POTUS Donald Trump

[TheLeviathan]

 

In fairness, it's not like the Muslim states aren't religious. Also in fairness, where, exactly, should we have helped the Jews found a state where they could "feel safe", if not there? Africa wouldn't work. Europe wouldn't work. Asia? North America? South America?

 

There is no safe place for a Jewish state. Now, maybe there shouldn't be a Jewish state, but maybe there should....no place has been safe for them for millennia. 

 

I agree with all of that.  I also understand the Jews were worried about the relics and religious sites in the region, so there may not have been a good solution to this.  

 

But if that's the conclusion, then you give the Palestinians a state at the same time and compensate them for planting the Jews there on their land.

 

The reality that anti-Israel people have to accept is that the state of Israel is surrounded by states that, if Israel was not a nuclear power, would annihilate them within minutes of hearing that.  I would imagine having the barbarians constantly at the gates would make you pretty obstinate and protective.

[PseudoSABR]

Settlement is also how the Chinese are essentially  committing a type of genocide against Tibet over the last many decades.  Settlement is a tool of the powerful; not a tool of the peaceful.  Israel does not protect itself by promoting settlement; it is a policy of genocide by dilution over many generations.  

[TheLeviathan]

 

Settlement is also how the Chinese are essentially  committing a type of genocide against Tibet over the last many decades.  Settlement is a tool of the powerful; not a tool of the peaceful.  Israel does not protect itself by promoting settlement; it is a policy of genocide by dilution over many generations.  

 

The settlements are wrong in many ways.  But I'm less worried about them as I am the missles launched over their peaceful attempts to stay in their own borders.  

 

I'll worry more about whether their settlements are indeed a deliberate act on their part to enact a generations long plan for a future genocide when there is less direct, constant attacks on their existence.  Until that stops, overly dramatic interpretations of the situation like yours are really misguided and not all that relevant.

[Badsmerf]

I believe we all see both sides. I do expect more out of Israel than I do Palestine, because Israel is the one holding all the power. I don't agree with unwillingness to budge because of a fear they will be taken advantage of is an acceptable excuse. That is what the global community is for, to help I making fair negotiations. Again, if one if the parties steps out of line, they get punished.

[diehardtwinsfan]

well, to be honest, you'll never see peace there when both sides continue to attack the other... I'm not really a fan of either nation here, but continuing to take someone else's land and use it for your own purposes isn't going to make them suddenly decide that they don't want to wipe you off the map.

 

I see a lot of outrage over the US abstaining from the UN resolution.  I personally wish they had a pair to actually stand for or against, but asking politicians to take a stand these days seems to be off limits.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I believe we all see both sides. I do expect more out of Israel than I do Palestine, because Israel is the one holding all the power. I don't agree with unwillingness to budge because of a fear they will be taken advantage of is an acceptable excuse. That is what the global community is for, to help I making fair negotiations. Again, if one if the parties steps out of line, they get punished.

 

The Camp David summits, at least according to reports, fell apart because of Palestinian leadership.  Even as all of the Gaza Strip and 95% of the West Bank were offered to them.  Clinton felt Israel was committed to a solution and Arafat was the problem.

 

The global community has demonstrated no willingness to see this process fairly.  And I often wonder when this issue comes up if people are actually forming an opinion based on reality or just shuffling to their side.  For example, if the situations were flipped exactly as they are now but with Palestine being surrounded by Jewish enemies, would people stay on the same sides they are now or flip?

 

I get the impression that those that support Israel, largely, would no matter the facts.  And the same is true for the reverse.

 

For me it has nothing to do with anything other than that juxtaposition I offered earlier.  I side with the group who is only fighting to exist, not the side that openly seeks the non-existence of the other.

[nicksaviking]

 

 

 

For me it has nothing to do with anything other than that juxtaposition I offered earlier.  I side with the group who is only fighting to exist, not the side that openly seeks the non-existence of the other.

 

But isn't this like judging the US based on the manifestos and claims by the KKK? I can't believe that this is official Palestinian policy.

 

I hate Russia, I don't hate Russians. I like Canada, I don't like Shania Twain. Again, I don't like Palestine or Israel but why are we judging one of them based on their radicals? Surely there are radical groups of Israelis who want to kill Palestinians too.

[TheLeviathan]

 

But isn't this like judging the US based on the manifestos and claims by the KKK? I can't believe that this is official Palestinian policy.

 

I hate Russia, I don't hate Russians. I like Canada, I don't like Shania Twain. Again, I don't like Palestine or Israel but why are we judging one of them based on their radicals? Surely there are radical groups of Israelis who want to kill Palestinians too.

 

I would encourage you to look up Hamas, things they stand for, things they've said.  Then I'd encourage you to look up how much of the Palestinian leadership/governing body is compromised by them.  

 

This article, while not perfect, also might help.

[diehardtwinsfan]

yeah, plenty of radicals on both sides in this debate. That's the problem. 

[PseudoSABR]

 

  I'll worry more about whether their settlements are indeed a deliberate act on their part to enact a generations long plan for a future genocide when there is less direct, constant attacks on their existence.  Until that stops, overly dramatic interpretations of the situation like yours are really misguided and not all that relevant.

I'm not sure why the heck you're prioritizing the need to stop one form of aggression over the other.  The West's cause to defeat Islamic Terror would have a lot more legitimacy if the governments and policies the West support didn't resemble colonization and imperialism.   

 

We (the American Gov't) have direct power to influence Israel; we have very little influence on stemming the violence coming from the supporters of Palestine (save indirectly).  Even if one party is more guilty in terms of desire-to-eliminate the other, we should apply our influence where it can actual make a difference. 

 

There's no legitimate reason to withhold judgment of Israel settlements.  It's freaking Western Imperialism, and the kind of government behavior that begets terrorism.  (And no I don't feel like getting into the whole roots of terrorism with you.)

[PseudoSABR]

 

But isn't this like judging the US based on the manifestos and claims by the KKK? I can't believe that this is official Palestinian policy.

 

I hate Russia, I don't hate Russians. I like Canada, I don't like Shania Twain. Again, I don't like Palestine or Israel but why are we judging one of them based on their radicals? Surely there are radical groups of Israelis who want to kill Palestinians too.

Right. One side is being defined by its extremists (Palestine) while the other is given the benefit of the doubt (Israel).  

 

There's probably a radical movement within Zionism that proffers the elimination of Islam as the only way to restore the holy land.   It's easy to dismiss such elements because the fall outside the current cultural narrative as Islam as the aggressor. 

[TheLeviathan]

 

yeah, plenty of radicals on both sides in this debate. That's the problem. 

 

It's a false equivalency though.  Israel has demonstrated, repeatedly, willingness to seek peace and make concessions.

 

Their treaty with Egypt, in which they withdrew settlements in exchange for peace, has largely worked well.  It has kept peace and Israel stayed true to their word.  So has Egypt.  But for those in Egypt that signed it?  Kicked out of the Arab League and Sadat assassinated.  

 

Imperialism, comparing the construction of settlements to genocide, supporting the demonstrably more violent side in an effort to "make a difference" - this is just absurdity.  And frankly, stinks of ulterior motives than looking at truth and facts to make a decision.  What that stink of I've never been able to put my finger on, but it stinks.  Facts and history tell us which "side" of this has been more reasonable, more willing to compromise, and more forthright in seeking peace.  Until the other side matches that and calls off violence, I can't support that side, even if I sympathize with their plight and wish them to be treated well.  They need to do more to seek peace first and foremost.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Right. One side is being defined by its extremists (Palestine) while the other is given the benefit of the doubt (Israel).  

 

There's probably a radical movement within Zionism that proffers the elimination of Islam as the only way to restore the holy land.   It's easy to dismiss such elements because the fall outside the current cultural narrative as Islam as the aggressor. 

 

Good lord, you should be ashamed of this post.  "Probably"?  That isn't something you need to guess at.  I don't have to guess at the proliferation of extremism on one side, so if you're going to suggest it is equally (or even remotely) balanced....perhaps you should attempt to establish that?

[PseudoSABR]

 

Good lord, you should be ashamed of this post.  "Probably"?  That isn't something you need to guess at.  I don't have to guess at the proliferation of extremism on one side, so if you're going to suggest it is equally (or even remotely) balanced....perhaps you should attempt to establish that?

Shame? As if you have the humility to imagine such a concept.  I don't need to guess, but I can speculate.  We'd be naive not to believe that rhetoric exists on both sides.   For instance some sources for Zionist extremism (a Palestinian version of events, Jewish religious terrorism; the Lehava group; documentary on Ultra Zionists, article on the film); I tend not to want to google-research this too extensively (for obvious reasons).  

 

Heck, given the current political climate in our own country that just buoyed the election of Trump, it's stupid to not believe in Western extremism that's boundless in its desired ends. 

[PseudoSABR]

 

It's a false equivalency though.  Israel has demonstrated, repeatedly, willingness to seek peace and make concessions.

Right. If you just ignore their current settlement policy (and the right-wing makeup of their government).  You're simply picking and choosing which historical events to buttress your ideological bias in favor of Israel.  Good ole confirmation-bias.  

And frankly, stinks of ulterior motives than looking at truth and facts to make a decision.  What that stink of I've never been able to put my finger on, but it stinks.

 

Shamelessly accusing those who disagree with you of something stinky? Good lord, indeed. 

[TheLeviathan]

 

Shame? As if you have the humility to imagine such a concept.  I don't need to guess, but I can speculate.  We'd be naive not to believe that rhetoric exists on both sides.   For instance some sources for Zionist extremism (a Palestinian version of events, Jewish religious terrorism; the Lehava group.); I tend not to want to google-research this too extensively (for obvious reasons).  

 

Heck, given the current political climate in our own country that just buoyed the election of Trump, it's stupid to not believe in Western extremism that's boundless in its desired ends. 

 

You're still guessing.  You're countering facts with speculation.  We know what Hamas believes.  We know they have a large footing inside the Palestinian government.

 

So to use nick's example, we shouldn't judge America by the KKK.  It's a small group with no power and influence.  But if the KKK held 40% of the seats in Congress....well then perhaps it should make a sizable difference in our opinion.  No?

 

Dug up some nice pieces from the Atlantic.  Worth reading and questioning your basis in what you believe.  

 

As for your last post - Israel was settling the Sinai Peninsula after they took it in battle.  When Egypt called asking for peace they deconstructed their settlements and withdrew.  They made the same offers to others and were told the "three nos".  Their peace with Egypt has maintained, in good faith.  As one would expect considering both sides want it.  So we know that when Israel seeks peace and agrees to it, they have been true to it.

 

Is this some kind of exception?  That only with Egypt is peace possible?  Time and time again their efforts for peace have been met with rejection.  You're asking them to compromise with no return.  To compromise with those you are conceding to telling you "Thanks, but we still plan to kill you"

 

What an absolutely bizarre demand to place on someone.  And then to villify them when they don't do it?  Incomprehensible.

[PseudoSABR]

Speaking of false equivalencies:  Egypt and Palestine.  Surely you see the difference in leverage and consequences of any agreement between Israel and Egypt and Israel and Palestine.  

 

Should Tibet be heartened that China has a peaceful and economic relationship with Japan?  Give me a break.

[nicksaviking]

 

It's a false equivalency though.  Israel has demonstrated, repeatedly, willingness to seek peace and make concessions.

 

Their treaty with Egypt, in which they withdrew settlements in exchange for peace, has largely worked well.  It has kept peace and Israel stayed true to their word.  So has Egypt.  But for those in Egypt that signed it?  Kicked out of the Arab League and Sadat assassinated.  

 

Imperialism, comparing the construction of settlements to genocide, supporting the demonstrably more violent side in an effort to "make a difference" - this is just absurdity.  And frankly, stinks of ulterior motives than looking at truth and facts to make a decision.  What that stink of I've never been able to put my finger on, but it stinks.  Facts and history tell us which "side" of this has been more reasonable, more willing to compromise, and more forthright in seeking peace.  Until the other side matches that and calls off violence, I can't support that side, even if I sympathize with their plight and wish them to be treated well.  They need to do more to seek peace first and foremost.

 

They haven't been all that interested in compromising in about 20 years. Yasir Arafat is dead, he was a bad dude, but other countries aren't basing current US policies based on LBJ's Vietnam inclinations and God forbid in twenty years they judge us on what is about to happen in our country. Netanyahu is also not a good dude and he's not looking to compromise. And again, that's not saying Abbas or Palestinian policies are worth a damn either.

[PseudoSABR]

 

  Time and time again their efforts for peace have been met with rejection.  You're asking them to compromise with no return.  To compromise with those you are conceding to telling you "Thanks, but we still plan to kill you"

This is a dishonest characterization.  There's nothing peaceful about offering to compromise with your right hand (20 years ago), and than promoting settlement with your left hand (both in the past and presently).  

[TheLeviathan]

 

They haven't been all that interested in compromising in about 20 years. Yasir Arafat is dead, he was a bad dude, but other countries aren't basing current US policies based on LBJ's Vietnam inclinations and God forbid in twenty years they judge us on what is about to happen in our country. Netanyahu is also not a good dude and he's not looking to compromise. And again, that's not saying Abbas or Palestinian policies are worth a damn either.

 

All of this is true, but all attempts made previously were rejected.  So how long do you keep slamming your head against a brick wall?  Even if the current Israeli regime is far too hardline themselves, what difference does it make?

 

Until that wall softens, what's the point?  Compromise and peace have to be a two way street with willingness on both sides to see the outcome desired.  Israel regimes have come and gone with varying degrees of willingness, what hasn't changed is the other half of the equation.

 

So I'd grant that right now things are hopeless because both sides are obstinate, it hasn't always been that way.  And I don't totally fault the Israelis for eventually saying "screw it, these guys won't even try"

[TheLeviathan]

 

This is a dishonest characterization.  There's nothing peaceful about offering to compromise with your right hand, and than promoting settlement with your left hand.  

 

 They offered, initially, to pull back ALL settlements.  They were rejected on these grounds:

 

"no to recognition.  no to negotiation. no to peace"

 

It's not a characterization at all.  It's a statement of fact.  Hamas continues to say such things, a simple google search will give you some real doozies.  Elected officials in Palestine.  Not just random extremists by the way.  Not speculation.  Real people in real seats of power.  And that's to say nothing of the larger Arab states that use the Palestinians as pawns for leverage that say the same.

[PseudoSABR]

 

Dug up some nice pieces from the Atlantic.  Worth reading and questioning your basis in what you believe.  

Turns out Mattie Friedman may not be the paragon of honesty that you're offering him up as.  The AP issued a statement, saying that Friedman's "... arguments have been filled with distortions, half-truths and inaccuracies, both about the recent Gaza war and more distant events. His suggestion of AP bias against Israel is false".  (Source: 1, 2).

[PseudoSABR]

 

 They offered, initially, to pull back ALL settlements.  They were rejected on these grounds:

 

"no to recognition.  no to negotiation. no to peace"

 

It's not a characterization at all.  It's a statement of fact.  Hamas continues to say such things, a simple google search will give you some real doozies.  Elected officials in Palestine.  Not just random extremists by the way.  Not speculation.  Real people in real seats of power.  And that's to say nothing of the larger Arab states that use the Palestinians as pawns for leverage that say the same.

I still don't get how this is relevant in judging Israel for settling 20-years later.   Even if Palestine was unreasonable 20 years ago, it does nothing to justify Israel's current settlement practice.  You're just hiding the ball, by focusing on Palestine, and giving Israel a complete pass.  It's odd really.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Turns out Mattie Friedman may not be the paragon of honesty that you're offering him up as.  The AP issued a statement, saying that Friedman's "... arguments have been filled with distortions, half-truths and inaccuracies, both about the recent Gaza war and more distant events. His suggestion of AP bias against Israel is false".  (Source: 1, 2).

 

The very same article you quoted also substantiates several of his claims.  (And refutes others) Whether he's speaking the truth or not, I don't know.  It was an interesting perspective.  The AP rejecting the claims is par for the course, not all that surprising.  

 

I still don't get how this is relevant in judging Israel for settling 20-years later. Even if Palestine was unreasonable 20 years ago, it does nothing to justify Israel's current settlement practice.  You're just hiding the ball, by focusing on Palestine, and giving Israel a complete pass.  It's odd really.

 

 

"complete pass" - good lord.  

 

Denying the history of this conflict as part of the current narrative?  Now that's odd.  And probably worthy of other, stronger adjectives.

[PseudoSABR]

 

"complete pass" - good lord.  

 

Denying the history of this conflict as part of the current narrative?  Now that's odd.  And probably worthy of other, stronger adjectives.

Look, I'm not denying anything.  You're the one saying that history somehow puts Israel in the position that it shouldn't be criticized for settlements.  I don't think recent (esp. the entire) history puts Israel beyond reproach.  

 

My stance: pressure Israel to stop settlements.  Settlements are designed to dilute the Islamic culture in occupied lands, and will only exacerbate the culture of violence on both sides. 

[TheLeviathan]

 

Look, I'm not denying anything.  You're the one saying that history somehow puts Israel in the position that it shouldn't be criticized for settlements.  I don't think recent (esp. the entire) history puts Israel beyond reproach.  

 

My stance: pressure Israel to stop settlements.  Settlements are designed to dilute the Islamic culture in occupied lands, and will only exacerbate the culture of violence on both sides. 

 

That is not what I said.  That's what you want to characterize me as saying so that you can argue it.  Makes it easier for you I'm sure.  

 

At least four times I've expressed regret with Israel's actions.  They are too hardline.  Their settlements are problematic for peace.  They will need to stop in order for peace to happen.

 

All of that is true and yet I still sympathize with them.  Because no matter what they do, or attempt to do, they are the bad guy for Europe and many on the left in this country.  They just want to exist and everyone around them wants them either dead or gone and somehow they are the problem.  They have demonstrated the willingness and commitment to peace and yet you doubt them and exalt those that call for their death. You look past the declarations of genocide to concoct equivalencies based on speculation.

 

You want to fault them for not compromising with people who clearly and explicitly state no desire to compromise.  To, in fact, deny their compromise and kill them anyway.  

 

Do I want Israel to stop their settlements?  Sure.  But what good will it do?  What has any concession by Israel accomplished for them?  What does history tell us they will reap for their actions?

[Badsmerf]

You can't throw your hands in the air and just say **** it if you're Israel. My problem, is they know better. I almost consider them apart of the West. I would have the same opinion if it was Spain and Portugal. Just because one (not) country does wrong, does not mean the other is justified. I sympathize with Israel as well. I still condemn the settlements. I still support the UN resolution.

[TheLeviathan]

 

You can't throw your hands in the air and just say **** it if you're Israel. My problem, is they know better. I almost consider them apart of the West. I would have the same opinion if it was Spain and Portugal. Just because one (not) country does wrong, does not mean the other is justified. I sympathize with Israel as well. I still condemn the settlements. I still support the UN resolution.

 

And that's fair, but I guess my question is - what does it gain them?  The international community goes after them no matter what they do.  The other side doesn't treat any concession as a step forward.  So why would they bother?  Just for their own moral conscience?

 

I don't think people really take the intractability of the Arab side of this as seriously as they should.  Or they've never really considered how impossible that makes the situation.  

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

 

 

It's a false equivalency though.  Israel has demonstrated, repeatedly, willingness to seek peace and make concessions.

 

Their treaty with Egypt, in which they withdrew settlements in exchange for peace, has largely worked well.  It has kept peace and Israel stayed true to their word.  So has Egypt.  But for those in Egypt that signed it?  Kicked out of the Arab League and Sadat assassinated.  

 

Imperialism, comparing the construction of settlements to genocide, supporting the demonstrably more violent side in an effort to "make a difference" - this is just absurdity.  And frankly, stinks of ulterior motives than looking at truth and facts to make a decision.  What that stink of I've never been able to put my finger on, but it stinks.  Facts and history tell us which "side" of this has been more reasonable, more willing to compromise, and more forthright in seeking peace.  Until the other side matches that and calls off violence, I can't support that side, even if I sympathize with their plight and wish them to be treated well.  They need to do more to seek peace first and foremost.

If any other country did what Israel has done to Palestine, it would be called ethnic cleansing.  I do not see how they get a free pass while Palestine does not, because there are very radical movements within Israel that want to extinguish Islam, and too many of those people are in charge.

 

You're talking about a nation that is taking by force land that they do not own while relocating it's occupants to caged areas in the west bank and Gaza strip. They also, I might add, have had no problems blockading food and medical shipments to said areas, destroying the crops of local farmers, and massacring civilians.  Put yourself in their shoes for a second and ask how you'd handle that.  I pretty much guarantee that you and most of this nation would be fighting back too.

 

As for 'facts and history,' I'd look at that much more closely too. There is no question in this country of a pro-Israel lobby in the Government as well as the US Media, where most of that information comes from. I'm not going to pretend that Palestine is made up of a bunch of innocent victims (they aren't), but I'm not going to pretend that Israel is made up of nothing but good people either who want to compromise (they don't). War is all about painting the other side as evil and hiding ones own sins. Rarely in reality is it ever a true conflict between good and evil.  The foundation for any war is almost always a lie.

 

Something does stink.  This is a 5000 year old family feud which we are somehow in the middle of, and that has for more to do with where one of those sides stands with our own agenda than it does right and wrong, willingness to compromise, etc.  Right now, this country is a part of the problem, not a part of any workable solution.

 

 

[TheLeviathan]

At any point you compare hard line Israel with Hamas is the moment you lose a lot of credibility with me. Those two are not even remotely the same thing.

 

Look, I hate this BS. Let's make this real simple - pick any afflicted group you want in the world. Racists vs. minorities groups. Homophobes vs. LGBTQ. Misogynists vs. Women. Anywhere a group is struggling with another that treats them with contempt, wishes them dead, or wants nothing to do with them other than their subjugation. In other words, there is a violent and intractable side of the pairing. Now put it through this:

 

You to Afflicted Group: Hey, you should really concede some stuff and play nice so we can make peace.

AG: Ok! I like peace! So if we do that we'll be able to have meaningful peace and work together?

You: Well, no. They have openly stated they'll still hate you. Mostly the meeting is just to get you to concede, there is zero chance they recognize you as valid or accept peace. They'll still want you dead/oppressed.

AG: Ok, but this is a good first step right?

You: Not really. In fact, more militant parts of their group may even start to violently attack you even for agreeing to the meeting. And then they'll keep attacking you later and blame you for pulling out of the talks and fighting back.

AG: ......

You: So you're totally in right?

AG: Um...no.

You: Well, I guess we know who the real villain is here huh?

 

Peace is a two way street. Until one side is even open to that (they haven't been, not seriously, for 50 to 70 years and counting), then the blame falls on the intractable party not both. Don't get caught up in the details, focus on this: If one side is intractable, they concede nothing, they will not budge from "you will die!" - who is the real problem? You're condemning Israel largely because they are more rational and more open, but not "open enough". It's easier to criticize them, I guess, because they at least present the option of being better. While the other side refuses any compromise or even basic humanity towards the other so you just....ignore them? Make them the victim?

 

How the hell does that make any sense? The settlements are annoying. They make things a bit harder. But they're not even close to the problem. They're just the easier one to get morally high and mighty about.