don’t handwave them, don’t ignore them, don’t JAQ off about fictional other ‘honest errors’ . Address the pattern of Carter’s lies and how they’re being used. Apologize for lying about me when you claimed I never criticize Israel. Have some basic intellectual integrity and actually defend Carter’s book if you’re going to, rather than continually trying to derail the conversation with bullshit and doges.
And stop trolling (although you and I both know that the goal of your posts to me is to try to piss me off with your dishonesty).
Even you can follow this plan.
Go for it. Try honesty for a while, see if it doesn’t suit you.
Incidentally Finn, since this is your pitting after all, have you ever been checked for Asperger Syndrome?
Just saying…
There is absolutely nothing “hypcrotical” relative to the UK’s position, Falklands is not in any way similar or relevant. The Falklands were discovered, uninhabited territory. The first and only permanent settlers were British Crown settlers, and Argentina never had a claim - indeed Argentina did not exist when the Falklands were settled. The prior claimant was the Crown of Spain and this was settled by treaty. Argentina has never had genuine standing outside the heated imagination of Tiers mondists.
It is rather worth noting that France and the UK renounced colonial conquest and rule for the very good reason that it is morally corrupt, in particular settler colonialism dispossessing the inhabitants.
Quite.
As Jack points out there are quite a few double standards at work. The rest of the world condoned or supported the vast population shifts in Europe and the Indian sub-continent, but created the UNRWA to craft a special definition for the word “refugee” that means actual refugees plus their children and their children’s children and their children’s children’s children, until the end of time. To say nothing of the fact that Hamas itself claims its legitimacy for territorial claims comes from having conquered the land
All that being said, a negotiated peace with territory swaps based around the basic pattern of UNSC 242 and Taba/Camp David is a pragmatic and a moral obligation for Israel as soon as there’s a credible partner for peace leading the PA, which may very well be the case in Fatah currently which is part of why it’s such a damn shame that they’ve removed themselves from the negotiation process currently.
The problem is that there isn’t mutual aggression. The IDF hasn’t ever, for instance, decided to just launch some attacks against peaceful folks. Hamas et al have, repeatedly. You seem to be asking whether or not Israel’s defensive measures are prolonging the conflict. They may very well be, but you have to understand that the Israeli government is, at all times, a fragile coalition built on many, many pieces. Any administration that was in power and deliberately chose not to protect its citizens from attacks would quickly find itself out of power, and replaced with a much more hardcore and hawkish alternative.
Part of it is that it’s literally part of the school curriculum and media put out by Hamas and the PA. Some of it’s certainly to be expected on both sides as it’s a long conflict. But, again, the PA was offered their own sovereign state in 2000-2001, and they refused and launched a war instead. A lot of what we’re seeing now is backlash from that. Israelis had a very hard sell for their own people that the peace process of the 90’s would work. When they were finally being put into practice, terrorism was extraordinary frequent and bloody while the PA choose not to clamp down on it or actively supported it. Then the peace process collapsed when Arafat chose to launch the Second Intifada, in a move that even the Saudis said was not just a shame, but a “crime”.
I guarantee you, if tomorrow the PA and Palestinians in the West Bank renounced violence, embraced peace and agreed to negotiate for a sovereign state, we’d see things progress quickly and ill will die down as it became clear that there was an end to the conflict. Remember, before the outbreak of the current round of hostilities, Israel was one of the Palestinians single largest trading partners and something like 1/4 of the Palestinians made their living in Israel itself.
Quite.*
*not to mention that it got to be beastly expensive, the locals had an alarming propensity to start kicking one’s ass, and it was best to discover a belated sense of moral uprightness and get the hell out. Harrumph.
Even though there are long term benefits to peace, there are significant short term costs, both practical (Israel would likely have to give up large number of settlements and become more vulnerable, Palestinian leaders wouldn’t be able to distract their people with hatred of Israel anymore and their corruption and failure to serve the needs of their people would be revealed), and political (There are vocal segments of both populations that don’t like the idea of a negotiated settlement.)
Add to that the distrust that each side has for the other, and it becomes very difficult to get things done.
And not to mention that WM is (rather predictably) trying to sneak an accusation in via insinuation, and it’s an accusation that’s false to facts. The Jewish migration to Palestine not only didn’t displace the Arabs, it allowed a hugely increased standard of living and allowed even more Arabs to live there than ever before in all of recorded history.
But I’m sure I’m just jumping to conclusions over here, and his mention of displacing indigenous folks was just included to give a fully rounded position on European colonialism and contrast it with the entirely different phenomena of Jewish immigration to Palestine, which he’d agree was just.
Naturally.
So essentially, there is no hope. Its sad, really. So many lives are expended for what amounts to nothing but graves and a religious and ethnic conflict with no end but bloodshed.
When is someone (and in my mind, from the Israeli, ie, the more powerful side) going to stand up and say “All our hands are covered in the blood of children and innocent people over this conflict, we desire it to end, can’t we come up with a solution on our own that is agreeable to both sides?”.
I suppose that’s a pipe dream. The way I see it is that Israel is prosperous, the Palestinian territories (lacking true nation status) are impoverished (partly due to Israeli security impositions), and as long as that poverty continues, and there is no hope for Palestinian people, then the cycle of death will continue.
Fois, your question is both interesting and worthy, but I can’t do it any justice without a total hi-jack. Suffice to say that any property gained by violence by state to state conflict is a crime. I am entirely in my rights to resist a man seeking to bust me in the nose, but gun him down and take his house?
You can find much better explication of this question in debates about the Mexican-American War. Was America provoked? Was it justified? How much did territorial ambitions affect the decision?
A massive oversimplification, to be sure, but it will have to do for now, Finn is having such fun, I am loathe to distract from his joy.