No it wouldn’t and that’s why I called it the pragmatic approach. I am still going to do everything I can do protect myself regardless if they promise not to try and kill me anymore so I gain nothing by holding out for that promise vs trying to gain practical concessions, like promising to leave by hedges alone. Of course, I’m still going to guard my hedges too but if he keeps it up for a couple of years I might ease off.
Israel does not trust Hamas. Israel has no reason to trust Hamas regardless of whether or not Hamas gives up right of return, says we won’t bomb you anymore, says Israel can exists or hell, says that Israel is a really peachy country and that they’re all just sorry they weren’t born jewish.
Thus, Israel gains nothing by holding out for moral concessions. The only thing which Israel should trust is actually, factual, practical changes. Like, for instance, a sharp crackdown on terrorists attacks.
Negotion costs Israel nothing. Hamas renouncing violence gains Israel nothing except a nice warm, “we made them back down” feeling.
Now if Hamas actually grows up and decides to act like a real government then we have the potential for progress. If they don’t, status quo. Hamas becomes another Fatah and we’re back where we were.
So, when is the Daily Mirror going to publish its “How Can 4 Million Palestinians Be So Dumb?” headline?
I get the feeling Hamas is starting to understand the meaning of the term “catastrophic victory,” the term used by American military brass after the too-swift fall of Baghdad in 2003. It’s a hell of a lot easier to be the philanthropist/terrorist group waving the green flags and preaching destruction and martyrdom than to fix the potholes, adjudicate disputes, and meet the payroll.
And now with Fatah refusing to join the coalition (while likely barely containing their snickering), I’m reminded of Johnny Caspar’s exasperated lament, “Runnin’ things!” in the movie Miller’s Crossing.
It wouldn’t bother you if your neighbour said they wanted to kill you and drive you off your land? You obviously have more tolerance than I do. I’d at least by down at the police station asking for a restraining order to keep him away from me. There would be no point in talking to such a maniac.
And while I’m at it, the perception that terrorism might work is exaclty why governments can’t give in to it. Otherwise, every time someone wants anything from them, they’ll know that all they have to do to get it is murder enough civilians.
Despite the fact that it’s as emotional manipulative as the rest of your drek filled post, this is the only part worthy of responding to. I agree, that targetting of civilians is wrong. That’s exactly why I think that both the Palestinians and Israelis are equally at fault in the conflict.
As for the rest of it, you still can’t seem to comprehend that I can know something about the issue without coming to the same exact conclusion that you did, and not be a liar. But hey, until you want to recognize that I can disagree with you without lying, you aren’t worth engaging.
Shall we tally up the score so far, oh winged purple monkey? You keep babbling about how I’m “knee jerking” and being “emotionally manipulative” while it’s evident that you know virtually nothing about the region and cannot refute any of my facts, instead resorting to strawmen, absurdities, and pure evasion, like this.
And you were doing so well! Wait, no you weren’t…
But, you are again either painfully ignorant, or a liar.
The IDF does not target civilians.
Try again.
Um… no. You still can’t seem to comphrenend that lying is not a good way to run a debate. You’ll notice, by the way, that I have pointed out all of your lies with factual refutations, and then you’ve just evaded and obfuscated and whined about ‘knee jerking’ and such inanities.
I’ve already demonstrated that on quite a few points you simply have no idea. On some others, like your claim about Isrrael targeting civilians, you’re just a liar.
There are points of legitimate disagreement, but I’ve pointed out where you’re lying through your teeth.
Would you please stop lying while protesting that you’re not lying?
It’s somewhat embarassing.
Quote me, anywhere at all, saying that people can’t disagree without being liars? You can’t do that, can you? You’re lying again, aren’t you? Who’d a thunk it?
No, you’re a liar because you have, many times in this thread, lied. I have pointed those lies out, complete with factual refutations. Your tactics have been to accuse me of racism, to ignore the issues, to pretend you didn’t see my rebuttals, and other various slimey dishoenst behavior.
Run away with your tail between your legs saying about how I’m not worth engaging, but the record of your posts is in this thread and anybody can read it.
See, this is why you aren’t worthy of engaging. You cannot imagine someone disagreeing with you without being ignorant or a liar.
Eh, wrong, a good friend of mine was in a crowd in a Refugee camp in the west bank when the Israelis opened fire. He was wearing a flak vest from one of the activist organizations, which the more seasoned activists had chosen not to wear, because the Israelis TARGET the activists when they spot them by the flak vest. So I’ll take my friend’s first hand account of being in a crowd of civilians when the IDF targetted them, over whatever lofty information that you have that is so superior to anything I might know about the issue.
I’m not lying, and your appeals to emotion aren’t compelling.
Perception of demonstration and actual demonstration are two seperate things. I’ve heard Israelis say things like “We should drive the Palestinians into the sea, since they want to drive us into the sea.”, again first hand knowledge from people involved.
Hey mods, isn’t calling me a liar a personal attack?
Would you please stop trying to harangue me into agreeing with you because I don’t.
You keep callnig me a liar. That’s enough evidence for me.
Anyway, you’re not really worth engaging because you are a jingoist. I don’t agree with your assessment, I am not completely ignorant of the issue, and I am glad that people like you aren’t the ones negotiating for peace, because if they were, there never would be any. You’re a warmonger pure and simple. You have no empathy for the other side, and that’s all there is to it. You are twisting my words to suit your agenda, trying to make emotional appeals in order to make me feel guilty for disagreeing with you, and none of it is working. Go ahead think of me as a liar, if you think I am a liar then I think you are living in a world of delusion.
Shall we tally up the lies? Not differing opinions, but out and out lies?
Targeting civilians and specifically non-military targets like discos and pizza parlors is not defensive, it is offensive and part of a genocidal campaign. This is one lie that cannot be washed away by whinging about how you’re entitled to your own opinions.
I’m not sure if this is a lie, or you’re simply so ignorant of this subject that you never should have opened this thread and spewed your lack of knowledge all over the place. As shown, Hamas held to the same rhetoric and tactics even while Israel was doing its best to make peace.
I will also note that you did not retract your lie even after it was pointed out. So if you were ignorant but flapping your gums you are now intellectually dishonest for not retracting your unfounded and uninformed position. Or, if you weren’t ignorant but were lying then you’re still a liar.
We can chalk this up either to lying, if you were aware of the situation, or to intellectual dishonesty and horrendous debating tactics if you were ignorant and just flapping your gums. And when it was pointed out that such rhetoric and actions were not new on the part of the enemies of Israel of their supporters, you had the massive intellectual dishonesty necessary to not only refuse to retract your position, but to accuse me of racism.
Again, either intellectually dishoenst, especially since you’ve been corrected several times on this very point in this very thread, or an out and out lie. I find it hard to believe that you really are ignorant of the fact that Hamas has been doing its best to realize its murderous goals, and thus your statements about it being only talk can only be seen as a baldfaced lie.
Again, either ignorance driving you to flap your gums and babble, or an outright falsehood. Israel has accepted many refugees while the Arab nations have historically done everything they could to prevent the Palestinians from leaving their refugee camps.
I’ll chalk this up to you being not just a liar but a liar who uses inflamatory inflamatory and an intellectually dishonest rhetoric at that. Instead of addressing the fact that Hamas’ rhetoric or their supporters are not new, you cower and run away while trying to suggest I’m a racist.
It is either a lie or just more intellectual dishoensty, probably coupled with a total ignorance of the issue you’re spewing forth falsehoods about. Instead of realizing that there is a historical link between Arab leaders from Pasha down to the present, and monetary supporters, you again accuse me of racism. Evasive, obfuscatory, absurd and militantly ignorant.
This was just an out and out lie, and rather than retract it when challenged, you ran away and refered to my post as “emotionally manipulative”. The fact of the matter is I never did what you claimed I did, and you are a liar.
Again, either massive intellectual dishonest or a simple lie. You ask this question after I say I’d be the first to support a peaceful two state solution.
Notice, by the way, you have a pattern of being too intellectually dishonest to concede a single point lost on factual grounds. You refer to a massive ammount of data and cites I provide as “drek” and “emotionally manituplative”, ignoring and running away from an argument that actually includes facts rather than your lies.
I am not going to argue with you on this issue, because I don’t see any point. I can’t wade through your jingoism. You are incapable of understanding why I think Hamas might be a good thing despite the very obvious negatives. I don’t think one side is the good guys and the other is the bad guys. I think that’s simplistic, and I’ve never found any conflict where I find it easy to condemn one side as all good and one side as all bad. It’s too complex to even think of in those terms. So there is no point in arguing with you, as you cannot comprehend me still disagreeing with you after all your ‘Corrections’. If I recall however, I’m not the only one who thinks your ideas of the situation are overly simplistic.
Good luck on proving me a liar though, I hope it goes well for you. But let’s get one thing straight, I am not all pro-Hamas or anything. I am just not willing to pick a team in this fight, as I think they are both on about morally equal ground.
Again, please stop lying while protesting that you’re not lying. It makes you look absurd.
I disagree all the time with people, on this very board, without calling them liars. It just so happens that you’re a liar.
:rolleyes:
Cite?
The Israelis just rolled in and targeted some civilians for no reason? There wasn’t a mob goign on? No gunmen? No rock throwing? How about you provide a cite for this story, eh?
Mmm hmm. Why don’t you provide a cite for this supposed massacre, eh?
Somehow I doubt you can.
What’s that, winged monkey?
Want to point out anywhere I made an appeal to emotion rather than factual logical claims?
Of course you don’t, you’d prefer to babble on.
More obfuscatory intellectual dishonesty. Random Israeli citizens saying that is hardly the same as an official IDF policy.
Great factual rebuttal! The fact of the matter is I’ve never said all disagreement is lying, that’s yet another one of your lies. I can only point out that you’re lying, I can’t “harangue” you into stopping lying, unfortunately.
Again, will you please stop lying while whinging about how you’re not lying?
The fact that I call you out on your lies is hardly proof that I believe that everybody who disagrees with me about anything is a liar.
Again, for Og’s sake learn the definition of words before you use them. Look up “jingoist” in a dictionary before you throw it around again. I know it looks neat to you or something of the sort, but words have actual meanings. Yeah, I know, but I guess because I have the upper hand in this debate and have used cites and facts that I’m an oppressor.
You are totally ignorant of the issue, as evinced by your ignorance that I have refuted with cites time and time again, and which you’ve been too intellectually dishonest to respond to. And you are yet again either lying or just being painfully ignorant. Israel has in the past demanded that the PA renounce suicide bombing as a precondition for peace. That’s exactly what happened at Oslo.
But I’m sure you’ll totally ignore this factual refutation with yet more intellectual dishonesty.
~whines~ Mooooods! He’s personally insuuuuulting me!
You are also lying, again. I have said I’d be the first to support a two state solution. You have ignored this, and continue to ignore this in order to make things up. Whee!
Hmmm… are you lying, again?
Why, yes, you are lying again. I never would have guessed.
What’s that, winged purple monkey?
I have made factual claims which you have ignored, I have quoted exactly what you said while you lie about things I’ve said and then refuse to retract your lies, etc…
Obviously it’s not working, because even when given factual refutations and cites you just ignore them and call them “drek” or “emotional [maniuplation]”.
I’ve proven you’re a liar, with your own words in this thread. Oopsie!
Gee, in your private dictionary you must also have a different definition for not engaging.
Funny, they have factual support. So are you being inflamatory and intellectually dishonest, or just lying?
And yet this is, what, your third post to me arguing about this issue after you’ve said you weren’t going to?
Learn the English language please.
Massive intellectual dishonesty, yet again. You put corrections in quotes, even though I have cites and facts and you don’t have enough honor to retract your totally mistaken positions.
Awwww. Well that’s sure proof I’ve got my facts wrong. Bandwagons are so much fun.
Already done.
Yes yes, I know, one side is commited to genocide and the other to survival, so they’re morally equal. Some sound reasoning to add to the intellectual dishonesty.
If the goal was creating a better life for Palestinians and a Palestinian state, it has been completely ineffective. In a narrower sense, Hamas’ involvement in providing local services and being seen as an alternative to a corrupt and ineffective Fatah are what appear to have gained it local political power, not “suicide terrorism and a desire for extermination” of the opposition.
This Forum has an established protocol that notes that in normal (American) English exchanges, the phrases “you have lied” and “you are a liar” have equivalent weight, so the phrase “you are a liar” tends to be regarded differently, here, than other personal insults,
HOWEVER,
when a thread deteriorates to simply two posters repeating the same accusations over and over with no effort to actually engage the discussion, then the thread is endangered as no discussion can be seen through the flames.
For the duration of this thread, I am declaring that accusations of lying will no longer be posted. Point out actual factual errors to your hearts’ desires, but stop the schoolyard “nyah, nyah, nyah” games.
Point taken Tom. Although, to be fair, I’ve been bringing up facts and he’s been ignoring them and making statements about me which are simply not true.
Perhaps he’d like touch on any of the factual refutations I’ve offered to his claims instead of evading them and ignoring them.
Simply because I’m curious, how about the facts of intellectual dishonesty, evasion, obfuscation, and untrue accusations? Saying things like that I’ve said “all Palestinians are terrorists” are simply out and out slanders. Should I simply take this to the Pit and assume that he doesn’t really want to debate and isn’t about to?
It’s not exactly like the failure to debate factual issues is due to both of our conduct. When factual refutations complete with cites are met with evasion and a refusal to even acknowledge them, it’s not my fault.
The thread is to discuss the issue of Hamas, not the issue of the quality of other posters. You are free to point out facts (preferably with citations) that contradict claims made by other posters. I have no problem with dueling citations. If you feel it necessary to remark on the personalities or styles or honesty of other posters, take it to the Pit.
I am not assigning blame. I am noting that the topic should not be derrailed by personal conflict.
I guess I really should know better than to get involved in a ‘debate’ where everyone already has their lenthy lists of cut-and-paste talking points ready and their positions so well entrenched, but here goes anyway:
Or perhaps in some instances it might be a worthwhile idea to put aside the issue of right and wrong and look for a way to avoid too many people getting killed? I don’t seem to recall Reagan having too many issues negotiating with the ‘Evil Empire’ if the outcome was valuable enough.
Well, in general refusing to realise the realities of the situation aren’t that great a way of moving things forward. As for negotiating with terrorists, I don’t believe any nation has such a stated policy, but most people would acknowledge that there is often a wide gap between stated policy and the real world. In fact, pretty much any nation that has had to deal with a non-trivial terrorist movement has done a bit of negotiating, even if it was just to stall for time or establish terms for them to lay down arms. The UK, Germany, Italy, Spain, Colombia and Sri Lanka spring to mind. For some it has worked out, for others not. Then, of course, there is the fact that many nations countries are themselves active sponsors of insurgent or terrorist groups - the US certainly has plenty of experience. I’m pretty sure that if there was a realistic chance of ending the insurgency in Iraq the US would hold its nose and negotiate with Al-Zarquawi or his proxies.
That depends on your definition of ‘give in’, I suspect. Martin McGuinness went from being an active terrorist to a member of the UK government bureaucracy because he gave in on wanting Ulster to become part of Ireland and the UK gave in on keeping it completely outside the influence of Dublin. Sometimes compromise is the only option, and a start has to be made somewhere.
TomFair enough, I’ll try to get this train back on the tracks.
We’ll see what we see.
Refutation: The US has not engaged in any campaigns of genocide.
Evasion: "What they say when their back is to the wall, and what they say when they have something to lose are two different things. "
Request: Admit that a deliberate campaign of genocide is not the same thing as non-deliberately killing civilians, or explain why collateral damage is the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group. Admit that you were slandering US foreign policy when you accused them of the same thing as genocide. Retract your accusation rather than avoiding it.
Refutation: One side has a stated goal of genocide that they are working towards, the other does not.
Evasion: “Yeah, so let’s make sure we keep fueling the flames.”
Request: Admit that trying to exterminate a people is not morally equivilent to not trying to exterminate a people. The side which is trying for genocide loses the moral high ground.
Refutation: One side is the agressor, the other isn’t. In similar examples where casualties were higher on one side than the other, that doesn’t translate into instant moral superiority.
Evasion: Claimed that there is a difference between keeping people isolated in refugee camps and fignting a battle. Ignores the fact that the Intifada is a guerilla upriging and thus a battle. Also ignores that the primary cause for the continuation of the refugee camps are the Arab states, not Israel.
Request: Admit that you were wrong about Israel keeping the Palestinians in refugee camps especially as they’ve admitted thousands of refugees while the Arab nations have a long history of not permitting them jobs or citizenship. Further, admit that simply tallying up casualties does nothing to show which group has the moral high ground, at all.
Refutation: Jingoism has a specific meaning. I am not an Israeli, so I can’t be nationalistic towards my homeland… which isn’t Israel.
Ignored: continued claims of jingoism.
Request: Admit that jingoism has a specific meaning and you’re abusing it.
Refutation: A campaign of genocide against a civilian populace is agressive, not defensive.
Evasion: Ignored.
Request: Either admit you were wrong, or try to justify who instigating violence during peace-time instead of negotiating and having a campaign of genocide is defensive.
Refutation: Again, oppression is a real word with a real definition, you can’t just make one up.
Evasion: Ignored and evaded, stated that any side which has the upper hand is the “oppressor”.
Request: Admit that you have been making up the definition of words and using them in a highly inflamatory manner. Admit that Israel is not the “oppressor” and refrain from using such bombastic and inflamatory phrases in the future.
Refutation: Even during peace negotiations Hamas was engaging in suicide bombing. Showed with cites that those who support Hamas have been those who supported the previous attacks on Israel and that the same rhetoric has been used even in ‘48 by the same organizations.
Evasion: Ignored.
Request: Admit that Hamas’ actions are not due to them being backed into a corner, as they have done the same things even during negotiations for peace.
Request: Stop trying to argue both sides of the issue. Either state that genocide is wrong and thus there is an objective standard, or say that you don’t believe genocide is wrong.
Refutation: Targeting civilians is not standard IDF policy, moreoever many Palestinian mobs contain gunmen and rock throwers.
Evasion: No cite provided, only a supposed anecdote.
Request: Provide a cite for your supposed massacre stating that the Palestinian who were fired upon weren’t engaged in attacking the Israeli troops.
Refutation: I have never, ever, ever, said any such thing.
Evasion: Ignored.
Request: Admit that I have never said any such thing.
Refutation: Cites provided showing that the same political and monetary forces supporting Hamas’ rhetoric and actions have held the same positions since '48.
Evasion: Ignored.
Request: Admit that Hamas actions and supporters and rhetoric are not new or a result of ‘having their back up against a wall’.
Nonsequitor. How is asking for a renunciation of genocide being unaware of the realities of the situation?
Hamas has gone on record as recently as a week or two ago saying that they will not negotiate and that they still want to exterminate Israel. With that being the case, any concessions made will be seen as terroism making Israel cave in.
And would we have given in to Al Queda’s demands after 9/11? If we had, what signal would it have sent to all the terrorist organizations in the world about their ability to force the US into a course of action?
Renounce their right to exist due to having their civilians murdered.
What compromise can be made between
Position 1: We want a two state solution with peace and security.
Position 2: We want to murder all of you and destroy your entire nation.
Where’s the middle ground?
“Well, you can murder some of us.”
And yet, Finn, you keep throwing in these calls that “you admit…”
If you have a point regarding Hamas, make it. If you simply want to force concessions of points from mswas, take it outside. From my perspective, most of the interaction between you two has been more interested in pointing out the errors of the other than of actually discussing the issue on the table.
Why bother? Will Hamas or Israel succeed or fail based on some poster acknowledging a poorly keyed sentence on a message board in the U.S.?
I think you are letting your passions rule your posting, here. (And if mswas comes back with a personal shot, I will tell him the same thing.)
