Israeli–Palestinian conflict

[David]

[stui magpie]

You said I was a supporter of Ethnic cleansing which is an imbecilic statement of the first order.

[Magpietothemax]

You said I was a supporter of Ethnic cleansing which is an imbecilic statement of the first order.

But your words, the ones i highlighted in bold are those of an advocate for ethnic cleansing. Read David's contribution above.
Hopefully, you don't consciously support ethnic cleansing.
But at least have the self-awareness to avoid making comments that literally support it.

[stui magpie]

I should have known better than to play chess with a pigeon.

[Magpietothemax]

I should have known better than to play chess with a pigeon.

Ha Ha,
I think you should definitely avoid chess altogether. A guy like you will find himself in zugzwang far too often.

[pietillidie]

Why is there no similar outrage over slaughters happening in Sahel, Somalia, Lake Chad Basin, Mozambique, and North Africa?

Well nothing could be clearer. You are a supporter of ethnic cleansing.

That's just textbook fundamentalism, which is basically a reactive grasping for a sense of self-efficacy through unreasonable control, including through silly mental formulae like these, which simply don't capture the complexity of people and the world.

I get it, but you're basically putting everyone else in the impossible position of solving that battle for you when they themselves are bogged down in their own struggles.

A bit like form in football, things are never as bad or good as people think. But there you are, retreating into that impossible, unreasonable all-nothing world.

[Magpietothemax]

Why is there no similar outrage over slaughters happening in Sahel, Somalia, Lake Chad Basin, Mozambique, and North Africa?

Well nothing could be clearer. You are a supporter of ethnic cleansing.

That's just textbook fundamentalism, which is basically a reactive grasping for a sense of self-efficacy through unreasonable control, including through silly mental formulae like these, which simply don't capture the complexity of people and the world.

I get it, but you're basically putting everyone else in the impossible position of solving that battle for you when they themselves are bogged down in their own struggles.


A bit like form in football, things are never as bad or good as people think. But there you are, retreating into that impossible, unreasonable all-nothing world.

Huh??

[pietillidie]

^Do you really want me to explain? It's got nothing to do with the Israel-Palestine problem. It's that you are both framing this particular matter as a you-world problem, which is classic fundamentalism.

Basically, it's an immature reaction to internal feelings of low control (low self-efficacy, worth, etc.). But rather than deal with those inner deficits productively, the person looks for opportunities to displace them by seeking out [I'm good/special/righteous] - [they're bad/common/unrighteous] scenarios, often expressed in simple syllogistic formulae.

E.g., if you don't confirm the US is the Great Satan now, you're supporting ethnic cleansing.

E.g., if you don't focus on all of the world's problems equally, your moral concerns in this instance are illegitimate

Thus confirming that I'm [good/special/righteous], and everyone else is [bad/common/unrighteous].

It's actually a sorry signal of frailty and vulnerability, so in many ways we can't condemn you for it. The problem is that people don't have the wherewithall to engage that shite because they have their own life challenges. Self-efficacy and worth-building are tasks for specialists, not the average person just trying to get by.

Of course, there are other ways of framing the problem without putting people in that position. We all make that mistake, but you have to try or you'll regret the years trapped in that corner.

[Magpietothemax]

^Do you really want me to explain? It's got nothing to do with the Israel-Palestine problem. It's that you are both framing this particular matter as a you-world problem, which is classic fundamentalism.

Basically, it's an immature reaction to internal feelings of low control (low self-efficacy, worth, etc.). But rather than deal with those inner deficits productively, the person looks for opportunities to displace them by seeking out [I'm good/special/righteous] - [they're bad/common/unrighteous] scenarios, often expressed in simple syllogistic formulae.

E.g., if you don't confirm the US is the Great Satan now, you're supporting ethnic cleansing.

E.g., if you don't focus on all of the world's problems equally, your moral concerns in this instance are illegitimate

Thus confirming that I'm [good/special/righteous], and everyone else is [bad/common/unrighteous].

It's actually a sorry signal of frailty and vulnerability, so in many ways we can't condemn you for it. The problem is that people don't have the wherewithall to engage that shite because they have their own life challenges. Self-efficacy and worth-building are tasks for specialists, not the average person just trying to get by.

Of course, there are other ways of framing the problem without putting people in that position. We all make that mistake, but you have to try or you'll regret the years trapped in that corner.

This is a load of false amalgams and gibberish.
It is also a sign of your own lack of self-confidence. Accusing a person who does not agree with you of self-righteousness, while proving totally incapable of addressing in any rational way their actual argments, is a sign of self-doubt and fear.

[stui magpie]

[What'sinaname]

^^ what he said.

I just said asked why no one cares about genocide in Africa.

[Magpietothemax]

^^ what he said.

I just said asked why no one cares about genocide in Africa.

It is not that no one cares about genocide in Africa. It is that capitalist governments and the capitalist media do not care about genocides which are occurring in regions which do not hold immediate, critical geostrategic significance.
Rather, they hold these genocides on the back burner. If, due to some change in the situation, one of the genocides occurring in Africa assumes an immediate and decisive significance, then we will suddenly see plastered all over the media horrifying and cynical photos demonising one or other sides in the genocide. Which side is demonised and which side is favoured will depend upon which is a proxy for imperialism, and which side is cutting across the interests of imperialism, or is a direct target of imperialism.

[Magpietothemax]

I'm not supporting Ethnic Cleansing, I'm trying to look at what's the best result for the people in Gaza using this current shit show as the starting point.

Regardless of what you think you are saying, you literally are advocating ethnic cleansing.

Any right wing extremist of the Netahanyu government would fully agree with your propositions.

What about an alternative scenario:
a) an immediate ceasefire
b) Israel and the US immediately supply massive humanitarian aid and rebuild all the infrastructure they have destroyed in Gaza, to allow the Palestinian population to return to their homes and live in decent quality accommodation with access to all essential social facilities. The rebuilding program will be so massive that in the immediate term there will be full employment in Gaza.
c) Israel immediately lifts the economic blockade of Gaza and
and declares that Israel is no longer an ethno centric fascist state, and that Palestinians have full rights and equality with all Jewish citizens. The profits of all companies made during the war on Gaza will be confiscated and used for the reconstruction of Gaza and the rejuvenation of its economy.

That is a scenario which is actually achievable in financial terms, and opposes ethnic cleansing. Naturally, it will never take place precisely because the agenda of both Netahayu and the US government is ethnic cleansing and genocide.

[lazzadesilva]

^^ what he said.

I just said asked why no one cares about genocide in Africa.

It is not that no one cares about genocide in Africa. It is that capitalist governments and the capitalist media do not care about genocides which are occurring in regions which do not hold immediate, critical geostrategic significance.
Rather, they hold these genocides on the back burner. If, due to some change in the situation, one of the genocides occurring in Africa assumes an immediate and decisive significance, then we will suddenly see plastered all over the media horrifying and cynical photos demonising one or other sides in the genocide. Which side is demonised and which side is favoured will depend upon which is a proxy for imperialism, and which side is cutting across the interests of imperialism, or is a direct target of imperialism.

This comment is spot on. During the war in Sri Lanka between the SL army and the terrorist Tamil Tigers, it was bloody obvious that if SL had oil instead of tea leaves, the US would have got involved in a flash to aid the SLA defend their oil reserves. It is always dependent upon what significant benefit they get.

[stui magpie]

^

OK, so you rebuild what was there before. What are they going to do for an economy?

Since the first city was built there by Egypt, the "locals" have coat tailed off it's location as a trading port. It's always been owned and built by other empires and nations, the locals just lived there. When the various empires abandoned the area the locals went back to farming and fishing to survive. Rebuild everything so they have somewhere to live, where does the employment come from? The taxes that a government needs to provide services?

Rebuild it and all you have is a very large public housing estate relying on charity and aid.