Peace Plan - "Accept it or face more violence."

[webfusion]

You are twisting things, precisely because you are making a moral equivalency argument by saying what you said:
could maybe both people be living in fear because both sides are doing things that get innocent people killed?

Again, I return to the fact that there are NOT just two sides. Israel has been at war with surrounding Arab Nations, and still is at war with Syria (officially, there is only a cease-fire in place, monitored by the United Nations). Israel also has unresolved issues with Lebanon, and with the Iranian proxy Army of Hezbollah, and the Sheba Farms salient is a major sticking point, as well as the two kidnapped IDF soldiers, Goldwasser & Regev.
The palestinians want to fight a very, very nasty guerilla war, as they have been doing for many years, and not have any consequences. They were sending bombers and attackers into Israeli cities and villages all the way back to the 1950's (fedayin raids) before the Israelis had occupied a millimeter of Gaza or the West Bank.
You even mentioned -- "Nothing the palestinians do justifies the Israelis acting in the ways they do to secure their nation."

Israel has other fish to fry besides the palestinians, and right now, if the palestinians want to stand down and relinquish their armed struggle, they will find the Israelis willing to accommodate at least 95% of their outstanding land demands. Israel has other interests to worry about, including the Syrians, the Hezbollah, Iran, and even Jordan & Egypt, so please, thinkingaboutit, don't say that there are "two sides" only.

 

[thinkingaboutit]

Was that a yes or a no?

 

[webfusion]

It's not a yes or no question.

You were displaying what is commonly called the fallacy of "false dilemma" -- that a death is a death is a death, and assuming that both israelis and palestinians are killed in the same sets of underlying circumstances.

 

[Mycroft]

The other side is the Palestinians and those people who recognize that the Palestinians have a standing in this conflict. Neither side is monolithic.

Who, pray tell, doesn't recognize that Palestinians have "a standing" in this conflict?

So what is your point? I'm sure you want to contend that Israel has no partner to negotiate with yes? Because Hamas will never accept the existence of Israel? Is that it? I would humbly point to a couple of things to read in reply... (as well as make the point that Hamas hardly represents the will of the Palestinian people on this issue)

please click these links...

This may or may not be a point Webfusion wants to make, however in general it's best to wait for somoeone to actually state an opinion before you ascribe it to them.

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0531-23.htm (Hamas makes overtures of peace)

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0202/p09s02-coop.html (a Palestinian perspective for consideration)

This is very poor evidence to support your point of view. Both of these display the fallacy of appeal to false authority.

The first article manages to argue that Hamas recognizes Israel while somehow failing to quote anyone from Hamas recognizing Israel. The second article laughingly labeled "a Palestinian perspective" was written by a white American who's less Palestinian than I am. Both are essentially editorials that don’t represent anything but the opinions of those that wrote them.

 

[The Fool]

This is very poor evidence to support your point of view. Both of these display the fallacy of appeal to false authority.

They are?

The first article manages to argue that Hamas recognizes Israel while somehow failing to quote anyone from Hamas recognizing Israel.

The first article discusses the forms of treaties in traditional Islamic law and presents an argument using quotes from named sources...not just the word of what you call a "false authority"...so who is this "false authority"? an engineer? A cook? someone not qualified to comment on religious traditions? oops the author is a Professor of Religious Studies at the University of Colorado.

The second article laughingly labeled "a Palestinian perspective" was written by a white American who's less Palestinian than I am.

I think you saw an apostrophe and an S that I missed.....it is not claiming to be "a palestinian's perspective"

sigh...I guess we will get no more articles on a Spartan perspective of the Peloponnesian wars now there are no more spartans eh?

Both are essentially editorials that don’t represent anything but the opinions of those that wrote them.

so you missed the quotes? well, i suppose it is evidence supporting a viewpoint you don't like so its not quite as visible as other stuff.

 

[Art Vandelay]

With respect you did not quote any of his opinions in relation to the act of terror. You simply quoted a fact of his, namely that Israel carries out acts of collective punishment on an entire group of people.

That's not a fact, that's an opinion.

 

[webfusion]

* bump *

The palestinians' declaration that "Israel must accept the Saudi Plan 100% or face more violence" was taken to a new level this week, as Israel's top-ranking Southern Command Major General disclosed that Iran is now sending terror and guerrilla experts into the Gaza Strip for providing training to Palestinian terror organizations.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/851100.html
Galant contends that the Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, the military wing of Fatah, has already become an Iranian organization, and that Iran has had a similar influence on the Islamic Jihad.

 

[webfusion]

T-F comes to the conclusion that HAMAS is serious about recognizing Israel, and relinquishing any muslim claims to the land beyond the 1949 Rhodes Armistice Lines:

(It's not a 'false authority') --- the author is a Professor of Religious Studies at the University of Colorado.

Yeah, like I'm going to listen to how some guy in an ivory-tower in Colorado can paraphrase and interpret things better than the point-blank declarations of HAMAS itself:
The Islamic militant group Hamas on Sunday called for new attacks on Israel after nine Palestinians were killed in a surge of fighting over the weekend.
(Amin Lubadi, a wanted bomb-maker, was among those killed. Congratulations to the IDF!)

Here is how HAMAS declares their intent, in clear, easy-to-understand ENGLISH ---
A top Hamas leader in the Gaza Strip, Mahmoud a-Zahar, condemned the Israeli actions and vowed the militant group, which leads the Palestinian government, would continue to fight Israel until "the liberation of Palestine, all of Palestine."


As for the palestinian leadership being serious about wanting to pursue peace (or even a hudna) -- it's all ridiculous double-speak, and I'm not buying into it.

President Abaas had several of his aides speak to the media ----- "This is dangerous aggression and it will lead to instability at a time when the Palestinian Authority is making great efforts to maintain a truce. We urge the international community to intervene immediately to stop Israel's aggression."

WTF! The 'aggression' was in response to missiles being fired at Israeli towns, and was in response to terrorist bombers attempting to penetrate into Israeli cities. Meanwhile, not one single arrest has been evidenced by the Palestinian Security Services against these terrorists, so when I hear the PA talking about their 'great efforts' I just have to smile, and be grateful that the IDF is actually making the effort, and succeeding!



HAMAS wants m-o-n-e-y into its coffers and will say anything to delude the West to allow that, the sooner the better.

 

[Mycroft]

They are?

The first article discusses the forms of treaties in traditional Islamic law and presents an argument using quotes from named sources...not just the word of what you call a "false authority"...so who is this "false authority"? an engineer? A cook? someone not qualified to comment on religious traditions? oops the author is a Professor of Religious Studies at the University of Colorado.

Well, let me ask you a question:

Do you personally believe based on that article that Hamas has suddenly done an about face and reversed its 20-year policy of not recognizing Israel?

Because if that’s true, then that’s a major news event that all the networks and the worlds major news organizations seem to have missed out on. How amazingly clever of this one academic from that world renowned institute of higher learning the University of Colorado at Boulder to be able to discern from a single comment printed in a newspaper something that seems to have eluded all the journalist, Middle East experts, and politicians focused on this issue.

Oh, and let’s not forget how amazingly foolish Hamas is to have made this 180 degree policy shift that’s been a major stumbling block for decades and yet not to tell anybody except apparently by accident in a comment that could be deciphered only by an academic who’s specialty is religious studies and not Arabic (after all, who else could read ”we recognize Israel” into the use of the single word ”hudna”?) because apparently their culture is so radically different from ours that we should assume they don’t understand the concept of press conference.

No, the author’s extrapolation of the use of the word “hudna” to mean “we recognize Israel” is pure wistful thinking. The truth is Hamas has a long history of using the word “hudna” and this use doesn’t represent any change of policy.

Reading so much into the use of a single word is at best tortured, but it becomes either extreme ignorance or outright denial when faced with the evidence to the contrary; such as Hamas repeatedly saying they do not, have not, and will never recognize Israel.

"There was no change in our stance that Hamas does not recognize Israel,"

Hamas denied earlier reports that the deal implicitly recognized Israel.

Hamas vows it will never recognize Israel

New Palestinian govt won't recognize Israel: Hamas

The ruling "Palestinian" faction Hamas has reiterated, yet again, that none of its members will ever recognize Israel's right to exist.

So, one more time:

Do you personally believe based on that one article by Ira Chernus that Hamas has suddenly done an about face and reversed its 20-year policy of not recognizing Israel?

Yes or no?

 

[The Fool]

Well, let me ask you a question:

Why do you want to ask me a question? Because you want to distract from the fact that you dismissed a members post as an appeal to authority when it clearly isn't? Another in an endless stream of smoke and mirrors distractions?

Do you personally believe based on that article that Hamas has suddenly done an about face and reversed its 20-year policy of not recognizing Israel?

Because if that’s true, then that’s a major news event that all the networks and the worlds major news organizations seem to have missed out on. How amazingly clever of this one academic from that world renowned institute of higher learning the University of Colorado at Boulder to be able to discern from a single comment printed in a newspaper something that seems to have eluded all the journalist, Middle East experts, and politicians focused on this issue.

Oh, and let’s not forget how amazingly foolish Hamas is to have made this 180 degree policy shift that’s been a major stumbling block for decades and yet not to tell anybody except apparently by accident in a comment that could be deciphered only by an academic who’s specialty is religious studies and not Arabic (after all, who else could read ”we recognize Israel” into the use of the single word ”hudna”?) because apparently their culture is so radically different from ours that we should assume they don’t understand the concept of press conference.

No, the author’s extrapolation of the use of the word “hudna” to mean “we recognize Israel” is pure wistful thinking. The truth is Hamas has a long history of using the word “hudna” and this use doesn’t represent any change of policy.

Reading so much into the use of a single word is at best tortured, but it becomes either extreme ignorance or outright denial when faced with the evidence to the contrary; such as Hamas repeatedly saying they do not, have not, and will never recognize Israel.

"There was no change in our stance that Hamas does not recognize Israel,"

Hamas denied earlier reports that the deal implicitly recognized Israel.

Hamas vows it will never recognize Israel

New Palestinian govt won't recognize Israel: Hamas

The ruling "Palestinian" faction Hamas has reiterated, yet again, that none of its members will ever recognize Israel's right to exist.

So, one more time:

Do you personally believe based on that one article by Ira Chernus that Hamas has suddenly done an about face and reversed its 20-year policy of not recognizing Israel?

Yes or no?

Yes or No? I love it when you go all Larsen on me......Try to follow the thread....because I point out the sillyness of your evaluation of Parky's post as appeal to authority doesn't mean I subscribe to any of his positions or claims....get the Idea?

 

[The Fool]

T-F comes to the conclusion that HAMAS is serious about recognizing Israel, and relinquishing any muslim claims to the land beyond the 1949 Rhodes Armistice Lines:

I have come to no such conclusion.
Web...when you are a leader in these discussions you need to be carefull where you lead people. You started pointing out logical falacies so Mycroft attempted to follow along but didn't have much success with his claim of appeal to Authority. Now mycroft reads this and he will chase me as if I believe it....He follows you web so you need to be carefull where you take him. You might want to clue him up on appeal to authority...

 

[webfusion]

Two meandering posts, and T-F answered "No" ---


I'm not sure, then, why he bothered to say "I suppose it is evidence supporting a viewpoint you don't like" while all along, he also disagrees with it.

Anyway, there you have his answer.
When HAMAS leaders say something like they will fight fight fight, until "the liberation of Palestine, all of Palestine" we all can be reasonably assured that the HAMAS means it, truly and honestly, and that these guys are the ultimate authority on what they themselves mean.
When a professor of Religious Studies in Colorado is used as an authority to counter these declarations and to refute their clear meanings, I'm hardly impressed and am highly skeptical.

Fortunately, so is T-F. He doesn't believe that Ira Chernus is a definitive authority, either! Glad we cleared that up. So sorry for placing you in the camp of the "useful idiots", The Fool.
It's nice to see that you understand the HAMAS ruse for what it is.

 

[Mycroft]

Why do you want to ask me a question? Because you want to distract from the fact that you dismissed a members post as an appeal to authority when it clearly isn't? Another in an endless stream of smoke and mirrors distractions?

Ira Chernus is not an authority on Hamas or the Arabic language, so an appeal to him is certainly an appeal to a false authority. Further, his tortured argument doesn’t stand up to scrutiny and is easily refuted.

So yes, I dismissed thinkingaboutit’s post as an appeal to a false authority because that’s what it was.

Yes or No? I love it when you go all Larsen on me......Try to follow the thread....because I point out the sillyness of your evaluation of Parky's post as appeal to authority doesn't mean I subscribe to any of his positions or claims....get the Idea?

I will take this to be an admission that if you were not dodging the question, you would answer it as a firm “no”. On that, at least, we agree.

I have come to no such conclusion.
Web...when you are a leader in these discussions you need to be carefull where you lead people. You started pointing out logical falacies so Mycroft attempted to follow along but didn't have much success with his claim of appeal to Authority. Now mycroft reads this and he will chase me as if I believe it....He follows you web so you need to be carefull where you take him. You might want to clue him up on appeal to authority...

You seem to be trying to inappropriately personalize the issue here. After all the warnings, you should know to address your comments to the argument and not the person.

 

[The Fool]

Ira Chernus is not an authority on Hamas or the Arabic language, so an appeal to him is certainly an appeal to a false authority. Further, his tortured argument doesn’t stand up to scrutiny and is easily refuted.

The point was about Islamic religous traditions and the meanings of various arabic terms in the context of treaties.....Look son, reject anything you like, tell us that Chernus doesn't know what he is talking about if you like but for jeebus sake stop ranting on about logical falacies when they are clearly not...If the point to be made is about Islamic religous traditions and the person sited is a professor of religious studies at a mainstream university then I suggest you give up on the "appeal to authority" thingy because you just looks silly.....

I will take this to be an admission that if you were not dodging the question, you would answer it as a firm “no”. On that, at least, we agree.

please feel free to invent any answer you like and attribute it to me.

 

[webfusion]

T-F, it is apparent from the many posts you've made on this subject, exactly where you stand. Nobody has to invent anything, your own words speak volumes. Thank you for your continued interest.

 

[The Fool]

T-F, it is apparent from the many posts you've made on this subject, exactly where you stand. Nobody has to invent anything, your own words speak volumes. Thank you for your continued interest.

nobody has to invent anything? OK...find this somewhere in one of my posts...

"T-F comes to the conclusion that HAMAS is serious about recognizing Israel, and relinquishing any muslim claims to the land beyond the 1949 Rhodes Armistice Lines:

simple request?

 

[Mycroft]

The point was about Islamic religous traditions and the meanings of various arabic terms in the context of treaties...

You need to read the article again. Chernus doesn't discuss any religious traditions or "various" Arabic terms, he builds his argument around the useage of a single word.

..Look son, reject anything you like, tell us that Chernus doesn't know what he is talking about if you like but for jeebus sake stop ranting on about logical falacies when they are clearly not...

If he didn't know what he is talking about, that would certainly make him a false authority.

C'mon, this is pretty silly. Even for you.

 

[The Fool]

You need to read the article again. Chernus doesn't discuss any religious traditions

No religious traditions? From his article..

"Muslims don't make a hudna treaty with anyone inside the dar al-Islam. It all goes back to the example set by Mohammed, as recorded in the Quran. He made treaties with Jewish communities who came under Muslim rule. But they are not called hudna. By offering a hudna, Prime Minister Haniyeh is implying that he'll accept the land inside Israel's 1967 borders as gone from Muslim rule for good"


and what is this "dar al-Islam"?...you will need to read the article as its another arabic term (besides "hudna") discussed in the article.....its discussed in the article despite your bleatings that he doesn't discuss "various" terms.
[/quote]

If he didn't know what he is talking about, that would certainly make him a false authority.

C'mon, this is pretty silly. Even for you.

It appears only relevant Authorities you agree with are valid.....nothing new.

Seriously Mycroft.... why not just let it go? You claimed someone's sited article from a professor at a mainstream university from a relevant faculty was an appeal to authority falacy. its not....never will be, despite your smoke mirrors and semantics....

 

[Mycroft]

No religious traditions? From his article..

"Muslims don't make a hudna treaty with anyone inside the dar al-Islam. It all goes back to the example set by Mohammed, as recorded in the Quran. He made treaties with Jewish communities who came under Muslim rule. But they are not called hudna. By offering a hudna, Prime Minister Haniyeh is implying that he'll accept the land inside Israel's 1967 borders as gone from Muslim rule for good"


and what is this "dar al-Islam"?...you will need to read the article as its another arabic term (besides "hudna") discussed in the article.....its discussed in the article despite your bleatings that he doesn't discuss "various" terms.

I am quite familiar with the terms “dar al-Islam” as well as “hudna”, both terms having been discussed (if you remember or not) in these forums before. His argument, however, depends solely on the use of the term “hudna”, which not only is not new to Hamas (as demonstrated by my previous link) but doesn’t have the significance our hopeful professor claims it does.

The source he cites, the Encyclopedia of Islam is about the Islamic world, it’s culture, history and politics. It’s not a treatise on the Islamic religion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopaedia_of_Islam

It appears only relevant Authorities you agree with are valid.....nothing new.

Again, as always, you try to make it a discussion about me and not the issues.

I described why I believe Ira Chernus is wrong in this post. If you disagree with my conclusions, please feel free to make your own counter-argument. If not, please cease trying to personalize the argument.

Seriously Mycroft.... why not just let it go? You claimed someone's sited article from a professor at a mainstream university from a relevant faculty was an appeal to authority falacy. its not....never will be, despite your smoke mirrors and semantics....

Being a university professor doesn’t automatically make him an authority on everything. Not only does he clearly step outside the bounds of his expertise, but even if he didn’t he would still be a false authority because his conclusions are easily refuted. Not only was he wrong about the significance he gives to the word “hudna”, but his conclusions have been directly contradicted by Hamas.

 

[The Fool]

I am quite familiar with the terms “dar al-Islam” as well as “hudna”, both terms having been discussed (if you remember or not) in these forums before. His argument, however, depends solely on the use of the term “hudna”, which not only is not new to Hamas (as demonstrated by my previous link) but doesn’t have the significance our hopeful professor claims it does.

So can you drop the statement that he did not discuss "various" terms then? He did.

The source he cites, the Encyclopedia of Islam is about the Islamic world, it’s culture, history and politics. It’s not a treatise on the Islamic religion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopaedia_of_Islam



Again, as always, you try to make it a discussion about me and not the issues.

It is abundantly clear that you have clicked over into full silly mode...Bye Bye.