|
down with slavery posted:Pretty far cry from "insinuates a mass raping of Black women" In fact it is known what happened to the slave women (and men): A bunch of them joined up with Sherman's March to the sea, in a huge camp following that trailed after the army wherever it went (because they feared slaver reprisals and leaving was better than staying in Georgia). Sherman talks about the problems of providing basic care for them several times in his autobiography. They ended up walking across the entire country, and took part in the final victory parade in Washington, DC (the parade took like 15 hours, started with Grant's smartly-dressed Eastern army, and then Sherman's "shockingly-dressed" Western army, and then ended in a general assembly of hangers-on and ultimately a herd of cattle.
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2014 21:29
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 04:19 |
|
|
emanresu tnuocca posted:I'm pretty sure that the Israeli penal code technically applies to all Israeli nationals whether the felony occurs in Israel or outside of it. Right, just like every other country I can think of. In American law that is the basis for prosecuting citizens for underage sex-tourism, for example. The principle extends to civil law as well (i.e. preventing personal tax shelters). Of course in the example above there's no indication that the rabbi is Israeli.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2014 17:54
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Perhaps the answer is for Palestinians to construct settlements and rent them out to Jews. Have any Palestinians tried that, renting out apartments to Jewish inhabitants? Oh the answer is clearly along those lines, but it won't happen for another few decades because of politics. But yeah, eventually people will figure out that Palestinians need money and resettlement, while Israelis have lots of money but need land and security, and money will swap hands en masse and the problem will be solved. Kids in the 22nd Century will look back at the Israeli/Palestine conflict and be like, "Why didn't they just do that at the beginning rather than fight for 150 years? Couldn't they see that those ridiculous borders would never work?" And their teachers will just say, "Well they tried, but the world was very violent in the 20th and 21st century and there wasn't much public interest in peaceful solutions to conflict."
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2015 05:22
|
|
|
Ultramega posted:I'm still waiting for theimmigrant or kaal to explain how those magical apartments that palestinians can let to israelis are going to be built when they can't manage to rebuild a single demolished house. Israelis aren't going to be interested in leasing magical apartments in the first place. That'd be a terrible idea. Palestinians should just sell the land in a mix of private and public land deals, and then resettle in Egypt or Lebanon. Israel could pay way above the market rate and it'd still be cheaper than continuing an endless war - heck the US would probably be happy to provide plenty of the money itself in the form of no-interest loans, and it'd be a lot easier to figure out resettlement issues with the surrounding nations when the candidates aren't penniless refugees. Average annual income in the West Bank and Gaza Strip is less than $2,000, and there's 4.5 million people living there. It would cost Israel $225 billion to pay each and every one of them $50,000 - 25 years income - for their land. And for the vast majority of Palestinians their land consists of hardly anything at all. For the few wealthy members with lots of land and government connections, they could pursue a private sale or simply not sell at all. All parties get what they need in a modern Louisiana Purchase. This is, in fact, precisely the kind of market process that was going on 80 years ago, before radicals decided that they preferred bloodshed. Eventually this will be the peaceful resolution to the problem simply due to the financial realities, but since it remains politically nonviable it'll probably be another few decades before it happens. Kaal fucked around with this message at 08:37 on Apr 17, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2015 07:47
|
|
|
hypnorotic posted:There was a 15 year civil war over this, it's not going to happen. Well certainly some would want to go to Lebanon to join their families there, but even if Lebanon refused any UN sweeteners and rejected a wave of middle-class immigrants, there'd be plenty of countries who wouldn't. Talk to Jordan, heck talk to Iran. I'd say that there's a good chance that using money to resolve the issue would be more effective than rockets and missiles. Certainly it would be better for the average Palestinian who just wants to send their kids to school, have a decent and safe place to live, and a job that can support a good life. None of those things are really in the offing for them right now, unless they're willing to get involved in the militia politics. Kaal fucked around with this message at 08:34 on Apr 17, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2015 08:31
|
|
|
Lum_ posted:Aside from the political issues (no Arab country will let Palestinians resettle en masse to make Israel's colonization efforts easier, that is why they are still in refugee camps throughout the region generations after the 1948 war) there's the minor problem that ethnic cleansing of an occupied people is Arab countries don't do anything about their refugee camps because the refugees are dirt poor and have nothing to offer the government that hasn't already been stolen from them. The governments don't want to take responsibility for those people since they see them as a liability. There's a big difference between that and a group that has a bunch of wealth and resettlement oversight backed by the international community. And buying land at hugely inflated prices and offering to resettle them hardly sounds like a war crime to me. Compare that outcome with the probable outcome of the status quo: Two or three more generations of low-level warfare, continued erosion of the Palestinian people, culture and economy, inexorable expansion of Israeli settlements and walls, decades of regional tension and international conflict, and the eventual resolution of the conflict as Palestine simply becomes a permanent UN aid camp. I'd say that the problems of using money to resolve the conflict seem much more manageable in that perspective. I wish it had been done back the 1930s, and I wish that it were done now. Kaal fucked around with this message at 08:55 on Apr 17, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2015 08:44
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:So you see all of the folllowing things being feasible: Well A is pretty feasible when you compare it to the cost of waging the war. $225 billion USD is expensive, sure, and that doesn't even take into consideration the more expensive plots that have appreciable inherent value, nor the cost of resettling 4.5 million people. That being said, the US is already sending over billions in foreign aid, and it is very motivated to end the conflict. The cost of the Iraq War was upwards of $1.7 trillion USD - I'd say that ending the I/P conflict for less than 1/7th that price, a positive image for the US and Israel, and no further bloodshed is a pretty good price. B doesn't seem necessary at all - to the extent that a Palestinian national identity exists it would doubtless remain. Palestinians would still consider themselves to be Palestinian. But from the comfort of a real home that isn't the frontline of a battleground between extremists. C is much the same issue, but again it's largely resolved by identifying what is better for them and their kids. Sure they'll miss elements of living in the West Bank or Gaza, but they won't miss living in a bombed out hovel, cut off from the rest of the world, constantly in fear of attack. D is addressed by the private/public aspect. For the vast majority of people who don't have any appreciable amount of land or buildings, and make less than $2,000 per year, $50,000 would be a far more than they could ever expect on the open market. Indeed it's 10 times the value that Palestinian authorities have offered their own people in similar sorts of deals. But if that isn't sufficient, then the owners could sell at the fair market price - or indeed not sell at all. The point is defusing the situation by giving the average person an option to get out of the situation. E is certainly a sticking point, but I'd say that there's plenty of governments throughout the world who would be willing to try tackling the issue in order to bring a bunch of wealthy middle-class people into their communities. Throw in international community support and aid programs, and I'm sure that places could be found. And finally F, aka your competing probable outcome, doesn't seem like a particularly good option for actual Palestinians, no? You might be able to wait out the decades that will be required for the US to abandon the issue and allow Israel to be dismantled, but I don't think that the average person living there can. The Palestinian community has been riding on the momentum of Israeli investment and international donations for quite a while now, and it's clear that they can't do that forever. The economy is falling apart, the infrastructure is degrading, and the culture is pulling at the seams. Even in the thoroughly unlikely event that world politics conspire to impose a one or two state solution on a protesting Israel, I don't think that Palestinians can wait that long. Kajeesus posted:I'm sure that if the international community actually decided to pour funds into Palestinians (and the relocation thereof is a natural consequence, I guess?), they'd be better off, yes. I mean, if you could promote that kind of unity and goodwill towards Palestinians, that's really the only thing that could be done, yeah? It's not like it's the duty of the international community to prevent the war crimes that are currently being perpetrated against Palestinians. All we can do for them is commit more war crimes but with better intent, I swear. It seems to me that preventing war crimes would be precisely what ending the I/P conflict through liberal application of money and finding homes for everyone would be all about. That being said, while I do think that the issue will eventually be resolved in a fashion resembling this, I don't think that there will be the political will to do it until the situation has degraded further. The Palestinian leaders and their international supporters have doubled-down on warfare through any means, while the Israeli government and people doesn't see a peaceful resolution as particularly viable or necessary. Neither side is particularly interested in the betterment of the average Palestinian, and both see their plight as merely the cost of victory. Until that changes, the status quo will continue and the scales will continue to tip further and further in favor of the Israelis. Kaal fucked around with this message at 16:52 on Apr 17, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2015 16:12
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Why don't we pay the Israelis to leave. There are fewer of them so it's cheaper, and if they refuse then whatever we do to them is their own fault. There are twice as many Israelis as there are people living in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and they are far wealthier and have far more significant investment so it would cost much more. Certainly far more than Palestine and the Arab nations would ever be able to afford. I understand that a lot of folks in this thread basically aren't going to feel contented with anything less than a military victory by Hamas, but surely the progressive side of you must be balking at such an immediate resistance to a peaceful solution.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2015 16:26
|
|
|
Lum_ posted:There are roughly 6 million Jewish Israelis. Paying each of them $250,000 (a sum far greater than your modest proposal for Palestinians!) to immediately relocate to, say, Ukraine (a situation roughly similar to what you propose - sending millions of people to countries they have no connection to which are enmeshed in their own wars) would cost $1.5 trillion. This is not outside the realm of possibility for Saudi Arabia, which has a GDP close to $1 trillion. Well for one thing, the average income in the West Bank or Gaza is maybe $2,000 (a soft number based on GDP/population, since the figures are very vague, there's a significant underground economy, there's a distorting effect caused by the large number of Palestinian youth, and Gaza's economy is much weaker than the West Bank), whereas the average Israeli income is around $35,000-$50,000 depending on how you count it. So if you were to apply the same sort of economic pressures as in Palestine (25 times the average annual income), we'd be talking about something like $1.1 million per person. That comes out to more like $6.6 trillion. Now consider that Israel has a particularly hot real estate market, where the average value of a home and property in Israel is $500,000. In the heavily populated areas, like Tel Aviv, the average price of a home can be upwards of $800,000. Compare that to $5,000 for an average sq mile in the West Bank (which itself is far more than many Palestinians have). So if we're talking about 10 times the value of a property, then the cost would increase again to perhaps $5 million USD per person, or $30 trillion USD. And then factor in that there's another two million Israelis who are not Jewish, but still would merit a buyout option, and that price might increase to perhaps $40 trillion USD, or about half the world GDP. That's a pretty prohibitive cost, but I don't see any reason not to try putting the money together. If I were offered 25 times my annual income / 10 times the value of my house to sell and and move, it'd be a pretty compelling offer. Frankly though, I'd say that if the object here is the betterment of the Palestinian people - rather than painting a map - then putting that $40 trillion USD towards Palestinians would probably be the better solution. Palestinians need money, and they have land; Israelis have money, and need land. Trade it and be done with it. Certainly that's how market forces are going to work whenever peace is eventually attained. And when the alternative is an unwinnable war ... Kaal fucked around with this message at 17:52 on Apr 17, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2015 17:22
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:How is it a peaceful solution if you're prepared to use force to compel people who don't want to sell their homes? The only person suggesting that is you. I mean frankly the overwrought reactions to an actual peaceful resolution to the conflict that doesn't involve marching the UN Peace Army / 40th Intifada Militia into Tel Aviv and imposing a military resolution on Israel is a pretty good example of why the diplomatic space isn't suited for negotiations, and why Palestinians will simply have to continue suffering for another generation or two until the politics change. If western progressives with a nominal commitment to peace and objectivity can't even consider a peaceful resolution that involves hundreds of billions of dollars in Israeli concessions and the foundation of an actual future for the Palestinian people, then there's little chance that the Hamas militia leaders will soon be capable of negotiating in a way that Israelis would ever accept. Kaal fucked around with this message at 21:40 on Apr 18, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2015 21:33
|
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:If there's no mechanism for compulsion then there's no mechanism for actually putting your proposal into practice, so at best what you're suggesting is useless. Giving Palestinians homes and a future is useless? Allowing the situation to defuse is useless? Creating the framework for peaceful engagement is useless? I don't think so. At the very least it would be a better option than another couple decades of warfare without any hope of a Palestinian victory.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2015 21:42
|
|
|
eSports Chaebol posted:Yeah and funding the Madagascar Plan would've avoided the Holocaust but it was still anti-Semitic. The Madagascar Plan was a forcible relocation that never would have worked since even the most absurdly optimistic estimates thought that the island could hold only perhaps 7,000 families. It certainly never would have avoided the Holocaust, and it doesn't have any comparison to a buyout, which is precisely what this is. Not to get all reductionist, but if you looked at this situation in any civilian context then some of the competing "solutions" that get proposed are simply absurd. The idea of waiting it out until the United States supports imposing a Hamas-led one state solution on Israel is like two angry neighbors waiting for police to turn a blind eye to home invasions. Trying to set up a two-state solution based on the 1967 interlocking borders is like a judge trying to solve a drag-out divorce by having both parties stay in the same house, drawing a chalk line down the middle of the hallways, and setting up a sharing plan for the kitchen and the bathroom. It's never going to work in a million years, and at best the two people are going to hold their tongues until they're out of sight of the judge. At certain point in any dispute - whether it's a business dispute or one between nations - people need to accept that some things will never be agreed on and figure out a financial compensation that people can live with. Palestinians have been waiting for 80 years for Israel to disappear, and it hasn't happened - I think that asking their children to wait another 80 years in some vain hope is an absolute cruelty.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2015 22:09
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:When you shelter rockets in a school, it ain't a school no more. If Gazans wanted their schools to be off-limits, they should have organized their own militias to prevent rockets and other arms from being stored or launched from those locationsm This, of course, extends to the UN as well. If they can't guarantee that their facilities are militarily neutral, or at least peaceful, then they can't operate in the area without completely compromising their mission. Allowing their buildings to be used as arms depots and firing points for militants is yet another symbol of the failure of the UNRWA. The UN needs to back another approach that has an actual chance of helping people and resolving the conflict.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2015 09:55
|
|
|
It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone in this thread that Palestine is basically a poster-child for, "Sometimes it's better to fold and sue for peace rather than seeing how far the victor's commitment goes". It's a rabbit-hole that has no end.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2015 10:03
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:He has a good point. There are plenty of guns in Gaza aren't there? Why is it safe for someone in gaza to talk about firing rockets, to transport rockets, or to fire rockets? There are plenty of guns, but they're all in the hands of the militias. There are cases of homeowners disputing the use of their homes for rocket attacks, but they're quickly silenced. It's not like it's an open democracy or anything. If someone argues with their house being used as a firing point then they'll be threatened or even beaten, and no one will do anything about it. The media will be kept far away, and it'll just be like there never was a disagreement at all.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2015 10:51
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Hamas' popularity has been on the rise in the West Bank over the past year, in spite of the Abbas' administration's custom of randomly rounding up, arresting, and torturing Hamas supporters. Hahaha, on the rise from "gently caress them and everyone they know" maybe. You've been making some pretty pitiful defenses of Hamas recently, but nothing is really going to change the fact that all the quality of life indicators are overwhelmingly better in the West Bank than Gaza. Hamas is completely unable to govern, and is actively driving away international support for Palestinians. Hamas has basically been proof-positive that continued attempts to strongarm the Israelis will only be marked with continued failure and negative results for the Palestinians. Hamas' Gaza has been a chain around the neck of the West Bank for about a decade now, and all it has done is make things worse for everyone - Gaza Palestinians especially.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2015 04:07
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:If you lose a war, you have to have good spirits and accept that the victors' soldiers will destroy your cultural centers and vandalize your homes so you should be a good sport about this and blah blah blah On the other hand, you can always just throw another couple hundred Palestinian kids' lives away on a fruitless ego trip. Maybe next generation's Intifada will finally regain everything that has been lost - excepting all the people who've been completely abandoned by that bloodthirsty policy. Accepting the concept of "peace is difficult but you try anyway because the alternative is worse" is obviously too hard for some. It's ok, you won't have to pay the cost of continued war. Palestinians will.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2015 04:36
|
|
|
It's simply sad to see that this thread's complete lack of sentiment for Palestinians hasn't changed. People literally treat this conflict as a map-painting game, and it's rather pathetic and disgusting. Every year things get worse and worse for Palestinians, and this thread just shrugs and cheers for another generation to pick up the battle flag.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2015 04:48
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:
The unreasonable aggressors part was just more rampant paranoia, but mediating the conflict in a way that gave both sides the opportunity to get what they need in a peaceful way would be a Good Thing. But since it didn't involve handing Kalashnikovs to children, this thread basically took it as well as one might think.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2015 04:56
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:So we should paint the map blue-and-white throughout all of mandatory Palestine, got it. And it's everyone else who is treating it like a map painting game, not you. All right champ. It seems like you're pretty fixated on painting the map, you've got the colors picked out and everything. Too bad resolving conflict and improving the lives of actual Palestinians don't really seem to do it for you.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2015 05:00
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:There is no one with the political will to mediate a solution to the situation in Israel and Palestine, so pretending like that happen without an outright revolution in the political order of the rich countries is a childish fantasy of self-righteousness. "The Occupation of Palestine won't end until Capitalism has been overthrown and put all those CEOs and politicians against the wall by the glorious revolutionaries!" "What guys, I'm being serious!" VitalSigns posted:Why don't you care enough about Palestinians to support ethnic cleansing of the land they occupy, liberals? There's nothing liberal about wanting poor people to go to war for you. That's just being a chickenhawk. Kaal fucked around with this message at 08:54 on May 2, 2015 |
|
#
¿
May 2, 2015 05:02
|
|
|
I think it's really funny how defensive people get when they realize that strenuously supporting a faction of violent militants and rejecting all efforts at peace kind of jumps the shark with progressive principles. "I might want for Palestinians to fight to the bloody end and never give up their righteous struggle to free themselves from the oppressive Jews, regardless of what it takes ... but I don't want a war"
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2015 05:22
|
|
|
DrProsek posted:So what I'm getting from Kaal's posts is that Poland is responsible for WWII and "Danzig or War" was a reasonable request? What you should be getting, but of course refuse to, is that Japan and Germany surrendering at the end of World War 2 was better for everyone - most particularly them - rather than fighting to the absolute last man, woman, and child. Fortunately there were moderates in their governments who were able to resist the hardliners and pursue peace. When the American South was facing defeat at the end of the Civil War, there were plenty of fools who were willing to order the remaining Confederate troops into a guerilla campaign - Davis among them - but fortunately the leading Confederate generals didn't truck with that sort of cowardice and refused to subject their people to that kind of cruelty. Telling people to righteously fight for a hopeless cause or die trying is a lot easier than actually making the kind of tough compromises that are required for peace.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2015 07:00
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:What, in general, would a peace plan look like that was acceptable to all the involved parties? There's never been a peace plan that was acceptable to all the involved parties in the history of humanity. Do you think that unconditional surrender was acceptable to all the involved parties within Japan or Germany? And that was after only a few years of war, not decades. With that standard in hand, every war would continue until one side had been wiped out completely. There's always going to be factions that think the fighting should continue - if only to achieve better terms in the eventual peace agreement. The best you can do is craft a peace plan that gets enough support to fatally weaken the warmongers. And in IvP, that would probably look similar to the previous attempts at peace frameworks, with land swaps and an introduction of UN aid and rebuilding programs, and an easement of trade and movement restrictions tied to a long-term, multi-year plan that was intended to cool tensions and engender trust. In general, a focus on economic rebuilding and military security, rather than controversial political questions. Obviously Hamas is going to resist this from ever coming to pass, since it would doom their public support, which is why it is critical to find intermediary modes of constructing peace frameworks - such as creating a buyout system to enable individual Palestinians and Israelis to resolve their differences financially rather than with arms.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2015 07:29
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:OK, so in other words, "let's pretend that this is happening because of evil warmongers". Mature. "Your peace plan doesn't singlehandedly bridge the gap between Israelis and a group that wants to kill them all, obviously you aren't serious the way I am." 
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2015 07:36
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:You really need to work on the whole "reasonable" thing. Letting it evaporate after one cancerous paragraph just isn't going to work in the cutthroat world of 2015. Yeah ok well when I want lessons about reasonableness from the D&D I/P thread I'll let you know.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2015 07:41
|
|
|
OK, so in other words, "let's pretend that this is happening because of evil warmongers". Mature.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2015 07:49
|
|
|
The Insect Court posted:Always amusing to watch the "Yet" being very much the operative word.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2015 08:50
|
|
contingent start to hammer shut the windows of their asylum. On the plus side, you're not (yet) accusing anyone who disagrees with you of being a literal agent of the international
|
Kim Jong Il posted:The Israeli security establishment, which is notoriously clearminded and not hawkish, is receptive to the deal with Iran. To the extent that the Israeli security establishment can be represented by a peace activist and opposition politician.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2015 02:19
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:also pictured: excellent trigger discipline This is actually pretty standard IDF trigger discipline for a crowd, since putting the finger behind the trigger prevents it from being fired accidentally during a struggle.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2015 18:20
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:While we're in "we are all Catholic married to our hyperbole What the heck do you mean by Catholic married? I can't imagine any interpretation that isn't offensive.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2015 22:40
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:One where you can't divorce. What's offensive about that? Has the Catholic Church changed its dogma about that without me noticing? Catholics get divorced all the time. Beyond that, talking about getting "Catholic married" is a bit like talking about getting "Jewed" or an "Indian trade" when referring to a bad deal. It invokes a pretty unnecessary amount of discriminatory stereotyping. Not to be all "check your privilege" about it, but if you said that in the states then it would invariably come across as Catholic bashing. Kaal fucked around with this message at 22:57 on Nov 5, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2015 22:51
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 04:19 |
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Really? I didn't know that. I do apologize, it's just a really common phrase in Hebrew. No worries, I figured as much since you were simultaneously advocating for less of that sort of language, but I wanted to clarify your meaning.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2015 22:58
|
|