Jump to content

Israel


SmokeyBear1861

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Nivek said:

Um.... are you an American (North, Central, or South included)... cause um.....

Also, yeah, we did it too. It was bad. I'm not sure what your point is, it doesn't make any of it right or just.

P.S.: The contemporary American/Native American equivalent to Israeli/Palestinian relations would be if we forced most of the NAs to stay on the reservations, denied them citizenship, terrorized them by continuously killing them and reclaiming plots of land on the reservations. Then, we would also deny the 20% of them we allowed to be citizens and live among us equal rights and protections under our laws and live under forced effective segregation.

When I type that out it sounds like a slightly more extreme version of how we have treated black people in post-slavery America.

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

Also, yeah, we did it too. It was bad. I'm not sure what your point is, it doesn't make any of it right or just.

P.S.: The contemporary American/Native American equivalent to Israeli/Palestinian relations would be if we forced most of the NAs to stay on the reservations, denied them citizenship, terrorized them by continuously killing them and reclaiming plots of land on the reservations. Then, we would also deny the 20% of them we allowed to be citizens and live among us equal rights and protections under our laws and live under forced effective segregation.

And also, the contemporary Native Americans would have the position that all non-native Americans must leave any and all lands that were occupied, either actively or via historical claim, by Native Americans pre-1492.

The bolded addition is really, really important.  It doesn't negate any of what you posted in your first paragraph as a "what if" scenario.  It just completes the picture.  Because let's say we were doing all of those things in the first paragraph, and then we immediately got right with the lord and stopped that shit.  It would still leave the bolded part hanging out there, which makes it an intractable problem.  Your scenario would see that the only solution would be for all people without Native American blood to leave the Americas completely (there wasn't a piece of dirt in the Americas that wasn't the territory of some tribe or another over the years).  Which is never going to happen.

1.  The Palestinians must allow the state of Israel, in some physical form, to exist and to be a safe place for Jews so that they don't have to fear the slaughter they have faced repeatedly for 2000 years.

2.  The state of Israel must leave the levant entirely because it is an illegal occupier ("Back to 48!").

 

If you can reconcile positions 1 and 2 in a way that doesn't lead to perpetual war, and isn't resolved by genocide/elimination of one side or the other, get your ass to the UN immediately and make your pitch.  Because me?  I've got nothin'.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Tonesky said:

But, the Trail of Tears ended about 175 years ago.  Don't you know that there is a daily rolling statute of limitations, that is always just long enough to include Israel?

You thinks they suffered then, this is how they were memorialized...

Quote

 

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Brisketexan said:

The bolded addition is really, really important.  It doesn't negate any of what you posted in your first paragraph as a "what if" scenario.  It just completes the picture.  Because let's say we were doing all of those things in the first paragraph, and then we immediately got right with the lord and stopped that shit.  It would still leave the bolded part hanging out there, which makes it an intractable problem.  Your scenario would see that the only solution would be for all people without Native American blood to leave the Americas completely (there wasn't a piece of dirt in the Americas that wasn't the territory of some tribe or another over the years).  Which is never going to happen.

1.  The Palestinians must allow the state of Israel, in some physical form, to exist and to be a safe place for Jews so that they don't have to fear the slaughter they have faced repeatedly for 2000 years.

2.  The state of Israel must leave the levant entirely because it is an illegal occupier ("Back to 48!").

 

If you can reconcile positions 1 and 2 in a way that doesn't lead to perpetual war, and isn't resolved by genocide/elimination of one side or the other, get your ass to the UN immediately and make your pitch.  Because me?  I've got nothin'.

Oh I don't disagree. I don't think there would be a problem with them holding that opinion, either, even if it was an unrealistic ask.

I got nothin', either. It sucks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is fair to criticize the Israelis for being obstructionist dicks in implementing a two-state solution, that’s true. And it’s also true that there’s a tension as long as one side wants two states and one side will only settle for one.

 

But the piece missing in all this is the existence of highly motivated outside actors who benefit mightily from an ongoing conflict where they can moderate the gas. More than “benefit,” there are capable and wealthy actors whose internal and external legitimacy depends on defending the oppressed Palestinians and who would have real problems if the Palestinians are no longer being oppressed.

Iran being the obvious answer but no one should be shocked that the most strident “one staters” live in Qatar and that the “one state” terrorist party pays its bills with Gulf money.

This reveals both the limits of Israeli political maneuvering and U.S. power, the continued existence of an Israel-Palestine conflict is a core interest for these states.  Again, this is from the Russian playbook. 

There will never be a unified Palestinian authority to negotiate a two state solution with until Iran, Qatar, and others tell the people on their payroll “you are never getting one state and you’re falling off the payroll if you don’t get in line with this new direction.”

Which is basically, “never.” 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, 956 Worldwide said:

But the piece missing in all this is the existence of highly motivated outside actors who benefit mightily from an ongoing conflict where they can moderate the gas. More than “benefit,” there are capable and wealthy actors whose internal and external legitimacy depends on defending the oppressed Palestinians and who would have real problems if the Palestinians are no longer being oppressed.

QFMFT.

I made that point in one of my first posts when this round of shit all blew up.  The Palestinians have allowed themselves to be useful idiots -- doing all the suffering, fighting, and dying -- so that despotic shit states can use them to rally their own people against an outer foe, instead of looking at their own regime.

As long as there are outside states who will focus tremendous energy on keeping a material percentage of Palestinians in a state of forever war against Israel and all jews....the prospects for peace are zero.  Because again, even if Israel suddenly decided to do everything right, stop shitting on the territories, agreed to a two-state solution, etc.....the arab and iranian regimes would still be arming Palestinian groups telling them to keep waging jihad, because you gotta wag that dog.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

allowed themselves

That's some interesting framing here. They have not had any semblance of self determination in decades. Israel, and along with it the US and its allies, have had thumbs on the scale for as long as anyone alive has lived.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

They have not had any semblance of self determination in decades.

Every Palestinian terrorist who blew up a bus, participated in the October 7th attacks, etc., had plenty of "self determination."  They chose to do that.  The October 7th attack wasn't a lone wolf.  It was hundreds of fighters, backed by thousands.  Each of them had "self determination."

Denying that any Palestinians have had agency isn't a good look.  And that approach, if at all true, makes negotiation pointless.  Why negotiate with people who don't have any agency? 

And on top of that, how in the blue hell are the US, Israel, and their allies "parties with thumbs on the scale".....but Syria, Qatar, and Iran (as immediate examples) are not/have not been?

  • Hook 'Em 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

The bolded addition is really, really important.  It doesn't negate any of what you posted in your first paragraph as a "what if" scenario.  It just completes the picture.  Because let's say we were doing all of those things in the first paragraph, and then we immediately got right with the lord and stopped that shit.  It would still leave the bolded part hanging out there, which makes it an intractable problem.  Your scenario would see that the only solution would be for all people without Native American blood to leave the Americas completely (there wasn't a piece of dirt in the Americas that wasn't the territory of some tribe or another over the years).  Which is never going to happen.

1.  The Palestinians must allow the state of Israel, in some physical form, to exist and to be a safe place for Jews so that they don't have to fear the slaughter they have faced repeatedly for 2000 years.

2.  The state of Israel must leave the levant entirely because it is an illegal occupier ("Back to 48!").

 

If you can reconcile positions 1 and 2 in a way that doesn't lead to perpetual war, and isn't resolved by genocide/elimination of one side or the other, get your ass to the UN immediately and make your pitch.  Because me?  I've got nothin'.

I'm glad you see the parallel though. Simple question: was the massacre of Native American people and imperial elimination of Native American sovereignty just or disgusting? We all know it was disgusting, but because it happened a long time ago oh well I guess. And the parallels don't stop there. 

Nobody on this forum gets emotional about Native American raids that massacred white invaders' whole families. In fact we understand why they did it and recognize that on the whole the white Europeans and Americans were the ones who bore more responsibility for the overall conflict. Do we support the method? Not really. But that shit happens when you're engaged in the destruction of their families. This isn't even controversial at this point. It didn't work out (like it won't work for Hamas) but it was understandable.

But because it's happening contemporaneously lots of emotions are blinding people right now. We're all basically watching it happen again and the sides people are taking are interesting. 

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

48 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

Specifically within Gaza/West Bank they really have no capacity to do that. There is no established state with the power to solve these issues. They haven't been allowed elections in quite a while.

Um,  Why not?  I am sure someone can fashion a pointy stick if they cannot acquire a boom stick and get like minded individuals to start policing them.   I read about a school that had continued trouble with fights and what not, until a bunch of dads decided to band together and become hall monitors.   They didn't have the 'authority' granted by the state either.  Too many people stand around looking for someone else to take action.   Arrest, kill, or deport them, hand them over to the Israelis or Egyptians if they don't want to get their hands too dirty.  

Here is an example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

QFMFT.

I made that point in one of my first posts when this round of shit all blew up.  The Palestinians have allowed themselves to be useful idiots -- doing all the suffering, fighting, and dying -- so that despotic shit states can use them to rally their own people against an outer foe, instead of looking at their own regime.

As long as there are outside states who will focus tremendous energy on keeping a material percentage of Palestinians in a state of forever war against Israel and all jews....the prospects for peace are zero.  Because again, even if Israel suddenly decided to do everything right, stop shitting on the territories, agreed to a two-state solution, etc.....the arab and iranian regimes would still be arming Palestinian groups telling them to keep waging jihad, because you gotta wag that dog.

A cynical observer might notice similar traits in the relationship between the United States and Israel.

Edited by David Dennison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

It is fair to criticize the Israelis for being obstructionist dicks in implementing a two-state solution, that’s true. And it’s also true that there’s a tension as long as one side wants two states and one side will only settle for one.

 

But the piece missing in all this is the existence of highly motivated outside actors who benefit mightily from an ongoing conflict where they can moderate the gas. More than “benefit,” there are capable and wealthy actors whose internal and external legitimacy depends on defending the oppressed Palestinians and who would have real problems if the Palestinians are no longer being oppressed.

Iran being the obvious answer but no one should be shocked that the most strident “one staters” live in Qatar and that the “one state” terrorist party pays its bills with Gulf money.

This reveals both the limits of Israeli political maneuvering and U.S. power, the continued existence of an Israel-Palestine conflict is a core interest for these states.  Again, this is from the Russian playbook. 

There will never be a unified Palestinian authority to negotiate a two state solution with until Iran, Qatar, and others tell the people on their payroll “you are never getting one state and you’re falling off the payroll if you don’t get in line with this new direction.”

Which is basically, “never.” 

 Agreed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Huckleberry said:

I'm glad you see the parallel though. Simple question: was the massacre of Native American people and imperial elimination of Native American sovereignty just or disgusting? We all know it was disgusting, but because it happened a long time ago oh well I guess. And the parallels don't stop there. 

Nobody on this forum gets emotional about Native American raids that massacred white invaders' whole families. In fact we understand why they did it and recognize that on the whole the white Europeans and Americans were the ones who bore more responsibility for the overall conflict. Do we support the method? Not really. But that shit happens when you're engaged in the destruction of their families. This isn't even controversial at this point. It didn't work out (like it won't work for Hamas) but it was understandable.

But because it's happening contemporaneously lots of emotions are blinding people right now. We're all basically watching it happen again and the sides people are taking are interesting. 

The only path forward -- dictated by reality -- is to play the ball as it lies TODAY.  To switch metaphors, we show up and play the chess match with the pieces arranged as they are at present, not as we belief the were positioned/should have been justly positioned before.  To grab a third metaphor....you can't unscramble the egg.

To go back to the native american situation, we start from where we are today.  I believe the US state has obligations to the native american population (both acknowledged obligations that we haven't performed, and additional obligations that we should perform).  But I also believe that there cannot and will not be a wholesale "return of previously held lands" to native americans.  You and I aren't going to sign over the deeds to our residential lots to the Comanche.  So, from where things stand today, how do we move forward in a more just way?

Israel and the Palestinian people should forge a path forward that is as good as can be reasonably achieved based on how things actually exist today.  The FIRST step, for both of them, is "stop committing brutal crimes against the other side."  Israel should stop settlements, violence to further settlements, violent oppression of Palestinians in the territories, and the like.  The Palestinians should cease attacks against Israel and jews.  By the way, that's what a "cease-fire" means.  I see plenty of people cry out for that, but it seems that they're only talking about Israel ceasing ITS military activity....those Hamas missiles can keep flying.  

Quit with the fuckery.  Both of you.  The first step is to stop further fuckery.  Then you can work on sorting things out an unfucking things for the future.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Every Palestinian terrorist who blew up a bus, participated in the October 7th attacks, etc., had plenty of "self determination." 

How many times are you going to conflate the terrorists (at most 1,000 of whom participated in the attack) and the 2.2 million people who have been the subject of this discussion. At this point I can't help but wonder if you're doing that deliberately.

I don't think the idea that Syria or Iran's thumbs are comparable to those of the US and the EU merits any serious response, either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

Given the power dynamics involved, it is incumbent on Israel to stop its fuckery first. 

Did the Palestinians EVER have an obligation to stop their fuckery?  If not, why?  If so, when did that obligation cease and transfer to Israel?  Because I seem to recall more than one war waged by the Palestinians and their allies seeking to exterminate Israel completely.

And to carry that through, when the Palestinian cause is continuing to shout loudly that Israel should be eliminated ("Back to 48!"), what is the incentive for Israel to stop its fuckery?  This is the problem, dude.  One side proclaims genocide as its mission, and with regular frequency, follows through with murder of civilians.  The other side does a damned good job of pursing genocide in practice, without claiming it as a goal.

How the fuck can you convince either side "you first?"  You can't.  The ONLY possible path is a simultaneous laying down of weapons, so to speak.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

I'm glad you see the parallel though. Simple question: was the massacre of Native American people and imperial elimination of Native American sovereignty just or disgusting? We all know it was disgusting, but because it happened a long time ago oh well I guess. And the parallels don't stop there. 

Nobody on this forum gets emotional about Native American raids that massacred white invaders' whole families. In fact we understand why they did it and recognize that on the whole the white Europeans and Americans were the ones who bore more responsibility for the overall conflict. Do we support the method? Not really. But that shit happens when you're engaged in the destruction of their families. This isn't even controversial at this point. It didn't work out (like it won't work for Hamas) but it was understandable.

But because it's happening contemporaneously lots of emotions are blinding people right now. We're all basically watching it happen again and the sides people are taking are interesting. 

Thinking about your points doesn’t make me feel good, so I will ignore them. 
 
(Just kidding. Dammit, why do you make me think of this?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

How many times are you going to conflate the terrorists (at most 1,000 of whom participated in the attack) and the 2.2 million people who have been the subject of this discussion. At this point I can't help but wonder if you're doing that deliberately.

I don't think the idea that Syria or Iran's thumbs are comparable to those of the US and the EU merits any serious response, either.

The dead Israelis don't appreciate your distinction.  And the remaining living ones who have lived with an open question of "is today they day they kill me?" don't appreciate it either.

You discount that BOTH populations live in a state of terror.  Which is why nothing will change.  The terror and fear of Israelis has zero weight to you.  The ONLY path is to acknowledge that both things exist: terror and despair by the Palestinians, and terror and fear by the Israelis.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Brisketexan said:

Did the Palestinians EVER have an obligation to stop their fuckery?  If not, why?  If so, when did that obligation cease and transfer to Israel?  Because I seem to recall more than one war waged by the Palestinians and their allies seeking to exterminate Israel completely.

And to carry that through, when the Palestinian cause is continuing to shout loudly that Israel should be eliminated ("Back to 48!"), what is the incentive for Israel to stop its fuckery?  This is the problem, dude.  One side proclaims genocide as its mission, and with regular frequency, follows through with murder of civilians.  The other side does a damned good job of pursing genocide in practice, without claiming it as a goal.

How the fuck can you convince either side "you first?"  You can't.  The ONLY possible path is a simultaneous laying down of weapons, so to speak.

Israel's fuckery is oppression. That has to stop first.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, longhornmatt said:

I see that argument in theory, but in reality it’s the exact opposite.  Territorial boundaries and the rules based international order are still basically ultimately decided by wars, just like when the USA and Native Americans were fighting, or the Mongols and the Caliphate, or the Romans and the Carthaginians, and everyone else in history.  It’s kind of incumbent on the less powerful side not to fight a war they can’t win, unless they’re ok with being martyrs.

Enough of them (not all of them) are okay with being martyrs. That's why I've said Israel is the one in the drivers seat here, if they truly want peace. Turning up the aggression is only going to give would-be martyrs even less to live for (and more to die for).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

The only path forward -- dictated by reality -- is to play the ball as it lies TODAY.  To switch metaphors, we show up and play the chess match with the pieces arranged as they are at present, not as we belief the were positioned/should have been justly positioned before.  To grab a third metaphor....you can't unscramble the egg.

In this metaphorical chess match, are vibrating anal beads allowed? Asking for Hamas Israel a friend.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

The terror and fear of Israelis has zero weight to you.

You couldn't be more wrong. I want them to be and feel safe, which is exactly why I want their government to stop doing provocative things and to cease the occupation that has fed into the narratives and justifications on which these terror groups thrive. A majority of Palestinians polled are supportive of a two-state solution, with 1967 borders, if it meant peace. That might not fit the theme you've constructed based on stray anecdotes drawn from a protest somebody drove by here in Houston, but the data exists.

Israel and the US need to re-examine the way they have approached the peace process. Historically, the negotiations have been in bad faith and one-sided, with the imposition of unacceptable conditions from the outset seemingly for the purpose of all but guaranteeing that the negotiations would fail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

How many times are you going to conflate the terrorists (at most 1,000 of whom participated in the attack) and the 2.2 million people who have been the subject of this discussion.

The militants don't work the farms, the grid, water treatment plants, and exist in a vacuum.  They get support from the population.   If the population isn't sick of it, then the militants will continue to get support.  

3 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Israel's fuckery is oppression. That has to stop first.

Again, I posted a little history from before.  The Palestinian's militant wing has acted in the same way with Egypt, Jordan, and Lebanon.  Why should Israel stop first when it seems that the Palestinians cannot or refuse to stop themselves.  As a reminder, they killed the King of Jordan, tried to kill another, killed their Prime Minister.   They were supported by Jordan, and yet they tried to overthrow it with Syria's help.   You keep acting like there isn't something wrong with the Palestinians.  There is, they are run by chaos agents from the inside and outside and those chaos agents have the support of the people.   They do not wish to govern.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, longhornmatt said:

I’d point to the Israelis as one particularly relevant subset of worldwide Jews who I’m pretty sure don’t share that sentiment.

Are you sure? How would you know, given that there's been a crackdown and criminalization of dissent? We do know that Netanyahu is incredibly unpopular there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Nivek said:

Again, I posted a little history from before.  The Palestinian's militant wing has acted in the same way with Egypt, Jordan, and Lebanon.  Why should Israel stop first when it seems that the Palestinians cannot or refuse to stop themselves.  As a reminder, they killed the King of Jordan, tried to kill another, killed their Prime Minister.   They were supported by Jordan, and yet they tried to overthrow it with Syria's help.   You keep acting like there isn't something wrong with the Palestinians.  There is, they are run by chaos agents from the inside and outside and those chaos agents have the support of the people.   They do not wish to govern.  

Because they are orders of magnitude more powerful than the adversary.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Nivek said:

The militants don't work the farms, the grid, water treatment plants, and exist in a vacuum.  They get support from the population.   If the population isn't sick of it, then the militants will continue to get support. 

You know this how?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

Israel and the US need to re-examine the way they have approached the peace process. Historically, the negotiations have been in bad faith and one-sided, with the imposition of unacceptable conditions from the outset seemingly for the purpose of all but guaranteeing that the negotiations would fail.

What was wrong with Clinton's negotiated strategy?   It required that the Palestinian's take responsibility for their own security.  The militants chose not to.  Arafat couldn't or wouldn't stop that.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

A feel-good story, but it's not a long-term solution.

From 2015 and still they remain in charge of their domain.... 

You just cannot simply admit you are wrong.  Authority isn't always given, sometimes it is taken or decided upon by a small group.  I seem to recall a small group of people founding a whole nation that would change the world.   Not all colonials were revolutionaries.  Most were not, IIRC.   And yet.....   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

That poses an unacceptable risk to the safety of Jews worldwide. I would listen to the voices of the many Jews who have been protesting the war, who are urging a ceasefire.

Shot

27 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

Conflating again. Why do you do this?

Chaser

”Jews worldwide will suffer and die if the government of Israel doesn’t do the right thing.” 
 

“Why are you conflating Israelis and a Jews?”

Back to fucking back, that’s some solid dissonance.” 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Nivek said:

From 2015 and still they remain in charge of their domain.... 

You just cannot simply admit you are wrong.  Authority isn't always given, sometimes it is taken or decided upon by a small group.  I seem to recall a small group of people founding a whole nation that would change the world.   Not all colonials were revolutionaries.  Most were not, IIRC.   And yet.....   

What domain are you talking about? A tiny indigenous mountaintop village of 600? A village where they can't really leave for fear of being killed? That's what Palestinians should do to overthrow Hamas? I'm seriously not following your reasoning here at all. Did the cartels go away because it didn't take this village? What are you trying to say here that's relevant at all to the notion that the people of Gaza should overthrow its defacto government?

2 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Shot

Chaser

”Jews worldwide will suffer and die if the government of Israel doesn’t do the right thing.” 
 

“Why are you conflating Israelis and a Jews?”

Back to fucking back, that’s some solid dissonance.” 

I'm not calling Jews the aggressor here. It has been said many times that Jews are persecuted worldwide. I am simply agreeing with that proposition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, chainsaw said:

I'm a proponent of paying substantial reparations to the descendants of slaveholders and displaced indigenous people. As for returning land, I am in favor of it where it is feasible. I haven't looked too closely at the feasibility of returning land to indigenous people, but my understanding is that the feasibility can vary depending on what land we're talking about and other factors. Where returning particular lands to particular people is not feasible, I am in favor of granting different land to them of comparable quality and paying monetary compensation to them to account for the shortcoming.

To me, that is the only morally defensible answer.

Where are you going to magically get the money?  Will my Italian ancestry allow me to escape some of the payment?  Do I get a claim against the United Kingdom from my Irish ancestry then?  Can I get my ancestral lands and title back?  Cause I am good with this exchange, though the people of Ireland might not be so happy with my kingship and demand of showers outdoors with those Irish Spring ladies.  

The only practical answer is to move on.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Nivek said:

Where are you going to magically get the money?

Same way anyone else who owes money for any other reason gets the money.

 

1 minute ago, Nivek said:

Will my Italian ancestry allow me to escape some of the payment?

Probably not.

2 minutes ago, Nivek said:

Do I get a claim against the United Kingdom from my Irish ancestry then?  Can I get my ancestral lands and title back? 

Sure, if feasible.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, chainsaw said:

Same way anyone else who owes money for any other reason gets the money.

 

Probably not.

Sure, if feasible.

 

This is how I know you are not a serious individual.  The idea is absurd and impractical, and yet, you cannot see that.   I am the one with the claim, and yet, even I know it is a fucking joke.  Oh, I am also part Neanderthal according to my DNA.  So I want all that too.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Nivek said:

This is how I know you are not a serious individual.  The idea is absurd and impractical, and yet, you cannot see that.   I am the one with the claim, and yet, even I know it is a fucking joke.  Oh, I am also part Neanderthal according to my DNA.  So I want all that too.  

Okay well if you're biased against reparations, just say that. That doesn't change the reality that reparations are the only moral option for the sins of displacement and slavery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, longhornmatt said:

How do we find the “indigenous” people who never displaced someone else before them?  Are the Comanche in this scenario rooted to Texas since prehistoric times and never fought a war until the 1830s with American settlers?

hey man, I know you are on my side, but fuck you too.  You homo sapiens have cost me a chance of experiencing Neanderthal pussy with your genocide of my people.     Think about that....  now try not to.... see....   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

What domain are you talking about? A tiny indigenous mountaintop village of 600? A village where they can't really leave for fear of being killed? That's what Palestinians should do to overthrow Hamas? I'm seriously not following your reasoning here at all. Did the cartels go away because it didn't take this village? What are you trying to say here that's relevant at all to the notion that the people of Gaza should overthrow its defacto government?

I'm not calling Jews the aggressor here. It has been said many times that Jews are persecuted worldwide. I am simply agreeing with that proposition.

I am pointing out the “inherent tension” in the constant drumbeat that criticism and anger toward Israel is Different than antisemitism and anger to Jews. Which, fair enough, often it is. 
 

But then you’re also pointing out that angry terrorists worldwide will hold Jews worldwide responsible for Israeli actions— and that Israel has a duty to protect those Jews by making different decisions— and things start to get little muddled. 
 

Basically, it’s bad and inexcusable when Israel’s supporters conflate Jews and Israel.  But natural and expected when terrorists conflate them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...