Israeli blockade 'forces Palestinians to search rubbish dumps for food'

[Dr Adequate]

It is addictive. I have found the heated debate to be really compelling for some reason.



But Hamas isn't the IRA. So many people draw that parallel but it is a false one.

The different importance attached to religious beliefs in Hamas's political platform is totally different than the IRAs political platform. The ideology of Hamas is defined in absolutist religious terms, which is not open to influence or change.

While the IRA's political platform was the unification of Ireland - not defined in absolutist religious terms. You'll never "negotiate" the radical Islamic ideology out of Hamas. Never ever.

Damn, I never knew that the conflict in Northern Ireland had nothing to do with religion.

We could have solved the whole problem decades ago if only you could have explained that to the sectarians who thought it was a war between Protestants and Catholics.

Incidentally, what planet were you living on when all this was happening?

 

[ddt]

Legal niceties don't stop the terrorism. Hamastan is a defacto state, whether or not some august body recognizes it as such.

It isn't recognized by anybody. And surely Israel wouldn't accept Hamas, or any other Palestinian group, declare statehood. I only have to refer to how even in the Oslo accords, statehood was in the distant future. So when Israel now wants to absolve itself of its responsibility for Gaza, it tries to have its cake and eat it too. Simple as that.

It's a common tactic designed only to buy time to rearm. You say you know of the Hamas charter, yet dismiss what it says about peace agreements and the goals of Hamas.

There are factions within Hamas. Care to link to an analysis of such?

And care to fill in what has transpired in the last six month? With the ceasefire and such? I did invite to fill in that gap for me.

 

[BirdStrike]

So, if you will not back down from your claim that Arafat (who died in 2004) ran the moderates out of town,

I was just kind enough to link to the "Status of the Political Opposition in Palestine" from the Palestinian Human Rights Monitor, and you still are challenging my claim that Arafat politically repressed opposition parties in Palestine. Why?

...on what grounds do you blame Palestinians for not voting for moderates in 2007?

I don't "blame the Palestinians." And the election was in 2006, not 2007.

Arafat quashed political opposition in the West Bank and Gaza until his death in 2004. So when the election happened in 2006 there was not enough time for a moderate Palestinian party to emerge, and gain a large demographic. Is that really so hard to stomach? Or are you just simply being argumentative?

.If this political opression lingered on in 2007, then you cannot blame the Palestinians for not voting for moderates in 2007. That would be the fault of the ghost of Arafat.

Asked and answered. By the way the election was in 2006. Maybe you should read up on this subject first because you've typed "2007" several times now.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Never said it was, in fact we may well agree.

Then I am at a loss to conjecture why you keep pointing out errors made by Birdstrike as if in answer to my posts.

 

[BirdStrike]

Damn, I never knew that the conflict in Northern Ireland had nothing to do with religion.

Wow. What a strawman. I never ever said that the conflict in Ireland wasn't about religion.

I know what I just posted Dr Adequate, and it was this.

The different importance attached to religious beliefs in Hamas's political platform is totally different than the IRAs political platform.

Key words, "importance attached to." So please, take your strawman for a walk ok.

 

[WildCat]

Damn, I never knew that the conflict in Northern Ireland had nothing to do with religion.

We could have solved the whole problem decades ago if only you could have explained that to the sectarians who thought it was a war between Protestants and Catholics.

Incidentally, what planet were you living on when all this was happening?

It wasn't about religion. There was nothing about the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church driving the ideology of the IRA. The Pope, nor any Bishops, Cardinals, etc never sanctioned anything the IRA did. It was just a turf war where religion played a peripheral role, and that was limited only to defining which side you were on.

 

[Dr Adequate]

I was just kind enough to link to the "Status of the Political Opposition in Palestine" from the Palestinian Human Rights Monitor, and you still are challenging my claim that Arafat politically repressed opposition parties in Palestine. Why?



I don't "blame the Palestinians." And the election was in 2006, not 2007.

Arafat quashed political opposition in the West Bank and Gaza until his death in 2004. So when the election happened in 2006 there was not enough time for a moderate Palestinian party to emerge, and gain a large demographic. Is that really so hard to stomach? Or are you just simply being argumentative?

So, does it not then follow that the Palestinian population cannot be held responsible for what was imposed upon them by the terrorist Arafat?

Come on, you cannot have your cake and eat it. If Arafat "quashed" the moderate parties, and "there was not enough time for a moderate Palestinian party to emerge", then the general population of Palestine are not to blame for not voting for that nonexistent moderate party which was quashed by Arafat and did not have enough time to emerge.

You may be correct in suggesting that I made a numerical error of 0.05%. Well done, you must be thrilled.

 

[WildCat]

It isn't recognized by anybody. And surely Israel wouldn't accept Hamas, or any other Palestinian group, declare statehood. I only have to refer to how even in the Oslo accords, statehood was in the distant future. So when Israel now wants to absolve itself of its responsibility for Gaza, it tries to have its cake and eat it too. Simple as that.

Not so simple.

There are factions within Hamas. Care to link to an analysis of such?

Hamas factions.

And care to fill in what has transpired in the last six month? With the ceasefire and such? I did invite to fill in that gap for me.

Click here.

Sorry, I'm going out to watch the Bears game.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Wow. What a strawman. I never ever said that the conflict in Ireland wasn't about religion.

Splendid. Please argue with WildCat, who appears to maintain the contrary.

It wasn't about religion.

But yes, all you said was, and I quote:

the IRA's political platform was the unification of Ireland - not defined in absolutist religious terms.​

Funny, isn't it, how the Catholics killed people who were against "the unification of Ireland - not defined in absolutist religious terms", and the Protestants killed people who were for "the unification of Ireland - not defined in absolutist religious terms".

Still, if you will condescend to explain to us what you mean by "not defined in absolutist religious terms", when speaking either of Northern Ireland or of Palestine, I shall be happy to tell you whether you are right or wrong ... and whether you are hastily backpedaling from an untenable position.

 

[WildCat]

But yes, all you said was, and I quote:

the IRA's political platform was the unification of Ireland - not defined in absolutist religious terms.​

​

It was? Oh, I see what you're doing.

 

[ddt]

Not so simple.

Oh yes. To paraphrase Rika: statehood is a binary state. Either you're a state, or you're not.

Click here.

Sorry, I'm going out to watch the Bears game.

Oh, I see. Yes, I can google too. So it's too much trouble to write a sentence or two on this? I'll have to assume then that this blockade came out of the blue.

 

[Dr Adequate]

It was? Oh, I see what you're doing.

Cool. This debate is fraught enough without us speaking at cross-purposes.

 

[gtc]

Oh yes. To paraphrase Rika: statehood is a binary state. Either you're a state, or you're not.

That's not true. Even within the British Isles and Channel Islands, let alone the rest of the world, there are degrees of sovereignty.

 

[ddt]

That's not true. Even within the British Isles and Channel Islands, let alone the rest of the world, there are degrees of sovereignty.

AFAIK, there are no foreign embassies in Edinburgh, Cardiff or Saint Helier. Nor do Scotland, Wales or Jersey have their own armies, nor are they member of the UN, nor are they signatory to the The Hague or Geneva Conventions. Their "degree of sovereignty" depends entirely on the benevolence of Westminster. Mutatis mutandis, the same holds for Aruba and the Netherlands Antilles.

So I don't see your argument as challenging my claim that statehood is a binary proposition.

 

[gtc]

AFAIK, there are no foreign embassies in Edinburgh, Cardiff or Saint Helier. Nor do Scotland, Wales or Jersey have their own armies, nor are they member of the UN, nor are they signatory to the The Hague or Geneva Conventions. Their "degree of sovereignty" depends entirely on the benevolence of Westminster. Mutatis mutandis, the same holds for Aruba and the Netherlands Antilles.

So I don't see your argument as challenging my claim that statehood is a binary proposition.

Jersey is a Crown dependency. It isn't part of the UK.

Also consider Vatican City, Andorra, San Marino, Monaco, Liechtenstein and The Cook Islands. Or this wikipedia article on associated states.

I don't think your binary definition of statehood matches the reality.

 

[Tin Foil Timothy]

Meanwhile Palestinians are still searching for food in rubbish dumps, pregnant Palestinian women are giving birth at dirty checkpoints and desperate Palestinians are firing rockets into Israel.

 

[gtc]

In particular, having an army or the presence of foreign embassies is not a definition that I have seen used before. Several countries do not maintain military forces and opposition to the idea of standing armies was traditionally strong.

Taiwan is not a member of the UN, Switzerland only joined in 2002 and it took several years for East Timor to join the UN after independence. I can't see how UN membership can be a requirement for statehood.

 

[gtc]

and desperate Palestinians are firing rockets into Israel.

Do you have evidence that the terrorists who are firing rockets into Israel are desperate?

 

[gdnp]

Meanwhile Palestinians are still searching for food in rubbish dumps, pregnant Palestinian women are giving birth at dirty checkpoints and desperate Palestinians are firing rockets into Israel.

Because the desperate Palestinians think that by lobbing a few rockets into Israeli fields they can coerce the Israelis into loosening the blockade?

 

[Tin Foil Timothy]

Do you have evidence that the terrorists who are firing rockets into Israel are desperate?

You couldn't make this crap up.

Yeah, the Palestinian people have a wonderful life, a superb standard of living, they want for nothing, all the modern luxuries.

Yeah they are absolutely fine living in luxury in the Mediterranean Riviera.

I mean they are only firing rockets into Israel because they hate Jews and wan't to murder them l and throw them into the sea.

Even those Palestinians who were forced and scared off their land and out of their homes 60 years ago and don't hate Jews weren't really bothered about it. They understood that the Israeli's deserved the land more than they did.


Are you for real? Or is there something wrong with you? I think the latter?