Jump to content

Israel


SmokeyBear1861

Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

You say that you are fully aware of the problems on both sides.  Then you lay the responsibility functionally SOLELY at the feet of Israel (I presume that's the side you're accusing of ethnic cleansing).  You came THIS close to getting it....but you just couldn't help running to the "Israel's bad, it's Israel's fault" corner of comfort when it gets down to nut-cutting time.  And THAT tendency - the tendency to, when it comes down to it, award Israel the black hat - is one of the very things that fuels Israel's stance of "why should we give a fuck what other people/countries think they're all against us anyway?"

In other words, everyone keeps providing more than enough fuel to the extremes of both sides to keep on keeping on.  And yes, "everyone" includes you.

I am not laying the responsibility solely at the feet of Israel. As I have said many times, the power imbalance simply favors them by many orders of magnitude, and there can be no possible peace unless they take certain steps. These are simply facts that cannot be ignored when having these discussions. That is not the same thing as placing all responsibility on them. Obviously there is also plenty of responsibility on the part of Hamas and the percentage of Gazans that support them. Those people have to change, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

I mean, this is factually untrue. There has never, ever, ever been a country or nation called Palestine with self-rule in the Levant. The name itself is a creation of the Roman Empire and for centuries before World War I they were ruled by Turks and their figureheads. There’s been a lot of whitewashing, but the actual residents of “Palestine” pretty much hatred the Ottomans and kept starting campaigns against them. 
 

Let’s at least get the history right. The closest the Palestinians have ever been to having a nation called “Palestine” with self-rule and determination was during the derailed peace talks with Israel. 

Yes, I know, I was simplifying for purposes of a message board post, but there was a measure of self-determination among the various groups during part of the Ottoman Empire, including who we call Palestinians today. Nevertheless, I'm pretty sure you're last statement is pretty heavily whitewashed. Israel has never negotiated in good faith to provide Palestinians with legitimate self-rule or self-determination. It's been discussed ad nauseum and you've made clear your position on justification for Israel's actions currently and since it's creation and I have to get back to work, so I'll bow out again.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

The fact that it is very difficult to see and hear pro-Palestinian messages without ALSO seeing and hearing antisemitic messages is a big fucking problem

It’s not difficult to see and hear pro Palestine messages without antisemitism. It’s hard in this thread because certain posters are doing their best to conflate the two.

Thats not saying there isn’t a problem, there is and it needs to be shouted down. But saying it’s hard to find pro Palestine/non antisemitism is just not true.

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

15 minutes ago, 'stache said:

Yes, I know, I was simplifying for purposes of a message board post, but there was a measure of self-determination among the various groups during part of the Ottoman Empire, including who we call Palestinians today. Nevertheless, I'm pretty sure you're last statement is pretty heavily whitewashed. Israel has never negotiated in good faith to provide Palestinians with legitimate self-rule or self-determination. It's been discussed ad nauseum and you've made clear your position on justification for Israel's actions currently and since it's creation and I have to get back to work, so I'll bow out again.  

A “measure of self-determination” is doing a lot of heavy lifting here, especially considering that Arabs by all accounts hated living under Ottoman rule. 
 

One might also point out that there was more than a measure of self-determination in 2006 with elections that brought Hamas to power. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, hobbes2702 said:

It’s not difficult to see and hear pro Palestine messages without antisemitism. It’s hard in this thread because certain posters are doing their best to conflate the two.

Thats not saying there isn’t a problem, there is and it needs to be shouted down. But saying it’s hard to find pro Palestine/non antisemitism is just not true.

I wish you were right.  But you are not.  See the link bolverk posted:

41 minutes ago, bolverk said:

For those of us who are more pro-Palestinian in terms of a two-state solution but are totally not on board with any of the anti-Semitic shit, this is a good Op-Ed. 

'Good Jew' vs. 'Bad Jew': Why pro-Palestine Protests Have a Problem

Antisemitism and what amount to calls for complete erasure of the jewish state and attacks on jews worldwide are actually very, very easy to find in the "pro-Palestinian" cause.  These voices, slogans, signs, etc., are not being plucked out of obscurity.  They are found quite close to the mainstream of Palestinian sentiment.

And again, Israel has its own problem in that regard, and it's quite plain: their CURRENT GOVERNMENT is right wing genocidal fucksticks.  We don't have any problem pointing out what a huge and crippling issue that is if we are wanting a peaceful resolution granting the maximum dignity and safety to all involved.  I just find the intellectually dishonest dismissiveness of the deep and wide strain of antisemitism and zero-compromise calls for the destruction of Israel and jews running through the pro-Palestinian movement really problematic.

I WANT the pro-Palestinian cause to get traction.  I WANT a solution that grants peace and dignity to Palestinians.  We can't get there until 1) the Palestinian cause does not deeply entwine itself with genocidal anti-semitism, and 2) Israel does not take a maximalist anti-Palestinian approach that eats up all land that could possibly be a Palestinian state as part of a future resolution, and doesn't treat Palestinian civilians as disposable vermin whose lives have no value.  BOTH of those things need to happen.  And item 1) remains a blind spot for way too many.

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

32 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I wish you were right.  But you are not.  See the link bolverk posted:

Antisemitism and what amount to calls for complete erasure of the jewish state and attacks on jews worldwide are actually very, very easy to find in the "pro-Palestinian" cause.  These voices, slogans, signs, etc., are not being plucked out of obscurity.  They are found quite close to the mainstream of Palestinian sentiment.

And again, Israel has its own problem in that regard, and it's quite plain: their CURRENT GOVERNMENT is right wing genocidal fucksticks.  We don't have any problem pointing out what a huge and crippling issue that is if we are wanting a peaceful resolution granting the maximum dignity and safety to all involved.  I just find the intellectually dishonest dismissiveness of the deep and wide strain of antisemitism and zero-compromise calls for the destruction of Israel and jews running through the pro-Palestinian movement really problematic.

I WANT the pro-Palestinian cause to get traction.  I WANT a solution that grants peace and dignity to Palestinians.  We can't get there until 1) the Palestinian cause does not deeply entwine itself with genocidal anti-semitism, and 2) Israel does not take a maximalist anti-Palestinian approach that eats up all land that could possibly be a Palestinian state as part of a future resolution, and doesn't treat Palestinian civilians as disposable vermin whose lives have no value.  BOTH of those things need to happen.  And item 1) remains a blind spot for way too many.

I 100% agree with you but feel like you didn't read (or carefully read) the Op-Ed. Otherwise, I feel like you would've responded differently.

The author explains how anti-Zionism can quickly turn into anti-Semitism. He says he'd normally support the ongoing protests because he opposes the Israeli government's policies in the occupied territories, but many of the protesters are taking it way too far by saying that's not enough. He must also be opposed to Israel in its entirety, which he cannot do.

There's more to the Op-Ed, but I'm not going to summarize the whole thing because I wouldn't be able to do it justice. I found it a worthwhile read and agreed with most of what he wrote. For whatever reason, it struck a chord and felt like a fresh perspective.

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

3 minutes ago, bolverk said:

I 100% agree with you but feel like you didn't read (or carefully read) the Op-Ed. Otherwise, I feel like you would've responded differently.

The author explains how anti-Zionism can quickly turn into anti-Semitism. He says he'd normally support the ongoing protests because he opposes the Israeli government's policies in the occupied territories, but many of the protesters are taking it way too far by saying that's not enough. He must also be opposed to Israel in its entirety, which he cannot do.

There's more to the Op-Ed, but I'm not going to summarize the whole thing because I wouldn't be able to do it justice. I found it a worthwhile read and agreed with most of what he wrote. For whatever reason, it struck a chord and felt like a fresh perspective.

I actually did read the whole thing.  He had a really good explanation and take on "zionism" as a broad concept, I thought.  But he ended up at the point that I'm sure seeing from the pro-Palestinian side: a sizable percentage (sizable enough to drive a significant portion of the conversation) is no-compromise, Israel is bad and must be ended and all jews are the enemy.  Voices of moderation get drowned out by the voices of extremism, both because each such voice is pretty loud, and because there are many more such voices than there should be.  As I said in one of my earlier posts, if the genocidal voices were 1 or even 5 in 100, then they would hardly be heard.  When they are 20 in 100, or more....they dominate the conversation.

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

28 minutes ago, bolverk said:

I 100% agree with you but feel like you didn't read (or carefully read) the Op-Ed. Otherwise, I feel like you would've responded differently.

The author explains how anti-Zionism can quickly turn into anti-Semitism. He says he'd normally support the ongoing protests because he opposes the Israeli government's policies in the occupied territories, but many of the protesters are taking it way too far by saying that's not enough. He must also be opposed to Israel in its entirety, which he cannot do.

There's more to the Op-Ed, but I'm not going to summarize the whole thing because I wouldn't be able to do it justice. I found it a worthwhile read and agreed with most of what he wrote. For whatever reason, it struck a chord and felt like a fresh perspective.

For me the core of the op-ed is here:

Quote

Let's face it. For Jews around the world, Zionism, or the love of the homeland, can mean all-out support for Israel and its colonial hold over the West Bank and East Jerusalem and its ongoing blockade of Gaza, or it can mean helping fellow impoverished Jews in need of help in poor neighborhoods of Israel. It can mean supporting the IDF at all costs, or it can mean protesting the IDF for their crimes as a way to correct the injustices of the Jewish state.

Zionism, in essence, is the bond Jews have with Israel, whatever that might mean. It is an identity intricately linked to religion. For many Jews worldwide, it is also a family connection. Even among those who declare themselves anti-Zionists, such as among some ultra-Orthodox Jews, there is a sense of latent Zionism, even if it is never expressed as such.

 

All of this might be uncomfortable for many people in the pro-Palestine camp, who try to neatly divide Jews into "good Jews," or the righteous few, against the "bad Jews," who are "genocide supporters." There is no longer a middle ground, with the term Zionist being used to show an equivalence to the term "Nazi," the culmination of all evils.

Thus, in their fervor, many within the pro-Palestine camp refuse to use the word Israel, but rather "Zionist" state; and they do not use the term "Israelis," but rather "Zionist colonizers," or "Zionist settlers." For them, it did not matter that the Israelis attacked on October 7th were not settlers in the West Bank; all Israelis are fair game.

“Zionist,” even here on this forum is mostly meaningless and is used to conflate people who believe that Israel has a right to exist as a state in with people who support West Bank settlers and the full control of Jerusalem with no rights or space for Palestinians at all. Anyone who believes Israel gets to exist is a Zionist and then must be opposed. You are not allowed to point out how calling for the elimination of the world’s only Jewish state, and no other state in the world, is at least implicitly if not explicitly anti-Semitic. 
 

Same deal with “from the River to the Sea,” or “Globalize the Intifada.” Almost all will concede that these slogans are used with genocidal intent but then many will place the onus on Jews to parse through context to determine when it’s genocidal or not.  Instead of just distancing themselves from it. 
 

 

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

Just now, Anastasis said:

What is the N per 100 of extremist, racist, and/or genocidal voices in the Israeli government at the moment? 

Way too fucking high - just Likud and the most extremist parties make up like 1/3 of the Knesset.  The Israeli government is as shitty as it's been in a long, long time.  The fucking Minister of National Security is an openly genocidal piece of shit, in particular.

Perhaps you missed my consistent and pointed criticism about the current Israeli position above.  That position is one of the two key reasons why peace is impossible.  My only point in response to the soft-sellers above is that the other key reason why peace is impossible is that genocidal antisemitism has an outsize seat at the Palestinian side of the table.  When you have two sides where each is carrying a deep and wide strain of genocidal hatred for the other.....peace is never, ever, ever going to be in the offing.*

* Unless and until one side finally overwhelms the other and completes the genocide.  And even that "victory," no matter who gains it, would be deceptive, as it would not actually secure any lasting peace and security.  Thus, my complete and total pessimism.  Even if the WORST thing happened....it still wouldn't gain anyone anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

When you have two sides where each is carrying a deep and wide strain of genocidal hatred for the other.....peace is never, ever, ever going to be in the offing.

And especially when we send one of the two sides a constant stream of C130s full of bombs to drop on the other side, and stand alone in the security council vetoing calls for a ceasefire. We cannot control the Israelis, we cannot control the Palestinians. What we can control is our actions as facilitators of the occupation. That whole rules-based international order thing that I hear so much about, seems like it might be relevant.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Way too fucking high - just Likud and the most extremist parties make up like 1/3 of the Knesset.  The Israeli government is as shitty as it's been in a long, long time.  The fucking Minister of National Security is an openly genocidal piece of shit, in particular.

Perhaps you missed my consistent and pointed criticism about the current Israeli position above.  That position is one of the two key reasons why peace is impossible.  My only point in response to the soft-sellers above is that the other key reason why peace is impossible is that genocidal antisemitism has an outsize seat at the Palestinian side of the table.  When you have two sides where each is carrying a deep and wide strain of genocidal hatred for the other.....peace is never, ever, ever going to be in the offing.*

* Unless and until one side finally overwhelms the other and completes the genocide.  And even that "victory," no matter who gains it, would be deceptive, as it would not actually secure any lasting peace and security.  Thus, my complete and total pessimism.  Even if the WORST thing happened....it still wouldn't gain anyone anything.

Why even engage?

Quote

Whataboutism or whataboutery (as in "what about…?") denotes in a pejorative sense a procedure in which a critical question or argument is not answered or discussed, but retorted with a critical counter-question which expresses a counter-accusation. From a logicaland argumentative point of view it is considered a variant of the tu-quoque pattern (Latin 'you too', term for a counter-accusation), which is a subtype of the ad-hominem argument.[

 

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

1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

What we can control is our actions as facilitators of the occupation.

Your verbiage is telling.

Are the multiple states arming and funding Hamas going to stop THEIR actions?  Nope?  Cool.  Cool.

Not that I don't think that we shouldn't use our hefty leverage to rein in Israel's current "response," which is using the concept of a legitimate response to a brutal attack as cover for genocidal retribution.  But again.....the demanded course of action always comes down to "fuck Israel."  Which continues to make my point.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Why even engage?

 

I actually engage because I genuinely do see that a huge part of this intractable problem is the horrifically genocidal and brutal approach taken by current Israeli leadership, and the not-insignificant populist strain within Israel that agrees with them.  There can be no peace while a sizable percentage of Palestinians want to wipe Israel and jews off the earth.  LIKEWISE, there can be no peace while Israeli leadership and a sizable percentage of Israelis want to kill or otherwise remove every Palestinian from the levant.

Both those things are true, and it's important to acknowledge that both are true.

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

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

Your verbiage is telling.

Are the multiple states arming and funding Hamas going to stop THEIR actions?  Nope?  Cool.  Cool. 

We also can't control Iran, the state of which is a fucking shitshow of ours and the British own making. Sounds kinda familiar right.

The most telling thing in my verbiage is the truth. We are arming, facilitating, and running cover for an apartheid state that is carrying out a brutal and illegal occupation. That's not on Israel, that is not on Palestine, that is not on Iran, or anyone else. That is on us. "We the people", right. 
 

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

4 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

We also can't control Iran, the state of which is a fucking shitshow of ours and the British own making. Sounds kinda familiar right.

The most telling thing in my verbiage is the truth. We are arming, facilitating, and running cover for an apartheid state that is carrying out a brutal and illegal occupation. That's not on Israel, that is not on Palestine, that is not on Iran, or anyone else. That is on us. "We the people", right. 
 

well-there.gif

 

You couldn't have made my point any better even if you tried.

"ISRAEL BAD!"  From the river to the sea indeed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Basic bullshit. I was told that there was a rules-based international order. If only some of the proponents of that position weren't so self-deluding.  

Apartheid State is the new "FISA court" dog whistle for Ana.

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

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

well-there.gif

 

You couldn't have made my point any better even if you tried.

"ISRAEL BAD!"  From the river to the sea indeed.

I mean...that is literally what is happening. We are strongly and publicly endorsing, with words, money, and weapons of war, everything Israel does, including actual war crimes. Did I miss something? Is this somehow in dispute?

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

2 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

I mean...that is literally what is happening.

Well, you see, it's a lot easier to just pound out "ISRAEL BAD!, rIvEr To tHe SeA" than it is to engage in some critical self-reflection on American foreign policy and how it measures up with the promotion of American ideals. We undermine ourselves and wonder why people don't take us seriously.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be clear, I'm not necessarily against providing aid to Israel, especially support for the many families affected by the massacre on Oct. 7th, but we can do these things (provide moral and financial/military support) while still urging them to act with more restraint and without publicly supporting ethnic cleansing, but we make it a point to do the latter, at least, as much as possible it seems.

We make it a point not to punish GOP lawmakers that call for the extermination of all Palestinians in Gaza. We make sure that the Western media machine keeps its crosshairs firmly on Gazans and never on the broken leadership of Israel. It's a neverending cycle of collective punishment that we endorse with our full chests.

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

20 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

To be clear, I'm not necessarily against providing aid to Israel, especially support for the many families affected by the massacre on Oct. 7th, but we can do these things (provide moral and financial/military support) while still urging them to act with more restraint and without publicly supporting ethnic cleansing, but we make it a point to do the latter, at least, as much as possible it seems.

We make it a point not to punish GOP lawmakers that call for the extermination of all Palestinians in Gaza. We make sure that the Western media machine keeps its crosshairs firmly on Gazans and never on the broken leadership of Israel. It's a neverending cycle of collective punishment that we endorse with our full chests.

Would it surprise you to find out that I agree with everything in this post?  I hope it doesn't surprise you.  We can and should support Israel as you said....but we ALSO should use the great leverage we have to exert meaningful pressure on Israel to act with restraint and to cut out the fucking ethnic cleansing bullshit.  Our national dialogue -- global dialogue, actually -- on this topic is hopelessly broken.  In the US, the only politically permissible stance is "I support and stand with Israel," with little room for nuance or accountability.  Which attracts an opposing viewpoint which draws heavily from the worst global oppositional rhetoric and thinking (rife with antisemitism and calls for extermination of jews and the state of Israel).  The US (and the rest of humanity) is never going to make any progress so long as those are the dominant strains in the conversation.

And, by the way, I hold out no hope that even changing paths would help.  If the US successfully exerted pressure to get Israel to back the fuck off militarily in Gaza, and to quit with the absolute asshattery ongoing in the West Bank (e.g., outright ethnic cleansing by settlers and state-affiliated actors).....do you think it would make the genocidal elements on the Palestinian side back down?  Fuck no.  And we already know that the Palestinians being relatively subdued doesn't do shit to make the genocidal elements of Israeli society and government behave any better.  So, fuck it.  All that any of us is doing here is yelling about principles that don't mean a single motherfucking thing.  The only certainty is a lot more blood.  If we quit supplying Israel with arms and Iran quits supplying Hamas and Hezbollah with arms....it won't make a shit.  They'll kill each other by the thousands with sticks and swords.  There is no hope for the levant.  So fuck it all.

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

2 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Your verbiage is telling.

Are the multiple states arming and funding Hamas going to stop THEIR actions?  Nope?  Cool.  Cool.

Not that I don't think that we shouldn't use our hefty leverage to rein in Israel's current "response," which is using the concept of a legitimate response to a brutal attack as cover for genocidal retribution.  But again.....the demanded course of action always comes down to "fuck Israel."  Which continues to make my point.  

You can only engage if *cough* “both sides” are willing to engage in self-examination and “what about” is the most solid tell that this will not happen. 

I’m likely the most rabid “Zionist” in this thread and I’ve said multiple times that:

1. Netanyahu sucks.

2. West Bank settlement has to be rolled back and violators held responsible 

3. Palestinians need a state 

And yet that’s not enough because the truth is there is no appetite to compromise on U.S. based advocates for the Palestinian side; this isn’t about Palestine it’s just a proxy argument for our farthest left and right and contrarians to self-flagellate and reassure themselves that America is always the bad guy; anything that doesn’t fall into line of the oppressed vs. oppressor narrative simply gets subsumed in shouting. 
 

Just look a few posts up.  We’re banging on about the failure of the U.S. to do anything. A few weeks ago we literally strongarmed Israel into a de facto ceasefire.  A ceasefire that was broken BY HAMAS when they refused to just let a few more women hostages go and decided to pop off a few more rockets. That’s all they had to do. Stop raping a bit, let some women go home. 
 

Literally the lowest bar, this cease-fire would be in place right now if the government of Gaza would let go of the women they are raping. And yet, it’s all our fault. 
 

Just make the argument— “Hamas gets to rape, Hamas gets to murder, Hamas gets to steal aid, Hamas gets to control international aid. And Israel should let them. Because Palestinians are oppressed.” 

Edited by 956 Worldwide
  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Rage+1 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

It will get better for the side that you want to win.  Resulting in the extermination of the Israeli state, and the slaughter of jews.  So, there's that upside.

You can take the brisket out of the GOP, but you can't take that good old fashioned jingo neo-con out of the brisket. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Anastasis said:

You can take the brisket out of the GOP, but you can't take that good old fashioned jingo neo-con out of the brisket. 

Yeah.  Silly me.  Thinking that there's a significant movement and impetus among Palestinians and their sympathizers to exterminate the jewish state and the jewish people.  Don't know where I got that idea.  It must have been from "Dick Cheney Monthly," and not.....every fucking piece of written history about the region from the past 75 years.  That must be it.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Would it surprise you to find out that I agree with everything in this post?  I hope it doesn't surprise you. 

Nah. We good.

You have to understand I have a fair amount of extended family in the region, on both sides, and it's hell on my psyche so if I lash out at you on this topic, it's not personal.

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

21 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Yeah.  Silly me.  Thinking that there's a significant movement and impetus among Israelis and their sympathizers to illegally occupy, subjugate, terrorize, and dehumanize the palestinian people.  Don't know where I got that idea.  It must have been from "Dick Cheney Monthly," and not.....every fucking piece of written history about the region from the past 75 years.  That must be it.

 

FIFY. We can do this all fucking day. We both know that this is a deep and fundamentally broken geopolitical situation. You are just happy to keep on with the status quo sending C130s full of bombs paid for by American taxpayers to one side so that side can do the slow and just-acceptable-enough-to-you genocide thing to the other. This is the decency of the rules based international order and the Pax Americana afterall at stake. 

Edited by Anastasis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

 

FIFY. We can do this all fucking day. We both know that this is a deep and fundamentally broken geopolitical situation. You are just happy to keep on with the status quo sending C130s full of bombs paid for by American taxpayers to one side so that side can do the slow and just-acceptable-enough-to-you genocide thing to the other. This is the decency of the rules based international order and the Pax Americana afterall at stake. 

And you're just happy to push for measures that will please Hamas, Iran, Hezbollah, and the usual crew you somehow always tend to side with.  Invariably.  Every.  Single.  Fucking.  Time.  With zero deviation from the course.  Yeah.  We can indeed do this all fucking day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Our MIC is cool as shit:

Clearly endearing our interests and values to the world. 

 

Hard to tell, but is the 7 of clubs that time we hooked that guy up to jumper cables and made him stand on a box, cause that was cool as shit. 

Edited by Anastasis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've only read this page, but I think antipathy towards Anastasis is affecting judgment around here. I agree what I've read of his on this page.

Perceptions that strike me as odd:

Hamas will exterminate Israel if we don't support Israel right now in their shamelessly brutal slaughter in Gaza. This page has a lot of posters that I respect. They are intelligent enough to recognize what Israel perpetrates in the West Bank and Gaza and even use the harshest terms to describe them. Hamas deserves whatever fate they meet. They are not an existential threat to the country that is leveling Gaza with impugnity and support from this country.

Opposition to American military support must mean the opposer doesn't care about Israel at best and is fine with Israel paying for their crimes by being genocided off the planet. Nope. Were the situation reversed and Israel under the kind of attack they have launched in Gaza, I would support more than materiel support. I'd be fine commiting forces to the fray. I think the position that Gaza and the Palestinians shouldn't be subject to this slaughter is a position against slaughter such as this in general rather than a particular sympathy for the Palestinians. I have the impression that I'm describing the position of many people on this page.

I'll tiresomely repeat my stance. I don't want my country associated with the vicious slaughter going on in Gaza. I would halt all materiel aid right now. I would extend humanitarian aid and support to both countries as needed; clearly the greater need there is in the country that has sustained a lengthy attack by heavy, conventional forces.

Some have answered that stopping military support would spell the end of Israel. Again, nope. Suspension of war aid need not be a permanent policy no matter what. As I said above, I wouldn't be party to seeing any nation or people obliterated. As Jerry said to George once, "We're trying to have a civilization here."

Written without rancor.

Edited by RomaVicta
  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

And you're just happy to push for measures that will please Hamas, Iran, Hezbollah, and the usual crew

Would you base any policy on whether or not it "pleases" the entities you list? I wouldn't.

The only standard for US policy (I know this is naive considering the state of the republic) should be does it serve the long term interests of the US. If making a decision using that standard, I would hardly be swayed by someone pointing out that this act may "please" a bunch of terrorist groups and their state supporters.

I wouldn't care if anyone liked or disliked an action determined by the standard I describe above. The only weight that would have would be in the decision about our interests. If a policy were to benefit us only if it didn't trigger violence against us, I would have to weigh the likelihood of that action not that sentiment.

Edited by RomaVicta
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

Would you base any policy on whether or not it "pleases" the entities you list? I wouldn't.

The only standard for US policy (I know this is naive considering the state of the republic) should be does it serve the long term interests of the US. If making a decision using that standard, I would hardly be swayed by someone pointing out that this act may "please" a bunch of terrorist groups and their state supporters.

I wouldn't care if anyone liked or disliked an action determined by the standard I describe above. The only weight that would have would be in the decision about our interests. If a policy were to benefit us only if it didn't trigger violence against us, I would have to weigh the likelihood of that action not that sentiment.

I dunno.  When I am thinking of taking a position, and I see that the position would put me in the corner of the worst fucking people in the room.....I rethink the shit outta that position.

See, e.g., thinking anything that the guys on Texags would cheer and call "good bull."  If you find yourself thinking such things, you should probably pause and reconsider.  Never, ever agree with Texags -- that's a pretty good damned rule for living.  Likewise, if I am considering taking a position, and in doing so, would get loud cheers from Hamas, Hezbollah, and the islamofascist regime in Iran.....yep, I'd reconsider.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I dunno.  When I am thinking of taking a position, and I see that the position would put me in the corner of the worst fucking people in the room.....I rethink the shit outta that position.

See, e.g., thinking anything that the guys on Texags would cheer and call "good bull."  If you find yourself thinking such things, you should probably pause and reconsider.  Never, ever agree with Texags -- that's a pretty good damned rule for living.  Likewise, if I am considering taking a position, and in doing so, would get loud cheers from Hamas, Hezbollah, and the islamofascist regime in Iran.....yep, I'd reconsider.

Consideration is a great thing.

Still, if the answer is that what you are doing is in the best interests of the country, would you deprive your country of benefit just because a bunch of dickheads are glad about it?

I truly don't think so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

Still, if the answer is that what you are doing is in the best interests of the country, would you deprive your country of benefit just because a bunch of dickheads are glad about it?

I truly don't think so.

That's not how this works. If you point out the absolute absurdity and inconsistency in American foreign policy you are basically a terrorist. If you ask for an assessment based on long-run outcomes, you are called aggy with no hint of self reflection. If you consider historical context behind any of this, it is [boogeymen of your choosing] talking point. There are no objective rules. There is no order. And there is only Pax if you squint your eyes. Just punch the fucking ticket. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not how this works. If you point out the absolute absurdity and inconsistency in American foreign policy you are basically a terrorist. If you ask for an assessment based on long-run outcomes, you are called aggy with no hint of self reflection. If you consider historical context behind any of this, it is [boogeymen of your choosing] talking point. There are no objective rules. There is no order. And there is only Pax if you squint your eyes. Just punch the fucking ticket. 

And if you consider the historical track records of “maybe we should just let the terrorist barbarians do as they please,” and “we ain’t helping the Jews, they’re on their own,” you’re just a Cheney-loving neo-con who thinks war is super-fun. I mean, isolationism worked out BRILLIANTLY for the world and especially the Jews last time we gave it a good run (just to pluck one example)….wait…am I considering history? I was told that I don’t do that, only Anastasis The Smug does that. I’m so confused.
Again, we can do this all fucking day, and it will be just as stupid as when you started the conversation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Y'all see how seamlessly he replaces "Palestinians" in this exchange with "terrorist barbarians". Brisket is a smart lawyer and wordsmith. He buys ink by the gallon. And he knows exactly what he is doing here rhetorically.  

Nope. That’s not what I did at all. Yet it’s exactly what you did by attributing that equivocation to me. Straw man, but nobody here is surprised. One can’t be a critic of Hamas (you know, actual terrorist barbarians), and believing that Israel should fight back against Hamas, without that position being an attack on Palestinians and seeking their genocide…thus justifying the approach of casting Israel and Jews to the wind. Which is where you’ve always wanted to go, the pretext doesn’t much matter.
All fucking day. We can do this all fucking day, and at the end of it, the only one who will think you’ve been clever will be you. Just you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Israel should fight back against Hamas

We're well past that and into the realm of collective punishment. You know this. It doesn't require anyone being particularly clever to draw these lines. That you are unable to grasp this reality is not an indictment of anyone but yourself. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...