|
Harik posted:I think ascribing "hitler did nothing wrong" to him is out-of-line. There's clearly acceptable and unacceptable ethnic cleansings for him, I just want to be clear on which are and aren't. Not acceptable: those fuckers.
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2017 20:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 06:51 |
|
|
Harik posted:I think ascribing "hitler did nothing wrong" to him is out-of-line. There's clearly acceptable and unacceptable ethnic cleansings for him, I just want to be clear on which are and aren't. The ones he doesn't like
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2017 21:33
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:The Jewish plan to protect themselves: steal land through massacres and expulsions to get all your neighbors to hate you. Genius! Anti semites hated Jews long before they ever "stole land" and will always hate them. Was the holocaust over Jews "stealing land?"
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2017 22:19
|
|
|
Edit: vvv You are correct.
Mr.Unique-Name fucked around with this message at 22:30 on Jan 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2017 22:25
|
|
|
Hey can we cut the dogpile bullshit back a little? AA's barely been demodded a day - let's keep the thread from getting gassed at least until the Azariya sentence is decided. Speaking of which - the sentencing hearing was supposed to be January 15th, but it's been quietly postponed with no clear new date. And naturally, some shady bullshit's been going on. IDF officials quietly met with Azariya's father, and according to Israeli news, reportedly offered to give Azariya a lighter sentence and a better shot at a pardon if he fired his attorneys and promised not to appeal.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2017 22:26
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:Anti semites hated Jews long before they ever "stole land" and will always hate them. Was the holocaust over Jews "stealing land?" People who judge countries based on their action have been given reason to dislike Israel by their policies of ethnic cleansing, murder, torture, collective punishment of civilians, imprisonment without trial, etc, etc. "B-b-but anti semites!" isn't an excuse, nor is calling back to the Holocaust. There are no justifiable ethnic cleansings so stop trying to justify it when the Israelis do it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2017 23:27
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:I don't think it was brought up here but Trump did sign an executive order this morning directing the State Department to start the process of relocating the American Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. Not shocking, but now it's officially happening. Still waiting for that source. Main Paineframe posted:Hey can we cut the dogpile bullshit back a little? AA's barely been demodded a day - let's keep the thread from getting gassed at least until the Azariya sentence is decided. Speaking of which - the sentencing hearing was supposed to be January 15th, but it's been quietly postponed with no clear new date. And naturally, some shady bullshit's been going on. IDF officials quietly met with Azariya's father, and according to Israeli news, reportedly offered to give Azariya a lighter sentence and a better shot at a pardon if he fired his attorneys and promised not to appeal. It's been more than a week, actually, but thanks for noticing! 
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2017 23:56
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 01:31
|
|
|
Xander77 posted:Did something happen? Somebody needs to read up on some forums goings on. Suffice it to say, I talked back. Then a lot of other mods talked back. There were consequences.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 01:42
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Somebody needs to read up on some forums goings on. Suffice it to say, I talked back. Then a lot of other mods talked back. There were consequences. Maybe you should've tried non-disruptive peaceful protesting.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 01:56
|
|
|
team overhead smash posted:Benny Morris is a literal war crimes advocate, I can dig up quotes of him arguing that Israel should have committed more atrocities and war crimes so as to have foregone the continuing conflict. I can't speak for you, but I wouldn't respect anyone that advocates for war crimes. However I'm still willing to listen to his points if they're valid - but as Finkelstein shows they're not. The absence of Arab sources (and lack of awareness of this), the taking of Israeli official statements at face value, the bias with which he describes acts depending on the race of the perpatrators, basic errors in his own work, etc. So we've got from "eminent historian Benny Morris's work supports my views, but read this summary instead" to "Morris is a monster! Don't listen to a thing he says! I'm still right however"? Why even start by pretending Morris's work backs you up? Especially now that you're saying that Morris's conclusions are all wrong. Nobody's making the claim that there weren't any war crimes committed by Israeli forces in 1948, just don't try to misrepresent the historical record to try to support an extremist Israel-was-an-evil-terrorist-monster-state-from-the-beginning stance. Both the fringes hated Morris's work because it portrayed a nuanced history where neither Jews nor Arabs could be held fully responsible for wrongdoing. Absurd Alhazred posted:RIP, I/P thread. I really did try, but now it's beyond my control. The admins decided to go with the Two State(s of Opinion Regarding the I/P Question) Solution  (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 02:32
|
|
|
The Insect Court posted:The admins decided to go with the Two State(s of Opinion Regarding the I/P Question) Solution Aren't you still banned from posting here 
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 02:38
|
|
|
botany posted:Aren't you still banned from posting here I think the idea was to stop banning people from posting here because you didnt agree with what they had to say. An IP thread where you don't have to pass a "support Palestinian Islamist terrorism enough" or "want Israel destroyed badly enough" test to post in it is better than a thread where you do. Imagine a debate forum where the only rule was against making personal attacks. Could prob have some good debates I bet. Anyway it used to be 'poisoning the wells' and 'robbing the nation's wealth' now there are new reasons people say to get rid of the Jews. The script changes but the narrative arc remains exactly the same, and I'm glad Israel pays it absolutely no mind. After what was done to the Jews, I don't blame them or hold it against them even a little bit for their own survival to be their absolute overriding priority to which all other considerations are subordinated.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 02:50
|
|
|
The Insect Court posted:So we've got from "eminent historian Benny Morris's work supports my views, but read this summary instead" to "Morris is a monster! Don't listen to a thing he says! I'm still right however"? Why even start by pretending Morris's work backs you up? Especially now that you're saying that Morris's conclusions are all wrong. Nobody's making the claim that there weren't any war crimes committed by Israeli forces in 1948, just don't try to misrepresent the historical record to try to support an extremist Israel-was-an-evil-terrorist-monster-state-from-the-beginning stance. Both the fringes hated Morris's work because it portrayed a nuanced history where neither Jews nor Arabs could be held fully responsible for wrongdoing. I don't care about their reputations when it comes to which argument is valid. As I stated "I'm still willing to listen to his points if they're valid" because that's how adults actually consider issues, not just calling one side a "nutty polemicist" as you did and assuming you're right with no evidence or logic. They are both academics who have written in detail about the issue using sources to provide evidence. Stop being a child and engage with their arguments rather than trying to sling mud. I have the book in front of me right now. If you have any actual counters to the issues Finkelstein raises with Morris's work, raise them now and we can discuss them. If you don't want to, then it's pretty clear that you haven't actually read the work and just instantly leapt to defend the side of the issue you support without any consideration for the truth, which is frankly racist as hell.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 02:55
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:I think the idea was to stop banning people from posting here because you didnt agree with what they had to say. An IP thread where you don't have to pass a "support Palestinian Islamist terrorism enough" or "want Israel destroyed badly enough" test to post in it is better than a thread where you do. Image if the only standard was "no racism or advocating of war crimes". We wouldn't have your posts for one, like this one right here where a little further down you take the racist view that people of one race shouldn't be held accountable where every other race would be. quote:Anyway it used to be 'poisoning the wells' and 'robbing the nation's wealth' now there are new reasons people say to get rid of the Jews. Israel's war crimes and human rights abuses are a well known fact any they have been condemned by the UN, the ICC, and a host of governmental bodies including Israel based Jewish-run ones like B'tselem. They are not comparable to old anti-semetic fables. Furthermore no-one here is saying "get rid of the jews" while several people are advocating ethnic cleansing against the Oalestinians, including you it seems. quote:The script changes but the narrative arc remains exactly the same, and I'm glad Israel pays it absolutely no mind. After what was done to the Jews, I don't blame them or hold it against them even a little bit for their own survival to be their absolute overriding priority to which all other considerations are subordinated. Not only is Israel in absolutely no existential danger, but you are a racist hypocrite. You support Israel's actions (which are, let us remember, war crimes and atrocities) based on their race and don't apply the same reasoning to other races and nationalities - like stating that Palestines should make their own survival their absolute overriding priority due to all the death and oppression they've suffered from Israel.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 03:05
|
|
|
why are people responding to hakimashou, they're transparently trolling in every thread they post in.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 03:10
|
|
|
"What if personal attacks weren't allowed??" he said, while accusing others of being terrorist sympathizers and anti-Semites.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 03:13
|
|
|
The Palestinians should make their own survival their overriding priority. If they did, they'd never launch another terrorist attack against Israel. The only future where Palestine has a good outcome is the future where it renounces violence and disarms. If they do the same thing they've been doing they'll get the same outcomes they keep getting. Which is to say, things will get worse and worse and never get better. I want things to get better for Palestinians and for the violence to end. They're never going to get all the land they want though, they need to let it go. It is true that Israel won't tolerate attacks from Palestine. It is also true that the Palestinians cannot beat Israel in a war, no matter what tactics the Palestinians use. So attacking Israel is the wrong choice to make. Supporting or encouraging Palestinian terrorism makes things worse for Palestinians, not better. It make their situation more hopeless, not less hopeless. It is not in their best interest, so if you have the best interests of the Palestinians at heart, it is self-defeating. Its only comprehensible, plausible aim is to see Jews killed. Plus ca change. If someone can explain plausibly why more Palestinian terrorism is good for Palestinians, and not just good because it kills Israelis, I'm all ears. hakimashou fucked around with this message at 03:18 on Jan 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 03:15
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:The Palestinians should make their own survival their overriding priority. If they did, they'd never launch another terrorist attack against Israel. So why would the IDF not just continue to kill and abet settlers killing and taking more if the Palestinians totally disarm? What's the factor that stops this?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 03:22
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:So why would the IDF not just continue to kill and abet settlers killing and taking more if the Palestinians totally disarm? What's the factor that stops this? They'd be fighting a peaceful people rather than fighting terrorism like the rest of the world is doing, for one. Since terrorism doesnt prevent the IDF from doing what you say they do, then at the very least it would have the virtue of being a new approach. Sometimes it's wise to take a new approach if what you've been doing is failing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 03:24
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:They'd be fighting a peaceful people rather than fighting terrorism like the rest of the world is doing, for one. Why wouldn't they just continue the settlement activity until an independent palestinian state is non-viable? If you think that the IDF is just fighting 'terrorism', I think we have irreconcilable views in this matter. Terrorism is a tactic, it's a thing you do when you need or not do when you don't need. At this point, there probably isn't a centrally controlled Palestinian strategy, between the PA's security cooperation as well as more oppositional individuals and groups. I mean, if you literally think the IDF is the Most Moral Army in the world, I don't think we really have anything to discuss. Panzeh fucked around with this message at 03:31 on Jan 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 03:29
|
|
|
I don't know if you've all noticed but anti-Muslim bigotry is on the rise in Europe and the US, not on the decline. Every time a jihadist plows a truck into a crowd of people or shoots up a night club or sets off a bomb in Europe or the United States, it unfortunately sours many people's attitudes toward all Muslims. It's not difficult to imagine how it affects attitudes toward Muslims who actually perpetrate those kind of attacks. The Palestinians need to distance themselves from what more and more people see as a worldwide war of civilization versus barbarism, because Israel will never have any trouble positioning itself on the right team in that war as long as it's also fighting the people who crash cars into its crowds, shoot up its nightclubs, and detonate bombs in its cities and towns.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 03:33
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:If someone can explain plausibly why more Palestinian terrorism is good for Palestinians, and not just good because it kills Israelis, I'm all ears. First of all, any kind of terrorism is bad (assuming terrorism is a synonym for war crimes) because war crimes under any circumstances even if they did have a strategic benefit are immoral and illegal. However Palestinian militants also make attacks on legitimate military targets that are allowed under international military law. I'm assuming however that from your past posts you're also against this and just lump it all in with "terrorism" because it makes the Palestinians sound like bad guys and that's far more important than accurately talking about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict in a mature manner. Putting that aside, your opinion is way off in a lot of ways. "Palestinians cannot beat Israel in a war, no matter what" kind of misses the point. The ANC didn't "beat" the Apartheid South African government. The IRA didn't "beat" the British government. They used military action to put pressure on their oppressors to negotiate peace. If Israel wanted peace and security more than it wanted land and ethnic purity, it could agree a peace today. Israel isn't interested in that and there is no reason to think that adopting pacifist methods would be any more effective. The Palestinians and Arab nations have made offers before which go way beyond what Israel has any entitlement to only to be refused. Until Israel is interested enough to pursue peace, Palestine needs to act in some way to pressure them to change their stance. Palestinians are also trying other routes like appealing to international bodies, peaceful protest, etc and those don't work any better so far. I would also mention that you've shot a hole in your own argument. You tried to validate Israel's war crimes as being essential for their survival in your prior post, now you turn around and say that there is no chance Israel could be beaten by Palestine. Those are too contradictory positions.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 03:37
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:I don't know if you've all noticed but anti-Muslim bigotry is on the rise in Europe and the US, not on the decline. Likud and similar groups will always conflate ISIS and Palestinians, even if the Palestinians totally renounced violence, because this serves them well. It allows them to take more land in the name of preventing terrorism even if this has nothing to do with it. They'll never be able to distance themselves from it because they're a majority Muslim population. The PA has in fact been cooperating with the IDF in trying to prevent terrorism, but this hasn't actually resulted in any political concessions from Israel. The lack of concessions from Israel destroys the notion that security cooperation accomplishes anything as a political strategy- it strengthens radical groups by presenting moderate groups as ineffectual. If Israel wanted to destroy the credibility of jihadists in the Palestinian territories, they would reward the PA heavily for security cooperation, associating cooperation in the Palestinian people with concessions like dismantling settlements and continuing negotiations. Instead, the exact opposite happens. The statements are all about how "Judea and Samaria are an integral part of Israel." How does that make cooperation seem?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 03:40
|
|
|
team overhead smash posted:First of all, any kind of terrorism is bad (assuming terrorism is a synonym for war crimes) because war crimes under any circumstances even if they did have a strategic benefit are immoral and illegal. However Palestinian militants also make attacks on legitimate military targets that are allowed under international military law. I'm assuming however that from your past posts you're also against this and just lump it all in with "terrorism" because it makes the Palestinians sound like bad guys and that's far more important than accurately talking about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict in a mature manner. When they used rocket attacks and tunnels to put "pressure" on Israel a few years ago, in what ways did it make the situation in Gaza better? What did the "application of pressure" accomplish?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 03:41
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:When they used rocket attacks and tunnels to put "pressure" on Israel a few years ago, in what ways did it make the situation in Gaza better? What did the "application of pressure" accomplish? One might ask what bombing Gaza accomplished, or what the blockade is accomplishing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 03:42
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:One might ask what bombing Gaza accomplished, or what the blockade is accomplishing. Stopped the rocket and tunnel attacks. Which happened also to be the stated aim of it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 03:45
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:Stopped the rocket and tunnel attacks. They would just as well say the rocket attacks stopped the bombing as well. Do you think that everything Israel does is morally correct by virtue of it being the only Jewish state? Why, if this is the case, does Israel constantly delegitimize the PA in the West Bank, who actually does cooperate with the IDF. Isn't that what you want? They're not any closer to independence than Gaza.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 03:48
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:They'd be fighting a peaceful people rather than fighting terrorism like the rest of the world is doing, for one. Israel are already fighting a peaceful people. Israel commit war crimes against the entirety of the people in the OPT with their ethnic cleansing, restrictions on movements, etc even putting aside the individuals who suffer especially from murder, torture, imprisonment, etc. It is only a tiny majority of the inhabitants which actually engage in violence. More that that, there is no magic button that manages to make everyone stop committing violence. How exactly do you think everyone is going to suddenly becomes pacifists. Even under Ghandi's leadership in India there were nationalists who resorted to violence and in the I/P conflict at the moment one of the characteristics of the violence over the last few years is how it has been sporadic individual violence rather than a organised effort. In a society as heavily oppressed as the Palestinians, some individuals will always fight back and Israel will always have an excuse to not meaningfully engage in any peace process. Arguing that Israel is justified until every last Palestinian magically becomes a saint is an impossibility which just tries to excuse Israel war crimes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 03:48
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:Stopped the rocket and tunnel attacks. Israeli bombing increased the number of Palestinian rocket attacks massively in response, which is to be expected as it's what happens every time Israel launches a high-intensity attack on Gaza, and prior to the attack I think it had been 8 years since the last tunnel attack. In a normal month the number of rocket attacks would be single or double figures. In July 2014 when the 2014 conflict bombing occurred it ramped up by two orders of magnitude to the thousands. Seeing as an increase in attacks was the entirely predictable outcome and is what resulted, your answer is obviously wrong. team overhead smash fucked around with this message at 03:54 on Jan 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 03:51
|
|
|
team overhead smash posted:Israeli bombing increased the number of Palestinian rocket attacks massively in response, which is to be expected as it's what happens every time Israel launches a high-intensity attack on Gaza, and prior to the attack I think it had been 8 years since the last tunnel attack. I saw the Israeli ambassador or something on TV say "if it is quiet in Israel, it will be quiet in Gaza." I guess the theory that 'the rockets stopped the bombing' would make sense if the rockets destroyed israeli planes, airfields, tanks, artillery etc. Did they? People always say that Gaza got bombed to rubble in Protective Edge, did Israel get rocketed to rubble? I think if we're honest we can agree there was a winner and a loser in that fight.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 03:54
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:I saw the Israeli ambassador or something on TV say "if it is quiet in Israel, it will be quiet in Gaza." Then it gets quiet in Israel and the blockade still happens anyway so Gaza ends up being a shithole. You've never responded to my comments about the PA's security cooperation with the IDF, an important part of their counterterrorism policy. What reward has that gotten the inhabitants of the West Bank politically?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 03:56
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:I saw the Israeli ambassador or something on TV say "if it is quiet in Israel, it will be quiet in Gaza." I don't think you understand. You were asked what "bombing Gaza accomplished". You answered it stopped the rockets and tunnel attacks. In fact it increased the rockets and tunnel attacks massively. Your point was wrong. I don't get what any of the above has to do with this or even what point you are trying to make.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 03:57
|
|
|
team overhead smash posted:I don't think you understand. How many rocket and tunnel attacks have there been since Protective Edge? You or someone else said that Palestinian terrorism 'put pressure' on Israel. Presumably this pressure has some motive or aim to it, what is it? If you know the motive and the outcome you can figure out if it was effective or not.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 03:58
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:How many rocket and tunnel attacks have there been since Protective Edge? Would you support Palestinian 'terrorism' if the rockets did manage to blow up aircraft on military bases and was somewhat effective? Or would you just find a different reason to oppose it? Wouldn't the tone just come back to how Israel is under siege and must do what it has to to survive?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 04:01
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:When they used rocket attacks and tunnels to put "pressure" on Israel a few years ago, in what ways did it make the situation in Gaza better? What did the "application of pressure" accomplish? This is a ridiculous request. Presumably you don't dispute my point that the ANC, IRA, etc used violence to put political pressure on their opponents to arrange peace. Yet even knowing they did that, can you quantify exactly how individual attacks contributed to exerting that pressure. No, of course not. How would you even do that?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 04:08
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:How many rocket and tunnel attacks have there been since Protective Edge? Dozens and there would need to be absolutely no rocket attacks for a generation or two for it to make up for the massive amount that were fired during the 2014 conflict alone. quote:You or someone else said that Palestinian terrorism 'put pressure' on Israel. Presumably this pressure has some motive or aim to it, what is it? No, I talked about using legal military action (not military attacks) in the abstract to put pressure on Israel in response to your abstract discussion about what Palestinians should be doing. In relation to the Palestinian attacks which do occur, both valid attacks and illegal war crimes, there is no one motive or aim because it is carried out by disparate organisations and often individuals acting alone and Palestinians aren't some gigantic hive-mind.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 04:15
|
|
|
There isn't really a coherent Palestinian strategy in play. It's not like someone is going to go call the "love and peace and disarmament" play out of one unified playbook. The Palestinian leadership has been in shambles since the collapse of the Oslo Accords and there have been multiple policies in verious political organizations. It's not like they're missing out on a chance to have some grand unified 'change' that will result in international respectability. Both Hamas and Fatah rely on political repression to maintain power in their parts of Palestine and elections are carefully avoided. This is not an attempt to deny the agency of Palestinians- different people have had different reactions to events happening to them. I think any reasonable understanding of the Palestinian political situation would show that current Israeli strategy has very little to do with stopping terrorism.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 04:21
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:They'd be fighting a peaceful people rather than fighting terrorism like the rest of the world is doing, for one. If the Palestinians stopped fighting back, Israel wouldn't be "fighting a peaceful people", they'd just be taking everything they want with no meaningful resistance, and no one would care since it would be "peaceful". In any case, the big - and rather obvious - flaw in the "terrorism doesn't work" argument is that peaceful negotiations haven't worked either, and in fact the current Prime Minister of Israel has been known to brag about sabotaging and undermining the outcome of peaceful negotiations. Besides, I wouldn't be so quick to declare that violence hasn't accomplished anything for the Palestinians. Israeli policies have often been constrained by a desire to avoid potentially provoking violent mass action from the Palestinians, as well as the need to act in a way that generally keeps the security situation manageable. It's restrained and limited Israeli actions in a lot of ways.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 04:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 06:51 |
|
|
Is US policy towards Israel heavily influenced by our own feelings on the treatment of Native Americans?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 05:22
|
|