Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
IFR

Israel: When the Drums of War Have Reached a Fever Pitch

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Bael's Bastard said:

Comparing Jews to Nazis is literal antisemitism.

Yes yes, nothing Israel does, no matter how similar to actual Nazis policy their actions are, may be compared to the Nazis. If you want I can shift to comparing it to the ethnic cleansing in the Americas if that will make you feel better. It amounts to the exact same thing because the Nazis used those policies in the creation of their own, but hey at least you'll feel more comfortable about it.

Not to mention I didn't compare Jews to Nazis, but Israel, Israelis and Israeli policy. But Israel = Jews is a common deflection tactic. An incredibly shitty one considering how many Jewish people object to the idea they either represent or are represented by Israel.

Quote

I don't agree with Tywin's plan at all, but literally tens of millions of people were transferred between newly formed countries based on ethnic, religious, etc. at the same exact time.

It's almost like the initial creation was a shitty shitty idea that gave no actual thought to the consequences.

Quote

You can talk about Israeli ethnic cleansing all you want, but your inability to acknowledge the reality Jews have experienced in our indigenous land and our ancient MENA diasporas at the hands of both European and MENA imperialism and colonialism and using Nazi language to describe us, I don't know what you're trying to accomplish but it's certainly not peace between Arabs and Jews.

My ancestors faced plenty of colonialism and imperialism, going through shit does not justify putting others through the same shit. Bringing it up is nothing less than an attempt at deflection.

Edited by TrueMetis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Karlbear said:

You apparently need to look it up too. Israel has the power to do it in a couple weeks but it would cost them too much poltically and possibly send them into war. Instead they can follow the standard imperialist system of killing a population by small cuts over a generation and no one cares about it in the aggregate to intervene or stop. America did a great job with the indigenous population in this way. Many other countries too. 

Genocide does not have to be a violent action or a quick one to qualify. 

Palestinians have grown from half a million a century ago to 13 million today. There is no goddamn genocide and the idea that any Israeli government has committed or is committing genocide against Palestinians in general or Gazans in particular is a lie. Projecting genocidal motives onto Israelis is fucking sick.

If you guys are trying to drive comfortable diaspora Jews to Israel, keep it up. The hostility to us in the diaspora is insane, and it can't be blamed on Israel. You guys are letting your masks down just like the Trumpers did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
37 minutes ago, TrueMetis said:

I didn't realize Stefan Molyneux was on this board.

 

 

Keep claiming that you're not antisemitic.

Edited by farerb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Bael's Bastard said:

You can talk about Israeli ethnic cleansing all you want, but your inability to acknowledge the reality Jews have experienced in our indigenous land and our ancient MENA diasporas at the hands of both European and MENA imperialism and colonialism and using Nazi language to describe us, I don't know what you're trying to accomplish but it's certainly not peace between Arabs and Jews.

At your post #163, you referred to: our nearly 3000 year old MENA diasporas by Arab Muslim governments.

Are the two bolden references to the conquering of ancient Judea (or similar kingdoms) by the Persians, Egyptians, Romans (and several other kingdoms or nations that escape my poor recollection of classic history)?

 

I am curious about your comment: "indigenous land" How do you understand this comment? 

 

(for the record and to avoid any confusion or misunderstanding in your or any other boarder's mind: I accept the existence of the modern state of Israel - as a gift from the (colonial power) United Kingdom and disagree with one and all that say it should not exist)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, SerTarod said:

At your post #163, you referred to: our nearly 3000 year old MENA diasporas by Arab Muslim governments.

Are the two bolden references to the conquering of ancient Judea (or similar kingdoms) by the Persians, Egyptians, Romans (and several other kingdoms or nations that escape my poor recollection of classic history)?

 

I am curious about your comment: "indigenous land" How do you understand this comment? 

 

(for the record and to avoid any confusion or misunderstanding in your or any other boarder's mind: I accept the existence of the modern state of Israel - as a gift from the (colonial power) United Kingdom and disagree with one and all that say it should not exist)

They mean Arab and Muslim countries in the Middle East and Africa. Jews were persecuted and driven out (just like in Europe btw).

Edited by farerb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, farerb said:

Keep claiming that you're not antisemitic.

... What? Stefan Molyneux is a white supremacist who claimed because there are more Indigenous people in the Americas now than in the past that there wasn't an attempt at genocide against them.

So I don't know what the fuck you're talking about here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, farerb said:

It's also important to differentiates Israel's actions in the West Bank vs their actions in Gaza. Israel's actions in Gaza are justified because Israel and the IDF's job is to protect their citizens, and no country in the world would have stood up for missiles being launched at them. The IDF tries to operate with as few civilian casualties as possible, it actually stopped an operation because there were too many civilians involved, something that again no country in the world would have done.

Britain and the United States have both halted military operations for fear of civilian casualties; there were high-ranking members of ISIS and Al-Qaeda who were in the sights of both countries' militaries but were in the proximity of weddings, civilian houses, schools etc and the attackers held fire.

The decision to use a nuclear weapon to end WWII was partially motivated by the fear of Allied casualties in a ground invasion of Japan, but also the fear that civilian casualties would rapidly escalate into the millions or tens of millions (as they had in the Russian invasion of Germany, and the civilian population wasn't threatening and being encouraged to throw themselves at the invaders as suicide troops there), massively eclipsing the tens of thousands of deaths from the bombs.

There's also the general use of cruise missiles as precision weapons which meant that individual targets in a city could be hit without flattening the whole city, which really began in the Gulf War, which made aerial bombing a viable tactic again after it had fallen out of favour due to its previously indiscriminate (and largely militarily useless) nature in WWII and Vietnam. 

Israel tries to minimise civilian casualties (to a point) but this is not unusual among many countries in the post-WWII period.

Quote

Just out of curiosity, why do you believe that? The Kaliningrad Oblast is not physically connected to the rest of Russia, nor the Nakchivan region to the rest of Azerbaijan, to name just two other examples. The lack of a land connection may perhaps be somewhat inconvenient, but I don't see why it would be a deal-breaker. 

This is true, not to mention the much larger example of Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico and the mainland USA, or Northern Ireland, the Isle of Man (and, more dramatically, the Falklands) and the rest of Britain.

However, those examples are not entirely comparable because the non-contiguous states are not separated by hostile territory in those cases. You can drive across Canada or Lithuania, or fly or catch a boat. The Gaza Strip and West Bank would be separated by 20 miles of territory that would at best be considered unfriendly, with heavy security checkpoints to pass between the two areas, which makes it extremely hard for them to operate as a unified state.

Quote

There is no goddamn genocide and the idea that any Israeli government has committed or is committing genocide against Palestinians in general or Gazans in particular is a lie.

Genocide also means the forced destruction of a culture, its identity and values over a long period of time through colonisation, imprisonment and making their way of life non-tenable. We have seen that happening continuously though more than twenty years of the Palestinians living under siege with their movements restricted and human rights infringed on a daily basis, and the areas where they live in the West Bank being reduced very slowly but surely and continuously through continued settlement construction and land annexations (the claim to the Jordan Valley, for example, which would have reduced a potential Palestinian state to an enclave of Israel with no viable land border with another state, and that was being debated as recently as last year).

So yes, the Israeli government is practicing - or permitting through inaction - genocide against the Palestinian people. Maybe not as overtly as the Chinese are against the Uighur and the Myanmar government against the Rohingya, but they are doing it. I don't think they even have a plan to do it, as they are simply winging it and preferring inaction because all of the viable solutions are too hard for them to deal with and they want to punt the problem down the road for another generation to deal with.

And yes, there are Palestinians and Arab groups who would happily practice genocide against Israel in a heartbeat if they had the means and power to do so. That does not morally or legally justify behaviour elsewhere.

Edited by Werthead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Karlbear said:

Yes, because they do not have the means to do it,

Full stop. Think about this again. You're telling a group of people who were victims of the worst genocide of the 20th century that they should just ignore further threats of genocide simply because those making the threat can't execute it at the moment, and that they should seek a path that makes it easier for the group to commit said genocide? Do you not understand how that reads?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Bael's Bastard said:

Comparing Jews to Nazis is literal antisemitism.

...

You can talk about Israeli ethnic cleansing all you want, but your inability to acknowledge the reality Jews have experienced in our indigenous land and our ancient MENA diasporas at the hands of both European and MENA imperialism and colonialism and using Nazi language to describe us, I don't know what you're trying to accomplish but it's certainly not peace between Arabs and Jews.

Just for the sake of argument, why is comparing Jews to Nazis literal antisemitism? Does that mean that any form of criticism against Israel or Jews is antisemitic? Is Israel now exempt from criticism for forcibly removing people based on ethnicity from part of its territory?

No one here has denied that Jewish people faced many hardships, including a systemic attempt to kill as many of them as possible. Guess what? That does not give Israel a free pass when it comes to ethnic cleansing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Werthead said:

Genocide also means the forced destruction of a culture, its identity and values over a long period of time through colonisation, imprisonment and making their way of life non-tenable. 

No, it doesn't. Genocide is a very specific thing, and that's what makes it so galling when people throw the term around; especially as an accusation against one of the groups of people has literally experienced it.

https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml

Quote

 

Article II of the Genocide Convention contains a narrow definition of the crime of genocide, which includes two main elements:

1. A mental element: the "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such"; and

2. A physical element, which includes the following five acts, enumerated exhaustively:

Killing members of the group

Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group

Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part

Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group

Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group

The intent is the most difficult element to determine. To constitute genocide, there must be a proven intent on the part of perpetrators to physically destroy a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. Cultural destruction does not suffice, nor does an intention to simply disperse a group. It is this special intent, or dolus specialis, that makes the crime of genocide so unique. In addition, case law has associated intent with the existence of a State or organizational plan or policy, even if the definition of genocide in international law does not include that element.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, farerb said:

They mean Arab and Muslim countries in the Middle East and Africa. Jews were persecuted and driven out (just like in Europe btw).

I was unaware of the fact there were Muslim governments 3000 years ago, I didn't think the religion even existed back then. My education must be horrible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, farerb said:

They mean Arab and Muslim countries in the Middle East and Africa. Jews were persecuted and driven out (just like in Europe btw).

3000 years is an odd metric, since the Romans (European) were involved, and Islam wasn’t around for most of that. Do Persians, Assyrians and Babylonians qualify as Arab?

And if you go back just a bit further, it was the 12 tribes of Israel taking the land by force from the Caananites.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Fez said:

No, it doesn't.

Not to get too into the weeds here, but I'm having some trouble understanding this. You're saying that this:

Quote

the forced destruction of a culture, its identity and values over a long period of time through colonisation, imprisonment and making their way of life non-tenable. 

Is not even arguably the same as this?

Quote

Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, mormont said:

Not to get too into the weeds here, but I'm having some trouble understanding this. You're saying that this:

Is not even arguably the same as this?

 

No, according to the UN, like I just posted:

Cultural destruction does not suffice, nor does an intention to simply disperse a group

Genocide is killing, full stop. Nothing else. Also, it's killing with a plan to kill, not killing through inaction; again as per the UN.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Derfel Cadarn said:

3000 years is an odd metric, since the Romans (European) were involved, and Islam wasn’t around for most of that. Do Persians, Assyrians and Babylonians qualify as Arab?

And if you go back just a bit further, it was the 12 tribes of Israel taking the land by force from the Caananites.

Always a sort of interesting twist on the whole thing isn't it. They're committing genocide to reclaim their ancestral homeland... which according to their origin story they claimed via genocide in the first place.

At least they're consistent?

30 minutes ago, Fez said:

No, it doesn't. Genocide is a very specific thing, and that's what makes it so galling when people throw the term around; especially as an accusation against one of the groups of people has literally experienced it.

https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml

 

Yeah no, fuck that. By this definition you could argue that the residential schools weren't an attempt at genocide in Canada. They were. Cultural destruction is genocide, full stop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SerTarod said:

At your post #163, you referred to: our nearly 3000 year old MENA diasporas by Arab Muslim governments.

Are the two bolden references to the conquering of ancient Judea (or similar kingdoms) by the Persians, Egyptians, Romans (and several other kingdoms or nations that escape my poor recollection of classic history)?

 

I am curious about your comment: "indigenous land" How do you understand this comment? 

 

(for the record and to avoid any confusion or misunderstanding in your or any other boarder's mind: I accept the existence of the modern state of Israel - as a gift from the (colonial power) United Kingdom and disagree with one and all that say it should not exist)

The ancient diasporas (originally created by Assyrian and Babylonian enslavement and transfer) that were all driven out in recent decades by Arab states, nearly 1 million that hadn't already been forced to convert, killed, or driven out in recent centuries, most of whom ended up back in Israel.

Meaning Jews as an ethnic group are indigenous to the land of Israel/Palestine. That does not confer rights to displace or harm others, nor was displacement and harm to others a goal of Zionism and the establishment of Israel.

Israel has done plenty of fucked up shit over the decades, but its attempts to genuinely make peace with Palestinian Arabs and the Arab states, and the costant rejection and vitriol in response, is well documented.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

I was unaware of the fact there were Muslim governments 3000 years ago, I didn't think the religion even existed back then. My education must be horrible.

There weren't, not sure what you're going on about. The point is that the Arab states completely ethnically cleansed those ancient Jewish communities in modern times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Judaism (I assume by the name) refers to the tribe of Judah who had a schism from the rest of Israel when Solomon’s son and successor was a dick, becoming the Samaritans (I believe? Been years since I read the Old Testament out of curiosity). 
 

So don’t the descendents of the Samaritans have ancient claim to northern Israel?

Found a map via google of the land in biblical times - can’t speak to its veracity.

https://biblesnet.com/maps3/Kingdoms of Judahs -Israel.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, TrueMetis said:

Yeah no, fuck that. By this definition you could argue that the residential schools weren't an attempt at genocide in Canada. They were. Cultural destruction is genocide, full stop.

I don't know the full details of those, but if folks would read the fucking thing I posted, #5 on the UN code's list is:

Quote

Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group

So it seems like it would apply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Derfel Cadarn said:

3000 years is an odd metric, since the Romans (European) were involved, and Islam wasn’t around for most of that. Do Persians, Assyrians and Babylonians qualify as Arab?

And if you go back just a bit further, it was the 12 tribes of Israel taking the land by force from the Caananites.

3000 years is about how old those ancient communities are. But they were ethnically cleansed by Arab states after the Holocaust. 

Jews are an indigenous Canaanite people/culture as any scholar of the ancient Levant will tell you. You are confusing a legend with no evidence to documented contemporary history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...