Israeli Palestinian Conflict Thread

[Cretaceous Bob]

Originally Posted by motownguy

You are continuing to suggest a voluntary mass exodus from Israel as a viable solution. Show me a precedent where a nation has voluntarily left the land it holds to become a nation in exile and we can talk. When you suggest such a proposition as "viable" I can't take you seriously.

More later, Alexandra just pulled dinner out of the oven. Shabbat Shalom!

The ability of the people to move is not in question, as they got there in the first place.

Given the largely pro-Israel stance this country has, why is this country not suitable for accepting a large portion? We owe them, don't we? I'm guessing Canada isn't terribly opposed to accepting some either. British attitude has probably lightened. There are places that will accept these people.

But I don't see how it is required that a people who illegally entered an area, despite protests by the residents and owners, be all given places of residence they find acceptable before a wrong is righted. A safe solution should be arrived at, but not one that the Israelites necessarily want or like.

[Alexandra]

Originally Posted by Cretaceous Bob

So you're going to entirely ignore my point that it is just habit and ease of speech? Really? Or it wasn't mild frustration and someone obfuscating the point by inventing things? It was me secretly knowing I lost? Get the fuck out of here, cunt.

Thank you for making my point for me.

Don't address the things I said you made up. You might see that you did.

Not by the British. You know nothing, just like that other idiot.

Was the state of Israel formed by a UN Resolution? Yes it was. Did the UN control the land in question? No it did not. Who did? Why, the British, thanks for asking. They chose to comply with the UN resolution and gave the land in question for the state of Israel.

I wasn't saying I wasn't asking to reverse war gains in this instance, I said I wasn't asking to reverse war gains across the board as you accused, as evidenced by your talk about irrelevant nations.

This is a complete Zionist victory dressed up as a compromise.

Actually, if you believe that existing in the middle east, in the land of Israel and the territory commonly know as palestine, live people of several religions who's goal is to live in peace and make a better life for their children (leaving aside Hamas, we're talking about the average person); then my idea is no compromise, it's a win-win situation. It's a losing proposition only for those who strive for war, an end to the state of Israel, or a big pile of dead Jews. Are you suggesting that the goal for the majority of the palestinian civilians is the latter?

Originally Posted by Cretaceous Bob

The ability of the people to move is not in question, as they got there in the first place.

Given the largely pro-Israel stance this country has, why is this country not suitable for accepting a large portion? We owe them, don't we? I'm guessing Canada isn't terribly opposed to accepting some either. British attitude has probably lightened. There are places that will accept these people.

But I don't see how it is required that a people who illegally entered an area, despite protests by the residents and owners, be all given places of residence they find acceptable before a wrong is righted. A safe solution should be arrived at, but not one that the Israelites necessarily want or like.

That's a precedent where a nation has voluntarily left the land it holds to become a nation in exile?

[Cretaceous Bob]

Originally Posted by Alexandra

Thank you for making my point for me.

Are you now not making my point that it's a lame cop out? What a convenient way to not actually talk about the issues, by getting all huffy because I called someone a fucking idiot. Obviously your basic misconceptions about the formation of Israel has me quaking in terror over here. I can feel the giant shadow of defeat looming over me as I type. Cunt.

Originally Posted by Alexandra

Was the state of Israel formed by a UN Resolution? Yes it was. Did the UN control the land in question? No it did not. Who did? Why, the British, thanks for asking. They chose to comply with the UN resolution and gave the land in question for the state of Israel.

The UN told Britain to create a Jewish nation, but Britain refused. Britain never assented to the creation of Israel. Britain decided to leave the area, and the Zionists declared independence. That's like saying the British created the United States of America and endorsed it; in both instances the British resisted the proponents of the opposing causes, and in both instances the British simply ceased resistance.

The British were stalwart in their anti-Zionist stance. They refused to open immigration, refused to allow immigrants even after Harry Truman asked it, and they imprisoned illegal immigrants without trial. How in the world are you deluded enough to think such a government endorsed or was responsible for the creation of Israel?

The only way you can fault Britain for the creation of Israel is by saying they should have kept control of Palestine and continued to refuse to obey the UN. So it's not the Zionists' fault for demanding a Jewish nation be created and illegally immigrating to the area, it's Britain's fault for not overpowering them? How about this: I'll shit on your face, and if shit gets on your face it's your fault for not stopping it. I'm absolutely clear of blame, and you're a disgusting, unreasonable, violent terrorist if you fucking dare do anything against me for shitting on your face. But as an aside: how fucking despicable is it that proponents of a cause lay blame on those who are thought to help the cause, rather than the creators of the cause? Even if Britain did create Israel, you're going to find fault with them for assisting the cause of the people you back? How is anyone supposed to respect that?

You know nothing, and all you are doing here is demonstrating how little you care about the actual facts. If you do not care about the facts, you must only be judging based on your preferences for the people, and that's just fucking wrong. If one doesn't draw objective lines that define basic human rights inherently endowed to all people, and instead bases decisions on whether or not you like a people, you end up with religious persecution. You're a flagrant hypocrite.

Originally Posted by Alexandra

Actually, if you believe that existing in the middle east, in the land of Israel and the territory commonly know as palestine, live people of several religions who's goal is to live in peace and make a better life for their children (leaving aside Hamas, we're talking about the average person); then my idea is no compromise, it's a win-win situation. It's a losing proposition only for those who strive for war, an end to the state of Israel, or a big pile of dead Jews. Are you suggesting that the goal for the majority of the palestinian civilians is the latter?

It's a losing proposition for the Arabs that used to own the land the Jews now live on, and a 100% fulfillment of the original Zionist goal. I don't know how you look at things, but traditional views on warfare say that there is a clear victor and a clear loser in that situation. So how is that a compromise in any way?

Why is it a bunch of people who voluntarily move into (and, now, refuse to move out of) a very hostile area are not accountable for their actions? It's not like this situation was or is unavoidable. The Israelis are refusing to consider those options, so why do you expect the Palestinians to consider any options but the one they want?

The plight of someone who voluntarily throws themselves into a shitstorm is of far lesser importance than the person who is thrown involuntarily into a shitstorm. The Israelis chose to create and move to Israel, and the Palestinians had no control over their situation. In fact, the Palestinians did what they could to resist what was forced on them, but voluntary aggression won out.

Originally Posted by Alexandra

That's a precedent where a nation has voluntarily left the land it holds to become a nation in exile?

No, it isn't.

But there need not be precedents for something to be done. It is possible to do, and that is all that matters.

Was there a precedent that would have justified the creation of Israel? No. But it happened anyway, didn't it? Why is there no precedent necessary when it benefits the people you favour, but a precedent is demanded when it benefits the people you do not favour?

I find it very interesting that the two of you respond to less and less of the points in my posts, but I constantly respond to every single sentence both of you say. Is this just a countdown to when you both step off stage, joining DaveNJ in not valuing factual corrections and opposing points?

[Alexandra]

Originally Posted by Cretaceous Bob

Are you now not making my point that it's a lame cop out? What a convenient way to not actually talk about the issues, by getting all huffy because I called someone a fucking idiot. Obviously your basic misconceptions about the formation of Israel has me quaking in terror over here. I can feel the giant shadow of defeat looming over me as I type. Cunt.

The UN told Britain to create a Jewish nation, but Britain refused. Britain never assented to the creation of Israel. Britain decided to leave the area, and the Zionists declared independence. That's like saying the British created the United States of America and endorsed it; in both instances the British resisted the proponents of the opposing causes, and in both instances the British simply ceased resistance.

The British were stalwart in their anti-Zionist stance. They refused to open immigration, refused to allow immigrants even after Harry Truman asked it, and they imprisoned illegal immigrants without trial. How in the world are you deluded enough to think such a government endorsed or was responsible for the creation of Israel?

The only way you can fault Britain for the creation of Israel is by saying they should have kept control of Palestine and continued to refuse to obey the UN. So it's not the Zionists' fault for demanding a Jewish nation be created and illegally immigrating to the area, it's Britain's fault for not overpowering them? How about this: I'll shit on your face, and if shit gets on your face it's your fault for not stopping it. I'm absolutely clear of blame, and you're a disgusting, unreasonable, violent terrorist if you fucking dare do anything against me for shitting on your face. But as an aside: how fucking despicable is it that proponents of a cause lay blame on those who are thought to help the cause, rather than the creators of the cause? Even if Britain did create Israel, you're going to find fault with them for assisting the cause of the people you back? How is anyone supposed to respect that?

You know nothing, and all you are doing here is demonstrating how little you care about the actual facts. If you do not care about the facts, you must only be judging based on your preferences for the people, and that's just fucking wrong. If one doesn't draw objective lines that define basic human rights inherently endowed to all people, and instead bases decisions on whether or not you like a people, you end up with religious persecution. You're a flagrant hypocrite.

It's a losing proposition for the Arabs that used to own the land the Jews now live on, and a 100% fulfillment of the original Zionist goal. I don't know how you look at things, but traditional views on warfare say that there is a clear victor and a clear loser in that situation. So how is that a compromise in any way?

Why is it a bunch of people who voluntarily move into (and, now, refuse to move out of) a very hostile area are not accountable for their actions? It's not like this situation was or is unavoidable. The Israelis are refusing to consider those options, so why do you expect the Palestinians to consider any options but the one they want?

The plight of someone who voluntarily throws themselves into a shitstorm is of far lesser importance than the person who is thrown involuntarily into a shitstorm. The Israelis chose to create and move to Israel, and the Palestinians had no control over their situation. In fact, the Palestinians did what they could to resist what was forced on them, but voluntary aggression won out.

No, it isn't.

But there need not be precedents for something to be done. It is possible to do, and that is all that matters.

Was there a precedent that would have justified the creation of Israel? No. But it happened anyway, didn't it? Why is there no precedent necessary when it benefits the people you favour, but a precedent is demanded when it benefits the people you do not favour?

I find it very interesting that the two of you respond to less and less of the points in my posts, but I constantly respond to every single sentence both of you say. Is this just a countdown to when you both step off stage, joining DaveNJ in not valuing factual corrections and opposing points?

You are engaging in perseveration, and that's really unattractive. It's also unhealthy. I suggest therapy.

[Cretaceous Bob]

And there we have it. Both of you intolerable know-nothings have completely given up. Oh, I know there's no possible way you are wrong, you just don't value anything but your own flawed conclusions.

[DaveNJ]

Originally Posted by Cretaceous Bob

And there we have it. Both of you intolerable know-nothings have completely given up. Oh, I know there's no possible way you are wrong, you just don't value anything but your own flawed conclusions.

We didn't give up. You resorted to name calling, ignoring my points, and general "nah-nah, I'm not listening" tactics.

Whatevs. It's the internet, I don't expect everyone here to be sane. Congratulations, you've succeeded in driving everyone away through childish arguing without convincing anyone of your points. You "win".

[motownguy]

Originally Posted by motownguy

You are continuing to suggest a voluntary mass exodus from Israel as a viable solution. Show me a precedent where a nation has voluntarily left the land it holds to become a nation in exile and we can talk. When you suggest such a proposition as "viable" I can't take you seriously.

More later, Alexandra just pulled dinner out of the oven. Shabbat Shalom!

Originally Posted by Cretaceous Bob

The ability of the people to move is not in question, as they got there in the first place.

Given the largely pro-Israel stance this country has, why is this country not suitable for accepting a large portion? We owe them, don't we? I'm guessing Canada isn't terribly opposed to accepting some either. British attitude has probably lightened. There are places that will accept these people.

But I don't see how it is required that a people who illegally entered an area, despite protests by the residents and owners, be all given places of residence they find acceptable before a wrong is righted. A safe solution should be arrived at, but not one that the Israelites necessarily want or like.

But there need not be precedents for something to be done. It is possible to do, and that is all that matters.

Was there a precedent that would have justified the creation of Israel? No. But it happened anyway, didn't it? Why is there no precedent necessary when it benefits the people you favour, but a precedent is demanded when it benefits the people you do not favour?

Originally Posted by Cretaceous Bob

And there we have it. Both of you intolerable know-nothings have completely given up. Oh, I know there's no possible way you are wrong, you just don't value anything but your own flawed conclusions.

About Cretaceous Bob
Biography
I wrote for and hang out at metalreview.com. Fucking check it out.
Location
Virginia
Interests
Metal
Signature
Metalreview.com

I asked for a precedent, not because one doesn't exist, but because it is relevant to the argument. Again I say, show me a precedent, because when you suggest such a solution is "viable" I simply can't take you seriously. I'm not going to waste my time trying to reason with someone who can't get past sophomoric logic. It's interesting to me how you say you want a safe solution, even to the point of moving a people against their will (which is what you argue against in the creation of Israel), but you won't attempt to follow a discussion that might lead to something worthwhile. You seem to have a need to bluster to an obsessive extent about simply removing those who irritate you. Here is an example Maiden and Wreggin's mutual masturbation/argument/insult each other thread - Metal Review Community . As you requested in your bio, I checked it out and there's certainly a trend here.

[Cretaceous Bob]

Originally Posted by DaveNJ

We didn't give up. You resorted to name calling, ignoring my points, and general "nah-nah, I'm not listening" tactics.

Whatevs. It's the internet, I don't expect everyone here to be sane. Congratulations, you've succeeded in driving everyone away through childish arguing without convincing anyone of your points. You "win".

DaveNJ, you are the biggest fucking liar. You bailed WAY before I got belligerent. I was reasonable, until people decided to wade in knee-deep and bail without concluding anything.

motown, Alexandra, both of you go back and look at the conversation Dave and me had before this. I'm confident both of you will agree that Dave refused to respond to me way before I started any of the things he mentioned.

I have asked time and time again for Dave to just recognize that there even was anything said contrary to his points, but he just refuses. But I'm the one doing "I'm not listening"? Get the fuck out of town. I told you, I'll address your third argument once we finish the first two.

Originally Posted by motownguy

I asked for a precedent, not because one doesn't exist, but because it is relevant to the argument. Again I say, show me a precedent, because when you suggest such a solution is "viable" I simply can't take you seriously. I'm not going to waste my time trying to reason with someone who can't get past sophomoric logic.

Whether or not there is a precedent has no direct affect on and is no indication of whether or not it is viable at this time. There could be a precedent, and it could not be viable at the time. Conversely, there could not be a precedent, and it could be viable at the same time. The two are in no way dependent on the other, and that's sophomoric logic.

Originally Posted by motownguy

It's interesting to me how you say you want a safe solution, even to the point of moving a people against their will (which is what you argue against in the creation of Israel), but you won't attempt to follow a discussion that might lead to something worthwhile.

What? "Get Hamas to agree to stop?" What kind of compromise could you possibly discuss? Because that's the only one ever brought up, and we all know that isn't going to happen.

And don't try to twist my words by saying moving Israelites is the same as moving the Palestinians. That's like saying punishing a thief is exactly the same as punishing someone who has committed no crime, and that's just stupid.

I am absolutely willing to discuss potential compromises. How about an agreement wherein if Hamas signs a peace-treaty, Israel agrees to gradually dissolve Israel over 20/30 years?

Originally Posted by motownguy

You seem to have a need to bluster to an obsessive extent about simply removing those who irritate you. Here is an example Maiden and Wreggin's mutual masturbation/argument/insult each other thread - Metal Review Community . As you requested in your bio, I checked it out and there's certainly a trend here.

And if you need evidence that I can carry on a discussion without berating people, you need look no further than this very thread. Read the original post.

Not to mention, there's a whole host of things you don't understand that went into that thread. For example: I created that thread to mock Wrecking Balls creation of an exactly identical thread, stating that creating multiple threads for forum fights is pointless. It was in no way intended to inhibit anyone's ability to voice their opinions or vehemence, it was mocking such things.

Thing is, if you're going to be completely misinformed, refuse to follow the previous discussion, and retread ground that's already been covered, you're not contributing anything to this thread and I don't care if you leave, so I'll treat you like crap. As I've already stated, getting miffed about name-calling is an easy way for whiners to scuttle out of an argument they can't win. So I'm giving you the option to scuttle.

Also, you've proven with that last post that you have the time and desire to prove me wrong, but you won't do it with any substance anymore. Factual, logical, substantial wins are always far more decisive than attacks on behavior and character. Why have you chosen the lesser option?

[Sgt Rosie]

Originally Posted by Cretaceous Bob

...

Wow, you seem to have a really deep need for people to acknowledge every move you make, even those tangential to the discussion. If you post a comment in the forest, and nobody hears it, do you still exist?

[Cretaceous Bob]

Originally Posted by Sgt Rosie

Wow, you seem to have a really deep need for people to acknowledge every move you make, even those tangential to the discussion. If you post a comment in the forest, and nobody hears it, do you still exist?

Someone ignoring paragraphs worth of rebuttals is trivial.

Obviously the best way to conduct discussions is to open and drop subjects constantly, never holding anyone accountable for what they said or requiring any sort of conclusion on anything.

What is any thread but a bunch of people talking into their own mirrors if they ignore anything they disagree with?