Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 121 (8783 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-22-2017 10:16 PM
386 online now:
dwise1, Faith, herebedragons, Percy (Admin) (4 members, 382 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: evilsorcerer1
Post Volume:
Total: 816,787 Year: 21,393/21,208 Month: 1,826/2,326 Week: 281/881 Day: 106/97 Hour: 1/3

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
5Next
Author Topic:   I pledge allegiance to the flag and to the continuing oppression of Palestinians?
Faith
Member
Posts: 25902
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 46 of 68 (816093)
07-29-2017 5:46 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Riggamortis
07-29-2017 3:37 AM


Re: Some Evidence of Smear Propaganda Against Israel. Phony photos for instance
That's utterly ridiculous. Since the propaganda is intended to bring those charges in the first place of course it shows them not guilty of those invented by the propaganda.

Yes, those specific charges. Not all charges levelled by all parties. That's the fact you keep ignoring. Yet my completely self evident point is 'utterly ridiculous'

The ONLY charges I was discussing were the ones created by propaganda. We have not yet discussed others so I have not ignored them and they are utterly irrelevant at this point in the discussion. I can't discuss them; until I've spent some more time researching them. But the fact that there are false trumped-up accusations of Israel out there that are BELIEVED BY PEOPLE SUCH AS DRONESTAR, strikes me as a very big deal in the whole political context of the Israel-Palestinian conflicts and for you to deny that is hard to account for. Then you supposedly acknowledge it and dismiss it as a big nothing. Sorry, that's a debate foul.

All I've argued so far concerns quite provable propaganda against Israel and you reduce that to "Islamophobia?"

As with your potential charge of anti-semitism, if you can quote me charging you specifically with islamaphobia I will consider whether it was justified based its context then retract and apologise for it or stand by it as I see fit. I have claimed that your sources contain obviously islamaphobic undertones which I guess I should now substantiate. From the unbiased-not-propaganda front page mag-

FPM writes:

There is a gaping fallacy in this inventory of fault-finding: it is Hamas which is the prime user of “collective punishment” in Gaza; it is Hamas, which abuses and exploits its own people for the sake of maintaining power; like any and all other dictatorial regimes, it is the real cause of suffering of its people. Truly innocent sacrifices among the Hamas victims are Palestinian children.

From your second link, not blatant islamaphobia yet, I'll get to that. This link first compares Hamas to Stalins regime before 'conceding' that Hamas was democratically elected so are more analogous to the nazis. It rants about the fake pictures and such and then concludes with the quoted text. It ultimately rationalises the justification for Israels violent, oppressive actions by blaming Hamas violent, oppressive actions. Deaths caused directly by Israel are Hamas fault therefore Israel is good and Hamas evil. Nice way to be able to make it so black and white huh?

This is the hypocritical, islamaphobic article I was referring to before....

But this is a common strategy of Hamas and it does make them guilty of putting their own people in harm's way. Intentionally, for the usual purpose of propaganda against Israel that for some reason you and so many others don't question. Otherwise Israel is within its rights to defend itself militarily against its enemies.

The article makes factual statements, which in defending against anti-Semitism you say are exempt from such a charge. In fact your statements about Israel are false...

"Aren't {anti-Semitic}
'Jewish people/Israel committed x atrocity'
'Jews immigrated to Palestine in large numbers under British rule in what appears to have been a coordinated effort to undermine the Palestinian claim to the land'" *

...so if the statements about Hamas are also false that shouldn't make a difference to their not deserving to be called Islamophobia. In fact I can't grasp what you think deserves that term in any case. It makes no sense.

You then quote statements about the squelching of free speech in Muslim nations, and the similar effect of Political Correctness in the west. And go on with:

Israel also imprisons people who refuse military service and has passed legislation to silence NGO's who speak against its HR violations. The first paragraph claims ironically in the context of this thread, that Muslim dictatorships are the primary threat to free speech. The second clearly promotes the fallacious idea that extreme Islam is some fundamental, existential threat to western society. This is islamaphobia, being an irrational fear.

So "Islamophobia" is just the usual Leftist lie since it is not at all irrational to point out that Islam is an ideology that seeks to take the world for Allah under a universal caliphate. It's stated in their holy books and it's stated by all their leaders and yet the Left objects when someone points it out. What's irrational is the blindness and deafness of the Left to the truth about Islam.

The truth of the matter is that if you look at it objectively, there's no real difference between Hamas or the Taliban or the Israeli and US militaries outside the 'legitimacy' of the state. Both sides kill people in order to further their geo-political aims. Western militaries are not immune from committing atrocities not disimilar to the Islamic militants. When a suicide bomber attacks the west, its no different to a US drone strike at a wedding. Remove all the fluff and you're just picking a side and rationalising murder.

That's a lot of accusations without a shred of evidence. How you can say such things without feeling the need to try to make a case for it is astonishing. Even if I agreed that western military interventions are often wrong it would not be the same thing as suicide bombing, which is decreed by the religion of Islam. That false equivalence alone disqualifies your whole argument. But it's also irrelevant, just changing the subject again. There is no such thing as Islamophobia, that's just Leftist PC to smear people who tell the truth about Islam.

==========
*I'm not sure what time period you are talking about here, but there was in fact no such thing as a Palestinian people when Israel started settling the region, so there would have been no reason to undermine any supposed Palestinian claim to the land. The people who lived there were a motley bunch scattered widely across what was largely a wilderness, different Arab tribes and also some Jews. Later, the Palestinian refugees were people from various Arab nations who had come to get work in Israel when they were building up their land. There is no such thing as a Palestinian people, that was invented for the refugees who had been made refugees by the Arab nations that declared war on Israel, warning the Arabs to leave to protect themselves. They were not Israeli citizens and they were not "Palestinians" and the Arab countries should have taken them back, but it suited them to use them as pawns to try to discredit Israel. So your notion that the Jewish immigrants came in such great numbers for the purpose of depriving some Palestinian natives of their land is one of those big fat propaganda lies. If you are talking about the period after WWII they were hardly concerned with anything but creating a safe haven for the Jews who had been persecuted and murdered in such huge numbers under the Nazis.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Riggamortis, posted 07-29-2017 3:37 AM Riggamortis has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Riggamortis, posted 07-29-2017 8:06 AM Faith has responded

    
Riggamortis
Member
Posts: 167
From: Australia
Joined: 08-15-2016
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 47 of 68 (816110)
07-29-2017 8:06 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Faith
07-29-2017 5:46 AM


Re: Some Evidence of Smear Propaganda Against Israel. Phony photos for instance
I would also predict that your quote from Amnesty International is basically propaganda, taken out of context. I will have to see if I can track down some evidence for that.
quote:
The ONLY charges I was discussing were the ones created by propaganda.

You brought up a couple of examples and I countered with a comprehensive report by amnesty international which you obviously didn't read at all and simply dismissed the introduction I provided in full as most likely propaganda, taken out of context. How honourable a debater you are.

I have considered that there is some propaganda, in fact I know it, I know both sides of every conflict distribute propaganda. Amnesty International isn't a side in the conflict, however. NoNukes and Taq have pointed out a couple of examples of Israels wrongdoing that aren't controversial at all too. It is therefore impossible to accept that some significant amount of the HR violations we hear about are fabrications. Once you accept that not all of them are fabrications then you're stuck trying to justify the ones that are true. A futile excercise from any moral standpoint. Is this why you refuse to allow the discussion to progress?

Then you supposedly acknowledge it and dismiss it as a big nothing. Sorry, that's a debate foul.

You're the expert. I have acknowledged it and dismissed it on the basis that it is not a reason for me to cease criticising Israels genuine war crimes.

But this is a common strategy of Hamas and it does make them guilty of putting their own people in harm's way. Intentionally, for the usual purpose of propaganda against Israel that for some reason you and so many others don't question. Otherwise Israel is within its rights to defend itself militarily against its enemies.

So what do you expect them to do exactly? March all the women and children off to a safe distance and put a big x on the roof? Like seriously, what?

Perhaps Israel shouldn't be illegally occupying land in the first place.

The article makes factual statements, which in defending against anti-Semitism you say are exempt from such a charge. In fact your statements about Israel are false...

quote:
"Aren't {anti-Semitic}
'Jewish people/Israel committed x atrocity'
'Jews immigrated to Palestine in large numbers under British rule in what appears to have been a coordinated effort to undermine the Palestinian claim to the land'" *

...so if the statements about Hamas are also false that shouldn't make a difference to their not deserving to be called Islamophobia. In fact I can't grasp what you think deserves that term in any case. It makes no sense.

The statement you asterisked is true, it's a genuine opinion on what happened based on the facts as I'm aware of them. It is also not anti-Semitic being that it makes no judgments based on religion. It may well convey the opinion that the zionists, LoN and Britain were all in the wrong and screwed the Palestinians, but it is not anti-Semitic.

A phobia is an irrational fear of something, so in the case of Islam, if one were to hold irrational fears of it, one would be rightfully considered 'Islamaphobic'.

So "Islamophobia" is just the usual Leftist lie since it is not at all irrational to point out that Islam is an ideology that seeks to take the world for Allah under a universal caliphate. It's stated in their holy books and it's stated by all their leaders and yet the Left objects when someone points it out. What's irrational is the blindness and deafness of the Left to the truth about Islam.

It's not irrational to point things out which are facts, it is irrational to hold fear of an outcome that is not proportional to the real risk of the outcomes occurrence. Since Muslims kill extremist Muslims and vice versa it is pretty safe to say they aren't all on the same side. Likewise since the two major sects are divided. Given these things and the current dominance of the west I find the liklehood of an extremist Muslim world takeover highly unlikely. I therefore conclude that any fear beyond a tiny amount a person holds of such an outcome is not proportional and therefore irrational. Since it is related to Islam, it constitutes an example of islamaphobia.

Secondly, Islam, Christianity and Judaism are all horrific ideologies if followed to the letter. Most people don't follow their books to the letter, people of any religion. Including you. Thankfully.

That's a lot of accusations without a shred of evidence. How you can say such things without feeling the need to try to make a case for it is astonishing. Even if I agreed that western military interventions are often wrong it would not be the same thing as suicide bombing, which is decreed by the religion of Islam. That false equivalence alone disqualifies your whole argument. But it's also irrelevant, just changing the subject again. There is no such thing as Islamophobia, that's just Leftist PC to smear people who tell the truth about Islam.

I did make all the case for it necessary but I'll elaborate. When people are bombed and killed, objectively, it matters not by whom, how or what justification was used. When you remove all the subjective interpretations on who was more justified, all you have is death and murderers. This is what I meant by removing all the fluff and look at it objectively. I don't need evidence this, it is self evident.

I'm not sure what time period you are talking about here, but there was in fact no such thing as a Palestinian people when Israel started settling the region, so there would have been no reason to undermine any supposed Palestinian claim to the land.

The time period I researched and summarised earlier in this thread. The part that refutes all the nonsense you dribbled at the end there.

Rigga writes:

1915. The British convinced the Palestinians to fight with them in WW1 based on the understanding they would be freed from foriegn rule. The Brits deny this. Fight your rulers to be ruled by us is not a compelling argument, so I am inclined to believe that the Palestinians certainly thought they were getting their land in return.

1917. The Balfour Declaration is a three paragraph letter in which the UK pledged its support for the creation of Israel in direct conflict with its promise to the Palestinians.

1920-1948. Under British rule as mandated by the League of Nations, Jews begin migrating to Palestine. The percentage of Jews in Palestine went from around 10% to more than 30%. Jews and Arabs alike used terrorism to put pressure on British rule.

1948. With the added 'justification' of having been persecuted in Germany the Jews get Israel and the rest is history.

The Palestinian people you claim didn't exist were promised their land in return for fighting on the allies side in WW1 prior to the British commitment to grant Israel to the Jewish people. Post WW1 the Palestinians were denied their land by League of Nations mandate and the Jews began migrating to the area that had been known as Palestine for hundreds of years under Ottoman rule.

Your assertion that Palestinians didn't exist or that they have no legitimate claim to the land is patently false.

Edited by Riggamortis, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Faith, posted 07-29-2017 5:46 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Faith, posted 07-29-2017 5:31 PM Riggamortis has responded
 Message 49 by Faith, posted 07-29-2017 8:18 PM Riggamortis has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 25902
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 48 of 68 (816124)
07-29-2017 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Riggamortis
07-29-2017 8:06 AM


Re: Some Evidence of Smear Propaganda Against Israel. Phony photos for instance
I don't know how much of your post I can get to but for now I have to take it piecemeal.

The Palestinian people you claim didn't exist were promised their land in return for fighting on the allies side in WW1 prior to the British commitment to grant Israel to the Jewish people. Post WW1 the Palestinians were denied their land by League of Nations mandate and the Jews began migrating to the area that had been known as Palestine for hundreds of years under Ottoman rule.

Your assertion that Palestinians didn't exist or that they have no legitimate claim to the land is patently false.

The land had been "known as Palestine for hundreds of years under Ottoman rule," yes, but the people now called Palestinians were not there for all that time. Most of them arrived there in the late 19th century, according to the following:

Frontpagemag writes:

“Why can any ‘Moishe Pipik’ from Brooklyn go to live in Israel, but I, a child of Palestinian parents living in the USA, cannot go back to my ancestral homeland, Palestine, where our families lived since time immemorial?”

The response to that question may be useful to readers who find themselves confronted with similar questions by friends, relatives, colleagues, or others.

The first thing to note is that “Palestinians” have not been living in Palestine (now Israel) from time immemorial.  Turkish and British records are clear that Palestine was flooded with Arab immigrants from the late 1850’s onward due to the salutary effects of British colonial and Zionist developments from the mid-19th century onward. Groundbreaking work on the Arab historical demography of Palestine during the second half of the 19th and the first half of the 20th centuries has been done by Professor Justin McCarthy in his book The Population of Palestine: Population History and Statistics of the Late Ottoman Period and the Mandate (Institute for Palestine Studies Series), summarized here. McCarthy, not a Jew nor an Israeli nor a Zionist, writing for a Palestinian institute, demonstrates that the Arab population of Palestine almost quadrupled from c. 1855 to 1947.  Only a tiny minority of Arabs can claim ancestral attachment to this territory, and even those claims are based solely on anecdotal accounts for which there is no empirical evidence.

Links to the mentioned book by Justin McCarthy are in the FPM article.

So was it these recently-arrived Arabs that were supposedly promised the land? Is residence there for only a few decades or in many cases much less time sufficient to identify them as "Palestinians" with a right to the land? Do you have a reference to the actual agreement you are talking about?

I'm sure this historical situation is complex and far from open-and-shut on either side, but one thing is certain and that is that the vast majority of Arab "Palestinians" arrived roughly concurrently with the Jewish migration and had no ancient right to the land. If they had any other legal right to it is something to consider, but at least it isn't based on having lived there "from time immemorial" as is so often claimed.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Riggamortis, posted 07-29-2017 8:06 AM Riggamortis has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Riggamortis, posted 07-29-2017 10:01 PM Faith has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 25902
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 49 of 68 (816127)
07-29-2017 8:18 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Riggamortis
07-29-2017 8:06 AM


Re: Some Evidence of Smear Propaganda Against Israel. Phony photos for instance
Reading up on some history of Jewish immigration to Israel I don't get any impression that any of it was motivated by the desire to displace the Arabs, but entirely by persecution in their countries of origin. The first waves were from Russia, then one from Poland and Hungary, and then just before WWII those fleeing Nazism began to enter. About this time the Palestinian Arabs began to complain and become violent, and the British laid restrictions on Jewish immigration as a result.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Riggamortis, posted 07-29-2017 8:06 AM Riggamortis has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by jar, posted 07-29-2017 8:24 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 52 by Riggamortis, posted 07-29-2017 10:33 PM Faith has responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 29187
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.7


(1)
Message 50 of 68 (816128)
07-29-2017 8:24 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Faith
07-29-2017 8:18 PM


some reasons that the Palestinians might get upset.
Faith writes:

I don't get any impression that any of it was motivated by the desire to displace the Arabs, but entirely by persecution in their countries of origin. The first waves were from Russia, then one from Poland and Hungary, and then just before WWII those fleeing Nazism began to enter. About this time the Palestinian Arabs began to complain and become violent, and the British laid restrictions on Jewish immigration as a result.

Kinda like you wanting Trump to place restrictions on immigrants to the US?

The people of the area saw their land being over run by foreigners who did speak the language, understand the customs, follow the local laws and traditions.

Worse, they saw the European Great Powers controlling their government, controlling the infrastructure, making the laws, exploiting the resources...

Edited by jar, : fix sub-title


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Faith, posted 07-29-2017 8:18 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Riggamortis
Member
Posts: 167
From: Australia
Joined: 08-15-2016
Member Rating: 3.0


(1)
Message 51 of 68 (816130)
07-29-2017 10:01 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Faith
07-29-2017 5:31 PM


Re: Some Evidence of Smear Propaganda Against Israel. Phony photos for instance
Here is the McMahon agreement of 1915 a very detailed promise which offers all of Israel to the Arabs except the shaded area in the following map:

British support for an independent Arab state including all but the shaded area is explicitly granted in the letter. It was to be part of Syria, however, so I'll grant you that the specifically Palestinian nationalist movement is post-hoc. That doesn't detract from the fact that the Arab people of the area known as Palestine were promised an independent Arab state, however.

Here is the letter in which Israel was promised to the zionists two years later, reproduced in full because it isn't nearly as comprehensive a promise as the one offered to the Arabs.

Foreign Office
November 2nd, 1917

Dear Lord Rothschild,

I have much pleasure in conveying to you. on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet

His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.

I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.

Yours,

Arthur James Balfour

Faith writes:

If they had any other legal right to it is something to consider, but at least it isn't based on having lived there "from time immemorial" as is so often claimed.

Yeah, that is not my claim. That the Arabs in Palestine do have a legitimate claim to an Arab state is. At least they did back then, I've no idea what the real solution is to the current mess. I doubt it involves restricting free speech and criticism of Israel, however. Anyway, here is a Jewish source for the population of Palestine. Here is a regular source for world population growth, I will compare the average growth of world populations to the demographic growth of the populations in Palestine. Should excessive migration have occurred by either Arabs or Jews it should show up as growth beyond global averages at the time. So, what does the Jewish data show;

Population of Palestine by year and religion (figures rounded)

1800 - Jewish 24k, Christian 22k, Muslim 246k (84%)

1915 - Jewish 83k, Christian 17k, Muslim 590k (85%)

World pop growth over the same period had almost doubled. The Jewish population more than tripled. The Muslim population doubled approximately in line with world data. The data suggests that if anyone migrated to the area in larger than usual numbers during this period, it was the Jews.

1922 - Jewish 84k, Christian 82k, Muslim 590k (78%)

In seven years the Jewish and Muslim populations remained stable while there was clearly a huge influx of Christians. The next 23 years are under British rule, having failed to deliver on their explicit promise to grant an Arab state.

1945 - Jewish 554k (31.5%), Christian 150k (8.5%), Muslim 1060k (60%)

In the space of a generation Muslims went from a strong majority to a weak one while the Jews tripled their share of the population. The world population had grown by around 25% over the same period. The Muslim and Christian populations had both almost doubled, well ahead of the global average. Meanwhile the Jewish population had risen by around 600%. Clearly there was a lot of immigration to the area during this period, much of it Jewish.

In the century prior to WW1 the data shows that the Muslim population in Palestine grew inline with the global average. It shows that the Jewish population grew in excess of the average. The expected Christian growth did not show up however so it is inconclusive whether Christians were converting or leaving and being replaced by Jews. The McMahon agreement of 1915 was established before any promise to the zionists and prior to the mass arrival of Christians and Jews between WW1 and WW2. The Brits are then alleged to have used the post hoc excuse that the land that was not 'purely Arab' to deny the Arabs their claim.

In 1948, the duck looks, quacks and walks like the Palestinian Arabs got shafted. I don't know by what logic being persecuted in Germany gives Jews the right to displace an existing population elsewhere. Given the history, it is little wonder violence has reigned since.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Faith, posted 07-29-2017 5:31 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Faith, posted 07-30-2017 1:11 AM Riggamortis has responded

  
Riggamortis
Member
Posts: 167
From: Australia
Joined: 08-15-2016
Member Rating: 3.0


(1)
Message 52 of 68 (816131)
07-29-2017 10:33 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Faith
07-29-2017 8:18 PM


Re: Some Evidence of Smear Propaganda Against Israel. Phony photos for instance
The first waves were from Russia, then one from Poland and Hungary, and then just before WWII those fleeing Nazism began to enter. About this time the Palestinian Arabs began to complain and become violent, and the British laid restrictions on Jewish immigration as a result.

Yeah they did but the promises that were made weren't about limiting Jewish immigration.

I don't get any impression that any of it was motivated by the desire to displace the Arabs, but entirely by persecution in their countries of origin.

If I'm fleeing someone who wants to persecute me for my atheism and I come across your house and forcibly occupy it against your wishes, I'm sure you'd be upset about it. My motive doesn't justify it. Funnily enough, anti-semitism was actually a worldwide thing, here's what wiki has to say on US anti-semitism -

quote:
Antisemitism in the United States was also indicated by national public opinion polls taken from the mid nineteen thirties to the late nineteen forties. The results showed that over half the American population saw Jews as greedy and dishonest. These polls also found that many Americans believed that Jews were too powerful in the United States. Similar polls were also taken, one of which posed that 35–40 percent of the population was prepared to accept an anti-Jewish campaign.

In a 1938 poll, approximately 60 percent of the respondents held a low opinion of Jews, labeling them "greedy," "dishonest," and "pushy."[24] 41 percent of respondents agreed that Jews had "too much power in the United States," and this figure rose to 58 percent by 1945. In 1939 a Roper poll found that only thirty-nine percent of Americans felt that Jews should be treated like other people. Fifty-three percent believed that "Jews are different and should be restricted" and ten percent believed that Jews should be deported.[25] Several surveys taken from 1940 to 1946 found that Jews were seen as a greater threat to the welfare of the United States than any other national, religious, or racial group.[26]



This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Faith, posted 07-29-2017 8:18 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Faith, posted 07-30-2017 1:28 AM Riggamortis has not yet responded
 Message 56 by Faith, posted 07-30-2017 1:43 AM Riggamortis has not yet responded
 Message 57 by Faith, posted 07-30-2017 1:49 AM Riggamortis has responded

  
Riggamortis
Member
Posts: 167
From: Australia
Joined: 08-15-2016
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 53 of 68 (816132)
07-29-2017 11:58 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by NoNukes
07-28-2017 8:56 AM


Legalese question.
I questioned the 'official' interpretation based on a plain reading of the bill. Upon further consideration and the mention of legalese I have a question. If the bill applies to companies, what is the legalese definition of companies and their actions?

If the actions of companies recognised under the law are those that stem from official policies then the Cat has a point. Theoretically restoring the rights of individuals to participate in boycotts unofficially but preventing companies in the US participating officially.
Not sure if that would change the constitutional situation though.

Overturn citizens united and we'll talk about restricting companies ability to influence politics via boycotts lol.

Edited by Riggamortis, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by NoNukes, posted 07-28-2017 8:56 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by NoNukes, posted 07-30-2017 4:36 AM Riggamortis has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 25902
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 54 of 68 (816133)
07-30-2017 1:11 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Riggamortis
07-29-2017 10:01 PM


The question of the right to the land
Please please please let's try to keep this subject from getting too unwieldy. My reason for bringing up the population of the area was to show that there is no justification for Arabs in Palestine to claim a right to the land based on inhabiting it for many generations, and you DID say something to that effect though now you are saying something different.

Faith writes:

If they had any other legal right to it is something to consider, but at least it isn't based on having lived there "from time immemorial" as is so often claimed.

Yeah, that is not my claim.

When you said the area was called Palestine for hundreds of years under the Ottomans you seemed to me to be implying that the people who had lived there over those hundreds of years had a prior right to the land.

Did you say that and did I understand it rightly? Can we at least clear up this much?

I had no other reason for showing that the Arab population there was recent and not ancient.

Now you are denying that you claimed that. What's the truth here?

That the Arabs in Palestine do have a legitimate claim to an Arab state is. At least they did back then,...

And your basis for this opinion is what, the McMahon letters to Hussein? Please let's keep the argument as clear as possible. If you are not basing the Arab claim to the land on ancient occupation of it, then is the McMahon letter or letters the reason for the claim?

I've no idea what the real solution is to the current mess.

It is certainly a major mess but it would be easier to address if there weren't all this contradictory historical mess behind it, with the British granting the Arabs the land and then granting the Jews the land without reference to the other grant.

HOWEVER, although these grants by Britain are brought up as part of the mess the usual claims are different. That is, the Arab Palestinians DO claim to have occupied the land "from time immemorial." That has been shown to be false, so that much at least should be eliminated from the discussion.

And I don't think we need to discuss the population issue any more. The only point of bringing it up was as I said, to show that the Arab population had not been there forever so that the basis for their claim can't be ancient residence.

Can we agree on this and get this part of the mess out of the way?

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Riggamortis, posted 07-29-2017 10:01 PM Riggamortis has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Riggamortis, posted 07-30-2017 2:54 AM Faith has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 25902
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 55 of 68 (816134)
07-30-2017 1:28 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by Riggamortis
07-29-2017 10:33 PM


The right to the land continued: motivations and viewpoint
More things that need to be sorted out.

...and the British laid restrictions on Jewish immigration as a result.

Yeah they did but the promises that were made weren't about limiting Jewish immigration.

True, so let's eliminate those restrictions from the discussion for now too.

I don't get any impression that any of it was motivated by the desire to displace the Arabs, but entirely by persecution in their countries of origin.

If I'm fleeing someone who wants to persecute me for my atheism and I come across your house and forcibly occupy it against your wishes, I'm sure you'd be upset about it. My motive doesn't justify it.

But this is not the point. You had said that Jewish immigration was motivated by the desire to eliminate the Arab claim to the land by their population.

Please acknowledge that you did say that.

That is why I commented that in the presentation of the Jewish "aliyahs" to Israel I found no such motive, just the motivation to flee persecution.

Are you willing to accept that as the motivation or do you still want to argue that at least some of it was intended to remove Arab claims to the land?

My impression overall is that the Jews moved to Palestine because they understood that the land had been given to them for a Jewish haven, meaning by the Balfour statement. Would you agree with this?

I would further guess that the McMahon letter to Hussein was not known to the Jews. Would you agree with this?

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Riggamortis, posted 07-29-2017 10:33 PM Riggamortis has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 25902
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 56 of 68 (816135)
07-30-2017 1:43 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by Riggamortis
07-29-2017 10:33 PM


How much of the problem is due to the British contradictory statements?
If I'm fleeing someone who wants to persecute me for my atheism and I come across your house and forcibly occupy it against your wishes, I'm sure you'd be upset about it. My motive doesn't justify it.

Which is why I asked if you'd agree that the Jewish motivation hinged on their belief the land had been given to them by the Balfour declaration. From the Arab point of view based on the McMahon letter they would be regarded as illegal occupiers, but as for their own intentions they thought they had a legal right to be there.

Again, will you agree to this?

Then we have to think about how much of the current ongoing problem was created by this contradiction between those letters which raised such different expectations on both sides. This can of worms, or bag of gremlins, gets discussed to some extent in this Wikipedia article on the McMahon correspondence.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Riggamortis, posted 07-29-2017 10:33 PM Riggamortis has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 25902
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 57 of 68 (816136)
07-30-2017 1:49 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by Riggamortis
07-29-2017 10:33 PM


Anti-semitism
Funnily enough, anti-semitism was actually a worldwide thing, here's what wiki has to say on US anti-semitism -

Antisemitism in the United States was also indicated by national public opinion polls taken from the mid nineteen thirties to the late nineteen forties. The results showed that over half the American population saw Jews as greedy and dishonest. These polls also found that many Americans believed that Jews were too powerful in the United States. Similar polls were also taken, one of which posed that 35–40 percent of the population was prepared to accept an anti-Jewish campaign.

In a 1938 poll, approximately 60 percent of the respondents held a low opinion of Jews, labeling them "greedy," "dishonest," and "pushy."[24] 41 percent of respondents agreed that Jews had "too much power in the United States," and this figure rose to 58 percent by 1945. In 1939 a Roper poll found that only thirty-nine percent of Americans felt that Jews should be treated like other people. Fifty-three percent believed that "Jews are different and should be restricted" and ten percent believed that Jews should be deported.[25] Several surveys taken from 1940 to 1946 found that Jews were seen as a greater threat to the welfare of the United States than any other national, religious, or racial group.[26]

What is your point here?

Would you agree that if it was worldwide in that earlier period, it is likely it is still a big part of the attitude toward Israel that we see in the various international condemnations?

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Riggamortis, posted 07-29-2017 10:33 PM Riggamortis has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Riggamortis, posted 07-30-2017 3:03 AM Faith has responded

    
Riggamortis
Member
Posts: 167
From: Australia
Joined: 08-15-2016
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 58 of 68 (816138)
07-30-2017 2:54 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by Faith
07-30-2017 1:11 AM


Re: The question of the right to the land
My reason for bringing up the population of the area was to show that there is no justification for Arabs in Palestine to claim a right to the land based on inhabiting it for many generations, and you DID say something to that effect though now you are saying something different.

All I have done is argue against the idea that the Jews somehow have more right to the land in any context you have claimed they do. It had been under majority Muslim control for centuries prior to the immigration of the Jews in the early 20th century. You had claimed that Arabs migrated in large numbers to the area, based on the data I looked at, that may be true from 1922-1945 but it was alongside much higher Jewish immigration. It begs the question, were they responding to Jewish immigration to maintain their majority?

And your basis for this opinion is what, the McMahon letters to Hussein? Please let's keep the argument as clear as possible. If you are not basing the Arab claim to the land on ancient occupation of it, then is the McMahon letter or letters the reason for the claim?

Yes. Alongside the fact that Jewish claim to the land is based on nothing. The Balfour Declaration was fraudulent, the land wasn't Britains to promise to the zionists, as per the existing agreement with the Arabs.

That is, the Arab Palestinians DO claim to have occupied the land "from time immemorial." That has been shown to be false, so that much at least should be eliminated from the discussion.

You brought that line up, not me. I looked at population data from a Jewish source to see what could be inferred regarding immigration to the area. I don't see the point in going back much further than a few generations when considering who has more claim to the land. The reason why I don't see Jewish claim as all that strong in '18-'45 but more complicated now. Consider that if we did go back further, in order to be logically consistent we would have to grant our countries back to the people we stole them from.

Hope this clarifies my position.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Faith, posted 07-30-2017 1:11 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Faith, posted 07-30-2017 4:22 AM Riggamortis has responded

  
Riggamortis
Member
Posts: 167
From: Australia
Joined: 08-15-2016
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 59 of 68 (816140)
07-30-2017 3:03 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Faith
07-30-2017 1:49 AM


Re: Anti-semitism
What is your point here?

That Jews were commonly hated worldwide at the time. They didn't have anywhere to run, only the Zionist goal to achieve a recognised homeland. A goal that wasn't even that popular among Jews.

Would you agree that if it was worldwide in that earlier period, it is likely it is still a big part of the attitude toward Israel that we see in the various international condemnations?

Not at all. Go post on social media how much you hate Muslims and a decent percentage of people will love you, try it with Jews and you'll be called all sorts of unpleasant things. Despite claims of PC suppression of criticism of Islam, it is rampant on social media. Anti-semitism is much rarer and heavily condemned.

The Wikipedia article on the McMahon agreement seems to reveal that the Arabs were indeed mislead and lied to initially and to pacify them afterwards.

Edited by Riggamortis, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Faith, posted 07-30-2017 1:49 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Faith, posted 07-30-2017 3:51 AM Riggamortis has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 25902
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 60 of 68 (816142)
07-30-2017 3:51 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Riggamortis
07-30-2017 3:03 AM


Re: Anti-semitism
Go post on social media how much you hate Muslims and a decent percentage of people will love you, try it with Jews and you'll be called all sorts of unpleasant things. Despite claims of PC suppression of criticism of Islam, it is rampant on social media. Anti-semitism is much rarer and heavily condemned.

I don't do social media but I've certainly found at EvC that I can't say anything factually neutral, historical or doctrinal, against Islam without being "called all sorts of unpleasant names," and I'm not talking about Muslims themselves, who are a varied lot, just the religion which is a pernicious evil ideology.

And just because anti-Semitism gets some loud condemnation doesn't mean it doesn't exist, even across a large part of the world just as it used to, all it means is that political correctness keeps people from saying it.

But as I said it also keeps people from saying anything about the religion of Islam.

My impression is that there is a great deal of anti-Semitism in the world today and that it goes hand in hand with the pro-Muslim Political Correctness that dominates Europe, the UN and probably AI as well. Jews have been leaving France for years because of the Muslim violence against them.

But we should agree to disagree about this for now since it's a side issue.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Riggamortis, posted 07-30-2017 3:03 AM Riggamortis has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Riggamortis, posted 07-30-2017 6:21 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Prev123
4
5Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017