Another Jewish-Palestinian conflict thread

[Eric Blair]

Originally Posted by Trotskilicious

so rbg are you trying to say that this isn't similar to apartheid

It might be apartheid for Arab-Isrtaelis living within Israel. I would say the situation in the West Bank and Gaza Strip is probably better described as a brutal foreign occupation.

[vixnix]

Well that describes the settlement of South Africa too, no?

[Eric Blair]

Yes, in the 19th century. Apartheid was different.

[vixnix]

Even during the period of apartheid though, it's not like there had been a transaction where sovereignty was transferred. It continued being a brutal occupation by a foreign forces, just with different rules.

[Eric Blair]

Black South Africans weren't living in a separate state or territory with different political leaders or ambitions of totally independent statehood. The comparison just doesn't work for Palestinian Arabs living outside of Israel. Also there is a military element to the conflict which just wasn't there in the apartheid system. Apartheid was the state oppressing its own citizens. That is not what is happening in the West Bank or Gaza Strip.

[redbreegull]

Originally Posted by Trotskilicious

there's no systematic extermination at work here

there is systematic ethnic separation into "homeland" areas though so i agree with the similarity to apartheid

the definition of lowercase h holocaust should be relegated to archaic status but nuclear holocaust is still a thing

I think that "holocaust" is still recognized enough as any massively destructive event that it's not really accurate to say it means only genocide

[Trotskilicious]

Originally Posted by Eric Blair

Black South Africans weren't living in a separate state or territory with different political leaders or ambitions of totally independent statehood.

see i always thought that was the idea of the "Homelands" but you're pretty much smarter than nearly everyone here so i'm not even gonna fact check this

[Trotskilicious]

Originally Posted by redbreegull

I think that "holocaust" is still recognized enough as any massively destructive event that it's not really accurate to say it means only genocide

well this isn't a "holocaust" by those terms either, and to use it in anything else other than nuclear annihilation or a full scale destructive bombing campaign (see: Dresden) is deceptive at best and misleading at worst

[vixnix]

Originally Posted by Eric Blair

Black South Africans weren't living in a separate state or territory with different political leaders or ambitions of totally independent statehood. The comparison just doesn't work for Palestinian Arabs living outside of Israel. Also there is a military element to the conflict which just wasn't there in the apartheid system. Apartheid was the state oppressing its own citizens. That is not what is happening in the West Bank or Gaza Strip.

I said myself it isn't a flawless comparison, just that there are some significant similarities, like forced displacement, lack of freedom of movement, highly disparate socio-economic circumstances between the two groups, etc.

[redbreegull]

Originally Posted by Trotskilicious

well this isn't a "holocaust" by those terms either, and to use it in anything else other than nuclear annihilation or a full scale destructive bombing campaign (see: Dresden) is deceptive at best and misleading at worst

are you just being argumentative for fuck's sake? in the most basic terms it just means destruction or massacre on a large scale, which is obviously subjective. it's not like definitively, denotationally incorrect to say that killing hundreds of civilians constitutes a holocaust

[pavementtune]

Try calling a bombing or shooting anywhere, that killed HUNDREDS of civilians 'holocaust' in front of relatives of actual survivors of the holocaust, and see what happens.

[Trotskilicious]

redbreegull do you just never have anyone disagree with you in real life because you surround yourself with stoned hippy degenerates that don't know anything

[redbreegull]

yes that must be it because there is no other way I could just think your point is wrong.


and pavementtune, what kind of argument is that? the word is emotionally charged therefore it is improper to use it in any context outside "THE" Holocaust? That might be a legitimate point but it is not what we were talking about. you're moving from a quantitative argument to a qualitative one

[Trotskilicious]

but that's the thing, you don't think it's wrong you just don't like that i'm challenging you

[Eric Blair]

Originally Posted by Trotskilicious

see i always thought that was the idea of the "Homelands" but you're pretty much smarter than nearly everyone here so i'm not even gonna fact check this

You probably should, my history is kind of fuzzy here. My understanding was that the bantustans were the initiative of the National party and that they weren't ever really taken seriously as independent nations. But actually, I suppose that is what the Israelis are *kind* of doing with the separation wall, so maybe there is more of a comparison than I am allowing. Although here the wall isn't trying to create new nations as much as it is trying to annex one.

[redbreegull]

Originally Posted by Trotskilicious

but that's the thing, you don't think it's wrong you just don't like that i'm challenging you

you know that thing where you always tell me how presumptuous I am and I try to show you that you are the worst offender of assuming you know how people think and feel?


I legitimately think your point isn't very strong. I understand that the word holocaust has become very connotative and very charged with a specific meaning, but I also don't think that it is "archaic" if used in another manner. I've definitely seen it used outside that context enough times in texts that it hasn't fallen out of usage or understanding.

Also, how many people constitutes a slaughter? Howabout a massacre? Was the Boston Massacre a massacre? How much destruction needs to be done for it to be considered a catastrophe? A disaster?

[pavementtune]

In what kind of books have you read the term 'holocaust' as a synonym for killing hundreds of civilians, just out of curiosity.

[Trotskilicious]

Originally Posted by Eric Blair

You probably should, my history is kind of fuzzy here. My understanding was that the bantustans were the initiative of the National party and that they weren't ever really taken seriously as independent nations

right it was all lip service but isn't that true of the palestinian zones?

i was under the impression that the gaza strip and the west bank were given to palestinians in the 90s as semi-autonomous lands after being part of israel proper since the 50s but i could again be wrong about that

[Trotskilicious]

Originally Posted by redbreegull

you know that thing where you always tell me how presumptuous I am and I try to show you that you are the worst offender of assuming you know how people think and feel?


I legitimately think your point isn't very strong. I understand that the word holocaust has become very connotative and very charged with a specific meaning, but I also don't think that it is "archaic" if used in another manner. I've definitely seen it used outside that context enough times in texts that it hasn't fallen out of usage or understanding.

Also, how many people constitutes a slaughter? Howabout a massacre? Was the Boston Massacre a massacre? How much destruction needs to be done for it to be considered a catastrophe? A disaster?

you are quite literally arguing semantics

all i would like is for the lower case h holocaust to be used with reverence and restraint

and no the boston massacre wasn't a massacre like three people were shot but they called it that to make people angry because it was propaganda against the english

[cocksure]

Originally Posted by pavementtune

In what kind of books have you read the term 'holocaust' as a synonym for killing hundreds of civilians, just out of curiosity.

yeah, in german discourse on this, there is only one holocaust, anything else would be considered a tasteless metaphor i guess.

[pavementtune]

This might be different in the US, I don't know, but I remember people being taken to court in Germany for that sort of thing.

[redbreegull]

Originally Posted by cocksure

yeah, in german discourse on this, there is only one holocaust, anything else would be considered a tasteless metaphor i guess.

Originally Posted by pavementtune

This might be different in the US, I don't know, but I remember people being taken to court in Germany for that sort of thing.

I don't know how "holocaust" translates in German, but I think it's pretty obvious that its context in German is going to be different than anywhere else. Stop fucking arguing with me just because you feel like being a dickhead.

Trots, you also seem to be moving into this qualitative argument that it is not appropriate morally to use the word in other contexts, which is not something that I have issue with. You seem to have abandoned your earlier argument that holocaust requires a certain number of deaths to be legitimate...?

I may be arguing semantics, but only because you started. "Holocust is not the word that is specifically correct in this circumstance because it is misleading to use when only a few hundred people died because of connotation"

[Trotskilicious]

i didn't make that argument

[Trotskilicious]

it's not the #s its the method since before The Holocaust it meant "mass death by immolation" so i limit it to nuclear holocaust and i'll accept it if referring to incredibly destructive bombing campaigns like what happened to dresden or saddam's strikes on the oil fields of kuwait during the first gulf war

otherwise it's hyperbole.

[redbreegull]

ok webster

[redbreegull]

before THE HOLOCAUST it actually literally meant a Jewish ritual sacrifice by fire but whatever

[pavementtune]

How is it pretty obvious that the context of the holocaust is different in German than anywhere else? How the fuck would language change the context of a historical fact?

And your argument to use the term incorrectly is that it was used differently hundreds of years ago?

[Trotskilicious]

Originally Posted by redbreegull

ok webster

and you wonder why everyone thinks you're a douchey little cretin

get fucked you clown

[cocksure]

Originally Posted by redbreegull

I don't know how "holocaust" translates in German, but I think it's pretty obvious that its context in German is going to be different than anywhere else. Stop fucking arguing with me just because you feel like being a dickhead.

Trots, you also seem to be moving into this qualitative argument that it is not appropriate morally to use the word in other contexts, which is not something that I have issue with. You seem to have abandoned your earlier argument that holocaust requires a certain number of deaths to be legitimate...?

I may be arguing semantics, but only because you started. "Holocust is not the word that is specifically correct in this circumstance because it is misleading to use when only a few hundred people died because of connotation"

what the hell are you talking about? is this directed at me?

[MyOneAndOnly]

this thread is destined to do nothing but make people hate RBG.