Jump to content

hpslugga

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    3287
  • Joined

Posts posted by hpslugga

  1. 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?

    Quote

    We 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.

    Quote

    Is 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.

    Quote

    Either 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?

    Quote

    Would 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.

     

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

    Quote

    Obviously 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."

    Quote

    The 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.

    Quote

    So 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. 

    Quote

    But 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.

    Quote

    Right 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. 

  8. 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.

  9. 6 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

    BDS is a justice movement

    They’re actually not. I support the movement in terms of what the name implies, but their ultimate goal will never work.

  10. 9 hours ago, Macanudo said:

    They cant (legally) drink or join the military.   Do you seriously think 16 year olds are mature enough?

    I say this with all due respect to you, but you've got to be kidding me.

    People your age (and older) voted for a guy for president in 2000 because he was the guy that people wanted to have a beer with and they didn't want to vote for the guy who was the Vice President when the President was getting blown by interns, and he was re-elected in 2004 largely because they felt icky that gay people were getting married. That's "mature?"

    People your age just put Donald fucking Trump in the White House. That's "mature?"

    The public relations industry is absolutely dedicated, in general, to steer elections towards considering what they call "qualities," but to ignore policies. When you consider how in debt this country is, how internationally we perpetually give aid to notorious abusers of human rights, how we've systematically removed the middle class from our consciousness, among other things, it seems highly inappropriate to resist giving voting rights to people 2 years away from current legal status on the grounds of "maturity." There's nothing "mature" about what the current electorate does...at all. 

    EDIT: And besides, the difference between a 16-year old and an 18-year old in terms of political intelligence is a flea's hop.

    • Like 6
  11. 2 hours ago, Foosters said:

    They can afford to get their kids toys but not bachelor’s degrees.

    And that's really the point and it's not an accident. Toys and gadgets and shit like that, in the context of this "prosperity" nonsense, appeal only to the very superficial-minded. Those are shiny objects that have a way of distracting the easily distractible. 

    • Like 1
  12. 16 hours ago, JimmyJames said:

    In the case of Dershowitz, I’m guessing far far worse. 

    He is. That guy is Exhibit A for what it is to be a pathological liar. He has a capacity to just brazenly lie while both simultaneously 1) knowing literally everything he says is a lie while 2) believing that every word of what he says is true.

    Thats precisely why he’s been a very effective attorney over the years.

  13. 11 minutes ago, NowThis said:

    meanwhile, while we lament the oppression of Israeli and American Jews, this elderly Palestinian couple had their East Jerusalem home demolished yesterday

    Elderly-couple-demolished-Jerusalem-Marc

    Clearly they’re Hamas soldiers

  14. 15 minutes ago, elfenix said:

    how many agents could you hire and permanently endow for the ~$25 billion that this boondoggle would cost in upfront construction?

    Depends on how horribly we’d want to underpay them. 

  15. 13 hours ago, elfenix said:

    Not only that, the idea that the immigration issue will somehow be a pivot for 2020 reaches a level of fractal wrongness to which republicans seem absolutely addicted these days.

    1. The people who believed Trump's feculent blather about building that stupid wall are either going to vote to re-elect him or they're going to stay home (i.e. the people who are pissed about their taxes going up despite the bewildering inanities that were voiced in support of those heinous cuts). They will not, however, vote Democrat no matter who the candidate is. Trump's base is filled with people who, like the person you were responding to, feel that politics functions the way sports do: there's a red and a blue team, they're on the red team, and they'll never be on the blue team. Even if they did, the number of them is so small that it hardly merits consideration. And of course there's also the issue of the fact that we still operate on that ridiculous electoral college and the "swing states" he carried were more concerned about their own jobs rather than immigration.

    2) Anyone who took said feculent blather for what it was worth isn't going to vote for him either. Trump is winning precisely and exactly 0 new voters at this point, and that's not going to change in 20 months. His popularity rating is the shits, it's only going to get worse, and this snowflake bullshit about building a wall isn't helping him. 

    Regardless of what the Democrats proposed in 2013, you can either be serious about illegal immigration or you can live in the Land of Make Believe and Pretend about it. Wholly ignoring, and in some cases inflaming, the reasons that people do it and yearning for some stupid monolithic construction is derived from the latter, not the former.

    • Like 1
  16. 5 minutes ago, Foosters said:

    No, I get it. I just find it hilarious that someone would accuse the Dems of being the party of Hitler when actual Nazis march in support of Trump.

    At this point, I no longer find that because it's predictably true. We're at a point where we can just straight up predict how they'll react/respond to just about any story. It's as if they have an addiction to fractal wrongness.

  17. 25 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

    I had this idea a few days ago and I can’t think of many legitimate reasons not to do this.  

    I wanted to pitch it to the assholes here so they could tear the idea apart.

    It’s actually a pretty solid litmus test to see if ones a troll or if one is merely stating their honest beliefs as being opposed to NN is an utterly indefensible position.

  18. 9 hours ago, F250 said:

    Somewhat but there are still a lot of Boomers sitting in those positions. There are a lot of old fucks still running things even though they are retirement age and have the money to retire.

    They are the Hulk Hogan of generations: their "greatness" is well over 75% media creation, and in their very advanced years, maintain their reputation as being the old guy who absolutely refuses to put over the young talent.

  19. 8 hours ago, horn4life said:

    When Bret Baier was asking Jim Jordan about the GOP not addressing the subject matter being discussed by Cohen it was an awkward moment. Just yell liar, liar, pants on fire.

    They were simply following a hallowed tradition that is commonly referred to as the Carl Sandburg Axiom:

    "If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell"

×
×
  • Create New...