Should we pull support from Israel?

Post Reply New Topic

Do what with who now?

you presented a strawman argument. i'm not responding to it any further than pointing that out.

Thats still not explaining wtf you're talking about. I'm not familiar with the term.

I did have some sources for that actually. The problem is that I didn't completely trust the sources, I'm picky about that. This topic has massive amounts of propaganda out there from both sides. Finding a clean source is difficult. However, the number's don't lie, they are taken from censuses. I'd just prefer a book source.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jso ... salem.html
http://www.freeman.org/m_online/jul03/ihc.htm
"1889-"Thirty thousand out of 40,000 people in Jerusalem are Jews . . . at present the Jews are coming here by the hundreds." The Pittsburgh Dispatch, July 15, 1889."
http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~dhershkowitz/
"From the 1840's the Jewish community grew considerably through new waves of immigrants, mainly from Russia. In the 1880's the Jewish population was further augmented by refugees and agricultural settlements which were founded in many parts of the country. Jewish urban centers (particularly in Jerusalem, Jaffa and Haifa), developed as well."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Jerusalem

What was interesting is the Jews lived happily in the middle east before WWII. The Zionists came from outside they were never native. Even at the time Zionism was a minority movement as it was widely considered immoral under Judaism (the idea of a ‘state’ of Jews is considered blasphemous by some devout Jews). Obviously the events of WWII changed that view but it is a bit sad consider the event of that that spurned this violence. That and anti-Semitism that was spread in the Middle East largely by the Germans and Russian connections.

There is often talk of Palestinian terrorism, but people often forget that one of the earliest examples of terrorist activity in that area was actually Jewish. It was Jewish terrorist groups that attacked Arabs and also the British army. They bombed the King David Hotel in 1945 and 91 people died (28 British, 41 Arab, 17 Jewish, and 5 other, 45 people were injured). People in this group later went on to take prominent positions is the newly formed state of Israel. Don't forget that this group was conducting attacks against the British while we and our allies where were supporting their cause against the Nazis in Europe. They still commemorate this to day, even thought the British ambassador has raised objections to this gross insensitivity.

It really doesn't take a genius to work out who came out worse off in the Middle East. There really need to be fairer deal in terms of land for the Palestinians. I think through Abbas is the best way, but there has to be some serious concessions from the Israelis as a positive gesture. I think Israel to a certain extent exploits the fact that the Palestinian authority has a hard time with running things to improve their negotiating position as if the Palestinians could meet them eye to eye. Nobody should be under any illusion that Palestinian are weak and theyare not going to get strong if peaceful Palestinians are not supported. Israel should take partial responsibility fro the determination of that, and it has definitely deteriorated to the point would make it difficult for a casual observer to discern. They sort of got what they deserved with the Hamas election. Let us hope that Hamas can be isolated and not strengthened with Israel and the US's stupidity.

Last edited by 0_equals_true on 11 Sep 2007, 10:23 am, edited 1 time in total.

Open to the floor: Would anybody ELSE care to explain what a "strawman" argument is, and how it aplies to my post? Or is it just another one of those internet conventions people use when they cant think of a proper answer?

A straw man fallacy attacks a weaker version of the argument instead of dealing with the actual issue.

Ahh I see. So the fact that Europe has NOT been a safe place for the jewish populace in previous years is fallacious? Or is it drawing the obvious parallels between the jewish state and America that is fallacious? (Or for that matter many nation states with a similar history.) I fail to see how the term applies to my post.

The point I was driving at is that this thread implies that Israel is not a "real" country, and does not deserve to be treated as such, even though other nations ARE real, despite being formed under equally dubious (or more dubious) logics. Under this concept, almost all nations are not "real" as they were mostly formed by the resettling of other groups from other areas. The UK, by this logic, is not a real country, nor are any of its member countries, with the exception of Cornwall, which has always been populated by the same race. Our population is made up of Saxons, Celts, Gauls, Normans, Romans, Sarmatians, Gaels, Vikings.. and so on and so forth, all brought in, one way or another, from outside the boundaries of this island. America even more so, is a "false" nation, constituting refugees from most of continental europe, and many other places besides.

It may not be evident in America, given that it started life quite recently, and in a relatively unpopulated land, but the redrawing of maps, creation and dissolution of states and such like, has been going on in the rest of the world for a very long time, and it causes a LOT of problems. The movement of population groups from one place to another complicates matters immensely, but is also a very OLD issue. I find it ironic and amusing in a morbid way that someone from a country that is actually LESS real (by these standards) uses this as the basis for his "final solution to the jewish problem."

Also, I think it will be found that the forced relocation of a large population group from Israel to Europe would be a) A logistic nightmare b) conducted by force, as I doubt they will willingly leave and c) create a brand new ethnic clash problem IN Europe itself. Sending some to the USA would not mitigate part A or B, and would in fact create problem D) the enforced dis-unification of extended family groups and transportation to opposite ends of the globe. Then there is problem e) funding. Who is going to pay for this new exodus?

It would also quite likely create more conflict in the Israel area, as varying factions of the locals and surrounding countries promptly try to grab a chunk for themselves.

I counter-propose that the weaker argument was in fact the Exodus suggestion, and the actual issue is American arrogance in involving itself with greater world issues. (I speak of the nation as a political body, to be clear.)

JonnyBGoode uses the 'strawman' comment in most of his posts because he can't think of a proper answer to counter an argument. It's like saying 'you're full of s**t' without being able to prove it. Whenever anyone mentions strawmen to me, I just ignore it, because I know they are losing the argument.

Yes, the strawman is often overused but it has a place with the rest of the logic fallacies.

That is a strawman, By insinuating that Person A's argument is far more draconian than it is, Person B has side-stepped the issue. Here the "straw man" that person B has set up is the premise that "The only way to stop children running into the busy streets is to keep them inside all day".

My hindsight solution if I was in charge would have been to allow all the Jews to come to the US in the 1930's. But realistically you had anti-semetism in the US and with it being a Great Depression(part of the reason Jews were scapegoated in the first place at the time) might have been an impossible thing for me to get done unless I was a dictator and they tend to usually hate Jews.

I never said any of that. I never even called your post a straw man. (that was skafather84) All I am doing is defining the phrase "straw man" as a response to your other post:


I regret leaving a response in the first place...

[GVideo]http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6604775898578139565[/GVideo]

this is a great example of the strawman and why i called strawman on macbeth. i was saying one thing and he draws a completely different conclusion than what i meant and tried to redirect the discussion entirely...a hijack via strawman. i'm still not gonna respond because he's still trying it.

Yeah, the gang can get pretty rough
around here. Still, you didn't have to
even answer his jibe, but could just have
said you were only giving the definition.

quoted so that the video is seen on the new page.