No, actually, it’s your role in a debate to know what the heck you’re talking about. Or google it once it’s clear that you don’t.
You still have no idea whether or not they’re relevant, do you?
That fact speaks for itself.
But, as for a discussion as to just why you won’t google it after it’s clear you’re ignorant, or google it before you hold forth on a topic you know virtually nothing about… even though you feign ignorance and pretend not to have seen it, and pretend not to have seen exactly why I refuse to take your bait, go see the Pit thread again.
Geez, guys, it is (or very recently was) Christmas where even most people who think the Jesus story is silly nonsense at least make an effort to demonstrate a bit of “peace on earth” in preparation for the New Year.
Enough with the flippin’ personal observations, whether it is in regards to other posters’ capacities to debate or their personal honesty and integrity of whatever. No one is earning points by making veiled (or not so veiled) insults against other posters. If your argument is not persuading your opponent, just recall that few (if any) posters ever change their minds because of these brawls. You are posting only to persuade the peanut gallery at home (and to hone your own beliefs on the topic).
Take the high road, leave the personal shots out of the discussion, or go away for a week until you can regain a sense of proportion.
Let me explain about debate, and I’ll use small words for your benefit.
It’s indeed my job to know what the heck I’m talking about.
It’s your job to show that I don’t.
If you don’t bother to even try to show that I don’t, you lose by default.
It sure does. What it says is that you’ve never bothered to quote or link to the fabulously relevant Hamas charter, or to explain its relevance in any other way.
This all falls under point 2, above. ‘Not 2’ ==> 3. End.
Ah yes, where you explain that while posts like this don’t constitute feeding a troll, to actually support your claim of the Hamas Charter’s relevance would.
That makes lots of sense.
How can I miss you if you won’t leave me alone? Addressing a Pit thread to me is a funny way of saying goodbye.
At any rate, I’ve responded to you there. I agree that further conversation with you here is pointless.
Finn, well we’ll need to disagree here. My take (and this is a hijack of sorts, so apologies) is that too many of these threads involving ME issues devolve into unfocussed morasses. “Israel is an abomination” “Palestinians/Arab groups are intent on genocide” “Has the memory of the summer of 2006 faded so completely already?? Holy shit.” “They did this first” “But they did that first” “Yeah but before that …” “Israel is ethnic cleansing” and on and on. The same old crap. Sure once a month or so we can have the tutorial of historical background from the perspective of each side … debunk each side’s personal mythologies. I can review the three noes, and go back so far as the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and beyond. I can again review the data that shows that Jewish immigration into Palestine was met with Arab immigration into the very same areas and an increase in the standard of living for those Arabs and that it wasn’t until particular Arab leaders decided to demonize the Jews and organize riots against these “others” (for particular political ends) that problems began … and I can review the role that Zionist terrorist groups played in the early days as well … heck I can take it back even farther than that … but those who are honestly intellectually curious have had ample opportunity to learn all this, and those who are not will keep their fingers in their ears. They will read and respond to whatever strawman argument they want to hear, no matter has actually been said. Yes, it is important to challenge the lies when they are stated as facts. But I’d rather try to keep things focused some when possible.
And I’d rather participate in threads that are constructive. I do not understand the drive so many have to entrench themselves ever deeper into perceptions of past wrongs rather than on practical visions of best possible futures.
Guin, a question. I really do not know the answer even though I suspect what it is. How often has the “International Law” regarding occupied territories actually been followed? Since the Hague Convention of 1907 there have been many examples of border changes that have occured as a result of wars (ie groups that have indeed succeeded to “take land by conquest”). Is this particular “international law” something that gets trotted out only for particular groups at particular times. Seems that way. Can you point me to data that shows me one way or the other?
IIRC Alsace and Lorraine re-became part of France after 1907
and there is a sliver of Russian territory that changed hands well after 1907 Kaliningrad - Wikipedia
International ‘law’ is rewritten by the victors - to me it is a joke
The debate was supposed to be whether Israel is an apartheid State, well, even if one counts Ghaza and the West Bank as part of Israel (which I don’t) is Israel apartheid within its 1948 borders ?
If not then JC was using inflammatory words - a pity, as he has been a benign ex-President.
Yeah… but some of those are garbage, like the ethnic cleaning claim. And some really do get at the meat of a discussion, but people want to scuttle it. Talking about the OT’s for example, it’s essential to define why they are the way they are. Simply talking about Israeli settlements without mentioning the influx of weapons or the factions in Palestinian society which have opposed peace and/or moving out of the refugee camps.
Likewise, the fact that Israel has been trying to give back the OT’s for about 30 years now goes to the question of whether or not they’re trying to set up “SA style” whatever.
And I wish we had people in a debate who knew all that stuff before debating. But as that doesn’t happen, sometimes you do need to go back to stuff like that. How many debates have you seen, for instance, where someone brings up the old cannard “The Jews from Europe just came in 1948 and took almost all of the land that the Palestinians owned?”
I agree, it’d be great if we had that historical accuracy, but often we don’t. And while bringing up the founding of Israel isn’t always germane to a topic, often other historical bits are. For instance, here, it’s a bit hard to talk about the OT’s without talking about why they’re under a system of military rule.
Yes, that’s a large problem and I have no idea how to deal with it. Even in this thread it’s proven impossible to get folks to simply state that the military occupation is based on national, not racial, ethnic, or cultural identity.
I agree. The problem is that the lies and distortions often fly fast and heavy. And sometimes the counters are supremely relevant. For instance, that Israel tried to return the OT’s but was rebuffed by The Three Noes is important. Especially since the populace was hostile and would not have wanted to be Israelis. Especially since many factions are committed to genocide, acting on that commitment, and are are armed and financed by various hostile powers.
Without looking at why Israel has the OT’s in the first place, why they cannot annex them, and why simply disengaging doesn’t mean that they won’t have to go right back in, ala Gaza or Lebanon… well, we only get a slanted and partisan view of the situation.
I agree, but often the context is vitally important.
For instance, without talking about Hamas, their ideology, methods, and sources of funding, we got Pollyanna claims like the occupation will stop its current methods of checkpoints and restricting travel if only the settlements were gone.
I’m all for a two state solution with peace, security, and viable economic and agricultural rights for everybody involved. But deliberately ignoring context and simply resorting to silly demonizations about “apartheid” doesn’t get us any closer to a solution.
If Israel totally pulled out tomorrow, how long would it take Hamas to start launching rockets out of the West Bank? Ignoring, as many have done, that Israel has legitimate security concerns, serves no purpose other than to scuttle honest debate.
And while I wish it wasn’t necessary to point out that some of Israel’s enemies are bent on genocide, and are not interested in anything less than the total annihilation of the state… obviously sometimes it is. Sure, people who are actually interested in an honest debate will take these factors into consideration. As I say above, I’m not really sure how to deal with those who aren’t interested… but pointing out that their claims lack all context or knowledge about the current players in the situation is a good start.
So perhaps I was wrong, but I still don’t see how you can justify the situation in Israel TODAY with something that happened in the 13th freaking century.
Guin, Don26’s comment is off-base. Yes, “International Law” visavis Israel is a farce that gets selectively applied to Israel and apparently Israel alone. But Israel did not claim the West Bank or Gaza as “spoils of war.” She instead offered them up in return for a promise of peace and was rebuffed with that infamous “Three Noes” She then kept them as a security zone from forces that were declared to be hostile to her. Finn’s point has some validity: attacks from residents of the OT onto Israel predate the settlements or restrictions that resulted from them and in any case security considerations would include restrictions on non-Israelis within the OT. He is wrong in implying that settlemets have nothing to do with the magnitude of those restrictions. They are significantly more onerous in order to provide security for Israelis in those settlements who have placed themselves at risk. These more onerous restrictions are still motivated by security concerns, not in order to disenfranchise a racial group … etc. … but they are still a fairly direct result of various Israeli administrations allowing settlements. Stupid and wrong. Agreed. Apartheid? No more than glass is the same as ice because both are hard and clear. (Who’d have thought I’d be quoting from Gush Shalom?!)
Finn, settlements in no way enhance Israel’s security; they impair it. Withdrawl to a defensible Big Fence and snapping back in significant but measured ways at the inevitable attacks is her best bet, short of a real negotiated peace. I don’t expect that everyone with an opinion about ME issues has all the relevant information at their disposal. My problems are with those who willfully remain ignorant of it. And I can’t entirely disagree with your points about context.
The idea that national territory can be legitimately acquired as “spoils of war” is a most ancient one, but by the end of WWII most of the world was thoroughly sick of it, and international relations (and law) since that time have been based on rejecting that idea. E.g., the international community still does not fully accept China’s claim to Tibet and never accepted Indonesia’s claim to East Timor. You might compare world maps of different dates and observe how few alterations of national borders have occurred, anywhere, since the final decolonization of Africa in the 1960s. Even with all of Africa’s political turbulence and civil wars, the borders remain stable. Any ruler who wants to enlarge his nation’s territory by a war of aggression generally is obliged at least to supply an unrelated pretext, as when Saddam Hussein attacked Iran for the declared purpose of liberating the Arabs of Khuzestan from Persian rule – an appeal to the principle of nationalism (see below); or his war on Kuwait, which was based on a historic claim (by one of the three Ottoman provinces of which Iraq was formed) to Kuwait’s territory.
Most of the world now accepts, at least in theory, the principle of nationalism as it emerged in 19th-Century Europe. This is the idea that every definable ethnocultural “nation” should have its own state – united, and independent of any other state or sovereignty, and encompassing all the territory of that nation (although how a given nation’s territory is to be defined – by historical claim, or presence of a numerical majority on a given territory, or what – is a thornier question and has given rise to wars). The Palestinians (as distinct from Arabs generally) probably were not a nation in 1948 – but now they are. Decades of maltreatment by Israel and scarce better treatment by ostensibly sympathetic governments of other Arab states have molded them into a nation, with a definite national culture and national territory. (For that matter, the Israelis, as distinct from the Jews, were not quite a nation in 1948, but are one now.)
The situation in Gaza, including prevention of movement, is currently at least as bad as the West Bank, if not worse. The point is that, yes, if there was peace and the settlements were removed, then things would change. But there isn’t peace. If Israel pulled out of the West Bank, more likely than not all we’d see is more rockets being fired within weeks if not days. And then the IDF would just have to go back in and crack down, almost certainly harder than they are now.
Yes, and no. Undoubtedly many policies are in place to protect settlers. And, by the same token, the settlements were a bad idea. But, right now, things would not change if Israel left the settlements on their own, or evacuated them. The same thing happened in Gaza, and due to Hamas things are right back to being worse than they were before.
I know, it’s an interesting thing when Gush Shalom is less radical than many.
Not necessarily true. Many of them do not. Some, like some in the Jordan Valley and by Samaria serve as buffer zones.
And yet you and I both know exactly how that would go.
Action: targeted missile strikes against enemies who deliberately mix with the civilian populace, killing their target and others within blast range.
Response: “Israel is practicing state sponsored terrorism! They’re targeting civilians! More Palestinians have been killed than Israelis! Why didn’t Israel just send a police force in to arrest the terrorists?”
Action: Limited military incursions into heavily armed and hostile areas, ala Jenin.
Response: “It’s a massacre! They’re killing Palestinians! Look, look, there are photos of tanks in the streets! Why didn’t they just use a missile?”
Action: Large scale bombing campaigns designed to disrupt dual-use targets and deal with a widespread terrorist network.
Response: "It’s collective punishment! Israel should send police to arrest the terrorists. After all, in my town the police wouldn’t have to demolish a neighborhood to get at terrorists there. And Israel’s relations with a hostile power should be exactly the same as my neighborhood. If Israeli police showed up to arrest Palestinian terrorists, why, they’d be greeted with open arms. "
Etc… Politically, the only response Israel can take which would satisfy her critics is, generally, no response. Militarily, it is unclear whether short fast strikes will accomplish much, especially as they serve as massive PR fodder for the media campaign which always runs parallel to the military campaign.
The situation in the OT’s is bad, without a doubt. But it can’t get better until all of the factors are worked out. Remove the settlements, and Hamas simply sets up camp there and starts launching rockets. If Israel responds, it is again demonized.
I don’t know what the answer is, but I do not believe that unilateral disengagement is a magic bullet. Yes, it will allows Israel to shepherd its resources and apply them strictly where needed. But without peace, it won’t stop Hamas from doing what they do best.
I’m not persuaded that extraordinary leadership was key. In MHO, the gradual acceptance of SA as a pariah state and the associated sanctions did it. Now, Israeli apartheid is more durable as the US now offers its unqualified support to Israel. This poses 2 questions.
The first I addressed earlier. Leaving aside the plain text, Carter is timely in advancing the view that the US needs to put some blue sky between its foreign policy and Israel’s demands. Surprisingly there does seem to be some movement on this point as the administration is paying heed to the view that resolution of the I/P question is the key to concord in the Middle East.
Alternatively, what force of persuasion can be delivered to outweigh the unqualified US support. As Dseid rightly points out, Israel needs sufficient encouragement such that it undertakes a reverse and withdraws entirely from the West Bank and is dissuaded from any further ventures there.
I think you’ll find that WWI took place some time after the 13th Century
I think you’ll also find that the Middle East changed hands from the Ottomans to the French and British.
Personally I don’t buy ‘International Law’, while there are Conventions, they are effectively voluntary - more agreements than legally enforceable contracts.
If the Arab States had not jumped on Israel in 1948, then its borders would be considerably shorter than they are today.
What astonishes me is that many ‘Palestinians’ are utterly intractable, they say the most astonishing things and their behaviour is quite disgraceful (like firing rockets during a ceasefire) yet the ‘international community’ seems to regard them as angels.
Israel has NOT been “trying to give back the OT’s” at all. You know how I know this?
Because with something like this, there is no ‘try’, just do.
Just walk out. Bye. You’ve given them away. Piece of cake.
That doesn’t take 30 years; it takes six months.
What one might correctly say is that Israel has been trying to realize certain other conditions in exchange for the occupied territories. But that’s not remotely the same thing as ‘trying to give X away.’ Saying that Israel is trying to give the West Bank away is so great a misrepresentation of reality that it must be called a lie.
And in 1967 Egypt and Jordan could have gotten back their territory and population, the Egyptians and Jordanians wouldn’t have had to become Palestinians.
And if Arafat had responded to what he viewed as poor negotiating offers with more negotiation instead of the second intifada, we might have had two states already.
And if the groups like Hamas would recognize Israel’s right to exist and come to the negotiating table, Israel would be able to hand over the OT’s without having to simply go right back in once rockets started falling.
Why some folks wilfully remain ignorant of this is beyond me. Selective Pollyanna rhetoric is… odd.
I’d wager that many of us are confused as to what drives their strange standards. If Israel were to announce tomorrow that it intended to commit genocide upon the Palestinians, it would be jumped on like a bone by a pack of starving dogs. Hamas already states that it intends to commit genocide upon the Israelis, and they’re referred to as underdog heroes by some.
TWEEET! Hold it right there, mod! Characterizing another poster’s statement as a lie is not the same as calling that poster a liar (i.e., flaming) and is something we do all the time in GD and something that is allowed under the Board rules!
And? I didn’t see tomndeb warning or even admonishing anyone. He just pointed out that particular strong statements can simply be an opinion rather than a deliberate lie.
A rather huge recurring problem in this thread if you ask me. Which nobody did, so I’ll leave it at that.
I would not say that I am happy to see it done all the time, either. In this case, I was making a general comment as a poster, (with, clearly, an implied Moderator action behind it).
No Warnings were issued and I have not claimed that any rules have been broken.
I understand only intellectually why these threads so frequently turn into personal feuds, however, the notion of “moderating” does tend to imply a somewhat inherent obligation to oppose extreme actions and, since I have already had to request that the participants display a bit less passion, I think I am within my rights as a poster and duties as a Mod to point out specific instances that might incite more, not less, passionate outbursts.
YMMV, obviously, but I am the one getting the hate mail for not crushing more skulls.