|
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: I appreciate your thoughtful response to my post and I'll try to draft something equally thoughtful, for now I am in a real-life morning rush. But there is a big misunderstanding here because many, maybe all, of the laws you cite do not give rights to ethnicities themselves, they give rights to individuals. An individual's right to be free of ethnic discrimination, an individual's right to speak the language of their choice, etc. This is not at all the same thing as an ethnicity itself having a right. My whole point is that giving rights to individual people is much more workable than giving rights to ethnicities, which are extremely difficult if not impossible to identify concretely (who is a Jew?) and which cannot actually make or express decisions (only popular opinions among individuals who are generally considered to be of that ethnicity). At the end of your post you describe the "messiness" that's raised by my example - I think incredible messiness is the natural result of giving political rights to entities whose very definitions are subjective and who cannot speak but only be spoken for. And in the context we are discussing - the establishment of entire states, with armies and the capacity to do horrible crimes - messiness is really really bad. Which is not to say new states should never be formed but that it seems, yes, unworkable that every ethnic community that someone considers to exist should suddenly have the right to do it simply because they are an ethnic community that someone considers to exist. On the previous page I objected to someone who said the land of Palestine was stolen "from another ethnic group" because the idea of ethnic groups owning property is similarly crazy. Whether it's approached from a Zionist or anti-Zionist direction, if we start treating ethnicities as discrete agents who can warrant and make use of rights, who can make decisions, who can own property, then it goes to a vision of the world which I think is literally racist - one where history, politics, and economy are defined by the interaction of different races with other races. Civilized Fishbot fucked around with this message at 13:44 on Mar 20, 2024 |
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 13:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 05:28 |
|
|
Kalit posted:Netanyahu is not Biden and has literally 0 say over this port. It’s located in territory Israel occupies and Netanyahu has significant sway in American politics. He doesn’t have the final say over it, but to claim he has “literally 0 say over it” is absurd.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 13:28
|
|
|
Kalit posted:Netanyahu is not Biden and has literally 0 say over this port. It's literally his idea, and the US went along with it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 13:32
|
|
|
cat botherer posted:Uh, pretty sure Netanyahu has effective say over a port in Gaza. At any rate, there's the implicit threat of "accidentally" doing another USS Liberty. team overhead smash posted:It’s located in territory Israel occupies and Netanyahu has significant sway in American politics. He doesn’t have the final say over it, but to claim he has “literally 0 say over it” is absurd. It’s 0 say beyond “leave because you won’t do what I say”  Yawgmoft posted:It's literally his idea, and the US went along with it. It was to get aid to Gaza. Biden is dead set against Netanyahu taking over Gaza. This isn’t some “Netanyahu is somehow tricking the Biden into shipping off Gazans!” scenario
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 13:35
|
|
|
I think if Israel were to forcibly move the population of Gaza they'd probably do it using one or more of the four land border crossings they have full control over, rather than the hypothetical much lower capacity makeshift port they do not have control over.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 13:36
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:
I do want to jump in here to point out that there was nationalist movements that did cause some friction in USSR (at least when it came to foreign policy), but it was not Slavic, but Baltic (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania). "Baltic way" or "Baltic chain" happened in 1989, followed by more protests, and eventually led to independence of those states in 1991. The Russian majority of USSR were viewed as occupiers. Estonians, for example, are not slavic, but Fenno-Ugrians. They have separate language that belongs to the Fenno-Ugrian language tree (not Slavic or even Indo-European), they are protestants (as opposed to orthodox) and use Latin alphabet (as opposed to cyrilic). They pretty much wanted to form a nation that would speak Estonian language and have Estonian identity. Rise of nationalism was, imo, a feature o USSR collapsing, not a driving force, but still - there was an element. To tie it back into the wider discussion, "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?". No, absolutely not. After the Russians were driven out of Estonia, the country took a right-ward turn where the Russian speaking minority (still numerous at 300 000 ~ or one third of the population) step by step became "others" inside the country - that still is a country they were born in. The State is enforcing Estonian language and is practically repeating the same mistakes that the USSR did. Nationalism, while it binds, it also poisons everything it touches soon after. Goatson fucked around with this message at 13:41 on Mar 20, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 13:38
|
|
|
Kalit posted:Netanyahu is not Biden and has literally 0 say over this port. The IDF controls both what goes to the dock (they control inspection in Cyprus and have final say over what's allowed in) and what happens to the aid when it leaves the port. They have significantly more than 0 say - they have control over 2/3rds of how the dock is used. This is functionally a joint project, which, again, according to the Jerusalem Post was not Bidens idea, but suggested by Netanyahu in October. The idea that Israel has no say over something they are intimately connected to running is absurd.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 13:42
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:I appreciate your thoughtful response to my post and I'll try to draft something equally thoughtful, for now I am in a real-life morning rush. But there is a big misunderstanding here because many, maybe all, of the laws you cite do not give rights to ethnicities themselves, they give rights to individuals. An individual's right to be free of ethnic discrimination, an individual's right to speak the language of their choice, etc. This is not at all the same thing as an ethnicity itself having a right. While I disagree with them for various reasons I’ve pointed out, this isn’t one of them. Self determination is a right that is specifically held by a people collectively rather than an individual. It relates to the ability to form political bodies which require multiple people. People doesn’t equate to ethnic group and the areas Reineir’s argument falls down is that self determination is not absolute but only exists within a framework which also recognises the rights of other people and individuals so “Oh well it’s self determination so it’s okay” is not a valid argument for the oppression of other people and the abuse of their human rights which is inherent in the Zionist project and is certainly visible in Israel today. Kalit posted:It’s 0 say beyond “leave because you won’t do what I say” So Netanyahu has no ability to diplomatically engage with the USA and say “Hey, the DRC is willing to be paid to take 50,000 Palestinian refugees which will take them out of harms way. You have a port set up, let’s get them to safety (and help my ethnic cleansing campaign)”? Why not. Israel and Netanyahu obviously have significant diplomatic power in the USA. They have some say in what happens even if they don’t have the final say. Any argument otherwise is just so obviously blatantly wrong I can’t understand where a different opinion even comes from. Irony Be My Shield posted:I think if Israel were to forcibly move the population of Gaza they'd probably do it using one or more of the four land border crossings they have full control over, rather than the hypothetical much lower capacity makeshift port they do not have control over. The land crossing lead into Israel. Israel does not want Palestinians in Israel. The entire point is to get them elsewhere.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 13:44
|
|
|
Kalit posted:It was to get aid to Gaza. Biden is dead set against Netanyahu taking over Gaza. This isn’t some “Netanyahu is somehow tricking the Biden into shipping off Gazans!” scenario Citation needed. Begging the question. -15 debate points (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 13:51
|
|
|
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 Israel is an illegitimate settler colonial project fueled by genocide and brutality. “Naturally sovereign” is an interesting phrase. What do you mean by this? quote: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. If “most” border policies are racist I guess this racist policy is ok. quote: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. The goal is in fact the elimination of Palestinians from Gaza, as evident by the ongoing genocide. quote:I obviously don't think that my arguments are "weird", Well that’s a relief! quote: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. It can’t. It is on stolen land actively murdering the people they displaced to steal it. The total war is here. The Bad Country is Israel. They are committing genocide. You seem to be ok with this! It’s a “basic country thing” to do! quote:I think a country can want to be independent to serve the interests of its people without it being supremacist; Yeah ok su- quote: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. Israel’s entire history is conquest and ethnic cleansing. Israel is entirely a modern invention, a creation of genocidal rationalizing from the depths of the nationalist age. It has no right to exist. The only right of return is that of Palestinians onto their land that was stolen from them. If you love democracy, let Palestine have it, within its own borders, free of genocidal occupation.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 13:57
|
|
|
team overhead smash posted:Self determination is a right that is specifically held by a people collectively rather than an individual. It relates to the ability to form political bodies which require multiple people. People doesn’t equate to ethnic group... If you look at the post I'm responding to, it's specifically trying to explain why ethnicities themselves have rights - not "peoples." If you have a better conception of self-determination based on an idea of "people" which doesn't encounter the same pitfalls as ethnicities when engaged as moral or legal agents, then it's completely appropriate to argue for it. I might still disagree with it. But it's not what I was trying to respond to. I don't think White America itself has rights, I don't think the German Volk itself has rights, and not just because the idea that they are agents with rights has been deployed to reactionary ends but because trying to engage an ethnic group as a discrete agent with its own rights and capacity to decide is itself reactionary - it's such a profound reification of the ethnic label that it's virtually superstitious. Civilized Fishbot fucked around with this message at 14:25 on Mar 20, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 13:59
|
|
khwarezm posted:https://twitter.com/Variety/status/1769824356673159242 Just a small update on this:  The "open letter" is a Google form that anyone can sign with zero evidence of identity, jewishness, or industry connections required. Variety links the form in the article, so they can keep reporting how many people have signed.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 14:57
|
|
|
Kalit posted:: If the idea that Israel is hoping to use the port to deport people is a conspiracy theory, what do you call your little theory that Biden is secretly behind the scenes (conspiring if you will) “dead set” against Bibi and Israeli policy toward Palestine despite doing almost everyhting possible materially short of sending troops to help the IDF carry on? Any evidence to support your certainty?
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 15:10
|
|
|
SMEGMA_MAIL posted:Any evidence to support your certainty? (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 15:14
|
|
|
SMEGMA_MAIL posted:If the idea that Israel is hoping to use the port to deport people is a conspiracy theory, what do you call your little theory that Biden is secretly behind the scenes (conspiring if you will) “dead set” against Bibi and Israeli policy toward Palestine despite doing almost everyhting possible materially short of sending troops to help the IDF carry on? That wasn’t my position. Of course Israel wants to take over Gaza by any means necessary. The conspiracy is that Biden was secretly wanting to use this dock to help assist removing Palestinians from Gaza and not wanting to use it for aid. And for Biden wanting PA to govern Gaza and continually pushing against Israel taking over, it’s well documented such as https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/israels-netanyahu-rejects-u-s-plan-for-post-war-gaza-d60fc0c3, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68045247.amp, https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2...palestine-hamas (Blinken’s statement at the end), etc
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 15:26
|
|
|
Kalit posted:And for Biden wanting PA to govern Gaza and continually pushing against Israel taking over, it’s well documented such as https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/israels-netanyahu-rejects-u-s-plan-for-post-war-gaza-d60fc0c3, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68045247.amp, https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2...palestine-hamas (Blinken’s statement at the end), etc Those links do not support your statement. I know you talk about having special knowledge about what Biden is thinking but this isn't evidence for the rest of us.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 17:15
|
|
|
Tankbuster posted:I don't think that North Korea has minefields with either the PRC or Russia. I'm not sure that's relevant? It does have a minefield with South Korea; and does have border policies with Russia and the PRC; it doesn't see them as military threats but as allies/friends to varying degrees; but this nuance doesn't change that North Korea has the right to feel threatened and take measures to defend itself and limit its involvement with the outside world, even if it is to its economic detriment. Tesseraction posted: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 matters because of the particulars of the discussion leading up to it, I felt it relevant and others such as FoS felt it relevant to respond to. Regardless I'm not sure what your sentence is referring to or how it relates to my argument? Ukraine wanting to be independent from Russia, or Russia wanting to be independent from the USSR doesn't mean they want to ethnically cleanse their borders; although Russia is currently invading Ukraine illegally now because its decided it has an ancestral right to the land and will probably genocide the Ukrainian nation if it succeeds. I feel like the argument here is more similar to what proponents of the "destroy Israel with military force" position; that as long as a people has some sort of claim to a particular bit of land, it doesn't matter who is living there or how they came to be there that they have a right to attack and retake it, I do not think revanchism is a solid basis of international relations and seems inconsistent with the argument that nationalism isn't a credible force because its buying into a form of extremist nationalist framing of international relations. But in the end, the argument here as a reminder about the appropriateness and the proportionality of suggesting "overwhelming military force to destroy Israel", I've many times acknowledged that Israel is doing bad things, my counter point is that it is easier to simply stop Israel, bring them to the table, reach a negotiated solution; than it is to go to essentially a total war; which in many of the arguments I've been answering rests on the idea that Israel is uniquely wrong or evil for doing things that if I take a few steps back is indistinguishable from what other countries are allowed to do; in short countries doing bad things doesn't mean its okay to call for their destruction, call for them to be stopped but it doesn't make destroying them the only solution. Its easy to get lost in the weeds because as the discussion goes on and sometimes some posters respond to bits of my argument out of context we're losing track of the crux of the issue and why I'm arguing it and what my arguments are in service of. quote: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. That's not the argument I was responding to with that quote. Regardless as its been pointed out later in the threat, groups of people have inherent collective rights, such as the right to self-determination. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms wasn't cited on that point, but on the point of being able to practically identify groups, which might be relevant in terms of organizing a referendum on whether the Basque's can secede from Spain. Now if you want to argue that groups of people don't have the right to self determination in a way that doesn't come down to a mutual misunderstanding of peoples terms please affirmatively make that argument, but I'm not responding to you responding to a point I made to someone else who responded to a different point I made, start fresh please. quote:"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. The French Quebec and English Quebec populations at a minimum are absolutely different ethnic groups, and language is often a useful proxy for ethnicity, regional, or cultural identity; and offering protections on the basis of language is designed as an aspect of those protection, if you concede as you do here that they are closely related or overlapping aspects then this shouldn't be an unreasonable reach for you. But most importantly you need to consider this in context of Quebec having its own constitution and being recognized as a distinct society from the rest of Canada, with the explicit goal of the protection and furtherence of French culture and language. That's absolutely about a protection of a specific ethnicity. quote:...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. What? I don't understand what you're arguing about here, this doesn't seem to relate to my argument at all. As best as I can puzzle out maybe you're trying to argue that because Native peoples in Canada had to go through an arduous political process to get recognition of their rights at all, that legal systems aren't a good basis for recognizing whether a group has rights? That would be a good argument, if I had at all made the argument it seemed to be in response to. But instead you're disagreeing with an argument made in response to someone else who was responded to something else I said to someone else and so on, so a lot of the context has been lost. If this is the argument to make, and feel free to clarify your intent of course; my argument here isn't that legal systems are a good way of determining which groups have rights, its just an example of how yes, in the real world, we do make practical distinctions of who belongs to a given group to determine accommodations and protections, all the time; that doesn't mean that process is perfect, but its a clear rebuttal to the idea that "recognizing the right of peoples to self-determination is impractical because we can't meaningfully distinguish one group of people from another" is just false. team overhead smash posted: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). The key thing here is I do and have in fact multiple times agreed that there's limits, I used the terms "positive vs negative freedoms/liberties" in respect to this; the Palestinian right to self determination exists as does the Israeli right to self determination. You're not disputing here that Israel has that right; and of course I've already accounted for the fact that states often opt-in to international laws and frameworks which takes away some of those "rights" a nation thus voluntarily agrees to give up. At no point am I saying that Israel isn't doing bad things or violating the Palestinian right to self-determination by doing many of the actions that it's doing, I am disagreeing that its own existence inherently infringes on the Palestinian right to self-determination when we actually do agree that this right is an equal one. And of course nothing that I can see from what you're saying logically thus justifies arguing that the only way to secure the Palestinian right to self-determination is the destruction of another country, that would be a large contradiction in your argument relying on UN rules and articles which forbids the use of force to resolve disputes, as an example, although the UN and international orgs are hardly perfect arbiters of human deceny, it's just a little lacking in the context of the greater discussion I'm responding to. fool of sound posted: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. So I think we obviously have very different ideas about this, I've said it before but I have no issues with the UN Partition plan, and do not consider it to be an issue that a lot of jewish people when given legal permission by the British Empire choose to migrate to there. The Nakba is tragic and Israel should offer recompense and enter into good faith negotiation to resolve the issue; but ultimately this doesn't make it anymore zero sum than any other dispute between any other combination of nations throughout the history of humanity. Taiwan being independent is not a zero-sum infringement of China; despite that probably someone can make a similar argument that you're making; ultimately it doesn't really make consistent sense to accept this framing of international relations, I don't think there's winner or loser nations; nations can just exist and prosper on whatever terms and circumstance they find themselves in. The fact is that if Israel had a 180 tomorrow and start upholding the two-state solution within a short amount of time Palestinians would be at peace, living in stability and prosperity and would very quickly be better off than they've basically ever been. I don't see how that circumstance, even if they have less land then they hypothetically may have had in some counterfactual alt-history scenario means they've "lost"; I think there's more important things when it comes to whats best for people then insuring they have all of the clay like its a game of EU4. Ultimately once enough people just happen, for any reason, to live someone, they have a right to manage and govern their own affairs if they want to; again, this doesn't justify ethnic cleansing their way to get to that point, or engaging in wars of aggression, but the fact is FoS and what you haven't acknowledged or responded to at all because it seems clearly a fact that you don't have a good argument in response to is what then? What if you manage to dissolve Israel at gunpoint for some sort of one state solution, what then? Because you still have several million Israeli's who probably, lets assume for the sake of the argument and the crux of the issue, are going to want to be independent again and would probably easily win that referendum. I don't see how its consistent to argue that they don't have a collective and equal right to the same things any other minority group would have in any other country, that you dislike how they got to be there 80 years ago doesn't change that. Civilized Fishbot posted:I appreciate your thoughtful response to my post and I'll try to draft something equally thoughtful, for now I am in a real-life morning rush. But there is a big misunderstanding here because many, maybe all, of the laws you cite do not give rights to ethnicities themselves, they give rights to individuals. An individual's right to be free of ethnic discrimination, an individual's right to speak the language of their choice, etc. This is not at all the same thing as an ethnicity itself having a right. Civilized Fishbot posted:If you look at the post I'm responding to, it's specifically trying to explain why ethnicities themselves have rights - not "peoples." So you seem to have misunderstood some of the details, I think its clear that I've always been using "peoples", "ethnicities", and "cultures" in an overlapping way (because they clearly do), and I've frequently throughout this conversation with Esran and others clarified this. It should be pretty clear that arguing in the context of the discussion about the right to self determination that this would be splitting hairs; I think my meaning and intention was always pretty obvious and this distinction your trying to make doesn't make a meaningful response to my argument; and in fact should of course be careful about seizing upon specific words after like 5 pages of intensely contested debate because clearly over time there's information error as arguments evolve and the original context of a particular discussion got lost in the weeds of discussion. I'm pretty sure in context its always been pretty clear I meant "people" as you say it, and much of the discussion around ethnic groups is because of the many historical examples of how a people, usually consisting of particular ethnic groups exercised that freedom often to secede and form new countries; but ultimately they should obviously be sufficiently overlapping in context that this is a pretty trivial thing to dispute as it relates to the argument. It was already pointed out by team overhead smash that "Self determination is a right that is specifically held by a people collectively rather than an individual. It relates to the ability to form political bodies which require multiple people" which is what I am indeed saying. (I'm of course not saying that the right to self-determination means they are free to oppress, only that oppression doesn't justify going to total war to destroy their nation when said nation could just as easily be forced to stop its oppression; but obviously I disagree with their disagreement about the point between "people" and "ethic group" I think there's clearly an overlap and a ethnic group can obviously be a people and often are) Your disagreement about whats workable or not workable in terms of identification of members of a group, I believe I basically already responded to, very clearly for all practical purposes groups, peoples, they can be identified in a general way. This of course is subject to drift, to change, people assimilate and change which group they belong to. But ultimately generally we can identify groups and other than your assertion that this is subjective or assertion that this is hard specifically for some particular groups I don't see any evidence that refutes the idea that we can do generally, for many groups of people and historically have often done so. But anyways, it seems like you use the point of this to argue that because it is subjective, that peoples in generaI shouldn't be able to freely have self-determination and the right to secede, because sometimes bad things happen. That there might be messy geopolitical circumstances that results in new countries with armies that exercise power to do bad things; and I just don't see the point of this argument. Okay you don't like that this could happen, but I don't think it follows that this means people shouldn't have the right in the first place. I think its more straight forward that people have the right to make mistakes, and sometimes this won't work out; but sometimes it might, but ultimately they can't be forced into working it out, because it rarely succeeds. I think it would be definitely be inconsistent to argue that because what constitutes a people for the purposes of self-determination and secession is on some level 'subjective' this means we should consider not accepting it as a framework, because there are zionist claims that Palestinians don't actually exist but are Jordanians and Jordan should be responsible for them. We would have little means under your argument of responding to this because there's no real way under this framing of re-conciliating different claims to what constitutes people-hood. The problem here is thus consequently it wouldn't just be Israel, any country, any ethnocracy would then justify clamping down on secessionist movements using this argument, that such and such a people aren't a real identity, that they're only doing this because of outside agitation; so if you're going to try to make that argument, then what happens when people use it against peoples you would otherwise agree should in fact have those rights? Also I think by your argument, you're saying that many of the groups who formed independent countries, if it resulted in messiness (India and Pakistan?), that many times these aren't real peoples? It was just someone subjectively saying they were? I think if that's a consequence of what you're trying to argue that maybe this argument isn't working out. Or otherwise then its that's just a hypothetical and all the dozens if not hundreds of times we've seen independence movements they've all been valid without exception then where's the evidence in favor of this argument that some peoples aren't real just because someone said they were? It just doesn't seem credible. I think its more straight forward to err on the side of accepting that given some baseline level of credibility, that peoples exist, and people have the right to self-determination even if it would be messy, and we can't deny this on the basis of it would be really inconvenient to resolve the geopolitical divisions that would result. quote:On the previous page I objected to someone who said the land of Palestine was stolen "from another ethnic group" because the idea of ethnic groups owning property is similarly crazy. Whether it's approached from a Zionist or anti-Zionist direction, if we start treating ethnicities as discrete agents who can warrant and make use of rights, who can make decisions, who can own property, then it goes to a vision of the world which I think is literally racist - one where history, politics, and economy are defined by the interaction of different races with other races. Although I do agree with this, I think its a bad idea to buy into the framing that long term anyways that land can be stolen from a group; because then the entire international order breaks down and you end up with Putin ranting at Tucker Carlson about how 900 years ago some guy crossed the Dniepr and this means Russia has an eternal forever lasting claim on Ukraine. And in fact it confuses me a little because the idea that overwhelming military force to destroy Israel is justified depends on the idea that Israel as a country is illegitimate because the land was stolen; if we agree that land in a broad sense can't really be stolen then I'm not sure why its necessasary to argue back and forth over everything else, it isn't called for to destroy Israel in order to stop oppression. This isn't to say that a country can't be attacked or engage in military operations to liberate its land, but there's circumstances where doing so isn't broadly desirable; especially after a long period of time has elapsed; and should ideally still be the last resort compared to negotiating things out peacefully. Raenir Salazar fucked around with this message at 17:45 on Mar 20, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 17:38
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:So I think we obviously have very different ideas about this, I've said it before but I have no issues with the UN Partition plan, and do not consider it to be an issue that a lot of jewish people when given legal permission by the British Empire choose to migrate to there. The Nakba is tragic and Israel should offer recompense and enter into good faith negotiation to resolve the issue; but ultimately this doesn't make it anymore zero sum than any other dispute between any other combination of nations throughout the history of humanity. Taiwan being independent is not a zero-sum infringement of China; despite that probably someone can make a similar argument that you're making; ultimately it doesn't really make consistent sense to accept this framing of international relations, I don't think there's winner or loser nations; nations can just exist and prosper on whatever terms and circumstance they find themselves in. The fact is that if Israel had a 180 tomorrow and start upholding the two-state solution within a short amount of time Palestinians would be at peace, living in stability and prosperity and would very quickly be better off than they've basically ever been. I don't see how that circumstance, even if they have less land then they hypothetically may have had in some counterfactual alt-history scenario means they've "lost"; I think there's more important things when it comes to whats best for people then insuring they have all of the clay like its a game of EU4. So do you support ethnic self-determination or not? Because the Palestinians certainly did not accede to the partition, nor did they accede to British colonial rule and in fact had an extant agreement with Britain for self-determination that Britain intentionally broke in order to permit a bunch of Jewish people to migrate there. The idea that Jewish colonization is ultimately for the best for Palestinians is not just incompatible with the idea of self-determination, but is the sort of paternalistic racism that drove and is used to justify colonial empires throughout the world. Surely you aren't about to tell me that the native peoples in the Americas are living better than they ever have before, what's the problem? Raenir Salazar posted:Ultimately once enough people just happen, for any reason, to live someone, they have a right to manage and govern their own affairs if they want to; again, this doesn't justify ethnic cleansing their way to get to that point, or engaging in wars of aggression, but the fact is FoS and what you haven't acknowledged or responded to at all because it seems clearly a fact that you don't have a good argument in response to is what then? What if you manage to dissolve Israel at gunpoint for some sort of one state solution, what then? Because you still have several million Israeli's who probably, lets assume for the sake of the argument and the crux of the issue, are going to want to be independent again and would probably easily win that referendum. I don't see how its consistent to argue that they don't have a collective and equal right to the same things any other minority group would have in any other country, that you dislike how they got to be there 80 years ago doesn't change that. I'm not arguing for dissolving Israel militarily because like I said before that's about as realistic as dissolving Israel with my powerful witchcraft. As for the dissolution of the explicitly Jewish state of Israel, one of two things could happen: like South Africa, they establish a proper, non-racialized representative democracy OR, if they must have their ethnostate, then at least the negotiations for territory and state sovereignty are a dialogue between the peoples living there, rather than a colonial imposition.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 17:58
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:That's not the argument I was responding to with that quote. Regardless as its been pointed out later in the threat, groups of people have inherent collective rights, such as the right to self-determination. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms wasn't cited on that point, but on the point of being able to practically identify groups, which might be relevant in terms of organizing a referendum on whether the Basque's can secede from Spain. the gulf between "self-determination on the basis of ethnic group is reasonable and logical" and "groups of people have inherent collective rights which can include the right to self-determination" is simply astounding. "a group of people" and "an ethnicity" is a huge, huge difference and you cannot simply collapse the terms like this. your unwillingness to engage with the reality that "ethnicity" does not just mean "a group of people" doesn't mean your arguments suddenly became reasonable. Your failure to use ethnicity as everyone else in the conversation is using it is not a "mutual misunderstanding." It's at best a failure to communicate on your end and at worst a little rhetorical loop that serves to try to equate "ethnicity" to any number of far more reasonable characteristics on which to base the right to self-determination. the reason everyone else keeps "splitting hairs" with you is because this is an enormously important distinction. also you are entitled to be as wrong about the meaning of ethnicity as you would like but no one here is required to restate their arguments for you if you're going to keep making positive (in a knowledge sense) and obviously incorrect claims. people are just going to keep responding to the things that read as obviously wrong. Raenir Salazar posted:The French Quebec and English Quebec populations at a minimum are absolutely different ethnic groups, and language is often a useful proxy for ethnicity, regional, or cultural identity; and offering protections on the basis of language is designed as an aspect of those protection, if you concede as you do here that they are closely related or overlapping aspects then this shouldn't be an unreasonable reach for you. But most importantly you need to consider this in context of Quebec having its own constitution and being recognized as a distinct society from the rest of Canada, with the explicit goal of the protection and furtherence of French culture and language. That's absolutely about a protection of a specific ethnicity. the reason it has to be framed as a language law is because a law that said "the french quebecois can speak the cultural language that is important to them" is non-justiciable nonsense. a law about universal individual rights that has the goal of the furtherance and protection of a culture and language is not the same as a law that protects a specific ethnic group. a similar proxy has to be employed because the broad characteristic you've hinged this claim on isn't usable as the basis for anything. Raenir Salazar posted:What? I don't understand what you're arguing about here, this doesn't seem to relate to my argument at all. my point is that "in the real world" these "practical distinctions" we "make all the time" are enormously difficult and take a lot of time and effort to resolve. what i'm telling you is that the specific legal question of who qualifies for those protections under canadian and u.s. law is one with a lot, a lot of case law on it because determining rights based on ethnicity and heritage is often extremely impractical and difficult. You keep being like "well we can all agree that in a vacuum this would be a reasonable thing, notwithstanding the practical issues that immediately emerge" but given that we all live in a practical world that rhetorical move simply doesn't make sense. fool of sound posted: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. Raenir Salazar posted:So I think we obviously have very different ideas about this, I've said it before but I have no issues with the UN Partition plan, and do not consider it to be an issue that a lot of jewish people when given legal permission by the British Empire choose to migrate to there. The Nakba is tragic and Israel should offer recompense and enter into good faith negotiation to resolve the issue; but ultimately this doesn't make it anymore zero sum than any other dispute between any other combination of nations throughout the history of humanity. Taiwan being independent is not a zero-sum infringement of China; despite that probably someone can make a similar argument that you're making; ultimately it doesn't really make consistent sense to accept this framing of international relations, I don't think there's winner or loser nations; nations can just exist and prosper on whatever terms and circumstance they find themselves in. The fact is that if Israel had a 180 tomorrow and start upholding the two-state solution within a short amount of time Palestinians would be at peace, living in stability and prosperity and would very quickly be better off than they've basically ever been. I don't see how that circumstance, even if they have less land then they hypothetically may have had in some counterfactual alt-history scenario means they've "lost"; I think there's more important things when it comes to whats best for people then insuring they have all of the clay like its a game of EU4. for starters if you are sincere about engaging in good faith i would really reconsider this framing of the colonization and partition of palestine which i have to say i found so immediately objectionable it was almost impossible to respond to civilly. instead i am telling you politely that i find that framing of the mandate, partition and nakba incredibly offensive and reductive in ways which are actively harmful to the conversation, and the issues with framing should be pretty self-evident from the fact that neither the partition nor the establishment of the mandate (since it's not clear what you're referring to directly in the bolded) were simple context-free population migration. they were political acts that occurred for political reasons, sustained by violence both direct and indirect. second we can see here very obviously how your failure to understand the distinctions between people, and peoples, and nations, and ethnicities is running you into trouble. fool of sound is talking about "Palestinians who were already living there"; these are specific, real people who were wronged and injured and killed and are being wronged and injured and killed in identifiable and systematic ways. there was even a little side convo prior to this where civilized fishbot pointed out that the original wording implied a harm done to an ethnic group rather than to specific people, and fool of sound acknowledged that, agreed, and clarified, in a post that you responded to. nonetheless you immediately tried to pull it back to a "dispute between nations," at which level you say it simply doesn't make sense to talk about the existence of nations being zero-sum against each other. fool of sound did not talk about nations. you brought nationhood into this, and the way you did is 1) confusing, because fool of sound is talking about the zero-sum nature of Israel in the sense that it arises from and is sustained by specific wrongs done to specific people and not in the sense of a general conflict between an imagined national Palestine and a national Israel and 2) makes it sound like you believe a definitive collective will can be imputed to or assessed from all people of a given nation. which is, as noted, often a fundamentally racist way to view the world, especially if you repeatedly collapse "nation" into "ethnicity." Valentin fucked around with this message at 18:55 on Mar 20, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 18:06
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:So you seem to have misunderstood some of the details, I think its clear that I've always been using "peoples"... I agree and to be clear I was trying to dismiss the point about "we're talking about PEOPLES, not ETHNICITIES." I agree with you that for our purposes it is probably not a meaningful distinction - it definitely isn't meaningful or interesting to me. quote:It was already pointed out by team overhead smash that "Self determination is a right that is specifically held by a people collectively rather than an individual. It relates to the ability to form political bodies which require multiple people" which is what I am indeed saying. Yeah this is well-put and where we disagree. I think assigning rights to be held entire collectives of people is dangerous, and especially when the collectives are defined by ethnic identity. I think rights should belong primarily to individuals, and probably in some cases to concretely-defined corporate or political bodies, but not to cultural groups/ethnic groups/nations which by nature resist concrete definition. quote:Your disagreement about whats workable or not workable in terms of identification of members of a group, I believe I basically already responded to, very clearly for all practical purposes groups, peoples, they can be identified in a general way. This of course is subject to drift, to change, people assimilate and change which group they belong to. But ultimately generally we can identify groups... Yeah I just disagree with this especially in the Jewish/Israeli context. Israeli law and politics are constantly undergoing tension between different ways to define Jewishness, particularly regarding the integration of immigrants from the former USSR, but these debates date back to before the establishment of the state. The traditional religious definition is "someone whose mother is Jewish" but that's recursive so it doesn't resolve much. Which religious conversions are valid, which are not? Which diasporic communities are authentically Jewish, which are just imposters? The Karaites believe in patrilineal Jewishness, do we grant that? And if so, what's the standard of proof for paternity? What about the hundreds of thousands of people with one Jewish parent, or one Jewish grandparent, who are tagged as Jews by antisemites but who aren't "formally" Jewish? Are "Jews for Jesus" Jewish even though they're not considered to be Jewish by Jews-without-Jesus? Black Hebrew Israelites who maintain that they are the real Jews and everyone else is an imposter? I am in no way dismissing the cultural importance of halachic or cultural Jewishness, or the religious significance of Am Israel. I am saying that legal rights should not be held by entities without objective definition, which I think is a plain intuition. quote:I think it would be definitely be inconsistent to argue that because what constitutes a people for the purposes of self-determination and secession is on some level 'subjective' this means we should consider not accepting it as a framework, because there are zionist claims that Palestinians don't actually exist but are Jordanians and Jordan should be responsible for them. We would have little means under your argument of responding to this because there's no real way under this framing of re-conciliating different claims to what constitutes people-hood. We can respond to it very easily: "every human being is the responsibility of the state that administrates the territory in which they live. This means the State of Israel, which is functionally the one state between the river and the sea, has obligations to respect all people in that territory as full citizens and to provide them with safety, dignity, and freedom from racial/religious/gender-based discrimination. If the State of Israel does not meet this obligation - and it never has, and structurally is opposed to doing so - then it must immediately reform, or cede some or all of its territory to a state that will do so." It's this "self-determination of peoples" stuff that demands we succeed in "re-conciliating different claims to what constitutes people-hood." But my whole point is that "re-conciliating different claims to what constitutes people-hood" should not be part of legal discourse at all, because it is not objective, but more significantly because it is irrelevant to whether any individual in that group has a right to a state that guarantees them freedom, security, and dignity. What you've provided is an example of this. Civilized Fishbot fucked around with this message at 20:41 on Mar 20, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 18:30
|
|
|
Stringent posted:These are flat out lies, and it's absolutely pathetic you're dragging them into this thread thinking they provide any kind of comparison to Israel. How many tons of HE has the PLAAF dropped in Xianjiang? How many thousands of children have been slaughtered? How are you not ashamed of yourself for posting this poo poo? Thank you, Inferior Third Season, for much needed moderation of these dangerous ideas. It would be harmful to discussion if posters couldn't get away with deflecting from Israel's ethnic cleansing and mass murder campaign by asking "what about China".
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 19:02
|
|
|
This isn't even the first time Xianjiang/China whataboutism has come up in the thread, so it should probably be in the thread rules that If someone brings it up you have to accept their argument or else you'll be banned. We need clear communication about the acceptable boundaries of the discussion. Edit: since this is the only acceptable position regarding China/Israel comparison: quote:China is pretty much, by any reasonable standard, pretty equivalent to Israel in that it is (a) an ethnostate (b) is/was committing/ed genocide. (Tibet, Xinjiang) Why is Joe Biden continuing to arm and support Israel commiting a Genocide exactly the same as the one going on in Xinjiang? National Parks fucked around with this message at 19:50 on Mar 20, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 19:43
|
|
|
skepticism towards the Victims of Communism Foundation? that's a ban.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 19:47
|
|
|
Koos Group posted:Whether Israel is/was conducting a genocide (or some other crime such as ethnic cleansing or cultural genocide) remains in dispute among scholars, and the same is true regarding whether the Holodomor was a genocide. One may take the position that either one is or is not. This is not a violation of D&D's precise language rule. If someone posts their particular definition of genocide, and you raise the objection that this excludes acts that should be considered genocide, that is also legitimate argumentation.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 19:49
|
|
|
Esran posted:Thank you, Inferior Third Season, for much needed moderation of these dangerous ideas.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 20:12
|
|
|
Esran posted:Thank you, Inferior Third Season, for much needed moderation of these dangerous ideas.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 20:22
|
|
|
Esran posted:Thank you, Inferior Third Season, for much needed moderation of these dangerous ideas.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 20:23
|
|
|
Esran posted:Thank you, Inferior Third Season, for much needed moderation of these dangerous ideas.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 20:39
|
|
|
Esran posted:Thank you, Inferior Third Season, for much needed moderation of these dangerous ideas.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 21:20
|
|
|
Real convenient that those didn't go through until after the feedback thread was closed.Esran posted:Thank you, Inferior Third Season, for much needed moderation of these dangerous ideas.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 21:31
|
|
|
Esran posted:Thank you, Inferior Third Season, for much needed moderation of these dangerous ideas.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 21:41
|
|
|
Esran posted:Thank you, Inferior Third Season, for much needed moderation of these dangerous ideas.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 21:44
|
|
|
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68605401.amp Anthony Blinken says 100% of the population in Gaza faces acute shortages, calls on Israel to do something to ensure aid gets to civilians, Israel says that’s the responsibility of UNWRA (that they got defunded with fake evidence) and Gaza police forces (which they are actively targeting even more than usual in the past week). I dunno I remember when I was in a MEU the whole point was that we could deploy a battalion sized force anywhere in the world within hours notice. Gaza is conveniently close to the ocean and the US logistics chain. I’m sure marines would be perfectly capable of distributing food supplies. Wonder where the hustle went.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 21:46
|
|
|
Esran posted:Thank you, Inferior Third Season, for much needed moderation of these dangerous ideas.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 22:11
|
|
|
SMEGMA_MAIL posted:https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68605401.amp Once again proving that the only thing the untold billions we've poured into the MIC can do is enrich contractors and speed up how quick we can kill brown people. The US could fix this if it cared, we have limitless resources. We do not care.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 22:28
|
|
|
Esran posted:Thank you, Inferior Third Season, for much needed moderation of these dangerous ideas.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 22:45
|
|
|
Esran posted:Thank you, Inferior Third Season, for much needed moderation of these dangerous ideas.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 22:51
|
|
|
koos and sebmojo have been made aware of your complaints, let's please return to regularly scheduled programming
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 23:00
|
|
|
Goatse James Bond posted:koos and sebmojo have been made aware of your complaints, let's please return to regularly scheduled programming Are they tallying their number and severity or did they decide you were the go-to guy for napkin math (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2024 00:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 05:28 |
|
|
The UNRWA defunding alone is enough to make it very clear that Biden is fully enabling this genocide. It puts the US, along with every other country that defunded, in clear contravention of the ICJs directions to not contribute to the genocide. It also makes any talk from those parties of wanting to increase aid totally hollow. Truly depraved stuff.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2024 02:58
|
|
