|
Kim Jong Il posted:A two state solution isn't dead any more than Kerry's belief about a peace deal magically solving the entire Middle East's woes was true. It becomes a lot harder, but all you need is an Ariel Sharon to withdraw. I think politically the status quo is sustainable for a very long time, and Israel ultimately won't create literal bantustans. They'll withdraw to something like the current parameters that were being negotiated between Olmert and Abbas, unilaterally annex those areas with US support, and it'll become de facto official like Russia's various annexations. There's absolutely no chance of a one state solution ever happening. the west bank and gaza are already bantustans though? i'm not sure you quite understand how this analogy works and two states is never going to happen, and was never going to happen
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 03:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 19:12 |
|
|
icantfindaname posted:and two states is never going to happen, and was never going to happen Rabin not getting assassinated might have helped. It's still kind of amazing to me how quickly Netanyahu was forgiven for his role in whipping up the extremists before that; for all his many faults, the guy's a loving survivor. I still wouldn't say the two state solution is dead though; it's getting a lot harder to enact, but even with the shift to the right Israel's seen over the last decade I don't think their populace is ready to endure being a total pariah state facing massive sanctions. I don't think Palestinian extermination is in the cards, so there's still time for the Israeli right to realize their dream of ensuring Greater Israel by spiking Jewish birth rates is a very risky strategy (especially since it assumes liberal/secular Jews won't emigrate) that would leave Israel with many more enemies than they already have both inside and outside their borders even if it succeeded. Separation would be painful at this point, and that pain will only increase as the settlements grow, but the pain they'll endure as a country still seems like it would be far worse under a one state solution.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 05:09
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:I don't think Palestinian extermination is in the cards What do you call the siege of Gaza?
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 12:17
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:What do you call the siege of Gaza? They still seem to be there. I think it helps Israel that their critics so frequently resort to hyperbole which can be easily dismissed by everyone who doesn't already share their viewpoint.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 14:19
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:They still seem to be there. I think it helps Israel that their critics so frequently resort to hyperbole which can be easily dismissed by everyone who doesn't already share their viewpoint. Give it ~3 years.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 14:25
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:They still seem to be there. I think it helps Israel that their critics so frequently resort to hyperbole which can be easily dismissed by everyone who doesn't already share their viewpoint. ... there are still native americans. less than 10% of gazans have access to drinkable water, one in three is starving. medical care is nearly non-existent, PTSD is rampant. i think it helps israel much more that their fragile little feelings are constantly being coddled.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 14:36
|
|
|
botany posted:... there are still native americans. less than 10% of gazans have access to drinkable water, one in three is starving. medical care is nearly non-existent, PTSD is rampant. i think it helps israel much more that their fragile little feelings are constantly being coddled. It's brutal immiseration for sure, and should be condemned, but it doesn't compare to a situation like Yemen, and the periodic wars don't compare to a situation like Syria. What differentiates Israel from the other situations is the colonization project in the West Bank.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 14:40
|
|
|
So you will admit the situation is dire but they're still there so no problem? When the situation quickly clicks over to 'everyone's dead' will you go 'oops whelp lol'?
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 14:45
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:They still seem to be there. I think it helps Israel that their critics so frequently resort to hyperbole which can be easily dismissed by everyone who doesn't already share their viewpoint. They blow up buildings from the safety of drones when some guys huck a pipe bomb over a wall. They dole out collective punishment on innocent people whenever any random insurgent fires off a practically ancient mortar regardless of damage. They constantly gun down impoverished young people (Girls in particular) for coming towards the big bad soldiers or checkpoints with any ghetto knife they can brandish. They had that one commander where I can just link their own disgusting words "This is commander. Anything that's mobile, that moves in the zone, even if it's a three-year-old, needs to be killed. Over." They had the soldier who executed the guy restrained on the ground in cold blood and an insane amount of people consider them a hero for killing a defenseless man. They ran over an american activist with a bulldozer who was opposing them tearing down even more homes as collective punishment, "In 2005 Corrie's parents filed a civil lawsuit against the state of Israel." which has been rejected multiple times saying somehow they're not at fault for killing their daughter. None of this is hyperbole, it's all just actions from a government that seems hellbent on grinding down a population.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 14:46
|
|
|
Regarde Aduck posted:So you will admit the situation is dire but they're still there so no problem? When the situation quickly clicks over to 'everyone's dead' will you go 'oops whelp lol'? I specifically said there is a problem, there just isn't a policy of extermination. People predicting the imminent Israeli extermination campaign against Palestinians have about as good a track record as Bibi when he kept saying Iran was a year or two away from a nuclear bomb. Yardbomb posted:They blow up buildings from the safety of drones when some guys huck a pipe bomb over a wall. They dole out collective punishment on innocent people whenever any random insurgent fires off a practically ancient mortar regardless of damage. They constantly gun down impoverished young people (Girls in particular) for coming towards the big bad soldiers or checkpoints with any ghetto knife they can brandish. They had that one commander where I can just link their own disgusting words "This is commander. Anything that's mobile, that moves in the zone, even if it's a three-year-old, needs to be killed. Over." They had the soldier who executed the guy restrained on the ground in cold blood and an insane amount of people consider them a hero for killing a defenseless man. They ran over an american activist with a bulldozer who was opposing them tearing down even more homes as collective punishment, "In 2005 Corrie's parents filed a civil lawsuit against the state of Israel." which has been rejected multiple times saying somehow they're not at fault for killing their daughter. None of this is hyperbole, it's all just actions from a government that seems hellbent on grinding down a population. None of that is unique. Assad's butchered his own people, Erdogan bombards Kurdish cities inside and outside his territory, and Saudi Arabia is actively contributing to the starvation of Yemen with US assistance. The settlement project is different from business as usual though, which is why Obama and the EU have focused on that. Dr Kool-AIDS fucked around with this message at 14:52 on Dec 31, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 14:48
|
|
|
botany posted:... there are still native americans. The difference being that there has been steady population growth in the Palestinian territories throughout the duration of their "genocide." There is a massive campaign of oppression against Muslims and Palestinians in Israel and the Palestinian territories that is rooted in ethnic supremacy, to the extent it can legitimately be called apartheid. There are often military operations that are indiscriminate and are not proportional to their stated objectives that have led to much death and destruction, that seem to be attempts at collective punishment. There are external barriers imposed on Palestinians that massively undermine their sovereignty and are imposed on them unjustly. And it's clear Israel uses whatever method it can to bolster the population of Jews in the region while pushing Palestinians further and further into the corner in an attempt at ghettoization. But there is not genocide, and arguing that there is genocide when there is not undermines the arguments against all the other things I mentioned that very clearly are happening. Volkerball fucked around with this message at 15:17 on Dec 31, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 15:12
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:They still seem to be there. Lots of people survived Auschwitz, too. http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=51770
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 15:21
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:Rabin not getting assassinated might have helped. It's still kind of amazing to me how quickly Netanyahu was forgiven for his role in whipping up the extremists before that; for all his many faults, the guy's a loving survivor. The right-wing solution isn't extermination, it's deportation. They believe that Palestinians should emigrate, willingly or not, to other Arab countries - particularly to Jordan, which already has a large number of Palestinian refugees. For some years now, they've insisted that Jordan is the real Palestinian homeland and that all Palestinian refugees should be sent there. Needless to say, basically no one besides the Israeli right has shown even the slightest interest in the "alternative homeland" proposal, but that's the end-game the settlers imagine. They feel that once the two-state solution is rendered impossible, incentivizing Palestinian emigration to Arab countries (and then pressuring, punishing, and eventually forcibly expelling the ones who don't take that offer) is the inevitable eventual outcome for the Palestinians. There's also been a growing movement in the Israeli right saying that they don't need international help - that being a pariah state is no big deal and that they shouldn't let the international community dictate what they do. They often rationalize this by claiming that the real reason for opposition to settlements is anti-Semitism and that the international community's true long-term goal is to destroy Israel, and therefore if Israel complies with international demands the international community will just come up with more demands, and chip away at Israel like that until nothing's left. Just look at how many pro-Israel sources have declared the UN as a whole to be an anti-Semitic institution. For example, the Simon Weisenthal Center ranked the US refusal to veto the UN measure as the most anti-Semitic incident in all of 2016, topping their list of top 10 most anti-Semitic things of 2016 (pro-BDS resolutions got 4th place, a rally by literal neo-Nazi Richard Spencer ranked 5th, and Polish Holocaust denial comes in at 10th place).
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 18:16
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:There's also been a growing movement in the Israeli right saying that they don't need international help - that being a pariah state is no big deal and that they shouldn't let the international community dictate what they do. They often rationalize this by claiming that the real reason for opposition to settlements is anti-Semitism and that the international community's true long-term goal is to destroy Israel, and therefore if Israel complies with international demands the international community will just come up with more demands, and chip away at Israel like that until nothing's left. Just look at how many pro-Israel sources have declared the UN as a whole to be an anti-Semitic institution. For example, the Simon Weisenthal Center ranked the US refusal to veto the UN measure as the most anti-Semitic incident in all of 2016, topping their list of top 10 most anti-Semitic things of 2016 (pro-BDS resolutions got 4th place, a rally by literal neo-Nazi Richard Spencer ranked 5th, and Polish Holocaust denial comes in at 10th place). I think it's a lot easier to bluster about not being afraid of the consequences than it is to actually live with them. Israel's far too small to be self sufficient, and relying on the US and nuclear weapons alone to protect them from a hostile world seems like a bad bet. There's no guarantee that a two state solution offers a glorious future for Israel either, but they have a much better chance with help from the West than pursuing a North Korea strategy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 18:35
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:The right-wing solution isn't extermination, it's deportation. They believe that Palestinians should emigrate, willingly or not, to other Arab countries - particularly to Jordan, which already has a large number of Palestinian refugees. For some years now, they've insisted that Jordan is the real Palestinian homeland and that all Palestinian refugees should be sent there. Needless to say, basically no one besides the Israeli right has shown even the slightest interest in the "alternative homeland" proposal, but that's the end-game the settlers imagine. They feel that once the two-state solution is rendered impossible, incentivizing Palestinian emigration to Arab countries (and then pressuring, punishing, and eventually forcibly expelling the ones who don't take that offer) is the inevitable eventual outcome for the Palestinians. But what is going to happen if the Palestinians won't, or more likely, can't leave? I feel there is some historical precedent for this, but it's not coming to me right now. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 19:02
|
|
|
Dommolus Magnus posted:But what is going to happen if the Palestinians won't, or more likely, can't leave? One of the questions in the survey, based on face-to-face interviews of 5,601 individuals, asked to what degree they agreed with the following statement: “Arabs should be expelled or transferred from Israel.” The result, among the Jewish respondents: Twenty-one percent “strongly agree” and 27 percent “mostly agree.” If those two groups are combined, about half of Israeli Jews questioned – 48 percent – support transfer of Arab citizens. On the other hand, a similar proportion – 46 percent – say they oppose such a move, with 29 percent saying that they “don’t really agree” and 17 percent responding that they “don’t agree at all” to the expulsion of Arabs.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 19:16
|
|
|
Dommolus Magnus posted:Those sure are nice numbers! What is your point? Did you read the words around the numbers? Because they answer the question I was responding to!
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 19:57
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Did you read the words around the numbers? Because they answer the question I was responding to! No, they don't! The question was: IF a deportation plan is enacted and it fails because, say, no one is willing to take those deportees in, what is going to happen? How broad the public acceptance of such a deportation is, is completely immaterial to that question, because it implicitely assumes that it is going to be enacted. So, I admit I am shocked to see how popular it actually would be, though! Essentially, I was trying to say that if indeed the Israeli right is not planning for genocide but deportation, this does not really constitute a lesser threat to the palestinian people as the latter can turn into the former easily.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 20:31
|
|
|
Ethnic cleansing is genocide though
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 20:40
|
|
|
rscott posted:Ethnic cleansing is genocide though It's really not, they're just frequently conflated. Ethnic cleansing is still really bad on its own though!
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 20:43
|
|
|
Dommolus Magnus posted:No, they don't! The question was: IF a deportation plan is enacted and it fails because, say, no one is willing to take those deportees in, what is going to happen? A deportation plan isn't going to be enacted unless there's a country willing to receive the deportees. In the meantime, the status quo works just fine for Israel, EU threats of sanctions against settlement-producing goods haven't been enough to change the direction of Israeli policy, and it's not clear how much the international community will really be willing to push for a one-state solution. rscott posted:Ethnic cleansing is genocide though Genocide is a type of ethnic cleansing. They're distinct words with different meanings.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 21:18
|
|
|
Whether or not something conforms to an esoteric or colloquial definition of "genocide" is a really stupid discussion, because if whatever a government is doing is in fact abnormally or extraordinarily bad, then you can just describe it without having to try to shoehorn the word "genocide" in there as a rhetorical cudgel.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 02:24
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Whether or not something conforms to an esoteric or colloquial definition of "genocide" is a really stupid discussion, because if whatever a government is doing is in fact abnormally or extraordinarily bad, then you can just describe it without having to try to shoehorn the word "genocide" in there as a rhetorical cudgel. It seems to be really important to people for some reason to be able to say that Israel is equivalent to Nazi Germany instead of bad in a way that a lot of other states are or have been bad.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 02:45
|
|
|
It's gross to me that right wingers and defenders of Israel have managed to continue to push the 'criticism of Israel=anti-Semitism' thing to the point where they would equate condemning settlements to the Holocaust as some have.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 04:10
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:It seems to be really important to people for some reason to be able to say that Israel is equivalent to Nazi Germany instead of bad in a way that a lot of other states are or have been bad. Because they're not ever helping the comparisons doing a lot of things out of their playbook, which is very  FlamingLiberal posted:It's gross to me that right wingers and defenders of Israel have managed to continue to push the 'criticism of Israel=anti-Semitism' thing to the point where they would equate condemning settlements to the Holocaust as some have. The word for it really is just gross, because all it's doing is showing that at least with some of those people, they don't really care about 'never forget' past the opportunity to always have a great big unbeatable bargaining chip. Yardbomb fucked around with this message at 04:17 on Jan 1, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 04:12
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:It's gross to me that right wingers and defenders of Israel have managed to continue to push the 'criticism of Israel=anti-Semitism' thing to the point where they would equate condemning settlements to the Holocaust as some have. That's gross to me too! Fortunately I'm not a right winger or a defender of Israel, just someone who thinks Israel has earned enough criticism that keeping it accurate is kind of important so as not to distract from the real situation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 04:16
|
|
|
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide - Article II posted:In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such : You guys can argue the semantics of whether Israel is committing genocide or just a bit of harmless ethnic cleansing, but the UN seems pretty clear on it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 04:30
|
|
|
bango skank posted:You guys can argue the semantics of whether Israel is committing genocide or just a bit of harmless ethnic cleansing, but the UN seems pretty clear on it. Which of those do you think is happening with intent to destroy the Palestinians in whole or in part?
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 04:34
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:You must have missed the committed with intent to destroy part before the list. Also they aren't forcibly deporting Palestinians, that was a hypothetical that people have been predicting for decades. What do you call the creation of an environment without access to clean water or healthcare, populated with people who aren't allowed to leave the area, and is subject to annual military operations that indiscriminately kill noncombatants and level entire neighborhoods other than "a commitment to destroy?"
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 04:40
|
|
|
bango skank posted:What do you call the creation of an environment without access to clean water or healthcare, populated with people who aren't allowed to leave the area, and is subject to annual military operations that indiscriminately kill noncombatants and level entire neighborhoods other than "a commitment to destroy?" They're doing a pretty lovely job of it since the population of Gaza City is still rising.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 04:42
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:They're doing a pretty lovely job of it since the population of Gaza City is still rising. The question is whether the Israeli government committed one of the acts listed with the prerequisite intent. Whether the act was fully successful or not is irrelevant, particularly in light of the "in whole or in part" part. If you define "in part" as "the Palestinians in the settlement areas," which is an entirely reasonable interpretation of the Article, the conclusion is pretty obvious.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 04:48
|
|
|
disjoe posted:The question is whether the Israeli government committed one of the acts listed with the prerequisite intent. Whether the act was fully successful or not is irrelevant, particularly in light of the "in whole or in part" part. My point is that the outcome suggests that isn't the intent. Immiseration is the goal, not extermination. People think throwing genocide around casually shows how serious they are about moral issues, but it just makes people tune out when it's applied too broadly. Colonization is a much better description of Israeli policy in the West Bank than either ethnic cleansing or genocide, and it's a word with a very negative history, but for some reason that's not sufficient. Dr Kool-AIDS fucked around with this message at 04:54 on Jan 1, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 04:50
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:My point is that the outcome suggests that isn't the intent. Immiseration is the goal, not extermination. As for the first part, that very well may be. You would need facts to show the Israelis intended for the Palestinians to, at the very least, flee the area. I think you could prove that. As for the second, I'm just reading the Article, giving a basic interpretation of it, and applying it to the I/P situation. Call it what you want.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 05:00
|
|
|
disjoe posted:As for the first part, that very well may be. You would need facts to show the Israelis intended for the Palestinians to, at the very least, flee the area. I think you could prove that. It's kind of hard to flee a city under siege. I take "in part" to mean that if you tried to kill every Arab in the US you couldn't say "but there are still Arabs elsewhere in the world!" You're defining it down in a way that seems absurd. If they had a removal policy for Palestinians in the West Bank, Gaza or Israel proper I'd see where you're coming from, but moving people away from settlements is colonization, not genocide.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 05:03
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:It's kind of hard to flee a city under siege. It is hard to flee a city under siege. By "at the very least" I mean that forced relocation can be considered genocide as a legal matter, and most people would consider that the least morally objectionable way to commit genocide. It may seem absurd but that's how the statute is commonly interpreted. In theory a single murder could be a genocide; at that point it becomes a matter of willingness to enforce.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 05:08
|
|
|
disjoe posted:It is hard to flee a city under siege. By "at the very least" I mean that forced relocation can be considered genocide as a legal matter, and most people would consider that the least morally objectionable way to commit genocide. Sounds like a really bad interpretation to me, though the ambiguity in the statute doesn't help. Happy new year.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 05:11
|
|
|
bango skank posted:What do you call the creation of an environment without access to clean water or healthcare, populated with people who aren't allowed to leave the area, and is subject to annual military operations that indiscriminately kill noncombatants and level entire neighborhoods other than "a commitment to destroy?" "War", maybe? Or perhaps "brutal, inhumane collective punishment intended to create conditions for regime change"? It's definitely debatable whether it's intended to destroy the Palestinian people, since those conditions are applied only to Gaza and not to the West Bank, which has almost as many Palestinians. And that's the whole problem - it's debatable. You could just say "ethnic cleansing", which Israeli policy - executed with the clear intention of removing Palestinians from a potential Greater Israel - unquestionably covers, and no one would have disagreed except the few pro-Israel posters. When someone insists that the Israeli goal is utter extermination, though, there's a lot less clear evidence to support that, so instead of moving on with whatever the original point was you have to defend your accusations, and the next thing we know the original point was long forgotten and we're off on a tedious tangent about semantic analysis of intentionally-vague pieces of international law, like how far "in whole or in part" can be stretched.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 07:19
|
|
|
Israel is pretty clear on one thing: "Palestine", and the Palestinian national identity, are not allowed to exist. You may want to argue that it's not genocide because they're okay with Palestinians just becoming Jordanians or whatever, but they definitely want to eradicate Palestine. Many Israeli, including Israeli leaders such as Golda Meir, have even gone so far as to claim Palestinians never existed anyway. To that end, they definitely pursue points a, b, and c of the UN definition of genocide.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 11:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 19:12 |
|
|
Not all news from Israel is bad. Look at a Jew and a Muslim from opposing parties coming together to further curtail women's abortion rights. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 13:43
|
|
