Metal detectors "encroach on Muslim rights" ??

[Augustus]

You are set on the premise that Israelis must be perceived as oppressors, facts be darned.

One final time seeing as you have missed the point from the get go.

[to be clear, this is an explanation not an endorsement]

OP: Muslims don't want to walk through a metal detector because sharia
Me: Palestinians don't accept that Israel has legitimate authority or ownership of the al-Aqsa Mosque as part of the long term Israeli-Palestinian conflict (an explanation from their perspective necessary to make the point. Not an endorsement of their actions, hence the stuff in large red letters)

If someone explained that the Treaty of Versailles was one of the factors that led to WW2, that wouldn't intrinsically make someone a supporter of Hitler now would it?

And that, I assume, resembles the situation in Israel to you.

Feel free to tell me why at some point.

Unless you are saying that the Palestinians, in general, do accept Israeli authority and ownership then of course it resembles the situation. I've made it clear on more than 1 occasion that this was the sole point of comparison: group A rejects the sovereignty of group B (note the complete lack of any value judgements or statements of right/wrong, purely descriptive of a factual reality.)

We can agree on this surely?

I don't doubt your ability to infer something completely incorrect about it though.

 

[LuisDantas]

One final time seeing as you have missed the point from the get go.

(...)
If someone explained that the Treaty of Versailles was one of the factors that led to WW2, that wouldn't intrinsically make someone a supporter of Hitler now would it?

Sorry, I just don't see a parallel.

I don't doubt your ability to infer something completely incorrect about it though.

I am sure you do not. We are both lucky that I don't care, I suppose.

Still, that is neither here nor there. The supposed parallel just does not make sense. Why exactly is it too much for the Palestinians to accept the need for basic safety measures?

And are we supposed to just neglect to mention the strong correlation between their rejection of Israel and their presumably-religious beliefs about their supposed rights to lands?

Take for instance Palestine was is and will remain a Muslim land forever

 

[Augustus]

Sorry, I just don't see a parallel.

Do you accept that there is a difference between a) explaining someone's actions [Terry murdered Bobby because his wife was having an affair with him.] b) Endorsing someone's actions [Terry was right to murder Bobby].

If you can see the difference, that is the parallel.

If you can't see the difference, I can't help you.

Still, that is neither here nor there. The supposed parallel just does not make sense. Why exactly is it too much for the Palestinians to accept the need for basic safety measures?

See above. Explaining someone's actions is not the same as endorsing someone's actions.

As I have clarified ad nauseam, at no point have I offered any statement on who is right or wrong, so your question is not relevant to anything I have said.

The only point I have made is that the problem concerns sovereignty not refusal to walk through metal detectors because sharia.

Take for instance Palestine was is and will remain a Muslim land forever

By quoting a Saudi Salafi site, you are confusing 2 distinct groups:

a) Palestinians who perceive that they are displaced people and the rightful owners of the land and are engaged in a nationalist struggle (to be clear: this is their perspective, not mine)
b) The international Muslim community who treat the issue like a spectator sport.

Group b certainly has had a role in perpetuating and antagonising the situation, but unless you are excessively blinkered, you will acknowledge that 'nationalist' disputes over sovereignty of physical territory by the people who live[d] there (i.e group a) are ubiquitous throughout human history and exists across all cultures.

 

[LuisDantas]

Do you accept that there is a difference between a) explaining someone's actions [Terry murdered Bobby because his wife was having an affair with him.] b) Endorsing someone's actions [Terry was right to murder Bobby].

If you can see the difference, that is the parallel.

If you can't see the difference, I can't help you.

Sure I see the difference. But again, that is not at all the issue here. Instead, I find myself wondering why you present a nonsensical complaint as if it made sense.

 

[Augustus]

Sure I see the difference.

Then why have you kept on posting as if I had offered an endorsement rather than an explanation?

But again, that is not at all the issue here.

I've no idea what you think the issue is tbh as your conversation seems to have very little to do with anything I've actually said.

Basically, I think the problem concerns a) disputed sovereignty; not b) refusal to walk through metal detectors because sharia.

You think something else that may or may not be on the same topic

Let's agree to not even disagree.

 

[LuisDantas]

Then why have you kept on posting as if I had offered an endorsement rather than an explanation?

You don't. I understood it the first time. As I just said, the issue lies elsewhere.

I've no idea what you think the issue is tbh as your conversation seems to have very little to do with anything I've actually said.

Basically, I think the problem concerns a) disputed sovereignty; not b) refusal to walk through metal detectors because sharia.

You think something else that may or may not be on the same topic

Let's agree to not even disagree.

 

[Augustus]

I understood it the first time.

Apparently not...

You are set on the premise that Israelis must be perceived as oppressors, facts be darned.

Why exactly is it too much for the Palestinians to accept the need for basic safety measures?

 

[Akivah]

It is certainly hard to see a sound rationale for the Muslim reaction to the metal detectors.

They are opposed to Israelis protecting themselves against terrorism.