EPTThings Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine - Page 91
| Forum Index > General Forum |
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21630 Posts
super easy. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Dan HH
Romania9112 Posts
On November 10 2023 03:36 JimmiC wrote: No I did not. I answered your question which was different than mine. As many people pointed out the holocaust is very different than what has so far transpired in Isreal. I get at this point that facts and reality is hard for you so it’s easier to just be mad and a jerk. His point is that you can't unstab someone. Evacuating the settlements in the West Bank would be great but it would have no bearing on whether the seizure of the land was ethnic cleansing or not. | ||
|
Godwrath
Spain10121 Posts
On November 10 2023 03:25 JimmiC wrote: I can’t understand how you posted what you did instead of answering or not posting at all? My guess is some sort of feeling of moral superiority or that you just really do not want to confront your biases. I’m fine either way. The premise just doesn't make sense, and it's more than obvious that you've posted it because you still have to fill the thread with more garbage with your difficulties understanding the definition of ethnic cleansing. And it's unbelievable that instead of simply accepting being wrong, you come back with this. Maybe it's time to confront your own biases instead of presupposing those of others? We all do. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria3906 Posts
Ethnic cleansing or genocide exist on a scale, like many things do. Kid in household A gets beaten with a stick, thrown down the stairs, chained to the bed, fed one meal per day, and is grounded six days per week. Kid in household B gets called horrible names, gets yelled at, has to keep the whole house clean and tidy without any help, can see their friends only twice per week, and can't wear the clothes they want to. Which one of the two kids is being abused? | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15644 Posts
It looks like Iran and all the other big talkers have ultimately decided getting curb stomped by those carrier groups isn't worth it because ultimately they don't actually care about Palestinians other than as a tool to kill Jews. It is possible Hamas and Iran have some grand plan to lure IDF deep into Gaza and then launch some giant attack and/or self-destruct the hospital, but I am skeptical. I think the easy explanation is the best one. IDF is body slamming Hamas because Israel is 9999x better equipped, better trained, and has better intel provided by the US. So based on how Israel has chosen to chop off Gaza, I think we can reasonably assume this chopping point will be the uppermost amount of land Israel will ever allow Gazans to inhabit. Similar to how the world collectively decided not to give a shit when Russia took Crimea, it looks like Gaza is getting the same treatment. When no one is willing to defend land, that land gets taken. It isn't ethical, but it appears to be a fundamental quality of how our society currently functions. Embarrassing time to be a human. Egypt doesn't want to touch Gaza because they have a history of harboring violent terrorists and are deeply linked to the Muslim Brotherhood. Egypt has plenty of reason to keep the Muslim Brotherhood as far away as possible. But Israel has perfect cover to burn some political capital on creating a situation where Egypt is the obvious choice to deal with them. I think Israel will set up a DMZ around Gaza, and basically just make it Egypt's problem. If Egypt can be sufficiently harmed by the proximity of Gaza to Egypt, due to this mass migration south, Egypt and the folks who care about Egypt will be forced to be the new holders of the hot potato. I don't want to just repeat all the same arguments we've all had before, so I will focus on this from another angle: I think Palestinians being the responsibility/burden of a Muslim nation is a way better situation than Israel. There are fundamental qualities of Israel/Palestine that make it impossible for Israel to serve as an ethical curator. Israel is never going to manage to be an ethical provider for Palestinians. Especially after October 7. I think the question of "what should we do about Palestinians?" is a question/dilemma that is by far best solved by Muslim nations rather than Israel. Israel provides utilities to this little state between Israel and Egypt while Egypt handles the logistics/politics/humanitarian considerations? Maybe Israel helps fund some of it? Would prefer to see this be a UN thing where everyone chips in to find some kinda new path where Israel is isolated enough to not worry about Gazans, but Gazans are also formally being cared for by some non-Israel entity. Here are my hopes: 1) Palestinians are led by a government that recognizes Israel as a full-ass country that should not be engaged with militarily. Not because I think Israel's hands are clean, but because Hamas and Iran were the only hope they had and that ship has clearly sailed. 2) Palestinians are cared for and provided for as humans and they are given a path to living a happy life in a place they can call home Here are my concerns: 1) Even though IDF is killing a ton of Hamas and weakening Hamas to the point where a power vacuum may allow someone else to step in and prevent Hamas and their Muslim Brotherhood-adjacent ideology to diminish, I think its also possible squeezing Palestinians closer to another country may have the same result its always had: violent revolution to seize control of a nation for the purpose of using that nation to kill Jews. 2) The situation in Gaza will create enough tension with the Palestinian Authority and Eastern Palestinians as a whole that we end up with Gaza2.0. Let's all take a moment to remember that even Abbas, who many like to frame as the "good cop" between Hamas/PA, does not recognize Israel as a legitimate state. Its not like the situation is great. This may be all they need to end up overthrown by a Hamas-adjacent entity and basically turn PA into Hamas2.0. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
CuddlyCuteKitten
Sweden2593 Posts
On November 10 2023 06:00 Mohdoo wrote: Since people love to frame my predictions as some kinda result I am cheering for, I'd like to preface this by saying I view most of this as a "matter of fact" rather than "i am happy this is happening". Palestinians suffering due to the conflict between Israel and Hamas is deeply tragic and I wish 0 people died other than Hamas. I openly cheer for every member of Hamas to be killed and I kiss every bullet the IDF shoots at an actual member of Hamas. But the civilians are victims and I mourn for them and I want 0 of them to die. It looks like Iran and all the other big talkers have ultimately decided getting curb stomped by those carrier groups isn't worth it because ultimately they don't actually care about Palestinians other than as a tool to kill Jews. It is possible Hamas and Iran have some grand plan to lure IDF deep into Gaza and then launch some giant attack and/or self-destruct the hospital, but I am skeptical. I think the easy explanation is the best one. IDF is body slamming Hamas because Israel is 9999x better equipped, better trained, and has better intel provided by the US. So based on how Israel has chosen to chop off Gaza, I think we can reasonably assume this chopping point will be the uppermost amount of land Israel will ever allow Gazans to inhabit. Similar to how the world collectively decided not to give a shit when Russia took Crimea, it looks like Gaza is getting the same treatment. When no one is willing to defend land, that land gets taken. It isn't ethical, but it appears to be a fundamental quality of how our society currently functions. Embarrassing time to be a human. Egypt doesn't want to touch Gaza because they have a history of harboring violent terrorists and are deeply linked to the Muslim Brotherhood. Egypt has plenty of reason to keep the Muslim Brotherhood as far away as possible. But Israel has perfect cover to burn some political capital on creating a situation where Egypt is the obvious choice to deal with them. I think Israel will set up a DMZ around Gaza, and basically just make it Egypt's problem. If Egypt can be sufficiently harmed by the proximity of Gaza to Egypt, due to this mass migration south, Egypt and the folks who care about Egypt will be forced to be the new holders of the hot potato. I don't want to just repeat all the same arguments we've all had before, so I will focus on this from another angle: I think Palestinians being the responsibility/burden of a Muslim nation is a way better situation than Israel. There are fundamental qualities of Israel/Palestine that make it impossible for Israel to serve as an ethical curator. Israel is never going to manage to be an ethical provider for Palestinians. Especially after October 7. I think the question of "what should we do about Palestinians?" is a question/dilemma that is by far best solved by Muslim nations rather than Israel. Israel provides utilities to this little state between Israel and Egypt while Egypt handles the logistics/politics/humanitarian considerations? Maybe Israel helps fund some of it? Would prefer to see this be a UN thing where everyone chips in to find some kinda new path where Israel is isolated enough to not worry about Gazans, but Gazans are also formally being cared for by some non-Israel entity. Here are my hopes: 1) Palestinians are led by a government that recognizes Israel as a full-ass country that should not be engaged with militarily. Not because I think Israel's hands are clean, but because Hamas and Iran were the only hope they had and that ship has clearly sailed. 2) Palestinians are cared for and provided for as humans and they are given a path to living a happy life in a place they can call home Here are my concerns: 1) Even though IDF is killing a ton of Hamas and weakening Hamas to the point where a power vacuum may allow someone else to step in and prevent Hamas and their Muslim Brotherhood-adjacent ideology to diminish, I think its also possible squeezing Palestinians closer to another country may have the same result its always had: violent revolution to seize control of a nation for the purpose of using that nation to kill Jews. 2) The situation in Gaza will create enough tension with the Palestinian Authority and Eastern Palestinians as a whole that we end up with Gaza2.0. Let's all take a moment to remember that even Abbas, who many like to frame as the "good cop" between Hamas/PA, does not recognize Israel as a legitimate state. Its not like the situation is great. This may be all they need to end up overthrown by a Hamas-adjacent entity and basically turn PA into Hamas2.0. Egypt is 80mn people in a country that imports much of it's food and has more mouths to feed and less farmland to feed them with every year. Even worse it's people are condensed along the Nile. While it's an excellent way of transportation that means the entire country is logistically stretched thin along this line. At best the country is simmering politically already. Making 2mn radicalised Palestinians their problem is not an optimal solution because "6 square meals away from anarchy" is a thing. And in Egypt even regional instability could be dangerous if you can't bring in enough supplies for the local population further down the line. A couple of Palestinian suicide bombers that take out top leadership positions and you could slide into conflict between the military and the muslim brotherhood, which in turn could lead to an escalating shitshow of biblical proportions. | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria3906 Posts
On November 10 2023 06:04 JimmiC wrote: Ethnic cleansing is not abuse, there definitions are very different, one is broad for a reason and one is specific for a reason. You can be charged with (a) Genocide; (b) Conspiracy to commit genocide; (c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide; (d) Attempt to commit genocide; (e) Complicity in genocide. But there is not 1st degree, 2nd 3rd, man slaughter and so on for good reason. Now will you answer mine and see where the rabbit hole takes us? Again, ethnic cleansing doesn't necessitate genocide. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria3906 Posts
On November 10 2023 07:13 JimmiC wrote: Both words have been used interchangeably are you in a new camp that Israel has committed ethnic cleansing but not genocide? Care to elaborate? Genocide is typically associated with killing. Ethnic cleansing is typically discplacement (forced removal). Displacement can include killing, but doesn't require it. The end goal of genocide is eradication through death and destruction. The end goal of ethnic cleansing is the separation of living space. In the context of our discussion, the Israeli administration is engaging in ethnic cleansing. | ||
|
Fleetfeet
Canada2532 Posts
On November 10 2023 05:33 Magic Powers wrote: @JimmiC Ethnic cleansing or genocide exist on a scale, like many things do. Kid in household A gets beaten with a stick, thrown down the stairs, chained to the bed, fed one meal per day, and is grounded six days per week. Kid in household B gets called horrible names, gets yelled at, has to keep the whole house clean and tidy without any help, can see their friends only twice per week, and can't wear the clothes they want to. Which one of the two kids is being abused? Jimmi seems to be arguing (and I generally agree) that ethnic cleansing and genocide exist on the same scale. A failed genocide becomes an ethnic cleansing at some point and vice versa. The fruit of that determination is another matter, but where you could describe yelling at a kid as "kind of abusive", you can't really name a situation that's "kind of genocide". | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15644 Posts
On November 10 2023 07:09 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote: Egypt is 80mn people in a country that imports much of it's food and has more mouths to feed and less farmland to feed them with every year. Even worse it's people are condensed along the Nile. While it's an excellent way of transportation that means the entire country is logistically stretched thin along this line. At best the country is simmering politically already. Making 2mn radicalised Palestinians their problem is not an optimal solution because "6 square meals away from anarchy" is a thing. And in Egypt even regional instability could be dangerous if you can't bring in enough supplies for the local population further down the line. A couple of Palestinian suicide bombers that take out top leadership positions and you could slide into conflict between the military and the muslim brotherhood, which in turn could lead to an escalating shitshow of biblical proportions. Definitely not the ideal parent, but a hell of a lot better parent than Israel could ever be. We all know the correct holder of this hot potato is Iran and they'll continue to squirm and pretend they are unrelated until the end of time. I think the only way to make even slight improvements to the situation is changing which neighbor they are a burden on. Since land is already a touchy subject to them (for good reason lol), I feel like Egypt and Israel are the only options. And clearly Egypt is the better option out of those 2. A very shitty option, but the most polished turd about the 2. | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria3906 Posts
On November 10 2023 07:27 Fleetfeet wrote: Jimmi seems to be arguing (and I generally agree) that ethnic cleansing and genocide exist on the same scale. A failed genocide becomes an ethnic cleansing at some point and vice versa. The fruit of that determination is another matter, but where you could describe yelling at a kid as "kind of abusive", you can't really name a situation that's "kind of genocide". With the abuse example I was hoping to demonstrate that worse abuse doesn't make lesser abuse no longer abusive. It amounts to saying "there are worse things than X that sound similar to X but that aren't X, therefore X is not as bad of a thing as you say it is", which is not a valid argument. A lesser form of abuse is not any less abusive than it is just because worse forms of abuse also exist. So just because Israel isn't engaging in the eradication of Palestinians doesn't mean that they're not engaging in the displacement of Palestinians. And if they are displacing them - and I'd say the evidence is quite overwhelming - then that makes it ethnic cleansing. The existence of the concept of genocide as the ultimate form of ethnic cleansing is not a valid counter argument. | ||
|
Dan HH
Romania9112 Posts
On November 10 2023 04:45 JimmiC wrote: + Show Spoiler + On November 10 2023 03:52 Dan HH wrote: His point is that you can't unstab someone. Evacuating the settlements in the West Bank would be great but it would have no bearing on whether the seizure of the land was ethnic cleansing or not. I agree with you, the not at all hidden part of the question is, is what they have actually done ethnic cleansing, or is what I’m really really sure they are going to do is ethnic cleansing and genocide. You see this on the answers to legitimate questions like when it was asked why the IDF was bombing apartment complexes but also letting people know to get out of it. The answers were basically “because they’re monsters” and not because they are destroying the tunnel system which Hamas has hidden in apartment complex’s. If we look at the two ongoing wars we have Ukraine who puts their military away from schools, civilians, hospitals, daycares so it is obvious when Russia hits a day care they were doing it to create terror and they are intentionally targeting civilians. They are openly committing war crimes and so on. What is stopping them from committing war crimes is that they do not have enough military might to carry it out. What stopped Hitler was military might. Israel is different they have the military might to ethnically cleanse the Palestinians. They could have likely done it since the 6 day war. They have not put gold stars on the Palestinians living in Isreal and they have chosen not to kill all of them in Gaza and the west bank. They even gave back the Sinai Peninsula which actually had oil and dismantled most of their settlements. Other posters have gone into a lot more detail of many of the reasons of why this is very different than the holocaust. Does this mean Israel has done no wrong? Of course not. Does this mean this current attack is justified? I do not believe it is , the ends do not justify the means and I do not even think the ends are close to a net positive. A big part of what differentiates genocide and ethnic cleansing from other war crimes or crimes against humanity, is intent. Intent is always hard to judge because we really do not know and you have to do your best to judge on actions. And I keep coming back to, if their intent was to destruction of a people, what’s stopping them. No one here has remotely answered this question and very few have been willing to have a good faith discussion. Instead they like to insult me and claim falsely no matter how many times I say it, that I’m pro what Israel has done. I do not believe there is degrees with genocide and ethnic cleansing. Whether is Cambodia or the holocaust, or Bangladesh, Rwanda or so on there is no question, no doubt, they killed every single member of the group they had the power to do so. This is awful, I’ve specifically said what war crime I believe Israel has been guilty of, I hope Bibi rots in a jail cell. But that does not mark it genocide, genocide is different and I believe it is important to know the differences. Especially given our global history of genocide against people of Jewish ethnicity, from basically everywhere and from all political sides. I can't speak of the current displacement in Gaza since we have no way of knowing how things will look like by the end of the war, right now one could just as easily argue that it's done to protect civilians or that it's done to push them out and keep them out. But as far as East Jerusalem and the West Bank are concerned it's not difficult to gauge intent. If you read the mission statement of any settler organization, their stated goal is to get as many houses and plots in those areas that are currently not owned by Jews to become owned by Jews. The Israeli government strongly and openly supported these organizations until the '00s, it has been somewhat more covert in recent years, but it's clear that they can't do what they do without being assisted by security forces and the justice system. Let me put it this way, I don't think Israel has done ethnic cleansing for the sake of ethnic cleansing or homogeneity, I think they've done ethnic cleansing because they want to have a strong claim on as much of East Jerusalem and the West Bank as possible when the time comes to formalize borders. Even if the point is moreso to get Jews in rather than to get Palestinians out, the result is a concerted effort to engineer the ethnic makeup of certain areas. On November 10 2023 07:13 JimmiC wrote: Both words have been used interchangeably are you in a new camp that Israel has committed ethnic cleansing but not genocide? Care to elaborate? It's not a new camp, most people in this thread seem to be in it. The terms are quite literal, attempting to "cleanse [land] of an ethnicity" vs attempting to "kill a people". With the note that you can also kill a people by erasing their identity rather than only by killing its members (though this is more relevant for the other ongoing war). | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10429 Posts
| ||
| ||
