Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Sun Nov 17 01:12:46 PST 2019

Utopia Talk / Politics / Answers for Asgard II
jergul
large member
Mon Oct 14 14:28:53
Asgard
1. Israel has orchestrated several frozen conflicts and a number of western nations are complicit or enablers.

So, yah, frozen conflicts have costs.

2. Landgrabbing is bad because it fundamentally undermines the stability of the nation-state system.

This does in principle go back as far as the Israeli war for independence.

Nimi
Recognition follows from negotiations ending frozen conflicts and (partially) reversing land grabs.

Alternatively, normalizing relations by simply embracing multiculturalism, expanding voting rights to everyone in territory Israel defacto controls, and adopting immigration policies that are culturally blind (ie if you want the right of return, then it cannot be limited to one cultural group).

Either solution would fundamentally change Israel to a point that actually does question if a zionist state can exist over the long term.

Rugian
Member
Mon Oct 14 14:54:19
'2. Landgrabbing is bad because it fundamentally undermines the stability of the nation-state system."

Funny how this applies ONLY to the post-WWII era. I'd you happened to grab land on or before December 31, 1945, your actions are good fam.

Also worth noting that the 'undermining of the stability of the nation-state system' only seems to apply to Western nations; Eastern countries such as China and India can continue seizing as many Tibets and Aksai Chins and Goas as they like.

"Recognition follows from negotiations ending frozen conflicts and (partially) reversing land grabs."

Hence why Israel showed up to Camp David. And as their reward for good faith negotiating, the Palestiniansns started lynching people. Lesson learned on that one.
Rugian
Member
Mon Oct 14 15:02:24
The Palestinians have repeatedly and consistently proved that they cannot be entrusted with their own state.

At this point, the best solution would be for Israel to contract with Egypt and Jordan to grant citizenship to, say, 200,000 Palestinians a year, and to revoke the ability of those individuals to stay in the West Bank or Gaza following the issuance of compensation equal to FMV of any real property owned plus $5,000. The problem will thereby eventually resolve itself.
jergul
large member
Mon Oct 14 15:03:55
It has applied since 1648 Ruggy.



Rugian
Member
Mon Oct 14 15:06:46
Jergul,

And yet, borders in Europe have repeatedly changed since 1648, and somehow we have figured out how to live with it.
jergul
large member
Mon Oct 14 15:07:17
Ruggy
Or Israel could just give everyone the right to vote and let self-determination and devolution flow from a democratic framework.

The only alternative to a two state solution is a one state solution. Which is what we have now.
jergul
large member
Mon Oct 14 15:14:19
European Jews know better than most how well "we have figured out how to live with it". The whole rational for Israel in the first place is a safe haven for when other countries inevitably plunge into conflict driven chaos and need a practical scapegoat to genocide.
Forwyn
Member
Mon Oct 14 15:15:56
"self-determination"

That's funny, considering an EU member just handed down prison sentences commensurate with homicide cases to people who held a vote.
jergul
large member
Mon Oct 14 15:24:48
Fowyn
That is what you went with? A Nato member just made a huge land grab. I would have highlighted that.

Prison sentences commensurate with driving while black (to put it in American terms).

Seb
Member
Mon Oct 14 16:45:52
Rugian:

Then why not simply annex the west bank to Jordan and Gaza to Egypt?
Asgard
Member
Tue Oct 15 02:42:46
The Egyptians refused to take Gaza when signed the peace across with Israel on 1978.

The Jordanians had no demands to take back the West Bank during the peace accords with Israel in 1995

(unfortunately for both)
Because they both have a dislike for the Palestinians
jergul
large member
Tue Oct 15 03:45:44
Seb
Or acknowledge the facts on the ground and consider the palestinian enclaves to be part of Israel for all practical purposes including gauging to what extent Israel is a democratic country and a part of the West?

Asgard
You do know that Aparteid South Africa also tried the enclave strategy with Bantustani enclaves it unsuccessfully argued were not part of South Africa's political system, right?

My position currently is simply acknowleging that Israel has opted for a 1-state solution and is currently no longer a democracy.
Asgard
Member
Tue Oct 15 05:33:19
Of course Israel is an aparteid state. Not entirely but at least for the WB populous. I never argued otherwise, contrary to common belief here.

By the way, I asked it many times before but never got an actual answer from anyone:

Why didn't the Palestinians blow up Jordanian and Egyptian pubs and discos when they were under Jordanian/Egyptian rule?
A prize will be given to the person giving the right answer

Paramount
Member
Tue Oct 15 05:51:32
”Of course Israel is an aparteid state. Not entirely but at least for the WB populous”

Lol. Isn’t that like saying: ”Of course South Africa is an aparteid state. Not entirely but at least for the black populous”.
jergul
large member
Tue Oct 15 06:15:59
Asgard
Black September was actually a civil war between the Palestinians and Jordanian Army.

That was resolved by granting citizenship to Palestinian refugees.

Egypt has supported military training for most of the occupation period, so the reason would be similar to why Israel only rarely attacks US navy vessels.

Ultimately though, Israel defined to rules of engagement by the way it fought and continues to fight. In retrospect, bombing Hotel David may have been a bad idea.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue Oct 15 06:42:05
Asgard
Because they are Muslims. Self-determination is not as important when there is affinity between occupiers and those occupied.

Jergul
Black september was ”resolved” when the fedayeen were forced out of Jordan by the Jordanian military. Refugee citizenships was not part of any deal. All WB palestinians were granted Jordanian citizenship in 1951.
Asgard
Member
Tue Oct 15 07:00:30
Because they are Muslims?
That is racist.
It's like saying the IRA has no reason to didn't against Britain because they're all Christian.
This shows a blatant misunderstanding of the entire situation in your part
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue Oct 15 07:05:05
It's true though. People are "racist". It is captured in the old saying from WW2, "we chose Stalin because he speaks Russian". It is a sentiment I have heard between the lines when I have discussed Israel/Pal. Most recently with a (nominally) Muslim collegue on why he doesn't care about Morocco occupying West-Sahara. "What people are west Sahara? they are Arabs". Racist, wrong? Sure, but is pretty accurately describes a significant portion of how humans "reason".
Seb
Member
Tue Oct 15 07:41:19
Asgard, leaving aside black September, are you seriously arguing that because the Palestinians felt part of Jordan as equal citizens, that means the Israel can invade, occupy, and explicitly adopt a legal framework that treats them as a second class citizen?

So I need to point out how fucking absurd that is?
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue Oct 15 07:44:13
seb
I think you do need to point that and you should address it to the person who brought it up, namely yourself.

Asgard didn't assert anything, he asked a question.
Asgard
Member
Tue Oct 15 09:24:57
"Lol. Isn’t that like saying: ”Of course South Africa is an aparteid state. Not entirely but at least for the black populous”."
No.
Aparteid exists in the WB and Arabs suffer from it.
Aparteid does not exist in Israel proper (within 67' borders) and Arabs there are equal in any possible way. Socially, of course, there is racism but you can compare it to blacks in Louisiana.
Another great misunderstanding on your part as you continually assume Arabs live only in the WB
Asgard
Member
Tue Oct 15 09:26:45
"are you seriously arguing that ..."
Nope. As Nimi pointed out, that is entirely your assumption, I did not make it. The question is still open.
jergul
large member
Tue Oct 15 09:42:48
Nimi
Fair enough. My point was that Jordan had significant issues. Asgard seemed to suggest that Palestinians only caused trouble in the west in addition to in Israel.

"we chose Stalin because he speaks Russian"

Barely. It actually sounds like something that would get you shot for saying as it is pretty close to mocking his heavy Georgian accent.

Asgard
Apartheid targets people, not geography. Some Palestinians are excempt at they meet specific criteria.
Asgard
Member
Tue Oct 15 09:51:12
"Apartheid targets people, not geography. "

Again, accordig to the Israeli law, Arabs in 1967 borders are entirely equal to Jews. There is absolutely no disenfranchisement by law. Unlike the ***Military*** law that exists in the WB.
Asgard
Member
Tue Oct 15 09:52:05
Jergul, no, I don't suggest anything.
Do you have an answer to the question I asked?
jergul
large member
Tue Oct 15 10:03:00
I have answered it. Revised post:

Black September was actually a civil war between the Palestinians and Jordanian Army.

Egypt has supported military training for most of the occupation period, so the reason would be similar to why Israel only rarely attacks US navy vessels.

Ultimately though, Israel defined to rules of engagement by the way it fought and continues to fight.

You still have not answered what you think Israel's K/D ratio is.
Asgard
Member
Tue Oct 15 10:27:03
That does not even remotely communicate with my question.
Black September was in the 70s and after the occupation.
Seb
Member
Tue Oct 15 11:03:53
Nim:

Is a rhetorical question not an argument?
Seb
Member
Tue Oct 15 11:04:34
Asgard:

Explain to me how you think the question is relevant.
Asgard
Member
Tue Oct 15 12:51:22
well,

I'll try to lead you.

The Kurds are known to have blew up innocent people in Iraq/Syria/Turkey in order to gain independence.

They are Muslim,

So that already, goes against the incredibly stupid claim Jergul made, which said: "[the Palestinians did not blow up anything in Jordan/Egypt] Because they are Muslims. Self-determination is not as important when there is affinity between occupiers and those occupied."

So, we have now established that
1) Jergul is stupid
2) Jergul is wrong

Can you try and advance towards the right answer in his stead?
Asgard
Member
Tue Oct 15 14:14:26
Sorry, thought Jergul wrote it. I have to correct it to Nimi.
jergul
large member
Tue Oct 15 14:46:31
Asgard
It does not even remotely support your question you mean.

I never said anything of the sort. You suck at the socratic method. At best, it is a debating technique used by tards anyway.

My thesis is that self-determination is best expressed in a democratic context.

I no longer think a two state solution should be pursued before Palestinians gain citizenship rights in Israel (including its enclaves). It can Czek-slovak itself thereafter.
jergul
large member
Tue Oct 15 14:47:31
Posts did cross ironically. I was afk after beginning the post.
Seb
Member
Tue Oct 15 15:33:04
Asgard:

I'm sorry, still not clear. What do you think the answer to your question is?
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Thu Oct 17 13:31:27
Jergul
>>Fair enough. My point was that Jordan had significant issues. Asgard seemed to suggest that Palestinians only caused trouble in the west in addition to in Israel.<<

If we go back to what Asgard and I are both talking about, namely Muslim nutbags, I agree that they cause trouble everywhere, especially in Muslim countries. No one suffers and pays the price in blood as badly as other Muslims.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Thu Oct 17 13:35:30
seb
>>Is a rhetorical question not an argument?<<

What you did was summarize something no one said and then call it absurd. The term for that is "strawman".
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Thu Oct 17 13:48:59
>>Asgard
The Kurds are known to have blew up innocent people in Iraq/Syria/Turkey in order to gain independence.

They are Muslim<<

Only true to the degree that collateral damage is a part of conflict, I don't know of a systematic suicide bombing of buses, clubs etc among Kurds. However in this specific case I specifically said "Arabs" and was refering to ethnic affinity. Kurds are neither arabs nor Turks, they have very little cultural affinity with them.

Have you heard the Bedouin proverb "I, against my brothers. I and my brothers against my cousins. I and my brothers and my cousins against the world, my cousin and I against the World"

It perfectly illustrates the layers of tribalism and racism, the degrees of kinship.

But please, we are all DYING for the RIGHT answer.


Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Thu Oct 17 13:50:25
"I, against my brothers. I and my brothers against my cousins. I and my brothers and my cousins against the world"

Fixed
Seb
Member
Thu Oct 17 16:28:02
Nimatzo:

I asked him if he was suggesting something implied by his rhetorical question. That is not a strawman.

What do you think he meant by his question? I'm all ears. After all, firstly you appear to be interpreting his question in exactly the same way in your answer; secondly if you are willing to treat his obviously leading question as not having any point to make, surely you should afford my response, itself in the form of a question, the same treatment.

This is the problem with you Nim: you approach everything through a personal agenda.



Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Thu Oct 17 17:01:12
>>What do you think he meant by his question?<<

There is a method I use frequently to figure out what people mean, called "questioning". These so called "questions" rarely result in summarizing what I think the other person is saying and going "that would be ABSURD". Textbook example of the strawman fallacy.

>>you appear to be interpreting his question<<

Yes I try to interpret thing charitably, more so these days if I disagree with the person.

>>This is the problem with you Nim: you approach everything through a personal agenda.<<

Yes, the agenda where I view the Palestine/Israel conflict in many more nuances that you and Asgard combined. Sure, whatever makes you feel good.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Thu Oct 17 17:09:03
Asgard
I have to correct something, I did not say "arabs" I said "Muslims", but I did mean Arabs as I expanded with Morocco and West Sahara.
Asgard
Member
Thu Oct 17 18:13:11
" implied by his rhetorical question."

Rhetorical? no.

"But please, we are all DYING for the RIGHT answer."


FINNNNNNNE....!


*drumroll*


Well, it's a multilayered answer that Seb is not going to like any of its layers.

Let's begin with the question again:
Why didn't Palestinians blow up Jordanian and Egyptian pubs and discos when they were under Jordanian/Egyptian rule?

Answer:
1) The Palestinians are Jordanian/Egyptian.
The Palestinians living in the WB were your everyday Jordanians until 1967 came along. Same for the Egyptians in Gaza. The two entities, Gaza and WB have a population with pretty much nothing in common (same as, suppose, Basques and Catalonians). Sure, they speak the same language, believe in the same kind of Islam, but that is about it. They are not a people by their own historic background.
However - I am among the first who would say - if they want to define themselves as a people, by all means, let them be a people. It's not any different than a bunch of Jews from Russia and a bunch of Jews from Africa deciding they want to build a state together in the middle east. My personal views are not related, however, and are not the focus of the answer nor the question - I state again that the Palestinians decided to react with violence (or decided to react, at all) is the fact that they are suddenly under occupation by complete foreigners. Not too dissimilar with how Algerians BECAME Algerians because of the French occupation of N.Africa. I do not want to delve into the various tribes and factions and what they did to get the crown from their European overlords, but I'll just state this: The Jordanians (were) not a people either, before there was a Jordan. There were tribes, the Hashamite tribe (the Hussein tribe) was the strongest in the British's favor when they appointed them as the rulers.
So, to sum up the first layer - natural and even understandable fight for self determination when there was no reason for it prior.

Layer 2:
Many a people reacted against an occupier with various degrees of violence over the history of mankind. But ... and pay attention, Seb, my slowest student, this is critical, are you writing this down? ok -
The Palestinians serve, against their own will - mind you - as a proxy in a large, pan-Arabic, pan-Islamic war against Israel. Consider that all over the Arab world, all Palestinian refugees live in Refugee Camps, and have never naturalized (Jordan is an exception as the majority of its population are Pal. Refugees). Why? why not naturalize them? Well, to keep them in dirt-poor conditions, and inflame them, and use them as cannon fodder (prior to the First Lebanon-Israel war in the 80's, Israel was often infiltrated by Palestinian saboteurs who made some horrific massacres; they got weapons and were inflamed to violence by their non-accepting rulers in Lebanon and Syria, which forced Israel to invade).
The Palestinians are supported by the Arab Emirates with billions of dollars, as well as from Iran, Saudi Arabia, and others, and sometimes even for conflicting goals, as for instance, Saudis and Iranians dislike each other, to say the least, so each of them are pulling the Palestinians this way, and that way, for influence - all the while, inflaming everything even more.
Here is another angle...
Israel is also a pawn, a tool by the west - by the US, the EU and to a degree, Russia. We get money and guns (and more), which historically served to counter Soviet armies (the Syrians and Egyptians were armed and supported by the Soviets, and Israel was supported by the US and Europe. Most of the weapons were first pivoted against one another only in this small arena, in full scale wars, as a testing ground... It is the only place for example to ever had Mig to F15/16 dog fights.

Layer 3
Is the conflict here so special?
no. Months can go by without anyone dying on either side. Why the attention? why overshadow much more destructive conflicts in terms of death and suffering? Just take a look at any of the wars in Africa, the drug wars in S.America, the various endless conflicts in the Middle East?
Well,
1: it's easier to follow - big bad jews vs small innocent Palestinians. David and Goliath.
2: A clash of civilization: Nimi's racist remark is true to an extent: who cares about West Sahara being eaten by Morocco? both are arabs, both muslims, so who cares? getting into the details may make it too complicated to understand. Hell, even I don't want to get into it because it surely is much more complicated than I think. Let these Arabs kill one another, fine.
The focus on Israel which exists naturally, is also highlighted further by all parties with an interest to shift attention away from their own conflicts. The best example I can think of, is how the French acted immediately after the war of 1967: Up until then, the French supported Israel by providing it with Phantom jets, tanks, and other weaponry, as well as diplomatic support. However, once Israel defeated the Arab armies of 3 different countries, the French cut it all in a heartbit, and boycotted Israel for a long time. Why? Why did the French, of all people, decide this?
To shift attention away from the EXACT SAME THING THEY WERE DOING THEMSELVES in fucking Algeria, while massacring and killing thousands of Algerians.
Layer 4: PC culture, SJWs like you Seb, seem to be in love with Muslims, so much so that you would turn a blind eye when they disenfranchise gays and women, all so that their delicate souls can be equal to nasty white oppressors. Go pluralism... that is why even tards like Paramount can figure out reasons to justify a suicide bombing in a teenage dance club, while even the Palestinians themselves denounce it...
Layer 5: fuck it, I can go on all night. Want more?
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Fri Oct 18 02:52:34
>>Well, it's a multilayered<<

We agree.

I will restate: anyone who thinks Israel is somehow sitting on all the answers is naive, completely unfamiliar with the complicated history of this conflict. It did not start as self-determination, but it is largely about that now, but to seperate religion from it, well it sort of reminds me of Americans who argue that the civil war had nothing to do with slavery. Religious ideology, identity, ethnic identity, these things are all inseperable from this conflict. And while is share some things in common with the NI conflict, it also has significant differences.

Seb
You thought it was immaterial that I was being taught to hate Israel in school in Iran. It is rather obvious why this is untrue. Imagine a world where Catholic schools around the globe were teaching anti-British hatred. Irish textbooks were teaching kids to hate the British. Imagine how that would have complicated any prognosis for peace.

There are specific ways in which the religion of the Arabs have made it impossible for a Ghandi or Mandela to emerge. Not because such characters do not exist among Arabs, but because Islamic texts lend themselves so readily to militaristic interpetations and mandates quite ruthless silencing of dissent. The mere fact that both Jews and Muslims Believe the land to be holy promised to them by god, makes it an order of magnitude harder problem to solve than NI. The fact that the Palestinian plight is an issue of global concern that effects the relationship of Malaysia and Indonesia (?!)negatively with Israel, puts it in a category that can not be reduced to UK/NI.

Seb
Member
Fri Oct 18 06:30:19
Asgard:

Skimming your post, it's target obvious you haven't been reading mine.

The first point in Palestinian identity you admit isn't that relevant. If they choose to identify as a people now, catalysed by foreign occupation, you accept that as a reality.

The second point, that they are a proxy I referenced ages ago. The distinction is they are a proxy in as much as Israel refuses to pursue an independent peace with the Palestinians. This is what allows the issue to be exploited by Iran and others. It's a catastrophic strategic mistake that robs Israel of legitimacy in its conflict with its neighbours - an otherwise just war - by essentially rendering the Palestinians as hostages.

But it's also disingenuous: Israel isn't maintaining the occupation until it "can be sure" that Syria, Egypt and Jordan etc don't invade. It's also continually annexing territory.


Your third point is just "whataboutery" and doesn't need refutation and is in any case irrelevant to whether pals did or didn't blow up Jordanian nightclubs.

In all of this, you haven't actually come closer to a point.

None of these layers of analysis explain why you think that the fact that Palestinians didn't rebel against the govt of Jordan is pertinent now.

You were very careful I note to specify "nightclub", you know, I assume, that the annexation of Palestine by Jordan was opposed by the Arab League, that it was treated as a protectorate pending a full peace settlement. Nevertheless, Palestinians did do things like assassinate the Jordanian king.

So it's somewhat disingenuous again to suggest that there's this sudden awakening of Palestinian identity in response to Israel. Rather the growth of increasingly extreme terrorism reflects an intensifying of Palestinian frustration at occupation. In Jordan this manifested as Black September. In the West Bank and Israel, suicide bombing.

What this comes back to is that Israels policy remains motivated (dominantly in my view) with the desire to secure the resources of the West Bank in perpetuity.

In that sense, stopping and reversing settlements remain the essential move, and can be done entirely unilaterally without any threat to security Vis a vis neighbours and regional powers.

So again, I'm just not sure why you are asking questions about whether Palestinians attacked nightclubs or whatever in Jordan before 1967. How is it relevant to anything we have been discussing? None of the facts you raise are - by your own analysis - relevant to the points we were discussing.

Seb
Member
Fri Oct 18 07:10:17
Nim:

You are over interpretating the religious aspect and in doing so widening the issue.

Do you believe that for an IRA terrorist, their affinity for driving out what they see to be invaders is any less intense than the Palestinians for theirs?

The question is to what degree is the intensity correlated.

The reach of Palestinisns cause may be greater because of the affinity Muslims may feel for each other is greater than that Catholics feel for each other or view Irish Nationalism as a religious issue.

But the argument that the intensity of this correlates well both in terms of intensity and breadth such that a Muslim Arab immigrant is as likely to attack the West or through action or inaction support others in doing so as an Irish Catholic immigrant to the UK in the 1970s is to attack the UK or through action or inaction isn't true. The simple fact is the reverse is true; and in any case the liklihood in both cases for an individual is so low as to be fundamentally unjust to attempt to use the statistic as a guide to application of rights to that individual.

It simply doesnt matter that the reach is greater. In your statistical analysis you are dividing by n anyway to get a sense of the relative danger of the individual in front of you.

Ultimately, while the crap they teach in Iran is reprehensible, for the question in front of us: is it sensible or just for the UK to discriminate against Arabs because of Islamist terror in immigration or asylum cases, the answer is no. And obviously so, because it would be much more justified for the UK to apply such policies to Irish Catholics, and any one with half a brain can instantly see how wrong that is.




Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Fri Oct 18 14:02:19
>>Do you believe that for an IRA terrorist, their affinity for driving out what they see to be invaders is any less intense than the Palestinians for theirs?<<

On a group level yes, I believe it is less intense. You can find individuals equally intense, but you will simply find less people willing to join the IRA, fewer willing to blow themselves up. For one the entire Catholic community is not firmly on the NI side, sending them aid, support, weapons and creating UN resolutions to condemn the UK. That would have turned up the intensity quite a lot and negatively impacted the peace process. Lets go further in this alternate reality, where catholic France, Ireland, Spain and Portugal repeatedly attack the UK to "liberate" Norther Ireland. It would have no doubt made the situation a bit more complicated, it should be obvious. Your reductive view just does not capture the layered quagmire that Israel is in.

>>The reach of Palestinisns cause may be greater because of the affinity Muslims may feel for each other is greater than that Catholics feel for each other or view Irish Nationalism as a religious issue.<<

Indeed, this is what I am saying. Part of the why is that the Irish issue is rooted in ethnicity and nationalism, while the Palestine question is inseparable from the holy places and is rooted in religion. There are other factors, but only religion explains why countries like Malaysia and Indonesia or Iran for that matter can not have normal diplomatic relations with Israel.

>>It simply doesnt matter that the reach is greater.<<

Yea ok, but in the real world, if your cause has a greater reach, it matter quite a lot. It will attract more people, more money, more support etc. obvious stuff. If you have noticed this greater reach for Palestine ultimately has meant that a dozen countries (not counting NGOs) have in various capacities and decades, had a stake, a say in the conflict and the peace process. Further complications that NI/UK does not suffer from.

>>is it sensible or just for the UK to discriminate against Arabs because of Islamist terror in immigration or asylum cases<<

No, but then again I have never advocated for limiting immigration because of terrorism. The problems of segregation and exceeding the native capacity for assimilation are much greater IMO. Having said that no one should dismiss the negative psychological effects of terrorism on a society.
Seb
Member
Fri Oct 18 17:53:43
Nim:

You may believe it, but the counter terrorist institutions here believe the reverse and have said so.

The Muslim community being far more likely to report on terrorist activity than the Irish community was.

You seem to forget that the bulk of the IRA funding came from American Irish Catholics, and also the Protestant/Catholic sectarian low level conflict in Scotland that's entirely divorced from the Irish nationality issue but deeply intwined with the sectarian element of NI.

Basically, you are trying to impose your model against the facts here.

Again to are trying to argue that because the reach of the sectarian nature of the conflict is lower, the threat is less. But that's simply not true. The threat was actually greater and more concentrated, i.e. an Irish Catholic is "more likely" to be a terror that than an Arab Muslim to the UK. Period. So if the policy would have been wrong to apply to an Irish Catholic (which everyone tends to agree), is wrong to apply to an Arab Muslim.

This is the real world Nim. You are the one trying to reason your way to justifying a deeply unjust policy through abstractions.

"No, but then again I have never advocated for limiting immigration because of terrorism"

But Asgard explicitly is. As I said, you have been substituting your thoughts for his.

Regarding assimilation, doesn't the much higher rate of informing on terrorist threats by the Muslim community compared to the Irish community on the mainland demonstrate that, at least from a security perspective, the Muslim community have assimilated better? I don't think that's really debatable. You can argue the similarities between Protestant and Catholic Vs Islam till the cows come home, but when the chips are down British Muslims are more likely to take action to prevent an attack on society than the Irish Catholics were in the 70s.

So any failure to assimilate or accept assimilation in other areas - if there is such - can't at least be labelled a potential security threat.
jergul
large member
Sat Oct 19 07:50:20
Seb
Would you agree that the deradicalization of Irish Catholics since the 1970s correlates with

1. Greater prosperity
2. Greater secularization
3. Better civic instittions
4. Higher education levels
5. An older population

Asgard
Those 5 points are your roadmap for peace.
jergul
large member
Sat Oct 19 07:53:24
Wow, I did not expect so close a correlation. The low point in age for ireland (a placeholder for NI) was in 1975.

http://www...-of-the-population-in-ireland/

Seb
Member
Sat Oct 19 15:36:39
Jergul:

Yes, but creation of those conditions was also underpinned by a very careful and deliberate political and military strategy to make it as hard as possible for the IRA to claim the UK was occupying the north.

The situation is not exact as we wished to retain the north with its population as citizens, whereas many Israeli govts clearly wished to retain the west bank with its population not being citizens.

Bit in so far as we buy the idea that Israel wants a two state solution, they ought to have been nurturing a political process and institutions while protecting the bulk of Palestinians from the conflict, not engaging in measures designed to punish them.


jergul
large member
Sun Oct 20 09:34:06
Seb
To be fair, the British had a lot of experience at that point on how to fuck up and not fuck up decolonization.

Israel seems still caught up on wwii (or perhaps merely Stalinism given no election can be won without support from the former USSR), but for some perverse reason thinks that camps, protectorates, and attacks are worthy of emulation.

They are getting it wrong. A basis for understanding would be that the default is the current one-state solution (including enclaves) until a 2-state solution evolves.

It is helpful if the rest of us understand this and help our Israeli friends understand how truly undemocratic their system is.

That is is no worse than what Jews faced many places in the 19th century is not an excuse.

Seb
Member
Sun Oct 20 13:43:30
Jergul:

It's a mistake to look Ireland and particularly NI through a lens of colonialism.

The Irish were quite happy to fight for their Scottish Catholic king to rule over England. They just lost and got an English dictator and then a Dutchman.

The bulk of the settler's into Ireland were Scots (and prior to the act of Union).

And of course the Northern Irish unionist protestants are a majority and distinct from either any of the mainland Nations and the Republic in their own identity.

Calling Ireland or NI a colony is simplistic as calling England a French or German colony.


jergul
large member
Sun Oct 20 14:02:02
Seb
My point was that the skill-set was applicable.

NI was hardly an integrated part of the United Kingdom's political system (when was universal sufferage introduced? Sometime in the 1970s we can only hope).

There is no doubt that NI was part of a colony and can and should be viewed through the lense of colonialism. A policy of plantation does not change that, and is in fact a key aspect of colonialism everywhere (despite tropical diseases that limited it effect in some places).

Heh, I just learned to origns of the expression "beyond the pale".
Seb
Member
Sun Oct 20 15:46:19
jergul:

That's rather my point: the plantations being organised by a Scottish King from Scotland at a time when Scotland had a separate government.

So describing it as a British colony seems to me as wrong as it would have been to describe the Irish army that got as far as the outskirts of London under Charles I (James's Catholic son) as an "invading, colonial army intent on putting England under the yoke of the King of Ireland and his Government".

What you have is a bunch of trans-national monarchs - playing divide and rule off the back of the Norman conquests.

Ireland didn't cease to have it's own government until 1801.
jergul
large member
Sun Oct 20 16:01:36
Seb
That quote shows that Ireland was viewed through to scope of colonialism at quite an early juncture.

I am indifferent to who colonized NI first.

When did India cease to have its own government?

============

From what I can see, universal suffrage was introduced in June 1969 before being repressed by martial law and direct rule from London.
Seb
Member
Sun Oct 20 16:31:53
Jergul:

Or, to put it another way, the NI parliament was finally forced to introduce universal suffrage under pressure from London to remove the systematic discrimination against Catholics, including blatant gerrymandering that robbed Catholics of their representation; but as the Protestant controlled governemnt continue to use it's security forces to violently crack down on Catholics, and refused to hand control of the forces over to London, it was removed.

Subsequent attempts to put together a properly representative assembly were boycotted by Unionists.
jergul
large member
Sun Oct 20 16:40:16
Take up the White Man's burden—
⁠In patience to abide,
To veil the threat of terror
⁠And check the show of pride;
By open speech and simple,
⁠An hundred times made plain,
To seek another's profit,
⁠And work another's gain.
Seb
Member
Sun Oct 20 16:55:18
Jergul:

Recall at this point NI had been independent in 1921 and voted for union.

So this was effectively a federal government intervening against a states government that was abusing federal citizens.
jergul
large member
Mon Oct 21 06:47:21
Invoking a federal model to dispute a colonial explanation is a particularly weak line of reasoning.
show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message:
Bookmark and Share