|
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 May 19 2021 17:48 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2021 17:24 Nebuchad wrote: There is one cool thing about the Israel-Palestine conflict, and it's that the discourse has shifted dramatically. Last time this happened we had the discussion online and there were people making solid arguments on both sides, we had a little battle on the marketplace of ideas, and the people on the side of Palestine won that battle.
Which means that this time, support for Palestine is overwhelming in leftist places online. So, what can I say, when you're dealing with honest people who have a common goal, debate works, sort of. Leftist online places are set to raise more for Palestine than they did for Mermaids when Glinner decided to direct his constant transphobia at them. Especially Vaush has had a very successful stream, 250k+ in 24 hours.
Will charity solve the occupation, no it won't obviously. But it still signals that we have a pretty large voice, and that's cool. Other cracks start to form with larger protests all over the world, less pro-Israel propaganda in the media than usual (I have no explanation for that one but 1) hey, cool, I'll take it, and 2) there is still some dumb shit going around.
Imo one of the more important rhetorical battles to fight is the battle against the idea that it's complicated. One side has almost all of the power and chooses to oppress the other, openly using terrorism and openly supporting ethnic cleansing. Don't be on that side. Some things are complicated, others are not. The continued settlements is not complicated - they're abhorrent and so is supporting them. Amusingly, I've yet to see anyone defend this practice, even guys that are solidly on the side of Israel. They seem to conveniently ignore that this is the piece of aggression and argue that 'Israel has the right to defend itself' - but I haven't actually seen anyone in this thread or the USPol thread before the discussion moved defend the continued settlement policy. However, while people seem to be able to agree that Israel's settlement policy should end, figuring out where to revert back to is complicated. 1967 borders are two generations ago. We might agree that what happened in 1947-48 was a crime against the Palestinian people, but it's not like it's easy to revert that now. The question of 'who should live where' is complicated, even if we recognize that Israel is the main culprit in the conflict and even if we regard Hamas as freedom fighters more than as terrorists.
What would happen next after a peace deal (assuming that is possible) will be extremely complicated. On the Israeli side I think it is clear that Netanyahu should be charged with war crimes, the world might have to live with just the corruption charges he is almost certainly guilty of as the US will likely block the war crimes. Top generals should also be under consideration as well.
As to Hamas and freedom fighters vs terrorists, to me they are clearly both. They have most certainly placed their rocket battery's in places where destroying them would cause the most damage to Israel, whether that is schools, hospitals and so on. But this is also how freedom fighters from most every country has done it. It is amoral but also the best strategy because it makes it hardest to destroy and they have no chance in a standard war. As much as I'd like them not too, or not fire rockets at all, I also understand if they did this they would have no chance. So these actions while causing civilian death would put them in the freedom fighters camp (no freedom fighters are completely innocent, it does not and can not happen).
But then Hamas also has a pretty awful history of terrorizing Palestinians that are not Muslim, or not Muslim enough.
n addition to killing Israeli civilians and armed forces, Hamas has also murdered suspected Palestinian Israel collaborators and Fatah rivals.[452] Hundreds of Palestinians were executed by both Hamas and Fatah during the First Intifada.[453] In the wake of the 2006 Israeli conflict with Gaza, Hamas was accused of systematically rounding up, torturing and summarily executing Fatah supporters suspected of supplying information to Israel. Human Rights Watch estimates several hundred Gazans were "maimed" and tortured in the aftermath of the conflict. Seventy-three Gazan men accused of "collaborating" had their arms and legs broken by "unidentified perpetrators" and 18 Palestinians accused of helping Israel were executed by Hamas security officials in the first days of the conflict.[233][234][454] In November 2012, Hamas's Izzedine al-Qassam brigade publicly executed six Gaza residents accused of collaborating with Israel. According to the witnesses, six alleged informers were shot dead one by one in Gaza City, while the corpse of the sixth victim was tied by a cable to the back of a motorcycle and dragged through the streets.[455] In 2013, Human Rights Watch issued a statement condemning Hamas for not investigating and giving a proper trial to the 6 men. Their statement was released the day before Hamas issued a deadline for "collaborators" to turn themselves in, or they will be pursued "without mercy".[456] In August 2014, during the 2014 Israel-Gaza conflict, at least 22 accused collaborators were executed by Hamas shortly after three of its commanders were assassinated by Israeli forces.[457] An Israeli source denied that any of the commanders had been targeted on the basis of human intelligence.[458]
Frequent killings of unarmed people have also occurred during Hamas-Fatah clashes.[459][460] NGOs have cited a number of summary executions as particular examples of violations of the rules of warfare, including the case of Muhammad Swairki, 28, a cook for Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas's presidential guard, who was thrown to his death, with his hands and legs tied, from a 15-story apartment building in Gaza City.[461] Hamas security forces reportedly shoot and torture Palestinians who opposed Hamas rule in Gaza.[233] In one case, a Palestinian had criticized Hamas in a conversation on the street with some friends. Later that day, more than a dozen armed men with black masks and red kaffiyeh took the man from his home, and brought him to a solitary area where they shot him three times in the lower legs and ankles. The man told Human Rights Watch that he was not politically active.[233]
On August 14, 2009, Hamas fighters stormed the Mosque of cleric Abdel-Latif Moussa.[462] The cleric was protected by at least 100 fighters from Jund Ansar Allah ("Army of the Helpers of God"), an Islamist group with links to Al-Qaeda. The resulting battle left at least 13 people dead, including Moussa and 6 Hamas fighters, and 120 people injured.[463] According to Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas, during 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict, Hamas killed more than 120 Palestinian youths for defying house arrest imposed on them by Hamas, in addition to 30–40 Palestinians killed by Hamas in extrajudicial executions after accusing them of being collaborators with Israel.[464] Referring to the killing of suspected collaborators, a Shin Bet official stated that "not even one" of those executed by Hamas provided any intelligence to Israel, while the Shin Bet officially "confirmed that those executed during Operation Protective Edge had all been held in prison in Gaza in the course of the hostilities".[458]
None of that is OK, none of it is related to freedom fighting. I guess the murdering and torture of "collaborators" is. But what are the chances they were right 100% of the time? Who knows what the % is but its not 100%. And then is torture and execution without anything even remotely resembling a trial OK? None of us believe it is in the US.
Next you have the Women's rights conversation. Whether you believe the Taliban comparison that Hamas's opponents in Palestine make or not, it is very likely that the Women of Palestine would be trading oppressors from the Israeli to Hamas. Anyone of any Muslim faith not matching Hamas, any Christians, and atheist's and anyone else would be more fearful and in greater personal danger if Hamas assumed control.
You cannot separate the freedom fighting from the Terrorism with Hamas, they are both. Many people would also suffer if they took control. If peace can ever be found there needs to be a way that the people are not trading one oppressor for another, and in this case one that might be "worse" depending on your definition and your religious affiliation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas
|
On May 19 2021 22:05 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2021 21:46 MWY wrote:On May 19 2021 07:37 KwarK wrote:On May 19 2021 07:01 MWY wrote:On May 19 2021 05:44 KwarK wrote: My view is that broadly speaking the Palestinians were minding their own business until all the Zionists showed up and built an Israel on Palestine. I’m not going to assert that there was no violence committed by Palestinians because that wouldn’t be true. What I will assert is that the Palestinians did not initiate the conflict. They weren’t roaming around Eastern Europe picking fights with Jewish people, they were in their homes when Zionists showed up and started picking fights.
I am broadly speaking extremely sympathetic to the Palestinians in the 30s and 40s who saw their country overrun by an invasion of colonists from Europe. I can’t imagine any people not resisting that kind of invasion of their land, I view the Palestinian opposition to the declaration of the state of Israel as wholly rational. What happened to Palestine is essentially a real world example of the right wing fever dream of Central Americans flooding into Texas and establishing a Sharia law Caliphate.
I am fairly sympathetic to the Jewish people, particularly those who came to Palestine after WW2, because their desire for a homeland is rational and the trauma of the Holocaust explains, if not justifies, a lot. That sympathy becomes far more limited after they did not adhere to the UN partition plan.
I’m unsympathetic to the UN as this was essentially the first test of the UN after WW2 and they did absolutely nothing to prevent the question being settled by arms and ethnic cleansing. They came up with a partition plan and did nothing to implement it.
I’m unsympathetic to the Arab nations who, after losing the war with Israel, could have done far more to help the displaced Palestinians. I cynically believe they preferred an ongoing Palestinian crisis as a nationalist rallying cry to the costs that would be involved in fixing it.
I outright condemn the British Empire which inserted itself into Palestinian affairs uninvited and then failed to honour the most basic duties it had assumed towards the Palestinian people. The conflict started under British stewardship and Britain was the party responsible for ensuring that there was no conflict. Perhaps the two state solution would have collapsed after Britain left and perhaps war was inevitable. We won’t know because Britain, entrusted with implementing the UN partition plan, fucked off. Weren't arab palestinians aspiring towards building a state aswell? Was that not a radical nationalist movement? What were the initial crimes of jews/zionists against the arabs? I haven't found any source for this, even more so, only contradicting sources in german aswell as in english. How would you have prevented jewish refugees/migrants from going to palestine? How can you possibly paint the jewish side as only fascists (who might have at some point contemplated to work with fascist countries to get rid of britain) while painting the arab side (who I think you mean when you say Palestinians, wrongly so btw) who was lead by an islamist national antisemitic guy and actually partnered with the nazis as innocent? I wouldn’t call Palestinians living in Palestine aspiring for a decolonial Palestinian state a radical nationalist movement. No more than I’d call Indians living in India wanting freedom from British rule radical nationalists. Self determination is a fundamental right of all peoples. You’d have to be a radical 19th century imperialist to argue that the British, rather than the Palestinians, should govern Palestine. You cannot draw an equivalency between on the one side the people of Palestine wanting freedom from colonial rule and the Jewish settlers wanting to establish their own colonial rule in someone else’s land. These are not equivalent nationalistic movements. You might as well argue that the desire by extreme Polish nationalists in 1939 to occupy Poland was equivalent to the desire by friendly German nationalists in 1939 to occupy Poland. Crimes of the Zionists against the Palestinians include this famous example. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deir_Yassin_massacreBut more generally just taking their land and displacing them with mass migration and violence. Ideally it wouldn’t have been up to me to police the borders of Palestine. Ideally a self governing independent Palestine would have been given the right to police its own borders. But in the context of British rule, turning around ships of illegal migrants. The settlements were not legal, just as it would not be legal for the Palestinians today to sail to Germany and seize land. If you imagine a reasonable policy for Germany when faced with hypothetical ships of Palestinians attempting to illegally enter Germany then I’m sure you can imagine a similar policy for Palestine faced with ships of Jewish refugees. I don’t paint all Zionists as fascists but fascists were certainly among them and there were a lot of terror attacked committed against the British and UN. It also doesn’t make them not look like fascists when the state of Israel gave the fascist terrorists medals. I’m not misspeaking when I refer to the Palestinians living in Palestine as Palestinians, you’re misspeaking when you call them Arabs. The name for the people of Palestine is Palestinian, just as the name for the people of Germany is German (in English). In 1947 Palestine existed and the people were Palestinian. I don’t know if this is a language thing but you’re the one misspeaking when you call the people of Palestine an “Arab side”. Palestine never was a state before, more like a region whose people lived under different rulers, having sometimes more, sometimes less freedom in their decisions, just like it was the case for many regions. So comparing this to countries that have had a history of being independent before is false. Even so, I would agree that in general, people in a region have a right to form their own state. This was however, clearly a case of a muslim nationalist movement which did not care about people of other religions or cared about representing those. Oh wow an example from 1948. Which happened after literal decades of progroms against jewish people. Apparently you don't have better examples. Again, you still just claim that there was violence iniated by jews against muslims when there are multiple examples that go against that narrative. So migration is a crime to you? Is that a general stance from you or does it just apply when the migrants are jewish? You understand that most jews were living in circumstances that in a modern view, would likely make them refugees, even before the holocaust. So you say that sending them back with the use of force towards a live of discrimation and later on even probable death would have been justifiable? You clearly paint Palestinians as if they were all muslims, all in support of a nationalist islamic movement, all just defending themselfes from migrating jews. As far as i know, Palestinians were muslims, christians and jews. The latter two didn't commit terrorist acts against the migrating jews and most likely were not in favor of said islamic movement. So while you keep defending one side, in contrast, for jews you throw around the words fascism, colonialism and invasion like it's nothing. You seem to have, to put it mildly, a very very biased view. This is the kind of post that comforts me in my belief that this is a really simple question. If the best that people can come with in defense of the behavior of Israel today is to dishonestly pretend that colonization is migration, to ignorantly pretend that Hamas was there since 1936 or that christians (and marxists) weren't part of the PLO/PFLP and are totally fine with being second/third class citizens, and to ignore the fascism jumping at their faces, then there probably isn't a good argument to be made.
Sigh. This is NOT about israels behaviour today. This is about the initial migration to palestine by jewish people and the start of the conflict. It is not about the modern settlement program, which again, I don't support.
Other than that, I'm glad that you can see one of the most complicated borderline unsolveable conflicts today as simple.
|
On May 19 2021 22:05 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2021 21:46 MWY wrote:On May 19 2021 07:37 KwarK wrote:On May 19 2021 07:01 MWY wrote:On May 19 2021 05:44 KwarK wrote: My view is that broadly speaking the Palestinians were minding their own business until all the Zionists showed up and built an Israel on Palestine. I’m not going to assert that there was no violence committed by Palestinians because that wouldn’t be true. What I will assert is that the Palestinians did not initiate the conflict. They weren’t roaming around Eastern Europe picking fights with Jewish people, they were in their homes when Zionists showed up and started picking fights.
I am broadly speaking extremely sympathetic to the Palestinians in the 30s and 40s who saw their country overrun by an invasion of colonists from Europe. I can’t imagine any people not resisting that kind of invasion of their land, I view the Palestinian opposition to the declaration of the state of Israel as wholly rational. What happened to Palestine is essentially a real world example of the right wing fever dream of Central Americans flooding into Texas and establishing a Sharia law Caliphate.
I am fairly sympathetic to the Jewish people, particularly those who came to Palestine after WW2, because their desire for a homeland is rational and the trauma of the Holocaust explains, if not justifies, a lot. That sympathy becomes far more limited after they did not adhere to the UN partition plan.
I’m unsympathetic to the UN as this was essentially the first test of the UN after WW2 and they did absolutely nothing to prevent the question being settled by arms and ethnic cleansing. They came up with a partition plan and did nothing to implement it.
I’m unsympathetic to the Arab nations who, after losing the war with Israel, could have done far more to help the displaced Palestinians. I cynically believe they preferred an ongoing Palestinian crisis as a nationalist rallying cry to the costs that would be involved in fixing it.
I outright condemn the British Empire which inserted itself into Palestinian affairs uninvited and then failed to honour the most basic duties it had assumed towards the Palestinian people. The conflict started under British stewardship and Britain was the party responsible for ensuring that there was no conflict. Perhaps the two state solution would have collapsed after Britain left and perhaps war was inevitable. We won’t know because Britain, entrusted with implementing the UN partition plan, fucked off. Weren't arab palestinians aspiring towards building a state aswell? Was that not a radical nationalist movement? What were the initial crimes of jews/zionists against the arabs? I haven't found any source for this, even more so, only contradicting sources in german aswell as in english. How would you have prevented jewish refugees/migrants from going to palestine? How can you possibly paint the jewish side as only fascists (who might have at some point contemplated to work with fascist countries to get rid of britain) while painting the arab side (who I think you mean when you say Palestinians, wrongly so btw) who was lead by an islamist national antisemitic guy and actually partnered with the nazis as innocent? I wouldn’t call Palestinians living in Palestine aspiring for a decolonial Palestinian state a radical nationalist movement. No more than I’d call Indians living in India wanting freedom from British rule radical nationalists. Self determination is a fundamental right of all peoples. You’d have to be a radical 19th century imperialist to argue that the British, rather than the Palestinians, should govern Palestine. You cannot draw an equivalency between on the one side the people of Palestine wanting freedom from colonial rule and the Jewish settlers wanting to establish their own colonial rule in someone else’s land. These are not equivalent nationalistic movements. You might as well argue that the desire by extreme Polish nationalists in 1939 to occupy Poland was equivalent to the desire by friendly German nationalists in 1939 to occupy Poland. Crimes of the Zionists against the Palestinians include this famous example. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deir_Yassin_massacreBut more generally just taking their land and displacing them with mass migration and violence. Ideally it wouldn’t have been up to me to police the borders of Palestine. Ideally a self governing independent Palestine would have been given the right to police its own borders. But in the context of British rule, turning around ships of illegal migrants. The settlements were not legal, just as it would not be legal for the Palestinians today to sail to Germany and seize land. If you imagine a reasonable policy for Germany when faced with hypothetical ships of Palestinians attempting to illegally enter Germany then I’m sure you can imagine a similar policy for Palestine faced with ships of Jewish refugees. I don’t paint all Zionists as fascists but fascists were certainly among them and there were a lot of terror attacked committed against the British and UN. It also doesn’t make them not look like fascists when the state of Israel gave the fascist terrorists medals. I’m not misspeaking when I refer to the Palestinians living in Palestine as Palestinians, you’re misspeaking when you call them Arabs. The name for the people of Palestine is Palestinian, just as the name for the people of Germany is German (in English). In 1947 Palestine existed and the people were Palestinian. I don’t know if this is a language thing but you’re the one misspeaking when you call the people of Palestine an “Arab side”. Palestine never was a state before, more like a region whose people lived under different rulers, having sometimes more, sometimes less freedom in their decisions, just like it was the case for many regions. So comparing this to countries that have had a history of being independent before is false. Even so, I would agree that in general, people in a region have a right to form their own state. This was however, clearly a case of a muslim nationalist movement which did not care about people of other religions or cared about representing those. Oh wow an example from 1948. Which happened after literal decades of progroms against jewish people. Apparently you don't have better examples. Again, you still just claim that there was violence iniated by jews against muslims when there are multiple examples that go against that narrative. So migration is a crime to you? Is that a general stance from you or does it just apply when the migrants are jewish? You understand that most jews were living in circumstances that in a modern view, would likely make them refugees, even before the holocaust. So you say that sending them back with the use of force towards a live of discrimation and later on even probable death would have been justifiable? You clearly paint Palestinians as if they were all muslims, all in support of a nationalist islamic movement, all just defending themselfes from migrating jews. As far as i know, Palestinians were muslims, christians and jews. The latter two didn't commit terrorist acts against the migrating jews and most likely were not in favor of said islamic movement. So while you keep defending one side, in contrast, for jews you throw around the words fascism, colonialism and invasion like it's nothing. You seem to have, to put it mildly, a very very biased view. This is the kind of post that comforts me in my belief that this is a really simple question. If the best that people can come with in defense of the behavior of Israel today is to dishonestly pretend that colonization is migration, to ignorantly pretend that Hamas was there since 1936 or that christians (and marxists) weren't part of the PLO/PFLP and are totally fine with being second/third class citizens, and to ignore the fascism jumping at their faces, then there probably isn't a good argument to be made. A lot of people are not aware but from its formation until 1979 Israel was a social democracy. With the oil crisis and inflation and wars causing a shift right then. Now things are actually shifting back as the right is losing its grip, though that might change as the right strengthens their position with each attack on Israel. Sadly it is good politics for Netanyahu to advance on Palestine because when Hamas strikes back with Rockets or suicide bombers or really anything he gains in popularity..
This article is a pretty interesting history of socialism in Israel. And it starts with this disclaimer.
I want to start out and say, this is NOT a commentary on the Israel-Palestine conflict, the validity of Zionism as an ideology or conflicts between Arabs and Jews. This is just stating the history and is about admiring the froward march of socialism as an economic and political philosophy in Israel. Zionism being popular with the Israeli socialist movement does NOT discredit Israeli socialism or its accomplishments.
Here is the first paragraph of the conclusion.
Socialism was the predominant political philosophy during the first 29 years of Israel’s history, and also had strong roots in the Jewish community as far back as the Jewish Labor Bund and the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party. Thanks to the strong grip on power that Mapai and the Labor Party held until 1977, most major areas of the economy were in public ownership, controlled by trade unions or organized as co-operatives. The economy was largely planned. A significant welfare state was developed, taxes were progressive and redistributive and public housing construction was strong. Workers’ possessed extensive legally enshrined rights. Well over 60% of the workforce was unionized, even by the end of the social democratic period. The inflation of the 1970s and economic mismanagement gave the right an opportunity to dismantle social democracy, the Israeli economy is now significantly more liberal.
Overall it is a pretty interesting read. But as the disclaimer says it is only about the internal workings of Israel and does not get into the conflicts.
https://bobocheesechimp.medium.com/social-democracy-in-israel-7de119b36163
|
It's been a while so some people might not be aware that I won't be answering JimmiC's posts. If someone else would like to see me answer something that Jimmi said, just post it back at me and I'll answer you.
|
On May 19 2021 22:42 Nebuchad wrote: It's been a while so some people might not be aware that I won't be answering JimmiC's posts. If someone else would like to see me answer something that Jimmi said, just post it back at me and I'll answer you. LOL! Just don't do it, what is this passive aggressive BS? God some of you are so stuck in junior high it is embarrassing.
|
On May 19 2021 22:42 Nebuchad wrote: It's been a while so some people might not be aware that I won't be answering JimmiC's posts. If someone else would like to see me answer something that Jimmi said, just post it back at me and I'll answer you.
Very mature. Also very mature to not even acknowledge you completely misread and misrepresented my post.
|
I think a point of confusion here worth clarifying is that moral responsibility is not zero sum. If I pay a guy to kill someone we’re both fully responsible for their death. He’s not less responsible because I paid him, and I’m not less responsible because he pulled the trigger. Hell, if you really want to do a full tally you can assign some blame to the mob for supporting his assassination business, and my friend who recommended him, and his wife cheating on him with me and giving me motive. Zoom out and assign a little to each of our parents for not raising us better if you want. We can argue what each player’s responsibility really is case by case, but in assigning responsibility somewhere we shouldn’t assume anybody else’s is reduced.
The Axis powers committed some horrible war crimes. They obviously bear responsibility for those. They could have anticipated (and in some cases specifically wanted to provoke) Allied war crimes in response, and I think they bear some responsibility for those, too. That doesn’t mean the Allies don’t, or even that the Allies bear less because the Axis are taking some share.
This fallacy comes up a lot as Israel has essentially fought several wars of conquest at this point, and the justification is generally “they started it.” Or, in the most recent case, “Hamas fired rockets, so we’re just defending ourselves.” Does Hamas bear responsibility for killing civilians? Definitely. Do they bear responsibility for escalating the conflict snd causing Israel to start bombing? Arguable. If they do or not, does that absolve Israel of anything? No.
|
On May 19 2021 23:15 MWY wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2021 22:42 Nebuchad wrote: It's been a while so some people might not be aware that I won't be answering JimmiC's posts. If someone else would like to see me answer something that Jimmi said, just post it back at me and I'll answer you. Very mature. Also very mature to not even acknowledge you completely misread and misrepresented my post.
I don't believe I did that.
|
Northern Ireland20914 Posts
On May 19 2021 22:42 Nebuchad wrote: It's been a while so some people might not be aware that I won't be answering JimmiC's posts. If someone else would like to see me answer something that Jimmi said, just post it back at me and I'll answer you. Obligatory
|
On May 19 2021 23:23 ChristianS wrote: I think a point of confusion here worth clarifying is that moral responsibility is not zero sum. If I pay a guy to kill someone we’re both fully responsible for their death. He’s not less responsible because I paid him, and I’m not less responsible because he pulled the trigger. Hell, if you really want to do a full tally you can assign some blame to the mob for supporting his assassination business, and my friend who recommended him, and his wife cheating on him with me and giving me motive. Zoom out and assign a little to each of our parents for not raising us better if you want. We can argue what each player’s responsibility really is case by case, but in assigning responsibility somewhere we shouldn’t assume anybody else’s is reduced.
The Axis powers committed some horrible war crimes. They obviously bear responsibility for those. They could have anticipated (and in some cases specifically wanted to provoke) Allied war crimes in response, and I think they bear some responsibility for those, too. That doesn’t mean the Allies don’t, or even that the Allies bear less because the Axis are taking some share.
This fallacy comes up a lot as Israel has essentially fought several wars of conquest at this point, and the justification is generally “they started it.” Or, in the most recent case, “Hamas fired rockets, so we’re just defending ourselves.” Does Hamas bear responsibility for killing civilians? Definitely. Do they bear responsibility for escalating the conflict snd causing Israel to start bombing? Arguable. If they do or not, does that absolve Israel of anything? No. Has any one argued that Israel's leadership should be absolved of anything? There has been a ton of posting so I could have missed it. But I have constantly read people accusing posters of wanting to absolve Israel, I have not seen anyone ask for it. There is a lot of conviction on this thread (and the US pol thread) of what people think someone's intentions are.
|
On May 19 2021 23:28 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2021 22:42 Nebuchad wrote: It's been a while so some people might not be aware that I won't be answering JimmiC's posts. If someone else would like to see me answer something that Jimmi said, just post it back at me and I'll answer you. Obligatory
I'm at work :$ But cheers anyway =)
|
On May 19 2021 23:28 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2021 22:42 Nebuchad wrote: It's been a while so some people might not be aware that I won't be answering JimmiC's posts. If someone else would like to see me answer something that Jimmi said, just post it back at me and I'll answer you. Obligatory
(small)kudos lol. however this is "literally"(as in TL.net generally and THIS VERY THREAD) not the place for that kind of fun imho...
to add to the thread...
What’s so unnerving about how Israel runs its Twitter account@WaPo
Move over, Donald Trump. There’s a new terrible tweeter in town.
And it isn’t a single disgruntled politician, or a celebrity, or a commentator fed up with the "wokeness" of the kids these days. The culprit is a country: The state of Israel loves to post and recently, even its missives have warheads.
Okay, not quite. But the meme-friendly handle managed by something called the “Digital Diplomacy team” has sent 3,168 rocket emojis over the course of 12 tweets in recent days.
Why? “Just to give you all some perspective, these” (here is inserted another emoji, of a finger pointing upward) “are the total amount of rockets shot at Israeli civilians … Make no mistake. Every rocket has an address. What would you do if that address was yours?”
Of course, the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip who’ve spent the week weathering strikes may take a less charitable view of the adorable cartoon projectiles streaming from the official communications channel of the same nation that dropped 110 “guided armaments” on targets Monday night. So far, during its campaign against Hamas, Israel has damaged or destroyed almost 450 buildings, displaced more than 52,000 individuals and killed at least 63 children among well over 217 others, according to The Post’s reporting.
The death toll in Israel is 12, including two children.
|
Northern Ireland20914 Posts
On May 19 2021 23:23 ChristianS wrote: I think a point of confusion here worth clarifying is that moral responsibility is not zero sum. If I pay a guy to kill someone we’re both fully responsible for their death. He’s not less responsible because I paid him, and I’m not less responsible because he pulled the trigger. Hell, if you really want to do a full tally you can assign some blame to the mob for supporting his assassination business, and my friend who recommended him, and his wife cheating on him with me and giving me motive. Zoom out and assign a little to each of our parents for not raising us better if you want. We can argue what each player’s responsibility really is case by case, but in assigning responsibility somewhere we shouldn’t assume anybody else’s is reduced.
The Axis powers committed some horrible war crimes. They obviously bear responsibility for those. They could have anticipated (and in some cases specifically wanted to provoke) Allied war crimes in response, and I think they bear some responsibility for those, too. That doesn’t mean the Allies don’t, or even that the Allies bear less because the Axis are taking some share.
This fallacy comes up a lot as Israel has essentially fought several wars of conquest at this point, and the justification is generally “they started it.” Or, in the most recent case, “Hamas fired rockets, so we’re just defending ourselves.” Does Hamas bear responsibility for killing civilians? Definitely. Do they bear responsibility for escalating the conflict snd causing Israel to start bombing? Arguable. If they do or not, does that absolve Israel of anything? No. Indeed, it doesn’t necessarily follow that such actions are wrong, depending on various frameworks, but to absolve one’s responsibility for a chosen course of action is fundamentally bogus. Others may create the conditions where choices need to be made that wouldn’t exist otherwise, but ultimately rare is the situation where a choice in how you respond doesn’t exist.
In this instance Israel chooses to bomb civilians, just as Hamas choose to.
|
Twitter is an interesting angle yes, the strategy of Israel on Twitter has been mask off for a while. My two favourites from this week, one new where the IDF explains some of their goals and one that resurfaced of literal fascism defended by Bibi:
+ Show Spoiler +
+ Show Spoiler +
I still have a soft spot for this one back in the day where they describe Hamas' weapons:
+ Show Spoiler +
|
The If I pay a guy to kill someone we’re both fully responsible for their death. He’s not less responsible because I paid him, and I’m not less responsible because he pulled the trigger. Hell, if you really want to do a full tally you can assign some blame to the mob for supporting his assassination business part is a bit of why I am so vociferously opposed to the US's unequivocal support of Israel despite their ongoing violations of international law, human rights, etc.
I'm not unreasonable though, so I don't expect the US to do a full 180 here, but not repeatedly stopping the entire rest of the UN security council from issuing a joint statement calling for a ceasefire would be a start.
|
Northern Ireland20914 Posts
On May 19 2021 23:32 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2021 23:28 WombaT wrote:On May 19 2021 22:42 Nebuchad wrote: It's been a while so some people might not be aware that I won't be answering JimmiC's posts. If someone else would like to see me answer something that Jimmi said, just post it back at me and I'll answer you. Obligatory I'm at work :$ But cheers anyway =) Didn’t miss much unless you’re as big a fan as I of decades-old Simpsons clips.
@Doublemint aye, but I mean it’s a pretty depressing thread as befits the subject matter.
Speaking of tone that is jarring, eugh. I mean I’m just paraphrasing the article but a nation state’s Twitter output communicating like an Instagram influencer feels disturbingly jarring, especially given the current events.
Some probably have more idea than me. How does the Israeli populace actually break down on these kind of issues? I know enough Americans, consume enough American media sources and thus had enough of a gauge of the numbers to know that the lunacy embodied by Donald Trump wasn’t necessarily reflective of the wider American psyche, but Israel is one of many countries I don’t really have any kind of gauge on in that sense.
|
Northern Ireland20914 Posts
On May 19 2021 23:45 Nebuchad wrote:Twitter is an interesting angle yes, the strategy of Israel on Twitter has been mask off for a while. My two favourites from this week, one new where the IDF explains some of their goals and one that resurfaced of literal fascism defended by Bibi: + Show Spoiler ++ Show Spoiler +I still have a soft spot for this one back in the day where they describe Hamas' weapons: + Show Spoiler + ‘Our only goal is to strike terror.’ Oof that’s one hell of a Freudian slip there.
|
On May 19 2021 23:50 GreenHorizons wrote:The Show nested quote +If I pay a guy to kill someone we’re both fully responsible for their death. He’s not less responsible because I paid him, and I’m not less responsible because he pulled the trigger. Hell, if you really want to do a full tally you can assign some blame to the mob for supporting his assassination business part is a bit of why I am so vociferously opposed to the US's unequivocal support of Israel despite their ongoing violations of international law, human rights, etc. I'm not unreasonable though, so I don't expect the US to do a full 180 here, but not repeatedly stopping the entire rest of the UN security council from issuing a joint statement calling for a ceasefire would be a start. They need to take away the Veto as a thing. Whether it is the US, China or Russia they all use it for their own political reasons. It is constantly abused.
|
On May 19 2021 23:52 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2021 23:45 Nebuchad wrote:Twitter is an interesting angle yes, the strategy of Israel on Twitter has been mask off for a while. My two favourites from this week, one new where the IDF explains some of their goals and one that resurfaced of literal fascism defended by Bibi: + Show Spoiler ++ Show Spoiler +I still have a soft spot for this one back in the day where they describe Hamas' weapons: + Show Spoiler + ‘Our only goal is to strike terror.’ Oof that’s one hell of a Freudian slip there. yeah indeed lol. did not even catch that the first time. you see, Israeli girl or guy on that twitter account generally speaks plain old English just fine, but there are subtleties of language that are easier to catch for native speakers.
|
United States40838 Posts
On May 19 2021 21:46 MWY wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2021 07:37 KwarK wrote:On May 19 2021 07:01 MWY wrote:On May 19 2021 05:44 KwarK wrote: My view is that broadly speaking the Palestinians were minding their own business until all the Zionists showed up and built an Israel on Palestine. I’m not going to assert that there was no violence committed by Palestinians because that wouldn’t be true. What I will assert is that the Palestinians did not initiate the conflict. They weren’t roaming around Eastern Europe picking fights with Jewish people, they were in their homes when Zionists showed up and started picking fights.
I am broadly speaking extremely sympathetic to the Palestinians in the 30s and 40s who saw their country overrun by an invasion of colonists from Europe. I can’t imagine any people not resisting that kind of invasion of their land, I view the Palestinian opposition to the declaration of the state of Israel as wholly rational. What happened to Palestine is essentially a real world example of the right wing fever dream of Central Americans flooding into Texas and establishing a Sharia law Caliphate.
I am fairly sympathetic to the Jewish people, particularly those who came to Palestine after WW2, because their desire for a homeland is rational and the trauma of the Holocaust explains, if not justifies, a lot. That sympathy becomes far more limited after they did not adhere to the UN partition plan.
I’m unsympathetic to the UN as this was essentially the first test of the UN after WW2 and they did absolutely nothing to prevent the question being settled by arms and ethnic cleansing. They came up with a partition plan and did nothing to implement it.
I’m unsympathetic to the Arab nations who, after losing the war with Israel, could have done far more to help the displaced Palestinians. I cynically believe they preferred an ongoing Palestinian crisis as a nationalist rallying cry to the costs that would be involved in fixing it.
I outright condemn the British Empire which inserted itself into Palestinian affairs uninvited and then failed to honour the most basic duties it had assumed towards the Palestinian people. The conflict started under British stewardship and Britain was the party responsible for ensuring that there was no conflict. Perhaps the two state solution would have collapsed after Britain left and perhaps war was inevitable. We won’t know because Britain, entrusted with implementing the UN partition plan, fucked off. Weren't arab palestinians aspiring towards building a state aswell? Was that not a radical nationalist movement? What were the initial crimes of jews/zionists against the arabs? I haven't found any source for this, even more so, only contradicting sources in german aswell as in english. How would you have prevented jewish refugees/migrants from going to palestine? How can you possibly paint the jewish side as only fascists (who might have at some point contemplated to work with fascist countries to get rid of britain) while painting the arab side (who I think you mean when you say Palestinians, wrongly so btw) who was lead by an islamist national antisemitic guy and actually partnered with the nazis as innocent? I wouldn’t call Palestinians living in Palestine aspiring for a decolonial Palestinian state a radical nationalist movement. No more than I’d call Indians living in India wanting freedom from British rule radical nationalists. Self determination is a fundamental right of all peoples. You’d have to be a radical 19th century imperialist to argue that the British, rather than the Palestinians, should govern Palestine. You cannot draw an equivalency between on the one side the people of Palestine wanting freedom from colonial rule and the Jewish settlers wanting to establish their own colonial rule in someone else’s land. These are not equivalent nationalistic movements. You might as well argue that the desire by extreme Polish nationalists in 1939 to occupy Poland was equivalent to the desire by friendly German nationalists in 1939 to occupy Poland. Crimes of the Zionists against the Palestinians include this famous example. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deir_Yassin_massacreBut more generally just taking their land and displacing them with mass migration and violence. Ideally it wouldn’t have been up to me to police the borders of Palestine. Ideally a self governing independent Palestine would have been given the right to police its own borders. But in the context of British rule, turning around ships of illegal migrants. The settlements were not legal, just as it would not be legal for the Palestinians today to sail to Germany and seize land. If you imagine a reasonable policy for Germany when faced with hypothetical ships of Palestinians attempting to illegally enter Germany then I’m sure you can imagine a similar policy for Palestine faced with ships of Jewish refugees. I don’t paint all Zionists as fascists but fascists were certainly among them and there were a lot of terror attacked committed against the British and UN. It also doesn’t make them not look like fascists when the state of Israel gave the fascist terrorists medals. I’m not misspeaking when I refer to the Palestinians living in Palestine as Palestinians, you’re misspeaking when you call them Arabs. The name for the people of Palestine is Palestinian, just as the name for the people of Germany is German (in English). In 1947 Palestine existed and the people were Palestinian. I don’t know if this is a language thing but you’re the one misspeaking when you call the people of Palestine an “Arab side”. Palestine never was a state before, more like a region whose people lived under different rulers, having sometimes more, sometimes less freedom in their decisions, just like it was the case for many regions. So comparing this to countries that have had a history of being independent before is false. Even so, I would agree that in general, people in a region have a right to form their own state. This was however, clearly a case of a muslim nationalist movement which did not care about people of other religions or cared about representing those. Oh wow an example from 1948. Which happened after literal decades of progroms against jewish people. Apparently you don't have better examples. Again, you still just claim that there was violence iniated by jews against muslims when there are multiple examples that go against that narrative. So migration is a crime to you? Is that a general stance from you or does it just apply when the migrants are jewish? You understand that most jews were living in circumstances that in a modern view, would likely make them refugees, even before the holocaust. So you say that sending them back with the use of force towards a live of discrimation and later on even probable death would have been justifiable? You clearly paint Palestinians as if they were all muslims, all in support of a nationalist islamic movement, all just defending themselfes from migrating jews. As far as i know, Palestinians were muslims, christians and jews. The latter two didn't commit terrorist acts against the migrating jews and most likely were not in favor of said islamic movement. So while you keep defending one side, in contrast, for jews you throw around the words fascism, colonialism and invasion like it's nothing. You seem to have, to put it mildly, a very very biased view. I have a few issues with the justification of the colonization by the area colonized not being a state. Firstly, that doesn't justify shit. The Native Americans didn't meet the European definition of nation states but that doesn't make it okay to take their land. Secondly, it was a state, albeit not an independent one. It had a flag, it had borders, it had central government, it was a state. Just as Japan between 1945 and 1952 was a state. The existence of a foreign administration doesn't make something not a state. Thirdly, it fails to note the difference between a League mandate and a colony, and there is a difference. Palestine was not ruled by Britain, it was liberated from the dissolved Ottoman Empire but was judged unable to defend itself in the post WW1 colonial era and was therefore placed under British protection by the League of Nations.
You asked for any example (and claimed that you'd never heard of any example) and I gave you the most famous example.
The migration isn't just a crime to me, it's a crime in Palestine at the time per the 1939 white paper. In this instance it is the most criminal possible kind of migration, a colonization that displaces the native occupants of the land. Again, if they took ships to Germany with the intention of seizing land and founding a Jewish state would Germany not have turned those ships around? I'm assuming you would have. Possibly because they're Jewish and you're an antisemite or something (this is me reversing your implication that opposing Jewish colonization is because I disagree with the Jewish part, not the colonization part). If they were refugees I would expect that the UN would allocate the refugees to countries with the means to accept them (such as the United States) and not demand that the Palestinian people give up their land. You're creating a false dilemma where I must either approve of the colonization of Palestine or sending refugees to their deaths. It's pure nonsense and you should feel bad for trying such a bad argument.
The Palestinians were majority Muslim and did not approve of radical colonial Zionism. Jews and Christians had lived peacefully in the region for centuries and would have continued to live peacefully in the state of Palestine as it transitioned from League Mandate to independence had there not been an invasion by colonial forces. It's absurd to paint this as destined to end in oppression by either Jewish invaders or Palestinian Muslims only to justify one oppressor with the fear of the other. The Palestinian Muslims had no issues with the minorities within their community prior to the Zionist invasion and there's no reason to believe that post-mandate Palestine would have been a theocratic ethnonationalist state.
|
|
|
|