|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
United States43739 Posts
On December 07 2017 02:13 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2017 02:01 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On December 07 2017 00:51 Mohdoo wrote:On December 07 2017 00:44 ticklishmusic wrote:On December 07 2017 00:35 zlefin wrote:On December 07 2017 00:17 ticklishmusic wrote:On December 06 2017 16:30 KwarK wrote:On December 06 2017 16:18 Wegandi wrote:On December 06 2017 16:06 KwarK wrote:On December 06 2017 15:21 mozoku wrote:
I'm generally somewhat pro-Israel but I don't see how the US unilaterally settling a dispute helps anything here. I could be persuaded though. I'm not ultra-informed on Israel-Palestine. It doesn't. Israel is built on top of Palestine and is currently in the process of ethnic cleansing, albeit slowly through forceful displacement with bulldozers and armed escorts for settlements, rather than the usual mass graves method. The Palestinians engaged in an asymmetrical guerrilla response leading to escalation by both sides and generally bad shit. The US, as the global hegemon and the only country with any leverage over Israel at all (due to the huge annual cash payments that the US makes for some reason), was tasked with brokering some kind of peace deal between the two sides and to give the appearance of fairness deliberately avoided acknowledging de facto Israel control over Jerusalem. Doing so helped maintain the commitment to a peaceful resolution to the situation. There's absolutely no upside to breaking that. It doesn't materially impact what's actually happening out there in any way. Nothing is improved for anyone. All it does is lets the world know that the US is not interested in a good faith negotiation between the two sides. The situation for Israel isn't improved because the US was already not especially interested in good faith negotiations, but now there is really no reason for Palestinians to come to the table either. It's the senseless smashing of a US brokered truce and I'm pretty certain that some kind of Arab backlash is Trump's intended result. He wants to cry "look how much they hate us" so he's out to drum up some hate. As with everything else Trump touches there's a damn good reason things were the way they were and it's not because everyone running the country pre-2017 was an idiot. The US has a great many carefully planned and calculated policy positions which should not be overturned based upon to the whims of whatever tweets he happens to be exposed to. The US has been trying to "broker" this peace for how long now? 30+ years. It takes a lot of hubris and wishful thinking to believe the same thing we've been doing for decades has a decent shot at working. Fact is, the conditions aren't that different than the late 80s early 90s. The area has traded PLO for Hamas, and the situation in Iraq has destabilized the region. Pretending that the stance that Tel Aviv is the capital and not Jerusalem is going to broker peace is pure folly. You can make the argument that we've went from .5% to 0%, but honestly, this is blowing smoke. Also, for the record, I think the US should have nothing to do in the region. All we've done is created more danger for ourselves, lost treasure and blood, and for what? Because Israel is a "democracy"? Lol. Please. Give me my tax-money back and the thousands of American's lives lost for "hegemony" and Empire. 1) It's not been trying especially hard to broker the peace. 2) Even had it been 30 years of trying hard to broker peace I still don't see why giving up on peace is desirable. 3) The illusion had value. Words matter. 4) The argument that negotiation has failed so provocation is the obvious new strategy doesn't seem valid. I'd look at it almost as saying "okay our current approach isn't working so we need to do try something different". The status quo is that the situation will just keep sliding downhill bit by bit - there will be repeated flare-ups which result in a few hundred more dead, a few thousand more displaced and the West Bank/ Gaza Strip getting even shittier than they were before. We can keep hoping that while we keep things in a delicate balance that only occasionally slips we can find the perfect solution, but that's what we've been doing for the last couple decades. It's sort of looking like we're clinging to a false hope. The solution that everyone wants died with Yitzhak Rabin. Maybe Palestine needs a bit of a kick in the ass, and a symbolic recognition of Jerusalem is that. Their negotiating position about what they want as part of a two state solution might be right, but there's no way Israel is going to give it to them. The US will never really strongarm Israel either. Maybe the Palestinians will, for now, have to accept a little less. if that were the actual case made, i'd be willing to consider it; but that's not the case being made. also, trying something different that still won't work isn't really a plan. it's just inflaming things for no gain. i'ts been clear for ages that palestine is demanding things they will never be able to get; they're understandably unwilling to accept less. pressure will not change that, especially not a midl inflammatory thing like this which doesn't actually change the situation on the ground much at all. a tiny "kick in the ass" like this is nothing compared to what else has happened there, so it won't chnage anything. Trump is a blithering idiot and Kushner probably couldn't make peace between two girls in middle school. That doesn't change the fact that what we're doing in the Middle East, especially Israel and Palestine, just isn't working. Palestine is in a shit situation, and it doesn't matter what moral, ethical or legal claim or case they have to what they demand, they will need to concede and take less because they've got a 2 7 offsuit and Israel has pocket aces. Good way to put it. I deeply support Israel in this rare instance simply because Palestinians are being ridiculous by not gg'ing out. They are just floating CC's and hoping Israel disconnects. We need to move on at some point. I think the ethical thing would be for Palestinians to have the land, but I think the correct decision is to give it all to Israel. They're being ridiculous by not giving up their homes and livelihoods and all guarantees they've had in the world because some settler colonialists with more guns decided they want their land... I've seen it all now. I can't imagine an opinion actually throwing me off guard again, once I've recovered from that. Lol. Explain some non-disney-princess scenario where Palestine wins this dispute.
I don't accept the argument that a people facing ethnic cleansing should accept ethnic cleansing as the new baseline and come up with an optimal solution based on finding the right amount of ethnic cleansing to accept going forwards. A two state solution should still be achievable if the world wants it.
|
I think Franken stepping down is a dumb move. Cons don't give a shit they havr shown they would vote for a literal child rapist than a democrat, they are too far gone. Trying to play nice vs them doesn't work. Democrats need to fight back dirty, and wait for the baby boomers that are still voting to die off so the con demographic shrinks, since it's obvious none of them can be made to see reason.
|
No one supports ethnic cleansing here or any degree of it, or says that it's a baseline. There's a lot of intermediates between what Palestine is asking for and that. They can take less land, accept a Israeli security presence, do a weird joint-hybrid state with guaranteed legislative representation or a bajillion other things. They just need to accept regardless of whatever their case may be they aren't going to get what they are asking for today.
|
On December 07 2017 02:18 hunts wrote:
I think Franken stepping down is a dumb move. Cons don't give a shit they havr shown they would vote for a literal child rapist than a democrat, they are too far gone. Trying to play nice vs them doesn't work. Democrats need to fight back dirty, and wait for the baby boomers that are still voting to die off so the con demographic shrinks, since it's obvious none of them can be made to see reason.
It is a dumb move if you want a 100% guaranteed Minnesota Senate seat. It is a smart move if you want to win other ones though
|
On December 07 2017 02:22 ticklishmusic wrote:
No one supports ethnic cleansing here or any degree of it, or says that it's a baseline. There's a lot of intermediates between what Palestine is asking for and that. They can take less land, accept a Israeli security presence, do a weird joint-hybrid state with guaranteed legislative representation or a bajillion other things. They just need to accept regardless of whatever their case may be they aren't going to get what they are asking for today.
I think you don't understand what ethnic cleansing means. Mohdoo is certainly advocating for the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people.
What you're describing is to what degree of ethnic cleansing you may be supportive of.
|
10 senators
plus Tom Perez
|
It’s a pretty easy case of taking the high ground when the opponents have (mostly) vacated it.
Also, “Democrats need to fight back dirty,” by supporting a sexual harasser against a molestor of young teenagers is bringing whole new depths to that term. It’s like the Moore logic crew took over some Democrats too.
|
|
|
We get it, we don't need NBC's timeline here.
|
"Ethnic cleansing" in this case means a drastically increased quality of life. The only thing they lose is the symbolism of some shitty land because their dumbass book says it belongs to them. It would be a huge improvement to Palestinian livelihood to live in a hospitable home.
I feel like on one hand, people make a huge fuss over the quality of life of Palestinians. Destroyed hospitals, schools, kids getting shot. But try to bring them somewhere away from all that violence, persecution and torment and you're hitler.
You guys aren't focusing enough on why Palestinians want to stay there. They could have a better life somewhere else but don't want to "because it's mine". Same shit for Israel, which is why I would wave my wand and relocate them all in the US. But that isn't happening.
|
On December 07 2017 02:26 GreenHorizons wrote:We get it, we don't need NBC's timeline here.
The perez thing is important but why not link to perez's twitter? For that matter, why didn't nbc just retweet lol
|
On December 07 2017 02:25 Danglars wrote:
It’s a pretty easy case of taking the high ground when the opponents have (mostly) vacated it.
Also, “Democrats need to fight back dirty,” by supporting a sexual harasser against a molestor of young teenagers is bringing whole new depths to that term. It’s like the Moore logic crew took over some Democrats too.
Trump is doing what he's done best this whole time, expose the ethically/morally bankrupt nature of virtually everyone in DC.
|
On December 07 2017 02:13 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2017 02:01 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On December 07 2017 00:51 Mohdoo wrote:On December 07 2017 00:44 ticklishmusic wrote:On December 07 2017 00:35 zlefin wrote:On December 07 2017 00:17 ticklishmusic wrote:On December 06 2017 16:30 KwarK wrote:On December 06 2017 16:18 Wegandi wrote:On December 06 2017 16:06 KwarK wrote:On December 06 2017 15:21 mozoku wrote:
I'm generally somewhat pro-Israel but I don't see how the US unilaterally settling a dispute helps anything here. I could be persuaded though. I'm not ultra-informed on Israel-Palestine. It doesn't. Israel is built on top of Palestine and is currently in the process of ethnic cleansing, albeit slowly through forceful displacement with bulldozers and armed escorts for settlements, rather than the usual mass graves method. The Palestinians engaged in an asymmetrical guerrilla response leading to escalation by both sides and generally bad shit. The US, as the global hegemon and the only country with any leverage over Israel at all (due to the huge annual cash payments that the US makes for some reason), was tasked with brokering some kind of peace deal between the two sides and to give the appearance of fairness deliberately avoided acknowledging de facto Israel control over Jerusalem. Doing so helped maintain the commitment to a peaceful resolution to the situation. There's absolutely no upside to breaking that. It doesn't materially impact what's actually happening out there in any way. Nothing is improved for anyone. All it does is lets the world know that the US is not interested in a good faith negotiation between the two sides. The situation for Israel isn't improved because the US was already not especially interested in good faith negotiations, but now there is really no reason for Palestinians to come to the table either. It's the senseless smashing of a US brokered truce and I'm pretty certain that some kind of Arab backlash is Trump's intended result. He wants to cry "look how much they hate us" so he's out to drum up some hate. As with everything else Trump touches there's a damn good reason things were the way they were and it's not because everyone running the country pre-2017 was an idiot. The US has a great many carefully planned and calculated policy positions which should not be overturned based upon to the whims of whatever tweets he happens to be exposed to. The US has been trying to "broker" this peace for how long now? 30+ years. It takes a lot of hubris and wishful thinking to believe the same thing we've been doing for decades has a decent shot at working. Fact is, the conditions aren't that different than the late 80s early 90s. The area has traded PLO for Hamas, and the situation in Iraq has destabilized the region. Pretending that the stance that Tel Aviv is the capital and not Jerusalem is going to broker peace is pure folly. You can make the argument that we've went from .5% to 0%, but honestly, this is blowing smoke. Also, for the record, I think the US should have nothing to do in the region. All we've done is created more danger for ourselves, lost treasure and blood, and for what? Because Israel is a "democracy"? Lol. Please. Give me my tax-money back and the thousands of American's lives lost for "hegemony" and Empire. 1) It's not been trying especially hard to broker the peace. 2) Even had it been 30 years of trying hard to broker peace I still don't see why giving up on peace is desirable. 3) The illusion had value. Words matter. 4) The argument that negotiation has failed so provocation is the obvious new strategy doesn't seem valid. I'd look at it almost as saying "okay our current approach isn't working so we need to do try something different". The status quo is that the situation will just keep sliding downhill bit by bit - there will be repeated flare-ups which result in a few hundred more dead, a few thousand more displaced and the West Bank/ Gaza Strip getting even shittier than they were before. We can keep hoping that while we keep things in a delicate balance that only occasionally slips we can find the perfect solution, but that's what we've been doing for the last couple decades. It's sort of looking like we're clinging to a false hope. The solution that everyone wants died with Yitzhak Rabin. Maybe Palestine needs a bit of a kick in the ass, and a symbolic recognition of Jerusalem is that. Their negotiating position about what they want as part of a two state solution might be right, but there's no way Israel is going to give it to them. The US will never really strongarm Israel either. Maybe the Palestinians will, for now, have to accept a little less. if that were the actual case made, i'd be willing to consider it; but that's not the case being made. also, trying something different that still won't work isn't really a plan. it's just inflaming things for no gain. i'ts been clear for ages that palestine is demanding things they will never be able to get; they're understandably unwilling to accept less. pressure will not change that, especially not a midl inflammatory thing like this which doesn't actually change the situation on the ground much at all. a tiny "kick in the ass" like this is nothing compared to what else has happened there, so it won't chnage anything. Trump is a blithering idiot and Kushner probably couldn't make peace between two girls in middle school. That doesn't change the fact that what we're doing in the Middle East, especially Israel and Palestine, just isn't working. Palestine is in a shit situation, and it doesn't matter what moral, ethical or legal claim or case they have to what they demand, they will need to concede and take less because they've got a 2 7 offsuit and Israel has pocket aces. Good way to put it. I deeply support Israel in this rare instance simply because Palestinians are being ridiculous by not gg'ing out. They are just floating CC's and hoping Israel disconnects. We need to move on at some point. I think the ethical thing would be for Palestinians to have the land, but I think the correct decision is to give it all to Israel. They're being ridiculous by not giving up their homes and livelihoods and all guarantees they've had in the world because some settler colonialists with more guns decided they want their land... I've seen it all now. I can't imagine an opinion actually throwing me off guard again, once I've recovered from that. Lol. Explain some non-disney-princess scenario where Palestine wins this dispute.
I mean they can't realistically just "gg out" either, can they? Where would they go? Like someone said, imagine someone invading the US, they've landed in Florida, Florida is donzo for good and people who lived there have to relocate to somewhere else in the US because Florida now isn't part of the US anymore. Just that it doesn't stop with Florida and soon it's the entire east coast and continuing.
That's the whole reason about why it's so difficult. I myself probably wouldn't defend my own country with my life either. I'd take family and hope I can make a new life somewhere else for their sake (not that I'm married/have kids yet but that's what I think I'd do).
But there are a lot of people who would defend their nation with their life and I can understand that. Just telling them to give up isn't going to work.
How do you differentiate between when to fight for your country and when not?
Some people in Germany and abroad tend to mock male refugees, even when they're legit from warzones (not even talking about people just trying to get a better life). In that case it's suddenly
"Man, those cowards should stay in their country and fight for it! Fight ISIS so you can keep your country like we [our ancestors] did a couple decades ago! Be a man!"
or some other bullshit like that. Why do we encourage those people to fight for their country but tell others that they should give up on theirs and just start a new life in another country that takes them in?
|
On December 07 2017 02:27 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2017 02:13 Mohdoo wrote:On December 07 2017 02:01 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On December 07 2017 00:51 Mohdoo wrote:On December 07 2017 00:44 ticklishmusic wrote:On December 07 2017 00:35 zlefin wrote:On December 07 2017 00:17 ticklishmusic wrote:On December 06 2017 16:30 KwarK wrote:On December 06 2017 16:18 Wegandi wrote:On December 06 2017 16:06 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
It doesn't.
Israel is built on top of Palestine and is currently in the process of ethnic cleansing, albeit slowly through forceful displacement with bulldozers and armed escorts for settlements, rather than the usual mass graves method.
The Palestinians engaged in an asymmetrical guerrilla response leading to escalation by both sides and generally bad shit.
The US, as the global hegemon and the only country with any leverage over Israel at all (due to the huge annual cash payments that the US makes for some reason), was tasked with brokering some kind of peace deal between the two sides and to give the appearance of fairness deliberately avoided acknowledging de facto Israel control over Jerusalem. Doing so helped maintain the commitment to a peaceful resolution to the situation.
There's absolutely no upside to breaking that. It doesn't materially impact what's actually happening out there in any way. Nothing is improved for anyone. All it does is lets the world know that the US is not interested in a good faith negotiation between the two sides. The situation for Israel isn't improved because the US was already not especially interested in good faith negotiations, but now there is really no reason for Palestinians to come to the table either.
It's the senseless smashing of a US brokered truce and I'm pretty certain that some kind of Arab backlash is Trump's intended result. He wants to cry "look how much they hate us" so he's out to drum up some hate.
As with everything else Trump touches there's a damn good reason things were the way they were and it's not because everyone running the country pre-2017 was an idiot. The US has a great many carefully planned and calculated policy positions which should not be overturned based upon to the whims of whatever tweets he happens to be exposed to. The US has been trying to "broker" this peace for how long now? 30+ years. It takes a lot of hubris and wishful thinking to believe the same thing we've been doing for decades has a decent shot at working. Fact is, the conditions aren't that different than the late 80s early 90s. The area has traded PLO for Hamas, and the situation in Iraq has destabilized the region. Pretending that the stance that Tel Aviv is the capital and not Jerusalem is going to broker peace is pure folly. You can make the argument that we've went from .5% to 0%, but honestly, this is blowing smoke. Also, for the record, I think the US should have nothing to do in the region. All we've done is created more danger for ourselves, lost treasure and blood, and for what? Because Israel is a "democracy"? Lol. Please. Give me my tax-money back and the thousands of American's lives lost for "hegemony" and Empire. 1) It's not been trying especially hard to broker the peace. 2) Even had it been 30 years of trying hard to broker peace I still don't see why giving up on peace is desirable. 3) The illusion had value. Words matter. 4) The argument that negotiation has failed so provocation is the obvious new strategy doesn't seem valid. I'd look at it almost as saying "okay our current approach isn't working so we need to do try something different". The status quo is that the situation will just keep sliding downhill bit by bit - there will be repeated flare-ups which result in a few hundred more dead, a few thousand more displaced and the West Bank/ Gaza Strip getting even shittier than they were before. We can keep hoping that while we keep things in a delicate balance that only occasionally slips we can find the perfect solution, but that's what we've been doing for the last couple decades. It's sort of looking like we're clinging to a false hope. The solution that everyone wants died with Yitzhak Rabin. Maybe Palestine needs a bit of a kick in the ass, and a symbolic recognition of Jerusalem is that. Their negotiating position about what they want as part of a two state solution might be right, but there's no way Israel is going to give it to them. The US will never really strongarm Israel either. Maybe the Palestinians will, for now, have to accept a little less. if that were the actual case made, i'd be willing to consider it; but that's not the case being made. also, trying something different that still won't work isn't really a plan. it's just inflaming things for no gain. i'ts been clear for ages that palestine is demanding things they will never be able to get; they're understandably unwilling to accept less. pressure will not change that, especially not a midl inflammatory thing like this which doesn't actually change the situation on the ground much at all. a tiny "kick in the ass" like this is nothing compared to what else has happened there, so it won't chnage anything. Trump is a blithering idiot and Kushner probably couldn't make peace between two girls in middle school. That doesn't change the fact that what we're doing in the Middle East, especially Israel and Palestine, just isn't working. Palestine is in a shit situation, and it doesn't matter what moral, ethical or legal claim or case they have to what they demand, they will need to concede and take less because they've got a 2 7 offsuit and Israel has pocket aces. Good way to put it. I deeply support Israel in this rare instance simply because Palestinians are being ridiculous by not gg'ing out. They are just floating CC's and hoping Israel disconnects. We need to move on at some point. I think the ethical thing would be for Palestinians to have the land, but I think the correct decision is to give it all to Israel. They're being ridiculous by not giving up their homes and livelihoods and all guarantees they've had in the world because some settler colonialists with more guns decided they want their land... I've seen it all now. I can't imagine an opinion actually throwing me off guard again, once I've recovered from that. Lol. Explain some non-disney-princess scenario where Palestine wins this dispute. I mean they can't realistically just "gg out" either, can they? Where would they go? Like someone said, imagine someone invading the US, they've landed in Florida, Florida is donzo for good and people who lived there have to relocate to somewhere else in the US because Florida now isn't part of the US anymore. Just that it doesn't stop with Florida and soon it's the entire east coast and continuing. That's the whole reason about why it's so difficult. I myself probably wouldn't defend my own country with my life either. I'd take family and hope I can make a new life somewhere else for their sake (not that I'm married/have kids yet but that's what I think I'd do). But there are a lot of people who would defend their nation with their life and I can understand that. Just telling them to give up isn't going to work. How do you differentiate between when to fight for your country and when not? Some people in Germany and abroad tend to mock male refugees, even when they're legit from warzones (not even talking about people just trying to get a better life). In that case it's suddenly "Man, those cowards should stay in their country and fight for it! Fight ISIS so you can keep your country like we [our ancestors] did a couple decades ago! Be a man!"or some other bullshit like that. Why do we encourage those people to fight for their country but tell others that they should give up on theirs and just start a new life in another country that takes them in?
You could totally give them a hundred miles or so of alaska or montana and I'm not sure anyone would notice
|
On December 07 2017 02:27 Mohdoo wrote:
"Ethnic cleansing" in this case means a drastically increased quality of life. The only thing they lose is the symbolism of some shitty land because their dumbass book says it belongs to them. It would be a huge improvement to Palestinian livelihood to live in a hospitable home.
I feel like on one hand, people make a huge fuss over the quality of life of Palestinians. Destroyed hospitals, schools, kids getting shot. But try to bring them somewhere away from all that violence, persecution and torment and you're hitler.
You guys aren't focusing enough on why Palestinians want to stay there. They could have a better life somewhere else but don't want to "because it's mine".
Ethnic cleansing means ethnic cleansing in this case.
Remind me again how it went from theirs, to "tough shit, Jews own this now and you can't stay/have self-determination"?
|
United States43739 Posts
On December 07 2017 02:27 Mohdoo wrote:
"Ethnic cleansing" in this case means a drastically increased quality of life. The only thing they lose is the symbolism of some shitty land because their dumbass book says it belongs to them. It would be a huge improvement to Palestinian livelihood to live in a hospitable home.
I feel like on one hand, people make a huge fuss over the quality of life of Palestinians. Destroyed hospitals, schools, kids getting shot. But try to bring them somewhere away from all that violence, persecution and torment and you're hitler.
You guys aren't focusing enough on why Palestinians want to stay there. They could have a better life somewhere else but don't want to "because it's mine".
The people with the book that says it's theirs are the Israelis. The ethnicity that lives there are the Palestinians. But it's made far more complicated now because this all happened four generations ago so now both sides were born there.
What you're advocating for is essentially the Madagascar Plan, rationalizing it as better than the concentration camps. You're not wrong that it would have been better, but that doesn't mean we should accept it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madagascar_Plan
|
On December 07 2017 02:28 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2017 02:27 Mohdoo wrote:
"Ethnic cleansing" in this case means a drastically increased quality of life. The only thing they lose is the symbolism of some shitty land because their dumbass book says it belongs to them. It would be a huge improvement to Palestinian livelihood to live in a hospitable home.
I feel like on one hand, people make a huge fuss over the quality of life of Palestinians. Destroyed hospitals, schools, kids getting shot. But try to bring them somewhere away from all that violence, persecution and torment and you're hitler.
You guys aren't focusing enough on why Palestinians want to stay there. They could have a better life somewhere else but don't want to "because it's mine". Remind me again how it went from theirs, to "tough shit, Jews own this now"?
Same way the US came to exist. Someone drastically more powerful decided it to be so. There's no divine power that swoops in to be like "hey man, not cool". It is hilarious how you guys actually think Palestine would ever win this. Beyond ridiculous. Watch less Disney movies.
On December 07 2017 02:31 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2017 02:27 Mohdoo wrote:
"Ethnic cleansing" in this case means a drastically increased quality of life. The only thing they lose is the symbolism of some shitty land because their dumbass book says it belongs to them. It would be a huge improvement to Palestinian livelihood to live in a hospitable home.
I feel like on one hand, people make a huge fuss over the quality of life of Palestinians. Destroyed hospitals, schools, kids getting shot. But try to bring them somewhere away from all that violence, persecution and torment and you're hitler.
You guys aren't focusing enough on why Palestinians want to stay there. They could have a better life somewhere else but don't want to "because it's mine". The people with the book that says it's theirs are the Israelis. The ethnicity that lives there are the Palestinians. But it's made far more complicated now because this all happened four generations ago so now both sides were born there. What you're advocating for is essentially the Madagascar Plan, rationalizing it as better than the concentration camps. You're not wrong that it would have been better, but that doesn't mean we should accept it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madagascar_Plan
You're saying we shouldn't accept the idea of improving the lives of Palestinians? Both of their books say they should be there. They are both retarded. Israel holds every card and has no chance of ever losing. You are too focused on "what is fair" to the point where you aren't realizing your idea has a 0% chance of ever happening.
|
On December 07 2017 02:25 Danglars wrote:
It’s a pretty easy case of taking the high ground when the opponents have (mostly) vacated it.
Also, “Democrats need to fight back dirty,” by supporting a sexual harasser against a molestor of young teenagers is bringing whole new depths to that term. It’s like the Moore logic crew took over some Democrats too.
But what is the benefit? Not a single con will refuse to vote for Moore simply because he is a pedophile. Not a single con will change sides just because they see one side doesn't tolerate sexual assault or pedophilia. Will democrats stop voting if they see their side trying to be as dirty as the cons? I guess the issue really is that a lot of democrat voters get whiny and refuse to vote when thr parry isn't perfect, meanwhile the cons always vote for their "person" even when they are a pedophile or rapist.
|
On December 07 2017 02:31 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2017 02:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 07 2017 02:27 Mohdoo wrote:
"Ethnic cleansing" in this case means a drastically increased quality of life. The only thing they lose is the symbolism of some shitty land because their dumbass book says it belongs to them. It would be a huge improvement to Palestinian livelihood to live in a hospitable home.
I feel like on one hand, people make a huge fuss over the quality of life of Palestinians. Destroyed hospitals, schools, kids getting shot. But try to bring them somewhere away from all that violence, persecution and torment and you're hitler.
You guys aren't focusing enough on why Palestinians want to stay there. They could have a better life somewhere else but don't want to "because it's mine". Remind me again how it went from theirs, to "tough shit, Jews own this now"? Same way the US came to exist. Someone drastically more powerful decided it to be so. There's no divine power that swoops in to be like "hey man, not cool". It is hilarious how you guys actually think Palestine would ever win this. Beyond ridiculous. Watch less Disney movies.
It's not "Palestine is almost gunna win guyz!" It's the US has funded the ethnic cleansing of a people through Israel and that's fucked up. You acting as if we're the crazy ones genuinely disturbs me.
|
On December 07 2017 02:32 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2017 02:25 Danglars wrote:
It’s a pretty easy case of taking the high ground when the opponents have (mostly) vacated it.
Also, “Democrats need to fight back dirty,” by supporting a sexual harasser against a molestor of young teenagers is bringing whole new depths to that term. It’s like the Moore logic crew took over some Democrats too. But what is the benefit? Not a single con will refuse to vote for Moore simply because he is a pedophile. Not a single con will change sides just because they see one side doesn't tolerate sexual assault or pedophilia. Will democrats stop voting if they see their side trying to be as dirty as the cons? I guess the issue really is that a lot of democrat voters get whiny and refuse to vote when thr parry isn't perfect, meanwhile the cons always vote for their "person" even when they are a pedophile or rapist.
You're definitely overstating it. At least 19% of alabama GOP think the charges are real. I know, that's low, but it's not "no one"
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
