Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 24 of 24
  1. #21
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Netanyahu's Election

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    These links do not contradict the point of context that Even made.

    You are quoting headlines and reporter extrapolation, not the actual words of Netanyahu, whihc is what Even quoted to us.
    A reporter who shares your opinion, is not support for it being truth or a reflection of reality, it is media Spin that you happen to agree with.
    We are all are that Bibi is trying to backtrack, the point is that he made the comments 'No Palestinian State on my watch," and has not determined any course of action other than stalling on the Two State Solution. What exactly is Bibi's plan? Perhaps we should examine that rather than cherry picking his statements, statements that are so outrageous they should ever have been uttered.

    Bibi did this to himself. It's not a misunderstanding, its perfect understanding - and it continues to be the result of his monolithic appraisal of all Muslims as terrorists and potential threats. Do you honestly think the right wing voters swayed by these comments are as eager to take his comments as lightly as you do? Or do they expect him to keep his word?

    Right off I would say yes, because at least there exists a government that can prosicute them, as opposed to the non existent gov controll on the other side of the boarder.
    So, the PA doesn't exist? And there is no Palestinian state why? Are the right wing groups being held accountable for land grabs, mosque burnings, etc? How many illegal settlements have been removed?

    It has won them several conflicts, and much strategic land which has made them safer. I suppose if they hadn't given up any of the land they won, and had continued to the sea we wouldn't have this current problem

    So I'd say it was working.
    So they are much safer but now in danger of existential annihilation? SO when Arab countries lined up entire divisions of armor against Israel, that was dangerous. Now, rockets made of junk that rarely hit anything at all are an existential threat?

    Its a political problem, and Bibi has no political solution ... except apparently constant double speak.

    ---------- Post added at 10:27 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:19 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    Netanyahu has been very consistent over the past six years in how he has described the requirements for peaceful coexistence. Here is a portion of his speech at Bar Ilan, in 2009:

    Any area in Palestinian hands has to be demilitarization, with solid security measures. Without this condition, there is a real fear that there will be an armed Palestinian state which will become a terrorist base against Israel, as happened in Gaza. We do not want missiles on Petah Tikva, or Grads on the Ben-Gurion international airport. We want peace. (Applause) And, to ensure peace we don't want them to bring in missiles or rockets or have an army, or control of airspace, or make treaties with countries like Iran, or Hezbollah. There is broad agreement on this in Israel. We cannot be expected to agree to a Palestinian state without ensuring that it is demilitarized. This is crucial to the existence of Israel - we must provide for our security needs.

    This is why we are now asking our friends in the international community, headed by the USA, for what is necessary for our security, that in any peace agreement, the Palestinian area must be demilitarized. No army, no control of air space. Real effective measures to prevent arms coming in, not what's going on now in Gaza. The Palestinians cannot make military treaties.

    Without this, sooner or later, we will have another Hamastan. We can't agree to this. Israel must govern its own fate and security. I told President Obama in Washington, if we get a guarantee of demilitarization, and if the Palestinians recognize Israel as the Jewish state, we are ready to agree to a real peace agreement, a demilitarized Palestinian state side by side with the Jewish state. (Applause) http://www.haaretz.com/news/full-tex...-ilan-1.277922

    Read it. Read the full text of the speech if you are serious about understanding Netanyahu's position. There has been no flip, no flop, no back-track. There has been only a consistent statement of the need for 1) recognition of Israel's right to exist as a nation, and 2) a demilitarized Palestine, as conditions for the two-state solution. So when he said that "Indeed" there would be no two-state solution while he was in office, both the historical record and the context of the quote prove that he meant his conditions for a Palestinian state have not been met. Militant Muslims continue to refuse recognition of Israel's right to exist, and refuse to demilitarize, so the two-state solution cannot move forward.

    Well enough. Both sides are relatively comfortable with the status quo. That's why neither side is willing to make concessions.

    Evasion of my calling you out on Argument to Moderation is the same as admission. You are a conciliator by nature and I suspect by profession. That's great. The world needs people like you. At the same time, however, arguing that conflicts must be settled by conciliation is a fallacy.

    I can see why you abandoned your own "Do People Ever Get Tired of Hyperbole?" thread. You revel in hyperbole when it suits your needs.

    The fact is that of the people whose opinions count, Israelis, 984,966 people just said quite clearly that they trust Netanyahu with their lives, the lives of their children, and the very existence of their nation.
    Now maybe you should check the sources for problems with Bibi, like settlement expansion, or ... gasp ... actually check what Abbas has laid out? See what meaningful compromises Bibi has offered to bridge the gap? Explain why successive secretaries of state have come away from the process frustrated with Bibi - not the Palestinians.

    I am also glad to see cross thread contamination and ad hominem take the place of any meaningful dialogue. Which is of course exactly the problem with Bibi. In fact, its a problem with criticism of Israel in general. Rather than address the criticism or the situation, Israel's sycophants just go after people.

    By all means, if you think the policy of mowing the grass and denying but not denying the two state solution (which I am sure the right wing voters think is a misunderstanding) will lead to anything good - make the case.

    There is a reason none of you are. Bibi IS toxic. He is leading Israel to steady international isolation and condemnation.

    What apologists fail to realize is that Bibi is not Israel. If a different administration was elected, you'd blindly support that policy too wouldn't you? Any actual discussion on the substance of the policy and outcomes appears superfluous.

    Hence the Palestinians are seeking statehood through means other that negotiations with Israel. I think we'll start to see those actions bear fruit ... thanks to Bibi.
    Most people say that it is the intellect which makes a great scientist. They are wrong: it is character.

    Albert Einstein

  2. #22
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Netanyahu's Election

    All of the above points are red herrings to your own op, which claimed that Netanyahu made some unusual appeal to right-wing extremists, thereby endangering a supposed peace process.

    Your op has been rebutted, because it was based on false interpretations presented by liberal media. A gentleman would concede and move on.

    I'm done here.
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  3. #23
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Netanyahu's Election

    Quote Originally Posted by GREE
    So they are much safer but now in danger of existential annihilation? SO when Arab countries lined up entire divisions of armor against Israel, that was dangerous. Now, rockets made of junk that rarely hit anything at all are an existential threat?

    Its a political problem, and Bibi has no political solution ... except apparently constant double speak.
    Both are acts of war. War is a political problem by definition. I did not call it existential threat, I call them acts of war.
    To serve man.

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Fairfax, VA
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Netanyahu's Election

    Quote Originally Posted by gree0232 View Post
    Hamas is not part of the PA.
    This is incorrect. You are confusing who is the ruling party with who are the member parties. It would be like saying the Republicans weren't part of the US in 2008 because they didn't control either house or the executive. Hamas seats members in the equivalent of parliament and holds positions in the executive. Hamas was ousted as part of the 2007 "Battle of Gaza" but still holds seats (according to your link) today in the parliament.

    But let's set that aside for a second. What about the main point

    Neither Fatah, nor Hamas accept a two state solution.

    75% of Palestinians do not support a two state solution.

    How exactly is Israel supposed to engage in a two state solution if no possible actor on the other side will agree to it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gree
    They aren't. The Palestinians are currently seeking statehood through other means than negotiation, like through the UN - having concluded that Bibi is not a serious partner in the two state solution. Apparently, quite correctly.
    I won't let you squirm out of the data quite that easily.

    Remember the links I offered in my last post.

    Fatah's position is that Israel cannot exist.

    Hamas' position is that Israel cannot exist.

    75% of Palestinians' position is that Israel cannot exist.

    This isn't about their own statehood, it is about whether or not a two state solution is possible. Clearly, long before Netanyahu's spectacularly taken out of context statement, the Palestinians had ruled out a two state solution, right?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gree
    Oh, he says one thing to get elected, and the comes back with a qualifier after the election?

    So you are withdrawing the claim that Netanyahu's original statement was that there would be no Palestinian state, regardless of circumstances?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gree
    Please quote the Abbas rejecting a two state solution with Israel.
    Please see my links in post 14. Abbas is important, but not the only player here. He is the public face, not the negotiating face of the Palestinian state.

    It is interesting that you give Abbas credit for his "advocating for a two state solution," but you dismiss any statement by Netanyahu as "politics." Remind me again who it was that has walked away from the last three sessions of talks?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gree
    We should not expect 7 of 10 casualties to be civilian.
    Why not? What do you base that on? If one side was actively shrouding its military targets with civilians, not wearing identifiable uniforms so that even military dead appear to be civilians, and inflating its numbers by faking deaths or simply making the numbers up, why shouldn't we expect the numbers to be so high?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gree
    More importantly, is producing all of these casualties doing ANYTHING good for Israel?
    By themselves? Certainly not, but then Israel's goal isn't to kill civilians, unlike their opponents. Your question is not a valid military or political one. Rather, the question is, do the benefits that come from the attacks in the form of shutting down tunnel networks, eliminating rockets, and capturing senior terrorist leaders of Hamas outweigh the unintended casualties that are inflicted?

    If we are asking this as a moral question, then the answer is simple, Hamas and Fatah are morally indefensible for their policies of intentionally targeting civilians, sheltering groups aimed at killing civilians, and using civilians as human shields.

    If we are asking this as a military question, the answer is less simple. There are certainly negative effects of further alienating Palestinians against Israel, however I'm not sure how large those are given the Palestinian State's consistent use of propaganda aimed at elementary aged children promoting suicide bombing and murdering of Jews. It isn't clear that these attacks are really the catalyst more than the relentless "education" they are receiving in PA schools. Likewise, Israel's experience with conciliation has been a negative one. When they have attempted to overlook these events they have only prompted more attacks. When they offered the Palestinians statehood at essentially the 47 borders they were met with a waive of suicide bombers. It isn't clear (and this was our experience in Iraq as well) that conciliation and negotiation do anything more than convey weakness.

    Again I'll ask the question. What position could Israel propose that the PA would accept?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gree
    So when a rocket goes amiss and hits a civilian in Israel, its the deliberate targeting of civilians. When you ... repeatedly mind you ... attack UN designated shelters its an honest mistake. Another double standard here?
    "Goes amiss?" I think you are stretching the principle of charity to its limits here. Especially for an organization whose founding credo is "We love death as much as the Jews love life."

    And I wouldn't call attacking a UN shelter a mistake when Hamas rockets are located there.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gree
    To take out a single mortar team? Hardly. Apache's and drones (both of which Israel possesses), are far more effective at dealing with the mortar teams. Getting into a fight through dense urban terrain to get to a mortar team is bloody business.
    I'm not sure where you got the mortar team from, I was discussing the general principal of lowest element contact. Regardless, your statement is incorrect for a variety of reasons. Apaches and drones need to come on station and acquire a target, a process that can take more than half an hour in many cases, assuming any were detailed to the area at all. In a world of plentiful SA assets and RPG-7s leaving an Apache loitering is beyond negligent.

    Your statement is also incorrect because of the ordinance available. The smallest warhead on a drone is larger than 40MM grenade. The destruction caused by a 30MM HE round (several by default) is far, far larger than a squad or platoon assaulting a position or ambushing a convoy.

    Which is less likely to kill a nearby civilian, an M-4 or a 2.75 inch unguided rocket?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gree
    GEN Shinseki had legitimate doubts about the war. He was proven right.
    First, I'll note you essentially dodged my argument concerning the Congressional Democrats who visited Iraq, which is poor debate form.

    Second, no he wasn't. Shinseki's argument was that more troops were needed during phase I of the invasion. An argument no other general or to my knowledge serious military historian shares. It was based on the idea that you could pack in divisions in formations similar to 91, but that was old doctrine. 3rd ID for example needs a much larger AO to fight in 2003 than III Corp needed in 91 because the doctrine focuses more on maneuver than on concentration of firepower. There simply wasn't enough room for the kind of force structure that Shinseki thought was necessary for the Invasion. The fact that we took Baghdad in about a month also shows he was incorrect.

    What some people have confused was Shinseki's argument above for a robust defense of needing more troops for the initial occupation. That wasn't Shinseki's point. Gen. Franks' original plan involved two waves. The first wave is pretty much what we saw, and the second wave was supposed to relieve them 30 days after ending major combat operations. The second wave, made up of light infantry, engineers, and MPs would have had nearly 60 days to rehearse policing and law enforcement and would be task organized for the job.

    Guess which Chief of the Joint Chiefs was instrumental in shutting down the request for forces to make up that second wave?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gree
    She did not, sure as hell, wave her disagreement in the face of America in such an obvious way.
    You mean like making a public announcement, verbally disagreeing with the President in a press conference, taking an entourage of reporters, and appearing on national TV shaking the hand of someone who has murdered tens of thousands of civilians intentionally?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gree
    Going back eight years to find something slightly tangential as if this were the justification for Bibi is called a post hoc.
    1) You do realize that this discussion was not with you right? That I was directly countering a point made by a different debater that was not related to Netanyahu?

    2) No, it isn't a Post Hoc fallacy, that would only be the case if I were saying that Pelosi's trip caused the letter. I'm not making that argument so this fallacy doesn't apply. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/post-hoc.html

    Quote Originally Posted by Gree
    They already did. Do you understand why the Palestinians want the right to return?
    I think you are missing the point. You do realize that Gaza+West Bank is only a tiny portion of the Palestinian territory right? That the vast bulk of it sits in Jordan and Syria where Palestinians are forced into to camps, not allowed to move or work in cities and have no civil rights. Seems odd the focus on the tiny portion of the state whose only real problem is that it keeps attacking a neighbor and provoking a response and the resounding silence on the vast bulk that was annexed by other arab states.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gree
    In diplomacy, its best to let the other guy start the war. (Especially if they are terrorists and its inevitable).

    Which the Palestinians have done every time right?

    And this axiom isn't exactly reasonable when your entire state could be annihilated by three moderate sized nuclear warheads.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gree
    I think at the moment, its unquestionably the Palestinians.
    It is very hard to take an opposing position seriously when it is so obviously untrue. The fact that Arabs can vote in Israel, hold political office, have an above average income, are over represented in the judiciary, and have equal civil rights in Israel apparently counts for nothing because of the Netanyahu made the same connection every other state on the planet has made (including Iran) by saying that Hezzbollah and Syria are extensions of Iranian power?

    Yet, Christians are routinely rounded up and banished from their town, Jews are not allowed to own property, and virtually no one can vote, regardless of religion, and that is the tolerant state.

    I mean, please, just to be clear. Your position is that Israeli citizens of non-jewish descent enjoy less freedom than Palestinians citizens of non-arab descent?
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2

Similar Threads

  1. Netanyahu's speech
    By gree0232 in forum Current Events
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: March 7th, 2015, 01:00 AM
  2. Replies: 104
    Last Post: November 14th, 2012, 09:29 AM
  3. Italian Election
    By Snoop in forum International Affairs
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: April 11th, 2006, 10:00 PM


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts