Maybe there fundamental error here is that some people are discarding the adjective. Not generally a wise course of action as the difference between “a generally non-rabid dog” and “a non-rabid dog” would tend to indicate.
The phrase is not “in the face of violence” but “in the face of ongoing violence.”
Ongoing, ya know:
The adjective “ongoing” in the phrase “ongoing violence” cannot be discarded in order to act as if it has the same semantic value. I’ve been quite clear, and I’ve elaborated my position (by my count) about a half dozen times by now.
If anybody has an actual issue with it, instead of attacking the well-debunked strawman, why don’t they take issue with my actual arguments: namely, that in the face of violence that is-
“continually moving forward and developing, and will be remaining in existence, that will be continuing without termination or interruption, that will continue to exist, happen, or progress and will continuing without reaching an end…” that peace negotiations cannot succeed because by tautological necessity all you have is an agreement that says you are at peace while the war is still ongoing.
I admit, it’s hard to argue against that, so it’s easier to fight the strawman. But anybody who disagrees with that, please at least argue against it rather than the strawman.
And Elvis, seriously, stop repeating the same mistakes over and over. I already pointed out to that the issues you keep asking me for the relevance of were raised by Dick with factual errors, debunked by me, challenged again by wm, and debunked again by me. I’m not sure what you hope to gain by asking me why Dick and wm championed them, but you’d probably do better asking them. Because, yet again, I answered that mistake.
And seriously, no more sillyness about how you quoted my own words and facts are important if in order to make that argument you have to ignore what my words were and how I’ve gone to great pains to try to explain them to folks who didn’t understand.
You can easily answer your own question. You’ve said several times that peace is the goal you want. Well, how do you know that we’re not already at peace and there’s no need for a peace process? Obviously you have some idea of what the difference is between peace and not-peace, why don’t you apply that to the question at hand?
At what point does a government have to be able to clamp down on not-peace for us to say that a peace treaty has brought about peace?
And here I figured that the point was to refute wm’s error that the Grand Mufti was not part of designing/implementing the Final Solution (specifically in the quotes I’ve provided, by extending it to the Middle East, as verified by Hitler’s own words and the independent research of two separate German historians, by urging for Jews not to be allowed to flee and for being killed instead as verified by contemporary Arab documents I could cite if you really are interested in the facts, and so on…)
I could’ve sworn I pointed out that fact rather than that he was a very bad man. Ah well. I guess I must’ve just said he was a bad man.
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves;12226685
What was Biden doing over there, then? Just wasting his time, because Israel won’t listen to anybody but the Leader of the Free World himself in person, and not his #2? The President has nothing better to do with his time? Get over yourselves already.[/QUOTE]
You’ll get a kick out of this articlewhere Ben Gvir is basically is specifically calling Obama an anti-semite for an agent of the PLO.
Yes, I’m sure we are all pretty much aware of the meaning of the word “ongoing”. Though we are, of course, grateful for your efforts to expand our vocabulary. What needs clarification is your use of the word “violence”. Does that mean any violence at all, even a lone nutbar bent on derailing peace? Such men exist, I’m sure you know.
And your use of the word “ongoing” leaves an implication hanging without support, that the violence will continue regardless, because the other guys are all relentless fanatics, with no interest in peace. If this is not the intent of your words, I would be pleased for a correction. So much depends on the clarity of well meaning, peace loving men such as you and I.
No it doesn’t seem like that’s the case as you are still asking me if ‘sporadic’ and specifically ‘non-state sanctioned’ violence is the same as ongoing violence. I’ll note that you’re still not responding to my actual argument or what I’ve said in the thread, as I never said there shouldn’t be peace negotiations but only pointed out that land disputes do not invalidate peace the way that ongoing violence does.
In fact I voiced support for negotiations continuing, making this string of strawmen even more surreal.
Yet again, apply your own standards. You say you want peace, does that mean that, once in a while, an IDF commander can just decide to shell some Palestinian villages? Such nutbars do exist, after all. That’d be peace by your definition, right? If not, what exactly is your source of confusion?
Yet again, what is your delineating line between “peace” and “not-peace”. How do you tell one from the other? At what point would a government have to be able to police its own territory and control its own military forces to avoid “not-peace” such that you’d say that there’s “peace”? Use your own standards here, it should be easy enough.
And yet again, please remember that the word “violence” has different semantic content from the phrase “ongoing violence”. You cannot ask me to define one half and act as if the actual phrase isn’t at issue. Any more than my “once non-rabid dog” is the same as “my non-rabid dog”.
Again, I was not saying that negotiations should not continue but that they should, and I was saying that it was improper to treat property disputes and ongoing violence as equivalent in their ability to invalidate peace. It was a hypothetical comment about the existential nature of land disputes and ongoing violence, not a situational comment about the current round of negotiations.
Your position is especially odd when you consider that I’m on record as saying that Israel should freeze West Bank settlement construction and reached a phased peace agreement with Fatah as quickly as possible in order to demonstrate to the residents of Gaza that the ‘carrot’ approach works and to start a viable Palestinian sovereign state ASAP and to encourage the residents of Gaza to depose the Hamas creatures as quickly as possible.
Sort of like saying: ‘But what’s the relevance of slavery with respect to how blacks are treated in the US? I mean, that happened centuries ago…how could it have any impact on what is transpiring today??’
Yeah, of course the issues of how we got to this state are important to seeing where we go from here. But what’s more interesting is that Elvis keeps demanding of me to explain why someone else brought up a topic. Ah well.
Clinton didn’t make any specific demands. So how do you do whether or not we’re “there” yet? And again, which party is it that’s currently boycotting negotiations?
For starters, Israel has agreed to the negotiations, which the PA is currently boycotting. Israel has, over the last couple of years, also eased its control over the West Bank.
Instead of a vague “you’ll know it when you see it”, why don’t you define what an actual commitment to peace talks (other than, you know, committing to peace talks) would look like.
Yet again, context does seem to matter. The issue was not that the US hasn’t made any demands about anything, ever, but nothing about actions taken towards peace. As we’ve gone over (ad-fucking-nauseum), land disputes do not invalidate peace. Vague noise about “showing commitment to U.S.-mediated indirect peace talks” is meaningless, especially since, yet again, Israel has agreed to peace talks and it’s the PA that’s currently boycotting them.
We’re through the looking glass. One nation agrees to peace talks, the second refuses, and we say that the first nation is not showing a willingness to engage in peace talks.
Don’t get excited, good sir. I was merely pointing out that there have been specific demands made. Just because you and I are not privy to those details does not mean they do not exist.
Perhaps you can advise us as to how to see the timing of the announcement in a positive light? In what way does it reflect an eagerness to support the peace process?
Well, that’s too bad for you, Mr. Ultimate Arbiter. It’s good enough for me. I expect something that I don’t need rose colored glasses to “interpret” as a “commitment to peace.” I certainly won’t accept something that only FinnAgain interprets as a commitment to peace.
Having torpedoed negotiations by their provocative actions, Israel has no legitimate claim to “accepting negotiations.” If they accept negotiations, let their actions show it. So far, they have not.
Is there a material difference between refusing to negotiate, and demanding that a specific condition be met in the negotiation that is not currently being met? In other words, what is different between these two scenarios:
PA refuses to negotiate until Israel stops building settlements in EJ
PA demands as one of its terms in negotiations that Israel stops building settlements in EJ
In both cases, Israel continuing to build settlements in EJ prevents a peace treaty from being enacted (not by logical necessity, but due to non-compliance with negotiation terms). Do you honestly believe Israel is willing to negotiate in good faith when it knowingly fails to comply with the terms of negotiation?
If I understand your argument correctly, you blame this on the PA’s terms of negotiation being unreasonable. However this is an opinion and not a fact. It seems pretty self-evident that the actions of Israel regarding land disputes DO affect whether negotiations can come to a successful resolution, hence Israels actions are hardly immaterial to whether peace talks go ahead.
