|
Dead Reckoning posted:
Speaking of political realities, while many BDS types and Palestinian activists push for a right for Palestinians who hold the status of being refugees to return to their land and be able to live as citizens, it doesn't follow that we would see Jews in Israel losing all power the same way as whites did in Zimbabwe (mentioned only because it's the worst case scenario talked about). Jews in Israel would still control the military and most or all private institutions as well as holding most positions in the Civil Service. Assuming they went in with the barest minimum of controls on non-Jewish political activity (as in, party voting for laws and constitutional changes in the legislature), the worst case scenario is probably military coup by the IDF before you get to a Zimbabwe situation. If I was being pessimistic, I'd say you're far more likely to see Israel turning into somewhere like Malaysia if you saw a large influx of Palestinians and Israel become a multi-ethnic state. Now Malaysia's certainly got a lot of issues but genocide isn't really one of them. I'll keep the post single pointed because these threads have a habit of certain posters latching onto a secondary or tertiary point and only responding to that.
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2015 01:52
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 5, 2024 14:50 |
|
|
Considering nationalities are essentially social constructs and, as history shows us, clearly mutable open to being expanded or contracted in terms of scope of ethnicities, religions, etc. why is that relevant in any way shape or form? You're point is literally 'this area needs to have a single acknowledged government with some sort of shared identity and loyalty to said government'. In fact all you're really saying is a two state solution isn't possible because reasons.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2015 10:29
|
|
|
At the very least, whether it's this guy or Jewish settlers who burned down a house full of Arabs, I find it pretty loving horrifying that Israel feels it's perfectly fine to hold people without charge and also deny them access to a lawyer. Edit: I should make it clear I find it disturbing that the PA do that too, if they do that. Double edit: I should also add before TIC or someone accuses me of racism or being bigoted against people from the Levant, that I find it disturbing that this happens in the People's Republic of China. Just so you can rest assured that I'm not a pro-PRC anti-Levantist who is only here to downplay the humanity of those in that area compared to everyone else around the globe. MrNemo fucked around with this message at 23:44 on Jan 12, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2016 23:42
|
|
|
Yes Ghandi, famously vulnerable to being socially shamed into renouncing pacifism. I'm sure if enough people made pointed comments about anti-semitism he would have said Israel should continue the shellings until Palestinian morale improves. In case anyone feels I'm being antisemitic in highlighting Ghandi's hypothetical disapproval of Israel's aggressive military policy and deliberately punishing (if selective) embargo of Palestine, I am sure he would also condemn Palestinian violence aimed at Israelis.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2016 00:22
|
|
|
Avshalom posted:The moderators are biased against, not Zionists, but people who have enlightened views about Zion (the true Zion, not the physical bricks and mortar, it's an allegory as are so many other Torah stories) Zion is a trick we are all still in the Matrix. Oh Pharaoh let that trilogy end better.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2016 00:05
|
|
|
TIC has fully embraced the mindset that Jews bear a collective responsibility for their acts since they share some common cultural/genetic heritage. Thus an attribution of a bad or criminal act against a single Jew must be an attack on the Jewish people and is anti-semitic. It's sad to see someone so strongly enmeshed in a horribly racist attitude regarding a large and diverse group of people but there you go, TIC is once again propounding a fundamentally racist viewpoint while not addressing specific questions because they're difficult.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2016 22:10
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:I think it's more about this perception that terrorists are responsible for all the people who die when we bomb them. Much like the various civilian casualties the US military will continue to cause the world over for decades to come. It's the belief that military operations have objectives that conform to the rules of war, Geneva convention, what have you. There's also an implicit belief that those undertaking those objectives will do their best to avoid civilian harm. Thus people can accept civilian harm as an unavoidable consequence of achieving an important strategic/practical objective. Terrorists however seek to achieve their objectives specifically by harming civilians (sticking to the notion that terrorists are fighters seeking to bring about political objectives by using harm and violence towards a state's populace to exert political pressure on that state). Now of course this doesn't neatly conform to what we actually see, in certain cases like the demolishing of houses for example (or more controversially in destruction of Gazan infrastructure), the IDF is specifically aiming to cause harm to the civilian populace, arguably to exert political pressure on Hamas. However the messiness of real life doesn't affect the ideals people have in their heads and that dichotomy above is what people are thinking of when they apply those kind of judgements. The cases they see are generally explained along those lines. Hamas have tunnels? Hamas are terrorists so those tunnels can only be for attacking Israeli civilians. The IDF mortared some kids on a beach? An unfortunate mistake in the process of achieving legitimate military objectives.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2016 18:22
|
|
|
The point is that some defenders of Israel (and you TIC specifically) either directly accuse or indirectly insinuate antisemitism as a driving force or feature of the mindset of any pro-Palestinian or anti-Israeli figure. The point isn't about ignoring antisemitism when it arises but that abusing they label is a tactic of significant numbers of supporters of Israel who devalue the power of that label. I would add in doing so they create cover for and enable actual antisemitism, though I don't believe that's a goal. And yes, I think you forums poster TIC enable antisemitism by defaulting to that as the reason why every critic of Israel is posting.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2016 14:17
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:Someone in the british politics thread said that it seemed like 9/11 was a big factor in Irish terrorism ending. The PIRA had fully disarmed by August 2001 so I'm not clear how a massive terrorist attack in the US a month later was a big factor? Terrorism in Northern Ireland as a form of armed struggle intended to remove British governance had quietened down from where it was in the '70s and '80s. What put an end to the Troubles was a change in British government policy that began seriously negotiating with Republican groups. Tony Blair's peace initiatives, which dealt with figures who had been terrorists themselves and began accepting Republican figures before they had engaged in disarmament, was what really ended it. That peace process took quite a while to get going and what is probably most telling is that it required the British government to bring Republican figures into joint governance prior to them actually disarming or carrying out many key moves. The British were willing to make concessions to show they were working in good faith and didn't simply end those initiatives as soon as deadlines were not met or a Republican splinter group broke the accords.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2017 15:08
|
|
|
I know this gets asked like every other month but is there any realistic peace plan currently being floated? The left/centre of Israeli politics (at least those who identify as such in discussions) are simultaneously enthusiastic about a 2 state solution as the best one and also are either unwilling themselves to accept or think it's unrealistic for the Israeli population to accept the kind of basic concessions that a realistic 2 state solution would require (e.g. allowing East Jerusalem as a capital, removal of large scale settlements in Palestinian land or granting of even basic sovereignty to a Palestinian state like border controls). Palestinians who support a 2 state solution meanwhile seem near universally pessimistic about it ever happening. I understand a 1 state solution is pretty much only something that those outside of Israel/Palestine support. Among Israelis it's out because it would mean Israel no longer being an ethnically defined state (in fairness to Israel they're somewhat ahead of the gulf states in this kind of racist definition of citizenship as there is at least a possibility of citizenship through conversion currently). Among Palestinians it's unpopular because it is seen by many as an acceptance of 'victory' by Israel and a joining with the oppressor (it also has big issues in terms of Palestinian refugees in other countries). What would it take to actually break the status quo? I mean outside of genocide or the Israeli right finally deciding to just engage in mass ethnic cleansing?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2017 21:57
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Absolutely no one would be happy with that, and there's no player with both the will and the influence to enforce that solution. A lot of people get very angry about tiny things that happen in Jerusalem and particularly the holy sites, and it's unlikely the Catholic Church has either the power or the inclination to play kingmaker anyway. Also is the MK trying to make some clever point that Palestinians hate Israel so much they will refuse to serve in the IDF and thus apartheid will be perfectly workable and legitimate? Cause I mean I also think a 1 state solution is going to be the outcome, I'm now thinking that either means 1) massive, gradual, ethnic cleansing getting non-Jewish Israelis down to manageable numbers to the point where they can be allowed full citizenship rights. 2) Apartheid style governance that is slowly transformed into full rights for Arab majority a la South Africa. I can imagine it only working if you saw a gradual expansion of rights and protections with things like an intermediate step of creating an Arab Knesset as a second house that begins as essentially a talking shop and popular pressure sees it getting expanded into effectively a second house before a removal of ethnic/religious restrictions on sitting in either house. I don't see this resulting in any kind of remedy for economic or social disparities as we can see in countries like Malaysia where even with legal support, historical economic disparities between ethnic groups are still very much present. I don't see Palestinians getting much in the way of legal protections or assistance.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2017 23:36
|
|
|
Just to be clear for myself: KJI's quote on the previous page is a Bill Clinton quote commenting on his opinion of the terms offered at the Camp David talks and his opinion on what happened at the Taba talks at which he wasn't present or involved in at all and Araftat's reasons for rejecting those terms. Is that right? Cause people were talking about a Clinton quote and the one he posted is unattributed so I'm guessing it's the 'ubiquitous' one that's so well known he didn't need to actually quote before?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2017 18:52
|
|
|
The stated rationale is that the illegal status of the settlements meant that peace couldn't be achieved until Israel removed them. Since Israel was unwilling to remove their settlements, this constituted a barrier to peace in the region. Obviously the only solution to this was to recognise them as legal territory seizures since the US's classifying them as illegal was what was really holding up the peace process here and no other parties had any issues with them. Bing bong, so simple.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2019 17:27
|
|
|
I know relatively little about domestic Israeli politics, primarily from reading this thread and the occasional bits that penetrate foreign media, but was Benny Gantz ever a serious political figure? The coalition with Netanyahu and agreement to let Bibi take the first crack at being PM was seen by every account I read as a suckers move. I'm just wondering if he was one of these guys who really was that desperate/naive but managed to wrangle an opposition coalition together out of being in the right place at the right time or if that was an uncharacteristic moment of insanity.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2021 13:13
|
|
|
Interesting wrinkle but if it's the case that the alternate PM law would actually still hold true without being superseded/repealed - does that mean Bibi now has a hard deadline to get a governing coalition in place to repeal that and secure himself as either PM or caretaker PM unless/until someone else actually pulls together a governing coalition? Because if that were the case I could see a few right wing minority parties getting showered in (ahem) 'pork' spending to just give Bibi their support and vote to put a new governing arrangement in place, at which point he can let everything collapse into chaos and organise another election for whenever the deadline is without the current pressure. Of course if it's like the UK it's entirely possible that nobody is going to be willing to actually have a fight about making Benny Ghantz PM in October so even if there are legal scholars saying the law is still in force, the Knesset ignores it and it's not really law anymore.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2021 18:45
|
|
|
A point of total ignorance to be asking here so apologies if this is on the level of 'why don't Labour just work with Scottish independence types and bring Sinn Fein on board to create a coalition government' question but... Is secularism a core tenet of the Israeli left? It sounds like Israel is at the point where embracing religious exemptions is pretty much a requirement. I get the impression though that they're more willing to give up Palestinian rights than admit that the religious groups in Israel should have power and rights over and above the 'secular' populace?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2021 17:53
|
|
|
Ok understood then that when discussing 'religious' parties in Israel we're talking more about the extreme Christian dominionist fringe of the US Republican party or the fringe of the DUP in Northern Ireland rather than simply 'religious'. That makes sense in terms of the equivalent of a far right grouping, a centrist grouping and then seeing if the actual Nazis are willing to side with anyone to form a government wouldn't present any kind of viable path for the centrists.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2021 19:45
|
|
|
In the former Israel is empty and needs to be populated, in the latter you make Israel empty and then it needs to be populated. Also the latter is a realistic description of history (albeit very incomplete)
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2021 22:47
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 5, 2024 14:50 |
|
|
Zulily Zoetrope posted:It's evil when the founding of said state involves the ethnic cleansing of a different population. I think that's also a pretty good example of over the idealist/fascist zionism distinction - There is one group for whom 'Never Again' was a universal condemnation of what happened in the Holocaust (with Israel being part of that solution by providing a safe haven for a particular group) and another for whom 'Never Again (to us)' is what they hear and are more or less willing to do a Holocaust to another group if they believe it will protect Jews. Honestly I can believe in an idealistic zionism that doesn't desire a Jewish ethnostate but does want a homeland for the Jewish people i.e. a nation where Jews are represented and can feel secure that the government is never going to turn against them and try to wipe them out. Despite what has occurred that doesn't conceptually require genociding the people already living in that land. The fundamental issue in modern Israel (without going into whether it was a valid basis for what happened) is that those directing the state fundamentally believed that non-Jewish people beyond a token minority were a threat to that vision. An idealistic zionism would be one that is willing to accept they could have a homeland without mandating the populace within that state be majority Jewish by whatever means necessary. Somewhat analagous to Scottish people having a homeland even if they live in the UK, where they're a minority population. There are obviously a lot of realistic problems with that kind of vision (such as fundamentally not trusting any non-Jewish government to keep to that or the historic context of the people having left this 'homeland' generations ago and so lacking the material connection and legitimacy countries like Scotland have) that have meant idealistic Zionism has utterly failed and isn't an accurate understanding of the term but it doesn't mean it's incoherent as an idea. I'd argue for Jews outside of Israel who really don't like to think about political realities too much it's probably easier to think of Zionism as basically the idealistic variety and explain everything else as necessary responses to evil/malicious actions by other groups.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2021 09:55
|
|