|
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 November 02 2023 00:18 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2023 18:54 Nebuchad wrote:On November 01 2023 16:45 RvB wrote:On November 01 2023 06:34 Nebuchad wrote:On November 01 2023 06:28 RvB wrote:On November 01 2023 04:08 Nebuchad wrote:On November 01 2023 03:59 RvB wrote:On November 01 2023 01:32 Nebuchad wrote:On November 01 2023 01:29 RvB wrote:
They weren't. There was a ceasefire. Hamas broke the ceasefire.
+ Show Spoiler [fog of war] +
The settlements in the West Bank
The settlements aren't an armed attack. Neither is an armed response necessary. The settlements in Sinai and Gaza were abandoned after the peace agreement and unilateral retreat. A solution for the West Bank settlements was also a part of the negotiations with Arafat and Abbas. All of them are violence, in violation of peace treaties and international law, and it's not uncommon that weapons are used to force Palestinians to displace, in addition to the more traditional methods. They're illegal yes. That does not make them an armed attack. Small scale violence does not automatically fall under that definition. Otherwise a border skirmish would trigger the right to self defense. Either way one of the conditions for self defense is necessity. As I pointed out there are other options to solve the settlements. So self defense does not apply. One of the salient points of this conflict is that it isn't a border because Israel is intent on not letting Palestinians have a state. I'm taking your house, I have an army supporting me (it's not an armed attack), you fight back how dare you attack me now I can respond in self-defense. This is absolutely a reasonable conversation between two adults and not some apologist bullshit. Israel already accepted a Palestinian state when they accepted the UN partition plan in 1947. There were two other offers they made for a two state solution after the Oslo accords. I am not accepting this as an answer to my post in the context of what we were discussing, it doesn't cover any of the topics. There's also no contradiction, Israel can have a position on a Palestinian state at the time and a different one today. Unless you plan to deny that they're very intent on not letting Palestinians have a state today I am not sure why you felt the need to write this. The settlers have killed more than 100 Palestinians in the West Bank since october 7th. If you make the mistake of going on Elon Musk's doomed social media site you can do a search with "South Hebron Hills" and you'll get a bunch of videos related to communities being threatened with weapons and forced to leave their homes. Your claim is that Israel is not intent on Palestinians having a state. I'm pointing out that they've accepted the idea of a Palestinian state for decades. As I said earlier some of those negotiations included solutions for the settlements we were talking about. Accept the argument or don't. It's not my concern.
You mean, they've paid lip service for years. West Bank has no autonomy and rather than transitioning to a situation where it might become such, Israel's actions have very clearly been the exact opposite there. Gaza's autonomy is as an open-air prison where the prisoners may rule it themselves, but the warden maintains strict control over any contact with the outside world, including the supply of drinking water, food, fuel, electricity, etc.
If we're generous, this is at best a 1 1/2 state solution, but realistically it is a single state with an apartheid government. Gaza and West Bank have less ability for self-rule than the Bantustans in South Africa. And nobody seriously considered any of those as independent nations even though they had far greater autonomy than Gaza.
|
Northern Ireland26223 Posts
On November 01 2023 10:33 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2023 10:14 WombaT wrote:On November 01 2023 10:05 JimmiC wrote:On November 01 2023 10:00 WombaT wrote:On November 01 2023 09:39 JimmiC wrote:On November 01 2023 09:30 WombaT wrote:On November 01 2023 09:08 JimmiC wrote:On November 01 2023 09:03 Nebuchad wrote:On November 01 2023 08:58 JimmiC wrote:On November 01 2023 08:52 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
Since it's not ethnic cleansing you won't have qny trouble explaining to me what the non-ethnic cleansing reasoning for the settlements in the west bank is I already did. And explained what ethnic cleansing is. And unlike you I’ve answered each of your posts without mis representing you or making up strawman to try to distract or make you made. Where was your answer I must have missed it, I only remember you asking another question and then going "well there you go" It’s “ illegal settlements on Syrian land” which I’ve also stated is bad. It is also bad when some rich guy buys a building and kicks every out so they can sell it to others for money, but that is also not ethnic cleansing. Now are you going to answer or just expect me to take the high road and you not so much. What high ground? What is the reasonable justification for Israel encroaching on territories they previously agreed would be untouched? Ya for the 100th time I said that’s bad, not genocide. I was saying I’m taking the high ground by unlike him and now you not strawman ing and misrepresenting. What highgriound is that exactly? The one I just explained, I’m using facts and not misrepresenting your points. Sadly you guys are unable to do the same. No you’re just annoyed that people who consider your position complicit in Israeli war crimes call you as such Come the fuck on man That’s not my position and I’ve explained it clearly multiple times. That you have to keep going there should make you think about why.
Went overboard there man, apologies.
|
|
|
On November 01 2023 21:29 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Yeah. There are attempts at understanding why Hamas does what Hamas does, at attempting to understand why they enjoy considerable support within Palestine/the islamic world ('they're shitty people doesn't really qualify), perhaps there have been examples of 'it's inevitable that Hamas will respond the way they do when they're subject to the treatment they are subjected to), but I haven't seen a single actual defense of the terrorist attack on October 7. People who critique Israel tend to qualify their posts with 'obviously Hamas are disgusting terrorists'.
Not saying that people are giving Israel a free pass - but I'm seeing far more people defend bombing of civilians on the Gaza strip (they have to do this to get to Hamas/stating that the death counts are fabricated) than I am seeing people defend killing Israeli civilians. I mean, I'm not here to defend killing Israeli civilians, I'm not even making an equivalence between the two, but there are elements of what Israel does which I find entirely condemnable and struggle seeing how is defensible even in 'an act of war'. While there are posters who are clear in their condemnation of settlement policies/ hindering water food and electricity even while having an overall 'I understand that Israel must do what it must do to squash Hamas', I definitely feel it as less ubiqitous from that side than I find the condemnation of Hamas from the 'pro-palestine'-side.
Our resident Rabbi on the other hand seemed to defend the blockade ('you can be sure that all the Palestinians who think with their stomach or wallet will start hating Hamas every time a missile is fired') and defined the settlements as 'Israeli settlers have been buying up empty hilltops and building houses on them'. I'm not interested in the semantics side of the argument, but I would have hoped that there are some areas where basically everyone could find themselves in agreement.
Dude, if you are going to quote me, please don't change the context of that quote entirely. I was not commenting on the blockade at all there. I was making a suggestion that humanitarian aid should increase corresponding to the amount of time Gaza kept a ceasefire. I've still yet to hear any arguments about why that wouldn't be a good idea either.
As for settlements, I certainly didn't endorse them. I was merely clarifying that they do not fit the definition of the phrase that kept getting flung about. If you read my post carefully, I actually suggested people criticise the things they don't like about them. Just to criticise what actually happens rather than create fictions to bash the side they don't like.
|
On November 01 2023 22:32 JimmiC wrote:
People are arguing that Israel has no right to strike back at Hamas. I really struggle with this one myself because of the massive loss of innocents that is unavoidable because of the Hamas strategy.
I think the “best” option for Israel as hard as it would have been would have been to not respond and instead have used the massive pressure from the world to further sanction Iran and sanction Qatar for their support of the terrorist group.
I would also have considered an attack on Iran, I’m not sure what that calculation looks like but that is really the only way you can stop Hamas and the other groups trying to kill every citizen. As pointed out by our new poster you can cripple the organization, but that is short term at immense human cost and huge global political cost for a short term gain.
It is not surprising that they want to hit back after a horrific tragedy, vengeance, fear, anger are all powerful emotions. These groups were celebrating their terror and saying it was just the beginning. But I think this response plays into their leaderships hand. They have shown they have zero respect for civilians of any race, religion, or culture so they are paying no price. Their recruitment will be easier and Israel’s position in the world is dropping by the day.
I agree that this would have been a better long term route for Israel to take. I even mentioned something similar to Ryzel just after Oct 7. But I think the 200+ hostages are the confounding factor. In a country as small as Israel, every person probably knows one or knows someone who knows one. The government can't just play international politics and not at least attempt to save those people. Especially after all the videos made clear what is happening to them on likely a daily basis.
|
Norway28727 Posts
On November 02 2023 02:07 Cerebrate1 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2023 21:29 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Yeah. There are attempts at understanding why Hamas does what Hamas does, at attempting to understand why they enjoy considerable support within Palestine/the islamic world ('they're shitty people doesn't really qualify), perhaps there have been examples of 'it's inevitable that Hamas will respond the way they do when they're subject to the treatment they are subjected to), but I haven't seen a single actual defense of the terrorist attack on October 7. People who critique Israel tend to qualify their posts with 'obviously Hamas are disgusting terrorists'.
Not saying that people are giving Israel a free pass - but I'm seeing far more people defend bombing of civilians on the Gaza strip (they have to do this to get to Hamas/stating that the death counts are fabricated) than I am seeing people defend killing Israeli civilians. I mean, I'm not here to defend killing Israeli civilians, I'm not even making an equivalence between the two, but there are elements of what Israel does which I find entirely condemnable and struggle seeing how is defensible even in 'an act of war'. While there are posters who are clear in their condemnation of settlement policies/ hindering water food and electricity even while having an overall 'I understand that Israel must do what it must do to squash Hamas', I definitely feel it as less ubiqitous from that side than I find the condemnation of Hamas from the 'pro-palestine'-side.
Our resident Rabbi on the other hand seemed to defend the blockade ('you can be sure that all the Palestinians who think with their stomach or wallet will start hating Hamas every time a missile is fired') and defined the settlements as 'Israeli settlers have been buying up empty hilltops and building houses on them'. I'm not interested in the semantics side of the argument, but I would have hoped that there are some areas where basically everyone could find themselves in agreement. Dude, if you are going to quote me, please don't change the context of that quote entirely. I was not commenting on the blockade at all there. I was making a suggestion that humanitarian aid should increase corresponding to the amount of time Gaza kept a ceasefire. I've still yet to hear any arguments about why that wouldn't be a good idea either. As for settlements, I certainly didn't endorse them. I was merely clarifying that they do not fit the definition of the phrase that kept getting flung about. If you read my post carefully, I actually suggested people criticise the things they don't like about them. Just to criticise what actually happens rather than create fictions to bash the side they don't like.
Sorry about the initial misunderstanding. Does that mean you oppose(d) the blockade? It still makes it sound like you favor starving the population if hamas breaks the ceasefire though, but either way, my bad.
As for the second point, you'll notice i have not used the phrases ethnic cleansing nor genocide, and ive fairly consistently argued against using words with contentious definitions because that is a surefire way to get bogged down in a semantics debate. That said I cant see how your phrasing there isnt hopelessly euphemistic, but im glad you dont actually endorse the settlements, always happy to find common ground 
|
|
|
On November 02 2023 02:53 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2023 02:07 Cerebrate1 wrote:On November 01 2023 21:29 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Yeah. There are attempts at understanding why Hamas does what Hamas does, at attempting to understand why they enjoy considerable support within Palestine/the islamic world ('they're shitty people doesn't really qualify), perhaps there have been examples of 'it's inevitable that Hamas will respond the way they do when they're subject to the treatment they are subjected to), but I haven't seen a single actual defense of the terrorist attack on October 7. People who critique Israel tend to qualify their posts with 'obviously Hamas are disgusting terrorists'.
Not saying that people are giving Israel a free pass - but I'm seeing far more people defend bombing of civilians on the Gaza strip (they have to do this to get to Hamas/stating that the death counts are fabricated) than I am seeing people defend killing Israeli civilians. I mean, I'm not here to defend killing Israeli civilians, I'm not even making an equivalence between the two, but there are elements of what Israel does which I find entirely condemnable and struggle seeing how is defensible even in 'an act of war'. While there are posters who are clear in their condemnation of settlement policies/ hindering water food and electricity even while having an overall 'I understand that Israel must do what it must do to squash Hamas', I definitely feel it as less ubiqitous from that side than I find the condemnation of Hamas from the 'pro-palestine'-side.
Our resident Rabbi on the other hand seemed to defend the blockade ('you can be sure that all the Palestinians who think with their stomach or wallet will start hating Hamas every time a missile is fired') and defined the settlements as 'Israeli settlers have been buying up empty hilltops and building houses on them'. I'm not interested in the semantics side of the argument, but I would have hoped that there are some areas where basically everyone could find themselves in agreement. Dude, if you are going to quote me, please don't change the context of that quote entirely. I was not commenting on the blockade at all there. I was making a suggestion that humanitarian aid should increase corresponding to the amount of time Gaza kept a ceasefire. I've still yet to hear any arguments about why that wouldn't be a good idea either. As for settlements, I certainly didn't endorse them. I was merely clarifying that they do not fit the definition of the phrase that kept getting flung about. If you read my post carefully, I actually suggested people criticise the things they don't like about them. Just to criticise what actually happens rather than create fictions to bash the side they don't like. As for the second point, you'll notice i have not used the phrases ethnic cleansing nor genocide, and ive fairly consistently argued against using words with contentious definitions because that is a surefire way to get bogged down in a semantics debate.
I can see the merit to what you're saying, my pushback would be that since there's only one side who is ready to argue against words like this, you'll end up with a rhetorical slant. Terrorists and religious fundamentalists on one side (accurately), and on the other whichever words will be acceptable to talk about a clear ethnic cleansing attempt, which will necessarily be a much less violent-looking (and less accurate) word. Imo that's because we have this slant in the discourse of the West in general that so many people can't see through the self-defense arguments.
|
|
|
On November 02 2023 03:14 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2023 03:08 Nebuchad wrote:On November 02 2023 02:53 Liquid`Drone wrote:On November 02 2023 02:07 Cerebrate1 wrote:On November 01 2023 21:29 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Yeah. There are attempts at understanding why Hamas does what Hamas does, at attempting to understand why they enjoy considerable support within Palestine/the islamic world ('they're shitty people doesn't really qualify), perhaps there have been examples of 'it's inevitable that Hamas will respond the way they do when they're subject to the treatment they are subjected to), but I haven't seen a single actual defense of the terrorist attack on October 7. People who critique Israel tend to qualify their posts with 'obviously Hamas are disgusting terrorists'.
Not saying that people are giving Israel a free pass - but I'm seeing far more people defend bombing of civilians on the Gaza strip (they have to do this to get to Hamas/stating that the death counts are fabricated) than I am seeing people defend killing Israeli civilians. I mean, I'm not here to defend killing Israeli civilians, I'm not even making an equivalence between the two, but there are elements of what Israel does which I find entirely condemnable and struggle seeing how is defensible even in 'an act of war'. While there are posters who are clear in their condemnation of settlement policies/ hindering water food and electricity even while having an overall 'I understand that Israel must do what it must do to squash Hamas', I definitely feel it as less ubiqitous from that side than I find the condemnation of Hamas from the 'pro-palestine'-side.
Our resident Rabbi on the other hand seemed to defend the blockade ('you can be sure that all the Palestinians who think with their stomach or wallet will start hating Hamas every time a missile is fired') and defined the settlements as 'Israeli settlers have been buying up empty hilltops and building houses on them'. I'm not interested in the semantics side of the argument, but I would have hoped that there are some areas where basically everyone could find themselves in agreement. Dude, if you are going to quote me, please don't change the context of that quote entirely. I was not commenting on the blockade at all there. I was making a suggestion that humanitarian aid should increase corresponding to the amount of time Gaza kept a ceasefire. I've still yet to hear any arguments about why that wouldn't be a good idea either. As for settlements, I certainly didn't endorse them. I was merely clarifying that they do not fit the definition of the phrase that kept getting flung about. If you read my post carefully, I actually suggested people criticise the things they don't like about them. Just to criticise what actually happens rather than create fictions to bash the side they don't like. As for the second point, you'll notice i have not used the phrases ethnic cleansing nor genocide, and ive fairly consistently argued against using words with contentious definitions because that is a surefire way to get bogged down in a semantics debate. I can see the merit to what you're saying, my pushback would be that since there's only one side who is ready to argue against words like this, you'll end up with a rhetorical slant. Terrorists and religious fundamentalists on one side (accurately), and on the other whichever words will be acceptable to talk about a clear ethnic cleansing attempt, which will necessarily be a much less violent-looking (and less accurate) word. Imo that's because we have this slant in the discourse of the West in general that so many people can't see through the self-defense arguments. Or you just do not understand what ethnic cleansing is and is not, and can’t explain why this is ethic cleansing despite it not having any of the key characteristics. Even Drone saying he chooses not to use those words vs it is not is disrespectful to the seriousness of the accusations as well as all of those who have been unfortunate enough to actually experience or have loved ones who did. Not so fun fact is basically everyone in Israel is part of that group.
This is literally my next post after your decision to stop going back and forth with me
|
|
|
On November 02 2023 02:53 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2023 02:07 Cerebrate1 wrote:On November 01 2023 21:29 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Yeah. There are attempts at understanding why Hamas does what Hamas does, at attempting to understand why they enjoy considerable support within Palestine/the islamic world ('they're shitty people doesn't really qualify), perhaps there have been examples of 'it's inevitable that Hamas will respond the way they do when they're subject to the treatment they are subjected to), but I haven't seen a single actual defense of the terrorist attack on October 7. People who critique Israel tend to qualify their posts with 'obviously Hamas are disgusting terrorists'.
Not saying that people are giving Israel a free pass - but I'm seeing far more people defend bombing of civilians on the Gaza strip (they have to do this to get to Hamas/stating that the death counts are fabricated) than I am seeing people defend killing Israeli civilians. I mean, I'm not here to defend killing Israeli civilians, I'm not even making an equivalence between the two, but there are elements of what Israel does which I find entirely condemnable and struggle seeing how is defensible even in 'an act of war'. While there are posters who are clear in their condemnation of settlement policies/ hindering water food and electricity even while having an overall 'I understand that Israel must do what it must do to squash Hamas', I definitely feel it as less ubiqitous from that side than I find the condemnation of Hamas from the 'pro-palestine'-side.
Our resident Rabbi on the other hand seemed to defend the blockade ('you can be sure that all the Palestinians who think with their stomach or wallet will start hating Hamas every time a missile is fired') and defined the settlements as 'Israeli settlers have been buying up empty hilltops and building houses on them'. I'm not interested in the semantics side of the argument, but I would have hoped that there are some areas where basically everyone could find themselves in agreement. Dude, if you are going to quote me, please don't change the context of that quote entirely. I was not commenting on the blockade at all there. I was making a suggestion that humanitarian aid should increase corresponding to the amount of time Gaza kept a ceasefire. I've still yet to hear any arguments about why that wouldn't be a good idea either. As for settlements, I certainly didn't endorse them. I was merely clarifying that they do not fit the definition of the phrase that kept getting flung about. If you read my post carefully, I actually suggested people criticise the things they don't like about them. Just to criticise what actually happens rather than create fictions to bash the side they don't like. Sorry about the initial misunderstanding. Does that mean you oppose(d) the blockade? It still makes it sound like you favor starving the population if hamas breaks the ceasefire though, but either way, my bad. As for the second point, you'll notice i have not used the phrases ethnic cleansing nor genocide, and ive fairly consistently argued against using words with contentious definitions because that is a surefire way to get bogged down in a semantics debate. That said I cant see how your phrasing there isnt hopelessly euphemistic, but im glad you dont actually endorse the settlements, always happy to find common ground
I think it is dishonest to frame it as Israel starving them when we know Hamas has the supplies and whatnot needed. This is another example of what I have said before: Israel is expected to be the adult in the room while neighboring countries + Hamas are all given a pass to be irresponsible, malicious, or both.
I think even the most anti-Israel folks agree Hamas are a net-negative. We have direct evidence/documentation/admissions/etc showing Iran and Qatar intentionally support Hamas and we apply zero pressure to either one. People are swallowing this assumption too easily and there should be more push back.
Also worth reminding folks Hamas' Ghazi Hamad reiterated Hamas's commitment to entirely wiping out Israel with repeats of October 7 on Twitter. And no, I am not linking it
"We will repeat the October 7 attack time and again until Israel is annihilated."
Israel and Gaza are at war. Gaza's elected government wants Israel to go away and Israel's elected government wants Gaza to go away. Israel is a bit more subtle while also being way more powerful, so the dynamic ends up looking weird, but it is dishonest when people frame this situation as 1-sided in some way.
|
On November 02 2023 03:44 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2023 03:25 Nebuchad wrote:On November 02 2023 03:14 JimmiC wrote:On November 02 2023 03:08 Nebuchad wrote:On November 02 2023 02:53 Liquid`Drone wrote:On November 02 2023 02:07 Cerebrate1 wrote:On November 01 2023 21:29 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Yeah. There are attempts at understanding why Hamas does what Hamas does, at attempting to understand why they enjoy considerable support within Palestine/the islamic world ('they're shitty people doesn't really qualify), perhaps there have been examples of 'it's inevitable that Hamas will respond the way they do when they're subject to the treatment they are subjected to), but I haven't seen a single actual defense of the terrorist attack on October 7. People who critique Israel tend to qualify their posts with 'obviously Hamas are disgusting terrorists'.
Not saying that people are giving Israel a free pass - but I'm seeing far more people defend bombing of civilians on the Gaza strip (they have to do this to get to Hamas/stating that the death counts are fabricated) than I am seeing people defend killing Israeli civilians. I mean, I'm not here to defend killing Israeli civilians, I'm not even making an equivalence between the two, but there are elements of what Israel does which I find entirely condemnable and struggle seeing how is defensible even in 'an act of war'. While there are posters who are clear in their condemnation of settlement policies/ hindering water food and electricity even while having an overall 'I understand that Israel must do what it must do to squash Hamas', I definitely feel it as less ubiqitous from that side than I find the condemnation of Hamas from the 'pro-palestine'-side.
Our resident Rabbi on the other hand seemed to defend the blockade ('you can be sure that all the Palestinians who think with their stomach or wallet will start hating Hamas every time a missile is fired') and defined the settlements as 'Israeli settlers have been buying up empty hilltops and building houses on them'. I'm not interested in the semantics side of the argument, but I would have hoped that there are some areas where basically everyone could find themselves in agreement. Dude, if you are going to quote me, please don't change the context of that quote entirely. I was not commenting on the blockade at all there. I was making a suggestion that humanitarian aid should increase corresponding to the amount of time Gaza kept a ceasefire. I've still yet to hear any arguments about why that wouldn't be a good idea either. As for settlements, I certainly didn't endorse them. I was merely clarifying that they do not fit the definition of the phrase that kept getting flung about. If you read my post carefully, I actually suggested people criticise the things they don't like about them. Just to criticise what actually happens rather than create fictions to bash the side they don't like. As for the second point, you'll notice i have not used the phrases ethnic cleansing nor genocide, and ive fairly consistently argued against using words with contentious definitions because that is a surefire way to get bogged down in a semantics debate. I can see the merit to what you're saying, my pushback would be that since there's only one side who is ready to argue against words like this, you'll end up with a rhetorical slant. Terrorists and religious fundamentalists on one side (accurately), and on the other whichever words will be acceptable to talk about a clear ethnic cleansing attempt, which will necessarily be a much less violent-looking (and less accurate) word. Imo that's because we have this slant in the discourse of the West in general that so many people can't see through the self-defense arguments. Or you just do not understand what ethnic cleansing is and is not, and can’t explain why this is ethic cleansing despite it not having any of the key characteristics. Even Drone saying he chooses not to use those words vs it is not is disrespectful to the seriousness of the accusations as well as all of those who have been unfortunate enough to actually experience or have loved ones who did. Not so fun fact is basically everyone in Israel is part of that group. This is literally my next post after your decision to stop going back and forth with me Go for explain the definition of ethnic cleansing and how Israel fits that definition or stop being ignorant and hateful.
As I remember it, I asked you to explain to me what the non-ethnic cleansing reasoning for the West Bank settlements was, and you couldn't provide an answer. You said "You'd have to ask them".
As long as I can't think of a reason to do them that isn't ethnic cleansing, I'm going to feel conforted in my belief that they are part of an ethnic cleansing campaign.
Amongst the dozens of links that I could have chosen, here's an article in Jewish Currents by Raz Segal, "an associate professor of Holocaust and genocide studies at Stockton University and the endowed professor in the study of modern genocide": https://jewishcurrents.org/a-textbook-case-of-genocide
|
|
|
On November 02 2023 05:02 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2023 04:04 Nebuchad wrote:On November 02 2023 03:44 JimmiC wrote:On November 02 2023 03:25 Nebuchad wrote:On November 02 2023 03:14 JimmiC wrote:On November 02 2023 03:08 Nebuchad wrote:On November 02 2023 02:53 Liquid`Drone wrote:On November 02 2023 02:07 Cerebrate1 wrote:On November 01 2023 21:29 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Yeah. There are attempts at understanding why Hamas does what Hamas does, at attempting to understand why they enjoy considerable support within Palestine/the islamic world ('they're shitty people doesn't really qualify), perhaps there have been examples of 'it's inevitable that Hamas will respond the way they do when they're subject to the treatment they are subjected to), but I haven't seen a single actual defense of the terrorist attack on October 7. People who critique Israel tend to qualify their posts with 'obviously Hamas are disgusting terrorists'.
Not saying that people are giving Israel a free pass - but I'm seeing far more people defend bombing of civilians on the Gaza strip (they have to do this to get to Hamas/stating that the death counts are fabricated) than I am seeing people defend killing Israeli civilians. I mean, I'm not here to defend killing Israeli civilians, I'm not even making an equivalence between the two, but there are elements of what Israel does which I find entirely condemnable and struggle seeing how is defensible even in 'an act of war'. While there are posters who are clear in their condemnation of settlement policies/ hindering water food and electricity even while having an overall 'I understand that Israel must do what it must do to squash Hamas', I definitely feel it as less ubiqitous from that side than I find the condemnation of Hamas from the 'pro-palestine'-side.
Our resident Rabbi on the other hand seemed to defend the blockade ('you can be sure that all the Palestinians who think with their stomach or wallet will start hating Hamas every time a missile is fired') and defined the settlements as 'Israeli settlers have been buying up empty hilltops and building houses on them'. I'm not interested in the semantics side of the argument, but I would have hoped that there are some areas where basically everyone could find themselves in agreement. Dude, if you are going to quote me, please don't change the context of that quote entirely. I was not commenting on the blockade at all there. I was making a suggestion that humanitarian aid should increase corresponding to the amount of time Gaza kept a ceasefire. I've still yet to hear any arguments about why that wouldn't be a good idea either. As for settlements, I certainly didn't endorse them. I was merely clarifying that they do not fit the definition of the phrase that kept getting flung about. If you read my post carefully, I actually suggested people criticise the things they don't like about them. Just to criticise what actually happens rather than create fictions to bash the side they don't like. As for the second point, you'll notice i have not used the phrases ethnic cleansing nor genocide, and ive fairly consistently argued against using words with contentious definitions because that is a surefire way to get bogged down in a semantics debate. I can see the merit to what you're saying, my pushback would be that since there's only one side who is ready to argue against words like this, you'll end up with a rhetorical slant. Terrorists and religious fundamentalists on one side (accurately), and on the other whichever words will be acceptable to talk about a clear ethnic cleansing attempt, which will necessarily be a much less violent-looking (and less accurate) word. Imo that's because we have this slant in the discourse of the West in general that so many people can't see through the self-defense arguments. Or you just do not understand what ethnic cleansing is and is not, and can’t explain why this is ethic cleansing despite it not having any of the key characteristics. Even Drone saying he chooses not to use those words vs it is not is disrespectful to the seriousness of the accusations as well as all of those who have been unfortunate enough to actually experience or have loved ones who did. Not so fun fact is basically everyone in Israel is part of that group. This is literally my next post after your decision to stop going back and forth with me Go for explain the definition of ethnic cleansing and how Israel fits that definition or stop being ignorant and hateful. As I remember it, I asked you to explain to me what the non-ethnic cleansing reasoning for the West Bank settlements was, and you couldn't provide an answer. You said "You'd have to ask them". As long as I can't think of a reason to do them that isn't ethnic cleansing, I'm going to feel conforted in my belief that they are part of an ethnic cleansing campaign. Amongst the dozens of links that I could have chosen, here's an article in Jewish Currents by Raz Segal, "an associate professor of Holocaust and genocide studies at Stockton University and the endowed professor in the study of modern genocide": https://jewishcurrents.org/a-textbook-case-of-genocide So the settlements are not genocide or they are and you can just not explain why? Yes if Israel follows through on its most obscene threats then it would have committed genocide. But that is not what you have been saying, you have been saying they have been committing it for the last 70 years and used settlements as proof. I completely agree that if Israel commits genocide it will be genocide. I was expecting a much better article to be honest.
Actually when I said genocide in reference to Gaza you also attacked that, but that was earlier in the thread.
"Ethnic cleansing is the systematic forced removal of ethnic, racial, and religious groups from a given area, with the intent of making a region ethnically homogeneous. Along with direct removal, extermination, deportation or population transfer, it also includes indirect methods aimed at forced migration by coercing the victim group to flee and preventing its return, such as murder, rape, and property destruction."
The degree to which it is obvious that this describes what is happening in the West Bank is hard to overstate. Israeli settlers are taking land and settlements from Palestinians living there, forcing them to move (often through violence), with the explicit intent of making the land inhabited by Jewish Israelis as opposed to Palestinians.
Amongst the dozens of links that I could have chosen in reference to the West Bank specifically, here's this one: https://newint.org/features/2023/10/26/settlers-displace-west-bank-bedouins-amid-israel’s-gaza-attack
Another way of looking at this is, you've agreed with me that West Bank settlements are bad. I would ask, why are they bad? What is the thing that is happening that makes you believe they are bad?
|
Russian Federation40190 Posts
On November 02 2023 05:14 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2023 05:02 JimmiC wrote:On November 02 2023 04:04 Nebuchad wrote:On November 02 2023 03:44 JimmiC wrote:On November 02 2023 03:25 Nebuchad wrote:On November 02 2023 03:14 JimmiC wrote:On November 02 2023 03:08 Nebuchad wrote:On November 02 2023 02:53 Liquid`Drone wrote:On November 02 2023 02:07 Cerebrate1 wrote:On November 01 2023 21:29 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Yeah. There are attempts at understanding why Hamas does what Hamas does, at attempting to understand why they enjoy considerable support within Palestine/the islamic world ('they're shitty people doesn't really qualify), perhaps there have been examples of 'it's inevitable that Hamas will respond the way they do when they're subject to the treatment they are subjected to), but I haven't seen a single actual defense of the terrorist attack on October 7. People who critique Israel tend to qualify their posts with 'obviously Hamas are disgusting terrorists'.
Not saying that people are giving Israel a free pass - but I'm seeing far more people defend bombing of civilians on the Gaza strip (they have to do this to get to Hamas/stating that the death counts are fabricated) than I am seeing people defend killing Israeli civilians. I mean, I'm not here to defend killing Israeli civilians, I'm not even making an equivalence between the two, but there are elements of what Israel does which I find entirely condemnable and struggle seeing how is defensible even in 'an act of war'. While there are posters who are clear in their condemnation of settlement policies/ hindering water food and electricity even while having an overall 'I understand that Israel must do what it must do to squash Hamas', I definitely feel it as less ubiqitous from that side than I find the condemnation of Hamas from the 'pro-palestine'-side.
Our resident Rabbi on the other hand seemed to defend the blockade ('you can be sure that all the Palestinians who think with their stomach or wallet will start hating Hamas every time a missile is fired') and defined the settlements as 'Israeli settlers have been buying up empty hilltops and building houses on them'. I'm not interested in the semantics side of the argument, but I would have hoped that there are some areas where basically everyone could find themselves in agreement. Dude, if you are going to quote me, please don't change the context of that quote entirely. I was not commenting on the blockade at all there. I was making a suggestion that humanitarian aid should increase corresponding to the amount of time Gaza kept a ceasefire. I've still yet to hear any arguments about why that wouldn't be a good idea either. As for settlements, I certainly didn't endorse them. I was merely clarifying that they do not fit the definition of the phrase that kept getting flung about. If you read my post carefully, I actually suggested people criticise the things they don't like about them. Just to criticise what actually happens rather than create fictions to bash the side they don't like. As for the second point, you'll notice i have not used the phrases ethnic cleansing nor genocide, and ive fairly consistently argued against using words with contentious definitions because that is a surefire way to get bogged down in a semantics debate. I can see the merit to what you're saying, my pushback would be that since there's only one side who is ready to argue against words like this, you'll end up with a rhetorical slant. Terrorists and religious fundamentalists on one side (accurately), and on the other whichever words will be acceptable to talk about a clear ethnic cleansing attempt, which will necessarily be a much less violent-looking (and less accurate) word. Imo that's because we have this slant in the discourse of the West in general that so many people can't see through the self-defense arguments. Or you just do not understand what ethnic cleansing is and is not, and can’t explain why this is ethic cleansing despite it not having any of the key characteristics. Even Drone saying he chooses not to use those words vs it is not is disrespectful to the seriousness of the accusations as well as all of those who have been unfortunate enough to actually experience or have loved ones who did. Not so fun fact is basically everyone in Israel is part of that group. This is literally my next post after your decision to stop going back and forth with me Go for explain the definition of ethnic cleansing and how Israel fits that definition or stop being ignorant and hateful. As I remember it, I asked you to explain to me what the non-ethnic cleansing reasoning for the West Bank settlements was, and you couldn't provide an answer. You said "You'd have to ask them". As long as I can't think of a reason to do them that isn't ethnic cleansing, I'm going to feel conforted in my belief that they are part of an ethnic cleansing campaign. Amongst the dozens of links that I could have chosen, here's an article in Jewish Currents by Raz Segal, "an associate professor of Holocaust and genocide studies at Stockton University and the endowed professor in the study of modern genocide": https://jewishcurrents.org/a-textbook-case-of-genocide So the settlements are not genocide or they are and you can just not explain why? Yes if Israel follows through on its most obscene threats then it would have committed genocide. But that is not what you have been saying, you have been saying they have been committing it for the last 70 years and used settlements as proof. I completely agree that if Israel commits genocide it will be genocide. I was expecting a much better article to be honest. Actually when I said genocide in reference to Gaza you also attacked that, but that was earlier in the thread. "Ethnic cleansing is the systematic forced removal of ethnic, racial, and religious groups from a given area, with the intent of making a region ethnically homogeneous. Along with direct removal, extermination, deportation or population transfer, it also includes indirect methods aimed at forced migration by coercing the victim group to flee and preventing its return, such as murder, rape, and property destruction." The degree to which it is obvious that this describes what is happening in the West Bank is hard to overstate. Israeli settlers are taking land and settlements from Palestinians living there, forcing them to move (often through violence), with the explicit intent of making the land inhabited by Jewish Israelis as opposed to Palestinians. Amongst the dozens of links that I could have chosen in reference to the West Bank specifically, here's this one: https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2023/10/un-expert-warns-new-instance-mass-ethnic-cleansing-palestinians-callsAnother way of looking at this is, you've agreed with me that West Bank settlements are bad. I would ask, why are they bad? What is the thing that is happening that makes you believe they are bad?
The sheer comedy of claiming that Jews settling a place that was inhabited entirely by Arabs before is intent on making the place ethnically homogenous is unmatched. You can argue that methods used are bordering on straight up robbery, but your very definition straight up tells us that West Bank case is literal antithesis of ethnic cleansing.
|
On November 02 2023 05:20 lolfail9001 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2023 05:14 Nebuchad wrote:On November 02 2023 05:02 JimmiC wrote:On November 02 2023 04:04 Nebuchad wrote:On November 02 2023 03:44 JimmiC wrote:On November 02 2023 03:25 Nebuchad wrote:On November 02 2023 03:14 JimmiC wrote:On November 02 2023 03:08 Nebuchad wrote:On November 02 2023 02:53 Liquid`Drone wrote:On November 02 2023 02:07 Cerebrate1 wrote:
[quote]
Dude, if you are going to quote me, please don't change the context of that quote entirely. I was not commenting on the blockade at all there. I was making a suggestion that humanitarian aid should increase corresponding to the amount of time Gaza kept a ceasefire. I've still yet to hear any arguments about why that wouldn't be a good idea either.
As for settlements, I certainly didn't endorse them. I was merely clarifying that they do not fit the definition of the phrase that kept getting flung about. If you read my post carefully, I actually suggested people criticise the things they don't like about them. Just to criticise what actually happens rather than create fictions to bash the side they don't like. As for the second point, you'll notice i have not used the phrases ethnic cleansing nor genocide, and ive fairly consistently argued against using words with contentious definitions because that is a surefire way to get bogged down in a semantics debate. I can see the merit to what you're saying, my pushback would be that since there's only one side who is ready to argue against words like this, you'll end up with a rhetorical slant. Terrorists and religious fundamentalists on one side (accurately), and on the other whichever words will be acceptable to talk about a clear ethnic cleansing attempt, which will necessarily be a much less violent-looking (and less accurate) word. Imo that's because we have this slant in the discourse of the West in general that so many people can't see through the self-defense arguments. Or you just do not understand what ethnic cleansing is and is not, and can’t explain why this is ethic cleansing despite it not having any of the key characteristics. Even Drone saying he chooses not to use those words vs it is not is disrespectful to the seriousness of the accusations as well as all of those who have been unfortunate enough to actually experience or have loved ones who did. Not so fun fact is basically everyone in Israel is part of that group. This is literally my next post after your decision to stop going back and forth with me Go for explain the definition of ethnic cleansing and how Israel fits that definition or stop being ignorant and hateful. As I remember it, I asked you to explain to me what the non-ethnic cleansing reasoning for the West Bank settlements was, and you couldn't provide an answer. You said "You'd have to ask them". As long as I can't think of a reason to do them that isn't ethnic cleansing, I'm going to feel conforted in my belief that they are part of an ethnic cleansing campaign. Amongst the dozens of links that I could have chosen, here's an article in Jewish Currents by Raz Segal, "an associate professor of Holocaust and genocide studies at Stockton University and the endowed professor in the study of modern genocide": https://jewishcurrents.org/a-textbook-case-of-genocide So the settlements are not genocide or they are and you can just not explain why? Yes if Israel follows through on its most obscene threats then it would have committed genocide. But that is not what you have been saying, you have been saying they have been committing it for the last 70 years and used settlements as proof. I completely agree that if Israel commits genocide it will be genocide. I was expecting a much better article to be honest. Actually when I said genocide in reference to Gaza you also attacked that, but that was earlier in the thread. "Ethnic cleansing is the systematic forced removal of ethnic, racial, and religious groups from a given area, with the intent of making a region ethnically homogeneous. Along with direct removal, extermination, deportation or population transfer, it also includes indirect methods aimed at forced migration by coercing the victim group to flee and preventing its return, such as murder, rape, and property destruction." The degree to which it is obvious that this describes what is happening in the West Bank is hard to overstate. Israeli settlers are taking land and settlements from Palestinians living there, forcing them to move (often through violence), with the explicit intent of making the land inhabited by Jewish Israelis as opposed to Palestinians. Amongst the dozens of links that I could have chosen in reference to the West Bank specifically, here's this one: https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2023/10/un-expert-warns-new-instance-mass-ethnic-cleansing-palestinians-callsAnother way of looking at this is, you've agreed with me that West Bank settlements are bad. I would ask, why are they bad? What is the thing that is happening that makes you believe they are bad? The sheer comedy of claiming that Jews settling a place that was inhabited entirely by Arabs before is intent on making the place ethnically homogenous is unmatched. You can argue that methods used are bordering straight up robbery, but your very definition straight up tells us that West Bank case is literal antithesis of ethnic cleansing.
If Israelis were coming and living among the other people in the village then you have a valuable criticism of my position. Since they're instead taking the homes of the people who are there and forcing them to leave, you don't.
|
Russian Federation40190 Posts
On November 02 2023 05:22 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2023 05:20 lolfail9001 wrote:On November 02 2023 05:14 Nebuchad wrote:On November 02 2023 05:02 JimmiC wrote:On November 02 2023 04:04 Nebuchad wrote:On November 02 2023 03:44 JimmiC wrote:On November 02 2023 03:25 Nebuchad wrote:On November 02 2023 03:14 JimmiC wrote:On November 02 2023 03:08 Nebuchad wrote:On November 02 2023 02:53 Liquid`Drone wrote:
[quote]
As for the second point, you'll notice i have not used the phrases ethnic cleansing nor genocide, and ive fairly consistently argued against using words with contentious definitions because that is a surefire way to get bogged down in a semantics debate.
I can see the merit to what you're saying, my pushback would be that since there's only one side who is ready to argue against words like this, you'll end up with a rhetorical slant. Terrorists and religious fundamentalists on one side (accurately), and on the other whichever words will be acceptable to talk about a clear ethnic cleansing attempt, which will necessarily be a much less violent-looking (and less accurate) word. Imo that's because we have this slant in the discourse of the West in general that so many people can't see through the self-defense arguments. Or you just do not understand what ethnic cleansing is and is not, and can’t explain why this is ethic cleansing despite it not having any of the key characteristics. Even Drone saying he chooses not to use those words vs it is not is disrespectful to the seriousness of the accusations as well as all of those who have been unfortunate enough to actually experience or have loved ones who did. Not so fun fact is basically everyone in Israel is part of that group. This is literally my next post after your decision to stop going back and forth with me Go for explain the definition of ethnic cleansing and how Israel fits that definition or stop being ignorant and hateful. As I remember it, I asked you to explain to me what the non-ethnic cleansing reasoning for the West Bank settlements was, and you couldn't provide an answer. You said "You'd have to ask them". As long as I can't think of a reason to do them that isn't ethnic cleansing, I'm going to feel conforted in my belief that they are part of an ethnic cleansing campaign. Amongst the dozens of links that I could have chosen, here's an article in Jewish Currents by Raz Segal, "an associate professor of Holocaust and genocide studies at Stockton University and the endowed professor in the study of modern genocide": https://jewishcurrents.org/a-textbook-case-of-genocide So the settlements are not genocide or they are and you can just not explain why? Yes if Israel follows through on its most obscene threats then it would have committed genocide. But that is not what you have been saying, you have been saying they have been committing it for the last 70 years and used settlements as proof. I completely agree that if Israel commits genocide it will be genocide. I was expecting a much better article to be honest. Actually when I said genocide in reference to Gaza you also attacked that, but that was earlier in the thread. "Ethnic cleansing is the systematic forced removal of ethnic, racial, and religious groups from a given area, with the intent of making a region ethnically homogeneous. Along with direct removal, extermination, deportation or population transfer, it also includes indirect methods aimed at forced migration by coercing the victim group to flee and preventing its return, such as murder, rape, and property destruction." The degree to which it is obvious that this describes what is happening in the West Bank is hard to overstate. Israeli settlers are taking land and settlements from Palestinians living there, forcing them to move (often through violence), with the explicit intent of making the land inhabited by Jewish Israelis as opposed to Palestinians. Amongst the dozens of links that I could have chosen in reference to the West Bank specifically, here's this one: https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2023/10/un-expert-warns-new-instance-mass-ethnic-cleansing-palestinians-callsAnother way of looking at this is, you've agreed with me that West Bank settlements are bad. I would ask, why are they bad? What is the thing that is happening that makes you believe they are bad? The sheer comedy of claiming that Jews settling a place that was inhabited entirely by Arabs before is intent on making the place ethnically homogenous is unmatched. You can argue that methods used are bordering straight up robbery, but your very definition straight up tells us that West Bank case is literal antithesis of ethnic cleansing. If Israelis were coming and living among the other people in the village then you have a valuable criticism of my position. Since they're instead taking the homes of the people who are there and forcing them to leave, you don't.
Once again: I actually agree that West Bank fully showcases the ugly table manners on behalf of Israel. More than that: at least before 7/10 there existed actual voting blocs in Israel that would be fully on board with that statement. But claiming a plain old property robbery (when it happens) is somehow ethnic cleansing is straight up funny.
P. S. Next time research people you cite, someone being "UN expert" does not make one any more competent than Iran leading Human Rights Council makes said Iran a paragon of Human Rights.
|
On November 02 2023 05:27 lolfail9001 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2023 05:22 Nebuchad wrote:On November 02 2023 05:20 lolfail9001 wrote:On November 02 2023 05:14 Nebuchad wrote:On November 02 2023 05:02 JimmiC wrote:On November 02 2023 04:04 Nebuchad wrote:On November 02 2023 03:44 JimmiC wrote:On November 02 2023 03:25 Nebuchad wrote:On November 02 2023 03:14 JimmiC wrote:On November 02 2023 03:08 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
I can see the merit to what you're saying, my pushback would be that since there's only one side who is ready to argue against words like this, you'll end up with a rhetorical slant. Terrorists and religious fundamentalists on one side (accurately), and on the other whichever words will be acceptable to talk about a clear ethnic cleansing attempt, which will necessarily be a much less violent-looking (and less accurate) word. Imo that's because we have this slant in the discourse of the West in general that so many people can't see through the self-defense arguments. Or you just do not understand what ethnic cleansing is and is not, and can’t explain why this is ethic cleansing despite it not having any of the key characteristics. Even Drone saying he chooses not to use those words vs it is not is disrespectful to the seriousness of the accusations as well as all of those who have been unfortunate enough to actually experience or have loved ones who did. Not so fun fact is basically everyone in Israel is part of that group. This is literally my next post after your decision to stop going back and forth with me Go for explain the definition of ethnic cleansing and how Israel fits that definition or stop being ignorant and hateful. As I remember it, I asked you to explain to me what the non-ethnic cleansing reasoning for the West Bank settlements was, and you couldn't provide an answer. You said "You'd have to ask them". As long as I can't think of a reason to do them that isn't ethnic cleansing, I'm going to feel conforted in my belief that they are part of an ethnic cleansing campaign. Amongst the dozens of links that I could have chosen, here's an article in Jewish Currents by Raz Segal, "an associate professor of Holocaust and genocide studies at Stockton University and the endowed professor in the study of modern genocide": https://jewishcurrents.org/a-textbook-case-of-genocide So the settlements are not genocide or they are and you can just not explain why? Yes if Israel follows through on its most obscene threats then it would have committed genocide. But that is not what you have been saying, you have been saying they have been committing it for the last 70 years and used settlements as proof. I completely agree that if Israel commits genocide it will be genocide. I was expecting a much better article to be honest. Actually when I said genocide in reference to Gaza you also attacked that, but that was earlier in the thread. "Ethnic cleansing is the systematic forced removal of ethnic, racial, and religious groups from a given area, with the intent of making a region ethnically homogeneous. Along with direct removal, extermination, deportation or population transfer, it also includes indirect methods aimed at forced migration by coercing the victim group to flee and preventing its return, such as murder, rape, and property destruction." The degree to which it is obvious that this describes what is happening in the West Bank is hard to overstate. Israeli settlers are taking land and settlements from Palestinians living there, forcing them to move (often through violence), with the explicit intent of making the land inhabited by Jewish Israelis as opposed to Palestinians. Amongst the dozens of links that I could have chosen in reference to the West Bank specifically, here's this one: https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2023/10/un-expert-warns-new-instance-mass-ethnic-cleansing-palestinians-callsAnother way of looking at this is, you've agreed with me that West Bank settlements are bad. I would ask, why are they bad? What is the thing that is happening that makes you believe they are bad? The sheer comedy of claiming that Jews settling a place that was inhabited entirely by Arabs before is intent on making the place ethnically homogenous is unmatched. You can argue that methods used are bordering straight up robbery, but your very definition straight up tells us that West Bank case is literal antithesis of ethnic cleansing. If Israelis were coming and living among the other people in the village then you have a valuable criticism of my position. Since they're instead taking the homes of the people who are there and forcing them to leave, you don't. Once again: I actually agree that West Bank fully showcases the ugly table manners on behalf of Israel. More than that: at least before 7/10 there existed actual voting blocs in Israel that would be fully on board with that statement. But claiming a plain old property robbery (when it happens) is somehow ethnic cleansing is straight up funny. P. S. Next time research people you cite, someone being "UN expert" does not make one any more competent than Iran leading Human Rights Council makes said Iran a paragon of Human Rights.
That's part of why I changed the link, the article was also not only about the West Bank but also about Gaza so it wasn't great for the situation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
