You WILL NOT get an answer on this.
He will twist and turn and justify and qualify by using the “they are so much worse than us so its good” rationalisation or the “we are entitled to security and anything done in the name of security is better than the alternative response”
For anyone interested, the Haaretz website has some interesting articles and commentary on the current situation. There’s clearly quite a lot of mixed sentiment about what’s happened and frustration with Netanyahu’s actions.
Frankly, I would be interested in hearing from someone like **Allesan **about THAT rather than this oh-too-typical mini flame war currently going on in this thread.
Actually, he very plainly did. It’s not difficult to understand either, it’s logic as its most base and easily accessible. I believe I learned the form in sixth grade.
What, you require a formal logical proof or something? Okay.
-Those who gain property by ‘theft’, that is conquering it and moving in and they (and as Sevastopol has gone on record, their descendants as well) are deserving of death.
-The Muslim residents gained their property via ‘theft’, specifically by conquering it and then moving it.
-So all Muslim residents are also deserving of death.
I’m sure you recognize it Lucy, it’s called a syllogism.
It’s very simple logic Lucy, in fact logic at pretty much its most simple level. Surely you recognize a syllogism? You do recognize the major premise, the minor premise, and the conclusion?
I of course find it funny that you are trying to take me to task for my correct statement of what Sevastopol’s own rationalized logic that allows him to call for the murder of Israelis demands, but you don’t spare a single word for that call itself. And then you dispute the rather obvious logic. Go figure, eh?
“All the settlers’ lives are forfeit and they should be murdered? Ah well, ho hum… but, wait, what’s that, a syllogism??? Holy shit, Finn, how dare you???”
And I’m going to tell you again, this thread is not about me. I refuse to make it about me. This is not an “ask the…” thread.
I would too (and pssst, it’s “Alessan”). One of the current articles in particular described what sounds like a potential change of tone in the dialogue:
Am I right in thinking that if Israel does cancel the Ramat Shlomo project, that will constitute a pretty major climb-down?
No, you are not right. As I cited earlier in the thread, discussions on expanding housing in East Jerusalem in both Jewish and Arab neighborhoods have been going on for years now and there are thousands of new homes planned for both. This neighborhood in question is not the lion’s share of new homes that have been approved over the next few decades.
What it will be is a symbolic knuckling-under to Palestinian demands and, more importantly, a change in US foreign policy that privileges Palestinian demands as the preconditions for negotiation. It will put paid to Obama’s campaign promises that Jerusalem’s fate will be worked out via negotiation and will instead mark the start of a strategy whereby Jerusalem’s fate is already made clear and attempting to negotiate on it at all is seen as an abrogation of the peace process itself.
That’s reasonable, but I think you’d probably have better luck with it if you didn’t stress the snark-and-jeer motif quite so much in your posts. There are others snarking and jeering back at you, of course, and I don’t claim to know who started this pattern, but when it comes to hostility levels in a debate on this topic, yours tend to stand out not just for intensity but for consistency.
If you’re going to be personally nasty to people when debating their positions (and by the way, I think deliberately distorting nicknames, as in calling 'luci “Lucy”, counts as a form of nastiness), then they’re likely to take it personally and to make their responses personal in return.
Oh, and just so you know, as long as we’re talking about nicknames: I like being referred to and addressed to in threads by my username “Kimstu”, not just “Kim”. If that’s okay with you, FinnyGinny old pal. 
Sorry, but I don’t understand the distinction you’re trying to make here: it seems to me that you’re agreeing with me on the issue you say I’m not right about. Isn’t climbing down in this context essentially the same thing as knuckling under?
ETA: Or is it the term “pretty major” you were disagreeing with, rather than “climb-down”?
My apologies, and thanks for the correction.
I would think yes, though I also think it’s highly unlikely. Perhaps a temporary freeze on building there as a symbolic gesture. But as noted in several articles, this is a delicate matter for Netanyahu - domestically he can’t seem weak and standing up to the US will win him favour from many Israelis; on the other hand he can’t really piss off the US, and he is seemingly under lots of pressure to not cause serious damage to the “special relationship.”
I attack arguments, not people. That some posters use arguments which are deserving of nothing but refutation and dismantling, or that I have to point out that their arguments ignore or distorted what I’ve said while making spurious claims about my position, or they make claims that are factually incorrect and do not auto-modify when they are shown to be factually in error… is just the way things go. I make no apologies for not kindly treating arguments based on non-facts or nonsense or fallacies. I believe that facts are important and that fighting ignorance is not just a random tag line.
Now, if you’re really complaining about abbreviating your username…
Your username has two syllables, each a proper name. I suppose I could write “stu” instead of “kim”, but then again “kim” comes first in the order. If you really need to, er, retaliate against such mean and low-down conduct from me, you can feel free to call me Finn. I will try not to cry.
I thought another of those articles had an interesting take on Netanyahu’s position: it’s an interview with a Likud leader who said:
I’m not agreeing with you. The decision to stop a small percentage of the planned housing development is not a major ‘climbing down’. As your link puts it, a major climbing down would be a major change in policy, and a minor reversal in housing plans is not a major change in those plans.
It is agreeing to the PA’s demands, at the US’ bidding, before negotiation even begins that is the knuckling under, submitting. The housing itself is fairly minor and doesn’t represent a significant change. Unilaterally conceding that something is a fait accompli, which was supposed to be the subject of potential negotiation is, however, a massive change.
That was an interesting read. Certainly (like all politicians) Netanyahu will not be able to please all of the people. I suppose he has to ultimately decide who he wants to piss off most and what will be the consequences, politically and otherwise.
Two more editorials at opposite ends:
It’s time for Netanyahu to say yes to Obama
Israel doesn’t need to grovel for U.S. forgiveness
Difficult position, to put it mildly. Again, I would be quite keen to hear from people like Alessan, who are on the front lines, on which direction they believe is most advantageous, and why.
How about writing “Kimstu”? It’s the name I use here, and it’s only six letters. Is there some reason you have to abbreviate it? Of course, you don’t have to address or refer to me at all if you don’t want to. But if you do refer to me by name, is it really such a dreadful imposition to refer to me by the name that I’ve explicitly told you I prefer?
This is kind of what I mean about how your levels of hostility come across here. You claim that you attack arguments and not people, but it seems to be very important to you to maintain a jeering and condescending tone towards people while arguing with them. You appear to feel that projecting goodwill and courtesy, at least toward somebody who’s disagreeing with you, is a sign of weakness.
Oh okay, then it was the “pretty major” qualifier that you were objecting to. I see your point, and thanks for the clarification.
Okay, now I’m confused again. So are you saying that stopping the Ramat Shlomo construction in itself would be no big deal, but doing so because Hillary Clinton “demanded” it would be a big deal?
Yes and no. Stopping that specific housing project is not really a big deal. Stopping it because the US says so is kind of a big deal, but not without precedent. Saying that instead of the status of Jerusalem being reached through negotiation, that we’re already assuming the end result and we can pretty much skip the whole ‘negotiation’ phase of negotiating and just reserve EJ for the PA is a major change. Both McCain and Obama stressed, during the election campaigns, that the future of Jerusalem would be made by the two sides negotiating on it. This seems to change that and assume, ahead of time, that the PA will get EJ and that Israel better not touch it any further.
[
](McCain, Obama Offer Two Paths On Mideast Policy : NPR)
That’s pretty clearly a change from what we’re seeing now, that rather than being a Final Status issue, Obama’s administrating is effectively assuring that PA that they’re probably going to get EJ and confirming that the PA is right to demand that it is a precondition to the negotiations themselves. That’s the major change and that the ‘knuckling under’: going from an agreement that the outcome will be based on negotiations, and even then that it will be a Final Status issue after everything else is resolved… to it being decided that the outcome is a precondition for negotiations themselves and Final Status issues will come only after this is resolved.
Wait a second, can we back up the bus here.
Sometimes I miss the nuance in your agruement, but are you suggesting that for this project to be stopped, it would be “assuming the outcome of negotiations”?
Is that correct? (and please can we have a simple, short answer?)
If that is your position, doesn’t the converse also hold true - that for the construction to go ahead it also assumes the outcome of the negotiations?
And just a side note - when trying to sell anything I was always taught “KISS” - or
Keep it short, stupid (or its partner, keep it simple) so I would really appreciate if you could give a short and succinct answer please.
First of all, sorry I haven’t been around - I usually bail these threads after three or four pages, because, well…they’re all the same, you know?
Second of all, I can’t really argue the face that Bibi screwed the pooch here. I already noted my contempt for the man earlier on in this thread; to my eternal chagrin, I voted for him in '96 - and I never intend to make that mistake again.
Here’s a quote from Nahum Barnea in Yediot Aharonot, Israel’s leading paper (and far more centrist than the left-wing Haaretz) brought by Tom Friedman in today’s NYT:
(Friedman’s a dick, but he makes some good points).
That said… the recent fiasco has to be seen in a larger context. If you’ll allow me to quote the Times again, the following columnwas written by Haaretz editor Aluf Benn, one of Israel’s staunchest left-wing pundits, and a man who likes Netanyahu a *lot *less than I do. It was written last summer, but if anything, things are even worse now:
I don’t really have anything to add to that. Bibi can’t influence Israeli public opinion - he’s a follower, not a leader. Obama can. If he wins us over to his side, the government will follow.
But even if we despise Bibi, he’s still our Prime Minister. If we feel he’s being picked on unjustly, we’ll stand behind him.
**Alessan **-
I really appreciate your comments on this. It’s nighttime here (Sydney AU) and St Patty’s day at that (!), so I won’t be able to reply until tomorrow. But I certainly have thoughts and questions for you, and I hope you will indulge me.
And it will be refreshing to have a reasonable discussion about Israel in GD!
Cheers,
leander