Occupying what? Gaza? Jerusalem? — BitconnectCarlos

https://bdsmovement.net/what-bds

3. Respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN Resolution 194

I take it that the demand is being pushed to the point that the families cannot even prove they owned such and such -- hopefully because the documents have been destroyed or the oral stories have been stamped out.

For my part I don't want to give Israel weapons to do the evil things they're doing now. Excuses either which way.

But even voicing the thought is met with cries of "anti-semitism" -- and many of the zionists follow along the same fascist scripts, in the darkest of ironies.

Regarding RoR:

That's asking for the destruction of Israel. It would be adding roughly 6 million Arab Muslims to the population of Israel, and it would throw the demographic balance off. Ethnic warfare would result. There would be fighting in the streets as the fundamental character of the state is brought into question. No one can demand that a state destroy itself and call it immoral for not doing so.

Also, why such selective enforcement? Where is the Jewish right of return to Iraq? Or Yemen? The Middle East has been cleansed of Jews besides Israel, but there is no demand for "right of return" there.

Ethnic warfare would result. — BitconnectCarlos

Would?

But we're engaging in talking points now....

Yes, that's what happens when people suddenly lose control of their political sovereignty/self-determination. Flood a nation of 5 million Muslims living under Sharia with 5 million Hindus and see what happens.

It would be like asking the US to absorb 200 million Muslims.

Yes, that's what happens when people suddenly lose control of their political sovereignty/self-determination. Flood a nation of 5 million Muslims living under Sharia with 5 million Hindus and see what happens.

It would be like asking the US to absorb 200 million Muslims. — BitconnectCarlos

"Would" -- it's already there. And what you describe is ironic given that this is what happened to the Palestinians -- imagine a group of people show up and then....

This assassination seems to whitewash what Kirk spread around, and it was not to spread love. He's part of the same side that spread hate, calls for violence, and for dividing people into us vs them. This side has no political color. It just happens to be more common on the extreme right in this time in history.

The point being, we could actually divide the world into two sides of legitimate good and bad. The good stands for respecting human rights and rejecting the concept of an individual as a means to an end. Those who argues for equality, the respect of each individual, respect for another group than them etc. ...and the other argues in opposition to that.

Arguing for the good side is arguing for the side that, with evidence in living standards and quality of life in the world, produces the best living conditions in a society.

Right now we're seeing a rise in the spread of hateful, polarizing rhetoric. Something that divides and makes enemies of neighbors. This rhetoric is eroding society and causing a lot of suffering and even deaths.

When speaking on a topic like this thread, I think it's important to be aware of which stance people holds in an argument. Which also means we can't ignore what someone like Kirk spread around. We can't whitewash what he did with spreading hate because he was the target of political violence, just as much as we can't ignore that the assassin acted out according to the bad side as well through his violence.

I think it's important not to get lost in these basic ideas about what is good and what is bad. The reality is that we can't justify the assassination, but we can't justify what Kirk stood for either.

And there we have it.

Note here the charge of “spreading hate”, and the making of a threadbare connection between the act of holding and espousing one’s belief and being evil, as if Kirk’s brain state and the combination of sounds that came from his mouth is all it takes to make such an accusation. On the one hand Kirk committed the sin of dividing people into Us vs Them, but on the other Kirk resided on the wrong side of the Good and the Evil, those who speak like us and those who speak like them.

The problem is there is not even a string of chewing gum between the premise and the conclusion, between one duplicitous phrase and the next. It is no strange wonder that the assassin himself accused Charlie of such evil, for “spreading hate”, days before killing him.

This sort of piffle can be read all over social media and presents a window into the empty logic of the censors among us.

And there we have it. — NOS4A2

What do we have?

A charge of "spreading hate" -- but I'm the one who has used "evil", not @Christoffer, except this one time in quotes:

I think you are blinded by the idea that people defend the murderer, but explaining why this assassination happened is not the same as defending it. I think we are all much more intellectually capable than the shallow reporting of news, social media and officials. Otherwise you are just summerizing this by the measure of "good vs evil", which isn't very respectful of the complexities of reality. — Christoffer

So:

Note here the charge of “spreading hate”, and the making of a threadbare connection between the act of holding and espousing one’s belief and being evil, — NOS4A2

I can't note that anywhere other than your interpretation.

"Would" -- it's already there. And what you describe is ironic given that this is what happened to the Palestinians -- imagine a group of people show up and then.... — Moliere

What do you think would happen? Would Jews and Palestinian Muslims hold hands and sing Kumbaya under RoR? Hamas is a democratically elected Islamic fundamentalist sect — the Palestinian vision. I can't avoid the fact that the Palestinians voted them into power.

What happened to the Palestinians is that the Arab world declared war on Israel in '47. Instead of wiping out the new Jewish state, the Palestinians lost and were put to flight as Israeli forces overran their annihilation attempt.

What do we have?

I explain in the following paragraphs.

A charge of "spreading hate" -- but I'm the one who has used "evil", not @Christoffer, except this one time in quotes:

I cited the words I was responding to in preceding paragraphs.

What do you think would happen? Would Jews and Palestinian Muslims hold hands and sing Kumbaya?

What happened to the Palestinians is that the Arab world declared war on Israel in '47. Instead of wiping out the new Jewish state, the Palestinians lost and were put to flight as Israeli forces overran their annihilation attempt. — BitconnectCarlos

What I think is that this is a right I agree with -- but what I think is happening is far worse than what you're imagining, given that we're witnessing a genocide.

I agree with the right -- if someone took my home I'd want it back no matter how long it took.

But things have progressed so far from there now. It's a worthy goal to remember, and since you asked that's where I stand.

But let's step back a bit now.

You mentioned Hamas.

I tend to think Hamas is a direct result of the failures of the PLO and representation. In a way it's "the bullet" in the question.

Oct 7th is horrifying.

And so is this world we see of Israeli fascists posting videos of themselves enjoying killing.

And so is the past prior to that one event -- sometimes an occupied territory decides to revolt.

Perhaps it could not have been occupied.

In another way a slave revolt is horrifying -- and it's a direct result of having been enslaved, and so is liberation.

It didn't make sense to me how what you said connected to @Christoffer

Note here the charge of “spreading hate”, and the making of a threadbare connection between the act of holding and espousing one’s belief and being evil, as if Kirk’s brain state and the combination of sounds that came from his mouth is all it takes to make such an accusation. On the one hand Kirk committed the sin of dividing people into Us vs Them, but on the other Kirk resided on the wrong side of the Good and the Evil, those who speak like us and those who speak like them.

The problem is there is not even a string of chewing gum between the premise and the conclusion, between one duplicitous phrase and the next. It is no strange wonder that the assassin himself accused Charlie of such evil, for “spreading hate”, days before killing him.

This sort of piffle can be read all over social media and presents a window into the empty logic of the censors among us. — NOS4A2

Chris did not make a connection between the act of holding and espousing one's belief and being evil -- I'm the one using "evil" in this conversation, but I also didn't connect that to "Kirk's brain state..."

On one hand he divided, and on the other he was on the wrong side of the divide -- that's closer to my perspective than @Christoffer

I find it a strange wonder that the assassin accused Charlie Kirk so far -- and I'm confused about "not even a string of chewing gum between the premise and the conclusion"; which premise? Who said it? Which conclusion?

That's basically an accusation of a non sequiter inference, but what is the set of premises that you're talking about?

I’m not sure what your conversation was about, because I didn’t read it. It doesn’t even appear that you’re involved at all.

Do you want me to quote exactly which sentences I’m referring to? Because it is all there above, unless there is some formatting issue that I am unaware of.

For instance, I read the accusation “He's part of the same side that spread hate, calls for violence, and for dividing people into us vs them.”

In the paragraph after I read this.

The point being, we could actually divide the world into two sides of legitimate good and bad. The good stands for respecting human rights and rejecting the concept of an individual as a means to an end. Those who argues for equality, the respect of each individual, respect for another group than them etc. ...and the other argues in opposition to that.

I’m not sure what your conversation was about, because I didn’t read it. It doesn’t even appear that you’re involved at all. — NOS4A2

Eh, fair. I've been reading along and thinking here.

Do you want me to quote exactly which sentences I’m referring to? Because it is all there above, unless there is some formatting issue that I am unaware of.

For instance, I read the accusation “He's part of the same side that spread hate, calls for violence, and for dividing people into us vs them.”

In the paragraph after I read this. — NOS4A2

I think it's a "reader comprehension" issue on my part. I'm wondering what you mean because I felt what you said applied more to myself than Chris.

Not that he can't defend himself, of course -- I guess I just felt defensive because I thought you ought to be attacking me from what I read from you lol -- but I obviously could be wrong.

I've liked @Christoffer's contributions to this thread as a more hopeful perspective than I have.

In the paragraph after I read this.

The point being, we could actually divide the world into two sides of legitimate good and bad. The good stands for respecting human rights and rejecting the concept of an individual as a means to an end. Those who argues for equality, the respect of each individual, respect for another group than them etc. ...and the other argues in opposition to that. — NOS4A2

I feel like that's an optimistic way of putting what we should go towards.

Do you disagree?

And so is the past prior to that one event -- sometimes an occupied territory decides to revolt.

Perhaps it could not have been occupied. — Moliere

I like to read about the history of this region. 2000 years ago it was Jews living there occupied by Rome. Jewish kings would directly report to Roman authorities. The Romans had ultimate control. That is occupation. A clear chain of command; subordination. Yet neither the PLO or Hamas report to Israel. It's absurd to think entertain that they would. Perhaps we could say Israel occupies Gazan airspace, but in really it's just war given Hamas is a sworn enemy.

Anyway, I'm not still not sure what exactly is occupied in your view. Is it Gaza? Is west Jerusalem or Tel Aviv "occupied" by Israel? It's this lack of clarity that bothers me and it'll differ depending on who you ask. Complaining about "occupation" is can be cover for simply complaining about Israel's existence.

Anyway, I'm not still not sure what exactly is occupied in your view. Is it Gaza? Is west Jerusalem or Tel Aviv "occupied" by Israel? It's this lack of clarity that bothers me and it'll differ depending on who you ask. Complaining about "occupation" is can be cover for simply complaining about Israel's existence. — BitconnectCarlos

There's a sense in which complaining about its existence is like complaining about the United States' existence -- both are colony's that took other people's land. The US just has more years and more kills than Israel.

In this sense I complain about the United States' existence. It is a colonialist state with moral debts.

But that's where I live.

The part that I know is that I'm in the United States and we give weapons to Israel -- where the line gets drawn eventually or if it's a one-state solution all that, right now, is so far out of scope due to how long the genocide has been going on.

If you're asking if I'm for the genocide of Israelis on behalf of Arabs then no I am not -- but I think this is a line of propaganda more than a reality.

My apologies for the confusion. I only read a couple posts on the last page. I wasn’t aware there was a longer conversation there.

I do disagree because I do not believe the good and the bad can be found in thoughts, only actions. For instance, the assassin may have had the most beautiful thoughts ever conceived. Perhaps they were so good that he opposed fascism and the spreading of hate. Kirk, on the other hand, wanted to bring back the death penalty, and probably believes you or I will go to heaven and hell. Those are bad thoughts, in my view. But from the stories of Kirk I’ve been reading the last couple days, he was very kind. As far as I know he never hurt anyone, and gave a platform to opposing views. The shooter, who apparently opposed fascism, murdered someone in cold blood. So who is good or bad?

In my view there is an increasing conflation between words and deeds in Western moral literature and it leads directly to these sorts of acts.

The part that I know is that I'm in the United States and we give weapons to Israel -- where the line gets drawn eventually or if it's a one-state solution all that, right now, is so far out of scope due to how long the genocide has been going on. — Moliere

I simply don't see it as a genocide. Historically, genocidal groups don't hold back. The population of Gaza has stayed the same or grown since the start of the war. Israel has shown restraint. Genocidal states don't send in massive amounts of aid to the victim population or provide them with considerable amounts of medical care.

Obviously, if we move the goalposts and redefine the term, then anything can be genocide. Or we could hold that Israel really "intends" it as if states have minds where they secretly hold intentions. Really, the reason we know about the Nazi genocide was because we have the documents that clearly lay out the plan. Even in the beginning of the war, when thousands of Jews had been summarily executed, the fact hadn't been established.

I simply don't see it as a genocide. — BitconnectCarlos

What is a genocide, in your view?

I wouldn't say that Israel is "holding back", but that's a vague criteria.

I'd go with Merriam-Webster:

the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group

Now if you're killing combatants that's one thing -- but Palestine isn't even a state. It's an occupied territory where we have stories of people shooting Palestinians where they excuse their shot by "I just didn't understand why he cared about that body" -- drawing a literal line in the sand for when to kill.

Differentiate away. How is this not that?