|
As classy as every journalist in Gaza isnt it? EDIT: They didnt place a teddy-bear on top didnt they?
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 04:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 16:01 |
|
|
Jagchosis posted:By the way if anyone wants an actually good OP, PM me materials that would be relevant for it, like a primer on the history of the conflict or relevant international humanitarian law provisions or whatever else that is a useful lens for understanding the current unrest so there can be a happy, informed debate. I will not put the Netanyahu cartoon bomb image since that presentation was done in reference to Iran, not Palestine. namaste For useful content, they say a picture's worth a thousand words, so here's something that really, really resonates with me:  West Bank access restrictions, or "Why a two state solution is no longer possible". I want everyone to take a look at that map for minute and just look at just how loving sliced up and restricted the West Bank is. Seriously, look at that loving map, everything is sliced up to poo poo with walls, checkpoints, barriers, roadblocks, and non-Palestinian roads everywhere, and it's only getting worse. The Dead Sea in particular is completely cut off from Palestinian access by Israeli settlements, checkpoints, and a non-Palestinian road. This is why a one-state solution is the only possible solution left; there's just not enough of the West Bank left to make a Palestinian state. Fun questions: What exactly makes a vehicle a "Palestinian vehicle" vs an "Israeli vehicle" vs a "vehicle", and describe the reasoning behind "Prohibited Palestinian vehicle use" or even a hypothetical "Prohibited Israeli vehicle use" in a way that doesn't lump all Palestinians or Israelis together as one single, uniform ethnic mass. fade5 fucked around with this message at 04:18 on Nov 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 04:08
|
|
|
fade5 posted:Darkcrawler's posts on I/P in either the last thread or a thread or two before that. I'm legit serious, he did an excellent job of explaining I/P in simple enough terms for me to follow along, and it's where a lot of my I/P knowledge came from. Well the Israelis don't want a single state anyways, and to be fair neither do the Palestinians even if it was possible. And you can tell from the map the Israeli's don't want that to even be a possibility, and the way they break it up basically makes a two state solution somewhat difficult even as well. They basically tried to break up everything so that no matter what there is no clear solution. Purposefully broken. fade5 posted:Fun questions: What exactly makes a vehicle a "Palestinian vehicle" vs an "Israeli vehicle" vs a "vehicle", and describe the reasoning behind "Prohibited Palestinian vehicle use" or even a hypothetical "Prohibited Israeli vehicle use" in a way that doesn't lump all Palestinians or Israelis together as one single, uniform ethnic mass. If I recall correctly, the Palestinian's are required to have green license plates and have to have the letter P, and the Israeli's Yellow and a blue IL or Israeli flag. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 04:24 on Nov 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 04:22
|
|
|
fade5 posted:
License plates. I also made these for anyone wanting specifics on why Israel is an colonialist apartheid state: http://m.imgur.com/gallery/L86hXg4 http://m.imgur.com/gallery/Tv0cv So, Netanyahu already calling it a Battle for Jerusalem  http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-30107446
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 04:22
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:So, Netanyahu already calling it a Battle for Jerusalem Oh BiBi...please make a flip chart to sell this to us.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 04:25
|
|
|
Jagchosis posted:By the way if anyone wants an actually good OP, PM me materials that would be relevant for it, like a primer on the history of the conflict or relevant international humanitarian law provisions or whatever else that is a useful lens for understanding the current unrest so there can be a happy, informed debate. I will not put the Netanyahu cartoon bomb image since that presentation was done in reference to Iran, not Palestine. namaste I don't have messaging, but I'd offer this video of Finkelstein on the BDS movement. I remember when it first came out some people were having fits- personally I loved it and still do. It's absolutely relevant to this thread and to any discussion of how those sympathetic to the cause of Palestinians might formulate their advocacy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASIBGSSw4lI
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 04:26
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:If I recall correctly, the Palestinian's are required to have green license plates and have to have the letter P, and the Israeli's Yellow and a blue IL or Israeli flag. DarkCrawler posted:License plates.  I wish I could actually laugh about that.  Oh, you can't forget the movie Defamation for the OP, aka "here's why the United States backs Israel to the hilt". Also notable for pointing out the (purposeful) correlation of anti-Semitic to mean anti-Israeli so as to squash legitimate criticism of Israel. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9E2TpxY7xM (Sidenote: The anti-Israel=anti-Semitic thing is also bad because it cheapens real anti-semitism. As an example, the Simon Wiesenthal Center ranked cartoonist Carlos Latuff higher on an anti-semitism list than the Hungarian Jobbik party. Jobbik are basically literal loving neo-nazis.) fade5 fucked around with this message at 04:44 on Nov 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 04:41
|
|
|
fade5 posted:Doesn't that technically mean that Israel recognizes Palestine, if they recognizes Palestinian license plates? 'Recognize' as much as Jim Crow recognized blacks. And yeah, the Simon Wiesenthal Center is really.....creepy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 04:45
|
|
|
fade5 posted:(Sidenote: The anti-Israel=anti-Semitic thing is also bad because it cheapens real anti-semitism. As an example, the Simon Wiesenthal Center ranked cartoonist Carlos Latuff higher on an anti-semitism list than the Hungarian Jobbik party. Jobbik are basically literal loving neo-nazis.) The SWC ranked the United Church of Canada as more anti-semitic than Jobbik.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 04:49
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:...no Arab attack is carried out against Israel for 2 election cycles. So I suppose HAMISIS would be justified in nuking Israel if Israel can't keep any Zionist attacks from happening for two election cycles. We're not applying two sets of standards are we?
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 05:02
|
|
|
fade5 posted:Darkcrawler's posts on I/P in either the last thread or a thread or two before that. I'm legit serious, he did an excellent job of explaining I/P in simple enough terms for me to follow along, and it's where a lot of my I/P knowledge came from. Dilkington posted:I don't have messaging, but I'd offer this video of Finkelstein on the BDS movement. I remember when it first came out some people were having fits- personally I loved it and still do. It's absolutely relevant to this thread and to any discussion of how those sympathetic to the cause of Palestinians might formulate their advocacy. These are quite good, I added these to the OP. Thanks! DarkCrawler posted:License plates. I did not add these because from a cursory glance I noticed a red flag of factual inaccuracy that undermines the credibility of your argument. In image two you state that there were no American civilians operating in Iraq, however at the very least there were tens of thousands in the form of contractors, to say nothing of state department and other governmental civilian individuals. If you want to argue that these contractors were not civilians, then okay, but it directly contravenes international law. I do not want to fact check the rest of the points of the image, but that was enough for a No Go in my mind, sorry.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 05:12
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:So I suppose HAMISIS would be justified in nuking Israel if Israel can't keep any Zionist attacks from happening for two election cycles. We're not applying two sets of standards are we? I would just reiterate that Israel hasn't actually made any such claim or promise, it's just something MIGF has pulled out of his rear end as usual. Jagchosis posted:These are quite good, I added these to the OP. Thanks! Uhh, I pretty clearly wrote that there were civilians, but they were working for either the government or the military..I even write that there are some now, in the same capacity, maybe read it again 
DarkCrawler fucked around with this message at 05:15 on Nov 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 05:12
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:I would just reiterate that Israel hasn't actually made any such claim or promise, it's just something MIGF has pulled out of his rear end as usual. oh sorry, i misread. fair enough. Though is it just me or do the images not fully load? Homura and Sickle fucked around with this message at 05:20 on Nov 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 05:17
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 05:30
|
|
|
During the invasion of Gaza the New Republic came out with an article about how the last peace deal pushed by Kerry fell through, and it seems pretty fair even with the publications historical bias towards Israel. Their own editors said it showed how stubborn the Fatah leadership. I don't know how they came to that conclusion since the article shows the negotiations die due to Netanyahu not giving a poo poo about them anymore. It shows what the conditions for a peace deal were the last time their was serious discussion about it early this year. http://www.newrepublic.com/article/118751/how-israel-palestine-peace-deal-died
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 06:11
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Oh good, Insect Court is here. Yeah, exactly. Hence our agreement as to how that's like the  who howl about "reverse racism" and the "race card" in every discussion touching on the subject of racismAn Angry Bug posted:He's on a divine mission from the war god Yahweh to show the world the supremacy of the tribe of Israel. See? Totally completely 100% not about Jews, just about Zionists as a political movement and/or Israelis as a nationality. Don't see how any person who isn't a reverse-anti-semite neo-con could possibly mistake it for anything else.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 07:37
|
|
The Insect Court posted:Yeah, exactly. Hence our agreement as to how that's like the Agreed. Aileen Wuornos's trial was a homophobic hatchet job.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 07:44
|
|
|
The Insect Court posted:Yeah, exactly. Hence our agreement as to how that's like the So what's your point? Yeah, anti-semites exist, good job. Is this what you are looking for? I don't need to be an anti-semite to condemn Zionism as a poo poo ideology and Israel as a poo poo state any more then I need to be anti-Persian to do the same with Islamism and Iran. EDIT: Seriously for once try to somehow tie your insane quest to try to prove how everyone is an anti-semite to the actual point of this thread. Are the points being made because people hate Jews? Are the facts wrong? Is the criticism invalidated and borne out of racism? What is going on here? DarkCrawler fucked around with this message at 07:55 on Nov 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 07:44
|
|
|
The Insect Court posted:Yeah, exactly. Hence our agreement as to how that's like the He was specifically addressing one person. How does that make it about anything other than MIGF?
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 09:41
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:...no Arab attack is carried out against Israel for 2 election cycles. ... During which there will be intensive campaigns of land-seizing, forced expropriation, subsidized illegal settlements, walling off, continued embargo and blocus, and assorted constant humiliations. I'm gonna chain you up in my basement. Every day, I'll beat your head with a shovel. If you don't complain for a full two decades, I will let you go. This is Israel, the most moral country in the world. fade5 posted:(Sidenote: The anti-Israel=anti-Semitic thing is also bad because it cheapens real anti-semitism. As an example, the Simon Wiesenthal Center ranked cartoonist Carlos Latuff higher on an anti-semitism list than the Hungarian Jobbik party. Jobbik are basically literal loving neo-nazis.) Yeah but come on, he drew that:  Basically Hitler 2.0 right there. You know who else was an artist? Hitler. Q.E.D.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 09:48
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:Are the points being made because people hate Jews? Are the facts wrong? Is the criticism invalidated and borne out of racism? What is going on here? What's going on here is what goes on in pretty much every I/P thread. For example, in the last big I/P thread I kind of clocked out when the discussion moved onto how young Jewish settlers in the West Bank could be before it was no longer morally permissible to kill them. To be fair there were a range of opinion, but there was a very vocal contingent who took the position that even the infants could be slaughtered by Palestinian freedom fighters and they'd still all have it coming. Now, could a hypothetical disinterested party possibly attempt make the case that such a position might in fact not be motivated wholly by high-minded objections to Israeli government policy? Without endorsing that analysis I would humbly submit that it should not be instantly met with shrieking about Zionist persecution and should at least be considered. Cat Mattress posted:You know who else was an artist? Hitler. Q.E.D. Awesome. Now post the one he submitted to Ahmadinejad's Holocaust cartoon contest. Even won second place with it, if I recall correctly. FreshlyShaven posted:You may disagree with this or even find it abhorrent, but people hate settlers because of what settlers do(ethnically cleansing Palestinian land), not because of their religion. These same people you accuse of anti-semitism would also support killing Manifest Destiny-era settlers robbing Native Americans of their land or European colonists in Africa or elsewhere who expelled the indigenous people from their ancestral lands. If you consciously make the choice to become part of a project of ethnic cleansing and the wholesale destruction of the Palestinian people and nation, the scorn and hatred you receive is not due to your race or religion; it's due to your choices and your lack of human decency. Exactly. Someone literally arguing for the West Bank(and the rest of Israel, maybe?) to be made judenfrei - not remotely anti-semitic at all. I'm sure they call for the total extermination of other ethnic groups all the time, you just missed them advocating the genocide of those filthy murderous land-stealing Angles, Saxons, and Jutes. The Insect Court fucked around with this message at 12:35 on Nov 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 12:01
|
|
|
The Insect Court posted:What's going on here is what goes on in pretty much every I/P thread. For example, in the last big I/P thread I kind of clocked out when the discussion moved onto how young Jewish settlers in the West Bank could be before it was no longer morally permissible to kill them. To be fair there were a range of opinion, but there was a very vocal contingent who took the position that even the infants could be slaughtered by Palestinian freedom fighters and they'd still all have it coming. Now, could a hypothetical disinterested party possibly attempt make the case that such a position might in fact not be motivated wholly by high-minded objections to Israeli government policy? Without endorsing that analysis I would humbly submit that it should not be instantly met with shrieking about Zionist persecution and should at least be considered. You may disagree with this or even find it abhorrent, but people hate settlers because of what settlers do(ethnically cleansing Palestinian land), not because of their religion. These same people you accuse of anti-semitism would also support killing Manifest Destiny-era settlers robbing Native Americans of their land or European colonists in Africa or elsewhere who expelled the indigenous people from their ancestral lands. If you consciously make the choice to become part of a project of ethnic cleansing and the wholesale destruction of the Palestinian people and nation, the scorn and hatred you receive is not due to your race or religion; it's due to your choices and your lack of human decency.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 12:20
|
|
The Insect Court posted:What's going on here is what goes on in pretty much every I/P thread. For example, in the last big I/P thread I kind of clocked out when the discussion moved onto how young Jewish settlers in the West Bank could be before it was no longer morally permissible to kill them. To be fair there were a range of opinion, but there was a very vocal contingent who took the position that even the infants could be slaughtered by Palestinian freedom fighters and they'd still all have it coming. Now, could a hypothetical disinterested party possibly attempt make the case that such a position might in fact not be motivated wholly by high-minded objections to Israeli government policy? Without endorsing that analysis I would humbly submit that it should not be instantly met with shrieking about Zionist persecution and should at least be considered. Agreed. People calling the expulsion of the Sioux from the Black Hills wrong are in favor of white genocide.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 13:10
|
|
|
Jagchosis posted:These are quite good, I added these to the OP. Thanks! How is it appropriate to only represent one side in the OP?
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 13:17
|
|
|
The Insect Court posted:Exactly. Someone literally arguing for the West Bank(and the rest of Israel, maybe?) to be made judenfrei - not remotely anti-semitic at all. I'm sure they call for the total extermination of other ethnic groups all the time, you just missed them advocating the genocide of those filthy murderous land-stealing Angles, Saxons, and Jutes. The Angolan war of independence began with the wholesale machete slaughter of thousands of my countrymen, including women and children, in isolated farms. While I find that barbaric and despicable I can't pretend those people had no reasons to hate our guts. You can condemn such atrocities and simultaneously point out that the colonists had no loving business being there, stealing the native's land and abusing them for generations. If you decide take up your family and become colonists in someone else's land you have no one to blame but yourself when the original inhabitants come for your asses. MeLKoR fucked around with this message at 13:20 on Nov 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 13:18
|
|
|
That's literally the reason why the Geneva Convention prohibits settlement of occupied territory. Because there's not really any choice for whom violence is going to be directed against if the civilians act as placeholders for an invading army. And you really cannot blame Palestinians for the one-state-solution not happening. The idea that Israel would give every Palestinian full political rights anywhere in the next 100 years is just silly. peak debt fucked around with this message at 14:06 on Nov 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 14:03
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:How is it appropriate to only represent one side in the OP? Because there is only one legitimate side, just like with South African apartheid?
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 14:41
|
|
|
It's not like people come to these threads and decide where they stand based on the opinions expressed in the OP, nobody is going to go Jihad on a Synagogue cause the OP is one sided. The straws people would clutch at. Maybe you could write a paragraph or two about how building settlements, evicting Palestinians from their homes and firing live rounds into protests staged within Palestinian cities is conductive to Israel's long term security goals or something cause those are the only issues at hand really. Let's start with the famous Norman Finkelstein talking point, if Israel has to build a wall to defend its citizens, why doesn't it build it on the internationally recognized 1967 armistice border, instead building it on Palestinian land? I think this is a fair starting point.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 15:11
|
|
|
emanresu tnuocca posted:Let's start with the famous Norman Finkelstein talking point, if Israel has to build a wall to defend its citizens, why doesn't it build it on the internationally recognized 1967 armistice border, instead building it on Palestinian land? I think this is a fair starting point. I'm not even sure if there is room for debate there. After the Supreme Court of Israel ruled that the wall was okay with some minor changes based on it being for security purposes, didn't the government (much to the chagrin of the court) admit that the purpose of the wall was to annex the land and lead to the court condemning the government for lying to them? I'm sure I've seen that mentioned, possibly in Finkelstein's books, but I don't have any of them in front of me at the moment. Edit: Probably the postscript of Beyond Chutzpah Edit 2: In terms of talking points, does anyone think that if Rabin hadn't been assassinated things would have been significantly different? I hear that argument a lot but in the end he backed down against settlers in the past and I don't think he ever even accepted the possibility of a two-state solution, instead preferring Israel as well as a Palestine which would have been relatively autonomous but fallen short of being a full on state of its own. I can't see him having done much. team overhead smash fucked around with this message at 15:43 on Nov 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 15:32
|
|
|
The Insect Court posted:What's going on here is what goes on in pretty much every I/P thread. For example, in the last big I/P thread I kind of clocked out when the discussion moved onto how young Jewish settlers in the West Bank could be before it was no longer morally permissible to kill them. To be fair there were a range of opinion, but there was a very vocal contingent who took the position that even the infants could be slaughtered by Palestinian freedom fighters and they'd still all have it coming. Now, could a hypothetical disinterested party possibly attempt make the case that such a position might in fact not be motivated wholly by high-minded objections to Israeli government policy? Without endorsing that analysis I would humbly submit that it should not be instantly met with shrieking about Zionist persecution and should at least be considered. A very vocal contingent of like three people at best. The "range of opinion" was literally them and "no it's not OK to kill children or unarmed civilians you lunatics". Nobody denies that anti-semites exist and they occasionally appear in these threads, but 99% of the posters in the threads don't make anti-semitic statements so until someone does it actually shouldn't be considered at all. The Insect Court posted:Exactly. Someone literally arguing for the West Bank(and the rest of Israel, maybe?) to be made judenfrei - not remotely anti-semitic at all. I'm sure they call for the total extermination of other ethnic groups all the time, you just missed them advocating the genocide of those filthy murderous land-stealing Angles, Saxons, and Jutes. Not a single person in this thread or the past ones has called for total extermination of Jews nor Israel proper to be made "Judenfrei". Maybe you're confusing D&D with GBS? Kim Jong Il posted:How is it appropriate to only represent one side in the OP? Well, only one side ever bothers to appear in these threads and defend their side on the issue so it is all the same really  DarkCrawler fucked around with this message at 16:29 on Nov 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 15:56
|
|
|
The Insect Court posted:Exactly. Someone literally arguing for the West Bank(and the rest of Israel, maybe?) to be made judenfrei - not remotely anti-semitic at all. I'm sure they call for the total extermination of other ethnic groups all the time, you just missed them advocating the genocide of those filthy murderous land-stealing Angles, Saxons, and Jutes. "Right Wing Strawman found here"
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 16:21
|
|
|
Ahmadinejad's cartoon contest, Ahmadinejad's cartoon contest. Cartoons! Watch out for that shrapnel because cartoons create a lot of shrapnel when they hit the roof of your house.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 16:30
|
|
|
So what's the anti-israeli side's take on killing rabbis in synagogues with meat cleavers?
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 16:47
|
|
|
Friendly Tumour posted:So what's the anti-israeli side's take on killing rabbis in synagogues with meat cleavers? I think it's bad to kill people.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 16:51
|
|
|
Friendly Tumour posted:So what's the anti-israeli side's take on killing rabbis in synagogues with meat cleavers? It'll be used as an excuse to murder hundreds if not thousands of innocent people.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 16:55
|
|
|
Friendly Tumour posted:So what's the anti-israeli side's take on killing rabbis in synagogues with meat cleavers? Just a wild guess but it might be a bad thing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 16:55
|
|
|
Friendly Tumour posted:So what's the anti-israeli side's take on killing rabbis in synagogues with meat cleavers? Its bad, but it will be used as an excuse to bomb the crap out of a crowded ghetto.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 16:57
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:It'll be used as an excuse to murder hundreds if not thousands of innocent people. Justwaitaminuterightthere, are you sarcastically implying that this doesn't retroactively justify every act of aggression perpetrated by Israel? Cause that's antisemitism right there.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 16:58
|
|
Friendly Tumour posted:So what's the anti-israeli side's take on killing rabbis in synagogues with meat cleavers? Native Americans killed a number of people in retaliation for whites attacking them, or to try and drive whites away from settling in their land. Does that change that their land was stolen or the rest of the long, shameful history of America's relationship with the people who already lived in places we wanted?
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 16:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 16:01 |
|
|
Friendly Tumour posted:So what's the anti-israeli side's take on killing rabbis in synagogues with meat cleavers? Like why it happened, the repercussions that might ensue and the issue of religion and attacks on civilians in the larger context of the conflict? Or do you just want to hear that it's a bad thing you shouldn't do? Because it is.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 16:59
|
|