Red Mosquito

I should also add that I don't think Israel should be defending itself with OUR money.

Bi_3 wrote:

Mickey wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

Mickey wrote:Ah, the ol "the problems are bad, but their causes are very good" argument.

This shit is what you teach at Harvard?

No, of course not--at Harvard they teach that "we condemn the treatment of Palestinians, but we unanimously support the state responsible for their treatment" is a legitimate and coherent political position.

It is though

Okay, sure buddy, you're a very serious thinker.

Mickey wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

Mickey wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

Mickey wrote:Ah, the ol "the problems are bad, but their causes are very good" argument.

This shit is what you teach at Harvard?

No, of course not--at Harvard they teach that "we condemn the treatment of Palestinians, but we unanimously support the state responsible for their treatment" is a legitimate and coherent political position.

It is though

Okay, sure buddy, you're a very serious thinker.

Please, please go on.

I think, of course, that you can support Israel's right to exist as a nation-state while condemning their treatment of Palestinians and the apartheid system they've imposed. But you cannot "unanimously support" Israel or "strongly support Israeli security" while making the same condemnations, since you would have to consider everything that unanimous support is endorsing or what sort of actions those security forces are engaged in. It is a clear contradiction in terms.

trag so happy to agree with mickey again after a couple of days of independent thought

Homeowners stick together

i just look forward to 2335 when Israel v Palestine is no longer a thing bc the glaciers melted and retook that region back into the sea

Giving new meaning to "Palestine will be free, from the river..."

Mickey wrote:I think, of course, that you can support Israel's right to exist as a nation-state while condemning their treatment of Palestinians and the apartheid system they've imposed. But you cannot "unanimously support" Israel or "strongly support Israeli security" while making the same condemnations, since you would have to consider everything that unanimous support is endorsing or what sort of actions those security forces are engaged in. It is a clear contradiction in terms.

Only if you presume the state has absolute control over those actions.

Hmm, does the state have absolute (or, we could say, sufficient, since only assigning blame at the standard of "absolute" is on its face absurd) control over its military forces, its administration of the border and border checkpoints, the utility grid, ethnically-based employment practices and suffrage, not to mention massively unequal distribution of resources, the illegal settlements it refuses to prosecute, etc. etc.? Boy, great question, you really are a penetrating intelligence.

Mickey wrote:Hmm, does the state have absolute (or, we could say, sufficient, since only assigning blame at the standard of "absolute" is on its face absurd) control over its military forces, its administration of the border and border checkpoints, the utility grid, ethnically-based employment practices and suffrage, not to mention massively unequal distribution of resources, the illegal settlements it refuses to prosecute, etc. etc.? Boy, great question, you really are a penetrating intelligence.

Sort of like unanimously support?

Bi_3 wrote:

Mickey wrote:Hmm, does the state have absolute (or, we could say, sufficient, since only assigning blame at the standard of "absolute" is on its face absurd) control over its military forces, its administration of the border and border checkpoints, the utility grid, ethnically-based employment practices and suffrage, not to mention massively unequal distribution of resources, the illegal settlements it refuses to prosecute, etc. etc.? Boy, great question, you really are a penetrating intelligence.

Sort of like unanimously support?

No bud, not like that at all, because while no state has "absolute control" over every member of its military and law enforcement (a truly absurd argument, meant only to obfuscate by suggesting that Israel's treatment of the Palestinians is somehow out of their control or driven by rogue agents when we know it has operated as official state policy for decades), politicians (like Kamala) do offer blanket and unconditional support to Israel when, for example, she joined Marco Rubio to denounce the UN Resolution condemning the illegal Israeli settlements. If you won't even sign on to a non-enforceable condemnation of a clearly illegal practice undertaken will full support of Netanyahu's government, it's safe to say that your support of that government or that state is pretty unconditional, at least at the level of political action (milquetoast comments notwithstanding).

Mickey wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

Mickey wrote:Hmm, does the state have absolute (or, we could say, sufficient, since only assigning blame at the standard of "absolute" is on its face absurd) control over its military forces, its administration of the border and border checkpoints, the utility grid, ethnically-based employment practices and suffrage, not to mention massively unequal distribution of resources, the illegal settlements it refuses to prosecute, etc. etc.? Boy, great question, you really are a penetrating intelligence.

Sort of like unanimously support?

No bud, not like that at all, because while no state has "absolute control" over every member of its military and law enforcement (a truly absurd argument, meant only to obfuscate by suggesting that Israel's treatment of the Palestinians is somehow out of their control or driven by rogue agents when we know it has operated as official state policy for decades), politicians (like Kamala) do offer blanket and unconditional support to Israel when, for example, she joined Marco Rubio to denounce the UN Resolution condemning the illegal Israeli settlements. If you won't even sign on to a non-enforceable condemnation of a clearly illegal practice undertaken will full support of Netanyahu's government, it's safe to say that your support of that government or that state is pretty unconditional, at least at the level of political action (milquetoast comments notwithstanding).

so which goalposts are we going for here, sir?

Back on topic:



The Post Office Is Deactivating Mail Sorting Machines Ahead of the Election:

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/n7wk ... e-election

Bi_3 wrote:

Mickey wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

Mickey wrote:Hmm, does the state have absolute (or, we could say, sufficient, since only assigning blame at the standard of "absolute" is on its face absurd) control over its military forces, its administration of the border and border checkpoints, the utility grid, ethnically-based employment practices and suffrage, not to mention massively unequal distribution of resources, the illegal settlements it refuses to prosecute, etc. etc.? Boy, great question, you really are a penetrating intelligence.

Sort of like unanimously support?

No bud, not like that at all, because while no state has "absolute control" over every member of its military and law enforcement (a truly absurd argument, meant only to obfuscate by suggesting that Israel's treatment of the Palestinians is somehow out of their control or driven by rogue agents when we know it has operated as official state policy for decades), politicians (like Kamala) do offer blanket and unconditional support to Israel when, for example, she joined Marco Rubio to denounce the UN Resolution condemning the illegal Israeli settlements. If you won't even sign on to a non-enforceable condemnation of a clearly illegal practice undertaken will full support of Netanyahu's government, it's safe to say that your support of that government or that state is pretty unconditional, at least at the level of political action (milquetoast comments notwithstanding).

so which goalposts are we going for here, sir?

Same ones as always--the level of political action. I can restate for you if it's confusing: "I condemn the treatment of Palestinians, but I refuse to take even the most anodyne political action against the state responsible for their treatment" is a contradiction in terms. It is, as I implied in my second post here, not a legitimate and coherent political position as long as we also assume that condemning an apartheid state would be expressed as a political action. If, on the other hand, we take it to be a piece of meaningless political theatre, then in a sense it's coherent but only tautologically.

Before we move on I do have to note--I've seen a lot of jello-brained posts on this website, I've even made a few myself, but even I was not prepared for "Are you presuming the Israeli state is in control of the Israeli state's treatment of Palestinians?" The Mods should charge a fee for this kind of premium content and run it like a zoo.

You'll have an aneurysm playing the "if this were any other president" game with Trump, but the USPS story really is at the top of the list.