|
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. |
United States41961 Posts
On May 19 2021 23:53 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2021 23:50 GreenHorizons wrote:The 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. They need to take away the Veto as a thing. Whether it is the US, China or Russia they all use it for their own political reasons. It is constantly abused.
That is the purpose of the veto. The UN is not a debate hall, it was created (the UN as an institution, not the alliance of the same name which was a few years older) to avoid a war between the great power victors of WW2. It's not meant to be fair, or apolitical, or neutral, it's explicitly designed to stop China and the United States (for example) from going to war. The UN can never act against one of the great powers because the UN was designed that way on purpose. No matter the disagreements between the great powers they will always have UN representation and access because it belongs to them.
It's not abuse, it's just use.
Edit to add: I'm not interested in debating this with you. This is just you seeming to not know the historical context of why the veto exists and what the UN is for and me telling you.
|
On May 20 2021 00:08 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2021 21:46 MWY wrote:On May 19 2021 07:37 KwarK wrote:On May 19 2021 07:01 MWY wrote:On May 19 2021 05:44 KwarK wrote:
My view is that broadly speaking the Palestinians were minding their own business until all the Zionists showed up and built an Israel on Palestine. I’m not going to assert that there was no violence committed by Palestinians because that wouldn’t be true. What I will assert is that the Palestinians did not initiate the conflict. They weren’t roaming around Eastern Europe picking fights with Jewish people, they were in their homes when Zionists showed up and started picking fights.
I am broadly speaking extremely sympathetic to the Palestinians in the 30s and 40s who saw their country overrun by an invasion of colonists from Europe. I can’t imagine any people not resisting that kind of invasion of their land, I view the Palestinian opposition to the declaration of the state of Israel as wholly rational. What happened to Palestine is essentially a real world example of the right wing fever dream of Central Americans flooding into Texas and establishing a Sharia law Caliphate.
I am fairly sympathetic to the Jewish people, particularly those who came to Palestine after WW2, because their desire for a homeland is rational and the trauma of the Holocaust explains, if not justifies, a lot. That sympathy becomes far more limited after they did not adhere to the UN partition plan.
I’m unsympathetic to the UN as this was essentially the first test of the UN after WW2 and they did absolutely nothing to prevent the question being settled by arms and ethnic cleansing. They came up with a partition plan and did nothing to implement it.
I’m unsympathetic to the Arab nations who, after losing the war with Israel, could have done far more to help the displaced Palestinians. I cynically believe they preferred an ongoing Palestinian crisis as a nationalist rallying cry to the costs that would be involved in fixing it.
I outright condemn the British Empire which inserted itself into Palestinian affairs uninvited and then failed to honour the most basic duties it had assumed towards the Palestinian people. The conflict started under British stewardship and Britain was the party responsible for ensuring that there was no conflict. Perhaps the two state solution would have collapsed after Britain left and perhaps war was inevitable. We won’t know because Britain, entrusted with implementing the UN partition plan, fucked off. Weren't arab palestinians aspiring towards building a state aswell? Was that not a radical nationalist movement? What were the initial crimes of jews/zionists against the arabs? I haven't found any source for this, even more so, only contradicting sources in german aswell as in english. How would you have prevented jewish refugees/migrants from going to palestine? How can you possibly paint the jewish side as only fascists (who might have at some point contemplated to work with fascist countries to get rid of britain) while painting the arab side (who I think you mean when you say Palestinians, wrongly so btw) who was lead by an islamist national antisemitic guy and actually partnered with the nazis as innocent? I wouldn’t call Palestinians living in Palestine aspiring for a decolonial Palestinian state a radical nationalist movement. No more than I’d call Indians living in India wanting freedom from British rule radical nationalists. Self determination is a fundamental right of all peoples. You’d have to be a radical 19th century imperialist to argue that the British, rather than the Palestinians, should govern Palestine. You cannot draw an equivalency between on the one side the people of Palestine wanting freedom from colonial rule and the Jewish settlers wanting to establish their own colonial rule in someone else’s land. These are not equivalent nationalistic movements. You might as well argue that the desire by extreme Polish nationalists in 1939 to occupy Poland was equivalent to the desire by friendly German nationalists in 1939 to occupy Poland. Crimes of the Zionists against the Palestinians include this famous example. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deir_Yassin_massacreBut more generally just taking their land and displacing them with mass migration and violence. Ideally it wouldn’t have been up to me to police the borders of Palestine. Ideally a self governing independent Palestine would have been given the right to police its own borders. But in the context of British rule, turning around ships of illegal migrants. The settlements were not legal, just as it would not be legal for the Palestinians today to sail to Germany and seize land. If you imagine a reasonable policy for Germany when faced with hypothetical ships of Palestinians attempting to illegally enter Germany then I’m sure you can imagine a similar policy for Palestine faced with ships of Jewish refugees. I don’t paint all Zionists as fascists but fascists were certainly among them and there were a lot of terror attacked committed against the British and UN. It also doesn’t make them not look like fascists when the state of Israel gave the fascist terrorists medals. I’m not misspeaking when I refer to the Palestinians living in Palestine as Palestinians, you’re misspeaking when you call them Arabs. The name for the people of Palestine is Palestinian, just as the name for the people of Germany is German (in English). In 1947 Palestine existed and the people were Palestinian. I don’t know if this is a language thing but you’re the one misspeaking when you call the people of Palestine an “Arab side”. 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.
The curds have a flag, have a somewhat independent government (even multiple ones), have borders but are not a state. Catalonia would be another example.
You gave me exactly zero examples of how jews initially started violence and terror against muslim palestinians. Zero. At this point I'll claim that you're wrong.
Yeah, in 1939 the british tried to limit the migration. Before that, they basically invited it. And after 1939 there was the fucking second world war and please tell me that as a jew, you would have happily stayed in germany or it's neighbouring countries. You know damn-fucking well how the situation was and that even before world war 2, almost all countries denied jewish refugees entry. It's pure nonsense to say that all jews were keen to invade or "colonize" palestine and attest them an intent of supressing and hate towards muslims without atleast taking into account why most of them went there. Because they were discrimated, persecuted and killed in many, many countries and wanted to flee from that. Denying that is wrong, plain and simple.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amin_al-Husseini
Please tell me that you really think this guy (whose language about invasion and colonization you basically use btw) had any intend of creating a non-islamist democracy where other religions could live happily ever after. Progroms against jews happened atleast since the 1920s when the majority of the migration had not happened yet. In the german version of this article there are direct quotes of him saying that they should massacre every jew that hadn't been there in 1917. I'm not even saying that without the following migration he would have pulled trough, or that all muslims were behind him, but I'm saying that "palestinians were minding their own business" when suddenly the evil zionist invaders show up and start the conflict is incredibly biased and factually wrong. It was a development of atleast two clashing movements between the zionists and islamic nationalists, both clashing with the british empire, and a lot of people, palestians of every religion aswell as jewish refugees/migrants caught inbetween.
|
United States41961 Posts
On May 20 2021 01:21 MWY wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2021 00:08 KwarK wrote:On May 19 2021 21:46 MWY wrote:On May 19 2021 07:37 KwarK wrote:On May 19 2021 07:01 MWY wrote:On May 19 2021 05:44 KwarK wrote:
My view is that broadly speaking the Palestinians were minding their own business until all the Zionists showed up and built an Israel on Palestine. I’m not going to assert that there was no violence committed by Palestinians because that wouldn’t be true. What I will assert is that the Palestinians did not initiate the conflict. They weren’t roaming around Eastern Europe picking fights with Jewish people, they were in their homes when Zionists showed up and started picking fights.
I am broadly speaking extremely sympathetic to the Palestinians in the 30s and 40s who saw their country overrun by an invasion of colonists from Europe. I can’t imagine any people not resisting that kind of invasion of their land, I view the Palestinian opposition to the declaration of the state of Israel as wholly rational. What happened to Palestine is essentially a real world example of the right wing fever dream of Central Americans flooding into Texas and establishing a Sharia law Caliphate.
I am fairly sympathetic to the Jewish people, particularly those who came to Palestine after WW2, because their desire for a homeland is rational and the trauma of the Holocaust explains, if not justifies, a lot. That sympathy becomes far more limited after they did not adhere to the UN partition plan.
I’m unsympathetic to the UN as this was essentially the first test of the UN after WW2 and they did absolutely nothing to prevent the question being settled by arms and ethnic cleansing. They came up with a partition plan and did nothing to implement it.
I’m unsympathetic to the Arab nations who, after losing the war with Israel, could have done far more to help the displaced Palestinians. I cynically believe they preferred an ongoing Palestinian crisis as a nationalist rallying cry to the costs that would be involved in fixing it.
I outright condemn the British Empire which inserted itself into Palestinian affairs uninvited and then failed to honour the most basic duties it had assumed towards the Palestinian people. The conflict started under British stewardship and Britain was the party responsible for ensuring that there was no conflict. Perhaps the two state solution would have collapsed after Britain left and perhaps war was inevitable. We won’t know because Britain, entrusted with implementing the UN partition plan, fucked off. Weren't arab palestinians aspiring towards building a state aswell? Was that not a radical nationalist movement? What were the initial crimes of jews/zionists against the arabs? I haven't found any source for this, even more so, only contradicting sources in german aswell as in english. How would you have prevented jewish refugees/migrants from going to palestine? How can you possibly paint the jewish side as only fascists (who might have at some point contemplated to work with fascist countries to get rid of britain) while painting the arab side (who I think you mean when you say Palestinians, wrongly so btw) who was lead by an islamist national antisemitic guy and actually partnered with the nazis as innocent? I wouldn’t call Palestinians living in Palestine aspiring for a decolonial Palestinian state a radical nationalist movement. No more than I’d call Indians living in India wanting freedom from British rule radical nationalists. Self determination is a fundamental right of all peoples. You’d have to be a radical 19th century imperialist to argue that the British, rather than the Palestinians, should govern Palestine. You cannot draw an equivalency between on the one side the people of Palestine wanting freedom from colonial rule and the Jewish settlers wanting to establish their own colonial rule in someone else’s land. These are not equivalent nationalistic movements. You might as well argue that the desire by extreme Polish nationalists in 1939 to occupy Poland was equivalent to the desire by friendly German nationalists in 1939 to occupy Poland. Crimes of the Zionists against the Palestinians include this famous example. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deir_Yassin_massacreBut more generally just taking their land and displacing them with mass migration and violence. Ideally it wouldn’t have been up to me to police the borders of Palestine. Ideally a self governing independent Palestine would have been given the right to police its own borders. But in the context of British rule, turning around ships of illegal migrants. The settlements were not legal, just as it would not be legal for the Palestinians today to sail to Germany and seize land. If you imagine a reasonable policy for Germany when faced with hypothetical ships of Palestinians attempting to illegally enter Germany then I’m sure you can imagine a similar policy for Palestine faced with ships of Jewish refugees. I don’t paint all Zionists as fascists but fascists were certainly among them and there were a lot of terror attacked committed against the British and UN. It also doesn’t make them not look like fascists when the state of Israel gave the fascist terrorists medals. I’m not misspeaking when I refer to the Palestinians living in Palestine as Palestinians, you’re misspeaking when you call them Arabs. The name for the people of Palestine is Palestinian, just as the name for the people of Germany is German (in English). In 1947 Palestine existed and the people were Palestinian. I don’t know if this is a language thing but you’re the one misspeaking when you call the people of Palestine an “Arab side”. 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. The curds have a flag, have a somewhat independent government (even multiple ones), have borders but are not a state. Catalonia would be another example. You gave me exactly zero examples of how jews initially started violence and terror against muslim palestinians. Zero. At this point I'll claim that you're wrong. Yeah, in 1939 the british tried to limit the migration. Before that, they basically invited it. And after 1939 there was the fucking second world war and please tell me that as a jew, you would have happily stayed in germany or it's neighbouring countries. You know damn-fucking well how the situation was and that even before world war 2, almost all countries denied jewish refugees entry. It's pure nonsense to say that all jews were keen to invade or "colonize" palestine and attest them an intent of supressing and hate towards muslims without atleast taking into account why most of them went there. Because they were discrimated, persecuted and killed in many, many countries and wanted to flee from that. Denying that is wrong, plain and simple. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amin_al-HusseiniPlease tell me that you really think this guy (whose language about invasion and colonization you basically use btw) had any intend of creating a non-islamist democracy where other religions could live happily ever after. Progroms against jews happened atleast since the 1920s when the majority of the migration had not happened yet. In the german version of this article there are direct quotes of him saying that they should massacre every jew that hadn't been there in 1917. I'm not even saying that without the following migration he would have pulled trough, or that all muslims were behind him, but I'm saying that "palestinians were minding their own business" when suddenly the evil zionist invaders show up and start the conflict is incredibly biased and factually wrong. It was a development of atleast two clashing movements between the zionists and islamic nationalists, both clashing with the british empire, and a lot of people, palestians of every religion aswell as jewish refugees/migrants caught inbetween.
I’ve previously stated my sympathy towards the Jewish people seeking a homeland where they could live free of religious persecution and that the experience of the Holocaust explains, if not justifies, the subsequent colonization of Palestine. I think their desire for a homeland was a rational response to the persecution they faced, both during WW2 and before. I also think that their lack of faith in western powers that deserted them in the 30s is wholly justified. I agree with all of those arguments. Those arguments don’t work on me because we’re on the same page. The part we disagree on is the part where the Palestinians have to give up their country and become refugees themselves to make room for Jewish refugees. There had to be a better way than displacing a native population so that they could be replaced by a foreign population of refugees.
Gypsies were also exterminated in WW2. Which countries would you have given them permission to seize in the years after the war? If they’d decided they needed a new home in Denmark would you be making the argument that the gas chambers and the continued discrimination from other nations justified the displacement of the Danes? I presume not. The classic example of the pilgrims settling North America is another example of a people that faced religious persecution, massacres, open war, etc. and displaced people to create a new homeland where they could be free from religious persecution. Were the pilgrims justified?
It is possible to be sympathetic to the plight of the Jewish people while also recognizing that colonizing Palestine was unjust. You don’t have to pick.
|
On May 19 2021 23:28 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +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. Has any one argued that Israel's leadership should be absolved of anything? There has been a ton of posting so I could have missed it. But I have constantly read people accusing posters of wanting to absolve Israel, I have not seen anyone ask for it. There is a lot of conviction on this thread (and the US pol thread) of what people think someone's intentions are.
Not as such, but either implicitly in their own position or in their assessment of someone else’s position, I think this fallacy creeps in (and it definitely does in the larger debate outside TL). If I say “responsibility for the deaths in Dresden lies with Germany” it implies that I think the Allies aren’t responsible, and rhetorically I’m relying on this sort of fallacy to imply, without stating implicitly, that of Germany is responsible it means the Allies aren’t.
I don’t think anybody here (maaaybe GH or Neb?) would say Hamas is justified in firing rockets at civilian targets, but it’s quite common in the larger debate for Israel defenders to defend or minimize or distract from the human cost of their attacks by implying (or, occasionally, outright stating) that because they’re fighting Hamas, who is bad, any military action taken is justified. If they’re blowing up a building with 100 civilians in it because their intelligence suggests there’s a 50% chance a Hamas operative is there, is that acceptable? If not, what should be done about it?
A factor I think can go overlooked in the theoretical debate on justified use of force is that we’re basically always taking IDF’s word for it that there even was a legitimate military target. So the more immediate question is not “when is use of force justified?” but “what do we do when a military force blows up a bunch of civilians and then says ‘it was justified, trust us’ ?” In each case there’s probably a set of facts I could imagine in which it would be justified, and lots of sets of facts I could imagine in which it isn’t, but I just don’t have the facts.
The only thing I can think of is an independent authority with resources to investigate the action and issue a judgment. If the attacker says “we have confidential information that justifies this action” they can either share that information with the investigators or refuse and be judged on publicly available facts. The US almost certainly would oppose creating such an authority, though, considering we also like killing civilians and then saying “it was justified, trust us.” To the peoples being subjected to this kind of policing, however, that’s unacceptable.
|
On May 20 2021 01:36 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2021 23:28 JimmiC wrote: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. Has any one argued that Israel's leadership should be absolved of anything? There has been a ton of posting so I could have missed it. But I have constantly read people accusing posters of wanting to absolve Israel, I have not seen anyone ask for it. There is a lot of conviction on this thread (and the US pol thread) of what people think someone's intentions are. I don’t think anybody here (maaaybe GH or Neb?) would say Hamas is justified in firing rockets at civilian targets,
I wouldn't.
|
|
|
United States41961 Posts
On May 20 2021 01:44 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2021 00:12 KwarK wrote:On May 19 2021 23:53 JimmiC wrote:On May 19 2021 23:50 GreenHorizons wrote:The 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. They need to take away the Veto as a thing. Whether it is the US, China or Russia they all use it for their own political reasons. It is constantly abused. That is the purpose of the veto. The UN is not a debate hall, it was created (the UN as an institution, not the alliance of the same name which was a few years older) to avoid a war between the great power victors of WW2. It's not meant to be fair, or apolitical, or neutral, it's explicitly designed to stop China and the United States (for example) from going to war. The UN can never act against one of the great powers because the UN was designed that way on purpose. No matter the disagreements between the great powers they will always have UN representation and access because it belongs to them. It's not abuse, it's just use. Edit to add: I'm not interested in debating this with you. This is just you seeming to not know the historical context of why the veto exists and what the UN is for and me telling you. Again what you are doing is falsely attributing to me a lack of understanding. I'm saying the designed use is bad it renders the UN pretty useless in dealing with anyone who is an ally of a country with a veto.
Yes, this is the designed use of the veto. You are misunderstanding the purpose of the UN. The use of the UN isn’t resolving petty conflicts, it is ensuring that the great powers get their way. The veto is essential in making the UN function and the non action of the UN when a US ally is involved is the intended function of the UN.
You don’t understand what the UN is and what it is for. You are complaining about the veto hindering the UN from reaching agreement on Israel but that is the UN working as intended. It’s just not a very good organization if what you want is problem solving. The UN is a very useful organization if what you care about is international non action where great powers are concerned and that is what it is for. The UN isn’t useless and the veto doesn’t make it useless. The UN is useful and the veto is essential to the function. The UN is just not for what you think it is for.
Again, not a debate, a correction. You didn’t know, now you know.
|
|
|
|
|
Czech Republic12128 Posts
On May 19 2021 21:43 Broetchenholer wrote:
Na, asking Hamas to stop firing rockets is definetely the right side. The are very few people who would argue that Hamas is allowed and morally okay doing it. The question is what could be done to achieve that, and there the ideas diverge.
Considering this was right under my post I believe this is reaction to it 
Well, my view on the conflict is, that it can't be solved diplomatically. There's no room in the negotiations when you want to destroy the Israel. So while I jokingly replied to the "there's no room to fire rocket from" with "don't fire rockets, duh" - that's not the evil side I was talking about.
The evil side I was talking about can be simplified - bomb them into the stone age. For every rocket the Iron Dome catches, send a bomb back. For every rocket Iron Dome misses - send 2 bombs back. For every injured person by them rockets send 5 bombs back. And for every dead person - 10 bombs back.
And I don't pretend it's a good solution. It's a baaaaaaaaaaaad solution. But I simply don't see a diplomatic solution when one of the sides of the conflict says - Israel must be destroyed.
Also I believe that all the countries sending the humanitarian aid to the Palestinians should stop and instead offer them money and asylum if they want to relocate - and I wouldn't be surprised they wouldn't accept it, cause I wouldn't leave my home either no matter how bad it is.
So yeah, considering the previous discussion - I am evil, Sith Lord evil. And I have no issues with that. When I see a rather expensive anti-tank rocket fired against a civilian jeep, I also wonder where they get money for these toys.
Anyway, long story short - you don't negotiate with terrorists.
|
|
|
United States41961 Posts
On May 20 2021 04:04 deacon.frost wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2021 21:43 Broetchenholer wrote:
Na, asking Hamas to stop firing rockets is definetely the right side. The are very few people who would argue that Hamas is allowed and morally okay doing it. The question is what could be done to achieve that, and there the ideas diverge. Considering this was right under my post I believe this is reaction to it Well, my view on the conflict is, that it can't be solved diplomatically. There's no room in the negotiations when you want to destroy the Israel. So while I jokingly replied to the "there's no room to fire rocket from" with "don't fire rockets, duh" - that's not the evil side I was talking about. The evil side I was talking about can be simplified - bomb them into the stone age. For every rocket the Iron Dome catches, send a bomb back. For every rocket Iron Dome misses - send 2 bombs back. For every injured person by them rockets send 5 bombs back. And for every dead person - 10 bombs back. And I don't pretend it's a good solution. It's a baaaaaaaaaaaad solution. But I simply don't see a diplomatic solution when one of the sides of the conflict says - Israel must be destroyed. Also I believe that all the countries sending the humanitarian aid to the Palestinians should stop and instead offer them money and asylum if they want to relocate - and I wouldn't be surprised they wouldn't accept it, cause I wouldn't leave my home either no matter how bad it is. So yeah, considering the previous discussion - I am evil, Sith Lord evil. And I have no issues with that. When I see a rather expensive anti-tank rocket fired against a civilian jeep, I also wonder where they get money for these toys. Anyway, long story short - you don't negotiate with terrorists.
The destruction of Israel does not imply the death of every Israeli. This is a common misconception. The key thing to understand is that for Palestinians Israel, as a state entity, cannot be reformed into a home for both peoples. It has committed too many crimes, it has been too oppressive, it has enshrined a preferred religion and people too deeply in its institutions and culture. This is similar to how the Royal Ulster Constabulary had to be disbanded or the flag of Apartheid South Africa changed.
They are not saying that the only possible peace is after every Israeli citizen is dead. They are saying that it is impossible to reconcile under the conqueror’s boot.
Also obligatory you’re a monster but you seem to be fine embracing that.
|
While the level of clarity that came with winning the debate last time is appreciable, the issue is that you're going to end up with arguments like this nowadays. There's not much we can do here. I don't know how to convince someone who doesn't think Palestinians are human beings that they are in fact human beings. And I don't believe deacon expects he can convince anyone out of the opposite stance either.
I guess just for the record, if Gazans for example want to relocate, they can't. Israel forbids that through a blocade. So that would be a problem with your strategy of offering aid to the "people" who want to relocate.
|
|
|
On May 20 2021 04:04 deacon.frost wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2021 21:43 Broetchenholer wrote:
Na, asking Hamas to stop firing rockets is definetely the right side. The are very few people who would argue that Hamas is allowed and morally okay doing it. The question is what could be done to achieve that, and there the ideas diverge. Considering this was right under my post I believe this is reaction to it Well, my view on the conflict is, that it can't be solved diplomatically. There's no room in the negotiations when you want to destroy the Israel. So while I jokingly replied to the "there's no room to fire rocket from" with "don't fire rockets, duh" - that's not the evil side I was talking about. The evil side I was talking about can be simplified - bomb them into the stone age. For every rocket the Iron Dome catches, send a bomb back. For every rocket Iron Dome misses - send 2 bombs back. For every injured person by them rockets send 5 bombs back. And for every dead person - 10 bombs back. And I don't pretend it's a good solution. It's a baaaaaaaaaaaad solution. But I simply don't see a diplomatic solution when one of the sides of the conflict says - Israel must be destroyed. Also I believe that all the countries sending the humanitarian aid to the Palestinians should stop and instead offer them money and asylum if they want to relocate - and I wouldn't be surprised they wouldn't accept it, cause I wouldn't leave my home either no matter how bad it is. So yeah, considering the previous discussion - I am evil, Sith Lord evil. And I have no issues with that. When I see a rather expensive anti-tank rocket fired against a civilian jeep, I also wonder where they get money for these toys. Anyway, long story short - you don't negotiate with terrorists.
When the Nazis were occupying most of Europe they had policies more or less like this. I’m going off the top of my head, but the idea was something like every time an insurgent tried to kill Nazis they’d kill 50 people; every time they’re succeeded they’d kill 100 people for every Nazi killed. They thought this kind of collective punishment would encourage self-policing in the community; people would discourage friends and neighbors from insurgency because they didn’t want to be punished.
It didn’t work. Besides the monstrosity of it, for whatever reason that’s just not how human psychology works. People kept trying to find sneaky ways to oppose the Nazis, and they screwed any chance they had to build support among local factions that hasn’t liked the pre-WW2 status quo. Long story short, collective punishment maximizes human cost and usually hinder your war effort.
At the end of the day, we might not be far off from a 100:1 casualty ratio here, I’m fairly confident we’d sail way past it if Israel actually engaged in purely retributive bombing like you’re describing.
|
On May 20 2021 04:04 deacon.frost wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2021 21:43 Broetchenholer wrote:
Na, asking Hamas to stop firing rockets is definetely the right side. The are very few people who would argue that Hamas is allowed and morally okay doing it. The question is what could be done to achieve that, and there the ideas diverge. Considering this was right under my post I believe this is reaction to it Well, my view on the conflict is, that it can't be solved diplomatically. There's no room in the negotiations when you want to destroy the Israel. So while I jokingly replied to the "there's no room to fire rocket from" with "don't fire rockets, duh" - that's not the evil side I was talking about. The evil side I was talking about can be simplified - bomb them into the stone age. For every rocket the Iron Dome catches, send a bomb back. For every rocket Iron Dome misses - send 2 bombs back. For every injured person by them rockets send 5 bombs back. And for every dead person - 10 bombs back. And I don't pretend it's a good solution. It's a baaaaaaaaaaaad solution. But I simply don't see a diplomatic solution when one of the sides of the conflict says - Israel must be destroyed. Also I believe that all the countries sending the humanitarian aid to the Palestinians should stop and instead offer them money and asylum if they want to relocate - and I wouldn't be surprised they wouldn't accept it, cause I wouldn't leave my home either no matter how bad it is. So yeah, considering the previous discussion - I am evil, Sith Lord evil. And I have no issues with that. When I see a rather expensive anti-tank rocket fired against a civilian jeep, I also wonder where they get money for these toys. Anyway, long story short - you don't negotiate with terrorists.
Okay, cool. Then i am happy i provoked that response.
|
On May 19 2021 08:00 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2021 07:51 maybenexttime wrote:On May 18 2021 19:18 Broetchenholer wrote:At the moment of the first massacres of Jews in in Palestina, 1929, there were already militant nationalistic movements on both sides. Sources are pretty scarce on the internet, but i think it is safe to say that the Jewish Zionists were not deescalating anything and used the mandate of the British to create a Jewish state to excerpt a lot of influence over areas they were not settling in. see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1929_Palestine_riots:Several months earlier Zionist leader Menachem Ussishkin gave a speech demanding "a Jewish state without compromises and without concessions, from Dan to Be'er Sheva, from the great sea to the desert, including Transjordan." He concluded, "Let us swear that the Jewish people will not rest and will not remain silent until its national home is built on our Mt Moriah," a reference to the Temple Mount.[11] Now, i am sure he intended to do that without harming, displacing or subjugating the people already living there. And of course the arabian uprising in 1929 and later were largely arab mobs killing Jews. But to say that the Jewish zionists were just defending themselves and then later might have become terrorist organisations is also conveniently ignoring the beginnings of the state. And while some of these settlers were just fleeing progroms and persecution in eastern europe and were just happy to have a new home, others were militantly pushing the idea of creating their holy land. It's messy and complicated, but the situation is certainly not as easy as "they started it, we had to defend ourselves". I mostly agree. I'm not saying the Jews were innocent in all of this. I merely pointed out the numerous atrocities committed by the Palestinian side as counterweight to Kwark's one-sided depiction of the events, which pretty much left them out entirely. My narrative stopped in early 1948 because I was giving background to why I blame the British and that’s when they left. I do have issues with a lot of what the Arabs did subsequently but I didn’t ascribe a lot of agency to Palestine in the British mandate period because it was not a self governing state and could not be expected to have national policy solutions. I wasn’t purposefully excluding them from the narrative, the narrative was limited in scope to the period of British rule and as such Palestinian agency was limited.
Well, make up your mind. You either end your narrative at 1948, in which case you cannot claim that Jews were colonizers displacing the native population (because they did not - they settled sparsely populated areas, land they bought from its legal owners) or we can talk about the aftermath of the Israeli Declaration of Independence, in which case you can bring up the displacement of Palestinian population as a result of failed attempts at war and subsequent acts of terrorism. In reality, Zionism and Palestinian nationalism were born around the same time. Both, Arabs and Jews made claims to land they didn't actually occupy. Why should Arabs dictate where Jews could settle, as long as the latter were not displacing anyone?
Also, as I mentioned, your narrative conveniently ignored the issue of Palestinian Arabs massacring Jewish civilians minding their own business in the '20s and '30s. It's quite clear you didn't try to be objective.
On May 19 2021 11:26 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2021 10:52 Magic Powers wrote:On May 19 2021 10:08 Jockmcplop wrote:
I don't particularly see why retaliation is necessary. Is oppressing the population, taking their homes, taking their jobs, disappearing them, keeping them imprisoned in Gaza, letting Israelis kick the shit out of them whenever they want, forgetting to investigate their murders etc. etc. not retaliation enough?
That argument is all over the place, so I can't respond to it. On May 19 2021 10:25 KwarK wrote:
1) Just because any attack has a chance of civilian casualties does not mean that all attacks have equal chance of equal civilian casualties. You failed to understand my post. Israel has the right to defend itself, even if that may cause civilian casualties, but Israel is not forced to always engage in maximum retaliation regardless of the risk to civilians. Israel does not always have to use that right. It can judgmentally choose not to retaliate if there is no good target.
2) I explicitly addressed the human shields myth. Where would you like Hamas to launch rockets from? Maybe you'll be more inclined to agree if I say that the practice of human shields was used both by the IDF and by Hamas? And that Israel has in numerous cases not given civilians enough time to evacuate? And that Israel has in some cases attacked areas after announcing otherwise? As usual it's not a one-sided issue. There are credible sources that have reported on the human shields practice by Hamas. Calling it a "myth" isn't right. You can call it a controversial question because in some cases it's not always clear, and then I'd be a lot more inclined to agree, but it's not a "myth". https://www.haaretz.com/hamas-acknowledges-civilian-area-rocket-fire-1.5264400https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-hamas-civilians-human-shields Your source is arguing my point, not yours. My argument was that Gaza is extremely densely populated with civilians, half of whom are children, to the point that there are only civilian areas of Gaza. There’s no designated rocket launch zone in Gaza, it’s all civilian areas, Israel cannot bomb Gaza without bombing civilian areas because Gaza is a civilian area. The accusation of human shields is based on a misunderstanding of what Gaza is, they’re not seeking out civilians to use as shields, the whole place is packed with civilians. You responded to that with sources where Hamas acknowledged they launched rockets from civilian areas in Gaza. Do you see why that proves my point about how there can’t possibly be a designated military rocket launch field in the middle of Gaza and not your point about human shields? To quote your source Show nested quote + It could be argued that there is nowhere else for the militants to place their missile batteries, given the urban density of the Gaza Strip.
The enclave is sometimes said to be the most densely populated place on earth, although this is an exaggeration. It is very crowded, though less so than Macau, Singapore, Hong Kong and other cities.
You could take a look at a goddamn satellite view instead of embarrassing yourself. While Gaza is densely populated, there's still plenty of room for military installations. The only problem is that they would be an easy target for Israel and launching rockets from there wouldn't lead to Palestinian civilian deaths that Hamas uses for propaganda purposes.
On May 19 2021 16:04 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2021 15:57 Magic Powers wrote:On May 19 2021 15:51 KwarK wrote:
I disagree with the assertion that all civilian deaths would end if Hamas stopped firing rockets. Violent Israeli settlements predate Hamas and would continue with or without Hamas. What are you basing that claim on? Israel absolutely is killing many innocent civilians. I don’t know where you’re getting your news from but it’s not correct. I didn't say they're not killing them, I said your framing is incorrect. They're not targeting them, they're targeting Hamas. Israel is knowingly and deliberately dropping bombs on civilians with the intent of killing adversaries and the knowledge that civilians will also die. They’re not tripping up and accidentally falling on a fragile building causing it to collapse, it’s a deliberate choice with trade offs. On the one hand the adversary survives and may perpetrate future attacks on Israel. On the other the adversary dies but so do civilians. Israel is deliberately weighing the options and deciding that the best option is the one in which they drop a bomb on civilians. I don’t see how you’re getting around that. I’m not saying they like killing civilians, I’m saying they do it anyway. Again an incorrect framing. Israel isn't dropping bombs on civilians, they're targeting Hamas and accepting collateral damage in the process. You’ve still failed to address the issue with your claim of Hamas using human shields which is that there isn’t anywhere for them to launch rockets from that doesn’t have civilians nearby. How exactly would you like Hamas to launch their rockets? They’re not hiding behind civilians, they’re a militia that live among civilians and do not have access to military installations. Hamas is sending rockets towards Israel, which they're doing with the sole purpose of killing Israeli civilians. They're doing this not for military purposes but with the intent to shed Israeli blood indiscriminately. I’m basing the claim that settlements predate Hamas on the linear nature of time and the ability to place events in sequential order within time.
Settlements predate Hamas, however, Palestinians routinely killing Jewish civilians predates Jewish settlers displacing native Arab population.
|
Also I believe that all the countries sending the humanitarian aid to the Palestinians should stop and instead offer them money and asylum if they want to relocate - and I wouldn't be surprised they wouldn't accept it, cause I wouldn't leave my home either no matter how bad it is.
Apart from the entirety of your posting being dogshit, this one is particularly stupid.
I am evil, Sith Lord evil
No bud, you're ignorant and don't have the slightest clue of what you're talking about. That's not evil, that's pitiful.
I let you figure out why that is.
|
You gave me exactly zero examples of how jews initially started violence and terror against muslim palestinians. Zero. At this point I'll claim that you're wrong.
While i'd argue that, by today, it doesn't matter how it started - Kwark does have a point there.
I suggest reading Benny Morris' view on how things got rolling. Nobody is arguing that the arabs are innocent, that's nonsense. What people are arguing is the weird belief that jewish settlers somehow were. According to Benny Morris, one of the - if not the first victim of political violence between jews and arabs was in 1882 when an arab got shot at his wedding. To clarify, Benny Morris is a jewish (zionist) journalist, criticised for, well, "being biased" when pointing out atrocities and war crimes by the jewish - despite actually being in favour of them.
Interesting read, also pointing out that, as mentioned, jewish settlers indeed played with fire by taking advantage of people not understanding rules, buying up land and then refuse to lease, rent or hire arabs. Factually displacing arabs.
This "david vs goliath" bullshit is simply not rooted in reality. Both sides share their fair portion of blame, and as mentioned, now almost 100 years later it doesn't matter how it started. What matters is a solution - not that i have one, but arguing that Kwark didn't give proof of "jewish terror starting everything" (which i don't think he even claimed?) while ignoring what really happened in regards to atrocities on both(!) sides is somewhat disingenuous.
Jews lived in the region for decades prior to the violence erupting. They simply co-existed, and "all was well". It all went to shit when zionism (and in response, nationalism) rose - i'm not sure how you'd react to people quite literally talking about taking your country and turning it into theirs. You might not agree that palestine was actually a country, but i bet you any money, that palestinians did.
I bet it didn't inspire confidence or trust that the first portion of land purchased by jews was under the institution of the "Jewish Colonisation Association". Can we agree on that?
Lastly, at the other guy..
Settlements predate Hamas, however, Palestinians routinely killing Jewish civilians predates Jewish settlers displacing native Arab population.
Fula affair. Land bought around the village of al-Fula, leading to the entire village being expelled by the Hashomer. That was in 1910.
It's nowhere near as simple as you make it ought to be. There's no innocent party in this, nor is there a "more blame on that side". Unless by "that side" you mean the british.
|
On May 20 2021 13:22 m4ini wrote:
This "david vs goliath" bullshit is simply not rooted in reality. Both sides share their fair portion of blame, and as mentioned, now almost 100 years later it doesn't matter how it started. What matters is a solution - not that i have one, but arguing that Kwark didn't give proof of "jewish terror starting everything" (which i don't think he even claimed?) while ignoring what really happened in regards to atrocities on both(!) sides is somewhat disingenuous.
This is the absolute core point. It doesn't matter who started what. Everywhere in the world, all countries and populations can point at their neighbours and the horrible things they have done to them. Everywhere, countries can claim pretty much all territory adjacent to their borders as historically theirs in some way.
Somehow, we (mostly) managed to stop fighting over that shit in Europe after WW2, and it turned out amazingly good for everyone. I still have no clue how exactly that happened.
But the matter of the fact is that determining who is historically in the right doesn't do anything to actually solve the problems, because all sides always think they are in the right, and usually they all have some good arguments, too. What is necessary is to figure out how to move onward, and then convince everyone that they are better of getting along rather than constantly fighting. Which is hard.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
