|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On May 15 2018 08:45 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2018 08:36 RenSC2 wrote:
Okay, I must be missing something here. The leadership of the Palestinians literally wants to commit genocide on the Israelis. It's a stated goal. So all of you guys screaming about genocide are taking the wrong side. We already know what happens when Israel is in a weak state. They get attacked. They've been attacked repeatedly throughout their history.
Hey Ren, why do you think people got killed today?
Sorry for the late response. I would suspect there are multiple different reasons why people got killed today. In some cases, the IDF saw people with explosives and decided to shoot. In other cases people crossed through the border and the IDF decided to shoot. I believe they also bombed a few Hamas targets as retaliatory strikes.
If they caught someone in a crowd with explosives and killed that person, I have no sympathy.
If the person was crossing the border, I do have some sympathy, but I also understand the very difficult position the IDF has been put in. If one of those crossers makes it into Israeli civilian areas, they could do a lot of damage. They could hijack a bus and plow a crowd, bring hidden explosives and detonate in a crowd, or even just go on a knife/shooting rampage. The Israeli civilian deaths would add up fast. If the IDF sends in a paddy wagon to pick up the illegal crossers, they have to be aware that they are dealing with people who have a history of blowing themselves up in order to kill Israelis. So if the IDF had a history of sending in the police vans and mass arresting crossers, I wouldn't be shocked to find suicide bombers mixed in that would gladly detonate on the IDF soldiers who were arresting them. Again, that's terrible for the IDF. So they're caught in a bad spot and have chosen to take a very hard line and leave the least amount of risk for their soldiers and civilians.
The retaliatory strikes against Hamas targets is rough, but again, I can see where they're coming from. Hamas is the masterminds behind this event. They whoop a crowd into a frenzy, get them to cross the border knowing that the IDF has taken a hard line stance, and then use them as martyrs to further the Hamas goals. People without ill intentions died today at the behest of people with very bad intentions. If you don't strike at Hamas themselves, they lose nothing. So the IDF struck at them to ensure they understand that they will be held responsible.
As for the genocide thing again, the Palestinians have a growing population. If we killed exactly enough people so that their population would always remain the same +1 person each year, it would be terrible, but it wouldn't be a genocide. Genocide actually requires an attempted extermination of a group. No such thing has happened. Perhaps they're being backed to a cliff where they eventually will be thrown over, as GH said. If that happens, then I'll actually be worried about a genocide and ask for international boycotts, but that's not happening yet.
As for ethnic cleansing, this could qualify, but not through genocide as is typical of ethnic cleanses. The Palestinian lands are shrinking. That is concerning. I'd personally like to see Palestinians have a tract of contiguous land to call their own. The mix of West bank and Gaza is a terrible way to have a country. However, creating one piece of contiguous land would involve moving people, whether that be Palestinians or Israelis. I really don't see a peaceful end to this situation and I don't think either side is innocent, but I do think Israel has allowed Palestine to exist when the opposite would not be true if the power was reversed.
|
Canada11278 Posts
On May 15 2018 13:25 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2018 12:19 Falling wrote:On May 15 2018 02:00 Plansix wrote:On May 15 2018 01:56 Mohdoo wrote:On May 15 2018 01:53 Plansix wrote:On May 15 2018 01:26 Mohdoo wrote:On May 15 2018 01:15 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Step one is to stop all international support of Israeli actions. Make them a pariah like south africa was during apartheid. Actively boycott Israeli goods, boycott artists who perform in israel, boycott sporting events taking place in israel, boycott matches against israeli teams, boycott any politician who supports their actions. Finding a lasting solution, that is truly difficult and I can't say I have one, but unless you actually want Israel to eventually cleanse and occupy all of palestine, anything short of this is enabling them.
There's validity to the argument that 'hey but to do this and be logically consistent you have to boycott china too because their treatment of tibet is just as bad', the difference is that China does not depend upon external support to behave the way Israel does. If this is what you are hoping for, you may as well hope for a meteor shower to selectively strike Israeli targets. It won't happen. If you let yourself entertain ideas where the US cuts support for Israel, you aren't being productive. You are describing the most ethical outcome, but that isn't really that hard to determine and we already know it isn't what will happen. Is it that you actually see some sort of post-zionist America? Based on what you are saying, you are just (understandably) really mad about the situation. It's not that you actually think what you describe will happen. Am I wrong? If someone asked you to place a $1,000 bet on whether what you described would happen or not, would you take that bet? Folks also need to remember there are over 4 million Palestinians in Israel. Relocation is about as realistic as the US suddenly dropping support for Israel. 4 million is huge, but not impossible. It is just a huge task. I don't think US support for Israel even compares. You are saying something really, really costly and really, really huge is the same as something impossible. We are an amazingly resourceful and capable people. We could do it if the will was there. We can do anything. If the entire middle east, with financial support from other major world countries, all agreed to just find places for palestinians, it would happen. Israel has been trying to force them to leave for decades. They won’t. That isn’t going to change without bloodshed. And considering the current stance of refugees in the US and EU, no one is going to accept them anyways. Also, that is almost half the population of Sweden. It isn’t a huge task. It would be the single largest relocation of a human population in modern history. Maybe all of history. Huge, but not impossible. 900,000 Jews exited North Africa and the Arab countries. Some 600,000 went to Israel, and 235,000 went to France. Places like Algeria went from 140,000 Jews to 1000 twenty-four years later to much pretty much none at all today. It's not impossible to leave: my people were chased up and down Europe for most of our history until we switched continents. Are you seriously citing that as an example of the plausibility without connecting any of the morality? "Well we could just do what the Nazi's did and then ban them from having human rights and they'll mostly leave on their own accord" Of course that would still require that the US offer Palestinians a country with the threat of total annihilation for anyone who threatens their survival and hundreds of billions in funding.
I said nothing of the sort, unless I missed something and the Algerians were doing what the Nazis did. No, there was some incredulity in that many people moving, and I was observing that it could be possible (though granted the numbers were 1/4th of the current.) That is, we have already seen a massive emptying of the Jews from the Arab world, but there is no comparable Jewish refugee problem to speak of. They absorbed and moved on. So it's possible- that's all.
|
On May 15 2018 10:14 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2018 10:06 Gahlo wrote:On May 15 2018 09:36 zlefin wrote:On May 15 2018 09:02 Gahlo wrote:On May 15 2018 08:56 zlefin wrote:On May 15 2018 08:47 Gahlo wrote:On May 15 2018 08:43 zlefin wrote:On May 15 2018 08:36 Gahlo wrote:There's also the fact that he's Jewish, which probably inclines him to side with Israel anyway. On May 15 2018 08:36 RenSC2 wrote:Okay, I must be missing something here. The leadership of the Palestinians literally wants to commit genocide on the Israelis. It's a stated goal. So all of you guys screaming about genocide are taking the wrong side. We already know what happens when Israel is in a weak state. They get attacked. They've been attacked repeatedly throughout their history. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_IsraelIf they ever lose a war, it becomes a war of annihilation. Yet, when they win wars, Palestine continues to exist. In 1997, there were 2.8 million people in Palestinian territories. In 2017, 5 million people. So, where's the genocide? The population nearly doubled in 20 years. You can go back further, to a UN estimate of 44k live births per year in 1950-1955 which is now at 144k live births per year in 2010-15. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_Palestinian_territoriesIn what world is it genocide or ethnic cleansing when the population keeps getting larger? Be glad that Israel is the one with the power and the rest of the civilized world should ensure that it stays that way. My goal is for genocide to not exist. Israel is committing genocide right now. Does Israel need to commit genocide to not be weak? Reproduction rates grows in places that are less developed and lowers in places that are more developed. Counting heads doesn't matter when they are all getting backed into a corner. I question your use of the term "genocide" and ask for the exact definition you're using. ethnic cleansing perhaps, but genocide does not seem apt. I know some people's use of the terms conflates the two, but I feel the distinction is very important. Genocide is destruction of a group. Ethnic cleansing is expulsion of a group from an area, often by force. The Palestinians a) don't want to leave and b) have nowhere to go even if they wanted to. So at this point, no, it's genocide. Israel doesn't get to go "oops, we tried to ethnically cleanse them and accidentally commited genocide. Their fault for not leaving." what is happening does not match the definition you provided. "destruction of a group" if Israel were committing genocide, the number of palestinians would not be increasing at such a rapid rate. I see no sign of the palestinians being destroyed as a group. Because, as I said, they are being cornered. Palestine has been shrinking over the years. Eventually you'll get to a point where there is nowhere left in Palestine for Palestinians to go. Then you can have your big display of genocide and it'll be too late to do anything about it. until that eventually though, it's ethnic cleansing, not genocide. so it's inapt to say they're committing genocide. it's also entirely an assumption on your part that it will reach a point where every bit of the land will be forbidden to palestinians and they would be faced with death. At what point do you think Israel will stop? Because the Palestinians aren't leaving and Israel keeps encroaching. I don't know when; but I don't need to, as the burden of proof is on you. Furthermore, the existence of various native american reservations is an indicator that it's possible for a people to be compressed into an area, cleansed otu of others, while not being completely obliterated. nor have you provided any decent counter to the point about population numbers.
Are you seriously making the argument that what happened to the native Americans wasn't genocide, because some of them are still alive today. Damn. Guess the Holocaust also wasn't genocide. Some European Jews survived, after all. And there are still Tutsis in Rwanda too! Good news everybody, genocide doesn't actually happen.
Just to clarify: I don't think Israel is currently committing genocide on the Palestinians. I just wanted to point out that this is a really bad argument.
E: and just to clarify further, I don't need to think Israel is committing genocide to find their course of action unjustifiable. If apartheid was unacceptable in South Africa (and it was), then it is unacceptable in Israel. That Israel is currently pursuing a policy of apartheid is undeniable. Stop supporting that.
|
On May 15 2018 15:50 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2018 13:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 15 2018 12:19 Falling wrote:On May 15 2018 02:00 Plansix wrote:On May 15 2018 01:56 Mohdoo wrote:On May 15 2018 01:53 Plansix wrote:On May 15 2018 01:26 Mohdoo wrote:On May 15 2018 01:15 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Step one is to stop all international support of Israeli actions. Make them a pariah like south africa was during apartheid. Actively boycott Israeli goods, boycott artists who perform in israel, boycott sporting events taking place in israel, boycott matches against israeli teams, boycott any politician who supports their actions. Finding a lasting solution, that is truly difficult and I can't say I have one, but unless you actually want Israel to eventually cleanse and occupy all of palestine, anything short of this is enabling them.
There's validity to the argument that 'hey but to do this and be logically consistent you have to boycott china too because their treatment of tibet is just as bad', the difference is that China does not depend upon external support to behave the way Israel does. If this is what you are hoping for, you may as well hope for a meteor shower to selectively strike Israeli targets. It won't happen. If you let yourself entertain ideas where the US cuts support for Israel, you aren't being productive. You are describing the most ethical outcome, but that isn't really that hard to determine and we already know it isn't what will happen. Is it that you actually see some sort of post-zionist America? Based on what you are saying, you are just (understandably) really mad about the situation. It's not that you actually think what you describe will happen. Am I wrong? If someone asked you to place a $1,000 bet on whether what you described would happen or not, would you take that bet? Folks also need to remember there are over 4 million Palestinians in Israel. Relocation is about as realistic as the US suddenly dropping support for Israel. 4 million is huge, but not impossible. It is just a huge task. I don't think US support for Israel even compares. You are saying something really, really costly and really, really huge is the same as something impossible. We are an amazingly resourceful and capable people. We could do it if the will was there. We can do anything. If the entire middle east, with financial support from other major world countries, all agreed to just find places for palestinians, it would happen. Israel has been trying to force them to leave for decades. They won’t. That isn’t going to change without bloodshed. And considering the current stance of refugees in the US and EU, no one is going to accept them anyways. Also, that is almost half the population of Sweden. It isn’t a huge task. It would be the single largest relocation of a human population in modern history. Maybe all of history. Huge, but not impossible. 900,000 Jews exited North Africa and the Arab countries. Some 600,000 went to Israel, and 235,000 went to France. Places like Algeria went from 140,000 Jews to 1000 twenty-four years later to much pretty much none at all today. It's not impossible to leave: my people were chased up and down Europe for most of our history until we switched continents. Are you seriously citing that as an example of the plausibility without connecting any of the morality? "Well we could just do what the Nazi's did and then ban them from having human rights and they'll mostly leave on their own accord" Of course that would still require that the US offer Palestinians a country with the threat of total annihilation for anyone who threatens their survival and hundreds of billions in funding. I said nothing of the sort, unless I missed something and the Algerians were doing what the Nazis did. No, there was some incredulity in that many people moving, and I was observing that it could be possible (though granted the numbers were 1/4th of the current.) That is, we have already seen a massive emptying of the Jews from the Arab world, but there is no comparable Jewish refugee problem to speak of. They absorbed and moved on. So it's possible- that's all.
...I'm at a loss. You alluded to what I presume was Jewish heritage but you don't seem to have a basic grasp of the history adjoining the mass 'migration' you're referencing.
I don't really have the time or inclination to goysplain your people's history to you, but rest assured you missed something about the history of Jewish people in Algeria and the entire migration you mentioned.
But I have to focus on the absurdity that is the position that 'they absorbed and moved on'... If that was the case, they wouldn't have just killed dozens of civilians and injured thousands more while running an apartheid state.
EDIT: This isn't directed at you specifically, but TL is seriously entertaining arguments in favor of ethnic cleansing and distinguishing it from genocide (barely) and yet people still wonder how everyday German people didn't stop the Nazi's...
|
On May 15 2018 16:07 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2018 15:50 Falling wrote:On May 15 2018 13:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 15 2018 12:19 Falling wrote:On May 15 2018 02:00 Plansix wrote:On May 15 2018 01:56 Mohdoo wrote:On May 15 2018 01:53 Plansix wrote:On May 15 2018 01:26 Mohdoo wrote:On May 15 2018 01:15 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Step one is to stop all international support of Israeli actions. Make them a pariah like south africa was during apartheid. Actively boycott Israeli goods, boycott artists who perform in israel, boycott sporting events taking place in israel, boycott matches against israeli teams, boycott any politician who supports their actions. Finding a lasting solution, that is truly difficult and I can't say I have one, but unless you actually want Israel to eventually cleanse and occupy all of palestine, anything short of this is enabling them.
There's validity to the argument that 'hey but to do this and be logically consistent you have to boycott china too because their treatment of tibet is just as bad', the difference is that China does not depend upon external support to behave the way Israel does. If this is what you are hoping for, you may as well hope for a meteor shower to selectively strike Israeli targets. It won't happen. If you let yourself entertain ideas where the US cuts support for Israel, you aren't being productive. You are describing the most ethical outcome, but that isn't really that hard to determine and we already know it isn't what will happen. Is it that you actually see some sort of post-zionist America? Based on what you are saying, you are just (understandably) really mad about the situation. It's not that you actually think what you describe will happen. Am I wrong? If someone asked you to place a $1,000 bet on whether what you described would happen or not, would you take that bet? Folks also need to remember there are over 4 million Palestinians in Israel. Relocation is about as realistic as the US suddenly dropping support for Israel. 4 million is huge, but not impossible. It is just a huge task. I don't think US support for Israel even compares. You are saying something really, really costly and really, really huge is the same as something impossible. We are an amazingly resourceful and capable people. We could do it if the will was there. We can do anything. If the entire middle east, with financial support from other major world countries, all agreed to just find places for palestinians, it would happen. Israel has been trying to force them to leave for decades. They won’t. That isn’t going to change without bloodshed. And considering the current stance of refugees in the US and EU, no one is going to accept them anyways. Also, that is almost half the population of Sweden. It isn’t a huge task. It would be the single largest relocation of a human population in modern history. Maybe all of history. Huge, but not impossible. 900,000 Jews exited North Africa and the Arab countries. Some 600,000 went to Israel, and 235,000 went to France. Places like Algeria went from 140,000 Jews to 1000 twenty-four years later to much pretty much none at all today. It's not impossible to leave: my people were chased up and down Europe for most of our history until we switched continents. Are you seriously citing that as an example of the plausibility without connecting any of the morality? "Well we could just do what the Nazi's did and then ban them from having human rights and they'll mostly leave on their own accord" Of course that would still require that the US offer Palestinians a country with the threat of total annihilation for anyone who threatens their survival and hundreds of billions in funding. I said nothing of the sort, unless I missed something and the Algerians were doing what the Nazis did. No, there was some incredulity in that many people moving, and I was observing that it could be possible (though granted the numbers were 1/4th of the current.) That is, we have already seen a massive emptying of the Jews from the Arab world, but there is no comparable Jewish refugee problem to speak of. They absorbed and moved on. So it's possible- that's all. ...I'm at a loss. You alluded to what I presume was Jewish heritage but you don't seem to have a basic grasp of the history adjoining the mass 'migration' you're referencing. I don't really have the time or inclination to goysplain your people's history to you, but rest assured you missed something about the history of Jewish people in Algeria and the entire migration you mentioned. But I have to focus on the absurdity that is the position that 'they absorbed and moved on'... If that was the case, they wouldn't have just killed dozens of civilians and injured thousands more while running an apartheid state. EDIT: This isn't directed at you specifically, but TL is seriously entertaining arguments in favor of ethnic cleansing and distinguishing it from genocide (barely) and yet people still wonder how everyday German people didn't stop the Nazi's...
I'm still reeling at the inference that the protesters must have been doing something worthy of being shot or they wouldn't have been shot. To assume that you would have to have completely missed everything that has happened in the region in the last 15 years.
|
On May 15 2018 16:07 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2018 15:50 Falling wrote:On May 15 2018 13:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 15 2018 12:19 Falling wrote:On May 15 2018 02:00 Plansix wrote:On May 15 2018 01:56 Mohdoo wrote:On May 15 2018 01:53 Plansix wrote:On May 15 2018 01:26 Mohdoo wrote:On May 15 2018 01:15 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Step one is to stop all international support of Israeli actions. Make them a pariah like south africa was during apartheid. Actively boycott Israeli goods, boycott artists who perform in israel, boycott sporting events taking place in israel, boycott matches against israeli teams, boycott any politician who supports their actions. Finding a lasting solution, that is truly difficult and I can't say I have one, but unless you actually want Israel to eventually cleanse and occupy all of palestine, anything short of this is enabling them.
There's validity to the argument that 'hey but to do this and be logically consistent you have to boycott china too because their treatment of tibet is just as bad', the difference is that China does not depend upon external support to behave the way Israel does. If this is what you are hoping for, you may as well hope for a meteor shower to selectively strike Israeli targets. It won't happen. If you let yourself entertain ideas where the US cuts support for Israel, you aren't being productive. You are describing the most ethical outcome, but that isn't really that hard to determine and we already know it isn't what will happen. Is it that you actually see some sort of post-zionist America? Based on what you are saying, you are just (understandably) really mad about the situation. It's not that you actually think what you describe will happen. Am I wrong? If someone asked you to place a $1,000 bet on whether what you described would happen or not, would you take that bet? Folks also need to remember there are over 4 million Palestinians in Israel. Relocation is about as realistic as the US suddenly dropping support for Israel. 4 million is huge, but not impossible. It is just a huge task. I don't think US support for Israel even compares. You are saying something really, really costly and really, really huge is the same as something impossible. We are an amazingly resourceful and capable people. We could do it if the will was there. We can do anything. If the entire middle east, with financial support from other major world countries, all agreed to just find places for palestinians, it would happen. Israel has been trying to force them to leave for decades. They won’t. That isn’t going to change without bloodshed. And considering the current stance of refugees in the US and EU, no one is going to accept them anyways. Also, that is almost half the population of Sweden. It isn’t a huge task. It would be the single largest relocation of a human population in modern history. Maybe all of history. Huge, but not impossible. 900,000 Jews exited North Africa and the Arab countries. Some 600,000 went to Israel, and 235,000 went to France. Places like Algeria went from 140,000 Jews to 1000 twenty-four years later to much pretty much none at all today. It's not impossible to leave: my people were chased up and down Europe for most of our history until we switched continents. Are you seriously citing that as an example of the plausibility without connecting any of the morality? "Well we could just do what the Nazi's did and then ban them from having human rights and they'll mostly leave on their own accord" Of course that would still require that the US offer Palestinians a country with the threat of total annihilation for anyone who threatens their survival and hundreds of billions in funding. I said nothing of the sort, unless I missed something and the Algerians were doing what the Nazis did. No, there was some incredulity in that many people moving, and I was observing that it could be possible (though granted the numbers were 1/4th of the current.) That is, we have already seen a massive emptying of the Jews from the Arab world, but there is no comparable Jewish refugee problem to speak of. They absorbed and moved on. So it's possible- that's all. ...I'm at a loss. You alluded to what I presume was Jewish heritage but you don't seem to have a basic grasp of the history adjoining the mass 'migration' you're referencing. I don't really have the time or inclination to goysplain your people's history to you, but rest assured you missed something about the history of Jewish people in Algeria and the entire migration you mentioned. But I have to focus on the absurdity that is the position that 'they absorbed and moved on'... If that was the case, they wouldn't have just killed dozens of civilians and injured thousands more while running an apartheid state. EDIT: This isn't directed at you specifically, but TL is seriously entertaining arguments in favor of ethnic cleansing and distinguishing it from genocide (barely) and yet people still wonder how everyday German people didn't stop the Nazi's...
You're extremely quick to accuse people - myself especially right now - of arguing in favour of genocide when all I did was point out that nobody was going to stop it.
I see no point in us going 'oh it's so awful oh Israel is just the worst, if only someone would step in and do something', when we all know that isn't going to happen. You want to discuss vague 'solutions' that conveniently ignore dozens of reasons why nobody is stepping in to do something about the situation beyond finger-wagging.
I'm not justifying it. I accept that it is a thing that is happening about which I can do nothing and nobody in power wants to do anything. It's awful. It's horrible.
So what?
If the US properly, fully withdraws support from Israel then maybe there'd be some way to force Israel to the negotiating table. But as it stands they have all the cards, all the power, and a position of unassailable strength. The only way the Palestinians can get out of this is to give the Israelis everything they want and walk away from the table with their tails between their legs. They have no leverage, no way to influence the Israeli position. And HAMAS - the ones who don't recognise Israel's right to exist - are the ones who insist on 'negotiating'. Israel is not going to take negotiations with HAMAS seriously. I don't remember the US saying 'let's negotiate with Al Qaeda to prevent this horrible situation'. Do you? You can't negotiate with people whose fondest desire is to turn your nation into a crater.
The only way this can end in anything but horror for the Palestinians is for there to be a seismic political shift on both sides. The international community has been trying to prod them to a peaceful solution for 70 years and we've gotten basically nowhere.
If you want to seriously discuss the situation, instead of soap boxing about genocide/ethnic cleansing, then deal with the underlying political situation. Deal with the reality that if you were in Israel's shoes, you wouldn't want to deal with HAMAS because you know you can't trust them. Deal with the reality that the Palestinians have sabotaged the peace process as often as the Israelis have. Deal with the reality that Israel is a critical strategic partner in that part of the world, without whom your government would have very little legitimate 'ins' on the Middle East. Deal with the religious issues underpinning both sides of the conflict. Deal with Israel being the stated enemy of a lot of nations over there, secure only because they have western support and a lot of guns. Show you have a comprehensive understanding of all these issues and solutions to them, and then I'll give you all the credit in the world. But I just don't find 'genocide bad' to be much of a helpful sentiment when dealing with one of the most politically complex and long-running struggles in the world today.
|
I think one thing to realize is that both sides keep polarizing more. And the USA backing one of the biggest creeps on the Israeli side 100% is not going to do anything to stop polarization. Hamas are a bunch of radical lunatics, but unless Israel stops killing dozens of protesters for no reason, the Palestinians will only radicalize more. And it's a vicious circle that can only be broken by either completely crushing one side (Palestinian genocide) or external voices getting so loud that Israel cannot ignore it anymore. If Israel were to step back from claiming all of Jerusalem as theirs, stop building illegal settlements in cis-jordania and stopped shooting Palestinians willy nilly, they'd be in a far better position to demand that the Palestinians stop threatening to lob mortar shells or suicide bomb Israeli positions and find a different organization than Hamas to deal with.
But as long as the USA and Europe back Bibi unconditionally, this is not going to change. I mean, Europe does like to sputter and protest, but they have never taken any action to back up their words. And the USA has even stopped the sputtering. So instead of pointing to Israel and saying it's so sad what's happening there, we need to hold our own politicians accountable for enabling it.
|
On May 15 2018 17:12 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2018 16:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 15 2018 15:50 Falling wrote:On May 15 2018 13:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 15 2018 12:19 Falling wrote:On May 15 2018 02:00 Plansix wrote:On May 15 2018 01:56 Mohdoo wrote:On May 15 2018 01:53 Plansix wrote:On May 15 2018 01:26 Mohdoo wrote:On May 15 2018 01:15 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Step one is to stop all international support of Israeli actions. Make them a pariah like south africa was during apartheid. Actively boycott Israeli goods, boycott artists who perform in israel, boycott sporting events taking place in israel, boycott matches against israeli teams, boycott any politician who supports their actions. Finding a lasting solution, that is truly difficult and I can't say I have one, but unless you actually want Israel to eventually cleanse and occupy all of palestine, anything short of this is enabling them.
There's validity to the argument that 'hey but to do this and be logically consistent you have to boycott china too because their treatment of tibet is just as bad', the difference is that China does not depend upon external support to behave the way Israel does. If this is what you are hoping for, you may as well hope for a meteor shower to selectively strike Israeli targets. It won't happen. If you let yourself entertain ideas where the US cuts support for Israel, you aren't being productive. You are describing the most ethical outcome, but that isn't really that hard to determine and we already know it isn't what will happen. Is it that you actually see some sort of post-zionist America? Based on what you are saying, you are just (understandably) really mad about the situation. It's not that you actually think what you describe will happen. Am I wrong? If someone asked you to place a $1,000 bet on whether what you described would happen or not, would you take that bet? Folks also need to remember there are over 4 million Palestinians in Israel. Relocation is about as realistic as the US suddenly dropping support for Israel. 4 million is huge, but not impossible. It is just a huge task. I don't think US support for Israel even compares. You are saying something really, really costly and really, really huge is the same as something impossible. We are an amazingly resourceful and capable people. We could do it if the will was there. We can do anything. If the entire middle east, with financial support from other major world countries, all agreed to just find places for palestinians, it would happen. Israel has been trying to force them to leave for decades. They won’t. That isn’t going to change without bloodshed. And considering the current stance of refugees in the US and EU, no one is going to accept them anyways. Also, that is almost half the population of Sweden. It isn’t a huge task. It would be the single largest relocation of a human population in modern history. Maybe all of history. Huge, but not impossible. 900,000 Jews exited North Africa and the Arab countries. Some 600,000 went to Israel, and 235,000 went to France. Places like Algeria went from 140,000 Jews to 1000 twenty-four years later to much pretty much none at all today. It's not impossible to leave: my people were chased up and down Europe for most of our history until we switched continents. Are you seriously citing that as an example of the plausibility without connecting any of the morality? "Well we could just do what the Nazi's did and then ban them from having human rights and they'll mostly leave on their own accord" Of course that would still require that the US offer Palestinians a country with the threat of total annihilation for anyone who threatens their survival and hundreds of billions in funding. I said nothing of the sort, unless I missed something and the Algerians were doing what the Nazis did. No, there was some incredulity in that many people moving, and I was observing that it could be possible (though granted the numbers were 1/4th of the current.) That is, we have already seen a massive emptying of the Jews from the Arab world, but there is no comparable Jewish refugee problem to speak of. They absorbed and moved on. So it's possible- that's all. ...I'm at a loss. You alluded to what I presume was Jewish heritage but you don't seem to have a basic grasp of the history adjoining the mass 'migration' you're referencing. I don't really have the time or inclination to goysplain your people's history to you, but rest assured you missed something about the history of Jewish people in Algeria and the entire migration you mentioned. But I have to focus on the absurdity that is the position that 'they absorbed and moved on'... If that was the case, they wouldn't have just killed dozens of civilians and injured thousands more while running an apartheid state. EDIT: This isn't directed at you specifically, but TL is seriously entertaining arguments in favor of ethnic cleansing and distinguishing it from genocide (barely) and yet people still wonder how everyday German people didn't stop the Nazi's... You're extremely quick to accuse people - myself especially right now - of arguing in favour of genocide when all I did was point out that nobody was going to stop it. I see no point in us going 'oh it's so awful oh Israel is just the worst, if only someone would step in and do something', when we all know that isn't going to happen. You want to discuss vague 'solutions' that conveniently ignore dozens of reasons why nobody is stepping in to do something about the situation beyond finger-wagging. I'm not justifying it. I accept that it is a thing that is happening about which I can do nothing and nobody in power wants to do anything. It's awful. It's horrible. So what? If the US properly, fully withdraws support from Israel then maybe there'd be some way to force Israel to the negotiating table. But as it stands they have all the cards, all the power, and a position of unassailable strength. The only way the Palestinians can get out of this is to give the Israelis everything they want and walk away from the table with their tails between their legs. They have no leverage, no way to influence the Israeli position. And HAMAS - the ones who don't recognise Israel's right to exist - are the ones who insist on 'negotiating'. Israel is not going to take negotiations with HAMAS seriously. I don't remember the US saying 'let's negotiate with Al Qaeda to prevent this horrible situation'. Do you? You can't negotiate with people whose fondest desire is to turn your nation into a crater. The only way this can end in anything but horror for the Palestinians is for there to be a seismic political shift on both sides. The international community has been trying to prod them to a peaceful solution for 70 years and we've gotten basically nowhere. If you want to seriously discuss the situation, instead of soap boxing about genocide/ethnic cleansing, then deal with the underlying political situation. Deal with the reality that if you were in Israel's shoes, you wouldn't want to deal with HAMAS because you know you can't trust them. Deal with the reality that the Palestinians have sabotaged the peace process as often as the Israelis have. Deal with the reality that Israel is a critical strategic partner in that part of the world, without whom your government would have very little legitimate 'ins' on the Middle East. Deal with the religious issues underpinning both sides of the conflict. Deal with Israel being the stated enemy of a lot of nations over there, secure only because they have western support and a lot of guns. Show you have a comprehensive understanding of all these issues and solutions to them, and then I'll give you all the credit in the world. But I just don't find 'genocide bad' to be much of a helpful sentiment when dealing with one of the most politically complex and long-running struggles in the world today.
I'm not extremely quick, I'm being pretty judicious really.
Pretty sure I mentioned the attitude of complacency, indifference, and inevitability as well. Those are arguments in favor of ethnic cleansing and/or genocide.
Arguments against it generally start with refusing to empower people domestically which dogmatically encourage and sponsor such atrocities internationally. The adamant assertion of the futility of such political action isn't pragmatic, it's appalling.
If it's not clear by my flagrant opposition to the US war machine, I would be a staunch critic of Netanyahu, the government, and their actions. I wouldn't advocate ethnic cleansing as a response to the situation and I'd be in the streets of Jerusalem or wherever I lived protesting (as I am digitally and locally).
If as you say they aren't wanted, history tells us they were forced there in the first place, and Falling tells they are adept at moving and blending, then the far more sensible solution is for the Jewish people to leave and the US/international allies to pay for it. Surely with such international support for their ethnic cleansing campaign, there should be no shortage of countries willing and able to absorb the immigrants.
Why should it be so obvious that the Palestinians leave if the Jewish people are only there on the will of countries outside of the region?
|
On May 15 2018 11:20 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2018 10:14 zlefin wrote:On May 15 2018 10:06 Gahlo wrote:On May 15 2018 09:36 zlefin wrote:On May 15 2018 09:02 Gahlo wrote:On May 15 2018 08:56 zlefin wrote:On May 15 2018 08:47 Gahlo wrote:On May 15 2018 08:43 zlefin wrote:On May 15 2018 08:36 Gahlo wrote:There's also the fact that he's Jewish, which probably inclines him to side with Israel anyway. On May 15 2018 08:36 RenSC2 wrote:Okay, I must be missing something here. The leadership of the Palestinians literally wants to commit genocide on the Israelis. It's a stated goal. So all of you guys screaming about genocide are taking the wrong side. We already know what happens when Israel is in a weak state. They get attacked. They've been attacked repeatedly throughout their history. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_IsraelIf they ever lose a war, it becomes a war of annihilation. Yet, when they win wars, Palestine continues to exist. In 1997, there were 2.8 million people in Palestinian territories. In 2017, 5 million people. So, where's the genocide? The population nearly doubled in 20 years. You can go back further, to a UN estimate of 44k live births per year in 1950-1955 which is now at 144k live births per year in 2010-15. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_Palestinian_territoriesIn what world is it genocide or ethnic cleansing when the population keeps getting larger? Be glad that Israel is the one with the power and the rest of the civilized world should ensure that it stays that way. My goal is for genocide to not exist. Israel is committing genocide right now. Does Israel need to commit genocide to not be weak? Reproduction rates grows in places that are less developed and lowers in places that are more developed. Counting heads doesn't matter when they are all getting backed into a corner. I question your use of the term "genocide" and ask for the exact definition you're using. ethnic cleansing perhaps, but genocide does not seem apt. I know some people's use of the terms conflates the two, but I feel the distinction is very important. Genocide is destruction of a group. Ethnic cleansing is expulsion of a group from an area, often by force. The Palestinians a) don't want to leave and b) have nowhere to go even if they wanted to. So at this point, no, it's genocide. Israel doesn't get to go "oops, we tried to ethnically cleanse them and accidentally commited genocide. Their fault for not leaving." what is happening does not match the definition you provided. "destruction of a group" if Israel were committing genocide, the number of palestinians would not be increasing at such a rapid rate. I see no sign of the palestinians being destroyed as a group. Because, as I said, they are being cornered. Palestine has been shrinking over the years. Eventually you'll get to a point where there is nowhere left in Palestine for Palestinians to go. Then you can have your big display of genocide and it'll be too late to do anything about it. until that eventually though, it's ethnic cleansing, not genocide. so it's inapt to say they're committing genocide. it's also entirely an assumption on your part that it will reach a point where every bit of the land will be forbidden to palestinians and they would be faced with death. At what point do you think Israel will stop? Because the Palestinians aren't leaving and Israel keeps encroaching. I don't know when; but I don't need to, as the burden of proof is on you. Furthermore, the existence of various native american reservations is an indicator that it's possible for a people to be compressed into an area, cleansed otu of others, while not being completely obliterated. nor have you provided any decent counter to the point about population numbers. We have the benefit of hindsight to know what happened to the Native Americans. Regardless, not genociding them and performing widespread ethnic cleansing is nothing to pat the country on the back about."Congrats on not being 100% total evil." You have provided no proof that Israel will stop taking more and more land from the Palestinians. We have a repeated loop of a) take land b) kill people who try and fight back, justifying it as defense. Eventually, we'll get to the point where there is nowhere left for the Palestinians left to go in Palestine. From there it's: a) Isreal continues its pattern of behavior and completes the genocide b) decides to stop for... reasons? You need to prove that those reasons or decisions exist. Nothing that I know of does so. Either way, Isreal is a total assbag in this situation and the varying degrees of which is out of whack with the reaction that it gets.
the burden of proof remains on you; so I don't need to prove that. My argument was solely about the use of the word genocide, which you did not establish, not whether Israel's behavior is acceptable.
|
On May 15 2018 21:14 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2018 11:20 Gahlo wrote:On May 15 2018 10:14 zlefin wrote:On May 15 2018 10:06 Gahlo wrote:On May 15 2018 09:36 zlefin wrote:On May 15 2018 09:02 Gahlo wrote:On May 15 2018 08:56 zlefin wrote:On May 15 2018 08:47 Gahlo wrote:On May 15 2018 08:43 zlefin wrote:On May 15 2018 08:36 Gahlo wrote:
There's also the fact that he's Jewish, which probably inclines him to side with Israel anyway.
[quote]
My goal is for genocide to not exist. Israel is committing genocide right now. Does Israel need to commit genocide to not be weak?
Reproduction rates grows in places that are less developed and lowers in places that are more developed. Counting heads doesn't matter when they are all getting backed into a corner. I question your use of the term "genocide" and ask for the exact definition you're using. ethnic cleansing perhaps, but genocide does not seem apt. I know some people's use of the terms conflates the two, but I feel the distinction is very important. Genocide is destruction of a group. Ethnic cleansing is expulsion of a group from an area, often by force. The Palestinians a) don't want to leave and b) have nowhere to go even if they wanted to. So at this point, no, it's genocide. Israel doesn't get to go "oops, we tried to ethnically cleanse them and accidentally commited genocide. Their fault for not leaving." what is happening does not match the definition you provided. "destruction of a group" if Israel were committing genocide, the number of palestinians would not be increasing at such a rapid rate. I see no sign of the palestinians being destroyed as a group. Because, as I said, they are being cornered. Palestine has been shrinking over the years. Eventually you'll get to a point where there is nowhere left in Palestine for Palestinians to go. Then you can have your big display of genocide and it'll be too late to do anything about it. until that eventually though, it's ethnic cleansing, not genocide. so it's inapt to say they're committing genocide. it's also entirely an assumption on your part that it will reach a point where every bit of the land will be forbidden to palestinians and they would be faced with death. At what point do you think Israel will stop? Because the Palestinians aren't leaving and Israel keeps encroaching. I don't know when; but I don't need to, as the burden of proof is on you. Furthermore, the existence of various native american reservations is an indicator that it's possible for a people to be compressed into an area, cleansed otu of others, while not being completely obliterated. nor have you provided any decent counter to the point about population numbers. We have the benefit of hindsight to know what happened to the Native Americans. Regardless, not genociding them and performing widespread ethnic cleansing is nothing to pat the country on the back about."Congrats on not being 100% total evil." You have provided no proof that Israel will stop taking more and more land from the Palestinians. We have a repeated loop of a) take land b) kill people who try and fight back, justifying it as defense. Eventually, we'll get to the point where there is nowhere left for the Palestinians left to go in Palestine. From there it's: a) Isreal continues its pattern of behavior and completes the genocide b) decides to stop for... reasons? You need to prove that those reasons or decisions exist. Nothing that I know of does so. Either way, Isreal is a total assbag in this situation and the varying degrees of which is out of whack with the reaction that it gets. the burden of proof remains on you; so I don't need to prove that. My argument was solely about the use of the word genocide, which you did not establish, not whether Israel's behavior is acceptable.
Sorry I don't wait for genocide to be complete before calling it out for what it is.
|
On May 15 2018 21:23 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2018 21:14 zlefin wrote:On May 15 2018 11:20 Gahlo wrote:On May 15 2018 10:14 zlefin wrote:On May 15 2018 10:06 Gahlo wrote:On May 15 2018 09:36 zlefin wrote:On May 15 2018 09:02 Gahlo wrote:On May 15 2018 08:56 zlefin wrote:On May 15 2018 08:47 Gahlo wrote:On May 15 2018 08:43 zlefin wrote:
[quote]
I question your use of the term "genocide" and ask for the exact definition you're using.
ethnic cleansing perhaps, but genocide does not seem apt. I know some people's use of the terms conflates the two, but I feel the distinction is very important. Genocide is destruction of a group. Ethnic cleansing is expulsion of a group from an area, often by force. The Palestinians a) don't want to leave and b) have nowhere to go even if they wanted to. So at this point, no, it's genocide. Israel doesn't get to go "oops, we tried to ethnically cleanse them and accidentally commited genocide. Their fault for not leaving." what is happening does not match the definition you provided. "destruction of a group" if Israel were committing genocide, the number of palestinians would not be increasing at such a rapid rate. I see no sign of the palestinians being destroyed as a group. Because, as I said, they are being cornered. Palestine has been shrinking over the years. Eventually you'll get to a point where there is nowhere left in Palestine for Palestinians to go. Then you can have your big display of genocide and it'll be too late to do anything about it. until that eventually though, it's ethnic cleansing, not genocide. so it's inapt to say they're committing genocide. it's also entirely an assumption on your part that it will reach a point where every bit of the land will be forbidden to palestinians and they would be faced with death. At what point do you think Israel will stop? Because the Palestinians aren't leaving and Israel keeps encroaching. I don't know when; but I don't need to, as the burden of proof is on you. Furthermore, the existence of various native american reservations is an indicator that it's possible for a people to be compressed into an area, cleansed otu of others, while not being completely obliterated. nor have you provided any decent counter to the point about population numbers. We have the benefit of hindsight to know what happened to the Native Americans. Regardless, not genociding them and performing widespread ethnic cleansing is nothing to pat the country on the back about."Congrats on not being 100% total evil." You have provided no proof that Israel will stop taking more and more land from the Palestinians. We have a repeated loop of a) take land b) kill people who try and fight back, justifying it as defense. Eventually, we'll get to the point where there is nowhere left for the Palestinians left to go in Palestine. From there it's: a) Isreal continues its pattern of behavior and completes the genocide b) decides to stop for... reasons? You need to prove that those reasons or decisions exist. Nothing that I know of does so. Either way, Isreal is a total assbag in this situation and the varying degrees of which is out of whack with the reaction that it gets. the burden of proof remains on you; so I don't need to prove that. My argument was solely about the use of the word genocide, which you did not establish, not whether Israel's behavior is acceptable. Sorry I don't wait for genocide to be complete before calling it out for what it is.
that's not what you're doing; you're simply wrong; and insisting on something that is demonstrably factually false, based on calling something that may or may not happen in the future as something that is happening now, even though it isn't.
|
On May 15 2018 21:23 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2018 21:14 zlefin wrote:On May 15 2018 11:20 Gahlo wrote:On May 15 2018 10:14 zlefin wrote:On May 15 2018 10:06 Gahlo wrote:On May 15 2018 09:36 zlefin wrote:On May 15 2018 09:02 Gahlo wrote:On May 15 2018 08:56 zlefin wrote:On May 15 2018 08:47 Gahlo wrote:On May 15 2018 08:43 zlefin wrote:
[quote]
I question your use of the term "genocide" and ask for the exact definition you're using.
ethnic cleansing perhaps, but genocide does not seem apt. I know some people's use of the terms conflates the two, but I feel the distinction is very important. Genocide is destruction of a group. Ethnic cleansing is expulsion of a group from an area, often by force. The Palestinians a) don't want to leave and b) have nowhere to go even if they wanted to. So at this point, no, it's genocide. Israel doesn't get to go "oops, we tried to ethnically cleanse them and accidentally commited genocide. Their fault for not leaving." what is happening does not match the definition you provided. "destruction of a group" if Israel were committing genocide, the number of palestinians would not be increasing at such a rapid rate. I see no sign of the palestinians being destroyed as a group. Because, as I said, they are being cornered. Palestine has been shrinking over the years. Eventually you'll get to a point where there is nowhere left in Palestine for Palestinians to go. Then you can have your big display of genocide and it'll be too late to do anything about it. until that eventually though, it's ethnic cleansing, not genocide. so it's inapt to say they're committing genocide. it's also entirely an assumption on your part that it will reach a point where every bit of the land will be forbidden to palestinians and they would be faced with death. At what point do you think Israel will stop? Because the Palestinians aren't leaving and Israel keeps encroaching. I don't know when; but I don't need to, as the burden of proof is on you. Furthermore, the existence of various native american reservations is an indicator that it's possible for a people to be compressed into an area, cleansed otu of others, while not being completely obliterated. nor have you provided any decent counter to the point about population numbers. We have the benefit of hindsight to know what happened to the Native Americans. Regardless, not genociding them and performing widespread ethnic cleansing is nothing to pat the country on the back about."Congrats on not being 100% total evil." You have provided no proof that Israel will stop taking more and more land from the Palestinians. We have a repeated loop of a) take land b) kill people who try and fight back, justifying it as defense. Eventually, we'll get to the point where there is nowhere left for the Palestinians left to go in Palestine. From there it's: a) Isreal continues its pattern of behavior and completes the genocide b) decides to stop for... reasons? You need to prove that those reasons or decisions exist. Nothing that I know of does so. Either way, Isreal is a total assbag in this situation and the varying degrees of which is out of whack with the reaction that it gets. the burden of proof remains on you; so I don't need to prove that. My argument was solely about the use of the word genocide, which you did not establish, not whether Israel's behavior is acceptable. Sorry I don't wait for genocide to be complete before calling it out for what it is.
I have the same attitude towards checkmate when I play chess.
My opponents always end up really annoyed and I can't understand why.
Sure, I haven't actually checkmated you yet, but I probably will so..... CHECKMATE.
Perhaps when describing a situation people should try and stick to descriptions that correspond to reality in the present, not describe it as genocide because if no-one does anything there will eventually be genocide.
Its Twitter language. People aren't racist anymore they're nazis. Israel isn't committing war crimes, its GENOCIDE because the word sounds more important, regardless of whether there is actual genocide occurring.
|
On May 15 2018 21:27 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2018 21:23 Gahlo wrote:On May 15 2018 21:14 zlefin wrote:On May 15 2018 11:20 Gahlo wrote:On May 15 2018 10:14 zlefin wrote:On May 15 2018 10:06 Gahlo wrote:On May 15 2018 09:36 zlefin wrote:On May 15 2018 09:02 Gahlo wrote:On May 15 2018 08:56 zlefin wrote:On May 15 2018 08:47 Gahlo wrote:
[quote]
Genocide is destruction of a group. Ethnic cleansing is expulsion of a group from an area, often by force. The Palestinians a) don't want to leave and b) have nowhere to go even if they wanted to. So at this point, no, it's genocide.
Israel doesn't get to go "oops, we tried to ethnically cleanse them and accidentally commited genocide. Their fault for not leaving." what is happening does not match the definition you provided. "destruction of a group" if Israel were committing genocide, the number of palestinians would not be increasing at such a rapid rate. I see no sign of the palestinians being destroyed as a group. Because, as I said, they are being cornered. Palestine has been shrinking over the years. Eventually you'll get to a point where there is nowhere left in Palestine for Palestinians to go. Then you can have your big display of genocide and it'll be too late to do anything about it. until that eventually though, it's ethnic cleansing, not genocide. so it's inapt to say they're committing genocide. it's also entirely an assumption on your part that it will reach a point where every bit of the land will be forbidden to palestinians and they would be faced with death. At what point do you think Israel will stop? Because the Palestinians aren't leaving and Israel keeps encroaching. I don't know when; but I don't need to, as the burden of proof is on you. Furthermore, the existence of various native american reservations is an indicator that it's possible for a people to be compressed into an area, cleansed otu of others, while not being completely obliterated. nor have you provided any decent counter to the point about population numbers. We have the benefit of hindsight to know what happened to the Native Americans. Regardless, not genociding them and performing widespread ethnic cleansing is nothing to pat the country on the back about."Congrats on not being 100% total evil." You have provided no proof that Israel will stop taking more and more land from the Palestinians. We have a repeated loop of a) take land b) kill people who try and fight back, justifying it as defense. Eventually, we'll get to the point where there is nowhere left for the Palestinians left to go in Palestine. From there it's: a) Isreal continues its pattern of behavior and completes the genocide b) decides to stop for... reasons? You need to prove that those reasons or decisions exist. Nothing that I know of does so. Either way, Isreal is a total assbag in this situation and the varying degrees of which is out of whack with the reaction that it gets. the burden of proof remains on you; so I don't need to prove that. My argument was solely about the use of the word genocide, which you did not establish, not whether Israel's behavior is acceptable. Sorry I don't wait for genocide to be complete before calling it out for what it is. I have the same attitude towards checkmate when I play chess. My opponents always end up really annoyed and I can't understand why. Sure, I haven't actually checkmated you yet, but I probably will so..... CHECKMATE. Perhaps when describing a situation people should try and stick to descriptions that correspond to reality in the present, not describe it as genocide because if no-one does anything there will eventually be genocide. Its Twitter language. People aren't racist anymore they're nazis. Israel isn't committing war crimes, its GENOCIDE because the word sounds more important, regardless of whether there is actual genocide occurring.
Agreed in that Israel is trying to bring the international community to the same conclusion all but proposed here, ethnic cleansing isn't working, it's time for genocide. One problem being the inevitability of genocide is already being used to argue in favor/to justify the ethnic cleansing.
I think part of the problem is that 'ethnic cleansing' sounds almost like a good thing, hell it is a good thing to about half the voting public.
|
Seeker
Where dat snitch at?36921 Posts
Reminder that we want to keep things civil as possible in this thread. If you support genocide and ethnic cleansing then please keep it to yourself. Discussing these subjects is okay but do not derail the thread with your own personal beliefs. If the thread gets worse then we will have to lock it down temporarily. Everyone, please be advised that this thread is being monitored closely.
|
On May 15 2018 17:29 Acrofales wrote:
I think one thing to realize is that both sides keep polarizing more. And the USA backing one of the biggest creeps on the Israeli side 100% is not going to do anything to stop polarization. Hamas are a bunch of radical lunatics, but unless Israel stops killing dozens of protesters for no reason, the Palestinians will only radicalize more. And it's a vicious circle that can only be broken by either completely crushing one side (Palestinian genocide) or external voices getting so loud that Israel cannot ignore it anymore. If Israel were to step back from claiming all of Jerusalem as theirs, stop building illegal settlements in cis-jordania and stopped shooting Palestinians willy nilly, they'd be in a far better position to demand that the Palestinians stop threatening to lob mortar shells or suicide bomb Israeli positions and find a different organization than Hamas to deal with.
But as long as the USA and Europe back Bibi unconditionally, this is not going to change. I mean, Europe does like to sputter and protest, but they have never taken any action to back up their words. And the USA has even stopped the sputtering. So instead of pointing to Israel and saying it's so sad what's happening there, we need to hold our own politicians accountable for enabling it.
I would just like to point out that EVEN Hamas was willing to negotiate as recently as last year. They accepted Israel based on 67+ Show Spoiler + (which in itself was a land grab but nevermind, they conceded it albiet not explicitly saying Israel, more of a "yeah there will be another sovereign state type of wording. But that was a step in the right direction to move forward)
Remember who torpedoed it ? OUR BOY BIBI. So then that just reinforced Hamas's previous agenda. And again its not like the Palestine coalitions are super in favour of Hamas.
These are not clashes, there are huge bufferzones where a population technically even isnt allowed into their own homes because doing so would highlight the level of apartheid, And its not like Palestineans havent been protesting before. They have protest daily in varying numbers. (what else is there to do?). The only difference is Bibi and co decided they would get their snipers some live practice in.
|
On May 15 2018 21:36 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2018 21:27 Jockmcplop wrote:On May 15 2018 21:23 Gahlo wrote:On May 15 2018 21:14 zlefin wrote:On May 15 2018 11:20 Gahlo wrote:On May 15 2018 10:14 zlefin wrote:On May 15 2018 10:06 Gahlo wrote:On May 15 2018 09:36 zlefin wrote:On May 15 2018 09:02 Gahlo wrote:On May 15 2018 08:56 zlefin wrote:
[quote]
what is happening does not match the definition you provided. "destruction of a group"
if Israel were committing genocide, the number of palestinians would not be increasing at such a rapid rate. I see no sign of the palestinians being destroyed as a group. Because, as I said, they are being cornered. Palestine has been shrinking over the years. Eventually you'll get to a point where there is nowhere left in Palestine for Palestinians to go. Then you can have your big display of genocide and it'll be too late to do anything about it. until that eventually though, it's ethnic cleansing, not genocide. so it's inapt to say they're committing genocide. it's also entirely an assumption on your part that it will reach a point where every bit of the land will be forbidden to palestinians and they would be faced with death. At what point do you think Israel will stop? Because the Palestinians aren't leaving and Israel keeps encroaching. I don't know when; but I don't need to, as the burden of proof is on you. Furthermore, the existence of various native american reservations is an indicator that it's possible for a people to be compressed into an area, cleansed otu of others, while not being completely obliterated. nor have you provided any decent counter to the point about population numbers. We have the benefit of hindsight to know what happened to the Native Americans. Regardless, not genociding them and performing widespread ethnic cleansing is nothing to pat the country on the back about."Congrats on not being 100% total evil." You have provided no proof that Israel will stop taking more and more land from the Palestinians. We have a repeated loop of a) take land b) kill people who try and fight back, justifying it as defense. Eventually, we'll get to the point where there is nowhere left for the Palestinians left to go in Palestine. From there it's: a) Isreal continues its pattern of behavior and completes the genocide b) decides to stop for... reasons? You need to prove that those reasons or decisions exist. Nothing that I know of does so. Either way, Isreal is a total assbag in this situation and the varying degrees of which is out of whack with the reaction that it gets. the burden of proof remains on you; so I don't need to prove that. My argument was solely about the use of the word genocide, which you did not establish, not whether Israel's behavior is acceptable. Sorry I don't wait for genocide to be complete before calling it out for what it is. I have the same attitude towards checkmate when I play chess. My opponents always end up really annoyed and I can't understand why. Sure, I haven't actually checkmated you yet, but I probably will so..... CHECKMATE. Perhaps when describing a situation people should try and stick to descriptions that correspond to reality in the present, not describe it as genocide because if no-one does anything there will eventually be genocide. Its Twitter language. People aren't racist anymore they're nazis. Israel isn't committing war crimes, its GENOCIDE because the word sounds more important, regardless of whether there is actual genocide occurring. Agreed in that Israel is trying to bring the international community to the same conclusion all but proposed here, ethnic cleansing isn't working, it's time for genocide. One problem being the inevitability of genocide is already being used to argue in favor/to justify the ethnic cleansing. I think part of the problem is that 'ethnic cleansing' sounds almost like a good thing, hell it is a good thing to over half the voting public.
I just think (as I've argued many times in here) that accurate use of language is important, especially when trying to bring justice out of a situation like this.
Israel is committing war crimes, blatantly. They are murdering innocent babies. Sniping civilians who pose no threat, and justice needs to be brought to the table at some point.
Its just that when people start on the 'genocide' thing, it gives them an easy out. They can easily argue that there's no genocide, and the more realistic claims of war crimes and murder fall away under their denials. imho people should stick to the facts without the hyperbole.
I know what you mean about 'ethnic cleansing'. I've always found this to be an inappropriate use of language anyway because it is an obvious attempt to whitewash a horrible situation with political language. I also agree that what some people are arguing in favor is basically ethnic cleansing.
|
On May 15 2018 21:40 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2018 21:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 15 2018 21:27 Jockmcplop wrote:On May 15 2018 21:23 Gahlo wrote:On May 15 2018 21:14 zlefin wrote:On May 15 2018 11:20 Gahlo wrote:On May 15 2018 10:14 zlefin wrote:On May 15 2018 10:06 Gahlo wrote:On May 15 2018 09:36 zlefin wrote:On May 15 2018 09:02 Gahlo wrote:
[quote]
Because, as I said, they are being cornered. Palestine has been shrinking over the years. Eventually you'll get to a point where there is nowhere left in Palestine for Palestinians to go. Then you can have your big display of genocide and it'll be too late to do anything about it. until that eventually though, it's ethnic cleansing, not genocide. so it's inapt to say they're committing genocide. it's also entirely an assumption on your part that it will reach a point where every bit of the land will be forbidden to palestinians and they would be faced with death. At what point do you think Israel will stop? Because the Palestinians aren't leaving and Israel keeps encroaching. I don't know when; but I don't need to, as the burden of proof is on you. Furthermore, the existence of various native american reservations is an indicator that it's possible for a people to be compressed into an area, cleansed otu of others, while not being completely obliterated. nor have you provided any decent counter to the point about population numbers. We have the benefit of hindsight to know what happened to the Native Americans. Regardless, not genociding them and performing widespread ethnic cleansing is nothing to pat the country on the back about."Congrats on not being 100% total evil." You have provided no proof that Israel will stop taking more and more land from the Palestinians. We have a repeated loop of a) take land b) kill people who try and fight back, justifying it as defense. Eventually, we'll get to the point where there is nowhere left for the Palestinians left to go in Palestine. From there it's: a) Isreal continues its pattern of behavior and completes the genocide b) decides to stop for... reasons? You need to prove that those reasons or decisions exist. Nothing that I know of does so. Either way, Isreal is a total assbag in this situation and the varying degrees of which is out of whack with the reaction that it gets. the burden of proof remains on you; so I don't need to prove that. My argument was solely about the use of the word genocide, which you did not establish, not whether Israel's behavior is acceptable. Sorry I don't wait for genocide to be complete before calling it out for what it is. I have the same attitude towards checkmate when I play chess. My opponents always end up really annoyed and I can't understand why. Sure, I haven't actually checkmated you yet, but I probably will so..... CHECKMATE. Perhaps when describing a situation people should try and stick to descriptions that correspond to reality in the present, not describe it as genocide because if no-one does anything there will eventually be genocide. Its Twitter language. People aren't racist anymore they're nazis. Israel isn't committing war crimes, its GENOCIDE because the word sounds more important, regardless of whether there is actual genocide occurring. Agreed in that Israel is trying to bring the international community to the same conclusion all but proposed here, ethnic cleansing isn't working, it's time for genocide. One problem being the inevitability of genocide is already being used to argue in favor/to justify the ethnic cleansing. I think part of the problem is that 'ethnic cleansing' sounds almost like a good thing, hell it is a good thing to over half the voting public. I just think (as I've argued many times in here) that accurate use of language is important, especially when trying to bring justice out of a situation like this. Israel is committing war crimes, blatantly. They are murdering innocent babies. Sniping civilians who pose no threat, and justice needs to be brought to the table at some point. Its just that when people start on the 'genocide' thing, it gives them an easy out. They can easily argue that there's no genocide, and the more realistic claims of war crimes and murder fall away under their denials. imho people should stick to the facts without the hyperbole. I know what you mean about 'ethnic cleansing'. I've always found this to be an inappropriate use of language anyway because it is an obvious attempt to whitewash a horrible situation with political language. I also agree that what some people are arguing in favor is basically ethnic cleansing.
Ok so does this count as genocide + Show Spoiler +https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabra_and_Shatila_massacre
|
On May 15 2018 21:42 Rebs wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2018 21:40 Jockmcplop wrote:On May 15 2018 21:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 15 2018 21:27 Jockmcplop wrote:On May 15 2018 21:23 Gahlo wrote:On May 15 2018 21:14 zlefin wrote:On May 15 2018 11:20 Gahlo wrote:On May 15 2018 10:14 zlefin wrote:On May 15 2018 10:06 Gahlo wrote:On May 15 2018 09:36 zlefin wrote:
[quote]
until that eventually though, it's ethnic cleansing, not genocide.
so it's inapt to say they're committing genocide.
it's also entirely an assumption on your part that it will reach a point where every bit of the land will be forbidden to palestinians and they would be faced with death. At what point do you think Israel will stop? Because the Palestinians aren't leaving and Israel keeps encroaching. I don't know when; but I don't need to, as the burden of proof is on you. Furthermore, the existence of various native american reservations is an indicator that it's possible for a people to be compressed into an area, cleansed otu of others, while not being completely obliterated. nor have you provided any decent counter to the point about population numbers. We have the benefit of hindsight to know what happened to the Native Americans. Regardless, not genociding them and performing widespread ethnic cleansing is nothing to pat the country on the back about."Congrats on not being 100% total evil." You have provided no proof that Israel will stop taking more and more land from the Palestinians. We have a repeated loop of a) take land b) kill people who try and fight back, justifying it as defense. Eventually, we'll get to the point where there is nowhere left for the Palestinians left to go in Palestine. From there it's: a) Isreal continues its pattern of behavior and completes the genocide b) decides to stop for... reasons? You need to prove that those reasons or decisions exist. Nothing that I know of does so. Either way, Isreal is a total assbag in this situation and the varying degrees of which is out of whack with the reaction that it gets. the burden of proof remains on you; so I don't need to prove that. My argument was solely about the use of the word genocide, which you did not establish, not whether Israel's behavior is acceptable. Sorry I don't wait for genocide to be complete before calling it out for what it is. I have the same attitude towards checkmate when I play chess. My opponents always end up really annoyed and I can't understand why. Sure, I haven't actually checkmated you yet, but I probably will so..... CHECKMATE. Perhaps when describing a situation people should try and stick to descriptions that correspond to reality in the present, not describe it as genocide because if no-one does anything there will eventually be genocide. Its Twitter language. People aren't racist anymore they're nazis. Israel isn't committing war crimes, its GENOCIDE because the word sounds more important, regardless of whether there is actual genocide occurring. Agreed in that Israel is trying to bring the international community to the same conclusion all but proposed here, ethnic cleansing isn't working, it's time for genocide. One problem being the inevitability of genocide is already being used to argue in favor/to justify the ethnic cleansing. I think part of the problem is that 'ethnic cleansing' sounds almost like a good thing, hell it is a good thing to over half the voting public. I just think (as I've argued many times in here) that accurate use of language is important, especially when trying to bring justice out of a situation like this. Israel is committing war crimes, blatantly. They are murdering innocent babies. Sniping civilians who pose no threat, and justice needs to be brought to the table at some point. Its just that when people start on the 'genocide' thing, it gives them an easy out. They can easily argue that there's no genocide, and the more realistic claims of war crimes and murder fall away under their denials. imho people should stick to the facts without the hyperbole. I know what you mean about 'ethnic cleansing'. I've always found this to be an inappropriate use of language anyway because it is an obvious attempt to whitewash a horrible situation with political language. I also agree that what some people are arguing in favor is basically ethnic cleansing. Ok so does this count as genocide + Show Spoiler +https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabra_and_Shatila_massacre ?
What does your question achieve, besides possibly baiting him into a "gotcha" situation? Either outright state your definition of genocide or outright ask his.
|
On May 15 2018 21:42 Rebs wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2018 21:40 Jockmcplop wrote:On May 15 2018 21:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 15 2018 21:27 Jockmcplop wrote:On May 15 2018 21:23 Gahlo wrote:On May 15 2018 21:14 zlefin wrote:On May 15 2018 11:20 Gahlo wrote:On May 15 2018 10:14 zlefin wrote:On May 15 2018 10:06 Gahlo wrote:On May 15 2018 09:36 zlefin wrote:
[quote]
until that eventually though, it's ethnic cleansing, not genocide.
so it's inapt to say they're committing genocide.
it's also entirely an assumption on your part that it will reach a point where every bit of the land will be forbidden to palestinians and they would be faced with death. At what point do you think Israel will stop? Because the Palestinians aren't leaving and Israel keeps encroaching. I don't know when; but I don't need to, as the burden of proof is on you. Furthermore, the existence of various native american reservations is an indicator that it's possible for a people to be compressed into an area, cleansed otu of others, while not being completely obliterated. nor have you provided any decent counter to the point about population numbers. We have the benefit of hindsight to know what happened to the Native Americans. Regardless, not genociding them and performing widespread ethnic cleansing is nothing to pat the country on the back about."Congrats on not being 100% total evil." You have provided no proof that Israel will stop taking more and more land from the Palestinians. We have a repeated loop of a) take land b) kill people who try and fight back, justifying it as defense. Eventually, we'll get to the point where there is nowhere left for the Palestinians left to go in Palestine. From there it's: a) Isreal continues its pattern of behavior and completes the genocide b) decides to stop for... reasons? You need to prove that those reasons or decisions exist. Nothing that I know of does so. Either way, Isreal is a total assbag in this situation and the varying degrees of which is out of whack with the reaction that it gets. the burden of proof remains on you; so I don't need to prove that. My argument was solely about the use of the word genocide, which you did not establish, not whether Israel's behavior is acceptable. Sorry I don't wait for genocide to be complete before calling it out for what it is. I have the same attitude towards checkmate when I play chess. My opponents always end up really annoyed and I can't understand why. Sure, I haven't actually checkmated you yet, but I probably will so..... CHECKMATE. Perhaps when describing a situation people should try and stick to descriptions that correspond to reality in the present, not describe it as genocide because if no-one does anything there will eventually be genocide. Its Twitter language. People aren't racist anymore they're nazis. Israel isn't committing war crimes, its GENOCIDE because the word sounds more important, regardless of whether there is actual genocide occurring. Agreed in that Israel is trying to bring the international community to the same conclusion all but proposed here, ethnic cleansing isn't working, it's time for genocide. One problem being the inevitability of genocide is already being used to argue in favor/to justify the ethnic cleansing. I think part of the problem is that 'ethnic cleansing' sounds almost like a good thing, hell it is a good thing to over half the voting public. I just think (as I've argued many times in here) that accurate use of language is important, especially when trying to bring justice out of a situation like this. Israel is committing war crimes, blatantly. They are murdering innocent babies. Sniping civilians who pose no threat, and justice needs to be brought to the table at some point. Its just that when people start on the 'genocide' thing, it gives them an easy out. They can easily argue that there's no genocide, and the more realistic claims of war crimes and murder fall away under their denials. imho people should stick to the facts without the hyperbole. I know what you mean about 'ethnic cleansing'. I've always found this to be an inappropriate use of language anyway because it is an obvious attempt to whitewash a horrible situation with political language. I also agree that what some people are arguing in favor is basically ethnic cleansing. Ok so does this count as genocide + Show Spoiler +https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabra_and_Shatila_massacre ?
I'm not too familiar with this case, but genocide is an attempt to wipe out or destroy an entire population, so if that's what happened then yeah.
We're talking about the current situation here though, and it just doesn't qualify as a genocide, according to standardized definitions of the word. Talking in those terms only cheapens the daily crimes committed against the Palestinian people imo.
If the Israeli government had their way, there would probably be genocide, but I don't think you could say any different about HAMAS. Neither is in a position to deliver on that so its purely hypothetical.
|
The power differential between Israel and Hamas is pretty dramatic so I don't think it makes sense to refer to them as similarly situated. One has a far greater capacity/ability to commit atrocities.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
