4 ms·

> No country in the world could ignore militarily what Hezbollah has done over the last year. You realize Israel has been invading Lebanon since the 60's right

by hmcq6 2y ago

> No country in the world could ignore militarily what Hezbollah has done over the last year. You realize Israel has been invading Lebanon since the 60's right? Lebanon has the right to fight back against a sovereign nation who is occupying their land. General Assembly resolution A/RES/38/17 (22/11/1983)

tptacek 2y ago
I don't care about the moralizing in either direction. I don't care that Israel believes Hezbollah is a terrorist organization, I don't care that Hezbollah believes Israel is an illegitimate occupier. I don't care if Hezbollah felt justified in indiscriminately lobbing rockets at northern Israel. I don't care because it doesn't matter. They struck, Israel responded; they are near-peer military adversaries, and they are at war. This to me just illustrates the futility of advocating for a "right to fight back" or a "right to resist". There is no such thing as a right to military strikes without counterattacks. Wouldn't it be wild if there were? If some adjudicator could just decide, you're in the right, they're in the wrong, you can fire thousands of rockets, they just have to sit there and take it? In reality, however, if you launch a large scale military offensive at a capable adversary, you're going to get hit back.
- hmcq6 2y ago
  > There is no such thing as a right to military strikes without counterattacks. I'm not "moralizing" I'm citing the UN, and nobody is saying that ^ Israel is a colonist apartheid. It doesn't have a right to occupy Palestine and Palestine does have the right to fight back. It's not that Palestine can bomb and Israel can't, it's that Israel must dissolve. Israel has neither the right to bomb nor the right to exist. Palestine shouldn't use violence to make Israel dissolve but they have the right to.
  - tptacek 2y ago
    Israel is not going to dissolve. They're 9 million people with a hypercapable, nuclear-armed military.
    - runarberg 2y ago
      History disagrees with you. Apartheid states—even nuclear armed ones—have in the past dissolved into a one democratic state of all their peoples.
      - tptacek 2y ago
        Israel's policies may change (do note that a distinction is being drawn here between Israeli Arabs, who enjoy Israeli citizenship, freedom of movement, voting rights, Knesset membership, etc and Palestinians, who do not). The state of Israel is not going to dissolve, because there are no plausible pressures that can be brought to bear to make that happen.
        runarberg 2y ago
        Post WW2 history does not treat kindly the kinds of atrocities currently being committed by Israel. I don’t know of any state which actually survived being a perpetrator of a genocide (at least not as a continuation of a functioning state). Khmer Cambodia did not, Rwanda did not. The closest is probably Serbia (but they were merely complicit of a genocide committed Republika Srpska which now only exists as a part of Bosnia-Herzegovina) or Indonesia (which survived as a dictatorship before transforming to Democracy in a revolution 15 years after the East-Timor genocidal rampage; a revolution largely caused by the genocidal behavior). If Israel is going to follow the pattern of perpetrators of modern genocide it will either voluntarily change, be invaded and forced to change, or hang on as a dictatorship for a couple of decades and change in a revolution. In any case an Israel as we know it would have to be a historic first if it would persist as this pseudo democratic apartheid state as we know it today for the next two decades. In other words—looking at history—chances are very much in favor of Israel dissolving.
        tptacek 2y ago
        I don't know what any of this is supposed to mean. This kind of rhetoric is what jams up curious discussions about what's happening in the region; Syria and Yemen host actual genocidaires --- in Syria's case, of Palestinians in refugee camps --- and have killed civilians in the last 20 years greater multiples than the IDF has in its entire history. But somehow, Israelis notice, it's only Israel that needs to worry about what history will say about it. Your list of comparable states is wild. You need to find a rhetorical device for calling out Israel's war crimes in west Asia that doesn't involve attempting to line Israel, and only Israel, up alongside the Rwandan Interahamwe. I think reasonable people who you stand a chance of persuading recoil from these kinds of analogies, and they're right to do so.
  - edanm 2y ago
    > Israel is a colonist apartheid. It is not a colonist by any standard definition. Apartheid - more complicated. Many people dispute this. I think it's plausible to make a case that there is an apartheid in the West Bank, though it's not completely obvious (mostly because the people there don't want to be under Israeli rule, they want their own government). > It's not that Palestine can bomb and Israel can't, it's that Israel must dissolve. Israel has neither the right to bomb nor the right to exist. Palestine shouldn't use violence to make Israel dissolve but they have the right to. Israel should dissolve, and...? What's the next part of the sentence for what happens to the 9 million Israelis? What's the next step for people who are second, third and foruth-generation Israelis and have only known Israel as their home? What's the implication of deciding that a state recognized worldwide and part of the UN must dissolve? What about the other dozens of states since then, must they also dissolve?
    - hmcq6 2y ago
      > It is not a colonist by any standard definition. Yes they are. It's true that before the British Mandate of Palestine the population of Syria Palaestina was 3-11% Jewish (Mizrahi Jews) but most of the Jewish population of Israel is not indigenous to that region of the world (like how the Ashkenazi Jews are from Europe and Eastern Russia). > Apartheid - more complicated. It isn't, Amnesty International and the Human Rights Watch recognize it is Apartheid. As do Ireland and South Africa (countries who have both been victim to Colonist Apartheid violence). Israel does not allow free passage between Gaza and the West Bank, that in itself is a war crime. Israel literally has a two tiered society, Israeli Arabs do not have the Right To Return like Jewish Israelis do. 50% of Arab Israelis are under the poverty line because of wage discrimination and other factors https://adva.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/SocialReport2016-EN.pdf https://adva.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/SocialReport2016... . Israel was even caught practicing eugenics on the beta Israelis. > Israel should dissolve, and...? What's the next part of the sentence for what happens to the 9 million Israelis? What are you filling in the blank with...? Nobody is asking for them to be deported. I mean obviously people like Yaakov Fauci would have to give back the houses they literally stole but a "1 state solution" does not require the deportation/killing of the Israelis. Elsewhere in this thread I linked the Oslo Accords, I suggest you read about them, peace is possible.
  - tim333 2y ago
    >It doesn't have a right to occupy Palestine So where is it supposed to go? Israelis go home back to Israel?
    - hmcq6 2y ago
      Move it to Uganda. /s But I answered this an hour ago. A one state solution does not mean the mass deportation of Jews. They should become equal citizens of Palestine. And obviously the Israelis who stole Palestinian homes at gun point would have to return the property they stole.
      - tptacek 2y ago
        Nothing like that is plausibly going to happen. We might as well talk about surrendering San Antonio to the Mexicans; that will happen first.

by hmcq6 2y ago

tptacek 2y ago

I don't care about the moralizing in either direction. I don't care that Israel believes Hezbollah is a terrorist organization, I don't care that Hezbollah believes Israel is an illegitimate occupier. I don't care if Hezbollah felt justified in indiscriminately lobbing rockets at northern Israel. I don't care because it doesn't matter. They struck, Israel responded; they are near-peer military adversaries, and they are at war. This to me just illustrates the futility of advocating for a "right to fight back" or a "right to resist". There is no such thing as a right to military strikes without counterattacks. Wouldn't it be wild if there were? If some adjudicator could just decide, you're in the right, they're in the wrong, you can fire thousands of rockets, they just have to sit there and take it? In reality, however, if you launch a large scale military offensive at a capable adversary, you're going to get hit back.

hmcq6 2y ago
> There is no such thing as a right to military strikes without counterattacks. I'm not "moralizing" I'm citing the UN, and nobody is saying that ^ Israel is a colonist apartheid. It doesn't have a right to occupy Palestine and Palestine does have the right to fight back. It's not that Palestine can bomb and Israel can't, it's that Israel must dissolve. Israel has neither the right to bomb nor the right to exist. Palestine shouldn't use violence to make Israel dissolve but they have the right to.
- tptacek 2y ago
  Israel is not going to dissolve. They're 9 million people with a hypercapable, nuclear-armed military.
  - runarberg 2y ago
    History disagrees with you. Apartheid states—even nuclear armed ones—have in the past dissolved into a one democratic state of all their peoples.
    - tptacek 2y ago
      Israel's policies may change (do note that a distinction is being drawn here between Israeli Arabs, who enjoy Israeli citizenship, freedom of movement, voting rights, Knesset membership, etc and Palestinians, who do not). The state of Israel is not going to dissolve, because there are no plausible pressures that can be brought to bear to make that happen.
      - runarberg 2y ago
        Post WW2 history does not treat kindly the kinds of atrocities currently being committed by Israel. I don’t know of any state which actually survived being a perpetrator of a genocide (at least not as a continuation of a functioning state). Khmer Cambodia did not, Rwanda did not. The closest is probably Serbia (but they were merely complicit of a genocide committed Republika Srpska which now only exists as a part of Bosnia-Herzegovina) or Indonesia (which survived as a dictatorship before transforming to Democracy in a revolution 15 years after the East-Timor genocidal rampage; a revolution largely caused by the genocidal behavior). If Israel is going to follow the pattern of perpetrators of modern genocide it will either voluntarily change, be invaded and forced to change, or hang on as a dictatorship for a couple of decades and change in a revolution. In any case an Israel as we know it would have to be a historic first if it would persist as this pseudo democratic apartheid state as we know it today for the next two decades. In other words—looking at history—chances are very much in favor of Israel dissolving.
        tptacek 2y ago
        I don't know what any of this is supposed to mean. This kind of rhetoric is what jams up curious discussions about what's happening in the region; Syria and Yemen host actual genocidaires --- in Syria's case, of Palestinians in refugee camps --- and have killed civilians in the last 20 years greater multiples than the IDF has in its entire history. But somehow, Israelis notice, it's only Israel that needs to worry about what history will say about it. Your list of comparable states is wild. You need to find a rhetorical device for calling out Israel's war crimes in west Asia that doesn't involve attempting to line Israel, and only Israel, up alongside the Rwandan Interahamwe. I think reasonable people who you stand a chance of persuading recoil from these kinds of analogies, and they're right to do so.
- edanm 2y ago
  > Israel is a colonist apartheid. It is not a colonist by any standard definition. Apartheid - more complicated. Many people dispute this. I think it's plausible to make a case that there is an apartheid in the West Bank, though it's not completely obvious (mostly because the people there don't want to be under Israeli rule, they want their own government). > It's not that Palestine can bomb and Israel can't, it's that Israel must dissolve. Israel has neither the right to bomb nor the right to exist. Palestine shouldn't use violence to make Israel dissolve but they have the right to. Israel should dissolve, and...? What's the next part of the sentence for what happens to the 9 million Israelis? What's the next step for people who are second, third and foruth-generation Israelis and have only known Israel as their home? What's the implication of deciding that a state recognized worldwide and part of the UN must dissolve? What about the other dozens of states since then, must they also dissolve?
  - hmcq6 2y ago
    > It is not a colonist by any standard definition. Yes they are. It's true that before the British Mandate of Palestine the population of Syria Palaestina was 3-11% Jewish (Mizrahi Jews) but most of the Jewish population of Israel is not indigenous to that region of the world (like how the Ashkenazi Jews are from Europe and Eastern Russia). > Apartheid - more complicated. It isn't, Amnesty International and the Human Rights Watch recognize it is Apartheid. As do Ireland and South Africa (countries who have both been victim to Colonist Apartheid violence). Israel does not allow free passage between Gaza and the West Bank, that in itself is a war crime. Israel literally has a two tiered society, Israeli Arabs do not have the Right To Return like Jewish Israelis do. 50% of Arab Israelis are under the poverty line because of wage discrimination and other factors https://adva.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/SocialReport2016-EN.pdf https://adva.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/SocialReport2016... . Israel was even caught practicing eugenics on the beta Israelis. > Israel should dissolve, and...? What's the next part of the sentence for what happens to the 9 million Israelis? What are you filling in the blank with...? Nobody is asking for them to be deported. I mean obviously people like Yaakov Fauci would have to give back the houses they literally stole but a "1 state solution" does not require the deportation/killing of the Israelis. Elsewhere in this thread I linked the Oslo Accords, I suggest you read about them, peace is possible.
- tim333 2y ago
  >It doesn't have a right to occupy Palestine So where is it supposed to go? Israelis go home back to Israel?
  - hmcq6 2y ago
    Move it to Uganda. /s But I answered this an hour ago. A one state solution does not mean the mass deportation of Jews. They should become equal citizens of Palestine. And obviously the Israelis who stole Palestinian homes at gun point would have to return the property they stole.
    - tptacek 2y ago
      Nothing like that is plausibly going to happen. We might as well talk about surrendering San Antonio to the Mexicans; that will happen first.