Israel/Palestine thread
Think this merits its own thread...
Discuss my fellow 2+2ers..
AM YISRAEL CHAI.
[QUOTE=Crossnerd]Edit: RULES FOR THIS THREAD
Posting guidelines for Politics and Soci...
These are our baselines. We're not reinventing the wheel here. If you aren't sure if something is acceptable to post, its better to ask first. If you think someone is posting something that violates the above guidelines, please report it or PM me rather than responding in kind.
To reiterate some of the points:
1. No personal attacks. This is a broad instruction, but, in general, we want to focus on attacking an argument rather than the poster making it. It is fine to say a post is antisemitic; it is not okay to call someone an antisemite over and over. If you believe someone is making antisemitic posts, report them or PM me. The same goes for calling people "baby killers" and "genocide lovers". You are allowed to argue that an action supports genocide or that the consequences of certain policies results in the death of children, but we are no longer going to be speaking to one another's intentions. It is not productive to the conversation and doesn't further any debate.
2. Racist posts and other bigoted statements that target a particular group or individuals of such groups with derogatory comments are not allowed. This should not need further explanation.
3. Graphic Images need to be in spoilers with a trigger warning.
4. Wishing Harm on other posters will result in an immediate timeout.
5. Genocidal statements such as "Kill 'em all" etc, are no longer permissible in the thread.
If anyone has any questions about the above, please PM me. I don't want a discussion about the rules to derail the content of this thread. If anything needs clarifying, I will do that in this thread.
Please be aware this thread is strictly moderated[/quote]
Yes and so what helps you and the people you care about is moral and viceversa.
And i am not Palestinian nor an ally of Palestinians, while I am an ally of Israel ad is every citizen of every western country.
This is what your problem is: you are a traitor to your country if your country is allied to Israel and you don't support Israel, always, no caveats, against Palestinians, simple as that.
Thanks for defining my problem, but I'm an ally to no one regardless who my country is allied with. If it was up to me we'd send exactly $0 to any country in the world. Israel, Palestine(more specifically their leaders), Ukraine and anyone else.
People here go from work straight to the foodbanks who btw, seem to run out of food, yet we send billions in aid to other countries.
I'd recommend tapping out, because you have zero understanding of how geopolitics works if this is what you think. You're just wasting your time in here.
Good thing is. So does no one else. Not even the politicians who make all these wise decisions for us.
Patriots don't put the security of a foreign country over the security of its own. The relationship with Israel isn't disinterested or ideological, but it's outdated and, therefore, relatively useless. Relative to the blowback Americans have faced for the relationship.
If Jews and Muslims want a society on that land, they'll have to work for it. The U.S. and Iran, et al. are just enabling belligerence.
You have a right to make your point when the relationship is made, or re-assessed.
Once the elected leaders decide though, you have no right to disagree, in war you have no right to think the enemy is actually nice. And it applies for wars your allies are in as well.
You are part of a community that democratically decided that Israel is our ally. YOU CANNOT DECIDE ON YOUR OWN ON THIS, it is not your right, not your freedom, the country decides allies and enemies and you comply in full or are a traitor to your country.
Hamas is considered a terrorist organization by the US government and if you are american you don't have a right to disagree on who are american enemies. Same applies to neonazists and stuff on the right that are friendly with Putin ofc. Enemies and allies of a country aren't individual freedom considerations. Your opinion matters in elections, and once elected leaders are there, their choice IS YOUR CHOICE and you have no freedom to disagree until the next election.
That is unless you leave the country and renounce your citizenship, that's still your freedom.
It's almost as if you didn't read my response. I'll re-post it with some highlights...
Interesting, because I feel equally the same about both. It's a tragedy on both sides.
To your question, since you've liked to ask it many times, the anti-war person in me is absolutely saddened and horrified that innocent people are caught up in this religious insanity, that has no viable solution because it's a battle of who's god is bigger. Netanyahu is a POS by all measures, but this is exactly what happens
Judging people for killing tens of thousands of people and making millions homeless is hardly a "why don't you step in their shoes" scenario.
Also, I've been to Israel twice. It's a great place. I'd love to take my kids there over the West Bank or any Arab countries, but Israel being a great place doesn't legitimize its existence as is. Jews aren't the only people who live in the Israel-Palestinian region. And as long as they reject a more plural society, they're going to have an antagonistic relationship with Palestinans.
Hell, it might be eternally antagonistic because of anti-semitism, but that doesn't justify apartheid. It didn't in South Africa. It doesn't in Israel.
I've been to SA three times in the last 20 years. I'm not utopian. I'm saying that when SA was forced to figure stuff out on their own, they began to heal out of mutual self-interest. It still sucks there for a lot of people. Racism still exists. There are still whites-only establishments and white nationalist music is a vibrant genre there.
Just as it will take multiple generations for something just to form in SA, it will take such in Israel-Palestine. Why not start now by stopping payment on the checks and killing machines?
You have a right to make your point when the relationship is made, or re-assessed.
Once the elected leaders decide though, you have no right to disagree, in war you have no right to think the enemy is actually nice. And it applies for wars your allies are in as well.
You are part of a community that democratically decided that Israel is our ally. YOU CANNOT DECIDE ON YOUR OWN ON THIS, it is not your right, not your freedom, the country decides allies and enemies and you comply in full or are a tra
I've said multiple times itt that I support the extermination of Hamas. Just not by any means necessary. I reject funding a belligerent country that will create blowback that kills Americans. If that makes me a traitor to some dude who doesn't understand the Consitution, I don't care.
The purpose of the 1A is to preserve the right to disagree with my country. If you don't get it, you just don't get it.
Good thing is. So does no one else. Not even the politicians who make all these wise decisions for us.
That's not remotely true. But when someone is claiming that America has no place in the Israel/Palestine conflict, their ignorance is shown brightly.
Coming from a family w/ many politicians in it, and having been around politicians all my life, I can say most are extremely well-educated and understand these issues. I know very little in comparison, but I have a pedestrian understanding of geopolitics and history, simply because I have a passion for it.
For someone coming from square one, with no real understanding, I'd recommend starting w/ Z.D Brzezinski's, "The grand Chessboard". It's an older book now, but the issues at play still hold, and it's well explained from someone who spent his life in geopolitics.
It's almost as if you didn't read my response. I'll re-post it with some highlights...
Interesting, because I feel equally the same about both. It's a tragedy on both sides.
To your question, since you've liked to ask it many times, the anti-war person in me is absolutely saddened and horrified that innocent people are caught up in this religious insanity, that has no viable solution because it's a battle of who's god is bigger. Netanyahu is a POS by all measures, but this is exactly what happens
Right. You don’t think KDR matters. You feel equally about both.
America killed all the native Americans whose land America stole
Israel is killing all of the native Palestinians whose land Israel stole
So I’m asking you why you think Oct 7 is bad, if you think every thing else was equal
The rockets aren’t random. They are fighting to get their land back
You have a right to make your point when the relationship is made, or re-assessed.
Once the elected leaders decide though, you have no right to disagree, in war you have no right to think the enemy is actually nice. And it applies for wars your allies are in as well.
It's an incredible thought experiment. I'll give you that. Wish I could ask Germans resisting Nazism how they feel about the fact that Luciom considers them traitors to their own country.
Judging people for killing tens of thousands of people and making millions homeless is hardly a "why don't you step in their shoes" scenario.
Also, I've been to Israel twice. It's a great place. I'd love to take my kids there over the West Bank or any Arab countries, but Israel being a great place doesn't legitimize its existence as is. Jews aren't the only people who live in the Israel-Palestinian region. And as long as they reject a more plural society, they're going to have an antagonistic rel
Yes, it's precisely that. You're literally not understanding anything I said.
How many people did America kill in Iraq and Afghanistan after losing 2996 people on 9/11?
Answer: over 4.5 million.
Was it justified? What is the appropriate response in order to deter more attacks? Do you think you or I are qualified to give that answer? If not, what makes you qualified to say what the appropriate relation is on Israel's side? I plead ignorance... you tell me, since you seem to know more. Should it be an equal amount? Will that prevent attacks? Should they not respond at all?
I've said multiple times itt that I support the extermination of Hamas. Just not by any means necessary. I reject funding a belligerent country that will create blowback that kills Americans. If that makes me a traitor to some dude who doesn't understand the Consitution, I don't care.
The purpose of the 1A is to preserve the right to disagree with my country. If you don't get it, you just don't get it.
Hamas has american hostages RIGHT NOW (unless they are lying and they are dead already). Americans in the area risk terrorist attacks as long as anyone like hamas is allowed to exist.
Exterminating the totality of islamic terrorists worldwide protect americans, obviously.
1a doesn't allow to help enemies in war at all actually
Yes, it's precisely that. You're literally not understanding anything I said.
How many people did America kill in Iraq and Afghanistan after losing 2996 people on 9/11?
Answer: over 4.5 million.
Was it justified? What is the appropriate response in order to deter more attacks? Do you think you or I are qualified to give that answer? If not, what makes you qualified to say what the appropriate relation is on Israel's side? I plead ignorance... you tell me, since you seem to know more. Should it be
It’s over like 2 million maybe.
Not justified. Appropriate response was to engage in more diplomacy and stop bombing brown kids. I think I am more qualified than you are to answer that. Given that I used to be a professional soldier.
How informed someone is doesn’t mean their argument is better or worse than yours.
The response shouldnt be an equal amount. That’s unethical Fighting back makes more attacks, this is called blowback.
They should not respond with military aggression.
Yes, it's precisely that. You're literally not understanding anything I said.
How many people did America kill in Iraq and Afghanistan after losing 2996 people on 9/11?
Answer: over 4.5 million.
Was it justified? What is the appropriate response in order to deter more attacks? Do you think you or I are qualified to give that answer? If not, what makes you qualified to say what the appropriate relation is on Israel's side? I plead ignorance... you tell me, since you seem to know more. Should it be
Of course, invading Iraq wasn't justified. They had nothing to do with 9/11. That's a non-sequitur.
As for Afghanistan, counter-terror missions would certainly be justified. Counterinsurgency, no.
If you want my credentials, I've taught IR for 15 years, but I have access to the same information as anyone else. My qualifications don't matter.
I've said numerous times itt that I wouldn't oppose counterinsurgency in Gaza. That the shock and awe collective punishment isn't just immoral but dangerous to Israeli and American citizens. COIN the only repairable solution at this point. Israel broke it. Israel bought it. It's on Israel to rebuild Gaza, while terminating Hamas. If you have one without the other, they're just gonna get more terrorism as a result.
Now, if you believe that Islamic terrorism from Gaza is a fait accompli because of inevitable perpetual antisemitism, it's easy to just justify genocide. That Israel isn't killing enough people. But, no, I don't believe that faced with the choice between assimilation and total destruction, the population of Gaza would choose destruction.
Either way, what Israel is doing is a half-measure that will accomplish nothing. Either wipe out Hamas and rebuild Gaza or just kill them all, including babies as a King Herod measure.
As a proponent of one state, COIN would be a first step in building a relationship to incorporate Palestinians in a plural society. If you think that's impossible, fine. Again, kill them all and embrace the notion of genocide as Dunyain has. I respect that more than pretending that Israel is making itself and the world safer by what they're actually doing.
Professional drivers aren't qualified about how to manage traffic, they are actually some of the last people to ask about urban viability considerations.
Like doctors on the field during a pandemic.
Like people who trade for a living for a bank during a financial crisis
That's not remotely true. But when someone is claiming that America has no place in the Israel/Palestine conflict, their ignorance is shown brightly.
Coming from a family w/ many politicians in it, and having been around politicians all my life, I can say most are extremely well-educated and understand these issues. I know very little in comparison, but I have a pedestrian understanding of geopolitics and history, simply because I have a passion for it.
For someone coming from square one, with no
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and ordered the book just now.
Edit: This better not suck btw. $55.....
Yes, it's precisely that. You're literally not understanding anything I said.
How many people did America kill in Iraq and Afghanistan after losing 2996 people on 9/11?
Answer: over 4.5 million.
Was it justified? What is the appropriate response in order to deter more attacks? Do you think you or I are qualified to give that answer? If not, what makes you qualified to say what the appropriate relation is on Israel's side? I plead ignorance... you tell me, since you seem to know more. Should it be
I thought it was widely accepted that Iraq was not justified?
What about the widespread criticism of the invasion of Iraq? Many millions of Americans were against this for a plethora of reasons. But the US government decided for the American people Iraq was an enemy.
Are they also traitors to their country?
Hamas has american hostages RIGHT NOW (unless they are lying and they are dead already). Americans in the area risk terrorist attacks as long as anyone like hamas is allowed to exist.
Exterminating the totality of islamic terrorists worldwide protect americans, obviously.
1a doesn't allow to help enemies in war at all actually
Having an opinion contrary to the government isn't aiding and abetting the enemy in U.S. legal theory. Or any legitimate legal theory, for that matter.
That isn't the case with war, healthcare, immigration, or any hot button topic. I don't know what education you received, but you're not well-versed on the theory behind the Constitution. The Constituion doesn't exist to protect the strength of the state. The Articles exist to tell the government what it can do. The Bill of Rights exists to tell it what it can't do.
The Bill of Rights is a contract between the government and the people to not permit punishing a difference of opinion. This is exactly the tyranny that the Constitution seeks to eliminate from government.
Professional drivers aren't qualified about how to manage traffic, they are actually some of the last people to ask about urban viability considerations.
Like doctors on the field during a pandemic.
Like people who trade for a living for a bank during a financial crisis
This is why we should attack arguments not people
What about the widespread criticism of the invasion of Iraq? Many millions of Americans were against this for a plethora of reasons. But the US government decided for the American people Iraq was an enemy.
Are they also traitors to their country?
can politely discuss the situation with no problems. Can never claim "iraq is right" or "we should fund iraq" or protest pro iraq.
See the difference? you can protest to say that you want congress to stop sending money to Israel. 1a.
you CANNOT protest to say you want a worldwide intifada or saying anything pro hamas.
Not complicated
Having an opinion contrary to the government isn't aiding and abetting the enemy in U.S. legal theory. Or any legitimate legal theory, for that matter.
That isn't the case with war, healthcare, immigration, or any hot button topic. I don't know what education you received, but you're not well-versed on the theory behind the Constitution. The Constituion doesn't exist to protect the strength of the state. The Articles exist to tell the government what it can do. The Bill of Rights exists to tell i
Asking to support an identified enemy of america is aiding and abetting the enemy of the US.
If you say "i think we don't need to be allied to israel, not in our interest, don't send them anything" it's all fine.
If you say "Hamas is right" , about anything, you are a traitor.
I've said multiple times itt that I support the extermination of Hamas. Just not by any means necessary. I reject funding a belligerent country that will create blowback that kills Americans. If that makes me a traitor to some dude who doesn't understand the Consitution, I don't care.
The purpose of the 1A is to preserve the right to disagree with my country. If you don't get it, you just don't get it.
The IDF is exterminating Hamas for us. Would you rather it be American soldiers fighting in urban warzones across the globe? The amount of money we give to Israel is a rounding error in the US defense budget.
What about the widespread criticism of the invasion of Iraq? Many millions of Americans were against this for a plethora of reasons. But the US government decided for the American people Iraq was an enemy.
Are they also traitors to their country?
Luciom has said in threads that if a law exists, it's inherently legitimate. Even fugitive slave laws.
So, it's not surprising that he has this autocratic view on state policy and citizens who don't walk in-step with it.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and ordered the book just now.
Edit: This better not suck btw. $55.....
I thought it was widely accepted that Iraq was not justified?
It's a good book if you want a global outlook from someone who actually made policy decisions. I'm not going to claim it's the best book, but it's one of my favs.
Justified... I don't know. I don't personally think so. But my main point was, how do you measure the appropriate response? Surely you acknowledge that if they don't respond, they get even more attacks. There's some measure of force that says, "don't even think about it again... because this is going to happen". That's why I used 9/11 as an analogy. You hit someone back so hard, that at some point they concede.. that's what America and other countries typically do. Again, I'm not pretending to know what the appropriate proportional response should be. I'm just trying to push back on all of these false narratives of Palestinian victimhood. It's so preposterous, and far from the truth it's hard to ignore.
Asking to support an identified enemy of america is aiding and abetting the enemy of the US.
If you say "i think we don't need to be allied to israel, not in our interest, don't send them anything" it's all fine.
If you say "Hamas is right" , about anything, you are a traitor.
*insert moving goal post gif*.
How do I post gifs on this forum?
Luciom has said in threads that if a law exists, it's inherently legitimate. Even fugitive slave laws.
So, it's not surprising that he has this autocratic view on state policy and citizens who don't walk in-step with it.
He used the same logic to justify abusing(rape) POWs so I'm not entirely surprised he's gone this extreme. Mostly poking the bear because the extreme responses are quite funny to read.
