Kaal posted:

So ... not easily and by a handful of Western powers then?

A Terrible Person posted:

Why are you guys trying to make rhetorical arguments to trick or shame Kaal into answering a simple yes/no question when the entire point of him posting here is to avoid doing so?

He's as much as stated that Israel is the aggressor already and admitted that, yes, Israel has a right to kill every last Palestinian simply because Israel is more powerful. He's monstrously wrong, but all debating him will result in is more questions and deflections on his part.

Kaal posted:

Your position here is absurd. It's like asking if the American Civil War was wrong, or whether WWII was wrong. Those aren't legitimate questions. So go ahead and call me a fascist or whatever for disagreeing with you, but realize that you can't reduce a conflict to yes/no right/wrong black/white.

Cool Bear posted:

SpiderHyphenMan posted:

Kaal brought the thread past the point of no return it's all poo poo and we're going to fester in it until Israel decides it's time for a ground invasion again.

Cool Bear posted:

I forget his name but one of the first famous authors to popularize the term Zionism as the desire to create a Jewish homeland somewhere said they should do it in argentina in some place geographically similar to ancient israel because people already lived in palestine at that time, the late 1800s, and it would end up with rude things happening to them.

Kaal posted:

Similarly, trying to paint the entire Israeli occupation as wrong or right, which could go back 100 years in some people's minds, is a meaningless exercise in point-scoring.

quote:

"Was American expansionism wrong"

quote:

"Was the American quest to exterminate Native Americans wrong"

quote:

Was Cast Lead right or wrong?

quote:

Was the Second Intifada right or wrong?

Kaal posted:

I agree with a lot of that, but I also note that you had the wisdom to not try to answer complex questions by simply saying yes or no.

Kaal posted:

I'm sure that you understand that some concepts are simply too large to be simplified into two neat categories. I mean I'm sure that you can see that trying to pose the question, "Human civilization, right or wrong?" is absolutely absurd. If you're talking about a specific event or decision then you can start grappling with its specific morality or wisdom, but if you broaden the scope out to concepts involving millions of people over decades of history, then that sort of absolutism is simply misguided.

Xander77 posted:

Yes. It means someone who has ~~~wrong opinions~~~ about the I/P conflict. For example, someone who's convinced that a terrorist attack was perpetrated by terrorists.

Or someone who served in the IDF. Or someone who defends Israel's actions. Basically, any Israeli who's arguing in favor of any Israeli position is an agent using a ~~~scary Jew word~~~ (the relevant part, just in case you're dense) plan to brainwash the gentiles.

You'll note that people who really dislike their own country are very much a minority in any place that isn't currently undergoing a violent revolution. In 1990, the Russian citizens of the USSR (so, not the victims of Russian domination) - a country that was manifestly failing to provide for the majority of its citizens - were still in favor of keeping the USSR and communism around.

Xander77 posted:

I strongly disagree with at least one of the above.
Bull. First of all, any sort of "useful idiot" "Hasbarah shill" etc label is there to close the overtone window and indicate that no position besides your own can be argued ~~~in good faith~~~. Second of all, you don't persistently use scary foreign words (Jew-y) words to describe an opponent except in order to emphasize how scarily Jew-y he is.

Xander77 posted:

Buddy, it's almost as though this discussion didn't start on this page, or the last one.

Accretionist posted:

Between what he's posting, his usertext and him listing his occupation as, "Paid to browse the forums," I'm going to entertain the notion he's literally one of Israel's many paid shills.

Xander77 posted:

As I pointed out, every single person who has ~~~wrong opinions~~~ has been accused of being a shill and got a proper avatar to make sure everyone knows he's arguing for the wrong side. It's almost as though noting an overall trend is the exact opposite of cherry-picking.

Crane Fist posted:

The discussion which was turning into 'genocide is only a word and words are subjective and have whatever meaning you assign to them and aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaabbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb'

Xander77 posted:

Hmm. It's almost as though these two posts are ironic when juxtaposed against each other.
They're my ~~~uguuu~ tildes, and I love them and I'm going to marry them when I grow up.

Or, to clarify things for the dense, either everyone who supports Israel, or an Israeli position, or an Israeli assertion is a genocide loving fascist shill, or... wait, there actually isn't an or. It's almost as if some "tone arguments" - as in, "what are the boundaries of this discussion, and is everyone who disagrees [see the first part of the sentence]" are worth having.

Xander77 posted:

Hmm. It's almost as though these two posts are ironic when juxtaposed against each other.

(Congrats on the quick edit, by the way)
What is there to talk about, precisely?

Israel is bad, very bad. I'm glad we can all agree

Xander77 posted:

Yes, exactly*.

*(Well, actually you could go "whoops, I thought X but it turned out that Y, so my bad" instead of trying to pretend you were always and forever correct, but whatever)

Thanks for the new avatar, whoever

Xander77 posted:

What is there to talk about, precisely?

Israel is bad, very bad. I'm glad we can all agree

...

Seriously though, I participate in less than one I/P thing per year because I don't have a good clear answer as to what should be done (unlike a whole bunch of subjects that I can post about smugly and with conviction). Also unlike most subjects, m opinions on the I/P thing are both ~~~wrong~~~ and non-productive (something along the lines of "there are reasons why Israel does what it does that are far more realpolitik and complex than 'racism'" which doesn't actually help things). Furthermore, I don't feel like the issue is going to be solved one way or another short of an absolutely catastrophic development.

What did interest me was racism against Israeli Arabs. They aren't quite considered ~~~the enemy~~~, and Jews work and occasionally live and study side by side with them. I vaguely hoped that dropping the racism level here could help everyone at once - better conditions for the Arabs, less terrorism and riots for the Jews, possibly a platform for a future understanding with the Palestinians... but it seems as though that's not going to happen. (Thanks Im Tirzu, Yad Le Ahim and a bunch of other assholes I've been fighting against to no avail. Hope you're the very next people to burn alive )

Nor are we discussing it here, apparently.

Xander77 posted:

There's a legacy legal system from the Ottoman empire / British mandate wherein everyone has to marry through their proper religious authorities, with no civil union option. So convert, or fly abroad to get married so that your interfaith (or gay or breaking some obscure religious rule) union is recognized.

Xander77 posted:

"It takes two to tango" "the first step in a dialog" and other bullshit phrases. But seriously though, that has some point to it. Israeli Arab politicians / society focused on I/P first and on the needs of the common Arab a distant second, and are pushing for something like voluntary segregation (as a form of protest?). They don't participate in mixed-city municipal elections in places like Jerusalem, they don't sit on the same councils as Jews as union members / students / whatever. Publishing Arab newspapers with a Hebrew edition, at least on the net, would be a good first phase (and vise-versa for Hebrew newspapers, obviously). Publicizing Arab issues in Hebrew.

The Communist party (good people, you may want to google Dov Hanin and co) (which is occasionally counted among the Arab parties only because it:) has submitted more laws to the Knesset dealing improving the conditions of the Israeli-Arabs than the rest of the Arab parties combined. Just publicizing the poor conditions of Arab settlements, Arab schools etc may help. Particularly if there's a strong emphasis on "do you want these millions to be your comrades or your enemies? Either they're citizens or they aren't". I'm not saying "go join the army and earn your rights as a citizen" - just Am I Not a Man and a Brother, no more, no less.

On the Jewish side. First of all, though everyone are required to study Arabic, no one has to pass it to graduate. Change that on the spot - make it the equivalent of math or English, which you have to know on some level if you want your bagrut. Pretty sure that everyone speaking the same language would help a tad.

Xander77 posted:

The Branja - the evil gang that apparently controls the ~~~media~~~ is ostensibly a bunch of peaceniks. Prove it. Promote Arabs as a part of the regular media. Not "a special correspondent" that gets pulled out only when dealing with sectarian issues. Have an Arab commentator in the studio when talking about vaccinations. Include an Arab member in your band (even if only on the drums) even though you're not an explicitly political group. Don't make special reports about ethnic group x eating ethnic food y in ethnic location z - just give the recipe for said food and have an interview with the cook.

Xander77 posted:

Normalize Arab presence in mainstream Israeli society. That's what both sides should be pushing for. Just phrase the question as sharply as possible: "friend or foe". We're not yet at the point where the majority is going to answer "foe". Azmi Bishara (RIP) (except not really) had the right idea - just run for Prime Minister and ask "is that a problem? What? What?"

(Possibly) More importantly, call out and keep calling out bullshit like the first paragraph. I still bring up the first time I've seen the head of Im Tirzu (towering over a Palestinian student) half his size and screaming in her face) every time they are mentioned (then, if anyone is still interested, there's a big exposition on my time as a Civil Guard volunteer and my encounter with Yad Le Ahim). Narrow the overtone window and defenestrate them. It can get kinda tiresome (when I have the time, I'll write out my big "Conservative worldview vs liberal worldview" screed and point out why "how would you like to be in their place doesn't really work") but that's the day by day thing.

Hong XiuQuan posted:

Obama's letting' Israel know that they've had enough fun and it's time to put their toys away before America gets a little annoyed - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-28258448

Kaal posted:

It's because applying that same kind of simplistic framework to "Israeli occupation - right or wrong" is equally problematic. Does the question apply to the entire Jewish presence since the beginning of the Mandate, or just a specific time period (and why)? Is the question focused on specific areas (i.e. Gaza/West Bank) or the entirety of the region? Are we talking about the specifically problematic elements of the occupation, or everything related to the state of Israel? Is the question asking whether it's the right response to the situation for the decision-makers, or in a larger moral scope on a global humanitarian level? Are competing hypotheticals or behaviors being applied here, or is the concept being examined in isolation? What is the role of right/wrong in the larger discursive construct? Where do exterior influences fit into all of this?

A simple response of "Yes" or "No" doesn't start to address any of these questions. The topic is simply too broad. And that's because the question isn't actually intended to be illuminating - it's simply trying to score a rhetorical lay-up. Normally the best response to this sort of debate tactic is simply to respond to the question that should have been asked, but I instead tried to reply in good faith and there's been whining about it ever since.

Uranium Phoenix posted:

Dude, it's like, complicated, man. You can't just "answer" "questions" like "is killing nearly one hundred oppressed innocent people with military bombers wrong". What is wrong, anyways? Morality is all, like, relative, man. And history is super complicated. Saying anything at all, literally, anything at all, would be, like, completely reductionist.

FRINGE posted:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-28258448
[/b]

* "Terrorists" is defined as "people we killed" of course. Hasbara!

Volkerball posted:

The US has said that Hamas was involved in the kidnapping as well fwiw.

http://www.jpost.com/Operation-Brothers-Keeper/US-says-Hamas-involved-if-not-responsible-for-fate-of-Israels-lost-boys-361195

Cat Mattress posted:

Is there a single Palestinian political party that Israel doesn't consider to be terrorists?

Volkerball posted:

That's fair, but at the same time, even with no evidence, with those two intelligence forces claiming Hamas at least played a role (consider one of the victims was American), it's very unlikely they didn't. Hell, even without those statements, it'd still most likely be Hamas.

Volkerball posted:

He also said something about "freeing Palestinian prisoners," which I assume was a reference to doing prisoner exchanges. The bodies were found over two weeks after the abduction, but Shin Bet* said they believed they were killed "shortly" after being abducted.

Cat Mattress posted:

It has changed at some point then, because Fatah was definitely considered a terrorist organization in the past.

GaussianCopula posted:

So she draws parallels between the holocaust and what the IDF is doing?

She must think all the Nazi propaganda about the jewish world conspiracy are true, because otherwise I can not understand how you can even bring up the holocaust in this situation.

If the palestinians want peace it's so loving easy. They take all their weapons/rockets, put them on a large pile and burn them. Next they say that they accept the state of Israel as a jewish state and wish for the US, Russia and China to setup a peace conference with the Israelis, negotiate a peace treaty without being stubborn about any issue and in about 3month they have their own independent nation, which might not be exactly as they whish, but it will be a hell of a lot better than the situation today. Failing that many thousand more palestinians will die in the decades to come.