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]
Of course it is. The 'right of conquest' has not been recognised in international law since 1945 and no one recognises Israel's occupation except Israel. And even Israel doesn't dare to claim the West Bank as Israeli territory.
Of course it is. The 'right of conquest' has not been recognised in international law since 1945 and no one recognises Israel's occupation except Israel. And even Israel doesn't dare to claim the West Bank as Israeli territory.
Most of the people who are vocally most critical of Israel in this regard are completely agnostic about territorial grabs by nations like China, Russia, Turkey, Azerbaijan, and half of Africa. So it is hard for me to take their moral indignation over Israel's actions seriously. But that is just me.
It is actually pretty wild how similar Turkey's grab of North Cypress is to Israel handling of the West Bank (actually arguably worse, because ethnic Greeks were completely driven out and replaced with ethnic Turks). Except no one cares.
No one said anyone has to be nice.
I was merely making the point that, if X statement is frequently understood (by me and others) to mean Y, then I can't avoid responsibility for saying Y by explaining that X means something different to me.
If I don't understand that X means Y to a lot of people, then yeah, it's an honest communication problem that should be easy to remedy.
They are saying it specifically to mean no more Israel but then pretend it just means full freedom
Micro knows this as well
Dunno if you honestly believe something like the typical person at a University protest in the USA would kill you or me for their cause.
If you think those protests are actually formed by a typical person in a university and not funded by antisemitics then in the immoral words of Victor
Spoiler
no, not really, lol
Of course it is. The 'right of conquest' has not been recognised in international law since 1945 and no one recognises Israel's occupation except Israel. And even Israel doesn't dare to claim the West Bank as Israeli territory.
Legally it was britains land. Then the un partitioned it but the arab world rejected it. They said it was all theirsor none of it was theirs. They lost and Jordan gave it up
Israel gave up sinai for peace. Israel gave up gaza for peace (didn't work). Israel will likely eventually give up JUDEA and SAMARIA for peace. But they do not have to. They aren't illegally occupying anything.
The issue is that if the land is theirs the Palestinians there shouldn't be treated so poorly. It is wrong. Doesn’t magically make it illegally occupied
It was no man's land, jordan annexed it and even gave people Jordanian citizenship. Nobody denied that they were Jordanians at the time
Jordan relinquished it and Israel took it over. Jordan tookm away their citizenship and wouldn't accept them as refugees. And they have been pawns for 80 years since
Still doesn't make it illegally occupied
We dont have protected speach. The right wing politicians and media have tried to make a big fuss about it but the police have mostly refused to bow to such nonsense
In the UK, all speech is protected, under the European Convention and the Human Rights Act 1998, unless specifically forbidden by statute. Exceptions would be libel, disclosure of government secrets without sufficient public-interest defence, incitement to violence and incitement to racial or religious hatred. We even now have a law to protect free speech in universities, because wonky US-inspired academics were getting out of hand, with the US-style bullying and no-platforming and job-threatening, and they are now made to face legal liability. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/202...
We have hate speech laws.
Expressions of hatred toward someone on account of that person's colour, race, sex, disability, nationality (including citizenship), ethnic or national origin, religion, gender reassignment, or sexual orientation is forbidden.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speec...
It's rarely going to qualify despite the right wing pressure to try.
There was an OpEd in the NYT yesterday written by a Columbia professor. Make of it what you will.
Thanks for sharing. As someone who works in higher-ed, I sympathize with a lot of what McWhorter is saying. I disagree with his preferred tone, but the norms displayed by students are getting belligerent. But, yes, there's a fine line between anti-Israel sentiments and antisemitism, but to deny that there is a line at all limps everyone into one basket and that's just wrong.
They are saying it specifically to mean no more Israel but then pretend it just means full freedom
Micro knows this as well
That's not true. 100% it's not universally true. Also, you don't support full freedom do you? With the return of hostages do you support either a fully independent and unblockaded and unpatrolled Palestinian state(s) or one unified country with full rights for everyone?
There was an OpEd in the NYT yesterday written by a Columbia professor. Make of it what you will.
There's someone on staff (I'm pretty sure a professor) at Columbia in UnstuckPolitics (he also has an account here, but I don't think posts in politics at least anymore) and this is not his take at all.
It was a british mandate. Administration not ownership. it also required the creation of a home for jewish people
That's not true. 100% it's not universally true. Also, you don't support full freedom do you? With the return of hostages do you support either a fully independent and unblockaded and unpatrolled Palestinian state(s) or one unified country with full rights for everyone?
At some point yes
It was unblockaded until hamas took power
Both Israel and Egypt care about their people so they both have done all in the power to prevent weapons getting in since 2006
But i hope we reach that point yes
As I've said Israel is not giving up Jerusalem but eventually will probably give up the other contested territories
General consensus right now is Hamas is happy to stall. There was a time when Israel had these bargaining chips, some of them certainly being unsavoury:
1) Reduce intensity of attacks
2) Increase Aid
3) Withdraw most (almost all) forces
4) Release prisoners who have blood on their hands
5) Release other prisoners
6) Total (limited) cease fire
After the death of the 7 aid workers, Bibi did #1, #2 and #3 after agreeing with Biden. So Hamas got those "for free" in their own eyes. They are very comfortable with where they are at.
The Americans took a lead in the process and told Israel if you do 1-2-3 we'll help you get the hostages. The Americans are now starting to realize that actually, that's not going to happen.
Sinwar can ask for anything he wants now essentially, because he has almost all he wanted. The first big hostage deal happened when Hamas was under extreme duress. The moment you take that away, you'll get nothing from them.
The rumors now (but pretty reliable) are for a massive three way agreement between the USA, Israel and the Saudies. Israel gets normalization, the Saudies will get protections/weapons/other, and Biden gets a win. It's going to have to get through the Senate which is tough, specially since the Republicans don't want to give Biden a win.
It was a british mandate. Administration not ownership. it also required the creation of a home for jewish people
They gave land the Palestinians. Today that is called jordan. Was that legal? Did British have this power?
The Gave the remaining 24% to the un to divide. They partitioned it. Israel accepted. Palestine did not form. They became part of egypt (gaza) and jordan (west bank and east Jerusalem). Then both of those countries gave up the land and Israel took over. There was never a 20th century Palestine for Israel to occupy
General consensus right now is Hamas is happy to stall. There was a time when Israel had these bargaining chips, some of them certainly being unsavoury:
1) Reduce intensity of attacks
2) Increase Aid
3) Withdraw most (almost all) forces
4) Release prisoners who have blood on their hands
5) Release other prisoners
6) Total (limited) cease fire
After the death of the 7 aid workers, Bibi did #1, #2 and #3 after agreeing with Biden. So Hamas got those
Israel has sent home 90% of the brigades. They are basically in stay and wait mode
Nancy Pelosi just said Netanyahu should resign
Imagine England telling Biden to step down
Religion is dumb, but probably some circle containing Jerusalem and Bethlehem (which are pretty close to each other) should be some kind of international thing.
They gave land the Palestinians. Today that is called jordan. Was that legal? Did British have this power?
The Gave the remaining 24% to the un to divide. They partitioned it. Israel accepted. Palestine did not form. They became part of egypt (gaza) and jordan (west bank and east Jerusalem). Then both of those countries gave up the land and Israel took over. There was never a 20th century Palestine for Israel to occupy
When a country takes over land they annex it and the people living there become citizens. That's what the USA did with half of Mexico. If they just send soldiers and say "you don't get to be a country, you don't get to be citizens", that's occupation.
There's someone on staff (I'm pretty sure a professor) at Columbia in UnstuckPolitics (he also has an account here, but I don't think posts in politics at least anymore) and this is not his take at all.
Horror gave me a link to the article.
McWhorter just said the protests are extremely loud and highly disruptive. And he contrasted this with the South Africa Apartheid protests, which he was also on campus for, and said they were much less disruptive and campus life could carry on more or less normally around them.
Does the other Columbia staff member disagree with these assertions of fact, or just the more subjective parts of McWhorter's argument, that is the protests are abusive and counterproductive.
Religion is dumb, but probably some circle containing Jerusalem and Bethlehem (which are pretty close to each other) should be some kind of international thing.
Jerusalem was supposed to be that
Then Jordan occupied it for 20 years and only Muslims were allowed to pray there
Then Israel won it in the 67 war and have allowed Christians, Muslims, and Jews pray there every day. They even let Jordan run the Temple Mount.
I'm assuming you knew all of this and just forgot
Baruch Hashem
Horror gave me a link to the article.
McWhorter just said the protests are extremely loud and highly disruptive. And he contrasted this with the South Africa Apartheid protests, which he was also on campus for, and said they were much less disruptive and campus life could carry on more or less normally around them.
Does the other Columbia staff member disagree with these assertions of fact, or just the more subjective parts of McWhorter'
It's on a publicly available website, but I dunno if he'd want me to quote him here, so I'll just paraphrase that he said it's less of a disturbance than other things happening in the area - setting bleachers up for commencement, and what the admin is really desperate to do is clear this out before the parents get there and that it's not about access for students or faculty.
