Why Europe Hates israel

[Mycroft]

Re: Why America hates Europe

delete

 

[Elio]

Skeptic,

Let's play devil advocate here :

If you think it's OK to thrash down "Europeans" (whatever that means),
Why do you think it's not OK to thrash down Jews ?

Elio.

 

[Ion]

Playing the Professional Victim:

I believe that Europe's traditional anti-semitism can be explained by two facts:...
...

Get inside the borders that U.N. recognizes for Israel, compensate Palestinians for wrongdoings you did outside Israel's borders, and Israel will start to catch up in fairness with many European countries.

 

[Ralph]

So how many Palestinians have due to the existence of the wall?


How many maimed?


Did the UN make any specific recommendations as to how Israel can defend itself if it complies and tears down the wall?

 

[Ralph]

That should've been "How many Palestinians have died due to thw walls existence"..

 

[Esther]

Playing the Professional Victim:

Get inside the borders that U.N. recognizes for Israel, compensate Palestinians for wrongdoings you did outside Israel's borders, and Israel will start to catch up in fairness with many European countries.

I believe that no country has the right to violate the international law but I don't think that any country should be interested in becoming pleasant to other countries even when those other countries are the european countries.

I don't care of what the average european thinks about Israel it's the average european that is interested in not being called an anti-semite considering the dark past of its continent.

 

[Frostbite]

Cripes! All of Europe hates Israel? I know you're the master at assertion without evidence, but you've really topped yourself this time.

Yes, and in fact this is how most Americans see Europe:

(PS I'm joking)

 

[Ion]

So how many Palestinians have due to the existence of the wall?


How many maimed?


Did the UN make any specific recommendations as to how Israel can defend itself if it complies and tears down the wall?

Ralphone,

get your thick head to get Israel inside Israel's borders.

 

[Mr Manifesto]

No it doesn't, that doesn't even make sense.

If a number of fundamentalist Christians are elected membership on a school board, then that political body would become biased in favor of fundamentalist Christianity, and we shouldn't be surprised if they vote to make the teaching of evolution optional. The school board would not need to influence the votes of its individual members for this bias to become apparent in its voting record.

This is true of any voting body. If enough of its members are biased, the body as a whole becomes biased. This is not the same as saying each individual member of the body is biased.

That's an amazing piece of mental gymnastics. You haven't established how this process works.

I mean, I could point out that it's interesting that the abstainers (Cameroon, Canada, El Salvador, Nauru, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Uganda, Uruguay, Vanuatu) and 'no' voters (Australia, Federated States of Micronesia, Israel, Marshall Islands, Palau, United States) are dependant upon aid from the US or Australia, or are in the middle of negotiating a free trade agreement as well as other hand-outs (as in the case of Australia).

(Canada and Uruguay's take on the whole thing is interesting. Click here to read about it.)

edit Bah, forgot to finish my point. Posting on two forums.

So, as I was saying, you could point out, in this instance, that possibly (and I do mean possibly) the abstainers and no-voters were coerced into voting against the resolution or not at all. Might be conspiracy-theory nonsense, but at least I've come up with something. All that the 'UN bias' crowd have come up with, so far, is that it's biased just because it's biased because the UN is biased which, therefore, makes the General Assembly biased.

Argumentum ad populum is especially relevant in political debates. A majority vote may determine what policy is followed, but it does not determine which policy is best. Just because John Howard is the one elected does not mean John Howard was the best choice.

Think of my previous example. It's very possible that in some school district somewhere there is a majority of fundamentalist Christians among the population. If they were to elect fundamentalist Christian representatives to their school board and those representatives were to vote to teach creation science instead of evolution, that vote itself does not make creation science credible, nor does it discredit evolution. All that vote does is set policy.

Democracy doesn't guarantee good decisions. It's chief advantage is to limit the power of the state (people are unlikely to vote for their own exploitation and oppression) and to provide a mechanism where truly disastrous decisions are reversed. Beyond that...well, people are idiots. We very often vote to do dumb things. Progress is very slow.

Argumentum ad populumis especially relevant in political discourse. Most of the ideas we take for granted today were minority opinions at one time.

Fine, we'll agree that the United Nations can't suggest to nations what is the right thing or wrong thing to do via popular vote. What's a better way, in your opinion?

 

[Ralph]

Ralphone,

get your thick head to get Israel inside Israel's borders.

Let's try again Ion. Maybe you can answer my questions (hopefully--in English).


The UN ordered Israel to tear down the wall. What specifically did they suggest Israel do to defend itself if it complies. (I'm not sure what "get your thick head to get Israel inside Israel's borders." means.)

How many Palestinians have died as a result of the wall?

How many Palestinians have been maimed as a result of the wall?
(Let's assume "maimed" means the loss of one or more limbs--blindness-- or facial disfigurement).

 

[Mycroft]

So, as I was saying, you could point out, in this instance, that possibly (and I do mean possibly) the abstainers and no-voters were coerced into voting against the resolution or not at all. Might be conspiracy-theory nonsense, but at least I've come up with something. All that the 'UN bias' crowd have come up with, so far, is that it's biased just because it's biased because the UN is biased which, therefore, makes the General Assembly biased.

I could point out what? Why would I want to?

Why are you talking about coersion? Coersion is not required for bias.

 

[plindboe]

I believe that no country has the right to violate the international law but I don't think that any country should be interested in becoming pleasant to other countries even when those other countries are the european countries.

I don't care of what the average european thinks about Israel it's the average european that is interested in not being called an anti-semite considering the dark past of its continent.

So you think what happened 60 years ago in Germany justifies calling all europens antisemitists?

I'd still like to see any evidence of this 'hatred' claim of yours?

 

[plindboe]

So how many Palestinians have due to the existence of the wall?


How many maimed?

What an utterly idiotic argument. So if someone isn't killed or maimed because of an action it makes it alright? So if someone commits rape and I complain about it, I guess you will ask, "How many was killed? How many was maimed?".

 

[Ion]

...
The UN ordered Israel to tear down the wall...
...

because it is in non-Israel land, it confiscates foreign land, Ralphone.

Israel can build castles, roller coasters, diving boards, walls, whatever Ralphone, only inside Israel.

Got it?

 

[Ralph]

What an utterly idiotic argument. So if someone isn't killed or maimed because of an action it makes it alright? So if someone commits rape and I complain about it, I guess you will ask, "How many was killed? How many was maimed?".

The UN has demanded that Israel dismantle a structure seems to have done a good job in protecting it's citzens against suicide bombers.

The downside is the walls presence is "against international law" and "inconveniencing" people.

Take the wall out like the UN is demanding & things may go back to the way they were before. Children on school buses being slaughtered----crowds of civilians sitting in a restaurant--suddenly blown to pieces.

For some strange reason the Israelis got tired of worrying about their kids being blown up when they got on the schoolbus.

To defend themselves they started killing the people who were ordering these "sacred missions". The UN was upset by that since innocent bystanders were also being killed.

So Israel tried something else. They built a wall which as far as I can see--hasn't killed anybody and has been very effective at saving lives.

Do you think it's idiotic to suggest there's a big difference between being "inconvenienced" and having your legs blown off?

 

[a_unique_person]

The UN has demanded that Israel dismantle a structure seems to have done a good job in protecting it's citzens against suicide bombers.

The downside is the walls presence is "against international law" and "inconveniencing" people.

Take the wall out like the UN is demanding & things may go back to the way they were before. Children on school buses being slaughtered----crowds of civilians sitting in a restaurant--suddenly blown to pieces.

For some strange reason the Israelis got tired of worrying about their kids being blown up when they got on the schoolbus.

To defend themselves they started killing the people who were ordering these "sacred missions". The UN was upset by that since innocent bystanders were also being killed.

So Israel tried something else. They built a wall which as far as I can see--hasn't killed anybody and has been very effective at saving lives.

Do you think it's idiotic to suggest there's a big difference between being "inconvenienced" and having your legs blown off?

Maybe you should get some basic facts stratight.

The ICJ has only said Israel should build the wall behind the 'green line', that is, on it's side of the border. The wall itself is not so much about protection, as setting territorial claims. Isreal can build a pyramid or leaning tower of Pisa or anything it wants on it's own land.

 

[Ralph]

Maybe you should get some basic facts stratight.

The ICJ has only said Israel should build the wall behind the 'green line', that is, on it's side of the border. The wall itself is not so much about protection, as setting territorial claims. Isreal can build a pyramid or leaning tower of Pisa or anything it wants on it's own land.

The headline said something about the world court DEMANDING that Israel TEAR DOWN it's West Bank Wall.

Israel seemed to feel that doing this would put it's citizens at risk.

Since it's their citizens that are being murdered maybe they're in a better postion to judge what the best way to defend them is
rather than some UN representative from another country.

What insights do you have that make you so sure it's just about turf and that complying with UN demands won't compromise the safety of Israeli citizens?

You've stated on many occasions you're overriding concern for the sanctity of life. The wall as it exists now is saving lives.
Shouldn't this be more important than squabbling about turf and "inconveniencing" people?

Maybe the UN should devote more time & effort to stopping suicide bombing by the Palestinians. Then the wall wouldn't be needed.

 

[a_unique_person]

The headline said something about the world court DEMANDING that Israel TEAR DOWN it's West Bank Wall.

Absolutely correct, which is why it pays to read past the headline sometimes. As I said, it is just as much about claiming territory as protection. This will be the de-facto basis for all territorial claims against the Palestinians from now on.

Like I said, they can build anything they want on their own land.

 

[plindboe]

The UN has demanded that Israel dismantle a structure seems to have done a good job in protecting it's citzens against suicide bombers.

The downside is the walls presence is "against international law" and "inconveniencing" people.

Take the wall out like the UN is demanding & things may go back to the way they were before. Children on school buses being slaughtered----crowds of civilians sitting in a restaurant--suddenly blown to pieces.

For some strange reason the Israelis got tired of worrying about their kids being blown up when they got on the schoolbus.

To defend themselves they started killing the people who were ordering these "sacred missions". The UN was upset by that since innocent bystanders were also being killed.

So Israel tried something else. They built a wall which as far as I can see--hasn't killed anybody and has been very effective at saving lives.

Do you think it's idiotic to suggest there's a big difference between being "inconvenienced" and having your legs blown off?

Inconvenienced has nothing to do with it. Stealing land has something to do with it. When I first heard of the israeli plan to built a wall I could understand the desperation fully. The thing is that it's not just about desperation. They are building it far in on palestinian land.

Also you make the assumption that the fewer palestinian attacks are because of the wall. How can you possibly know that? Lots have happened in the past months. Two prominent palestinian leaders have been killed. I doubt the reason is the wall though, since it has been far from finished.

(Hmm, perhaps I should start a new thread)

 

[Ralph]

Inconvenienced has nothing to do with it. Stealing land has something to do with it. When I first heard of the israeli plan to built a wall I could understand the desperation fully. The thing is that it's not just about desperation. They are building it far in on palestinian land.

Also you make the assumption that the fewer palestinian attacks are because of the wall. How can you possibly know that? Lots have happened in the past months. Two prominent palestinian leaders have been killed. I doubt the reason is the wall though, since it has been far from finished.

(Hmm, perhaps I should start a new thread)

Do you really think that the wall hasn't had anything to do with the decrease in Israeli citizens being murdered?