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]
So I'm not sure why microbet would be offended if Israelis or any jews would mean it about themselves when they say it
That doesn't mean they condone a holocaust of other peoples
But obviously when they say never again they mean never again would they allow anyone to attempt to exterminate the Jews
I would be offended tbh. Jews mean it for everyone
So I'm not sure why microbet would be offended if Israelis or any jews would mean it about themselves when they say it
That doesn't mean they condone a holocaust of other peoples
But obviously when they say never again they mean never again would they allow anyone to attempt to exterminate the Jews
Did I say I was offended? I pretty much said I wasn't. Disappointed? Sure. I thought it was more noble.
It's all good man. Life is a struggle. Best we can do is try to offer people compassion and generosity when we can.
We wish it for everyone but when someone attempts it about Israel they are trying to commit it again ...
Yeah this is about how it works for me. Never again will they get us. But I think it's important to try and help others in spots where we can.
It's a hell of a thing to attempt to completely extinguish a people just because they are born a certain way. And if you want to know if the G word applies to Israelis and the Palestinians, just ask yourself how many Gazans would die tomorrow if Hamas recognized Israel's right to exist, and put down their weapons. Do you see some mass Gazan liquidation following that? Or do you think both sides go on and nobody really cares about religion, genetics, cultural differences, etc. The Nazis tried to make us extinct just based on our genes. If you guys think that's what the Israelis are up to here, I guess just feel a combination of sorry, sad, and disappointed.
Are you disappointed that most blm slogans only worry about black people? Or only when jews try to not get exterminated?
I'm disappointed because I used to think it was more generally understood that it meant something more noble and I'm finding that it's not quite as true as I once had thought. I never thought BLM was intended to be about all people. If I found out that MLK was just talking about the conditions of Black people and not of humanity, I would be disappointed. If I found out that the many Jews who were freedom riders were doing it out of some self-interest or interest for Jews, I would be disappointed.
Lucion gets it and he's not Jewish (I think).
There wasn't one, that's the point. Nazi Germany got their guts stomped out to the point that they finally gave it up (after 1875 and 1914, etc). That's what Israel is trying to do to Hamas. The jury is obviously out on whether they'll be successful, but that's what they are trying to do.
There wasn't one, that's the point. Nazi Germany got their guts stomped out to the point that they finally gave it up (after 1875 and 1914, etc). That's what Israel is trying to do to Hamas. The jury is obviously out on whether they'll be successful, but that's what they are trying to do.
It was the Marshall Plan that prevented Hitler 2.0. We'll see what happens after the war I guess, but I'm not hopeful.
There's no 'acceptable line' on then number of civilian deaths
It's like asking what the acceptable line is on the number of abused children or rape victims.
Zionism is a nationalist movement, so it is obvious that their 'Never again' only applied to Jews. Which is fair enough given the history, and the limits of their interest and responsibility, but it is a little problematic when they deny the nationhood of their target group and claim the right to diminish that target group's population at will and by violence. Although apparently you can say what you like about Arabs in this forum because t
No mod has allowed more negative comments about Arabs than about other ethnic groups. It's just ridiculous to call someone racist because they support one side of a war between two cultures of people of the same race (like Israelis/Jews and Palestinians/Muslims).
I can't get to that article, but I have no idea why it would matter for anyone to "recognize" a genocide that happened over 100 years ago, but especially a country that didn't exist back then. Do you also want them to recognize that the US killed off most of the native Americans and that **** sapiens killed off **** neanderthalensis?
There's no 'acceptable line' on then number of civilian deaths
It's like asking what the acceptable line is on the number of abused children or rape victims.
You can say that, and even believe it, but that doesn't mean there isn't effectively one. I doubt there has ever been a real war without civilian deaths.
I doubt there's ever been a society without child abuse or rapes.
That doesn't mean thres an acceptable line for the numbers of them
I doubt there's ever been a society with child abuse or rapes.
That doesn't mean thres an acceptable line for the numbers of them
there is , in the sense that societies don't do "anything in their power at any cost" to keep rapes and child abuse at 0, this admitting not any tradeoff to reduce them is considered morally mandatory.
we don't put cameras in all homes for example.
we don't execute all people with any history of sexual assaults or worse.
we don't chemical sterilize all men convinced of violent crimes.
we don't mandate recording the totality of all encounters between children and adults in school, sports, church and other venues.
we don't take children away from their parents at the first sign of violence toward them.
and so on.
so as you can see, societies actually have acceptable thresholds of rapes/child abuse, insofar as they don't do everything physically possible to minimize the occurrence of those events at any cost.
we also have acceptable thresholds of deaths in car accidents, and on the job.
and so on war we have acceptable thresholds of civilian deaths
There wasn't one, that's the point. Nazi Germany got their guts stomped out to the point that they finally gave it up (after 1875 and 1914, etc). That's what Israel is trying to do to Hamas. The jury is obviously out on whether they'll be successful, but that's what they are trying to do.
I don't think Israel or anyone else has a plan to make it sure an Arab majority country can exist without strong antisemitism being a core identy of , at the very least, large minorities of the country.
how would you achieve that?
there is , in the sense that societies don't do "anything in their power at any cost" to keep rapes and child abuse at 0, this admitting not any tradeoff to reduce them is considered morally mandatory.
we don't put cameras in all homes for example.
we don't execute all people with any history of sexual assaults or worse.
we don't chemical sterilize all men convinced of violent crimes.
we don't mandate recording the totality of all encounters b
That is not an acceptable line for the number. None of the rapes or abuse are acceptable. No-oen would ever say 'well there only this many rapes - that's an acceptable number'
You have explained why it is an acceptable analogy.
That is not an acceptable line for the number. None of the rapes or abuse are acceptable.
You have explained why it is is a good analogy.
you might be disgusted by the idea, or mentally incapable of admitting it to yourself, but every single time you don't do absolutely everything you could physically do at any cost to avoid x, then you are actually saying x is acceptable.
that's why the rethoric of "if the bad thing isn't 0 we aren't done" is horrible (for every topic).
Because no one actually lives using that kind of tradeoff considerations, we all understand that at some point not everything is justified to achieve reductions in X or to make X impossible to happen, no matter what X is or how bad we consider X morally.
No but thanks.
Because no one actually lives using that kind of tradeoff considerations, we all understand that at some point not everything is justified to achieve reductions in X or to make X impossible to happen, no matter what X is or how bad we consider X morally.
Sometimes all the immediate options are unacceptable. We need to work to avoid these situations as much as possible. Not lying to ourselves that the least uancceptable things are acceptable things. This is morality and politcs. Not adding up.
biden & co are imposing sanctions on certain individuals involved in the settler movement in the west bank
50 years too late. should have nipped this **** in the bud and could've saved everyone a lot of trouble
--
chez, who i quite like, gives the unfortunate impression of never having had to make a difficult decision in his life
biden & co are imposing sanctions on certain individuals involved in the settler movement in the west bank
50 years too late. should have nipped this **** in the bud and could've saved everyone a lot of trouble
they are imposing sanctions on individuals linked to violence against beduins near settlements, the sanctions aren't about the topic of settlements being illegal per se, for now
chez, who i quite like, gives the unfortunate impression of never having had to make a difficult decision in his life
Fortunate impression I'd have thought
Very occasionally I have to do things I consider bad because I think the alternative is worse. Nothing very serious I'm pleased to say - mostly luck but I do also try hard to avoid those situations. I dont lie to myself that the bad thing is a good thing. It's the result of a mistake, bad luck or more commonly something (or someone) else being very bad.
Fortunate impression I'd have thought but it's nothing to do with easy decisions.
Very occasionally I have to do things I consider bad because I think the alterntaive alternative is worse. Nothing very serious I'm pleased to say - mostly luck but I do also try hard to avoid those situations. I dont lie to myself that the bad thing is a good thing. It's the result of a mistake, bad luck or more commonly something (or someone) else being very
What are you doing to keep rapes and child abuse at 0 in your community, given you said the acceptable number is 0?
