29 May '10 00:21>
Originally posted by sh76😵
4) ATY and Generalissimo will chime in to hedge their bet with a neutral comment or a comment that softly supports one side or the other.
Originally posted by kmax87I'd like to hedge my bet by softly supporting kmax87's point.
that age old conundrum...which came first, the rockets or the violations.......
.it has an interesting parallel.........the right to exist vs the legitimacy of claiming someone else's land to enjoy that right.
Apparently Israel's biggest sin was that they took their land only 52 years ago. They need to wait at least another (2010-1620) yrs before they can gain the moral high-ground and pontificate to others about the way things should be....
Originally posted by sh76You don't object to a "double standard", you object to ANY STANDARD being applied to judge Israeli conduct toward the Palestinians. Because by long standing principles of IL, Israel's conduct is illegal, immoral and unconscionable. Right wing Israeli apologists like yourself find "hateful" the attempt to apply such standards to Israeli behavior and thus have no choice but to claim even organizations like Amnesty International are unfairly picking on poor ole Israel. Such claims are laughable.
You're missing the point.
I AM in favor of a Palestinian state and I am (in general) against the settlements, here and elsewhere.
What I am NOT for is denying Israel the right to defend itself and the "international community" holding Israel to the ridiculous double standard that it does.
There is no inconsistency between arguing in favor of a peaceful ...[text shortened]... y "pathetic" arguments are more than capable of making mincemeat of your hateful diatribes.
Originally posted by no1marauderI don't object to judging Israel's actions or even condemning them when they deserve it. I do object to double standards and to objections to Israel's conduct that are based on arguments that Israel is wrong by virtue of their existence.
You don't object to a "double standard", you object to ANY STANDARD being applied to judge Israeli conduct toward the Palestinians. Because by long standing principles of IL, Israel's conduct is illegal, immoral and unconscionable. Right wing Israeli apologists like yourself find "hateful" the attempt to apply such standards to Israeli behavior and thus ...[text shortened]... Amnesty International are unfairly picking on poor ole Israel. Such claims are laughable.
Originally posted by sh76I do object to double standards and to objections to Israel's conduct that are based on arguments that Israel is wrong by virtue of their existence.
I don't object to judging Israel's actions or even condemning them when they deserve it. I do object to double standards and to objections to Israel's conduct that are based on arguments that Israel is wrong by virtue of their existence.
The hateful part is your consistent subtle comparisons of Israel to the Nazis. You don't come out and say it outright, but ...[text shortened]...
That's what hateful; not any attempt to objectively judge or criticize Israeli actions.
Originally posted by sh76That's BS.
I don't object to judging Israel's actions or even condemning them when they deserve it. I do object to double standards and to objections to Israel's conduct that are based on arguments that Israel is wrong by virtue of their existence.
The hateful part is your consistent subtle comparisons of Israel to the Nazis. You don't come out and say it outright, but ...[text shortened]...
That's what hateful; not any attempt to objectively judge or criticize Israeli actions.
Originally posted by generalissimoTake the case of Menachem Begin (6th Prime Minister of Israel).
well, to be fair the way israel came to exist was simply shameful, and this shouldn't be forgotten simply because it happened a long time ago.
Originally posted by spruce112358The problem is that by 1948, the world no longer viewed taking territory by force as acceptable. If the outcome of WWII established anything, it was that.
Take the case of Menachem Begin (6th Prime Minister of Israel).
He was born in Brest-Litovsk on the Russian-Polish border, studied in Poland and became involved in Zionism in the 1930's. He was imprisoned in Russia, but released after the Nazi invasion was and joined 'Anders Army' of Poles who were used by the Allies to occupy Iran, Iraq, and finall ...[text shortened]... al, moral people can only support the cause of those whom Israel has devastated.
Originally posted by sh76That's an arbitrary line in the sand. The Jews have been driven from almost every land they've lived in. To differentiate between what was done before the late 1940s and what was done during the late 1940s makes no sense. In any case, the UN voted to authorize the creation of the state of Israel. How does that square with Israel being so illegitimate?
[b]The problem is that by 1948, the world no longer viewed taking territory by force as acceptable. If the outcome of WWII established anything, it was that.
That's an arbitrary line in the sand. The Jews have been driven from almost every land they've lived in. To differentiate between what was done before the late 1940s and what was done during the lat ...[text shortened]... brutally oppressed, expelled or murdered its Jewish population at one point in the past?[/b]