What do you do with a problem like Ahmadinejad?

[Hurkyl]

Bush has never actually stated his intentions clearly before, or rather the reasons behind his action.

Okay, but kyleb said that "Zionism and Middle East dominance" was the reason Bush is overtly using to justify a war with Iran.

I figure kyleb probably meant to make claims about Bush's secret intent and just used a poor choice of words, but frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if he meant it as stated.

 

[Yonoz]

You mention Ze'ev Jabotinsky, he was an intelligent man who understood this all the way http://www.jabotinsky.org/Jaboworld/docs/Iron%20Wall.doc 'Zionist colonization must either stop, or else proceed regardless of the native population.'

Have you become a fan of Jabo?
I thought you'd be taking me seriously by now. You do realize I actually read the sources you present - especially when you selectively quote single sentences. And come on, seriously - I know Jabotinsky's teachings quite well. For the sake of our readers who may not be as suspicious or as familiar with this topic as I, let us begin with Jabo's introduction:

I am reputed to be an enemy of the Arabs, who wants to have them ejected from Palestine, and so forth. It is not true.

Emotionally, my attitude to the Arabs is the same as to all other nations – polite indifference. Politically, my attitude is determined by two principles. First of all, I consider it utterly impossible to eject the Arabs from Palestine. There will always be two nations in Palestine – which is good enough for me, provided the Jews become the majority. And secondly, I belong to the group that once drew up the Helsingfors Programme , the programme of national rights for all nationalities living in the same State. In drawing up that programme, we had in mind not only the Jews , but all nations everywhere, and its basis is equality of rights.

I am prepared to take an oath binding ourselves and our descendants that we shall never do anything contrary to the principle of equal rights, and that we shall never try to eject anyone. This seems to me a fairly peaceful credo.

But it is quite another question whether it is always possible to realize a peaceful aim by peaceful means. For the answer to this question does not depend on our attitude to the Arabs; but entirely on the attitude of the Arabs to us and to Zionism.

You can see where this is going. I'll get to the important bit, look at what Jabo had to say about reaching an agreement with the Arab population:

What is impossible is a voluntary agreement. As long as the Arabs feel that there is the least hope of getting rid of us, they will refuse to give up this hope in return for either kind words or for bread and butter, because they are not a rabble, but a living people. And when a living people yields in matters of such a vital character it is only when there is no longer any hope of getting rid of us, because they can make no breach in the iron wall. Not till then will they drop their extremist leaders whose watchword is "Never!" And the leadership will pass to the moderate groups, who will approach us with a proposal that we should both agree to mutual concessions. Then we may expect them to discuss honestly practical questions, such as a guarantee against Arab displacement, or equal rights for Arab citizen, or Arab national integrity.

And when that happens, I am convinced that we Jews will be found ready to give them satisfactory guarantees, so that both peoples can live together in peace, like good neighbours.
But the only way to obtain such an agreement, is the iron wall, which is to say a strong power in Palestine that is not amenable to any Arab pressure. In other words, the only way to reach an agreement in the future is to abandon all idea of seeking an agreement at present.

Would you think so highly of him if you were reading this back in 1937? Some of his followers today still believe that the Jewish State should encompass Jordan as well as Israel and the occupied territories - I don't think you'd get along too well with these characters. So let us not kid ourselves - Jabotinsky believed in an all-out approach and thought the British would establish Israel as part of the UK...

There is no two ways around it, to can't expect people to respect your nation's right to exist when it was built from and continues to be expanded by the taking of other people's land; not until you stop your nation from taking their land even have hope of peace.

Let's dispense with the silly mantras, please.
They're nothing more than a waste of time and bandwidth.

Unfortunately, in the name of Zionism and Middle East dominance, our leaders are actively trying to push us into this war with Iran.

One for the textbooks.
At last, you show your true colours.

Surely expanding your boarders and and subjugating your neighbors isn't truly more important than peace to you?

Yeah, that and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_libel_against_Jews" , I'm sure you're familiar with those.

 

[kyleb]

Yonoz, I respect Jabotinsky's intellect, but I'm not fan by any means. As for the context you quoted, it doesn't change what I quoted; 'Zionist colonization must either stop, or else proceed regardless of the native population.' So again, is continuing to take the Palestinians land really so important to you that you would rather we start a war with Iran rather than stop?

I thought they were doing it in the name of nonproliferation.

Nah, if nonproliferation was the goal then we wouldn't be looking to hook India up with more nukes.

I know I listen to the media very little, but I'm sure that even I would have heard if Bush actually said "Let's go to Iran so that we can dominate the region".

Perhaps you've heard the plans referred to under a more benign sounding catch phrase like "a new Middle East" or such.

Surely you would prefer that the people shooting at you do it from "way over there", rather than "right nextdoor"?

I was asking if you really wanted people to stop shooting at you. Am I to take your answer to mean that you would rather people continue to shoot at you as you continue to take their land? There is no reason to play fools here, that has been the process from the begining; quoting http://www.jabotinsky.org/Jaboworld/docs/Iron%20Wall.doc again:

... We may tell them whatever we like about the innocence of our aims, watering them down and sweetening them with honeyed words to make them palatable, but they know what we want, as well as we know what they do not want. They feel at least the same instinctive jealous love of Palestine, as the old Aztecs felt for ancient Mexico , and their Sioux for their rolling Prairies.

To imagine, as our Arabophiles do, that they will voluntarily consent to the realisation of Zionism. In return for the moral and material conveniences which the Jewish colonist brings with him, is a childish notion, which has at bottom a kind of contempt for the Arab people; it means that they despise the Arab race, which they regard as a corrupt mob that can be bought and sold, and are willing to give up their fatherland for a good railway system.

All Natives Resist Colonists​

There is no justification for such a belief. It may be that some individual Arabs take bribes. But that does not mean that the Arab people of Palestine as a whole will sell that fervent patriotism that they guard so jealously, and which even the Papuans will never sell. Every native population in the world resists colonists as long as it has the slightest hope of being able to rid itself of the danger of being colonised.

That is what the Arabs in Palestine are doing, and what they will persist in doing as long as there remains a solitary spark of hope that they will be able to prevent the transformation of "Palestine" into the "Land of Israel."

So the question is; when will Israel call this transformation complete?

 

[Yonoz]

kyleb, it is quite apparent to me that no answer I give will satisfy you. You ignoringly repeat half-truths that I have refuted. I see no sense in repeating myself just to have you bring us back to square one again.
You have exposed your core belief, i.e. that the millions of Zionists and their supporters seek "Middle East domination" (in your own words) and that Zionism is a war-mongering expansionist ideology. To me, Zionism is about ensuring my nation's survival. This necessity became more evident to me through our conversations.
Bigotry is the cause and reason for Zionism.
I suggest you take some time to introspect.

 

[Anttech]

Zionism is about ensuring my nation's survival.

IMHO So is Islamism (or what Islamists believe). It was born out of the belief that Liberalism was "rotting" the core of Muslim nations, they wanted to create a Islamic state, where people would be able to live there lifes, under the guidance of the Koran.

You don't have to fall on Zionism to ensure Israel survival. Israel can survive without Zionism, it could survive as a democratic secular state. If it was this in practise, allowing Muslims to live along side Jews and Christians, without the borders, and fences you have now (perhaps called the The republic Of Israel and palestine). I think the support for idiotic ideas like the destruction of Israel would fall away to nothing.

But would anyone accept this, on either extreme.

 

[Yonoz]

IMHO So is Islamism (or what Islamists believe). It was born out of the belief that Liberalism was "rotting" the core of Muslim nations, they wanted to create a Islamic state, where people would be able to live there lifes, under the guidance of the Koran.

That's great - I'm all for that.
I do have a bit of a problem when states don't recognise my state's right of existence, export terrorism and seek nuclear weapons - whatever their religion, philosophy, ideology or favourite colour.

You don't have to fall on Zionism to ensure Israel survival. Israel can survive without Zionism, it could survive as a democratic secular state.

Israel is already a democratic state. It is quite secular considering its inhabitants. The only mere difference from other secular democratic states is that Israel is a home for Jewish people and as such it encourages Jews to come and reside here, and helps those who cannot achieve it - be it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Magic_Carpet_%28Yemen%29" . We are simply taking care of our own, I think we have every right to do so.
EDIT: Note I said:

To me, Zionism is about ensuring my nation's survival.

You are talking about the State of Israel - it is not one and the same as the Jewish nation.

If it was this in practise, allowing Muslims to live along side Jews and Christians, without the borders, and fences you have now (perhaps called the The republic Of Israel and palestine). I think the support for idiotic ideas like the destruction of Israel would fall away to nothing.

You may be right but can you offer a realistic path to arrive at such a state? I think it is a pipe dream today - even more than it was at the end of the 19th century, when it was actually attempted.

But would anyone accept this, on either extreme.

People vent their anger and pain. You cannot expect us to return overnight to a life of peaceful neighbouring. Steps must be taken by all parties to restore faith. That is why I am in Peace Now. It has nothing to do with my opinion of who is responsible and what a just solution means. It's in our every interest to seek peace and prosperity at home, the only thing keeping Israel back is the distrust that has settled after more than 100 years of Arab violence. We are capable of extraordinary feats when we believe it will ensure our safety, at peace just as much as at war. I don't think a 1-state solution is possible, but all the Palestinians need to do to finally live peacefully in their own independent state is to convince Israelis it will not endanger us.

 

[Anttech]

That's great - I'm all for that.
I do have a bit of a problem when states don't recognise my state's right of existence, export terrorism and seek nuclear weapons - whatever their religion, philosophy, ideology or favourite colour.

Even people who like Blue?

Seriously, your friends do the exact same as (I'll assume you mean Iran) Iran. So have a problem with them doing it as well, and we will have some progress.

Israel is already a democratic state. It is quite secular considering its inhabitants. The only mere difference from other secular democratic states is that Israel is a home for Jewish people and as such it encourages Jews to come and reside here, and helps those who cannot achieve it - be it Jews in Yemen suffering riots after the inception of Israel, Jews held by draconic emigration policies in the USSR or Jews caught in famine and civil war in Ethiopia. We are simply taking care of our own, I think we have every right to do so.

And islamist are helping there 'race' and Islam is as much a race as Judaism. I have a problem with any country who is inception is for only 1 'race' to call home.

You may be right but can you offer a realistic path to arrive at such a state? I think it is a pipe dream today - even more than it was at the end of the 19th century, when it was actually attempted.

Its a pipe dream because the leaders don't want it, it would erode their powerbase

 

[Anttech]

Note I said:
Quote:"To me, Zionism is about ensuring my nation's survival."
You are talking about the State of Israel - it is not one and the same as the Jewish nation.

Judaism is a set of beliefs its not a race. The same as Islam is a set of beliefs not a race. If your beliefs state that everyone who is a Jew is part of the same race, doesn't make it *actually* so. I am not part of the Orthodox Christian race because I am Greek. Nor can the 'Jewish' race be compared to Roma's or Europe, a race with no home so to say.

Its a religion, not a race!

 

[Yonoz]

Seriously, your friends do the exact same as (I'll assume you mean Iran) Iran. So have a problem with them doing it as well, and we will have some progress.

I have a problem with anyone commiting acts of terrorism. But the biggest criticism of Israel is that it is allowing people to build homes. How can I have more understanding for terrorists than for settlers? They're both obstacles to peace, but what a difference! I spent long hours manning booths, explaining to Israelis why we should be appeasing the Palestinians. It's become impossible now - every piece of land we've left since the Oslo Accords has become either a breeding ground or launch platform for terrorism attacks. Take a look at a http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/travel/dg/maps/cd/750x750_israel_m.gif" and imagine what Israelis fear after the latest attacks from Lebanon. That little coastal strip between the West Bank and the Mediterranean is Israel's metropolitan heart. The crudest rockets can be used there, because wherever they're aimed, there's a good chance they'll kill civilians. Israelis don't question the justness of the separation barrier simply because it's the only thing that has significantly minimized terrorist attacks. Of course, no one takes that into consideration when they judge it. It complements the honeypot effect of the settlements, detracting terrorist attacks inside the country - is it any wonder the separation barrier and settlers still find support?
We of the left hang onto every shred of hope in our attempts to promote peace. Unfortunately we have very little to work with.

And islamist are helping there 'race' and Islam is as much a race as Judaism.

Are they now? Do you think they're doing what is in the race, religion or nation's best interests? I think part of their problem is actually their divisiveness.

I have a problem with any country who is inception is for only 1 race to call home.

Israel is a home to people of different races.

Its a pipe dream because the leaders don't want it, it would erode their powerbase

Israel is a democracy. Its powerbase is the electorate.

 

[Yonoz]

Judaism is a set of beliefs its not a race.

Correct. I was talking about the Jewish nation, not Judaism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jew" (Hebrew: יְהוּדִים, Yehudim; Yiddish: ייִדן, Yiden) are followers of Judaism or, more generally, members of the Jewish people (also known as the Jewish nation, or the Children of Israel), an ethno-religious group descended from the ancient Israelites and from converts who joined their religion.

The same as Islam is a set of beliefs not a race.

Very good!

If your beliefs state that everyone who is a Jew is part of the same race, doesn't make it *actually* so.

Have I ever mentioned a Jewish race?

I am not part of the Orthodox Christian race because I am Greek. Nor can the 'Jewish' race be compared to Roma's or Europe, a race with no home so to say.

The Jewish nation can be compared to other nations.

Its a religion, not a race!

5 points!

 

[Anttech]

Are they now? Do you think they're doing what is in the race, religion or nation's best interests? I think part of their problem is actually their divisiveness.

No, but neither do I think that the Zionists are doings what is in the nations best interests

 

[Anttech]

To me, Zionism is about ensuring my nation's survival.

You are talking about the State of Israel - it is not one and the same as the Jewish nation.

Correct. I was talking about the Jewish nation, not Judaism.

So what where we talking about then, I was talking about Israel the *Jewish* nation (Israel) when referring to Zionism, you on the other hand were talking about *Judaism*

Now you are talking about Israel (Jewish nation), but I was talking about Judaism.

This is called obfuscation if it was deliberate.

 

[Yonoz]

No, but neither do I think that the Zionists are doings what is in the nations best interests

Indeed, divisiveness is not a problem unique to the Muslim world. However, our divisiveness is a product of a healthy open public dialogue and less than healthy politics - in that sense we are no different from any other western nation. We are open to outside influence. The Muslim world is a closed, traditional society that favours fanaticism, and so far the only way we have gained Muslim nations' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respect" is by defending ourselves.

Respect is an attitude of acknowledging the feelings and interests of another party in a relationship, and of treating as consequential for the self the helping or harming of the other. Though most commonly referring to interpersonal relationships, it can be used between animals, groups and institutions including countries. Respect does not necessarily imply deference, but a respectful attitude rules out unconsidered selfish behaviour. The concept of respect predates, and does not rely on, the existence of the concept of rights.

Respect is sometimes loosely used as a synonym for politeness or manners, though these are behaviours, whereas respect is an attitude. Intercultural differences in behaviours, self-perception and outward appearance may result in the unintentional appearance of disrespect.

Respect is the esteem for or a sense of the worth or excellence of a person, a personal quality or ability, or something considered as a manifestation of a personal quality or ability: I have great respect for her judgment.

Many movements have at different times claimed respect as the core element, including raver-culture, Islam and the United States Marine Corps.

 

[Anttech]

Indeed, divisiveness is not a problem unique to the Muslim world. However, our divisiveness is a product of a healthy open public dialogue and less than healthy politics - in that sense we are no different from any other western nation. We are open to outside influence. The Muslim world is a closed, traditional society that favours fanaticism, and so far the only way we have gained Muslim nations' respect is by defending ourselves.

Generalisation, and not a very *open* minded.There is a small sect who favour fanaticism.

Anyway what would you call and orthodox Jew rocking back and forth at the wailing wall, mumbling prayers under his breath? Fanatic or following his religion?

 

[Yonoz]

So what where we talking about then, I was talking about Israel the *Jewish* nation (Israel) when referring to Zionism, you on the other hand were talking about *Judaism*

Now you are talking about Israel (Jewish nation), but I was talking about Judaism.

This is called obfuscation if it was deliberate.

You need to distinguish between the State of Israel, Judaism, the Jewish nation (or peoples) and Zionism. I know it can be a little complex but such is reality.
When I said:

To me, Zionism is about ensuring my nation's survival.

I was referring to the Jewish nation. Your reply dealt solely with Judaism.

 

[Yonoz]

Generalisation, and not a very *open* minded...

On the contrary, I think it is very open minded. You chose to interpret this negatively, I simply see the Muslim world for what it is and have no intention on judging its culture and values.

 

[Yonoz]

Anyway what would you call and orthodox Jew rocking back and forth at the wailing wall, mumbling prayers under his breath? Fanatic or following his religion?

I would say he's both.

 

[Anttech]

On the contrary, I think it is very open minded. You chose to interpret this negatively, I simply see the Muslim world for what it is and have no intention on judging its culture and values.

"Yonzo: you have a closed, traditional mindset that favours fanaticism."

Did that make you feel all guey as if I was giving you a compliment, or conversely did that make you feel like I was insulting you?

Its not a very open minded thing to generalise the whole by a small fraction of one of its parts.

 

[Yonoz]

"Yonzo: you have a closed, traditional mindset that favours fanaticism."

Did that make you feel all guey as if I was giving you a compliment, or conversely did that make you feel like I was insulting you?

It insulted me because it is against my values. Had I been in a closed society such as MENSA I would be happy to acknowledge that fact. Had I been a traditional Jew I would see traditionalism as a virtue. Had I been brought up to believe martyrs are the epitome of good, I would take no offense in being told I favour fanaticism.

Its not a very open minded thing to generalise the whole by a small fraction of one of its parts.

You can refer to those PEW server results I posted on the previous page.

 

[Anttech]

Had I been in a closed society such as MENSA I would be happy to acknowledge that fact. Had I been a traditional Jew I would see traditionalism as a virtue. Had I been brought up to believe martyrs are the epitome of good, I would take no offense in being told I favour fanaticism

Lots of *ifs* there, I think you will find that it was an insult no matter whom you project it towards.

 

[Yonoz]

Lots of *ifs* there, I think you will find that it was an insult no matter whom you project it towards.

Perhaps because the entity it is projected at has not come to full terms with itself. It is not any fault of mine.
Is the Muslim world not more traditional in comparison with the western world? Is it not more closed than western societies? To study at the long-respected Sunni Al-Azhar University in Cairo one must practice Islam - followers of other religions are not admitted. Does the Muslim world not favour fanaticism? One need only look at the rhetoric of Muslim leaders to witness it.

 

[kyleb]

kyleb, it is quite apparent to me that no answer I give will satisfy you.

Actually, all I'm asking for is what you believe Israels final boarders should be and any objective answer would do. A map would be perfect, I can show you one with my answer as an example if you like.

You ignoring repeat half-truths that I have refuted... ...I suggest you take some time to introspect.

As highlighted by your confusion which I addressed above; your extrospection is at fault here and the ignorant half-truths you refute are constructs of your own myopic perspective, chicane strawmen you subconsciously(?) construct in order to dodge my question. I can adress your confusion on those other points if you like, but first I'd like an objective answer to my question; at what point will you be done with this process of taking their land?

 

[Yonoz]

Actually, all I'm asking for is what you believe Israels final boarders should be and any objective answer would do. A map would be perfect, I can show you one with my answer as an example if you like.

Actually, your question was:

So the question is; when will Israel call this transformation complete?

- in reference to an article from 1937 that calls for the transformation of the entire British mandated territory - from the Mediterranean to Iraq - into a British-sponsored Jewish State with a Jewish majority. This "transformation" you ask of never took place, as it was rejected by an overwhelming majority. The author of this article never represented any sort of majority of Zionists - as a matter of fact, he established his own "New Zionist Organisation" when the Zionist Organisation did not accept this plan.
This is no individual incident. All of your "questions" lately seem more like statements - hateful, slandering, skewed statements. When faced with an answer not to your liking you simply return to your familiar mantras.
If you expect any sort of further cooperation on my part, I suggest you mend your ways. Perhaps you should undertake some sort of sensitivity training, I'm quite amazed by some of the ideas you present regarding Zionism and its followers.
There is no shame in admitting to your mistakes.

 

[kyleb]

Part of Palestine has been transformed into Israel, Israel contunues to take land from Palestine. I am simply asking, how much more do you feel Israel should take?

 

[Hurkyl]

Unfortunately, in the name of Zionism and Middle East dominance, our leaders are actively trying to push us into this war with Iran.

I thought they were doing it in the name of nonproliferation.

Nah, if nonproliferation was the goal then we wouldn't be looking to hook India up with more nukes.

Since you have avoided my question, I will assome you meant what you originally said.

Please, find me a source proving that our leaders are actively trying to push us into this war with Iran in the name of Zionism and Middle East dominance.

This is not a request to find a link hinting at a secret motive or hidden agenda. I'm asking you to support "our leaders are actively trying to push us into this war with Iran in the name of Zionism and Middle East dominance." That means you have to do something like find a quote of Bush saying "Let's take out Iran for the sake of Zionism!"

If you did not mean to suggest that Zionism and Middle East dominance is being used as an overt justification for trying to push us into this war with Iran, then just say so, and stop evading the question.

Perhaps you've heard the plans referred to under a more benign sounding catch phrase like "a new Middle East" or such.

No, I have not.

I was asking if you really wanted people to stop shooting at you. Am I to take your answer to mean that you would rather people continue to shoot at you as you continue to take their land?

It's certainly preferable to the likely alternative: people continue to shoot at me as I refuse to confiscate the land they're shooting from.


It doesn't matter whether Israel's content with its 1967 (or whatever year it is you like) borders or if Israel is trying to seize land to grow -- the point is that the Palestinians have created a situation where confiscating their land is a reasonable, defensible, and even appropriate action on the Israeli's part.

 

[kyleb]

http://www.answers.com/in+the+name+of&r=67" ; and again, Zionists created the situation by choosing to colonize Palestine, the Palestinians never encouraged that.

 

[Hurkyl]

In the Name of, a new Middle East;

Nothing on that page talks about doing anything in the name of Zionism or in the name of Middle Eastern dominance. Did you really believe that this link satisfied my challenge? Or did you have a different purpose in mind?

the Palestinians never encouraged that.

Obviously not intentionally. But when you attack someone, especially with the intent of annihilating them, you force them to do what they can to stop you.

 

[kyleb]

The first link is to clear up your incomplete understanding of the idiom you took question with, and the second provides examples of the catch phrase which you claimed you had never heard used. And again you are getting your causation backwards, when you continue to colonize peoples land they will resist; without the colonization there would'nt be any Israel to attack.

 

[Hurkyl]

The first link is to clear up your incomplete understanding of the idiom you took question with

In what way was my understanding incomplete? Definitions 1, 3, 5, and 6 are not applicable to this situation, 4 is exactly how I'm using it, and 2 is very similar. And all six of them are overt; I cannot see how to construe any of the six definitions to refer to anything secret or concealed.

and the second provides examples of the catch phrase which you claimed you had never heard used.

Thank you.

And again you are getting your causation backwards, when you continue to colonize peoples land they will resist;

No, I have it right. Even if we suppose that your version of history is correct, when the resistance shoots at Israel, Israel must do what they can to stop them.

And since the current "resistance" wants Israel annihilated, bribing them with land or promises of `good behavior' isn't an option.

without the colonization there would be any Israel to attack.

So you are in the camp that believes there should be no Israel at all, then. I don't see why it took you so long to say it, and why you don't bother to just say it explicitly. I don't understand why you would talk about peace in the area -- isn't that antithetical to your belief that Israel shouldn't be there in the first place?

 

[kyleb]

I didn't say anything about anything being secret or concealed, I didn't say anything about giving back any land, I am most certainly not in the camp that believes there should be no Israel, and I'd really appreciate if you try to avoid being so presumptuous and argumentative.

 

[Hurkyl]

I'd really appreciate if you try to avoid being so presumptuous and argumentative.

I feel that you don't often say what you mean, and make evasive replies -- this forces people to assume what you mean, and also to keep pressing you if they want you to actually answer or even acknowledge something. Whether my impression is accurate or not, it's the impression I have.

I didn't say anything about giving back any land

For example, what was the whole point about arguing that you shouldn't exist in a car you stole from me? I'm almost certain I've seen you complain about past "colonization". And, of course, that you've managed to go all this time with people explaning to you the problems with giving back the land without ever bothering to clear up the misconception ...

 

[Anttech]

I feel that you don't often say what you mean, and make evasive replies -- this forces people to assume what you mean, and also to keep pressing you if they want you to actually answer or even acknowledge something. Whether my impression is accurate or not, it's the impression I have.

I feel the Same could be said about you.. I find Kyleb's posts rather *easy* to understand, with little to no subversion.

 

[Hurkyl]

Clarity and subversion are not mutually exclusive. But yes, I'm often "subversive". (Though it seems odd to use the word in this context) The foundations of an argument are often where the conflict lies; IMO, in such situations, it's a waste of everybody's time to ignore the foundations.

If Alice believes in X, and Bob doesn't, it does Alice no good to use X to argue for Y! And conversely, it does Bob no good to argue against Y.

 

[kyleb]

I feel that you don't often say what you mean, and make evasive replies -- this forces people to assume what you mean, and also to keep pressing you if they want you to actually answer or even acknowledge something. Whether my impression is accurate or not, it's the impression I have.

I do say exactly what I mean, aside from my dyslexic spelling and proofreading abilities anyway. I don't spend much time acknowledging assumptions; that isn't done out of any attempt to be evasive though but quite to the contrary, in a contours effort to stay on point. That point being, Iran and all those who refuse to accept Israel's existence most certainly won't do so as long as Israel continues to take land. That has to stop some time before they can ever be resolution.
But, for the sake of understanding.

For example, what was the whole point about arguing that you shouldn't exist in a car you stole from me?

It was what I said it was, an analogy to explain Iran's position on this.

I'm almost certain I've seen you complain about past "colonization".

I pointed out that colonization incites resistance, just as Ze'ev Jabotinsky did back in 1923.

And, of course, that you've managed to go all this time with people explaining to you the problems with giving back the land without ever bothering to clear up the misconception ...

And that is because I never said anything about giving back any land, so all those explanations were off point. Like you said, If 'Alice' believes in not giving back any land, then it does me no good to argue against that. So, my question stands; how much more land are you willing to take?

 

[Hans de Vries]

And that is because I never said anything about giving back any land, so all those explanations were off point. Like you said, If 'Alice' believes in not giving back any land, then it does me no good to argue against that. So, my question stands; how much more land are you willing to take?

Every time when the reasonable part of Israel tries to wrestle itself out of
the grips of religious fundamentalism and its compulsive greed for biblical
territory, fanatism shows its ugly teeth and the adventure is short lived.

Worse, religious fanatism seems to play a larger role today as it did in
the past. Neither Israel nor, say, the PLO, was particular religious in its
conception. Jewish lunatism is not hard to find in the main stream
right wing press nowadays:


50 Americans to be punished for every Jew:

As soon as Gush Katif on the Gaza Coast was destroyed, God unleashed a tremendous hurricane on the United States' Gulf Coast. In Israel ten thousand righteous Jews lost their homes, their livelihood and the land they loved, so ten thousand gentiles in the Big Easy, a city of vice and sin, were drowned in a sea of divine anger. George Bush's U.S. is roughly fifty times Israel in population, so for expelling then thousand Jews in Gaza, God expelled five hundred thousand Americans in the Gulf. Thanks to George W. Bush! The cost of Israel's greatest catastrophe was two billion dollars. The cost of the U.S.'s greatest catastrophe will be fifty times as great -- one hundred billion dollars. Thanks to George W. Bush! The Lord's justice is measure for measure.

http://web.israelinsider.com/Views/6622.htm


Regards, Hans