The concept of God as the One Law of Nature

[Immanuel Can]

Because Netanyahu has been an absolute dick.

So...Hamas is killing teenagers, raping women, putting babies in microwaves, grenading fathers with their children,and taking hostages and refusing to let them go...and somehow, you still come back to Netanyahu?

I'm afraid you and reality have never met.

You're an idiot. Hamas wouldn't even be in power if Israeli hardliners hadn't torpedoed the PLO. And why did they torpedo the PLO? Because they wanted to PREVENT A TWO-STATE SOLUTION.

You don't know anything about the history of two-state solutions, I guess. It's Israel who's been pushing for those from the start, and the Palestinians who have refused every one of them.

Here you go: AI to the rescue.

Palestinian and Arab leaders have declined or rejected proposals for a two-state solution on multiple occasions since 1937, with historians and analysts pointing to five major turning points where statehood offers were turned down or negotiations stalled:1937 (Peel Commission): The British proposed dividing the land into separate Jewish and Arab states, which Jewish leaders accepted but Arab leaders rejected.1947 (UN Partition Plan): The UN proposed dividing Mandatory Palestine into independent Arab and Jewish states. Jewish leaders accepted, while Arab leaders rejected it, leading to the 1948 Arab-Israeli War.2000 (Camp David Summit): Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, under mediation by U.S. President Bill Clinton, offered a Palestinian state in the entirety of the Gaza Strip and roughly 92% of the West Bank. Palestinian Liberation Organization leader Yasser Arafat rejected the offer and the ensuing negotiations collapsed.2001 (Taba Summit): Following Camp David, further talks took place proposing a Palestinian state on 97% of the West Bank, but a final agreement was not reached before talks were suspended.2008 (Realignment Plan): Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert offered Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas a state on about 93.7% of the West Bank with land swaps for the remaining 6.3%, as well as a division of Jerusalem. Abbas did not accept the offer.

[Gary Childress]

So...Hamas is killing teenagers, raping women, putting babies in microwaves, grenading fathers with their children,and taking hostages and refusing to let them go...and somehow, you still come back to Netanyahu?

I'm afraid you and reality have never met.

You're an idiot. Hamas wouldn't even be in power if Israeli hardliners hadn't torpedoed the PLO. And why did they torpedo the PLO? Because they wanted to PREVENT A TWO-STATE SOLUTION.

You don't know anything about the history of two-state solutions, I guess. It's Israel who's been pushing for those from the start, and the Palestinians who have refused every one of them.

Here you go: AI to the rescue.

Palestinian and Arab leaders have declined or rejected proposals for a two-state solution on multiple occasions since 1937, with historians and analysts pointing to five major turning points where statehood offers were turned down or negotiations stalled:1937 (Peel Commission): The British proposed dividing the land into separate Jewish and Arab states, which Jewish leaders accepted but Arab leaders rejected.1947 (UN Partition Plan): The UN proposed dividing Mandatory Palestine into independent Arab and Jewish states. Jewish leaders accepted, while Arab leaders rejected it, leading to the 1948 Arab-Israeli War.2000 (Camp David Summit): Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, under mediation by U.S. President Bill Clinton, offered a Palestinian state in the entirety of the Gaza Strip and roughly 92% of the West Bank. Palestinian Liberation Organization leader Yasser Arafat rejected the offer and the ensuing negotiations collapsed.2001 (Taba Summit): Following Camp David, further talks took place proposing a Palestinian state on 97% of the West Bank, but a final agreement was not reached before talks were suspended.2008 (Realignment Plan): Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert offered Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas a state on about 93.7% of the West Bank with land swaps for the remaining 6.3%, as well as a division of Jerusalem. Abbas did not accept the offer.

Did the PLO reject the Oslo Accords?

No. The Palestine Liberation Organization did not reject the Oslo Accords at the time they were made; it formally accepted and signed them.

The Oslo process was built around negotiations between Israel and the PLO. In 1993, PLO chairman Yasser Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin signed the first Oslo agreement at the White House. Mahmoud Abbas was also deeply involved in the negotiations.

As part of the agreement, the PLO:

recognized Israel’s right to exist,
renounced terrorism and armed attacks in principle,
and agreed to negotiations toward Palestinian self-government.

Israel, in turn, recognized the PLO as the representative of the Palestinian people.

What is true is that:

many Palestinians and Palestinian factions rejected Oslo, especially Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad;
many Israelis also rejected it, particularly parts of the Israeli right and settler movement;
and later, critics on both sides argued the other side never sincerely implemented the agreements.

There is also longstanding controversy over whether Arafat truly intended Oslo to lead to permanent peace. Critics often point to later speeches, including a 1994 speech in Johannesburg comparing Oslo to a temporary truce in early Islamic history. But regardless of later disputes over intentions or implementation, the historical fact is that the PLO officially accepted and signed the Oslo Accords.

https://chatgpt.com/share/6a0e804f-52c0 ... 1abe2924db

[Gary Childress]

On what happened after the Oslo Accords were signed.

https://chatgpt.com/share/6a0e819f-cfa8 ... a0406718d3

[Immanuel Can]

What is true is that:

...many Palestinians and Palestinian factions rejected Oslo, especially Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad

Did you even read this? It was Hamas and these same "Palestinian factions" that attacked on Oct. 7th, obviously. So much for the nominal "acceptance" by the Palestinian authority.

By the way, how many Israelis who didn't accept the accord turned around and attacked Gaza before Oct. 7th? None.

You see, Gary, there's a heck of a difference between rejection-in-principle and rejection-in-blood. The Israelis are all free to have their opinions of the worth of the accord, as are you and I. No harm, no foul if we do. What we are not free to do is what Hamas did: to systematically and deliberately murder those who disagree with us and to throw our own fellow citizens into the meat grinder of war, and refuse to let them out.

[Gary Childress]

What is true is that:

...many Palestinians and Palestinian factions rejected Oslo, especially Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad

Did you even read this? It was Hamas and these same "Palestinian factions" that attacked on Oct. 7th, obviously. So much for the nominal "acceptance" by the Palestinian authority.

By the way, how many Israelis who didn't accept the accord turned around and attacked Gaza before Oct. 7th? None.

You see, Gary, there's a heck of a difference between rejection-in-principle and rejection-in-blood. The Israelis are all free to have their opinions of the worth of the accord, as are you and I. No harm, no foul if we do. What we are not free to do is what Hamas did: to systematically and deliberately murder those who disagree with us and to throw our own fellow citizens into the meat grinder of war, and refuse to let them out.

If you read what I posted, critics are arguing who's fault it is. There's no clear answer. It's not just the Palestinians as your simplistic black and white pro-Israeli world view believes. Some Palestinians supported the two-state solution just as some Israelis did, including the PLO. However, the hardliners in BOTH CAMPS shut down the deal. Had Israel moved forward unreservedly on the Oslo Accords, had Rabin not been assassinated by Israeli hardliners, things could have been different today. The PLO was the authority of the Palestinians at the time of the accords. They accepted the accords. But we'll never know what would have happened because that course of history was shut down violently by a sudden shock from an Israeli hardliner assassin.

[Immanuel Can]

What is true is that:

...many Palestinians and Palestinian factions rejected Oslo, especially Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad

Did you even read this? It was Hamas and these same "Palestinian factions" that attacked on Oct. 7th, obviously. So much for the nominal "acceptance" by the Palestinian authority.

By the way, how many Israelis who didn't accept the accord turned around and attacked Gaza before Oct. 7th? None.

You see, Gary, there's a heck of a difference between rejection-in-principle and rejection-in-blood. The Israelis are all free to have their opinions of the worth of the accord, as are you and I. No harm, no foul if we do. What we are not free to do is what Hamas did: to systematically and deliberately murder those who disagree with us and to throw our own fellow citizens into the meat grinder of war, and refuse to let them out.

If you read what I posted, critics are arguing who's fault it is. There's no clear answer.

Oh. So now you've moved from saying the Jews are the problem to recognizing the Palestinians are too. But it's still a false equivalency. Yes, both are contributing to problems, but only one started it, only one is perpetuating it, only one is immolating its own people, and only one is actually genocidal...and it's the same side, not both.

However, the hardliners in BOTH CAMPS shut down the deal.

This is true: but it's also the nature of deals...the first one isn't always accepted. And that's okay. Deals have to be struck, and they take repeated attempts, often, and particularly in thorny negotiations. The problem arises when you stop talking and start to murder people...including your own...as Hamas chose to do.

[Walker]

The most fundamental and biblical one law of nature is life and death, and based on that there are two kinds of people, alive and dead. The fundamental division.

Using facial recognition and other technologies to aid in tracking, The Israelis are hunting, finding, and killing everyone who participated in and facilitated the Oct. 7 attack. They have killed hundreds so far, even someone, presumably a farmer, who drove a tractor through the border fence.

That’s eliminating a select group of evil as punishment for actual evil physical deeds done to other autonomous physical entities, to curtail the same fundamental deeds in the future.

It’s biblical. It’s a biblical response to a seventh century attack.

[Gary Childress]

Did you even read this? It was Hamas and these same "Palestinian factions" that attacked on Oct. 7th, obviously. So much for the nominal "acceptance" by the Palestinian authority.

By the way, how many Israelis who didn't accept the accord turned around and attacked Gaza before Oct. 7th? None.

You see, Gary, there's a heck of a difference between rejection-in-principle and rejection-in-blood. The Israelis are all free to have their opinions of the worth of the accord, as are you and I. No harm, no foul if we do. What we are not free to do is what Hamas did: to systematically and deliberately murder those who disagree with us and to throw our own fellow citizens into the meat grinder of war, and refuse to let them out.

If you read what I posted, critics are arguing who's fault it is. There's no clear answer.

Oh. So now you've moved from saying the Jews are the problem to recognizing the Palestinians are too. But it's still a false equivalency. Yes, both are contributing to problems, but only one started it, only one is perpetuating it, only one is immolating its own people, and only one is actually genocidal...and it's the same side, not both.

However, the hardliners in BOTH CAMPS shut down the deal.

This is true: but it's also the nature of deals...the first one isn't always accepted. And that's okay. Deals have to be struck, and they take repeated attempts, often, and particularly in thorny negotiations. The problem arises when you stop talking and start to murder people...including your own...as Hamas chose to do.

I never thought it was just the Jews. I've been of the opinion that it is a complex problem with many moving parts that is not easily solved; however, it would be better if both sides came to the table and resolved their differences peacefully. That means both sides need to take some responsibility for their actions. Some people seem to think that it's only the Palestinians.

And right now, Israel is the one doing most of the murdering. That's causing as many problems as the actions of Hamas on Oct 7.

[Impenitent]

the consequences of a defensive war are somehow murder?

gee, the allies should have stopped after the liberation of France... too many nazis being murdered

-Imp

[Immanuel Can]

If you read what I posted, critics are arguing who's fault it is. There's no clear answer.

Oh. So now you've moved from saying the Jews are the problem to recognizing the Palestinians are too. But it's still a false equivalency. Yes, both are contributing to problems, but only one started it, only one is perpetuating it, only one is immolating its own people, and only one is actually genocidal...and it's the same side, not both.

However, the hardliners in BOTH CAMPS shut down the deal.

This is true: but it's also the nature of deals...the first one isn't always accepted. And that's okay. Deals have to be struck, and they take repeated attempts, often, and particularly in thorny negotiations. The problem arises when you stop talking and start to murder people...including your own...as Hamas chose to do.

I never thought it was just the Jews. I've been of the opinion that it is a complex problem with many moving parts that is not easily solved;

That much is true.

however, it would be better if both sides came to the table and resolved their differences peacefully.

Israel would love to do that. They've been trying to get that process for a long, long time. But it's hard to do when people want you wiped off the face of the planet, or "from the river to the sea." How do you negotiate with self-immolating bigots, Islamist terrorists, who hate you to the death and think that by dying by your hand, they get 72 perpetual rape victims to molest in "Paradise" ?

[Gary Childress]

Oh. So now you've moved from saying the Jews are the problem to recognizing the Palestinians are too. But it's still a false equivalency. Yes, both are contributing to problems, but only one started it, only one is perpetuating it, only one is immolating its own people, and only one is actually genocidal...and it's the same side, not both.

This is true: but it's also the nature of deals...the first one isn't always accepted. And that's okay. Deals have to be struck, and they take repeated attempts, often, and particularly in thorny negotiations. The problem arises when you stop talking and start to murder people...including your own...as Hamas chose to do.

I never thought it was just the Jews. I've been of the opinion that it is a complex problem with many moving parts that is not easily solved;

That much is true.

however, it would be better if both sides came to the table and resolved their differences peacefully.

Israel would love to do that. They've been trying to get that process for a long, long time. But it's hard to do when people want you wiped off the face of the planet, or "from the river to the sea." How do you negotiate with self-immolating bigots, Islamist terrorists, who hate you to the death and think that by dying by your hand, they get 72 perpetual rape victims to molest in "Paradise" ?

Fair enough. I don't know what can be done to solve the crisis. Hamas wants what is impossible without extreme loss of life in the region. That's not acceptable to anyone but Hamas because it's not themselves that they wish to expel. If Hamas cannot settle for anything less than "from the river to the sea," then they are asking the unreasonable. However, Israel's relentless attacks in Gaza are clearly not solving anything toward making peace. That much is also clear. There are bigots on both sides. Right now, Israel has the upper hand, but if they ever lose it, there will be hell for them to pay (as Hamas clearly demonstrated on Oct 7). Peace is the only lasting hope, and there cannot be peace when both sides bitterly hate each other. What Israel is doing in Gaza is going to sow a bitter crop down the road.

[Immanuel Can]

I never thought it was just the Jews. I've been of the opinion that it is a complex problem with many moving parts that is not easily solved;

That much is true.

however, it would be better if both sides came to the table and resolved their differences peacefully.

Israel would love to do that. They've been trying to get that process for a long, long time. But it's hard to do when people want you wiped off the face of the planet, or "from the river to the sea." How do you negotiate with self-immolating bigots, Islamist terrorists, who hate you to the death and think that by dying by your hand, they get 72 perpetual rape victims to molest in "Paradise" ?

Fair enough. I don't know what can be done to solve the crisis. Hamas wants what is impossible without extreme loss of life in the region.

They want every Jew dead, actually.

That's not acceptable to anyone but Hamas because it's not themselves that they wish to expel. If Hamas cannot settle for anything less than "from the river to the sea," then they are asking the unreasonable.

That is what they are demanding. They chant it at all their rallies. Haven't you heard that?

However, Israel's relentless attacks in Gaza are clearly not solving anything toward making peace.

Well, Gary, often the goal of war is not peace. The goal of war may be to stop a bunch of homicidal maniacs from killing you and everybody you love.

There are bigots on both sides.

Yes, there are.