rogueyam Posted March 2, 2008 Report Share Posted March 2, 2008 Who's insane? People who cannot respond rationally to substantive arguments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckwoww Posted March 2, 2008 Report Share Posted March 2, 2008 People who cannot respond rationally to substantive arguments. LOL. You mean your 'substantive argument' about Israeli restraint and generosity? I thought I dealt with that one. Rationally too. There is nothing restrained or generous about Vilnai's 'shoah' threat. The only thing stopping him is world opinion. You seem to have a problem with 'lefties'...lets try this on you...2/3 of Israelis favour negotiating with Hamas. Presumably they are all insane lefties. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/27/world/main3882055.shtml Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALHOLK Posted March 2, 2008 Report Share Posted March 2, 2008 Not much difference between "das herrenvolk" and "gods chosen people" is there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rogueyam Posted March 2, 2008 Report Share Posted March 2, 2008 You mean your 'substantive argument' about Israeli restraint and generosity? I thought I dealt with that one. Rationally too. Not even close. A rational response to my claims about Israel comparing so favorably to other nations would be to give a counter-example. This you did not do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckwoww Posted March 2, 2008 Report Share Posted March 2, 2008 That is because I believe the only thing restraining the current Israeli administration is world opinion. And I still don't see anything generous about appropriating land for settlements and squeezing Palestinians into small areas. Would other nations behave differently in the same position? I can't think of any precise historical precedents for the Israel/Palestine situation. Some occupying powers have been worse and some have been better. Most colonial powers have ended up granting independence...sometimes reluctantly. It's a land grab however you look at it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rogueyam Posted March 2, 2008 Report Share Posted March 2, 2008 It's a land grab however you look at it. There is a political dispute over land for sure, but there are also acts of war being carried out. You ignore the Palestinian rocket fire and demand the Israelis do so as well. This is dishonest and insane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckwoww Posted March 2, 2008 Report Share Posted March 2, 2008 It's a land grab however you look at it. There is a political dispute over land for sure' date=' but there are also acts of war being carried out. You ignore the Palestinian rocket fire and demand the Israelis do so as well. This is dishonest and insane.[/quote'] You keep isolating one sentence from my posts and using it to reinforce your own nebulous position. You can call it a 'political dispute' but to me it's a land grab pure and simple. You just mentioned the Palestinian rockets for the first time. How does that equate to me ignoring it? Personally I see the Palestinian rockets as a futile provocation. The desperate act of a powerless people against an overwhelming force. Counterproductive too because the Israelis are able to point to it as a justification for their own repression. I've seen suggestions that the Israelis are firing some of the rockets at S'derot themselves, which might explain why they only cause a few minor casualties, but I have no evidence of it. Is that honest and sane enough for you? Ooops....sorry. I see you did mention the Palestinian rockets earlier. I didn't intend to ignore it. I got distracted by your other points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckwoww Posted March 2, 2008 Report Share Posted March 2, 2008 "You ignore the Palestinian rocket fire and demand the Israelis do so as well." Nowhere have I 'demanded' that the Israelis do anything. If Vilnai is going to use loaded words like 'shoah' he should expect a little feedback. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest lazyphil Posted March 2, 2008 Report Share Posted March 2, 2008 tell me whats the difference between land grabs in south africa, north america, nz, australia and israel?.....ok, africans in south africa were not overwhelmed as in the other places but in oz and us etc the natives were slapped around into submission in the name of progress and pioneering spirit. CW, i recall you lived in the usa?....you benefited navajo, havasupai etc bitch slapping, why not allow israelis enjoy similar freedoms to put the arabs in line so they can prosper, some more :smirk: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckwoww Posted March 2, 2008 Report Share Posted March 2, 2008 No basic difference phil. I know this is your standard way of justifying colonialism. A land grab is a land grab. Not a 'political dispute' so why not call it what it is? I'm British by the way. Probably descended from Roman, Viking, Norman land grabbers. As for the Israelis I think they'd be more honest if they'd just annex the West Bank and move the Palestinians into Jordan or the Gaza ghetto. 'Political dispute' my arse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.