|
botany posted:Advocating for the Right of Return is not the same thing as "relitigating 1948" I think it is, and this was in the context of the post I was responding too. Anti-Zionists aren't narrowly focusing on eliminating settlements. If they were, they'd have significantly more support. That's the position of John Kerry and other advocates of a two state solution. Any deviance, whether you're anti-Zionist and want a binational state, or you're Bennett and want to annex the settlements, is relitigating 1948. SyHopeful posted:Yes, this will be the time your attempts to use doublespeak and other basic propaganda techniques will win you rhetorical points. Do you actually have an argument?
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 18:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 01:47 |
|
|
Do you?
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 17:35
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:I think it is, and this was in the context of the post I was responding too. Anti-Zionists aren't narrowly focusing on eliminating settlements. If they were, they'd have significantly more support. That's the position of John Kerry and other advocates of a two state solution. Any deviance, whether you're anti-Zionist and want a binational state, or you're Bennett and want to annex the settlements, is relitigating 1948. Yes: you're a lying sack of poo poo who needs to twist meanings and muddle commonly understood definitions to even remotely come close to having a valid point that ends up being paper-thin anyway. This is nothing new, yet you keep at it anyway. Your dedication to these lovely transparent tactics throughout the years is about the only thing you do worthy of admiration.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 18:50
|
|
|
Please stop posting about posters.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 19:10
|
|
|
Please remove the ones posting in bad faith.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 21:02
|
|
|
How about instead of me doing that, KJI explains why Right of Return is relitigating 1948. RoR seems to base itself on resolutions as recent as UNSC Resolution 247 (1967) and UNGA Resolution 169 (1980). (according to this discussion under the entry for UNGA Resolution 194 (1948).)
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 21:22
|
|
|
Please remind me what relitigating 1948 means. Also Relitigating isn't a word according to spell check so that's kind of fishy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 01:51
|
|
|
Relitigating is a word, but I'm not sure how you could relitigate 1948 given that it wasn't really decided according to law in the first place. It was done via a war with the support of major powers from outside the region.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 03:47
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:How about instead of me doing that, KJI explains why Right of Return is relitigating 1948. RoR seems to base itself on resolutions as recent as UNSC Resolution 247 (1967) and UNGA Resolution 169 (1980). (according to this discussion under the entry for UNGA Resolution 194 (1948).) It's not at all central to the argument I was making (which is that a significant portion of anti-Zionists are in fact much more focused on one state and the right of return than settlements), but sure. The results of 1948 were a fully distinct separation of two entities. Any attempt then to institute one state is contrary to the status quo since then that has served as the basis for the international consensus for a two state solution. Would you argue that Palestinians are being compelled to negotiate under duress? Because arguing that Israel, as currently constituted, has to cease to exist surely is a similar threat regardless of whether or not you agree with the outcome. If you read Mondoweiss or anything similar, this is precisely what they argue - their position is Zionism and Israel must cease to exist.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 03:54
|
|
|
I think Palestinian right of return within Israel is dumb as gently caress personally because you know it would drive the Israeli right insane and would result in all kinds of trouble even if the government let it happen. However, it's a perfectly good idea from an abstract humanitarian ideal. It's not an end to Israel for a bunch of people to be able to return to the land they used to live in. Even if you're all "hey that land was annexed and it's Israeli now!" then okay, but that means the Israeli state controls it and the people living there are under the authority of said state, not that the people who used to live there can't live there anymore.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 04:46
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:It's not at all central to the argument I was making (which is that a significant portion of anti-Zionists are in fact much more focused on one state and the right of return than settlements), but sure. The results of 1948 were a fully distinct separation of two entities. Any attempt then to institute one state is contrary to the status quo since then that has served as the basis for the international consensus for a two state solution. Would you argue that Palestinians are being compelled to negotiate under duress? Because arguing that Israel, as currently constituted, has to cease to exist surely is a similar threat regardless of whether or not you agree with the outcome. If you read Mondoweiss or anything similar, this is precisely what they argue - their position is Zionism and Israel must cease to exist. I'm having a hard time understanding who you're talking about here. Palestinians? BDS specificaly? Mondoweiss (which is a commentary website rather than a political movement)? Where, for example, in the BDS list of demands, is there the dissolution of Israel?
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 09:06
|
|
|
You could be making a philosophical argument like if you cut off your arm you're not really in the same form as you were a few minutes ago and if that's the case then sure, Israel in the form of an apartheid state can gently caress off. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 09:47
|
|
|
Even if you think that it is relitigating 1948, why is that a bad thing? The current situation has made the resolution for almost 70 years ago unrealistic, let's take a different approach. Unless you want to argue that rules and laws shouldn't be changed once they're made?
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 10:20
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:It's not at all central to the argument I was making (which is that a significant portion of anti-Zionists are in fact much more focused on one state and the right of return than settlements), but sure. The results of 1948 were a fully distinct separation of two entities. Any attempt then to institute one state is contrary to the status quo since then that has served as the basis for the international consensus for a two state solution. Would you argue that Palestinians are being compelled to negotiate under duress? Because arguing that Israel, as currently constituted, has to cease to exist surely is a similar threat regardless of whether or not you agree with the outcome. If you read Mondoweiss or anything similar, this is precisely what they argue - their position is Zionism and Israel must cease to exist. The Right of Return is a human right that has nothing to do with 1948. Israel doesn't change if some Palestinians move back, any more than it changes if some people die and others are born. The Right of Return doesn't impact the statehood of Israel at all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 10:29
|
|
|
Higsian posted:I think Palestinian right of return within Israel is dumb as gently caress personally because you know it would drive the Israeli right insane and would result in all kinds of trouble even if the government let it happen. However, it's a perfectly good idea from an abstract humanitarian ideal. Yes, when faced with the choice between mollycoddling racist fascists and doing the morally right thing, sane and responsible governments should always go with the option that appeases the neonazis.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 12:39
|
|
|
The Israeli government is neither sane nor responsible currently. If Palestinians want a right of return then they can argue for it all they want. I never said it shouldn't happen, just that it is dumb as gently caress. I'd rather stay wherever the hell I'd landed than go to Israel as a returning Palestinian refugee, and I'll continue to think those that do want to return are crazy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 16:38
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:I'm having a hard time understanding who you're talking about here. Palestinians? BDS specificaly? Mondoweiss (which is a commentary website rather than a political movement)? Where, for example, in the BDS list of demands, is there the dissolution of Israel? It goes back to the original point I was responding to, about the anti-Zionist movement being motivated by a one state solution and the right of return. Miftan posted:Even if you think that it is relitigating 1948, why is that a bad thing? The current situation has made the resolution for almost 70 years ago unrealistic, let's take a different approach. Unless you want to argue that rules and laws shouldn't be changed once they're made? I believe in the two state solution, and think John Kerry's statement was mostly correct although he made some mistakes. "X hasn't worked (even though we're not actually doing X, we're doing Y), so let's do Z" is the kind of logic that got Trump elected. I think abandoning the two state solution, in addition to being unlikely to succeed, is likely to create a gigantic amount of human suffering and misery.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 17:15
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:It goes back to the original point I was responding to, about the anti-Zionist movement being motivated by a one state solution and the right of return. You first raised relitigation in response to: PT6A posted:It's fascinating how successfully the Israeli right-wing has managed to conflate opposition to its polices to opposition to Israel itself, and any opposition to Israeli policies for any reason, as anti-Semitism. Like so: Kim Jong Il posted:There's a wide anti-Zionist movement that is indeed advocating against Israel period instead of the current government. BDS, for instance, has a central tenet of relitigating 1948.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 17:27
|
|
|
There is already a massive amount of human suffering and misery. A one state solution will definitely result in an uptick, but may force a much quicker resolution. Right now it's looking like Israel will never accept a two state solution. At least this way the human suffering and misery will be spread out more evenly, and will stop the slow death that gaza is experiencing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 17:30
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:It's kind of hard to flee a city under siege. To play devil's advocate (against the pro-genocide argument), using that definition you could technically say that Dylann Roof was committing genocide because he killed some black Americans and presumably had the desire to kill or drive away all black people. Obviously this is an extreme twisting of the definition, but I think you start to run into some problems conveying meaning if you ignore both scale and outcome. Also, the Israeli government has plausible deniability with regards to intent (even though it's clear they definitely would prefer that the Palestinians disappear in the long term). My own feeling is that "genocide" is technically accurate but is generally perceived by people as meaning "killed a significant portion of an ethnic group as part of a plan to kill all of them (in a particular area)", so "ethnic cleansing" is better because it avoids arguments like this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 18:20
|
|
|
Can a charge of genocide apply to non-state actors? And if so, what are useful examples of historical occurrences of such?
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 18:32
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:Can a charge of genocide apply to non-state actors? And if so, what are useful examples of historical occurrences of such? Sure, the privately run Congo Free State owned by Leopold II of Belgium. You could argue that Congo was itself a state actor and that Leopold didn't single-handedly decimate the African population, but he bears responsibility for its founding (as an individual, not part of Belgium) and it was land acquired and then exploited for his personal benefit. Definitely an edge case but one could see, say, a private military company in the near future doing much the same. Lum_ fucked around with this message at 21:46 on Jan 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 21:43
|
|
|
As for the actual argument: - Israel's current conduct counts as ethnic discrimination/oppression; arguably a case could be made for ethnic cleansing due to refusing to allow any Palestinian construction over a period of decades causing overcrowding and misery to 'encourage' people to self-deport. - Israel's proposed solutions by the right (annexation of Area C, "autonomy" for Areas A/B) is the literal historical definition of apartheid complete with homelands ("I, I, I, ain't gonna play Jenin City") but is still not ethnic cleansing since most right-wingers who propose this have no problem with granting the 100,000 or so Palestinians in Area C voting rights as part of annexation - just as long as the 3m or so Palestinians in Areas A/B do not. - Explicit calls for ethnic cleansing are still limited to the very extreme right (Moshe Feiglin being the most quotable spokesman for that, and he was run out of Likud for being too extremist) - You have to get pretty far in the crazy scale (settler rabbis, hilltop youth, etc) before you start getting to genocidal rhetoric.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 21:56
|
|
|
The graft investigation of Bibi has been upgraded to a criminal investigation and it doesn't sound like he may escape this one. He has been investigated several other times for similar issues with travel and gifts but nothing has stuck. http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/03/w...v=top-news&_r=0
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 00:48
|
|
|
What happens to the Israeli right if Bibi goes down? I'm assuming not much in the long term.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 01:27
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:What happens to the Israeli right if Bibi goes down? I'm assuming not much in the long term. A lot of petty political infighting between rival parties within the right wing coalition. It could make it difficult to form a ruling coalition after the next elections, since they already have the slimmest of a majority. Eventually, it'd probably end with a right wing government, so not much would change, but it has the potential to be a hilarious spectacle.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 02:00
|
|
|
Was Obama's abstention from the UN vote really as much of a game changer as everyone seems to say it was? It's not exactly unprecedented and his actions weren't even as harsh as past GOP presidents.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 07:42
|
|
|
Necroskowitz posted:Was Obama's abstention from the UN vote really as much of a game changer as everyone seems to say it was? It's not exactly unprecedented and his actions weren't even as harsh as past GOP presidents. That's pretty much the MO of the Israeli government in international diplomacy. First, something probably insiginficant happens, like a resolution on something or another. This is followed by a complete outrage by the Israeli Foreign Ministry and the PM's office who are dead set on making sure that the insignificant issue becomes a talking-point and a matter of great contention. All the media outlets in the West plays along because sensationalism and controvercy sells, and the Israeli government knows how to be sensational and controversial. Suddenly the goalposts have shrunk and proper discussion stifled.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 09:31
|
|
|
Elor Azaria has been found guilty of manslaughter. Just to point out he's not likely to be further punished beyond the house arrest he's already been serving for the past 10 months.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 12:01
|
|
|
emanresu tnuocca posted:Elor Azaria has been found guilty of manslaughter. At least he was found guilty. I imagine the right is having a meltdown.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 16:27
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:At least he was found guilty. I imagine the right is having a meltdown. Even the right-wing politicians are melting down. No less than four current cabinet ministers (Naftali Bennett, Miri Regev, Aryeh Deri, Yisrael Katz) have publicly called for him to be pardoned, with several of them claiming that the trial itself was unfair or tainted. Liberman has openly stated that he doesn't like the verdict. Right-wing protesters outside the courthouse chanted "Gadi beware, Rabin's looking for a friend" - referring to Gadi Eisenkot, the IDF Chief of Staff, and Yitzhak Rabin, the former prime minister who was assassinated by a member of the far-right.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 17:33
|
|
|
Some meltdowns in the Washington Post:quote:12:50 p.m. Also, sentencing will be on January 15th. The article notes the maximum sentence is 20 years, but "analysts expect him to receive less than that." Are those feelings warranted? While I'm not familiar with the Israeli legal system, the judge seemed to go out of the way to issue point-by-point rebuttals to every single defense and potential mitigating factor in the case.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 17:48
|
|
|
Edit: I'm dumb and poo poo.
Yardbomb fucked around with this message at 22:23 on Jan 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 17:58
|
|
|
He will be sentenced to 15 months or so, of which he will already have served 11 under house arrest, then he'll get a third deducted for good behavior (it's easy to be a model prisoner when you were never imprisoned and as far as I know he didn't get the opportunity to execute more prisoners of war in the interim). He is not going to spend one day in prison. Perhaps some of his sentence will be converted to public service as well.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 18:08
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 18:40
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Even the right-wing politicians are melting down. No less than four current cabinet ministers (Naftali Bennett, Miri Regev, Aryeh Deri, Yisrael Katz) have publicly called for him to be pardoned, with several of them claiming that the trial itself was unfair or tainted. https://www.facebook.com/ShellyYachimovich/posts/10155123977109218:0
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 19:00
|
|
|
William Bear posted:Some meltdowns in the Washington Post: Getting the maximum sentence is incredibly unlikely, but I don't think anyone knows beyond that. The thing to keep in mind is that this isn't the Israeli justice system, it's the Israeli military justice system, and there's a lot of political ramifications too since Azariya has a lot of sympathizers. The fact that he was even prosecuted at all was unusual (usually there would be a cover-up), so there isn't much precedent to look back on as a guide. Personally, I think he'll get a couple of years in addition to what he's already served - they didn't go to all the trouble of having this trial just to give him a slap on the wrist, but throwing the book at him increases the risk of political intervention. Since the legitimacy of the IDF itself is on the line here, they'll avoid extremely low or extremely high sentences and give him something that's low-ish but just high enough to not be perceived as a free pass.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 20:14
|
|
|
Yardbomb posted:gently caress Elor to death with a mule on live israeli television on all channels for a full 24 hours imo. You seem normal.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 20:22
|
|
|
Edit: Same as post slightly higher upthread.
Yardbomb fucked around with this message at 22:23 on Jan 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 21:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 01:47 |
|
|
Yardbomb posted:More normal to be making a really crude joke than being a shitbag that's executing restrained people really. Congratulations for not being as bad as a convicted murderer.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 21:06
|
|