|
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 March 09 2024 23:35 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2024 07:23 Gorsameth wrote:On March 09 2024 07:19 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
What...? This has all signs of becoming an unmitigated disaster. Again, what happens if the port comes under attack?
What happens when someone attacks the port? There is a US carrier group off the coast, you do the math. Again. Not US, or even European/Egyptian troops will not be protecting said area. The IDF will be. So that itself will make it a target. We know the IDF is exceptionally trigger happy already. That in itself makes it a high risk. Show nested quote +A key question will be what Israel is prepared to do to support the aid delivery effort.
The U.S. airdrops have been an unusual workaround by the Biden administration, which for months has appealed to Israel to increase the delivery of aid to Gaza and provide access and protection for trucks carrying the goods.
According to Biden, the Israeli government will maintain security at the pier and protect it from any attacks by Hamas. And there may also be a need for crowd control, in case residents try to storm the pier to get the desperately needed food.
While officials said they don’t likely need security on the sea route to Israel there will be a requirement for allies and private ships to deliver the aid along the maritime corridor.
It is also unclear who will be unloading the aid at the dock and moving it to shore. Source
I still have no idea what this huge risk/potential disaster that you're hinting at is supposed to be. The port would be under attack by whom? There's plenty of IDF encampments that would make better targets (by not getting the potentially main aid route shut down) if Hamas had the ability to fight them head on, but they don't.
The main issue for this topic isn't military, it's logistical. Getting the goods from the port to the actual people that are having a hard time feeding themselves is the difficult part.
|
On March 10 2024 01:59 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2024 23:50 Magic Powers wrote:On March 09 2024 23:36 JimmiC wrote:On March 09 2024 23:28 Magic Powers wrote:
Alright, I'll make an exception to my rule. This is addressed directly to you, JimmiC.
Stop painting yourself as a victim.
The very moment that I called you a troll, several people immediately came to your defense. Which people? Those who are more often in support of my views of Israel and not your views. Those who are not generally against my views but frequently against yours.
You're not a victim, no one is ganging up on you. The backlash you've been receiving is your own doing.
Feel free to respond, I will respond back as long as you keep it civil. LOL you post to me more now than before you made up your "rule". You are about as honest about not reading and responding to me as you are about this topic. Here is the thread for you guys to continue you discussion without mucking up the thread for those of us that want to discuss the topic and not just say our own uninformed opinion and here it echoed back. https://tl.net/forum/general/622278-meta-discussion-on-jimmic I haven't responded to you in weeks. What you do is insult me over and over. You don't have actual conversations, but when checking on these you do not really with anyone. It is either your hate filled soliloquys, or taking a personal shot at mostly Cerebrate, then me and you save some for any other random person you feel isn't hating Israelis enough. We don't have to go back weeks, here is some of your posts taking shots at me just over the last day or two. As was pointed out to you early, you are not ignoring, you are being a passive aggressive tween. + Show Spoiler + On March 08 2024 19:53 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2024 15:23 Cerebrate1 wrote:On March 08 2024 01:48 WombaT wrote:On March 08 2024 00:45 JimmiC wrote:On March 08 2024 00:42 Cerebrate1 wrote:On March 07 2024 23:25 Magic Powers wrote:On March 07 2024 23:15 Cerebrate1 wrote:On March 07 2024 21:50 Magic Powers wrote:
"They do this by hiding behind civilians and civilian infrastructure making them a valid military target."
The IDF has attacked various refugee camps. That's more than "Israel also playing a role". It's a war crime. Refugee camps are not more sacrosanct in the Geneva Conventions than hospitals. If there is military infrastructure there, it's a valid military target. Mask off. Eh. I didn't say anything about the morality of the situation in that post. You claimed that something was a war crime. I clarified that it is not necessarily a war crime based on the actual definition of war crimes. You may have "unmasked" that I have a compulsive need to correct inaccuracies, but I've mentioned that that is my MO a couple time myself. Not to be too picky, but there was a war crime, just it was Hamas putting their military assets there. The real war crime is the friends we made along the way. There’s a difference between an actual military target, and a location that military or paramilitary personnel happen to be in. Undoubtedly there have been many occasions where Hamas have used positions embedded in civilian populations and launched attacks, it’s a very well-noted tactic. Is it every single time in a conflict where tens of thousands have died? There has to be some kind of distinction here otherwise the Geneva Conventions are more toothless and functionally useless than they presently are. Can you bomb a hospital if it’s full of convalescing military personnel? I mean most people would say no and it’s against the spirit of those conventions and generally quite morally repugnant. One could make the argument that experienced military personnel who are going to recirculate into active rotation are a pretty big military asset, but I digress. I’d argue it’s basically pointless to even use the term in any non moral-intuition based sense. If proportionality is out the window, and if any area that contains Hamas members is fair game there is scarcely much point in having designated war crimes in international law. I'd argue the opposite use of the term "war crimes" makes more sense. It is a legal term defined by someone breaking certain specific international laws. Like other legal terms, it should be used where that law actually applies. If someone has moral objections, they should use moral words to describe the situation instead. It's not as if English is lacking in good words to use in that area that there is a need to use legal terms for that. (objectionable, evil, bad, unfair, wrong, immoral, etc.) Some things are immoral, but not illegal. Some things are illegal, but not immoral. If a bully makes fun of a kid at school, it doesn't have to be illegal to be called out. Meanwhile, a parent who said that that bully committed a felony would be... inaccurate. Oh, you'd love it if we all simply called the IDF evil. If we did, you could then simply argue that "there are evil people in every organization. It's all about finding those individuals and bringing them to justice." This would be very convenient for you beause you don't believe that the IDF is directed by a national supremacy that has existed since the conception of the State of Israel and before. You believe evil actions in the IDF are isolated cases, not a willful consequence of supremacist policies (such as the ethnic cleansing in the West bank). I know this is what you believe because you've continuously made the false claim that Israel has offered Palestinians a way out of their predicament. You believe there is no systemic evil that's rooted in the ideology of Zionism, you believe that is merely a conspiracy theory (even though it's a well documented fact). If we started using your terminology instead of our own, you'd have a very easy time arguing we're all practically insane conspiracy theorists, anti-semites, etc. You enjoy the fact that people such as JimmiC keep getting away with wild accusations, and you're hoping these accusations actually stick. None of the accusations against us have stuck, and that really disappoints you, because it makes it so much harder to spread your propaganda. On March 09 2024 11:50 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2024 11:23 FriedrichNietzsche wrote:
You answered so quickly I was in the process of editing my post. Sorry.
JimmiC drags you down to his level, then beats you with experience. He's a professional troll who poisons every discussion until you lose your cool and say something you didn't think through. This is the reason why I stopped responding to him altogether and I read almost none of his comments unless I want to respond to someone else and fully understand the context. For me he's effectively blocked in the absence of a block button. I won't tell you what to do, but I can say following the discussion is much better this way for me. On March 09 2024 20:47 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2024 19:35 Nebuchad wrote:On March 09 2024 11:50 Magic Powers wrote:On March 09 2024 11:23 FriedrichNietzsche wrote:
You answered so quickly I was in the process of editing my post. Sorry.
JimmiC drags you down to his level, then beats you with experience. He's a professional troll who poisons every discussion until you lose your cool and say something you didn't think through. This is the reason why I stopped responding to him altogether and I read almost none of his comments unless I want to respond to someone else and fully understand the context. For me he's effectively blocked in the absence of a block button. I won't tell you what to do, but I can say following the discussion is much better this way for me. I obviously sympathize with the strategy but I must say I tried it for months a few years ago and it didn't stop the guy from answering everyone of my posts, he just gets a kick out of doing that. And what happens after a while is that people are not necessarily aware that you're not engaging with him, and it looks like you're not answering because you don't have a good response to what he said. That's certainly fair, but I think if you want to take the high road, you have to make sacrifices. I'm far more ok with people in this thread thinking JimmiC gets in a win every so often than having to deal with him at all. It's actually that bad. Is he a troll, yes or no? I think he is, because in my understanding only few trolls are actually self-aware. The idea that a troll must know that they're trolling doesn't make sense to me. If that's the definition then we can't call anyone a troll, because overwhelmingly people believe they're in the right - including most people who consistently behave like trolls. I call JimmiC a troll not because he knows what he's doing, but because he constantly does what every troll does. On March 09 2024 22:50 Magic Powers wrote:
I'm completely fine calling him something else other than a troll, but you'll have to come up with a more fitting term. I consider him a troll until someone can describe his behavior in a few short words that doesn't equate to trolling. On March 09 2024 23:28 Magic Powers wrote:
Alright, I'll make an exception to my rule. This is addressed directly to you, JimmiC.
Stop painting yourself as a victim.
The very moment that I called you a troll, several people immediately came to your defense. Which people? Those who are more often in support of my views of Israel and not your views. Those who are not generally against my views but frequently against yours.
You're not a victim, no one is ganging up on you. The backlash you've been receiving is your own doing.
Feel free to respond, I will respond back as long as you keep it civil. What is even crazier is your harassment of Cerebrate1, he basically can't post without you making some asshole comment. Those examples are really easy to find if you want them too, just ask how many. You are a hateful man who is a complete asshole to people who don't completely agree with you, who then somehow manages to feel like a victim when they respond to you as you respond to them. If you didn't have the popular supported opinion you would have been actioned a ton and banned long ago. Many if not most of your posts are hateful garbage. For me personally I made you that thread, so next time you want to muck it up and shit on me. Go there.
I repeat: I haven't said anything to you for several weeks. I haven't read most of your comments, I haven't responded to anything you said. My attention is almost exclusively on everyone else, I've been completely ignoring you.
I haven't harassed Cerebrate either. I've called him a propagandist a number of times, and that's the worst thing I've done. None of the mods have stepped in. That's not because they like me or side with me, it's because I haven't broken any forum rules. So if you were right in saying that I harassed Cerebrate, the mods should've stepped in. They didn't. Write a formal complaint to them if you think their judgement is wrong.
Edit: the comments you quoted of me acknowleding your presence are specifically from the last two days. Are you listening? For the last few weeks I have ignored everything you said. Everything. Today is the first time I responded to you directly.
Yesterday I told others what I think about your actions and called you a troll who drags people down into a mud fight. I'm trying to help others understand that ignoring you has made my experience in this thread a lot better.
Cerebrate doesn't drag people into a mud fight. I vehemently disagree with him on many things, but I can acknowledge that he tries to keep things civil the vast majority of the time, and that deserves respect.
Your behavior on the other hand deserves neither respect nor attention.
|
|
|
|
|
On March 10 2024 02:04 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2024 23:35 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On March 09 2024 07:23 Gorsameth wrote:What happens when someone attacks the port? There is a US carrier group off the coast, you do the math. Again. Not US, or even European/Egyptian troops will not be protecting said area. The IDF will be. So that itself will make it a target. We know the IDF is exceptionally trigger happy already. That in itself makes it a high risk. A key question will be what Israel is prepared to do to support the aid delivery effort.
The U.S. airdrops have been an unusual workaround by the Biden administration, which for months has appealed to Israel to increase the delivery of aid to Gaza and provide access and protection for trucks carrying the goods.
According to Biden, the Israeli government will maintain security at the pier and protect it from any attacks by Hamas. And there may also be a need for crowd control, in case residents try to storm the pier to get the desperately needed food.
While officials said they don’t likely need security on the sea route to Israel there will be a requirement for allies and private ships to deliver the aid along the maritime corridor.
It is also unclear who will be unloading the aid at the dock and moving it to shore. Source I still have no idea what this huge risk/potential disaster that you're hinting at is supposed to be. The port would be under attack by whom? There's plenty of IDF encampments that would make better targets (by not getting the potentially main aid route shut down) if Hamas had the ability to fight them head on, but they don't. The main issue for this topic isn't military, it's logistical. Getting the goods from the port to the actual people that are having a hard time feeding themselves is the difficult part.
When you have a militant religious group who believes a higher power is directing them then yes it is a major risk. Then there is Sinwar, who is apparently paranoid and has lost touch with reality. And is already clashing with other Hamas leadership. What happens when one or the other says damn the consequences and attacks with everything because Jihad?
|
@JimmiC
I never responded to you, I responded to others. This is a forum, you're not the only person here. You're involved in every single bit of conversation, so it's impossible to respond to others without you having been part of the conversation.
Get this into your thick skull: my policy has been in place. I'm not lying, you're imagining my responses to you. I haven't responded to you in weeks.
And this interaction with you right here is a perfect example for why I have this policy to begin with. I'm reinstating it right now once again. You can believe whatever the hell you want to believe, I don't care one bit what you say.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On March 09 2024 19:35 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2024 11:50 Magic Powers wrote:On March 09 2024 11:23 FriedrichNietzsche wrote:
You answered so quickly I was in the process of editing my post. Sorry.
JimmiC drags you down to his level, then beats you with experience. He's a professional troll who poisons every discussion until you lose your cool and say something you didn't think through. This is the reason why I stopped responding to him altogether and I read almost none of his comments unless I want to respond to someone else and fully understand the context. For me he's effectively blocked in the absence of a block button. I won't tell you what to do, but I can say following the discussion is much better this way for me. I obviously sympathize with the strategy but I must say I tried it for months a few years ago and it didn't stop the guy from answering everyone of my posts, he just gets a kick out of doing that. And what happens after a while is that people are not necessarily aware that you're not engaging with him, and it looks like you're not answering because you don't have a good response to what he said.
Honestly I fault anyone that has been active on this forum for more than 1-2 years that hasn’t learned to not engage with Jimmi. I think there are exactly 0 people that have ever thought “this guy isn’t responding because they don’t have a good response to the point Jimmi raised.”
|
On March 10 2024 02:57 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2024 02:04 Dan HH wrote:On March 09 2024 23:35 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On March 09 2024 07:23 Gorsameth wrote:What happens when someone attacks the port? There is a US carrier group off the coast, you do the math. Again. Not US, or even European/Egyptian troops will not be protecting said area. The IDF will be. So that itself will make it a target. We know the IDF is exceptionally trigger happy already. That in itself makes it a high risk. A key question will be what Israel is prepared to do to support the aid delivery effort.
The U.S. airdrops have been an unusual workaround by the Biden administration, which for months has appealed to Israel to increase the delivery of aid to Gaza and provide access and protection for trucks carrying the goods.
According to Biden, the Israeli government will maintain security at the pier and protect it from any attacks by Hamas. And there may also be a need for crowd control, in case residents try to storm the pier to get the desperately needed food.
While officials said they don’t likely need security on the sea route to Israel there will be a requirement for allies and private ships to deliver the aid along the maritime corridor.
It is also unclear who will be unloading the aid at the dock and moving it to shore. Source I still have no idea what this huge risk/potential disaster that you're hinting at is supposed to be. The port would be under attack by whom? There's plenty of IDF encampments that would make better targets (by not getting the potentially main aid route shut down) if Hamas had the ability to fight them head on, but they don't. The main issue for this topic isn't military, it's logistical. Getting the goods from the port to the actual people that are having a hard time feeding themselves is the difficult part. When you have a militant religious group who believes a higher power is directing them then yes it is a major risk. Then there is Sinwar, who is apparently paranoid and has lost touch with reality. And is already clashing with other Hamas leadership. What happens when one or the other says damn the consequences and attacks with everything because Jihad?
I think that's a valid concern. Hamas' whole ideology has been completely driven by years of violent Jihad irrespective of any and all consequences, devoid of all reason. If they come to believe that attacking US boats is a good idea, they'll do it. It is a serious concern.
|
On March 09 2024 22:50 Magic Powers wrote:
I'm completely fine calling him something else other than a troll, but you'll have to come up with a more fitting term. I consider him a troll until someone can describe his behavior in a few short words that doesn't equate to trolling.
Seems to be a fan of "whiny bitch", maybe try that next time?
User was temp banned for this post.
|
|
|
On March 10 2024 03:27 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2024 02:57 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On March 10 2024 02:04 Dan HH wrote:On March 09 2024 23:35 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On March 09 2024 07:23 Gorsameth wrote:What happens when someone attacks the port? There is a US carrier group off the coast, you do the math. Again. Not US, or even European/Egyptian troops will not be protecting said area. The IDF will be. So that itself will make it a target. We know the IDF is exceptionally trigger happy already. That in itself makes it a high risk. A key question will be what Israel is prepared to do to support the aid delivery effort.
The U.S. airdrops have been an unusual workaround by the Biden administration, which for months has appealed to Israel to increase the delivery of aid to Gaza and provide access and protection for trucks carrying the goods.
According to Biden, the Israeli government will maintain security at the pier and protect it from any attacks by Hamas. And there may also be a need for crowd control, in case residents try to storm the pier to get the desperately needed food.
While officials said they don’t likely need security on the sea route to Israel there will be a requirement for allies and private ships to deliver the aid along the maritime corridor.
It is also unclear who will be unloading the aid at the dock and moving it to shore. Source I still have no idea what this huge risk/potential disaster that you're hinting at is supposed to be. The port would be under attack by whom? There's plenty of IDF encampments that would make better targets (by not getting the potentially main aid route shut down) if Hamas had the ability to fight them head on, but they don't. The main issue for this topic isn't military, it's logistical. Getting the goods from the port to the actual people that are having a hard time feeding themselves is the difficult part. When you have a militant religious group who believes a higher power is directing them then yes it is a major risk. Then there is Sinwar, who is apparently paranoid and has lost touch with reality. And is already clashing with other Hamas leadership. What happens when one or the other says damn the consequences and attacks with everything because Jihad? I think that's a valid concern. Hamas' whole ideology has been completely driven by years of violent Jihad irrespective of any and all consequences, devoid of all reason. If they come to believe that attacking US boats is a good idea, they'll do it. It is a serious concern.
It's not due to lack of want or lack of targets that Hamas have not caused any major damage to IDF in all these months, it's due to lack of capability. The Gaza coast is under complete Israeli control, with troops stationed at the port and ships with anti-air in the area, that's far beyond anything Hamas can deal with. Not to mention they're pinned down at the moment. I'm more concerned about the trucks leaving the port reaching their destinations without getting raided and having their contents sold on the black market for an arm and a leg.
|
Northern Ireland24349 Posts
On March 10 2024 03:27 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2024 22:50 Magic Powers wrote:
I'm completely fine calling him something else other than a troll, but you'll have to come up with a more fitting term. I consider him a troll until someone can describe his behavior in a few short words that doesn't equate to trolling. Seems to be a fan of "whiny bitch", maybe try that next time?
Hey I was quite enjoying that new title I’ll have you know! 
|
On March 09 2024 23:30 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2024 09:38 JimmiC wrote:On March 09 2024 08:50 WombaT wrote:On March 08 2024 13:28 JimmiC wrote:On March 08 2024 11:57 WombaT wrote:On March 08 2024 10:55 JimmiC wrote:On March 08 2024 09:59 WombaT wrote:On March 08 2024 08:06 Nebuchad wrote:On March 08 2024 08:02 JimmiC wrote:On March 08 2024 07:28 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
Okay so what are you disagreeing with?
If Jewish people and Israel refer to different realities, then it logically follows that comparing the behavior of Israel to the behavior of nazis can't be problematic based on the history of the nazis with Jewish people, as Jewish people aren't synonymous with Israel. The Jews are most certainly synonymous with Israel. The example in the definition is Boston.and marathon, now those two go together but I’m pretty sure the first thing that comes to mind when you say Israel is the Jews and vice versa. Thank you , I couldn’t have said it better my self. In current event news the blood thirsty Israelis are dumbly setting up a third ground entrance to Gaza to allow more aid to pass, completely going against their secret but obvious goal of killing all the Palestinians. The complicit evil Americans are setting up a port. What monsters. /s A reminder that one page ago I said that you were equating Israel and Jewish people and you said that I was an evil bad person misrepresenting you, and now you say that "The Jews are most certainly synonymous with Israel". For the rest, I'll leave it there. As already said, this, to me, is an antisemitic notion, and the closest anyone in this thread has been to being openly antisemitic. I mean Cerebrate who I think posts very sensibly and cogently, but would probably personally concede a certain level of bias isn’t going around pulling the anti-semitism charge on posters in this particular thread, which I feel is somewhat telling. Jimmy just wants to argue that Israel is a liberal democracy and thus charges one can level against it are somehow deflected by that. He equivocates constantly to justify Israeli actions in a manner he absolutely does not to other scenarios. Oh it’s not ethnic cleansing it’s like, something bad but it isn’t that. Oh it’s not colonalism it’s merely ‘wanting land for people to live’. Then getting offended by someone drawing a parallel with ‘lebensraum’ which literally translated means ‘living space’. Then he wants to say he’s the sole voice of unbiased reason while he’ll absolutely slam China for doing (on a much less egregious scale) the exact same thing Israel does because he doesn’t like their political system. The guy literally said settlements might not be that bad because at some future juncture Israel might give them back, it’s preposterous argumentation. Words matter, Annexing land is not good. But it is also not colonialism, hence the two different words. In war lots of morally repugnant things are not war crimes. that you think China is doing the same, and on less of scale shows your complete lack of understanding. And probably a lot of bias to the "right" Israel and the "left" China. If you critically thought about each situation with out the political labels you would likely have different opinions. Sadly you like most get your info from the horribly unreliable and extremely biased (on purpose) social media and don't both to look further. By critical thought you mean rank inconsistency and the fallacy of moderation right? No I mean critical thought. The Uighurs are actually subjugated and being systematically ethnically cleansed. Here are some key differences, there is no Gaza or WB for them, they have been completely taken over. This means no government or pesky military wing. They are not allowed to teach their own children, the Chinese handle that. They are not allowed to practice their religion. Can they freely reproduce? Step out of line end up at a “reeducation center”, coming back not guaranteed. How come no journalists are going or covering it, there are none allowed. There is a clear difference. One is subjugation and one is a severely outmatched army picked a fight with a way bigger army and is using their own people as shields to protect themselves. You guys moralizing on me when you are so bloody inconsistent and only are REALLY REALLY mad, so mad you can’t be respectful or logical, when twitter tells you to and about who. None of you cared, or seem to actually care about that one though. Only time it gets brought up is as a false comparison because you don’t under stand what the words mean or apparently what is going on. They’re able to reproduce and haven’t been systematically wiped out, so how’s it ethnic cleansing? You’ve literally argued that Israel aren’t involved in ethnic cleansing because they haven’t just wiped the Palestinian people off the map entirely, so I’m curious how the Uighur situation is any different in terms of your willingess to use the term for one and not the other. So how are the Uighurs being ethnically cleansed by the same metrics you’ve used to say the Palestinians aren’t? What’s the underlining logic you’re employing here that makes you, rather than me the one employing cold hearted logic exactly? Don’t have a Twitter account man, and I’d have you refer to it as ‘X’ while we’re at it. See, luckily for me to what knowledge I have gleaned the Uighur situation is a very obvious instance of ethnic cleanisng of a cultural/ethnic tradition and not one I’ve ever actually claimed isn’t, nor one that I’d support for other reasons. And one you’ll never find a post for me defending. You’re the one trying to thread a needle between x is ethnic cleansing, y isn’t despite them being incredibly similar and having to justify the gap there, which thus far you haven’t been able to via any consistent framework. Don’t fucking come complaining when people point it out That’s not at all what I said and you know it, I don’t know if your trying way to hard to fit in with the “cool” kids or just have zero clue what your saying. Spectacularly disappointed with you as a person. Are you going to answer my question or not? It’s probably about the fifth time I’ve posed it. It’s hardly an unreasonable, bad faith question to ask why you have zero compunction in classifying China’s treatment of the Uighur’s as ethnic cleansing, but not Israel’s of the Palestinians. You can’t simultaneously demand answers to questions such as ‘why does the left care more about Israel more than x?’ which I amongst others have earnestly attempted to answer, able to easily be scrolled back to while avoiding answering a very similar question as it pertains to your stance on Israel and China’s respective policies and your different categorisation of said policies. I don’t see why such a request would induce disappointment in me as a person whatsoever
I'll try to answer the question because I do share Jimmi's viewpoint on this one, but I do not enjoy all the nonsense back and forth. The difference between the ethnic cleansing of the Uyghurs and what Israel is doing in Palestine is a question of finality.
The Uyghurs are being eliminated as a culture. They are being completely wiped out. They have no land to call their own. No government to call their own. Their people are rounded up and re-educated to remove their religion and culture. At the end of it, there likely will not be a Uyghur identity left.
Israel is at war with Palestine. The US once went to war with Germany, but I don't think it's been called an ethnic cleansing even though we did kill a hell of a lot of Germans. The Palestinian identity has not been wiped out and I don't see any real plans to do so. The Palestinian people are currently being shoved off of a large portion of Gaza. If that situations becomes permanent, then it would be an ethnic cleansing of that land (but not the Palestinian identity). However, every real peace plan involves giving that land (or most of it) back to the Palestinians. Their identity is not going to be wiped out.
Even within Israel, Arab Israelis get to practice their own faith. They get to keep their own customs. They are given rights by the government. They get to keep their identity. So even in the case that Israel does completely annex Palestine, the Palestinian identity will not be wiped out.
That's the difference.
|
Osaka27134 Posts
Take a break, friends. The last page of reports is all of you reporting each other. You wouldn't have stayed in the same room with each other had this been an in person discussion.
|
With regards to ethnic cleansing, I think there's much less evidence of ethnic cleansing when it comes to the Uyghurs than when it comes to Palestinians. In truth, I'm not exactly sure what the ethnic cleansing of Uyghurs is referring to. I've seen them detained in camps, possibly forcibly sterilized, and even if those two are not true (which I think they very very likely are) at least the claims of forced assimilation and cultural genocide are undeniable. But in terms of ethnic cleansing, I don't really see what this is about, I have done the cursory look thing and I'm not sure when they've been displaced.
|
On March 10 2024 08:08 Nebuchad wrote:
With regards to ethnic cleansing, I think there's much less evidence of ethnic cleansing when it comes to the Uyghurs than when it comes to Palestinians. In truth, I'm not exactly sure what the ethnic cleansing of Uyghurs is referring to. I've seen them detained in camps, possibly forcibly sterilized, and even if those two are not true (which I think they very very likely are) at least the claims of forced assimilation and cultural genocide are undeniable. But in terms of ethnic cleansing, I don't really see what this is about, I have done the cursory look thing and I'm not sure when they've been displaced.
It looks like I made a mistake. I thought cultural genocide was a form of ethnic cleansing, but it seems that they are distinct ideas from a very brief wikipedia look.
My argument centered around cultural genocide as a form of ethnic cleansing. I would maintain that in the long term, what China is doing is worse than what Israel is doing for reasons previously noted, but it doesn’t strictly fit the ethnic cleansing definition.
|
Personally, I just find it ironic that some of the biggest 'Uyghur genocide!' calls come from the same people who insist that Islam is an evil religion of violence that has no place in the modern society and / or that the solution to the conflict in Palestine would be to have Israel take over Palestine's administration and education and, to put it bluntly, teach those pesky Palestinians how to live the 'right' way.
For what it's worth, there isn't a particularly strong separatism movement in Xinjiang. There are some who push for more autonomy, but a large portion of Uyghurs seems to be quite happy to just be allowed to live their lives as part of the broader Chinese society. Whether that is the result of propaganda and cultural oppression or just young people preferring the comforts of modern-ish lifestyle to herding sheep in desert oases, I couldn't tell.
|
I'll believe it when I see it. But if it is true, then I would think this would be a drastic push to accept a current ceasefire. Hamas refuses to hand over a list of hostages and their current status. Israel will not accept anything less. Ramadan is less than 24hrs.
All the while the Militant Hamas leadership believes they are winning the war while trapped in bunker underground in Gaza. Disconnected with reality.
The Wall Street Journal published an interview with Senior Hamas official Husam Badran on Saturday, discussing Hamas's hard-line stance of only agreeing to a permanent ceasefire and shedding light on details of the negotiation process that are lesser known to the public.
Badran begins the interview by claiming that Hamas is still willing to negotiate a ceasefire deal, saying claims of Hamas disinterest come from Israel and America. “We didn’t declare negotiations have been stopped. We are the party most keen to stop this war,” he said.
According to Egyptian and Hamas officials, Qatar has threatened to expel Hamas officially from their base in Doha if they don't come to an agreement, but Badran denied this claim.
That being said, he stated that Hamas's official position is still a permanent ceasefire and allowing displaced Gazans to return to their homes.
As far as the negotiation process goes, he revealed that the discussion of swaps of Israeli hostages for Palestinian prisoners has taken a back seat to relieving the humanitarian situation and ending the fighting.
He blamed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for the failure of the talks so far. “The only complication in the negotiations is Netanyahu’s stance, who refuses to deal with anything on the table,” he said. “Netanyahu is the most dangerous [person] for the stability of this region. He is the fire starter.”
He also claimed that he was "concerned" about rising tensions in the West Bank if a deal is not reached before Ramadan. Later on in the report, however, he revealed that Hamas met in Moscow with other Palestinian officials, including secular politicians and the PIJ, where they agreed to "expand operations in the West Bank and Jerusalem."
The report had details of the negotiation process from statements by Israeli, US, and Arab officials as well, but didn't name them.
Other mediators are hoping for a short-term ceasefire with partial hostage releases
It said that unspecified Arab negotiators were aiming for an urgent two-day ceasefire before the beginning of Ramadan due to increased operations in Rafah.
The report also claimed that Arab mediators are trying to salvage a proposal that involves a 40-day ceasefire and the release of around 40 hostages.
According to the report, Egyptian officials said that they had hoped to resume talks on Saturday, but neither side was being cooperative. Arab mediators have also confirmed, according to the report, that Hamas has refused to give Israel a list of living hostages as part of a deal.
Badran denied that claim, saying there had been no official Israeli request for such a list. He said many of the prisoners are held by other factions, including Palestinian Islamic Jihad, making them harder to locate and guarantee as part of a deal.
The report also talked about Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar, who recently broke his radio silence and has also made demands about a potential deal.
Sinwar believes Hamas currently has the upper hand in negotiations, according to Egyptian officials. They based this claim on internal political divisions within Israel, disagreements within Netanyahu’s wartime government, and mounting US pressure on Israel to do more to alleviate the suffering of Gazans.
Arab and Israeli officials said that they fear that Sinwar is deliberately undermining the talks in the hope that Ramadan will galvanize popular Arab support for Hamas and that there will be an escalation of tensions in the West Bank and Jerusalem.
Source
|
On March 11 2024 01:32 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
All the while the Militant Hamas leadership believes they are winning the war while trapped in bunker underground in Gaza. Disconnected with reality.
It's not like they have anything to lose at this point.
By now they should understand what happens once hostages are free no matter what might be signed.
|
On March 10 2024 08:23 RenSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2024 08:08 Nebuchad wrote:
With regards to ethnic cleansing, I think there's much less evidence of ethnic cleansing when it comes to the Uyghurs than when it comes to Palestinians. In truth, I'm not exactly sure what the ethnic cleansing of Uyghurs is referring to. I've seen them detained in camps, possibly forcibly sterilized, and even if those two are not true (which I think they very very likely are) at least the claims of forced assimilation and cultural genocide are undeniable. But in terms of ethnic cleansing, I don't really see what this is about, I have done the cursory look thing and I'm not sure when they've been displaced. It looks like I made a mistake. I thought cultural genocide was a form of ethnic cleansing, but it seems that they are distinct ideas from a very brief wikipedia look. My argument centered around cultural genocide as a form of ethnic cleansing. I would maintain that in the long term, what China is doing is worse than what Israel is doing for reasons previously noted, but it doesn’t strictly fit the ethnic cleansing definition.
Except arab heritage is wiped out of Palestine.
The systemic destruction of cimeteries and the changement of function for the ones which are actually protected from unesco is a cultural genocide which is ongoing since years.
The systematic targeting and canceling of palestinian scholars isn't new either.
Tbf that's not only cultural nowadays.
China want to neutralyze the political potency of the ouighours while Israel wants their annihlation.
The comparaison with the ww2 is incredibly stupid, the ww2 wasn't a colonial war, a better one would be the native genocide commited by your people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
