Israeli Palestinian Conflict Thread

[motownguy]

Originally Posted by Cretaceous Bob

Yes, genius, that logic is fucking retarded. It's good to see you can't see a train of mocking tone barreling towards your face.

No, dude. I had a logical, reasoned case twice against you, and twice you ignored it.

Twice you started an argument, and twice you refused to acknowledge my counterpoints.

You even ignored my calls for rebuttal, and this very thread citing the points you ignored.

You argue what you want, not what is reasoned or logical. You are hammering a point, not participating in a fair discussion. This point is proven by your absolute refusal to address paragraphs worth of points against you.

Incidentally, your cute little edit? Yeah, when I post with a non-belligerent, reasonable argument, you are nowhere to be found. I have a counterpoint, AND YOU REFUSE TO RESPOND. I call for you to respond, AND YOU STILL REFUSE. There's no point. You won't respond to it.

There is absolutely no point in moving onto a third argument when this very thread started about two AS YET UNFINISHED arguments.

Ha! I parry your denegrating commentary with silliness. Giggetygoo! En garde! Based on some of your other logic, it didn't seem out of the question that you meant your "mocking tone" to be taken literally.

Seriously, I agree with DaveNJ on this topic to such an extent that it seems redundant to even post.

[hayroob]

So I've been cooking my brain on this one for most of today and thinking about the best way to come at this and honestly I think that DaveNJ and motownguy are dead wrong, but since this is spiraling into who can use the largest font I'm not interested. So I am going to absolve myself for now. I intend to wait and see how these war crime accusations come to light and watch the coverage of the wars aftermath and then I will come back to this.

I'll say my piece in good time and with some clarity gained from distance from the topic.

[Alexandra]

[QUOTE=hayroob;508691] Israel has every right to defend itself, but absolutely no right to do it at the cost of thousands of innocent lives.QUOTE]

Have you lost your ever loving mind? That's absolutely ridiculous. That's tannamount to saying: "You have every right to defend your person from assault, but no right to do so if it harms another". The only other answer is to run. If you actually believe that Israel can continue to exist by protecting the lives of the enemy any more than they already do, you're a fool. And if you are such a fool, then you believe Israel's correct move is to run. Where, pray tell, do you think the Israeli's should run to and what makes you think that hypothetical location would be any safer in 50 years than Eretz Israel is today?

Innocents die in any war, and that is why war should be avoided until it cannot be avoided, but there is no moral high ground to saving the innocent dwellers of gaza at the cost of innocent Israeli lives.

[Cretaceous Bob]

After twice posting extensively in response to DaveNJ, and twice calling for him to respond to them, he has now refused to acknowledge that there has been anything said contrary to his original points a total of four times.

We must assume that reason has no affect on him if he can find nothing wrong with arguments made against him, yet he still maintains his position.

DaveNJ is, as I said and as I have proven, completely disinterested in having a fair exchange of ideas with a relative amount of open-mindedness, opting instead to be what is essentially a propaganda machine.

No one should ever interact with him with any degree of seriousness.

Originally Posted by Alexandra

Have you lost your ever loving mind? That's absolutely ridiculous. That's tannamount to saying: "You have every right to defend your person from assault, but no right to do so if it harms another". The only other answer is to run. If you actually believe that Israel can continue to exist by protecting the lives of the enemy any more than they already do, you're a fool. And if you are such a fool, then you believe Israel's correct move is to run. Where, pray tell, do you think the Israeli's should run to and what makes you think that hypothetical location would be any safer in 50 years than Eretz Israel is today?

Innocents die in any war, and that is why war should be avoided until it cannot be avoided, but there is no moral high ground to saving the innocent dwellers of gaza at the cost of innocent Israeli lives.

The word is "tantamount".

Hayroob seems to be saying that the price of war should be balanced against the gain, and I don't see how that's unreasonable. You, on the other hand, are saying that any price of any degree should be ignored simply because there will be a price, and that's just nutters.

Israel is an example of people's ability to move with rapidity. Departure could easily be accomplished. I don't see how they have a right to a sovereign nation, however.

[Alexandra]

Originally Posted by Cretaceous Bob

After twice posting extensively in response to DaveNJ, and twice calling for him to respond to them, he has now refused to acknowledge that there has been anything said contrary to his original points a total of four times.

We must assume that reason has no affect on him if he can find nothing wrong with arguments made against him, yet he still maintains his position.

DaveNJ is, as I said and as I have proven, completely disinterested in having a fair exchange of ideas with a relative amount of open-mindedness, opting instead to be what is essentially a propaganda machine.

No one should ever interact with him with any degree of seriousness.

The word is "tantamount".

Hayroob seems to be saying that the price of war should be balanced against the gain, and I don't see how that's unreasonable. You, on the other hand, are saying that any price of any degree should be ignored simply because there will be a price, and that's just nutters.

Israel is an example of people's ability to move with rapidity. Departure could easily be accomplished. I don't see how they have a right to a sovereign nation, however.

You are absolutely wrong in interpreting my comments. I think the price of war should absolutely be balanced against the gain. I just don't see that line being crossed yet by Israel. I would, however, be happy to let you know when I do think it's been crossed. (HINT: when your enemy's charter includes your non-existence - there is a very very high bar)

Are you actually saying that Israel has no right to a sovereign nation, but somehow those living in the gaza strip, those people who although they share a religion, were not accepted by Jordan or Egypt do? And if that's not what you are saying then what is wrong with Israel taking over enough of the area to maintain a level of security for themselves however they see fit?

Departure could be easily accomplished?????? You're right. I look at all the photos from friends of mine and media sources I trust and I don't see any reason why the entire population of gaza couldn't be loaded onto buses and transported immediately to Jordan. Problem solved. Of course, Jordan doesn't want them and their leaders don't want to go - but who cares?

[Cretaceous Bob]

Originally Posted by Alexandra

You are absolutely wrong in interpreting my comments. I think the price of war should absolutely be balanced against the gain. I just don't see that line being crossed yet by Israel. I would, however, be happy to let you know when I do think it's been crossed. (HINT: when your enemy's charter includes your non-existence - there is a very very high bar)

It's been estimated that Israel killed 900 civilians in less than a month. Israel itself claims something like 1,000 civilians have been killed over 2005, 2006, and 2007. That's pretty extreme. And the potential gain is very little.

Originally Posted by Alexandra

Are you actually saying that Israel has no right to a sovereign nation, but somehow those living in the gaza strip, those people who although they share a religion, were not accepted by Jordan or Egypt do? And if that's not what you are saying then what is wrong with Israel taking over enough of the area to maintain a level of security for themselves however they see fit?

You're talking like Israel is made up of people that lived in the area and were persecuted, and are now forming a state to protect themselves. That's not how it is.

Originally Posted by Alexandra

Departure could be easily accomplished?????? You're right. I look at all the photos from friends of mine and media sources I trust and I don't see any reason why the entire population of gaza couldn't be loaded onto buses and transported immediately to Jordan. Problem solved. Of course, Jordan doesn't want them and their leaders don't want to go - but who cares?

I meant Israelis could leave, in the exact same manner that they arrived.

[DaveNJ]

Originally Posted by Cretaceous Bob

After twice posting extensively in response to DaveNJ, and twice calling for him to respond to them, he has now refused to acknowledge that there has been anything said contrary to his original points a total of four times.

We must assume that reason has no affect on him if he can find nothing wrong with arguments made against him, yet he still maintains his position.

DaveNJ is, as I said and as I have proven, completely disinterested in having a fair exchange of ideas with a relative amount of open-mindedness, opting instead to be what is essentially a propaganda machine.

No one should ever interact with him with any degree of seriousness.

The word is "tantamount".

Hayroob seems to be saying that the price of war should be balanced against the gain, and I don't see how that's unreasonable. You, on the other hand, are saying that any price of any degree should be ignored simply because there will be a price, and that's just nutters.

Israel is an example of people's ability to move with rapidity. Departure could easily be accomplished. I don't see how they have a right to a sovereign nation, however.

Huh? I don't understand what you want? There's a wall of text on the first page, and I'm really not going to sift through it. Concisely elucidate your point and I'd be glad to address it, but I'm not running on your time frame here, I have other stuff to do.

You didn't counter my points. If you feel you have a point that needs addressing, or that you have a good counter, please state it. I'd be glad to respond.

You disagree with Israel's right to national sovereignty. The question is why. A slew of nations in the late '40's were granted statehood on the same principles, and since then this has been used in many cases. Dividing a nation on ethno-graphic lines is still the name of the game.

Pakistan
The Czech Republic
Slovakia
South Africa
Iran
Iraq
Slovenia
Serbia
Armenia
Georgia
And many more

Denying Israel's right to national sovereignty based on a UN decision is tantamount to denying the validity of a slew of nations we know today.

However, even if the founding of Israel was unjust, and we concede that fact, that alone is not grounds to destroy a nation. America was formed on the basis of wholesale genocide, as were many nations. It's not grounds to end national sovereignty.

So I guess a simple question is this: if you're so willing to uproot Israel, why not uproot the Palestinians? A huge amount of "Palestinians" do not live in, and were never born in, the Palestinian Territories. It makes sense that it's far more practical to move members of the world's second-largest religion to other states in the area with the same religion than it does to eliminate the only Jewish state.

Your argument falls apart under such scrutiny as this.

Your just war argument also fails. A war's civilian casualties have to be proportional to an objective, yes, but you're made no case as to why these are too many civilian casualties. When a quarter of your nation's population is forced to live under the threat of imminent attack from external powers at war with you that's a serious threat to national sovereignty. A government cannot survive if it won't protect its people, and thus restraint can only go so far.

That Israel waited eight years is miraculous. Sucks that people had to die, I abhor civilian deaths, but your case is seriously flawed.

If you don't believe Israel has a right to national sovereignty then your just war argument is wholly different from the generally accepted global definition.

So please, elucidate why we should continue to argue about a war for existence about a state you don't believe has a right to exist? It's a pointless venture, and I'll just go to bed secure in the knowledge that your opinion is not validated by the international community or Israel's strength of arms.

[Alexandra]

Originally Posted by Cretaceous Bob

It's been estimated that Israel killed 900 civilians in less than a month. Israel itself claims something like 1,000 civilians have been killed over 2005, 2006, and 2007. That's pretty extreme. And the potential gain is very little.

You're talking like Israel is made up of people that lived in the area and were persecuted, and are now forming a state to protect themselves. That's not how it is.

I meant Israelis could leave, in the exact same manner that they arrived.

1. The potential gain is huge and the civilian loss, while sad and certainly tragic to those involved, is in fact, worth it. (naturally this is an opinion, as is your point, but since you state your opinions as if they are mathematical facts, I thought you'd enjoy the same tactics)

2. Israel is made up of people who descended from people that lived in the area or moved to the area and were in fact persecuted. Protecting a religious group from further extermination was exactly the point of the formation of the state. Since that threat has not abated in the past 60 years, that's exactly how it is.

3. I know you meant the Israelis could leave, my point is that there is another party who could leave and do so more easily, but you don't seem to consider that.

4. Why do you find it perfectly acceptable for a palestinian state to be formed because, of course they are entitled to a sovereign nation; but you have no problem eliminating the only Jewish state in the region? Why is this one group of people so much more entitled than the other? Why would you side with a government who's charter includes the destruction of a sovereign nation, a culture who teaches their children to hate and destroy?

5. Forgetting nearly 6000 years of history, let's look at the present. Have you been paying attention to the rise in antisemitism worldwide? Contrary to CAIR's assertions, the number of religion based "hate crimes" is significantly higher against Jews than any other religious group (although the Mormons in CA seem to be catching up). During this time, you want to eliminate the only Jewish state that exists? What exactly do you think would happen next? Or is a big pile of dead Jews pretty much your goal?

6. It would be wonderful if a two state solution would result in two nations living side by side in peace, perhaps even supporting each other toward mutually beneficial goals. Unfortunately, the facts on the ground do not support that utopian goal as a reality yet. I hope that changes, and in my children's lifetime. Until then, I hope Israel continues to fight for their existence and I will continue to support the IDF.

Shabbat Shalom

[Cretaceous Bob]

Originally Posted by Alexandra

1. The potential gain is huge and the civilian loss, while sad and certainly tragic to those involved, is in fact, worth it. (naturally this is an opinion, as is your point, but since you state your opinions as if they are mathematical facts, I thought you'd enjoy the same tactics)

What is the likelihood Hamas's attacks will stop? Pretty slim, I'm betting. And that is the only gain there is.

Originally Posted by Alexandra

2. Israel is made up of people who descended from people that lived in the area or moved to the area and were in fact persecuted. Protecting a religious group from further extermination was exactly the point of the formation of the state. Since that threat has not abated in the past 60 years, that's exactly how it is.

Right, there was nowhere else to go but a place where there would be guaranteed persecution and resistance.

Right, because since Jews were persecuted by other countries, Palestinians have to pay up.

There are many options for protection beyond creating a sovereign nation (have you heard of a quaint little place called the United States of America?)

Originally Posted by Alexandra

3. I know you meant the Israelis could leave, my point is that there is another party who could leave and do so more easily, but you don't seem to consider that.

Yeah, but I don't see why they should have to move. I don't consider it, because they were already living where the Israelis are. Why is it up to them to move, then? If Zionists were determined to live there, they can either deal with the consequences or get out.

Originally Posted by Alexandra

4. Why do you find it perfectly acceptable for a palestinian state to be formed because, of course they are entitled to a sovereign nation; but you have no problem eliminating the only Jewish state in the region? Why is this one group of people so much more entitled than the other? Why would you side with a government who's charter includes the destruction of a sovereign nation, a culture who teaches their children to hate and destroy?

Because they were living there.

A Jewish state in that region is completely unnecessary, and was formed by people not living in the region. Why would you side with a people whose charter is to seize whatever land they want, whenever they want, be it illegally and/or by force.

There's never going to be any peace if you're justifying wars based on cultural differences. The fact is, Palestinians did not reach out beyond their land and mess with Jews. Jews did, however, reach out beyond where they were living and mess with Palestinians. That is a aggression, and should not be rewarded.

Originally Posted by Alexandra

5. Forgetting nearly 6000 years of history, let's look at the present. Have you been paying attention to the rise in antisemitism worldwide? Contrary to CAIR's assertions, the number of religion based "hate crimes" is significantly higher against Jews than any other religious group (although the Mormons in CA seem to be catching up). During this time, you want to eliminate the only Jewish state that exists? What exactly do you think would happen next? Or is a big pile of dead Jews pretty much your goal?

So we solve crime by committing crime?

Why do the Palestinians owe the Zionists anything?

Why are you pretending that the hostility towards Jews in the Middle East is exactly equal to the hostility present in other countries? Are there no countries more accepting of Jews than others? Why is it IMPOSSIBLE to simply immigrate to these areas?

And if you're worried about hostility towards Jews, Zionists have contributed to that. The British didn't have so much of a problem, until the Zionists started illegally immigrating and blowing shit up when they didn't get their way. That's not good PR. But the Jews can do whatever they want, can't they?

Originally Posted by Alexandra

6. It would be wonderful if a two state solution would result in two nations living side by side in peace, perhaps even supporting each other toward mutually beneficial goals. Unfortunately, the facts on the ground do not support that utopian goal as a reality yet. I hope that changes, and in my children's lifetime. Until then, I hope Israel continues to fight for their existence and I will continue to support the IDF.

Shabbat Shalom

It would be wonderful if Palestinians agreed to permanently lose land that was once theirs, lost through no fault of their own. But if they don't, the Jewish people will die before they surrender a land that they gained through aggression.

Sounds very reasonable, and not extreme at all.

Originally Posted by DaveNJ

Blah blah blah blah blah

I'm no longer addressing anything you say. If you don't know what I want you to respond to, that means you twice made an argument, and twice ignored the responses to it, and now know nothing of what anyone said in response. Which means, according to the evidence, if I actually had a case against you, you would never read it.

[motownguy]

Both the US and British severly restricted Jewish immigration after WWII. If my memory is correct, Jewish refugees were denied "asylum" status and had to have sponsoring families already in the US. One of the historical reasons that both the EU countries and the US have supported Israel is because that didn't want to deal themselves with the influx of a large Jewish population.

It's also a prevelant myth that all the Jews who came to inhabit the state of Israel showed up post-WWII. Jerusalem and it's surrounding areas, for instance, have had a Jewish majority population since 1896.


*http://www.mideastweb.org/palpop.htm