Israel dragging USA down

[Reverend Rick]

Should we just give up on the whole project because it's not perfect? No, not unless we want to go back to having a world war every couple of decades.

Nice strawman you got there. :yes:

 

[YmirGF]

Yes, when it comes to holding my government accountable for systemic human rights violations against the first nations and border disputes, I want international laws, treaties and enforcement. The Gov. of Canada can not unilaterally decide where our borders lie and how our indigenous people should be treated with impartialty. Besides, without diplomacy and international cooperation to decide on borders, we are left with nothing but war.

Does it need reform? Sure - the veto powers need to go. Should we just give up on the whole project because it's not perfect? No, not unless we want to go back to having a world war every couple of decades.

I do not agree. I'd rather put up with the odd war than this charade of insincere rhetoric commonly referred to as "diplomacy" that grinds on at a glacial pace. Plus, it's not like wars have been averted thanks to the existence of the U.N. Almost every continent has seen bloodshed during its mandate. Yeah, it realllllllly seems to be working. Like come on, North Korea chairing the Disarmament Comission? The Human Rights councils disgusting circus acts of Durban i, Durban II and soon to be Durban III?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Again, this strikes me as another species of fallacious reasoning (and conveniently fallacious reasoning, at that): (1) The UN is bad; (2) The UN supports Palestine's right to exist; (3) Therefore, Palestine's right to exist is bad.

This isn't about the UN, it is about whether a nation 11 times larger than Luxembourg has the right to exist and be recognized. Just as Israel has the right to exist. Seems fair.

 

[Alceste]

Nice strawman you got there. :yes:

Before the UN, we had 2 world wars in such rapid succession my grandfather-in-law fought in both of them. Since the establishment of the UN we have only had well-contained regional skirmishes. If we have no internationally respected vehicle to pressure hostile countries to resolve their territorial disputes peacefully and no international laws to govern war, what is to prevent us from falling into the same pattern? What do you suggest?

FYI, a straw man is a misrepresentation. You said you want no international laws and no vehicle for transparent international negotiation. You have not said what will prevent the increased reliance on force history tells us results from lacking these things. Until you clarify your position, it is reasonable to assume you'd rather have more war than better enforcement of international laws that prevent war.

 

[Alceste]

Revoltingest, get your knickers out of that twist and rejoin the discussion. Rick has long since affirmed I understood and represented his post correctly: he wants to do away with international laws and replace them with nothing: every country for itself.

 

[Shermana]

Before the UN, we had 2 world wars in such rapid succession my grandfather-in-law fought in both of them. Since the establishment of the UN we have only had well-contained regional skirmishes. If we have no internationally respected vehicle to pressure hostile countries to resolve their territorial disputes peacefully and no international laws to govern war, what is to prevent us from falling into the same pattern? What do you suggest?

FYI, a straw man is a misrepresentation. You said you want no international laws and no vehicle for transparent international negotiation. You have not said what will prevent the increased reliance on force history tells us results from lacking these things. Until you clarify your position, it is reasonable to assume you'd rather have more war than better enforcement of international laws that prevent war.

The main reason why most wars are "Well contained regional skirmishes" (With death tolls ranging from hundreds of thousands to millions and utterly destroying those region's economies nonethelesss) is more because of this little thing called the nuclear bomb, the UN wasn't responsible for the lack of Soviet aggression in Europe. The nuke was.

 

[Shermana]

Would you prefer war as a method of resolving regional conflicts, and the victor decides the rules for everyone? Would you prefer that criminal heads of state like Saddam or Ghaddafi not be brought to justice?

If we do away with our forum for international diplomacy, treaties and enforcement you might as well start learning Chinese right now. You might need it if you make it through WWIII alive.

Can you name a single war the UN actually stopped from going through? The UN was actually on the side fighting against North Korea, what happened since?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Again, this strikes me as another species of fallacious reasoning (and conveniently fallacious reasoning, at that): (1) The UN is bad; (2) The UN supports Palestine's right to exist; (3) Therefore, Palestine's right to exist is bad.

:clap

 

[Revoltingest]

Revoltingest, get your knickers out of that twist and rejoin the discussion. Rick has long since affirmed I understood and represented his post correctly: he wants to do away with international laws and replace them with nothing: every country for itself.

You mistake disinterest for disdain.
I don't see much to respond to.
UN or League of Nations.....I'm all meh about both.

 

[YmirGF]

Again, this strikes me as another species of fallacious reasoning (and conveniently fallacious reasoning, at that): (1) The UN is bad; (2) The UN supports Palestine's right to exist; (3) Therefore, Palestine's right to exist is bad.

A simplistic observation, at best. For the record, my dim view of the UN has nothing whatsoever to do with the "Palestinian" cause.

This isn't about the UN, it is about whether a nation 11 times larger than Luxembourg has the right to exist and be recognized. Just as Israel has the right to exist. Seems fair.

And if the "Palestinians" had actually been serious they would likely have had a state decades ago, but the solution was seen as unacceptable.

 

[Shermana]

hether a nation 11 times larger than Luxembourg has the right to exist and be recognized

Who said anything about Palestine being a nation? Do you know what "nation" actually means? They have Jordan, what's wrong with that? THat's 80% of the Palestine Mandate. That state is recognized. Why aren't they happy with having 80% of Palestine?Because they want the Jewish capital and property to plunder and seize. They admit this themselves! They even admit that there will be no permanent peace treaty if they get one. Are you aware that the Fatah logo has the whole borders of Israel on it? You apparently think they will just surrender their ambitions to take the whole of Israel? I still want to know why these settlements are "illegal". As far as I'm concerned, Syria's massacre of protestors is illegal, but they have the Human Rights seat, so defining "illegal" in UN terms is at best an exercise in hypocritical futility and anti-Jewish bias.

Anyone who is against the Jordan Option might as well raise a Fatah flag.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Who said anything about Palestine being a nation? Do you know what "nation" actually means? They have Jordan, what's wrong with that?

What is wrong with that is that they do not live in Jordan. They live in the West Bank and Gaza. You believe 4.3 million people should be forcibly expelled from their homes?

Why aren't they happy with having 80% of Palestine?[/U][/B]Because they want the Jewish capital and property to plunder and seize. They admit this themselves! They even admit that there will be no permanent peace treaty if they get one. Are you aware that the Fatah logo has the whole borders of Israel on it? You apparently think they will just surrender their ambitions to take the whole of Israel?

I explained why this is fallacious reasoning, see post #291.

I still want to know why these settlements are "illegal". As far as I'm concerned, Syria's massacre of protestors is illegal, but they have the Human Rights seat, so defining "illegal" in UN terms is at best an exercise in hypocritical futility and anti-Jewish bias.

Again, fallacious reasoning. See post #323.

Anyone who is against the Jordan Option might as well raise a Fatah flag.

What happens to the 5.8 million Arabs who live in Israel and the Occupied Territories in your "Jordan Option"? Are they given the choice of staying in their homes and becoming Israeli citizens with equal rights, or do you advocate simply a mass expulsion of the Arab ethnicity by force?

 

[Shermana]

Your post didn't explain why its fallacious, you only called it fallacious. Calling something fallacious is not the same as proving it as fallacious, which seems to be a trend among Leftists. Try actually quoting something from your post that you feel effectively shot down my logic, rather than saying "Nuh uh!" It's fallacious to say that you actually explained why my points are fallacious. The fact is, you're one step away from being an apologist for their designs on the whole of Israel. It doesn't matter if they live in the West Bank and Gaza, they are hostile separatists and chose their war against Israel, so Israel can dictate the terms if they win just like they would be able to dictate the terms if they won. There is no reason to acknowledge them as a "nation" or to call the Israeli settlements "illegal". If you do, you better be prepared to explain why.

You called "Illegal settlements" a "Legitimate grievance", I challenged that assertion, you apparently have no defense for it.

The 4.3 million Arabs in Plan Jordan would be relocated to Jordan just like how the 4.3 million Arabs want to relocate (and in their case, relocate includes "to the sea") the Jews, (Those with approved contracting Jobs from Jewish employers could stay, including those already with Israeli citizenship) I don't see why my plan is so bad but there's isn't. If the Arabs want to remove the Jews, the Jews would be fools to not have the same policy. Trust me, they'd have FAR better lives in Jordan. I know this idea may be shocking to you, but only apparently because its a Jew advocating it for the Arabs, if the Arabs advocate it for the Jews, it's everyday news.

Why shouldn't the Jews have a right to say whether they allow a violent separatist faction committed to their destruction and removal to form their own country on land they "legally" hold on to?

 

[Shermana]

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?

Fatah cracks down on terrorism?

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/125485

A leader of Mahmoud Abbas's US-backed Fatah party has come out in support of the terrorist war being fought against US and British forces in Iraq. PA text books for school children also push attacks on American and British forces
Mahmoud Ismail, a member of the PLO Executive Committee, expressed his support for the war on the US during an interview on official Palestinian Authority (PA) TV, which is under the control of PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas. The clip was recorded and translated by Palestinian Media Watch, which monitors incitement on PA television.
Ismail further defined the US -Britain alliance fighting in Iraq as the Arab Nation's "enemies, the imperialists," and justified the "right to struggle and to resistance [euphemism for terror -PMW] in all possible ways in all the occupied lands." Those occupied lands, he said, include "Palestine" and Iraq.

No, the Separation Wall cracks down on terrorism.

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism...ves-+Israel-s+anti-terrorist+fence+-+Answ.htm

Do you know why they don't change the picture on their logo? They don't want to. Do you realize what the implications of such would be? They'd have to revise all of their documents and agendas and goals to say that they don't want the whole of Israel anymore. I'd place all my bets on Fatah NOT reliniquishing any of their goals on the whole of Israel. I hope you realize that Fatah = Palestine Liberation Organization.

American settlements on the Indian frontier apparently all died off and the Indians won. Who cares about drawing hostility from the Locals, why shouldn't the Arabs be worried about drawing hostility from the Jews? Because they think we're easy targets. Well they learn each time that they're wrong on that. If they didn't think we were easy targets, they'd have had made peace by now.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Your post didn't explain why its fallacious, you only called it fallacious. Calling something fallacious is not the same as proving it as fallacious, which seems to be a trend among Leftists. Try actually quoting something from your post that you feel effectively shot down my logic, rather than saying "Nuh uh!" It's fallacious to say that you actually explained why my points are fallacious. The fact is, you're one step away from being an apologist for their designs on the whole of Israel. It doesn't matter if they live in the West Bank and Gaza, they are hostile separatists and chose their war against Israel, so Israel can dictate the terms if they win just like they would be able to dictate the terms if they won. There is no reason to acknowledge them as a "nation" or to call the Israeli settlements "illegal". If you do, you better be prepared to explain why.

You called "Illegal settlements" a "Legitimate grievance", I challenged that assertion, you apparently have no defense for it.

The 5.8 million Arabs in Plan Jordan would be relocated just like how the 5.8 million Arabs want to relocate (and in their case, relocate includes "to the sea") the Jews, (Those with approved contracting Jobs from Jewish employers could stay, including those already with Israeli citizenship) I don't see why my plan is so bad but there's isn't. If the Arabs want to remove the Jews, the Jews would be fools to not have the same policy. Trust me, they'd have FAR better lives in Jordan. I know this idea may be shocking to you, but only apparently because its a Jew advocating it for the Arabs, if the Arabs advocate it for the Jews, it's everyday news.

So your only objection to an Arab plan similar to yours is that the Arabs lack the means of violence to carry out ethnic cleansing. Might makes right, in your view. This is a sad and ironic view, in light of Jewish history.

From my perspective, the expulsion of a civilian population and taking the vacant land is a crime against humanity. This would include your Jordan Plan and any analogous plan to expel Jews. I see no reason why granting autonomy to the people of the West Bank and Gaza would automatically lead to driving all Jews in Israel back into the sea.

 

[Badran]

There is no reason to acknowledge them as a "nation" or to call the Israeli settlements "illegal". If you do, you better be prepared to explain why.

Not really. It is a nation, and Israeli settlements are illegal, whether you like it or not. If you want to challenge that however, you are the one required to show why are people supposed to refuse to acknowledge the obvious and accept what you're saying.

just like how the 4.3 million Arabs want to relocate (and in their case, relocate includes "to the sea") the Jews

Got any source to back up this ridiculous claim? That 4.3 million Arabs want to relocate the Jews, and that relocate includes "to the sea"?

If the Arabs want to remove the Jews, the Jews would be fools to not have the same policy.

Well, aside from the fact that you're starting off from a false premise (since "Arabs" in general do not want to "remove" the Jews), is this how you decide whether your policies are good or not? Depending on what your enemies decide is good or not?

Trust me, they'd have FAR better lives in Jordan.

So are you saying you're okay with the idea of relocating people in general (which includes relocating Jews), but that you just think its best the Arabs are the ones to be relocated in this case for certain reasons?

Or do you think its wrong, but are still defending relocation of Arabs only for some disturbing reason?

 

[Shermana]

Not really. It is a nation, and Israeli settlements are illegal, whether you like it or not. If you want to challenge that however, you are the one required to show why are people supposed to refuse to acknowledge the obvious and accept what you're saying.

How is it a nation then? What defines a nation? Why is Jordan not their nation? Why are the settlements "illegal"? Why must we apply UN terminology? The term "Palestinian" was not even used until 1963. Before that they were "Southern Syrian Arabs". Why such a long wait before an actual national title was used?

Got any source to back up this ridiculous claim? That 4.3 million Arabs want to relocate the Jews, and that relocate includes "to the sea"?

The War of Independence (1948)

[FONT=Times New Roman,Georgia,Times][SIZE=+1] In 1948, after the UN voted to give Israel statehood, Jordan and 6 other Arab countries invaded the reborn Jewish homeland, despite the fact that those Arab states were not directly affected by Israel's rebirth. The stated purpose of this invasion was to "push the Jews into the sea", i.e. genocide. What Hitler didn't finish three years earlier, the Arabs would finish once and for all. This is not mere speculation; the Arabs of the former British Mandate of Palestine were led by a Nazi collaborator, Hajj Amin al-Husseini, who was up for charges at Nuremberg before escaping in 1946. Entire books have been written on how al-Husseini actively supported Hitler's aim to exterminate the Jews in WWII.[/SIZE][/FONT]

You'll have to explain why things have changed since, especially with that whole picture of Israel on Fatah's logo and their national charter.

Well, aside from the fact that you're starting off from a false premise (since "Arabs" in general do not want to "remove" the Jews), is this how you decide how your policies are good or not? Depending on what your enemies decide is good or not?

That's usually how most foreign policy is dictated, apparently it's different for Israel that they're not supposed to make decisions based on their enemies plans? I would like to see numbers on how many "Palestinian" Arabs support Israel's continued existence.

So are you saying you're okay with the idea of relocating people in general (which includes relocating Jews), but that you just think its best the Arabs are the ones to be relocated in this case for certain reasons?

Yes.

Or do you think its wrong, but are still defending relocation of Arabs only for some disturbing reason?

The "Disturbing" reason would be to give them a far better (and more peaceful) life in Jordan for one thing and for there to be a real peace with Israel. Besides the fact it was the original plan to give them JOrdan as "Arab Palestine". No need for initial agreements or anything, because all it comes down to anyway is who has the guns and tanks and wins the battles. If you think they wouldn't be better off in Jordan, you'll have to explain why. Otherwise, do you defend the Arab plan to remove the "Illegal" settlements? Why are the Israeli settlements illegal but not the Arab towns? Explain. Were they illegal when Jordan occupied? When did the Israeli settlements become illegal? Illegal to JOrdan?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Shermana,

I don't mean to dismiss your claims about Fatah but frankly I am skeptical of your source, Israel National News. My only familiarity with this source is that it has said some quite inflammatory things, which always cast Palestinians in a bad light, which I could only find coming from the Right, and I could not confirm by checking the Jerusalem Post or Ha'aretz, etc. If you have more convincing sources please use them.

I don't dispute the Separation Wall has reduced terrorism. I don't see why this is an argument in favor of your proposed campaign of ethnic cleansing.

 

[Shermana]

IF you have a problem with a source, you should address the actual claims. Copernicus had the same problem a few pages back with the "Canaanite language group" issue. Can you show me something you consider a more objective source? (Al-Jazeera I'm guessing).

The Separation Wall proves what Israel has to do to get "real peace on the ground". If Fatah would have actually cracked down on their violent extremists, maybe that wall wouldn't have been deemed necessary, ya think?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

The Separation Wall proves what Israel has to do to get "real peace on the ground".

Right: mass expulsion and ethnic cleansing. That is what Israel has to do to get real peace, in your view. Understood. You appear to have learned a unique lesson from your people's history.
Map of Jewish expulsions and resettlement areas in Europe, 1100 -- 1500 C.E.

I rest my case on Shermana's generous plans to give the gift of a fresh start to 5.4 million men, women and children. Would anyone else like to weigh in?