Israel/Palestine Mega Thread

Discussion in 'Politics' started by mknote, Jun 21, 2013.

  1. Chengar Qordath

    Chengar Qordath The Final Pony Prestige

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2008
    Messages:
    741
    High Score:
    1,802
    I'd say there's plenty of room to argue that ancient Philistines aren't the same as modern Palestinians, but that's a minor point. It's certainly far from the first war over who should own that patch of land.

    Pretty much this.

    As far as I can tell, Invictus seems to think the numerous attacks by various Palestinian terrorist organizations and multiple Arab-Israeli wars are all Fake News fabrications by the Zionist Lizardmen Illuminati. I don't think anyone but his strawman is arguing that Israel is 100% unconditionally justified in everything they do, but it's hard to say they have zero reason to view Palestinians as potential threats after 70+ years of conflict with them. Peaceful coexistence is a wonderful idea, but that kind of bad blood isn't going to magically go away overnight no matter what Israel does.
     
  2. Darth_Revan

    Darth_Revan Secret Squirrel Prestige DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Messages:
    287
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The Empire City
    High Score:
    2810
    Are you retarded, or do you just play one on TV?

    Precisely.
     
  3. Invictus

    Invictus Prisoner

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2013
    Messages:
    2,856
    Location:
    Cidade Maravilhosa
    Cute. Personal attacks when you run out of your, admittedly puny and constantly changing, arguments (wonder where I saw this before). At least I know how to read graphics though.

    I'm an antisemite now? Funny. Then please, prove where I said Palestinians weren't a risk. Wait. I didn't. I just said that treating the entire population like criminals and denying them citizenship and full rights because of some terrorists was against principle tenets of human rights.

    Actually, it's okay to call others anti semite lunatics without any proof? We tumbrl now? Please Chengar. Quote me exactly, let me repeat this, EXACTLY where I said conspiracy, anything anti Semite or said that Palestinians weren't a risk.

    Wait. Apparently basic human rights like citizenship, due process, innocent until proven guilty, habeas corpus is an Utopia. Shame.
     
  4. Invictus

    Invictus Prisoner

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2013
    Messages:
    2,856
    Location:
    Cidade Maravilhosa
    Sassy. (Huh. For a guy shitting on me for using sarcasm and sass and personal attack your post seems to be solely that.) Indeed it's not like all I defended were minimal standards
    Meanwhile, it's okay to say an entire nation is made up of potential terrorists and criminals.
    Reminder that this was an answer after I posted this law:
    I think I heard this before:
    source.
    source.

    Indeed. And how was he situation solved? With compromise, mutual respect of the other side and sticking to the law or mass denial of human rights and excluding Catholic Irish from citizenship?
     
    Last edited: Dec 30, 2017
  5. Darth_Revan

    Darth_Revan Secret Squirrel Prestige DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Messages:
    287
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The Empire City
    High Score:
    2810
    Snore. Did that straw man put up a fight before you owned him so hard? When you're done misinterpreting everything everyone says and putting words in their mouth so you can righteously pwn them, maybe you can climb off your soapbox and have an intelligent conversation.
     
  6. Arthellion

    Arthellion High Inquisitor

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2017
    Messages:
    518
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Georgia, USA
    High Score:
    0
    The argument appears to be

    Are Palestinians a security threat?

    @Darth Revan Do you believe that the Israeli’s are justified in viewing Palestinians as a security threat? If so, why?

    If so, it appear Invictus is trying to use equivalencies to accuse You of hypocrisy.

    @Invictus If revan views it as justifiable, please prove that trumps islamic ban is equivalent to the Israeli stance against Palestinians. If you are able to do so, Revan must either not stay as a hypocrite, reject his stance on Israel and Palestine, or change his view on Trump’s travel ban.
     
  7. Darth_Revan

    Darth_Revan Secret Squirrel Prestige DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Messages:
    287
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The Empire City
    High Score:
    2810
    Very well, to answer your question:

    Yes, Israel is justified in taking the stance it does because of the prevalance of terrorist incidents, and the near-constant threat of terrorism coming from a significant portion of the Palestinian population. A proportion that is large enough that it can't be treated on a case-by-case basis.

    This is unlike the situation with Trump and his travel ban, because although the stated justification might be the same, the number of people within the population is so comparatively miniscule that it doesn't warrant treating the whole population with suspicion.

    Believing simultaneously that the Israeli position is justified but that Trump's was not is not hypocritical. The facts of each situation is different, and therefore the conclusion is different.
     
  8. Invictus

    Invictus Prisoner

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2013
    Messages:
    2,856
    Location:
    Cidade Maravilhosa
    There you go. He just admitted the logic is the same. Revan is literally calling for group culpability and thinks that if it's a high enough percentage of a group is guilty, than the rest are guilty, which can be easily used to say blacks should preemptively be blamed thanks to the much higher crime rate than any other ethnic group and not in insignificant amounts either.

    Let me repeat that. Revan think that 3.8m people should be punished for what 60,000 people did/do (amount of members of Hamas + Palestinians under Israeli custody). I will clarify. To Revan, what 1.5% of the population did is enough to justify the systematic denial of basic human rights to the other 97.5%.

    And of course, group culpability. A lovely thing. This is what Revan is defending as legit:
    Here an example of what Revan is defending:
    both quotes are from here.

    @Arthellion since you seem so intent on doing law, I will give you this tip. Trump Muslim ban and what Revan is defending being similar is just an incidental part of my point. My real point is that Israel is fucking denying people basic human rights under a veil of paranoia and prejudice, that even though is understandable, it is not, and will never be, justifiable.

    Here is the 2nd article of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
    This was a document drafted based on the US Constitution and its Amendments and in answer to the awful crimes committed during World War 2, main among them, the Holocaust.

    What Revan is defending is a clear breach of it. And this:
    Same document.

    Again. This is what Revan defends:
    Which also disrespects articles 16 and 17 of the Declaration of HR:
    Of course IF Revan doesn't support any collective punishment, despite them being exactly what the Israeli state does and what the Muslim Ban is about and which logic Revan agreed on, but he only supports collective responsibility/culpability, where no one is actively punished, at first, but the entire group is held under suspicion and treated likewise. Which would make this entire discussion pointless since he doesn't support what Israel actually does, or any kind of action, just surveillance, constant suspicion, isn't healthy.
    Do you, for example, support collective generic warrants? Do you support all correspondence being read and collected preemptively, without warrant, would you support a permanent curfew? All of that without these people commiting crimes? You think 1984-esque measures are in any way healthy for any society? Fair? You think Eastern Germany is any kind of model for a healthy society?

    Because that and this are some of the natural consequences of what you're defending. Systematic persecution, suspicion, a refusal to let them integrate and being forced to use inferior, shitty serviced, being actually segregated.
     
    Last edited: Dec 31, 2017
  9. Chengar Qordath

    Chengar Qordath The Final Pony Prestige

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2008
    Messages:
    741
    High Score:
    1,802
    I'm just sad he didn't spend several paragraphs obsessing over the lizardman part instead, and going on long screechy incoherent rants about how I'm accusing him of anti-lizard bias. Unless ... maybe he's one of the lizard illuminati?! Get your tinfoil hats!

    More seriously though, it's rather annoying how he just spends all day setting up strawmen to knock down instead of actually reading and understanding posts. His posts are getting longer, more rambling, more incoherent, and more insane as we go.

    As I've said before, nobody's saying Israel's 100% unconditionally justified in whatever they do to the Palestinians except Invictus' strawman. Rather, it's that a place with 70+ years of war, terrorism, and ethnic conflict is going to create some rather huge fault lines in society, and it's utterly disconnected from reality to expect otherwise.

    I'd go to the trouble of picking apart why a lot of his claims just flat out don't work and show a complete lack of basic reading comprehension (like saying not granting automatic citizenship to non-citizens who marry a citizen is the same as banning marriage entirely), but I'm sure it would just result in long, rambling, insane five page rant that somehow concludes that everyone in the thread who isn't him is in the service of Satanic Illuminate Zionest Lizardmen and using alien technology to beam paranoid thoughts into his brain.
     
  10. Invictus

    Invictus Prisoner

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2013
    Messages:
    2,856
    Location:
    Cidade Maravilhosa
    Did you? Let's see:
    Well. Let's see. As mentioned before, nope, unless you were living Palestine in 1948, you're not offered Israeli citizenship.

    This means nothing. Also says nothing and ignores all other my examples like the Troubles.

    This is the post where you call me an anti semite, so I called on you to prove it and prove I said no Palestinian was a threat. Those were all your posts regarding this subject minus the parts that had nothing to do with my point.

    Remarkable is your lack of answering any of my points, examples, your preference for claims without backing anything with sources or examples or data. You ignore repeatedly my claims that Palestinians have basic human rights as shown by my post above me. You talk about strawman, but only one is calling the other an Alex Jones imitator.

    Pro tip, banning part of a basic human rights is still disrespecting it.
     
  11. awinarock

    awinarock Alchemist

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2009
    Messages:
    2,409
    Location:
    Texas
    I'm pretty certain he (along with most reasonable people) isn't saying that the whole group should be held accountable for the actions of a minority, however sizable that minority may be. Rather, it's the very real fact that a good chunk of even moderate Palestinians would be likely to aid the various terrorist groups as long as it means getting back at the Jews for stealing their land. Hell, even here in America, I have several Palestinian friends who've admitted to believing some fucked up shit about Jews and the general Israeli population, and I have no doubt that they'd be willing to aid, if not directly, and abet some terrorist fucks.

    It's also pretty clear that literally everyone here agrees that violating human rights, even in the name of security, is fucked up but the reality is that a nations interest will always be in the safety and security of itself and its citizens. That doesn't excuse or justify their actions, but we have to be real about why they're acting the way they are if we ever wanna move past this clusterfuck.
     
  12. Arthellion

    Arthellion High Inquisitor

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2017
    Messages:
    518
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Georgia, USA
    High Score:
    0

    I suppose that begs the question, how much of a responsibility does the government of a nation have to protect its citizens even if it means violating the human rights of citizens of other nations.

    That said, did Trump really violate human rights with his ban? Or is it just paranoia causing him to go to the extreme?

    Invictus’s earlier equivalencies don’t appear to work because in this situation, Palestinians are more like an occupied foreign nation than citizens of Israel who have lost their rights.
     
  13. Invictus

    Invictus Prisoner

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2013
    Messages:
    2,856
    Location:
    Cidade Maravilhosa
    Muslim ban didn't target mainly US citizens though. It affected residents and relatives of residents and citizens. US citizens weren't blocked from coming. So I don't know where you're coming from there.

    If he isn't, then he should explain his words, because this isn't ambiguous:
    "Yes, Israel is justified in taking the stance it does because of the prevalence of terrorist incidents, and the near-constant threat of terrorism coming from a significant portion of the Palestinian population. A proportion that is large enough that it can't be treated on a case-by-case basis."

    What should I take then, other than collective punishment? Specially considering that Revan admitted that is the same logic with the Muslim Ban, which is one, and would be a similar.logic that if the British started to systematically deny Catholics in NI rights like privacy, property among other things.

    Regarding the Human Rights thing, I mean, people are defending Israel actions as justifiable. They aren't. They're understandable, but never justifiable. Following the Rule of Law means that you have to ensure that law is enforced SPECIALLY in delicate complex cases, because that's what makes it or break it. If you drop the rule of law everytime it's easier, than you are just RPGing at it.

    Just like cops shouldn't be allowed to invade the house of that guy everyone know is a mobster, you don't treat it as fair an undesirable getting their rights suppressed.
     
    Last edited: Dec 31, 2017
  14. awinarock

    awinarock Alchemist

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2009
    Messages:
    2,409
    Location:
    Texas
    A governments ultimate responsibility is to it's citizens so if human rights need to be violated to protect them, then that's that. The only questions is whether they'll be able to justify their reasoning to other nations once the dust clears and whether the populace can live with what their country did.

    I also think Trump did violate human rights with the travel ban. This is just my opinion, but refusing entry to refugees is as good as signing their death warrants especially when they're from countries like Syria, and I think people who want to use fear mongering to generate good press and win elections by making up bullshit about preventing terrorism by refusing entry to refugees that have been thoroughly vetted should have a rusty dildo shoved up their ass. That's just me though.

    If they were really collectively punishing Palestinians for the crimes of terrorists, then they'd be rounded en masses and shot or jailed. As it is, they're second class citizens that are abused by the authority at hand and used as a convenient means of keeping the power structures as they are.

    They're justified from a purely security standpoint, but treating people like animals and taking their homes from them and telling them to eat their shit sandwich with a smile is bound to have consequences. It only serves to drive more of the general population into the arms of the extremists (and I wouldn't be surprised if the Palestinians aren't in a forgiving mood if the tables ever turn), but the fact of the matter is that none of that matters to the Israeli government. They're only concern is to protect their citizens and when you have hundreds of attacks per month and you have a specific demographic of your population that is openly supporting the people conducting these terrorist attacks, then certain rights will be stripped and justifiably so.

    Your mobster analogy doesn't really make sense in this case. If that mobster started to blow up government buildings and civilian centers, and everyone knows he's responsible but won't say shit because they secretly support him, then it's justifiable from a security standpoint to just say fuck it and invade his house. You're not suppressing his rights because he's an undesirable. You're doing it because you know he's a fucking terrorist, his community knows he's a terrorist, but because they're supporting him you can't do anything about it under normal guidelines and laws. Desperate times call for desperate measures and all that.
     
  15. Invictus

    Invictus Prisoner

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2013
    Messages:
    2,856
    Location:
    Cidade Maravilhosa
    1- That's a logic that makes no sense. Punishment is still punishment even if it's not summary execution. Punishment is punishment and the Palestinians are suffering because of the terrorism some of their peers support or engage into it.

    2- Then you support Trump's logic. You support suspension of Habeas Corpus for an entire country. You support giving in to panic and showing that Human Rights are all fine and dandy until they get into the way. You seem to think the law can be bent and forgot when it's inconvenient, that logic is what erodes institutions and trust on them, and it's exactly what Trump beliefs.

    This is something that is striking me more and more. People on this forum that are incredibly critical of Trump, but they defend the same poisonous logic he has, as long as he is the one not using it.


    Institutions are only as strong as the belief in their impartiality and fairness and that it will be consistent.
     
    Last edited: Dec 31, 2017
  16. Darth_Revan

    Darth_Revan Secret Squirrel Prestige DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Messages:
    287
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The Empire City
    High Score:
    2810
    The difference between reacting on a case-by-case basis and reacting on sweeping basis is between only being suspicious if you find something to alarm you, and being suspicious of everyone until you think they're safe. That's not collective punishment, they're not all being put in camps. Monitoring someone and what they're doing doesn't violate their human rights.

    Feel free to misinterpret this like you've misinterpreted everything else.
     
  17. Invictus

    Invictus Prisoner

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2013
    Messages:
    2,856
    Location:
    Cidade Maravilhosa
    So you claim Israel is only monitoring? Huh. Then all those examples I pointed of what they're doing are not real? Or what? And the EU and the UN disagrees with you btw. You should actually read the Anti Romanyism article I linked.

    What's there to misinterpreting? Israel did X. I pointed out what Articles and HR rights it violated. You said you support what Israel does. We're not talking about the NSA. We're talking Israel.
     
  18. Chengar Qordath

    Chengar Qordath The Final Pony Prestige

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2008
    Messages:
    741
    High Score:
    1,802
    Pretty much the problem with all of his attempts at coming up with a good analogy. The Israel/Palestine situation is a very unique one, and trying to compare it to something like the internment of Japanese-Americans in World War II or the Troubles or an ordinary criminal proceeding really doesn't work. Japanese-Americans weren't launching widespread terrorist attacks, and the IRA wasn't being supported by several other Irish states that also launched several invasions of Britain with the stated goal of driving all brits into the sea, and a mobster isn't a terrorist.
     
  19. Invictus

    Invictus Prisoner

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2013
    Messages:
    2,856
    Location:
    Cidade Maravilhosa
    I know what I'm defending. You're claiming Feindstrafrecht is a legit legal institution. It is not. Your logic is nothing less than the used by authoritarian regimes like I showed again and again.

    Let me teach you something very simple. Due process means a criminal is a criminal. What changes is his punishment, and some pre trial protective measures. However, both will be judged according to the law, due process, impartially and based on evidence and must be proven he committed a crime beyond reason. Or else you get travesties of Justice like this.

    It's been 40 years since Israel was invaded. Somehow that justifies present abuses of human rights. It's not like Israel isn't in cordial relations with Jordan and Egypt, two of the major countries that invaded it. Oh wait. But Palestinians must be denied rights based on that. Okay.

    And again, you're not even defending the use of such measures against terrorists, but against civilians in case they might be directly or indirectly supporting terrorists.
     
  20. Arthellion

    Arthellion High Inquisitor

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2017
    Messages:
    518
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Georgia, USA
    High Score:
    0
    Are Palestinians who support terrorist attacks criminals or enemy combatants?

    Are Palestinians citizens guilty of treason against Israel or an occupied populace