|
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 12 2023 01:47 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2023 01:31 SEB2610 wrote:On October 12 2023 01:19 Acrofales wrote:On October 11 2023 21:30 SEB2610 wrote:On October 11 2023 17:05 Silvanel wrote:
I have read that hostages were executed and videos will soon hit the web... if thats true I hope Netanjahu will see his days in court. Not even trying to bring 150 of its own citizens home seems simply criminal. If I demand that you wire me all of your money right now or I will go find a kitten and torture it, are you to blame for my actions if you didnt meet my demands? Not really a comparison as I have no obligation to protect all kittens. Now if you had my kitten and threatened to torture it... things change, don't they? Both in how likely I am to wire you money and in how I failed in my duty to protect said kitten from harm if I don't do my utmost to stop you from torturing it. + Show Spoiler +But really, joke's on you, because I don't have a kitten. What is ‘doing the utmost’ to protect your kitten? If you wire me money, isn’t that just encouraging me to do the same thing all over again because you rewarded the behavior? Perhaps it would be wiser to not reward my extortion thereby not encouraging me to kidnap and torture your other kittens. Depending on what the kitten is and what the reward is you will be on either side of this argument during your entire life.
If a drunk homeless man walks up to me and demand that I state the sky is pink or he will make a voodoo doll of me, yes I might state the sky is pink because I deem that the best approach even if it’s a clear cut case of extortion. So in that sense you’re right.
On the other hand, humans are capable of not caving in to extortion demands even if that costs them their life or a loved one’s. (Or because they don’t trust the extortionists to uphold their part og the bargain anyway).
|
As individuals it's often better to negotiate - as even though by doing this you "reward" this behavior, in many examples you probably won't be the next victim of it. It's often more or less random, so someone else will suffer instead most probably.
If I'm being robbed, I'll probably give them my money/possessions - my life is more important to me, obviously, and even though it encourages the robbers to continue doing so, the chances are high I myself won't be their victim again.
As a state whose citizens have been targeted by this behavior for long time, if you reward it - it's your citizens themselves who will suffer for it. You reward this behavior specifically against yourself, not someone else.
It's maybe more akin to bullying in a school - if you gave away your lunch money under pressure once, you'll probably be targeted by these bullies for years. It's not random, you were selected as a target and you're "trapped" being in the same school with them.
|
On October 12 2023 00:30 FlaShFTW wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2023 00:07 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
This would appear to make sense seeing how Hezbollah wasn't at the ready when the attacked occurred. Showing some signs, at least, they had no idea what was happening in the first hours.
So Hamas acted on it's own volition, planned this all somehow, and Egypt apparently had warned Israel about this weeks in advance and Israel ignored the warning. Wow.
Now a US Lawmaker just confirmed that Israel was warned by Egypt. 3 days before the attacks.
The chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee in the American House of Representatives, Michael McCaul, revealed that Egypt warned Israel of "such an event" three days before the start of the war. "We know that Egypt warned the Israelis three days before, that such an event could happen," McCaul said. (Lior Ben Ari)
Source
|
Seen a couple reports Israel is using white phosphorus. If confirmed, that’s fucked.
Has there been any official “declaration of war” by Israel yet? If so, who exactly do they say they’re declaring war on? “Hamas” isn’t a country but I guess it’s still more specific than just declaring “War on Terror.”
|
On October 12 2023 04:00 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2023 00:30 FlaShFTW wrote:On October 12 2023 00:07 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:This would appear to make sense seeing how Hezbollah wasn't at the ready when the attacked occurred. Showing some signs, at least, they had no idea what was happening in the first hours. https://twitter.com/DeItaone/status/1712114294865695173 So Hamas acted on it's own volition, planned this all somehow, and Egypt apparently had warned Israel about this weeks in advance and Israel ignored the warning. Wow. Now a US Lawmaker just confirmed that Israel was warned by Egypt. 3 days before the attacks. Show nested quote +The chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee in the American House of Representatives, Michael McCaul, revealed that Egypt warned Israel of "such an event" three days before the start of the war. "We know that Egypt warned the Israelis three days before, that such an event could happen," McCaul said. (Lior Ben Ari) Source
Now BBC is reporting the same: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67082047
|
On October 12 2023 04:03 ChristianS wrote:
Has there been any official “declaration of war” by Israel yet? If so, who exactly do they say they’re declaring war on? “Hamas” isn’t a country but I guess it’s still more specific than just declaring “War on Terror.”
Yes, their government invoked article 40 of their constitution or whatevery they have in Israel. It's more like a declaration of being in a state of war than declaration of war against somebody.
|
This is such a weird thing to say. They weren’t colonized, they just had an issue with immigration, specifically a shitload of white European immigrants with a different language, religion, and culture showing up. And taking their land. With guns. Not within their control and against their will. An excessive amount of immigration.
What point do you think you were making there by saying that it wasn’t colonization, it was just that? The things you described are the bits of colonization that people don’t like.
It’s like saying “it wasn’t murder, it was just voluntary premeditated nonconsensual killing”. Like okay but that’s what makes it bad.
The pre-war immigration has been discussed at length in the thread. How many examples of colonization are there in history where both sides are at the same level of development, the region is under the control of another entity (that actually blocks further colonisation at the request of the people being colonized), the "natives" outnumber the colonizers 7-3, the colonizers are a dispersed diaspora and the natives have the support of several neighbouring countries.
You just confuse the immigration part with the results of losing the immediate follow up war. By your metric Sweden is being colonized right now since we have ~33 % of the population with a foreign background. To be fair there are people who feel this way but probably not ones you want to be associated with...
@Kitten: I guess I’m curious what you think “solved” (even a “horrible solution”) looks like. We’re straying dangerously close to a well-known euphemism, and I’m certainly hoping Israel’s plans don’t look anything like that. My best guess wouldn’t be that they do, but my best guess is that they’re going to kill a bunch of people, maybe take some more land, and go home, leaving the remaining Palestinians imprisoned in an even smaller, denser area. I wouldn’t call an outcome like that “solved,” horribly or otherwise; only “prolonged” or “escalated.”
I have no idea but I'm not in charge of Israel so why would I?
I just feel that this is going to be horrible either way and instead of Israel just reducing Gaza to rubble and sending people back to medieval times in terms of living there is some kind of plan for a long term solution instead of kicking the can another 10 years. That would probably come with some kind of draconian occupation and an attempt at "deprogramming" the entire population. I'm not sure it can even work but it would be better than killing a bunch of people and building higher walls.
On the topic of negotiation.
If the gloves really are off what makes everyone so sure it's still Hamas making the demands? All the social media posts off horrible things have made the world back off and the Israeli population is out for blood.
It might be the IDF saying "Look, if you like buildings we don't want to see you behead any kids on telegram. Start with that shit and your highest landmark is going to be a one story building with a high chimney".
I'm actively trying to not look for horrible things right now but Israel is sending it right now and I haven't heard anything large about hostages being executed yet.
|
United States41961 Posts
Colonized is non consensual. Comparing it with legal immigration is like comparing rape with sex. You’re trying to muddy the waters with “people moving, what’s the issue”.
|
On October 12 2023 04:58 KwarK wrote:
Colonized is non consensual. Comparing it with legal immigration is like comparing rape with sex. You’re trying to muddy the waters with “people moving, what’s the issue”.
And the Jewish immigration was illegal?
|
On October 12 2023 04:58 KwarK wrote:
Colonized is non consensual. Comparing it with legal immigration is like comparing rape with sex. You’re trying to muddy the waters with “people moving, what’s the issue”.
Really?
There was a 10 % Jewish minority since the 1800s. When more immigrants arrived buying up less desirable land it was even seen as a positive thing. It wasn't until even more people arrived (considering world events as the trigger) that the problems started. And as this thread has made it abundantly clear it was part of the population on both sides driving the violence. How is that colonisation and not a textbook example of the potential problems with immigration?
It was even legal immigration until the Brits stopped it.
Potentially it could have ended up being "people moving, what's the issue" if there hadn't been violence followed by a war.
|
On October 12 2023 04:58 KwarK wrote:
Colonized is non consensual. Comparing it with legal immigration is like comparing rape with sex. You’re trying to muddy the waters with “people moving, what’s the issue”.
‘Legality’ is such a bizzare notion to invole. Were the Nazi concentration not legal according to the Nazis? Any entity can claim be the authority in any matter — this has nothing to do with what’s right, just or good.
|
On October 12 2023 05:12 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2023 04:58 KwarK wrote:
Colonized is non consensual. Comparing it with legal immigration is like comparing rape with sex. You’re trying to muddy the waters with “people moving, what’s the issue”. And the Jewish immigration was illegal?
During British rule immigration numbers for Jews were capped so large parts of the immigration was illegal yes. The caps were a response to civil unrest from the Arabs that did not like the immigration afaik.
|
United States41961 Posts
On October 12 2023 05:18 SEB2610 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2023 04:58 KwarK wrote:
Colonized is non consensual. Comparing it with legal immigration is like comparing rape with sex. You’re trying to muddy the waters with “people moving, what’s the issue”. ‘Legality’ is such a bizzare notion to invole. Were the Nazi concentration not legal according to the Nazis? Any entity can claim be the authority in any matter — this has nothing to do with what’s right, just or good.
In the context of immigration it very much does have to do with what is right.
The assertion made was that if colonization is bad then what about all the immigrants living in Sweden.
Legal immigration to Sweden as allowed by the framework established by the democratically elected government of Sweden is not colonization because it takes place with the consent of the existing population. The fact that it is legal and the fact that it is a democratic state is hugely relevant.
The tangent of “legal <> right” is the bizarre notion here. In this specific context (claiming that colonization and legal immigration are the same thing) it is absolutely key. There may be instances in which legal and right are different things, such as the Nazis, but there is no reason to bring them into an argument in which it’s irrelevant. Nobody said that legal always equals right and illegal always equals wrong. The claim was that what is happening in Sweden is the same as what happened in Palestine.
|
It does seem a bit odd to use the word “immigration” to describe people the British government said could legally come to Palestine (because it’s “consensual”), while using “colonization” for people the British government didn’t say could legally come to Palestine (because it’s “nonconsensual”).
I understand that using “legal” and “illegal” as a proxy for “with/without the consent of the population” is a necessary approximation because the population’s actual opinion isn’t monolithic or well-documented. But in this case what’s “legal” or “illegal” is being determined by a colonial government. Like, if the colonials say it’s okay it’s “immigration” but if they don’t say it’s okay it’s “colonialism”?
|
United States41961 Posts
Honestly I feel like I’m getting trolled here
“The Palestinians weren’t colonized, they just had non consensual illegal immigration by Europeans who set up their own state on the land of the people living there”
“That’s colonization”
“Well how’s that different to Sweden, lots of people move to Sweden, would you say Sweden was colonized”
“No, that was legal immigration”
“Oh, so if it’s legal that automatically makes it okay. Well the Nazis were legal, does that make them okay?!”
|
In what sense was the land Palestinians'? They didn't have sovereignty over it, didn't control the borders that they later claimed, they usually (?) didn't legally own the land settled by the Jews and when they did, they consensually sold it to the Jewish settlers. The land was sparsely populated and the settlers were initially not displacing the Arabs.
You may have a point with the legality of said immigration after the British tried to stem the flow (although I'm curious what proportion of it was illegal vs. legal), however, I think the context is important here. Namely, the British tried to limit the Jewish migration to Palestine at the time when Hitler was ramping up his anti-Jewish repressions and the West decided to close the borders to Jewish refugees from Europe.
|
Don’t mean to troll, and I think I agree that “colonization” is a suitable word for what happened to Palestine, and is an absurd word to use for refugees legally migrating to Sweden. I’m just not immediately convinced that “was the immigration legal according to the local government at the time?” is a clean test for what is or isn’t “colonization.”
|
On October 12 2023 05:40 KwarK wrote:
Honestly I feel like I’m getting trolled here
“The Palestinians weren’t colonized, they just had non consensual illegal immigration by Europeans who set up their own state on the land of the people living there”
“That’s colonization”
“Well how’s that different to Sweden, lots of people move to Sweden, would you say Sweden was colonized”
“No, that was legal immigration”
“Oh, so if it’s legal that automatically makes it okay. Well the Nazis were legal, does that make them okay?!”
I share the same feeling reading your posts so I guess it's mutual.
I guess it was only about 20 % rape if it all hinges on legality since the large majority of Jewish immigration was in fact legal?
Also the Arabs of the time disagreed with you given that Jewish migration was legal in during the arab revolt of 1936-1939 which was specifically about Jewish migration.
|
United States41961 Posts
On October 12 2023 06:24 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2023 05:40 KwarK wrote:
Honestly I feel like I’m getting trolled here
“The Palestinians weren’t colonized, they just had non consensual illegal immigration by Europeans who set up their own state on the land of the people living there”
“That’s colonization”
“Well how’s that different to Sweden, lots of people move to Sweden, would you say Sweden was colonized”
“No, that was legal immigration”
“Oh, so if it’s legal that automatically makes it okay. Well the Nazis were legal, does that make them okay?!” I share the same feeling reading your posts so I guess it's mutual. I guess it was only about 20 % rape if it all hinges on legality since the large majority of Jewish immigration was in fact legal? Also the Arabs of the time disagreed with you given that Jewish migration was legal in during the arab revolt of 1936-1939 which was specifically about Jewish migration.
“Well if the Swedes in Sweden can make something legal then why can’t the British in Palestine?”
|
United States41961 Posts
On October 12 2023 06:22 ChristianS wrote:
Don’t mean to troll, and I think I agree that “colonization” is a suitable word for what happened to Palestine, and is an absurd word to use for refugees legally migrating to Sweden. I’m just not immediately convinced that “was the immigration legal according to the local government at the time?” is a clean test for what is or isn’t “colonization.”
I didn’t propose such a test.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
