|
Post by celawson on Dec 30, 2016 12:58:22 GMT -5
I do have some legal expertise, and agree it's complicated. But I must say, based on your words in this thread, you came in with (by your own statements) very little knowledge about the settlements, and yet from the get-go threw around your already settled opinion that not only was Obama wrong in not vetoing, but was acting "shamefully" and "spitefully." You then spent 24 hours reading things to back your firm opinion, dismissing all but a couple of right-wing sites as "biased." It is your repeated use of words like "shamefully," "spitefully" and the general accusation of Obama's bad faith that bothers me. Thinking we should support Israel is one thing. But you should not throw words like "shameful" and "spiteful" around without some solid knowledge to back it up. I'm a little uncomfortable with outside judgments on what I know or have read on a subject. I may not have read a lot on the legality of the settlements (you still don't know what that means to me - I might have high standards for what "a lot" is - I do have a graduate degree) But I have extremely close friends who are Jewish and with whom I talk about this stuff, and a radio show which I listen to almost every day by a very knowledgeable Yale educated lawyer who is Jewish and speaks often about Israel- Michael Medved), and I listen to npr daily and receive the Los Angeles Times in my home to balance things out. I have kept up for decades on the politics of U.S. -Israel relations and Israel's issues. And really, I can use words like "shameful" and "spiteful". Even if you don't think I have solid knowledge. Others in this very discussion have mentioned Obama's quid pro quo with regards to Bibi. That is spite. I'm not breaking new ground here. I'm actually quite surprised I'm being told by a mod that I can't use certain words (which aren't even profane or derogatory).
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Dec 30, 2016 13:05:23 GMT -5
But both sides seem to have reasonable arguments, at least in terms of some of the settlements. And the U.N. is pretty much run by Arab nations and has been biased against Israel for years. .... The UN should get its biased hands out of this issue and make resolutions about other more pressing human rights issues including massive atrocities occurring while we type on this board. And the US should have never allowed itself to be drawn into a wrongheaded, petty, spiteful abstention which unfairly kicks its longtime friend and ally in the teeth. It is really hard to take you seriously when you keep making comments like this. No, the UN is not run by Arab nations. And you can't simultaneously decry the uselessness of the UN while demanding they pass more resolutions about other atrocities which their resolutions will do just as much to stop (i.e., nothing). The UN is a weak organization with little power to actually effect change, more or less by design. It's one useful function is that it provides a venue for nations to actually talk to each other and conduct multi-party diplomacy. It is a bit ridiculous to say it should stay out of issues where you disagree with UN resolutions and confine itself to issues where you agree. Israel is our ally because they have to be, and because we find them useful. "Friend" is debatable - Israel looks out for Israel. It has nothing to do with us being soulmates and bestest buddies and spiritual blood brothers. Our interest in Israel should be confined to our own national interests - Israel certainly would not sacrifice its own national interests for our benefit. (Fun fact - Israel conducts active espionage against the US and always has.) With all due respect, celaw, your position on Israel seems to largely consist of National Review/David Horowitz talking points. No one here is a closet anti-Semite (that I know of), or rooting for the Palestinians to push Israel back into the sea. So please actually engage with the criticism, don't just keep repeating the same neocon PR we've been hearing for decades.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Dec 30, 2016 13:17:56 GMT -5
I'm a little uncomfortable with outside judgments on what I know or have read on a subject. I may not have read a lot on the legality of the settlements (you still don't know what that means to me - I might have high standards for what "a lot" is - I do have a graduate degree) But I have extremely close friends who are Jewish and with whom I talk about this stuff, and a radio show which I listen to almost every day by a very knowledgeable Yale educated lawyer who is Jewish and speaks often about Israel- Michael Medved), and I listen to npr daily and receive the Los Angeles Times in my home to balance things out. I have kept up for decades on the politics of U.S. -Israel relations and Israel's issues. And really, I can use words like "shameful" and "spiteful". Even if you don't think I have solid knowledge. Others in this very discussion have mentioned Obama's quid pro quo with regards to Bibi. That is spite. I'm not breaking new ground here. I'm actually quite surprised I'm being told by a mod that I can't use certain words (which aren't even profane or derogatory). I don't think she was forbidding you to use those words. I read it as a board member saying "You are using words inappropriately and making claims you are not backing up." You are making a lot out of the quid pro quo angle. I think paying back Netanyahu was probably a factor in the decision to abstain, but it was also sending a message Obama had been meaning to send for a while. Nobody serious thinks Obama decided to do this just because he hates Israel so much or because he wanted to flip the bird to Netanyahu. (Note: I do not consider Michael Medved or David Horowitz serious. They are right-wing Jewish pro-Israeli hawks who would probably cheer if Israel nuked the Palestinians.) Diplomacy is complicated and sometimes when your "ally" screws you over, you send a message back - "Hey, I can fuck you too." It is not noble but it is politics. Abstaining from a UN vote which really, has no power to actually compel action on Israel's part (it's not like they imposed sanctions - it's the equivalent of a lawyer's C&D letter, which you can ignore until you actually get served with a lawsuit) is hardly betraying them. Obama is not cutting our military and economic support to Israel. Basically, we took a step back and said "Maybe you shouldn't take our unilateral support for granted." Whether it was a correct move or not, you (and hysterical hawks like Medved) are grossly distorting the issue to call it some great "shameful" betrayal.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Dec 30, 2016 14:34:20 GMT -5
But both sides seem to have reasonable arguments, at least in terms of some of the settlements. And the U.N. is pretty much run by Arab nations and has been biased against Israel for years. .... The UN should get its biased hands out of this issue and make resolutions about other more pressing human rights issues including massive atrocities occurring while we type on this board. And the US should have never allowed itself to be drawn into a wrongheaded, petty, spiteful abstention which unfairly kicks its longtime friend and ally in the teeth. It is really hard to take you seriously when you keep making comments like this. No, the UN is not run by Arab nations. And you can't simultaneously decry the uselessness of the UN while demanding they pass more resolutions about other atrocities which their resolutions will do just as much to stop (i.e., nothing). The UN is a weak organization with little power to actually effect change, more or less by design. It's one useful function is that it provides a venue for nations to actually talk to each other and conduct multi-party diplomacy. It is a bit ridiculous to say it should stay out of issues where you disagree with UN resolutions and confine itself to issues where you agree. Israel is our ally because they have to be, and because we find them useful. "Friend" is debatable - Israel looks out for Israel. It has nothing to do with us being soulmates and bestest buddies and spiritual blood brothers. Our interest in Israel should be confined to our own national interests - Israel certainly would not sacrifice its own national interests for our benefit. (Fun fact - Israel conducts active espionage against the US and always has.) With all due respect, celaw, your position on Israel seems to largely consist of National Review/David Horowitz talking points. No one here is a closet anti-Semite (that I know of), or rooting for the Palestinians to push Israel back into the sea. So please actually engage with the criticism, don't just keep repeating the same neocon PR we've been hearing for decades. I'm not saying anyone here is an anti-Semite. I haven't read anything Horowitz has said this week on this particular issue. And I CAN decry the uselessness of the UN, for one thing, BECAUSE they spend an inordinate amount of time bashing Israel while remaining silent about much more serious issues. This resolution does have teeth (only against Israel) in that it makes "land for peace" more difficult to Israel in negotiations, and it encourages a world view of Israel that they are outlaws on the land and deserve punishments such as boycotts. Those are real repercussions. Those are teeth. As far as the bias of the UN, that has been clear for years. The influence of the many Arab member countries is significant: www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4573/united-nations-human-rights-councilOne thing I don't understand is that my arguments are being attacked because I haven't read enough, or they are talking points of politically active well-known Jews. Why does that automatically invalidate what I'm saying? Now I'm sure some will tell me that the source of my quotes on the UN above are by "shudder" a conservative think tank. With "horror" John Bolton involved. Again, that does not invalidate what I'm saying. This view can actually be the correct view, and the mainstream view can be the biased and wrong view. That's why we are having a discussion. That's why the MAJORITY of our congress, both Democrat and Republican, were against the US abstaining. There actually is a legitimate view that disagrees with Obama.
|
|
|
Post by Angie on Dec 30, 2016 15:13:34 GMT -5
I'm really sorry, c.e...but I can't bring myself to take anything from the Gatestone Institute seriously. Almost everything they publish is anti-Muslim rhetoric. As an atheist, I have no real love for Islam, either, but it's hard to take one mildly hysterical article seriously when there are so many mildly hysterical articles on their site.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Dec 30, 2016 15:30:22 GMT -5
Ok, how about this one? Here's just a little bit: www.worldaffairsjournal.org/article/un-and-israel-history-discriminationThe UN and Israel: A History of DiscriminationHere is the description of World Affairs on their website: Established in 1837, World Affairs is a quarterly international affairs journal that argues the big ideas behind US foreign policy. Always striving to encourage open and informed debate, we are committed to offering our readers a healthy range of perspective and opinion to help clarify the challenges and choices that America faces in our increasingly complex and dangerous world. Our pages — occasionally unruly, seldom dull, and always edifying — feature conservatives like Robert Kagan and P. J. O’Rourke alongside liberals like George Packer and David Rieff, and others who transcend categories, such as Christopher Hitchens. This variety makes for some of the best conversation available anywhere in print and online.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Dec 30, 2016 17:25:33 GMT -5
I'm also going to admit I'm annoyed that I'm asked to "engage with the criticism" when I've 1) answered specific questions I've been asked 2) supported my assertions with links and quotes 3) participated several times in the ongoing discussion In return I've been told I haven't read enough and am using talking points and am quoting biased think tanks. Those retorts sound suspiciously like fallacies to me rather than engaging and showing evidence of why I'm wrong. I'm very tempted to show my fireworks display right now.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Dec 30, 2016 18:44:15 GMT -5
celawson, I believe you are debating in good faith. I'm very glad to be able to read from "both sides" like this. (I personally have no earthly idea what to even begin to think on the subject, so I shall return to lurking.)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 30, 2016 19:58:25 GMT -5
I've been traveling and busy. I'm still busy, and my weekend is stacked with plans. But since you're going there, I'll note (as a member, not as a mod) that I'm feeling pretty annoyed myself. (1) you ignored me when I took one of your points head on, and just moved the goal posts without acknowledging my answer. I asked whether you thought the settlements were justified. You said The only thing you offered at that point to justify the settlements was that the "Jewish people have a longer history there." So I refuted that statement at some length, and asked what you based it on. You never answered me or addressed my points. You just moved on. Frankly, that doesn't make me feel all that confident any additional time I spend addressing your points on this topic will be time well spent. (2) You dismissed the NPR article I cited by saying it was "quite biased" (based, apparently, on the fact it contained a picture of Israeli soldiers firing tear gas at Palestinians). You did not bother addressing the points it made. So your complaint others have done that with your cites in this thread is not arousing much sympathy in me, I'm afraid. You've also pretty much said that in your opinion all mainstream news sources are biased (as are the UN and the entire international community that condemns the settlements). It seems that from your point of view, if a source doesn't support Israel, it is therefore biased. That being the case, I'm a bit flummoxed as to what sources I could find and cite to support my points or put forth the argument for illegality that you would NOT dismiss as biased. And you dismiss claims that your own cites come from biased sources. So where exactly does that leave us in the whole cite exchange? Nowhere productive, as far as I can see. For the last two days, between meetings, I've been wondering if I should try to get around your objection of bias by using my own legal expertise and knowledge to address all of the points in the articles you cited, drafting up an explanation of why the settlements are in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention, why that convention applies, a bit of the relevant history of this issue over the past decades, digging up primary sources, and so forth. That would probably suck up my weekend. I can tell you it takes a buttload more time to do that than it does to google some links and slap them up. And here's the thing: you've already said above that you don't think the legality of the settlements is the main issue anyway. You think we should support Israel, period. So I'm pretty sure that if I were to waste my weekend laboriously refuting points in articles you pull up (from, IMO, biased sources), the only result would be that you'd move back to "Well, it doesn't matter. Obama should have vetoed anyway because Israel. It was shameful and spiteful." And we'd be right back where we started. I'm thinking, at the moment, that my time would be better spent writing a poem or banging my head against the wall. (3) You complained that I suppressed you as a mod when I was clearly talking as a member, and pretty moderately at that -- observing that your use of "shameful" and "spiteful" and your general imputations on Obama's good faith didn't seem justified by anything you've cited. I admit, that pissed me off on a purely personal basis. How many times do Rob and I have to say that unless we preface something with a mod note, we're talking as members? When did I tell you, now or ever, that you "couldn't" say something? You also claim that I just made "assumptions" about your knowledge on the settlement issue when you said right in the thread you didn't know enough about it to have formed an opinion. (see the quote I cited above.) So what was it I was "assuming"? Anyway. I'm on my way out to dinner. So for now, at least, I'm going to stick with giving you some direct quotes from past administrations, which (despite our country's support of Israel) have consistently spoken out against the Israeli settlements. www.cmep.org/content/us-statements-israeli-settlements_shorte.g., the Johnson administration: the Nixon administration: the Ford administration: There are many more at the link, some in stronger terms than others, but every one of them concluding that, at the very least, settlements should not be increased (which is what has been happening, and which Netanyahu is stepping up) and that they were a barrier to peace. Obama voted (or rather abstained from voting) in accordance with that same belief. You may think he should have vetoed anyway, out of pure loyalty to Israel. But calling his action "shameful" and "spiteful"? Really?
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Dec 30, 2016 20:17:32 GMT -5
I'm also going to admit I'm annoyed that I'm asked to "engage with the criticism" when I've 1) answered specific questions I've been asked 2) supported my assertions with links and quotes 3) participated several times in the ongoing discussion In return I've been told I haven't read enough and am using talking points and am quoting biased think tanks. Those retorts sound suspiciously like fallacies to me rather than engaging and showing evidence of why I'm wrong. I'm very tempted to show my fireworks display right now. The problem is that you use exclusively partisan sources. Now, maybe you think ALL mainstream media is biased, but the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Guardian, even much-maligned CNN and NPR, at least make an effort to present issues fairly. National Review, and commentators like Michael Medved, otoh, have explicit partisan agendas. Do we keep citing Mother Jones and Daily Kos as news sources to back up our opinions? That is the equivalent of what you're doing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2016 12:41:55 GMT -5
OK. I plan to spend most of this day doing things other than argue on the internet. But first things first (and I say all this as a member, not as a mod -- perhaps I need to say that every time I post?) celawson , I know you feel that people did not take on your cites point-by-point to refute them and simply dismissed them as biased. But understand that (1) Y ou did the same thing, as I pointed out in my post. (E.g, you dismissed my cite with a word as "biased," ignored my lengthy response and follow-up question to one of your points, and ignored Ohio's lengthy post detailing Israel's human rights violations and U.S. aid to Israel.) (2) You created a pretty impossible path to responding to your points. I noted this yesterday, but I want to expand on it a little to make clear why I think it was difficult (and probably futile) to respond to your points. Given the complexity of the topic, I tried early on to ask you to give the specific grounds for your opinion that Obama acted "shamefully" and "spitefully" -- or at least to eliminate some ground so I didn't waste my breath (e.g., I asked you whether illegality of the settlements was the important issue, or was it a side issue). Instead of narrowing it, you broadened it. After saying that legality was not the linchpin, you proceeded to drop a mess of links to (partisan) cites arguing the settlements were legal (red herrings, since they weren't the basis for your argument). And then you dropped a bunch of links to argue that all mainstream news sources and the UN had a pro-Arab bias, and therefore nothing they said could be trusted (thus discounting in advance any sources we might cite in response). Indeed, most of the cites you dropped went to one of those two points. Your other cites went to the points that the settlements weren't the sole barrier to peace and that Israel has done some good things -- points none of us were disputing, so, in effect, strawman points. If we were to spend lots of time and effort refuting all of the points in all of the articles you dropped into the thread, where would it get us? I submit nowhere -- because (a) you stated your opinion that Obama behaved spitefully and shamefully in not vetoing was not based on those points, and (b) you'd already stated, and repeatedly, that all mainstream news sources and the UN were too biased to believe any facts they might put forth. So what on earth were we to cite that you'd accept? If any publication that criticizes Israel is, in your view, biased and untrustworthy, then nothing that criticized Israel's settlement policy can be trusted. But by definition, an argument that the settlements are wrong would require sources criticizing Israel's settlement policy. You see our dilemma in trying to respond to you? Another thing -- you make the point above that just because your links are from partisan sources, we shouldn't discount everything they say. I submit you should at least consider taking the same approach to my NPR article and the mainstream news articles you condemn as biased. (Indeed, if your partisan right-wing and pro-Israel sources must be considered, why can't we argue that you should consider partisan left-wing pro-Arab sources like DailyKos, HuffPo, and pro-Muslim sources?) Even assuming you are correct that the mainstream press, the UN and the international community have a pro-Arab bias, does this mean that their facts and conclusions on this issue are incorrect? Yet you dismissed my NPR article without a single comment on the content because, after one glance at a photo, you concluded it was too biased to be trusted. So. Before you go slamming people for not responding to your substantive points, you might consider whether your criticism applies to yourself, and whether there was really any good way for us to respond without playing Whac-a-mole. ****** Anyway. Back to substance. I'm not going to spend my entire weekend on this because in my opinion it will neither be fun nor productive. But I gave some thought last night to what I might say that you might at least consider. You cited The Atlantic on the first page of the thread for the proposition that the mainstream media oversimplifies the Israeli situation and disproportionately focuses on Israel's moral failures. I'll assume from that that you accept that The Atlantic is not too biased for you to at least consider what they have to say. FYI, they've published numerous articles criticizing Netanyahu's settlement policies, noting that they are a barrier to any peaceful solution, discussing Obama's attempts to respond to them (which demonstrates that Obama isn't just suddenly declining to support the settlements out of "spite"), noting Netanyahu's middle-finger approach to Obama, arguing that (contrary to what Netanyahu claims) Israel need not control the West Bank to remain secure, and refuting claims that the UN is virulently anti-Israel. (Does the fact that they published them prove the points themselves? No. But it does goes to show that a source you cited to show media bias on the issue has repeatedly published articles supporting the majority viewpoint criticizing the settlements and Netanyahu. Is it that the Atlantic itself is party to a left-wing conspiracy to unfairly attack Israel out of spite? Or is it possible that the mainstream media, notwithstanding any alleged bias, may be making some valid points?) By the way, it took me about 15 minutes to find these articles. I'd bet there are many more. I'm just going to include a quote or two from each, but you can read them in context at the links. Obama: ‘If Not Now, Bibi, Then When?’ To save Israel as a Jewish state, the West Bank settlement project must be reversed. (November 2015) How Obama Could Stop Those Israeli Settlements (December 2012) Some Israeli Generals Say 1967 Lines with Swaps Are Defensible (November 2011) Israeli Derangement Syndrome (June 2010) Israel's Love-Hate Relationship with the United Nations (February 2012) I could spend all day finding and quoting from sources discussing why the settlements are problematic. Given that it is the prevailing opinion of the international community and indeed has long been the position the U.S. has taken (notwithstanding its support of Israel in general), there are tons of them. I don't, however, think that would be particularly productive -- I think it would end up as an argument about whether whether my sources are biased. And yeah, I've decided I don't want to spend my weekend writing my own piece arguing the illegality of the settlements -- both because it isn't the linchpin of your argument and because it might simply devolve into an argument about my bias and my credentials to put together such a piece. But for those who are interested, I will cite this piece from Jurist.org (wikipedia page discussing the site here), which gives a brief, simple explanation of the basis for why the international community condemns the settlements. (Obviously, there's been a heap of history besides this, but this is a neat summary that goes to the root of it.) You can read the full article at the link; I'll just cite a snippet. There are plenty of other pieces on this subject if you want to google for them. ETA: Note that the Jurist article is from 2010, not 2016 -- and that the last sentence is discussing reports that the U.S. might abstain from voting on any future draft resolution condemning Israeli settlement activity. Obama's abstention is not coming out of a clear blue sky, and I submit it was not done out of "spite." You are welcome to think it "shameful," but when you throw around emotional shaming words, rather than simply disagreeing with a policy, I for one will expect (as a member, not a mod) to see some strong back-up for the proposition an action was committed in bad faith rather than based on any rational principle or policy. I submit that you not only have not made such a showing, but that there is clear evidence that this abstention has been a long time coming, is based on long-standing U.S. policy, and has clear support in international law. You are still welcome to disagree with Obama's decision, of course, but you haven't come close to demonstrating it was either shameful or spiteful.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Dec 31, 2016 15:32:40 GMT -5
I am hosting a New Year's Eve party at my home today, and I have a lot of administrative work to catch up on this week, so there is no way I can respond to all of your points, Cass. I will just say a few things before bowing out of most of this discussion. 1) I'm not sure why I keep getting told I either never answered your questions on the legality of the settlements or it's not the lynchpin of my arguments. I did answer. Multiple times, I said that there are cogent arguments that either ALL the settlements are NOT illegal, or some of them aren't. And I listed 2 detailed sources which lay out those arguments. Here's another: www.the-american-interest.com/2010/03/01/are-the-settlements-illegal/After a detailed description of the legal arguments, the article concludes with this: (bolding mine, because this is what I've been arguing above) So, to restate what I already said upthread- If there are cogent arguments for the legality of the settlements, or the legality of SOME of the settlements, then abstaining was not the correct thing for Obama to do. And if declaring them ALL illegal (rather than inciteful or wrong) when there are these questions makes the peace process more difficult by interfering with the "land for peace" negotiations, then abstaining was not the correct thing for Obama to do.
The quid pro quo thing was also not one of my main points, though it seems to be interpreted that way. Yet people here agree it was probably a factor in this abstention. And if so, that is spiteful. I think I should be able to use that word when the relationship between Bibi and Obama has been contentious and this abstention appears to have spitefulness as part of it. Especially since Obama broke with decades of US policy and his own policy as he and Susan Rice clearly stated in 2011. I will have to look up the link and quote them - no time right now. Also, I never said the settlements weren't problematic! Never. But problematic does not mean illegal (necessarily). And problematic does not mean the MAIN barrier to peace. The main barrier to peace is that the Palestinians don't want Israel to exist. Whether or not there are settlements. Also, you didn't tell me my use of "shameful" and "spiteful" were not justified (as you just did today). You said I shouldn't use them. Is there a way to know when you're being a mod and when you're not? If so, I'm sorry I didn't know and made a mistake. Finally, and this is all I have time for right now, I will post examples of why that NPR article is biased. I will take each section and give a small example: - yes, the picture initial introduction section: 1) Settlements are Growing RapidlyThe above mentions nothing of settlement freezes which Netanyahu has implemented in the past, nor his concessions to settlement advancement which Hillary Clinton in the past called "unprecedented". www.deseretnews.com/article/705341196/Clinton-calls-Israeli-concessions-unprecedented.html?pg=all Nor that birthrate is a factor rather than only aggressive expansion. 2) Settlements Complicate Efforts for a Two State Solution
3) The Distinction Between East Jerusalem and the West Bank. 5) How about the Palestinians? Oh, that's all they've done? No mention of continued terrorism? No mention that they've opposed peace talks during settlement freezes and Israel's forcible removable of settlers from settlements? 6) Has Israel ever Dismantled Settlements? Oh, is that why? The only reason, huh? Here is what Sharon said at the time: I'm sorry I don't have time for anymore right now. Suffice it to say I will gladly bow out of this discussion now, because as the only person on my side of the argument currently, I can't possibly have the time to answer everyone's questions to everyone's satisfaction. (Or, apparently, read everything to everyone's satisfaction.) Thanks for the participation to this point. I will read your links and points in greater detail tomorrow after my party.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Dec 31, 2016 16:03:02 GMT -5
Also, you didn't tell me my use of "shameful" and "spiteful" were not justified (as you just did today). You said I shouldn't use them. Is there a way to know when you're being a mod and when you're not? If so, I'm sorry I didn't know and made a mistake. The mods have said numerous times that they are not speaking as mods unless they explicitly say so. Come on. Arguing about whether or not a particular source is biased is not the point. I think most of us agree that NPR and the National Review are biased. Most major newspapers and networks also have known editorial positions on various issues. The point is that "citation" does not mean "Find some columnist somewhere who agrees with me." It means "Cite facts and then argue your position based on those facts." It is fine to point out an opinion piece and say "I agree with this, and here's why." Or to mention some facts in that opinion piece, and argue for or against some part of what the piece said. But you are not pointing at actual legal references, or international law, or even presenting a cogent argument for why you do or do not think that Israel should stop its settlements or why the US should or should not support/condemn them. Your arguments have been entirely: 1. The Palestinians are worse than the Israelis, so regardless of what the Israelis do, the Palestinians are worse, therefore we should criticize the Palestinians and not the Israelis. 2. Here are some pro-Israel conservative commentators who say that Israel is right and the Palestinians are wrong. By contrast, none of us have pointed at some pro-Palestinian website that claims Israel is terrible and said "This is why Israel is terrible." Do you see the difference? By the way, against Palestinian supporters, I am usually taking the Israeli side, not because I like playing Devil's Advocate, but because I find them to be equally disingenuous, ignoring atrocities by Arabs, overstating the degree to which Israel exercises discrimination (calling it an "Apartheid" state, for example), urging US universities to disinvest from Israel, or pretending that the Palestinians would not, by and large, cheerfully see every Jew on Earth drop dead if they could. These are real issues that a lot of apologists for the Palestinian cause ignore or deny. So I am no Israel-basher or uncritical defender of the poor oppressed Palestinians, for whom I frankly have very little sympathy because they have undermined every reasonable opportunity they've had for peace. But it is akin to the cop threads in which one side says "Don't you understand that being a cop is difficult and dangerous and they always get judged very harshly by people questioning their judgment with 20/20 hindsight and therefore we should always support cops?" and the other side says "Cops are brutal racists with no accountability who gun down innocent black people with impunity." Both sides are full of shit and neither side likes having it pointed out that they are full of shit. Reality is complicated and always somewhere in the middle, where there are no clear-cut good guys and bad guys or a single moral position to take to stand unequivocally on the side of truth and goodness.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Dec 31, 2016 16:58:23 GMT -5
No, my argument has not been "entirely" what you said above. And I've repeated it a few times. My argument is 1) if there are cogent and valid arguments that some or all of the settlements are actually NOT illegal, then abstaining was wrong, And I cited 3 sources of what appeared to be intelligent arguments citing international law that argued they are NOT illegal. And each of those I cited have MANY legal references, footnoted and everything! 2) Even if some or all of them are illegal, this UN resolution does not advance the peace process because it takes land off the negotiation table, making the path to peace agreement more difficult. And it seems decades of US policy as thought it best to allow the 2 parties to work out their own agreement. This was also Obama's policy in 2011. The question is why did he suddenly change now. 3) When the issue is not clearly settled regarding the legality, this resolution still opens Israel to world condemnation (as if they needed any more) and adverse action against them such as boycotts. 4) This resolution did not distinguish between any settlements. So even if some ARE illegal (and I think that is a much stronger argument), this resolution did not address that and so it should have been vetoed by the US. I'm not sure how I can be any clearer. Every point I just made, I've said before in this thread. EDITED TO ADD: You're right about the mod thing. I forgot about that. I will reread the rules. My apologies to Cass for that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2016 17:48:51 GMT -5
My cites answer all the points in your cites about why ALL the settlements are illegal under the words and spirit of the Fourth Geneva Convention, why that convention applies, how Israel knew that from the beginning, and how Obama's abstention is in fact consistent with what the U.S. has been saying about the settlements for fifty years. I'll do just what you've done -- invite you to rebutt all the points and legal citations contained within the links I've posted. 1 There are lots of them! ETA: Just in case, here are a few more: www.mei.edu/sites/default/files/publications/PF24_Kurtzer_Israelisettlements_web_0.pdfimeu.org/article/israel-international-law-settlementswww.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-Ed-Contributors/The-settlements-are-illegal-under-international-law-336507If you think any of them fall short in answering the arguments in your pieces, let me know specifically where and how, and I'll pull up more. 1 Before you say "unfair! I can't possibly rebut everything in those articles!" -- In all seriousness, I do NOT expect you to refute every argument in those pieces. Though if you want to understand why the international community condemns the settlements (ALL of them) as illegal, I recommend them, and I do think, between them, they answer all the points in the articles you cited. But I also wanted to make a point (as a member, not as a mod): as Amadan noted, it is not fair to post a bunch of articles and expect people to rebut every point and cite within them in lieu of making an argument yourself. Especially when you don't quite fully embrace the articles by saying " I fully agree with every point in this, and they constitute my argument" but just "well, here, these arguments sound reasonable to me!" demanding people answer them but leaving yourself wide-open space to disavow them or any part of them. To be clear: am I modsmacking you? No. Am I saying "you are forbidden from using this tactic!" No. But I am saying, as a fellow member, that if you use this particular tactic, it's fair for others to call you on it. And I am showing you why it is pretty damn difficult for someone to respond.
|
|