Originally posted by ivanhoeIt's rather amusing when you call something "ridiculous" and then espouse positions EXACTLY proving my assertions.
marauder, now you are going way overboard in your assessment of the Iran/Middle East situation and your interpretations of my stances. It is becoming annoying and sometimes it becomes absolutely ridiculous. I will show you why.
[b]marauder: "People who really want peace support a solution that relies on both sides to make concessions. You don't."
...[text shortened]... n a flawed assessment of the situation and on a ridiculously flawed interpretation of my stands.[/b]
The so-called "Road Map to Peace" is a perfect example of the West insisting that a Muslim group - here the Palestinians who are the victims of an illegal Israeli occupation - give in before Israel concedes anything. The Palestinians must cease armed struggle and reform their internal political systems to what the West desires before Israel is asked to do anything. Israel is free to attack Palestinians in missile strikes in the interim whenever they so choose. And any attacks by individual Palestinians is automatically blamed on the Palestinian leadership and given as another excuse why Israel can't concede anything. This game has been played by the Israelis for 38 years. It is long past time to enforce the UN Security Council resolutions like 242 and insist Israel withdraw from the occupied territories. The games you and Israel want to play are to insure that Israel never gives up a foot of the West Bank; you're full of crap to pretend otherwise.
What military action by the West or Israel haven't you supported?? Name one. The invasion and occupation of Iraq?? The routine missile strikes against Palestinian leaders?? The invasion of Jenin and other Palestinian towns? Prove me wrong; mention one military action that the West or Israel has done in the Middle East in the last 38 years that you didn't support or justify. As usual, you never actually said otherwise but merely dropped to vague personal attacks. Put up or shut up.
"The job" will never be done in Iraq, since that "job" is installing a pro-western puppet government that the ordinary Iraqis will quietly accept. This won't happen, so the continuing occupation with its daily death tolls is pointless, bloody folly. But you support it, Mr. Man of Peace. As always when push comes to shove, you support war on Muslims IF they resist occupation and oppression like any man should. You have contempt for the concept of "freedom"; you've ridiculed it in other threads. Not everybody shares your vision of Man has a dog to be whipped until he obeys, Ivanhoe.
Israel, as an international outlaw, is getting a far better deal then it deserves. While war against Iranians is hunky dory if they want nuclear weapons (which they apparently don't) Israel may stockpile hundreds without a peep from you. The Israeli occupation of Palestinian land is illegal, Ivanhoe, as stated in SC 242. The Palestinians have a right to resist against that occupation by force if necessary and given Israel's flaunting of international law, force is clearly necessary. If Israel wants to end resistance, it must end the occupation. What you and the "RoadMap" want is for the Palestinians to surrender first and then Israel might actually start doing what it was told to do by the UN Security Council 38 years ago. But, if even one 20 year old, perhaps who's family was slaughtered by your Israeli friends, commits a "terrorist" act, Israel will be free to make no concessions at all. This game is what you support and it won't acheive peace. When there is a free and independent Palestinian state, radical groups will have less and less power; the Palestinians are sick of war and occupation. Give them their freedom and support for Hamas and Islamic Jihad will whither. Israel will be far more secure than it is now, even if an occasional terrorist commits a criminal act. That is a future that can happen and is worth working for; your scenario where the Palestinians surrender first, repress all political groups Israel, the West and you don't approve of, put in rulers acceptable to Israel, etc. etc. etc. is a pipe dream. Insisting on that means continued struggle and death.
2 edits
Originally posted by no1maraudermarauder: "It is long past time to enforce the UN Security Council resolutions like 242 and insist Israel withdraw from the occupied territories."
It's rather amusing when you call something "ridiculous" and then espouse positions EXACTLY proving my assertions.
The so-called "Road Map to Peace" is a perfect example of the West insisting that a Muslim group - here the Palestinians who are the victims of an illegal Israeli occupation - give in before Israel concedes anything. The Pales ...[text shortened]... to Israel, etc. etc. etc. is a pipe dream. Insisting on that means continued struggle and death.
There are also some other points raised in resolution 242. You are accusing me of a one-sided approach, then why don't you insist on the Arab countries recognising the State of Israel, which is also a part of 242 and which you, and I must add the Pro-Palestine lobby, always forget to mention if they accuse Israel of not meeting the demands of resolution 242. The Arab countries are also in violation of 242. So every time you mention 242, keep that in mind.
"(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;
http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/240/94/IMG/NR024094.pdf?OpenElement
United Nations Security Council Resolution 242
(November 22, 1967)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Security Council,
Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East,
Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,
Emphasizing further that all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter.
1. Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:
(i) Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;
2. Affirms further the necessity:
(a) For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;
(b) For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;
(c) For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones;
3. Requests the SecretaryGeneral to designate a Special Representative to proceed to the Middle East to establish and maintain contacts with the States concerned in order to promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles in this resolution;
4. Requests the SecretaryGeneral to report to the Security Council on the progress of the efforts of the Special Representative as soon as possible.
Originally posted by ivanhoePlease tell me what Muslim states are still officially in a state of war with Israel.
Do you agree with me that not just Israel, but also the Arab states ánd Iran are not meeting the demands of the 1967 Security Council Resolution 242 ?
The fact that other states might not have met all the conditions which 242 strives for is unfortunate. The fact that 242 specificially requires Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories and Israel has refused to do so for 38 years is a flaunting of the Security Council (one of many by Israel) and a violation of international law. As a supporter of the UN, I'm sure you support Israel's immediate compliance with Security Council resolutions right, Ivanhoe?
2 edits
Originally posted by no1maraudermarauder: "What military action by the West or Israel haven't you supported?? Name one. The invasion and occupation of Iraq?? The routine missile strikes against Palestinian leaders?? The invasion of Jenin and other Palestinian towns? Prove me wrong; mention one military action that the West or Israel has done in the Middle East in the last 38 years that you didn't support or justify. As usual, you never actually said otherwise but merely dropped to vague personal attacks. Put up or shut up."
It's rather amusing when you call something "ridiculous" and then espouse positions EXACTLY proving my assertions.
The so-called "Road Map to Peace" is a perfect example of the West insisting that a Muslim group - here the Palestinians who are the victims of an illegal Israeli occupation - give in before Israel concedes anything. The Pales ...[text shortened]... to Israel, etc. etc. etc. is a pipe dream. Insisting on that means continued struggle and death.
I reject and condemn all acts of violence on both sides, the Israeli side ánd the Palestinian side. I also condemn all acts of violence carried out by terrorist groups such as Islamic Jihad and Hamas. I understand why both sides carry out those violent acts, but I strongly object to them. They should return to the negotiation table and both sides should refrain from any violence.
I haven't heard you state the same in the context of your "moderate" view on things.
1 edit
Originally posted by no1maraudermarauder: "The fact that other states might not have met all the conditions which 242 strives for is unfortunate."
Please tell me what Muslim states are still officially in a state of war with Israel.
The fact that other states might not have met all the conditions which 242 strives for is unfortunate. The fact that 242 specificially requires Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories and Israel has refused to do so for 38 years is a flaunting of the ...[text shortened]... ure you support Israel's immediate compliance with Security Council resolutions right, Ivanhoe?
.... "might not have met" .... "unfortunate"
Again, you seem to be taking this issue rather lightheartedly.
Why don't you simply admit that not just Israel but also Arab states and Iran are not meeting the demands in 242 instead of diverting the attention by asking new questions and throwing new accusations around ?
Originally posted by ivanhoeAs far as I know, Israel in the last 5 years or so has consistently refused to negotiate with the elected Palestinian leadership. If Israel would do so, perhaps progress toward a solution could be forthcoming.
marauder: "What military action by the West or Israel haven't you supported?? Name one. The invasion and occupation of Iraq?? The routine missile strikes against Palestinian leaders?? The invasion of Jenin and other Palestinian towns? Prove me wrong; mention one military action that the West or Israel has done in the Middle East in the last 38 years that y ...[text shortened]... ence.
I haven't heard you state the same in the context of your "moderate" view on things.
I support the right of people who are oppressed to resist by force, if necessary. I do not recognize any legitimate state power to forcibly oppress an unwilling populace. Violence is sometimes an unfortunate necessity but it should be avoided if at all possible. It is unreasonable in the extreme to insist that the Palestinian people surrender their natural right to resist oppression without any guarantee that an illegal occupation that has already lasted for 38 years is going to end any time soon.
If you are so opposed to violence, how can you continue to support the US invasion and occupation of Iraq? Or do you consider "violence" to be something done only by those who are occupied not their occupiers?
2 edits
Originally posted by no1maraudermarauder: " you support war on Muslims IF they resist occupation and oppression like any man should"
It's rather amusing when you call something "ridiculous" and then espouse positions EXACTLY proving my assertions.
The so-called "Road Map to Peace" is a perfect example of the West insisting that a Muslim group - here the Palestinians who are the victims of an illegal Israeli occupation - give in before Israel concedes anything. The Pales ...[text shortened]... to Israel, etc. etc. etc. is a pipe dream. Insisting on that means continued struggle and death.
Your assessment of the Iraqi situation is more than simplistic, it is flawed.
marauder: "You have contempt for the concept of "freedom"; you've ridiculed it in other threads."
Simply not true. You remember things in a way they fit in with your urge of having to accuse people. I criticised your one-dimensional version of freedom. This does not mean I show contempt for freedom, absolutely not.
I criticised your "do what you like, unless it violates someone's elses rights" kind of freedom.
I advocate the notion of freedom which states that "one is free to do good".
Marauder, why don't you stop your accusing spree ? Why don't you adress my reactions to your unsubstantiated claims ?
Why don't you answer some of my questions ? Why don't you give proof for all these silly accusations you are spouting ?
Originally posted by ivanhoeIt is you who are trying to change the subject. SC 242 was passed to address "the grave situation in the Middle East"; what do you suppose that was, Ivanhoe? It was not the Arab states refusal to recognize Israel, but the war that Israel had unleashed on its neighbors. An unjust war and illegal occupation is a grave threat to world peace and security and thus a primary concern of the UN; the decision of certain countries to recognize or not recognize another state is a petty matter by comparison. Even assuming that the Muslim states are "violating" 242, their "violation" is insignificant compared to Israel's (and Israel has violated many more SC resolutions concerning the occupied territories). I'm sure if Isreal makes peace with the Palestinian and a Palestinian state is formed, virtually all Muslim states will recognize Israel and even if some don't, it will have no practical effect.
[b]marauder: "The fact that other states might not have met all the conditions which 242 strives for is unfortunate."
.... "might not have met" .... "unfortunate"
Again, you seem to be taking this issue rather lightheartedly.
Why don't you simply admit that not just Israel but also Arab states and Iran are not meeting the demand ...[text shortened]... instead of diverting the attention by asking new questions and throwing new accusations around ?[/b]
Originally posted by no1maraudermarauder: " If you are so opposed to violence, how can you continue to support the US invasion and occupation of Iraq? Or do you consider "violence" to be something done only by those who are occupied not their occupiers?"
As far as I know, Israel in the last 5 years or so has consistently refused to negotiate with the elected Palestinian leadership. If Israel would do so, perhaps progress toward a solution could be forthcoming.
I support the right of people who are oppressed to resist by force, if necessary. I do not recognize any legitimate state power to forc ...[text shortened]... u consider "violence" to be something done only by those who are occupied not their occupiers?
Let's adress the issues raised instead of adding more and more and thus confusing the issue, shall we ?
Originally posted by ivanhoeHow is my assessment of the Iraqi situation "flawed"? The US didn't invade Iraq? It's not militarily occupying Iraq? Please correct my misconceptions, Ivanhoe.
[b]marauder: " you support war on Muslims IF they resist occupation and oppression like any man should"
Your assessment of the Iraqi situation is more than simplistic, it is flawed.
marauder: "You have contempt for the concept of "freedom"; you've ridiculed it in other threads."
Simply not true. You remember things in a way they fi ...[text shortened]... e of my questions ? Why don't you give proof for all these silly accusations you are spouting ?[/b]
Your concept of "freedom" is a useless one since you would leave it to others to decide what "good" the individual is "free to do". That's just a way of saying you are free to do what you are told.
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoeThe presence of a US invasion force occupying Iran's neighbor (in fact, 2 of their neighbors) cannot be ignored in a discussion of the positions of the Iranian leader. To do so, requires naivete of the highest degree.
marauder: " If you are so opposed to violence, how can you continue to support the US invasion and occupation of Iraq? Or do you consider "violence" to be something done only by those who are occupied not their occupiers?"
Let's adress the issues raised instead of adding more and more and thus confusing the issue, shall we ?
Originally posted by no1maraudermarauder: "I agree, but I don't care."
I agree, but I don't care. When the West stops threatening, bullying and interfering in the lives of Muslims, people like him won't be supported by Muslims. Even if they are, it's still not my concern.
I hope you will not accuse me of being a liar or being disingenuous if I will present this stance of yours in future debates.