tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13539920.post3898558336773581099..comments2024-03-27T07:01:13.725+02:00Comments on The Muqata: The Soul of America is on the LineJameel @ The Muqatahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15890095633246557332noreply@blogger.comBlogger83125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13539920.post-90787140360877576682010-11-20T23:04:15.024+02:002010-11-20T23:04:15.024+02:00Wow, you're all so bright. The NIF for instanc...Wow, you're all so bright. The NIF for instance, and VP have their own narratives, interpretations and initial premises for their arguments (in which Israel somehow almost always starts and ends up guilty and in the wrong), and everyone else arguing their point here have their own understandings too (which don't start off with Israel being guilty for everything) and that's why we won't ever agree. But gee, I just don't get what your hinting at. It's right over my head. Duh. What an idiot.<br /><br /><br /><br />You're so boring, it's pathetic.JoeSettlerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01232647820807408898noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13539920.post-78147279980205202542010-11-20T22:33:27.086+02:002010-11-20T22:33:27.086+02:00Larry- indeed. And he doesn't even get it.Larry- indeed. And he doesn't even get it.Pnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13539920.post-74591274352371494112010-11-19T17:59:07.310+02:002010-11-19T17:59:07.310+02:00"Wow! Narrowly define a term with parameters ..."Wow! Narrowly define a term with parameters that most wouldn't agree with. Consistently argue based only on your selective, narrow definition. Dismiss any definition that doesn't fit within your personal definition."<br /><br />Ah, the irony.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13539920.post-7110183319829641082010-11-19T08:06:16.882+02:002010-11-19T08:06:16.882+02:00Wow! Narrowly define a term with parameters that m...Wow! Narrowly define a term with parameters that most wouldn't agree with. Consistently argue based only on your selective, narrow definition. Dismiss any definition that doesn't fit within your personal definition. <br /><br />As I said, you're entitled to your point of view.JoeSettlerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01232647820807408898noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13539920.post-20040952023069997972010-11-19T03:13:17.019+02:002010-11-19T03:13:17.019+02:00Wow.
That was wonderful to read.
Vox offered a co...Wow.<br />That was wonderful to read. <br />Vox offered a consistent, logically persuasive argument over and over, and J. Settler scoffed, insulted, threatened and obfuscated.<br />And this is on J Settler's site.<br />I haven't read here in a long time, as the Muqata seems very one sided nowadays, but I must say, this was very enjoyable.<br />Thank you, VP, for arguing so cogently and sticking to your guns when the insults were flying and the nonesense was being proposed as fact.<br />That was very enjoyable and more than a bit refreshing.<br />Larry<br />(Oh, and please don't personally insult me now. I actually used my own name, and personal denigration at this juncture would merely prove my point.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13539920.post-75525721729254220142010-11-17T19:37:44.456+02:002010-11-17T19:37:44.456+02:00I'm no fan of obama's obvious bias against...I'm no fan of obama's obvious bias against Israel, but I question the author's contention that if Israel refuses the 90 day freeze extension that the obama administration will "refuse to veto" any anti-Israel resolutions in the UN Security Council as payback. The way I read the agreement was that if Israel extended the freeze that the US promised to veto anything anti-Israel for one year. Where does it state the threat NOT to veto as punishment? Maybe the author's understanding is of an IMPLIED threat. Still, they are not the same.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13539920.post-48244587567667630982010-11-16T09:21:18.982+02:002010-11-16T09:21:18.982+02:00"
If you feel that Israel has no automatic ri..."<br /><i>If you feel that Israel has no automatic right to exist or to self-defense, and if you feel the US doesn't have a moral obligation to also defend those basic rights when a fellow democracy is attacked by third world dictatorships, then there really isn't much to talk about, is there?</i><br /><br /><b>And, I never said that, Mr. Settler. It would appear that as opposed to denying Israel the right to exist, Obama is pointing out to our leadership (sic) that we can no longer rely on the US Carte Blanche, especially when carry out acts that appear to contravene international law. That times have changed and US blind support of Israel is no longer what it was. (What do you expect, knowing Obama's background?) As some of your US commenters point out, this appears to be the popular view in the US, outside of Mr. Beck and the other Foxes.</b><br />"<br /><br /><br />Dear Mrs. Parrot,<br /><br />I never said you said that, because I don’t believe you could possibly believe Israel doesn’t have the right to exist or defend itself (note the “If” at the beginning of the sentence). <br /><br />I am absolutely positive, for instance, that you personally recognize that we fought the wars in Gaza and Lebanon and even the Flotilla terrorists with levels of absurdly high morality, even to the detrimental safety of our own soldiers (such as making over 250,000 phone calls to Arabs in Gaza to warn them to get to safety before the fighting in their neighborhood begins, or landing on a ship armed with paintball guns).<br /><br />On the other hand, Obama (as you yourself pointed out) apparently does question Israel’s right to exist and defend itself.<br /><br /><br />Obama is threatening to no longer veto the resolutions and other attacks (such as threats of sanctions) that regularly assail Israel in the UN. <br /><br />Attacks on Israel from our enemies that have no connection to our actions, but rather our very existence.<br /><br />Is this veto something the US gives Israel as blind carte blanche support for some quid pro quo reason? Or is this veto something the US has morally undertaken, recognizing the immoral and dishonest source and basis for these UN attacks, and the the morality of defending Israel, a fellow democracy, against them? <br /><br />Until now, it was latter. America took the morally right stance.<br /><br />But now Obama has removed the moral component from the equation, and now openly threatens that <b>America will only do what is morally right if Israel gives into his demands</b>.<br /><br />Can you imagine that? America will only take the morally right action if a fellow democracy gives in to his own personal extortion?<br /><br />That is why America’s soul is on the line.<br /><br /><br />(By the way, the Obama administration is now <a href="http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=195487" rel="nofollow">denying it promised Israel 20 additional F-35 fighter planes</a>.)JoeSettlerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01232647820807408898noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13539920.post-50348209184932878762010-11-16T07:47:38.988+02:002010-11-16T07:47:38.988+02:00If you feel that Israel has no automatic right to ...<i>If you feel that Israel has no automatic right to exist or to self-defense, and if you feel the US doesn't have a moral obligation to also defend those basic rights when a fellow democracy is attacked by third world dictatorships, then there really isn't much to talk about, is there?</i><br /><br />And, I never said that, Mr. Settler. It would appear that as opposed to denying Israel the right to exist, Obama is pointing out to our leadership (sic) that we can no longer rely on the US Carte Blanche, especially when carry out acts that appear to contravene international law. That times have changed and US blind support of Israel is no longer what it was. (What do you expect, knowing Obama's background?) As some of your US commenters point out, this appears to be the popular view in the US, outside of Mr. Beck and the other Foxes.PPnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13539920.post-15200005761580940922010-11-16T07:41:48.868+02:002010-11-16T07:41:48.868+02:00"Jameel actually thought his Leftist readers ...<i>"Jameel actually thought his Leftist readers would at least be able to consider ideas outside of their ideological box, and not just offer Pavlovian responses"</i><br /><br />Er- "Screw you, Joe Settler?" How's that for a non-<i>Pavlovian</i> answer? So DELIGHTED to have been such a source of nutrition for you over the years. It seems especially ironic, being as you're the only one of the Muqata Triumvirate who invariably resorts to petty insults and borrowed rhetoric when you are presented with a coherent argument which negates your POV. <br /><br />Enjoy your BBQs y'all. Betayavon LeKulam.PPnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13539920.post-69873707703798331472010-11-15T22:48:32.342+02:002010-11-15T22:48:32.342+02:00"Not unusual among serious, committed Jews&qu..."Not unusual among serious, committed Jews"? Please. Your pavlovian response to the Tea Party along with your paranoid references to the Rapture unmask you as nothing more than another in the long line of leftist American Jews who are convinced they know more about what is best for Israel than the folks who actually live there. <br /><br />You do not represent the majority of committed religious Jews in America and thank G-d for that.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13539920.post-41092777246566788942010-11-15T22:33:03.160+02:002010-11-15T22:33:03.160+02:00Well, you're still waiting for a "Lefty&q...Well, you're still waiting for a "Lefty" to ask a question, then. <br /><br />Look, you're presenting answers that can be summed up as "having your cake and eating it, too". Contrary to your assertion, yes, I read the I.I. website. Among the flaws with the argument are the valid retort that if you're going to resort to the original Jewish State- Arab State model, shouldn't you be prepared to go back to the lines drawn under the Mandate? You can't just choose the rules you like and expect everyone else to play along. And I write that with love, honest to G-d. <br /><br />And what about Jordan? In order for this plan to work, they'd need to cooperate fully. Ha! The Hashemites don't appear to be at all willing to adopt an Arab refugee population- they've been stripping citizenship from the Palestinians that are already there! There are several other problems here, but the plan, on the whole, is pretty bogus.<br /><br />Similarly, the one-state solution is interesting, because on the surface it seems like such a nice thing. But if you look at the details- Gaza isn't even part of the plan, Israel definitively and instantaneously gets the West Bank with no restrictions on building (SWEET!), Israel remains a Jewish state and Palestinians have to wait a generation- or indefinitely- to earn full citizenship. Don't know who those Arabs were that stayed to hear more at that conference, maybe they were actually asleep? <br /><br />As far as your bet, maybe Jameel is messing with you- perhaps your burgers are as under-cooked as your arguments and he doesn't have the heart to tell you. Or he likes taking a break from writing. In either case, maybe you guys need to talk it out.<br /><br />I think we've pretty much beaten this issue to death. I hear what you're saying, and I hope you've been paying attention to the perspectives I've offered, because they're not unusual among serious, committed Jews on this side of the pond. Peace out.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13539920.post-43032626136020718322010-11-15T20:24:06.061+02:002010-11-15T20:24:06.061+02:00I've got a standing bet with Jameel.
Every t...I've got a standing bet with Jameel. <br /><br />Every time a Lefty asks that question, I post some serious answer that has been proposed by the Right.<br /><br />If they immediately dismiss, denigrate or attack it (and otherwise show they didn't really read it), then I get to post for another 2 months.<br /><br />If they consider the concepts and ask an intelligent question about how to implement it, then Jameel gets a BBQ at my house.<br /><br />I haven't lost yet.<br /><br />Jameel actually thought his Leftist readers would at least be able to consider ideas outside of their ideological box, and not just offer Pavlovian responses.<br /><br /><br />A great example of this is when Uri Elitzur (former Chief of Staff for Bibi Netanyahi) presented variations on a 1-state solution called "Shared Sovereignty" at a conference a short while back. <br /><br />Yossi Sarid walked off the stage right in the middle, and Yossi Beilin outright rejected the idea on Israel radio, refusing to even consider it because of the source. <br /><br />Meanwhile, the Arabs wanted to hear what Uri had to say.JoeSettlerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01232647820807408898noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13539920.post-81428761055850939052010-11-15T20:05:27.442+02:002010-11-15T20:05:27.442+02:00It's not that it isn't "my" solu...It's not that it isn't "my" solution, it's not "a" solution. If it needs to be said *again*, I am not J-Street, I have an appreciation of what's really going on (and I agree that what Jameel stated is indeed a major issue), I'm standard modern O, I support Israel & I've spent time there. But that doesn't change the fact that there's a major impasse and I can't get the idea out of my head that you guys are so wrapped up in your scrappy frontier existence, with your proud tradition of being armed to the teeth, can't ever seeing yourselves letting that go and really aren't wired to live in a peaceful country, no matter how it's achieved.<br /><br />I challenged Joe to describe a real-world pathway to peace in the Middle East, and he gave me a link to a fairy tale based on bastardized history. If it had been a real possibility, it would probably be on the table, or at least mentioned once in a while outside of its own website. It's not, and it's not, so get over it. Next idea?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13539920.post-43021927611453528402010-11-15T19:47:00.949+02:002010-11-15T19:47:00.949+02:00Hey Joe, Why do you bother even posting a link to ...Hey Joe, Why do you bother even posting a link to the question of your solution? If it isn't their solution, their response is ALWAYS the same no matter what answer you give.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13539920.post-51055334268272215212010-11-15T19:34:55.051+02:002010-11-15T19:34:55.051+02:00Who knows, Goldstone. The Israelis aren't exa...Who knows, Goldstone. The Israelis aren't exactly turning them down. That should tell you something.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13539920.post-47314345383075624512010-11-15T19:32:07.850+02:002010-11-15T19:32:07.850+02:00Nice idea, Joe- unless you consider that the Jorda...Nice idea, Joe- unless you consider that the Jordanians don't want them and, even if you believe that Israel Initiative propaganda, half of Palestinians don't want to move. If you can overcome those obstacles, you might be onto something. In the same fantasy vein, has anyone considered shlepping them all out to the Sinai where they can open casinos and get rich?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13539920.post-87139364091065697942010-11-15T19:03:30.718+02:002010-11-15T19:03:30.718+02:00Useless F-35s for peace is a wonderful idea. I pla...Useless F-35s for peace is a wonderful idea. I plan to prosecute Israel if they ever try to use one, and the US will never allow Israel to use them against Iran anyway.J. Goldstonenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13539920.post-54076147762229979382010-11-15T18:56:58.158+02:002010-11-15T18:56:58.158+02:00The Israel Initiative<a href="http://www.israelinitiative.com/Index.aspx" rel="nofollow">The Israel Initiative</a>JoeSettlerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01232647820807408898noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13539920.post-33641877809196672082010-11-15T18:33:56.684+02:002010-11-15T18:33:56.684+02:00But that is not the same thing as Joe Settler'...But that is not the same thing as Joe Settler's claim, the premise of his "soul of America" bs.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13539920.post-23721562048029153742010-11-15T17:18:00.874+02:002010-11-15T17:18:00.874+02:00You hate that his administration has *also* given ...<i>You hate that his administration has *also* given legitimacy to the Palestinians</i><br /><br />And why not? They terrorize Israel, incite against Israel on a daily basis through official PA TV, media and schooling, taught to hate Israel, threaten the "terrorism" card at every opportunity, and deny Israel's right to exist as a Jewish State.Jameel @ The Muqatahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15890095633246557332noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13539920.post-67502512130494679502010-11-15T17:13:14.083+02:002010-11-15T17:13:14.083+02:00"This is about Obama stating that the US no l..."This is about Obama stating that the US no longer automatically accepts Israel's right to exist or Israel's right to defend herself."<br /><br />Obama has not stated that, directly or implicitly. You hate that his administration has *also* given legitimacy to the Palestinians, and in your black and white world view, that equals negation of Israel's right to exist. <br /><br />But how do you arrive at that conclusion? The only clear line of reasoning would seem to be that you don't really want peace. Peace, for you, is that carrot at the end of a stick- always a "possibility," but never to be realized. So the world dumps resources and effort into trying to cajole everyone into a workable solution, but no one really wants a solution. Same time, same place, next administration...<br /><br />As I wrote before, I am not a J-Street shill, but I have been around the block a few times. The Bush administration that you guys measure Obama against did nothing valuable, and indeed hurt any prospects for a solution. By engaging the Heritage Foundation and the Tea Party wingnuts- as if they have anything vaguely important to add to the conversation. Now we've got not just a Jewish-Muslim issue- the Rapture is wiggling its way into policy, and we know that's *never* a good thing.<br /><br />So I challenge you to think of what would be a good, workable solution- that would actually work. Rather then slinging names and insults, provide something productive. To us American Jews, y'all are looking like a bunch of desperate vigilantes who don't understand diplomacy, politics or arms horse-trading (which these weapons programs are, btw- no surprise the Saudis are getting old tech- that's how we clear the late-model inventory off the shelves around here, plus we add in our mark-up. Meanwhile the Israelis get the good stuff and Americans get jobs. Don't look so surprised).<br /><br />So like I said, put on those big-macher panties and show us all that you've got more to offer than insults and excuses.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13539920.post-44194734928698576502010-11-15T14:18:38.610+02:002010-11-15T14:18:38.610+02:00I'm not so sure it's "fair" to a...I'm not so sure it's "fair" to allow the Arabs to have eliminated Jewish settlement from the territories during 1948-1967 and suddenly say that the residents of those regions - who have been groomed to be quite hostile - must immediately be treated as equals.<br /><br />If we're looking to make comparisons to the US let's talk American Indians. I don't think significantly wiping out Palestinians and then generations later giving them some small patches of land in which to paint up and dance is really an answer.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13539920.post-47983796606905011562010-11-15T10:22:28.324+02:002010-11-15T10:22:28.324+02:00>Doesn't mean your right.
Then if I'm ...>Doesn't mean your right.<br /><br />Then if I'm wrong, some other definition must be right. What is that definition? What definition of democracy can you come up with that is (a) actually believed by people who are not settlers and (b) validates the notion that Israel is a democracy like the US is a democracy?Vox Populihttp://blox-populi.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13539920.post-49198384722759761902010-11-15T09:54:43.931+02:002010-11-15T09:54:43.931+02:00And you are fully entitled to define democracy how...And you are fully entitled to define democracy however you want, build your argument around whatever selective definition you wish to create for it, and explain away any concrete examples that contradict those positions.<br /><br />Doesn't mean your right.JoeSettlerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01232647820807408898noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13539920.post-13752501922259214632010-11-15T09:45:37.294+02:002010-11-15T09:45:37.294+02:00>Furthermore as was pointed out, the US is also...>Furthermore as was pointed out, the US is also an occupying power in at least 1 country, where it has set up a puppet government and maintains control of that country through military means.<br /><br />This is also meaningfully different. The US does not claim title to, or sovereignty over, either Iraq or Afghanistan. It is an occupying power. It does not permanently settle civilians in either country, nor does it plan to be there permanently, and has in fact set timetables for its eventual withdrawal.<br /><br />Again, my argument only concerns states that wish to permanently govern territories. If you want to claim that Israel is also an occupying power, just like the US, I would be perfectly satisfied with that description. But (a) I don't think that's what you believe, and I think you would in fact bristle at the notion that Israel is conducting an occupation and (b) occupying powers are bound by the Geneva Conventions, which means no settlements.<br /><br />>But following his argument to its logical conclusion, the UK, Australia, and Canada would also not be entitled to the title of "democracy" either due to their allegience/reliance to the Monarchy, which is of course a restricted class-based system.<br /><br />Again, my argument is that any <b>state</b> that wishes to govern another <b>territory</b>, and still wish to be a democracy, must either govern only with the <b>territory</b>'s consent, or grant the inhabitants of said territory the right to participate in the sovereign <b>governing power's</b> elections.<br /><br />The Queens is not a state, nor does she govern, in any meaningful sense. All citizens of the UK, Canada, and Australia may vote in their respective countries elections for Parliament, which is the governing power of their respective sovereign states.Vox Populihttp://blox-populi.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.com