Jump to content

nationalism?


Captain_Vietnam
 Share

Recommended Posts

I know what they are but again I point to what I said previously. They will no matter how crazy just portray the "moderates" as good guys and the legitimate government thereby making it dandy to help them if we go by what you want. Making it a-okay to go off and support the likes of the "FSA" and ISIS is exactly what you're for. Logically there is no reason for you to not be for it, you're just saying no because it'd show up your stance to be full of holes. 

Lets go back a few years when the Syrian war started and we do as you support. It fine if some "International Brigades" went over to Syria to help the "FSA"? I mean the media was talking about how Assad had virtually no support (lie), he had used chemical weapons on his people (really the FSA), that the FSA was fighting for democracy and freedom (lol). So come on now, explain to me how you twist yourself to say no to seeing fanatics go over there to fight as alright.

 

That is not at all what I stand for. This is whats known as a straw man fallacy. You're trying to refute a position that I have not taken. I have never supported FSA or ISIS, nor would I condone military intervention in the Middle East, or volunteers from the West joining a never-ending feud amongst competing Islamist factions; in a region that has been torn apart by religious war for centuries. The International Brigades was a specific movement, under very specific circumstances, that are, in no way, even remotely related to, or applicable to, the Syrian Civil War. 

 

 

That is what I mean, your stance is weak and just supports the vile governments pushing war. Only complete rejection is valid. There was no "well lets see if these chaps are nice so we can help them" with me, it was a straight "these guys are fanatic scum and hopefully Assad puts them in the ground quick though the west will try to make sure he can't". Years on and I was completely correct. 

 

If you knew the first thing about my position, you wouldn't categorize me as a moderate; or make a straw man argument implying that I support FSA, ISIS, or military intervention in the Middle East. You obviously know nothing about my political views. In other words, you're debating an imaginary opponent.

 

 

I don't need to compare resumes with you, I didn't challenge you on any such matter. Simply said your half way stances only help enable all the things you're supposed to be against. You're against state intervention but support ridiculous International Brigades that can be manipulated easily by said governments as they control the angles the mainstream media takes on such matters. You are against the state's evils but waste time showing "solidarity" with others... I mean... would you be a soldier in one of those International Brigades if you could? Would you go fight someone elses war instead of waging it at home, be it with arms or otherwise?

 

The International Brigades was an alliance of anarchists, social democrats, classical liberals, and marxists who heeded the call of a nation who was trying to protect their young republic from becoming a totalitarian dictatorship; under the rule of a ruthless military tyrant, who was trying to lead a coup against the democratically elected government. The vanguard of this revolution against fascism just happened to be an anarchist labor union, the largest union in Spain at the time, which was also experimenting with genuine direct democracy throughout major parts of Spain. Is that what is going on in Syria? NO. Then why the f--k would I support either side of that ridiculous war? I'm an anarchist. Which makes me way less moderate than you. Unlike most people in these forums, I don't vote for anyone, let alone war profiteers. 

Edited by Miles Dyson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is not at all what I stand for. This is whats known as a straw man fallacy. You're trying to refute a position that I have not taken. I have never supported FSA or ISIS, nor would I condone military intervention in the Middle East, or volunteers from the West joining a never-ending feud amongst competing Islamist factions; in a region that has been torn apart by religious war for centuries. The International Brigades was a specific movement, under very specific circumstances, that are, in no way, even remotely related to, or applicable to, the Syrian Civil War. 

 

 

If you knew the first thing about my position, you wouldn't categorize me as a moderate; or make a straw man argument implying that I support FSA, ISIS, or military intervention in the Middle East. You obviously know nothing about my political views. In other words, you're debating an imaginary opponent.

 

 

 

The International Brigades was an alliance of anarchists, social democrats, classical liberals, and marxists who heeded the call of a nation who was trying to protect their young republic from becoming a totalitarian dictatorship; under the rule of a ruthless military tyrant, who was trying to lead a coup against the democratically elected government. The vanguard of this revolution against fascism just happened to be an anarchist labor union, the largest union in Spain at the time, which was also experimenting with genuine direct democracy throughout major parts of Spain. Is that what is going on in Syria? NO. Then why the f--k would I support either side of that ridiculous war? I'm an anarchist. Which makes me way less moderate than you. Unlike most people in these forums, I don't vote for anyone, let alone war profiteers. 

 

Some miss swings there hitting a lot of air. 

 

Your first paragraph I'm not sure exactly what you're getting at with the "very specific" part... so the situation has to be exactly like the Spanish Civil War for it to be okay? Alright, the media can dress it up like that for you if you want. Will it be okay then?

 

Who called you a moderate? Certainly wasn't me. Only usage of the word moderate was in reference to those FSA lunatics. The half measures thing? That isn't me calling you a moderate.

 

Uh... the FSA are a group of citizens who protested against the regime of the fascist Assad who tried to kill them all in retaliation. These young men are trying to free their nation from such tyranny for democracy, freedom, and apple pie. They have set up a government and we, the west recognize them as the legitimate government. That sufficient for you? Because that was essentially the angle they went with. 

 

I'd rather not get into an argument of who is more extreme but no, you don't get to call me a moderate mate. I hold what many would call extreme left and right wing positions (though I'd argue many are outside the wings dynamic but whatever) to the point depending on who I argue with I'm either a Communist or Fascist to them. Anarchism is extreme yes for it would replace the current system entirely... but I believe in a completely new system myself. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some miss swings there hitting a lot of air. 

 

Your first paragraph I'm not sure exactly what you're getting at with the "very specific" part... so the situation has to be exactly like the Spanish Civil War for it to be okay? Alright, the media can dress it up like that for you if you want. Will it be okay then

 

No amount of media manipulation could possibly convince me that the situation in the Middle East is even remotely close to the Spanish Civil War of 1936. Even if I happened to be susceptible to such manipulation, which I'm not, there is no way in hell the mainstream media could package the clusterf--ked  Syrian Civil War as being a cut-and-dry, black-and-white, good vs evil scenario. Not even Faux News is that good. If there was a consensus that Syria had had a prosperous secular democracy for several years, and there was a massive libertarian following in the region, and suddenly ISIS popped out of the woodwork and tried to lead a coup against the government, to install an Islamist totalitarian dictatorship in the Levant, then maybe I would support foreign volunteers aiding in protecting that democracy. Obviously, that is not the case in the Middle East. Both it's established government, and its warring rebel factions, are fundamentalist and authoritarian. So, again, you're just shadowboxing invisible opponents in this ridiculous tirade of yours. 

 

 

Uh... the FSA are a group of citizens who protested against the regime of the fascist Assad who tried to kill them all in retaliation. These young men are trying to free their nation from such tyranny for democracy, freedom, and apple pie. They have set up a government and we, the west recognize them as the legitimate government. That sufficient for you? Because that was essentially the angle they went with. 

 

Obviously, you care way more about FSA and the Syrian Civil War than I do. Maybe you should join. And no, the U.S. government officially declaring Syria a democracy is not sufficient evidence for me to back them in a civil war. I don't trust our government, anymore than I trust our media or the Syrian government.

 

 

I'd rather not get into an argument of who is more extreme but no, you don't get to call me a moderate mate. I hold what many would call extreme left and right wing positions (though I'd argue many are outside the wings dynamic but whatever) to the point depending on who I argue with I'm either a Communist or Fascist to them. Anarchism is extreme yes for it would replace the current system entirely... but I believe in a completely new system myself. 

 

Clearly, you have some deep-seated nationalistic sentiments; something I do not subscribe to. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No amount of media manipulation could possibly convince me that the situation in the Middle East is even remotely close to the Spanish Civil War of 1936. Even if I happened to be susceptible to such manipulation, which I'm not, there is no way in hell the mainstream media could package the clusterf--ked  Syrian Civil War as being a cut-and-dry, black-and-white, good vs evil scenario. Not even Faux News is that good. If there was a consensus that Syria had had a prosperous secular democracy for several years, and there was a massive libertarian following in the region, and suddenly ISIS popped out of the woodwork and tried to lead a coup against the government, to install an Islamist totalitarian dictatorship in the Levant, then maybe I would support foreign volunteers aiding in protecting that democracy. Obviously, that is not the case in the Middle East. Both it's established government, and its warring rebel factions, are fundamentalist and authoritarian. So, again, you're just shadowboxing invisible opponents in this ridiculous tirade of yours. 

 

 

Obviously, you care way more about FSA and the Syrian Civil War than I do. Maybe you should join. And no, the U.S. government officially declaring Syria a democracy is not sufficient evidence for me to back them in a civil war. I don't trust our government, anymore than I trust our media or the Syrian government.

 

 

Clearly, you have some deep-seated nationalistic sentiments; something I do not subscribe to. 

 

Keep believing that but what you think doesn't matter much. I talked of a scenerio where your policy was undertaken, no state intervention but the door open to these brigades you want. That is putting what you want in action... and the result would be exactly like I said. Your stance, being a compromising position means the media will spin it to the position they want which is war war war. 

You can believe yourself to be untouched all you like, but if we did as you wanted your method would be a huge failure hardly all that different from the current. Only complete rejection gives you the solution.

 

??? Did you just take my giving you the media angle as me believing it? Please read it again. I was merely telling you how easy it is to portray even fanatics as fighters for all that is good in the world. 

Again, I'm merely applying your belief across the board for everybody. You may consider yourself "smart" enough to not be fooled but what about everybody else? You think your compromising position will convince anybody? "But they are good people" they'll tell you. Only mass complete rejection can foil the plots of the warmongers. 

 

You say it like it's some bad thing I'm keeping secret or something. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm just getting my facts from independent research. I mean you don't deny the Balfour Declaration do you? Yeah, sure. It was all done "legally", but it was also a foreign conspiracy that disregarded the will of the people living there that created the modern state of Israel. It seems pretty obvious to me that Israel exists because of foreign, self interested meddling. The same exact kind of meddling and self interest that created WW2, not because Jews historically call the area home. We have already fought WW2 over borders we demanded in WW1. How is it a smart idea to repeat this?

The support ISIS is getting from Muslims around the world has a lot to do with the Sykes-Pikot agreement. Similarly, the support Hitler received had a lot to do with the treaty of Versailles. Both of these agreements were specifically designed to divide a defeated nation with strategically drawn borders to ensure they could pose no threat to anyone. They were specifically designed to remove military competition, rebuild the victors and fundamentally cripple the defeated nations. After WW2, we supposedly realized that we had to play more fair, but that doesn't seem to apply in the middle east.

 

Well then I recommend a bit more research.  Where did I "deny the X, Y, or Z"?  What you are missing is that there is far far more nuance and expanded explanation to it than just "the Balfour Declaration".  I get the S-P agreement, who designed it, and the impact of the Westphalian model imposed on the Levant and Fertile Crescent.  There is simply a more to the story than you seem willing to accept.

 

The "will of the the people living there" is interesting but irrelevant.  What you miss or refuse to acknowledge is that foreign powers had nothing to do with the initiation of the return.  At a certain point some States saw opportunity and seized it.  Sure.  States are self-interested entities.  It is what they do.

 

"We" fought WWII for the same reason as WWI.  The unification of Germany fundamentally unbalanced power in Europe generally and specifically the Great North European Plain.  This unbalance is evident unto this day and looks to continue to be a driving factor in the regions history.

 

Similarly, there are multiple factors that go into what and how much support ISIS gets.  It is not that similar to Germany in the late 1920s and early 30s but I guess I understand your point.  Again, States attempt to arrange the world to suit them.  Yeah.

 

What makes you think that after 1945 "we" realized that we had to play fair.  States act out of self interest to the limit of their potential relative to other States.  The Old Kingdom in Egypt did this and everyone is still doing so today (so the entirety of human history).  It is the way things are and is unlikely to change.

 

You ask if pursuing self interest is a "smart thing to do".  I donno.  However, there have not been too many, any?, alternatives throughout history.  States and Nations that fail to pursue self interest successfully often cease to be.  That is usually a bad thing no matter how you think of it.

 

Here is something I threw together in May 2011 (Some things have changed since then).  I was going for a different discussion but included is a brief overview of Israeli history.:

 

 

 

WARNING: The below is too long, didn't read:

 

Ok well I am about to try the impossible: finding common ground on this forum regarding the Israel/Palestine/Arab/US question.  

 

Since Obama forwarded his abortive way ahead in the peace process there has been considerable consternation on this board with some very extreme views put forth.  Nick holds a Pro-Israeli stance almost to the exclusion of logic.  Shadow advances an Anti-Israeli viewpoint that, frankly, ignores reality.  The “truth†if such a thing exists lies somewhere else.  I think the main problem with this discussions is that we are approaching the problem without a full framework or a grasp on the history and the complexity of the subject.  

 

I tend to argue from a strictly realist standpoint on this forum mainly because through disagreement and the argumentative process the appropriate moral aspect will leak into the discussion.  In this case I will attempt to provide a reasonable moral grounding for the way ahead along with a realist viewpoint.  This synthesis is historically an excellent way to address such problems successfully.

 

On of the hardest things to do is to pick a starting point.  I have selected the date when the US actually became an ally of the US, 1967.  Some small facts before I begin: 1) Palestine, Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, etc were all creations of the British and the French after WW1 and the dissolution of the Ottomans.  Look up the good Mr. Sykes and Mr. Picot for more information.  2)At the time none of these states had any national identity per se (They do today including Palestine).  3)As a general point most regional states such as the Jordanians were happy to have the Jewish state of Israel tying up the Palestinians. 4)Egypt created the PLO.  At the time Egypt was attempting to rebuild an Arab superstate with Egypt as the nucleus of course.  The PLO was an organization dedicated to that purpose, ie. It was not conceived as a nationalist movement but as part of a trans-national concept.  The Soviets later took the lead with the PLO, but that is another story.

 

Palestine was not a "state" before, nor was it a nation.  It was an administrative district of the Ottoman Empire.  It did not have a sense of nationhood at the time either.  However the people did have a connection with the land itself, ie. they tilled it and lived there.  The semi-feudal system meant that the Ottomans "owned" the land.  And they were happy to sell it to Jewish people for cash.

Post WWI the French and Brits injected their brilliance.

All that being said, the Palestinians may have lacked, as I said, any previous identity as such or a a Nation to be honest.  This is irrelevant because today they are a Nation, meeting all criteria thereof.  So, that is why they are demanding a state.

 

Prior to 1967 Israel had been a first a Soviet then a French(who gave them nuclear tech by the way) client, not a US client as common mythology holds forth.  In fact the only aid we were supplying Israel beyond one SAM shipment (which went primarily to Muslim states) was foodstuffs.  It is instructive that US/Arab relationship sucked when the only thing we were doing was giving some food to an impoverished French client.  Anyway in 1967 the Six day war highlighted to the French that their perceived interests, reestablishing good relations with the Arab states following the Algerian conflict, no longer coincided with support to Israel.  Coincidentally, the US strategy of containment at the time was facing a serious threat in the region.  The initial containment strategy had been the strengthening of Turkey (and Greece) with the specific goal to block the Bosporus straight hence containing the Soviet Black Sea fleet's access to the MED.  In the early 60s the Soviets leapfrogged the initial line of containment and established allies with Syria, Iraq, and Egypt.  This put immense pressure on the Turks and required a regional counterweight.  Lucky for us Israel was available as it drifted out from under the French.  

 

So there in a nutshell is the realist view of how the US-Israeli alliance began.  Now there was a moral justification as well.  It's genesis was FDR's “Arsenal of Democracyâ€.  To be honest, not all democracies share the Grand Strategic Goals of the United States.  Increasingly in the 21st century they will not.  However, human rights in general are more prevalent in such states because if you oppress to large a percentage of your population, commit indefensible actions abroad, fail to defend your people, or are perceived to be doing these things by reasonable voters in your state you will get thrown out on your ass.  Here is where Shadow's argument goes awry in my humble opinion.  If the Israeli voters believed that their government was committing “war crimes†they would have changed course.  Israelis are human beings and many actually give a shit about other human beings.  I believe that if there was a reasonable course of action available to them they would force their government to engage in that strategy.  Israel has in fact suggested such courses of action in the past and been blocked by various groups pursuing self-interested goals.  Using the conventional military to bomb selected targets in retaliation to attacks or as a preemptive strike to block said actions is not an unreasonable strategy.  Reasonable states engage in this strategy frequently.  Casualties do in fact result, this is a tragedy but it is a reality of how states and nations act/interact and does not constitute a war crime.  Like all moral arguments this one is not perfect.  But I submit that supporting democracies that have already formed and act in a reasonable manner is a decent moral course of action to help guide US policy.  No Israel is not committing “war crimesâ€.

 

Now let us take a brief(ish) foray back into the history of geopolitics.  In 1967 the US became the major sponsor of Israel.  Our aid constituted a huge percent of their GDP at the time 20ish% (today it is like 1.4% so lets let that argument go people).  Above and beyond which we provided both technology transfer and reasonable guarantees of protection.  In return Israel balanced the Soviet client states for us.  They did this quite successfully mind you.  Egypt drifted away from the Soviets and the Egyptian ports were unable to significantly counter US dominance in the MED.  Syria remained, but was isolated and unable to force direct action.  Syria became warped up in the issues of Lebanon.  Jordan became, effectively, a client state of Israel.  Iraq was unable to sustain a long term deployment opposing Israel (or Turkey) when confronted with the Iranian threat.  The Saudis reinforced the Iran/Iraq BOP.  The end result was an effective block of the Soviet move to gain control of the Bosporus.  Regional containment succeed.  This along with a few other huge successes in the world this led to US victory in the Cold War.  So yes, Onishi, Israel has been an effective ally.  If you had framed your question differently, say post 1991, you would have received a different answer from me.

 

Now lets take a gander at where the region are today from inside Israel out.  Israel has secure borders on all sides, a competent standing army with a respectably large number of short term soldiers available from reservists.  Inside Israel the nation of Palestine is internally divided (near a civil war without the “external†threat of Israel) and capable of irritating but in no way devastating attacks against Israel.   Egypt is the most important regional player from Israels strategic outlook.  The stable relations between the two derive from geopolitical reality (the Sinai peninsula makes direct assault extraordinarily risky.)  The one wild-card is how the Egyptian military will shepard, or not, Egypts current political system to conclusion.  Syria is a weakened state with internal discontent and a focus on Lebanon, not on Israel.  Jordan remains cautious but with interests strongly against a direct confrontation with Israel.  Turkey is a rising power and is making somewhat aggressive regional moves.  Still, they have a long way to go before achieving the power base to impact Israel directly.  Iraq is decimated and will remain very weak.  Iran is licking its chops eying its region and realizing that it is soon to have overwhelming power if the US withdraws from Iraq.  The Saudis are terrified of this fact (Iranian power) and looking for any way to restore regional balance.

 

All the above being said, there is only one way for Israel to come under an actual threat to its existence.  That is to respond in such a way against irritant Palestinian attacks that they cause a direct response from Iran.  And there is the rub.  Out of all the complexity that is the Levant region, and I did not in fact delve into it deeply, US support blocks Iran from responding to Israeli excess at the moment.  So we have, in a round about way, the power to ratchet this situation up or down by either maintaining, increasing, or decreasing this block.  The Soviets no longer threaten our strategy of containment by encircling Turkey.  Israel is secure locally and has the freedom to create a new reality on the ground.  The US is responsible for destabilizing the Iraq/Iran Balance of Power.  Israel has yet to take actions to the extreme against the Palestinian people, or to be perceived by their people to have done so.

 

Israel is a democracy.  Like it or not the one successful guiding moral principle of the US has been to support such governments.  We have not done this consistently by any stretch of the imagination but it is THE successful unifying moral theme of our foreign policy in the last 60 years.  Since we became the sole superpower in 1989-1991 we have attempted to generate a new moral compass by a) opposing genocide or B) creating democracies.  Both have failed to achieve their stated goals and have run counter to the realist view of supporting regional balances of power.  Fascinatingly, since they were applied in spite of, not in concert with, realism they have failed and weakened the US's core interests.  Still, as we strain in the greater Mid-East region to develop a new balance of power continuing support to Israel may not be in our fundamental interests.

 

Back to a short stint of morality vis-a-vi Palestine and Israel.  Is it “immoral†for Europeans in the US, Australia, or Brazil to occupy lands taken from nations who occupied them previously.  That argument is a straw man.  It is exactly the same straw man saying it is “immoral†for Israel to occupy Palestine.  Still, straw people aside, there is a whole host of moral issues with a state occupying a nation that desires to be free.  On the flip side, deciding to free a nation that tells you its core tenant is to refuse to recognize your right to exist is an almost indefensible position.  These issues are a bit to entangled for an easy answer.  Hence my proposal to decouple the debate from them and develop a reasonable way ahead.  Nor, to bring realpolitik back into the mix, is a negotiated settlement in Palestine of vital interest to the USA.  So the above moral argument need not necessarily enter into the debate.

 

Deciding whether or not the selected moral argument coincides with current US geopolitical priorities is how this question should be debated among the elite in the US today.  I say the elite because to be honest we must hide US foreign policy behind a series of smoke and mirrors explanations.  As long as the US's actions remain based on a moral compass and are in line with geopolitical reality there will not be any fundamentally immoral behavior in hiding what we are doing.  If we can tone out the extremes it is my sincere hope that the President(s) can chart us such a course.

 

 

So here are the questions given the above tldr:

Is supporting Israel morally justified?  What is the moral justification?

Should the US continue financial aid to Israel?  Why/why not?

Should the US support the actual development of a Palestinian State? Why/why not?

What if any grand strategic purpose does an alliance with Israel serve today?

 

-I tried to keep some semblance of order to my post, but I am not receiving a grade and if you dislike its lack of polish do not read it.

-This may shock you but I do have a way forward.  I would like to debate this framework and reach some reasonable understanding before we collectivly look for a way ahead.  

-Notice that I did not mention the G word or the H word once in the whole tldr.  If you can keep from doing so you might find that you actually advance the question rather than spinning into rhetoric.

 

OP request:  Feel free to throw in some XD Random and abuse the shit out of me at will.  I am a big boy and will beat your ass into the ground using my keyboard.  I do not think it advances the debate any but if it makes you feel better go ahead.  However, please try to avoid ad hom attacks/abuse against people giving honest answers.

 

 

All of that being said: Your original contention that Israel = Nazi Germany remains completely false.  Nor has anything you have argued lent credence to this theory.  If you could walk that back we can at least continue a debate if you so desire.

  • Upvote 1

-signature removed for rules violation-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well then I recommend a bit more research.  Where did I "deny the X, Y, or Z"?  What you are missing is that there is far far more nuance and expanded explanation to it than just "the Balfour Declaration".  I get the S-P agreement, who designed it, and the impact of the Westphalian model imposed on the Levant and Fertile Crescent.  There is simply a more to the story than you seem willing to accept.

 

The "will of the the people living there" is interesting but irrelevant.  What you miss or refuse to acknowledge is that foreign powers had nothing to do with the initiation of the return.  At a certain point some States saw opportunity and seized it.  Sure.  States are self-interested entities.  It is what they do.

 

"We" fought WWII for the same reason as WWI.  The unification of Germany fundamentally unbalanced power in Europe generally and specifically the Great North European Plain.  This unbalance is evident unto this day and looks to continue to be a driving factor in the regions history.

 

Similarly, there are multiple factors that go into what and how much support ISIS gets.  It is not that similar to Germany in the late 1920s and early 30s but I guess I understand your point.  Again, States attempt to arrange the world to suit them.  Yeah.

 

What makes you think that after 1945 "we" realized that we had to play fair.  States act out of self interest to the limit of their potential relative to other States.  The Old Kingdom in Egypt did this and everyone is still doing so today (so the entirety of human history).  It is the way things are and is unlikely to change.

 

You ask if pursuing self interest is a "smart thing to do".  I donno.  However, there have not been too many, any?, alternatives throughout history.  States and Nations that fail to pursue self interest successfully often cease to be.  That is usually a bad thing no matter how you think of it.

 

Here is something I threw together in May 2011 (Some things have changed since then).  I was going for a different discussion but included is a brief overview of Israeli history.:

 

 

 

 

All of that being said: Your original contention that Israel = Nazi Germany remains completely false.  Nor has anything you have argued lent credence to this theory.  If you could walk that back we can at least continue a debate if you so desire.

Jewish settlers came from all over the world over a long period of time. However Balfour was the foreign idea that established Israel. Palestine after WWI was British territory and they controlled who moved in or out. The British ignored their own migration quotas because moving Zionists into Palestine was the whole idea. It wasn't until the Arabs started revolting that Britain actually started limiting migration. They revolted for good reason. Britain had simultaneously promised Palestine to the Arabs but lied. The end result is several major world powers promoting a hundred years of war against Palestinian Arabs for no other reason than the fact they live there. It was a terrible idea that met opposition immediately. That opposition was ignored and remains ignored to this day. 

The situation with Israel-Palestine can be described as ethnic cleansing if you ask me.

"But Israel is democratic and lets Muslims live there!"

Yeah! In a permanent state of disdain in their own home!

Problem is, if authority were given to Muslims, the ethnic cleansing would likely reverse itself. However this problem would not even exist if not for a foreign conspiracy. Palestine should have either been given to the Arabs or turned into a secular hub. The seeds for a never ending conflict should have been apparent. Securing the holy land for western interests has never produced quick and easy results. Or any results, really. 

Morality is subjective. Israel may not be a model of Nazi Germany. It may not be a psychotic dictatorship. But it is a Jewish state forcibly driving people off their own land and slaughtering those who resist. The IDF is well known for indiscriminate slaughter and even blatantly shooting children. ISIS is doing the same thing. Should they have a caliphate? I mean after all, a caliphate is fundamental Muslim tradition. 

Fact is, stateless nations exist. Not every group gets their own state. Jews however have an exception because of Balfour. The United States fiercely defends Israel while at the same time, support Georgian troops killing Russian civilians that want their own independence. Israel is supported solely out of western convenience. They have a free pass on war crimes and inhumanity because they are a thorn in the Arab world we are trying to dictate. 

Fox_Fire_Txt2.png

_________________________________________________________________

<Jroc> I heard \ is an anagram of cocaine
<\> I can't be rearranged into a line, I already am a line.

--Foxburo Wiki--

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jewish settlers came from all over the world over a long period of time. However Balfour was the foreign idea that established Israel. Palestine after WWI was British territory and they controlled who moved in or out. The British ignored their own migration quotas because moving Zionists into Palestine was the whole idea. It wasn't until the Arabs started revolting that Britain actually started limiting migration. They revolted for good reason. Britain had simultaneously promised Palestine to the Arabs but lied. The end result is several major world powers promoting a hundred years of war against Palestinian Arabs for no other reason than the fact they live there. It was a terrible idea that met opposition immediately. That opposition was ignored and remains ignored to this day. 

The situation with Israel-Palestine can be described as ethnic cleansing if you ask me.

"But Israel is democratic and lets Muslims live there!"

Yeah! In a permanent state of disdain in their own home!

Problem is, if authority were given to Muslims, the ethnic cleansing would likely reverse itself. However this problem would not even exist if not for a foreign conspiracy. Palestine should have either been given to the Arabs or turned into a secular hub. The seeds for a never ending conflict should have been apparent. Securing the holy land for western interests has never produced quick and easy results. Or any results, really. 

Morality is subjective. Israel may not be a model of Nazi Germany. It may not be a psychotic dictatorship. But it is a Jewish state forcibly driving people off their own land and slaughtering those who resist. The IDF is well known for indiscriminate slaughter and even blatantly shooting children. ISIS is doing the same thing. Should they have a caliphate? I mean after all, a caliphate is fundamental Muslim tradition. 

Fact is, stateless nations exist. Not every group gets their own state. Jews however have an exception because of Balfour. The United States fiercely defends Israel while at the same time, support Georgian troops killing Russian civilians that want their own independence. Israel is supported solely out of western convenience. They have a free pass on war crimes and inhumanity because they are a thorn in the Arab world we are trying to dictate. 

 

Your problem is your focus on one thing to the exclusion of all others.  Pogroms in E. Europe (Ukraine, Romania, etc.) plus others were foreign actions that helped establish Israel.  UN resolution 181 iirc was a foreign action that helped established Israel.  French support to the fighting that followed (where Israel was attacked by basically every surrounding Arab State) helped establish Israel.  Balfour helped establish Israel.  Broaden your aperture, it is more complex than you seem to think.

 

Perhaps you fail to recognize the difference between "ethnic cleansing" and "genocide".

Ethnic cleansing is a specific definition so I would basically agree (removing one ethnic group from a specific piece of land).  Palestinian were generally removed from land they had previously tilled.  Of course this was preceded by those same people trying to remove Jewish people from the land they were living on and tilling (they lost eventually).  If Israel decided to actually commit genocide against Palestinians they could do so -killing millions of people.  They choose not to.  Does refraining from genocide absolve them of all their decisions?  Absolutely not.  But lets be real.  Nazi Germany actually used the power of the State to actively "cleanse" Jews, Homosexuals, Gypsies, and the cognitively challenged.  That is called genocide and is very different from the definition of ethnic cleansing that you apply.  Israel simply does not engage in genocide - Nazi Germany did.  See the difference now?

 

I told you that you could feel free to make an actual argument that Israel as a State engages in violations of jus ad bellum.  You have not.  You make vague references to violations of jus in bello which is not the same thing (nor is it excusable).  If you could prove that it was a State policy to condone such violations you would have an argument (although tenuous).  Israel actually prosecutes violations of the law of land warfare committed by its soldiers though (maybe not as thoroughly and harshly as some would like).  Israel also employs methods that generally try to limit civilian casualties, with varied success.  So, ehhh- pretty weak argument for you.

 

Stateless Nations do exist.  And they frequently fight for independent States.  That is all true.  Israel exists because of a variety of converging historical events.

 

The US does support the State of Georgia.  And Georgia battles against Russians for the integrity of its state.  Russians kill various North Caucus peoples battling for their Nation-States.  Azeris kill Armenians for the same reason while Armenians kill Azeris.  Chinese kill Tibetans.  Indians kill various groups of their people.  The Catalans struggle for the maintenance of their Nation.  Africa, South America, North America all have or have a history in this regard.  Frankly the incidents of violence world wide have gone way down over time which is "good".  However, the world remains imperfect and as you say morality is subjective.  Terms are, or can be, pretty specific though: Genocide =/= ethnic cleansing. 

  • Upvote 1

-signature removed for rules violation-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your problem is your focus on one thing to the exclusion of all others.  Pogroms in E. Europe (Ukraine, Romania, etc.) plus others were foreign actions that helped establish Israel.  UN resolution 181 iirc was a foreign action that helped established Israel.  French support to the fighting that followed (where Israel was attacked by basically every surrounding Arab State) helped establish Israel.  Balfour helped establish Israel.  Broaden your aperture, it is more complex than you seem to think.

 

Perhaps you fail to recognize the difference between "ethnic cleansing" and "genocide".

Ethnic cleansing is a specific definition so I would basically agree (removing one ethnic group from a specific piece of land).  Palestinian were generally removed from land they had previously tilled.  Of course this was preceded by those same people trying to remove Jewish people from the land they were living on and tilling (they lost eventually).  If Israel decided to actually commit genocide against Palestinians they could do so -killing millions of people.  They choose not to.  Does refraining from genocide absolve them of all their decisions?  Absolutely not.  But lets be real.  Nazi Germany actually used the power of the State to actively "cleanse" Jews, Homosexuals, Gypsies, and the cognitively challenged.  That is called genocide and is very different from the definition of ethnic cleansing that you apply.  Israel simply does not engage in genocide - Nazi Germany did.  See the difference now?

 

I told you that you could feel free to make an actual argument that Israel as a State engages in violations of jus ad bellum.  You have not.  You make vague references to violations of jus in bello which is not the same thing (nor is it excusable).  If you could prove that it was a State policy to condone such violations you would have an argument (although tenuous).  Israel actually prosecutes violations of the law of land warfare committed by its soldiers though (maybe not as thoroughly and harshly as some would like).  Israel also employs methods that generally try to limit civilian casualties, with varied success.  So, ehhh- pretty weak argument for you.

 

Stateless Nations do exist.  And they frequently fight for independent States.  That is all true.  Israel exists because of a variety of converging historical events.

 

The US does support the State of Georgia.  And Georgia battles against Russians for the integrity of its state.  Russians kill various North Caucus peoples battling for their Nation-States.  Azeris kill Armenians for the same reason while Armenians kill Azeris.  Chinese kill Tibetans.  Indians kill various groups of their people.  The Catalans struggle for the maintenance of their Nation.  Africa, South America, North America all have or have a history in this regard.  Frankly the incidents of violence world wide have gone way down over time which is "good".  However, the world remains imperfect and as you say morality is subjective.  Terms are, or can be, pretty specific though: Genocide =/= ethnic cleansing. 

Balfour was the framework for Israel. Most everything that followed (like western support for Israel) was a product of that.

Murder is illegal in Israel, but that isn't stopping the murdering from happening or sentiment by the Israeli people that murdering Palestinians is justified. It's also not stopping the government from stealing more and more land as well as blatantly violating their very own agreements, only showing support for Palestinian independence in cases they politically benefit from. The IDFs unspoken policy on Gaza is that anything inside Gaza is a threat. Indiscriminate killing is permissible to IDF itself. The soldiers are never punished unless their crimes are openly exposed and challenged. In such cases, the punishments are usually laughable, to the point that it's simply not even punishment. The government will almost immediately claim that any particular killing was justified before any investigation takes place. There have been some pretty ridiculous instances of blatant murder where the killers were never punished in any fashion. Such as killing Arabs minding their own business for holding gardening tools. The government also blocked investigations of killings during the second antifada, literally picking and choosing which killings would even be investigated. Taysir Hayb is an example of how IDF soldiers are punished for murdering western citizens. Less than 1 year in prison for blatantly murdering a British citizen. The only reason he even got that is because the dude was British. However, when Palestinian children are murdered, the killer probably gets 30 days in jail and a slap on the wrist. The reality is that IDF is literally allowed, by the Israeli government, to murder people. The "knife in the back" policy is policy is a lie and the Israeli government actively organizes to prevent Israelis from being prosecuted by international courts for war crimes. Instead, they should probably organize to prevent committing war crimes to begin with. But Palestinian lives have no value to them and they simply do not care if their soldiers slaughter them. The only reason Israel pretends to punish their soldiers is for PR. In reality, it's a lie.

 

I never even used the word genocide or made a comparison between the two. I used the term "ethnic cleansing" because I meant "ethnic cleansing". 

Edited by Fox Fire

Fox_Fire_Txt2.png

_________________________________________________________________

<Jroc> I heard \ is an anagram of cocaine
<\> I can't be rearranged into a line, I already am a line.

--Foxburo Wiki--

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never even used the word genocide or made a comparison between the two. I used the term "ethnic cleansing" because I meant "ethnic cleansing". 

 

We can come back to the rest of your argument.  Lets deal with this first.

 

Israel is the Jewish equivalent of Nazi Germany.

 

No.  No its not.  Israel does not participate in Genocide.  Nazi Germany did.  Israel is not the equivalent of Nazi Germany.  Period.

-signature removed for rules violation-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We can come back to the rest of your argument.  Lets deal with this first.

 

 

No.  No its not.  Israel does not participate in Genocide.  Nazi Germany did.  Israel is not the equivalent of Nazi Germany.  Period.

Genocide =/= Nazi Germany or vice versa. The definition of Nazi Germany is not the definition of genocide. 

I never said they had to do everything the Nazis did, exactly the way they did it. I simply compared the two states. You seem to have a fixation on something I never mentioned.

Fox_Fire_Txt2.png

_________________________________________________________________

<Jroc> I heard \ is an anagram of cocaine
<\> I can't be rearranged into a line, I already am a line.

--Foxburo Wiki--

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Genocide =/= Nazi Germany or vice versa. The definition of Nazi Germany is not the definition of genocide. 

I never said they had to do everything the Nazis did, exactly the way they did it. I simply compared the two states. You seem to have a fixation on something I never mentioned.

 

No, I am going to oppose your basic assertion.  So.  Clearly defend your statement:

 

Israel is the Jewish equivalent of Nazi Germany.

-signature removed for rules violation-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I am going to oppose your basic assertion.  So.  Clearly defend your statement:

Already did.

Fox_Fire_Txt2.png

_________________________________________________________________

<Jroc> I heard \ is an anagram of cocaine
<\> I can't be rearranged into a line, I already am a line.

--Foxburo Wiki--

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, you did not

Sorry, I can't be bothered to repeat the 4 pages of argument. I'm not sure why you'd want to have the same debate 2 times in a row.

Fox_Fire_Txt2.png

_________________________________________________________________

<Jroc> I heard \ is an anagram of cocaine
<\> I can't be rearranged into a line, I already am a line.

--Foxburo Wiki--

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just gave you 4 pages or argument. You're literally just asking me to repeat myself.

Fox_Fire_Txt2.png

_________________________________________________________________

<Jroc> I heard \ is an anagram of cocaine
<\> I can't be rearranged into a line, I already am a line.

--Foxburo Wiki--

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. I have read it all. Nowhere do you support your initial claim. Feel free to quote yourself.

Perhaps I can break this down into one sentence: Zionism carries the same concept as Nazism. 

 

Perhaps you should look up the definition of equivalent and stop assuming that Nazism means genocide. Zionism is a nationalist colonialist movement, arguably racist or ethnocentric at the very least. It's aim is to establish a Jewish nationalist state for what they call the "chosen people". They derive their authority over their Arab neighbors based on the idea that they are inherently superior to other religion/ethnicity/race. 

 

It's identical to the core beliefs of Nazism. The two states are just as similar. Abusing, imprisoning and interning their own minority populations to ensure their colonialism. 

  • Upvote 1

Fox_Fire_Txt2.png

_________________________________________________________________

<Jroc> I heard \ is an anagram of cocaine
<\> I can't be rearranged into a line, I already am a line.

--Foxburo Wiki--

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You use Zionism as if it is something negative, looking at the definition of the word I don't see the level of negativity you associate with it.

Arguably racist how?

Nazism is also related to expansionism and I see the opposite happened with Israel giving back after other countries tried to destroy them. 

The idea of saying Israel is like Nazi Germany is merely for some sort of shock value on things taken out of context, the way you're comparing it to the Nazi's could also be applied in a similar fashion to most of countries in the world today for something that they do. 

 

I think you will find that the enemies of Israel have more similarities with the Nazi's. 

Edited by Clarke

IpHGyGc.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You use Zionism as if it is something negative, looking at the definition of the word I don't see the level of negativity you associate with it.

Arguably racist how?

Nazism is also related to expansionism and I see the opposite happened with Israel giving back after other countries tried to destroy them. 

The idea of saying Israel is like Nazi Germany is merely for some sort of shock value on things taken out of context, the way you're comparing it to the Nazi's could also be applied in a similar fashion to most of countries in the world today for something that they do. 

 

I think you will find that the enemies of Israel have more similarities with the Nazi's. 

I didn't say expansionist. I said colonialist. Arguably racist/ethnocentric because it simply is. I just explained why:

"It's aim is to establish a Jewish nationalist state for what they call the "chosen people". They derive their authority over their Arab neighbors based on the idea that they are inherently superior to other religion/ethnicity/race."

Zionism has been classified as colonialist and/or ethnocentric by countless people including academics, priests, historians, professors, etc. This includes Jews and even Israelis themselves. It's probably the single biggest criticism Zionism has ever had. 

Edited by Fox Fire
  • Upvote 1

Fox_Fire_Txt2.png

_________________________________________________________________

<Jroc> I heard \ is an anagram of cocaine
<\> I can't be rearranged into a line, I already am a line.

--Foxburo Wiki--

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't say expansionist. I said colonialist. Arguably racist/ethnocentric because it simply is. I just explained why:

"It's aim is to establish a Jewish nationalist state for what they call the "chosen people". They derive their authority over their Arab neighbors based on the idea that they are inherently superior to other religion/ethnicity/race."

Zionism has been classified as colonialist and/or ethnocentric by countless people including academics, priests, historians, professors, etc. This includes Jews and even Israelis themselves. It's probably the single biggest criticism Zionism has ever had. 

I said expansionism in reference to the difference between them and the Nazi's. Colonialists or immigrants, as you know the Jews existed there for thousands of years so to call them colonists rather than immigrants is wrong. 

Well religion and ethnicity aren't races so that why I say it, are Jews racist?

 

The only alternative for Jews would be to basically to move out of the middle east, seeing how they have being there for so long now it would only make sense it is their right to be there. 

I don't really care what those people say, they're securing their country for a reason.

If the others were mostly Christians or atheists I'm sure the situation would never have developed the way it did. 

Edited by Clarke

IpHGyGc.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I said expansionism in reference to the difference between them and the Nazi's. Colonialists or immigrants, as you know the Jews existed there for thousands of years so to call them colonists rather than immigrants is wrong. 

Well religion and ethnicity aren't races so that why I say it, are Jews racist?

 

The only alternative for Jews would be to basically to move out of the middle east, seeing how they have being there for so long now it would only make sense it is their right to be there. 

I don't really care what those people say, they're securing their country for a reason.

If the others were mostly Christians or atheists I'm sure the situation would never have developed the way it did. 

 

No, the establishment of Israel was very much a colonial matter. A small minority of mostly recently European immigrants living there already doesn't mean we should ignore the fact that colonial immigration was pushed by Zionists decades before they could even have their state for the precise purpose of building up their numbers in the territory to later establish the state.

In the war that came after Israel managed to capture much land and dispossessed the Arabs of it, the natives so to speak in colonial matters. You can say, "well the Arabs hit first", but when it comes to colonial matters that again doesn't matter. There were times the Native Americans "struck first" too which then led to them losing land, doesn't mean they weren't victims of colonisation. 

 

By all definitions it can only be a colonial state in it's early stages, not so much now as they've moved on and have a rock solid state of course. I've seen a lot of Zionist deny it though which I think shows some shame/embarrassment on their part I think. Nothing bad about admitting they colonised the area, that they came, they saw, they conquered. Whats really wrong with that if you're not the party that lost out?

 

I wish more people who think the Jews should be allowed to secure their country would start thinking they should secure their own too... not saying you are like that of course, merely making note of it. 

Edited by Rozalia
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I said expansionism in reference to the difference between them and the Nazi's. Colonialists or immigrants, as you know the Jews existed there for thousands of years so to call them colonists rather than immigrants is wrong. 

Well religion and ethnicity aren't races so that why I say it, are Jews racist?

 

The only alternative for Jews would be to basically to move out of the middle east, seeing how they have being there for so long now it would only make sense it is their right to be there. 

I don't really care what those people say, they're securing their country for a reason.

If the others were mostly Christians or atheists I'm sure the situation would never have developed the way it did. 

Christianity, specifically Catholicism has a history of anti-Zionism. The Zionists are not migrants. Migrants are people who move to other nations. The Zionists intend to move somewhere and forcibly make it their own nation. Depending on your use of the term racism, sure they may not be racist. Hence what I said:

"arguably racist or ethnocentric at the very least."

It's the Palestinians right to be there just as much as it is the Jews. Hence my stance against Zionism. Please don't assume that I support an Islamic state in Palestine, because I don't. 

 

You didn't say "zionism" or "nazism". You said "Israel is the Jewish equivalent of Nazi Germany." Those are States not ideologies.

 

Defend your assertion.

 

It is. I've made my argument. Respond or piss off. I'm not playing this burden game with you.

Edited by Fox Fire

Fox_Fire_Txt2.png

_________________________________________________________________

<Jroc> I heard \ is an anagram of cocaine
<\> I can't be rearranged into a line, I already am a line.

--Foxburo Wiki--

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No FF. You havent. When I pinned you down you tried to redirect into an ideological debate. Admit that you were wrong and we can coninue. Otherwise shut up and sit down.

Edited by LordRahl2

-signature removed for rules violation-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.