General Israel/Palestine discussion thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Pardalis said:
Israel's occupation of its own territory. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
He was smart enough to substitute "Israeli" for "Jewish", because none of this has anything to do with anti-semitism (wink wink, nod nod).

But yeah, it makes no sense at all that way.
 
mortimer said:
Look, you are the one that said that Iraq is not occupied, and your reasoning was "the election and the new government and all that stuff." If you are not going to define what you mean by "all that stuff", your definition of occupation fits Iraq and Gaza equally.

Personal attack noted.
Click to expand...
Noting of personal attack noted....but anyway...I said "the election" this election was for the NATIONAL government of Iraq. Hamas is a semi autonomous local authority under an occupying power......now blow me down if I don't percieve a slight difference there.


seriously, I judged you as above that sort of "so you mean...." followed by a laughable deliberate misinterpretation. Do you feel you have some sort of obligation to blow a smokescreen to help Johnyclueless with his rather bizzare take on statehood?
 
The Fool said:
I said "the election" this election was for the NATIONAL government of Iraq. Hamas is a semi autonomous local authority under an occupying power......now blow me down if I don't percieve a slight difference there.
Click to expand...
So occupation is defined by what party wins the said election, not that there was a national election in the first place? Talk about a bizzare take on statehood.

So Iraq is not occupied because of "the election [the outcome of which you somehow deem as important as to whether there is an occupation], the new government, and stuff"?

What outcome of the Palestinian elections would have changed it's status from "occupied" to "not occupied"?
 
WildCat said:
It was not a loaded question on the same lines as "when did you stop beating your wife".

My question made no assumptions at all.

I'm not surprised you refuse to answer it. You have blinders on when it comes to Palestinians. If you knew fellow Australians who voted for a party of genocide-advocating racists just because they liked their economic policies you'd likely declare them racist thugs. But when the Palestinians do the same, and in great numbers, you make excuses for them.
Click to expand...
Not that I'm holding my breath for an answer but who would you have voted for? PA or Hamas?
 
mortimer said:
So occupation is defined by what party wins the said election, not that there was a national election in the first place? Talk about a bizzare take on statehood.
Click to expand...
no Idea what you are going on about....Nothing to do about what party wins....never said anything close to that... Is this a deleberate attempt to spread confusion?

So Iraq is not occupied because of "the election [the outcome of which you somehow deem as important as to whether there is an occupation], the new government, and stuff"?
Click to expand...
Its not occupied because it is a sovereign state not under occupation.....seriously mortimer. Thats about the limit of my patience. If you want to continue to play games go ahead.....just don't expect me to pay much attention.
 
The Fool said:
no Idea what you are going on about....Nothing to do about what party wins....never said anything close to that... Is this a deleberate attempt to spread confusion?
Click to expand...
Nope, just trying to get you to explain the difference between the Iraq non-occupation and the Palestine occupation.

The Fool said:
Its not occupied because it is a sovereign state not under occupation.....
Click to expand...
Circular argument is circular.
The Fool said:
seriously mortimer. Thats about the limit of my patience. If you want to continue to play games go ahead.....just don't expect me to pay much attention.
Click to expand...
I'm just trying to nail down your definition of occupation. That you seem to want to reply with invectives tells me that you can't really provide that definition.
 
Besides, even if these were the only two choices, one might well not vote. If the only two choices I could vote for were the Nazis or the Communists, not voting at all is better than going to a Nuremberg rally to show my massive support for the Nazis.
 
mortimer said:
I'm just trying to nail down your definition of occupation. That you seem to want to reply with invectives tells me that you can't really provide that definition.
Click to expand...

He can't find a definition that magically blames Israel but keeps all other countries off the hook, much like he can't find a reason why it's OK for the Palestinians to vote for openly genocidal terrorists for their government, while voting right-of-center for anyone else is "fascism".
 
bikerdruid said:
so the opening of mega shopping malls is the hallmark of a successful society?
Click to expand...

Well, it certainly gives the lie to the "poor starving Gazans" theory.

Rather interesting, isn't it, that even sorta-kinda capitalist places like Gaza, pretend for political purposes to the world that they are starving -- while communist countries, such as North Korea, must pretend to the world that they are not starving, in both cases the truth being the opposite?

Gaza, being ruled by corrupt theocratic thugs, is still managing to be higher on the world's freedom index than Cuba, that communist success story -- when Gaza had only been (sort of) self-governing (sort of) capitalist for a few years, while Cuba had been communist for sixty.

It's almost as if communism is not too good for freedom and prosperity or something.
 
Last edited:
WildCat said:
Why do you suppose those were the only choices?
Click to expand...

They were the only ones with a realistic ability to run the things the winner would be required to run. Face it wildcat it was a 2 horse race..... Its a bit like saying you can write in the local dogcatcher in US election ballots so the choice is not really just republican or democrat......yea, whatever.....hey, what about the Libertarians!!!! I forgot them.

The vast majority of commentary you will see on the elections don't even mention the handfull of wallys that also stood......but they have a purpose I suppose (helping you hairsplit to avoid the obvious implication of the question).
 
The Fool said:
They were the only ones with a realistic ability to run the things the winner would be required to run.
Click to expand...

I can see that, and how both parties ended up pretty much split. One is better at the foreign agenda (demonizing Jews), while the other is better at the domestic agenda (killing Jews).

Neither party is all that great at what they do, but ya gotta go with what ya got.
 
WildCat said:
And surprise surprise surprise! Apparently some of the activists share Hamas' goal of destroying Israel:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/05/activists-gaza-blockade-aid-flotilla

The only way to interpret that is that all of Israel proper is "Israeli occupation".
Click to expand...

Of course. Here's another "activist" saying the same things.

Explains what "freedom for the Palestinians" and "peace" means for these folks -- like for Arafat, it means simply the destruction of Israel. No wonder they see Hamas as "fighting for freedom".
 
Skeptic said:
He can't find a definition that magically blames Israel but keeps all other countries off the hook, much like he can't find a reason why it's OK for the Palestinians to vote for openly genocidal terrorists for their government, while voting right-of-center for anyone else is "fascism".
Click to expand...

I'm happy to use the accepted definition of occupied as used by the UN. And I have not said that its "ok" for palestinians to vote for any particular group. I am simply pointing out that in a two horse race where you classify each of the horses as genocidal.....its not easy.

Does anyone who votes Likud support the position that there should never be a palestinian state under any circumstances?

But anyway, I'm not going to try to outchant you.....I quite enjoy your daily driveby post where you let the voices out for a run :)
 
mortimer said:
I can see that, and how both parties ended up pretty much split. One is better at the foreign agenda (demonizing Jews), while the other is better at the domestic agenda (killing Jews).

Neither party is all that great at what they do, but ya gotta go with what ya got.
Click to expand...
Sad... at times you participate in discussions but lately seem to be reverting to impersonating "skeptic"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom