Rachel Corrie

yosi

Slippery lawyer's tactics? You can't answer the question, or you can't find an answer that preserves your original argument, so you just dismiss the question entirely as some sort of fancy argumentative trick? Come on! Instead of a long response I will simply say again that you should go back and read Mr. Halbertal's article in full. I found it to be a very nuanced take on how we should approach what happened in Gaza, and lest anyone claim that he excuses all of Israel's actions you will find that he addresses many of the most serious individual cases towards the end of the piece.

yosi

Byrnzie wrote:

yosi wrote:

So your suggestion is that Israel ignore entirely all the security risks associated with simply pulling out of the West Bank, should go through the extremely painful process of uprooting 250,000 people from their homes, should ignore all of its security interests with regard to adjusting the '67 armistice line in final border agreements, all of this with absolutely no guarantee that they will get peace and security in return, and in fact if recent history should serve as precedent a virtual guarantee that they won't get peace and security?

I'm sorry but no state in the real world acts in this way, nor should they be expected to. I would like to see the occupation end, but not in a manner that endangers Israeli lives.

Ending the occupation has nothing to do with security. As I pointed out above, If Israel wanted security then it could have it tomorrow. It could simply withdraw to the 1948 or 1949 Armistice line and then fortify it. Are you suggesting that settlements are built in order to offset the risk of terrorist attacks? You're trying to turn reality on it's head again and are simply making excuses to continue business as usual.

And as for going through the extremely painful process of uprooting 250,000 people from their homes, those people should never have moved into those homes in the first place. They knew full well they were moving onto land stolen from the Palestinians, into settlements that are deemed illegal under international law. So fuck those people.


Michael Neumann
'It is sometimes alleged that complete withdrawal from the occupied territories is "impracticable" because the facts on the ground are too deeply entrenched: Israeli settlements are just too extensive and important to uproot. One can hardly take this seriously. If it was "practicable" for hundreds of thousands of stateless Palestinians to leave their homes, why is this impracticable for half as many Israeli citizens in far more comfortable and peaceful circumstances? Throughout modern history, from the waves of U.S immigration to the peaceful post-World War II population transfers, there have been far greater shifts than this movement of a few miles. In many cases, if the settlers prefer, they can simply return to their homes in the United States. "It's impraticable" seems here a stand-in for "Aw, gee, these towns are too nice to let the Arabs have them".
The significance of the withdrawal alternative is not that it represents a just solution. Arguably, justice would require much more than that - not only the abolition of Jewish sovereignty in Israel, but a full right of return, with compensation, for the Palestinians, and the eviction of Jewish inhabitants occupying Palestinian property. But the existence of the withdrawal alternative effectively completes the case against Israel. It's willful and pointless rejection of that alternative places Israel decisively in the wrong. In the first place, Israel has a right of self defence, but it does not apply in the Occupied Territories. If the U.S invaded Jamaica and dotted it with settlements, neither the settlers nor the armed forces could invoke any right to defend themselves against the Jamaicans, any more than a robber who invaded your house. So it is with the Israeli's in the Occupied Territories. Their right of self-defense is their right to the least violent defensive alternative. Since withdrawal (perhaps followed by fortifying their own 1948 border) is by far their best and least violent defense, that is all they have a right to do.'

You claim that Israel could get security by simply withdrawing from the occupied territories tomorrow. What you are advocating is unilateral withdrawal. Israel has done this twice before, from Southern Lebanon, and from Gaza. In both cases the power vacuum was filled by fundamentalist terrorist organizations, Hezbollah and Hamas, both of which used the territory they controlled as bases from which to launch attacks on Israel. So I fail to see why Israel should believe that anything different would happen should they try again, and I would argue that to do so without any significant changes in the circumstances first would be an abandonment of the state's primary responsibility for the safety of its citizens.

Byrnzie

yosi wrote:

You claim that Israel could get security by simply withdrawing from the occupied territories tomorrow. What you are advocating is unilateral withdrawal. Israel has done this twice before, from Southern Lebanon, and from Gaza.

Not quite true this though is it?

You didn't withdraw completely from Southern Lebanon, hence the skirmishes that eventually led to Israel's bombing of Lebanon in 2006 when it courageously killed over 1000 Lebanese civilians.

http://www.shebaafarms.org/briefhistory.html
'On May 24, 2000, Israel withdrew its troops from a large territory in southern Lebanon, which it had been occupying since 1978. A significant issue relating to the withdrawal remains unsettled. This relates to the status of certain villages and adjacent land on the eastern side of Alsheikh Mountain, known as the “Shebaa Farms”, which have been occupied by Israel since 1967. The Government advised the United Nations that it considers the area to be Lebanese territory and that, as such, the withdrawal must encompass it.'

On January 22, 2001, the Secretary General of the United Nations submitted to the United Nations Security Council a report covering the period from the withdrawal by Israeli forces from southern Lebanon (excluding the “Shebaa Farms”) on July 18, 2000 to January 18, 2001 which described the situation in southern Lebanon as generally stable, with the exception of certain breaches of the line of withdrawal (the so called “Blue Line”). The breaches consist of Israeli attacks on Lebanese territory and attacks on Israeli occupation military targets in the “Shebaa Farms” area.

And as for your supposed magnanimous withdrawal from Gaza:

Norman Finkelstein:
'In a study entitled 'One Big Prison', the respected Israeli human rights organization B'Tselem observed that the crippling economic arrangements Israel had imposed on Gaza would remain in place. In addition, Israel would continue to maintain absolute control over Gaza's land borders, coastline, and airspace, and the Israeli army would continue to operate in Gaza. "So long as these methods of control remain in Israeli hands," B'Tselem concluded, "Israel's claim of 'an end of the Occupation' is questionable". HRW (Human Rights Watch) was even more emphatic that evacuating settlers and troops from inside Gaza would not end the occupation: "Whether the Israeli army is inside Gaza or redeployed around it's periphery, and restricting entrance and exit, it remains in control."


http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/D ... y/4222.htm

Key Sharon advisor: "disengagement" aims to stop Palestinian state
By Israel Insider staff and partners October 6, 2004

In a stunning admission, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's senior adviser said that the purpose of the Israeli government's policy was to supend diplomatic moves to establish a Palestinian state. "The significance of the 'disengagement' plan is the freezing of the peace process," Dov Weissglas told Haaretz.

Weissglas, an initiator of the plan, explained that the deep freeze would prevent implementation of the "Road Map" backed by the Quartet of the United States, Russia, EU and UN: "when you freeze that process, you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, and you prevent a discussion on the refugees, the borders and Jerusalem. Effectively, this whole package called the Palestinian state, with all that it entails, has been removed indefinitely from our agenda. And all this with authority and permission. All with a presidential blessing and the ratification of both houses of Congress."

"The disengagement is actually formaldehyde," he said. "It supplies the amount of formaldehyde that is necessary so there will not be a political process with the Palestinians."...

Weisglass trumpets that the main achievement of the Gaza plan was the freezing of the peace process in a "legitimate manner."

"That is exactly what happened," he said. "You know, the term 'peace process' is a bundle of concepts and commitments. The peace process is the establishment of a Palestinian state with all the security risks that entails. The peace process is the evacuation of settlements, it's the return of refugees, it's the partition of Jerusalem. And all that has now been frozen.... [W]hat I effectively agreed to with the Americans was that part of the settlements would not be dealt with at all, and the rest will not be dealt with until the Palestinians turn into Finns. That is the significance of what we did."

Sharon, he said, could also argue "honestly" that the disengagement plan was "a serious move because of which, out of 240,000 settlers, 190,000 will not be moved from their place."

redrock

"]

yosi wrote:

So your suggestion is that Israel........ should go through the extremely painful process of uprooting 250,000 people from their homes.

Didn't seem a problem for Israel when they made hundreds of thousands of Palestinians refugees. Didn't seem to bother Israel that these people went through ' the extremely painful process' of being uprooted from their homes. So why is Israel thinking it would be a problem removing their people from ILLEGAL settlements? They knew what they were doing when they displaced the palestinians, bulldozed their homes to build brand new ones, etc. At least the illegal settlers still have the rest of Israel to go to and I'm sure the Israeli government would ensure they are well looked after, wouldn't it? Not so much luck for the palestinians that were made to flee.

yosi

redrock wrote:

"]

yosi wrote:

So your suggestion is that Israel........ should go through the extremely painful process of uprooting 250,000 people from their homes.

Didn't seem a problem for Israel when they made hundreds of thousands of Palestinians refugees. Didn't seem to bother Israel that these people went through ' the extremely painful process' of being uprooted from their homes. So why is Israel thinking it would be a problem removing their people from ILLEGAL settlements? They knew what they were doing when they displaced the palestinians, bulldozed their homes to build brand new ones, etc. At least the illegal settlers still have the rest of Israel to go to and I'm sure the Israeli government would ensure they are well looked after, wouldn't it? Not so much luck for the palestinians that were made to flee.

Not saying they shouldn't eventually do this. I think they should as part of a final peace deal. But that doesn't make it any less of a painful process.

yosi

Byrnzie wrote:

yosi wrote:

You claim that Israel could get security by simply withdrawing from the occupied territories tomorrow. What you are advocating is unilateral withdrawal. Israel has done this twice before, from Southern Lebanon, and from Gaza.

Not quite true this though is it?

You didn't withdraw completely from Southern Lebanon, hence the skirmishes that eventually led to Israel's bombing of Lebanon in 2006 when it courageously killed over 1000 Lebanese civilians.

http://www.shebaafarms.org/briefhistory.html
'On May 24, 2000, Israel withdrew its troops from a large territory in southern Lebanon, which it had been occupying since 1978. A significant issue relating to the withdrawal remains unsettled. This relates to the status of certain villages and adjacent land on the eastern side of Alsheikh Mountain, known as the “Shebaa Farms”, which have been occupied by Israel since 1967. The Government advised the United Nations that it considers the area to be Lebanese territory and that, as such, the withdrawal must encompass it.'

On January 22, 2001, the Secretary General of the United Nations submitted to the United Nations Security Council a report covering the period from the withdrawal by Israeli forces from southern Lebanon (excluding the “Shebaa Farms”) on July 18, 2000 to January 18, 2001 which described the situation in southern Lebanon as generally stable, with the exception of certain breaches of the line of withdrawal (the so called “Blue Line”). The breaches consist of Israeli attacks on Lebanese territory and attacks on Israeli occupation military targets in the “Shebaa Farms” area.

And as for your supposed magnanimous withdrawal from Gaza:

Norman Finkelstein:
'In a study entitled 'One Big Prison', the respected Israeli human rights organization B'Tselem observed that the crippling economic arrangements Israel had imposed on Gaza would remain in place. In addition, Israel would continue to maintain absolute control over Gaza's land borders, coastline, and airspace, and the Israeli army would continue to operate in Gaza. "So long as these methods of control remain in Israeli hands," B'Tselem concluded, "Israel's claim of 'an end of the Occupation' is questionable". HRW (Human Rights Watch) was even more emphatic that evacuating settlers and troops from inside Gaza would not end the occupation: "Whether the Israeli army is inside Gaza or redeployed around it's periphery, and restricting entrance and exit, it remains in control."


http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/D ... y/4222.htm

Key Sharon advisor: "disengagement" aims to stop Palestinian state
By Israel Insider staff and partners October 6, 2004

In a stunning admission, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's senior adviser said that the purpose of the Israeli government's policy was to supend diplomatic moves to establish a Palestinian state. "The significance of the 'disengagement' plan is the freezing of the peace process," Dov Weissglas told Haaretz.

Weissglas, an initiator of the plan, explained that the deep freeze would prevent implementation of the "Road Map" backed by the Quartet of the United States, Russia, EU and UN: "when you freeze that process, you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, and you prevent a discussion on the refugees, the borders and Jerusalem. Effectively, this whole package called the Palestinian state, with all that it entails, has been removed indefinitely from our agenda. And all this with authority and permission. All with a presidential blessing and the ratification of both houses of Congress."

"The disengagement is actually formaldehyde," he said. "It supplies the amount of formaldehyde that is necessary so there will not be a political process with the Palestinians."...

Weisglass trumpets that the main achievement of the Gaza plan was the freezing of the peace process in a "legitimate manner."

"That is exactly what happened," he said. "You know, the term 'peace process' is a bundle of concepts and commitments. The peace process is the establishment of a Palestinian state with all the security risks that entails. The peace process is the evacuation of settlements, it's the return of refugees, it's the partition of Jerusalem. And all that has now been frozen.... [W]hat I effectively agreed to with the Americans was that part of the settlements would not be dealt with at all, and the rest will not be dealt with until the Palestinians turn into Finns. That is the significance of what we did."

Sharon, he said, could also argue "honestly" that the disengagement plan was "a serious move because of which, out of 240,000 settlers, 190,000 will not be moved from their place."

I disagree, but feel free to believe whatever apologetics you like. If your goal is to get Israel to withdraw from someplace, and they do it, and you'd like to see them do it again someplace else, it just seems like a good idea not to start, you know, shooting rockets at them, because I don't know, THEY MIGHT GET THE CRAZY IDEA THAT THAT IS WHAT THEY COULD EXPECT WHEN THEY TRY TO PULL OUT A SECOND TIME! And guess what, that is exactly what happened. So you'll have to understand that Israel is somewhat skeptical to try it a third time.

Byrnzie

yosi wrote:

I disagree, but feel free to believe whatever apologetics you like. If your goal is to get Israel to withdraw from someplace, and they do it, and you'd like to see them do it again someplace else, it just seems like a good idea not to start, you know, shooting rockets at them, because I don't know, THEY MIGHT GET THE CRAZY IDEA THAT THAT IS WHAT THEY COULD EXPECT WHEN THEY TRY TO PULL OUT A SECOND TIME! And guess what, that is exactly what happened. So you'll have to understand that Israel is somewhat skeptical to try it a third time.

You disagree? You disagree with what?

You pretend that Israel continues the occupation and continues building settlements because if they stop and abide by international law by withdrawing to the '67 border the Palestinians might shoot rockets at them.

This is clearly bullshit.

But let me ask you a question: What difference does it make if rockets are fired by the Palestinians whilst you are engaged in an illegal occupation, or if rockets are fired by the Palestinians whilst you abide by international law and remain on the land that is legally yours and which is recognized as legitimate by the whole world - excluding the U.S?

Israel's decision to continue the occupation and to continue building more and more illegal Jewish-only settlements has absolutely nothing to do with Palestinian rocket fire or with security concerns. You're simply making excuses, and everyone reading this message board can see that.

yosi

Byrnzie wrote:

yosi wrote:

I disagree, but feel free to believe whatever apologetics you like. If your goal is to get Israel to withdraw from someplace, and they do it, and you'd like to see them do it again someplace else, it just seems like a good idea not to start, you know, shooting rockets at them, because I don't know, THEY MIGHT GET THE CRAZY IDEA THAT THAT IS WHAT THEY COULD EXPECT WHEN THEY TRY TO PULL OUT A SECOND TIME! And guess what, that is exactly what happened. So you'll have to understand that Israel is somewhat skeptical to try it a third time.

You disagree? You disagree with what?

You pretend that Israel continues the occupation and continues building settlements because if they stop and abide by international law by withdrawing to the '67 border the Palestinians might shoot rockets at them.

This is clearly bullshit.

But let me ask you a question: What difference does it make if rockets are fired by the Palestinians whilst you are engaged in an illegal occupation, or if rockets are fired by the Palestinians whilst you abide by international law and remain on the land that is legally yours and which is recognized as legitimate by the whole world - excluding the U.S?

Israel's decision to continue the occupation and to continue building more and more illegal Jewish-only settlements has absolutely nothing to do with Palestinian rocket fire or with security concerns. You're simply making excuses, and everyone reading this message board can see that.

Well, first off, everyone reading this message board cannot see that. Not going to throw any names out here in public cause I don't want to start any fights, but I've gotten more than a few PM's from people following our little disagreements who have told me not to even bother responding to you because you will always evade direct questions, get all of your information from a few very biased anti-Israel websites, and are always unable to think outside the narrow intellectual box you currently inhabit. These people don't respond to your posts because they know there isn't any point, but they certainly don't agree with you. I think it says something about your ego though, that you assume that the fact that a couple people agree with you on a board that is essentially an echo chamber for anti-Israel sentiments means that everyone agrees with you. I'm telling you right now that if you tried to peddle your fringe quotations in the real world in any context outside of a meeting of the far-left radicals that produce those quotes you would simply be laughed at.

I don't pretend that continuing to build settlements has to do with security. I think settlement construction should cease immediately. It continues largely because the settlers are a powerful enough political block in Israeli politics that absent any sort of credible peace initiative at this point no government is going to expend the political capital to entirely freeze construction. I do not agree with this situation, in fact I think it is horrendous, both because of its implications for an eventual peace process, and because I believe the settlers flaunt Israeli law, which the state should not allow.

What I HAVE said is that Israel will not and should not unilaterally end the occupation, because this would put them in harms way if recent experience is to serve as precedent. I would like to see the occupation end as soon as a negotiated settlement can be worked out that will provide a credible guarantee of Israel's security.

International law does not in fact demand that Israel pull back to the '67 borders, though the pro-Palestinian/anti-Israel block would clearly like to spin it that way. The international community, in supporting the Oslo peace process, has repeatedly and clearly given its support to Israel's right to seek to adjust the '67 line (which is an armistice line, not a settled border) in final border negotiations with the Palestinians, probably with Israel compensating the Palestinians for land they give up to Israel with Israeli land elsewhere adjacent to either the West Bank or Gaza.

Finally, the difference between rocket fire with the occupation and rocket fire without the occupation is that currently rockets are only being fired from Gaza, which is no longer occupied. Because the West Bank is still occupied, which in this instance means that the IDF controls the whole area, rockets are not being fired from the West Bank. The rockets from Gaza currently only pose a threat to relatively small communities close to Gaza, such as Sderot and Ashdod. Rockets from the West Bank would easily be able to hit the heart of Israels population and economic centers in and around Tel Aviv. So the difference is actually quite significant.

rebornFixer

yosi wrote:

These people don't respond to your posts because they know there isn't any point, but they certainly don't agree with you.

+1 ...
At one time there were more people around here who had different perspectives on Israel-Palestine and the debate was a lot richer for it. Unfortunately, many of these people gave up arguing. They are either smarter or less stubborn than me.

yosi

Yeah, the internet would seem to reward the most caustically authoritarian voices. If you scream loud enough and make debating you infuriating enough, reasonable people will simply stop wasting their time. That's what I did. I just walked away for a couple years until I found myself without a job and with nothing better to do. Anyways, once the reasonable people leave you get a nice, cozy little space where everyone will agree with you and no one will ever challenge your views. Which is probably why when someone wanders in with a different perspective you respond with such anger and venom, cause you simply can't abide a dissenting voice.

rebornFixer

Indeed. I think part of why I get sucked back in (from time to time, I am about ready to avoid these threads again) is my drive to disprove the erroneous view that "a reluctance to debate with me on here = my position is the right one". This is, in essence, a form of rigid thinking in which one's own sense of righteousness becomes so all-consuming that basic social phenomena ("I am sick of this debate because the other person has no respect for me or my position and its just getting painful") become construed as yet another source of evidence that one's ideological position is true in some universal sense ... A lot of the time, the reality is that it just gets tiring dealing with a few of the personalities on here. These personalities then go "See, they fall before the unrelenting power of TRUTH". Nope ... We fall before the unrelenting power of what comes across as poor social skills and extreme dogmatism.
Let the flaming ensue.

TriumphantAngel

rebornFixer wrote:

yosi wrote:

These people don't respond to your posts because they know there isn't any point, but they certainly don't agree with you.

+1 ...
At one time there were more people around here who had different perspectives on Israel-Palestine and the debate was a lot richer for it. Unfortunately, many of these people gave up arguing. They are either smarter or less stubborn than me.

how can anyone who is passionate or cares about the situation, no matter what side of the fence they sit on, remain silent? i know i can't.

private messages and the content of those are supposed to be private. it is completely disrespectful to use those in an argument. if people are too hesitant to voice their concerns about an issue in a thread, and would instead, prefer to resort to hiding behind private messages to pat you on your back, then so be it. personally i think they would be a lot better off supporting you in the thread and giving their own insight into the matter. maybe we can all learn something new.

What are they so afraid of? everyone knows Byrnzie is a great debator, but it's such a bullshit excuse that you 'gave up arguing' on the Palestine/Israel issue because there 'isn't any point". if you were passionate and cared enough about the conflict, you would never give up. and if you aren't passionate, then why would you even bother sending some random a PM. no one has to argue unless they want to. what would be so wrong with coming into a thread, voicing your opinion in a reasonable manner and then exiting? At the end of the day, who gives a shit what anyone else thinks?

hiding behind private messages, and using private messages to make a point on a message board when you know you can't disclose the content

=

L to tha AME

TriumphantAngel

anyway, back to Rachel..

"I feel like I'm witnessing the systematic destruction of a people's ability to survive. It's horrifying...It takes a while to get what's happening here. People here are trying to maintain their lives, trying to be happy. Sometimes I sit down to dinner with people and I realize there is a massive military machine surrounding us, trying to kill the people I'm having dinner with."
- Rachel Corrie

Byrnzie

yosi wrote:

I've gotten more than a few PM's from people following our little disagreements who have told me not to even bother responding to you because you will always evade direct questions, get all of your information from a few very biased anti-Israel websites, and are always unable to think outside the narrow intellectual box you currently inhabit.

Anti-Israel websites, such as the BBC, The Guardian, Haaretz, http://www.un.org/en/, e.t.c. Because anyone who criticizes Israels illegal occupation is anti-Israel, right?

yosi wrote:

I'm telling you right now that if you tried to peddle your fringe quotations in the real world in any context outside of a meeting of the far-left radicals that produce those quotes you would simply be laughed at.

And what 'fringe quotations' might these be? Care to focus on anything in particular? Perhaps you're referring to the quotation that draws attention to the fact that every year at the U.N 156 countries vote in favour of U.N resolution 242, and are opposed by just the U.S and Israel. Does that qualify as a fringe fact in your scheme of things?

yosi wrote:

What I HAVE said is that Israel will not and should not unilaterally end the occupation, because this would put them in harms way if recent experience is to serve as precedent.

And like I said above, this is pure bullshit. Placing scattered settlements in amongst the Palestinians whose land you've stolen means they're already in harms way. You're just making excuses.

yosi wrote:

International law does not in fact demand that Israel pull back to the '67 borders

Yes it does. Stop lying.

http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLU ... penElement

'Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war..'

'Withdrawal of armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict'

The armed conflict being the 1967 conflict. So where's the confusion? It's perfectly unambiguous.

yosi wrote:

The international community, in supporting the Oslo peace process, has repeatedly and clearly given its support to Israel's right to seek to adjust the '67 line (which is an armistice line, not a settled border) in final border negotiations with the Palestinians, probably with Israel compensating the Palestinians for land they give up to Israel with Israeli land elsewhere adjacent to either the West Bank or Gaza.

The Apartheid Bantustan, Swiss Cheese proposals at Oslo were rightfully rejected by the Palestinians as they did not provide grounds for a legitimate Palestinian state.

yosi wrote:

...Gaza, which is no longer occupied.

Sure, Gaza is a fucking holiday camp.

http://www.reliefweb.int/rwarchive/rwb. ... enDocument
'Israel maintains its Gaza siege in its full fury, allowing only barely enough food and fuel to enter to stave off mass famine and disease. Such a policy of collective punishment, initiated by Israel to punish Gazans for political developments within the Gaza strip, constitutes a continuing flagrant and massive violation of international humanitarian law as laid down in Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.'

Byrnzie

yosi wrote:

Yeah, the internet would seem to reward the most caustically authoritarian voices. If you scream loud enough and make debating you infuriating enough, reasonable people will simply stop wasting their time. That's what I did. I just walked away for a couple years until I found myself without a job and with nothing better to do. Anyways, once the reasonable people leave you get a nice, cozy little space where everyone will agree with you and no one will ever challenge your views. Which is probably why when someone wanders in with a different perspective you respond with such anger and venom, cause you simply can't abide a dissenting voice.

You did challenge my views, and now that you feel backed into a corner you've resorted to personally attacking me. I've blown every one of your arguments out of the water over the past two or three days which is why you're now resorting to this bullshit.

And at what point before today did I respond with anger and venom?

Your smugness really is something to behold.

badbrains

I said it before and I'll say it again, dnt fuck with Byrnzie. He knows his shit. And isn't it funny how when people have nothing else to say, thay attack you personally or they attack your grammar. Look there's two sides to every story. Everyone has there own opinions on them. Yosi I give u credit in defending your beliefs. I've even sent you two pm telling you that. It's just hard for any of us to believe your beliefs cuz speaking for
myself ONLY, your definition of Zionism is totaly different from what I believe them to be. Dnt hate me for it cuz I dnt hate you for your beliefs. In a perfect world all humans would be able to live free. Free from war, free from hate, just free. And until that day comes, just hold on to that hope that the day in coming. Dnt stop believeing, hoping and fighting for that day. God willing it'll come to all.

Byrnzie

rebornFixer wrote:

Indeed. I think part of why I get sucked back in (from time to time, I am about ready to avoid these threads again) is my drive to disprove the erroneous view that "a reluctance to debate with me on here = my position is the right one". This is, in essence, a form of rigid thinking in which one's own sense of righteousness becomes so all-consuming that basic social phenomena ("I am sick of this debate because the other person has no respect for me or my position and its just getting painful") become construed as yet another source of evidence that one's ideological position is true in some universal sense ... A lot of the time, the reality is that it just gets tiring dealing with a few of the personalities on here. These personalities then go "See, they fall before the unrelenting power of TRUTH". Nope ... We fall before the unrelenting power of what comes across as poor social skills and extreme dogmatism.
Let the flaming ensue.

This has nothing to do with any reluctance to debate with me on here. He was unable to respond to a particular post of mine and so he resorted to attacking my personality instead. You then decided to chime in and support him.


Though I can see how it may benefit some people here to reduce the debate to a lame discussion about 'personalities', 'positions' and 'righteousness'.

Not that you're fooling anyone.

rebornFixer wrote:

At one time there were more people around here who had different perspectives on Israel-Palestine and the debate was a lot richer for it. Unfortunately, many of these people gave up arguing. They are either smarter or less stubborn than me.

Such as? 'Jlew' & 'Last Exodus', aka 'The Face', AKA 'Brmlw', AKA 'Encinoman'?'

Byrnzie

yosi wrote:

you will always evade direct questions

Such as?

yosi wrote:

I'm telling you right now that if you tried to peddle your fringe quotations in the real world in any context outside of a meeting of the far-left radicals that produce those quotes you would simply be laughed at.

Care to provide an example of a 'fringe quotation'? Then when you've provided it, maybe you can enlighten us at to how what it says is false. Thanks. I'm waiting.

yosi

I don't feel backed into a corner. I just don't feel like there is much of a point in my continuing to respond to you. You clearly have no interest in a reasonable debate, and I say this not because you disagree with me, but because you consistently ignore most of what I have to say, and misrepresent the rest. You claim that you've blown my arguments out of the water, but in fact most of my arguments you have either ignored entirely or simply said that I am wrong without adducing anything as proof other than the opinion of others, which hardly constitute any sort of objective facts. I believe that the only one of your arguments I have not at one point addressed is the argument about ethnic nationalism, which I have declined to respond to because it is an entirely separate topic, and because I am getting very tired of screaming into the whirlwind.

Triumphant, the reason I can walk away from this thread is not because I don't care about the topics being discussed, but because I don't care about this thread. At the end of the day no one in the real world gives a shit about what is said here. This is just some small insignificant corner of the internet where a handful of very angry people preach to the choir about how terrible Israel is. I have no problem whatsoever walking away from that, and, like reborn, probably will very soon, if for no other reason than I'm tired of repeating myself in arguments with people too dogmatic in their thinking to even consider the validity of the points I make. I truely do care about these issues, and I fully intend to devote myself in some capacity, whether in my career or my free time, to addressing them productively IN THE REAL WORLD.

TriumphantAngel

yosi wrote:

Triumphant, the reason I can walk away from this thread is not because I don't care about the topics being discussed, but because I don't care about this thread. At the end of the day no one in the real world gives a shit about what is said here. This is just some small insignificant corner of the internet where a handful of very angry people preach to the choir about how terrible Israel is. I have no problem whatsoever walking away from that, and, like reborn, probably will very soon, if for no other reason than I'm tired of repeating myself in arguments with people too dogmatic in their thinking to even consider the validity of the points I make. I truely do care about these issues, and I fully intend to devote myself in some capacity, whether in my career or my free time, to addressing them productively IN THE REAL WORLD.

even if one person in the world gives a shit about what is said here, and perhaps sees things in a different light, then it is infinitely worth it yosi.

kudos to you if you are going to be more active in the real world as you so call it. some of us are already doing that.

And when enough people do enough things, however small they are, then change takes place.
-Howard Zinn