|
Dead Reckoning posted:And yes, it does preclude it from being a war crime. It's not (usually) possible to commit a war crime through negligence for the same reason it isn't possible to commit murder or manslaughter through negligence; purposeful, knowing, or reckless conduct are (again, usually) required elements of the offense. I haven't really been paying much attention to this discussion about a non-Israeli/Palestinian related bombing, but this seems dead wrong to me. Some crimes (both normal and war) require intent, but others don't. Manslaughter, which you mentioned, is a fine example of this. Some war crimes require an active role (akin to murder). Using human shields, for instance (referencing GC 4, AP 1, Article 51 (7)) it's clear from it's language of "render" and "in order to attempt to shield" and the like that an active intention is required to want to use civilians as human shields. You can't negligently use human shields. In other instances there are responsibilities for how soldiers need to act and if they feel to meet them then they're committing a war crime regardless of the rationale for that failyre. For example when someone surrenders (according to GC 4, AP 1, Article 41 (3)) "all feasible precautions shall be taken to ensure their safety". There is no wording or language which in any way suggests a failure in precautions need to be wilfully planned. A failure through negligence fills all the criteria just as well.
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 02:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 08:17 |
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Before I go any further in replying to you, do you understand what Mens Rea is? Looking at a hospital and pulling the trigger, then continuing to pull the trigger doesn't have much wiggle room for "But I didn't mean to!" in my mind. Like if you're going for that drat long I'm gonna have to go with the feeling that the intent there was to spray down whoever just happened to be around, as they kinda did.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 04:31
|
|
|
team overhead smash posted:I haven't really been paying much attention to this discussion about a non-Israeli/Palestinian related bombing, but this seems dead wrong to me. Some crimes (both normal and war) require intent, but others don't. Manslaughter, which you mentioned, is a fine example of this. Also, this is why I caveated my statement with "usually." While there are a selection of offenses under the Geneva Conventions that can theoretically be committed by accident, (I specifically addressed somehow forgetting to feed a POW earlier,) they aren't relevant to either the Kunduz airstrike or the Gaza Kids on a Beach example mentioned earlier, and they definitely aren't what laypeople mean when they talk about capital-W War Crimes. Violations of the principle of discrimination, which is the framework under which you can accuse someone of committing a war crime by attacking a hospital, by their nature require knowing, voluntary acts, the very word "discrimination" implying a conscious delineation. Yardbomb posted:Looking at a hospital and pulling the trigger, then continuing to pull the trigger doesn't have much wiggle room for "But I didn't mean to!" in my mind. Like if you're going for that drat long I'm gonna have to go with the feeling that the intent there was to spray down whoever just happened to be around, as they kinda did. Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 07:30 on May 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 07:26
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:"I didn't actually bother to read what happened beyond the headline, since the crew never identified the building as a hospital, and it didn't have any identifying markings that were visible from above at night." Cat Mattress posted:MSF gave them the coordinates of their hospital, and regularly reminded them there was a hospital at these coordinates, so they knew it was a hospital. They decided to attack what they knew was a hospital. The MSF logo was prominently displayed on the building and its entrance. But you know, everyone pity the gunners who shot up some people, woops.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 07:43
|
|
|
You really should not listen to hearsay, especially from Cat Mattress. The crew didn't have access to the coordinates, because they had to take off early in response to an emergency tasking, and a failed communication system prevented them from receiving it mid-mission. You can read about it here. Also, entrance signs on the front of a building generally are not visible from aircraft. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 07:51
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:This is loving Stormfront-level trash. There are posters in this thread who scream about how they're Jewish and anti-Zionist. That's also the very premise of JVP, a group that loves touting its ethnic background. Ethnicity and nationality have no bearing on this at all either way, and anyone citing them is a lovely debater and disingenuous. You dismissed a widely read and influential book that was critical of the US-Israel relationship as well as of the Israel lobby by claiming that its authors were merely trying to cover up for American mistakes. Let's entertain this idea. Walt and Mearsheimer book was not a reasoned argument but merely a ruse to cover up for America because, presumably, Walt and Mearsheimer are American nationalists who love America and were being protective of its image. But curious, isn't it, how you froth at the mouth when this same type of criticism is leveled at you -- that is, you are someone who primarily perceives the I/P conflict from an ethnocentric and tribal perspective and your arguments are the ones that are really trying to cover for a country's bad actions. When you claim others' words and advocacy as being disingenuous due to being motivated by nationalism (as you said, the intent to cover up for America's mistakes), it's fine and dandy. When others accuse you of the same thing, it's "stormfront-level trash." Funny how that works. Perhaps this is making you understandably uncomfortable, as Israel is known for having a troll brigade of nationalists who work to disrupt criticism of Israel online, but that's neither here nor there, so how about withdrawing that baseless charge against Walt and Mearsheimer? If you don't then I'll be just as free to call you an ethnocentric tribal nationalist engaging in hasbara for emotional and biased reasons to benefit a Nation-state to which he's connected. Toodles. objects in mirror fucked around with this message at 10:15 on May 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 10:09
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Under the model penal code, negligent homicide is a lesser offense than manslaughter (which is distinguished by recklessness). I understand that some jurisdictions use different names for the different gradations of criminal/unlawful homicide, but the concept that killing someone through recklessness is a different offense than killing them through negligence is fairly common. While this claim is true in the strictest possible sense, the model penal code is not actually the foundation for laws. Some states hold to it, others ignore it. Also recklessness is something that is well worth considering here. quote:Also, this is why I caveated my statement with "usually." While there are a selection of offenses under the Geneva Conventions that can theoretically be committed by accident, (I specifically addressed somehow forgetting to feed a POW earlier,) they aren't relevant to either the Kunduz airstrike or the Gaza Kids on a Beach example mentioned earlier, and they definitely aren't what laypeople mean when they talk about capital-W War Crimes. Violations of the principle of discrimination, which is the framework under which you can accuse someone of committing a war crime by attacking a hospital, by their nature require knowing, voluntary acts, the very word "discrimination" implying a conscious delineation. You caveat that statement about the laws of homicide and murder, but your statement about it being precluded from a war crime (the relevant bit to this conversation) was absolute. Also for the principle of discrimination the Mens Rea is intention OR recklessness. The mens rea for different war crimes varies. You can't just say "Oh no, it has to be intentional" as a blanket statement which is what you where doing. For the principle of discrimination, the mens rea is kind of in the middle. It's true that negligence isn't enough, but it doesn't require intent - in that case recklessness is enough. This is also something that the USA military failed to take into account in its report, looking only for direct intention when recklessness is adequate as shown by the precedent set down by the likes of ICTY which states "Attacks which are not directed against military objectives (particularly attacks directed against the civilian population) and attacks which cause disproportionate civilian casualties or civilian property damage may constitute the actus reus for the offence of unlawful attack under Article 3 of the ICTY Statute. The mens rea for the offence is intention or recklessness". Further stating: "In determining whether or not the mens rea requirement has been met, it should be borne in mind that commanders deciding on an attack have duties: a) to do everything practicable to verify that the objectives to be attacked are military objectives, b) to take all practicable precautions in the choice of methods and means of warfare with a view to avoiding or, in any event to minimizing incidental civilian casualties or civilian property damage, and c) to refrain from launching attacks which may be expected to cause disproportionate civilian casualties or civilian property damage." Now with the US's incredibly opaque report full of redactions it's hard to say for sure, but as they list large amounts of redacted operational failures of command it seems unlikely that ever single one of these redacted items is sheer happen-stance. Even the bits that aren't redacted, they admit to seem to come be defying the requirements as set out above. Is sending highly fatigued men who have been sent early without proper intelligence and then giving them vague descriptions like which way an archway is facing that could apply to dozens of buildings really taking "all practicable precautions"? Even the US's own report seems to highlight that the actions went beyond simple negligence and seem like they could well qualify as war crimes.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 11:02
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5E87GimKsVc please do not probate me this post is not a poo poo post (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 11:04
|
|
|
objects in mirror posted:You dismissed a widely read and influential book that was critical of the US-Israel relationship as well as of the Israel lobby by claiming that its authors were merely trying to cover up for American mistakes. Let's entertain this idea. Walt and Mearsheimer book was not a reasoned argument but merely a ruse to cover up for America because, presumably, Walt and Mearsheimer are American nationalists who love America and were being protective of its image. But curious, isn't it, how you froth at the mouth when this same type of criticism is leveled at you -- that is, you are someone who primarily perceives the I/P conflict from an ethnocentric and tribal perspective and your arguments are the ones that are really trying to cover for a country's bad actions. When you claim others' words and advocacy as being disingenuous due to being motivated by nationalism (as you said, the intent to cover up for America's mistakes), it's fine and dandy. When others accuse you of the same thing, it's "stormfront-level trash." Funny how that works. Perhaps this is making you understandably uncomfortable, as Israel is known for having a troll brigade of nationalists who work to disrupt criticism of Israel online, but that's neither here nor there, so how about withdrawing that baseless charge against Walt and Mearsheimer? If you don't then I'll be just as free to call you an ethnocentric tribal nationalist engaging in hasbara for emotional and biased reasons to benefit a Nation-state to which he's connected. Toodles. I never claimed that they were motivated by ethnicity in any respect, and calling their work influential is stretching it given that most of the reaction to it was hostile in some respect. Mearsheimer and Walt mirror centuries of anti-Semitic tropes while I have not cited stereotypes in any capacity. Your argument is that prima facie, no good faith argument against anti-Zionism can ever be levied in any capacity. You're fully disingenuous and colossally full of poo poo.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 01:27
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:I never claimed that they were motivated by ethnicity in any respect, and calling their work influential is stretching it given that most of the reaction to it was hostile in some respect. You implied that they were motivated by nationalism, for else why else who would they want to apologize for America's mistakes by (unfairly, in your view) condemning the Zionist lobby and Israel's manipulation of the USA? quote:The fundamental thesis of the book is self-serving bullshit meant to apologize for solely American failures. You grant no legitimacy to their argument and provide a theory to undermine it even further -- that it's disingenuous argumentation with an ulterior motive of covering for America. Why can't the same be said about you and what others see as your relentless covering of Israel, which I would add are likely defined by the tribal impulse of religious and ethnic connection? quote:and calling their work influential is stretching it given that most of the reaction to it was hostile in some respect. The most hostile reaction came from the Zio-neocon crowd among whose ranks ethnic and religious Jews with strong connections to Israel are vastly over-represented. It's ugly blood and soil stuff, except some of these people with these ugly blood and soil feelings have had an impact on U.S foreign policy in that region for decades for the benefit of their side. But that you of all people would dare accuse others (famed and esteemed foreign policy scholars, no less) of having a tribal bias! The nerve.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 09:32
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:I never claimed that they were motivated by ethnicity in any respect, and calling their work influential is stretching it given that most of the reaction to it was hostile in some respect. Mearsheimer and Walt mirror centuries of anti-Semitic tropes while I have not cited stereotypes in any capacity. Your argument is that prima facie, no good faith argument against anti-Zionism can ever be levied in any capacity. You're fully disingenuous and colossally full of poo poo. You know, I try to avoid posting or adjudicating in this thread due to my closeness to the material, but you've been spending pages upon pages alternating between throwing accusations at Mearsheimer and Walt and non sequiturs attacking those asking you to back them up. If you can't support your claim with evidence, admit defeat and move on. Keep this up and there will be consequences. objects in mirror posted:the Zio-neocon Please don't use pejoratives like this.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 13:26
|
|
|
This seems big if true. https://twitter.com/BoingBoing/status/729718917866921984
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 18:32
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:This seems big if true. If it's true it would be huge but as it stands with the only source named being the unlikely Herzog and him denying the whole thing it would seem waiting for more credible reports would be prudent.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 18:51
|
|
|
emanresu tnuocca posted:If it's true it would be huge but as it stands with the only source named being the unlikely Herzog and him denying the whole thing it would seem waiting for more credible reports would be prudent. Too good to be true; I wanted to believe. 
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 19:02
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Well, I was initially replying to Ytlaya and Tiller, who expressed disbelief that anyone of sound morals could consider violence done by an organized state military to be morally superior to violence done by bandits and terrorists. Ytlaya also added that they didn't understand why killing people by accident was considered less wrong than killing people deliberately, especially if more people die due to accident than due to malice. I think that you would have a point if referring to a single incident (that is, killing more people in a single incident isn't necessarily worse than killing fewer if there was an intention to kill civilians in the latter but not the former), but that excuse doesn't really make sense when you're talking about a prolonged conflict with countless individual acts resulting in people being killed. I could understand someone excusing Israel if it were just a single time that they bombed a bunch of civilians in response to a Hamas attack that was intended to target civilians, but in reality Israel has repeatedly, over many years, killed vastly more people. Intent stop beings persuasive when someone keeps repeating the same actions that continue to result in mass civilian death. The obvious reason is because, after doing the same thing multiple times, Israel would become fully aware that its actions will result in the deaths of a bunch of civilians. Past that point there is no effective difference between Hamas directly wanting to kill civilians and the IDF choosing to do things it full-well knows will result in killing a bunch of civilians. You can't claim that you're honestly trying to avoid civilian casualties while doing X when you've done the same thing multiple times in the past and had it result in significant civilian casualties every single time. Beyond that point the military, if it is not severely incompetent, would go into the operation knowing "this is going to not only result in civilian casualties, but result in far more civilian casualties than anything Palestinian extremists ever did to Israel." Ignorance as an excuse only goes so far.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 19:13
|
|
|
To build on that point, what are your thoughts on the Dahiya doctrine, Dead Reckoning? It is, very plainly, a decision to inflict massive damage and death on a nearly exclusively civilian population I guess to prove a point(gently caress with our soldiers and we're going to turn your residential areas into a wild bunch shootout). The rationale behind the targetting of heavy concentrations of civilians of course is "well the terrorists hide within the population." Which honestly, can be safely called out as racist as gently caress, considering that's the exact same reason the IDF gives whenever they decide to bomb arabs of any nationality.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 21:12
|
|
|
quote:JERUSALEM — On the eve of Holocaust Remembrance Day last week, a top Israeli general gave a speech saying he saw “revolting trends” in today’s Israel that he compared to Nazi-era Germany and Europe in the 1930s. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/05/08/the-israeli-general-who-compared-the-jewish-state-to-nazi-era-germany/
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 01:52
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:You know, I try to avoid posting or adjudicating in this thread due to my closeness to the material, but you've been spending pages upon pages alternating between throwing accusations at Mearsheimer and Walt and non sequiturs attacking those asking you to back them up. If you can't support your claim with evidence, admit defeat and move on. Keep this up and there will be consequences. You're criticizing me, when objects demanded an ethnic purity test for being allowed to have an opinion on this subject? The evidence is the loving argument that they made. I've tried to keep this solely on substance.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 02:20
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:You're criticizing me, when objects demanded an ethnic purity test for being allowed to have an opinion on this subject? The evidence is the loving argument that they made. I've tried to keep this solely on substance. ...except when you blatantly dismissed Walt and Mearsheimer's work as being motivated by a desire to "apologize for America" (cause they love Amurica and will bash Israel unfairly to cover for it) thereby allowing you to entirely sidestep their arguments and claims. So if you can accuse others of tribalism to dismiss their arguments, so can I, sweetheart. All I'm saying is: Are you sure you want to go down that road? I have always been abiding of current liberal norms of not calling out right-wing and liberal zionists on their nationalism and tribalism, but quite frankly I draw a line when one of them starts accusing others of tribalism in a blatant display of bad faith argumentation.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 04:16
|
|
|
I didn't accuse them of tribalism, I accused them of having a narrow, autistic, delusionally self-serving view of the "national interest." They want us to have a foreign policy out of Putin's Russia. If we take that school to its natural end, we would have endlessly and uncritically supported authoritarian regimes like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria, and Libya until they inevitably blew up. Thankfully, actual adults were in charge during the past seven years and we avoided that path. It's not bad faith because I not being in any way disingenuous here. Everyone has their own priors, it's loving irrelevant and impossible to measure, go by the plain, written text and merit of the argument. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 05:13
|
|
|
When are you going to post that list of Israel critics/Palestine supporters that haven't been accused of anti-Semitism? You are still of the position that spurious accusations are not a major issue within the discourse, yes?
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 07:01
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:I didn't accuse them of tribalism, I accused them of having a narrow, autistic, delusionally self-serving view of the "national interest." They want us to have a foreign policy out of Putin's Russia. If we take that school to its natural end, we would have endlessly and uncritically supported authoritarian regimes like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria, and Libya until they inevitably blew up. Thankfully, actual adults were in charge during the past seven years and we avoided that path.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 07:10
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:I didn't accuse them of tribalism, I accused them of having a narrow, autistic, delusionally self-serving view of the "national interest." They want us to have a foreign policy out of Putin's Russia. If we take that school to its natural end, we would have endlessly and uncritically supported authoritarian regimes like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria, and Libya until they inevitably blew up. Thankfully, actual adults were in charge during the past seven years and we avoided that path. Well, you did say they were apologizing for America (by bashing another country), but I'll take you at your word that those words didn't mean what they sounded like they meant. In any case, of course "self-serving" is how all nations have conducted their foreign policy until their ability to act on their interests was checked by other powers. Neoconservatives (who have never been shy about their emotional and cultural attachment to Israel -- Chris Mathews recently commented on this) pushed the U.S towards aggressive interventionism and militarism largely in part out of a sense that if America become more isolationist it would not be as militarily supportive of Israel. So, I say, of course someone who cares very much about the national interests of Israel will detest W&M's thesis, since W&M label the relationship with Israel as harmful to the U.S's own interests and this thesis, if widely adopted, risks changes to U.S's foreign policy that will ultimately restrain and reign in Israel. That book was pretty devastating, and reading it I couldn't help but think that there is no way any Israel supporter appreciative of the heavy U.S support for Israel could stomach it as it takes apart every fatuous argument made for continued U.S support of Israel while highlighting the pariah behavior of Israel as being something the U.S shouldn't be associated with. What it comes down is that Israel, and the Israel lobby, in their parasitism on the USA, are being ruthlessly "realist" in their goals and actions, but there's the fear on their part that the host (USA) will become similarly realist in its outlook and actions and consequently shrug off the parasite. Given this state, your insubstantial denunciations of W&M are par for the course. And yea, actual adults were charge the last seven years, notwithstanding the weird and feckless reaction to the Arab spring when it appeared the adults took a bathroom break, but let's examine the period before that when Neocons ( who REALLY hated Walt and Mearsheimer's book) were in positions of influence within the Bush administration. What a golden era of peace that was!
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 07:21
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:I didn't accuse them of tribalism, I accused them of having a narrow, autistic, delusionally self-serving view of the "national interest." They want us to have a foreign policy out of Putin's Russia. If we take that school to its natural end, we would have endlessly and uncritically supported authoritarian regimes like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria, and Libya until they inevitably blew up. Thankfully, actual adults were in charge during the past seven years and we avoided that path. If they're putting forward a completely self-serving sociopathically pragmatic view of the conflict and what serves the national interest, why is there more space devoted to the moral basis of supporting Israel (chapter 3, 33 pages) than there is the strategic basis for supporting Israel (Chapter 2, 29 pages)? Your criticism is completely invalid. You haven't got the slightest idea what you're talking about and your arguments only help to show how you are unwilling argue in good faith and will instead hurl accusations of anti-semitism at anything critical of Israel.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 11:33
|
|
|
objects in mirror posted:...except when you blatantly dismissed Walt and Mearsheimer's work as being motivated by a desire to "apologize for America" (cause they love Amurica and will bash Israel unfairly to cover for it) thereby allowing you to entirely sidestep their arguments and claims. So if you can accuse others of tribalism to dismiss their arguments, so can I, sweetheart. All I'm saying is: Are you sure you want to go down that road? I have always been abiding of current liberal norms of not calling out right-wing and liberal zionists on their nationalism and tribalism, but quite frankly I draw a line when one of them starts accusing others of tribalism in a blatant display of bad faith argumentation. While Kim Jong Il is definitely not making a good argument here, it is kind of hosed up to accuse pro-Israel people of being Jewish. So please don't do that in the future.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 19:22
|
|
|
He's korean and you should probably respect his culture if not his opinions on certain issues. Israel is the light unto the nations and totally isn't sinking rapidly into theological despotism and heavyhandedness. In a truly despotic country they'd simply execute barghouti and dump his body in the mediterranean instead of merely forbid him to travel abroad. http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.719009
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 19:42
|
|
|
Xandu posted:https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/05/08/the-israeli-general-who-compared-the-jewish-state-to-nazi-era-germany/ The ending makes it though: quote:It is probably worth noting that the day after Golan gave his speech, he issued a statement in which he walked back his remarks, saying he had not meant to compare Israel to Nazi Germany, nor to criticize the current leadership, nor the Israel Defense Forces, “a moral army that respects the rules of engagement and protects human dignity.”
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 20:27
|
|
|
Slanderer posted:The ending makes it though: Pay close attention, though - even though the media says he "walked back" his comments, his original remarks said nothing about the IDF or the government - he was criticizing Israeli society as a whole, and he pointedly didn't include them in his "apology". I realize that doesn't really have anything to do with what you were saying, but given that the IDF has been heavily criticized by the Israeli populace and government in recent months for not being inhumane enough toward Palestinians, I think his message is important enough to cut him some slack on that particular piece of whitewashing.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 21:02
|
|
|
http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.719031 just saw this a minute ago. No casualties but no word on the soldier's condition either.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 21:53
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 22:08
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:While Kim Jong Il is definitely not making a good argument here, it is kind of hosed up to accuse pro-Israel people of being Jewish. So please don't do that in the future. People who make frail, emotion laden and entirely Israel-centric special pleading case for Israel are overwhelmingly Jewish. When a news publication has an editors and contributors list with heavily Jewish names, that almost always tells you what the tone on Israel will be, and ignoring this elephant in the room is why the discourse on Palestine in the USA is entirely stuck between "liberal zionism" (we must support Israel but chide it ever so gently for the bad things it does, even though the Palestinians kinda deserve it at times) and just plain support for Israel in any and everything it does. Ignoring the role the Jewish community (who are overwhelmingly represented among the economic and social elite as well as in media ownership and operations) has played in setting up this dynamic cannot be understated. It's the elephant in the room that's cowardly ignored lest one get accused of anti-semitism, but sooner or later we must realize that while "anti-semite" used to mean "someone who hates Jews" it now just as much means "someone whom the Zionists dislike."
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 22:57
|
|
|
No I'm pretty sure it still also means someone who hates or is biased against jews. I get what you're saying though; the oversaturation of the word and the hair-trigger application of it to anyone with a less than glowing yelp review of some vegan restaurant they visited in tel aviv or whatever makes it both hard to take seriously and basically a way to blacklist someone unfairly c.f. salaita/finkelstein.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 00:29
|
|
|
objects in mirror posted:People who make frail, emotion laden and entirely Israel-centric special pleading case for Israel are overwhelmingly Jewish. When a news publication has an editors and contributors list with heavily Jewish names, that almost always tells you what the tone on Israel will be, and ignoring this elephant in the room is why the discourse on Palestine in the USA is entirely stuck between "liberal zionism" (we must support Israel but chide it ever so gently for the bad things it does, even though the Palestinians kinda deserve it at times) and just plain support for Israel in any and everything it does. Ignoring the role the Jewish community (who are overwhelmingly represented among the economic and social elite as well as in media ownership and operations) has played in setting up this dynamic cannot be understated. It's the elephant in the room that's cowardly ignored lest one get accused of anti-semitism, but sooner or later we must realize that while "anti-semite" used to mean "someone who hates Jews" it now just as much means "someone whom the Zionists dislike." The problem is that this ends up causing non-Zionist Jews (like myself) to constantly have to deal with peoples' expectations of our political views, and it's kind of hosed up to generalize an ethnic group as having bad political views that don't directly pertain to them (that is, it makes sense for there to be some expectation of black or LGBT to favor political ideas that direct affect them, but Israel does not directly affect any non-Israeli Jew who doesn't have family there). Actually, it's kind of also wrong to assume ethnic groups have certain political views even if they *do* directly pertain to them; it's just even more wrong if they don't. More importantly, what exactly is the outcome you desire from pointing out this "elephant in the room"? How is it any worse for a pro-Israel person to be Jewish? Do you think that all Jewish people should be subjected to a witch hunt regarding their views on Israel? Should we assume that Jewish people who claim to not be Zionist are lying? I can't think of any reason to care more about whether someone is pro-Israel and Jewish than if someone were merely pro-Israel. Also, dumb pro-Israel arguments are hardly something unique to Jewish people. A huge number of people in the US of every religion and political persuasion are ardently pro-Israel. If anything, I wouldn't be surprised if pro-Israel views are more common among American conservatives than they are among Jewish people in general, especially given changing views towards Israel among younger Jews.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 00:35
|
|
|
Not really sure what the solution is, I do know that it drives me up the wall whenever I read rhetoric by liberal Zionists that either excuses away Israel's actions as painfully necessary or apologize for it in a gratingly solipsistic fashion as being bad because those actions are not really the soul of Judaism blah blah (this is said while making sure the Palestinians they talk about are as faceless as possible.) The U.S media is part of the battlefield of the ethnic conflict in Palestine/Israel, and basically plays cover for the more powerful side, because, I believe, it's heavily owned and operated by Jews who cover for Israel, and remaining within the establishment requires not going against this status quo. I can understand Christian conservative oriented outlets doing what they do, but what's the excuse of more liberal and moderate outlets? I say the explanation lies in the identity politics of its owners, operators and financiers. For instance, Jennifer Rubin, an extremely hawkish ultra-right Zionist who used to write for Commentary, moved to the Washington Post some years ago to shout the same sort of shrill hyper-Likudnik politics at a wider readership. The editorial page of the Washington Post is dominated by Jewish neocons. Is it truly pernicious to resent this sort of ethnic-religious-ideological nepotism and to see it as a weapon in Israel's favor? There's the hope that a younger generation of Jewish reporters will sing a different tune, but I'm not so sure. Vox.com is a progressive outlet aimed squarely at millennials and is heavily penned by jewish millennials, yet you see the same sort of covering for Israel at that site (my favorite recent example of this was a wide headline at their landing page about Saudi lobbying activity in DC, on the same day that AIPAC's annual meeting in DC kicked off.) It's the Jewish community in the USA at large whose resources, lobbying and political activity significantly enable Israel in its continued ethnic aggression and land grubbing. Sorry for noticing. objects in mirror fucked around with this message at 04:11 on May 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 04:06
|
|
|
objects in mirror posted:Not really sure what the solution is, I do know that it drives me up the wall whenever I read rhetoric by liberal Zionists that either excuses away Israel's actions as painfully necessary or apologize for it in a gratingly solipsistic fashion as being bad because those actions are not really the soul of Judaism blah blah (this is said while making sure the Palestinians they talk about are as faceless as possible.) Frankly the Saudi's impact on DC really is actually more frightening then any impact Israel has. At least Israel wasn't financially involved with the preparations for 9/11. Also while Israel certainly is heading towards totalitarianism, the Saudis are a openly totalitarian state that repress 15% of their population terribly, use slavery and have been involved in funding ISIS and Al' Nursa.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 05:42
|
|
|
objects in mirror posted:People who make frail, emotion laden and entirely Israel-centric special pleading case for Israel are overwhelmingly Jewish. When a news publication has an editors and contributors list with heavily Jewish names, that almost always tells you what the tone on Israel will be, and ignoring this elephant in the room is why the discourse on Palestine in the USA is entirely stuck between "liberal zionism" (we must support Israel but chide it ever so gently for the bad things it does, even though the Palestinians kinda deserve it at times) and just plain support for Israel in any and everything it does. Ignoring the role the Jewish community (who are overwhelmingly represented among the economic and social elite as well as in media ownership and operations) has played in setting up this dynamic cannot be understated. It's the elephant in the room that's cowardly ignored lest one get accused of anti-semitism, but sooner or later we must realize that while "anti-semite" used to mean "someone who hates Jews" it now just as much means "someone whom the Zionists dislike." I have a hard time believing this is true. There's a cultural-identification thing going on like there is for everyone who considers themselves "diaspora" one way or another, and that has an expression and it produces zealots and true believers, but that's not the same thing. The idea that some 2 % of America's population would have this impact is ridiculous enough to warrant a proper reply from MIGF. And as pater noster Norman Finkelstein once pointed out, no one in the US cared one bit about Jews before 1967, and if that's true then it's pretty telling what drives the Israel policy/media interest (it's the same thing isnt it).
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 12:13
|
|
|
objects in mirror posted:The U.S media is part of the battlefield of the ethnic conflict in Palestine/Israel, and basically plays cover for the more powerful side, because, I believe, it's heavily owned and operated by Jews who cover for Israel, and remaining within the establishment requires not going against this status quo.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 16:49
|
|
|
snyprmag posted:I'm pretty sure this isn't true. The largest conservative news outlets, Fox News and the Wall Street Journal, are both owned by News Corp that was founded by a Christian. The Roberts family running Comcast are really the only major example of a Jewish owned media corp. US Media supports Israel because it is the official US government position, and that is certainly not decided by just Jewish Americans. White America are the ones who decided to and continue support Israel. Yeah; while it probably is true that Jewish people have a disproportionate presence among media ownership, there's a huge difference between that and them having a dominant influence. For example, if 10% of media owners/executives were Jewish, that would be very disproportionate (since only ~2% of Americans are Jewish), but it would clearly be ridiculous to claim that they are primarily responsible for what the media does. From what I've read, it seems like Jewish people genuinely do have a pretty big influence on entertainment media, but not so much with the news (which is the most relevant in this case). Either way, it is pretty obvious that it is absurd to accuse Israel apologists of being Jewish when the majority of Americans are pro-Israel (and a significant percent ardently so) and Jewish people are only 2% of the population. It reminds me of the people who accuse every pro-Israel person on the internet of being a paid shill. objects in mirror posted:It's the Jewish community in the USA at large whose resources, lobbying and political activity significantly enable Israel in its continued ethnic aggression and land grubbing. Sorry for noticing. It's saying stuff like this that sets off some red flags. The vast majority of actual Jewish people are not connected to AIPAC and aren't the owners/executives of media/finance corporations. The fact that some (and not even close to most in the latter case) are Jewish does not mean that the "Jewish community" is responsible. It's like if you said the Islamic community was responsible for terrorism just because a majority of recent terrorist attacks have been committed (or attempted) or Muslims. And again (and most importantly), what is the point of "noticing" this? Do you think that it would be good if the American public suddenly started blaming Jews for pro-Israel policy? What would that accomplish? Should every random Jewish person be suspected of pro-Israel sentiments? Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 17:27 on May 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 17:24
|
|
|
I think that if you're spending most of your argument with someone trying to argue that they must be Jewish due to their opinions, and if you think that exposing them as Jews is a valid way of discrediting them, then you are bigoted against Jews, which in common parlance is called "antisemitism". Particularly when you add the "Jews control the news and the media and politics" angle. That many pro-Palestinians or critics of Zionism or Israeli policy are inaccurately or outright falsely accused of antisemitism as a way to discredit them doesn't give you license to be one.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 17:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 08:17 |
|
|
Phone posting, can't embed: https://imgur.com/a/uo7Um One nation, one country.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 19:35
|
|