12
   

How much of Support for Israel is based on Biblical Mythology?

 
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 4 Jan, 2017 05:55 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:
This is the point that I am making. You can find any list of things that Israel has done that are clearly wrong by the values of any modern democracy.

Yes. And I can also determine that they are all false accusations.


maxdancona wrote:
This includes bulldozing the houses of the families of criminals and breaking the Geneva convention on refugees.

I am not aware of any violations of the Geneva Conventions.

Destroying the houses of family members was wrong, but Israel stopped such behavior long ago.


maxdancona wrote:
You can see any number of lists from unbiased sources of what Israel has done wrong.

Lists of false accusations.


maxdancona wrote:
The problem is that any criticism of Israel is labeled as "antisemitism" by Israel and its religious critics.

That's what anti-Semitism is. Jews are falsely accused of a horrendous atrocity, and then people are urged to harm those Jews because of what they are falsely accused of.


maxdancona wrote:
Whether Israel tried to offer the Palestinians a reasonable state is a matter of opinion.

People might have an opinion over whether an offer was reasonable, but the question of what Israel offered is a factual matter.


maxdancona wrote:
As I understand it, there are three big issues.

1) Whether the state being offered will truly be sovreign.
2) Whether the state being offered is economically viable and contiguous.
3) Whether there is a fair compromise on the "right of return" (which is the right os Palestinians but will need to be forfeited in any realistic settlement) and the status of Jerusalem.

It is a fact that the Palestinians were repeatedly offered a contiguous state with East Jerusalem as its capital.

When Ehud Barak offered it, the Palestinians sent wave after wave of bombers to massacre Israeli civilians until Ehud Barak's government collapsed.

When Ehud Olmert offered it, the Palestinians simply stonewalled (which is what they are still doing today).


maxdancona wrote:
It doesn't sound like you are open to a two-sided discussion about whether Israel has met these conditions. A two-sided discussion would mean that you would look at both sides with an open mind and consider the Palestinian point of view as well as the Israeli one.

I am not open to treating Palestinian lies as if they are true.


maxdancona wrote:
As long as you keep saying "Israel is always right" and the "Palestinians are always wrong", then you can't have an open mind about this.

Facts are facts. The Palestinians are the bad guys.


maxdancona wrote:
I am impressed that you have stated unequivocably that Palestinians have the same human rights that Israelis have. That is a step in the right direction... and not everyone on your side of the debate would be willing to state this.

Step in the right direction? It is too late to rescue this situation. There has been too much damage to the peace process. Israel has been too badly mistreated for too long. All that is left now is for both sides to use force to take what they can. The Palestinians will probably be able to keep all of Area A. Israel has a clear path to keeping everything else.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Jan, 2017 06:07 pm
@oralloy,
We are not getting anywhere now. And you answered my question (which I appreciate). I would like to hear if there is anyone else who rejects the Biblical account but still supports Israel the way Oralloy is.

I do want to question you about your Area A plan. I just looked at the map, Area A would have three problems.

1) It would be completely surrounded by Israel on all sides.
2) It consists of several unconnected areas (it isn't contiguous).
3) It has very little arable farmland, no ports and no access to water.

I want to understand this plan. Could you answer a few questions?

- Would people living in Area A be able to travel freely to other countries without Israeli permission or control?

- Would businesses in Area able to conduct business freely, including international trade, without Israeli control?

- Assuming the lack of arable land? What would the people in Area A eat?

- Given the lack of water resources, would they be have enough water to drink, run businesses and maybe grow food with?

- Would people (e.g. you and I) be able to travel into Area A without Israeli permission?

- Did you see the movie "Escape from New York"? That is the image I am getting when I read your plans for Area A.

Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Jan, 2017 06:07 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:


1) Whether the state being offered will truly be sovreign.
2) Whether the state being offered is economically viable and contiguous.
3) Whether there is a fair compromise on the "right of return" (which is the right os Palestinians but will need to be forfeited in any realistic settlement) and the status of Jerusalem.


How has any of the prior rejected offers suggested that the state might not be "truly sovereign"?

Whether or not a state consisting of the West Bank and Gaza is economically viable should not be Israel's concern. Let all the Arab states that support the Palestinians help them economically.

Whether it is contiguous, again should not be Israel's concern. Pakistan wasn't contiguous and the Indian Muslims accepted it. It's not Israel's responsibility to ensure a prosperous Palestine. You might argue that it's in its interests to do so, and I might agree, but that is far from what pro-Palestinians can except or demand.

There is not such thing as a "fair compromise" on the Right of Return, the purpose of which is to eliminate a Jewish State through fecund reproduction.

Israel has already compromised on Jerusalem. It will never give it up entirely and demands for same are clearly a barrier to peace.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Jan, 2017 06:12 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
The Right of Return is a guaranteed human right. It wasn't made for Israel, it was decided as a guaranteed right for any human conflict.

I am agreeing with you that this is something the Palestinians will need to give up in any compromise two-state solution. But that doesn't mean that it isn't a human right that they will need to sacrifice.

Oralloy, is making this a "good guy", "bad guy" dichotomy. This is something I tried to push back on, but Oralloy and I apparently will never agree on this.

Do you accept that there are two sides here... and that both sides have done things that are wrong and troubling?

If we only look at the issue from the Israeli point of view, it is difficult to talk about what would make a fair compromise. Your post seems rather one sided.


McGentrix
 
  0  
Reply Wed 4 Jan, 2017 06:13 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

This is the point that I am making. You can find any list of things that Israel has done that are clearly wrong by the values of any modern democracy. This includes bulldozing the houses of the families of criminals and breaking the Geneva convention on refugees.


You mean like the American Police due when they seize the homes of a drug pusher's parents because he may have dealt dope there? Link, other link

Quote:
You can see any number of lists from unbiased sources of what Israel has done wrong. The problem is that any criticism of Israel is labeled as "antisemitism" by Israel and its religious critics.

Of course Palistinians have done bad things too (as is often the case in war both sides do atrocities), and the Palestinian leadership has been atrocious.

Whether Israel tried to offer the Palestinians a reasonable state is a matter of opinion. As I understand it, there are three big issues.

1) Whether the state being offered will truly be sovereign.
2) Whether the state being offered is economically viable and contiguous.
3) Whether there is a fair compromise on the "right of return" (which is the right os Palestinians but will need to be forfeited in any realistic settlement) and the status of Jerusalem.

It doesn't sound like you are open to a two-sided discussion about whether Israel has met these conditions. A two-sided discussion would mean that you would look at both sides with an open mind and consider the Palestinian point of view as well as the Israeli one.

As long as you keep saying "Israel is always right" and the "Palestinians are always wrong", then you can't have an open mind about this.

I am impressed that you have stated unequivocally that Palestinians have the same human rights that Israelis have. That is a step in the right direction... and not everyone on your side of the debate would be willing to state this.


You are looking at this the wrong way. It is not up to Israel to give Palestine anything. It wasn't God that gave Israel to the Jews, it was the United Nations. Ever since, the Arabs have been trying to kill them. I think they've given up enough blood and treasure to not have to coddle the Palestinians. It is really up to the Palestinian people to play nice if they want to remain neighbors. They can always move. I am sure all the Arab neighbors would love to have them in their countries...
maxdancona
 
  2  
Reply Wed 4 Jan, 2017 06:15 pm
@McGentrix,
Quote:
It wasn't God that gave Israel to the Jews, it was the United Nations.


That is rather ironic given the fact the latest uproar was a United Nations resolution.

Apparently the UN still wants to give the Palestinians a state too.

Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Reply Wed 4 Jan, 2017 06:20 pm
@maxdancona,
Only a International Committee could name a "Right to Return" as a fundamental human right. It's nonsense.

Given their motivation for insistence on it, I'm not prepared to give them any credit at all for compromising on it.

Of course there are two sides, but they are not equal.

Israel has repeatedly recognized that peace requires compromise and each time the Palestinians have manufactured reasons why they couldn't accept what was offered.

None of the reasons you offered, hold any water.

oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 4 Jan, 2017 07:36 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:
I do want to question you about your Area A plan. I just looked at the map, Area A would have three problems.

1) It would be completely surrounded by Israel on all sides.
2) It consists of several unconnected areas (it isn't contiguous).
3) It has very little arable farmland, no ports and no access to water.

Those problems would be the Palestinians' problems.


maxdancona wrote:
I want to understand this plan. Could you answer a few questions?

Sure.


maxdancona wrote:
- Would people living in Area A be able to travel freely to other countries without Israeli permission or control?

- Would businesses in Area able to conduct business freely, including international trade, without Israeli control?

- Would people (e.g. you and I) be able to travel into Area A without Israeli permission?

No.


maxdancona wrote:
- Assuming the lack of arable land? What would the people in Area A eat?

- Given the lack of water resources, would they be have enough water to drink, run businesses and maybe grow food with?

I don't care.

They can drink sand if they like. There's lots of sand for them to drink.


maxdancona wrote:
- Did you see the movie "Escape from New York"?

No.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Jan, 2017 07:45 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
The right of people displaced by violence to return to previous residences is named in the Fourth Geneva Convention. Is that enough for you Finn?

I am looking for common ground here Finn.

I disagree with the narrative that Israel has offered a fair compromise. There was exactly one Israeli leader who tried to offer a fair compromise to end the Israel/Palestine conflict.. They shot him.

This is one of the times when a political assassination was wildly successful, the chance for peace died with Yitzhak Rabin. Israel has not even attempted since.


maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Jan, 2017 07:48 pm
@oralloy,
OK Oralloy, I respect the fact that you outline your opinion clearly. I disagree with you completely, but I accept the fact that you and I disagree.

Your solution is to set up death camps where Palestinians would starve to death with no chance of physical survival (let alone meaningful existance).

I am not OK with that. But here we are.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 4 Jan, 2017 07:49 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:
I disagree with the narrative that Israel has offered a fair compromise. There was exactly one Israeli leader who tried to offer a fair compromise to end the Israel/Palestine conflict.. They shot him.

This is one of the times when a political assassination was wildly successful, the chance for peace died with Yitzhak Rabin. Israel has not even attempted since.

Your outrageous denials of Israel's past peace offers helped to destroy the peace process. Shame!
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 4 Jan, 2017 07:52 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:
Your solution is to set up death camps where Palestinians would starve to death with no chance of physical survival (let alone meaningful existance).

I'm sure someone would ship in enough food and water for the little buggers to survive. There will be no death camps.

It would be my pleasure though to deprive the Palestinians of meaningful existence.
maxdancona
 
  2  
Reply Wed 4 Jan, 2017 07:55 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
Your outrageous denials of Israel's past peace offers helped to destroy the peace process. Shame!


No need for the drama Oralloy. I am not denying that Israel made peace offers. I am saying that they weren't sufficient compromises to bring realistic peace.

There are two sides to this story. The Palestinian side has been very clear and very articulate as to why the Israeli peace offers weren't realistic or fair.

There is no shame in disagreeing with you Oralloy (as much as you think there is). I would ask that you at least get my points correctly.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Jan, 2017 07:59 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
It would be my pleasure though to deprive the Palestinians of meaningful existence.


I don't know if you see how this makes my point exactly (or if you care).

The Palestinians are an ethnic group that consists of millions of men, women and children. Many of them are farmers, some are businessmen. Some of them are Christians. Some of them want to use violence to oppose what they see as an illegal occupation. Some of them are peaceful. Many of them want nothing more than a meaningful existence. The hatred you are directing against the Palestinians isn't just against people resorting to violence. You are expressing hatred at an entire ethnic group.

You are denying a meaningful existance to millions of people based on their ethnicity. I don't think that the people on your side... Finn or McGentrix... will support you on this.

Although I will let Finn and McGentrix speak for themselves.

The more you express your opinion that Palestinians don't deserve a meaningful existance, the easier it will be for people to change their minds about the Israeli side.

Again, I appreciate your honesty. Many people with opinions like yours try to hide them.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Jan, 2017 08:10 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn, I would like my conversation with you to be separate from my conversation with Oralloy. I feel that I can find more common ground with you than I can with Oralloy. Hopefully you can respond to my posts with that in mind.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 4 Jan, 2017 08:19 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:
No need for the drama Oralloy.

It is true. Not you alone, but you along with everyone else who denied the truth played a part in destroying the peace process.


maxdancona wrote:
I am not denying that Israel made peace offers. I am saying that they weren't sufficient compromises to bring realistic peace.

In the past you denied actual facts about Israel's offers.

If Israel's offers were not sufficient, the Palestinians should have countered with their own offer instead of massacring countless innocents until Ehud Barak's government collapsed.

If Israel's offers were not sufficient, the Palestinians should have countered with their own offer instead of stonewalling later negotiations altogether.

If Israel's offers were not sufficient, why do the Palestinians always lie about what Israel offered? Why did you in the past deny what Israel offered?


maxdancona wrote:
There are two sides to this story. The Palestinian side has been very clear and very articulate as to why the Israeli peace offers weren't realistic or fair.

The Palestinian side has done nothing but outright lie about what the Israelis offered.


maxdancona wrote:
There is no shame in disagreeing with you Oralloy (as much as you think there is).

There is much shame in having contributed to the destruction of the peace process.


maxdancona wrote:
I would ask that you at least get my points correctly.

I am confident that you have in the past denied the truth of Israel's peace offers.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Jan, 2017 08:31 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:
I don't know if you see how this makes my point exactly (or if you care).

I'm not even sure what your point is. You destroyed the peace process, now you are wishing the peace process hadn't been destroyed.

I too wish you hadn't destroyed the peace process. But since you did, now it is time for Israel to use force to take everything but Area A.


maxdancona wrote:
Some of them are peaceful. Many of them want nothing more than a meaningful existence.

Fie.

Even their little kids are irredeemable.


maxdancona wrote:
The more you express your opinion that Palestinians don't deserve a meaningful existance, the easier it will be for people to change their minds about the Israeli side.

I am confident that most people understand that Palestinians are evil.


maxdancona wrote:
Again, I appreciate your honesty. Many people with opinions like yours try to hide them.

I appreciate that you recognize my dedication to the truth.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Jan, 2017 08:37 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:
Finn, I would like my conversation with you to be separate from my conversation with Oralloy. I feel that I can find more common ground with you than I can with Oralloy. Hopefully you can respond to my posts with that in mind.

Common ground with me requires acknowledgement of facts, and facts are often inconvenient to the forces of evil.

Usually separating conversations is as easy as responding only to whatever specific post you are responding to.

I hope you don't mind if I speak up if, in your conversations with other people, I see something that is clearly untrue and needs to be corrected.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Jan, 2017 09:06 pm
@oralloy,
If Finn wants to associate himself with you he has every right. My suspicion is that he won't want to be associated with the opinions you are expressing. I will respect his decision either way.

Same goes with McGentrix.

I am most interested in having a discussion with Finn.
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Jan, 2017 09:21 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:
If Finn wants to associate himself with you he has every right. My suspicion is that he won't want to be associated with the opinions you are expressing. I will respect his decision either way.
Same goes with McGentrix.

If I had to hazard a guess, they will be interested in representing their own viewpoints and will not care whether or not their views overlap with mine.


maxdancona wrote:
I am most interested in having a discussion with Finn.

My preference is to just speak out whenever I see something that I disagree with no matter who said it.

I do understand though that I raise facts that are uncomfortable for the forces of evil to confront.

I hope you don't mind when I jump in to correct any untrue claims that you happen to make when conversing with others. As I said, my preference is to just reply every time I see something I disagree with.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

HAPPY ANNIVERSARY, EVERYONE! - Discussion by OmSigDAVID
WIND AND WATER - Discussion by Setanta
Who ordered the construction of the Berlin Wall? - Discussion by Walter Hinteler
True version of Vlad Dracula, 15'th century - Discussion by gungasnake
ONE SMALL STEP . . . - Discussion by Setanta
History of Gun Control - Discussion by gungasnake
Where did our notion of a 'scholar' come from? - Discussion by TuringEquivalent
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/07/2021 at 06:53:27