|
Anyway, the post was in reply to "how can we treat jews and Arabs different with respect to being allowed to go and live in Israel without being racist, discriminatory or blatantly unfair." The fact that Israel won and the Arabs lost isnt discriminatory or racist, viewing it in this way allows us to avoid any consideration of supposed comparative value or merit between the two people. We can say that two groups of people with equal human dignity contested an area and one group won, then went on to improve and defend the land, forming a full fledged sovereign and permanent nation there which is equal to any other. Whether that is unfair, I suppose that along with so much else, it is unfair. Whether it is blatantly unfair, egregiously unfair, or intensively unfair, I don't think it is. I don't think so because it isn't different to innumerable other cases which are settled and accepted.
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 15:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 21:18 |
|
hakimashou posted:Israel's enemies tried more than once now to reconquer the lands by force and they failed. The continued existence of Israel is a settled issue. Israel's sovereign territory doesn't belong to the Arabs anymore. Like how Manhattan doesn't belong to American Indians. I don't think anyone ITT is calling for the outright abolition of the state of Israel and the removal of its citizens from the territory. Most countries are founded on stupidity and injustice, it doesn't make destroying them a good idea. Nonetheless, it's important not to make the best the enemy of the good. The native American population and societies displaced in North America was mostly obliterated by disease and genocided away. It isn't ever coming back. There is, however, a group of people in Palestine (and also Egypt, Syria and Jordan) who were really effected by the Nakba, including a number of them who experienced it personally and who are entitled to restitution of some kind, and to a state of their own. This isn't dry and settled history yet. It's still current affairs.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 15:23
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:The fact that Israel won and the Arabs lost isnt discriminatory or racist, viewing it in this way allows us to avoid any consideration of supposed comparative value or merit between the two people. We can say that two groups of people with equal human dignity contested an area and one group won, then went on to improve and defend the land, forming a full fledged sovereign and permanent nation there which is equal to any other. Noone's really contesting the pre-67 borders anymore in this thread, even though the conditions in which the land was annexed in 1948 were abominable, so you're charging at windmills, Quixote. The occupation is taking place in Gaza and the West Bank. That's where the conflict is taking place, right now. Flowers For Algeria fucked around with this message at 15:45 on Mar 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 15:28
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:I don't think anyone ITT is calling for the outright abolition of the state of Israel and the removal of its citizens from the territory. Most countries are founded on stupidity and injustice, it doesn't make destroying them a good idea. Nonetheless, it's important not to make the best the enemy of the good. The native American population and societies displaced in North America was mostly obliterated by disease and genocided away. It isn't ever coming back. I can accept that they are entitled to some kind of restitution, but can't agree unreservedly that they are entitled to a state of their own. Simply because not every group of people is entitled to a state of its own. Quebec is not entitled to become a state, nor is Mississippi or the city of Los Angeles or many other examples. I do support a two state outcome, mind you, with the Palestinian territories becoming a state. But, as to why any jew can go live in Israel at his pleasure, but any Arab with ancestors from there can't, it's because Israel is a sovereign nation and has a sovereign nation's rightful power to control immigration.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 15:28
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:I can accept that they are entitled to some kind of restitution, but can't agree unreservedly that they are entitled to a state of their own. Simply because not every group of people is entitled to a state of its own. Quebec is not entitled to become a state, nor is Mississippi or the city of Los Angeles or many other examples. I do support a two state outcome, mind you, with the Palestinian territories becoming a state. Israel's bleating about MAH SECURITY is just kind of a red herring though because they don't gain much from proceeding with negotiations. Even a 100% sovereign Palestinian state on the 1967 borders is not a threat to Israel militarily. The demand that it be an utter client state is absurd, but people take it seriously because they like their bribe money. The problem with the in-between path, not giving Palestinians equal, full Israel citizenship or giving them no independence basically implies a genocide.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 15:32
|
|
|
I wake alone and gorgeous from a dream of Ariel on his farm. It is just past one in the morning. I am naked. My small breasts awaken first - ripening and reddening, the nipples beckoning like supple pink fingers - and then the rest of my tremendous Hebrew body, the mechanism of bones and sinews and powerful muscles that was given unto me by the Lord in return for the age-old suffering of my people. Beneath the sheets, my luscious clam eases open. I caress it. My fingertips come away touched with briny seawater. Here I lie, half a world away from Israel; from the soil that my love cherished all his life, the ancient sun-baked earth that he now lies beneath. Food for the worms, food for the trees. A mote of Arik inside every fruit in the citrus groves. My anus dilates at the thought. I want to take up handfuls of that blessed soil and slide them up inside me. I want to poo poo out the rich dirt of the homeland. I want to rub my body against the bark of trees that have dined on Ariel; I want to touch myself in the golden grass that he is now a part of. My vagina blossoms like the Negev desert after rain. I dream of his hands on me. I dream of him impaling my prim little rear end. I dream of lying back and letting him devour me, feast on me, fill himself with my fecund fruit, the flesh and the juices of me. My buttocks, my breasts, the furious hairy spear of my manhood. Oh Ariel, I dream of you every night. This glorious body will never belong to anybody else. I may live my life constantly ogled and coveted by others, but only you rule my dreams, my soul, my penis. I love you, Ariel. I love you; I long for you, and only you. Let us have sex.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 15:36
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:I can accept that they are entitled to some kind of restitution, but can't agree unreservedly that they are entitled to a state of their own. Simply because not every group of people is entitled to a state of its own. Quebec is not entitled to become a state, nor is Mississippi or the city of Los Angeles or many other examples. I do support a two state outcome, mind you, with the Palestinian territories becoming a state. Of course they are. The Kurds are entitled to their own state, as are the Tibetans, the Palestinians, or hell, as the Scots would be, or the people of Quebec or the Corsicans, in the name of the right to self-determination. The only condition for this is the existence of a people, and a majoritarian national will among these people. The Parti Québécois is one of the strongest Canadian parties, and while they aren't independantist but autonomist, they were representative enough that Canada held two referendums about an autonomous Quebec that confirmed the federalist option. Something similar happened in Scotland very recently, and had the referendum been in favor of independance, then Great-Britain would have had to consent to independance. Corsica is somewhat autonomous, and New Caledonia (a French territory) is almost independant with its own Government and Congress. The national will of the Palestinian people is not disputable, therefore their right to a state of their own is not either. Flowers For Algeria fucked around with this message at 16:01 on Mar 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 15:58
|
|
|
Xander77 posted:Ah. Right, we're in D&D. I didn't say anything about those groups, but actually, yeah, communists do tend to be against colonialism, at least in theory, when they're not running the government themselves? Hell, the IRA got along just as well with groups like Irgun and Lehi back in the 30s when they were all fighting British colonialism together; it's only when they gained power and expelled all the Palestinians to impose their own colonialist regime that the IRA stopped being buddies with them. emanresu tnuocca posted:I have clarified my own position in regards to the 'right of return' in the past, I do not deny the rights of refugees and their descendants to return to either Israel or the Palestine that will come to be, I have a problem with the unreasonable demand to return every single refugee as a precondition for normalcy, I think it's a rather tall order to go from 'mutually murdering each other' to 'living together in harmony' without first having a period where we don't mutually murder one another, Honestly, I don't really think this is worth worrying about. Many Israelis already live and work in close proximity to Palestinians, and not only does this not turn into an awful bloodbath, but Israelis are actively choosing to move into Palestinians territory and live there. Both the Israeli and PA security forces have demonstrated they're able to keep the peace, even with the ongoing occupation and all the hatred and security demands it entails. Though there are isolated incidents on both sides, those are essentially just crimes, and a 0% crime rate is impossible to attain even in a monoracial state. Besides, your position raises questions like "should we have kept segregation in the US because the KKK existed"? If racial separation and inequality is maintained solely due to fear of the violence that racists might engage in, then the racists win. hakimashou posted:Israel won its war with the Arabs and won the land. That's the way in which governmental sovereignty is divided up by human beings. However, there is no longer any recognized right to steal the ownership of the land itself and expel its existing residents by violence or threats of violence, and doing so is now considered a crime against humanity, especially when it is done based on ethnic grounds. Just as Nazi Germany had no right to confiscate Jews' property in Poland and then expel or murder them, even though they did win their war with Poland.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 16:05
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:Emanesru, do you know of any data about where the Palestinian victims of the Nakba came from ? How many of them are from (what are now) Israeli cities and territories, how many are from Cisjordan and Gaza? I'm guessing that the majority fled from Israeli territory, but is there any hard data on that? iirc correctly the official estimates are between 500-700k displaced during the Nakba from pre-1967 territories (with the higher 700k estimate being the one that is favored by the larger consensus) and between 100-250k in the 1967 ethnic cleansing (also known as the Naksa) from territories bordering on the 'green line'. The UN general assembly resolution 194 stipulates that the palestinian refugees must be allowed to return to their original habitats and as far as I'm aware the PA never made concessions in this regard, I think that during the Rabin administration there were talks about monetary reparations instead but this was rejected out of hand by Arafar. quote:I don't think anyone here isn't horrified at the treatment of Jews who fled from Nazi Germany - and all the countries that refused entry to Jews before and after the war share a similar moral failing. I am not exactly sure what you mean by "the unique right of Palestinian pre-1948 to deny asylum to the victims of a genocide". The denial of asylum was Mandatory Palestine's, i.e. Britain's fault, not the Palestinians', though, wasn't it? Or is that what you meant? Disinterested posted:I'm not sure what's unique about anyone's right to deny victims of a genocide, that is an utterly absurd rhetorical flourish. Britain and the USA turned away holocaust refugees in droves. What is unique is that people justify it and consider the refugees themselves to be invaders rather than asylum seekers, what do you think people mean when they say 'white colonialist enterprise'. Main Paineframe posted:Honestly, I don't really think this is worth worrying about. Many Israelis already live and work in close proximity to Palestinians, and not only does this not turn into an awful bloodbath, but Israelis are actively choosing to move into Palestinians territory and live there. Both the Israeli and PA security forces have demonstrated they're able to keep the peace, even with the ongoing occupation and all the hatred and security demands it entails. Though there are isolated incidents on both sides, those are essentially just crimes, and a 0% crime rate is impossible to attain even in a monoracial state. You are well aware of the reality under which Jewish settlers occupy the west bank, given that we all consider this reality to be untenable and among the chief causes for the constant escalation in violence and animosity I do not consider this to prove that that the concern over ethnic violence is unfounded, to strengthen this argument, what do you believe would become of the settlers in Hebron once the IDF is taken out of the picture, do you think a repeat of the 1929 massacre is not likely to happen? I don't think that the scenario in apartheid US or south africa is equivalent at all to the what's going in within the 1948 borders of Israel, if only for the fact that KKK-esque organizations do not exclusively belong to the dominant Jewish majority, you are perhaps convinced that given an immediate immigration of some ~10 million palestinians into 1948 Israel no harm will befall the jews, it would seem like the majority of Jews do not feel this way, now of course, many here would say that the jews do not deserve to have an opinion (hyperbolic statement yeah yeah) but they still hold many of the cards and it seems like most western powers do not consider the right of return to be the most burning issue either. I maintain that conditioning a cessation of hostilities with the immediate recognition of the right of return is not practical or constructive, a lot like the Israeli demands for the recognition of Israel as a Jewish state with Jerusalem as its 'undivided' capital. As long as Israel and Hamas prioritize such nonsense terms ahead of normalcy and deescalation poo poo will keep getting worse.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 16:39
|
|
|
The Zionist movement didn't originate as a refugee movement and to say that Israeli settlers pur et simple and in no sense colonialists is just plainly wrong on its face.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 16:44
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:I don't think anyone ITT is calling for the outright abolition of the state of Israel and the removal of its citizens from the territory. Most countries are founded on stupidity and injustice, it doesn't make destroying them a good idea. Nonetheless, it's important not to make the best the enemy of the good. The native American population and societies displaced in North America was mostly obliterated by disease and genocided away. It isn't ever coming back. Let's have an insane hypothetical that's insane even by this thread's hypotheticals: let's say that the recent Israeli election had gone completely off the wall and resulted in Meretz and the Joint Arab List somehow getting 40 seats each. Since this is an insane hypothetical anyway, let's say that this unprecedented development also means that Joint Arab List holds itself together and avoids infighting for the time being, and as a result a majority coalition is formed based on: -Dismantling Israeli settlements in the West Bank -Full equality for the Arab population in Israel -An end to rampant discrimination against Palestinians and Arab Israelis, and an end to discrimination in general -A real, genuine push for a peaceful Two-State Solution -Protecting workers' rights and issues -Massively increased social services and welfare Then I would back that Israel/Israeli government to the hilt, and be genuinely happy to support them. (And honestly be a little jealous of Israel, given the current deadlocked status of US politics.) Now if all of that happening would qualify to various people as "the abolition of the state of Israel" (who am I kidding, there's be non-stop screaming from the word go), well then that's a problem with how those fade5 fucked around with this message at 16:54 on Mar 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 16:50
|
|
|
Well, yeah.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 16:52
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:The Zionist movement didn't originate as a refugee movement and to say that Israeli settlers pur et simple and in no sense colonialists is just plainly wrong on its face. For starters, by 1948 the actual 'zionists' (i.e those who weren't refugees fleeing Nazism in europe) were a fraction of the Jewish population in palestine, second, given that entire raison d'être of the zionist movement was the create a 'national safehaven for jews' due to their utterly justified fear of the genocidal intents of european anti semites I find it equally valid to view the movement itself as a proto-refugee movement as it is to view it as a 'white colonialist movement', perhaps even more so. Just a reminder that the predictions of late 19th century zionists regarding the ultimate fate of the european jewry given the trends that they themselves perceived were unequivocally confirmed. Every european jew who sought to flee europe by the late 19th century can be said to have been motivated by legitimate fear of antisemitic violence. Just ask yourself who were the first zionist settlers, where they came from and what were the direct causes for them fleeing russia. As for 'settlers' themselves, i.e: post 1967, that's a different story altogether and they're obviously colonists (in the classical european sense as they are supported by a 'foreign power' in the form of the state of Israel), but I was not talking about those at all.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 17:10
|
|
|
Chaim Weizmann: refugee. What? Sure, the original zionists were a small group compared to the post-WW2 refugees. On the other hand, they were tremendously influential, and their writings and decision-making underpinned Israeli strategy. 'The Iron Wall' sound familiar? You can be a refugee and a colonialist at the same time. Like, for example, fleeing European religious persecution on the American continent. There is nothing problematic about that. Disinterested fucked around with this message at 17:15 on Mar 30, 2015 |
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 17:13
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:Israel won its war with the Arabs and won the land. I don't know how you're posting from the 1920s but dude, there's this guy called Hitler I need you to take out
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 17:17
|
|
|
Planning and prosecuting a war of aggression got Donitz 10 years and Raeder life imprisonment at Nuremburg. I think that's about as clear a rejection of the right of conquest as anyone could want.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 17:31
|
|
|
emanresu tnuocca posted:For starters, by 1948 the actual 'zionists' (i.e those who weren't refugees fleeing Nazism in europe) were a fraction of the Jewish population in palestine, second, given that entire raison d'être of the zionist movement was the create a 'national safehaven for jews' due to their utterly justified fear of the genocidal intents of european anti semites I find it equally valid to view the movement itself as a proto-refugee movement as it is to view it as a 'white colonialist movement', perhaps even more so. This isn't really in line with the traditional scholarly (mostly zionist) view of the history of Zionism though? It frames the Zionist movement as mostly an equivalent of the European nationalistic movements or a socialist labour land thing. There would be waves of Jews moving to Palestine followed by waves of Jews moving back home, all dependent on trends and how effective the propaganda was. From a leadership perspective it was definitely a colonialist movement, not a "proto-refugee" movement. *edit* Anti-Semitism was important for the trends though of course. Svartvit fucked around with this message at 17:45 on Mar 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 17:38
|
|
|
emanresu tnuocca posted:What is unique is that people justify it and consider the refugees themselves to be invaders rather than asylum seekers, what do you think people mean when they say 'white colonialist enterprise'. This isn't unique either! Many countries hate refugees and accuse them of being invaders rather than asylum seekers - including Israel itself, in fact! Netanyahu himself has referred to African refugees as "infiltrators" who threaten Israel's national security and has openly announced his intent to expel them from Israel. quote:You are well aware of the reality under which Jewish settlers occupy the west bank, given that we all consider this reality to be untenable and among the chief causes for the constant escalation in violence and animosity I do not consider this to prove that that the concern over ethnic violence is unfounded, to strengthen this argument, what do you believe would become of the settlers in Hebron once the IDF is taken out of the picture, do you think a repeat of the 1929 massacre is not likely to happen? This has nothing at all to do with a right-of-return, though. While the status of the settlements under a two-state solution in which they fall under Palestinian jurisdiction is certainly interesting to discuss (though not nearly as hopeless as you're suggesting), I don't feel like tripling the length of my post just to follow a derail. quote:I don't think that the scenario in apartheid US or south africa is equivalent at all to the what's going in within the 1948 borders of Israel, if only for the fact that KKK-esque organizations do not exclusively belong to the dominant Jewish majority, you are perhaps convinced that given an immediate immigration of some ~10 million palestinians into 1948 Israel no harm will befall the jews, it would seem like the majority of Jews do not feel this way, now of course, many here would say that the jews do not deserve to have an opinion (hyperbolic statement yeah yeah) but they still hold many of the cards and it seems like most western powers do not consider the right of return to be the most burning issue either. Black Panthers? The ANC? The Inkatha Freedom Party? Violent black groups were active in both the US and South Africa throughout the civil rights and anti-apartheid eras. The ending of apartheid in South Africa was accompanied by a number of riots, terrorist attacks, and even a few massacres. Nelson Mandela himself is known to have called for armed struggle against apartheid in the 60s, and he founded the military wing of the ANC that went on to carry out a number of bombings and other terrorist acts. In fact, apartheid supporters often feared that ending apartheid and granting the long-oppressed black South Africans power would lead to heavy retribution against the Afrikaners, and the possibility of the long-oppressed blacks taking revenge against their oppressors was often cited by apartheid defenders as a reason why apartheid had to be maintained. One Afrikaner prime minister said that for Afrikaans, ending apartheid would be "suicide", and that apartheid had to be maintained for the sake of the very survival of the white residents of South Africa. It's the very same argument you're deploying now. quote:I maintain that conditioning a cessation of hostilities with the immediate recognition of the right of return is not practical or constructive, a lot like the Israeli demands for the recognition of Israel as a Jewish state with Jerusalem as its 'undivided' capital. As long as Israel and Hamas prioritize such nonsense terms ahead of normalcy and deescalation poo poo will keep getting worse. Since when has anyone hung a temporary cessation of hostilities on a immediate right of return? It's been brought up in discussions of permanent peace delays - the same deals in which Israel pushed for the Palestinians to forever surrender any and all claims or complaints they had against Israel - but never as a condition for a ceasefire. Has Hamas ever even been given the opportunity to ask for a right of return? Typically, their ceasefire conditions are predicated on ending the blockade.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 17:42
|
|
|
Juffo-Wup posted:Planning and prosecuting a war of aggression got Donitz 10 years and Raeder life imprisonment at Nuremburg. I think that's about as clear a rejection of the right of conquest as anyone could want. The crime being punished was starting World War Two and perpetrating the holocaust. Besides, Nuremberg, like all international war crimes courts, was the victors punishing the vanquished, and the strong imposing their will. Israel is just as much a result of ww2 and the holocaust as was the Nuremberg trials, and Israel is a nuclear power. Pretending that Israel is subject to the same sanctions as nazi Germany is just an exercise in creative ways to ignore the facts of history. The israeli-palestinian is conflict is not something that can be abstracted, it is something very specific to real circumstances and not subject to seemingly-clever analogies. In the real world, the judgment of Nuremberg is one facet of the broader historical truth that also includes why israel gets a pass for its creation. Faced with these facts, it's not hard to see why we don't get up on our high horses, and instead declining to indulge in the hypocrisy of saying "winning your land only counted when we did it, not after." If this fact ends up sucking for the Palestinians who lost the land they used to own but don't anymore and never will again, that's sad for them but as is so often the case, bigger and stronger forces were at work, and for some to win, others must lose. The vulgarity of trying to make equivalence between the founding of Israel and the extermination of the Jews in Europe is distasteful and objectionable, but it's also irrelevant. There is no anti israel power base in the world. The Arabs are too weak, the Europeans dare not for shame, and america just plain disagrees. So, we get back to the original point. The Palestinians were beaten, they did lose, and that loss is concrete and final. Their only option for a good outcome is to commit to non violence, their only honorable course is to offer an unconditional surrender to Israel, to vow never to question its right to exist, and to work only toward becoming a friendly and productive neighboring state. The reason this seems like such a fantastical idea is that the Palestinians are so unwilling to do it,
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 18:31
|
|
|
emanresu tnuocca posted:What is unique is that people justify it and consider the refugees themselves to be invaders rather than asylum seekers, what do you think people mean when they say 'white colonialist enterprise'. There's a difference between seeking asylum and seeking conquest. If I'm suddenly homeless and ask if I can crash on your couch for a while, I'm an asylum seeker. If I'm suddenly homeless and I break into your house and evict or murder you to live there from now on, I don't think "asylum seeker" is how the police will describe me.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 18:49
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:their only honorable course is to offer an unconditional surrender to Israel, to vow never to question its right to exist, and to work only toward becoming a friendly and productive neighboring state. How dumb do you have to be to spend an entire post arguing in favor of amoral realism, then make a grand declaration about what is the "honorable" choice within the same post? MIGF, is that you?
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 19:01
|
|
hakimashou posted:So, we get back to the original point. The Palestinians were beaten, they did lose, and that loss is concrete and final. Their only option for a good outcome is to commit to non violence, their only honorable course is to offer an unconditional surrender to Israel, to vow never to question its right to exist, and to work only toward becoming a friendly and productive neighboring state.  this post. The only honourable course is stop posting.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 19:07
|
|
|
emanresu tnuocca posted:You are well aware of the reality under which Jewish settlers occupy the west bank, given that we all consider this reality to be untenable and among the chief causes for the constant escalation in violence and animosity I do not consider this to prove that that the concern over ethnic violence is unfounded, to strengthen this argument, what do you believe would become of the settlers in Hebron once the IDF is taken out of the picture, do you think a repeat of the 1929 massacre is not likely to happen? Given that those settlers have more guns than Ted Nugent, no.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 19:08
|
|
|
hakimashou strikes me as the guy in high school saying we should just "nuke em all". except in stead of growing up, he just doubled down on the callous facade
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 19:10
|
|
|
Hakimashou agrees we should nuke Tel Aviv to finally get rid of the obnoxious fuckers, glad to see it
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 19:11
|
|
|
Most of that trainwreck of a post is a bunch of non-sequiturs, but-hakimashou posted:If this fact ends up sucking for the Palestinians who lost the land they used to own but don't anymore and never will again, that's sad for them but as is so often the case, bigger and stronger forces were at work, and for some to win, others must lose. hakimashou posted:So, we get back to the original point. The Palestinians were beaten, they did lose, and that loss is concrete and final. Their only option for a good outcome is to commit to non violence, their only honorable course is to offer an unconditional surrender to Israel, to vow never to question its right to exist, and to work only toward becoming a friendly and productive neighboring state. (PS I'm still waiting on answers to my other posts.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 19:19
|
|
|
Might makes right is the gist of that guy's diatribe.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 19:25
|
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:How dumb do you have to be to spend an entire post arguing in favor of amoral realism, then make a grand declaration about what is the "honorable" choice within the same post? MIGF, is that you? And yet you, and everyone else arguing against him, seem to miss the obvious fallacy in his post - the Germans didn't expel the French from Alsace-Lorraine. The territory passed from the control of the French government to the control of the German government, and many Germans moved in, but the French who lived there before the annexation still lived there after it (unless they voluntarily chose to leave it) and were given full German citizenship, voting rights and all. If you annex land in war, the people on that land come with it; victory may allow some land to be transferred from another government to your government, but that is a transfer of sovereignty rather than one of ownership. The actual people who owned the land still own it, they just pay property taxes to a different government. And, most importantly, it does not grant the right to conduct ethnic cleansing upon that territory or expel the inhabitants.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 19:28
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Unlimited right of return seems to work just fine for the Jewish residents of Israel, why wouldn't it work for the Palestinians? I can't think of any justification for claiming it won't work that isn't racist, discriminatory, or openly unfair. When there were millions of Jews (most of them kicked out by Arab regimes in a fit of anti-Zionism) coming in, it was a huge problem, yes. The Israeli economy was in the shitter for many years over it, and many of them and their descendents still suffer from systemic poverty. The same happened with the mass migration of post-Soviet Jews after the fall of the USSR, although that was ameliorated by the fact that many of them were highly educated. The reason it doesn't cause that much now is that there aren't millions of Jews constantly coming in, but it is instead a trickle. If the Palestinian Right of Return comes down to a quota of say 10,000 a year I am guessing that under the right international pressures you could probably sell that to the Jewish public. quote:Given that Israelis are already migrating into Palestinian territory en masse it seems to work out somehow or other. I suppose it'd be a bit dishonest to really call that "peaceful", but for some reason nobody seems to have any problem with Israelis and Palestinians living together when armed soldiers are standing around and watching the violence to make sure that the Palestinians are the only ones getting hurt! I have a lot of problems with that. It's just that I also don't see what the benefit is of moving Yarmoukh Refugee Camp from Syria all the way near Haifa, and then either forcing the Palestinians to stay there or switching them around with the Jews in Haifa. Historic justice? Irony? Not something that the Jews will consent to, I am not sure what Palestinians genuinely think they will get out of that, and good luck finding someone who will implement it. Flowers For Algeria posted:I don't think anyone here isn't horrified at the treatment of Jews who fled from Nazi Germany - and all the countries that refused entry to Jews before and after the war share a similar moral failing. I am not exactly sure what you mean by "the unique right of Palestinian pre-1948 to deny asylum to the victims of a genocide". The denial of asylum was Mandatory Palestine's, i.e. Britain's fault, not the Palestinians', though, wasn't it? Or is that what you meant? No, that was definitely pushed by the Palestinian and general Arab leadership, such as they were, and they protested even the quotas the British did end up agreeing to.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 19:31
|
|
|
'Israel' starts with an 'I', 'Palestine' starts with a 'P'. Israel has alphabetic priority, the only honourable course is an unconditional surrender on Palestine's part.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 19:44
|
|
|
hypnorotic posted:Might makes right is the gist of that guy's diatribe. Exact same poo poo Kombotron used to post, really.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 19:47
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:I can accept that they are entitled to some kind of restitution, but can't agree unreservedly that they are entitled to a state of their own. Simply because not every group of people is entitled to a state of its own. Quebec is not entitled to become a state, nor is Mississippi or the city of Los Angeles or many other examples. I do support a two state outcome, mind you, with the Palestinian territories becoming a state. So you would be OK if tomorrow, US let only whites or Christians immigrate? As to why Jews can go live in Israel with pleasure and enjoy greater rights over many actual native citizens its because Israel is a racist apartheid state under whose laws Arabs are considered an inferior race. You know, we're talking about 2015 here. In the eyes of most of the West, ongoing apartheid, military annexation and colonialism are considered bad things. Things that happened in the past happened. Doesn't mean everyone is entitled to practice racial discrimination and take someone else's poo poo because Europeans did that a long time ago. Kinda how I can't kick in your door and kidnap you into slavery because that's not OK anymore in civilized circles. ----------------- Anyway, Right of Return for either the descendants of Palestinians or Jews is rank bullshit that needs to be abolished. If your family has been living in Lebanon for three generations, you're loving Lebanese. Arab countries not giving refugees who have been there for 65+ years citizenship is incredibly hosed up and should be considered a separate humanitarian issue from the I/P conflict. What is usually missing from this thread is that most surrounding Arab nations treat Palestinians just as bad as Israel. hakimashou posted:So, we get back to the original point. The Palestinians were beaten, they did lose, and that loss is concrete and final. Their only option for a good outcome is to commit to non violence, their only honorable course is to offer an unconditional surrender to Israel, to vow never to question its right to exist, and to work only toward becoming a friendly and productive neighboring state. It's not fantastical at all. West Bank is completely under Israeli heel, and the official Palestinian representation has given up violence, transferred taxation to Israel, let Israel administer the territory and in past peace negotiations have basically promised everything that Israel wanted (Palestine Papers) and were rebuffed. What is fantastical is the claim that Palestinian "unconditional surrender" would change anything. The status quo is what Israel wants, because they have to make no commitments, can keep stealing land and can distract the population from domestic issues by waving the threat of Hamas (because Jordan and Egypt aren't a threat, Syria is dealing with its own poo poo, and Hezbollah can actually gently caress up IDF's day). Palestinians have no agency to change their own day. I'd personally prefer if they would all become pacifists overnight, but it wouldn't change poo poo. This conflict ends when US gets sick of it, which will happen with or without Palestinian violence. And trust me, Israel isn't winning a PR battle anywhere else in the West whenever it kills 2000+ people in response to few rockets. United States is all it has. DarkCrawler fucked around with this message at 20:08 on Mar 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 19:55
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:Anyway, Right of Return for either the descendants of Palestinians or Jews is rank bullshit that needs to be abolished. If your family has been living in Lebanon for three generations, you're loving Lebanese. Arab countries not giving refugees who have been there for 65+ years citizenship is incredibly hosed up and should be considered a separate humanitarian issue from the I/P conflict. What is usually missing from this thread is that most surrounding Arab nations treat Palestinians just as bad as Israel. Disagree on the first part. These people should be given the choice, and the option to return OR to integrate into the society of the country they ended up in should be made available to them. And they shoud be able to return to Palestine if/when it becomes viable as a country.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 20:04
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:Disagree on the first part. These people should be given the choice, and the option to return OR to integrate into the society of the country they ended up in should be made available to them. And they shoud be able to return to Palestine if/when it becomes viable as a country. They should be able to return to Palestine if the Palestinians living there agree to it. Not Israel if there is a two-state solution (Well unless Israel agrees, but I don't think so), not anywhere in a single state. If you're born in Lebanon, your parents were born in Lebanon, and their parents were born in Lebanon, you're Lebanese. You are the responsibility of Lebanon. They haven't ended up anywhere, they've been born, raised and died in the surrounding nations for decades. Israel doesn't carry responsibility for that anymore. There is no difference between an 20th generation American living on Indian land or a 5th generation Israeli living on former Palestinian land if the original inhabitant is dead. We need to fix the lives of people where they live and have been born now. We don't need to add another aspect of complexity by demanding land for people who don't exist anymore, for people who don't live in the territories in question and have never even been there, and starting massive population transfers. Because descendants of Palestinian refugees sure aren't the only ones whose ancestors were evicted in this equation. DarkCrawler fucked around with this message at 20:22 on Mar 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 20:19
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:If this fact ends up sucking for the Yazidi and Syriacs who lost the land they used to own but don't anymore and never will again, that's sad for them but as is so often the case, bigger and stronger forces were at work, and for some to win, others must lose. You have successfully convinced me that Daesh's Caliphate has a right to exist.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 20:32
|
|
|
The Nakba was only 58 years ago. There's still plenty of people alive who experienced it firsthand; no need to go talking about descendants of descendants just yet. Besides, it's silly to say that the children of evicted Palestinians aren't Palestinians anymore, many of the people who immigrated based on the Jewish Law of Return are people who can't trace any ancestry at all back to the land and have barely any connection to Judaism at all. Many of the ex-Soviet immigrants are barely even Jewish at all, and various Israeli right-wingers have made a hobby of declaring various minorities from places like India and South America to be "lost tribes" of Judaism and importing them to Israel under the Law of Return (the goal here being to counter Arab population growth and ward off the demographic crisis by importing just about anyone willing to self-identify as Jewish).
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 20:59
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:The Nakba was only 58 years ago. There's still plenty of people alive who experienced it firsthand; no need to go talking about descendants of descendants just yet. 30-50,000 out of 5,000,000 is a pretty small amount. Somebody who was a toddler in Nakba is pushing 70 these days. The actual people evicted of course completely deserve restitution. Main Paineframe posted:Besides, it's silly to say that the children of evicted Palestinians aren't Palestinians anymore, many of the people who immigrated based on the Jewish Law of Return are people who can't trace any ancestry at all back to the land and have barely any connection to Judaism at all. Many of the ex-Soviet immigrants are barely even Jewish at all, and various Israeli right-wingers have made a hobby of declaring various minorities from places like India and South America to be "lost tribes" of Judaism and importing them to Israel under the Law of Return (the goal here being to counter Arab population growth and ward off the demographic crisis by importing just about anyone willing to self-identify as Jewish). They're Palestinians culturally, just like many of the Jews are that by culture/tradition. That doesn't stop them from being from whatever country they and the vast majority of their families were born in nor entitles them to the former property of their ancestors in a different country. It entitles them to full rights in the country they have lived their whole lives in.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 21:12
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:They're Palestinians culturally, just like many of the Jews are that by culture/tradition. That doesn't stop them from being from whatever country they and the vast majority of their families were born in nor entitles them to the former property of their ancestors in a different country. It entitles them to full rights in the country they have lived their whole lives in. So why are Americans, Russians, French, Ethiopians, and now even Indians entitled to being Israeli? Why is it that they are entitled to free immigration, but Palestinians are not?
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 21:46
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:The crime being punished was starting World War Two and perpetrating the holocaust. They have tried this, and it doesn't work.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 21:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 21:18 |
|
|
Venom Snake posted:They have tried this, and it doesn't work. Yeah, just like in the United States. When the civil rights movement suffered early setbacks, black leaders should have encouraged their followers to commit to an extremist ideology, call for the destruction of the country oppressing them, and commit terrorist acts of violence against the majority population! That would have REALLY loving helped bring about justice for the African American population sooner, and it definitely wouldn't have resulted in a lot of retaliatory violence!
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 22:00
|
|