|
European officials: "we are anti-semetic" (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| DigiNut |
I'll agree that posting the contents of an article with no added insight is rather pointless. Post a link, and say something relevant, or don't bother.
However, it also irritates me that people try to refute/criticize the article itself by either posting ad hominem attacks against its author or the person who posted it, or by making blanket general statements about the meaning of anti-semitism and how people just throw it around.
Simply because the article was posted by someone who lacks credibility, or because there are a lot of trite or inflammatory articles written on the same or similar topic, does not in itself make this article false or irrelevant.
It's okay if you think the article is bull - after all, it doesn't really seem to present a lot of hard evidence. But if you're going to criticize it, then criticize it with the same rationale and legitimate arguments that you thought the article itself -should- have presented. Calling people e-tards or ranting that they don't like Europeans is just as meaningless a criticism of the article as the article is of European culture.
You're not adding any insight either when you post those comments - I'd wager to say that it makes you look worse in the end because you look defensive, as if the article hit a sore spot. I'm not actually saying that's the case (and I don't believe it is), but it can certainly appear that way to some, it makes you look hateful, and that attitude in general propagates the same kind of conflict that we're all trying to prevent (or trying to say doesn't exist in the first place). Constructive or meaningful criticism is always welcome in my book, and I've certainly seen a lot of constructive criticism about Israel, but this is just stupid - if you think the article is bull then just ignore it, unless you have something relevant to say about it. |
|
|
| Verona^My |
| quote: | Originally posted by ahlamalek
miss e-tard has spoken. |
Why dont you come up with an intelligent responce then? Why Israel, and not Syria, or China, or any of those other slaughterhouse countries you hear about in the news. Go ahead, give me your reason, why we should SINGLE Israel out.
What is different about Israel, apart from the fact that they are the only Jewish state in the world? Why does Israel anger you so much when they kill a few Palastinians, when any number of other countries kill scores of their own citizens as well. What is the damn difference that makes everyone single Israel out.
Nobody ever said an answer, because either they are far too ashamed of their anti-semetism to admit it, or they cant see past Israel, and the fact that their are scores of nations doing the same thing.
So Israel haters, answer for yourselves.
Israel is one of the few countries in the world that is surrounded by enemies on all sides AND enemies WITHIN. Enemies that are NOT on the side of the western world at all.
Now you can either come up with a one line insult with no intelligent value what so ever, OR, you can answer the question. WHY ISRAEL, AND NOT OTHERS.
Of course I doubt any closet anti-semetics will admit to their anti-semetism. In light of World War II & Hitler, IT IS ANTI-SEMETIC TO SINGLE OUT THE ONLY JEWISH STATE IN THE WORLD, and ignore all the other states in the world who AREN'T JEWISH, BUT ARE DOING THE SAME THING. (MASSACRES)
Besides, we dont need another war, Israel's army is far more formidable than Iraq's, and last I checked, they are a nuclear power. I dont want radiation in my backyard because some idiots decided to vent their frustration at Israel.
It's the same with China & Tibet. We only invade countries where we have a chance of winning. Free Tibet my donkey, talk about a bunch of hot air. So before you spout off about countries you want to change or fix in some way, try to pick one like Iraq, one with a marginally effective military. Hell, pick a country that has something WORTH the effort. A war is not just something to be waged just because you can, it should be waged because their is something to GAIN FROM IT.
I used to think like you guys, naive and young, but there are consequences to the ways of your thinking, and the ways of G.W. Bush as well. The biggest threat to America right now is G.W. Bush, not Israel or Iraq, or the phantom terror menace. Bush is too ambitious, and ambition is what led to the collapse of the fascist states in the 40's, it lead to the collapse of Napolean, amoung others.
Hopefully the next reply will be something more than an idiotic one-liner. I'm looking forward to the answer. WHY ISRAEL, and NOT the other oppressive states. |
|
|
| Verona^My |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
Calling people e-tards or ranting that they don't like Europeans is just as meaningless a criticism of the article as the article is of European culture.
|
Precisely, I dont hate europeans, jews, arabs, or anyone else. However, I do dislike people who dodge the debate by making cheap shots without making any intellectual argument what so ever.
The case can be made FOR dealing WITH Israel, except no one has made that case here, or how. It's fine to vent frustration at Israel, but what exactly do you intend to do?
Most of you people in Europe or the US sit in your house and watch the attacks on TV from a comfortable distance. The reason it seems that Israel is the most oppressive country in the world is because they get 90% of the oppression coverage through world wide news networks.
Imagine a world on the other hand, where Israel did not broadcast every attack & or suicide bombing to the rest of the world, LIKE EVERY OTHER NATION does when they oppress people, or murder millions/thousands. Would any of you care? No, because you wouldn't even know about it, it would be like it didn't even exist.
Watching the news is good to keep up to date on the times, BUT it is not intended to be the basis for policy decisions. |
|
|
| trancaholic |
| quote: | Originally posted by Verona^My
Why dont you come up with an intelligent responce then? Why Israel, and not Syria, or China, or any of those other slaughterhouse countries you hear about in the news. Go ahead, give me your reason, why we should SINGLE Israel out. |
Look closely at the starting post of this thread. It is Zionists that continuously bring up the topic of Israel vs. Palestine. I, for one, has been called anti-semite in this forum because I have defended Europeans and Palestineans in some of these threads, yet I would gladly welcome a total absence of news from the conflict.
The problem with Israel - as opposed to the other countries you mention - is that its officials and Zionists worldwide keep angling for sympathy, yet it violates UN-resolutions and human rights whenever it feels like. Israel could have all the sympathy in the world if it "just" removed its settlements and built that goddamn wall on its own territory. Nobody would be understanding of suicide bombings if that was the case.
In short: Stop whining and calling everyone not fundamentally zionistic for anti-semites - then nobody would single out Israel.
| quote: | Originally posted by Verona^My
I used to think like you guys, naive and young, but there are consequences to the ways of your thinking, and the ways of G.W. Bush as well. The biggest threat to America right now is G.W. Bush, not Israel or Iraq, or the phantom terror menace. Bush is too ambitious, and ambition is what led to the collapse of the fascist states in the 40's, it lead to the collapse of Napolean, amoung others.
|
Agree. Totally.
| quote: | Originally posted by Verona^My
Hopefully the next reply will be something more than an idiotic one-liner. I'm looking forward to the answer. WHY ISRAEL, and NOT the other oppressive states. |
My post was an attempt at this - please tell me if I was succesful, or if something needs to be elaborated upon? |
|
|
| Verona^My |
| quote: | Originally posted by trancaholic
Look closely at the starting post of this thread. It is Zionists that continuously bring up the topic of Israel vs. Palestine. I, for one, has been called anti-semite in this forum because I have defended Europeans and Palestineans in some of these threads, yet I would gladly welcome a total absence of news from the conflict.
The problem with Israel - as opposed to the other countries you mention - is that its officials and Zionists worldwide keep angling for sympathy, yet it violates UN-resolutions and human rights whenever it feels like. Israel could have all the sympathy in the world if it "just" removed its settlements and built that goddamn wall on its own territory. Nobody would be understanding of suicide bombings if that was the case.
My post was an attempt at this - please tell me if I was succesful, or if something needs to be elaborated upon? |
You've got a point, I doubt Israel will do that though, although at the same time, they might. Many countries violate human rights, I'm not too sure about UN resolutions, but Israel is certainly not alone on violating human rights, but you are right, that if they moved the settlements and built the wall, there wouldn't be a problem, at least in that context. I doubt it will solve the Israel-Palastinian conflict though, there's too much hate on both sides for it to just simmer down just like that.
I wouldn't recommend a UN presense or troop presense, and especially would not recommend an American troop presense, that would just fan the flames IMO. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by trancaholic
The problem with Israel - as opposed to the other countries you mention - is that its officials and Zionists worldwide keep angling for sympathy, yet it violates UN-resolutions and human rights whenever it feels like. Israel could have all the sympathy in the world if it "just" removed its settlements and built that goddamn wall on its own territory. Nobody would be understanding of suicide bombings if that was the case. |
1. You make it sound like removing the settlements is a simple matter, but it is not. Many of us agree that they were a ridiculous idea in the first place, but removing them now is like removing a sugar cube from your coffee after you've dropped it in - even if it hasn't dissolved yet (which it probably has), do you really want to scald your hand trying to get it out? If anyone wants Israel to remove those settlements, they need to come up with a practical solution instead of just yelling to get rid of them. Israel had attempted at one point to do this, and their plan was rejected. Therefore, I do not see this as a point of argument for why they are the focus of such exaggerated criticism.
2. The wall is on their own territory. It is on territory that Palestine would *like* to claim belongs to them, and the UN may have declared it as such because of the massive Arab influence in the UN, but the simple fact of the matter is that even if the wall extends into what Palestine calls "their land", the actual population that will be contained within the wall is primarily Israeli. Israel is not going to wall half of its own population OUT OF what it considers to be its own state (if they were walling a ton of Palestinians into Israel, then you might have a point, but they aren't), and they aren't going to abandon the wall altogether because it's by far the most peaceful way of mitigating the violence. Got any better ideas?
It's simply a case of "you say it's yours, I say it's mine." It's a territorial argument with Israel's word against Palestine's, and the Western world accepting the UN's resolution as hard evidence of who really owns it. The problem with the last part is that in any truly legal matter, an arbitrator/judge has to be accepted by both parties in order for that arbitrator's ruling to have any meaning. And since many people feel that the UN is biased, they don't accept its resolution. I agree that we can't pick and choose which laws we want to obey, but you have to admit that you can kind of see their point considering who is represented in the UN. If you think that their resolution should be concrete law, then like any other law in any other democracy, it should be open to legal proceedings and public scrutiny, instead of becoming yet another case of hard-line international policy-making.
Please trancaholic, even if the reasons are not sufficient for you to accept without further debate, you have to admit that at least they ARE reasons, logical ones, even if they aren't the best ones; half of these other violators of human rights don't even make the slightest attempt to justify their violence or torture, they just do it, and receive almost no criticism.
I don't think Zionists are trying to elicit sympathy for the public. The only sympathy they angle for is sympathy for the fact that the news media insists on keeping a watchful eye on every one of Israel's misdeeds but seems so easily to ignore Palestine's. And the majority of anti-Zionists worldwide insist that this is not the case and that the media actually pays much more attention to the Palestinian violence, but not only does this not appear to me to be the case, but considering the actual frequency of attacks from both states, the suicide bombings SHOULD be getting more attention (note that this is *not* saying *all* the attention, as there certainly is a lot of violence on both sides, I'm simply stating it in relative terms).
Anyway, hope that addresses your problem. |
|
|
| trancaholic |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
1. You make it sound like removing the settlements is a simple matter, but it is not. Many of us agree that they were a ridiculous idea in the first place, but removing them now is like removing a sugar cube from your coffee after you've dropped it in - even if it hasn't dissolved yet (which it probably has), do you really want to scald your hand trying to get it out? If anyone wants Israel to remove those settlements, they need to come up with a practical solution instead of just yelling to get rid of them. Israel had attempted at one point to do this, and their plan was rejected. Therefore, I do not see this as a point of argument for why they are the focus of such exaggerated criticism.
|
Well I did enclose the word just in quotation marks, as an indication of me knowing that it ain't easy. One would suspect that if there were easy solutions they would have been tried out by now.
I didn't say that the settlements are the reason for the criticism of Israel - I simply stated that it was a point of critique. My post was an attempt at answering why Israel is singled out - which, I repeat, is because of the constant flow of propaganda from Zionists. It keeps the spotlight on the region, and once attention is drawn to the conflict, and Israel isn't behaving distinguishably better than Palestineans, it should come as no surprise that criticism is raised.
As to your argument, let me just add that I disagree with the principle of tolerating injustice because it requires an effort to stop it.
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
2. The wall is on their own territory. It is on territory that Palestine would *like* to claim belongs to them, and the UN may have declared it as such because of the massive Arab influence in the UN, but the simple fact of the matter is that even if the wall extends into what Palestine calls "their land", the actual population that will be contained within the wall is primarily Israeli. Israel is not going to wall half of its own population OUT OF what it considers to be its own state (if they were walling a ton of Palestinians into Israel, then you might have a point, but they aren't), and they aren't going to abandon the wall altogether because it's by far the most peaceful way of mitigating the violence. Got any better ideas?
It's simply a case of "you say it's yours, I say it's mine." It's a territorial argument with Israel's word against Palestine's, and the Western world accepting the UN's resolution as hard evidence of who really owns it. The problem with the last part is that in any truly legal matter, an arbitrator/judge has to be accepted by both parties in order for that arbitrator's ruling to have any meaning. And since many people feel that the UN is biased, they don't accept its resolution. I agree that we can't pick and choose which laws we want to obey, but you have to admit that you can kind of see their point considering who is represented in the UN. If you think that their resolution should be concrete law, then like any other law in any other democracy, it should be open to legal proceedings and public scrutiny, instead of becoming yet another case of hard-line international policy-making.
|
Israel is a member of the UN, and has signed treaties saying that it will obey the resolutions of the UN and respect human rights. Therefore, it should recognize the areas annexed by the wall as belonging to Palestine - no matter if the population is Israeli settlers or Palestineans.
From a moral point of view, I think that accepting the majority of Israelis as argument to proclaiming the land part of Israel is wrong. It would be a justification of the methods used by the settler movement and might be seen as an encouragement for continued expansion.
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
Please trancaholic, even if the reasons are not sufficient for you to accept without further debate, you have to admit that at least they ARE reasons, logical ones, even if they aren't the best ones; half of these other violators of human rights don't even make the slightest attempt to justify their violence or torture, they just do it, and receive almost no criticism.
|
In Denmark we have a saying going along the lines of "You cannot wash yourself in other peoples dirt". The Israeli state is by no means the worst state in the world when it comes to brutal behaviour, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be criticised.
As to the reasons: I don't know if I would call the second one logical, and both of them seems to me, to stem from a moral choice made by Israeli government: Convenience and well-being of Israeli settlers have precedence over justice and international opinion.
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
I don't think Zionists are trying to elicit sympathy for the public. The only sympathy they angle for is sympathy for the fact that the news media insists on keeping a watchful eye on every one of Israel's misdeeds but seems so easily to ignore Palestine's. And the majority of anti-Zionists worldwide insist that this is not the case and that the media actually pays much more attention to the Palestinian violence, but not only does this not appear to me to be the case, but considering the actual frequency of attacks from both states, the suicide bombings SHOULD be getting more attention (note that this is *not* saying *all* the attention, as there certainly is a lot of violence on both sides, I'm simply stating it in relative terms).
Anyway, hope that addresses your problem. |
Well, I'm sorry that my post has been interpreted as me having a problem. I was only trying to explain, to someone with a problem, *why* Israel is singled out. Personally, I would be in no agony if the entire region sunk into the sea and I never heard of the two states and people again.
As to frequency of news I can only speak of the Danish media, EuroNews, and CNN (Europe), and I have not observed any tilt in only reporting actions of one of the two parties. With respect to propaganda (angling for sympathy) I invite you (and others with the same perception) to wade through the threads in this forum section and collect the sufficient statistics. Additionally, websites such as that of the Wiesenthal Center keep encourage viewers to seek to influence media, politicians, and friends. Something that Melech_Mike has been doing most faithfully. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
Trancaholic: well I don't agree with your analysis of the whole UN/Human Rights issue, but I think at this point it's better to just agree to disagree since it's kind of non-sequitur to this thread anyway.
I do agree that Israeli sympathizers should not try so hard to draw so much attention to the region. In fact, in 90% of the discussions about this that I've had with people offline (including one Palestinian), the general consensus was that the rest of the world should really just keep their nose out of it and let the two states handle the issue among themselves - whether that is by negotiation or by force is simply none of our business.
Unfortunately a lot of people on this board seem to protest that idea. And in the Canadian and American news media at least, there are a lot of biased articles and reports that seem to deliberately not tell the whole story, and I think once these things are (unfairly) reported, it is not "propaganda" to criticize those reports. It is in fact a necessity in a democratic society to make sure that we as citizens are doing our part to keep the press on their toes - they have a responsibility to provide (to the best of their ability, at least) honest and unbiased reporting to the public, and we should never settle for less. That obviously doesn't mean we should whine about every suicide bombing or IDF killing that doesn't make it into the paper, but it does mean we should raise our voices when we see an article that's just totally inaccurate or misrepresented.
Melech_mike is of course an exception; I'll be the first to concede that he's far too extreme and does post a lot of what could reasonably called propaganda. But honestly, I think you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone else on this forum right now who does what he does. The problem as I see it is that while *some* people are posting *legitimate* arguments, as in this thread, others try to take them down with ad hominem attacks, and that's just not right. I'm not referring to you in particular, but the things Malek posted in this thread, for example, are no better than any of the pro-Zionist propaganda that Mike posts.
We can't demand intelligent discussion from the pro-Zionists and settle for random insults and mindless babble from the anti-Zionists. Just like some Zionists (Izzy, Yoepus) make useful contributions and some (Mike) don't, some anti-Zionists (Cyrus King, Palestinian) make useful contributions and others (Malek, borron) do not. It's not fair to characterize either side of the debate by the actions/posts of its worst debaters. I really don't have the time or patience to go through the forum and compile statistics on who has posted more bull - and in all honesty, I wouldn't be surprised if I found a lot more pro-Zionist bull than anti-Zionist - but most of that probably comes from Mike and so it hardly makes sense to say that the criticism is the fault of Zionists in general.
I agree that nobody should be angling for sympathy here, and that is (I think) why most of the pro-Zionist people on this forum don't bother to start threads like this one. I personally have never started a thread on that topic (except for one that was pretty much an inside joke and I made sure that no flameage occurred), and the only times I generally respond to these threads are salvage missions when the debates start to spiral into complete nonsense. I don't care who wins this debate, only that it's approached with the same care and consideration as any other debate would be.
Last thing, I didn't mean to imply that you in particular had a problem (although I guess I worded it poorly), I was just referring to the general problem you were speaking of. |
|
|
| Yoepus |
First thing, Israel is not massacring or brutalling murdering Palestinians. Its 'human rights violations' are on a whole different plane that can't be compared to the brutality of dictatorships such as China, Syria, Iran, Palestinian Authorithy, Congo, etc...
| quote: | Originally posted by trancaholic
which, I repeat, is because of the constant flow of propaganda from Zionists. It keeps the spotlight on the region, and once attention is drawn to the conflict, and Israel isn't behaving distinguishably better than Palestineans, it should come as no surprise that criticism is raised.
|
Right, its the zionist propoganda that wants to keep a very, very big and large spotlight on the Israel-Pal conflict. Afterall, the more focus and the more detailed attention given to the conflict will only highlight in news media worldwide, a media that must thrive on violence and contrevorsy, Israel would get a better image:rolleyes: Look as a real evil zionist, I'm privy to many things, and you couldn't be farther from the reality.
Seriously what world do you come from? Israel is the stronger party in this conflict, it doesn't want any recongition, it doesn't need any. The less people know about Israel, the more freedom and liberty it may take in its own defense. Israel would much rather get Zionist financial aid than their expenditures on costly advertising and propoganda compagains.
The limelight on the conflict is not by zionist propoganda. It is not even by the better financed efforts of pro-Palestinian propoganda (afterall, the Palestinians in reality are fighting a War for Public Relations, this is what terrorism is, they are not fighting a war for self-defense, simply for opinion), but no the focus on the Israel-Pal conflict is generated by the double standard attributed to Israel, a bit of antisemitism, a mix of geopolitical importance, and the inconcilable philosophy of the Israeli state with most nations of the world.
I think your direct accusation that the limelight is due to Israeli propoganda, is in itself if not a very ignorant and misinformed view, is a view of antisemitism, or at the least, a great bias against Israel. Believing that "Jews" the world over, who make up less than 1% of the population actually have enough power to dominate world media is ridicilous. I'll grant you that Jews are a smarter than average people (but so are Koreans), and they are proportionally very successful. But if you really think they are the ones calling the shots in your Denmark TV stations, and the EU over, in Canada, in Dubia, etc.. then you are really in for a wonderful surpise ... ;)
| quote: |
Israel is a member of the UN, and has signed treaties saying that it will obey the resolutions of the UN and respect human rights. Therefore, it should recognize the areas annexed by the wall as belonging to Palestine - no matter if the population is Israeli settlers or Palestineans. |
This is a myth. There is no UN Security Council resolution stating that the Palestinain claim for land is legit. All resolutions state the claim of land must be agreed upon by both parties under negotiations and under garuntee of peace. Two conditions that have never been met.
In traditional real-politk, land that has been occupied for more than a generation (30 years would qualify), is in the complete soveriegnty of the one who controls it.
So we have one theoritical that says "share" supported by an international body with great emphasis of equality and respect between oppressive and miserable qualities world wide.
And we have another theoritical that says all land belongs to Israel supported by two thousand years of human war and history.
I wouldn't give one view more respect then another. Does Israel not belong to the theoritical of history as much as it does to the UN?
And you do realize that all nations in the world are practically violating the UN charter at this very minute. If you want proof read the attached auspices on Human Rights where everyone must have the right to have a 40 hour work week and 2 weeks of paid vacation every year :rolleyes:
| quote: |
From a moral point of view, I think that accepting the majority of Israelis as argument to proclaiming the land part of Israel is wrong. It would be a justification of the methods used by the settler movement and might be seen as an encouragement for continued expansion. |
Form a moral point of view, you must than accept that withdrawing settlers no matter how relevant or wrong the settlers were to be there initially, would justify in the minds of many Palestinian continued terrorism. Afterall negotiatiosn did not produce the reduction of settlement, but all of a sudden after intense terrorism, low and behold the Israelis move their settlements? A retreat of Israeli settlements will only be viewed as a Palestinian victory and will generate further violence, hate, and killing attributed with rewarding terror.
| quote: | | In Denmark we have a saying going along the lines of "You cannot wash yourself in other peoples dirt". The Israeli state is by no means the worst state in the world when it comes to brutal behaviour, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be criticised. |
I agree, but critisim should be constructive. Championing divestment from Israel, while ignoring archaic states such as China is antisemitic plain and simple.
| quote: | | Convenience and well-being of Israeli settlers have precedence over justice and international opinion. |
Forgive my arrogance, but what makes you think international opinion and 'justice' know what is best for Israel and the Palestinains? The International opinion and 'justice' made many conflicts worse then they should have been (Somolia, Bosnia) and show no understanding of the realities in the locality of the conflict.
Who would you trust? Your Federal government located thousands of miles away in a distant capital telling you how to plan your city streets, or would you prefer your very own city, run by a board voted by your citymen to review, and decide how they would like your city streets to be developed? Who claims the Federal goverment is more 'just'?
If the Israelis and Palestinians can not come to an agreement by their own, or by the entire pressure of the lone hyperpower of this world, what makes you think that Israel and the Palestinians will all of a sudden role around in the grave you would like to dig them with your hollowed concepts of "justice" and international opinion? |
|
|
| trancaholic |
Ok DigiNut, please repeat that Yoepus is making useful contributions and do not resort to ad-hominem attacks. :D
Yoepus, most of your comments to my posts leave me baffled. I cannot see how you can come to your conclusions, from what I have written, and hence, will abstain from commenting much of your post.
You're quite clear on the "myth" of the UN "border line"-resolution, though, so I'll comment on that: I am refering to a UN resolution which asks Israel to withdraw to the land it controlled prior to 1966 (I think it was). As I'm not really an advocate of either side I have little incentive to study the formal documents in detail, so it might be that such a resolution do not exists, and I have been misled?
If this is the case, i.e. Israel is not required by the UN to leave the area - who has merely stated that the land should be shared - it would then still require consensus between the two land-owning parties prior to the construction of such a wall for it to be legitimate IMO.
Furthermore, you are quite clear on your point as to retraction of settlers would encourage terrorists: Apart from not rendering my point invalid (a point which was a personal *moral* judgement I hasten to add), your argument taken to its logical closure, implies that Palestineans can *never* hope for fulfillment of any of their demands: Their only bargaining chip is an end to terrorist attacks. Thus, a negotiation agreement giving in to any of their demands would be to reward terror, and hence, negotiations are pointless.
If this steep attitude is the spirit of Isreali public opinion, I wish that you would hurry up and bulldoze/nuke the Palestineans out of the area, so we might finally be freed from more reports of violence and from propaganda by people like Melech_Mike. |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by trancaholic
Ok DigiNut, please repeat that Yoepus is making useful contributions and do not resort to ad-hominem attacks. :D |
Yes, please? :nervous:
| quote: | | Yoepus, most of your comments to my posts leave me baffled. I cannot see how you can come to your conclusions, from what I have written, and hence, will abstain from commenting much of your post. |
Hmm, odd those comments leave me baffled as well :conf:
| quote: |
You're quite clear on the "myth" of the UN "border line"-resolution, though, so I'll comment on that: I am refering to a UN resolution which asks Israel to withdraw to the land it controlled prior to 1966 (I think it was). As I'm not really an advocate of either side I have little incentive to study the formal documents in detail, so it might be that such a resolution do not exists, and I have been misled? |
Yup, you are refering to UN SC Res 242, the origin of the concept "land for peace". The resolution never defines specific territory belonging to this party or that, it simply says land should be given back by Israel in the war it won for peace. Peace has never been attained.. so you can follow this point through..
Oh and it was 1967, close though ;)
| quote: | | If this is the case, i.e. Israel is not required by the UN to leave the area - who has merely stated that the land should be shared - it would then still require consensus between the two land-owning parties prior to the construction of such a wall for it to be legitimate IMO. |
I understand your point and it is valid. But I don't think if the Israelis and Palestinains weren't able to agree on peace, they would be able to bilateral agree on where to build a wall (in fact the official Palestinian position is that there should be no wall at all.. even if built on uncontest borders). This is a unilateral action for the exact reason that these two parties can't seem to agree on anything. If they could agree, most likely no wall would have to be build. So although idealisitcally it would be nice if the two parties could build a wall together, the reality is there would never be a wall if they could build it together.
| quote: | | Furthermore, you are quite clear on your point as to retraction of settlers would encourage terrorists: Apart from not rendering my point invalid (a point which was a personal *moral* judgement I hasten to add), your argument taken to its logical closure, implies that Palestineans can *never* hope for fulfillment of any of their demands: Their only bargaining chip is an end to terrorist attacks. Thus, a negotiation agreement giving in to any of their demands would be to reward terror, and hence, negotiations are pointless. |
There have been many process of peace, but you hit it right on the nail right now. The Palestinians will have a very, very, very hard time to make any negotiations with the Israelis, who tend to believe that there should be no negotiating with terrorists. And the Palestinians have brought this reality upon themselves by their decisision to conduct their war on Israel in the cruelest, most inhuman way imaginable.
The mistake comes in your observation that terrorist attacks are a bargaining chip. It isn't, the Israeli policy, is give up this card, and we will look at your others, don't give it up, and we don't care what else you have in your deck. The Israelis carry a loaded hand, but they aren't even going to look at the Palestinian hand untilt hey give up this one card. This is the whole premise of any peace plan or any peace initiative between the two parties. There simply can not be any dialouge within the intensity and frequency of current Palestinian attacks. Either Palestinian attacks become less frequent or less intense, or there isn't going to be any bilateral agreement.
I think this is pretty straight stuff though, we all get this point.
| quote: |
If this steep attitude is the spirit of Isreali public opinion, I wish that you would hurry up and bulldoze/nuke the Palestineans out of the area, so we might finally be freed from more reports of violence and from propaganda by people like Melech_Mike. |
Melech, bring over the nukes.. I'll get the bulldozers;) :p |
|
|
| DigiNut |
I don't see how anything that Yoepus posted was ad-hominem... you may disagree but that doesn't make his rationale any less logical. It makes perfect sense when you look at it from his perspective, just as Palestinian's (that is, the TA Palestinian) does. So what you have is two conflicting perspectives that simply cannot come to an agreement, and the result is... get ready everyone... 1... 2... 3... WAR!
On another totally unrelated note, I've been hearing on and off about "Real-politik" but I'm still not sure exactly what it is, does anyone have any links/books I could follow? |
|
|
|
|
