Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

National Union of Students elects Malia Bouattia as president. Watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    It is ironic that you post this on the day that Naz Shaz resigns as John McDonnell's aide as a result of her anti-semitism.

    The Guardian, that bastion of the extreme right, had Jonathan Friedland, a liberal Zionist, say this a little while ago:

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...-jeremy-corbyn

    At the same time, in the Daily Telegraph:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...i-Semitic.html

    And John McDonnell himself called for more action against anti-Semitism by Labour:

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a6951371.html

    It doesn't appear to me as though the Labour party thinks it doesn't have a problem, so I think you are alone in your views.
    Re-read my points. You didn't understand them. Anybody who dares to criticise the Zionist apartheid is made into an antisemite by the Zionists within everywhere. There are false flag antisemitism incidents Are you one of them, or are you just one of their brainwashed subjects? Tony Blair infected the party with Zionists. They run the mainstream media, too. This transcends left and right. Zionists and their agents are everywhere.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by win7sony)
    Re-read my points. You didn't understand them.
    I must be stupid then, and can't give a valid opinion for that reason. Reading your posts again won't change that.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    [Q
    UOTE=Good bloke;64421979]I must be stupid then, and can't give a valid opinion for that reason. Reading your posts again won't change that.[/QUOTE]

    Are you a Mossad agent, or are you just one of their tools? Pro-Zionism is not an opinion, it's a state of psychological conditioning. They have weaved their way into every large organisation, to spread propaganda. Some people submit to it, others don't.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    There is no Palestinian carpet bombing of Israeli cities. If you define the missiles from Gaza as "carpet bombing", you're rendering the term meaninglessly broad.
    I define carpet bombing as the saturation of an area with munitions with the main goal being to maximise casualties and property damage, regardless of military significance. That is what the Palestinians do. And I do not believe that they do this for lack of technology, because before the fence was built when they were able to launch suicide bomb attacks, they chose the most populated and valuable of sufficiently lightly defended targets, not militarily significant targets.

    Firstly, to go back to the original point, this isn't about what I support, but about what Malia Bouattia might support (which is heavily clouded by people trying to infer what they want to hear from what was actually a pretty abstract speech). It is possible to disagree with a position, but still defend it from unjustified or exaggerated attacks.
    Malia Bouattia has expressed her support for current Palestinian carpet bombing tactics.

    Secondly, we're back to the question of support vs acceptance. In particular, context is important. Now, you can phrase this in many ways. You could say the ends justify the means, or that atrocities are merely an unfortunate by-product of a campaign, or even just portray it in lesser evil terms, but in a sense they're all the same - that the context of the struggle overrides that of individual atrocities (though they differ on whether it justifies them or merely minimises them).

    This is hardly a novel idea, it's been accepted in the cases of various armed struggles throughout history. Even Israel accepts it through the official rehabilitations and venerations of Irgun and Lehi terrorism.
    None of which is exclusive to Palestine. Nazis bombed London as an unfortunate by-product of a campaign to conquer Europe for what they regarded as good motives. Britain bombed Dresden as an unfortunate by-product of a campaign to conquer Germany for what they regarded as good motives.

    Either you have to accept reciprocity - in which case Israel wins the war in 5 minutes by using Palestinian carpet bombing and other brutal tactics - or you have to make an argument that the Palestinian cause is of superior moral worth to the Israelis, granting them the right to use more brutal tactics than the Israelis. This second one in fact is what Bouattia believes.

    Thirdly (and this is more of a side-point), genocide is not a moral concept, but a legal and sociological one. You might well hold the opinion that killing a small number of people is no morally different to killing a large number, but that has no bearing on the question of genocide.
    I do not think this is right, as otherwise genocide boils down to a time limit. If the Nazis had set up death camps that killed people only 1/10th as quickly, would it have ceased to be genocide? 1/100th? The idea is the thing.

    Now you later point out that the Palestinians would accept Israel's reconstitution as an Islamic State, in which of course Jews would have the right to live as supplicant Dhimmis in accordance with Islamic law. This is a much stronger argument that what the Palestinians are doing is not genocide. However it obviously still makes them look terrible, basically what the Germans planned to do to Britain, and makes more clear the Israel case for responding to Palestinian actions as Britain responded to German.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Happy97)
    Factual evidence, common sense and logic is thrown out of the window, when it doesn't agree with the opinions of certain individuals What can I say

    What factual evidence have you provided?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by win7sony)
    [Q
    UOTE=Good bloke;64421979]I must be stupid then, and can't give a valid opinion for that reason. Reading your posts again won't change that.
    Are you a Mossad agent, or are you just one of their tools? Pro-Zionism is not an opinion, it's a state of psychological conditioning. They have weaved their way into every large organisation, to spread propaganda. Some people submit to it, others don't.[/QUOTE]

    "He doesn't agree with my opinion. Must either not understand it or he is a Mossad mind control agent"
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KimKallstrom)
    "He doesn't agree with my opinion. Must either not understand it or he is a Mossad mind control agent"
    Spot on.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KimKallstrom)
    Are you a Mossad agent, or are you just one of their tools? Pro-Zionism is not an opinion, it's a state of psychological conditioning. They have weaved their way into every large organisation, to spread propaganda. Some people submit to it, others don't.
    "He doesn't agree with my opinion. Must either not understand it or he is a Mossad mind control agent"[/QUOTE]

    You write too well to be one of the sheeple who has fallen for Mossad propaganda. I therefore conclude that you are probably the agent allocated to this thread. You've been rumbled.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    I define carpet bombing as the saturation of an area with munitions with the main goal being to maximise casualties and property damage, regardless of military significance. That is what the Palestinians do.
    Saturation being the key word here. Carpet bombing is characterised by its (more or less) complete covering of a particular area in bombing damage, hence the carpet metaphor. Cities that have been carpet bombed don't look anything like Ashkelon does.

    Malia Bouattia has expressed her support for current Palestinian carpet bombing tactics.
    No, as I said above, she's expressed her support for "armed struggle" in a rather abstract way.

    None of which is exclusive to Palestine. Nazis bombed London as an unfortunate by-product of a campaign to conquer Europe for what they regarded as good motives. Britain bombed Dresden as an unfortunate by-product of a campaign to conquer Germany for what they regarded as good motives.
    And we are capable of judging those motives, regardless of whether they regarded them as good.

    Either you have to accept reciprocity - in which case Israel wins the war in 5 minutes by using Palestinian carpet bombing and other brutal tactics - or you have to make an argument that the Palestinian cause is of superior moral worth to the Israelis, granting them the right to use more brutal tactics than the Israelis. This second one in fact is what Bouattia believes
    I think your notion of reciprocity is questionable, but other than that, I accept there's a point here. And indeed, many have argue that the Palestinians are permitted to use more extreme tactics on account of it being a war of liberation akin to other such wars. Personally I think it more consistent to read this aspect of international law from the other end, i.e. it narrows what is permissible for Israel, rather than widening what is permissible for Palestinian movements.

    I do not think this is right, as otherwise genocide boils down to a time limit. If the Nazis had set up death camps that killed people only 1/10th as quickly, would it have ceased to be genocide? 1/100th? The idea is the thing.
    It would cease to be genocide when it could no longer be regarded as an act with an intent to destroy a group, in whole or part. While a specific number is hard to place (it also depends, in large part, upon the size of the group targeted), the Rwanda and Yugoslavia tribunals have broadly established that it must be "a considerable number" or "a substantial part of the group". While one could be convicted of attempt or conspiracy to commit genocide without being convicted of genocide itself, the former would generally still require some concerted and realistic effort to actually put it into practice. Merely having the idea is not sufficient, any more than having the idea to kill someone is in itself proof of attempted murder.

    Now you later point out that the Palestinians would accept Israel's reconstitution as an Islamic State, in which of course Jews would have the right to live as supplicant Dhimmis in accordance with Islamic law. This is a much stronger argument that what the Palestinians are doing is not genocide. However it obviously still makes them look terrible, basically what the Germans planned to do to Britain, and makes more clear the Israel case for responding to Palestinian actions as Britain responded to German.
    No, I said that's a more logical reading of the 1988 Hamas Charter. That's rather different to saying what "the Palestinians" in general believe, or even what Hamas believe now.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    Saturation being the key word here. Carpet bombing is characterised by its (more or less) complete covering of a particular area in bombing damage, hence the carpet metaphor. Cities that have been carpet bombed don't look anything like Ashkelon does.



    No, as I said above, she's expressed her support for "armed struggle" in a rather abstract way.



    And we are capable of judging those motives, regardless of whether they regarded them as good.



    I think your notion of reciprocity is questionable, but other than that, I accept there's a point here. And indeed, many have argue that the Palestinians are permitted to use more extreme tactics on account of it being a war of liberation akin to other such wars. Personally I think it more consistent to read this aspect of international law from the other end, i.e. it narrows what is permissible for Israel, rather than widening what is permissible for Palestinian movements.
    Then can I be clear whether you are making the Argument from Palestinian Ineptitude:

    "Palestinians should be permitted to blow up children in their beds because they are too inept to blow up soldiers in battle, the poor dears!"

    or the Argument from Palestinian Moral Superiority:

    "Palestinians should be permitted to blow up children in their beds because it is more important that an Arab-Islamic state be established in Palestine than that children be able to sleep safely in their beds."

    I believe that Bouattia accepts the second argument.

    It would cease to be genocide when it could no longer be regarded as an act with an intent to destroy a group, in whole or part. While a specific number is hard to place (it also depends, in large part, upon the size of the group targeted), the Rwanda and Yugoslavia tribunals have broadly established that it must be "a considerable number" or "a substantial part of the group". While one could be convicted of attempt or conspiracy to commit genocide without being convicted of genocide itself, the former would generally still require some concerted and realistic effort to actually put it into practice. Merely having the idea is not sufficient, any more than having the idea to kill someone is in itself proof of attempted murder.
    I still don't understand - speed of actual disposal has no bearing on the intent to eventually kill all of them. You might as well argue that the Holocaust wasn't an attempt at genocide because the Nazis were stopped before they achieved all their aims. In Yugoslavia a very small proportion of the total Muslim population was killed, yet many regard this as an attempted genocide.

    No, I said that's a more logical reading of the 1988 Hamas Charter. That's rather different to saying what "the Palestinians" in general believe, or even what Hamas believe now.
    The democratically elected government of Palestine.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    Then can I be clear whether you are making the Argument from Palestinian Ineptitude:

    "Palestinians should be permitted to blow up children in their beds because they are too inept to blow up soldiers in battle, the poor dears!"

    or the Argument from Palestinian Moral Superiority:

    "Palestinians should be permitted to blow up children in their beds because it is more important that an Arab-Islamic state be established in Palestine than that children be able to sleep safely in their beds."

    I believe that Bouattia accepts the second argument.
    These are nothing but emotional appeal strawmen.

    I still don't understand - speed of actual disposal has no bearing on the intent to eventually kill all of them. You might as well argue that the Holocaust wasn't an attempt at genocide because the Nazis were stopped before they achieved all their aims. In Yugoslavia a very small proportion of the total Muslim population was killed, yet many regard this as an attempted genocide.
    Attempted genocide is nominally on the Yugoslavia and Rwanda Tribunal statutes, but no-one has ever been charged with it. In the Yugoslavia case, for the most part, only Srebrenica has been legally considered genocide, because there an entire section of the population - all the men - were massacred. It's true that many scholars still argue that the whole Serb nationalist campaign in Bosnia, particularly in the spring and summer of 1992, was genocidal, though this argument alsoe generally depends on the broader crimes committed against the Bosniak population as part of this - it includes the home burnings, mosque destructions, expulsions, tortures, rapes, etc. The Serb nationalists sought to not just remove the Bosniak population, but to destroy signs of its past existence and destroy any possibility of its future return.

    Whether or not you accept this argument, it remains the case that it's about what Serb forces actually did do - not what they allegedly wanted to do.

    I don't see where you're inferring the issue of speed from? I don't think I've mentioned it.

    The democratically elected government of Palestine.
    By that logic, we should conclude that "the British" collectively hold the views expresed in the 1987 Conservative Manifesto.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    These are nothing but emotional appeal strawmen.
    No they are not.

    You have offered two justifications for the double standard of behaviour to which Israel and Palestine are held. First, you have suggested that what the Palestinians do is OK because, even though it's immoral in principle, it is not very effective:

    Saturation being the key word here. Carpet bombing is characterised by its (more or less) complete covering of a particular area in bombing damage, hence the carpet metaphor. Cities that have been carpet bombed don't look anything like Ashkelon does.
    I.e. killing civilians in small numbers is OK, but in large numbers is not; it is not intrinsically wrong to deliberately kill civilians.

    Second, you have suggested that the Palestinians simply have a right to wage war more brutally than the Palestinians:

    And indeed, many have argue that the Palestinians are permitted to use more extreme tactics on account of it being a war of liberation akin to other such wars.
    I.e. right wing causes are to be subjected to the laws of war, while left wing causes are to be exempt from them.

    I believe that no one really holds to the first principle, because the result of applying it honestly and fairly would simply be to make every war unwinnable: whenever one side becomes too weak, its freedom of action should be expanded more and more, while its opponent's freedom of action should be constricted more and more until it can do nothing. I find it more likely that, were the balance of forces reversed, people like Bouattia would simply argue that Israel should accept its defeat and leave the Middle East, and that the world should not object to the Palestinians butchering or subjecting any who choose to remain.

    So I believe that Bouattia holds to the second principle, and that she is just a partisan, with no moral belief in general laws governing warfare at all, only as "lawfare" to be applied unevenly to one's enemies.

    Attempted genocide is nominally on the Yugoslavia and Rwanda Tribunal statutes, but no-one has ever been charged with it. In the Yugoslavia case, for the most part, only Srebrenica has been legally considered genocide, because there an entire section of the population - all the men - were massacred. It's true that many scholars still argue that the whole Serb nationalist campaign in Bosnia, particularly in the spring and summer of 1992, was genocidal, though this argument alsoe generally depends on the broader crimes committed against the Bosniak population as part of this - it includes the home burnings, mosque destructions, expulsions, tortures, rapes, etc. The Serb nationalists sought to not just remove the Bosniak population, but to destroy signs of its past existence and destroy any possibility of its future return.

    Whether or not you accept this argument, it remains the case that it's about what Serb forces actually did do - not what they allegedly wanted to do.

    I don't see where you're inferring the issue of speed from? I don't think I've mentioned it.
    You have said that there is no such crime as "attempted genocide"; that success is required. Of course by this standard the Nazis never committed genocide either.

    By that logic, we should conclude that "the British" collectively hold the views expresed in the 1987 Conservative Manifesto.
    Held in 1988 - that would not be far from the truth.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Apologies for my delays in replying, I've been a bit busy recently.

    (Original post by Observatory)
    No they are not.

    You have offered two justifications for the double standard of behaviour to which Israel and Palestine are held. First, you have suggested that what the Palestinians do is OK because, even though it's immoral in principle, it is not very effective:

    I.e. killing civilians in small numbers is OK, but in large numbers is not; it is not intrinsically wrong to deliberately kill civilians.
    I didn't say it was OK, I simply said it's not carpet bombing.

    Second, you have suggested that the Palestinians simply have a right to wage war more brutally than the Palestinians:

    I.e. right wing causes are to be subjected to the laws of war, while left wing causes are to be exempt from them.
    I don't see how you've inferred a blanket right vs left distinction from what I said at all. I referred to wars of liberation. This is not me or anyone else simply stating what I think ought to be the case - the legitimacy of wars of liberation for self-determination is widely accepted as a part of international law.

    Now, the question is what that grants national liberation movements the right to do. Some have argued that it expands what is permissible relative to normal wars, as you. And as I've said, I personally am not sold on this - I think it's an interpretation dependent on less authoritative sources (such as GA resolutions) and confusing post-war amnesty for actions with those actions being permissible in the first place. A more consistent reading is that it restricts what the power denying self-determination, in this case Israel, is permitted to do.

    You have said that there is no such crime as "attempted genocide"; that success is required. Of course by this standard the Nazis never committed genocide either.
    You're incorrectly assuming genocide means simply the complete eradication of a group. Instead, the Genocide Convention defines it as:

    "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

    (a) Killing members of the group;
    (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
    (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
    (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
    (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

    This is of course, a legal definition designed so as to judge and punish perpetrators. Sociological definitions can be different, but few define it as narrowly as requiring complete and total eradication.

    Without going too much into genocide case law, it's worth noting firstly that courts have rarely if ever been confident enough to rule that b), d) or e) alone and independently can constitute genocide - some component of actual killing is required (c) usually means indirect killing by deliberate negligence rather than the direct killing implied by a)).

    Held in 1988 - that would not be far from the truth.
    That's a bizarre argument - that Palestinians voting for Hamas in 2006 proves that they held the same views as Hamas 18 years prior (when Hamas were one minor faction among many)?
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: May 18, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.