|
VitalSigns posted: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? Correct, as time passes, and Islamism doesn't become more popular among the governments of powerful countries, the violent resistance against Israel will only further harm any chance the Palestinians have to get what they want. Guys chanting "Allahu ackbar" and shooting their rifles in the air while women wearing the hijab cheer them on aren't getting more popular as the years go by. Maybe it isn't fair that 9/11 doomed armed Palestinian resistance for a generation or more, but it is real. We didn't think on it and say "alright bin Laden, we see your point," instead American soldiers broke down his door and shot him to death with rifles, and people went out and celebrated in the streets. hakimashou fucked around with this message at 20:32 on Apr 19, 2015 |
# ? Apr 19, 2015 20:26 |
|
|
# ? Jun 5, 2024 01:18 |
|
VitalSigns posted: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? What if we lived in a what if world? Since "illegal under international law" is only a word about what America wants, America wanting something else would change what was legal and illegal, retroactively or any other way, by definition. There really isn't anything else to international law besides that. Laws are only laws when you are punished for breaking them.
|
# ? Apr 19, 2015 20:29 |
|
hakimashou posted:Correct, as time passes, and Islamism doesn't become more popular among the governments of powerful countries, the violent resistance against Israel will only further harm any chance the Palestinians have to get what they want. Don't you think this creates a perverse incentive against peace if we tell Israel "the longer you're able to delay and derail the peace process and continue settling, the better deal you'll get in the future"?
|
# ? Apr 19, 2015 20:31 |
|
Has anything actually happened in regards to Israel and Palestine lately or are we just up to our balls in stupid circular arguing with idiots?
|
# ? Apr 19, 2015 20:33 |
|
VitalSigns posted:Don't you think this creates a perverse incentive against peace if we tell Israel "the longer you're able to delay and derail the peace process and continue settling, the better deal you'll get in the future"? It might very well, but Israelis didn't crash planes into our office buildings, people chanting "allahu ackbar" did, and so, when faced with the choice between supporting our friends and supporting a different group of people doing suicide attacks and chanting "Allahu ackbar," real people are going to be a lot more likely to support their friends, The point is, violence against Israel is just part of "Islamist violence against America and its allies" now. And that can't lead anywhere good. Isn't it time the Palestinians tried something else? Gandhi and Dr King used nonviolence in their struggles, and they won.
|
# ? Apr 19, 2015 20:36 |
|
Dolash posted:Has anything actually happened in regards to Israel and Palestine lately or are we just up to our balls in stupid circular arguing with idiots? Israel and the PA reached a deal on disputed tax revenue. The PA didn't fire any rockets into Israel and Israel didn't send the IDF to suppress attacks. Both sides sat down and worked out an agreement that didn't involve violence or martyrdom. Amazing!
|
# ? Apr 19, 2015 20:40 |
|
hakimashou posted:Since "illegal under international law" is only a word about what America wants, America wanting something else would change what was legal and illegal, retroactively or any other way, by definition. You have a child's understanding of international law and relations. Congrats.
|
# ? Apr 19, 2015 20:42 |
|
Dolash posted:Has anything actually happened in regards to Israel and Palestine lately or are we just up to our balls in stupid circular arguing with idiots? E: Also, Israel and the PA came to an agreement over taxes. http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/Frozen-tax-fund-agreement-reached-Israel-to-transfer-over-NIS-1-billion-to-PA-398480 https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/news/middle-east/18128-israel-to-release-473mn-in-withheld-pa-tax-revenues quote:The Israeli government announced Sunday that it will be releasing this week $1.85 billion shekel (roughly $473 million) in withheld taxes collected on behalf of the Palestinian Authority (PA), according to Israeli radio. fade5 fucked around with this message at 20:59 on Apr 19, 2015 |
# ? Apr 19, 2015 20:54 |
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:You have a child's understanding of international law and relations. Congrats. Yep, what a fundamentally idiotic post. But it looks like he has a worse understanding of 9/11 than a typical child. hakimashou posted:It might very well, but Israelis didn't crash planes into our office buildings, people chanting "allahu ackbar" did, and so, when faced with the choice between supporting our friends and supporting a different group of people doing suicide attacks and chanting "Allahu ackbar," real people are going to be a lot more likely to support their friends,
|
# ? Apr 19, 2015 20:57 |
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:You have a child's understanding of international law and relations. Congrats. No, I have a very good understanding of it. What is international law? How is it different from the will of America and its allies? Please be specific, especially where countries which aren't the US and its allies use international law to punish them against their will, taken broadly.
|
# ? Apr 19, 2015 21:01 |
|
I remember when the Palestinians did 9/11. I thought it was Saddam for a while, but then we got our war so it didn't need to be him anymore. Now it needs to be Palestinians because I want to support a war against them.
|
# ? Apr 19, 2015 21:09 |
|
hakimashou, do you believe that only defeated parties are obligated (in what sense? Morally?) to behave "honorably"? Is it that you think Israelis are incapable of honorable behavior, so that it's useless to expect anything of them, or merely that you believe unambiguously that might makes right?
|
# ? Apr 19, 2015 21:09 |
|
VitalSigns posted: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? This is the actual plan irl though.
|
# ? Apr 19, 2015 21:10 |
|
Jack of Hearts posted:hakimashou, do you believe that only defeated parties are obligated (in what sense? Morally?) to behave "honorably"? Is it that you think Israelis are incapable of honorable behavior, so that it's useless to expect anything of them, or merely that you believe unambiguously that might makes right? Well he doesn't believe unambiguously that might makes right, because he assigns moral blame for Arab countries using their comparatively more powerful militaries versus the Palestinians to keep out refugees. Although this might not be a contradiction, since he apparently believes all Muslims/Arabs/swarthy folk are a hivemind because a dozen or so Saudis knocking over the world trade center somehow justifies the conquest of people from another country who had nothing to do with it.
|
# ? Apr 19, 2015 21:18 |
|
hakimashou posted:No, I have a very good understanding of it. I know you're very proud of your country and pride yourself on your superior intellect and think you've got it all figured out, but please, please, educate yourself. Maybe go follow a course in law, or something. Even open wikipedia.
|
# ? Apr 19, 2015 21:49 |
|
hakimashou posted:What if we lived in a what if world? You are very dumb
|
# ? Apr 19, 2015 22:17 |
|
VitalSigns posted: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? You don't have to tell them that; they're already operating under these premises. VitalSigns posted:Don't you think this creates a perverse incentive against peace if we tell Israel "the longer you're able to delay and derail the peace process and continue settling, the better deal you'll get in the future"? Likewise. Cat Mattress fucked around with this message at 22:42 on Apr 19, 2015 |
# ? Apr 19, 2015 22:38 |
|
VitalSigns posted: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? Or it doesn't actually matter when the land was taken, in which case, either: A) the entire nation of Israel (and anyone else who has ever settled conquered territory) is unjust and we can accept nothing less than its dissolution or B) the entire nation of Israel is unjust, but we're willing to be morally flexible about that.
|
# ? Apr 19, 2015 22:46 |
|
Dolash posted:Has anything actually happened in regards to Israel and Palestine lately or are we just up to our balls in stupid circular arguing with idiots? well the PA and bibi came to an understanding about the tax money aaand...they still haven't decided on who's going to do what in the coalition government. And stupid arguments with people.
|
# ? Apr 19, 2015 23:08 |
|
Dead Reckoning posted:That doesn't really address my point though. Either it matters how long ago the land was taken, in which case your statement would be correct, or there was some particular year before which taking land was OK... An arbitrary 50-100 year cutoff for land claims really sounds like a perverse incentive to take land and delay delay delay until it becomes the new situation on the ground that everyone has to accept before peace can move forward. Or do we say "okay any land taken since the 80's is unconscionable and always will be even if you drag out the peace process for another 70 years"
|
# ? Apr 19, 2015 23:15 |
|
Dead Reckoning posted:That doesn't really address my point though. Either it matters how long ago the land was taken, in which case your statement would be correct, or there was some particular year before which taking land was OK... What does justice have to do with anything? If everyone is unjust, then no-one is unjust because of how meaningless you've made the term. Israel is a democratic nation and a workable partner with various institutional mechanisms to exert influence upon. Palestine is a developing nation with high levels of concentrated poverty. Is that just? Poverty exists, always has, always will, nothing to do with a concept of justice about it.
|
# ? Apr 19, 2015 23:19 |
|
Just so's we're all clear the Europa Universalis solution is a vassal state, because gently caress 20k rebels spawning every deca- Wait, hang on
|
# ? Apr 19, 2015 23:29 |
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:You have a child's understanding of international law and relations. Congrats. I don't really care about whatever atrocities are happening in Israel right now, but I am genuinely curious, has America ever faced actual consequences for breaking international law? I can't think of a time it's happened but I don't always pay a lot of attention.
|
# ? Apr 20, 2015 00:13 |
|
|
# ? Apr 20, 2015 00:29 |
|
ChairMaster posted:I don't really care about whatever atrocities are happening in Israel right now, but I am genuinely curious, has America ever faced actual consequences for breaking international law? I can't think of a time it's happened but I don't always pay a lot of attention. Lol, no. International Law, like the regular kind, really only matters insofar as someone is willing and able to enforce it. No one has the military wherewithal or economic will to compel us to do anything. Plus, most international law was codified during the period where western if not explicitly American interests and thinking dominated the international political system.
|
# ? Apr 20, 2015 00:30 |
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Lol, no. International Law, like the regular kind, really only matters insofar as someone is willing and able to enforce it. No one has the military wherewithal or economic will to compel us to do anything. Plus, most international law was codified during the period where western if not explicitly American interests and thinking dominated the international political system. Yup. For a law to really be a law it has to be enforced. Laws aren't some abstract or theoretical thing, they obtain their force by being enforced. I am still waiting to hear about the last time an American was indicted and punished by an international court for breaking an international law. The idea is absurd.
|
# ? Apr 20, 2015 02:34 |
|
hakimashou posted:Yup. For a law to really be a law it has to be enforced. Laws aren't some abstract or theoretical thing, they obtain their force by being enforced. International law is the expression of America's will to power; national law is the expression of the will to power of the nation's ruling class. Nothing is true, everything is permitted. Murder isn't really wrong, per se. It's a struggle between equals, and one comes out on top.
|
# ? Apr 20, 2015 02:41 |
|
9/11 was not a crime. The perpetrators took care to ensure they'd forever be beyond the reach of American law. Planning it was a crime though, or at least it became one 9 years later.
|
# ? Apr 20, 2015 02:46 |
|
Thanks Mormon elder/Kirby salesman. I trust your stern visage.
|
# ? Apr 20, 2015 02:53 |
In the second case, the answer is December 1988. ANIME AKBAR fucked around with this message at 06:28 on Apr 20, 2015 |
|
# ? Apr 20, 2015 06:25 |
|
So let's see if I got this right. If one country stakes a claim on the territory of another country and successfully defends it from attempts to take it back and "improves" it (whatever that means), it becomes part of the attacking nation and that's simply that? If, absent law enforcement, I and some hired goons kick someone out of their house, install a new fridge, and fend off the former owner with a baseball bat, does that house then become mine? If yes, that's the is, I feel most folks itt are concerned about the ought.
|
# ? Apr 20, 2015 06:59 |
|
eSports Chaebol posted:This is the actual plan irl though. Cat Mattress posted:You don't have to tell them that; they're already operating under these premises. Oh no Not really though, right?
|
# ? Apr 20, 2015 09:28 |
|
There's a recording of Bibi literally saying "what we take is what we keep" in an unofficial meeting.
|
# ? Apr 20, 2015 09:35 |
|
My Imaginary GF posted:What does justice have to do with anything? If everyone is unjust, then no-one is unjust because of how meaningless you've made the term. You can't take this position and then say that Israel is the ultimate dream of the Jewish people nor can you take this position and consider "never again" a positive moral value. If there is no justice in the world, that's fine, but you have to man up and think about that position. You can not express outrage at my calling for Rahm Emmanuel to be assassinated. I can man up and do it. Can you?
|
# ? Apr 20, 2015 11:31 |
|
Baudolino posted:Yeah why do People have such an impossible brigth view of human nature in this thread? People are going to want some revenge when this is over. Some kind of symbolic blood sacrifice will have to be made to appease palestinians and to show them that not only have they won, they are also safe. It's pretty devious to take "Trail of Tears", a phrase referring to a genocidal forced eviction and forced relocation whose fame is and cruelty exceeds even that of the Nakba, and use it to refer to evicting illegal occupiers from land they don't own. Besides, "we have to keep violently oppressing that ethnic group and keep the stuff we forcibly stole from them, or else they might violently oppress us and forcibly steal back the stuff we stole from them" is a blatantly racist sentiment. You're essentially arguing that Palestinians have to be hosed over because Israeli lives are worth more. Ultramega posted:Does hamas still even control gaza or has the PA basically become the only game in town? Officially, the PA controls Gaza, as Hamas has surrendered their authority and responsibility to govern to the PA. According to the PA, Hamas still actually controls Gaza and it's too dangerous to even set foot there. According to Hamas, the PA is refusing to take responsibility for Gaza and has been deliberately sowing chaos there because they don't want that bombed-out humanitarian disaster to be their problem and they'd prefer to make Hamas take the blame for it. I don't think there's an official Israeli position on it, and any given official will take whichever side benefits them politically at the moment. In reality? I don't think anyone really centrally governs Gaza right now. Hamas has backed off on the whole "governing" thing since they are no longer able to do so, but the PA refuses to get involved in Gaza, so power has probably effectively fallen into the hands of the local bureaucrats and officials (most of whom have Hamas ties) in the absence of any higher guidance. It's a political hot potato right now, because neither the PA nor Hamas is capable of fixing Gaza's problems, but control of Gaza comes with being responsible for all those starving and freezing and homeless people living in the bombed-out wreckage - and taking some of the blame for not fixing those problems. It's an unfixable albatross nobody wants to take on, and an enormous humanitarian tragedy that can only be fixed by people who have no interest in fixing it. Obliterati posted:Just so's we're all clear the Europa Universalis solution is a vassal state, because gently caress 20k rebels spawning every deca- Hakimashou's drivel has nothing to do with Europa Universalis in the first place. In that game, and many other such strategy games - much like in real life - winning a war against another country and gaining some territory does not grant you the right to expel all of that territory's inhabitants; the same people end up owning the land as before the war. The population remains the same and land ownership usually remains the same, it just has a different government in charge. Even if you engage in culture change actions to pacify the population, you're still just changing street names and enforcing compulsory education changes, not evicting the population en masse. On the other hand, Haki thinks that winning a war means all the people who live in the losing country lose all their possessions including their land rights, while the winning country gains the right to confiscate everything and ethnically cleanse the population out of the captured land. It's absurd bullshit.
|
# ? Apr 20, 2015 16:46 |
|
Kajeesus posted:There's a recording of Bibi literally saying "what we take is what we keep" in an unofficial meeting. That's not a surprise since it's been government policy ever since the settlement industry began in 1967 and is literally the origin of one of the more common phrases in geopolitics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facts_on_the_ground
|
# ? Apr 20, 2015 16:51 |
See also: Iron Wall. To quote the intellectual father of the Likud:quote:Their voluntary agreement is out of the question. Hence those who hold that an agreement with the natives is an essential condition for Zionism can now say “no” and depart from Zionism. Zionist colonization, even the most restricted, must either be terminated or carried out in defiance of the will of the native population. This colonization can, therefore, continue and develop only under the protection of a force independent of the local population – an iron wall which the native population cannot break through. This is, in toto, our policy towards the Arabs. To formulate it any other way would only be hypocrisy. In other words, create Israel by force, against their will, set up the facts on the ground, and obstinately wait it out until Palestinians just accept it after they abandon all hope. Because hopelessness, after all, always creates moderates! Disinterested fucked around with this message at 16:55 on Apr 20, 2015 |
|
# ? Apr 20, 2015 16:52 |
|
Main Paineframe posted:It's pretty devious to take "Trail of Tears", a phrase referring to a genocidal forced eviction and forced relocation whose fame is and cruelty exceeds even that of the Nakba, and use it to refer to evicting illegal occupiers from land they don't own. Israeli lives are worth more to Israelis. Just like American lives are worth more to Americans, and the lives of your family and friends are worth more to you. The Israeli government doesn't have a moral and political obligation to the whole world, but it does to the Israeli people. It is not wrong to value the wellbeing of those more closely connected to you more than those not closely connected. We should all value the wellbeing of all,our fellow man, but it is not wrong to give special value to the ones we are most closely connected to. If you had to choose, for some awful reason, between the life of your spouse or child or parent, and the life of a stranger, it wouldn't be wrong for you to choose one of the former.
|
# ? Apr 20, 2015 18:13 |
hakimashou posted:If you had to choose, for some awful reason, between the life of your spouse or child or parent, and the life of a stranger, it wouldn't be wrong for you to choose one of the former. It actually could be but a lot of people might do not it anyway. For example, a lot of people wouldn't shoot their wife if she was about to gun an innocent person down. Even so, your argument is typically racist and 'might makes right' and the thing that creates the problem we're in now - it's not the solution.
|
|
# ? Apr 20, 2015 18:17 |
|
|
# ? Jun 5, 2024 01:18 |
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Lol, no. International Law, like the regular kind, really only matters insofar as someone is willing and able to enforce it. No one has the military wherewithal or economic will to compel us to do anything. Plus, most international law was codified during the period where western if not explicitly American interests and thinking dominated the international political system. hakimashou posted:Yup. For a law to really be a law it has to be enforced. Laws aren't some abstract or theoretical thing, they obtain their force by being enforced. Of course it has. American interests are severely impacted by international law. The $6bn+ fine faced by Google because of its abuses of dominant position in Europe is the latest example I can think of, and it's only a few days old. The rules of private international law are not at all centered on American interests, far from it. As for international public law, American client-states have been routinely condemned and compelled by international law - Israel, South Africa, or Honduras are egregious examples, but the US as well - a few rulings of the ICJ have been made against the US for example. Here's a hint. International law is not simply the UN General Assembly and the ICC. American influence on the ICC is hella low anyway since, you know, they haven't ratified the Statue of Rome - see how their gesticulations regarding Palestine's admission into the ICC amounted to exactly nothing. Lack of jurisdiction is the main reason why no American has been indicted in the ICC, not just the fact that the UNSC will not open a case against the US.
|
# ? Apr 20, 2015 19:01 |