US recognizes Jerusalem as capital of Israel

[T.Lex]

Where? Did I miss something?

Oh, maybe. Sorry. There was a lot going on at that point in the thread.

So with regards to Israel, that formulation gets a bit awkward.

Palestinians from certain areas are confined to those areas and can only cross over from certain checkpoints with certain papers. There's a nominal Palestinian Authority government, but realistically it is at Israel's mercy.

The Palestinians could probably put together a fair case that they have been oppressed.

(Obviously, the various Palestinian factions do not have clean hands, either.)

Which was in response to your formulation of:

If you're fighting for freedom to oppress or kill people, that's not a freedom fighter, it's a ****ing terrorist.

To be fighting for freedom, you kinda need to be fighting to be free from some kind of tyranny or real oppression. And not just the nonsense "oppression" in the postmodern sense.

The Palestinians - as a group - have a defensible claim to being oppressed.

After that, I think you (and others) migrated to a position where the people claiming oppression may have brought it on themselves, which would put them back in the "terrorist" group and not the "freedom fighter" group.

Which caused me to suggest that there may be defensible oppression. That is, taking away certain rights of a group of people with certain characteristics may be defensible. At least, it sounds like some are defending it.

This Readers Digest Abridged Version has been brought to you by Retro World Time Machine Company.

(Is Readers Digest still a thing?)

 

[jamil]

Okay. I guess I didn't miss anything.

So with regards to Israel, that formulation gets a bit awkward.

Palestinians from certain areas are confined to those areas and can only cross over from certain checkpoints with certain papers. There's a nominal Palestinian Authority government, but realistically it is at Israel's mercy.

The Palestinians could probably put together a fair case that they have been oppressed.

(Obviously, the various Palestinian factions do not have clean hands, either.)

My response to that was "They could stop trying to blow **** up. Maybe they'd be 'oppressed' less."

Let me unpack that quip:

Oppression can refer to an authoritarian regime controlling its citizens via state control of politics, the monetary system, media, and the military; denying people any meaningful human or civil rights; and terrorizing the populace through harsh, unjust punishment, and a hidden network of obsequious informants reporting to a vicious secret police force.

I think this serves as a useful definition of oppression at the scale of a state. Note the malicious intent implied in the wording. Of course both sides have their own view of things. But there is a view which considers all the truths of both sides, ignoring all the lies from both sides, to form a combined view. So Palestinians could probably put together a case that they have been oppressed, but they'd have to omit the facts that might contribute to why Israel has to do the checkpoints, and papers, and all that. If Palestinians DIDN'T blow Israelis up, and fire missiles into Israeli neighborhoods, would Israel have those restrictions? Probably not.

Also, in justifying the restrictions Israel has on Palestinians, they tend to omit the parts about the controversial settlements, which helps prompt the violence of Palestinians against Israelis.

So there are definitely two sides of the story. Let's step away from sides. Let's strip away all the embellishments, and lies, and false claims, and intentional omissions--drop the tribal side-taking. Look at the claims from both sides. What's true? What's false? What is each side omitting? Why are they omitting it? Do Palestinians really have a legitimate claim to say they're freedom fighters, fighting a repressive regime? No. I'm pretty sure if Palestinians stopped blowing people up, the restrictions placed on Palestinians would eventually go away as trust developed.

Undoubtedly Israel could do more to foster trust from the Palestinians, but they've been given many opportunities for that, and they've declined.

My friend, you mistake my point.

My friend jamil posted a formulation of the (tired) freedom fighter v. terrorist dichotomy based on the oppression of the fighter. Even that notion is in the eye of the beholder.

I do not doubt Israel's focus on her own security made such regulations important. Perhaps even required.

Within the quantification of "oppression" though, those are troublesome demerits. They go beyond a focus on the terrorists and oppress the rights of others. Yes, because of the terrorists, but that wasn't part of the original formulation.

Apparently it has morphed into a "unless they deserve the oppression" theory.

I didn't invoke the tired saying. I threw it on the trash heap where it belongs. As explained above, I did not morph it into an "unless they deserve the oppression". Note that I did not claim that oppression was justified. I implied through a quip that it isn't oppressive for a classically liberal democracy to defend itself from suicide bombers. Don't strap bombs to yer ass and detonate them in crowded markets, and maybe you won't be restricted from crowded markets.

 

[T.Lex]

So there are definitely two sides of the story. Let's step away from sides. Let's strip away all the embellishments, and lies, and false claims, and intentional omissions--drop the tribal side-taking. Look at the claims from both sides. What's true? What's false? What is each side omitting? Why are they omitting it? Do Palestinians really have a legitimate claim to say they're freedom fighters, fighting a repressive regime? No. I'm pretty sure if Palestinians stopped blowing people up, the restrictions placed on Palestinians would eventually go away as trust developed.

Wait.

This paragraph is where I have the problem.

You start of with "strip away the embellishments," etc., then end with lumping ALL Palestinians in together. That's embellishment. Taking away the rights of ALL Palestinians, because of some Palestinians, is actually, literally, justifying oppressive regulations (if not outright oppression) on the basis of "its for security."

Let's at least recognize it for what it is.

Perhaps a different example would be helpful. The Soviets justified all sorts of oppression because of security concerns. What makes that different?

 

[jamil]

Oh, maybe. Sorry. There was a lot going on at that point in the thread.



Which was in response to your formulation of:


The Palestinians - as a group - have a defensible claim to being oppressed.

After that, I think you (and others) migrated to a position where the people claiming oppression may have brought it on themselves, which would put them back in the "terrorist" group and not the "freedom fighter" group.

Which caused me to suggest that there may be defensible oppression. That is, taking away certain rights of a group of people with certain characteristics may be defensible. At least, it sounds like some are defending it.

This Readers Digest Abridged Version has been brought to you by Retro World Time Machine Company.

(Is Readers Digest still a thing?)

Maybe this is redundant given my last post, but worth it to me to say, it is only arguably oppression if you take only their side of it. I'm sure they feel oppressed. Try not bombing your "oppressors" and maybe they'll let you walk among them freely, as a classically liberal democracy should. It's not a defense of oppression. It's a denial that it IS oppression. It's a defense of the duty for the state to defend its people against aggression, one of the true legitimate powers of the state. That's not oppression.

 

[jamil]

Wait.

This paragraph is where I have the problem.

You start of with "strip away the embellishments," etc., then end with lumping ALL Palestinians in together. That's embellishment. Taking away the rights of ALL Palestinians, because of some Palestinians, is actually, literally, justifying oppressive regulations (if not outright oppression) on the basis of "its for security."

Let's at least recognize it for what it is.

Perhaps a different example would be helpful. The Soviets justified all sorts of oppression because of security concerns. What makes that different?

Well, c'mon. Do I have to say everything? My posts are long enough. You should know my thinking well enough to infer the obvious stuff. How many times have I droned on about how groups aren't monoliths? Please credit me with still believing that, and interpret what I say in the way that is consistent with what I've said.

I do not lump all Palestinians together. I lump the people who advocate and carry out attacks on Israel together. As I said, Israel isn't totally innocent. There's a grey area where the Israelis are in the wrong too. Given the circumstances though, I'm not sure how appropriately discriminating the Israelis can be. There are enough Palestinians blowing themselves up to make it an existential threat. I don't really know the answer for that. But it would be helpful if the peaceful Palestinians could cooperate more, and put better distance between them and the militants.

 

[Fargo]

Maybe this is redundant given my last post, but worth it to me to say, it is only arguably oppression if you take only their side of it. I'm sure they feel oppressed. Try not bombing your "oppressors" and maybe they'll let you walk among them freely, as a classically liberal democracy should. It's not a defense of oppression. It's a denial that it IS oppression. It's a defense of the duty for the state to defend its people against aggression, one of the true legitimate powers of the state. That's not oppression.

Since we are on the topic of bombing your "oppressors", what should the British reaction have been after the bombing of the King David Hotel and adjacent street?

 

[T.Lex]

Maybe this is redundant given my last post, but worth it to me to say, it is only arguably oppression if you take only their side of it. I'm sure they feel oppressed. Try not bombing your "oppressors" and maybe they'll let you walk among them freely, as a classically liberal democracy should. It's not a defense of oppression. It's a denial that it IS oppression. It's a defense of the duty for the state to defend its people against aggression, one of the true legitimate powers of the state. That's not oppression.

Well, oppression certain exists, right? So when does it cross that line?

I feel like we're really just back to "I know it when I see it" or "it depends on if I agree or not."

Well, c'mon. Do I have to say everything? My posts are long enough. You should know my thinking well enough to infer the obvious stuff. How many times have I droned on about how groups aren't monoliths? Please credit me with still believing that, and interpret what I say in the way that is consistent with what I've said.

I do not lump all Palestinians together. I lump the people who advocate and carry out attacks on Israel together. As I said, Israel isn't totally innocent. There's a grey area where the Israelis are in the wrong too. Given the circumstances though, I'm not sure how appropriately discriminating the Israelis can be. There are enough Palestinians blowing themselves up to make it an existential threat. I don't really know the answer for that. But it would be helpful if the peaceful Palestinians could cooperate more, and put better distance between them and the militants.

Well, first, I guess I should include more smilies or something.

It may seem like I'm picking on your posts, but that's only because I find them interesting, and you are an interesting person to engage with. (Assuming you're not some sort of advanced Turing test. Wait. Maybe assuming I'm not some kind of advanced Turing test.)

Second, that gray area is really what is interesting to me. Which, in the years we've interacted, you've also probably picked up on.

And, I know the Israel example is chock full of emotion. Understandable. That's also why it presents such fascinating case study. There are many layers to it. Like an onion. Or an ogre.

 

[jamil]

Since we are on the topic of bombing your "oppressors", what should the British reaction have been after the bombing of the King David Hotel and adjacent street?

It was a terrorist act by a terrorist group. Seems reasonable to treat them like terrorists. Certainly Irgun can't legitimately claim to be "freedom fighters", right?

 

[jamil]

Well, oppression certain exists, right? So when does it cross that line?

I feel like we're really just back to "I know it when I see it" or "it depends on if I agree or not."

I like to poke fun at the Libertarians for thinking the non-aggression principle can be scaled to societies. But it is a useful concept to decide who is in the right about something once all the facts are known. You know it if someone's use of force is justified by the facts. Of course it requires a fair review of the facts apart from the sides fighting.

Well, first, I guess I should include more smilies or something.

It may seem like I'm picking on your posts, but that's only because I find them interesting, and you are an interesting person to engage with. (Assuming you're not some sort of advanced Turing test. Wait. Maybe assuming I'm not some kind of advanced Turing test.)

Second, that gray area is really what is interesting to me. Which, in the years we've interacted, you've also probably picked up on.

And, I know the Israel example is chock full of emotion. Understandable. That's also why it presents such fascinating case study. There are many layers to it. Like an onion. Or an ogre.

I don't think you're picking on my posts. It's that if I think you're responding to me in a way which makes me think you mistook what I said, I'm gonna say something. For example the thing about justifying oppression because they deserved it. Wasn't what I was saying. I was saying that's not oppression.

 

[Fargo]

It was a terrorist act by a terrorist group. Seems reasonable to treat them like terrorists. Certainly Irgun can't legitimately claim to be "freedom fighters", right?

As of 2006, Benjamin Netanyahu was still defending it as legitimate.

 

[jamil]

As of 2006, Benjamin Netanyahu was still defending it as legitimate.

I was not aware. Seems to confirm my distrust. I think when the dust settles, what's left has Israel more in the right than not. But there's a lot of **** in the dust that people should acknowledge.

 

[JettaKnight]

I have a level of respect for someone that truly believes they are defending their homeland and wants to fight like a man. But when you use innocent old men, women and children as human shields or harm them because they even spoke to your enemy or didnt, among other things then you are a coward and a ***** and an animal and a terrorist and do not get respect or deserve any quarter. You deserve to ****ing die

QFT.

 

[T.Lex]

I was not aware. Seems to confirm my distrust. I think when the dust settles, what's left has Israel more in the right than not. But there's a lot of **** in the dust that people should acknowledge.

See, you say things like that and then it seems like we are not so far apart.

 

[indiucky]

Jenna Jameson's twitter feed yesterday was awesome...Plus I got 2 likes from her and she responded to me via tweet that my tweet was "awesome"....

Wife thought the first like was cute....Not so much the second...

 

[jamil]

Now I'm going to have to look.

 

[T.Lex]

This got me thinking of other awkward situations. The Contras and Sandinistas came to mind.

 

[Dead Duck]

Jenna Jameson's twitter feed yesterday was awesome...Plus I got 2 likes from her and she responded to me via tweet that my tweet was "awesome"....

Wife thought the first like was cute....Not so much the second...

Wait-
You can feed Jenna Jameson's twitter?

 

[T.Lex]

Wait-
You can feed Jenna Jameson's twitter?

Why not? I think Trump has....

 

[indiucky]

Wait-
You can feed Jenna Jameson's twitter?

Nah...I follow her so she feeds mine...

 

[indiucky]

Why not? I think Trump has....

She is funny....The way she handles the obvious flack she gets from her past career is handled with a razor sharp wit...Her husband is IDF so she was very happy yesterday and the more radical element were trying their best to tear her down and they failed miserably...