Again, do you understand the difference between racism and prejudice as argued by 180 Proof? Explain it to me and then explain to me why that differentiation is wrong according to you.

I don't see it. What's the problem with that post?

Because he argues there's a difference between racism and prejudice. How do racism and prejudice differentiate according to 180 proof? Explain it to me so we can be certain you understand his argument and then you explain why you disagree with the differentiation.

The one who's wriggling is you. If it's so obvious, surely you can provide a single quote instead of handwaving at a thread?

The extent of black privilege revolves around being able to use the N-word without repercussion and claiming experiential knowledge about being on the receiving end of racism. Wooptiedoo.

*Racist canards mode on*

And of course, especially black people, are more athletic, have bigger dicks and a better sense for rhythm. Asian people are better at math and are just really model citizens. Look at them working hard and integrating and stuff!

*Racist canards mode off*

You asked for something after accusing people of something which forms the basis of you asking that question. Let's start with you proving the accusation first. If you can't, your question is baseless.

I think there's no closed objective system but we can probably derive a statistically relevant indication based on subjective measures. Such as a value scale for statements like "have been looked down upon", "have been treated as inferior", etc. and then validate with "my life is close to ideal" to examine discriminant validity.

More problematic is, I think, establishing the factors causing the oppression. Is it because you're poor? a woman? Black? etc. and they will most likely not carry over from one culture to the next and since cultures aren't monolithic...

So I guess, to an extent we can look into it but better staticians should do the leg work.

You didn't say it but it's implied because you think it's fine to collectively punish them because "Hamas" and "terrorism" and "my brain just shortcircuited so I stop thinking when I hear these buzz words".

You seem to just refuse to acknowledge that this "terrorism" doesn't happen in a vacuum. What was earlier: Israeli occupation, annexation and oppression or Hamas? Tik tok.

Israeli oppression, occupation and annexation are what put Israel in a difficult spot and you're whining about having to deal with the consequences of Israeli war crimes and illegal acts. You don't have moral standing, Israel is not a victim, it does not have a right of self defence against the people it oppresses. Israel is a war criminal and every day the occupation, oppression and annexation continue, you don't have any right to complain about whatever the Palestinians do especially when what they do is a fraction of the violence perpetrated by the oppressor itself. I would start considering Palestinian violence an issue as a problematic means, when the numbers would be reversed and even then their cause would still be just. Israel has neither a just cause nor does it exercise just means.

With anybody really. The internetz is not a healthy place to be honest, which is why it's important to take a regular break from it.

Ok but civilians aren't perpetrators. 180 refuses to condemn any method used by the oppressed class to gain equality so he turns a blind eye to civilian murder. If you followed our discussion this goes as far as him theoretically refusing to condemn the race-driven murder of his own family if they're in the "oppressor" class — BitconnectCarlos

Ok, so you're arguing for guily by association where it concerns Palestinians, because Hamas' actions are the "method used by the oppressed class" but insist on there being innocent civilians on the oppressor's side - because...?

Uhmm... try again?

And before you try again, the "method used by the oppressed class" is a reaction to oppression. You cannot decontextualise what is happening from the ongoing oppression. The worst the oppression, the acquiescience by society at large, the looking the other way or just not caring about "the other" the more moral responsibility for the cause of such violence rests with the oppressor - which in this case is Israel.

If you actively and wilfully create a situation where you increase the likelihood of a certain outcome, don't feign surprise or moral indignation when you are confronted with such an outcome. And since Israel by far has the most influence on the circumstances and wilfully refuses to deal with the Palestinians as an equal negotiation partner for peace, it reaps what it sows.

Israel has no moral standing here, you cannot claim victimhood when you're the oppressor. It has no right to defend itself against a people resisting oppression even if their means aren't always legal and it certainly does not have a right to collectively punish a civilian population, which it has been doing for over 14 years now. It's as if you would repeatedly punch me in the stomach and then complain foul because I kick you in the nuts and then proceed to claim "self defence" as you start hitting me in the face as well.

I was offended before because I thought you were only applying your perspective here to Israel, but now that I see you'd throw your own family under the bus I'm less offended and more bemused. You sure did bite that bullet. +1 for philosophical integrity.

This is not what any major religion instructs, by the way. Where are you getting these ideas? Source? — BitconnectCarlos

Principles of justice resist favoritism. It's not just philosophical integrity, it's ethical integrity that the same rules apply to everybody equally. Your relationship to a perpretrator ought to be entirely irrelevant as to judging his or her actions. That's why we insist on impartial judges for instance.

I'm not sure about other countries but in the Netherlands this latest attack by Israel appears to be the death knell for Israeli PR. The majority seems to be pro Palestinian now. @Tobias what's your view on Dutch sentiment?

Child abuse also presents itself in what parents say such as “you're worthless", "you're ugly", "you're stupid", and flat out ignoring them and yelling.

I'm not a model parent (who is?) and found a lot to learn through the app "in love while parenting". Anyone struggling with dealing with their kids' emotions and reflecting on your own behaviour and learning to expand your emotional vocabulary can benefit from this app.

For free if you're prepared to take their place.

@180 Proof @Christoffer and it bears repeating that users can report other users. We'll look into it. That doesn't necessarily mean we will agree but we take them seriously.

PS: A 1,000 bucks donation gets you an insta ban of a user of choice, no questions asked.

sorry, haven't read the whole thread. You realise that the first two options are political and the third isn't? We have an understanding how to implement the first two. So let's say we pursue option 3. How?

I think you are all overlooking how much this is just a feeback loop of the extremes. Hamas and Netanyahu should thank each other, they hold everyone else hostage.. They keep each other in power. But yet the general populations are complicit as well, because they too can't get out of the "security/revenge" cycle and so vote the extremes back in because of the very thing they started and perpetuated. Go deeper than the usual blame/victim performance you are all doing. — schopenhauer1

If you think Hamas isn't genuinely interested in peace then you are simply clueless about the politics. Just because everybody calls Hamas a terrorist organisation doesn't make it so. So this is sadly just a really superficial regurgitation of shallow media analyses that we see everywhere.

Also, I notice an odd thing that happens in these type of debates where one side (in this case the Palestinians) are seen as a "collective" with no free agency and the other side (in this case the Israelis) are free agents, but choose the wrong thing. I know most of you probably can't see it because it's subtle, but it's there. In a way, it is it's own odd brand of bigotry (the bigotry of thinking of some people as collective driven as if only by knee-jerk instinct while others... are seen individually with free agency). — schopenhauer1

How about you fuck right off with your "subtle" language analysis and analyse the facts on the ground instead? Those facts that in very real terms mean that Palestinians are robbed of their agency by an oppressor that is intent on controlling every strata of Palestinian society because of its "existential" security issue - which is just a reflection of collective paranoia and institutionalised racism.

For a 100 bucks we'll let you post Nazi crap and links to Parler.

And we funnel billions to Hamas.

Yeah, all the billions we're making of this site are being funneled to Hamas.

we like our privacy.

...and my acute obsession with triggering and being impolite... — Banno

I'm pretty sure it was only this...

of course it won't hold. IDF tends to break them about 3 times as often as Hamas.

As my former manager said when I was embedded in the risk department : not enough data points! Go back and do your homework!

sheps...

They're what makes the place lovable. :kiss:

Hey, I got some shit for free! This free shit really sucks!

I love the place except for ungrateful cunts.

Aside from the territories, do you consider Israel the aggressor in the '67 war? I don't mean the one who took the offensive, I mean the one who is in the wrong. — BitconnectCarlos

The 1967 war was complex because it is based on a pre-emptive form of self-defence that was previously not recognised as valid. But I don't think this is an issue, you can initially defend for the right reasons and have that change into a war of aggression. When Israel decided to occupy the territories, it was still ok (provided there's a sensible way to return the land, instead of an indefinite occupation), but once it took land for itself (settled it) it became an act of aggression. I guess there's some argument to make that the latter decision to settle is the act of aggression itself, leaving the argument that the 1967 war was a defensive war in tact.

Maybe. I've disagreed often with him but I think we're usually cordial to each other. Not sure I was everywhere in this thread but he's been so. This is just so much more emotional and closer to home for him personally.

I believe Israel as insurance for Jews as a safe place, regardless of all its policies, means many Jews will defend it to their last breath because that insurance is more important to them than anything else. I consider that morally clear and a consistent position (and I suspect Eli Wiesel thought like this until very late in his life) - just admit to the crimes and then say BUT it's necessary because the security of Israel and therefore the safety of Jews everywhere is paramount. What I don't like is people defending Israel by pretending it's not a terrible Apartheid state, pretending it's a victim and pretending there are no war crimes.

I don't think that that position (the necessity argument above) is ultimately wise because I believe only lasting peace can secure safety and security. That's not attained through military control and oppression, in other words, in the long run current Israeli policies will undermine its security objectives.

A real threat, considering the influence of Wahhabism there.

1. Which Israeli government? Netanyahu? Olmert? Sharon? Who are you blaming exactly?
2. So what happens then if we want to go back to '48 borders? What happens to buildings built post-1948 land? Contracts? You want to just move everyone again? Who's going to do this move? Who's going to pay for it? Is the UN going to raise money for it? How much will they compensate the home and business owners?
3. I would like to know exactly how you define 'right wing political zionism.'
4. -
5. I can't tell if you're only talking about Netanyahu or other Israeli PMs as well. Regardless, in attributing every Palestinian tragedy to the Israelis you discount the Palestinians' own agency. Even in dire circumstances, even if Gaza was the Warsaw ghetto and the Palestinian ruling party was the Judenrat moral responsibility would still exist and they'd still be responsible for their actions and policies. — BitconnectCarlos

1. Except for the hickup that was Rabin, more or less all of them? I'll concede I'm not intimately familiar with every government of Israel, especially before Begin. But anything Likud has been terrible. Not surprising considering its goals:

• Jordan River will be the eastern border.
• The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river.
• The Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza are the realization of Zionist values. Settlement of the land is a clear expression of the unassailable right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel and constitutes an important asset in the defense of the vital interests of the State of Israel. The Likud will continue to strengthen and develop these communities and will prevent their uprooting.
• Jerusalem is the eternal, united capital of the State of Israel and only of Israel. The government will flatly reject Palestinian proposals to divide Jerusalem. The Likud government will act with vigor to continue Jewish habitation and strengthen Israeli sovereignty in the eastern parts of the city, while emphasizing improvements in the welfare and security of the Arab residents. Despite protests from the left, the Likud government consistently approved the continuation of Jewish living within the Old City and in 'City of David'.

And other vile nonsense which is as bad as Hamas really - or actually worse considering Hamas' statements in 2017 which accepts the 1967 borders. But Likud fundamentally does not accept a two-state solution, it does not accept its settlements are illegal and believes they should be strengthened (e.g. expanded) and will not be given back.

2. I don't think everybody has to move, Israeli settlers can decide to stay where they are but then under a common rule where they can have 1 person, 1 vote in a sovereign State that isn't Israel but will be a new Palestinian State. Whether those settlers will want to stay is up to them. Israel will have to pay reparations for the land its settlers stole of course if they do decide to stay. But it's already clear that 1967 borders will work too to achieve peace so we're not talking about the 1948 borders. I raised that point to drive home that anything Israel acquired after 1948 has been illegal and morally condemnable. And that despite that the Palestinians have already offered a huge olive branch, which Israel ignores.

3. The Zionism that has resulted in the Apartheid rule in Israel proper, that thinks settler colonialism is a good thing and to be supported by the government and that is not interested in a two state solution. Basically anything that agrees with Likud's points above.

5. Yeah, where you're armed to the teeth, taken my home, continue to oppress my family, kill my family and friends indiscriminately don't complain when I lash out. Sure, it's immoral what Hamas' military wing does but the greater crime that gave rise to Hamas even being created lies with the Israelis. There's no chicken and egg story here, Hamas wasn't created until 1987 as a reaction to the continued oppression and colonisation by Israel of land that isn't theirs. So a Hamas' rocket gets a shrug from me because WHAT DID YOU EXPECT? Israel isn't the victim here. You can't be an oppressor and then claim victimhood when the oppressed lash out.

The worst crime is how Zionism, as an idea of the Jewish people returning to their original homeland, which was in itself a beautiful thing, has warped into, what I'll call, political Zionism, which denies other people rights and dehumanised an entire ethnic people and is the source of the worst atrocities in modern history.

If the Russians had annexed land like Israel has done through its settler policy and had politicians in power actively claiming the goal is to annex the whole of Germany, they might have started as a "defensive war" but the end result would be qualified as aggression. I'm sorry but international law is clear on this - you can't win land through conquest any more - it's aggression by definition. There's a clear distinction between occupation and settlement/annexation, as I already stated and which you conveniently didn't quote.

Occupation and settlement/annexation are two different things. The military campaign into Germany wasn't an act of aggression, because they withdrew and no Russian ever claimed east Germany was Russian.

The imposition of rule through client states was complex. Quite a few countries joined the block willingly. Whatever crime there was, wasn't a crime of aggression.

I'd actually like the leaders of Hamas dead, but out of office would be a victory as well. Ideally, Hamas as both an organization and a belief system would be no more - leaders dead, we can can spare the lesser members. If you are consciously and deliberately leading this movement I consider you an enemy of humanity. — BitconnectCarlos

That would be stupid considering Hamas currently has a much more pragmatic leadership than before, willing to discuss 1967 borders - and possibly less if a Palestinian referendum would support it.

1. Sure and Israel has offered to give them a state in the past, but with Hamas in power Israel is absolutely under no obligation to go in that direction these days. Hamas is a terrorist group, not a legitimate government. Giving them independent statehood is a serious security concern for Israel. — BitconnectCarlos

That Israel has offered the Palestinians a State in the past is disingenuous. If you look at those proposals, it requires Palestinians to cede land that Israel has illegally occupied and settled. That's not an offer, that's an insult.

The second part of your argument is also an argument to deny Israel a right to a State. The Israeli State is a serious security concern for Palestinians - in fact, more so considering the military capabilities of Israel. It doesn't make for a good argument in my view.

I'd also point out that Hamas is not just a terrorist group and terrorist groups have evolved into peace partners as well. This is why one of the few countries with a sensible classification is the UK; where the military wing is considered a terrorist organisation but the political (and social activist) wing of Hamas is recognised as representing the interest of Palestinians.

Also, when it comes to cease fire violations, the IDF takes the cake. In that respect Hamas has proved more trustworthy than the Israeli government. You put too much weight in what people say as opposed to what they actually do. The "we'll destroy you" language is coming from both sides' extremists but the situation on the ground proves only one is actually doing what they're saying - and it isn't Hamas.

"revert to its inhabitants" is just rhetoric. they just wanted to maintain the status quo with arabs in charge. It's always been fine if there's a state where Arabs are in charge with a Jewish minority. — BitconnectCarlos

How is it just rhetoric if you form the ethnic majority in a region but get less of a say and get less territory? How is it not a valid argument to expect representation?

Israelis did not aggress in '67. But you can uproot the forces that were trying to destroy you. russia was still defending when it pressed into germany. were the allies "aggressing" by pressing into germany? sure you can say that they were going on the offensive, but to describe them as the "aggressors" in the conflict seems strange to me.

Uhuh. You can't annex land and not call it aggression. There's an important difference between occupation and annexation. The latter is not what the Allied forces did. Those forces occupied German territory but they didn't claim that land as part of their country. The occupation lasted so long due to the tensions between the USSR and the Western countries but at no point did any of those countries laid claim that parts of Germany were in fact French, Russian, American or English. Nor did they settle the land with a view to permanently keep it.

So your comparison is simply wrong and what the Israeli did, while initially legal and rightful in 1967, turned into a crime because they decided to annex the land.

In 1948 the arabs declared war on Israel and sought to wipe it out. there was talk of a second holocaust at the time. Land taken and held in '48 was a necessary security measure and I'm not going to apologize for it. Israel was extremely vulnerable w/ 1947 boundaries.

I'm not looking for an apology, I'm looking for recognition that what Israel has done and is doing is immoral. I also don't think the 1947 borders were indefensible. Israel was simply vulnerable as a fledgling state and that had rather little to do with the geographical disposition of the state borders of the partition plan.

I also think that saying the Arabs declared war on Israel denies the intricacies of the time. There was a civil war fought between Palestinian Arabs and Palestinian Jews that resulted in the displacement of Arabs. And while both sides committed crimes against civilians, during the civil war, it was mostly committed by the Jews (with 24 to 33 mass killings, depending on which historian you consult) as opposed to 3 by the Arabs. During the war in 1948 both sides were mostly adhering to the rules except, again, for IDF war crimes. According to Jewish historian Ilan Pappé the goal was ethnic cleansing and it "carr[ied] with it atrocious acts of mass killing and butchering of thousands of Palestinians were killed ruthlessly and savagely by Israeli troops of all backgrounds, ranks and ages." and he continues "If it is possible Israel's conduct in 1948 would be brought onto the stage of international tribunals; this may deliver a message even to the peace camp in Israel that reconciliation entails recognition of war crimes and collective atrocities. This cannot be done from within, as any reference in the Israeli press to expulsion, massacre or destruction in 1948 is usually denied and attributed to self hate and service to the enemy in times of war. This reaction encompasses academia, the media and educational system, as well as political circles."

Bluntly put, Israel has a history of war crimes since its inception and it supresses dissent through laws (Nakba Law) and social pressure.

8. Could you just expound a little further on this?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/apr/22/israelandthepalestinians.usa

Hamas has publicly announced that in 2017 as well through a declaration of general principles. Literally:

Hamas believes that no part of the land of Palestine shall be
compromised or conceded, irrespective of the causes, the circumstances
and the pressures and no matter how long the occupation lasts. Hamas
rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine,
from the river to the sea. However, without compromising its rejection of
the Zionist entity and without relinquishing any Palestinian rights, Hamas
considers the establishment of a fully sovereign and independent
Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital along the lines of the 4th of
June 1967, with the return of the refugees and the displaced to their
homes from which they were expelled, to be a formula of national
consensus. — Hamas

i'll agree with you that the israeli government is more recalcitrant that it was in the past and this is due to several factors, but then again so is hamas. neither side right now has a serious interest in peace.

You're making these demands of Israel but it's never going to be your family who bears the repercussions. It's easy to tell Israel to loosen their security or to let Hamas import anything completely unrestricted or to give back half their land when you're halfway around the world.

I'm making these demands because it is quite clear the Palestinians have been open to peace at least since the 90s (Oslo Accords, Camp David Accords) and clearly again since 2008. It's Israel who is not open to peace and has not been because it wants to maintain the settlements in illegally occupied land. If Israel would announce today that they are prepared to move back to the 1967 borders, it would have lasting peace.

I'm making these demands because Israel has been worse than the other side every step of the way.

I'm making these demands because it's the right thing to do.

If there was a homeless problem in your community would you be willing to let some live in your home? How would you feel about fundamentalists muslims as your neighbors? They need a place to live too, why not next to you? They can invite their friends over too.

You make a pretty good post and then you end with what is really a totally idiotic analogy. Why are Palestinians "homeless"? It's not a problem that just appeared out of nowhere. If there was a homeless problem I caused because I took their house then I wouldn't have any moral claim to be living in that house in the first place.

And you keep pointing to muslim fundamentalism with a big stick in your eye failing to see the extremism in Israel itself. It's not "reticence" it's a fucking Apartheid state in 2021 for God's sake where a majority of Israelis are now condoning it. That is, over 50% of Jewish Israelis think Arab Israelis ought to be second class citizens and so we see discrimination enacted through law in every strata of society there. Did you read HRW or Amnesty reports on this?

Without international law, the Israelis wouldn't have a right to self-determination or any need to respect their borders. So let's go with that in which case Israel has no right to exist. Idiot.

At least he's honest. I'd rather have a Jewish Israeli like that than the two-faced bullshit where they pretend to want peace (I'm looking at Likud for starters).

Keep talking. Foaming at the mouth yet?

@BitconnectCarlos I'm wondering, what part of the facts we're not in agreement about, aside from the conclusions we derive from them. So here's a list of things I consider facts:

1. Palestinians have a right to self-determination as well;
2. The Arabs were opposed to any type of partition in 1948 because they believed the rule "of Palestine should revert to its inhabitants", that included Jews and Arabs at the time;
3. In accordance with Bretton-Woods, acquisition of land through warfare is illegal because aggression is illegal;
4. You cannot acquire land through defensive war, because you cannot logically defend what wasn't yours to begin with;
5. Therefore the acquisition of land beyond the 1948 partition plan is predicated on the war crime from which all war crimes stem: the act of aggression;
6. The occupation of the West Bank and Gaza are therefore illegal;
7. All settlements not in accordance with the 1948 lines are therefore iilegal and should be removed;
8. The Palestinians have been more than generous several times over to agree to solutions close to the 1967 borders;
9. The reason why the Israeli haven't agreed is because the right-wing political zionism, which has been in power most of the time, especially for the last 24 years, is intent on establishing an Israel from the Jordan river to the sea;

Let me know which ones you disagree with or think need to be qualified in some sense.

My conclusions from the above:

1. The fact there is no peace, can be laid fully at the feet of the Israeli government as its even greedier than the land it already stole in 1967;
2. Israel has been in breach of international law since 1948, the same legal regime it bases its own rights on (you can't have your cake and eat it);
3. As long as right-wing political zionism is effectively in control of policy, it's a policy of de facto ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people as their presence is slowly eroded through evictions in East Jerusalem and through settler colonisation (and let's not get started on the Apartheid rule in Israel proper itself, which is another atrocity);
4. Israel therefore deserves no help or respect from the international community until such time as it enters into good faith negotiations with the people its oppressing;
5. Considering Israel's obvious bad faith approach to any form of peace, I conclude that every Israeli tragedy is of its own making and every tragedy befalling the Palestinians is wreaked upon them by the Israelis.