al-Haram al-Sherif crisis escalates.

[nino_savatte]

Quoting a source that leans in favor of your position is legitimate but one that leans against it is not? This is a rule of debate I've never heard of.


So Syria isn't an enemy state of Israel? I wasn't aware they had recognized Israel and signed a peace treaty.


I can't see the relevance of the audience an article is intended for.

Nope, just questioning your curious, but somewhat vague neutralist stance.

It's called rhetoric, have you ever questioned it?

I think the audience this organ speaks to is very relevant. How is it not?

 

[mears]

So, the fascist Leiberman calls and his cybersoldiers root for sovereignty over Jerusalem.

All Israeli law over Jerusalem was recently reaffirmed null and void by the UN. Jerusalem is occupied territory.

So if I start a thread concerning the right of Israel to exist than you will answer my question?

 

[TomUS]

Nope, just questioning your curious, but somewhat vague neutralist stance.

It's called rhetoric, have you ever questioned it?

I think the audience this organ speaks to is very relevant. How is it not?

I suppose my stance seems vague & neutralist to those who like simple goog guy/bad guy views. I see nothing vague about believing that Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish state and that they should also withdraw from the WB so the Palestinians can have a country too-And that many Muslims/Palestinians often fly into an irrational frenzy at the least little thing, like Danish cartoons or the building of a bridge to the mount that will obviously cause no harm to the religious stuff there.

How does it make sense to question the relevance of an article because of the audience it's intended for? What counts is the accuracy of the article, which you haven't questioned.

 

[moono]

TomUS;

Whether we like it or not, most of the borders in the world were established by warfare.

True enough, but that was before modern binding iternational agreements and treaties. You'll have seen the relevant references in the link which you 'found interesting'.

In international relations, strength and power are what counts, not rulings. It was ever thus.

Giles..

And that's the way it is , Giles. Borders can only be altered by agreement between the concerned parties. Make more sense ?

 

[Giles]

TomUS;


True enough, but that was before modern binding iternational agreements and treaties. You'll have seen the relevant references in the link which you 'found interesting'.



And that's the way it is , Giles. Borders can only be altered by agreement between the concerned parties. Make more sense ?

So, how come Israel has held on to Jerusalem etc? What happens when all the countries surrounding Israel attack it, but lose? They obviously don't and won't agree, so it comes down to who has the ability to control what, and that's all.

Giles..

 

[moono]

Israel is still in Jerusalem because the Americans, despite reluctantly agreeing that it is an illegal occupation, veto any action to have them withdraw.
So what ? America is the badass of the ME. Right.

You'll see that Olmert is refusing to discuss Jerusalem at the coming Olmert/Rice/Abbas 'talks'. Will Rice object ?

Your notion that Israel is under threat from its neighbours is backasswards. The neighbours are, and have always been, under threat from a synthetic State with ambitions of expansion.

Anyway, the actual legality of borders is not the issue, Jerusalem included. They are covered by international law. The issue is having the Zionists respect the law. That's not easy when America doesn't.

 

[nino_savatte]

I suppose my stance seems vague & neutralist to those who like simple goog guy/bad guy views. I see nothing vague about believing that Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish state and that they should also withdraw from the WB so the Palestinians can have a country too-And that many Muslims/Palestinians often fly into an irrational frenzy at the least little thing, like Danish cartoons or the building of a bridge to the mount that will obviously cause no harm to the religious stuff there.

How does it make sense to question the relevance of an article because of the audience it's intended for? What counts is the accuracy of the article, which you haven't questioned.

No, I just don't like it when people remove things from their historical contexts and present them in a pure and sanitised way (that's postmodernism for you).

You cling to the antedeluvian ideas of states and nationality. I am an internationalist, so the whole "Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish state" is a nonsense to me. Now you could accuse me of anti-Semitism on the basis of that statement alone but you would be wrong. I don't approve of states, whatever form they take. But while you claim to be neutral, you support Israel. I hate to tell you this, Tom, but that is not a neutral position.

You continue to ignore the fact that Ynet news speaks for and to Zionists

 

[nino_savatte]

So if I start a thread concerning the right of Israel to exist than you will answer my question?

You can start a thread on whatever topic you like, numbnuts. I'm sure it will follow the exact same pattern as the rest of your threads.

 

[moono]

Jerusalem bridge plan dropped for good; city hall informed

By Nadav Shragai, Haaretz Correspondent


The Jewish Quarter Development Company, which owns the land on which the Western Wall Plaza stands, decided Tuesday to completely abandon the contentious construction work at the Mugrabi Ascent in the Old City, near the Temple Mount.

The company, which comes under the auspices of the Housing and Construction Ministry, informed Jerusalem municipality of its decision Tuesday afternoon.

The director-general of the company, Nissim Arazi, told Haaretz Online that he had decided to give up on the initial proposal and investigate alternate solutions.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/825463.html

A victory for common sense or a refusal to discuss with other interested parties ?

 

[moono]

The Jewish Quarter Development Company, which owns the land on which the Western Wall Plaza stands, on Tuesday rescinded a decision made earlier in the day to completely abandon the contentious construction work at the Mugrabi Ascent in the Old City, near the Temple Mount.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/825463.html

Ah well.

 

[TomUS]

You cling to the antedeluvian ideas of states and nationality. I am an internationalist, so the whole "Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish state" is a nonsense to me.

Yes, I cling to the real world facts of states & nationality, as do Israel, the Palestinians & the rest of the world. Naive idealism is nice, but eventually we need to grow up & face reality if real world problems are to be solved.

Now you could accuse me of anti-Semitism

I wouldn't say that. You seem a decent chap.

 

[TomUS]

Israel is still in Jerusalem because the Americans, despite reluctantly agreeing that it is an illegal occupation, veto any action to have them withdraw.

Israel took Jerusalem with little help from the US & I think would hang on to it no matter what the US said.

 

[moono]

Nobody is going to change international law regarding Jerusalem, and regional peace, upon which the world is starting to insist, is dependent upon States complying with international law.
I don't fancy the Israeli chances much.

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html
The Israel Lobby

 

[nino_savatte]

Yes, I cling to the real world facts of states & nationality, as do Israel, the Palestinians & the rest of the world. Naive idealism is nice, but eventually we need to grow up & face reality if real world problems are to be solved.


I wouldn't say that. You seem a decent chap.

Ah, what you refer to as "the real world" is nothing of the sort. It is, as Debord would put it, a never-ending spectacle. States are part of the problem, not the solution. There is nothing "idealistic" about that statement.

As I have said before, I am an internationalist and therefore, I do not support or condone states. There is nothing idealistic about that. On the contrary, I am a realist and I realise that the auld way is no longer the right way.