General Israel/Palestine discussion thread

[Doctor Evil]

I’ll appeal to the crowd here for advice:

What should one do when one, in good faith, enters into a conversation with another only to learn that their interlocutor is quite, quite insane? Do you carry on trying to reason with them? Should you run away? Might one, alternatively, throw caution to the wind and start babbling and raving along with them, thereby forming a kind of two-man conga line?

What a pickle!

In some cases, I find that I can stay cool. In these cases I find twisted amusement in the other poster's responses. For the other cases - there is always the ignore function. It is quite useful.

 

[mortimer]

And seem to have done so by not using the full definition. Congratulations.

Don't congratulate me, congratulate The Fool. It's his definition.

 

[Skeptic]

Now you're going to claim a country can't end an occupation unilaterally?

If that were true Britain and France would still be "occupying" most of the globe. Of course they aren't Jews, so the special "occupation" definition for Jews don't apply...

 

[FireGarden]

It's not my claim, it's the actual text of Hague IV.

Hague IV says that for "Israel to fit that definition it means that Hamas serves Israel"?

No, it doesn't.

The US controlled Iraq's air space and borders. According to you this is all that is required for an "occupation" to be in effect, yes?

No. According to me, an occupation cannot be in effect if it doesn't start. No occupation of Iraq began in 1991. If we use your mischaracterisation of what I said, then every time blockades are put in place it will be an occupation. But why would I want to use your version of what I said?

Now you're going to claim a country can't end an occupation unilaterally?

No. Your version of what I said would be mind-boggling. But you've left out some of what I said. A second lack of comprehension, wilful or otherwise, in two sentences.

This really undermines the possibility that you understand international law better than the CIA, US state dept, EU, etc.

 

[FireGarden]

Don't congratulate me, congratulate The Fool. It's his definition.

I did congratulate the Fool.
But you deserve some credit for taking on only part of his definition. I was hoping to encourage you to mount an assault on the full thing.

 

[mortimer]

I did congratulate the Fool.
But you deserve some credit for taking on only part of his definition. I was hoping to encourage you to mount an assault on the full thing.

Here's the entire unedited post.

yes...thats the chant you guys have chosen....except even if there were a few combat boots in there you would still be happy to award the "non occupied" award.

what stops Israel from walking into gaza today? maybe stay around for a few hours and leave? answer is ....nothing. They could do it today, tomorrow...anytime. You would still be happy to say not occupied. Overflying?....no problems. Wildcat says even if Israel was to enter parts of Gaza to seal off the border with Egypt it would still be not occupied.

You may have expected that Israels moving of troops to the borders would have convinced the world that they are not in control of what happens to Gaza.....well, it certainly was enough for those that habitually stand to attention and salute israeli actions to stand to attention and salute.


Now please explain to everyone how you standing to attention, saluting and chanting the "no boots" chant makes any difference to the occupation status of Gaza?

Feel free to correct The Fool's definition of "occupation" based on "effective control" that won't place the U.S. as an "occupier" of every country on Earth.

It's his definition, not mine.

 

[Soapy Sam]

I’ll appeal to the crowd here for advice:

What should one do when one, in good faith, enters into a conversation with another only to learn that their interlocutor is quite, quite insane? Do you carry on trying to reason with them? Should you run away? Might one, alternatively, throw caution to the wind and start babbling and raving along with them, thereby forming a kind of two-man conga line?

What a pickle!

If you have evidence of insanity, present it, or perhaps use a different term.
"Someone who disagrees with me", for example.

I'll answer your original question. Your partition is bunk.

Landmines are no more moral agents than floods. By your argument, a parent who sent his child through a minefield would have no responsibility if he is killed.
Complete nonsense.

There is shared responsibility for the death of these children.
The bulk of it by far lies with whoever attacked their home.
But their home should not have been there. It was in an area where dangerous people are known to attack settlers. The responsibility for them being there- and as a result, dead, lies squarely with their parents and whoever encouraged them to go there.

 

[bikerdruid]

Here's the entire unedited post.

Feel free to correct The Fool's definition of "occupation" based on "effective control" that won't place the U.S. as an "occupier" of every country on Earth.

It's his definition, not mine.

funny you should put it that way.
the u.s has indeed had more than reasonable control over much of the world.

 

[mortimer]

funny you should put it that way.
the u.s has indeed had more than reasonable control over much of the world.

What does "more than reasonable" mean, and what do you suggest be done about it?

 

[bikerdruid]

What does "more than reasonable" mean, and what do you suggest be done about it?

any amount of influence over the sovereign affairs of other nations isd more than reasonable.
i would suggest that the u.s should clean up the messes in their own nation, and give others the opportunity to do the same.
a good neighbour is far preferable to the bully next door.

 

[FireGarden]

Here's the entire unedited post.



Feel free to correct The Fool's definition of "occupation" based on "effective control" that won't place the U.S. as an "occupier" of every country on Earth.

It's his definition, not mine.

Are you joking?
Are you saying that the USA has effective control of China? When was the last time America controlled Chinese borders?

You do realise it's not an issue of having the ability to try and control, if only they'd get round to it.

 

[mortimer]

Are you joking?
Are you saying that the USA has effective control of China? When was the last time America controlled Chinese borders?

You do realise it's not an issue of having the ability to try and control, if only they'd get round to it.

No, The Fool is saying that. Which is why its such a ridiculous definition. Take it up with him, if you have a problem with it.

 

[ThunderChunky]

This is peripheral, I suppose, but I’ve no idea how you’ve arrived at the conclusion that five head/chest shots at close range must mean an execution.

What do you think is the probability that it was or was not an execution? It's not easy to shoot someone 4 times in the head by accident, after you have already shot them once in the chest...all at close range. You think the guy was still fighting after he had one bullet in his chest and one bullet in his head?

I love it when people on a skeptics board back up their claims with absolute nonsense.

I love it when people on a skeptic board fail to address the argument presented. It's usually a sign they can't.

 

[applecorped]

There is shared responsibility for the death of these children.
The bulk of it by far lies with whoever attacked their home.
But their home should not have been there. It was in an area where dangerous people are known to attack settlers. The responsibility for them being there- and as a result, dead, lies squarely with their parents and whoever encouraged them to go there.

Wrong. The responsibility for their deaths resides solely with those who killed them. Stop blaming the victims.



p.s. want some candy?

 

[Soapy Sam]

Trying to give it up, thanks.

There are degrees of victimhood. There are at least two degrees evident in this case alone. The children were helpless victims. The parents made a choice. They might have made it differently. They put their own lives at risk, which is their choice. They chose not to give their children that choice.

This happens all the time in every walk of life. If they had been successful , prosperous and happy, would the children not have their parents to thank?
Well now they are dead. You feel their parents have nothing to do with that?

I suppose this is a matter of opinion then. We will have to leave it at that.

 

[applecorped]

Well now they are dead. You feel their parents have nothing to do with that?

I feel the parents had nothing to do with their children being murdered. I hold them in no way responsible for their deaths.

 

[Par]

If you have evidence of insanity, present it, or perhaps use a different term.
"Someone who disagrees with me", for example.

My evidence is Bikerdruid’s repeated refusals to even read let alone address my proposal, despite me having outlined it clearly and politely and having supported it with argument and referred him to it numberless times. This did not stop him dictating to me what my must opinions be, however – attributing to me notions which were straightforwardly at odds with my posts, which he refused to read/address. To have missed this, I can only assume you, too, haven’t read the thread before posting.

Landmines are no more moral agents than floods. By your argument, a parent who sent his child through a minefield would have no responsibility if he is killed.
Complete nonsense.

Here, for your consideration is my partition proposal. If you can explain to me clearly how it yields the result you claim – i.e. the result that a parent who sent their child through a minefield would be blameless – then I would be very interested to hear it.

I think you were going very well until right at the end there; I have to take issue with your last sentence. The parents indeed accrue moral responsibility, but not for the murder. I propose we partition the event into two separate crimes.

1. The gross dereliction of parental duty inherent to using one’s children as pawns in a game of LandTheft.
2. The brutal murder of a whole family.

The parents are entirely culpable for 1, but not at all culpable for 2. The Palestinian in question are entirely responsible for 2, but not at all responsible for 1. Some support for this idea comes when we reflect on the fact that many settler families commit 1, but through sheer luck are not murdered. The fact they ended up dead in this case does not make the parents any guiltier of anything. They did the precise same thing as the luckier settlers. It took a completely different moral agent and his/her personal decision to butcher them for them to end up dead.

Incidentally, I have stated on numerous separate occasions on this very thread that I believe that parents who get their children killed by non-moral agents (i.e. “falling rocks”, “malaria”, “floods” or, for that matter, landmines) incur the blame. Thus I am doubly unsure how you have come away with that opinon.

 

[bikerdruid]

My evidence is Bikerdruid’s repeated refusals to even read let alone address my proposal.

par...i did address your 'partition proposal'.
i said that you created a disconnect where none exists, since there is indeed a connection between responsibility and blame.
i'm with sam here....your partition proposal is bunk.

 

[pipelineaudio]

strawman. there are no illegal settlers in Hawaii.

unless you are referring to possible illegal immigrants. is that what you meant?

If thats true then there are no illegal settlers in Israel

 

[Par]

What do you think is the probability that it was or was not an execution? It's not easy to shoot someone 4 times in the head by accident, after you have already shot them once in the chest...all at close range. You think the guy was still fighting after he had one bullet in his chest and one bullet in his head?

There are numerous possibilities – e.g. the shot to the chest knocked him down and two double-taps to the head finished him. But, no, I imagine that after the first shot to the head he would no longer have been fighting -- and perhaps he stopped even on the chest shot. I'm not sure how that latter point is relevant, however.