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

[JEROME DA GNOME]

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

You fail here. I caught Wildcat in a ridiculous equivocation and you are going along with it.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

If Mexican rebels were launching rockets supplied by Iran and Syria on Paul's district he better show the same courage to stand up and say no to defending our sovereignty. Read the text of the legislation and try again.

The analogy is this: (bolded parts what it should have read and did for most of us)

If HamasMexican rebels were launching rockets supplied by Iran and Syria on IsrealPaul's district he better show the same courage to stand up and say no to defending our sovereignty. Read the text of the legislation and try again.

 

[Richard Masters]

The analogy is this: (bolded parts what it should have read and did for most of us)

So the analogy is a cynical comment disguised as a straw man fallacy?

Not to mention: highly improbable and irrelevant.

ETA: By the way, that's how I read the "analogy". It still doesn't make sense, except as a weak "argument" based on faulty premises.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

Your reading is most probably incorrect.

 

[WildCat]

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.

Way to move the goal posts Jerome.

Without wars (2 wars in Israel's case), neither would have been created.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Way to move the goal posts Jerome.

Without wars (2 wars in Israel's case), neither would have been created.

Weak attempt to shift the burden. Your statement, your goal posts, your fail.

 

[Darth Rotor]

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

OK, I'll dumb it down.

The parties involved do not trust each other, and do not negotiate without a third party getting involved.

IF the parties, Pals (one or two of them) and Israelis, mostly one party, are to work out any sort of deal, a mediator would be a handy way to achieve that end.

See Camp David, Sadat's Egypt, and Israel for a modest example of a modest success. Granted, the mediator did offer a bribe, which your tax dollars and mine are still paying to both sides.

What incentive do the Pals, or the Israelis, have to negotiate? Who provides it?

If you have written off the prospect of the parties ever working out some kind of deal, fine, welcome to the club of "Y'all kill one another all you like, let us know when you are done."

Here, have some popcorn.

DR

 

[davefoc]

OK, I'll dumb it down.

The parties involved do not trust each other, and do not negotiate without a third party getting involved.

IF the parties, Pals (one or two of them) and Israelis, mostly one party, are to work out any sort of deal, a mediator would be a handy way to achieve that end.

See Camp David, Sadat's Egypt, and Israel for a modest example of a modest success. Granted, the mediator did offer a bribe, which your tax dollars and mine are still paying to both sides.

What incentive do the Pals, or the Israelis, have to negotiate? Who provides it?

If you have written off the prospect of the parties ever working out some kind of deal, fine, welcome to the club of "Y'all kill one another all you like, let us know when you are done."

Here, have some popcorn.

DR

The reason that I listed get the hell out and let them figure it out for themselves is that I thought it might work so it is possible that I agree with Richard Masters on this.

My thought is that the influence of the US has been to work to maintain the conflict and that if the US and other parties just got out of the way both sides might move towards peace just because it was in their interest even without mediators. The US has assured that peace is not in the interest of either side. The US essentially bankrolls Israel's expansion and a good part of their military. It is questionable whether the US would continue to fund this thing if peace broke out.

Conversely, the Palestinians get a fair amount of money from the US and Europe, some more from their fellow Arabs. How excited is their leadership about the prospects for peace when a lot of their funding might disappear with it.

So maybe they don't need a mediator as much as they need the US and others to stop subsidizing the violence.

And what's the downside if the idea was wrong? Israel would suffer a bit economically as the US gravy train was cutoff. What would the Palestinians do? Well to begin with, they might figure out that if they came remotely close to putting Israel at substantial risk they would be wiped out so maybe they would acquire a sense of reality about that. The Israelis might figure out that subsidizing whacko colonists to constantly harass the Palestinians and steal their land wasn't such a cool idea without the Americans to subsidize the non-sense.

Right now the prospects for a Palestinian/Israeli peace are almost zero with the US constantly mucking about with the situation. Maybe it's time to try something else. The problem is that for the foreseeable America is completely tied to its policies towards Israel. Both political parties are so invested in the failed strategy and both political parties are so profoundly controlled by the special interest groups that push the American policy forward that I have almost no hope for Palestinian/Israeli peace in my lifetime.

 

[Chaos]

OK, I'll dumb it down.

The parties involved do not trust each other, and do not negotiate without a third party getting involved.

IF the parties, Pals (one or two of them) and Israelis, mostly one party, are to work out any sort of deal, a mediator would be a handy way to achieve that end.

See Camp David, Sadat's Egypt, and Israel for a modest example of a modest success. Granted, the mediator did offer a bribe, which your tax dollars and mine are still paying to both sides.

What incentive do the Pals, or the Israelis, have to negotiate? Who provides it?

If you have written off the prospect of the parties ever working out some kind of deal, fine, welcome to the club of "Y'all kill one another all you like, let us know when you are done."

Here, have some popcorn.

DR

Honest question here... do you think it would be feasible for the US to agree to lend its (financial and military) muscle to some third-party mediator who is recognized both as being interested in peace and as not having a stake in either party coming out ahead in an eventual peaceful solution?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

It's pretty hard to have an agreement when one sides requirement is the complete removal of the other. I highly doubt the other side will concede and agre to destroy itself.

 

[davefoc]

It's pretty hard to have an agreement when one sides requirement is the complete removal of the other. I highly doubt the other side will concede and agre to destroy itself.

And from this little piece of self serving clap trap all the land grabbing, harassment and mistreatment of the Palestinians is justified.

Nothing could have made my point better than this. The Israelis subsidize and expand their colonies, it pisses off the Palestinians and constant conflict is assured as long as the Americans continue to pay for it.

There is no doubt that the various whackos that make up a part of Israel would continue to push for the complete confiscation of all Palestinian lands and there is no doubt that the various wackos that make up a part of the Palestinians would continue to push for the elimination of all Jews from Israel under any plausible scenario short of the complete annihilation of one side or the other. But how much power would the various whacko groups have if the US and others didn't subsidize their violence? My simple premise is that when peace provides more economic opportunities than war it is possible that peace might come to Israel.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

And from this little piece of self serving clap trap all the land grabbing, harassment and mistreatment of the Palestinians is justified.

Nothing could have made my point better than this. The Israelis subsidize and expand their colonies, it pisses off the Palestinians and constant conflict is assured as long as the Americans continue to pay for it.

There is no doubt that the various whackos that make up a part of Israel would continue to push for the complete confiscation of all Palestinian lands and there is no doubt that the various wackos that make up a part of the Palestinians would continue to push for the elimination of all Jews from Israel under any plausible scenario short of the complete annihilation of one side or the other. But how much power would the various whacko groups have if the US and others didn't subsidize their violence? My simple premise is that when peace provides more economic opportunities than war it is possible that peace might come to Israel.

Oh yeah, this whole war has only to do with the land Israel took after being attacked to create a buffer zone. Yeah and all they have to do is return the land and there will be peace. I don't think there is enough pot in the world to all for that one.

Just as this notion that Israel's goal is to take Palestinian land. Of course for the same reason that the bad guys tie damsel's to railroad tracks. Simply to be diabolical.

And a nice solution of taking away some of the support that helps prevent groups like Hamas from trying to destroy Israel. We already know what would happen without such support. Thats the PURPOSE in us giving them support. Hamas has made no confusion about their intent and if they had the power, they would wipe Israel off the map. There will never be peace here and the notion that it's somehow Israel's fault is absurd. Both sides have their faults.

 

[beachnut]

I see his statement as a poor attempt to veil his antisemitism. 1 to 404?

 

[Richard Masters]

OK, I'll dumb it down.

The parties involved do not trust each other, and do not negotiate without a third party getting involved.

You are still making the assumption that a mediator will solve the issue.

IF the parties, Pals (one or two of them) and Israelis, mostly one party, are to work out any sort of deal, a mediator would be a handy way to achieve that end.

See Camp David, Sadat's Egypt, and Israel for a modest example of a modest success. Granted, the mediator did offer a bribe, which your tax dollars and mine are still paying to both sides.

What incentive do the Pals, or the Israelis, have to negotiate? Who provides it?

As davefoc commented, the US gives them an incentive to continue fighting by subsidizing their violence. Thus, your assumption that a mediator is going to make things better has been shown to be at least partially false, at least in the case of the United States.

If you have written off the prospect of the parties ever working out some kind of deal, fine, welcome to the club of "Y'all kill one another all you like, let us know when you are done."

I have not written off the prospect of the parties working out a deal. But as davefoc has pointed out, the United States is an obstacle. Additionally, I don't have blind faith on magically solving the problem by merely having a mediator.

Now, if a hypothetical mediator were fairly neutral, and more importantly, had a strategy for reducing violence without blatantly taking sides, I might certainly endorse said hypothetical mediator.

Here, have some popcorn.

DR

If Israel or Palestine are committing unfair acts they should certainly suffer the consequences of their actions as a disincentive. Our tax money and unbalanced actions in the Middle East have instead been an incentive for violence.

 

[Richard Masters]

I see his statement as a poor attempt to veil his antisemitism. 1 to 404?

By that logic, I see your statement as a poor attempt to veil your anti-Arabism.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Of course, it's always someone else's fault for the violence in the Middle East. Isn't that what these debates are always about anyways? Who can we blame. And clearly without Israel or the US, the Middle East would be at perfect peace.

These are excuses to justify violence. They aren't the cause of it. Just like we can say that cartoons are an incentive for violence. Or letting women walk around uncovered is incentive for violence. And women dressing suggestively is incentive for rape.

 

[Richard Masters]

Of course, it's always someone else's fault for the violence in the Middle East. Isn't that what these debates are always about anyways? Who can we blame. And clearly without Israel or the US, the Middle East would be at perfect peace.

These are excuses to justify violence. They aren't the cause of it. Just like we can say that cartoons are an incentive for violence. Or letting women walk around uncovered is incentive for violence. And women dressing suggestively is incentive for rape.

Those you listed above are not incentives. They are factors sometimes used as excuses.

Money for violence is an incentive and a factor.

Additionally, blame or cause attribution is multifactorial. The bulk of the blame for the violence in the Middle East goes to those committing the violence. Some of the blame also goes to those creating the conditions for said violence.

I can blame our politicians for misusing our tax-money. Of course, the people who voted for these politicians are also partially to blame.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

The are incentive by your earlier standards. Trying to claim that the violence is simply the result of someone else creating those conditions? It's ********. While outside factors have an influence, that's all it is. It's not a cause. And there will always be violence no matter what is done, and those creating the violence will always have an excuse for it.

Again, it's like saying that women dressing suggestively deserve some of the blame for rape. Simply because the rapist claims it as their motive. Trying to bend to those creating the violence is not the answer. Hey, maybe if we would just give criminals our belongings they would stop robbing us. Maybe if we would stop locking money up in banks and gave it to robbers they would stop robbing us.

And there's no winning. If we were to not be in the middle east then we would be criticized for not helping. While the US has done many wrong things, that's inevitable. But people are simply using the US's position as a scape goat. An easy target to blame for everyone's problems. And they would do it no matter what policies were in place. that's the down side to being the biggest target. Same reason Microsoft in the computer world is the most criticized. They are the biggest target.

The violent people will be violent no matter what. It just helps to have a scape goat.

 

[davefoc]

Oh yeah, this whole war has only to do with the land Israel took after being attacked to create a buffer zone.

I suppose this is a sarcastic comment implying that you think that Israel only grabs land as a matter of its national security. If that is what you believe then I doubt there is anything that I could say to change your mind. It is so obviously not true that only an individual that willingly embraces self delusion could believe it.

Yeah and all they have to do is return the land and there will be peace. I don't think there is enough pot in the world to all for that one.

I have never seen an Israel critic make that claim. It is common for the Israeli apologists to put it forth as a strawman argument though. Generations of conflict were guaranteed when a bunch of Europeans thought it would be cool to create a colony for European Jews on land occupied by others. Peace is not a likely prospect for years to come no matter what Israel does.

And a nice solution of taking away some of the support that helps prevent groups like Hamas from trying to destroy Israel. We already know what would happen without such support. Thats the PURPOSE in us giving them support. Hamas has made no confusion about their intent and if they had the power, they would wipe Israel off the map. There will never be peace here and the notion that it's somehow Israel's fault is absurd. Both sides have their faults.

What do you think would happen if Israel wasn't given billions of dollars of military equipment by the US every year? You think Hamas would rise up and defeat Israel? You seem to believe the spin that Israel needs massive amounts of arms to defeat its lightly armed opponents. The purpose of the arms that the US gives to the Israelis is to make the US arms industry happy. It not only has a ready market for the arms that the US government buys to give to Israel it makes more money when other countries decide they need some of that stuff too. Over all a win win for them and a win for the Israeli expansionists who are economically shielded from the costs of their shenanigans. But a disaster for the average Israeli and an endless and completely without benefit drain on the American taxpayer.

 

[davefoc]

What do you think would happen if Israel wasn't given billions of dollars of military equipment by the US every year? You think Hamas would rise up and defeat Israel? You seem to believe the spin that Israel needs massive amounts of arms to defeat its lightly armed opponents. The purpose of the arms that the US gives to the Israelis is to make the US arms industry happy. It not only has a ready market for the arms that the US government buys to give to Israel it makes more money when other countries decide they need some of that stuff too. Over all a win win for them and a win for the Israeli expansionists who are economically shielded from the costs of their shenanigans. But a disaster for the average Israeli and an endless and completely without benefit drain on the American taxpayer.

This last paragraph embarrasses me. I do not think it is accurate. I think I fell into the trap of overstating my case because I am more comfortable with a black and white situation than the reality of a situation with shades of gray.

Israel is obviously not without enemies of substantial military capability and I do not believe that military and economic aid to Israel is completely without benefit to the US.

Despite these facts, I continue to believe that the American aid to Israel is driven principally by politics and that it for the most part has a destabilizing effect on the conflict and given the nature of the American aid it is in net more harmful than beneficial to most Americans and it is in net more harmful than beneficial to the average Israeli.