EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 3228
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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 | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28561 Posts
| ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5452 Posts
On May 18 2021 05:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: I'm not sure if it was intentional or not, but the dates from that source appear to begin when British imperialists started screwing with Palestine and who is "allowed" to live there (e.g., the Balfour Declaration, which undermined the fact that 90% of the Palestinian residents were Muslim and Christian, not Jews): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration#Opposition_in_Palestine So if your point is that other groups, such as the British, were screwing with the Palestinians decades before Israel ever existed, then I totally agree with you. So you agree you were selling a false narrative of helpless Palestinians "finally being willing to explore more confrontational and aggressive options" after decades of passively accepting abuse from the Israelis? And by the way, Muslims were oppressing minorities in the Middle East for centuries and deciding who can live where and on what terms for centuries before the British took over. Also, Jewish pogroms in the Middle East predate the Balfour Declaration. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10186 Posts
On May 18 2021 07:50 Ciaus_Dronu wrote: The area is a mess / the situation is complicated / there's lots of history to work through are all true. The fact that there has been conflict in the middle east for millennia is true. But these things are not said because they are true. They are said to conveniently absolve one of their responsibility to see through the fog and acknowledge the oppression and domination of the Palestinian people by Israel. Essentially the entire international community agrees that some of the land Israel is attempting to annex and is settling is not theirs to take in this way. But they still do it. The ANC, the South African HSRC and multiple Israeli human rights groups consider Israel to be committing the crime of apartheid (which is, and I shouldn't have to say this, impossible to justify or defend, regardless of whatever complexities exist). Yet Israel has done nothing to alleviate this situation (the recent spate of "evictions" in Sheikh Jarrah being just one piece of evidence). Israel is vastly more powerful, and Hamas is nothing without the hatred spawned as a direct result of the fact that most Palestinians live in a giant prison with no real sovereignty, poor amenities and regular exposure to violence at the hands of the IDF. And yet here we are, with Israel striking Gaza, causing massive collateral damage and civilian casualties, as it has done for decades. So all this noise about how complicated it is does nothing but serve the status quo. A long established status quo in which Israel is the oppressor, because the US allows it to be. Yes it's complicated, but that's not the fucking point. (EDIT: I know I've made this point a few times, but it feels rather important since some people seem very keen to use the complexity as a shield against acknowledging the most severe and actionably important parts of the situation.) Excellent post. The bolded part perfectly sums up the intentions of some of the posters here. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22736 Posts
On May 18 2021 07:50 Ciaus_Dronu wrote: The area is a mess / the situation is complicated / there's lots of history to work through are all true. The fact that there has been conflict in the middle east for millennia is true. But these things are not said because they are true. They are said to conveniently absolve one of their responsibility to see through the fog and acknowledge the oppression and domination of the Palestinian people by Israel. Essentially the entire international community agrees that some of the land Israel is attempting to annex and is settling is not theirs to take in this way. But they still do it. The ANC, the South African HSRC and multiple Israeli human rights groups consider Israel to be committing the crime of apartheid (which is, and I shouldn't have to say this, impossible to justify or defend, regardless of whatever complexities exist). Yet Israel has done nothing to alleviate this situation (the recent spate of "evictions" in Sheikh Jarrah being just one piece of evidence). Israel is vastly more powerful, and Hamas is nothing without the hatred spawned as a direct result of the fact that most Palestinians live in a giant prison with no real sovereignty, poor amenities and regular exposure to violence at the hands of the IDF. And yet here we are, with Israel striking Gaza, causing massive collateral damage and civilian casualties, as it has done for decades. So all this noise about how complicated it is does nothing but serve the status quo. A long established status quo in which Israel is the oppressor, because the US allows it to be. Yes it's complicated, but that's not the fucking point. (EDIT: I know I've made this point a few times, but it feels rather important since some people seem very keen to use the complexity as a shield against acknowledging the most severe and actionably important parts of the situation.) I would just (I missed the A long established status quo in which Israel is the oppressor, because the US allows it to be. line) | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States43806 Posts
On May 18 2021 08:11 maybenexttime wrote: So you agree you were selling a false narrative of helpless Palestinians "finally being willing to explore more confrontational and aggressive options" after decades of passively accepting abuse from the Israelis? And by the way, Muslims were oppressing minorities in the Middle East for centuries and deciding who can live where and on what terms for centuries before the British took over. Also, Jewish pogroms in the Middle East predate the Balfour Declaration. What do you mean by false? That's literally why Hamas was formed and gained power: Hamas was founded in 1987,[i] soon after the First Intifada broke out, as an offshoot of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood[26] which in its Gaza branch had previously been nonconfrontational toward Israel and hostile to the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO).[27] Co-founder Sheik Ahmed Yassin said in 1987, and the Hamas Charter affirmed in 1988, that Hamas was founded to liberate Palestine, including modern-day Israel, from Israeli occupation and to establish an Islamic state in the area that is now Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.[28] Since 1994,[29] the group has frequently stated that it would accept a truce[j] if Israel withdraws to the 1967 borders, paid reparations, allowed free elections in the territories[31] and gave Palestinian refugees the right to return.[k] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas I never said that the Palestinians never attempted to fight back against the Israelis before Hamas existed, but clearly previous attempts at stopping Israel from infringing on the rights of Palestinians had failed, and there was sufficient support for a more militant organization to try doing things *their way*. Heck, even Hamas is currently failing at protecting Palestinians from the Israelis. | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria3709 Posts
On May 18 2021 00:02 Broetchenholer wrote: The political reality of Israel is pretty simple. There is no majority for an improvement of the situation with the Palestinians. It doesn't mean all Israelis want that, but it means their society as a whole does not want it. Would you say a society is not responsible for the actions of their government? And yes, the american society wanted, as a whole a wall to be build. Political realities are forged by majorities of people not acting against them. If a policy is not opposed enough by the population to not be put into effect, then that means that it is okay for that society to have it in effect. The fact that a large percentage of Israleis would agree with my position more then with yours does not matter. Sure, the country is pretty divided over it. So why are you so binary? Me saying that "the bad side" is not "only one of the sides" and that "neither side is entirely bad or even mostly bad" is being binary? That's a curious take that I 100% disagree with for very obvious reasons. Secondly, no, the American society did not, as a whole, want the wall to be built, at least not that we can tell. That is a huge oversimplifcation based on nothing but voting patterns, which is a very poor indicator of what the population actually wants. Lets break it down: - In 2016, 323 million people lived in the US. 220 million people were eligible to vote, which is about 68% of the population. - More than 90 million eligible voters didn't vote in 2016, reducing the total number of voters to under 130 million, or 59% of roughly 220 million eligible voters, which is about 40% of the population. - Of those roughly 130 million voters, less than half voted for Donald Trump. He received about 63 million votes while Hillary received the other 66 million. So about 19.5% of the population has in fact voted for Donald Trump. - Some portion of voters in 2016 came out to say that they're voting for either Trump or Hillary not because they agree with them but because they disagree with the other candidate, meaning they voted for the "lesser evil". Hence we can say that we know of less than 19.5% of the American population that definitely and provably wanted the wall to be built. The rest is speculation. So the final number is 19.5% Can we derive from that number that Americans wanted the wall to be built? The answer can only be a resounding "maybe, but not likely". I'm not completely sure how the leadership in Israel is formed, I'll admit that much. But if Israel is similar to other democratic nations in a meaningful capacity, then the citizens do not have so much influence over the direction of their country that we can definitely tell from voting patterns how many of them support the displacement of Palestinians. The only real way to tell would be with some sort of survey done by an independent agency. So not only do we not know that, but then there's the simple argument that even if we could find that the majority of Jews living in Israel fully supported their government's policies, it would still not excuse the killing of innocent Israelis in retaliation to police rounding up a few hundred Arabs. | ||
KwarK
United States42008 Posts
On May 18 2021 08:15 JimmiC wrote: Nope, but there would be some comparisons between the pilgrims and the Jews that have emigrated since. I was commenting on the colonial talk, since that was the conversation. So what were you saying by "what was happening to the Jews in Europe" if not religious persecution? You insist that I misread your posts (I don't but you keep insisting it) but you're not clarifying. What was the thing that was happening to the Jews in Europe before they founded Israel that you're referring to? I invite you to clarify your point. It seems from context that you’re referring to religious persecution. | ||
|
Belisarius
Australia6221 Posts
On May 18 2021 07:50 Ciaus_Dronu wrote: The area is a mess / the situation is complicated / there's lots of history to work through are all true. The fact that there has been conflict in the middle east for millennia is true. But these things are not said because they are true. They are said to conveniently absolve one of their responsibility to see through the fog and acknowledge the oppression and domination of the Palestinian people by Israel. + Show Spoiler + Essentially the entire international community agrees that some of the land Israel is attempting to annex and is settling is not theirs to take in this way. But they still do it. The ANC, the South African HSRC and multiple Israeli human rights groups consider Israel to be committing the crime of apartheid (which is, and I shouldn't have to say this, impossible to justify or defend, regardless of whatever complexities exist). Yet Israel has done nothing to alleviate this situation (the recent spate of "evictions" in Sheikh Jarrah being just one piece of evidence). Israel is vastly more powerful, and Hamas is nothing without the hatred spawned as a direct result of the fact that most Palestinians live in a giant prison with no real sovereignty, poor amenities and regular exposure to violence at the hands of the IDF. And yet here we are, with Israel striking Gaza, causing massive collateral damage and civilian casualties, as it has done for decades. So all this noise about how complicated it is does nothing but serve the status quo. A long established status quo in which Israel is the oppressor, because the US allows it to be. Yes it's complicated, but that's not the fucking point. Absolutely. Really, I think almost everyone agrees on the major points - It's complicated - That's not the point - It's possible to criticise the state of israel without being antisemitic - Hamas is obviously not a paragon of virtue - Israel has the power in the relationship and therefore the greater responsibility - Israel is using its power to unlawfully annex its neighbours' land - The US and the broader west provide material support to Israel - The US and the broader west should be making it very clear that the last two points are incompatible. I feel like there's a lot of nitpicking back and forwards here between people who broadly agree because it's not even possible to put a solution forward to discuss instead. At the same time, I agree that's not an excuse to look the other way. In the short term and in the context of US politics, the question is what Biden and Israel's other allies should be doing about it. He's been quieter than I would have expected, but he's not been particularly beholden to the trump rump in other matters so I imagine he thinks he can get more done behind closed doors than from the pulpit. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22736 Posts
On May 18 2021 08:45 KwarK wrote: So what were you saying by "what was happening to the Jews in Europe" if not religious persecution? You insist that I misread your posts (I don't but you keep insisting it) but you're not clarifying. What was the thing that was happening to the Jews in Europe before they founded Israel that you're referring to? I invite you to clarify your point. It seems from context that you’re referring to religious persecution. I just wanted to mention when I (and others) made the comparison I mentioned "Manifest Destiny"/"westward expansion" because the US specifically made contractual agreements on not expanding and then proceeded to enable settlers to expand beyond those established territories while spreading propaganda about the violence of the people living there if/when they resisted. They then used that propaganda about the people resisting having their homes stolen to win support for ethnic cleansing more or less culminating in the Trail of Tears with indefinite subjugation to follow. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42008 Posts
On May 18 2021 09:26 JimmiC wrote: I am referring to political persecution and being murdered, I am not saying the pilgrims were not. Let's recap. DarkPlasmaBall said that the colonization of Palestine after the Second World War appeared to be a parallel of the colonization of North America. On May 18 2021 07:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Seems like an eerily accurate parallel to colonizing North America. You disagreed and provided a list of pertinent facts that you would have to leave out to make the parallel work. Your specific argument was that the similarities could only be drawn if you left out these facts. "if you leave out a whole bunch pertinent facts ... you can draw similarities". That these facts would disprove any similarity due to their obvious differences between the settlers of North America and the colonization of Palestine. 1) What was happening to the Jews in Europe and the rest of the world compared to the colonizers of North America (you subsequently clarified this was an explicit reference to religious persecution) 2) Whether they were colonizing to extract wealth 3) Whether they sent wealth back to a motherland 4) Whether they intended to turn the new country into their motherland On May 18 2021 07:23 JimmiC wrote: If you use the recent, forget the whole part about the history, ignore what was happening to the Jews in Europe and the rest of the world, forget that unlike the Europeans the Jews were not coming to extract wealth, nor were they sending it back to any motherland, this was going to be their motherland, it was not the Jews deciding this but rather the same colonizers that were still pillaging much of the world, that no other country was willing to accept the Jews (one of Canada's great shames is we turned away a boat of Jewish refugees that no one would take and they ended up all dying at the sea. So yes if you leave out a whole bunch pertinent facts and make it for a specific time frame you can draw similarities! If you're now saying that the pilgrims were victims of religious persecution and were seeking a new home in North America then I fail to see why that's a pertinent fact which proves the dissimilarity of the settlers of North America vs the Jews settling Palestine after WW2. Is your argument now that the Jews didn't face religious persecution or is it that both groups did face religious persecution and it is that very similarity that makes them so dissimilar? Just as a FYI, you can at any time cease to argue that what makes NA a colonization and Israel not a colonization is that the settlers of NA weren't fleeing religious persecution and trying to found a new homeland where they could practice their religion freely. Nobody is going to make you argue that. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15401 Posts
On May 18 2021 09:49 KwarK wrote: Let's recap. DarkPlasmaBall said that the colonization of Palestine after the Second World War appeared to be a parallel of the colonization of North America. You disagreed and provided a list of pertinent facts that you would have to leave out to make the parallel work. Your specific argument was that the similarities could only be drawn if you left out these facts. "if you leave out a whole bunch pertinent facts ... you can draw similarities". That these facts would disprove any similarity due to their obvious differences between the settlers of North America and the colonization of Palestine. 1) What was happening to the Jews in Europe and the rest of the world compared to the colonizers of North America (you subsequently clarified this was an explicit reference to religious persecution) 2) Whether they were colonizing to extract wealth 3) Whether they sent wealth back to a motherland 4) Whether they intended to turn the new country into their motherland If you're now saying that the pilgrims were victims of religious persecution and were seeking a new home in North America then I fail to see why that's a pertinent fact which proves the dissimilarity of the settlers of North America vs the Jews settling Palestine after WW2. Is your argument now that the Jews didn't face religious persecution or is it that both groups did face religious persecution and it is that very similarity that makes them so dissimilar? Just as a FYI, you can at any time cease to argue that what makes NA a colonization and Israel not a colonization is that the settlers of NA weren't fleeing religious persecution and trying to found a new homeland where they could practice their religion freely. Nobody is going to make you argue that. Maybe it would be helpful to boil it down to this: Do you think the formation of Israel after WW2 was ethical? I would say it was not. Israel should have instead been a sub-section of the US and the US should have given Israel its own land. As I have said, Wyoming would have been a great candidate. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42008 Posts
On May 18 2021 09:59 Mohdoo wrote: Maybe it would be helpful to boil it down to this: Do you think the formation of Israel after WW2 was ethical? I would say it was not. Unquestionably not. I don't think anyone anywhere would argue that a group of armed people can move into an area uninvited, commit terror attacks on the local authorities, and set up their own exclusionary state. The question of what to do with their descendants who were born on the seized land is much more ethically complex as it would not be just to force them all out. But the formation of Israel is unquestionably unethical and there is no nation in the world that would have not responded to the violence of the Zionist movement with violence. The blame principally falls on Britain. Palestine was a League mandate and was not permitted its own military nor control of its own borders. Instead it was forced to entrust Britain with these powers and hope Britain defended the interests of the people who it had denied the right to defend themselves. Britain fundamentally failed to protect the people of Palestine and once the crisis reached melting point British forces bailed and left the question to be settled by bloodshed. The radical Zionist invasion of Palestine never should have been allowed by Britain and once it had taken place Britain should have stayed to ensure a peaceful transition. | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria3709 Posts
On May 18 2021 10:10 KwarK wrote: Unquestionably not. I don't think anyone anywhere would argue that a group of armed people can move into an area uninvited, commit terror attacks on the local authorities, and set up their own exclusionary state. The question of what to do with their descendants who were born on the seized land is much more ethically complex as it would not be just to force them all out. But the formation of Israel is unquestionably unethical and there is no nation in the world that would have not responded to the violence of the Zionist movement with violence. The blame principally falls on Britain. Palestine was a League mandate and was not permitted its own military nor control of its own borders. Instead it was forced to entrust Britain with these powers and hope Britain defended the interests of the people who it had denied the right to defend themselves. Britain fundamentally failed to protect the people of Palestine and once the crisis reached melting point British forces bailed and left the question to be settled by bloodshed. The radical Zionist invasion of Palestine never should have been allowed by Britain and once it had taken place Britain should have stayed to ensure a peaceful transition. Can 100% subscribe to all of this, I don't have much of significance to add to it. The backroom dealings of the British Empire (and others) were quite the gamble, and the Zionist movement took full advantage of a great opportunity. Although no one could've predicted WW2, which gave Britain a reason to withdraw their troops, but it was clear years before that the British were protecting Jews much more than Arabs (even to the point of enforcing mass immigration of Jews), and that was in part due to brilliant negotiation from Zionists. I don't believe that this should be used as an excuse for actions today, but the fact is that the State of Israel was born out of neglect by the British Empire and a well-coordinated power grab by Zionists. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15401 Posts
On May 18 2021 10:10 KwarK wrote: Unquestionably not. I don't think anyone anywhere would argue that a group of armed people can move into an area uninvited, commit terror attacks on the local authorities, and set up their own exclusionary state. The question of what to do with their descendants who were born on the seized land is much more ethically complex as it would not be just to force them all out. But the formation of Israel is unquestionably unethical and there is no nation in the world that would have not responded to the violence of the Zionist movement with violence. The blame principally falls on Britain. Palestine was a League mandate and was not permitted its own military nor control of its own borders. Instead it was forced to entrust Britain with these powers and hope Britain defended the interests of the people who it had denied the right to defend themselves. Britain fundamentally failed to protect the people of Palestine and once the crisis reached melting point British forces bailed and left the question to be settled by bloodshed. The radical Zionist invasion of Palestine never should have been allowed by Britain and once it had taken place Britain should have stayed to ensure a peaceful transition. For those of us who don't know much history, how in the world was Israel able to be formed? It feels like this would have been opposed be a lot of countries. So many obviously wrong things here. But maybe back then brown people were even less important? | ||
|
KwarK
United States42008 Posts
On May 18 2021 11:04 Mohdoo wrote: For those of us who don't know much history, how in the world was Israel able to be formed? It feels like this would have been opposed be a lot of countries. So many obviously wrong things here. But maybe back then brown people were even less important? The Ottoman Empire collapsed and Britain + France divided it into League mandates which were what they called colonies in the civilized post WW1 era where they weren't making new colonies. The mandates were to be protected and guided towards statehood by a colonial power. The Zionist movement had previously been growing for a few decades, driven in part by the rapidly growing Jewish population in the United States. In 1917, before Britain actually controlled Palestine, Lord Balfour, a British foreign secretary, famously said that he was in favour of a Jewish state provided that it did not harm the existing Palestinian peoples. While the governments changed and Palestine had not previously been Britain's to give away this was subsequently used as a justification for migration. In 1939 Britain tried to slam the brakes on, noting the increasingly militant and totalitarian nature of the Zionist migration to Palestine and the harm that was coming to the Palestinian population. It placed a cap on Jewish migration to Palestine and called for the establishment of two states. This proposal didn't go down well with the radical Zionists in Palestine who promptly tried to make an alliance with Hitler (yes, that Hitler) and establish a totalitarian fascist Israel through a campaign of terrorism against the British authorities. They committed massacres against the Palestinian population, assassinated British colonial administrators, and collaborated with Nazis. After WW2 there was increasing American support for the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine while Britain tried to maintain a semblance of control including limits on immigration etc. which were obviously unpopular in the wake of the Holocaust. The terror attacks on British forces and administration, as well as on Palestinians themselves, increased to the point that the British called in the UN to mediate and bailed. The Zionist terrorists promptly assassinated the UN mediator because of course they did. The UN came up with a partition plan in 1947 and Britain decided to withdraw without any plan for implementing the partition plan. The US also changed its mind on the partition plan and felt like an expanded Arab Jordan might be able to absorb the new Palestinian state. Ultimately the question was moot because the day the British left the Zionists felt themselves strong enough to simply seize power in Palestine through a coup. The neighbouring Arab states all declared war on the new Israel because it wasn't doing the orderly transition and partition the UN had recommended but the Zionists had secured sufficient weapons and training ahead of time to defend themselves. They had a fun rationalization for why the Israel declared in their coup got to be bigger than the UN partition plan. Basically they argued that because the Palestinians thought that the Zionists should get less land than the UN agreement then it was only fair if the Zionists in turn tried to make the Palestinians get less land than the UN agreement. They made the argument that because they accepted the UN agreement (they didn't) but the Palestinians didn't (they didn't) then they didn't have to accept the UN agreement and so they wouldn't accept the UN agreement because although they did accept the UN agreement (they didn't) it wouldn't be fair if they were the only ones who accepted it and so they didn't have to be bound by it even though they accepted it (they didn't). The fascist Zionists who allied with the Nazis in WW2 and specifically wanted a totalitarian Jewish state modelled on Nazi Germany all got medals and their leader subsequently became the Prime Minister of Israel because that's just how Israel is. It's not so much that nobody cared as it was that nobody cared enough to actually bleed for it. Britain made a good faith effort to protect the Palestinians until it became clear that the only people who gave a shit about the Palestinians were the Palestinians. The United States was giving them shit for putting Zionist migrants into camps (what else are you going to do with illegal migrants who keep showing up in excess of immigration caps) while funding the Zionist movement and it wasn't like Britain had manpower and treasure to spare after WW2. If you make a list of groups who were meant to stop the Zionist takeover of Palestine then it was chiefly 1) Britain. Made a good faith effort through the 20s and 30s, got burned out in 1947 because it was a thankless job made much harder by the United States being dicks about it and nobody wanted to put Jews in camps after WW2. Bailed the moment the UN came up with a plan without actually doing anything to make that plan happen. They're the most responsible for the current crisis because they were responsible for the administration of Palestine and they fucked off. 2) The UN. Sent a mediator who was killed by Zionist terrorists. Came up with a two state solution but never sent anyone to actually transition British Palestine into those two states. Watched as shit hit the fan. Zero actual effort made. 3) The Arab world. Got pissed about Israel randomly declaring itself but then lost the war so put them down as made an attempt. Also it wasn't a great attempt because they probably weren't planning on defeating the new Israel only to partition Palestine in accordance with the UN plan. Probably for the best that they lost. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
| ||
