Illegal Israeli Settlements Rapidly Growing.

[a_unique_person]

OK, that's you're opinion, but the 'debunking' claimed the resolution stated something it did not.

 

[a_unique_person]

AUP: That's 2 Jews down, and several more to go. You protest too much. Why not lay off America and Israel for a while and criticize Australia, like that crazy imam in Sydney who equates women with meat.

How about you just play it straight, and don't delve into abusive taunts? You're Jewishness or otherwise is of no concern to me. As you have found out, Mycroft is not Jewish, he is just someone who likes to throw disgusting accusations around, and make up motivations for people. It's not the race, it's the person.

 

[jmontecillo01]

Mycroft is not Jewish, he is just someone who likes to throw disgusting accusations around, and make up motivations for people. It's not the race, it's the person.

I don't normally judge people but I would make this one an exception. What he did is to question my sanity instead of questioning the insanity of war. I suffered a lot because of my illness. The stigma associated with it made life difficult for me.

Instead of looking for the value of the statement, he looks at the man and says he is insane. What is wrong with the statement "Even if the lot adjuscent to my home is empty, I still have no right to claim it".

 

[Mycroft]

I don't normally judge people but I would make this one an exception. What he did is to question my sanity instead of questioning the insanity of war. I suffered a lot because of my illness. The stigma associated with it made life difficult for me.

I don't recall questioning your sanity. You brought the issue up when you described your schizophrenia and the hallucinations that come with it. I asked if you were on your medication because that seemed like the most important issue involving you at the moment.

As for the insanity of war, we can agree all day long on that and it wouldn’t change that peace requires both sides to agree to it. Right now Palestinians can’t even agree if they even recognize Israel or not, something that was supposed to have been settled more than a decade ago.

Instead of looking for the value of the statement, he looks at the man and says he is insane. What is wrong with the statement "Even if the lot adjuscent to my home is empty, I still have no right to claim it".

There is nothing wrong with the statement in itself, but neither does it offer any particular insight into the conflict. Then again, one wouldn't expect an auditory hallucination to offer any special insight to anything. As it happens, a member of my family recently had experience with similar hallucinations, but the nature of the hallucination made it clear they were a result of her fears and insecurities, and not any special insight into the world.

Claiming Jews are squatters on land that doesn’t belong to them is a false meme that Palestinians have been pushing in their propaganda to great success. That you happened to have internalized it and then later experienced it as a hallucination is not itself evidence that the meme has substance. If you want to argue otherwise, you would do much better finding real world evidence.

 

[jmontecillo01]

There is nothing wrong with the statement in itself, but neither does it offer any particular insight into the conflict.

It does not require insight to see that nobody has the right to claim lands that are not their own.

Ok The voice - "If the pattern of reality is the same, it would arrive at the same conclusion"

In short, you can use a little sample to be able to see the bigger picture. That is like saying, nobody has the right to enter their neighbours home and shoot him. In the bigger picture, it would also apply to govt entering other peoples land just because they can.

I am not taking sides. All I am saying is that we should not be blind to the reality of things. War causes death, pain and suffering. Both sides suffer. Sharon before he went into coma said he would dismantle some of the settlements. The international community calls them illegal settlement.

 

[steverino]

I don't normally judge people but I would make this one an exception. What he did is to question my sanity.

You shared with us your battle with schizophrenia. It is valid then that we as readers look at your posts with a judgement about you as a person influenced by your unfortunate illness. If it was important enough for you to share your hallucinations with us in the context of your post, then please allow us to weave your unique circumstance into our conclusions about your political vision and accept your stigma.

"You're Jewishness...is of no concern to me."- A Unique Aussie

I assumed nothing about me was of any concern to you.

 

[jmontecillo01]

You shared with us your battle with schizophrenia. It is valid then that we as readers look at your posts with a judgement about you as a person influenced by your unfortunate illness. If it was important enough for you to share your hallucinations with us in the context of your post, then please allow us to weave your unique circumstance into our conclusions about your political vision and accept your stigma.

Point taken.

The truth is that I don't have an explanation for the things that I experience. I am an agnostic and I do not know the reason for all of those things. I mentioned schiz because I beleive that we must learn to look beyond the persons appearance and examine the value of what he says. In the same token, we must not be mislead by the appearance of the speaker.

All that I know is that we must learn to use this tool that we currently have. A tool that knows no boundaries and influence our children to use reason.

If there is any reason for the voices, then these forums can be used for that purpose.

I really learned a lot. When I was still contracting, I stopped calling myself a programmer and instead use the term "software engineer". Same work, more money.

There are things we have to watch out for. We have to learn to see beyond the words invented by men. What is collateral damage. It means the dead, the injured, the maimed. In short they are victims of war. So why don't we just use victims of war, because the term "collateral damage" hides the fact that the victims are human.

 

[Mycroft]

If anyone dares to debate you on the issue in depth, it can only be because they are anti-semites who hate Jews.

It seems no matter how many times I correct you on this, you keep pushing this lie.

Let's make this clear:

Many people disagree with me on Israel. The vast majority of them are not anti-Semites.

To be called an anti-Semite by me you have to go way above and beyond merely disagreeing and debating with me on Israel. Such things may include but not be limited to:

1) Showing extreme prejudice towards Israel, exaggerating all its wrongs and minimizing wrongs done to it.

2) Expressing grave concern over Jews exercising political power to influence the platform of Australian political parties.

3) Expressing grave concern over “extremists Zionist” Jewish “neo-cons” having too much influence in the United States government.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=394648#post394648

4) Showing extreme insensitivity towards Jewish people. You know, the infamous “Yarmulke” thread.

5) Revising history so one doesn’t have to change their opinion. Such as claiming that Arafat was really trying to end terrorism when the evidence is clear he was promoting more of it, or claiming there was no cease-fire so they wouldn’t have to admit Palestinians were breaking it, or calling 400 years of Ottoman rule “occupation” to de-legitimize Zionist talks with them.

6) Apologizing for Nazis (yes, actual Nazis) such as Haj Amin el-Husseini by claiming their genocidal hatred was motivated (and justified) by precognition.

Lot’s of people disagree with me on Israel. To be called an anti-Semite, one needs to do something special.

 

[a_unique_person]

You shared with us your battle with schizophrenia. It is valid then that we as readers look at your posts with a judgement about you as a person influenced by your unfortunate illness. If it was important enough for you to share your hallucinations with us in the context of your post, then please allow us to weave your unique circumstance into our conclusions about your political vision and accept your stigma.

"You're Jewishness...is of no concern to me."- A Unique Aussie

I assumed nothing about me was of any concern to you.

You said it was.

 

[a_unique_person]

It seems no matter how many times I correct you on this, you keep pushing this lie.

Let's make this clear:

Many people disagree with me on Israel. The vast majority of them are not anti-Semites.

To be called an anti-Semite by me you have to go way above and beyond merely disagreeing and debating with me on Israel. Such things may include but not be limited to:

1) Showing extreme prejudice towards Israel, exaggerating all its wrongs and minimizing wrongs done to it.

2) Expressing grave concern over Jews exercising political power to influence the platform of Australian political parties.

3) Expressing grave concern over “extremists Zionist” Jewish “neo-cons” having too much influence in the United States government.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=394648#post394648

4) Showing extreme insensitivity towards Jewish people. You know, the infamous “Yarmulke” thread.

5) Revising history so one doesn’t have to change their opinion. Such as claiming that Arafat was really trying to end terrorism when the evidence is clear he was promoting more of it, or claiming there was no cease-fire so they wouldn’t have to admit Palestinians were breaking it, or calling 400 years of Ottoman rule “occupation” to de-legitimize Zionist talks with them.

6) Apologizing for Nazis (yes, actual Nazis) such as Haj Amin el-Husseini by claiming their genocidal hatred was motivated (and justified) by precognition.

Lot’s of people disagree with me on Israel. To be called an anti-Semite, one needs to do something special.

You are a loathsome person, twisting around what I say to suit your own perverted needs. I have Jewish friends, as do my children. These people I know are nothing like you.

 

[webfusion]

a_u_p, I've just read the thread cited, and it certainly illuminates you in a very bad light. You made a bold claim which sounded very anti-semetic and failed to provide any evidence of it. Despite being prompted repeatedly.

And now this:

"I have Jewish friends, as do my children. These people I know are nothing like you."
---- Mycroft is not jewish.

And then this:
"but the 'debunking' claimed the resolution stated something it did not."

I've requested a summary, or for someone to offer the essence. Can you show me the sentence or paragraph where UNSCR 242 is wrongly evaluated?

As far as I know, UNSCR has been followed to the letter by Israel, in coordination with the States in the region it references. Syria doesn't wish to negotiate, so it is left in the cold. That's a Syrian internal problem, not Israel's.

 

[Skeptic]

You are a loathsome person, twisting around what I say to suit your own perverted needs.

Funny how you claim that happens to you a LOT more than to anybody else.

What's more likely, AUP: you are free of the tiniest speck of antisemitic feeling, and it just happens that there a bunch of dirty jews zionist apologists who are out there in this forum to besmirch your good name;

...or that your posts reek of antisemitism: belittling and excusing the murder of jews, spreading Palestinian propaganda against them, falling for conspiracy theories about the "zionist" control of the US government--which is simply the "jews control the world" meme slightly changed, etc.?

I have Jewish friends, as do my children.

You're saying that as if that's any evidence you're not an anti-semite. In reality, of course, the bigot's first line of defense is usually "Some of my best friends are... (whatever group one loaths)".

By this logic, nobody who has female friends could possibly be a male chauvinist pig, nobody who is on friendly terms with some black people could possibly be a racist, and so on. And we all know that is far from the truth.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Many people disagree with me on Israel. The vast majority of them are not anti-Semites.

That would include me, on some topics.

To be called an anti-Semite by me you have to go way above and beyond.

It is frustrating to discuss, objectively, most of the matters in the Mid East when a partisan, emotionally driven pundit like Z-N (who at least is consistent in his approach and themes, and coherent in his presentation) accuses me of making "rationalizations" when I present cold, heartless analysis of the tensions between two sides of an extremely complex, and IMO generally unresolvable, political struggle.

The core irritant of the pro Israeli argument, whatever its merits legal and otherwise, is the assumption of virtue that is consistently interlaced in the points, themes, and soundbytes. That the pro Palestinian argument often strives for a similar inherent assumption does no credit to that position: the virtue of victimhood leaves me cold, and disdainful in most arguments.

As I see it, the cold, heartless condition is as follows: the UN created Israel culminating a 70 year lobbying effort by the European Zionist movement to do just that. Its creation was disputed and the problem resolved the old fashioned way, by blood and iron. Reality 1, UN 0. The fundamental geographic limitations of tools, time, and space, measured against the realities of mechanized and modern warfare, put Israel in an untenable strategic position in 1965-1967, with the result being a decision biased toward national survival. Fight or flight? They chose fight.

The Yom Kippur War clearly was a war of national survival. It redrew certain lines with blood and iron, on the map, via Israeli victory at arms and a US/UN intercession that saved the Egyptian 3rd Arrmy from a gory annihilation. What could have been a slaughter in the Sinai was averted. The sponsors of the Palestinians were soundly defeated, if they were even acting in that capacity at all. (Open to question, given the Sinai and Golan matters from 1967 that were key Egyptian and Syrian war aims.)

You can't negotiate very effectively with your neighboring nation states if you don't exist as a nation state. You have to work through sponsors. The Palestinian leadership have battered their heads against this reality, being beholden to others for their future viability, for the past 40 years. It is evident to me that Israeli leadership does not trust the viability of their nation state to sponsors: they prefer to hold their fate in their own hands. (Can anyone blame them for that? I think not.) So, the political tension sustains, and the Palestinian leadership's positions often frustrates its negotiating efforts. They don't have much bargaining power, and must thus rely on the "kindness of strangers." So, what means do they have to pursue their cause, when they hold bloody few cards to play at the table? One means is the use of force/violence to attempt an attrition of will in the opponent. That violence appears to have been a successful tool in the intafada's reinforces the idea that it can be effective again. Result: some Palestinian leadership chooses to play that card. Given the limited means at hand, in terms of bargaining power, I am not surprised that force is resorted to as a means to a political end. There is no virtue in this struggle: it is politics/war/power at its most integrated.

It is a war being fought by the entire spectrum of means, a text book case of 4th Generation Warfare as a multidimensional political struggle. This includes dragging others in to help resolve the conflict in one's favor. (Diplomatic power, search for allies) As a war deriving from the most visceral of motivations, it's outcome is not going to be final if the leadership doesn't materially change its position, particularly on the Palestinian side. Each dawn brings the sun, and for both sides another opportunity to advance their position by one means or another. Sometimes by money, by negotiation, by propaganda campaign, by violence. Whatever it takes.

In ten years' time, one possible outcome is that Israel no longer exists, the lines having been once again redrawn by blood and iron. Another is that the map will be different, but Israel and a Palestinian state will exist in somewhat better harmony than present. Another is that the stage will look pretty much as it does this morning, a nasty little "forever war."

I object to knee jerk reactions from pro-Israel partisans when my posts or points (like the rather coarse analysis above) aren't blatantly biased in favor of Israel's position. This intellectually lazy presumption of "if you are not for me, you must be against me" stifles discussion and understanding. For that reason alone, I will not miss Z-N. I will miss his digging up of interesting and useful links regarding the topic at hand.

DR

 

[Skeptic]

That would include me, on some topics.

I don't think Mycroft (or anyone else on this forum) called you an antisemite.

Anyway, it is not so much the beliefs one holds about zionism or israel in theory, but the hatered of israel out of all proportion to its faults (while ignoring almost totally far worse crimes elsewhere) that is the mark of the antisemite. israel, for such people, is treated in the same way the jews in general are treated by antisemites--the double standard, the conspiracy theories, the desire to wipe it out.

 

[Mycroft]

You are a loathsome person, twisting around what I say to suit your own perverted needs. I have Jewish friends, as do my children. These people I know are nothing like you.

Look, every time you propagate the lie that I call everyone who disagrees with me an anti-Semite I will refute your lie by listing a few of the real world examples of things I've seen in the past that go way beyond simple disagreement on Israel that really do lead me to that conclusion. You and I have both been down that road many times before, if you don't like where it leads, I suggest you simply put that particular lie to rest and stop propagating it.

Simple enough?

Stop telling the lie, you stop getting the standard refutation.

Now, if you want to debate anything with me and can refrain from calling me "a loathsome person" and other names, I'm more than willing. As always, I won't call anything "revisionist" that doesn't actually revise history, I won't call anything "apologist" that doesn't actually attempt to apologize for something nasty, I won't call anything "denial" that doesn't actually deny something you're well aware of, and I won’t call anything anti-Semitic that isn’t actually bigoted against Jews or propagate some anti-Semitic meme.

Fair enough?

Conversely, if you don’t want to debate anything with me, then you should have nothing more to say to me or about me, and we should never come into conflict again, right?

 

[Mycroft]

OK, that's you're opinion, but the 'debunking' claimed the resolution stated something it did not.

By "resolution" do you mean UNSCR 242 as mentioned in the video?

Wow, we've been down that road before, let's take a peek at where it brought us in the past:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=475909#post475909

That's a post I wrote almost two years ago. What does it say?

In politics, semantics is everything.

For example, did you know that the PLO rejected resolution 242? Their reasoning was that it didn’t deal with Palestinian-Arabs as a people with national rights. This makes perfect sense, of course, as before 1967 they weren’t a people; the term Palestinian didn’t come into common usage until after 1967, prior to that they self-identified as Jordanians, or Egyptians or simply Arabs. Nope, the PLO didn’t accept Resolution 242 until 1988, and only after pressure from the United States which set it as a precondition to recognizing them.

But what about the resolution itself? What does it mean?

Well, let’s take a look at some statements from some of the diplomats of the time:

"To seek withdrawal without secure and recognized boundaries ... would be just as fruitless as to seek secure and recognized boundaries without withdrawal. Historically, there have never been secure or recognized boundaries in the area. Neither the armistice lines of 1949 nor the cease-fire lines of 1967 have answered that description... such boundaries have yet to be agreed upon. An agreement on that point is an absolute essential to a just and lasting peace just as withdrawal is... "

Arthur Goldberg, U.S. ambassador to the U.N

“The purposes are perfectly clear, the principle is stated in the preamble, the necessity for withdrawal is stated in the operative section. And then the essential phrase which is not sufficiently recognized is that withdrawal should take place to secure and recognized boundaries, and these words were very carefully chosen: they have to be secure and they have to be recognized. They will not be secure unless they are recognized. And that is why one has to work for agreement. This is essential. I would defend absolutely what we did. It was not for us to lay down exactly where the border should be. I know the 1967 border very well. It is not a satisfactory border, it is where troops had to stop in 1947, just where they happened to be that night, that is not a permanent boundary . . . "

Lord Caradon Britain’s representative to the U.N


"Until the states concerned in the dispute make peace in accordance with Resolution 242, the Security Council decided, Israel could remain in the territories it held after the Six Day War as occupying power. The legality and legitimacy of its presence as occupying power is thus certified by the Security Council"

Eugene V. Rostow U.S. Undersecretary of State.

So who cares what Eugene Rostow, Lord Caradon, and Arthur Goldberg think? Well, if you want to invoke UNSCR 242, you should. They’re the guys who wrote it.

Resolution 242 doesn’t call for Israel to withdraw from all the territories occupied in 1967. It presumes that a withdrawal will be a part of a negotiated peace between all parties involved, but it also presumes that the negotiated peace will include secure and defensible boundaries that are not the armistice lines of 1949.

So you know that Eugene Rostow, Lord Caradon and Arthur Goldberg the authors of UNSCR 242 purposefully didn't require Israel to withdraw from all territories captured in 1967. Further, we know you've been aware of this fact for at least 1 year and 8 months.

So what is that called when your perfectly aware of a historical fact but pretend as though you're not?

What is that word? I'm thinking a river. In Egypt maybe.

I'm sure it will come later.

 

[Darth Rotor]

I don't think Mycroft (or anyone else on this forum) called you an antisemite.

I don't think him having done so either.

Anyway, it is not so much the beliefs one holds about zionism or israel in theory, but the hatered of israel out of all proportion to its faults (while ignoring almost totally far worse crimes elsewhere) that is the mark of the antisemite. israel, for such people, is treated in the same way the jews in general are treated by antisemites--the double standard, the conspiracy theories, the desire to wipe it out.

I share the concerns of some that the pro Israel lobby/advocacy groups wield an unhealthy influence on our Congress, but I also feel that lobby activities in general are becoming unhealthy influences on policy, Mid East and otherwise. (NAFTA expansion being one such concern.)

In defense of said pro Israel lobbyists, can you blame them for trying? In defense of Israel, can you blame the Israelis for trying to line up allies and supporters? Trying to sit in the shoes of the leadership in Jerusalem, I can't find fault with that point of view. Their strategic position is precarious, or can become so with just a few changes in the amount of support they can rely on. That does not necessitate that America be the sole enabler/supporter of addressing those concerns.

DR

 

[a_unique_person]

"I have Jewish friends, as do my children. These people I know are nothing like you."
---- Mycroft is not jewish.

I know, that is the point

 

[a_unique_person]

I don't think him having done so either.

I share the concerns of some that the pro Israel lobby/advocacy groups wield an unhealthy influence on our Congress, but I also feel that lobby activities in general are becoming unhealthy influences on policy, Mid East and otherwise. (NAFTA expansion being one such concern.)

In defense of said pro Israel lobbyists, can you blame them for trying? In defense of Israel, can you blame the Israelis for trying to line up allies and supporters? Trying to sit in the shoes of the leadership in Jerusalem, I can't find fault with that point of view. Their strategic position is precarious, or can become so with just a few changes in the amount of support they can rely on. That does not necessitate that America be the sole enabler/supporter of addressing those concerns.

DR

For the most part, I don't. But arguing the point with some will get you attacked, and accused of arguing the point for some manufactured reason, rather than being someone who is here to argue the point, that is, that in my opinion, Israel is wrong on several points in this issue.

EG, Skeptics implies that I have used the phrase, or think in terms of, "Dirty Jew", which I never have. It's his way of coping with differing views backed by evidence.

Mycroft has once again shown his ability in this thread to know what people are motivated by and how they think. He should do a mind reading test with the JREF and claims his million dollars. In his mind he thinks he knows why differing points of view to his own are not demonstrated much here now. It's not that his brilliant mind has seen them off, it's that people do not want to put up with the abuse.

 

[webfusion]

Having started this thread with an OP declaring that "illegal Israeli settlements are rapidly growing" it is obvious to me that a_u_p has an issue with Israeli settlements.

He even says, to affirm that view:
In my opinion, Israel is wrong on several points in this issue.

No kidding! Hey, in everyone's opinion here, and I mean everyone's, Israel is wrong on several points (we all just differ on which points)

Now, I've asked for some kind soul to summarize or concisely review here the article linked in Post #55 and a_u_p offered:
"the 'debunking' claimed the resolution stated something it did not."

and I'm waiting to see what that means...
(talking about the 'inadmissibility' of conquering land in war is not a useful starting point. That is pretty much the same as saying it's 'inadmissible' to claim the moon is made of rocks, and it is really green cheese.)

Where, in the article, a_u_p, does the 'debunking' article (of 23 pages length) misquote the UNSCR 242 ?