Israel must declare Abbas irrelevant, wipe out Hamas leadership: deputy prime minister

[bemildred]

JERUSALEM: Moderate Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas is an ineffective leader and Israel must declare him irrelevant, Israel's new deputy prime minister, Avigdor Lieberman, said Saturday.

Lieberman, who joined the government earlier this month to shore up Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's shaky coalition, also proposed that Israel wipe out the leadership of the militant Hamas and Islamic Jihad groups.

Olmert's spokeswoman, Miri Eisin, had no immediate comment. Olmert, who appointed Lieberman "minister for strategic threats," distanced himself in the past from some of the politician's hardline positions.

Lieberman told Israel Radio that Israel should work more closely with Jordan in dealing with the West Bank, and ignore Abbas. "We have a reliable partner there which is Jordan," he said."We have to coordinate with Jordan. We have to say that Abbas is simply not relevant, we have to ignore him ... He has no authority, no power."

Haaretz

[muriel_volestrangler]

1. Well, that does sound like a threat, though the strategy sounds dangerous (n/t)

[bemildred]

2. I'm sure Jordan appreciates his "support".

:sarcasm:

Even in the general idiocy of Israeli internal political dialog, he stands out for his cartoonish thoughts about how to solve the existential challenges that Israel faces.

[bullimiami]

3. israel will have no chance of any peace with the palestinians until they

respect their choice of leaders and talk with them as equals.

the palestinians are backed into a corner and have been left no option but to fight or submit.

[Vitruvius]

4. Ahh -- Israel -- the assassination nation...

right up there with us, especially under Bush.

[msmcghee]

6. While I'd have no problem at all putting Bush, Rumsfeld and

Cheney up for war crimes and crimes against peace, it is repugnant to suggest that a nation defending its citizens from attack is guilt of those crimes. Your moral double standard is revolting.

[frylock]

8. defending its citizens from attack..

by killing scores of innocent people. Nice spin on Israel's heavy-handed retaliatory actions. Israel has been engaging in criminal acts in the name of "defending its citizens" since the 50s.

[msmcghee]

9. Gosh, those Jews are clever.

How they allow hundreds of Palestinians to sneak in to Israel with bombs strapped to their waists and blow themselves up in buses and cafes - so that they can play the "defense" card.

How they pretend to guard border crossings but allow militants with explosives and weapons to sneak in to the territories so that they can fire rockets into Israeli towns and schools killing their kids - so they can play the defense card.

Now that you explain it so clearly I don't know how I could have been so blind.

I think the world should blockade Israel's ports and cut off all economic assistance and foreign trade, freeze all their foreign assets. Then maybe they'll see the sense in simply allowing their citizens to be killed by those who have sworn to Israel's destruction - and stop making such a fuss about "defense".

We all know that Israel is responsible for all the problems in the ME - that the Arab states were getting along just fine and embracing democracy and human rights for their citizens, separating their religious beliefs from their governments - before the UN inserted so many Jews into their midst.

Now look what's happening. Along with the Jews - the Arabs are killing each other in record numbers, hanging homosexuals, stoning rape victims and mutilating the genitals of their daughters. And all because of the evil influence of the racist Zionists that have so disrupted the delicate moral sensitivities of the ME Arab nations. Just having all those Jews sitting there between Lebanon and Egypt is enough to give any jihadist the vapors.

:sarcasm:

[breakaleg]

10. Is it possible for you to not misquote someone, to not put words in their mouth?

[msmcghee]

11. Is it possible for you to . .

. . write a post that makes some sense?

[breakaleg]

12. You didn't understand my post?

[msmcghee]

13. There was no quote in my post.

I used what is called a paraphrase. It is a useful technique in debate to expose the weakness - or in this case the absurdity - of an opponent's argument - by filling it out for them. By showing others what their argument is actually saying when carried to its conclusion - when it's not limited to the bumper-sticker aspects of the meme being spread.

If they believe that I have overstated my case they are free to point that out. I see they have not tried yet to do that. You are welcome to help them out.

Learn the meaning of "quote" then get back to me.

[breakaleg]

14. Does paraphrase mean to twist the person's words around so they mean

something different entirely? Because that's what you do.

[Violet_Crumble]

16. In this instance that's obviously what it is...

I wonder why it's so damn difficult to comprehend and comment on what other DUers actually say instead of inventing things they didn't say at all...

[Tom Joad]

22. Breakaleg. Take away that, and he would have nothing to say.

[breakaleg]

23. how true.... nt.

[frylock]

15. feel better now?

You sure are wrapped up emotionally into this issue. I suggest you take a deep breath and try reading a little more on the subject. Try and approach it with an objective viewpoint for a change.

[msmcghee]

17. I submit the last three posts by you, breakaleg and VC . .

. . as evidence of the effectiveness of my "paraphrase" post in exposing the absurdity of your assertion that, "Israel has been engaging in criminal acts in the name of "defending its citizens" since the 50s".

I notice that none of you has even tried to show why defensive military operations that result in incidental civilian casualties are "criminal acts" - although that is a constant theme in your posts.

The facts are that Israel, as a nation defending its citizens - has the legal and moral right to do whatever is necessary to stop those attacks.

You can try to lay out a logical argument why israel does not have that right - but you would fail. Israel is hardly forcing the militants to fire rockets from Gaza into Israel - designed and fired with the stated purpose of killing Israeli citizens. That's pretty hard to characterize as defense on the part of the militias.

So, instead you are left with silly critiques of my debating technique. Try making an actual on-topic argument. It will look much better for you.

*********************

Emotionally wrapped up? Actually I'm having a relaxing time with my second latte on this nice Saturday morning with a great view of fresh snow in the Cascades.

Cheers

[Violet_Crumble]

18. How about sticking to what people actually say and think for a change?

You blatantly portrayed another poster as holding a view they most definately did not hold and you've done this same thing to me in another thread. There is nothing silly about pointing that out, and I'd also point out that you really should take the effort to genuinelly find out other people's POV rather than invent them for them. If in doubt, ask questions...

As for having logical arguments, I'm still waiting in another thread for you to try to give any sort of logical argument on several points in the thread, or to even answer questions put to you. I can give you links if yr having difficulty finding them :)

[msmcghee]

19. How about dropping the feigned indignation . .

. . and theatrics that permeate all your posts?

How about actually focusing on refuting my point - in specific words that can stand up to the test of logic. If you had the ability to do that I expect you would.

That's all that really counts Violet - can you disprove my assertions - or can you defend your's from my criticism.

About 99% of your posts are nothing but snide comments about the person - hidden in pretend words about their ideas. You're good at that.

But, that has nothing to do with actual debate.

If you disagree with my premise then provide an actual argument. Otherwise, it's more of your BS - which I won't waste my time on.

Just to remind you, the topic here is the OP made the assertion that, "Israel has been engaging in criminal acts in the name of "defending its citizens" since the 50s."

He/she offered absolutely no evidence for that. He showed us the results of no war-criminal trials - even trials accusing but exonerating the Israelis - much less convicting them.

Even, if some indictable atrocity occurred at the hands of the IDF at some time - that does not change the overall nature of the conflict. Israel, since 1948, has been defending itself and its citizens from external attack. The attackers have a stated policy of destroying Israel and have initiated countless individual attacks as part of larger campaigns to carry that out - just as they are now in Gaza and just as they recently did in Lebanon.

Israel has no policy of attacking her neighbors. Israel has never attacked her neighbors other than in defense - which is perfectly legal and expected under the UN Charter - since 1948. That's why there have been no trials of the state of Israel for war crimes.

Israel has never been attacked - other than as an offensive terrorist operation against the state of Israel with the intent to destroy it - since 1948.

Israel's defensive actions are legal and moral - but regrettable - even if civilians die incidently in those operations - as long as Israel takes reasonable precautions to prevent their deaths. Precautions any law-abiding moral nation would take under similar circumstances.

You could provide some evidence that Israel, as state policy, has ever violated that rule - or that Israel has ever attacked another nation as an act of aggression and not for defense against determined and deadly foes pledged to Israel's destruction.

There, I've given you plenty of statements to actually refute if you can.

That's how real debate is conducted - not with smarmy ad hominems. I've refuted the OP's original assertion by exposing it as a lie and a slander against a whole people, which I am sure you support.

So, you could actually address my clear, substantive points, above, and show me where I am wrong - or, you could just discuss my debating style again, which is probably safer. What's it going to be?

[Violet_Crumble]

21. But you made false claims about someone else's POV...

That's all I was commenting on. You portrayed them as having a POV they never said they have and you are sticking to that. I've also asked you to address my points and questions and you've refused to, so guess where you can shove any of yr mirror-image counter requests to address yr even more recent 'points'...

So how about you stop misrepresenting other posters views and focus on what they actually say? Then we can try and have a discussion...

[cal04]

5. Israeli minister calls to recapture Gaza border zone

A member of Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's cabinet called on Saturday for Israel to recapture a part of Gaza evacuated a year ago and dismissed moderate Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas as "irrelevant."

Avigdor Lieberman, an Israeli rightist recently named minister of strategic affairs, told Israel Radio "we have to take back control of the Rafah crossing and the Philadelphi corridor," zones along the Gaza border with Egypt.

Israel accuses the Palestinians of smuggling in tonnes of ammunition across from Egypt, and blames this for a recent spate of rocket fire at southern Israeli towns that killed an Israeli woman on Wednesday and seriously wounded a guard.

http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=1712392006

[breakaleg]

7. When he says 'wipe out' I assume he means to target them for killing...

Now, if Palestinians did this, wouldn't they be hauled off to Israel to stand trial for murder? Yet when Israel commits targetting killings, which it does all the time, somehow it's an act of war and they aren't held responsible. And not just by the Palestinians, but the international press doesn't call it murder either, to my knowledge.

[AlamoDemoc]

20. Precisely! But then again Israel isn't a model state for human rights