quote:

PD, I'm afraid you are right. The "don't confuse me with the facts" contigent seems to get larger every day.

For Daniel to call the videos "IDF propaganda" is truly disgusting. No one but the totally ignorant, the ideologically blind, and the morally obtuse, thinks that the hundreds of hours of videos, much of which was taken by Hamas terrorists themselves, is somehow fake, or IDF propaganda.

I'm astonished at how people continue to try to "reason" with him. Over the years, I haven't seen Daniel create a four sentence logical argument that paid any serious attention to alternative evidence or points of view. He asserts things, often based on the strangest and most extreme websites. He never thinks proleptically about any argument or evidence "the other side" has to offer.

quote:

Originally posted by Daniel:
It was IDF propaganda.

Hamas released some of it themselves, from body camera footage. I don’t think Hamas is an arm of the IDF.

https://youtube.com/shorts/g5Y...?si=Oql4lSYCOeGenz_f

Prove he is incorrect.

You can't.

quote:

Originally posted by Daniel:
https://youtube.com/shorts/g5Y...?si=Oql4lSYCOeGenz_f

Prove he is incorrect.

You can't.

We are talking about videos of murder and rape and torture, and you’re posting videos of speeches.

I need to take pique’s suggestion.

The false narratives and misconceptions about Israel have blown up the internet over the past month. What I always ask myself is--why do people *want* to believe these things? They want to believe lies so much, they are immune to any kind of factual intervention.

Human psychology at its most baffling.

The most common misconceptions I see:

Zionists are a colonial power. False. Jews are indigenous to Palestine and have lived there continuously for centuries. They have just as much right to be there as Arabs.

Zionists stole this land from the Palestinians. False. a) There were no people called Palestinians prior to 1966 (I believe that's the year, correct me if I'm off by a year or so). b) the Arabs who lived there never had a country of their own there. It was occupied land for centuries--and a British mandate until 1947, and part of Turkey (Ottoman Empire) before that.

Hamas' pogrom is "understandable" as they are fighting for the "liberation" of Gaza. False. a) They aren't interested in Palestinian liberation--they are only interested in destroying Israel b) There was no occupation of Gaza--it was given to the Palestinians in 2005 without conditions.

A cease fire is necessary on humanitarian grounds. I don't believe a cease-fire makes any sense until Hamas' hands are so tied that they can no longer attack Israel. Because they have already demonstrated that they will not honor a cease fire--there was a ceasefire in effect on Oct 7th--which they violated.

and the most aggravating:
If only Israel would grant the Palestinians their own state, there would be peace. Total balderdash. Israel has agreed to a two-state solution over and over again, going all the way back to 1947, when the U.N. mandated two states in Palestine--one Arab, one Jewish. The Arabs have chosen every time to make war on Israel instead of accepting a two-state solution. One can only conclude that they don't want a country of their own unless Israel no longer exists.

Sorry, but Israel is an occupying power.

"Israel has occupied the Palestinian territories and the Golan Heights since the Six-Day War of 1967. It used to occupy the Sinai Peninsula and southern Lebanon as well. Prior to Israel's victory in the Six-Day War, occupation of the Palestinian territories was split between Egypt and Jordan, with the former having occupied the Gaza Strip and the latter having annexed the West Bank; the Sinai Peninsula and the Golan Heights were under the sovereignty of Egypt and Syria, respectively. The first conjoined usage of the terms "occupied" and "territories" with regard to Israel was in United Nations Security Council Resolution 242, which was drafted in the aftermath of the Six-Day War and called for: "the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East" to be achieved by "the application of both the following principles: ... Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict ... Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force."

I got this from an obscure source called, "Wikipedia."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...occupied_territories

Those of you who make personal attacks because someone does not share your opinion would probably be more comfortable living in a totalitarian society.

Yes, put up a Wikipedia quote to cover all the other totally offensive stuff you say.

BTW, have you noticed the specifics of the quote? I doubt it ...

" ... withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict ..."

It does not say "all territory," it says "territories," which Israel has interpreted as meaning that how much withdrawal they ultimately undertake is a subject of negotiation. It's also conditioned by the clause that references "secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." Israel has always claimed that the 1967 lines are inherently insecure. October 7 has certainly reinforced that notion.

But this line of argument is too subtle for you to follow, seemingly. You just put up links and videos and leave it at that. I don't think I have ever seen you write a complete logical argument about any complex subject. You consider a series of naked assertions as sufficient, maybe buttressed by some link. But you yourself seem incapable of expressing a complex logical point supported by evidence. And being proleptic seems quite beyond your wit.

PD you're wasting your breath.

quote:

Originally posted by Piano*Dad:
Yes, put up a Wikipedia quote to cover all the other totally offensive stuff you say.

BTW, have you noticed the specifics of the quote? I doubt it ...

" ... withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict ..."

It does not say "all territory," it says "territories," which Israel has interpreted as meaning that how much withdrawal they ultimately undertake is a subject of negotiation. It's also conditioned by the clause that references "secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." Israel has always claimed that the 1967 lines are inherently insecure. October 7 has certainly reinforced that notion.

But this line of argument is too subtle for you to follow, seemingly. You just put up links and videos and leave it at that. I don't think I have ever seen you write a complete logical argument about any complex subject. You consider a series of naked assertions as sufficient, maybe buttressed by some link. But you yourself seem incapable of expressing a complex logical point supported by evidence. And being proleptic seems quite beyond your wit.

Translation: Yes, you made your point. I can not argue with you.

Thank you, PD.

Btw, no thank you for your slanderous post.

I do not need a lecture from a W&M economics professor.

You might benefit from one! ...

The problem is that you never argue. You don't seen to understand the principles of productive argument. You emote. You assert. You never argue. That requires step by step logic, evidence, and a willingness to wrestle honestly with ideas and evidence that challenges your viewpoint. Instead, you just say "it's my opinion" as though that's a get out of jail free card.

Case in point, your refusal (incapacity) to wrestle with the fact that resolution 242 is clear as mud, and that reasonable people have different interpretations of what it means.

quote:

Originally posted by piqué:
PD you're wasting your breath.

I think I said that to you!

Debate club in high school would have been useful.

Or being born into a Jewish family

You had a closed mind when you started this thread. You have a closed mind now. There is nothing I can do about it. There is nothing anyone could do about it.

Oh, well.

quote:

You had a closed mind when you started this thread.

Assertion. No argument.

quote:

You have a closed mind now.

Another assertion. No argument offered.

quote:

There is nothing I can do about it. There is nothing anyone could do about it.

Well, if you had the intellectual capacity to engage people with clear logic and evidence, maybe you could shift the conversation a tiny bit. But that's not a skill you seem to have acquired at that college in Florida that Rhonda seems intent on changing ...

Whatever.