|
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. |
On December 01 2023 18:50 Magic Powers wrote:
@Cerebrate
“It happens to be that it applies to every group of Arabs that has stopped attacking Israel. Egypt stopped attacking and there hasn't been a war with it since. So too Jordan and a couple others. You might think that Palestinians are different, but I happen to disagree.”
Israel is not oppressing any Arab group other than Palestinians. The perception of persecution may decrease their motive to play nice, but it does not prove that playing nice would be ineffective. My suggestion was merely that it could well be effective, and is certainly more so than continuing the current trajectory.
“Perhaps I should clarify my position a bit. Palestine needs to have a leader that can guarantee that if he's given a state, that state won't just make war on Israel shortly thereafter. That has never been tried.“
Not a single ME country has been at war with Israel since 1982. Hamas is the only group that’s been serious about taking up arms against Israel, and Hamas happens to live among the only Arab group that’s being oppressed by Israel.
-The 2006 Second Lebanon War disproves your historical claim pretty cleanly.
-Technically, Syria has been at war with Israel since 1948 (I believe that this applies to several other countries, but couldn't readily find sources for that), since a proper truce was never made.
-Hezbollah and Syria fire rockets, mortars, and like every time there is unrest, which would be considered an act of war against any country in the world except Israel.
But none of what you say here disproves my point that Palestine has never had a leadership that signalled that they wouldn't just go to war with Israel the moment they got a state. Meaning if every settler was pulled out of the West Bank tomorrow and the place got full independent sovereignty, it would almost certainly wage war with Israel within the decade. I'll actually take my claim even further: until Palestine has leadership that is willing to consent to at least this amount of peace, this conflict will not be solved.
“I don't want to get into the altered definition of this term for this conflict, but regarding the quote being discussed, it actually proves the quote right. There were tons of suicide bombings, stabbings, car rammings and other terrorist actions killing many Israelis in the Intifadas before the security fences and checkpoints were set up. Those mechanisms stopped the killings. It's literally an example of how Israel needs a strong defence to not have it's people killed.”
I wonder why people would resort to terrorism to fight back against illegal settlers. It might have something to do with the settling being illegal. Hint: illegal settlements are a form of aggression.
Besides for the fact that the legality argument is a lot less cut and dry than you may think, I'm pretty sure the legality of settlements isn't really the concern of the average Palestinian. We aren't talking about lawyers of international law here.
Regardless, you can rationalize terrorism all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that Israel is currently under threat by numerous armed groups in multiple countries and if it disarmed tomorrow, Israel would be wiped off the map in short order. But if all those other groups disarmed, the worst that might happen is some houses get built (and in my personal opinion, even that wouldn't happen, because Israel would seize the opportunity to have friendly neighbours for once.)
“Efficacy at war is not the same as being the one who keeps starting stuff. America was better at war than Japan in WW2. That doesn't negate the fact that Japan were the ones kicking the hornets nest at Pearl Harbor.”
Efficacy at war is not the whole reason why so many Palestinians died at the hands of the State of Israel. The most important reason is that Israel goes to war rather than attempting to create lasting peace by removing the settlements. We’re now at a point where Israel can reasonably argue that it’d be unethical to remove the settlements, and that’s because Israel has continuously chosen the war option rather than diplomatic efforts while actively supporting the growth of the settlements. It was by design that enough time would pass that peaceful options become harder and harder not only for Palestinians, but also for Israel. Israel has always ignored international calls to put an end to the settlements and to the Apartheid. That’s the main reason why so many Palestinians die. Your victim blaming doesn’t work on people like me who understand that history doesn’t exist in a vacuum.
Furthermore, America didn’t have illegal settlements in Japan. This comparison doesn’t work at all.
To be clear, this line of mine was in response to you saying 4) Israel has killed far more Palestinians than the other way around. You are now pivoting to defend your stance on who really started it, but my whole point is that "numbers killed" is not a valid proof of "who started it." Those are two separate points and aggressors have been both winners and losers of war. We can discuss other reasons you might think Israel is the aggressor, but "the Arabs get their butts handed to them every time they go to war" is not a legitimate proof that those same Arabs didn't start those wars.
|
On December 02 2023 02:23 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2023 02:10 Cerebrate1 wrote:
By the way, @JimmyC @Ryzel and @raynpelikoneet : I appreciate your kind words. It's good to hear that the civility of my engagement has not gone unnoticed
Edit: also @JimmyC I meant to compliment you many pages back when you posted that expert explaining how War Crimes actually work. I was going to write a whole lengthy post on the topic, so you spared me the effort and found a great source besides. I agree with their assessment. Also one of them said that you were providing the absolute best defense that Israel can get, and I agree with that as well.
Thanks! 
Edit: I should mention that I sincerely believe that my explanations are in line with the rationales of Israeli policy makers. So if you agree with something I say, you may well agree with them as well.
|
"The 2006 Second Lebanon War disproves your historical claim pretty cleanly."
The 2006 "Lebanon war" wasn't between Israel and Lebanon, but between Israel and Hezbollah.
"Technically, Syria has been at war with Israel since 1948 (I believe that this applies to several other countries, but couldn't readily find sources for that), since a proper truce was never made."
Technically, South Korea and North Korea are at war.
"Hezbollah and Syria fire rockets, mortars, and like every time there is unrest, which would be considered an act of war against any country in the world except Israel."
Rockets were fired from Syria, not by Syria.
Do you really want to keep arguing in this manner? I've been re-reading about Israel's conflicts over the past few decades. Have you not done any reading at all?
|
On December 02 2023 02:59 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2023 09:04 Cerebrate1 wrote:On November 30 2023 19:01 KwarK wrote:On November 30 2023 14:15 Cerebrate1 wrote:On November 29 2023 14:45 KwarK wrote:On November 29 2023 13:21 Cerebrate1 wrote:
And seriously. If the Palestinians had a leader like Ghandi, Martin Luther King, or Mandela, world opinion wouldn't be split on this topic right now. And Israel would sit him down at the negotiating table and give him a nice plot of land, because Israel would love to have a peaceful neighbor and less problems to worry about more than anyone.
I'm not saying that such a leader coming forth is realistic, but if it did, it absolutely would be good for the Palestinian cause. Immeasurably more so than any violent option.
This is pure fantasy. Firstly, I think you’ve got a very mistaken idea of how radical the people you listed were. They didn’t simply ask nicely and win the men with guns over with the raw power of pacifism. Hell, MLK was murdered by the men with guns and his message was buried with him. I didn't explain precisely what those leaders did, so I'm not sure what mistake you saw that needed correcting here. They promoted non-violent methods of protest. Those methods worked. I'm suggesting that similar methods (feel free to speak out the historical specifics if you like) would work here too. On November 29 2023 14:45 KwarK wrote:Secondly, it solves nothing. I don't personally consider self determination and a state nothing. That would solve most of the major issues Pro-Palestinians are concerned with by itself. On November 29 2023 14:45 KwarK wrote:Will Israelis give up their lands simply because Palestinian Ghandi asked for it? Israel is pretty desperate for nearby friends, they usually settle for countries who will even be willing to just not attack them. They gave Egypt the oil rich Sinai Peninsula (more land than the rest of Israel combined) for an agreement than Egypt would just stop attacking them. The West Bank and Gaza are a major pain in the butt for them financially, militarily, and politically. If they had reasonable assurances that those places would be friendly (or even just neutral) towards them, the vast majority of the war weary Israeli electorate would happily hand over the keys. On November 29 2023 14:45 KwarK wrote:And how much land will they give up? Probably to around the 1967 borders with some adjustments, as multiple offers have indicated. On November 29 2023 14:45 KwarK wrote:They’re not fighting because they’re too stupid to try asking nicely... They’re fighting because they feel that is all that remains. The Palestinian may feel this way, sure. I wasn't posting to tell them what they should feel. I was posting to explain what would be strategically advantageous for their cause. I did say that them following my suggestion was unlikely. That feeling may be part of the reason why it's unlikely. It doesn't make it a bad idea, if they were able to overcome their feelings and do it. On November 29 2023 14:45 KwarK wrote:This revelation you’ve had is nonsense. This is not some novel revelation of mine. Golda Meir said it decades ago “If the Arabs put down their weapons today, there would be no more violence. If the Jews put down their weapons today, there would be no more Israel." Not to mention, the nonviolent protest idea was implemented successfully by leaders (Ghandi, MLK, and Mandela) in locations around the world. The fact that you are surprised by the suggestion of non-violent Palestinian protest is actually a really sad commentary on the situation in general. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'm separating these other parts of your post because they have less to do with the point of my post and more to do with other points that we happen to also disagree on. On November 29 2023 14:45 KwarK wrote:How much of India did Ghandi allow Britain to keep? That's not really a reasonable comparison. England was an imperial power whose people lived half a world away and just had some companies and soldiers in India. Israel's population base is in Israel and nowhere else. They can't just pull out the troops and fly back to Israel. They are already in Israel and they have nowhere to retreat to. On November 29 2023 14:45 KwarK wrote:Are Palestinians going to be allowed to move back onto their grandfather’s land? I'm not sure that that is a reasonable request at this point and it would upturn world society if we followed the logic to it's conclusion. Should some guy living in Wisconsin be able to take over the private house of some guy living in Tel Aviv because his grandfather lived nearby 70 years ago? I don't think Native Americans should be able to go up to anyone's house in America and take it because their grandparent lived there. Nor the Aboriginals in Australia. Nor the First Peoples in Canada. The people who live there now didn't do anything wrong and shouldn't be punished for something done by someone they probably didn't even know in ages gone by. And no modern government offers such things, even though many have displaced peoples in the past. The morally elevated nations who feel guilt for the past actions of their country do give reparations in other ways. Germany gives monetary payouts to holocaust survivors. America and Canada give tax and educational benefits to descendants of natives. But literally no one let's them take back their old house decades later, after it's changed hands multiple times. Certainly not for people who didn't even live there themselves. (Edit: I could hear the idea of Palestinians requesting monetary compensation from Israel btw. I personally feel that the surrounding Arab nations are more at fault for their plight and that they should be the ones paying, but at least that sort of request would be within the realm of things real countries actually do, rather than a unique standard applied to Israel and no one else.) On November 29 2023 14:45 KwarK wrote:Because if not they will remain in a perpetual state of intergenerational refugees. The intergenerational refugee status is a weird thing because it's an artificial creation unique to this conflict. In WW2, there were over 40 million displaced persons (according to Wikipedia). The whole of Europe was in upheaval and people had to flee as armies moved through and the borders of many countries were redrawn. Those people moved to new places, made a life for themselves, and stopped being refugees. Hundreds of thousands of Greeks displaced from Turkey didn't move back to Turkey to stop being refugees. Hundreds of thousands of Jews didn't have to move back to their various Arab states to stop being refugees. Don't even get me started about where everyone ended up in the Balkans. In modern times, the Syrian Civil War and the War in Ukraine are currently ongoing and already the refugee problems are diminishing as those people move to new countries and make new homes for themselves. I've met a number from both with jobs in my area. These situations are tragic for all of these peoples when they are displaced. But why are Palestinians unique that they keep their "refugee" status after they get a new home a job etc? There are Palestinian "refugee camps" that are basically just neighborhoods today. Not tents, but houses. People are dentists and stuff. They aren't on the run anymore. They are so stable they are able and willing to raise families there (not many families are formed when people are running for their lives.) They’re refugees because they want to go back home but they can’t. You are re-defining refugee. The generally accepted definition of that word according to the UN Refugee Agency is Refugees are people fleeing conflict or persecution. (emphasis mine) It then goes on to explain that legally a new host country is not permitted to expel them or return them to their home countries while the situation remains. This is yet another example of a term being redefined specifically in relation to the Israel-Arab conflict, while remaining the same in all other contexts. Non violent resistance doesn’t work and MLK was unsuccessful. I'm not sure how you define "success," but The Civil Rights Act of 1957, Civil Rights Act of 1964, Fair Housing Act of 1968, and many other civil rights advances during MLK's time seem like pretty significant leaps forward to me. Those weren’t the things MLK was advocating for. His message was much, much more revolutionary. They killed him, declared his mission a posthumous success, and gave him a day. Have you ever actually read anything he wrote? He was a revolutionary socialist who wanted to dismantle the entire international capitalist system. They buried his revolution alongside him and turned him into a symbol of an era ended, disregarding pretty much everything he stood for.
That's interesting. I hadn't heard that and will have to look into it.
Regardless, my point was that the non-violent movement of his time was effective at instituting real change. Whether that was a people's movement that would have happened without him or if he had ulterior motives that never came to fruition is an interesting side bar, but that movement was a proof to the efficacy of non-violent methods.
|
|
|
United States42516 Posts
On December 02 2023 03:34 Cerebrate1 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2023 02:59 KwarK wrote:On December 01 2023 09:04 Cerebrate1 wrote:On November 30 2023 19:01 KwarK wrote:On November 30 2023 14:15 Cerebrate1 wrote:On November 29 2023 14:45 KwarK wrote:On November 29 2023 13:21 Cerebrate1 wrote:
And seriously. If the Palestinians had a leader like Ghandi, Martin Luther King, or Mandela, world opinion wouldn't be split on this topic right now. And Israel would sit him down at the negotiating table and give him a nice plot of land, because Israel would love to have a peaceful neighbor and less problems to worry about more than anyone.
I'm not saying that such a leader coming forth is realistic, but if it did, it absolutely would be good for the Palestinian cause. Immeasurably more so than any violent option.
This is pure fantasy. Firstly, I think you’ve got a very mistaken idea of how radical the people you listed were. They didn’t simply ask nicely and win the men with guns over with the raw power of pacifism. Hell, MLK was murdered by the men with guns and his message was buried with him. I didn't explain precisely what those leaders did, so I'm not sure what mistake you saw that needed correcting here. They promoted non-violent methods of protest. Those methods worked. I'm suggesting that similar methods (feel free to speak out the historical specifics if you like) would work here too. On November 29 2023 14:45 KwarK wrote:Secondly, it solves nothing. I don't personally consider self determination and a state nothing. That would solve most of the major issues Pro-Palestinians are concerned with by itself. On November 29 2023 14:45 KwarK wrote:Will Israelis give up their lands simply because Palestinian Ghandi asked for it? Israel is pretty desperate for nearby friends, they usually settle for countries who will even be willing to just not attack them. They gave Egypt the oil rich Sinai Peninsula (more land than the rest of Israel combined) for an agreement than Egypt would just stop attacking them. The West Bank and Gaza are a major pain in the butt for them financially, militarily, and politically. If they had reasonable assurances that those places would be friendly (or even just neutral) towards them, the vast majority of the war weary Israeli electorate would happily hand over the keys. On November 29 2023 14:45 KwarK wrote:And how much land will they give up? Probably to around the 1967 borders with some adjustments, as multiple offers have indicated. On November 29 2023 14:45 KwarK wrote:They’re not fighting because they’re too stupid to try asking nicely... They’re fighting because they feel that is all that remains. The Palestinian may feel this way, sure. I wasn't posting to tell them what they should feel. I was posting to explain what would be strategically advantageous for their cause. I did say that them following my suggestion was unlikely. That feeling may be part of the reason why it's unlikely. It doesn't make it a bad idea, if they were able to overcome their feelings and do it. On November 29 2023 14:45 KwarK wrote:This revelation you’ve had is nonsense. This is not some novel revelation of mine. Golda Meir said it decades ago “If the Arabs put down their weapons today, there would be no more violence. If the Jews put down their weapons today, there would be no more Israel." Not to mention, the nonviolent protest idea was implemented successfully by leaders (Ghandi, MLK, and Mandela) in locations around the world. The fact that you are surprised by the suggestion of non-violent Palestinian protest is actually a really sad commentary on the situation in general. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'm separating these other parts of your post because they have less to do with the point of my post and more to do with other points that we happen to also disagree on. On November 29 2023 14:45 KwarK wrote:How much of India did Ghandi allow Britain to keep? That's not really a reasonable comparison. England was an imperial power whose people lived half a world away and just had some companies and soldiers in India. Israel's population base is in Israel and nowhere else. They can't just pull out the troops and fly back to Israel. They are already in Israel and they have nowhere to retreat to. On November 29 2023 14:45 KwarK wrote:Are Palestinians going to be allowed to move back onto their grandfather’s land? I'm not sure that that is a reasonable request at this point and it would upturn world society if we followed the logic to it's conclusion. Should some guy living in Wisconsin be able to take over the private house of some guy living in Tel Aviv because his grandfather lived nearby 70 years ago? I don't think Native Americans should be able to go up to anyone's house in America and take it because their grandparent lived there. Nor the Aboriginals in Australia. Nor the First Peoples in Canada. The people who live there now didn't do anything wrong and shouldn't be punished for something done by someone they probably didn't even know in ages gone by. And no modern government offers such things, even though many have displaced peoples in the past. The morally elevated nations who feel guilt for the past actions of their country do give reparations in other ways. Germany gives monetary payouts to holocaust survivors. America and Canada give tax and educational benefits to descendants of natives. But literally no one let's them take back their old house decades later, after it's changed hands multiple times. Certainly not for people who didn't even live there themselves. (Edit: I could hear the idea of Palestinians requesting monetary compensation from Israel btw. I personally feel that the surrounding Arab nations are more at fault for their plight and that they should be the ones paying, but at least that sort of request would be within the realm of things real countries actually do, rather than a unique standard applied to Israel and no one else.) On November 29 2023 14:45 KwarK wrote:Because if not they will remain in a perpetual state of intergenerational refugees. The intergenerational refugee status is a weird thing because it's an artificial creation unique to this conflict. In WW2, there were over 40 million displaced persons (according to Wikipedia). The whole of Europe was in upheaval and people had to flee as armies moved through and the borders of many countries were redrawn. Those people moved to new places, made a life for themselves, and stopped being refugees. Hundreds of thousands of Greeks displaced from Turkey didn't move back to Turkey to stop being refugees. Hundreds of thousands of Jews didn't have to move back to their various Arab states to stop being refugees. Don't even get me started about where everyone ended up in the Balkans. In modern times, the Syrian Civil War and the War in Ukraine are currently ongoing and already the refugee problems are diminishing as those people move to new countries and make new homes for themselves. I've met a number from both with jobs in my area. These situations are tragic for all of these peoples when they are displaced. But why are Palestinians unique that they keep their "refugee" status after they get a new home a job etc? There are Palestinian "refugee camps" that are basically just neighborhoods today. Not tents, but houses. People are dentists and stuff. They aren't on the run anymore. They are so stable they are able and willing to raise families there (not many families are formed when people are running for their lives.) They’re refugees because they want to go back home but they can’t. You are re-defining refugee. The generally accepted definition of that word according to the UN Refugee Agency is Refugees are people fleeing conflict or persecution. (emphasis mine) It then goes on to explain that legally a new host country is not permitted to expel them or return them to their home countries while the situation remains. This is yet another example of a term being redefined specifically in relation to the Israel-Arab conflict, while remaining the same in all other contexts. Non violent resistance doesn’t work and MLK was unsuccessful. I'm not sure how you define "success," but The Civil Rights Act of 1957, Civil Rights Act of 1964, Fair Housing Act of 1968, and many other civil rights advances during MLK's time seem like pretty significant leaps forward to me. Those weren’t the things MLK was advocating for. His message was much, much more revolutionary. They killed him, declared his mission a posthumous success, and gave him a day. Have you ever actually read anything he wrote? He was a revolutionary socialist who wanted to dismantle the entire international capitalist system. They buried his revolution alongside him and turned him into a symbol of an era ended, disregarding pretty much everything he stood for. That's interesting. I hadn't heard that and will have to look into it. Regardless, my point was that the non-violent movement of his time was effective at instituting real change. Whether that was a people's movement that would have happened without him or if he had ulterior motives that never came to fruition is an interesting side bar, but that movement was a proof to the efficacy of non-violent methods.
Non violence didn’t achieve the change. Violence won with MLK. The people who shot him won. He also wrote about his contempt for those willing to grant equality only after a certain bar of civility was met by those demanding equality.
|
On December 02 2023 03:43 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2023 03:24 Magic Powers wrote:
"The 2006 Second Lebanon War disproves your historical claim pretty cleanly."
The 2006 "Lebanon war" wasn't between Israel and Lebanon, but between Israel and Hezbollah.
"Technically, Syria has been at war with Israel since 1948 (I believe that this applies to several other countries, but couldn't readily find sources for that), since a proper truce was never made."
Technically, South Korea and North Korea are at war.
"Hezbollah and Syria fire rockets, mortars, and like every time there is unrest, which would be considered an act of war against any country in the world except Israel."
Rockets were fired from Syria, not by Syria.
Do you really want to keep arguing in this manner? I've been re-reading about Israel's conflicts over the past few decades. Have you not done any reading at all? I'm not sure why you are so aggressive but also why you are splitting hairs. Hezbollah is an armed group supported by the Lebanon government. That is like saying that when Wagner attacks people its not Russia. Same/same for Syria.
I'm not the one splitting hairs. Cere argues that oh so many countries are at war with Israel. This just isn't true. The only region that can be considered to be warring Israel is Gaza. All of the other ones are too afraid of Israel. This proves that only the most extreme of extremists are willing to engage in open warfare with Israel, and those happen to be living in the exact same region that is oppressed by Israel. Cere's argument boils down to this being a pure coincidence, whereas I'm arguing that it's cause-and-effect.
|
On December 02 2023 03:11 Cerebrate1 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2023 18:50 Magic Powers wrote:
@Cerebrate
“It happens to be that it applies to every group of Arabs that has stopped attacking Israel. Egypt stopped attacking and there hasn't been a war with it since. So too Jordan and a couple others. You might think that Palestinians are different, but I happen to disagree.”
Israel is not oppressing any Arab group other than Palestinians. The perception of persecution may decrease their motive to play nice, but it does not prove that playing nice would be ineffective. My suggestion was merely that it could well be effective, and is certainly more so than continuing the current trajectory. Show nested quote +
“Perhaps I should clarify my position a bit. Palestine needs to have a leader that can guarantee that if he's given a state, that state won't just make war on Israel shortly thereafter. That has never been tried.“
Not a single ME country has been at war with Israel since 1982. Hamas is the only group that’s been serious about taking up arms against Israel, and Hamas happens to live among the only Arab group that’s being oppressed by Israel.
-The 2006 Second Lebanon War disproves your historical claim pretty cleanly. -Technically, Syria has been at war with Israel since 1948 (I believe that this applies to several other countries, but couldn't readily find sources for that), since a proper truce was never made. -Hezbollah and Syria fire rockets, mortars, and like every time there is unrest, which would be considered an act of war against any country in the world except Israel. But none of what you say here disproves my point that Palestine has never had a leadership that signalled that they wouldn't just go to war with Israel the moment they got a state. Meaning if every settler was pulled out of the West Bank tomorrow and the place got full independent sovereignty, it would almost certainly wage war with Israel within the decade. I'll actually take my claim even further: until Palestine has leadership that is willing to consent to at least this amount of peace, this conflict will not be solved. Show nested quote +
“I don't want to get into the altered definition of this term for this conflict, but regarding the quote being discussed, it actually proves the quote right. There were tons of suicide bombings, stabbings, car rammings and other terrorist actions killing many Israelis in the Intifadas before the security fences and checkpoints were set up. Those mechanisms stopped the killings. It's literally an example of how Israel needs a strong defence to not have it's people killed.”
I wonder why people would resort to terrorism to fight back against illegal settlers. It might have something to do with the settling being illegal. Hint: illegal settlements are a form of aggression.
Besides for the fact that the legality argument is a lot less cut and dry than you may think, I'm pretty sure the legality of settlements isn't really the concern of the average Palestinian. We aren't talking about lawyers of international law here. Regardless, you can rationalize terrorism all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that Israel is currently under threat by numerous armed groups in multiple countries and if it disarmed tomorrow, Israel would be wiped off the map in short order. But if all those other groups disarmed, the worst that might happen is some houses get built (and in my personal opinion, even that wouldn't happen, because Israel would seize the opportunity to have friendly neighbours for once.) Show nested quote +
“Efficacy at war is not the same as being the one who keeps starting stuff. America was better at war than Japan in WW2. That doesn't negate the fact that Japan were the ones kicking the hornets nest at Pearl Harbor.”
Efficacy at war is not the whole reason why so many Palestinians died at the hands of the State of Israel. The most important reason is that Israel goes to war rather than attempting to create lasting peace by removing the settlements. We’re now at a point where Israel can reasonably argue that it’d be unethical to remove the settlements, and that’s because Israel has continuously chosen the war option rather than diplomatic efforts while actively supporting the growth of the settlements. It was by design that enough time would pass that peaceful options become harder and harder not only for Palestinians, but also for Israel. Israel has always ignored international calls to put an end to the settlements and to the Apartheid. That’s the main reason why so many Palestinians die. Your victim blaming doesn’t work on people like me who understand that history doesn’t exist in a vacuum.
Furthermore, America didn’t have illegal settlements in Japan. This comparison doesn’t work at all.
To be clear, this line of mine was in response to you saying You are now pivoting to defend your stance on who really started it, but my whole point is that "numbers killed" is not a valid proof of "who started it." Those are two separate points and aggressors have been both winners and losers of war. We can discuss other reasons you might think Israel is the aggressor, but "the Arabs get their butts handed to them every time they go to war" is not a legitimate proof that those same Arabs didn't start those wars.
Well, Israel did start those wars by stealing land, I can't fathom how you can deny it. Hell, even old Jewish tombs have Palestinians DNA, it's their land.
My father's wife is an historian, she worked on site with Israeli colleagues, they were basicly propagandist, like a Roman governor was a full brutal tyrant, then they discovered he was Jewish, suddenly he became a progressist who did well and improved the region. Or every well which had stairs became a clear sign of Jewish presence because of a Jewish ritual where you have to get immersed in water, but like, non Jewish people would not have stairs to pick water when the level is low? Btw, my father once went with his wife and he said never again, Palestinian misery was very blatant and unsufferable for him.
And on behalf of Israel, they have like 40%/45% opposition to this madness and studies show their Palestinians with Israeli citizenship are not treated worse than let's say French with North African origin or black Americans, which is not great but not absolute denial of human rights.
|
|
|
|
|
On December 02 2023 04:10 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2023 04:04 Magic Powers wrote:On December 02 2023 03:43 JimmiC wrote:On December 02 2023 03:24 Magic Powers wrote:
"The 2006 Second Lebanon War disproves your historical claim pretty cleanly."
The 2006 "Lebanon war" wasn't between Israel and Lebanon, but between Israel and Hezbollah.
"Technically, Syria has been at war with Israel since 1948 (I believe that this applies to several other countries, but couldn't readily find sources for that), since a proper truce was never made."
Technically, South Korea and North Korea are at war.
"Hezbollah and Syria fire rockets, mortars, and like every time there is unrest, which would be considered an act of war against any country in the world except Israel."
Rockets were fired from Syria, not by Syria.
Do you really want to keep arguing in this manner? I've been re-reading about Israel's conflicts over the past few decades. Have you not done any reading at all? I'm not sure why you are so aggressive but also why you are splitting hairs. Hezbollah is an armed group supported by the Lebanon government. That is like saying that when Wagner attacks people its not Russia. Same/same for Syria. I'm not the one splitting hairs. Cere argues that oh so many countries are at war with Israel. This just isn't true. The only region that can be considered to be warring Israel is Gaza. All of the other ones are too afraid of Israel. This proves that only the most extreme of extremists are willing to engage in open warfare with Israel, and those happen to be living in the exact same region that is oppressed by Israel. Cere's argument boils down to this being a pure coincidence, whereas I'm arguing that it's cause-and-effect. Its not, the others are at war with Israel, just Israel does not attack them back.
Who is at war with Israel other than in writing?
|
|
|
On December 02 2023 04:20 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2023 04:15 Magic Powers wrote:On December 02 2023 04:10 JimmiC wrote:On December 02 2023 04:04 Magic Powers wrote:On December 02 2023 03:43 JimmiC wrote:On December 02 2023 03:24 Magic Powers wrote:
"The 2006 Second Lebanon War disproves your historical claim pretty cleanly."
The 2006 "Lebanon war" wasn't between Israel and Lebanon, but between Israel and Hezbollah.
"Technically, Syria has been at war with Israel since 1948 (I believe that this applies to several other countries, but couldn't readily find sources for that), since a proper truce was never made."
Technically, South Korea and North Korea are at war.
"Hezbollah and Syria fire rockets, mortars, and like every time there is unrest, which would be considered an act of war against any country in the world except Israel."
Rockets were fired from Syria, not by Syria.
Do you really want to keep arguing in this manner? I've been re-reading about Israel's conflicts over the past few decades. Have you not done any reading at all? I'm not sure why you are so aggressive but also why you are splitting hairs. Hezbollah is an armed group supported by the Lebanon government. That is like saying that when Wagner attacks people its not Russia. Same/same for Syria. I'm not the one splitting hairs. Cere argues that oh so many countries are at war with Israel. This just isn't true. The only region that can be considered to be warring Israel is Gaza. All of the other ones are too afraid of Israel. This proves that only the most extreme of extremists are willing to engage in open warfare with Israel, and those happen to be living in the exact same region that is oppressed by Israel. Cere's argument boils down to this being a pure coincidence, whereas I'm arguing that it's cause-and-effect. Its not, the others are at war with Israel, just Israel does not attack them back. Who is at war with Israel other than in writing? What do you mean other than in writing? Like who is allowing government funded militias to fire rockets? Or who is completely unwilling to normalize relations? Why do you think these countries won't just sign peace treaties? edit: this guardian article gives a quick overview, basically everyone but Jordan and Egypt. And it would be a big stretch to call either of those as allies, they just are not at war. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/21/israel-hamas-war-where-do-surrounding-countries-stand
Why should any ME country want peace with Israel? Most of them are not at war, that seems good enough to me. Lebanon is at war on paper, but not actively engaging in warfare, and they've also made attempts to come to better terms with Israel.
It's not like all of these countries only harbor evil people who are out to kill all Jews. When I said most of them are not extremists, I actually meant that. Is it really so hard to believe that most of them are more interested in saving Palestinians than in hurting Jews? I'm not talking about Hamas of course, those people are a lost cause.
That article from TheGuardian is accurate. Did you read it though? It shows that there are no countries currently at war with Israel. Not in a very long time.
|
Disengaging from the discussion for the last few days and just reading shows me what a lost cause engaging with certain people was, in the first place.
Now Magic Powers and JimmiC in particular are just continuing this spiral. It really hits different when Im not directly involved. Like legit 30+ pages always apprx. about the same stuff.
To be quite frank: I think after some point, the best outcome between some persons/their views is just to arrive at the good old "agree to disagree"..
Why is that so hard in particular in this case? Well at surface level it looks like JimmiC (and others..) are basically on the same page and agreeing. But they always make a turn when things get complicated and they are faced with something a bit more nuanced than "Hamas is evil & they are basically the sole reason for this conflict existing in the first place" (which is obv not true btw fwiw)..
Also Cerebrate is a funny guy. Equates Israel stopping what they are doing (for a long time but in particular the last weeks) with them disarming. Yeah. NO ONE is advocating for that (no one sane).. but lets just.. pretend..
|
|
|
|
|
On December 02 2023 04:13 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2023 04:08 nojok wrote:On December 02 2023 03:11 Cerebrate1 wrote:On December 01 2023 18:50 Magic Powers wrote:
@Cerebrate
“It happens to be that it applies to every group of Arabs that has stopped attacking Israel. Egypt stopped attacking and there hasn't been a war with it since. So too Jordan and a couple others. You might think that Palestinians are different, but I happen to disagree.”
Israel is not oppressing any Arab group other than Palestinians. The perception of persecution may decrease their motive to play nice, but it does not prove that playing nice would be ineffective. My suggestion was merely that it could well be effective, and is certainly more so than continuing the current trajectory.
“Perhaps I should clarify my position a bit. Palestine needs to have a leader that can guarantee that if he's given a state, that state won't just make war on Israel shortly thereafter. That has never been tried.“
Not a single ME country has been at war with Israel since 1982. Hamas is the only group that’s been serious about taking up arms against Israel, and Hamas happens to live among the only Arab group that’s being oppressed by Israel.
-The 2006 Second Lebanon War disproves your historical claim pretty cleanly. -Technically, Syria has been at war with Israel since 1948 (I believe that this applies to several other countries, but couldn't readily find sources for that), since a proper truce was never made. -Hezbollah and Syria fire rockets, mortars, and like every time there is unrest, which would be considered an act of war against any country in the world except Israel. But none of what you say here disproves my point that Palestine has never had a leadership that signalled that they wouldn't just go to war with Israel the moment they got a state. Meaning if every settler was pulled out of the West Bank tomorrow and the place got full independent sovereignty, it would almost certainly wage war with Israel within the decade. I'll actually take my claim even further: until Palestine has leadership that is willing to consent to at least this amount of peace, this conflict will not be solved.
“I don't want to get into the altered definition of this term for this conflict, but regarding the quote being discussed, it actually proves the quote right. There were tons of suicide bombings, stabbings, car rammings and other terrorist actions killing many Israelis in the Intifadas before the security fences and checkpoints were set up. Those mechanisms stopped the killings. It's literally an example of how Israel needs a strong defence to not have it's people killed.”
I wonder why people would resort to terrorism to fight back against illegal settlers. It might have something to do with the settling being illegal. Hint: illegal settlements are a form of aggression.
Besides for the fact that the legality argument is a lot less cut and dry than you may think, I'm pretty sure the legality of settlements isn't really the concern of the average Palestinian. We aren't talking about lawyers of international law here. Regardless, you can rationalize terrorism all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that Israel is currently under threat by numerous armed groups in multiple countries and if it disarmed tomorrow, Israel would be wiped off the map in short order. But if all those other groups disarmed, the worst that might happen is some houses get built (and in my personal opinion, even that wouldn't happen, because Israel would seize the opportunity to have friendly neighbours for once.)
“Efficacy at war is not the same as being the one who keeps starting stuff. America was better at war than Japan in WW2. That doesn't negate the fact that Japan were the ones kicking the hornets nest at Pearl Harbor.”
Efficacy at war is not the whole reason why so many Palestinians died at the hands of the State of Israel. The most important reason is that Israel goes to war rather than attempting to create lasting peace by removing the settlements. We’re now at a point where Israel can reasonably argue that it’d be unethical to remove the settlements, and that’s because Israel has continuously chosen the war option rather than diplomatic efforts while actively supporting the growth of the settlements. It was by design that enough time would pass that peaceful options become harder and harder not only for Palestinians, but also for Israel. Israel has always ignored international calls to put an end to the settlements and to the Apartheid. That’s the main reason why so many Palestinians die. Your victim blaming doesn’t work on people like me who understand that history doesn’t exist in a vacuum.
Furthermore, America didn’t have illegal settlements in Japan. This comparison doesn’t work at all.
To be clear, this line of mine was in response to you saying 4) Israel has killed far more Palestinians than the other way around. You are now pivoting to defend your stance on who really started it, but my whole point is that "numbers killed" is not a valid proof of "who started it." Those are two separate points and aggressors have been both winners and losers of war. We can discuss other reasons you might think Israel is the aggressor, but "the Arabs get their butts handed to them every time they go to war" is not a legitimate proof that those same Arabs didn't start those wars. Well, Israel did start those wars by stealing land, I can't fathom how you can deny it. Hell, even old Jewish tombs have Palestinians DNA, it's their land. My father's wife is an historian, she worked on site with Israeli colleagues, they were basicly propagandist, like a Roman governor was a full brutal tyrant, then they discovered he was Jewish, suddenly he became a progressist who did well and improved the region. Or every well which had stairs became a clear sign of Jewish presence because of a Jewish ritual where you have to get immersed in water, but like, non Jewish people would not have stairs to pick water when the level is low? Btw, my father once went with his wife and he said never again, Palestinian misery was very blatant and unsufferable for him. And on behalf of Israel, they have like 40%/45% opposition to this madness and studies show their Palestinians with Israeli citizenship are not treated worse than let's say French with North African origin or black Americans, which is not great but not absolute denial of human rights. People with Palestinian DNA still live in Israel. If you mean by existing the wars were inevitable because of the various religious extremists. But then the only way to stop the wars is for Israel to stop existing, is this what you are after?
Isreal should never have existed, same as the USA, Australia or various South American states. Now they have nuclear power, we can only hope they stay instead of disappearing with a bang. I reiterate, despite they're atrocious treatment of Palestians, they're decent towards their citizens from Palestinians origin. I was onl responding to that new account which started with that war, which stated wars were only initiated by Arab states when it's clearly not the case. Imo if the most powerful nation in the world right now did not steal land to establish itself, it would have been resolved already.
|
|
|
On December 02 2023 06:06 JimmiC wrote:
When Magic~Phil posts it is barely readable. It starts as if he is trying to to have a discussion or find common ground but before long Magic~Phil has a tatrum because someone disagreed with him and he is far too entitled for that. Does Magic~Phil ever source anything or have any actual good discussion? Why does Magic~Phil keep putting peoples names in his post as if he is talking around them. Magic~Phil has threatened to go away a number of times, he is already way above this low brow conversation, why does he not follow through on his threats?
Source: He has put my name in 13 posts in this thread in a short period. Generally claiming something untrue about me. He also sent me a PM with the title " Dude u are truly despicable". I've continually asked him to leave me alone. Dude has major issues.
The first part is untrue. I did indeed disengage for a long time. Threatened? That doesnt even make sense. Threats? You are truly weird.
Also you are crying about a PM and the title - whilst you simply dont tell why I wrote it. I did so because I thought the way you responded to a post of mine indicated that u were "not sure if children in Gaza really have to live as orphans due to their parents getting killed by bomings"..
Lets just not tell that part, shall we?
I intentionally did not write at you or engage with you this time. But you felt the need. Please dont forget that. I just wrote what I observed since I didnt participate for ~1-2 weeks or sth..
I think you are the one having major issues my man.
|
On December 02 2023 06:35 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2023 06:27 nojok wrote:On December 02 2023 04:13 JimmiC wrote:On December 02 2023 04:08 nojok wrote:On December 02 2023 03:11 Cerebrate1 wrote:On December 01 2023 18:50 Magic Powers wrote:
@Cerebrate
“It happens to be that it applies to every group of Arabs that has stopped attacking Israel. Egypt stopped attacking and there hasn't been a war with it since. So too Jordan and a couple others. You might think that Palestinians are different, but I happen to disagree.”
Israel is not oppressing any Arab group other than Palestinians. The perception of persecution may decrease their motive to play nice, but it does not prove that playing nice would be ineffective. My suggestion was merely that it could well be effective, and is certainly more so than continuing the current trajectory.
“Perhaps I should clarify my position a bit. Palestine needs to have a leader that can guarantee that if he's given a state, that state won't just make war on Israel shortly thereafter. That has never been tried.“
Not a single ME country has been at war with Israel since 1982. Hamas is the only group that’s been serious about taking up arms against Israel, and Hamas happens to live among the only Arab group that’s being oppressed by Israel.
-The 2006 Second Lebanon War disproves your historical claim pretty cleanly. -Technically, Syria has been at war with Israel since 1948 (I believe that this applies to several other countries, but couldn't readily find sources for that), since a proper truce was never made. -Hezbollah and Syria fire rockets, mortars, and like every time there is unrest, which would be considered an act of war against any country in the world except Israel. But none of what you say here disproves my point that Palestine has never had a leadership that signalled that they wouldn't just go to war with Israel the moment they got a state. Meaning if every settler was pulled out of the West Bank tomorrow and the place got full independent sovereignty, it would almost certainly wage war with Israel within the decade. I'll actually take my claim even further: until Palestine has leadership that is willing to consent to at least this amount of peace, this conflict will not be solved.
“I don't want to get into the altered definition of this term for this conflict, but regarding the quote being discussed, it actually proves the quote right. There were tons of suicide bombings, stabbings, car rammings and other terrorist actions killing many Israelis in the Intifadas before the security fences and checkpoints were set up. Those mechanisms stopped the killings. It's literally an example of how Israel needs a strong defence to not have it's people killed.”
I wonder why people would resort to terrorism to fight back against illegal settlers. It might have something to do with the settling being illegal. Hint: illegal settlements are a form of aggression.
Besides for the fact that the legality argument is a lot less cut and dry than you may think, I'm pretty sure the legality of settlements isn't really the concern of the average Palestinian. We aren't talking about lawyers of international law here. Regardless, you can rationalize terrorism all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that Israel is currently under threat by numerous armed groups in multiple countries and if it disarmed tomorrow, Israel would be wiped off the map in short order. But if all those other groups disarmed, the worst that might happen is some houses get built (and in my personal opinion, even that wouldn't happen, because Israel would seize the opportunity to have friendly neighbours for once.)
“Efficacy at war is not the same as being the one who keeps starting stuff. America was better at war than Japan in WW2. That doesn't negate the fact that Japan were the ones kicking the hornets nest at Pearl Harbor.”
Efficacy at war is not the whole reason why so many Palestinians died at the hands of the State of Israel. The most important reason is that Israel goes to war rather than attempting to create lasting peace by removing the settlements. We’re now at a point where Israel can reasonably argue that it’d be unethical to remove the settlements, and that’s because Israel has continuously chosen the war option rather than diplomatic efforts while actively supporting the growth of the settlements. It was by design that enough time would pass that peaceful options become harder and harder not only for Palestinians, but also for Israel. Israel has always ignored international calls to put an end to the settlements and to the Apartheid. That’s the main reason why so many Palestinians die. Your victim blaming doesn’t work on people like me who understand that history doesn’t exist in a vacuum.
Furthermore, America didn’t have illegal settlements in Japan. This comparison doesn’t work at all.
To be clear, this line of mine was in response to you saying 4) Israel has killed far more Palestinians than the other way around. You are now pivoting to defend your stance on who really started it, but my whole point is that "numbers killed" is not a valid proof of "who started it." Those are two separate points and aggressors have been both winners and losers of war. We can discuss other reasons you might think Israel is the aggressor, but "the Arabs get their butts handed to them every time they go to war" is not a legitimate proof that those same Arabs didn't start those wars. Well, Israel did start those wars by stealing land, I can't fathom how you can deny it. Hell, even old Jewish tombs have Palestinians DNA, it's their land. My father's wife is an historian, she worked on site with Israeli colleagues, they were basicly propagandist, like a Roman governor was a full brutal tyrant, then they discovered he was Jewish, suddenly he became a progressist who did well and improved the region. Or every well which had stairs became a clear sign of Jewish presence because of a Jewish ritual where you have to get immersed in water, but like, non Jewish people would not have stairs to pick water when the level is low? Btw, my father once went with his wife and he said never again, Palestinian misery was very blatant and unsufferable for him. And on behalf of Israel, they have like 40%/45% opposition to this madness and studies show their Palestinians with Israeli citizenship are not treated worse than let's say French with North African origin or black Americans, which is not great but not absolute denial of human rights. People with Palestinian DNA still live in Israel. If you mean by existing the wars were inevitable because of the various religious extremists. But then the only way to stop the wars is for Israel to stop existing, is this what you are after? Isreal should never have existed, same as the USA, Australia or various South American states. Now they have nuclear power, we can only hope they stay instead of disappearing with a bang. I reiterate, despite they're atrocious treatment of Palestians, they're decent towards their citizens from Palestinians origin. I was onl responding to that new account which started with that war, which stated wars were only initiated by Arab states when it's clearly not the case . Imo if the most powerful nation in the world right now did not steal land to establish itself, it would have been resolved already. It is strange because most of your post seem fairly civil but you included an anecdote in one about why Jews are bad and now you have the bolded short form of history which is to put it politely very one sided and completely missing context and nuance.
He has a certain view of historic events.. oh no.. he's an antisemite!!!
Also again you are straight up telling lies or are being a bit dense. He DID NOT say Jews. He said "worlds most powerful nation"(=Israel).
You do get that these things have different meanings, dont you? Jews -/- Israel.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
