EPTThings Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine - Page 7
| 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. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
MWY
Germany284 Posts
On May 19 2021 22:05 Nebuchad wrote: This is the kind of post that comforts me in my belief that this is a really simple question. If the best that people can come with in defense of the behavior of Israel today is to dishonestly pretend that colonization is migration, to ignorantly pretend that Hamas was there since 1936 or that christians (and marxists) weren't part of the PLO/PFLP and are totally fine with being second/third class citizens, and to ignore the fascism jumping at their faces, then there probably isn't a good argument to be made. Sigh. This is NOT about israels behaviour today. This is about the initial migration to palestine by jewish people and the start of the conflict. It is not about the modern settlement program, which again, I don't support. Other than that, I'm glad that you can see one of the most complicated borderline unsolveable conflicts today as simple. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12164 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
MWY
Germany284 Posts
On May 19 2021 22:42 Nebuchad wrote: It's been a while so some people might not be aware that I won't be answering JimmiC's posts. If someone else would like to see me answer something that Jimmi said, just post it back at me and I'll answer you. Very mature. Also very mature to not even acknowledge you completely misread and misrepresented my post. | ||
|
ChristianS
United States3188 Posts
The Axis powers committed some horrible war crimes. They obviously bear responsibility for those. They could have anticipated (and in some cases specifically wanted to provoke) Allied war crimes in response, and I think they bear some responsibility for those, too. That doesn’t mean the Allies don’t, or even that the Allies bear less because the Axis are taking some share. This fallacy comes up a lot as Israel has essentially fought several wars of conquest at this point, and the justification is generally “they started it.” Or, in the most recent case, “Hamas fired rockets, so we’re just defending ourselves.” Does Hamas bear responsibility for killing civilians? Definitely. Do they bear responsibility for escalating the conflict snd causing Israel to start bombing? Arguable. If they do or not, does that absolve Israel of anything? No. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12164 Posts
On May 19 2021 23:15 MWY wrote: Very mature. Also very mature to not even acknowledge you completely misread and misrepresented my post. I don't believe I did that. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland25111 Posts
On May 19 2021 22:42 Nebuchad wrote: It's been a while so some people might not be aware that I won't be answering JimmiC's posts. If someone else would like to see me answer something that Jimmi said, just post it back at me and I'll answer you. Obligatory | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12164 Posts
I'm at work :$ But cheers anyway =) | ||
|
Doublemint
Austria8501 Posts
(small)kudos lol. however this is "literally"(as in TL.net generally and THIS VERY THREAD) not the place for that kind of fun imho... to add to the thread... What’s so unnerving about how Israel runs its Twitter account@WaPo Move over, Donald Trump. There’s a new terrible tweeter in town. And it isn’t a single disgruntled politician, or a celebrity, or a commentator fed up with the "wokeness" of the kids these days. The culprit is a country: The state of Israel loves to post and recently, even its missives have warheads. Okay, not quite. But the meme-friendly handle managed by something called the “Digital Diplomacy team” has sent 3,168 rocket emojis over the course of 12 tweets in recent days. Why? “Just to give you all some perspective, these” (here is inserted another emoji, of a finger pointing upward) “are the total amount of rockets shot at Israeli civilians … Make no mistake. Every rocket has an address. What would you do if that address was yours?” Of course, the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip who’ve spent the week weathering strikes may take a less charitable view of the adorable cartoon projectiles streaming from the official communications channel of the same nation that dropped 110 “guided armaments” on targets Monday night. So far, during its campaign against Hamas, Israel has damaged or destroyed almost 450 buildings, displaced more than 52,000 individuals and killed at least 63 children among well over 217 others, according to The Post’s reporting. The death toll in Israel is 12, including two children. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland25111 Posts
On May 19 2021 23:23 ChristianS wrote: I think a point of confusion here worth clarifying is that moral responsibility is not zero sum. If I pay a guy to kill someone we’re both fully responsible for their death. He’s not less responsible because I paid him, and I’m not less responsible because he pulled the trigger. Hell, if you really want to do a full tally you can assign some blame to the mob for supporting his assassination business, and my friend who recommended him, and his wife cheating on him with me and giving me motive. Zoom out and assign a little to each of our parents for not raising us better if you want. We can argue what each player’s responsibility really is case by case, but in assigning responsibility somewhere we shouldn’t assume anybody else’s is reduced. The Axis powers committed some horrible war crimes. They obviously bear responsibility for those. They could have anticipated (and in some cases specifically wanted to provoke) Allied war crimes in response, and I think they bear some responsibility for those, too. That doesn’t mean the Allies don’t, or even that the Allies bear less because the Axis are taking some share. This fallacy comes up a lot as Israel has essentially fought several wars of conquest at this point, and the justification is generally “they started it.” Or, in the most recent case, “Hamas fired rockets, so we’re just defending ourselves.” Does Hamas bear responsibility for killing civilians? Definitely. Do they bear responsibility for escalating the conflict snd causing Israel to start bombing? Arguable. If they do or not, does that absolve Israel of anything? No. Indeed, it doesn’t necessarily follow that such actions are wrong, depending on various frameworks, but to absolve one’s responsibility for a chosen course of action is fundamentally bogus. Others may create the conditions where choices need to be made that wouldn’t exist otherwise, but ultimately rare is the situation where a choice in how you respond doesn’t exist. In this instance Israel chooses to bomb civilians, just as Hamas choose to. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12164 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + + Show Spoiler + I still have a soft spot for this one back in the day where they describe Hamas' weapons: + Show Spoiler + | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23209 Posts
If I pay a guy to kill someone we’re both fully responsible for their death. He’s not less responsible because I paid him, and I’m not less responsible because he pulled the trigger. Hell, if you really want to do a full tally you can assign some blame to the mob for supporting his assassination business part is a bit of why I am so vociferously opposed to the US's unequivocal support of Israel despite their ongoing violations of international law, human rights, etc. I'm not unreasonable though, so I don't expect the US to do a full 180 here, but not repeatedly stopping the entire rest of the UN security council from issuing a joint statement calling for a ceasefire would be a start. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland25111 Posts
Didn’t miss much unless you’re as big a fan as I of decades-old Simpsons clips. @Doublemint aye, but I mean it’s a pretty depressing thread as befits the subject matter. Speaking of tone that is jarring, eugh. I mean I’m just paraphrasing the article but a nation state’s Twitter output communicating like an Instagram influencer feels disturbingly jarring, especially given the current events. Some probably have more idea than me. How does the Israeli populace actually break down on these kind of issues? I know enough Americans, consume enough American media sources and thus had enough of a gauge of the numbers to know that the lunacy embodied by Donald Trump wasn’t necessarily reflective of the wider American psyche, but Israel is one of many countries I don’t really have any kind of gauge on in that sense. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland25111 Posts
On May 19 2021 23:45 Nebuchad wrote: Twitter is an interesting angle yes, the strategy of Israel on Twitter has been mask off for a while. My two favourites from this week, one new where the IDF explains some of their goals and one that resurfaced of literal fascism defended by Bibi: + Show Spoiler + + Show Spoiler + I still have a soft spot for this one back in the day where they describe Hamas' weapons: + Show Spoiler + ‘Our only goal is to strike terror.’ Oof that’s one hell of a Freudian slip there. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Doublemint
Austria8501 Posts
On May 19 2021 23:52 WombaT wrote: ‘Our only goal is to strike terror.’ Oof that’s one hell of a Freudian slip there. yeah indeed lol. did not even catch that the first time. you see, Israeli girl or guy on that twitter account generally speaks plain old English just fine, but there are subtleties of language that are easier to catch for native speakers.  | ||
KwarK
United States42609 Posts
On May 19 2021 21:46 MWY wrote: Palestine never was a state before, more like a region whose people lived under different rulers, having sometimes more, sometimes less freedom in their decisions, just like it was the case for many regions. So comparing this to countries that have had a history of being independent before is false. Even so, I would agree that in general, people in a region have a right to form their own state. This was however, clearly a case of a muslim nationalist movement which did not care about people of other religions or cared about representing those. Oh wow an example from 1948. Which happened after literal decades of progroms against jewish people. Apparently you don't have better examples. Again, you still just claim that there was violence iniated by jews against muslims when there are multiple examples that go against that narrative. So migration is a crime to you? Is that a general stance from you or does it just apply when the migrants are jewish? You understand that most jews were living in circumstances that in a modern view, would likely make them refugees, even before the holocaust. So you say that sending them back with the use of force towards a live of discrimation and later on even probable death would have been justifiable? You clearly paint Palestinians as if they were all muslims, all in support of a nationalist islamic movement, all just defending themselfes from migrating jews. As far as i know, Palestinians were muslims, christians and jews. The latter two didn't commit terrorist acts against the migrating jews and most likely were not in favor of said islamic movement. So while you keep defending one side, in contrast, for jews you throw around the words fascism, colonialism and invasion like it's nothing. You seem to have, to put it mildly, a very very biased view. I have a few issues with the justification of the colonization by the area colonized not being a state. Firstly, that doesn't justify shit. The Native Americans didn't meet the European definition of nation states but that doesn't make it okay to take their land. Secondly, it was a state, albeit not an independent one. It had a flag, it had borders, it had central government, it was a state. Just as Japan between 1945 and 1952 was a state. The existence of a foreign administration doesn't make something not a state. Thirdly, it fails to note the difference between a League mandate and a colony, and there is a difference. Palestine was not ruled by Britain, it was liberated from the dissolved Ottoman Empire but was judged unable to defend itself in the post WW1 colonial era and was therefore placed under British protection by the League of Nations. You asked for any example (and claimed that you'd never heard of any example) and I gave you the most famous example. The migration isn't just a crime to me, it's a crime in Palestine at the time per the 1939 white paper. In this instance it is the most criminal possible kind of migration, a colonization that displaces the native occupants of the land. Again, if they took ships to Germany with the intention of seizing land and founding a Jewish state would Germany not have turned those ships around? I'm assuming you would have. Possibly because they're Jewish and you're an antisemite or something (this is me reversing your implication that opposing Jewish colonization is because I disagree with the Jewish part, not the colonization part). If they were refugees I would expect that the UN would allocate the refugees to countries with the means to accept them (such as the United States) and not demand that the Palestinian people give up their land. You're creating a false dilemma where I must either approve of the colonization of Palestine or sending refugees to their deaths. It's pure nonsense and you should feel bad for trying such a bad argument. The Palestinians were majority Muslim and did not approve of radical colonial Zionism. Jews and Christians had lived peacefully in the region for centuries and would have continued to live peacefully in the state of Palestine as it transitioned from League Mandate to independence had there not been an invasion by colonial forces. It's absurd to paint this as destined to end in oppression by either Jewish invaders or Palestinian Muslims only to justify one oppressor with the fear of the other. The Palestinian Muslims had no issues with the minorities within their community prior to the Zionist invasion and there's no reason to believe that post-mandate Palestine would have been a theocratic ethnonationalist state. | ||
| ||
