Now you are done telling us how abundant this is, it is customary around these parts to supply some.
Just so there is no ambiguity:
Simple declarative sentences please. None of that ‘talking bush’ nonsense if you do not mind?
You’re saying this
is supporting ethnic cleansing? In a different thread entirely?
I was talking about the discontinuous nature of the Palestine state and the sizable amount of Palestinian refugees present in Jordan. You do know about them, right?
As long as Jordan pretends the Palestinian issue is only an Israeli problem, there’s no real solution there. Was the Gadsden Purchase ethnic cleansing?
Seriously, what, you want me to start pointing out that you’re a pedophile in threads? I’m sure I can find some post that can tangentally be called on as ‘proof’ in the same way.
And I’d be happy to quote them if Hamas made any, but such simple statements are actually hard to find, mingled as they always seem to be with the fiery rhetoric that you casually “no-true-Scotsman” away.
I apologize for the misunderstanding. Originally, my 10 points were kind of tongue-in-cheek. Some of it was serious, but not to the degree I was postulating. But when it was replied to by **tclouie **, I took his/her response as a point of discussion that allowed me to expand, clarify, and tone down some of the original 10 hyperbolic suggetions. I only object to the characterization that some of of my responses were seriously discussed and not others, and it irks me that the responses I was getting attacked for were the ones perceived to be anti-Israel.
I was hoping that the entirely of my reply to tclouie would be considered though. Yes, I seriously suggested that Israel accept a certain level of violence, but at the same time I seriously suggested that Fatah purge Hamas through violent means and give up their right of returns. If we can debate those things in context, I don’t feel that the points people perceived to be anti-Israel is any worse than the other points that seem anti-Palestinian.
Yes, Israel should accept some violence. The reason is that the violence comes not from the government they are trying to make peace with, but radical factions. Other posters have pointed out their objections to my analogy with Italian mobs or Russian spies, but their mistake is to assume a random act of violence by a Palestinian is indicative of their whole country and NOT assume the same of the Italian mob or Russian spies. I feel their double standard is appalling.
tc, I’ll get back to pointing out your argument’s numerous evasions in a bit, work is hectic and there’s no rest for the wicked. (I do see, though, that you’ve graduated from “I need to see the Snipers Union time cards or it never happened!!!” to “Provide me with a complete list of all the anti-Semites in America, with their social security numbers, or there’s no reason at all to worry about a major resurgence of classic anti-Semitic tropes!!!”).
This is, of course, fictional. Hamas won numerous seats during an election and, even then, groups like Islamic Jihahd operate in Gaza only at Hamas’ pleasure.
And your mistake is to think you could get away with such a palpable strawman.
Here, let me refresh your memory:
Of course, you’d like to claim that anybody, at all, has committed the fallacy of composition and cast a bigoted analogy at all of Palestinian society. Those reading along will not be so easily fooled.
Actually, people pointed out why espionage and organized crime are different from war, as well as what justified responses might be to each and why.
Is straw on sale?
I feel the same about the quality of your argument as demonstrated in your post and your need to fictionalize the content of the thread in order to invent an imaginary double standard.
Ah well.
They weren’t so much ‘anti-Israel’ as they were anti-Reality. My own answers to your ridiculous assertions could be applied to any country…which is why I couched it in terms of AMERICA, and what OUR reaction would be in similar circumstances. You, of course, chose not to address any of it though, and simply stuck your fingers in your ears and kept up the ‘Help! Help! I’m being repressed (by the anti-Israel faction on the board!) Come see the violence inherent in the system! Did you see them all repressing me? You saw…right…?’
What level of violence should Israel accept? How many rocket attacks a year? What level of suicide bombing would you consider acceptable? Or should it be by body count? How many men, how many women, how many children? What threshold of violence should Israel accept…and how do you propose to dictate that to the people in a democratic country? Or do you propose to impose a government on Israel who is not subject to the will and voice of the people of Israel, and thus can ignore calls for the government to do something when they are being attacked?
And how long should Israel accept said attacks while waiting on the Palestinian’s to get their shit together and start hammering the more militant factions? This leaves aside HOW the Palestinian’s (presumably the more peace loving and less militantly inclined parts) could possibly wage an all out war with groups like Hamas.
Those ‘radical factions’ make up a rather large percentage of the population…and a rather uncomfortable percentage of the government as well. Or did you not realize that? You seem to think that Hamas and the sentiments behind their continuous attacks on Israel is a marginal position in Palestine. The reality, unfortunately, is a bit different than your concept, sadly.
And the mistakes you make here are legion. First, what makes you think that Palestinian violence against Israel is ‘random’? Second, what makes you think that Palestinian violence against Israel isn’t supported by a large percentage of the population? Third, what makes you think that violence against Israel isn’t supported by a large percentage of the Palestinian government?
And this leaves aside how silly it is to compare the Mob or spying with DIRECT AND DELIBERATE ATTACKS ON A CIVILIAN POPULATION FROM TERRORIST AND PARAMILITARY FORCES OPERATING DIRECTLY FROM WITHIN THE BORDERS OF ANOTHER GOVERNING BODY!!
-XT
Just noticed this. In case it refers to me and my request for a standard of evidence about the danger posed by snipers, there was nothing dishonest about it. I asked because you were dismissing the claims of sniper-danger and calling them evidence of Israeli misconduct, i.e. if the situation was really dangerous, there’d be an Israeli army escort, and since there wasn’t, this proves there was no danger, and so forth.
You may note that I never asked you to prove there wasn’t a danger. That would be pointless. I just asked if there was any standard of evidence by which you’d agree that there was a danger.
Keeping within the rules of GD, I will simply point out that this is physically impossible since folks like Walt and Mearsheimer and their fellow travelers made headlines for quite some time and there are no “Canadian Lobby” Conspiracy Theorists. I will also point out that since those accusations against Jews are both common and widely believed, that you’re playing an odd game here.
Sorry I’m used to the games you’re playing in this thread. I will no more provide you with names and social security numbers of everybody who supports the Israel Lobby (or the “Jewish Lobby”) shit than I will provide you with signed and notarized Snipers Union time cards.
You can make these requests in patently obvious bad faith as an evasion, but again, you will not fool anybody.
I will note that you are in full bore ‘saying whatever sounds good no matter what its truth value’ mode. Tell the Japanese that nobody could ever vote their rights away and it would never, ever, ever happen.
It’s pretty clear that you’re not.
It’s blatantly obvious that you’ve gone very, very far out of your way to craft burdens of proof which are totally impossible to meet and then claim that you don’t have to prove your own case. And quoting a blatantly biased Guardian piece is just the icing on the cake.
Do I really need to point out that bears not even a passing resemblance to reality? I’ve pointed out that your argument is fallacious, bogus, in bad faith and unconvincing to attack your argument. You know, showing why your argument sucks in order to show why it sucks. I don’t need a “real argument” because my real argument is that your argument sucks.
You. Glad I could clear that up.
Not believing that your deliberate twisting of a very clear quote is accurate is no ‘evasion’. Nobody said that pre-Third Reich Germany is just like America, but that everything you could say about Jews in American society now you could say about Jews in German society then. And you can. That doesn’t mean that they’re interchanable, only that Jews were prominent members of society and were thought to be perfectly safe.
I am blasphemously secure in the fact that, well, facts aint ignorance.Swing and a miss TC.
If tomorrow 95% of Americans decided that Jews were evil agents of a foreign government, we’d see Internment Camps, again.
You can choose to ignore roughly 15 centuries of precedent and pattern if you really want to. But many of us won’t. Whenever a nation starts looking at Jews at Outsiders who are only in the nation at the majority’s sufferance and who cannot be trusted due to their evil, duplicitious, sneaky nature and loyalty to “World Jewry”, things can get really bad really fast.
This is, you will notice, the same reason that blacks might just not share your calm assurance if someone started burning crosses on their laws. Or as you might say “Awww you negros, politics often gets heated in this country, so what?”
And yet, the FBI states that Jews are one of the most likely targets for hate crimes in the United States. I suppose your response would be “So what if a Jew or three gets their ass beaten every single day on average, but so what?”
Nifty evasion.
It’s almost as if I went to some pains to clarify exactly the fact that it wasn’t necessarily David Duke’s ‘influence’, but the fact that mainstream political positions have now arisen which echo his ideology, rhetoric, and hatred.
Not that your ignorance here is central or anything, but you really should learn about US history and especially how, and why, we were founded. May I suggest A people’s history of the united states, it should replace some of that ignorance with knowledge.
Of course, were we to trust your reasoning, we’d wager that an entire ethnic group could never be placed in internment camps during wartime. Ya know, our bill of rights and yadda yadda.
Proof that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
You’ll find that one of the major waves of Jewish refugee immigration to America coined the word “kike”. You’ll find that Coughlin was quite popular. You’ll find that Klan membership wasn’t insignificant. And so on, and so on, and so on.
Another evasion.
You don’t need to have a Holocaust for a nation to become an unpleasant place to live. The Ukraine isn’t exactly paradise these days for Jews. Can you tell me how many extermination camps are there right now?
I should also point out that I said nothing at all about a Holocaust, but your hyperbolic strawman serves whatever purposes your burdens of proof do, I’d wager.
No, I will keep trying to educate you even if you struggle.
Barring Jews the ability to make business contacts due to the simple fact of them being Jews, prohibiting them from getting a first rate education, excluding them from society, etc… all are Bad Things. But it is interesting that your standard is that overt, systematic, deliberate, enduring racism is okay if other groups are more discriminated against (in your calculus).
Yet again, were we to trust your rationalizations, then gays have it just great compared to blacks. And, hell, blacks have it just great when compared to those genetically predisposed to pedophilia. And, hell, they have it great when compared to hunchbacks with leprosy.
Just think how lucky American blacks are not to be leprous Quasimodos, those damn whiners!
Your caps lock and question mark keys are sticking, unlike the memory of what you just responded to that I just said. Yet again, Jews in America risk having their very identity as Americans questioned and claims of treason applied to them if they dare have ‘improper’ opinions on foreign policy. That fits both the connotation and denotation of the word “discrimination.”
Oh, it wouldn’t take nearly that high a percentage. I doubt the Nazis ever had the explicit support of that high a percentage of the German population. Rather, the followers they had were sufficiently ruthless and violent that they could maintain control over a larger population who wanted mostly just to do their jobs and be left alone.
So if tomorrow 30% of Americans decided that Jews were evil agents of a foreign government, and the other 70% were not sufficiently organized to shut them down, we’d see Internment camps, again. I don’t think this is all that far-fetched, myself. It’s exactly the kind of thing that makes eternal vigilance necessary.
The anti-Palestinian were as much anti-reality as the anti-Isreali ones. Anytime when advice begins “Be Stalin”, I think you’d have to do a double-take :rolleyes:
First, I did reply to it. Which part are you saying I ignored? The Russian thing or the Italian thing?
Second, it was annoying to see it be so one-sided. At least somebody play the Devil’s Advocate and tell me why Palestinians shouldn’t abandon and repress their history.
Third, your characterization that my objections were all I said and I said nothing of substance is false.
You’re mixing up 2 different things here.
One, the level of violence Israel should accept should be based on how much they are willing to sacrifice for peace.
And two, I was of the opinion that this thread was mostly a thought exercise. The OP asked “What is your solution?” I didn’t realize I’d be picked apart if I didn’t fill in the blank on how that would be implemented.
Given what I said in my original 10 points, I didn’t advocate some kind of foreign government imposing their will on Israel. I specifically said that in order to achieve long-term peace, these were the sacrifices both sides would have to do themselves. You are arguing as if this was already tried and failed. There is no basis to your suggestion that with the implementation all 10 fairly extreme propositions, both sides wouldn’t be equally mad but benefit equally from the compromise.
Dunno, its up to them.
What percentage?
Not all attacks are random but Israel is acting as if none of them are. Is one attack enough to derail peace? If it didn’t come from Hamas or some terrorist group, and just some nameless guy with a bomb, then yes, that’s random. My problem with Israel is their insistence that all attacks stop, not just some. No country can control all of its people, and if one guy in a population of millions were to attack, that cannot be the basis for a cessation to the peace process. And I don’t know how much of the population supports it, I would guess that reliable statistics on the mind of such of population is hard to come by. Yes, I know that Hamas is now the government of Israel and they were voted in. That’s an unfortunate consequence of Fatah being so corrupt and incompetent. They should have cracked down on Hamas instead of making excuses that they didn’t want a civil war. They didn’t, and now they have to find some way to reclaim their government. It still doesn’t convince me that the majority of Palestinians are terrorists. That’s like saying the majority of Americans are when they voted Bush back into office in 2004 despite everything he did.
Let’s see, so the mob doesn’t directly and deliberately attack civilians? They don’t operate from within the borders of a nation? They couldn’t be considered terrorists?
Just what is the difference between them anyway?
So a terroist group in the US attacks Canada. If the US uses every means at it’s disposal to track down and punish the perpetrators it would be obvious that the US is not culpable. On the other hand, it the US shrugged its shoulders, winked at the terrorists, and the terrorists became heroes, then the US would be at fault.
If the PLO, Fatah, and Hamas can’t control what is going on in their territory then how exactly do we expect them to form a govt that can negotiate and enforce a peace treaty?
What post number?
You didn’t address directly the points raised.
AFAIK, no one said the Palestinian’s should abandon or repress their history. My take is that the Palestinian’s should LEARN the REAL history, instead of the fantasy that is currently being taught to them (and is spouted in some quarters on this board). The REAL history is much more murky, much less black and white (with the Palestinian’s being much less of the White Hat variety and the Israeli’s being much less of the Black Hatters).
I also encourage YOU to learn the real history of the region. It will add context, especially when you start laying out your points on how to ‘fix’ everything there.
They aren’t willing to sacrifice the lives of their citizens for ‘peace’…which is why the majority of Israeli’s don’t vote in politicians who would feel comfortable turning the other cheek so that the next suicide bomber or rocket attacker and get a good shot at the other side.
It’s a debate…and a highly emotionally charged one at that. Perhaps to you it’s just an intellectual exercise and you really don’t care that much about it (it’s obvious that you don’t know that much about the situation there, which is not uncommon), but others take this subject very seriously. So, when you lay out an unrealistic list of points on how to ‘fix’ things in the area, it’s pretty obvious that in such an environment it’s going to be picked apart.
Then how are you going to MAKE the Israeli’s, a democratic people, go along with all this sacrifice stuff? If you aren’t going to make them, then it’s not going to happen.
I don’t think anyone disagrees with this…in principal. Myself, I think there is going to have to be concessions on both sides. However, I think that, given their track record, it’s going to have to be the Palestinian’s who are going to have to make the first (unilateral) concessions and to show that they can be trusted by enforcing a total cease fire by the militant groups operating from within their territory. Only at that point can real negotiations start.
Well…yeah. It’s been tried many times and it’s failed many times. Israel has TRIED the sacrifice route…and it generally ends in more of it’s civilians being killed by crazy assholes wearing explosive underwear or tossing rockets at them…which generally ends with more Palestinian’s killed when the IDF starts bombing the crap out of the militant factions who are hiding in hospitals, kids schools, mosques, bakeries, etc etc.
-XT
Good luck. Yog is evidently deliberately ignoring quite a few direct factual refutations. Maybe a chorus of “monopoly on force” and “espionage =/= organized crime =/= terrorism” will have some impact.
Hey, I’m a dreamer, what can I say.
Once the British government finally decided to make a good-faith peace offer to the Catholics in Northern Ireland, the deal came under heavy attack from renegade terrorists who were implacably opposed to any deal. In fact the biggest single terrorist atrocity of the entire thirty year conflict, the Omagh bombing, came during this period. But the Brits carried on relentlessly, accepting that the political wing of the main Catholic terrorist group had no control over various radical/splinter groups, and continued to negotiate with the main group. And note it took the British government, the military occupiers, to make the first substantial move in the peace process.
If you compare and contrast the UK’s methods of getting from occupation to negotiated settlement with Israel’s from the point they finally decided to negotiate with Israel’s from circa. Oslo, it’s obvious that Israel have never had any real intention of good-faith offers or negotiations and have scuppered and undermined any efforts the Palestinians have made to fulfil their side of any agreements or bargain. Israel don’t want a settlement on anywhere near the probable terms currently likely, they’re playing for all the marbles.
Ah, good. If it’s not the tired old Israel=South Africa!!!, it’s Palestinians=Irish!
Of course, your claims are the basest ignorance and agenda driven nonsense. Israel tried negotiation from before 1948. They tried giving back the territories they won in war in 1967. They negotiated again and again, even up to the point of allowing the PA to have armed police (who, quite contrary to your fiction, were themselves, agents of the official Palestinian government, often engaged in attacking Israelis). Your absurd fiction that the Israelis had no intention of a negotiated peace and it was the Israelis who, for instance, “scuppered and undermined” the Palestinians so that they didn’t stop genocidal incitement is, well, let’s just say it’s a gutsy claim to make in a thread where people know better.
Of course, you’re also simply engaging in free association when you claim that it was Israel that didn’t want to compromise and wasn’t ready to come to a negotiated compromise. It was Arafat who walked away from the negotiating table with roughly 97 of territory under discussion being offered to the Palestinians. And like so many, you’d prefer to pretend that Israel wants “all the marbles”.
I guess we’re back to Genius Fools who want to ethnically cleanse the region but, gosh darn, they’re the Keystone Cops of genocide.
Or, like Dennis Ross reported in The Missing Peace, Prince Bandar said: “If Arafat does not accept what is available now, it won’t be a tragedy, it will be a crime”.
I’m comparing the actual process by which the Brits and the Ulster Catholics/Irish made peace with the Israel-Palestine situation. If you compare and contrast the Northern Ireland peace process with the Israel-Palestinian one it’s clear as day that Israel have never negotiated in good faith and have done everything they could to undermine any Palestinian leadership, scupper any peace process that was underway etc.
Examples, please. I guess it might be bet to concentrate on the Ehud Barak administration (1999-2001) which as I understand it was as dove-ish an government as Israel’s ever had and the most opportune time for a lasting peace.
Dick, you do realize that simply repeating what you said once it’s been factually refuted is not an effective strategy?