05-07-2024, 07:36 PM
(05-07-2024, 07:11 PM)Dill Wrote: You could certainly "attempt to argue" if you knew how, though then you'd see the risk.
E.g., you could dispute the factual record, demonstrate that you do NOT demand that people condemn groups you've targeted, and then do NOT accuse them of actually supporting said groups if they don't condemn to your satisfaction. If you are having trouble remembering examples, I can help. In support of that you can explain why repetitive, selective condemnation is a better response to war and protest than the kind of evaluation that follows rather than precedes description and analysis.
Or dispute my claim that Sharon and Netanyahu destroyed Oslo, making Hamas a valid option for many Palestinians. A bit more nuance in that option, and more targets of condemnation than just Hamas. Simpler if you just stay away from the history. Make every thread a long series of selective condemnation.
Then there is the logical solecism. Explain why Dino, or anyone, necessarily "chooses" to associate with a group if he doesn't condemn it right away, instead of just claiming that absence of immediate and loud condemnations creates it. Whyever should that be? Then explain why that rule, like so many of yours, doesn't apply to you. If you are "speechless," then it's just another of your impressions.
In terms of logical structure, how is Dino's asserted "choice" not simply an inversion of your claim that in condemning IDF war crimes one chooses to "support Hamas"? It's the same logical fallacy in each case. In one version failure to condemn creates "association," in the other, actual condemnation.
So you could very well "argue" with what I've said. Or you could just pretend refutation is unnecessary. Again.
Not surprisingly, given your posting history and heavily biased position on Israel, your description of why the Oslo Accords fell apart is rather at odds with the record.
https://history.state.gov/milestones/1993-2000/oslo
Oslo’s Collapse, 1996–2000
In November 1995, Rabin was assassinated by Yigal Amir, an Israeli who opposed the Oslo Accords on religious grounds. Rabin’s murder was followed by a string of terrorist attacks by Hamas, which undermined support for the Labor Party in Israel’s May 1996 elections. New Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu hailed from the Likud Party, which had historically opposed Palestinian statehood and withdrawal from the occupied territories.
No blame for Hamas? Shocking for you, just shocking.
In Israel’s May 1999 elections, the Labor Party’s Ehud Barak decisively defeated Netanyahu. Barak predicted that he could reach agreements with both Syria and the Palestinians in 12 to 15 months, and pledged to withdraw Israeli troops from southern Lebanon. In September, Barak signed the Sharm al-Shaykh Memorandum with Arafat, which committed both sides to begin permanent status negotiations. An initial round of meetings, however, achieved nothing, and by December the Palestinians suspended talks over settlement-building in the occupied territories.
Barak then withdrew Israeli forces unilaterally from Lebanon and returned to the Palestinian track. At the prime minister’s insistence, Clinton convened a summit at Camp David in July 2000, where he, Barak, and Arafat attempted to reach a final agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Accounts differ as to why Camp David failed, but it is clear that despite additional concessions by Barak, the Israelis and Palestinians remained strongly at odds over borders, Jerusalem, and whether Israel would recognize Palestinian refugees’ “right of return.” The summit ended without a settlement; Clinton would blame Arafat for its failure.
The kindest interpretation of the above is that both sides were responsible for the collapse of Oslo. The opinion of Bill Clinton, who you may have heard is a prominent Democrat, was that Arafat was the cause.
You literally couldn't be objective on Israel if you tried. It makes one wonder why.
