Total Posts:85|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

An honest Pro-Palestinian.

HPWKA
Posts: 401
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2013 5:27:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Not sure why she should condemn Hamas as a terrorist organization, most of the world doesn't. Regardless, the "terrorism" of Hamas is about 1/100th the terrorism from Israel.
Feelings are the fleeting fancy of fools.
The search for truth in a world of lies is the only thing that matters.
airmax1227
Posts: 13,241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2013 5:44:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/1/2013 5:27:45 PM, HPWKA wrote:
Not sure why she should condemn Hamas as a terrorist organization, most of the world doesn't. Regardless, the "terrorism" of Hamas is about 1/100th the terrorism from Israel.

Arguments of what is and isn't terrorism ultimately leads to a discussion on semantics. So in general I refrain from framing it this way, and I'll concede to Hamas being a perfectly legitimate government of the Palestinians without the inherent negative qualities associated with them being labeled a terrorist organization.

With that said though, Israel and Hamas are in a de facto state of war. Therefore if whatever Hamas does isn't terrorism, whatever Israel does in response isn't terrorism but a justified response during a state of war (we can certainly argue "proportional response" if you like), and in fact shows significant restraint from a country certainly capable of inflicting far more damage than it does.

As far as governments go, would you admit that Hamas isn't a particularly good one? While their populist views on Israel and Jews might be shared amongst those they govern, what they have achieved since coming to power democratically, and by maintaining power militarily has been minimal and almost all negative. Are the Palestinians better off than they were before? I'd say it would be difficult to show this, especially in contrast to the situation in the West Bank governed by the PA.

So I agree, it's not necessary that this young women condemn Hamas, or say that they are a terrorist organization. What it shows is that she agrees with Hamas, and there's nothing inherently wrong with that as long as we are all happy with the Palestinian status quo.
Debate.org Moderator
HPWKA
Posts: 401
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2013 6:31:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Very smart post, and I pretty much agree.

It should be noted that I think its pretty clear Hamas engages in terrorist activity (intentional attacks on civilian targets), but that Israel does the same on a far greater scale.

I am also wary of framing this as you do, as some sort of two-sided war. Israel is recognized internationally (UN and World Court) as the aggressor. Hamas defends its people, though its debatable if they occasionally go too far.

I don't think the Palestinian lot has improved under Hamas, but I don't think that's necessarily an indictment on Hamas. The US and Israel don't like Hamas fighting fire with fire, and thus have withheld aid, tax money, killed thousands, destroyed schools and hospitals, and so on. This doesn't seem to be Hamas incompetence, as much as it is US/Israeli aggression.

It can be argued that conditions would be better if Hamas just agreed to Israeli/US demands, but that gets back to the old debate, of whether its better to die on your feet, or live on your knees.
Feelings are the fleeting fancy of fools.
The search for truth in a world of lies is the only thing that matters.
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2013 7:09:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/1/2013 5:44:02 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 12/1/2013 5:27:45 PM, HPWKA wrote:
Not sure why she should condemn Hamas as a terrorist organization, most of the world doesn't. Regardless, the "terrorism" of Hamas is about 1/100th the terrorism from Israel.

Arguments of what is and isn't terrorism ultimately leads to a discussion on semantics. So in general I refrain from framing it this way, and I'll concede to Hamas being a perfectly legitimate government of the Palestinians without the inherent negative qualities associated with them being labeled a terrorist organization.

With that said though, Israel and Hamas are in a de facto state of war. Therefore if whatever Hamas does isn't terrorism, whatever Israel does in response isn't terrorism but a justified response during a state of war (we can certainly argue "proportional response" if you like), and in fact shows significant restraint from a country certainly capable of inflicting far more damage than it does.

As far as governments go, would you admit that Hamas isn't a particularly good one? While their populist views on Israel and Jews might be shared amongst those they govern, what they have achieved since coming to power democratically, and by maintaining power militarily has been minimal and almost all negative. Are the Palestinians better off than they were before? I'd say it would be difficult to show this, especially in contrast to the situation in the West Bank governed by the PA.

So I agree, it's not necessary that this young women condemn Hamas, or say that they are a terrorist organization. What it shows is that she agrees with Hamas, and there's nothing inherently wrong with that as long as we are all happy with the Palestinian status quo.

It's curious why you should dignify him with a response. Usually the trolls vanish after realizing they aren't getting any Zionists riled up.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
airmax1227
Posts: 13,241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2013 7:09:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/1/2013 6:31:43 PM, HPWKA wrote:
Very smart post, and I pretty much agree.

It should be noted that I think its pretty clear Hamas engages in terrorist activity (intentional attacks on civilian targets), but that Israel does the same on a far greater scale.

Everything Israel does is going to be on a greater scale as they are an actual country with a modern military. I think the distinction I'd make (in contrast to what you believe) is that Israel generally does not indiscriminately target civilians. In any war innocent people are going to be harmed, but I do not believe this Israels goal. If it were, they could easily kill a lot more innocent civilians and they wouldn't invest so much in precision weaponry and dropping flyers telling people when they are about to bomb an area, warning civilians to leave.

Even in many cases where civilians are unfortunately harmed, this can be directly blamed on Hamas (many, not all, Israel certainly is to be blamed in many cases for a lack of restraint in avoiding it). Placing weapons, and firing weapons from civilian infrastructure (hospitals, schools etc) forces Israel to "target" civilians.

Hamas on the other hand intentionally targets civilians by firing unguided rockets towards a general civilian area. Let me be clear that I'm not attempting to make any type of case for moral high ground here, I'm simply arguing that "scale" as the only relevant measure is not a reasonable case against Israel and Israel doesn't need to proportionally follow Hamas by just firing a bunch of unguided rockets throughout Gaza.

I am also wary of framing this as you do, as some sort of two-sided war. Israel is recognized internationally (UN and World Court) as the aggressor. Hamas defends its people, though its debatable if they occasionally go too far.

Can you provide me to the sources where the UN (something other than the HRC; which isn't taken seriously by anyone relevant) or a "world court" recognize Israel as the aggressor? Even if you can, I'm not sure this matters. Political statements have little effect on anything (UN resolutions outside of the security council for example have no practical effect). If there was a legal body with legislative power to rule such a thing (and there isn't, and no such trial determining who is the aggressor has taken place) that might matter and actually make a difference towards the goal of resolving the conflict.

As for your final sentence, how does firing rockets into Israeli civilians areas defend their people? Rockets are entirely offensive weapons. If Hamas was investing mostly in defensive weapons I could buy this argument, but they aren't.

I don't think the Palestinian lot has improved under Hamas, but I don't think that's necessarily an indictment on Hamas. The US and Israel don't like Hamas fighting fire with fire, and thus have withheld aid, tax money, killed thousands, destroyed schools and hospitals, and so on. This doesn't seem to be Hamas incompetence, as much as it is US/Israeli aggression.

I don't entirely disagree with this, though I'm not sure what you'd expect the US and Israel to do. Like I said, Hamas is in a de facto state of war with Israel, and by extension then, the US. Hamas could invest in improving the lives of their people, but their goals seem to diverge from that.

It can be argued that conditions would be better if Hamas just agreed to Israeli/US demands, but that gets back to the old debate, of whether its better to die on your feet, or live on your knees.

The PA is moderate leadership for the Palestinians and the Palestinians in the WB live much better lives. I believe framing it how you just did is incorrect. If Hamas stopped firing rockets into Israel tomorrow, Israel wouldn't suddenly kill/subjugate every Palestinian.
Debate.org Moderator
airmax1227
Posts: 13,241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2013 7:10:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/1/2013 7:09:18 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 12/1/2013 5:44:02 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 12/1/2013 5:27:45 PM, HPWKA wrote:
Not sure why she should condemn Hamas as a terrorist organization, most of the world doesn't. Regardless, the "terrorism" of Hamas is about 1/100th the terrorism from Israel.

Arguments of what is and isn't terrorism ultimately leads to a discussion on semantics. So in general I refrain from framing it this way, and I'll concede to Hamas being a perfectly legitimate government of the Palestinians without the inherent negative qualities associated with them being labeled a terrorist organization.

With that said though, Israel and Hamas are in a de facto state of war. Therefore if whatever Hamas does isn't terrorism, whatever Israel does in response isn't terrorism but a justified response during a state of war (we can certainly argue "proportional response" if you like), and in fact shows significant restraint from a country certainly capable of inflicting far more damage than it does.

As far as governments go, would you admit that Hamas isn't a particularly good one? While their populist views on Israel and Jews might be shared amongst those they govern, what they have achieved since coming to power democratically, and by maintaining power militarily has been minimal and almost all negative. Are the Palestinians better off than they were before? I'd say it would be difficult to show this, especially in contrast to the situation in the West Bank governed by the PA.

So I agree, it's not necessary that this young women condemn Hamas, or say that they are a terrorist organization. What it shows is that she agrees with Hamas, and there's nothing inherently wrong with that as long as we are all happy with the Palestinian status quo.

It's curious why you should dignify him with a response. Usually the trolls vanish after realizing they aren't getting any Zionists riled up.

He's clearly not a troll. He means what he is saying and he replied to my reply in a reasonable way.
Debate.org Moderator
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2013 7:22:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/1/2013 8:58:16 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:


No, no, no. See, this is what we call an honest [deleted by moderators]. Just like someone would be [deleted by moderators] if they flipped things around and said that honest Israelis admit that they want all Palestinians to die.
airmax1227
Posts: 13,241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2013 7:29:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/1/2013 7:22:04 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 12/1/2013 8:58:16 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:


No, no, no. See, this is what we call an honest [deleted by moderators]. Just like someone would be [deleted by moderators] if they flipped things around and said that honest Israelis admit that they want all Palestinians to die.

Have you ever seen me delete anything politically incorrect (or anything that I disagree with personally)?

I think it would be fine if you implied the same thing about the US media or whatever, saying that such opinions are ridiculed, withheld, or censored... but to imply that I (or DDO in general) delete controversial opinions is just ludicrous.

I may have missed your point here though, because of your implied censorship...

On the point itself I agree with you. This one vid that Eitan posted doesn't mean anything. You can find any crazy person saying any particular thing and there are certainly plenty of crazy Israeli's that we can parrot around as "honest" for their own ridiculous point of view.
Debate.org Moderator
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2013 8:02:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/1/2013 7:29:28 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 12/1/2013 7:22:04 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 12/1/2013 8:58:16 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:


No, no, no. See, this is what we call an honest [deleted by moderators]. Just like someone would be [deleted by moderators] if they flipped things around and said that honest Israelis admit that they want all Palestinians to die.

Have you ever seen me delete anything politically incorrect (or anything that I disagree with personally)?

I think it would be fine if you implied the same thing about the US media or whatever, saying that such opinions are ridiculed, withheld, or censored... but to imply that I (or DDO in general) delete controversial opinions is just ludicrous.

I may have missed your point here though, because of your implied censorship...

On the point itself I agree with you. This one vid that Eitan posted doesn't mean anything. You can find any crazy person saying any particular thing and there are certainly plenty of crazy Israeli's that we can parrot around as "honest" for their own ridiculous point of view.

No, no. It's a joke. We aren't allowed to use certain rather strong insults, so [deleted by moderators] allows someone to fill in the necessary adjectives themselves.
airmax1227
Posts: 13,241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2013 8:03:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/1/2013 8:02:45 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 12/1/2013 7:29:28 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 12/1/2013 7:22:04 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 12/1/2013 8:58:16 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:


No, no, no. See, this is what we call an honest [deleted by moderators]. Just like someone would be [deleted by moderators] if they flipped things around and said that honest Israelis admit that they want all Palestinians to die.

Have you ever seen me delete anything politically incorrect (or anything that I disagree with personally)?

I think it would be fine if you implied the same thing about the US media or whatever, saying that such opinions are ridiculed, withheld, or censored... but to imply that I (or DDO in general) delete controversial opinions is just ludicrous.

I may have missed your point here though, because of your implied censorship...

On the point itself I agree with you. This one vid that Eitan posted doesn't mean anything. You can find any crazy person saying any particular thing and there are certainly plenty of crazy Israeli's that we can parrot around as "honest" for their own ridiculous point of view.

No, no. It's a joke. We aren't allowed to use certain rather strong insults, so [deleted by moderators] allows someone to fill in the necessary adjectives themselves.

ah I see... I'd just hate to have someone mistakenly believe (And I know it happens) that I actually censored anything you said.
Debate.org Moderator
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2013 8:54:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Jumanah Imad Albahri was misrepresented in that video. Apparently, the whole exchange went on for much longer, and she was hounded by Horowitz who is an experienced polemicist, and trapped into saying what she did.

Here's her response.

"As you are all well aware, I am the one who spoke at the David Horowitz event this past Monday May 10, 2010.

Allow me to begin by stating that I do NOT condone murder, I do NOT condone genocide, and I do NOT condone racism under any circumstance whatsoever against Jews or anyone else...

Insofar as my references to Hitler and the Nazi Youth programs: it was Mr. Horowitz who spent a substantial amount of time referring to the MSA as the "Hitler Youth" and its Justice in Palestine Week as "Hitler Youth Week"" pejorative titles that as a human being, a student of history, and a person of faith, I find disgusting. I uttered them in a sarcastic manner only to point out the ridiculous and slanderous nature of Mr. Horowitz"s labels"Nazis sought the extermination of anyone who was not "white," and this racial category excludes the vast majority of the Muslim population.
...

Towards the end of the exchange, I became emotional. I could no longer hear Mr. Horowitz speaking and so did not even hear his injection of Hezbollah"s credo of "rounding up" Jews in his last tangent. ..The answer I was coerced into giving grossly misrepresented my beliefs and ideologies.

My answer, "for it," in the context in which it was said does NOT mean "for" genocide. I was referring to his initial question that asked me for my position on Hamas, a topic that for his own political reasons he was relentless in pursuing. "For it" was not a legitimization of Hezbollah"s or anyone else"s credo for that matter that Jews should be exterminated..."

Here's her full letter

http://fortruthforjustice.wordpress.com...

Why would you dredge up this sad event three and a half years later?
airmax1227
Posts: 13,241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2013 9:11:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/1/2013 8:54:36 PM, rross wrote:
Jumanah Imad Albahri was misrepresented in that video. Apparently, the whole exchange went on for much longer, and she was hounded by Horowitz who is an experienced polemicist, and trapped into saying what she did.

Here's her response.

"As you are all well aware, I am the one who spoke at the David Horowitz event this past Monday May 10, 2010.

Allow me to begin by stating that I do NOT condone murder, I do NOT condone genocide, and I do NOT condone racism under any circumstance whatsoever against Jews or anyone else...

Insofar as my references to Hitler and the Nazi Youth programs: it was Mr. Horowitz who spent a substantial amount of time referring to the MSA as the "Hitler Youth" and its Justice in Palestine Week as "Hitler Youth Week"" pejorative titles that as a human being, a student of history, and a person of faith, I find disgusting. I uttered them in a sarcastic manner only to point out the ridiculous and slanderous nature of Mr. Horowitz"s labels"Nazis sought the extermination of anyone who was not "white," and this racial category excludes the vast majority of the Muslim population.
...

Towards the end of the exchange, I became emotional. I could no longer hear Mr. Horowitz speaking and so did not even hear his injection of Hezbollah"s credo of "rounding up" Jews in his last tangent. ..The answer I was coerced into giving grossly misrepresented my beliefs and ideologies.

My answer, "for it," in the context in which it was said does NOT mean "for" genocide. I was referring to his initial question that asked me for my position on Hamas, a topic that for his own political reasons he was relentless in pursuing. "For it" was not a legitimization of Hezbollah"s or anyone else"s credo for that matter that Jews should be exterminated..."

Here's her full letter

http://fortruthforjustice.wordpress.com...

Why would you dredge up this sad event three and a half years later?

I appreciate you posting this.

I don't think anyone should ever take any of these short clips too seriously. This is one in particular that is passed around regularly and while it seems clear, is certainly lacking some necessary context. While there are certainly aspects of Jumanah's later response I disagree with and that I'd enjoy debating with her, it's pretty clear that her opinions are easy to misrepresent in such a short video. It's also clear that she may not have thought out her responses clearly as she stated that she reacted emotionally.

I think Eitan's use of this video is a poor choice and pointless (we can find dubious opinions on the Israeli side too), but it does facilitate a discussion on this topic regardless, and most of what has been discussed in this thread already, doesn't revolve around the opinions of (whether misrepresented or not) one individual.
Debate.org Moderator
HPWKA
Posts: 401
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2013 9:34:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I think here we will have a diverging of opinion.

I think the distinction I'd make (in contrast to what you believe) is that Israel generally does not indiscriminately target civilians. In any war innocent people are going to be harmed, but I do not believe this Israels goal. If it were, they could easily kill a lot more innocent civilians and they wouldn't invest so much in precision weaponry and dropping flyers telling people when they are about to bomb an area, warning civilians to leave.

There is a long record by the UN and Human Rights Organizations, of Israel intentionally terrorizing and killing civilians. IDF soldiers rape Palestinian women, bulldoze Palestinian homes to make-way for Jewish only settlements, and illegally detain and torture Palestinian children. They have bombed mosques, schools, hospitals, and farms, killing thousands of civilians.

The argument that because Israel COULD have killed more people, it must not have wanted to kill in the first-place, could extend to Nazi Germany attacking the Jews.

Yes, Israel did "warn" the Palestinians that it would soon destroy their home. So, thousands of Palestinians fled to the marked UN compounds. Israel then proceeded to drop white phosphorus on them, killing civilians and UN employees.

Even in many cases where civilians are unfortunately harmed, this can be directly blamed on Hamas (many, not all, Israel certainly is to be blamed in many cases for a lack of restraint in avoiding it). Placing weapons, and firing weapons from civilian infrastructure (hospitals, schools etc) forces Israel to "target" civilians.

Ah yes, the "Human Shields" myth. The UN and and Human Rights Organizations did a study on "Human Shield" use, and determined its use by Hamas was slim to none. In fact, it was found that Israeli soldiers were the ones using Human Shields at a relatively high rate.

The ONLY source that claims Hamas consistently used Human Shields, is Israel, who refused to release their "evidence" to the UN or Human Rights Organizations.

Hamas on the other hand intentionally targets civilians by firing unguided rockets towards a general civilian area. Let me be clear that I'm not attempting to make any type of case for moral high ground here, I'm simply arguing that "scale" as the only relevant measure is not a reasonable case against Israel and Israel doesn't need to proportionally follow Hamas by just firing a bunch of unguided rockets throughout Gaza.

Israel kills civilians at a rate of roughly 5:1, and does so indiscriminately. Both parties are doing the EXACT same thing, except that Israel does it at a FAR higher rate, and was the first to do it.

Can you provide me to the sources where the UN (something other than the HRC; which isn't taken seriously by anyone relevant) or a "world court" recognize Israel as the aggressor? Even if you can, I'm not sure this matters. Political statements have little effect on anything (UN resolutions outside of the security council for example have no practical effect). If there was a legal body with legislative power to rule such a thing (and there isn't, and no such trial determining who is the aggressor has taken place) that might matter and actually make a difference towards the goal of resolving the conflict.

Simply search for UN and ICJ standings on Israel. Israel is condemned by every country (UN minus Israel and the US) and the International Court of Justice, for the illegal occupation of Gaza, West Bank, Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights. It is routinely condemned for destruction of Palestinian property for Jewish-only settlements, and preemptive military strikes.

I agree that these facts don't solve problems, but it helps us identify the guilty party when framing a resolution. When the entire world, its Human Rights Organizations, and Courts, side with Palestine, while only the US sides with Israel, that's pretty telling, and shows us who the obstacle to peace is (Israel).

As for your final sentence, how does firing rockets into Israeli civilians areas defend their people? Rockets are entirely offensive weapons. If Hamas was investing mostly in defensive weapons I could buy this argument, but they aren't.

It should be noted that firing rockets into Israeli civilian territory is only a fraction of what Hamas does, which I'll elaborate on in the last paragraph. I don't agree with all their methods, but look at it through their eyes.

Before the Palestinians fought back, they were being killed by the thousands, and their land was being stolen. They fight back (shoot rockets at Israel), the same thing happens. Maybe it makes them feel better, knowing they are doing SOMETHING.

I don't entirely disagree with this, though I'm not sure what you'd expect the US and Israel to do. Like I said, Hamas is in a de facto state of war with Israel, and by extension then, the US. Hamas could invest in improving the lives of their people, but their goals seem to diverge from that.

Hamas HAS invested in the lives of their people, which is why they were democratically elected. They begin as a grass-roots organization, building homes, schools, hospitals, and maintaining order. They became militarized, and advocated fighting back against the occupation, which people liked.

Unfortunately, after Hamas was elected, Israel enforced an illegal blockade (according to the ICJ and UN), bombed hospitals and schools, withheld tax money and UN aid, and partnering with the US, attempted to stage a coupe on Hamas, with the PA/Fatah. As a result, Gaza was left in shambles, but not because Hamas didn't care about the Palestinians.

The PA is moderate leadership for the Palestinians and the Palestinians in the WB live much better lives. I believe framing it how you just did is incorrect. If Hamas stopped firing rockets into Israel tomorrow, Israel wouldn't suddenly kill/subjugate every Palestinian.

Same basic thing. The WB Palestinians live better lives, because the illegal occupiers deem their leaders more acceptable, not because they are doing anything intrinsically better then Hamas (morally or economically).

Before Hamas existed, all the Palestinians were subjugated, and many were killed/tortured. The same was true after Hamas was elected, and its doubtful this would change if Hamas suddenly vanished.
Feelings are the fleeting fancy of fools.
The search for truth in a world of lies is the only thing that matters.
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2013 9:49:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/1/2013 9:11:04 PM, airmax1227 wrote:

I don't think anyone should ever take any of these short clips too seriously. This is one in particular that is passed around regularly and while it seems clear, is certainly lacking some necessary context...

I think Eitan's use of this video is a poor choice and pointless (we can find dubious opinions on the Israeli side too), but it does facilitate a discussion on this topic regardless, and most of what has been discussed in this thread already, doesn't revolve around the opinions of (whether misrepresented or not) one individual.

I agree that it doesn't revolve around the opinions of one individual. It revolves around the perceived opinions of all Pro-Palestinians. The title and video alone, with no explanation is implying that everyone who supports Hamas secretly (or openly) wants to murder all Jewish people. That Albahri's "opinion" is representative of everyone in the MSA and in Hamas, or indeed anyone who supports the Palestinian cause.

I'm kind of dismayed to hear that this video is passed around regularly. It's the first time I've seen it. But Albahri's letter and explanation have been available for over three years. Why would anyone want to so falsely stir up hatred by making and sharing a misrepresentation like this? It seems totally irresponsible to me.
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2013 10:31:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/1/2013 9:49:04 PM, rross wrote:
At 12/1/2013 9:11:04 PM, airmax1227 wrote:

I don't think anyone should ever take any of these short clips too seriously. This is one in particular that is passed around regularly and while it seems clear, is certainly lacking some necessary context...

I think Eitan's use of this video is a poor choice and pointless (we can find dubious opinions on the Israeli side too), but it does facilitate a discussion on this topic regardless, and most of what has been discussed in this thread already, doesn't revolve around the opinions of (whether misrepresented or not) one individual.

I agree that it doesn't revolve around the opinions of one individual. It revolves around the perceived opinions of all Pro-Palestinians. The title and video alone, with no explanation is implying that everyone who supports Hamas secretly (or openly) wants to murder all Jewish people. That Albahri's "opinion" is representative of everyone in the MSA and in Hamas, or indeed anyone who supports the Palestinian cause.

I'm kind of dismayed to hear that this video is passed around regularly. It's the first time I've seen it. But Albahri's letter and explanation have been available for over three years. Why would anyone want to so falsely stir up hatred by making and sharing a misrepresentation like this? It seems totally irresponsible to me.

Simple. Eitan is desperate for an ideological edge, and will take whatever rhetorical steps necessary to ensure that he has it. Despite the title of the thread, honesty has nothing to do with it.
airmax1227
Posts: 13,241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2013 10:39:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/1/2013 9:34:44 PM, HPWKA wrote:
I think here we will have a diverging of opinion.

There is a long record by the UN and Human Rights Organizations, of Israel intentionally terrorizing and killing civilians. IDF soldiers rape Palestinian women, bulldoze Palestinian homes to make-way for Jewish only settlements, and illegally detain and torture Palestinian children. They have bombed mosques, schools, hospitals, and farms, killing thousands of civilians.

In a war there are a lot of atrocities that take place. The point I was making that these incidences were not indiscriminate and serve some sort of greater purpose, than say, just bombing a school to kill as many civilians as possible.

The argument that because Israel COULD have killed more people, it must not have wanted to kill in the first-place, could extend to Nazi Germany attacking the Jews.

Again, the point is that if Israel is attempting some sort of genocidal effort (an argument I recognize that you haven't made to be clear - but it is an argument some make) or is trying to simply kill as many Palestinians as possible they would have an easy time doing so. I'll expand on this if necessary, but the reality shows that Israel isn't simply trying to kill as many people as they possibly can. You invocation of Nazi's makes little sense, as they did try to kill as many Jews as they could and their actions proved it, the contrary is true of Israel.

Yes, Israel did "warn" the Palestinians that it would soon destroy their home. So, thousands of Palestinians fled to the marked UN compounds. Israel then proceeded to drop white phosphorus on them, killing civilians and UN employees.

The destroying the homes of suicide bombers wasn't the example I had in mind, but the bombing of large areas in which combatants were entrenched to give civilians a warning to leave. As for the use of white phosphorus, it isn't used as an offensive weapon as you imply (though it can cause damage - but it's less than the alternative), it's used to illuminate a dark battlefield that would otherwise cause more civilian casualties.

Ah yes, the "Human Shields" myth. The UN and and Human Rights Organizations did a study on "Human Shield" use, and determined its use by Hamas was slim to none. In fact, it was found that Israeli soldiers were the ones using Human Shields at a relatively high rate.

It's not a myth and I'm sure both sides are guilty of it to a certain degree (though Israel isn't using it's own civilians in the way Hamas does to be sure). Hamas does place weapons and use weapons in densely populated areas forcing Israel to attack these areas.

The ONLY source that claims Hamas consistently used Human Shields, is Israel, who refused to release their "evidence" to the UN or Human Rights Organizations.

That's not true. Plenty of media have reported on it, and at least one UN envoy has complained about it.

If you want to debate this particular issue I'm more than happy to.

Hamas on the other hand intentionally targets civilians by firing unguided rockets towards a general civilian area. Let me be clear that I'm not attempting to make any type of case for moral high ground here, I'm simply arguing that "scale" as the only relevant measure is not a reasonable case against Israel and Israel doesn't need to proportionally follow Hamas by just firing a bunch of unguided rockets throughout Gaza.

Israel kills civilians at a rate of roughly 5:1, and does so indiscriminately. Both parties are doing the EXACT same thing, except that Israel does it at a FAR higher rate, and was the first to do it.

Israel is a country with a sophisticated military, fighting against a group that has none. I'm not sure what you are referring to as a rate of 5:1 (is this civilians to military?) as Palestinian combatants are technically all civilians (aside from police - but there is no country with a designated military for Israel to fight against).

As for the "first to do it", I'm not sure what you are referring to. I'm more than willing to debate you on who shot first in what war and whether most of the wars Israel has been in can be considered defensive (like 48 and 67)

Simply search for UN and ICJ standings on Israel. Israel is condemned by every country (UN minus Israel and the US) and the International Court of Justice, for the illegal occupation of Gaza, West Bank, Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights. It is routinely condemned for destruction of Palestinian property for Jewish-only settlements, and preemptive military strikes.

Link me to it, so I can argue with your sources directly. There's a lot of propaganda and meaningless rhetoric that I have to get past first before I can get to the substance. "illegally" for example is a great rhetorical term (in the sense that it implies something untrue) that allows you to make an argument with no actual substance. A sufficient response to that one word would take hundreds (if not thousands) or words to sufficiently refute, so it can be used ad nasuem because it's easy and persuasive to the uninformed and gullible (let's debate it though ok?). But for the quick rebuttal I'll just say that, the occupation is not illegal, no court with the ability (jurisdiction) to issue a legal decision on the matter has actually done so. There is an important distinction (and one that really does matter) between political and judicial rulings.

I agree that these facts don't solve problems, but it helps us identify the guilty party when framing a resolution. When the entire world, its Human Rights Organizations, and Courts, side with Palestine, while only the US sides with Israel, that's pretty telling, and shows us who the obstacle to peace is (Israel).

Ad populum. The world is gullible. It's easier to look at Israel as the problem and blame it rather than approach and resolve the much broader issue. Blaming the Jews isn't exactly new.

Also as I said above, which courts with the jurisdiction to do so have made any rulings about anything (the political context is important here)?

Just to be clear, I'm not justifying occupation or any other atrocity committed by anyone. I'd just like us to get past the rhetoric and discuss the meat of the issue. I'd like to preempt any "International Law" has deemed etc etc type of arguments. For something to be illegal, it has to be determined as such, and by a court with the ability to issue decisions that are legally binding on that specific area of contention. If such a court has ever made such a ruling please link me to it. Do a Google search for "Israel occupation deemed illegal" and let me know if that gets you as far as a couple of words of your implied rhetoric gets you.

With that said, I don't believe your presentation of facts helps us identify the guilty party nor does it get us any closer to a resolution. Israel is obviously guilty of doing some bad things (as are the Arabs/Palestinians), but their greatest offense seem to be in their mere existence which is the genesis of the conflict (though conflict with Jews in Palestine started before Israel was established). Ergo, Israel no longer existing would be the resolution necessary. While you may not share that sentiment, certainly many of the key players, including Hamas, do feel this way. Since that resolution will not be happening, Hamas needs to take a different approach and remove from it's core functions the antagonizing of Israel towards this end.
Debate.org Moderator
airmax1227
Posts: 13,241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2013 10:56:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/1/2013 9:34:44 PM, HPWKA wrote:
It should be noted that firing rockets into Israeli civilian territory is only a fraction of what Hamas does, which I'll elaborate on in the last paragraph. I don't agree with all their methods, but look at it through their eyes.

Hamas certainly came into power in contrast to the PA as an organization doing humanitarian work and actually helping the Palestinians. But that was then and this is now. They are the dictatorial power in Gaza now, and the results of their leadership is dubious at best.

Before the Palestinians fought back, they were being killed by the thousands, and their land was being stolen. They fight back (shoot rockets at Israel), the same thing happens. Maybe it makes them feel better, knowing they are doing SOMETHING.

There has been a de facto state of war between Israel and one or more Arab countries (and ultimately the Palestinians by design) since Israel was established. If it makes the Palestinians and the Arab world feel better to resist the existence of a single Jewish state in the middle east and a single non Arab state in Palestine (an important distinction because Palestine is a regional descriptor) then I suppose that's as good as reason as any (though I'd prefer a more pragmatic one). The results shouldn't be surprising though.

I don't entirely disagree with this, though I'm not sure what you'd expect the US and Israel to do. Like I said, Hamas is in a de facto state of war with Israel, and by extension then, the US. Hamas could invest in improving the lives of their people, but their goals seem to diverge from that.

Hamas HAS invested in the lives of their people, which is why they were democratically elected. They begin as a grass-roots organization, building homes, schools, hospitals, and maintaining order. They became militarized, and advocated fighting back against the occupation, which people liked.

I don't disagree. Hamas is a populist organization. Fighting against the existence of Israel is certainly popular in the Arab world and especially among Palestinians. However I believe it ultimately causes the Palestinians more harm than good.

We can certainly debate this specific topic if you'd be willing.

Unfortunately, after Hamas was elected, Israel enforced an illegal blockade (according to the ICJ and UN), bombed hospitals and schools, withheld tax money and UN aid, and partnering with the US, attempted to stage a coupe on Hamas, with the PA/Fatah. As a result, Gaza was left in shambles, but not because Hamas didn't care about the Palestinians.

Link me to the relevant courts rulings that say the blockade is illegal....

Here's a link that says otherwise:

http://www.haaretz.com...

and one from a decidedly anti-Israel site:

http://liberalconspiracy.org...

Though we can go back and forth with links forever because this "illegal" thing is entirely rhetorical as I've said.

The rhetoric aside, Israel and the US's reaction was only natural. Hamas is seen to be extreme and an obstacle to peace. While that in itself is debatable, I fail to see how an organization which makes as part of it's goal the elimination of Israel shouldn't be view as an obstacle and should be supported by those (or not fought against) with differing views.

Also your characterization is inaccurate. Israel dragged it's citizens out of Gaza and only attacked Gaza in retaliation. If you have some theory as to why Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza only for the sake of harming Palestinians I'd like to hear it.

The PA is moderate leadership for the Palestinians and the Palestinians in the WB live much better lives. I believe framing it how you just did is incorrect. If Hamas stopped firing rockets into Israel tomorrow, Israel wouldn't suddenly kill/subjugate every Palestinian.

Same basic thing. The WB Palestinians live better lives, because the illegal occupiers deem their leaders more acceptable, not because they are doing anything intrinsically better then Hamas (morally or economically).

The PA for the most part accepts Israel's right to exist. They are an organization that has moderated itself for the sake of legitimacy and can be taken seriously by anyone pragmatic. Hamas on the other hand has made it's intentions and goals clear.

Before Hamas existed, all the Palestinians were subjugated, and many were killed/tortured. The same was true after Hamas was elected, and its doubtful this would change if Hamas suddenly vanished.

I think pointing to WB leadership is prudent. WB Palestinians are far better off and are not determined to militarize their populace in a pointless unending battle to antagonize Israel.
Debate.org Moderator
HPWKA
Posts: 401
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2013 11:14:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I think its clear we have quite different opinions on this subject, and as you alluded to, we'll need a proper debate to resolve a few of the major points. I am confident we can come to an understanding however, as you seem to be quite rational on the topic, and I like to think I am as well.

Unfortunately, I am simply not available until December 13th for a proper debate (Finals!!), at which time I'll gladly have at it.

I think we can both agree for now on the original topic of this forum post. The young woman's opinions aren't a reflection on all Palestinian supporters, nor are they necessarily "wrong".
Feelings are the fleeting fancy of fools.
The search for truth in a world of lies is the only thing that matters.
airmax1227
Posts: 13,241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2013 11:20:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/1/2013 11:14:14 PM, HPWKA wrote:
I think its clear we have quite different opinions on this subject, and as you alluded to, we'll need a proper debate to resolve a few of the major points. I am confident we can come to an understanding however, as you seem to be quite rational on the topic, and I like to think I am as well.

Unfortunately, I am simply not available until December 13th for a proper debate (Finals!!), at which time I'll gladly have at it.

I think we can both agree for now on the original topic of this forum post. The young woman's opinions aren't a reflection on all Palestinian supporters, nor are they necessarily "wrong".

I appreciate the exchange we've been able to have and your responses to me.

I certainly agree that this vid is misused and not indicative of anything and certainly not reflective of the thread title.

Good luck on your finals... Contact me anytime if you'd be willing to debate any of these topics (or contact me as the site moderator if you need anything else related to the site).

Cheers.
Debate.org Moderator
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2013 3:08:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/1/2013 11:20:02 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 12/1/2013 11:14:14 PM, HPWKA wrote:
I think its clear we have quite different opinions on this subject, and as you alluded to, we'll need a proper debate to resolve a few of the major points. I am confident we can come to an understanding however, as you seem to be quite rational on the topic, and I like to think I am as well.

Unfortunately, I am simply not available until December 13th for a proper debate (Finals!!), at which time I'll gladly have at it.

I think we can both agree for now on the original topic of this forum post. The young woman's opinions aren't a reflection on all Palestinian supporters, nor are they necessarily "wrong".

I appreciate the exchange we've been able to have and your responses to me.

I certainly agree that this vid is misused and not indicative of anything and certainly not reflective of the thread title.

Good luck on your finals... Contact me anytime if you'd be willing to debate any of these topics (or contact me as the site moderator if you need anything else related to the site).

Cheers.

It was obviously facetious, dude. I'm a little more sophisticated than jat or royal.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2013 3:13:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/1/2013 7:10:38 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
He's clearly not a troll. He means what he is saying and he replied to my reply in a reasonable way.

In general, people who post "Israel is much bigger terrorist" aren't there for productive dialogue. I expect people like that on Youtube comment sections, not serious intellectual websites.

Aside from that, what's wrong with the label 'terrorist?' Terrorism is a tactic, not an ideology, and is perfectly justified in certain situations even if we're not consequentialists. Stauffenberg's attempt to kill Hitler could be considered an act of terrorism.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2013 4:52:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/2/2013 3:13:41 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 12/1/2013 7:10:38 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
He's clearly not a troll. He means what he is saying and he replied to my reply in a reasonable way.

In general, people who post "Israel is much bigger terrorist" aren't there for productive dialogue. I expect people like that on Youtube comment sections, not serious intellectual websites.

Agreed. Included an "a" or no one will understand you.

Aside from that, what's wrong with the label 'terrorist?' Terrorism is a tactic, not an ideology, and is perfectly justified in certain situations even if we're not consequentialists. Stauffenberg's attempt to kill Hitler could be considered an act of terrorism.

http://www.debate.org...
Oh no you agreed with royal!?
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2013 4:58:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/2/2013 4:52:26 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 12/2/2013 3:13:41 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 12/1/2013 7:10:38 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
He's clearly not a troll. He means what he is saying and he replied to my reply in a reasonable way.

In general, people who post "Israel is much bigger terrorist" aren't there for productive dialogue. I expect people like that on Youtube comment sections, not serious intellectual websites.

Agreed. Included an "a" or no one will understand you.

No, I'm trying to be reflective of the typical Youtube anti-Zionist.

Can I ask you something?
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2013 4:59:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/2/2013 4:58:23 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 12/2/2013 4:52:26 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 12/2/2013 3:13:41 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 12/1/2013 7:10:38 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
He's clearly not a troll. He means what he is saying and he replied to my reply in a reasonable way.

In general, people who post "Israel is much bigger terrorist" aren't there for productive dialogue. I expect people like that on Youtube comment sections, not serious intellectual websites.

Agreed. Included an "a" or no one will understand you.

No, I'm trying to be reflective of the typical Youtube anti-Zionist.

I'm making a joke.

Can I ask you something?

Ask away.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2013 5:07:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/2/2013 4:59:30 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 12/2/2013 4:58:23 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 12/2/2013 4:52:26 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 12/2/2013 3:13:41 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 12/1/2013 7:10:38 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
He's clearly not a troll. He means what he is saying and he replied to my reply in a reasonable way.

In general, people who post "Israel is much bigger terrorist" aren't there for productive dialogue. I expect people like that on Youtube comment sections, not serious intellectual websites.

Agreed. Included an "a" or no one will understand you.

No, I'm trying to be reflective of the typical Youtube anti-Zionist.

I'm making a joke.

Can I ask you something?

Ask away.

Have you ever read, y'know, a book on Israel or the Palestinians? I recall you once interjected into a discussion on the BDS movement- which I've known about and read stuff from for years- explaining that they were just reacting to what they saw as an "oppressive state" or whatever (which isn't really accurate; they're against the concept of Jewish sovereignty in principle). Given the fact that you know virtually nothing about the conflict but feel qualified to commentate, doesn't it seem odd that you behave the exact same way when I ramble about philosophy, even though I don't pretend to be some kind of expert explaining to you how Kantian ethics really work?
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2013 5:09:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/2/2013 5:07:16 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 12/2/2013 4:59:30 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 12/2/2013 4:58:23 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 12/2/2013 4:52:26 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 12/2/2013 3:13:41 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 12/1/2013 7:10:38 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
He's clearly not a troll. He means what he is saying and he replied to my reply in a reasonable way.

In general, people who post "Israel is much bigger terrorist" aren't there for productive dialogue. I expect people like that on Youtube comment sections, not serious intellectual websites.

Agreed. Included an "a" or no one will understand you.

No, I'm trying to be reflective of the typical Youtube anti-Zionist.

I'm making a joke.

Can I ask you something?

Ask away.

Have you ever read, y'know, a book on Israel or the Palestinians? I recall you once interjected into a discussion on the BDS movement- which I've known about and read stuff from for years- explaining that they were just reacting to what they saw as an "oppressive state" or whatever (which isn't really accurate; they're against the concept of Jewish sovereignty in principle). Given the fact that you know virtually nothing about the conflict but feel qualified to commentate, doesn't it seem odd that you behave the exact same way when I ramble about philosophy, even though I don't pretend to be some kind of expert explaining to you how Kantian ethics really work?

I've read a bit yes. More interesting is why you choose to go back to that now. Oh well.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2013 5:13:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/2/2013 5:09:25 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 12/2/2013 5:07:16 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 12/2/2013 4:59:30 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 12/2/2013 4:58:23 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 12/2/2013 4:52:26 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 12/2/2013 3:13:41 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 12/1/2013 7:10:38 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
He's clearly not a troll. He means what he is saying and he replied to my reply in a reasonable way.

In general, people who post "Israel is much bigger terrorist" aren't there for productive dialogue. I expect people like that on Youtube comment sections, not serious intellectual websites.

Agreed. Included an "a" or no one will understand you.

No, I'm trying to be reflective of the typical Youtube anti-Zionist.

I'm making a joke.

Can I ask you something?

Ask away.

Have you ever read, y'know, a book on Israel or the Palestinians? I recall you once interjected into a discussion on the BDS movement- which I've known about and read stuff from for years- explaining that they were just reacting to what they saw as an "oppressive state" or whatever (which isn't really accurate; they're against the concept of Jewish sovereignty in principle). Given the fact that you know virtually nothing about the conflict but feel qualified to commentate, doesn't it seem odd that you behave the exact same way when I ramble about philosophy, even though I don't pretend to be some kind of expert explaining to you how Kantian ethics really work?

I've read a bit yes. More interesting is why you choose to go back to that now. Oh well.

I'm in the mood and it's the right thread. What have you read? A history or a Guardian article?
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2013 5:17:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/2/2013 5:13:56 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 12/2/2013 5:09:25 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 12/2/2013 5:07:16 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 12/2/2013 4:59:30 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 12/2/2013 4:58:23 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 12/2/2013 4:52:26 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 12/2/2013 3:13:41 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 12/1/2013 7:10:38 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
He's clearly not a troll. He means what he is saying and he replied to my reply in a reasonable way.

In general, people who post "Israel is much bigger terrorist" aren't there for productive dialogue. I expect people like that on Youtube comment sections, not serious intellectual websites.

Agreed. Included an "a" or no one will understand you.

No, I'm trying to be reflective of the typical Youtube anti-Zionist.

I'm making a joke.

Can I ask you something?

Ask away.

Have you ever read, y'know, a book on Israel or the Palestinians? I recall you once interjected into a discussion on the BDS movement- which I've known about and read stuff from for years- explaining that they were just reacting to what they saw as an "oppressive state" or whatever (which isn't really accurate; they're against the concept of Jewish sovereignty in principle). Given the fact that you know virtually nothing about the conflict but feel qualified to commentate, doesn't it seem odd that you behave the exact same way when I ramble about philosophy, even though I don't pretend to be some kind of expert explaining to you how Kantian ethics really work?

I've read a bit yes. More interesting is why you choose to go back to that now. Oh well.

I'm in the mood and it's the right thread. What have you read? A history or a Guardian article?

Mostly stuff I pick up from JSTOR. Though I do frequent the Guardian I can't remember the last article I read that was geared toward Palestine/Israel.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2013 5:21:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/2/2013 5:17:11 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 12/2/2013 5:13:56 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 12/2/2013 5:09:25 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 12/2/2013 5:07:16 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 12/2/2013 4:59:30 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 12/2/2013 4:58:23 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 12/2/2013 4:52:26 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 12/2/2013 3:13:41 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 12/1/2013 7:10:38 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
He's clearly not a troll. He means what he is saying and he replied to my reply in a reasonable way.

In general, people who post "Israel is much bigger terrorist" aren't there for productive dialogue. I expect people like that on Youtube comment sections, not serious intellectual websites.

Agreed. Included an "a" or no one will understand you.

No, I'm trying to be reflective of the typical Youtube anti-Zionist.

I'm making a joke.

Can I ask you something?

Ask away.

Have you ever read, y'know, a book on Israel or the Palestinians? I recall you once interjected into a discussion on the BDS movement- which I've known about and read stuff from for years- explaining that they were just reacting to what they saw as an "oppressive state" or whatever (which isn't really accurate; they're against the concept of Jewish sovereignty in principle). Given the fact that you know virtually nothing about the conflict but feel qualified to commentate, doesn't it seem odd that you behave the exact same way when I ramble about philosophy, even though I don't pretend to be some kind of expert explaining to you how Kantian ethics really work?

I've read a bit yes. More interesting is why you choose to go back to that now. Oh well.

I'm in the mood and it's the right thread. What have you read? A history or a Guardian article?

Mostly stuff I pick up from JSTOR. Though I do frequent the Guardian I can't remember the last article I read that was geared toward Palestine/Israel.

What sort of material have you browsed?
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."