Beirut Declaration- The Wrong Road To Peace

[Emperor of Europe]

Sigh, he dismisses the peace initiative because it does not provice peace for Israel because the Arabs cannot be trusted because they are divided because they have a history of being warring beduins.

In every short version, my little troll, you have to decide what to put in and what to leave out. I decided to state the short version as this I did, because IMHO that was the main argument of the author why the deal according to him will not work.

If I wanted to represent the authors meaning and position exactly I would copy'n'paste it. Would that be good enough for you?

Anyway, what's it to you? It's blatantly obvious that you are trolling away because of our other discussions, so I sincerely doubt this reply will make any difference.

EoE

 

[Berkut]

Originally posted by Emperor of Europe
Sigh, he dismisses the peace initiative because it does not provice peace for Israel because the Arabs cannot be trusted because they are divided because they have a history of being warring beduins.

And there is no differnce between what you just wrote and

"He dismissed a peace initiative which would have provided security because the Arabs can't be trusted."

You really do not see the rather fundamental difference between those two statemtents?

In one, you are saying he dismissed it for a perfectly valid reason: because it does not provide security.

In the other, you are saying he dismisses it for what appears to be reasons of ignorant bigotry: because Arabs can't be trusted, without any back-up, support, or qualification.

In every short version, my little troll, you have to decide what to put in and what to leave out. I decided to state the short version as this I did, because IMHO that was the main argument of the author why the deal according to him will not work.

No, you decided what to leave in and take out based on what would make the authour lok like a bigotted idiot, because his conclusions disagreed with your own.

I thought you were the one getting all mortified by personal attacks?

If I wanted to represent the authors meaning and position exactly I would copy'n'paste it. Would that be good enough for you?

If you want to represent the authors meaning to someone who asks, just ask yourself whether the author would agree with your representation of his meaning. Do you think he would read your post and say "Yeah, thay is pretty much what I meant."?

Anyway, what's it to you? It's blatantly obvious that you are trolling away because of our other discussions, so I sincerely doubt this reply will make any difference.

EoE

You flatter yourself unduly.

I would have posted the exact same response to your distortion regardless of who wrote it. Relax your ego a little bit, the forum does not revolve around you.

Berkut

 

[Emperor of Europe]

Berkut:

Every interpretation is a misinterpretation. Don't take my words for it, take Gadamers, Heideggers and whoevers. My short version of the author was as it was, because (as I repeat) it seemed to me to be the authors main point.

If you feel that you are able to provide a much better (mis)interpretation of his actual meaning, feel free to do so. But I guess that would take the fun out of trolling and suddenly involve some real work like actually reading the post in question? You could of course just continue to spit fire. I really don't care.

EoE

 

[Berkut]

I have done so. I did so in my very first post on the issue.

If the author read both of our "interpretations", which do you think he would claim better represents his position? Mine or yours? Or even better, your original one, or your revised one?

A simple question.

Berkut

 

[unmerged(2695)]

There is absolutely no chance for peace in Palestine unless the Palestinians resign themselves to the fact that only the US can make Israel give up Jerusalem and that that will require military action.
Any person thinking otherwise is deluding himself.

As for a Palestinian right of return:
There are 17 million people that also were driven from their homes due to WWII. If any Palestinian has a right to return so has any Masurian or Bohemian or Danube Swabian. I don't think it wise to reopen the matter of the 1946/47 ethnic cleansing of East central Europe.

I may have been deluding myself, but I expected Israel to be a civilized country. I understand the need to clear up Jenin. The way it was done was reminescent of actions I really don't like to compare it to. It was certainly not an Israeli propaganda victory ...

The most important reason for not condemning Israel out of hand for its extremely harsh military measures on the West Bank is that any condemnation of Israel encourages the Palestinians to continue their violence.

Otherwise, "a pox on both your houses".

 

[Emperor of Europe]

Originally posted by Berkut
I have done so. I did so in my very first post on the issue.

If the author read both of our "interpretations", which do you think he would claim better represents his position? Mine or yours? Or even better, your original one, or your revised one?

A simple question.

Berkut

He will agree with your (mis)interpretation because it has two more points: That Israel will not give up East Jerusalem, and that the only solution is an international peace force.

I also think that he would agree more with what you call my "revised one", since it shows the apperant logic behind the authors thinking.

If I posted an even longer version with more of his arguments and points, he would agree with that. As I have said so many times already, I posted a short version with what I felt was his main point.

Speaking of which? Did you have any? A point I mean.

EoE

 

[Berkut]

Originally posted by Emperor of Europe


He will agree with your (mis)interpretation because it has two more points: That Israel will not give up East Jerusalem, and that the only solution is an international peace force.

I also think that he would agree more with what you call my "revised one", since it shows the apperant logic behind the authors thinking.

If I posted an even longer version with more of his arguments and points, he would agree with that. As I have said so many times already, I posted a short version with what I felt was his main point.
EoE

So it is simply a matter of length then?

So which of the following would the author in question say better sums up his position:

"Israel should reject the peace offer, that would provide them with security, because Arabs can't be trusted." (Your original post).

Or this *shorter* (mis)interpretation:

"Israel should reject the peace offer because it does not provide them with security".

Another simple question.

Speaking of which? Did you have any? A point I mean.

Yes. One should not distort what other people say simply because you do not agree with them. Strawmen are the debating tactic of the lazy or unsure.

i think I amde that point in the very first post in question. Funny how you missed it.

But no matter, just answer my simple question. Or show the integrity to just admit you were wrong. Or both.

Berkut

 

[Keynes]

Originally posted by Emperor of Europe
If I posted an even longer version with more of his arguments and points, he would agree with that. As I have said so many times already, I posted a short version with what I felt was his main point.

I think his main point was not "the Arabs cant be trusted" but that Israel without the West Bank does not have secure and defensible borders. Which is true.

On the other hand Israeli *with the West Bank* doesnt have secure and defensible borders either. The IDF figured this out sometime in 80s and decided they were better off getting out.

 

[Emperor of Europe]

Originally posted by Berkut

"Israel should reject the peace offer, that would provide them with security, because Arabs can't be trusted." (Your original post).

That is not my original post. That is your (mis)interpretation of my original post. If you choose to read it as the devil reads the bible, then go ahead. But don't blame me that you can't understand it.

"Israel should reject the peace offer because it does not provide them with security".

That's a rather poor (mis)interpretation since it does not give the authors (main) reason(s) why.

Yes. One should not distort what other people say simply because you do not agree with them. Strawmen are the debating tactic of the lazy or unsure.
(...)
Funny how you missed it.
(...)
show the integrity to just admit you were wrong. Or both.

Yadayadayada. Anything else you need to get of your chest? I must admit that I got the distinct feeling that you really don't want this or other debates to resolve, but just want to keep up your flaming.

EoE

 

[Emperor of Europe]

Originally posted by Keynes

I think his main point was not "the Arabs cant be trusted" but that Israel without the West Bank does not have secure and defensible borders. Which is true.

But isn't his point that Israel will not have secure and defensible borders without the West Bank BECAUSE the Arabs can't be trusted?

Regards,

EoE

 

[Keynes]

Originally posted by Emperor of Europe


But isn't his point that Israel will not have secure and defensible borders without the West Bank BECAUSE the Arabs can't be trusted?

Trusting the Arabs is irrelevant if borders are secure and defensible. If one's borders are *not* secure and defensible than trust is relevant but still not a critical factor because a nation would be foolish to make its security depend solely on trust. This is why Camp David 2000 proposal had a 10 year demilitarization clause for the West Bank.

 

[Emperor of Europe]

Originally posted by Keynes

Trusting the Arabs is irrelevant if borders are secure and defensible. If one's borders are *not* secure and defensible than trust is relevant but still not a critical factor because a nation would be foolish to make its security depend solely on trust. This is why Camp David 2000 proposal had a 10 year demilitarization clause for the West Bank.

Sorry, I'll have to disagree.

It seems to me that the author first and foremost dismisses the peace plan with the argument that the Arabs are disunited and cannot be trusted.

THEN he discusses individual details in the plan and comes up with more reasons for dismissing them. Among the last is the issue of the West Bank. So, IMHO, that cannot be taken as the authors main point.

Regards,

EoE

 

[unmerged(2695)]

The real Israeli concern is this:

What guarantees will there be that a Palestinian state on the West bank and Gaza does not continue to claim for the return of the refugess and allow Muslim militants to continue their jihad to drive the Jewish "Crusaders" (or Yiddish, as the term used in the palestinian propaganda in the US nowadays) into the sea ?

The domestic political concerns quoted to explain away why the Palestinian Authority has not been willing to clamp down on Muslim extremists will still be there. Why on earth should the Palestinians abandon a very successful strategy if they win ? All they have to is to get some of their children shot before Westner TV cameras for all the liberals and social democrats of the world to come swooping down as vultures and accuse Israel of violating internation law and human rights.

The only way to avoid this is to put up again the barbed wire on the demarcation line (or international border) to physically separate the Palestinians from the Israelis for eternity.

 

[Berkut]

Originally posted by Emperor of Europe


That is not my original post. That is your (mis)interpretation of my original post. If you choose to read it as the devil reads the bible, then go ahead. But don't blame me that you can't understand it.

That *was* your original post.

"Israel should reject the peace offer, that would provide them with security, because Arabs can't be trusted."

"He is basically saying that the Saudi peace initiative, that basically gives Israel all they ever wanted and removes the threat of annihilation, will never work because Israel will have to do a deal with Arabs, and Arabs cannot be trusted."

So tell me, how is my post a misinterpretation of yours? What is the sunstantial differnce between those two quotes?

That's a rather poor (mis)interpretation since it does not give the authors (main) reason(s) why.

Your quote didn't give the authors conclusion, and instead substituted *one* of the reasons for his conclusion, and claimed that was his conclusion. That is an out and out mis-representation, not a mis-interpretation.

Are yous eriously telling me that it is better to ignore the conclusion in favor of a reason, and then claim that the reason is the conlusion?

The authors basic point is that the peace deal should be rejected because it does not provide security. *One* reason cited was an inability to trust the Arab states to honor any deal. In addition, he provided a variety of other reasons, all of which you ignored, in favor of the one reason which you could re-phrase in such a way as to make him sound like a bigot.

Anyway, back to the point you are so desperately trying to avoid. I will change the question in order to meet your demands, and simply leave your original post untouched as the first alternative.

Again, which would the AUTHOR think more correctly sumamrizes his position:

Your post:

"He is basically saying that the Saudi peace initiative, that basically gives Israel all they ever wanted and removes the threat of annihilation, will never work because Israel will have to do a deal with Arabs, and Arabs cannot be trusted."

or

"He is basically saying that the Saudi peace initiative will never work because it does not provide Israel with security."

Another simple question. I don't care what you think is a better sumamtion, I want to know what you think the original author would think of your summation.

Keep up the little personal digs. It is amusing to watch you desperately avoid the issue.

Berkut

 

[Emperor of Europe]

This is clearly ridiculous!

Berkut:

Your conduct here, and in the recently closed thread, is amble evidence for me, that you are not here to discuss, but to be the flaming troll.

I don't know what kind of needs you seek fulfilment for in these forums, or why you have to find that here and not in real life, but I won't play along anymore. Find someone else to vent your frustrations on.

I will ignore further posts by you, so go ahead and have the last word.

EoE

 

[Berkut]

Originally posted by Emperor of Europe
This is clearly ridiculous!

EoE

I agree.

Just answer the question:

Again, which would the AUTHOR think more correctly sumamrizes his position:

Your post:

"He is basically saying that the Saudi peace initiative, that basically gives Israel all they ever wanted and removes the threat of annihilation, will never work because Israel will have to do a deal with Arabs, and Arabs cannot be trusted."

or

"He is basically saying that the Saudi peace initiative will never work because it does not provide Israel with security."

Berkut

 

[Keynes]

Originally posted by Hardu
The real Israeli concern is this:

What guarantees will there be that a Palestinian state on the West bank and Gaza does not continue to claim for the return of the refugess and allow Muslim militants to continue their jihad to drive the Jewish "Crusaders" (or Yiddish, as the term used in the palestinian propaganda in the US nowadays) into the sea ?

The idea of "Jews" and "Crusaders" on the same side gives one a good idea of the quality of history education in Palestine and the Arab states.

 

[Emperor of Europe]

Originally posted by Keynes

The idea of "Jews" and "Crusaders" on the same side gives one a good idea of the quality of history education in Palestine and the Arab states.

If it's used in the Palestinian propaganda in the US, doesn't it say more about the quality of history education there?

Regards,

EoE

 

[Alwin von Arlt]

There would of been no occupied territories to begin with if the Arab states didn't declare war on Israel, they kinda got what they deserved... its only occupied territory since no peace treaty was ever signed... not likely unless nuclear weapons were involved would there be a war with Israel, not with all the financial support from the US...

As for peace... well could try an occupying force to FORCE peaceful coexistance... perhaps a wall between palestinian & Israeli areas... but look whethers its Northern Ireland... Bosnia... Eta in spain... and elsewhere... no peace will ever happen without foreign troops FORCING it upon them... people make idiotic deals in for instance Bosnia where they hate one another... but the world forces them to be a single state... why? so we can have peacekeepers there forever and then some...

One of the few times I've seen hostilities end up real peaceful... was when Czechoslovakia broke up into 2 countries... no war.. just let's be on our own and thats that... forget the past... the future peace is all that matters... and tensions run high, no one likes one another what's there to do?

We the world FORCE you all to live in peace even tho you hate one anothers guts, and there for will fight regardless of any "peace" written on paper, cause some idiot with no knowledge of history or what for instance Islam really says about life... will go out armed with bombs... and blow themselves up...killing as many as they can right along...

Its complicated what to do quite obviously... but I think 1 HUGE compromise on both sides are needed...

1)Arafat/Palestinian Authority must say that Israel has a right to exist.

2)Refugees in Lebanon who come from what was the british mandate of Palestine... and can prove it should be able to return... to a palestinian state...

doesn't matter either way... without foreign occupation there won't peace...

Just my 2 ducats of useless writing =)

 

[Alwin von Arlt]

Yes well... for the 17 million thrown out of their homes in Europe... no matter what race, religion, or creed... should all get compensated as well as those who suffered afterwards by those seeking revenge... and obviously communism... nice thought.. but oh well...

As for the Israeli offensive... Suicide bombings are inhuman... and if the Israelis treat the Palestinians a bit rough... well revenge is hell... its tough... its a vicious circle that goes round n round...