| Forum Index > General Forum |
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. | ||
|
CuddlyCuteKitten
Sweden2510 Posts
On October 12 2023 06:26 KwarK wrote: “Well if the Swedes in Sweden can make something legal then why can’t the British in Palestine?” "A lot of people moving to a place and people not liking it is colonization". | ||
KwarK
United States41962 Posts
| ||
|
Mikau
Netherlands1446 Posts
On October 12 2023 00:30 FlaShFTW wrote: 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. I'm planning a surprise party for my dad's birthday next month. If tomorrow my brother suddenly decides to host the birthday party we planned, I will be incredibly surprised and shocked that it's happening and when it's happening, despite me playing a very important part in planning and financing the event. | ||
|
CuddlyCuteKitten
Sweden2510 Posts
On October 12 2023 06:32 KwarK wrote: You understand the the British government in Palestine was quite literally a colonial government, right? The “well the colonial government said it was okay” is a really bad argument for not calling it colonization. I do but is that the jews fault? During *that* timeperiod? It was fine until it wasn't for the arabs. So is 1936 some kind of cut off point for when it became colonization? Also note that said colonial goverment did curb immigration after that. Sure 110k jews came anyway. Should have done the right thing and stayed in Germany I suppose... I think the main difference between Sweden and the world at that time is that we aren't assholes who tell people running for their lives to go fuck themselves. | ||
|
KwarK
United States41962 Posts
On October 12 2023 06:43 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote: I do but is that the jews fault? During *that* timeperiod? It was fine until it wasn't for the arabs. So is 1936 some kind of cut off point for when it became colonization? Also note that said colonial goverment did curb immigration after that. Sure 110k jews came anyway. Should have done the right thing and stayed in Germany I suppose... I think the main difference between Sweden and the world at that time is that we aren't assholes who tell people running for their lives to go fuck themselves. Is colonizing the fault of the colonists? I’m gonna go with yes. | ||
|
Broetchenholer
Germany1847 Posts
On October 12 2023 06:30 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote: "A lot of people moving to a place and people not liking it is colonization". I really do not understand why this is so hard. Immigration to a place is when groups of people come in to an area and are expected to adapt to that area. Colonisation is when people come there and expect to change the area to what they want. It is safe to say the palestinians, not only the muslems, that already lived there, did not want to suddenly live in a country where they would have to share political power with people that had just arrived. Only because they were not allowed to create a state that could have explicitly said so in laws does not mean their wish was not valid. | ||
|
CuddlyCuteKitten
Sweden2510 Posts
On October 12 2023 06:54 Broetchenholer wrote: I really do not understand why this is so hard. Immigration to a place is when groups of people come in to an area and are expected to adapt to that area. Colonisation is when people come there and expect to change the area to what they want. It is safe to say the palestinians, not only the muslems, that already lived there, did not want to suddenly live in a country where they would have to share political power with people that had just arrived. Only because they were not allowed to create a state that could have explicitly said so in laws does not mean their wish was not valid. If the US population today was 220mn native americans and 110mn immigrants, and the immigrants owned 5 % of the land then I doubt we would consider the country to be colonized. That was the proportions in 1947. No doubt the jews saw the chance for their own country and wanted that outcome. No doubt that the Palestinians thought that the two proposed partition plans were unfair. But I don't think you can say they were colonized in 1947 when they were *still* clearly the dominant power in the region. But instead of diplomacy they kept choosing violence. And unfortuantly (for them) the drive they jews into the sea option didn't work out as planned. This is discounting the fact that there seems to have been no real issues with immigration until the mid 1930s, which everyone seems to agree is then not colonization. | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria3709 Posts
On October 12 2023 07:19 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote: If the US population today was 220mn native americans and 110mn immigrants, and the immigrants owned 5 % of the land then I doubt we would consider the country to be colonized. That was the proportions in 1947. No doubt the jews saw the chance for their own country and wanted that outcome. No doubt that the Palestinians thought that the two proposed partition plans were unfair. But I don't think you can say they were colonized in 1947 when they were *still* clearly the dominant power in the region. But instead of diplomacy they kept choosing violence. And unfortuantly (for them) the drive they jews into the sea option didn't work out as planned. This is discounting the fact that there seems to have been no real issues with immigration until the mid 1930s, which everyone seems to agree is then not colonization. That is not what happened. The Zionists had made plans specifically to establish a Jewish state in the region. The mass migration was part of that plan. What do you think is the reason the European Jews didn't go to, say, America instead? The Zionists hadn't planned for a violent takeover, instead they smartly made deals with the British. The land was eventually stolen from the local population. The prior escalation of violence happened on both sides. Whichever Arab groups attacked Jews, equally the Jews attacked the Arabs. Thus it cannot be argued that the Jews were strictly the victims during those days. I'm sure they felt uneasy, but that didn't give them the right to claim sole governance of the territory. It is quite clear that the Jews would've likely never been able to establish a state for themselves without the British playing right into their hands. It was smart and it worked, but it was not simply "Arabs choosing violence" and "Jews defending themselves". Not back during those days. | ||
|
RvB
Netherlands6190 Posts
Back to the present it looks like Israel is preparing for a ground based assault. The humanitarian situation in Gaza meanwhile is getting desperate with hundreds of thousands displaced and no more electricity: With Gaza now under a complete Israeli blockade and after five days of bombardment, the humanitarian situation is becoming increasingly desperate. Mains electricity was cut off today after the territory’s only power station ran out of fuel. Hospitals, overwhelmed with thousands of casualties, say they are running out of medicines. The United Nations says half a million Gazans have not had their food rations since Saturday. The UN has called for a humanitarian corridor to be set up. An Egyptian official told the BBC that the government in Cairo was in discussions with all parties to try and allow aid into Gaza through Egypt even if only for a few hours. Meanwhile, there is an increased expectation that Israel will soon step up its operation with a ground offensive. An Israeli spokesperson said forces, including 300,000 reservists, were close to the border getting ready for their mission, to make sure that "at the end of this war Hamas no longer had any military capabilities". With the number of people killed by Hamas at the weekend now known to be more than 1,200, that mission will have widespread Israeli public support. www.bbc.com | ||
|
Broetchenholer
Germany1847 Posts
So let's put this situation aaaaanywhere else. Let's say in modern Germany, there are 10% muslims (there are not). Now some of those muslims start demanding a muslim state in germany and are dicks about it. Israel now opens Gaza to whoever is willing to take them and the Palestinians start immigrating to Germany. All of them. They all go to Rheinland Pfalz in the Eifel, it's not very densely populated and the "muslim" population in germany (i know, i am just using one brush here for simplification) now claims that they should have even more a country. German Neonazis have acted violently against them (NSU as justification for "counter-terrorism") so they fight back. In this case, you think there should be an independent state of muslims in germany, there are 10 million of them living there and they immigrated peacefully. THe only difference is that Germany is already an understood political entity with souverignity in their actions, derived from the will of their population. Had there been the same in Palestina, there would have been a 2% chance that this state had allowed the immigtation. Resting your had on this technicality is just weird. You can't ascribe the palestinian population the will to force the jewish settlers out, make them some kind of unreasonable people that only understood violence and at the same time claim that their will was irrelevant because the british had a colonial government there. The first act of aggression was the colonisation with the intent of creating an ethnostate in a country that was against the establishment of that ethnostate. Had the Jewish settlers actually tried to immigrate, immediately making it very clear that their goal would have been a state where both groups could have lived side by side in prosperity, they might have been gotten a much warmer welcome, who knows. But if you remove that first aggression from the discussion and act all shocked that the Arabs did not like the UN partitioning plan, you leave out the one detail that is needed to understand the conflict. | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria3709 Posts
On October 12 2023 16:49 Broetchenholer wrote: I really do not understand why this concept is so hard to grasp. If there is a wave of "immigration" asking for their land and their country, then this in itself is aggression. The Jewish arrivals came into a situation where they immediately had to create their own communities, separated from the Arabs and defended. This is a) because after decades of nationalistic struggle between Jewish and Arab population native to the land, there already was a lot of bad blood between both parties and b) the Jewish people had experienced for centuries that they couldn't just live in peace under whoever was in charge. And all of this while the different political groups are calling for creating a nation, a jewish one, on the land that there are still sharing with the Arabs and that make out, according to Wikipedia 3/5 of the population in the area that the UN would have given to the settlers to rule themselves. So let's put this situation aaaaanywhere else. Let's say in modern Germany, there are 10% muslims (there are not). Now some of those muslims start demanding a muslim state in germany and are dicks about it. Israel now opens Gaza to whoever is willing to take them and the Palestinians start immigrating to Germany. All of them. They all go to Rheinland Pfalz in the Eifel, it's not very densely populated and the "muslim" population in germany (i know, i am just using one brush here for simplification) now claims that they should have even more a country. German Neonazis have acted violently against them (NSU as justification for "counter-terrorism") so they fight back. In this case, you think there should be an independent state of muslims in germany, there are 10 million of them living there and they immigrated peacefully. THe only difference is that Germany is already an understood political entity with souverignity in their actions, derived from the will of their population. Had there been the same in Palestina, there would have been a 2% chance that this state had allowed the immigtation. Resting your had on this technicality is just weird. You can't ascribe the palestinian population the will to force the jewish settlers out, make them some kind of unreasonable people that only understood violence and at the same time claim that their will was irrelevant because the british had a colonial government there. The first act of aggression was the colonisation with the intent of creating an ethnostate in a country that was against the establishment of that ethnostate. Had the Jewish settlers actually tried to immigrate, immediately making it very clear that their goal would have been a state where both groups could have lived side by side in prosperity, they might have been gotten a much warmer welcome, who knows. But if you remove that first aggression from the discussion and act all shocked that the Arabs did not like the UN partitioning plan, you leave out the one detail that is needed to understand the conflict. The claim that "the Arabs" rejected the UN partition plan and "the Arabs" were the violent ones is also strictly wrong. It was factions within factions. There were plenty of Arabs who favored a two state solution and were willing to work closely with the UN to formulate a plan that would satisfy all parties. The extremist factions among the Arabs didn't allow for such a scenario, and they had a strong militant presence that would dominate the discourse. The moderate factions thus had little say in the matter. This militancy resembles the way Hitler came to power in Germany, where his Nazi party and also the Communist party were both engaged in intimidation throughout the population and weakened their opposition to an extreme degree. Eventually it became virtually impossible for a moderate party to stay in/come to power. Back to 1947 Palestine, the Arab population had no real say in the matter because they were in the middle of a conflict led by extremist Arab factions, and the escalation led to a Jewish takeover after which absolutely no one but them could get a word in anymore. The Jewish leadership established a strictly Jewish state. Of course they excluded the extremists (understandably) but neither were the moderates included, and that part is wrong. This is the part which makes it illegitimate. They had the power to do what they did, and from a legal point of view they should've kept working towards a two state solution as in the spirit of the UN partition plan. But instead they went with might makes right and took over completely. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15394 Posts
Right now we have 2 factions that have been at war for hundreds of years. One faction has essentially won, and in previous times, this war would have been concluded the traditional way: eliminate the enemy and take their land. That’s how a huge majority of current borders were formed. Go back far enough to figure out how borders were formed and its war of some kind nearly every time. But essentially due to this conflict taking longer to resolve, whereas the other faction wars have mostly wrapped up, Israel isn’t being allowed to finish off their enemy. But the situation is weird and unlike other conflicts, because despite being totally dumpstered, Palestinians are not willing to surrender. Hamas openly declares intention to wipe out all of Israel while also asking Israel to not kill them. On basically every single other conflict, either 1 side surrenders or gets wiped out. But this one is unique because despite essentially being a straggler of old conflict, it isn’t being resolved like an old conflict. So you still have the barbarism of an old conflict, where Hamas plans to kill as many Israelis as possible, regardless of how dumpstered they get, but Israel essentially has to choose not to actually win the war. I think Israel is essentially being asked to be the adult in the room. They are being asked to just kinda get attacked every so often, but also not being allowed to prevent the attacks. And the people asking Israel to take one for the team are also unwilling to stop the attacks. So Israel is being asked to be flexible by sacrificing their citizens by people who are not willing to find another way to prevent Israelis from dying. And these same countries making this request of Israel are countries with borders that historically were formed by war that was run to completion, where either there is a full surrender or someone is wiped out. I still think the ethical thing for Israel to do is to continue to pity the Palestinians. But I think the world either must eliminate Hamas through some other means, or let Israel do what they choose to do. The fact that Hamas openly still wants all Israelis to die and actively plans to continue to launch attacks like this makes the situation a lot more complicated. It’s an actual war where one side has not surrendered despite already losing. And since the scales are hugely tipped at this point, because Palestinians lost, it creates a really unsavory appearance because the situation is essentially dragging on whereas everyone else got to establish their borders and move on a lot earlier in human development before this whole world civilization and war crimes and whatnot became a thing. It’s a weird situation for me. | ||
|
Salazarz
Korea (South)2590 Posts
Is it unfair to say the world is essentially asking Israel to “take one for the team” by allowing attacks of this nature to occur every so often? Right now we have 2 factions that have been at war for hundreds of years. One faction has essentially won, and in previous times, this war would have been concluded the traditional way: eliminate the enemy and take their land. That’s how a huge majority of current borders were formed. Go back far enough to figure out how borders were formed and its war of some kind nearly every time. But essentially due to this conflict taking longer to resolve, whereas the other faction wars have mostly wrapped up, Israel isn’t being allowed to finish off their enemy. But the situation is weird and unlike other conflicts, because despite being totally dumpstered, Palestinians are not willing to surrender. Hamas openly declares intention to wipe out all of Israel while also asking Israel to not kill them. On basically every single other conflict, either 1 side surrenders or gets wiped out. But this one is unique because despite essentially being a straggler of old conflict, it isn’t being resolved like an old conflict. So you still have the barbarism of an old conflict, where Hamas plans to kill as many Israelis as possible, regardless of how dumpstered they get, but Israel essentially has to choose not to actually win the war. I think Israel is essentially being asked to be the adult in the room. They are being asked to just kinda get attacked every so often, but also not being allowed to prevent the attacks. And the people asking Israel to take one for the team are also unwilling to stop the attacks. So Israel is being asked to be flexible by sacrificing their citizens by people who are not willing to find another way to prevent Israelis from dying. And these same countries making this request of Israel are countries with borders that historically were formed by war that was run to completion, where either there is a full surrender or someone is wiped out. I still think the ethical thing for Israel to do is to continue to pity the Palestinians. But I think the world either must eliminate Hamas through some other means, or let Israel do what they choose to do. The fact that Hamas openly still wants all Israelis to die and actively plans to continue to launch attacks like this makes the situation a lot more complicated. It’s an actual war where one side has not surrendered despite already losing. And since the scales are hugely tipped at this point, because Palestinians lost, it creates a really unsavory appearance because the situation is essentially dragging on whereas everyone else got to establish their borders and move on a lot earlier in human development before this whole world civilization and war crimes and whatnot became a thing. It’s a weird situation for me. Or maybe Israel could just, I don't know, allow for existence of an actual independent Palestinian state as mandated by the UN, and while at it, stop randomly killing civilians on a daily basis. Pretty sure that would reduce the number of radical terrorist attacks much more than fencing folks in a ghetto and then bombing the shit out of the said ghetto. There's virtually no examples in history where a minority population was successfully beat into submission the way Israel is trying to do with the Gaza strip. Places like USSR and Yugoslavia fell apart for a reason, and even without going full on independent plenty of folks unhappy with the status quo of being a part of whatever 'empire' fought and were given various concessions and autonomies (like it happened in, say, Ireland). Hamas are disgusting murderers, but it's Israel who holds all the cards in this conflict. It's simply not true that all Palestinians want every jew to die, and if they were given a proper place to actually live their lives in peace and relative prosperity (by that I mean, I don't know, not being stuck in a fucking ghetto), Hamas would find it far more difficult to amass support for their vile cause. | ||
|
KwarK
United States41962 Posts
| ||
|
ChristianS
United States3187 Posts
Folks making this argument tend to gesture vaguely at a brutalist view of world history, as if you say “Hey, this is how we always did it. How about just one more, for old time’s sake, then we’ll quit I promise!” So it might be worth noting that for most (all?) of world history people aren’t actually ignorant of the fact that murdering an entire people in cold blood is fucked up. As early as the Achaemenid Persians there was a recognition that even when you won a war, it was probably better for everybody if you let people keep their gods and culture and way of life. Like, sure, borders were set by treaties signed after wars, but it was pretty rare that meant “and then we’re going to sweep through the territory and murder every last man, woman, and child.” Like, Roman sources often talk about the Third Punic War with a fair amount of shame. Human beings are social animals, and even for battle-hardened and traumatized soldiers, complete slaughter is really psychologically difficult and damaging. Modern tech makes it a lot easier to kill thousands without really acknowledging what you did; part of the reason the Nazis built death camps is because of the psychological toll mass slaughter was taking on their own soldiers. Israel has a lot of tech that will make it easier to kill without thinking about it, but they’ll still have guys on the ground walking through it all, with a first-hand view of exactly what they did to these people. So no, we’re not asking Israel to uphold some Impossible modern moral standard. We’re asking them not to commit such unspeakable evil that only the most monstrous men throughout history were able to bring themselves to do it, and that only at great psychological cost. | ||
FlaShFTW
United States10026 Posts
On October 13 2023 00:01 KwarK wrote: Israel taking one for the team is just rational. It’s not ideal and they should try to minimize losses with border security etc. but what else is there. It’s not fair to the Israelis to ask them to tolerate a failed state next door but there’s a failed state next door either way and no better options. It is what it is. So Israel is just supposed to let rockets come in and kill their own people? Idk how that's rational from Israel's perspective. It might not be a lot of people, probably just a few every few months but that sounds like the Hunger Games, just sacrifice a few of your own to appease the masses. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22679 Posts
| ||
|
Sermokala
United States13736 Posts
The reason why people tell Isreal to "take one for the team" is beacuse no one in the region wants to help them solve the problem. They exist in a state where everyone around them thinks that the opening position is "no more isreal". In reality people don't tell isreal that, they just turn the other way when they commit war crimes in the same cycle of violence the middle east has been normalized in the region. The only available options to "solve" the isue are imeasureably worse than "just" allowing unarmed rockets to be fired in every few months. | ||
|
KwarK
United States41962 Posts
On October 13 2023 00:10 FlaShFTW wrote: So Israel is just supposed to let rockets come in and kill their own people? Idk how that's rational from Israel's perspective. It might not be a lot of people, probably just a few every few months but that sounds like the Hunger Games, just sacrifice a few of your own to appease the masses. I mean yes, kinda. What else is there? Japan has to tolerate NK firing missiles at the ocean. SK has to tolerate NK shelling islands. Mexico has to tolerate the US public giving the cartels money. The US has to tolerate Mexico’s failure to repress the cartels. Bangladesh has to tolerate China filling the air with CO2. What else is there? We deal with the world as it is, not as we wish it would be. We can lobby for change but we don’t have a magic lamp. Israel directly intervening in Gaza is an option but it’s not a good option, it’ll make things worse for Israel. The status quo isn’t an accident, it’s because Israel itself knows that it has absolutely no desire to assume direct responsibility for Gaza. A missile from time to time is Israel’s best choice, that’s why they’ve always made it. | ||
| ||
|
|
PiG Sty Festival
Serral vs TriGGeR
Cure vs SHIN
The PondCast
Replay Cast
PiG Sty Festival
Clem vs Bunny
Solar vs Zoun
Replay Cast
Korean StarCraft League
PiG Sty Festival
herO vs Rogue
ByuN vs SKillous
SC Evo Complete
[BSL 2025] Weekly
Replay Cast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
