|
|
| Re: Palestinian university students’ trip to Auschwitz causes uproar (1183435) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > OTChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: Palestinian university students’ trip to Auschwitz causes uproar |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Wed May 14 19:33:48 2014, in response to Re: Palestinian university students’ trip to Auschwitz causes uproar, posted by WMATAGMOAGH on Mon May 12 11:57:54 2014. If you truly believed Israel doesn't bear the onus for everything that has happened in the Middle East...No rational person would assume I did. (and your assertion that the events of 1967 and 1947 have no bearing on the situation today doesn't do much to help your arguments) Actually, that was your assertion. You made it up because shredding another straw man was easy and disproving my point was essentially impossible. ...you would write as I often do that "Israel and the Arabs both have a role to play in where we are today and both need to do their parts to achieve peace" or something to that effect. No. That's awkward and stilted and does not resemble the writings of any person I have ever met. Including you, by the way— I have yet to hear you say it. How often do you hear people say "America and Afghanistan both have a role to play in where we are today and both need to do their parts to achieve peace" or something to that effect? You state over and over that Israel is best equipped to fix the problems... Israel is best equipped to change Israel's immigration policy and Israel's approach to Palestine. If they aren't, then who else is? ...but neglect to mention that Hamas is a terror organization whose charter calls for Israel's destruction Actually, I'm pretty sure I mentioned Hamas and its terrorism on several occasions, if only because the nutters like yourself claimed that failing to denounce an evil, no matter how unrelated to the topic at hand, necessarily implies endorsement of that evil. As Mitch says, if Hamas lays down its weapons, there would be no war, but if Israel lays down its weapons, there would be no Israel. If Palestine lays down its weapons, there would be no Palestine. Israel has demonstrated that it is not interested in a free Palestinian state, nor is it interested in accepting Palestinians as equal citizens. Those are the two legitimate options. Encroaching on the West Bank and impoverishing Gaza and then pointing to the inevitable backlash to justify those intrusions is not a legitimate option. You've proposed idea after idea that would result in Israel's identity being changed significantly or its complete destruction. That's a sentence a homeopathic treatment marketer would be ashamed to have written. "You've proposed idea after idea that would result in Apple losing ground to Android or the complete destruction of the entire physical infrastructure of the internet." A meaningless change and a horrible but highly unlikely outcome sharing space in the same sentence, hoping that adjacency will combine them into a hybrid with the likelihood of the first and the drastic nature of the second. Yes, my proposed policies risk changing Israel from a nation in which a majority of the population believes a magic man told them not to eat pork and perform weird rituals to a nation in which a majority of the population believes a magic man told them not to eat pork and perform weird rituals that are slightly different. Which is totally the same thing as Israel being destroyed. Also, cut out the strawman bullshit, it is a nice way to hide behind your logical gaps, but just exposes them. If you stopped making arguments to debunk the crazy positions that no one actually believes but which you arbitrarily assume that I do, then I will stop pointing out that you are shredding straw men. For all of the logical gaps you allege I have, you have yet to actually mention one. Tell us what you believe and stop playing the word games. What I believe? Just for starters— 1. Israel should abandon its double standards. Admittance criteria should not be determined by religion. This policy is subject to modification in the event that there actually is massive persecution of Jews and no other country will take in the refugees. 2. Israel and Palestine should make a real effort to negotiate for peace. This requires that Israel not pretend that Palestine is launching entirely unprovoked attacks. It also requires that Israel not be physically taking over the territory as they debate the disposition of it. 3. If peace negotiations fail (and at this point they probably will, assuming they can even start), and an open war breaks out, then Israel has every right to invade Palestinian territories— if Hamas is a legitimate government, then they can be attacked and deposed as an enemy state, and if Hamas is a terrorist organisation, then the Palestinian territories are anarchic and can be claimed by Israel. However, 4. Once the war has ended, Israel's right to occupy the Palestinian territories is limited to the immediate aftermath of the war, after which they are obliged to either claim the territories and give equal citizenship to their inhabitants or withdraw from them entirely. (Building walls and maintaining blockades is not withdrawing.) If they choose the latter, they have an obligation to at least attempt to establish a stable government, and if they choose the former, they should potentially allow a vote for independence. 5. If the war ends with the continued existence of a Palestinian state, peace negotiations should resume to discuss the long term state of affairs, including how much territory must be ceded to the Palestinian state and economic relations between the two. 6. Although a long shot, a neutral third nation could attempt to mediate the Israeli/Palestinian dispute. Note that the United States is not a neutral third nation, nor is any country that officially declares itself a "(religion) State." |
|
|
|