|
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 |
Norway28561 Posts
Maybe he demands it of the US because he's American, not Chinese. I have greater expectations for a 'western democracy' than what I do for a dictatorship, and I feel more personally invested and feel like I have greater agency in influencing actions undertaken by my own government than actions by other governments.
|
|
|
On May 13 2021 00:42 stilt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2021 12:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 12 2021 09:56 Mohdoo wrote:
If Biden was smart he'd just give Israel and Palestine our least populated states and give Israel to Iceland. If Jews and Muslims can't play nice over their holy land, neither of them get it. I don't think there's any good strategy when it comes to negotiating with religious extremists, especially when it takes the form of human interlopers preventing them from obtaining something that they believe their god wants them to have. Both sides being punished won't deter them, because they're crazy; they aren't rational actors. If things had been fair, a bunch of Germany should have been given rather than occupied lands. It looks like a religious conflict but it is not as religion took a major importance in the arabic world in the last decades but fondamentaly it is a secular conflict between a colonial state who is stealing and slaughtering and the oppressed. Tbf, I have no idea how you can reduce this to a religious conflict, Islam has become a identity symbol of resistance. Ofc, I prefer the more secular vision of the PLO but it is what it is.
The same location has incredible importance and significance for both Jewish and Muslim history, especially recorded in the Old Testament and the Quran, respectively. Each side believes that they are the rightful owners/settlers/rulers of that land, as (supposedly) told to them by their deity.
The fact that the conflict is one-sided doesn't mean religion is irrelevant to the fundamental disagreement. And sure, there are also plenty of secular reasons why other countries might want to get involved in this conflict too. However, unless there somehow ends up being a revision/update to where the Jewish people "belong" and/or where the Muslim people "belong", according to their god, the original issue won't dissipate. It's not like either side is willing to uproot and move to a "better" piece of land with more riches, as they would be conceding their divine providence for some mundane, worldly alternative. That sort of bargaining doesn't work with religious fundamentalists, who would rather die for their faith than give up their land.
|
On May 13 2021 00:32 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2021 23:47 Archeon wrote:On May 12 2021 22:28 GreenHorizons wrote:
I don't know if describing Israel's systemically violent subjugation and removal of Palestinians from their homes by way of an illegal military occupation and authoritarian apartheid policing as a "conflict" quite captures what is happening.
It's genocidal settler-colonialism very akin to the history of Manifest Destiny in the US from my perspective. Feels a bit one-sided to me considering that Israel multiple times tried to negotiate peace or a status quo and only started settling after repeated aggressions after conquering an area in a provoked conflict. Not saying that the continued escalations, occuptions and racist laws are justified in any way, but it's not like the Palestinians didn't funnel this civil war by violent aggression apparently supported by the majority who voted a terrorist group with a no-compromise policy. I'm not trying to say that Israel are the good guys, far from it. My point is that both sides are terrible and alternate at keeping this conflict alive. Which like you say isn't much of a conflict at all, because Israel won it in 67. That actually sounds a lot like the story I was taught about the history of western expansion in the US. My hope would be that the US not be a part of something like that again. US military, economic, and political support for Israel has been indispensable to the perpetuation of their horrific crimes against Palestinian people and I think it is far past the time to demand that it stops.
Perfectly fair. My impression from the genocide of the US-natives was that there were some tribes that were undivided in favor of peace and got displaced every time anyone white wanted that land and that there was and a strong racism even by the time when violence had long ceased. With the Palestinians it's much harder to make such a distinction. There's also the fact that the American natives eventually ran out of space to flee to, while the Palestinian areas are close to other Palestinian areas in other countries.
And don't get me wrong, I'm perfectly fine with not wanting to be a part of this and am happy that my gov hasn't really participated in this shitshow.
|
|
|
On May 13 2021 01:03 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2021 00:57 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Maybe he demands it of the US because he's American, not Chinese. I have greater expectations for a 'western democracy' than what I do for a dictatorship, and I feel more personally invested and feel like I have greater agency in influencing actions undertaken by my own government than actions by other governments. Perhaps, and that would be a fairly reasonable response. It would also mean that he would have to agree that what china was doing is worse and that they are a colonial dicatorship, neither which has happened. Israel is not the bad guys, Palestine is not the bad guys, this is so much more complicated than that. You can't simply say the Israel should stop and no one should support them, unless you are OK with them all being killed and being wiped from the map along with them taking a hell of a lot of people with them.
While I agree on the more complicated point, this is the US-threat, so talking about US-support kinda has it's place here.
I also think that Israel's gov under Netanjahu adopted harsher methods and imo these limit the possibilities for peace talk. The way out is deescalation. Unless you want the systematic purge, but then Israel will never find peace in the region.
|
|
|
United States42004 Posts
On May 13 2021 00:52 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2021 00:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 12 2021 23:47 Archeon wrote:On May 12 2021 22:28 GreenHorizons wrote:
I don't know if describing Israel's systemically violent subjugation and removal of Palestinians from their homes by way of an illegal military occupation and authoritarian apartheid policing as a "conflict" quite captures what is happening.
It's genocidal settler-colonialism very akin to the history of Manifest Destiny in the US from my perspective. Feels a bit one-sided to me considering that Israel multiple times tried to negotiate peace or a status quo and only started settling after repeated aggressions after conquering an area in a provoked conflict. Not saying that the continued escalations, occuptions and racist laws are justified in any way, but it's not like the Palestinians didn't funnel this civil war by violent aggression apparently supported by the majority who voted a terrorist group with a no-compromise policy. I'm not trying to say that Israel are the good guys, far from it. My point is that both sides are terrible and alternate at keeping this conflict alive. Which like you say isn't much of a conflict at all, because Israel won it in 67. That actually sounds a lot like the story I was taught about the history of western expansion in the US. My hope would be that the US not be a part of something like that again. US military, economic, and political support for Israel has been indispensable to the perpetuation of their horrific crimes against Palestinian people and I think it is far past the time to demand that it stops. Why do you demand this, but do not demand it of China in Uighur? Or China with HK? What is it that makes Israel so much worse than China? Or do you think the world should also condem China in the way you want them to Israel? And what is your solution? In China they would just have to give the Uighurs freedom to practice their religion and stop killing and reeducating them. With Israel and Palestine neither is willing to live with the other and both believe it is their god given right to the land. This war has been going on with various actors for 1000's of years. Show nested quote +On May 13 2021 00:42 stilt wrote:On May 12 2021 12:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 12 2021 09:56 Mohdoo wrote:
If Biden was smart he'd just give Israel and Palestine our least populated states and give Israel to Iceland. If Jews and Muslims can't play nice over their holy land, neither of them get it. I don't think there's any good strategy when it comes to negotiating with religious extremists, especially when it takes the form of human interlopers preventing them from obtaining something that they believe their god wants them to have. Both sides being punished won't deter them, because they're crazy; they aren't rational actors. If things had been fair, a bunch of Germany should have been given rather than occupied lands. It looks like a religious conflict but it is not as religion took a major importance in the arabic world in the last decades but fondamentaly it is a secular conflict between a colonial state who is stealing and slaughtering and the oppressed. Tbf, I have no idea how you can reduce this to a religious conflict, Islam has become a identity symbol of resistance. Ofc, I prefer the more secular vision of the PLO but it is what it is. It is most definitely a religious conflict. The state exists because of the religion and because the religion keeps being tried to be removed from the planet by killing all the people. And the war against them is a "jihad" and and and. There is no way to seperate religion out of this, that is silly.
People expect the US government to use its leverage with Israel more than they expect it to use its leverage over China because the US government has more leverage over Israel. It’s not that one issue is more important in a vacuum, it’s that one falls within the sphere of US influence and the other doesn’t. The US could stop Israel’s ethnic cleansing in the West Bank but chooses not to. The US can’t stop China as easily. People ask the US to do the possible, it’s not hypocritical to not devote equal time asking the US to do the impossible.
|
|
|
National Review has a piece up defending the Israeli settlers’ legal claim to the land being taken (if I’m not mistaken, an East Jerusalem neighborhood called Sheikh Jarrah). Essentially, the argument is that the land was bought by groups of Jews in 1874 under the Ottoman Empire, and lived on by Jews until 1948, when they were forced out by Jordan during the war. Israel retook the area in 1967 but allowed the new Arab residents to stay. But the land still legally belongs to the Jewish families who were driven out as refugees. The article’s chief analogy is to possessions like paintings which were stolen from Jews (and resold, redistributed, etc.) being confiscated from their new owners and returned to the families of their original owners, often many decades after the war.
This is, apparently, the legal claim of the settlers. To GH’s point, it’s worth comparing this procedure to US settlers seizing Native American land. The archetype of US settlers generally involved them showing up with some piece of paper or other legal claim, petitioned for and approved by US citizens and authorities (usually without input from or notification to the actual Native Americans living there), and telling them to get out or face violence.
I don’t think many posters here would say that was a fair and equitable procedure conducted in accordance with principles of rule of law or due process. Enumerating all the problems with it, on the other hand, and defining the “right” way to adjudicate these kinds of disputes is much harder. What would and wouldn’t qualify as a “legitimate” land claim on the parts of settlers? What if they had bought the land legitimately from the tribe that lived there, but then in intervening years a war with another tribe meant that territory now “belonged” to another tribe? What if the tribe sold the land to the state (who auctioned it off) in a treaty, but the treaty was in English and its terms were poorly communicated to the tribe? My moral intuition is that the settlers were generally in the wrong, but exactly why or under what circumstances they would be in the right is not clear.
Probably the more valuable and analogous question: who has the authority to adjudicate a dispute like this? Apparently (at least if NR is to be believed) the settlers have been in litigation on this issue for years, and the case is before the Israeli Supreme Court (NR is quick to point out they’ve won every step of the way, although if it’s still before the Israeli Supreme Court presumably it’s not settled yet). Does the Israeli Supreme Court even have jurisdiction here? If not, who does? Some UN court? ... does anyone?
Meanwhile the Israeli government is accused of quite a few war crimes either directly or tangentially related to this issue. I honestly don’t know the specifics here, either in what they’re accused of, or what the evidence is, or what the legal process is for bringing war crimes to (I assume) the UN. I’ve seen videos of soldiers assaulting what appear to be Muslim crowds engaged in prayer, but I don’t know any context for these incidents. Israel is bombing Gaza, they say in response to Hamas rockets fired at Israel. Is this just a pure case of collective punishment? That sounds pretty straightforwardly illegal under international law to me, but I’m afraid I’m way out of my depth here.
But long story short, it seems pretty clear to me that there’s a clear role and obligation for the international community to intervene here and ensure people’s rights are respected, and that includes the US leaning on our ally to stop the violence and submit to international arbitration of the dispute.
|
United States42004 Posts
On May 13 2021 06:13 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2021 05:35 KwarK wrote:On May 13 2021 00:52 JimmiC wrote:On May 13 2021 00:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 12 2021 23:47 Archeon wrote:On May 12 2021 22:28 GreenHorizons wrote:
I don't know if describing Israel's systemically violent subjugation and removal of Palestinians from their homes by way of an illegal military occupation and authoritarian apartheid policing as a "conflict" quite captures what is happening.
It's genocidal settler-colonialism very akin to the history of Manifest Destiny in the US from my perspective. Feels a bit one-sided to me considering that Israel multiple times tried to negotiate peace or a status quo and only started settling after repeated aggressions after conquering an area in a provoked conflict. Not saying that the continued escalations, occuptions and racist laws are justified in any way, but it's not like the Palestinians didn't funnel this civil war by violent aggression apparently supported by the majority who voted a terrorist group with a no-compromise policy. I'm not trying to say that Israel are the good guys, far from it. My point is that both sides are terrible and alternate at keeping this conflict alive. Which like you say isn't much of a conflict at all, because Israel won it in 67. That actually sounds a lot like the story I was taught about the history of western expansion in the US. My hope would be that the US not be a part of something like that again. US military, economic, and political support for Israel has been indispensable to the perpetuation of their horrific crimes against Palestinian people and I think it is far past the time to demand that it stops. Why do you demand this, but do not demand it of China in Uighur? Or China with HK? What is it that makes Israel so much worse than China? Or do you think the world should also condem China in the way you want them to Israel? And what is your solution? In China they would just have to give the Uighurs freedom to practice their religion and stop killing and reeducating them. With Israel and Palestine neither is willing to live with the other and both believe it is their god given right to the land. This war has been going on with various actors for 1000's of years. On May 13 2021 00:42 stilt wrote:On May 12 2021 12:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 12 2021 09:56 Mohdoo wrote:
If Biden was smart he'd just give Israel and Palestine our least populated states and give Israel to Iceland. If Jews and Muslims can't play nice over their holy land, neither of them get it. I don't think there's any good strategy when it comes to negotiating with religious extremists, especially when it takes the form of human interlopers preventing them from obtaining something that they believe their god wants them to have. Both sides being punished won't deter them, because they're crazy; they aren't rational actors. If things had been fair, a bunch of Germany should have been given rather than occupied lands. It looks like a religious conflict but it is not as religion took a major importance in the arabic world in the last decades but fondamentaly it is a secular conflict between a colonial state who is stealing and slaughtering and the oppressed. Tbf, I have no idea how you can reduce this to a religious conflict, Islam has become a identity symbol of resistance. Ofc, I prefer the more secular vision of the PLO but it is what it is. It is most definitely a religious conflict. The state exists because of the religion and because the religion keeps being tried to be removed from the planet by killing all the people. And the war against them is a "jihad" and and and. There is no way to seperate religion out of this, that is silly. People expect the US government to use its leverage with Israel more than they expect it to use its leverage over China because the US government has more leverage over Israel. It’s not that one issue is more important in a vacuum, it’s that one falls within the sphere of US influence and the other doesn’t. The US could stop Israel’s ethnic cleansing in the West Bank but chooses not to. The US can’t stop China as easily. People ask the US to do the possible, it’s not hypocritical to not devote equal time asking the US to do the impossible. Calling it ethnic cleansing is not accurate, I get that you like to use these kind of terms to make your point appear more compelling but it really ends up causing it to miss the mark. But by your apparent definition lets go with instead of China you can pick, Turkey, India, Pakistan, SA, whoever. The last time we went through this you wanted them to "give all the land back" and yet you are unwilling to give your house back to the indigenous people it was "stolen" from. If we do want to move Israel, where? And how do we compensate the new group they displace and do they get anything for leaving? I agree that the US should use their diplomacy to make the world a better place instead of only for self wealth generation. I get concerned when only one country is talked about and why that is the one, especially when it is by far the most complicated. Israeli's are not evil, most want peace. The issues are the assholes who are benefiting from the conflict and those people exist on both sides.
Multiple countries are talked about. The “why do you only talk about Israel?” talking point has always been wrong and has always been dumb. People are always bitching about American foreign policy, British foreign policy, French foreign policy, and so forth and so forth. India gets shit for starting fights in Kashmir and wanting to wipe out all Muslims. China gets shit for making islands and deciding Vietnam is Chinese territorial waters based on a fake map.
The US is directly complicit in what Israel is doing in a way that doesn’t apply to a lot of other situations. The US subsidizes Israel and provides billions in military aid. That’s why what Israel does with that support is a US political issue. The alleged hypocrisy is a bullshit “whatabout” distraction that exists to give idiots something to say whenever Israel comes up. It doesn’t actually exist.
|
|
|
United States42004 Posts
On May 13 2021 07:11 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2021 06:55 KwarK wrote:On May 13 2021 06:13 JimmiC wrote:On May 13 2021 05:35 KwarK wrote:On May 13 2021 00:52 JimmiC wrote:On May 13 2021 00:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 12 2021 23:47 Archeon wrote:On May 12 2021 22:28 GreenHorizons wrote:
I don't know if describing Israel's systemically violent subjugation and removal of Palestinians from their homes by way of an illegal military occupation and authoritarian apartheid policing as a "conflict" quite captures what is happening.
It's genocidal settler-colonialism very akin to the history of Manifest Destiny in the US from my perspective. Feels a bit one-sided to me considering that Israel multiple times tried to negotiate peace or a status quo and only started settling after repeated aggressions after conquering an area in a provoked conflict. Not saying that the continued escalations, occuptions and racist laws are justified in any way, but it's not like the Palestinians didn't funnel this civil war by violent aggression apparently supported by the majority who voted a terrorist group with a no-compromise policy. I'm not trying to say that Israel are the good guys, far from it. My point is that both sides are terrible and alternate at keeping this conflict alive. Which like you say isn't much of a conflict at all, because Israel won it in 67. That actually sounds a lot like the story I was taught about the history of western expansion in the US. My hope would be that the US not be a part of something like that again. US military, economic, and political support for Israel has been indispensable to the perpetuation of their horrific crimes against Palestinian people and I think it is far past the time to demand that it stops. Why do you demand this, but do not demand it of China in Uighur? Or China with HK? What is it that makes Israel so much worse than China? Or do you think the world should also condem China in the way you want them to Israel? And what is your solution? In China they would just have to give the Uighurs freedom to practice their religion and stop killing and reeducating them. With Israel and Palestine neither is willing to live with the other and both believe it is their god given right to the land. This war has been going on with various actors for 1000's of years. On May 13 2021 00:42 stilt wrote:On May 12 2021 12:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 12 2021 09:56 Mohdoo wrote:
If Biden was smart he'd just give Israel and Palestine our least populated states and give Israel to Iceland. If Jews and Muslims can't play nice over their holy land, neither of them get it. I don't think there's any good strategy when it comes to negotiating with religious extremists, especially when it takes the form of human interlopers preventing them from obtaining something that they believe their god wants them to have. Both sides being punished won't deter them, because they're crazy; they aren't rational actors. If things had been fair, a bunch of Germany should have been given rather than occupied lands. It looks like a religious conflict but it is not as religion took a major importance in the arabic world in the last decades but fondamentaly it is a secular conflict between a colonial state who is stealing and slaughtering and the oppressed. Tbf, I have no idea how you can reduce this to a religious conflict, Islam has become a identity symbol of resistance. Ofc, I prefer the more secular vision of the PLO but it is what it is. It is most definitely a religious conflict. The state exists because of the religion and because the religion keeps being tried to be removed from the planet by killing all the people. And the war against them is a "jihad" and and and. There is no way to seperate religion out of this, that is silly. People expect the US government to use its leverage with Israel more than they expect it to use its leverage over China because the US government has more leverage over Israel. It’s not that one issue is more important in a vacuum, it’s that one falls within the sphere of US influence and the other doesn’t. The US could stop Israel’s ethnic cleansing in the West Bank but chooses not to. The US can’t stop China as easily. People ask the US to do the possible, it’s not hypocritical to not devote equal time asking the US to do the impossible. Calling it ethnic cleansing is not accurate, I get that you like to use these kind of terms to make your point appear more compelling but it really ends up causing it to miss the mark. But by your apparent definition lets go with instead of China you can pick, Turkey, India, Pakistan, SA, whoever. The last time we went through this you wanted them to "give all the land back" and yet you are unwilling to give your house back to the indigenous people it was "stolen" from. If we do want to move Israel, where? And how do we compensate the new group they displace and do they get anything for leaving? I agree that the US should use their diplomacy to make the world a better place instead of only for self wealth generation. I get concerned when only one country is talked about and why that is the one, especially when it is by far the most complicated. Israeli's are not evil, most want peace. The issues are the assholes who are benefiting from the conflict and those people exist on both sides. Multiple countries are talked about. The “why do you only talk about Israel?” talking point has always been wrong and has always been dumb. People are always bitching about American foreign policy, British foreign policy, French foreign policy, and so forth and so forth. India gets shit for starting fights in Kashmir and wanting to wipe out all Muslims. China gets shit for making islands and deciding Vietnam is Chinese territorial waters based on a fake map. The US is directly complicit in what Israel is doing in a way that doesn’t apply to a lot of other situations. The US subsidizes Israel and provides billions in military aid. That’s why what Israel does with that support is a US political issue. The alleged hypocrisy is a bullshit “whatabout” distraction that exists to give idiots something to say whenever Israel comes up. It doesn’t actually exist. Nope, it is not. The same way I would be arguing against someone who thought that we should wipe the Palestine's off the map for firing 1000's of rockets into residential area's. Is the Iron dome part of the support the US should remove? Are you fine with the consequences of that? The issue is not talking about Israel, it is the framing that is the problem. I also think a lot of the people you think are "idiots" is actually just your incredible arrogance which has created a massive amount of ignorance that leads to you to assume what their intentions or point is. Then because of your massive ego (likely compensating for massive insecurity) it does not allow you to even consider any other perspective. Specifically, you Kwark, what is your solution? What do you think the consequences of that solution are? And does that bring us to a better a place?
Few things here.
Nope, it is not. The same way I would be arguing against someone who thought that we should wipe the Palestine's off the map for firing 1000's of rockets into residential area's.
No idea what you're responding to here. Complete non sequitur.
Is the Iron dome part of the support the US should remove?
No, it was built by Israel and is not part of the US support. You should establish the factual foundations of your arguments before you make them.
Are you fine with the consequences of that?
This isn't how asking for concessions in exchange for the aid works. Firstly, the goal isn't to stop giving the aid, it's to get the other party to do what you want in exchange for the aid you're still giving. Secondly, the party asking for concessions isn't responsible for the consequences of refusal, the party refusing is. Let's say that hypothetically that Israel was running Hunger Games style child deathmatches and that the US was providing essential food supplies for free but wanted Israel to stop their child deathmatches. If we accepted your shitty argument then if I were to suggest that the US ask Israel to stop their child deathmatches you would immediately ask why I wanted all the people to starve. That framing would imply that Israel had no ability to provide the requested concession and that starving wouldn't be a consequence of that choice not to provide the concession.
I, of course, do not want Israelis to die. I think you've grossly mischaracterized the situation by suggesting that anyone who wants Israel to provide any kind of policy concessions in exchange for aid is automatically responsible for the consequences of Israel's refusal (if they were to refuse which would be unlikely).
The issue is not talking about Israel, it is the framing that is the problem.
There is no problem. That's why the whole "you only talk about Israel!" thing is so dumb. It's not about Jews or the Jewish people having a homeland, it's that they're running an ethno-nationalist expansionist state and wiping out the people who previously lived there. It's a dumb diversionary tactic that raises the spectre of antisemitism without having the guts to commit to it. If you want to allege that people who complain about Israel bulldozing homes on the West Bank are Nazis then have the balls to actually say it, don't half ass it with innuendo.
I also think a lot of the people you think are "idiots" is actually just your incredible arrogance which has created a massive amount of ignorance that leads to you to assume what their intentions or point is. Then because of your massive ego (likely compensating for massive insecurity) it does not allow you to even consider any other perspective.
Or, and hear me out here, a lot of people say an awful lot of dumb stuff on the internet. Like when people assert that if the US were to leverage its foreign aid to Israel then for some reason Israel would have to dismantle their Iron Dome, despite the two things being wholly unrelated. The reason I characterize stupid things that people say as stupid is because they're stupid. It's not about ego or insecurity, it's because they're stupid things and that the best way to describe them is as stupid things. If you feel like I refer to a lot of the things you say as stupid then I welcome you to draw your own conclusions from that observation. It's not about ego or insecurity, I have absolutely nothing to prove in life, I have achieved all I wish to and more, I have all the professional and personal successes you could imagine and more.
Specifically, you Kwark, what is your solution?
To what? The Middle East as a whole or just bulldozing Palestinian homes for settlements?
What do you think the consequences of that solution are?
Let's say I propose that Biden tell Israel to halt settlements in order to continue to receive aid. The consequences would be a halt to settlements.
And does that bring us to a better a place?
Yes.
|
Norway28561 Posts
Yep, there's a lot of complexity to the Israel-Palestine question as a whole. However, I don't see the complexity to the 'the US should demand that Israel stops building new settlements' - and even 'the US is complicit as long as they continue to give aid without demanding that this policy ends'. Figuring out where to revert back to is really difficult, but the question of continued settlements is not.
|
On May 13 2021 06:54 ChristianS wrote:+ Show Spoiler +National Review has a piece up defending the Israeli settlers’ legal claim to the land being taken (if I’m not mistaken, an East Jerusalem neighborhood called Sheikh Jarrah). Essentially, the argument is that the land was bought by groups of Jews in 1874 under the Ottoman Empire, and lived on by Jews until 1948, when they were forced out by Jordan during the war. Israel retook the area in 1967 but allowed the new Arab residents to stay. But the land still legally belongs to the Jewish families who were driven out as refugees. The article’s chief analogy is to possessions like paintings which were stolen from Jews (and resold, redistributed, etc.) being confiscated from their new owners and returned to the families of their original owners, often many decades after the war. This is, apparently, the legal claim of the settlers. To GH’s point, it’s worth comparing this procedure to US settlers seizing Native American land. The archetype of US settlers generally involved them showing up with some piece of paper or other legal claim, petitioned for and approved by US citizens and authorities (usually without input from or notification to the actual Native Americans living there), and telling them to get out or face violence. I don’t think many posters here would say that was a fair and equitable procedure conducted in accordance with principles of rule of law or due process. Enumerating all the problems with it, on the other hand, and defining the “right” way to adjudicate these kinds of disputes is much harder. What would and wouldn’t qualify as a “legitimate” land claim on the parts of settlers? What if they had bought the land legitimately from the tribe that lived there, but then in intervening years a war with another tribe meant that territory now “belonged” to another tribe? What if the tribe sold the land to the state (who auctioned it off) in a treaty, but the treaty was in English and its terms were poorly communicated to the tribe? My moral intuition is that the settlers were generally in the wrong, but exactly why or under what circumstances they would be in the right is not clear. Probably the more valuable and analogous question: who has the authority to adjudicate a dispute like this? Apparently (at least if NR is to be believed) the settlers have been in litigation on this issue for years, and the case is before the Israeli Supreme Court (NR is quick to point out they’ve won every step of the way, although if it’s still before the Israeli Supreme Court presumably it’s not settled yet). Does the Israeli Supreme Court even have jurisdiction here? If not, who does? Some UN court? ... does anyone? Meanwhile the Israeli government is accused of quite a few war crimes either directly or tangentially related to this issue. I honestly don’t know the specifics here, either in what they’re accused of, or what the evidence is, or what the legal process is for bringing war crimes to (I assume) the UN. I’ve seen videos of soldiers assaulting what appear to be Muslim crowds engaged in prayer, but I don’t know any context for these incidents. Israel is bombing Gaza, they say in response to Hamas rockets fired at Israel. Is this just a pure case of collective punishment? That sounds pretty straightforwardly illegal under international law to me, but I’m afraid I’m way out of my depth here. But long story short, it seems pretty clear to me that there’s a clear role and obligation for the international community to intervene here and ensure people’s rights are respected, and that includes the US leaning on our ally to stop the violence and submit to international arbitration of the dispute.
Quality post. Surely I'm not the only one that finds it ironic that Israeli courts declared this land belongs to the settlers because Jews used to live their 70 years ago before being forced out in 1948. Something tells me that if we reverted all the land that was not purchased legally back to whoever owned it in 1947 that the nation of Israel would not come out ahead in that.
|
|
|
United States42004 Posts
On May 13 2021 09:31 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2021 07:51 KwarK wrote:On May 13 2021 07:11 JimmiC wrote:On May 13 2021 06:55 KwarK wrote:On May 13 2021 06:13 JimmiC wrote:On May 13 2021 05:35 KwarK wrote:On May 13 2021 00:52 JimmiC wrote:On May 13 2021 00:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 12 2021 23:47 Archeon wrote:On May 12 2021 22:28 GreenHorizons wrote:
I don't know if describing Israel's systemically violent subjugation and removal of Palestinians from their homes by way of an illegal military occupation and authoritarian apartheid policing as a "conflict" quite captures what is happening.
It's genocidal settler-colonialism very akin to the history of Manifest Destiny in the US from my perspective. Feels a bit one-sided to me considering that Israel multiple times tried to negotiate peace or a status quo and only started settling after repeated aggressions after conquering an area in a provoked conflict. Not saying that the continued escalations, occuptions and racist laws are justified in any way, but it's not like the Palestinians didn't funnel this civil war by violent aggression apparently supported by the majority who voted a terrorist group with a no-compromise policy. I'm not trying to say that Israel are the good guys, far from it. My point is that both sides are terrible and alternate at keeping this conflict alive. Which like you say isn't much of a conflict at all, because Israel won it in 67. That actually sounds a lot like the story I was taught about the history of western expansion in the US. My hope would be that the US not be a part of something like that again. US military, economic, and political support for Israel has been indispensable to the perpetuation of their horrific crimes against Palestinian people and I think it is far past the time to demand that it stops. Why do you demand this, but do not demand it of China in Uighur? Or China with HK? What is it that makes Israel so much worse than China? Or do you think the world should also condem China in the way you want them to Israel? And what is your solution? In China they would just have to give the Uighurs freedom to practice their religion and stop killing and reeducating them. With Israel and Palestine neither is willing to live with the other and both believe it is their god given right to the land. This war has been going on with various actors for 1000's of years. On May 13 2021 00:42 stilt wrote:On May 12 2021 12:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 12 2021 09:56 Mohdoo wrote:
If Biden was smart he'd just give Israel and Palestine our least populated states and give Israel to Iceland. If Jews and Muslims can't play nice over their holy land, neither of them get it. I don't think there's any good strategy when it comes to negotiating with religious extremists, especially when it takes the form of human interlopers preventing them from obtaining something that they believe their god wants them to have. Both sides being punished won't deter them, because they're crazy; they aren't rational actors. If things had been fair, a bunch of Germany should have been given rather than occupied lands. It looks like a religious conflict but it is not as religion took a major importance in the arabic world in the last decades but fondamentaly it is a secular conflict between a colonial state who is stealing and slaughtering and the oppressed. Tbf, I have no idea how you can reduce this to a religious conflict, Islam has become a identity symbol of resistance. Ofc, I prefer the more secular vision of the PLO but it is what it is. It is most definitely a religious conflict. The state exists because of the religion and because the religion keeps being tried to be removed from the planet by killing all the people. And the war against them is a "jihad" and and and. There is no way to seperate religion out of this, that is silly. People expect the US government to use its leverage with Israel more than they expect it to use its leverage over China because the US government has more leverage over Israel. It’s not that one issue is more important in a vacuum, it’s that one falls within the sphere of US influence and the other doesn’t. The US could stop Israel’s ethnic cleansing in the West Bank but chooses not to. The US can’t stop China as easily. People ask the US to do the possible, it’s not hypocritical to not devote equal time asking the US to do the impossible. Calling it ethnic cleansing is not accurate, I get that you like to use these kind of terms to make your point appear more compelling but it really ends up causing it to miss the mark. But by your apparent definition lets go with instead of China you can pick, Turkey, India, Pakistan, SA, whoever. The last time we went through this you wanted them to "give all the land back" and yet you are unwilling to give your house back to the indigenous people it was "stolen" from. If we do want to move Israel, where? And how do we compensate the new group they displace and do they get anything for leaving? I agree that the US should use their diplomacy to make the world a better place instead of only for self wealth generation. I get concerned when only one country is talked about and why that is the one, especially when it is by far the most complicated. Israeli's are not evil, most want peace. The issues are the assholes who are benefiting from the conflict and those people exist on both sides. Multiple countries are talked about. The “why do you only talk about Israel?” talking point has always been wrong and has always been dumb. People are always bitching about American foreign policy, British foreign policy, French foreign policy, and so forth and so forth. India gets shit for starting fights in Kashmir and wanting to wipe out all Muslims. China gets shit for making islands and deciding Vietnam is Chinese territorial waters based on a fake map. The US is directly complicit in what Israel is doing in a way that doesn’t apply to a lot of other situations. The US subsidizes Israel and provides billions in military aid. That’s why what Israel does with that support is a US political issue. The alleged hypocrisy is a bullshit “whatabout” distraction that exists to give idiots something to say whenever Israel comes up. It doesn’t actually exist. Nope, it is not. The same way I would be arguing against someone who thought that we should wipe the Palestine's off the map for firing 1000's of rockets into residential area's. Is the Iron dome part of the support the US should remove? Are you fine with the consequences of that? The issue is not talking about Israel, it is the framing that is the problem. I also think a lot of the people you think are "idiots" is actually just your incredible arrogance which has created a massive amount of ignorance that leads to you to assume what their intentions or point is. Then because of your massive ego (likely compensating for massive insecurity) it does not allow you to even consider any other perspective. Specifically, you Kwark, what is your solution? What do you think the consequences of that solution are? And does that bring us to a better a place? Few things here. Nope, it is not. The same way I would be arguing against someone who thought that we should wipe the Palestine's off the map for firing 1000's of rockets into residential area's. No idea what you're responding to here. Complete non sequitur. Is the Iron dome part of the support the US should remove? No, it was built by Israel and is not part of the US support. You should establish the factual foundations of your arguments before you make them. Are you fine with the consequences of that? This isn't how asking for concessions in exchange for the aid works. Firstly, the goal isn't to stop giving the aid, it's to get the other party to do what you want in exchange for the aid you're still giving. Secondly, the party asking for concessions isn't responsible for the consequences of refusal, the party refusing is. Let's say that hypothetically that Israel was running Hunger Games style child deathmatches and that the US was providing essential food supplies for free but wanted Israel to stop their child deathmatches. If we accepted your shitty argument then if I were to suggest that the US ask Israel to stop their child deathmatches you would immediately ask why I wanted all the people to starve. That framing would imply that Israel had no ability to provide the requested concession and that starving wouldn't be a consequence of that choice not to provide the concession. I, of course, do not want Israelis to die. I think you've grossly mischaracterized the situation by suggesting that anyone who wants Israel to provide any kind of policy concessions in exchange for aid is automatically responsible for the consequences of Israel's refusal (if they were to refuse which would be unlikely). The issue is not talking about Israel, it is the framing that is the problem. There is no problem. That's why the whole "you only talk about Israel!" thing is so dumb. It's not about Jews or the Jewish people having a homeland, it's that they're running an ethno-nationalist expansionist state and wiping out the people who previously lived there. It's a dumb diversionary tactic that raises the spectre of antisemitism without having the guts to commit to it. If you want to allege that people who complain about Israel bulldozing homes on the West Bank are Nazis then have the balls to actually say it, don't half ass it with innuendo. I also think a lot of the people you think are "idiots" is actually just your incredible arrogance which has created a massive amount of ignorance that leads to you to assume what their intentions or point is. Then because of your massive ego (likely compensating for massive insecurity) it does not allow you to even consider any other perspective. Or, and hear me out here, a lot of people say an awful lot of dumb stuff on the internet. Like when people assert that if the US were to leverage its foreign aid to Israel then for some reason Israel would have to dismantle their Iron Dome, despite the two things being wholly unrelated. The reason I characterize stupid things that people say as stupid is because they're stupid. It's not about ego or insecurity, it's because they're stupid things and that the best way to describe them is as stupid things. If you feel like I refer to a lot of the things you say as stupid then I welcome you to draw your own conclusions from that observation. It's not about ego or insecurity, I have absolutely nothing to prove in life, I have achieved all I wish to and more, I have all the professional and personal successes you could imagine and more. Specifically, you Kwark, what is your solution? To what? The Middle East as a whole or just bulldozing Palestinian homes for settlements? What do you think the consequences of that solution are? Let's say I propose that Biden tell Israel to halt settlements in order to continue to receive aid. The consequences would be a halt to settlements. And does that bring us to a better a place? Yes. I know its hard, but I expect people who chime in to read what I have written on the topic at least in the last few hours which it should be really easy to see that my point is far from "you only talk about Israel". If you want to strawman my point to that, that is your issue but I'm not going to argue against it because that is not my point. It was specifically to a person who is not consistent with hating this type of behavior. About the iron dome, take your own advice. Show nested quote +The initial funding and development of the Iron Dome system was provided and undertaken by Israel.[29] This allowed for the deployment of the first two Iron Dome systems.[30] Subsequently, funding for an additional eight Iron Dome systems—along with funding for a supply of interception missiles—is currently being provided by the United States, with two of these additional systems having been delivered by 2012 To this Show nested quote +There is no problem. That's why the whole "you only talk about Israel!" thing is so dumb. It's not about Jews or the Jewish people having a homeland, it's that they're running an ethno-nationalist expansionist state and wiping out the people who previously lived there. It's a dumb diversionary tactic that raises the spectre of antisemitism without having the guts to commit to it. If you want to allege that people who complain about Israel bulldozing homes on the West Bank are Nazis then have the balls to actually say it, don't half ass it with innuendo. You are wrong, there are people who are anti-Semitic and they are mixed in with the others who are against what people are doing to other people, and they often use the logical portion to build their credibility and their case for the more horrible parts. As I pointed out the people you are talking about who are doing the most horrible things are a powerful minority and far from everyone (in Israel) agrees with what they are doing. Jews are also probably the group that has the most reasoning to create a ethno-nationalist state with very legitimate fear of being wiped out. This needs to be taken into account when discussing what needs to happen. How many other places have multiple states in close proximity who actively and publicly campaign for wiping them out and removing them from the map? How many other groups are hated by both ends of the political spectrum, the fascists' tend to be more open with their want to rid them of the world, though sometimes they soften it with "globalist" whereas the far left will sometimes use "capitalist class" to mean all business owners or the wealthy or they might also mean Jews. I mean there are discussions and papers on whether or not Hitler killed more Jews than Stalin, I think most fall on the Hitler side, but that there is even a discussion brings to light just how bad it was for the people in separate countries that are supposedly politically opposed and yet agree on wiping out the Jews. I'm not against leveraging the aid to Israel, I support it, I've said as much many times. I know you don't struggle with reading comprehension but you clearly struggle with arguing against peoples actual argument and not the strawman you create. This is why I describe you is ignorant and not stupid, you have the horsepower to read, internalize, think and respond you just don't do it. I do love this sentence in particular though Show nested quote +It's not about ego or insecurity, I have absolutely nothing to prove in life, I have achieved all I wish to and more, I have all the professional and personal successes you could imagine and more. Unintentional comedy is the best! Clearly no ego, no insecurity at all! As to your proposal which is far different then when we last talked (thank goodness) and I agree with the idea behind it, how to implement it is the tricky part. That you think I don't shows that you have not bothered to understand me and would rather get internet points by being an asshole. Show nested quote +On May 13 2021 08:05 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Yep, there's a lot of complexity to the Israel-Palestine question as a whole. However, I don't see the complexity to the 'the US should demand that Israel stops building new settlements' - and even 'the US is complicit as long as they continue to give aid without demanding that this policy ends'. Figuring out where to revert back to is really difficult, but the question of continued settlements is not. I would not argue with this either, I'll give Biden some time to hopefully do a lot better than Trump and Kushner (and Obama and those before him) so far he has surprised pleasantly so I'm not ready to write him off. It will be a challenge to reduce aid and not put the innocent Israeli's at risk who are also worth protecting. I despise Maduro, he is a criminal, a fraud, enslaves large groups of people, has committed countless human rights abuses and continues too on the daily. The US not only does not support him (not out of the goodness of their hearts) they sanction him, his allies and the country itself. It has not worked in the slightest to reduce his power or evil or even his lifestyle he still lives as a billionaire, it has dramatically impacted the lives of millions of Venezuelans for the worse. To me this also bad foreign policy because it does not only punish those it should. I'm not going to blindly say that "not supporting Israel" is good policy, even if people use very loaded words to describe them to try to bring out emotions of hatred and disgust. I need to know what that means, what it hopes to accomplish, why they think it will accomplish it and then what will be the consequences of it. Maybe the answer is not reducing aid to Israel but drastically increasing the aid to Palestinians? I'm not sure and I'd be interested in people thoughts and discussing the potential consequences. Again, I'm not saying Israel is the good guys and the US should support them unconditionally. Nor should they of anyone. I was trying to understand the logic of a poster who hates this behavior, but not universally. I was trying to understand if this was because he thought was Israel was doing was "worse" than what others were doing, or if it was something else. And instead of assuming I asked. That way I would know where to go from there. If someone else was against genocide everywhere and posted something similar I would not have the same questions, I likely would have questions but different ones.
In the July 2020 appropriations (H.R. 7617) there was $73m for the Iron Dome. That's peanuts to Israel. The suggestion that anyone calling for an end to military aid to Israel is planning to strip the Iron Dome from the Israeli civilians is absurd. It's just a bad take. When you say "Is the Iron dome part of the support the US should remove? Are you fine with the consequences of that?" as if the only thing keeping rockets from hitting Israeli civilians is US goodwill you are either lying or deliberately making a bad argument. You decide which you were doing.
I don't read everything you've written on a topic before chiming in, I don't read most of the posts in this topic and I only post when someone says something so bad I can't stop myself from responding. For you it may give the appearance that I read a lot of your posts though, I certainly respond to you more often than most. In this instance the dumb thing was
Why do you demand this, but do not demand it of China in Uighur? Or China with HK?
That was such an absurdly stupid take that it demanded a response.
I didn't strawman it, you really did write that stupid thing that I responded to. You went with "how come an American in the US politics megathread is posting demands of an American ally that receives political support for the things they do and not demands of a country that has nothing to do with America and does not receive American political support". People post about the United States in the US Politics Megathread because it's in the name of the topic. When GH won't stop spamming about Israel in the Hong Kong thread let me know.
|
|
|
United States42004 Posts
On May 13 2021 11:16 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2021 10:04 KwarK wrote:On May 13 2021 09:31 JimmiC wrote:On May 13 2021 07:51 KwarK wrote:On May 13 2021 07:11 JimmiC wrote:On May 13 2021 06:55 KwarK wrote:On May 13 2021 06:13 JimmiC wrote:On May 13 2021 05:35 KwarK wrote:On May 13 2021 00:52 JimmiC wrote:On May 13 2021 00:32 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
That actually sounds a lot like the story I was taught about the history of western expansion in the US. My hope would be that the US not be a part of something like that again.
US military, economic, and political support for Israel has been indispensable to the perpetuation of their horrific crimes against Palestinian people and I think it is far past the time to demand that it stops. Why do you demand this, but do not demand it of China in Uighur? Or China with HK? What is it that makes Israel so much worse than China? Or do you think the world should also condem China in the way you want them to Israel? And what is your solution? In China they would just have to give the Uighurs freedom to practice their religion and stop killing and reeducating them. With Israel and Palestine neither is willing to live with the other and both believe it is their god given right to the land. This war has been going on with various actors for 1000's of years. On May 13 2021 00:42 stilt wrote:
[quote]
If things had been fair, a bunch of Germany should have been given rather than occupied lands.
It looks like a religious conflict but it is not as religion took a major importance in the arabic world in the last decades but fondamentaly it is a secular conflict between a colonial state who is stealing and slaughtering and the oppressed.
Tbf, I have no idea how you can reduce this to a religious conflict, Islam has become a identity symbol of resistance. Ofc, I prefer the more secular vision of the PLO but it is what it is. It is most definitely a religious conflict. The state exists because of the religion and because the religion keeps being tried to be removed from the planet by killing all the people. And the war against them is a "jihad" and and and. There is no way to separate religion out of this, that is silly. People expect the US government to use its leverage with Israel more than they expect it to use its leverage over China because the US government has more leverage over Israel. It’s not that one issue is more important in a vacuum, it’s that one falls within the sphere of US influence and the other doesn’t. The US could stop Israel’s ethnic cleansing in the West Bank but chooses not to. The US can’t stop China as easily. People ask the US to do the possible, it’s not hypocritical to not devote equal time asking the US to do the impossible. Calling it ethnic cleansing is not accurate, I get that you like to use these kind of terms to make your point appear more compelling but it really ends up causing it to miss the mark. But by your apparent definition lets go with instead of China you can pick, Turkey, India, Pakistan, SA, whoever. The last time we went through this you wanted them to "give all the land back" and yet you are unwilling to give your house back to the indigenous people it was "stolen" from. If we do want to move Israel, where? And how do we compensate the new group they displace and do they get anything for leaving? I agree that the US should use their diplomacy to make the world a better place instead of only for self wealth generation. I get concerned when only one country is talked about and why that is the one, especially when it is by far the most complicated. Israeli's are not evil, most want peace. The issues are the assholes who are benefiting from the conflict and those people exist on both sides. Multiple countries are talked about. The “why do you only talk about Israel?” talking point has always been wrong and has always been dumb. People are always bitching about American foreign policy, British foreign policy, French foreign policy, and so forth and so forth. India gets shit for starting fights in Kashmir and wanting to wipe out all Muslims. China gets shit for making islands and deciding Vietnam is Chinese territorial waters based on a fake map. The US is directly complicit in what Israel is doing in a way that doesn’t apply to a lot of other situations. The US subsidizes Israel and provides billions in military aid. That’s why what Israel does with that support is a US political issue. The alleged hypocrisy is a bullshit “whatabout” distraction that exists to give idiots something to say whenever Israel comes up. It doesn’t actually exist. Nope, it is not. The same way I would be arguing against someone who thought that we should wipe the Palestine's off the map for firing 1000's of rockets into residential area's. Is the Iron dome part of the support the US should remove? Are you fine with the consequences of that? The issue is not talking about Israel, it is the framing that is the problem. I also think a lot of the people you think are "idiots" is actually just your incredible arrogance which has created a massive amount of ignorance that leads to you to assume what their intentions or point is. Then because of your massive ego (likely compensating for massive insecurity) it does not allow you to even consider any other perspective. Specifically, you Kwark, what is your solution? What do you think the consequences of that solution are? And does that bring us to a better a place? Few things here. Nope, it is not. The same way I would be arguing against someone who thought that we should wipe the Palestine's off the map for firing 1000's of rockets into residential area's. No idea what you're responding to here. Complete non sequitur. Is the Iron dome part of the support the US should remove? No, it was built by Israel and is not part of the US support. You should establish the factual foundations of your arguments before you make them. Are you fine with the consequences of that? This isn't how asking for concessions in exchange for the aid works. Firstly, the goal isn't to stop giving the aid, it's to get the other party to do what you want in exchange for the aid you're still giving. Secondly, the party asking for concessions isn't responsible for the consequences of refusal, the party refusing is. Let's say that hypothetically that Israel was running Hunger Games style child deathmatches and that the US was providing essential food supplies for free but wanted Israel to stop their child deathmatches. If we accepted your shitty argument then if I were to suggest that the US ask Israel to stop their child deathmatches you would immediately ask why I wanted all the people to starve. That framing would imply that Israel had no ability to provide the requested concession and that starving wouldn't be a consequence of that choice not to provide the concession. I, of course, do not want Israelis to die. I think you've grossly mischaracterized the situation by suggesting that anyone who wants Israel to provide any kind of policy concessions in exchange for aid is automatically responsible for the consequences of Israel's refusal (if they were to refuse which would be unlikely). The issue is not talking about Israel, it is the framing that is the problem. There is no problem. That's why the whole "you only talk about Israel!" thing is so dumb. It's not about Jews or the Jewish people having a homeland, it's that they're running an ethno-nationalist expansionist state and wiping out the people who previously lived there. It's a dumb diversionary tactic that raises the spectre of antisemitism without having the guts to commit to it. If you want to allege that people who complain about Israel bulldozing homes on the West Bank are Nazis then have the balls to actually say it, don't half ass it with innuendo. I also think a lot of the people you think are "idiots" is actually just your incredible arrogance which has created a massive amount of ignorance that leads to you to assume what their intentions or point is. Then because of your massive ego (likely compensating for massive insecurity) it does not allow you to even consider any other perspective. Or, and hear me out here, a lot of people say an awful lot of dumb stuff on the internet. Like when people assert that if the US were to leverage its foreign aid to Israel then for some reason Israel would have to dismantle their Iron Dome, despite the two things being wholly unrelated. The reason I characterize stupid things that people say as stupid is because they're stupid. It's not about ego or insecurity, it's because they're stupid things and that the best way to describe them is as stupid things. If you feel like I refer to a lot of the things you say as stupid then I welcome you to draw your own conclusions from that observation. It's not about ego or insecurity, I have absolutely nothing to prove in life, I have achieved all I wish to and more, I have all the professional and personal successes you could imagine and more. Specifically, you Kwark, what is your solution? To what? The Middle East as a whole or just bulldozing Palestinian homes for settlements? What do you think the consequences of that solution are? Let's say I propose that Biden tell Israel to halt settlements in order to continue to receive aid. The consequences would be a halt to settlements. And does that bring us to a better a place? Yes. I know its hard, but I expect people who chime in to read what I have written on the topic at least in the last few hours which it should be really easy to see that my point is far from "you only talk about Israel". If you want to strawman my point to that, that is your issue but I'm not going to argue against it because that is not my point. It was specifically to a person who is not consistent with hating this type of behavior. About the iron dome, take your own advice. The initial funding and development of the Iron Dome system was provided and undertaken by Israel.[29] This allowed for the deployment of the first two Iron Dome systems.[30] Subsequently, funding for an additional eight Iron Dome systems—along with funding for a supply of interception missiles—is currently being provided by the United States, with two of these additional systems having been delivered by 2012 To this There is no problem. That's why the whole "you only talk about Israel!" thing is so dumb. It's not about Jews or the Jewish people having a homeland, it's that they're running an ethno-nationalist expansionist state and wiping out the people who previously lived there. It's a dumb diversionary tactic that raises the spectre of antisemitism without having the guts to commit to it. If you want to allege that people who complain about Israel bulldozing homes on the West Bank are Nazis then have the balls to actually say it, don't half ass it with innuendo. You are wrong, there are people who are anti-Semitic and they are mixed in with the others who are against what people are doing to other people, and they often use the logical portion to build their credibility and their case for the more horrible parts. As I pointed out the people you are talking about who are doing the most horrible things are a powerful minority and far from everyone (in Israel) agrees with what they are doing. Jews are also probably the group that has the most reasoning to create a ethno-nationalist state with very legitimate fear of being wiped out. This needs to be taken into account when discussing what needs to happen. How many other places have multiple states in close proximity who actively and publicly campaign for wiping them out and removing them from the map? How many other groups are hated by both ends of the political spectrum, the fascists' tend to be more open with their want to rid them of the world, though sometimes they soften it with "globalist" whereas the far left will sometimes use "capitalist class" to mean all business owners or the wealthy or they might also mean Jews. I mean there are discussions and papers on whether or not Hitler killed more Jews than Stalin, I think most fall on the Hitler side, but that there is even a discussion brings to light just how bad it was for the people in separate countries that are supposedly politically opposed and yet agree on wiping out the Jews. I'm not against leveraging the aid to Israel, I support it, I've said as much many times. I know you don't struggle with reading comprehension but you clearly struggle with arguing against peoples actual argument and not the strawman you create. This is why I describe you is ignorant and not stupid, you have the horsepower to read, internalize, think and respond you just don't do it. I do love this sentence in particular though It's not about ego or insecurity, I have absolutely nothing to prove in life, I have achieved all I wish to and more, I have all the professional and personal successes you could imagine and more. Unintentional comedy is the best! Clearly no ego, no insecurity at all! As to your proposal which is far different then when we last talked (thank goodness) and I agree with the idea behind it, how to implement it is the tricky part. That you think I don't shows that you have not bothered to understand me and would rather get internet points by being an asshole. On May 13 2021 08:05 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Yep, there's a lot of complexity to the Israel-Palestine question as a whole. However, I don't see the complexity to the 'the US should demand that Israel stops building new settlements' - and even 'the US is complicit as long as they continue to give aid without demanding that this policy ends'. Figuring out where to revert back to is really difficult, but the question of continued settlements is not. I would not argue with this either, I'll give Biden some time to hopefully do a lot better than Trump and Kushner (and Obama and those before him) so far he has surprised pleasantly so I'm not ready to write him off. It will be a challenge to reduce aid and not put the innocent Israeli's at risk who are also worth protecting. I despise Maduro, he is a criminal, a fraud, enslaves large groups of people, has committed countless human rights abuses and continues too on the daily. The US not only does not support him (not out of the goodness of their hearts) they sanction him, his allies and the country itself. It has not worked in the slightest to reduce his power or evil or even his lifestyle he still lives as a billionaire, it has dramatically impacted the lives of millions of Venezuelans for the worse. To me this also bad foreign policy because it does not only punish those it should. I'm not going to blindly say that "not supporting Israel" is good policy, even if people use very loaded words to describe them to try to bring out emotions of hatred and disgust. I need to know what that means, what it hopes to accomplish, why they think it will accomplish it and then what will be the consequences of it. Maybe the answer is not reducing aid to Israel but drastically increasing the aid to Palestinians? I'm not sure and I'd be interested in people thoughts and discussing the potential consequences. Again, I'm not saying Israel is the good guys and the US should support them unconditionally. Nor should they of anyone. I was trying to understand the logic of a poster who hates this behavior, but not universally. I was trying to understand if this was because he thought was Israel was doing was "worse" than what others were doing, or if it was something else. And instead of assuming I asked. That way I would know where to go from there. If someone else was against genocide everywhere and posted something similar I would not have the same questions, I likely would have questions but different ones. In the July 2020 appropriations (H.R. 7617) there was $73m for the Iron Dome. That's peanuts to Israel. The suggestion that anyone calling for an end to military aid to Israel is planning to strip the Iron Dome from the Israeli civilians is absurd. It's just a bad take. When you say "Is the Iron dome part of the support the US should remove? Are you fine with the consequences of that?" as if the only thing keeping rockets from hitting Israeli civilians is US goodwill you are either lying or deliberately making a bad argument. You decide which you were doing. I don't read everything you've written on a topic before chiming in, I don't read most of the posts in this topic and I only post when someone says something so bad I can't stop myself from responding. For you it may give the appearance that I read a lot of your posts though, I certainly respond to you more often than most. In this instance the dumb thing wasWhy do you demand this, but do not demand it of China in Uighur? Or China with HK? That was such an absurdly stupid take that it demanded a response. I didn't strawman it, you really did write that stupid thing that I responded to. You went with "how come an American in the US politics megathread is posting demands of an American ally that receives political support for the things they do and not demands of a country that has nothing to do with America and does not receive American political support". People post about the United States in the US Politics Megathread because it's in the name of the topic. When GH won't stop spamming about Israel in the Hong Kong thread let me know. I believe that saying they provide no support and now saying they do provide support but it is peanuts is what people describe as moving the goalposts. And you have to look into not just the Iron dome (which I see at 95 million) but also the missiles that are used to take down the rockets they spent 405 million on that to a total of 500 million. On top of that they spent an additional 214 million on the program and development, (in 2020 3.7 billion overall), 714 million sounds like a lot to me. And on top of this you likely saw this info but chose the 10x smaller number because why be accurate when you can be dramatic. The bolded part is why you are so ignorant, you miss context and look for what you can get your internet asshole points on. That out of context is stupid, that as a specific question to a specific person is one I'd still like to know the answer too, especially with the context around it. Would you like me to take sentences you have wrote out of context and insult you based on them? It is really easy to do, you are not special you are just willing and able (because of the hammer) to be much more of an asshole then the rest of us without consequence. What is idiocy is that you somehow made the leap of me asking that question to whatever strawman you have created for me. My guess from your ranting is it is something around that I don't think the US should tie aid to behaviors with Israel" and since I've explicitly said the opposite I'm really not sure why you think that. China has nothing to do with America? Interesting take considering how many goods the US buys from them and how much that supports their economy (and the US lust for consumption). The cotton is especially disturbing given America's history in the industry and how China is now repeating the atrocities with slavery of their own. There should be no one buying anything from China produced in that way, I'm glad that finally some places are starting to take notice. As too your last sentence that is another strawman, I was not suggesting that GH should not post, I did not say that his post was not appropriate to the the thread. I was asking why his take was so different then it was for other countries doing similar things or worse. I maybe should have used Venezuela instead of China, since the US is putting maximum pressure on them, which is apparently what GH wants them to do with Israel and yet his take on that is the exact opposite of his take on this. Also, why would "I let you know"? I didn't "let you know" here. I didn't report, I didn't make a feedback post about how there was something bad going on. Hell I didn't reach out to you at all, you were the one that inserted yourself. Which is fine, that is your right, but it is your narcissism that is telling you that I somehow asked for it, or would ask you in the future. It is extremely difficult to have conversation with you because you treat your assumptions as facts, do not update those assumptions as you gather new info (how could you, you are always right, if someone says you are not they must be lying) and you are the biggest jerk left on the thread. Not the worst poster, sometimes you are quite insightful, clearly have a lot of knowledge about taxes and other topics. It is just that your extreme arrogance makes discussion impossible. It is either Kwark blessing us with his wisdom, or Kwark being a complete prick to someone. The latter can be because of something said, but more often is because of what you assumed they meant.
The Iron Dome is an Israeli project, not an American military aid project. You implied that removing American military aid would remove the Iron Dome because you mistook it for an American project. I corrected you. You're now trying to insist that because the US pays $70m towards operating costs it's an American project that would disappear if American aid disappeared.
I've not moved any goalposts. Your original claim was incorrect. My rebuttal was correct. The Iron Dome is an Israeli project and it is not dependent upon US aid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
