Carter and Hamas

Options
1…6791112…14

Comments

  • Posts: 4,984
    reborncareerist wrote:
    A couple more points:

    1) UN resolutions against Israel are typically a big joke. Many of them are harassing gestures from Arab nations, and many of them are not taken seriously for a reason.

    2) One can post a giant list of ceasefires broken by Israel. And here's a giant list of ceasefires broken by Palestinians. This piece lays it out:
    http://www.isranet.org/isranetbriefings/Permanent-2003/Permanent-July-2003.htm

    I don't know .... Making these big lists is about as helpful as whipping out our cocks and seeing who measures up, when in reality both sides are pretty guilty of this particular crime.

    Seems Israel has the bigger list.
  • Posts: 4,901
    Commy wrote:
    Thank you.

    For what? A big ol' list of "see, of course I'm right"? You guys will win any battle of Google searches, I assure you. I don't think large amounts of links have done anything to undermine my logic here, though. People aren't touching my arguments, they are just posting a bunch of links.
  • Posts: 4,901
    Commy wrote:
    Seems Israel has the bigger list.

    Nah, that article refers to at least 16 ceasefires broken by the Palestinians ... I'm am sure one could find more, if one tried hard enough. At the end of the day, though, what does that prove?
  • Posts: 4,984
    reborncareerist wrote:
    For what? A big ol' list of "see, of course I'm right"? You guys will win any battle of Google searches, I assure you. I don't think large amounts of links have done anything to undermine my logic here, though. People aren't touching my arguments, they are just posting a bunch of links.
    Whatever your bias, facts tend to be to the point.
  • Posts: 4,984
    reborncareerist wrote:
    Nah, that article refers to at least 16 ceasefires broken by the Palestinians ... I'm am sure one could find more, if one tried hard enough. At the end of the day, though, what does that prove?
    true. But it does all point to Israel being the aggressor. Which holds meaning.
  • Posts: 4,901
    Commy wrote:
    Whatever your bias, facts tend to be to the point.

    Not sure what your point is ...
  • Posts: 4,984
    reborncareerist wrote:
    Not sure what your point is ...
    eh, you were railing about lists and how they hold no meaning, I was just stating that they tend to hold some truth.
  • Posts: 4,901
    Commy wrote:
    eh, you were railing about lists and how they hold no meaning, I was just stating that they tend to hold some truth.

    Indeed ... Its just that in this case, one could claim that the Palestinians are the whole problem and find lists to support that (equally wrong) argument, too.
  • Posts: 4,984
    reborncareerist wrote:
    Indeed ... Its just that in this case, one could claim that the Palestinians are the whole problem and find lists to support that (equally wrong) argument, too.
    very true.


    Think we can agree that violence is not the answer, for either side.
  • Posts: 4,901
    Commy wrote:
    very true.


    Think we can agree that violence is not the answer, for either side.

    100% ... I used to be a lot more Israel-centric in my thinking about this issue, given my revulsion for Islamic fundamentalism. I recognize now that the issue was never as simple as "Palestine = terrorism = bad", but my overall stance is still that Israel has at least one valid point in all this, namely that deliberate attacks on civilians are not a viable political solution to the issue. Where Israel went horribly wrong is in its use of the whole "we must protect ourselves" rationale for expanding the country's borders, into territories that are not theirs. The Palestinians need a state? Let them have a state ... Return to pre-1967 borders, and let the Palestinians do their thing. The second thing they did (and do) horribly wrong was the bombing of Lebanon. A bit of a different issue, but another example of excessive use of military force when its not helpful and outright immoral. I can see Byrnzie's point re. collateral damage .. After a certain point, the two concepts (collateral damage and terrorism) do blur together. I don't agree with that writer's crackpot conclusion (see that link Byrnzie posted) that because Israel's actions are wrong, Palestinian terrorism is justified. That's a weak argument, and I'd question that writer's own moral upbringing, quite frankly. Two wrongs make a right if you're the Allies crushing Germany with the treaty of Versailles, post-WWI (thus setting the stage for WW-II, basically), or if you're George Bush arguing that the best defense is a good offense (into countries that have nothing to do with Bin Laden) ... Or if you are a Palestine apologist who is as black-and-white in his thinking as those ultra-Orthodox rabbis are ...
  • Posts: 4,984
    reborncareerist wrote:
    100% ... I used to be a lot more Israel-centric in my thinking about this issue, given my revulsion for Islamic fundamentalism. I recognize now that the issue was never as simple as "Palestine = terrorism = bad", but my overall stance is still that Israel has at least one valid point in all this, namely that deliberate attacks on civilians are not a viable political solution to the issue. Where Israel went horribly wrong is in its use of the whole "we must protect ourselves" rationale for expanding the country's borders, into territories that are not theirs. The Palestinians need a state? Let them have a state ... Return to pre-1967 borders, and let the Palestinians do their thing. The second thing they did (and do) horribly wrong was the bombing of Lebanon. A bit of a different issue, but another example of excessive use of military force when its not helpful and outright immoral. I can see Byrnzie's point re. collateral damage .. After a certain point, the two concepts (collateral damage and terrorism) do blur together. I don't agree with that writer's crackpot conclusion (see that link Byrnzie posted) that because Israel's actions are wrong, Palestinian terrorism is justified. That's a weak argument, and I'd question that writer's own moral upbringing, quite frankly. Two wrongs make a right if you're the Allies crushing Germany with the treaty of Versailles, post-WWI (thus setting the stage for WW-II, basically), or if you're George Bush arguing that the best defense is a good offense (into countries that have nothing to do with Bin Laden) ... Or if you are a Palestine apologist who is as black-and-white in his thinking as those ultra-Orthodox rabbis are ...

    Very well said, very apt.

    Great post.
  • Posts: 21,037
    reborncareerist wrote:
    A couple more points:

    1) UN resolutions against Israel are typically a big joke. Many of them are harassing gestures from Arab nations, and many of them are not taken seriously for a reason.

    Again, what you're saying has no relation to the facts.
    http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/UN/usvetoes.html
    Take a look at the section on the right side of the page under 'vote'. I think you'll see an interesting pattern regarding the U.S.

    reborncareerist wrote:
    2) One can post a giant list of ceasefires broken by Israel. And here's a giant list of ceasefires broken by Palestinians. This piece lays it out:
    http://www.isranet.org/isranetbriefings/Permanent-2003/Permanent-July-2003.htm

    I don't know .... Making these big lists is about as helpful as whipping out our cocks and seeing who measures up, when in reality both sides are pretty guilty of this particular crime.

    As for the link you provided, I can't see any list of ceasefires broken by Palestinians, just a load of lies and racism, such as the following:

    'We are all familiar with the 1993 Oslo peace process. In the seven years of that activity, Israel delivered to the Arabs everything that it promised, but the Arabs did not keep a single one of the commitments they had made. Terrorism continued, and the incitement to violence and hatred continued in the Palestinian schools, mosques, media, and political rhetoric.

    In 2000, under the pressure and influence of President Bill Clinton, and in a desperate attempt to achieve a final peace under the Oslo umbrella, the Camp David Summit was held, where Israel's Labor Prime Minister Barak made an egregious offer, giving the Palestinians almost everything they outrageously demanded. But even that wasn't good enough for Arafat, who rejected it and returned to Ramallah to plot, organize and launch the current uprising'.
    This was the forerunner to the road map, which was formally tabled by the Quartet three months ago, on April 30. The Palestinian authority, created under the Oslo agreements, said it would accept the road map. Israel, determined not to reward terrorism, tabled 14 reservations, and after being promised by President Bush that the reservations would be given serious and sympathetic consideration as the process moved along, agreed to follow the map.


    The road map is flawed further by its reference [to] UN Resolution 242 [which] provides that Israel withdraw from territories occupied by it in the 1967 war, consistent with peace and militarily defensible and secure borders. It does not say "all the territories", or even "the territories". It just says "territories". [Israel] gave back all of the Sinai to Egypt, and that constituted 92% of "all the territories." One can argue that that is quite enough…

    “It’s liberation [from Palestinian violence] that we are determined to secure, not merely a paper-thin cease fire. Murderers who take 90-day vacations are still murderers. Israel’s fight is our fight. And so shall it be until the last terrorist on Earth is in a cell or a cemetery.’’—U.S. House Majority Leader Tom Delay, currently in Israel, calling on Palestinians to disarm their terror organizations. (Fox News, July 30)

    And the lying hypocrite shoots himself in the foot with the following reference to the road map:

    'The road map is divided into three phases, the second being contingent on the first being complete, and the third being contingent on the second being complete… Phase One [consists of the following steps]:

    1. President Bush's speech of June 24/02 was adopted as the cornerstone philosophy.

    2. The Palestinians are to immediately implement an unconditional cessation of violence.

    3. The Palestinians are to immediately end the incitement to hatred and the celebration of homicide bombers.

    4. The Palestinians will draft a new constitution providing for free, fair and democratic elections and government.

    5.Israel is to take steps to normalize Palestinian life.

    6. Israel will withdraw from Palestinian areas occupied after September 28, 2000 as and when security is provided by Palestinians.

    7. Israel issues an unequivocal statement affirming its commitment to a two-state vision for Palestine.

    8. The Palestinians declare an unequivocal end to violence and terrorism and undertake visible efforts on the ground to arrest, disrupt and restrain individuals and groups conducting and planning violent attacks on Israelis [including] confiscation of illegal weapons and the consolidation of security authority…

    9. The Arab states are to cut off public and private funding and all other forms of support for groups supporting and engaging in violence and terror. And, all donations to the Palestinian authority be properly accounted for and used for proper purposes.

    10. Israel will dismantle unauthorized settlements and freeze all settlement activity.

    11. Israel agrees to take measures to improve the humanitarian situation, lifting curfews, removing check-points and easing restrictions on movement.

    With hindsight we know that Israel continued to attack the Palestinians and continued it's illegal settlement building activities.
  • Posts: 4,984
    Byrnzie wrote:
    As for the link you provided, I can't see any list of ceasefires broken by Palestinians, just a load of lies and racism, such as the following:

    'We are all familiar with the 1993 Oslo peace process. In the seven years of that activity, Israel delivered to the Arabs everything that it promised, but the Arabs did not keep a single one of the commitments they had made. Terrorism continued, and the incitement to violence and hatred continued in the Palestinian schools, mosques, media, and political rhetoric.

    In 2000, under the pressure and influence of President Bill Clinton, and in a desperate attempt to achieve a final peace under the Oslo umbrella, the Camp David Summit was held, where Israel's Labor Prime Minister Barak made an egregious offer, giving the Palestinians almost everything they outrageously demanded. But even that wasn't good enough for Arafat, who rejected it and returned to Ramallah to plot, organize and launch the current uprising'.
    Show me a map of the Oslo 'peace' accords. Why anyone would accept that is hard to believe.
  • Posts: 21,037
    reborncareerist wrote:
    but my overall stance is still that Israel has at least one valid point in all this, namely that deliberate attacks on civilians are not a viable political solution to the issue.

    So then how do you account for the thousands of Palestinian civilians murdered by Israel?
  • Posts: 21,037
    Commy wrote:
    Show me a map of the Oslo 'peace' accords. Why anyone would accept that is hard to believe.

    http://parc.virtualactivism.net/resources/biblio/oslo1995.gif
  • Posts: 21,037
    reborncareerist wrote:
    100% ... I used to be a lot more Israel-centric in my thinking about this issue, given my revulsion for Islamic fundamentalism. I recognize now that the issue was never as simple as "Palestine = terrorism = bad", but my overall stance is still that Israel has at least one valid point in all this, namely that deliberate attacks on civilians are not a viable political solution to the issue. Where Israel went horribly wrong is in its use of the whole "we must protect ourselves" rationale for expanding the country's borders, into territories that are not theirs. The Palestinians need a state? Let them have a state ... Return to pre-1967 borders, and let the Palestinians do their thing. The second thing they did (and do) horribly wrong was the bombing of Lebanon. A bit of a different issue, but another example of excessive use of military force when its not helpful and outright immoral. I can see Byrnzie's point re. collateral damage .. After a certain point, the two concepts (collateral damage and terrorism) do blur together. I don't agree with that writer's crackpot conclusion (see that link Byrnzie posted) that because Israel's actions are wrong, Palestinian terrorism is justified. That's a weak argument, and I'd question that writer's own moral upbringing, quite frankly. Two wrongs make a right if you're the Allies crushing Germany with the treaty of Versailles, post-WWI (thus setting the stage for WW-II, basically), or if you're George Bush arguing that the best defense is a good offense (into countries that have nothing to do with Bin Laden) ... Or if you are a Palestine apologist who is as black-and-white in his thinking as those ultra-Orthodox rabbis are ...

    Your whole post simply boils down to the distinction you choose to make between 'Israel's actions' and 'Palestinian terrorism'.
    Here's something for you to consider...'Israel's actions' are terrorism.
  • Posts: 21,037
    reborncareerist wrote:
    Indeed ... Its just that in this case, one could claim that the Palestinians are the whole problem and find lists to support that (equally wrong) argument, too.

    I would love you to provide lists, or anything else for that matter, that support the claim that 'the Palestinians are the whole problem'.
  • Posts: 720
    Byrnzie wrote:
    Your whole post simply boils down to the distinction you choose to make between 'Israel's actions' and 'Palestinian terrorism'.
    Here's something for you to consider...'Israel's actions' are terrorism.

    The irony of course is that the state of Israel came about through the terrorist activities of Zionist activists against the British in Palestine, as it was called at the time. They were also fighting for their own land and state.
  • Posts: 2,261
    Byrnzie wrote:
    Your whole post simply boils down to the distinction you choose to make between 'Israel's actions' and 'Palestinian terrorism'.
    Here's something for you to consider...'Israel's actions' are terrorism.

    sounds to me like he already agreed with you in his post, as he referred to your notion of counter-offensive blurring with terrorism (ie suggesting that Israels use of violence is no less terrorism than Palestines.

    Being Irish ive always found the Palestinian border issue fascinating and infuriating.

    The point re Pre-67 is very good imo
  • Posts: 4,901
    JordyWordy wrote:
    sounds to me like he already agreed with you in his post, as he referred to your notion of counter-offensive blurring with terrorism (ie suggesting that Israels use of violence is no less terrorism than Palestines.

    Being Irish ive always found the Palestinian border issue fascinating and infuriating.

    The point re Pre-67 is very good imo

    This dude and Commy are actually reading my posts, Byrnzie. Are you taking notes?

Welcome!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.
Sign In
Register

Quick Links

Categories