If saying that you're behaving like a disturbing simpleton is insulting, I accept my insult to you as a matter of fact.
Your last questions is purely hypothetical since it refers to facts that didn't happen. If things went that way... they didn't. Any consideration about that would be an excercise of style with no practical meaning. Just as your question.
Your missing the point. You've agreed to the opinion that Israel was a mistake. But in order to have validity in that comment you need to prove (provide evidence of reason) that the alternative is better than the current situation.
I'm saying that given that past situation, created Israel was not seen as a mistake considering that there's Zionist terrorist activities for it.
I'm also saying that the alternative may not have been better. Just look at what occurred during the mandate. (Which was bound to inflate if the situation remained static)
You've also failed to explain how what I posted was merely a "simplification" of the past situation of Palestine. In what way were there other factors regarding the British Mandate/Irgun and Lehi/UN leading to the creation of Israel
You're missing many, many points. I can agree that the creation of Israel was a mistake, but if you seem to believe that I consider the destruction of Israel as a solution you're utterly wrong.
To follow your moronically hypothetical path, the only thing I have to demonstrate is that if all people - including Arabs and Israelis - thought what I think, there would be no war, and no violently dead people. Sounds idiotic? It is. An idiotic answer sometimes is the correct one, especially if the question is idiotic.
1st: you are being hypocritical. You said you agreed with Finkelstein, but Finkelstein advocated the destruction of Israel to bring peace to the middle east (which means he regarded that as a solution).
2nd: You still did not address my argument. No where did I mention the "destruction of Israel". I've merely asked your reason as to why you believe the creation of Israel was a mistake and you haven't given me any in regards to my counter argument (which I have supported with the history of the British Mandate)
Again with the insulting. If you are going to address every single argument with an insult, you are creating a poor image for yourself. As I have said you have to support your argument with facts and or reason in order to have a valid argument. You've opted to ignore that statement and attack it with a personal insult (Hmmm...argumentum ad hominem?)
Also in regards to your statement if that was true there wouldn't be the Irgun or the Lehi would there? :rolleyes:
If you want to take a head in the sands approach (which is what you are appearing to be doing) then there's no reason to advance this any further.
You have also to explain why that question was "idiotic" or are you completely oblivious to the events surrounding Palestine before Israel (more specifically the British Mandate?)
Where, exactly? And mind, you, I'm not asking because I've no understanding of what Finkelstein says or means: I do, and I agree. I just need you to exactly document a sentence of yours.
Please provide exact link with exact quotes, please.
You have quoted, exactly, nothing. Please provide a reliable source where such advocation of destruction of Israel can be attributed to Finklestein, since in that lousy commentary I saw none. Not even the sentence you quote. You obviously have problems with English.
No, it won't last long. He's equating 'suffering a defeat' to 'advocate a destruction'. Just as saying that suffering the defeat of Vietnam the US were destroyed. We all know it isn't so. Such a moronic equation is self-defeating, and lizardfolk demonstrates once again the quality of his reasoning, which amounts to slander, in this case.
Truly disgusting. That's all.
Edit: (Archivist mode on) Xaotik, we have another palooka here! (Archivist mode off)
The difference between Vietnam and Israel is that the US was the frontal force in the Vietnam civil war.
the Israeli military is the frontal force in attacking Hezbollah. So if you want to play that literary game go ahead.
If Israel were to lose militarily what would happen to the state of Israel? Likely the Palestinians would regain control and Israel would become an illegitimate state. That would be "destroying Israel".
If Israel were to suffer a defeat which would mean removing Israel as a legitimate state which would mean the same thing (at the very least to Zionists) as destroying Israel. Which is what Finkelstein advocated
Care to not deviate? Or are you using that as a decoy
Doesn't remove the fact that Finkelstein advocated Israel to become a illegitimate state which means the same thing as destroying Israel and means the same thing as "suffering a defeat". I mean the fact that he's anti-Zionist kinda gives that away :rolleyes:
As a debator you'd be a disaster. Now care to provide counter to post 127 (which you still haven't unless you consider idle insults as such)
Sorry, but there's no reason to answer such a question, and there's no good justifications to tell the reasons to all the forum. So, after a careful evalutaion I decided I won't answer to you anymore until under extreme need.
I think that the people who can understand already guessed why I consider this to be the best choice, and informing you of my motivations would be a waste of time.
Consider this a victory, if you want to score a point. I'm not here for this reason.
And since he posted in a "hypothetical" format, which is a completely legitimate means to get a point across. It would be fitting to answer in a hypothetical way. Which I did and supported with facts from the British Mandate era of Palestine.
You immediately insulted me and labeled my comments as "invalid" since I posted in a "hypothetical" situation which ironically the original poster did so as well.
I've asked for clarification, you gave me more insults, no reason/elaboration as to why my statement is invalid (except that I can see now it's a personal bias) AND you've changed the subject...now you're bailing out? Truly disgusting, that's all.
At least when I'm proved wrong I admit my fault.
And you still didn't give me a reason as to why Finkelstein wouldn't want Israel to be a illegitimate state (which is "destroying israel" in terms of Zionists and what he meant by "suffering a defeat"). Finkelstein is a smart person and he knows that Hezbollah doesn't want to disarm unless Israel becomes a illegitimate state (which is what they meant by saying they want "to destroy Israel").
The way that you handled yourself was despicable. I was patient and gave a reason as to why the creation of Israel wasn't a mistake at the time (which I'm open to correction), but you made another maneuver to try and personally attack me instead of giving a valid justification of why my post was "moronic". Maybe you should read this again:
Ironically, I've learned my lesson when I read that post back in the Times thread. Apparently, you've seem to start resorting to argumentum ad hominem.
I wont take your immature approach of "ignoring" someone you personally dont like and if you ignore me for the rest of your life go ahead. See if I care. I stand my ground and defend my position and if my position turns out to be incorrect then I admit defeat and change my position. You apparently deviate from the argument to save your own face and when you are caught in a corner you resort to a head in the sands approach. OH SUCH IRONY. Especially with your: "i'm more mature than you because I'm older".
ROFL... Sorry for my "insensitivity" I was still half asleep when I posted.
The real point I was trying to make. Is that that area has ALWAYS been under some sort of occupation... From the Hittites to the Israelites. I honestly believe that the Palestinians would just be occupied by someone else if there was no Israel.
And I thought that the map thingee posted well ... well it was irrelevant.
Especially when the topic was changing to how Israel could and SHOULD change it's tactics when dealing with the rocket launcher guys.
And I said the Palestinians would have it WORSE, because none of the other local countries have enough power to have decisive control over that area. - thus life's a bitch and then you die....
It's not really a callous response as much as it is....I dunno, "f- it I give up."
Does that make sense? yeah I put out a dumb response and I'm sorry about that. It's just too damn easy, especially with a topic like this for me to type the wrong way and be totally misunderstood.
You know, when they formed Israel, if they'd a just left the Palestinians there and told them, "hello we're the new people you pay taxes to", everything would've been fine. But no they didin't do that did they?... damn I gotta go...sorry I can't elaborate
If you were half-asleep in the previous post then you must be sleepwalking for this one:
Just so you can read it over when you awaken and have another laugh.
Man, you need to know when to stop and when you're out of your depth, as we all should really. Granted, it's nice that you took time to read some things and great that you learned some new things in the process - as much cannot be said about a vast majority of your countrymen. However, one needs to pause once in a while and consider where an argument/debate is leading to and if there is actually something of benefit to be gained from everyone by a possible conclusion. When you find yourself stumbling and heading for the Ultimate Source Of Debate Material (aka wikipedia) for things you do not previously know about then it's not a debate any longer and it's not your opinion any longer.
Unless ofcourse you knew all about Irguns and Lehis, what created them, what they represented and their causes and agreed 100% with the article in Wikipedia.
This whole tactic of following a search-lead and clawing on to some bit of arbitrary information, which we had no idea about before, that we think suits our purpose and beating a subject to pulp for no apparent reason - I guess to score a point - is just so tiresome.
Personally, I'd prefer Racer Y's take on it - he won't reach out for the "audience help" button, he'll just blurt out what he has in the buffer and then go to sleep.
The whole purpose of these highly theoretical debates, if there is one, is to get minds churning (or people develop some mean sleepwalking abilities like Racer Y over there) using their own resources. Dumbing them down by heading for a 5 minute raid through sites to copy-paste answers from is really counterproductive.
However, I did have to prepare a debate for my hawaii regional about the issues on Israel and my part was defending Israel. The whole basis of my argument was the inevitability of the creation of Israel and thus i did research on the British Mandate eras. My score was 4-2. But i'm not boasting that I know everything. I'm open to correction.
That part in the wikipedia quote was just a convenience on my part.
Am I an expert on Palestine and the Irgun/Lehi? I admit no (of course not). And anyone who has information that directly discredits my argument I'd gladly welcome. Which is why I said I'm open to correction backed by logical reasoning and or hard information.
