ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Non-USA & General Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags benjamin netanyahu , Israel issues , Israel-NZ relations , Israel-Palestine conflict , Murray McCully

Reply
Old 1st January 2017, 08:50 AM   #41
Beerina
Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions
 
Beerina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 29,891
Originally Posted by Hercules56 View Post
In the mind of many Israelis, supporting Israel means you support and defend everything they do. Opposing the settlements equals opposing Israel and hating the Jews.
Singling out Israel when there are a number of other proper occupations that actually meet the UN's definition which are ignored, have no boycott movements, and so on, does look suspicious though.

Kind of like Pat Buchanan managing to find things black people do, who just happen to be black I mean, to pick on.
__________________
"Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson

The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales now! More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?

Last edited by Beerina; 1st January 2017 at 08:52 AM.
Beerina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st January 2017, 09:09 AM   #42
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 26,978
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Hamas speaks for a substantial chunk of the Arabs who are actively at war with Israel right now. You'd think that would put them somewhere near the top of the list of organizations it's important not to appease.

New Zealand isn't at war with Israel, fine. So what was sponsoring this resolution about? Was it a gesture of friendship towards Israel? An expression of solidarity with Israel in its fight against Hamas? Oh, no, wait, it was the opposite of that. It was an expression of solidarity with Hamas.

And Israel is supposed to be okay with this because why? Because New Zealand isn't technically at war with them? WTFever. Israel is justified in interpreting New Zealand's stance as a gesture of enmity, not towards Israel's enemies, but towards Israel itself. It (hopefully) will never become a shooting war, but the souring of relations is entirely New Zealand's responsibility.

And Obama leaves the Presidency as he entered it: a divisive, grandstanding jackass.
I am still unclear why New Zealand is being singled out here when the rest of the Security Council went along with this resolution.

Also, this idea that Obama is a "divisive, grandstanding jackass" makes no sense given that if you assume "divisive" to be a bad thing, are you saying that Obama's representative at the UNSC should have joined the rest of the nations and voted in favour of the resolution?

And why does this have to be a zero-sum game? I think that if you do something that is acting like a dick, then you can be called out on it even if people who are more hateful act like bigger dicks.
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st January 2017, 11:23 AM   #43
Arcade22
Philosopher
 
Arcade22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 6,083
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
And Obama leaves the Presidency as he entered it: a divisive, grandstanding jackass.
Yeah because Obama wouldn't be divisive if he went against the opinion of the entire international community and decided to defend Israel against perfectly valid condemnation because it's obstructing the peace process. In-fact America would be doing Israel a disservice by abetting it instead of trying to make it achieve peace for their own benefit. Perpetual conflict is preferable the quite negligible cost of peace.

Yet again, for some strange reason, it's of out most importance to protect Israel at any and all costs even if it damages US international image and standing (and Israel itself).

It's almost like some Americans want the US to be seen as a unreasonable pariah state. Do you people want China to step up and take over as the worlds foremost great power as soon as possible?
__________________
We would be a lot safer if the Government would take its money out of science and put it into astrology and the reading of palms. Only in superstition is there hope. - Kurt Vonnegut Jr

Last edited by Arcade22; 1st January 2017 at 11:24 AM.
Arcade22 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st January 2017, 11:31 AM   #44
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,762
Originally Posted by Shiner View Post
No, it isn't a strawman. I promise you. You dispute the use of the word 'many'. Over one million Israelis voted for Netanyahu in the 2015 election. I suggest that this figure represents 'many'. Are you saying that the citizens don't support his rantings of victimisation?
The claim is that the "many" believe supporting Israel means supporting and defending everything Israel does, and that opposing settlements equals opposing Israel and hating the Jews. If you're claiming that everyone who voted for Netenyahu's party believes those two things?

Originally Posted by Shiner View Post
And that's just the Israeli citizens. Look at this thread for more confirmation.
Great idea. I've reviewed this thread and count zero people who have stated that supporting Israel means supporting and defending everything Israel does, and zero people who have claimed that opposing settlements equals opposing Israel and hating the Jews.

If your count is different then please list the posts with these statements.

Originally Posted by Shiner View Post
Nope. Your assertion of 'strawman' is itself a strawman. Why not be honest and just say you're offended by a perfectly legal, reasonable and humane request for Israel to pull their head in, and be the adult in this situation.
My opinion is that peace can only come from both sides coming together and working it out. I don't think this resolution promotes that. I think both sides need to "be the adult", and am curious as to why you don't think the Palestinians should be?
Mycroft is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st January 2017, 11:49 AM   #45
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,762
Originally Posted by Shiner View Post
Of course they'll be encouraged...<snip>...Kinda the whole point here. Is the controversial part that you're suggesting the encouragement will manifest in more violence?
Yes, I think Hamas will see it as validation of their tactics and will be encouraged towards more violence. In what way do you think they would be encouraged?

Originally Posted by Shiner View Post
It's about giving back what was stolen from them.
In what way was land stolen from Hamas?

Originally Posted by Shiner View Post
The resolution is about territory. What territory do Hamas unrightfully occupy?
Sophistry. The scope of the resolution is not limited to territory, and even if it were that would be a choice of it's writers and that choice would still be subject to criticism.

Tell me, if the parts of the resolution that referred to preventing acts of violence and terror against civilians had named Hamas and Fatah directly rather than as "all parties", would that have made the resolution worse? Better? Why wouldn't calling out Hamas and Fatah for their issues be just as important if not more important than calling out Israel?
Mycroft is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st January 2017, 05:42 PM   #46
banquetbear
Graduate Poster
 
banquetbear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,559
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
Why wouldn't calling out Hamas and Fatah for their issues be just as important if not more important than calling out Israel?
...if they had specifically called out Hamas and Fatah for their issues: would that change your view, and would you now be in support of the resolution?
banquetbear is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2017, 02:17 AM   #47
Hlafordlaes
Disorder of Kilopi
 
Hlafordlaes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: State of Flux
Posts: 12,088
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Hamas speaks for a substantial chunk of the Arabs who are actively at war with Israel right now. You'd think that would put them somewhere near the top of the list of organizations it's important not to appease.

New Zealand isn't at war with Israel, fine. So what was sponsoring this resolution about? Was it a gesture of friendship towards Israel? An expression of solidarity with Israel in its fight against Hamas? Oh, no, wait, it was the opposite of that. It was an expression of solidarity with Hamas.

....

And Obama leaves the Presidency as he entered it: a divisive, grandstanding jackass.
I imagine you have not noticed that the emerging tripartite agreement on Syria creates a continuous land bridge for the free movement of weapons from Iran to Hezbollah, militarily far more dangerous to Israel than Hamas. Trump is cozying up to the same group (Russia, and therefore its close ally, Iran), enemies of both Israel and the US. I also imagine you have no actual practical policy for the ME that respects international law. Further, in getting nice with Putin, your buddies in the GOP have forgotten that changing international borders by force, a habit of Putin's, is the single most critical action postwar security institutions were set up to oppose.

So, let's have your brilliant design for ME peace. No? Only calling the black man names again? Thought so.
Hlafordlaes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2017, 04:41 AM   #48
Archie Gemmill Goal
Philosopher
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 6,940
Originally Posted by Beerina View Post
Singling out Israel when there are a number of other proper occupations that actually meet the UN's definition which are ignored, have no boycott movements, and so on, does look suspicious though.

Kind of like Pat Buchanan managing to find things black people do, who just happen to be black I mean, to pick on.
Im interested to know specifically which situations you are referring to that you consider of greater or equal significance which are being ignored.
__________________
"I love sex and drugs and sausage rolls
But nothing compares to Archie Gemmill's goal"
Archie Gemmill Goal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2017, 10:16 AM   #49
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,762
Originally Posted by banquetbear View Post
...if they had specifically called out Hamas and Fatah for their issues: would that change your view, and would you now be in support of the resolution?
Yes, I think I would. I don't think I'd agree with it 100%, but I think it would have been a strong push in the right direction towards peace, and that's what's most important.
Mycroft is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2017, 04:55 PM   #50
cmikes
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 488
Originally Posted by Shiner View Post
I suppose it does appease Hamas in that it demands that Israel relinquish occupation of territory that Hamas lays claim to.

Hamas lays claim to all the land that Israel currently "occupies". Does New Zealand now support pushing the Jews into the sea? I think that's the biggest thing not acknowledged by the pro-Hamas side is that if Hamas and the other terrorists groups would have accepted the existence of Israel they could have had most of the West Bank decades ago. It's the terrorists own refusal to negotiate and accept most of what they want that's kept them from getting anything they want.
cmikes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Non-USA & General Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:45 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.