|
Kalit posted:Biden has consistently pushed back against Netanyahu's public desire to govern/take over Gaza. Gonna need a better explanation. It sure seems disconnected with what anyone reasonable person would consider pushing back. Dismissing this as a “conspiracy theory” when it is an obvious reason that the US would invest this amount of resources and Israel’s okay indicates this is one reason they’d allow it, while you’re pushing the conspiracy that actually behind the scenes Biden is secretly trying to help the people of Gaza seems like your picking and choosing what lines to read into. Butter Activities fucked around with this message at 16:59 on Mar 15, 2024 |
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 16:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 14:39 |
|
|
Uncle Boogeyman posted:Oh that’s what Israel is using all those weapons for Correct, that is what Biden thinks/wants Israel to use the weapons for. SMEGMA_MAIL posted:Gonna need a better explanation. It sure seems disconnected with what anyone reasonable person would consider pushing back. "Behind the scenes"/"secretly"? He's been outspoken about wanting to get aid to Gaza. That's about the furthest thing from a conspiracy that you can get. Meanwhile, what's your evidence about the US being likely to use this aid port to remove all Palestinians from Gaza? And to get ahead of it, something like "because Israel wants it" is not evidence since the US doesn't do literally everything that Israel wants. Otherwise, Palestine would have been completely taken over by Israel a long time ago. Kalit fucked around with this message at 17:09 on Mar 15, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 17:05
|
|
|
Kalit posted:Correct, that is what Biden thinks/wants Israel to use the weapons for. so your argument is that Biden is just, like, stone-cold stupid?
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 17:06
|
|
|
The goal of the United States is the ethnic cleansing of Gaza. You can tell this because the United States is funding and arming the nation performing the ethnic cleansing, and using military assets in its defense. Additionally, they are blocking international action trying to stop it. These actions all have huge levels of bipartisan support in the US government. It’s pretty straightforward.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 18:05
|
|
|
Hey Kalit while it's still your turn to kramer into the thread and defend genocide, can you please address why we should not be doing everything up to and including using overwhelming military force to sweep the state of Israel into the dustbin of history? We have a nuclear armed and rabidly expansionistic rogue state founded by an incestous coalition of religious fanatics, dead eyed imperialists, and no-poo poo Nazi collaborators. That for longer than we have been alive, has been engaged in a prolonged campaign of rape, massacre and genocide against any who have the termerity to oppose them. Before I see another goddamn mealy-mouthed word of hasbara from you I want you to explicitly and affirmatively make the case for this abomination. No more running away. Do it you bloodthirsty coward. E: Irony be my shield, I know it's not your turn to poo poo up the thread but I'd like to see you address this poo poo too. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) Quantum Cat fucked around with this message at 18:42 on Mar 15, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 18:36
|
|
|
Quantum Cat posted:overwhelming military force to sweep the state of Israel into the dustbin of history? Obviously not going to step into your conflict with Kalit but you answered your own question there. Even if the US' finally decided it was time to end this tomorrow we're not exactly going to roll up our carrier groups to go get nuked. It's also unlikely that Israel wouldn't just threaten to hit London or something if their existence was threatened. Look at the difference between the fate Afghanistan suffered compared to Pakistan, even though we basically would've had just as much (bad, I'm not defending the Afghanistan war by drawing this comparison) reason to launch a full scale invasion and regime change. Instead we settled for drone strikes, limited border skirmishes and sovereignty violations. No nuclear armed state has ever faced a military attack with the intent to dismantle or change the regime. Anyway in news, Hamas put forward another ceasefire deal with a staged approach, something Israel wanted to see when they responded to an earlier offer. Predictably, they are still calling it unrealistic even though it's by far their most timid proposal to date: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/3/15/hamas-new-gaza-truce-proposal-outlines-exchange-of-captives-for-prisoners Israel says they'll actually send people to the next round, I suspect it's just to appease the State department for the next issue: https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/aid-ship-reaches-gaza-coast-israel-rejects-hamas-truce-offer-2024-03-15/ Israel has finalized plans to go into Rafah, expect the state department and Biden to complain and then not block any arms transfers anyway as the "Israeli government is showing good faith negotiating" or something: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/15/netanyahu-approves-plans-for-rafah-attack-israeli-officials-say The US is preparing a UNSC resolution, it'll be interesting to see how much they muddy the language or not: https://www.reuters.com/world/us-locks-un-resolution-backing-efforts-broker-gaza-truce-2024-03-14/
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 19:10
|
|
|
Isn't Israel having nuclear weapons an unproven conspiracy theory? Why should Biden take that threat seriously? That's a lot of "shoulds" and "is believed," and the US doesn't recognize that it does, so it's a conspiracy theory at present. If it is a threat, shouldn't the President of the U.S. demand inspections at the very least, and cut funding if it doesn't comply? It seems like the least Biden could do, and it's weird that he isn't, if this theory has any basis to it. Unless you're implying the US is tied up in a conspiracy that Biden is upholding? mawarannahr fucked around with this message at 19:25 on Mar 15, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 19:17
|
|
|
mawarannahr posted:Isn't Israel having nuclear weapons an unproven conspiracy theory? no? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_Israel
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 19:18
|
|
|
Kalit posted:Biden has consistently pushed back against Netanyahu's public desire to govern/take over Gaza. Stop trying to start a conspiracy about how this aid port thing is actually going to be used to help Israel to do exactly that Applying scrutiny to the government's stated goals and thinking that they may have ulterior motives is not a conspiracy theory.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 19:19
|
|
|
It’s not a conspiracy theory to say Israel has nukes just because the US govt won’t outright say it. Israel doesn’t even deny it (or confirm it). It’s just politically inconvenient for the US or Israel to outright say it, due to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty among other things.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 19:35
|
|
|
mawarannahr posted:Isn't Israel having nuclear weapons an unproven conspiracy theory? Why should Biden take that threat seriously? To sum up the situation in two parts:  
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 19:57
|
|
|
Rebel Blob posted:Here are declassified documents from the LBJ, Nixon, and Ford administrations on the US government's knowledge of Israeli nuclear weapons program. The result of research published in that notorious conspiracy theory rag, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Thanks. That sounds pretty bad. They should stop sending any weapons.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 20:00
|
|
|
mawarannahr posted:Isn't Israel having nuclear weapons an unproven conspiracy theory? Why should Biden take that threat seriously? If you consider the belief of everyone who studies nuclear weapons, along with a ton of supporting physical and circumstantial evidence which details the progress of their program and supporting infrastructure to be an unproven conspiracy theory then yes https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00963402.2021.2014239 mawarannahr posted:Thanks. That sounds pretty bad. They should stop sending any weapons. e: didn't see this before posting. Also sorry my tone was a little much I think.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 20:03
|
|
|
Kagrenak posted:If you consider the belief of everyone who studies nuclear weapons, along with a ton of supporting physical and circumstantial evidence which details the progress of their program and supporting infrastructure to be an unproven conspiracy theory then yes It's pretty amazing what Israel gets away with thanks to the enduring support of the US.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 20:12
|
|
|
mawarannahr posted:It's pretty amazing what Israel gets away with thanks to the enduring support of the US. I agree with your sentiment but don't think this one really applies given the context of proliferation at the time, as well as that it seems credible the US didn't know until it was done. They developed their nuclear capacity during the pre and immediately post-NPT period where plenty of states were doing it and not suffering much in the way of consequences. India, Pakistan and South Africa all developed capacities around that time without the same level of US support or baking, or similar levels of USSR support. None of them faced new sanctions for it at the time, either.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 20:26
|
|
|
Kagrenak posted:I agree with your sentiment but don't think this one really applies given the context of proliferation at the time, as well as that it seems credible the US didn't know until it was done. They developed their nuclear capacity during the pre and immediately post-NPT period where plenty of states were doing it and not suffering much in the way of consequences. India, Pakistan and South Africa all developed capacities around that time without the same level of US support or baking, or similar levels of USSR support. None of them faced new sanctions for it at the time, either. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vela_incident
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 20:58
|
|
|
cat botherer posted:Guess who Apartheid South Africa was working with on their nuke program! Yeah it's also probably likely that Israel couldn't have acquired as much uranium nearly as easily for its arsenal without the deepening of ties to apartheid era South Africa.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 21:32
|
|
|
Is there any writing on influence/lack of influence of South African apartheid system/ideology on the development of Israeli caste system/ideology? I typically understand everything wrong with Israel as the inevitable conclusion to "land without a people" ideology in a land that is, in fact, full of people. Basically that this is the only road Zionism could have taken once executed in Palestine - but maybe that's discounting the influence of ally states in forming the current regime?
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 21:35
|
|
|
Kagrenak posted:Yeah it's also probably likely that Israel couldn't have acquired as much uranium nearly as easily for its arsenal without the deepening of ties to apartheid era South Africa. Didn't the US interfere with the Congo because of they had the biggest uranium deposits in the world. Israel has some soldiers in the Congo for 'reasons'.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 21:44
|
|
|
Marenghi posted:Didn't the US interfere with the Congo because of they had the biggest uranium deposits in the world. Israel has some soldiers in the Congo for 'reasons'. Something like this happened, probably back in the OSS days yeah, they were one of the first places with known exploitable uranium ore: https://fnl.mit.edu/january-februar...a-and-nagasaki/ Their modern day reserves aren't anything notable compared to a good number of other countries though, and plenty of them have historically produced more. It's unlikely the US was needing to keep these sorts of things up for long after WW2 and domestic reserves were found, though lack of necessity has never stopped the US from meddling before: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_uranium_reserves
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 21:53
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:Is there any writing on influence/lack of influence of South African apartheid system/ideology on the development of Israeli caste system/ideology? I typically understand everything wrong with Israel as the inevitable conclusion to "land without a people" ideology in a land that is, in fact, full of people. Basically that this is the only road Zionism could have taken once executed in Palestine - but maybe that's discounting the influence of ally states in forming the current regime? I'd be interested in this too, but my general understanding was not so much that South Africa influenced Israel this way (or vice versa) but that they both recognized that they were running similar ideologies and systems and so made common cause. I've read some previously about the long relationship but not much on the influence each country had on the other's internal politics, which might be interesting if there's a good book on it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 21:59
|
|
|
i recall reading quotes from Israeli officials who said they directly based the organization and admin if the West Bank on the bantustans. Someone must have a source on this.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 22:21
|
|
|
Kalit posted:Correct, that is what Biden thinks/wants Israel to use the weapons for. It's great that you have intimate knowledge of Biden's true thoughts and desires, but the rest of us don't and are forced to judge by his actions, so given that: 1) Israel's clear goal is the removal of Palestinians from Gaza 2) Biden has not attempted in any way to prevent Israel from doing anything they want, and has repeatedly said there are no red lines It's completely reasonable to at least speculate that if Israel were to try and use the port to expel Palestinians, that Biden would do absolutely nothing to stop this. A question for you Kalit, do you behind Biden should face a trial in the ICJ or ICC for his complicity in supporting and enabling a genocide? If not, why not?
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 22:26
|
|
|
punishedkissinger posted:i recall reading quotes from Israeli officials who said they directly based the organization and admin if the West Bank on the bantustans. Someone must have a source on this. (the stability was remarkable, but that’s not to say it was good)
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 22:32
|
|
|
Quantum Cat posted:Hey Kalit while it's still your turn to kramer into the thread and defend genocide, can you please address why we should not be doing everything up to and including using overwhelming military force to sweep the state of Israel into the dustbin of history? Of course genocide deniers are getting away scot free and person who calls them out got probated because reasons.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 22:38
|
|
|
We will not be turning this thread into a moderation discussion shitshow. Contact koos or admins or, heck, we have the feedback thread open. Or SAD, I suppose. I think the feedback thread is a better choice but if you decide the moderation of this thread is for SAD that's a you decision.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 22:42
|
|
|
he's just so calm and reasonable, you don't want to probate people who are posting calmly reasonably
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 22:43
|
|
|
Here is more shameful behaviour from a western country. Funny you don’t hear much about this.quote:The Labyrinthine Nightmare of Canada's Palestinian Family Reunification Program https://www.readtheorchard.org/p/the-labyrinthine-nightmare-of-canadas
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 23:07
|
|
|
I'm sorry is Quantum Cat the calm hitler? They're calling for the complete annihilation of a nation state right?
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 23:09
|
|
|
yeah, "sent to Israeli authorities for approval" made my eyes widen. On an extremely macro level, i have very complicated and confused opinions about mass Palestinian refugee programs, bit on a slightly less macro level every refugee in the world (but especially from Gaza, what with the genocide) should be able to get somewhere safe and be humanely treated.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 23:10
|
|
|
Hong XiuQuan posted:This is exactly the argument made by white Boer supremacists up until the end of apartheid. Actual Mizrahi or Mashriqi if you prefer here, practicing, go to Temple, native tongue is Masri not English, I admire your spirit but lol I know its origins but please do not speak for me, my identity, or what is or isn't being erased about our culture. Anyways Free Palestine
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 23:13
|
|
|
Grip it and rip it posted:I'm sorry is Quantum Cat the calm hitler? They're calling for the complete annihilation of a nation state right? That said, I don’t think anyone ITT right now is doing a calm hitler, but Kalit’s views on the Biden admin’s intentions WRT to this situation are heavily divergent from other posters’.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 23:16
|
|
|
Grip it and rip it posted:I'm sorry is Quantum Cat the calm hitler? They're calling for the complete annihilation of a nation state right? As you know, calling for the dissolution of a state is not in itself genocidal or "calm hitler". You can find very recent discussion of this topic in this thread, which you have probably seen. Calling for the end of Israel is not genocidal, in exactly the same way it was not genocidal to call for the end of Apartheid South Africa, or the destruction of Nazi Germany.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 00:43
|
|
|
Esran posted:As you know, calling for the dissolution of a state is not in itself genocidal or "calm hitler". You can find very recent discussion of this topic in this thread, which you have probably seen. Asking for the destruction of a country, especially using military force, like the atomic bombings of Japan, can absolutely lead to the deaths of millions of innocent people; even if one can argue such acts (such as the strategic bombing campaign during the Korean War) were necessary to bring the war to an end. As Quantum Cat literally advocated for, word for word, "using overwhelming military force to sweep the state of Israel into the dustbin of history", if in the result of doing so require similar to the Korean war, bombing and destroying every building in Israel, "dehousing" every single Israeli, the death, destruction, and suffering would be essentially equivalent to the genocide happening in Gaza, and would it not be accurate to suggest that both acts could be genocidal in outcome? If someone advocates for, "I think China should be destroyed, the United States should use overwhelming force to do so" Would you believe that this wouldn't be to put it very mildly, extremely concerning language that shows a disregard for innocent life in pursuit of this goal? (And no, there's no real substantial difference in policy outcomes between China and Israel, every criticism as to why advocating for the destruction of Israel is okay and just, should also apply to China) At the end of the day, if the strategic bombing campaign in Korea and Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany were all war crimes (as for example, Youtube Shaun claims), then any similar effort against Israel at a minimum likewise requires war crimes to accomplish, and this is before the ethics of forceful annexation of another country and its people without their consent (its worth pointing out that while Nazi Germany while dissolved, ultimately "Germany" still got to continue as its own independent country, two of them even! After a brief period of occupation; that got to democratically decide to join the EEC and the Comecon respectively, and in the 1990s got to democratically choose to merge). And of course the massive suffering millions of ethnic germans went through who were expulsed from regions they had inhabited for centuries, I'm not sure if this is a great model for success that should be instinctively reached for and replicated. I think personally in my opinion, that while its fine and I have no personal objection to argue for and advocate for a one state solution, calling for this solution to be implemented via the use of force just seems to me like its reckless as a policy goal that's in all probability impossible and just 99% likely to result in at least a prolonged century of sectarian violence, civil war, suffering, famine, terrorism, and continued instability if the Israeli, Druze, and Palistinian inhabitants of the region continue to not "get along".
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 01:40
|
|
|
If the state of Israel was dissolved, nobody would make them wait stateless and under foreign military control for 75 years, for comparison.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 01:55
|
|
|
Adenoid Dan posted:If the state of Israel was dissolved, nobody would make them wait stateless and under foreign military control for 75 years, for comparison. A lot of implied qualifiers and assumptions though here, and not at all in line with the post in question was suggesting. If you can get them to voluntarily agree to dissolve themselves after passing a democratic plebiscite then sure, if there's a negotiated process in which guarantees and a new constitution, probably one that makes the same "Distinct Society" guarantees Quebec currently gets to preserve Quebecois French Culture Against the Anglo Menance, then yeah everything would be better, it'd still have problems just as South Africa and Canada still have problems; and as we've seen with Yugoslavia such countries can still not workout and fall apart, but yeah it'd be better.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 02:07
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Asking for the destruction of a country, especially using military force, like the atomic bombings of Japan, can absolutely lead to the deaths of millions of innocent people; even if one can argue such acts (such as the strategic bombing campaign during the Korean War) were necessary to bring the war to an end. Yes, it can. That doesn't mean that it will or has to. Raenir Salazar posted:As Quantum Cat literally advocated for, word for word, "using overwhelming military force to sweep the state of Israel into the dustbin of history", if in the result of doing so require similar to the Korean war, bombing and destroying every building in Israel, "dehousing" every single Israeli, the death, destruction, and suffering would be essentially equivalent to the genocide happening in Gaza, and would it not be accurate to suggest that both acts could be genocidal in outcome? There is no reason to assume any of these things, so no, it would not be accurate to draw a comparison between a war on Israel and the genocide in Gaza. There is no reason to assume that a war on Israel would require "destroying every building in Israel" or "dehousing every single Israeli". Raenir Salazar posted:If someone advocates for, "I think China should be destroyed, the United States should use overwhelming force to do so" Would you believe that this wouldn't be to put it very mildly, extremely concerning language that shows a disregard for innocent life in pursuit of this goal? (And no, there's no real substantial difference in policy outcomes between China and Israel, every criticism as to why advocating for the destruction of Israel is okay and just, should also apply to China) I'm sure you believe this, but China and Israel are not remotely equivalent. I think your accusation of "showing disregard for innocent life" is ridiculous, considering we're talking about stopping a genocide. The same exact argument could be made to argue that the Soviet invasion of Nazi Germany was wrong. Is that the position you're taking? Raenir Salazar posted:At the end of the day, if the strategic bombing campaign in Korea and Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany were all war crimes (as for example, Youtube Shaun claims), then any similar effort against Israel at a minimum likewise requires war crimes to accomplish, and this is before the ethics of forceful annexation of another country and its people without their consent (its worth pointing out that while Nazi Germany while dissolved, ultimately "Germany" still got to continue as its own independent country, two of them even! After a brief period of occupation; that got to democratically decide to join the EEC and the Comecon respectively, and in the 1990s got to democratically choose to merge). And of course the massive suffering millions of ethnic germans went through who were expulsed from regions they had inhabited for centuries, I'm not sure if this is a great model for success that should be instinctively reached for and replicated. I don't want to get into a whole thing about "Youtube Shaun", but I think you have not understood the argument against strategic bombing. The argument against strategic bombing wasn't simply that it was a war crime. It was that it was ineffective at its stated goals (demoralizing the enemy) and inefficient at other goals (destroying military infrastructure), and was therefore ultimately unnecessary. So why would that kind of bombing be necessary against Israel, when it wasn't necessary in these other wars? I think I'll let your assertion that Nazi Germany was treated too harshly speak for itself. But even if you believe a light touch is needed, that's not an argument against war on Israel. Nazi Germany doesn't turn into West Germany without a war to defeat them first. Raenir Salazar posted:I think personally in my opinion, that while its fine and I have no personal objection to argue for and advocate for a one state solution, calling for this solution to be implemented via the use of force just seems to me like its reckless as a policy goal that's in all probability impossible and just 99% likely to result in at least a prolonged century of sectarian violence, civil war, suffering, famine, terrorism, and continued instability if the Israeli, Druze, and Palistinian inhabitants of the region continue to not "get along". We've seen this sentiment a few times in this thread, and at this point I think I'll just be straight and tell you that this is a disgusting viewpoint and ignores what this conflict actually is. It is not them "not getting along". When you refer to a "prolonged century of sectarian violence" as a result of forcing Israel's hand, I assume you mean in opposition to a shorter period of sectarian violence until Israel completes the killing or ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians? Because that's Israel's plan. Edit: Raenir Salazar posted:If you can get them to voluntarily agree to dissolve themselves after passing a democratic plebiscite then sure Cool, so the opinions of the Israelis are the only thing that matters here, and the Palestinians can just die. Esran fucked around with this message at 02:15 on Mar 16, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 02:11
|
|
|
Calling for the complete and total dismantling of the apartheid Israeli ethnostate through the swift and overwhelming application of peace and good vibes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 02:42
|
|
|
demanding it's dismantling it through international pressure and sanctions is more realistic, is what most palestinian groups are asking for, and doesn't make you look like some kind of weirdo/dumbass
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 02:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 14:39 |
|
|
Esran posted:Yes, it can. That doesn't mean that it will or has to. There are few if any wars throughout the history of modern industrialized war you could point to, with the results and approximate military forces required, to avoid such an outcome, I think the burden of proof here is on you to show that "overwhelming military force" somehow doesn't imply what it does. quote:There is no reason to assume any of these things, so no, it would not be accurate to draw a comparison between a war on Israel and the genocide in Gaza. There is no reason to assume that a war on Israel would require "destroying every building in Israel" or "dehousing every single Israeli". Why shouldn't we? Its what it took for other governments such as Imperial Japan, and wasn't enough for Communist North Korea. It isn't reasonable to suppose that the second you fire a single shot in anger and open up hostilities with the intention of getting another nation to unconditionally surrender that this wouldn't require significant cost in human suffering (on both sides). As William T Sherman writes: quote:War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; and those who brought war into our Country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out. Lets repeat that, "War is cruelty", and what is cruelty? quote:callous indifference to or pleasure in causing pain and suffering. quote:behavior that causes pain or suffering to a person or animal. quote:behavior which causes physical or mental harm to another, especially a spouse, whether intentionally or not. In short, calling for "overwhelming force" would certainly , or at least, to any reasonable individual, can be said to be so likely as to cause unnecessary suffering in outcome, that it is absolutely unreasonable to assert that "using overwhelming force to destroy Israel" suggests that there wouldn't be massive destruction and that it "doesn't need to happen (as a result of overwhelming force)". Because in short, war is cruelty. quote:I'm sure you believe this, but China and Israel are not remotely equivalent. China is pretty much, by any reasonable standard, pretty equivalent to Israel in that it is (a) an ethnostate (b) is/was committing/ed genocide. (Tibet, Xinjiang) If calling for the destruction of China can be said to be genocidal in either intent or outcome, or "really really bad amount of destruction that would be concerning for anyone to insist on" if "genocidal" has a bit too much baggage in this context. Which is really the point, to clarify isn't to say that it would be "genocidal" to use "overwhelming force on Israel" but in all practical terms very close in that it would be a massive amount of unneeded suffering and destruction that would fall on the people living there. quote:I think your accusation of "showing disregard for innocent life" is ridiculous, considering we're talking about stopping a genocide. The same exact argument could be made to argue that the Soviet invasion of Nazi Germany was wrong. Is that the position you're taking? I think the more apt comparison here would be the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as these were arguably required to stop a genocide (the Japanese occupation of China), I'm definitely not arguing the Soviet invasion of Nazi Germany was wrong (which is I think a weird way of phrasing it, Germany invaded the USSR, not the other way around? Except in a literal sense in 1945?); but nonetheless that there's fierce debate and controversy about various Allied acts that were used to "stop genocide", such as the atomic bombs, the firebombings of Dresden, the complete and total destruction of basically every major Japanese and German city. The fact that there is this debate, would suggest that it is improbable for advocating for similar towards Israel to not also be at least equally as controversial at a minimum. And not unreasonable for people to take issue with advocating for the same to Israel. Most importantly of course, Nazi Germany was not a democracy, Israel is, there was no negotiation that could be done that would stop Hitler and Nazi Germany from pursuing its goals; but a new government could always be elected that's more rational and willing to compromise, so these situations are completely different; so the use of overwhelming force should be at a minimum a last resort. The point though is that of course stopping Imperial Japan, stopping Nazi Germany, required "overwhelming force", I'm not sure how you can suppose that overwhelming force if applied to Israel a country of only several million people and barely larger than New Jersey in size would not in fact, face an incredible amount of destruction and suffering. quote:I don't want to get into a whole thing about "Youtube Shaun", but I think you have not understood the argument against strategic bombing. The argument against strategic bombing wasn't simply that it was a war crime. It was that it was ineffective at its stated goals (demoralizing the enemy) and other goals (destroying military infrastructure), and was therefore ultimately unnecessary. Well without getting into it Shaun is just wrong on those points as he was using not very good sources, modern historiography, like Wages of Destruction by Tooze make the opposite case about their usefulness. Tooze has been on record in interviews that the RAF basically could've crippled German industry early on if they knew how close they were and kept at it. But we can discuss that more in the Milhist thread in Ask/Tell. quote:So why would that kind of bombing be necessary against Israel, when it wasn't necessary in these other wars? The point here, is there hasn't been a war since WW2 that didn't make heavy use of air power and strategic bombing, even with the advent of precision guided munitions, their destruction and harm to civilians in basically every war, has been considerable. And you aren't defeating the IDF without airpower; and it is antithetical to any reasonable definition of "overwhelming force" to suppose this means not using every effort such as strategic bombing such as the kind used by the US in "Shock and Awe" campaigns. Remember the original post we're disputing here used "overwhelming force", but lets suppose that you agree and concede "Okay overwhelming force would probably be bad, but still a war to stop Israel is still moral and justified." That's better, but a war to destroy a country is still problematic, would still probably require "overwhelming force" because well, every conventional military effort has failed thus far; but in any case there's still many plausible alternatives to bring peace. Whether by hook or by crook, by war, by terrorism, the first resort should be the negotiating table; even the end of Apartheid in South Africa involved years of negotiations between the principle parties involved, and often required them turning around and muzzling more extreme elements who were calling for more extreme measures. quote:I think I'll let your assertion that Nazi Germany was treated too harshly speak for itself. But even if you believe a light touch is needed, that's not an argument against war on Israel. Nazi Germany doesn't turn into West Germany without a war to defeat them first. So you'd agree that the State of Israel, as a democratic but not apartheidy independent state, separate from a Palestinian state, would be desireable outcome? We don't need all this arguing then if the goal in the end is just "West Germany" vs "EU-Germany but by shotgun marriage instead of consensual ascension". quote:We've seen this sentiment a few times in this thread, and at this point I think I'll just be straight and tell you that this is a disgusting viewpoint and ignores what this conflict actually is. It is not them "not getting along". What the conflict currently is isn't relevant for discussions about a hypothetical One State Solution that refused to consider outcomes other than "everyone lived happily ever after and nothing bad happened to them, the end." Because again, just look at Yugoslavia. quote:When you refer to a "prolonged century of sectarian violence" as a result of forcing Israel's hand, I assume you mean in opposition to a shorter period of sectarian violence until Israel completes the killing or ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians? Because that's Israel's plan. What Israel's plan is, isn't relevant to the push back here being "Hey lets not ignore reality and pretend that militarily occupying israel and saying 'you don't have a government anymore, you are a part of palestine now' is just going to work out well for anyone". Because there are extremists everywhere, in both societies. Because what if Israeli's just form up militia's and start engaging in their own terrorism (again?) until whatever military force occupying them is forced to withdraw? There's not many examples in the modern day of a occupying force on a hostile land working out in the long term; there's no moral or ethical solution to a insurrection that doesn't involve negotiation and compromise, just look at Iraq and Afghanistan. quote:Cool, so the opinions of the Israelis are the only thing that matters here, and the Palestinians can just die. Both their opinions matter is the point. Because there's no way of forcing them without it likely to still result in violence without well, greater application of violence, which just continues the cycle without any end short of well, the thing you're trying to stop.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 03:00
|
|