When you answer the question I’ll explain my logic perfectly clearly. I won’t be claiming that allowing Hamas into a government or parliament makes any system more democratic, you’ve got the worng end of the stick here. So stop repeating the same wrong thing over and over and answer the question.
So no representation. Definitely no chance of a state then? They’re not allowed to even begin the process of forming their own state until they stop supporting violence and terrorism?
Funny, your question has been answered, and lo and behold it was an off-topic gotchaya! designed for you to claim that not wanting a genocidal party in a parliament means that people want there to never be a Palestinian state. Truly, your wily rhetorical gambit is novel. And unexpected.
Now, about how your rational, non-partisan, objective claims that (only sufficiently modern) occupations and annexations negate democracy, but having genocidal parties in a Parliament is not only democratic, but should not be opposed lest one be a naughty fellow opposed to granting Palestinians self determination. Or, of course, the new hole in your logic that, okay, maaaaybe now that you were caught out in your absurd argument, now explicitly advocating genocide is not-democratic, and Israel is horrible and must change because it’s non-democratic, but we should allow Hamas to be in power and non-democratic because hey look over there I’m asking you questions!!!
It’s It’s okay, Dick, the holes in your argument will go away if you can just repeat, over and over, “Answer my off topic, loaded question or I’ll be utterly unable to defend my own argument, because of how very rational it is!”
I mean, whenever anybody can’t even offer up the pretense of rationally defending their argument, and insists on changing the subject with an off-topic bit of bait, why, it’s just further evidence of how true their argument must be. It’s only the true arguments that are utterly without logical support, dontcha know, Dick?
Wait, which government are we talking about here? Are you referring to Palestinian political parties that advocate the violent overthrow of the Palestinians’ own political leadership? Does that leadership count as “the government”?
I already explained that you’ve got my argument completely wrong. Repeating it over and over won’t make you any righter. I’m not arguing that Hamas in a government makes the government or country more democratic. What part of this don’t you understand?
I won’t bother asking you to answer the question, we both know you can’t do it.
Keep it up, Dick.
Your inability to defend your own argument is sure making me look bad.
I have no intention of defending an argument that I’m not making.
What a coincidence, you also won’t defend the argument you are making.
That’s, like, surreal, dude.
You need to show me exactly where I said that including Hamas in government would make the country/system more of a democracy.
Here’s what I said :
Should Palestinians be prevented from having some sort of representation that is recognised by the rest of the world, whether in a one or two-state situation, until they end their support for terrorist groups?
Where did I mention democracy there?
That sentence is missing a main verb in the clause beginning with “how.”
Gotta pull your argument back to reality again, Dick.
And not that your new tactic of ‘Stop pointing out my logic! It’s not fair! You’re misstating me!’ isn’t a hoot and a half, but your denials would be a tad more credible if you hadn’t already agreed my description of your position was accurate by explicitly agreeing to explain the contradictions I pointed out… if only I answered your Gotchaya!, of course. Of course. Surely you weren’t being less than accurate, right?
It wasn’t just an attempt to get someone else to bite on your very clever and crafty rhetorical gambit.
Odd, then, that my description was accurate and you could explain the (only alleged, naturally) gaping holes in your logic, but a matter of minutes later (surely not when you realized that you couldn’t defend your argument), suddenly it was a misstatement of your position.
What luck.
I’m happy to let others judge whether your characterisation of my argument is accurate or not and also this impressive explanation of yours.
I was hoping you would be willing to answer the question but I guess not.
Is there a particular reason you refuse to answer why you support “a one state solution” based on “the Israeli model” even though if it’s based on “the Israeli model” that would mean Hamas, Fatah, and similar groups wouldn’t be able to put up candidates for the Knesset?
Did you not realize the ramifications of what you advocated when you said you’d prefer “the Israeli model” to either “the Lebanese model” or “the American model”?
I can’t speak for Ibn Warraq but it made sense to me as a slightly garbled version of the following gist:
*[…] you have yet to explain how a “one state solution” based on “the Israeli model”—where the only change for Israel would be allowing Palestinians in the Occupied territories to vote—would result in allowing Hamas and Hezbollah (and other groups who advocated turning Jews into kosher hamburger) to be able to put up candidates for the Knesset.
*
Yup. I was typing while tired.
Apologies to all.
Ah, the Popular Referendum When Proven Wrong on Facts And Logic Both, With Citations.
Truly, Dick, you are unpredictable.
No.
Now please explain what you said you’d explain to others if they answered the question.
Thanks.
Are you assuming that the only possible government of Palestine is built upon a political party that argues for violence? Why not a peace party?
Well, I had to try…
I would certainly expect the Palestinian government to outlaw any Palestinian political party that argued for the violent overthrow of the Palestinian government! Replace the word Palestinian with Russian, German, Argentinian, Japanese, whatever.
(“The Whatever Government released a policy statement today, consisting of the one word ‘Meh.’”)
Of course they would. If Hamas, Fatah, etc. were banned, Palestinian voters would simply re-form the same parties under different names. It doesn’t matter. What matters is that a one-state solution that is, a secular-democratic-and-not-at-all-distinctly-Jewish-nor-Arab state, would resolve most of the problems that give rise to those parties’ existence in any case – likewise, would resolve the problems that give rise to the existence of the radical-nationalist expel-the-Arabs Israeli right. Fuck 'em all, and share the land, little of it as there is. The world really should not be so constantly emotionally exercised over the political status of a patch the size of New Jersey.
Same problem I raised last time: what about the “right of return.” I’m living in a house your grandfather used to own. You want it. I don’t want to give it up.
A democratically elected government, with appointed judges, would produce a justice system which, when presented with lawsuits over land in dispute, would probably rule in favor of the majority. Take away enough people’s houses (or refuse to restore enough people’s houses) and social friction will result, possiby of the “Civil War” variety.
The problems are too deep to be resolved in a single-state government. At best, you’d need to break the country up into “zones” in which each is guaranteed majority government. Voila: a two-state solution.