ISRAEL - IRAN - SYRIA - HAMAS - HEZBOLLAH - WWWIII?

Setanta wrote:

Nothing obliges me to answer such an idiotic question. To answer it would be to acquiesce in your definitions, and i consider them dull-witted and unwarranted.

Oh, so you are unable to answer the question and choose instead to give this simpleton's malarkey as your excuse.

I'll try to help you some more.

An explanation by many here for the hatred of Israel by Hamas, for example, was that Israel is a relatively closed society. What might their explanation be for the hatred of Lebanon by Hamas? Lebanon has been a relatively open society.

Nonsense! How was Palestine a legal entity?

I note your useage of "The Lebanon". I have, of course encountered it many times, mostly in historical commentary and that mostly by Europeans (along with phrases like 'the Levant'). Where does it come from? What is its origin?

...

Transparent sophistry.

Palestine was a "legal entity" before it was partitioned by the UN and Israel was created.

MALARKEY! Palestine was a British protectorate from the end of WWI until the Brits turned Palestine over to the UN for the UN to find a solution to the Palestine problem. All through that period, Palestine had no government of its own, and was legally governed exclusively by the British. In 1947, the UN resolved that Palestine be converted to two states: an Arab state and a Jew state. The Jews declared Israel to be an independent state in 1948. Thereafter, the Jews chose to defend themselves and their state of Israel as best they knew how.

International law does not recognize that lands can be seized as a prize of war without giving political rights to the people who live there.

Your characterization of International law is a fantasy. Such law is not enforced nor is it enforceable.
...
The so called attack on Israel was merely the continuation of mutual hostilities that originated with the efforts of Zionist settlers to create a separate state for themselves in what had been for over a thousand years the homeland of the Palestinians.

Malarkey. Palestinians for over a 1000 years were and are a mixture of arabs, jews, egyptians, jordanians, turks, et cetera. The arabs invaded and conquered Palestine in the 7th century. The jews invaded and conquered Palestine a time or two in the 2,000 years prior to the 7th century. The jews seized land in Palestine and declared it Israel in 1948. Israel invaded and conquered non-Israel land subsequently, most notably in 1967.

However, all that is irrelevant now. What is relevant is that the Fatah-Hamas-Hezbollah folks are intent on removing the state of Israel, and the inhabitants of Israel are intent on not letting that happen.

The first steps to resolving this conflict is for the non-Israeli arabs not part and not supporting the Fatah-Hamas-Hezbollah folks, to declare Israel's right to exist, and to exterminate the Fatah-Hamas-Hezbollah folks among them.

...

ican711nm wrote:

Setanta wrote:

Nothing obliges me to answer such an idiotic question. To answer it would be to acquiesce in your definitions, and i consider them dull-witted and unwarranted.

Oh, so you are unable to answer the question and choose instead to give this simpleton's malarkey as your excuse.

I'll try to help you some more.

An explanation by many here for the hatred of Israel by Hamas, for example, was that Israel is a relatively closed society. What might their explanation be for the hatred of Lebanon by Hamas? Lebanon has been a relatively open society.

If anyone knows malarkey, that would be you.

Answering your question would legitimize your claims about Israel being a "closed society" and the Lebanon being an "open society." I have no reason to use those terms, or to acquiesce in any claims about those terms.

I rather doubt that anyone here has claimed that Hamas hates Israel because it is a closed society--i suspect that that is your simple-minded interpretation of what others have said. The most obvious reason for Hamas to hate Israel is the historical fact that in contravention of United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181, passed in November 1947, the Israelis have driven Palestinians out of their villages and off their own land, and have not paid any compensation. In contravention of that Resolution, the Israelis have not made the slightest attempt to form an economic and customs union with the Palestinians.

So i have no reason to assume that Hamas hates Israel because it is a "closed society." I also would not acquiesce in a description of the Lebanon as an "open society" without having a very specific and narrow definition of what you mean by that, with which i would either agree or disagree before ever i answered a question based on such an assumption.

Basically, you were offering a "have you stopped beating your wife" style of question. For me to have answered the question would have been to have accepted your dull-witted and meaningless assertions about Israel having a "closed society" and the Lebanon having an "open society."

I don't swallow malarkey like that.

An explanation by many here for the hatred of Israel by Hamas, for example, was that Israel is a relatively closed society. What might their explanation be for the hatred of Lebanon by Hamas? Lebanon has been a relatively open society.

You're an idiot

Advocate wrote:

Nonsense! How was Palestine a legal entity?

You could profit from reading United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181, too. I linked in in my last post, but just in case that is too difficult for you, you can read that resolution by clicking here.

United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181
November 29, 1947

The General Assembly, Having met in special session at the request of the mandatory Power to constitute and instruct a Special Committee to prepare for the consideration of the question of the future Government of Palestine at the second regular session;

[size=8]
Having constituted a Special Committee and instructed it to investigate all questions and issues relevant to the problem of Palestine, and to prepare proposals for the solution of the problem, and

Having received and examined the report of the Special Committee (document A/364)(1) including a number of unanimous recommendations and a plan of partition with economic union approved by the majority of the Special Committee,

Considers that the present situation in Palestine is one which is likely to impair the general welfare and friendly relations among nations;
[/size]

Takes note of the declaration by the mandatory Power that it plans to complete its evacuation of Palestine by l August 1948;

Recommends to the United Kingdom, as the mandatory Power for Palestine, and to all other Members of the United Nations the adoption and implementation, with regard to the future Government of Palestine, of the Plan of Partition with Economic Union set out below;

Requests that

The Security Council take the necessary measures as provided for in the plan for its implementation;

[size=8]
The Security Council consider, if circumstances during the transitional period require such consideration, whether the situation in Palestine constitutes a threat to the peace. If it decides that such a threat exists, and in order to maintain international peace and security, the Security Council should supplement the authorization of the General Assembly by taking measures, under Articles 39 and 41 of the Charter, to empower the United Nations Commission, as provided in this resolution, to exercise in Palestine the functions which are assigned to it by this resolution;

The Security Council determine as a threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression, in accordance with Article 39 of the Charter, any attempt to alter by force the settlement envisaged by this resolution;

The Trusteeship Council be informed of the responsibilities envisaged for it in this plan;

Calls upon the inhabitants of Palestine to take such steps as may be necessary on their part to put this plan into effect;

Appeals to all Governments and all peoples to refrain from taking any action which might hamper or delay the carrying out of these recommendations, and

Authorizes the Secretary-General to reimburse travel and subsistence expenses of the members of the Commission referred to in Part 1, Section B, Paragraph I below, on such basis and in such form as he may determine most appropriate in the circumstances, and to provide the Commission with the necessary staff to assist in carrying out the functions assigned to the Commission by the General Assembly.
[/size]

If Palestine were never a legal entity, how do you account for this language on the part of the United Nations?

Please stop the bald-face lying.

Too funny.

Normally, when the question is:

Quote:

An explanation by many here for the hatred of Israel by Hamas, for example, was that Israel is a relatively closed society. What might their explanation be for the hatred of Lebanon by Hamas? Lebanon has been a relatively open society.

And the response is (paraphrased):

Quote:

You're an idiot

,

You don't see the original questioner thanking for the answer!



Cycloptichorn

Israeli army fire kills two Palestinians

GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip - Israeli troops shot and killed two 13-year-old Palestinian boys Friday near the Gaza- Israel border fence, Palestinian security officials and doctors said.

The two were going to the beach for a swim when they were killed, according to a brother of one of the dead boys, Suleiman Abu Zeibeida.

The Israeli army spokesman confirmed that soldiers shot at several Palestinians who were spotted crawling "in a suspicious manner" toward the fence near the town of Beit Lahiya. The Palestinians planted an object near the fence, possibly an explosive, and did not answer orders to stop moving, the army said.

Soldiers saw three Palestinians hit by gunfire, the army spokesman's office said. One of them was wounded and was taken to Israel for treatment, the army said. He was not armed.

Doctors at Barzilai hospital where the youth was taken said he suffered several gunshot wounds. They gave his age as 16.

The language of this resolution relevant to this issue makes it clear that up to the moment of this resolution Britain governed Palestine (i.e., was the mandatory Power for Palestine), and the residents of Palestine did not themselves have a government that governed Palestine.

Set said: "For me to have answered the question would have been to have accepted your dull-witted and meaningless assertions about Israel having a "closed society" and the Lebanon having an "open society."

He acts infuriated when one makes ad hominian attack on him, but doesn't hesitate to make them on others.

As I used the term, "ad hominian" is spelled correctly.

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A's claim is false.

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the person", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. It is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or personally attacking an argument's proponent in an attempt to discredit that argument.

A debater commits the Ad Hominem Fallacy when he introduces irrelevant personal premisses about his opponent. Such red herrings may successfully distract the opponent or the audience from the topic of the debate.

Setanta wrote:

I don't think you should bother, O'George. Ican't is either unwilling, or, more likely, unable to make subtle distinctions with regard to the players in the middle east.

The current example is a wonderful case in point. The Lebanese army has been shelling refugee camps to get at Fatah-al-islam. Fatah-al-islam, is a Sunni Muslim group, and could not possibly survive without outside support. I don't know that Ican't has made this claim, but they have no relationship with the Fatah party among the Palestinians, which avows itself to be secular. The Sunnis represent about a quarter of the population--they are outnumbered by the Shi'ites. Hezbollah claims to represent the Shi'ites of the Lebanon. Fatah-al-islam claims to represent the Sunnis of the Lebanon, but it was only formed late last year, and is widely considered to be funded by Saudi extremists. It is doubtful that they represent even a fringe element among Lebanese Sunnis.

But to Ican't, they are all Muslim murderers, terrorists. How could you possibly expect to have a rational discussion with someone who cannot even distinguish the players in the ugly game being played out in the Lebanon?

Here's my question in simpler form. Why is the Lebanese society, a more open society having the same problems as Israel, a more closed society?[/size] (emphasis added)

Setanta wrote:

Nothing obliges me to answer such an idiotic question. To answer it would be to acquiesce in your definitions, and i consider them dull-witted and unwarranted.

Oh, so you are unable to answer the question and choose instead to give this simpleton's malarkey as your excuse.

I'll try to help you some more.

An explanation by many here for the hatred of Israel by Hamas, for example, was that Israel is a relatively closed society. What might their explanation be for the hatred of Lebanon by Hamas? Lebanon has been a relatively open society.