Since it's been a while since we had an Israel/Palestine thread...

Mr. Tea

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
Well whatever happens next, I think it's fair to say that Netanyahu has cemented his legacy as one of the true monsters of this century so far. A corrupt, criminal brute who failed even the most basic task of keeping his own people safe (from an enemy his government has been succouring for over a decade, in any case), and who then decided that a reasonable response was to murder thousands of children.
 
padraig (u.s.)

padraig (u.s.)

a monkey that will go ape
D

DannyL

Wild Horses
padraig (u.s.) said:
I like how every single time it's demonstrated you guys have absolutely no clue what you're talking about your last resort is "facts and books are for losers bro"h fa

and I thought you were supposed to be the erudite one of the RW crew with your utilitarian larping lol

Like there's people out there who can argue your positions such as they are from a coherent, informed place. I disagree with them, but they know what they're talking about. It's just that you specifically don't.
Click to expand...
Festooned with facts no less. FESTOONED.
 
D

droid

Well-known member
padraig (u.s.) said:
www.haaretz.com

Israel, beware: In war, apocalyptic Jewish ultra-nationalists are in a state of ecstasy | Opinion

***
www.haaretz.com www.haaretz.com

www.haaretz.com

Rabbi at Israeli military base says 'whole country' is 'ours,' including Gaza and Lebanon

***
www.haaretz.com www.haaretz.com

Click to expand...


Its the glee I find so chilling about this, the rapturous joy on those faces. It feels timeless, like a glimpse into some elemental archetype of self-righteous impunity, a scene that must have been enacted countless times in countless places through history.
 
D

droid

Well-known member
This combination of social media and genocidal war was pioneered by ISIS ofc, but this seems like the next level. There'll be no denying this in the aftermath. Selfies at Sabra and Shatila.
 
T

thirdform

pass the sick bucket
mixed_biscuits said:
If 1,000 people are trying to kill Rambo, Rambo is then trying to kill 1,000 people. There is no 'exchange rate' once it has been established that might is right by the original aggressor - it's absolute might rather than might per capita because it is not a test of individual skill but merely two camps trying to force their way to achieving their goals.
Click to expand...


wow, finally an answer! such an erudite boy!

If it is indeed the case then there is no exchange rate, you have no moral equivalence to condemn anyone for supporting Palestine. In fact, you absolve Hamas. They may be the less mighty, Israel may destroy them, but they still have the chance of having their might, provided certain circumstances, turn in their favour, to achieve their goals. Doubly so, as you have conceded that hamas have claimed might to be right, and not the historical policies of the Israeli government. You forget that I'm not a democrat and have no democratic sympathies, unlike padraig, tea and danny.

The fact of the matter is you are ineluctably tied to the ideology of proportionality and of exchange rate. Otherwise you merely become a fetishiser of war, and have to condemn Benjamin Netanyahu as a leftist! All explanations at the end of the day are justifications (even if you disapprove) so thanks for falling into my 🍯 like a good beta man. You are a terrorist apologist simply by virtue of having no need for liberal international law, human rights, no need for the concept of war crimes, oppressed vs oppresser. You are, actually, far to the right of even hamas.

Padraig and danny say you have no idea what you are talking about. I would like to offer a more cutting (and powerful) condemnation. One word describes you: clown.
 
T

thirdform

pass the sick bucket
padraig (u.s.) said:
The editor of Israel's RW English language newspaper published an editorial a couple days ago saying if you're not with is you're not a real Jew
m.jpost.com

Editor's Notes: No longer part of us

While they may still technically be Jewish due to their parentage or conversion, while they may lead superficially Jewish lives, we can no longer consider them part of Klal Yisrael.
m.jpost.com m.jpost.com
Click to expand...

good article that in spite of the crap its full of, inadvertent proof that zionists are stuck with having to grapple with the long durational contradiction of attempting to synthesise religion with nationalism (each serve as antidotes to each others poison, as has been found in kemalist Turkey, and of course, Iran.

The hysterical and panicked reaction is proof that A) Judaism holds no special ontological status vis-a-vis other Abrahamic religions and B) the tide of power is turning in the favour of the materialist criticism of organised religion. In this sense, and only in this sense, long live the butcher Benjamin Netanyahu who works, in spite of himself, to create the conditions of the proletarian world revolution.
 
Mr. Tea

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
thirdform said:
If it is indeed the case then there is no exchange rate, you have no moral equivalence to condemn anyone for supporting Palestine. In fact, you absolve Hamas. They may be the less mighty, Israel may destroy them, but they still have the chance of having their might, provided certain circumstances, turn in their favour, to achieve their goals. Doubly so, as you have conceded that hamas have claimed might to be right, and not the historical policies of the Israeli government.
Click to expand...

This is just what I was trying to tell him the other day. Any "pragmatic" argument about the reasonable and rational motive for one ethnic/cultural/national group to exterminate another such group that poses a threat to its survival is as good an argument for supporting Hamas as it is for supporting Israel - in fact arguably a better argument for supporting Hamas, since the imbalance in offensive capability between the two sides makes Hamas's claim (or the claim of any Palestinian or Palestine supporter) that Israel represents an existential threat to them much more believable than the reverse. You only have to look at what's happening right now to see the truth of that.

And given that most Jews outside Israel are Zionists to one extent or another (that is, they believe Israel should exist), you could even extend this argument from the Israeli state to Jews in general.
 
mixed_biscuits

mixed_biscuits

_________________________
thirdform said:
wow, finally an answer! such an erudite boy!

If it is indeed the case then there is no exchange rate, you have no moral equivalence to condemn anyone for supporting Palestine. In fact, you absolve Hamas. They may be the less mighty, Israel may destroy them, but they still have the chance of having their might, provided certain circumstances, turn in their favour, to achieve their goals. Doubly so, as you have conceded that hamas have claimed might to be right, and not the historical policies of the Israeli government. You forget that I'm not a democrat and have no democratic sympathies, unlike padraig, tea and danny.

The fact of the matter is you are ineluctably tied to the ideology of proportionality and of exchange rate. Otherwise you merely become a fetishiser of war, and have to condemn Benjamin Netanyahu as a leftist! All explanations at the end of the day are justifications (even if you disapprove) so thanks for falling into my 🍯 like a good beta man. You are a terrorist apologist simply by virtue of having no need for liberal international law, human rights, no need for the concept of war crimes, oppressed vs oppresser. You are, actually, far to the right of even hamas.

Padraig and danny say you have no idea what you are talking about. I would like to offer a more cutting (and powerful) condemnation. One word describes you: clown.
Click to expand...
Hamas perpetrated a terrorist attack on civilians without having declared war. Israel declares war. In war might is right modulo rules. Civilian casualties in media res are to be expected. Hamas have no prospect of winning; if they cared about their countrymen they would surrender, release the hostages and Israel's attacks would stop.

If Israel's attacks were to continue following a zealous minority then the charges of genocide would begin to be plausible. But we just won't know until Hamas gives up the ghost.
 
T

thirdform

pass the sick bucket
mixed_biscuits said:
Hamas perpetrated a terrorist attack on civilians without having declared war. Israel declares war. In war might is right modulo rules. Civilian casualties in media res are to be expected. Hamas have no prospect of winning; if they cared about their countrymen they would surrender, release the hostages and Israel's attacks would stop.

If Israel's attacks were to continue following a zealous minority then the charges of genocide would begin to be plausible. But we just won't know until Hamas gives up the ghost.
Click to expand...

of course, lıke a typıcal arrogant and smug brıt who knows hıs days are numbered, you have stated the obvious whilst ignoring my very important qualifier. 'not the historical policies of the Israeli government.' And here we are back to inane and irrelevant christological debates about just war, which enable you to sidestep colonial dispossession. Ah but might is right is the only rule of war, the fact you endorse this makes the palestinian case even stronger, especially if the tides turn in their favour. And why wouldn't they? Netanyahu's government will sooner or later be an impediment to Israeli civil society and Israeli capital. Your pet foot fetish states of choice are self-cannabilising. The Peres and Sharon governments understood this, hence the way in which they transfered civil society functions to the PA. Total occupied control of the west bank was harmful to them. And your might is right fem dom wikud lot are now pursuing a policy which was seen as delitirious in the 90s. The PA lost elections in Gaza and started a civil war. deal with it, you democratic swine.

And the more or less uncoordinated attacks on palestinians which seem to happen every year, without abaiting can just be ignored. Although, of course they are 'sporadic' and not 'systematic.' You think I hadn't seen these hasbara debating props when your ex-wife was initiating divorce proceedings against you for emotionally abusing her?

Although I find it funny you have not so subtly shifted the goalposts from whoever wins the war through might to whether the moral declaration was just. I repeat again: The fact of the matter is you are ineluctably tied to the ideology of proportionality and of exchange rate. Otherwise you merely become a fetishiser of war, which is unconscienable even for you, which you have adequately proven.

And seen as the israeli government have no way of ascertaining who belongs to hamas through your own admission, the anti-semitic conspiracy theory of the eternal Jew haunting the nation can now be transfered onto the palestinian territories. And thus by your own admission, the war cannot stop because hamas cannot just go away. You're just not very smart, as much as you have deluded yourself into thinking so.
 
shakahislop

shakahislop

Well-known member
yyaldrin said:
i saw that tweet too and was thinking well that would have actually been a good thing?
Click to expand...
It would have been absolutely brilliant, although obviously it was never on the cards. Restraining the US's paranoia and need for revenge, and bringing the taliban into the new government in 2001, would (probably) have prevented a huge amount of violence
 
mixed_biscuits

mixed_biscuits

_________________________
thirdform said:
of course, lıke a typıcal arrogant and smug brıt who knows hıs days are numbered, you have stated the obvious whilst ignoring my very important qualifier. 'not the historical policies of the Israeli government.' And here we are back to inane and irrelevant christological debates about just war, which enable you to sidestep colonial dispossession. Ah but might is right is the only rule of war, the fact you endorse this makes the palestinian case even stronger, especially if the tides turn in their favour. And why wouldn't they? Netanyahu's government will sooner or later be an impediment to Israeli civil society and Israeli capital. Your pet foot fetish states of choice are self-cannabilising. The Peres and Sharon governments understood this, hence the way in which they transfered civil society functions to the PA. Total occupation control of the west bank was harmful to them. And your might is right fem dom wikud lot are now pursuing a policy which was seen as delitirious in the 90s.

And the more or less uncoordinated attacks on palestinians which seem to happen every year, without abaiting can just be ignored. Although, of course they are 'sporadic' and not 'systematic.' You think I hadn't seen these hasbara debating props when your ex-wife was initiating divorce proceedings against you for emotionally abusing her?

Although I find it funny you have not so subtly shifted the goalposts from whoever wins the war through might to whether the moral declaration was just. I repeat again: The fact of the matter is you are ineluctably tied to the ideology of proportionality and of exchange rate. Otherwise you merely become a fetishiser of war, which is unconscienable even for you, which you have adequately proven.

And seen as the israeli government have no way of ascertaining who belongs to hamas through your own admission, the anti-semitic conspiracy theory of the eternal Jew haunting the nation can now be transfered onto the palestinian territories. And thus by your own admission, the war cannot stop because hamas cannot just go away. You're just not very smart, as much as you have deluded yourself into thinking so.
Click to expand...
If the Hamas top boys who Israel are chasing surrendered and the hostages were released then that would be the end of the fighting. Why not?
 
maxi

maxi

Well-known member
mixed_biscuits said:
It was saying they shouldn't be allowed to defend themselves against terrorism. It's pro terrorist like a ban on umbrellas is pro rain.
Click to expand...
I'll just repeat the analogy that you've misunderstood
A rapist cannot claim a right to self-defense if the victim pummels him. A theater owner has no right to self-defense if patrons attack him after he sets the building ablaze and impedes their flight.

I said:
"You can't just kill people because they're members of an organisation that has committed acts of terrorism."

That's not the same as saying "they shouldn't be allowed to defend themselves against terrorism." There are ways of defending that don't equal assassination or bombing the homes of suspects - particularly when in reality they are not even targeting the suspect but all of the surrounding civilian population as has been clearly demonstrated many times.

The point mentioned in that article is that no country is permitted to use force until peaceful measures have been exhausted (under UN charter article 2). Israel has refused to end its illegal siege and blockade, which would be a peaceful means of defending against terrorism.

Also as I've said earlier, bombing the civilian population and infrastructure will predictably lead to further acts of terror. So if you are in favour of more terrorism against Israel, then yes you should continue to support its bombing campaign. If not, then you should support a ceasefire.
 
mixed_biscuits

mixed_biscuits

_________________________
These points about A funding X, whereupon X becomes a problem later on and so they shouldn't have been funded in the first place are a bit specious. The whole reason for having funded them in the first place would have been some combination of attempting to prevent a net negative at the time or thenceforth. The funding of bad guys also doesn't entail moral approval: they are still bad and they still have agency by which they decide to do bad things - the funding was only to influence the balance of positives and negatives.
 
mixed_biscuits

mixed_biscuits

_________________________
maxi said:
I'll just repeat the analogy that you've misunderstood
A rapist cannot claim a right to self-defense if the victim pummels him. A theater owner has no right to self-defense if patrons attack him after he sets the building ablaze and impedes their flight.

I said:
"You can't just kill people because they're members of an organisation that has committed acts of terrorism."

That's not the same as saying "they shouldn't be allowed to defend themselves against terrorism." There are ways of defending that don't equal assassination or bombing the homes of suspects - particularly when in reality they are not even targeting the suspect but all of the surrounding civilian population as has been clearly demonstrated many times.

The point mentioned in that article is that no country is permitted to use force until peaceful measures have been exhausted (under UN charter article 2). Israel has refused to end its illegal siege and blockade, which would be a peaceful means of defending against terrorism.

Also as I've said earlier, bombing the civilian population and infrastructure will predictably lead to further acts of terror. So if you are in favour of more terrorism against Israel, then yes you should continue to support its bombing campaign. If not, then you should support a ceasefire.
Click to expand...
These analogies themselves are pro terrorist the way you have used them because the Hamas attack was not defensive but offensive (in both senses). Their attack was also de trop because they knew it would result in war but instead of just declaring war they decided to kill a ton of completely innocent people who constituted no offensive threat at all and take a bunch of similarly undangerous hostages. I don't think this is a controversial interpretation because practically all of the Western leaders immediately came to the same conclusion.

I support Hamas' surrender to minimise bloodshed. A ceasefire will just postpone it, possibly increase it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top