My Imaginary GF posted:My point. Morality is constantly in flux and is used as an ex post facto justification of policy implementation. Morality helps your policy after its implemented; it does little towards getting it implemented in the first place. Hmm, yes, the moral views put forth by candidates during elections have little to no impact on the outcome of policy in this country. Wow, that was difficult to type out with a straight face. quote:They're better than the wrongs which come without an amoral political system. There is no such thing as an amoral political system. Politics, law, and morality are all tightly intertwined. The fact that your personal morality is poo poo isn't really relevant.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 20:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 03:45 |
|
|
down with slavery posted:Hmm, yes, the moral views put forth by candidates during elections have little to no impact on the outcome of policy in this country. Wow, that was difficult to type out with a straight face. gently caress, at this point I want him to show me an amoral political system that isn't constantly appealing to emotions and morality. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 20:23 on Nov 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 20:19
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:Hmm, yes, the moral views put forth by candidates during elections have little to no impact on the outcome of policy in this country. Wow, that was difficult to type out with a straight face. Democratic capitalism is pretty amoral in its politics.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 20:19
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Democratic capitalism is pretty amoral in its politics. No it's not. It's just the morals of the people in power are poo poo. Again, you cannot divorce politics, law and morality. Just stop trying, it's really really dumb. Our system is pretty immoral, not amoral
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 20:20
|
|
|
And that is a problem that needs to be addressed, not a thing to take as given. Edit: And it's less dumb than it is outright, honest-to-god evil.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 20:20
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:My point. Morality is constantly in flux and is used as an ex post facto justification of policy implementation. Morality helps your policy after its implemented; it does little towards getting it implemented in the first place. Your argument for segregation was a ex post facto justification. It's nothing but feel good bullshit used to say that Israeli citizens would feel safer because the Palestinians are no longer going to cause problems. It's just standard procedure for Israelis to ignore any systemic problems with their government and rely on the IDF fixing their problems when things blow up inevitably.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 20:36
|
|
|
Doflamingo posted:The current Israeli government is like a child looking for any excuse to start a fight; perhaps it's best not to give them one so when they finally do go on the offensive anyway they won't have a scapegoat to fall back on. The international community will surely step in then.. right? This isn't a reasonable standard, though. When "any Palestinian-on-Israeli violent crime" is sufficient excuse to start a fight, that means that avoiding a fight basically means stopping crime completely. Even ignoring the active oppression and theft of land and all that stuff, it is just plain impossible to get to such a level of harmony within a community that nobody - not a single person - gets beaten, murdered, or robbed at gunpoint for several years in a row, especially when Israelis are not held to the same standard. It's a literally impossible standard which exists solely to give racists an excuse to blame the victim when a colonial power decides to brutally suppress an ethnic group. team overhead smash posted:The situation in Israel and the oPT gives the Palestinians the right to resistance, including armed resistance, but this is still within certain constraints. I find the South Africa analogy very apt and just like in South Africa although violent resistance was allowable, it was only possible if directed at legitimate targets and in the normal acceptable bounds of a war. It's not just South Africa, though. I can't think of any successful national independence or liberation movement against a resistant colonial power that didn't include at least some violence against civilians. Even the Indian independence movement had plenty of terrorism and violence involved; Gandhi gets all the credit for Britain letting India go, but it really probably had a lot more to do with the widespread violence that broke out all over India in the wake of WWII, which Britain had no hope of putting down in its exhausted post-war state. Hell, Israel itself doesn't have much right to complain about an independence movement carrying out violence against civilians considering its own history; although Zionist militias were often capable of kidnapping or killing British Army soldiers, they also carried out both indiscriminate and targeted attacks against civilians, and were able to carry out bombings and assassinations against civilians as far away as Rome and London. I hate to say it, but if literally every colony has broken the laws of war agreed on by the colonialist nations then maybe those laws are more idealistic than realistic.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 20:39
|
|
|
No one is going to believe your claim that the Israeli government is amoral, MIGF. The Israeli government is deeply religious and very socially conservative.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 20:45
|
|
|
So the Palestinian dude who rammed his car into Israeli pedestrians? Israel literally just demolished his loving house, leaving his family with nowhere to live. Choice quotes (just go read the whole article): quote:But on November 6, following two deadly Palestinian attacks in a fortnight, Netanyahu approved plans to knock down or seal up the homes of anyone attacking Israelis as part of a raft of measures to "restore calm" in Jerusalem. quote:Three other families in east Jerusalem have now been formally notified that their homes are slated for demolition. Article One, Section Nine of the United States Constitution posted:No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed. If you want to know why Israel's the bad guy in this, here you go: Israel's the bad guy because they literally have "Corruption of Blood" as an official policy that they currently use. This is a partial re-post from earlier, since it's important and may have gotten lost in the shuffle. fade5 fucked around with this message at 20:53 on Nov 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 20:48
|
|
|
Job Truniht posted:No one is going to believe your claim that the Israeli government is amoral, MIGF. The Israeli government is deeply religious and very socially conservative. The Israeli government is split up between people who are deeply religious, people who are deeply racist, people who are deeply neoliberal, and some combinations thereof. They all feel that they are being entirely moral and justified, and constantly use whatever would most pander to their constituents to further justify their actions. fade5 posted:If you want to know why Israel's the bad guy in this, here you go: Israel's the bad guy because they literally have "Corruption of Blood" as an official policy that they currently use. The most absurd part of this is that the reason this practice had been halted in the past was due to lack of efficacy. It doesn't work but they're doing it anyway to appease constituents.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 20:48
|
|
|
fade5 posted:So the Palestinian dude who rammed his car into Israeli pedestrians? Israel literally just demolished his loving house, leaving his family with nowhere to live. Don't forget! If Israeli settlers do this to you, don't expect the cops to give you the time of day, let alone make an arrest.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 20:50
|
|
|
fade5 posted:So the Palestinian dude who rammed his car into Israeli pedestrians? Israel literally just demolished his loving house, leaving his family with nowhere to live. I'm a little curious where the "bringing back punitive demolitions" line has come from in the media, because they never stopped in the first place. Israel demolished the homes of the kidnapping suspects too, and have punitively demolished several hundred more houses in the ten years since they "stopped" doing punitive demolishments in 2005.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 21:00
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:I'm a little curious where the "bringing back punitive demolitions" line has come from in the media, because they never stopped in the first place. Israel demolished the homes of the kidnapping suspects too, and have punitively demolished several hundred more houses in the ten years since they "stopped" doing punitive demolishments in 2005. Its more they just randomly demolish houses, until you specifically do something and they they demolish YOUR house.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 21:01
|
|
|
In case anyone is confused by the sort of posts My Imaginary GF and others make, here's a quick explanation: My Imaginary GF and other similar posters believe the following: "The world is a complex place and politics can be difficult to understand; ergo, the status quo must be the best possible result because world leaders/politicians have access to the best/most information." Posters like him automatically assume that people in positions of authority - in this case the politicians and other leaders in Israel and the US - must have a more thorough understanding of the situation that is driving their behavior and decisions. This is why their response is the same regardless of what argument you make - they just assume that people in power must be making the best possible choices (or at least better choices than anyone else would make). Basically, it's a form of the "is/ought" problem, but one that stems from an appeal to authority. It is pointless to argue with them, because no matter how reasonable your argument is or how much data you use to back it up, they will automatically assume that Israeli leaders (in this specific example) must have access to both that data and more when they make their decisions.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 21:03
|
|
|
Baloogan posted:There is no common ground, no point in having a discussion with yourself and others like yourself. Which, in its own way, is very scary. I'm Finnish. My government does not support Israel and the populace near universally hates the country.  If there is no common ground, that means you indeed are pro-apartheid and pro-colonialism. I don't understand why you just can't come out and say that. I'd be fascinated to discuss why you think apartheid is awesome. My Imaginary GF posted:If by 'apartheid and colonialism' you mean 'development of state institutions,' then yes, I stand by Israeli policy. Not only is it easier to do so in America, its very popular, and extremely profitable to do so. Yeah, I won't respond to the shittiest posters, because there is nothing to respond to that will influence them or allow others to gain a finer understanding of the political realities. By apartheid and colonialism I mean aparthed and colonialism, both of which Israel is proven to engage in. They are indeed state institutions there. See, you at least have balls to admit that you are pro-apartheid and pro-colonialism, unlike all these other bitches here.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 21:04
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:In case anyone is confused by the sort of posts My Imaginary GF and others make, here's a quick explanation: Post of the day, D&D, 11/20/2014
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 21:04
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Some context, I was at a UN conference on global education recently and the Palestinian observing representative reported that Gazan attainment of the educational goals was completely halted and not expected to resume until 2017 at the earliest. Pretty obvious this would happen w/r/t Hamas' rocket policy, and now non-Turkish member states are less willing to fund education in Gaza than they are new rockets. poo poo happens, you can anticipate it to occur and mitigate it from a policy standpoint. UN school programs refused to do so, and now they're SOL. What you seem to be saying is that Israel isn't fulfilling Article 50 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, requiring occupying powers to facilitate the education of children in occupied territories. This is a good example of just one of Israel's many more subtle war crimes and it is very good of you to highlight their awful actions in this area. Honestly, I don't know why everyone thinks you are so biased.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 21:08
|
|
|
team overhead smash posted:What you seem to be saying is that Israel isn't fulfilling Article 50 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, requiring occupying powers to facilitate the education of children in occupied territories. Solution: Israel is not an 'occupying power.'
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 21:10
|
|
|
Yes, them stopping the occupation would help solve the problem.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 21:12
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Solution: Israel is not an 'occupying power.' It's not. It's an colonialist power. They're where they are to stay.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 21:13
|
|
|
An Angry Bug posted:Yes, them stopping the occupation would help solve the problem. For too many in this world, "stopping the occupation" means "ceasing to exist as a nation."
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 21:13
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Solution: Israel is not an 'occupying power.' IDF wasn't occupying Gaza or Lebanon. They were just there on vacation. I like how someone can arbitrarily define whether or not Palestine is a state whenever convenient. Israel sure as hell never recognized their sovereignty. See: Them ordering to forcibly disarm their standing army. My Imaginary GF posted:For too many in this world, "stopping the occupation" means "ceasing to exist as a nation." Israel will only cease to exist should they continue unsustainable policy. Your end games you've mentioned in this thread are: 1) Entertain the idea genocide of Palestinians. 2) Entertain the idea of forced segregation. When the Romans began the diaspora, did the Jews simply cease to exist? No. It did create centuries of ethnic strife, though. Job Truniht fucked around with this message at 21:19 on Nov 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 21:14
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Solution: Israel is not an 'occupying power.' Another Problem: They want that territory. That is part of them being an occupying power, so they can make slow and steady territory gains for settlers. Its part of the 'Right of Return' is only extended to Jews versus Palestinians.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 21:14
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:It's not just South Africa, though. I can't think of any successful national independence or liberation movement against a resistant colonial power that didn't include at least some violence against civilians. Even the Indian independence movement had plenty of terrorism and violence involved; Gandhi gets all the credit for Britain letting India go, but it really probably had a lot more to do with the widespread violence that broke out all over India in the wake of WWII, which Britain had no hope of putting down in its exhausted post-war state. Hell, Israel itself doesn't have much right to complain about an independence movement carrying out violence against civilians considering its own history; although Zionist militias were often capable of kidnapping or killing British Army soldiers, they also carried out both indiscriminate and targeted attacks against civilians, and were able to carry out bombings and assassinations against civilians as far away as Rome and London. I hate to say it, but if literally every colony has broken the laws of war agreed on by the colonialist nations then maybe those laws are more idealistic than realistic. Of course every law is idealistic, if it was thought that no-one would do such a thing then it wouldn't be illegal and have a punishment attached to it. Your argument seems to be that in an occupation where an entire people are oppressed, people killing civilians and taking part in other despicable crimes is inevitable. That's quite correct and I'd agree with you, it is an easily foreseeable consequence. Along a long enough time-scale, of course someone is going to attack an innocent when they're put under strain and pressure. The thing is we're not talking about whether it's inevitable, we're talking about whether it is right and who is responsible. Assuming they weren't literally insane, the perpetrators consciously chose to attack civilians rather than engaging in any number of legitimate forms of protest. Israel put them in the situation where they have a right to resist, but it did not decide how they had to resist. They could have engaged in non-violent demonstration (with all the problems that involves in an oppressive state like Israel). They could have bombed a military barracks. They could have stabbed an IDF soldier in the face or any other sort of violent and lethal attacks against legitimate military targets. Instead they decided to deliberately target civilians and nothing Israel did forced them into that decision or made that aspect of it inevitable. That was their choice. Just like in South Africa or India or Kenya or any other oppressed nation, we empathise with what people are going through and even consider such actions inevitable, but they are still inherently wrong and are the responsibility of the perpetrators.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 21:18
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:For too many in this world, "stopping the occupation" means "ceasing to exist as a nation." I guess "too many" is a subjective term, because it's clearly not the Arab League, Organization of the Islamic Absurd Alhazred fucked around with this message at 21:29 on Nov 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 21:20
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Another Problem: They want that territory. That is part of them being an occupying power, so they can make slow and steady territory gains for settlers. Its part of the 'Right of Return' is only extended to Jews versus Palestinians. Palestinians want Israeli territory. Most Israelis want Palestinian militants gone from their borders. For the Palestinians, the issue is about land. For Israelis, the issue is about people.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 21:22
|
|
|
It is not Israel's land, you disingenuous, pedantic, evil excuse for a human being.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 21:23
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Palestinians want Israeli territory. Most Israelis want Palestinian militants gone from their borders. For the Palestinians, the issue is about land. For Israelis, the issue is about people. The opposite reading is true. Absurd Alhazred posted:I guess "too many" is a subjective term, because it's clearly not the Arab League, Organization of Islamic State, or most of Europe, as all of them have been consistently for a Two-State solution, which includes a sovereign Israel. Oh goddamit now he's gonna ejaculate about the mighty Jordanian Army all over this thread.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 21:23
|
|
|
MIGF I would appreciate it if you responded to my posts.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 21:23
|
|
|
Oh so now it's the "Well, you might be right but some anti-semites say words similar to the words you're saying and we can all see how that's a big problem that justifies everything Israel does" argument? MIGF can you just stop, please, we get it, Israel is an ally, Arabs are not, always back your allies, governments are immoral, bad things happen. We Get It.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 21:24
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Solution: Israel is not an 'occupying power.' Putting aside the West Bank, East jerusalem and the Golan heights, even in Gaza which it has 'pulled out from', Israel is the occupied based on the precedent set in international law. The direct precedent is actually the actions of the Nazis during WWII and honestly I can't see any way you can say this without either holding Israel to lower standards than Nazis or whitewashing Nazi war crimes. Whatever distinction you are drawing I think you need to spell it out because it is an extraordinary arguement to make and without some kind of rationale it would seem to paint you in the same corner as the worst anti-semites and racists. To quote the report: quote:Although the source of the occupying power's authority is military superiority, it is not continous physical presence of armed forces in all parts of the territory but rather the ability to exercise authority that determines when a territory is occupied. The reason is clear; international law seeks to impose duties on those who have the capacity to fulfil them. Or to put it in the UNs words: quote:6. The Palestinian Territory has been occupied for so long — 40 years — that there is a tendency in certain quarters to overlook this reality and to treat the Occupied Palestinian Territory as an “unoccupied” entity. This leads to the perception of Israel and Palestine as two States poised against each other, with Israel as the victim and Palestine as a neighbouring aggressive, terrorist State. This, of course, is very far from the truth. The Palestinian Territory, including the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza, remains occupied territory, occupied by Israel. Insofar as there is a “victim” party, it is Palestine as inevitably an occupied party has such a status vis-à-vis the occupier. team overhead smash fucked around with this message at 21:28 on Nov 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 21:26
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:For too many in this world, "stopping the occupation" means "ceasing to exist as a nation." My Imaginary GF posted:Solution: Israel is not an 'occupying power.' I am Jewish and disagree with you profoundly on both of these statements. Imagine how much more prosperous the entire region would be if this situation was resolved tomorrow: http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/features/the-real-cost-of-israel-s-occupation-of-the-palestinians-1.395839 http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3410537,00.html
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 21:27
|
|
|
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2014/11/20/israel_refuses_to_release_bodies_for_burial_terror_attackers_families_denied.html israel refusing to release the bodies of the perpetrators of the synagogue attack for burial, presumably just to piss off muslims more i guess.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 21:30
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:I'm Finnish. My government does not support Israel and the populace near universally hates the country. http://electronicintifada.net/content/finnish-israeli-arms-trade-flouts-eu-regulations/8259 http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Security-Industry/2014/01/21/Finland-orders-camouflage-from-Israel/UPI-18731390315745/ You are willfully ignorant of what your government supports.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 21:32
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Palestinians want Israeli territory. Most Israelis want Palestinian militants gone from their borders. For the Palestinians, the issue is about land. For Israelis, the issue is about people.  I have no clue why that could be  Oh, please explain the expansion of settlements. Right now. Or shut the hell up if its just about 'People' An Angry Bug posted:It is not Israel's land, you disingenuous, pedantic, evil excuse for a human being. Its almost as if the Palestinian's not just throwing their hands up and handing over all their territory is somehow criminal 
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 21:32
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:
I do, it comes back to ameliorating patrilinialism through state institutions.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 21:34
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:I do, it comes back to ameliorating patrilinialism through state institutions. An Angry Bug posted:It is not Israel's land, you disingenuous, pedantic, evil excuse for a human being.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 21:35
|
|
|
Romans have a strong historical claim to Israeli land. We should give it to the Vatican.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 21:36
|
|
|
Job Truniht posted:Romans have a strong historical claim to Israeli land. We should give it to the Vatican. This laaaaaannnnddd, is miiiiiiineeee, god gave this land to meeeeeeeee https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-evIyrrjTTY
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 21:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 03:45 |
|
|
Job Truniht posted:Romans have a strong historical claim to Israeli land. We should give it to the Vatican. Woah, woah, now, let's not turn this into Clancychat! The Sum of All Fears
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 21:38
|
|