I'd like to see if people are able to discuss this civilly, or whether it's going to turn into yet another round of name-calling. If the latter happens, I hope Papa Janitor will lock it. But I think that Hatrackers are capable of more than that.
In any case, this video is the best response I could have imagined to Obama's Cairo speech.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I'll give it a look later, and I hope we can discuss it reasonably, even if we disagree (as a site).
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Is there a text version of the response?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Aha! Here is the text:
quote:Feiglin's address, including a call for the release of Jonathan Pollard, was disseminated in text and video over the internet. It has been endorsed by MK Dr. Michael Ben-Ari (National Union).
Feiglins speech:
President Obama, both here in Israel and in your land, your obvious attempt to degrade Prime Minister Netanyahu and the State of Israel has been interpreted as an endeavor to find favor in the eyes of the Arabs. After all, Moslems admire those who dare show their enemies the soles of their shoes.
U.S. Raises White Flag But there is something much deeper here than just a cynical sacrifice of Israel in exchange for American interests in the Arab world. The real significance of your Cairo speech and your declared Mid-East policy is that eight years after 9/11, the United States under your leadership has raised a white flag before radical Islam, has joined the evil axis, and is at the forefront of the attack against the State of Israel.
The entire world looks on as the president of the United States bows and acquiesces to cruel dictators - while he simultaneously tramples the Israeli prime minister who is showing signs of weakness in a decidedly uncivilized manner.
When Chamberlain acted in a similar manner and sold Czechoslovakia to Hitler, he did not get peace in return. The Chamberlain-like conduct that you have chosen will yet bring upon your country many more 9/11s, G-d forbid.
It is no coincidence that the President of Egypt did not welcome you at the airport. He didn't even bother to come to hear your speech at the University of Cairo. The Egyptian dictator humiliated you. He knew that you would nevertheless continue to yield to him, as you have conceded to all the criminals of the world.
Israeli People are Strong It is important that you know, Mr. Obama, that Prime Minister Netanyahu's weakness does not at all reflect the sentiments of his nation.
When you show Prime Minister Netanyahu the soles of your shoes, you would be wise to remember that the Nation of Israel received the holy Torah and became a nation 3,100 years before America was established 3,100 years before the people of America even knew about shoes.
From the dawn of history, the world has seen mighty empires that have risen, battled against the Jews and disappeared. Ancient Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Greece, Rome all of them fought against us and all of them have disappeared. Only the nation chosen by G-d has returned to its homeland and, after 2,000 years of exile, is alive, vibrant and fulfilling its historic destiny.
In the holy Bible, the book holy to all religions, G-d says to Abraham, the first Jew: "And I will bless those who bless you, and those who curse you I will curse. You and the United States of America have two choices: You can commit yourselves to the side of the blessing or, G-d forbid, to the side of the curse. The choice is in your hands.
Call to US: Support Jewish Return to Zion From here, from Jerusalem, the site of the holy Jewish Temple, I call upon you, upon the American nation and upon all nations that hold liberty dear. Do not place obstacles on the path of true peace that is outlined in the holy Torah. Do not place obstacles on the path of the return of the Jewish nation to its entire land, as a precursor to the redemption of the entire world. On the contrary: do all in your power to foster the process of the Jewish Return to Zion and the continued fulfillment of the prophecies of blessing unfolding before our very eyes.
You can also help by encouraging the absorption of those non-Jews who presently live in Israel and who do not accept Jewish sovereignty in the Jewish land - in one of the 22 Arab countries or in any other land that they choose.
This is the only true peace plan because this is the will of G-d. He who questions the right of the Nation of Israel to even one grain of sand of its holy land in effect has declared war on the Creator of the world.
Mr. President, if you do not want to drown the entire world in yet another blood bath, as Chamberlain triggered with his pacifism, be courageous. Restore your nation to the side of the good, to the side of the nations of liberty.
Release Jonathan Pollard As a first step toward rectification and moral clarity, I call upon you to release Jonathan Pollard. This precious Jew saved Israel and the entire world from the danger of the nuclear bomb that Sadaam Hussein was developing. He has been imprisoned in difficult conditions in your country for the past 24 years. The continued incarceration of our brother, Jonathan, is a message of hostility toward the Jewish nation and the State of Israel. The time has come to do justice with Jonathan Pollard and to release him to his family, his nation and his land.
For now, we in Israel will focus on the truly important tasks before us; not on the establishment of additional Arab terror states, but on Jewish education, absorption of new immigrants and building our land. We will model our society on the true foundations of a free economy that operates on the Jewish cultural values of faith and loving kindness. We will deepen our connection to the holy Torah of the Land of Israel. We will build a free society for the nation that bears the message of liberty, faith and peace to the entire world.
With G-d's help, we will cling to our historic destiny: To perfect the world in the Kingdom of the Almighty.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Does it sound less like an ideological tirade when there's audio?
Substantively, where has the US made concessions to help "criminals" to the detriment of Israel?
Why in the world should the US release a spy? That doesn't represent "moral clarity," in my understanding. Can you...um...clarify?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
It looks like it's only truth if you start with a certain set of assumptions which are not provable and not universally acknowledged.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: It looks like it's only truth if you start with a certain set of assumptions which are not provable and not universally acknowledged.
Exactly.
Why would this be compelling for non-Jews? (Or possibly that subset of fundamentalist Christians who are basically trying to use the Jews to bring Jesus back.)
The interests of Israel and the US have overlapped a great deal but they are not identical. Where they conflict, with whom do you stand?
Added: I am not demanding an answer to that question from Lisa, rather suggesting that we should all think about it.
Added again: And definately a question we should be asking of those people we trust with classified information.
[ June 16, 2009, 10:13 AM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:From the dawn of history, the world has seen mighty empires that have risen, battled against the Jews and disappeared. Ancient Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Greece, Rome all of them fought against us and all of them have disappeared. Only the nation chosen by G-d has returned to its homeland and, after 2,000 years of exile, is alive, vibrant and fulfilling its historic destiny.
I'm sorry, I just had to address this. This seems to suggest at first that Israel is...some sort of Mighty Mouse. The Little Enclave That Could. Like, there are all these grand powers arrayed against the stalwart, scrappy nation, and Israel throws them all off, one at time, or all together.
It pretends that no one understands historical fact.
Israel was destroyed and dispersed a heck of a lot more effectively than Rome or Greece. Persia, Babylon, Assyria, Egypt-- sure, those were eventually wrecked, but even THEY offered more technological and philosophical innovation than what came out of Israel.
Israel disavows its most powerful cultural development: Christianity.
The irony! She burns!
quote:In the holy Bible, the book holy to all religions, G-d says to Abraham, the first Jew: "And I will bless those who bless you, and those who curse you I will curse. You and the United States of America have two choices: You can commit yourselves to the side of the blessing or, G-d forbid, to the side of the curse. The choice is in your hands.
Not "all" religions. I am definitely opposed to putting policy in place which aligns with Felign's interpretation of scripture.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:3,100 years before the people of America even knew about shoes
As far as I can tell, the Native Americans had shoes before the Europeans arrived, to protect their feet from the intense cold and for travel over long distances, even if they didn't wear them all the time.
Europeans, also the "people of America", had shoes as well for the same reasons. That is to say, all humans have had shoes for many thousands of years. I'm not sure this rhetorical flourish is historically correct.
quote:Only the nation chosen by G-d has returned to its homeland and, after 2,000 years of exile, is alive, vibrant and fulfilling its historic destiny.
I also have historical issues with this statement. Genetically, Europeans are jumbled and scattered across the continent, but there are groupings. The early Europeans who crossed from to England and Ireland have remained their for many thousands of years. We can still see the genetic footprint of the introduction of new farmers into Europe, a movement that occurred ten thousand years ago. People haven't gone anywhere, only their political structures have been modified, as all political structures and borders change over time.
To say that Israel is the only nation that has endured is incorrect. It is not even the only nation whose essence has been reformed after a long period of downtime.
quote:In the holy Bible, the book holy to all religions
All religions? I rather think that the Hindus and Buddhists, among many others, would be insulted.
quote:I call upon you to release Jonathan Pollard
Jonathan Pollard may not be a criminal in the eyes of Israel, but he broke the law in America, not in Israel. Not only that, he spied in exchange for money. Would a man committed to the admirable message of liberty, faith and peace really need to be compensated by capital means?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It seems the writer assumes that all readers share his assumptions and narrow view of the world. If they don't, then the article isn't compelling at all.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: The interests of Israel and the US have overlapped a great deal but they are not identical. Where they conflict, with whom do you stand?
Added: I am not demanding an answer to that question from Lisa, rather suggesting that we should all think about it.
Added again: And definately a question we should be asking of those people we trust with classified information.
I don't mind answering it. I've said here in the past that this is why I would never vote for a Jew for POTUS or VPOTUS. When the US and Israel run into conflict, I stand with whomever is right.
As far as Pollard goes, the US was treaty-bound to give that information to Israel, and he only passed it over because the US was deliberately withholding it, to the great risk of Israel. Had he not, Saddam would have had WMDs. Not to mention the numerous American spies who've been caught by Israel and who've been treated far better. Not to mention the fact that the US does not customarily treat spies from a friendly nation in the dispicable way that Pollard has been treated. Not to mention the fact that Pollard only pled guilty because he was offered a plea bargain, and then the judge decided to cancel that.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Well, yes. He's preaching to the choir. Does anyone seriously believe he's writing to Obama there?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:From the dawn of history, the world has seen mighty empires that have risen, battled against the Jews and disappeared. Ancient Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Greece, Rome all of them fought against us and all of them have disappeared. Only the nation chosen by G-d has returned to its homeland and, after 2,000 years of exile, is alive, vibrant and fulfilling its historic destiny.
I'm sorry, I just had to address this. This seems to suggest at first that Israel is...some sort of Mighty Mouse. The Little Enclave That Could. Like, there are all these grand powers arrayed against the stalwart, scrappy nation, and Israel throws them all off, one at time, or all together.
Not at all. That may be how you're hearing it, but it's not what Feiglin said. I think you'll find that Jews are well aware of the exiles we've been through. The fact remains, however, that we're still here. When the Arameans were tossed out by the Assyrians, they ceased to exist as Arameans. When Carthage were crushed by Rome, that was the end of them as Carthaginians.
We're still here, because God won't let us be utterly destroyed. We have work to do.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Israel disavows its most powerful cultural development: Christianity.
The irony! She burns!
I don't see how that's the case. We didn't develop Christianity. It developed by going away from us.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: I also have historical issues with this statement. Genetically, Europeans are jumbled and scattered across the continent, but there are groupings. The early Europeans who crossed from to England and Ireland have remained their for many thousands of years. We can still see the genetic footprint of the introduction of new farmers into Europe, a movement that occurred ten thousand years ago. People haven't gone anywhere, only their political structures have been modified, as all political structures and borders change over time.
Sure, but those nations no longer exist. Whereas we've remained a nation throughout, even in exile.
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: To say that Israel is the only nation that has endured is incorrect. It is not even the only nation whose essence has been reformed after a long period of downtime.
We haven't been "reformed". We're still us. The same people who received God's Torah at Sinai. There was no downtime.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I'm not sure what you're trying to do, Lisa. What's the point of this? The opening statement has been answered - it's preaching to the choir and is only compelling if you already believe some unprovable assumptions.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Lisa: How is Israel's existence somehow more convincing than Ireland's? The same people have lived in Ireland for many thousands of years. Many of the Welsh are the original Britons, again a very old nation. The Basques speak a unique language that suggests they too have been around for many years. The Northern Europeans have clearly been there for long enough to become almost universally blonde and blue-eyed. Rome fell but the city Rome still exists and there are still people who live there.
These are nations that have endured. It is incorrect to claim that the Jewish people are the only people who have a spiritual connection to each other or to a specific patch of land.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Sure, but those nations no longer exist. Whereas we've remained a nation throughout, even in exile.
So? To be perfectly honest with you, I don't see why anyone should consider that particularly relevant.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:We're still us. The same people who received God's Torah at Sinai. There was no downtime.
What does this mean?
Posted by Baron Samedi (Member # 9175) on :
I want to try an experiment. There's a lot of talk going on right now about how a lot of discussions have gotten uncivil here on Hatrack.
I'd like to see if people are able to discuss this civilly, or whether it's going to turn into yet another round of name-calling. If the latter happens, I hope Papa Janitor will lock it. But I think that Hatrackers are capable of more than that.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Looks like HE need to read our "What happened" thread himself.
It sounds like BC wrote his speech.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Support for Jonathan Pollard Feiglin is a highly vocal supporter of Jonathan Pollard, a former American naval intelligence analyst who is currently serving a life sentence in the American Federal prison system for spying for Israel. Feiglin, who has called Pollard a hero,[30] has written a number of articles in support of Pollard. In a recent article, Feiglin stated that "Pollard is a Jew who saved the Israelis from American treachery."[31]
No wonder. His lack of foresight is staggering, and he makes no attempt to rationally discuss his beliefs, nor does he pay any attention to the motivations of other people.
I found the whole thing painful, lacking in honesty and it reveled in the fact that it wasn't a conversation held in good faith.
It's almost as painful to read as War Watch.
You need to change the title of this thread to "Speaking an Opinion" at the least, in order to be accurate.
[ June 16, 2009, 11:33 AM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: We're still here, because God won't let us be utterly destroyed. We have work to do.
Relying on reasoning like this is myopic to a ridiculous, almost farcical degree.
By the continuation of that logic, you needn't worry a whit about the future of israel. You still have work to do, no need to be concerned about the direction of the country as a result.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Baron Samedi: I want to try an experiment. There's a lot of talk going on right now about how a lot of discussions have gotten uncivil here on Hatrack.
I'd like to see if people are able to discuss this civilly, or whether it's going to turn into yet another round of name-calling. If the latter happens, I hope Papa Janitor will lock it. But I think that Hatrackers are capable of more than that.
Fair enough.
quote:You know quite well that Palestine is an old wound, as old as 60 years. For 60 years, these people are displaced.
For 60 years, these people are being killed. For 60 years, on a daily basis, there's conflict and terror. For 60 years, innocent women and children are destroyed and killed by helicopters and airplanes that break the house over their heads. For 60 years, children and kindergartens, in schools, in high schools, are in prison being tortured. For 60 years, security in the Middle East has been endangered. For 60 years, the slogan of expansionism from the Nile to the Euphrates is being chanted by certain groups in that part of the world.
Children and kindergartens are in prison being tortured? I'll assume he means kindergarteners, and not snipe at a faulty translation, but is that kind of fantasy supposed to mean anything?
The Palestinians could have had a state at any time in the past 61 years. All they had to do was accept that Israel would exist as well, and they would have been fine. But they wouldn't. Even now, those among them who speak of "peace" want that to include an influx of 5,000,000 Arabs into the pre-1967 borders. In other words, an end to the State of Israel. Or apartheid, which no one wants.
While we talk about "From the Nile to the Euphrates", we've certainly never taken any steps towards that. That's the furthest extent of the Land of Israel, but we have no sanction in Judaism to launch a war to acquire those lands. Compare that with the multiple wars of conquest that have been launched against Israel. Actions speak a lot louder than words.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Guys, we just had a whole conversation on civility. Maybe we can avoid the use of words like "farcical" to that end?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:We're still us. The same people who received God's Torah at Sinai. There was no downtime.
What does this mean?
It means that the nation of Israel existed in 1300 BCE. And in 300 CE. And in 1300 CE. And in 1800 CE, and right now, in 2009 CE. There's never been a time in that whole span when we didn't exist as a nation.
Posted by Baron Samedi (Member # 9175) on :
Fantasy? Apartheid? Are you calling Ahmadinejad a delusional, genocidal maniac?
I guess this experiment failed. How long until we lock the thread?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Guys, we just had a whole conversation on civility. Maybe we can avoid the use of words like "farcical" to that end?
I hope you'll point out to me if I say something uncivil as well. Not just in this thread, but elsewhere. In fact, I'd enjoy seeing everyone called on it. It would be interesting to see who is really being uncivil here, rather than others simply accusing me of being uncivil generally.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I hope you'll point out to me if I say something uncivil as well.
In your case, it's a little tricky, because I think most of the problems you have aren't due necessarily to a lack of civility but to a rock-solid surety in a belief system that many other people find odious.
It's not that you're often uncivil, then, but that you do not appear to permit the possibility of informed dissent despite the incredibly controversial (and in many cases unconfirmable) nature of your beliefs. I'm okay with this, but I can understand why other people consider it "rude." Since Ron Lambert is generally the same way, it's easy to see why the two of you get along like a house on fire. For what it's worth, I think you're generally more civil than you're given credit for being; you're as polite as it might be possible to be without contemplating for a second the possibility of compromise.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
" While we talk about "From the Nile to the Euphrates", we've certainly never taken any steps towards that."
I'm a fairly vigorous supporter of the State of Israel, and generally speaking believe that Israel has behaved almost as well as can be reasonably expected given its situation. But I think the expansion of settlements into the occupied territories makes this claim disputable. While expanding israel from the nile to the euphrates might not be the intent of the settlement expansions, it is part of the effect.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Baron Samedi: Fantasy? Apartheid? Are you calling Ahmadinejad a delusional, genocidal maniac?
I guess this experiment failed. How long until we lock the thread?
If it fails, it'll be because you want it to fail.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: " While we talk about "From the Nile to the Euphrates", we've certainly never taken any steps towards that."
I'm a fairly vigorous supporter of the State of Israel, and generally speaking believe that Israel has behaved almost as well as can be reasonably expected given its situation. But I think the expansion of settlements into the occupied territories makes this claim disputable. While expanding israel from the nile to the euphrates might not be the intent of the settlement expansions, it is part of the effect.
Come on, Paul. You know we didn't take Judea and Samaria for expansionist purposes. We did it for security, plain and simple. Anyone can see the difference in the border before and after the Six Day War. There's a huge difference between settling lands you control and expanding into other lands. If we were expansionist, we would have built settlements in Southern Lebanon while we were there.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:It means that the nation of Israel existed in 1300 BCE. And in 300 CE. And in 1300 CE. And in 1800 CE, and right now, in 2009 CE. There's never been a time in that whole span when we didn't exist as a nation.
So...if it existed all that time without being IN Israel (geographically), what's the impetus for getting all fired up about hogging a couple million acres of desert for a single ethnic identity?
I mean, if the nation of Israel exists whether or not Jerusalem is governed by Jews, what's the problem with granting people who commit to civilized behavior all the same rights and privileges?
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I hope you'll point out to me if I say something uncivil as well.
In your case, it's a little tricky, because I think most of the problems you have aren't due necessarily to a lack of civility but to a rock-solid surety in a belief system that many other people find odious.
It's not that you're often uncivil, then, but that you do not appear to permit the possibility of informed dissent despite the incredibly controversial (and in many cases unconfirmable) nature of your beliefs.
quote:Originall posted by Lisa: Judaism has nothing to learn from any religion. Granted, they have much to learn from us, but that's monologue; not dialogue.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: ... Why would this be compelling for non-Jews? (Or possibly that subset of fundamentalist Christians who are basically trying to use the Jews to bring Jesus back.)
QFT
I suppose my work here is already done. The whole statement is just bizarre to me. Like Tom said, I'm not even sure if the statement is meant for Christians (as opposed to just Jews), let alone the rest of us.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:It means that the nation of Israel existed in 1300 BCE. And in 300 CE. And in 1300 CE. And in 1800 CE, and right now, in 2009 CE. There's never been a time in that whole span when we didn't exist as a nation.
So...if it existed all that time without being IN Israel (geographically), what's the impetus for getting all fired up about hogging a couple million acres of desert for a single ethnic identity?
I mean, if the nation of Israel exists whether or not Jerusalem is governed by Jews, what's the problem with granting people who commit to civilized behavior all the same rights and privileges?
We're supposed to run ourselves there. The only reason we didn't for a while is that we were prevented.
Posted by Baron Samedi (Member # 9175) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:It means that the nation of Israel existed in 1300 BCE. And in 300 CE. And in 1300 CE. And in 1800 CE, and right now, in 2009 CE. There's never been a time in that whole span when we didn't exist as a nation.
So...if it existed all that time without being IN Israel (geographically), what's the impetus for getting all fired up about hogging a couple million acres of desert for a single ethnic identity?
I mean, if the nation of Israel exists whether or not Jerusalem is governed by Jews, what's the problem with granting people who commit to civilized behavior all the same rights and privileges?
We're supposed to run ourselves there. The only reason we didn't for a while is that we were prevented.
Prevented? By whom? If God is for you, who can be against you? I want to be on their side.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Baron Samedi:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: We're supposed to run ourselves there. The only reason we didn't for a while is that we were prevented.
Prevented? By whom? If God is for you, who can be against you? I want to be on their side.
Deuteronomy 30. I get that this is going to mean nothing to those who don't think the Torah is from God, but we got kicked out of our land because we didn't keep God's laws. Because we wanted to be like "all the nations". So God let us experience life among "all the nations". And now, after more than 19 centuries, Deuteronomy 30 is happening right before our eyes.
If you want to know who was against us, it was us. Not that this is in any way exculpatory for those who maltreated us during those centuries.
In terms of proximal cause, it was first the Romans, then the Christians, and then the Turks who prevented us. The Brits tried, but apparently, the heavenly egg timer had already gone "ding".
(Edit: the above was a metaphor. I don't want people coming back later and claiming I believe there's a great big egg timer in the sky.)
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
You were prevented from running yourselves by...yourselves?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Is that a problem?
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
I was honestly trying to understand what your were saying. I'm not remotely familiar with Deuteronomy 30.
Edit: No, I am still confused. You say that you were "prevented," but if it was you that was doing the preventing, then it wasn't so much preventing as just not doing.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Lisa, I applaud your plan to take on these issues in the civil and balanced tone that drew me to Hatrack in the first place.
However, I am not sure if Mr. Feiglin's bombastic commentary, no matter how loosely proclaimed as calm rhetoric, is a way to start civily or balanced. He used images of everything from Hitler to 9/11 as part of his "open letter." Civility doesn't seem to be on his side.
I will look it over line per line:
quote:President Obama, both here in Israel and in your land, your obvious attempt to degrade Prime Minister Netanyahu and the State of Israel has been interpreted as an endeavor to find favor in the eyes of the Arabs.
From the opening paragraph he defined President Obama's speech as an attempt to degrade Prime Minister Netanyahu and the State of Israel. I found only a couple of requests in President Obama's speech referring to the growing settlements. How is this an insult to Israel? Where in the speech does he degrade President Netanyahu? There is no backing up of this accusation. We are supposed to assume its true, and since its true, the rest of his arguments are true, but if its not true?
As far as "Finding favor in the eyes of the Arabs", well that is partially true. President Obama's speech was meant to find favor in the eyes of centrist and liberal Muslims around the world. Many of them are Arab.
"After all, Muslims admire those who dare show their enemies the soles of their shoes."
This cheap shot at President Bush's incident in Iraq left me a bit confused. I guess he is implying that Muslims are already insulting the US. What is most important is that he connects Arab and Muslim. One equates to another in his arguments, and probably in his mind. President Obama sought a more nuanced argument, where not all Arabs are Muslim, and not all Muslims are Arab, and more importantly, not all Muslims are terrorists, fanatics, or supporting them.
[quote}But there is something much deeper here than just a cynical sacrifice of Israel in exchange for American interests in the Arab world.[/quote]
Where did we sacrifice Israel to the Arab world? A couple lines in one speech? Apparently anything that isn't 1000% support of everything every Israeli does, is complete abandonment of Israel to the forces of Arab World Conquest.
quote: The real significance of your Cairo speech and your declared Mid-East policy is that eight years after 9/11, the United States under your leadership has raised a white flag before radical Islam, has joined the evil axis, and is at the forefront of the attack against the State of Israel.
Apparently since we dare to talk with people in Muslim countries, and question Israel expansion of its settlements, we are now leading the evil axis. By asking Israel to stop expanding their settlements, that they admit are illegal, we have surrendered our country's sovereignty.
Actually, if we were to bow down to Mr. Feinglin's pressure and limit the US's foreign policy to just supporting Israel, backing Israel, and doing what Israel wants, we would have surrendered far more of the US sovereignty.
quote:The entire world looks on as the president of the United States bows and acquiesces to cruel dictators - while he simultaneously tramples the Israeli prime minister who is showing signs of weakness in a decidedly uncivilized manner.
More of the same. If you don't talk to the enemy, they can never surrender. That's OK if you want to kill them all, but we American's aren't usually that blood thirsty.
quote:When Chamberlain acted in a similar manner and sold Czechoslovakia to Hitler, he did not get peace in return. The Chamberlain-like conduct that you have chosen will yet bring upon your country many more 9/11s, G-d forbid.
Godwin's Rule. I win.
I'll have to go over the rest later. Time for work.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: Lisa, I applaud your plan to take on these issues in the civil and balanced tone that drew me to Hatrack in the first place.
However, I am not sure if Mr. Feiglin's bombastic commentary, no matter how loosely proclaimed as calm rhetoric, is a way to start civily or balanced. He used images of everything from Hitler to 9/11 as part of his "open letter." Civility doesn't seem to be on his side.
I'm not sure that forum rules apply when speaking to a head of state. Particularly one who is trying to pressure you to endanger yourself.
Furthermore, civility here is about us being civil to one another. Not to everyone in the entire world. The assumption is that our fellow Jatraqueros are deserving of civility. That assumption certainly doesn't follow for everyone else.
I do think that his comparison of Chamberlain's policy of appeasement has a lot of similarities to Obama's policy of appeasement. The similarities don't go away just because someone shouts "Godwin's Law". And if you'll remember, Godwin's Law doesn't say that such comparisons are verboten. It just says that generally speaking, if someone calls someone else a Nazi, the discussion is in its death throes. And clearly, the context is where there's invective flying. Since Feiglin isn't talking to the people he's comparing to the Nazis, I don't see how it applies.
Furthermore, I'm not sure why the comparison should be seen as untoward. Hitler spoke about the Final Solution, but everyone considered it rhetoric. When the Arabs speak of throwing the Jews into the sea, that's also seen as rhetoric. Despite the attempts that have already been made.
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: I will look it over line per line:
quote:President Obama, both here in Israel and in your land, your obvious attempt to degrade Prime Minister Netanyahu and the State of Israel has been interpreted as an endeavor to find favor in the eyes of the Arabs.
From the opening paragraph he defined President Obama's speech as an attempt to degrade Prime Minister Netanyahu and the State of Israel.
He's referring, among other things, to the fact that the official White House photo of Obama speaking to Netanyahu shows him sticking his feet out. Surely having grown up where he did, Obama is aware of the symbolism of showing someone the soles of your shoes. It's incredibly disrespectful. And in an American contect, that's a picture of a boss talking to an underling. Again, incredibly disrespectful. Compare that with his bow to the Saudi king, and tell me that you really can't fathom how someone could see this as an intentional insult.
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: I found only a couple of requests in President Obama's speech referring to the growing settlements. How is this an insult to Israel? Where in the speech does he degrade President Netanyahu? There is no backing up of this accusation. We are supposed to assume its true, and since its true, the rest of his arguments are true, but if its not true?
But there is. Watch it again. He isn't talking about Obama's dictating to us as such. Find another photo of the US President talking to another head of state and tell me if you can find one like the one where Obama is talking to Netanyahu.
Obama chose to do that. He's extremely careful with his words, and he spoke of Egypt as the place where the Koran was "revealed". Not where Islam came to be, but where the Koran was "revealed". Find me a place where he refers to Israel as the place where the Jewish people came into being. Find me any indication that he understands our connection to Israel as anything but what Arab propagandists claim: that it's a quid pro quo for the Holocaust.
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: As far as "Finding favor in the eyes of the Arabs", well that is partially true. President Obama's speech was meant to find favor in the eyes of centrist and liberal Muslims around the world. Many of them are Arab.
Not just centrists and liberals. He spoke about how Islam is all about freedom in places where there is no freedom. He spoke about maltreatment of women in a place where women are virtually property. He was trying to find favor in the eyes of the worst of the worst. It was appeasement, plain and simple. And I don't think he has ulterior motives besides this. I think he very honestly believes that the only way to stop the jihadis is to try and placate them. And that maybe if we do, they'll accept that and settle down. But Godwin be damned, that's exactly what Chamberlain thought. How many times should the same mistake be made?
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: "After all, Muslims admire those who dare show their enemies the soles of their shoes."
This cheap shot at President Bush's incident in Iraq left me a bit confused. I guess he is implying that Muslims are already insulting the US.
I think what's happening here is that you honestly don't understand the symbolism. Because in America and Europe, that symbolism either doesn't exist or isn't prevalent. He was comparing the shoe throwing to Obama's shoe showing.
And if you think we should be less sensitive, bear in mind that it isn't just a matter of the disrespect he showed to Netanyahu. It's what that says to the Arabs. It sends a very clear message, and it's by design.
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve:
quote:But there is something much deeper here than just a cynical sacrifice of Israel in exchange for American interests in the Arab world.
Where did we sacrifice Israel to the Arab world? A couple lines in one speech? Apparently anything that isn't 1000% support of everything every Israeli does, is complete abandonment of Israel to the forces of Arab World Conquest.
Do you understand that in that speech, he basically insisted that Israel grant everything the Arabs are asking for? And that all he's asking from the Arabs are the things that they already promised and failed to deliver on in every agreement to date?
We're supposed to strangle our communities. And you may think of settlements as some sort of ramshackle thing, but we're talking about cities, some of tens of thousands of men, women and children. We're supposed to do that with absolutely nothing from the Arab side. We're supposed to accept the idea that there's some sort of equivalency between the attempts to murder every single one of us and the fact that they feel humiliated. He spoke not a single word about the fact that they have refused peace over and over for 61 years. Rather than suggest that maybe they should consider peace-for-peace, he encouraged their desires to get rid of Israel completely.
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve:
quote: The real significance of your Cairo speech and your declared Mid-East policy is that eight years after 9/11, the United States under your leadership has raised a white flag before radical Islam, has joined the evil axis, and is at the forefront of the attack against the State of Israel.
Apparently since we dare to talk with people in Muslim countries, and question Israel expansion of its settlements, we are now leading the evil axis.
Strawman. That's not what he said. It isn't the talking. It's the acceptance of their position as a given. It isn't "questioning" settlements, it's declaring them, and not the Arab refusal to live in peace with Israel, as the essential cause of the violence in the middle east.
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: By asking Israel to stop expanding their settlements, that they admit are illegal, we have surrendered our country's sovereignty.
There have been illegal outposts. Yes. But the vast majority of "settlers" live in towns and cities that are absolutely not illegal. The Arabs consider the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem, including the Western Wall, to be occupied by us. They consider the Jerusalem neighborhoods of Gilo and East Talpiot and Ramot to be illegal. They consider Maaleh Adumim, where my kids and 35,000 other people live, to be an "illegal settlement". But Israel doesn't.
Obama stepped aside and basically said, "Okay, you (the Arabs) get to define things now."
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: Actually, if we were to bow down to Mr. Feinglin's
Feiglin.
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: pressure and limit the US's foreign policy to just supporting Israel, backing Israel, and doing what Israel wants, we would have surrendered far more of the US sovereignty.
Feiglin doesn't want that. Isn't there enough for you to criticize without attributing to him things he didn't say? Yes, it would be nice if the US would simply do the right thing. Help those who want peace and condemn those who refuse peace. But that's never going to happen.
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve:
quote:The entire world looks on as the president of the United States bows and acquiesces to cruel dictators - while he simultaneously tramples the Israeli prime minister who is showing signs of weakness in a decidedly uncivilized manner.
More of the same. If you don't talk to the enemy, they can never surrender. That's OK if you want to kill them all, but we American's aren't usually that blood thirsty.
He wasn't treating the Arabs as enemies. He was treating Israel that way.
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve:
quote:When Chamberlain acted in a similar manner and sold Czechoslovakia to Hitler, he did not get peace in return. The Chamberlain-like conduct that you have chosen will yet bring upon your country many more 9/11s, G-d forbid.
Godwin's Rule. I win.
Not so much.
[ June 16, 2009, 04:09 PM: Message edited by: Lisa ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*shrug* It's the same thing, over and over again. No proof, no respect, no logic, nothing.
I'm not interested in debating the veracity of your religion, and you are not interetested in "debating" anything else.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Lisa, suppose for a moment I invent a time machine, you use it to travel back to Sinai ca 1300 BC, and - oops - there are no two million Jews being dictated to by the Voice of God. You come back rather chastened. What is now your preferred solution for Israel?
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:Now, the second major source of tension that we need to discuss is the situation between Israelis, Palestinians and the Arab world. America's strong bonds with Israel are well-known. This bond is unbreakable. It is based upon cultural and historical ties and the recognition that the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied.
Around the world the Jewish people were persecuted for centuries. And anti-Semitism in Europe culminated in an unprecedented holocaust. Tomorrow I will visit Buchenwald, which was part of a network of camps where Jews were enslaved, tortured, shot and gassed to death by the Third Reich.
Six million Jews were killed, more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today. Denying that fact is baseless. It is ignorant, and it is hateful.
Threatening Israel with destruction or repeating vile stereotypes about Jews is deeply wrong and only serves to evoke in the minds of the Israelis this most painful of memories while preventing the peace that the people of this region deserve.
On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people, Muslims and Christians, have suffered in pursuit of a homeland. For more than 60 years, they've endured the pain of dislocation.
Many wait in refugee camps in the West Bank and Gaza and neighboring lands for a life of peace and security that they have never been able to lead. They endure the daily humiliations, large and small, that come with occupation.
So let there be no doubt, the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. And America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity and a state of their own.
For decades, then, there has been a stalemate. Two peoples with legitimate aspirations, each with a painful history that makes compromise elusive. It's easy to point fingers.
For Palestinians to point to the displacement brought about by Israel's founding and for Israelis to point to the constant hostility and attacks throughout its history, from within its borders as well as beyond.
But if we see this conflict only from one side or the other, then we will be blind to the truth. The only resolution is for the aspirations of both sides to be met through two states, where Israelis and Palestinians each live in peace and security.
That is in Israel's interests, Palestine's interests, America's interests and the world's interests. And that's why I intend to personally pursue this outcome with all of the patience and dedication that the task requires.
The obligations the obligations that the parties have agreed to under the Road Map are clear. For peace to come, it is time for them and all of us to live up to our responsibilities.
Palestinians must abandon violence. Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and it does not succeed. For centuries, black people in America suffered the lash of the whip as slaves and the humiliation of segregation. But it was not violence that won full and equal rights. It was a peaceful and determined insistence upon the ideals at the center of America's founding.
This same story can be told by people from South Africa to South Asia, to Eastern Europe to Indonesia. It's a story with a simple truth: violence is a dead end. It is a sign neither of courage nor power to shoot rockets at sleeping children or to blow up old women on a bus. That's not how moral authority is claimed, that's how it is surrendered.
Now is the time for Palestinians to focus on what they can build. The Palestinian Authority must develop its capacity to govern with institutions that serve the needs of its people.
Hamas does have support among some Palestinians, but they also have to recognize they have responsibilities, to play a role in fulfilling Palestinian aspirations, to unify the Palestinian people, Hamas must put an end to violence, recognize past agreements, recognize Israel's right to exist.
At the same time, Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel's right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine's. The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements.
This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop.
And Israel must also live up to its obligation to ensure that Palestinians can live and work and develop their society. Just as it devastates Palestinian families, the continuing humanitarian crisis in Gaza does not serve Israel's security, neither does the continuing lack of opportunity in the West Bank.
Progress in the daily lives of the Palestinian people must be a critical part of a road to peace. And Israel must take concrete steps to enable such progress.
And, finally, the Arab states must recognize that the Arab Peace Initiative was an important beginning, but not the end of their responsibility. The Arab-Israeli conflict should no longer be used to distract the people of Arab nations from other problems. Instead, it must be a cause for action to help the Palestinian people develop the institutions that will sustain their state, to recognize Israel's legitimacy and to choose progress over a self-defeating focus on the past.
America will align our policies with those who pursue peace, and we will say in public what we say in private to Israelis and Palestinians and Arabs.
We cannot impose peace. But privately, many Muslims recognize that Israel will not go away. Likewise, many Israelis recognize the need for a Palestinian state.
It is time for us to act on what everyone knows to be true. Too many tears have been shed, too much blood has been shed.
All of us have a responsibility to work for the day when the mothers of Israelis and Palestinians could, can see their children grow up without fear, when the holy land of the three great faiths is the place of peace that God intended it to be, when Jerusalem is a secure and lasting home for Jews and Christians and Muslims and a place for all of the children of Abraham to mingle peacefully together as in the story of Isra as in the story of Isra, when Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed peace be upon them joined in prayer.
Thought it would be good to post the relevant bit of the Cairo speech. Bolds are mine to demonstrate lack of "waving a white flag".
I also want to stress the historical accuracy of Obama's speech.
quote:And if you think we should be less sensitive, bear in mind that it isn't just a matter of the disrespect he showed to Netanyahu. It's what that says to the Arabs.
Or Obama just had his feet up on the desk, as he often does. Not only do you and those who dug out this image read into that image an insult to Netanyahu using a custom that seems to be only uncertainly related to Israel, but you also read into this that Obama was using this image to garner Arab support. How anyone knows for sure that much relaxed posture commonly adopted by Obama carries all that complex subtle meaning, I have no idea.
Posted by Baron Samedi (Member # 9175) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Baron Samedi:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: We're supposed to run ourselves there. The only reason we didn't for a while is that we were prevented.
Prevented? By whom? If God is for you, who can be against you? I want to be on their side.
Deuteronomy 30. I get that this is going to mean nothing to those who don't think the Torah is from God, but we got kicked out of our land because we didn't keep God's laws. Because we wanted to be like "all the nations". So God let us experience life among "all the nations". And now, after more than 19 centuries, Deuteronomy 30 is happening right before our eyes.
If you want to know who was against us, it was us. Not that this is in any way exculpatory for those who maltreated us during those centuries.
In terms of proximal cause, it was first the Romans, then the Christians, and then the Turks who prevented us. The Brits tried, but apparently, the heavenly egg timer had already gone "ding".
(Edit: the above was a metaphor. I don't want people coming back later and claiming I believe there's a great big egg timer in the sky.)
Yet all I ever hear from you here is that the Israeli government is selling out and being far more moderate than God wants them to be. So why has he let them exist as a nation for the last 60 years?
And, more practically, exactly which laws were no Jews living for 2,000 years that made God feel OK about brutally, mercilessly slaughtering even the most faithful of them, that suddenly all of them en masse started observing again from 1948 to the present?
And why would God choose a race to be his covenant people if he knew that he'd end up torturing and massacring far more of them then he ever rewarded? And do you suppose he mentioned any of that to Abraham before they sealed the deal?
By the way, I find the idea that all these people brought all their suffering upon themselves to be pretty horrifying. Whether or not it's "exculpatory for those who maltreated" them, the idea that it's excupatory for the God you worship to allow so many good people to meet such brutal fates over some technical infractions makes me incredibly relieved that he doesn't exist.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Lisa, I love the opportunity to discuss this civilly. I will respond after work. I'm not running, just working
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I think it's pretty obvious by now that Obama's State Department doesn't stand on ceremony. The dude bought the PM a DVD set and shook the queen's hand, for God's sake. So when he puts his feet up on a desk, I think we can be pretty sure he's thinking, "I'd like to put my feet up, because that's comfortable" and not examining it any further.
Whether this is a failure of his State Department or not is left as an exercise to the reader.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Baron Samedi: And do you suppose he mentioned any of that to Abraham before they sealed the deal?
Yes.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I think it's pretty obvious by now that Obama's State Department doesn't stand on ceremony. The dude bought the PM a DVD set and shook the queen's hand, for God's sake. So when he puts his feet up on a desk, I think we can be pretty sure he's thinking, "I'd like to put my feet up, because that's comfortable" and not examining it any further.
Whether this is a failure of his State Department or not is left as an exercise to the reader.
Fair's fair: When Bush made similar mistakes, eg invading Merkel's personal space, few people made excusing remarks about informality.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Lisa, suppose for a moment I invent a time machine, you use it to travel back to Sinai ca 1300 BC, and - oops - there are no two million Jews being dictated to by the Voice of God. You come back rather chastened. What is now your preferred solution for Israel?
For Jews to stop being Jewish. For the people who live in that area to do exactly what Ahmedinajad said in his speech. Have a referendum and live according to the results. I'd expect the international community to provide safe exit for those in danger of genocide, of course, but then, I think they should do that for Darfur, too.
Why? I know I've mentioned it before, but I don't think anything in all of history has caused more grief and division than "us" vs "them". If it weren't for the fact that God mandated this one division, I'd be against it as well. As it is, I'm still against any others. This one... well, I don't have to like it, but it is what it is. God has good reasons for it, I'm sure.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:For Jews to stop being Jewish.
I take it you mean "Stop keeping kosher and following the other Torah laws" rather than "Stop being descended in the female line from their female ancestors". Whether the Arabs would permit this redefinition is a bit of a problem. But that's true of any solution, it has to be imposed on the fanatics of either side.
Anyway, I'll get back to you when I have that time machine.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Lisa, suppose for a moment I invent a time machine, you use it to travel back to Sinai ca 1300 BC, and - oops - there are no two million Jews being dictated to by the Voice of God. You come back rather chastened. What is now your preferred solution for Israel?
For Jews to stop being Jewish. For the people who live in that area to do exactly what Ahmedinajad said in his speech. Have a referendum and live according to the results. I'd expect the international community to provide safe exit for those in danger of genocide, of course, but then, I think they should do that for Darfur, too.
Why? I know I've mentioned it before, but I don't think anything in all of history has caused more grief and division than "us" vs "them". If it weren't for the fact that God mandated this one division, I'd be against it as well. As it is, I'm still against any others. This one... well, I don't have to like it, but it is what it is. God has good reasons for it, I'm sure.
So you can understand why those of us who either don't believe in God or don't agree with your particular understanding of God don't like it.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Sure. What's interesting is that those of you who either don't believe in God or don't agree with what Judaism knows about God have no understanding for those of us who do. Or so it seems, anyway.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
But you keep making these arguments in the apparent belief that they will convince people. You just agreed that your arguments are completely un-compelling for those not misled by your religion, so why do you keep stating them as though they will cause people to support your vision for Israel and for American policy?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:For Jews to stop being Jewish.
I take it you mean "Stop keeping kosher and following the other Torah laws" rather than "Stop being descended in the female line from their female ancestors". Whether the Arabs would permit this redefinition is a bit of a problem. But that's true of any solution, it has to be imposed on the fanatics of either side.
Actually, I more mean that in such a case, the appropriate thing would be to stop identifying as Jews at all. To stop identifying as "other". The only justification for it is that God said so.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Anyway, I'll get back to you when I have that time machine.
You do that. <grin> Someone asked me a couple of weeks ago, I think it was on Facebook, and she was asking people in general, when we'd go if we had a time machine and could only make one trip. You pegged my answer exactly.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I think we understand.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Sure. What's interesting is that those of you who either don't believe in God or don't agree with what Judaism knows about God have no understanding for those of us who do. Or so it seems, anyway.
How, exactly, would one demonstrate such understanding?
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: [QB. . . for those not misled by your religion. . . . [/QB]
I find this an excellent example of how to be pointlessly rude in a discussion. It added nothing.
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
To be fair... Lisa's use of "what Judaism knows about God" (rather than "believes" or "teaches" or something) could be considered unnecessary, too; it seems less so to me, but YMMV.
(Edit) I think the difference might be that Lisa is talking about herself and others, where King is talking about wholly other, but that's a gut response that I haven't fully thought through.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: But you keep making these arguments in the apparent belief that they will convince people. You just agreed that your arguments are completely un-compelling for those not misled by your religion, so why do you keep stating them as though they will cause people to support your vision for Israel and for American policy?
It's worthwhile for you to at the very least understand why we're doing what we're doing, and how behavior like that shown by Obama is simply never going to work.
And who knows? The day may come when you're more receptive, and then you'll be able to think back on this and understand some things that you might otherwise not have understood.
I don't quite get why the views of my culture are "not to be spoken of". Clearly, speaking of them irks people here enough that they leap into name calling, and insist that I'm being uncivil by the mere stating of a view that doesn't jibe with the dominant culture here.
There is a logic here. Just because you disagree with one of the premises doesn't mean you can't follow it and recognize reality. I know Arabs who are as open about their cultural viewpoint as I'm being here, and I wish you did, too, because the Western-centricism, while to be expected in society at large, is something that I would have expected folks on Hatrack to be able to get past.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Lisa, this whole thread is called "The Truth". Why and how do you expect KoM to consider anything he believes any less than "The Truth" if you do not?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:It's worthwhile for you to at the very least understand why we're doing what we're doing, and how behavior like that shown by Obama is simply never going to work.
I agree that Obama's policy will never produce the result you want. I do not agree that this means it won't work.
quote:I don't quite get why the views of my culture are "not to be spoken of".
Not what I said. I asked why you keep making arguments based in premises nobody else shares. If you want to convince, would it not be better to go for the premises rather than the conclusions?
quote:There is a logic here. Just because you disagree with one of the premises doesn't mean you can't follow it and recognize reality.
I do agree with your logic. Since your premise is faulty, your logic has nothing to do with reality, except possibly the reality that the conflict will continue until one or both of the sides holding incompatible premises is wiped out. Notice that these sides are not "Arabs" and "Jews", but "extremist Arabs" and, so far as I can tell, "Lisa".
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Papa Moose: To be fair... Lisa's use of "what Judaism knows about God" (rather than "believes" or "teaches" or something) could be considered unnecessary, too; it seems less so to me, but YMMV.
(Edit) I think the difference might be that Lisa is talking about herself and others, where King is talking about wholly other, but that's a gut response that I haven't fully thought through.
I agree. In fact, my first inclination was to write "Sure. What's interesting is that those of you who either don't believe in God or don't agree with what God says have no understanding for those of us who do. Or so it seems, anyway." That would have been uncivil, so I said it the way I did. I do that a lot, btw.
For the record, I didn't even notice KoM's "misled by". If I had, I probably would have pointed to it as unnecessary.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: Lisa, this whole thread is called "The Truth". Why and how do you expect KoM to consider anything he believes any less than "The Truth" if you do not?
Did you notice me snarking about "those misled by atheism"? And I'm aware of what he thinks. Should I not speak the truth to someone just because he isn't receptive? This is a forum. My replies to him are only partially for his benefit.
Also, the reason it's titled as it is is because that's the name of the video. I think it's appropriate, but that's the reason I gave it that name.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Notice that these sides are not "Arabs" and "Jews", but "extremist Arabs" and, so far as I can tell, "Lisa".
<laugh> Well, okay. You go right on thinking that. All I can tell you is that refusing to accept reality never makes reality go away.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Ok, I exaggerate. But I do not think it is clear that "extremist Jews" is a larger faction either proportionately or absolutely than "extremist Arabs". And the point about how to argue convincingly stands in any case.
We both have a bit of a reputation around here, and I won't say mine is undeserved; but however rudely my arguments are couched, I attempt to drop down to the lowest premise I have in common with a theist, usually (although not in kmb's case) "beliefs should follow from evidence" and argue from there. But you just take your premises as given and restate your conclusions, again and again. I do not see what you hope to accomplish by this.
quote:For the record, I didn't even notice KoM's "misled by". If I had, I probably would have pointed to it as unnecessary.
This is exactly what others object to in your posts: Taking premises for granted. You consistently write from the premise that Judaism is true, now and forever. When I write from the premise that it is false, you consider that an un-necessary insult. I trust you'll agree that if Judaism is wrong, then the Jews are indeed being misled by their religion? To state this may be un-necessary, but if so, then likewise your "what Judaism knows" was equally un-necessary.
Posted by NickS (Member # 12095) on :
Maybe this is too simplistic but in my mind it boils down to this: if you hold that the Jewish faith is true and you believe in the God of the Torah then pretty much everything he said in the video makes sense. You believe in the destiny of Israel and that God will fight its battles.
If on the other hand you don't believe in the Jewish faith then this video sounds kind of extreme and unreasonable. He basically says that God is on their side and that this is what God wants. His argument for pretty much everything is based on this.
So it makes sense that believers and nonbelievers would strongly disagree because in my mind it's an issue of faith or lack thereof.
As a side note I find it kind of funny that he accuses the United States of not supporting Israel. Has anyone taken a look at how much foreign aid the United States has given Israel?
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Did you notice me snarking about "those misled by atheism"?
Yes, yes I did.
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Also, atheism isn't a religion; it's a mistake.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
I apologize.
I was going to go over, line by line, where the arguments fail to convince, make sense, or work for me.
I just don't want to spend the time doing that.
Instead let me break it down.
Lisa, your arguments are based on assumptions that most here do not share.
President Obama asks Israel to stop the growth of settlements, and you assume he wants to tear them all down.
President Obama wants dialogue with other Arab and Muslim countries, and you assume that he wants to do so over the corpse of Israel.
The insult that is played so much on, the showing of the soles of his feet at President Netanyahu is far from obvious. President Obama relaxed a bit while talking on the phone to the President of Israel. To me that shows a confidence in our relationships, and a friendship that doesn't demand formalities to maintain. Yet there are those who force it into an insult because that is what they want.
Yes, it appears that some want to be insulted by President Obama because then they have an excuse not to work for peace.
You said that you didn't want the US to bow down to Israel, but just do what's right. Yet if it is not what you define as right, then you make it sound like its a purposeful assault against you and Israel.
There appears to be this, "Us or them" dichotomy. There is a lot of talk about faith and belief. I am a follow of the third Tao. What that means is that I believe all dichotomies are false dichotomies. I believe that Israel is not a 0 Sum Game, that advances of Muslim countries, people, or groups must come at the cost to Israel, or that advances of Israel must come at a cost to Muslims or local non-Jewish people of any faith.
All of your plans, all of your arguments, all of your insults and fears boil down to this dichotomy, this 0-sum view of the world. You have to convince us that such a limit is in place, or we simply won't do what you think is right.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I agree with pretty much all of that, Darth Mauve. Maybe a little heavy on assumptions of Lisa's assumptions and/or motives, but she'll clarify those that are murky I'm sure.
quote:Yes, it appears that some want to be insulted by President Obama because then they have an excuse not to work for peace.
However I'm not sure that's true. It doesn't give them an excuse to not work for peace, it gives them an excuse to deride the peace that Obama is aiming for, which they don't find acceptable. I firmly believe that everyone in Israel wants peace. Obviously Lisa wants peace. But what kind of peace? Peace where you live side by side in harmony? Peace when all your enemies are dead? Something in between?
You have the right feeling though, I think.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Notice that these sides are not "Arabs" and "Jews", but "extremist Arabs" and, so far as I can tell, "Lisa".
<laugh> Well, okay. You go right on thinking that. All I can tell you is that refusing to accept reality never makes reality go away.
So it's back to the same shenanigans again, eh
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Really, Sam? Was I being uncivil?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote: In fact, my first inclination was to write "Sure. What's interesting is that those of you who either don't believe in God or don't agree with what God says have no understanding for those of us who do. Or so it seems, anyway.
I'm curious about why you feel those who don't share your beliefs here have shown no understanding for you. Disagreement is not necessarily a sign that we don't understand.
I understand that certain extremist Muslims believe God has commanded them to attack and kill Israelis (among others). But even though I understand that they are doing this because they believe God has commanded it, I still find it morally abhorrent and will do every reasonable thing with in my power to oppose them. If one of them were here at hatrack, I would certainly try to persuade them that their beliefs were wrong and morally abhorrent.
I also understand that you believe that God wants you to have a Jewish nation in Israel that uses political and military power to discriminate between Jews and non-Jews. I think that using political and military power to enforce any religious idea is morally abhorrent and I will do every reasonable thing to oppose that.
To me the argument over whether or not Israel's actions are as abhorrent as the behavior of Islamic extremists is beside the point. The fact that murder is worse than theft doesn't make theft OK and doesn't mean I won't support prosecuting people for theft until all murders cease. Similarly, I will continue to oppose the racial and religious discrimination in Israel even though there are places on earth that are more egregiously violating human rights. Even you admit that you would find Israeli policy morally abhorrent if you did not believe God commanded it and did not have faith God had some reason for doing that. Certainly you can not then expect those of us who do not believe God has commanded will not disagree with your conclusions.
Yet when we do, you accuse of being the worst kind of anti-semites who would kill Jews for sport. I recognize that wasn't in this thread but it also wasn't a one time thing. You have very frequently called members of this forum monsters of one kind or another for disagreeing with you. Perhaps if you are now truly interested in civil discussion, an apology for past behavior would be in order.
[ June 17, 2009, 07:24 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Really, Sam? Was I being uncivil?
Look, I really don't think you're trying to be directly incivil. I don't think KoM is ekeing out any high ground in this territory (especially as quoted). But look at the way it's phrased.
Envision why the phrasing "Actively refusing to accept reality" is going to be considered incivil where other ways of expressing your belief structure would not. It's as incivil as someone e-laughed at you and told you "Sure you can refuse to accept jesus christ as the true savior, but that's just you refusing to accept reality again <laughs>"
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Laughing at people is definitely uncivil.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Notice that these sides are not "Arabs" and "Jews", but "extremist Arabs" and, so far as I can tell, "Lisa".
<laugh> Well, okay. You go right on thinking that. All I can tell you is that refusing to accept reality never makes reality go away.
So it's back to the same shenanigans again, eh
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Really, Sam? Was I being uncivil?
It's hard for me to believe that you really don't recognize that accusing someone of refusing to accept reality is not civil.
Affirming that there are many Jews who share your positions and perhaps identifying a few of them, providing data or references to back that up would have been a polite and civil response as well as an excellent rhetorical tactic. If you had done that and KOM continued to insist you were the only one, then your response might have been considered justified and civilized. But sense you didn't you just came across as arrogant and flipant.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Well, there's at least the guy who made the speech who agrees.
Posted by Jamio (Member # 12053) on :
An honest question for Lisa: I understand that, as a non-jew, judaism still has a role for me in the form of the Noahide Laws. Beyond those laws, which I understand I am violating by being a Christian, do I have any responsibility for seeing that the rest of God's will (as you see it) is done? In other words, if I'm not actively standing in the way of Israel operating as a Jewish state, is that all that is required of me?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Great question, Jamio. I think that's all that's required of you as an individual. And technically, it's probably all that's required from other nations as well.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Laughing at people is definitely uncivil.
I can see where others might interpret it differently; but my own feeling in that exchange was that I was making a joke - it's so obvious that there are more extremist Jews than just Lisa - and thus Lisa was laughing with me, not at me.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jamio: which I understand I am violating by being a Christian
That is debatable, and quite possibly not true.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Laughing at people is definitely uncivil.
I can see where others might interpret it differently; but my own feeling in that exchange was that I was making a joke - it's so obvious that there are more extremist Jews than just Lisa - and thus Lisa was laughing with me, not at me.
FWIW, that's how I took it and how I meant it. But there are certain people here who will take offense if I say "good morning".
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: good morning.
*narrowed eyes*
What exactly do you mean by that?
Posted by Baron Samedi (Member # 9175) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: But there are certain people here who will take offense if I say "good morning".
How dare you come on an American forum and say "Good Morning" when it's clearly evening in America and morning in Israel? Are you saying that only Israeli citizens are deserving of your morning greetings? You've got a lot of nerve, discriminating against me just because my parents taught me to celebrate morning 6 hours behind Greenwich Mean Time.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Heh. Comedians, the two of you.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)