Should America Support Israel?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-08-2014, 10:18 AM
RE: Should America Support Israel?
(08-08-2014 10:02 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Going back and forth on details is clearly pointless.

The overarching point I have tried to emphasise is that events have causes. The actions of Israel and the various Palestinian groups do not occur in a vacuum. Understanding why people act is essential. "herp derp blame palestine 100%" is not helpful; it's the height of facile.

Funnily enough I have been called a Nazi by both sides of this argument. Because injecting nuance is a hallmark of fascism.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Revenant77x's post
08-08-2014, 10:29 AM
RE: Should America Support Israel?
(08-08-2014 10:18 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(08-08-2014 10:02 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Going back and forth on details is clearly pointless.

The overarching point I have tried to emphasise is that events have causes. The actions of Israel and the various Palestinian groups do not occur in a vacuum. Understanding why people act is essential. "herp derp blame palestine 100%" is not helpful; it's the height of facile.

Funnily enough I have been called a Nazi by both sides of this argument. Because injecting nuance is a hallmark of fascism.

But of course. Both sides themselves are Nazis; haven't you read this thread?

Therefore, disagreeing with anyone is implicitly agreeing Nazis.

QED.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
08-08-2014, 10:43 AM
RE: Should America Support Israel?
(08-08-2014 09:14 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Now point me to the place where anyone has said they'd follow that idea.

How about 11,000 rockets that have been launched so far by Hamas into Israel? I guess that doesn't count as follow that idea.

Quote:They've repeatedly acknowledged Israel's right to exist.

Continue believe in fairy tales.


Quote:
(07-08-2014 04:46 PM)zaybu Wrote:  You must be joking. Which country would sign on to a proposition that would ensure its destruction?

Only you keep obsessing over destruction. No one actually present at the talks seemed to think so.

The right of return was not on the table because, because... Can you connect the dots? (hint: it's unacceptale to Israel)


Quote:
(07-08-2014 04:46 PM)zaybu Wrote:  It's based on facts: the Palestinians declared war in 1948, that's a fact.

That is not a fact. Nice try, though. The neighbouring states did - after violence began. So that's a fact. But that isn't what you've claimed.

On 15 May 1948 Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Iran and Saudi Arabia declared war on Israel. Palestinians were part of this, and fought along those armies that invaded the area right after Israel had declared itself a state. You can technically say the Palestinians didn't declare it as they had no state. That's because they refused to declare their own state as that would have legitimized UN resolution of 1948, which also recognized the state of Israel. That's a technicality, but in spirit and in action, they effectively declared war on Israel with the intention of defeating the Israelis, and forming one state, their own.

Quote:
(07-08-2014 04:46 PM)zaybu Wrote:  That they have continue this war since then, that's a fact.

Nope.

Tell me which day between 15 May 1948 and today did the Palestinians sign a peace agreement with Israel? Oh wait, they never did. They still have the original intention of defeating the Israelis, and forming one state, their own.




Quote:
(07-08-2014 04:46 PM)zaybu Wrote:  That they either tacitly approve or even enable Hamas to carry its attack on Israel, that's a fact.

The Palestinians have declared war, have continued their fight to this day, then let them live with the atrocities. Don't come home to mama and complain.

So being occupied, resisting, and losing means they no longer have the right to self-determination.

It would be a good idea to stop the war as a first step to self-determination.


Quote:
(07-08-2014 04:46 PM)zaybu Wrote:  Wrong. Considering that the Palestinians declared war and lost, it was a very, very generous offer. And the next round if ever there is one, the offer will be less, not more.

Ah, okay. So "just fuck 'em" is your bright idea for peace.

I mean, I guess we could bring back vae victis as the basis for international law. In theory that went out with colonialism, but hey, if we're dividing the world into good people and bad people then we might as well give the bad people what they deserve.

No country would tolerate being shelved by rockets on a daily basis. If the US were Israel, the Americans would have wiped them out by now. I can guarantee you that.

My blog
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes zaybu's post
08-08-2014, 10:54 AM (This post was last modified: 08-08-2014 11:01 AM by cjlr.)
RE: Should America Support Israel?
(08-08-2014 10:43 AM)zaybu Wrote:  
(08-08-2014 09:14 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Now point me to the place where anyone has said they'd follow that idea.

How about 11,000 rockets that have been launched so far by Hamas into Israel? I guess that doesn't count as follow that idea.

"Attacking" or "fighting back" ≠ "obliterate". Nice try, though.

I'm not sure why I need to point this out to you, but there are all kinds of military conflicts that aren't genocidal.

"Hamas attacks Israel, therefore Hamas wants to annihilate Israel": does not follow.

Unless "Israel attacks Gaza, therefore Israel wants to annihilate Gaza" is also true.

It's the exact same, ah, "reasoning".

(08-08-2014 10:43 AM)zaybu Wrote:  
Quote:They've repeatedly acknowledged Israel's right to exist.

Continue believe in fairy tales.

Protip: things don't become true because you assert them.

Try actually looking it up.

For that matter, consider the agreement made a few months ago.

(08-08-2014 10:43 AM)zaybu Wrote:  
Quote:Only you keep obsessing over destruction. No one actually present at the talks seemed to think so.

The right of return was not on the table because, because... Can you connect the dots? (hint: it's unacceptale to Israel)

Which is why all the proposals on the table included further discussion of details to be subject to Israeli approval.

"Free movement with no conditions whatsoever" was never the condition. I'm unclear as to why you seem to be assuming it was.

(08-08-2014 10:43 AM)zaybu Wrote:  
Quote:That is not a fact. Nice try, though. The neighbouring states did - after violence began. So that's a fact. But that isn't what you've claimed.

On 15 May 1948 Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Iran and Saudi Arabia declared war on Israel. Palestinians were part of this, and fought along those armies that invaded the area right after Israel had declared itself a state. You can technically say the Palestinians didn't declare it as they had no state. That's because they refused to declare their own state as that would have legitimized UN resolution of 1948, which also recognized the state of Israel. That's a technicality, but in spirit and in action, they effectively declared war on Israel with the intention of defeating the Israelis, and forming one state, their own.

And I'm sure that had nothing to do with Israeli paramilitary violence and a mysterious reluctance to have their land signed away by other people.

Nothing whatsoever.

(08-08-2014 10:43 AM)zaybu Wrote:  
Quote:Nope.

Tell me which day between 15 May 1948 and today did the Palestinians sign a peace agreement with Israel? Oh wait, they never did. They still have the original intention of defeating the Israelis, and forming one state, their own.

Right. That's why all their negotiation since 1988 has been on the basis of a two-state solution.

Makes sense.

Are you even trying?

(08-08-2014 10:43 AM)zaybu Wrote:  
Quote:So being occupied, resisting, and losing means they no longer have the right to self-determination.

It would be a good idea to stop the war as a first step to self-determination.

Unfortunately it takes two to stop a war. Funny thing, that.

(08-08-2014 10:43 AM)zaybu Wrote:  
Quote:Ah, okay. So "just fuck 'em" is your bright idea for peace.

I mean, I guess we could bring back vae victis as the basis for international law. In theory that went out with colonialism, but hey, if we're dividing the world into good people and bad people then we might as well give the bad people what they deserve.

No country would tolerate being shelved by rockets on a daily basis. If the US were Israel, the Americans would have wiped them out by now. I can guarantee you that.

So what? "America would also respond badly therefore it's okay if Israel responds badly"? That's supposed to show, what, precisely?

Here's a question for you:
Why do Palestinians fire rockets?

Hint: it's called a cycle of violence for a reason.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
08-08-2014, 11:51 AM
RE: Should America Support Israel?
(08-08-2014 10:54 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(08-08-2014 10:43 AM)zaybu Wrote:  How about 11,000 rockets that have been launched so far by Hamas into Israel? I guess that doesn't count as follow that idea.

"Attacking" or "fighting back" ≠ "obliterate". Nice try, though.

I'm not sure why I need to point this out to you, but there are all kinds of military conflicts that aren't genocidal.

"Hamas attacks Israel, therefore Hamas wants to annihilate Israel": does not follow.

Unless "Israel attacks Gaza, therefore Israel wants to annihilate Gaza" is also true.

It's the exact same, ah, "reasoning".

They're fighting back because, because.. oh wait, they never agree to UN 1948 resolution, they never agree to a state for the Jews...hmmm sounds pretty much what I was saying so far.


Quote:
(08-08-2014 10:43 AM)zaybu Wrote:  Continue believe in fairy tales.

For that matter, consider the agreement made a few months ago.

Oh yes, let us use the fact that Hamas made an agreement with Fatah as a model of goodwill. Wow, amazing.

Quote:
(08-08-2014 10:43 AM)zaybu Wrote:  The right of return was not on the table because, because... Can you connect the dots? (hint: it's unacceptale to Israel)

Which is why all the proposals on the table included further discussion of details to be subject to Israeli approval.

If you cannot understand that right of return means the end of Israel as a Jewish state, then there's absolutely no hope, and one side might as well annihilate the other side.


Quote:
(08-08-2014 10:43 AM)zaybu Wrote:  On 15 May 1948 Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Iran and Saudi Arabia declared war on Israel. Palestinians were part of this, and fought along those armies that invaded the area right after Israel had declared itself a state. You can technically say the Palestinians didn't declare it as they had no state. That's because they refused to declare their own state as that would have legitimized UN resolution of 1948, which also recognized the state of Israel. That's a technicality, but in spirit and in action, they effectively declared war on Israel with the intention of defeating the Israelis, and forming one state, their own.

And I'm sure that had nothing to do with Israeli paramilitary violence and a mysterious reluctance to have their land signed away by other people.

Nothing whatsoever.

Thanks for confirming what I have been saying so far. The Palestinians never accepted that "their land was signed away by other people", and still don't accept as of today.

Quote:
(08-08-2014 10:43 AM)zaybu Wrote:  It would be a good idea to stop the war as a first step to self-determination.

Unfortunately it takes two to stop a war. Funny thing, that.
No, it takes the side who initially declared war to stop it (HINT: the PALESTINIANS). Israel is defending itself, it's not a choice but a necessity.


Quote:
(08-08-2014 10:43 AM)zaybu Wrote:  No country would tolerate being shelved by rockets on a daily basis. If the US were Israel, the Americans would have wiped them out by now. I can guarantee you that.

So what? "America would also respond badly therefore it's okay if Israel responds badly"? That's supposed to show, what, precisely?

So defending oneself is bad. Wow, amazing!

Quote:Here's a question for you:
Why do Palestinians fire rockets?

Hint: it's called a cycle of violence for a reason.

That has been answered multiple times, and you even confirmed in the above. Let me repeat as you have probably forgotten it already:

The Palestinians never accepted that "their land was signed away by other people",

My blog
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-08-2014, 12:22 PM
RE: Should America Support Israel?
(08-08-2014 11:51 AM)zaybu Wrote:  
(08-08-2014 10:54 AM)cjlr Wrote:  "Attacking" or "fighting back" ≠ "obliterate". Nice try, though.

I'm not sure why I need to point this out to you, but there are all kinds of military conflicts that aren't genocidal.

"Hamas attacks Israel, therefore Hamas wants to annihilate Israel": does not follow.

Unless "Israel attacks Gaza, therefore Israel wants to annihilate Gaza" is also true.

It's the exact same, ah, "reasoning".

They're fighting back because, because.. oh wait, they never agree to UN 1948 resolution, they never agree to a state for the Jews...hmmm sounds pretty much what I was saying so far.

What you said was that because the Palestinians are weaker militarily they have no rights.

Surprisingly, they don't seem to appreciate that point of view.

The Palestinian state authority explicitly and officially recognises the existence of Israel. So does Hamas. Perhaps that ruins your simplistic narrative. That does not make it untrue.

(08-08-2014 11:51 AM)zaybu Wrote:  
Quote:For that matter, consider the agreement made a few months ago.

Oh yes, let us use the fact that Hamas made an agreement with Fatah as a model of goodwill. Wow, amazing.

I guess we could simply dismiss all of their actions that disagree with the narrative we're shilling. That's an option.

I don't really see why it's a good option, but okay.

(08-08-2014 11:51 AM)zaybu Wrote:  
Quote:Which is why all the proposals on the table included further discussion of details to be subject to Israeli approval.

If you cannot understand that right of return means the end of Israel as a Jewish state, then there's absolutely no hope, and one side might as well annihilate the other side.

Doomsday fantasies are not particularly relevant.

If you're just going to ignore the things I referenced, I guess I'll have to make it more explicit. Let's go back to the words of Robert Malley, who was part of the US team at Camp David 2000:
Quote:[speaking of the Palestinians' position]
And, while they insisted on recognition of the refugees' right of return, they agreed that it should be implemented in a manner that protected Israel's demographic and security interests by limiting the number of returnees.

So, you know.

There's that.

But hey, what does he know? He was only there in the room at the time. Clearly you know better.

(08-08-2014 11:51 AM)zaybu Wrote:  
Quote:And I'm sure that had nothing to do with Israeli paramilitary violence and a mysterious reluctance to have their land signed away by other people.

Nothing whatsoever.

Thanks for confirming what I have been saying so far. The Palestinians never accepted that "their land was signed away by other people", and still don't accept as of today.

Why should they?

Your justification seems to be might makes right.

If the Arab armies had won the 1948 war, I wonder what you'd be saying about the Jewish people.

(08-08-2014 11:51 AM)zaybu Wrote:  
Quote:Unfortunately it takes two to stop a war. Funny thing, that.
No, it takes the side who initially declared war to stop it (HINT: the PALESTINIANS). Israel is defending itself, it's not a choice but a necessity.

I see you didn't bother reading the history I helpfully linked you to.

But no, the Zionist settlers were not peaceful. Two people can't own the same land.

(08-08-2014 11:51 AM)zaybu Wrote:  
Quote:So what? "America would also respond badly therefore it's okay if Israel responds badly"? That's supposed to show, what, precisely?

So defending oneself is bad. Wow, amazing!

Excellent straw man.

Well done.

(08-08-2014 11:51 AM)zaybu Wrote:  
Quote:Here's a question for you:
Why do Palestinians fire rockets?

Hint: it's called a cycle of violence for a reason.

That has been answered multiple times, and you even confirmed in the above. Let me repeat as you have probably forgotten it already:

The Palestinians never accepted that "their land was signed away by other people",

Precisely.

What is surprising is that despite their history under Israeli rule the Palestinian state authority recognises Israel and advocates a two-state solution.

Of course Israel is defending itself. It has spent decades creating the situation it is defending itself from. It is defending itself with massively disproportionate reprisals. Certain Israeli figures would be more than happy to continue defending themselves until there is nothing left to defend themselves from.

It's called a cyle of violence for a reason.

Such a one-sided stance as yours is superficial and facetious.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
08-08-2014, 01:26 PM
RE: Should America Support Israel?
(08-08-2014 12:22 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(08-08-2014 11:51 AM)zaybu Wrote:  They're fighting back because, because.. oh wait, they never agree to UN 1948 resolution, they never agree to a state for the Jews...hmmm sounds pretty much what I was saying so far.

What you said was that because the Palestinians are weaker militarily they have no rights.

You would have to point the post because I've never said "because the Palestinians are weaker militarily they have no rights". What I've said all along is that the Palestinians have been at war since 1948, and Israel has every right to defend itself, including bombing them to smithereen until they surrender unconditionally.



Quote:The Palestinian state authority explicitly and officially recognises the existence of Israel. So does Hamas. Perhaps that ruins your simplistic narrative. That does not make it untrue.

Words don't mean much when your actions are contrary to what you say. Hamas action is to send rockets on a daily basis, I suppose you consider that as a friendly gesture.



Quote:
(08-08-2014 11:51 AM)zaybu Wrote:  If you cannot understand that right of return means the end of Israel as a Jewish state, then there's absolutely no hope, and one side might as well annihilate the other side.

Doomsday fantasies are not particularly relevant.

If you're just going to ignore the things I referenced, I guess I'll have to make it more explicit. Let's go back to the words of Robert Malley, who was part of the US team at Camp David 2000:
Quote:[speaking of the Palestinians' position]
And, while they insisted on recognition of the refugees' right of return, they agreed that it should be implemented in a manner that protected Israel's demographic and security interests by limiting the number of returnees.

So, you know.

There's that.

But hey, what does he know? He was only there in the room at the time. Clearly you know better.

There were three central players in those negotiations: Barak, Arafat and Clinton. For the record, both Clinton and Barak blamed Arafat for the failure of those talks. Believe whatever you want.




Quote:
(08-08-2014 11:51 AM)zaybu Wrote:  Thanks for confirming what I have been saying so far. The Palestinians never accepted that "their land was signed away by other people", and still don't accept as of today.

Why should they?

Your justification seems to be might makes right.

I've never said that. I believe that the UN 1948 resolution, although not perfect, was a compromise that both sides could have lived with. All that killing that ensued was a terrible waste of lives. And the Arabs share the greater responsibility. That they are still fighting over that as of today is quite embarrasing and shameful.


Quote:If the Arab armies had won the 1948 war, I wonder what you'd be saying about the Jewish people.

If the Arabs had won, I have little doubt that the Jewish population would have been wiped out.

Quote:
(08-08-2014 11:51 AM)zaybu Wrote:  No, it takes the side who initially declared war to stop it (HINT: the PALESTINIANS). Israel is defending itself, it's not a choice but a necessity.

I see you didn't bother reading the history I helpfully linked you to.

But no, the Zionist settlers were not peaceful. Two people can't own the same land.

True, and that's why the UN 1948 resolution was a compromise. The Palestinians put themselves on the wrong side of history by rejecting it.

Quote:
(08-08-2014 11:51 AM)zaybu Wrote:  So defending oneself is bad. Wow, amazing!

Excellent straw man.

Well done.

Yep defending oneself is a strawman. Returning your compliment: Well done.

Quote:
(08-08-2014 11:51 AM)zaybu Wrote:  That has been answered multiple times, and you even confirmed in the above. Let me repeat as you have probably forgotten it already:

The Palestinians never accepted that "their land was signed away by other people",

Precisely.

What is surprising is that despite their history under Israeli rule the Palestinian state authority recognises Israel and advocates a two-state solution.

Of course Israel is defending itself. It has spent decades creating the situation it is defending itself from. It is defending itself with massively disproportionate reprisals. Certain Israeli figures would be more than happy to continue defending themselves until there is nothing left to defend themselves from.

It's called a cyle of violence for a reason.

Such a one-sided stance as yours is superficial and facetious.

If my memory serves me well, the Palestinians were regularly sending suicide-bombers to cafes, buses, shopping malls, etc. practically every week or so. In response, the Israelis built road blocks, when that was insufficient, they built walls and put in effect a blockade. So the Palestinian answer to that was rocket shelving. Now as a response, we have limited bombings from the Israelis.

Notice the pattern: attacks (cause); restrictions/ counterattacks (effect).

Take a good guess what will happen if the limited bombings don't entice the Palestinians to put an end to their war? I'll make a prediction: unlimited bombings. That's what's coming up.

My blog
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-08-2014, 02:11 PM
RE: Should America Support Israel?
(08-08-2014 01:26 PM)zaybu Wrote:  
(08-08-2014 12:22 PM)cjlr Wrote:  What you said was that because the Palestinians are weaker militarily they have no rights.

You would have to point the post because I've never said "because the Palestinians are weaker militarily they have no rights". What I've said all along is that the Palestinians have been at war since 1948, and Israel has every right to defend itself, including bombing them to smithereen until they surrender unconditionally.

Yes. That's what unconditional surrender means. Every aspect of their condition is subject to Israeli sufferance.

The past 60 years have not exactly endeared them to Israeli sufferance.

I don't see why that's so hard to understand.

(08-08-2014 01:26 PM)zaybu Wrote:  
Quote:The Palestinian state authority explicitly and officially recognises the existence of Israel. So does Hamas. Perhaps that ruins your simplistic narrative. That does not make it untrue.

Words don't mean much when your actions are contrary to what you say. Hamas action is to send rockets on a daily basis, I suppose you consider that as a friendly gesture.

No, but I suppose you consider it easier to say so.

Much as "has conflict with" ≠ "want to annihilate", it's also true that "recognises the existence of" ≠ "has no conflict with".

Pretty simple, really.

(08-08-2014 01:26 PM)zaybu Wrote:  
Quote:Doomsday fantasies are not particularly relevant.

If you're just going to ignore the things I referenced, I guess I'll have to make it more explicit. Let's go back to the words of Robert Malley, who was part of the US team at Camp David 2000:

So, you know.

There's that.

But hey, what does he know? He was only there in the room at the time. Clearly you know better.

There were three central players in those negotiations: Barak, Arafat and Clinton. For the record, both Clinton and Barak blamed Arafat for the failure of those talks. Believe whatever you want.

If you have a source to hand which contains an unambiguous statement from either of them amounting to "everything is Arafat's fault", go ahead and share it.

What I've looked at are comments from the American and Israeli negotiating teams. Here's an article from a member of the American team. It does not support your claim. here's a whole book written by the head Israeli negotiator. It does not support your claim.

Believe whatever you like, indeed.

(08-08-2014 01:26 PM)zaybu Wrote:  
Quote:Why should they?

Your justification seems to be might makes right.

I've never said that. I believe that the UN 1948 resolution, although not perfect, was a compromise that both sides could have lived with. All that killing that ensued was a terrible waste of lives. And the Arabs share the greater responsibility. That they are still fighting over that as of today is quite embarrasing and shameful.

The Palestinians believe 1967 is a compromise they can live with. That's even less than what 1948 gave them. And that's their official basis for negotiation, even though as Camp David 2000 demonstrated, they would settle for even less.

I've pointed this out numerous times to you, and it's not exactly hard to confirm for yourself.

I don't quite see the point in ignoring it.

(08-08-2014 01:26 PM)zaybu Wrote:  
Quote:If the Arab armies had won the 1948 war, I wonder what you'd be saying about the Jewish people.

If the Arabs had won, I have little doubt that the Jewish population would have been wiped out.

And would you have been calling for their unconditional surrender under such circumstances?

(08-08-2014 01:26 PM)zaybu Wrote:  
Quote:I see you didn't bother reading the history I helpfully linked you to.

But no, the Zionist settlers were not peaceful. Two people can't own the same land.

True, and that's why the UN 1948 resolution was a compromise. The Palestinians put themselves on the wrong side of history by rejecting it.

Indeed. At the time they rejected it.

Today the Palestinian authorities freely concede more than the 1948 conditions.

(08-08-2014 01:26 PM)zaybu Wrote:  
Quote:Excellent straw man.

Well done.

Yep defending oneself is a strawman. Returning your compliment: Well done.

Your exact words: "Se defending oneself is bad. Wow, amazing!"

I said nothing of the sort. I implied nothing of the sort. That is a blatant mischaracterisation.

But to be fair, that's not necessarily a straw man. It might be an inadvertant complete misrepresentation. That's an option.

(08-08-2014 01:26 PM)zaybu Wrote:  
Quote:Precisely.

What is surprising is that despite their history under Israeli rule the Palestinian state authority recognises Israel and advocates a two-state solution.

Of course Israel is defending itself. It has spent decades creating the situation it is defending itself from. It is defending itself with massively disproportionate reprisals. Certain Israeli figures would be more than happy to continue defending themselves until there is nothing left to defend themselves from.

It's called a cyle of violence for a reason.

Such a one-sided stance as yours is superficial and facetious.

If my memory serves me well, the Palestinians were regularly sending suicide-bombers to cafes, buses, shopping malls, etc. practically every week or so. In response, the Israelis built road blocks, when that was insufficient, they built walls and put in effect a blockade. So the Palestinian answer to that was rocket shelving. Now as a response, we have limited bombings from the Israelis.

Notice the pattern: attacks (cause); restrictions/ counterattacks (effect).

Here's another question for you:
Why did the Palestinians send suicide bombers?

Here's a hint: cause and effect has something to do with it.

And no, "because they are all genocidally evil" is not an acceptable response.

If A leads to B leads to C leads to D, it strikes me as absurd to blame D wholly on C.

To each their own, I suppose.

(08-08-2014 01:26 PM)zaybu Wrote:  Take a good guess what will happen if the limited bombings don't entice the Palestinians to put an end to their war? I'll make a prediction: unlimited bombings. That's what's coming up.

Here's another tough question for you:
Do Israeli airstrikes make it more likely or less likely that some Palestinians will respond with further violence?

I wonder.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
08-08-2014, 02:54 PM
RE: Should America Support Israel?
(08-08-2014 02:11 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(08-08-2014 01:26 PM)zaybu Wrote:  You would have to point the post because I've never said "because the Palestinians are weaker militarily they have no rights". What I've said all along is that the Palestinians have been at war since 1948, and Israel has every right to defend itself, including bombing them to smithereen until they surrender unconditionally.

Yes. That's what unconditional surrender means. Every aspect of their condition is subject to Israeli sufferance.The past 60 years have not exactly endeared them to Israeli sufferance.

I don't see why that's so hard to understand.

Yes, but you are unwilling to accept the fact that it was the Arab countries + Palestinians who declared war on Israel, not the other way around. That left Israel with no other option but to defend itself. If you can't accept that fact, then every thing else doesn't make sense. And that goes also for the Palestinians: if they can't accept that their rejection of UN 1948 resolution is at the root of the problem, then nothing will ever settle. The real "catastrophe" is not the resolution but its rejection. And from there you get the suffering: so stop the war, maybe, just maybe the suffering will stop. That's not hard to understand.

Quote:
(08-08-2014 01:26 PM)zaybu Wrote:  There were three central players in those negotiations: Barak, Arafat and Clinton. For the record, both Clinton and Barak blamed Arafat for the failure of those talks. Believe whatever you want.

If you have a source to hand which contains an unambiguous statement from either of them amounting to "everything is Arafat's fault", go ahead and share it.

Clinton wrote a book and he is unambiguous about that. Well he was there, I wasn't, and neither you.




Quote:
(08-08-2014 01:26 PM)zaybu Wrote:  I've never said that. I believe that the UN 1948 resolution, although not perfect, was a compromise that both sides could have lived with. All that killing that ensued was a terrible waste of lives. And the Arabs share the greater responsibility. That they are still fighting over that as of today is quite embarrasing and shameful.

The Palestinians believe 1967 is a compromise they can live with. That's even less than what 1948 gave them. And that's their official basis for negotiation, even though as Camp David 2000 demonstrated, they would settle for even less.

Well that's not true since they never signed on.


Quote:
(08-08-2014 01:26 PM)zaybu Wrote:  If the Arabs had won, I have little doubt that the Jewish population would have been wiped out.

And would you have been calling for their unconditional surrender under such circumstances?

Difficult to surrender if you are wiped out. Just saying...

Quote:
(08-08-2014 01:26 PM)zaybu Wrote:  True, and that's why the UN 1948 resolution was a compromise. The Palestinians put themselves on the wrong side of history by rejecting it.

Indeed. At the time they rejected it.

Today the Palestinian authorities freely concede more than the 1948 conditions.

When I look at their list of demands, I come to a different conclusion.


Quote:
(08-08-2014 01:26 PM)zaybu Wrote:  If my memory serves me well, the Palestinians were regularly sending suicide-bombers to cafes, buses, shopping malls, etc. practically every week or so. In response, the Israelis built road blocks, when that was insufficient, they built walls and put in effect a blockade. So the Palestinian answer to that was rocket shelving. Now as a response, we have limited bombings from the Israelis.

Notice the pattern: attacks (cause); restrictions/ counterattacks (effect).

Here's another question for you:
Why did the Palestinians send suicide bombers?

Here's a hint: cause and effect has something to do with it.

And no, "because they are all genocidally evil" is not an acceptable response.

If A leads to B leads to C leads to D, it strikes me as absurd to blame D wholly on C.

To each their own, I suppose.

You asked the question, you tell me why the Palestinians sent suicide bombers?

Quote:
(08-08-2014 01:26 PM)zaybu Wrote:  Take a good guess what will happen if the limited bombings don't entice the Palestinians to put an end to their war? I'll make a prediction: unlimited bombings. That's what's coming up.

Here's another tough question for you:
Do Israeli airstrikes make it more likely or less likely that some Palestinians will respond with further violence?

I wonder.

A limited bombing will more likely entice them to further violence. To my estimation, if you are going to bomb, then do not restrict that bombing only to certain areas, and do not alert the population where and when you will strike. No other country does that. Once you start bombing, you do it until the enemy surrenders unconditionally. It's just a matter of time before the Irsaeli leadership will summon enough courage to do just that. But they are not quite ready, but Hamas will continue its shelving, and the inevitable will follow.

My blog
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-08-2014, 03:45 PM
RE: Should America Support Israel?
(08-08-2014 02:54 PM)zaybu Wrote:  
(08-08-2014 02:11 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Yes. That's what unconditional surrender means. Every aspect of their condition is subject to Israeli sufferance.The past 60 years have not exactly endeared them to Israeli sufferance.

I don't see why that's so hard to understand.

Yes, but you are unwilling to accept the fact that it was the Arab countries + Palestinians who declared war on Israel, not the other way around.

Which is not even close to the full truth, and you know it.

The Zionists wanted an ethnic-nationalist preserve in land that was already inhabited.

(08-08-2014 02:54 PM)zaybu Wrote:  That left Israel with no other option but to defend itself. If you can't accept that fact, then every thing else doesn't make sense.

The Israeli approach to self-defense provokes further responses which it must defend against.

If you can't accept that fact, then everything else doesn't make sense.

(08-08-2014 02:54 PM)zaybu Wrote:  And that goes also for the Palestinians: if they can't accept that their rejection of UN 1948 resolution is at the root of the problem, then nothing will ever settle. The real "catastrophe" is not the resolution but its rejection. And from there you get the suffering: so stop the war, maybe, just maybe the suffering will stop. That's not hard to understand.

I'm still not seeing why they should have accepted the '48 partition in 1948.

And how many times must I point out that they accept, now, even more than the '48 terms?

(08-08-2014 02:54 PM)zaybu Wrote:  
Quote:If you have a source to hand which contains an unambiguous statement from either of them amounting to "everything is Arafat's fault", go ahead and share it.

Clinton wrote a book and he is unambiguous about that. Well he was there, I wasn't, and neither you.

It's disingenuous and unnecessary to remind me that I wasn't there. But thanks! I had almost forgotten.

Sher was there. So was Malley. Those are the two whose comments I referenced.

I assume you refer to these sections?

(08-08-2014 02:54 PM)zaybu Wrote:  
Quote:The Palestinians believe 1967 is a compromise they can live with. That's even less than what 1948 gave them. And that's their official basis for negotiation, even though as Camp David 2000 demonstrated, they would settle for even less.

Well that's not true since they never signed on.

And that wasn't the reason the negotiations failed.

The PA, in 2000, was willing to make that offer.

The PA, in subsequent negotiations, has always stated that the 1967 borders are their starting point.

There is no disputing this, unless one wishes to argue that their entire participation in peace talks is some sort of elaborate sham.

Are you?

(08-08-2014 02:54 PM)zaybu Wrote:  
Quote:And would you have been calling for their unconditional surrender under such circumstances?

Difficult to surrender if you are wiped out. Just saying...

The Palestinian experience of Israeli rule is exclusion and subjugation. Why surrender only to receive more of the same?

(08-08-2014 02:54 PM)zaybu Wrote:  
Quote:Indeed. At the time they rejected it.

Today the Palestinian authorities freely concede more than the 1948 conditions.

When I look at their list of demands, I come to a different conclusion.

I fail to understand how you came to such a conclusion.

The Oslo agreements accepted a two-state solution on the basis of the 1967. Camp David proposed a two-state solution on the basis of the 1967 borders, maintaining Israeli control over parts of East Jerusalem and the more populous West Bank settlements. The Arab-League hosted talks in 2002 called for a two-state solution on the basis of the 1967 borders. The 2007 talks called for a two-state solution on the basis of the 1967 borders, maintaining Israeli control over parts of East Jerusalem and the more populous West Bank settlements. The 2010 talks called for a two-state solution on the basis of the 1967 borders, maintaining Israeli control over parts of East Jerusalem and the more populous West Bank settlements. See for yourself what Abbas himself had to say on the matter.

But then again, I guess maybe you know better.

(08-08-2014 02:54 PM)zaybu Wrote:  
Quote:Here's another question for you:
Why did the Palestinians send suicide bombers?

Here's a hint: cause and effect has something to do with it.

And no, "because they are all genocidally evil" is not an acceptable response.

If A leads to B leads to C leads to D, it strikes me as absurd to blame D wholly on C.

To each their own, I suppose.

You asked the question, you tell me why the Palestinians sent suicide bombers?

To fight Israeli occupation of their territories and mistreatment of their people.

Did you really need me to answer that for you?

(08-08-2014 02:54 PM)zaybu Wrote:  
Quote:Here's another tough question for you:
Do Israeli airstrikes make it more likely or less likely that some Palestinians will respond with further violence?

I wonder.

A limited bombing will more likely entice them to further violence. To my estimation, if you are going to bomb, then do not restrict that bombing only to certain areas, and do not alert the population where and when you will strike. No other country does that.

Every other country does that, if they're obeying international law.

(08-08-2014 02:54 PM)zaybu Wrote:  Once you start bombing, you do it until the enemy surrenders unconditionally. It's just a matter of time before the Irsaeli leadership will summon enough courage to do just that. But they are not quite ready, but Hamas will continue its shelving, and the inevitable will follow.

Well, that's your opinion quite clear. Absent unconditional surrender, anything up to and including ethnic cleansing is justified.

I guess you're entitled to it.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: