|
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 27 2023 10:21 Cricketer12 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2023 10:17 flashymarine wrote:On December 27 2023 09:38 Nebuchad wrote:
"The prohibition against the forcible transfer of civilians to territory of an occupied state under the Fourth Geneva Convention was not intended to relate to the circumstances of voluntary Jewish settlement in the West Bank on legitimately acquired land which did not belong to a previous lawful sovereign and which was designated as part of the Jewish State under the League of Nations Mandate.
Bilateral Israeli-Palestinian Agreements specifically affirm that settlements are subject to agreed and exclusive Israeli jurisdiction pending the outcome of peace negotiations, and do not prohibit settlement activity."
Mate, they're not even trying to argue that it's not an ethnic cleansing. They're trying to argue that their ethnic cleansing is legal based on technicalities.
As usual the "complexity" of the situation is claimed, but it's never explained. In the introduction we hear that the issue is complex, in the conclusion it's said once again. We don't know what is supposed to be complex about it. This is a rhetorical trick designed to make you picture a complexity in your head so that you forget that you can't find a simple reason why taking someone's land with force because you want someone of another ethnicity to live there instead wouldn't be ethnic cleansing. The complexity is the "their land" part. You are 100% convinced that it is theirs. But there are complex competing claims. And ethnic cleansing generally refers to mass deportations, forced migrations, or killings that result in population drops. It is not about a city becoming segregated. Does the Nakba not qualify?
Some scholars believe it is some believe it is not. I think a reasonable person could argue either side.
|
On December 25 2023 02:14 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2023 01:39 flashymarine wrote:On December 24 2023 23:37 Nebuchad wrote:On December 24 2023 23:07 flashymarine wrote:On December 24 2023 19:12 Magic Powers wrote:
Just because you don't agree with the use of the term "ethnic cleansing" doesn't mean it doesn't fit the bill. People like to argue that it's not Israel's intent, or that the outcome proves that it's not ethnic cleansing. That's not how it works. Murder for example is always murder whether it was intended or not. Likewise shooting at someone with a gun is lethal force whether it results in death or not. Ethnic cleansing: Rendering an area ethnically homogeneous by using force or intimidation to remove from a given area persons of another ethnic or religious group Thanks for this helpful definition. Maybe you should call the dictionary and tell them to add those other things that you mentioned afterwards in the definition, that way your claim would be correct. Until then, I guess we'll stick with this definition, and under this definition Israel is obviously doing it. Nope sorry try again. They never rendered any area ethnically homogenous. Words have meanings. Sure they did. All of the areas that they settled.
First of all, I'm glad everyone seems to be in the same understanding now that the term "ethnic cleansing" does not apply to the general regions of Gaza or the West Bank since clearly neither area is homogenously Jewish. It's good to find common ground.
You have shifted the discussion to a few dots on the map of the West Bank that have settlements on them to suggest that the term does apply to that limited area as long as you look at it in isolation. Meaning, those neighborhoods are homogenously Jewish even though they are surrounded by and divided by neighborhoods that are homogenously Arab.
The problem is, even if you just look at the settlements, half of the term still doesn't apply. The wording used by the UN again was "rendering an area ethnically homogeneous by using force or intimidation to remove persons of given groups from the area." People were not removed from the area of settlements in order to build them. Some houses were purchased, but the vast majority of settlements were built on undeveloped wilderness areas. The only beings removed from those areas were squirrels. Every other ethnic cleansing in history involved people fleeing their homes en masse. And there are lots of historical cases that fit the definition exactly, so it's not even as if the definition is too narrow.
Rather, the way that those areas were made homogenously Israeli (as opposed to homogenously uninhabited) was by building houses and selling them to Israelis.
Not to say that everything in the settlements is sunshine and rainbows (for anyone who is reading this post out of context of the posts I'm replying to), but this particular back and forth has been about using the specific phrase "ethnic cleansing." That phrase is not being accurately applied in this conflict.
|
United States42750 Posts
Ethnic cleansing absolutely applies.
Take the English in Ireland. Ireland was identified as both a valuable province and a potential invasion launchpad for Catholic powers in Europe due to its rejection of the Anglican Church. A succession of monarchs decided that the best approach was to kick Catholics off of the land and replace them with loyal Protestant Scots.
Catholic Irish didn’t die out and with the introduction of the potato their population boomed until the famine. But that doesn’t change either the policy nor its deliberate intent. England didn’t like the people living on the land and so took it from them and gave it to others in the name of security.
This isn’t materially different.
|
On December 27 2023 08:19 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2023 03:57 Cerebrate1 wrote:On December 26 2023 21:32 Salazarz wrote:On December 26 2023 14:32 Cerebrate1 wrote:On December 26 2023 10:38 JimmiC wrote:On December 26 2023 10:32 Salazarz wrote:
I don't get this bit. Surely demanding a government change as a precondition for peace isn't some kind of 'show of good intentions' by an invading force, and a government refusing to resign in exchange for peace isn't some outrageous fail on their part? Like, I don't see anyone telling Zelensky to step down and let Putin decide who will rule Ukraine next, how exactly is this different. People who believe Hamas is a terrorist organization set on the genocide of the country their at war with, are figuring that Israel is not going to accept those people running the country teaching the youth to hate and planning future attacks. It is a fool me once, kind of situation. The Ukrainian comparison is awful because it was not Zelensky who launched a genocidal terroristic attack to start the war. If Ukraine was far more powerful and had counter attacked Russia after their initial attack, rapes and murder, and was demanding Putin be removed it would be a better comparison. Just to add to this, the Allies did effectively demand a change of government from Germany and Japan for them to stop fighting World War 2. (Actually they demanded unconditional surrender, which is even more than that.) If a government cares more about the lives of the people it governs over it's political goals, accepting regime change is not a crazy result for the loser of a war. Hamas will definitely not accept that because they have made very clear that they value their political goals over the lives of every man, woman, and child in Gaza (I believe they recently made a statement along the lines of "if every Palestinian died, but we destroyed Israel, we would make that trade"). However, Hamas' standards are far from the bar of defining reasonable demands or offers. So Zelensky should tell Ukrainians to lay down their arms and surrender if he wants to prove that he cares about lives of his countrymen more than his own political goals, is that what you're saying? From the perspective of a peoples that are being oppressed, surrendering and accepting a government change forced by an occupying force isn't a show of compassion, it's an admission of failure and a national humiliation. The idea that radical terrorism from Gaza would stop if the only change was that Hamas government stepped down is silly; their radicalization is fueled by the actions of Israel and forcing a government change wouldn't reduce radicalization, if anything it'd make Palestinians hate Israel even more. Terrorism in Palestine didn't begin with Hamas, and it certainly wouldn't end with it either unless other changes were made. The point is not to "prove you care about your people by surrendering," it's to actually do what's best for your people. In Ukraine's case, they can reasonably expect much better results by continuing the war than by surrendering at this point. In an alternative scenario where Russia already had military control over 70% of Ukraine and it was pretty clear that they were going to take the rest by force in short order: it would be reasonable for Ukraine to surrender rather than fighting to the death of their last man. Obviously that would be a bad result for them. But it would be the better of the alternatives provided in that scenario. There have been hundreds of governing organizations throughout history that have surrendered in the face of impending defeat. I hardly think that all of them were insane and making an irrational choice by surrendering. If you think fighting to the death is preferable, then you are a zealot (or at least you think Palestinians should be zealots) for your cause. As to your questions of will this actually be effective at deradicalizing the local population, that is really a question for Israel, not Hamas, and is a separate discussion. We can pivot to discussing most effective methods for that now if you'd like. This somewhat reads like" Palestinians have no chance anyway, so they should just give up, instead of making things awkward."
My post was not discussing Palestinians or their wider cause. It was about the governing organization of Hamas and the war that they started. A government who cared about it's people (you know, the Palestinians), would surrender at this point. Hamas is unusual among governments in that it doesn't prioritize the lives of it's people.
Meanwhile, if you conflate Hamas with the Palestinians as a whole, you will make it quite awkward for the users here who are claiming that no one on this thread supports Hamas.
|
On December 27 2023 17:14 KwarK wrote:
Ethnic cleansing absolutely applies.
Take the English in Ireland. Ireland was identified as both a valuable province and a potential invasion launchpad for Catholic powers in Europe due to its rejection of the Anglican Church. A succession of monarchs decided that the best approach was to kick Catholics off of the land and replace them with loyal Protestant Scots.
Catholic Irish didn’t die out and with the introduction of the potato their population boomed until the famine. But that doesn’t change either the policy nor its deliberate intent. England didn’t like the people living on the land and so took it from them and gave it to others in the name of security.
This isn’t materially different.
You are quoting a part of history that I am not super well versed in, so I would appreciate if you fill in the gaps for me. But are you telling me that:
1. It is widely accepted that England ethnically cleansed Ireland?
2. England did so by moving Protestants into uninhabited areas rather than killing or expelling local Catholics?
|
On December 27 2023 16:58 Cerebrate1 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2023 02:14 Nebuchad wrote:On December 25 2023 01:39 flashymarine wrote:On December 24 2023 23:37 Nebuchad wrote:On December 24 2023 23:07 flashymarine wrote:On December 24 2023 19:12 Magic Powers wrote:
Just because you don't agree with the use of the term "ethnic cleansing" doesn't mean it doesn't fit the bill. People like to argue that it's not Israel's intent, or that the outcome proves that it's not ethnic cleansing. That's not how it works. Murder for example is always murder whether it was intended or not. Likewise shooting at someone with a gun is lethal force whether it results in death or not. Ethnic cleansing: Rendering an area ethnically homogeneous by using force or intimidation to remove from a given area persons of another ethnic or religious group Thanks for this helpful definition. Maybe you should call the dictionary and tell them to add those other things that you mentioned afterwards in the definition, that way your claim would be correct. Until then, I guess we'll stick with this definition, and under this definition Israel is obviously doing it. Nope sorry try again. They never rendered any area ethnically homogenous. Words have meanings. Sure they did. All of the areas that they settled. First of all, I'm glad everyone seems to be in the same understanding now that the term "ethnic cleansing" does not apply to the general regions of Gaza or the West Bank since clearly neither area is homogenously Jewish. It's good to find common ground. You have shifted the discussion to a few dots on the map of the West Bank that have settlements on them to suggest that the term does apply to that limited area as long as you look at it in isolation. Meaning, those neighborhoods are homogenously Jewish even though they are surrounded by and divided by neighborhoods that are homogenously Arab. The problem is, even if you just look at the settlements, half of the term still doesn't apply. The wording used by the UN again was "rendering an area ethnically homogeneous by using force or intimidation to remove persons of given groups from the area." People were not removed from the area of settlements in order to build them. Some houses were purchased, but the vast majority of settlements were built on undeveloped wilderness areas. The only beings removed from those areas were squirrels. Every other ethnic cleansing in history involved people fleeing their homes en masse. And there are lots of historical cases that fit the definition exactly, so it's not even as if the definition is too narrow. Rather, the way that those areas were made homogenously Israeli (as opposed to homogenously uninhabited) was by building houses and selling them to Israelis. Not to say that everything in the settlements is sunshine and rainbows (for anyone who is reading this post out of context of the posts I'm replying to), but this particular back and forth has been about using the specific phrase "ethnic cleansing." That phrase is not being accurately applied in this conflict.
Can you write a long post about what's not sunshine and rainbows?
|
On December 27 2023 09:27 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2023 09:12 flashymarine wrote:On December 27 2023 08:18 Magic Powers wrote:On December 27 2023 07:49 flashymarine wrote:On December 27 2023 07:36 Nebuchad wrote:On December 25 2023 02:14 Nebuchad wrote:On December 25 2023 01:39 flashymarine wrote:On December 24 2023 23:37 Nebuchad wrote:On December 24 2023 23:07 flashymarine wrote:On December 24 2023 19:12 Magic Powers wrote:
Just because you don't agree with the use of the term "ethnic cleansing" doesn't mean it doesn't fit the bill. People like to argue that it's not Israel's intent, or that the outcome proves that it's not ethnic cleansing. That's not how it works. Murder for example is always murder whether it was intended or not. Likewise shooting at someone with a gun is lethal force whether it results in death or not. Ethnic cleansing: Rendering an area ethnically homogeneous by using force or intimidation to remove from a given area persons of another ethnic or religious group Thanks for this helpful definition. Maybe you should call the dictionary and tell them to add those other things that you mentioned afterwards in the definition, that way your claim would be correct. Until then, I guess we'll stick with this definition, and under this definition Israel is obviously doing it. Nope sorry try again. They never rendered any area ethnically homogenous. Words have meanings. Sure they did. All of the areas that they settled. Yo flashymarine you must have missed this post, a common mistake I didn't respond because it was a low effort post. "All the areas that they settled". No specifics, no data, nothing. If you had said something like the Arab population of Israel increased by x amount and the population of Palestine increased by y amount we could discuss something. Of course we would quickly learn that is not in fact ethnic cleansing. But using the vague "areas they settled" is meaningless. The West bank does not belong to Israel. Today there are massive militarized zones and roads separating a huge area of illegal Jewish settlements from the Palestinian population, weaving through the whole region, cutting off the Palestinians and making their lives much harder. That zone is controlled and financed by the State of Israel, and it has resulted in an ethnic and economic divide between the Jewish and Palestinian people in the West bank. The Palestinians are forbidden from moving between these zones, making it very hard for them to pursue their various economic interests. The Jewish settlers, despite occupying the land illegally, continue to attack and displace the locals and grab more of their land. The amount of land controlled by the illegal settlers is now roughly equal to that of the Palestinian locals, despite the Palestinians vastly outnumbering the illegal settlers. All of this land lawfully belongs to Palestinians. Visualization of the aftermath: ![[image loading]](https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/480/cpsprodpb/F78D/production/_109737336_west_bank_settlements_oct_2019_640_3x-nc.png) Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-52756427 Is it fair to acknowledge that even if I grant that everything you claim is true, it does not in fact meet the definition of ethnic cleansing? In contrast to the view presented above here is the Israeli governments view. https://www.gov.il/en/departments/general/israeli-settlement-and-international-law
Attempts to present Jewish settlement in West Bank territory (ancient Judea and Samaria) as illegal and "colonial" in nature ignores the complexity of this issue, the history of the land, and the unique legal circumstances of this case.
Jewish communities in this territory have existed from time immemorial and express the deep connection of the Jewish people to land which is the cradle of their civilization, as affirmed by the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine, and from which they, or their ancestors, were ousted.
The prohibition against the forcible transfer of civilians to territory of an occupied state under the Fourth Geneva Convention was not intended to relate to the circumstances of voluntary Jewish settlement in the West Bank on legitimately acquired land which did not belong to a previous lawful sovereign and which was designated as part of the Jewish State under the League of Nations Mandate.
Bilateral Israeli-Palestinian Agreements specifically affirm that settlements are subject to agreed and exclusive Israeli jurisdiction pending the outcome of peace negotiations, and do not prohibit settlement activity.
Israel remains committed to peace negotiations without preconditions in order to resolve all outstanding issues and competing claims. It continues to ask the Palestinian side to respond in kind. It is hoped that such negotiations will produce an agreed peaceful settlement which will give legitimate expression to the connection of both Jews and Palestinians to this ancient land.
+ Show Spoiler +People can disagree with the term "ethnic cleansing" due to various technicalities, but they cannot disagree with the severity of the issue.
Furthermore the Israeli government is justifying the unjustifiable. There is no historical Jewish claim to any of the Palestinian region. Not legally, not religiously. + Show Spoiler +The Israeli government is founded on zionism an it continues to propagate this ideology today. That's not the ideology of the Jewish people, it's a nationalist ideology. A collectivist ideology. Zionists had no interests in anyone other than their own, they never cared about the Palestinian people as anything more than an inconvenience (or competition) to get rid of since the conception of Zionism.
This can be seen in the Apartheid that Palestinians in the West bank and Jewish settlers are experiencing, wherein the Palestinian population is effectively under military occupation and the Jewish settlers are effectively the occupiers. Palestinians were ousted through various means from their lands, and the Israeli militarization (which includes checkpoints, massive walls, barb wire, mass surveillance, and other means) is functioning as a death blow to any Palestinian aspirations of growth.
And then there's Gaza .
I don't have time to discuss all of your post, but you must not mean the line about there not being any historical Jewish claim, even religiously the way that it reads straight.
There is archeological evidence constantly being unearthed that shows Jewish inhabitance of the land dating back thousands of years. There are tons of manuscripts from the Romans and other surrounding nations about Jews living in the area, when they had sovereignty, when they were conquered etc. Jesus and his family (Jews) were natives to Bethlehem (major city in the West Bank). The Jerusalem that King David made into the capital of his united Jewish kingdom was primarily in what is today called East Jerusalem. The Dome of the Rock and Al Asqua Mosque are literally built on top of the foundation stones that King Herod built to hold up the Jewish Temple (holiest place for Jews in the world) some 2,000 years ago. There is a story in the Bible about the Jews destroying Jericho (another West Bank city) and another set centuries later about the Jews that rebuild it. Hebron (major West Bank city) is the site of the tomb of Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Rebecca, Jacob, and Leah (progenitors of the Jewish people). If anything, there is more historical claim to Palestinian dominated cities because most of those are ancient cities that were repopulated by other people as the Jews were expelled by the Romans. Many of the Israeli cities today (like Tel Aviv) were started from scratch on uninhabited land.
Religiously, Jerusalem and the Land of Israel are mentioned hundreds of times in the Jewish Bible as well as in prayer books (these books have been found from multiple different centuries over the past millennia or two). There topics are featured heavily and they are mentioned multiple times in each of three daily prayers that Jews have been using since the time of the building of the Second Temple in Jerusalem (~2,500 years ago). The boundaries of the Land of Israel are clearly laid out in the Five Books of Moses and the Book of Joshua (~3,300 years ago) even down to listing all the cities that were included. Those boundaries are further listed and clarified in books of the Bible written hundreds of years later as well as the Talmud (a document of Jewish law written ~1,800 years ago). Jews have 613 commandments (listed in the Torah) that they use to get close to God, and about half of them can only be done within the boundaries of the Land of Israel.
I'm not mentioning all of this to convince you that Israel deserves to get all that land. You can claim, like several posters here have, that religious and historical claims are not relevant factors in deciding who gets land. But you cannot claim that those claims do not exist.
|
On December 27 2023 16:58 Cerebrate1 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2023 02:14 Nebuchad wrote:On December 25 2023 01:39 flashymarine wrote:On December 24 2023 23:37 Nebuchad wrote:On December 24 2023 23:07 flashymarine wrote:On December 24 2023 19:12 Magic Powers wrote:
Just because you don't agree with the use of the term "ethnic cleansing" doesn't mean it doesn't fit the bill. People like to argue that it's not Israel's intent, or that the outcome proves that it's not ethnic cleansing. That's not how it works. Murder for example is always murder whether it was intended or not. Likewise shooting at someone with a gun is lethal force whether it results in death or not. Ethnic cleansing: Rendering an area ethnically homogeneous by using force or intimidation to remove from a given area persons of another ethnic or religious group Thanks for this helpful definition. Maybe you should call the dictionary and tell them to add those other things that you mentioned afterwards in the definition, that way your claim would be correct. Until then, I guess we'll stick with this definition, and under this definition Israel is obviously doing it. Nope sorry try again. They never rendered any area ethnically homogenous. Words have meanings. Sure they did. All of the areas that they settled. First of all, I'm glad everyone seems to be in the same understanding now that the term "ethnic cleansing" does not apply to the general regions of Gaza or the West Bank since clearly neither area is homogenously Jewish. It's good to find common ground. You have shifted the discussion to a few dots on the map of the West Bank that have settlements on them to suggest that the term does apply to that limited area as long as you look at it in isolation. Meaning, those neighborhoods are homogenously Jewish even though they are surrounded by and divided by neighborhoods that are homogenously Arab. The problem is, even if you just look at the settlements, half of the term still doesn't apply. The wording used by the UN again was "rendering an area ethnically homogeneous by using force or intimidation to remove persons of given groups from the area." People were not removed from the area of settlements in order to build them. Some houses were purchased, but the vast majority of settlements were built on undeveloped wilderness areas. The only beings removed from those areas were squirrels. Every other ethnic cleansing in history involved people fleeing their homes en masse. And there are lots of historical cases that fit the definition exactly, so it's not even as if the definition is too narrow. Rather, the way that those areas were made homogenously Israeli (as opposed to homogenously uninhabited) was by building houses and selling them to Israelis. Not to say that everything in the settlements is sunshine and rainbows (for anyone who is reading this post out of context of the posts I'm replying to), but this particular back and forth has been about using the specific phrase "ethnic cleansing." That phrase is not being accurately applied in this conflict.
"First of all, I'm glad everyone seems to be in the same understanding now that the term "ethnic cleansing" does not apply to the general regions of Gaza or the West Bank since clearly neither area is homogenously Jewish."
The areas occupied by the settlers are exlusively Jewish. That is homogenous. They have committed ethnic cleansing in that area.
And yes, the Palestinians were removed from that area. They literally can't move to or through any of the settler areas. They can't pass. These settlements are now illegally occupied. And many Palestinians were in fact removed from their homes, in many cases violence was used.
|
On December 27 2023 18:55 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2023 16:58 Cerebrate1 wrote:On December 25 2023 02:14 Nebuchad wrote:On December 25 2023 01:39 flashymarine wrote:On December 24 2023 23:37 Nebuchad wrote:On December 24 2023 23:07 flashymarine wrote:On December 24 2023 19:12 Magic Powers wrote:
Just because you don't agree with the use of the term "ethnic cleansing" doesn't mean it doesn't fit the bill. People like to argue that it's not Israel's intent, or that the outcome proves that it's not ethnic cleansing. That's not how it works. Murder for example is always murder whether it was intended or not. Likewise shooting at someone with a gun is lethal force whether it results in death or not. Ethnic cleansing: Rendering an area ethnically homogeneous by using force or intimidation to remove from a given area persons of another ethnic or religious group Thanks for this helpful definition. Maybe you should call the dictionary and tell them to add those other things that you mentioned afterwards in the definition, that way your claim would be correct. Until then, I guess we'll stick with this definition, and under this definition Israel is obviously doing it. Nope sorry try again. They never rendered any area ethnically homogenous. Words have meanings. Sure they did. All of the areas that they settled. First of all, I'm glad everyone seems to be in the same understanding now that the term "ethnic cleansing" does not apply to the general regions of Gaza or the West Bank since clearly neither area is homogenously Jewish. It's good to find common ground. You have shifted the discussion to a few dots on the map of the West Bank that have settlements on them to suggest that the term does apply to that limited area as long as you look at it in isolation. Meaning, those neighborhoods are homogenously Jewish even though they are surrounded by and divided by neighborhoods that are homogenously Arab. The problem is, even if you just look at the settlements, half of the term still doesn't apply. The wording used by the UN again was "rendering an area ethnically homogeneous by using force or intimidation to remove persons of given groups from the area." People were not removed from the area of settlements in order to build them. Some houses were purchased, but the vast majority of settlements were built on undeveloped wilderness areas. The only beings removed from those areas were squirrels. Every other ethnic cleansing in history involved people fleeing their homes en masse. And there are lots of historical cases that fit the definition exactly, so it's not even as if the definition is too narrow. Rather, the way that those areas were made homogenously Israeli (as opposed to homogenously uninhabited) was by building houses and selling them to Israelis. Not to say that everything in the settlements is sunshine and rainbows (for anyone who is reading this post out of context of the posts I'm replying to), but this particular back and forth has been about using the specific phrase "ethnic cleansing." That phrase is not being accurately applied in this conflict. Can you write a long post about what's not sunshine and rainbows?
It's not clear to me if you have a legitimate query or are just trying to be cheeky. If it's the former, I ask that you speak out more clearly what information you are looking for.
|
On December 27 2023 19:00 Cerebrate1 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2023 09:27 Magic Powers wrote:On December 27 2023 09:12 flashymarine wrote:On December 27 2023 08:18 Magic Powers wrote:On December 27 2023 07:49 flashymarine wrote:On December 27 2023 07:36 Nebuchad wrote:On December 25 2023 02:14 Nebuchad wrote:On December 25 2023 01:39 flashymarine wrote:On December 24 2023 23:37 Nebuchad wrote:On December 24 2023 23:07 flashymarine wrote:
[quote]
Ethnic cleansing: Rendering an area ethnically homogeneous by using force or intimidation to remove from a given area persons of another ethnic or religious group Thanks for this helpful definition. Maybe you should call the dictionary and tell them to add those other things that you mentioned afterwards in the definition, that way your claim would be correct. Until then, I guess we'll stick with this definition, and under this definition Israel is obviously doing it. Nope sorry try again. They never rendered any area ethnically homogenous. Words have meanings. Sure they did. All of the areas that they settled. Yo flashymarine you must have missed this post, a common mistake I didn't respond because it was a low effort post. "All the areas that they settled". No specifics, no data, nothing. If you had said something like the Arab population of Israel increased by x amount and the population of Palestine increased by y amount we could discuss something. Of course we would quickly learn that is not in fact ethnic cleansing. But using the vague "areas they settled" is meaningless. The West bank does not belong to Israel. Today there are massive militarized zones and roads separating a huge area of illegal Jewish settlements from the Palestinian population, weaving through the whole region, cutting off the Palestinians and making their lives much harder. That zone is controlled and financed by the State of Israel, and it has resulted in an ethnic and economic divide between the Jewish and Palestinian people in the West bank. The Palestinians are forbidden from moving between these zones, making it very hard for them to pursue their various economic interests. The Jewish settlers, despite occupying the land illegally, continue to attack and displace the locals and grab more of their land. The amount of land controlled by the illegal settlers is now roughly equal to that of the Palestinian locals, despite the Palestinians vastly outnumbering the illegal settlers. All of this land lawfully belongs to Palestinians. Visualization of the aftermath: Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-52756427 Is it fair to acknowledge that even if I grant that everything you claim is true, it does not in fact meet the definition of ethnic cleansing? In contrast to the view presented above here is the Israeli governments view. https://www.gov.il/en/departments/general/israeli-settlement-and-international-law
Attempts to present Jewish settlement in West Bank territory (ancient Judea and Samaria) as illegal and "colonial" in nature ignores the complexity of this issue, the history of the land, and the unique legal circumstances of this case.
Jewish communities in this territory have existed from time immemorial and express the deep connection of the Jewish people to land which is the cradle of their civilization, as affirmed by the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine, and from which they, or their ancestors, were ousted.
The prohibition against the forcible transfer of civilians to territory of an occupied state under the Fourth Geneva Convention was not intended to relate to the circumstances of voluntary Jewish settlement in the West Bank on legitimately acquired land which did not belong to a previous lawful sovereign and which was designated as part of the Jewish State under the League of Nations Mandate.
Bilateral Israeli-Palestinian Agreements specifically affirm that settlements are subject to agreed and exclusive Israeli jurisdiction pending the outcome of peace negotiations, and do not prohibit settlement activity.
Israel remains committed to peace negotiations without preconditions in order to resolve all outstanding issues and competing claims. It continues to ask the Palestinian side to respond in kind. It is hoped that such negotiations will produce an agreed peaceful settlement which will give legitimate expression to the connection of both Jews and Palestinians to this ancient land.
+ Show Spoiler +People can disagree with the term "ethnic cleansing" due to various technicalities, but they cannot disagree with the severity of the issue.
Furthermore the Israeli government is justifying the unjustifiable. There is no historical Jewish claim to any of the Palestinian region. Not legally, not religiously. + Show Spoiler +The Israeli government is founded on zionism an it continues to propagate this ideology today. That's not the ideology of the Jewish people, it's a nationalist ideology. A collectivist ideology. Zionists had no interests in anyone other than their own, they never cared about the Palestinian people as anything more than an inconvenience (or competition) to get rid of since the conception of Zionism.
This can be seen in the Apartheid that Palestinians in the West bank and Jewish settlers are experiencing, wherein the Palestinian population is effectively under military occupation and the Jewish settlers are effectively the occupiers. Palestinians were ousted through various means from their lands, and the Israeli militarization (which includes checkpoints, massive walls, barb wire, mass surveillance, and other means) is functioning as a death blow to any Palestinian aspirations of growth.
And then there's Gaza . I don't have time to discuss all of your post, but you must not mean the line about there not being any historical Jewish claim, even religiously the way that it reads straight. There is archeological evidence constantly being unearthed that shows Jewish inhabitance of the land dating back thousands of years. There are tons of manuscripts from the Romans and other surrounding nations about Jews living in the area, when they had sovereignty, when they were conquered etc. Jesus and his family (Jews) were natives to Bethlehem (major city in the West Bank). The Jerusalem that King David made into the capital of his united Jewish kingdom was primarily in what is today called East Jerusalem. The Dome of the Rock and Al Asqua Mosque are literally built on top of the foundation stones that King Herod built to hold up the Jewish Temple (holiest place for Jews in the world) some 2,000 years ago. There is a story in the Bible about the Jews destroying Jericho (another West Bank city) and another set centuries later about the Jews that rebuild it. Hebron (major West Bank city) is the site of the tomb of Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Rebecca, Jacob, and Leah (progenitors of the Jewish people). If anything, there is more historical claim to Palestinian dominated cities because most of those are ancient cities that were repopulated by other people as the Jews were expelled by the Romans. Many of the Israeli cities today (like Tel Aviv) were started from scratch on uninhabited land. Religiously, Jerusalem and the Land of Israel are mentioned hundreds of times in the Jewish Bible as well as in prayer books (these books have been found from multiple different centuries over the past millennia or two). There topics are featured heavily and they are mentioned multiple times in each of three daily prayers that Jews have been using since the time of the building of the Second Temple in Jerusalem (~2,500 years ago). The boundaries of the Land of Israel are clearly laid out in the Five Books of Moses and the Book of Joshua (~3,300 years ago) even down to listing all the cities that were included. Those boundaries are further listed and clarified in books of the Bible written hundreds of years later as well as the Talmud (a document of Jewish law written ~1,800 years ago). Jews have 613 commandments (listed in the Torah) that they use to get close to God, and about half of them can only be done within the boundaries of the Land of Israel. I'm not mentioning all of this to convince you that Israel deserves to get all that land. You can claim, like several posters here have, that religious and historical claims are not relevant factors in deciding who gets land. But you cannot claim that those claims do not exist.
For every bit of Jewish history in Palestine there's equal or more Palestinian history. This is why Jews have no historic or religious claim. In fact if we go back far enough, there may well be several other ethnicities that also have a historic claim. It's an absolutely bonkers approach to the claim of land, and Israel is one of the few remaining democratic countries practicing this approach.
|
On December 27 2023 19:11 Cerebrate1 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2023 18:55 Nebuchad wrote:On December 27 2023 16:58 Cerebrate1 wrote:On December 25 2023 02:14 Nebuchad wrote:On December 25 2023 01:39 flashymarine wrote:On December 24 2023 23:37 Nebuchad wrote:On December 24 2023 23:07 flashymarine wrote:On December 24 2023 19:12 Magic Powers wrote:
Just because you don't agree with the use of the term "ethnic cleansing" doesn't mean it doesn't fit the bill. People like to argue that it's not Israel's intent, or that the outcome proves that it's not ethnic cleansing. That's not how it works. Murder for example is always murder whether it was intended or not. Likewise shooting at someone with a gun is lethal force whether it results in death or not. Ethnic cleansing: Rendering an area ethnically homogeneous by using force or intimidation to remove from a given area persons of another ethnic or religious group Thanks for this helpful definition. Maybe you should call the dictionary and tell them to add those other things that you mentioned afterwards in the definition, that way your claim would be correct. Until then, I guess we'll stick with this definition, and under this definition Israel is obviously doing it. Nope sorry try again. They never rendered any area ethnically homogenous. Words have meanings. Sure they did. All of the areas that they settled. First of all, I'm glad everyone seems to be in the same understanding now that the term "ethnic cleansing" does not apply to the general regions of Gaza or the West Bank since clearly neither area is homogenously Jewish. It's good to find common ground. You have shifted the discussion to a few dots on the map of the West Bank that have settlements on them to suggest that the term does apply to that limited area as long as you look at it in isolation. Meaning, those neighborhoods are homogenously Jewish even though they are surrounded by and divided by neighborhoods that are homogenously Arab. The problem is, even if you just look at the settlements, half of the term still doesn't apply. The wording used by the UN again was "rendering an area ethnically homogeneous by using force or intimidation to remove persons of given groups from the area." People were not removed from the area of settlements in order to build them. Some houses were purchased, but the vast majority of settlements were built on undeveloped wilderness areas. The only beings removed from those areas were squirrels. Every other ethnic cleansing in history involved people fleeing their homes en masse. And there are lots of historical cases that fit the definition exactly, so it's not even as if the definition is too narrow. Rather, the way that those areas were made homogenously Israeli (as opposed to homogenously uninhabited) was by building houses and selling them to Israelis. Not to say that everything in the settlements is sunshine and rainbows (for anyone who is reading this post out of context of the posts I'm replying to), but this particular back and forth has been about using the specific phrase "ethnic cleansing." That phrase is not being accurately applied in this conflict. Can you write a long post about what's not sunshine and rainbows? It's not clear to me if you have a legitimate query or are just trying to be cheeky. If it's the former, I ask that you speak out more clearly what information you are looking for.
It's just that you seem to have eliminated all of the negative components from the Israeli settlements. In your answer to Kwark they're not even removing Palestinians with violence, they're just quietly settling in uninhabited areas. But despite all of those benign activities, we're still learning in your conclusion that it's not all sunshine and rainbows, for reasons that are not very clear in your post, so I was wondering what those reasons are.
|
On December 27 2023 17:41 Cerebrate1 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2023 08:19 Razyda wrote:On December 27 2023 03:57 Cerebrate1 wrote:On December 26 2023 21:32 Salazarz wrote:On December 26 2023 14:32 Cerebrate1 wrote:On December 26 2023 10:38 JimmiC wrote:On December 26 2023 10:32 Salazarz wrote:
I don't get this bit. Surely demanding a government change as a precondition for peace isn't some kind of 'show of good intentions' by an invading force, and a government refusing to resign in exchange for peace isn't some outrageous fail on their part? Like, I don't see anyone telling Zelensky to step down and let Putin decide who will rule Ukraine next, how exactly is this different. People who believe Hamas is a terrorist organization set on the genocide of the country their at war with, are figuring that Israel is not going to accept those people running the country teaching the youth to hate and planning future attacks. It is a fool me once, kind of situation. The Ukrainian comparison is awful because it was not Zelensky who launched a genocidal terroristic attack to start the war. If Ukraine was far more powerful and had counter attacked Russia after their initial attack, rapes and murder, and was demanding Putin be removed it would be a better comparison. Just to add to this, the Allies did effectively demand a change of government from Germany and Japan for them to stop fighting World War 2. (Actually they demanded unconditional surrender, which is even more than that.) If a government cares more about the lives of the people it governs over it's political goals, accepting regime change is not a crazy result for the loser of a war. Hamas will definitely not accept that because they have made very clear that they value their political goals over the lives of every man, woman, and child in Gaza (I believe they recently made a statement along the lines of "if every Palestinian died, but we destroyed Israel, we would make that trade"). However, Hamas' standards are far from the bar of defining reasonable demands or offers. So Zelensky should tell Ukrainians to lay down their arms and surrender if he wants to prove that he cares about lives of his countrymen more than his own political goals, is that what you're saying? From the perspective of a peoples that are being oppressed, surrendering and accepting a government change forced by an occupying force isn't a show of compassion, it's an admission of failure and a national humiliation. The idea that radical terrorism from Gaza would stop if the only change was that Hamas government stepped down is silly; their radicalization is fueled by the actions of Israel and forcing a government change wouldn't reduce radicalization, if anything it'd make Palestinians hate Israel even more. Terrorism in Palestine didn't begin with Hamas, and it certainly wouldn't end with it either unless other changes were made. The point is not to "prove you care about your people by surrendering," it's to actually do what's best for your people. In Ukraine's case, they can reasonably expect much better results by continuing the war than by surrendering at this point. In an alternative scenario where Russia already had military control over 70% of Ukraine and it was pretty clear that they were going to take the rest by force in short order: it would be reasonable for Ukraine to surrender rather than fighting to the death of their last man. Obviously that would be a bad result for them. But it would be the better of the alternatives provided in that scenario. There have been hundreds of governing organizations throughout history that have surrendered in the face of impending defeat. I hardly think that all of them were insane and making an irrational choice by surrendering. If you think fighting to the death is preferable, then you are a zealot (or at least you think Palestinians should be zealots) for your cause. As to your questions of will this actually be effective at deradicalizing the local population, that is really a question for Israel, not Hamas, and is a separate discussion. We can pivot to discussing most effective methods for that now if you'd like. This somewhat reads like" Palestinians have no chance anyway, so they should just give up, instead of making things awkward." My post was not discussing Palestinians or their wider cause. It was about the governing organization of Hamas and the war that they started. A government who cared about it's people (you know, the Palestinians), would surrender at this point. Hamas is unusual among governments in that it doesn't prioritize the lives of it's people. Meanwhile, if you conflate Hamas with the Palestinians as a whole, you will make it quite awkward for the users here who are claiming that no one on this thread supports Hamas.
A government that cares about its people makes sure that those people aren't oppressed. You can disagree with Hamas all you want, you can hate what they do, but they are indeed doing the best they can (from their point of view) to liberate Palestinians from oppression. You may condemn their methods, and I certainly do, but that doesn't change anything about the fact that Palestinians are oppressed, and that oppression is NOT because of Hamas.
|
On December 27 2023 19:16 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2023 19:11 Cerebrate1 wrote:On December 27 2023 18:55 Nebuchad wrote:On December 27 2023 16:58 Cerebrate1 wrote:On December 25 2023 02:14 Nebuchad wrote:On December 25 2023 01:39 flashymarine wrote:On December 24 2023 23:37 Nebuchad wrote:On December 24 2023 23:07 flashymarine wrote:On December 24 2023 19:12 Magic Powers wrote:
Just because you don't agree with the use of the term "ethnic cleansing" doesn't mean it doesn't fit the bill. People like to argue that it's not Israel's intent, or that the outcome proves that it's not ethnic cleansing. That's not how it works. Murder for example is always murder whether it was intended or not. Likewise shooting at someone with a gun is lethal force whether it results in death or not. Ethnic cleansing: Rendering an area ethnically homogeneous by using force or intimidation to remove from a given area persons of another ethnic or religious group Thanks for this helpful definition. Maybe you should call the dictionary and tell them to add those other things that you mentioned afterwards in the definition, that way your claim would be correct. Until then, I guess we'll stick with this definition, and under this definition Israel is obviously doing it. Nope sorry try again. They never rendered any area ethnically homogenous. Words have meanings. Sure they did. All of the areas that they settled. First of all, I'm glad everyone seems to be in the same understanding now that the term "ethnic cleansing" does not apply to the general regions of Gaza or the West Bank since clearly neither area is homogenously Jewish. It's good to find common ground. You have shifted the discussion to a few dots on the map of the West Bank that have settlements on them to suggest that the term does apply to that limited area as long as you look at it in isolation. Meaning, those neighborhoods are homogenously Jewish even though they are surrounded by and divided by neighborhoods that are homogenously Arab. The problem is, even if you just look at the settlements, half of the term still doesn't apply. The wording used by the UN again was "rendering an area ethnically homogeneous by using force or intimidation to remove persons of given groups from the area." People were not removed from the area of settlements in order to build them. Some houses were purchased, but the vast majority of settlements were built on undeveloped wilderness areas. The only beings removed from those areas were squirrels. Every other ethnic cleansing in history involved people fleeing their homes en masse. And there are lots of historical cases that fit the definition exactly, so it's not even as if the definition is too narrow. Rather, the way that those areas were made homogenously Israeli (as opposed to homogenously uninhabited) was by building houses and selling them to Israelis. Not to say that everything in the settlements is sunshine and rainbows (for anyone who is reading this post out of context of the posts I'm replying to), but this particular back and forth has been about using the specific phrase "ethnic cleansing." That phrase is not being accurately applied in this conflict. Can you write a long post about what's not sunshine and rainbows? It's not clear to me if you have a legitimate query or are just trying to be cheeky. If it's the former, I ask that you speak out more clearly what information you are looking for. It's just that you seem to have eliminated all of the negative components from the Israeli settlements. In your answer to Kwark they're not even removing Palestinians with violence, they're just quietly settling in uninhabited areas. But despite all of those benign activities, we're still learning in your conclusion that it's not all sunshine and rainbows, for reasons that are not very clear in your post, so I was wondering what those reasons are.
I'm convinced at this point that Cerebrate is lying. He must be aware - if he's been reading this thread halfway properly - that Jewish settlers have used violent means to remove Palestinians from their homes, and that the walls and checkpoints constitute an act of aggression. He must know this, I don't believe that he doesn't.
|
Even if we were to accept the ridiculous premise that Israeli settlements are only built on empty land (they're not, but let's pretend they are), that land isn't theirs to build on, Palestinian people use said 'empty land' for farming, livestock, etc. I doubt you'd accept me building a house in your backyard even if I wasn't regularly desecrating your places of worship and shooting up your family and friends, so why should Palestinians accept it?
My post was not discussing Palestinians or their wider cause. It was about the governing organization of Hamas and the war that they started. A government who cared about it's people (you know, the Palestinians), would surrender at this point.
Hamas didn't start the war, not from their point of view, at any rate. For them, the war has been ongoing for many years, decades even. And as for caring for their people -- well, this is the first time in history that Western world has openly started to condemn Israel's many varied atrocities outside of the UN conference rooms. Settler activity is starting to be noticed, and while the measures EU has taken so far are nothing more than a symbolic gesture, that's still a move in the right direction and may be sending a signal to Israel that they're not going to be allowed to get away with that sort of thing much longer. Given that Palestinians have absolutely no way of stopping Israel's ethnic cleansing and oppression on their own, getting attention of other nations and especially getting Israel's traditional allies to acknowledge and condemn Israel's atrocities is their best and likely only chance of ever securing their future as a nation.
|
Northern Ireland25421 Posts
On December 27 2023 17:58 Cerebrate1 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2023 17:14 KwarK wrote:
Ethnic cleansing absolutely applies.
Take the English in Ireland. Ireland was identified as both a valuable province and a potential invasion launchpad for Catholic powers in Europe due to its rejection of the Anglican Church. A succession of monarchs decided that the best approach was to kick Catholics off of the land and replace them with loyal Protestant Scots.
Catholic Irish didn’t die out and with the introduction of the potato their population boomed until the famine. But that doesn’t change either the policy nor its deliberate intent. England didn’t like the people living on the land and so took it from them and gave it to others in the name of security.
This isn’t materially different. You are quoting a part of history that I am not super well versed in, so I would appreciate if you fill in the gaps for me. But are you telling me that: 1. It is widely accepted that England ethnically cleansed Ireland? 2. England did so by moving Protestants into uninhabited areas rather than killing or expelling local Catholics?
Yes to both aye, broadly speaking, minus the uninhabited part. To the degree that despite commendable efforts to keep it alive, Irish is largely dead as a mother tongue for much of the island. Cultural erasure, or an attempt is generally considered a form of ethnic cleansing.
Also encompassed either the deliberate policy of placing Protestants in positions of influence and power and disenfranchising Catholics, as well as that becoming effectively self-sustaining down the line.
Probably a sufficient primer on the topic. To this day a derogatory slang term for someone of my particular background/culture i.e. a Northern Irish Brit is ‘planter’
I don’t think there’s quite a 1:1 fit between the two scenarios, but there’s certainly some parallels
|
|
|
On December 27 2023 19:17 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2023 17:41 Cerebrate1 wrote:On December 27 2023 08:19 Razyda wrote:On December 27 2023 03:57 Cerebrate1 wrote:On December 26 2023 21:32 Salazarz wrote:On December 26 2023 14:32 Cerebrate1 wrote:On December 26 2023 10:38 JimmiC wrote:On December 26 2023 10:32 Salazarz wrote:
I don't get this bit. Surely demanding a government change as a precondition for peace isn't some kind of 'show of good intentions' by an invading force, and a government refusing to resign in exchange for peace isn't some outrageous fail on their part? Like, I don't see anyone telling Zelensky to step down and let Putin decide who will rule Ukraine next, how exactly is this different. People who believe Hamas is a terrorist organization set on the genocide of the country their at war with, are figuring that Israel is not going to accept those people running the country teaching the youth to hate and planning future attacks. It is a fool me once, kind of situation. The Ukrainian comparison is awful because it was not Zelensky who launched a genocidal terroristic attack to start the war. If Ukraine was far more powerful and had counter attacked Russia after their initial attack, rapes and murder, and was demanding Putin be removed it would be a better comparison. Just to add to this, the Allies did effectively demand a change of government from Germany and Japan for them to stop fighting World War 2. (Actually they demanded unconditional surrender, which is even more than that.) If a government cares more about the lives of the people it governs over it's political goals, accepting regime change is not a crazy result for the loser of a war. Hamas will definitely not accept that because they have made very clear that they value their political goals over the lives of every man, woman, and child in Gaza (I believe they recently made a statement along the lines of "if every Palestinian died, but we destroyed Israel, we would make that trade"). However, Hamas' standards are far from the bar of defining reasonable demands or offers. So Zelensky should tell Ukrainians to lay down their arms and surrender if he wants to prove that he cares about lives of his countrymen more than his own political goals, is that what you're saying? From the perspective of a peoples that are being oppressed, surrendering and accepting a government change forced by an occupying force isn't a show of compassion, it's an admission of failure and a national humiliation. The idea that radical terrorism from Gaza would stop if the only change was that Hamas government stepped down is silly; their radicalization is fueled by the actions of Israel and forcing a government change wouldn't reduce radicalization, if anything it'd make Palestinians hate Israel even more. Terrorism in Palestine didn't begin with Hamas, and it certainly wouldn't end with it either unless other changes were made. The point is not to "prove you care about your people by surrendering," it's to actually do what's best for your people. In Ukraine's case, they can reasonably expect much better results by continuing the war than by surrendering at this point. In an alternative scenario where Russia already had military control over 70% of Ukraine and it was pretty clear that they were going to take the rest by force in short order: it would be reasonable for Ukraine to surrender rather than fighting to the death of their last man. Obviously that would be a bad result for them. But it would be the better of the alternatives provided in that scenario. There have been hundreds of governing organizations throughout history that have surrendered in the face of impending defeat. I hardly think that all of them were insane and making an irrational choice by surrendering. If you think fighting to the death is preferable, then you are a zealot (or at least you think Palestinians should be zealots) for your cause. As to your questions of will this actually be effective at deradicalizing the local population, that is really a question for Israel, not Hamas, and is a separate discussion. We can pivot to discussing most effective methods for that now if you'd like. This somewhat reads like" Palestinians have no chance anyway, so they should just give up, instead of making things awkward." My post was not discussing Palestinians or their wider cause. It was about the governing organization of Hamas and the war that they started. A government who cared about it's people (you know, the Palestinians), would surrender at this point. Hamas is unusual among governments in that it doesn't prioritize the lives of it's people. Meanwhile, if you conflate Hamas with the Palestinians as a whole, you will make it quite awkward for the users here who are claiming that no one on this thread supports Hamas. A government that cares about its people makes sure that those people aren't oppressed. You can disagree with Hamas all you want, you can hate what they do, but they are indeed doing the best they can (from their point of view) to liberate Palestinians from oppression. You may condemn their methods, and I certainly do, but that doesn't change anything about the fact that Palestinians are oppressed, and that oppression is NOT because of Hamas.
I take back what I said about people in the thread not supporting Hamas.
|
United States42750 Posts
On December 28 2023 01:18 flashymarine wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2023 19:17 Magic Powers wrote:On December 27 2023 17:41 Cerebrate1 wrote:On December 27 2023 08:19 Razyda wrote:On December 27 2023 03:57 Cerebrate1 wrote:On December 26 2023 21:32 Salazarz wrote:On December 26 2023 14:32 Cerebrate1 wrote:On December 26 2023 10:38 JimmiC wrote:On December 26 2023 10:32 Salazarz wrote:
I don't get this bit. Surely demanding a government change as a precondition for peace isn't some kind of 'show of good intentions' by an invading force, and a government refusing to resign in exchange for peace isn't some outrageous fail on their part? Like, I don't see anyone telling Zelensky to step down and let Putin decide who will rule Ukraine next, how exactly is this different. People who believe Hamas is a terrorist organization set on the genocide of the country their at war with, are figuring that Israel is not going to accept those people running the country teaching the youth to hate and planning future attacks. It is a fool me once, kind of situation. The Ukrainian comparison is awful because it was not Zelensky who launched a genocidal terroristic attack to start the war. If Ukraine was far more powerful and had counter attacked Russia after their initial attack, rapes and murder, and was demanding Putin be removed it would be a better comparison. Just to add to this, the Allies did effectively demand a change of government from Germany and Japan for them to stop fighting World War 2. (Actually they demanded unconditional surrender, which is even more than that.) If a government cares more about the lives of the people it governs over it's political goals, accepting regime change is not a crazy result for the loser of a war. Hamas will definitely not accept that because they have made very clear that they value their political goals over the lives of every man, woman, and child in Gaza (I believe they recently made a statement along the lines of "if every Palestinian died, but we destroyed Israel, we would make that trade"). However, Hamas' standards are far from the bar of defining reasonable demands or offers. So Zelensky should tell Ukrainians to lay down their arms and surrender if he wants to prove that he cares about lives of his countrymen more than his own political goals, is that what you're saying? From the perspective of a peoples that are being oppressed, surrendering and accepting a government change forced by an occupying force isn't a show of compassion, it's an admission of failure and a national humiliation. The idea that radical terrorism from Gaza would stop if the only change was that Hamas government stepped down is silly; their radicalization is fueled by the actions of Israel and forcing a government change wouldn't reduce radicalization, if anything it'd make Palestinians hate Israel even more. Terrorism in Palestine didn't begin with Hamas, and it certainly wouldn't end with it either unless other changes were made. The point is not to "prove you care about your people by surrendering," it's to actually do what's best for your people. In Ukraine's case, they can reasonably expect much better results by continuing the war than by surrendering at this point. In an alternative scenario where Russia already had military control over 70% of Ukraine and it was pretty clear that they were going to take the rest by force in short order: it would be reasonable for Ukraine to surrender rather than fighting to the death of their last man. Obviously that would be a bad result for them. But it would be the better of the alternatives provided in that scenario. There have been hundreds of governing organizations throughout history that have surrendered in the face of impending defeat. I hardly think that all of them were insane and making an irrational choice by surrendering. If you think fighting to the death is preferable, then you are a zealot (or at least you think Palestinians should be zealots) for your cause. As to your questions of will this actually be effective at deradicalizing the local population, that is really a question for Israel, not Hamas, and is a separate discussion. We can pivot to discussing most effective methods for that now if you'd like. This somewhat reads like" Palestinians have no chance anyway, so they should just give up, instead of making things awkward." My post was not discussing Palestinians or their wider cause. It was about the governing organization of Hamas and the war that they started. A government who cared about it's people (you know, the Palestinians), would surrender at this point. Hamas is unusual among governments in that it doesn't prioritize the lives of it's people. Meanwhile, if you conflate Hamas with the Palestinians as a whole, you will make it quite awkward for the users here who are claiming that no one on this thread supports Hamas. A government that cares about its people makes sure that those people aren't oppressed. You can disagree with Hamas all you want, you can hate what they do, but they are indeed doing the best they can (from their point of view) to liberate Palestinians from oppression. You may condemn their methods, and I certainly do, but that doesn't change anything about the fact that Palestinians are oppressed, and that oppression is NOT because of Hamas. I take back what I said about people in the thread not supporting Hamas.
It should be entirely uncontroversial that Hamas believe, from their point of view, that they are justified. Of course they do. They’re wrong. We all think they’re wrong, but they don’t think they’re wrong.
You need to work on your reading comprehension. You’re reading things that just aren’t there.
|
On December 28 2023 01:57 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2023 01:18 flashymarine wrote:On December 27 2023 19:17 Magic Powers wrote:On December 27 2023 17:41 Cerebrate1 wrote:On December 27 2023 08:19 Razyda wrote:On December 27 2023 03:57 Cerebrate1 wrote:On December 26 2023 21:32 Salazarz wrote:On December 26 2023 14:32 Cerebrate1 wrote:On December 26 2023 10:38 JimmiC wrote:On December 26 2023 10:32 Salazarz wrote:
I don't get this bit. Surely demanding a government change as a precondition for peace isn't some kind of 'show of good intentions' by an invading force, and a government refusing to resign in exchange for peace isn't some outrageous fail on their part? Like, I don't see anyone telling Zelensky to step down and let Putin decide who will rule Ukraine next, how exactly is this different. People who believe Hamas is a terrorist organization set on the genocide of the country their at war with, are figuring that Israel is not going to accept those people running the country teaching the youth to hate and planning future attacks. It is a fool me once, kind of situation. The Ukrainian comparison is awful because it was not Zelensky who launched a genocidal terroristic attack to start the war. If Ukraine was far more powerful and had counter attacked Russia after their initial attack, rapes and murder, and was demanding Putin be removed it would be a better comparison. Just to add to this, the Allies did effectively demand a change of government from Germany and Japan for them to stop fighting World War 2. (Actually they demanded unconditional surrender, which is even more than that.) If a government cares more about the lives of the people it governs over it's political goals, accepting regime change is not a crazy result for the loser of a war. Hamas will definitely not accept that because they have made very clear that they value their political goals over the lives of every man, woman, and child in Gaza (I believe they recently made a statement along the lines of "if every Palestinian died, but we destroyed Israel, we would make that trade"). However, Hamas' standards are far from the bar of defining reasonable demands or offers. So Zelensky should tell Ukrainians to lay down their arms and surrender if he wants to prove that he cares about lives of his countrymen more than his own political goals, is that what you're saying? From the perspective of a peoples that are being oppressed, surrendering and accepting a government change forced by an occupying force isn't a show of compassion, it's an admission of failure and a national humiliation. The idea that radical terrorism from Gaza would stop if the only change was that Hamas government stepped down is silly; their radicalization is fueled by the actions of Israel and forcing a government change wouldn't reduce radicalization, if anything it'd make Palestinians hate Israel even more. Terrorism in Palestine didn't begin with Hamas, and it certainly wouldn't end with it either unless other changes were made. The point is not to "prove you care about your people by surrendering," it's to actually do what's best for your people. In Ukraine's case, they can reasonably expect much better results by continuing the war than by surrendering at this point. In an alternative scenario where Russia already had military control over 70% of Ukraine and it was pretty clear that they were going to take the rest by force in short order: it would be reasonable for Ukraine to surrender rather than fighting to the death of their last man. Obviously that would be a bad result for them. But it would be the better of the alternatives provided in that scenario. There have been hundreds of governing organizations throughout history that have surrendered in the face of impending defeat. I hardly think that all of them were insane and making an irrational choice by surrendering. If you think fighting to the death is preferable, then you are a zealot (or at least you think Palestinians should be zealots) for your cause. As to your questions of will this actually be effective at deradicalizing the local population, that is really a question for Israel, not Hamas, and is a separate discussion. We can pivot to discussing most effective methods for that now if you'd like. This somewhat reads like" Palestinians have no chance anyway, so they should just give up, instead of making things awkward." My post was not discussing Palestinians or their wider cause. It was about the governing organization of Hamas and the war that they started. A government who cared about it's people (you know, the Palestinians), would surrender at this point. Hamas is unusual among governments in that it doesn't prioritize the lives of it's people. Meanwhile, if you conflate Hamas with the Palestinians as a whole, you will make it quite awkward for the users here who are claiming that no one on this thread supports Hamas. A government that cares about its people makes sure that those people aren't oppressed. You can disagree with Hamas all you want, you can hate what they do, but they are indeed doing the best they can (from their point of view) to liberate Palestinians from oppression. You may condemn their methods, and I certainly do, but that doesn't change anything about the fact that Palestinians are oppressed, and that oppression is NOT because of Hamas. I take back what I said about people in the thread not supporting Hamas. It should be entirely uncontroversial that Hamas believe, from their point of view, that they are justified. Of course they do. They’re wrong. We all think they’re wrong, but they don’t think they’re wrong. You need to work on your reading comprehension. You’re reading things that just aren’t there.
I disagree. You need to work on your reading comprehension.
|
Plus the notion that Palestinians would be oppressed with or without Hamas is hardly controversial when you accept that Israel is oppressing Palestinians.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
