Jace, Extat Posted April 10 Share Posted April 10 1 hour ago, Zorral said: Maybe if the Likuders etc. halted the theft of Palestinian lands, repression of their civil and legal rights, etc. Palestinians wouldn't have to die. Do Palestinians have civil or legal rights? One would think not, since they have no legitimate representing structure to guarantee them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorral Posted April 10 Share Posted April 10 Just now, Jace, Extat said: Do Palestinians have civil or legal rights? One would think not, since they have no legitimate representing structure to guarantee them. Supposedly those who are Israeli citizens do, or should have, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jace, Extat Posted April 10 Share Posted April 10 9 minutes ago, Zorral said: Supposedly those who are Israeli citizens do, or should have, right? Well, Israelis are citizens because they constitute a state right? It's the state that offers, guarantees, and enforces an individual's rights. Is there an organization or entity that looks to guarantee, with enforcement, Palestinian rights or civil liberties? The Palestinian Authority has no popular support, or enforcement power. And Hamas is not exactly a Civil Liberties kind of group. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kissdbyfire Posted April 10 Share Posted April 10 Supposedly every human on the planet should have civil, legal and human rights guaranteed, right? Right??? Larry of the Lawn, straits and Ser Reptitious 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kissdbyfire Posted April 10 Share Posted April 10 2 minutes ago, Jace, Extat said: Hamas is not exactly a Civil Liberties kind of group. They’re most definitely not, just like this Israeli government btw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jace, Extat Posted April 10 Share Posted April 10 Just now, kissdbyfire said: Supposedly every human on the planet should have civil, legal and human rights guaranteed, right? Right??? Supposedly. But who's to enforce such a standard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorral Posted April 10 Share Posted April 10 17 minutes ago, Jace, Extat said: Well, Israelis are citizens because they constitute a state right? It's the state that offers, guarantees, and enforces an individual's rights. Is there an organization or entity that looks to guarantee, with enforcement, Palestinian rights or civil liberties? The Palestinian Authority has no popular support, or enforcement power. And Hamas is not exactly a Civil Liberties kind of group. As usual you missed The Point. There are Palestinians who are citizens of Israel. Thus they are to be allowed civil rights and representation, but they are not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jace, Extat Posted April 10 Share Posted April 10 We already had this discussion didn't we? I thought you were referring to Palestinians living in Gaza and the West Bank. But anyway, and to this point: 24 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said: They’re most definitely not, just like this Israeli government btw. There's a wild, wild, difference in having a government underperform in upholding individual rights and having no rights at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorral Posted April 10 Share Posted April 10 I explicitly said ISRAEL. Is it your comprehension or did you just not bother to read? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Padraig Posted April 10 Share Posted April 10 37 minutes ago, Jace, Extat said: Is there an organization or entity that looks to guarantee, with enforcement, Palestinian rights or civil liberties? Isn't that the problem that people are trying to solve? Setting up such an entity. Less rhetoric, more common sense. Jace, Extat 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jace, Extat Posted April 10 Share Posted April 10 Comprehension, surely. See, with your soaring rhetoric I sometimes lose track of what, exactly, the great evil entities are suppposedly doing. I really did think that that was how you were describing the entirety of the Israel-Palestine relationship, though. Zorral 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kissdbyfire Posted April 10 Share Posted April 10 14 minutes ago, Jace, Extat said: Comprehension, surely. See, with your soaring rhetoric I sometimes lose track of what, exactly, the great evil entities are suppposedly doing. There’s nothing supposed about any of many many evils happening in many places around the globe, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted April 10 Share Posted April 10 2 hours ago, Zorral said: Maybe if the Likuders etc. halted the theft of Palestinian lands, repression of their civil and legal rights, etc. Palestinians wouldn't have to die. That argument only works if elected Palestinian leadership wasn't advocating for exactly the same thing. 1 hour ago, kissdbyfire said: You’re right. But it’s still a valid rhetorical argument for someone who is shamelessly proposing ethnic cleansing like it’s a vacation in the Caribbean. In that part of the world it is like a vacation just to call for the death of others as easily as you would order a coffee in the morning. Zorral 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorral Posted April 10 Share Posted April 10 54 minutes ago, Jace, Extat said: Comprehension, surely. See, with your soaring rhetoric I sometimes lose track of what, exactly, the great evil entities are suppposedly doing. I really did think that that was how you were describing the entirety of the Israel-Palestine relationship, though. O my goodness. Five letter words are now soaring rhetoric. As They Say, Americans' intelligence and comprehension falls every decade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jace, Extat Posted April 10 Share Posted April 10 43 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said: There’s nothing supposed about any of many many evils happening in many places around the globe, Yeah, waddaya gonna do? Our dear, beloved, Zorral has a flair for sweepish commentary. I just mistook the focus of the post as Palestinians as a nationality, not ethnicity. 3 minutes ago, Zorral said: O my goodness. Five letter words are now soaring rhetoric. As They Say, Americans' intelligence and comprehension falls every decade. Oh, you! You're not allowed to be cynical or snarky, even in jest. I count on you for unbridled empathy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Anti-Targ Posted April 11 Share Posted April 11 I am all for an open border policy for all developed countries for both Palestinians and Israelis who would like to leave. But I prefer such people to move to a new country for positive reasons, not because their current home has become an unbearable hell hole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Werthead Posted April 12 Share Posted April 12 (edited) Multiple countries are anticipating an Iranian response for the strike on the consulate in Damascus. Iran has interpreted this as a direct attack on their sovereign soil, and must be answered with a corresponding direct strike on Israeli soil. There seems to be a number of calibrations going on in Tehran on the response. A massive, full-scale assault on Israel could very well provoke an Israeli nuclear response or trigger a massive, wider conflict bringing in the United States, which Iran is not likely to win (and may not survive). However, the damage Iran could inflict in the process across the region would be extraordinarily significant. Amongst the bluster of flattening all of Israel there have also been comments about Israeli embassies or consulates, suggesting that Iran could instead strike Israeli diplomatic representation in a third country. The problem is that there limited targets for such a strike in the region: Jordan, Egypt, UAE, Bahrain, Egypt, Türkiye and Azerbaijan. Iran bombing any of these countries would be problematic. I've even seen suggestions that Iran could target the Israeli Embassy in Kyiv, as the closest approximation to Israel striking the consulate in Syria, although there's a nontrivial chance that such a strike would be intercepted by Ukrainian air defences. This would also give Ukraine casus belli to target Iran's drone production systems directly on Iranian soil. However, a limited strike on an Israeli target abroad, in clear and proportionate response to the Israeli targeting of the facility in Damascus, might discourage Israel from further retaliation, whilst a direct strike on the Israeli homeland would ramp up pressure for a retaliatory strike on Iran. Last week it was rumoured that Iran had communicated through back channels with the USA about a limited strike on Israeli targets that would not trigger a wider conflict, but the rhetoric from Tehran has apparently hardened considerably since then. There is also a growing feeling that a retaliation will be at the sharper end of possibilities, with Arab countries uneasily saying they will not permit their bases to be used for retaliatory strikes on Iran. China, which has been steering clear of the whole mess, has apparently dipped its toes into diplomacy in the region through communications with Iran, after an apparent US warning to Beijing of the situation escalating uncontrollably. There is some US speculation that Iran might be sabre-rattling to such a high degree that a limited strike will be seem as a comparative "getting off easily" scenario which Israel can be discouraged from retaliating against. However, that might be wishful thinking. If a strike does come, it could be in the next few days or even hours. Edited April 12 by Werthead Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conflicting Thought Posted April 12 Share Posted April 12 4 minutes ago, Werthead said: Multiple countries are anticipating an Iranian response for the strike on the consulate in Damascus. Iran has interpreted this as a direct attack on their sovereign soil, and must be answered with a corresponding direct strike on Israeli soil. There seems to be a number of calibrations going on in Tehran on the response. A massive, full-scale assault on Israel could very well provoke an Israeli nuclear response or trigger a massive, wider conflict bringing in the United States, which Iran is not likely to win (and may not survive). However, the damage Iran could inflict in the process across the region would be extraordinarily significant. Amongst the bluster of flattening all of Israel there have also been comments about Israeli embassies or consulates, suggesting that Iran could instead strike Israeli diplomatic representation in a third country. The problem is that there limited targets for such a strike in the region: Jordan, Egypt, UAE, Bahrain, Egypt, Türkiye and Azerbaijan. Iran bombing any of these countries would be problematic. I've even seen suggestions that Iran could target the Israeli Embassy in Kyiv, as the closest approximation to Israel striking the consulate in Syria, although there's a nontrivial chance that such a strike would be intercepted by Ukrainian air defences. This would also give Ukraine casus belli to target Iran's drone production systems directly on Iranian soil. However, a limited strike on an Israeli target abroad, in clear and proportionate response to the Israeli target, might discourage Israel from further retaliation, whilst a direct strike on the Israeli homeland would ramp up pressure for a retaliatory strike on Iran. Last week it was rumoured that Iran had communicated through back channels with the USA about a limited strike on Israeli targets that would not trigger a wider conflict, but the rhetoric from Tehran has apparently hardened considerably since then. There is also a growing feeling that a retaliation will be at the sharper end of possibilities, with Arab countries uneasily saying they will not permit their bases to be used for retaliatory strikes on Iran. China, which has been steering clear of the whole mess, has apparently dipped its toes into diplomacy in the region through communications with Iran, after an apparent US warning to Beijing of the situation escalating uncontrollably. There is some US speculation that Iran might be sabre-rattling to such a high degree that a limited strike will be seem as a comparative "getting off easily" scenario which Israel can be discouraged from retaliating against. However, that might be wishful thinking. If a strike does come, it could be in the next few days or even hours. Man, hope we remeber who was the escalating party in all of this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Werthead Posted April 12 Share Posted April 12 1 minute ago, Conflicting Thought said: Man, hope we remeber who was the escalating party in all of this Even the US has blamed Israel for doing something so stupid as to directly hit the Iranian consulate (effectively Iranian sovereign soil). Even if Iran doesn't want to escalate to a war - and it's clear it doesn't, given it could have started one over the attacks on Gaza and then Lebanon and in Syria - the government might feel it has no choice but to respond or look very weak, endangering its position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jace, Extat Posted April 12 Share Posted April 12 We're gonna Bomb BOmb BOMB Iran... C'mon, y'all it's fun in the sand Everyone should lend a hand When we Bomb BOmb BOMB Iran All the breaks will go to plan All the bombs, because we can Get some sun, get a tan I'd rather that than see them fan The flames of war in over-there-istan It isn't fair, it's not our fight But we're super and Israel's right We cannot let them have The Bomb And that's the moral of this song! We're gonna Bomb BOmb BOMB Iran Come now, Persians Get your due We can do this, we and you It'll be just like a dance Time to snap out of our trance and see that the only way through is to... Bomb BOmb BOMB Iran Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts