E
estesbob
Guest
A right the Palestinians have made claer will not be extended to Jews in a Palestinian State.
dailycaller.com/2011/09/13/palestinian-ambassador-reiterates-call-for-a-jew-free-palestinian-state/
- Status
dailycaller.com/2011/09/13/palestinian-ambassador-reiterates-call-for-a-jew-free-palestinian-state/
S
seekerz
Guest
You said, and I quote: “I don’t remember the particulars in this case, but it usually has to do with the terms…like Israel still existing…”. So your logic is either
A. that no real obstacles existed other than Palestinian hatred of Israel, or
B. that for Israel to exist they must be able to 1. build in the the West Bank 2. keep the Palestinian state demilitarized and 3. determine who can and cannot live in said state.
Either way, your logic is flawed as it is not based on the facts, which you yourself claim to not remember.
S
seekerz
Guest
And which Israel has similarly determined will not be allowed to Palestinians. The only difference is who is determining what for which country. Can we go tell Mexico to place an embargo on Cuba? I mean we can, but do we have the moral right to?
R
rlg94086
Guest
Not at all, it was a tongue-in-cheek answer to someone who was demanding I give particulars to someone else’s post rather than addressing that poster directly. You are inferring my “logic” without any evidence whatsoever. Not only is that poor debate tactic, but is a flawed method of reasoning. In the future, I would recommend you simply ask my opinion on the matter.
I
iamrefreshed
Guest
Actually you brought up everything you listed in “B”. They are your assumptions, not Roberts. Unless you read minds?
R
rlg94086
Guest
Thank you. I’m glad I’m not the only one who sees this.Actually you brought up everything you listed in “B”. They are your assumptions, not Roberts. Unless you read minds?
S
seekerz
Guest
They are what cause the negotiations to fail. No need for assumptions. All I had to read were the words on a website.Actually you brought up everything you listed in “B”. They are your assumptions, not Roberts. Unless you read minds?
He attributes the failure to Palestinians not wanting Israel to exist. That is hardly a logical portrayal of the facts (or maybe I’m being too polite to say that it’s simply inaccurate).
E
estesbob
Guest
There are already Palestinians living in Israel. The Palsetinians, OTH, have vowed to forcibly eject all Jews from any Palestinian State
S
seekerz
Guest
That would not be fair, unless of course there was deliberate encroachment being encouraged or allowed now, in preparation for the day when boundaries are declared. However, that is a “right to remain”, if I may be allowed to coin a phrase. I was discussing the right of return, which is the right of refugees (Israeli or Palestinian) in other countries, to return to their homeland.
D
Darryl1958
Guest
It is illogical to say that you accept the right of existence of a Jewish state of Israel, and to demand the right or return of all Palestinians to that state, which would in effect make it into a Muslim state.
It is also illogical to demand a Palestinian state in the region, and then refuse exiled Palestinians entrance into that state.
S
seekerz
Guest
I agree with that last statement in your post and while I see the argument in the former, I have considerable difficulty with the idea that human rights are conditional and can be refused to a particular group of people based on practicality.
One either has a right to be in the land of one’s forefathers or one does not. It can’t be based on convenience. Of course, one can also voluntarily give up that right in exchange for some significant benefit or concession…but simply to be refused it because it is not practical? I have serious issues with that and so might any person who prizes their own constitutional rights.
Also, going by your own line of reasoning, if the Palestinian population growth within Israel becomes an issue (as I have seen it suggested in certain quarters), should they have a ‘right of ejection’? These are very, very complex issues and had the history of this conflict not been what it is, the lasting solution would have been to help people from both sides live in a single country with legislative mechanisms to protect all ethnic and religious groups. That’s what worked (at least partly) in other post-colonial countries (e.g. India) and even in places like Northern Ireland but the partisan attitude which the world took to this particular conflict from the very beginning, now makes such hopes mere fantasies.
R
rlg94086
Guest
Since you’ve proven yourself unable to reason this out, let me help you. Besides the fact that the “Israel still existing” was a tongue-in-cheek remark, I did not imply that this was the reason for the failure. Thus, words like “usually” and “like.” You treated it as a singular absolute, contrary to what I stated.
Now, you are correct that it was not a “logical portrayal of the facts.” it wasn’t meant to be a portrayal of the facts. Since it was not a “logical portrayal of the facts,” it is impossible for there to have been a flaw in my logic. Comments are not logic.
Polite or not, I will say that your argument against me has been wholly inaccurate and flawed logic. Next time, just engage with the person who made the original comment, in this case Gary Taylor. He seems to know a lot about the subject. I agreed with him based on my limited recollection. I guess you would prefer to pick a fight with me, rather than discuss the facts with him.
D
Darryl1958
Guest
One’s intentions are exemplary, but it is illogical to support a Jewish state of Israel while at the same time supporting that state being demographically overwhelmed by non-Jews, the vase majority of whom, three generations after the fact, have never set foot in Israel in the first place
Negotiations have always included this.
That has never been proposed.
No peace, no recognition, no negitiations.
prageruniversity.com/Political-Science/The-Middle-East-Problem.html
S
seekerz
Guest
Who’s picking fights? I thought we were done with this. Now that you have made it clear that your comments were not meant to be a “portrayal of the facts”, can we get off this sidetrack?Since you’ve proven yourself unable to reason this out, let me help you. Besides the fact that the “Israel still existing” was a tongue-in-cheek remark, I did not imply that this was the reason for the failure. Thus, words like “usually” and “like.” You treated it as a singular absolute, contrary to what I stated.
Now, you are correct that it was not a “logical portrayal of the facts.” it wasn’t meant to be a portrayal of the facts. Since it was not a “logical portrayal of the facts,” it is impossible for there to have been a flaw in my logic. Comments are not logic.
Polite or not, I will say that your argument against me has been wholly inaccurate and flawed logic. Next time, just engage with the person who made the original comment, in this case Gary Taylor. He seems to know a lot about the subject. I agreed with him based on my limited recollection. I guess you would prefer to pick a fight with me, rather than discuss the facts with him.
My apologies to you; comments can only be logical if they are factual. Yours were by your own admission, a cheer unrelated to the facts of the matter. We get that. Now can we move on to discussing the topic of the thread or at least something tangentially related to it?
R
rlg94086
Guest
Thank you for conceding your error. Feel free, as you always have been btw, to discuss the topic at hand. I will be more careful about agreeing with someone without including a complete summary of the situation to back up my agreement.
S
seekerz
Guest
Three generations are nothing compared to centuries in a global diaspora. Principles apply equally to people we like as to people we don’t. The creation of Israel was not a well thought out process or all those issues (and their future ramifications) would have been settled then.
What has always been included?
Either side could say that and there’d be no progress, which is more to the Israelis’ detriment than to the Palestinians’.
Considering the demographic challenges which time (and adoption of Western reproductive behavior) would bring to that postage-stamp sized patch of the world, I’d say, digging their heels in = kicking the can down the road but not beyond a generation or two. (Never mind that you seem to be acknowledging the lack of commitment to any real negotiations.)
prageruniversity.com/Political-Science/The-Middle-East-Problem.html
D
Darryl1958
Guest
I have made no comment as to the morality of the right of return after three generations or centuries or even millenia.
Only, the illogic of paying lip-service to the Jewish state of Israel while insisting on a policy that would in effect destroy that state.
The possibility of compensation, or at least a recognition that a population swap between Jews and Arabs have offset each otehr.
You would have ahd to have listened to the link provided to understand what that statement was referring to.
Following the culture of death of the left will lead to the death of a Jewish state, most certainly.
I have been consistent in stating this in these forums. But that does not mean that ejection of the non-Jewish or Arab population of Israel has ever been a policy of Israel. It is a pure hypthetical that only muddies the waters. Until there is a concrete proposal that this is part of the grand scheme, it does nothing but add to the hysteria and paranoai of the topic to consider this as a possibility needing discussion.
The link referred to above.
Understanding the problem is simple enough.
C
Caldera
Guest
The UN Sham Pampers the Palestinian Sham
In his speech to the UN General Assembly last month, Israel’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, spoke of the United Nations as the «house of lies » and the «theater of the absurd.» One could go farther and state the whole truth: The United Nations has become a sham.
The new United Nations Human Rights Council is composed overwhelmingly of countries in perpetual violation of human rights, and should more accurately be called the Council against Human Rights and for the Promotion of Global Anti-Semitism.
The General Assembly is a place where dictators and tyrants have an automatic majority to pass absurd motions and obscene texts, such as the one that defines Zionism as racism, adopted in 1975, and repealed only sixteen years later with the greatest difficulty, thanks to U.S. Ambassador John Bolton. The US veto in the UN Security Council is the sole obstacle to the enactment of equally racist decisions.
Originally intended to foster peace on earth and to end totalitarian regimes, the UN has become a place where Western democracies are hostages to brutal, barbaric regimes. No one has yet even been fired for « the biggest heist in history », over $117 billion, the Oil-for-Food scandal of 2004, in which the UN set up a program supposedly to provide food for impoverished Iraqis under the regime of Saddam Hussein, but instead accepted kickbacks from the Iraqi regime while the food never reached the people. Supposed UN peacekeepers in Africa still continue to distribute goods to underage children in exchange for sex.
The tribune from which Benjamin Netanyahu spoke is the same from which other world leaders also spoke. The President of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, uttered genocidal recommendations to cheers. The Prime Minister of Turkey, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, was acclaimed as he accused Israel of using « excessive force » against a Turkish flotilla’s attempt to break a perfectly legal naval blockade.
But, as UN recognition of a Palestinian state, or at least an upgrade from which to continue making Israel’s existence as unpleasant as possible, was the featured act this year, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas addressed the General Assembly with lies – about everything from who was responsible for stalling negotiations for the past two years (the Israelis had agreed to a requested construction freeze, after which the Palestinians still refused to come to the table until few weeks before the deadline, and then demanded another construction freeze) – to who had failed to fulfill its side of the Oslo accords (the Palestinians had agreed to stop incitement, but, among other violations since day one, never even tried). Abbas descended from the podium to sanctimonious applause.
Read the rest:
hudson-ny.org/2550/un-palestinian-sham
In his speech to the UN General Assembly last month, Israel’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, spoke of the United Nations as the «house of lies » and the «theater of the absurd.» One could go farther and state the whole truth: The United Nations has become a sham.
The new United Nations Human Rights Council is composed overwhelmingly of countries in perpetual violation of human rights, and should more accurately be called the Council against Human Rights and for the Promotion of Global Anti-Semitism.
The General Assembly is a place where dictators and tyrants have an automatic majority to pass absurd motions and obscene texts, such as the one that defines Zionism as racism, adopted in 1975, and repealed only sixteen years later with the greatest difficulty, thanks to U.S. Ambassador John Bolton. The US veto in the UN Security Council is the sole obstacle to the enactment of equally racist decisions.
Originally intended to foster peace on earth and to end totalitarian regimes, the UN has become a place where Western democracies are hostages to brutal, barbaric regimes. No one has yet even been fired for « the biggest heist in history », over $117 billion, the Oil-for-Food scandal of 2004, in which the UN set up a program supposedly to provide food for impoverished Iraqis under the regime of Saddam Hussein, but instead accepted kickbacks from the Iraqi regime while the food never reached the people. Supposed UN peacekeepers in Africa still continue to distribute goods to underage children in exchange for sex.
The tribune from which Benjamin Netanyahu spoke is the same from which other world leaders also spoke. The President of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, uttered genocidal recommendations to cheers. The Prime Minister of Turkey, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, was acclaimed as he accused Israel of using « excessive force » against a Turkish flotilla’s attempt to break a perfectly legal naval blockade.
But, as UN recognition of a Palestinian state, or at least an upgrade from which to continue making Israel’s existence as unpleasant as possible, was the featured act this year, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas addressed the General Assembly with lies – about everything from who was responsible for stalling negotiations for the past two years (the Israelis had agreed to a requested construction freeze, after which the Palestinians still refused to come to the table until few weeks before the deadline, and then demanded another construction freeze) – to who had failed to fulfill its side of the Oslo accords (the Palestinians had agreed to stop incitement, but, among other violations since day one, never even tried). Abbas descended from the podium to sanctimonious applause.
Read the rest:
hudson-ny.org/2550/un-palestinian-sham
S
Scott_Lafrance
Guest
:clapping:
S
seekerz
Guest
If the UN is a sham, why do the Israelis (or anyone else who thinks so) not simply leave it? Could it be that they enjoy the privilege of being able to use this ‘sham’ when it suits their purposes? Say, for example, when they want to legitimize unjustified wars against non-aggressor countries? Hey, wouldn’t that make said ‘legitimacy’ a sham too?
- Status