• 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!

Abbas: I know that its not a Jewish state

CJ 2.0 said:
Or having genuinely no idea what you were talking about with your own non-sequitur and riffing on it.

Happy to do over if you want to tie your point into the argument somehow.
Click to expand...

From you:
You also have terrible obesity issues and some major geography challenges among your broader population. And lots of gun violence.

But none of those have anything to do with what we were talking about.
Click to expand...

WTF made you think you could get away with deflecting to obesity and gun violence and then acting as if someone other than you introduced those off-topic issues?
 
digitusmedius said:
From you:


WTF made you think you could get away with deflecting to obesity and gun violence and then acting as if someone other than you introduced those off-topic issues?
Click to expand...

ok, let me break it down for you as simply as I can. Hopefully that is simple enough for you.

"Abbas got his PhD in holocaust denial" is to "there are other racists in the US"

as

"There are racists in the US" is to "there are fat people with lots of guns in the US."

Both points are really, really stupid and irrelevant to the actual discussion.

Just mine was on purpose.

That help?
 
CJ 2.0 said:
This is ahistorical nonsense. The blatant rewriting of history to make it "we hoped the Jews would behave" is exactly what we have come to expect from Europeans but has no connection with reality. The reality is that the Arabs refused to accept Jewish sovereignty in any territories and THEY pushed to prevent any actual borders from being established in the armistice agreement. And THEY are the ones who rejected recognizing Israel in exchange for undoing the consequences of their failed attempt to destroy Israel in 1967.

Incidentally, sure there is nothing particularly socialist about being an anti-Israel propagandist, but the correlation between the two is staggering. Seems to be some root cause that leads to a willingness to buy into a common element of propaganda and bad arguments.
Click to expand...

Do you honestly blame the indigenous Arabs of Palestine for not accepting their expulsion and displacement by European Jews after WWII?
 
CJ 2.0 said:
1. You keep on using that word ("incoherence") .... I do no think it means what you think it means...

2. Re your "preference" for facts, Obviously you don't. You should read that book. It is fully of facts that you are undoubtedly not aware of because your media (both European and socialist) don't want to share with you. It's also entertaining and well written.
Click to expand...
My bedtime reading tonight will be a murder mystery.
 
CJ 2.0 said:
The Palestinians should have been willing to make peace with the Jews decades ago. They didn't, they started a terror war against Israel's civilians instead, and these are the consequences.
Click to expand...

You always refer to the Palestinian " terror war " which is obviously a reference to the second intifada. I always ask you the same question and you have always , so far at least , never respond to it.

The Palestinian " terror war " is the reference to the wave of suicide bombings that occured a few months into it. You never reply imo because you don't want the timeline to be discussed. The timeline is that by the time Palestinians resorted to terrorism the Israeli state terrorism had already claimed 47 Palestinian lives with nearly 2000 Palestinians injured in the first 5 days alone and the death toll would rise significantly before any suicide bombings against civilian targets would occur.

The Israelis were firing from helicopters into crowds of rioting stone throwing rioters. According to HRs groups around 80% of those casualties were made up of rioters or bystanders that posed no mortal threat to the IDF soldiers raining bullets at them ( sounds familiar , see fence protests in Gaza )

So the Israeli state terrorism preceded the Hamas and co militia terrorism by months. Usually normal people would recognize who started the " terrorist war " from that timeline and that is why you have never responded to it so far imo
 
CJ 2.0 said:
The Palestinians should have been willing to make peace with the Jews decades ago. They didn't, they started a terror war against Israel's civilians instead, and these are the consequences.
Click to expand...
Wow, that's the best example of the reductio ad absurdum fallacy and tilted Reader's Digest version for the history of MidEast peace failure I've seen from the rightwing (and it's always from the rightwing) in a long time.
Let's just go through a couple of the many ways both sides have spiked the various peace accords over the years:
Postmortem accounts vary in their apportioning of blame. But nearly all of them share a deep-seated belief that both societies desire a two-state agreement, and therefore need only the right conditions – together with a bit of nudging, trust-building and perhaps a few more positive inducements – to take the final step.


In this view, the Oslo accords of the mid-1990s would have led to peace had it not been for the tragic assassination of the Israeli prime minister Yitzhak Rabin in 1995. The 1998 Wye River Memorandum and its commitment to further Israeli withdrawals from the West Bank would have been implemented if only the Israeli Labor party had joined Benjamin Netanyahu’s coalition to back the agreement. The Camp David summit in July 2000 would have succeeded if the US had been less sensitive to Israeli domestic concerns, insisted on a written Israeli proposal, consulted the Arab states at an earlier phase, and taken the more firm and balanced position adopted half a year later, in December 2000, when President Clinton outlined parameters for an agreement. Both parties could have accepted the Clinton parameters with only minimal reservations had the proposal not been presented so fleetingly, as a one-time offer that would disappear when Clinton stepped down less than a month later. The negotiations in Taba, Egypt, in January 2001 were on the brink of agreement but failed because time ran out, with Clinton just out of office, and Ehud Barak facing almost certain electoral defeat to Ariel Sharon. The two major peace plans of 2003 – the US-sponsored road map to peace in the Middle East and the unofficial Geneva accord – could have been embraced had it not been for a bloody intifada and a hawkish Likud prime minister in power.
And on it goes: direct negotiations between the Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas and Netanyahu in 2010 could have lasted more than 13 days if only Israel had agreed to temporarily halt construction of some illegal settlements in exchange for an extra $3bn package from the United States. Several years of secret back-channel negotiations between the envoys of Netanyahu and Abbas could have made history if only they hadn’t been forced to conclude prematurely in late 2013, because of an artificial deadline imposed by separate talks led by secretary of state John Kerry. And, finally, the Kerry negotiations of 2013–2014 could have led to a framework agreement if the secretary of state had spent even a sixth as much time negotiating the text with the Palestinians as he did with the Israelis, and if he hadn’t made inconsistent promises to the two sides regarding the guidelines for the talks, the release of Palestinian prisoners, curtailing Israeli settlement construction, and the presence of US mediators in the negotiating room.
Click to expand...
This excerpt is from a much more comprehensive review of all the reasons for failures of the many so-called Arab-Israeli peace deals over the past 50+ years: Israel-Palestine: the real reason there’s still no peace | World news | The Guardian
The only true statement about all of this is there's plenty of blame on both sides for the mess. Not mentioned in the article was the 1982 massacre of hundreds of Lebanese Muslim men, women and children at that Sabra and Shatila refugee camps by Christian falangists when they were under the "protection" of the IDF. While that genocide wasn't directly pertinent to the peace process it certainly didn't give Palestinians any reason to trust Israel.
 
CJ 2.0 said:
Or having genuinely no idea what you were talking about with your own non-sequitur and riffing on it.

Happy to do over if you want to tie your point into the argument somehow.
Click to expand...

No do-over necessary. Your pitiful attempt to run away from your own words is clearly understood.
 
oneworld2 said:
It's , imo , just another use of something else by the Israeli side to try to scupper any chance of a resolution of the conflict .

If the Palestinians want to recognize the state of Israel without being bullied into a description that is unnecessary then I don't see it as an issue.

Those who are pushing this are imo not interested in any serious moves to try to resolve the conflict and are using this none issue as the means to justify it
Click to expand...
Those who deny it imo are not interested in any kind of peace.
 
Jean-s said:
Do you honestly blame the indigenous Arabs of Palestine for not accepting their expulsion and displacement by European Jews after WWII?
Click to expand...

I'm certain there's no honesty involved. This is all ideology.
 
Jean-s said:
Do you honestly blame the indigenous Arabs of Palestine for not accepting their expulsion and displacement by European Jews after WWII?
Click to expand...

Blah blah. That wasn’t what you said.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
NO1 said:
Those who deny it imo are not interested in any kind of peace.
Click to expand...

Nope those who are using it as an unnecessary demand are not interested in peace.imo

It was not a part of the peace deal with Egypt nor Jordan but is is presented as a stumbling block if the Palestinians don't accept it ? Smacks of just a little more of those delaying tactics to fend off a deal while the facts on the ground predetermine the reality of any settlement IE the completion into stone/concrete of the entire annexation wall , or the building of the latest illegal settlement blocks
 
Jean-s said:
Do you honestly blame the indigenous Arabs of Palestine for not accepting their expulsion and displacement by European Jews after WWII?
Click to expand...

It is interesting that when you read the words of David ben Gurion he is fully reasonable about the Arab rejection of the state of Israel.The founding father of the state itself is more understanding of the Arab rejectionism than the Israeli lobby here in the 21st century !!
 
CJ 2.0 said:
It doesn't matter what is "legal" or not, both because you are wrong and because the law is not justification for ethnic cleansing.

Your position is not based on pragmatism. It is purely ideological and in lockstep with various socialists who align themselves against Israel. Practically let's get the Palestinians to fix their society and then work out a negotiated deal that gets them enough for a viable state. Anything more than that is what you want, not what is needed, and is an ideological choice.

And someone who advocates the forced removal of half a million people to make room for those of a different ethnic background is really not in the position to lecture anyone on morality.
Click to expand...

I don't agree that it is or should come under the term an ethnic cleansing. In fact it is an obvious attempt at rewriting the concept itself imo

The usual and accepted circumstances for a legitimate claim to be made involves one group of people forcibly removing another group based on different ethnic/religious origins. If Israel were to disengage from the WB and East Jerusalem it would be the responsibility ( and rightly so considering the history of illlegal settlement building/population transfer ) of the government of the Jewish state to relocate it's citizens within its own borders instead of them illegally residing in the territory of another state. Thus only one group of people would be involved and the law would be respected.

Who talks about the ethnic cleansing of Gaza in 2005 ? Nobody because they recognize that those people were illegally residing outside of their state at the expence of those already living there legally.

The authentic cases of it you fully support throughout and right up until this very moment, so don't try to moralize about it when you

A Support it yourself if it is directed at Palestinians

B Try to rewrite the concept itself so as to allow illegal Jewish setttlement of Palestinian land

Failing that here's another option

The settlement residents illegally living in Palestine can renounce their Israeli citizenship and become part of the Palestinian state agreeing to live in peace with their neighbours in return for a recognized Palestinian citizenship.
 
Last edited:
oneworld2 said:
You always refer to the Palestinian " terror war " which is obviously a reference to the second intifada. I always ask you the same question and you have always , so far at least , never respond to it.

The Palestinian " terror war " is the reference to the wave of suicide bombings that occured a few months into it. You never reply imo because you don't want the timeline to be discussed. The timeline is that by the time Palestinians resorted to terrorism the Israeli state terrorism had already claimed 47 Palestinian lives with nearly 2000 Palestinians injured in the first 5 days alone and the death toll would rise significantly before any suicide bombings against civilian targets would occur.

The Israelis were firing from helicopters into crowds of rioting stone throwing rioters. According to HRs groups around 80% of those casualties were made up of rioters or bystanders that posed no mortal threat to the IDF soldiers raining bullets at them ( sounds familiar , see fence protests in Gaza )

So the Israeli state terrorism preceded the Hamas and co militia terrorism by months. Usually normal people would recognize who started the " terrorist war " from that timeline and that is why you have never responded to it so far imo
Click to expand...

Ah, yes...

The "stone thrower" defense. Used because the public perception of "just throwing stones" is that of innocents chucking pebbles at the big bad IDF.....

Yeah.

There was a thread on that.

Stone throwing.... Perception and reality.
 
Last edited:
oneworld2 said:
I don't agree that it is or should come under the term an ethnic cleansing. In fact it is an obvious attempt at rewriting the concept itself imo

The usual and accepted circumstances for a legitimate claim to be made involves one group of people forcibly removing another group based on different ethnic/religious origins. If Israel were to disengage from the WB and East Jerusalem it would be the responsibility ( and rightly so considering the history of illlegal settlement building/population transfer ) of the government of the Jewish state to relocate it's citizens within its own borders instead of them illegally residing in the territory of another state. Thus only one group of people would be involved and the law would be respected.

Who talks about the ethnic cleansing of Gaza in 2005 ? Nobody because they recognize that those people were illegally residing outside of their state at the expence of those already living there legally.

The authentic cases of it you fully support throughout and right up until this very moment, so don't try to moralize about it when you

A Support it yourself if it is directed at Palestinians

B Try to rewrite the concept itself so as to allow illegal Jewish setttlement of Palestinian land

Failing that here's another option

The settlement residents illegally living in Palestine can renounce their Israeli citizenship and become part of the Palestinian state agreeing to live in peace with their neighbours in return for a recognized Palestinian citizenship.
Click to expand...

Oh so it’s ok because you don’t believe it should be called ethnic cleansing.

Even though it is the forcible removal of a population from a territory in order to allow settlement of a different population.

That’s fresh.
 
CJ 2.0 said:
Oh so it’s ok because you don’t believe it should be called ethnic cleansing.

Even though it is the forcible removal of a population from a territory in order to allow settlement of a different population.

That’s fresh.
Click to expand...

Hey, That's Islamic doctrine, they have been doing it for 1400 years.
 
oneworld2 said:
Nope those who are using it as an unnecessary demand are not interested in peace.imo

It was not a part of the peace deal with Egypt nor Jordan but is is presented as a stumbling block if the Palestinians don't accept it ? Smacks of just a little more of those delaying tactics to fend off a deal while the facts on the ground predetermine the reality of any settlement IE the completion into stone/concrete of the entire annexation wall , or the building of the latest illegal settlement blocks
Click to expand...
Abbas is against it because he knows that recognize Israel as Jewish state going to effect his demend to "the right to return", he want to change the nature of israel as Jewish state. Abbas don't care about the rights of the Israeli Arabs, he just want to ensure their national rights for the future so they can challenge Israel nature (after the peace agreement) as Jewish state. In order to end this conflict, it's time the palestinians will accept the idea that Jewish state and stop trying to undermine and fight it, they should realize there won't be any return of plastinians to Israel, they can stop dreaming about Haifa and Acre. But of course it ain't going to happen, so why would Israel agree to palestinian country when the palestinians can't do the same?
 
NO1 said:
Abbas is against it because he knows that recognize Israel as Jewish state going to effect his demend to "the right to return", he want to change the nature of israel as Jewish state. Abbas don't care about the rights of the Israeli Arabs, he just want to ensure their national rights for the future so they can challenge Israel nature (after the peace agreement) as Jewish state. In order to end this conflict, it's time the palestinians will accept the idea that Jewish state and stop trying to undermine and fight it, they should realize there won't be any return of plastinians to Israel, they can stop dreaming about Haifa and Acre. But of course it ain't going to happen, so why would Israel agree to palestinian country when the palestinians can't do the same?
Click to expand...

This is 100% right and blindingly obvious.
 
digitusmedius said:
Using the "uh-un YOU are" comeback might have worked in first grade for you but now it's a way of running away.
Click to expand...

Was pointing out the irony in your words not simple enough for you to understand?
 
digitusmedius said:
I accept your :surrender
Click to expand...

You're being embarrassing with this childish attempt to save some grace. CJ provides arguments that easily dismantle your illogical nonsense and this seems to be the best you can offer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom