|
emanresu tnuocca posted:I don't know what to tell you dude but you are just making a series of logical fallacies and inventing an academic consensus on certain subjects where such a consensus doesn't exist. It'd be one thing of the Israel colonialism also was not directly tied to slowly crush a permanently sieged people. But they are not just displacing them and sending them out of Israel, instead opting to slowly squeeze them in an ever crumbling ghetto that they continuously bombard and deny resources. I'm sorry dude, it smacks of ethnic cleansing, its DAMNED close to genocide, and the only reason nobody is calling it genocide is because they haven't outright begun a campaign of shooting Palestinians on sight, although with some of their current tactics, is surprise they haven't done that yet. Was the Warsaw Ghetto genocide or ethnic cleansing? Considering that Gaza more accurately reflect the Warsaw ghetto than expulsion and mass migration, you need to set the line for us, since apparently you are willing to flaunt definitions that fit the scenario perfectly while declaring any such definition as a strawman. quote:The death toll attributable to the flight and expulsions is disputed, with estimates ranging from at least 473,000 confirmed deaths up to a demographic estimate from the 1950s of 2.2 million. More recent estimates by some German historians put the total at 500-600,000 attested deaths: they maintain that the unconfirmed reports of 1.9 million missing persons are unreliable.[4][5] The German Historical Museum puts the figure at 600,000 victims: they maintain that the figure of 2 million deaths in the previous government studies cannot be supported.[6] Nonetheless, the official positions of the German government and the German Red Cross are that the death toll resulting from expulsions ranged from 2 to 2.5 million civilians.[7][8] The German Federal Agency for Civic Education puts the figure at 2 million Yeah, that's pretty close to genocide. There is a lot of argument between genocide and ethnic cleansing, but the fact of the matter is they tend to look an awfully lot like each other. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 19:58 on Nov 5, 2015 |
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 19:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 08:24 |
|
|
Woozy posted:I don't think so? Some people have been using "genocide" to describe what's going on in Gaza; since the Palestinians are still there rather than mostly annihilated, other people now don't bat an eye at this description of what's going on in Gaza, despite being an open-air prison being bad enough on its own. I thought you were agreeing that this is what happens when a term like "genocide" is abused in this manner. quote:Okay but is that what's actually happening? Someone "cried wolf"? You can't possibly believe that "literal fascist" movements are the result of... what, even? Name calling? The general populace of Israel have plenty of good reasons to look the other way or indeed gleefully indulge reactionary politics, not least of which is the fact that they have been enormously profitable for the general populace of Isreal. What a strange coincidence that such politics have been carefully insulated from the obvious criticisms--those which have occurred naturally to so many people that, as you point out, there's a whole law on the internet dedicated to it. Literal fascist movements come from whatever source they come from, the ability to critique them as such in the public sphere both in Israel and abroad is diminished when leftists have spent years calling any policy they don't like "fascist". quote:I am saying taht One of the many points people raise when the "apartheid" comparison comes up is that Jews and Arabs can generally be found being treated in the same hospital, and work side by side in ways that would be impossible under real existing South African apartheid. And since this term has been abused, yes, it's now harder to be taken seriously when you tell people "yeah, actually, you guys saying you want no Arabs to work in your school now due to the security situation is really starting to sound like apartheid", because their response will be "yeah, right, you just want to call Israel apartheid and are looking for any excuse." The fact of the matter is that these terms have been used as political football in the discourse of this conflict for many years. The Nazi comparison definitely is adding zero interesting things to the conversation, other than yet another repeat of this now multi-page derail. The Apartheid comparison seems to me to have been defined and used because the people using it want the South African solution to be implemented in Israel/Palestine, and whether it is actually apt is far less important to them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 19:58
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred, do you honestly believe that the sieges, slaughters and general oppression have an end goal other than the final annihilation or removal of the Palestinians?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 20:04
|
|
|
captainblastum posted:I'm not sure what the intent could be in regards to the people of Gaza other than to destroy them. It's called 'mowing the lawn' and not 'pouring gasoline over the lawn and salting the scorched earth afterwards' for a reason. Netanyahu and Olmert before him ascribe to what's referred to in Israel as the 'managing the conflict' doctrine, this posits that Israel gains more in the long run by procrastinating and not negotiating with the Palestinians and instead using the IDF to put the boot down on any insurgency while blaming the whole thing on Palestinian terrorism, the massacres in Gaza are borne out of this philosophy, it's largely a punitive measure intended to buy a temporary truce. After the disengagement Gaza has just become an inconvenience, Israel has no actual territorial ambitions concerning the strip itself, the only thing that Israel cares about is just building as many settlements as possible and carving the west bank into even thinner slices so that if/when it is ultimately forced to withdraw from the west bank (or does so of its own volition) it will have a good claim for annexing areas with a jewish settler majority.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 20:07
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:
On a constant basis.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 20:08
|
|
|
emanresu tnuocca posted:It's called 'mowing the lawn' and not 'pouring gasoline over the lawn and salting the scorched earth afterwards' for a reason. Ahahahahahah, say what now?  http://www.btselem.org/download/settlements_map_eng.jpg Maybe not the strip. But they are damned sure about the rest of the Palestinians. Its not genocide to you. Its not ethnic cleansing. Then what is it? Its obviously not just simple occupation. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 20:13 on Nov 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 20:09
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Ahahahahahah, say what now? I'm seriously getting tired of you trying to one up me or whatever cause it seems like you're barely making an attempt to even read what I say so why waste my time. Let me just ask you this one thing: Please quote wherever I said that Israel is not engaged in an ethnic cleansing campaign. If you can't do that just stop bothering me and argue against your own bullshit strawmen instead of expecting me to do it for you.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 20:18
|
|
|
emanresu tnuocca posted:I'm seriously getting tired of you trying to one up me or whatever cause it seems like you're barely making an attempt to even read what I say so why waste my time. I didn't say you didn't say it. I asked which is it? And then I asked why it cannot borderline with both? I'm not trying to one up you, I just want to be clear where you stand.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 20:22
|
|
|
zeal posted:Absurd Alhazred, do you honestly believe that the sieges, slaughters and general oppression have an end goal other than the final annihilation or removal of the Palestinians? The people conceiving and implementing these have diverse and sometimes conflicting goals. A few of them would like to eradicate all Palestinians, but for the most part what they want is Jewish dominance over as much as Palestine as they can get away with. Eliminating Palestinians for the sake of eliminating them is, even now, not the end goal for most Israeli Jews, even those who support the continued occupation of most settlements. Even the head of what I would call the most right-wing coalition partner, Bennett of Jewish Home, hasn't been proposing plans of elimination: he's happy to allow Palestinians to live in a variety of enclaves where Israel can pretend it has no responsibility for their welfare, so a cementing of the status quo, rather than annihilation. They are also happy with Palestinians as Israeli citizens who accept being 2nd or 3rd class, as long as they don't get uppity.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 20:32
|
|
|
emanresu tnuocca posted:I don't know what to tell you dude but you are just making a series of logical fallacies and inventing an academic consensus on certain subjects where such a consensus doesn't exist. You seem to have accidentally said something true without managing to grasp its implications. There's a very good reason the American and Israeli scholars who routinely bitch about how carefully the word "genocide" ought to be applied aren't actually invested with exclusive authority over the meaning of words like "genocide". Actually, G-E-N-O-C-I-D-E came to have meaning all on its own the same way all other words acquire their semantic content--as names for discreet experiences, of which Auschwitz is only one example. If it had happened differently, there'd be no controversy. Not because it would never have occurred to anyone to call the occupation of Gaza genocide, but rather because no one would bother object except for the uniquely terrible connotation of the word and its inherent moral obligation to intervene. In other words, the issue is not what the word means, but what it means for those who toil beneath it and those who have made it their weapon. So long as there aren't any unambiguously, uh, "genocided" people who resent the use of the word to characterize Israeli treatment of the Palestinians (Native Americans are a noteworthy example of one such group known for expressing their unequivocal solidarity with Gaza), there are only two real reasons left to object to the use of the word: 1) Commitment to liberal essentialism, devotion to capital-T Truth in language and an abiding deference to the intensional definition of all words, lest they be wielded as weapons against the worlds confidence in the validity of Nazi comparisons. Also, you don't know how language works. 2) To diminish--whoops sorry I meant "contextualize"--the crimes of Isreal. Notice how unappealing it is to actually have to argue against the description of "genocide" as applied to the occupation. If I were an Israeli scholar I would surely be outraged. I'd have to split all these little hairs to make my case. "Oh come on, that's just colonialism! And that other stuff? Anyone can see it merely amounts to war crimes! But genocide? It's ethnic cleansing at best!" You can get away with this kind of poo poo as long as you're arguing about the definition of genocide, which particular boxes need to be ticked and all the various legal technicalities that need to be avoided, but when you have to go about that project with an eye towards how language actually works, or should I say with an eye towards the truth that "words do in fact have meaning", you have to consider whether the experience of Gaza ought to be incorporated into the semantic content of G-E-N-O-C-I-D-E, which is a question that more or less answers itself for anyone with a sincere interest in the conflict beyond just categorizing various species of atrocity.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 20:33
|
|
|
Woozy posted:You seem to have accidentally said something true without managing to grasp its implications. There's a very good reason the American and Israeli scholars who routinely bitch about how carefully the word "genocide" ought to be applied aren't actually invested with exclusive authority over the meaning of words like "genocide". Actually, G-E-N-O-C-I-D-E came to have meaning all on its own the same way all other words acquire their semantic content--as names for discreet experiences, of which Auschwitz is only one example. If it had happened differently, there'd be no controversy. Not because it would never have occurred to anyone to call the occupation of Gaza genocide, but rather because no one would bother object except for the uniquely terrible connotation of the word and its inherent moral obligation to intervene. In other words, the issue is not what the word means, but what it means for those who toil beneath it and those who have made it their weapon. So long as there aren't any unambiguously, uh, "genocided" people who resent the use of the word to characterize Israeli treatment of the Palestinians (Native Americans are a noteworthy example of one such group known for expressing their unequivocal solidarity with Gaza), there are only two real reasons left to object to the use of the word: Do you think the distinction between "first degree murder", "manslaughter", "involuntary manslaughter", etc, are apologetic pedantry, or some kind of commitment to "liberal essentialism"?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 20:37
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Do you think the distinction between "first degree murder", "manslaughter", "involuntary manslaughter", etc, are apologetic pedantry, or some kind of commitment to "liberal essentialism"? I think precisely the distinction is how we come to view the perpetrator, which is the whole point. I mean, would you honestly guess that a courtroom is a place likely to resolve the question of genocide to anyone's satisfaction?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 20:44
|
|
|
Woozy posted:I think precisely the distinction is how we come to view the perpetrator, which is the whole point. That isn't true at all. There is a lot of public outrage at people who have done something perceived to be more heinous than what they end up being indicted for. On the other hand, if you indict someone for something more serious than the evidence can support, it increases the chances of them being acquitted, which means zero sanctions as opposed to less than what you'd wish. If we translate that to the less rigorous lives outside the courtroom, if you accuse people of things where the evidence doesn't support it, you lose credibility, and with time it means that you get ignored even if you're right. quote:I mean, would you honestly guess that a courtroom is a place likely to resolve the question of genocide to anyone's satisfaction? I think that international tribunals or at least the UNSC is usually where these things are expected to be adjudicated and sanctioned, otherwise people wouldn't bother writing lengthy legal briefs and UNGA/UNSC resolutions and treaties defining them. Even the BDS movement claims to be promoting sanctions against Israel because of its violations of international law.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 20:50
|
|
|
Come back here thinking something huge has happened in Palestine/Israel. Find out its people screaming about Nazi comparisons.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 20:51
|
|
|
emanresu tnuocca posted:It's called 'mowing the lawn' and not 'pouring gasoline over the lawn and salting the scorched earth afterwards' for a reason. The destruction of a people, in part or in whole. Intending to only annihilate 'some' of the people in Gaza is still genocide.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 21:00
|
|
|
Seriously it's just one post up dude let go off this bullshit attitude if you want to actually discuss poo poo like a human being:quote:Its not genocide to you. Its not ethnic cleansing. As you somewhat conceded to the point that not every crime against humanity is an act of genocide (though you never owned up to your earlier bullshit) I'll give you a general frame of reference of what's actually going on. There is a campaign dating back from 1967 to expand the borders of Israel into as much of the west bank and gaza as possible, Sharon's disengagement was basically done out of the realization that Gaza is a lot more trouble (palestinians) than it's worth (land), but part of the purpose of the disengagement was to buy Israel enough american good will so that it could just continue creeping into palestinian territory all over the west bank. Creeping into palestinian territory definitely incorporates in itself the crimes of apartheid and ethnic cleansing. The crime of apartheid is of course plainly obvious as far as every aspect of life in the west bank is concerned, there are quite literally two completely separate systems of law for populations of different ethnicities, to top all of this off, in its efforts to allow the annexation to take place Israel frequently employs collective punishment against the civilian population which is also a crime against humanity and there are of course countless examples of Israel engaging in a state terrorism campaign against palestinian civilians both in the West Bank but especially in Gaza. It's pretty easy to show countless specific examples of all of the above crimes being perpetrated by Israel, and these crimes in themselves are enough to warrant outside intervention imo, but ultimately it is plainly obvious that as it stands Israel hasn't shown an actual intent to exterminate palestinians, it wants to wall them off, pacify them and pretend like they don't exist. And that you think that the difference between killing someone and stealing his poo poo and driving him to live in a ghetto is 'splitting hairs' then again, this is your minority opinion. Woozy posted:Notice how unappealing it is to actually have to argue against the description of "genocide" as applied to the occupation. If I were an Israeli scholar I would surely be outraged. I'd have to split all these little hairs to make my case. "Oh come on, that's just colonialism! And that other stuff? Anyone can see it merely amounts to war crimes! But genocide? It's ethnic cleansing at best!" You can get away with this kind of poo poo as long as you're arguing about the definition of genocide, which particular boxes need to be ticked and all the various legal technicalities that need to be avoided, but when you have to go about that project with an eye towards how language actually works, or should I say with an eye towards the truth that "words do in fact have meaning", you have to consider whether the experience of Gaza ought to be incorporated into the semantic content of G-E-N-O-C-I-D-E, which is a question that more or less answers itself for anyone with a sincere interest in the conflict beyond just categorizing various species of atrocity. And here we go from "as most experts agree" to "you're trying to defend genocide!!!" cause I've called your bullshit. It's pretty clear that it's super important to you to feel good about you calling Israelis nazis all the time cause you think it somehow furthers the palestinian cause, that's fine and well but as this is a forum for dorky spergs who are all mostly very well aware of what's actually going in Israel and Palestine there's also a chance you'd get called out on making stuff up if you do it around here, we don't need you to demonstrate to us that Israel bad by making up bullshit statements about genocide. captainblastum posted:The destruction of a people, in part or in whole. Intending to only annihilate 'some' of the people in Gaza is still genocide. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide#.22In_part.22 Yes, western judges making definitions up to enable the murder of poor third worlders and the such, but I am not the one who made a broad appeal to authority on the subject. emanresu tnuocca fucked around with this message at 21:27 on Nov 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 21:04
|
|
|
Its not like every attempt to dehumanize and de-legitimize the Palestinians has been made by the Israeli leadership in such a way that taking genocidal actions might not be wrong or anything...
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 21:15
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Its not like every attempt to dehumanize and de-legitimize the Palestinians has been made by the Israeli leadership in such a way that taking genocidal actions might not be wrong or anything... And I think actual genocide is a real possibility in the future, but it hasn't happened yet. Ethnic cleansing? Yes. Apartheid? Yes. Mass murder? Yes. Collective punishment? gently caress yes. Is Israel paving the way for genocide as its current strategy becomes increasingly untenable and produces an escalating climate of fear, racism, paranoia and violence? Yes. But it hasn't committed genocide yet and we should reserve the term for when it actually becomes a reality.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 21:23
|
|
|
Why is a mod who is an Israeli Jew allowed to probate and ban in this thread? Are there no mods that are unbiased that won't pick a side? Where is SA's UN recognition?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 21:26
|
|
|
FreshlyShaven posted:And I think actual genocide is a real possibility in the future, but it hasn't happened yet. Ethnic cleansing? Yes. Apartheid? Yes. Mass murder? Yes. Collective punishment? gently caress yes. Is Israel paving the way for genocide as its current strategy becomes increasingly untenable and produces an escalating climate of fear, racism, paranoia and violence? Yes. But it hasn't committed genocide yet and we should reserve the term for when it actually becomes a reality. Perhaps I've miss spoken: Yes, maybe it hasn't happened yet, but my concern stems more that it keeps looking incredibly likely that it will happen. All the prerequisites are there.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 21:27
|
|
|
Reading thetower.org they mentioned that a guy who rammed a border guard was killed on the spot. Did he exit his vehicle about to attack? He probably went very fast, so they knew it was a terrorist.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 21:31
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:That isn't true at all. There is a lot of public outrage at people who have done something perceived to be more heinous than what they end up being indicted for. On the other hand, if you indict someone for something more serious than the evidence can support, it increases the chances of them being acquitted, which means zero sanctions as opposed to less than what you'd wish. Semantic content isn't produced in a court room! It exists first as experience, then it gets a name, sometimes a hundred different names and sometimes a thousand different things share one name or both happen. The difference between the law and language itself is that the semantic content of a word isn't the list of attributes it has, but rather the list of things it names. There are plenty of excellent reasons to conclude that Gaza belongs on G-E-N-O-C-I-D-E's "list" so to speak, not the least of which is that other victims of unambiguous genocide are not shy about saying so! Their critics all shout the same absurd non-sense: "using the word to describe a thing would render the word meaningless!" The opposite seems like a much better argument: "disallowing the use of the word renders the word meaningless". More colloquially: "If what's happening in Gaza isn't Genocide than I don't know what is." People who defend Israel are happy to claim the former is true, but they themselves certainly behave as though the latter is the case, just as virtually all political elites have done for basically forever. quote:I think that international tribunals or at least the UNSC is usually where these things are expected to be adjudicated and sanctioned, otherwise people wouldn't bother writing lengthy legal briefs and UNGA/UNSC resolutions and treaties defining them. Even the BDS movement claims to be promoting sanctions against Israel because of its violations of international law. That wasn't the question. If there were a Truth and Reconciliation commission, say, and tomorrow it judged that the occupation of Gaza didn't tick enough genocide boxes despite being whatever the sufficiently polite word for double bad war crimes is, would anyone be moved by such a judgment?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 21:34
|
|
|
"Open-air prison" has the advantage of being a bad thing that is also clearly supported by the facts, rather than "genocide", which isn't. Why not use terms that are actually the bets fit to the situation, rather than the most extreme ones you could possibly wrestle the facts into if you look at them funny and have a supportive audience?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 21:40
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:"Open-air prison" has the advantage of being a bad thing that is also clearly supported by the facts, rather than "genocide", which isn't. Why not use terms that are actually the bets fit to the situation, rather than the most extreme ones you could possibly wrestle the facts into if you look at them funny and have a supportive audience? You can even call it a ghetto if you want to go with the invidious oppressed-cum-oppressors angle!
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 21:43
|
|
|
So it appears Peter Beinart has joined the liberal Zionist calls for deescalation by the Israeli government.
Crowsbeak fucked around with this message at 22:16 on Nov 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 21:47
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Come back here thinking something huge has happened in Palestine/Israel. Find out its people screaming about Nazi comparisons. It's an effective rhetoric device, when you don't want to address something in a meaningful manner, to try to make it a semantics argument. It's effectively the tone argument for genocide. Also used whenever you get Serbs talking about the Balkan Wars of the 90's.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 21:50
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:It's an effective rhetoric device, when you don't want to address something in a meaningful manner, to try to make it a semantics argument. It's effectively the tone argument for genocide. Also used whenever you get Serbs talking about the Balkan Wars of the 90's. Nobody's putting a gun to anyone's head insisting they propose and defend spurious comparisons to the Nazis for pages at a time. It's an easy derail to end by just not doing it. Then we can actually talk about what's actually happening in Israel and/or Palestine. Crowsbeak posted:So it appear Peter Beinart has joined the liberal Zionist calls for deescalation by the Israeli government. Are you talking about this?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 21:55
|
|
|
BiBi's new press chief doesn't like Obama very much. http://news.yahoo.com/israeli-pms-media-adviser-suggested-obama-anti-semitic-173702562.html Yahoo posted:JERUSALEM (Reuters) - He has accused Barack Obama of anti-Semitism, suggested his own country's president was not important enough to assassinate and described U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry as having the mental abilities of a 12-year-old. I don't see it as a good thing for a future President to be trying to buddy up with this dude from Likud. Nonsense fucked around with this message at 22:02 on Nov 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 22:00
|
|
|
fits my needs posted:Why is a mod who is an Israeli Jew allowed to probate and ban in this thread? Are there no mods that are unbiased that won't pick a side? Where is SA's UN recognition? Are you for real?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 22:02
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:"Open-air prison" has the advantage of being a bad thing that is also clearly supported by the facts, rather than "genocide", which isn't. Why not use terms that are actually the bets fit to the situation, rather than the most extreme ones you could possibly wrestle the facts into if you look at them funny and have a supportive audience? "Genocide" communicates the correct moral understanding of the occupation, which is that of being indefensibly outrageous. Plenty of people here and elsewhere have said this or that word is "bad enough" and yet so far as public opinion goes, particularly in places that provide material support to Israel, it hasn't proved to be much trouble to make sure no one gives a poo poo about "open-air prisons". Of course, your acceptance of the term "prison" is suspect, here. I mean come on, it's not literally a prison. Such hyperbole!
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 22:05
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Nobody's putting a gun to anyone's head insisting they propose and defend spurious comparisons to the Nazis for pages at a time. It's an easy derail to end by just not doing it. Then we can actually talk about what's actually happening in Israel and/or Palestine. No one is putting a gun to your head forcing you to defend the Israelis because the words are to mean for you but here we are. I would explain further what I mean but I think you are misinterpreting me on purpose.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 22:05
|
|
|
Woozy posted:"Genocide" communicates the correct moral understanding of the occupation, which is that of being indefensibly outrageous. Plenty of people here and elsewhere have said this or that word is "bad enough" and yet so far as public opinion goes, particularly in places that provide material support to Israel, it hasn't proved to be much trouble to make sure no one gives a poo poo about "open-air prisons". So, again, you're defending it as hyperbole that you think has the proper emotional charge, rather than whether or not it is merited by the evidence. Why should we bother even collecting evidence or defining anything if all we want is to provoke the appropriate level of moral outrage? Mind you, this is misguided, because while it might shock some people on the fence to side with you, others will be taken aback, making the easier prey for apologists for the Occupation and other crimes committed by past and present Israeli governments to completely dismiss criticism. CharlestheHammer posted:No one is putting a gun to your head forcing you to defend the Israelis because the words are to mean for you but here we are. I would explain further what I mean but I think you are misinterpreting me on purpose. Is a DA insisting on indicting a person for manslaughter instead of homicide because they don't feel that the evidence merits the stronger charge "defending" that person, or trying to make sure that it would stand up in court? It's not a "defense" of Israelis to insist that people use terms properly. I could easily turn this hyperbole back onto you and say that you're defending Israelis by insisting on using spurious, prima facie unwarranted accusations to make it harder for lesser accusations to be taken seriously.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 22:10
|
|
|
captainblastum posted:I'm not sure what the intent could be in regards to the people of Gaza other than to destroy them. To force Hamas out of power by inflicting collective punishment against the population in hopes that they will respond to poor living conditions by rising up against Hamas. If Hamas were removed from power and replaced by a peaceful faction willing to cooperate with Israel, and the violent factions were cracked down on by the new government, it's safe to say that the oppression of Gaza would quickly be drawn down, approaching West Bank levels within 10 years. Woozy posted:"Genocide" communicates the correct moral understanding of the occupation, which is that of being indefensibly outrageous. Plenty of people here and elsewhere have said this or that word is "bad enough" and yet so far as public opinion goes, particularly in places that provide material support to Israel, it hasn't proved to be much trouble to make sure no one gives a poo poo about "open-air prisons". Ah, so factual accuracy isn't as important as the fact that you think an actual description of the conditions doesn't sound bad or evil enough? You're only using hyperbole because you don't think people would be mad enough about the truth, so you're using worse words in an attempt to manipulate people into caring about what you think of the situation. Here, I'll give you a hint. Nobody gives any more of a poo poo about actual genocides. It's not like using a worse word is going to make people more likely to care - if they actually care enough to look it up themselves they will find that you basically deceived them, and if they didn't care enough to look it up then your hyperbole accomplished jack poo poo. I'm tired of people using hyperbole because they don't think people will be as mad about the truth.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 22:16
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Nobody's putting a gun to anyone's head insisting they propose and defend spurious comparisons to the Nazis for pages at a time. It's an easy derail to end by just not doing it. Then we can actually talk about what's actually happening in Israel and/or Palestine. I guess the way I see it is if the liberal zionists can be split from the Daniel Pipes, and Haroowitzs it makes Bibi's right wing goals harder. Crowsbeak fucked around with this message at 22:21 on Nov 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 22:18
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:I guess the way I see it is if the liberal zionists can be split from the Daniel Pipes, and Haroowitzs it makes Israel's goals harder. They've already been split for a very long time. At least as far back as J Street coming up, if not before. Horowitz's media call J-Street antisemitic, after all.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 22:21
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:So, again, you're defending it as hyperbole that you think has the proper emotional charge, rather than whether or not it is merited by the evidence. Why should we bother even collecting evidence or defining anything if all we want is to provoke the appropriate level of moral outrage? Mind you, this is misguided, because while it might shock some people on the fence to side with you, others will be taken aback, making the easier prey for apologists for the Occupation and other crimes committed by past and present Israeli governments to completely dismiss criticism. The da is doing his job and unless this is your job this doesn't work. So inaccurate comparisons are fine for you but not me eh? Granted I am not being hyperbolic/inaccurate in the slightest but let's pretend you are correct, for a change of pace.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 22:23
|
|
|
What is the end result of the current policies and actions against the people of Gaza other than eradication? They might last 100 years, but I don't think that going slowly makes it any more moral or less genocidal.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 22:26
|
|
|
I bet you people don't see the results of the various U.S. Indian policies as genocides either. Or the Armenian genocide as one. Because neither fit the criteria layer down in the threat. Hell I think only like two would count.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 22:31
|
|
|
captainblastum posted:What is the end result of the current policies and actions against the people of Gaza other than eradication? They might last 100 years, but I don't think that going slowly makes it any more moral or less genocidal. To force Hamas out of power by inflicting collective punishment against the population in hopes that they will respond to poor living conditions by rising up against Hamas. If Hamas were removed from power and replaced by a peaceful faction willing to cooperate with Israel, and the violent factions were cracked down on by the new government, it's safe to say that the oppression of Gaza would quickly be drawn down, approaching West Bank levels within 10 years.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 22:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 08:24 |
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:I bet you people don't see the results of the various U.S. Indian policies as genocides either. I bet by "you people" you mean Jews because you're an antisemite. While we're in "we are all Catholic married to our hyperbole and will not let this thread go on without it" mode, that is.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 22:34
|
|