|
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 08 2023 00:06 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2023 22:58 Nebuchad wrote:On December 07 2023 22:29 JimmiC wrote:
If Isreal has always wanted the land and to ethnically cleanse Palestine, not to mention their allies support them no matter what, there is a massive power imbalance, Hamas is not a real threat, they do not care about international law.
Why didn’t they just take it and expel the Palestinians after the 6 day war?
Why have they not everyday since?
Why not do it right after Oct 7?
Why not creat a migrant crisis for the Middle East to deal with?
What is stopping Isreal from completing their long held private plan? The short answer is: you are stopping them. If they do it in a slightly less obvious way like they're doing, you and people like you are more likely to miss it and continue to be a lot less critical of Israel than you otherwise would be. If they just started bombing 20000 Palestinians to death without Oct 7th, you wouldn't be defending them as hard, Kitten wouldn't sympathize with them taking revenge against a pedophile. If western public opinion in general, but more specifically US public opinion, turns against Israel there's no chance that they can continue their project. Bibi has known that for years. So what you do is you find the line between what you get to do and not do, and you tread that line. When specific events happen, they change the scope of what you can get away with. The israeli government is pretty good at it btw, for example this thread has zero posts between 2021 and Oct 7th 2023, and they had been continuing their project the whole time. Here's a report about an israeli think tank making the same claim as me: the Hamas attack provides a “rare opportunity” to cleanse Gaza. It's not a reaction, it's an opportunity. We had been wanting to do this but couldn't, and now perhaps we can. Concerning the Tian an Men massacre, Benjamin Netanyahu, at the time Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs and former Ambassador to the United Nations and an American businessman with the Boston Consulting Group, was reported by the Israeli daily newspaper Yediot Aharonot in November, 1989, to have said the following: “Israel should have taken advantage of the suppression of the demonstrations in China, while the world’s attention was focused on these events, and should have carried out mass deportations of Arabs from the territories. Unfortunately, this plan I proposed did not gain support, yet I still suggest to put it into action.” ( source) I put this as the source because that's where I found it, but I'm sure a random wordpress is not something that you trust, so I quickly googled the quote to see others mentioning it and here's for example the LA Times mentioning it (behind a paywall), hopefully that lends it some credibility for you. There's also this old video in which Netanyahu says that he's not afraid of backlash because he knows how to manipulate the US. Here's an article talking about it. So they have not always wanted to do this, since it would have been basically acceptable in the time period after the 6 day war, so when did their plans change? If I quote things Trump says can I say that the US wants and does that?
I don't know, I'm not very familiar with what happened at this point, maybe Salazarz has a better idea. You were posting about today's context though, weren't you? Any follow-up on that?
Yes I think it's pretty common in topics that involve international relations to refer to the country or the government interchangeably. For example, when I read an article about how the US bombed Vietnam, I don't see anyone go "Ackshually it wasn't the US it was the Johnson and Nixon administration"
|
|
|
On December 08 2023 00:37 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2023 00:16 Nebuchad wrote:On December 08 2023 00:06 JimmiC wrote:On December 07 2023 22:58 Nebuchad wrote:On December 07 2023 22:29 JimmiC wrote:
If Isreal has always wanted the land and to ethnically cleanse Palestine, not to mention their allies support them no matter what, there is a massive power imbalance, Hamas is not a real threat, they do not care about international law.
Why didn’t they just take it and expel the Palestinians after the 6 day war?
Why have they not everyday since?
Why not do it right after Oct 7?
Why not creat a migrant crisis for the Middle East to deal with?
What is stopping Isreal from completing their long held private plan? The short answer is: you are stopping them. If they do it in a slightly less obvious way like they're doing, you and people like you are more likely to miss it and continue to be a lot less critical of Israel than you otherwise would be. If they just started bombing 20000 Palestinians to death without Oct 7th, you wouldn't be defending them as hard, Kitten wouldn't sympathize with them taking revenge against a pedophile. If western public opinion in general, but more specifically US public opinion, turns against Israel there's no chance that they can continue their project. Bibi has known that for years. So what you do is you find the line between what you get to do and not do, and you tread that line. When specific events happen, they change the scope of what you can get away with. The israeli government is pretty good at it btw, for example this thread has zero posts between 2021 and Oct 7th 2023, and they had been continuing their project the whole time. Here's a report about an israeli think tank making the same claim as me: the Hamas attack provides a “rare opportunity” to cleanse Gaza. It's not a reaction, it's an opportunity. We had been wanting to do this but couldn't, and now perhaps we can. Concerning the Tian an Men massacre, Benjamin Netanyahu, at the time Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs and former Ambassador to the United Nations and an American businessman with the Boston Consulting Group, was reported by the Israeli daily newspaper Yediot Aharonot in November, 1989, to have said the following: “Israel should have taken advantage of the suppression of the demonstrations in China, while the world’s attention was focused on these events, and should have carried out mass deportations of Arabs from the territories. Unfortunately, this plan I proposed did not gain support, yet I still suggest to put it into action.” ( source) I put this as the source because that's where I found it, but I'm sure a random wordpress is not something that you trust, so I quickly googled the quote to see others mentioning it and here's for example the LA Times mentioning it (behind a paywall), hopefully that lends it some credibility for you. There's also this old video in which Netanyahu says that he's not afraid of backlash because he knows how to manipulate the US. Here's an article talking about it. So they have not always wanted to do this, since it would have been basically acceptable in the time period after the 6 day war, so when did their plans change? If I quote things Trump says can I say that the US wants and does that? I don't know, I'm not very familiar with what happened at this point, maybe Salazarz has a better idea. You were posting about today's context though, weren't you? Any follow-up on that? Yes I think it's pretty common in topics that involve international relations to refer to the country or the government interchangeably. For example, when I read an article about how the US bombed Vietnam, I don't see anyone go "Ackshually it wasn't the US it was the Johnson and Nixon administration" What the country does yes, what a country thinks, no unless it’s a dictatorship, because a democracy is made up of many people and checks and balances.
What's the criticism here exactly, I don't want to mischaracterize you
|
|
|
On December 08 2023 01:10 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2023 00:44 Nebuchad wrote:On December 08 2023 00:37 JimmiC wrote:On December 08 2023 00:16 Nebuchad wrote:On December 08 2023 00:06 JimmiC wrote:On December 07 2023 22:58 Nebuchad wrote:On December 07 2023 22:29 JimmiC wrote:
If Isreal has always wanted the land and to ethnically cleanse Palestine, not to mention their allies support them no matter what, there is a massive power imbalance, Hamas is not a real threat, they do not care about international law.
Why didn’t they just take it and expel the Palestinians after the 6 day war?
Why have they not everyday since?
Why not do it right after Oct 7?
Why not creat a migrant crisis for the Middle East to deal with?
What is stopping Isreal from completing their long held private plan? The short answer is: you are stopping them. If they do it in a slightly less obvious way like they're doing, you and people like you are more likely to miss it and continue to be a lot less critical of Israel than you otherwise would be. If they just started bombing 20000 Palestinians to death without Oct 7th, you wouldn't be defending them as hard, Kitten wouldn't sympathize with them taking revenge against a pedophile. If western public opinion in general, but more specifically US public opinion, turns against Israel there's no chance that they can continue their project. Bibi has known that for years. So what you do is you find the line between what you get to do and not do, and you tread that line. When specific events happen, they change the scope of what you can get away with. The israeli government is pretty good at it btw, for example this thread has zero posts between 2021 and Oct 7th 2023, and they had been continuing their project the whole time. Here's a report about an israeli think tank making the same claim as me: the Hamas attack provides a “rare opportunity” to cleanse Gaza. It's not a reaction, it's an opportunity. We had been wanting to do this but couldn't, and now perhaps we can. Concerning the Tian an Men massacre, Benjamin Netanyahu, at the time Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs and former Ambassador to the United Nations and an American businessman with the Boston Consulting Group, was reported by the Israeli daily newspaper Yediot Aharonot in November, 1989, to have said the following: “Israel should have taken advantage of the suppression of the demonstrations in China, while the world’s attention was focused on these events, and should have carried out mass deportations of Arabs from the territories. Unfortunately, this plan I proposed did not gain support, yet I still suggest to put it into action.” ( source) I put this as the source because that's where I found it, but I'm sure a random wordpress is not something that you trust, so I quickly googled the quote to see others mentioning it and here's for example the LA Times mentioning it (behind a paywall), hopefully that lends it some credibility for you. There's also this old video in which Netanyahu says that he's not afraid of backlash because he knows how to manipulate the US. Here's an article talking about it. So they have not always wanted to do this, since it would have been basically acceptable in the time period after the 6 day war, so when did their plans change? If I quote things Trump says can I say that the US wants and does that? I don't know, I'm not very familiar with what happened at this point, maybe Salazarz has a better idea. You were posting about today's context though, weren't you? Any follow-up on that? Yes I think it's pretty common in topics that involve international relations to refer to the country or the government interchangeably. For example, when I read an article about how the US bombed Vietnam, I don't see anyone go "Ackshually it wasn't the US it was the Johnson and Nixon administration" What the country does yes, what a country thinks, no unless it’s a dictatorship, because a democracy is made up of many people and checks and balances. What's the criticism here exactly, I don't want to mischaracterize you I'm saying that saying what the US did makes sense, the US did that. If you had the US Thinks/wants whatever it is less true. The US wanted to bomb Vietnam, after it bombed Vietnam, totally makes sense. Israel right now wants to bomb Gaza, and they are! The US wants to Genocide Vietnam, well then we would have to have a conversation on why you THIINK that because it is not factual its a presumption.
Well this was the conversation that we were having, don't you think? I have not made it a secret why I THINK that their plan is to take the land of Palestine, it's because it's consistent with their actions before and after Oct 7th in ways that the other explanations are not, and consistent with the declarations of numerous members of the government before (sometimes long before!) and after Oct 7th in ways that the other explanations are not.
|
As a show of good faith in a time of military conflict I'd like to see Israel avoid lighting the Hanukkah menorah. Hanukkah is a secondary holiday and related to a successful military action. Contrast this with Yom Kippur which is spiritual in nature.
|
|
|
On December 08 2023 01:45 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2023 01:23 Nebuchad wrote:On December 08 2023 01:10 JimmiC wrote:On December 08 2023 00:44 Nebuchad wrote:On December 08 2023 00:37 JimmiC wrote:On December 08 2023 00:16 Nebuchad wrote:On December 08 2023 00:06 JimmiC wrote:On December 07 2023 22:58 Nebuchad wrote:On December 07 2023 22:29 JimmiC wrote:
If Isreal has always wanted the land and to ethnically cleanse Palestine, not to mention their allies support them no matter what, there is a massive power imbalance, Hamas is not a real threat, they do not care about international law.
Why didn’t they just take it and expel the Palestinians after the 6 day war?
Why have they not everyday since?
Why not do it right after Oct 7?
Why not creat a migrant crisis for the Middle East to deal with?
What is stopping Isreal from completing their long held private plan? The short answer is: you are stopping them. If they do it in a slightly less obvious way like they're doing, you and people like you are more likely to miss it and continue to be a lot less critical of Israel than you otherwise would be. If they just started bombing 20000 Palestinians to death without Oct 7th, you wouldn't be defending them as hard, Kitten wouldn't sympathize with them taking revenge against a pedophile. If western public opinion in general, but more specifically US public opinion, turns against Israel there's no chance that they can continue their project. Bibi has known that for years. So what you do is you find the line between what you get to do and not do, and you tread that line. When specific events happen, they change the scope of what you can get away with. The israeli government is pretty good at it btw, for example this thread has zero posts between 2021 and Oct 7th 2023, and they had been continuing their project the whole time. Here's a report about an israeli think tank making the same claim as me: the Hamas attack provides a “rare opportunity” to cleanse Gaza. It's not a reaction, it's an opportunity. We had been wanting to do this but couldn't, and now perhaps we can. Concerning the Tian an Men massacre, Benjamin Netanyahu, at the time Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs and former Ambassador to the United Nations and an American businessman with the Boston Consulting Group, was reported by the Israeli daily newspaper Yediot Aharonot in November, 1989, to have said the following: “Israel should have taken advantage of the suppression of the demonstrations in China, while the world’s attention was focused on these events, and should have carried out mass deportations of Arabs from the territories. Unfortunately, this plan I proposed did not gain support, yet I still suggest to put it into action.” ( source) I put this as the source because that's where I found it, but I'm sure a random wordpress is not something that you trust, so I quickly googled the quote to see others mentioning it and here's for example the LA Times mentioning it (behind a paywall), hopefully that lends it some credibility for you. There's also this old video in which Netanyahu says that he's not afraid of backlash because he knows how to manipulate the US. Here's an article talking about it. So they have not always wanted to do this, since it would have been basically acceptable in the time period after the 6 day war, so when did their plans change? If I quote things Trump says can I say that the US wants and does that? I don't know, I'm not very familiar with what happened at this point, maybe Salazarz has a better idea. You were posting about today's context though, weren't you? Any follow-up on that? Yes I think it's pretty common in topics that involve international relations to refer to the country or the government interchangeably. For example, when I read an article about how the US bombed Vietnam, I don't see anyone go "Ackshually it wasn't the US it was the Johnson and Nixon administration" What the country does yes, what a country thinks, no unless it’s a dictatorship, because a democracy is made up of many people and checks and balances. What's the criticism here exactly, I don't want to mischaracterize you I'm saying that saying what the US did makes sense, the US did that. If you had the US Thinks/wants whatever it is less true. The US wanted to bomb Vietnam, after it bombed Vietnam, totally makes sense. Israel right now wants to bomb Gaza, and they are! The US wants to Genocide Vietnam, well then we would have to have a conversation on why you THIINK that because it is not factual its a presumption. Well this was the conversation that we were having, don't you think? I have not made it a secret why I THINK that their plan is to take the land of Palestine, it's because it's consistent with their actions before and after Oct 7th in ways that the other explanations are not, and consistent with the declarations of numerous members of the government before (sometimes long before!) and after Oct 7th in ways that the other explanations are not. Yes, except while I answer you questions directly and read your courses you do not do the same. And yet to you I'm the bad guy, and not just because of narcissism but because of previously formed opinions you have me that you treat as fact. So to get back on track. You believe this has always been the plan, I still do not know why you do not think they would have just done it after the 6 day war. International community wouldn't have complained, they would have the land you are sure they want, their enemies would have had a large migrant crisis. It appears at some point you believe international pressure is keeping them from doing what they want. But then at other points they can do whatever they want because the US will give them support no matter what. We agree (I think) that it is not that they are unable to do it because there is a massive power imbalance.
I have already told you that I don't know what happened at the end of the 6 day war, what else do you want me to say?
|
|
|
On December 08 2023 03:40 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2023 01:54 Nebuchad wrote:On December 08 2023 01:45 JimmiC wrote:On December 08 2023 01:23 Nebuchad wrote:On December 08 2023 01:10 JimmiC wrote:On December 08 2023 00:44 Nebuchad wrote:On December 08 2023 00:37 JimmiC wrote:On December 08 2023 00:16 Nebuchad wrote:On December 08 2023 00:06 JimmiC wrote:On December 07 2023 22:58 Nebuchad wrote:[quote] The short answer is: you are stopping them. If they do it in a slightly less obvious way like they're doing, you and people like you are more likely to miss it and continue to be a lot less critical of Israel than you otherwise would be. If they just started bombing 20000 Palestinians to death without Oct 7th, you wouldn't be defending them as hard, Kitten wouldn't sympathize with them taking revenge against a pedophile. If western public opinion in general, but more specifically US public opinion, turns against Israel there's no chance that they can continue their project. Bibi has known that for years. So what you do is you find the line between what you get to do and not do, and you tread that line. When specific events happen, they change the scope of what you can get away with. The israeli government is pretty good at it btw, for example this thread has zero posts between 2021 and Oct 7th 2023, and they had been continuing their project the whole time. Here's a report about an israeli think tank making the same claim as me: the Hamas attack provides a “rare opportunity” to cleanse Gaza. It's not a reaction, it's an opportunity. We had been wanting to do this but couldn't, and now perhaps we can. Concerning the Tian an Men massacre, Benjamin Netanyahu, at the time Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs and former Ambassador to the United Nations and an American businessman with the Boston Consulting Group, was reported by the Israeli daily newspaper Yediot Aharonot in November, 1989, to have said the following: “Israel should have taken advantage of the suppression of the demonstrations in China, while the world’s attention was focused on these events, and should have carried out mass deportations of Arabs from the territories. Unfortunately, this plan I proposed did not gain support, yet I still suggest to put it into action.” ( source) I put this as the source because that's where I found it, but I'm sure a random wordpress is not something that you trust, so I quickly googled the quote to see others mentioning it and here's for example the LA Times mentioning it (behind a paywall), hopefully that lends it some credibility for you. There's also this old video in which Netanyahu says that he's not afraid of backlash because he knows how to manipulate the US. Here's an article talking about it. So they have not always wanted to do this, since it would have been basically acceptable in the time period after the 6 day war, so when did their plans change? If I quote things Trump says can I say that the US wants and does that? I don't know, I'm not very familiar with what happened at this point, maybe Salazarz has a better idea. You were posting about today's context though, weren't you? Any follow-up on that? Yes I think it's pretty common in topics that involve international relations to refer to the country or the government interchangeably. For example, when I read an article about how the US bombed Vietnam, I don't see anyone go "Ackshually it wasn't the US it was the Johnson and Nixon administration" What the country does yes, what a country thinks, no unless it’s a dictatorship, because a democracy is made up of many people and checks and balances. What's the criticism here exactly, I don't want to mischaracterize you I'm saying that saying what the US did makes sense, the US did that. If you had the US Thinks/wants whatever it is less true. The US wanted to bomb Vietnam, after it bombed Vietnam, totally makes sense. Israel right now wants to bomb Gaza, and they are! The US wants to Genocide Vietnam, well then we would have to have a conversation on why you THIINK that because it is not factual its a presumption. Well this was the conversation that we were having, don't you think? I have not made it a secret why I THINK that their plan is to take the land of Palestine, it's because it's consistent with their actions before and after Oct 7th in ways that the other explanations are not, and consistent with the declarations of numerous members of the government before (sometimes long before!) and after Oct 7th in ways that the other explanations are not. Yes, except while I answer you questions directly and read your courses you do not do the same. And yet to you I'm the bad guy, and not just because of narcissism but because of previously formed opinions you have me that you treat as fact. So to get back on track. You believe this has always been the plan, I still do not know why you do not think they would have just done it after the 6 day war. International community wouldn't have complained, they would have the land you are sure they want, their enemies would have had a large migrant crisis. It appears at some point you believe international pressure is keeping them from doing what they want. But then at other points they can do whatever they want because the US will give them support no matter what. We agree (I think) that it is not that they are unable to do it because there is a massive power imbalance. I have already told you that I don't know what happened at the end of the 6 day war, what else do you want me to say? So then you think they have always wanted the land and you just don’t why they did not take it?
Ehud Barak's government probably had different intentions than Netanyahu's government does, and that was just 1999. I'm not sure why you went so far in the past (and so close in time to the Nakba, the iconic land grab action).
|
|
|
Northern Ireland24978 Posts
On December 08 2023 03:40 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2023 01:54 Nebuchad wrote:On December 08 2023 01:45 JimmiC wrote:On December 08 2023 01:23 Nebuchad wrote:On December 08 2023 01:10 JimmiC wrote:On December 08 2023 00:44 Nebuchad wrote:On December 08 2023 00:37 JimmiC wrote:On December 08 2023 00:16 Nebuchad wrote:On December 08 2023 00:06 JimmiC wrote:On December 07 2023 22:58 Nebuchad wrote:[quote] The short answer is: you are stopping them. If they do it in a slightly less obvious way like they're doing, you and people like you are more likely to miss it and continue to be a lot less critical of Israel than you otherwise would be. If they just started bombing 20000 Palestinians to death without Oct 7th, you wouldn't be defending them as hard, Kitten wouldn't sympathize with them taking revenge against a pedophile. If western public opinion in general, but more specifically US public opinion, turns against Israel there's no chance that they can continue their project. Bibi has known that for years. So what you do is you find the line between what you get to do and not do, and you tread that line. When specific events happen, they change the scope of what you can get away with. The israeli government is pretty good at it btw, for example this thread has zero posts between 2021 and Oct 7th 2023, and they had been continuing their project the whole time. Here's a report about an israeli think tank making the same claim as me: the Hamas attack provides a “rare opportunity” to cleanse Gaza. It's not a reaction, it's an opportunity. We had been wanting to do this but couldn't, and now perhaps we can. Concerning the Tian an Men massacre, Benjamin Netanyahu, at the time Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs and former Ambassador to the United Nations and an American businessman with the Boston Consulting Group, was reported by the Israeli daily newspaper Yediot Aharonot in November, 1989, to have said the following: “Israel should have taken advantage of the suppression of the demonstrations in China, while the world’s attention was focused on these events, and should have carried out mass deportations of Arabs from the territories. Unfortunately, this plan I proposed did not gain support, yet I still suggest to put it into action.” ( source) I put this as the source because that's where I found it, but I'm sure a random wordpress is not something that you trust, so I quickly googled the quote to see others mentioning it and here's for example the LA Times mentioning it (behind a paywall), hopefully that lends it some credibility for you. There's also this old video in which Netanyahu says that he's not afraid of backlash because he knows how to manipulate the US. Here's an article talking about it. So they have not always wanted to do this, since it would have been basically acceptable in the time period after the 6 day war, so when did their plans change? If I quote things Trump says can I say that the US wants and does that? I don't know, I'm not very familiar with what happened at this point, maybe Salazarz has a better idea. You were posting about today's context though, weren't you? Any follow-up on that? Yes I think it's pretty common in topics that involve international relations to refer to the country or the government interchangeably. For example, when I read an article about how the US bombed Vietnam, I don't see anyone go "Ackshually it wasn't the US it was the Johnson and Nixon administration" What the country does yes, what a country thinks, no unless it’s a dictatorship, because a democracy is made up of many people and checks and balances. What's the criticism here exactly, I don't want to mischaracterize you I'm saying that saying what the US did makes sense, the US did that. If you had the US Thinks/wants whatever it is less true. The US wanted to bomb Vietnam, after it bombed Vietnam, totally makes sense. Israel right now wants to bomb Gaza, and they are! The US wants to Genocide Vietnam, well then we would have to have a conversation on why you THIINK that because it is not factual its a presumption. Well this was the conversation that we were having, don't you think? I have not made it a secret why I THINK that their plan is to take the land of Palestine, it's because it's consistent with their actions before and after Oct 7th in ways that the other explanations are not, and consistent with the declarations of numerous members of the government before (sometimes long before!) and after Oct 7th in ways that the other explanations are not. Yes, except while I answer you questions directly and read your courses you do not do the same. And yet to you I'm the bad guy, and not just because of narcissism but because of previously formed opinions you have me that you treat as fact. So to get back on track. You believe this has always been the plan, I still do not know why you do not think they would have just done it after the 6 day war. International community wouldn't have complained, they would have the land you are sure they want, their enemies would have had a large migrant crisis. It appears at some point you believe international pressure is keeping them from doing what they want. But then at other points they can do whatever they want because the US will give them support no matter what. We agree (I think) that it is not that they are unable to do it because there is a massive power imbalance. I have already told you that I don't know what happened at the end of the 6 day war, what else do you want me to say? So then you think they have always wanted the land and you just don’t why they did not take it?
If they don’t want the land why have they gradually been taking it?
Perhaps not all land is created equal? The Venezuelans aren’t posturing over Guyanese deserts or mountains currently are they, but oil-rich zones. There’s not quite that golden ticket in terms of resources of course, but some land will be more arable than others, more easily hospitable, more picturesque etc.
Perhaps there’s no need, or hasn’t been to take more than is necessary to accommodate a growing population. So a gradual piecemeal expansion is what’s being pursued. Especially as settlement is a somewhat organic process driven by individuals and facilitated by the state, rather than fully a state-run enterprise.
I don’t need a 3 bedroom house that would cripple me financially right now as a single person, it exceeds my immediate needs so why do that to my wallet? Down the line if I’m married with multiple kids, I’ll need to upgrade to something like that from my current domicile.
When that day comes my mate is going to (hopefully) go ‘congrats on the new pad’ rather than ‘You idiot, if you were planning on having kids why the fuck didn’t you buy this 10 years ago?!’
I don’t wish to speak for others of course but it seems there’s a constant circular discussion around terms based on different frameworks of what said terms mean.
One rough cohort goes off a binary with intent at its core, one off a graduating scale and observed behaviour at its core. In a crude sense of course, I know individuals are more nuanced by and large.
The former group reject use of terms like ethnic cleansing or genocide, because the intent isn’t to do this to all Palestinians, ergo the intent isn’t consistent with genocidal urges traditionally etc. The second rough cohort see certain behaviours as being consistent with those definitional terms, and that they have been enacted and thus the label fits, even if they haven’t been carried out to the further extremes.
Me personally I don’t think intent is all that important to those at the receiving end. If I’m being bombed, displaced etc I’m probably not going to care all that much if the folks doing it are merely regularly oppressing my existence, or if they intend to completely wipe it out and that of my ilk.
|
On December 08 2023 04:14 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2023 03:52 Nebuchad wrote:On December 08 2023 03:40 JimmiC wrote:On December 08 2023 01:54 Nebuchad wrote:On December 08 2023 01:45 JimmiC wrote:On December 08 2023 01:23 Nebuchad wrote:On December 08 2023 01:10 JimmiC wrote:On December 08 2023 00:44 Nebuchad wrote:On December 08 2023 00:37 JimmiC wrote:On December 08 2023 00:16 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
I don't know, I'm not very familiar with what happened at this point, maybe Salazarz has a better idea. You were posting about today's context though, weren't you? Any follow-up on that?
Yes I think it's pretty common in topics that involve international relations to refer to the country or the government interchangeably. For example, when I read an article about how the US bombed Vietnam, I don't see anyone go "Ackshually it wasn't the US it was the Johnson and Nixon administration" What the country does yes, what a country thinks, no unless it’s a dictatorship, because a democracy is made up of many people and checks and balances. What's the criticism here exactly, I don't want to mischaracterize you I'm saying that saying what the US did makes sense, the US did that. If you had the US Thinks/wants whatever it is less true. The US wanted to bomb Vietnam, after it bombed Vietnam, totally makes sense. Israel right now wants to bomb Gaza, and they are! The US wants to Genocide Vietnam, well then we would have to have a conversation on why you THIINK that because it is not factual its a presumption. Well this was the conversation that we were having, don't you think? I have not made it a secret why I THINK that their plan is to take the land of Palestine, it's because it's consistent with their actions before and after Oct 7th in ways that the other explanations are not, and consistent with the declarations of numerous members of the government before (sometimes long before!) and after Oct 7th in ways that the other explanations are not. Yes, except while I answer you questions directly and read your courses you do not do the same. And yet to you I'm the bad guy, and not just because of narcissism but because of previously formed opinions you have me that you treat as fact. So to get back on track. You believe this has always been the plan, I still do not know why you do not think they would have just done it after the 6 day war. International community wouldn't have complained, they would have the land you are sure they want, their enemies would have had a large migrant crisis. It appears at some point you believe international pressure is keeping them from doing what they want. But then at other points they can do whatever they want because the US will give them support no matter what. We agree (I think) that it is not that they are unable to do it because there is a massive power imbalance. I have already told you that I don't know what happened at the end of the 6 day war, what else do you want me to say? So then you think they have always wanted the land and you just don’t why they did not take it? Ehud Barak's government probably had different intentions than Netanyahu's government does, and that was just 1999. I'm not sure why you went so far in the past (and so close in time to the Nakba, the iconic land grab action). So it was not until 2000 that Israel wanted ethnically cleanse all the Palestinians and take the land?
There were people and governments who wanted to do it before (as evidenced by the fact that they did it, for example the Nakba and the settlements that predate 2000). It doesn't mean that every Israeli person or government ever has wanted to do it.
Could you highlight a specific argument from one of my posts that you're countering with this line of questioning, cause really I'm not sure why we're doing this.
|
|
|
|
|
Northern Ireland24978 Posts
On December 08 2023 04:39 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2023 04:28 WombaT wrote:On December 08 2023 03:40 JimmiC wrote:On December 08 2023 01:54 Nebuchad wrote:On December 08 2023 01:45 JimmiC wrote:On December 08 2023 01:23 Nebuchad wrote:On December 08 2023 01:10 JimmiC wrote:On December 08 2023 00:44 Nebuchad wrote:On December 08 2023 00:37 JimmiC wrote:On December 08 2023 00:16 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
I don't know, I'm not very familiar with what happened at this point, maybe Salazarz has a better idea. You were posting about today's context though, weren't you? Any follow-up on that?
Yes I think it's pretty common in topics that involve international relations to refer to the country or the government interchangeably. For example, when I read an article about how the US bombed Vietnam, I don't see anyone go "Ackshually it wasn't the US it was the Johnson and Nixon administration" What the country does yes, what a country thinks, no unless it’s a dictatorship, because a democracy is made up of many people and checks and balances. What's the criticism here exactly, I don't want to mischaracterize you I'm saying that saying what the US did makes sense, the US did that. If you had the US Thinks/wants whatever it is less true. The US wanted to bomb Vietnam, after it bombed Vietnam, totally makes sense. Israel right now wants to bomb Gaza, and they are! The US wants to Genocide Vietnam, well then we would have to have a conversation on why you THIINK that because it is not factual its a presumption. Well this was the conversation that we were having, don't you think? I have not made it a secret why I THINK that their plan is to take the land of Palestine, it's because it's consistent with their actions before and after Oct 7th in ways that the other explanations are not, and consistent with the declarations of numerous members of the government before (sometimes long before!) and after Oct 7th in ways that the other explanations are not. Yes, except while I answer you questions directly and read your courses you do not do the same. And yet to you I'm the bad guy, and not just because of narcissism but because of previously formed opinions you have me that you treat as fact. So to get back on track. You believe this has always been the plan, I still do not know why you do not think they would have just done it after the 6 day war. International community wouldn't have complained, they would have the land you are sure they want, their enemies would have had a large migrant crisis. It appears at some point you believe international pressure is keeping them from doing what they want. But then at other points they can do whatever they want because the US will give them support no matter what. We agree (I think) that it is not that they are unable to do it because there is a massive power imbalance. I have already told you that I don't know what happened at the end of the 6 day war, what else do you want me to say? So then you think they have always wanted the land and you just don’t why they did not take it? If they don’t want the land why have they gradually been taking it? Perhaps not all land is created equal? The Venezuelans aren’t posturing over Guyanese deserts or mountains currently are they, but oil-rich zones. There’s not quite that golden ticket in terms of resources of course, but some land will be more arable than others, more easily hospitable, more picturesque etc. Perhaps there’s no need, or hasn’t been to take more than is necessary to accommodate a growing population. So a gradual piecemeal expansion is what’s being pursued. Especially as settlement is a somewhat organic process driven by individuals and facilitated by the state, rather than fully a state-run enterprise. I don’t need a 3 bedroom house that would cripple me financially right now as a single person, it exceeds my immediate needs so why do that to my wallet? Down the line if I’m married with multiple kids, I’ll need to upgrade to something like that from my current domicile. When that day comes my mate is going to (hopefully) go ‘congrats on the new pad’ rather than ‘You idiot, if you were planning on having kids why the fuck didn’t you buy this 10 years ago?!’ I don’t wish to speak for others of course but it seems there’s a constant circular discussion around terms based on different frameworks of what said terms mean. One rough cohort goes off a binary with intent at its core, one off a graduating scale and observed behaviour at its core. In a crude sense of course, I know individuals are more nuanced by and large. The former group reject use of terms like ethnic cleansing or genocide, because the intent isn’t to do this to all Palestinians, ergo the intent isn’t consistent with genocidal urges traditionally etc. The second rough cohort see certain behaviours as being consistent with those definitional terms, and that they have been enacted and thus the label fits, even if they haven’t been carried out to the further extremes. Me personally I don’t think intent is all that important to those at the receiving end. If I’m being bombed, displaced etc I’m probably not going to care all that much if the folks doing it are merely regularly oppressing my existence, or if they intend to completely wipe it out and that of my ilk. Intent is super important, our entire justice system rules have intent as basically more important than the “crime”.
Our justice system also has the state as arbiter, who is the arbiter here?
I don’t think this is even a fair reading of what I actually wrote.
|
On December 08 2023 04:37 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2023 04:32 Nebuchad wrote:On December 08 2023 04:14 JimmiC wrote:On December 08 2023 03:52 Nebuchad wrote:On December 08 2023 03:40 JimmiC wrote:On December 08 2023 01:54 Nebuchad wrote:On December 08 2023 01:45 JimmiC wrote:On December 08 2023 01:23 Nebuchad wrote:On December 08 2023 01:10 JimmiC wrote:On December 08 2023 00:44 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
What's the criticism here exactly, I don't want to mischaracterize you I'm saying that saying what the US did makes sense, the US did that. If you had the US Thinks/wants whatever it is less true. The US wanted to bomb Vietnam, after it bombed Vietnam, totally makes sense. Israel right now wants to bomb Gaza, and they are! The US wants to Genocide Vietnam, well then we would have to have a conversation on why you THIINK that because it is not factual its a presumption. Well this was the conversation that we were having, don't you think? I have not made it a secret why I THINK that their plan is to take the land of Palestine, it's because it's consistent with their actions before and after Oct 7th in ways that the other explanations are not, and consistent with the declarations of numerous members of the government before (sometimes long before!) and after Oct 7th in ways that the other explanations are not. Yes, except while I answer you questions directly and read your courses you do not do the same. And yet to you I'm the bad guy, and not just because of narcissism but because of previously formed opinions you have me that you treat as fact. So to get back on track. You believe this has always been the plan, I still do not know why you do not think they would have just done it after the 6 day war. International community wouldn't have complained, they would have the land you are sure they want, their enemies would have had a large migrant crisis. It appears at some point you believe international pressure is keeping them from doing what they want. But then at other points they can do whatever they want because the US will give them support no matter what. We agree (I think) that it is not that they are unable to do it because there is a massive power imbalance. I have already told you that I don't know what happened at the end of the 6 day war, what else do you want me to say? So then you think they have always wanted the land and you just don’t why they did not take it? Ehud Barak's government probably had different intentions than Netanyahu's government does, and that was just 1999. I'm not sure why you went so far in the past (and so close in time to the Nakba, the iconic land grab action). So it was not until 2000 that Israel wanted ethnically cleanse all the Palestinians and take the land? There were people and governments who wanted to do it before (as evidenced by the fact that they did it, for example the Nakba and the settlements that predate 2000). It doesn't mean that every Israeli person or government ever has wanted to do it. Could you highlight a specific argument from one of my posts that you're countering with this line of questioning, cause really I'm not sure why we're doing this. It’s strange that you think I’m countering your argument. I’m trying to understand the underlying assumptions that are leading to your conclusions. Or your specific conclusion so I can try to understand your assumptions. If cerebrate is right and Israel would give up all the settlements for a lasting peace, how would this change your opinion or how would it confirm it?
If the Netanyahu government gave up all the West Bank settlements and let Palestine become a state, that would definitely change a ton of my opinions, yes.
Am I to understand that you thought my argument was pretty good and that's why you're not countering it?
|
|
|
On December 08 2023 04:54 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2023 04:53 Nebuchad wrote:On December 08 2023 04:37 JimmiC wrote:On December 08 2023 04:32 Nebuchad wrote:On December 08 2023 04:14 JimmiC wrote:On December 08 2023 03:52 Nebuchad wrote:On December 08 2023 03:40 JimmiC wrote:On December 08 2023 01:54 Nebuchad wrote:On December 08 2023 01:45 JimmiC wrote:On December 08 2023 01:23 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
Well this was the conversation that we were having, don't you think? I have not made it a secret why I THINK that their plan is to take the land of Palestine, it's because it's consistent with their actions before and after Oct 7th in ways that the other explanations are not, and consistent with the declarations of numerous members of the government before (sometimes long before!) and after Oct 7th in ways that the other explanations are not. Yes, except while I answer you questions directly and read your courses you do not do the same. And yet to you I'm the bad guy, and not just because of narcissism but because of previously formed opinions you have me that you treat as fact. So to get back on track. You believe this has always been the plan, I still do not know why you do not think they would have just done it after the 6 day war. International community wouldn't have complained, they would have the land you are sure they want, their enemies would have had a large migrant crisis. It appears at some point you believe international pressure is keeping them from doing what they want. But then at other points they can do whatever they want because the US will give them support no matter what. We agree (I think) that it is not that they are unable to do it because there is a massive power imbalance. I have already told you that I don't know what happened at the end of the 6 day war, what else do you want me to say? So then you think they have always wanted the land and you just don’t why they did not take it? Ehud Barak's government probably had different intentions than Netanyahu's government does, and that was just 1999. I'm not sure why you went so far in the past (and so close in time to the Nakba, the iconic land grab action). So it was not until 2000 that Israel wanted ethnically cleanse all the Palestinians and take the land? There were people and governments who wanted to do it before (as evidenced by the fact that they did it, for example the Nakba and the settlements that predate 2000). It doesn't mean that every Israeli person or government ever has wanted to do it. Could you highlight a specific argument from one of my posts that you're countering with this line of questioning, cause really I'm not sure why we're doing this. It’s strange that you think I’m countering your argument. I’m trying to understand the underlying assumptions that are leading to your conclusions. Or your specific conclusion so I can try to understand your assumptions. If cerebrate is right and Israel would give up all the settlements for a lasting peace, how would this change your opinion or how would it confirm it? If the Netanyahu government gave up all the West Bank settlements and let Palestine become a state, that would definitely change a ton of my opinions, yes. Am I to understand that you thought my argument was pretty good and that's why you're not countering it? Which one?
This one
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
