AGS Steam Games

Forums → WEPR → You support Israel? I DO

879 278043
bobbyr5
offline
bobbyr5
7 posts
Nomad

I just feel the morals and ethics of the middle east aren't right compared to any western country.

  • 879 Replies
BritHennerz
offline
BritHennerz
408 posts
Farmer

I don't support violence so I don't support any of them

zakyman
offline
zakyman
1,627 posts
Peasant

Because the issue at hand is NOT just about Jerusalem.


However Jerusalem is a huge part of the whole. What you fail to understand is that this isn't just about borders and the Right of Return. This issue is also a religious one, and because all Abrahamic religions have "history" in the city of Jerusalem, it is much simpler to just leave it as an Int. Zone.

It is biased because it let's Israel exist as a nation, but doesn't state anything about the Palestinians right to form a nation state.


Again, you are failing to comprehend that this isn't his entire plan for the resolving of this conflict. It is just his plan for solving a pretty good chunk of it.
xSgtThomasx
offline
xSgtThomasx
22 posts
Nomad

It depends.. what do you mean by support, and what exactly are we thinking of? The fact that they believe that God gave them their land?

Explain it to me please before I just throw out my opinion.

nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,991 posts
Grand Duke

Just because it isn't far reaching doesn't mean that it is biased. In which ways is it biased in favor of the Israelis? Please, shed some light on us ignorant folk.


Because the entire issue at hand is not just ''I Support Jerusalem''. I have already explained why it was biased, so look it up before saying I fail t grasp anything. If he doesn't want me to claim it is biased, nor far reaching, update it and expand on it. If not, I stick to my guns that this plan is very narrow in nature and doesn't solve a large part of the issue.
zakyman
offline
zakyman
1,627 posts
Peasant

Because the entire issue at hand is not just ''I Support Jerusalem''.


Ok, however he is not saying "I support Jerusalem." He is saying, "I support a compromise where Jerusalem is made into an International Territory." Just because one idea doesn't solve the entire problem doesn't make it biased or unreasonable.

I have already explained why it was biased, so look it up before saying I fail t grasp anything.


No, you fail to grasp that this isn't meant to be an entire plan. He is merely suggesting a part of a plan. Where is it required on this thread to present a complete idea for the solving of this conflict? This is not some kangaroo court where we make rules up as we go. This is a debate thread, and we do not require people to present full ideas that touch on every single point of an argument. You are being unreasonable, and overall bothersome.
nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,991 posts
Grand Duke

Ok, however he is not saying "I support Jerusalem." He is saying, "I support a compromise where Jerusalem is made into an International Territory." Just because one idea doesn't solve the entire problem doesn't make it biased or unreasonable.


Let me rephrase that; the entire issue is not solved based upon the solution of Jerusalem.


The origin of this thread was about supporting Israel. Personally, I do, as my user name suggests. But not everybody does. So I have a different suggestion as to land arrangements. What if Jerusalem was an international territory, run by the U.N. or other organization. Afterwards, the land around it could be divided between the palestinians and the Israelis. Sort of like the Vatican but for Jews and Muslims alike.

Obviously, there are numerous kinks that have to be worked out but I was just wondering what other people think of this idea. It does not really apply to those who want to "kick Israel into the sea," but to the reasonable, everyday Palestinian.

Everybody is always arguing about which former plan is better. However, we can't keep arguing in the past, but we should start working together for a better future.


Former plan = Refers to anything that was discussed previously to bring the issue of Israel under resolution.


As I have stated I have not failed to grasp anything overall. Yes, such a plan might solve the Jerusalem issue nicely, but I have stated that Israel has in the past refused to allow peacekeepers into its nation, hence negating his plan since Israel will most likely not be willing to actually let the UN interfere (Didn't you a few pages back say that the UN is also biased? So why would you support it now?).

Again, stop accusing me of failing to grasp anything. It is getting bothersome that you are sliding into something bordering at ad hominem to support your points and denounce my points (Which I have noticed, you stop answering) instead of a proper debate.

A kangaroo court is a court where justice is perverted in favour of a biased conclusion set before the court session started. I find it rather laughable you can compare my arguments to a kangaroo court when all I have done is to go with whatever people debate and rebut them, whilst putting forth points that others somehow, ignore, and then claim that I am biased, and setting up rules.

Furthermore, if he was suggesting that it was part of the plan, and he resents it being called biased, why does he not come up with more points? Why does he leave other important issues to the Palestinians not resolved? I am not altogether unreasonable to hence call this plan, which is so truncated, a plan that won't entirely resolve the issue.

I have merely stuck to the rules and polite niceties of a debate, whilst you, have dodged many of my recent points, hiding behind the shield of a ''rule'' that ''I can clamp up whenever I want in a debate, and hopefully by doing this, I can save face''. If you are not going to reply to my posts, then I take it that you agree with it.
nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,991 posts
Grand Duke

Oh, and I am not bothersome simply because I hound people for answers. It is only polite to actually give some sort of reply to whatever posts I have in a debate, unless you want me to just ignore any points people have made, clamp my hands over my ears shouting ''DOWN WITH ISRAEL'', whistle, and then claim that other people are bothering me.

zakyman
offline
zakyman
1,627 posts
Peasant

Let me rephrase that; the entire issue is not solved based upon the solution of Jerusalem.


Correct, however that is one of the main parts of this!

Yes, such a plan might solve the Jerusalem issue nicely, but I have stated that Israel has in the past refused to allow peacekeepers into its nation


If Jerusalem becomes an International Territory, Israel won't be able to say anything about UN troops being in Jerusalem. That is a moot point.

It is getting bothersome that you are sliding into something bordering at ad hominem to support your points and denounce my points (Which I have noticed, you stop answering) instead of a proper debate.


And it is getting bothersome that you unreasonably demand a complete plan subject to your approval, when all forisrael is suggesting is a part of a plan! It is also not ad hominem when your personal actions are starting to leak into this debate. If I attack you for being unreasonable, that is not ad hominem because you literally ARE being unreasonable, by demanding things that this user might not want to solve, or even care to solve! The world is not subject to your whims.

Oh, and I am not bothersome simply because I hound people for answers


It gets really annoying when I see posts devoted to "Hey, please answer my posts from two pages ago, even though the discussion has taken an entirely different course."

I find it rather laughable you can compare my arguments to a kangaroo court when all I have done is to go with whatever people debate and rebut them, whilst putting forth points that others somehow, ignore, and then claim that I am biased, and setting up rules.


Please tell me, is it a crime to step away from my computer for about 17 hours, and possibly miss a few pages of discussion? No, it is not. So if I ignore one of your posts, it is because I either didn't feel like answering it at the time (again, not a crime), or I didn't see it (again, perfectly legal). I find it laughable that you expect me to see every detail of your posts, on every page, when you post something. It is also laughable that you claim that I am setting up rules. Tell me, when have I proposed a rule which changes as I go along? I haven't.

'I can clamp up whenever I want in a debate, and hopefully by doing this, I can save face''. If you are not going to reply to my posts, then I take it that you agree with it.


Again, you don't know why I am absent. The other week, I went to the movies. When I returned, it was late at night and I saw that you had posted something. Now, place yourself in my shoes for a moment. It is a school night, and already 10:00. I have to get up at 6:00 to be able to do everything I must do to prepare for school. Now, what is more important. Responding to a post on the internet, or getting to bed and catching some sleep. I don't know about you, but I am more inclined to get sleep, rather than waste a good 15 minutes online. Also, I took a walk with my dog today. I wasn't able to post for a while. I also talked on the phone with relatives. You are trying to incriminate me for not responding to posts, and then passively trying to sneak in the statement, "If you don't respond, you agree with my post," while not knowing any of the reasons that I have not posted. Nor do I feel inclined to tell you every reason that I have not posted in "a timely manner," which is of course, defined by you. Do not accuse me of running away just to "save face." If I am not able to post, I certainly have a good reason for it. So next time you feel like giving one of your high and mighty lectures from above, please, think about how if one person doesn't respond "quickly" to a post, that doesn't mean that they ran away.
nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,991 posts
Grand Duke

If Jerusalem becomes an International Territory, Israel won't be able to say anything about UN troops being in Jerusalem. That is a moot point.


That is already under the assumption that Israel will agree to foreign international intervention, which might involve peacekeepers, which it has already in the past refused to.


He never mentioned that it is part of a plan. He mentioned that it was the plan. As a plan for Jerusalem it is a good plan, but if the plan was to solve the whole conflict, it falls flat. I did not demand a full out plan from him, but merely pointed out that if he expected that to solve the whole issue, then it falls flat.

The discussion has only taken a new course because my last post was literally the last post, before the new round of time schedules made everyone start hours later, leaving mine in the lurch. That is not how a debate works.

I never did mention it was a crime to not respond. I am merely pointing out that if you left it unanswered, you are going to walk away from the debate without a large understanding about what the otherside is saying, which is biased. A debate is only a debate when one understands fully what the other party has said, not cherry picked the bits and pieces which suit to your fancy. And you claim I am manipulative or expect the world to submit to my fancies? Everyone here who has been seriously debating has came back after whatever they do irl and responded to where the debate ended for them, even when the pages have gone off.

And before you lecture me about laughing at you for ''running away'' I have a good reason. I don't need reasons such as school or not, I am not so unreasonable to think that people should answer immediately. In fact, I only reminded you so when you came back online to discuss with others hours later, and when you clearly have time to respond to my argument which was in fact not pages away, but one or two posts before when you began responding. I understand people have their own lives. But if they come back from such activities, and completely ignore what the other party has stated when they clearly now have the time to respond, then that is in fact running away from answering and blatantly doing so.
nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,991 posts
Grand Duke

Classic example, page 43 -45 where the debate was not ''ages away'', when on page 44, just two posts away from where we left off, you ignored what I had to say, and just replied to someone else. If a debate goes that way, a debate goes no where, when one can choose to just ignore what the other has to say. Well, you clearly had time to respond to what Anarcho said, so why ignore mine?

zakyman
offline
zakyman
1,627 posts
Peasant

But if they come back from such activities, and completely ignore what the other party has stated when they clearly now have the time to respond, then that is in fact running away from answering and blatantly doing so.


Perhaps I have time to respond to a quick post, and not read and respond to a novel of a post. You tend to post on the longer side. I don't always have time for that. Again, it is not illegal to try to manage time. You are not entitled to have even a fraction of my time. I could leave this debate at any moment. That wouldn't mean that I "agree with what you say." That would mean that I am getting tired of bringing up pointless facts to just make a pointless attempt to try to convince someone possibly thousands of miles away that my view is correct. It is complete drivel that we expect to convince each other that one of us is right. Just because I don't respond to a post doesn't mean that I am intentionally ignoring it, it just means that I don't have the time. Again, I don't have to give you any of my time on this website.
nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,991 posts
Grand Duke

Internet debate has never had a point, and in either case I have already had enough of your time to drive down all your points.

A) Israel's mythical and historical claim to the land is almost exactly the same reason why the Palestinians deserve the land, without stating why their claim is somehow superior.
B) Israel's desire to maintain a Jewish character is discriminatory in view of the demographic time bomb.
C) Israel's refusal at peace negotiations on the issue of settlements has also made the Palestinians obstinate.
D) Israel's so called need for land to defend itself has already led to two more wars and numerous acts of terror, not defend itself.
E) Both sides want peace, but because of the cycle of violence and blame, nothing will come to fruit.
F) Both sides are equally at fault.
G) The right of return can be solved rather simply, but because of the fear of the Jewish people that they will become a minority (And they will, as we have proved), they refuse the return of innocent people to their homeland.
H) The Israeli Jewish people have only so much right to so much land, that is the 1967 borders, and occupy the Palestinian territories illegally according to international law.
I) Both have a right to exist, but a compromise has to be reached, the Israelis on their irrational fears (attacks from Arab nations which we have disproved), and the Palestinians for pursuing the destruction of Israel.


I might have missed a couple more, but since I do post on the longer side, I have forgotten or couldn't care less. If someone cares not to post due to length of argument, then one is as much bending the rules of debate as a kangaroo court.

And yes, your points supporting Israel to exist larger than the 1967 borders are pointless because they have been beaten to the ground. Now, good day.

thebluerabbit
offline
thebluerabbit
5,340 posts
Farmer

im not going to say too much but why do you think israel wanting to be jewish is so bad. we are talking about the race not the religion. its like saying that its not right that germany wants to be german. only germans are citizents there. the fact that there are actually non-jewish citizents show that its more accepting the germany and other countries who only grant citizentship by race.

not only that but you can even convert and gain it (not that i think its a good reason to convert) but you can see that as a small bonus.

its mostly about the race. there are MANY people who are jewish by race but not by religion and they are still considered jewish. its a different word then atheists but they arent religios and dont believe in a religion. most countries give citizentship because of race and i cant see why its so wrong that israel wants to do the same.

most jews in israel actually dont believe in the religion but are still jewish because of their race.

nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,991 posts
Grand Duke

im not going to say too much but why do you think israel wanting to be jewish is so bad. we are talking about the race not the religion. its like saying that its not right that germany wants to be german. only germans are citizents there. the fact that there are actually non-jewish citizents show that its more accepting the germany and other countries who only grant citizentship by race.


I am not saying that is is bad now. As stated, the majority will more or less decide the culture inevitably. What I have qualms is, is that the Declaration of Independence of Israel states that it will actively pursue a Jewish character of the state no matter what. Given Israel's demographic time bomb, and that the Jewish population will sooner or later be the minority if current birth rates continue, then this Jewish character will slowly degenerate into whatever is the majority culture, which most likely will be Arab. However, this is banned by the Declaration which aims to artificially prolong the Jewish character of the state. It is also a weak reason to give to oppose the right of return.

Again, it's not so much a religious question. The majority of Israeli Jews might not believe that much in religion, but the government actively and artificially strives to maintain a Jewish nature of the state. That is discriminatory.
nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,991 posts
Grand Duke

Also, because the integral part about being a Jew is religion. Being a German doesn't entail having a religion, but religion IS essential to the identity of the Jews. To be German doesn't mean you have to have a specific religion, where in the South many are Catholics, and towards the North, there are many Lutherans, Calvinists, etc. To be German is to have German blood, but to be Jewish is to believe in Judaism.

In a nutshell, Judaism which defines Jew is a religion, but the concept of ''Germaness'' is centred on nationality and sometimes race/blood, German is not a religion.

Showing 481-495 of 879