Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
xnatex

Israel Vs Gaza

who will win?  

49 members have voted

  1. 1. who will win?

    • Israel
      15
    • Gaza
      0
    • Everybody loses
      34


Recommended Posts

Don't mistake passion for the truth with cold hearted callous lies.

 

GFK is a liar. Nobody who has read all those amazing books he claims he has read could possibly say some of the outright lies he has been saying.

 

We can go through his statements point by point and if you find one fact per post that is not an outright lie or an embellishment or a cherry-picked fact that ignores the entire reason behind an action - i will be very surprised.

 

He is a liar. It is that simple.

I think this particular post is most telling.

 

Quote Leonid:

What if becoming friends with your enemy betrays every single one of your principles?

 

Still worth it?

End Quote:

 

I believe GFK would be open to change his stance if it ultimately came down to it.

 

Whereas with you Leonid, I see a politician who would argue his case long after he had reservations about his argument. Just because he needs to be right.

 

You are not open to a difference of opinion in any way, as far as I can see.

 

 

 

Like I have said, you may be wholly right in your argument. I am not in a position to pass any meaningful judgement.

But the style in which you are arguing makes me extremely suspect of your motives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't mistake passion for the truth with cold hearted callous lies.

 

GFK is a liar. Nobody who has read all those amazing books he claims he has read could possibly say some of the outright lies he has been saying.

 

We can go through his statements point by point and if you find one fact per post that is not an outright lie or an embellishment or a cherry-picked fact that ignores the entire reason behind an action - i will be very surprised.

 

He is a liar. It is that simple.

I think this particular post is most telling.

 

Quote Leonid:

What if becoming friends with your enemy betrays every single one of your principles?

 

Still worth it?

End Quote:

 

I believe GFK would be open to change his stance if it ultimately came down to it.

 

Whereas with you Leonid, I see a politician who would argue his case long after he had reservations about his argument. Just because he needs to be right.

 

You are not open to a difference of opinion in any way, as far as I can see.

 

 

 

Like I have said, you may be wholly right in your argument. I am not in a position to pass any meaningful judgement.

But the style in which you are arguing makes me extremely suspect of your motives.

 

GFK is not open to change his mind. That much has been proven.

 

And you know there's a guy called James Randi who said that having an open mind is not about having a hole in your head from which your brain leaks out.

 

The minuscule possibility of GFK reversing his position and not handing over several million people not lucky to be born straight, male and Muslim - is not indicative of someone who has an open mind.

 

If you can show me a Palestinian party that has any respect for human rights I will change my mind.

 

But until then, unlike GFK and Kothos I refuse to let my brain leak out and support yet another religious dictatorship based on murdering and oppressing anyone who wasn't born with a penis and praying from a Koran.

 

I wouldn't vote for Hamas here. Why should I support them elsewhere?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't mistake passion for the truth with cold hearted callous lies.

 

GFK is a liar. Nobody who has read all those amazing books he claims he has read could possibly say some of the outright lies he has been saying.

 

We can go through his statements point by point and if you find one fact per post that is not an outright lie or an embellishment or a cherry-picked fact that ignores the entire reason behind an action - i will be very surprised.

 

He is a liar. It is that simple.

I think this particular post is most telling.

 

Quote Leonid:

What if becoming friends with your enemy betrays every single one of your principles?

 

Still worth it?

End Quote:

 

I believe GFK would be open to change his stance if it ultimately came down to it.

 

Whereas with you Leonid, I see a politician who would argue his case long after he had reservations about his argument. Just because he needs to be right.

 

You are not open to a difference of opinion in any way, as far as I can see.

 

 

 

Like I have said, you may be wholly right in your argument. I am not in a position to pass any meaningful judgement.

But the style in which you are arguing makes me extremely suspect of your motives.

 

GFK is not open to change his mind. That much has been proven.

 

And you know there's a guy called James Randi who said that having an open mind is not about having a hole in your head from which your brain leaks out.

 

The minuscule possibility of GFK reversing his position and not handing over several million people not lucky to be born straight, male and Muslim - is not indicative of someone who has an open mind.

 

If you can show me a Palestinian party that has any respect for human rights I will change my mind.

 

But until then, unlike GFK and Kothos I refuse to let my brain leak out and support yet another religious dictatorship based on murdering and oppressing anyone who wasn't born with a penis and praying from a Koran.

 

I wouldn't vote for Hamas here. Why should I support them elsewhere?

 

Disregarding the fact that the Germans may have had good cause to be pissed off with Jews (the money changers and bankers part of the Jewish race) before WW2.

There is no denying the fact that the Jews were fucked up the arse in the most heinous of ways during that war. Unspeakable acts of violence and inhumanity no doubt.

 

But if you go back several hundreds years, the same can be said for the Africans, Indigenous North Americans, Indigenous South Americans, Indigenous Australians, Indigenous New Zealanders, English, Irish, Scottish, Indian, Vietnamese, Chinese,

etc, etc, etc.

While there may be a minority of these groups who are unprepared to forget. These groups in general are prepared to move on.,

 

I don't know enough about the specifics, but I have seen enough documentary's on the matter to know that GFK is right. The general populace of Israel is screaming shalom. And are sick and tired of their warmongering leaders crying for revenge.

The same can be said for tired rhetoric of the Palestinian dictators who do not speak for the majority. As GFK has stated.

 

What it comes down to is, there is a minority in any culture who resolutely refuse to let go of the past, and tries to poison there compatriots with ideas of violence and revenge.

 

You seem to belong in this group.

 

You obviously seem to be one of these minority right wingers, as you don't truly see an option for peace in the region.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Disregarding the fact that the Germans may have had good cause to be pissed off with Jews (the money changers and bankers part of the Jewish race) before WW2.

There is no denying the fact that the Jews were fucked up the arse in the most heinous of ways during that war. Unspeakable acts of violence and inhumanity no doubt.

I'm going to ignore this by giving you the benefit of the doubt.

 

But if you go back several hundreds years, the same can be said for the Africans, Indigenous North Americans, Indigenous South Americans, Indigenous Australians, Indigenous New Zealanders, English, Irish, Scottish, Indian, Vietnamese, Chinese,

etc, etc, etc.

While there may be a minority of these groups who are unprepared to forget. These groups in general are prepared to move on.,

So far so good

 

I don't know enough about the specifics, but I have seen enough documentary's on the matter to know that GFK is right. The general populace of Israel is screaming shalom. And are sick and tired of their warmongering leaders crying for revenge.

Wrong again. The election lists just came out.

 

Likud's lists include a guy called Moshe Feiglin. I'll leave you to read about him.

 

The majority of Israelis are sick of being shot at. 75% are displeased with the way Pillar of Defense ended. They want Hamas eradicated and because of international pressure on Israel not to do what any other nation would - there's been a rightwards shift.

 

The same can be said for tired rhetoric of the Palestinian dictators who do not speak for the majority. As GFK has stated.

Wrong again. In 2010, all major polling agencies in the Middle East reported Hamas to be supported by 52% of Palestinians, and 13% for Fateh.

 

What it comes down to is, there is a minority in any culture who resolutely refuse to let go of the past, and tries to poison there compatriots with ideas of violence and revenge.

True. Except sometimes this minority is actually the majority: example being the Palestinians

 

You seem to belong in this group.

Let me give you a brief history of my family:

1. Kicked out of Ukraine by invading Nazis

2. Some family members killed by Germans

3. Oppressed by Russian Communists

4. Property seized by the state when we left in 1991

5. Citizenship revoked with no right to return.

 

I do not want revenge on Russia, Germany or anyone else. Neither does anyone in my family. We do not hate Russians or Germans. In fact my future wife is Russian Orthodox.

 

I want the Palestinians to stop maintaining the victim narrative. It demeans them.

 

You obviously seem to be one of these minority right wingers, as you don't truly see an option for peace in the region.

Not seeing an option for peace is not a right wing phenomenon. It is a practical reality phenomenon.

 

There are three states on the ground. We're talking about a two state solution.

There are two Palestinian governments. People want Israel to talk to the least supported and least legitimate one.

There are three parties to the conflict. Two say they want peace. One says they want to kill everyones.

 

This is not a right wing position. This is a position based on reality. Peace processes require a foundation of it.

 

Let me ask you a question catalyst - would you vote for One Nation?

 

Or the US Republicans?

 

I wouldn't. I'm centre-left socially-speaking. I like freedom quite a lot.

 

If I wouldn't vote for One Nation or the US Republicans because they are, fundamentally, arseholes why would I support giving a whole country to someone worse than them combined?

 

Why would you? Why would GFK? Why would Kothos?

 

....

 

I have my theory... and my theory is that you guys care more about making sure white people respect rights than about brown people getting them.

 

Whereas me, I see no point in helping people who refuse to help themselves. If the Palestinians wanted rights, there was nothing stopping them from decriminalising homosexuality, desegregating women, allowing open access to public service to all religions... etc. We could then, as GFK lied about, see the Palestinians doing something positive, building a just society based on human rights and laws.

 

As it is we see the creation of a fragmented weak kleptocratic leadership of a state split down sectarian lines with no hope of peace between the two organisations and plenty of blood to settle. And the people will get no more rights than they've already got - in fact less since full Sharia only applies in Gaza at the moment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An excellent

on the futility of the ME peace process:

 

 

Just in case you're wondering who this guy is and why he's important, his name is Pat Condell. His first 35 videos were issued on a DVD by The Richard Dawkins Foundation. He's been endorsed by PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins, he is a staunch atheist, a supporter of free speech and a critic of religion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Leonid:

 

I am well aware of your past, and that of your family. You have brought it up in other threads.

 

And to be completely honest with you. If some invading force came and killed my wife and daughter, mother and father and took my property by force.

I quite probably would be screaming almighty bloody rage and revenge.

 

But I'm sure that deep within my heart, I would know that this would not heal my pain.

 

 

I will just take your figures of support for the extremist Palestinian regime as fact.

But let me indulge you in a pipe dream. And imagine that the Israeli Government truly extended an olive branch to the Palestinians where there could be a free and autonomous Palestinian state,

bordered with a combined Israeli/Palestinian buffer zone of cohesion guaranteed (through might) by righteousness and goodness for all fellow humans. Regardless of race or creed.

 

Do you think the level of support would still remain for such an extreme Palestinian Government?

 

Violence be-gets violence.

Hatred be-gets hatred.

 

It takes GREAT men and women to overcome such things. And it remains to be seen weather they will triumph.

 

 

 

Regarding One Nation:

 

You know the answer to that question. I refuse to be baited.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Leonid:

 

I am well aware of your past, and that of your family. You have brought it up in other threads.

 

And to be completely honest with you. If some invading force came and killed my wife and daughter, mother and father and took my property by force.

I quite probably would be screaming almighty bloody rage and revenge.

 

But I'm sure that deep within my heart, I would know that this would not heal my pain.

This is precisely the point. The Palestinians lost a war that they started, suffered the consequences, cast themselves as the victims. I have great grounds for hating Russians, Germans, Ukrainians and their nations. I do not. Neither do the majority of Jews.

 

But the majority of Palestinians in the territories loathe Jews and Israel. This is because they refuse to let go of the past and because their extremist leaders have spent every cent of money they've ever been given on enriching themselves, blaming the Jews for the lack of money flowing to their people, and on building weapons instead of housing to replace refugee camps.

 

I will just take your figures of support for the extremist Palestinian regime as fact.

But let me indulge you in a pipe dream. And imagine that the Israeli Government truly extended an olive branch to the Palestinians where there could be a free and autonomous Palestinian state,

bordered with a combined Israeli/Palestinian buffer zone of cohesion guaranteed (through might) by righteousness and goodness for all fellow humans. Regardless of race or creed.

 

Do you think the level of support would still remain for such an extreme Palestinian Government?

History says yes because Israel has offered such a deal.

 

Violence be-gets violence.

Hatred be-gets hatred.

 

It takes GREAT men and women to overcome such things. And it remains to be seen weather they will triumph.

The problem is that great men are required from all sides. There are no such great men in HAMAS.

 

Regarding One Nation:

 

You know the answer to that question. I refuse to be baited.

I know the answer to that question. I don't understand though why you refuse to give this country to them, yet on the subject of the reality of a HAMAS run Palestine, you're amazingly silent.

 

This is a question neither Kothos nor GFK will ever answer. If we recast Newton's third law into social settings, we accept that all actions have consequences.

 

There are consequences to the granting of a Palestinian state. Start thinking if the consequences are worth the creation of the state and whether anyone involved will be on-the-whole better off.

 

We can further enhance this statement: During the Cold War, America armed the Pashtuni tribe in Afghanistan against the Russians. The Pashtunis were extremist anti-Communist Muslims. 20 years later these Pashtunis were the Taliban, killing Americans and harboring anti-American terrorists.

 

Every action has consequences. Every single one.

 

Are you really sure you want to give HAMAS a state? Would you live in it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you really sure you want to give HAMAS a state? Would you live in it?

are you presuming it should be Israel's prerogative to grant or rescind a people's right to self-determination?

Edited by @~thehung

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you really sure you want to give HAMAS a state? Would you live in it?

are you presuming it should be Israel's prerogative to grant or rescind a people's right to self-determination?

 

The simple answer to this question is 'yes'. I can expand on it if you would like?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the UN doesn't agree...

 

 

THE UN General Assembly has voted overwhelmingly to recognise Palestine as a non-member state, handing a major triumph to president Mahmud Abbas in the face of fierce US and Israeli opposition.

 

Mr Abbas demanded the United Nations give a “birth certificate” to a Palestinian state and was rewarded with the backing of 138 countries.

 

Only nine members heeded Israeli warnings that the move could lead to more violence and voted against.

 

Australia was among 41 countries which abstained, after opposition from Labor MPs forced Julia Gillard to abandon plans to vote against granting Palestine UN observer status.

 

The UN vote lifts the status of the Palestinian Authority from an observer entity to a “non-member observer state” with the same status as the Vatican.

 

Even though it is not a full member it can now join UN agencies and potentially join the International Criminal Court.

 

.Israel immediately condemned Mr Abbas's speech to the General Assembly ahead of the vote as “defamatory and venomous".

cont in link

 

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world...o-1226527261421

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest xyzzy frobozz

Well the UN doesn't agree...

The UN cannot create a state. Not one of it's powers.

 

Yasser Arafat unilaterally declared independence in (from memory) 1989. That has now been recognised by the U.N..

 

How is it any different to Israel's formation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yasser Arafat unilaterally declared independence in (from memory) 1989. That has now been recognised by the U.N..

 

How is it any different to Israel's formation?

I think that was actually 1988 but I may be wrong.

 

As I said - the UN has no power to create a state. Nor to uncreate one. The UN merely acknowledge the proclamation of a state and confers the privileges of a state to an entity within its confines. By international law there is no state of Palestine. However within the confines of the UN Palestine will now be treated as a limited-rights state.

 

I'm not sure I'm clear enough... Let me know if I'm not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the UN doesn't agree...

 

 

THE UN General Assembly has voted overwhelmingly to recognise Palestine as a non-member state, handing a major triumph to president Mahmud Abbas in the face of fierce US and Israeli opposition.

 

Mr Abbas demanded the United Nations give a “birth certificate” to a Palestinian state and was rewarded with the backing of 138 countries.

 

Only nine members heeded Israeli warnings that the move could lead to more violence and voted against.

 

Australia was among 41 countries which abstained, after opposition from Labor MPs forced Julia Gillard to abandon plans to vote against granting Palestine UN observer status.

 

The UN vote lifts the status of the Palestinian Authority from an observer entity to a “non-member observer state” with the same status as the Vatican.

 

Even though it is not a full member it can now join UN agencies and potentially join the International Criminal Court.

 

.Israel immediately condemned Mr Abbas's speech to the General Assembly ahead of the vote as “defamatory and venomous".

cont in link

 

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world...o-1226527261421

 

 

Yep its good news but the PA will need to keep making an effort. There is yet again overwhelmingly recognition that the Palestinain people have at the very least a moral claimto self determination (I am well aware that a poster on this forum will immediately start discrediting this but I am not engaging with them). Please ignore that person ranting about 'the UN cant create a state' and so forth. That person has a particularly narrow view of what a state is and how a body or organisation can operate within the international community, and is not capable of understanding the subtlety and nuance of international law and diplomacy. Witnessed by his abuse and cries of liar liar.

 

Of course the PA must step up. But as I have noted a number of times (with expected abuse fornm the particular poster) there are many in the West Bank for example who are working towards the establishment of modern legal and administartive codes. Palestinains currently have a a confusing array of laws and regulations adopted from a number of jurisdictions including aspects Sharia law in some areas , which is a nightmare to navigate and confusing for legislators - chuck in Israeli military and civil law and its a dogs breakfast. But things are being done by many who are moving on from hate and bigotry. Lets hope it is not all for naught.

 

The biggest advanatge of this vote and the upgrade in status is that the PA will now have acceess to specific PROCEDURAL processes to help in dispute resolution - these process are far generally adjudged far more independently and Transperantly than the current negotiation arrangemnt in place. This was actually one of Israels biggest concerns - that the PA now has - to some degreee - some procedural SAFEGUARDS which they did not have before. It now has further access to a forum in which to present its perspective. The practical effect is that helps equalise the playing field. The Palestinains have generaly been in a weaker position in many negotiations with Israel.

 

This of course works both ways - the PA wil now also be examined far more closely. Nevertheless this is an improtant learning exercise for the PA.

 

Concerns?

 

Well Israel threatened to destabilise things if the vote went ahead. They then toned that down but are now again using inflammatory language.

 

The Palestinain Authority must continue to resist violence and work towards just institutions and providing services for its people. One challenege is money - the PA is still owed milions in promised humanitarian and financial aid from the United States which was withheld by them last year when the idea of a vote in the UN was first put up. Also much of the tax revenue raised by the PA is actually held by Israel in a kind of 'trust'. This money (Palestinain money) is then doled out to the PA on terms. Little things like this mean that Palestinians are very vulnerable. The threat of remvong money to force Palestinains to comply with sonething that Isreal or the US want has been a rergular theme of 'diplomacy' between Israel and the Palestinians.

 

Israel and the US must recognise that the best way to prevent violence and instability is by providing people with meaningful lives. If you starve people what do you expect? It must recoignise that supporting the building of institutions that support justice is a key ingredient in peace for the entire region. It must recognise that it is people sense of dignity that must be addressed to combat terrorism. I could go on - you get the picture. This may take time and there may be initial negative reactions. But we need to start properly. The concern I have with Israel is that pretty much all government policy in any area is geared around a military solution (wihether defence or offence). I have discussed this before. The implciation is that Israel will have to shift its policy focus AND its policy RATIONALE. Just like for the Palestinains there are going to be MANY Israeli Jews who will be bitterly and vocally and perhaps violently opposed to this.

 

I see in the future the possibility that Palestine will become a symbol and example of peace in the Arab world. I thinks its important to think positive.

 

 

I wish the PA all the best. Having met some senior legal and politcial science academics from the West Bank and a number of students (dismissed as lies from a particular poster though provided with evidence) I know that there is a growing eductaed class that are absolutely committed to creating an effective constitutional state that recognises diplomacy justice and peace as fundamnetal traits of the new Palestine. I am of course buyoed in my optimism that thankfuly there are many Jews throughout the world who are also committed to comprimise and mving forward and not maintaing the hate and animosity.

 

 

A final comment - in 2003 in an interview with the New York Times Noam Chomsky (who is Jewish) said this:

 

"It is a shame that critics of Israeli policies are seen as either anti-Semites or self-hating Jews. It's grotesque. If an Italian criticized Italian policies, would he be seen as a self-hating Italian?"

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/02/magazine/02QUESTIONS.html

 

Something for people to reflect on.

Edited by GhostFaceKilla

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Further lies from GFK :)

 

Lets go through them.

 

1. Moral claim to self determination

 

Nobody has a moral claim to self determination. They have a moral claim to a process of self determination - nothing more.

 

In other words, a people may ask for statehood, but they are not within their rights to get one. This is a very important point - it prevents Auburnistan from seceding from Australia at some point in the future.

 

2. Ignore the "ranting" about the UN not being able to create a state.

 

This is not ranting. The UN operates on a body of principles called the UN Charter. That Charter is an international treaty every full member of the UNGA must sign and ratify. There is no provision in that charter for state creation.

 

Furthermore, on November 15, 1988, Yassir Arafat read out a Declaration of Independence forming the state of Palestine. Ignore for the moment that a declaration on independence means bugger all if your state doesn't meet the definition of a state... But whatever... The UN acknowledged the declaration and 93 countries recognised the Palestinian "state"

 

Did a Palestinian state actually form? Nope.

 

Will it form now? Nope.

 

This is because declarations in front of the UN are useless. The UN recognises Israel as a state but a third of the world's countries do not even though Israel meets the definitions of a state.

 

Unlike GFKs lying would have you believe, we actually have tested definitions of a state and they were most recently tested in 1991 in Yugoslavia.

 

A state must have territorial integrity and be in control of it his territory and have a defined population.

 

3. The statement that the PA is trying to modernise and bring civil codes into the Palestinian fabric is an outright lie

 

I want everyone to imagine the yin yang symbol. It's the most potent representation of the world - there is bad in good people and good in bad people.

 

There are cultural maxims that allow us to state certain things are either good or evil. For example, more education is good. Killing homosexuals is evil.

 

But did you know that education can also be evil because education is fundamentally a propaganda tool. We, in the west, use education to make sure our children are more liberal and more progressive than we are. In the Arab world, they use education to make their kids more conservative and more radical.

 

What has this got to do with laws you ask?

 

I draw on my experience as a Russian. If you read Russia's laws you will see that on paper Russia is freer and more liberal than Australia. However, the virtual dictatorship run with the sole purpose of enriching Putin and his mates, completely ignore these laws.

 

Laws written by dictators aren't worth the paper they are written on. Abbas is a dictator. His mandate ran out 3 years ago and his existence as leader is against the rules voted on by the Palestinian people. His organisation created a law that was not even voted for in the legislative assembly, prescribing the death penalty for 42 offences. In other words, the elected representatives of the Palestinian people, did not get to vote on a law that would be used to execute them and their constituents. The PA merely made an executive decision against its own rules.

 

The thing is, GFK, in meeting and dining these experts from Ramallah, formed his own personal conga line of suckholes, to borrow a Latham phrase. He completely ignores the elephant in the room that the Palestinians are using an illegal instrument to create illegal laws that will not be followed anyway.

 

For proof of this, observe the fact that Saudi Arabia, another Sharia Law country has signed and ratified international treaties on women's rights.

 

4. Use of Noam Chomsky

 

Are you really sure you want to use as backup a guy who defended a Holocaust denier and supported the Srebrennica massacre because it was committed by leftists?

 

Chomsky's an idiot. The amount of stuff he lies about would compete with you. There are thousands of sites where lists of Chomsky's lies are listed in chronological order including links to documents he has cited as proof which directly contradict everything he has said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The Palestinain Authority must continue to resist violence and work towards just institutions and providing services for its people. One challenege is money - the PA is still owed milions in promised humanitarian and financial aid from the United States which was withheld by them last year when the idea of a vote in the UN was first put up. Also much of the tax revenue raised by the PA is actually held by Israel in a kind of 'trust'. This money (Palestinain money) is then doled out to the PA on terms."

 

Absolutely.

 

Let's set aside the past, and our personal opinions for a second on this conflict.

 

I don't think anyone in this argument thinks that the palestinians shouldn't have involvement in their own government(s) and a place to live.

 

If the Palestinians can't make the most of what is happening now and what will happen to them in the future, and prove that when given power, when given responsibility, and when given autonomy, they can't act like a rational and proper nation which isn't a threat to it's neighbours.

You may feel like I don't care about the plight of the Palestinian people, I used to care a lot more, and I think that over time I've become inured to their suffering as a result of their actions. If they can grasp the opportunities that they are going to be given, then that will change. If they take what they are offered, and use it to hurt Israel, it will vindicate my current opinion on their position and more people (potentially yourself included) will be given food for thought.

 

I hope my gut feeling is wrong, and they can bring in the peace, order and western values you seem to think they can.

But TBH, I don't think giving them what they wanted in the 90s or 00s would have meant that they'd be there today. Do you think they would have?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5. Playing fast and loose with the truth - "If you starve people what do you expect?"

 

Apparently according to our most excellent Emeritus of Lying, the USA and Israel are starving the Palestinians.

 

The Palestinians are listed at the 8th place in world overweight population rankings.

 

I mean seriously, how stupid does GFK think the rest of the world is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

---

 

Just as a by-the-by GFK, when you met with these nice PA lawmakers while they were laughing behind their your back about the conga line of Western Useful Idiots ligning up to swallow their sob-story -- did you discuss your beliefs with them, in vehement agreement off course, that Jews did 9/11?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The Palestinain Authority must continue to resist violence and work towards just institutions and providing services for its people. One challenege is money - the PA is still owed milions in promised humanitarian and financial aid from the United States which was withheld by them last year when the idea of a vote in the UN was first put up. Also much of the tax revenue raised by the PA is actually held by Israel in a kind of 'trust'. This money (Palestinain money) is then doled out to the PA on terms."

 

Absolutely.

 

Let's set aside the past, and our personal opinions for a second on this conflict.

 

I don't think anyone in this argument thinks that the palestinians shouldn't have involvement in their own government(s) and a place to live.

 

If the Palestinians can't make the most of what is happening now and what will happen to them in the future, and prove that when given power, when given responsibility, and when given autonomy, they can't act like a rational and proper nation which isn't a threat to it's neighbours.

You may feel like I don't care about the plight of the Palestinian people, I used to care a lot more, and I think that over time I've become inured to their suffering as a result of their actions. If they can grasp the opportunities that they are going to be given, then that will change. If they take what they are offered, and use it to hurt Israel, it will vindicate my current opinion on their position and more people (potentially yourself included) will be given food for thought.

It's a clever trick isn't it? Brutalise a people for long enough then when they behave like brutes you can fold your arms and say," look we were right all along".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The Palestinain Authority must continue to resist violence and work towards just institutions and providing services for its people. One challenege is money - the PA is still owed milions in promised humanitarian and financial aid from the United States which was withheld by them last year when the idea of a vote in the UN was first put up. Also much of the tax revenue raised by the PA is actually held by Israel in a kind of 'trust'. This money (Palestinain money) is then doled out to the PA on terms."

 

Absolutely.

 

Let's set aside the past, and our personal opinions for a second on this conflict.

 

I don't think anyone in this argument thinks that the palestinians shouldn't have involvement in their own government(s) and a place to live.

 

If the Palestinians can't make the most of what is happening now and what will happen to them in the future, and prove that when given power, when given responsibility, and when given autonomy, they can't act like a rational and proper nation which isn't a threat to it's neighbours.

You may feel like I don't care about the plight of the Palestinian people, I used to care a lot more, and I think that over time I've become inured to their suffering as a result of their actions. If they can grasp the opportunities that they are going to be given, then that will change. If they take what they are offered, and use it to hurt Israel, it will vindicate my current opinion on their position and more people (potentially yourself included) will be given food for thought.

It's a clever trick isn't it? Brutalise a people for long enough then when they behave like brutes you can fold your arms and say," look we were right all along".

 

This is yet another false argument. All the better for me to destroy it because of the person delivering it.

 

Few people know this, but Hlass is a Jew. Jews are arguably historically the most persecuted of people. A third of us were wiped out 60 years ago.

 

We have every good reason to hate Germans, Russian, French, English, Arabs. We have been killed, slaughtered, lynched in gigantic numbers by all of them.

 

We have excellent reason to be brutal because for 2000 years the world has treated Jews like shit, and still does.

 

And yet we are not brutes.

 

There's a simple reason for this. We will never forget what has been done to us as a people, but we are not going to stoop to the same level. We will do merely the minimum required to make sure it never happens to us again.

 

Am Yisrael Chai. Never again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An excellent

on the futility of the ME peace process:

 

 

Just in case you're wondering who this guy is and why he's important, his name is Pat Condell. His first 35 videos were issued on a DVD by The Richard Dawkins Foundation. He's been endorsed by PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins, he is a staunch atheist, a supporter of free speech and a critic of religion.

I cant find fault with what he said in the video , I am going to watch more of his videos , thanks for the embed.

 

 

 

here is a different take on it

Edited by Waltish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"If the Palestinians can't make the most of what is happening now and what will happen to them in the future, and prove that when given power, when given responsibility, and when given autonomy, they can't act like a rational and proper nation which isn't a threat to it's neighbours.

You may feel like I don't care about the plight of the Palestinian people, I used to care a lot more, and I think that over time I've become inured to their suffering as a result of their actions. If they can grasp the opportunities that they are going to be given, then that will change. If they take what they are offered, and use it to hurt Israel, it will vindicate my current opinion on their position and more people (potentially yourself included) will be given food for thought.

 

Just on this I agree and I have noted this. They really have to step up as it where. My concern is interrelated - firstly that peoples expectations for a timeline for 'obvious' change may not be realistic. Just the issue of border integrity alone is an issue that is currently in the hands of Israel. Similarly most of the administartive capacity is Israeli based in some way shape or form on Israeli policy needs. Israel still directly controls through military or civil capacities 60% of the West Bank. The suggestion that Palestinains currently or have ever had full autonomy is not correct. The model of administarive structure and function that Israel has adopted through out the occupied territories was based on the South African apartheid system after all. So I plead that we all be realistic at least.

 

So my point is that for our argument that the PA must act "in a rational and proper" manner is from the outset dependent on the amount of intervention that other countries have in the area. So we have to create an unambiguous situation where the oppurtunities are available - and I mean real oppurtunities. Further more we have an obligation I think to support positive state building - so rather than be critical and do nothing and just wait for things to fall apart because of ongoing intervention and the like so we can sit back and say 'I told you so" we must actually positively support the process.

 

As I noted above the benefit for the PA now is access to procedural safegaurds and oversight. It is access to 'process'. But if we are now going to stall any attempt by the PA to actually take advantage of that procees knowledge and implement it (as Israel was threatening) then WE have failed. And THAT is what will now be on display for everyone to see. But yes - the PA must absolutely move forward.

 

Just a note -

 

I think there is a bit of a missconception form some as to my perspective - I am not pro or anti Palestine or pro or anti Israel. I dont actually have a preconcieved 'view'. What I am is pro 'freedom'. I believe in due process. I believe in the value of comprimise. I believe in honesty. I dislike the smell of injustice and human servitude. What I do get concerned about is precisely people who present a completely one sided, biased, and bigotted view of things. People who interpret everything through a distorted lense or irrationality, hate and anger. And will then retort to expression of violence and aggression to reinforce that. I have never once denied that Palestinians ORthat Israeli Jews have committed acts of terrorism for example - but my focus is on tryting to understand what the possible implications of this for any 'peace' process. This is what we mean by diplomacy. The emphasis always is on trying to objectivley as best you can understand a situation - especially the nature of the human experience. Harder for some than you may think.

 

 

4. Use of Noam Chomsky

 

Are you really sure you want to use as backup a guy who defended a Holocaust denier and supported the Srebrennica massacre because it was committed by leftists?

 

Chomsky's an idiot. The amount of stuff he lies about would compete with you. There are thousands of sites where lists of Chomsky's lies are listed in chronological order including links to documents he has cited as proof which directly contradict everything he has said.

 

Just thought I would highlight this as an example ofr how not to engage in disscussion. What we have is a classic example of a person attempting to play the man and not the ball. There is absolutely no attempt to actually enagage with the substance of the quote. The person the quote is from is abused and insulted (despite being one of the greatest intellectuals of the modern world) and ridiculed. The argument is then shifted completely away from the substance of the quote to other matters to attempt to disscredit the quote and author - again without ever once actually engaging with the content of the quote. Furthermore the actual poster of the quote is further insulted again without actually acknowledging the actual substabnce of the quote.

 

Just for reference here is the quote again. Any one else see the irony of that persons response when compared with the substance of the quote ? :-)

 

"It is a shame that critics of Israeli policies are seen as either anti-Semites or self-hating Jews. It's grotesque. If an Italian criticized Italian policies, would he be seen as a self-hating Italian?"

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/02/magazine/02QUESTIONS.html

Edited by GhostFaceKilla

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An excellent

on the futility of the ME peace process:

 

 

Just in case you're wondering who this guy is and why he's important, his name is Pat Condell. His first 35 videos were issued on a DVD by The Richard Dawkins Foundation. He's been endorsed by PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins, he is a staunch atheist, a supporter of free speech and a critic of religion.

I cant find fault with what he said in the video , I am going to watch more of his videos , thanks for the embed.

 

 

 

here is a different take on it

 

There is an immediate problem with that video within the first 30 seconds. It says that after several wars Israel "took control of Palestinian land".

 

This is fundamentally incorrect. Not only has there never been an entity called Palestine that controlled land, but equally there has never been, in 3000 years a sovereign Arab nation on that land.

 

That land, every single bit of it, was ceded to the English by the Ottomans at the end if WW1. The English thanked the Hashemites of Saudi Arabia by giving them Transjordan which was to be the Arab State in the Middle East. The rest of the land was promised to the Jewish State - there was no partition for any other Arab nation.

 

1947 was the first time anyone ever mentioned another Arab state in Palestine in any legitimate forum - this was the UN Partition Plan.

 

The Palestinians rejected an offer of land for statehood. The next time anything called Palestine formed was the creation of autonomous government in the Territories in the Oslo Accords of 1993.

 

Understand this - land does not belong to a people because they live on it. Land belongs to a government representing a people when they administer this land for their people. This is why Vaucluse is not Jewish land despite a 51% majority.

 

The suggestion that Palestinains currently or have ever had full autonomy is not correct.

You need to read the Oslo accords so as not to lie so obviously

 

The model of administarive structure and function that Israel has adopted through out the occupied territories was based on the South African apartheid system after all.

Another lie.

 

Our Emeritus of Lying clearly has not read the Geneva Conventions.

 

Yes, in the occupied territories, there is one rule for Israelis and another for the Palestinians.

 

The occupying power must respect the laws in force in the occupied territory, unless they constitute a threat to its security or an obstacle to the application of the international law of occupation.

 

In other words, for citizens of the occupied territories, Israel must observe the laws governing those citizens.

 

This is an international requirement.

 

So my point is that for our argument that the PA must act "in a rational and proper" manner is from the outset dependent on the amount of intervention that other countries have in the area. So we have to create an unambiguous situation where the oppurtunities are available - and I mean real oppurtunities. Further more we have an obligation I think to support positive state building - so rather than be critical and do nothing and just wait for things to fall apart because of ongoing intervention and the like so we can sit back and say 'I told you so" we must actually positively support the process.

 

4. Use of Noam Chomsky

 

Are you really sure you want to use as backup a guy who defended a Holocaust denier and supported the Srebrennica massacre because it was committed by leftists?

 

Chomsky's an idiot. The amount of stuff he lies about would compete with you. There are thousands of sites where lists of Chomsky's lies are listed in chronological order including links to documents he has cited as proof which directly contradict everything he has said.

 

Just thought I would highlight this as an example ofr how not to engage in disscussion. What we have is a classic example of a person attempting to play the man and not the ball. There is absolutely no attempt to actually enagage with the substance of the quote. The person the quote is from is abused and insulted (despite being one of the greatest intellectuals of the modern world) and ridiculed. The argument is then shifted completely away from the substance of the quote to other matters to attempt to disscredit the quote and author - again without ever once actually engaging with the content of the quote. Furthermore the actual poster of the quote is further insulted again without actually acknowledging the actual substabnce of the quote.

 

Just for reference here is the quote again. Any one else see the irony of that persons response when compared with the substance of the quote ? :-)

 

"It is a shame that critics of Israeli policies are seen as either anti-Semites or self-hating Jews. It's grotesque. If an Italian criticized Italian policies, would he be seen as a self-hating Italian?"

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/02/magazine/02QUESTIONS.html

 

You know GFK... If I used Fox News as a source, you'd laugh at me.

 

Yet you choose a genocide supporter, a defender of holocaust deniers, a documented unrepentant liar who is the greatest living un-intellectual, why the hell shouldn't we laugh at you?

 

I tell you what - why don't you find a source that doesn't make the Palestinians seem like angels? It'll be less demeaning to your argument.

 

One more thing for our Emeritus Professor of Lying:

 

I think there is a bit of a missconception form some as to my perspective - I am not pro or anti Palestine or pro or anti Israel. I dont actually have a preconcieved 'view'. What I am is pro 'freedom'. I believe in due process. I believe in the value of comprimise. I believe in honesty. I dislike the smell of injustice and human servitude. I want to give Hamas control of 5-7 million people

Just adding the elephant in the room back to your otherwise wonderful soliloquy on how wonderful you think you are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An excellent

on the futility of the ME peace process:

 

 

Just in case you're wondering who this guy is and why he's important, his name is Pat Condell. His first 35 videos were issued on a DVD by The Richard Dawkins Foundation. He's been endorsed by PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins, he is a staunch atheist, a supporter of free speech and a critic of religion.

 

Just finished watching this. Dont really know what the fuss is about him. He seems to have a hit a chord with a particular crowd, but I dont find that he ever says anything insightful or unique. He just critiques religion a lot.And goes on a few horribly balanced rants sometimes And is a comedian. Oh well.

 

Unfortunately the poster of the video describes the peace process as "futility" which unfortunately defines a preconcieved view of things. Personally the point is to UNDERSTAND what the problems on both sides are and then move forward. I do not see futility. Futility only exists if you stay in the present once identifying a problem

 

Just a couple of quick observations - GAZA is not the West Bank. There are massive differences between the two areas. Its unfortunate that when people focus on the violence in Gaza led by Hammas Terrorists they in advertently tar all Palestinains. This is itself a problem - the Palestinian leadership is not as strong and stable as it needs to be. There are some reasons for this I believe, however it has also been a feature of the conflict for a long time. My other issue with Condell and he does this here is that in his attempt at consciously producing sound bites of an acceptable size for to be consumed by out hipster adhd generation he glosses over significant things too quickly meaning that intentionally or not some of his stuff comes out as bordeline 'propaganda' - delivered in a fervour which is ironically almost religious. For example he completely ignores the issue of illegal land settlement in the West Bank, preferring to focus exclusively on removing settlement from Gaza as somehow being representative. Furthermore when focusing on the hardline Hammas approach with negitioans he completely disregarded the equally hardline Israeli appraoch for example with respects of the settlemenst loicated throughout the West Bank. In such a video we witness Condell having what is ostensibly a rant about islamists but which in fact comes out as a propaganda pro Israel piece precisley because in that neck of the woods religion and politics are so intertwined. Is it a problem? Yes.

 

Nevertheless at a 'base' level he is correct. Hammas are a significant concern. Totally. My response though is that I seee Hammas as a SYMPTOM rather than the actual problem. And if Condell actually reflected on the role of religion in society and under what conditions extremism is born then he too may want to reconsider his rant in this video.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×