General Israel/Palestine discussion thread

[The Fool]

How about one which recognizes Israel and doesn't support terrorism against it?

sounds fine with me....

What have the Palestinians offered? Oh right, they've offered nothing and that's good enough for you.

mate....you need to seriously grow up. There have been many many attempts at negotiating a peace settlement....to say that Palestinians have offered "nothing" is plain silly.
Also...no matter how many times it is explained to you why do you constantly repeat the blatant lie that nothing is "enough for me".

I'm trying my best to participate in discussions of issues and would like to see you included. If this is not going to be possible just let me know and I'll simply cease replying to you as I have reluctantly had to do with Mycroft who could not manage to let go of the guilt by association falacy

(citation needed)

here.
http://www.haaretz.com/misc/article...t-un-1.316197?trailingPath=2.169,2.216,2.217,

 

[Mycroft]

Also...no matter how many times it is explained to you why do you constantly repeat the blatant lie that nothing is "enough for me".

Because when asked what requirements you might impose on them, you said:

I believe its the right of the palestinians to have a state. I don't put requirements on rights. It should just be done....then....the responsibilities of statehood should be required of them, as it is with everyone else.

If you don't put requirements on them...then having no requirements is "enough for you", agreed?

Now if you'd like to rephrase, clarify or just repudiate that statement, go ahead. For now, it's my opinion that I'll need to keep that link handy for future references.

 

[Matt Giwer]

Lieberman: "I support creation of viable Palestinian state."

http://www.haaretz.com/news/lieberman-i-support-creation-of-viable-palestinian-state-1.271035

Very good to find one from before the coalition was formed instead of all of his anti-Palestine statements since then such as speaking at the UN saying it was all just talk and not going to happen.

You also had to wade through all of his statements such as it would be demilitarized, Israel would control its borders, it would only consist of the present area C and small parts of B, that Israel would retain control of the Jordan Valley, it would have no control of its air space or RF spectrum.

In other words you had to go through and ignore all of his statements saying Palestine would not be sovereign state.

No wonder it took you so long post a reply.

 

[Skeptic]

Just because Charley Manson agrees with Al Gore about global warming is no evidence Gore is wrong. But if Manson agreed with Gore about race relations, now THAT would be something Gore should worry about.

Similarly, if one of the internet's most notorious antisemitic holocaust deniers agreed with the "anti-zionist" folks here about the urgent need to ban square dancing, that wouldn't be a reason for them to examine themselves.

But when they're in more or less complete agreement about the Jewish state...

 

[Matt Giwer]

How about one which recognizes Israel and doesn't support terrorism against it?

The occupation can do no right. The resistance can do no wrong. You might as well declare the French resistance to be terrorists if those are your sympathies.

What have the Palestinians offered? Oh right, they've offered nothing and that's good enough for you.

What do the people who are under an israeli military dictatorship have to offer but total capitulation?

Israel must end its crimes against the people of Palestine without reservation before it can ask for anything. Demanding concessions for the mitigation of crimes against the Palestinians is called extortion.

 

[Matt Giwer]

Just because Charley Manson agrees with Al Gore about global warming is no evidence Gore is wrong. But if Manson agreed with Gore about race relations, now THAT would be something Gore should worry about.

Similarly, if one of the internet's most notorious antisemitic holocaust deniers agreed with the "anti-zionist" folks here about the urgent need to ban square dancing, that wouldn't be a reason for them to examine themselves.

But when they're in more or less complete agreement about the Jewish state...

There are two urls in my sig. You are invited to bang your head against the wall or the keyboard and try to address them.

 

[Matt Giwer]

Just because Charley Manson agrees with Al Gore about global warming is no evidence Gore is wrong.

Nor does it indicate a politician invested in carbon trading is right. It is not clear what any agreement with anything means.

But if Manson agreed with Gore about race relations, now THAT would be something Gore should worry about.

What does Manson have to do with race relations?

Rather if Avigor Lieberman and Gore agreed there would be a problem. Of course Gore does agree in his speeches so there is a problem.

When it comes to speeches to izziehuggers, extremism does no harm while moderation does no good.

 

[Matt Giwer]

But when they're in more or less complete agreement about the Jewish state...

It is worthwhile to address this nonsensical assertion of a Jewish state.

The US is more Christian than Israel is Jewish.

No country in the world, including the US, recognizes Israel as a nation for Jews.

Any claim by Israel to be Jewish is no different from a US claim to be White nor of Germany to be for Germans.

Again, Israel's claims sound better in the original German.

 

[angrysoba]

Jordan gave up all claims to the West Bank in 1984. They have their own Palestinian problem & have no interest in relieving Israel of its Palestinian problem.

What do you think of Jordan's "Palestinian problem"? Does it animate you much?

Nevermind the fact that many right wingers are adament that there shall only be one state between the River and the Sea.

Pal-uh-stine will be free!

 

[The Fool]

Because when asked what requirements you might impose on them, you said:

I believe its the right of the palestinians to have a state. I don't put requirements on rights. It should just be done....then....the responsibilities of statehood should be required of them, as it is with everyone else.

If you don't put requirements on them...then having no requirements is "enough for you", agreed?

Now if you'd like to rephrase, clarify or just repudiate that statement, go ahead. For now, it's my opinion that I'll need to keep that link handy for future references.

oh good grief
If you believe the obligations of statehood are "nothing" then I don't really see how I can reply to a suggestion like that....

 

[WildCat]

sounds fine with me...

mate....you need to seriously grow up. There have been many many attempts at negotiating a peace settlement....to say that Palestinians have offered "nothing" is plain silly.
Also...no matter how many times it is explained to you why do you constantly repeat the blatant lie that nothing is "enough for me".

You said yourself that nothing is required of the Palestinians for statehood, Mycroft quoted you saying this above.

I'm trying my best to participate in discussions of issues and would like to see you included. If this is not going to be possible just let me know and I'll simply cease replying to you as I have reluctantly had to do with Mycroft who could not manage to let go of the guilt by association falacy

Maybe you coulod finally answer the questions you've been avoiding in this discussion you claim to want to participate in? Remember the questiopns I hilited?

here.
http://www.haaretz.com/misc/article...t-un-1.316197?trailingPath=2.169,2.216,2.217,

Where does this say that Israeli Arabs would be "dumped" into the PA? In a land swap won't they have the option of staying in Israel? Is this the best we can hope from you in a "serious discussion"? Deliberately twisting stories until they fit your "Israel is teh suck" meme?

 

[WildCat]

oh good grief
If you believe the obligations of statehood are "nothing" then I don't really see how I can reply to a suggestion like that....

Oh, so you think there are no obligations to acquire statehood, but once statehood is granted somehow, magically, the PA will suddenly become a responsible state?

 

[The Fool]

Oh, so you think there are no obligations to acquire statehood, but once statehood is granted somehow, magically, the PA will suddenly become a responsible state?

No...I believe they have the obligation to meet the requirements of statehood. If you are talking about unspecified requirements before statehood is even considered then you have to ask what requirements are you talking about and who applies them....obviously your little list will be clear and concise eh?

 

[a_unique_person]

oh good grief
If you believe the obligations of statehood are "nothing" then I don't really see how I can reply to a suggestion like that....

Keeping the link. Gee, that's nasty. You must be so worried, Fool.

 

[The Fool]

You said yourself that nothing is required of the Palestinians for statehood, Mycroft quoted you saying this above.

No...Mycroft quoted me saying I believe they are required to meet the obligations of statehood.....somehow these words get scrambled around when you read them. "the obligations of statehood" turn into "nothing"


last chance to discuss what my opinions are rather than what you need them to be.

 

[The Fool]

Maybe you coulod finally answer the questions you've been avoiding in this discussion you claim to want to participate in? Remember the questiopns I hilited?

I know you are keen to rerun your opinions on the charter but I really don't intend to repeat that thread. I encourage you to refer to previous answers to your charter questions.

 

[The Fool]

Keeping the link. Gee, that's nasty. You must be so worried, Fool.

may need to demonstrate word substitution again some time in the future?


I'm not absolutely sure but I think I am required to hold the opinion that a palestinian state would be the only one in the world that is allowed to shell their neighbors with impunity...

I'll need to clarify that with the people that decide what I really mean.

 

[bikerdruid]

Oh, so you think there are no obligations to acquire statehood, but once statehood is granted somehow, magically, the PA will suddenly become a responsible state?

wildcat, that is not remotely what he said....and you are well aware of it.
what gives?

 

[Mycroft]

The occupation can do no right. The resistance can do no wrong. You might as well declare the French resistance to be terrorists if those are your sympathies.

The only difference between what you say here and what comes from the typical anti-Israel leftist is that you say it more openly. We can infer they think Israel can do no right because we can't find anything Israel does that they don't condemn, but you just go straight for it.

 

[Mycroft]

oh good grief
If you believe the obligations of statehood are "nothing" then I don't really see how I can reply to a suggestion like that....

By all means, if I have misunderstood you, then please take this opportunity to clarify. I am unable to parse I believe its the right of the palestinians to have a state. I don't put requirements on rights. to mean anything other than you don't think anything should be required of Palestinians to acquire statehood.

How else should I interpret that?

may need to demonstrate word substitution again some time in the future?

The substitution seems to be yours.

Wildcat's statement was that you require nothing for them to get statehood. You accuse him of lying, referring to vague "obligations of statehood", but those obligations would be after they get statehood.

I'm not absolutely sure but I think I am required to hold the opinion that a palestinian state would be the only one in the world that is allowed to shell their neighbors with impunity...

That's not so far-fetched. Right now Gaza is "allowed" to bomb Israel with impunity in the sense that anything Israel does about it gets condemned. Would that change if Gaza were part of a new Palestinian state? I don't think so, do you?

But in a larger sense, if you feel misunderstood, why not spend more effort clarifying what you mean rather than playing victim? If you want to have a "serious discussion", why not move forward by saying, "Hey, that's not what I meant. This is what I did mean. These are some of the things I was referring to when I said obligations of statehood..."

Wouldn't that be a lot more conducive to discussion than what you're doing now?

I'll need to clarify that with the people that decide what I really mean.

And maybe also pay more attention to how you represent what other people say? Honestly, it's hard to take this complaint seriously when you're the worst offender.