|
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. |
The people of Israel deserve empathy for having to endure terrorist strikes and other violence. But the leadership of Israel, the State of Israel, the administration, the IDF, I think those do not deserve any empathy whatsoever.
|
On December 05 2023 07:21 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2023 06:56 Nebuchad wrote:On December 05 2023 06:43 JimmiC wrote:On December 05 2023 06:30 Magic Powers wrote:On December 05 2023 06:13 Acrofales wrote:On December 05 2023 05:58 Nebuchad wrote:On December 05 2023 05:44 Acrofales wrote:On December 05 2023 05:34 JimmiC wrote:On December 05 2023 05:15 Acrofales wrote:On December 05 2023 04:18 JimmiC wrote:
[quote]
I have and even posted about it and included multiple sources in the past. It’s shitty, low effort, one liner gotcha posts that are ruining good discussion.
I am literally only responding to your assertion that South Africa didn't have different rules for different races in different places when they clearly and demonstrably did. So if that was your main reason for not wanting to label Israel as an Apartheid regime... well, I guess now that you've educated yourself you believe Israel is an Apartheid regime. E: might as well respond to your Russia quip as well. There are a variety of different ideologies that like their mass deportations. Apartheid is one of them. Fascism is another. Russia falls more in the latter. It's less about living together and more about "everybody who disagrees with Putin gets a one-way to Siberia, and we'll reeducate the children to ensure they are properly Russified". You totally gotchad me, because I totally thought Russia was the good guys in that war! I said the opposite. This is literally your quote: South Africa didn’t have have different rules for different races in different places, they had a hierarchy and it stuck with the explicit goal of keeping the whites on top and the others each in lower categories enriching the whites.
South Africa had a very complex system of rules. Nominally they weren't to keep the wites on top, or they could have made the rules far simpler. It was all about designating different areas where different people were in charge with different rules. The Zulus got their homeland, the Xhosa theirs, the Ndebele theirs, etc. etc. etc. Of course, at the end of the day, the white people just so happened to be designated the prime race in all of the industrial areas, all of the mining areas and most of the arable farmland, but that's just the luck of the draw, right? Anyway, really complex rules with "independent nations" and their own separate presidents making their own rules in their independent Bantustans. And there were actual border crossings and white people were not necessarily allowed into the Bantustans, and once there had different rules apply. Of course, there wasn't much reason to go to the Bantustans as a white person, but... DEFINITELY different rules in different places for different people. I believe Jimmi's argument is that it's not Apartheid because Palestinian Palestinians and Israeli Palestinians are not treated in exactly the same way, while in Apartheid there was no different status for different groups of black people. This is the "I can't be racist because I have a black friend!" version of the argument then? I thought it was an actual point that was worth responding to. My bad. It all hinges on the claim that they're being treated as equals in the State of Israel. This is not true, but it's a convenient lie that people don't bother scrutinizing because it requires research. https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/what-know-about-arab-citizens-israel Again not calling Israeli genocidal, or an apartheid or whatever does not mean I think it’s the land of milk, hunny and rainbows. There are tons of real issues that be talked about with accurate terms. I think our actual pro Israel poster would even agree things are far from perfect, he’s said as much. People have trouble following your argument because it's not consistent. You will argue against the use of the word Apartheid by pointing out that there's a "controversy", some people think it's the right term and some people think it's not, but then later you will say that it's "accurate" to not call it Apartheid, so you have taken a side in the controversy and you've decided that your side of the controversy has won, for no reason. You will say that you believe Israel is doing something really bad even though it's not Apartheid sometimes, but at other points you will say something like "Russia is actually the evil country that people have claimed Isreal to be". You don't seem that sure whether it's controversial or it's clearly not Apartheid, and you don't seem that sure whether it's evil or not. The only thing that you're very sure about is that you're right and everyone is unfair to you. I think it’s wrong, that is my opinion. It is factual that it controversial because groups we all trust have differing opinions, university profs and so on. Maybe it is confusing because people think their opinions are facts and it is important for them to remain unchallenged and un changed. I’ve had many of opinions change, especially as I learn more about something. I do not see it as a flaw but a point of pride. I do think Israel is doing something bad, but I also have empathy for their situation. Russia is doing much more awful things and for reasons I have no empathy for, “the greatness of their empire”. It also seems hard for people to understand that I can agree with on something’s and not others. I do not see politics as a team sport. I don’t just arbitrarily take “left” positions. When I was working in waste reduction I saw may too much greenwashing and the “we have to say this so the other guys, blah blah” that deeply hurt the overall mission to be OK with it.
But it's not just people in this case who think their opinions are facts, it's also you. Otherwise you wouldn't think that "I think it's wrong" is enough to criticize people for using "inaccurate" terms.
When I look up Apartheid I'm getting "a system of oppression and domination from a racial group over another, institutionnalized through laws, politics and discriminatory practices". I mean, sounds close enough. We're in the ballpark. I don't think it's very accurate either because what Israel is doing to Palestinians in the West Bank is actually much worse than this definition, but clearly the more important part is the symbolism behind the language, it's a term that is clearly connotated very negatively and that's why we're getting stuck on this, because reflexively you want to use language that is more charitable to Israel. I think it's that charitability that is your main drive in this conversation.
It's not very important but I've also been wanting to add that what you have for Israel is sympathy, not empathy. It's not a you problem, everyone does this, and it triggers me quite a lot. Empathy helps you understand conflicts better. Sympathy is not nothing, but it's not quite the same.
|
|
|
On December 05 2023 07:44 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2023 07:39 Nebuchad wrote:On December 05 2023 07:21 JimmiC wrote:On December 05 2023 06:56 Nebuchad wrote:On December 05 2023 06:43 JimmiC wrote:On December 05 2023 06:30 Magic Powers wrote:On December 05 2023 06:13 Acrofales wrote:On December 05 2023 05:58 Nebuchad wrote:On December 05 2023 05:44 Acrofales wrote:On December 05 2023 05:34 JimmiC wrote:
[quote]
I said the opposite.
This is literally your quote: South Africa didn’t have have different rules for different races in different places, they had a hierarchy and it stuck with the explicit goal of keeping the whites on top and the others each in lower categories enriching the whites.
South Africa had a very complex system of rules. Nominally they weren't to keep the wites on top, or they could have made the rules far simpler. It was all about designating different areas where different people were in charge with different rules. The Zulus got their homeland, the Xhosa theirs, the Ndebele theirs, etc. etc. etc. Of course, at the end of the day, the white people just so happened to be designated the prime race in all of the industrial areas, all of the mining areas and most of the arable farmland, but that's just the luck of the draw, right? Anyway, really complex rules with "independent nations" and their own separate presidents making their own rules in their independent Bantustans. And there were actual border crossings and white people were not necessarily allowed into the Bantustans, and once there had different rules apply. Of course, there wasn't much reason to go to the Bantustans as a white person, but... DEFINITELY different rules in different places for different people. I believe Jimmi's argument is that it's not Apartheid because Palestinian Palestinians and Israeli Palestinians are not treated in exactly the same way, while in Apartheid there was no different status for different groups of black people. This is the "I can't be racist because I have a black friend!" version of the argument then? I thought it was an actual point that was worth responding to. My bad. It all hinges on the claim that they're being treated as equals in the State of Israel. This is not true, but it's a convenient lie that people don't bother scrutinizing because it requires research. https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/what-know-about-arab-citizens-israel Again not calling Israeli genocidal, or an apartheid or whatever does not mean I think it’s the land of milk, hunny and rainbows. There are tons of real issues that be talked about with accurate terms. I think our actual pro Israel poster would even agree things are far from perfect, he’s said as much. People have trouble following your argument because it's not consistent. You will argue against the use of the word Apartheid by pointing out that there's a "controversy", some people think it's the right term and some people think it's not, but then later you will say that it's "accurate" to not call it Apartheid, so you have taken a side in the controversy and you've decided that your side of the controversy has won, for no reason. You will say that you believe Israel is doing something really bad even though it's not Apartheid sometimes, but at other points you will say something like "Russia is actually the evil country that people have claimed Isreal to be". You don't seem that sure whether it's controversial or it's clearly not Apartheid, and you don't seem that sure whether it's evil or not. The only thing that you're very sure about is that you're right and everyone is unfair to you. I think it’s wrong, that is my opinion. It is factual that it controversial because groups we all trust have differing opinions, university profs and so on. Maybe it is confusing because people think their opinions are facts and it is important for them to remain unchallenged and un changed. I’ve had many of opinions change, especially as I learn more about something. I do not see it as a flaw but a point of pride. I do think Israel is doing something bad, but I also have empathy for their situation. Russia is doing much more awful things and for reasons I have no empathy for, “the greatness of their empire”. It also seems hard for people to understand that I can agree with on something’s and not others. I do not see politics as a team sport. I don’t just arbitrarily take “left” positions. When I was working in waste reduction I saw may too much greenwashing and the “we have to say this so the other guys, blah blah” that deeply hurt the overall mission to be OK with it. But it's not just people in this case who think their opinions are facts, it's also you. Otherwise you wouldn't think that "I think it's wrong" is enough to criticize people for using "inaccurate" terms. When I look up Apartheid I'm getting "a system of oppression and domination from a racial group over another, institutionnalized through laws, politics and discriminatory practices". I mean, sounds close enough. We're in the ballpark. I don't think it's very accurate either because what Israel is doing to Palestinians in the West Bank is actually much worse than this definition, but clearly the more important part is the symbolism behind the language, it's a term that is clearly connotated very negatively and that's why we're getting stuck on this, because reflexively you want to use language that is more charitable to Israel. I think it's that charitability that is your main drive in this conversation. It's not very important but I've also been wanting to add that what you have for Israel is sympathy, not empathy. It's not a you problem, everyone does this, and it triggers me quite a lot. Empathy helps you understand conflicts better. Sympathy is not nothing, but it's not quite the same. I have sympathy as well yes. I thought this was a given but I’ll openly state it. What current countries are currently enforcing apartheids in your mind?
I looked it up after posting and it looks like english isn't using empathy and sympathy exactly in the same way as french is, my bad. There's also a distinction in english but it's a different one from the french one, so it's also wrong that people are using the two interchangeably, but it's wrong for a different reason. Mind blown :D
Current countries that have Apartheid: Israel, Qatar, Myanmar, Malaysia. If you want to argue that religious segregation is not distinct from racial segregation, which imo is a fair thing to argue, you can add a bunch more countries.
|
On December 05 2023 05:33 JimmiC wrote:
Apologizes for all sorts of mistakes responding 1 handed on the bed with a sick child pinning the other one.
I hope your kid feels better soon!
On December 05 2023 06:26 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2023 05:16 Liquid`Drone wrote:Tbh seems like the apartheid term is becoming less and less controversial in Israel too now. Confronted with Tamir Pardo's (former head of Mossad) claim that Israel is imposing apartheid, Mark Regev, who is Netanyahu's special advisor, replies that 'the factual part is correct. There is Israeli law for Israeli citizens, and palestinians living there are under military law'. This is Netanyahu's special advisor, and rather than deny the claim that it's an apartheid regime, he says that it's a temporary necessity and that the alternative is even worse. Honestly the interview in that second link is very good. I guess it might be geoblocked for non-norwegians, but here is an accurate (but not complete) summary. The opinions of many on how necessary all the security measures were before Oct 7th, and that maybe they were the bad guys and not the good guys. Cerebrate can probably, and hopefully will, elaborate. It was looking worse and worse for Bibi and better and better for people with more moderate or even progressive views. This is also why you can find conspiracies about Hamas and Bibi working together, both of their popularity was falling, both require the other side to be seen as evil and unredeemable.
Can you clarify what you are asking me here?
|
|
|
On December 05 2023 08:23 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2023 07:53 Nebuchad wrote:On December 05 2023 07:44 JimmiC wrote:On December 05 2023 07:39 Nebuchad wrote:On December 05 2023 07:21 JimmiC wrote:On December 05 2023 06:56 Nebuchad wrote:On December 05 2023 06:43 JimmiC wrote:On December 05 2023 06:30 Magic Powers wrote:On December 05 2023 06:13 Acrofales wrote:On December 05 2023 05:58 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
I believe Jimmi's argument is that it's not Apartheid because Palestinian Palestinians and Israeli Palestinians are not treated in exactly the same way, while in Apartheid there was no different status for different groups of black people. This is the "I can't be racist because I have a black friend!" version of the argument then? I thought it was an actual point that was worth responding to. My bad. It all hinges on the claim that they're being treated as equals in the State of Israel. This is not true, but it's a convenient lie that people don't bother scrutinizing because it requires research. https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/what-know-about-arab-citizens-israel Again not calling Israeli genocidal, or an apartheid or whatever does not mean I think it’s the land of milk, hunny and rainbows. There are tons of real issues that be talked about with accurate terms. I think our actual pro Israel poster would even agree things are far from perfect, he’s said as much. People have trouble following your argument because it's not consistent. You will argue against the use of the word Apartheid by pointing out that there's a "controversy", some people think it's the right term and some people think it's not, but then later you will say that it's "accurate" to not call it Apartheid, so you have taken a side in the controversy and you've decided that your side of the controversy has won, for no reason. You will say that you believe Israel is doing something really bad even though it's not Apartheid sometimes, but at other points you will say something like "Russia is actually the evil country that people have claimed Isreal to be". You don't seem that sure whether it's controversial or it's clearly not Apartheid, and you don't seem that sure whether it's evil or not. The only thing that you're very sure about is that you're right and everyone is unfair to you. I think it’s wrong, that is my opinion. It is factual that it controversial because groups we all trust have differing opinions, university profs and so on. Maybe it is confusing because people think their opinions are facts and it is important for them to remain unchallenged and un changed. I’ve had many of opinions change, especially as I learn more about something. I do not see it as a flaw but a point of pride. I do think Israel is doing something bad, but I also have empathy for their situation. Russia is doing much more awful things and for reasons I have no empathy for, “the greatness of their empire”. It also seems hard for people to understand that I can agree with on something’s and not others. I do not see politics as a team sport. I don’t just arbitrarily take “left” positions. When I was working in waste reduction I saw may too much greenwashing and the “we have to say this so the other guys, blah blah” that deeply hurt the overall mission to be OK with it. But it's not just people in this case who think their opinions are facts, it's also you. Otherwise you wouldn't think that "I think it's wrong" is enough to criticize people for using "inaccurate" terms. When I look up Apartheid I'm getting "a system of oppression and domination from a racial group over another, institutionnalized through laws, politics and discriminatory practices". I mean, sounds close enough. We're in the ballpark. I don't think it's very accurate either because what Israel is doing to Palestinians in the West Bank is actually much worse than this definition, but clearly the more important part is the symbolism behind the language, it's a term that is clearly connotated very negatively and that's why we're getting stuck on this, because reflexively you want to use language that is more charitable to Israel. I think it's that charitability that is your main drive in this conversation. It's not very important but I've also been wanting to add that what you have for Israel is sympathy, not empathy. It's not a you problem, everyone does this, and it triggers me quite a lot. Empathy helps you understand conflicts better. Sympathy is not nothing, but it's not quite the same. I have sympathy as well yes. I thought this was a given but I’ll openly state it. What current countries are currently enforcing apartheids in your mind? I looked it up after posting and it looks like english isn't using empathy and sympathy exactly in the same way as french is, my bad. There's also a distinction in english but it's a different one from the french one, so it's also wrong that people are using the two interchangeably, but it's wrong for a different reason. Mind blown :D Current countries that have Apartheid: Israel, China, Qatar, Myanmar, Malaysia. If you want to argue that religious segregation is not distinct from racial segregation, which imo is a fair thing to argue, you can add a bunch more countries. That’s fair on the languages I only have one and depending in who you talk to I kind of suck at it. I guess if you are using it that broadly and specify West Bank and Gaza, it makes sense why you are using it. I think of it as the very specific SA case and a different level than what exists most other places. I also believe that it is a big difference that it is done in a militarily occupied area. The places I think of it’s done everywhere they have power and it’s about a superiority of their race/religion whereas the west bank and Gaza ones really appear to be top priority in stopping attacks on Israel. compared to like rules on interracial marriages. I’ve also now come across gender apartheid. If you go there a huge numbers of countries are guilty including basically all of them in the Middle East.
Looking back I regret having put China in there, as far as I know their strategy is more to force integration and assimilation than it is segregation. I'll delete that.
It doesn't appear to me that Israel's top priority is stopping attacks, at all. Many others in the thread and I have mentioned many actions and statements as to why that doesn't seem likely, but maybe consider this one: if you believe that people are dangerous and you're very concerned with security, something that you wouldn't do is make it very appealing through policies and military help for civilians to go and settle very near the danger. That doesn't seem very logical.
|
|
|
|
|
On December 05 2023 08:57 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2023 08:34 Nebuchad wrote:On December 05 2023 08:23 JimmiC wrote:On December 05 2023 07:53 Nebuchad wrote:On December 05 2023 07:44 JimmiC wrote:On December 05 2023 07:39 Nebuchad wrote:On December 05 2023 07:21 JimmiC wrote:On December 05 2023 06:56 Nebuchad wrote:On December 05 2023 06:43 JimmiC wrote:Again not calling Israeli genocidal, or an apartheid or whatever does not mean I think it’s the land of milk, hunny and rainbows. There are tons of real issues that be talked about with accurate terms. I think our actual pro Israel poster would even agree things are far from perfect, he’s said as much. People have trouble following your argument because it's not consistent. You will argue against the use of the word Apartheid by pointing out that there's a "controversy", some people think it's the right term and some people think it's not, but then later you will say that it's "accurate" to not call it Apartheid, so you have taken a side in the controversy and you've decided that your side of the controversy has won, for no reason. You will say that you believe Israel is doing something really bad even though it's not Apartheid sometimes, but at other points you will say something like "Russia is actually the evil country that people have claimed Isreal to be". You don't seem that sure whether it's controversial or it's clearly not Apartheid, and you don't seem that sure whether it's evil or not. The only thing that you're very sure about is that you're right and everyone is unfair to you. I think it’s wrong, that is my opinion. It is factual that it controversial because groups we all trust have differing opinions, university profs and so on. Maybe it is confusing because people think their opinions are facts and it is important for them to remain unchallenged and un changed. I’ve had many of opinions change, especially as I learn more about something. I do not see it as a flaw but a point of pride. I do think Israel is doing something bad, but I also have empathy for their situation. Russia is doing much more awful things and for reasons I have no empathy for, “the greatness of their empire”. It also seems hard for people to understand that I can agree with on something’s and not others. I do not see politics as a team sport. I don’t just arbitrarily take “left” positions. When I was working in waste reduction I saw may too much greenwashing and the “we have to say this so the other guys, blah blah” that deeply hurt the overall mission to be OK with it. But it's not just people in this case who think their opinions are facts, it's also you. Otherwise you wouldn't think that "I think it's wrong" is enough to criticize people for using "inaccurate" terms. When I look up Apartheid I'm getting "a system of oppression and domination from a racial group over another, institutionnalized through laws, politics and discriminatory practices". I mean, sounds close enough. We're in the ballpark. I don't think it's very accurate either because what Israel is doing to Palestinians in the West Bank is actually much worse than this definition, but clearly the more important part is the symbolism behind the language, it's a term that is clearly connotated very negatively and that's why we're getting stuck on this, because reflexively you want to use language that is more charitable to Israel. I think it's that charitability that is your main drive in this conversation. It's not very important but I've also been wanting to add that what you have for Israel is sympathy, not empathy. It's not a you problem, everyone does this, and it triggers me quite a lot. Empathy helps you understand conflicts better. Sympathy is not nothing, but it's not quite the same. I have sympathy as well yes. I thought this was a given but I’ll openly state it. What current countries are currently enforcing apartheids in your mind? I looked it up after posting and it looks like english isn't using empathy and sympathy exactly in the same way as french is, my bad. There's also a distinction in english but it's a different one from the french one, so it's also wrong that people are using the two interchangeably, but it's wrong for a different reason. Mind blown :D Current countries that have Apartheid: Israel, China, Qatar, Myanmar, Malaysia. If you want to argue that religious segregation is not distinct from racial segregation, which imo is a fair thing to argue, you can add a bunch more countries. That’s fair on the languages I only have one and depending in who you talk to I kind of suck at it. I guess if you are using it that broadly and specify West Bank and Gaza, it makes sense why you are using it. I think of it as the very specific SA case and a different level than what exists most other places. I also believe that it is a big difference that it is done in a militarily occupied area. The places I think of it’s done everywhere they have power and it’s about a superiority of their race/religion whereas the west bank and Gaza ones really appear to be top priority in stopping attacks on Israel. compared to like rules on interracial marriages. I’ve also now come across gender apartheid. If you go there a huge numbers of countries are guilty including basically all of them in the Middle East. Looking back I regret having put China in there, as far as I know their strategy is more to force integration and assimilation than it is segregation. I'll delete that. It doesn't appear to me that Israel's top priority is stopping attacks, at all. Many others in the thread and I have mentioned many actions and statements as to why that doesn't seem likely, but maybe consider this one: if you believe that people are dangerous and you're very concerned with security, something that you wouldn't do is make it very appealing through policies and military help for civilians to go and settle very near the danger. That doesn't seem very logical. I would have China for sure, the Han are very advantaged, even before you get to all the terrible Tibet and Uighur stuff. The thought behind them is that it creates an extra buffer. Security is basically how they are sold.
You don't need civilians to create an extra buffer, you can do that with just the military.
|
|
|
On December 05 2023 09:22 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2023 09:01 Nebuchad wrote:On December 05 2023 08:57 JimmiC wrote:On December 05 2023 08:34 Nebuchad wrote:On December 05 2023 08:23 JimmiC wrote:On December 05 2023 07:53 Nebuchad wrote:On December 05 2023 07:44 JimmiC wrote:On December 05 2023 07:39 Nebuchad wrote:On December 05 2023 07:21 JimmiC wrote:On December 05 2023 06:56 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
People have trouble following your argument because it's not consistent. You will argue against the use of the word Apartheid by pointing out that there's a "controversy", some people think it's the right term and some people think it's not, but then later you will say that it's "accurate" to not call it Apartheid, so you have taken a side in the controversy and you've decided that your side of the controversy has won, for no reason.
You will say that you believe Israel is doing something really bad even though it's not Apartheid sometimes, but at other points you will say something like "Russia is actually the evil country that people have claimed Isreal to be".
You don't seem that sure whether it's controversial or it's clearly not Apartheid, and you don't seem that sure whether it's evil or not. The only thing that you're very sure about is that you're right and everyone is unfair to you. I think it’s wrong, that is my opinion. It is factual that it controversial because groups we all trust have differing opinions, university profs and so on. Maybe it is confusing because people think their opinions are facts and it is important for them to remain unchallenged and un changed. I’ve had many of opinions change, especially as I learn more about something. I do not see it as a flaw but a point of pride. I do think Israel is doing something bad, but I also have empathy for their situation. Russia is doing much more awful things and for reasons I have no empathy for, “the greatness of their empire”. It also seems hard for people to understand that I can agree with on something’s and not others. I do not see politics as a team sport. I don’t just arbitrarily take “left” positions. When I was working in waste reduction I saw may too much greenwashing and the “we have to say this so the other guys, blah blah” that deeply hurt the overall mission to be OK with it. But it's not just people in this case who think their opinions are facts, it's also you. Otherwise you wouldn't think that "I think it's wrong" is enough to criticize people for using "inaccurate" terms. When I look up Apartheid I'm getting "a system of oppression and domination from a racial group over another, institutionnalized through laws, politics and discriminatory practices". I mean, sounds close enough. We're in the ballpark. I don't think it's very accurate either because what Israel is doing to Palestinians in the West Bank is actually much worse than this definition, but clearly the more important part is the symbolism behind the language, it's a term that is clearly connotated very negatively and that's why we're getting stuck on this, because reflexively you want to use language that is more charitable to Israel. I think it's that charitability that is your main drive in this conversation. It's not very important but I've also been wanting to add that what you have for Israel is sympathy, not empathy. It's not a you problem, everyone does this, and it triggers me quite a lot. Empathy helps you understand conflicts better. Sympathy is not nothing, but it's not quite the same. I have sympathy as well yes. I thought this was a given but I’ll openly state it. What current countries are currently enforcing apartheids in your mind? I looked it up after posting and it looks like english isn't using empathy and sympathy exactly in the same way as french is, my bad. There's also a distinction in english but it's a different one from the french one, so it's also wrong that people are using the two interchangeably, but it's wrong for a different reason. Mind blown :D Current countries that have Apartheid: Israel, China, Qatar, Myanmar, Malaysia. If you want to argue that religious segregation is not distinct from racial segregation, which imo is a fair thing to argue, you can add a bunch more countries. That’s fair on the languages I only have one and depending in who you talk to I kind of suck at it. I guess if you are using it that broadly and specify West Bank and Gaza, it makes sense why you are using it. I think of it as the very specific SA case and a different level than what exists most other places. I also believe that it is a big difference that it is done in a militarily occupied area. The places I think of it’s done everywhere they have power and it’s about a superiority of their race/religion whereas the west bank and Gaza ones really appear to be top priority in stopping attacks on Israel. compared to like rules on interracial marriages. I’ve also now come across gender apartheid. If you go there a huge numbers of countries are guilty including basically all of them in the Middle East. Looking back I regret having put China in there, as far as I know their strategy is more to force integration and assimilation than it is segregation. I'll delete that. It doesn't appear to me that Israel's top priority is stopping attacks, at all. Many others in the thread and I have mentioned many actions and statements as to why that doesn't seem likely, but maybe consider this one: if you believe that people are dangerous and you're very concerned with security, something that you wouldn't do is make it very appealing through policies and military help for civilians to go and settle very near the danger. That doesn't seem very logical. I would have China for sure, the Han are very advantaged, even before you get to all the terrible Tibet and Uighur stuff. The thought behind them is that it creates an extra buffer. Security is basically how they are sold. You don't need civilians to create an extra buffer, you can do that with just the military. I think more want a large demilitarized zone enforced by the military. Also, the settlers are not super popular in Israel, again others could get into this better than me. But many feel that those people are basically poking the bear and are doing a lot more harm than good. If you notice Cerebrate has many times said that they would give up the settlements in exchange for peace. This is just me talking now and I have no stats but I think your average moderate and secular Israeli would happily be done with with settlers and the settlements. It’s just that it’s not their main concern compared to those people actively trying to kill them, gain more power to destroy them and recruit people to help kill them.
What's the relevance of what Israelis want in this conversation? The argument is that the policy is about security as opposed to a superiority in race/religion, and I'm countering that it doesn't work logically because you wouldn't do the settlements if it was about security. Clearly the people in Israel who don't think the settlements are good aren't in charge of the policy making.
|
|
|
In no way will this back fire...
|
On December 05 2023 09:31 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2023 09:22 JimmiC wrote:On December 05 2023 09:01 Nebuchad wrote:On December 05 2023 08:57 JimmiC wrote:On December 05 2023 08:34 Nebuchad wrote:On December 05 2023 08:23 JimmiC wrote:On December 05 2023 07:53 Nebuchad wrote:On December 05 2023 07:44 JimmiC wrote:On December 05 2023 07:39 Nebuchad wrote:On December 05 2023 07:21 JimmiC wrote:
[quote]
I think it’s wrong, that is my opinion. It is factual that it controversial because groups we all trust have differing opinions, university profs and so on.
Maybe it is confusing because people think their opinions are facts and it is important for them to remain unchallenged and un changed. I’ve had many of opinions change, especially as I learn more about something. I do not see it as a flaw but a point of pride.
I do think Israel is doing something bad, but I also have empathy for their situation. Russia is doing much more awful things and for reasons I have no empathy for, “the greatness of their empire”.
It also seems hard for people to understand that I can agree with on something’s and not others. I do not see politics as a team sport. I don’t just arbitrarily take “left” positions. When I was working in waste reduction I saw may too much greenwashing and the “we have to say this so the other guys, blah blah” that deeply hurt the overall mission to be OK with it. But it's not just people in this case who think their opinions are facts, it's also you. Otherwise you wouldn't think that "I think it's wrong" is enough to criticize people for using "inaccurate" terms. When I look up Apartheid I'm getting "a system of oppression and domination from a racial group over another, institutionnalized through laws, politics and discriminatory practices". I mean, sounds close enough. We're in the ballpark. I don't think it's very accurate either because what Israel is doing to Palestinians in the West Bank is actually much worse than this definition, but clearly the more important part is the symbolism behind the language, it's a term that is clearly connotated very negatively and that's why we're getting stuck on this, because reflexively you want to use language that is more charitable to Israel. I think it's that charitability that is your main drive in this conversation. It's not very important but I've also been wanting to add that what you have for Israel is sympathy, not empathy. It's not a you problem, everyone does this, and it triggers me quite a lot. Empathy helps you understand conflicts better. Sympathy is not nothing, but it's not quite the same. I have sympathy as well yes. I thought this was a given but I’ll openly state it. What current countries are currently enforcing apartheids in your mind? I looked it up after posting and it looks like english isn't using empathy and sympathy exactly in the same way as french is, my bad. There's also a distinction in english but it's a different one from the french one, so it's also wrong that people are using the two interchangeably, but it's wrong for a different reason. Mind blown :D Current countries that have Apartheid: Israel, China, Qatar, Myanmar, Malaysia. If you want to argue that religious segregation is not distinct from racial segregation, which imo is a fair thing to argue, you can add a bunch more countries. That’s fair on the languages I only have one and depending in who you talk to I kind of suck at it. I guess if you are using it that broadly and specify West Bank and Gaza, it makes sense why you are using it. I think of it as the very specific SA case and a different level than what exists most other places. I also believe that it is a big difference that it is done in a militarily occupied area. The places I think of it’s done everywhere they have power and it’s about a superiority of their race/religion whereas the west bank and Gaza ones really appear to be top priority in stopping attacks on Israel. compared to like rules on interracial marriages. I’ve also now come across gender apartheid. If you go there a huge numbers of countries are guilty including basically all of them in the Middle East. Looking back I regret having put China in there, as far as I know their strategy is more to force integration and assimilation than it is segregation. I'll delete that. It doesn't appear to me that Israel's top priority is stopping attacks, at all. Many others in the thread and I have mentioned many actions and statements as to why that doesn't seem likely, but maybe consider this one: if you believe that people are dangerous and you're very concerned with security, something that you wouldn't do is make it very appealing through policies and military help for civilians to go and settle very near the danger. That doesn't seem very logical. I would have China for sure, the Han are very advantaged, even before you get to all the terrible Tibet and Uighur stuff. The thought behind them is that it creates an extra buffer. Security is basically how they are sold. You don't need civilians to create an extra buffer, you can do that with just the military. I think more want a large demilitarized zone enforced by the military. Also, the settlers are not super popular in Israel, again others could get into this better than me. But many feel that those people are basically poking the bear and are doing a lot more harm than good. If you notice Cerebrate has many times said that they would give up the settlements in exchange for peace. This is just me talking now and I have no stats but I think your average moderate and secular Israeli would happily be done with with settlers and the settlements. It’s just that it’s not their main concern compared to those people actively trying to kill them, gain more power to destroy them and recruit people to help kill them. What's the relevance of what Israelis want in this conversation? The argument is that the policy is about security as opposed to a superiority in race/religion, and I'm countering that it doesn't work logically because you wouldn't do the settlements if it was about security. Clearly the people in Israel who don't think the settlements are good aren't in charge of the policy making.
A country can have a lot of different policies in place, each with different reasons. The security fence and checkpoints are for security. The settlements are for different reasons. A lot of Israelis are busy working on computer chips, creating phone apps, designing medicines, etc. None of those things have to do with security. That doesn't mean the Iron Dome wasn't developed for security.
The checkpoints were mostly set up after the first Intifada. The security fence after the second Intifada. I don't think that's a coincidence. And they were quite effective as a security measure. Terrorist attacks still happen in Israel today, but it dropped from like multiple times a week to once in a blue moon once those were set up.
Now, you may be touching on an unintended consequence of that, which is: those security measures work so well, that some Israelis feel they have nothing to fear from Palestinians, and they can set up shop wherever and still be safe. So too the administration, it may feel that once security is working, it can pursue other goals.
|
|
|
@Magic Powers: It seems to me that most of our disagreements stem from a meta difference in how we look at these discussions, so rather than deal with each of your recent points directly, I'll zoom back and talk about that (which, I believe, addresses most of the points you just made anyways).
You are looking at this debate on a macro level, while I am looking at individual points on a micro level.
You see lots of pieces of a puzzle, have come to a general understanding of where it all leads, and this is your truth about the conflict. You are less concerned if a particular detail doesn't line up with your general truth, because you feel that there are enough other data points to support your understanding, that you are still right.
I, on the other hand, am not (usually) dealing with the bigger picture at all. I examine individual details to see if they are indeed factual.
You've been assuming that I am debating on the same macro level that you are. So when I write a micro level observation, you assume that there is a hidden "and therefore I disagree with your macro level truth." This is not what I mean to do. My posts mean the words that are written in them and no more. If I say "Israel has a legal right to their land," I don't mean from that statement that they have a moral right to it or that Israel has never done anything wrong or that it makes sense to bomb Gaza or anything like that. I mean that, legally speaking, Israel has a right to their land.
I've been making the same mistake in reverse with you and assuming that you were concerned with the individual points, as opposed to arguing for your greater truth and just using those points as support.
I apologize for any confusion stemming from this. Now that I realize that we are debating on completely different planes, I will try to avoid making my micro observations on your posts.
Personally, I get overwhelmed by the prospect of having the macro discussion on this topic. It's one of the most complex issues of the past century and it gets more complex every day, rather than less. There is no single actor who is solely responsible for all of the tragedies that have resulted and no single actor has the power to solve all the problems by themselves. So I, for my part, plan to keep breaking things down into bite sized chunks that I can handle at one time.
|
On December 04 2023 15:40 Salazarz wrote:
The reason borders of Egypt or Jordan are accepted today aren't because everyone there accepts the British colonial authorities as legitimate and lawful, it's because people of those nations today are settled inside those borders and both their governments and their populations are okay with the status quo and don't want to have more wars over that shit. People of Palestine are not okay with their lot, and appeals to British colonial rulings as some sort of an authority are ridiculous.
The example that I already brought is a great counterpoint to what you are saying: the Kurds. The Kurds represent a majority population of a region that could easily be it's own country. Many of them would like to have their own country and even take up arms to attempt to create such a thing. The Brits intentionally didn't give them a country and instead split their territory up among other nations, ensuring that they would be a manageable minority in each. That region is now divided between Iraq, Syria, Turkey, and Iran. This, ostensibly goes against the principles of self determination (more so than Israel/Palestine, because at least there, each group was offered their own land where they had majority population).
There are people who offer moral support to the Kurds. Some even give military aid. But, zero countries in the world recognize the entire region with a Kurdish majority as being it's own country, legally or otherwise. With the Syrian civil war, a small smattering of countries have "representative offices" with "Rojava" liberated within Syria (note even that is not "embassies," as they aren't recognized as a legal country by any other country in the world). But even those countries with diplomatic ties, don't recognize anything outside the arbitrarily drawn lines the French drew for Syria, as part of Rojava.
Does it suck that some random European dudes 100 years ago got to decide where everyone's borders would be? Yes. Does everyone accept those borders as the legally defined borders of states anyways? Also yes.
|
|
|
In the comment chain you are commenting on, I specified within the boundaries of the 1947 Partition Plan (you know, where British/UN drawn borders are relevant). Outside those borders is up for more debate. But if anyone says that "Israel has no legal right to exist or have any land at all", they are clearly mistaken.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
