|
Miftan posted:Lol you're an idiot. Race is a social construct and is 100% meaningful part of the I/P conflict. Just like how the Irish used to not be considered white. It might not be 'white' supremacy (even though Ashkenazi Jews have a monopoly on power in Israel) but Jewish supremacy is very similar. Which I haven't denied at all. In theory it's a similar architecture, but white nationalist framing explicitly rejects Jews in all contexts. I think Likud wants to enact Jewish supremacism by any means necessary, and that does not warrant mirroring their tactics, or all or nothing/accelerationist type responses that will fracture the opposition and in practice help Likud significantly.
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2018 23:09
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 09:06 |
|
|
quote:Overall, 37 percent of Americans view Israel as an “ally” and 25 percent as friendly, compared to only 9 percent who said Israel was “unfriendly” and another 6 percent who actually describe Israel as “an enemy,” with another 23 percent saying that they were “not sure.” Israel’s overall positive results (62 percent view it as either an ally or friendly) pale in comparison to those of Canada (81 percent) and the United Kingdom (80 percent) but are only slightly less positive than those of Germany (68 percent), Japan (69 percent) and South Korea (68 percent). It's a drop in trendlines, but as the articles makes clear, it's hard to figure out how much of this is because of Trump, and Netanyahu's idiocy.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2018 16:45
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Hanukkah came early this year for anyone who has high expectations for the eventual breakdown of Israel's relationship with diaspora Jews. It's a gross sentiment that's far too common, but doesn't seem to be accurate in the case of Lau. But I'm all for reducing the political power of anti-Zionist Haredim (who Lau was responding to) in favor of secular Zionists.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2018 02:51
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:He's clearly dodging the question, and the fact that he insists on drawing that religious distinction even as he drops platitudes about unity says it all. It's the same old stunt religious Israelis always pull - when they want to use threats against us to show how oppressed they are, they say we Diaspora Jews are as Jewish as they are, but try paying a visit to Jerusalem and suddenly we're just Gentiles who merely pretend to call ourselves Jews. This isn't accurate at all. You're conflating Zionists who are largely in favor of pluralism but have pathetic panderers like Netanyahu, and the people who they are pandering to - who despise Zionism with every fiber of their being. Both of these live in Israel, but they're two distinct groups, with the latter being a small minority with disproportionate influence. Mainstream Zionist parties don't give a gently caress about religion and are in favor of bringing as many Jews as possible regardless of background. It's Anti-Zionists who are doing this, who are blocking Ethiopian immigration, etc... Zionist parties certainly share blame for blocking refugees like Eritreans, for (national religious at least, not the seculars) blocking civil marriage, and of course being pathetic panderers, but not for this.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2018 03:32
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:Likud has successfully transformed the definition of anti-semitism. The worst, most anti-semitic thing you can do is say that the Palestinian people are human beings who deserve basic rights, so alluding to a global conspiracy operated by shady globalist jews, and blaming it for all of our problems isn't on the radar any more. At least American Jews largely aren't a part of that bullshit, but Trump and other nationalist shitheads like him are still going to get to walk around with the official Israeli seal of approval while they spread racist conspiracy theories and hate of the other, just because they are willing to blame the victim in the I/P debacle. It's loving gross. The majority of Zionists don't believe this or say this. What is far more common are anti-Zionists claiming that "Zionists" have undue influence on the media or political affairs.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2018 04:07
|
|
|
Miftan posted:Are you an idiot? There are barely, if any, anti-zionists in any influencial positions in Israel. Maaaaaybe the joint list but you could argue about how influencial they are anyway. The narrative is completely zionist in every single way. I wasn't talking about Israel. Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:what's Israel's chief rabbi's stance on whether or not the people killed in the synagogue shooting last weekend are roasting in hell, for their crime of pretending any synagogue not in Israel is actually a synagogue, KJI Did you read earlier in the thread? He didn't say this, and that's not even what he was alleged to have said. That's also a complete non-sequitur to my point about reasonable criticism of Israel not being tarred by false accusations of anti-Semitism. Main Paineframe posted:But the Israeli Chief Rabbi doesn't believe that the Pittsburgh victims were bad Jews who will go to hell. He believes that they literally weren't Jews at all. According to Orthodox beliefs, only Orthodox and ultra-Orthodox Jews count as Jews. Tree of Life was a Conservative congregation, and the Orthodox regard Conservative and Reform Jews as Gentiles who are merely pretending to be Jews. To them, the Tree of Life victims are about as Jewish as the Jews for Jesus preacher at the recent Pence event. Jewish afterlife tradition doesn't seem to have a "follow our religion or else you're destined for hell no matter what" clause like Christianity does, so they'd get to go to the same afterlife as Orthodox Jews...but they wouldn't be allowed to be buried in an Orthodox graveyard. Every single point here you made is wrong. Lau was not criticizing the synagogues as being non-Jewish, he was disputing that charge. Furthermore, no one has claimed that they were not Jews. The Haredi believe, which is bigoted garbage, that non-Orthodox denominations are Jews practicing Jewish-themed secularism. In fact, the Haredi standard is matrilineal descent or conversion, even the fake Rabbi from Michigan would be considered matrilineally Jewish depending on the status of his mother, although certainly not theologically.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2018 00:01
|
|
|
But that dovetails with this being an intelligence gathering operation that went south, I mean who the gently caress really knows. It seems weird to assassinate someone right after they sign a big deal with Qatar, even with Netanyahu obviously having motives to fan the flames.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2018 02:09
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:I don't know about anything more comprehensive, but the 2008 ceasefire is a pretty good example. Rocket activity dropped off to virtually nil during the ceasefire...and then the IDF raided into Gaza and shot a few Hamas members in a firefight. Two months later, just after the official expiration of the ceasefire, the 2008 Gaza war was on. How is building a tunnel for abducting soldiers not a provocation? And keep in mind they did not respond to the tunnel by turning the dial to 10. Hamas was privy to the tit for tat escalation that followed. That doesn't justify what happened to civilians afterwards, but there was more than enough cause to retaliate against Hamas.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2018 02:32
|
|
|
Doesn't appear to have been an assassination.quote:“The Zionist enemy tried to achieve a major security breakthrough. It apparently tried to install equipment and build something that would make it easy for it to kill, hack and abduct,” Deputy Hamas chief in Gaza Khalil al-Hayya told the Hamas-affiliated Al-Aqsa TV on Saturday. You heard Paine, if it's not banned by the ceasefire, it's not a provocation.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2018 14:57
|
|
|
Kurnugia posted:Ah yes, those dastardly Hamas, provoking Israel to remain at war with them. Provoking you not to engage in peace negotiations with the people you've been at war with for the past... Half a century? Truly, if Hamas would simply stop provoking Israel, the blockade would disappear overnight, and those concrete walls would just go poof. Likud would change all their policies of ethnic cleansing right this instant, if Hamas would do... This one thing that has for decades been provoking Israel into waging war on the Palestinian people. Dunno what that would be, but I'm sure it's been something consistent and often demanded. Something that's real and material, and totally not a red herring. This is just arguing with a gigantic strawman. Israel should stop blockading innocent Gazans. That has nothing to do with their right to defend themselves against Hamas, nor does it have anything to do with refugees or the West Bank. Going after civilians is wrong, going after military targets can be justified if you do a cost benefit analysis on the civilian casualties, and think about the long term escalatory effects of retaliation. That's why there have been three major flareups and not eleventy billion. Main Paineframe posted:Sending armed troops into the other party's territory without their permission is generally banned by ceasefires. There's this little thing called sovreignity. What do you call Hamas digging tunnels in Israeli territory then?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2018 18:44
|
|
|
Kurnugia posted:Well I am talking to you... How did I mischaracterize your argument or anyone's? Do you have an argument at all? Illuyankas posted:Surprised KJI's keyboard still works after the whiplash of going from his previous posts to this When have I advocated attacks against civilians? Alastor_the_Stylish posted:Completely justified and good. You're saying thousands of civilians deaths are good, because that's all they've accomplished. Raldikuk posted:Israel doesn't even claim this. Aside from their reasoning changing from "stopping rocket fire" when it became clear that excuse was bullshit they then relied on them unilaterally stating that tunnels coming within 500m of the border (ie still in Palestine) would be met with an attack. How exactly do you expect Israel to interpret a tunnel after the Shalit kidnapping? It was a naked provocation given Hamas's precedent for kidnapping. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2018 02:43
|
|
|
Zulily Zoetrope posted:Uh, in the very sentence he's quoting? Do you just not remember anything you've ever posted? It would explain a lot. Maybe I should have said "only if", but your interpretation of that post doesn't make any sense, that's the complete opposite of what I was saying. Kim Jong Il posted:Going after civilians is wrong, going after military targets can be justified if you do a cost benefit analysis on the civilian casualties, and think about the long term escalatory effects of retaliation. My point was that Israel should not attack civilians, and that presence of civilians should restrict attacks on military targets. And that speaks to the broader frustration in my follow up point and in your false claim - I have repeatedly, overwhelmingly expressed the exact opposite opinion of your mischaracterization. I'm against collective punishment in every context. It is unconscionable for an innocent to even merely be inconvenienced due to the actions of another guilty party. Mr.Unique-Name posted:Please answer my question about why it's necessary for them to send troops into Gaza and bomb Hamas leaders in order to deal with tunnels entering Israeli territory. Why can't they destroy the parts of the tunnels in Israeli territory? I didn't say it was necessary to send troops into Gaza and bomb Hamas leaders. I oppose the former, and only support attacks on Hamas if they can be done in ways that avoid civilian casualties and long term conflict escalation. Israel was on edge in this specific case because of Shalit. You jumped into an argument about what constitutes a legitimate pretext for violence. I was not arguing that tunnels were a valid pretext, but rather using the Israeli espionage example to argue against the idea that anything not explicitly banned by the ceasefire cannot be a provocation. (E.g., both the tunnels and the espionage are obvious provocations, or at minimum in the same class of behavior.)
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2018 04:04
|
|
|
Ultramega posted:Everybody who wants a two-state solution should probably check out what happened to Yugoslavia in the 90s. How is your takeaway that the cause of the violence there was the cessation of being arbitrarily forced together? One state in I/P is rarely fleshed out in concrete proposals, both in terms of how it would get past the Knesset if they're supposedly unwilling to withdraw settlements, and how it would look in practice. Zionists largely aren't bad faith actors like Netanyahu. They legitimately see this as a roadmap to ethnic cleansing and genocide - look at AA's reaction to the "river to the sea" quote, which was historically used by ethnic cleansing advocates on both sides. You either have to actually convince Israelis, or we're back where we started, where the only political solution to the status quo is negotiation with Israel as the stronger party, and we circle back to the two state solution. Just as compulsion and collective punishment have proven worthless for Israel trying to pressure Palestinians, similarly the only way out of this is diplomacy. Israel has a history of withdrawing from Sinai, from Lebanon, from Gaza, there's at least precedent for that. Olmert was frustratingly close to a deal with Abbas before running out of time - all recent evidence is that non-Likud governments will negotiate in good faith for the two state solution, and Netanyahu's coalitions keep barely winning elections. Furthermore, BDS (the formal movement that focuses on 1948, not settlement boycotts) and talk of one state is a gigantic distraction from the urgent work of ending the occupation and the Gaza blockade. More criticism does not mean more pressure on Israel in practice; it becomes easier to drown out and dismiss. I'm the most angry at Netanyahu and Likud for the past decade, but BDS has made the situation demonstrably worse in every way. And it would be a loving non-entity if Likud hadn't been idiots, and I still think it would fade into oblivion quickly if any real progress were made. End the occupation, stop punishing Gazan civilians for Hamas's actions, and 99% of this disappears. quote:Also LOL at people who literally think catchy slogans like "from the river to the sea" are dog whistles. It's a phrase that has a long history of being used by Hamas and revisionist Zionists, largely by them in context of calls for ethnic cleansing. It's probably a bad idea to try to repurpose that, regardless of intention, because it's triggering as gently caress. Hill isn't some random DSA conference goer, he likely knows the historical usage. Furthermore, earlier in the speech, he said this, which pretty much guaranteed that his words would be interpreted the way that they were. quote:We must prioritize peace. But we must not romanticize or fetishize it. We must advocate and promote nonviolence at every opportunity, but we cannot endorse a narrow politics of respectability that shames Palestinians for resisting, for refusing to do nothing in the face of state violence and ethnic cleansing He also is not being given the benefit of the doubt because of past praise of and apology for Louis Farrakhan. Whereas, people who are just saying end the occupation, stop bombing Gaza, those people aren't being shouted down and dragged by most Zionists, because most Zionists agree with those views. (Meaning that "Zionist" means "doesn't think the state of Israel should be immediately destroyed", rather than "supports Likud, Netanyahu, or any specific policy goals.")
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2018 04:36
|
|
|
AFancyQuestionMark posted:I am going to go out on a limb here and guess that a guy obsessively defending his views on the I/P conflict in detail is probably not celebrating christmas. Who cares about anyone's background? Zulily Zoetrope posted:I mean, I’m not sure how you’re expecting us to read “civilian casualties can be justified” if the conclusion that civilian casualties can be justified is somehow a mortifying misrepresentation of your views. I'm not? That reading doesn't make sense at all. Kim Jong Il fucked around with this message at 01:27 on Dec 24, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2018 01:13
|
|
|
Naftali Bennett and Ayalet Shaked resigned from Jewish Home the other day to form their own secular settler party, The New Right. Jewish Home is going to merge with Yachad (Shas offshoot that didn't qualify for parliament last time.) Supposedly New Right is going to immediately partner with Jewish Home again after the election, so is that really going to convince the secular Likud voters they're trying to attract? This has Netanyahu a little spooked and trying to lower the electoral bar again, because every Knesset vote will count, and Jewish Home will struggle to get seats otherwise. Meanwhile, the Benny Gantz/Bogie Ya'alon party, Hosen Yisrael, is the latest centrist party to launch and jump in front of the others. One report had Livni wanting to defect to here and being rejected, but what is clear is that Labor in whatever form is not polling well and poised to lose seats to other centrist parties. Orly Levy-Abekasis's new centrist party, Gesher, is also polling well enough to grab a few seats. The right led before this latest drama. Even then, with the coalition math, it's going to be extremely difficult for anyone to form a government. Of course, this could all be thrown into chaos if/when a Netanyahu indictment comes down, with Netanyahu threatening the independent AG to not bring charges before the election.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2018 05:18
|
|
|
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/30/world/middleeast/gaza-medic-israel-shooting.html This seems like a pretty fair and plausible take. quote:The bullet that killed her, The Times found, was fired by an Israeli sniper into a crowd that included white-coated medics in plain view. A detailed reconstruction, stitched together from hundreds of crowd-sourced videos and photographs, shows that neither the medics nor anyone around them posed any apparent threat of violence to Israeli personnel. Though Israel later admitted her killing was unintentional, the shooting appears to have been reckless at best, and possibly a war crime, for which no one has yet been punished. quote:An Israeli soldier looking across at where Ms. Najjar stands now might see a man waving a Palestinian flag aloft, a few straggling protesters ambling around, and a cluster of medics helping a protester on the ground recover from tear gas. No one in the area is doing anything menacing. The tear gas is doing what it is meant to: making the use of lethal force unnecessary. quote:Three medics down, all from one bullet. It seemed improbable. quote:A senior Israeli commander told The Times in August that 60 to 70 other Gaza protesters had been killed unintentionally, around half the total killed at that point.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2018 05:23
|
|
|
Illuyankas posted:Also hilarious to see that the best link KJI can find to defend the IDF paints them as too incompetent to not "accidentally" shoot unarmed people dressed as medics instead of unarmed people wearing yellow shirts more than 120 foot away Best link? It was the front page of the New York Times yesterday. Who else is doing this level of deep dive? And I don't have a record of blindly defending the IDF or anyone. I think it's pretty safe to say that the IDF's boasting about 100% pinpoint accuracy is laughable. What conceivable benefit do they get from shooting a medic? The article clearly blames Israeli policy for the shootings, and makes clear that even claimed accidental shootings can't be accidents if they repeatedly happen. AFancyQuestionMark posted:Source for this? It's hard to believe, after all the criticism Bennet's stunt generated from within Jewish Home. They would definitely advance the same pro-settler policies, that's the point, but there would be no reason for them to merge back in to any meaningful extent. https://www.timesofisrael.com/bennett-shaked-said-to-plan-to-reunite-with-jewish-home-after-elections The reaction was more mixed than criticism.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 1, 2019 00:53
|
|
|
Raldikuk posted:I think most of the thread will disagree on the bolded. What matters is evidence, and you haven't posted any for that mischaracterization. quote:As far as the italicized they get to terrorize the palestinian population and punish them for daring to protest. It had the added benefit of getting the domestic population to salivate at the thought that the IDF is doing something to "protect" them from the very real and not imaginary existential threats the Israeli government had ginned up. I think your post really, profoundly misunderstands Israeli psychology and beliefs. Even the cynical, disingenuous actors in Israeli society, like Netanyahu and the Likud party, are motivated by maintaining and expanding power. The actual story for the Israeli public (not the IDF shooters in this incident) is a mix of fear and propaganda. This is a country that has given the peace camp large majorities in the past, and is still 50/50 politically. It's not a country of comic book villains thirsting for innocent blood - neither are the Palestinians, neither are the Americans whose tax dollars kill Yemenis, neither are the Iranians who are the same vis a vis Syrians. Trying to demonize and stereotype large groups of people is massively counterproductive as far as actually helping the Palestinians go.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2019 02:24
|
|
|
Zionist Union is loving dead. It's partly a personality conflict, partly that former Kulanu member Avi Gabbay saw Livni as being too tied to the left, and wants to run on a joint list with Gantz and Ya'alon. Yachimovich is now the opposition leader, but in 2019 the Labor party disassociated with a former Likud member because they don't want to be seen as too left.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2019 03:04
|
|
|
Zulily Zoetrope posted:I'd never encourage anyone to read all that, but here's a sampler from the latest page of it: How is that blindly defending the IDF? I literally said their actions in Gaza were a provocation. Did you even read what you quoted? Mr. Lobe posted:Aren't there literally people paid to do PR work for Israel by posting? I doubt SA would be a target, though, and of course there are also just good old fashioned brainwormed ideologues willing to carry water for just about any awful thing you can think of. You realize that my views are pretty much identical to the Obama administration, US public opinion, and most western European governments? Either you are not familiar with what I've actually posted, or you're living in a bubble. HootTheOwl posted:On the other-hand, Bibi. He's a disingenuous cynic who wants to maintain power more than anything else.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2019 00:59
|
|
|
DEA posted:Israel: "Why can't Palestinian activists who oppose Israel do so peacefully? There is no equivalence to the black civil rights movement because black people chose boycotting buses over bombing them." That is American policy though, not Israeli. And that bill isn't the proposal to ban boycotts at the behest of NGOs (which is separate and has no chance of passing), its stated purpose is to permit states to divest from companies participating in BDS. quote:His bill -- or rather, Title IV of his bill (the other three titles cover defense authorizations for Israel and Jordan, and tightened sanctions on Syria) -- does one thing: it states that state anti-BDS laws (of the second-type, above) are not preempted by federal law. I would have written the bill more broadly by instead focusing on state policy on companies that discriminate on the basis of national origin (which I think would both cover BDS, as well as some Israeli companies engaging in impermissible conduct.) I think broadly there are two issues at play here - what's acceptable for a governmental body as opposed to a private citizen, and the validity of boycott tactics in general. For consistency, if boycott is a valid tactic, then it either always must be or never be. And people like Greenwald who are screaming about this proposal are the first to complain about private citizen boycotts of BDS. You're also glossing over how there are wide degrees of boycotts, from settlement boycotts that frankly a lot of Zionists support, all the way to the formal BDS movement arguing, per Chomsky and Finklestein, that the Israeli state must cease to exist. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2019 04:02
|
|
|
That is an accurate portrayal of their views. I'm making actual arguments and citations, and you are not. https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/finkelstein-disowns-silly-israel-boycott-1.31716 quote:He said: "I'm getting a little bit exasperated with what I think is a whole lot of nonsense. I'm not going to tolerate silliness, childishness and a lot of leftist posturing." He said the Palestine Solidarity Movement's campaigns for refugees' right to return and equal rights for Israeli Arabs were a cover for its desire to see the destruction of Israel. "I loathe the disingenuousness," he said. "We will never hear the solidarity movement [back a] two-state solution." https://newrepublic.com/article/122257/unpopular-man-norman-finkelstein-comes-out-against-bds-movement quote:Indeed, Noam Chomsky has also come out against BDS in support of Israel’s existence. He calls the attacks on Finkelstein “completely uncalled for, indeed outrageous.” He says that Finkelstein “had cogent and rational arguments” and “has done more for the Palestine cause than all those who launched these disgraceful attacks combined.” And certainly both have given other pro-BDS quotes, but I portrayed their views on that point correctly. I agree with them solely in the sense that the formal BDS movement (not necessarily all of its adherents) makes the right of return a requirement, and that is inconsistent with Israel's existence. One state or a binational state is something else, you can debate the merits all you want, but it's not Israel. Barghouti literally gives interviews where he says he wants to replace Israel with a one state solution, so the claim that the formal BDS movement wants to end the Israeli state is a tautology. I did not say harm Israelis or Jews, although I don't think BDS's objectives are at all obtainable, and are in fact an impediment to the two state solution. Fortunately, most BDS support is pretty soft (relatively), and would largely disappear with better Israeli policy. Kim Jong Il fucked around with this message at 05:08 on Jan 10, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2019 04:53
|
|
|
sexpig by night posted:'two old men lied so ergo BDS wants to literally drive all Jews into the sea like the paranoid voices in my head told me' I explicitly did not say that was the formal position, I said it was ending the state of Israel. BDS proponents say that is a far cry from what you are claiming. Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:it is absolutely fantastic that a guy arguing, with a straight face, that if the untermenschen are permitted to draw breath on israeli soil it shall no longer be israel, claims to not be a supporter of Likud policy I think Israel's Arabs and Muslims are great. I was not making a normative statement. If millions of Palestinian refugee citizens gained citizenship, do you for a second think they want to live in a Jewish state with Jewish privilege? Of course not - the state would no longer exist. The further implications of what would happen in that case are a separate discussion. sexpig by night posted:also yea speaking as a Jew if our holy land will cease to be if we allow...other people from the holy land to return to it too...then maybe we're the baddies after all? I've never said that I think a binational state or one state would be a bad idea abstractly, I don't think it's feasible. The least worst solution is a Jewish state and a Palestinian state on equal terms. I also distinguished between the formal BDS movement, and supporters who tactically support it but don't necessarily agree with all of its goals. I'm always talking about the former. Main Paineframe posted:Absolutely no one is "screaming" about private citizens boycotts of BDS. Why would they? Literally a few posts ago someone complained about this happening to Angela Davis. Internet Explorer posted:The quote you used from Chomsky is regarding attacks on Finkelstein not about Chomsky's opinion on BDS The quote is about that specific attack on Finkelstein, which was the intention of my post, not to claim he's 100% against the tactic. If you actually read what I said instead of rushing to post, I literally said "both have given other pro-BDS quotes." Kim Jong Il fucked around with this message at 03:17 on Jan 11, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2019 03:08
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:Oh yes I would love that, it would mean that states couldn't buy from companies that abide by the sanctions against Iran. You know that I've posted in D&D about hating the Iran sanctions and think they're wildly counterproductive? Sanctions are a whole different can of worms than boycotts. I oppose almost every instance of sanctions, universally, except on arms and weapons. Bedshaped posted:Disagree with Chomsky on his opposition to education boycott. You're saying that they practice collective punishment, so let's get an eye for an eye and do it too. I think the idea that anything can be accomplished by force or coercion is insane and has been repeatedly and overwhelmingly discredited. In all contexts.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2019 03:14
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:Do you believe that in order to have a democratic society all people ought to have equality before the law? I haven't said it's desirable! I'm for Hillary Clinton/Goldman Sachs-style universal open borders. How many states don't have privilege? How is it fair that I, as an American, have a right to citizenship, and a random poor person in another country does not? What about some European? Because their ancestors colonized some other people thousands of years ago? Privilege sucks, but there's no good argument about Israel's traditional privileges uniquely bad or distinct. The least worst way to solve this is give the Palestinians a state so they'd have their own privilege. It's a lovely solution, but it's what's been repeatedly used throughout the past century, so there's plenty of precedent. Main Paineframe posted:Like most things about the two-state solution, that's nothing more than a convenient fantasy used as an excuse to dismiss real solutions. A Jewish state and Palestinian state on equal terms might have been possible back in 1948, but today, the idea is as ridiculous as claiming that white Americans and black Americans were on equal terms in 1966. But I don't support Netanyahu's weakened state minus, I think they should have continuous territory and a full military. A one state solution is "convenient fantasy" as you put it because Israel will never accept it, and no one has actually attempted to flesh out how it could theoretically work beyond the underpants gnome level. The actual reason why mainstream Zionists support a two state solution is because they actually support it in good faith, and see one state as utterly impossible. You can't have it both ways. Either we talk about what people actually believe and support, or we discuss the implications of what their theoretical ideas actually look like in practice. Two states was tried it in the 90s and made great progress before extremists on both sides torpedo'd it.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2019 00:21
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:Privileges of the "you need to be this ethnicity and religion so as to be considered a human being" kind? Pretty much most of them. I think you're in denial about most countries. It's depressing how xenophobic and nativist western countries are. I loving love immigrants and think the more of them, the better, no caveats needed. It would be great if we had massive levels of immigration and doubled the US population over the next 50 years. quote:If they did, then they wouldn't vote for parties that are pushing for continuously accelerating the pace of building illegal settlements in occupied territories. If they had any actual good faith, they'd refuse to back the Likudniks. But the Likudniks always get a majority coalition, which proves that the Israeli mainstream is not at all in good faith about this. Likud keeps winning by really thin margins. It's a divided country where Likud received fewer votes than Kadima in 2009 at the start of its most recent reign in power. Israelis vote Likud because they're scared and Likud is good at convincing them, and partly due to the legacy of anti-Mizrahi racism that they blame Ashkenazim/Labor for. quote:Two-state solution is only possible with a complete and total evacuation of all illegal Israeli settlers from the West Bank, and an end to the occupation. If you're not for that, you're not supporting a two-state solution in good faith. I support the Taba/Olmert/Kerry maps (re: almost all of area C and land swaps) and an end to the occupation and Gaza blockade. Clearly Netanyahu and Likud do not. Main Paineframe posted:Even if an independent Palestine doesn't have severe restrictions on their military, the IDF outclasses anything they could possibly muster unless they get support from a global superpower that's willing to stand up for them if they get invaded. And if Palestinians had that, we'd already have an Israel/Palestine peace deal. Isn't that pretty much the USSR from the 50s onwards? Although, they probably were far more interested in using anti-Zionism to justify treating Jews like poo poo than the actual plight of Palestinians. quote:If you want to see the future of an independent Palestine, just look at Gaza. Turns out it's way easier to justify occupying and shooting at foreign territory than it is domestic territory (which is why Israel refuses to officially annex Palestinian territory). You're presuming Likud is in charge forever and their hand is forced. I think they'll get full independence and turn into a some mix of Iraq (best case) and Syria (worse), but it'll be a real state. Sadly, one day I thought they'd be more like Lebanon. quote:A one-state solution is really easy. Just give everyone full citizenship and equal rights to vote, exert international pressure to stop Israel from just outlawing all Arab parties, post election observers to keep an eye out for intimidation and vote-rigging, and the rest will sort itself out. How do you handle ancient land claims on both sides? What do you do about settlers? What do you do with refugees? The answers I've heard on the latter are: They'll mostly choose to return to the West Bank and Gaza OR, they'll mostly return to depopulated villages, both versions of they'll voluntarily self-segregate. Or, a genuine belief that Israel is Algeria and all Jews will instantly leave. If it's the former, there needs to be a concrete policy proposal, not hand waiving. Because no one's actually tried to sit down with someone like Reuven Rivlin and actually tried to work this out, it's all baked into BDS which guarantees that Israel will never take it seriously. Literally they can't return to their homes if an airport is sitting on it, or Iraqi Jews and Russians were moved in. The two state solution is realistic because A) we have multiple examples of Israel withdrawing from territory, and we don't know what could have happened in the West Bank if Sharon lived, and even Netanyahu was in negotiations with Assad before the latter decided to commit genocide. And B), it's not getting rejected wholesale, the anti-two state forces keep barely winning. The only real apt comparison to South Africa (and the USA sadly) is that both Trump and the National Party were able to get into office as flukes without mandates and wreck societal norms in horrific ways, and Likud in 2009 is the same. (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST) (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2019 04:05
|
|
|
Viscardus posted:That's some cool sleight of hand right there. What "ancient" land claims do Palestinians have, exactly? Being forced out of your home in living memory is not quite the same as believing that you have a right to land based on a holy book or descent from people who lived there two thousand years ago. Do you view those as equivalent "ancient" claims? I meant pre-dating 1948. That was my fault for being sloppy with my wording, but I was more intending to cover the "absentee Ottoman landlords" issue. VitalSigns posted:Racism exists in other Western countries, therefore Jim Crow was fine Go ahead and mischaracterize as the complete opposite of what I said because you don't have an actual argument. quote:I support a two-state solution, oh but also if a settler blew up a Palestinian home 5 seconds ago they get to keep it and that land is part of Israel, oh weird Palestine isn't territorially viable as a country, nothing to be done! If you don't agree with my points, ignore them or argue them, don't mischaracterize them. Enough of this chapo bullshit of treating moderates like they're Hitler. This is the actual map I've said I support as the basis for a final settlement, although I'd go further than this and concede Ariel. Likud indeed does that. Israel as a whole does not. Main Paineframe posted:That's because it's a parliamentary system where power lies with the governing coalition, not the individual party with the most votes. Likud remains powerful in spite of their thin margins because there's a ton of small-to-medium far-right parties that soak up a lot of votes. But my point was about the coalitions. There are parties like Kulanu that are up for grabs with whoever gets the most votes. In terms of their core coalition blocs, Likud is not winning by gigantic margins. The problem with what you're saying is any plan not fleshed out would never be accepted by the Israeli public or the Knesset without guarantees on issues like that. Grape posted:Engaging endlessly with an extremely bad faith arguer is like stepping in dog poo poo and smearing it endlessly around your house. It accomplishes jack poo poo, and only gives further air to his rank rear end non-arguments. That is loving bullshit. Claiming that someone you disagree with is arguing in bad faith is a pathetic cop out. I care about this issue and that's why I post. if you want to read a site that exclusively gives one POV, they exist. I'm arguing for the position that's the overwhelmingly popular one in the US on this topic, and is the position of most western governments. Kim Jong Il fucked around with this message at 03:18 on Jan 14, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2019 03:08
|
|
|
http://www.yivoencyclopedia.org/article.aspx/Refuseniks https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-doctor-s-plot https://www.jta.org/2007/11/21/archive/the-soviet-jewry-campaign-transformed-american-jewry-too I think you take the question in good faith, but that question is vital to the conflict. This is loving bitter history for Jews, and is a part of a long, near-universal pattern of similar behavior with strong causal power to explain Israeli psychology. Both in terms of being overtly defensive, legitimately seeing everything as a threat, and in showing loyalty to the right wing politicians who fought for refuseniks. And yes, there's definitely similar dynamics at play on the Palestinian side in terms of internalizing trauma, and too many Israelis have tunnel vision about this and don't show appropriate levels of empathy. Main Paineframe posted:There's nothing "moderate" about a map like this, which not only maintains current borders but also annexes large chunks of land east of the separation barrier. It's a common fallacy in two-state proposals: treating the 1967 lines as a neutral, equal starting point (rather than the result of a unilateral seizure by one side, complete with ethnic cleansing) and then acting as though Israel annexing "just" a few more percent of the West Bank's populated territory is no big deal. It's been adopted by the west as their preferred policy, regardless of the merits. Fatah has multiple times, when it was no longer on the table, attempted to sign off on this and similar proposals. It's a heck of a lot better than the status quo and endless war. quote:Kulanu is a spin-off of Likud, run by a career Likudnik, whose stated policy on Palestine is essentially identical to Netanyahu's. And most of all, they've literally never joined a coalition that wasn't led by Likud. If they wanted the left to be in power, the left would already be in power - their ten seats are what put Bibi's coalition over the threshold. It's not identical, and they've only run in one Knesset. They wouldn't swing a coalition by themselves. You would also need some combination of Lieberman, the religious parties, or the elements of the Joint List who would conceivably join a government. Orange Devil posted:I don't think Ottoman landlords are an issue in 2019, actually. They are, because there were large swaths of land that technically were purchased, so whether or not their former residents get compensation or have a right to return could be a live issue. Kim Jong Il fucked around with this message at 04:21 on Jan 15, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2019 03:47
|
|
|
What a surprise that Hamas loves Likud and is trying hard to provoke them into a response and help them win an election, who possibly could have predicted this after it literally has happened multiple times before. I don't think that it'll escalate beyond where it is at this level, but if it does, it'll be a bombing campaign, not a ground invasion. Netanyahu doesn't want dead soldiers before an election.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2019 02:26
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 09:06 |
|
|
Gonzo McFee posted:This is certainly a take. "Ah the IRA love the Tories because more oppression means more uptake at the meetings and they can afford a better selection of snacks with increased membership." Do you really think they give a poo poo about anything but maintaining power? And the same for Likud. As right wing ethnonationalist parties, it's in their best interest to demonize the other side and "prove" to civilians that only their warmongering can protect them. 1996 is the best example of this, but Hamas's tunnels came to light right around the time Olmert was on his last legs. The prospect of anyone but right wingers running the show seems to be a terrifying thought.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2019 00:31
|
|