-
Posts
3453 -
Joined
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Downloads
Recruiting - 2020
2019-2020 Football Season
Football
Entertainment
Sports
News and Business
Cloak Room
Transfer Portal
Recruiting
Events
Posts posted by hpslugga
-
-
Israel
in Cloak Room
2 minutes ago, NowThis said:Israel does not want a 2 state solution and if the Pals agree to be absorbed into Israel (without Gaza) then we have the solution by weird convergence, the 1 state solution.
That's the thing: Israel doesn't want that either. They want the Arabs to leave, full stop.
-
1
-
-
Israel
in Cloak Room
38 minutes ago, HenryJames said:Wouldn't you know who won the pony?
-
Israel
in Cloak Room
23 minutes ago, Scooter Monzingo said:You live in a country that was built on them rules dumb ass.
1. I live in a country that was established as a nation in 1789, which is 156 years before international law even existed, so that's an invalid comparison.
2. Article 2 paragraph 4 of the UN Charter, which was established 22 years prior to the events of 1967, specifically states "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."
3. The document that was proposed by the UN in order to settle the conflict immediately after said events of 1967 confirms that.
4. If you're going to use a pejorative term, I demand the courtesy of a correctly spelled one. It's "dumbass." One word.
-
4
-
-
2 hours ago, High Plains Drifter said:
If N. Ireland does GTFO, what are the chances they re-unite with Ireland? Anybody?
I'd like to think it's pretty strong given their preference for a post-Troubles arrangement over a Troubles arrangement. In the end it depends on what the Good Friday Agreement means to both sides, and if it means that much to them, they'll do whatever it takes to maintain it even if that means telling England to fuck itself.
-
Israel
in Cloak Room
5 minutes ago, NowThis said:actually they are supporting shit in full conformity with international law (ie un resolutions)
What UN resolution addresses giving equal rights to the Arab minority? I’ve literally read every single resolution there is regarding human rights and Israel, but all of those are couched as “in the occupied territories.”
-
Israel
in Cloak Room
Just now, NowThis said:what else can explain his opposition to BDS's goals? None of them violate the 'international law' which are UN resolutions only.
It’s not about violating international law, it’s about supporting shit that has nothing to do with international law. Do you really not notice the difference?
-
Israel
in Cloak Room
6 minutes ago, NowThis said:does he tolerate the idea of the elimination of Israel?
One needn’t be a Zionist to not tolerate that. I’m sorry but that’s the juvenile, not to mention reductive, “you’re either 100% with us or you’re against us” mentality at work.
-
Israel
in Cloak Room
1 minute ago, NowThis said:I think he's a zionist at heart, being Jewish, and cannot fathom the elimination of a Jewish state, even by peaceful democratic means.
That’s just pure fantasy
-
Israel
in Cloak Room
34 minutes ago, NowThis said:why does Finklestein believe BDS is out to destroy Israel? or does he?
You'd have to ask him. And I don't say that to be a smart ass, that's just the right answer to your questions and you'd get them if you just shot him an e-mail.
What I see from it is this perpetual refusal to answer some of the most basic questions that an Israeli apologist would ask. When you can't even answer them, your movement cannot gain any traction. The single most important comments he made in that interview, even more than exposing Frank Barat's ignorance of international law, was the fact that the so-called Palestinian Civil Society, which is just a cell within the BDS movement, cannot organize a demonstration of more than a couple hundred people.
You just said a couple posts ago that "BDS isn't in favor of either of the 1 or 2 state solution." Yeah, that's kind of his (as well as my) point. Israel is a state, Palestine should be one. That's not an opinion, that's the very basis of the whole of international laws since 1948. That's exactly what's proposed in the UNGA nearly every year when that Peaceful Settlement of the Palestine Question. Again, if you're going to say that you're based in international law, you cannot adopt positions that directly contradict it. There is nothing in international law that supports one state, and I'm pretty sure you knew that.
There's a reason, among a lot of others, that one state enjoys very little support among serious people; and that is that they know that Palestinians will wind up with the same fate as they would if we continue with the status quo. Israel is committed to the prospect of rendering Palestinian livelihood so unbearable that they'll just pack up and leave, and they've made that a part of official government policy for no less than 31 years. When Arafat introduced that Declaration of Independence in Algiers in 1988, the Israeli response was "Israel opposes the establishment of an additional Palestinian state in the Gaza district and in the area between Israel and Jordan."
They simply do not want the Palestinians there, and they'd like to have the Sinai back in their possession as well if they could. For them to squeeze out the Palestinians with continued settlements in the West Bank and its external occupation of Gaza would be even easier under a one-state format than two states because international law does not offer protection to the Palestinians if that ends up being the case. In a two-state arrangement, they'd at least in principle be afforded the kind of protection against the kind of settlements we've been seeing for the last 52 years. They'd have property rights, sovereignty, et al. In a one-state arrangement, they would then become no different than the Arab minority that lives inside Israel, which brings me to this:
24 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:Jews are a numerical minority and, if there was only one state, they would lose power. "Israel" is conceptualized as a state in which the Jews hold the majority of power, so Jews being out of power isn't "Israel" even if there was a one-state solution wherein the state was legally called "Israel" if the majority of power were in non-Jewish hands.
Being a numerical minority does not preclude the kind of shit that goes on in Israel.
-
Israel
in Cloak Room
1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:Again, I love Norman Finklestein, but he's not the author of international law.
That's a strawman. Nobody is saying that he is, nor did anyone even imply it. You knew better.
-
Israel
in Cloak Room
4 minutes ago, NowThis said:BDS isn't in favor of either of the 1 or 2 state solution.
Yes, 1 state is growing in favor https://www.npr.org/2018/12/15/677100908/poll-american-support-grows-for-one-state-solution-in-israel
Thirty-five percent say they prefer the U.S. to advocate for a one-state solution, and 36 percent say they prefer the U.S. advocate for a two-state solution.
Even the founder of Electronic Intifada is for a 1 state (he's Palestinian)
That's the US. I was asking about the global position
-
Israel
in Cloak Room
3 minutes ago, NowThis said:his premise from this 2012 video is that BDS is against the idea of Israel itself and wants to destroy it. But where does BDS actually say that? Or that BDS wants one state (4:45)?
If you were paying attention, he made mention of the fact (and I'd heard this crap since well before that video was posted) that BDS claims agnosticism on Israel. Again, the central theme of that whole thing was that you cannot claim that you're rooted in international law while being agnostic about parts of it.
3 minutes ago, NowThis said:also, the 1 state solution is gaining a lot of favor since his 2012 interview
According to what? Does it have even a meaningful fraction of favor as compared to the two-state settlement?
Regardless, 1-state isn't a part of international law, so my objection to that still stands: you cannot simultaneously support 1 state and also claim that you're principally rooted in international law.
-
Israel
in Cloak Room
1 hour ago, NowThis said:Finklestein and Naom Chomsky (also against BDS)
This is silly. They're very much in favor of BDS as a tactic and have said so on numerous occasions. Again, to see major faults in a movement and to point them out does not constitute "opposition." To argue that it does is no less intellectually lazy/dishonest than the oft repeated argument by pro-Israeli hawks that "it's antisemitic to oppose Israeli foreign policy."
I appreciate you posting a reference to that interview that I mentioned, but I think a full-length video would be better than a half-assed summary:
-
Israel
in Cloak Room
1 hour ago, Chrispy said:Yep, to the victor go the spoils. Thems the rules.
There are no such rules.
-
23 hours ago, SA-KC_Horn said:
I think RT's skillset fits better into today's RPO/ZR game than in 05 & 06.
But those schemes were already available back then. They just weren't, pardon the pun, as widespread as they are now.
-
Israel
in Cloak Room
21 hours ago, bad_teammate said:Which is the inverse of how Finklestein talks, of course, as he constantly stresses the primacy of 242 and makes 194 subject to his own interpretive framework for 242.
That’s not his interpretation; that’s what the law states. That provision of 194 was rendered obsolete by 242 the moment that it insisted “a just settlement of the refugee problem.”
When you cite 194 and not 242, that’s like citing the 18th amendment to justify a new Prohibition. Well yeah you could do that...except you’re gonna have a hard time explaining the 21st amendment. 194 provided a framework to settling the refugee issue, but 242 is absolutely clear: it only requires a “just settlement.” There’s absolutely nothing that I’ve said that even remotely suggests to follow the law “only if it’s tenable.” You know better than that.
And I would agree with what you said earlier. As it pertains to the just settlement, we are both on the same page. What I’m telling you is that BDS as a movement does not take to that position. You might, but they do not. I seriously would like for you to answer these two questions:
1. What is BDS’ position on the state of Israel?
2. Where is the evidence to support the answer to question 1?
QuoteWe can go back and forth on individual voices, but picking out single voices in order to cherry-pick what we want to characterize the "other side" with is both endless and pointless.
The point is that I’ve got a lot of cherries to pick. Finkelstein is just an example. He’s the best one as he’s the foremost American scholar on the conflict, but he’s just an example. And by the way, I do not consider BDS to be “on the other side” of where I stand on the issue. Like I said, I support BDS as a set of tactics. What I reject is parts of their implied end game.
QuoteIs 242 "tenable"? Because I just saw the Israeli PM say that Israel was for Jews only and I see that Israel is occupying Palestinian land and running them like open-air prisons.
It’s tenable when they don’t have a powerful state giving it a level of aid that is unprecedented by anything in international affairs. It’s easy for Bibi, who is a psychotic and loathsome creature even within their society, to say those things, but he knows full well that he has to change face if the US backs away from him. I’m pretty sure you know that too.
QuoteEither we follow international law or we don't, right?
That’s the issue I take with BDS. They’re selective with the law. For example, that second tier thing with the equal rights for Arabs living in Israel? There’s nothing in international law that says anything about them. And again, I happen to agree with that tier. The thing is it has nothing to do with the law. So they claim that they’re rooted in international law, but:
Tier 1: Rooted in international law
Tier 2: Not rooted in international law
Tier 3: Rooted in obsolete provisions of international law that were since replaced by succeeding international laws.
So if my math is correct, they are 33.33% rooted in existing international law. That’s the reason why they’re not taken seriously. And speaking of them not really being rooted in international law, why are so many of them in favor of a one-state settlement when there is nothing in international law that supports such a thing?
QuoteWould you seriously assert that it is impossible that the West will not, at some point in the not-so-distant future, simply throw its hands up at the intransigence of the far-right in Israel and say, "Fuck it, we've tried. We're not wasting our time or money on these people who can't negotiate and exist in good faith" and leave Israel to the proverbial wolves?
Impossible down the line? No, I wouldn’t. In fact I’d prefer that we’d remove ourselves from this entirely. Like I said, I oppose states in general, so I’m doubly opposed to states receiving ideological, diplomatic, and military aid from other states to such an extent that allows them to maintain a 52-year occupation.
But that’s a separate issue. What we were talking about is BDS. I’ve made the charge that, at the very least, they’re insincere and duplicitous in their claims about being rooted in international law.
EDIT: And just to be clear, I don't want anything that I just said to be true. I wish that all of it was wrong and will be happy to recant all of it. I want BDS to be a successful movement and I want them to reach a much broader public than they've reached. But the thing is that they haven't because there are serious defects that they need to address, and I'm not going to sit here and pretend that they've addressed them just because a handful of people who are so eager to believe in all of this stuff say so. What I objectively see in the movement is a complete inability to counter US/Israeli propaganda. If they can't even do that, I'd be wasting my time pretending that they can.
-
24 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:
Agreed. But when you're on the Titanic, and the crew insists on heading right for that fucking iceberg, the smart move is to get in a lifeboat and GTFO. Scotland should GTFO. Northern Ireland might, too.
England is entitled to shoot itself in the dick. Scotland and Northern Ireland are entitled to say '''united' kingdom my ass -- see ya later."
That's really the bottom line. One of the big reasons that Scotland narrowly voted down that 2014 referendum was that it was understood at the time that 1) the UK government would allow it to further devolve and 2) that the UK would stay in the EU. The fact that they reneged on item 2 raises serious doubts about item 1, and the thing is that the referendum was a straight up "should we stay or should we go" question. If they'd been given more expanded options, Devolution and Independence would have prevailed over UK Loyalty, and that would be even more true in the wake of this foolish Brexit nonsense. Northern Ireland has its own baggage with that inevitable hard border, but the result is the same: they're better off not having to deal with that than...having to deal with that. My own personal preference has been for an independent Scotland, an independent Wales, and a reunified Ireland, and while I'll grant the premise that a lot of that is sentimental, it's becoming more of a practical/survival issue of the present day. I see no real reason to believe that those 3 countries would be better off still attached to that albatross rather than independent/reunified and as members of the EU. If someone could present a credible case against that, I'm seriously willing to listen/read, but at the present I really don't see it.
-
14 hours ago, bolverk said:
Ms Sturgeon also said that "in the fullness of time" Scots should be offered a choice as to whether to "carry on down this disastrous path with the UK" or "prosper and succeed with independence".
DO IT
Seriously, I cannot see any reason that Scotland would be better off in the middle of this self-destructive shit show than it would as an independent state and a member of the EU.
-
Israel
in Cloak Room
2 minutes ago, Smax said:my point is, its bad precedent and is going to open up a can worms
Except there’s precisely zero reason to believe that. If you don’t give me a reason to believe you, I have no reason to believe you.
-
Israel
in Cloak Room
Just now, Smax said:So whats that going to accomplish unless you're advocating giving conquered land back and if so are you ready to give Texas back Mexico, the majority of the US back to the Indians?
There was no UN Charter that prohibited the US from stealing about a third of Mexico in the middle of the 19th century the way there was that prohibited Israel from stealing the West Bank, the Golan Heights, the Gaza Strip, and the Sinai Peninsula in 1967. Even you know that.
-
Israel
in Cloak Room
3 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:What do you mean by "full implementation" and where can I find BDS calling for this "full implementation"? I am genuinely curious because that seems to be the only difference between us on this issue.
I'm sure there is a wide variety of opinion within the BDS movement, just as there is in any pro-Israel movement. To characterize the entire movement as against a two-state solution is dishonest.
I'd refer you to, among others, Omar Barghouti's screeds, namely the one that he offered back in 2003 that stated: "Good riddance! The two-state solution for the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is finally dead. But someone has to issue an official death certificate before the rotting corpse is given a proper burial and we can all move on and explore the more just, moral and therefore enduring alternative for peaceful coexistence between Jews and Arabs in Mandate Palestine: the one-state solution."
And mind you, he's one of the BDS' co-founders and he made this statement even before founding the so-called movement. Furthermore, if you go to their website, still prominently posted there is their de facto founding document, which states:
"1. Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands and dismantling the Wall
2. Recognizing the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality; and
3. Respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN resolution 194."Notice, there isn't a mention of 242. It only talks about 194. But 194 was adopted in 1948, and in article 11, it clearly states:
"Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible; Instructs the Conciliation Commission to facilitate the repatriation, resettlement and economic and social rehabilitation of the refugees and the payment of compensation, and to maintain close relations with the Director of the United Nations Relief for Palestine Refugees and, through him, with the appropriate organs and agencies of the United Nations."
Now, you're probably going to harp on the clause that immediately follows the bolded portion. Again, that's not the point. The point is that you open the door to it in the eyes of the Israelis, which is all that matters when it comes to negotiations. What has to be presented to them is the same thing that's been presented every year at the United Nations' General Assembly meetings when it votes on the Peaceful Settlement of the Palestine Question, which is a "just settlement." Just settlement means that they will not be given the full right of return, but the ones who won't be allowed to return will receive a negotiated settlement...as in even if their homes were not destroyed. 194 was a tenable concept in 1948. It now no longer is, and there's no point in invoking it and only it the way BDS does. Hell, it wasn't even tenable in 1967, which is why Caradon and Goldberg included that in the text of 242. That version of the settlement is what's recognized as the international consensus and not this tactic of throwing the kitchen sink at them.
The only way we're ever going to achieve that kind of monumental settlement is if there's broad public support for it. And to repeat, BDS does not have that kind of support precisely for the reasons I just said. They issued those 3 tiers, Israeli propaganda counters that they're calling for the destruction of Israel, and BDS' only response that I've ever seen is that they take no position on Israel. You might want to watch Frank Barat's 31-minute interview with Finkelstein that bore directly on this topic, because what happened there is a microcosm of the discourse that happens between BDS and everyone else: Finkelstein raised the issue, and Barat couldn't for the life of him answer him competently.
3 minutes ago, Smax said:Who cares who started it
Just people who respect international humanitarian law.
3 minutes ago, NowThis said:Your statement implies that rich can dominate the poors as a natural event and fully justifiable due to superiority.
Not only that but it also reeks of internet tough guy bluster.
-
Israel
in Cloak Room
56 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:There's A LOT going on here...
The idea that the Arabs who were ethnically cleansed from Israel would, along with their descendants, simply flock back into Israel is irrational. For the last 50+ years, the vast majority of these people have been building lives in other places. What would they even be coming back to? Are they going to abandon their lives here to flock, en masse, into an uncertain situation in Israel?
Also, and this should be obvious, your characterization of Right of Return is essentially identical to Trump's characterization of these migrant caravans. There's very little daylight between your vast overstatement of the number of people who would likely return to Israel and the dog whistles about their nefariousness.
I don't say that it would be likely, I say that BDS as part of its platform advocates it. That's their goal. Of course it wouldn't be a reality, but that's not the point. The point is that's what they want, and I cannot get on board with it. But see, that's not even the larger point. The point is that they cannot win a broader appeal in the international community with that as a part of its platform, which is why it's regarded as a cult even by serious scholars like Finkelstein.
QuoteObviously current (non-settlement) Israelis are not going to be kicked out of their homes, and I haven't heard a single BDS advocate call for this.
Again, it doesn't matter if they're literally calling for it. The full implementation of their three tiers invariably leads to that. And if people want to espouse that as a goal, then fine...just say so. But don't pretend that you're "based in international law" if you're agnostic about one of the two states that are legally involved in this whole mess. That's like saying, as Finkelstein put it, "'I have the right to go through the green light, but I'm agnostic about the red.' No, you have the right to go through the green because you have the obligation to stop at the red."
QuoteThe practical reality of Right of Return should give Palestinian refugees a choice between land in currently-unoccupied villages/homes/etc... and compensation for what was taken from them during the ethnic cleansing. Does anyone really believe that Muslim society isn't OK with the idea of being compensated for crimes done against them? Hello?
Yes, the "just settlement" concept. That's what I endorse, as does the bulk of the entire planet that supports the two-state settlement.
QuoteSo no, you wouldn't have 6 million Arabs flooding into Israel, not even close.
With a just settlement? No
With a full implementation, as BDS calls for? Yes, you actually would.QuoteBut that absolutely cannot work if Israel is solely conceived of as a theocratic ethnostate. Hell, you could even set quotas for how many Arabs are allowed to come in per year if you think Israel has to be majority-Jewish. However, the conception of Israel as a theocratic ethnostate is the intractable problem because theocratic ethnostates cannot be liberal democracies. They will always be, by necessity, apartheid prison states.
Look, I'm against the existence of states in general. I do not support the idea of Israel being a Jewish state any more than I'd support the idea of Palestine being an Islamic state. I don't support them being ANY state, nor do I support that for anyone else. But the abolition of states is a concept that's far off in the remote future, and you cannot win a public to that idea for the immediate future. The two-state settlement is a rotten concept, but it's the very least rotten of all realistic options. There's an international legal basis to create it, and there's a broad international consensus to support it. There is no consensus, however, to support what BDS supports, and that's where they lose in the court of public opinion.
QuoteRight of Return is a moral and practical necessity. How it plays out is up for negotiation, but ignoring it is a non-starter.
I do not say to ignore it.
Look, I've been writing about this for over 10 years and I've made my position on it perfectly clear. What I support is the UN position, which is the full implementation of 242, which is:
"1. Affirms that the fulfilment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:
(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent [1967] conflict;
(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;
2. Affirms further the necessity
(a)For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;
(b)For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;
(c)For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones;"That's what I support, and that also happens to be the law.
-
Israel
in Cloak Room
3 hours ago, Fozzz said:This asshole.
Nothing about this is a surprise
-
Israel
in Cloak Room
21 hours ago, NowThis said:what is their ultimate goal?
Their goal, whether unwitting or not, is to destroy Israel demographically.
When their movement started to gain traction just a few years after BDS was founded as a movement, they stated that they were "based on international law."
But later on they announced their 3 tiers, which is:
1. The ending of the occupation
2. Granting equal rights to the Arab minority inside Israel
3. The full implementation of the Right of Return.I wholeheartedly endorse tiers #1 and #2, but #3 is a non-starter. If that were to be implemented, there'd be around 6 million Arabs admitted into Israel, and thus we've overnight completely changed the demographic character of the country from being a strong Jewish majority to being an Arab majority. That's a non-starter. The broad international consensus that supports the two-state settlement never insists on the full implementation of RoR. In fact, what they insist on is the "just settlement of the refugee question" with an acknowledgment from the Israeli government, which means that a much lower number of Arabs would be allowed to go back but not to such an extent that it even remotely threatens the demographic character. This is the reason why BDS enjoys such limited international support. Instead of refuting the very oft repeated charge of wanting Israel to cease to exist, which was levied against them years ago even by people like Chomsky, Finkelstein, Sara Roy, etc, they've given ambiguous statements about "we're agnostic on Israel."
If you're concerned with international law, you can't say that you take no position on Israel.
Israel
in Cloak Room
Posted · Edited by hpslugga
It's not going to happen in Gaza because it can't. Why? Because those people are literally trapped inside it. They cannot leave. They'd like to, especially given that (among other facts about it) well over 95% of the water is deemed unfit for human consumption.
They already do back them. Every time when that UNGA resolution comes up, it's always around 164-7 with the dissenters being the US, Israel, Australia, Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, Nauru and Palau. This is not a contentious issue with the world in the slightest.
Besides, the world hardly ever does shit for repressed minorities. Where was the global community during the Apartheid era in South Africa? Where have they been for Dalits in India? Where were they for African Americans between 1948-1964? Where have they been for the Darfurians in Sudan since 2003? They've been completely absent because there's just not a lot that the UN can do in cases of internal human rights abuses. With the aid of the US, they can't even do anything about what Israel does to Palestine, and that's an external case of human rights abuses. It's the same reason that they couldn't do shit for East Timor when Indonesia was putting them through abject hell for 20+ years. They pass all these resolutions condemning Israel, but those resolutions are always shot down via a US veto no matter how lopsided the vote is. That's the issue. The Palestinians do not need any more help from the global community. 164-7 is about as pure of a consensus as it can possibly be. Hell, it could be 169-2, and we're still here with the same problem as long as the US is one of the two. What they need is for the US to withdraw itself from the conflict. There's no way around that.
However difficult it's been for the global community to intervene on behalf of the Palestinians living in the Occupied Territories, it'd be that much harder for them to intervene on their behalf as citizens of Israel. Let's not kid ourselves. The only way they could at least theoretically enjoy even the smallest measures of protection is with their own state. The settlements need to be dismantled, the 80% of the wall that's protecting the settlements need to be dismantle, the blockade of Gaza with all of its nasty insanity needs to be withdrawn, and East Jerusalem must be turned over to whatever their legitimate leadership is both in terms of sovereignty and control.