Ron Paul is still right, and you are still wrong.

[WildCat]

And has the OP ever started ONE Thread here whose purpose was not to sing the praises of Ron The Great?

But from now on they'll have to be in Politics, and not in 2008 USA Presidential Elections!

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I can't be bothered to read the thread, but since it is about Ron Paul, I'm going to assume the laughing dog is appropriate.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Actually, it's right on. Ron Paul's district was once part of Mexico, and taken in a war. Israel was also created during a war.

Which war was Israel created during? The one in India?

 

[Richard Masters]

I seem to be hearing from you that the US has no role in the process by which the Pals and Israelis find a way toward dealing with each other in a less sanguinary manner.

If the US is too biased, which the US might well be, who do you suggest as a moderator, an honest third party?

The Japanese?

DR

I'm not suggesting a moderator at all. I think moderators cause more problems than they solve. Especially when they are highly biased.

Are we helping the Palestinians and Israelis find a less sanguinary manner? Or are we creating more problems in the Middle East?

 

[Richard Masters]

And has the OP ever started ONE Thread here whose purpose was not to sing the praises of Ron The Great?

The Original Poster has, indeed.

Where are the moderators when you really need one? Try to stay on topic, will you?

 

[WildCat]

Which war was Israel created during? The one in India?

You don't think WWII had anything to do with the creation of Israel?

 

[Richard Masters]

Perhaps the only major political point of Paul's I ever agreed with is demonstrated by this statement of his; I also believe Israel owes some effort of action toward establishing peace with its neighbors.

However, I disagree with you. This vote will be forgotten and dismissed, as unimportant as most everything else Paul has "accomplished" (I use the term loosely).

Those aren't my words, either. I was quoting someone who quoted Ron Paul. I mostly agree with you that the vote will be forgotten and dismissed.

(1) Because Ron Paul is the sole dissenter quite often. So this vote isn't too salient.

(2) Because there is a tendency to see all of our actions in foreign matters as justified.

Although I disagree with the moral of this fable, I think it is appropriate to bring up in this case, as the hypocrisy (not yours) is astounding.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3486462

 

[Richard Masters]

I can't be bothered to read the thread, but since it is about Ron Paul, I'm going to assume the laughing dog is appropriate.

I can't bother to read your post, but I'm going to assume your laughing dog is inappropriate.

 

[dudalb]

WHy are so many Ronulans so arrogant toward people who disagree with them?

 

[Richard Masters]

But from now on they'll have to be in Politics, and not in 2008 USA Presidential Elections!

Not necessarily.

 

[Richard Masters]

WHy are so many Ronulans so arrogant toward people who disagree with them?

I don't know if that is the case. You always criticize Ron Paul and his supporters by making thoughtless statements. Then someone shows your criticisms to apply to yourself and you go away for a while.

For example here.

I think the Original Poster was right on.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

You don't think WWII had anything to do with the creation of Israel?

I think it might be more fair to say "recreation" otherwise it might implies Israel never existed before. We wouldn't want to offend Abraham or Jacob. ;-)

 

[Spindrift]

Which war was Israel created during? The one in India?

The 1948 Arab-Israeli War

 

[WildCat]

The 1948 Arab-Israeli War

Technically, that was after Israel was created. But Britain gained the territory in WWI, and gave it up as a homeland for Jews after WWII.

 

[dudalb]

Which war was Israel created during? The one in India?

History is not exactly Jerome's strongpoint, is it?

 

[Darth Rotor]

I'm not suggesting a moderator at all. I think moderators cause more problems than they solve. Especially when they are highly biased.

Are we helping the Palestinians and Israelis find a less sanguinary manner? Or are we creating more problems in the Middle East?

Nice attempt at a dodge, Richard.

Let's try this again.

Who do you suggest as a third party who is not biased? You have already wasted one response not answering my question, since I granted that the US may be viewed as biased. Let us now stipulate that the US is biased, and thus not a suitable third party for these negotiations.

Who, as a mediator, is NOT biased in this matter? Who, do both or all three (if Fatah and Hamas are two parties) parties to this squabble accept as an honest broker?

Come on, Richard, the question can't be that hard that you dodge it, can it?

DR

 

[davefoc]

Nice attempt at a dodge, Richard.

Let's try this again.

Who do you suggest as a third party who is not biased? You have already wasted one response not answering my question, since I granted that the US may be viewed as biased. Let us now stipulate that the US is biased, and thus not a suitable third party for these negotiations.

Who, as a mediator, is NOT biased in this matter? Who, do both or all three (if Fatah and Hamas are two parties) parties to this squabble accept as an honest broker?

Come on, Richard, the question can't be that hard that you dodge it, can it?

DR

An interesting question.

The first question might be whether there is any useful function that a mediator could fulfill, biased or not. One advantage of the US is that it has money that it is willing to throw around so both parties have some reason to listen to them.

But, IMHO, the US involvement is completely counterproductive toward a goal of establishing a peaceful resolution. The US position is so dominated by internal politics and almost unrelenting pro-Israel bias that almost all American involvement in the dispute only serves to intensify the conflict. The American taxpayer has spent hundreds of billions of dollars ostensibly to help the Israels and the Palestinians and promote peace. If that really was the goal, then obviously the American aid has been useless and it is hard to imagine a productive role for American negotiators.

So who else? A sense of fairness about the conflict is not enough, neither side is likely to listen to a mediator without some incentives to back up his ideas and clearly deep pockets is not enough because American aid without any sense of fairness has not been enough.

If somebody makes me the god of solving the Israeli/Palestinian dispute I might go with one of two ideas:

1. Get the hell out and let them figure this out for themselves.

2. Some sort of Western European consortium with some euros to provide incentives for cooperation between the two.

There is a third idea which seems so unlikely to happen that it seems useless to suggest it, but here it is.

The US stops sending arms and money to Israel. It puts the money in an escrow account as part of a massive reward to be divided up between the Palestinians and the Israelis when a peace agreement is in place that is accepted by at least 75% of both populations. The US and all other foreign parties do not play an active role in the negotiations. Whatever the Palestinians and the Israels decide about how to divide up the land, the holy sites and the peace incentive is up to them. Israel could for instance give up all the peace incentive in return for Palestinian acceptance of some territorial concessions.

 

[UserGoogol]

Nice attempt at a dodge, Richard.

I don't think it's a dodge. He said "The United States should not get involved in conflicts of which it is not a part." You said "If the US is too biased, who would be an unbiased third party?" He said "There should not be third parties in the first place." Not to put words in his mouth, but I imagine he might say that an unbiased third party does not exist, since everyone has their own interests, but whatever. Something horrible that people do far too often on this message board (not limited to any particular side of arguments) is to force people to answer questions. If a person thinks a question is irrelevant, then that's their right to think that. Debates should be civil exchanges of ideas, and if one person is not civil, then the other person should just be even more civil to compensate.

 

[Richard Masters]

Nice attempt at a dodge, Richard.

Nice attempt at asking a loaded non-sequitur question twice.

Let's try this again.

Who do you suggest as a third party who is not biased? You have already wasted one response not answering my question, since I granted that the US may be viewed as biased.

I did answer your question. I told you I do not suggest any third party to mediate. Why must there be a mediator?

Let us now stipulate that the US is biased, and thus not a suitable third party for these negotiations.

Who, as a mediator, is NOT biased in this matter?

Everyone is biased.

Who, do both or all three (if Fatah and Hamas are two parties) parties to this squabble accept as an honest broker?

No one. However you insist on finding a third party to mediate, which is really beside the point. What you should do is examine that hidden assumption.

Come on, Richard, the question can't be that hard that you dodge it, can it?

DR

Not hard. Just beside the point and loaded with illogical assumptions.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

You don't think WWII had anything to do with the creation of Israel?

Your are claiming WWII and the war for Texas independence are equal in relation to the creation of Texas and Israel. You are certainly confused.