|
Mr.48 posted:Unfortunately for most people debating on the internet is all about absolutes: Either a person agrees with you on everything and is therefore ok, or they disagree on any detail and is the worst person in the world. "Is Israel apartheid y/n" "Is Israel genocidal y/n" Details?
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 16:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 03:13 |
|
|
Xander77 posted:Miri Regev, of "refugees are a cancer" fame, condescends to the most minimal standards of hypocritical moralistic platitudes with "Not all Arabs are bad, I have some Arab friends" and is immediately assaulted by a wave of "leftist traitor whore" comments. Fun times ahead. All those responses are precious, but here's a real nice one: חשבתי שאין לך חשיבה רוחנית בריאה ואכן צדקתי המכנס ג'ינס עושה את שלו למה שתדגלי ברוחניות בזמן שאת לא מתלבשת צנוע אם את לא מבינה זה מלחמת הטומאה נגד הקדושה גויים(!) נגד יהודים לאורך כל הדורות אנחנו צריכים לחזור בתשובה ולהלחם ההרג יחזיר אותם חזרה לעליונים ואנחנו נטהר את הארץ יש רק שני הגדרות לערבי טוב 1.גר צדק 2.ערבי שהורג ערבי אחר בגלל שהוא שונא יהודים תלמדי מקרא ותביני כשבאנו לארץ עשינו את כל הטעויות האפשריות... בגלל זה אנחנו במלחמה ערבים מבינים בכח כמו סוסים Rough translation: "I thought you didn't have a healthy spiritual frame of mind and I was right the jeans are doing their job why would you push for spirituality when you are not dressed modestly In case you don't realize this is a war of the impure against the holy, gentiles(!) against Jews throughout the generations We need to become born again and fight the killing will bring them back to the heights and we will cleanse the land There are only two definitions for a good Arab 1. One who has converted to Judaism 2. An Arab who kills another Arab because he hates Jews Read the Bible and understand that when we came to this land we made all possible mistakes... that is why we are at war Arabs only understand force like horses" ETA: SedanChair posted:"Is Israel apartheid y/n" In the West Bank definitely, inside the Green Line and in the Golan Heights, plenty of systemic racism but I would say apartheid is not an appropriate term. In Gaza "open-air prison" is probably the best descriptor. quote:"Is Israel genocidal y/n" It is more concerned with ethnic cleansing than genocide, so I would go with the first term rather than the second, even though the second is the likely outcome of a continued status quo. Absurd Alhazred fucked around with this message at 16:37 on Nov 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 16:33
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:"Is Israel apartheid y/n" You may be trying to be ironic but this actually why I dread participating in I/P threads. I've had instances where D&D posters would ask a single question a dozen times (after I already answered it) aimed at a minor point I made in a much larger post and would refuse to engage on anything else. Depends on your definition of Apartheid n
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 16:40
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:
Ethnic cleansing IS genocide, so why bother making a distinction on the term?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 16:40
|
|
|
Because it helps muffle the screaming remains of his conscience.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 16:43
|
|
|
Mr.48 posted:You may be trying to be ironic but this actually why I dread participating in I/P threads. I've had instances where D&D posters would ask a single question a dozen times (after I already answered it) aimed at a minor point I made in a much larger post and would refuse to engage on anything else. Funny how appalling things stand out. If I said "let's deport all Pakistanis" but talked mostly about ice cream in a post, what would you focus on?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 16:44
|
|
|
Plek posted:Ethnic cleansing IS genocide, so why bother making a distinction on the term? Because discussions about terminology are hardly ever useful, and a lot of people's first association to genocide is straight up murder. This is also why I call Gaza a ghetto, not a concentration camp. A lot of people associate the second term with gas chambers and forced labor.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 16:46
|
|
|
peak debt posted:Because discussions about terminology are hardly ever useful, and a lot of people's first association to genocide is straight up murder. Which is inappropriate why?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 16:47
|
|
|
peak debt posted:Because discussions about terminology are hardly ever useful, and a lot of people's first association to genocide is straight up murder. Except a ghetto and concentration camp have differences in intent, at least. Ethnic cleansing and genocide are synonymous with each other. Doing one implies the other. The only reason I can think of to use ethnic cleansing is because it sounds more polite.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 16:50
|
|
|
emanresu tnuocca posted:
There are more Palestinian refugees than there have ever been, and their situation is worse than it has been in decades. Why do you think that RoR won't be a major problem in a post-occupation world? Even if Israel was willing to pay compensation, most of the refugees don't want compensation, they want to go home, why are they going to stop wanting that once Israel stops occupying the West Bank? Hamas's goal isn't a two state solution, it is a single Islamic State. Why are they going to give up on their goal if Israel withdraws from the West Bank and opens the boarders of Gaza? Israel is doing just about everything they can to make a two state solution impossible, and the occupation is both illegal and counter-productive. But believing that peace will come shortly after Israel withdraws from the West Bank and opens Gaza requires ignoring both the historical roots of the conflict, and the realities of what the Palestinians want. Plek posted:Ethnic cleansing IS genocide, so why bother making a distinction on the term? No it isn't. Genocide can involve ethic cleansing, and you can have situations where ethnic cleansing has been the cover for genocide (ex Armenians in Turkey), but it is not a requirement. Greeks and Turks were cleansed from their respective countries at the end of WWII, and no one considers that genocide. Germans were cleansed from surrounding nations at the end of WWII, and Jews were cleansed from the West Bank and Gaza in 1948, Mennonites were cleansed form Russian and the Ukraine after the Revolution, none of these were genocide. Genocide is a concious action to attempt to destroy a race of people, ethnic cleansing is removing them from an area. It's still wrong, and it's still a war crime, but it is not nearly as bad. Patrick Spens fucked around with this message at 17:00 on Nov 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 16:51
|
|
|
Concentration camps imply nothing other than concentration. For example the US ran concentration camps in WWII, and the reservation system could also be called concentration camps.Patrick Spens posted:Hamas's goal isn't a two state solution, it is a single Islamic State. I see what you did there.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 16:51
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Which is inappropriate why? Because you will spend the next half hour talking about what the exact definition of genocide is and leave some Israeli shill looking all smug at you having to admit that what Israel does is not exactly as bad as the trail of tears or the Armenian genocide. While you could've turned the whole thing around and have him try to squirm around trying to explain why the current map of the West Bank isn't ethnic cleansing. SedanChair posted:Concentration camps imply nothing other than concentration. For example the US ran concentration camps in WWII, and the reservation system could also be called concentration camps. Literally true. But ask random people what a concentration camp is and 95% will draw you Auschwitz.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 16:52
|
|
|
peak debt posted:Because you will spend the next half hour talking about what the exact definition of genocide is and leave some Israeli shill looking all smug at you having to admit that what Israel does is not exactly as bad as the trail of tears or the Armenian genocide. They'll look smug anyway. If you have gotten them to the point of "not as bad as the Armenian genocide" who has won the argument?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 16:53
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Funny how appalling things stand out. If I said "let's deport all Pakistanis" but talked mostly about ice cream in a post, what would you focus on? "He supports deporting Pakistanis, therefore his opinions on ice-cream are invalid" is not a logical argument in a debate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 16:53
|
|
|
Plek posted:Ethnic cleansing IS genocide, so why bother making a distinction on the term? No it's not. Genocide is more about the elimination, ethnic cleansing is about the removal. The distinction matters for a variety of reasons, and it's good to use proper terminology so that you are not distracted by this pedantry in "real time". That's why you don't accuse someone of murder when what they've done is manslaughter, etc. An Angry Bug posted:Because it helps muffle the screaming remains of his conscience. What is weighing on my conscience, precious? 
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 16:53
|
|
peak debt posted:Because you will spend the next half hour talking about what the exact definition of genocide is and leave some Israeli shill looking all smug at you having to admit that what Israel does is not exactly as bad as the trail of tears or the Armenian genocide. Uhh, but it is? Absurd Alhazred posted:No it's not. Genocide is more about the elimination, ethnic cleansing is about the removal. http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...4093_story.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/world/gaza-counter/ I'd call this elimination
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 16:53
|
|
|
Mr.48 posted:"He supports deporting Pakistanis, therefore his opinions on ice-cream are invalid" is not a logical argument in a debate. No but "why is this freak talking about ice cream as though he deserved to be treated like a reasonable person" is.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 16:58
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:No it's not. Genocide is more about the elimination, ethnic cleansing is about the removal. The distinction matters for a variety of reasons, and it's good to use proper terminology so that you are not distracted by this pedantry in "real time". That's why you don't accuse someone of murder when what they've done is manslaughter, etc. Wikipedia is a poo poo source and that distinction is loving terrible. How often in the modern world can a population be moved or removed without making them dead first? Regardless, with your definition of ethnic cleansing and genocide, how is what Israel doing not genocide? Last time I checked, they weren't letting the Palestinians leave.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 16:59
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...4093_story.html It's a free internet, you can call it whatever you like. As for whether it's up to snuff for genocide, nope, do not think so. Blatant disregard up to targeting of civilians for the purpose of punishment, yeah, sure, you've got that there. I'd focus on accusations you can substantiate. ETA: Plek posted:Regardless, with your definition of ethnic cleansing and genocide, how is what Israel doing not genocide? Last time I checked, they weren't letting the Palestinians leave. Actually, while there is quite a bit of that, there is also a lot of not letting them get back. In any event, as I said when I first brought this up, the likely outcome is genocide, but "genocidal" isn't the thing here: it's "ethnic cleansing-happy", with genocide an increasingly acceptable outcome. It's important because it's necessary for understanding the dynamic of repeatedly heightening tensions and creating violent backlash so that genocide becomes palatable to an Israeli public that thirty years ago was expecting its elected leaders to leave Kahane to speak alone on the Knesset until they could pass a law barring his party from running. Absurd Alhazred fucked around with this message at 17:08 on Nov 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 17:02
|
|
|
How about cruel, bigoted, violent, callous, immoral and unacceptable? Let's see you deal with words that don't let you weasel out of their definitions.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 17:06
|
|
|
Plek posted:Wikipedia is a poo poo source and that distinction is loving terrible. How often in the modern world can a population be moved or removed without making them dead first? Well the two-state solution sure as hell requires a population to be removed, so it better be possible. Also, depending on your definition of modern world I've given you three examples.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 17:06
|
|
|
An Angry Bug posted:How about cruel, bigoted, violent, callous, immoral and unacceptable? Let's see you deal with words that don't let you weasel out of their definitions. Yes, definitely, definitely, oh hell yes, yes, very much so.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 17:09
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:It's a free internet, you can call it whatever you like. As for whether it's up to snuff for genocide, nope, do not think so. Blatant disregard up to targeting of civilians for the purpose of punishment, yeah, sure, you've got that there. I'd focus on accusations you can substantiate. What do you think genocide is? They are targeting civilians with military weapons and inflicting heavy casualties against a specific targeted ethnic group. How many Palestinian civilians have to be killed before it's an official genocide in your eyes.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 17:11
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:No but "why is this freak talking about ice cream as though he deserved to be treated like a reasonable person" is. No, because the validity of my opinion one one matter does not necessarily impact the validity of my opinion on other matters. If you choose to dismiss someone as a participant in a discussion over a single aspect of their views it's poor debate practice. For instance I would still be perfectly willing to discuss genetics with James Watson despite his awful opinions on certain things.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 17:11
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Yes, definitely, definitely, oh hell yes, yes, very much so. Ah, then you're cool. Sorry for jumping at shadows.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 17:13
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:What do you think genocide is? Actually, you know what, gently caress it, it actually is closer to official genocide, or at least attempts thereof, what with the below-starvation-level restrictions on incoming calorie counts and such. They supposedly didn't quite get away with that due to international outrage, but yeah, they've transitioned to downright genocidal towards Gaza. West Bank and Jerusalem it's more ethnic cleansy, although I think they've managed to create sufficient violence in Jerusalem to get it closer to genocidal there, too.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 17:17
|
|
|
An Angry Bug posted:How about cruel, bigoted, violent, callous, immoral and unacceptable? Let's see you deal with words that don't let you weasel out of their definitions. Yes, yes, yes, holy poo poo yes, yes, and mostly. down with slavery posted:What do you think genocide is? The United Nations posted:any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, I don't entirely agree with that definition, but it's a good starting point.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 17:23
|
|
Patrick Spens posted:I don't entirely agree with that definition, but it's a good starting point. What don't you agree with? And how is Israel not meeting the standards for genocide(if that's what your implying)?
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 17:24
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:What don't you agree with? And how is Israel not meeting the standards for genocide(if that's what your implying)? I'm never quite sure what the "in part" bit means. It has problems of scale and plausibility. Arab armies had some pretty obviously genocidal intentions towards Jews in 1948. And as part of that, they committed some war crimes, particularly the execution of POWs. So they killed members of a group, and had to intent to destroy Jews (arguably)/Israelis (definitely), but calling that genocide seems wildly inappropriate. The U.N. definition also doesn't take into account how effective a given action is when it comes to destroying a group, which seems to me to be a really important issue. I also don't like the conflation of forced assimilation and mass murder. I would say these are different enough that they same word should not be used to describe them. As to why I don't think Israel (as a nation) is genocidal, its because I haven't seen proof that the Israeli government intends to destroy the Palestinians, when it's actions can be better described by a combination of fear and greed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 17:55
|
|
|
We need a definition of genocide that is narrow enough to exclude Sherman's march to the sea.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 17:56
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:We need a definition of genocide that is narrow enough to exclude Sherman's march to the sea. My favorite tidbit of the march, from Sherman's orders re: who to pillage: quote:VI. As for horses, mules, wagons, &c., belonging to the inhabitants, the cavalry and artillery may appropriate freely and without limit, discriminating, however, between the rich, who are usually hostile, and the poor or industrious, usually neutral or friendly.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 18:01
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:We need a definition of genocide that is narrow enough to exclude Sherman's march to the sea. "Southerner" isn't a people.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 18:05
|
|
|
Patrick Spens posted:There are more Palestinian refugees than there have ever been, and their situation is worse than it has been in decades. Why do you think that RoR won't be a major problem in a post-occupation world? Even if Israel was willing to pay compensation, most of the refugees don't want compensation, they want to go home, why are they going to stop wanting that once Israel stops occupying the West Bank? Hamas's goal isn't a two state solution, it is a single Islamic State. Why are they going to give up on their goal if Israel withdraws from the West Bank and opens the boarders of Gaza? First, I never said 'shortly after', I believe it will take decades, true 'peace' is only possible after decades of normalized relations, even a hundred years from now you might still get the occasional Timothy McVey type character doing some stupid poo poo and killing children (not implying that this person would necessarily be a Palestinian either), it's important to understand that this 'Security Absolutism' that Israeli politicians and their american enablers bring up is a bullshit fantasy, Israel is going to have to deal with the occasional politically motivated hate crime without resorting to collective punishment, this is in itself is in many ways the 'solution' to the conflict. Which is why I find it amusing when people go 'it's sooooo complicated, there is no obvious solution' where there clearly is, Israel will have to contain (in the psychological sense) certain acts of violence, which through the passage of time will become less common. Second, I didn't mean monetary compensation necessarily, I used the word restitution everywhere else in that post but compensation slipped through in the last paragraph, I do not see any true difficulties with large numbers of Palestinians being granted Israeli citizenship (pending a period of normalcy, as per the above paragraph), of course the logistics might be somewhat problematic but I don't believe that every single person who is currently designated as a Palestinian refugee by UNWRA truly feels affinity to Palestine and would want to migrate back here, moreover once a Palestinian state exists within the 1967 borders exists (inshallah) portions of the refugees will be resettled within that territory. It is of course hard to imagine 20+ million people living in 'Greater Israel', some compromises will have to be made, the thing is that I don't believe that this is a sufficient cause for the sort of violence we've been seeing in the past few decades and thus, categorically, cannot be viewed as obstacle towards peaceful coexistence.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 18:12
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:We need a definition of genocide that is narrow enough to exclude Sherman's march to the sea. Difference between Genocide and Scorched Earth: You don't kill the civilians, you burn their things and destroy anything of value. Genocide is you kill everyone, sometimes not even bothering to destroy infrastructure. So, no, Sherman's march was not genocide.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 19:19
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Difference between Genocide and Scorched Earth: You don't kill the civilians, you burn their things and destroy anything of value. Pretty sure Sherman didn't take prisoners of civilians who fought against his march.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 19:20
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Pretty sure Sherman didn't take prisoners of civilians who faught against his march. If you are fighting against a military maneuver, you probably are not longer classified as a civilian. Nice inability to differentiate between a combatant and non-combatant.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 19:21
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:If you are fighting against a military maneuver, you probably are not longer classified as a civilian. Nice inability to differentiate between a combatant and non-combatant. Gee, sounds like how Israel classifies rocket target launch points. The differentiation between combatant and non-combatant is a nice luxury the west has allowed itself in order to 'justify' war and re-write the realities of crazed bloodshed by ascribing higher purpose to it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 19:24
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Gee, sounds like how Israel classifies rocket target launch points. I eagerly await when you use the same excuse to justify US SWAT teams assaulting parking garages as drug havens because a trafficker parked their car there a week ago.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 19:39
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:I eagerly await when you use the same excuse to justify US SWAT teams assaulting parking garages as drug havens because a trafficker parked their car there a week ago. I believe that's called "civil forfeiture".
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 20:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 03:13 |
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Gee, sounds like how Israel classifies rocket target launch points. Nobody is saying that Hamas is civilians, but I'd point out that the IDF has attacked sites that never witnessed a rocket launch at all to spread a message, or attack rocket sites weeks after the launch occured, pretty much ensuring the only people there will be civilians. But then again, you've spent so much time trying to justify punishment en mass, I don't expect you to know the difference between fighting an army invading an hostile state and targeting sites that are known to be civilian because a rocket MIGHT have been launched from there at some point in the past. Oh, and the IDF has a legacy of attacking non-combatants and or using them as body shields.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 20:26
|
|