|
Szarrukin posted:The amount of sea lions in this thread is terrifying. Please make it clear who you're responding to, not just "the thread." That's what quoting is for.
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 21:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 01:23 |
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted: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. This is why you are confusing people and getting into a discussion on democracy and what counts as democracy that you probably don't care to have, because you're saying something much more narrow. In the context of deciding whether war on a country to prevent genocide is more or less bad, you mentioned that it's important whether a country is a democracy. I think given what you're saying here, the part you actually care about is that the country can replace its leaders. So there's no reason to discuss whether Israel is a democracy (it is not). The part that matters is that people could elect a new government and that government can decide to negotiate. That argument is still not very cogent. Even a dictatorship will experience rebellion if pushed hard enough. Moreover, the people who can vote in Israel are exactly the people who benefit from Jewish supremacy. Are they going to vote away their own privilege? Raenir Salazar posted: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. This conflates two things: It is obviously important for a country to have all the things you mentioned. It is not obviously important for an ethnic group to segregate themselves away from everyone else, and for that ethnic group to have all these things separately from whatever country they might otherwise be a part of. I don't think it's reasonable to say "Jews must have their own military, or they won't be safe". I don't think you can draw the comparison to separatist movements in other countries. Those seperatists generally want self-governance in the regions they live in. A great many Israelis aren't from Palestine and moved there. Also seperatists most often don't start invading their neighbors and settling their land, nor do they claim rights to the entire region they separated from (the analogy breaks down here, since Israel didn't really "separate from" Palestine). Raenir Salazar posted: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?) If the argument you're making is that Jewish people must have a safe habour country in their back pocket just in case, then I don't buy it. I'll also point out that Israel's creation was not prompted by the Holocaust, it was well underway as a project before then. Israel also didn't see itself as the break-glass-in-case-of-Holocaust country for the first several decades, that justification came later https://sci-hub.se/https://doi.org/10.1002/jts.2490080203. Even if I did buy this argument, that would be an argument in favor of giving them a region of Germany. Not a completely unrelated piece of land in the Middle East that someone else is already living on. Why should Palestine pay for the crimes of Germany? Using the Holocaust to explain the need for Israel is a smokescreen. Raenir Salazar posted: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? I think in order to get a one-state solution, you will have to force Israel just as hard as you would have to do to dissolve Israel and turn the land back into Palestine, so I don't think it really matters. The same applies creating an independent Israel that isn't what Israel is today. Szarrukin posted:The amount of sea lions in this thread is terrifying. I think it is very likely this number is much too low. By December, the Health Ministry was already counting 20-25k deaths, and it's not like conditions have improved in Gaza since then. I think it's very reasonable to assume that 30k is where we landed because infrastructure in Gaza is sufficiently bad that deaths aren't being accurately tracked anymore. Esran fucked around with this message at 21:25 on Mar 16, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 21:23
|
|
|
Yeah this is gonna be like in Yemen in the 2010s, where the media was reporting deaths as about 10,000 for years, when the actual numbers were over 200,000. (Must also mention that this was exacerbated in large part due to the US blockading their ports and not allowing food or medicine through, if only Biden had been in charge then.) Due to Israel's deliberate destruction of all health infrastructure, getting accurate numbers likely won't be possible for a long time. This aids Israel's propaganda efforts, as people respond to numbers getting higher. This way it seems like Israel isn't constantly massacring Palestinians every day.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 21:33
|
|
|
Some senators (including one of mine, whom I've have been incessantly bothering) sent a letter to Biden asking him to use the arms sales to leverage Israel: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/mar/16/biden-senator-chris-van-hollen-israel-gaza-aid We'll see if it goes anywhere.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 21:38
|
|
|
Esran posted:This is why you are confusing people and getting into a discussion on democracy and what counts as democracy that you probably don't care to have, because you're saying something much more narrow. I don't think I'm the one confusing people when I describe Israel as a democracy, I think its pretty clear you kinda just see "democracy" as being some sort of synonym for "good", where you believe there's good countries and good countries don't do bad things. So I don't think my definition is a particularly narrow one, especially as I've frequently mentioned and have been considering historical context of what democracies have existed and how they have in practice been. And yes I think it is very cogent, there's a vast and wild difference between a country which changes course because its Monarch kicked the bucket at a convenient time versus a nation which has regular mandated elections; it was feared by many that the US Presidential elections at the height of the civil war might result in such a similar change, that someone might replace Lincoln who would negotiate an end to the war with the Confederacy instead of fighting to destroy the Confederacy and slavery. quote:This conflates two things: It is obviously important for a country to have all the things you mentioned. It is not obviously important for an ethnic group to segregate themselves away from everyone else, and for that ethnic group to have all these things separately from whatever country they might otherwise be a part of. I dunno what you mean by "segregate"; this seems to be loaded language; ostensibly Ukraine declaring independence from the USSR is Ukrainians as an ethnicity deciding they wish to be independent, especially independent from Russians. What is an example of a country that has all of the things you say are good to have, but also are not also "segregating" themselves? Insofar as we mean a separatist group that achieved independence, what does this mean in context? If there came into existence a council that meaningfully represented the interests of say, all trans people everywhere and they decided to try to create an independent country in Alaska, and that this country would first and foremost exist for the safety and protection of transpeople; is this segregation not obviously a valid consideration? quote:I don't think it's reasonable to say "Jews must have their own military, or they won't be safe". I don't quite think this is a reasonable framing of my argument; I'm pointing out that most nationalities have their own military already. The point here is to take a step away from just talking about jewish people and consider broadly that basically every ethnic group has a historical pre-existing relationship with the ability to have an army and how this effected their safety and security historically. So instead of asking "Jews must have their own military" we're asking "Why must it be the case that jews can't have their own military if they want to when any other group that was able to, did and clearly have experienced considerable wide ranging and essential benefits as a result?" In short, while there have indeed been ethnic groups who have lived in safety in prosperity inside the borders of a country they share with other more dominant ethnic groups; this is generally an extremely mixed living arrangement; and in the times where it didn't "work out" ended up being catastrophic to that group. The point here is that it is reasonable to point out what historically happened, to both Jews and subsequently to Palestinians and clearly see that sovereignty is a pretty big deal and it isn't unreasonable why many groups seek it out, even if they're living pretty comfortable in their present circumstances. quote:I don't think you can draw the comparison to separatist movements in other countries. Those seperatists generally want self-governance in the regions they live in. A great many Israelis aren't from Palestine and moved there. Also seperatists most often don't start invading their neighbors and settling their land, nor do they claim rights to the entire region they separated from (the analogy breaks down here, since Israel didn't really "separate from" Palestine). quote:Even if I did buy this argument, that would be an argument in favor of giving them a region of Germany. Not a completely unrelated piece of land in the Middle East that someone else is already living on. Why should Palestine pay for the crimes of Germany? So this is one of those things where I suspect we probably just have vastly different and irreconcilable opinions on, and I don't think its relevant to what we're discussing. I think Israel existing is currently a fact of life and its existence is something the vast majority of Israeli's consider to be very important and that this isn't something that can be dismissed. quote:If the argument you're making is that Jewish people must have a safe habour country in their back pocket just in case, then I don't buy it. I'll also point out that Israel's creation was not prompted by the Holocaust, it was well underway as a project before then. Israel also didn't see itself as the break-glass-in-case-of-Holocaust country for the first several decades, that justification came later https://sci-hub.se/https://doi.org/10.1002/jts.2490080203. First that isn't the argument, I think your over generalizing my point which is clearly, generally, it is beneficial for ethnic groups to have their own country and military. The stakes are just way too high most of the time for this to be deniable; my argument clearly wasn't that the "Jews need Israel just in case of the Holocaust", the Holocaust is just, unfortunately, an extremely relevant and tragic datapoint showing the importance having an actual state clearly presents; and many other groups can point to similarly destructive events. quote:I think in order to get a one-state solution, you will have to force Israel just as hard as you would have to do to dissolve Israel and turn the land back into Palestine, so I don't think it really matters. The same applies creating an independent Israel that isn't what Israel is today. I think there's a pretty good difference in that "dissolving Israel and turning it back into Palestine" or "forcing a one state solution" are both inherently unworkable as solutions; because they violate the rights of Israelis who presumably, currently aren't going to accept it at gunpoint.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 23:11
|
|
|
cat botherer posted:Apartheid states aren’t democracies. Simple as. Historically, the USA disenfranchised african-americans, and the United Kingdom had wealth-based voting requirements. These countries were both democracies despite large disenfranchised populations. They weren't morally good, but they were definitely democracies. If you think that's a contradiction I think you have far too rosy a view of 'democracy' as a raw concept. Other concepts, like multiculturalism, universal suffrage, women's rights etc are critical components of a progressive modern society but democracy is fully capable of existing independently of them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 23:32
|
|
|
You said Israel shouldn’t be destroyed as a state because it is a democracy. That is how this whole nonsense started.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 23:36
|
|
|
SMEGMA_MAIL posted:You said Israel shouldn’t be destroyed as a state because it is a democracy. That is how this whole nonsense started. I think you confused Thanqol for me; but to be clear I said that because Israel is a democracy, and it is thus possible for them to correct the path they are on, advocating for total war to destroy the country of Israel and cause massive suffering as a consequence is excessive thing to advocate for; as there's still plenty of off ramps which while still some level of unjust, is still vastly better than more war; and thus its reasonable for plenty of people to be uncomfortable and to have misgivings about that language, it is problematic you could say. Thanqol posted:Historically, the USA disenfranchised african-americans, and the United Kingdom had wealth-based voting requirements. These countries were both democracies despite large disenfranchised populations. But otherwise yes, I agree with Thanqol's point here and it is I think it is accurate assessment as to the usage and context of democracy and why it isn't a "narrow" or confusing one. e: punishedkissinger posted:The people allowed to participate in Israel's democracy have no interest in off ramps, they are fully committed to genocide and this tendency has only increased over time. I don't believe this is true; and even if it were somehow true that you looked into the heart of hearts of every adult aged voting Israel who voted, they can still always change their minds; even if you disagree; isn't this ultimately how Apartheid in South Africa ended? Were the people who firmly supported apartheid no less just as disinterested in any "off ramps"? I believe that this is also true of Republican voters in the United States, that just because they voted for a Republican doesn't mean they're fascist, and can be convinced to change their ways; and it is always going to be the case that it is easier, more likely, to change their ways via one means or another than it is to destroy their country via force of arms. Raenir Salazar fucked around with this message at 23:55 on Mar 16, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 23:45
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:I think you confused Thanqol for me; but to be clear I said that because Israel is a democracy, and it is thus possible for them to correct the path they are on, advocating for total war to destroy the country of Israel and cause massive suffering as a consequence is excessive thing to advocate for; as there's still plenty of off ramps which while still some level of unjust, is still vastly better than more war; and thus its reasonable for plenty of people to be uncomfortable and to have misgivings about that language, it is problematic you could say.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 23:48
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:So instead of asking "Jews must have their own military" we're asking "Why must it be the case that jews can't have their own military if they want to when any other group that was able to, did and clearly have experienced considerable wide ranging and essential benefits as a result?" This is the actual core of Zionist thought - not religious fanaticism or superstition, not cackling racial supremacy about the need to stamp down the Arab. Just a belief that multiethnic democracy is unreliable and the solution is that any ethnicity that wants to survive will need to become a nation with a state - and the state must have territory. What you're missing in this question is what so many early Zionists missed - there are a ton of people in Palestine who aren't Jewish and they deserve a state that where they're not second-class citizens. If Zionism had been attempted on some unoccupied island or alien planet, nobody would object (outside Jew-haters or envious nationalists of other nations). Certainly the Palestinian people and their allies wouldn't object.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 23:55
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:I don't think I'm the one confusing people when I describe Israel as a democracy, I think its pretty clear you kinda just see "democracy" as being some sort of synonym for "good", where you believe there's good countries and good countries don't do bad things. This is a misinterpretation. Israel is not a very democratic democracy, as there are giant segments of the population in areas it controls that have no voting rights. So if you want to see democracy as a spectrum, what people are telling you is that Israel isn't very democratic. Regarding the use of democracy as a standard for whether the country can course correct, dictatorships and oligarchies are also capable of that. This distinction makes no sense. I don't care to continue belaboring this point, so let's just drop it. Raenir Salazar posted:I dunno what you mean by "segregate" I mean remove from the general population, in order to live away from everyone else as a separated group. Which is what the Zionist project is about : Jewish people living in Israel among other Jewish people, away from everyone else. Raenir Salazar posted:If there came into existence a council that meaningfully represented the interests of say, all trans people everywhere and they decided to try to create an independent country in Alaska Then I would say that's a weird and dumb project, but if they can find an empty plot of land to do it on, I don't care. The plot of land Israel picked wasn't empty. Raenir Salazar posted:most nationalities have their own military already "Jewish" is not a nationality. "Israeli" is, but those are not the same thing. Beyond that point, you are essentially making an argument that ethnostates are necessary because people of different ethnic groups just can't be trusted to live together. Even if there's peace now, there might not be later, so better gather up the other members of your ethnic group and go get that racial militia going. I don't buy that premise. And I especially don't buy the idea that every ethnicity going off to make their own state is in any way going to reduce racial conflict. Raenir Salazar posted:I think Israel existing is currently a fact of life and its existence is something the vast majority of Israeli's consider to be very important and that this isn't something that can be dismissed. No, I am in fact happy to dismiss it: I don't care what the vast majority of Israelis think, just like I don't care what white South Africans thought. A lot of them clearly also think a genocide is a swell idea. (I might care about what the minority of non-Zionist Israelis think) Raenir Salazar posted:First that isn't the argument, I think your over generalizing my point which is clearly, generally, it is beneficial for ethnic groups to have their own country and military I just completely and utterly disagree. I think this is incredibly outdated thinking (talking about the 19th century...), and the many successful multiethnic societies that exist today show that ethnostates are not necessary. More than that, I think even if you believe multiethnic societies are doomed to fall into ethnic infighting, I don't think ethnostates solves that. You'll just get wars between those states instead. There's nothing better to stoke racism than never meeting people of other races, and you get even weirder ideas when you get ethnonationalism into the mix. Think about how hosed in the head people get from basic patriotism. Most countries teach their citizens that they're the best country in the world. What happens when you mix "oh and also we're a country of one ethnicity, all the other countries are different from us" into that? Raenir Salazar posted:I think there's a pretty good difference in that "dissolving Israel and turning it back into Palestine" or "forcing a one state solution" are both inherently unworkable as solutions; because they violate the rights of Israelis who presumably, currently aren't going to accept it at gunpoint. "The rights of Israelis" is an amazing thing to bring up in the context of discussing a colonial settler state that's currently doing a genocide. When you say we can't make any changes that violates "the rights of Israelis" you're basically simultaneously dismissing any rights the Palestinians may have. If your standard is "Israel won't accept it currently", then the only Solution is the Final one Israel is currently implementing. That's what it seems like they'll accept currently. Edit: Raenir Salazar posted:even if it were somehow true that you looked into the heart of hearts of every adult aged voting Israel who voted, they can still always change their minds This is such a nonsense standard. This is literally the case for every form of government, there is no government that can't change their minds. Esran fucked around with this message at 00:03 on Mar 17, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 23:56
|
|
|
Yeah getting Israel to accept a sovereign contiguous Palestinian state with full military capability is going to involve destroying the Zionist state no matter which way you slice it. There is no electing a better government on this issue, it would be a complete civil war in Israel.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 23:59
|
|
|
Your Brain on Hugs posted:Yeah this is gonna be like in Yemen in the 2010s, where the media was reporting deaths as about 10,000 for years, when the actual numbers were over 200,000. (Must also mention that this was exacerbated in large part due to the US blockading their ports and not allowing food or medicine through, if only Biden had been in charge then.) My inclination is to rely on the official and unofficial Health Ministry estimates. There's an article I'm trying to find that goes into some detail about their backstop procedures (ie how to estimate deaths when communications and hospital functionality are fucky) but that might have to wait till I'm back at my computer. My recollection goes something like: 35k-ish semi-confirmed deaths from military action or closely related causes, (5k-ish reported through means that aren't doctors and health ministry's staff), a very loose and very "please don't report this as as authoritative as our other numbers" 10k-ish believed dead in rubble, excess deaths from famine and disease unclear but UN estimates suggest another 5k there, so... extremely roughly call it 50k? Maybe more by now? I'd definitely go with 50k being more likely an underestimate. Which is pretty appalling and I've been trying to signal boost "this is an atrocity at a massive scale" to potentially reachable people irl. I could buy that combat death rate dropped dramatically once everyone who could fled south, but that's going to change real fast if Israel hits Rafah in force.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 23:59
|
|
|
Israel has democratically chosen to be an apartheid state. It would be wrong to violate their rights and dismantle that apartheid.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2024 00:02
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:This is the actual core of Zionist thought - not religious fanaticism or superstition, not cackling racial supremacy about the need to stamp down the Arab. Just a belief that multiethnic democracy is unreliable and the solution is that any ethnicity that wants to survive will need to become a nation with a state - and the state must have territory. I don't think I'm in particular missing this aspect of the equation, and I think many people at the time period didn't miss it either. The UN Partition plan based off of some of the reports from the time period I glanced through, seemed like they put a lot of effort in drawing the borders to have Jews and Arabs not only try to be as close to majorities within the new borders, but also attempt to be viable states. A two state solution, even if to some perspectives not just because the uptick in jewish migration, and the effectiveness of zionist lobbying, meant that the borders of the nascent jewish state was more generous than it otherwise would be; this isn't inherently or necessarily means that Palestinians need to be stateless or second class-citizens. Ultimately how events shook out sucks, but the problem here ultimately isn't that Israel exists, its that Israel right now is currently the greatest obstacle to a viable two-state solution, and they could just choose to help make it viable at anytime; and this even in an unjust version where Israel also has some or most of the illegal settlements is still preferable than suggesting total war to destroy Israel. quote:I mean remove from the general population, in order to live away from everyone else as a separated group. Which is what the Zionist project is about : Jewish people living in Israel among other Jewish people, away from everyone else. I think your usage of it is a bit loaded because in this case its Jews voluntarily choosing to segregating themselves, which I think on a basic level is their right. People should have the freedom to choose who they associate with, and this also means the freedom to not associate. The Amish I believe are another group that does something similar. quote:The plot of land Israel picked wasn't empty. Well okay but I don't think its particularly relevant. quote:"Jewish" is not a nationality. "Israeli" is, but those are not the same thing. Well actually "jewish" is definitely an ethnicity, a nationality tends to be what ethnicities aspire to become. I use "jewish" here in the context of us speaking of course generally. As though we were in a flat featureless historical void regarding a hypothetical timeframe; in regards to what in general we think ethnic groups can or shouldn't do to advance their interests. Its relevant in the regard of drawing comparisons and conclusions between jewish nationalism and any other form of nationalism. And no, I'm not making the argument that "ethnostates are necessary because different ethnic groups can't be trusted to live together"; I'm making a very specific and nuanced argument that it isn't unreasonable to see how someone can think this though, and observe how obvious the benefits of having a nation-state are for any ethnic group. And that a lot of your earlier arguments which dismiss the obvious in this regard result in being not very convincing. I think the way you tend to kinda make up my argument, like when you say "to reduce racial conflict" as if that was ever something I said, I think this shows that my arguments aren't particularly deniable here in this context, you just really don't like it because they are actually hard to refute, and they create an actual space in which the discussion about the language being used, calling for mass destruction (again, calling for the destruction of the country of israel via violent means, such as forcing a one state solution at gunpoint), is not black and white, good vs bad; but is in fact very morally grey. quote:No, I am in fact happy to dismiss it: I don't care what the vast majority of Israelis think, just like I don't care what white South Africans thought. A lot of them clearly also think a genocide is a swell idea. And this kinda shows what I mean, when you don't care what they think, it isn't about doing what's right, its about rewarding the group you've picked, and everything else is just a sequence of extra steps to justify the choice you made and the distance you've decided is fair to travel. I think its important that we listen to the legitimate concerns of both sides. Because again, I'll point out, again, that even with ending apartheid in south africa, involved listening to the concerns of the other side, it took years of negotiation, there was compromise in order to reach an agreement; they didn't go with whatever the most extreme demand was, but worked out an agreement that would be accepted. quote:I just completely and utterly disagree. I think this is incredibly outdated thinking (talking about the 19th century...), and the many successful multiethnic societies that exist today show that ethnostates are not necessary. You can disagree but you can't refute it. If you could, you wouldn't be constantly be misconstruing my argument. I never said multi-ethnic societies are doomed to ethnic infighting. And then weirdly you're saying you don't think ethnostates solve that but you're also not presenting any affirmative ideas as to what would? I can't really make heads or tails of what exactly your guiding principles are or what the throughline of your thought process is except its very idealized in some circumstances and very cynical in others, but in any case I still don't really see much in the way of evidence to support your perspective here. Most states are by a reasonable definition, unfortunately to be clear, as I believe in a One World Government; are ethno-states, in that most nations are dominated typically by one larger demographic; by one definition or another; Canada by one definition is an white ethnostate, but by another perspective it has at least two ethnic groups, english and french. I'll be picking the "Canada is a white ethno-state" interpretation, but I am aware of other interpretations and don't think it changes things. Consequently, if a majority of nations with militaries are ethno-states your argument that they would be constantly be fighting isn't very true. Since WW2 we've probably experienced the longest most sustained period of peace and stability the world over, even accounting for every single civil war, conflict, genocide, and so on that's happened since 1945; under the United Nations and its organizations its been incredibly peaceful for most nations; if your thesis was correct, then most nations would be fighting wars. Instead Europe formed the EEC and Comecon respectively and despite the ideological tensions of the cold war mostly avoided directly fighting each other; competed yes, but invaded each other? No. You have this idea that I don't think is true that its being an independent nation that results in patriotism and people being taught nationalism but the 19th century nationalist movements didn't need pre-existing independent states to spread the idea of "Hey, gently caress those guys, we should make our own country with blackjack." I just think you don't have a very strong grasp of history, because repeatedly you just say "Well I don't buy it" when presented with information about how the world historically worked in one respect or another and I think you should be more open minded to the fact that actual living history has always been messy, nuanced, without clear evil or good people. WW2 was one of the few events of all of history that is as close as good vs evil as you can get but still the Soviet Union was still pretty evil and did a lot of bad poo poo. quote:"The rights of Israelis" is an amazing thing to bring up in the context of discussing a colonial settler state that's currently doing a genocide. Because they absolutely matter because they've lived there now for decades, at a certain point, just like with the US or Canada, also genocidal settler-colonial states you can't really turn back the clock. And no that isn't the standard; I think the problem here is you haven't really thought out what you believe in terms of having a well realized internal ethical system regarding politics that determines whats right or wrong politics. There's a clear, black and white distinction to me between what we can force a sovereign nation to accept, along the general lines as it applies to any nation state in the international system. It broadly follows a similar line of thought regarding Positive and Negative Freedoms; nations have core things they value and core rights; which the international system shouldn't intervene in without their opt-in; but also there's other nations freedoms which they consequently can't turn around and violate. I don't need to consider what may or may not have happened 80 years to say, "Hey Israel, stop that, bad." in regards to what they're doing to Palestine i.e the West Bank & Gaza. AND also believe it would be bad, to try to do something similar to Israel, even if its in order to "stop" what they're doing, when you can just act to separate them and reset the status quo instead. Raenir Salazar fucked around with this message at 00:51 on Mar 17, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2024 00:03
|
|
|
Goatse James Bond posted:
There was a report in Al Jazeera about 36 family members getting killed in one shot yesterday. https://aje.io/zju41v?update=2777577 I think a lot isn't getting reported as a consequence of the Israeli policy of killing journalists bearing fruit.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2024 00:05
|
|
|
Goatse James Bond posted:My inclination is to rely on the official and unofficial Health Ministry estimates. There's an article I'm trying to find that goes into some detail about their backstop procedures (ie how to estimate deaths when communications and hospital functionality are fucky) but that might have to wait till I'm back at my computer. Another affect of the inability to get good numbers is you can't really separate them by demographic. After the first couple of months, the fact that they'd killed ten thousand children was a good stark way to show the monstrosity. It's now likely much higher, as children are the first to die in famines, but we'll never get accurate numbers. It seems to be about 70% women and children though. Israel is counting every dead adult male as a Hamas fighter, which I doubt they're stupid enough to believe internally, but they say they've killed 20,000. The actual number of Hamas fighters killed is probably in the low thousands. At a certain point it all just becomes too much to process, but it will not be forgotten.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2024 00:15
|
|
|
Your Brain on Hugs posted:Another affect of the inability to get good numbers is you can't really separate them by demographic. After the first couple of months, the fact that they'd killed ten thousand children was a good stark way to show the monstrosity. It's now likely much higher, as children are the first to die in famines, but we'll never get accurate numbers. It seems to be about 70% women and children though. Hamas said 6,000 of their fighters have been killed as of Feb, honestly higher than I would have imagined. Israel said around the same time as that that they've killed 12,000 Hamas fighters and the ratio of dead is 1:2 Hamas:civilians. An absurd claim even at the time given the indiscriminate nature of their attacks. https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israels-six-week-drive-hit-hamas-rafah-scale-back-war-2024-02-19/
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2024 00:25
|
|
|
Actually yeah, I hadn't thought of the implications of their less granular fallback methods leading to being unable to have really solid breakdowns of the data. You mention the famine thing: usaid and the un have been trying to estimate famine-related deaths from the prevalence of X level of famine because accurate counts are simply not going to happen anytime soon. The number I saw a couple weeks ago (applied to, i think, early to mid february?) was that given [X amount of level 3, 4, and 5 famine, where 3 is significant health impacts and 5 is actively on the brink of starving to death], it was about 200 adult deaths or 400 child deaths a day, which I flattened to "probably about 300 people a day" but as you say there's a difference in how viscerally upsetting that is.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2024 00:47
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:... still preferable than suggesting total war to destroy Israel. Preferable to whom? And why? E: I got time, so let me be explicit. I don't think anything less than war will stop Israel as it exists in the here and now. Given that, I see the most expedient and most humane option to be a war, kept short by application of overwhelming force crippling their military, commercial, and civic infrastructure to dramatically and immediately curtail the state's capacity to effectuate its genocide. Quantum Cat fucked around with this message at 01:18 on Mar 17, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2024 00:52
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:I think your usage of it is a bit loaded No, you just have American brain, and so you think the word is inherently loaded. I'm not using it in reference to American segregation. Raenir Salazar posted:Well okay but I don't think its particularly relevant. In what possible way is it not particularly relevant that Israel put their state on land other people already lived on? What? Raenir Salazar posted:Well actually "jewish" is definitely an ethnicity, a nationality tends to be what ethnicities aspire to become This is just an incredible way to see the world. You're basically just assuming that your weird beliefs about ethnicities and the benefits of segregation (or ethnic nation-states, which works out to the same thing) are shared by everyone in the world, and so ethnic groups must just tend to want to become nationalities, because that's how you think it should work. Raenir Salazar posted:And no, I'm not making the argument that "ethnostates are necessary because different ethnic groups can't be trusted to live together"; I'm making a very specific and nuanced argument that it isn't unreasonable to see how someone can think this though, and observe how obvious the benefits of having a nation-state are for any ethnic group This is cowardice. Of course you don't hold these beliefs, but someone else definitely could, and they'd be very reasonable to do so, why the benefits of an ethnic group having their own state are just so obvious. But you clearly don't believe this. I've already argued why people would be wrong to think this way, so I'll refer you back to that. Raenir Salazar posted:I think the way you tend to kinda make up my argument, like when you say "to reduce racial conflict" as if that was ever something I said, I think this shows that my arguments aren't particularly deniable here in this context I think the way you just concluded that because your arguments are unclear, that must mean your argumentation is undeniable is hilarious. You said earlier that the reason you (sorry, I mean some other reasonable person who isn't you) think that ethnic groups need a state is because multiethnic societies end up persecuting their minorities. That's literally your entire argument for why an ethnic group should have a nation. How is it unfair to paraphrase that as "to reduce racial conflict"? Raenir Salazar posted:it isn't about doing what's right, its about rewarding the group you've picked Saving the Palestinians from the Israelis is doing what's right. This is the wrong time and place to deploy your both sidesism. Raenir Salazar posted:even with ending apartheid in south africa, involved listening to the concerns of the other side, it took years of negotiation I think this is a very weird view of the end of Apartheid. The end of Apartheid can be largely seen as a campaign of economic sanctions against South Africa, coupled with years of violent rebellion by black South Africans against the regime. Apartheid didn't end because black South Africans decided to "listen to the concerns of the other side", nor did white South Africans just decide to be reasonable due to persuasive argument in negotiations. Raenir Salazar posted:You can disagree but you can't refute it. If you could, you wouldn't be constantly be misconstruing my argument I've already explained to you once today that your arguments tend to be less than clear, as evidenced by how often they get misunderstood by me and others. The existence of successful multiethnic societies is a refutation of your idea. The existence of very few successful ethnostates, and how often those ethnostates are riven by racial conflict, is a refutation of the idea that ethnostates are a thing ethnicities should strive for. Raenir Salazar posted:I never said multi-ethnic societies are doomed to ethnic infighting. And then weirdly you're saying you don't think ethnostates solve that but you're also not presenting any affirmative ideas as to what would? Maybe spend 5 seconds considering why you were just now arguing that ethnic groups should want to become nations, and why ethnic minorities in a multiethnic society are vulnerable. Did that maybe have something to do with ethnic conflict in those societies? I don't need to present The Solution To Ethnic Conflict. I simply need to point out that ethnostates ain't it chief. As for the rest of your post, most countries are not ethnostates. A country having a majority ethnicity does not make it an ethnostate. I'm not surprised you don't get what people are saying when you don't understand what the word means. Here you go https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnocracy. An ethnostate is a country governed by ethnocracy, i.e. a government controlled by and favoring the dominant ethnic group, where the structures of state (e.g. the laws) favor one ethnicity over others. An example of such a state would be Apartheid South Africa, where white South Africans were the privileged group. Raenir Salazar posted:AND also believe it would be bad, to try to do something similar to Israel, even if its in order to "stop" what they're doing, when you can just act to separate them and reset the status quo instead. No one is loving arguing that Palestine should get to do a genocide ("something similar") to Israel, and I've already extensively made the case for why that's not what people are saying when they call for Israel to be destroyed. And the status quo ante was a slow genocide, so returning to that isn't really acceptable. Raenir Salazar posted:I just think you don't have a very strong grasp of history There's a cat smiley I think you should meet. Esran fucked around with this message at 02:04 on Mar 17, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2024 01:54
|
|
|
 lol lmao (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2024 04:36
|
|
|
Esran posted:No, you just have American brain, and so you think the word is inherently loaded. I'm not using it in reference to American segregation. I'm Canadian actually, but I think this like someone saying "Discrimination isn't racist, it's telling two things apart." Like sure, technically correct; but when you're constantly using loaded language it puts a lot of the burden on me to unpack and try to figure out what you're actually saying. quote:In what possible way is it not particularly relevant that Israel put their state on land other people already lived on? What? I think it isn't really relevant because I can't really thinking of a convincing argument that makes the events leading up to the UN Partition plan's implementation something to that should be relevant. On one hand if Palestine had an independent state they could control their borders and the jewish migration, while unfair to stop, could be prevented; but on the other hand 2,000 years ago they used to live there and that used to be their land until they were tragically exiled by the romans. Is 2,000 years ago too far back an injustice to fix? How could we correct such an injustice? I dunno; I think its fair that if jews want to migrate back to their ancestral homeland then there shouldn't be barriers to prevent this. And in general while I recognize the importance of sovereignty I also don't really support borders in a broad sense, I think there should be a world wide schengen zone, one passport, and one currency, and one world government, that can solve climate change, world hungery, and poverty. Consequently I think all peoples anywhere should have the economic freedom and freedom of movement, to migrate anywhere. If a million people from Canada wanna move to China, sure why not? To be clear, recognizing "national sovereignty typically means reasonably wanting to control borders" is not in conflict that I personally, would prefer independent nation-states to no longer exist; which subsequently isn't in conflict with recognizing that ethnicities might want for various reasons to become nation-states or that nation-states have wide benefits; none of these are in conflict; I am able of recognizing that things exist, independently of my beliefs of how they fit in an idealized world. To be consistent this should mean that Israel shouldn't in principle be preventing Palestinians from choosing to live within the borders of Israel, as long as they follow the laws and generally follow the proper procedures, as anyone would living in Spain and wishing to live in Estonia. So in general, if a million jews found that they could legally move over to Palestine and settle there, I don't see the issue. I've seen arguments about how this economically displaced people, but that's just gentrification, and gentrification isn't a human rights violation. Consequently, the jews living in Palestine had a right to live there and the UN Partition Plan was the best possible means of resolving the legitimate interests of both parties given the historical context. This however does not justify the Nakba, and Israel should be trying very hard to offer recompense even if resettling more than a token amount back into Israel is politically improbable and be offering massive development aid to building up the West Bank and Gaza and ceasing expansion of the illegal settlements. quote:This is just an incredible way to see the world. You're basically just assuming that your weird beliefs about ethnicities and the benefits of segregation (or ethnic nation-states, which works out to the same thing) are shared by everyone in the world, and so ethnic groups must just tend to want to become nationalities, because that's how you think it should work. I don't think you'll like reading philosophical or economic textbook older than like, Jurassic Park (the book) I think then; when it comes to discussing topics, concepts, economic and political theory, assumptions and generalizations are made in service of an argument. I'll point out again that I think your using "segregation" in terms of its loaded "American brained" meaning, because otherwise why would it be "weird" to suggest that it is weird for some groups of people to be away from other groups of people? You seem to be implying a negative connotation there that's at odds with your earlier statement about it not being your intent. But again this seems to come down to you not liking my point, by all means make a counter argument, this currently is not an argument. At a minimum I can at least refer to 19th century progressive thinkers, such as Lenin, and quote passages from their works to support the notion: quote:No Social-Democrat will deny—unless he would profess indifference to questions of political freedom and democracy (in which case he is naturally no longer a Social-Democrat)—that this example virtually proves that it is the bounden duty of class-conscious workers to conduct systematic propaganda and prepare the ground for the settlement of conflicts that may arise over the secession of nations, not in the “Russian way”, but only in the way they were settled in 1905 between Norway and Sweden. This is exactly what is meant by the demand in the programme for the recognition of the right of nations to self-determination. (Lenin: The Right of Nations to Self-Determination) (Note, Social Democrat in this context means Communist, IIRC) This seems to very strongly imply that different ethnicities, ethnicities as similar as Norwegian and Swedish even! Probably have an inherent right, and most likely a yearning that requires "work" to kindle, towards secession; and of course I'm not alone or inappropriate in speaking in a general fashion. Assuming we're discussing the validity of the claim that "ethnicities generally aspire to be nationalities" not "ethnicities want to segregate themselves" which I didn't make. quote:This is cowardice. Of course you don't hold these beliefs, but someone else definitely could, and they'd be very reasonable to do so, why the benefits of an ethnic group having their own state are just so obvious. But you clearly don't believe this. I don't really understand what you're saying again, it doesn't seem to relate to my argument in context. I don't believe you've argued "why you would be wrong to think this way", where? You've mostly just said "I don't buy that" which isn't an argument. I definitely didn't say "I don't believe this but someone else does" I'm explaining and clarifying my argument, which isn't the same thing. I'm not sure why its difficult to understand, but the benefits of one thing can be obvious, but still like something else for principled reasons but recognize that it would require sacrifice and work. There's distinctions and nuance about the issues that you're just dismissing and I'm trying to explain. I'll also point out, that the way you've been quoting my paragraphs individually, do it make it difficult to track the course of the discussion, maybe this is why I haven't seen you rebute my arguments, or why you haven't seem to have accurately articulated my argument back in some of these exchanges? Like yeah this is a good example, there was a three paragraph section in three blocks, but instead of considering them as part of an argument, you responded to them individually; this makes it very difficult to track the discussion or even keep my own thoughts in order in regards to your argument. The quote of yours I was responding to: quote:"Jewish" is not a nationality. "Israeli" is, but those are not the same thing. My response here is mostly to point out that this isn't an accurate assessment of my argument. Which was in response to this: quote:I don't quite think this is a reasonable framing of my argument; I'm pointing out that most nationalities have their own military already. The point here is to take a step away from just talking about jewish people and consider broadly that basically every ethnic group has a historical pre-existing relationship with the ability to have an army and how this effected their safety and security historically. So instead of asking "Jews must have their own military" we're asking "Why must it be the case that jews can't have their own military if they want to when any other group that was able to, did and clearly have experienced considerable wide ranging and essential benefits as a result?" I am literally not making the argument you seem to suggest I am making. I can't even really summarize it, its right there in the best possible form it could, because it was in response to this: quote:I don't think it's reasonable to say "Jews must have their own military, or they won't be safe". Which was in response to: quote: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. Like I'm clearly saying undeniably true things, and your response every step of the way, seems to be responding to an argument I didn't make. But MOST IMPORTANTLY was you also again responding to this paragraph out of context of the surrounding argument: quote: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. In response to you saying "19th century nationalists were wrong": 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. Like I mean Esran, at a minimum this is a pretty big contradiction with your point about me here: quote:This is just an incredible way to see the world. You're basically just assuming that your weird beliefs about ethnicities and the benefits of segregation (or ethnic nation-states, which works out to the same thing) are shared by everyone in the world, and so ethnic groups must just tend to want to become nationalities, because that's how you think it should work. So its wrong for me to speak in generalities, but you're totally qualified to say that Garibaldi was wrong to want an independent Italy? These sentiments don't go together. quote:I think the way you just concluded that because your arguments are unclear, that must mean your argumentation is undeniable is hilarious. If my arguments are "unclear" (the first time I'm hearing this from you after how many days and this many pages and how many words?) why didn't you say anything? I could've clarified instead of you, why didn't you and why do you think its funny? I also never made that argument. That isn't literally my argument, I think you're not understanding how examples and evidence work to support an argument to argue for a particular conclusion. I've explained this a number of times now. I think this also goes back to what we discussed in the feedback thread, that it isn't fair to "paraphrase" my argument to something that I strenuously claim isn't my intended meaning, especially when the plainly written meaning of my argument differs quite a bit, every time, from your summary of my words. quote:Saving the Palestinians from the Israelis is doing what's right. This is the wrong time and place to deploy your both sidesism. It can be possible to do the right things for the wrong reasons. I don't know where the line is drawn in every circumstance, but I draw the line at, for example, "overwhelming military force to destroy Israel" as the stated goal, for example. quote:I think this is a very weird view of the end of Apartheid. The end of Apartheid can be largely seen as a campaign of economic sanctions against South Africa, coupled with years of violent rebellion by black South Africans against the regime. Apartheid didn't end because black South Africans decided to "listen to the concerns of the other side", nor did white South Africans just decide to be reasonable due to persuasive argument in negotiations. Sure they did. The economic sanctions, the "rebellion", also applied pressure that shifted the scales of the calculus of maintaining the current regime vs agreeing to consider reforms; and eventually it reached a point where they agreed to "listen to the concerns of the other side" which the ANC likewise returned, you're not disputing that there was in fact negotiations, that it took three years, and it was a lot of work. There was an entire possibility it could've taken years longer if demands were made that either side found unreasonable. quote:I've already explained to you once today that your arguments tend to be less than clear, as evidenced by how often they get misunderstood by me and others. I mean you explained to me "in this post" that you apparently find my arguments "less than clear" but also insist that I am literally arguing for X or Y positions? That doesn't make any sense. Either my arguments you know to be "unclear" in which case you can't actually say with certainty what I'm arguing or you do understand them. I don't know how you reconcile the belief that I am unclear with claims like: quote:This is cowardice. Of course you don't hold these beliefs, but someone else definitely could, and they'd be very reasonable to do so, why the benefits of an ethnic group having their own state are just so obvious. But you clearly don't believe this. Sarcasm aside, as you clearly do believe that I believe this, how can you affirmatively state that I believe this, and also that my arguments are frequently unclear? Additionally, which ones? Which multicultural, multiethnic societies? You never presented any. What do you mean by "few successful ethnostates"? Something tells me that maybe you have a definition of ethno-state, that probably doesn't really work in practice; especially as I already asserted that most countries are ethno-states, and while their economic metrics may vary, I'm not sure it can be argued "few nations are successful ethno-states". Logically either you are asserting: 1. Most Countries are successful Multicultural/Multiethnic states (to be clear lets be broad and use this interchangeably in a fair way). Or, 2. Most Countries are unsuccessful ethno-states (for reasons due to being ethno-states). Please clarify which of these, or perhaps both, your argument is, and please provide examples, and what qualifiers you're using to determine what nations are ethno-states, and which aren't, and which ones are successful, and which aren't, I think the burden of proof is on you here to at least elaborate your argument a little. quote:Maybe spend 5 seconds considering why you were just now arguing that ethnic groups should want to become nations, and why ethnic minorities in a multiethnic society are vulnerable. Did that maybe have something to do with ethnic conflict in those societies? I don't see how being mindful the possibility of ethnic conflict, and that the stakes are high, considering multiple examples, specifically requires the conclusion that "multiethnic societies are doomed to ethnic conflict"; that's your argument not mine. Otherwise I wouldn't support the idea of multiethnic societies if I genuinely believed that as the natural consequence. I believe you're drawing a conclusion from my argument that doesn't necessasarily follow; logic doesn't always work in an "If X then Y" format, sometimes things can be facts, but facts don't necessasarily mean anything or imply anything, they can just exist and serve as fuel for an observation; additionally I'm not saying you have to present a "solution to end ethnic infighting", I just think that the way you presented your argument was one sided in how you're not typically being forth coming in the conversation and just generally at odds with itself, because its a result of coming up with a misinterpretation of my argument, refuting that misinterpretation, and then refusing to elaborate on how you're refuting it, it's just strange and makes it difficult to follow. The link you provide is really interesting, because it seems to if we dig into it and analyze it, it seems to support my argument? I'm confused why you linked it but thanks its very helpful: quote:In ethnocratic states, the government is typically representative of a particular ethnic group, which holds a disproportionately large number of posts. The dominant ethnic group (or groups) uses them to advance the position of their particular ethnic group(s) to the detriment of others. As an example of this (America), the way that without Affirmative Action, the dominance of whites would be far greater, and economic outcomes, would be far more disproportionate. Similar economic acts that accomplish the same, such as Red Lining, were also common in America, particularly around the time of the New Deal. And of course if we look at China, this is of course overwhelmingly the case, and also starting in the Stalin years this started to occur in the Soviet Union (from Wikipedia, I've been typing this up for a while now so this will do for now as a source): quote:After the war, the leading role of the Russian people in the Soviet family of nations and nationalities was promoted by Stalin and his successors. quote:The leadership of Joseph Stalin reintroduced many of the assimilation policies of the imperial period, urging loyalty to the Soviet Union only. He opposed national autonomy to the extent that he replaced the leaders of each republic with ethnic Russian members of the Communist party and regularly removed leaders of ethnic nations from power. This policy continued through to the leadership of Mikhail Gorbachev, who replaced the first secretary of the Communist Party of Kazakhstan with an ethnic Russian. Going back to the Wikipedia Article: quote:Other ethnic groups are systematically discriminated against and may face repression or violations of their human rights at the hands of state organs. Unquestionable this occurs in basically every country. America, Canada, Japan, China, Russia, Sweden, UK, France, Italy, where doesn't it occur? quote:Ethnocracy can also be a political regime instituted on the basis of qualified rights to citizenship, with ethnic affiliation (defined in terms of race, descent, religion, or language) as the distinguishing principle. Most countries have requirements on citizenship, but I think the pertinent one here is nations who abide by jus sanguinis which generally makes citizenship more difficult if you aren't a member of the ethnic group in question. We only need look to America and see the fervent effort to try to disqualify Obama from the presidential race, on the basis of his race. Some countries, mainly the US, Canada, and Latin American countries have citizenship by virtue of being born there; in general most countries de facto have citizenship linked with ethnic affiliation; but also some nations like the US, have complicated overlapping citizenship systems depending on which territories or states someone lives in. China has the Hukou which restricts peoples economic rights severely if they aren't in their registered Hukou; which can be discriminatory towards ethnic minorities. Japan bans dual citizenship; which can make it difficult for immigrants to settle in Japan; and also makes it a pain in the rear end to become a permanent resident unless your a talent professional. The fact that the article lists Estonia as a Ethnocracy which I think has very little in common with say, Turkey; would support my argument that on some level most countries are "ethno-states" where the de facto day to day economical, political, and judicial organs of state are typically representative of the dominant "mono-culture" which typically services its own interests. This is what I mean about "baggage" because the article also literally has a "See also: Nation-state" and is part of the politics series "Basic forms of government", it is also a part of the series "discrimination" I'll grant it that but based on what you wrote earlier maybe they just mean "a series on different topic"? Also the article's heading says "This article requires clean up and fact checking for explicit mentions of individual sources for mentions of ethnocracy" and I also not that no where in the article is there a mention of ethnostate/ethno-state, wikipedia redirects to "ethnocracy" from "ethnostate", but this is a little pedantic, but also not, I'll elaborate. Dictionary.com states the definition to be: quote:a country populated by, or dominated by the interests of, a single racial or ethnic group: Which I think does reasonable suggest that most countries are ethno-states and maybe ethno-states aren't necessarily ethnocracies. I'm not going to make a strong claim that there's a solid distinction, but I think there's a vague distinction between nations that go out of their ways to be dicks and oppress people (Israel, South Africa) and nations that are just dicks by accident because they did all the oppression 100-1,000 years ago (everyone else). I don't think you can decisively and conclusively argue that my usage and argument is wrong, at least not based off of this source. quote:No one is loving arguing that Palestine should get to do a genocide ("something similar") to Israel, and I've already extensively made the case for why that's not what people are saying when they call for Israel to be destroyed. The status quo indeed isn't really acceptable in so far as we're referring to what the situation was on Oct 6th 2023; but a status quo where Israel sticks to mostly the green line, and commits to building up Palestine as an independent state, even if there's iffyness around the borders and smaller state to state disputes; that's pretty acceptable I think just overwhelmingly. I don't feel you were very convincing that "Israel must be destroyed" rhetoric doesn't mean committed vast suffering to Israel and its people, certainly you weren't convincing that it doesn't or wouldn't result in that if it came to it; you only actually argued that you specifically wouldn't support that, but you certainly didn't argue that it wasn't what other people were arguing, especially not Quantum Cat who reiterated their modest proposal. The problem Esran, is you keep stating "Of course I don't support genociding Israel!" but when I explain my concerns about how much of the language around "Israel esse delandum" talk is concerning in what it implies, and give multiple elaborated examples as to how there's many ways in which the efforts to achieve this "destruction" is still very likely to be heinous in of itself, and at odds at basic things most ethnic groups aren't really in the wrong in principle to want (refer back to previous discussion that I refer to 'good things' and not 'bad things'); you spend a lot of time disagreeing along every step of my arguments along this way, to the point where in the end this distinction doesn't seem to be meaningful because it doesn't seem like you care at all, or give any consideration to, anything that would act as a barrier to stopping the more heinous range of outcomes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2024 05:16
|
|
|
quote:Israel esse delandum Iudaea delenda est is a better translation given the Roman province name and more comprehensible given the common 'Carthago delenda est' construction, although that obviously also includes Palestine. If you're going to just slap Israel in why would you change the conjugation? "Israel to destroy" is what you came up with, more or less. I know the forum rules are meeting effort with effort but the old-school D&D 'quote parts of a post and do point by point' is almost impossible to parse for people who weren't the respondent. Can you perhaps summarize your point? Ceterum, censeo Iudaeam esse delendam.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2024 05:33
|
|
|
raenir your post is full of nonsense but the roman razing of jerusalem didn't cause the diaspora, which predates the event considerably. nor were jews exiled from the region generally, and palestine maintained a largely jewish character for centuries afterword that poo poo is on the same level of historicity as "jewish slaves built the pyramids" and is embarrassing to read
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2024 05:39
|
|
|
Zedhe Khoja posted:raenir your post is full of nonsense but the roman razing of jerusalem didn't cause the diaspora, which predates the event considerably. nor were jews exiled from the region generally, and palestine maintained a largely jewish character for centuries afterword A quick glance at wikipedia suggests that the truth is somewhere in the middle: quote:The military defeats of the Jews in Judaea in 70 CE and again in 135 CE, with large numbers of Jewish captives from Judea sold into slavery and an increase in voluntary Jewish emigration from Judea as a result of the wars, meant a drop in Palestine's Jewish population was balanced by a rise in diaspora numbers. Jewish prisoners sold as slaves in the diaspora and their children were eventually manumitted and joined local free communities.[67] It has been argued that the archaeological evidence is suggestive of a Roman genocide taking place during the Second revolt.[68] A significant movement of gentiles and Samaritans into villages formerly with a Jewish majority appears to have taken place thereafter.[69] During the Crisis of the Third Century, civil wars in the Roman Empire caused great economic disruption, and taxes imposed to finance these wars impacted the Jewish population of Palestine heavily. As a result, many Jews emigrated to Babylon under the more tolerant Sassanid Empire, where autonomous Jewish communities continued to flourish, lured by the promise of economic prosperity and the ability to lead a full Jewish life there.[70] quote:These scholars argue that the growth of diaspora Jewish communities was a gradual process that occurred over the centuries, starting with the Assyrian destruction of Israel, the Babylonian destruction of Judah, the Roman destruction of Judea, and the subsequent rule of Christians and Muslims. After the revolt, the Jewish religious and cultural center shifted to the Babylonian Jewish community and its scholars. For the generations that followed, the destruction of the Second Temple event came to represent a fundamental insight about the Jews who had become a dispossessed and persecuted people for much of their history. quote:In the 4th century, the Roman Empire split and Palestine came under the control of the Byzantine Empire. There was still a significant Jewish population there, and Jews probably constituted a majority of the population until some time after Constantine converted to Christianity in the 4th century.[82] The ban on Jewish settlement in Jerusalem was maintained. There was a minor Jewish rebellion against a corrupt governor from 351 to 352 which was put down. In the 5th century, the collapse of the Western Roman Empire resulted in Christian migration into Palestine and the development of a firm Christian majority. Judaism was the only non-Christian religion tolerated, but the Jews were discriminated against in various ways. They were prohibited from building new houses of worship, holding public office, or owning slaves.[83] The 7th century saw the Jewish revolt against Heraclius, which broke out in 614 during the Byzantine–Sasanian War. It was the last serious attempt by Jews to gain autonomy in the Land of Israel prior to modern times. Jewish rebels aided the Persians in capturing Jerusalem, where the Jews were permitted autonomous rule until 617, when the Persians reneged on their alliance. After Byzantine Emperor Heraclius promised to restore Jewish rights, the Jews aided him in ousting the Persians. Heraclius subsequently went back on his word and ordered a general massacre of the Jewish population, devastating the Jewish communities of Jerusalem and the Galilee. As a result, many Jews fled to Egypt. And on and on, culminating with: quote:Relief for the Jewish population of Palestine came when the Ayyubid dynasty defeated the Crusaders and conquered Palestine. Some Jewish immigration from the diaspora subsequently took place, but this came to an end when Mamluks took over Palestine. The Mamluks severely oppressed the Jews and greatly mismanaged the economy, resulting in a period of great social and economic decline. The result was large-scale migration from Palestine, and the population declined. The Jewish population shrunk especially heavily, as did the Christian population. Though some Jewish immigration from Europe, North Africa, and Syria also occurred in this period, which potentially saved the collapsing Jewish community of Palestine from disappearing altogether, Jews were reduced to an even smaller minority of the population.[95] I think the claim that "jews weren't exiled generally" is definitely false with just a cursory glance, there were multiple incredibly destructive events in sequence over centuries to ethnically cleanse jews from Palestine. So I suppose the pop history view of "the romans did it" was incorrect, thank you for pointing it out; but the more accurate history isn't really any better and doesn't actually distract from my point? There being a large presence 800 years ago still seems like a long time for there to be any effective means of providing recompense, but also improves a little the idea that they have an ancestral tie to the land; because 800 years ago is much more recent then 2,000 years ago.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2024 05:58
|
|
|
Thanqol posted:Historically, the USA disenfranchised african-americans, and the United Kingdom had wealth-based voting requirements. These countries were both democracies despite large disenfranchised populations. It is an interesting question because I don't know how much can you whittle down the voting members of a state while still calling it democratic. Does anyone know what the minimum percentage with the right to vote would be for a state to count as a democracy?
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2024 06:09
|
|
|
hooman posted:It is an interesting question because I don't know how much can you whittle down the voting members of a state while still calling it democratic.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2024 06:13
|
|
|
Ethnically cleansing Canaan on and off for 3250 years
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2024 06:17
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Ultimately how events shook out sucks, but the problem here ultimately isn't that Israel exists, its that Israel right now is currently the greatest obstacle to a viable two-state solution, and they could just choose to help make it viable at anytime; and this even in an unjust version where Israel also has some or most of the illegal settlements is still preferable than suggesting total war to destroy Israel. Like you said, Israel is the greatest obstacle to two state -solution, because they don't want it and are actively destroying all the chances for it. So when you say that this unjust version is preferable to the destruction of Israeli state, you are in effect saying that you'd prefer the destruction of Palestinian state to destruction of Israeli state. Because currently that will happen: ethnic cleansing of Gaza and neutering remnant Palestinian population in West Bank into ever tighter bantustans and oppression. We can't wait for Israel to come to its senses, because they aren't ever going to accept two state -solution without force (or realistic enough threat of it, so that they realize the need to change their whole policy 180 degrees from current one) either.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2024 08:47
|
|
|
shimmy shimmy posted:I know the forum rules are meeting effort with effort but the old-school D&D 'quote parts of a post and do point by point' is almost impossible to parse for people who weren't the respondent. Can you perhaps summarize your point? I agree with this, on both sides. It's very obvious that points are getting lost, and that the discussion is sprawling to an extent where the mainline of the argument disappears in the noise. Plus, reading those posts is just very unpleasant in general. I'm going to stop making those posts, and I'd ask you Raenir if you would please also stop making posts in this style (you seem to agree that it's bad). I think we should be able to argue concisely, and don't have to have 10 different lines of argument running at the same time. Here's my position: My impression is that the argument you're making is that Israel should exist because it keeps Jews safe. I have pointed out why Israel does not keep Jews safe. You have been making arguments about the clear benefits of ethnic groups having their own states, in part by arguing that multiethnic leave minorities vulnerable. I disagree with that position. While I understand that minority populations are vulnerable, I don't think ethnic groups should all aspire to have their own states. In part because racism is an irrational thing, and racial ingroups aren't as set in stone as you might think, and in part because there are also clear drawbacks to ethnicities insulating themselves: Less crosspollination, less interaction, the conflation of nationality and ethnicity. I think these all contribute to make state-per-ethnicity a terrible idea. Note that I'm not claiming that multiethnic societies don't have discrimination or that pogroms don't happen. I'm saying that ethnicities seeking to establish their own states is not a solution to this, because I don't think it will actually prevent pogroms (look at the breakup of Yugoslavia). Ethnostates like Israel are even worse, because they're explicitly racist projects with the intent to create a country with a Herrenvolk, privileged above others. I have also argued that using the Holocaust to defend the need for Israel is a convenient narrative, but it is wrong. It wasn't the reason Israel was established. Zionism predates the Holocaust, and Israel itself didn't adopt this narrative until several decades in. Even if there were any merit to this argument, it might justify the creation of a Jewish state in Germany. Not in Palestine. I don't think arguing for Israel's existence from a right-to-self-determination position works either. Viewing Israel as a separatist region of Palestine isn't really correct, it is a colony created by European powers on land where other people were already living. It is explicitly a colonial project, where people from elsewhere in the world have been immigrating to and colonizing Palestine. You don't get to invoke the right to self determination to defend a project like this, it ignores the Palestinian right to self determination. Regarding the use of military force against Israel, I think it is likely that other means (economic sanctions, trade blockades, political sanctions) are a better way forward. But I won't condemn anyone for wishing for Israel to be attacked with military force. It is not a genocidal (or equivalent-to-genocide or whatever handwaving you prefer here) thing to want the military defeat of Israel. I drew the comparison to Nazi Germany earlier, and I think that still applies. Whether Israel is a democracy or not has no impact on this, in my opinion. In order to tie these points together so you hopefully won't feel a need to respond to each point individually: The main thrust of my position is that Israel does not need to exist for any of the reasons you've mentioned, and it especially doesn't need to exist as a state that seeks Jewish supremacy. I don't think a two-state solution can work while Israel is the kind of state it is. A multiethnic Palestine/Israstine could respect the rights of the entire population, without causing the problems having an ethnostate in the region does, and I have no objections to using military force against Israel to stop the genocide. Esran fucked around with this message at 11:55 on Mar 17, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2024 11:29
|
|
|
One dead child is too high a price to pay for /any/ reason, /any/ action, no matter how just that action is. But we have probably 30,000 dead children. There is no clever argument that can be made to justify continuing this atrocity and I'm absolutely disgusted at the minority of posters who try to make it. Sorry for not contributing to the discussion, but since Oct 7th I've found this thread mostly helpful and interesting for keeping up with what's happening and reading different perspectives, but I cannot read the thread with all this genocide justification. Raenir your not anywhere near as smart as you think you are, which is the nice way of saying your a loving dumb oval office. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2024 12:10
|
|
|
I'm reminded of that new York Times op ed shortly before the civil war, where they argued that attempting to use force to take slaves away from slaveowners would be wrong, and that it would be much better to simply wait until the slaveowners came to see that it would end up better for them economically to no longer practice slavery. When you argue against methods to change an untenable status quo, you're arguing in favour of that status quo, and against the oppressed. It would be better to free all Palestine with force than to allow the situation in Gaza and the West Bank to continue one second longer. Israel has the opportunity to end this, if they don't take it, the choice should be made for them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2024 12:22
|
|
|
In that long regurgitation of half-remembered wiki articles they also conveniently and completely side stepped addressing my argument that a short sharp war targeting Israel's physical capacity to commit genocide is the most humane option left on the table.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2024 12:25
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:
People are still responding to this person?
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2024 13:14
|
|
|
It appears that a full-scale war against Israel is not even a remote possibility right now. I'm not sure what all this hypothesising is supposed to accomplish. The discussion would make sense if Israel's neighbours started amassing troops at the border or something, but right now it's utterly irrelevant and makes it hard to get any useful information from the thread. Maybe a huge meteorite hits Israel. Maybe aliens teleport Israel to Venus. Maybe Jesus comes back. All interesting scenarios to think about, surely. Probably not something to discuss in depth this thread, though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2024 13:48
|
|
|
Paladinus posted:It appears that a full-scale war against Israel is not even a remote possibility right now. I'm not sure what all this hypothesising is supposed to accomplish. The discussion would make sense if Israel's neighbours started amassing troops at the border or something, but right now it's utterly irrelevant and makes it hard to get any useful information from the thread. Factions within Israel are actively trying to start a war with Lebanon and Israel is in a state of war with the defacto government of Yemen. Without US carrier groups parked offshore Egypt’s and Iran’s options change. Israel is incredibly politically unstable, has severely degraded military capabilities and reputation, and reliant on western military aid that it may lose in the coming years.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2024 16:09
|
|
|
Israel is a nuclear power with a notorious track record of disproportionate retaliation. An invasion would only precipitate a catastrophe orders of magnitude worse than what is currently happening in Gaza.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2024 16:19
|
|
|
Israel is a nuclear power because they stole technology and materiel from the United States, which by United States law, precludes them from receiving any kind of financial or military assistance from the United States. The nanosecond the US turns against Israel, they will fold like laundry.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2024 16:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 01:23 |
|
|
Stringent posted:Israel is a nuclear power because they stole technology and materiel from the United States, which by United States law, precludes them from receiving any kind of financial or military assistance from the United States.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2024 16:38
|
|