Israel dragging USA down

[Reverend Rick]

Do you honestly interpret ALL criticism of the human rights record of a country as a problem with the existence of the country? I support the UN despite its organisational problems because the world needs an international body that can mediate in regional conflicts and set and enforce international standards for protecting human rights. I criticise Israel because they are in violation of these standards.

Sometimes I thnk that if people would just read the Geneva Conventions, there would be way less confusion about where this criticism is coming from.

My issue with your position is while you make valid points many times about one side, you completely ignore the violations of the other side.

How can you ignore one side would give away almost anything to live in peace while the other side will never be satisfied till their sworn enemies are dead.

At the very least you could acknowledge that only one side is bargaining in good faith.

 

[Shermana]

Should the Fatah logo no longer include a picture of the whole of Israel as a precondition? No need to give away your designs or anything. At least I'm open about my Nile to the Euphrates philosophy.

 

[Tamar]

And the mosques in Israel lose much of their appeal after price-tag vandalism. Therefore?

Mosques vandalized by the settlers after their illegal settlements were torn down by the Israeli government. I would hope they would be arrested because what they did is wrong.

But the difference is the Christians in Egypt are being attacked for no reason other then they are Christian by Muslim militants.

They are not the same.

 

[Caladan]

Mosques vandalized by the settlers after their illegal settlements were torn down by the Israeli government. I would hope they would be arrested because what they did is wrong.

But the difference is the Christians in Egypt are being attacked for no reason other then they are Christian by Muslim militants.

They are not the same.

I think Israel is doing very well in this regard. only recent years of questioning Muslim immigration and integration in Europe have produced the banning of minarets, the question of the veil, and other issues.
while Israel all this time has never enforced any of this on its Muslim residents.
mosques and minarets have been standing for years in Israel, and will continue to stand for years to come, Muslim women will continue to be free in their choice of clothing.
it seems that Israel is one nation which on matters which count has not gone paranoid. Israel has been focusing on political and security issues at large, while not interfering with the religious practices of its Muslim citizens, and certainly not with its citizens who practice other religions.

 

[Alceste]

My issue with your position is while you make valid points many times about one side, you completely ignore the violations of the other side.

How can you ignore one side would give away almost anything to live in peace while the other side will never be satisfied till their sworn enemies are dead.

At the very least you could acknowledge that only one side is bargaining in good faith.

This blatantly racist assumption of yours, that Israelis would "give almost everything to live in peace" while Arabs "will never be satisfied until their sworn enemies are dead" is one I don't share. On both sides of the wall, there are people who fit tidily in both categories.

How can I ignore the fact that Jews are wonderful and Muslims are terrible? I can ignore it because it's in your imagination.

Like I said, if you want to start a thread on human rights in Arab countries, I will happily meet you there and criticise their violations just as fiercely. Threads about Israel and the occupied territories, which are also controlled by Israel, are no place for a critique of Saudi Arabia / Yemen / Jordan / Iran's human rights record.

 

[Alceste]

should the fatah logo no longer include a picture of the whole of israel as a precondition? No need to give away your designs or anything. At least i'm open about my nile to the euphrates philosophy.

omg a picture! Quick, kill everyone!

 

[Shermana]

omg a picture! Quick, kill everyone!

Apparently you don't see the significance in them having a picture of the full territory of Israel, I can only wonder if you agree with their picture. Hamas also has this in their picture. Why do you suppose this picture was included? Do you think its not significant at all?

 

[Alceste]

Apparently you don't see the significance in them having a picture of the full territory of Israel, I can only wonder if you agree with their picture. Hamas also has this in their picture. Why do you suppose this picture was included? Do you think its not significant at all?

Didn't you just post a picture of the whole area belonging to Israel yourself?

Edit: Ah yes, that was you.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2604801-post249.html

So if pictures indicating a desire for the mass evacuation of an ethnicity from a geographical area to establish an ethnic majority within expanded borders indicate evil intentions, what should we do about you?

 

[Shermana]

Wow. Just wow. I think you agree with Fatah's logo................ (But of course you have a problem with my own maps and facts which clearly show that Jordan is Arab Palestine).

So I'm assuming you agree that Fatah should not have to change their charter or logo for peace talks? You think it's just an irrelevant picture? I'm assuming you think worrying about Taqqiya is just Xenophobic too.

As for what we should do about me, how about listening to what I said about moving these people who want to remove all the jews to Jordan.

Basically, you seem to not want to address ANY of the concerns or reasons why Israelis would be cautious about making peace with these people. I can only wonder if you sympathize with their goals, while talking bad on Zionist goals. And you say you have no side?

 

[Alceste]

Wow. Just wow. I think you agree with Fatah's logo................ (But of course you have a problem with my own maps and facts which clearly show that Jordan is Arab Palestine).

So I'm assuming you agree that Fatah should not have to change their charter or logo for peace talks? You think it's just an irrelevant picture? I'm assuming you think worrying about Taqqiya is just Xenophobic too.

As for what we should do about me, how about listening to what I said about moving these people who want to remove all the jews to Jordan.

Basically, you seem to not want to address ANY of the concerns or reasons why Israelis would be cautious about making peace with these people. I can only wonder if you sympathize with their goals, while talking bad on Zionist goals. And you say you have no side?

What I think is that you and Fatah share the same ideology.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Can we all agree that it is a fallacy to judge a proposed compromise, solely based on the designs (suspected, hidden, or otherwise) of the other party? This appears to be Shermana's approach in the last few posts.

Can we agree that this approach is fallacious? This applies to both sides in the Israel/Palestine conflict. Many on both sides of the conflict have totally unrealistic, and/or unfair, aspirations and visions of the future. It seems to me that is not what counts. If we consider a legitimate grievance ("please stop bombing civilians" or "please stop expanding illegal settlements") that grievance should not be dismissed simply because the party with the grievance might also have illegitimate grievances ("ALL the land shall belong to us someday").

This fallacious thinking reminds one of the child who refuses to share ANY cookies with his little sister, which he justifies by accusing her of secretly wanting ALL the cookies! That's the behavior of children: fears about where cookies *might* be in the future, and how unfair that *might* be, outweigh the reality of where the cookies *are* in the present -- and the imagined possibilities are outweighed in such a way as to be convenient for the imaginer, too. This is not how adults resolve conflict.

Many on the Palestinian side certainly have unrealistic and unfair aspirations. But let's not forget that the Likud Party and the Israeli Right have very candidly stated that the entire "Land of Israel" belongs to them by right. The Likud Party, for its part, feels it is necessary to cede some of the land -- which by right belongs to Jews -- to the inconvenient population of 5.8 million Arabs living there, in order to maintain a Jewish majority within Israel proper. It would be facile and fallacious reasoning to say that Palestine should reject *all compromise* with a Likud government simply because, in theory and in principle, Likud does not recognize Palestine's right to exist. And the same standards should be used when evaluating any reasonable proposals coming from the Palestinian side.

 

[Alceste]

Can we all agree that it is a fallacy to judge a proposed compromise, solely based on the designs (suspected, hidden, or otherwise) of the other party? This appears to be Shermana's approach in the last few posts.

Can we agree that this approach is fallacious? This applies to both sides in the Israel/Palestine conflict. Many on both sides of the conflict have totally unrealistic, and/or unfair, aspirations and visions of the future. It seems to me that is not what counts. If we consider a legitimate grievance ("please stop bombing civilians" or "please stop expanding illegal settlements") that grievance should not be dismissed simply because the party with the grievance might also have illegitimate grievances ("ALL the land shall belong to us someday").

This fallacious thinking reminds one of the child who refuses to share ANY cookies with his little sister, which he justifies by accusing her of secretly wanting ALL the cookies! That's the behavior of children: fears about where cookies *might* be in the future, and how unfair that *might* be, outweigh the reality of where the cookies *are* in the present -- and the imagined possibilities are outweighed in such a way as to be convenient for the imaginer, too. This is not how adults resolve conflict.

Many on the Palestinian side certainly have unrealistic and unfair aspirations. But let's not forget that the Likud Party and the Israeli Right have very candidly stated that the entire "Land of Israel" belongs to them by right. The Likud Party, for its part, feels it is necessary to cede some of the land -- which by right belongs to Jews -- to the inconvenient population of 5.8 million Arabs living there, in order to maintain a Jewish majority within Israel proper. It would be facile and fallacious reasoning to say that Palestine should reject *all compromise* with a Likud government simply because, in theory and in principle, Likud does not recognize Palestine's right to exist. And the same standards should be used when evaluating any reasonable proposals coming from the Palestinian side.

I can certainly agree to all of this.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Wow. Just wow. I think you agree with Fatah's logo................ (But of course you have a problem with my own maps and facts which clearly show that Jordan is Arab Palestine).

So I'm assuming you agree that Fatah should not have to change their charter or logo for peace talks? You think it's just an irrelevant picture? I'm assuming you think worrying about Taqqiya is just Xenophobic too.

As for what we should do about me, how about listening to what I said about moving these people who want to remove all the jews to Jordan.

Basically, you seem to not want to address ANY of the concerns or reasons why Israelis would be cautious about making peace with these people. I can only wonder if you sympathize with their goals, while talking bad on Zionist goals. And you say you have no side?

Shermana I understand Israel's concerns about security and I do think the picture should be changed. I also think the Likud Party's platform should be changed to recognize Palestine's right to exist. But this is a tiny issue compared to the fact that (1) Fatah cracks down on terrorism, in fact it is trained and funded by the U.S. and (2) Israel would probably be more secure, not less, if it withdrew settlements from the West Bank. It's like American settlements on the Indian frontier ... difficult to defend, and likely to draw hostility from the locals. No?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Mosques vandalized by the settlers after their illegal settlements were torn down by the Israeli government. I would hope they would be arrested because what they did is wrong.

But the difference is the Christians in Egypt are being attacked for no reason other then they are Christian by Muslim militants.

They are not the same.

No, Tamar, they are not the same.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I think Israel is doing very well in this regard. only recent years of questioning Muslim immigration and integration in Europe have produced the banning of minarets, the question of the veil, and other issues.
while Israel all this time has never enforced any of this on its Muslim residents.
mosques and minarets have been standing for years in Israel, and will continue to stand for years to come, Muslim women will continue to be free in their choice of clothing.
it seems that Israel is one nation which on matters which count has not gone paranoid. Israel has been focusing on political and security issues at large, while not interfering with the religious practices of its Muslim citizens, and certainly not with its citizens who practice other religions.

So long as they keep their place.

 

[Revoltingest]

Can we all agree that it is a fallacy to judge a proposed compromise, solely based on the designs (suspected, hidden, or otherwise) of the other party? This appears to be Shermana's approach in the last few posts.

Can we agree that this approach is fallacious? This applies to both sides in the Israel/Palestine conflict. Many on both sides of the conflict have totally unrealistic, and/or unfair, aspirations and visions of the future. It seems to me that is not what counts. If we consider a legitimate grievance ("please stop bombing civilians" or "please stop expanding illegal settlements") that grievance should not be dismissed simply because the party with the grievance might also have illegitimate grievances ("ALL the land shall belong to us someday").

This fallacious thinking reminds one of the child who refuses to share ANY cookies with his little sister, which he justifies by accusing her of secretly wanting ALL the cookies! That's the behavior of children: fears about where cookies *might* be in the future, and how unfair that *might* be, outweigh the reality of where the cookies *are* in the present -- and the imagined possibilities are outweighed in such a way as to be convenient for the imaginer, too. This is not how adults resolve conflict.

Many on the Palestinian side certainly have unrealistic and unfair aspirations. But let's not forget that the Likud Party and the Israeli Right have very candidly stated that the entire "Land of Israel" belongs to them by right. The Likud Party, for its part, feels it is necessary to cede some of the land -- which by right belongs to Jews -- to the inconvenient population of 5.8 million Arabs living there, in order to maintain a Jewish majority within Israel proper. It would be facile and fallacious reasoning to say that Palestine should reject *all compromise* with a Likud government simply because, in theory and in principle, Likud does not recognize Palestine's right to exist. And the same standards should be used when evaluating any reasonable proposals coming from the Palestinian side.

What he so eloquently said.
Such is why I keep an eye on this thread.

 

[Shermana]

Who said anything about "Illegal" settlements being a "Legitimate" concern? Illegal? Legitimate? Huh? Illegal to who? The UN? The UN can eat rotten Haggis. Tell them to send a Syrian and Iranian rights delegation.

 

[Alceste]

Who said anything about "Illegal" settlements being a "Legitimate" concern? Illegal? Legitimate? Huh? Illegal to who? The UN? The UN can eat rotten Haggis. Tell them to send a Syrian and Iranian rights delegation.

So should we allow the government of one single country to dictate human rights law to every other nation on earth, or is it "every man for himself" and grab what you can?

 

[Shermana]

So should we allow the government of one single country to dictate human rights law to every other nation on earth, or is it "every man for himself" and grab what you can?

Ask the Rwandans and Libyans.

 

[Caladan]

So long as they keep their place.

ah. sure.