|
uXs posted:Even if you assume the Israeli state/government and the Palestinians are ok with this (a rather tall order to begin with), there's now 500,000 settlers living in the West Bank. I feel like the potential compromise here if Israel were willing to act in good faith would be to freeze further settlement construction but have the tax income given to the PA in compensation and ban land sales/trade to anyone other than the PA to slowly reclaim the land via attrition. With the settlements de facto remaining under partial Israeli administrative for the duration? If removing them non violently is off the table or impossible.
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2023 17:51
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 13:39 |
|
|
mannerup posted:the ISIS flag(s) that were reported to be found at the site of the massacre is something that hasn’t sat right with me at all. it’s the absolute perfect prop for all the ISIS = HAMAS rhetoric that has been part of Israel’s core message. just doesn’t make sense There's lots of extremist groups that will have flags appear that don't make sense if you think critically about it; regardless of the organizations positions as a whole, individuals within it can still be kooky.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2023 01:34
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:hamas and isil are opposed in their ideologies. this doesnt make any sense except under a facile "all extremists are allied against us" worldview My post already accounted for this? When I said that not every individual in an organization thinks rationally? As an example, pro-Russian accounts who have both the Imperial and Soviet flags, and so on. Ideology doesn't matter.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2023 02:00
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:It's like using a Chinese flag as evidence America was here. I'm not sure what you're responding to but that's not what I'm suggesting.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2023 04:07
|
|
|
Adenoid Dan posted:Since at least the 1930s the intent has always been to remove Palestinians from the land. IIRC this isn't true, maybe there were extremist groups who thought this way but they would be a fringe minority. The Zionist movement overall between late 19th century and 1948 was a widely diverse movement as diverse as say, modern day leftism in general and ethnically cleansing Palestine wasn't a view held by anywhere near the majority; probably not even the majority of the minority.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2023 00:03
|
|
|
Adenoid Dan posted:For more detail on this, I'd recommend reading the ethnic cleansing of Palestine by Ilan Pappe. It's pretty well documented. I believe the onus is on you to provide specific evidence in support of your claim and not to gesture vaguely at some book whose credibility might very well be on the same level of Jung Chang. An example of a credible source might be a quote from an officially passed resolution by the World Zionist Congress for instance. e to add, a quick google confirms my suspicions that Pappe is probably not a very good source. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) Raenir Salazar fucked around with this message at 00:24 on Oct 17, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2023 00:20
|
|
|
Zulily Zoetrope posted:Are you including Zionists who wanted to establish a nation somewhere other than Mandatory Palestine in that rubric? Because I don't see how anyone seeking to establish an ethnostate centered on Jerusalem thought they were going to do so without ethnic cleansing. I don't think this follows no. Jamwad Hilder posted:"Conquest via labor" is an easy example of ethnic cleansing that's heavily documented. It was an explicit strategy with the intent to push the locals out. Early Zionists (we're talking the very beginning of the 20th century, still the Ottoman Empire, David Ben-Gurion, days) backed by foreign capital, would build businesses and then only hire Jewish settlers in order to create ethnic enclaves. Being backed by foreign investment, they could also pay much higher wages, and those settlers prospered while the locals were forced to work for extreme poverty wages or go unemployed entirely. The express purpose was to force the native population out by making it economically unviable for them to live in certain areas. I think this is also a stretch, gentrification isn't ethnic cleansing and seems like a conspiracy theory to me.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2023 01:00
|
|
|
Jamwad Hilder posted:Well then I don't think you know what the definition of ethnic cleansing is. The term has very heavy connotations and is sometimes used interchangeably with "genocide" - but they're different things. Genocide is seeking to destroy a people. Ethnic cleansing is trying to force a group out in order to create an ethnic/religious enclave. That could involve violence and terror, but it could also be economic gentrification, as you put it, if the express goal is to price out everyone who is not a part of your ethnic/religious group. I think this would be obviously a very unclear usage of the term, one in which most people I don't think would agree with as a definition; for most people the reason why genocide and ethnic cleansing are interchangeable is that they necessitate physical violence (i.e not violence through capitalism) as part of the means. And with a few additional seconds of critical thought I think it should be readily apparent why no one would want to open the :worms: that is that definition, the idea of "any large amount of people moving into an area and buying land" is ethnic cleansing, because oh boy it sure seems to have implications from where I'm standing that I don't think you would agree with.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2023 01:36
|
|
|
Jamwad Hilder posted:Well the definition I used is a paraphrased version of how the UN defines it, so I don't know what to tell you. Is it against international law to purchase land? The UN definition very specifically says "contrary to international law". Zulily Zoetrope posted:Okay, can you then give an example for how one might establish an ethnostate within an already populated region without engaging in ethnic cleansing? Buying land legally and moving there is not ethnic cleansing so there we go. Is it ethnic cleansing for Chinese immigrants to displace the original inhabitants of the places they end up congregating to and giving preferential treatment to other immigrants coming later?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2023 02:00
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I love how sourcing to a respected journalist got punished because a mod couldn't be bothered to Google but sourcing a reddit nobody as a rebuttal to an academic in the field is a-ok. Why is posting a book without describing the credentials of the author, conveying the evidence allegedly described by the book, all things that are IIRC expected by the rules when posting a tweet or an article okay when it's a whole book I don't own? The point of my reply was not "you're argument is wrong because reddit" which would be against the rules, but "hey please actually back up your claim with specifics and not just gesture vaguely at a whole book as it is unreasonable to expect me to read an entire book to figure out your argument for you." The linking to reddit is incidental and not at the core of my response, as it is just to hypothetically show that the author may not be very credible, may be biased, etc, I have no reason to know and they should establish this in addition to elaborating their argument. And as an aside saying "my argument is correct because this expert agrees with me" is the textbook definition of appeal to authority, I and anyone else here is free to argue with any expert, as is any redditor as long as their arguments stand up. This is not to post about posters but to explain how I see my post and my response to the poster I responded to.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2023 13:57
|
|
|
I think it's possible to be sympathetic to the cause of Palestinian liberation but also hope Hamas is replaced by a more constructive and less vile organization, there's no need to support the continued relevance of Hamas in its current form. There's so many examples of successful resistance movements who manage to eke out victories without committing atrocities there's no justification as to why Hamas is the exception.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2023 18:30
|
|
|
E2M2 posted:I mean we all witnessed what happened during the Right to Return protests right? Mostly nonviolent met with brutality by the IOF. People and kids killed or maimed and there wasn't any mainstream condemnation. Marenghi posted:Care to point to those, especially ones who tried the peaceful route and were suppressed. Neurolimal posted:Non-violent resistance typically requires either: What? Are all three of you independently self-reporting that in your view that resistance necessitates atrocity? Or, more charitably, did all three of you happen to fundamentally misunderstand my post in the exact same way because at NO point did I say that the only valid form of resistance to occupation was peaceful and nonviolent. I don't recall the Chinese Red Army engaging in atrocities under Mao despite both the IJA and KMT doing so and that's what I had in mind. I said come in! posted:Time will tell I guess? Currently they have put Israel into an extremely complicated position that Israel never imagined themselves being in. There is more pressure on Israel than ever before to find a peaceful solution, and to not go in guns blazing, and Israel might be fighting a war on multiple fronts depending on what they choose to do next in Gaza. Does this twitter account have any official standing? They seem like a random juche enthusiest tweeting a lot of nonsense like "sweden is not a settler state" when hello, the Sami? Raenir Salazar fucked around with this message at 20:13 on Oct 24, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2023 20:07
|
|
|
I said come in! posted:Destroying the state of Israel is not the same as wanting to kill everyone living in it (on the other hand Israel has stated they want the death of all Palestinians). Hamas has openly supported a two state solution as well. Their main point is that Israel is an illegally formed state that took away from Palestinian lands without their consent. It makes no sense to me to say that Palestinians shouldn't want the state of Israel to be destroyed, its creation should never have happened in the first place. As Typo says this is a goal impossible without a mountain of Israeli corpses. If I say "I wish to destroy the Chinese Communist Party" this would be without a doubt genocidal rhetoric by any reasonable metric, because there is no plausible scenario today where that can happen without millions of people dying. Even though China is not the same thing as the CCP, it's kinda hard to get at Xi without going through the PLA and a lot of Chinese cities. Similarly the position that Israel is an illegal formed state is false, Israel was formed as a culmination of the Palistinian Mandate granted as part of the League of Nations and the subsequent UN partition accepted by the UN, both largely correspond with what represented legal international actions as best that can be described. You can argue about where the borders should be but the green line is pretty noncontroversial as the minimum. So wanting the state of Israel to be destroyed, meaning Israel as an independent sovereign state with independent borders from Palestine as the Israeli citizens are presumed to want via their own right to self determination is pretty unreasonable as an ask. The clock cannot be turned back without committing evils just as bad as what youre decrying against.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2023 20:44
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I'm struggling to see how this argument would not be just as applicable to apartheid south africa? Well no, because that's not what I wrote. Israeli self-determination doesn't require putting Palestinians in ghettos, that's absolutely not what I said nor is it a logical consequence of a hypothetical equitable two-state solution. And even if it did, I'm not sure that would justify the reverse. The point is Israel, just like Palestine or any other sovereign state and many of nations non-sovereign nations are all equally deserving of self-determination; the ideal and valid and internationally supported by law lowest common denominator position here is a two-state solution where both groups have independent states whose borders and rights are mutually respected. To use an analogy using positive and negative freedoms, my right to liberty and freedom doesn't mean the right to infringe your freedoms and the point of the law, and the state in the case of individuals is to mediate a middle ground (i.e taxation of the rich to feed the poor) with the goal of a maximally optimum situation for all parties. In the context of international relations this means Israel ending its occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, ceasing its violent acts against Palestine, agreeing to some sort of compromise on outstanding issues with Palestine's government who likewise also agree to compromise on some outstanding issues and of course no longer are engaging in violent acts either because now its borders and internal affairs are being respected. shades of blue posted:Sweden is not a settler state in the year 2023 and afaik while the Swedish (and Norwegian and Finnish) government has pursued assimilatory policies, those are very meaningfully distinct from settler policies. I don't really agree with this, because clearly there were lands that once belonged to another people that Sweden now owns, this just means Sweden was more successful because it happened to occur much earlier along the timeline. By definition all states were at one time settler states. Adenoid Dan posted:They are taking the stance that all of Israel is stolen land, which is unambiguously true. The "legality" of it does not change that one iota. The poster I responded to specified legality, and by the only legal international structure yes Israel existing is legal (but not necessasarily every boundary claimed or occupied by Israel since the Arab-Israeli armistance except those negotiated and signed into force of law by treaty). And yeah it is pretty unreasonable to suggest that the negotiating position has "Israel gone?" as a position, especially in TYOOL2023. That's just a nonstarter and not serious and isn't going to help the Palestinian cause at all and just feeds the narrative of Israeli propaganda. Israel exists and the people there would like to keep existing. They don't need to exist while oppressing Palestinians though and that's what should be advocated for by anyone actually interested in the Palestinian cause reaching a fruitful conclusion as soon as possible that minimizes harm. VitalSigns posted:This isn't necessarily true. Right, I very carefully worded it to be about circumstances. It's a lot more feasible for a powerful Russian politician with popular support and control of government institutions to do as you say without things spiralling out of control. The point is to consider the factual circumstances on the ground and consider what the ramifications would be for careless "modest" proposals. Raenir Salazar fucked around with this message at 21:14 on Oct 24, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2023 21:10
|
|
|
Adenoid Dan posted:Buddy I don't know how to break this to you but many atrocities have been and are legal. I'm not sure what you're arguing for here, if its for Israel to stop being an apartheid state, that's not a problem for me insofar as a poster I have opinions and positions because in my view Israel can still be an independent country with its own government and borders distinct from Palestine and not be an apartheid state this is all possible; demanding one step further and for Israel to stop existing as an independent state is what's not reasonable for you or anyone else to have and is basically never going to happen without just as bad things happening that you presumably object to happening currently. And we're not discussing what Palestinians want but positions like I said come in! are advocating for which are what I am specifically responding to. It doesn't really make sense to oppose the existence of a state, even when its doing bad things. You can oppose the bad things they are doing, nothing about the states existence implies or mandates the bad things. Vietnam didn't oppose the existence of the US, it opposed their interference in their internal affairs. Heck, North Vietnam and North Korea technically oppose the existence of their rival governments, but neither government is currently opposing those governments in turn, are they actually not allowed to do so? I don't think this logically makes sense and just seems pointlessly self-defeating and doesn't even make sense from a "aim high to get something lower" bargaining strategy. To use another analogy, in WW2 the Allies and the USSR wanted to destroy the Nazi state; but there was no desire to destroy Germany; borders got moved around a bit but ultimately Germany the State with borders got to remain. It would be a lot more reasonable of a position to say "I wish to destroy the Apartheid regime" or "Apartheid Israel" because it would be clearer that you don't oppose Israel existing in some fashion with its internationally recognized borders the problem is the specific current government and its policies, not its people. mannerup posted:when do they cease to be ‘settler states’? this definition doesn’t make sense because a future State of Palestine will be a settler state from its inception by this logic I mean yeah, if they "destroyed" Israel and evicted millions of people from within the green line, two wrongs don't make a right. VitalSigns posted:Possible in the circumstances of the 1990s A Russian exile wanting to destroy the CPSU in the 1950s is absolutely ignoring the suffering such an effort would require, that's precisely the point. Raenir Salazar fucked around with this message at 21:43 on Oct 24, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2023 21:38
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Germany the state literally did not get to remain, they had west and east germany, neither of which I think constitute "the german state"? Germany literally still exists today this doesn't make any sense. If not for the cold war and opposed geopolitical interests Germany wouldve been back to being a single state in the 1950s. I don't understand the definition you're using here.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2023 21:59
|
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:The country called Germany today is not the same state or political body as the one called Germany in, say, 1938. I didn't say it was. I'll clarify my argument, which is that as a result of WW2, Germans still got to have Atleast one state with borders they got to control, but the criminality of the Nazis was still brought to an end.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2023 22:14
|
|
|
HonorableTB posted:As a result of WW2, Germany explicitly got turned into two states whose borders they did not control and the criminality of the Nazis was brought to an end. This isnt responding to the point? I already addressed this.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2023 22:36
|
|
|
HonorableTB posted:I saw you addressed it and you were still wrong, because neither German statelet got to determine their own borders until they reunified. Unless you're trying to say that the reunified Germany of 1990-91 was a result of WW2, which I mean, technically it was in the same way that the entire 50 year stretch between the end of WW2 and the beginning of unified Germany was a result of WW2. I'm not wrong because you're not considering the argument I am responding to and it's context, which is that the Allies did not intend to split Germany into two independent states, that wasn't what was agreed at Potsdam and Tehran when they agreed to occupation zones, the emergence of East and West Germany are historical quirks of geopolitical circumstances of the cold war, not the predetermined goal to impose on Germany in response to its crimes, otherwise why wasn't Japan split? Who also got to be their own country after a brief period of occupation. Which maybe would've been the better example to go with. This isnt addressing my underlying argument which is that I object to the premise that the only way to end the suffering of palestinians is to Quixotically insist one the complete dissolution of Israel as a country to be merged wih Palestine. That's just not what is required, it didn't need to happen to Japan (if Germany is a little too complicated to serve as an example) it doesn't need to be the case here.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2023 23:04
|
|
|
HonorableTB posted:You are forgetting the reason it didn't happen in Japan is because the United States nuked the Japanese into submission to beat the Soviets from occupying it like they did North Korea and even then the USSR ended up with Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands. There's no applicable analogue to this in the Palestine-Israel conflict. They are fundamentally different situations and not comparable. It seems like you're disagreeing with a specific example or the specifics within the example without addressing the point I'm making with my argument, because in regards to how it relates to that point yes it is entirely comparable, how the USSR occupied some islands and how Japan's colonies were liberated actually agrees with the point I'm making, because the comparable situation is Palestine no longer being occupied with some land being justifiably transferred while leaving presumably the greenline alone in this hypothetical. VitalSigns posted:White South Africans no longer got to have at least one state with borders they got to control after 1994, but South Africans still got to have a state with borders they control (many, well most, for the first time!) So its a little frustrating because understandable different posters have different positions and maybe if you haven't been following along maybe my argument sounds different to you without the context and position I am responding to. If your position is a One State Solution that hypothetically comes about via some combination of circumstances that by any reasonable standard has political equality, and was democratically achieved via the consent of the governed than of course that isn't genocide that would be ridiculous. I'm not arguing against the position of "It would be nice if Israel and Palestine agreed to a federal one state solution!" Because that would be ridiculous as both countries, just like West and East Germany agreed to the merge. And no doubt of course Israel doesn't seem interested in a two-state solution, it's engaging in a bloody occupation and not respecting the rights of Palestinians! Never did I say it was; but that's also not relevant to the argument being litigated, and regardless of what the current government, or state of Israel is doing, I don't think that justifies a One State solution achieved through violent means because that violence would necessitate an equal amount of tragedy and suffering. It is also needless, because it isn't needed to actually end the suffering of Palestinians, that's the entire crux of the argument occurring. Which is the position I am disagreeing with that specifically Adenoid Dan seems to have; with all the disagreement over what a "state" means it can be difficult to narrow down the specifics. That Israel existing, even if they packed up and left the West Bank tomorrow and stopped engaging in military action against Gaza, and just negotiated with Gaza state to state, would not be enough. This is my understanding that they can correct of course. Like when Germany joined the European Union and when previous West Germany joined NATO and the EEC, it did so as a nominally independent state that wasn't like merged into Poland; Germany wasn't forced to join the European community as a means to put an end to their aggression during WW2, nor was this the case with Japan. rscott posted:Israel has had a semi-official policy of creating facts on the ground to make a viable two state solution, i.e one that grants Palestine full and complete sovereignty over a contiguous landmass that has the resources necessary to sustain the Palestinian people, impossible. Not really. This is again a problem of arguments waxing back in forth between hypothetical and based in reality; yes the reality is Israel is making it really difficult to make a 2 state solution sustainable, I don't agree that this justifies rhetoric insisting on a one state solution through violent means (especially rhetoric that justifies this by saying that even the original UN partition plan was illegitimate). And almost certainly I don't see under Hamas circumstances where a democratic, politically equitable one state solution occurring. If we're going to make arguments about Israel making a two state solution impossible as fact then its also fair to point out the factual basis that there's no way we can see a viable one state solution occurring with Hamas in the equation who are also working on creating facts on the ground to make that impossible. There's still circumstances in which Palestine has a viable country and are no longer suffering, it isn't the most 100% just set of circumstances but is infinitely more likely to occur than what Adenoid Dan is proposing. Neurolimal posted:An integrated one-state solution is the only option that doesn't involve expelling hundreds of thousands of settlers. It's not currently popular among Palestinians or Israelis right now but it's the only feasible one. One nation, 2+ states. As a trial run, Israel could always agree to hand over the settlements to Palestinian administration with the promises the rights of the settlers are respected and see how that goes; or alternatively the tax income granted to the PA with the agreement of no more settlements and all the agreement that the land can no longer be traded or sold between Israeli citizens but only to citizens of the PA. There's lots of imaginative solutions where two separate states are maintained and they compromise over the disputed matters and kick the can down the road. Raenir Salazar fucked around with this message at 00:31 on Oct 25, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2023 00:16
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:This is so much less realistic than a one-state solution. Any two-state solution would require the expulsion of the settlers they are there illegally to steal land. "The rights of the settlers are respected" what rights? They attack and kill Palestinians, destroy their infrastructure, and steal their homes whenever they please. They are the biggest psychopaths among the Israeli population they are the people who'd least accept being part of a Palestinian state. No? No one state solution is feasible except for literally asking Israel to get it over with and annex Palestine and internationally pressuring them to be slightly less lovely but it isn't going to be what you want, nor would I agree that it would be as good for Palestinians as simply Israel stopping what its doing even with the settlements still in place. Any variation of the reverse is about as realistic as time travel. There's no feasible one state solution that isn't a "be careful what you wish for" scenario.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2023 15:03
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Either could work . . . If both Israel and Palestine had entirely different leadership. Well, to be a little more accurate, it isn't just a matter of leadership, but also what the people want. Israelis currently almost certainly wouldnt approve via referendum a one state solution. Any solution would work if both the leadership and people supported it.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2023 15:26
|
|
|
KillHour posted:If the US was half as concerned with exporting the ideals of secularism and inclusivity that are literally enshrined in our constitution as we are with capitalism, Israel could be bent into accepting a one state solution that loses the Jewish political majority. But a major American party literally wants the US to become an ethnostate, and the other one is led by octogenarians clutching onto the Cold War. You could also suggest something more along the lines of what Canada does regarding Quebec in constitutionally enshrining a distinct nation with a unique character and thus has specific guarantees and protections. Groovelord Neato posted:Yes it's much less realistic it's why I said it's much less realistic and explained why. A one-state solution would be democratic it wouldn't be the current situation but with Israel having control of everything. But what you're suggesting isnt actually much less realistic and you didn't explain why. You just explained that you don't like the current situation or don't like that proposal or don't think it's realistic either but nothing that convincingly argues whose proposal is more realistic. Your proposal is less realistic because it requires the military occupation of Israel, which is as far as we can tell today is not plausible. Israel having elections that elects a less lovely government that's willing to offer concessions is ultimately always more plausible until the day Bibi declares himself Emperor and abolished the Knesset. Also to add asserting that a one state solution would be absolutely democratic and guarantee the rights of Israelis is just speculation, you ultimately don't know how it would shake out. It'd be nice if a hypothetical OSS was like that, but we can't pretend that invariably it would be without a lot of leg work and negotiation and compromise between mutually respecting parties. The most likely version right now of a OSS happening is precisely what you're describing you think wouldn't happen, which is absolutely Israel having more control. You've not disputed this. Raenir Salazar fucked around with this message at 16:05 on Oct 25, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2023 15:55
|
|
|
Engorged Pedipalps posted:There's a perfectly reasonable one state solution This proposal is no more modest or sensible than eating the Irish. Ethnic cleansing does not justify ethnic cleansing in return. The goal should be to get Israel to stop and to participate in good faith the peace process and no further. The people living there have just as much right to live there in Israel within their internationally recognized borders as Palestinians do to live in their recognized borders. Two wrongs don't make a right, increasing misery and suffering doesn't end the current suffering, and this just feeds Israeli narratives of "they really do want to drive us all into the sea!" Which you apparently literally want to do by force.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2023 17:00
|
|
|
Engorged Pedipalps posted:I get the comparison you're making and I don't see how it's valid. A modest proposal is supposed to be decrying the cruelty and lack of empathy colonizers had towards a colonized state and the actual solution the author wanted was for his people to stop oppressing Ireland. Also, Irish claims to Ireland predate the creation of the United Kingdom or even England. The Israeli historical claim to Israel is mythological in nature and the modern history of Israel dates back to 1948 What? The Jewish historical ties to the land is absolutely not mythological. But is 100% is supported within the factual and very real historical record. This isn't even a BC thing, and Jews still lived in the area the entire time and the 500,000 Jews living in the region in 1948 didn't sprout from the ground overnight, they've lived there for years regardless whether you approve of them legally emigrating there before hand. Also you're entirely overthinking the reference to a modest proposal and tying yourself into knots justifying ethnic cleansing and collective punishment of Israelis for the crimes of their government that wasn't even elected by a majority of its people. The relative credibility of the claims of the Irish relative to Israel aren't relevant, what's relevant is you are proposing a proposal just as monstrous as the crimes you're currently condemning, and this is obviously contradictory and hypocritical. Making this about "well actually" the Irish circumstances I think shows you know your position is ultimately unjustifiable and indefensible. I thought a people weren't their state? Why should the people collectively be punished? I thought the problem was the government but you're actually saying every Israeli in Israel is at fault? Can you clarify your position? Is this what you believe and if not how are you justifying this?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2023 19:45
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:Who are the people of Israel? Within the area the current state of Israel claims as its own there is about an equal number of Palestinians and Israel living. Break that down further by the fate of Druze, Bedouin, and other disfavored groups in the current official Israeli mileui this thread has gone over at length for the last few pages, and the Israeli elite/settler class is a distinct minority trying to maintain a precarious supremacist hold over the majority of the population. Changing the parameters and current supremacist framework held there would not in fact be hurting "the people" of Israel. It would be helping the majority. It's hard to be sure but either you seem to be justifying ethnically cleansing millions of people which is still a large number of people even just limiting ourselves to the green line, or you're assuming pedipalps made a very different argument then the one they have in fact literally presented as of me writing this post of moving everyone from Israel to the US. Forcible moving any number of people for reasons of collective punishment is wrong, can you clarify your position, how many people would this be? Do you think this is just about the Israeli settlers in the west Bank or does this also include the millions within the internationally recognized Green line?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2023 20:12
|
|
|
Engorged Pedipalps posted:I just don't see how you can argue that removing a bloodthirsty genocidal power from the people they are genociding is ethnic cleansing, especially when nearly half of the population has a less than hundred years old claim to the land You're not advocating removing the "power" though. A state and its current and specific government is not its people? You could destroy the current government the same way the Allies destroyed the Nazi and Imperial Japanese governments, leaving the core nation and national boundaries intact. When ethnic Germans were ethnically cleansed from Eastern Europe (also horrible) they still had a homeland to be moved to, Germany wasn't merged into Poland and France and 100 million Germans expulsed to around the world. Prussia as a state within Germany was destroyed, Germany denazified, Japanese leaders were put on trial, and both occupied until reliable government(s) could be put in charge who wouldn't do the same wars and the same crimes as before. There's no justified reason to forcible remove even your preferred specific subset of Jews no matter how horrible the current Israeli state is from their legitimate borders. We're not in and will never be in the position to make this sort of decision, so there's no reason to think it is something plausible or acceptable in any hypothetical, it is not a reasonable solution to the conflict.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2023 20:51
|
|
|
Engorged Pedipalps posted:Gonna put myself out there and say it was not wrong to collectively punish the Germans for voting for and spending a decade supporting the worst genocide of the 20th century I think the problem here is what this implies is that you don't have a principled objection to ethnic cleansing; it seems like you have an unclear definition of what this constitutes, you seem to believe that crimes against humanity depend on whether the target deserved it or not? This definitely undercuts your argument insofar as you're justifying this on behalf of Palestinians, because the only reason according to your presented argument that what Israel is doing is wrong is because Palestinians didn't do anything deserve it? Would you agree with this? celadon posted:Why would it be ethnic cleansing to return stolen houses to Palestinians but allow their current Israeli occupants to remain in the country, just not in that particular house? This isn't what Pedipalps is suggesting?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2023 21:42
|
|
|
Engorged Pedipalps posted:No, I am suggesting punishing the people of Israel for the genocide they are doing right now, not because of where they were born They (the people) didn't do those crimes though (the state did)? You're literally just going "No except yes." What's the distinction you're drawing here? How are every single Israeli equally responsible? The only logical answer from your positions is because they choose to live in Israel, hence punishing people because of where they were born. Are you also going to punish Jordan and Egypt for occupying the West Bank and Gaza and likewise participating in denying Palestinians their right to self-determination? Noise Complaint posted:Stop trying to conflate being Jewish with Zionists, it's intellectually dishonest and you're just trying to bait this poster. Engorged Pedipalps has multiple times made no distinction between "Zionists" (settlers in the West bank and the leadership/elites responsible presumably?) and everyday jews living in Israel. They don't even specify "Zionists", they literally said "the people of Israel", as in all of them.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2023 22:27
|
|
|
Engorged Pedipalps posted:It's a democratic state dude you don't get to vote for something continuously for forty or fifty years and then claim to have no responsibility for the outcome Engorged Pedipalps posted:The people of Israel who have voting rights and the ability to freely travel within Israel. I'm not sure what you're talking about but you still seem to affirm that you want to punish "the people of Israel" (i.e anyone who could participate in Israeli society) and that is still illegal collective punishment under international law and ethnic cleansing and genocide under the UN definition. I also hope you likewise understand that by your argument, Republicans who target African Americans with gerrymandering that would otherwise be illegal on the basis of their political affiliation are completely fine to do so? Because they aren't, by their argument, specifically seeking to disenfranchise African Americans and other vulnerable groups, but "democrats" (who happen to overwhelmingly be those demographics in those regions). Afterall I can't confirm whats within the heart of hearts of Republicans than I can see within yours and have to treat both yours at face value, I can only look at the results and thankfully, conclude both your words and theirs are equally invalid. If you don't agree with Republicans doing this than the only consistent principled position is to reject that argument in its entirety and to accept that collectively punishing Israeli's is wrong. It's bad enough that any hypothetical coalition forced to occupy Israel to dismantle its current government would inflict considerable suffering, there's no need for further violence. Noise Complaint posted:A Zionist is a nationalist who are/were for the establishment and maintaining the ethnostate of Israel in the land of Palestine. It doesn't have to just be settlers and leadership/elites. That sounds nebulously like a political opinion someone may or may not have and presumably impossible to verify how many people can be identified as having that opinion; certainly not everyone who happens to live in Israel or even a majority. Engorged Pedipalps has been pretty clear in affirming that they aren't targeting merely people with particularly loathsome political beliefs but "the people of Israel" not "the people of Israel I argue with on facebook."
|
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2023 23:04
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Most of the civilian deaths in WWII were unnecessary. Some amount of civilian deaths are always unavoidable in war, but it would be sorely mistaken to assume that the Allies were trying to avoid them. While they didn't conduct the war with the same cartoonishly evil bloodthirstiness toward civilians that the Axis did, American and British strategic bombing operations were largely oriented toward collective punishment against civilians rather than real military objectives. Unable to accomplish anything militarily useful with their big fleets of expensive strategic bombers, they turned to mass collective punishment against civilian populations instead in the vague hope that it would break the country's morale and lead to surrender. This is actually not true, even the 1945 Strategic Bombing Survey which is often cited as evidence of the strategic bombing campaigns ineffectiveness actually very clearly shows how strategic bombing was effective in reducing Germany's output; some war industries were more disrupted than others, but more recent research, for example by Adam Tooze in Wages of Destruction, believes strategic bombing was a critical aspect of the Allied war effort but often undercut by the wrong targets being selected. quote:In 1943, when the RAF began sustained bombing of the heavy industrial region of the Ruhr, it had an immediate effect and panicked the Speer administration. The internal German records from this period leave no doubt about this. But after the devastating raids on Hamburg in the last week of July 1943, the RAF switched to attacking Berlin. This was a disastrous error of military judgement. Then, in early 1944 the air weapon was concentrated on tactical and operational preparation for D-Day. From the summer of 1944, when the RAF and USAAF finally switched their full force back to Germany the effects were devastating and more or less immediate. https://adamtooze.com/2017/07/12/modern-history-world-war-ii-strategic-bombing-liberal-democratic-mode-war/ http://ww2history.com/experts/Adam_Tooze/Most_mistaken_decision_of_WW2 quote:ADAM TOOZE: Well, there’s something I’d like to talk about that we haven’t spoken about so far, which is the strategic bombing campaign. I actually think that the RAF had the German war economy by the throat by the summer of 1943. The series of attacks launched by the British from March 1943 through to the cataclysmic attack on Hamburg at the end of July has a devastating impact on the German war effort that’s been very, very largely underestimated so far. But from the inside of the Speer Ministry there’s no question that this is seen as a fundamental turning point in the war and a moment potentially of no return. They expect the German war economy to be crippled in the winter of 1943 and the reason why that doesn’t happen is that the RAF turns its attention from the west of Germany to Berlin, and makes a vain attempt to destroy Berlin. However, Berlin is an inappropriate target. It’s too large, it’s too far away and it’s at the end of the productive chain, whereas the Ruhr stands at the very beginning because it’s the centre of German coal mining, without which the heavy industrial economy of Germany grinds to a halt. edit to clarify upon rereading your post: Or rather I suppose it is correct to say they turned towards civilian targets because they thought it wasn't effective enough, but at least in hindsight the war probably would've ended in 44' if they kept attacking Germany's war economy like the Ruhr region instead of Berlin, but incorrect to say that the bombers weren't militarily useful. Raenir Salazar fucked around with this message at 17:15 on Oct 31, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2023 17:11
|
|
|
Moving this discussion from the CanPol thread to here, regarding the question of "Are unarmed, (un, as in "not")uniformed citizens who may or may not be in the IDF due to the draft, valid targets in war?"Giggs posted:This is from the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe??? While technically international, it's for Europe, not worldwide, and therefore completely meaningless in this discussion. First, again, I can't repeat this enough, what Hamas did doesn't justify what Israel did, I've never at any point said what Israel is doing is justified or legal. It applies to both sides equally because the laws of war don't discriminate between powerful and weak nations; a powerful nation is just as entitled for its soldiers to be treated humanely when captured, and for its civilian populations to be treated fairly and humanly as the smallest most oppressed microstate or enclave. Its fair of course for you to be more sympathetic to the Palestinians as they are without a doubt the underdog, the oppressed, and I'm definitely fair about the argument that insofar as our opinions as individuals go, to tolerate acts of violence that skirt the lines, like attacks on civilian administration in occupied lands like police stations, or kidnapping to make such an occupation less feasible; its unpleasant and I don't like it but I'm not going to condemn it because on some level its understandable the desperation at play by the weaker party in the conflict. Second considering Europe made up of most of the primary drafters of the various laws regarding conduct during war and the various conventions thereof I think what Europe thinks the laws are regarding civilians is pretty relevant, especially considering how the 1949 conventions were signed and are contextualized by WW2 which involved essentially every European power, and because its one the largest supranational legal bodies with at least two United Nations security council seats to three depending on how we define "Europe", but anyways. But Israel is not exempt from these laws and protections because some of its citizens are conscripts, because it isn't actually possible to know if an adult male or female between the ages of 18 and 55 is a conscript or not; between tourists, people who are discharged and no longer serving, people who weren't enlisted because of illness or injury; exempted groups due to protected legal status's, 17 year olds who aren't yet of legal age to be registered, registered for whatever Israel's version of selective service is but hasn't gotten any training yet? And so on. Its clear that states are expected to distinguish their serving military from their civilians precisely to avoid this sort of thing, and the way that distinction is nominally carried out is your armed forces are uniformed and armed vs not uniformed and armed. The big major wars that ended up with the 1949 Laws being signed universally saw conscription and pretty obviously population centers behind the front line aren't valid targets just because some of the people might be in uniform at some point, that would be collective punishment and also illegal to just wipe the entire city from existence. If your argument and position is well the rules don't PRECISELY say I can't kill people indiscriminately as long as statistically most of them might be "conscripts", I think that's clearly bypassing the clear spirit of the laws at war and their intentions in favour of a ultra literal form of legal theory I feel like you would rightly condemn in any other circumstance like how the US detains "enemy combatants" at Guantanamo Bay or interned males of "war fighting age" in places like Iraq or Afghanistan when the clear intent of the law is they should've been treated as POWs if captured when engaged in armed hostilities and left alone if not. And no I don't think its that complicated, an armed Israeli citizen is treated as a combatant according to the laws of war, you can click the links and see that they do account for that. A private citizen engaged in hostilities doesn't have the same protections as the civilian population; they still have some protections and the laws are pretty clear that even if you make the argument that every draftee is not legally a civilian, they would still be protected from just being summarily executed when they're not engaged in hostilities. The civilians in their homes, unarmed who were killed weren't performing work of a military character. Repeatedly the emphasis in the articles of the geneva conventions seems to clearly point out that the responsibility is to do your best to make the distinction between civilian and military, and not just to level a city block or wipe out a town because one person out of place presented an excuse; that's pretty obviously not consistent with the intentions. And yes, this applies to Israel too, especially since its the more powerful party in the conflict, but as I said doesn't absolve Hamas. Raenir Salazar fucked around with this message at 18:01 on Oct 31, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2023 17:59
|
|
|
Koos Group posted:That would indeed be the correct distinction. The International Court of Justice found that Israel did not have a right to self-defense in order to impose any regime on Palestinians (https://web.archive.org/web/20100706021237/http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1671.pdf page 194). This also has to do with the fact that states' (in the international sense) right to self-defense is based on the attacking entity being another state, and Israel of course does not recognize Palestine as such. Quick point of order here, I think Israel's recognition/non-recognition status of Palestine I'm not sure is relevant here; Canada didn't recognize Ireland as a independent state during the Fenian raids but I don't think it would follow that Canada doesn't have a right to self-defence against a non-state actor; and just because Palestine isn't recognized by Israel doesn't make them for all practical matters a "belligerent" or a "party" to the conflict where all the rules still apply for both sides. Another example here might be the Vietnam War and Chinese Civil War or the Korean War where belligerents didn't recognize each other but the intention of the 'rules of law' is probably more about trying to restrain all parties into minimizing unnecessary human suffering. The bombing campaign of North Korea by the USAF wouldn't be more lawful because they didn't recognize North Korea as a state, just as how it wouldn't be lawful for North Korean or PVA troops to summarily execute captured US soldiers (if it hypothetically happened).
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2024 01:31
|
|
|
Hong XiuQuan posted:Hi there. Canada never occupied Ireland. It absolutely matters to the legal discussion about self-defence. I understood the crux of Koo's statement as being on whether Palestine is recognized/unrecognized by Israel (that the right to self-defence was on a 'state to state' basis), not that on whether Israel is occupying Palestine, hence my example being other incidences of conflicts between non-state actors/states, but of course Koos can clarify if my understanding was correct or incorrect. In any case, I'm not sure how Israel occupying parts of the West Bank is relevant to Hamas attacking Israel within the internationally recognized Israel green line borders (the area Israel is *not* occupying). That the USSR was occupying/invading Afghanistan doesn't really mean the USSR doesn't have a right to defend itself from the CIA somewhere else even if that CIA sponsored attack is in aid of the Mujahadeen. My understanding of the context was that the discussion was on the question as to which sort of conflicts and which categories of international actors enjoyed the benefits of international law and if they ever "not" applied in some particular set of circumstances and my position is that there's categorically never a point where the rules of war stop applying. Maybe I misunderstood the discussion? Raenir Salazar fucked around with this message at 04:33 on Jan 20, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2024 04:30
|
|
|
waydownLo posted:At least, I think you did not understand Koos correctly. Okay there's a lot here that I'm not sure if it relates to my post; in any case I definitely didn't say that Israel had any kind of "right" to endlessly drop bombs into Gaza or continuously blockade it, I'll leave it at that.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2024 06:55
|
|
|
Esran posted:I think settlers can be meaningfully viewed as "not civilians" if we're talking about "civilians" as a group Hamas should not attack, which was the meaning that was being used in this discussion. A country can be prohibited from moving its people into a territory while still having the people still be unlawful military targets to deliberately target. Regardless if the point of discussion is regarding the events of October, weren't the Israeli citizens killed within the green line of Israel's recognized borders and not in the West Bank? They obviously wouldn't be settlers in that case, every citizen in Israel in their homes doing their day to day isn't a legitimate military target.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2024 14:52
|
|
|
Mean Baby posted:A key strategic objective of the drill, as referenced in the article, is to continue the illegal blockade of Gaza until Hamas is no longer in power. The drill has an explicit military objective beyond self defense. Can you quote where in the article? If it was "Amid soaring tension, Israel drills for Hamas attack on Gaza border kibbutz" article, I don't see what you mean? It seems to reference two separate but unrelated events, the drill is the first half; then it mentions Palestinian media claims that IDF bulldozers entered gaza to do work near a border fence; but otherwise doesn't say or even seem to imply that these are at all linked?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2024 19:17
|
|
|
Jai Guru Dave posted:It was not called a peace festival at all until after October 7. The word “peace” is nowhere on this ad. What makes it a dangerous place, and why would they be culpable for it, what do you mean by culpable, do you mean liable, as in legally liable for damages to the victims in a civic sense or criminal liability for something like reckless negligence or culpable for something else? Mean Baby posted:It literally describes escalating tension throughout the article. The author clearly put them to together intentionally. This doesn't seem like an accurate description of the article. That last sentence seems entirely unrelated and divorced from the simple statement of facts that drills occurred at the kibbutz, Gilad has nothing to do with the kibbutz, he's (they? She?) are a official talking in general but not in specific about the drills? Edit, here I'll quote the full article, into separate quotes to make my counterpoint clear: quote:Amid soaring tension, Israel drills for Hamas attack on Gaza border kibbutz Next section, which seems completely unrelated to the first: quote:On Thursday Palestinian media said IDF bulldozers entered the Gaza Strip and carried out work near the border fence. The Ma’an News Agency, citing eyewitnesses, reported that four bulldozers moved several meters into the southern Gaza Strip in an area east of the city of Rafah and began leveling ground near the border. This seems clear cut to me, there seems to be no evidence that the article affirms your assertion that: quote:A key strategic objective of the drill, as referenced in the article, is to continue the illegal blockade of Gaza until Hamas is no longer in power. The drill has an explicit military objective beyond self defense. Evidence for this claim does not appear to be in the article. Raenir Salazar fucked around with this message at 23:39 on Jan 23, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2024 23:32
|
|
|
Mean Baby posted:You are not a serious person if you are asking why being near the Israeli-Gaza border is dangerous. Obviously its dangerous, but that that wasn't my question, I wasn't asking "Is it dangerous?" I was asking "why is it dangerous?" and of course there's other parts to my question, what is being meant by "culpable" the definition in context seems unclear to me. Anyways, I quoted the full article in two parts to emphasize the fact that you seem to be arriving at a conclusion that the article doesn't provide enough evidence or grounds for your conclusion. It seems pretty clear to me that this obviously pro-Israeli article isn't trying to claim that the drills are a part of some grand strategy to continue the blockade of Gaza (why would they admit to this?), but that recognizing the common sense nature of the violence the tensions can result in (and did) that the drills are being taken as a precautionary measure in the event of the worst case scenario occurring, not because these drills in particular help advance some "strategy". And you're interpreting it to mean or be evidence of something more nefarious which I don't think is a justifiable conclusion with the plainly written words I quoted above. The second half is basically entirely irrelevant to the drills other than an assertion that there's tensions hence there's drills; its context for why the drills are seen as necessary. Jai Guru Dave posted:To answer your questions in reverse order: yes, yes, yes, any fair-to-middling dictionary should help, because holding it right by an enclave controlled by terrorists was a predictable risk to say the least, and what in God’s name is wrong with you? I don't understand what do you mean "what in god's name is wrong with you", it's just a clarifying question, I'm not saying it wasn't dangerous? I was just trying to understand your meaning as sometimes people use culpable with a different meaning in mind. Raenir Salazar fucked around with this message at 23:53 on Jan 23, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2024 23:47
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 13:39 |
|
|
Mean Baby posted:So to put it succinctly, you are saying the obvious thing that they wouldn’t admit to it in those precise terms because it’s Israeli propaganda, but also we must go by what it literally says? Do I have that right? Again, this is easy to resolve where in the article does it say that the drills are a part of a strategy to continue the blockade? And why is it unreasonable to conclude that the drills are a precaution against possible violence that may breakout as a result of the tensions directly pointed out in the article? Occam's Razor would suggest that the simplest explanation, that the article is presenting the central fact: "Drills are occurring" and then context, "there's tensions happening in the region and here's what our soldiers are doing about it and here's a statement from a gov't spokesperson on the matter." Your original statement is just simply untrue. quote:A key strategic objective of the drill, as referenced in the article, is to continue the illegal blockade of Gaza until Hamas is no longer in power. The drill has an explicit military objective beyond self defense. As nowhere does the article say this. This is your own inference. Marenghi posted:You're really asking why was it dangerous to hold it on the border of an open air prison containing an armed insurgency with a goal of national liberation? I mean yes, depending on how they answered I might've had a follow up question. Raenir Salazar fucked around with this message at 00:18 on Jan 24, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2024 00:13
|
|