Pro-Israel, Anti-Zionist

youngdan wrote:

Kate. You neither put up or shut up.

Why don't you at least answer Audi.

This and the last couple of posts have been the most ridiculous exchange.

Patience, patience and all will be worthwhile. Since when was MN about posters having a timelimit on when they could respond without getting badgered?

I explained briefly in the first post I made why I was anti-zionist, and referred to other reasons later why I don't like the way Israel is pursuing its goals.

In the absence of me having time to pander to both of you (I actually started a long post yesterday and lost it) , you can take anything ibis has said as being more or less where I stand.

Meanwhile, my brain (and I'm confident I have one and equally confident that ibis wasn't, as you conveniently suggest, insulting me) and I have to get some work done.

Who said the woman who made time made plenty of it?

youngdan wrote:

Now John Fas is waffling about religion. Ignore him as well Audi because you do not need to be Jewish to be a Zionist. The Christien right here are zionists.

The 3 of them are a disgrace to the site

Are you for real?

Squire wrote:

Balfour and his declaration to 2nd Baron Rothschild has a lot to answer for. A state created for what purpose exactly?

Because Rothschild wanted it of course.

Ibis is the expert so he can explain why

Kate P wrote:

youngdan wrote:

Kate. You neither put up or shut up.

Why don't you at least answer Audi.

This and the last couple of posts have been the most ridiculous exchange.

Patience, patience and all will be worthwhile. Since when was MN about posters having a timelimit on when they could respond without getting badgered?

I explained briefly in the first post I made why I was anti-zionist, and referred to other reasons later why I don't like the way Israel is pursuing its goals.

In the absence of me having time to pander to both of you (I actually started a long post yesterday and lost it) , you can take anything ibis has said as being more or less where I stand.

Meanwhile, my brain (and I'm confident I have one and equally confident that ibis wasn't, as you conveniently suggest, insulting me) and I have to get some work done.

Who said the woman who made time made plenty of it?

Why did he emphasize the word SHE other than to suggest that you alone held the belief about the brain.

If I am badgering you then Ibis is weaseling you.

shutuplaura wrote:

youngdan wrote:

Now John Fas is waffling about religion. Ignore him as well Audi because you do not need to be Jewish to be a Zionist. The Christien right here are zionists.

The 3 of them are a disgrace to the site

Are you for real?

What part if any do you disagree wih

youngdan wrote:

Kate P wrote:

youngdan wrote:

Kate. You neither put up or shut up.

Why don't you at least answer Audi.

This and the last couple of posts have been the most ridiculous exchange.

Patience, patience and all will be worthwhile. Since when was MN about posters having a timelimit on when they could respond without getting badgered?

I explained briefly in the first post I made why I was anti-zionist, and referred to other reasons later why I don't like the way Israel is pursuing its goals.

In the absence of me having time to pander to both of you (I actually started a long post yesterday and lost it) , you can take anything ibis has said as being more or less where I stand.

Meanwhile, my brain (and I'm confident I have one and equally confident that ibis wasn't, as you conveniently suggest, insulting me) and I have to get some work done.

Who said the woman who made time made plenty of it?

Why did he emphasize the word SHE other than to suggest that you alone held the belief about the brain.

If I am badgering you then Ibis is weaseling you.

Heavens! Reduced to explaining how I'm insulting you...look at the emphasis:

youngdan wrote:

ibis wrote:

youngdan wrote:

Are you Kate's puppet. Do you not think she has a brain of her own

Oh, I've no doubt she does.

Why are you now insulting Kate. She has every right to think she has brain.

Emphasis is often used for contrast, as it is here. The implication is that while I have no doubt that Kate has a brain, I do not have the same confidence in you. It's not, as they say, "rocket science".

In any event, if it is only a question of who is being insulted, it is ad hominem and bottom of the triangle.

youngdan - you asked if I was pro or anti-Israel, given my opposition to the Israeli invasion of Gaza.

My opposition to the invasion and to the expansion of Israel onto Palestinian lands is partly a general one to territorial theft and murder no matter who does it. Does your Ron Paul not have the same view?

I'm in favour of self determination of nations, including small or less powerful ones. I am not expert on it but it appears that the State of Israel has come about in the way it has to serve third party strategic interests as much as to provide somewhere safe where Jewish people can live as a separate ethnic/cultural group. This complicates things no end. On balance, I think the State of Israel was a bad idea. I am in favour of a secular state in which everyone has the same rights and it is totally irrelevant whether you are Arab of Jewish. This does not mean I want anyone cast into the sea. There are plenty of Jewish people who think the same as I do.

I read yesterday that as it was easier to get out of Russia if you were Jewish, both to Germany and Israel, there are lots of Russian Jews in both of those places who are only very recently Jewish. This is off topic, but for some reason I find it funny.

cactus flower wrote:

In any event, if it is only a question of who is being insulted, it is ad hominem and bottom of the triangle.

Hmm. That deserves a (minor) thread.

cactus flower wrote:

In any event, if it is only a question of who is being insulted, it is ad hominem and bottom of the triangle.

youngdan - you asked if I was pro or anti-Israel, given my opposition to the Israeli invasion of Gaza.

My opposition to the invasion and to the expansion of Israel onto Palestinian lands is partly a general one to territorial theft and murder no matter who does it. Does your Ron Paul not have the same view?

I'm in favour of self determination of nations, including small or less powerful ones. I am not expert on it but it appears that the State of Israel has come about in the way it has to serve third party strategic interests as much as to provide somewhere safe where Jewish people can live as a separate ethnic/cultural group. This complicates things no end. On balance, I think the State of Israel was a bad idea. I am in favour of a secular state in which everyone has the same rights and it is totally irrelevant whether you are Arab of Jewish. This does not mean I want anyone cast into the sea. There are plenty of Jewish people who think the same as I do.

I read yesterday that as it was easier to get out of Russia if you were Jewish, both to Germany and Israel, there are lots of Russian Jews in both of those places who are only very recently Jewish. This is off topic, but for some reason I find it funny.

And in all of the above Cactus, you're in some good Jewish (and other) company:

Quote :

The tragedy of the people of Palestine is that their country was "given" by a foreign power to another people for the creation of a new state. The result was that many hundreds of thousands of innocent people were made permanently homeless. With every new conflict their numbers increased. How much longer is the world willing to endure this spectacle of wanton cruelty? It is abundantly clear that the refugees have every right to the homeland from which they were driven, and the denial of this right is at the heart of the continuing conflict. No people anywhere in the world would accept being expelled en masse from their own country; how can anyone require the people of Palestine to accept a punishment which nobody else would tolerate? A permanent just settlement of the refugees in their homeland is an essential ingredient of any genuine settlement in the Middle East. We are frequently told that we must sympathise with Israel because of the suffering of the Jews in Europe at the hands of the Nazis. [...] What Israel is doing today cannot be condoned, and to invoke the horrors of the past to justify those of the present is gross hypocrisy. — Bertrand Russell, 31 January 1970. This was Russell's final ever political statement or act. It was read out at the International Conference of Parliamentarians in Cairo on 3 February 1970, the day after his death. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_Russell#Final_years_and_death


Albert Einstein - ‘I should much rather see reasonable agreement with the Arabs on the basis of living together in peace than the creation of a Jewish State. Apart from practical considerations, my awareness of the essential nature of Judaism resists the idea of a Jewish State,with borders, an army, and a measure of temporal power, no matter how modest. I am afraid of the inner damage Judaism will sustain’...

Erich Fromm - ’In general international law, the principle holds true that no citizen loses his property or his rights of citizenship; and the citizenship right is de facto a right to which the Arabs in Israel have much more legitimacy than the Jews. Just because the Arabs fled? Since when is that punishable by confiscation of property, and by being barred from returning to the land on which a people’s forefathers have lived for generations? Thus, the claim of the Jews to the land of Israel cannot be a realistic claim. If all nations would suddenly claim territory in which their forefathers had lived two thousand years ago, this world would be a madhouse...I believe that, politically speaking, there is only one solution for Israel, namely, the unilateral acknowledgement of the obligation of the State towards the Arabs — not to use it as a bargaining point, but to acknowledge the complete moral obligation of the Israeli State to its former inhabitants of Palestine’...

Gandhi - “Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French...What is going on in Palestine today cannot be justified by any moral code of conduct...If they [the Jews] must look to the Palestine of geography as their national home, it is wrong to enter it under the shadow of the British gun. A religious act cannot be performed with the aid of the bayonet or the bomb. They can settle in Palestine only by the goodwill of the Arabs... As it is, they are co-sharers with the British in despoiling a people who have done no wrong to them. I am not defending the Arab excesses. I wish they had chosen the way of non-violence in resisting what they rightly regard as an unacceptable encroachment upon their country. But according to the accepted canons of right and wrong, nothing can be said against the Arab resistance in the face of overwhelming odds.”

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/history/origin.html

When Ibis loses an argument he resorts to insult. I would expect nothing less from a pro israel anti zionist. Btw think up your own jokes and stop stealing mine.

ibis wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

In any event, if it is only a question of who is being insulted, it is ad hominem and bottom of the triangle.

Hmm. That deserves a (minor) thread.

Very minor.

Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

It fallaciously involves deemed characteristics of the opponent in the argument.

cactus flower wrote:

ibis wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

In any event, if it is only a question of who is being insulted, it is ad hominem and bottom of the triangle.

Hmm. That deserves a (minor) thread.

Very minor.

Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

It fallaciously involves deemed characteristics of the opponent in the argument.

The literal translation doesn't explain the full meaning, any more than it does for other Latin terms in legal or grammatical use. An ad hominem is not merely saying your opponent is stupid - as I am doing with youngdan - if I claimed that youngdan was, say, a Moon landings denier, and that that was a good reason to dismiss his position on Israel, that would be an ad hominem. As it is, I'm simply being rude to him, and pointing out that he hasn't bothered to do anything but jeer and denounce everyone else's position as inconceivable.

Well poor stupid me has to go out in the -10 cold now. That unfortuntely is reality regardless of Al Gore telling me that I am melting and the sea is rising.

Ibis can be pro israel anti zionist all he likes but as long as he is not talking to a Hamas person he should be fine in his own little world

youngdan wrote:

Well poor stupid me has to go out in the -10 cold now. That unfortuntely is reality regardless of Al Gore telling me that I am melting and the sea is rising.

Ibis can be pro israel anti zionist all he likes but as long as he is not talking to a Hamas person he should be fine in his own little world

Sometimes it's easiest to let you shoot your own feet, though.