|
That is just an amazing amount of words to say why people shouldn't consider using force to stop a genocide...
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 03:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 13:27 |
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted: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) I don't know if this is ignorance, insanity, disingenuity, or some combination of all three, but China is (a) categorically not an ethnostate and (b) isn't/wasn't comming/ed genocide (Tibet, Xinjiang). To even attempt a comparison with what's going on in Gaza is frankly disgusting and shows a lack of empathy for human suffering that you should be ashamed of.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 03:26
|
|
|
Stringent posted:I don't know if this is ignorance, insanity, disingenuity, or some combination of all three, but China is (a) categorically not an ethnostate and (b) isn't/wasn't comming/ed genocide (Tibet, Xinjiang). Yea but I'm sure they'll come back with some compelling Google satellite imagery of a parking garage being built in Western China that a German "researcher" labeled a re-education camp between writing books about the rapture. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 03:33
|
|
|
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. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 03:42
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:That is just an amazing amount of words to say why people shouldn't consider using force to stop a genocide... Well no, this is just wrong. The issue isn't "should we use force to stop a genocide?" its "Should we use a very likely very large amount of force, very likely to cause a lot of destruction and suffering, in pursuit of the goal of 'destruction of the nation-state called Israel' in order to stop a genocide?" I'd have no issue with something vaguely defined as "force" in the abstract to "stop genocide", I have an issue with the specific wargoal here as it seems wasteful, reckless, and needless. Even the end of Apartheid in South Africa, requiring force, still resulted in negotiation; there's no reason to suppose that the only goal worth considering is what by any reasonable measure is the one that requires the greatest amount of human suffering, and that's highly likely to result in more suffering thereafter. At the end of the day, the quickest road to peace and an end of the genocide is Israel just agreeing to stop. It wouldn't be perfect, or the most "just" but nothing in international relations is ever perfectly "just"; but it'd be of all practical options on the table the one requiring the least amount of destruction and suffering for a lasting end of the current suffering. Stringent posted:I don't know if this is ignorance, insanity, disingenuity, or some combination of all three, but China is (a) categorically not an ethnostate and (b) isn't/wasn't comming/ed genocide (Tibet, Xinjiang). China is absolutely an ethnostate and is committing a genocide against the Uighurs (the UK parliament for example made such a declaration asserting this, and US Secretary State Anthony Blinken also made this assertion, the article goes over some of the reports and evidence) and Tibetans; this isn't disputable by facts, but this isn't the correct thread for this, we can discuss this in more detail in the China Megathread. (To be clear, the link is just a quick example of some of the evidence of China committing genocide, to discuss what is, or is not, an ethnostate is a deeper discussion and discussing whether China is this I imagine shouldn't be in this thread) Raenir Salazar fucked around with this message at 03:47 on Mar 16, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 03:44
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Well no, this is just wrong. The issue isn't "should we use force to stop a genocide?" its "Should we use a very likely very large amount of force, very likely to cause a lot of destruction and suffering, in pursuit of the goal of 'destruction of the nation-state called Israel' in order to stop a genocide?" I'd have no issue with something vaguely defined as "force" in the abstract to "stop genocide", I have an issue with the specific wargoal here as it seems wasteful, reckless, and needless. Even the end of Apartheid in South Africa, requiring force, still resulted in negotiation; there's no reason to suppose that the only goal worth considering is what by any reasonable measure is the one that requires the greatest amount of human suffering, and that's highly likely to result in more suffering thereafter. That's probably the only amount of force that COULD stop it. Less force, it might be slowed down again... a leisurely pace... strolling towards genocide. But always towards genocide. Then again, it's probably America that would need to have that force applied against it if the genocide of the Palestinians is ever going to end in anything other than apotheosis. e: because we're never going to stop backing the state of Israel, and it is never going to stop trying to find a final solution to their Palestinian problem
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 03:51
|
|
|
Man it would be cool if one day people could find a source of the Uyghurs genocide claims that doesn't go back to the guy that started the Victims of Communism memorial, or groups that used to be classified terrorists by the US State Department
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 04:08
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:That's probably the only amount of force that COULD stop it. Less force, it might be slowed down again... a leisurely pace... strolling towards genocide. But always towards genocide. I mean I can understand where you're coming from, as right now it seems like with what we know of Bibi it seems more likely than not, but its also just infinitely unlikely (overwhelming force vs Israel) to happen now either. There's no coalition of Arab states willing to give a boxing match with Israel another go, the US is basically never going to send boots to engage IDF forces, as you say in your edit. So if we're sitting here twiddling our thumbs hoping for what circumstances we want to happen to bring an end to the suffering of Palestinians then the one we should be hoping for isn't "A war breaks out to occupy Israel" its "Israel is able to be forced to the negotiating table (through one way or another) to respect the two state solution" as that's the most quickest, most efficient route to an end to the genocide. And also in the current circumstances it seems like Israel has difficulties with invading just Gaza with its military, it may probably succeed at gradually occupying the area, but it doesn't strike me that Israel really against both Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran backing etc, can really maintain a military campaign of that nature offencively; so I think that there is some balance of forces that results in a equilibrium of sorts where Israel can be brought to the negotiating table because there isn't really any rational option to keep doing what its doing. Whether that be shelling Gaza or expanding settlements in the West Bank; especially as Israel seems to be keeping on eroding relations with the US with its acts. In short I think there's many possible roads where Israel is forced to give concessions, where life vastly improves for your average Palestinian, without it requiring D-Day 2.0 on Tel Aviv.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 04:08
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:At the end of the day, the quickest road to peace and an end of the genocide is Israel just agreeing to stop. It wouldn't be perfect, or the most "just" but nothing in international relations is ever perfectly "just"; but it'd be of all practical options on the table the one requiring the least amount of destruction and suffering for a lasting end of the current suffering. It's a high bar, but out of everything you've posted in the last few pages this might be the most moronic. How likely do you think it is that the apartheid ethnostate will "agree to stop" committing genocide? The state of Israel needs to be dismantled (or dissolved, or whatever synonym you want to use). This is not a genocidal statement and does not imply the forcible removal or killing of Israelis any more than calling for the destruction of Nazi Germany constituted a call for genocide of Germans or the dismantling of apartheid South Africa suggested "white genocide". Jews lived alongside Muslims and Christians in historic Palestine for thousands of years prior to the Nakba, and one day in the future they will again, in a democratic Palestinian state with equal rights for all religious and ethnic groups. After the Israeli ethnostate is no more. Free Palestine.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 04:14
|
|
|
E2M2 posted:Man it would be cool if one day people could find a source of the Uyghurs genocide claims that doesn't go back to the guy that started the Victims of Communism memorial, or groups that used to be classified terrorists by the US State Department So now we don't listen to people who the US has classified as terrorists, when it concerns China.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 04:15
|
|
|
Maxy Boy posted:It's a high bar, but out of everything you've posted in the last few pages this might be the most moronic. I'd say more likely than the idea of getting overwhelming force to do so, or that this overwhelming force won't cause needless destruction and suffering that wouldn't be likely or nearly equivalent in scope. Ultimately didn't South Africa agree to stop? After three years of negotiations? As a result of a low intensity guerrilla conflict? quote:The state of Israel needs to be dismantled (or dissolved, or whatever synonym you want to use). I don't agree (that this is necessary to stop the genocide, or would in the case of the 'one state solution' result in peace). quote:This is not a genocidal statement and does not imply the forcible removal or killing of Israelis any more than calling for the destruction of Nazi Germany constituted a call for genocide of Germans or the dismantling of apartheid South Africa suggested "white genocide". To be clear, the argument here isn't that this is in of itself genocidal, but that the amount of force required, and the likely results, just as you say in the parallel here for Nazi Germany, is still an incredible amount of destruction, and suffering. quote:Jews lived alongside Muslims and Christians in historic Palestine for thousands of years prior to the Nakba, and one day in the future they will again, in a democratic Palestinian state with equal rights for all religious and ethnic groups. After the Israeli ethnostate is no more. What do you mean by this? I don't want to make assumptions, do you just mean in the hypothetical one state solution arrived at by force that the existing Israeli population will be able to live with equal rights right away? It's a little strange to phrase this as "one day in the future" isn't the point for them to immediately have equal rights, as all human beings deserved? In any case what stops Israeli's from voting as a block for an independent state? I feel like its probably not a practical solution without considerable negotiation beforehand and this is why I believe the use of force to settle the issue in favour of a one state solution ultimately is doomed to fail. e to add: To avoid the derail, I've edited it to the end of this post that I've replied to Stringents post in the China Megathread, Here Raenir Salazar fucked around with this message at 04:51 on Mar 16, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 04:26
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:China is absolutely an ethnostate and is committing a genocide against the Uighurs (the UK parliament for example made such a declaration asserting this, and US Secretary State Anthony Blinken also made this assertion, the article goes over some of the reports and evidence) and Tibetans; this isn't disputable by facts, but this isn't the correct thread for this, we can discuss this in more detail in the China Megathread. These are flat out lies, and it's absolutely pathetic you're dragging them into this thread thinking they provide any kind of comparison to Israel. How many tons of HE has the PLAAF dropped in Xianjiang? How many thousands of children have been slaughtered? How are you not ashamed of yourself for posting this poo poo? (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 04:26
|
|
|
socialsecurity posted:So now we don't listen to people who the US has classified as terrorists, when it concerns China. Well they USED to be classified as terrorists until it was politically expedient to not label them as such. Same thing happened with Azov. Edit we should probably leave it at that for this thread
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 04:36
|
|
|
Stringent posted:How many tons of HE has the PLAAF dropped in Xianjiang? How many thousands of children have been slaughtered? This isn't a good faith counterargument, it's on the same level as that Hasbarist argument that Israel can't be committing genocide cause the Palestinian population keeps growing over the years. Genocide has a specific definition. That said cultural genocide isn't nearly on the same level as what Israel is doing, and I'm not sure that's a worthwhile derail anyway. Even if China was worse than Israel, the US is specifically funding and encouraging Israel's genocide.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 08:32
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted: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. No, I don't think the burden of proof is on me to disprove the claim you made, that a war on Israel would inherently be genocidal and comparable to the genocide in Gaza. Raenir Salazar posted:Why shouldn't we? Its what it took for other governments such as Imperial Japan, and wasn't enough for Communist North Korea. This is moving the goalposts from "A war on Israel requires a genocide and the flattening of Israel's cities" to "There will be significant (unnecessary) suffering". Not the argument you made, not what I responded to. Raenir Salazar posted: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) Rather than getting into a whole derail about Adrian Zenz and how you are wrong on both these points, it seems more reasonable to me to avoid the derail: I don't care what you believe about China, and it isn't relevant to this discussion. When you imply that someone supporting attacks on Israel must also support attacks on China, that assumes that they agree that a genocide is happening in China. If they don't agree, there is no contradiction. Raenir Salazar posted: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. You're creating a strawman here. Feel free to return to this argument once someone actually argues that Israel should be nuked. Raenir Salazar posted: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. What you are stating outright is that it is okay to go to war with a dictatorship to stop a genocide, but if a democracy does a genocide, war is wrong, because the democracy can change its leaders. I think that's a gross position to take, it says that democracies should be given more slack than dictatorships when doing genocides, simply because they're democracies. The people being murdered don't care how you got your leaders. Raenir Salazar posted:Well without getting into it Shaun is just wrong on those points Great, then let's not get into it. I don't care if you agree with a youtuber. I simply wanted to make sure you understood that the argument he's making is the opposite of what you're saying. Raenir Salazar posted: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. Okay, and how is that first resort going? How has it been going for the last half a century? You are saying this should be the first resort, which implies you support other methods if this fails. The rest of your post isn't really relevant. I am not saying war on Israel is a good idea, or that it should be the solution to this. I think destroying Israel's economy via blockades and sanctions, and Western countries withdrawing support is a much better path. I am simply pushing back on your assertion that war on Israel would inherently be genocidal. I don't think it would, unless you believe that every war must inherently involve genocide. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) Esran fucked around with this message at 13:04 on Mar 16, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 12:58
|
|
|
I fail to see how Israel having nukes limits outside military intervention opportunities that much. The United States had decades to prepare first strike options for use on the soviet union. Surely they could work against a small rogue state.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 14:08
|
|
|
I’m not sure why military intervention is relevant. If the US magically flipped on Israel the first thing to happen would be a bunch of nasty sanctions against Israel by countries no longer afraid of the US’ ire for implementing them. Israel wouldn’t collapse overnight but it would become and almost utterly isolated pariah real loving quick.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 14:24
|
|
|
Maxy Boy posted:Jews lived alongside Muslims and Christians in historic Palestine for thousands of years prior to the Nakba, and one day in the future they will again, in a democratic Palestinian state with equal rights for all religious and ethnic groups. Impossible because neither Christianity nor Islam has yet existed for thousands of years - Christianity's still a little shy of 2000, Islam of 1500. And even in that timeframe, the place famously changed hands repeatedly between religious states, and the Christian states (starting with Christian Rome and then so many crusader states) were famously anti-Jewish (and, after the birth of Islam, anti-Muslim) to the point of forced exile and massacre. The best centuries, by far, are the ones where Palestine is ruled by a Muslim Empire where Jews and Christians are protected second-class citizens. Neither the history of the Jews nor the history of Palestine is a source for hope that people of minority ethnoreligious identities can live in permanent safety and complete enfranchisement - there's no reason to pretend otherwise, because we can find that hope in what's been accomplished in other places. That's what we have to do and exactly what you do in your post - the "democratic Palestinian state with equal rights for all religious and ethnic groups" you describe is obviously what should be there, and the only way that people of different religions can actually live together in peace and dignity, and, just as obviously, a novelty to the region (less than 300 years ago it would've been novel to the entire world). What we demand is not the re-establishment of some golden status quo that persisted for mythical eons before Zionism. It's a revolution to accomplish what had never before been accomplished. And it will come about because every technology to obscure the dignity of the Palestinian people ends up defeated, just as with every other community that's been inconvenient to the state. Free Palestine! Civilized Fishbot fucked around with this message at 15:25 on Mar 16, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 14:33
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:I’m not sure why military intervention is relevant. If the US magically flipped on Israel the first thing to happen would be a bunch of nasty sanctions against Israel by countries no longer afraid of the US’ ire for implementing them. Israel wouldn’t collapse overnight but it would become and almost utterly isolated pariah real loving quick. It would have to be military intervention against Israel AND America, not against Israel BY America.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 14:38
|
|
|
I don't think military intervention is relevant at all. It's almost certainly not going to happen, and there are other ways to stop Israel. South Africa didn't need to be invaded for Apartheid to end. It's a dumb derail prompted by a shitpost. In conclusion Civilized Fishbot posted:Free Palestine!
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 15:11
|
|
|
There's at least one makeshift pier that's been delivering food and water to Gaza. A World Central Kitchen relief barge delivered about 115 tons of food, after going IDF inspections. https://x.com/manniefabian/status/1768696074259095890?s=20 It is merely a drop in the bucket in the ocean of what Gazan's need but if Biden was serious about establishing a sealink for aid relief, we would be doing it now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 16:08
|
|
|
I've typed up a pretty big reply to you Esran but towards the end I feel like we can summarize it to just these two points, I leave the rest of my response for your curiosity but I'm fine with leave it here if you are.Esran posted:I am simply pushing back on your assertion that war on Israel would inherently be genocidal. I don't think it would, unless you believe that every war must inherently involve genocide. First point, as this seems to be a misconception, I clarify this misunderstanding further below, but I never made the claim that it is "inherently genocidal" in fact doing ctrl+f on the past two pages I can find no point where I even use these words. I probably use words like "similar", "comparable", and equivalent. Using "equivalent" was a little sloppy as that implies a harder equality than I meant to imply, sorry about that, I meant something like "comparable" where if I take a grapefruit in one hand, and an like dunno, a squash? In the other, I can say they are comparable in weight by eyeballing how they feel which I feel like is very important to the discussion as to why words/phrases/slogans like "destroy Israel" are counterproductive. Esran posted:The rest of your post isn't really relevant. I am not saying war on Israel is a good idea, or that it should be the solution to this. I think destroying Israel's economy via blockades and sanctions, and Western countries withdrawing support is a much better path. Well good! I think we can reasonable agree to mostly disagree on most of the specifics; war with Israel is not a good idea, pressuring Israel via economic means, to get it to stop what it's doing would definitely be better and would be fantastic if it worked! Not that I agree that the goal should be of course for Israel to suddenly dissolve itself as that would be unrealistic, but stopping what its doing in Gaza so maybe there can be a new effort at like Oslo II would definitely be preferable to war. There might still be disagreements in the specifics here as to what I support and what you support, but I can see where you're coming from and I hope you can see where I'm coming from. I'll say again I wrote what I wrote below as understandably I started from the top and worked my way to the bottom, and I don't want to be construed as failing to respond to your points, but be that as it may I don't mind this being the stopping point if you don't either.  Esran posted:No, I don't think the burden of proof is on me to disprove the claim you made, that a war on Israel would inherently be genocidal and comparable to the genocide in Gaza. Well no, not in the context of my original claim: quote: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. What I'm saying here is that, if to accomplish your goal required destruction on the scale of something like the Korean War, how wouldn't that be comparable? There's no goalposts change here and clearly I never claimed that it would be "inherently genocidal" hence my use of language regarding "There will be significant (unnecessary) suffering" because saying it would be genocidal obviously has baggage that cloaks the undeniable truth of the issue. That demanding overwhelming force to "destroy Israel" would be so destructive, cruel, and result in such an amount of suffering that it would amount to what you're trying to stop or make little practical difference. Which again to stress I'm not saying is genocidal, I'm explaining and defending the spirit of why people obviously are reasonably opposed to this language and proposal, especially as other options are on the table. What you perceive to be as moving the goalposts are actual attempts to see where along the spectrum of "war is bad" do you agree with so I can work backwards and find an argument you can accept in how it relates to the original point. quote:When you imply that someone supporting attacks on Israel must also support attacks on China, that assumes that they agree that a genocide is happening in China. If they don't agree, there is no contradiction. That isn't the argument at all. The argument here is to rebute the idea that "using overwhelming force to destroy Israel" wouldn't require massive amount of destruction; by just using a different country doing comparable and equivalent acts as an example (to avoid the counter argument being, "Why we wouldn't do X vs Y, because Y isn't doing Z!"). To use another example, if someone said, that in order to stop genocide and imperialism "the US must be destroyed" ignoring the practical realities, lets pretend for the sake of the argument, advanced lizard aliens could invade the US and destroy them using comparable peer weaponry, and were immune to nuclear weapons. But had to use millions of solders, tens of thousands of missiles, millions of tonnes of bombs, there's no dispute that the result would look very similar to the USSR or China in the aftermath of the respective fascist invasions? And this is with aliens who we can pretend lack any Hitler Particles and lack personal animosity towards the US in this example, the same wouldn't be true in any practical reality involving Israel. There is no argument here to be clear suggesting some sort of Whataboutist intent; but to use a thought experiment to showcase the weakness in the position being put forward in that idea that "overwhelming force" wouldn't result in "overwhelming destruction". quote:You're creating a strawman here. Feel free to return to this argument once someone actually argues that Israel should be nuked. Where's the strawman? I didn't say people suggested Israel should be nuked, that seems to be a large misreading of that passage. In fact you've even cut off part of the quote, maybe for conciseness or relevance? The original point I responded to was: 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? Which I responded to in full with (sans some of the asides/musings in brackets): quote: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, I'm definitely not arguing the Soviet invasion of Nazi Germany was wrong; 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. The full intent, in service of the broader argument I think is pretty clear that this isn't about saying "We shouldn't nuke Israel" (obviously we shouldn't though) but that the kinds of force required to "stop genocide" historically has been "overwhelming", and we shouldn't naively completely disregard that cost when weighing and considering our options. This is I note a drawback with cutting up my post into their paragraphs (especially as I separated some of my points into paragraphs for readability as an accessibility concern) is that its easy to lose sight of the forest for the trees in the back and forth here. I urge you to step back and reconsider the intention of the argument in its aggregate, that maybe "destroying Israel" shouldn't be the goal, if any alternative can be found. quote:What you are stating outright is that it is okay to go to war with a dictatorship to stop a genocide, but if a democracy does a genocide, war is wrong, because the democracy can change its leaders. I think that's a gross position to take, it says that democracies should be given more slack than dictatorships when doing genocides, simply because they're democracies. The people being murdered don't care how you got your leaders. Woah woah woah, lets settle our horses. I never said "war is wrong", or that requiring force is automatically or categorically immoral or shouldn't be considered, war is just an extension of politics by other means after all! But the point here is, since Israel is a democracy, that there isn't a 1:1 comparison with Nazi Germany, and going to total war against them, to destroy the country of Israel, to destroy the country the vast majority of Israeli's would very much like to keep, especially if the goal is for a by gunpoint One State Solution; I don't think that's going to work out to any kind of new status quo that can be recognized as just. It's still a bit unclear to me what your position is, if the goal is just for "West Germany" where Israel gets to still exist, where "Jewish State" gets removed from the constitution as a fig leaf but otherwise Israeli's still get to have self-determination to manage their own affairs within the internationally recognized borders of the Green Line with the illegal settlements ceded back to the PA and the Golan Heights made into an international peacekeeping zone; or if you think the goal should be total war to create a One State Solution. I still think in the end that either case would be incredibly destructive, and even in the West Germany case probably still tragic if any offramp could still be found; but I can agree that hypothetically it would be an improvement on the status quo for both sides and more likely to result in a lasting peace. quote:Great, then let's not get into it. I don't care if you agree with a youtuber. I simply wanted to make sure you understood that the argument he's making is the opposite of what you're saying. I don't think we established that at all. I think Shaun's video definitely claims or pre-supposes the claim that the strategic bombing campaign was a war crime; he can be wrong about the specifics or how he uses specific evidence to support his argument. But again, that's what Ask/Tell is for. quote:Okay, and how is that first resort going? How has it been going for the last half a century? You are saying this should be the first resort, which implies you support other methods if this fails. I dunno, but the "last resort" being discussed here certainly isn't on the table either, and it doesn't even look like would result in achieving your goals.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 16:15
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Israel is a democracy Nothing more democratic than a state with millions of people in the country being non-persons with no legal rights subject to a military court system and ethnicity based citizenship and naturalization laws!
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 16:36
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:First point, as this seems to be a misconception, I clarify this misunderstanding further below, but I never made the claim that it is "inherently genocidal" in fact doing ctrl+f on the past two pages I can find no point where I even use these words. I probably use words like "similar", "comparable", and equivalent. Using "equivalent" was a little sloppy as that implies a harder equality than I meant to imply, sorry about that, I meant something like "comparable" where if I take a grapefruit in one hand, and an like dunno, a squash? In the other, I can say they are comparable in weight by eyeballing how they feel which I feel like is very important to the discussion as to why words/phrases/slogans like "destroy Israel" are counterproductive. It's fine if you didn't mean it that way, but the start of this derail was me saying that it is possible to want a war on Israel without also wanting a genocide or the mass killing or expulsion of all the people living in Israel, and you seemed to disagree which is why I understood your argument that way. Regarding whether the slogan is counterproductive, I doubt the dissolution of Israel will happen in the near future. It's a fine goal though. Israel needs to be either dissolved, or transformed into a non-expansionist non-ethnostate that isn't keeping Palestinians as captives. As Israel exists today, it is a danger to everyone around it. If Israel can be "destroyed" by being changed into a country that isn't this way (e.g. the Israstine idea), that's fine too. But the Zionist project needs to die. Raenir Salazar posted:Well good! I think we can reasonable agree to mostly disagree on most of the specifics; war with Israel is not a good idea, pressuring Israel via economic means, to get it to stop what it's doing would definitely be better and would be fantastic if it worked! Not that I agree that the goal should be of course for Israel to suddenly dissolve itself as that would be unrealistic, but stopping what its doing in Gaza so maybe there can be a new effort at like Oslo II would definitely be preferable to war. There might still be disagreements in the specifics here as to what I support and what you support, but I can see where you're coming from and I hope you can see where I'm coming from. While I don't think open war with Israel is realistic to happen, as you mentioned earlier, one of the ways South Africa was put under pressure is via guerilla actions. I hope Israel will become increasingly a pariah state, and that other countries will sack up and start sanctioning them. Attacks from irregulars that don't escalate into full country-on-country warfare would also help add pressure.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 16:55
|
|
|
Young Freud posted:There's at least one makeshift pier that's been delivering food and water to Gaza. A World Central Kitchen relief barge delivered about 115 tons of food, after going IDF inspections. Setting up an actual pier to do heavy-duty food shipments will be a good thing if it actually happens, in fifty days or so. After a ton of Gazans have starved to death. It's a pretty ridiculous response compared to putting actual pressure on the Israelis as they continue to bomb and blockade aid from entering, but at least it'll be something.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 17:27
|
|
|
SMEGMA_MAIL posted:Nothing more democratic than a state with millions of people in the country being non-persons with no legal rights subject to a military court system and ethnicity based citizenship and naturalization laws! According to Wikipedia, the Arab population of Israel is around 21% of the population or 2 million people, and the vast majority of which have voting rights. Perhaps you mean the Arabs living in the West Bank and Gaza lack legal rights, but even in a properly upheld two-state solution they wouldn't having voting rights in Israeli elections so I'm not sure how this makes Israel "not a democracy"; traditionally citizens of a different country outside of a country don't have any say in a country they don't live in. Canadian's don't and shouldn't at large have any say in Japanese governance. I don't think the problem with the Japanese invasion and occupation of China during WW2 was that Chinese people didn't have a say in Japanese politics! Now perhaps you mean to say that the problem of course is the actions of the Israel government, such as its settler-colonialism, its military operations, and efforts to ethnically cleanse the Palestinians, I don't agree that this means Israel isn't a democracy, it just means its a democracy that's nonetheless committing war crimes and crimes against humanity; just like the United States did in its "Manifest Destiny", but the United States was and still is a democracy even during the periods of its history where it still had legal slavery and women lacked the vote. But eventually via political pressure the US changed itself to be a better democracy; that was more inclusive. I'm not sure where you get the idea that you're implying that democratic is synonymous with good, even Winston Churchill was like "Democracy is the worst form of government except for every other one we've tried." quote:It's fine if you didn't mean it that way, but the start of this derail was me saying that it is possible to want a war on Israel without also wanting a genocide or the mass killing or expulsion of all the people living in Israel, and you seemed to disagree which is why I understood your argument that way. The problem here is that the issue isn't what I said, but what you were responding to, and the context of which you weren't considering: This was the chain: 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 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? Esran posted:
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. It's pretty clear what exactly what I and Grip It were responding to, and I was disagreeing with you, because you completely misunderstood what Quantum Cat was saying. It sounds like you actually disagree with Quantum Cat, and that "overwhelming force" to "destroy Israel" would be a bad idea, we can move on. quote:Regarding whether the slogan is counterproductive, I doubt the dissolution of Israel will happen in the near future. It's a fine goal though. Israel needs to be either dissolved, or transformed into a non-expansionist non-ethnostate that isn't keeping Palestinians as captives. As Israel exists today, it is a danger to everyone around it. If Israel can be "destroyed" by being changed into a country that isn't this way (e.g. the Israstine idea), that's fine too. But the Zionist project needs to die. A lot of people have reasonable concerns and disagreements about some of the assumptions about what this means or calls for, but yes as Israel exists today its a threat, but there's plenty of ways Israel can still exist, separately from a Palestinian state, which isn't a threat which still exists explicitly as a safe haven for Jews.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 17:50
|
|
|
SMEGMA_MAIL posted:Nothing more democratic than a state with millions of people in the country being non-persons with no legal rights subject to a military court system and ethnicity based citizenship and naturalization laws! Looks at chattel slavery in the 1800s and the southern border... Checks out, Israel is a "Democracy"
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 18:25
|
|
|
quote:Perhaps you mean the Arabs living in the West Bank and Gaza lack legal rights, but even in a properly upheld two-state solution they wouldn't having voting rights in Israeli elections so I'm not sure how this makes Israel "not a democracy"; traditionally citizens of a different country outside of a country don't have any say in a country they don't live in. Canadian's don't and shouldn't at large have any say in Japanese governance. I don't think the problem with the Japanese invasion and occupation of China during WW2 was that Chinese people didn't have a say in Japanese politics! If by “Different country outside of their country” you mean the residents of a military occupied bantustan whose land is effectively claimed by Israel and a region within the claimed borders of Israel where Israel enforces its rights as if it is Israeli territory under UNCLOS and manages the border crossing from Eygpt as if it is their border and refuses to allow suffrage or even basic human rights to those people much less political rights then wow yes insightful point I guess Israel is a thriving democracy. Oh wait except for ethnicity based naturalization and property laws even within Israel proper, whoopsie. Butter Activities fucked around with this message at 18:51 on Mar 16, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 18:42
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:According to Wikipedia, the Arab population of Israel is around 21% of the population or 2 million people, and the vast majority of which have voting rights. Israel is not a democracy because it occupies Gaza and the West Bank making them effectively part of Israel, and doesn't grant those people a vote. Israel doesn't want to release the Palestinians, but it also definitely doesn't want them to become citizens, because that would threaten Jewish supremacy in Israel. Raenir Salazar posted:the United States was and still is a democracy even during the periods of its history where it still had legal slavery and women lacked the vote I mean... Do we really need to explain to you why this is an incredible thing to say? Especially in a context where you're arguing that when considering whether it is okay to go to war to stop a genocide, people need to consider whether the target state is a "democracy"? Raenir Salazar posted:The problem here is that the issue isn't what I said, but what you were responding to, and the context of which you weren't considering: Multiple people have at this point not understood what you are getting at, so I guess you can interpret that as you will. I don't think it would be a good idea in practical terms, but I'm also not going to condemn someone wishing for Israel to be militarily dismantled. I certainly don't think it's an immoral thing to want. Raenir Salazar posted:A lot of people have reasonable concerns and disagreements about some of the assumptions about what this means or calls for, but yes as Israel exists today its a threat, but there's plenty of ways Israel can still exist, separately from a Palestinian state, which isn't a threat which still exists explicitly as a safe haven for Jews. Israel is not a safe haven for Jews. As we've covered before in this thread, Israel is actually doing a really poor job of keeping Jews safe. And no, I don't think there's a way for Israel to not be a threat to its neighbors, and still be a Jewish supremacist ethnostate. The racism and disregard for other populations seems to come with the territory. Esran fucked around with this message at 19:23 on Mar 16, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 19:20
|
|
|
Also a bunch of Palestinians technically count as being from the West Bank but practically speaking live in Israel, especially in and around Jerusalem, IIRC. And of course if the two territories are separate then Jerusalem can't be the Israeli capital, good to know that as well. e: VVVVV Not having half the people subject to its laws without any say would be a good start. Private Speech fucked around with this message at 19:26 on Mar 16, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 19:23
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:Looks at chattel slavery in the 1800s and the southern border... Checks out, Israel is a "Democracy" Wait, do you mean the southern border today? Can you explain? I understand that the situation at the border is pretty bad in terms of human rights, but to some extent this is a consequence of the general principle of any nation enforcing its borders against unauthorized entry. I'm not sure how with this context that this makes the US not a democracy? SMEGMA_MAIL posted:If by “Different country outside of their country” you mean the residents of a military occupied bantustan whose land is effectively claimed by Israel and a region within the claimed borders of Israel where Israel enforces its rights as if it is Israeli territory under UNCLOS and manages the border crossing from Eygpt as if it is their border and refuses to allow suffrage or even basic human rights to those people much less political rights then wow yes insightful point I guess Israel is a thriving democracy. I feel like I addressed this in my original post, there's no definition of democracy that suggests democracies don't invade other countries; or do bad or otherwise heinous acts in its self interests. Nations are nations, nations are under at least some common and mainstream international relations paradigms, self-interested and amoral actors first and foremost; which means consequently if its in its interest, it will do bad things. Do you have an example of a country you would consider to be under your definition to be a democracy which presumably doesn't do self-interested amoral acts? A nation that doesn't but could if it wanted to would be the most relevant, not a microstate for example. Esran posted:Israel is not a democracy because it occupies Gaza and the West Bank making them effectively part of Israel, and doesn't grant those people a vote. Israel doesn't want to release the Palestinians, but it also definitely doesn't want them to become citizens, because that would threaten Jewish supremacy in Israel. That doesn't follow, I don't think we'll find that any democracy exists if the definition relies on "doesn't do bad things to people somewhere". quote:I mean... Do we really need to explain to you why this is an incredible thing to say? Woah woah, back up a minute. Please reread my previous posts; Its okay to go to war with a democracy. You know what I'm disagreeing with, and we can leave it there. quote:Multiple people have at this point not understood what you are getting at, so I guess you can interpret that as you will. I think everyone is allowed to have an opinion, but I think it shouldn't be surprising that depending on the tone and substance of the opinion, and in the details it advocates for, that people might disagree with some versions of how a sentiment is argued for, but not others. I don't disagree fundamentally, or think its immoral if in some circumstance where push comes to show, that's what it takes. I just don't agree that's what it takes, and we don't need to twist words about this. quote:Israel is not a safe haven for Jews. As we've covered before in this thread, Israel is actually doing a really poor job of keeping Jews safe. I think regardless of what the situation on the ground is, this is not how a lot of jews see it, and not how a lot of other people re: liberals see it. I don't think it actually is controversial to say that over the long period of history that the best way to keep a culture "safe", a language "safe" is having your own nation. Its where the phrase "a language is a dialect with an army" comes from; and why the 19th century nationalist movements originated from. The Slavs in the Balkans didn't feel safe, free, or secure living under Austrian or Ottoman rule, and turned to Russia and other nations for help constantly striving for independence. (to be clear, this isn't to say that a multi cultural, multi ethnic, pluralistic democratic nation is bad, we just have very few successful examples, and the successful ones are also settler-colonial states like the US and Canada; while we also have notable failures: Yugoslavia and the USSR; and then a few ones which might fall apart at any time: Spain. I fully support a multicultural, multiethnic democratic country, the whole world should just be a one world government in fact, but everyone should be able to do so via a voluntarily and democratically driven process without dispute to opt-in) Israel might be doing a bad job keeping jews safe, just as how Japan ultimately did a very bad job at keeping Japanese people safe during WW2; but I don't think it can at all be disputed that the fact that Japan has a country, but the Ainu don't, makes a big difference; would you really suggest that if Hakkaido was a independent Ainu state, that their culture wouldn't be considerably better off? Or Okinawans? Jews are moderately safer now than they've historically have been in Europe, the US, and Canada (but not Russia?); but we shouldn't pretend that it isn't because of the world having a collective "wtf" moment and ignore the centuries of pograms and oppression jews faced prior to WW2; where I'm not sure how you can argue that having an independent country where they could escape to wouldn't have been overwhelmingly better than any alternative on the table at the time circa 1920. Millions would've lived if they had. And I don't agree that "safe haven for jews" constitutionally mandated means "jewish supremacist ethnostate" . I point to Quebec here, which has "distinct society" for the protection of the french language and culture in its constitution that it gets to have completely separate and actually gets to override the canadian constitution most of the time. You can have a ethnic group have gauranteed legal protections without it being an ethnostate. Raenir Salazar fucked around with this message at 19:51 on Mar 16, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 19:23
|
|
|
Apartheid states aren’t democracies. Simple as.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 19:38
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Wait, do you mean the southern border today? Can you explain? I understand that the situation at the border is pretty bad in terms of human rights, but to some extent this is a consequence of the general principle of any nation enforcing its borders against unauthorized entry. I'm not sure how with this context that this makes the US not a democracy? Thanks for sharing your views. I just wanted to add that Freedom House, widely considered a subject matter expert on democracy, is in agreement with you and classifies Israel as a democratic and free, which adds authority to your point. (Conversely, Russia and Turkey are not.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 19:54
|
|
|
In Israel, we are all democratic. Some of us are more democratic than others though
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 20:04
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:That doesn't follow, I don't think we'll find that any democracy exists if the definition relies on "doesn't do bad things to people somewhere". You are misunderstanding the argument. It's not about them doing "bad things". It's about Israel occupying two large tracts of land that are functionally part of Israel, that Israel exercises border control over, and which Israel has settlements in, but which it claims technically aren't part of Israel (yet), and whose populations have no rights in Israel. You are not a democracy in any way that matters if you have a large population of not-citizens that you control, but do not grant rights to. Raenir Salazar posted:Woah woah, back up a minute. Please reread my previous posts; Its okay to go to war with a democracy. You know what I'm disagreeing with, and we can leave it there. I assume that what you're saying is that going to war with Israel should not be needed, and there are other options to force them to change their behavior. And that's fine, but then whether they're a democracy or not is irrelevant. Raenir Salazar posted:I think regardless of what the situation on the ground is, this is not how a lot of jews see it, and not how a lot of other people re: liberals see it. I don't think it actually is controversial to say that over the long period of history that the best way to keep a culture "safe", a language "safe" is having your own nation. Its where the phrase "a language is a dialect with an army" comes from; and why the 19th century nationalist movements originated from We covered this argument in this thread a few days ago. We know better than 19th century nationalists. These people were wrong, and ethnostates are not a good solution, especially colonialist ethnostates placed on land where other people already live. Raenir Salazar posted:we shouldn't pretend that it isn't because of the world having a collective "wtf" moment and ignore the centuries of pograms and oppression jews faced prior to WW2; where I'm not sure how you can argue that having an independent country where they could escape to wouldn't have been overwhelmingly better than any alternative on the table at the time circa 1920. Millions would've lived if they had. This argument is also bad. There were in fact other countries to escape to, namely pretty much all countries outside Europe, and many Jews did in fact escape there. I'll point out again that Israel is not a safe haven for Jews. It's a heavily militarized borderline fascist state, that is pretty much always a hair away from war with its neighbors who hate it, and which is constantly at various degrees of war with the concentration camp they're operating in Gaza. Raenir Salazar posted:And I don't agree that "safe haven for jews" constitutionally mandated means "jewish supremacist ethnostate" That's fine, but that's not what Israel is, and it's not what Israel wants to be. It is not the goal of the Zionist project to create a state like Quebec. And I don't buy that we need a "safe haven for jews", and neither do many Jews in the diaspora. It's why that diaspora still exists.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 20:13
|
|
|
mawarannahr posted:Thanks for sharing your views. I just wanted to add that Freedom House, widely considered a subject matter expert on democracy, is in agreement with you and classifies Israel as a democratic and free, which adds authority to your point. (Conversely, Russia and Turkey are not.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_House quote:Most of the organization's funding comes from the U.S. State Department[4] and other government grants. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 20:20
|
|
|
Freedom House's report on Isreal starts with this note:Freedom House posted:The numerical scores and status listed above do not reflect conditions in the Gaza Strip or the West Bank, which are examined in separate reports. Although the international community generally considers East Jerusalem to be part of the occupied West Bank, it may be mentioned in this report when specific conditions there directly affect or overlap with conditions in Israel proper. Freedom in the World reports assess the level of political rights and civil liberties in a given geographical area, regardless of whether they are affected by the state, nonstate actors, or foreign powers. Disputed or occupied territories are sometimes assessed separately if they meet certain criteria, including boundaries that are sufficiently stable to allow year-on-year comparisons. For more information, see the report methodology and FAQ. Freedom House on the West Bank posted:Israel’s military occupation of the West Bank entails onerous physical barriers and constraints on movement, demolition of homes and other physical infrastructure, restrictions on political rights and civil liberties, and expanding Jewish settlements that are widely considered to constitute a violation of international law. Jewish settlers in the West Bank are Israeli citizens and enjoy the same rights and liberties as other Jewish Israelis. They also enjoy relative impunity for violence against Palestinians.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 20:46
|
|
|
Esran posted:You are misunderstanding the argument. It's not about them doing "bad things". Okay so now its "not in any way that matters"; I still do not believe that this is a consistent definition of "democracy"; I think in general is still matters a lot. That Israel can elect a government that can decide to negotiate. quote:We covered this argument in this thread a few days ago. We know better than 19th century nationalists. These people were wrong, and ethnostates are not a good solution, especially colonialist ethnostates placed on land where other people already live. I check on the thread from time to time and going back to around March 10th and quickly glancing through back to like yesterday I don't see this discussion. Suffice it to say that just going off of the broad understanding of history as I understand it, while it can generally be said "we know better today than we did X years ago" on many issues; I don't think we can convincing say "Hungarians were wrong to want to be independent from Austria" as an example of what I mean by "19th century nationalists"; sure, it would be nice if the Balkans could've sat down and agreed to a Federation and be one country but that didn't work out; and would take until the European Union for something similar to happen; and the European Union is basically not even a country, certainly not on the same reasonable definition we'd look at the USSR, the USA, or the former Yugoslavia. If Palestine was an independent country and the Mandate never happened then the jewish immigration to Palestine probably wouldn't have happened. I'm not sure it can be convincingly argued, that having your own country, military, police force, and control over your own borders aren't all massively important things to your safety and security. Its all the things the Palestinian Authority lacks right now; and is a large part of why Israel is able to do the things its doing. quote:This argument is also bad. There were in fact other countries to escape to, namely pretty much all countries outside Europe, and many Jews did in fact escape there. Jewish refugees were also denied entry to many safe harbors, including the United States; there was no singular location where they could all have escaped to if they tried; various countries were only willing to accept relatively small numbers of refugees (sounds familiar?) I don't have quick access to a comprehensive list or report, but I get the sense the total number that could escape to elsewhere was around 100,000. Requiring in some cases considerable effort to get relatively small numbers, like 10,000-20,000 jews to safety, giving passports, visas and so on. None of these efforts seem to me look sustainable for up to a million people, and I'm sure for many jews there was possibly a unwillingness to leave for lack of prospects. Six million jews died. While after Israel was established 700,000 immediately migrated to Israel, followed by another wave of around 160,000. So nearly a million jews basically left and migrated to Israel basically as soon as they legally could, while a merely tenth of that number could escape prior during WW2? I feel like a reasonable conclusion here is that if Israel had existed in some fashion sooner, and not just as a mandate more jews could've been saved. As prior to that for many jews the choice was "assimilate and hope for acceptance or leave to the USA". Something like 2 million jews emmigrated to the US prior to WW1 but this got clamped down on in the 1920s. quote:That's fine, but that's not what Israel is, and it's not what Israel wants to be. It is not the goal of the Zionist project to create a state like Quebec. I'm also not sure what this means, you're not talking to an Israeli Zionist, so you'd agree that something like Quebec's legal protections either for a Independent Israel or an israel that's a part of a one state solution would be fine? e: vvv mawarannahr posted:I don't think this is really at odds with Raenir's argument, cf. "the United States was and still is a democracy even during the periods of its history where it still had legal slavery and women lacked the vote," although I don't want to put words in their mouth so I'll leave it there. You are correct; because like, the US and Canada are also settler-colonial countries today right? I don't think it's disputable that these countries are built on top of genocide with regards to the Native Americans and First Nations people (things like Boarding Schools only ended in living memory in Canada like, very recently, like the 1960s? I think I saw even 1990s!) but I think its clear that the US and Canada are still democracies in spite of this history. Even if imperfect and built on unjust foundations of conquest and settlement; they're better in some ways today than 100+ years ago but I don't think this changes much, its poor comfort for the victims imho. Raenir Salazar fucked around with this message at 20:55 on Mar 16, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 20:49
|
|
|
Rebel Blob posted:Freedom House's report on Isreal starts with this note: I don't think this is really at odds with Raenir's argument, cf. "the United States was and still is a democracy even during the periods of its history where it still had legal slavery and women lacked the vote," although I don't want to put words in their mouth so I'll leave it there.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 20:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 13:27 |
|
|
The amount of sea lions in this thread is terrifying. The Science Is Clear. Over 30,000 People Have Died in Gaza - and they clearly state that "actually, the numbers are likely conservative."
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 21:17
|
|