|
Byolante posted:If people are really that worried about civilians being targeted in the I/P conflict they should take away Israel's weapons of war
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 05:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 18:32 |
|
|
Ultramega posted:I don't have a milligram of antisemitism in me. How would you respond to a Trump voter who loudly proclaims he doesn't see race and doesn't have a racist bone in his body and therefore all of the racially charged things he repeats can't possibly be racist? quote:Also man you've got some nerve to try twisting around what i'm talking about regarding the chauvenistic nationalism. You know goddamn well which nationals I'm talking about you chickenshit. Why are you being strangely averse to just coming out and saying what you think. You're suggesting that only people who subscribe to "nationalist chauvinist talking points" would consider antisemitism a problem in today's world, what 'nation' are you talking about? Nevvy Z posted:Tell me what grave perils await the man who stands against anti-semitism on the internet. About the same perils awaiting anyone who stands against misogyny or homophobia or racism on the internet. But I wouldn't expect anyone except GBS /pol/ refugees to make the same argument (downplaying the problem and belittling those who don't) that was made about those that was just made about antisemitism online. Besides, Ultramega wasn't talking exclusively about online antisemitism. He said that it may have been an accomplishment to stand up to antisemitism on 1936 but not in 2016.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 06:07
|
|
|
Schizotek posted:Why is it even in D&D we talk like a two state solution is in any way a viable option anymore? The idea that Israel will dismantle the settlements and forcibly relocate million of their own people to back to their official borders is loving laughable. Ditto the idea that they'd become citizens of Palestine. Israel wouldn't allow it. The settlers would burn the West Bank down before being ruled by muslims. And the Palestinians certainly don't want the miserable fuckers in their country. So what you'd have is a dozen noncontiguous chunks of scrub brush and some of the Negev with all of their individual borders controlled by Israel. It's literally just a solidification of the status quo. If we assume the settlers are a 100% non-solvable problem, we're effectively left with no solutions that are both palatable and viable. I'm not saying this assessment is wrong, but it's intensely depressing and I'd rather believe there's a slim but nonzero chance of pulling back to not-totally-poo poo borders.  If only because the settlers, while a fairly significant force in Israeli politics, are probably easier to relocate than the Palestinians, and doing so is marginally more palatable to Israel than a single-state solution that doesn't involve (finishing) the ethnic cleansing of rump-Palestine.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 07:26
|
|
|
The Insect Court posted:About the same perils awaiting anyone who stands against misogyny or homophobia or racism on the internet. OH NO! Some people might shitpost or otherwise just prove you wrong on terrible talking points? Yep, that's definitely on the same scale as the harassment, stalking, death threats, rape threats and so on that you'll get for even something like taking a """S.J.W""" side in arguments of misogyny, or for daring to be LGBT and talking about it in basically any public venue. Big ole air quotes very much needed there as well, because do remember that basically just having the gall to say that women aren't objects or lesser people is enough to constitute that to a lot of horrible spergoid fucks these days. Oh wait, no it's not though. There's maybe a handful of places whatsoever that would care all that greatly, if at all really, if you defended israel, but you know what people will actually want and try to ruin your life over? Existing as a woman, LGBT person or the wrong color of person.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 07:35
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:If we assume the settlers are a 100% non-solvable problem, we're effectively left with no solutions that are both palatable and viable. One state solution will be palatable to Israel once Palestinians demand equal rights as citizens instead of independence and the world sanctions and isolates Israel into submission. You can somehow sell the whole "military occupation two states we're still a "democracy" inside these select borders if you don't look into Arab Israelis too hard" to the West , you can't sell a naked imitation of South Africa complete with Bantustans with millions of Palestinians demanding basic citizenship rights where no difference is taken by them between West Bank and Israel. Israel doesn't have it in itself to be an actual pariah state. The West is one country away from treating it like that as is. The two state solution is as good as dead, we're just going to spend a few more decades pretending that it isn't. DarkCrawler fucked around with this message at 09:17 on Jul 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 08:43
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:Even if this were true (it's not given that it predates 1948), there's pretty strong evidence that the state of Israel is unacceptable to them in any form. There was also anti-arab violence perpetrated by jews before 1948, there's a myth that Etzel\Lehi only attacked the brits but that's a lie, rolling a barrel bomb into the Haifa market is a clear example of jewish terrorism prior to 1948; anyway that's not important. What is important is that this paradigm of "we need the palestinians to first sign a billion different contracts that say they agree to view Israel the way Israel would like be to viewed" is utter hogwash, the immediate de-escalation of violence is all that matters, the decolonization of the west bank is of utmost importance not due to its implication concerning words written in ink on some paper in the future but due to the fact that the daily tension between the Israeli occupying troopers and the Palestinian citizenry is the most immediate and significant cause for the constant escalation in violence.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 10:16
|
|
|
Schizotek posted:Why is it even in D&D we talk like a two state solution is in any way a viable option anymore? The idea that Israel will dismantle the settlements and forcibly relocate million of their own people to back to their official borders is loving laughable. Ditto the idea that they'd become citizens of Palestine. Israel wouldn't allow it. The settlers would burn the West Bank down before being ruled by muslims. And the Palestinians certainly don't want the miserable fuckers in their country. So what you'd have is a dozen noncontiguous chunks of scrub brush and some of the Negev with all of their individual borders controlled by Israel. It's literally just a solidification of the status quo. Firstly, you're overestimating the size of the problem. In terms of the West Bank settlements, there are a hundreds of thousands of settlers, not millions. That's still a lot, but an order of magnitude less that you were thinking. In peace talks the basis for the new borders has for quite a while been based on the 1967 borders with mutual land swaps. Israel would annex portions of Palestine containing the settlers and give the Palestinians a comparative amount of uninhabited Israel land in return (largely/entirely in the Negev desert). Although there is dickering over the size and the amount, the general concept in regards to the settlements has been agreed and isn't actually that troublesome relative to the concept of the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks because it solves the problem of Israel not wanting to lose it's settlerments and Palestine not wanting to lose Palestinian land.. The small one-family caravans that penetrate deep into the West Bank that even Israel admits are illegal would all have to go, but that is manageable. It's really a case of how many of the settlements close to the border are included in this land swap and how they're connected. Israel obviously wants more settlements included and wants big solid borders that will allow their settlements to expand in the future and give a fairly solid border (although they will allow it to go squiggly and weird if it avoids incorporating Arab population centres into the future Israel) while Palestine wants to include only the larger population centres, not give them swathes of land around the settler population centres to grow and connect them back to Israel through small corridors for travel rather than just by ceding large amounts of the intervening lack back to Israel. Despite the differences in opinion over their different priorities mentioned above, an agreement is very much possible here if the other issues were resolved. It should be noted that the West Bank settlements aren't even the most troublesome aspect of the negotiations in terms of borders. East Jerusalem is the biggest headache in terms of redrawing the borders as both sides struggle to find a suitable compromise there. Additionally Israel wants control of at least some of the Jordan Valley on the basis of an "indefinite lease" for security purposes separate from any settlements. team overhead smash fucked around with this message at 13:05 on Jul 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 10:41
|
|
|
team overhead smash posted:Firstly, you're overestimating the size of the problem. In terms of the West Bank settlements, there are a hundreds of thousands of settlers, not millions. That's still a lot, but an order of magnitude less that you were thinking. My understanding - please correct me if I'm wrong - would be that any Palestinian state resulting from land swaps would be, at best, a few separate areas linked only by very narrow corridors for transportation. Would it really be possible to have a truly autonomous, functioning state under those conditions?
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 14:36
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:You're trying to set up this situation where Israel has all the responsibilities of an occupying power, but any time they try to exercise the rights afforded to an occupying power, they're in the wrong, because the occupation is illegal in your opinion. Israel is occupying Palestine, and the occupation is globally recognized as being wildly illegal. There's no opinion about it. As an occupying power, Israel is responsible for the well-being of any residents of the territory they're occupying. That is also not a matter of opinion. The state of Israel does not, however, formally recognize that an occupation is taking place. You are saying that Israel has no responsibility toward the people under military occupation as long as Netanyahu doesn't actually say that the West Bank is an occupied territory. You're also ignoring that indefinite detainment without charge, torture, home demolition, resettlement, et cetera are not things an occupying power can legally do. Dead Reckoning posted:"Resistance movement" is a slippery term that can mean a lot of things, and a movement might be composed of multiple groups, some of whom take morally justified actions, and some of whom take actions that are immoral. To be clear, I think that violence by unlawful combatants and deliberate targeting of civilians are always wrong. Fair enough. What then, are the legitimate actions an individual Palestinian can take to someday be freed from the occupation, in your opinion? The Insect Court posted:How would you respond to a Trump voter who loudly proclaims he doesn't see race and doesn't have a racist bone in his body and therefore all of the racially charged things he repeats can't possibly be racist? It is not actually anti-Semitic to criticize Israel or recognize that Palestinians, as human beings, have the same human rights as anyone else.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 16:21
|
|
|
Yardbomb posted:Yep, that's definitely on the same scale as the harassment, stalking, death threats, rape threats and so on that you'll get for even something like taking a """S.J.W""" side in arguments of misogyny, or for daring to be LGBT and talking about it in basically any public venue. Big ole air quotes very much needed there as well, because do remember that basically just having the gall to say that women aren't objects or lesser people is enough to constitute that to a lot of horrible spergoid fucks these days. What bravery! What courage! Barry Convex posted:My understanding - please correct me if I'm wrong - would be that any Palestinian state resulting from land swaps would be, at best, a few separate areas linked only by very narrow corridors for transportation. Would it really be possible to have a truly autonomous, functioning state under those conditions? Something like that. team overhead smash posted:Firstly, you're overestimating the size of the problem. In terms of the West Bank settlements, there are a hundreds of thousands of settlers, not millions. That's still a lot, but an order of magnitude less that you were thinking. The size is irrelevant to the scale of the problem, it can be just as hard to remove 100,000 as a million in practical terms.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 16:31
|
|
|
The Insect Court posted:How would you respond to a Trump voter who loudly proclaims he doesn't see race and doesn't have a racist bone in his body and therefore all of the racially charged things he repeats can't possibly be racist? Jesus christ you are an idiot. You sound like a loving debate team dweeb who mentally rubs his hands together and thinks "mmwahaha he just committed a dutch wheelbarrow fallacy, i'll show him!" And no I'm not being 'strangely adverse' to saying what I'm thinking. Again, you're coming off like you're overanticipating some debate setup trick. I don't know how much more plainly I can state what I said. And that is more of a failing on my part because compared to the likes of a lot of other people in this thread I'm nowhere near as eloquent. What is it exactly you're waiting for me to say? To just casually drop a sentence like "well, i don't really like heebs but it's 2016..." or some bullshit? Why are you even still here? loving answer the tons of hard questions everyone keeps asking you, chickenshit. One more thing, my family is Roma/Sinti on my father's side. Maybe you remember me mentioning it in the thread earlier? What is your stance on elie wiesel's active erasure of the Porajmos and the targetted extermination of people other than jews in the holocaust? Do you even care? Maybe make a post where I too can play the hurt semantics game and I pick apart your post to create phantom talking points I too can latch onto in order to make you sound like you hate gypsies or something. Ultramega fucked around with this message at 17:07 on Jul 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 16:55
|
|
|
Ultramega posted:I don't have a milligram of antisemitism in me. So stop acting like you exposed me. Ignoring TIC (who is an extremely dishonest person; I've given up on repeatedly explaining to him that a Palestinians:Israelis = White Americans:Black Americans is a laughably stupid analogy on multiple levels), it's important to keep in mind that antisemitism is more of an issue in large portions of the rest of the world than it is in the US. So while it's true that "standing up to antisemitism" doesn't exactly require any bravery in the US (since antisemitism here only really exists among fringe conspiracy theorists and rural rednecks), antisemitism is a bigger issue throughout much of Europe. All this being said, European antisemitism doesn't really have much of an effect on Israelis, other than perhaps some economic consequences due to boycotts and the like, and, more importantly, the racism directed towards Palestinians by Israelis obviously has a far, far greater impact than the racism directed towards Israelis does. KJI mentioned racism motivating Palestinian hatred of Israelis, but that's only partially true. I would say that Palestinian hatred is motivated by a combination of Israel's actions and racism (probably more the former than the latter). While the same is also true for Israel (mix of racism and anger at Palestinian terrorism), I would say that the racism part is far more prominent, since the average Israeli isn't affected nearly as much by the actions of Palestinians as vice versa. The average Palestinian can point to many ways that Israel has a direct negative impact on his/her life, while the average Israeli can't say the same.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 19:07
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:That theory is easily proven false though. Israel came really, really close to withdrawing from settlements in 1996, 2000, and 2007. Rejecting the peace process after those near misses is like voting for Donald Trump because you think it's the only way to implement glorious communism. When in actuality it means a mountain of skulls and Shadow Run. Can't have been all that close, since we're still talking about it as a what-if twenty years later. Safety concerns have proven more effective at emptying settlements than two decades of negotiations. Barry Convex posted:My understanding - please correct me if I'm wrong - would be that any Palestinian state resulting from land swaps would be, at best, a few separate areas linked only by very narrow corridors for transportation. Would it really be possible to have a truly autonomous, functioning state under those conditions? It depends on what the final deal looks like. Many of the more extreme settlers see themselves as staking a claim for Israel, and thus tend to spread little enclaves everywhere and position them in such a way to break up Palestinian territory; the IDF then declares security zones and military land to further limit Palestinian freedom of movement. At this rate, it won't be too long before there isn't enough contiguous land under Palestinian control to put a functioning state in. However, a deal would presumably see at least some settlements abandoned and many of these security measures limited to territory kept by Israel. Even if we assume that the borders are more sensible, there's an unavoidable problem with land swaps: uninhabited land is usually uninhabited for a pretty good reason. "We'll take this productive agricultural land and give you some lovely worthless desert land we don't want" isn't a great deal even if the Palestinians get more square feet than they lose.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 20:45
|
|
|
Barry Convex posted:My understanding - please correct me if I'm wrong - would be that any Palestinian state resulting from land swaps would be, at best, a few separate areas linked only by very narrow corridors for transportation. Would it really be possible to have a truly autonomous, functioning state under those conditions? No, that''s what we've got at the moment with Zones A, B and C. The Palestines agreed to this in the Oslo peace accords, essentially giving legitimacy to the Israeli occupation. There was meant to be a reciprocal return on this, that giving this temporary legitimacy would result in Israel withdrawing from the OPT by 1999. Of course Israel just kept all the privileges and never gave the Palestinians their freedom. In the peace negotiations to establish a palestinian state some of the offered land swaps have local specific problems (the linkage to Ma'ale Adumim is a ball ache for instance), but the West Bank is generally left as a contiguous whole even if that whole doesn't resemble the 1967 borders and the local issues aren't too much of a problem as there is a general recognition that after peace the two nations will still be inextricably linked, have to work together, share much of the same labour force, etc so freedom of movement is something that can be worked around.. The main issue of linkage is between Gaza and the West Bank, which is going to be an issue whatever happens as they are two separate geographical locations that don't connect even based on the unaltered Green line of 1949. Here's a rough sketch of Israel's proposed West Bank border changes made in the Taba peace talks in 2001, based on the map submitted to the Palestinians in January 22nd 2001 at 5 p.m. Note that this does't include the indefinite leasing of the Jordan valley for security purposes. Blue is territory they would annex. Red is territory they wanted to annex but were willing to negotiate on.  As you can see they want to annex quite a bit (which should be made up for with mutual land swaps that aren't shown), but the West Bank is still a whole rather than divided into cantons. The potential for that canonisation to happen happen comes through the assignment of security areas where if Israel got significant areas assigned to it and then abused the spirit of the negotiations, that kind of issue could happen. This is a real worry because it is similar to what Netanyahu admits he intentionally did to ruin the Oslo Peace Accords. It isn't however something that is automatically implicit in any peace agreement and even if it was part of any peace agreement it still only leaves the worrying potential for Israel to such aspects of any peace accords - not the certainty that they will. Main Paineframe posted:Can't have been all that close, since we're still talking about it as a what-if twenty years later. Safety concerns have proven more effective at emptying settlements than two decades of negotiations. It's a load of bollocks. They weren't close to withdrawing from the settlements because the peace process is a comprehensive deal of which the west bank settlements are one part and they were nowhere near a reaching an agreement. It's just more of the standard biased racist poo poo from him to make it seem like Israel offered Palestine some great peace deal with Palestine rejected because Palestine is obviously always awful with everything. In fact it is not reasonable to expect the Palestinians to accept a peace deal if the peace deal is "gently caress you, you can suck our cocks forever" and makes no mention of the fact that Israel rejected the palestinian proposals too. tsa posted:The size is irrelevant to the scale of the problem, it can be just as hard to remove 100,000 as a million in practical terms. No, in practical terms it would be harder to remove a million people than it is to remove a hundred thousand because a million is ten times as many people and removing ten times as many people will be significant harder. I mean I think that is fairly basic, y'know. Also you miss the point that the idea behind mutual land swaps is to minimise the need to remove people.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 22:29
|
|
|
team overhead smash posted:What do you think "Bill Clinton, Martin Indyk, Dennis Ross, and Aaron Miller directly contradict" me about seeing as I made a variety of claims and they certainly aren't going to contradict me about the fundamental basis of the talks which you don't seem to understand at all. All of them lament how close a deal was and blame the Palestinians to various degrees. You're a loving piece of poo poo by the way for calling me a racist when I am quoting Bill Clinton to the letter. I have never once spoke ill about Arabs or Muslims in this thread in any capacity and any attempt to claim otherwise is utter dogshit. quote:"I can't conclude an agreement without Jerusalem. I will not betray Jerusalem... the proposals you're submitting to me are ones Dahlan brought me from Barak. i won't betray either the Christians of the Palestinians.; I'm not to blame for the failure. I asked that this summit be better prepared for, and that we not repeat what happened with Assad in Geneva, but you didn't listen to me. I suggested that the international forces be deployed [in the Jordan Valley], and you came and asked me for 20 percent of border territory" - Shattered Dreams, The Failure of the Peace Process in the Middle East 1995 - 2002 p. 234 by Charles Enderlin, English edition. If you had any reading comprehension at all you'd see that I did not take issue with Jerusalem being a sticking point, just that you and Arafat are overrating the difficulty in resolving it. Arafat, of course, has an incentive to lie, given that he planned and started the second intifada in an attempt to extract additional concessions from Barak. Schizotek posted:Why is it even in D&D we talk like a two state solution is in any way a viable option anymore? The idea that Israel will dismantle the settlements and forcibly relocate million of their own people to back to their official borders is loving laughable. Ditto the idea that they'd become citizens of Palestine. Israel wouldn't allow it. The settlers would burn the West Bank down before being ruled by muslims. And the Palestinians certainly don't want the miserable fuckers in their country. So what you'd have is a dozen noncontiguous chunks of scrub brush and some of the Negev with all of their individual borders controlled by Israel. It's literally just a solidification of the status quo. There's no scenario where Israel is being asked to do this in practice. The international consensus would have Israel keep most of the settlements continuous to Israel, where the majority of settlers live. They can do this and still surrender the majority of area C. emanresu tnuocca posted:What is important is that this paradigm of "we need the palestinians to first sign a billion different contracts that say they agree to view Israel the way Israel would like be to viewed" is utter hogwash, the immediate de-escalation of violence is all that matters, the decolonization of the west bank is of utmost importance not due to its implication concerning words written in ink on some paper in the future but due to the fact that the daily tension between the Israeli occupying troopers and the Palestinian citizenry is the most immediate and significant cause for the constant escalation in violence. I haven't supported Netanyahu's preconditions strategy. I agree that there should be an immediate cessation of violence, which is why the BDS strategy of provoking and inciting violence is so suicidal.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2016 02:27
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:I haven't supported Netanyahu's preconditions strategy. I agree that there should be an immediate cessation of violence, which is why the BDS strategy of provoking and inciting violence is so suicidal. Telling people not to buy Sodastream == inciting violence
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2016 02:57
|
|
|
team overhead smash posted:No, in practical terms it would be harder to remove a million people than it is to remove a hundred thousand because a million is ten times as many people and removing ten times as many people will be significant harder. I mean I think that is fairly basic, y'know. The number of people actually in settlements isn't quite as important as the number of people who support them. Removal of either number is perfectly doable...the problem is that it would be political suicide for the politicians pushing such an effort. http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/214527 quote:The majority of Israeli Jews (52%) believe Israel should not give up more territory in Judea and Samaria, according to a new Peace Index survey, saying they would vote against such a move in a national referendum were it to be held.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2016 04:06
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:Arafat, of course, has an incentive to lie, given that he planned and started the second intifada in an attempt to extract additional concessions from Barak.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2016 04:46
|
|
|
Would it be accurate to state that the Apartheid situation - a number of theoretically independent "bantustan" states under the actual control of a different state - is what the Israeli side was thinking of as a viable compromise / improvement during the peace talks?
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2016 06:50
|
|
|
The sad part is that it would be a huge improvement over the current situation.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2016 06:52
|
|
|
Xander77 posted:Would it be accurate to state that the Apartheid situation - a number of theoretically independent "bantustan" states under the actual control of a different state - is what the Israeli side was thinking of as a viable compromise / improvement during the peace talks? That basically was the operating definition of a "state" during the camp david talks, though all the Bantustans would have been under some sort of common Palestinian governing body. But that entity, call it whatever you want, would not have most of the powers or privileges commonly associated with statehood (control of borders and airspace, the right to make treaties, the right to have a standing military, etc). People who blame Arafat for killing the Camp David talks aren't 100% wrong. He did reject their offers, because they were all poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2016 07:06
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:Yeah, the "right to exist on its own terms" because just them recognizing Israel's right to exist isn't enough, they have to recognize Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state for Jews only. Because the minority Arab population of Israel need to be told by their occupied brethren that they aren't legitimate citizens. Typically surrender involves a declaration by the political leadership of a nation or group ceding their sovereignty and territory to the occupying power, a call to loyal forces to cease resistance and lay down their arms, and acceptance of an imposed peace on the terms of the victor in order to avoid further loss of life following a defeat. The various Palestinian leadership organizations have chosen not to do this, for a variety of reasons. Kajeesus posted:Fair enough. What then, are the legitimate actions an individual Palestinian can take to someday be freed from the occupation, in your opinion? team overhead smash posted:You previously just said that Israel is accountable regardless of the fact that there is no international body it reports to (although you offered no actual reason why that was the case). Your explanation here relies on how Nazi Germany was accountable (in the end) to an international body which judged the crimes it had committed and punished perpetrators. Contrast this with the situation in the Gaza Strip, where any time a rocket sails over, we can't really say who fired it or who ordered it, or who the people who launched it are accountable to.  team overhead smash posted:That isn't what you were asked. team overhead smash posted:Poor analogy. You invoke the idea that Palestine is an existential threat to Israel, which is laughable considering the power differential.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2016 08:11
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Saying that you're OK with something called "Israel" existing but being deliberately cagey about exactly what land it is allowed to exist on and what sort of country it is allowed to be, and what right its citizens have to define it isn't exactly confidence-inspiring. Dead Reckoning posted:Typically surrender involves a declaration by the political leadership of a nation or group ceding their sovereignty and territory to the occupying power, a call to loyal forces to cease resistance and lay down their arms, and acceptance of an imposed peace on the terms of the victor in order to avoid further loss of life following a defeat. The various Palestinian leadership organizations have chosen not to do this, for a variety of reasons. Dead Reckoning posted:This is the heart of the matter, really. You think Palestinian violence and irredentist rhetoric is less reprehensible because Israel has deprived them of the means to pose an existential threat. I love how it's Palestinians who are irredentists, and not the people immigrating from Russia or England and claiming the land belongs to them because of an old book.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2016 08:39
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:All of them lament how close a deal was and blame the Palestinians to various degrees. Ah, so you were actually ignoring most of my points and your vague response only covered a fraction of what you were responding to. I listed three reasons why your statement was nonsense, your response only actually deals with a portion of the third response and ignores the first two entirely. And other people state the exact opposite. For instance to quote Robert Malley who was part of the US peace team at Camp David: "We welcomed Barak's proposals with unjustified enthusiasm. The United States was thinking in terms of the distance Israel had come, instead of the distance that remained to be covered in order to arrive at an acceptable compromise." What he's getting at there with that quote is that part of the Israeli negotiating strategy was to initially offer horrendous deals, even having moved backwards from what had been discussed in previous peace talks. For instance near to the start of the Camp David talks Barak wanted the American document to state that "Jerusalem will be an open city, undivided, placed under Israeli sovereignty". Therefore when this was 'compromised' on, it was seen as a step forward and lead to misrepresentations of how far each side had gone. Some people say the negotiations were close, some say they weren't. Luckily this is years on from all of the peace talks and a lot of expert analysis has been conducted about the various peace talks so rather than just saying "Hummperdedoo, Well someone shares my opinion, so rather than looking at the evidence I will instead not perform any kind of critical analysis and just implicitly believe whichever side supports my already existing preconceptions", we actually can and must look at the evidence to form a decent opinion. Man, looking at the evidence, what a revolutionary idea! quote:You're a loving piece of poo poo by the way for calling me a racist when I am quoting Bill Clinton to the letter. I have never once spoke ill about Arabs or Muslims in this thread in any capacity and any attempt to claim otherwise is utter dogshit. Ah, the famous and undefeatable argument that if you at some point quote Bill Clinton then you can't be racist. Well now you've brought up that, obviously I've gotta retract my opinion. Not to mention that you don't seem to know what a quote is seeing as you haven't actually quoted Bill Clinton at any point in this thread, let alone to the letter. Hint: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" is a quote. Just saying that Bill Clinton agrees with you is not a quote. Perhaps you've got confused because I've been using quotes to offer an evidence-based argument as to why you are wrong and you got that confused with your completely unevidenced claims? quote:If you had any reading comprehension at all you'd see that I did not take issue with Jerusalem being a sticking point, just that you and Arafat are overrating the difficulty in resolving it. Let's check the record. You stated "That theory is easily proven false though. Israel came really, really close to withdrawing from settlements in 1996, 2000, and 2007. Rejecting the peace process after those near misses is like voting for Donald Trump because you think it's the only way to implement glorious communism. When in actuality it means a mountain of skulls and Shadow Run." Now putting aside the fact that trying to view one side as being the rejectionist when it is a two-sided dialectic and Israel equally did not accept palestinian proposals is absurd, you put forward the position that: a) Israel was close to withdrawing from the settlements b) The peace process was at some kind of stage where it could be accepted and the Palestinians rejected it. Now as already explained by me and ignored by you (maybe keep the reading comprehension digs to yourself until you can actually respond to points that are raised): 1) The plan was, and has been for a couple of decades for, for almost all the settlements to stay and for Israel to annex Palestinian land in a land swap. Your claim that Israel was going to withdraw its settlements therefore ignores one of the most basic concepts of the peace process. 2) The idea that "Israel came really, really close to withdrawing from settlement" implicitly assumes that either negotiations as a whole were really really close to completion or that Israel was going to unilaterally pull out of its settlements regardless of any of the other major peace issues. Neither of those were the case. 3) The Jerusalem settlements were nowhere near to being agreed and you now concede it was a sticking point. Jerusalem was in fact the primary cause of the talks falling apart. Settlement issue not solved and causing the talks to fall apart =/= "Israel came really, really close to withdrawing settlements" We don't even need to get to the level of blame and where the talks fell apart, your claims are simply inconsistent with the most basic information about the peace talks, like you can't claim that Israel was close to withdrawing from it's settlements when their entire plan was for them to keep most of their settlements and even add new land to allow them to expand their settlements in the future. If you think Bill Clinton or any of his negotiating team ever backed you up on these basic errors and misunderstandings you have about how the peace process is conducted, feel free to provide quotes for that. Trying to change the goalposts to "Well this dude blamed the Palestinians for the talks failing" in no way backs up your original point. Dead Reckoning posted:Saying that you're OK with something called "Israel" existing but being deliberately cagey about exactly what land it is allowed to exist on and what sort of country it is allowed to be, and what right its citizens have to define it isn't exactly confidence-inspiring. I believe Israel itself still hasn't confirmed what it thinks its borders are. It's pretty hard for anyone to agree to Israel's borders when it refuses to tell people what those borders are. Besides countries specifically don't have a right to exist on their own terms. They're expected to exist according to international norms where they accord their citizens the rights and treat other nations in the manner laid out in key international documents. Within that framework they can do whatever the gently caress they want, but what you're asking for is nonsense. Harmful nonsense too seeing as some on the Israeli right conflate "Right to exist" with "Right to exist in the whole of Eretz israel" and use it as a bargaining position to push for the ethnic cleansing fo the Palestinians and the annexation of Palestine. It's kind of understandable that people might not want to support their own ethnic cleansing. Lastly a point of principle of getting another country to agree to meaningless made up unenforceable rights is hardly the most shocking and awful thing to get hung up on in this conflict. quote:I don't understand the question. Do you mean practically or morally? Because practically speaking, there is nothing the Palestinians can do, violently or non-, individually or collectively, to compel Israel to do what they want. Why do you think Israelis exist in some vacuum where they are completely unaffected by external events? Or are you using 'compel' in a manner which isn't relevant in this context? Palestinians don't need to defeat the IDF and march victoriously into Tel Aviv for them to be able to achieve legitimate goals. Their actions can simply put pressure on the Israelis which pushes them towards a negotiated political solution. This is the common strategy for resistance movements in this type of situation. The MK was never going to defeat apartheid South Africa in open battle, but their actions pushed events towards a negotiated solution. The IRA were never going to defeat the British, but their actions put pressure on them towards a negotiated solution. Using limited military responses to push towards an acceptable political outcome is a tried and tested tactic and fits in well with the Clausewitzian theory of the ultimately political nature of warfare. quote:You are confusing accountability of individual lawful combatants, which was what the original discussion was about, with accountability of nation-states, which isn't really a "thing," given that the entire concept sovereignty is orthogonal to accountability to a higher authority. An individual can be a lawful combatant who is accountable to competent authority, in the armed forces of a nation state which is accountable to no outside power, and this is in fact the normal state of affairs. For example, a Private in the IDF is accountable to a superior officer who he knows and is known to. This officer is responsible for commanding the Private, and for disciplining him if he breaks laws, orders and regulations, and is answerable for his actions. He in turn has superiors who he answers to and who have vested this authority in him, and are similarly responsible for the actions of the officer, all the way up to the national leadership, who are answerable to the voters, but not any outside powers, because, again, that is what sovereignty is. This is what distinguishes lawful combatants from, for example, HAMAS. Your description is faulty and has nothing to do with real life. Firstly regarding sovereignty and accountability to a higher power, Israel is a member of the UN and a signatory of the UN charter, which states under article 25 that "The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter" as just one of many possible examples. Your point of view seems to try and wilfully ignore the fact that a whole variety of intergovernmental organisations exist and that nations have accepted they have authority over them in various manners. Now we can talk about how effective these various organisations are and I'd certainly have criticisms about the UN, but to claim that sovereign nations are not also accountable to higher intergovernmental bodies causes your claims to stop referencing reality and retreat into a land of fantasy. Indeed part of the entire concept of customary international law is that unlike other international legalities and agreements which you must sign up to, all nations are held to customary international law whether they want to be or not. You don't even need to sign up or agree to it and yet you're still beholden to it! Now in regards to your specific example of the national process of accountability, putting aside the general issues any group has being self-regulating, we know that the process you describe is nothing like the reality of the Israeli system. A variety of different human rights organisations, international bodies and even Israeli soldiers speaking out about the culture of silence in the IDF have shown us this is the case. As a good overview of the topic, I'd suggest checking out ""The Occupation's Fig Leaf: Israel’s Military Law Enforcement System as a Whitewash Mechanism" by B'tselem (An Israeli human rights group who do a lot of good work and analysis). The detailed UN reports like the Goldstone report also have some details on the lack of accountability.They generally are of such wide scope (albeit focused on a particular time period) that they'll cover everything in one way or another. If you're after more directly emotive details, make check out Breaking the Silence. It's another human rights NGO, but this one focuses on taking the testimony (sometimes written, sometimes videoed) of the various human rights abuses and war crimes that Israeli soldiers have either seen others commit or been involved in committing without repercussion. Either way, decades of evidence shows that the idea of an accountable Israeli military is a fiction. A harmful fiction at that, as explained in this article for the Journal of Human Rights Practices that I quite like. Written by a long standing and experienced Israeli Human rights lawyer, it comes to the conclusion that the biased and unaccountable system set up in Israel only create a facade of legality that helps cover the problems - essentially explaining your own position where you've assumed that there is accountability simply because some kind of system exist, not stopping and looking to see what the system does or how it works. A more realistic process would be "Israeli captain guns down unarmed Palestinian 13 year old schoolgirl who was walking home and completely non violent. Then continues to shoot her unmoving body as it lies on the ground. Captain is brought up on charges. States he would do it again and gun down a three year old. All charges are dropped. Captain is promoted to Major". quote:Contrast this with the situation in the Gaza Strip, where any time a rocket sails over, we can't really say who fired it or who ordered it, or who the people who launched it are accountable to. The militant organisations do have organisations and hierarchies with people being subordinate to each other. There is no requirement under international law for the different resistance organisations to merge of forcibly differentiate who carried out each attack. I'd suggest checking out Article 4 subsection 2 of the third Geneva convention if you want a summary of on what basis a member of a resistance organisation would or would not be considered a lawful combatant. Although that section is about applicability for prisoners of war, it went on to form the basis of the general concept of a lawful or unlawful combatant (which is still kind of iffy in IML terms). quote:I've been pretty clear that I think any organized political violence incapable of achieving legitimate military ends is immoral. Resistance without the means to resist is pointless violence. You said earlier that you agreed, but felt that Palestinian resistance was exempt from this (and went on to cite the IRA as a good example) but never really explained why some pointless, terroristic violence is OK but some isn't. I never said the Palestinians were exempt. I said the rule itself wasn't applicable to the Palestinians as they can effect change. I'm not giving them an exception because that implies it should apply to them but I'm giving them a special dispensation. Also you still haven't answered the question. For a third time: "are you of the position that any resistance movement is invalid and legitimizes groups like ISIS if it opposes a state sanctioned force with violent means, but can't expect to effect meaningful change?" You have been asked whether you draw a particular conclusion. Rather than answering the question, you've just explained some of the logic that does into coming to such a conclusion without ever explaining what you believe. For example, you have stated that "any organized political violence incapable of achieving legitimate military ends is immoral" and in your posts you also generally seem dismissive of the idea of a resistance movement being able to achieve goals against a much more powerful state. Therefore if you believe that resistance movements are inherently "incapable of achieving legitimate military ends" then your answer to the question would be yes, any resistance movement is invalid. quote:This is the heart of the matter, really. You think Palestinian violence and irredentist rhetoric is less reprehensible because Israel has deprived them of the means to pose an existential threat. Can you quote any part of my post where I show I think this? I pointed out that your analogy of palestinian violence was fantastical and had no relationship with reality. That makes no judgement of the real violence that does occur.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2016 11:42
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Contrast this with the situation in the Gaza Strip, where any time a rocket sails over, we can't really say who fired it or who ordered it, or who the people who launched it are accountable to. Unfortunately for everyone involved, Israel has indicated repeatedly that sufficient levels of violence are in fact effective in changing the situation - sometimes positively, although it depends on the intensity of the violence and the political winds in Israel. More importantly, most of the violence over the past year or so has not been organized or political, but rather lone-wolf unorganized attacks primarily carried out by young people who are suicidal or lacking opportunity. Cat Mattress posted:I don't know in which parallel world you live in, nor by which technological gizmo you are accessing our Internet, but all these things have actually happened in Earth Prime. The Palestinians have absolutely not surrendered. Surrender means indicating and accepting defeat, and then making major concessions to the government you are surrendering to in exchange for a cessation of hostilities and a withdrawal of military forces. A negotiated peace of some sort (even if it's just "we give up, take whatever you want) is necessary for that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2016 14:30
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2016 17:00
|
|
|
team overhead smash posted:Ah, the famous and undefeatable argument that if you at some point quote Bill Clinton then you can't be racist. Well now you've brought up that, obviously I've gotta retract my opinion. If you weren't a lazy sack of poo poo arguing in bad faith, you'd type Clinton & Arafat into Google and pull up his well sourced quotes from his autobiography (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/ClintonMyLife.html), or this result is in the first page as well: http://www.timesofisrael.com/bill-clinton-palestinians-were-offered-temple-mount-in-2000 . All of the American negotiators are on the record with similar comments. quote:1) The plan was, and has been for a couple of decades for, for almost all the settlements to stay and for Israel to annex Palestinian land in a land swap. Your claim that Israel was going to withdraw its settlements therefore ignores one of the most basic concepts of the peace process. This is pedantic nonsense and seemingly a willful misunderstanding of the entire Oslo process. quote:2) The idea that "Israel came really, really close to withdrawing from settlement" implicitly assumes that either negotiations as a whole were really really close to completion or that Israel was going to unilaterally pull out of its settlements regardless of any of the other major peace issues. Neither of those were the case. The first was, as stated by the Americans. quote:3) The Jerusalem settlements were nowhere near to being agreed and you now concede it was a sticking point. Jerusalem was in fact the primary cause of the talks falling apart. Settlement issue not solved and causing the talks to fall apart =/= "Israel came really, really close to withdrawing settlements" This is a matter of emphasis and I disagree. It could have been solved, it was ultimately a scapegoat given how close a deal was. Arafat threw a temper tantrum and left because he knew he would be blamed for surrendering the right of return, and wanted to extract more concessions through the use of force. quote:We don't even need to get to the level of blame and where the talks fell apart, your claims are simply inconsistent with the most basic information about the peace talks, like you can't claim that Israel was close to withdrawing from it's settlements when their entire plan was for them to keep most of their settlements and even add new land to allow them to expand their settlements in the future. My entire argument has been that they were really close precisely because Fatah was willing to cede settlements close to the Green Line, so you're spun up in a confused spiderweb of nonsense here.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2016 04:01
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:If you weren't a lazy sack of poo poo arguing in bad faith, you'd type Clinton & Arafat into Google and pull up his well sourced quotes from his autobiography (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/ClintonMyLife.html), or this result is in the first page as well: http://www.timesofisrael.com/bill-clinton-palestinians-were-offered-temple-mount-in-2000 . All of the American negotiators are on the record with similar comments. The problem with your entire argument is the Diplomatic Cable leaks proved Israel was acting in bad faith and would have found a way to sink the negotiations regardless of offer, as proven by the offerings the Palestinians were making at that time and later on.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2016 07:06
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:If you weren't a lazy sack of poo poo arguing in bad faith, you'd type Clinton & Arafat into Google and pull up his well sourced quotes from his autobiography (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/ClintonMyLife.html), or this result is in the first page as well: http://www.timesofisrael.com/bill-clinton-palestinians-were-offered-temple-mount-in-2000 . All of the American negotiators are on the record with similar comments. Dude, you explicitly said "You're a loving piece of poo poo by the way for calling me a racist when I am quoting Bill Clinton to the letter" despite not quoting Clinton at all! You even said "to the letter"! How in the world do you have the gall to insult someone for pointing that out? I'm sure there are many quotes that can be found through Google, but we don't know which one(s) you're talking about unless you tell us.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2016 08:06
|
|
|
I believe that Israel is a real place.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2016 09:18
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:If you weren't a lazy sack of poo poo arguing in bad faith, you'd type Clinton & Arafat into Google and pull up his well sourced quotes from his autobiography (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/ClintonMyLife.html), or this result is in the first page as well: http://www.timesofisrael.com/bill-clinton-palestinians-were-offered-temple-mount-in-2000 . All of the American negotiators are on the record with similar comments. quote:This is a matter of emphasis and I disagree. It could have been solved, it was ultimately a scapegoat given how close a deal was. Arafat threw a temper tantrum and left because he knew he would be blamed for surrendering the right of return, and wanted to extract more concessions through the use of force.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2016 12:07
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:If you weren't a lazy sack of poo poo arguing in bad faith, you'd type Clinton & Arafat into Google and pull up his well sourced quotes from his autobiography (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/ClintonMyLife.html), or this result is in the first page as well: http://www.timesofisrael.com/bill-clinton-palestinians-were-offered-temple-mount-in-2000 . All of the American negotiators are on the record with similar comments. Are you a liar or a loving idiot? 1) In my post I directly quoted a member of the american negotiators going on the record and specifically disagreeing with your claims, so the claim that "All of the American negotiators are on the record with similar comments" is patently false. 2) The entire idea that if at some point you quote Bill Clinton about something you can't be racist is absurd. I was not actually agreeing with you when I said "Ah, the famous and undefeatable argument that if you at some point quote Bill Clinton then you can't be racist. Well now you've brought up that, obviously I've gotta retract my opinion", I was mocking you because the entire idea is ridiculous. Seriously, for a laugh could you at least explain your crazy thinking here 3) Clinton's claim is only correct in technical terms. The final deal that Israel was willing to offer at Camp David was that that Palestine gave up sovereignty of the site to Israel but maintained custodianship. As this involved giving up sovereignty of one of Islam's most holy sites and it put them in a situation where if it wanted to at a later point Israel would have a basis to gently caress them over by using the sovereignty they'd be assigned, there was no way that this was going to be accepted by the Palestinians and was basically a step back from the present day. 4) On the 26th of August, just after the talks had ended, Barak has a phone conversation with Chirac where he specifically stated in regard to the peace talks: 'The formula the Egyptians envision is unacceptable: "The Temple Mount to Islam and the Wailing Wall to the Jews." If the Palestinians keep on demanding exclusive sovereignty over this site there isn't going to be any resolution.' Seeing as Barak himself has expressly stated (on multiple occasions) he would not make any agreement which accepted the sovereignty of the Palestinians or any international Islamic organisation or Haram-Al Sharif, we know your interpretation of Clinton's assessment is wrong. 5) The USA is the single biggest supporter of Israel in the world. Bill Clinton was even more Pro-Israel than typical for US presidents. He is not a neutral source and always seemed to struggle with estimating what was acceptable for the Palestinians. The negotiating team (specifically Aaron Miller as an example I know about) came in with the impression that the Palestinians would be willing to give away 30% of the West Bank for peace, which is patently ridiculous based on the history of the peace talks. 6) The first link you give doesn't support your statement. It states the talks were closer than people think. The talks being nowhere near close rather than very very far apart is the talks being closer than people think, but that does not mean they are "really really close". 7) The second article doesn't refer to any of the three dates you originally listed (it talks about the setup for the 2001 Taba talks, not the 2000 Camp David talks), so you're moving the goalposts once again. There isn't merely a nitpicky point of you being off by a year (and BTW which 1996 talks were you talking about), but the fact that the nature of the peace talks was considerably different in Taba in 2001 than in Camp David in 2000 and your entire point falls apart even more than usual when you try and apply it there. Your basic point is fairly superficial and childish and can be summarised as "Some Americans said something, therefore we all have to assume that what they said is correct regardless of any facts or what anyone else (including other Americans) said". Stupid, but if you squint and make some unfounded assumptions and don't want to bother with actually analysing the situation critically or looking at evidence you can say to yourself "Hey, the Americans were there negotiating and saw what was happening, let's trust them (but only the ones who agree with me, I'll pretend the ones who disagree with me don't exist even after it's pointed out)". The problem is that Taba was unusual because it didn't use USA negotiators, instead taking place under the auspices of the EU. The USA and its negotiating team has no special insights into the talks. The entire underlying basis of your crazily twisted logic is still completely groundless. The USA had no deeper insight into the talks there than the EU did into the American run talks, but I doubt for a second you'd accept EU criticism of how Israel and the USA handled the Camp David talks and take any comments by EU officials there as gospel as you seemingly want everyone else to do with Bill Clinton. As part of the run up or preparation to the Taba peace talks, Clinton provided a proposal for the framework for talks that he wanted both sides to agree to. That's what he's talking about in the second article, not a peace proposal itself. Now this in itself puts lie to your claims. The Clinton proposal only put limits on the boundaries of discussion, for instance placing a minimum and a maximum on the amount of Palestinian territory Israel would annex or offering two vague and mutually exclusive formulations for the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount . You seem to think that it was a full fledged peace proposal which was really close and just needed the Palestinians to sign. It wasn't. Even if accepted by both sides they still would not have actually agreed to any basis for any aspect of the peace process - only taken some options off the table and narrowed the discussion. So as literally nothing about the potential peace would have been fixed in any way by agreeing to the Clinton proposals, it is of course completely loving stupid to claim that this proposal meant they were "really, really close" to allowing a withdrawal seeing as that wasn't the loving point of it and such an outcome would be literally impossible. The chief criticism Clinton makes can also be rejected. He makes the assertion that Barak accepted the proposal outlining minimums and maximums and various formulations without reservation while Arafat hedged, questioned and accepted with reservations. The problem is, the Israelis did exactly the same thing as the Palestinians, they just weren't as upfront about it - either in a purposeful attempt to misrepresent their sincerity to Clinton or as part of a genuine change of heart. Barak told Clinton he accepted the proposal when Clinton was dealing with both sides in the run-up. Clinton therefore came away thinking of the Israelis as the reasonable ones. The problem is that then when the Israelis actually got into the peace talks, we now know that Barak instructed his negotiators to backtrack on his previous acceptance. In reality the Israeli position was no better than the palestinian one, the Israelis were just less upfront about their reservations. At this stage it is pretty obvious you know poo poo all about the negotiations and are mostly relying on half-understood googling you don't even bother to read to defend your incorrect beliefs and claims, which is the opposite of how you should be doing it where you look at evidence and then form an opinion. I can think of no other explanation for how far your claims are from the reality of the peace process. quote:This is pedantic nonsense and seemingly a willful misunderstanding of the entire Oslo process. Israel either: a) keeping the settlements and annexing them to Israel or b) Removing the settlements and ending their occupation of them Are two very very different things - basically opposites - and the entire basis of negotiating which of these happens and where has been one of the major issues of the peace process. No-one involved in the process thinks this distinction is pedantic, it's a core and incredibly important basis of what the entire peace process is about. How can you fail to understand that? Also Oslo was a part of an initial process of building towards a final status agreement. they were interim agreements. The entire idea behind them was to get all the tricky stuff like settlements and Jerusalem and then not in any way, shape or form discuss or deal with them during these accords, instead trying to set the stage and build up both sides to the point where they would then be able to make agreements on those a few years later. It would be very strange if the Oslo Accords disagreed with my assessment of settlements seeing as the Oslos were not in any way designed to deal with such topics but rather specifically ignore them. BTW were the Oslo Accords the peace talks you meant with the year 1996? So you got the date wrong (1995 for Oslo 2) as well as not understanding the basic concept behind them. quote:The first was, as stated by the Americans. As stated by some parts of the American negotiating team stated and as refuted by some parts of the American negotiating team, with those stating it doing so in quotes that you're misinterpreting and which don't relate to what you think they do. Besides as already explained, someone having an opinion does not make that opinion valid. Rather than just automatically assuming that the quotes that favour your own side are correct and relying on the entirely superficial and childish argument of "Someone agreed with me so I'm right" there are books and studies available now to actually look at the details of the peace talks themselves and critically analyse them to assess the worth of different claims about them. Why do you not want to actually look at the evidence? quote:This is a matter of emphasis and I disagree. It could have been solved, it was ultimately a scapegoat given how close a deal was. Arafat threw a temper tantrum and left because he knew he would be blamed for surrendering the right of return, and wanted to extract more concessions through the use of force. No matter how much you emphasise "In no way close to being resolved and such an intractable roadblock they they caused the breakdown of the talks", it doesn't magically becomes "really really close" to being successful. it is a matter of reality being completely different from your fantasy. Concessions through the use of force has been Israel's MO since it's creation, so let's not start throwing stones in glass houses - especially when you're mistaking reality for your fanfiction. quote:My entire argument has been that they were really close precisely because Fatah was willing to cede settlements close to the Green Line, so you're spun up in a confused spiderweb of nonsense here. Which of the basic facts about the peace process that you don't seem to understand is confusing to you? Lastly, even a few moment's thought should let you see how dumb your argument is. If you want me to pay $500,000 for your house, me offering you $10 for your house does not mean they we are really, really close to me buying your house. There mere existence of two offers from each party does not mean that those offers are anywhere near a point where they are acceptable to both sides. I believe the nearest the Israeli and Palestinians have ever gotten in terms of land in any negotiation is the Israelis asking for three times as much land to be ceded as the Palestinians are willing to give. That is not really really close. Edit: Also your "I respond to every point" claim really didn't last long, did it? team overhead smash fucked around with this message at 11:15 on Jul 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2016 19:58
|
|
|
Ultramega posted:Jesus christ you are an idiot. You sound like a loving debate team dweeb who mentally rubs his hands together and thinks "mmwahaha he just committed a dutch wheelbarrow fallacy, i'll show him!" And no I'm not being 'strangely adverse' to saying what I'm thinking. Again, you're coming off like you're overanticipating some debate setup trick. I don't know how much more plainly I can state what I said. And that is more of a failing on my part because compared to the likes of a lot of other people in this thread I'm nowhere near as eloquent. What is it exactly you're waiting for me to say? To just casually drop a sentence like "well, i don't really like heebs but it's 2016..." or some bullshit? Why are you even still here? loving answer the tons of hard questions everyone keeps asking you, chickenshit. When you argued that it's a "given" than antisemitism is no longer a serious problem in the world today were merely echoing "nationalist chauvinist talking points", what nation did you mean? That seems a pretty vital piece of information for evaluating the strength of your argument. What relevance does a photo from Afghanistan in 1994 have to the subject at hand?
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 00:22
|
|
|
The Insect Court posted:When you argued that it's a "given" than antisemitism is no longer a serious problem in the world today were merely echoing "nationalist chauvinist talking points", what nation did you mean? That seems a pretty vital piece of information for evaluating the strength of your argument. Ultramega didn't argue that. They stated "It's sort of a given that the majority of the world's population are not antisemitic". The arguments you are arguing against exist only in your head. BTW your amazing comeback to this comment of his was was "This is a bizarre statement. The ADL, which polls pretty regularly on this kind of stuff, finds about 26% of the population holds antisemitic beliefs". Now unless the International Convention on Statistics has made some startling changes to how numbers works, 26% of the population holding antisemitic beliefs (which you claim is the case) is a minority and would mean that the majority of the world's population are not antisemitic exactly as Ultramega claims. So seeing as you are actually offering nothing but support for his opinion, it shows quite a bit of gall on your part to act as if you've made some amazingly cutting point and then to castigate Ultramega for statements they've never made. Or to put it another way: The Insect Court posted:I INTENTIONALLY MISREPRESENT OTHER PEOPLE'S ARGUMENTS AND STRAWMAN LIKE IT'S GOING OUT OF STYLE, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE ENGAGE ME AND MY DUMB loving OPINIONS
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 11:06
|
|
|
The Insect Court posted:When you argued that it's a "given" than antisemitism is no longer a serious problem in the world today were merely echoing "nationalist chauvinist talking points", what nation did you mean? That seems a pretty vital piece of information for evaluating the strength of your argument. you're right it's disingenuous of me to post a photo and ask other people with an internet connection to GIS the blanks. Here's a more relevant photo to this thread.  I'm talking about nationalist-chauvenistic comments from israelis. I'm an antisemite, you know. Ultramega fucked around with this message at 16:12 on Jul 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 16:09
|
|
|
team overhead smash posted:Ultramega didn't argue that. They stated "It's sort of a given that the majority of the world's population are not antisemitic". The arguments you are arguing against exist only in your head. Let's review: Ultramega posted:I'm not surprised you of all people would defend pointless social media grandstanding. It was brave to stand up to antisemites in 1938, in 2016? It's sort of a given that the majority of the world's population are not antisemitic. Unless of course you start dredging up poo poo like ethnic biotruths like how arabs are irrationally hateful toward jews or some other nationalist chauvinist talking points. The "social media grandstanding" he's so aghast at? It's a way of expressing solidarity against antisemitism, which he felt compelled to speak up against despite the tweet he was commenting about didn't have it. Ultramega posted:She needs to put the triple parentheses around her twitter handle to show that she's down with the zionist conspiracy and all that stupid bullshit. Was that a post exclusively about making an isolated point about the collection and interpretation of cross-sectional data? If it was merely stating a statistical fact, I happily agree that the quarter of earth's population that holds antisemitic views(and a much higher proportion in certain regions, like 76% in the Middle East) is numerically smaller than a full half of the human species. But it is my contention that it was not. In fact, I believe that it's a post that attempts to downplay the threat posed by antisemitism, and the claim that less than half the world is antisemitic was adduced as an argument in favor of that position. Furthermore, when considered with the insistence that it's not "brave" to stand up to antisemitism in 2016 and the unprompted need to attack a show of solidarity against antisemitism, I would contend that this is the most reasonable interpretation. Allow me to demonstrate by a sort of analogy: Ultramega posted:Jesus christ you are an idiot. You sound like a loving debate team dweeb who mentally rubs his hands together and thinks "mmwahaha he just committed a dutch wheelbarrow fallacy, i'll show him!" And no I'm not being 'strangely adverse' to saying what I'm thinking. Again, you're coming off like you're overanticipating some debate setup trick. I don't know how much more plainly I can state what I said. And that is more of a failing on my part because compared to the likes of a lot of other people in this thread I'm nowhere near as eloquent. What is it exactly you're waiting for me to say? To just casually drop a sentence like "well, i don't really like heebs but it's 2016..." or some bullshit? Why are you even still here? loving answer the tons of hard questions everyone keeps asking you, chickenshit. Would you interpret the following statement as one expressing an argument that antiziganism is a less serious problem than has been asserted? As a disclaimer let me note that I am not expressing such an ugly belief myself, just offering it as a thought experiment. quote:I'm not surprised you of all people would defend pointless social media grandstanding. It was brave to stand up to antiziganists in 1938, in 2016? It's sort of a given that the majority of the world's population are not antiziganist. Unless of course you start dredging up poo poo like ethnic biotruths like how non-Romani are irrationally hateful toward Romani or some other chauvinist talking points. Now perhaps I have it all wrong and Ultramega does realize that antisemitism poses a serious and growing danger in the world today, one that should not be discounted or dismissed. If that's the case, I would be happy to hear him say so. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 03:34
|
|
|
You missed a couple paragraphs in the stuff you were quoting. Here, I quoted it again so you can take the time to properly respond to them. When you quote something and reply to it, people assume you read everything in the quote box.  Ultramega posted:Why are you even still here? loving answer the tons of hard questions everyone keeps asking you, chickenshit. Ultramega posted:One more thing, my family is Roma/Sinti on my father's side. Maybe you remember me mentioning it in the thread earlier? What is your stance on elie wiesel's active erasure of the Porajmos and the targetted extermination of people other than jews in the holocaust? Do you even care? Maybe make a post where I too can play the hurt semantics game and I pick apart your post to create phantom talking points I too can latch onto in order to make you sound like you hate gypsies or something.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 11:39
|
|
|
Can we perhaps put a moratorium on exchanging ad hominems with Kim Jong and TIC? Maybe we can do a "don't get dragged into completely pointless arguments sabbath" every other week or something? You guys can't honestly tell me you expect either of them to ever concede they were wrong about anything, right? The best possible outcome is for them to change the subject and seriously what's the loving point? it stifles any actual informative discussion.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 11:57
|
|
|
Not everyone who reads this thread is intimately familiar with the I/P situation or the posting histories of thread regulars. It's really unhealthy for a thread to contain regular posts that go ignored, in spite of seeming superficially reasonable and providing a dissenting point of view. The best possible outcome is that they end up outing themselves as pro-genocide and get banned from the thread, or just get banned for being disingenuous shitheads. Like what happened to hakimashou and MIGF.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 12:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 18:32 |
|
|
Kajeesus posted:or just get banned for being disingenuous shitheads How has this not happened, yet?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 14:03
|
|
