Democrats losing all credibility in denial of overwhelming evidence..

[Dill]

(04-02-2024, 12:57 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No, I'm not.  He specifically stated Israel cannot exist as an ethnic state.  Israel was refounded post WW2 as a state for the Jewish people.  Thus, Dill has directly stated Israel cannot exist in any way shape or form that it has since it was refounded post WW2.  It's not complicated, so I'm confusedas to why you're having so much trouble.

Lol and now you are calling it "REfounded."  

I doubt you're all that confused about why Dino can't get from what I actually said to what you said I said. He knows why you don't quote me while substituting your version of what I "directly said." So I'll do it for you. Again. (Sunset, you reading this? Remember what I said drives arguments in a circle?)

"Israel has a right to exist as part of a two-state or one-state solution to the Palestinian problem. It doesn't have right to exist as an ethnic state which occupies territory gained in war with intent to cleanse and annex." 

There is no "cannot exist" in that statement. Just a recognition that in current international law (and humanitarian ethics), there is no "right" to territory seized in war. (And no "right" for any state to "exist.) Many also agree as I do, that such seizure undermines the legitimacy of any state. But in my referenced two-sate solution, Israel would exist in EXACTLY the same "way, shape or form" as it has since 1948 (as an ethnic state in which full rights are not extended to every ethnicity) just having ceded control of some land it has illegally occupied.  "Cannot exist" is simply your helpful addition to a statement that doesn't say what you want it to, when it "speaks for itself." 
 
Then regarding what's "open to interpretation," there's this: "You continue to confuse value judgements with factual.

Acknowledging that all ethnic states controvert the premise of universal, equal human rights cannot "deny" any such state an ability to exist. 

The question/fact of existence is decided on the ground, often by guns.  
You're just complaining because I don't accord such states the legitimacy of full democracies based on equal human rights."

That is another "directly stated" statement.  You'd find much less resistance from Dino if you put it this way:

"Dill doesn't, in any way shape or form, accord ethnic states the same legitimacy as democracies recognizing universal human rights. He directly said so."   

You've not thought this through very well.  You want to defend Israel as an ethnic state but, even unfamiliar as you are with the history of that debate, you sense it will eventually commit you to denying one human group universal rights based on their ethnicity.  So you don't want discussion/examination/debate; your hope is that by repeating your version of what I "directly said," people will accept the misrepresentation and ignore my evidence and reasons. But you cannot count on lazy, motivated, knee-jerk reactions from everyone. In this forum, there'll always be skeptics checking your work. And mine.

Yow! This morning I meant to address some legitimate and substantive issues raised by Sunset and Hollo instead of this insistent misconstruction.  Now the good faith posters will have to wait, probably till tomorrow given my busy schedule today.