|
Get lost you loving creep. new page edit:  From the D&D pics thread. What glory is there in blasting a demoralized, underfed people?
Ultramega fucked around with this message at 16:30 on May 30, 2016 |
#
?
May 30, 2016 16:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 11:10 |
|
|
hakimashou posted:Won't be long now. Even if HAMAS(!!) was ISIS times ten you are still cheering blatant apartheid and colonization Is that really a good hill to pick
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 16:28
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:[Stupid garbage]  Yeah, hurrr dance puppets and whatever you wanna get at, you pathetic, gross person.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 16:56
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Israel media: Police recommend indicting Netanyahu's wife I hope this is related to the ice cream thing! Bibi likes pistachio. So you can add his taste in ice cream to his crimes against humanity. William Bear fucked around with this message at 18:46 on May 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 18:42
|
|
|
Pistachio ice cream is really good, I don't understand why there's this unspoken consensus about it because I guess AA said he didn't like it one time?
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 21:23
|
|
|
William Bear posted:I hope this is related to the ice cream thing! gently caress you, we have successfully identified Bibi's only correct opinion.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 21:31
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Israel media: Police recommend indicting Netanyahu's wife So is there hard evidence that she did heavily misuse state funds for personal reasons? If so it would be great if they actually manage to prosecute that, though I have serious doubts that it would actually do much harm to Netanyahu himself. Darth Walrus posted:Way to cheerlead some genocide, dude. I always love it when posters like that inevitably end up revealing their real views. I remember for the longest time hakimashou was claiming that it was just a political reality that 9/11 harmed Palestinian interests and that he didn't claim they were responsible, but now it's revealed that he actually *does* believe the Palestinians somehow share the blame for 9/11. I also shudder to think what he wants to happen if he considers what Israel already does to be too minor.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 18:59
|
|
|
Yeah a low-effort/intensity troll got impatient and tipped his hand too far in an effort to make us dance like his puppets. Speaking of which I was wondering why effectronica never posts despite having started this new thread then I saw he was banned and it made me chuckle. This article is a little bit old but is nobody else who read this just dumbstruck by how incredibly pervasive israel's control of the west bank/palestinian life in general when they can, literally, open a museum dedicated to palestinian art but not be able to showcase a single exhibit? https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...287d_story.html Oh also another stealth edit; a lot of the stuff that could potentially have been featured in this museum was stored in a cultural archive in beirut during the 1982 invasion. You can guess what happened to it after the IDF moved in. Ultramega fucked around with this message at 20:49 on May 31, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 20:45
|
|
|
http://golnazar.com/images/product/saffron_pistachio_medium.png
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 20:53
|
|
|
Idk if anyone still cares but a new video from the scene of the execution in hebron was released, http://www.mako.co.il/news-military/security-q2_2016/Article-0812efaf98b0551004.htm This shows that the knife that was 'found' next to al Sharif was only kicked towards him after he was already shot in the head, the video is taken by the same settler paramedic piece of poo poo who lies about al Sharif wearing an explosive vest.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 13:55
|
|
|
Any chance of this having any effect on azaria's prosecution?
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 16:29
|
|
|
Well, it further establishes that his claims of him acting out of a genuine fear (as if a knife lying next to an incapacitated person constitutes an actual thread) were utterly baseless as we know that he was instructed by the officer on the scene that al Sherif was no longer a threat and wasn't carrying an explosive vest and now there's conclusive evidence that the knife wasn't even next to al Sherif when Azaria shot him. If the trial doesn't devolve into a freak show meant to exonerate him cause Bibi is a coward and a populist it would seem as though the evidence against Azaria is damning and that the prosecution ought to have no difficulties proving his guilt.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 16:37
|
|
|
emanresu tnuocca posted:If the trial doesn't devolve into a freak show meant to exonerate him cause Bibi is a coward and a populist it would seem as though the evidence against Azaria is damning and that the prosecution ought to have no difficulties proving his guilt. The chances are negligible, then
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 17:03
|
|
|
Ultramega posted:Any chance of this having any effect on azaria's prosecution? It was used as evidence at the trial, so yeah. The prosecutor seems pretty intent on prosecuting, and appears to have a solid case with plenty of evidence. Azaria's best and likely only chance right now is for political pressure to change someone's mind and get the whole trial scuttled. Unfortunately, that's pretty likely. The Azaria case and its fallout were basically the flashpoint that led to Kahlon's downfall and the rise of Lieberman to the post of Defense Minister. It's likely that he'll be one of the first political footballs to get tossed around in the conflict between Likud and the IDF. Speaking of political footballs, Netanyahu has been parading around the case of a mentally-disabled rape victim in order to publicly accuse leftists, the Israeli media, and the "political system" of having an anti-Jewish bias. Classy!
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 20:23
|
|
|
Yeah I was reading that story pretty closely as it unfolded and HOLY poo poo how has netanyahu not been impeached/no-confidence'd out of office yet? I'm not following that comment about Kahlon though? Is he no longer an MK? Sorry, like 100% of my info for current events comes from reading haaretz and I haven't seen Kahlon mentioned once since last month when gideon levy wrote a really funny article about how lovely a politician he is.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 07:30
|
|
|
I think Main Pain meant to write Ya'alon. Kahlon is still a minister, one of the ministers from Kahlon's party one Avi Gabay who resigned citing lack of confidence in Liberman as minister of Defense, he will simply be replaced by someone else from Kahlon's party.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 07:37
|
|
|
Great piece about Iraq's ethnic cleansing of Mizrahim in in the 40s/50s. What many anti-Zionists don't emphasize enough is that Zionism is not solely some abstract colonialist project. Its policies were often in direct response to actions like this. Specifically, Iraq's policies poisoned the chances of Palestinian refugees ever receiving compensation or being allowed to return. Whether or not you think it's fair or just, Israel will never accept any agreement that does not include compensation for Mizrahi refugees. http://www.timesofisrael.com/the-expulsion-that-backfired-when-iraq-kicked-out-its-jews quote:Israeli foreign minister Moshe Sharett vociferously condemned Iraq’s extortion and state-sponsored theft. Estimates of the value of Iraqi Jewry’s blocked assets ranged from 6 million to 12 million dinars or, at its highest valuation, some $300 million in 21st century money. This is why Mizrahim vote for rightist parties and are the biggest cheerleaders of increased militarism in Israel. They in many cases have a direct grudge and animus against Arabs and/or Muslims.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 03:42
|
|
|
I'm assuming you would be cheerleading exactly as much if Palestinians were in a position to ethnically cleanse Jews, because they too have a direct grudge and animus, yes?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 09:35
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:Great piece about Iraq's ethnic cleansing of Mizrahim in in the 40s/50s. What many anti-Zionists don't emphasize enough is that Zionism is not solely some abstract colonialist project. Its policies were often in direct response to actions like this. Specifically, Iraq's policies poisoned the chances of Palestinian refugees ever receiving compensation or being allowed to return. Whether or not you think it's fair or just, Israel will never accept any agreement that does not include compensation for Mizrahi refugees. (Israeli) Zionism is not an abstract colonialist project, it is a colonialist project though. Where the colonists come and why doesn't change that in any way.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 09:46
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:Great piece about Iraq's ethnic cleansing of Mizrahim in in the 40s/50s. What many anti-Zionists don't emphasize enough is that Zionism is not solely some abstract colonialist project. Its policies were often in direct response to actions like this. Specifically, Iraq's policies poisoned the chances of Palestinian refugees ever receiving compensation or being allowed to return. Whether or not you think it's fair or just, Israel will never accept any agreement that does not include compensation for Mizrahi refugees. People are well aware that there are rationales behind the ethnic cleansing and war crimes committed against the Palestinians, they're just not really relevant because they aren't adequate excuses for massive human rights abuses. Also it is perfectly possible that in a final agreement the reparations to Jewish refugees will be set against the much larger reparations to Palestinians. That's unlikely to happen any time soon though because it would invovle Israel being comitted to the peace process. quote:This is why Mizrahim vote for rightist parties and are the biggest cheerleaders of increased militarism in Israel. They in many cases have a direct grudge and animus against Arabs and/or Muslims. Seems pretty racist. In fact if we flipped this around and have "people are hostile towards Jews because of something Israel did 60 years ago", wouldn't that be a classic case of anti-semitism? Projecting the actions of a nation onto an entire race/religion is wrong and racist whether the country is Iraq or Israel. So why are you advocating this directly analogous example as something that should not just be taken into account but actually emphasised?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 10:02
|
|
|
quote:Specifically, Iraq's policies poisoned the chances of Palestinian refugees ever receiving compensation or being allowed to return That and the whole racism thing, you know how Israel was supposed to be a "Jewish" state(ie, a state which guaranteed one racial group's political dominance and relegated all others to second-class status if that) and such a state could not come about without ethnic cleansing. quote:Whether or not you think it's fair or just, Israel will never accept any agreement that does not include compensation for Mizrahi refugees. Of course, that's just another tactic for buying time and changing the "facts on the ground". What you're saying is that Israel shouldn't be asked to end the occupation and accept Palestinian human rights until literally every Arab(and maybe Central Asian/Persian/Turkish) state agrees to apologize to the Mizrahim and compensate them. In the real world, that means never; you'll never get all these countries to agree, at least as long as Israel continues its occupation and makes a mockery of the very concept of human rights and as long as the occupation/the refugee situation continues to fuel mass anti-Israel sentiment. Saying "we won't do anything until Yemen, Iraq, Syria, Algeria, Iran, KSA, etc, etc. all simultaneous agree to our terms" is saying "we won't do anything," period. Now, if Israel were actually interested in securing rights for the Mizrahim forced out of Middle-Eastern lands, Israel would end the occupation and grant Palestinians their rights. Doing so would make such agreements politically possible; the Arab League has agreed to normalize relations with Israel once the occupation is over and some just solution to the Palestinian refugees is found and normalization of relations is an important step towards reconciliation and compensation. With an end to the occupation and the bi-annual Gaza massacre and the subsequent piles of dead children, with an end to the misery-filled Palestinian refugee camps, popular opinion towards Israel will soften in the Middle East, making it politically feasible for governments to deal with Israel and the Mizrahim justly. Of course, Israel is more interested in using the plight of the Mizrahim as a pretext to continue oppressing and violating the rights of Palestinians than it is in actually trying to solve it. quote:This is why Mizrahim vote for rightist parties and are the biggest cheerleaders of increased militarism in Israel. They in many cases have a direct grudge and animus against Arabs and/or Muslims. That and the fact that the Ashkenazi elite who formed the core of the Labour party and the center-left political establishment viewed Mizrahim as little better than Arabs, ie. vermin. Cf. the whole abducting Moroccan children thing or the dousing of new Mizrahi arrivals in pesticides upon arrival in Israel. quote:In fact if we flipped this around and have "people are hostile towards Jews because of something Israel did 60 years ago", wouldn't that be a classic case of anti-semitism? Projecting the actions of a nation onto an entire race/religion is wrong and racist whether the country is Iraq or Israel. I have to take issue with this. There's a difference between explaining the prominence of a type of bigotry and justifying it. 9/11 doesn't justify Islamophobia, but only a fool would deny that 9/11 led to a massive increase in Islamophobia in the West. Pearl Harbour doesn't justify the discrimination and hatred aimed at Japanese-Americans but no explanation of why anti-Japanese hatred increased exponentially in America would be complete without mentioning that context. Saying "Israel's actions inflame anti-semitism" isn't anti-semitic. Saying "Israel's actions justify anti-semitism" is.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 13:50
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:Great piece about Iraq's ethnic cleansing of Mizrahim in in the 40s/50s. What many anti-Zionists don't emphasize enough is that Zionism is not solely some abstract colonialist project. Its policies were often in direct response to actions like this. Specifically, Iraq's policies poisoned the chances of Palestinian refugees ever receiving compensation or being allowed to return. Whether or not you think it's fair or just, Israel will never accept any agreement that does not include compensation for Mizrahi refugees. Couldn't you have chosen a narrative that was a little less self-contradictory, skewed and opinionated, and downright borderline racist (it claims, among other things, that Iraqi Jews were more "intellectually viable" than the rest of the population)? Well, I guess that's not really the right question, because I know you could. There's plenty of tales of the Jewish exodus from Iraq that don't switch between opposing narratives on practically a paragraph-by-paragraph basis while handwringing about the poor Iraqis struggling to cope without the superior race. The massive contradictions inherent in that narrative practically debunk it all on its own. Anyhow, what about the main thrust of your argument - the assertion that Mizrahi have a grudge against Arab countries and demand reparations? Well, although Jews were definitely outright expelled from a few Arab countries, many prominent Mizrahi have called the "all Mizrahi were expelled from Arab countries" narrative utter horseshit, pointing out that large-scale departure of Jews from many Arab countries was entirely voluntary or done at Israel's behest (and, indeed, one of the deeper traumas shared by many Mizrahi populations is Israel's utter mismanagement of those migrations and the second-class status they faced when they arrived). It's a narrative that deprives Arab Jews of their own agency by turning them from "fervent Zionists who willingly threw away their old lives for Israel" into "helpless refugees rescued and enlightened by the mighty Ashkenazi", all for the sake of concocting an excuse to refuse the claims of the Palestinian refugees that Israel forced upon those very same countries. Let's see how the descendants of Iraqi Jews feel about Iraq. http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2013/02/longing-of-an-israeli-poet-to-iraq.html quote:In its heyday, the Iraqi Jewish community numbered 140,000. The vast majority emigrated in the years following the establishment of the State of Israel. A minority remained but left gradually over the following decades. Today there remain fewer than 10. They left behind weighty memories, a shared life with their neighbors and much property. Most of them live with their offspring in Israel. A minority live in the West. http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/04/28/world/middleeast/in-israel-iraqi-jews-reflect-onbaghdad-heritage.html quote:During a boisterous Passover Seder with her extended family, Sabiha Ziluf, 75, paused and said softly that she could still see the Baghdad streets of her childhood. “I would love to visit Bab al-Sharji,” she said, referring to an old neighborhood near where her aunt lived.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 14:57
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:Great piece about Iraq's ethnic cleansing of Mizrahim in in the 40s/50s. What many anti-Zionists don't emphasize enough is that Zionism is not solely some abstract colonialist project. Its policies were often in direct response to actions like this. Specifically, Iraq's policies poisoned the chances of Palestinian refugees ever receiving compensation or being allowed to return. Whether or not you think it's fair or just, Israel will never accept any agreement that does not include compensation for Mizrahi refugees. Okay, so if what you're saying is true, accurate and real, then I have the perfect solution to make absolutely everyone happy and bring back peace in the Middle East. We get the Mizrahim to move out of Israel and back into Iraq, and in their stead the Palestinians can get back on their ancestral lands. I don't expect anyone raising the slightest objection to this plan. Also Sharett's logic is great because it means that if a pickpocket steals my wallet in the subway, then I am perfectly entitled to steal Sharett's wallet. It's only fair. Cat Mattress fucked around with this message at 19:58 on Jun 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 19:55
|
|
|
The Farhud got brought up a thread or 2 ago to justify israeli policies and I thought it was, granted,a legitimate tragedy and A hosed Up Thing, way more mild than the pogroms in eastern europe? I specifically recall someone mentioning how straight after the violence was over a lot of people who had lost family/property and had fled returned either to resettle or pack up what they could find and leave. Anyway it was cool watching that post about it get shredded like carrion by wild dogs.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 20:54
|
|
|
Oh speaking of Mizrahim and the attitudes surrounding them in Israel does anyone here recall last year there was a story reported in Haaretz about an IDF soldier firing at israeli women for refusing to give him a kiss? The comments to that story in social media made me loving sick. Ranging between "this is hosed up, buut...he's probably a mizrahim/FNG/just some random rear end in a top hat don't use him to blame the entire IDF", to "well it's hosed up but the army is always right and no matter what a soldier does, ever, they're right *returns to deepthroating Ya'alon*".
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 20:59
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 21:10
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Anyhow, what about the main thrust of your argument - the assertion that Mizrahi have a grudge against Arab countries and demand reparations? Well, although Jews were definitely outright expelled from a few Arab countries, many prominent Mizrahi have called the "all Mizrahi were expelled from Arab countries" narrative utter horseshit, pointing out that large-scale departure of Jews from many Arab countries was entirely voluntary or done at Israel's behest (and, indeed, one of the deeper traumas shared by many Mizrahi populations is Israel's utter mismanagement of those migrations and the second-class status they faced when they arrived). It's a narrative that deprives Arab Jews of their own agency by turning them from "fervent Zionists who willingly threw away their old lives for Israel" into "helpless refugees rescued and enlightened by the mighty Ashkenazi", all for the sake of concocting an excuse to refuse the claims of the Palestinian refugees that Israel forced upon those very same countries. Let's see how the descendants of Iraqi Jews feel about Iraq. You can go on frontpagemag and find arguments claiming the Nakba was 100% voluntary and they had it coming anyway, it doesn't make it true. What right do Ashkenazim have to jewsplain to Mizrahim about how they're supposed to feel about being ethnically cleansed? Kajeesus posted:I'm assuming you would be cheerleading exactly as much if Palestinians were in a position to ethnically cleanse Jews, because they too have a direct grudge and animus, yes? How was I cheerleading? It's stupid and self defeating that they're so driven for revenge that they support war, but it's coming from a real place of pain. Just like Palestinians who suffered real hardship and in turn support war. Neither animus is going to go away unless there's a recognition of that pain. Israel is not loving Zabar's on the Mediterranean, it's a majority Mizrahi country and acts as such. team overhead smash posted:Also it is perfectly possible that in a final agreement the reparations to Jewish refugees will be set against the much larger reparations to Palestinians. That's unlikely to happen any time soon though because it would invovle Israel being comitted to the peace process. Why would there be much larger reparations to Palestinians? That's not the case if you go by value of property lost or number of refugees displaced. quote:In fact if we flipped this around and have "people are hostile towards Jews because of something Israel did 60 years ago", wouldn't that be a classic case of anti-semitism? Projecting the actions of a nation onto an entire race/religion is wrong and racist whether the country is Iraq or Israel. So why are you advocating this directly analogous example as something that should not just be taken into account but actually emphasised? Hating Jews because of Israel's actions is anti-Semitic, but it's not anti-Semitic to try to understand the cause and try to mediate it. Your argument doesn't make sense. I'm arguing that Mizrahi narratives in fact closely mirror Palestinian narratives, there's just a double standard because Israel took them in, while most Muslim countries refuse to grant Palestinians citizenship or in many cases basic human rights. Not only that, but this is important to understand that in the mindset of Zionism - anti-Zionism has zero credibility because there's a focus on Palestinians that's disproportionate to analogous cases, and the genuinely analogous Mizrahim (as far as 1948 goes) are almost completely dismissed as irrelevant. Or someone like Hanan Ashrawi attacks them as liars and criminals.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 03:43
|
|
|
FreshlyShaven posted:That and the whole racism thing, you know how Israel was supposed to be a "Jewish" state(ie, a state which guaranteed one racial group's political dominance and relegated all others to second-class status if that) and such a state could not come about without ethnic cleansing. Ben Gurion was a lot more powerful than Jabotinsky. Arab leaders at the time could have very easily accepted the 1947 partition plan. They chose not to, and in fact chose war and attempted ethnic cleansing instead. I am not arguing this in turn imparts any guilt or collective responsibility on modern day Palestinians, or justifies land theft, but it's loving true. quote:Of course, that's just another tactic for buying time and changing the "facts on the ground". What you're saying is that Israel shouldn't be asked to end the occupation and accept Palestinian human rights until literally every Arab(and maybe Central Asian/Persian/Turkish) state agrees to apologize to the Mizrahim and compensate them. In the real world, that means never; you'll never get all these countries to agree, at least as long as Israel continues its occupation and makes a mockery of the very concept of human rights and as long as the occupation/the refugee situation continues to fuel mass anti-Israel sentiment. Saying "we won't do anything until Yemen, Iraq, Syria, Algeria, Iran, KSA, etc, etc. all simultaneous agree to our terms" is saying "we won't do anything," period. Now, if Israel were actually interested in securing rights for the Mizrahim forced out of Middle-Eastern lands, Israel would end the occupation and grant Palestinians their rights. Doing so would make such agreements politically possible; the Arab League has agreed to normalize relations with Israel once the occupation is over and some just solution to the Palestinian refugees is found and normalization of relations is an important step towards reconciliation and compensation. With an end to the occupation and the bi-annual Gaza massacre and the subsequent piles of dead children, with an end to the misery-filled Palestinian refugee camps, popular opinion towards Israel will soften in the Middle East, making it politically feasible for governments to deal with Israel and the Mizrahim justly. Of course, Israel is more interested in using the plight of the Mizrahim as a pretext to continue oppressing and violating the rights of Palestinians than it is in actually trying to solve it. In the real world, no Israeli government will ever agree to unilateral concessions like this. So therefore, you're basically saying the occupation should go on forever because god forbid you take a deal that's a gigantic improvement over what the future would otherwise hold but not 100% perfect. AKA, 1947 all over again. What you're advocating is also wildly unjust. It's simply unfair to elevate one group's suffering arbitrarily over another's. The Arab League proposal is a non starter for this reason. Saying agree to our every single demand and we'll make peace is not a peace proposal, it's an excuse for warlords to continue to wage war. Genuine peace requires hard concessions on both sides, even if god loving damnit Kosovo is the birthplace of Serbdom and Skanderbeg is turning over in his grave. quote:That and the fact that the Ashkenazi elite who formed the core of the Labour party and the center-left political establishment viewed Mizrahim as little better than Arabs, ie. vermin. Cf. the whole abducting Moroccan children thing or the dousing of new Mizrahi arrivals in pesticides upon arrival in Israel. Hence, why Mizrahim finally started rejecting Ashkenazim at the ballot box and voting for their desired non-condescending parties with militaristic foreign policies.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 03:52
|
|
|
I'm sorry, was a deal on offer?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 03:58
|
|
|
post
Friendly Factory fucked around with this message at 07:36 on Jun 4, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 04:18
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:Ben Gurion was a lot more powerful than Jabotinsky. Arab leaders at the time could have very easily accepted the 1947 partition plan. They chose not to, and in fact chose war and attempted ethnic cleansing instead. I am not arguing this in turn imparts any guilt or collective responsibility on modern day Palestinians, or justifies land theft, but it's loving true. Actually, it's totally false. You're way off. It was Ben-Gurion and his associates who rejected the 1947 partition plan, and the predecessors of the modern IDF had already spent six months seizing military control of Palestine - and ethnically cleansing it - by the time of the Arab intervention. Incidents like the Deir Yassin Massacre were instrumental in pushing the Arab countries to intervene in the bloody civil war.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 07:06
|
|
|
Friendly Factory posted:Why is Noob Saibot petting kittens? Why wouldn't he be? If there are kittens somewhere, you pet them. It's the law.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 07:29
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Actually, it's totally false. You're way off. It was Ben-Gurion and his associates who rejected the 1947 partition plan You know that there was a vote on the plan right? List of Countries that were opposed to the 1947 Partition posted:Afghanistan
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 07:46
|
|
|
Patrick Spens posted:You know that there was a vote on the plan right? India? Was that an artifact of both India and Pakistan feeling the other cheated them on their own partition negotiations?  Edit: apparently it was a combination of Indian efforts to not have totally poo poo relations with the Arab world, and India being a major linchpin of the Non-Aligned Movement. Goatse James Bond fucked around with this message at 09:20 on Jun 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 09:17
|
|
|
Of course they voted against the 1947 colonial plan to divide Palestine along sectarian lines, it was completely reasonable to do. People with no sense of history whatsoever just loves to bring that up as if it was something "stupid" or as if it's a sign of "Arab intrasigence."
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 09:49
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dx1dGqJz5M
emanresu tnuocca fucked around with this message at 13:43 on Jun 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 10:26
|
|
|
Ultramega posted:The Farhud got brought up a thread or 2 ago to justify israeli policies and I thought it was, granted,a legitimate tragedy and A hosed Up Thing, way more mild than the pogroms in eastern europe? I specifically recall someone mentioning how straight after the violence was over a lot of people who had lost family/property and had fled returned either to resettle or pack up what they could find and leave. Anyway it was cool watching that post about it get shredded like carrion by wild dogs. Wikipedia posted:The exact number of victims is uncertain. With respect to Jewish victims, some sources say that about 180 Jewish Iraqis were killed and about 240 were wounded, 586 Jewish-owned businesses were looted and 99 Jewish houses were destroyed.[24] Other accounts state that nearly 200 were killed and over 2,000 injured, while 900 Jewish homes and hundreds of Jewish-owned shops destroyed and looted.[25] The Israeli-based Babylonian Heritage Museum maintains that in addition to 180 identified victims, around another 600 unidentified ones were buried in a mass grave.[2] An estimate published in Haaretz newspaper cites 180 killed and 700 wounded. Not an event I would consider 'mild'. FreshlyShaven posted:I have to take issue with this. There's a difference between explaining the prominence of a type of bigotry and justifying it. 9/11 doesn't justify Islamophobia, but only a fool would deny that 9/11 led to a massive increase in Islamophobia in the West. Pearl Harbour doesn't justify the discrimination and hatred aimed at Japanese-Americans but no explanation of why anti-Japanese hatred increased exponentially in America would be complete without mentioning that context. Saying "Israel's actions inflame anti-semitism" isn't anti-semitic. Saying "Israel's actions justify anti-semitism" is. The difference is one of implied culpability. "Israel's actions inflame antisemitism" can be antisemitic depending on the context.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 12:11
|
|
|
Sorry I'm using the Holocaust as The Benchmark For All Bad Things That Have Ever Happened To Jews. Thought you were on the level?Svartvit posted:Of course they voted against the 1947 colonial plan to divide Palestine along sectarian lines, it was completely reasonable to do. People with no sense of history whatsoever just loves to bring that up as if it was something "stupid" or as if it's a sign of "Arab intrasigence." You really leave with the feeling that people who think the 1947 partition plan was fair in any sense haven't read it or the actual wording of UN242.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 12:17
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:You can go on frontpagemag and find arguments claiming the Nakba was 100% voluntary and they had it coming anyway, it doesn't make it true. What right do Ashkenazim have to jewsplain to Mizrahim about how they're supposed to feel about being ethnically cleansed? I don't know, but obviously you think that your right to Jewsplain to the Mizrahim about how they're supposed to feel about being ethnically cleansed takes precedence. quote:How was I cheerleading? It's stupid and self defeating that they're so driven for revenge that they support war, but it's coming from a real place of pain. Just like Palestinians who suffered real hardship and in turn support war. Neither animus is going to go away unless there's a recognition of that pain. Israel is not loving Zabar's on the Mediterranean, it's a majority Mizrahi country and acts as such. quote:Why would there be much larger reparations to Palestinians? That's not the case if you go by value of property lost or number of refugees displaced. Well several obvious reasons. I don't know of anyone who has conducted a study of the comparative wealth lost, but in number of refugees the Palestinians is certainly larger as even if we assume that every Jew who moved to Israel was ethnically cleansed, the number of Palestinian refugees is still several times larger. Of course that's unrealistic because the consensus is that it was a mixture of different factors driving people and while some were ethnically cleansed others left of their own violation and no-one has a solid idea of exactly what the split is, most people just making blind assumptions based on their ideological leanings. Another issue is that the Jews who left the Arab countries didn't seem to consider themselves as refugees and to my knowledge have certainly never organised or registered themselves as such. In fact, not all of them would be considered refugees by the respective organisations even if they'd tried to become refugees. For those who chose to leave rather than being expelled and didn't choose to leave out of any kind of threat, fear or mistreatment, I can't see the basis for assigning them refugee status. Even then those who may have been eligible for refugee status would have only had it for only a minimal time if they had attained it, refugee status ending a short time later when they resettled and were granted citizenship in Israel. Lastly, although it isn't explicitly laid out in any law, our basic conception of fairness would make us feel that someone who has suffered more is due more compensation and someone who was a refugee for a couple of weeks before resettling in a new country is probably due less compensation that someone who had been oppressed as a refugee for several decades. quote:Hating Jews because of Israel's actions is anti-Semitic, but it's not anti-Semitic to try to understand the cause and try to mediate it. Your argument doesn't make sense. The issue is that you seem to be supporting the view as valid. Just to confirm then, do you accept that Mizrahim who hold the views you set out are racist scumbags whose opinions are worthless regardless of whether it might be useful to understand why they hold these racist scumbag opinions? quote:I'm arguing that Mizrahi narratives in fact closely mirror Palestinian narratives, there's just a double standard because Israel took them in, while most Muslim countries refuse to grant Palestinians citizenship or in many cases basic human rights. Not only that, but this is important to understand that in the mindset of Zionism - anti-Zionism has zero credibility because there's a focus on Palestinians that's disproportionate to analogous cases, and the genuinely analogous Mizrahim (as far as 1948 goes) are almost completely dismissed as irrelevant. Or someone like Hanan Ashrawi attacks them as liars and criminals. This is laughable. It's not double standard because the situations aren't comparable, something you implicitly admit in your post but try to gloss over when you try and explain why there is a double standard. Whether or not you're granted citizenship and then have to live for decades under the power of an oppressive military occupation that commits a variety of war crimes and humans rights abuses against you is a fairly significant loving difference that makes the two situations incomparable as it's the very reason they're treated differently. Kim Jong Il posted:Ben Gurion was a lot more powerful than Jabotinsky. Arab leaders at the time could have very easily accepted the 1947 partition plan. They chose not to, and in fact chose war and attempted ethnic cleansing instead. I am not arguing this in turn imparts any guilt or collective responsibility on modern day Palestinians, or justifies land theft, but it's loving true. Ben Gurion was planning to ethnically cleanse the Palestinians regardless of partition, seeing the partition only as a stepping stone to create an a jewish state which could later claim all of Israel. Before the vote on the partition plan, Israel even colluded with Jordan to have them deny the Palestinians their freedom and crush a Palestinian state before it could be formed. It's not "choosing" war if either option results in war and ethnic cleansing being committed against you due to Israel's belligerency. Also Israel was in a state of civil war brought about by mutual violence on both sides well before the deceleration of independence. All that did was bring in the outside arab countries and turn Israel's ethnic cleansing up to 11. Ben Gurion was more powerful than Jabotinsky, but if doesn't really matter when Ben Gurion was trying to attain the objectives Jabotinsky was after. quote:In the real world, no Israeli government will ever agree to unilateral concessions like this. So therefore, you're basically saying the occupation should go on forever because god forbid you take a deal that's a gigantic improvement over what the future would otherwise hold but not 100% perfect. AKA, 1947 all over again. What you're advocating is also wildly unjust. It's simply unfair to elevate one group's suffering arbitrarily over another's. The Arab League proposal is a non starter for this reason. Saying agree to our every single demand and we'll make peace is not a peace proposal, it's an excuse for warlords to continue to wage war. Genuine peace requires hard concessions on both sides, even if god loving damnit Kosovo is the birthplace of Serbdom and Skanderbeg is turning over in his grave. The Arab Peace Initiative lays out a plan that fits what Israel claims it want 100% but Israel chooses to reject it. Israel spins a narrative of "Oh, the Arabs don't want peacet peace", but when offered peace on the basis they supposedly want it's Israel who refuses. Also the Initiative plan states that Israel must "Attain a just solution to the problem of Palestinian refugees". It in no way says that Israel has to give in to Arab demands and instead leaves open a lot of leeway for what is 'just' so that an agreement could be reached. Arafat in the 2000 Camp David Summit was already willing to make concessions and accept a very limited return to Israel. The only bit Israel could possibly object to is handwavey waffle specifically designed as a fig leaf for the arabs so that the refugees can be mentioned while committing Israel to nothing. Aside from that, what about it could possibly be construed as incredibly unfair? The other aspects are all basic preconditions of a peace process existing, like the return of land and recognition of a palestinian state. Rejecting those shows the rejection of the peace process as a whole because they are the entire basis on which peace is being organised. Also it's not really elevating one group's suffering arbitrarily over another's, but being capable of basic critical analysis and reasoning that the ethnic cleansing of Jews 70 years ago who were refugees for a short time, in some case days, but now live in relative comfort in a modern industrialised nation is not as important than a group of arabs being ethnically cleansed 70 years ago and then them and their descendent continuing to be refugees living in poverty who are oppressed, kill, jailed, tortured, etc for those 70 years up until the present day.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 13:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 11:10 |
|
|
quote:Ben Gurion was a lot more powerful than Jabotinsky. Arab leaders at the time could have very easily accepted the 1947 partition plan. They chose not to, and in fact chose war and attempted ethnic cleansing instead. I am not arguing this in turn imparts any guilt or collective responsibility on modern day Palestinians, or justifies land theft, but it's loving true. That's not really a full picture. In addition to the fact that it was very doubtful that the Zionist side was willing to abide by the Partition(instead seeing it as a stepping-stone to further territorial gain), how do you expect the Palestinians to trust that the Zionists would abide by it when Zionist militias had been engaging in terror attacks including the assassination of Folke Bernadotte(who was murdered despite having saved thousands of Jewish lives during the Holocaust because he was seen as too pro-Arab)? If Zionist militias are murdering diplomats who are seen as too even-handed, what exactly should be giving the Palestinians confidence in the process? And if you were a Palestinian in 1947, would you be willing to give up more than half of your country(including some of your best lands) to foreign colonists, most of whom considered you inferior savages and had spent the last 20+ years refusing to hire or rent to non-Jews? Leaving that aside, despite the disclaimer, this comes dangerously close to victim-blaming. Maybe instead of trying to elide Israeli responsibility by blaming Palestinian leaders, you could simply acknowledge the most salient fact and let it sink in: Israel ethnically cleansed the Palestinians and has refused to make amends for it or acknowledge the basic human rights of its victims. Yes, the ethnic cleansing occurred in a time of racial tension and political violence, but that's true of almost every incidence of ethnic cleansing; ethnic cleansing rarely happens during periods of stability and prosperity. quote:In the real world, no Israeli government will ever agree to unilateral concessions like this. In the real world, Israel is not interested in making a just peace. It prefers to maintain the occupation to satisfy its right-wing zealots, avoid dealing with its housing crisis and to profit the Israeli economy at the expense of Palestinian suffering. The closest thing to a serious peace plan offered by Israel was the Oslo Accords and a) that didn't even create a Palestinian state, and b) no sooner did Israel sign the Accords than it went about sabotaging them. Netanyahu has promised there will be no Palestinian state, 3/4 of Israeli Jews oppose a 2 state solution which creates a viable Palestinian-administered territory, and Labour's record is just as bad as Likud's(and likely to get worse as Herzog decides that the route to electoral victory is through hating Arabs more than Likud). So don't pretend that some reasonable peace could come about if those Palestinians were just willing to eat more poo poo and pretend to like it. The only way to peace is through international sanctions and pressure. quote:So therefore, you're basically saying the occupation should go on forever because god forbid you take a deal that's a gigantic improvement over what the future would otherwise hold but not 100% perfect. No, I'm saying an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal should focus on Israel/Palestine instead of dealing with tangential issues because given Israel's behavior, it should be obvious that Israel would use a single country's intransigence to scuttle the entire talks. The issue of Iraqi Mizrahim and compensation for their suffering should be dealt with between the government of Iraq and Israel; the Palestinians should not be held hostage over something they had nothing to do with. quote:It's simply unfair to elevate one group's suffering arbitrarily over another's. That seems like Israel's MO right there. Nevertheless, that's not what I'm doing. I'm saying separate issues should be addressed separately and that one group's suffering is no excuse for another group's suffering. You know, basic morality. quote:The Arab League proposal is a non starter for this reason. Saying agree to our every single demand and we'll make peace is not a peace proposal, it's an excuse for warlords to continue to wage war. This is just absurd. For one thing, the Arab states haven't been warring against Israel since the 70s. In fact, most Arab countries are de-facto allies of Israel. For another, the Arab peace proposal is, in its outline, simple: end the occupation and find a just solution to the refugees. This is the international consensus and the bare minimum for any kind of a just peace. Israel has no excuse for not accepting it; its refusal to even entertain the idea is proof of just how little interest Israel has in ending apartheid and making peace. quote:Genuine peace requires hard concessions on both sides, The Palestinians have been suffering for over 60 years under a brutal apartheid regime. Israelis have not. The Palestinians have already made hard concessions through their blood, their tears, their stolen lands, the daily apartheid checkpoints, the stolen billions from the Palestinian economy, etc. They've done 98 percent of the suffering; it's Israel's turn to give up its apartheid policies and make some concessions for once. Edit: quote:anti-Zionism has zero credibility because there's a focus on Palestinians that's disproportionate to analogous cases, and the genuinely analogous Mizrahim (as far as 1948 goes) are almost completely dismissed as irrelevant. Leaving aside whether the Mizrahim's experience is analogous to the Palestinian refugees'(for one thing, there's very little interest among the Mizrahim in returning to their ancestral homelands and some states like Iraq allow repatriation already), I would argue that anti-Zionists are generally pretty aware of the Mizrahim, their exodus/suffering and the discrimination they face in Israel. The issue is that the Mizrahim and anti-Zionism are in a weird position; as you point out, support for reactionary, militaristic elements is higher among Mizrahim(and the Beta-Israel and the Russian Jews for that matter) than Ashkenazim, though of course some of the worst atrocities suffered by the Palestinians were committed at the hands of Ashkenazim-dominated institutions(the Nakba, the 18 years of martial law imposed on Palestinian citizens of Israel from 48-66, etc.) And it's hard for Palestinians to see the Mizrahim as their brothers and allies as victims of racial prejudice when the apartheid checkpoints are largely manned by Mizrahim or Beta Israelis(since it's a low-prestige position in the IDF and putting poor, pissed-off youth in a position of arbitrary power over Palestinians guarantees misery) or when the residents of Sderot, mainly Mizrahim, make popcorn and pull out the couches to watch Gazans get blown to shreds. Of course, this general rightward orientation, in addition to being a result of Herut/Likud's better treatment of Mizrahi Jews than Labour's, is also due to their position in Israeli society; they're higher-up than Arabs but looked down upon by the Ashkenazi elite, who just so happen to dominate the so-called "peace" camp and the center-left. So they see their best shot of social advancement in the IDF and, for many, in fierce Jewish nationalism. That said, the Mizrahim are essential to bridging the gap and creating an egalitarian Israel. While there are deep wounds, I see encouraging signs. FreshlyShaven fucked around with this message at 17:31 on Jun 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 16:38
|
|