|
Kaal posted:The only person suggesting that is you. If there's no mechanism for compulsion then there's no mechanism for actually putting your proposal into practice, so at best what you're suggesting is useless.
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 21:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 12:23 |
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:If there's no mechanism for compulsion then there's no mechanism for actually putting your proposal into practice, so at best what you're suggesting is useless. If your mechanism for compulsion is another shoa, what you wish to compel is unacceptable.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 21:42
|
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:If there's no mechanism for compulsion then there's no mechanism for actually putting your proposal into practice, so at best what you're suggesting is useless. Giving Palestinians homes and a future is useless? Allowing the situation to defuse is useless? Creating the framework for peaceful engagement is useless? I don't think so. At the very least it would be a better option than another couple decades of warfare without any hope of a Palestinian victory.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 21:42
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Giving Palestinians homes and a future is useless? Allowing the situation to defuse is useless? Creating the framework for peaceful engagement is useless? I don't think so. Dreaming of a 40th Intifada Army marching into Tel Aviv is useless.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 21:43
|
|
|
Yeah and funding the Madagascar Plan would've avoided the Holocaust but it was still anti-Semitic. e: I mean Kaal's modest proposal actually is better than the status quo, but that's really just an argument for how hosed up things are
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 21:46
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Giving Palestinians homes and a future is useless? Allowing the situation to defuse is useless? Creating the framework for peaceful engagement is useless? I don't think so. At the very least it would be a better option than another couple decades of warfare without any hope of a Palestinian victory. "Give them 50,000 and then force them to move to a country with a different economic situation where that amount of money last them a year and also they will face persecution from the people we are forcing them on" is a terrible plan, and the idea that you think this is a good, moral, and peaceful solution is absolutely bizarre. edit: Your plan takes the land they already own and then doesn't even give them enough to purchase a new place to live in whatever country they end up in, you want to purposefully make a ton of people homeless?
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 21:49
|
|
|
Mormon Star Wars posted:"Give them 50,000 and then force them to move to a country with a different economic situation where that amount of money last them a year and also they will face persecution from the people we are forcing them on" is a terrible plan, and the idea that you think this is a good, moral, and peaceful solution is absolutely bizarre. And yet individuals still are adament in forcing Israel to take them in.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 21:55
|
|
|
eSports Chaebol posted:Yeah and funding the Madagascar Plan would've avoided the Holocaust but it was still anti-Semitic. The Madagascar Plan was a forcible relocation that never would have worked since even the most absurdly optimistic estimates thought that the island could hold only perhaps 7,000 families. It certainly never would have avoided the Holocaust, and it doesn't have any comparison to a buyout, which is precisely what this is. Not to get all reductionist, but if you looked at this situation in any civilian context then some of the competing "solutions" that get proposed are simply absurd. The idea of waiting it out until the United States supports imposing a Hamas-led one state solution on Israel is like two angry neighbors waiting for police to turn a blind eye to home invasions. Trying to set up a two-state solution based on the 1967 interlocking borders is like a judge trying to solve a drag-out divorce by having both parties stay in the same house, drawing a chalk line down the middle of the hallways, and setting up a sharing plan for the kitchen and the bathroom. It's never going to work in a million years, and at best the two people are going to hold their tongues until they're out of sight of the judge. At certain point in any dispute - whether it's a business dispute or one between nations - people need to accept that some things will never be agreed on and figure out a financial compensation that people can live with. Palestinians have been waiting for 80 years for Israel to disappear, and it hasn't happened - I think that asking their children to wait another 80 years in some vain hope is an absolute cruelty.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 22:09
|
|
|
Does hamas still even control gaza or has the PA basically become the only game in town? Why is the onus upon the palestinians to move? That's essentially the endgame of the occupation anyway; to essentially make life so wretched for your average palestinian outside of ramallah they can't help but risk death or who loving knows, getting sold into sexual slavery, etc. Is what you're proposing, buying the palestinians out, even in israel's interests? Who will the next arab boogiemen be after the palestinians are gone? The iranians? The lebanese? Those officials get voted into office precisely because they're 'tough on terror' and without a credible outside threat internal tensions come back to the fore so yeah that's not a viable option. Ultramega fucked around with this message at 00:10 on Apr 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 00:02
|
|
|
Ultramega posted:Why is the onus upon the palestinians to move? Because they cannot.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 00:05
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Giving Palestinians homes and a future is useless? Allowing the situation to defuse is useless? Creating the framework for peaceful engagement is useless? I don't think so. Your proposal does none of those things, hth.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 01:10
|
|
|
S'gonna be funny when MIGF style attitudes towards palestine result in an actual bloodthirsty islamist uprising after Hamas get their rear end kicked enough to let ISIS in or whatever. The less funny thing will be how MIGFtards will use it to retroactively prove they were right and we shoulda just massacred/cleansed them earlier. Dummies advocating forced removal of an ethnic group from a country and thinking theyr being pragmatic not nazi spastics lmao
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 01:17
|
|
|
Kaal and MIGF thanks for degrading the dialogue in this thread to the level of a facebook comment section. Really going that extra mile to gently caress up a good thread.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 01:49
|
|
|
The whole argument is stupid as gently caress anyway because Israel would never give the Palestinians a red loving cent for the land. Haven't in the past, won't in the future.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 07:09
|
|
|
Palestinians have land and need money. They desperately need money, to repair the infrastructure and schools and hospitals that keep getting destroyed...somehow.Kaal posted:The only person suggesting that is you. Even in an alternate universe where Israel actually wants to pay a fair rate for the land and offers it, to many people their ancestral homes are more important than money and they will refuse. What happens to them? Schizotek posted:The whole argument is stupid as gently caress anyway because Israel would never give the Palestinians a red loving cent for the land. Haven't in the past, won't in the future. Yes but that's not the point. The point is that, theoretically even if Israel weren't hell-bent on stealing the land, Palestinians wouldn't peacefully sell, therefore they're unreasonable, therefore it's not wrong to steal the land QED
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 07:30
|
|
|
Kaal posted:The Madagascar Plan was a forcible relocation that never would have worked since even the most absurdly optimistic estimates thought that the island could hold only perhaps 7,000 families. It certainly never would have avoided the Holocaust, and it doesn't have any comparison to a buyout, which is precisely what this is. What is absurd is expecting Israel, a colonialist apartheid state that steals everything and has given nothing, to suddenly give a sum well past their annual GDP to Palestine out of its good heart. What is not absurd is believing that this conflict doesn't end until Israel is forced to end it. And that what it will be forced to do is not to utterly impoverish itself and relocate Palestinians to other countries where they don't want to go and who don't want them. They will stay where they are and Israel will give them equal rights or their own state. I love how you describe ending colonialism and apartheid and making all Israeli citizens and subjects equal under the law as an "absurd Hamas-led one state solution". Wars end, occupations end, states unify or get split apart, and the world keeps rolling. Saying that there is no other solution to the conflict then buying out the Palestinians, or that such a thing would ever happen, makes you a crazy person who has somehow managed to ignore the entire collected world history. As far as historical conflicts go this one isn't even particularly violent or bitter, sad to say. It just seems so to us because were living right now. DarkCrawler fucked around with this message at 11:25 on Apr 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 11:20
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Well for one thing, the average income in the West Bank or Gaza is maybe $2,000 (a soft number based on GDP/population, since the figures are very vague, there's a significant underground economy, there's a distorting effect caused by the large number of Palestinian youth, and Gaza's economy is much weaker than the West Bank), whereas the average Israeli income is around $35,000-$50,000 depending on how you count it. I don't get why people are jumping all over Kaal for this idea on the grounds that it will never happen because it would be too expensive and Israel could never afford it even if they wanted to. That is a problem that could be easily solved simply by making the average income in Palestine even worse, something that Israel could do quite easily. If things got bad enough the Palestinians would voluntarily leave for as little as 50$ and a place in a cattle car. Peace in our time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 12:02
|
|
|
 e: tell me how you feel about romani. I'd love to hear about that too esp. since i've got roma family members. Ultramega fucked around with this message at 13:35 on Apr 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 12:57
|
|
|
For almost every American, the "ancestral land" is thousands of miles away on another continent, and it doesn't matter at all, no one cares. Is this obsession with "the land" at the expense of their wellbeing and any good hope for their children's future some kind of aberrant behavior? I get that the Arabs there would,prefer to own all the land, but the Arabs lost their wars with Israel. There are facts about their situation that they only hurt themselves by ignoring or refusing to accept.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 18:03
|
|
|
Yes yes nuke all Arabs and Slavs, we get it, you've only posted "losers' blood is fit for nothing but fertilizing the fields" like a hundred times.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 18:10
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Yes yes nuke all Arabs and Slavs, we get it, you've only posted "losers' blood is fit for nothing but fertilizing the fields" like a hundred times. But here, in the real world, I haven't posted it even once.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 18:27
|
|
|
Nah it's the same thing every time. A bunch of amoral realpolitik poo poo about how Israel are the victors and should take the land and expel the people, then you suddenly discover morality and say the Arab countries around should selflessly take the refugees, and then people call out your ridiculous double standard and you vanish for a few days, then drop the same mechanical realpolitik poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 18:34
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Nah it's the same thing every time. A bunch of amoral realpolitik poo poo about how Israel are the victors and should take the land and expel the people, then you suddenly discover morality and say the Arab countries around should selflessly take the refugees, and then people call out your ridiculous double standard and you vanish for a few days, then drop the same mechanical realpolitik poo poo. Mordern "realpolitik" blows. Being a bloodthirsty lunatic with unrealistic goals bungling around like a moron on the global stage doesn't make you loving Bismark just because your amoral. You have to actually produce a good outcome for at the very least yourself before you can ever pretend to claim realpolitik. Until then your just a dumb jackass with ideas the average racist rear end in a top hat in a bar comes up with on a tuesday night.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 18:49
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:For almost every American, the "ancestral land" is thousands of miles away on another continent, and it doesn't matter at all, no one cares. What are you even talking about? Palestinians aren't going anywhere in anything else then Kaal's crazy fantasy scenario. Just because you're strong enough to conquer a territory in an offensive war and build an colonialist apartheid administration it doesn't mean its OK to maintain it when its 2015. Why do you think apartheid should be acceptable by Palestinians or anybody? The Palestinians did not start any of the wars that led to the capturing or subjugation of the territories.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 19:00
|
|
|
It's like hakimashou lives in this fantasy world where literally the only factors deciding whether a sovereign nation should invade and occupy a neighboring country are their relative military strengths. So, in order to stay logically consistent let's say israel is invaded and occupied by jordan or lebanon you'd have this guy claiming there's nothing they could/should do about it if they weren't able to repulse them militarily and they should just rejoin the diaspora. Sorry to put words in your mouth. Correct me if I'm wrong.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 19:12
|
|
|
Hitler did nothing wrong. If the Jews weren't capable of repelling the SS with force of arms, then they should have accepted their inevitable fate and not made it worse for themselves with suicidal stands like the Warsaw Uprising.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 19:15
|
|
|
Ultramega posted:It's like hakimashou lives in this fantasy world where literally the only factors deciding whether a sovereign nation should invade and occupy a neighboring country are their relative military strengths. So, in order to stay logically consistent let's say israel is invaded and occupied by jordan or lebanon you'd have this guy claiming there's nothing they could/should do about it if they weren't able to repulse them militarily and they should just rejoin the diaspora. Sorry to put words in your mouth. Correct me if I'm wrong. Definitely a 4X fan. I see this mindset a lot in people whose only concept of human interaction comes from playing Risk or Europa Universalis or whatever the gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 19:16
|
|
|
Yeah I was going to add that too because it's definitely the kind of mode I get into when I've been playing alpha centauri as the hive for a couple days but I figured someone else would chime in with it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 19:22
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Hitler did nothing wrong. If the Jews weren't capable of repelling the SS with force of arms, then they should have accepted their inevitable fate and not made it worse for themselves with suicidal stands like the Warsaw Uprising. Furthermore Stalin was completely justified in holding the red army back from intervening. Just let the poles/jews take the brunt of the casualties; the red army is too busy raping/murdering civilians in east prussia.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 19:25
|
|
|
The concentration camps had a much better survival rate than the perpetrators of the Warsaw Uprising did in their failed attack. The SS was saving lives compared to the bloodthirsty suicidal Jewish leadership, but I guess some people just won't accept a peaceful solution when it's offered, sad really.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 19:27
|
|
|
Ultramega posted:Kaal and MIGF thanks for degrading the dialogue in this thread to the level of a facebook comment section. Really going that extra mile to gently caress up a good thread. DarkCrawler posted:What are you even talking about? Palestinians aren't going anywhere in anything else then Kaal's crazy fantasy scenario. Just because you're strong enough to conquer a territory in an offensive war and build an colonialist apartheid administration it doesn't mean its OK to maintain it when its 2015. Why do you think apartheid should be acceptable by Palestinians or anybody? The Palestinians did not start any of the wars that led to the capturing or subjugation of the territories.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 19:32
|
|
|
Ultramega posted:It's like hakimashou lives in this fantasy world where literally the only factors deciding whether a sovereign nation should invade and occupy a neighboring country are their relative military strengths. So, in order to stay logically consistent let's say israel is invaded and occupied by jordan or lebanon you'd have this guy claiming there's nothing they could/should do about it if they weren't able to repulse them militarily and they should just rejoin the diaspora. Sorry to put words in your mouth. Correct me if I'm wrong. He thinks that Europa Universalis is a normative statement.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 19:43
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I don't think I'll ever understand the obsession some people have on the status quo ante bellum, or the need to define an official "start" of the conflict after which any territory that changed hands was "stolen." Given that most of the current day settlers in the West Bank are the same ones who moved there and kicked out the previous residents against international, and as I understand it, Israeli law as well I think we can count all those fuckers as thieves and the land they live on stolen. This isn't some generations old issue where the people living there are the ancestors of the thieves and "boy howdy how could we punish them for their ancestors crime? now gently caress off to your reservation sandnigger". I'm in my early twenties and the vast majority of the settlements in the West Bank were built and filled with Israelis in my lifetime.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 19:44
|
|
|
But that was like, yesterday, man. Today we've learned that taking land is wrong wrong wrong, so kicking out those settlers would be a crime. As long as you only learn that stealing is wrong one day after you steal, then keeping what you stole is morally right. E: I think it's funny that wanting to reverse settling that has happened in the past decade is some obsession with the distant past of 1999, yet the whole justification for continuing these settlements is some 2,000-year-old grievance against the Romans and the even older land claims from a holy book. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 20:07 on Apr 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 20:02
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:
What the hell are you talking about? Palestinians did not start the military conflicts between Israel and the Arab states, either Israel or the Arab states did. You do know that? I'm not "obsessing" about anything, I was stating a fact 
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 20:04
|
|
|
Ultramega posted:It's like hakimashou lives in this fantasy world where literally the only factors deciding whether a sovereign nation should invade and occupy a neighboring country are their relative military strengths. So, in order to stay logically consistent let's say israel is invaded and occupied by jordan or lebanon you'd have this guy claiming there's nothing they could/should do about it if they weren't able to repulse them militarily and they should just rejoin the diaspora. Sorry to put words in your mouth. Correct me if I'm wrong. Wasn't Israel attacked by the Arabs more than once? Didn't the Arabs lose and the Israelis win? You improve a land and defend it, it's yours. If Israel had lost the wars the Arabs waged on it, it wouldn't be here and we wouldn't be having this discussion. But it didn't, the Israelis won. We can come up with a thousand million "what if...s," but the fact is, the Arabs lost their wars with Israel, they were beaten, Israelis improved and defended the land, so it's not unreasonable to belive that it's theirs. A two state solution, really any peaceful solution where Arabs remain in the West Bank and gaza, has to have as its first premise the acceptance of the facts of history by all parties involved. If the Palestinians insist on violence, they will be met with superior force and always beaten every time, and their lives will get worse like they always have every time they have offered violence. They lost the fight a very long time ago. Isn't it time to try something else?
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 20:18
|
|
|
Schizotek posted:Given that most of the current day settlers in the West Bank are the same ones who moved there and kicked out the previous residents against international, and as I understand it, Israeli law as well I think we can count all those fuckers as thieves and the land they live on stolen. This isn't some generations old issue where the people living there are the ancestors of the thieves and "boy howdy how could we punish them for their ancestors crime? now gently caress off to your reservation sandnigger". I'm in my early twenties and the vast majority of the settlements in the West Bank were built and filled with Israelis in my lifetime. DarkCrawler posted:What the hell are you talking about? Palestinians did not start the military conflicts between Israel and the Arab states, either Israel or the Arab states did. You do know that? I'm not "obsessing" about anything, I was stating a fact
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 20:19
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Right, but unless you're drawing an arbitrary statute of limitations, it doesn't make a lot of sense to say that land taken in 1948 is indisputably Israeli, land occupied after 1967 is open to negotiations, and land taken since the 80's is an unconscionable crime. So essentially we should tell Likud that they just need to delay the peace process for another 20 years, and the unconscionable crime will turn into "land open to good-faith negotiations", and if they can keep peace from happening for another 20 years beyond that then it becomes indisputably theirs and no longer open to negotiation?
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 20:22
|
|
|
Schizotek posted:Given that most of the current day settlers in the West Bank are the same ones who moved there and kicked out the previous residents against international, and as I understand it, Israeli law as well I think we can count all those fuckers as thieves and the land they live on stolen. This isn't some generations old issue where the people living there are the ancestors of the thieves and "boy howdy how could we punish them for their ancestors crime? now gently caress off to your reservation sandnigger". I'm in my early twenties and the vast majority of the settlements in the West Bank were built and filled with Israelis in my lifetime. Be reasonable. If somone isn't punished for doing something, even though it is admitted that he did it, and punishment is easy to impose,it isn't actually against the law. International law is just another way of describing "what America and its allies will." There isn't some other thing besides that which is actually real and can actually be called "international law." If the settlements were against the law, they would be punished. They aren't punished so in no meaningful sense are they against the law. Only in a meaningless sense, a gibberish nonsense.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 20:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 12:23 |
|
|
But America does have the power to punish Israel, if it wants. So if America decides to actually do that, then that retroactively makes the settlements illegal? Also I suppose that when Dow chemical killed all those Indians at Bhopal, it wasn't actually immoral or criminal at all since their executives managed to get on flights out of the country and escape punishment.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 20:25
|
|