7 ms·

I don't understand how you can disagree that generally, "territory unencompassed by anything strongly resembling a state is a favourable place to construct a st

by gershy 2mo ago

I don't understand how you can disagree that generally, "territory unencompassed by anything strongly resembling a state is a favourable place to construct a state". Surely you don't agree with its negation?? I'm guessing you meant to say that you do agree in general, but in israel's specific case you have a list of "grievances" which, in sum, outweigh this general principle? If that's correct, then it sounds like your grievances are (1) the builders of israel used terror against the british and were ungrateful to them (2) local arabs were opposed to the construction of the state of israel (3) since the construction of israel, the rights of arabs there have been impacted (4) the territory of israel was not fully purchased from some other entity (5) the right of diaspora jews to return to the land of their ethnogenesis "expired" over the course of ~3000 years (6) you don't support ethnostates. I want to understand if this is a nearly exhaustive list, and I would like to know the nature of how these points sum together in such a way that opposes you to israel: e.g., is there any single point that alone would maintain your opposition to israel? (Imagine you somehow changed your mind on all points but one of them at random - is there any chance you still remain opposed to israel?) Is there any single point on which your entire opposition to israel hinges? (Imagine you somehow changed your mind on just one random point - is there a non-zero chance you now generally support israel?) Understanding how these grievances sum together will let us know which points are worth discussing, and will give a nice sense of the scope of our disagreement.

hardbass 2mo ago
Where in anything I wrote do you see me applying special rules to Israel? The very previous reply I wrote is completely general. If "Americans" were colonizing the natives today, then I'd support supplying the natives a nuclear program, fighter jets, tanks, guns, etc. You seem to have difficulties understanding an extremely simple and clearly stated point: no, a region lacking a formal state absolutely does NOT make it suitable for the construction of a new state UNLESS IT IS DEVOID OF PEOPLES OR EXISTING LAND CLAIMS AND OR THE PEOPLE LIVING THERE PROVIDE AGREEMENT TO THE SAME. This applies to Israel, America, Japan, China, anyone else. Why 3000 years? I go back further. Restore Inanna, Baal, Ishtaar, Set, Osiris. Return the levant to the original civilizations and their descendants. Unfortunately none of the points you quoted are negotiable in isolation, Israel was a very recent false creation and the best solution after much thinking I have come up with is indeed relitigating all land claims to the last government ie British or Ottoman and the points regarding innocent victims vs invaders. Obviously this also means "Israel" must either willingly accept these terms or be subjected to a continued campaign of repelling by the true stakeholders and suitable international military force first, both of which are completely justified under most reasonable interpretations of property and land ownership.
- gershy 2mo ago
  Would you argue that most states worldwide are false/invalid and should be relitigated? (As just about all of them were constructed in areas containing prior people, and against the will of some of those people.)
  - hardbass 2mo ago
    No, as I had said before, timing maters. Fresh wounds still bleed. Centuries or millennia old ones are too late to be reconsidered. Past crimes cannot be changed but current crime can and should be fought. Eg if the people of Hong Kong want a greater independence from China, I'd fully support that. But english fighting normans is too late.
    - gershy 2mo ago
      So we just need to wait, and you'll reverse your stance on israel?
      - hardbass 2mo ago
        Yes, whoever manages to keep it stably for 200 years or so. The ones that manage to do so might name it Qin Shang for all we know.
        gershy 2mo ago
        That's a remarkable position, thanks for being honest about it. So israel is currently pursuing what is in your eyes the only possible route to legitimacy - i.e., maintaining ownership while the ~200-year clock counts down?
        hardbass 2mo ago
        Past crimes being hard or impossible to prosecute doesn't mean current crimes can't be prosecuted. Israel is illegal today and today it is just and moral to do everything possible to repel them. I would have supplied Natives with fighter jets if they were being invaded by "Americans" today. If some entity manages to keep it for 200 years without trouble, then I'd consider it a legal state. And that entity might as well call it Qin Shang or Provincia del Levante or anything else. This is of course distinct from the mere practical fact of some entity owning some place. Russia currently owns places that are justifiably Ukrainian property but it doesn't make its ownership claims valid. If it can keep on to it for a few centuries stably which is to say without internal threads to break off or constant barrages of freedom fighters haven't existed for 200 years and people legitimately identify as Russian, then it is Russia. Otherwise it is not, and I support arming and aiding Ukrainians to repel the invaders. I believe we must help Iran, Lebanon, etc build nukes. This will have the added benefit of the gulf arab countries being forced to build nukes and Israel's mindless hyperviolence having a degree of checks and balances put upon it. Let me ask you a question now, you said you don't agree with everything your government does. Would you disagree with shooting illegal settlers who are right now robbing others lands? Why or why not?

by gershy 2mo ago

hardbass 2mo ago

Where in anything I wrote do you see me applying special rules to Israel? The very previous reply I wrote is completely general. If "Americans" were colonizing the natives today, then I'd support supplying the natives a nuclear program, fighter jets, tanks, guns, etc. You seem to have difficulties understanding an extremely simple and clearly stated point: no, a region lacking a formal state absolutely does NOT make it suitable for the construction of a new state UNLESS IT IS DEVOID OF PEOPLES OR EXISTING LAND CLAIMS AND OR THE PEOPLE LIVING THERE PROVIDE AGREEMENT TO THE SAME. This applies to Israel, America, Japan, China, anyone else. Why 3000 years? I go back further. Restore Inanna, Baal, Ishtaar, Set, Osiris. Return the levant to the original civilizations and their descendants. Unfortunately none of the points you quoted are negotiable in isolation, Israel was a very recent false creation and the best solution after much thinking I have come up with is indeed relitigating all land claims to the last government ie British or Ottoman and the points regarding innocent victims vs invaders. Obviously this also means "Israel" must either willingly accept these terms or be subjected to a continued campaign of repelling by the true stakeholders and suitable international military force first, both of which are completely justified under most reasonable interpretations of property and land ownership.

gershy 2mo ago
Would you argue that most states worldwide are false/invalid and should be relitigated? (As just about all of them were constructed in areas containing prior people, and against the will of some of those people.)
- hardbass 2mo ago
  No, as I had said before, timing maters. Fresh wounds still bleed. Centuries or millennia old ones are too late to be reconsidered. Past crimes cannot be changed but current crime can and should be fought. Eg if the people of Hong Kong want a greater independence from China, I'd fully support that. But english fighting normans is too late.
  - gershy 2mo ago
    So we just need to wait, and you'll reverse your stance on israel?
    - hardbass 2mo ago
      Yes, whoever manages to keep it stably for 200 years or so. The ones that manage to do so might name it Qin Shang for all we know.
      - gershy 2mo ago
        That's a remarkable position, thanks for being honest about it. So israel is currently pursuing what is in your eyes the only possible route to legitimacy - i.e., maintaining ownership while the ~200-year clock counts down?
        hardbass 2mo ago
        Past crimes being hard or impossible to prosecute doesn't mean current crimes can't be prosecuted. Israel is illegal today and today it is just and moral to do everything possible to repel them. I would have supplied Natives with fighter jets if they were being invaded by "Americans" today. If some entity manages to keep it for 200 years without trouble, then I'd consider it a legal state. And that entity might as well call it Qin Shang or Provincia del Levante or anything else. This is of course distinct from the mere practical fact of some entity owning some place. Russia currently owns places that are justifiably Ukrainian property but it doesn't make its ownership claims valid. If it can keep on to it for a few centuries stably which is to say without internal threads to break off or constant barrages of freedom fighters haven't existed for 200 years and people legitimately identify as Russian, then it is Russia. Otherwise it is not, and I support arming and aiding Ukrainians to repel the invaders. I believe we must help Iran, Lebanon, etc build nukes. This will have the added benefit of the gulf arab countries being forced to build nukes and Israel's mindless hyperviolence having a degree of checks and balances put upon it. Let me ask you a question now, you said you don't agree with everything your government does. Would you disagree with shooting illegal settlers who are right now robbing others lands? Why or why not?