Sorry if I was rude or impolite, didn't mean to.It sounds as if you are making an objection to me — neomac
Just to emphasis that in order to have peace after war, it's not so simple as politicians say it is. Simple easy sounding solutions (just destroy them) end up in quagmires.So what’s the point of bringing that up? — neomac
And since Israel never has had the attempt to make both Jews and Non-Jews there all Israelis, then this is what you get.As far as I’m concerned, the dual system in the West Bank occupied territories consists in the fact that Palestinians were/are under Israeli military law and not under Israeli civil laws, because Palestinians are not Israelis — neomac
As stated earlier, the Japanese attack wasn't comparable to a terrorist attack. It really was a traditional military invasion. Remember that the US owned the Philippines and the Japanese invaded your colony. The US was also invaded in the Alaska. That's far off from a terrorist strike.I don't think Israel is special in this regard. As an American, Pearl Harbor and 9/11 come to mind as comparable instances casualty-wise -- both of which led to "the gloves coming off." Can you cite me an instance where comparable casualties did not lead to further escalation? — BitconnectCarlos
Who btw was forced out because the Yom Kippur war had as a surprise to her and her administration, just like "Al Aqsa-flood" came as a surprise to Bibi.Regarding the "Jewish psyche" mentioned earlier, here's Golda Meir: — BitconnectCarlos
Now, does Israel try this? No. It's a homeland for the Jews and others just can fuck off. And that's why in the end it is an Apartheid system, because it has at it's core that similary hostility towards the others, similar to what the white Afrikaaners had in their system for blacks.
Now, does Israel try this? No. It's a homeland for the Jews and others just can fuck off. And that's why in the end it is an Apartheid system, because it has at it's core that similary hostility towards the others, similar to what the white Afrikaaners had in their system for blacks.
↪ssu
I couldn’t have put it more simply myself.
9 hours ago — Punshhh
The UK is currently 6.5% muslim and it's already causing massive social upheaval.
I can see that, where will they go?And if Hamas were to be eliminated I can assure you Israel has no intention of annexing Gaza and absorbing all of those Gazans into Israel.
This is so true. Israel is really changing. The Israel @BitconnectCarlos is depicting is something especially the older generation still sees in the country as they look at how Israel fought against it neighbors in the 20th Century and wasn't the dominant military power with a nuclear triad as it is now. Or how right wing the country has become. (Comes to my mind how an old-timer like Joe Biden views Israel)Yes, I know, but something went wrong and it’s been going wrong for a long time. — Punshhh
I can see that, where will they go?
Yes, Netanyahu chanted the narrative of how they will remove the Palestinians his whole life. And then with the increased settler activity over the past couple of years and heightened rhetoric, found himself sleep walking into it. I saw his face on tv in the hours following the attacks of October 7th. He looked as if he’d seen a ghost. A trance like state, or even a rapture.The US is now just going along with Netanyahu's war, which has no political ends in sight. (Haas remarks that "it's as if Clausewitz hasn't been translated to Hebrew.) And this is interesting as Noah Hariri made the same point.
The large hideous terrorist strike did unify the country, but it hasn't fixed the underlying problems. Israel had turned hard to the right already. Religious zealots and these people who openly embrace "final solution" type policies is totally normal. This was the case even before October 7th, of which Hariri and others have been worried about. And naturally you can see that not all Jews support the actions of current Israeli government.I had noticed and remarked on the fact that Noah Harari was extremely exercised and worried about the situation in Israel 6 months before the attacks. There were increasingly vocal protests in Israel during this period. — Punshhh
And where did I make such extraordinary claims exactly? Can you quote me verbatim?
↪neomac
I didn’t say you had made such a claim, I wasn’t talking about you, I was talking about claims. But you do appear to be positioning yourself there in relation to my claim. Unless, you are in some kind of neutral position. As far as I’m concerned to even consider that this Israeli administration we are discussing could be a workable solution, unless it is imposed with brute force is entirely fool hardy, or naive. It’s not going to happen.
While from your neutral position you are happy to use analysis to deconstruct what I was saying. — Punshhh
You mean that the burden of proof is all on me and you have to do nothing other than making claims? You didn’t even offer a clarification of what you mean by “Apartheid state”.
But I’m realising that you are not committing to a position on these questions. You’re just shooting down what people say. I ask for a counter argument and none is provided. You comment on some issue, but thats not making claims. — Punshhh
looking at your discussion with SSU about what apartheid is I’ll give it a miss for now. — Punshhh
I’m not criticising your approach or what you’re saying, it just feels a bit to much like a philosophy tutorial, where your only input is to mark my homework. — Punshhh
It sounds as if you are making an objection to me — neomac
Sorry if I was rude or impolite, didn't mean to. — ssu
Just to emphasis that in order to have peace after war, it's not so simple as politicians say it is. Simple easy sounding solutions (just destroy them) end up in quagmires.
For example: Just to "go to" Afghanistan and destroy Al Qaeda and the supporting Taleban was what George Bush had in mind. He didn't want to have anything to do with "nation building". Did he take into account Iran or especially Pakistan, the backer of Taleban? Nope. So the US got it's longest war, which it even more humiliatingly lost than the Vietnam war. And Pakistanis can celebrate (as they did) outsmarting the Americans. — ssu
That was the plan. And simple naive plans backfire. Usually because they are stupid plans. — ssu
Just compare to his father who a) got an OK both from the UN and from Soviet Union and China for the use of force, b) arranged an overwhelming alliance, c) listened to his allies and didn't overreach and continue to Baghdad, d) had an cease-fire — ssu
And since Israel never has had the attempt to make both Jews and Non-Jews there all Israelis, then this is what you get.
If you want peace and have in your country other people then you, then you try to make them part of your country (like Romans decided later that everybody living there would be Romans). Or be even smarter, create a new identity like the English did: Everybody, including them, would be BRITISH. Even that wasn't enough for the Irish, because they had a long memory of how the English had behaved in their country. But it has been a success story in Scotland and Whales. — ssu
Now, does Israel try this? No. It's a homeland for the Jews and others just can fuck off. And that's why in the end it is an Apartheid system, because it has at it's core that similary hostility towards the others, similar to what the white Afrikaaners had in their system for blacks. — ssu
Isn't it obvious?So I do not understand why you are claiming that Bush didn’t take into account especially Pakistan nor in what sense he could have taken into account both Iran and Pakistan. — neomac
Obviously you have to put the speech into context with everything else. But there are obvious warning signs:I don’t think one can see much of a plan doomed to fail from that speech alone. — neomac
LOL! So you think that Osama bin Laden and his little cabal called Al Qaeda weren't mavericks? :lol:On the other side, Saddam was a maverick and had more enemies than friends in the region while the influence of his biggest supporter (the Soviet Union) was already gone. So he was an easy enemy. — neomac
The leadership of al Qaeda has great influence in Afghanistan and supports the Taliban regime in controlling most of that country. In Afghanistan, we see al Qaeda's vision for the world.
Afghanistan's people have been brutalized -- many are starving and many have fled. Women are not allowed to attend school. You can be jailed for owning a television. Religion can be practiced only as their leaders dictate. A man can be jailed in Afghanistan if his beard is not long enough.
The United States respects the people of Afghanistan -- after all, we are currently its largest source of humanitarian aid -- but we condemn the Taliban regime. (Applause.) It is not only repressing its own people, it is threatening people everywhere by sponsoring and sheltering and supplying terrorists. By aiding and abetting murder, the Taliban regime is committing murder.
And tonight, the United States of America makes the following demands on the Taliban: Deliver to United States authorities all the leaders of al Qaeda who hide in your land. (Applause.) Release all foreign nationals, including American citizens, you have unjustly imprisoned. Protect foreign journalists, diplomats and aid workers in your country. Close immediately and permanently every terrorist training camp in Afghanistan, and hand over every terrorist, and every person in their support structure, to appropriate authorities. (Applause.) Give the United States full access to terrorist training camps, so we can make sure they are no longer operating.
These demands are not open to negotiation or discussion. (Applause.) The Taliban must act, and act immediately. They will hand over the terrorists, or they will share in their fate.
Exactly. And that means the war had a specific objective that could be met. But just read above what Dubya says above about the GWOT. Is that clear path to a specific obtainable objective for a war that has an end? Of course not! It's just rhetorical talking points that were very apt for the occasion. Yet it came to be the guiding line in the GWOT.The Gulf war was also an easy cause because it was a relatively narrow conflict between two Arab countries, one bullying the other, over internationally acknowledged borders with no major or incumbent geopolitical stakes for the US. — neomac
What I find is tragic is that when too many people die, legal procedures how we treat terrorists or other homicidal criminals goes out of the window. Hence, I think it's an impossibility that 9/11 would have been treated as a police matter and the perpetrators would have been dealt as criminals and not to have a war in Afghanistan. Some other nation without a Superpower military could have been forced to do that. But now it was an impossibility. Not only would Bush have looked as timid and incapable of "carrying the big stick", he would have been seen as cold. If it would have been Al Gore as the president, likely the war in Iraq wouldn't have happened, but Afghanistan would have. And the real history is well known. To please the crowd wanting revenge and punishment, the Bush administration gave us the Global War on Terror. Something which still is fought around the World by the third US president after Bush.But I’m not sure to what extant the US could have done otherwise in light of what was known back then and given its hegemonic ambitions. — neomac
Notice that we are talking about the Occupied Territories. So a question back to you, why then a one-state is impossible? The answer is that Zionism isn't meant for the non-Jews, so the State of Israel has a problem here.Notice that 20% of the Israeli citizens are Arabs/Palestinians and they do not suffer from the political, economic, legal, and social discrimination — neomac
I agree, this incompatibility here is the real problem. Hence all the talk of a two state solution.What also I can concede is that the ethnocentric nature of the Zionist project is incompatible with Western secular pluralism, and this factor can very much facilitate structural discrimination even if it doesn’t straightforwardly lead to an Apartheid state. — neomac
So why exactly should we acknowledge historical “occupation” starting from the time the Arabs/Muslims turned to be the majority after oppressive colonisation of lands originally occupied by Jews?
I saying that their right to the land they are living on is due to their living on and owning the land on which they lived.So why exactly should we acknowledge rights to land to people (Arabs and/or Jews) prior to the end of the British Mandate?
Well that’s a legal argument and I conceded that point.. So why exactly should we acknowledge rights to the land to a nation whose identity is rooted very much in this fight for land ownership with another nation whose identity precedes such conflict?
I’m not going to get tied up in legal definitions, something that you were delving into in your response to SSU. My volumes on international law are on a high shelf and I have back ache.What a surprise.
So your only position then is limited to a concern for any broader geopolitical considerations and possible developments.In other words, my position is that, given my understanding of the status of the geopolitical game in that area, I think there are STILL strong reasons to see Israel as a valuable strategic ally of the West (I qualify myself as a Westerner) and act accordingly even in the current circumstances
I go back to your assumptions about that. Your assessment of my understanding of the situation appears to be based on the following of a philosophical style which you approve of.I prefer to focus on my and my interlocutors’ limited understanding of the situation beyond personal interested perspectives.
What I’m saying is there was an injustice to the people on the ground when the Nakba occurred, because as far as they were concerned it was their property, their real estate when it happened. — Punshhh
So why exactly should we acknowledge rights to land to people (Arabs and/or Jews) prior to the end of the British Mandate?
I saying that their right to the land they are living on is due to their living on and owning the land on which they lived. — Punshhh
.So your only position then is limited to a concern for any broader geopolitical considerations and possible developments — Punshhh
P.s. I’m not going to go back over pages and pages of responses to answer questions. My responses will be consistent as my position on these issues has been considered at length and doesn’t change as a result of interactions with others. That’s not to say I won’t accept a revision when new information is provided and errors identified. — Punshhh
So the US invaded and occupied a country, which not only had a tradition of fighting successfully Great Powers that invaded it, but now there also was a safe haven, a country next to Afghanistan where the Taleban could rest, reorganize and train and coordinate the fighting from.
So yes, George Bush didn't take into account that the Taleban would simply continue the fight from Pakistan. And guess he didn't want to make Pakistan, another former ally of the US, another nuclear capable axis-of-evil state like North Korea. Nope. Once Kabul was free from Taleban, mission accomplished and onward to the next war. — ssu
And when OBL was killed, did the war end? Of course not! That's what you get when your response to a terrorist attack done by 19 terrorists is to invade a country where the financier of the strike has been living. Getting the terrorists won't end the conflict, because those insurgents opposing you are fighting you as the invader of their country. To me it's quite obvious, but people can live in their bubble and have these delusional ideas that a whole country has to be invaded in order for it not to be a terrorist safe haven. — “ssu
The case of Iran is obvious when it comes to Iraq. It's telling that the Saudis told exactly what would happen if Bush senior would continue the attack from Kuwait to Baghdad. But younger Bush had to go in, because there was the "window of opportunity”. — ssu
Like "War on Terror". What is this war against a method? What actually does it mean? Going after every terrorist group anywhere or what? — ssu
how many different wars you think they can handle? Fighting in Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, the Sahel, Philippines. — ssu
What do you think will happen when an administration starts a "Global War on Terrorism"? What kind of myriad involvement you will have everywhere when you try something like that? — ssu
I don't think there's any trace of the Taleban being involved with the September 11th attacks oir that they had been informed about them. And what was the "diplomacy" between the US and Taleban in turning OBL to US authorities? As I've stated, it wasn't enough just to get OBL and Al Qaeda leaders to be put into trial. Nope, Americans wanted revenge, punishment! — ssu
On the other side, Saddam was a maverick and had more enemies than friends in the region while the influence of his biggest supporter (the Soviet Union) was already gone. So he was an easy enemy. — neomac
LOL! So you think that Osama bin Laden and his little cabal called Al Qaeda weren't mavericks? :lol: — ssu
Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated. (The whole speech here) — ssu
But I’m not sure to what extant the US could have done otherwise in light of what was known back then and given its hegemonic ambitions. — neomac
What I find is tragic is that when too many people die, legal procedures how we treat terrorists or other homicidal criminals goes out of the window. Hence, I think it's an impossibility that 9/11 would have been treated as a police matter and the perpetrators would have been dealt as criminals and not to have a war in Afghanistan. Some other nation without a Superpower military could have been forced to do that. But now it was an impossibility. Not only would Bush have looked as timid and incapable of "carrying the big stick", he would have been seen as cold. If it would have been Al Gore as the president, likely the war in Iraq wouldn't have happened, but Afghanistan would have. And the real history is well known. To please the crowd wanting revenge and punishment, the Bush administration gave us the Global War on Terror. Something which still is fought around the World by the third US president after Bush. — ssu
It's something that Biden warned the Netanyahu government not to do. But Bibi surely didn't care and is repeating exactly something similar. — ssu
Notice that 20% of the Israeli citizens are Arabs/Palestinians and they do not suffer from the political, economic, legal, and social discrimination — neomac
Notice that we are talking about the Occupied Territories. — ssu
So a question back to you, why then a one-state is impossible? The answer is that Zionism isn't meant for the non-Jews, so the State of Israel has a problem here. — ssu
What also I can concede is that the ethnocentric nature of the Zionist project is incompatible with Western secular pluralism, and this factor can very much facilitate structural discrimination even if it doesn’t straightforwardly lead to an Apartheid state. — neomac
I agree, this incompatibility here is the real problem. Hence all the talk of a two state solution.
And we have just a slight disagreement on just what makes a state to be an Apartheid state. You won't call it that, others here like me will call it so. — ssu
An Apartheid state is a state with a racially based law system in peacetime, not a foreign military occupation imposing martial law to indigenous people. — neomac
“Property” as a legal term presupposes a legal system. Israel doesn’t acknowledge the Palestinian legal system. But it acknowledges to some extent the international legal system, so to that extent, Israel may be compelled to abide by what international law establishes for Palestinians
So now we see what happened, it’s not difficult, it’s not complicated.the international status over Palestine was the one proposed by the UN resolution 1947 which the Palestinians rejected. So Israel forcefully imposed its rule with the main support of the US at the expense of the Arab/Palestinian aspirations in that region.
And why is that? Because the state of Pakistan had it's own security agenda, which the Bush administration didn't care a shit about. There were there only for the terrorists ....and either you were with them or against them .And that's why it failed.Yet Pakistan didn’t perform or wasn’t cooperative as required. — neomac
So clearly wrongheaded that few people including myself saw the error that was being done. All you needed was read a bit. What was telling then was Scott Ritter, who had been part of the weapons inspection team and wrote a little book about there being no WMD program anymore before the invasion. Of course he faced the wrath of the US later and once those bridges are burnt, the only thing to get income is to be Putin's spokesperson.But how clearly wrongheaded did it look the idea of exploiting that "window of opportunity” within Bush administration, back then? — neomac
As stated earlier, the Japanese attack wasn't comparable to a terrorist attack. It really was a traditional military invasion. Remember that the US owned the Philippines and the Japanese invaded your colony. The US was also invaded in the Alaska. That's far off from a terrorist strike.
But sure.
The best comparable situation that comes to mind was when the Austro-Hungarian crown prince was murdered in cold blood in Sarajevo by terrorists that had relations to Serbia. Austro-Hungaria had to declare war!
It's telling that you forget the Philippines and the Filipinos. An invasion that started ten hours after Pearl Harbor, lasted until 1945 with half a million to one million Filipinos dying in WW2. This was a pre-emptive attack which a land invasion followed. But that's hardly something you would take notice, because it doesn't fit to the narrative to remind people that actually the US was a colonial power back then.Morally speaking, 10/7 is worse than Pearl Harbor because at least Pearl Harbor was a military target. — BitconnectCarlos
Of course. Guess we all need a refresher now on what 'comparably speaking' means.The behavior of the IDF has been remarkable humane, comparably speaking. — BitconnectCarlos
(The Guardian) Israel is facing growing international pressure for an investigation after more than 100 Palestinians in Gaza were killed when desperate crowds gathered around aid trucks and Israeli troops opened fire on Thursday.
Israel said people died in a crush or were run over by aid lorries although it admitted its troops had opened fire on what it called a “mob”. But the head of a hospital in Gaza said 80% of injured people brought in had gunshot wounds.
On Friday, a UN team that visited some of the wounded in Gaza City’s al-Shifa hospital saw a “large number of gunshot wounds”, UN chief Antonio Guterres’s spokesman said.
The hospital received 70 of the dead and treated more than 700 wounded, of whom around 200 were still there during the team’s visit, spokesman Stéphane Dujarric said.
I can accept that. But if they are both (potentially) racist, and oppressive, then so? What is the significance so great that it merits differentiation in the context of these discussions? That is, besides just that "analytical minds must repel classifications based on overstretched associations of ideas." — ENOAH
Is Apartheid objectively more culpable than Colonial Occupation and the imposition of Martial Law against, and for the purposes of subjugating, indigenous people who are all painted with the same brush on the basis of their ethnicity? — ENOAH
“Property” as a legal term presupposes a legal system. Israel doesn’t acknowledge the Palestinian legal system. But it acknowledges to some extent the international legal system, so to that extent, Israel may be compelled to abide by what international law establishes for Palestinians
↪neomac
You can dress it up all you like, it doesn’t change the facts on the ground. The people living on that land were expelled by an occupying force. This is why they hold a grievance and it’s still happening in the West Bank. Indeed it has happened continuously since 1948. — Punshhh
the international status over Palestine was the one proposed by the UN resolution 1947 which the Palestinians rejected. So Israel forcefully imposed its rule with the main support of the US at the expense of the Arab/Palestinian aspirations in that region.
So now we see what happened, it’s not difficult, it’s not complicated.
And yes I know about the Jewish Nakba, that was an inevitable consequence. — Punshhh
Yet Pakistan didn’t perform or wasn’t cooperative as required. — neomac
And why is that? Because the state of Pakistan had it's own security agenda, which the Bush administration didn't care a shit about. There were there only for the terrorists ....and either you were with them or against them .And that's why it failed. — ssu
But how clearly wrongheaded did it look the idea of exploiting that "window of opportunity” within Bush administration, back then? — neomac
So clearly wrongheaded that few people including myself saw the error that was being done. All you needed was read a bit. What was telling then was Scott Ritter, who had been part of the weapons inspection team and wrote a little book about there being no WMD program anymore before the invasion. Of course he faced the wrath of the US later and once those bridges are burnt, the only thing to get income is to be Putin's spokesperson. — ssu
Trump shattered the stupid idea of "The Prez just got bad intel”. — ssu
Yet they understood war in the Clausewitzian manner. And in 1945 they did have one: for example the US left the Emperor alone. It didn't have an objective to take Japan over and make it part of the US. And it didn't plan to move the Japanese out of their Islands and make the place a resort for Americans and build there a new America for Americans.Surely in 1941 the US did not have a postwar plan either. Yet it still went to war. — Moses
(I left the signatories away)INSTRUMENT OF SURRENDER
We, acting by command of and in behalf of the Emperor of Japan, the Japanese Government, and the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters, hereby accept the provisions set forth in the declaration issued by the heads of the Governments of the United States, China, and Great Britain on 26 July 1945 at Potsdam, and subsequently adhered to by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, which four powers are hereafter referred to as the Allied Powers.
We hereby proclaim the unconditional surrender to the Allied Powers of the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters and of all Japanese armed forces and all armed forces under Japanese control wherever situated.
We hereby command all Japanese forces wherever situated and the Japanese people to cease hostilities forthwith, to preserve and save from damage all ships, aircraft, and military and civil property and to comply with all requirements which may be imposed by the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers or by agencies of the Japanese Government at his direction.
We hereby command the Japanese Imperial Headquarters to issue at once orders to the Commanders of all Japanese forces and all forces under Japanese control wherever situated to surrender unconditionally themselves and all forces under their control.
We hereby command all civil, military, and naval officials to obey and enforce all proclamations, orders, and directives deemed by the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers to be proper to effectuate this surrender and issued by him or under his authority and we direct all such officials to remain at their posts and to continue to perform their non-combatant duties unless specifically relieved by him or under his authority.
We hereby undertake for the Emperor, the Japanese Government, and their successors to carry out the provisions of the Potsdam Declaration in good faith, and to issue whatever orders and take whatever actions may be required by the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers or by any other designated representative of the Allied Powers for the purpose of giving effect to that Declaration.
We hereby command the Japanese Imperial Government and the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters at once to liberate all allied prisoners of war and civilian internees now under Japanese control and to provide for their protection, care, maintenance, and immediate transportation to places as directed.
The authority of the Emperor and the Japanese Government to rule the state shall be subject to the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers who will take such steps as he deems proper to effectuate these terms of surrender.
Signed at TOKYO BAY, JAPAN at 0904 I on the SECOND day of SEPTEMBER, 1945
Politics is the womb in which war develops. War is the domain of physical exertion and suffering. War is not an exercise of the will directed at an inanimate matter. War is regarded as nothing but the continuation of state policy with other means.
A greater disaster, likely. Perhaps Bibi want's to have that moment of declaring victory, but is it going to be that. really?Similarly 10/7 may lead to something much greater, but if so the fault will not solely lie on Israel. And in any case some fights are just. — Moses
And furthermore, I think the Israeli administration sees this as a "window of opportunity" to deal a blow to all enemies and thus they have to milk the traumatic experience of the attack and promote hard views and idea of punishment. Like after Rafah, then starts the war against Hezbollah. There at least the IDF can say that Hezbollah hasn't retreated to the Litani river. If Israel want's to refer to international agreements in the first place. — ssu
If the IDF were wicked then the IDF should be targeted; not random, peaceful civilians. Hamas hurts the Palestinian cause of self-determination. — BitconnectCarlos
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.