Israel and Palestine Conflict Heats Up

[Elegiac]

They already are using it as they see fit

Thus making it an impositional tyranny lacking a social contract, which is a state of affairs worthy of neither respect nor acknowledgement as you claim.

"People do it therefore it should be respected and acknowledged" isn't an argument for colonialism anymore than it is for rape or murder.

[Elegiac]

And that is where we shall disagree.

Okay? It doesn't make your position less wrong or less despicable, lol.

Might makes right is a concept that needs to be respected

Because reasons. Sure, Jan.

[Elegiac]

A pointless statement, because in my opinion your position is as such, while mine is correct and honorable.

Yeah, barring that little hurdle of you not being able to demonstrate why colonialism is good besides repeating "it's a thing and was historically".

[ati87]

And that is where we shall disagree.

Might makes right is a concept that needs to be respected, even if modern day western culture is trying to demonize it, even within their own history of achievements.

Hmm, so it's war then? I mean any sort of criticisms about Hamas and how they keep on being uncivil doesn't really hold up if you believe that might makes right.

[Elegiac]

Without historical colonialism you probably would be working 16 hours shifts in a coal mining plant today and wouldn't have time for posting corrupt opinions on the internet right now.

No, actually, I'm fairly sure that the introduction of labor regulations would have been entirely possible without colonialism being a thing.

[Elegiac]

Even in warfare there are loose concepts of right and wrong.

Funny how "might makes right" goes out the window the moment it produces results unfavorable to you or parties you support.

[Elegiac]

nuanced understanding

The term for this is "double standard".

I mean by your logic there's no issue with a bunch of people migrating and imposing their own culture on the locals, but given your vehement complaining about the Syrian refugee crisis clearly you don't believe that to be the case.

[ati87]

Even in warfare there are loose concepts of right and wrong.
Historically speaking it's frowned upon when your main strategy consists of making your child soldiers blow themselves up in the middle of civilian centers.

SOunds like your cherry picking.

[Elegiac]

To clarify: Might makes right is a concept that holds true, especially in how Israel comports itself.

Okay? North Korea comporting itself as if Kim Jong Un controls the weather doesn't make it any less of a batshit assertion, same applies here.

[ati87]

The term for this is "double standard".

I mean by your logic there's no issue with a bunch of people migrating and imposing their own culture on the locals, but given your vehement complaining about the Syrian refugee crisis clearly you don't believe that to be the case.

Honestly if your culture is being "destroyed" by a few thousand refugees who have fled a civil war then maybe it's really not worth saving.

[Elegiac]

Honestly if your culture is being "destroyed" by a few thousand refugees who have fled a civil war then maybe it's really not worth saving.

Not the point.

The point is that "might makes right" is only true insofar as they stand to benefit from it and they'll readily resort to things like legalism or cultural ethics the minute someone sufficiently mighty comes along and they happen to not like the 'right' that might is imposing.

It's all thinly veiled Islamophobia, basically. Which is why when any demonstration of might on the part of the Palestinians is mentioned we suddenly get backtracking and "oh, maybe there are actually ethics in war".

[Elegiac]

You are basically claiming here that you approve of child soldiers blowing themselves up in civilian centers and other forms of terrorism?

I'm not the one claiming that might makes right; you are. Put the strawman away.

[downnola]

I can't wait to use the might makes right argument the next time a pro-israel, anti-imperialist throws a fit about the Iraq war in the Biden thread.

[JohnBrown1917]

I can't wait to use the might makes right argument the next time a pro-israel, anti-imperialist throws a fit about the Iraq war in the Biden thread.

Those sort of people exist?

Must be hard to hold conflicting ideals like that.

[downnola]

Those sort of people exist?

Must be hard to hold conflicting ideals like that.

One would think, but consistency doesn't matter if you're just a contrarian for the sake of shit posting and trolling. Shit, even the Grayzoners like Ben Norton aren't that wildly inconsistent.

[Endus]

You are basically claiming here that you approve of child soldiers blowing themselves up in civilian centers and other forms of terrorism?

I find that position a lot more heinous and corrupt than simply acknowledging and respecting the broad concept of warfare and conquest.

If "might makes right", then you can't protest the use of force to achieve your political goals. Whether that force is a state military, or child soldiers as suicide bombers.

Because, as you said, "might makes right".

It's almost like that maxim is horse shit and you know it's horse shit and don't actually believe it in any way yourself, you just used to to try and hand-wave away egregious acts. But only the egregious acts you support.

[Endus]

The maxim just comes with a few nuances. Nothing exists in a vacuum. And no maxims are absolute. But overall, it is quite correct.

The idea that war or conquest have entirely become an abhorrent or unacceptable act in certain ideologies is a (deep) flaw of those ideologies.

There is a reason why conquest is a way of "winning" in almost every video or board game out there.

And despite being contrarian against it, everyone knows that there is a difference in morality between using child soldiers for terrorist attacks or just conventional warfare with a few trained military shooting other combatants.

So you'd be fine with your enemies crushing you and everyone you care about with overwhelming violence, then? You'd admit that you were in the wrong, in that case?

[tehdang]

The maxim just comes with a few nuances. Nothing exists in a vacuum. And no maxims are absolute. But overall, it is quite correct.

The idea that war or conquest have entirely become an abhorrent or unacceptable act in certain ideologies is a (deep) flaw of those ideologies.

There is a reason why conquest is a way of "winning" in almost every video or board game out there.

And despite being contrarian against it, everyone knows that there is a difference in morality between using child soldiers for terrorist attacks or just conventional warfare with a few trained military shooting other combatants. The use of terrorist attacks also has it's consequences: eg. it might very much be the reason why Palestinians get almost no compassion or consideration from Israel or it's citizens.

Might makes right is just too broad to use. Military force will decide issues, like when the Jordanian army occupied areas of East Jerusalem and the West Bank. Good luck enforcing land claims if you bought the land prior to Jordan’s invasion. But the phrase implies a moral claim, that of no moral claim existing apart from military might. So I can’t get on board with “might makes right with exceptions” because it isn’t “might, and eschewing of terrorism and child soldiers, and XYZ together make right.”

Kuwaitis had right to the land, Saddam invaded and occupied, but that made him no rightful owner any more than the armies that pushed him out, etc. There are too many examples to name. America’s armies abroad and public opinion at home flipped so many times in the 20th century alone.

[Easo]

What "prejudice"?

I'm not "defensive". You're being slanderous and abusive and I'm choosing to not fire back in kind.

They don't get to make that determination. In fact, claiming it as Israeli territory would be a war crime.


Feel free to quote me on that. I'm pretty sure I expressed no such opinion. I believe the only thing I might have said regarding vaccines was that Israel should not be blocking vaccines from going to Palestine. Which, y'know; https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...y-palestinians

You started with this "There's no way to accept the Israeli courts' decisions, as they are anything but an unbiased source." as your answer about the ruling. That pretty much is prejudice. And no, there is no magical 3rd party which would rule instead.

I am now being abusive and slandering you? Amazing interpretation of those words and I am not even sure how you managed to arrive at the conclusion. You are obviously being defensive.

Well, reality on the ground is that they get to determine that (and the territory is under question still. And if you actually care then know that I am all for making it the capital for Palestine).

Why do you think I said IIRC? You do know what that means, right? Truly, defensive...

Irrelevant.



2 very different things, Israel is responsible for the needs of the people in territory they block off or occupy. Making it even worse by just taking shit is not exactly a point.

But hey, if Israel pulls back from the west bank/east Jerusalem and stops any blockade they have in place they won't have to worry about such pesky things.

Yeah, well, welcome to real life. Israel is in charge and the territory's status has not been finalized.

People in Palestine repeatedly have said they want to be in charge. Vaccines showed that at least some of them do not (because PA is corrupt as fuck), instead blame Israel as usual. And specifically for you - they pulled out of Gaza. I am sure the decision was regretted one year later. They also pulled out of a territory 3 times bigger than Israel itself, it is not like Israel does not return land. Without guarantees...

This isn't a compromise.....losing your home on paper still means you lost your home.



I suggest glasses, I used to do this as well when I was 11 and I needed glasses.

But lets reverse this. Can any Palestinians go to a Jewish Israeli owned property, show proof that the land of which that house is build was previously owned by them or there family and take ownership?

And I suggest you stop trying to search for racism everywhere, lest it turn into obsession.

Being left on the street is so much better, right? And no one here is involved in that court process, we do not know the details, still...

I do not know. I assume that since Israel is a functioning democracy, they actually can go to court over it. Unless you can prove otherwise, if not, try to avoid theorizing about what-if's.

[Endus]

You started with this "There's no way to accept the Israeli courts' decisions, as they are anything but an unbiased source." as your answer about the ruling. That pretty much is prejudice.

A recognition of an institution's bias is not "prejudice".

I am now being abusive and slandering you? Amazing interpretation of those words and I am not even sure how you managed to arrive at the conclusion. You are obviously being defensive.

You keep consistently trying to portray me as an anti-semite, by using words like "prejudice" as in the above, to misrepresent what I've actually said.

That's slander, which is abusive. This isn't complicated. My position on these issues have fuck-all to do with ethnicity in any way.

Well, reality on the ground is that they get to determine that (and the territory is under question still. And if you actually care then know that I am all for making it the capital for Palestine).

The Occupied Territories' status is not in dispute. They are occupied by Israel, but are not part of Israel, and Israel has no legal capacity to change that.