Indeed. It really is very, very basic logic. To prove anything you first have to assume something, otherwise you have nothing to build your argument on.
If memory serves me correctly - and it has been almost 15 years since I left university - this is shown by Gödel’s Completeness Theorem.
No, I still understand that you’re not making a point and I’m still asking for the same degree of clarification. What, exactly, is it you object to? Construction in any part of Israel? Construction in any annexed territory? Construction on the West Bank? Or aid to Israel in general?
And how does this relate to your OP and its bombastic rhetoric?
Oh, I understand that part. I’m just curious as to why it’s a particular issue. Jordan claimed the territory and ruled it for quite some time, after that it was Israeli and the PA wants it as its capital. All well and good, but most of it wasn’t privately owned and it isn’t yet a Palestinian property. I’m looking for a coherent reason as to why building there is wrong. It seems that most of the arguments run the gamut of “The Palestinians have claimed it, so it’s theirs.” to “it upsets the Palestinians/the Arab states/whomever, so it’s wrong.”
I’m interested in a cogent reason. The West Bank is a fairly clear cut situation, but international recognition of nor, Jerusalem is Israel’s capital and it appears to be building housing for Jews and Arabs alike on land that isn’t privately owned.
No, you have not. You have continued to claim that the facts and logic do not support my position. The only possible way to do that is to claim that the factual and logical distinctions I laid out between causal and volitional consequences are inaccurate. You have been unable to do that and have continued to use false analogies and nonsense. I’m not “having trouble understanding” that your argument is flailing in the wind, that’s what I’ve been pointing out over and over and over again.
The facts are what the facts are, the logic is what the logic is. You have been unable to attack the facts or the logic, so you’ve been going through some weird set of arguments that neither directly address nor directly refute my logical or factual claims.
How do I debate with someone who is going to invent my position?
Have you, or have you not, claimed that the logic I use to support my claims, which is based on the facts of the matter, is not probative? Does that or does that not mean that you are either taking issue with the facts/logic presented, or your argument is aimlessly flailing in the wind, making no cogent rebuttal? And that, lacking a cogent rebuttal, you are in fact disageeing with the facts/logic I have presented but not actually taking issue with them in any substantive form at all?
I haven’t misstated your position. You’ve failed to construct a coherent, let alone cogent position.
You begin from a stance of abject surrender, and invite further points so that you may agree more wholeheartedly. It is a style of negotiation as well as debate, reflected in Dulle’s comment about negotiation with the Soviets: “What’s mine stays mine, what’s yours is up for grabs.”
As a means to obtain a peaceful resolution, it continues to enjoy some popularity, despite a rather dismal record of success.
Can I just ask Finn Again if he can recall any occasions when the Israeli government has been in the wrong?
I’ll admit I’ve not read all his posts, so he may have been critical of Israel’s policies somewhere, but from my experience thus far, trying to argue any point against him regarding Israel’s failings, is about as productive as pissing onto a forest fire.
I have been known to include a standard declaimer and/or links to my full position in order to head off the exact sort of knee-jerk-ad-hom-flecked reaction that you’re displaying here. But generally I find that when dealing with those who, when beaten on the facts and the logic, resort to silly ad hom smears? Well, educating them about what I actually say isn’t worth my time. Because they’re not really interested.
Some people simply cannot handle being wrong or contradicted, and simply must create some imaginary boogieman who mindlessly supports or opposes whatever it is they’re arguing for or arguing against. Sometimes it gets really embarrassing for them, like a recent thread where I argued that organ donations should always be mandatory unless expressly prohibited by one’s next of kin ahead of time, and was told that universal statement was only due to my (obvious and traitorous, natch) partisan attachment to Israel. Same for issues on targeted killings. Or what the 4th Geneva convention actually says. And so on. I don’t really see much of a point in trying to educate those folks.
And as you’re posting your bullshit here and not in the Pit where it belongs, that’s really all I have to say to your nonsense.
My saying you always defend Israel is only nonsense if you can offer an instance where you’ve actually criticised their actions. Until that happens, my point that it is a waste of time levelling any criticism of Israeli policies towards you, still stands.
Your bullshit really is getting boring.
Take it to the Pit (where criticisms of people rather than their arguments belong) or stop whinging about how much of a waste of time posting to/about me is and just stop posting to/about me.
Are you suggesting the arguments of staunch fanatics are as worthy of debate as those of the reasonably educated neutral?
You are aware that the ad hominem fallacy isn’t called a fallacy because it’s a really great argument, right?
In any case, stop this bullshit and Pit me if you’re going to, or just shut up about me already.
Or you could stop the bullshit of being incapable of taking on board any criticism of Israel.
Just a thought.
Strangely enough, I find it hard to stop doing things that you dreamed up to smear me (in the wrong forum, what’s so hard about finding the Pit?) and which bear no resemblance to reality. I’m not sure how I can stop doing something that I’ve never started doing in the first place. Why don’t you take your fictional shit about me that you crafted in order to smear me to the Pit so I can respond properly, eh?
Just a thought.
And yet again, it’s the ad hominem fallacy, not the ad hominem argument winner. That is, even if it wasn’t fictional. Cut this bullshit out and either address the topic of just man up and Pit me.
Yet another argument has been FinnAgainized.
I should know better, but I am going to give this a try.
I don’t even know what this means and on its face it doesn’t even seem empirically true. But we can grant this for now because it isn’t even relevant.
This is the meat of it. Negotiations between the PA and Israel are obviously quite dynamic. The value of the goods they negotiate over is not fixed but is subject to the actions of both of the parties. If one party managed to destroy the value of the good entirely for his bargaining partner, obviously the calculus would change. Over time the value of the negotiated agreement varies with the value of the good bargained over.
A bargainer may choose to end negotiations if his best alternative is better than the agreement he realistically thinks he can negotiate. Why stick around through the pesky offers and counteroffers if you can do better by signaling that you are going to opt out? This is just a strategic decision contingent on the results of past bargaining.
Suppose for a moment that the PA thinks (or wants others to believe that it thinks) that some Israeli action is altering the bargaining payoffs sufficiently that it is no longer worth it for the PA to stay in the game. Is it the PA’s decision to withdraw? Yes. Should anyone reasonably expect the PA to stay in the game past the point where the best negotiated agreement is worse than dropping out? No. Is Israel more or less aware of the PA’s bargaining optimization problem and can thus anticipate its actions? Imperfectly, but I’d err on the side of yes given that these negotiations have been long-term and that Israel knows the Palestinians very well.
So I contend that your notion of causation is far too strict. I happily concede that Israel’s action is not a necessary and sufficient condition for the Palestinian response. It is also probably not a necessary condition, either. The Palestinians have threatened withdrawal before under different circumstances, so even at a most obvious level, Israel’s action is not a necessity. It definitely appears that Israel’s action is sufficient, given that nothing else appears to have changed. The PA’s best response was apparently to stay in the game. Up until it wasn’t.
I’m not particularly interested in blaming any party. Both sides just respond to each other’s best strategies. But in the interests of accuracy and veracity, we have to ask ourselves how these strategies change in response to the value of object of negotiations itself and how each party affects it.
I’d like to ask FinnAgain (and I ask this as a general supporter of Israel) if you find anything Israel does to be morally or socially wrong or reprehensible/regrettable?
Also, what do you think about US foreign aid (money) going to Israel? Do they need it? Do they use it for anything besides beefing up their military? How do we know?
Finally, will there ever come a time when Israel will stand on its own like our other allies do (without us financially supporting them)?
Maybe I’m naive about a lot of this, but I honestly want to know.
I’m not entirely sure it is ad hominem. You are like Starving Artist in that there are many that just can’t be bothered discussing anything with you on this topic because you are incapable of considering anything except the absolute innocence of the Israeli state. You really just aren’t worth the bother.
Personally I’d rather people just ignored you but unfortunately there seem some that haven’t seen enough of your crap to get the message yet, so we have to let them see it, get worn down and then give up.
Pithy little summation: it isn’t worth trying to discuss Israel with you as you are incapable of actual discussion on that topic.
This is confusing, as it seems to fly directly in the face of all reason and good sense, so I am moved to consider that I may have misunderstood. But it is so stark and direct, it leaves little room for the shadow of nuance.
Its approximate to saying you cannot treat an infection with antibiotics if there is an infection present, that you cannot douse a fire with water because water is negated by fire, almost as if the very existence of violence makes any effort to restrain violence impossible or unworthy.
And how’s that working out for you? See droves of wavering skeptics rushing to your side, solidly convinced by your reason and clarity? Or even one?
The issue is that, first, the international community doesn’t recognize East Jerusalem as Israeli territory or Israel’s capital, and secondly, that this is approval to build in Ramat Schlomo, which is a Haredi neighborhood. The Jerusalem municipal council has been accused, with some evidence, of favoring construction in Jewish neighborhoods and not allowing construction in Arab neighborhoods, thereby making Jerusalem, and specifically East Jerusalem, more Jewish.
So the coherent argument would be, “Building there is wrong, because it’s part of a plan to encourage Jewish settlement of East Jerusalem, thereby making sure it stays in Israeli hands when a Palestinian state is formed.” It’s the same argument against the West Bank settlements.
This farce continues because the very well-funded Israel lobby wants it to. They know it’s not in the USA’s interest, but they don’t care, it’s in Israel’s. Pay a few hundred million to congressmen, get a few billion in aid. Easy Peazy.
If you’re honestly curious, ask me in PM. I’m sick to death of threads like this being opened up to vile non-truths from people who can’t seem to find the Pit. I think I probably decided I had enough of it in one thread where I not only criticized a specific policy but spoke about a sweeping American punishment that should result if it wasn’t ended, and one of the usual suspects then chimed in with the common, shall we say, error, that I always support Israel no matter what and believe they can do no wrong. I now refuse to dignify such slanderous arguments with elaboration, especially as I’ve done so many times in threads that many of these people have read and somehow they continue to make the same errors. Again, and again, and again.
We know because we track it. Most of the military aid we give to Israel, for example, is actually used as subsidies to our own, American arms manufacturers. Nor is Israel unique, we spend roughly 3 billion per year propping up South Korea (for example) via our military support there. Our aid also gives us leverage that currently we’re not exploiting. I’ve already gone on record about that and, as per the above, I’m not going to feed the bullshit or allow this thread to be taken off topic by it. But PM me if you’re curious.
As for an end to aid, sure, that’s a great goal. Ideally we’ll see a two state solution with viable land, economic, agricultural (etc…) resources for both states and that alone should significantly improve the economic picture of the I/P territories and end the various boycotts and divestment campaigns which, in part, make economic aid so attractive to American politicians as a counterweight.
:rolleyes:
You don’t understand why being at war means you’re not at peace, why continuing hostilities mean that peace treaties aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on, and you claim that’s not empirically true. And the fact that only war/violence can actually cause peace to be broken and peace talks to be disrupted while negotiation positions do not and can not is not relevant.
This argument is getting loopier by the minute.
The rest of your post is obfuscation. Jerusalem has always been part of Final Status negotiations and not getting it does not mean that the PA’s position is worse via negotiating than not doing so. As if a functional, economically viable sovereign state is worse than not having that and the tipping factor is whether or not there are currently apartments in certain areas of East Jerusalem. Not to mention that negotiations can still come to any number of conclusions, including but not limited to the annexation of EJ and all its citizens by the PA and/or Israel removing its citizens from EJ and the PA annexing it.
The simple fact is that nobody is justified in claiming that apartments in East Jerusalem somehow actually interfere with the peace process. Those who want to privilege Palestinian claims and Palestinian demands, however, will do so.