|
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 August 17 2024 01:52 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2024 18:44 Jockmcplop wrote:On August 16 2024 18:38 Magic Powers wrote:On August 16 2024 16:06 RenSC2 wrote:On August 16 2024 14:25 Liquid`Drone wrote:On August 16 2024 09:48 RenSC2 wrote:On August 16 2024 07:45 Liquid`Drone wrote:On August 16 2024 07:42 RenSC2 wrote:On August 16 2024 06:00 Magic Powers wrote:On August 16 2024 05:12 Uldridge wrote:
That does not make any sense.
Neither side can tolerate aggression, ergo Israel should stop. You're making a choice based on emotional attachment.
The correct answer is both sides should stop. If both sides can't stop, then both sides won't stop. This conflict maybe used to have been a forgiving tit for tat, but now it's devolved into a tit for tat ad infinitum. The trick is breaking out of the cycle. But blaming and condemning Israel for not doing so, is not the way to get there.
Note that I also find their civilian to Hamas ratios completely disproportional to the point of war crimes, but I don't have enough insight in the way Israel operates, nor can I say with confidence who actually reports things correctly so I wisely stay away from forming a polarized opinion. It makes perfect sense if you consider that the war has been taking place inside Gaza and not in Israel for the last ten months. I don't know why this is so hard to understand. Israel has the power. In war, it is not the responsibility of the superior force to quit. It is the responsibility of the inferior force to surrender. Until the inferior force surrenders, the war will go on and many people will die. Hamas can end this war whenever they want by surrendering unconditionally. I hope that if you try to examine conflicts around the world throughout history through this very lens you just applied, you would realize that it's not a good lens to apply. Can you give an example of what you are trying to say? In WW2 I think the forces that tried to resist nazi or japanese imperialism (or soviet for that matter) and occupation were heroic and ultimately these local, inferior forces constitued an important part of the effort to combat nazism/fascism. I've rarely ever seen people argue that Finland was wrong to not immediately surrender in the winter war, but France has been subject to some critique in that conflict. More recently, you might argue that Ukraine fits the bill, although with the support they've been getting they might not be inferior. Basically how just a war effort is is most definitely not determined by how strong the armies are. If anything, there's an inverse relationship: an inferior army is only willing to fight a just war, while a superior army has fewer qualms with fighting a war with no moral justification. Thanks, I was trying to understand what you were saying and this helps. I was mostly focused on the responsibility of the superior force to quit to which I would say they have no responsibility. If the inferior forces want the war to end, then it's on them to surrender. They can save their people, but the superior force has no responsibility to do so. If the inferior force believes in their cause and are willing to sacrifice their lives for it, they're free to fight on. They can keep fighting until their people no longer exist if they so choose. That's their right, but I wouldn't recommend it. The Palestinians believe in their own cause, Israel believes in theirs. So they fight and will keep fighting until one decides it isn't worth it anymore or one side no longer exists. It would be quite strange for the side that's winning to decide it isn't worth it. Examples like the Finns in WW2 or current Ukrainians seem like good examples of people who are willing to sacrifice for what they see as a better future. I'd suggest that the Palestinian people would be much better off with IDF rule than Hamas rule, but that's for them to decide. Hard to get much worse than what is currently happening to them under Hamas rule. @Magic Powers, you might want to examine the Peter Parker Principle and really think about it before you claim we should all follow it. Is it the responsibility of anyone with two dollars to give one to someone with none? I'd say people have a responsibility to do no evil. However, doing good is not a responsibility. Living neutrally is a perfectly acceptable life. Nobody should praise you for it, but it's perfectly acceptable. If Spider-Man really exists, but he just decides to live a normal life, that's perfectly okay. It's not his fault that Uncle Ben died. It's the murderer's fault. I'm not going to praise Israel as some bastion of morality. However, I will not condemn them for fighting a war with an opponent who wants a complete worldwide genocide of Jewish people. Once in a war, we should accept that war is awful and awful things happen in war. I'd prefer a more targeted war, but we aren't in a magical world where Israeli Supermen can fly in, bounce bullets off their chest and then grab the bad guys. Unfortunately, we live in the real world where Israeli soldiers have to put their lives on the line and I'd never ask them to sacrifice themselves or even take small risks for their enemy's sake. As a small aside, one area where I'd actually agree with possible sanctions against Israel is in relation to prisoner treatment. It's not part of the war. If the conditions are actually as bad as claimed and people are not held accountable internally, that would be worthy of sanction. Israel is doing evil, it's on them to end the war. It's on Hamas to not attack Israel again. As of this moment, Israel is committing the greatest evil because they're actively engaging in evil, whereas Hamas is obviously powerless to commit the evil that they would like to engage in. Hamas right now is not the same as Hamas a month ago. They have undergone an extremist takeover (if such a thing is even possible with Hamas) since Israel killed their political leader. I would wager this is the exact outcome Israel wants. Hamas won't ever agree to anything except the outright destruction of Israel while the new guys are in charge. When I say 'new guys' I mean the guys who masterminded Oct 7th, who now run the political wing of Hamas. Meanwhile in the West Bank Israeli extremists have torched a village, killing one innocent Palestinian. I'm sure they will continue to be protected for this kind of thing. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c623zkwd04qo Not really. Sinwar is the one who makes the important decisions and leads Hamas in practice. This has been the case since before the war started. Haniyes death does not change much.
Assassinating the lead negotiator certainly changes the reasonableness of asserting Israel is negotiating in good faith. Or at least it should for those still giving them the benefit of the doubt.
|
On August 16 2024 22:58 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2024 22:47 PremoBeats wrote:
No one I ever discussed this with could answer how it is an occupation. Well that would be because you're not an honest actor, so it's harder to answer in a way that would convince you. For the rest of the world, we see that the place is ruled by a military that doesn't answer to the people who live there and is systemically oppressing the people who live there, so we call it a military occupation, because we're not weirdos.
It is fine if you resort to ad hominems (weirdo, not an honest actor) like many here do. It just doesn't make your argumentation stronger. If we call disagreeing parties dishonest actors then everyone here is.
I even said that I can agree to disagree when people here try to compare civilian collateral in a densely populated war zone with the deliberate targeting of civilians for murder, rape, torture and hostage taking. If people think these are comparable, fine by me. But how am I dishonest when I point this out?
I also disagree when people try to tell me that they see equality between an official educational system writing history according to their perception and at times dehumanizing the other side (which of course both parties do) while the other one is actively indoctrinating children to become martyrs, kill jews and inject them with this ideology not only in historical texts but in physics, math, reading comprehension as well as basically in every other educational way, shape or form. To compare a privately produced video (which can be done in every country on this planet as there are extremists everywhere) with a whole culture of board games, TV-shows, children's shows and non-stop propaganda under the oversight of an actual terror regime leading to video footage which show how a father is pushing his kid towards Israeli soldiers and telling them to walk forward and throw stones at them so they are shot, simply seems ridiculous to me.
Because there is no discussion in Palestine. There are no cases of human rights violations that are able to surface. Because they do it all the time, it is no surprise and no one cares as they are an actual terror regime. Of course they do it. This is Moynihan’s Law in full action. Do you hear about Jewish children being disadvantaged in Gazan schools? No, because they would be dead and not attending school. Do you hear about authoritarian tendencies in Palestine? No, because it is an actual terror regime in place. It doesn't get more authoritarian than that.
I further disagree that Israel overall has an interest in a continuation of the war (I already said that I agree that Netanyahu has an interest in prolonging it at the moment) as they have to deal with 3 side of attack with one adversary getting closer and closer to nuclear weapons and that the Iron Dome can't brush of all of these attacks forever. They are interested in peace. Not all of their parties and not all of their population and yes there are extremists as well (seriously, it is so absurd to even have to write it out), but if people see it otherwise, fine by me.
I also disagree when people try to tell me that a military occupation of zones that fired 3k-5k rockets in 2023 and over 19k in 2024 even while these zones are occupied would lead to a stop in these attacks. Israel would simply lose control and after the continuation and re-escsalation of the attacks would have to re-take the occupied territory with insane amounts of civilian casualties. If the Arabs would stay true to stoping the attacks, there'd be no reason for Israel to occupy. But they are not as history has shown. If you see it different, all good.
Again: It is completely ok with me if people want to view all of these issues as equal but how is this making me a dishonest actor? I was the one who said multiple times that I can agree to disagree and according to my perception I had pretty robust facts and coherent reasoning for my positions. I am happy to discuss this further, if people can point to holes in my argumentation.
It is further fine, if you do not want to address the legality of the occupation, as even Israel has succumbed to the international pressure. I simply wanted to point out that Jordan from which Israel took the West Bank was never the sovereign. Before Jordan attacked Israel upon independence they attacked Israel and took the West Bank from them and annexing it. Thus, it is not plausible to call it an occupation when you retake what was previously yours.
But even leaving this factual history aside the occupation is needed because of the context mentioned above.
Further, the oppression you mention.. what exactly do you mean by that? The restriction of movement? Are you aware that Israel is transferring humanitarian aid to both the West Bank and Gaza? That they provide electricity and water? That they let Gazan patients enter Israel for medical aid, especially in cases where the treatment in Gaza is not available?
That Hamas is intercepting aid and resources?
@Gahlo
Yes, living complexes. Hamas has complete control. Simply kick out the people living there and relocate them. Or build the tunnels under low storey buildings. They are there... I haven't been to Gaza, but the West Bank - which is not as heavily but in a comparable level populated - has them too.
Also weapon's factories, more tunnels, the outskirts of towns. But they don't as that would make Israel's job easier and them easier targets so hide behind crucial infrastructure.
You realize that Israel is under much more observation in all of this, right? Everyone is having their eyes on the democracy and not the terror regime. I am not defending their horrible actions which I said a couple of times already, but no one here seems to acknowledge that - while mistakes happen, having evil people in the military and making questionable decisions are unavoidable - Israel has done more than any other waring faction to get the civilians out of harm's way, while endangering their own troops. IIRC not one comment here, although I said it multiple times, acknowledged this, while I was criticizing the shit that has happened on Israel's side a lot. The funny thing is, that while this can be seen in the very thread here, I am the one being accused by another poster as being not an honest actor.
|
"Thus, it is not plausible to call it an occupation when you retake what was previously yours."
The West bank did not belong to Israel. Never did.
|
On August 17 2024 18:14 PremoBeats wrote:
[Long-ass post, I ain't reading all that]
We cannot agree to disagree on things that have an obvious answer when you refuse to acknowledge the obvious answer. That's not true, we can. But then I won't be treating you seriously, because you're not a serious person. That's happening right now. You're pretending that you can't tell what a military occupation is in order to claim that when a military occupies a place, it's not a military occupation. That's idiotic. But you're not idiotic, you're just lying. You're pretending that you can't tell how a place inhabited by Palestinians belongs to Palestinians and not to Israelis. That's idiotic. But again, you're not idiotic, you're just lying.
|
On August 17 2024 19:28 Magic Powers wrote:
"Thus, it is not plausible to call it an occupation when you retake what was previously yours."
The West bank did not belong to Israel. Never did.
I have a rule, that I don't respond to people that don't respond to me. So as this is still open, please address this first or else we got nothing to talk about as I won't be only one justifying my position. I further explained why it was according to uti possidetis juris
@Magic Powers
Well, if you wouldn't intentionally misrepresent or misunderstand what I write, then perhaps my words wouldn't appear so unreasonable to you. Because I not once said or implied "might makes right".
I further said that "with great power comes great responsibility" is an idiotic sentiment when thinking about a superior power having to dial back on war. I never rejected it. I even said how the inferior and superior side have different responsibilities: "It is the responsibility of the leader of the inferior force to acknowledge defeat. It is the responsibility of the superior force to make acceptable terms for defeat (to avoid Versailles-consequences for example). "
I gave further context that an immoral enemy won't give two shits about responsibility anyway, hence why I said it was an idiotic sentiment.
So yeah. You either are intellectually unable or unwilling to put up a good faith conversation.
But if you are willing to, I will re-post my questions that so far have not been addressed.
On August 17 2024 19:36 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2024 18:14 PremoBeats wrote:
[Long-ass post, I ain't reading all that]
We cannot agree to disagree on things that have an obvious answer when you refuse to acknowledge the obvious answer. That's not true, we can. But then I won't be treating you seriously, because you're not a serious person. That's happening right now. You're pretending that you can't tell what a military occupation is in order to claim that when a military occupies a place, it's not a military occupation. That's idiotic. But you're not idiotic, you're just lying. You're pretending that you can't tell how a place inhabited by Palestinians belongs to Palestinians and not to Israelis. That's idiotic. But again, you're not idiotic, you're just lying.
I am using the legal term for an occupation. You can only occupy what is not yours. I said it already. I also wrote that the occupation (see, I am using your word?) is justified.
Obvious to you and obvious to your sources. But I already addressed this with the geocentric analogy.
Looking back before I started posting here, you also seem to have equalized Palestine to Apartheid. So it seemed to me that you are not all too clear with definitions.
|
On August 17 2024 19:44 PremoBeats wrote:
I am using the legal term for an occupation. You can only occupy what is not yours. I said it already. I also wrote that the occupation (see, I am using your word?) is justified. Obvious to you and obvious to your sources. But I already addressed this with the geocentric analogy.
Looking back before I started posting here, you also seem to have equalized Palestine to Apartheid. So it seemed to me that you are not all too clear with definitions.
What should Israel do with all these people living on its land?
|
On August 17 2024 20:00 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2024 19:44 PremoBeats wrote:
I am using the legal term for an occupation. You can only occupy what is not yours. I said it already. I also wrote that the occupation (see, I am using your word?) is justified. Obvious to you and obvious to your sources. But I already addressed this with the geocentric analogy.
Looking back before I started posting here, you also seem to have equalized Palestine to Apartheid. So it seemed to me that you are not all too clear with definitions.
What should Israel do with all these people living on its land?
Which people do you mean? The Jewish Israelis? The Arab Muslims? The Arab Christians? The Palestinian Muslims? The Druze? Israel is incredibly diverse so it is hard to say which people you mean. Or do you mean all of them?
|
On August 17 2024 20:08 PremoBeats wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2024 20:00 Nebuchad wrote:On August 17 2024 19:44 PremoBeats wrote:
I am using the legal term for an occupation. You can only occupy what is not yours. I said it already. I also wrote that the occupation (see, I am using your word?) is justified. Obvious to you and obvious to your sources. But I already addressed this with the geocentric analogy.
Looking back before I started posting here, you also seem to have equalized Palestine to Apartheid. So it seemed to me that you are not all too clear with definitions.
What should Israel do with all these people living on its land? Which people do you mean? The Jewish Israelis? The Arab Muslims? The Arab Christians? The Palestinian Muslims? The Druze? Israel is incredibly diverse so it is hard to say which people you mean. Or do you mean all of them?
No, as you know because you're not stupid, I meant the Palestinians in Gaza and in the West Bank
|
@Premo
You don't have a moral leg to stand on. You lied when you said that I misinterpreted your words. You believe with great power does not come great responsibility. From that it follows that you believe might makes right.
You said I misinterpreted your words, but I didn't. So don't act like you're on a high horse.
The West bank never belonged to Israel. You're spreading misinformation on purpose.
|
On August 17 2024 20:14 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2024 20:08 PremoBeats wrote:On August 17 2024 20:00 Nebuchad wrote:On August 17 2024 19:44 PremoBeats wrote:
I am using the legal term for an occupation. You can only occupy what is not yours. I said it already. I also wrote that the occupation (see, I am using your word?) is justified. Obvious to you and obvious to your sources. But I already addressed this with the geocentric analogy.
Looking back before I started posting here, you also seem to have equalized Palestine to Apartheid. So it seemed to me that you are not all too clear with definitions.
What should Israel do with all these people living on its land? Which people do you mean? The Jewish Israelis? The Arab Muslims? The Arab Christians? The Palestinian Muslims? The Druze? Israel is incredibly diverse so it is hard to say which people you mean. Or do you mean all of them? No, as you know because you're not stupid, I meant the Palestinians in Gaza and in the West Bank
I didn't think you meant Gaza and the West Bank as you don't see these areas as official Israel territory.
Well, tough question, as even the Arab neighbors don't want the Palestinians as refugees (I think you know why...).
If Hamas surrenders, all officers should go to prison. Completely disarm both regions.
I'd have the West Bank make a confederation with Jordanian and Gaza with Egypt, giving authority to the major tribes and having these under the authority of the intelligence of Egypt and Jordan who supervise them from the outside. Israel should compensate both governments for the administrative effort and also have a supervising function. We don't need a country that is dependent on the destruction of another in my opinion.
On August 17 2024 20:17 Magic Powers wrote:
@Premo
You don't have a moral leg to stand on. You lied when you said that I misinterpreted your words. You believe with great power does not come great responsibility. From that it follows that you believe might makes right.
You said I misinterpreted your words, but I didn't. So don't act like you're on a high horse.
The West bank never belonged to Israel. You're spreading misinformation on purpose.
You did misrepresent my words. I even gave a detailed response... this one here:
"I further said that "with great power comes great responsibility" is an idiotic sentiment when thinking about a superior power having to dial back on war. I never rejected it. I even said how the inferior and superior side have different responsibilities: "It is the responsibility of the leader of the inferior force to acknowledge defeat. It is the responsibility of the superior force to make acceptable terms for defeat (to avoid Versailles-consequences for example). "
I gave further context that an immoral enemy won't give two shits about responsibility anyway, hence why I said it was an idiotic sentiment."
So please quote me, where I said what you accuse me of, namely "You believe with great power does not come great responsibility" when I wrote "I even said how the inferior and superior side have different responsibilities: "It is the responsibility of the leader of the inferior force to acknowledge defeat. It is the responsibility of the superior force to make acceptable terms for defeat " and "I further said that "with great power comes great responsibility" is an idiotic sentiment when thinking about a superior power having to dial back on war. I never rejected it."
|
On August 17 2024 20:31 PremoBeats wrote:
I didn't think you meant Gaza and the West Bank as you don't see these areas as official Israel territory.
Well, tough question, as even the Arab neighbors don't want the Palestinians as refugees (I think you know why...).
If Hamas surrenders, all officers should go to prison. Completely disarm both regions.
I'd have the West Bank make a confederation with Jordanian and Gaza with Egypt, giving authority to the major tribes and having these under the authority of the intelligence of Egypt and Jordan who supervise them from the outside. Israel should compensate both governments for the administrative effort and also have a supervising function. We don't need a country that is dependent on the destruction of another in my opinion.
That sounds bad, you're letting those non-Israeli people live on Israeli land, it's fucked up. Ethnic cleansing seems like a much better solution.
|
On August 17 2024 20:31 PremoBeats wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2024 20:14 Nebuchad wrote:On August 17 2024 20:08 PremoBeats wrote:On August 17 2024 20:00 Nebuchad wrote:On August 17 2024 19:44 PremoBeats wrote:
I am using the legal term for an occupation. You can only occupy what is not yours. I said it already. I also wrote that the occupation (see, I am using your word?) is justified. Obvious to you and obvious to your sources. But I already addressed this with the geocentric analogy.
Looking back before I started posting here, you also seem to have equalized Palestine to Apartheid. So it seemed to me that you are not all too clear with definitions.
What should Israel do with all these people living on its land? Which people do you mean? The Jewish Israelis? The Arab Muslims? The Arab Christians? The Palestinian Muslims? The Druze? Israel is incredibly diverse so it is hard to say which people you mean. Or do you mean all of them? No, as you know because you're not stupid, I meant the Palestinians in Gaza and in the West Bank I didn't think you meant Gaza and the West Bank as you don't see these areas as official Israel territory. Well, tough question, as even the Arab neighbors don't want the Palestinians as refugees (I think you know why...). If Hamas surrenders, all officers should go to prison. Completely disarm both regions. I'd have the West Bank make a confederation with Jordanian and Gaza with Egypt, giving authority to the major tribes and having these under the authority of the intelligence of Egypt and Jordan who supervise them from the outside. Israel should compensate both governments for the administrative effort and also have a supervising function. We don't need a country that is dependent on the destruction of another in my opinion. Show nested quote +On August 17 2024 20:17 Magic Powers wrote:
@Premo
You don't have a moral leg to stand on. You lied when you said that I misinterpreted your words. You believe with great power does not come great responsibility. From that it follows that you believe might makes right.
You said I misinterpreted your words, but I didn't. So don't act like you're on a high horse.
The West bank never belonged to Israel. You're spreading misinformation on purpose. You did misrepresent my words. I even gave a detailed response... this one here: "I further said that "with great power comes great responsibility" is an idiotic sentiment when thinking about a superior power having to dial back on war. I never rejected it. I even said how the inferior and superior side have different responsibilities: "It is the responsibility of the leader of the inferior force to acknowledge defeat. It is the responsibility of the superior force to make acceptable terms for defeat (to avoid Versailles-consequences for example). " I gave further context that an immoral enemy won't give two shits about responsibility anyway, hence why I said it was an idiotic sentiment." So please quote me, where I said what you accuse me of, namely "You believe with great power does not come great responsibility" when I wrote "I even said how the inferior and superior side have different responsibilities: "It is the responsibility of the leader of the inferior force to acknowledge defeat. It is the responsibility of the superior force to make acceptable terms for defeat " and "I further said that "with great power comes great responsibility" is an idiotic sentiment when thinking about a superior power having to dial back on war. I never rejected it."
I don't see how your explanation changes anything. I can still safely conclude that you believe in the concept of might makes right, since you're not condemnding Israel's actions such as killing tens of thousands of people. You're asking Hamas to surrender, but not Israel to withdraw. That makes you biased towards the more powerful force, hence proving my point.
It's time for you to admit that Israel is illegal occupying the West bank. There is not a single argument in the world that supports your claim about the legality of the occupation.
|
On August 17 2024 20:38 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2024 20:31 PremoBeats wrote:
I didn't think you meant Gaza and the West Bank as you don't see these areas as official Israel territory.
Well, tough question, as even the Arab neighbors don't want the Palestinians as refugees (I think you know why...).
If Hamas surrenders, all officers should go to prison. Completely disarm both regions.
I'd have the West Bank make a confederation with Jordanian and Gaza with Egypt, giving authority to the major tribes and having these under the authority of the intelligence of Egypt and Jordan who supervise them from the outside. Israel should compensate both governments for the administrative effort and also have a supervising function. We don't need a country that is dependent on the destruction of another in my opinion.
That sounds bad, you're letting those non-Israeli people live on Israeli land, it's fucked up. Ethnic cleansing seems like a much better solution.
Didn't this happen through all of history when borders changed? I mean I understand that what always was done this way does not necessarily have to be ok or continued, but what would be your solution?
In my opinion every solution we look at will be bad.... but there needs to be a one eyed among the blind. What is yours, if you think this one is shit?
And I mean.. you can ask the limited amount of non-Jewish people that moved from Palestine to Israel how bad it is to live there. Probably much better than under Hamas control.
@Magic Powers
So you equate the concept of "might makes right" with an individual example that has unprecedented context in the history of mankind? This must be one of the mightiest fallacies I have read here and there are many around, as I never said that Israel is right because it has might. Seriously.. this is bananas. You are completely ignoring what I wrote several times here.
I even said before that I can go along with the occupation wording, lol.
I also said that the occupation is justified because of the context that I gave above.
So are you saying that Israel is occupying Jordan territory?
|
On August 17 2024 20:43 PremoBeats wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2024 20:38 Nebuchad wrote:On August 17 2024 20:31 PremoBeats wrote:
I didn't think you meant Gaza and the West Bank as you don't see these areas as official Israel territory.
Well, tough question, as even the Arab neighbors don't want the Palestinians as refugees (I think you know why...).
If Hamas surrenders, all officers should go to prison. Completely disarm both regions.
I'd have the West Bank make a confederation with Jordanian and Gaza with Egypt, giving authority to the major tribes and having these under the authority of the intelligence of Egypt and Jordan who supervise them from the outside. Israel should compensate both governments for the administrative effort and also have a supervising function. We don't need a country that is dependent on the destruction of another in my opinion.
That sounds bad, you're letting those non-Israeli people live on Israeli land, it's fucked up. Ethnic cleansing seems like a much better solution. Didn't this happen through all of history when borders changed? I mean I understand that what always was done this way does not necessarily have to be ok or continued, but what would be your solution? In my opinion every solution we look at will be bad.... but there needs to be a one eyed among the blind. What is yours, if you think this one is shit? And I mean.. you can ask the limited amount of non-Jewish people that moved from Palestine to Israel how bad it is to live there. Probably much better than under Hamas control. @Magic Powers So you equate the concept of "might makes right" with an individual example that has unprecedented context in the history of mankind? This must be one of the mightiest fallacies I have read here and there are many around, as I never said that Israel is right because it has might. Seriously.. this is bananas. You are completely ignoring what I wrote several times here. I even said before that I can go along with the occupation wording, lol. I also said that the occupation is justified because of the context that I gave above. So are you saying that Israel is occupying Jordan territory?
Ah yes, now it's a fallacy. Yawn. Come back to me when you have a good argument rather than just a straight up denial of an obvious interpretation of your words.
The West bank belongs to the people who lived there before it was stolen. That's the Palestinian people who are being displaced.
Two wrongs don't make a right. It's not a difficult concept to understand.
|
On August 17 2024 20:43 PremoBeats wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2024 20:38 Nebuchad wrote:On August 17 2024 20:31 PremoBeats wrote:
I didn't think you meant Gaza and the West Bank as you don't see these areas as official Israel territory.
Well, tough question, as even the Arab neighbors don't want the Palestinians as refugees (I think you know why...).
If Hamas surrenders, all officers should go to prison. Completely disarm both regions.
I'd have the West Bank make a confederation with Jordanian and Gaza with Egypt, giving authority to the major tribes and having these under the authority of the intelligence of Egypt and Jordan who supervise them from the outside. Israel should compensate both governments for the administrative effort and also have a supervising function. We don't need a country that is dependent on the destruction of another in my opinion.
That sounds bad, you're letting those non-Israeli people live on Israeli land, it's fucked up. Ethnic cleansing seems like a much better solution. Didn't this happen through all of history when borders changed? I mean I understand that what always was done this way does not necessarily have to be ok or continued, but what would be your solution?
I don't need a solution because I don't stupidly claim that Israel deserves to own lands where other people are living, that's a you problem.
|
On August 17 2024 20:49 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2024 20:43 PremoBeats wrote:On August 17 2024 20:38 Nebuchad wrote:On August 17 2024 20:31 PremoBeats wrote:
I didn't think you meant Gaza and the West Bank as you don't see these areas as official Israel territory.
Well, tough question, as even the Arab neighbors don't want the Palestinians as refugees (I think you know why...).
If Hamas surrenders, all officers should go to prison. Completely disarm both regions.
I'd have the West Bank make a confederation with Jordanian and Gaza with Egypt, giving authority to the major tribes and having these under the authority of the intelligence of Egypt and Jordan who supervise them from the outside. Israel should compensate both governments for the administrative effort and also have a supervising function. We don't need a country that is dependent on the destruction of another in my opinion.
That sounds bad, you're letting those non-Israeli people live on Israeli land, it's fucked up. Ethnic cleansing seems like a much better solution. Didn't this happen through all of history when borders changed? I mean I understand that what always was done this way does not necessarily have to be ok or continued, but what would be your solution? I don't need a solution because I don't stupidly claim that Israel deserves to own lands where other people are living, that's a you problem.
Hahaha, easy way out. I never said it deserves it. For all I care you can make it part of Egypt and Jordan with all the ideas I gave before. But no one else wants it and the Arabs have repeatedly denied partition plans (which you - among other things - still seem to ignore).
@Magic Powers
Yup. If you take one example (a highly extraordinary at that) and deduct from this via a false equivocation fallacy (I do not think Israel is right because it has might but because of other reasons) that I always think "might makes right" which I already said I don't, it is a hasty generalization fallacy.
I also condemned Israel's actions several times. Yet you have not anywhere complimented their humanitarian aid or efforts to minimize civilian casualties, lol.
Ok, so you are for a state that denies the existence of its neighbor and we will have the exact same scenario right now, simply with Palestine being a state. Yeah?
And on top, the Arabs themselves who you are speaking for here, denied this idea several times. So now what?
|
On August 17 2024 20:59 PremoBeats wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2024 20:49 Nebuchad wrote:On August 17 2024 20:43 PremoBeats wrote:On August 17 2024 20:38 Nebuchad wrote:On August 17 2024 20:31 PremoBeats wrote:
I didn't think you meant Gaza and the West Bank as you don't see these areas as official Israel territory.
Well, tough question, as even the Arab neighbors don't want the Palestinians as refugees (I think you know why...).
If Hamas surrenders, all officers should go to prison. Completely disarm both regions.
I'd have the West Bank make a confederation with Jordanian and Gaza with Egypt, giving authority to the major tribes and having these under the authority of the intelligence of Egypt and Jordan who supervise them from the outside. Israel should compensate both governments for the administrative effort and also have a supervising function. We don't need a country that is dependent on the destruction of another in my opinion.
That sounds bad, you're letting those non-Israeli people live on Israeli land, it's fucked up. Ethnic cleansing seems like a much better solution. Didn't this happen through all of history when borders changed? I mean I understand that what always was done this way does not necessarily have to be ok or continued, but what would be your solution? I don't need a solution because I don't stupidly claim that Israel deserves to own lands where other people are living, that's a you problem. Hahaha, easy way out. I never said it deserves it. For all I care you can make it part of Egypt and Jordan with all the ideas I gave before. But no one else wants it and the Arabs have repeatedly denied partition plans (which you - among other things - still seem to ignore).
"Other countries also do wrong, therefore Israel is actually not as bad as you think".
|
On August 17 2024 21:03 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2024 20:59 PremoBeats wrote:On August 17 2024 20:49 Nebuchad wrote:On August 17 2024 20:43 PremoBeats wrote:On August 17 2024 20:38 Nebuchad wrote:On August 17 2024 20:31 PremoBeats wrote:
I didn't think you meant Gaza and the West Bank as you don't see these areas as official Israel territory.
Well, tough question, as even the Arab neighbors don't want the Palestinians as refugees (I think you know why...).
If Hamas surrenders, all officers should go to prison. Completely disarm both regions.
I'd have the West Bank make a confederation with Jordanian and Gaza with Egypt, giving authority to the major tribes and having these under the authority of the intelligence of Egypt and Jordan who supervise them from the outside. Israel should compensate both governments for the administrative effort and also have a supervising function. We don't need a country that is dependent on the destruction of another in my opinion.
That sounds bad, you're letting those non-Israeli people live on Israeli land, it's fucked up. Ethnic cleansing seems like a much better solution. Didn't this happen through all of history when borders changed? I mean I understand that what always was done this way does not necessarily have to be ok or continued, but what would be your solution? I don't need a solution because I don't stupidly claim that Israel deserves to own lands where other people are living, that's a you problem. Hahaha, easy way out. I never said it deserves it. For all I care you can make it part of Egypt and Jordan with all the ideas I gave before. But no one else wants it and the Arabs have repeatedly denied partition plans (which you - among other things - still seem to ignore). "Other countries also do wrong, therefore Israel is actually not as bad as you think".
What are you even talking about? I didn't talk about Israel doing nothingbad and I didn't talk about other countries doing anything bad as well. Like what the fuck.. this gets worse and worse.
Palestinian Arabs have denied partition plans, holy fuck.
|
On August 17 2024 21:06 PremoBeats wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2024 21:03 Magic Powers wrote:On August 17 2024 20:59 PremoBeats wrote:On August 17 2024 20:49 Nebuchad wrote:On August 17 2024 20:43 PremoBeats wrote:On August 17 2024 20:38 Nebuchad wrote:On August 17 2024 20:31 PremoBeats wrote:
I didn't think you meant Gaza and the West Bank as you don't see these areas as official Israel territory.
Well, tough question, as even the Arab neighbors don't want the Palestinians as refugees (I think you know why...).
If Hamas surrenders, all officers should go to prison. Completely disarm both regions.
I'd have the West Bank make a confederation with Jordanian and Gaza with Egypt, giving authority to the major tribes and having these under the authority of the intelligence of Egypt and Jordan who supervise them from the outside. Israel should compensate both governments for the administrative effort and also have a supervising function. We don't need a country that is dependent on the destruction of another in my opinion.
That sounds bad, you're letting those non-Israeli people live on Israeli land, it's fucked up. Ethnic cleansing seems like a much better solution. Didn't this happen through all of history when borders changed? I mean I understand that what always was done this way does not necessarily have to be ok or continued, but what would be your solution? I don't need a solution because I don't stupidly claim that Israel deserves to own lands where other people are living, that's a you problem. Hahaha, easy way out. I never said it deserves it. For all I care you can make it part of Egypt and Jordan with all the ideas I gave before. But no one else wants it and the Arabs have repeatedly denied partition plans (which you - among other things - still seem to ignore). "Other countries also do wrong, therefore Israel is actually not as bad as you think". What are you even talking about? I didn't talk about Israel doing nothingbad and I didn't talk about other countries doing anything bad as well. Like what the fuck.. this gets worse and worse. Palestinian Arabs have denied partition plans, holy fuck.
We discussed the partition plans plenty of times many months before you arrived in this thread. The Palestinians weren't given a fair deal at any point, so obviously they had to reject the plans. After Israel was established, no more deals were offered to them by Israel because the Zionists had everything they wanted and no longer pretended to care about the Palestinian population. They revealed they cards and the deal was done. One war, one victory.
Meanwhile you still haven't acknowledged that the West bank is stolen land.
|
On August 17 2024 01:58 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2024 01:52 RvB wrote:On August 16 2024 18:44 Jockmcplop wrote:On August 16 2024 18:38 Magic Powers wrote:On August 16 2024 16:06 RenSC2 wrote:On August 16 2024 14:25 Liquid`Drone wrote:On August 16 2024 09:48 RenSC2 wrote:On August 16 2024 07:45 Liquid`Drone wrote:On August 16 2024 07:42 RenSC2 wrote:On August 16 2024 06:00 Magic Powers wrote:
[quote]
It makes perfect sense if you consider that the war has been taking place inside Gaza and not in Israel for the last ten months.
I don't know why this is so hard to understand. Israel has the power. In war, it is not the responsibility of the superior force to quit. It is the responsibility of the inferior force to surrender. Until the inferior force surrenders, the war will go on and many people will die. Hamas can end this war whenever they want by surrendering unconditionally. I hope that if you try to examine conflicts around the world throughout history through this very lens you just applied, you would realize that it's not a good lens to apply. Can you give an example of what you are trying to say? In WW2 I think the forces that tried to resist nazi or japanese imperialism (or soviet for that matter) and occupation were heroic and ultimately these local, inferior forces constitued an important part of the effort to combat nazism/fascism. I've rarely ever seen people argue that Finland was wrong to not immediately surrender in the winter war, but France has been subject to some critique in that conflict. More recently, you might argue that Ukraine fits the bill, although with the support they've been getting they might not be inferior. Basically how just a war effort is is most definitely not determined by how strong the armies are. If anything, there's an inverse relationship: an inferior army is only willing to fight a just war, while a superior army has fewer qualms with fighting a war with no moral justification. Thanks, I was trying to understand what you were saying and this helps. I was mostly focused on the responsibility of the superior force to quit to which I would say they have no responsibility. If the inferior forces want the war to end, then it's on them to surrender. They can save their people, but the superior force has no responsibility to do so. If the inferior force believes in their cause and are willing to sacrifice their lives for it, they're free to fight on. They can keep fighting until their people no longer exist if they so choose. That's their right, but I wouldn't recommend it. The Palestinians believe in their own cause, Israel believes in theirs. So they fight and will keep fighting until one decides it isn't worth it anymore or one side no longer exists. It would be quite strange for the side that's winning to decide it isn't worth it. Examples like the Finns in WW2 or current Ukrainians seem like good examples of people who are willing to sacrifice for what they see as a better future. I'd suggest that the Palestinian people would be much better off with IDF rule than Hamas rule, but that's for them to decide. Hard to get much worse than what is currently happening to them under Hamas rule. @Magic Powers, you might want to examine the Peter Parker Principle and really think about it before you claim we should all follow it. Is it the responsibility of anyone with two dollars to give one to someone with none? I'd say people have a responsibility to do no evil. However, doing good is not a responsibility. Living neutrally is a perfectly acceptable life. Nobody should praise you for it, but it's perfectly acceptable. If Spider-Man really exists, but he just decides to live a normal life, that's perfectly okay. It's not his fault that Uncle Ben died. It's the murderer's fault. I'm not going to praise Israel as some bastion of morality. However, I will not condemn them for fighting a war with an opponent who wants a complete worldwide genocide of Jewish people. Once in a war, we should accept that war is awful and awful things happen in war. I'd prefer a more targeted war, but we aren't in a magical world where Israeli Supermen can fly in, bounce bullets off their chest and then grab the bad guys. Unfortunately, we live in the real world where Israeli soldiers have to put their lives on the line and I'd never ask them to sacrifice themselves or even take small risks for their enemy's sake. As a small aside, one area where I'd actually agree with possible sanctions against Israel is in relation to prisoner treatment. It's not part of the war. If the conditions are actually as bad as claimed and people are not held accountable internally, that would be worthy of sanction. Israel is doing evil, it's on them to end the war. It's on Hamas to not attack Israel again. As of this moment, Israel is committing the greatest evil because they're actively engaging in evil, whereas Hamas is obviously powerless to commit the evil that they would like to engage in. Hamas right now is not the same as Hamas a month ago. They have undergone an extremist takeover (if such a thing is even possible with Hamas) since Israel killed their political leader. I would wager this is the exact outcome Israel wants. Hamas won't ever agree to anything except the outright destruction of Israel while the new guys are in charge. When I say 'new guys' I mean the guys who masterminded Oct 7th, who now run the political wing of Hamas. Meanwhile in the West Bank Israeli extremists have torched a village, killing one innocent Palestinian. I'm sure they will continue to be protected for this kind of thing. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c623zkwd04qo Not really. Sinwar is the one who makes the important decisions and leads Hamas in practice. This has been the case since before the war started. Haniyes death does not change much. That seems to contradict most of the analyses I read around the assassination. Haniyeh was Hamas' main diplomat as well as an internal voice for moderation. Obviously the situation on the ground in Gaza was 100% Sinwar and his faction. But the political situation was considerably more complicated. Israel gave a big W to the radical faction. Given that Israel *wants* the situation to continue as is, it doesn't make an immediate difference. It blew up any realistic chance at a ceasefire. Unsurprisingly Netanyahu gives 0 shits about that. Him.and the even scarier nationalist partners in his government want nothing more than to flatten Gaza, and everybody in it.
A relative moderate with no power. The leadership in Qatar was not even informed about the attack on October 7. We can see how much of a difference it has made during the current round of negotiations: zero. Hamas demands and stance are the same as before.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
