Controversial General Political Discussion

Monkey D Theories

Monkey D Theories

‎
#25,281
#25,281
Okamakama said:
I've seen stuff this week that has made me feel sick. But nothing more so than pro-Palestine activists cheering the acts of Hamas, with protestors chanting "gas the Jews" in Sydney, all the while the world ignores it.
Click to expand...
There’s this trend I see amongst some pro-Palestinians where they basically apply the “all Palestinians are terrorists” logic to the Israelis.

“all Israelis are occupiers“

Haven’t really been focusing on this, just because those takes are relatively marginal and I think it’s a much bigger issue that the US and other western governments excuse Israel’s war crimes, but that stuff is still fucked up.

Like yeah, the creation of the state of Israel basically required an ethnic cleansing and the state has been doing tons of shitty things ever since. But you know what? The same can be said for America, and probably other colonial nations like Canada and Australia(although I’m not really knowledgeable about the history of those countries).

Yet you see tons of people in those very same countries celebrating when Israelis were murdered.

Murder is murder and murder is bad.
 
Adam 🍎

Adam 🍎

Pretty Boy
‎
#25,282
#25,282
Monkey D Theories said:
The same can be said for America, and probably other colonial nations like Canada and Australia(although I’m not really knowledgeable about the history of those countries).
Click to expand...
main difference is that this occurred 300 years ago. We ought to mature as species and we did. Rarely any American will say what settlers did was good in any capacity, but it happened and you gotta live with it and make sure it doesn't happen again

Israel is relatively new country that knows all of this... and yet we get all of this in this day and age
 
Monkey D Theories

Monkey D Theories

‎
#25,283
#25,283
Adam 🍎 said:
Rarely any American will say what settlers did was good in any capacity,
Click to expand...
I don’t know about that one

https://x.com/JasonSCampbell/status/1640429226724655105?s=20


Adam 🍎 said:
Israel is relatively new country that knows all of this... and yet we get all of this in this day and age
Click to expand...
Yeah that’s true but all Israelis aren’t “occupiers”.

The mizrahi, Somali Jews, as well as Jews from Afghanistan and Pakistan all fled to Israel after deteriorating conditions in their own countries and antisemitism.Not to mention the Holocaust survivors who were basically left with nothing after WWII.

Also israel was formed over 70 years ago and Israelis are now a distinct people with their own national identity. They were born and have lived their entire lives in the land.

The issue with israel isn’t that Jews are living in the land or that Jews are immigrating there. The issue is that the government doesn’t acknowledge the rights of Palestinians. It’s that Palestinians were murdered and had their land stolen by Israel.
 
Adam 🍎

Adam 🍎

Pretty Boy
‎
#25,284
#25,284
Monkey D Theories said:
I don’t know about that one

https://x.com/JasonSCampbell/status/1640429226724655105?s=20
Click to expand...
few idiots on twitter don't talk for entire nation of 300+ million people. While the genocide was atrocious the result was creation of USA and world balance being shifted towards democratic one rather than monarchist. Bad deed birthed a good one. But I wouldn't go as far to call it noble as he does

Monkey D Theories said:
Yeah that’s true but all Israelis aren’t “occupiers”.
Click to expand...
Every nation has immigration and emigration but Israel is literally only one that was gifted its own country. They did nothing to deserve it (you can argue holocaust here but Jews weren't only one that suffered in it, if you will give Jews nation based on it then other minorities like Gipsies should get it too), that piece of land exchanged hands so many times from Egyptians, Assyrians, Persians, Jews, Crusaders, Malamuks, Ottomans and so on, do they all now have claim to it?

Israel as a state was a mistake
 
Tobra

Tobra

‎
#25,285
#25,285
Adam 🍎 said:
Every nation has immigration and emigration but Israel is literally only one that was gifted its own country. They did nothing to deserve it (you can argue holocaust here but Jews weren't only one that suffered in it, if you will give Jews nation based on it then other minorities like Gipsies should get it too), that piece of land exchanged hands so many times from Egyptians, Assyrians, Persians, Jews, Crusaders, Malamuks, Ottomans and so on, do they all now have claim to it?

Israel as a state was a mistake
Click to expand...
it’s the most bizarre way a country ever came into existence

mass immigration and support from a colonial power, funding, training soldiers, sending their own soldiers to enforce then just leave, and continue getting funding from the west

israel never stood on its own legs in its entire history ever since its inception

and its still bizarre how israel is so media oriented like i never seen an entire country go after a celebrity like israel did after gigi hadid
 
Adam 🍎

Adam 🍎

Pretty Boy
‎
#25,286
#25,286
Tobra said:
it’s the most bizarre way a country ever came into existence

mass immigration and support from a colonial power, funding, training soldiers, sending their own soldiers to enforce then just leave, and continue getting funding from the west

israel never stood on its own legs in its entire history ever since its inception

and its still bizarre how israel is so media oriented like i never seen an entire country go after a celebrity like israel did after gigi hadid
Click to expand...
i might be wrong here, someone jewish might correct me here

But i think one of doctrines of jewish religion is that they are exiled people and they shouldn't have a nation
 
Monkey D Theories

Monkey D Theories

‎
#25,287
#25,287
Adam 🍎 said:
i might be wrong here, someone jewish might correct me here

But i think one of doctrines of jewish religion is that they are exiled people and they shouldn't have a nation
Click to expand...
That’s what the ultra orthodox believe. They think Jews can only create a state when the messiah comes.

I personally just focus on the ethics of it. It says in the Torah multiple times that murder is evil. The whole story of Cain and Abel is that we are responsible for the lives of our fellow humans.

If creating israel requires an ethnic cleansing, then it’s not moral.
Post automatically merged:

There are passages where God tells the Israelites to basically ethnically cleanse the land of Canaan. But that doesn’t apply to this because
  1. God specifically told the Israelites to do it in that specific scenario
  2. He told them to do it because they were pagans, whereas the Arabs literally pray to the same god as the Jews
  3. You can’t understand the Torah without also taking into account the oral law, aka the teachings of the rabbis. And while the Torah might say things that seem immoral they can only be understood within the context of the oral law. And there’s no fucking way rabbis like Maimonides would be okay with ethnic cleansing.
 
Last edited:
R

Roo

‎
#25,298
#25,298
Genocides are widely debated topics, it's not as simple as "X killed a bunch of innocent people".

Genocide is the intentional destruction of a people[a] in whole or in part. In 1948, the United Nations Genocide Convention defined genocide as any of five "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group". These five acts were: killing members of the group, causing them serious bodily or mental harm, imposing living conditions intended to destroy the group, preventing births, and forcibly transferring children out of the group. Victims are targeted because of their real or perceived membership of a group, not randomly.[
Click to expand...
I think often the main point of contention is intent

Intent
Under international law, genocide has two mental (mens rea) elements: the general mental element and the element of specific intent (dolus specialis). The general element refers to whether the prohibited acts were committed with intent, knowledge, recklessness, or negligence. For most serious international crimes, including genocide, the requirement is that the perpetrator act with intent. The Rome Statute defines intent as meaning to engage in the conduct and, in relation to consequences, as meaning to cause that consequence or being "aware that it will occur in the ordinary course of events".[57]

The specific intent element defines the purpose of committing the acts: "to destroy in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such". The specific intent is a core factor distinguishing genocide from other international crimes, such as war crimes or crimes against humanity.[citation needed]
Click to expand...
"Intent to destroy"
Main article: Genocidal intent
In 2007, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) noted in its judgement on Jorgic v. Germany case that, in 1992, the majority of legal scholars took the narrow view that "intent to destroy" in the CPPCG meant the intended physical-biological destruction of the protected group, and that this was still the majority opinion. But the ECHR also noted that a minority took a broader view, and did not consider biological-physical destruction to be necessary, as the intent to destroy a national, racial, religious or ethnic group as a social unit was enough to qualify as genocide
Click to expand...
The phrase "in whole or in part" has been subject to much discussion by scholars of international humanitarian law.[61] In the Ruhashyankiko report of the United Nations it was once argued that the killing of only a single individual could be genocide if the intent to destroy the wider group was found in the murder,[62] yet official court rulings have since contradicted this. The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia found in Prosecutor v. Radislav Krstic – Trial Chamber I – Judgment – IT-98-33 (2001) ICTY8 (2 August 2001)[63] that Genocide had been committed. In Prosecutor v. Radislav Krstic – Appeals Chamber – Judgment – IT-98-33 (2004) ICTY 7 (19 April 2004)[64] paragraphs 8, 9, 10, and 11 addressed the issue of in part and found that "the part must be a substantial part of that group. The aim of the Genocide Convention is to prevent the intentional destruction of entire human groups, and the part targeted must be significant enough to have an impact on the group as a whole." The Appeals Chamber goes into details of other cases and the opinions of respected commentators on the Genocide Convention to explain how they came to this conclusion.

The judges continue in paragraph 12, "The determination of when the targeted part is substantial enough to meet this requirement may involve a number of considerations. The numeric size of the targeted part of the group is the necessary and important starting point, though not in all cases the ending point of the inquiry. The number of individuals targeted should be evaluated not only in absolute terms but also in relation to the overall size of the entire group. In addition to the numeric size of the targeted portion, its prominence within the group can be a useful consideration. If a specific part of the group is emblematic of the overall group or is essential to its survival, that may support a finding that the part qualifies as substantial within the meaning of Article 4 [of the Tribunal's Statute]."[65][66]

In paragraph 13 the judges raise the issue of the perpetrators' access to the victims: "The historical examples of genocide also suggest that the area of the perpetrators' activity and control, as well as the possible extent of their reach, should be considered. ... The intent to destroy formed by a perpetrator of genocide will always be limited by the opportunity presented to him. While this factor alone will not indicate whether the targeted group is substantial, it can—in combination with other factors—inform the analysis
Click to expand...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top