|
Isn't there a lot of Bedouin in the Negev that aren't recognized by the Israeli government.
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 00:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 01:22 |
|
|
rscott posted:This is a real good post Really? I thought it was a lot of obfuscation meant to distract from or qualify the facts of occupation and massive disparity of force, two things that make my statement "Palestinians are victims" utterly irrefutable.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 00:35
|
|
|
Silver Nitrate posted:That isn't a good enough reasoning for him unfortunately. It's not "reasoning", it's the truth. Gaza is so densely populated that there isn't really anywhere that isn't within bombing range of civilians. If he doesn't want to believe it, that's his problem (and bias).
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 00:38
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Really? I thought it was a lot of obfuscation meant to distract from or qualify the facts of occupation and massive disparity of force, two things that make my statement "Palestinians are victims" utterly irrefutable. Weakness doesn't necessarily make right, not any more than might makes right.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 00:41
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Really? I thought it was a lot of obfuscation meant to distract from or qualify the facts of occupation and massive disparity of force, two things that make my statement "Palestinians are victims" utterly irrefutable. Just because his rhetoric wasn't turgid enough you want to pretend he's some kind of shill for the occupation? Harsh, man.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 00:43
|
|
|
What the gently caress does that statement even mean.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 00:43
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Really? I thought it was a lot of obfuscation meant to distract from or qualify the facts of occupation and massive disparity of force, two things that make my statement "Palestinians are victims" utterly irrefutable. Nothing wrong with that, right?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 00:47
|
|
|
There's a lot wrong with it. "Giving agency" can in fact be whitewashing. "Moving past the victim paradigm" is almost bullshit to begin with when talking about subject populations, and moves firmly into bullshit when used by a proven genocide apologist.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 00:52
|
|
|
Seems like your argument hinges on him arguing in bad faith, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 01:00
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Really? I thought it was a lot of obfuscation meant to distract from or qualify the facts of occupation and massive disparity of force, two things that make my statement "Palestinians are victims" utterly irrefutable. I think you'll find that that was actually a real good post. Maybe you misread it? He puts the vast majority of responsibility on Israel for the bullshit over the past few years, not exculpating them in the least while trying to explain somewhat why parties on the Palestinian side still takes some actions that are a bit unwise, maybe counterproductive. It doesn't try to equate the actions of Israel and Palestine; Israel is clearly at fault and guilty of heinous crimes while being unwilling to negotiate on any reasonable basis. It's not a perfect post but it's not one to go frothing about, unless I completely misread things. NLJP fucked around with this message at 01:30 on Jul 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 01:24
|
|
|
Reverend Catharsis posted:IIRC France is about fed the hell up with all this poo poo and might not be a reliable source of veto for much longer, and I don't think the UK will be for very much longer either presuming Israel keeps up with this crap. That just leaves the US and.. Well that's the only one that really matters, isn't it? Our government isn't liable to ever stop protecting poor widdle Iswael and their constant victimization by the entire non-Israeli world. http://www.newsweek.com/2014/02/07/are-french-anti-semitic-245474.html Related question: Is this a sensationalist article? (in parts it seems to be mistaking anti-Zionism for antisemitism but is the gist of it BS?)
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 01:36
|
|
|
NLJP posted:I think you'll find that that was actually a real good post. Maybe you misread it? He puts the vast majority of responsibility on Israel for the bullshit over the past few years, not exculpating them in the least while trying to explain somewhat why parties on the Palestinian side still takes some actions that are a bit unwise, maybe counterproductive. It doesn't try to equate the actions of Israel and Palestine; Israel is clearly at fault and guilty of heinous crimes while being unwilling to negotiate on any reasonable basis. The majority of the blame is unacceptable, 100% of the blame belongs to Israel.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 01:38
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:The majority of the blame is unacceptable, 100% of the blame belongs to Israel.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 01:44
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:The majority of the blame is unacceptable, 100% of the blame belongs to Israel. I thought that was what he (Reverend Catharsis) concluded on, unless I'm mistaken. NLJP is probably just tiptoeing by saying "vast majority", in which case you should challenge him to qualify what part of the responsibility is on Palestine.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 01:46
|
|
|
NLJP posted:I think you'll find that that was actually a real good post. Maybe you misread it? He puts the vast majority of responsibility on Israel for the bullshit over the past few years, not exculpating them in the least while trying to explain somewhat why parties on the Palestinian side still takes some actions that are a bit unwise, maybe counterproductive. It doesn't try to equate the actions of Israel and Palestine; Israel is clearly at fault and guilty of heinous crimes while being unwilling to negotiate on any reasonable basis.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 01:48
|
|
|
First Bass posted:I thought that was what he (Reverend Catharsis) concluded on, unless I'm mistaken. NLJP is probably just tiptoeing by saying "vast majority", in which case you should challenge him to qualify what part of the responsibility is on Palestine. That'd be fair but I also think it wouldn't really be worth it. I'm completely on the side that Israel is responsible for the current situation and that it is their task to negotiate in good faith, after all this time and a lot of reasonable effort on the Palestinian's side. Beyond reasonable effort, even from Hamas, in the last few years. Also, I'm of the controversial opinion that they should stop their war crimes and ethnic cleansing. My earlier post was about my interpretation of Absurd Alhazred's post though, trying not to put words in his or her mouth. NLJP fucked around with this message at 01:59 on Jul 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 01:56
|
|
|
MonsieurChoc posted:Randomly found this video while looking for info online. I just started watching so I'm not sure how true or bullshit it is. "...and dispels the myth that there has been a conflict for ages by producing proof that it was peaceful up until 1947 when Israel launched their illegal attacks." I don't know about the rest of it, but this is patently false. There were constant violent episodes, such as in 1929, and prolonged clashes throughout 1936-1939. The Zionist militias did not arrive out of a vacuum in 1947. SedanChair posted:The majority of the blame is unacceptable, I think that when you paint Palestinians as victims you are not serving them well. If they are victims there is nothing for them to do but accept the charity of (white?) saviors such as yourself. If some of their leaders are agents who have suffered immensely and who live under horrific odds, but have nevertheless made impressive choices, and basically put Israel on the spot in ways that the rejectionist front never did, then that should be commended, and it also harbors lessons for the future. Being weak doesn't make it less important for one to be more politically astute, it makes it more important, something that Zionists originally understood, hence their success. As far as blame goes, reread my post. Try to pretend you haven't already decided that I'm a "proven genocide apologist" (citation needed, by the way). I think Palestinians have had a slight bit of ability to do things, and some of their prominent leaders have done them. This is not the first time, let me add; either in this thread or in another discussion, so I'll recount it, I have mentioned that Arafat had already attempted to try and negotiate with the Israeli government over a two-state solution in 1979. He publicly took a two-state solution position in the UN in 1974. This was not a sniveling statement, but it allowed Israel a non-violent option. The key sentence that may be familiar is the following: quote:Today I have come bearing an olive branch and a freedom-fighter's gun. Do not let the olive branch fall from my hand. I repeat: do not let the olive branch fall from my hand. He took a lot of heat from other Palestinian organizations at the time, just like the Rejectionist Front, true to its name, rejected the Oslo Accords. Again, I refuse to see him as a victim, but instead as a courageous leader who made tough and unpleasant decisions for the sake of his people. The point of bringing things up in this way is that, even if a reader is not convinced that Zionism is a horrible scourge on the face of Palestine, it all makes Israel look terrible and exposes that it had peaceful options that it actively rejected in favor of war. It is simply not subject to most of the criticisms that baby Hasbara shills suck from Netanyahu's teat. I think it's best to convince the most people of what I perceive to be positive action (namely, effective sanctions and rebukes of the Israeli government, instead of coddling it) rather than answer to the shibboleths of the anti-colonialist left, and reach an echo chamber. NLJP posted:My earlier post was about my interpretation of Absurd Alhazred's post though, trying not to put words in his or her mouth. I think you've interpreted it fairly, although I don't think that I bring up that many things that Palestinians have done wrong, simply because I don't think they have. It is the opposite: I think that they (Fatah, and especially Hamas recently) have made amazing strides to accommodate Israeli needs, and have gotten their civilian population bombed for the trouble. TheImmigrant posted:Weakness doesn't necessarily make right, not any more than might makes right. Using your might to harm others when there is not even a real defensible reason to do so is wrong, though. I mean, I think even Israeli patriots should on some level agree with that, even if they can't see it through a red wall of spite.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 02:07
|
|
|
Silver Nitrate posted:So I was talking to a family member and he says that Hamas intentionally hides its weapons and people among civilian populations. Is there truth to this at all? Yes, because they live civilian lives most of the time.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 02:15
|
|
|
edit: never mind actually, I need to go to bed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 02:16
|
|
|
Believe it or not, Muslims and Jews actually lived side by side in peace for pretty much the entirety of the Ottoman Empire. The I/P conflict is strictly a 20th and 21st century conflict, not a thousand year long conflict between the eternal enemies Jews and Arabs.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 02:17
|
|
|
the boston bomber posted:Believe it or not, Muslims and Jews actually lived side by side in peace for pretty much the entirety of the Ottoman Empire. The I/P conflict is strictly a 20th and 21st century conflict, not a thousand year long conflict between the eternal enemies Jews and Arabs. Funny how most people in this thread talk about it in terms of the political realities and a local power and land conflict. This is not news.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 02:20
|
|
|
NLJP posted:Funny how most people in this thread talk about it in terms of the political realities and a local power and land conflict. This is not news. Except a few posts above you Absurd Alhazred claims that the I/P conflict has actually persisted for ages. Absurd Alhazred posted:"...and dispels the myth that there has been a conflict for ages by producing proof that it was peaceful up until 1947 when Israel launched their illegal attacks." There were never, in fact, "constant violence episodes" before 1947. Besides, I don't really see how something can be both constant and episodic at the same time. Sure, Absurd isn't saying that the conflict goes further than the 20th century, but lots of zionists have an interest in portraying the conflict as persisting for much longer than it actually has, usually in an attempt to portray the Muslims as barbarous interlopers on the traditionally Jewish land of Israel.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 02:36
|
|
|
the boston bomber posted:Except a few posts above you Absurd Alhazred claims that the I/P conflict has actually persisted for ages.  Didn't read that properly. Definitely a sign I need to go to bed as I said above. Sorry.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 02:42
|
|
|
Silver Nitrate posted:So I was talking to a family member and he says that Hamas intentionally hides its weapons and people among civilian populations. Is there truth to this at all? Insurgencies have to "hide amongst civilians" not just because of population density. Its not physically impossible even in a dense city to designate certain areas for weapons and barracks. The real reason is when facing a vastly superior force if you have anything even vaguely resembling a military target it will be instantly annihilated. Demanding the cessation of "hiding amongst civilians" is the same thing as demanding the insurgency surrender to all demands both now and in the future. You might argue that that is the best option, but at least recognize what you are actually saying.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 02:47
|
|
|
the boston bomber posted:Believe it or not, Muslims and Jews actually lived side by side in peace for pretty much the entirety of the Ottoman Empire. The I/P conflict is strictly a 20th and 21st century conflict, not a thousand year long conflict between the eternal enemies Jews and Arabs. Jews had varying degrees of autonomy and oppression under consecutive Muslim empires. One of the flashpoints for Jews and Muslims which instigated the 1929 riots was that Jews wanted to pray freely at the Wailing Wall, which was at the time an alley right next to the Moroccan Quarter, and they were constantly interrupted there. In Hebron they were forbidden from going beyond the 7th Step to the Cave of the Patriarchs, which is holy to Judaism, not just to Islam. These were issues that constantly flared up throughout Ottoman rule, and did not start with the British Mandate. Generally they were a minority and not considered equal citizens. That Iraqi foreign minister cited earlier complaining that the Partition Plan would cause grief to Jews in his country just proves this point: that Jews ultimately were a contingent part of the population, as far as they were concerned, and would become suspect because of what other Jews did in another country. What kind of "equality" is it that evaporates this quickly? You will find that Jews of Arab descent or some of the most vocal anti-Arab racists. Some of that has to do with the dominant European-descended Jews making them feel that they needed to separate themselves from the Arab enemy, but some of it also had to do with their poor experiences and this sense of contingency in their erstwhile homelands. It is no coincidence that the party they ended up supporting to overthrow Mapai was more explicitly anti-Arab in rhetoric - Likud, a coalition lead by Herut, made up of Irgun veterans and their ideological descendents. Calling "living as a minority with reduced religious rights and subject to occasional violent attacks" "Peace" is misleading to say the least. the boston bomber posted:Except a few posts above you Absurd Alhazred claims that the I/P conflict has actually persisted for ages. quote:There were never, in fact, "constant violence episodes" before 1947. Is that so?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 02:53
|
|
|
And now a Home for the Disabled has been hit in Beit Lahia. The metaphor for killing wheelchair-bound people with a hammer has now been surpassed by literal murder of wheelchair-bound people.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 03:36
|
|
|
illrepute posted:And now a Home for the Disabled has been hit in Beit Lahia. The metaphor for killing wheelchair-bound people with a hammer has now been surpassed by literal murder of wheelchair-bound people. Wasn't that already posted upthread? There's worse(?) news: quote:3:50 A.M. Israeli army special forces raided a target in the Gaza Strip, the IDF Spokesperson's Unit reported. According to the IDF, the target was a compound from which long-range rockets were fired. Four soldiers were lightly wounded in the raid, and taken to hospitals for treatment. (Haaretz) I guess you could say that the ground invasion has started. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 03:56
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Jews had varying degrees of autonomy and oppression under consecutive Muslim empires. One of the flashpoints for Jews and Muslims which instigated the 1929 riots was that Jews wanted to pray freely at the Wailing Wall, which was at the time an alley right next to the Moroccan Quarter, and they were constantly interrupted there. In Hebron they were forbidden from going beyond the 7th Step to the Cave of the Patriarchs, which is holy to Judaism, not just to Islam. These were issues that constantly flared up throughout Ottoman rule, and did not start with the British Mandate. You use misleading and vague historical facts in an attempt to portray Jews as far more oppressed under the Ottoman Empire than they actually were. Most importantly, you completely ignore the Millet system in which Jews enjoyed privileges comparable to all other religious minorities under the Ottoman Empire. Of course you can find cases of Jews being treated unfairly in certain circumstances, but this is par for the course for any religious minority in any nation-state for the majority of history. Relatively speaking, Jews exercised a tremendous amount of privilege under the Ottoman Empire when compared to, say, England or Spain. quote:Under the Millet system the Jews were organized as a community on the basis of religion, alongside the other millets (e.g. Orthodox millet, Armenian millet, etc.). In the framework of the millet they had a considerable amount of administrative autonomy and were represented by the Hakham Bashi (Turkish: Hahambaşı حاخامباشی), who held broad powers to legislate, judge and enforce the laws among the Jews in the Ottoman Empire and often sat on the Sultan's divan. In other words, Jews were most certainly not second class citizens by any measure, under either mandatory Palestine or the Ottoman Empire. The wikipedia article you quote is hardly proof of constant violence in the region prior to 1947. Most of the entries in that chart occur either during the Arab Revolt, which is obviously not a period of peace, or post-WW2 leading up to the war. Besides, blacks have been a persecuted minority and subject to constant violence for over a century, but you would not say that the American South hasn't experienced peace for the last century. Painting the period before WW2 as some sort of sectarian bloodbath in which no one had any peace and Jews were oppressed is deliberately misleading and propagandist. nigel thornberry fucked around with this message at 04:02 on Jul 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 03:58
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Wasn't that already posted upthread? Several Palestinians were also wounded in the raid and were also taken to... oh gently caress, right.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 04:03
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Wasn't that already posted upthread? And will never end!
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 04:05
|
|
|
the boston bomber posted:You use misleading and vague historical facts in an attempt to portray Jews as far more oppressed under the Ottoman Empire than they actually were. Most importantly, you completely ignore the Millet system in which Jews enjoyed privileges comparable to all other religious minorities under the Ottoman Empire. Of course you can find cases of Jews being treated unfairly in certain circumstances, but this is par for the course for any religious minority in any nation-state for the majority of history. Relatively speaking, Jews exercised a tremendous amount of privilege under the Ottoman Empire when compared to, say, England or Spain. Did they enjoy the same rights as sunnis though? They did not, they were indeed second class citizens, and while near Constantinople they were treated well, in the outliers their treatment varied.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 04:11
|
|
|
the boston bomber posted:You use misleading and vague historical facts in an attempt to portray Jews as far more oppressed under the Ottoman Empire than they actually were. Most importantly, you completely ignore the Millet system in which Jews enjoyed privileges comparable to all other religious minorities under the Ottoman Empire. Of course you can find cases of Jews being treated unfairly in certain circumstances, but this is par for the course for any religious minority in any nation-state for the majority of history. Relatively speaking, Jews exercised a tremendous amount of privilege under the Ottoman Empire when compared to, say, England or Spain. Either way, you should take a step back because you're being unreasonably aggressive at the moment. I don't really care about the tone of an argument, but it's clearly clouding your ability to see what's being said here.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 04:13
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Did they enjoy the same rights as sunnis though? They did not, they were indeed second class citizens, and while near Constantinople they were treated well, in the outliers their treatment varied. Then so were Christians, and they didn't get their own Middle Eastern state.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 04:15
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:Then so were Christians, and they didn't get their own Middle Eastern state.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 04:17
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:Then so were Christians, and they didn't get their own Middle Eastern state. They got Lebanon, at least on paper. The demographics shifted afterward.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 04:17
|
|
|
the boston bomber posted:You use misleading and vague historical facts in an attempt to portray Jews as far more oppressed under the Ottoman Empire than they actually were. quote:Most importantly, you completely ignore the Millet system in which Jews enjoyed privileges comparable to all other religious minorities under the Ottoman Empire. quote:Of course you can find cases of Jews being treated unfairly in certain circumstances, but this is par for the course for any religious minority in any nation-state for the majority of history. quote:Relatively speaking, Jews exercised a tremendous amount of privilege under the Ottoman Empire when compared to, say, England or Spain. quote:In other words, Jews were most certainly not second class citizens by any measure, under either mandatory Palestine or the Ottoman Empire. quote:The wikipedia article you quote is hardly proof of constant violence in the region prior to 1947. Most of the entries in that chart occur either during the Arab Revolt, which is obviously not a period of peace, or post-WW2 leading up to the war. quote:Besides, blacks have been a persecuted minority and subject to constant violence for over a century, but you would not say that the American South hasn't experienced peace for the last century. quote:Painting the period before WW2 as some sort of sectarian bloodbath in which no one had any peace and Jews were oppressed is deliberately misleading and propagandist.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 04:20
|
|
|
Note: I do not agree with the following article, just wanted to draw attention to an article and try to make this thread more content focused: http://www.businessinsider.com/israel-is-raising-the-moral-standards-of-warfare-2014-7 quote:Israel’s air war in Gaza has now killed more than 100 people. Around the world, there’s concern and anger. These concerns are appropriate—war is horrible, and any number of deaths should trouble us. But given that this war is happening, let’s focus on the narrower question of how to minimize civilian deaths, now and in future conflicts. How bad is this war compared to others? Are Israel’s attacks indiscriminate?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 04:39
|
|
|
Haaretz' editorial cartoon for Sunday.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 04:44
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 04:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 01:22 |
|
|
Tezzor posted:Insurgencies have to "hide amongst civilians" not just because of population density. Its not physically impossible even in a dense city to designate certain areas for weapons and barracks. The real reason is when facing a vastly superior force if you have anything even vaguely resembling a military target it will be instantly annihilated. Demanding the cessation of "hiding amongst civilians" is the same thing as demanding the insurgency surrender to all demands both now and in the future. You might argue that that is the best option, but at least recognize what you are actually saying. Knowing they must choose a populated area, would insurgents bear any responsibility for choosing an area more likely to result in civilian casualties when it is targeted? Like launching rockets from a disabled children's center or hospital?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 04:53
|
|