Dude, like, they totally could, but the sun was in their eyes.
Can we agree, though, that regardless of how you feel about the Israel-Palestinian situation, and I think you know where I stand, that this is kind of an bad comparison? Nobody actually lives on Ellis Island, and whether New York or New Jersey own it doesn’t really affect anybody’s lives. The Palestinians have real grievances. The Israeli government is denying their freedom of movement, confiscating their land, and denying them civil rights. I think we do the entire debate a disservice when we don’t recognize that.
It’s just the most amusing example. There are plenty of territorial disputes in areas that are populated and/or have economic impact. But that doesn’t automatically lead to violence.
You won something? On Internet, no less!
You haven’t made a meaningful argument once. What’s your point?
Speaking of which, are you going to debate, yet? Malthus took the time to engage you with the titanic level of patience that he normally displays, and even clarified what he was actually saying when you discarded his entire argument because he ended with a sumative statement. Have you responded to him, yet?
Meanwhile, as for your claims that Dissonance hasn’t provided a meaningful argument, I’d advise that you don’t make statements that are so very easily disproven. He started by refuting OLP’s simplistic gloss of the '67 war, went on to point out OLP’s errors wrt WWII and political terminology which he was misusing, kicked OLP in the head some more with big ol’ stompy factbootson, continued demonstrating OLP’s errors when it comes to basic knowledge of international affairs, anddemonstrated that Latro’s argument was bullshit.
Remind us, other than one single opinion piece on Just War Theory which demanded that Israel allow Hamas to kill as many Israelis as they want unless and until Israel unilaterally concedes to all of the PA’s/Hamas’ demands, and many posts declaring that posting on this topic is pointless, what exactly have you contributed?
I found this with a vanity search 
And I have no problem stating that a large percentage of anti-Israel sentiment is informed (either directly or indirectly) by anti-Semitism.
The proof is very simple.
When somebody criticizes Israel for behavior X, but they do not criticize other states for engaging in similar behavior, they have a double-standard.
Similarly, if somebody claims to be concerned over some grievance of the Palestinian Arabs, but doesn’t express similar concern about other groups with similar or worse grievances, they have a double-standard.
If somebody has a double-standard, and Israel is singled out to be on the worse end of that standard, it is reasonable to infer that the person’s thinking is informed (either directly or indirectly) by anti-Semitism.
For example, one might ask why David Duke is so concerned about the Palestinian Arabs. It is reasonable to infer that his thinking is informed by anti-Semitism even if he won’t come out and admit it.
What took you so long?
Why dont you tell me more about New York and New Jersey?
Even though one would think it’s impossible - that’s another classic.
So, you aren’t actually going to debate, or respond to Malthus, or retract your nonsense about Dissonance not contributing (especially ironic in light of the fact that you are steadfastly refusing to contribute any actual debate here ).
If you don’t like the example of NY/NJ, feel free to address whether or not a guy can murder his next door neighbor if the neighbor builds a fence that’s over the property line. Perhaps you’d like to touch on all the European nations with property disputes between them, and cite all the wars that they are currently waging, as property disputes lead to violence, in your view. You must have quite a few cites of the wars that are currently being fought in Europe, yes?
What you do is not a debate.
Just this recent tantrum using an absolutely inappropriate analogy of NY/NJ – and acting up all intellectually offended when called on it - and, further on, straw-manning it to – or, reducing IP conflict to - “whether or not a guy can murder his next door neighbor if the neighbor builds a fence that’s over the property line” shows that you don’t have necessary maturity for a debate in a serious framework.
Your style is cartoonish and your ad hominem tirades are nauseating.
I made my point. Malthus did his. I responded. At least you could do is read and learn and quit egging on.
And now I’m giving you another warning. You can’t make this personal. I can’t make that any plainer and I don’t think I need to. You may not like FinnAgain’s arguments or behavior, but you’re not allowed to insult him. If you can’t do that, I’ll tell you not to post in this thread.
That being said, FinnAgain, it’s time to cool it. You’ve gotten in more than enough sarcastic comments newcomer; stick to making your argument from now on.
Sorry, not interested in a meta-discussion of this issue. I assume you are conceding the underlying point.
You were the one who claimed that property disputes lead to physical violence. Do you want to retract that bit of silliness? No? Can you, then, cite all the wars currently going on in Europe, as there must be several due to their border/real estate disputes? No to that too? How about, then, a basis in codified or common law whereby a man may murder his neighbor for encroaching upon his property? Not that either? So, in other words, you cannot defend your claim, at all, but you’re prepared to fling vitriol at me.
So noted.
You obviously did not comprehend my post. I disagreed with Captain Amazing on some facets of the discussion. If you want to imagine I’m not just offended, but “intellectually offended” (whatever you think that means), well, okay.
You are again not comprehending what I’ve actually said. And you have no idea what a strawman is, evidently. Yet again, your claim is that territorial disputes (or “land theft”, whatever your preferred verbiage) lead(s) to violence, civilian-targeted violence in this case, and that that violence is not only to be condoned but justified in such circumstances. And yet, from the interpersonal to the international, you can offer nothing, at all, to explain why the real world is nothing like your claim. Your response to being unable to support your own argument is, evidently, to flame me in GD.
Well, only one of us has been Warned about ad homs/flaming in this thread.
Hint: it wasn’t me.
No, you did not. First you tried to handwave away his entire argument by ignoring his actual statements and claiming that his summative line was his entire argument. You had no cogent, coherent, substantive response. And you tried to change the subject, as the opinion piece you cited demands that Israel let Hamas kill as many Israeli civilians as Hamas possibly can, without any self-defense at all, and that it must allow this up until the point that Israel unilaterally concedes to the PA’s/Hamas’ demands. And even then, should more violence be directed against Israeli civilians, it must still attempt to employ political solutions rather than acting to protect the lives of its citizens. And even the folks who are strongest in their anti-Israel animosity realize that actually making such a demand is not only a non-starter, is betrays a double standard that no other sovereign nation on the planet, not one, would accept for itself. Then you attempted to redefine the theory of Just War to suit your own needs in this thread.
You claimed that the doctrine of Just War is based on “static nature”. It isn’t. Malthus provided you with a cite to that effect. Just Cause is quite obviously met when protecting one’s innocent civilians. Your error that jus ad bellum must be “static” was based on nothing other than your own desire for that to be true. It aint true, by the way.
You also claimed that body counts were some sort of metric. They aren’t. That’s why you ignored the example of Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany and tried to claim that the argument was that the IDF goes “to [Palestinan] house[s] and since [the houses are] full of civilians, well, they get killed - what can [the Israelis] say, [they’re] so good!”
You deliberately ignored the reasons behind the unbalanced civilian casualties on the two sides, including but not limited to Hamas using its population as human shields. You did this, because then you could not use the body count as evidence that jus in bellum was somehow violated. And without that, you’ve got nuthin’ on that point. (Or any other points, but I digress…)
Malthus demonstrated that both of your points are wrong. He explained why nations that have wars fought on their soil will, perforce, suffer more civilian casualties than nations which do not having fighting on their soil. If you cannot answer the valid points he raised without inventing an idiosyncratic definition of jus ad bellum, or without voicing and argument that, logically, places the Nazis and Japanese on the moral high ground during World War II? Well, then it’s clear that you have beliefs that you want to defend, inconsistent, post-hoc beliefs at that, but that you have no cogent, factual, logically supportable conclusions to defend.
Sorry, missed your post. I’ve got my laptop tethered to my S4, and it’s running sluggish as all getout so I didn’t preview.
Is my most recent post acceptable? If not, what specifically do you mean by “cool it”? I’ve been quite calm and collected, so I assume that you mean I shouldn’t be snarky in my responses to his arguments?
:rolleyes: Why am I unsurprised that you do vanity searches?
You may have no problem stating it, but your proof is sorely lacking. “You can’t criticize X because you didn’t criticize Y and Z” is a specious argument. I’m allowed to criticize Israeli settlements without having to criticize the colonization of America every time I do, or even criticize a 400 year old event at all. There are quite a few posters on the ‘pro-Israeli’ side of the issue who are critical of the settlements; by your argument these other posters and I are anti-Semites, even the ones who happen to be Jewish.
Gee, do you think the former Grand Wizard of the KKK might be anti-Semitic? That you use him as an example of your ‘proof’ is very telling.
And why does Israel and the USA care enough about this distinction to try and prevent recognition as a state when almost the entire rest of the world wants to recognize them at the UN?
I condemn Hamas for targetting civilians, we should put them all in guantanamo. Same for Israel… Hey I’ve got an Idea, lets move Israel to Cuba, that way they don’t have to go to far when they retire to Florida.
Yes, we should wait until they get their hands on a nuke before we negotiate with them on fair terms. Of course we don’t know what wild bug will crawl up their ass at that point.
So now that he has shown up to accuse the critics of israel of anti-semitism, I don’t see a lot of people on the zionist side denounce him. So where’s all the slamming you’re talking about?
And that makes it OK? Who are you Paula Dean?
And what percentage of modern day Israel does that purchased land constitute?
What does the partition plan and Texas have in common? They both look like gerrymandering. The partition plan seems to have been gerrymandered to concentrate all the Palestinians (most places that ended up on the arab side was 90%+ Arab) in as little useful land as possible while giving Israel land where they held little more than simple majorities. Jews were something like 1/3 of the population and they ended up with about half the land. You would think that given the circumstances, the zionists wouldn’t get much more than their pro rata share. Perhaps this wasn’t deliberate and it just worked out that way but it certainly looks like a gerrymander.
Did they ever do anything else that might be construed as mean and not nice?
Noone is proposing to glass over Saudi Arabia. Just Israel and Palestine in a “pox on both your houses sort of way” only not as nice.
Which is funnny because they accounted for a much larger percentage of the population of Israel when it was first formed and we heard about the huge demographic/breeding advantage of the arabs over the Jews for decades (at least until the Orthodox Jews showed up). I wonder how that happened?
Serious question. Why does the nuclear non-proliferation traety matter? Why does anyone bother signing it. I don’t see any huge disadvantage for those countries that don’t sign it. Do the nuclear powers promise to avenge you if someone else nukes you and you signed the treaty?
So what [penalty does the treaty impose for breaking the treaty? Can we nuke them? Or can we basically just shake our head and wag our finger?
I stopped getting too engaged when I realized that warnings were issued somewhat unevenly. This subject is one of the blind spots on the dope.
I think this iws what he means:"It’s OK for Americans to build bases in other people’s countries, sail the Navy into intimidating positions close to other countries, and engage in all other kinds of interference, but it would be treated as an outrage here if China or Russia or Iran or anybody did something like that in this hemisphere. It’s OK for Israel to clandestinely build nuclear weapons (aided by espionage) and never disclose their existence, but it’s a scandal for anyone else. Do we all know how it looks for the only country in the world to use nuclear weapons to try and control who else can construct them? Imagine if anybody else but the Israelis had attacked ships full of supplies for people caught in a place like Gaza. "
He even quotes it in his post. Here it is in case you haev trouble finding it:http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=16451389&postcount=251
Yeah because civilization could only have occured there. :rolleyes:
And What part of Israel is Iraq in?
Is that just American or all allies including the Russians and the folks slaughtered in death camps?
Well there are at least two of them. When are you going to learn the lesson that you try to teach the newbies? Physician, heal thyself and stay away from these threads. You will get into a shouting match and the refs will only give you a yellow card.
So multiple warnings for newcomer and an admonition to “cool it” for FinnAgain? Yeah that sounds about par for the course.
Quote:
Judging by the sheer amount of ignorance you display, I do not believe this.
…Judging by the sheer amount of ignorance you display, I do not believe this.
… Your comment is guano non-sane.
…Fiction, fiction, and then a distortion.
…Yet more fiction
…Not, you know, the one you’ve imagined.
…Of course, after Balfour there were the Arab Riots. You seem to have conveniently forgotten about 'em.
…Yet another fiction.
…your odd, but ever so clever verbiage, should probably be updated to this millennium {post 71}
…Brilliant factual rebuttal.
But what do I know, I don’t have a prestigious degree in International Affair. {post 75}
…Of course, on the subject of the British, we can also put paid to another one of your absurd fantasies. {post 80}
…Also, we’ve got snark down to a science. (I have an M.S. in Snark Studies){post 86}
[/quote]
Then Tomndebb tells everyone to knock it off
…As shown, your bullshit about “their agenda” is rancid, even for fecal matter. Yet again, provide a single cite for this bit of fiction.{post 161}
…Really? This sort of shit flies in grad school?
“Gentlemen, I am ready to defend my thesis now. It’s: ‘Nuhn uhhhnh!!’ Much research has gone into this.” {post 165}
Then Tomndebb steps in again to tell Finn to stop implying others are lying, again no warning.
This goes on for another few pages until marley finally steps in to restore order and rescue the beleaguered FinnAgain from newcomer’s vicoous unprovoked personal attacks and issues a warning fo newcomer for calling one of FinnAgains analogies stupid. And then ANOTHER warning to newcomer for calling FinnAgain’s argument style.
Then Finn confuses the lack of warnings coming his way as some sort of vindication of his behaviour
“Well, only one of us has been Warned about ad homs/flaming in this thread.
Hint: it wasn’t me.”
@newcomer, do yourself a favor, it took me almost half a dozen warnings to realize that this particular topic isn’t moderated fairly, which is a shame because this board is otherwise very well moderated. Count yourself lucky if it only costs you two warnings to learn this lesson.
Shit, I spoke too soon. So, I’ll wait for the other Israel apologists to line up behind you and “slam” brazil84.
There are two reasons, from the Israeli perspective.
-
An entity that is not unified does not meet the most basic requirement for being a “state”. Why does this matter, you ask? Because Israel cannot negotiate with this “state”, cannot hold it to account, and cannot, in short, interact with it in any meaninful manner, as there is no agreement on who runs this “state”, who they represent, and with what legitimacy.
-
Because recognition of a Palestinian “state”, if it is to have any meaning, would of necessity include recognition of Hamas - which, after all, rules half of this putative “state”. Hamas is an organization that refuses to recognize Israel or conclude any peace deal with it - at best, it will offer temporary “truces”. This would put Israel in the odd position of regonizing an entity as legitimate that does not recognize it as legitimate. Why should Israel do that?
“Fair terms”, for someone who has lost a war, include (1) surrender; (2) a peace treaty in which the losers agree not to commit further aggression. In what universe is this not true?
Hamas, of course, will do neither.
It’s interesting that when called out for using your fictional story of the prevalence of accusations of anti-Semitism (yet again), your response is not to retract, let alone apologize. No, it’s to demand that we take time out of posting to take Brazil to task, something many of us have already done and we have pretty much all explicitly disagreed with his bizarre gloss in the past.
So the real question is: now that it’s been shown to you, yet again, that your claim is utterly false… Will you finally stop using it?
Damuri, since you scream repeatedly about the fact that you’ve supposedly been accused of anti-Semitism repeatedly for you criticism of Israel, why did you decide to accuse Alessan of being a racist?
Isn’t that a tad hypocritical?
Beyond that, please don’t misrepresent what I said again. It’s more than a little rude.
Thanks.