|
Canada11607 Posts
How a genocide? Or is Israel really bad at it? British Mandate in the 1920's population 600,000 Palestinians. 1948, 1.2 million. Modern era? Some 6 Million in the West Bank, Gaza and within Israel itself. Yes there is a high death count and it is terrible- largely because Hamas continues to use civilian facilities for military operations. But is there a systematic rounding up and elimination of Palestinians? I don't think so. Or you'd think they'd round up the ones in their Parliament first. Seems like an easy catch if they were serious.
I really don't think Israel giving up their one sovereign country is an option. One of the big take away lessons from that era was that you can't really trust other people to look out for Jews. German Jews had integrated as much as they ever had and it wasn't enough. Another take away: if you can't control your own borders, you'll find yourself locked out when you try to flee the next time someone goes after the Jews. And why not Palestine? Do you recognize the modern Israelis as descendants of the diaspora Jews from the time of Titus and before? I liken it to if European settlers had chased out most of the indigenous peoples in North America and into Europe. Then some centuries later, they flee Europe. Where would they go? Asia? I think not. They'd return to their ancestral home- even if we locked them up in Newfoundland (like what was done to Holocaust survivors in Cyprus- 50,000 Jews they locked up, and yet still the Jews continued to return.)
No, there will be no serious relocation to America or Europe (go back to Germany? I doubt it). Not without force, and then perhaps it would require genocide. But in any event, it's not true co-existence to say it will be all good if one people group is on an entirely different continent because then whatever violence occurs will be irrelevant. That's not co-existence in any meaningful sense of the word because there is no 'co' in there. Just separate existences on separate continents.
"Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it."
|
Yeah if you look at it from the point of view of the oppressors who are keeping 4 million+ people in prison then its easy to find justifications for their horrific acts of violence by saying its not as violent as it could be, but blaming Hamas? No thanks.
No-one forces the IDF to murder innocent unarmed Palestinians deliberately and without caution, they choose to do this. Its not a result of Hamas using civilian structures for their military when unarmed Palestinians are gunned down by snipers. That's just bloodthirsty soldiers getting the backing of their government, and Western governments, to do whatever they want.
International governments are going to have to step up at some point and actually take action against Israel and their illegal use of force, their horrifying abuse of power, their flagrant breaking of international political laws, humans rights conventions etc. etc.
Or we could just blame Hamas I suppose its much easier then we can wash our hands of whatever disgusting crimes are committed.
|
On November 27 2018 20:14 Falling wrote:
How a genocide? Or is Israel really bad at it? British Mandate in the 1920's population 600,000 Palestinians. 1948, 1.2 million. Modern era? Some 6 Million in the West Bank, Gaza and within Israel itself. Yes there is a high death count and it is terrible- largely because Hamas continues to use civilian facilities for military operations. But is there a systematic rounding up and elimination of Palestinians? I don't think so. Or you'd think they'd round up the ones in their Parliament first. Seems like an easy catch if they were serious.
I really don't think Israel giving up their one sovereign country is an option. One of the big take away lessons from that era was that you can't really trust other people to look out for Jews. German Jews had integrated as much as they ever had and it wasn't enough. Another take away: if you can't control your own borders, you'll find yourself locked out when you try to flee the next time someone goes after the Jews. And why not Palestine? Do you recognize the modern Israelis as descendants of the diaspora Jews from the time of Titus and before? I liken it to if European settlers had chased out most of the indigenous peoples in North America and into Europe. Then some centuries later, they flee Europe. Where would they go? Asia? I think not. They'd return to their ancestral home- even if we locked them up in Newfoundland (like what was done to Holocaust survivors in Cyprus- 50,000 Jews they locked up, and yet still the Jews continued to return.)
No, there will be no serious relocation to America or Europe (go back to Germany? I doubt it). Not without force, and then perhaps it would require genocide. But in any event, it's not true co-existence to say it will be all good if one people group is on an entirely different continent because then whatever violence occurs will be irrelevant. That's not co-existence in any meaningful sense of the word because there is no 'co' in there. Just separate existences on separate continents.
"Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it."
Using vague population numbers I could probably make a similar argument about people blowing the Holocaust out of proportion. I think both are wrong. As I said before it's essentially a might makes right argument that Israel can brutalize Palestinians and we'll sponsor it because they would be doing it if we hadn't initially supported their occupation post WWII anyway.
Relocating Israel is by far more humane than the checkpoints and endless violence. It's a matter of Israel and the rest of the west preferring having a proxy military in the middle east to not supporting the systemic elimination of Palestine and the people in it.
Yes they are going as far as you can go (and push it pretty regularly) before it's undeniable to the world that they are in fact intentionally committing genocide and to stop accepting the argument that the systemic enclosure, denial of rights and resources, and atrocious violence isn't blurring the line between ethnic cleansing and genocide so that it's essentially just a euphemism that Israel and it's supporters prefer to call "security".
|
Have you given thought to where those people would go, if resettled, though? Cutting out all other concerns, let's assume everything goes right and the Israelis or Palestinians are ready to leave. Where then do they get resettled?
|
On November 28 2018 00:42 iamthedave wrote:
Have you given thought to where those people would go, if resettled, though? Cutting out all other concerns, let's assume everything goes right and the Israelis or Palestinians are ready to leave. Where then do they get resettled?
Surely the people/nations saying Palestinians should coexist with them couldn't possibly turn Israelis away?
|
On November 28 2018 00:42 iamthedave wrote:
Have you given thought to where those people would go, if resettled, though? Cutting out all other concerns, let's assume everything goes right and the Israelis or Palestinians are ready to leave. Where then do they get resettled?
This is the question that puts the lie to advocates for open borders and other unrealistic immigration policies.
|
While we're nowhere near cracking down on Saudi Arabia this is a step in the right direction and emphasizes why Pelosi shouldn't be leader for the single reason I mentioned before, Only Barbara Lee can maybe be trusted not to bring such a reauthorization to the floor.
More than 50 prominent figures and former officials have signed a letter urging Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and his colleagues to end America’s involvement in the Saudi-led war in Yemen.
The signatories — including two former US ambassadors to Yemen, leading legal scholars, top Saudi Arabia experts, a Nobel Peace Laureate, a former key aide for Secretary of State Colin Powell, and MIT linguist Noam Chomsky — want McConnell and other senators to support a bill that could forever remove US troops from the Yemen war, which will likely be put to a vote on Wednesday.
“[D]irecting the President to halt all offensive activities alongside Saudi Arabia against the Houthis unless such actions are first approved by Congress ... would spell the likely end to the broader conflict,” reads a copy of the letter obtained by Vox, which is due to be delivered to Senate leadership on Tuesday.
The lead authors of the letter, legal experts Bruce Ackerman and Laurence Tribe and former US ambassadors to Yemen Barbara Bodine and Stephen Seche, argue that Trump’s support for the war is unauthorized by Congress and therefore illegal. Ackerman and Tribe advise the Congressional Progressive Caucus which has pushed the Senate and House hard to end America’s role in the Yemen war.
They support a bill co-sponsored by Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Mike Lee (R-UT), and Chris Murphy (D-CT) that would force President Donald Trump to stop backing Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and other coalition members in their fight against the Houthi rebels within 30 days. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), the top Democrat in the chamber, is facing pressure from activists like MoveOn to co-sponsor the bill.
If Trump wants to recommit troops to the war, he would then have to seek authorization from Congress to do so. The US helps the Saudi-led coalition by providing them with intelligence, selling them arms and ammunition, and until recently fueling planes in the conflict that has left tens of thousands dead, and millions more suffering from starvation and disease.
www.vox.com
lol looks like wiki is calling out the Guardian saying their report is bullshit, maybe they just have money to burn or have been taking tips from Trump.
EDIT: I just noticed the part about heads, lol. Something about this feels like it's blowing up on Mueller in a way he didn't expect.
Well, that didn't take long for the Guardian to start walking that back.
|
Wow... Someone is frantically trying to fix up that article after wiki called them out.
Considering they added wiki's response I think it's fair to say they didn't reach out for comment before running with their anonymous sources.
|
It looks like they’re messing up their basics. You have to get comment on something like a denial or confirmation. The trouble with only anonymous sourcing is the reader can’t make the evaluation to trustworthiness, and determine how likely the sources coordinated.
|
If you recall, the judge in the Manafort trial had previously called out Mueller's team for pressuring witnesses "to compose" instead of just "sing." We've now seen a few instances of Mueller's team allegedly doing just that. Papadopoulos has accused them of it. Corsi did over the weekend. And now it seems like Mueller has been caught trying to push Manafort into the same corner.
|
On November 28 2018 00:55 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2018 00:42 iamthedave wrote:
Have you given thought to where those people would go, if resettled, though? Cutting out all other concerns, let's assume everything goes right and the Israelis or Palestinians are ready to leave. Where then do they get resettled? This is the question that puts the lie to advocates for open borders and other unrealistic immigration policies.
I've never heard an actual politician anywhere say they want open borders, and very few actual living people. I'm not convinced this is a position anyone actually holds. Especially not in the US.
Unless you can think of a politician to quote who's said the opposite? Maybe one of the more extreme Democrats I wouldn't have heard of?
|
Just seeing more clear reports that the intelligence document that purports to put Manfort at the embassy (NOT meeting with Assange) is from 2013, not the alleged visit in question.
The newspaper also reported that an internal document written by Ecuador's intelligence agency and seen by The Guardian contains Manafort's name on a list of "well-known" guests at the embassy in 2013. The list, according to the newspaper, also mentions "Russians."
www.nbc26.com
Looks like it's going to be a he said an anonymous person said and embassy records don't line up.with the anonymous sources version regarding a 2016 meeting. It doesn't seem like there's going to be any smoking gun video or pictures despite the embassy being under constant scrutiny.
Maybe Mueller is just trying to feed some rope to get someone to hang themselves but this feels like he got thrown off a little by Manafort not saying what he expected.
EDIT: I've heard wild speculation that Mueller was counting on Manafort to say he met with Assange to bring the sealed indictment that got partially leaked the other week and now that whole thing is toast. I don't understand the nuance enough to know if that even makes sense legally but it would be one potential way to make sense of this most recent drama.
|
There's no apparent connection between this Guardian report and recent developments with Mueller. Any claim to the contrary is simply an assumption.
|
On November 28 2018 04:21 GreenHorizons wrote:Just seeing more clear reports that the intelligence document that purports to put Manfort at the embassy is from 2013, not the alleged visit in question. Show nested quote +The newspaper also reported that an internal document written by Ecuador's intelligence agency and seen by The Guardian contains Manafort's name on a list of "well-known" guests at the embassy in 2013. The list, according to the newspaper, also mentions "Russians."
www.nbc26.comLooks like it's going to be a he said an anonymous person said and embassy records don't line up.with the anonymous sources version regarding a 2016 meeting. It doesn't seem like there's going to be any smoking gun video or pictures despite the embassy being under constant scrutiny. Maybe Mueller is just trying to feed some rope to get someone to hang themselves but this feels like he got thrown off a little by Manafort not saying what he expected. EDIT: I've heard wild speculation that Mueller was counting on Manafort to say he met with Assange to bring the sealed indictment that got partially leaked the other week and now that whole thing is toast. I don't understand the nuance enough to know if that even makes sense legally but it would be one potential way to make sense of this most recent drama.
Ah, Manafort outwitting Mueller at the last moment. A twist worthy of Shakespeare.
Has there been any news from the investigation? It seems to have just sort of faded since the mid-terms. Apart from this nonsense of course
|
On November 28 2018 04:42 Doodsmack wrote:
There's no apparent connection between this Guardian report and recent developments with Mueller. Any claim to the contrary is simply an assumption.
I said it was "wild speculation", as is there not being a connection (being speculation anyway).
That said looking at the story more closely it looks like they are basing the Manafort meeting on a "well placed source" (a stretch even by their own ethical guidelines), that isn't/wasn't in Ecuador, so most likely US intelligence.
|
On November 28 2018 00:55 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2018 00:42 iamthedave wrote:
Have you given thought to where those people would go, if resettled, though? Cutting out all other concerns, let's assume everything goes right and the Israelis or Palestinians are ready to leave. Where then do they get resettled? This is the question that puts the lie to advocates for open borders and other unrealistic immigration policies.
Rather than open borders doesn’t Hobbes force us to consider one world government? If the only two choices you present are genocide on either side, I say what about a new master, who draws new lines, and in threatening extinction of both sides forces peace? When two children are fighting do we hand our favorite a knife or do we separate them?
|
On November 28 2018 04:50 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2018 00:55 xDaunt wrote:On November 28 2018 00:42 iamthedave wrote:
Have you given thought to where those people would go, if resettled, though? Cutting out all other concerns, let's assume everything goes right and the Israelis or Palestinians are ready to leave. Where then do they get resettled? This is the question that puts the lie to advocates for open borders and other unrealistic immigration policies. Rather than open borders doesn’t Hobbes force us to consider one world government? If the only two choices you present are genocide on either side, I say what about a new master, who draws new lines, and in threatening extinction of both sides forces peace? When two children are fighting do we hand our favorite a knife or do we separate them?
Depends are we trying to get worldstar famous?
|
On November 28 2018 04:50 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2018 00:55 xDaunt wrote:On November 28 2018 00:42 iamthedave wrote:
Have you given thought to where those people would go, if resettled, though? Cutting out all other concerns, let's assume everything goes right and the Israelis or Palestinians are ready to leave. Where then do they get resettled? This is the question that puts the lie to advocates for open borders and other unrealistic immigration policies. Rather than open borders doesn’t Hobbes force us to consider one world government? If the only two choices you present are genocide on either side, I say what about a new master, who draws new lines, and in threatening extinction of both sides forces peace? When two children are fighting do we hand our favorite a knife or do we separate them?
Hobbes forces us to consider surrendering ourselves to the sovereign, whatever that might be. Explicit in his framework, however, is the idea that the interests and values of the people sufficiently align with the interests and values of the sovereign. This is one of the bases of the social contract that empowers the sovereign. People will not surrender to a sovereign that does not represent their values and interests. Which leads us to the current problem with the idea of one world government: one singular government cannot hope to adequately represent the competing and disparate values and interests of the global population.
EDIT: BTW, you do realize that you're responsible for the shitshow in the website feedback thread, right?
|
“Enlightenment values” align the interests of humanity as a whole against genocide do they not?
If the problem is: do we aid and abet genocide by choosing a winner or do we impose an adventitious peace?
it seems to me that the self-professed “Enlightenment values” crowd should be choosing the police option. Eventually within a generation or two, police control inevitably unites everyone (against the police?) and former enmities are forgotten.
I might write something longer about this when I have more time.
On November 28 2018 05:43 xDaunt wrote:
EDIT: BTW, you do realize that you're responsible for the shitshow in the website feedback thread, right?
I don’t control the peons.
|
On November 28 2018 05:58 IgnE wrote:
“Enlightenment values” align the interests of humanity as a whole against genocide do they not?
If the problem is: do we aid and abet genocide by choosing a winner or do we impose an adventitious peace?
it seems to me that the self-professed “Enlightenment values” crowd should be choosing the police option. Eventually within a generation or two, police control inevitably unites everyone (against the police?) and former enmities are forgotten.
I might write something longer about this when I have more time.
You may want to think this one through a little bit further.
First and foremost, people aren't going to voluntarily surrender to an "Enlightenment values" -led global world order. You can already see that now with the posturing of nations like China, Russia, and the nations of the Muslim world rebelling against the post-WW2 Western liberal world order. Therefore, the police option that you're advocating for necessarily will be imperial in nature, meaning it will be implemented by force, entailing conflict and, almost certainly, war. Stated another way, you're probably inviting the very genocide that you're trying to prevent.
Second, I seriously question this presumption that enmities will simply be forgotten after a generation or two following the inevitable conflict. There certainly is no shortage of examples where the enmity never went away following conflict (Israel/Gaza, China/Japan, immediately come to mind). Additionally, humanity seems to suffer from natural entropy in the absence of nationalism or some other unifying, cultural glue. So if we're to make the terrible investment of blood and treasure to forcefully unify the world, there's no guarantee that the resulting peace will last long enough to make the initial cost worthwhile.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
