• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Helen Thomas tells Jews to go back to Germany

bub said:
The three criters I mention have to be evalued from the context (so there is no "vacuum"), not just from numbers. There can be other criters too, but these three ones seem primordial.
Click to expand...

So, we agree that without context, none of the things that you mention can be evaluated.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
So, we agree that without context, none of the things that you mention can be evaluated.
Click to expand...

Of course, that's what I've been saying from the begining. And in order to evalue the context, 3 of the most important criters are the necessit (that's in direct relation with the context), the efficience and the consequences (that's also related to the context). One more criter, close to the "efficience", could be the "appropriateness" of the action (for example not trying to extinguish a fire with oil)
 
Last edited:
bub said:
Of course, that's what I've been saying from the begining. And in order to evalue the context, 3 of the most important criters are the necessit (that's in direct relation with the context), the efficience and the consequences (that's also related to the context). One more criter, close to the "efficience", could be the "appropriateness" of the action (for example not trying to extinguish a fire with oil)
Click to expand...

OK, but you do understand that when until adding context to the mix, none of the things can be evaluated, globally. For example, in one circumstance, the deaths of 2000 civilians may be appropriate, in another they may not be.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
OK, but you do understand that when until adding context to the mix, none of the things can be evaluated, globally. For example, in one circumstance, the deaths of 2000 civilians may be appropriate, in another they may not be.
Click to expand...

We agree totally.

So I guess that now you also agree that "proportionality" matters, since "proportionality" (which is roughly the criters I have mentioned in my previous post) is, of course, evaluated in relation to the context.
 
bub said:
We agree totally.

So I guess that now you also agree that "proportionality" matters, since "proportionality" (which is roughly the criters I have mentioned in my previous post) is, of course, evaluated in relation to the context.
Click to expand...

No, we do not, since proportionality is a concept, not a "critter". Proportionality indicates that there is some reasonable ratio that can be determined between acts. There isn't because of context of the situations. Context negates proportionality.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
No, we do not, since proportionality is a concept, not a "critter". Proportionality indicates that there is some reasonable ratio that can be determined between acts. There isn't because of context of the situations. Context negates proportionality.
Click to expand...

Well then there is a misunderstanding.

Contrary to what you seem to believe (maybe because some European governments seemed to say it was "not proportional" because there were 9 killed on one side and 0 on the other) proportionality is not related with any kind of ratio (well...not in law at least)
For example, if there is a huge threat and that the only way to avoid a danger is to take extreme measures (such as slaughtering millions of animals during the "mad cow" or the swine flu crisises) it is "proportional".

It was proportional to kill and cremate millions of chickens to avoid further contamination and possible human deaths.

Proportionality is not a ratio, it is (roughly) the 3 criters I have mentioned. You can trust me, I have studied that in Constitutional Law 3 years ago (if you can search in the archives you should be able to find a very old thread where I was already saying the same)
 
Last edited:
bub said:
No one says that Israel does not have the right to defend itself, people say that it should be done with proportionality

Israelis_killed_by_Palestinians_in_Israel_and_Palestinians_killed_by_Israelis_in_Gaza_-_2008.png


One more problem is that, as several posters have said in this thread, criticism of Israel is too often dismissed as "anti-semitism". When people say that Belgian para-commandos should not have tortured a Somali kid on 1993 or that the same soldiers should have done something about the Rwandan genocide in 1994, or that there is a serious democratic deficit when all the Walloon parties team up, no one says that it is "anti-Belgianism".
Click to expand...

I don't support either Israel or Palestine - I feel their issues go too far back for me to begin to decide who's right and who's wrong.

However, I don't' feel that, in warfare or tumultuous conflict, that 'proportionality' has ANYTHING to do with who lives and who dies.
Is there some sort of balanced, unwritten rule that we don't know about warfare? "They killed 3000 so we can only kill that many?" - and what if the other side (Palestine in this situation) simply doesn't have the ability to kill as many as have been killed - what then for them to make it more 'proportional' - ritualistic sacrifices or something?

The purpose of casualty statistics is to inform - not necessarily to declare which side is being fair and which side isn't. I think this point is faaar overreaching.
 
Last edited:
I'm curious - -how does one react "proportionately" to those who have vowed genocide against you in their very charter?
 
bub said:
Good!

According to international courts, that's proportionality

(a) the anticipated civilian damage or injury;
(b) the anticipated military advantage;
(c) and whether (a) was "clearly excessive" in relation to (b).

Things that should enter into account are the "efficiency" of a measure, and also its "necessity".
Click to expand...

So you then support Israel trading Katusha rocket for Katusha rocket?
 
bub said:
What situations? War?

Let's take an example:

1914, the Germans invade Belgium, our army is quickly defeated and some civilians start shooting at German troops. In order to make it stop, the Germans execute 2000 civilians and burn thousands of houses. Is that OK?
Click to expand...

Specifically targeting civilians and executing them without a legitimate trial is a war crime.
 
Gardener said:
I'm curious - -how does one react "proportionately" to those who have vowed genocide against you in their very charter?
Click to expand...

Are you talking about the Likkud charter?

The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river.

(...)

Jerusalem is the eternal, united capital of the State of Israel and only of Israel. The government will flatly reject Palestinian proposals to divide Jerusalem

(...)

The Jordan river will be the permanent eastern border of the State of Israel.
Click to expand...

http://www.knesset.gov.il/elections/knesset15/elikud_m.htm
 
Agent Ferris said:
Specifically targeting noncombatants and executing them without a legitimate trial is a war crime.
Click to expand...

i'm thinking that's a better way of putting it now; given the increasingly perforated lines between "civilians" and "combatants"
 
Agent Ferris said:
So you then support Israel trading Katusha rocket for Katusha rocket?
Click to expand...

It would be better than replying to Katusha rockets with aerial bombing and demolition of houses, yes.
 
bub said:
Are you talking about the Likkud charter?
Click to expand...
Neither the Likud charter nor the Likud members themselves promote the genocide of the Palestinians, that's pure propaganda you're promoting here and your claim is absolutely not fitting the standards of human logic.
 
bub said:
Are you talking about the Likkud charter?



Likud - Platform
Click to expand...

Obviously not, for despite the fact I do not support the Likud's obectives, I am intelligent enough to realize there is no genocidal language inherent in such statements.
 
Apocalypse said:
Neither the Likud charter nor the Likud members themselves promote the genocide of the Palestinians, that's pure propaganda you're promoting here and your claim is absolutely not fitting the standards of human logic.
Click to expand...

Gardener said:
Obviously not, for despite the fact I do not support the Likud's obectives, I am intelligent enough to realize there is no genocidal language inherent in such statements.
Click to expand...

Well the correct answer was that charters are just charters. The Likkud does not want to establish the borders of Israel along the Jordan river and will accept the creation of a Palestinian state. Likewise, the Hamas would accept the existence of Israel along the 1967 borders

Mousa Abu Marzook, the deputy of the political bureau of Hamas, in 2007 described the charter as "an essentially revolutionary document born of the intolerable conditions under occupation" in 1988. Senior British diplomat and former British ambassador to the UN Sir Jeremy Greenstock stated in early 2009 that the Hamas charter was "drawn up by a Hamas-linked imam some [twenty] years ago and has never been adopted since Hamas was elected as the Palestinian government in 2006". Greenstock also stated that Hamas is not intent on the destruction of Israel
Click to expand...

Hamas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hamas said today it would accept a Palestinian state on land occupied in the 1967 war, but it would not explicitly recognise Israel.
Click to expand...

We can accept Israel as neighbour, says Hamas | World news | guardian.co.uk

The Hamas movement is ready to recognize agreements signed with Israel, and in fact recognize Israel, but only within the '67 borders, senior Hamas member Khaled Suleiman said Wednesday.
Click to expand...

Hamas: We
 
bub said:
Well the correct answer was that charters are just charters. The Likkud does not want to establish the borders of Israel along the Jordan river and will accept the creation of a Palestinian state. Likewise, the Hamas would accept the existence of Israel along the 1967 borders



Hamas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



We can accept Israel as neighbour, says Hamas | World news | guardian.co.uk



Hamas: We
Click to expand...

First of all you've just stated that the Likud charter promotes the Palestinian genocide.
That's crazy talk, one you could hear from folks like Chavez and Ahmedinejad, not rational people.

Secondly, Hamas doesn't recognize Israel's right to exist.
You've posted a report where they said that Hamas is ready to recognize Israel's right to exist, but you haven't posted the statement from Hamas coming only a short time after, stating that the reports are false.

Hamas on Thursday denied a report in an Israeli newspaper that the Resistance Movement is ready to accept Israel's right to exist. The JPost added that Dr. Aziz Dwaik, Hamas' senior representative in the West Bank and speaker of the Palestinian Legislative Council, stated also that Hamas is ready to nullify its charter calling for the destruction of Israel.
Click to expand...
Hamas denies report on readiness to accept Israel's right to exist | Al Bawaba
 
Apocalypse said:
First of all you've just stated that the Likud charter promotes the Palestinian genocide.
That's crazy talk, one you could hear from folks like Chavez and Ahmedinejad, not rational people
Click to expand...
.

It's true that there is no call for genocide in the Likkud Charter
Secondly, Hamas doesn't recognize Israel's right to exist.
Click to expand...

Neither does the Likkud Charter

You've posted a report where they said that Hamas is ready to recognize Israel's right to exist, but you haven't posted the statement from Hamas coming only a short time after, stating that the reports are false.

Hamas denies report on readiness to accept Israel's right to exist | Al Bawaba
Click to expand...

I said "would accept the existence". Read the 2nd link, they say they would not "explicitely recognise Israel", but that they would still accept it.
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
She'll get a pass. Liberal excitement over racism, homophobia and anti-semetism is only for political ammo. They don't really care. It'll be like when Dan Rather made the, "selling watermelon's", comment a while back.
Click to expand...

Am guessing that Helen will be fine. She is old and kinda goofy and this is a good time for her to "move off the front row". Which i suspect will happen. Not a lot of value in pummeling or berating her at this point.

Had almost forgot about Rather and the "watermelon" comment. That one lasted on the news cycle for about 90 seconds (mebbe less :) ) Would have been a riot to have a heart monitor on Chris Mathews as Rather was babbling those words. The voice in Mathews head had to be screaming, "Cut to commercial!!, Cut to ****ing commercial....!!!!!"

Classic. :tongue4:




.
 
bub said:
It's true that there is no call for genocide in the Likkud Charter
Click to expand...
Finally.
Neither does the Likkud Charter
Click to expand...
The likud charter doesn't recognize Israel's right to exist..?
I think you've meant to "Palestine", but unlike Israel Palestine is not existing yet.
You mean to say that the Likud's charter disagrees with the establishment of a Palestinian state between the Jordan river and the Mediterian sea, and that is true as to the time of the 15th Knesset, which is where your source is from.
Can you give a source from present time, since I believe that Netanyahu has changed his opinion and has accepted a Palestinian state between the Jordan River and the Mediterian sea since then.
I said "would accept the existence". Read the 2nd link, they say they would not "explicitely accept Israel", but that they would still accept it.
Click to expand...
And then you need to read my link where they deny saying that.
 
bub said:
What do you think about the Likkud Charter?
Click to expand...

I don't support it.

What does that have to do with your trying to claim it is genocidal?
 
Apocalypse said:
You mean to say that the Likud's charter disagrees with the establishment of a Palestinian state between the Jordan river and the Mediterian sea, and that is true as to the time of the 15th Knesset, which is where your source is from.
Can you give a source from present time, since I believe that Netanyahu has changed his opinion and has accepted a Palestinian state between the Jordan River and the Mediterian sea since then.
Click to expand...

He is not yet clear:

"With Likud back in power, starting in 2009, Israeli foreign policy is still under review. Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu, in his "National Security" platform, neither endorsed nor ruled out the idea of a Palestinian state"

Likud - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But the point was that the Likkud Charter says something that is not respected by Netanyahu (who does not exclude the possibility of the creation of a Palestinian state), exactly as the Hamas charter is not respected by the leaders of the Hamas.

And then you need to read my link where they deny saying that.
Click to expand...

Your source says "Dwaik told Hamas website on Thursday that the report was "inaccurate". According to him, Hamas will never recognize the occupation on Palestinian lands."

That does not contradict mine, which says "Hamas said today it would accept a Palestinian state on land occupied in the 1967 war, but it would not explicitly recognise Israel. "
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom