Reignighting Violence .How do ceasefires end ?

oneworld2 said:

Hilarious !!

So explain how endorsing the statement that " all human rights groups are antisemitic with " that's not that far from the truth = " I don't think any human rights groups are antisemitic "

Where's the digging yourself a deeper hole smilie when ya need it !

Click to expand...

Crying "Hilarious" and pretending you're still in control of this mess isn't really helping you, you're deluding yourself if you think it's working here or would work on anyone else really.

The fact I used the term "it is not that far from the truth" to answer your sarcastic remark that all human rights are antisemitic was explained more than once as my position that many of those who are the members of these organizations are radical far-leftists who promote violence, human right violations and racism including if not mostly antisemitism. This remains the one and only truth that you cannot really alter, your words have no effect whatsoever on what other people's positions are.

The term 'not far from' doesn't grant any text one specific meaning, not without any explanation given in addition to it and that is a key point. It doesn't allow you to claim that my position is X or Y if I didn't say X or Y. You have indeed taken the liberty to claim my position is X, because you wished it was X so you could attack it that way - which was a clear strawman.

Another strawman was your claim that Abba Eban's remark refers to antisemitism for no apparent logical reason at all, as if you cannot claim someone is biased against Israel without accusing him of being a racist. That position of yours, that you cannot claim so, is actually working against you - if you can't be biased against Israel without being antisemitic what does it make you? But regardless it doesn't really matter as anti-Israeli bias is anti-Israeli bias, it's only antisemitism if Israel is used as an excuse to express an anti-semitic position, that is quite obvious.

I pointed all of that out and apparently an entire century later I'm still pointing it out because you entered a loop you couldn't get out of. If I were in your position, and I'd never get myself there, I would just disappear like you did from factual discussions where you've eventually seen that I am being right, this case is no different. What you chose to do and probably will continue to do forever, is only more embarrassing in my opinion.

Apocalypse said:

Crying "Hilarious" and pretending you're still in control of this mess isn't really helping you, you're deluding yourself if you think it's working here or would work on anyone else really.

Click to expand...

Denying the meaning of your own words isn't helping you. Arguing to infinity that you are somehow right about this is hilarious. As if to seek to compound the very accusation I have made you continue with.......

Apocalypse said:

human right violations and racism including if not mostly antisemitism

Click to expand...

:lamo

Thanks for endorsing what I have said , finally !!

oneworld2 said:

Your positions are that you support the occupation , it's a collective punishment and it is the de facto denial of a peoples right to self determination.

Click to expand...

That is your position which I find to be quite immoral. My position is that when you are required to defend your civilians from terrorism then a military occupation is more than righteous and justified. I challenged your position and asked you on several different occasions to address how you believe that Israel should react instead of the occupation, you only once provided an attempt to do so but what you did was ridiculous, you made bizzarre claims such as "build a wall" which I've shown to be awfully illogical and not making sense. You haven't engaged the subject honestly, and your position was shown to be promoting violations of the right of people to defend themselves when you've opposed to them doing so and haven't provided a real alternative - a position that is clearly immoral.

You support the blockade of Gaza , guess what ? That's right , it's another collective punishment.

Click to expand...

Again it's the same. You haven't provided an explanation as to why it isn't legitimate. You failed to even address it once because you run away from factual discussion and you prefer a lot more to just engage in discussions where you accuse people of saying things they didn't say. Your position was shown to be immoral as it actually wishes to allow the terrorists to easily gain weapons - what the blockade tackles. It's a very immoral position.

You support the indiscriminate bombing and shelling of densely populated Palestinian residential areas that account for the deaths of hundreds of kids at a time.

Click to expand...

No, indiscriminate bombing is different than targeting terrorists, you cannot be indiscriminately bombing if you're actually targetting someone that doesn't make sense. Rephrase that claim so it wouldn't be a strawman and a manipulation of my position and I'd gladly answer further.

I ,rightly, accused you of using the antisemite card in this thread and can give you the post reference where you did so. There was nothing " false " about it

Click to expand...

That was shown to be false. The only one who does so is you in your previous comment here and in your comments to others here where you have had to mention and hint at racism where there was none.

The above doesn't make any sense

I compared the French right to resist Nazi occupation with the Palestinian right to resist Jewish occupation. The above is just your manipulation ( oh the irony ) of that, precisely so as to try to create a pretext for the deployment of the antisemite card/accusation

Click to expand...

In this comparison the Palesitnians are the French and the Nazis are the Jews. Ridiculous.

Support for the two state solution, my long time position , is the de facto support for Jewish self determination . Epic fail on your behalf again

Click to expand...

You constantly opposed the right of Israel to even exist attacking its very creation using claims like "Zionism was the displacement" of the Arab population when it wasn't and other false claims made so to allow you to promote this immoral position that refuses to recognize Jews had the right to self-determination. You actually claimed they had no right to a state in the land, empty denial is irrelevant.

Another epic fail. I support the right of people , any people , to defend themselves.

Click to expand...

You constantly attacked the right of Israeli Jews to defend themselves, you referred to the deaths of Palestinians who attempted to take their lives, of Palestinian murderers, as tragic and wrong. It doesn't get clearer than that.

I just extend that right to the Palestinians because I don't think they are racially inferior to Jewish people. That's where we part company and that's why there is an obvious racism to your positions

Click to expand...

Did I not claim that a Palestinian civilian being attacked by a Jewish person with a knife in the street has the right to defend himself? I did, and regardless there's no racial aspect to this. You insert this racial aspect and it's natural for a person who promotes racism and racist worldivews to insert such where there are none.

oneworld2 said:

:lamo

Thanks for endorsing what I have said , finally !!

Click to expand...

I thought you were British but now I don't know, as you should have a better understanding of the English language than that.

If I understand correctly you think that by saying "mostly antisemitism" I claimed most of the human right activists are antisemitic, what I actually said is "many of those who are the members of these organizations are radical far-leftists who promote violence, human right violations and racism including if not mostly antisemitism". Antisemitism is a form of racism, I'm saying it's the dominant form of racism promoted by this group of people, who are "many" of the human rights activists.

I think this is the best example we've had so far of how you use your reading comprehension problems to manipulate another poster's positions.

oneworld2 said:

Your positions are that you support the occupation , it's a collective punishment and it is the de facto denial of a peoples right to self determination. You support the blockade of Gaza , guess what ? That's right , it's another collective punishment. You support the indiscriminate bombing and shelling of densely populated Palestinian residential areas that account for the deaths of hundreds of kids at a time.

Click to expand...

By the way this post was summarizing pretty well how the above claims are false and your positions on these three issues are immoral, but you haven't even bothered seriously replying to its content;

http://www.debatepolitics.com/israe...efires-end-post1066607687.html#post1066607687

Apocalypse said:

By the way this post was summarizing pretty well how the above claims are false and your positions on these three issues are immoral, but you haven't even bothered seriously replying to its content;

http://www.debatepolitics.com/israe...efires-end-post1066607687.html#post1066607687

Click to expand...

okay , let's look at a couple of things here

Is everyone in Gaza a supporter/member of Hamas ? Is everyone involved in the armed struggle with Israel ? Obviously it's a no to both.

Is everyone affected by the blockade ? Yes, therefore it's a collective punishment.

The 4th Geneva Convention

Article 33. No protected person may be punished for an offense he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.
Pillage is prohibited.
Reprisals against protected persons and their property are prohibited.


Is , or has , every Palestinian in the WB been involved in terror attacks or legitimate armed conflict against Israel/Israelis ? Obviously not , so the occupation is likewise a collective punishment

If you use a 1000 lb bomb to destroy an anthill because you wish to kill only the soldier ants , it is obvious that as a consequence of that decision all of the ants in the hill will die. To claim you were only targeting the soldiers would rightly be considered as a lame excuse/explanation/justification for the deaths of everything else.

If the Israeli leadership wished to make a huge inroad into protecting Israeli citizens from rocket attacks from Gaza they would engage Hamas in long term ceasefire agreements and desist from the targeted killings of members of Palestinian resistance groups in Gaza or the WB whilst the ceasefire is in place.

That's a reasonable compromise that allows for Israeli defence from Palestinian attack and Palestinian defence from IDF attack

Apocalypse said:

I thought you were British but now I don't know, as you should have a better understanding of the English language than that.

If I understand correctly you think that by saying "mostly antisemitism" I claimed most of the human right activists are antisemitic, what I actually said is "many of those who are the members of these organizations are radical far-leftists who promote violence, human right violations and racism including if not mostly antisemitism". Antisemitism is a form of racism, I'm saying it's the dominant form of racism promoted by this group of people, who are "many" of the human rights activists.

I think this is the best example we've had so far of how you use your reading comprehension problems to manipulate another poster's positions.

Click to expand...

To recap on your highly amusing and consistent uturns on this subject

A .You endorse the statement that all human rights groups are antisemitic with " that's not that far from the truth "

B .Then you are questioned on that and , bizarrely claim that " none of them are "

C. Then you resort to " "many of those who are the members of these organizations are radical far-leftists who promote violence, human right violations and racism including if not mostly antisemitism".

Nothing wrong with my comprehension skills but plenty wrong , although inclusive of a high degree of comedic value , with your own bizarre explanations of your comments

oneworld2 said:

okay , let's look at a couple of things here

Is everyone in Gaza a supporter/member of Hamas ? Is everyone involved in the armed struggle with Israel ? Obviously it's a no to both.

Is everyone affected by the blockade ? Yes, therefore it's a collective punishment.

The 4th Geneva Convention

Article 33. No protected person may be punished for an offense he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.
Pillage is prohibited.
Reprisals against protected persons and their property are prohibited.


Is , or has , every Palestinian in the WB been involved in terror attacks or legitimate armed conflict against Israel/Israelis ? Obviously not , so the occupation is likewise a collective punishment

Click to expand...

Punishment has meaning, it's not a description of any act that affects a person's life, if a police car blocks a road because they need to arrest some people it isn't collective punishment even if the drivers on the road are not all the criminals the police are looking after and they are affected by the police blocking the road, because there's no attempt to punish ordinary law abiding drivers. What would the police even gain from punishing ordinary law abiding drivers? They have no interest in doing so, they wish to protect people from criminals.

You need to simply think from the logical point of view - it cannot be actually expected that the Israeli government - that has a responsibility for its civilians - will allow weapons to simply flow into the territory Hamas fully controls, the same Islamic terrorist group that later on launches terror attacks against Jewish civilians. It would be really weird had it simply sat idly by and allowed weapons to enter the Gaza Strip. Same logic applies to the military occupation.

There's a reason there's nothing in the Genevea conventions that simply says "no military occupations are allowed", because in some cases they are, such as this.

If you use a 1000 lb bomb to destroy an anthill because you wish to kill only the soldier ants , it is obvious that as a consequence of that decision all of the ants in the hill will die. To claim you were only targeting the soldiers would rightly be considered as a lame excuse/explanation/justification for the deaths of everything else.

Click to expand...

Israel uses more methods than anyone else to minimize civilian casualties during the efforts made against the terrorists. Other Western nations such as the UK and the US and others are learning from Israel how to minimize civilian casualties in such conflicts, the fact many civilians do die does not mean no attempt is done to avoid so. It isn't logical however for Israel to sit idly by as a rocket is launched at its citizens, again. It's not something that it is logical to expect from a government.

If the Israeli leadership wished to make a huge inroad into protecting Israeli citizens from rocket attacks from Gaza they would engage Hamas in long term ceasefire agreements and desist from the targeted killings of members of Palestinian resistance groups in Gaza or the WB whilst the ceasefire is in place.

Click to expand...

That is just as illogical of a statement as your earlier claim about building a wall. Hamas, like ISIS and Hezbollah, are an Islamist terror organization, who murder Jews due to their genocidal ideology. If they stopped engaging in terrorism, if they renounced it, there would, again logically, be a ceasefire. It's weird to claim otherwise, because it is as if we're not dealing with a terror organization here and as if their horrible murders of innocent civilians are somehow a legitimate act of warfare that will end when their rational demands be met. They are not.

oneworld2 said:

To recap on your highly amusing and consistent uturns on this subject

A .You endorse the statement that all human rights groups are antisemitic with " that's not that far from the truth "

B .Then you are questioned on that and , bizarrely claim that " none of them are "

C. Then you resort to " "many of those who are the members of these organizations are radical far-leftists who promote violence, human right violations and racism including if not mostly antisemitism".

Nothing wrong with my comprehension skills but plenty wrong , although inclusive of a high degree of comedic value , with your own bizarre explanations of your comments

Click to expand...

It's like the English language has no meaning to you.
You're saying things that contradict yourself like in A. above and you're simply fine with it.
Twilight zone.

Apocalypse said:

It's like the English language has no meaning to you.
You're saying things that contradict yourself like in A. above and you're simply fine with it.
Twilight zone.

Click to expand...

The only one that is contradicting themselves is yourself.

That you try to deny this and even attempt to project it onto others has been highly amusing and revealing.

The only thing really left to say about this bizarre behaviour is that it does fit into that personality type I think you belong to

oneworld2 said:

The only one that is contradicting themselves is yourself.

That you try to deny this and even attempt to project it onto others has been highly amusing and revealing.

The only thing really left to say about this bizarre behaviour is that it does fit into that personality type I think you belong to

Click to expand...

What personality type would that be I wonder, or the better question is what would it be this time.

Saying you endorse something by answering it with "that's not far from the truth" is indeed a self-contradiction.
The very term "not far from" means it's not in the same location, Mercury isn't far from the sun but it isn't the sun obviously. Not far from the truth means it's not the truth, the truth is something else that isn't far from it.