israeli aggressors building more housing in East Jerusalem

[Kuciwalker]

I stated using ideals to judge. That would necessitate one clearly laying out what would constitute the term Human Rights before then using that ideal as the yardstick.

Guess what happens when you convince someone else to actually use your 'ideals' (which you haven't yet, both Siro and I think they're ridiculous)? They become norms.

[GePap]

What is so funny, is that you think you make some points, but in the end you are nothing but an irrelevant irritant who adds nothing to the actual discussion in the thread.

If you think your "attacks" on my statements matter to me or any other poster, then you are seriously deluded. Other posters will say what they think, and I think so little of you, the only reason I don;t ignore you is that I like getting my own blood pressure up. I know, its masochistic, but its hard to get annoyed at people who are actually intellectually engaged with their points, as opposed to Jr. trolls who are not good enough trolls to get permabanned.

[Kuciwalker]

[Sirotnikov]

GePwned

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by GePap
Ah, no. Since "norms" are variable, and there is no such thing as "international norms" that are universally agreed upon at any one time. Therefore the best way to judge legitimacy is not against some variable, funglible "norm", but instead against some clearly defined ideal, such as "soverignty", or "Human rights", or whatever.

Of course there are international norms.
They are reflected in how most countries behave and what is considered normative international behavior and what isn't.

A norm does not require universal agreement. It requires a large enough group following the same principles. That is the definition of norm.

Your idea about clearly defined ideals shows a deep misunderstanding / hallucination. Since when are the ideas of "sovereignty" or "human rights" clearly defined or agreed upon?

They are products of ever developing philosophical ideas and notions. Every person in the world has a slightly different meaning for the concept of sovereignty or human rights.

What society does, is takes the average of most popular definitions and treats it as a binding norm (whether using actual laws, or merely socially sanctioning deviators ). So while there is never a binding universal definition, there are norms, which represent the common denominator between everyone's slightly different beliefs.

Knowing the social and historical context of norms acceptable at a certain time, are the only way one can judge behavior. Anything else is a joke. It's like judging a Chinese guy according to Mexican law.

I hope you read upon on the concept of norms, social contracts and such.

You could apply your questionable illegitimacy test to almost any place in the world where a territorial dispute has existed, and claim that what ever occured is illegitimate because it does not stand the test of your personal values at this moment.

You would be correct in that. Your point?

My point is that I most certainly do not intend to accept your personal convictions and ideals as a serious basis for an argument.

Just because what ever silly interpretation you have for common ideals says something about me, does not make it a legitimate ground for discussion.

I do not accept your personal ideals, and I refuse to continue debate on such grounds.

This is exactly why I think discussion with you is futile.

You have a very rigid and closed world of ideals built around you, and you refuse to accept the notion that there are other people with different definitions of what is moral.

You even refuse to acknowledge the idea of international norms, in favor of your own definition of what seem right or wrong to you. And then you go on being awfully judgemental and cocky, over ideas that only you accept as true.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov



Of course there are international norms.
They are reflected in how most countries behave and what is considered normative international behavior and what isn't.

A norm does not require universal agreement. It requires a large enough group following the same principles. That is the definition of norm.

I did not say there are no international norms, I said that since they are variable and not universally held, they are not particulalry worthwhile when it comes to making real decisions of legitimacy. What is going on in Burma is "against international norms" or so most states think so, but that didn;t stop the Junta, nor does it means that states with lots of interests at stake are willing to ignore them.

Your idea about clearly defined ideals shows a deep misunderstanding / hallucination. Since when are the ideas of "sovereignty" or "human rights" clearly defined or agreed upon?

They are products of ever developing philosophical ideas and notions. Every person in the world has a slightly different meaning for the concept of sovereignty or human rights.

You clearly misundertand the point: Until both sides in a struggle come to some understanding of these terms, there is no possible resolution. Coming to such an understanding requires an honest airing of past and present issues. If both sides have different view entirely about what these basic ideals are, no peaceful solution can be agreed upon.

What society does, is takes the average of most popular definitions and treats it as a binding norm (whether using actual laws, or merely socially sanctioning deviators ). So while there is never a binding universal definition, there are norms, which represent the common denominator between everyone's slightly different beliefs.

International issues are not decided by "society". There is no single "global society", because there is no single agent in international relations capable of enforcing said "norms." Again, as the events in Burma currently show.

[Slaughtermeyer]

Here are some vids of Israeli aggressors in action in the occupied territories:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jw_Px5cJIyI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8U_yAPYcmCU

(this one is great - it shows that Zionists are expected to be aggressors at an early age.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGYT0O5INq4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2O9W3UsdRyM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGkoSYCmGEU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BX3An_S4uZI

part one

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCUQj2_D94c

part two

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7USBlTE1BAQ

[Sirotnikov]

How the heck is this related to the thread's discussion topic?

Why not post the Israelis involved in 9/11 crap again?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
How the heck is this related to the thread's discussion topic?

Maybe it has to do with some things you said, like what causes terrorism there.

[Kidlicious]

"Israel is a fellow democracy" - Hillary Clinton

[Sirotnikov]

Maybe it has to do with some things you said, like what causes terrorism there.

Maybe if you would have read previous posts you'd have a better view of the history of anti jewish violence in the area.

I will say that i've come to respect you more recently. You're a good guy, and you take things to heart, though you're often very misguided by your politics, and the general misinformation that goes on in left-wing circles.

[Slaughtermeyer]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
The cause of Palestinian terrorism, is historically instigations and propoganda made by local leaders for advancing their private political fortune.

It started with Mufti Al-Husseini, who instead of promoting a viable Palestinian state-mechanism instigated mass violence and riots, thus strengthening his own position, but weakening the Palestinian political cause.

Rabbi Baruch Kaplan would disagree with you.

http://www.nkusa.org/Historical_Documents/KaplanInterview.cfm

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

Maybe if you would have read previous posts you'd have a better view of the history of anti jewish violence in the area.

I will say that i've come to respect you more recently. You're a good guy, and you take things to heart, though you're often very misguided by your politics, and the general misinformation that goes on in left-wing circles.

I don't think things that happened a long time ago piss people off as much as things that are happening currently do. And I did read previous posts.

[Sirotnikov]

clarification: when I said I respect you more, I did not mean the "I respect you more than that" way.

Just sought the opportunity to point it out, that I've recently come to a conclusion that you're actually a good person (with misinformed leftist views ). That's all.

/me stops before people start suggesting we get a room

I don't think things that happened a long time ago piss people off as much as things that are happening currently do.

Muslim thought does not make that separation between history and current times.
For them, 100 years ago is just like now. Heck, they keep comparing it to the crusaders which are very real and current in their eyes.

I don't claim all do - but it exists.

And I wasn't teh one dragging discussion to the past

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Slaughtermeyer

Rabbi Baruch Kaplan would disagree with you.

http://www.nkusa.org/Historical_Docu...nInterview.cfm

I'd tell you what I think of Neturei Karta, but half of that I can not say due to secrecy laws. I hope it gets declassified one day.

edited:
this is one example:

http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/html/final/eng/sib/9_04/araf_ap17.htm

Other than that they are a good example of what Zionists refer to as a classic Diaspora attitude.

They're so used to being trampled by other people, that they're afraid of taking initiative and taking charge of their own fate. Rattling the boat is bad because, oh someone will come and kill the poor Joos...


example:

An argument erupted in the Jewish newspapers about establishing a permanent prayer area for Jews at the Wall. This provoked the Arabs, and the rabbi of Jerusalem at the time, Rabbi Yosef Chaim Zonnenfeld begged them to stop and to be appreciative to the Arabs for allowing Jews to pray at the Wall for so many centuries undisturbed.

What does his adored Rabbi Chaim Zonnenfeld say?

a) Jews should be appreciative to arabs for giving them a minimal right to pray there individually, instead of kicking Jews out all together, or worse.

b) Jews should not try demand better religious rights, such as organized prayer place (in their holiest of holies) as it would infuriate the arabs

c) Arabs are very much justified to be infuriated by someone performing a religious ritual (at a wall that has for a century been used as a dumpster by arabs!)


The riots of 1929 are historically known to have started due to the grand mufti Al-Husseini promoting a rumor that the Jews intend to destroy al-Aqsa, to build their prayer place (or something of that sort). This falsehood was found in leaflets and in documentation of friday prayers of the time.

Such a plan obviously never existed, and it was a method to rally all the arabs against the Jews.


Then Rabi Baruch Kaplan goes on to explain, that the Arabs were so angry at the Zionists for wanting official rights at the wailing wall, that they went on and decided to kill Jews in the yeshiva. And he treats it like it totally makes sense.

Does that somehow sound logical to you?
That a request for holy rights promote a massacare of Jews?

Guess what? Did the arabs remember about their centuries old special relations with local (anti-zionist) Jewish families?

Of course not!!

the Arabs got organized, and the Mufti called on his people to be ready Friday night when the yeshiva would be attending prayers. At this point, the yeshiva was alone against the Zionists, but the Arabs didn’t know to distinguish between us and the Zionists. Sadly they attacked and killed some of our people,

I wanted to describe how the wicked Zionists, both today and in those days, were the cause of our suffering!

Of course, it wasn't the Arabs that were guilty of slaughtering Jews and resorting to violence.

It were the damn Zionists that refused to hold their head down any longer!