|
SMEGMA_MAIL posted:No, I’m making one claim. You are throwing around a whole bunch of pedantic nonsense about a pretty simple argument, the simple claim that force is justified to stop Israel and that the Israeli state as it exists must be destroyed to secure the lives of both Palestinians and Israelis and chance for a both a future Palestinian and Jewish states that are not functionally feudal marches for outside powers to gently caress around in the Middle East or settler projects, or viable one state solution. I don't think its pedantic nonsense at all, it certainly wouldn't make any sense in a meta sense for parties to an argument to just declare the debate opponents argument as pedantry because then anyone can do it and there would be no discussion of substance at all. But even if it were so simple, if my claims were so obviously trivial and open to challenge that they could be easily dismissed as some form of nonsense; why aren't any of the points levied against my arguments of any substance? Of course I'm a little biased here in regards to my own arguments, but I don't think its wrong to point out that the arguments haven't been very good, and often seem to be levied against an argument I didn't actually make? Your second paragraph is a fair example of this, you assert a non-sequitor and suggest that my argument is tantamount to it, but don't make any effort to explain or describe why this is, you just assert it, and again I insist that what you describe of my argument has little relation to it, when considered in its proper context and intent. But again, the crux of the issue here is there can be agreement to factual assertions like "Israel is currently the obstacle to peace and stability" while disgareeing that there is one and only option; which just happens to be not only one of the most currently implausible ones, but is the most destructive overall, to everyone involved; and basically at no point has this on its merits been disputed; just re-asserted as-is. Civilized Fishbot posted:"If Israel were invaded and dismantled by a superior military power, would genocide necessarily follow" can't be discussed/debated any more rigorously than "if the moon were made of cheese would it taste good" or "if Superman punched the Incredible Hulk as hard as possible would the Hulk die" etc. It's talking about a world we don't live in, that we're nowhere close to living in - Israel is a nuclear state tightly allied with the world's dominant military power. So this whole slapfight boils down to what you choose to imagine and assume about this word problem in order to get the hypothetical scenario you you need to own your posting enemies. I don't think any particular discussion short of a completely off topic derail really constitutes as a "distraction from whats happening"; that ascribes more moral weight to posting that posting just generally doesn't have and isn't meant to have. Nothing we do here has any weight to the conflict, and multiple topics of discussion can happen at the same time. But additionally I'd argue that insisting on a particular solution of the conflict, such as "overwhelming force to destroy Israel" is just as hypothetical as "what if Superman punched the Hulk" so I don't think it follows to use that as a basis for disagreeing with this particular kind of argument; and most importantly I don't think that at all addresses what the argument or the disagreement even is. The disagreement is over whether its a reasonable thing to advocate for, and have concerns with; in which case it is the very essence of the dispute what would happen as a consequence because how else would you evaluate it? Raenir Salazar fucked around with this message at 20:19 on Mar 19, 2024 |
#
?
Mar 19, 2024 20:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 10:19 |
|
|
This is like strenuously objecting to someone saying that they hope the entire IDF gets abducted by aliens. “But what if they don’t WANT to have their anuses probed by the Neptunians!?” There are real collapse, decolonization, and reconciliation scenarios that could be worth discussing and none of them involve the, what? combined might of the rest of the world defeating the US and Israel?
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2024 20:20
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:This is like strenuously objecting to someone saying that they hope the entire IDF gets abducted by aliens. “But what if they don’t WANT to have their anuses probed by the Neptunians!?” I think there's a critical difference here where wishing for some scenarios is just silly enough as to not be worth responding to as obviously silly, and some scenarios where even if silly are still weird and blood thirsty; like if someone said they wish they could Thanos snap away all Communists, I think people would still object even if its silly as long as it was clearly serious and not as a joke; and scenarios that while not silly (as in grounded in something vaguely feasible if the planets were to align in a timely and sequential manner) that in addition to still being blood thirsty are still frequently insisted on as not just something they want but also insist is the only viable solution. This last bit is a very large portion of the actual disagreement.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2024 20:28
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:I think there's a critical difference here where wishing for some scenarios is just silly enough as to not be worth responding to as obviously silly, and some scenarios where even if silly are still weird and blood thirsty; like if someone said they wish they could Thanos snap away all Communists, I think people would still object even if its silly as long as it was clearly serious and not as a joke; and scenarios that while not silly (as in grounded in something vaguely feasible if the planets were to align in a timely and sequential manner) that in addition to still being blood thirsty are still frequently insisted on as not just something they want but also insist is the only viable solution. This last bit is a very large portion of the actual disagreement. To clarify, are you insinuating that the idea of using military force to stop Israel or the Israeli state from completing the slaughter in Gaza and the settlement of the West Bank is "bloodthirsty?"
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2024 21:05
|
|
|
What, this? Oh, it's just Israel murdering journalists and lying about it. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/03/19/gaza-journalists-killed-israel-al-jazeera-footage/ quote:"The Israel Defense Forces said in a statement the next day it had "identified and struck a terrorist who operated an aircraft that posed a threat to IDF troops". Two days later, the military announced it had uncovered evidence that both men belonged to militant groups - Thuraya to Hamas and Dahdouh to Palestinian Islamic Jihad, its smaller rival in Gaza - and that the attack had been a response to an "immediate" threat. I guess when you're killing more journalists in 3 months than died in 4 years worth of WW2, running up the score takes precedence over everything else. I'm surprised they even bother to offer justifications anymore. It's not like they bothered to explain why they killed poet Refaat Alareer in his sister's apartment (after blowing up his previous home, too). I guess he was weaponizing the english language against the Israel's inaliable right to ethnically cleanse.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2024 21:17
|
|
|
SMEGMA_MAIL posted:To clarify, are you insinuating that the idea of using military force to stop Israel or the Israeli state from completing the slaughter in Gaza and the settlement of the West Bank is "bloodthirsty?" Ok, back to the original quotes from Quantum Cat: https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?noseen=1&threadid=3754814&pagenumber=640&perpage=40#post538333400 quote:I want them to explain why a rogue nuclear ethnostate with violently expansionistic ambitions it broadcasts on the daily while committing the most well documented genocide in history, should not be violently and utterly swept into the dustbin of history. and https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3754814&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=645#post538398562 quote: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. To me, this absolutely sounds like a call to carpet-bomb a country into rubble (much like what's happening in Gaza now). It's absolutely not the same as a call to use military force to call for and enforce a ceasefire. I visited Israel in 2015 and I've never been so depressed in my life. I wanted to glass the entire area so no one could live there. But it's not a real solution and it would lead to millions of deaths.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2024 21:20
|
|
|
SMEGMA_MAIL posted:To clarify, are you insinuating that the idea of using military force to stop Israel or the Israeli state from completing the slaughter in Gaza and the settlement of the West Bank is "bloodthirsty?" I'm not sure where your confusion is coming from, I think it was clear the multiple times I've explained my argument what sentiment, what particular idea, I feel has tipped over into blood thirst. 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? quote: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. And also the post I think by Esran? That Maera Sior quotes. That being said looking more closely at your previous post in reply to me, I am actually legitimately puzzled, because it seems like you actually agree with me in some respect? quote:No, I’m making one claim. You are throwing around a whole bunch of pedantic nonsense about a pretty simple argument, the simple claim that force is justified to stop Israel and that the Israeli state as it exists must be destroyed to secure the lives of both Palestinians and Israelis and chance for a both a future Palestinian and Jewish states that are not functionally feudal marches for outside powers to gently caress around in the Middle East or settler projects, or viable one state solution. Seems like you're open to the idea of a two state solution where Israel can remain in control of their own affairs and to remain as a "Jewish state" if they so decide to; with the obvious caveats presumably of doing so without infringing on the rights of Palestinians to have their own state. So you're not being entirely unreasonable it seems, especially since it seems like we also both agree that the emphasis regarding a one state solution should be on having a viable one state solution and maybe we have more common ground than it seems? It's a little bit at odds so I'm unclear what your position is in light of this so I don't want to press you too hard on this without knowing more. Because to my mind, if you're open to the fact that yes Israel if it wants to remain constitutionally a "Jewish state" then why go to total war to completely dismantle them? You could just if war is needed push them out of the West Bank and Gaza and force a more equitable peace between them and Palestine without going all the war; because the effort and force needed to dismantle Israel would obviously be far greater than what would be required to simply pushing for more limited war goals?
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2024 21:35
|
|
|
Maera Sior posted:
Using overwhelming military force to cripple the country's ability to do a genocide seems fundamentally different than using overwhelming military force with the intent of committing one. Raenir Salazar posted:Because to my mind, if you're open to the fact that yes Israel if it wants to remain constitutionally a "Jewish state" I am absolutely not favorable to the concept of a "constitutionally ethnic" state of any kind that you seem to amendable to.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2024 21:41
|
|
|
SMEGMA_MAIL posted:Using overwhelming military force to cripple the country's ability to do a genocide seems fundamentally different than using overwhelming military force with the intent of committing one. it was also the basis of world war 2
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2024 21:48
|
|
|
SMEGMA_MAIL posted:Using overwhelming military force to cripple the country's ability to do a genocide seems fundamentally different than using overwhelming military force with the intent of committing one. You appear intent on stating this as though it is the argument, but it is not the argument? Two different things can be similar or comparable in terms of evaluating how "bad" something is, to serve as grounds for the resulting argument, without them being the same thing, or being necessarily implied to be the same thing; they can in fact be different as things go; but it also doesn't mean the thing that is different is also unquestionable good; to circle back around to some of my previous points, the atomic bombings of Japan, the strategic bombing of North Korea, the firing bombing of Dresden and Tokyo; these are all things that are controversial regarding WW2 according to modern day scholarship; so if even a war as close as we can to a ontological struggle of Good vs Evil WW2 was, its still marred by questionable acts in pursuit of the war's conclusion. The point here, is that going to total war to "destroy" Israel by necessity and practicality means risking similar acts because that's the inherent nature of war; and there's no evidence that such a war could at all be fought more cleanly, so failing to address this, its reasonable to conclude that maybe it can be in fact concerning to advocate for it without acknowledging the real harms it would likely result in; and that maybe, other alternatives are worth addressing and reconsidering once we've properly calibrated the ethnical scales of various actions. We can't make an accurate attempt at a utilitarian assessment if we're blind to the real costs. quote:I am absolutely not favorable to the concept of a "constitutionally ethnic" state of any kind that you seem to amendable to. You're not addressing the question, if you're amendable to Israel remaining a "Jewish" state, then what could this possible mean other than Jews having their own borders, their own country they're a clear majority in, and thus the freedom to vote on and amend their constitution to whatever ends they see fit? What are you then actually envisioning here? And why is it worth going to war over?
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2024 22:08
|
|
|
Question here, are "you" amenable to the idea of an ethno state?
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2024 22:12
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:You're not addressing the question, if you're amendable to Israel remaining a "Jewish" state, then what could this possible mean other than Jews having their own borders, their own country they're a clear majority in, and thus the freedom to vote on and amend their constitution to whatever ends they see fit? What are you then actually envisioning here? And why is it worth going to war over? Why should I be amenable to an explicit ethnostate? Also, do you not understand the contradiction between democratic values and "their own country they're a clear majority in"?
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2024 22:15
|
|
|
Ethnostates are terrible ideas, you end up with "re-education" camps like what China is doing or invading your neighbors because (you declare) they are part of your ethnicity and therefore should be within your borders like Russia.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2024 22:20
|
|
|
Red and Black posted:It's incredible how the mods feel comfortable assuming that their uninformed personal opinions on this or that subject are a basis for moderation. Even if you do consider the re-education camps / prisons in Xinjiang a genocide it's still ridiculous to compare that to Gaza where Israel has manufactured a famine and humanitarian disaster which will likely result in hundreds of thousands of deaths once the tally is finished. They're not the same thing and even western human rights groups like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch hesitate to call it a genocide, as is shown in the first few paragraphs of the BBC article. This is because Genocide has a specific definition under international law, one which is not met in Xinjiang but is in Gaza. It is equating the two which in fact genocide denial because the comparison greatly minimizes what is being done to Gaza This part of your post made me curious since you made it a basis of your argument. Has Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch even called out Israel for currently committing a genocide? I did a quick look and couldn’t even find them calling it that, only saying things like “prevent” or “imminent”. Granted, I could have just missed it, as I haven’t been following that specific thing closely
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2024 22:48
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Question here, are "you" amenable to the idea of an ethno state? I believe I said I prefer multi-ethnic/multi-cultural states? I'm not sure what "amendable" means exactly, I think it should be clear from my previous posts that I am just recognizing reality of how most of the world is. fool of sound posted:Why should I be amenable to an explicit ethnostate? Also, do you not understand the contradiction between democratic values and "their own country they're a clear majority in"? I think that isn't actually a clear contradiction in practice? What is drawing of districts other than insuring that people are grouped together by common interest? Are not most secession movements a result of groups of people, usually ethnic groups, desiring their own state that they can clearly exercise a majority interest in? Is this not why we for example, support DC statehood, so the people living in DC can clearly be a majority within their own administrative unit independent of Maryland where their voting strength could be diluted or gerrymandered away? In fact gerrymandering is a good counter example here, its easy to imagine a groups interests would be severely compromised as part of a larger unit if their voice is split up and essentially gerrymandered into irrelevance; and why often it can be desired to reverse-gerrymander, packing minorities into singular districts where they have a clear majority in as to avoid being silenced by the majority they share the region in. So it seems to me like not a very good argument that it is inherently undemocratic to want to insure you as a group have a clear and distinct voice regarding your affairs. Some countries manage to balance the concerns between different ethnic groups, some don't bother at all; and there's no ideal or perfect country regarding minority representation and accomodation; so it's not about being amendable, it's recognizing the baseline interests at play that are true basically everywhere; which I've already addressed with my discussion with Esran.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2024 22:55
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:I believe I said I prefer multi-ethnic/multi-cultural states? I'm not sure what "amendable" means exactly, I think it should be clear from my previous posts that I am just recognizing reality of how most of the world is. Israel did not just come into being as a function of the way the world works. The ethnic and demographic makeup of Israel is enforced by a decades long apartheid and international colonial migration. I.e. the right of return. It is absolutely not in any way comparable to gerrymandering or internal power struggles between minority groups. The "baseline interests" at play here are those of the Israelis in eradicating the Palestinians. So yeah, you're arguments a little weird here when you seem to be pushing back on people opposing the concept of an ethnostate.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2024 23:08
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:I think that isn't actually a clear contradiction in practice? What is drawing of districts other than insuring that people are grouped together by common interest? Are not most secession movements a result of groups of people, usually ethnic groups, desiring their own state that they can clearly exercise a majority interest in? Is this not why we for example, support DC statehood, so the people living in DC can clearly be a majority within their own administrative unit independent of Maryland where their voting strength could be diluted or gerrymandered away. The idea that members of an ethnic group inherently share interests is a an outright racist one. People in the same profession might share interests, people who live their lives in the same area might. People of the same ethnicity who are currently oppressed might share the common interest of ending or escaping that oppression, but that shouldn’t be mistaken for an abiding common interest. This idea also ignores that ethnicities are flexible and have their own internal tensions about who gets to “count”. Playing with permitted membership of a ruling ethnicity is a core element of fascist ideology. Like, I don’t think you would argue that all English people share interests. Why would we assume that people of English descent in Germany share interests, either among themselves or with their cousins back in Britain? fool of sound fucked around with this message at 23:19 on Mar 19, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2024 23:17
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:I think that isn't actually a clear contradiction in practice? What is drawing of districts other than insuring that people are grouped together by common interest? Are not most secession movements a result of groups of people, usually ethnic groups, desiring their own state that they can clearly exercise a majority interest in? Is this not why we for example, support DC statehood, so the people living in DC can clearly be a majority within their own administrative unit independent of Maryland where their voting strength could be diluted or gerrymandered away? I know this is going off-topic, but DC is not represented by or administered by Maryland. Also yes, Israel is an ethnostate explicitly because of previous Jewish-supremacist actions. It didn't come about because of some quirk of history or random chance.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2024 23:17
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:I believe I said I prefer multi-ethnic/multi-cultural states? I'm not sure what "amendable" means exactly, I think it should be clear from my previous posts that I am just recognizing reality of how most of the world is. this should be the subtext for dnd on teh forums list
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2024 23:20
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:I believe I said I prefer multi-ethnic/multi-cultural states? I'm not sure what "amendable" means exactly, I think it should be clear from my previous posts that I am just recognizing reality of how most of the world is. Do you think it is an acceptable measure of running a nation state, it is not based on what you prefer, but do you think such things should be encouraged or allowed to continue. You are not "just" recognising it, by saying that things are as they are and we should simply deal with it you deny the important part of examining it from first principles.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2024 23:21
|
|
|
National Parks posted:Israel did not just come into being as a function of the way the world works. The ethnic and demographic makeup of Israel is enforced by a decades long apartheid and international colonial migration. I.e. the right of return. The right of return is the least controversial aspect of Israel being a jewish state, firstly because naturally sovereign nations have an inherent right to control their borders and set migration policies; even if you dislike or have reasonable criticisms of them; I don't think the "Iron Curtain" or North Korea's border policy of "minefields" are all that great, but they're allowed to do it. Most nations border policies are arguably racist, see the United States, but this lessens the extent that Israel's policies are uniquely racist. And no, the "baseline" interests at play are not "eradicating the Palestinians", anymore than Ukraine's baseline interests in being an independent state from Russia is eradicating Russians. I obviously don't think that my arguments are "weird", I am pushing back against an argument that is overly broad as to include most countries doing basic country things just to say "Bad Country is Bad" or to justify eliminating an entire country and embarking on a destructive total war. Which is to say that Israel can be an independent state, independent of Palestine, without needing to embark on a campaign of ethnic cleansing or conquest; which I've argued before. Maera Sior posted:I know this is going off-topic, but DC is not represented by or administered by Maryland. I think a country can want to be independent to serve the interests of its people without it being supremacist; Israel can be an independent country from Palestine without it being embarked on a campaign of conquest and ethnic cleansing; just as how France currently isn't interesting in cleansing Alsace-Loraine of Germans or occupying the Ruhr to insure it. And to be clear I was not saying that DC is represented or administered by Maryland, but it clearly lacks effective representation because its representation is up to the will of whoever the majority in charge of Congress happens to be, and currently due to the tyranny of the majority of empty land, there's not enough Senators who support making them a state. fool of sound posted:The idea that members of an ethnic group inherently share interests is a an outright racist one. People in the same profession might share interests, people who live their lives in the same area might. People of the same ethnicity who are currently oppressed might share the common interest of ending or escaping that oppression, but that shouldn’t be mistaken for an abiding common interest. I think saying it is racist is baseless; as you generally recognize the ways in which groups of peoples naturally tend to have common interests; I've only clearly been speaking in generalities not that every group is uniform or a monolith. The basis of the right of self-determination is the idea that groups of people have a right to determine their own affairs, and to join or secede from another country; and this requires on some level recognizing that this right follows from the idea that as a group that they have certain shared interests as a people. Ukrainians have a reasonable interest in being independent of Russia, because ultimately even if Russia was a nice place to be a part of, feel that their interests are not served being a part of Russia; and why they voted for independence during the dissolution instead of staying a part of it as a reformed version of the USSR. This isn't racist to recognize in these general terms; anymore than recognizing that Koreans in South Korea want to remain independent of North Korea or China or Japan, because of various reasons feel that their interests as a people are not served as being a part of these countries. How do you determine this? Generally the more democratic (via elections, referendums, etc) the means the easier it is to tell objectively. Obviously different countries, made up of whatever ethnic groups, have internal disputes which are typically resolved via elections, votes in the legislature and so on, but this doesn't mean that in general they don't have common causes and concerns with regards to their surroundings. At a minimum trivial example, most countries are very concerned about the safety of their citizens in other countries; such as China is often concerned about anti-Chinese programs that might occur throughout South East asia and its military expansion at least ostensibly about being able to secure the safety of Chinese people around the world. The entire process of "incorporation" of having different countries agree to become part of larger supranational organizations takes a lot of work and requires a lot of effort in balancing peoples concerns; the fact is the EU is struggling to further "centralize" because ultimately many nations that make it up don't want to give up too many powers to a larger organization they have less and less say regarding. It isn't racist to point out that "Czechia currently doesn't see further centralization of the EU in its interest" as both a statement as a "country" but also in regards to it as the representative of the Czech people. And of course, going back to what I said in my previous post, its why we have minority-majority districts in the US, or separate states, or why Yugoslavia and the USSR collapsed, or why the Boxer Rebellion happened or so on; not because an ethnic group is some kind of hive mind, but because individuals, intellectuals, the intelligentsia, and influence persons acting in concert decided these things were important and convinced a majority of people to aspire to this. Did everyone care about this? No. But that wasn't and never was the claim? Josef bugman posted:Do you think it is an acceptable measure of running a nation state, it is not based on what you prefer, but do you think such things should be encouraged or allowed to continue. You are not "just" recognising it, by saying that things are as they are and we should simply deal with it you deny the important part of examining it from first principles. Not really, first principles suggests that nations are allowed to do things, and can only opt-in out of doing things while accounting for in the modern international community what they can do is balanced against the rights other nations have. So Nation A shouldn't be allowed to invade Nation B, but consequently Nation B is not allowed to destroy Nation A even if Nation A is doing bad things in the present to Nation B. The United Nations following on from the League of Nations is about arbitrating disputes nations have.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 00:54
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:I think saying it is racist is baseless; as you generally recognize the ways in which groups of peoples naturally tend to have common interests; I've only clearly been speaking in generalities not that every group is uniform or a monolith. The basis of the right of self-determination is the idea that groups of people have a right to determine their own affairs, and to join or secede from another country; and this requires on some level recognizing that this right follows from the idea that as a group that they have certain shared interests as a people. Ukrainians have a reasonable interest in being independent of Russia, because ultimately even if Russia was a nice place to be a part of, feel that their interests are not served being a part of Russia; and why they voted for independence during the dissolution instead of staying a part of it as a reformed version of the USSR. This isn't racist to recognize in these general terms; anymore than recognizing that Koreans in South Korea want to remain independent of North Korea or China or Japan, because of various reasons feel that their interests as a people are not served as being a part of these countries. How do you determine this? Generally the more democratic (via elections, referendums, etc) the means the easier it is to tell objectively. You are attributing complex and interwoven shared interests as being cultural. Even if you acknowledge that that cultural groups aren't monolithic you're still asserting that personal, professional, regional, historical, or practical interests are cultural or racial. That's a racist assumption. It's obvious why an ethnic minority in a state might have share protective interests while living in another country where they are legally or at least de facto discriminated against (this is the reason for minority districts in the USA). It is quite another thing to assert that globally that ethnic minority share certain interests or that those interest coincide with a state actor. Raenir Salazar posted:Obviously different countries, made up of whatever ethnic groups, have internal disputes which are typically resolved via elections, votes in the legislature and so on, but this doesn't mean that in general they don't have common causes and concerns with regards to their surroundings. At a minimum trivial example, most countries are very concerned about the safety of their citizens in other countries; such as China is often concerned about anti-Chinese programs that might occur throughout South East asia and its military expansion at least ostensibly about being able to secure the safety of Chinese people around the world. Yes it is, in the same sense that it's antisemitic to present Israel as representative or guardian of the worldwide Jewry, as opposed to just another state with its own ideology and practical interests. Raenir Salazar posted:And of course, going back to what I said in my previous post, its why we have minority-majority districts in the US, or separate states, or why Yugoslavia and the USSR collapsed, or why the Boxer Rebellion happened or so on; not because an ethnic group is some kind of hive mind, but because individuals, intellectuals, the intelligentsia, and influence persons acting in concert decided these things were important and convinced a majority of people to aspire to this. Did everyone care about this? No. But that wasn't and never was the claim? This is uh, an extraordinarily dubious claim about why the USSR collapsed or even why the Boxer Rebellion happened, and generally a poor understanding of political cause and effect. None of them happened because "the intelligentsia" or similar "decided" they were important. There were already important because of real conditions: the Boxer rebellion was an anti-colonist uprising against exploitation. Not a national separatist movement. The USSR's collapse similarly wasn't because of nationalist or racial animus tearing the state apart, it was because of 30 years of increasing state disfunction that left satellite territories without support. fool of sound fucked around with this message at 01:24 on Mar 20, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 01:22
|
|
|
Sephyr posted:What, this? Oh, it's just Israel murdering journalists and lying about it. I still remember Israel killing a couple of Al Jazeera journalists who were just sitting in a car. They justified it by saying that yes, they were journalists but they were also top Hamas commanders during their off hours so their assassination was completely justified since they were important military targets. It was completely transparent bullshit; they were absolutely targeted simply for being journalists. Al Jazeera called them out for it but no one with any power was ever going to do anything about it and Israel knew it. Evil country.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 02:04
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:You are attributing complex and interwoven shared interests as being cultural. Even if you acknowledge that that cultural groups aren't monolithic you're still asserting that personal, professional, regional, historical, or practical interests are cultural or racial. That's a racist assumption. It's obvious why an ethnic minority in a state might have share protective interests while living in another country where they are legally or at least de facto discriminated against (this is the reason for minority districts in the USA). It is quite another thing to assert that globally that ethnic minority share certain interests or that those interest coincide with a state actor. I think there's nothing racist about it. And I think the fact that you go on to acknowledge the shared protective interests in another country makes it clear how this works in other circumstances in their own country or why a group can feel that they would prefer to have their own country in the first place; heck if its so clear that groups can have a shared discriminated against shared protective interest, isn't this why naturally so many nations formed in the first place? As a result of those nationalist movements that ended up breaking apart the various empires? Austria-Hungary wasn't that bad of a multi-ethnic/multi-cultural unit, but at the first oppurtunity there was no real appetite to maintain it versus immediately declaring independence or joining up with the closest nation that matched them. I don't quite think I asserted that globally that an entire ethnic minority share "certain interests" or that they coincide with a state actor, I think you're overextrapolating my argument; but in any case I think with so many qualifiers such a claim basically means nothing, that some people somewhere, might think or desire similar things to each other if they share some linguistic, cultural, or ethnic traits? That just seems generally true and doesn't mean much if anything at all? Like if I go to Japan and I see another Canadian (because he's also wearing a touk), like yeah I'll high five him and talk about maple syrup. quote:Yes it is, in the same sense that it's antisemitic to present Israel as representative or guardian of the worldwide Jewry, as opposed to just another state with its own ideology and practical interests. I'm not sure how this relates to what I said, you appear to have taken "a nation might have legitimate interests and concerns about members of its nationality overseas" and taken it to mean something I didn't say. But I think Israel can have legitimate concerns in a vacuum about the treatment of jews around the world. quote:This is uh, an extraordinarily dubious claim about why the USSR collapsed or even why the Boxer Rebellion happened, and generally a poor understanding of political cause and effect. None of them happened because "the intelligentsia" or similar "decided" they were important. There were already important because of real conditions: the Boxer rebellion was an anti-colonist uprising against exploitation. Not a national separatist movement. The USSR's collapse similarly wasn't because of nationalist or racial animus tearing the state apart, it was because of 30 years of increasing state disfunction that left satellite territories without support. I think you're the one not really fully considering the full historical context of these movements; clearly the Boxer Rebellion had influencial figures, the Boxers were a distinctly nationalist movement reacting against Western Imperialism and the weakness of the government to protect the interests of China. And national movements usually have some core or vanguard of individuals who exchange information, hold meetings, and plan. Real conditions spurs people, individuals, and organizations, to organize and carry out acts in furtherence of their ideals. The Boxers wanted to expel foreigners, and the USSR's collapse was absolutely due to latent nationalism that was previously suppressed; See how the USSR was just like the Russian Empire called a "Prison of Nations"; saying it was because of a 'lack of support' is an overly reductionist take and ignores all of the other competing and contributing factors that led to its collapse.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 03:05
|
|
|
If Israel wants a non violent solution to their oppression and genocide of the Palestinian people, they should probably start pursuing it pretty quick.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 03:42
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:I think there's nothing racist about it. And I think the fact that you go on to acknowledge the shared protective interests in another country makes it clear how this works in other circumstances in their own country or why a group can feel that they would prefer to have their own country in the first place; heck if its so clear that groups can have a shared discriminated against shared protective interest, isn't this why naturally so many nations formed in the first place? As a result of those nationalist movements that ended up breaking apart the various empires? Austria-Hungary wasn't that bad of a multi-ethnic/multi-cultural unit, but at the first oppurtunity there was no real appetite to maintain it versus immediately declaring independence or joining up with the closest nation that matched them. It's funny that you bring up Austria-Hungary because that is a wonderful demonstration of how flexible national identity is. Regionalism turned nationalism in the Austria-Hungary rose up as unified Austro-Hungarian nationalism dissolved with its national power and stability: people didn't want to be part of the centralized empire anymore because it couldn't provide for them any longer, so they fell back on their regional interests. National separatism isn't a salient force, it is a product of states failing (or deliberately harming) segments of their population. Raenir Salazar posted:I'm not sure how this relates to what I said, you appear to have taken "a nation might have legitimate interests and concerns about members of its nationality overseas" and taken it to mean something I didn't say. But I think Israel can have legitimate concerns in a vacuum about the treatment of jews around the world. Jews are not of necessarily of Israel nationality. People with Chinese ancestry are not necessarily members of a nebulous "Chinese national identity", to say nothing of the actual Chinese state, even is China might wish to claim them in the service of its foreign policy goals. The idea that a state is representative of a people is accepting nationalist framing as fact. Raenir Salazar posted:I think you're the one not really fully considering the full historical context of these movements; clearly the Boxer Rebellion had influencial figures, the Boxers were a distinctly nationalist movement reacting against Western Imperialism and the weakness of the government to protect the interests of China. And national movements usually have some core or vanguard of individuals who exchange information, hold meetings, and plan. Real conditions spurs people, individuals, and organizations, to organize and carry out acts in furtherence of their ideals. The Boxers wanted to expel foreigners, and the USSR's collapse was absolutely due to latent nationalism that was previously suppressed; See how the USSR was just like the Russian Empire called a "Prison of Nations"; saying it was because of a 'lack of support' is an overly reductionist take and ignores all of the other competing and contributing factors that led to its collapse. That wikipedia page only even faintly supports the use of that term for the USSR's policies, doesn't touch on your actual claim that the USSR collapsed due to national separatism at all, and in fact spends much more of its wordcount supporting my main thesis: that nationalist rhetoric in the later Stalinist era imposed an (eventually, as the USSR failed) unwanted pan-Slavic national identity and national representation on its imperial territories. As for the Boxer, yes they wanted to expel foreigners, because the foreign occupiers were actively exploiting and abusing their functionally conquered country. That was the driving force, not abstract national identity. This is getting a bit far afield from the topic in question, which is "should there be an explicit Jewish ethnostate that has a vested interest in manipulating its demographics so that its preferred ethnicity remains in control, and which is situated in territory stolen from another ethnic group?" fool of sound fucked around with this message at 03:55 on Mar 20, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 03:45
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:"should there be an explicit Jewish ethnostate that has a vested interest in manipulating its demographics so that its preferred ethnicity remains in control, and which is situated in territory stolen from another ethnic group?" The question implies that ethnic groups can own territory and have it stolen from them - an uncritical adoption of the blood-and-soil idea that powers modern Zionism. That land wasn't stolen from "another ethnic group" but from actual people who were expelled from it at gunpoint, or outright murdered. Civilized Fishbot fucked around with this message at 04:29 on Mar 20, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 04:22
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:It's funny that you bring up Austria-Hungary because that is a wonderful demonstration of how flexible national identity is. Regionalism turned nationalism in the Austria-Hungary rose up as unified Austro-Hungarian nationalism dissolved with its national power and stability: people didn't want to be part of the centralized empire anymore because it couldn't provide for them any longer, so they fell back on their regional interests. National separatism isn't a salient force, it is a product of states failing (or deliberately harming) segments of their population. I don't think the idea that it's flexible has any bearing on the claims being made here, like at all? None of this refutes what I'm saying. It isn't like I'm claiming that this is always absolutely the case, only generally that ethnic, cultural, or religious groups, particularly those who are the predominant majority of a geographical area, are going to have some common identity or shared interests. What exactly constitutes "shared interests" or "common identity"? To me there's no obvious answer, its as you say, flexible, malleable, and subjective. Canadian national identity basically came about as a result of the war of 1812; and is frequently debating if we even have an identity, often meme'd is our identity is that "We're not Americans" and jokes about poutine and beavers. That seems pretty clear to me that variableness of what national identity is. I kinda get the sense that maybe you're just skeptical that national identity is a real thing? I think we should be careful about over extrapolating from personal beliefs or how the world ought to be or should be and keep focused on "how it is" which is that I can't imagine how anyone can basically claim "national identity doesn't exist" (insofar as we're being vaguely interchangeable using national identity, ethnic identity, cultural identity, religious identity, and so on, as vague and overlapping circles on the venn-diagram one might label a "people") quote:Jews are not of necessarily of Israel nationality. People with Chinese ancestry are not necessarily members of a nebulous "Chinese national identity", to say nothing of the actual Chinese state, even is China might wish to claim them in the service of its foreign policy goals. The idea that a state is representative of a people is accepting nationalist framing as fact. I think its not about accepting it as fact, but that there is on a spectrum of validity, a non-zero legitimacy that nations ultimately provide some utility in protecting their citizens overseas, and consequently protecting their nationality overseas. That there is a cynical or self-serving national interest in doing so doesn't negate that utility or that truth; and then of course there's other aspects of "concern" such as the way Quebec, France, and so on, keep tabs on and maintain special relations with other nations within the Francosphere. quote:That wikipedia page only even faintly supports the use of that term for the USSR's policies, doesn't touch on your actual claim that the USSR collapsed due to national separatism at all, and in fact spends much more of its wordcount supporting my main thesis: that nationalist rhetoric in the later Stalinist era imposed an (eventually, as the USSR failed) unwanted pan-Slavic national identity and national representation on its imperial territories. As for the Boxer, yes they wanted to expel foreigners, because the foreign occupiers were actively exploiting and abusing their functionally conquered country. That was the driving force, not abstract national identity. I mean this might be one of the things where googling "nationalism and the collapse of the USSR" brings up a lot of literature on the topic. For example, selective quotes from the essay of the same name: quote:By contrast, within European and Eurasian communist regimes in the late 1980s nationalism largely failed as a legitimating force for communist regimes and served instead as a major source for delegitimation and opposition.4 Whereas Russian nationalism was long considered the linchpin of Soviet power, sustaining the Soviet regime since the 1930s and mobilising critical support within Soviet society for Soviet political domination throughout eastern Europe and Eurasia,5 for the most part Russian nationalism failed to come to the defence of either communism or the Soviet empire in the late 1980s. Instead, many Russians joined in the attacks, ironically coming to identify themselves as victims of Soviet ‘imperial’ domination and declaring Russian sovereignty vis-` a-vis the Soviet government. In this sense, Soviet communism was brought down in part by what Roman Szporluk perceptively termed the ‘de-Sovietisation of Russia’6– that is, the growing dissociation of Russians and of Russian national identity from a state with which they had been routinely identified in the past. quote:The issues that effectively mobilised populations within the Soviet Union during these years revolved precisely around nationalism. To be sure, issues of democratisation, labour unrest and consumer shortages, and environmental justice constituted autonomous vectors of mobilisation, at times intersecting with nationalism and at times diverging from it. But as myownstudyofthousandsofprotest demonstrations throughout the Soviet Union during the glasnost period showed, nationalism gained a particular force and appeal not enjoyed by these other streams of contention. For example, not only were demonstrations that voiced nationalist demands but not democratising demands almost three times more frequent than those that voiced democratising demands but not nationalist demands, but demonstrations that voiced nationalist demands and did not raise democratising demands mobilised ten times more participants than those voicing democratising demands but not raising nationalist demands. The patterns are quite striking. Moreover, demonstrations that combined both democratising and nationalist demands mobilised five times more participants than those voicing democratising demands but not raising nationalist demands. In other words, the strongest pressures from society for democratisation came precisely from those movements that also pulled on nationalist tropes, and without nationalism to underpin them demands for liberalisation on their own had relatively weak resonance within Soviet society. A similar but even more pronounced difference occurred between mobilisation over nationalist demands and mobilisation over economic demands– in spite of the enormous decline in living standards that occurred during this period.11 In short, nationalism exercised an unusual force of attraction within the Soviet society during these years that was unparalleled by any other set of issues. quote:This is getting a bit far afield from the topic in question, which is "should there be an explicit Jewish ethnostate that has a vested interest in manipulating its demographics so that its preferred ethnicity remains in control, and which is situated in territory stolen from another ethnic group?" If we do some unpacking, the question is more, "Is it the right of an ethnic group to because of the right of self-determination pursue policies that lie within the natural sovereign rights of any other sovereign nation?" As I said, Israel of course doesn't have the right even as a soveriegn nation to attack palestine or ethnically cleanse them from the lands they had recognized as being Palestinian from the Oslo/Camp David Accords; but they do have a right to have their own nation, and border policy. e to add: In fact actually that isn't even the question at all because the question is about whether its appropriate or proportional to insist that the only way to stop genocide of Palestinians it to call for the complete destruction of Israel using overwhelming military force; that's what this whole conversation is about, and I just don't think it follows for all the reasons and arguments I've provided; from the fact that it would be incredibly destructive, to the fact there's other and better alternatives; and that I don't buy the arguments and find them generally dubious for the reasons I've outlined that focus on trying to legitimatize Israel's right to exist. Raenir Salazar fucked around with this message at 04:48 on Mar 20, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 04:27
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:The question implies that ethnic groups can own territory and have it stolen from them - an uncritical adoption of the blood-and-soil idea that powers modern Zionism. That's a fair criticism, I chose my words poorly. Raenir Salazar posted:I kinda get the sense that maybe you're just skeptical that national identity is a real thing? I think we should be careful about over extrapolating from personal beliefs or how the world ought to be or should be and keep focused on "how it is" which is that I can't imagine how anyone can basically claim "national identity doesn't exist" (insofar as we're being vaguely interchangeable using national identity, ethnic identity, cultural identity, religious identity, and so on, as vague and overlapping circles on the venn-diagram one might label a "people") I am skeptical that a national identity in a cultural or social sense is something that a state can lay claim to or represent. Obviously I don't reject the idea of someone having a national identity in the sense of their legal citizenship or their belief in the legitimacy of that government. I am also skeptical that shared cultural identity is a good basic unit for the organization of states, especially given how much cultural identity is, frankly, made the gently caress up. Basically, it is one thing to be a Chinese citizen, be invested in the state of China, and for China to represent you in some way. It is quite another to be of Chinese heritage and the nation of China to claim to to represent your interests and thus some level of ownership over your cultural identity. Raenir Salazar posted:If we do some unpacking, the question is more, "Is it the right of an ethnic group to because of the right of self-determination pursue policies that lie within the natural sovereign rights of any other sovereign nation?" As I said, Israel of course doesn't have the right even as a soveriegn nation to attack palestine or ethnically cleanse them from the lands they had recognized as being Palestinian from the Oslo/Camp David Accords; but they do have a right to have their own nation, and border policy. The creation of that nation and continued existence of that border policy were and continue to be attacks on Palestinians though. Israel as a Jewish state in its current territory is a zero-sum game where Palestinians lose, regardless of their current military actions. Does Israel somehow have the right to exist even given this?
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 04:56
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar - what if a group of Israeli Arabs declares that they consider themselves a unique nation, neither Palestinian nor Israeli Jew, and that they will be exercising their right to self-determination by forming a new state out of land that was once considered part of Israel? And then within that state, to protect its Israeli Arab character and heritage, they suspend full citizenship for anyone who does not correspond to their state's definition of Israeli Arab? Are they exercising their right to self-determination? If so, how do we reconcile that with the Israeli Jewish right to self-determination in the same land? People have rights, and the useful thing about people is that it's usually clear who is and isn't a person and it's usually clear when a person intends to exercise their rights. When either of these conditions aren't met - like in bioethical situations or situations involving children/mental illness - it's the source of our most challenging moral and legal dilemmas. Ethnicities don't meet either of these conditions - ethnic identities start as some bullshit someone made up, and they never become anything more than bullshit people are willing to kill and die over, and their borders are famously fuzzy, as they constantly merge and splinter and transform and are defined differently by different people. Understanding all this, the idea of speaking on behalf of such a concept is superstition. In fact Jewish people are among the best examples of this - there's famously no consensus on who is or isn't Jewish because of different approaches to ethnoreligious belongingness, and it's famously impossible to get Jews to agree on anything. So it seems totally unworkable for ethnicities to have rights unless you believe they have some objective character that can be objectively identified, which is to say, unless you are a literal racist, someone who believes in the objective existence of a finite set of distinct human races (which I don't think you are, I think you are a well-meaning person articulating an unworkable theory for morality/international law). Civilized Fishbot fucked around with this message at 05:11 on Mar 20, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 04:57
|
|
|
There has been a development on the port: According to both Yaara Shapira, a reporter for Israeli Public Broadcasting who covers the Knesset, and Mustafa Bargouti (secularist party leader and cousin of Marwan Barghouti), Netanyahu told the Foreign Affairs committee that the American port could be used to facilitate Gazans leaving, if they could find countries to take them. I believe a few pages ago the idea that this was a possible use of the port was being viewed as a conspiracy theory - but it is now clearly an option considered viable by one of the heads of state involved. Since the idea for the port was Netanyahu's all along, and apparently had been since October, it's hard to believe this wasn't always part in the intended use of the port. Mormon Star Wars fucked around with this message at 05:54 on Mar 20, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 05:32
|
|
|
That can't be true, I was reliably informed by someone who has intimate knowledge of Biden's thoughts and desires that such a thing would be a ridiculous theory to suggest. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 06:00
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:I am skeptical that a national identity in a cultural or social sense is something that a state can lay claim to or represent. Obviously I don't reject the idea of someone having a national identity in the sense of their legal citizenship or their belief in the legitimacy of that government. I am also skeptical that shared cultural identity is a good basic unit for the organization of states, especially given how much cultural identity is, frankly, made the gently caress up. I think the thing here is you need to be mindful of your own biases, especially we as Westerners, should be wary of considering ourselves superior. There's been hundreds of years of writing by hundreds if not thousands of intellectuals about the nature of the state, of government, and how it relates to citizens and peoples. I think the idea that "much of cultural identity is made up" is kinda like how atheists act in regards to devout individuals and their faith; and that a free civil society ultimately needs to respect the differences between faiths, and the legitimacy of their beliefs and the freedom to engage in their faith. This isn't a perfect analogy but even if you individually identity as an atheist and think religion is fake bullshit, plenty of people consider it real and there's a very large amount of scholarship, theology, and critical thought and philosophy derived and put into it. National identity is something people thought and died over, for hundreds of years; and is a core part of many peoples identities across the world. There's a video of a Chinese chef I watch and he talks in a very blunt way about different cultures and peoples that I wouldn't say, but he as naturally as he breaths talks about the obvious differences between Chinese people like himself, and the french people he's trained with in France, and between himself as a Northerner and other Chinese people whether from Shanghai or the South of China; watching his videos the idea that to him, and to other people in China, that there's clear and obvious distinct differences between Northerners and Southerners in China is clear as day. In context of how he speaks and in the videos of how he talks about cooking and traditions and customs, its pretty clear he doesn't mean this in any kind of racist way, these are just facts of life, and I see a lot of videos of Chinese netizens who talk like this, and while its quite alien as a westerner and I wouldn't talk that way about anyone; I respect that its his culture and people from other cultures and other parts of the world probably believe very different things from me. And the point here FOS, is that recognizing that people have these differences, and view themselves as having these differences, and that they probably hold them very closely, tightly in their hands, might be something that we just don't really understand and I don't think its our place to say otherwise. I talk to Bulgarians, people from Greece from Europe, and all sorts of people over the years, like y'know Wales; Russia, China, Japan, Taiwan; and the idea that national identity is a made up thing would absolutely be news to them, and I honestly don't think we can say they're the racist ones here. But in any case, to clarify, I never claimed that this was a good basis for a state. As I said I prefer multicultural, multiethnic democratic and open societies. I think that would be ideal; but it would be a form of imperialism to, to suggest that this is something everyone else should be forced to accept. I said at the very beginning that we have as of yet, no idea of what a perfect society is, because every society has flaws. Monoculture/Monoethnic states have flaws, Japan has plenty; China has many; but states that could be claimed to be multicultural, like the US and Canada; also have flaws, and are built on a history of settler-colonialism; the United Kingdom similarly owes whatever diversity its ethnic makeup is, to its centuries of brutal imperialism. There's very few places with large ethnic minorities that could be said to be largely unproblematic; but I'm sure someone can pick at it and say something is wrong about it. Like the large Japanese minority in some German cities seems wholesome enough, but might also have been a result of Meiji Japan trying to become a copy of a Imperialist European power; so who can say? Everything is questionable if we look deep enough and turn over enough rocks. But ultimately the issue here isn't what's "best" by some objective measure, but what people as a whole generally have a right to do. The Basque's in Spain have a right to secede if they want to, Scotland has a right to secede from the UK if it wants to, or it can stay, the UK had the right to leave the European Union, economically very damaging but they had a right to do so. This was never an argument about what was best for anyone, only recognizing that what on a basic level, regardless of where you are, what you and other people who agree are similar to you have the right to do at anytime, anywhere, for any reason. (Associate and/or Secede) quote:Basically, it is one thing to be a Chinese citizen, be invested in the state of China, and for China to represent you in some way. It is quite another to be of Chinese heritage and the nation of China to claim to to represent your interests and thus some level of ownership over your cultural identity. I think referring to it in terms of "ownership" is putting excess baggage onto what is meant to be an innocuous observation; that often there is still a connection between members of a diaspora even some number of generations removed and the country of origin; which said country might have a legitimate interest in continuing to foster and encourage, and possibly have a role as a stakeholder during an incident; especially regarding enclaves. This doesn't make China like the first or final or whatever arbiter of every citizen of Chinese descent forever in any country; not saying that; but what I am saying, it isn't unreasonable to see how China might decide it has a legitimate interest the next time there's a attempted anti-Chinese pogrom somewhere around the world directed at an historically Chinese community; part of the reason why China today wants an aircraft carrier. quote:The creation of that nation and continued existence of that border policy were and continue to be attacks on Palestinians though. Israel as a Jewish state in its current territory is a zero-sum game where Palestinians lose, regardless of their current military actions. Does Israel somehow have the right to exist even given this? I completely reject the idea that Israel's existence is inherently a zero-sum game where Palestinians "lose"; you can have a viable two-state solution where they both get to have their own countries and live in peace with each other. Currently yes, Israel is absolutely the obstacle here, but "destroying Israel with overwhelming military force" is not the answer. Because the thing is, at the end of the day, for as long as a people has a right to self-determination, where it wouldn't be just to try to deliberately dilute their voting power by dividing them up and gerrymandering them; if they after a period of time after they've been, in some proposals I've seen in the thread, in being forced to be in a One State Solution; if they vote they want independence; I don't know how it can be justified to prevent this with force, or how it can be justified through various schemes designed to prevent them from exercising that choice as a block. Because at that point it isn't about justice, its picking and choosing which ethnic groups get to have rights. Civilized Fishbot posted:Raenir Salazar - what if a group of Israeli Arabs declares that they consider themselves a unique nation, neither Palestinian nor Israeli Jew, and that they will be exercising their right to self-determination by forming a new state out of land that was once considered part of Israel? And then within that state, to protect its Israeli Arab character and heritage, they suspend full citizenship for anyone who does not correspond to their state's definition of Israeli Arab? Are they exercising their right to self-determination? If so, how do we reconcile that with the Israeli Jewish right to self-determination in the same land? I'm not exactly sure what the question is here; you kinda go very quickly off the deep in into questions that aren't really relevant in this thread. I don't think ethnic identities are "made up" that kinda just seems like your opinion that a thing that exists you don't think is meaningful, but obviously they exist. I think your proposition that it is unworkable for ethnicities to have rights is uh, a interesting choice of words. Since in many countries there are many protected groups, which include ethnicity. For example the Canadian Charter of Rights & Freedoms states regarding Equality Rights: quote:Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. Mentioning ethnicity here wouldn't make any sense if the ability to identity people based on ethnicity was practically impossible. And of course there's a number of rights in the Charter listed specifically to enshrine protections for the people of Quebec: quote:English and French are the official languages of Canada and have equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all institutions of the Parliament and government of Canada. quote:Everyone has the right to use English or French in any debates and other proceedings of Parliament And then there's a specific section dedicated towards the rights of Aboriginal Peoples: quote:The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from any aboriginal, treaty or other rights or freedoms that pertain to the aboriginal peoples of Canada including And in the Constitution Act of 1982: quote:35. (1) The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed. If we couldn't identity a member of a First Nations tribe, such as Inuit, Metis, and so on, why would we have this? Your thought experiment is a strange one, I think the point here is that there's always going to be unfortunate messyness whenever a group secedes from a larger country, because over decades or centuries, people move around, move around quite a bit. Post WW1 the Balkans were incredibly messy, and likewise Yugoslavia was also messy as we saw with its breakup which resulted in a great degree of conflict and tragedy. There's unfortunately no good answer here how to reconcile when two groups of people have competing claims to the land, just as what happened during the Yugoslav Wars. We don't need any strange and unlikely thought experiments we can just look at history; or today at much of the United States and Canada whose territories cover what used to be native land; or, as one of the largest and most tragic examples, the Partition of India. In ideal circumstances people "work it out" and figure out some kind of agreement where everyone can live together happily even if they're no longer the same country; but other times this explodes and we get conflict. I don't think that this possibility of conflict and tragedy means its okay to then say ethnic groups that put together a reasonable sentiment to litigate for their independence now can't because doing so could be messy; in which case then you're saying oppressed peoples all over the world no longer have that option on the table and we're not in a position where we can consistently pick and choose, can only hope that it is done everywhere in good faith and entertained and accommodated with good faith negotiation in return. Raenir Salazar fucked around with this message at 08:15 on Mar 20, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 08:07
|
|
|
I don't think that North Korea has minefields with either the PRC or Russia.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 10:13
|
|
|
I'm not sure how the collapse of the USSR figures into a discussion of ethnostates... like, there's shitloads of Ukrainian Russians in Russia and Russian Ukrainians in Ukraine, neither country of which ethnically cleansed that group after the dissolution. It's nationalism, sure (which is bad), but it's not ethno-nationalism (which is bad). Both are bad, you can argue the latter is worse, and I'd agree, but they manifest differently in state actions to enforce. You can make a better comparison to modern Russia's invasion of Ukraine but even then it's an expansionist imperialism set on declaring Ukraine to have been Russian all along, not clearing, Ukraine out for ethnic Russians. This is explicitly different from Israel who instead stringently gatekeep who is ethnically Jewish and denies civil and human rights to those not deemed ethnically correct, Israeli Arabs included. Russia is seeking cultural genocide; Israel is seeking eradication of life.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 11:06
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:I think your proposition that it is unworkable for ethnicities to have rights is uh, a interesting choice of words. Since in many countries there are many protected groups, which include ethnicity. For example the Canadian Charter of Rights & Freedoms states regarding Equality Rights: the individual right to protection against discrimination on the basis of ethnic identity is not even remotely the same thing as a right inherent to a specific ethnicity. this should be glaringly obvious given the wording but if it needs elaboration, consider that it's possible in some jurisdictions for a court to recognize discrimination on the basis of a characteristic which a complainant may not actually claim, identify as, or ascribe to. Raenir Salazar posted:And of course there's a number of rights in the Charter listed specifically to enshrine protections for the people of Quebec: "People who speak English" and "People who speak French" are not ethnic groups. If you sincerely believe that they are, or cannot see how a law addressing the use of specific languages is decidedly not a law about ethnicity even though language and ethnicity are deeply related, you have serious gaps in your understanding of what people are saying when they talk about ethnicity. Raenir Salazar posted:And then there's a specific section dedicated towards the rights of Aboriginal Peoples: ...you understand that deciding who exactly counts as a member of a First Nations tribe, or who has "Indian status" are things that have been exhaustively worked through legally and politically, right? Like all racial and ethnic categorizations are extremely contextual and subject to outside forces but you picked one of the most scrutinized and fought-over definitions in the English-speaking world. The history of the efforts to redress the harms done to indigenous peoples in the U.S. and Canada is in part very straightforwardly a history of the near-impossibility of building a bright-line test for defining who should and should not be understood as part of a given ethnicity. That very difficulty is precisely why people are telling you ethnicity cannot be a basis on which to assign or exercise rights, including self-determination. (Also, the very fact that the text references "treaty rights" demonstrates the way that the U.S. and Canada's legal regime for such issues evolved out of treaties between political states, not between ethnic groups. Indeed, the two countries have in many instances avoided the thorny question of ethnicity by making indigenous status under whatever regime and the attendant protections or rights based on tribal or band membership, substituting a question of governance and politics ("who do these political entities recognize as their own citizens?") for questions of ethnicity and culture) Valentin fucked around with this message at 12:06 on Mar 20, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 11:28
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:The right of return is the least controversial aspect of Israel being a jewish state, firstly because naturally sovereign nations have an inherent right to control their borders and set migration policies; even if you dislike or have reasonable criticisms of them; I don't think the "Iron Curtain" or North Korea's border policy of "minefields" are all that great, but they're allowed to do it. Most nations border policies are arguably racist, see the United States, but this lessens the extent that Israel's policies are uniquely racist. You’re mixing up the law of return with the right of return. Palestinians refugees have the right of return, an international human right which Israel is denying them. Israel applies the law of return which is a racist policy specifically discriminating against gentiles. Also Israel does not have an inherent right to control its borders however it wishes. There are international standards that are applied to all countries and limit their sovereignty (e.g. no committing genocide even if you never signed a convention banning genocide) and there are international treaties that Israel has voluntarily agreed to that limit it’s sovereignity and deprive them of the right to carry out this type of racist policy (e.g. the ICCPR prohibitions on discrimination based on religion). “X is a sovereign state so can automatically do Y” is incorrect both in general and in the specific circumstances of Israel’s immigration laws. quote:I think saying it is racist is baseless; as you generally recognize the ways in which groups of peoples naturally tend to have common interests; I've only clearly been speaking in generalities not that every group is uniform or a monolith. The basis of the right of self-determination is the idea that groups of people have a right to determine their own affairs, and to join or secede from another country; and this requires on some level recognizing that this right follows from the idea that as a group that they have certain shared interests as a people. Ukrainians have a reasonable interest in being independent of Russia, because ultimately even if Russia was a nice place to be a part of, feel that their interests are not served being a part of Russia; and why they voted for independence during the dissolution instead of staying a part of it as a reformed version of the USSR. This isn't racist to recognize in these general terms; anymore than recognizing that Koreans in South Korea want to remain independent of North Korea or China or Japan, because of various reasons feel that their interests as a people are not served as being a part of these countries. How do you determine this? Generally the more democratic (via elections, referendums, etc) the means the easier it is to tell objectively. This is a very obvious false equivalence in terms of the point it’s trying to address, that of “Why should I be amenable to an explicit ethnostate? Also, do you not understand the contradiction between democratic values and their own country they're a clear majority in"? Peoples have the right to self determination, yes. However the two points you seem to miss are: - All peoples have the right to self-determination. - Self determination is not a unique right which stands alone and above all other rights but one that is enmeshed with all other human rights. You cannot expect anyone to take your respect for self-determination seriously if you’re not willing to recognise the rights like equality that come alongside it. Literally the very first article of the UN charter links “equal rights and self-determination of peoples” as key principles and nothing about the right to self-determination is meant to be limitless and allow people to determine they want to take away other people’s inalienable rights.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 11:46
|
|
|
Raenir, how can Israel’s existence not be zero sum? It was created from land, cities, and infrastructure stolen from Palestinians who were already living there, in violation of the British empire’s agreement with them to release that land to them after the Ottoman collapse. Even with a perfect two state solution, Palestinians are harmed because Israel is fundamentally a colony. Also, if you think that states are functional representatives for ethnic groups then you must think that ethnicity is a valid base unit for self determination and rights, and that states have at least some degree of ownership over the ethnicities they represent. The two go hand in hand. If a state is allowed to represent “their” ethnicity overseas without the consent of non-citizen members of that ethnic group then that state has elevated ownership of that culture. This is exactly the way that Israel lays claim to Jewishness. fool of sound fucked around with this message at 13:24 on Mar 20, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 13:10
|
|
|
Mormon Star Wars posted:There has been a development on the port: Your Brain on Hugs posted:That can't be true, I was reliably informed by someone who has intimate knowledge of Biden's thoughts and desires that such a thing would be a ridiculous theory to suggest. Netanyahu is not Biden and has literally 0 say over this port. I can’t believe I actually have to seriously point this out instead of simply telling you both to stop trolling 
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 13:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 10:19 |
|
|
Kalit posted:Netanyahu is not Biden and has literally 0 say over this port.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 13:21
|
|
