You can't punish the whole for the actions of a few. It's ethnic cleansing. It's against the Geneva conventions. There is a reason the whole world lines up against Israel.

The ironic twist however, by building these settlements they are cementing the one state solution. One man one vote. Equal treatment for all. We've seen this movie before and the oppressor in the end always loses.

(12-25-2016 11:25 PM)banker Wrote:  It just boggles my mind that any progressive can support anything Muslim based. Muslims have not progressed in centuries. It's akin to Edison loving the Amish lifestyle.

"Yes, I have spent my life pursuing greater respect and equality for all people, regardless of race, gender, color or sexual preference. I believe the world will be a horrible, unfair place until full equality is reached."

"Well, how do you feel about Muslims? You know they are anti-gay, make women subservient, cut off people's heads, will stone a woman if she is raped, that kind of stuff."

"XENOPHOBE!!!"

Seriously, are we being trolled by progressives on this?

Quite honestly the holes in logic there are no different than the holes in logic in the majority of the leftist agenda. Logic and reason aren't huge concerns of theirs.

(12-24-2016 09:23 PM)No Bull Wrote:  Why does Obama hate Israeli. Why are progressives pro Palestine... and anti Israel? I don't understand. Serious question.

Because he's a Muslim.

(12-25-2016 11:25 PM)banker Wrote:  It just boggles my mind that any progressive can support anything Muslim based. Muslims have not progressed in centuries. It's akin to Edison loving the Amish lifestyle.

"Yes, I have spent my life pursuing greater respect and equality for all people, regardless of race, gender, color or sexual preference. I believe the world will be a horrible, unfair place until full equality is reached."

"Well, how do you feel about Muslims? You know they are anti-gay, make women subservient, cut off people's heads, will stone a woman if she is raped, that kind of stuff."

"XENOPHOBE!!!"

Seriously, are we being trolled by progressives on this?

I think it's because they are trying to find the most anti Christian thing they can, to support something that is opposite of what Christians are about.

(12-26-2016 09:06 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  You can't punish the whole for the actions of a few. It's ethnic cleansing. It's against the Geneva conventions. There is a reason the whole world lines up against Israel.
The ironic twist however, by building these settlements they are cementing the one state solution. One man one vote. Equal treatment for all. We've seen this movie before and the oppressor in the end always loses.

Which provision of which of the Geneva conventions does it violate?

What is the appropriate response to people who have pledged to eradicate you and who are conducting repeated terrorist attacks against you in furtherance of that goal?

Start on Article 4

My link also spells them out. Just start there.

(12-26-2016 10:37 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Start on Article 4

The Geneva conventions apply in times of armed conflict. So you are saying that Israel and the Palestinians are at war?

(12-26-2016 10:37 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Start on Article 4

The Geneva conventions apply in times of armed conflict. So you are saying that Israel and the Palestinians are at war?

They are an occupying force.

Are you saying they are not an occupying force?

(12-24-2016 10:14 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Disagreeing with Israel is not anti-Semitic.

(12-24-2016 11:59 PM)Love and Honor Wrote:  

(12-24-2016 10:14 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Disagreeing with Israel is not anti-Semitic.

I'm Jewish and I agree with this. It can be depending on the nature of the criticism, but it's not necessarily so. I just think Obama and Netanyahu's personalities naturally clash, and the former has pretty set opinions on Israel that don't favor close relations with the US. Plus the fact that Trump has been so vocal in their support may have played a role in Obama wanting to jab a fork in his side.

I disagree with you (my father's family is Jewish as background), with some qualifications. Some play semantics with the term "antisemitism", demurring that Arabs are Semitic, so Arabs can't be antisemitic, which is clearly an excuse for their own barbaric attitudes ... let's set that argument aside for now and consider antisemitism to be anti-Jew. Second, one can be at the same time antisemitic and anti-zionist. Or, one can be anti-zionist in principle while not being the least bit antisemitic ... I think Tom falls in this category, and (at least to me) Mach is mostly in this category but has clearly wavered among both at times, or at least made clear antisemitic statements.

For the purposes of discussion, though, I think it is beneficial to view antisemitism and anti-zionism as "orthogonal"... to be two separate attitudes that may coincide in the same person or conversation or may be isolated.

I don't think Obama is antisemitic... but, I think he has bought into a line of thinking that believes everything wrong in the middle east starts with Israel, and if Israel gives into every demand of the Palestinians, the Palestinians will happily fall in line and agree to the two state solution, and it will be sunshine and unicorns in the Arab world, just like it's been for millennia prior to 1948. Obama held the position that an Israeli settlement freeze was a precondition to talks even when that position was not held by the Palestinians. That caused a war in 2008 and Obama stuck with the belief. Obama and Kerry tried to push through talks with that precondition in 2013-2014 and that stimulated another war in 2014. They apparently want to cause yet another war to bookend 8 years of utter foreign policy incompetence that will characterize the Obama presidency for all time (and Israeli-Palestinian relations are a distant fourth at best in worst disasters of his administration, behind Syria, Russia, and Iran, with Yemen and Libya ranking up there, plus the Philippines and North Korea).

The difference between Obama/Kerry and some of the others mentioned that don't like Netanyahu is that it is only Obama and Kerry that have caused war because of a personal vitriol between a foreign head of state, and it is only Obama and Kerry that have done permanent harm to the prospects of a peace agreement because of that vitriol.

(12-26-2016 10:43 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Are you saying they are not an occupying force?

Occupying force =/= armed conflict.

And no, I don't consider them to be an occupying force. They are defending themselves from terrorism.

Universal decloration of human rights. Signed by the US. Why not Israel? The oppressed have become the oppressor. After I read about Israel Blowing up an entire apartment building to kill one military target. That's when I started to harden my opinion on them. Those types of acts are crimes against humanity.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universa...man_Rights

(12-26-2016 11:44 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Universal decloration of human rights. Signed by the US. Why not Israel? The oppressed have become the oppressor. After I read about Israel Blowing up an entire apartment building to kill one military target. That's when I started to harden my opinion on them. Those types of acts are crimes against humanity.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universa...man_Rights

U.S.S. Liberty

Nuff said.

(12-26-2016 10:41 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-26-2016 10:37 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Start on Article 4

The Geneva conventions apply in times of armed conflict. So you are saying that Israel and the Palestinians are at war?

Isn't there also a prerequisite for application that both sides in the conflict have to be parties to the Convention?

You either believe in Universal Human Rights or you don't. You are either against collective punishment or you're not. You either are against targeting civilians or you are not. Not hard.

(12-26-2016 11:55 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-26-2016 10:41 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-26-2016 10:37 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Start on Article 4

The Geneva conventions apply in times of armed conflict. So you are saying that Israel and the Palestinians are at war?

Isn't there also a prerequisite for application that both sides in the conflict have to be parties to the Convention?

Essentially correct, but technically you start out bound if you are a party, but are excused if the other party fails to follow. And that's failing to follow in the instant conflict, not whether they are a signatory, although non-signatories presumably would not comply.

(12-26-2016 12:50 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  You either believe in Universal Human Rights or you don't. You are either against collective punishment or you're not. You either are against targeting civilians or you are not. Not hard.

Responding to attacks against you when the other side uses human shields =/= targeting civilians.

(12-26-2016 11:44 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Universal decloration of human rights. Signed by the US. Why not Israel? The oppressed have become the oppressor. After I read about Israel Blowing up an entire apartment building to kill one military target. That's when I started to harden my opinion on them. Those types of acts are crimes against humanity.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universa...man_Rights

If that's the only way to destroy a target with significant military value, then no, it's not a crime against humanity to destroy it. The crime against humanity is the use of human shields. The only way to prevent that is not to let it stop you. When they learn that human shields don't work, they will stop using them. If you actually care about human rights, that is the result you want to see.