|
Al-Saqr posted:most ideal solution:- Sounds p cool if you want a civil war on your hands.
|
#
?
May 17, 2015 16:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 04:48 |
|
|
Doflamingo posted:Sounds p cool if you want a civil war on your hands. Arguably happening right now.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2015 16:38
|
|
|
Al-Saqr posted:1) the dismantling of the apartheid regime, the establishment of one secular state from the river to the sea with equal rights and votes for Palestinians. What guarantees would there be of secularism? How would this be compatable with democracy if a majority of the population was uninterested in secular law? How will the economy and social services of Israel handle a massive influx of poor refugees who don't have the skills to compete in the global economy? How will the new state prevent the flight of wealth and capital? What will happen to the tourism economy? What exactly would "reparations" consist of? Would it be a punitive tax on ex-Israeli citizens? Would it include land reform and redistribution? If so, why is the new state forcing people off their land without compensation more moral than it was in 1947?
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2015 17:25
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:So, in this glorious new regime, what guarantees would there be of the rights of minority groups? How would these guarantees be stronger than in the many, many other Middle Eastern countries where they have failed to stand up? Well, if you really think that Arabs are inherently incapable of liberal democracy, there's not much room for discussion. Because the first two are things that are easily understandable as a consequence of liberal democracy. The third is an interesting concept- the idea that justice should be subordinate to economic well-being, but curiously only in the cases where it involves an actual change in the status quo. But leaving aside the depravity of the suggestion, if we presume that the disintegrated state of the Palestinian people with the global economy is a negative, what other approach is there that would resolve that problem? The fourth is simply a denial of the concept of rule of law.
|
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2015 17:32
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:So, in this glorious new regime, what guarantees would there be of the rights of minority groups? How would these guarantees be stronger than in the many, many other Middle Eastern countries where they have failed to stand up? quote:How will the economy and social services of Israel handle a massive influx of poor refugees who don't have the skills to compete in the global economy? How will the new state prevent the flight of wealth and capital? What will happen to the tourism economy? quote:What exactly would "reparations" consist of? Would it be a punitive tax on ex-Israeli citizens? Would it include land reform and redistribution? If so, why is the new state forcing people off their land without compensation more moral than it was in 1947? I won't answer the first part because I'm not Al-Saqr, but there is a distinct moral difference between forcing indigenous populations out of their homes and forcing illegal settlers to give back the land they stole. Also I don't think anybody mentioned anything about there being to compensation.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2015 18:07
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning you didn't ever reply to my response a few pages back about how Protective Edge was a completely unnecessary undertaking by Israel. I'm only calling you out because of the nature of this forum and because I feel like you have something to contribute beyond a cheap snipe post a la kaal/TIC.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2015 18:12
|
|
|
The book of Matthew contains a passage which includes what are traditionally regarded as being the exact words of Jesus in his native Aramaic. Jesus would have almost certainly not spoken Hebrew, and probably couldn't have even read it. "Matthew 27:46" posted:About three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?" (which means "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?").
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2015 18:53
|
|
|
Al-Saqr posted:most ideal solution:- That's a recipe for disaster if I've ever seen one.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2015 19:18
|
|
Hybrid children watch the sea Pray for Father, roaming free
|
Miltank posted:The book of Matthew contains a passage which includes what are traditionally regarded as being the exact words of Jesus in his native Aramaic. Jesus would have almost certainly not spoken Hebrew, and probably couldn't have even read it. The semitic languages have plenty of similar vocabulary, so he must have been really lazy if he couldn't even understand a bit of Hebrew.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2015 20:11
|
|
|
Doflamingo posted:Sounds p cool if you want a civil war on your hands. Reaganball Z posted:That's a recipe for disaster if I've ever seen one. computer parts posted:Arguably happening right now. See, this is why I said that I think at least my issues with Al-Saqr's solution are with timeline and how to get there. The Middle East is full of countries where a single-state solution was attempted and is violently failing. Clearly the process of getting from where we are now to A Palestine/Greater Jordan/Greater Syria in which everyone is happy is not going to be straightforward. And yes, computer parts is right that the current situation in Israel/Palestine is very close to a recurrent civil war, albeit with a clearly dominant side that keeps "winning". But is the vision of a Greater Syria, as long as everyone's civil, religious, and national rights are preserved, an acceptable one to you? Suppose that we could flick a switch and make it work. Is this something you lot would be interested in having? If not, why not? That, I think, in itself, I believe, could be an interesting conversation? Dead Reckoning posted:So, in this glorious new regime, what guarantees would there be of the rights of minority groups? How would these guarantees be stronger than in the many, many other Middle Eastern countries where they have failed to stand up? Effectronica posted:Well, if you really think that Arabs are inherently incapable of liberal democracy, there's not much room for discussion. Because the first two are things that are easily understandable as a consequence of liberal democracy. Let me take your response in the reverse direction, Effectronica. Rule of law is not an inherent virtue of humanity. It is a practice or conceptual framework that needs to be developed, and people need buy-in into it. I think that the Middle East does not contain a lot of people who have that (and I am absolutely including most Israeli Jews there; while I think Israeli Palestinians are some of the few who, from necessity, have that down pat, and I think the whole region could learn from them, including, again Israeli Jews). As for rejecting Dead Reckoning's concerns as anti-Arab racism, that seems to me facile. It is not only the Arab Middle East that is seeing ethnic centrifugal forces at play. Eastern Europe was once full of strongmen and strong parties keeping multi-ethnic countries uniform by force. As soon as that repressive force was lifted, many of them split - some amicably, like Czechia and Slovakia, some violently, like Yugoslavia and now Ukraine (although that is complicated by external revanchist forces lead by Russia; still, the split was there for Russia to exploit). Look further West, and you see several countries with separatist movements, from Catalonia in Spain to Scotland and to a lesser extend Wales in the UK. And this is without considering the pervasive negative reaction towards migrants and asylum seekers This tension between the values of a liberal democracy and the power of ethnic identities is not something that is going to just go away by wishing it weren't there, and ignoring people's concerns regarding it. botany posted:The same guarantees you have in any other nation: none. There is no guarantee any given nation will adhere to international law, be secular, treat its minorities with respect. The absence of such guarantees is not an argument for or against anything. The specifics are really important, though. Who is going to impose this unification? Who is going to stop the Jewish Israeli side from completely obliterating the Arab/Palestinian side, as they are overwhelmingly better armed and more well-placed strategically? If we are talking practical issues, you need to start discussing an explicit trajectory, or several. quote:I won't answer the first part because I'm not Al-Saqr, but there is a distinct moral difference between forcing indigenous populations out of their homes and forcing illegal settlers to give back the land they stole. Also I don't think anybody mentioned anything about there being to compensation. In the case of settlers in the West Bank, this perhaps is a better argument. But in terms of inside the Green Line, you have people who have nowhere to return to, who have lived a generation or two in the area; they can point to when their ancestors came to the country as being long past, and a time when these ancestors were refugees, whether from the Central or Eastern European atrocities, or from anti-Jewish reaction in the Arab and Muslim world. The next-step solution depends on whether you accept or do not accept this distinction. If you do then you have the two-state solution, a framework grounded in international law. If you don't, basically all hell breaks loose, and I/P is not going to be the only place where that precedent is going to get picked up. At some point in the past every single country now extant is built on the blood of people who used to live there. The international community has decided that the line here was drawn in the 1948 Armistice. If you want to dismantle that, you're encouraging everyone to dig back further, and that's a very big can of worms. Miltank posted:The book of Matthew contains a passage which includes what are traditionally regarded as being the exact words of Jesus in his native Aramaic. Jesus would have almost certainly not spoken Hebrew, and probably couldn't have even read it. If Jesus was originally a religious scholar before he started his own sect, he would probably know Hebrew. I think the basic question is what was the language spoken popularly at the time. SNAKES N CAKES posted:The semitic languages have plenty of similar vocabulary, so he must have been really lazy if he couldn't even understand a bit of Hebrew. Depends on what you mean by "some". I can read a word or two in Aramaic, but there are very annoying differences, and Arabic, while I know a bit of it, is a big step farther off. There are structural similarities and some vocabulary can be gleaned, but just because two languages are semitic doesn't mean they are intercomprehensible.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2015 20:49
|
|
|
Practically speaking I think a period of two stable states as equal partners with necessary cooperation and power-sharing on shared concerns like holy sites would be necessary so that a few generations could pass without major bloodshed and occupations, to allow tensions to cool, before there could be a hope for one secular, multi-cultural state for both the Palestinians and Israelis, and a lot of that would depend on the direction of the Middle East and the wider world. Of course, even the two-state solution seems like a fantasy at the moment when people with the most power to prevent it admit they're just playing along and prefer a slow, grinding sort of victory.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2015 21:34
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:In the case of settlers in the West Bank, this perhaps is a better argument. But in terms of inside the Green Line, you have people who have nowhere to return to, who have lived a generation or two in the area; they can point to when their ancestors came to the country as being long past, and a time when these ancestors were refugees, whether from the Central or Eastern European atrocities, or from anti-Jewish reaction in the Arab and Muslim world. Congrats on the modship! Also, while certain settler-refugee populations definitely had a better sorry of hardship, trying to argue shades of grey about colonialism gets problematic. At the very least due to the attempts by hardcore Israel defenders to portal the situation as unique and therefore not comparable to anything else, past or present. See: "It's not Apartheid because it's not South Africa!" The world (especially the first) absolutely need to do a better job handling refugees (and not creating them in the first place) but any attempts to justify one crime against humanity with another is poor argumentation at best.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2015 22:05
|
|
|
Dolash posted:Practically speaking I think a period of two stable states as equal partners with necessary cooperation and power-sharing on shared concerns like holy sites would be necessary so that a few generations could pass without major bloodshed and occupations, to allow tensions to cool, before there could be a hope for one secular, multi-cultural state for both the Palestinians and Israelis, and a lot of that would depend on the direction of the Middle East and the wider world. Of course, even the two-state solution seems like a fantasy at the moment when people with the most power to prevent it admit they're just playing along and prefer a slow, grinding sort of victory. Jewish Home, which seems like it will be the party most active in this direction, has repeatedly stated that they are about annexing most of the West Bank and leaving the Palestinians in unsustainable enclaves, yes. If I'm reading Joint List's strategy correctly, their response to all of this is to try and basically create an alternative devolved parliament through a unified party. I wonder if they expect to then press for West Bank and Gazan Palestinians to have voting rights on this parliament, assuming there is not sufficient pressure/change of public opinions to press the government to go back to a two-state solution.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2015 22:09
|
|
|
SyHopeful posted:Congrats on the modship! Thanks! quote:Also, while certain settler-refugee populations definitely had a better sorry of hardship, trying to argue shades of grey about colonialism gets problematic. At the very least due to the attempts by hardcore Israel defenders to portal the situation as unique and therefore not comparable to anything else, past or present. See: "It's not Apartheid because it's not South Africa!" I think bad comparisons lead to bad policy ideas. I don't think that what worked to end apartheid would work in Israel/Palestine. That doesn't mean that what Palestinians live under is not horrendous. But a lot of people jump to the Apartheid comparison because they are pushing for a certain immediate solution, contingencies be damned. quote:The world (especially the first) absolutely need to do a better job handling refugees (and not creating them in the first place) but any attempts to justify one crime against humanity with another is poor argumentation at best. The question is what do we do right now, with the people who we have now? As I see it, and this is, I think, reflected in the current situation of international law, it is easier to forgive people for what they did when they were untreated refugees who were compelled to take some kind of action to save themselves (which I think applies quite well to Jews coming to Palestine and then Israel up until the 1950's, say), and what people do when they decide that they're going to go extend their existing country into other places to which they feel affinity and God/naked military power will take care of the rest (which applies to most Settlers, as well as to many internal displacement policies going on inside the Green Line).
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2015 22:23
|
|
quote:Let me take your response in the reverse direction, Effectronica. Rule of law is not an inherent virtue of humanity. It is a practice or conceptual framework that needs to be developed, and people need buy-in into it. I think that the Middle East does not contain a lot of people who have that (and I am absolutely including most Israeli Jews there; while I think Israeli Palestinians are some of the few who, from necessity, have that down pat, and I think the whole region could learn from them, including, again Israeli Jews). How are you defining "rule of law"? Because I am using it to refer to a government that takes actions according to a set of formal rules. This is something that the majority of societies have and have had used for legitimacy even if they do something else in practice. But in any case, I was referring specifically to the idea that you could resolve this conflict without any admissions of wrongdoing. In the case of a one-state system, this would effectively enshrine the meaninglessness of its laws. For a two-state system, it would leave the basic issues of the conflict unresolved, in practice. quote:As for rejecting Dead Reckoning's concerns as anti-Arab racism, that seems to me facile. It is not only the Arab Middle East that is seeing ethnic centrifugal forces at play. Eastern Europe was once full of strongmen and strong parties keeping multi-ethnic countries uniform by force. As soon as that repressive force was lifted, many of them split - some amicably, like Czechia and Slovakia, some violently, like Yugoslavia and now Ukraine (although that is complicated by external revanchist forces lead by Russia; still, the split was there for Russia to exploit). Look further West, and you see several countries with separatist movements, from Catalonia in Spain to Scotland and to a lesser extend Wales in the UK. And this is without considering the pervasive negative reaction towards migrants and asylum seekers This tension between the values of a liberal democracy and the power of ethnic identities is not something that is going to just go away by wishing it weren't there, and ignoring people's concerns regarding it. These splits are largely due to regional political differences in the liberal nations. Such cases as Quebec and Scotland and Brittany are coeval with a distinct nationalist political organization that stands distinct from the country as a whole, usually somewhere to the left. The fact that Corsican nationalism is minor should suggest something more complex than ethnicity alone. If Hasbara propaganda about the conservatism of the Palestinian population is true, integration should be pretty strong with Israel, at least. 
|
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2015 22:27
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:If Jesus was originally a religious scholar before he started his own sect, he would probably know Hebrew. I think the basic question is what was the language spoken popularly at the time. I should have said that Hebrew was not his native language. He probably could speak Hebrew, as this would have been necessary to speak with people Samaria. E: I am glad that you have been modded fwiw
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2015 22:42
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:How are you defining "rule of law"? Because I am using it to refer to a government that takes actions according to a set of formal rules. This is something that the majority of societies have and have had used for legitimacy even if they do something else in practice. But in any case, I was referring specifically to the idea that you could resolve this conflict without any admissions of wrongdoing. In the case of a one-state system, this would effectively enshrine the meaninglessness of its laws. For a two-state system, it would leave the basic issues of the conflict unresolved, in practice. I don't see why this has to do with rule of law, and not with the process towards reconciliation. In practice the Israeli regime has simply enacted policies and kept at them until the written rules were slowly readjusted to fit with the narrative, rather than the other way around, which is what I mean by lack of respect for rule of law (and I don't think Israel is unique in doing this in the Middle East). I mean, could you elaborate? Am I missing a previous part of the conversation, or was I not reading your previous post clearly? quote:These splits are largely due to regional political differences in the liberal nations. Such cases as Quebec and Scotland and Brittany are coeval with a distinct nationalist political organization that stands distinct from the country as a whole, usually somewhere to the left. The fact that Corsican nationalism is minor should suggest something more complex than ethnicity alone. If Hasbara propaganda about the conservatism of the Palestinian population is true, integration should be pretty strong with Israel, at least. It's a combination of political and ethnic differences, though. In Quebec it's not just manifest in left-leaning, but also in rabid Francophilia to the point where even Metropole French people I've spoken to are taken aback. As for how integration would work, again, you would have at the very least the language barrier, and the ethnic differences it undergirds. One point of commonality would be opposition to the rights of LGBT's, an embarrassing consensus that has shown itself just before many past Jerusalem Pride Parades, but that's not enough to work on. Somehow the Religious Right in the US manages to be anti-LGBT and anti-Muslims (and anti Arab Christian). Miltank posted:Jesus was not a religious scholar. Despite what the later gospels, (particularly Luke) claim about Jesus, it is likely that he was illiterate. I'm starting to think that this is a derail that would do better in Christian History thread. In the context of I/P, it's just yet another battlefront in the revisionist war over historical legitimacy of Zionism. Makes for poor scholarship as people in the interface are arguing in bad faith to promote a specific contemporary agenda.  quote:E: I am glad that you have been modded fwiw Thanks! In somewhat more humorous news:  This is the Knesset's new seating arrangement. I'll post up something in English if they have it, but guess which two parties share the top benches? Yisrael Beitenu and Joint Arab List 
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2015 23:13
|
|
|
so there's going to be a lot of fistfights in the knesset this session, i take it?
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2015 23:16
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:so there's going to be a lot of fistfights in the knesset this session, i take it? There better be! 
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2015 23:20
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:
Did you see the story about Lieberman secretly being BFFs with Dahlan and the UAE though? And also, do we really need to argue about what a fictional book says?
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2015 23:40
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:Did you see the story about Lieberman secretly being BFFs with Dahlan and the UAE though? And also, do we really need to argue about what a fictional book says? No and huh?, respectively.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2015 23:45
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:No and huh?, respectively. http://tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/190861/avigdor-lieberman-netanyahu
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 00:53
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:In somewhat more humorous news: Is the government still expected to not see the end of the year, or have things improved?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 01:01
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:So, in this glorious new regime, what guarantees would there be of the rights of minority groups? How would these guarantees be stronger than in the many, many other Middle Eastern countries where they have failed to stand up? To be honest, putting aside that Israel doesn't exactly do to hot at some of these at the moment, I think even in perfect two-state scenario we might see Israel struggle with these self-same issues because without the big external existential threat I can see the political fault-lines that Israel has domestically starting to rupture.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 01:10
|
|
|
Jerusalem has been the scene of sectarian riots this weekend with national-religious marchers showing the flag in Arab neighborhoods in fine Northern Ireland fashion; so of course the government did everything they did to calm.... oh hahaha why even bother finishing that sentencequote:"Jerusalem has always been the capital of the Jewish people alone and not of any other people," Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said at an official Jerusalem Day ceremony.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 01:33
|
|
|
Thanks, look forward to reading this later/tomorrow. fool_of_sound posted:Is the government still expected to not see the end of the year, or have things improved? As long as there isn't some kind of an internal putch in Likud due to dissatisfaction with the allotment of ministries and such, the only big tension I'm seeing is between Kulanu and the Haredi parties about the economy. Somehow I think the Haredis are going to cave to keep at least some graft going for theirs. team overhead smash posted:To be honest, putting aside that Israel doesn't exactly do to hot at some of these at the moment, I think even in perfect two-state scenario we might see Israel struggle with these self-same issues because without the big external existential threat I can see the political fault-lines that Israel has domestically starting to rupture. Yeah, one way of looking at the past decade or so is a vacillation between make-fight wars to foment unity and violent internal ruptures coming to ahead. We've seen those mass protests by Ethiopians just what was it, last weekend? Lum_ posted:Jerusalem has been the scene of sectarian riots this weekend with national-religious marchers showing the flag in Arab neighborhoods in fine Northern Ireland fashion; so of course the government did everything they did to calm.... oh hahaha why even bother finishing that sentence Crap, I'd forgotten with all the wrapping up the semester and suddenly becoming mod. Yeah, the first time I heard an opposing-view version of this by an American activist I was shocked as, unless you take part in it either as a pogromist or as I guess an IDF soldier "securing" it you're not really likely to hear it, but yeah, this is a yearly event, I think some people were trying to make it more prominent prior so that there'd be international pressure for the government to crack down on excesses, but.. welp.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 02:08
|
|
|
Everything else I'd ever read from Tablet was basically trash, this has made me reevaluate. A really interesting article.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 02:36
|
|
|
Moving aside from the actual Israel Palestine issue for a moment, on a regional scale what do people who know more than me think the chances are for Israel to warm relations with Gulf states and some of the other Sunni states based on an anti-Iranian platform. It's clear the effect of a common enemy can do wonders for uniting people and I can fully believe that many of the governments in the region would be happy to overlook the Palestinians if it would get a developed nation with an (allegedly) effective military and nuclear arsenal on side in opposing Iran. Of course having spent so long using the Palestinian situation as a distraction for their own people, is this something they could ever actually sell? Or even be semi open about (in the sense of playing as honest broker between Israel/Palestine and giving Israel a deal it wants)?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 04:02
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:I don't see why this has to do with rule of law, and not with the process towards reconciliation. In practice the Israeli regime has simply enacted policies and kept at them until the written rules were slowly readjusted to fit with the narrative, rather than the other way around, which is what I mean by lack of respect for rule of law (and I don't think Israel is unique in doing this in the Middle East). I mean, could you elaborate? Am I missing a previous part of the conversation, or was I not reading your previous post clearly? If a one-state solution is carried out, but the resulting state is unwilling to admit that criminal activities were wrong, it's retreating from rule of law to rule of expediency. In the context of someone saying that reparations as a concept are ridiculous and unnecessary, as Dead Reckonin seemed to be saying, the idea that settlements (or suicide bombings) are to be accepted as wrong seems to be unthinkable. It's not a matter of rule of law for a two-state solution, but it does leave matters open to view the situation as just a setback on the road to inevitable victory rather than imposing a narrative of the situation being resolved now and forever. quote:It's a combination of political and ethnic differences, though. In Quebec it's not just manifest in left-leaning, but also in rabid Francophilia to the point where even Metropole French people I've spoken to are taken aback. I think this is really chicken-and-egg for a discussion forum like this one, but I think we can agree that it's not automatically the case that a liberal multiethnic government will face separatism from its constituent minorities. And I was joking.
|
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 04:45
|
|
|
MrNemo posted:Moving aside from the actual Israel Palestine issue for a moment, on a regional scale what do people who know more than me think the chances are for Israel to warm relations with Gulf states and some of the other Sunni states based on an anti-Iranian platform. It's clear the effect of a common enemy can do wonders for uniting people and I can fully believe that many of the governments in the region would be happy to overlook the Palestinians if it would get a developed nation with an (allegedly) effective military and nuclear arsenal on side in opposing Iran. Of course having spent so long using the Palestinian situation as a distraction for their own people, is this something they could ever actually sell? Or even be semi open about (in the sense of playing as honest broker between Israel/Palestine and giving Israel a deal it wants)? The Palestinian issue is not just a distraction: there is a very solid constituency of Jews who want control over certain places in Judea and Samaria, as well as Jerusalem. They would be happy to buddy up to Iran if that meant they could keep them. Effectronica posted:If a one-state solution is carried out, but the resulting state is unwilling to admit that criminal activities were wrong, it's retreating from rule of law to rule of expediency. In the context of someone saying that reparations as a concept are ridiculous and unnecessary, as Dead Reckonin seemed to be saying, the idea that settlements (or suicide bombings) are to be accepted as wrong seems to be unthinkable. I am pretty sure that the inapplicability of current law to past crimes is an almost universal feature of rule-of-law systems. quote:I think this is really chicken-and-egg for a discussion forum like this one, but I think we can agree that it's not automatically the case that a liberal multiethnic government will face separatism from its constituent minorities. Automatically, no. But the batting average is pretty good. quote:And I was joking. Jokes are serious business.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 05:15
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:I am pretty sure that the inapplicability of current law to past crimes is an almost universal feature of rule-of-law systems. I'm not saying that the people involved should be prosecuted, but the fact that settlements and suicide bombings were wrong should be absolutely acknowledged. In fact, pardoning the people involved would necessarily mean admitting that they were wrongdoings in the first place.
|
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 05:24
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:I'm not saying that the people involved should be prosecuted, but the fact that settlements and suicide bombings were wrong should be absolutely acknowledged. In fact, pardoning the people involved would necessarily mean admitting that they were wrongdoings in the first place. So again, it seems like it's more a reconciliation than a rule-of-law thing. I mean, I imagine part of reconciliation would require acknowledging that these things were wrong; but even then that might not lead to prosecution if it's a Truth and Reconciliation kind of deal.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 05:38
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:The Palestinian issue is not just a distraction: there is a very solid constituency of Jews who want control over certain places in Judea and Samaria, as well as Jerusalem. They would be happy to buddy up to Iran if that meant they could keep them. Point taken but I hadn't meant the Palestinian issue was a distraction in Israel. While I think it sometimes gets used that way at a governmental level I was specifically thinking of the Gulf state governments' and some of the other Arab countries and their attitude towards it. I doubt the House of Saud would shed many tears if they could swap solid Israeli support for their side in an anti-Iranian coalition for Israel clearing out the remaining Palestinians. Whether they could survive the domestic backlash is another point. Though that's getting more into the ME thread. Kept more on Israel, would there be Israelis willing to give further concessions to the PA and possible work with Sunni Arab nations in some sort of coalition that simultaneously sought to sideline or push out Hamas and also contain Iranian power on a regional level? As you said there's defintiely Jewish groups who would throw the nation as a whole under the bus (in terms of sabotaging any possible rapprochement with the rest of the region) in order to prevent any claims on territory in what they regard as greater Israel being surrendered. Are they powerful enough to actually achieve this?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 05:47
|
|
|
MrNemo posted:Moving aside from the actual Israel Palestine issue for a moment, on a regional scale what do people who know more than me think the chances are for Israel to warm relations with Gulf states and some of the other Sunni states based on an anti-Iranian platform. Some quarters would say it's already going on to an extent. Israel's current government is very close to Sisi and that's not even being hidden. The question is whether or not it could even go public.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 05:55
|
|
|
MrNemo posted:Point taken but I hadn't meant the Palestinian issue was a distraction in Israel. While I think it sometimes gets used that way at a governmental level I was specifically thinking of the Gulf state governments' and some of the other Arab countries and their attitude towards it. I doubt the House of Saud would shed many tears if they could swap solid Israeli support for their side in an anti-Iranian coalition for Israel clearing out the remaining Palestinians. Whether they could survive the domestic backlash is another point. Though that's getting more into the ME thread. The Houthis are right there as an imminent threat if they want to use it to calm any dissent about this point, I think. quote:Kept more on Israel, would there be Israelis willing to give further concessions to the PA and possible work with Sunni Arab nations in some sort of coalition that simultaneously sought to sideline or push out Hamas and also contain Iranian power on a regional level? As you said there's defintiely Jewish groups who would throw the nation as a whole under the bus (in terms of sabotaging any possible rapprochement with the rest of the region) in order to prevent any claims on territory in what they regard as greater Israel being surrendered. Are they powerful enough to actually achieve this? They are well-organized and are increasing their influence on all levels of government and the military, and Netanyahu has perfected the use of outside dangers and "tough on terror" to quell dissenting viewpoints on this subject from most Israelis. So far he's been able to sell Abbas as being just as bad as Hamas. My only hope is that now that he's got nobody to blame for pushing him to the left, he'll be forced to own making concessions to both Hamas and Abbas, and thus the house of cards will fall, but... I don't know, I shouldn't really speculate at this point, I think we're going to have to see what happens in the first few months of this new government to see what the potentialities are. Kim Jong Il posted:Some quarters would say it's already going on to an extent. Israel's current government is very close to Sisi and that's not even being hidden. The question is whether or not it could even go public. Has Sisi shown any signs that he gives a poo poo about the Palestinians at all? Are the Egyptians who are not in prison even interested in what's going on in the West Bank?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 05:56
|
|
|
MrNemo posted:Point taken but I hadn't meant the Palestinian issue was a distraction in Israel. While I think it sometimes gets used that way at a governmental level I was specifically thinking of the Gulf state governments' and some of the other Arab countries and their attitude towards it. I doubt the House of Saud would shed many tears if they could swap solid Israeli support for their side in an anti-Iranian coalition for Israel clearing out the remaining Palestinians. Whether they could survive the domestic backlash is another point. Though that's getting more into the ME thread. It'd be difficult, but possible. Palestine and Isreal are real touchstone issues for the average Arab. Putting aside the general solidarity with Palestinians, Israel has been at war with other ME states numerous times which is something that's hard to forget for them, as well as the people being fed a lot of anti-Israeli propaganda because the existential threat from outside used to unite the people that I mentioned has been used both ways. Even if a ruler wanted to do it, the people might not stand for it. That said Egypt managed to pull it off, even if it is unpopular with a decent segment of the population.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 08:02
|
|
|
Lum_ posted:Jerusalem has been the scene of sectarian riots this weekend with national-religious marchers showing the flag in Arab neighborhoods in fine Northern Ireland fashion; so of course the government did everything they did to calm.... oh hahaha why even bother finishing that sentence quote:Levy Levite - May 18th 2015 - 02:54am With a name like "Levy Levite" I think it might be a Poe.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 08:08
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:comment: I wouldn't bet any money on it being a Poe .. I've served with these people. They are not loving around.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 10:05
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:But is the vision of a Greater Syria, as long as everyone's civil, religious, and national rights are preserved, an acceptable one to you? Suppose that we could flick a switch and make it work. Is this something you lot would be interested in having? If not, why not? That, I think, in itself, I believe, could be an interesting conversation? Of course I would but I'm not naive enough to think it possible. The hatred between Israelis and Palestinians is too great to overcome; the best we can hope for is quiet isolation from each other.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 14:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 04:48 |
|
|
Doflamingo posted:Sounds p cool if you want a civil war on your hands. The civil war's already happening. Those proposals are (hopefully) a way to eventually end it, at least on the Palestinian side - the growing Israeli right would probably take up arms and rebel at any hint of equality, but if people are going to be violent assholes no matter what the situation is, might as well go with the situation involving the least human rights abuses. Absurd Alhazred posted:Let me take your response in the reverse direction, Effectronica. Rule of law is not an inherent virtue of humanity. It is a practice or conceptual framework that needs to be developed, and people need buy-in into it. I think that the Middle East does not contain a lot of people who have that (and I am absolutely including most Israeli Jews there; while I think Israeli Palestinians are some of the few who, from necessity, have that down pat, and I think the whole region could learn from them, including, again Israeli Jews). While this argument does have a lot of truth to it, I don't like it one bit, because all peoples everywhere are violent, abusive racist pricks (it's arguably human nature) regardless of the situation, and that argument has been deployed in the face of equality pushes that proved it wrong so often that I think it's been thoroughly discredited by history. It's a real, legit concern, I'm not accusing you of racism or anything, but "we have to maintain the current racist, oppressive system because ~ethnic violence~ might happen if we don't" has been deployed in defense of racism and oppression countless times throughout history, and at least over the last couple of centuries, I don't think it really holds up. While these systems do end in tragic violence a lot of the time, that usually happens when the system blows up and collapses all on its own, being forcefully dismantled by revolutionary violence beyond its ability to suppress. When the system is properly and willingly dismantled in an organized fashion, results are usually better. I'm not saying it's ever totally bloodless, but it's usually a lot better than everyone feared - look at how the end of apartheid is remembered now as relatively peaceful, despite the fact that various acts of political and racial violence during its dismantlement killed hundreds and wounded thousands. There's also the inevitable question - how much violence is worth it? Is the fear of a temporary spike in violence a good reason to not dismantle a violent system? Hundreds died as part of the ending of apartheid; was that an unjustifiable cost to end a system that had killed thousands and subjected tens of millions to oppression and inequality? There's absolutely no way that there won't be some violence as a result of a one-state solution with true equality; the question that should be asked is whether a temporary uptick in private ethnic violence is worth the dismantlement of a state-wide system designed specifically to enforce violence and oppression against specific ethnicities. When someone defends a system dedicated to abusing and killing minorities with "people might get abused or killed if the racist system is ended", they're essentially saying "we need to keep unjustly killing minorities, forever, to prevent people from being killed" - and one way that makes sense is if the person saying it values the majority's lives more than the minority's lives. Absurd Alhazred posted:Has Sisi shown any signs that he gives a poo poo about the Palestinians at all? Are the Egyptians who are not in prison even interested in what's going on in the West Bank? He hasn't said much, and what little he's said about Palestine has been primarily motivated by political concerns - he's said a few vaguely supportive words about the PA, and carried out major crackdowns against Hamas while scapegoating them for any remaining instability in Egypt. I don't think he's said much about the Palestinian people so far, except that if they had a state he'd support it. The only real change he offers to the situation, I'd say, is intensifying the Gaza blockade and putting Hamas on the ropes by crushing their smuggling operations and trying to beat them out of Egypt entirely.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 15:46
|
|