‘They will vote against Harris’: Arab Americans in Michigan desert Democrats over Gaza
‘They will vote against Harris’: Arab Americans in Michigan desert Democrats over Gaza
Hamtramck, population 28,000, has new Trump campaign office weeks from election in hopes of gains in swing state
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/21396125
Stephen Starr in Hamtramck, Michigan
Mon 14 Oct 2024 11.00 EDT
You're viewing part of a thread.
It is not a complex issue. There is a genocide and there are increasing calls to support those genociders electorally. Instead of supporting genociders, you should oppose them.
Liberals call "issues" complex in order to speak euphemistically about the horrible things they support. They do not actually have an understanding of the alleged complexity, it is just a lazy thought-terminating cliché. When you do understand something, you can discuss it directly. At the moment, you are apparently more afraid of using the word genocide than actually being complicut in it yourself. Is this the "complexity" you are referring to? Your personal discomfort? I suspect so.
Unless you’d like to explain how it does…
Being consistently against genocide is the first step towards actually fighting against it. I have set the bar very low. Can you clear it?
A 1000 year Middle East conflict “isn’t a complex issue”?
Either you’re obviously too ignorant to hold intelligent opinions on this matter, or you’re clearly arguing in bad faith by stating obvious falsehoods.
Why should anyone take you seriously?
This isn’t a 1,000 year Middle east conflict, it’s a modern-day Western settler-colonialist project. It’s an ~80 year ethnic cleansing project.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism_as_settler_colonialismI never claimed anything about Zionism.
This is a straw man argument.
A 1000 year Middle East conflict “isn’t a complex issue”?
Israel as a settler colonial entity is around 100 years old. Before that, Christians, Muslims, and Jews lived in the same area with very little sectarian violence for around 800 years.
Thank you for admitting that I’m correct, however, the rest is completely irrelevant. We’re not talking about those 800 years.
You'd say "its nuanced" about colonizers killing indigenous tribes and the indigenous tribes fighting back.
Making up little fantasies about people you lose arguments to also does not make you correct. At best, it makes you delusional, and, at worst, it makes you a liar. And it’s certainly very strong evidence that you’re here arguing in bad faith.
Do you often lie about random strangers in order to make yourself feel better?
You're straight up doing it though, like, your nuanced bullshit around Israeli settlers and indigenous Palestinians.
Consider that you have to keep declaring victory because you're aware on some level that you're wrong on this.
You're straight up doing it though, like, your nuanced bullshit around Israeli settlers and indigenous Palestinians
Funny, I never said that nor did I “declare victory”. Do you often find blatantly lying to be an effective debate tactic?
This you?
Do you often make up fantasies about strangers on the internet that you lose arguments to?
Source: https://lemmy.ml/post/21396576/14301383
That is what your little middle school demonstration of informal logical fallacies are though, you're substituting arguments for "um actually fallacy" like it is some checkmate that dismisses everything people are saying.
Notice how you went for an "um actually I didn't technically say those words" instead of responding to this:
You’re straight up doing it though, like, your nuanced bullshit around Israeli settlers and indigenous Palestinians.
Genocide isn't morally complicated, and the fact that you're debate broing about it defensively when people say shit that is just objectively correct, like, "Israel is a settler colonial state commiting genocide" is a real indication that maybe you should step back for five minutes and check in with yourself.
Calling it a thousand year conflict is Zionist propaganda. Plain and simple.
Considering that I never said that the Zionist were right, I certainly don’t see how that’s anything but something you just made up to feel better about your lack of position In this argument.
Yeah sure you're not saying you agree with them, you're just repeating their racist propaganda that's all. Totally different.
Dude, Palestinians lived largely in peace with Jews in what was called Palestine until WW2. This is not an ancient conflict unless you believe antisemitic propaganda. The state of Israel is compensation for the Holocaust, paid for with land from the Palestinians.
Well no there were Zionist terrorists killing people in that area before World War II. We tend to gloss that over in history though for some reason, maybe it's because so many people that were targeting were the British and everyone was just kind of okay with it.
The state of Israel is compensation for the Holocaust,
The state of Israel was secured through bribery and a will to try to appease an extremist terrorist group who the UN hoped would settle the eff down if they were given the land they had been killing people trying to steal. They didnt end up appeased, and the world didnt owe them land for the holocaust anyway. They should take that up with Germany and bill them for it, not the rest of us.
No, it's been a little over a 100 years of Settler Colonialist Zionism. Zionism has not existed for 1000 years.
'Palestine: A Four Thousand Year History' by Nur Masalha gives a detailed account of it's history before British Occupation and 'A History of Modern Palestine' by Ilan Pappe gives a detailed account of it's history since the British Occupation.
Origins of Zionism
Zionism is a settler colonialism project that was able to really start with the support of British Imperialism. Zionism as a political movement started with Theodore Herzl in the 1880s as a 'modern' way to 'solve' the 'Jewish Question' of Europe.
Since at least the 1860's, Europe was increasingly antisemitic and hostile to Jewish people. Zionism was explicitly a Setter Colonialist movement and the native Palestinians were not considered People but Savages by the Europeans. While Zionist Colonization began before it, the Balfor Declaration is when Britain gave it's backing of the movement in order to 'solve' the 'Jewish Question' while also creating a Colony in the newly conquered Middle East after WWI in order to exhibit military force in the region and extract natural resources.
That's when Zionist immigration started to pick up, out of necessity for most as Europe became more hostile and antisemitic. That continued into and during WWII, European countries and even the US refused to expand immigration quotas for Jewish people seeking asylum. The idea that the creation of Israel is a reparation for Jewish people is an after-the-fact justification. While most Jewish immigrants had no choice and just wanted a place to live in peace, it was the Zionist Leadership that developed and implemented the forced transfer, ethnic cleansing, of the native population, Palestinians. Without any Occupation, Apartheid, and ethnic cleansing, there would not be any Palestinian resistance to it.
Herzl himself explicitly considered Zionism a Settler Colonialist project, Setter Colonialism is always violent. The difficulty in creating a democratic Jewish state in an area inhabited by people who are not Jewish, is that enough Palestinian people need to be 'Transferred' to have a demographic majority that is Jewish. Ben-Gurion explicitly rejected Secular Bi-national state solutions in favor of partition.
Quote
Zionism’s aims in Palestine, its deeply-held conviction that the Land of Israel belonged exclusively to the Jewish people as a whole, and the idea of Palestine’s “civilizational barrenness" or “emptiness” against the background of European imperialist ideologies all converged in the logical conclusion that the native population should make way for thenewcomers.
The idea that the Palestinian Arabs must find a place for themselves elsewhere was articulated early on. Indeed, the founder of the movement, Theodor Herzl, provided an early reference to transfer even before he formally outlined his theory of Zionist rebirth in his Judenstat.
An 1895 entry in his diary provides in embryonic form many of the elements that were to be demonstrated repeatedly in the Zionist quest for solutions to the “Arab problem ”-the idea of dealing with state governments over the heads of the indigenous population, Jewish acquisition of property that would be inalienable, “Hebrew Land" and “Hebrew Labor,” and the removal of the native population.
Visualizing the Ethnic Cleansing
Peace Process and Solution
Both Hamas and Fatah have agreed to a Two-State solution based on the 1967 borders for decades. Oslo and Camp David were used by Israel to continue settlements in the West Bank and maintain an Apartheid, while preventing any actual Two-State solution
How Avi Shlaim moved from two-state solution to one-state solution
‘One state is a game changer’: A conversation with Ilan Pappe
Historian Works on the History
-
Palestine: A Four Thousand Year History - Nur Masalha
-
The Concept of Transfer 1882-1948 - Nur Masalha
-
A History of Modern Palestine - Ilan Pappe
-
The Hundred Years' War on Palestine - Rashid Khalidi
-
The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine - Ilan Pappe
-
The 1967 Arab-Israeli War: Origins and Consequences - Avi Shlaim
-
The Biggest Prison on Earth: A History of the Occupied Territories - Ilan Pappe
-
The Gaza Strip: The Political Economy of De-development - Sara Roy
-
10 Myths About Israel - Ilan Pappe (summery)
🏆
No, it's been a little over a 100 years of Settler Colonialist Zionism. Zionism has not existed for 1000 years.
I never claimed Zionism existed for 1000 years. That’s a strawman argument, and you wasted an awful lot of time typing all that out.
Do you often find that using logical fallacies and disinformation and mischaracterizing what people said to be an effective debate tactic?
A 1000 year Middle East conflict “isn’t a complex issue”?
This is what you said in the context of the current conflict, which is Israel engaging in Genocide of Palestinians. That is a result of Zionism, which is fundamentally a Settler Colonialist Ideology that has only been around for a little over a hundred years, not a thousand.
Interesting how you are you describe this is a complex issue, even posting links to proof, and still deny it at the same time.
Is that much cognitive dissonance uncomfortable for you? Does it hurt?
The history is complicated due to the decades of Disinformation by the Israeli and Western State Departments. Whether to support a genocide or not is not complicated.
Interesting that you’ll only admit that I’m right within the bounds of what supports your argument and then deny, as you, yourself, pointed out everything else.
That’s called cherry-picking, and it’s a logical fallacy.
Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position while ignoring a significant portion of related and similar cases or data that may contradict that position.
I did not do this so explain what exactly I cherry picked. Zionism, which is what the current conflict is about, has only existed for a little over a 100 years.
So, not only do you employ logical fallacies like cherry picking to try to make your point, you also invent something I never said. I never claimed this was about Zionism at all. That is a straw man, and yet another logical fallacy
-
A 1000 year Middle East conflict “isn’t a complex issue”?
I already stated what is not complex. It is that there is an ongoing genocide and that you and others are sheepdogging for the perpetrators. I stated it directly and your response continues this pattern of avoiding even mentioning the term genocide even though it is the topic of this thread and the points I have made.
Re: "1000 year middle east conflict", this is itself an ahistorical, chauvinist absurdity that papers over the real modern history of colonialism and Zionism and usually has a few dashes of Islamophobia thrown in as well, though yo be honest I would not be surprised if the people sheepdogging for genociders were not particularly familiar with the details of that reference.
More realistically, the "it's complex" line serves as a way to avoid thinking about or interrogating the topic, it is a way for the ignorant to feel secure despite knowledgeable troublemakers telling them specific but inconvenient things. Like, say, that you should oppose genocide.
Either you’re obviously too ignorant to hold intelligent opinions on this matter, or you’re clearly arguing in bad faith by stating obvious falsehoods.
At the moment I'm trying to navigate middle schooler level chauvinist talking points and asking you to address what I say rather than what you make up. Oh, and to remind you of my main and original point, the one you are afraid to even mention!
Why should anyone take you seriously?
This is Lemmy, there is a limit to which anyone should take anonymous forum comments seriously.
But you should take genocide seriously. If you are not knee-jerk advocating against it, and are instead trying to support its perpetrators, you had better have the very best knowledge and justifications, better than I can even imagine, to make a case for why you support those carrying out the greatest crime.
Everyone should take genocide seriously and that is what people should listen to in my messages. They should also recognize that the responses to my advocacy require dishonest behaviors.
Naturally, as the election approaches, liberals will increasingly panic and try to shut down anything that disagrees with their (pro-genocidal) party line. But I have and will continue to peel those with empathy and honesty off of that track.
Cherry picking a single detail out of a complex situation doesn’t suddenly make it a simple situation. That is logically fallacious. As is the rest of your argument, which is based on that logical fallacy.
And blaming me using disinformation, because I pointed out the fact that your argument is both fallacious and nonsensical, does not make you right either.
Cherry picking a single detail out of a complex situation doesn’t suddenly make it a simple situation.
Is it a "detail" that fails to include very important context (none of which you can seemingly specify) or is it genocide, something with so much weight that you are afraid to even mention it despite my repeated reminders that it is the topic here?
One of the challenges of evasive and bad faith behavior is that the little quips and pretenses can easily become inconsistent.
Anyways, the actual topic is pretty straightforward. There is a genocide. You should not support those perpetrating it and should instead work against them. So far, you have offered no rebuttal to this outside of straw men and vagaries and posturing.
That is logically fallacious. As is the rest of your argument, which is based on that logical fallacy.
Parrots can repeat many phrases they hear, but they don't understand their meaning.
Logical fallacies are a set of ways a person can make errors in thinking. The whole point of them is that some nerds thought they were common or important enough to deserve a name. Reflexively accusing me of logical fallacies without naming any, right after I explained how you were using one? Obviously schoolyard "I'm rubber you're gkue" pantomiming. No understanding, no applicability, just defensive posturing.
And blaming me using disinformation
What disinformation? What did I blame you for?
because I pointed out the fact that your argument is both fallacious and nonsensical, does not make you right either.
Can you tell me when I said or implied, "when I use disinformation against you it means I'm right"? I think you are very confused in both thought and language at this point. You're relying on quips and phrases that simply do not apply.
“no u!”
Do you often find that to be an effective debate tactic?
I'll take that to mean you have no response to what I said.
It must be a pretty well-worn habit for you by now, to simply ignore things you don’t like. That doesn’t make you right, however, and it’s more proof of your bad faith.
It must be a pretty well-worn habit for you by now, to simply ignore things you don’t like.
I wonder if you see the irony in this given the last 2 comments above. This is where substanceless posturing always leads. Just vibes and self-contradiction.
Its not 1000 years old. Zionists lie about that to make it seem intractable. Arabs and Jews got along fine for the entire 800 year period of the Ottoman empire which ended in the early 1900s. Learn some history so you dont embarass yourself. its 80 years old, since the land theft, murder, and terrorism of the Nakba, done by Israelis.