|
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 January 18 2024 05:46 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2024 05:28 JimmiC wrote:On January 18 2024 04:32 Nebuchad wrote:On January 18 2024 03:59 JimmiC wrote:On January 18 2024 03:32 Nebuchad wrote:On January 18 2024 02:36 JimmiC wrote:On January 18 2024 02:20 Nebuchad wrote:On January 18 2024 01:44 JimmiC wrote:On January 18 2024 01:26 Nebuchad wrote:On January 18 2024 01:23 JimmiC wrote:
[quote]
So does that also apply to people in favour of violence against Hamas and their ilk? That's literally everyone, so yes. Everyone is in favour of violence against Hamas? I was under the impression based on the words they wrote that Hamas is as bad as they are because of Israel. Can you think of someone who said in the thread that it was wrong to kill Hamas militants? Cause if not, I'm a little confused with why you're getting stuck on this. If Hamas is in Israel currently killing Israelis than people seem to agree killing them is fine. If they are in Gaza and not currently killing Israelis is where the disagreements happen. Some people have stated that Israel should not attack outside of the borders no matter what because that can’t be defense. Others like me have suggested that shouldn’t because the cost of civilian life is too high with their human shield strategy. Then there are more complicated questions that anti Israeli posters avoid even talking about, like for example, is someone a civilian if they are hosting a tunnel entrance in their house? How much support of Hamas makes a person a legitimate target? I wonder if your passion for killing fascists and their supporters travels to Hamas supporters? It does yes, but not in the way that you want.I support violent resistance against authoritarianism the world over, by the people who are the victims of it. When an exterior force comes in and takes up that fight, that is something that I have more trouble with because mechanically what it creates is more support for the authoritarian group, as happened during the war in Afghanistan. People who otherwise wouldn't develop far right ideas see their countrymen being attacked by a foreign force, and naturally side with the group that is doing resistance not because they're very into far right ideas but because that's the group that is fighting back. These types of foreign interventions create more support for authoritarians, and therefore they're counterproductive, so I wouldn't be in support of that violence in principle and I am even less in support of it in practice because usually the foreign group is not just selflessly doing an antifascism, chances are they're self-interested and trying to fuck over the people of that country in some way as well. This is why, while I definitely support Afghani people violently resisting the Talibans, I have more trouble supporting the US doing it. This logic also works the other way around when it comes to Palestine attacking Israel, which is why I also don't support the violence of events like Oct 7th, so you can delete the paragraph that you started to write asking me that question. That's the general rule for foreign intervention, but in the case of Israel, Israel is not only "not selflessly doing an antifascism", it's even worse, it's a bunch of far right people trying to reach a population that they want to ethnically cleanse, as we can clearly see from their methods, their words, the result of their actions, or from the fact that they're trying to expand as far as they can the definition of "Hamas supporter" so that they get to kill more Palestinians, as you alluded to in the post. This isn't antifascist violence, this is fascist violence, so clearly I'm not in support of it. Just so we're clear, that was a "no" on you being capable of finding someone who is uncomfortable with killing Hamas militants, so I was right when I said everyone is comfortable with that? Paragraph 1 Glad to see you're still incapable of not being a slave to your assumptions... So what exactly is what I want? Feel free to actually take a stab Paragraph 2. Hamas is the external force, they are a proxy army of Iran, do you dispute it or just ignore it? And then it goes to that they are creating a situation where Israeli's who wouldn't normally be far right are being pushed in that direction. They are supporting the IDF not because they have those ideals but because they are the group fighting back. Paragraph 3 Nothing says your not anti-Israel like calling them a bunch of far right people trying to ethnically cleanse. Is there people in Israel with those beliefs, of course. 25%-45% a significant part. What is the percentage of people in Gaza that want to commit genocide against Israel? What % supported and cheered for the sexual violence, torture and murder? And yet I do not see you making sweeping statements about the Palestinians? Why is that? Here is the rub, if someone actually used your extremely biased logic in the other direction they would support the exact thing that you say you are against. Paragraph 4. I think a lot of people are uncomfortable with killing Hamas members, this is why you have now changed your initial statement and added the word militant. Even then we have a few I'm not sure on, if they were actively killing babies and raping women in Israel, I think no one. If they were sheltered in a tunnel in Gaza, I think quiet a few would be against that. If they were donating money to Hamas, I think lots of people would be against that. If they were hosting tunnel entrances in their homes, I think a lot of people would be against it. That you are against the Hamas members that are actually out there killing babies and raping women is not that far from the "few bad apples" kind of thoughts you profess to hate in other threads. "In the way that you want" was just a turn of phrase, I meant "in the way that you're envisioning when you're writing this paragraph". I didn't mean to imply that you want it, I apologize. To answer your question, I don't think you want many specific things regarding the Palestinian conflict, I think it's much more important to you to disagree with GH me or Drone (and now the other people that you're starting to dislike because of this thread) than any real world stuff. Hamas is obviously not an external force, as it's composed of an absurdly large majority of Palestinians (if not a totality? I don't really know if there's a way to know that, but it doesn't matter). There is no significant percentage of Iranians flocking to Gaza to join Hamas. What a silly claim. "And then it goes to that they are creating a situation where Israeli's who wouldn't normally be far right are being pushed in that direction. They are supporting the IDF not because they have those ideals but because they are the group fighting back." => "This logic also works the other way around when it comes to Palestine attacking Israel, which is why I also don't support the violence of events like Oct 7th, so you can delete the paragraph that you started to write asking me that question." I can't say I'm surprised but come on. Israel is currently run by a far right government, who is operating the war machine. The people who are not far right in Israel are not the people who are running this war, and as such my claim is justified. If you want to call me anti-Israel because I claimed some fascists are fascists, then you can, but I will not be impressed. For a line of fun, notice that you started your post with "Glad to see you're still incapable of not being a slave to your assumptions" and then you ended it with a paragraph about how I'm not comfortable with killing Hamas militants (or members, I don't know what the difference is supposed to be lol) even though I say I am. Appreciate the sorta apology. You got it completely wrong (other than that I don't like three arrogant self righteous pricks who are and continue to be assholes to me, I would be a moronic door mat to not dislike them). I'd say it again, but we both know you would just keep on believing your assumption. Hamas is a proxy army for Iran, their, weapons, ideology, financing is all Iran, TBH I'm shocked you believe the propaganda. Fatah well flawed is Palestinian and they lost to Hamas, brutally, because of the Iranian backing. Your bolded part does not counter what I said, I'm not saying you support the attack on Israel, I'm saying you are not applying your logic in both directions. I'm trying to point out the lack of consistency. And for your last paragraph, I really do not know if it is your reading comprehension (which I doubt but it becoming a more and more realistic option considering how incredibly wrong you get things). I literally explain what I mean, I said you are comfortable killing the people with the guns while they are doing the horrible acts. I'm NOT SURE on the other members of Hamas you are OK with killing of what level of support to Hamas they need to give to meet your level. I also think that you and the other people in this thread that appear in lock step would likely have different opinions on those thresholds. I also suspect your threshold to when you would enact violence on a "fascist" or supporter of fascism is much different than Hamas. I don't however think you are at GH levels where any communist can kill whoever in his revolution call them a capitalist and be OK. I also don't think you believe all the antisemitic tropes GH does (just with the word capitalist swapped for Jew, to make it more palatable for the lefty). I am not aware of GH or Drone being "self righteous pricks" to you on a consistent basis. I believe GH never answers your posts ( even though you keep insulting him over and over) + Show Spoiler +and Drone rarely interacts with you. As for me, after months of not interacting with you in which you answered 75% of my posts with abuse while I wasn't responding, then admitted in public that you did so specifically because you wanted to be an asshole to me, I've decided that I would answer posts that are directed at me but not posts that aren't. Every interaction where you feel I'm a self-righteous prick toward you is self-inflicted.
Whether Hamas is a proxy army for Iran or not, it doesn't change the fact that it's composed mainly of Palestinians, and therefore it's not an external force. The IDF doesn't become an external force because the US gives a bunch of money to Israel, that's not how the word "external" works.
After a post in which I'm literally saying that I understand that the logic applies in both directions so you don't have to question me on that, then another post in which I point out that this happened, you double down and answer that I don't apply the logic in both directions. I couldn't make this up.
I don't think the issue is reading comprehension, I think the issue is that you get really mad and so you write things too quickly, and then because you're still mad you refuse to take responsibility for it so you blame others for strawmen and reading comprehension issues. You clearly wrote "I think a lot of people are uncomfortable with killing Hamas members, this is why you have now changed your initial statement and added the word militant." This isn't a request for more information about how I feel about stuff because you're NOT SURE, this is you making an inference on how I feel about the topic, even though you don't have to make inferences, I've already stated how I feel about it.
It's gotten pretty old after the first couple years.
|
On January 18 2024 06:19 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2024 05:46 Nebuchad wrote:On January 18 2024 05:28 JimmiC wrote:On January 18 2024 04:32 Nebuchad wrote:On January 18 2024 03:59 JimmiC wrote:On January 18 2024 03:32 Nebuchad wrote:On January 18 2024 02:36 JimmiC wrote:On January 18 2024 02:20 Nebuchad wrote:On January 18 2024 01:44 JimmiC wrote:On January 18 2024 01:26 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
That's literally everyone, so yes. Everyone is in favour of violence against Hamas? I was under the impression based on the words they wrote that Hamas is as bad as they are because of Israel. Can you think of someone who said in the thread that it was wrong to kill Hamas militants? Cause if not, I'm a little confused with why you're getting stuck on this. If Hamas is in Israel currently killing Israelis than people seem to agree killing them is fine. If they are in Gaza and not currently killing Israelis is where the disagreements happen. Some people have stated that Israel should not attack outside of the borders no matter what because that can’t be defense. Others like me have suggested that shouldn’t because the cost of civilian life is too high with their human shield strategy. Then there are more complicated questions that anti Israeli posters avoid even talking about, like for example, is someone a civilian if they are hosting a tunnel entrance in their house? How much support of Hamas makes a person a legitimate target? I wonder if your passion for killing fascists and their supporters travels to Hamas supporters? It does yes, but not in the way that you want.I support violent resistance against authoritarianism the world over, by the people who are the victims of it. When an exterior force comes in and takes up that fight, that is something that I have more trouble with because mechanically what it creates is more support for the authoritarian group, as happened during the war in Afghanistan. People who otherwise wouldn't develop far right ideas see their countrymen being attacked by a foreign force, and naturally side with the group that is doing resistance not because they're very into far right ideas but because that's the group that is fighting back. These types of foreign interventions create more support for authoritarians, and therefore they're counterproductive, so I wouldn't be in support of that violence in principle and I am even less in support of it in practice because usually the foreign group is not just selflessly doing an antifascism, chances are they're self-interested and trying to fuck over the people of that country in some way as well. This is why, while I definitely support Afghani people violently resisting the Talibans, I have more trouble supporting the US doing it. This logic also works the other way around when it comes to Palestine attacking Israel, which is why I also don't support the violence of events like Oct 7th, so you can delete the paragraph that you started to write asking me that question. That's the general rule for foreign intervention, but in the case of Israel, Israel is not only "not selflessly doing an antifascism", it's even worse, it's a bunch of far right people trying to reach a population that they want to ethnically cleanse, as we can clearly see from their methods, their words, the result of their actions, or from the fact that they're trying to expand as far as they can the definition of "Hamas supporter" so that they get to kill more Palestinians, as you alluded to in the post. This isn't antifascist violence, this is fascist violence, so clearly I'm not in support of it. Just so we're clear, that was a "no" on you being capable of finding someone who is uncomfortable with killing Hamas militants, so I was right when I said everyone is comfortable with that? Paragraph 1 Glad to see you're still incapable of not being a slave to your assumptions... So what exactly is what I want? Feel free to actually take a stab Paragraph 2. Hamas is the external force, they are a proxy army of Iran, do you dispute it or just ignore it? And then it goes to that they are creating a situation where Israeli's who wouldn't normally be far right are being pushed in that direction. They are supporting the IDF not because they have those ideals but because they are the group fighting back. Paragraph 3 Nothing says your not anti-Israel like calling them a bunch of far right people trying to ethnically cleanse. Is there people in Israel with those beliefs, of course. 25%-45% a significant part. What is the percentage of people in Gaza that want to commit genocide against Israel? What % supported and cheered for the sexual violence, torture and murder? And yet I do not see you making sweeping statements about the Palestinians? Why is that? Here is the rub, if someone actually used your extremely biased logic in the other direction they would support the exact thing that you say you are against. Paragraph 4. I think a lot of people are uncomfortable with killing Hamas members, this is why you have now changed your initial statement and added the word militant. Even then we have a few I'm not sure on, if they were actively killing babies and raping women in Israel, I think no one. If they were sheltered in a tunnel in Gaza, I think quiet a few would be against that. If they were donating money to Hamas, I think lots of people would be against that. If they were hosting tunnel entrances in their homes, I think a lot of people would be against it. That you are against the Hamas members that are actually out there killing babies and raping women is not that far from the "few bad apples" kind of thoughts you profess to hate in other threads. "In the way that you want" was just a turn of phrase, I meant "in the way that you're envisioning when you're writing this paragraph". I didn't mean to imply that you want it, I apologize. To answer your question, I don't think you want many specific things regarding the Palestinian conflict, I think it's much more important to you to disagree with GH me or Drone (and now the other people that you're starting to dislike because of this thread) than any real world stuff. Hamas is obviously not an external force, as it's composed of an absurdly large majority of Palestinians (if not a totality? I don't really know if there's a way to know that, but it doesn't matter). There is no significant percentage of Iranians flocking to Gaza to join Hamas. What a silly claim. "And then it goes to that they are creating a situation where Israeli's who wouldn't normally be far right are being pushed in that direction. They are supporting the IDF not because they have those ideals but because they are the group fighting back." => "This logic also works the other way around when it comes to Palestine attacking Israel, which is why I also don't support the violence of events like Oct 7th, so you can delete the paragraph that you started to write asking me that question." I can't say I'm surprised but come on. Israel is currently run by a far right government, who is operating the war machine. The people who are not far right in Israel are not the people who are running this war, and as such my claim is justified. If you want to call me anti-Israel because I claimed some fascists are fascists, then you can, but I will not be impressed. For a line of fun, notice that you started your post with "Glad to see you're still incapable of not being a slave to your assumptions" and then you ended it with a paragraph about how I'm not comfortable with killing Hamas militants (or members, I don't know what the difference is supposed to be lol) even though I say I am. Appreciate the sorta apology. You got it completely wrong (other than that I don't like three arrogant self righteous pricks who are and continue to be assholes to me, I would be a moronic door mat to not dislike them). I'd say it again, but we both know you would just keep on believing your assumption. Hamas is a proxy army for Iran, their, weapons, ideology, financing is all Iran, TBH I'm shocked you believe the propaganda. Fatah well flawed is Palestinian and they lost to Hamas, brutally, because of the Iranian backing. Your bolded part does not counter what I said, I'm not saying you support the attack on Israel, I'm saying you are not applying your logic in both directions. I'm trying to point out the lack of consistency. And for your last paragraph, I really do not know if it is your reading comprehension (which I doubt but it becoming a more and more realistic option considering how incredibly wrong you get things). I literally explain what I mean, I said you are comfortable killing the people with the guns while they are doing the horrible acts. I'm NOT SURE on the other members of Hamas you are OK with killing of what level of support to Hamas they need to give to meet your level. I also think that you and the other people in this thread that appear in lock step would likely have different opinions on those thresholds. I also suspect your threshold to when you would enact violence on a "fascist" or supporter of fascism is much different than Hamas. I don't however think you are at GH levels where any communist can kill whoever in his revolution call them a capitalist and be OK. I also don't think you believe all the antisemitic tropes GH does (just with the word capitalist swapped for Jew, to make it more palatable for the lefty). I am not aware of GH or Drone being "self righteous pricks" to you on a consistent basis. I believe GH never answers your posts (even though you keep insulting him over and over) and Drone rarely interacts with you. As for me, after months of not interacting with you in which you answered 75% of my posts with abuse while I wasn't responding, then admitted in public that you did so specifically because you wanted to be an asshole to me, I've decided that I would answer posts that are directed at me but not posts that aren't. Every interaction where you feel I'm a self-righteous prick toward you is self-inflicted. Whether Hamas is a proxy army for Iran or not, it doesn't change the fact that it's composed mainly of Palestinians, and therefore it's not an external force. The IDF doesn't become an external force because the US gives a bunch of money to Israel, that's not how the word "external" works. After a post in which I'm literally saying that I understand that the logic applies in both directions so you don't have to question me on that, then another post in which I point out that this happened, you double down and answer that I don't apply the logic in both directions. I couldn't make this up. I don't think the issue is reading comprehension, I think the issue is that you get really mad and so you write things too quickly, and then because you're still mad you refuse to take responsibility for it so you blame others for strawmen and reading comprehension issues. You clearly wrote "I think a lot of people are uncomfortable with killing Hamas members, this is why you have now changed your initial statement and added the word militant." This isn't a request for more information about how I feel about stuff because you're NOT SURE, this is you making an inference on how I feel about the topic, even though you don't have to make inferences, I've already stated how I feel about it. GH never quotes my posts, he responds all the time. And he just crips in when he's not involved about how bad I am. Yes I have admitted it, I actually think you have admitted it as well. Every jerkish post you get from me is by me and I'm responsible for. A huge difference between me and you is I take responsibility for my actions even those that are not good. You do not, you blame me in this case and who ever else in the others. Therefor you can continue to think that you are this great person and look down on everyone else. Its me making you be a jerk not you Neb... /s The US is not the ideological driving force behind Israel. Don't be so dishonest with your responses. I misread then and still do, I've always thought you considered yourself fair. No! Again you can't read. I am asking you who qualifies as a Hamas Militant. I get that you are Ok with killing "a Hamas Militant". I'm saying does that include everyone in Hamas? Just the Soldiers? The Government workers? The political Leadership? How about people who donate or belong to the org? How about those who host tunnel entrances? So on. And not even just you specifically. Everyone. These are tough questions, it is not hard to be like "yeah man I am against Hamas, I'm cool with killing the guy who just killed a baby and is raping a woman before killing her". It is hard to know what to do about the rest. It is hard to know what cost is morally acceptable. It is hard to accept that people have different lines. Also, you keep avoiding why you are so against calling the opposing force Gaza or Palestine or Palestinians and must call it Hamas. Hamas is the government, they have far greater popular support than Likud. I know why I wouldn't, but then again I like to keep my logic consistent. I find it strange that you are proud of your bias.
I can't take responsibility for bad actions that I don't make. For example, I don't initiate conversations with you, so I couldn't "take responsibility" for being an asshole toward you in our conversations, as every conversation that we have is you deciding to attack something that I said to someone else with a bad argument.
I also thought it was quite funny that you described yourself to Mohdoo as "punching back". When I didn't answer any of your posts for months and you kept being abusive toward me, what was the "back" in punching back refering to? Most people would see that as "punching". Are you really so deluded that you actually believe you're the victim in this even though, no matter what strategy I employ, you keep coming back for more of it?
I never said the US was the ideological force behind Israel and you know it, you're just writing nonsense on purpose because you now understand you're obviously wrong about Hamas being an external force.
Yes, Hamas members include everyone in Hamas, that's typically what "member" means. The soldiers and the political leaders yes, the person who donates and the person who just hosts the tunnels, no. It is not a tough question in any way, we're talking about what violence I'm fine with, I can just tell you where I draw the line. But don't forget that this doesn't matter at all, because this all a massive hypothetical: in the real world all of this killing of Hamas members and politicians that aren't currently attacking Israel is happening from an external force, and specifically an external force run by fascists that have fascist plans, so we're out of the violence that I'm comfortable with way before we reach the people who host the tunnels.
I am not against calling the opposing force Gaza or Palestine. This assault is very clearly an assault that Israel launched on all Palestinians, not just Hamas. The "Israel vs Hamas" framing is generally from the Israeli side.
|
|
|
I don’t know how to pose this question without it appearing to be bad faith or bait or in some way dishonest, so I will just ask it directly:
A common discussion regarding civilians and whatnot is the role a voter or citizen plays in who their government is run by. In the case of Gaza, Hamas has been cited as authoritarian and not the voice of the people. The common opinion is that they were a reflection of popular opinion in 2006 but we can’t judge Palestinians by Hamas’s actions because it’s 18 years since then.
With polls indicating Hamas has very high support (around 75%, much higher than the “moderate” PA), what is the threshold for judging a population by their government?
Let’s say there was a referendum in Gaza tomorrow and Hamas won with 75% of the vote. Let’s say Hamas made their pitch by saying “we will repeat October 7 repeatedly. Vote for us if you think that is awesome”. To what extent are those voters complicit or involved or responsible or whatever? At what point is a voter a valid military target.
I don’t know how to answer this question. There are many people I would love to kill and I wouldn’t hesitate if given the chance if I had some way of knowing I’d never be caught and whatnot. I guess I’d vote for someone if they said they’d sentence these people to death. But I can’t decide if that makes me complicit in their murder. Maybe I would never do it myself, even though when I am detached enough I would vote for it to set it in motion. Am I guilty of murder for voting for someone with the intention of someone else dying?
It’s very messy. I don’t know the answer. It’s hard to separate thought crime from supporting violence. When Hamas has already proven they are absolutely brutal and violent, does the person voting for them lose any deniability?
When someone pays an assassin to kill someone, the person who paid the assassin is charged with murder or whatever. Is there a comparison to be made to voting for a group that has already been violent and expresses intent to do it again?
I know the whataboutism writes itself and I will just go ahead and say “yes it applies to Israel and the west” etc etc.
If a referendum would not make a Palestinian civilian a valid Hamas associate if they voted for Hamas, is there a threshold? Or is a civilian always a civilian and it’s as simple as that? I hope the way I have presented this does not appear bad faith. I’m genuinely curious what people think. Even if we are saying all Palestinians are guilt free, is there a theoretical scenario where they can be ethically treated as combatants? Like I said, hard to separate thought crimes from hiring an assassin. It’s all very messy. But curious what you all think.
|
On January 18 2024 07:14 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2024 06:49 Nebuchad wrote:On January 18 2024 06:19 JimmiC wrote:On January 18 2024 05:46 Nebuchad wrote:On January 18 2024 05:28 JimmiC wrote:On January 18 2024 04:32 Nebuchad wrote:On January 18 2024 03:59 JimmiC wrote:On January 18 2024 03:32 Nebuchad wrote:On January 18 2024 02:36 JimmiC wrote:On January 18 2024 02:20 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
Can you think of someone who said in the thread that it was wrong to kill Hamas militants? Cause if not, I'm a little confused with why you're getting stuck on this. If Hamas is in Israel currently killing Israelis than people seem to agree killing them is fine. If they are in Gaza and not currently killing Israelis is where the disagreements happen. Some people have stated that Israel should not attack outside of the borders no matter what because that can’t be defense. Others like me have suggested that shouldn’t because the cost of civilian life is too high with their human shield strategy. Then there are more complicated questions that anti Israeli posters avoid even talking about, like for example, is someone a civilian if they are hosting a tunnel entrance in their house? How much support of Hamas makes a person a legitimate target? I wonder if your passion for killing fascists and their supporters travels to Hamas supporters? It does yes, but not in the way that you want.I support violent resistance against authoritarianism the world over, by the people who are the victims of it. When an exterior force comes in and takes up that fight, that is something that I have more trouble with because mechanically what it creates is more support for the authoritarian group, as happened during the war in Afghanistan. People who otherwise wouldn't develop far right ideas see their countrymen being attacked by a foreign force, and naturally side with the group that is doing resistance not because they're very into far right ideas but because that's the group that is fighting back. These types of foreign interventions create more support for authoritarians, and therefore they're counterproductive, so I wouldn't be in support of that violence in principle and I am even less in support of it in practice because usually the foreign group is not just selflessly doing an antifascism, chances are they're self-interested and trying to fuck over the people of that country in some way as well. This is why, while I definitely support Afghani people violently resisting the Talibans, I have more trouble supporting the US doing it. This logic also works the other way around when it comes to Palestine attacking Israel, which is why I also don't support the violence of events like Oct 7th, so you can delete the paragraph that you started to write asking me that question. That's the general rule for foreign intervention, but in the case of Israel, Israel is not only "not selflessly doing an antifascism", it's even worse, it's a bunch of far right people trying to reach a population that they want to ethnically cleanse, as we can clearly see from their methods, their words, the result of their actions, or from the fact that they're trying to expand as far as they can the definition of "Hamas supporter" so that they get to kill more Palestinians, as you alluded to in the post. This isn't antifascist violence, this is fascist violence, so clearly I'm not in support of it. Just so we're clear, that was a "no" on you being capable of finding someone who is uncomfortable with killing Hamas militants, so I was right when I said everyone is comfortable with that? Paragraph 1 Glad to see you're still incapable of not being a slave to your assumptions... So what exactly is what I want? Feel free to actually take a stab Paragraph 2. Hamas is the external force, they are a proxy army of Iran, do you dispute it or just ignore it? And then it goes to that they are creating a situation where Israeli's who wouldn't normally be far right are being pushed in that direction. They are supporting the IDF not because they have those ideals but because they are the group fighting back. Paragraph 3 Nothing says your not anti-Israel like calling them a bunch of far right people trying to ethnically cleanse. Is there people in Israel with those beliefs, of course. 25%-45% a significant part. What is the percentage of people in Gaza that want to commit genocide against Israel? What % supported and cheered for the sexual violence, torture and murder? And yet I do not see you making sweeping statements about the Palestinians? Why is that? Here is the rub, if someone actually used your extremely biased logic in the other direction they would support the exact thing that you say you are against. Paragraph 4. I think a lot of people are uncomfortable with killing Hamas members, this is why you have now changed your initial statement and added the word militant. Even then we have a few I'm not sure on, if they were actively killing babies and raping women in Israel, I think no one. If they were sheltered in a tunnel in Gaza, I think quiet a few would be against that. If they were donating money to Hamas, I think lots of people would be against that. If they were hosting tunnel entrances in their homes, I think a lot of people would be against it. That you are against the Hamas members that are actually out there killing babies and raping women is not that far from the "few bad apples" kind of thoughts you profess to hate in other threads. "In the way that you want" was just a turn of phrase, I meant "in the way that you're envisioning when you're writing this paragraph". I didn't mean to imply that you want it, I apologize. To answer your question, I don't think you want many specific things regarding the Palestinian conflict, I think it's much more important to you to disagree with GH me or Drone (and now the other people that you're starting to dislike because of this thread) than any real world stuff. Hamas is obviously not an external force, as it's composed of an absurdly large majority of Palestinians (if not a totality? I don't really know if there's a way to know that, but it doesn't matter). There is no significant percentage of Iranians flocking to Gaza to join Hamas. What a silly claim. "And then it goes to that they are creating a situation where Israeli's who wouldn't normally be far right are being pushed in that direction. They are supporting the IDF not because they have those ideals but because they are the group fighting back." => "This logic also works the other way around when it comes to Palestine attacking Israel, which is why I also don't support the violence of events like Oct 7th, so you can delete the paragraph that you started to write asking me that question." I can't say I'm surprised but come on. Israel is currently run by a far right government, who is operating the war machine. The people who are not far right in Israel are not the people who are running this war, and as such my claim is justified. If you want to call me anti-Israel because I claimed some fascists are fascists, then you can, but I will not be impressed. For a line of fun, notice that you started your post with "Glad to see you're still incapable of not being a slave to your assumptions" and then you ended it with a paragraph about how I'm not comfortable with killing Hamas militants (or members, I don't know what the difference is supposed to be lol) even though I say I am. Appreciate the sorta apology. You got it completely wrong (other than that I don't like three arrogant self righteous pricks who are and continue to be assholes to me, I would be a moronic door mat to not dislike them). I'd say it again, but we both know you would just keep on believing your assumption. Hamas is a proxy army for Iran, their, weapons, ideology, financing is all Iran, TBH I'm shocked you believe the propaganda. Fatah well flawed is Palestinian and they lost to Hamas, brutally, because of the Iranian backing. Your bolded part does not counter what I said, I'm not saying you support the attack on Israel, I'm saying you are not applying your logic in both directions. I'm trying to point out the lack of consistency. And for your last paragraph, I really do not know if it is your reading comprehension (which I doubt but it becoming a more and more realistic option considering how incredibly wrong you get things). I literally explain what I mean, I said you are comfortable killing the people with the guns while they are doing the horrible acts. I'm NOT SURE on the other members of Hamas you are OK with killing of what level of support to Hamas they need to give to meet your level. I also think that you and the other people in this thread that appear in lock step would likely have different opinions on those thresholds. I also suspect your threshold to when you would enact violence on a "fascist" or supporter of fascism is much different than Hamas. I don't however think you are at GH levels where any communist can kill whoever in his revolution call them a capitalist and be OK. I also don't think you believe all the antisemitic tropes GH does (just with the word capitalist swapped for Jew, to make it more palatable for the lefty). I am not aware of GH or Drone being "self righteous pricks" to you on a consistent basis. I believe GH never answers your posts (even though you keep insulting him over and over) and Drone rarely interacts with you. As for me, after months of not interacting with you in which you answered 75% of my posts with abuse while I wasn't responding, then admitted in public that you did so specifically because you wanted to be an asshole to me, I've decided that I would answer posts that are directed at me but not posts that aren't. Every interaction where you feel I'm a self-righteous prick toward you is self-inflicted. Whether Hamas is a proxy army for Iran or not, it doesn't change the fact that it's composed mainly of Palestinians, and therefore it's not an external force. The IDF doesn't become an external force because the US gives a bunch of money to Israel, that's not how the word "external" works. After a post in which I'm literally saying that I understand that the logic applies in both directions so you don't have to question me on that, then another post in which I point out that this happened, you double down and answer that I don't apply the logic in both directions. I couldn't make this up. I don't think the issue is reading comprehension, I think the issue is that you get really mad and so you write things too quickly, and then because you're still mad you refuse to take responsibility for it so you blame others for strawmen and reading comprehension issues. You clearly wrote "I think a lot of people are uncomfortable with killing Hamas members, this is why you have now changed your initial statement and added the word militant." This isn't a request for more information about how I feel about stuff because you're NOT SURE, this is you making an inference on how I feel about the topic, even though you don't have to make inferences, I've already stated how I feel about it. GH never quotes my posts, he responds all the time. And he just crips in when he's not involved about how bad I am. Yes I have admitted it, I actually think you have admitted it as well. Every jerkish post you get from me is by me and I'm responsible for. A huge difference between me and you is I take responsibility for my actions even those that are not good. You do not, you blame me in this case and who ever else in the others. Therefor you can continue to think that you are this great person and look down on everyone else. Its me making you be a jerk not you Neb... /s The US is not the ideological driving force behind Israel. Don't be so dishonest with your responses. I misread then and still do, I've always thought you considered yourself fair. No! Again you can't read. I am asking you who qualifies as a Hamas Militant. I get that you are Ok with killing "a Hamas Militant". I'm saying does that include everyone in Hamas? Just the Soldiers? The Government workers? The political Leadership? How about people who donate or belong to the org? How about those who host tunnel entrances? So on. And not even just you specifically. Everyone. These are tough questions, it is not hard to be like "yeah man I am against Hamas, I'm cool with killing the guy who just killed a baby and is raping a woman before killing her". It is hard to know what to do about the rest. It is hard to know what cost is morally acceptable. It is hard to accept that people have different lines. Also, you keep avoiding why you are so against calling the opposing force Gaza or Palestine or Palestinians and must call it Hamas. Hamas is the government, they have far greater popular support than Likud. I know why I wouldn't, but then again I like to keep my logic consistent. I find it strange that you are proud of your bias. I can't take responsibility for bad actions that I don't make. For example, I don't initiate conversations with you, so I couldn't "take responsibility" for being an asshole toward you in our conversations, as every conversation that we have is you deciding to attack something that I said to someone else with a bad argument. I also thought it was quite funny that you described yourself to Mohdoo as "punching back". When I didn't answer any of your posts for months and you kept being abusive toward me, what was the "back" in punching back refering to? Most people would see that as "punching". Are you really so deluded that you actually believe you're the victim in this even though, no matter what strategy I employ, you keep coming back for more of it? I never said the US was the ideological force behind Israel and you know it, you're just writing nonsense on purpose because you now understand you're obviously wrong about Hamas being an external force. Yes, Hamas members include everyone in Hamas, that's typically what "member" means. The soldiers and the political leaders yes, the person who donates and the person who just hosts the tunnels, no. It is not a tough question in any way, we're talking about what violence I'm fine with, I can just tell you where I draw the line. But don't forget that this doesn't matter at all, because this all a massive hypothetical: in the real world all of this killing of Hamas members and politicians that aren't currently attacking Israel is happening from an external force, and specifically an external force run by fascists that have fascist plans, so we're out of the violence that I'm comfortable with way before we reach the people who host the tunnels. I am not against calling the opposing force Gaza or Palestine. This assault is very clearly an assault that Israel launched on all Palestinians, not just Hamas. The "Israel vs Hamas" framing is generally from the Israeli side. A victim would be someone not punching back, I consider myself returning fire. Not in the tit for tat way you are describing but in a more holistic way. When faced with a power imbalance it tends to happen, you wouldn't know anything about that, but its true. And for the record it is not that I only dislike you and your crew because of how you treat me, it is how you guys treat me and everyone who is not in your crowd, I think your bullies. The Parochial Altruism you guys exhibit is hard to take. I get you disagree, if it makes you feel better you're not even top 5. I know you did not. That is why the comparison is flawed. Read, don't rage it will help you lots. Maybe re read a whole bunch of my posts and lots of your problems might be solved. If you frame it as Palestine vs Israel do the standard rules of war not apply? Hamas was who declared war first and attacked. I do not frame it like this because then it mostly absolves Israel of what they are doing. I know it is really really bad, but that is allowed in war. Yes even schools, hospitals, and day cares. If an opposing army puts their military equipment there and operates there it is fair game. "That rule is awful, why would they have it" because when they made it, they could not imagine a side having such little regard for their own innocents that they thought no one would risk it. Hamas is a strange animal in that they believe that Israeli and Palestinian innocent victims are a victory for them.
Ah okay I see so when I ignore you and you insult me consistently for months you're punching back "in a holistic way", that makes sense.
So if you "know I didn't say that", you shouldn't have written that I'm "dishonest in my response" for saying it. Again, posting too fast, and not caring too much about what you say as long as you get to disagree with me, and as long as we forget that you still haven't acknowledged that a group mainly comprised of Palestinians isn't an external force in Palestine.
I don't really know what you're refering to with "the standard rules of war" because there's no reason why it would absolve Israel of what they're doing. I don't believe it's written in "the standard rules of war" that you can ethnically cleanse a territory that you're blockading and occupying because "they attacked first". But as we know, you don't believe that Israel is doing those things, and as I've mentioned in the past this is why I think it's weird that you don't see Israel as the good guys, because if I held the factually incorrect opinions that you hold about the nature of the Israeli onslaught on Gaza, then I would see them as the good guys.
Of course, it is also not true that Hamas "initiated" the conflict on Oct 7th, the situation before Oct 7th was already a conflictual one, with systemic oppression of Palestine, both in Gaza and in the occupied territories, by Israel. In the same way that Israel justifies its current assault using Oct 7th, Hamas used the ongoing oppression of Palestine to justify Oct 7th. The only thing that's happening here is that you agree with Israel that Oct 7th has justifying power when it comes to the current events, and you disagree with Hamas that the ongoing oppression does when it comes to October 7th. I, for my part, disagree with both.
The other problem with Hamas is that they appear to be right, don't they? The degree to which we're talking more about the oppression of Palestinians now that Israel is killing them in the tens of thousands is hard to overstate. That's a blight on us, in my opinion. We should have done more before this.
|
On January 18 2024 07:15 Mohdoo wrote:
I don’t know how to pose this question without it appearing to be bad faith or bait or in some way dishonest, so I will just ask it directly:
A common discussion regarding civilians and whatnot is the role a voter or citizen plays in who their government is run by. In the case of Gaza, Hamas has been cited as authoritarian and not the voice of the people. The common opinion is that they were a reflection of popular opinion in 2006 but we can’t judge Palestinians by Hamas’s actions because it’s 18 years since then.
With polls indicating Hamas has very high support (around 75%, much higher than the “moderate” PA), what is the threshold for judging a population by their government?
Let’s say there was a referendum in Gaza tomorrow and Hamas won with 75% of the vote. Let’s say Hamas made their pitch by saying “we will repeat October 7 repeatedly. Vote for us if you think that is awesome”. To what extent are those voters complicit or involved or responsible or whatever? At what point is a voter a valid military target.
I don’t know how to answer this question. There are many people I would love to kill and I wouldn’t hesitate if given the chance if I had some way of knowing I’d never be caught and whatnot. I guess I’d vote for someone if they said they’d sentence these people to death. But I can’t decide if that makes me complicit in their murder. Maybe I would never do it myself, even though when I am detached enough I would vote for it to set it in motion. Am I guilty of murder for voting for someone with the intention of someone else dying?
It’s very messy. I don’t know the answer. It’s hard to separate thought crime from supporting violence. When Hamas has already proven they are absolutely brutal and violent, does the person voting for them lose any deniability?
When someone pays an assassin to kill someone, the person who paid the assassin is charged with murder or whatever. Is there a comparison to be made to voting for a group that has already been violent and expresses intent to do it again?
I know the whataboutism writes itself and I will just go ahead and say “yes it applies to Israel and the west” etc etc.
If a referendum would not make a Palestinian civilian a valid Hamas associate if they voted for Hamas, is there a threshold? Or is a civilian always a civilian and it’s as simple as that? I hope the way I have presented this does not appear bad faith. I’m genuinely curious what people think. Even if we are saying all Palestinians are guilt free, is there a theoretical scenario where they can be ethically treated as combatants? Like I said, hard to separate thought crimes from hiring an assassin. It’s all very messy. But curious what you all think.
I can't give a direct answer to that question, but I believe it's important to make note of the psychology behind the support for Hamas.
Everyone would agree that the attack on October 7 gave plenty of Israeli's reason to support this war even though the civilian casualties are mounting. In fact the casualties have not changed people's minds. But don't take me at my word, there's been a survey (article posted on December 14):
"In a possible sense of the mood, almost 60% of Israelis, including 40% of Arab Israelis, cited destroying Hamas in any way possible as the most important goal of the war, according to the Tel Aviv University poll."
That's including Arab Israelis. Excluding them the % would be significantly higher.
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israelis-say-hamas-must-be-crushed-despite-gaza-casualties-un-rebuke-2023-12-13/
For the same reason Palestinian support for Hamas would also be expected to be very high. It's unsurprising, because Palestinians by and large aren't afraid of Hamas, they're afraid of Israel. The hatred is growing, thus support for Hamas is growing. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
This same psychology is true in Israel. While they support the continuation of the war against Hamas, at the same time they want Netanyahu to take responsibility for the failures leading to October 7. The enemy of my enemy is my friend in this case, too. Netanyahu may well have caused the disastrous security failure that led to the attack, and yet he has people's support regardless.
Well, at least that of Jewish Israelis.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/poll-80-of-israelis-say-netanyahu-must-take-public-responsibility-for-oct-7-failures/
I'd say "support for Hamas" only means something in the context of this war (and likely the general conflict), just as "support for Netanyahu" does. Both have majority support, but that support is currently strongly rooted in the fear of the opposing side.
|
|
|
Hasan interviewed a Houthi TikTok kid. Was basically gushing with support and talking about how Houthis are heroes. Hasan has a huge following and is exactly the kind of personality I hoped would be above this kinda reflexive mentality. Just very disappointing.
|
Northern Ireland22955 Posts
On January 18 2024 14:56 Mohdoo wrote:
Hasan interviewed a Houthi TikTok kid. Was basically gushing with support and talking about how Houthis are heroes. Hasan has a huge following and is exactly the kind of personality I hoped would be above this kinda reflexive mentality. Just very disappointing.
The natural consequence of a platform geared towards entertainment and grabbing eyes taking the mantle of how a lot of folks inform themselves about the world I guess.
Can’t say I’m that familiar with Hasan so not a specific criticism of him but there is something to be said for people with actual journalistic training, or an academic background in this particular domain.
Not that I’m against infotainment existing per se, it’s a good gateway into more sober stuff, just it being the ‘cream’ that tends to rise to the top given the incentives inherent to the platform
|
On January 18 2024 16:53 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2024 14:56 Mohdoo wrote:
Hasan interviewed a Houthi TikTok kid. Was basically gushing with support and talking about how Houthis are heroes. Hasan has a huge following and is exactly the kind of personality I hoped would be above this kinda reflexive mentality. Just very disappointing. The natural consequence of a platform geared towards entertainment and grabbing eyes taking the mantle of how a lot of folks inform themselves about the world I guess. Can’t say I’m that familiar with Hasan so not a specific criticism of him but there is something to be said for people with actual journalistic training, or an academic background in this particular domain. Not that I’m against infotainment existing per se, it’s a good gateway into more sober stuff, just it being the ‘cream’ that tends to rise to the top given the incentives inherent to the platform
From what I've seen Hasan is mostly good, but yeah I don't really like the format of streaming for politics. You're kind of mechanically required to immediately, in the moment, know what to say when challenged by anything, you can't really take time and think of the best way to present a thought or counter an argument. You're also incentivized to defend whatever you said rather than go back and improve yourself.
I guess I'm just a slave to the video essay format, it seems such a superior way of talking about a topic. I believe Shaun is working on a video on Palestine, that will be helpful for sure.
|
Hasan's shtick is hating America and capitalism, despite being an American and a full-blown capitalist with the amount of Twitch money he's raking in. So a fake socialist hypocrite. Jeez, if you hate America so much why don't you just move. Also said we should give Ukraine to Russia, and that Taiwan isn't a real country. Wonder why he doesn't hold a similar appeasement attitude for Gaza, hmm...
At this point I'm pretty sure Hasan is audience captured by the crazies of his most devoted following to keep the cash flowing. I don't think he actually believes in anything (except money).
Anyway I kicked him out of my Youtube recommendations, but then the content farm/mill plagiarist thieves started flooding my Youtube page with clips and really bad takes from his Twitch streams (guess he got really big and plagiarists are exploiting it, which is funny because Hasan himself steals content from other people, so maybe they're just giving him his just deserts), so I was forced to install a browser extension and purge them all from my Youtube. Funny how most of my browser extensions and add-ons these days is to make Youtube not suck so much, so I don't get sucked down into some godforsaken rabbit hole I didn't ask for.
|
@Magic Powers: I don't really plan to delve into a discussion on your subconscious biases. I'm much more interested in spending my time discussing world events, politics, and philosophy than the personality of some anonymous stranger on the internet. I kinda hope this is the last post on this topic. I spoke it out because you specifically asked. (Ok, and also because you were trying to frame it as if you had no bias on an issue you are clearly partisan about.) (Ok, admittedly, I also finally let my evil inclination get the better of me. Which, is pretty ironic since the main point of my post was to point out that ad hominem attacks are both immoral and irrational. So I apologize.)
P.S. I have learned something from WombaT, Liquid'Drone, JimmiC, Mohdoo, and Nebucahd, and adjusted my understanding of the world based on insights or facts they each brought to my attention that I didn't know before. None of them have exactly the same position on this topic as I do, but I respect them, in part because I see that they each seriously consider the points I make as well (even if they disagree with some of them).
P.P.S. JimmiC and Nebucahd, I hope you make peace soon. You each have some interesting points, but it's a chore to read through the bickering to get to them.
P.P.P.S. I'm pretty pleased with myself that I made a post that is majority parentheticals and post scripts. I wonder if my English teachers would be horrified or proud.
|
Lol, ya, that is definitely on my list of greatest wars of all time. I'm sad that it ended (something about Russia using it for nefarious PR reasons)
|
On January 18 2024 05:10 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2024 04:26 Magic Powers wrote:
Let me sum up this comment: "Horrible atrocities are being committed by people who are at war. That's war, and that's what happens during war."
Correct! If history has taught us anything, it is that managing a war to ensure it is ethically conducted is self-defined as impossible. War itself is such a grave moral failing that it isn't possible. Furthermore, lizard brain dynamics will always pull humans closer to evil during a war. The psychology of war is corrosive and will always make people into worse versions of themselves. Can you think of many wars that were fundamentally ethical in nature from beginning to end? From both participants? I literally can't think of a single one. Maybe you know of some. Show nested quote +On January 18 2024 04:26 Magic Powers wrote:
You're not explaining why with war come horrible atrocities, you're only observing that it's a matter of fact. I don't know what you expect us to say to that. Hurray? Horrible atrocities go! Is that what you want to hear? Should we discuss the pros and cons of being evil and doing evil things? Is that actually less boring to you? I am saying so long as 2 factions are at war, managing the ethics within the war is fruitless. With no precedent for success, all we are doing is pearl clutching and fooling ourselves into thinking we are working towards an achievable goal. The war itself is fundamentally wrong. The world has collectively failed reasonable Palestinians and reasonable Israelis by prioritizing their own selfish interests. I can vaguely point to "the west" as failing to manage the behavior of Israelis. And I can vaguely point to "Qatar and Iran" as failing to manage the behavior of Palestinians. This war is preventable. This war can be castrated. But since both Israel and Palestine are weaponized by their overlords to achieve objectives of their overlords, there is no value in either side seeking peace. Both Palestinians and Israelis would be fools to put even the smallest effort into extending an olive branch. Even if we assumed both Israelis and Palestinians wanted peace (they don't at this point anyway lol), their overlords would prevent it. There is too much selfish interest to ever allow peace between Israel and Palestine. They are doomed to be the modern equivalent of gladiators until one of them defeats the other. Peace requires significant effort from the overlords. The overlords don't want peace. And we've reached a point where even if the overlords wanted peace, Israelis and Palestinians have been forced into war for so many years that their collective psychology is so damaged and warped it would never be possible anyway. So we essentially have multiple layers of forced war. I am not being hyperbolic or exaggerating or anything when I say I don't think peace is possible between Israel and Palestine. Can you imagine what an enormous shift in policy by Iran, Qatar, the US, and the UN would be required for all of them to truly do all they can to create lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians? We can argue that is the moral thing for them to do, but please remember it is all incredibly obvious. Unfortunately, it being obvious doesn't make it likely. So now let's remember how unlikely that policy shift is from the overlords. Now keep in mind both Israelis and Palestinians have been at war for so long that a huge majority of their populations have only ever known this war. Now look back at my detailed posts regarding the history of Pan-Islamism and Zionism. I won't pretend I believe someone when they keep all of these factors in mind when they say peace is possible. It is not possible. I won't engage with any conversation that indicates peace is possible. It would be more productive for me to go in my backyard and jump until i jump high enough to reach the sun.
If it makes you feel any better, I do believe peace is possible, maybe even inevitable if the US maintains it's close relationship with Israel (longer discussion why that's relevant) and no nukes get dropped on Israel. I agree that it's not realistic in the short term. Anyone who claims that any one party can do one thing and magically create peace is not fully aware of the complexity of the situation. Many players are going to have to make course alterations over many years.
But over the long term, if and when the geopolitics shift, temperaments can shift too. Israelis and Palestinians have a lot of shared culture and it would be advantageous for both in a lot of ways (economically, politically, and security-wise) if they could work together. Those facts leave room for a new path if and when the winds change. Historically, there is precedent with places like England and France. They fought a "hundred year war" as well as wars before and after, but after some shifting of external powers, they are now quite friendly with each other.
I believe that in the distant future they will dwell peacefully side by side, perhaps even as allies against more dissimilar forces in the region.
|
On January 19 2024 01:58 Cerebrate1 wrote:
@Magic Powers: I don't really plan to delve into a discussion on your subconscious biases. I'm much more interested in spending my time discussing world events, politics, and philosophy than the personality of some anonymous stranger on the internet. I kinda hope this is the last post on this topic. I spoke it out because you specifically asked. (Ok, and also because you were trying to frame it as if you had no bias on an issue you are clearly partisan about.) (Ok, admittedly, I also finally let my evil inclination get the better of me. Which, is pretty ironic since the main point of my post was to point out that ad hominem attacks are both immoral and irrational. So I apologize.)
P.S. I have learned something from WombaT, Liquid'Drone, JimmiC, Mohdoo, and Nebucahd, and adjusted my understanding of the world based on insights or facts they each brought to my attention that I didn't know before. None of them have exactly the same position on this topic as I do, but I respect them, in part because I see that they each seriously consider the points I make as well (even if they disagree with some of them).
P.P.S. JimmiC and Nebucahd, I hope you make peace soon. You each have some interesting points, but it's a chore to read through the bickering to get to them.
P.P.P.S. I'm pretty pleased with myself that I made a post that is majority parentheticals and post scripts. I wonder if my English teachers would be horrified or proud.
They would be proud of how accurately you manage to participate in English conversations. And they would be horrified realizing what an awful language they taught you.
|
On January 20 2024 02:37 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2024 01:58 Cerebrate1 wrote:
@Magic Powers: I don't really plan to delve into a discussion on your subconscious biases. I'm much more interested in spending my time discussing world events, politics, and philosophy than the personality of some anonymous stranger on the internet. I kinda hope this is the last post on this topic. I spoke it out because you specifically asked. (Ok, and also because you were trying to frame it as if you had no bias on an issue you are clearly partisan about.) (Ok, admittedly, I also finally let my evil inclination get the better of me. Which, is pretty ironic since the main point of my post was to point out that ad hominem attacks are both immoral and irrational. So I apologize.)
P.S. I have learned something from WombaT, Liquid'Drone, JimmiC, Mohdoo, and Nebucahd, and adjusted my understanding of the world based on insights or facts they each brought to my attention that I didn't know before. None of them have exactly the same position on this topic as I do, but I respect them, in part because I see that they each seriously consider the points I make as well (even if they disagree with some of them).
P.P.S. JimmiC and Nebucahd, I hope you make peace soon. You each have some interesting points, but it's a chore to read through the bickering to get to them.
P.P.P.S. I'm pretty pleased with myself that I made a post that is majority parentheticals and post scripts. I wonder if my English teachers would be horrified or proud. They would be proud of how accurately you manage to participate in English conversations. And they would be horrified realizing what an awful language they taught you.
Haha, ya English is such a messy language. I'm glad the Americans at least cleaned up some of the vestigial silent letters from British English, but smashing together old versions of Germanic, French, Celtic, etc makes for a lot of inconsistent rules.
But English is actually my first language. I wish I could communicate this well in my second languages.
|
Netanyahu is publicly rejecting ostensible US calls for a two-state solution while the US acts helpless.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says he has told the United States that he opposes the establishment of a Palestinian state once the conflict in Gaza comes to an end.
With almost 25,000 Palestinians killed in Gaza, according to the Hamas-run health ministry, and 85% of the Strip's population displaced, Israel is under intense pressure to rein in its offensive and engage in meaningful talks over a sustainable end to the war.
Israel's allies, including the US - and many of its foes - have urged a revival of the long-dormant "two-state solution", in which a future Palestinian state would sit side-by-side with an Israeli one.
Speaking to reporters following Mr Netanyahu's latest comments, US National Security Council spokesman John Kirby recognised that the US and Israel "obviously" see things differently.
Washington's advice has frequently fallen on deaf ears or been met by outright rejection - often publicly so, during visits by the US Secretary of State Antony Blinken.
That, in turn, has hardened frustration in some American circles over the Biden administration's apparent blanket support for Israel, with strident calls to put conditions on US aid to its Middle East ally.
www.bbc.com
Even Ukraine has conditions attached to giving them weapons. We're well past the point of conditioning aid to Israel and should have already placed Israel under sanctions for their ongoing ethnic cleansing campaign. But the "international rules based order" is actually just a tool of western hegemony, so no one really even talks about that glaring hypocrisy.
|
On January 20 2024 05:48 GreenHorizons wrote:Netanyahu is publicly rejecting ostensible US calls for a two-state solution while the US acts helpless. Show nested quote +Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says he has told the United States that he opposes the establishment of a Palestinian state once the conflict in Gaza comes to an end.
With almost 25,000 Palestinians killed in Gaza, according to the Hamas-run health ministry, and 85% of the Strip's population displaced, Israel is under intense pressure to rein in its offensive and engage in meaningful talks over a sustainable end to the war.
Israel's allies, including the US - and many of its foes - have urged a revival of the long-dormant "two-state solution", in which a future Palestinian state would sit side-by-side with an Israeli one.
Speaking to reporters following Mr Netanyahu's latest comments, US National Security Council spokesman John Kirby recognised that the US and Israel "obviously" see things differently.
Washington's advice has frequently fallen on deaf ears or been met by outright rejection - often publicly so, during visits by the US Secretary of State Antony Blinken.
That, in turn, has hardened frustration in some American circles over the Biden administration's apparent blanket support for Israel, with strident calls to put conditions on US aid to its Middle East ally. www.bbc.comEven Ukraine has conditions attached to giving them weapons. We're well past the point of conditioning aid to Israel and should have already placed Israel under sanctions for their ongoing ethnic cleansing campaign. But the "international rules based order" is actually just a tool of western hegemony, so no one really even talks about that glaring hypocrisy.
I think the situation is similar to Taiwan from what I was reading. I am not sure how much you know about the Taiwan/China situation, but the gist of it is that the US or any other country recognizing Taiwan as an independent nation would force China to attack Taiwan because it would mean it is no longer an internal dispute as a part of a civil war. So long as the situation remains on pause as a civil war, China does not need to "save face" and whatnot by formally retaking Taiwan.
Its all a huge farce, since the US has a billion missiles in Taiwan and the US defends Taiwan and has indicated they would respond with military force and all that kinda thing. But my understanding from some article I was reading was that it is essential for Taiwan to still be considered a part of China in order to not force China to attack in some weird way.
Anyway, I'm comparing it to China/Taiwan because the US is forced to be entirely dishonest publicly even though the writing is on the wall in every possible way. My impression is a firm stance on a 2 state solution is entirely necessary to maintain diplomatic relations with various Muslim nations that totally hate Israel. Egypt, Jordan, and many other "kinda allies" have enormous populations that would prefer their governments just flat out declare war on Israel. Their governments are forced to walk this weird line where they pretend they give a shit about Israel for the sake of not being overthrown by the huge % of their citizens that just straight up want to bomb and eliminate Israel.
So these governments have this weird, dishonest relationship with their populations while maintaining diplomatic ties with the US. But that forces the US to talk about 2 state solution stuff. But none of it is true IMO. There are a few reasons to think its all dog shit:
1: Palestinians don't want a 2 state solution right now
2: Israelis don't want a 2 state solution right now
3: Hamas being removed from power in both WB and Gaza is of course a firm requirement for any 2 state solution
4: Hamas is supported by around 75% of Palestinians
5: The PA recently used the PLO Commission of Prisoners fund to financially support Hamas terrorists involved with October 7
So Hamas is Hamas. And the PA is paying members of Hamas for participating in October 7.
Now, I beg you to resist the urge to respond with "well this is what the US SHOULLLDDD be doing", and please consider what you think the US and Israel think of the situation. Do you think the US views the PA as a valid option for a Palestinian government? Of course not. But they need to signal some level of support for PA to appease the masses of various Muslim nations who could overthrow their governments at any moment. And what about Hamas? Of course not.
So Palestinians don't want a 2 state solution. Israelis don't want a 2 state solution. Hamas is a hard no. PA is trying to support Hamas in any way they can because their approval ratings are in the toilet while Hamas is wildly popular among Palestinians. And that's another thing. Palestinians mostly totally love October 7. That of course makes things dicey too.
Is there some kinda 2 state solution widely supported by Palestinians right now? If so, can you give me a description of it? And again, even if there is some set of borders Palestinians all agree would be great, it doesn't solve the Hamas/PA/Oct7 problem. The US and Israel aren't going to just agree to that kinda mindset.
*AND AGAIN, PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD DON'T DO THE USUAL* "well if the US doesn't like genocide, shouldn't they return the illegally stolen land?" because I want to be abundantly clear all of that is totally clear to me. There is no shortage of historic context here. But even though I could make sure to describe the color of the sky in every post, it doesn't help the conversation. Let's please focus on what appears to be an actual path to 2 state.
I am saying there is no actual disagreement between Israel and the US here. Its just diplomatic signaling. Hamas/PA polling among Palestinians and Palestinian support for Oct7, when combined with the perspectives of Israelis, makes the entire idea completely and totally dead. No one who is actually involved with these conversations between the US and Israel are saying "well tbh the PA is actually fairly moderate and peaceful".
Oh actually, I am going to try this. Please reply with your thoughts on a path to a 2 state solution with the following assumptions already made:
1: The US supports genocide, ethnic cleansing, colonialism, imperialism, racism, hatred, bigotry, and literally all other bad things
2: ^Same for Israel
3: Israel is 100% illegal and very bad and hateful
4: Palestinians do not possess any guilt because they are only responding to violence inflected upon them
I am curious what your thoughts are AFTER these assumptions are already carved into stone.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
