|
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. |
United States44056 Posts
On May 28 2021 06:10 Broetchenholer wrote:
In what world did the Palestinians ever had a chance at an independent state which they denied? Please give me one time the Israelis agreed to having an independent Palestinian state. Or are we talking about 1948 here, where someone told them they are allowed to keep half their land and they considered that a bad deal?
Just to add onto this, they never really got a chance to accept the 1948 partition in 1948. They probably wouldn’t have but the Zionists decided to settle the issue by arms anyway and did not limit their declaration of Israel to the proposed UN borders.
|
1948, 2000 (2nd intifada was intentionally sparked by PLO actors to kill the talks), 2005 with Sharon's "process" in Gaza supposedly being the model for an independent Palestine, but the results of that, were, as I've been pointing out this whole time, so incredibly disastrous that it disproved the notion that the idea was anything buy utopian folly.
Edit also:
1. I don't think Arafat every really wanted a deal. So his whole time was basically wasted, despite there being lots of dovish Israeli governments between 1967 and 2005.
2. Also, I'm not naive enough to think this was really a fair time to blame Palestine before the first intifada (beginning in the mid-late 80s). During that time Egypt and Jordan both opposed an independent Palestine as well. Many in those countries still do.
|
Okay, 1948 has been discussed in here multiple times. Where do you disagree, at what point could the palestinian leadership have said, yes, we want that part of the land you graciously gave to us and this would have been accepted by the Jewish settlers?
In 2000, 5 years after the Oslo treaty, the peace talks had failed. Even the wiki is not claiming one side to blame here. During those 5 years, our friends Netanyahu and Barak continued the settlement of the West Bank. The Israeli right was so unhappy with the peace talks of Rabin that one of them shot Rabin as a traitor and despite of that, Israel then moved to the right and elected Likud. This is a pretty good mandate for the government to oppose the peace process, and surprise, then it failed. Palestinians of course share the blame. But saying that the palestinians are the aggressors just because we don't have peace yet and they attacked denies the agency Israel had in the process. And 2005 is certaily not a good case either. You can't have 2 million people in a prison in disastrous conditions for 5 years, then move all the guards outside of the prison and let the inmates rule themselves and then be shocked that they still shiv each other. If i trap someone in my basement for 5 days, i can't be mad if he shits in my basement and therefore decide he is a rude guest, he needs to stay in my basement because otherwise he would shit elsewhere in my house.
|
On May 28 2021 15:47 Broetchenholer wrote:
Okay, 1948 has been discussed in here multiple times. Where do you disagree, at what point could the palestinian leadership have said, yes, we want that part of the land you graciously gave to us and this would have been accepted by the Jewish settlers?
Easily any proposition post seven day war would have been accepted if Palestine didn't insist on ROR or reverting to the pre 1967 indefensible borders.
On May 28 2021 15:47 Broetchenholer wrote:
In 2000, 5 years after the Oslo treaty, the peace talks had failed. Even the wiki is not claiming one side to blame here. .
If the wiki is neutral, your side is really looking bad. I'm frankly surprised if the wiki doesn't use 3 slurs in the first sentence about Israel
|
On May 29 2021 02:51 cLutZ wrote:
If the wiki is neutral, your side is really looking bad. I'm frankly surprised if the wiki doesn't use 3 slurs in the first sentence about Israel
I'm interested in this one, care to develop?
|
On May 29 2021 02:59 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2021 02:51 cLutZ wrote:
If the wiki is neutral, your side is really looking bad. I'm frankly surprised if the wiki doesn't use 3 slurs in the first sentence about Israel
I'm interested in this one, care to develop?
I don't know if you are familiar with Reddit and the concept of "Powermods", who are people who mod several default/large subreddits. Wikipedia has the same thing. And their biases are the same. The culture of power mods/editors is mainstream American Democrat. Thus, on any somewhat controversial article, the end result will be the mainstream American Democrat view of the topic. For example, for most of the last 2 years, the Covid 19 article either did not have a "Wuhan Lab Leak Origin" section, or it did, but the theory was described negatively, such as "conspiracy theory."
Even now it has an extremely misleading statement on the matter
The current scientific consensus is that the virus is most likely of zoonotic origin, from bats or another closely-related mammal.[21][22][23][13] Despite this, the subject has generated a significant amount of speculation and conspiracy theories,[24][14] which were amplified by rapidly growing online echo chambers[25] and global geopolitical tensions.
|
United States44056 Posts
On May 29 2021 06:18 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2021 02:59 Nebuchad wrote:On May 29 2021 02:51 cLutZ wrote:
If the wiki is neutral, your side is really looking bad. I'm frankly surprised if the wiki doesn't use 3 slurs in the first sentence about Israel
I'm interested in this one, care to develop? I don't know if you are familiar with Reddit and the concept of "Powermods", who are people who mod several default/large subreddits. Wikipedia has the same thing. And their biases are the same. The culture of power mods/editors is mainstream American Democrat. Thus, on any somewhat controversial article, the end result will be the mainstream American Democrat view of the topic. For example, for most of the last 2 years, the Covid 19 article either did not have a "Wuhan Lab Leak Origin" section, or it did, but the theory was described negatively, such as "conspiracy theory." Even now it has an extremely misleading statement on the matter Show nested quote +The current scientific consensus is that the virus is most likely of zoonotic origin, from bats or another closely-related mammal.[21][22][23][13] Despite this, the subject has generated a significant amount of speculation and conspiracy theories,[24][14] which were amplified by rapidly growing online echo chambers[25] and global geopolitical tensions.
Are you from the timeline where the neoliberal Democrat establishment hasn’t been aggressively pro Israel for 50 years? Sympathy for Palestine is a very new development.
|
On May 29 2021 06:18 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2021 02:59 Nebuchad wrote:On May 29 2021 02:51 cLutZ wrote:
If the wiki is neutral, your side is really looking bad. I'm frankly surprised if the wiki doesn't use 3 slurs in the first sentence about Israel
I'm interested in this one, care to develop? I don't know if you are familiar with Reddit and the concept of "Powermods", who are people who mod several default/large subreddits. Wikipedia has the same thing. And their biases are the same. The culture of power mods/editors is mainstream American Democrat. Thus, on any somewhat controversial article, the end result will be the mainstream American Democrat view of the topic. For example, for most of the last 2 years, the Covid 19 article either did not have a "Wuhan Lab Leak Origin" section, or it did, but the theory was described negatively, such as "conspiracy theory." Even now it has an extremely misleading statement on the matter Show nested quote +The current scientific consensus is that the virus is most likely of zoonotic origin, from bats or another closely-related mammal.[21][22][23][13] Despite this, the subject has generated a significant amount of speculation and conspiracy theories,[24][14] which were amplified by rapidly growing online echo chambers[25] and global geopolitical tensions.
As Kwark pointed out before me, the mainstream american Democrat view of the topic isn't pro-Palestine.
I would also argue that it's difficult to say that what you describe is a bias: given the positions of the Republican party, the mods would adopt the narrative of the Democrats on most topics if they were biased, but also if they were objective and searching for the truth.
Unless you're talking about bias against the left in favor of the establishment, I would be less surprised if you could find that (but still surprised, to be honest); either way that would defeat the point you were trying to make on the topic of Palestine.
|
On May 29 2021 06:31 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2021 06:18 cLutZ wrote:On May 29 2021 02:59 Nebuchad wrote:On May 29 2021 02:51 cLutZ wrote:
If the wiki is neutral, your side is really looking bad. I'm frankly surprised if the wiki doesn't use 3 slurs in the first sentence about Israel
I'm interested in this one, care to develop? I don't know if you are familiar with Reddit and the concept of "Powermods", who are people who mod several default/large subreddits. Wikipedia has the same thing. And their biases are the same. The culture of power mods/editors is mainstream American Democrat. Thus, on any somewhat controversial article, the end result will be the mainstream American Democrat view of the topic. For example, for most of the last 2 years, the Covid 19 article either did not have a "Wuhan Lab Leak Origin" section, or it did, but the theory was described negatively, such as "conspiracy theory." Even now it has an extremely misleading statement on the matter The current scientific consensus is that the virus is most likely of zoonotic origin, from bats or another closely-related mammal.[21][22][23][13] Despite this, the subject has generated a significant amount of speculation and conspiracy theories,[24][14] which were amplified by rapidly growing online echo chambers[25] and global geopolitical tensions. Are you from the timeline where the neoliberal Democrat establishment hasn’t been aggressively pro Israel for 50 years? Sympathy for Palestine is a very new development.
The NYT just ran an OP Ed from a leader of Hamas. Pro-Palestine has been a consensus opinion on the left for a decade, and its even more pronounced among young progressives, of which constitute power mods on reddit and wiki.
This was obvious when, for example, Obama went all in on the Iran deal. That was an implicit abandonment of Israel as a true ally. The left's distaste for the more recent Abraham Accords also is in the same vein.
On May 29 2021 06:36 Nebuchad wrote:
I would also argue that it's difficult to say that what you describe is a bias: given the positions of the Republican party, the mods would adopt the narrative of the Democrats on most topics if they were biased, but also if they were objective and searching for the truth.
This is a hilarious response considering what I just posted regarding the Covid-19 origins article. The statement is both mostly incorrect, and directly in line with mainstream left of center thought up till like 3 days ago,
|
Norway28806 Posts
It is true that Wikipedia has a slightly leftist bend (I wrote my master thesis on Wikipedia and I spent a whole lot of time researching it - you'll just have to take my word for it, or not if you don't trust me) - but I understand that the articles on Israel-Palestine are exceptionally neutral, and that they are edit-locked due to 'edit wars' much more frequently than other articles. For this reason, the articles covering this conflict also tend to avoid making controversial statements, also pro-Palestine ones.
Granted it's been a few years since I conducted said research but the leftist bent found on most of Wikipedia (which exists as a function of leftists being more positive towards this type of collaborative project with no profit motive and thus that more leftists edit articles) was not there for articles on the Israel-Palestine conflict.
|
On May 28 2021 07:39 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2021 06:10 Broetchenholer wrote:
In what world did the Palestinians ever had a chance at an independent state which they denied? Please give me one time the Israelis agreed to having an independent Palestinian state. Or are we talking about 1948 here, where someone told them they are allowed to keep half their land and they considered that a bad deal? Just to add onto this, they never really got a chance to accept the 1948 partition in 1948. They probably wouldn’t have but the Zionists decided to settle the issue by arms anyway and did not limit their declaration of Israel to the proposed UN borders.
How did the Zionists solely decide to settle the issue by arms? And do you really think including the UN borders into their declaration of independence would have stopped the arab nations from declaring war immediately?
|
|
|
On May 29 2021 06:18 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2021 02:59 Nebuchad wrote:On May 29 2021 02:51 cLutZ wrote:
If the wiki is neutral, your side is really looking bad. I'm frankly surprised if the wiki doesn't use 3 slurs in the first sentence about Israel
I'm interested in this one, care to develop? I don't know if you are familiar with Reddit and the concept of "Powermods", who are people who mod several default/large subreddits. Wikipedia has the same thing. And their biases are the same. The culture of power mods/editors is mainstream American Democrat. Thus, on any somewhat controversial article, the end result will be the mainstream American Democrat view of the topic. For example, for most of the last 2 years, the Covid 19 article either did not have a "Wuhan Lab Leak Origin" section, or it did, but the theory was described negatively, such as "conspiracy theory." Even now it has an extremely misleading statement on the matter Show nested quote +The current scientific consensus is that the virus is most likely of zoonotic origin, from bats or another closely-related mammal.[21][22][23][13] Despite this, the subject has generated a significant amount of speculation and conspiracy theories,[24][14] which were amplified by rapidly growing online echo chambers[25] and global geopolitical tensions.
In my personal opinion and experience, while i see a very clear bias on reddit (specifically pro-palestine/anti-israel, but in general quite to the left), Wikipedia (in general) is atleast way less biased than reddit. All the articles I've read about Israel/Palestine seem very neutral and very carefully worded.
|
United States44056 Posts
On May 29 2021 07:25 MWY wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2021 07:39 KwarK wrote:On May 28 2021 06:10 Broetchenholer wrote:
In what world did the Palestinians ever had a chance at an independent state which they denied? Please give me one time the Israelis agreed to having an independent Palestinian state. Or are we talking about 1948 here, where someone told them they are allowed to keep half their land and they considered that a bad deal? Just to add onto this, they never really got a chance to accept the 1948 partition in 1948. They probably wouldn’t have but the Zionists decided to settle the issue by arms anyway and did not limit their declaration of Israel to the proposed UN borders. How did the Zionists solely decide to settle the issue by arms? And do you really think including the UN borders into their declaration of independence would have stopped the arab nations from declaring war immediately?
The Zionists declared first by declaring Israel unilaterally rather than following any kind of UN managed partition and by claiming territory allocated to Palestine in the partition plan. It’s not hugely meaningful because a conflict would have happened either way but the Palestinians didn’t get a chance to reject the plan because the other side rejected it first. They most likely would have also rejected it though, as I noted. I’m not saying that Palestine accepted the 1948 agreement and that Israel is solely responsible, I’m saying they probably would have rejected it but never got the chance due to the Zionist declaration of war.
|
United States44056 Posts
On May 29 2021 06:58 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2021 06:31 KwarK wrote:On May 29 2021 06:18 cLutZ wrote:On May 29 2021 02:59 Nebuchad wrote:On May 29 2021 02:51 cLutZ wrote:
If the wiki is neutral, your side is really looking bad. I'm frankly surprised if the wiki doesn't use 3 slurs in the first sentence about Israel
I'm interested in this one, care to develop? I don't know if you are familiar with Reddit and the concept of "Powermods", who are people who mod several default/large subreddits. Wikipedia has the same thing. And their biases are the same. The culture of power mods/editors is mainstream American Democrat. Thus, on any somewhat controversial article, the end result will be the mainstream American Democrat view of the topic. For example, for most of the last 2 years, the Covid 19 article either did not have a "Wuhan Lab Leak Origin" section, or it did, but the theory was described negatively, such as "conspiracy theory." Even now it has an extremely misleading statement on the matter The current scientific consensus is that the virus is most likely of zoonotic origin, from bats or another closely-related mammal.[21][22][23][13] Despite this, the subject has generated a significant amount of speculation and conspiracy theories,[24][14] which were amplified by rapidly growing online echo chambers[25] and global geopolitical tensions. Are you from the timeline where the neoliberal Democrat establishment hasn’t been aggressively pro Israel for 50 years? Sympathy for Palestine is a very new development. The NYT just ran an OP Ed from a leader of Hamas. Pro-Palestine has been a consensus opinion on the left for a decade, and its even more pronounced among young progressives, of which constitute power mods on reddit and wiki. This was obvious when, for example, Obama went all in on the Iran deal. That was an implicit abandonment of Israel as a true ally. The left's distaste for the more recent Abraham Accords also is in the same vein.
Pelosi et al consistently repeat the AIPAC talking points including stating the classic line "Israel has the right to defend itself" with regard to the latest Israeli bombings of Palestine. The idea that the mainstream Democratic party is anything but fervently pro-Israel, or at least pro receiving money from the Israel lobby, is absurd.
Obama's Iran deal had nothing to do with Israel and was a great deal. The United States had previously communicated to Iran that only a nuclear deterrent would prevent the US from attacking Iran unprovoked. They were threatening to attack Iran unless Iran got a nuke which, as you'd expect, pushed Iran towards getting a nuke. Obama got them to abandon nukes by convincing them that the US wasn't about to launch an unprovoked attack on them. It was a great deal for the US because the US didn't really want a nuclear Iran and wasn't in a position to easily prevent it, the US got everything they wanted out of the deal. Israel got most of what they wanted, an end to the Iran nuclear program, though they would have much preferred to see open warfare between the US and Iran as they've shown very little regard to the value of American blood.
It's also weird that Iran apparently doesn't have the right to a nuclear deterrent when the subject is Israel, a nation that possesses nuclear weapons and famously worked with apartheid South Africa to help them develop their own WMDs.
|
On May 29 2021 09:10 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2021 07:25 MWY wrote:On May 28 2021 07:39 KwarK wrote:On May 28 2021 06:10 Broetchenholer wrote:
In what world did the Palestinians ever had a chance at an independent state which they denied? Please give me one time the Israelis agreed to having an independent Palestinian state. Or are we talking about 1948 here, where someone told them they are allowed to keep half their land and they considered that a bad deal? Just to add onto this, they never really got a chance to accept the 1948 partition in 1948. They probably wouldn’t have but the Zionists decided to settle the issue by arms anyway and did not limit their declaration of Israel to the proposed UN borders. How did the Zionists solely decide to settle the issue by arms? And do you really think including the UN borders into their declaration of independence would have stopped the arab nations from declaring war immediately? The Zionists declared first by declaring Israel unilaterally rather than following any kind of UN managed partition and by claiming territory allocated to Palestine in the partition plan. It’s not hugely meaningful because a conflict would have happened either way but the Palestinians didn’t get a chance to reject the plan because the other side rejected it first. They most likely would have also rejected it though, as I noted. I’m not saying that Palestine accepted the 1948 agreement and that Israel is solely responsible, I’m saying they probably would have rejected it but never got the chance due to the Zionist declaration of war.
A declaration of independence is not a declaration of war. It does not contain anything that declares violence against palestinians as far as i read it. It also mentions the UN partition plan and does not claim all the land.
"The State of Israel will be ready to cooperate with the organs and representatives of the United Nations in the implementation of the decision of November 29, 1947, and will strive for the establishment of the all-Palestinian economic unity. "
What prevented palestinians from doing the same? What prevented the arab league from just defending the UN partition plan's borders instead of immediately declaring war?
|
On May 28 2021 06:10 Broetchenholer wrote:
In what world did the Palestinians ever had a chance at an independent state which they denied? Please give me one time the Israelis agreed to having an independent Palestinian state. Or are we talking about 1948 here, where someone told them they are allowed to keep half their land and they considered that a bad deal?
Is there any credible (so probably pre-Balfour Declaration?) showing the land physically occupied by the Palestinian Arabs? All I can find is propaganda showing "Palestine vs. Jewish settlements". I'm curious to see how much land they actually occupied vs. what parts of Palestine they laid claim to.
|
On May 29 2021 06:18 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2021 02:59 Nebuchad wrote:On May 29 2021 02:51 cLutZ wrote:
If the wiki is neutral, your side is really looking bad. I'm frankly surprised if the wiki doesn't use 3 slurs in the first sentence about Israel
I'm interested in this one, care to develop? I don't know if you are familiar with Reddit and the concept of "Powermods", who are people who mod several default/large subreddits. Wikipedia has the same thing. And their biases are the same. The culture of power mods/editors is mainstream American Democrat. Thus, on any somewhat controversial article, the end result will be the mainstream American Democrat view of the topic. For example, for most of the last 2 years, the Covid 19 article either did not have a "Wuhan Lab Leak Origin" section, or it did, but the theory was described negatively, such as "conspiracy theory." Even now it has an extremely misleading statement on the matter Show nested quote +The current scientific consensus is that the virus is most likely of zoonotic origin, from bats or another closely-related mammal.[21][22][23][13] Despite this, the subject has generated a significant amount of speculation and conspiracy theories,[24][14] which were amplified by rapidly growing online echo chambers[25] and global geopolitical tensions.
Do you have any evidence of that? I looked through several versions of the article from 2020 and can't find any instance of a potential lab leak being described as a conspiracy theory. It seems like you're confusing a lab leak (which was considered as possible but for which there was no evidence) with conspiracy about a purposeful leak from the lab, genetic engineering of the virus etc.
|
On May 29 2021 20:58 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2021 06:10 Broetchenholer wrote:
In what world did the Palestinians ever had a chance at an independent state which they denied? Please give me one time the Israelis agreed to having an independent Palestinian state. Or are we talking about 1948 here, where someone told them they are allowed to keep half their land and they considered that a bad deal? Is there any credible (so probably pre-Balfour Declaration?) showing the land physically occupied by the Palestinian Arabs? All I can find is propaganda showing "Palestine vs. Jewish settlements". I'm curious to see how much land they actually occupied vs. what parts of Palestine they laid claim to.
If you mean the occupation of palestinean settlked land before 1948, here is one article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sursock_Purchases
If you mean the modern settlements, i have no source for that. If you mean 1948 itself, i just know that 750k palestinians left the land that is now israel.
|
On May 29 2021 06:58 cLutZ wrote:
This is a hilarious response considering what I just posted regarding the Covid-19 origins article. The statement is both mostly incorrect, and directly in line with mainstream left of center thought up till like 3 days ago,
Yeah I don't think that defeats my point tbh. There are conspiracies in the world, which implies that some conspiracy theories are true. That doesn't make them not conspiracy theories. If it turns out that Covid-19 actually came from a lab, the people who declared that it did with no evidence before it was proven to be the case are still conspiracy theorists. I, myself, believe in one or two things that could definitely be considered conspiracy theories. It's not an attack, it's just a factual description.
If you want a better example of what I'm talking about (it's off topic so we probably should take it to PM if we keep talking about this), a new poll just came out that says slightly more than 40% of Republicans think Trump supporters are "a great deal" to blame for what happened on Jan 6th, and over 70% of them think leftist agitators have a great deal of the blame. So when Wikipedia says that it's Trump supporters that are to blame for Jan 6th, are they doing so because of their leftist bias or because they want to report the facts? The end result is the same so it's hard to say.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
