< 1 2 3 4 5 > 
 
   
 

Hamas and Sam Harris

 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  7686
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
23 November 2018 10:45
 

Do you give equal weight to all of the UN’s resolutions? Are you happy with the UN’s human rights council?

Over the last several decades, the UN (largely via the 57 member Muslim OIC voting block), have issued scores of resolutions condemning Israel. During that same period, Muslims throughout the ME have been systematically committing countless human rights abuses against the non-Muslims in the region, and they are well on their way to making the entire ME closed to all non-Muslims. You okay with that? If you’re not okay with that, then don’t you have to concede that the UN has been corrupted?

And let’s return to my unanswered questions about Egypt and Jordan. Why do you seem so unconcerned about Egypt’s role in fencing in the Gaza strip? Why do you seem to be so unconcerned about Jordans ancient and HUGE refugee camps. I could conclude by your posts in this thread that you’re not really so much trying to make better lives for Palestinians as you are concerned about punishing Israelis.

 
 
David N Bradley
 
Avatar
 
 
David N Bradley
Total Posts:  26
Joined  17-11-2018
 
 
 
23 November 2018 10:59
 

If you want me to reply to this stuff, you’re going to have to be more specific.  The human rights commission issues reports.  It doesn’t make law.  It can’t issue resolutions.

The resolution which does come up at the General Assembly every year is called Peaceful Settlement of the Palestine Question or something like that.  All it is is a basic two-state solution.  The entire world always votes for it.  And Israel and the United States vote against it.  The vote in 2017 was 151 to 7 (with 9 abstaining).  The 7 voting against were Israel, the United States, Australia, Canada, and some tiny South Pacific islands.  So it’s much more than the OIC supporting a two-state solution.

I also don’t know what you’re talking about when you say that Muslims are trying to make sure that non-Muslims can’t enter the Middle East.  I’ve never heard that before.  I also don’t know what that has to do with international law.  Feel free to enlighten me.  Please be specific.

I am concerned about Egypt’s role in fencing in Gaza.  Egypt, though, is just following the lead of Israel. 

There’s nothing illegitimate about Jordan’s refugee camps.  There hasn’t been a settlement of the refugee question so there are still refugees.  If Israel compensates refugees as it should, there won’t be anymore refugees to worry about.

And the idea that I’m not trying to make life better for Palestinians is ridiculous.  I’m trying to make life better by taking the Israeli boot off their neck.

 
David N Bradley
 
Avatar
 
 
David N Bradley
Total Posts:  26
Joined  17-11-2018
 
 
 
23 November 2018 11:04
 

I also haven’t said one thing about “punishing” Israelis.  I’ve said Israelis need to follow the law.  Is following the law akin to being punished?

[ Edited: 23 November 2018 11:09 by David N Bradley]
 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  7686
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
23 November 2018 11:27
 
David N Bradley - 23 November 2018 10:59 AM

1 - If you want me to reply to this stuff, you’re going to have to be more specific.  The human rights commission issues reports.  It doesn’t make law.  It can’t issue resolutions.

2 - The resolution which does come up at the General Assembly every year is called Peaceful Settlement of the Palestine Question or something like that.  All it is is a basic two-state solution.  The entire world always votes for it.  And Israel and the United States vote against it.  The vote in 2017 was 151 to 7 (with 9 abstaining).  The 7 voting against were Israel, the United States, Australia, Canada, and some tiny South Pacific islands.  So it’s much more than the OIC supporting a two-state solution.

3 - I also don’t know what you’re talking about when you say that Muslims are trying to make sure that non-Muslims can’t enter the Middle East.  I’ve never heard that before.  I also don’t know what that has to do with international law.  Feel free to enlighten me.  Please be specific.

I am concerned about Egypt’s role in fencing in Gaza.  Egypt, though, is just following the lead of Israel. 

4 - There’s nothing illegitimate about Jordan’s refugee camps.  There hasn’t been a settlement of the refugee question so there are still refugees.  If Israel compensates refugees as it should, there won’t be anymore refugees to worry about.

5 - And the idea that I’m not trying to make life better for Palestinians is ridiculous.  I’m trying to make life better by taking the Israeli boot off their neck.

#1 - My claim is that you’re relying on the rulings of the UN, which has become corrupt.

#2 - Over the decades, Israel has sometimes supported two state solutions, and Palestinians have rejected them. Again, you’re arguing from a specific context, and you’re not defending why you think your context is correct. If I was an Israeli general I would never agree to a two state solution that gave the WB to Muslims. (I use the word Muslim intentionally.) This partitioning is horribly gerrymandered and basically indefensible. This is important because it remains the case that Hamas’s charter calls for the elimination of Israel. (A point which you haven’t addressed.)

I will share with you some of the context I think needs to be included in this discussion. Islam is not a benign, “religion of peace”. Islam is a theocratic, supremacist, conquest oriented ideology. Israel is surrounded by people whose “faith” fundamentally includes hatred of all non-Muslims, especially Jews. Which leads me to the next point:

3 - I didn’t say people couldn’t “visit” the ME. What I said is that non-Muslims are being systematically forced out of living there. As far as international law goes, again, I view much of it as corrupt.

4 - If your contention is that Jordan’s refugee camps are legal, I suppose I can grant you that. That doesn’t make them moral or ethical. Yet another example of the corruption of international law.

5 - I trust your intentions, I just think they are somewhat misguided.

 
 
David N Bradley
 
Avatar
 
 
David N Bradley
Total Posts:  26
Joined  17-11-2018
 
 
 
23 November 2018 11:55
 

#1 So you assert that the UN is corrupt.  But you’ve given no evidence.  Further, even if some aspects of the UN were corrupt, the part of international law which says that it’s inadmissible to acquire territory by war is not corrupt.  That principle was not created just to fuck with Israel.  It’s been true for international law for as long as international law has been in existence.  It applies to every state just as much as it applies to Israel.

#2 There are two instances when Israel supported something like a two-state solution.  In Camp David in 2000, Israel proposed a two-state solution which demanded that Palestinians give up, I think, 8% of the West Bank.  Shlomo Ben-Ami, the lead Israeli negotiator, later said, “If I were a Palestinian, I would have rejected Camp David, too.”  There were then some negotiations in January of 2001 in Taba.  Those negotiations looked promising but they ended early because the Israeli negotiators left to campaign for elections.

Other than that, Israel has supported versions of the two-state solution which require Palestinians to give up huge chunks of what Palestinians are entitled to.  Israelis then tell themselves that that’s a two-state solution.  A real two-state solution requires Israel to return to the pre-June 1967 border.  Israel has never agreed to do that.

It looks like the truth is coming out now.  You think it’s okay to occupy Muslim land because you don’t trust Muslims.  I’ve given you evidence already that Palestinians are trustworthy.  I guess that hasn’t changed your mind.  I’ve also told you about the law, which also seems not to have changed your mind.  I think we’re at an impasse.  You want to occupy Palestinians because they’re Muslim.  I think that’s not okay.

#3 I’ve never heard that non-Muslims are systematically being forced out of the Middle East.  And you haven’t provided any citations.  If what you’re saying is true, though, I don’t understand how it’s not beside the point.  It is inadmissible to acquire territory by war whether or not non-muslims are being forced out of the Middle East.  Is there a specific law that these countries are breaking?

#4 I don’t know what’s immoral or unethical about housing refugees in camps.  The refugee crisis will end when Israel compensates the refugees for ethnically cleansing them.

 
LadyJane
 
Avatar
 
 
LadyJane
Total Posts:  3350
Joined  26-03-2013
 
 
 
23 November 2018 14:29
 
icehorse - 23 November 2018 11:27 AM

If I was an Israeli general I would never agree to a two state solution that gave the WB to Muslims. (I use the word Muslim intentionally.)

Good thing it’s not a Military Dictatorship, eh?

 
 
LadyJane
 
Avatar
 
 
LadyJane
Total Posts:  3350
Joined  26-03-2013
 
 
 
23 November 2018 14:35
 

I finished reading the counter arguments to the statements made by Sam Harris.  They are conveniently broken down into easily digestible sections that we can take in at our own pace.  I don’t feel the need to grant you anything as the facts of the matter do not rely on my opinion.  We are raised to believe certain things and when we discover these things are not what they seem it is our obligation to seek the truth. 

It’s like climate change.  The longer those in positions of power deny that it’s real the closer we come to destruction.  When people deliberately stall for time in the interests of money and power and land…there is a fast approaching point of no return.  We’re already at that point and I suspect the UN’s predictions of 2020 are accurate.  I’d venture to say that Gaza is unlivable now.  We can’t get anywhere when we deny the facts.  And once we establish the well documented history we can get into the specifics in a more objective way.  I’d hate to think the only way to have these conversations is in private. 

There seems to be an imbalance of collateral damage, for instance.  It’s always a hospital or a schoolyard for some reason.  I can’t remember the last time Hamas caused the shutdown of an Israeli hospital due to the lack of sewage services or clean water or electricity or to be outright bombed.

 
 
David N Bradley
 
Avatar
 
 
David N Bradley
Total Posts:  26
Joined  17-11-2018
 
 
 
23 November 2018 14:37
 

LadyJane, thank you for reading what I wrote.  I hope it helps the Palestinian people.

 
David N Bradley
 
Avatar
 
 
David N Bradley
Total Posts:  26
Joined  17-11-2018
 
 
 
23 November 2018 14:41
 

If you want to help the Palestinian people, the best way to do it at the moment is to get involved with IfNotNow, a group of young, Jewish people who are trying to end the occupation.  If there’s not an IfNotNow group in your area, maybe you can donate?

 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  7686
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
23 November 2018 19:46
 

#2 (when did Israel support two-state solution):

- in 1936 the israelis accepted the Peel two state solution and the Arabs refused
- In 1947, the Israelis accepted a two state plan that the Arabs rejected.
- in 1967, after the war, the Israel proposed several two state solutions and were met with “the 3 nos”
- in 2000, in camp david, Arafat rejected several proposed two-state solutions - they were pretty good offers.
- in 2008, Olmert offered Abbas another tow state solution - again, including all of Gaza and 94% of the WB, Abbas refused.

#3, David said:

#3 I’ve never heard that non-Muslims are systematically being forced out of the Middle East.

LMGTFY ?

 

 

[ Edited: 23 November 2018 19:53 by icehorse]
 
 
David N Bradley
 
Avatar
 
 
David N Bradley
Total Posts:  26
Joined  17-11-2018
 
 
 
23 November 2018 19:57
 

The two-state solution refers to settling the conflict on the Green Line.  So we’re not talking about offers to settle the conflict in ‘37 or ‘47. 

I admit, Palestinians did not accept a two-state solution unambiguously until 1988.  Once they did, though, it became Israel’s responsibility to meet them.  You can say Israel’s offers at Camp David were good offers, but Israel’s negotiator, Shlomo Ben-Ami said that if he were a Palestinian, he would have rejected the offers, too.  Olmert’s offer of 94% of the West Bank is not good.  Palestinians deserve 100% of the West Bank.  This isn’t complicated.

As for Muslims being forced out of the Mid-East, I don’t see how it matters.  If you can explain why it matters for the Israel-Palestine conflict, I might google it.

 
David N Bradley
 
Avatar
 
 
David N Bradley
Total Posts:  26
Joined  17-11-2018
 
 
 
24 November 2018 06:36
 

Here’s what Dov Wiesglass, a close advisor to Ariel Sharon, said to the newspaper Haaretz in 2004.  His comments were on Israel’s withdrawal of troops from Gaza and how it affected the peace process:

“. . . what I effectively agreed to with the Americans was that part of the settlements [in the West Bank] would not be dealt with at all, and the rest will not be dealt with until the Palestinians turn into Finns. That is the significance of what we did. The significance is the freezing of the political process. And when you freeze that process you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state and you prevent a discussion about the refugees, the borders and Jerusalem. Effectively, this whole package that is called the Palestinian state, with all that it entails, has been removed from our agenda indefinitely. And all this with authority and permission. All with a presidential blessing and the ratification of both houses of Congress. . . .What more could have been given to the settlers?”??

??“There was a very difficult package of commitments that Israel was expected to accept. . . .It included elements we will never agree to accept and elements we cannot accept at this time [ending the occupation of the West Bank]. But we succeeded in taking that package and sending it beyond the hills of time. . . . And we educated the world to understand that there is no one to talk to. And we received a no-one-to-talk-to certificate. That certificate says: (1) There is no one to talk to. (2) As long as there is no one to talk to, the geographic status quo remains intact. (3) The certificate will be revoked only when this-and-this happens - when Palestine becomes Finland. (4) See you then, and shalom.”

So, you know, I think Israel’s the obstacle to peace.

 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  7686
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
24 November 2018 07:43
 

I’ll give you the last word.

The summary for me is that I think you’re working from an overly narrow context.

 
 
David N Bradley
 
Avatar
 
 
David N Bradley
Total Posts:  26
Joined  17-11-2018
 
 
 
24 November 2018 07:57
 

You can say that, but you haven’t provided any evidence.  And you haven’t provided an alternate framework either.  That combination of not providing an alternate framework and denouncing the one framework that exists leads to stalemate—exactly what’s happened in the conflict. 

The one framework everyone—except Israelis and extremist Arabs—can agree upon is international law.  People who are reading this thread can judge for themselves who has the better evidence.  I’m confident I’ve provided more specifics which better explain what’s happening than you have.  I also think people are more willing to solve the conflict using international law than exist in the no-man’s-land you’re proposing.

 
lynmc
 
Avatar
 
 
lynmc
Total Posts:  479
Joined  03-08-2014
 
 
 
25 November 2018 16:27
 
icehorse - 23 November 2018 07:46 PM

#2 (when did Israel support two-state solution):

- in 1936 the israelis accepted the Peel two state solution and the Arabs refused
- In 1947, the Israelis accepted a two state plan that the Arabs rejected.
- in 1967, after the war, the Israel proposed several two state solutions and were met with “the 3 nos”
- in 2000, in camp david, Arafat rejected several proposed two-state solutions - they were pretty good offers.
- in 2008, Olmert offered Abbas another tow state solution - again, including all of Gaza and 94% of the WB, Abbas refused.

#3, David said:

#3 I’ve never heard that non-Muslims are systematically being forced out of the Middle East.

LMGTFY ?

 

 

- in 1937, Israelis didn’t accept the two state Peel commission.  Israel didn’t exist at the time.  Neither did Israel’s Zionist founders accept the Peel commission.
- In 1947, Israel didn’t exist either.  Israel’s Zionist founders accepted the partition plan, but even before the state was declared they violated its other terms, such as that both proposed states would grant equal rights to the “minority”.  Instead, the Zionists almost immediately began a campaign of mass murder and terror against the indigenous Palestinians.
- Arafat didn’t reject the 2-state offers in 2000, Ehud Barak walked away from the negotiating table before specifics could be laid out. 
- Neither did Israel make a written, specific offer of 96% of the West Bank in 2008 - and the terms they did offer appear to be a lot like continued Israeli occupation.

As for people of minority religions systematically being forced out, the parties currently doing that are Israel, ISIS and al-Qaeda affiliates, and to a certain extent Iran against post-Islamic religions such as Baha’is.  I doubt this qualifies as non-Muslims being systematically being forced out of the wider Middle East, as it isn’t the whole Middle East or just non-Muslims.

 
 < 1 2 3 4 5 >