It’s not a matter of impressing anyone. It’s that I am not interested in a discussion where the other person changes his position but pretends he has not done so.
Earlier, your position was that if the Palestinian Arab leadership credibly stated that it’s intention was to attack Israel, it would be irrelevant to predicting their future actions. Then you tried, in effect, to eliminate the word “credibly” from your position. You just wanted to go by what was “stated,” and you emphasized the word “stated” as if there is likely to be a disconnect between stated and actual intentions.
More weaseling. Your earlier position was that stated intentions were irrelevant to future actions. Your new position is that stated intentions “often do not match future actions” which is obviously true, but that’s not what you were saying before.
Anyway, I have no interest in chasing a moving goalpost. This exchange is concluded.
I realize it’s not the The Pit, but how a certain poster is allowed to go beyond xenophobic, facts, cites notwithstanding, is not beyond me – rather par for the course in these threads.
BTW, Malthus, I honestly think we could come to an understanding on the issue FWLIW – even if we have some open-ended differences. Sadly, you and I agreeing, doesn’t mean much. But I do appreciate your willingness to “give peace a chance.”
It is not beyond you–it is you.
It is not only you, of course, but if we shut down all the overblown rhetoric in threads on Israel and Palestine, none of you would be permitted to post more than about once per thread.
Whatcha know, a cite about those alleging Dual Loyalty from the “Jewish Lobby”. And, of course, Israel is a “protected topic” on this board, and you can just feel the persecution. Now tell us more about ethnic based treachery, Red.
It’s a bit sad that I"m honestly not sure which poster you’re referring to.
I’m honestly not sure why you’re upset with Hagel being passed up for making comments about Jewish Americans that were at best insensitive and at worst anti-Semitic.
In the US questioning the loyalty of American citizens based on their ethnicity is something that’s extremely frowned upon.
You may remember that not that long ago, Michelle Bachmann was condemned by John McCain(hardly a bleeding-heart liberal) for making such comments about an Arab-American woman and Pat Buchanan was fired by MSNBC for repeatedly making such comments about Americans of various ethnicities.
I know in Europe and Israel there are many prominent politicians who question their citizen’s loyalty based on their ethnicity as countless Muslims in Germany, the Netherlands and Israeli Arabs can attest to, but I’d like to believe that most reasonable people, including those on the Dope would despise such activities.
I assume for example you’d agree with me that Avigidor Lieberman is a horrible bigot and it’s a huge black mark on Israel that they’d make him their Foreign Minister.
I see no reason for the US to give Hagel a similar position.
Admittedly, I don’t think Hagel’s comments are remotely as offensive as Lieberman’s but they are in a similar vein.
The way I have heard this particular paranoia explained is that the world is simply not USED to seeing Jews fight back and it turns the world against them (or some bullshit like that, as far as I can tell its the same sort of persecution complex that Republicans have when they are criticized by the “liberal” mainstream media).
You think 50 to 100 more years of this bullshit is is some sort of solution? WTF?!?
People may unjustly extrapolate the activities of AIPAC to the general Jewish populace but its pretty hard to pretend that AIPAC isn’t an Israel lobby.
It also gives me a fresh perspective on those who question his qualifications and history. The guy is awesome and it’s unbelievably sad that there are some who want to make the most reflexively antagonistic approach to the Middle East a litmus test for an American official.
I was merely pointing out that all people of religio-dogmatic indoctrination are guilty of their own form of atrocity (“terrorism”) in the name of their respective brands of superstition. Semantics about whether the example ‘Irgun’ I cited are terrorists per se, is discursive.
Whether or not these so-called ‘paramilitary’ groups made their own forehead prints on the Waling Wall is, again, immaterial. Their crimes against humanity were committed armed with the very same bent those of fundamentalist Islamic denominations are largely enacted for: intolerance and a refusal to commune or concede in order to coexist; all predicated upon an ideology of superiority stemming from a baseless, phallocentric system of control.
I work with people of a Jewish faith every day and have no animosity towards the people themselves. It’s the Machiavellian machinations performed under the dispensative religious umbrella - be they suicide bombing Muslims, gay- hating Catholics, fascist Zionist Middle-East policies et al - that pique my ire.
So, please, be so kind as to permit me to don my yarmulke, ‘Semitophiles’, and to assure you: I come in secular, free-thinking peace. (° ͜ʖ ͡°)
You think 50 to 100 more years of this bullshit is is some sort of solution? WTF?!?
