|
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 August 20 2024 10:28 aseq wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2024 09:03 Nebuchad wrote:On August 20 2024 07:54 aseq wrote:
Calm down, warrior. You're exactly the type of person I was talking about earlier. If Israel were purposely annihilating civilians, wouldn't they have gotten a lot further than <2% of the population by now? You don't believe the text messages and e-mails sent by Israel are an attempt to reduce casualties? Do you have any idea of how much goes wrong in any war?
And no, we don't need demonstrations for Israel, of course. But why only stand up for Palestine and not the Rohingya or Uyghur, Yemen, Congo? What is the reason you're so vocal about this group only? Or maybe it's not a coincidence, it's because you're against the Israeli rather than backing Palestine? Is it the popular leftist anti-zionism you support, not the "innocent Gazans" that voted Hamas into power and were dancing on the streets on the 7th of October?
"Nothing I have seen from Israel leads me to believe that they give a shit about the Palestinian's well being or seeing them as people." Unlike the Palestinians, who care for the Israeli deeply...I think this idea of keeping the stronger side to a different moral standard than the other partyhas been discussed in this thread before, but it's still relevant. If I had neighbours whose only goal in life it was to end me, I'd be out of sympathy pretty soon. They will bake their own bias into their point of course, so here we can see that aseq is very concerned with the innocence of Gazans, he'll put that in quotes to show that it's a lie and that in truth Gazans are not innocent, which presumably means that they deserve to get bombed I assume. But that part won't be said, I'm probably uncharitable for reading that much into quotes, instead this post is about asking the same questions over and over pretending that they haven't been answered, because this isn't really a conversation, this is just stalling. Nah, I put it in quotes because the guy before me said it. He phrased it like there is a clear distinction between innocent Gazans and Hamas-sympathizers, which there isn't. These guys have been at war with Israel all their life...it's no surprise they're not neutral. But what do you mean by stalling...you have a solution that we should be working towards (long term, preferably)?
What am I supposed to do with the information that there is no clear distinction between innocent Gazans and Hamas sympathizers, other than feel less shitty when the "innocent" (but not really) people get killed?
What I mean by stalling is that this is not a situation where two concurrent world views of equal value are competing and we're having a debate in the marketplace of ideas. I firmly believe that if we just look at the facts it's very obvious what your position should be, depending on your morals (for example, if you're a humanist you should obviously be siding with Palestine, and if you're an islamophobe you should obviously be siding with Israel).
In a way I would hate this thread a little less if people just came in and argued that Palestinians should be killed, because at least we would be responding to arguments made in good faith. Instead we have this tedious dance where I'm supposed to take it seriously when people see bombs larger than those used in Afghanistan dropped on a densely populated area and go "I truly believe that Israel is doing everything it can to limit civilian casualties, also aren't you grateful that we only killed one billion children when we could have killed 15 billion children if we wanted!!", I'm supposed to take it seriously when people see an army that develops an IA that is allowing strikes on junior subordinate members of Hamas that have no military value as long as there isn't more than 20 civilians around that unimportant target and go "Clearly when those 20 civilians die it's Hamas who killed them, Israelis are just non-player characters they can't be accountable for any of their decisions".
Nobody thinks like this, that's just padding to make it look like we're having a conversation. This kind of reminds me of a quote by Golda Meir that massive racists have on occasion sent to me approvingly on Twitter: "We can forgive the Arabs for killing our children. We cannot forgive them for forcing us to kill their children."
I like how this quote functions because it's designed for a society that finds killing children distasteful: the rhetoric behind it implies that you don't like to have to do it because you don't like what you become when you're forced to do it. You become something different, something more monstrous. You become the kind of society that produces an army that targets families and calls this program "Where's Daddy", because it's entertaining when families die. Now of course Golda Meir is dishonest when she says this, she obviously enjoyed it tremendously when Arab children died and she didn't require any kind of forcing to order it done. But really, she wasn't wrong. You engage a society in this kind of colonial, racist endeavor for 75 years and you get a different society, more violent, more far right, than if you hadn't done any of that. You change people. And then once the people are changed, their arguments change too, in accordance with what they're becoming. So for Israel that means becoming a people who largely supported their government as it attempted to ethnically cleanse another group of humans, and for people on this forum that means becoming the people who didn't stand against it (and probably cheered it on, internally) as it was happening.
|
On August 20 2024 07:54 aseq wrote:
And no, we don't need demonstrations for Israel, of course. But why only stand up for Palestine and not the Rohingya or Uyghur, Yemen, Congo? What is the reason you're so vocal about this group only? Or maybe it's not a coincidence, it's because you're against the Israeli rather than backing Palestine? Is it the popular leftist anti-zionism you support, not the "innocent Gazans" that voted Hamas into power and were dancing on the streets on the 7th of October?
Because I do in other places. I just don't here because that's not the point of this thread - unless you're trying to derail it? Regardless, other people have already addressed in this thread why that's a stupid question to ask. I don't know, maybe you are trying to be disruptive. Maybe you're one of the people shouting full throat in the Knesset about how raping Palestinian prisoners is okay. That maybe the IDF should be allowed a little rape. As a treat. See, I can cast ridiculous aspersions too.
You are aware that 3/4ths of Gazan's that currently exist weren't old enough to vote during their last election? That half of them weren't even born yet? But sure, "they elected them".
|
On August 20 2024 11:24 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2024 07:54 aseq wrote:
And no, we don't need demonstrations for Israel, of course. But why only stand up for Palestine and not the Rohingya or Uyghur, Yemen, Congo? What is the reason you're so vocal about this group only? Or maybe it's not a coincidence, it's because you're against the Israeli rather than backing Palestine? Is it the popular leftist anti-zionism you support, not the "innocent Gazans" that voted Hamas into power and were dancing on the streets on the 7th of October? Because I do in other places. I just don't here because that's not the point of this thread - unless you're trying to derail it? Regardless, other people have already addressed in this thread why that's a stupid question to ask. I don't know, maybe you are trying to be disruptive. Maybe you're one of the people shouting full throat in the Knesset about how raping Palestinian prisoners is okay. That maybe the IDF should be allowed a little rape. As a treat. See, I can cast ridiculous aspersions too. You are aware that 3/4ths of Gazan's that currently exist weren't old enough to vote during their last election? That half of them weren't even born yet? But sure, "they elected them".
And Hamas also eliminated all opposition after the elections, so we can't get a picture of what that opposition would look like even without continued elections. And that's on top of Hamas' brainwashing efforts. In spite of all that, Hamas is/was only a few ten thousand strong. You'd think if they had full support of the population, they'd number in the hundreds of thousands.
|
On August 20 2024 01:20 Uldridge wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2024 21:35 stilt wrote:
My hostility came from the fact you're talking, as you admit, about stuff you have no idea about like the myanmar sanctions and you are extremely dishonnest when you're comparing the overwhelming western support through weapons, finance, diplomaty that israel enjoys and the so called support to china who is currently in a commercial and ideological war with the west. It's crazy to compare the two in good faith Perhaps. I don't know how Western-Chinese relations are actually playing out, but I do know we still exchange students and import Chinese raw materials. So there must be something extremely valuable they're providing at the very least. Overwhelming support might be a bit much, but maybe you'd do well in trying to understand why these government are acting the way they do - you seem very passionate and quite knowledgeable oj the subject. Is it simply a way to destabilize the region (why?)? Do the Israeli's actually have an ontological leg to stand on? Are all these governments then unethical/imbecilic? Haven't they done the analysis? Or are they merely using a double standard?
Honestly I don't have any numbers which is a bit of shame considering my job but france at least is super dependant of China as we have little industry and don't produce much.
I don't really understand all these questions, like the onthological one, you mean : has israel a raison d'être ? I guess so after the shoah, the debate before that between jews was rather tense. Secular jew opposed to israel were saying the zionist were playing a antisemitic trope that jews were foreign to Europe while they consider themselves as the peak of european civilisation, hard to contradict thay with the numerous jewish scientists and scholars at the time. Until the 1948 and the independance of arab nations, the vast majority of jewish immigration came from ashkenazes who flew the persecution in europe or believed in zionism, genrally both.
After the shoah, the idea of Israel was not refutable but the tragedy isn't its existence but rather the place. Firstly, it wasn't good for the israeli themselves : they became the continuation of the british protectorate which reigns thanks to their weapons, it led them to a slope of supremacism in order to justify this new order.
And it wasn't fair either for the population who lived there.
A lot of zionist brings the argument of the cultural link between jerusalem and the jewish people, it's true but middle east is where civilization is born, where both administrative writing and literature are born, where the three monotheists religions are born, everybody has a cultural link with this region.
As for the notion of "people", well, the negation of palestine as a nation isn't valid either, colonized people for the most part didn't have a nation-state prior to the colonization it isn't a argument noth is the "arab invasion" because it doesn't take into account the sedimentation of the people. The palestinians are a agregate of the different people who have been around since 2000 years just like the french, you have been invaded by the romans then the germans and so what, the "true celts" can't claim you are invaders either.
Lastly, it's the tragedy for the west as apparently we share the same values as Israel. And indeed the far right now supports it and it's scary to see such policies becoming a model. Just like the french colonial war in Algeria made france pretty close of becoming a military dictatorship at least twice. There is a beautiful text of aime cesaire about how the colonialism brings barbarism to the colonizers.
As far as where israel should have been, well, in this imaginary world, israel should have been in a part of germany, that's the german who performed the genocide after all.
That said, israel is in palestine and it is here to stay but stopping the support is a necessity both for the palestinians sake and ours.
As for instability, no, I think us support is more ideological than pragmatic, tbh, I don't like explaining such long and deep policies with ideological motives but yeah, I'd said the traumatism of the shoah, christian zionism which is extremely strong and the very idea of conflict of civilization are among the main component. Before they were the fall of communism...
As for the governement, I mean, historically after the algerian war, France initiated a pro arab policy and have been overall favorable to the palestinian until Sarkozy who wanted to be more aligned with the us after the iraq refusal, ethic is rarely considered after all. We're following the same policy since then of alignement with the US no matter what, we even fucked up Libya together. 
There is the rise of the far right which counts as well. Muslim and arab especially after the attentats are not very liked which makes this so called war evencmore acceptable. Finally the role of the media as well, today ofc as zionist lobbyism reigns suprem but before as well : Both albert londres and robert capra, prolly the most famous wartime photographer of all time openly stated they will present only the zionist side.
Meanwhile the TIMES gives his tribune to benny morris, a guy who acknowledges a ethnic cleansing, accuses ben gourion of not going as far as he should and then retracts his statement while making bordeline racist remarks is giving a tribune by the TIMES, that's pathetic. And ofc, there is no equivalently big media in the west which gives the same lines and conditions to major historians like Ilan Pape.
What is true for usa is mostly for the rest of the world, only the paramaters change (shoah traumatism, religious nutjob, political alignement with the us, uneducation and racism). The political alignement is the most valid reason, the country which we are even more dependant than china is the us, sanctionning israel will expose us to heavy sanction by the US and will hurt us considerably more. But firstly, that would be morally just, and secundly that would be in the long term a good way to not become like the israeli society.
And I am passionate about it because I know people from there. And I worried about the current path took by our societies and how we will be judge in the future.
|
@Ryzel
Thanks for replying in this way. I understand that many people aren't able to uphold a civil discussion and I think it needs to be pointed out, when it is actually happening.
To my first point: Well, so far, even when I directly asked people if they acknowledge these facts, they didn't respond or responded to other points without the acknowledgement. As I specifically asked these questions to check for good faith, I would like a clear answer. The implicit nature is not clear to me, especially when Israel is attacked in the responses I get.
And I don't see why I would need to defend the position you proposed. Unnecessary deaths happen in every war, Israel is no exception and I made this perfectly clear a lot of times already.
A nation that takes more precautions to save civilians than any other warring faction before it, will still create avoidable casualties. But we can simply compare facts to see if my proposal is fair or not..
Let’s look at the soldier-civilian casualty ratio from similar densely populated areas and Gaza.
Hamas says that 39k have died and 60% were civilians. Note, that these are the figures of Hamas, a terrorist organization. But even taking those numbers we arrive at a ratio of 1:1,5
In other densely populated conflict zones, the numbers are as follows.
Mosul 1:4 to 1:5
Aleppo 1:4
Grozny 1:10
Beirut 1:3 to 1:5
Sarajevo 1:3 to 1:4
Israel heavily outperforms these other conflicts massively, despite the tactics of Hamas to hide in civilian infrastructures. How one can look at these numbers and not acknowledge Israel’s efforts or the fact that it delayed the ground offensive, endangering its own troops, is something I don’t understand.
Second: I said several times that genocidal rhetoric or war crimes/crimes in general should be prosecuted and people should be held accountable.
The idea of genocide simply is irritating to me when looking at the numbers above and the following ones. With the population of Gaza standing at 2.2 million and 39k being casualties, 1,77% of the population is dead.
Let’s look at other genocides:
Rwanda: 70% of the Tutsi were killed
Jews in Europe during Holocaust: 66%
Cambodia: 20-25%.
Armenia: 70-75%
Herero and Namaqua: 75%/50%
Do these two comparisons showcase genocide (again not denying that there are some lunatics in the IDF who commit genocidal crimes)?
“they’re telling you to own up to the arguments”
But where didn’t I?
Further, while writing this and re-thinking a lot of these conversations, I realized that I think that a lot of disagreement from my side stems from the asymmetrical view of looking at which side attacks/is attacked, which side deliberately targets civilians and how unfairly Israel is portrayed here at times. Because I already said that every warring faction fights for a “just” cause from their POV. But I think there is a massive asymmetry inherent in this conflict that makes me question why so many people try to attack Israel. Funny enough, I look at this mostly from a statistical POV. I have no Israeli friends or family. I can fully embrace the plight of the Palestinian people while also understanding the immense difficulties on several levels that Israel is facing.
@Magic Powers
I am seriously lost here.
You accused me of embracing “might makes right” and rejecting the Spider-Man quote "with great power comes great responsibility"... these are your words:
“I see no point in arguing with someone who embraces "might makes right" and rejects "with great power comes great responsibility". “
You made this accusation after I wrote this:
“MagicPowers implies that this would go against "With great power, comes great responsibility" which is nonsense. It is the responsibility of the leader of the inferior force to acknowledge defeat. It is the responsibility of the superior force to make acceptable terms for defeat (to avoid Versailles-consequences for example).
The problem comes into play if the superior force is immoral as Liquid'Drone said (although I have to say that the inverse-notion can but must not be true): Imagine a reversal of power and Israel needs to accept defeat. We probably all can see how that would end. Or if the Nazis would have won. They probably would never have made responsible terms for the Allies unless being forced to by factors like a revolting citizenship, resource shortage or pressure from their allies.
But does anyone in their right mind actually believe that an immoral superior force would act responsibly in this scenario? The whole idea that a superior force needs to be responsible is illogical, assuming the superior force is acting out of immoral goals, which ignore responsibility to begin with.”
So please quote where you think that I embrace “might makes right” and reject the Spider-Man quote.
I further clarified that I don’t embrace “might makes right” with this:
“Because I not once said or implied "might makes right".
I further said that "with great power comes great responsibility" is an idiotic sentiment when thinking about a superior power having to dial back on war. I never rejected it. I even said how the inferior and superior side have different responsibilities: "It is the responsibility of the leader of the inferior force to acknowledge defeat. It is the responsibility of the superior force to make acceptable terms for defeat (to avoid Versailles-consequences for example). "
I gave further context that an immoral enemy won't give two shits about responsibility anyway, hence why I said it was an idiotic sentiment.”
AND
if you want me to repeat, I say it again: I don’t think “might makes right” is a sensible statement and I don’t reject “with great power comes great responsibility”. I simply pointed out that “an immoral enemy won't give two shits about responsibility anyway, hence why I said it was an idiotic sentiment.”
Further you said that: “ imprisoning them in Palestinian land”.
To this I said: “Because how is Israel imprisoning them? Can't these Palestinians leave the area through other countries?”
To which you shifted the focus away from my follow-up question about imprisonment, trying to straw man me with : “I can't believe we're back at the "Palestinians can just up and leave" from a few weeks or months ago…”
Implying that it is my position that Palestinians should simply leave, which I not once said (if you think differently, quote me). Thus my question still stands: How is Israel imprisoning the Palestinians, if it doesn’t surround Gaza or the West Bank on all sides?
“Your whole shtick is a complete waste of time. I haven't seen anyone else on this forum who trolls people so blatantly with absolutely zero signs of shame.”
Funnily enough, it is you who is making absolutely no sense here. You either are unable or unwilling to see this.
@stilt
How am I not holding Israel accountable? Should I quote all the times I said that all people and the state itself should be held accountable and take responsibility?
You can read up on the Hamas numbers and comparisons of other conflict zones in my response to Ryzel in this same post.
Yes, you addressed some things and then replied with follow ups. These were:
What exactly do you mean with religious Apartheid? Are there laws in Israel directly targeting Muslims? Aren't they allowed to vote? What is your exact accusation?
If you refer to the occupied zones: A military occupation is no Apartheid, especially when these zones have self governance/autonomy.
You never clarified these.
What do you mean by “ a right of death on the other”?
Ok, one can frame it the way you did or one can mention the security concerns Jordan and Egypt both rightfully have. Muslim extremists and Sinai have a history and it is not only Israel that has security concerns regarding the Palestinians.
Jordan, while also having security concerns, also has issues with the demographic as nearly 50% of Jordan already is of Palestinian origin. Thus, I wouldn’t call these governments exactly pro-Israeli, but rather having a pragmatic relationship with Israel and a suspicious look on Palestinians.
Yes, one can be grateful for humanitarian aid.
The way you frame this conversation seems like every number/info I put out is anti-Palestine, pro-Israel propaganda. Further, the number itself is not even the issue. You said “Arabs were slaughtered in 1948, not the other ways around”. Thus I asked:
So no Jews/Israelis were slaughtered in 1948? The roughly 6k killed Jews/Israelis in 1948 is a conspiracy?
No idea if you deliberately didn’t answer or if it was a slip, but it would be nice to hear you say something about it.
The displacement of the Jews of the surrounding Arab states is whataboutism? How so? The war involved the Palestinians and 7 Arab states. And no… the figures I gave are of 1948-1951, not the years after. As these displacements are all a consequence of 1948, I don’t see what issue you have with them.
Overall: It is obvious that you heavily favor the Palestinian perspective, which is fine. We can quarrel about numbers, incidents or framing. But isn’t the most important question for this region how these conflicts should be tackled? Or are you all simply here to bash on Israel whenever something news-worthy lights up?
@Nebuchad
Cool, then I think we agree to disagree.
|
On August 21 2024 22:19 PremoBeats wrote:
@Nebuchad
Cool, then I think we agree to disagree.
We have a disagreement on whether it's good to kill Palestinians, you think it's good and I think it's bad.
We have a disagreement on what debates are about, I think they're about trying to figure out what position fits most with the facts in the real world and adopting that position, while you think they're about forcefully defending the side that you're already on regardless of how reality works.
Honestly I don't know if I can agree to disagree with either of those. In a sense I feel like I shouldn't because those are despicable and cowardly positions/behaviors. But in another sense I probably already do, because it's obvious from the start that I won't change your mind and I don't lose sleep over it. All right let's agree to disagree I guess.
|
On August 20 2024 22:03 stilt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2024 01:20 Uldridge wrote:On August 19 2024 21:35 stilt wrote:
My hostility came from the fact you're talking, as you admit, about stuff you have no idea about like the myanmar sanctions and you are extremely dishonnest when you're comparing the overwhelming western support through weapons, finance, diplomaty that israel enjoys and the so called support to china who is currently in a commercial and ideological war with the west. It's crazy to compare the two in good faith Perhaps. I don't know how Western-Chinese relations are actually playing out, but I do know we still exchange students and import Chinese raw materials. So there must be something extremely valuable they're providing at the very least. Overwhelming support might be a bit much, but maybe you'd do well in trying to understand why these government are acting the way they do - you seem very passionate and quite knowledgeable oj the subject. Is it simply a way to destabilize the region (why?)? Do the Israeli's actually have an ontological leg to stand on? Are all these governments then unethical/imbecilic? Haven't they done the analysis? Or are they merely using a double standard? Honestly I don't have any numbers which is a bit of shame considering my job but france at least is super dependant of China as we have little industry and don't produce much. I don't really understand all these questions, like the onthological one, you mean : has israel a raison d'être ? I guess so after the shoah, the debate before that between jews was rather tense. Secular jew opposed to israel were saying the zionist were playing a antisemitic trope that jews were foreign to Europe while they consider themselves as the peak of european civilisation, hard to contradict thay with the numerous jewish scientists and scholars at the time. Until the 1948 and the independance of arab nations, the vast majority of jewish immigration came from ashkenazes who flew the persecution in europe or believed in zionism, genrally both. After the shoah, the idea of Israel was not refutable but the tragedy isn't its existence but rather the place. Firstly, it wasn't good for the israeli themselves : they became the continuation of the british protectorate which reigns thanks to their weapons, it led them to a slope of supremacism in order to justify this new order. And it wasn't fair either for the population who lived there. A lot of zionist brings the argument of the cultural link between jerusalem and the jewish people, it's true but middle east is where civilization is born, where both administrative writing and literature are born, where the three monotheists religions are born, everybody has a cultural link with this region. As for the notion of "people", well, the negation of palestine as a nation isn't valid either, colonized people for the most part didn't have a nation-state prior to the colonization it isn't a argument noth is the "arab invasion" because it doesn't take into account the sedimentation of the people. The palestinians are a agregate of the different people who have been around since 2000 years just like the french, you have been invaded by the romans then the germans and so what, the "true celts" can't claim you are invaders either. Lastly, it's the tragedy for the west as apparently we share the same values as Israel. And indeed the far right now supports it and it's scary to see such policies becoming a model. Just like the french colonial war in Algeria made france pretty close of becoming a military dictatorship at least twice. There is a beautiful text of aime cesaire about how the colonialism brings barbarism to the colonizers. As far as where israel should have been, well, in this imaginary world, israel should have been in a part of germany, that's the german who performed the genocide after all. That said, israel is in palestine and it is here to stay but stopping the support is a necessity both for the palestinians sake and ours. As for instability, no, I think us support is more ideological than pragmatic, tbh, I don't like explaining such long and deep policies with ideological motives but yeah, I'd said the traumatism of the shoah, christian zionism which is extremely strong and the very idea of conflict of civilization are among the main component. Before they were the fall of communism... As for the governement, I mean, historically after the algerian war, France initiated a pro arab policy and have been overall favorable to the palestinian until Sarkozy who wanted to be more aligned with the us after the iraq refusal, ethic is rarely considered after all. We're following the same policy since then of alignement with the US no matter what, we even fucked up Libya together. There is the rise of the far right which counts as well. Muslim and arab especially after the attentats are not very liked which makes this so called war evencmore acceptable. Finally the role of the media as well, today ofc as zionist lobbyism reigns suprem but before as well : Both albert londres and robert capra, prolly the most famous wartime photographer of all time openly stated they will present only the zionist side. Meanwhile the TIMES gives his tribune to benny morris, a guy who acknowledges a ethnic cleansing, accuses ben gourion of not going as far as he should and then retracts his statement while making bordeline racist remarks is giving a tribune by the TIMES, that's pathetic. And ofc, there is no equivalently big media in the west which gives the same lines and conditions to major historians like Ilan Pape. What is true for usa is mostly for the rest of the world, only the paramaters change (shoah traumatism, religious nutjob, political alignement with the us, uneducation and racism). The political alignement is the most valid reason, the country which we are even more dependant than china is the us, sanctionning israel will expose us to heavy sanction by the US and will hurt us considerably more. But firstly, that would be morally just, and secundly that would be in the long term a good way to not become like the israeli society. And I am passionate about it because I know people from there. And I worried about the current path took by our societies and how we will be judge in the future.
Pappe isn't a major historian. He's a self admitted ideologue whose work is full of factual inaccuracies, misrepresentation, and even outright fabrications. That he's not taken as seriously as Morris has nothing to do with zionist lobbyism.
|
On August 22 2024 00:13 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2024 22:19 PremoBeats wrote:
@Nebuchad
Cool, then I think we agree to disagree. We have a disagreement on whether it's good to kill Palestinians, you think it's good and I think it's bad. We have a disagreement on what debates are about, I think they're about trying to figure out what position fits most with the facts in the real world and adopting that position, while you think they're about forcefully defending the side that you're already on regardless of how reality works. Honestly I don't know if I can agree to disagree with either of those. In a sense I feel like I shouldn't because those are despicable and cowardly positions/behaviors. But in another sense I probably already do, because it's obvious from the start that I won't change your mind and I don't lose sleep over it. All right let's agree to disagree I guess.
What kind of insane straw man is that? Where did I ever say I think that it is good to kill Palestinians? Are you for real?
The other notion is also comically inacurate. I even disregarded the reality of uti possidetis juris to talk to you about the occupation, as it is not important to the points I am making. I simply look for people who are able to talk past the usual boring us versus them plotlines.
When I realized you were not up to talk about uti possidetis juris, I discarded it or did I not?
|
On August 22 2024 23:16 PremoBeats wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2024 00:13 Nebuchad wrote:On August 21 2024 22:19 PremoBeats wrote:
@Nebuchad
Cool, then I think we agree to disagree. We have a disagreement on whether it's good to kill Palestinians, you think it's good and I think it's bad. We have a disagreement on what debates are about, I think they're about trying to figure out what position fits most with the facts in the real world and adopting that position, while you think they're about forcefully defending the side that you're already on regardless of how reality works. Honestly I don't know if I can agree to disagree with either of those. In a sense I feel like I shouldn't because those are despicable and cowardly positions/behaviors. But in another sense I probably already do, because it's obvious from the start that I won't change your mind and I don't lose sleep over it. All right let's agree to disagree I guess. What kind of insane straw man is that? Where did I ever say I think that it is good to kill Palestinians? Are you for real? The other notion is also comically inacurate. I even disregarded the reality of uti possidetis juris to talk to you about the occupation, as it is not important to the points I am making. I simply look for people who are able to talk past the usual boring us versus them plotlines. When I realized you were not up to talk about uti possidetis juris, I discarded it or did I not?
You didn't convince me, sorry. Have a nice day anyway.
|
I think it's strange that you can just imply someone is acting in bad faith, simply because he doesn't fit your world view, or looks at the accounts of what happens differently.
I don't have an issue with Premo because I don't think he is actually talking in bad faith, I think he simply feels like there's no sympathy - if you can even call it that - for a country that's fighting an existential battle in a very hostile environment and right now, sadly, the Palestinians are under their very heavy thumb because of a very very stupid action Hamas has performed on October 7. There should be some counterbalance in this thread, no?
The only facts are that facts are a nebulous thing. Parties tries to obfuscate or spin data for them to be seen in their favor. If scientists do this, you better believe ideologues will try to spin everything they can so they can seem favourably for them as well.
We know cultural relativism is a thing. We know we see things through a subjective lens. Saying there's only one possible synthesis by looking at the facts is silly imo. I won't end a discussion with someone because they contest me, I find that interesting, because there must something to agree on, no?
When he says he doesn't think it's ok to kill Palestinians, you can just dismiss that because his ultimate conclusions differ from yours? You'll probably counter with an analogy in the realm of "an alcoholic can also say he's not an alcoholic, but his breath surely reveals what he truly is", only this time it's more insidious, because the talking points reveal something much more horrible: on the one hand he says it's not okay to kill Palestinians but on the other he's defending a nation that at the very least is ethnically cleansing Palestine!
I think it's a messy history with a lot of bad actors. Good intentions have eroded over a long time and people are now so jaded, so bitter, so cynical, so angry that it'll simply take a while before something constructive will take place.
I don't know what Israel's end goal is here. I think they want to secure their people some land and want safe land and will do a lot to take that, but to go so far as to extinguish a Palestinian people, I'm not convinced they will actually do. They've killed a lot of Gazans and will probably have tens of thousands - ultimately - perish before this entire ordeal is over, but if they can secure their land and severely dampen the terrorist groups and nations that want them to be eradicated, I think they'll stop being the aggressors.
For the Gazans, the outlook is a lot more bleak because they're caught in the perpetual cycle of repression. How do you get out of this kind of cycle of violence? Maybe if enough global support makes Israel reconsider violently trying to weed out Hamas and Hamas itself starts moderating you might have some stability in your area, but that seems like a pipedream for now. Maybe the current talks will make Israel ease up a bit. I surely hope they stop bombing 20 civilians for 1 probable Hamas operative.
|
Northern Ireland22767 Posts
On August 23 2024 00:15 Uldridge wrote:
I think it's strange that you can just imply someone is acting in bad faith, simply because he doesn't fit your world view, or looks at the accounts of what happens differently.
I don't have an issue with Premo because I don't think he is actually talking in bad faith, I think he simply feels like there's no sympathy - if you can even call it that - for a country that's fighting an existential battle in a very hostile environment and right now, sadly, the Palestinians are under their very heavy thumb because of a very very stupid action Hamas has performed on October 7. There should be some counterbalance in this thread, no?
The only facts are that facts are a nebulous thing. Parties tries to obfuscate or spin data for them to be seen in their favor. If scientists do this, you better believe ideologues will try to spin everything they can so they can seem favourably for them as well.
We know cultural relativism is a thing. We know we see things through a subjective lens. Saying there's only one possible synthesis by looking at the facts is silly imo. I won't end a discussion with someone because they contest me, I find that interesting, because there must something to agree on, no?
When he says he doesn't think it's ok to kill Palestinians, you can just dismiss that because his ultimate conclusions differ from yours? You'll probably counter with an analogy in the realm of "an alcoholic can also say he's not an alcoholic, but his breath surely reveals what he truly is", only this time it's more insidious, because the talking points reveal something much more horrible: on the one hand he says it's not okay to kill Palestinians but on the other he's defending a nation that at the very least is ethnically cleansing Palestine!
I think it's a messy history with a lot of bad actors. Good intentions have eroded over a long time and people are now so jaded, so bitter, so cynical, so angry that it'll simply take a while before something constructive will take place.
I don't know what Israel's end goal is here. I think they want to secure their people some land and want safe land and will do a lot to take that, but to go so far as to extinguish a Palestinian people, I'm not convinced they will actually do. They've killed a lot of Gazans and will probably have tens of thousands - ultimately - perish before this entire ordeal is over, but if they can secure their land and severely dampen the terrorist groups and nations that want them to be eradicated, I think they'll stop being the aggressors.
For the Gazans, the outlook is a lot more bleak because they're caught in the perpetual cycle of repression. How do you get out of this kind of cycle of violence? Maybe if enough global support makes Israel reconsider violently trying to weed out Hamas and Hamas itself starts moderating you might have some stability in your area, but that seems like a pipedream for now. Maybe the current talks will make Israel ease up a bit. I surely hope they stop bombing 20 civilians for 1 probable Hamas operative.
Israel isn’t remotely fighting an existential battle though. What makes you think an expansionist state will stop expanding? Given many of its political leadership are also committed to said expansion, and openly say that they are.
Bad faith argumentation is just a lack of basic honesty on one’s positions. Be pro-Israel by all means, but couching it in more universalist principles, just so happening to side with the Israeli perspective on every single point while claiming to be neutral is pretty transparent nonsense
|
Wait so when every country around you wants your people to stop existing, or at the very least the nation you live in, you're not in an existential conflict? And I'm not talking about the "people just think Israel shouldn't exist", I'm talking about the "launching rockets at you daily, attempting some terrorist attack every other year and us getting together every 20 to try and erase them from the map". Granted, it's been a while since there was a war, but no one can predict the future, especially now that Iran's been grandstanding for the last couple of months.
|
The more land Israel steals from Palestinians while killing them, the less I believe Israel is fighting for its existence, and the more I believe Palestinians are fighting for their existence.
|
On August 23 2024 00:15 Uldridge wrote:
I think it's strange that you can just imply someone is acting in bad faith, simply because he doesn't fit your world view, or looks at the accounts of what happens differently.
I don't have an issue with Premo because I don't think he is actually talking in bad faith, I think he simply feels like there's no sympathy - if you can even call it that - for a country that's fighting an existential battle in a very hostile environment and right now, sadly, the Palestinians are under their very heavy thumb because of a very very stupid action Hamas has performed on October 7. There should be some counterbalance in this thread, no?
The only facts are that facts are a nebulous thing. Parties tries to obfuscate or spin data for them to be seen in their favor. If scientists do this, you better believe ideologues will try to spin everything they can so they can seem favourably for them as well.
We know cultural relativism is a thing. We know we see things through a subjective lens. Saying there's only one possible synthesis by looking at the facts is silly imo. I won't end a discussion with someone because they contest me, I find that interesting, because there must something to agree on, no?
When he says he doesn't think it's ok to kill Palestinians, you can just dismiss that because his ultimate conclusions differ from yours? You'll probably counter with an analogy in the realm of "an alcoholic can also say he's not an alcoholic, but his breath surely reveals what he truly is", only this time it's more insidious, because the talking points reveal something much more horrible: on the one hand he says it's not okay to kill Palestinians but on the other he's defending a nation that at the very least is ethnically cleansing Palestine!
I think it's a messy history with a lot of bad actors. Good intentions have eroded over a long time and people are now so jaded, so bitter, so cynical, so angry that it'll simply take a while before something constructive will take place.
I don't know what Israel's end goal is here. I think they want to secure their people some land and want safe land and will do a lot to take that, but to go so far as to extinguish a Palestinian people, I'm not convinced they will actually do. They've killed a lot of Gazans and will probably have tens of thousands - ultimately - perish before this entire ordeal is over, but if they can secure their land and severely dampen the terrorist groups and nations that want them to be eradicated, I think they'll stop being the aggressors.
For the Gazans, the outlook is a lot more bleak because they're caught in the perpetual cycle of repression. How do you get out of this kind of cycle of violence? Maybe if enough global support makes Israel reconsider violently trying to weed out Hamas and Hamas itself starts moderating you might have some stability in your area, but that seems like a pipedream for now. Maybe the current talks will make Israel ease up a bit. I surely hope they stop bombing 20 civilians for 1 probable Hamas operative.
Edit: a mention of PremoBeats.
It's one of my main bias that I tend to assume dishonesty before I assume stupidity, I've known that about myself for years. But in this case I really don't think it's my bias talking, I just think I'm right. I can't stress out enough how cartoonish this situation is to me, I think if this was a script for a movie trying to be sold, it would be rejected because 1) it would be deemed antisemitic to make Netanyahou so obviously evil, and 2) it would be deemed insulting and patronizing to the audience to make it so clear which side you're supposed to be on.
We can summarize again, here's a guy whose father left Israel because Israel wasn't fascistic enough in his view, and raised a good little fascist who since he was young expressed very clearly his intent to ethnically cleanse Palestine so that it can become a part of Israel without shaking up the ethnic balance of the state. While in the opposition he very clearly incited violence against the person trying to reach peace with Palestinians, so clearly so that intelligence services contacted him and told him to stop because one of his followers was probably going to attempt to kill Yitzhak Rabin. Fully aware of this state of facts, he didn't stop, and then Rabin was indeed murdered by one of his followers, at which point he went "Hmm such a shame, ah well nevertheless, let's go after Palestinians now". He ruled for a long while, changed the Constitution of his country to have it in writing that Jews should have more rights than Arabs, accelerated the practice of settling the West Bank and supported kahanists as they did so, and actively propped up Hamas, a terrorist group, with the reasoning that if Hamas is strong it's harder for Palestinians to be united and as such it's harder for them to become a state, which is an issue for him because he doesn't want them to have a state, instead he wants them to be ethnically cleansed and their lands to belong to Israel. His popularity wanes and he might face justice for corruption issues, so in order to stay in power he allies himself with people who are to *his* far right, like some guy who was rejected from the fucking IDF for being too racist against Arabs and who kept a portrait of a mass shooter who killed muslims in his house, and that's the new leading coalition of the country.
It is inconceivable to me that anyone who is familiar with this government seriously thinks that this isn't a government who would kill as many Palestinians as they think they can get away with. But then evidence comes in that this government is killing a bunch of civilians, and none of the people on forums' positions ever budge, sure Israel does a few war crimes from time to time but they "have western values" so they're not a problem. That's an insane view, and I don't mean it rhetorically, I mean I think anyone who truly believes this should be institutionalized.
Luckily I don't think anyone truly believes this, really, I have an alternative theory which is much more logical in my view. I've noticed that a lot of people in the West don't like islam very much, it represents a threat in their view, especially the "radical islam", that's a really terrifying thing. Now there's a lot of radical islam in Palestine, I've noticed, they do a lot of terrorism and the main group that represents those acts of terrorism is a radical muslim group. So let's check how I feel about the people who I think are threatening, would I feel bad if they got killed? Not really, I wouldn't. If that shooter had killed Trump, I certainly wouldn't have shed a tear, because I believe Trump is a threat to democracy in the US and on an international level. I also recognize that the problem is systemic and not Trump as an individual, so I wouldn't actually advocate violence against him, that wouldn't be effective, but killing him wouldn't elicit the same response in me as killing Bernie Sanders.
That sounds coherent so far, now let's imagine that I'm rightwing and I've never thought in a systemic fashion in my entire life, as is the case of almost every single rightwinger. I think that this group is a threat, and I see that other group is killing a bunch of them. Some threatening people are dying. That seems good. The world is now safer. Maybe I should defend that, even when some lines are crossed, who cares, I'm trying to defend myself, not Palestinians.
Everything in this reasoning works, the only problem is, of course, that islam isn't actually a threat. But if you were to believe that it is, then everything else flows logically. But nobody ever espouses that point of view, because it's not politically correct. So my theory is that a lot of people think this, but don't think they get to say it, and that's why we have these absurd arguments based on worldviews that no human subscribes to.
|
On August 23 2024 00:55 Uldridge wrote:
Wait so when every country around you wants your people to stop existing, or at the very least the nation you live in, you're not in an existential conflict? And I'm not talking about the "people just think Israel shouldn't exist", I'm talking about the "launching rockets at you daily, attempting some terrorist attack every other year and us getting together every 20 to try and erase them from the map". Granted, it's been a while since there was a war, but no one can predict the future, especially now that Iran's been grandstanding for the last couple of months. Countries around Israel want them to stop existing, and launch missiles and fund terrorist attacks, but none of them can actually make good on that desire.
Israel's actual existence hasn't been under threat since like the 6 day war. They are the dominant military power in the region, by a WIDE margin.
Hezbollah, Hamas, Iran are no more an existential threat to Israel then Mexican drug cartels are an existential threat to the United States.
|
On August 23 2024 01:07 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2024 00:55 Uldridge wrote:
Wait so when every country around you wants your people to stop existing, or at the very least the nation you live in, you're not in an existential conflict? And I'm not talking about the "people just think Israel shouldn't exist", I'm talking about the "launching rockets at you daily, attempting some terrorist attack every other year and us getting together every 20 to try and erase them from the map". Granted, it's been a while since there was a war, but no one can predict the future, especially now that Iran's been grandstanding for the last couple of months. Countries around Israel want them to stop existing, and launch missiles and fund terrorist attacks, but none of them can actually make good on that desire. Israel's actual existence hasn't been under threat since like the 6 day war. They are the dominant military power in the region, by a WIDE margin. Hezbollah, Hamas, Iran are no more an existential threat to Israel then Mexican drug cartels are an existential threat to the United States.
I think we should start asking people to name countries/groups that they consider a real threat to Israel. If they name Iran/Hezbollah/Hamas, they immediately lose the argument.
|
On August 23 2024 01:29 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2024 01:07 Gorsameth wrote:On August 23 2024 00:55 Uldridge wrote:
Wait so when every country around you wants your people to stop existing, or at the very least the nation you live in, you're not in an existential conflict? And I'm not talking about the "people just think Israel shouldn't exist", I'm talking about the "launching rockets at you daily, attempting some terrorist attack every other year and us getting together every 20 to try and erase them from the map". Granted, it's been a while since there was a war, but no one can predict the future, especially now that Iran's been grandstanding for the last couple of months. Countries around Israel want them to stop existing, and launch missiles and fund terrorist attacks, but none of them can actually make good on that desire. Israel's actual existence hasn't been under threat since like the 6 day war. They are the dominant military power in the region, by a WIDE margin. Hezbollah, Hamas, Iran are no more an existential threat to Israel then Mexican drug cartels are an existential threat to the United States. I think we should start asking people to name countries/groups that they consider a real threat to Israel. If they name Iran/Hezbollah/Hamas, they immediately lose the argument.
They are about as much threat to Israel as the protestors were to the tanks in Tiananmen Square.
|
Feels like israelis are a larger threat to existence to Palestinians than the other way around with hamas and israel Even if somehow things change rapidly in the middle east with the other players, doubt the rest of the world would be sitting around doing nothing before Israel cease to exist. I mean there are some us carriers parked in the area right?
|
On August 23 2024 01:32 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2024 01:29 Magic Powers wrote:On August 23 2024 01:07 Gorsameth wrote:On August 23 2024 00:55 Uldridge wrote:
Wait so when every country around you wants your people to stop existing, or at the very least the nation you live in, you're not in an existential conflict? And I'm not talking about the "people just think Israel shouldn't exist", I'm talking about the "launching rockets at you daily, attempting some terrorist attack every other year and us getting together every 20 to try and erase them from the map". Granted, it's been a while since there was a war, but no one can predict the future, especially now that Iran's been grandstanding for the last couple of months. Countries around Israel want them to stop existing, and launch missiles and fund terrorist attacks, but none of them can actually make good on that desire. Israel's actual existence hasn't been under threat since like the 6 day war. They are the dominant military power in the region, by a WIDE margin. Hezbollah, Hamas, Iran are no more an existential threat to Israel then Mexican drug cartels are an existential threat to the United States. I think we should start asking people to name countries/groups that they consider a real threat to Israel. If they name Iran/Hezbollah/Hamas, they immediately lose the argument. They are about as much threat to Israel as the protestors were to the tanks in Tiananmen Square.
Easy to say when you have no skin in the game, but I guarantee the people in Israel doesn't feel that way. They are surrounded by hostile nations, including Hizbollah whose capacity is unknown but thought to be quite substantial (150 000 rockets, I think?). They just suffered an insanely murderous terror attack from Gaza and they have 100 000+ internal refugees because the northern part of the country is too dangerous to inhabit. I think there is a very real threat to the existence of the nation, even though Israel still has the upper hand in the conflict.
|
On August 23 2024 05:04 Elroi wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2024 01:32 Jockmcplop wrote:On August 23 2024 01:29 Magic Powers wrote:On August 23 2024 01:07 Gorsameth wrote:On August 23 2024 00:55 Uldridge wrote:
Wait so when every country around you wants your people to stop existing, or at the very least the nation you live in, you're not in an existential conflict? And I'm not talking about the "people just think Israel shouldn't exist", I'm talking about the "launching rockets at you daily, attempting some terrorist attack every other year and us getting together every 20 to try and erase them from the map". Granted, it's been a while since there was a war, but no one can predict the future, especially now that Iran's been grandstanding for the last couple of months. Countries around Israel want them to stop existing, and launch missiles and fund terrorist attacks, but none of them can actually make good on that desire. Israel's actual existence hasn't been under threat since like the 6 day war. They are the dominant military power in the region, by a WIDE margin. Hezbollah, Hamas, Iran are no more an existential threat to Israel then Mexican drug cartels are an existential threat to the United States. I think we should start asking people to name countries/groups that they consider a real threat to Israel. If they name Iran/Hezbollah/Hamas, they immediately lose the argument. They are about as much threat to Israel as the protestors were to the tanks in Tiananmen Square. Easy to say when you have no skin in the game, but I guarantee the people in Israel doesn't feel that way. They are surrounded by hostile nations, including Hizbollah whose capacity is unknown but thought to be quite substantial (150 000 rockets, I think?). They just suffered an insanely murderous terror attack from Gaza and they have 100 000+ internal refugees because the northern part of the country is too dangerous to inhabit. I think there is a very real threat to the existence of the nation, even though Israel still has the upper hand in the conflict.
I'm sure the drivers of the tanks were concerned about being surrounded by protestors too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
