fordy said:
Occam's Razor is defined as the path that requires the least amount of assuming is most likely the correct one. Saying that a states' foreign policy is simply defined as a logical NOT operation to America is a VERY outlandish assumption, not to mention the assumption that somehow, Islamic immigration somehow infiltrated leftist idealism. Take the following into account:
1. Many states have a foreign policy. It outlays which stance to take in general events that occur within other states and territories throughout the world, in order to reflect that states' values. 2. Support of Israel has been slipping. You seem to support this observation, too. 3. Palestinian territory is shrinking. The construction of settlements on occupied land further escalates this displacement. Do you disagree with this?
The methods Israel used previously MAY have been more brutal, but that's not stopping the fact that there hasn't been any reclamation of territory of Palestine since the 1967 borders, and every coming day is a new record low of total land area. What you're trying to say is "Well it's a slow rate of occupation, which makes it legitimately fine, compared to the times when larger amounts of land were being grabbed at any one time. We both agree that Israeli support has become lower since statehood was achieved. the reasons as to WHY this is is the source of conflict. My answer involves either a shift in Israeli policies (such as agressive establishment of settlements on Palestinian territory) conflicting with states' foreign policies, or a slow progression of change in foreign policies by said states (the least likely of the two, since it would be HIGHLY coincidental that all states would change their foreign policies at the exact same time). Your answer is a sudden infiltration of Islamic ideals to Western Europe, which in turn causes said states to become anti-American, without any kind of logic or reasoning behind it. This is EXACTLY what Occam's Razor is about. |
First off. You clearly didn't read my post, at least not correctly. Secondly, you didn't read your own post. I'd suggest going back and rereading them... but to put it succinctly.
There are groups in the UN that specifically vote against everything the US votes for, no matter how petty. That's not an assumption. There support never changed really. It was mostly anti-american because it was the cold war. Then when the cold war stopped. Most of those nations were still pretty anti-american.
Secondly, Europe has nothing to do with being anti-american. That was a completely different point... the shift with Europe was mostly due to demografic changes.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/28/opinion/sunday/europes-trouble-with-jews.html?pagewanted=all
Is a simple enough primer.
Thirdly, you said their methods were getting more extreme. Not their land grabbing. Their methods have been muted as of late. Espeically muted as they lost support.
Additionally, when they unilaterally pulled back and shut down a number of settlements. They were losing support.
So your assumptions on these points are both wrong. You've made far more assumptions then I have.
