| 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. | ||
|
mindjames
Israel436 Posts
* It eventually came to a near-even partition plan that the Jews agreed to (how colonialist!), and the Arabs rejected * The eventual state made local Arabs into citizens and allowed them to vote (how genocidal!) There is still plenty to criticize on the Israeli side amidst all of this, but if you simply go with this mind-numbingly reductive approach you will soon find yourself scrambling to explain all of the inconsistencies, instead of exploring the conflict as a unique thing. | ||
KwarK
United States44391 Posts
You shouldn't get your moral compass on taking land from people from the guy running the British colonial ministry at the height of the British Empire. | ||
|
mindjames
Israel436 Posts
On November 15 2025 22:56 KwarK wrote: Jews weren’t guaranteed a state by the Brits. That’s simply false. Balfour said that he was broadly in favour of the idea of a Jewish state. But even if he had said what you’re pretending he said, it changes nothing. “Balfour said it was okay” does not somehow make it okay. It’s not okay to decide you need a state for your people and then build that state where people are already living. There is an original sin baked into the heart of the Zionist project that cannot be excused. You shouldn't get your moral compass on taking land from people from the guy running the British colonial ministry at the height of the British Empire. Again, a few lines of "engagement", one of which is yet more moral scolding. How brave, every Palestinian out there is applauding you in tears. I am fully convinced now that this cheap and shallow holier-than-thou style of conversation is all that matters to you, shame. If you want to split hairs on what a "national home for the Jewish people" in Palestine means, when they are the governing party in the region, fine, let's throw that away. Please explain what Zionists did wrong by bringing in a bunch of Jews from all over the world to Mandate Palestine without using the word "colonial" for once. Explain specifically which actions you oppose. We might actually agree on some things, who knows? If only you would engage on that level. Just because people are already living in a region doesn't mean other people suddenly don't get to go there (certainly with explicit approval). You should know that would be ethnic segregation. Oh, are you in favor of another Arab ethnostate? And would you oppose Jordanians and Egyptians moving to the same region? I expected you to disregard what my point was, which I imagine you cannot even repeat to me. I didn't expect you to sound like a fanatic defending their faith. Unfalsifiable statements like "original sin baked into the heart of the Zionist project" reek of so much dogma, and show how little you could muster to back your position. Weak. Go ahead, tell me how immoral I am some more, makes you look very knowledgeable. | ||
|
KwarK
United States44391 Posts
On November 16 2025 00:22 mindjames wrote: Just because people are already living in a house doesn't mean other people suddenly don't get to live there. Hopefully that clears things up for you. I genuinely don’t know why you can’t see that it absolutely does mean that. | ||
|
mindjames
Israel436 Posts
On November 16 2025 00:35 KwarK wrote: Hopefully that clears things up for you. I genuinely don’t know why you can’t see that it absolutely does mean that. Oh, so a country is analogous to someone's private home, is it? Are you against immigration then? And whose 'home' is it? Palestinian Arabs'? Palestinian Jews'? The Brits'? Everyone's? No one's? Why? Can you tell me what made it illegal (or as I suspect you will do, immoral) for Jews to immigrate to another place where some other people happened to live? | ||
|
KwarK
United States44391 Posts
On November 16 2025 00:40 mindjames wrote: Oh, so a country is analogous to someone's private home, is it? Are you against immigration then? Can you tell me what made it illegal (or as I suspect you will do, immoral) for Jews to immigrate to another place where some other people happened to live? Immigration is not the correct word to use when the desire is to create a new country for your people and the existing population gets displaced and replaced. You’re not arguing in good faith. Asking me to declare myself in opposition of immigration or else support creating new states is a false choice. Argue better. I propose we create a new state for Palestinians. And where better to put it that in their ancestral homeland, between the river and the sea. People are currently living there but we can put them in camps. If you disagree with this then please explain why you’re so against immigration. I’m British and I give the Palestinians permission so that makes it all good, nobody else really gets a say. | ||
|
mindjames
Israel436 Posts
On November 16 2025 00:43 KwarK wrote: Immigration is not the correct word to use when the desire is to create a new country for your people and the existing population gets displaced and replaced. You’re not arguing in good faith. Asking me to declare myself in opposition of immigration or else support creating new states is a false choice. Argue better. 1. The "desire" of the incoming population is irrelevant to the argument - you were against the Jews coming in to begin with, that is what you are arguing for. If I tell you some of the Muslims entering Europe have a 'desire' to overthrow its style of governance and create their own states, are you now suddenly against them entering the continent? I wouldn't, but would you? 2. Let's say this "desire" is intrinsic to your argument, are you totally fine with a mass of Jewish people immigrating to the region assuming they want to live there under British rule (or whatever else)? Careful, this destroys your home analogy. | ||
|
mindjames
Israel436 Posts
On November 16 2025 00:43 KwarK wrote: I propose we create a new state for Palestinians. And where better to put it that in their ancestral homeland, between the river and the sea. People are currently living there but we can put them in camps. If you disagree with this then please explain why you’re so against immigration. I’m British and I give the Palestinians permission so that makes it all good, nobody else really gets a say. The difference between your scenario and mine is THE EXISTENCE OF A STATE IN SAID BORDERS. Minor detail. | ||
|
KwarK
United States44391 Posts
On November 16 2025 00:52 mindjames wrote: The difference between your scenario and mine is THE EXISTENCE OF A STATE IN SAID BORDERS. Minor detail. The old “do you have a flag?” cheat code. It only counts if it’s a state. If you don’t recognize them as a state then it doesn’t count. Fortunately I can find some Palestinians who don’t recognize the existence of a state in that area. That makes it okay. If you don’t recognize the state then it’s fine. Your move. | ||
|
mindjames
Israel436 Posts
On November 16 2025 00:57 KwarK wrote: The old “do you have a flag?” cheat code. https://youtu.be/UTduy7Qkvk8?si=NkZrNO-RnEKWYvif It only counts if it’s a state. If you don’t recognize them as a state then it doesn’t count. Fortunately I can find some Palestinians who don’t recognize the existence of a state in that area. That makes it okay. If you don’t recognize the state then it’s fine. Your move. No, it is still your move. Engage with my prior questions. Or is that inconvenient? | ||
|
KwarK
United States44391 Posts
1. They're a people facing duress. 2. There's a historical basis for the proposed location of their new homeland. 3. A British person said it was okay. 4. They don't recognize a state currently located there. Surely there could be no further moral objections to this proposal. We've ticked every possible box. There's nobody we forgot to consult about this proposal. Nobody who could have an opinion on the creation of a Palestinian homeland between the river and the sea. Nobody who might have rights that were infringed upon if we were to go ahead with this. | ||
|
mindjames
Israel436 Posts
1. The "desire" of the incoming population is irrelevant to the argument - you were against the Jews coming in to begin with, that is what you are arguing for. If I tell you some of the Muslims entering Europe have a 'desire' to overthrow its style of governance and create their own states, are you now suddenly against them entering the continent? I wouldn't, but would you? 2. Let's say this "desire" is intrinsic to your argument, are you totally fine with a mass of Jewish people immigrating to the region assuming they want to live there under British rule (or whatever else)? Careful, this destroys your home analogy. | ||
|
KwarK
United States44391 Posts
I was responding to Jockmcplop who said that he didn't have a problem with Zionism, only the subsequent actions of Israel. I disagreed with him because I believe that Zionism, which I'm defining as the project to build a national homeland for the Jewish people in Palestine, is incompatible with the natural rights of the people who were already inhabiting that area. We can't separate the project that displaced the Palestinians into camps with the violence we're now seeing against Palestinians and say that one is fine but the other is problematic. The violence is intrinsic to the project of Zionism, without violence the project never gets started. | ||
|
mindjames
Israel436 Posts
Still no engagement with my questions, still running away from any real analysis, still hiding behind moral grandstanding. It must be because of how bad faith I've been, my bad. My questions are unreasonably difficult! What a joke, dude. You're everything that's wrong with online pro-Palestinians. | ||
|
KwarK
United States44391 Posts
| ||
|
mindjames
Israel436 Posts
Happy to pick up responses to any points I raised that KwarK unintentionally missed, oopsies. | ||
|
Billyboy
2577 Posts
One strange thing about Israel is that of all the places in the middle east where you could be born as a not elite/royal Arab (or any race or religion), Israel would be the best. Within its boarders it treats all people fairly well. This back and forth must really be blowing peoples mind who now hate Kwark because of his pro-Israel position. . | ||
|
CuddlyCuteKitten
Sweden2903 Posts
On November 16 2025 02:20 mindjames wrote: I'll be okay brother, I'm happy we had the conversation. I think it speaks for itself. Happy to pick up responses to any points I raised that KwarK unintentionally missed, oopsies. Most people not already on a team who do proper research on the formation of Israel will come to the conclusion that both sides were (and are) fucking awful towards each other. And just like the British did when they threw their hands up in the air and said "fuck this, we out" that's a natural way of looking at the path to where we stand today. Sure you can claim some kind of moral high ground from that historical shitshow but from an outside view that doesn't matter so much when it sits in a trench below sea level. If your not pro-either side you mainly care about what's happening right now because it affects actual living people. How the awful people on either side wants to justify that based on past atrocities doesn't matter to much. | ||
|
KwarK
United States44391 Posts
On November 16 2025 02:42 Billyboy wrote: I do not think that colonialism is the right word to describe what happened. There is no sending the wealth back. This is different, it is building a new nation on top of one that already existed. It is unique, both what happened and why it happened. One strange thing about Israel is that of all the places in the middle east where you could be born as a not elite/royal Arab (or any race or religion), Israel would be the best. Within its boarders it treats all people fairly well. This back and forth must really be blowing peoples mind who now hate Kwark because of his pro-Israel position. . I've always been pro Israel's right to exist and defend itself today while also thinking that the creation of Israel was immoral and generally a bad idea. The arguments in favour of creating Israel such as: - Okay but the people who wanted to do it wanted to and - Well they were oppressed where they were so that makes it okay and - Their ancestors lived there and - If going somewhere people already live and making your own country is so wrong then why didn't the British colonial office say it was wrong and - Okay, so even the British colonial office said it was wrong and actively worked to prevent it but did you know that years earlier a British guy said he wasn't opposed to it and - I don't recognize that the people there had a state and so it's fine to displace them and the ever fruitful - If the positions were reversed then it'd be wrong because that's different just don't seem that strong to me. One thing that has always puzzled me about the people who do think that these are strong arguments is the incontrovertible fact that the arguments completely failed. That's not in dispute. The Palestinians did not simply embrace their displacement and peacefully move into camps. They got rather angry about the whole displacement thing and felt like the land should still be theirs. If no crime was committed against the Palestinians, if nothing was taken from them, why did they fight so hard to keep it and why have they subsequently fought so hard to take it back. It's weird that a people who weren't in any way wronged by their relocation to camps would act this way. Suppose we ask that they take turns. In 2048 we declare the creation of a Palestinian state, forcibly displace the Israelis, and put all the Israelis in camps in the desert. It ticks all the boxes, Palestinians want to live there, they're oppressed where they are, their ancestors lived there, a Brit says it's okay, and they don't recognize that the Israelis have a state. Then in 2148 the Israelis get another turn living there and we switch every hundred years forever. Unlike the Palestinians the Israelis will surely recognize the overwhelming moral strength of the arguments against them, after all, the arguments were the ones they made. They'll step aside and accept their turn in the camps with grace and dignity. | ||
|
mindjames
Israel436 Posts
On November 16 2025 03:09 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote: Most people not already on a team who do proper research on the formation of Israel will come to the conclusion that both sides were (and are) fucking awful towards each other. I think I've said as much. No disagreement there. Sure you can claim some kind of moral high ground from that historical shitshow but from an outside view that doesn't matter so much when it sits in a trench below sea level. I'll be honest, I'm not entirely sure what you're saying. I'm not generally talking about morality, I don't think. I'm simply rejecting the supposition that Zionism in its very core is based on some kind of illegitimate aspiration, and that Jews emigrating to the middle east was some kind of malevolent action that should never have been allowed to happen. If your not pro-either side you mainly care about what's happening right now because it affects actual living people. How the awful people on either side wants to justify that based on past atrocities doesn't matter to much. I mean, I agree. If someone wants to throw the history books at me, I'll bite. But it's generally very silly to think some kind of "historical justice math" is the way to solve anything. If you have a problem right now, your entire goal should be to solve it right now, in a way that makes everyone happy right now and from here on out. History is only important with regards to understanding the plight of each group, and/or why it is averse or welcoming to certain routes of action versus others. | ||
| ||
|
|
Replay Cast
WardiTV Weekly
IntoTheTV X SOOP
PiGosaur Cup
The PondCast
Kung Fu Cup
IntoTheTV X SOOP
FEL
FEL
Sparkling Tuna Cup
|
|
|
EPT
