|
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 October 09 2023 13:58 Cricketer12 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2023 13:39 Mohdoo wrote:On October 09 2023 13:13 Cricketer12 wrote:On October 09 2023 12:05 Mohdoo wrote:On October 09 2023 11:53 Cricketer12 wrote:On October 09 2023 10:57 KwarK wrote:On October 09 2023 10:42 ChristianS wrote:
Like, would it help if Kwark explicitly said "I don't think Israelis should be genocided or ethnically cleansed, and I don't think any Palestinian or Arab leaders advocating that are on defensible moral ground"? I bet he'd do it, although I'm not sure if you'd believe him or not. I don’t think Israelis should be genocided and anyone who does is obviously in the wrong. I’ve been super explicit on that point but I’ll say it again if needed. Weird how people need to go out of their way to clarify that Israelis don't deserve genocide and Israeli citizens should always be spared, but people never feel the need to clarify the same about the Palestinians who are killed on an exponentially larger rate. On October 09 2023 11:46 Mohdoo wrote:
My main reason for siding with Israel in this whole debacle is that they are winning by a mile and its just a matter of politics that they haven't finished the job. I also believe Might makes right. How is this an argument. I think that's a dishonest approximation of what I am saying. I am saying this ship has sailed to such an extreme that it is not reasonable to pretend more than 1 outcome is even slightly realistic. How about this: Maybe I'm just ignorant. Can you please give me a brief description of the path to a long-term solution that both sides are happy with? Doesn't need to be specific. Doesn't need to be rigidly based on evidence or whatever. I'm just asking what I am missing, because it seems legitimately beyond reason. I think its maybe a little naive/immature to cite justice and/or ethics as a reason for believing an outcome is possible. It is totally fair to cite ethics/justice as a reason something *ought* to happen. But there is no virtue in throwing lives away. Courage or principle or whatever people use to justify throwing Palestinians into this conflict for years on end is not a means to achieving the goal. It is a reason to WANT the outcome, but it is not evidence the outcome will happen. I'd say we have plennnty of history to look back on to show ethics and justice are not effective means of predicting outcomes. Perhaps I misread what you meant, and I agree that a desire for justice doesn't necessitate change, but I disagree that it therefore demands capitulation. Right now, Israel has no reason to come to the table in a serious way where Palestine is regarded as an equal because Israel has global backing. For any change to occur that needs to first be addressed. That doesn't mean abandoning Israel to Iran and Hamas attacking them at will, but it does mean for example the US reducing military aid, and it does mean performing a civic duty to recontextualize the narrative. From a purely pragmatic sense it probably isn't the wisest course of action for Palestine or Hamas to wage a war they can never win, but I can't ignore that they are acting in a manner akin to every soverign nation that faces encoraching powers. I think you're 100% right. All of those things are a part of the path to a mutually satisfactory co-existence. Focusing on the historic/ethical reasons to support a Palestinian state is reasonable. There is a long list of reasons I don't want Palestinians to suffer. I would totally love for that outcome to be how things go, but it is hard to view the prospect as anything other than just running out the clock and hoping some wild event suddenly flips the situation upside down, like a meteor or something. What is your honest gut feeling as to how likely this is to happen? Not even in the next 5 years, but 20? I think the only way for someone to say these things will happen is more of a "who knows" or "you never know" or "a lot of things can change". There is a non-zero cost of running out the clock. Its a really bad situation and a lot of people are dying. When the only path is waiting for a miracle, I don't think it is ethical to advocate for extending a situation that is leading to so much death. I don't have answer for you, how could I, and to your credit, that's a fair point to make. It's still bizarre for us to say hey this side is guilty of immoral behavior, but the onus is on you to accept that and let them win. If we claim to live in a democratic, educated world we should be able to do better. You also have the problem of where the hell these people are supposed to go even if they agreed to leave? Because I assume you aren't suggesting they be allowed to become Israeli citizens, I may have missed that earlier. I'm not even necessarily 100% against that concept if Arabs were treated equally in Israel.'
Democracy and education are not components of wanting these people to continue fighting. It isn't a matter of not wanting a better life for them. I am saying there are specifics of the situation that make it seem actually weird to want it to go on.
I think there are many examples in history where an oppressed people, like the Palestinians, fought an uphill battle and ultimately prevailed. The slope of that hill matters a lot. Many oppressed people have also gotten totally wiped out or utterly defeated in some other way. I don't want to sound crude, but there are times when you type "gg" and leave the game and its not the nanosecond before the last pylon blows up. There are points in a situation where its actually insane to pretend there is more than 1 outcome.
I just want to be clear that I am understanding you: You are saying you legitimately don't see this outcome as having a reasonable path, but you want them to keep trying? I don't mean this to say it applies to you, but I would feel cruel saying that to Palestinians. Like I wouldn't want to encourage them to keep fighting knowing what the odds look like and what the next month looks like for them. I would very much encourage them to run away. Wanting them to fight feels creepy. I am likely not understanding a component of your perspective.
|
On October 09 2023 12:12 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2023 11:31 RenSC2 wrote:On October 09 2023 10:42 ChristianS wrote:On October 09 2023 09:30 RenSC2 wrote:On October 09 2023 06:12 ChristianS wrote:
Kwark, I think you’re closer to right in this exchange and TLoA is absolutely doing the bait and switch “opposing Israel on anything means supporting a second Holocaust” trick that Israel defenders have always done. You've got a good history of posting in good faith, so I want to return that good faith even while heavily disagreeing. The complaint is not that Kwark is not 100% pro Israel. You'll find very little pushback if you say that the Israeli settlements are wrong even from pro-Israel people. In Kwark's response to this post + Show Spoiler +On October 08 2023 03:11 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2023 02:17 Excludos wrote:On October 07 2023 22:09 Liquid`Drone wrote:
The framing that they just want to be left alone while continuing to encroach on palestinerne territory is absolutely ridiculous. It's insane how people are just willing to completely disregard context. That they are being attacked by rocket barrages and terrorism on the daily is seemingly unimportant. If Sweden did that to Norway, we'd be doing a lot more than Israel is in regards to counter-aggression. It's like if I keep punching you in the face, and you push me away, suddenly everyone around us goers "omfg how could you push?!". You answer with "I just want to be left alone!" and then people laugh and go "Shouldn't be pushing then!" If Palestine doesn't want Israel to keep pushing, then maybe they should seek peace? Or at the very least meet at the table. Israel doesn't want the occupied territories, and have numerous times claimed willingness to give them back He's talking about the illegal settlements, not the retaliatory attacks by Israel. But overall, I agree. While Israel is adding fuel to the fire by refusing to stop the illegal settlements, we can't overlook the context of this conflict. Namely, when the Arabs thought they had the upper hand, they tried to wipe Israel off the map on several occasions (the Palestinian Arabs were onboard). They chose violence over negotiated peace. On the other hand, once the situation shifted in favour of Israel, Israel was open to accepting several different peace proposals. Those were rejected by the Palestinians, who were unhappy with some of the terms. They were unwilling to accept that their negotiating position was getting progressively weaker, and they chose violence again. I think people siding with Palestine in this conflict are not holding Israel and Palestine to the same standard. If Israel acted the way the Arabs did, they would've wiped out the Palestinians a long time ago. @Drone I would hold off with such claims. The number of casualties on the Palestinian side come from the Palestinian officials, i.e. Hamas... He says On October 08 2023 03:16 KwarK wrote:
Wiping Israel off the map doesn’t necessarily mean killing every Israeli. The third Reich was wiped off of the map, for example. Israel is the state, not the people. They conflate the two deliberately. He's trying to defend "wipe Israel off the map" as merely "remove the country, but totally keep the people". It's bullshit and anyone who's been paying attention should know it. The Palestinians want an ethnic cleansing. The only thing preventing the ethnic cleansing is the power that the Israeli government has. If they ever lose a war or are otherwise dissolved, it will be an ethnic cleansing. The only question would be how many Israelis would escape versus how many would be part of the genocide. What country would take 7 million Jewish refugees because there is no way Palestinians would accept Jewish neighbors and allow them to live. Here's a spokesman for Hamas talking to Al Jazeera today: Osama Hamdan, senior spokesperson for Hamas, told Al Jazeera that the group was not attacking civilians even though the group’s own videos have shown its fighters taking elderly Israelis hostage during the fighting on Saturday.
Rights groups such as Amnesty International have also pointed out that Israeli civilians had been killed by Hamas.
But Hamdan insisted that the group was attacking only settlers living in illegal settlements, whom he described as legitimate targets.
“You have to differentiate between settlers and civilians. Settlers attacked Palestinians,” Hamdan said.
Asked whether civilians in southern Israel were also considered settlers, Hamdan said: “Everyone knows there are settlements there.”
“We are not targeting civilians on purpose. We have declared settlers are part of the occupation and part of the armed Israeli force. They are not civilians,” he added. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/10/8/what-is-the-group-hamas-a-simple-guide-tothe-palestinian-groupHe's not saying that the elderly were unfortunate casualties of war or that mistakes were made. He says that the elderly are not "civilians", they are "settlers" and thus killing and kidnapping them is okay. This is a spokesman for the political leadership of Palestine. It also looks like a concert for peace is a legitimate target according to Palestinians. I've already posted the decline in numbers of Jewish People in every other Mideast country. Every last one experienced an ethnic cleansing. People don't just up and move for the fun of it. They were forced out. Or if you want a non-Jewish example, you can look at what's happening to Christians in Egypt for another example. Church bombings, kidnapped women forced to marry Muslims, and plenty of killings. Fanatical Muslims will not live peacefully side by side with anyone else and there are way too many fanatical Muslims in the middle east. Being anti Israel is indeed taking a pro-genocide stance. However, I'll admit that most western people don't realize that's what they're actually supporting by being anti Israel. Most people are ignorant. And no, that doesn't mean you need to endorse everything the Israeli government does in order to be anti-genocide. However, you do need to support the right of Israel to exist and be against anyone who denies that right. Or if you think I'm wrong, let's try to answer a question, what is the scenario where the Israeli government is dissolved and we don't have an ethnic cleansing? I mean, I guess the underlying question I'm not clear on is whether we're asking "what Kwark means by 'wipe Israel off the map' " or "what this or that Arab leader and/or Palestians generally means/meant by 'wipe Israel off the map' ". You have a lot more confidence than I do in asserting "what Palestinians want." That might just be me being ill-informed, I dunno. But Kwark's specific post is pretty clear that he, at least, is clarifying that ending the current government of Israel does not inherently mean genocide/ethnic cleansing of Israelis. Maybe that's what Palestinians would want. I'm pretty sure that's what Hamas would want. But if, for instance, the international community decided "we're not going to allow an ethnostate to exist" and forced Israel to change their form of government away from one that explicitly, legally determines who is and isn't a Jew and differentiates legal rights accordingly, I don't think that wouldn't necessarily entail genociding Israelis. You could claim that all those policies are necessary to preventing a genocide that would otherwise be inevitable. If so, you could assert "no, you're wrong, it's not possible to imagine ending the current Israeli state without an accompanying genocide of Israelis." But I just don't believe that, and I don't think you do either. Anyway it's clear Kwark doesn't, which is the disputed issue here. I think your anger at Kwark (and maybe TLoA's anger at Kwark) is based on the idea that he's apologizing for/running interference for bloodthirsty Arab leaders that just want to kill every Jew. Which, I dunno, those people certainly exist. I don't *think* Kwark is trying to defend those people, although any time you argue even a nuanced pro-Palestinian or anti-Israel position you're at least giving those people some cover, right? I am too, whether I like it or not, any time I argue that Israel's moral position is compromised or that Palestinians' rights are being trampled on. Like, would it help if Kwark explicitly said "I don't think Israelis should be genocided or ethnically cleansed, and I don't think any Palestinian or Arab leaders advocating that are on defensible moral ground"? I bet he'd do it, although I'm not sure if you'd believe him or not. Otherwise, I just don't think his intention is to empower those people (although he probably disagrees with you about how prevalent that opinion is, either among Palestinians or in the Arab world generally). I'll try to be more clear. I'm accusing people of being short-sighted more than malicious. I don't think any of the normal posters on this forum wants a genocide of the Jewish people. However, I am accusing people of not understanding the consequences of their preferred actions. I liken the situation to a poisoned pawn in chess. You move your queen to take that unprotected pawn, then the next opponent's move is to fork/check you and put you a few moves away from mate. In the real world, mate against Israel is the ethnic cleansing of the place. I'm trying to look more than one move ahead and see what would happen if Israel ended its version of apartheid. From my vantage point, that first move might look nice, but it will be devastating in the future. It would involve an influx of "Palestinians" that are actually radicals from all over the middle east. People willing to die in order to kill infidels. Then you get the terrorist attacks as people feel justified in killing anyone because they're "settlers" not civilians or whatever excuse they feel like that day. You'll get a break down of civil society and eventually pogroms. All you need to do is listen to the Palestinian leaders and you'll hear their desire for it. When someone says they're going to do something evil, don't just handwave it away. Admittedly, it would be a repeat of the Zionism that created Israel, just in reverse and with nowhere adjacent for the Jewish people to flee to. The Jewish people would be stupid to be on the receiving end of it. On October 09 2023 11:30 KwarK wrote:On October 09 2023 10:42 RenSC2 wrote:On October 09 2023 09:54 KwarK wrote:On October 09 2023 09:30 RenSC2 wrote:
Or if you think I'm wrong, let's try to answer a question, what is the scenario where the Israeli government is dissolved and we don't have an ethnic cleansing? Something akin to the end of apartheid rule in South Africa or power sharing agreements in NI. I'm not as familiar with NI as I'd like, so I'll go with South Africa as one which I know a little bit about. Do you see any differences between the South African situation and the Israel/Palestine situation that could result in extremely different results despite the same actions? Like, perhaps do you see a significant difference between Nelson Mandela and whoever the Palestinians have put in charge? Nelson Mandela, on trial where he would eventually be sentenced to life in prison, says this: During my lifetime I have dedicated myself to this struggle of the African people. I have fought against white domination, and I have fought against black domination. I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve. But if needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die. Nelson Mandela started out peacefully, did have a foray into more extreme methods and got prison time for it, and then came out promoting peace and reconciliation again. Even his more extreme methods involved "sabotage against property (designed to minimize risks of injury and death)". When and where did he say it was okay to kill the elderly whites because they were settlers, not civilians? I think I missed that part of his life. When did he refuse to recognize the rights of whites to exist in South Africa? When did he launch a war to wipe out the whites in South Africa? He as the leader, and the movement as a whole, was all about gaining equal rights. The Palestinian movement, from the very beginning, has been about annihilating Israel. The rhetoric during the founding of Israel says it and the rhetoric now says it. Who is the Palestinian comparable to Mandela? Who are the Palestinian people going to follow to peaceful equality? TLDR: Israelis have the right to exist and defend themselves. Fuck Hamas. The opposition to the creation of Israel is more complicated than a black and white good vs bad. The existence of Israel is not inherently neutral and framing it as such is oversimplifying things. But it’s too late now and Israel is better than any alternative. Yes. I completely agree with this TLDR. Well this just got a lot more specific in a way that might be worth focusing on. If I’m not misunderstanding you, you believe that ending Israel’s version of apartheid would necessarily (or, at least, most likely) result in ethnic cleansing of Israelis. I don’t think that’s an opinion shared by a number of posters here, so it’s worth talking through the chain of events. As I understand it, “Israel’s version of apartheid” refers to the fact that, since its creation, Israel has legally distinguished between Jews and non-Jews and discriminated in political rights based on the distinction. Most critically, the policy for a very long time (maybe still? I don’t know the exact history here) was that if you were a Jew, anywhere in the world, you could come to Israel and be given citizenship and land. That’s an understandable idea if you’re trying to give a home to the world’s Jewish population that’s been ravaged during WW2, but where is all that land supposed to come from? Well, it’s a war-torn region; lots of people over the years have fled their homes fearing for their family’s safety. If those people are Jews, you respect their land claim when they come back. If they’re not, you don’t, and now there’s some land freed up to give to newly arrived Jews hoping to take advantage of the policy. So I assume the thing you’re worried about is the so-called “right to return” that critics of Israel often call for. Basically, non-Jews whose families had land claims in the region should be allowed to come home, be given citizenship, and have their land back. And if I’m not mistaken, your fear is that a lot of those returning people are sufficiently radicalized against Israel they would just start committing random acts of terror against their neighbors? This is the point where I’m least certain I’m interpreting you correctly, so maybe I should just stop there before trying to analyze the argument further until you’ve had a chance to say whether that’s really your position or not.
I'm saying something much simpler than that. Right now, there is heavy restrictions of movement between Gaza and Israel. Israel is essentially walled in and trying to protect against any incursions. If Israel ends apartheid, the walls have to come down. The people of Gaza will have freedom to go wherever they want in Israel. Right now, for a shockingly large number of radicalized Palestinian people, that means going into Israel and committing acts of terror.
Then you have all the crazies from surrounding countries (including countries that don't immediately touch Israel like Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, etc). People who can sneak into Gaza or the West bank and then blend in with the poorly documented Palestinians. They have one goal and that's an intifada.
Get all those people into Israel and every day will look like yesterday.
|
On October 09 2023 08:27 Biff The Understudy wrote:
I mean.
Israel has been absolutely shitting on palestinians and their most basic rights without even discussing the peace process for the last couple of decades. The palestinian question hasn’t even been on the political radar in the last few elections because israeli felt safe since they built their wall.
Meanwhile, they have kept colonizing more and more land, and electing far right, pro-colony governments.
I think there is a point where oppressed people will do anything, and I mean, anything, to fight for their rights. The Hamas is despicable, that war is atrocious, but I blame Israel 175% for what’s happening. What have they been thinking for 20 years? That they can keep stealing land and absolutely shitting on a whole people forever because they have a wall and a lot of technology?
By the way. The US and Europe are totally guilty too. Because our governments really coukd have done something if they weren’t terrified of the pro israel lobbies. Israel should have been a pariah state long ago, but go count of a right filled with anti muslim racism and a left too busy not to alienate their jewish electors not to ever do anything about the actions of the Israeli.
Palestinians aren't interested in the peace process and the biggest oppressors in Palestinian territories are the Palestinian authorities themselves. Hamas and the PA restrict freedom of expression, association, and assembly, use force to crackdown on peaceful protests, subordinated the judiciary, arbitrarily detain their own citizens, torture them, do not allow any opposition or elections, and disregard any minority rights. Hamas then also disregards civilian lives by using them as human shields. It's pretty damning that Israel treats its Arabs citizens better than the PA treats their citizens. If the Palestinian leadership had invested only half as much effort into making the lives of their citizens better instead of oppressing them they'd be in a much better place and get much more support.
And no Israel did not have a barbaric attack where civilians were brutally murdered and kidnapped coming. Attacking military targets is one thing but this is something else entirely. Israel is no innocent bystander in this conflict and sometimes engages in human rights abuses but to blame them 175% for this is ridiculous.
|
On October 09 2023 15:42 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2023 08:27 Biff The Understudy wrote:
I mean.
Israel has been absolutely shitting on palestinians and their most basic rights without even discussing the peace process for the last couple of decades. The palestinian question hasn’t even been on the political radar in the last few elections because israeli felt safe since they built their wall.
Meanwhile, they have kept colonizing more and more land, and electing far right, pro-colony governments.
I think there is a point where oppressed people will do anything, and I mean, anything, to fight for their rights. The Hamas is despicable, that war is atrocious, but I blame Israel 175% for what’s happening. What have they been thinking for 20 years? That they can keep stealing land and absolutely shitting on a whole people forever because they have a wall and a lot of technology?
By the way. The US and Europe are totally guilty too. Because our governments really coukd have done something if they weren’t terrified of the pro israel lobbies. Israel should have been a pariah state long ago, but go count of a right filled with anti muslim racism and a left too busy not to alienate their jewish electors not to ever do anything about the actions of the Israeli. Palestinians aren't interested in the peace process and the biggest oppressors in Palestinian territories are the Palestinian authorities themselves. Hamas and the PA restrict freedom of expression, association, and assembly, use force to crackdown on peaceful protests, subordinated the judiciary, arbitrarily detain their own citizens, torture them, do not allow any opposition or elections, and disregard any minority rights. Hamas then also disregards civilian lives by using them as human shields. It's pretty damning that Israel treats its Arabs citizens better than the PA treats their citizens. If the Palestinian leadership had invested only half as much effort into making the lives of their citizens better instead of oppressing them they'd be in a much better place and get much more support.
Damn that's crazy, imagine if Israel was more or less doing the exact same thing to Palestinians but on top of that they were also ethnically cleansing them and progressively stealing their land, then some people might think that's even worse. Maybe in those circumstances that I've just imagined we would see a lot of protests in the West from palestinian refugees, and all of them would be about being freed not from Hamas but from Israeli occupation?
I understand that talking points are easy to come by but seriously in this instance you shouldn't need my contribution. All it takes to perceive that what Israel is doing to Palestinians is worse is the understanding that Palestinians are people. Which, granted, is not a belief that we often encounter in our media spheres.
|
Norway28553 Posts
On October 09 2023 09:02 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2023 03:19 JimmiC wrote:You use some EVEN IF’s but that he and likely you think Hamas are some sort of leftist freedom fighters because they are against the “capitalists” in Israel is pretty easy to see, and it could not be s’more wrong. Hamas is further right than a basically any group and they only allow one perspective. Your reading comprehension for your favourites and people you do not like leaves a lot to be desired. QUOTE] On May 19 2021 17:48 Liquid`Drone wrote:On May 19 2021 17:24 Nebuchad wrote:
There is one cool thing about the Israel-Palestine conflict, and it's that the discourse has shifted dramatically. Last time this happened we had the discussion online and there were people making solid arguments on both sides, we had a little battle on the marketplace of ideas, and the people on the side of Palestine won that battle.
Which means that this time, support for Palestine is overwhelming in leftist places online. So, what can I say, when you're dealing with honest people who have a common goal, debate works, sort of. Leftist online places are set to raise more for Palestine than they did for Mermaids when Glinner decided to direct his constant transphobia at them. Especially Vaush has had a very successful stream, 250k+ in 24 hours.
Will charity solve the occupation, no it won't obviously. But it still signals that we have a pretty large voice, and that's cool. Other cracks start to form with larger protests all over the world, less pro-Israel propaganda in the media than usual (I have no explanation for that one but 1) hey, cool, I'll take it, and 2) there is still some dumb shit going around.
Imo one of the more important rhetorical battles to fight is the battle against the idea that it's complicated. One side has almost all of the power and chooses to oppress the other, openly using terrorism and openly supporting ethnic cleansing. Don't be on that side. Some things are complicated, others are not. The continued settlements is not complicated - they're abhorrent and so is supporting them. Amusingly, I've yet to see anyone defend this practice, even guys that are solidly on the side of Israel. They seem to conveniently ignore that this is the piece of aggression and argue that 'Israel has the right to defend itself' - but I haven't actually seen anyone in this thread or the USPol thread before the discussion moved defend the continued settlement policy. However, while people seem to be able to agree that Israel's settlement policy should end, figuring out where to revert back to is complicated. 1967 borders are two generations ago. We might agree that what happened in 1947-48 was a crime against the Palestinian people, but it's not like it's easy to revert that now. The question of 'who should live where' is complicated, even if we recognize that Israel is the main culprit in the conflict and even if we regard Hamas as freedom fighters more than as terrorists. I'm a bit late to the party, but the thread is moving fast. This would be an interesting debate if Palestine was up for discussing peace whatsoever. Israel did go out several times and offered peace with the inclusion of "returning occupied territories". Where exactly the border of those territories would go is something they could have debated had Hamas had any intentions other than exterminating all Jews from the area. This is why people who agree that the settlement policy is horrible still have trouble weighing too much fault on Israel. To draw parallels, it's a bit like if Russia today went "aight, Ukraine, we want peace, and we'll return all of your territories", and Ukraine just went "nah, we refuse. We won't stop until every Russian is dead". It would suddenly flip the conflict to be a lot more sympathetic to Russia
It's not like Russia going 'we'll return all of your territories' at all though. That sounds like something that was said like 50 and denied years ago and I fail to see the relevance. If you actually have a source from the last decade with Israel stating that they're willing to return back to 1967 borders, including giving back land and homes taken by settlers, then I'll give a heartfelt apology and say hey, I am apparently ignorant of this and heavily amend my position. But right now, my interpretation is more like 'Russia offering peace, but one that includes Russia keeping most of if not all of the annexed territories (settlements) and also that includes them continuing to fairly regularly evict Ukrainians from their homes so that Russians can live in them instead', and I've seen enough of you in the Russia-Ukraine thread to know that this isn't something you would accept in that scenario.
|
Norway28553 Posts
On October 09 2023 16:09 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2023 15:42 RvB wrote:On October 09 2023 08:27 Biff The Understudy wrote:
I mean.
Israel has been absolutely shitting on palestinians and their most basic rights without even discussing the peace process for the last couple of decades. The palestinian question hasn’t even been on the political radar in the last few elections because israeli felt safe since they built their wall.
Meanwhile, they have kept colonizing more and more land, and electing far right, pro-colony governments.
I think there is a point where oppressed people will do anything, and I mean, anything, to fight for their rights. The Hamas is despicable, that war is atrocious, but I blame Israel 175% for what’s happening. What have they been thinking for 20 years? That they can keep stealing land and absolutely shitting on a whole people forever because they have a wall and a lot of technology?
By the way. The US and Europe are totally guilty too. Because our governments really coukd have done something if they weren’t terrified of the pro israel lobbies. Israel should have been a pariah state long ago, but go count of a right filled with anti muslim racism and a left too busy not to alienate their jewish electors not to ever do anything about the actions of the Israeli. Palestinians aren't interested in the peace process and the biggest oppressors in Palestinian territories are the Palestinian authorities themselves. Hamas and the PA restrict freedom of expression, association, and assembly, use force to crackdown on peaceful protests, subordinated the judiciary, arbitrarily detain their own citizens, torture them, do not allow any opposition or elections, and disregard any minority rights. Hamas then also disregards civilian lives by using them as human shields. It's pretty damning that Israel treats its Arabs citizens better than the PA treats their citizens. If the Palestinian leadership had invested only half as much effort into making the lives of their citizens better instead of oppressing them they'd be in a much better place and get much more support. Damn that's crazy, imagine if Israel was more or less doing the exact same thing to Palestinians but on top of that they were also ethnically cleansing them and progressively stealing their land, then some people might think that's even worse. Maybe in those circumstances that I've just imagine we would see a lot of protests in the West from palestinian refugees, and all of them would be about being freed not from Hamas but from Israeli occupation? I understand that talking points are easy to come by but seriously in this instance you shouldn't need my contribution. All it takes to perceive that what Israel is doing to Palestinians is worse is the understanding that Palestinians are people. Which, granted, is not a belief that we often encounter in our media spheres.
I think people have a visceral reaction that is very different when people are gunned down/massacred compared to if they are 'collateral damage' from bombs or airstrikes.
Again - just to be clear - this attack from Hamas was obviously abhorrent and I'm not defending it in any way. However, I do not think it was more abhorrent than Israel, back in 2014, killing 2250 palestinians (where the UN estimates are 65% civilians) in retaliation of three Israeli teenagers being abducted and killed. But while I'm not going to state how people feel (I bet it differs from person to person anyway!), it feels to me like many people were less emotionally impacted by that compared to this.
|
An IDF spokesperson talked about the goals of the coming campaign yesterday night, sounded pretty drastic:
Completely take away any ability Hamas has to EVER threaten an Israeli citizen again. And to make sure Hamas will NEVER rule over the Gaza strip again.
I think that means they want to kill them all and human shields or colateral damage won't stop them. The international community also won't stop them, because of the IS-style atrocities comitted by the attackers.
|
On October 09 2023 16:19 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2023 16:09 Nebuchad wrote:On October 09 2023 15:42 RvB wrote:On October 09 2023 08:27 Biff The Understudy wrote:
I mean.
Israel has been absolutely shitting on palestinians and their most basic rights without even discussing the peace process for the last couple of decades. The palestinian question hasn’t even been on the political radar in the last few elections because israeli felt safe since they built their wall.
Meanwhile, they have kept colonizing more and more land, and electing far right, pro-colony governments.
I think there is a point where oppressed people will do anything, and I mean, anything, to fight for their rights. The Hamas is despicable, that war is atrocious, but I blame Israel 175% for what’s happening. What have they been thinking for 20 years? That they can keep stealing land and absolutely shitting on a whole people forever because they have a wall and a lot of technology?
By the way. The US and Europe are totally guilty too. Because our governments really coukd have done something if they weren’t terrified of the pro israel lobbies. Israel should have been a pariah state long ago, but go count of a right filled with anti muslim racism and a left too busy not to alienate their jewish electors not to ever do anything about the actions of the Israeli. Palestinians aren't interested in the peace process and the biggest oppressors in Palestinian territories are the Palestinian authorities themselves. Hamas and the PA restrict freedom of expression, association, and assembly, use force to crackdown on peaceful protests, subordinated the judiciary, arbitrarily detain their own citizens, torture them, do not allow any opposition or elections, and disregard any minority rights. Hamas then also disregards civilian lives by using them as human shields. It's pretty damning that Israel treats its Arabs citizens better than the PA treats their citizens. If the Palestinian leadership had invested only half as much effort into making the lives of their citizens better instead of oppressing them they'd be in a much better place and get much more support. Damn that's crazy, imagine if Israel was more or less doing the exact same thing to Palestinians but on top of that they were also ethnically cleansing them and progressively stealing their land, then some people might think that's even worse. Maybe in those circumstances that I've just imagine we would see a lot of protests in the West from palestinian refugees, and all of them would be about being freed not from Hamas but from Israeli occupation? I understand that talking points are easy to come by but seriously in this instance you shouldn't need my contribution. All it takes to perceive that what Israel is doing to Palestinians is worse is the understanding that Palestinians are people. Which, granted, is not a belief that we often encounter in our media spheres. I think people have a visceral reaction that is very different when people are gunned down/massacred compared to if they are 'collateral damage' from bombs or airstrikes. Again - just to be clear - this attack from Hamas was obviously abhorrent and I'm not defending it in any way. However, I do not think it was more abhorrent than Israel, back in 2014, killing 2250 palestinians (where the UN estimates are 65% civilians) in retaliation of three Israeli teenagers being abducted and killed. But while I'm not going to state how people feel (I bet it differs from person to person anyway!), it feels to me like many people were less emotionally impacted by that compared to this.
There could be something to this but I honestly just think it's more about who gets to be human and who doesn't. There is an unfortunate amount of people who can't sympathize with someone's struggle unless they perceive that person to be similar to them. When an Israeli person with a job and a family dies, that's a tragedy. When one of the 'fucking animals' who live in Gaza, who are 'troublemakers', 'like to bomb crap and live in open sewage', dies, there's not really the same connexion.
It's not necessarily something that they consciously believe but it's something that permeates our culture. I saw the mayor of Jerusalem (or something close to that?) and the ambassador of Palestine at the UN get a dual interview yesterday, the interview was done in the style that the UK seems to enjoy where the interviewer is presenting a contradictory view to both. She asked the ambassador if he condemned the violence of Hamas, he tried to put it in perspective by questioning the framing and laying the blame on Israel's occupation and she pushed back against that notion several times by coming back to the violence of Hamas. She didn't ask the mayor of Jerusalem if she condemned the violence of a ground invasion of Gaza, that violence was a given, but she did ask her where the civilians of Gaza are supposed to go, to which this ghoul replied "Where are the civilians of South Israel supposed to go". Zero pushback for saying that.
It's not even the fault of the media to be honest, the media will always perceive abnormal things to be more worthy of attention than normal things, and palestinian suffering is extremely normal. It's not really something that you can do news with.
|
On October 09 2023 11:14 JimmiC wrote:I don't think Iran has any allies willing to go to war with them, Russia is already busy. But more war in the world ups the chances of more trouble. I just don't see anyone jumping in for Iran.
China signed a $400 Billion dollar deal for Iranian oil two years ago, for the next 25 years.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/27/world/middleeast/china-iran-deal.html
If Iran was attacked, China would back them.
|
On October 09 2023 16:09 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2023 15:42 RvB wrote:On October 09 2023 08:27 Biff The Understudy wrote:
I mean.
Israel has been absolutely shitting on palestinians and their most basic rights without even discussing the peace process for the last couple of decades. The palestinian question hasn’t even been on the political radar in the last few elections because israeli felt safe since they built their wall.
Meanwhile, they have kept colonizing more and more land, and electing far right, pro-colony governments.
I think there is a point where oppressed people will do anything, and I mean, anything, to fight for their rights. The Hamas is despicable, that war is atrocious, but I blame Israel 175% for what’s happening. What have they been thinking for 20 years? That they can keep stealing land and absolutely shitting on a whole people forever because they have a wall and a lot of technology?
By the way. The US and Europe are totally guilty too. Because our governments really coukd have done something if they weren’t terrified of the pro israel lobbies. Israel should have been a pariah state long ago, but go count of a right filled with anti muslim racism and a left too busy not to alienate their jewish electors not to ever do anything about the actions of the Israeli. Palestinians aren't interested in the peace process and the biggest oppressors in Palestinian territories are the Palestinian authorities themselves. Hamas and the PA restrict freedom of expression, association, and assembly, use force to crackdown on peaceful protests, subordinated the judiciary, arbitrarily detain their own citizens, torture them, do not allow any opposition or elections, and disregard any minority rights. Hamas then also disregards civilian lives by using them as human shields. It's pretty damning that Israel treats its Arabs citizens better than the PA treats their citizens. If the Palestinian leadership had invested only half as much effort into making the lives of their citizens better instead of oppressing them they'd be in a much better place and get much more support. Damn that's crazy, imagine if Israel was more or less doing the exact same thing to Palestinians but on top of that they were also ethnically cleansing them and progressively stealing their land, then some people might think that's even worse. Maybe in those circumstances that I've just imagined we would see a lot of protests in the West from palestinian refugees, and all of them would be about being freed not from Hamas but from Israeli occupation? I understand that talking points are easy to come by but seriously in this instance you shouldn't need my contribution. All it takes to perceive that what Israel is doing to Palestinians is worse is the understanding that Palestinians are people. Which, granted, is not a belief that we often encounter in our media spheres.
Except they don't do all of those things although as I said in my previous post they do engage in serious human rights abuses. Not to mention that the last time Israel unilaterally retreated from Palestinian territory and left settlements it turned Gaza into what it is now. A hotbed for terrorism led by a terroristic organisation. Palestinians governing organisations play a large role in the current situation, the large amount of deaths on their own side, and the oppression of Palestinian civilians. And indeed Israel shares part of the responsibility but to say they 100% had this coming is false.
|
On October 09 2023 09:19 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2023 09:09 KwarK wrote:On October 09 2023 09:02 Excludos wrote:On October 09 2023 03:19 JimmiC wrote:You use some EVEN IF’s but that he and likely you think Hamas are some sort of leftist freedom fighters because they are against the “capitalists” in Israel is pretty easy to see, and it could not be s’more wrong. Hamas is further right than a basically any group and they only allow one perspective. Your reading comprehension for your favourites and people you do not like leaves a lot to be desired. QUOTE] On May 19 2021 17:48 Liquid`Drone wrote:On May 19 2021 17:24 Nebuchad wrote:
There is one cool thing about the Israel-Palestine conflict, and it's that the discourse has shifted dramatically. Last time this happened we had the discussion online and there were people making solid arguments on both sides, we had a little battle on the marketplace of ideas, and the people on the side of Palestine won that battle.
Which means that this time, support for Palestine is overwhelming in leftist places online. So, what can I say, when you're dealing with honest people who have a common goal, debate works, sort of. Leftist online places are set to raise more for Palestine than they did for Mermaids when Glinner decided to direct his constant transphobia at them. Especially Vaush has had a very successful stream, 250k+ in 24 hours.
Will charity solve the occupation, no it won't obviously. But it still signals that we have a pretty large voice, and that's cool. Other cracks start to form with larger protests all over the world, less pro-Israel propaganda in the media than usual (I have no explanation for that one but 1) hey, cool, I'll take it, and 2) there is still some dumb shit going around.
Imo one of the more important rhetorical battles to fight is the battle against the idea that it's complicated. One side has almost all of the power and chooses to oppress the other, openly using terrorism and openly supporting ethnic cleansing. Don't be on that side. Some things are complicated, others are not. The continued settlements is not complicated - they're abhorrent and so is supporting them. Amusingly, I've yet to see anyone defend this practice, even guys that are solidly on the side of Israel. They seem to conveniently ignore that this is the piece of aggression and argue that 'Israel has the right to defend itself' - but I haven't actually seen anyone in this thread or the USPol thread before the discussion moved defend the continued settlement policy. However, while people seem to be able to agree that Israel's settlement policy should end, figuring out where to revert back to is complicated. 1967 borders are two generations ago. We might agree that what happened in 1947-48 was a crime against the Palestinian people, but it's not like it's easy to revert that now. The question of 'who should live where' is complicated, even if we recognize that Israel is the main culprit in the conflict and even if we regard Hamas as freedom fighters more than as terrorists. I'm a bit late to the party, but the thread is moving fast. This would be an interesting debate if Palestine was up for discussing peace whatsoever. Israel did go out several times and offered peace with the inclusion of "returning occupied territories". Where exactly the border of those territories would go is something they could have debated had Hamas had any intentions other than exterminating all Jews from the area. This is why people who agree that the settlement policy is horrible still have trouble weighing too much fault on Israel. To draw parallels, it's a bit like if Russia today went "aight, Ukraine, we want peace, and we'll return all of your territories", and Ukraine just went "nah, we refuse. We won't stop until every Russian is dead". It would suddenly flip the conflict to be a lot more sympathetic to Russia Who speaks for Palestine in that hypothetical where Palestine keeps fighting? Most Palestinians in Gaza weren’t yet born when a two state solution was last on the table. Hamas <> Palestinians. It’s a failed state filled with children run by warlords funded and armed by outsiders. The Israeli people and the Palestinians share a common enemy in Hamas, though they might not realize it. Just as Russians and Ukrainians have a common enemy in Putin. I'm not sure what you think the life expectancy of the average Palestinian is, but the last time a Two-State solutions was offered was in 2014. The rest is pretty on point
2014* Wasn't Jared Kushner in charge of peace in the middle east in Trump's presidency? You implying he didn't get them to negotiate a solution?
|
On October 09 2023 18:29 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2023 11:14 JimmiC wrote:I don't think Iran has any allies willing to go to war with them, Russia is already busy. But more war in the world ups the chances of more trouble. I just don't see anyone jumping in for Iran. China signed a $400 Billion dollar deal for Iranian oil two years ago, for the next 25 years. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/27/world/middleeast/china-iran-deal.htmlIf Iran was attacked, China would back them.
Very much doubt China would back them, perhaps if they were attacked by a 3rd world country but not otherwise.
|
On October 09 2023 16:19 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2023 16:09 Nebuchad wrote:On October 09 2023 15:42 RvB wrote:On October 09 2023 08:27 Biff The Understudy wrote:
I mean.
Israel has been absolutely shitting on palestinians and their most basic rights without even discussing the peace process for the last couple of decades. The palestinian question hasn’t even been on the political radar in the last few elections because israeli felt safe since they built their wall.
Meanwhile, they have kept colonizing more and more land, and electing far right, pro-colony governments.
I think there is a point where oppressed people will do anything, and I mean, anything, to fight for their rights. The Hamas is despicable, that war is atrocious, but I blame Israel 175% for what’s happening. What have they been thinking for 20 years? That they can keep stealing land and absolutely shitting on a whole people forever because they have a wall and a lot of technology?
By the way. The US and Europe are totally guilty too. Because our governments really coukd have done something if they weren’t terrified of the pro israel lobbies. Israel should have been a pariah state long ago, but go count of a right filled with anti muslim racism and a left too busy not to alienate their jewish electors not to ever do anything about the actions of the Israeli. Palestinians aren't interested in the peace process and the biggest oppressors in Palestinian territories are the Palestinian authorities themselves. Hamas and the PA restrict freedom of expression, association, and assembly, use force to crackdown on peaceful protests, subordinated the judiciary, arbitrarily detain their own citizens, torture them, do not allow any opposition or elections, and disregard any minority rights. Hamas then also disregards civilian lives by using them as human shields. It's pretty damning that Israel treats its Arabs citizens better than the PA treats their citizens. If the Palestinian leadership had invested only half as much effort into making the lives of their citizens better instead of oppressing them they'd be in a much better place and get much more support. Damn that's crazy, imagine if Israel was more or less doing the exact same thing to Palestinians but on top of that they were also ethnically cleansing them and progressively stealing their land, then some people might think that's even worse. Maybe in those circumstances that I've just imagine we would see a lot of protests in the West from palestinian refugees, and all of them would be about being freed not from Hamas but from Israeli occupation? I understand that talking points are easy to come by but seriously in this instance you shouldn't need my contribution. All it takes to perceive that what Israel is doing to Palestinians is worse is the understanding that Palestinians are people. Which, granted, is not a belief that we often encounter in our media spheres. I think people have a visceral reaction that is very different when people are gunned down/massacred compared to if they are 'collateral damage' from bombs or airstrikes. Again - just to be clear - this attack from Hamas was obviously abhorrent and I'm not defending it in any way. However, I do not think it was more abhorrent than Israel, back in 2014, killing 2250 palestinians (where the UN estimates are 65% civilians) in retaliation of three Israeli teenagers being abducted and killed. But while I'm not going to state how people feel (I bet it differs from person to person anyway!), it feels to me like many people were less emotionally impacted by that compared to this.
Aren't the two cases different though? Israel was striking against Hamas who, knowing that dead Palestinians further their cause, purposefully use civilians as shields. (It was also not only in response to the killing of the teenagers but also of the subsequent rocket attacks, but that's not important.) This on the other hand is a pure terror attack directed against civilians. I saw some videos showing bleeding and panicking women getting abducted into Gaza on twitter yesterday, surrounded by cheering, aggressive Palestinian men. Such images are hard to stomach and it hits differently than the "collateral damage" you referred to. But aren't also the two scenarios different in kind?
By the way, we have a lot of Arabs in Sweden after 30 years of pretty substantial immigration from the middle east and there have been lots celebrations in some areas after the attack yesterday. In one city, the police reported a parade of 200-300 cars parading around the synagogue among other places. I personally think they should all be rounded up and parachuted into Gaza, to be honest. Seems like a fitting punishment.
|
On October 09 2023 19:43 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2023 16:09 Nebuchad wrote:On October 09 2023 15:42 RvB wrote:On October 09 2023 08:27 Biff The Understudy wrote:
I mean.
Israel has been absolutely shitting on palestinians and their most basic rights without even discussing the peace process for the last couple of decades. The palestinian question hasn’t even been on the political radar in the last few elections because israeli felt safe since they built their wall.
Meanwhile, they have kept colonizing more and more land, and electing far right, pro-colony governments.
I think there is a point where oppressed people will do anything, and I mean, anything, to fight for their rights. The Hamas is despicable, that war is atrocious, but I blame Israel 175% for what’s happening. What have they been thinking for 20 years? That they can keep stealing land and absolutely shitting on a whole people forever because they have a wall and a lot of technology?
By the way. The US and Europe are totally guilty too. Because our governments really coukd have done something if they weren’t terrified of the pro israel lobbies. Israel should have been a pariah state long ago, but go count of a right filled with anti muslim racism and a left too busy not to alienate their jewish electors not to ever do anything about the actions of the Israeli. Palestinians aren't interested in the peace process and the biggest oppressors in Palestinian territories are the Palestinian authorities themselves. Hamas and the PA restrict freedom of expression, association, and assembly, use force to crackdown on peaceful protests, subordinated the judiciary, arbitrarily detain their own citizens, torture them, do not allow any opposition or elections, and disregard any minority rights. Hamas then also disregards civilian lives by using them as human shields. It's pretty damning that Israel treats its Arabs citizens better than the PA treats their citizens. If the Palestinian leadership had invested only half as much effort into making the lives of their citizens better instead of oppressing them they'd be in a much better place and get much more support. Damn that's crazy, imagine if Israel was more or less doing the exact same thing to Palestinians but on top of that they were also ethnically cleansing them and progressively stealing their land, then some people might think that's even worse. Maybe in those circumstances that I've just imagined we would see a lot of protests in the West from palestinian refugees, and all of them would be about being freed not from Hamas but from Israeli occupation? I understand that talking points are easy to come by but seriously in this instance you shouldn't need my contribution. All it takes to perceive that what Israel is doing to Palestinians is worse is the understanding that Palestinians are people. Which, granted, is not a belief that we often encounter in our media spheres. Except they don't do all of those things although as I said in my previous post they do engage in serious human rights abuses. Not to mention that the last time Israel unilaterally retreated from Palestinian territory and left settlements it turned Gaza into what it is now. A hotbed for terrorism led by a terroristic organisation. Palestinians governing organisations play a large role in the current situation, the large amount of deaths on their own side, and the oppression of Palestinian civilians. And indeed Israel shares part of the responsibility but to say they 100% had this coming is false.
"freedom of expression, association, and assembly"
Probably the weakest part, although I wouldn't mind arguing that containing 2 million people in Gaza covers that. I think I also remember that you can be sued in Israel for expressing support of a boycott of West Bank settlements. I don't think I would feel very safe, as a Palestinian, expressing a pro-palestinian position in most places in Israel in the current year.
"use force to crackdown on peaceful protests"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018–2019_Gaza_border_protests
"subordinated the judiciary, arbitrarily detain their own citizens"
https://peoplesdispatch.org/2023/09/19/deteriorating-health-of-two-palestinian-administrative-detainees-on-hunger-strikes-raises-concerns/
"do not allow any opposition or elections disregard any minority rights"
Israel doesn't recognize them as a state and routinely disregards the human rights of Palestinians, that doesn't even sound equal that sounds worse.
"Hamas then also disregards civilian lives by using them as human shields."
In order for using a civilian as human shield to be disregarding their life, you need someone to be willing to shoot at that human shield.
A reminder that on top of that there is ALSO the ethnic cleansing and progressively taking their land and homes away.
Again, this line of questioning can easily be answered by listening to Palestinians. You will not find two sides fighting, ah yes Israel is doing some bad things but also Hamas is the worst, no I disagree I think Israel is the worst, hmm we have a conversation. Palestinians are very clear on where their oppression is coming from, and that you would in spite of that declare them wrong, in a move that appears to be designed to shift part of the blame away from the people who occupy them, is a strategy that I wouldn't feel good resorting to.
|
Norway28553 Posts
On October 09 2023 20:08 Elroi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2023 16:19 Liquid`Drone wrote:On October 09 2023 16:09 Nebuchad wrote:On October 09 2023 15:42 RvB wrote:On October 09 2023 08:27 Biff The Understudy wrote:
I mean.
Israel has been absolutely shitting on palestinians and their most basic rights without even discussing the peace process for the last couple of decades. The palestinian question hasn’t even been on the political radar in the last few elections because israeli felt safe since they built their wall.
Meanwhile, they have kept colonizing more and more land, and electing far right, pro-colony governments.
I think there is a point where oppressed people will do anything, and I mean, anything, to fight for their rights. The Hamas is despicable, that war is atrocious, but I blame Israel 175% for what’s happening. What have they been thinking for 20 years? That they can keep stealing land and absolutely shitting on a whole people forever because they have a wall and a lot of technology?
By the way. The US and Europe are totally guilty too. Because our governments really coukd have done something if they weren’t terrified of the pro israel lobbies. Israel should have been a pariah state long ago, but go count of a right filled with anti muslim racism and a left too busy not to alienate their jewish electors not to ever do anything about the actions of the Israeli. Palestinians aren't interested in the peace process and the biggest oppressors in Palestinian territories are the Palestinian authorities themselves. Hamas and the PA restrict freedom of expression, association, and assembly, use force to crackdown on peaceful protests, subordinated the judiciary, arbitrarily detain their own citizens, torture them, do not allow any opposition or elections, and disregard any minority rights. Hamas then also disregards civilian lives by using them as human shields. It's pretty damning that Israel treats its Arabs citizens better than the PA treats their citizens. If the Palestinian leadership had invested only half as much effort into making the lives of their citizens better instead of oppressing them they'd be in a much better place and get much more support. Damn that's crazy, imagine if Israel was more or less doing the exact same thing to Palestinians but on top of that they were also ethnically cleansing them and progressively stealing their land, then some people might think that's even worse. Maybe in those circumstances that I've just imagine we would see a lot of protests in the West from palestinian refugees, and all of them would be about being freed not from Hamas but from Israeli occupation? I understand that talking points are easy to come by but seriously in this instance you shouldn't need my contribution. All it takes to perceive that what Israel is doing to Palestinians is worse is the understanding that Palestinians are people. Which, granted, is not a belief that we often encounter in our media spheres. I think people have a visceral reaction that is very different when people are gunned down/massacred compared to if they are 'collateral damage' from bombs or airstrikes. Again - just to be clear - this attack from Hamas was obviously abhorrent and I'm not defending it in any way. However, I do not think it was more abhorrent than Israel, back in 2014, killing 2250 palestinians (where the UN estimates are 65% civilians) in retaliation of three Israeli teenagers being abducted and killed. But while I'm not going to state how people feel (I bet it differs from person to person anyway!), it feels to me like many people were less emotionally impacted by that compared to this. Aren't the two cases different though? Israel was striking against Hamas who, knowing that dead Palestinians further their cause, purposefully use civilians as shields. (It was also not only in response to the killing of the teenagers but also of the subsequent rocket attacks, but that's not important.) This on the other hand is a pure terror attack directed against civilians. I saw some videos showing bleeding and panicking women getting abducted into Gaza on twitter yesterday, surrounded by cheering, aggressive Palestinian men. Such images are hard to stomach and it hits differently than the "collateral damage" you referred to. But aren't also the two scenarios different in kind? By the way, we have a lot of Arabs in Sweden after 30 years of pretty substantial immigration from the middle east and there have been lots celebrations in some areas after the attack yesterday. In one city, the police reported a parade of 200-300 cars parading around the synagogue among other places. I personally think they should all be rounded up and parachuted into Gaza, to be honest. Seems like a fitting punishment.
I do think there's a difference in degree, but I don't think it's as black and white as 'this was terrorism while Israel's retaliation was legitimate and all the civilian casualties were unfortunate collateral damage caused by Hamas using human shields'. (Not saying you think it's that black and white either, for the record). Yes - this was clearly terrorism. But I think the Israeli retaliation (not just now but many times in the past) has had a goal beyond 'kill members of Hamas', I think 'strike fear into the hearts of palestinians through retaliating so harshly that they lose willingness to fight' is also a factor (and I believe this is also essentially a form of terror, even if it's state-run). I mean, I'm not arguing that Israel prefers killing civilians + Hamas over just Hamas - but I think if given a choice, Hamas would probably also prefer if every victim they just killed were soldiers in IDF, and I don't think civilian casualties have been much of a factor for Israel when they choose to retaliate. I saw someone from Hamas argue that Israel doesn't have civilians, and while I obviously disagree, there's a degree of the same mentality found on the Israeli side. (Also showcased how, when looking at the 2014 attacks, the UN said 65% of palestinian casualties were civilian while Israel claimed it was only 34%)
I mean, Israel has different factions. While I reject the 'they allowed this to happen to validate a harsh response' theory, I think the more feeble resistance with occasional rockets that are mostly iron domed and an occasional desperate lone knifeman and angry teenagers pelting IDF soldiers with stones plays into the hands and validates the policy of some of the more hardline factions.
As for the latter paragraph, I had a muslim (somalian) student last year who got a lot of hate from his (entirely Norwegian) classmates because he said 'hitler was a bro, he killed jews', something he meant as a semi-joke but which also clearly wasn't entirely a joke. Following that, we ended up discussing the whole conflict quite a bit - and part of what guided his belief was 1) that Israel was killing hundreds of people living on the Gaza strip on a daily basis, and 2) that Israel was a monolith and that (basically) every jew supported every part of how Israel deals with Palestine. When I managed to correct those two beliefs, his own became much more moderate (essentially, going from 'fuck the jews' to 'fuck Israel', and again, these two are not the same.) I think there's a lot of propaganda and mis/disinformation going around. Not that weird, really - as argued many times in the past, a whole lot of this is complex and nuanced. For me the only issue where I can't really see the validity of the other side is the settlement issue.
|
On October 09 2023 18:29 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2023 11:14 JimmiC wrote:I don't think Iran has any allies willing to go to war with them, Russia is already busy. But more war in the world ups the chances of more trouble. I just don't see anyone jumping in for Iran. China signed a $400 Billion dollar deal for Iranian oil two years ago, for the next 25 years. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/27/world/middleeast/china-iran-deal.htmlIf Iran was attacked, China would back them.
China signing a deal to buy oil on the cheap doesn't in any way, shape or form, signify China has any sympathy for an Islamic theocracy that is getting itself involved in a war against Israel and by extension the USA. At most it means that if the US were to try to get a resolution condemning Iran's support of Hamas in the security council, China would veto it, but Russia will already do that, so /shrug.
|
China would be much more likely to ramp up aggressions against Taiwan than involve itself in response to a conflict with Iran
|
|
|
On October 09 2023 14:26 RenSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2023 12:12 ChristianS wrote:On October 09 2023 11:31 RenSC2 wrote:On October 09 2023 10:42 ChristianS wrote:On October 09 2023 09:30 RenSC2 wrote:On October 09 2023 06:12 ChristianS wrote:
Kwark, I think you’re closer to right in this exchange and TLoA is absolutely doing the bait and switch “opposing Israel on anything means supporting a second Holocaust” trick that Israel defenders have always done. You've got a good history of posting in good faith, so I want to return that good faith even while heavily disagreeing. The complaint is not that Kwark is not 100% pro Israel. You'll find very little pushback if you say that the Israeli settlements are wrong even from pro-Israel people. In Kwark's response to this post + Show Spoiler +On October 08 2023 03:11 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2023 02:17 Excludos wrote:On October 07 2023 22:09 Liquid`Drone wrote:
The framing that they just want to be left alone while continuing to encroach on palestinerne territory is absolutely ridiculous. It's insane how people are just willing to completely disregard context. That they are being attacked by rocket barrages and terrorism on the daily is seemingly unimportant. If Sweden did that to Norway, we'd be doing a lot more than Israel is in regards to counter-aggression. It's like if I keep punching you in the face, and you push me away, suddenly everyone around us goers "omfg how could you push?!". You answer with "I just want to be left alone!" and then people laugh and go "Shouldn't be pushing then!" If Palestine doesn't want Israel to keep pushing, then maybe they should seek peace? Or at the very least meet at the table. Israel doesn't want the occupied territories, and have numerous times claimed willingness to give them back He's talking about the illegal settlements, not the retaliatory attacks by Israel. But overall, I agree. While Israel is adding fuel to the fire by refusing to stop the illegal settlements, we can't overlook the context of this conflict. Namely, when the Arabs thought they had the upper hand, they tried to wipe Israel off the map on several occasions (the Palestinian Arabs were onboard). They chose violence over negotiated peace. On the other hand, once the situation shifted in favour of Israel, Israel was open to accepting several different peace proposals. Those were rejected by the Palestinians, who were unhappy with some of the terms. They were unwilling to accept that their negotiating position was getting progressively weaker, and they chose violence again. I think people siding with Palestine in this conflict are not holding Israel and Palestine to the same standard. If Israel acted the way the Arabs did, they would've wiped out the Palestinians a long time ago. @Drone I would hold off with such claims. The number of casualties on the Palestinian side come from the Palestinian officials, i.e. Hamas... He says On October 08 2023 03:16 KwarK wrote:
Wiping Israel off the map doesn’t necessarily mean killing every Israeli. The third Reich was wiped off of the map, for example. Israel is the state, not the people. They conflate the two deliberately. He's trying to defend "wipe Israel off the map" as merely "remove the country, but totally keep the people". It's bullshit and anyone who's been paying attention should know it. The Palestinians want an ethnic cleansing. The only thing preventing the ethnic cleansing is the power that the Israeli government has. If they ever lose a war or are otherwise dissolved, it will be an ethnic cleansing. The only question would be how many Israelis would escape versus how many would be part of the genocide. What country would take 7 million Jewish refugees because there is no way Palestinians would accept Jewish neighbors and allow them to live. Here's a spokesman for Hamas talking to Al Jazeera today: Osama Hamdan, senior spokesperson for Hamas, told Al Jazeera that the group was not attacking civilians even though the group’s own videos have shown its fighters taking elderly Israelis hostage during the fighting on Saturday.
Rights groups such as Amnesty International have also pointed out that Israeli civilians had been killed by Hamas.
But Hamdan insisted that the group was attacking only settlers living in illegal settlements, whom he described as legitimate targets.
“You have to differentiate between settlers and civilians. Settlers attacked Palestinians,” Hamdan said.
Asked whether civilians in southern Israel were also considered settlers, Hamdan said: “Everyone knows there are settlements there.”
“We are not targeting civilians on purpose. We have declared settlers are part of the occupation and part of the armed Israeli force. They are not civilians,” he added. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/10/8/what-is-the-group-hamas-a-simple-guide-tothe-palestinian-groupHe's not saying that the elderly were unfortunate casualties of war or that mistakes were made. He says that the elderly are not "civilians", they are "settlers" and thus killing and kidnapping them is okay. This is a spokesman for the political leadership of Palestine. It also looks like a concert for peace is a legitimate target according to Palestinians. I've already posted the decline in numbers of Jewish People in every other Mideast country. Every last one experienced an ethnic cleansing. People don't just up and move for the fun of it. They were forced out. Or if you want a non-Jewish example, you can look at what's happening to Christians in Egypt for another example. Church bombings, kidnapped women forced to marry Muslims, and plenty of killings. Fanatical Muslims will not live peacefully side by side with anyone else and there are way too many fanatical Muslims in the middle east. Being anti Israel is indeed taking a pro-genocide stance. However, I'll admit that most western people don't realize that's what they're actually supporting by being anti Israel. Most people are ignorant. And no, that doesn't mean you need to endorse everything the Israeli government does in order to be anti-genocide. However, you do need to support the right of Israel to exist and be against anyone who denies that right. Or if you think I'm wrong, let's try to answer a question, what is the scenario where the Israeli government is dissolved and we don't have an ethnic cleansing? I mean, I guess the underlying question I'm not clear on is whether we're asking "what Kwark means by 'wipe Israel off the map' " or "what this or that Arab leader and/or Palestians generally means/meant by 'wipe Israel off the map' ". You have a lot more confidence than I do in asserting "what Palestinians want." That might just be me being ill-informed, I dunno. But Kwark's specific post is pretty clear that he, at least, is clarifying that ending the current government of Israel does not inherently mean genocide/ethnic cleansing of Israelis. Maybe that's what Palestinians would want. I'm pretty sure that's what Hamas would want. But if, for instance, the international community decided "we're not going to allow an ethnostate to exist" and forced Israel to change their form of government away from one that explicitly, legally determines who is and isn't a Jew and differentiates legal rights accordingly, I don't think that wouldn't necessarily entail genociding Israelis. You could claim that all those policies are necessary to preventing a genocide that would otherwise be inevitable. If so, you could assert "no, you're wrong, it's not possible to imagine ending the current Israeli state without an accompanying genocide of Israelis." But I just don't believe that, and I don't think you do either. Anyway it's clear Kwark doesn't, which is the disputed issue here. I think your anger at Kwark (and maybe TLoA's anger at Kwark) is based on the idea that he's apologizing for/running interference for bloodthirsty Arab leaders that just want to kill every Jew. Which, I dunno, those people certainly exist. I don't *think* Kwark is trying to defend those people, although any time you argue even a nuanced pro-Palestinian or anti-Israel position you're at least giving those people some cover, right? I am too, whether I like it or not, any time I argue that Israel's moral position is compromised or that Palestinians' rights are being trampled on. Like, would it help if Kwark explicitly said "I don't think Israelis should be genocided or ethnically cleansed, and I don't think any Palestinian or Arab leaders advocating that are on defensible moral ground"? I bet he'd do it, although I'm not sure if you'd believe him or not. Otherwise, I just don't think his intention is to empower those people (although he probably disagrees with you about how prevalent that opinion is, either among Palestinians or in the Arab world generally). I'll try to be more clear. I'm accusing people of being short-sighted more than malicious. I don't think any of the normal posters on this forum wants a genocide of the Jewish people. However, I am accusing people of not understanding the consequences of their preferred actions. I liken the situation to a poisoned pawn in chess. You move your queen to take that unprotected pawn, then the next opponent's move is to fork/check you and put you a few moves away from mate. In the real world, mate against Israel is the ethnic cleansing of the place. I'm trying to look more than one move ahead and see what would happen if Israel ended its version of apartheid. From my vantage point, that first move might look nice, but it will be devastating in the future. It would involve an influx of "Palestinians" that are actually radicals from all over the middle east. People willing to die in order to kill infidels. Then you get the terrorist attacks as people feel justified in killing anyone because they're "settlers" not civilians or whatever excuse they feel like that day. You'll get a break down of civil society and eventually pogroms. All you need to do is listen to the Palestinian leaders and you'll hear their desire for it. When someone says they're going to do something evil, don't just handwave it away. Admittedly, it would be a repeat of the Zionism that created Israel, just in reverse and with nowhere adjacent for the Jewish people to flee to. The Jewish people would be stupid to be on the receiving end of it. On October 09 2023 11:30 KwarK wrote:On October 09 2023 10:42 RenSC2 wrote:On October 09 2023 09:54 KwarK wrote:On October 09 2023 09:30 RenSC2 wrote:
Or if you think I'm wrong, let's try to answer a question, what is the scenario where the Israeli government is dissolved and we don't have an ethnic cleansing? Something akin to the end of apartheid rule in South Africa or power sharing agreements in NI. I'm not as familiar with NI as I'd like, so I'll go with South Africa as one which I know a little bit about. Do you see any differences between the South African situation and the Israel/Palestine situation that could result in extremely different results despite the same actions? Like, perhaps do you see a significant difference between Nelson Mandela and whoever the Palestinians have put in charge? Nelson Mandela, on trial where he would eventually be sentenced to life in prison, says this: During my lifetime I have dedicated myself to this struggle of the African people. I have fought against white domination, and I have fought against black domination. I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve. But if needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die. Nelson Mandela started out peacefully, did have a foray into more extreme methods and got prison time for it, and then came out promoting peace and reconciliation again. Even his more extreme methods involved "sabotage against property (designed to minimize risks of injury and death)". When and where did he say it was okay to kill the elderly whites because they were settlers, not civilians? I think I missed that part of his life. When did he refuse to recognize the rights of whites to exist in South Africa? When did he launch a war to wipe out the whites in South Africa? He as the leader, and the movement as a whole, was all about gaining equal rights. The Palestinian movement, from the very beginning, has been about annihilating Israel. The rhetoric during the founding of Israel says it and the rhetoric now says it. Who is the Palestinian comparable to Mandela? Who are the Palestinian people going to follow to peaceful equality? TLDR: Israelis have the right to exist and defend themselves. Fuck Hamas. The opposition to the creation of Israel is more complicated than a black and white good vs bad. The existence of Israel is not inherently neutral and framing it as such is oversimplifying things. But it’s too late now and Israel is better than any alternative. Yes. I completely agree with this TLDR. Well this just got a lot more specific in a way that might be worth focusing on. If I’m not misunderstanding you, you believe that ending Israel’s version of apartheid would necessarily (or, at least, most likely) result in ethnic cleansing of Israelis. I don’t think that’s an opinion shared by a number of posters here, so it’s worth talking through the chain of events. As I understand it, “Israel’s version of apartheid” refers to the fact that, since its creation, Israel has legally distinguished between Jews and non-Jews and discriminated in political rights based on the distinction. Most critically, the policy for a very long time (maybe still? I don’t know the exact history here) was that if you were a Jew, anywhere in the world, you could come to Israel and be given citizenship and land. That’s an understandable idea if you’re trying to give a home to the world’s Jewish population that’s been ravaged during WW2, but where is all that land supposed to come from? Well, it’s a war-torn region; lots of people over the years have fled their homes fearing for their family’s safety. If those people are Jews, you respect their land claim when they come back. If they’re not, you don’t, and now there’s some land freed up to give to newly arrived Jews hoping to take advantage of the policy. So I assume the thing you’re worried about is the so-called “right to return” that critics of Israel often call for. Basically, non-Jews whose families had land claims in the region should be allowed to come home, be given citizenship, and have their land back. And if I’m not mistaken, your fear is that a lot of those returning people are sufficiently radicalized against Israel they would just start committing random acts of terror against their neighbors? This is the point where I’m least certain I’m interpreting you correctly, so maybe I should just stop there before trying to analyze the argument further until you’ve had a chance to say whether that’s really your position or not. I'm saying something much simpler than that. Right now, there is heavy restrictions of movement between Gaza and Israel. Israel is essentially walled in and trying to protect against any incursions. If Israel ends apartheid, the walls have to come down. The people of Gaza will have freedom to go wherever they want in Israel. Right now, for a shockingly large number of radicalized Palestinian people, that means going into Israel and committing acts of terror. Then you have all the crazies from surrounding countries (including countries that don't immediately touch Israel like Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, etc). People who can sneak into Gaza or the West bank and then blend in with the poorly documented Palestinians. They have one goal and that's an intifada. Get all those people into Israel and every day will look like yesterday.
Huh, okay. So your worry is about current occupants of Gaza (and anyone who sneaks in to get included in the citizenship deal).
I mean, I don’t know what to say. That’s an enormous population, including a huge number of children, that are living in a legal limbo because Israel won’t give them legal status and Palestine isn’t a state. But they have to stay that way forever because we can never know for certain they won’t be violent? I guess that’s “One state solution” off the table for you.
What about “two state solution”? If we gave those people a government of their own, with territorial sovereignty and citizenship, and a right not to be bombed and occupied by the IDF all the time, that wouldn’t mean giving them the right to freely wander Israel. The “right to return” folks still won’t be happy, but would that look more like an acceptable outcome to you?
|
On October 09 2023 19:50 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2023 09:19 Excludos wrote:On October 09 2023 09:09 KwarK wrote:On October 09 2023 09:02 Excludos wrote:On October 09 2023 03:19 JimmiC wrote:You use some EVEN IF’s but that he and likely you think Hamas are some sort of leftist freedom fighters because they are against the “capitalists” in Israel is pretty easy to see, and it could not be s’more wrong. Hamas is further right than a basically any group and they only allow one perspective. Your reading comprehension for your favourites and people you do not like leaves a lot to be desired. QUOTE] On May 19 2021 17:48 Liquid`Drone wrote:On May 19 2021 17:24 Nebuchad wrote:
There is one cool thing about the Israel-Palestine conflict, and it's that the discourse has shifted dramatically. Last time this happened we had the discussion online and there were people making solid arguments on both sides, we had a little battle on the marketplace of ideas, and the people on the side of Palestine won that battle.
Which means that this time, support for Palestine is overwhelming in leftist places online. So, what can I say, when you're dealing with honest people who have a common goal, debate works, sort of. Leftist online places are set to raise more for Palestine than they did for Mermaids when Glinner decided to direct his constant transphobia at them. Especially Vaush has had a very successful stream, 250k+ in 24 hours.
Will charity solve the occupation, no it won't obviously. But it still signals that we have a pretty large voice, and that's cool. Other cracks start to form with larger protests all over the world, less pro-Israel propaganda in the media than usual (I have no explanation for that one but 1) hey, cool, I'll take it, and 2) there is still some dumb shit going around.
Imo one of the more important rhetorical battles to fight is the battle against the idea that it's complicated. One side has almost all of the power and chooses to oppress the other, openly using terrorism and openly supporting ethnic cleansing. Don't be on that side. Some things are complicated, others are not. The continued settlements is not complicated - they're abhorrent and so is supporting them. Amusingly, I've yet to see anyone defend this practice, even guys that are solidly on the side of Israel. They seem to conveniently ignore that this is the piece of aggression and argue that 'Israel has the right to defend itself' - but I haven't actually seen anyone in this thread or the USPol thread before the discussion moved defend the continued settlement policy. However, while people seem to be able to agree that Israel's settlement policy should end, figuring out where to revert back to is complicated. 1967 borders are two generations ago. We might agree that what happened in 1947-48 was a crime against the Palestinian people, but it's not like it's easy to revert that now. The question of 'who should live where' is complicated, even if we recognize that Israel is the main culprit in the conflict and even if we regard Hamas as freedom fighters more than as terrorists. I'm a bit late to the party, but the thread is moving fast. This would be an interesting debate if Palestine was up for discussing peace whatsoever. Israel did go out several times and offered peace with the inclusion of "returning occupied territories". Where exactly the border of those territories would go is something they could have debated had Hamas had any intentions other than exterminating all Jews from the area. This is why people who agree that the settlement policy is horrible still have trouble weighing too much fault on Israel. To draw parallels, it's a bit like if Russia today went "aight, Ukraine, we want peace, and we'll return all of your territories", and Ukraine just went "nah, we refuse. We won't stop until every Russian is dead". It would suddenly flip the conflict to be a lot more sympathetic to Russia Who speaks for Palestine in that hypothetical where Palestine keeps fighting? Most Palestinians in Gaza weren’t yet born when a two state solution was last on the table. Hamas <> Palestinians. It’s a failed state filled with children run by warlords funded and armed by outsiders. The Israeli people and the Palestinians share a common enemy in Hamas, though they might not realize it. Just as Russians and Ukrainians have a common enemy in Putin. I'm not sure what you think the life expectancy of the average Palestinian is, but the last time a Two-State solutions was offered was in 2014. The rest is pretty on point 2014* Wasn't Jared Kushner in charge of peace in the middle east in Trump's presidency? You implying he didn't get them to negotiate a solution?
And he promised too!  I'm starting to think he might not have been the best suited man for the job
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
