|
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 07 2023 11:23 Cerebrate1 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2023 10:54 Salazarz wrote:On November 05 2023 15:37 Cerebrate1 wrote:On November 03 2023 16:08 Salazarz wrote:On November 03 2023 13:38 Cerebrate1 wrote:
Still, categorizing your average person who buys a house in a settlement as greedy or evil would be inaccurate. They are just people living their lives. By that logic, Russian mercs signing up to fight for Wagner in Ukraine shouldn't be classified as greedy or evil, either. They're just people living their lives, right? I wouldn't personally equate shooting people to buying a house, no. What I'm asking you to consider here is willing participation in an apartheid colonization, not buying a house. Plenty of people in Israel and elsewhere find ways to buy a house without being party to an ethnic cleansing project. Do you think actively participating in apartheid colonization is the same as just buying a house? You are throwing out an awful lot of misleading buzzwords, some of which have been debunked in this thread already, but I don't have time to deal with all those topics at once, so I'll just address your main point by re-asking the question you conveniently cut out of my post that you are responding to: Are the Palestinians who build the settlements guilty of participating in all the buzzwords you mentioned too? They literally brought those houses into existence and could have gotten jobs somewhere else instead.
Assuming the Palestinians who build the settlements aren't coerced into doing so, I'd say they're collaborationists, sure. What's your point?
|
|
|
On November 07 2023 11:07 Cerebrate1 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2023 07:23 Magic Powers wrote:On November 06 2023 06:32 Cerebrate1 wrote:On November 05 2023 19:20 Magic Powers wrote:On November 05 2023 16:57 Cerebrate1 wrote:On November 04 2023 08:46 Magic Powers wrote:
I'm missing the part of the discussion that concludes that the terrorist organization of Hamas can be brought to its knees through military intervention. Where is that argument and why is it not being discussed? I strongly disagree with the idea and I've yet to see a compelling argument that the plan can realistically work, at least without a full and indefinite occupation of Gaza. Does anyone actually truly believe that Israel can destroy Hamas militarily or is that only political chest beating? Can the terrorist organization ISIS be destroyed by military intervention? Because it effectively was. I mentioned this before, but terrorists in caves are a lot less powerful (i.e. dangerous) than terrorists governing cities. You are correct that someone else with guns will have to govern there to prevent Hamas from just taking over again though, so if Hamas is taken out, that is what will happen. Which leads me to a question I've been meaning to ask here: If Israel successfully removes Hamas as the governing power in Gaza, who do you think should be put in charge of Gaza temporarily to ensure the best long term peaceful future for Israelis and Palestinians? Meaning, all of these come with an understanding of the power letting Gaza rule itself after some sort of de-radicalization Martial Plan type process. (All of these have issues, but I'll list them in the order I see as probably best to worst [if they would agree to do it].) 1. A coalition of Arab states (who have normalized relations with Israel) 2. Egypt 3. The PA 4. NATO 5. Israel 6. The UN 7. Immediate elections in Gaza Edit: added the normalization parenthetical for the Arab coalition to exclude Syria and Qatar from intentionally ruining the de-radicalization process. ISIS was and still is not primarily state funded. They couldn't afford to continue fighting a war with the US forever. Hamas' backers are mostly governments; those of Qatar and Iran are the biggest. Furthermore, today by the by Jihadis still exist to roughly the same extent as they existed during prime ISIS days. And how can I leave out the US' biggest failure to date: Afghanistan. The Taliban successfully persevered and the US withdrew. Afghanistan is yet again oppressed. You can't compare Hamas to ISIS, they have completely different network and culture. They're tied to the Gazan people. And where ISIS had to hide from the US, Hamas really doesn't. They fight more or less out in the open because they have the support required for it. The bloodshed of innocent lives that is required to destroy Hamas is unacceptable. I agree with your point about funding from Iran and Qatar making de-radicalization of Gazans significantly more difficult. That would have to be addressed somehow for lasting peace to be achieved. Your point about there being as many Jihadis now as during ISIS actually supports my point about defanging Hamas. That is, compare the number of atrocities committed by ISIS when it had territory to the number committed by a similar number of extremists without territory now. Having a state gives extremists a lot of power to enact their agenda and without it, they are more likely to just plot in caves. I agree that it's worth investigating why Germany and Japan were successfully reformed, and even Iraq post ISIS was relatively successful, while Afghanistan was not. We'd want to identify the factors worth replicating in the former cases while avoiding mistakes of the latter. You want Gaza to be reformed? Like Iran and Afghanistan were reformed? How did that work out? It must be that my post that you are responding to was unclear somehow, so I will clarify what I said: I listed three countries that were successfully reformed away from radicalism and one that was not. I said we should emulate the successful cases and avoid the problems of the unsuccessful case. To which, you responded by listing two unsuccessful cases (one of which was literally the one I mentioned). So great, you've just given us one more example that we can study to avoid the mistakes made there. My premise remains unchanged. Show nested quote +On November 06 2023 07:05 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
i wouldn't really call what was "East Germany" from 1945 to 1990 as a successful reform. Same answer to you. Let's replicate West Germany or East Germany from 1990 to present and avoid the mistakes of East Germany 1945 to 1990. Although, the truth is, even East Germany 1945 to 1990 was stopped from being Nazis, the Soviets just made them into Soviets, which is really a different issue.
huh? Germany was split into 2 countries for 45 years and i think there was a wall separating the 2 countries for ~40 years. 1 of the countries had almost no basic human rights. that's a "successful reform"?
|
Norway28558 Posts
I mean ideally east germany wouldn't have been subject to oppression by the soviet regime but turning nazi germany into germany today (and tbh, west germany from 1950 onwards) is probably one of the best examples of a successful reform I can think of.
I really don't think Israel, or any other country for that matter, has in mind the type of long term investment and dedication required to achieve something like that with the Gaza strip though.
|
On November 07 2023 16:05 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I mean ideally east germany wouldn't have been subject to oppression by the soviet regime but turning nazi germany into germany today (and tbh, west germany from 1950 onwards) is probably one of the best examples of a successful reform I can think of.
yep, other than east germany having no human rights for 45 years.... the berlin crisis... german issues contributing to the cold war ... and i can name about a dozen other things ... other than that... the reformation of germany was great.
here is a good look at what a grind it was to resuscitate the east german economy after 1990... some 45 years after WW2 ended.
https://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1553&context=gjicl
"The Economic Consequences of German Unification: The Impact of Misguided Macroeconomic Policies "
https://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/hili67a.pdf
we can go into much greater detail about the economic woes of East Germany post unification if you like.. but its probably best to do that in some other thread.
JFK Explains in amazing detail the horrible state of East Berlin and East Germany.
"democracy is not perfect, but we have never had to put a wall up to keep our people in"
if this is a success that one hopes to emulate with the current israel v. its various neighbours then we should have it solved by 2080.
My suggestion to my relatives in Israel is to make sure they are legally eligible to work in at least one other country. Its always good to have options if things go sideways.
|
On November 07 2023 10:50 Cerebrate1 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2023 09:10 Magic Powers wrote:On November 07 2023 08:45 Mohdoo wrote:On November 06 2023 07:23 Magic Powers wrote:On November 06 2023 06:32 Cerebrate1 wrote:On November 05 2023 19:20 Magic Powers wrote:On November 05 2023 16:57 Cerebrate1 wrote:On November 04 2023 08:46 Magic Powers wrote:
I'm missing the part of the discussion that concludes that the terrorist organization of Hamas can be brought to its knees through military intervention. Where is that argument and why is it not being discussed? I strongly disagree with the idea and I've yet to see a compelling argument that the plan can realistically work, at least without a full and indefinite occupation of Gaza. Does anyone actually truly believe that Israel can destroy Hamas militarily or is that only political chest beating? Can the terrorist organization ISIS be destroyed by military intervention? Because it effectively was. I mentioned this before, but terrorists in caves are a lot less powerful (i.e. dangerous) than terrorists governing cities. You are correct that someone else with guns will have to govern there to prevent Hamas from just taking over again though, so if Hamas is taken out, that is what will happen. Which leads me to a question I've been meaning to ask here: If Israel successfully removes Hamas as the governing power in Gaza, who do you think should be put in charge of Gaza temporarily to ensure the best long term peaceful future for Israelis and Palestinians? Meaning, all of these come with an understanding of the power letting Gaza rule itself after some sort of de-radicalization Martial Plan type process. (All of these have issues, but I'll list them in the order I see as probably best to worst [if they would agree to do it].) 1. A coalition of Arab states (who have normalized relations with Israel) 2. Egypt 3. The PA 4. NATO 5. Israel 6. The UN 7. Immediate elections in Gaza Edit: added the normalization parenthetical for the Arab coalition to exclude Syria and Qatar from intentionally ruining the de-radicalization process. ISIS was and still is not primarily state funded. They couldn't afford to continue fighting a war with the US forever. Hamas' backers are mostly governments; those of Qatar and Iran are the biggest. Furthermore, today by the by Jihadis still exist to roughly the same extent as they existed during prime ISIS days. And how can I leave out the US' biggest failure to date: Afghanistan. The Taliban successfully persevered and the US withdrew. Afghanistan is yet again oppressed. You can't compare Hamas to ISIS, they have completely different network and culture. They're tied to the Gazan people. And where ISIS had to hide from the US, Hamas really doesn't. They fight more or less out in the open because they have the support required for it. The bloodshed of innocent lives that is required to destroy Hamas is unacceptable. I agree with your point about funding from Iran and Qatar making de-radicalization of Gazans significantly more difficult. That would have to be addressed somehow for lasting peace to be achieved. Your point about there being as many Jihadis now as during ISIS actually supports my point about defanging Hamas. That is, compare the number of atrocities committed by ISIS when it had territory to the number committed by a similar number of extremists without territory now. Having a state gives extremists a lot of power to enact their agenda and without it, they are more likely to just plot in caves. I agree that it's worth investigating why Germany and Japan were successfully reformed, and even Iraq post ISIS was relatively successful, while Afghanistan was not. We'd want to identify the factors worth replicating in the former cases while avoiding mistakes of the latter. You want Gaza to be reformed? Like Iran and Afghanistan were reformed? How did that work out? So then what is left? Not able to militarily engage Hamas because of civilian casualties. Not able to reform Gaza. It feels like a lot of folks are experiencing the mental process where it feels like nothing bad happens if a given situation is not responded to. The whole point is that something bad happens if nothing is done, so something needs to be done. So without some sort of action taken to change the Gaza/Hamas situation, it is reasonable to assume October 7 will be repeated. And I am hoping/assuming folks agree that is an unacceptable situation. I feel like the minimum of "what comes next" needs to provide some non-zero reduction in the % chance October 7 is prevented. In the absence of giving Israel some form of assurance October 7 won't be repeated, the condition created is "October 7 will be repeated in the future". Its not that everything pauses until a solution is found. Its not that the tragedy/difficulty of the situation causes god to say "hold on, this is very bad, so I will now make it so that bad things regarding this situation do not happen for the next however long, because people need time to think of a better solution". I'm not sure how to phrase/describe the natural instinct that kicks in for people regarding these situations. But it is essentially a form of paralysis, where people aren't able to conceptualize the only choices are all terrible and its only a matter of deciding which terrible one to choose. It is as if there is a mental process that kicks in that prevents someone from fully internalizing the inevitability of a bad outcome in the absence of prevention. I see a lot of people fall into this with the Gaza situation where every single solution is unacceptable and the natural conclusion ends up being "we should just let October 7 happen again". But it also feels like people are not recognizing this is the result of doing nothing. I don't have a solution and I don't think anyone has one. October 7 will be repeated unless Israel occupies Gaza. Israel has had enough chances to make things right. Their administration chose to make things much worse. If they have a heart, they will understand that they have to take the high road: leave Gaza and enact a ceasefire. Realistically though I don't think the current Israeli government has a heart. At this point I don't understand what they have other than burning hatred. It frustrates me that the US is so soft on them. Hamas attacked first, but that doesn't give them the right to commit atrocities against the civilian population of Gaza. Two wrongs don't make a right. They don't have the right to bombard them or invade them and the world needs to make this as clear to them as possible. That's why I'm praying for a withdrawal of all US military support. What you seem to be preaching is pacifism. Pacifism does not stop bad actors. If the police in your city applied your principle of "two wrongs don't make a right" and didn't arrest suspects to try to imprison murderers, anarchy would ensue and people could murder whomever they pleased since there would be no fear of punishment. This applies on a national level as well. If the Japanese had bombed Pearl Harbor and the US was like, "well, two wrongs don't make a right, better just call a ceasefire." Imperial Japan would be ruling most of Asia to this day and would be emboldened to kill whomever they want, whenever they want. The Allies actually did try your strategy with Nazi Germany for quite a while. It was called "Appeasement." It allowed the Germans to massively increase their territory before anyone serious finally realized that enough was enough. Because of this hesitance to act, the Nazi's had half of Europe and correspondingly massive industrial output by the time the real war started and were very difficult to stop. As for the cost, the Allies killed over 8 million German civilians in WW2 ( on top of military personnel) and bombed every German city to rubble. That was some 10% of the population of Germany at the time (for comparison, even if we accept Hamas casualty counts as not wildly inflated, we aren't even talking about half a percent of Gazans, and most of those are militants.) Is that terrible? Yes, war always is. That's why starting a war like Hamas did on Oct 7 is so awful. But that doesn't mean Israel should just surrender to the aggressor of this war and appease them.
For the sake of defending innocent people, no one has the right to sacrifice other innocent people.
I'm quite far from a pacifist. If retaliation promises protection against unwarranted aggression, then I'm all for it. I even believe people have the right to shoot and kill a home invader.
The Israel-Gaza conflict is not that. Hamas invaded, the IDF successfully stopped them. That should've been the point where the aggression ends and negotiations begin. Because, as we can clearly see, destroying Hamas would require the killing of a disproportionate amount of innocent people (not to mention the indefinite occupation of Gaza, but that's not the primary issue).
You have a right to defend your home against an invader. You have the right to shoot and kill them to protect yourself and what's yours.
You do not have the right to shoot them, then follow their blood trail back to their own home, see that they have family inside, and blow up the building with dynamite.
|
New Gaza occupation plan is practically announced.
|
On November 07 2023 16:05 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I mean ideally east germany wouldn't have been subject to oppression by the soviet regime but turning nazi germany into germany today (and tbh, west germany from 1950 onwards) is probably one of the best examples of a successful reform I can think of.
I really don't think Israel, or any other country for that matter, has in mind the type of long term investment and dedication required to achieve something like that with the Gaza strip though.
That's right, because the Israeli administration plans to fully occupy the Gaza strip for an indefinite period, not reform it. I called it.
|
On November 07 2023 11:29 Sermokala wrote:
The kind of "successful reforms" of nation-states is something that takes decades of intense occupation and intense reorganization of the nation-state by European powers. Nobody is going to be able to do that anymore, The Monetary cost is something that its unpopular to say the least to require the reformed party to take on and the military occupation required becomes unpopular after the first thousand or so rapes by the occupying forces.
Keep in mind we still haven't left Germany South Korea or Japan.
West Germany wasn't occupied after WW2, they became a member of NATO. There was no "occupy & reform" of the country. All the changes were done without force or coercion. Germany fully cooperated in the prosecution of the war criminals.
East Germany was occupied by the Soviets, and they still face the economic consequences of that. GDP still lags behind very significantly. Occupy & reform is not a functional concept. There is only occupy or reform, not both. This will be especially true in Gaza, because Israel will never withdraw its troops until the security of Israel can be guaranteed. That requires the oppression of the population in the same way as it happened in East Germany.
|
United States41984 Posts
West Germany was absolutely occupied. Germany had started two European wars in four decades. The army on German soil was intended to prevent a third if needed.
|
On November 07 2023 20:30 KwarK wrote:
West Germany was absolutely occupied. Germany had started two European wars in four decades. The army on German soil was intended to prevent a third if needed.
Ok I'll have to concede that West Germany was occupied. I was thinking in the context of an occupation for the purpose of a reformation of the country. The purpose, as you said, of Allied nations having military control over Germany was to prevent another conflict, and of course to catch the Nazi leaders and war criminals (most of which escaped).
The military governance of West Germany was replaced less than four years later, preceding the official announcement of the end of the occupation after a few more years.
The reformation of Germany wasn't done by the Allied nations, it was done by Germany itself. It was a cooperative effort. The speed at which West Germany ascended into NATO proves that no reformation was necessary to begin with, the country and its leadership was very eager to abide by international rules and become a member of an international treaty.
A similar target doesn't exist with Gaza.
|
On November 07 2023 20:57 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2023 20:30 KwarK wrote:
West Germany was absolutely occupied. Germany had started two European wars in four decades. The army on German soil was intended to prevent a third if needed. Ok I'll have to concede that West Germany was occupied. I was thinking in the context of an occupation for the purpose of a reformation of the country. The purpose, as you said, of Allied nations having military control over Germany was to prevent another conflict, and of course to catch the Nazi leaders and war criminals (most of which escaped).
Interestingly, Werner Van Braun didn't escape. He became the leader of NASA. I wonder if he actually died in 1977 when they said he did. I'd say he is for sure dead now. 
Tellin' ya man.. the way Germany was "reformed" after 1945 was just fucking awesome man.
Talk about hidden in plain sight.
Von Braun kept the money flowing into NASA by promising a reusable Space Shuttle that could fly to and from the moon. NASA ended up producing a vehicle that got 0.1% as far off the earth's surface as the Apollo vehicle's of the 60s. You have to admire Von Braun's juggling act... he was keeping 10 balls in the air for 20+ years.
|
I think I'm going to have a heart attack and die from that surprise
|
The different occupiers had different objectives for their occupation in Germany. For the US and British democratisation was one of the objectives. For the French and Sovjet zones it was not. The Japanese had to introduce democratic and economic reforms during their occupation.
|
Interesting fact: the Soviet Union built a second wall ~100 meters behind the official Berlin Wall creating a "no man's land." Damn, imagine running through that in the 60s,70s, or 80s.
It is fascinating to see how the Soviet Union was viewed back then. The country was verifiably horrific. However, some people thought they were the "good guys". After a hockey game in Vancouver, Canada where Canada lost to the Soviet Union in 1972 the fans were chanting "Communism Is Best". Libertarian university professors in Canada lamented how many social science professors backed the Soviet Union and hated the Canadian capitalist system.
So, today, when I see protesters in Mississauga, Canada who might be cheering on Hamas I don't get too upset. In the past, plenty of Canadians have cheered on horrible regimes.
|
On November 07 2023 22:11 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
So, today, when I see protesters in Mississauga, Canada who might be cheering on Hamas I don't get too upset. In the past, plenty of Canadians have cheered on horrible regimes.
Can you produce a quote of that statement being true ?
|
On November 07 2023 22:11 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
Interesting fact: the Soviet Union built a second wall ~100 meters behind the official Berlin Wall creating a "no man's land." Damn, imagine running through that in the 60s,70s, or 80s.
It is fascinating to see how the Soviet Union was viewed back then. The country was verifiably horrific. However, some people thought they were the "good guys". After a hockey game in Vancouver, Canada where Canada lost to the Soviet Union in 1972 the fans were chanting "Communism Is Best". Libertarian university professors in Canada lamented how many social science professors backed the Soviet Union and hated the Canadian capitalist system.
So, today, when I see protesters in Mississauga, Canada who might be cheering on Hamas I don't get too upset. In the past, plenty of Canadians have cheered on horrible regimes. I'm going to take a very wild stab and say your confusing people who care for the innocent Palestinians suffering in Gaza with "cheering on Hamas". But I'm sure you can give me a quote of them actually cheering for Hamas and wishing death upon Israel right?
|
On November 07 2023 23:07 Godwrath wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2023 22:11 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
So, today, when I see protesters in Mississauga, Canada who might be cheering on Hamas I don't get too upset. In the past, plenty of Canadians have cheered on horrible regimes. Can you produce a quote of that statement being true ?
i posted it earlier in this thread. the Mississauga woman in the interview claims Hamas is noble and treating all hostages amazingly well. I disagree with her... however i also disagree with the people on twitter trying to get her fired from her graphics design job. Of course, her MachineGun earings... don't help my case.
On November 07 2023 23:11 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2023 22:11 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
Interesting fact: the Soviet Union built a second wall ~100 meters behind the official Berlin Wall creating a "no man's land." Damn, imagine running through that in the 60s,70s, or 80s.
It is fascinating to see how the Soviet Union was viewed back then. The country was verifiably horrific. However, some people thought they were the "good guys". After a hockey game in Vancouver, Canada where Canada lost to the Soviet Union in 1972 the fans were chanting "Communism Is Best". Libertarian university professors in Canada lamented how many social science professors backed the Soviet Union and hated the Canadian capitalist system.
So, today, when I see protesters in Mississauga, Canada who might be cheering on Hamas I don't get too upset. In the past, plenty of Canadians have cheered on horrible regimes. I'm going to take a very wild stab and say your confusing people who care for the innocent Palestinians suffering in Gaza with "cheering on Hamas". But I'm sure you can give me a quote of them actually cheering for Hamas and wishing death upon Israel right?
Does "from the river to the sea palestine will be free" count as death upon israel? I'd say the woman in the interview i posted wants Israel gone. Its more than just that one protest in Mississauga though.
There are 75,000 muslims living in Mississauga. Guaranteed that a few of them are out of the minds and can scream all kinds of stuff including death to israel.
https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/pro-palestinian-rallies-that-explicitly-celebrated-mass-murder
AGAIN: this is not very different from moronic hockey fans in Vancouver squawking about how amazing the Soviet Union is in 1972. Same Shit... different decade.
FOR CONTEXT: i moved out of Mississauga 8 years ago due to better economic opportunities in New York, USA. i still own property there. i didn't leave Mississauga due to whatever very small pockets of antisemitism exist in the city.
|
What is annoying me the most is.. otherwise sane and honest people just acting as if "being for less suffering and more freedom for Palestine, and civilians of the area" equates to "being pro hamas"
Honestly flabbergasted how normally solid intellectuals (David Deutsch, Sam Harris come to mind) either fail to make that distinction or are completely intellectually dishonest..
Whoever feels in this conflict that Isreal is 100% to blame and "evil" and vice versa Palestine/Hamas is 100% to blame and "evil" is either completely biased and dishonest or a fucking moron.
Also what angers me is the lack of JEWS/BIG NAMES openly criticising Israel/the goverment/Nethanjau/the overall horrible policy the last couple of decades..
(I know they exist but they are few and far between..)
Being from Germany has its downsides regarding certain historical topics but I will NEVER accept how unreal dumb it is that for basically 70 years + now "critique of Isreal" equates to "antisemitsm"
Fuck that logic. I wont accept it one bit.
|
The anti-jewish rhetoric among much of the (internet) left is far beyond anything that can be explained by concerns for palestinians.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
