US Politics Mega-Blog - Page 87

On November 27 2018 12:43 xDaunt wrote:

The world can be a pretty shitty and unforgiving place. Hobbes laid it out pretty well. Once this is understood, it becomes much easier to figure out who and what should be supported and why dismembering the liberal western world order is a catastrophically stupid idea.

On November 27 2018 12:59 GreenHorizons wrote:


It is what we make it. I happen to think genocide makes it worse.

As for the liberal western order, I'll be the revolutionary, you can be the loyalist.

I suppose we owe Germany an apology for trying to nip this problem in the bud?

On November 27 2018 14:18 Danglars wrote:

I know accusations of genocide on behalf of Palestinians against the Israelis all too well. My undergraduate university education involved many protests that asserted Israel's guilt in the matter week after week. They seriously thought the matter was settled. Now, what could a hypothetical defender of Israel do? Of course, the easy first one is to say they're dead wrong about the whole matter, and looney and bonkers. But move beyond that, and somebody somewhere will say Israel's actions were appropriate for a nation. And what to say to someone that says it's tantamount to condoning, endorsing, and advocating genocide?

I'd simply say that the matter is under debate at how much may reasonably be ascribed to each side ... since the wiping out of the Jews from the Israeli state, as declared by the charter of the ruling party in Gaza, is also the advocacy of genocide, and someone might make the pointed critique that the defenders of Gazan state simply are preferring their personal choice of genocide target.

His contention is something about it is inevitable, and you want to put a "should" in front or draw an "acceptability" timetable. I don't think that's fair. I think many other persons taking many other positions can be criticized as basically advocating genocide against one or another party. It's the nature of the beast and no discussion of America's foreign policy with respect to Israel/Palestine can be assumed to be immune from that criticism, as commonplace as it is.

On November 27 2018 14:23 xDaunt wrote:

Germany gets a lot of bad press on the genocide thing (and deservedly so), but they're pikers compared to what the Russians/Soviets did and what the Chinese have done and are still doing. There's been far more ethnic cleansing under socialist/communist regimes than fascist ones. Regardless, I don't think that there's really a meaningful distinction between fascism and socialism/communism. Both are authoritarian types of regimes prone to horrific abuse and human suffering.

On November 27 2018 15:58 LegalLord wrote:
All I can really say is: how can you imagine this conflict playing out if Israel were to, so to say, leave the Palestinians be? That would end with the current dynamic of frequent bombings and the like over the border - and you would honestly be quite a foolish leader of your country if you let that happen without killing the root of the problem (even when it lies outside your own borders). The Palestinians are hardly the sympathetic party here.

On November 27 2018 14:23 xDaunt wrote:

Germany gets a lot of bad press on the genocide thing (and deservedly so), but they're pikers compared to what the Russians/Soviets did and what the Chinese have done and are still doing. There's been far more ethnic cleansing under socialist/communist regimes than fascist ones. Regardless, I don't think that there's really a meaningful distinction between fascism and socialism/communism. Both are authoritarian types of regimes prone to horrific abuse and human suffering.

On November 27 2018 15:58 LegalLord wrote:
All I can really say is: how can you imagine this conflict playing out if Israel were to, so to say, leave the Palestinians be? That would end with the current dynamic of frequent bombings and the like over the border - and you would honestly be quite a foolish leader of your country if you let that happen without killing the root of the problem (even when it lies outside your own borders). The Palestinians are hardly the sympathetic party here. I think at this point the idea of “peace” is simply not a feasible approach; although Israel may have found a stable ceasefire with most of its nation-state neighbors this one may very well just be a scenario where might makes right has to be the rules of engagement because diplomacy is a dead game. Peace may very well be won only by forcibly removing the offending population from their land in, yes, what is a textbook “ethnic cleansing” operation.

The suggestion of moving Israel or the Israelis to Germany or the US or pick some other third location... well it might have been a good one back when there was a possibility l suppose. It’s not practically viable now, though, because not only is that ethnic cleansing but also it’s a nation with enough power to be able to fight back and leave a significant bloody mess if anyone tries to force the issue. For reasons that were relevant in the 1950s Israel ended up where it is right now, in the middle of a very messy yet strategically important zone, and there’s fuck-all that can be done about that.

That all said, I must admit I’ve become somewhat more wary in recent years of Israel’s general tendency to start pointless piss fights with some of its neighbors in ways that simply aren’t in its long term best interests. That said, I don’t see how exactly anyone imagines the Palestine aspect of that conflict can ever end with anything but forcible removal of population.

On November 27 2018 15:58 LegalLord wrote:
All I can really say is: how can you imagine this conflict playing out if Israel were to, so to say, leave the Palestinians be? That would end with the current dynamic of frequent bombings and the like over the border - and you would honestly be quite a foolish leader of your country if you let that happen without killing the root of the problem (even when it lies outside your own borders). The Palestinians are hardly the sympathetic party here. I think at this point the idea of “peace” is simply not a feasible approach; although Israel may have found a stable ceasefire with most of its nation-state neighbors this one may very well just be a scenario where might makes right has to be the rules of engagement because diplomacy is a dead game. Peace may very well be won only by forcibly removing the offending population from their land in, yes, what is a textbook “ethnic cleansing” operation.

The suggestion of moving Israel or the Israelis to Germany or the US or pick some other third location... well it might have been a good one back when there was a possibility l suppose. It’s not practically viable now, though, because not only is that ethnic cleansing but also it’s a nation with enough power to be able to fight back and leave a significant bloody mess if anyone tries to force the issue. For reasons that were relevant in the 1950s Israel ended up where it is right now, in the middle of a very messy yet strategically important zone, and there’s fuck-all that can be done about that.

That all said, I must admit I’ve become somewhat more wary in recent years of Israel’s general tendency to start pointless piss fights with some of its neighbors in ways that simply aren’t in its long term best interests. That said, I don’t see how exactly anyone imagines the Palestine aspect of that conflict can ever end with anything but forcible removal of population.

On November 27 2018 17:12 GreenHorizons wrote:


I think that makes the intractability of Israel combined with the heinous violence and human rights violations they commit (and we sponsor) a much larger contributor to the conflict than literally anything the Palestinians can say or do.

It's not ethnic cleansing if it's basically being the "better person" instead of committing genocide yet again to lay claim to land given first by "God" then later "the west".

If the choice is the "ethnic cleansing" of Jewish people from Israel to a place that welcomes them with open arms or the genocide of the Palestinian people I obviously choose the one where the Jewish people that arrived in the last ~70 years leave back to where they came from or to a new Israel in one of the countries that thinks Palestine shouldn't fight back for it's land and right to self-determination over genocide.

EDIT: Unless you're suggesting no one wants Israel in their country building nukes and expanding their territory so that the conclusion was just to fuck over Palestinians and it's too late to do anything but kill them all/terrorize them into total submission.

On November 27 2018 17:28 iamthedave wrote:


I absolutely agree with your stance emotionally.

But I agree with XDaunt practically. In this instance, anyway.

The problem is that neither side wants things to change. The whole conflict is rooted in 'ownership' of land, and the idea behind that ownership comes from a completely irrational religious base. Look at what a deal was made of moving the US embassy to Israel into Jerusalem. This stuff matters, unfortunately. Both sides have tried to make peace over the last 50 years and both sides have torpedoed those attempts at different stages. At this point both are dug in and intractable.

There's no practical way that the west can step in to do something about this. Israel's army is powerful enough to stand on its own if we withdraw support, and to fight us if we actually tried to do something militarily. Not to mention that 100% the aftermath of such a war would be one of their various hated regional enemies stepping in to do something permanent about 'the Jewish problem'.

It's awful beyond words. But yes, the Palestinians are going to suffer genocide, and there's nothing to be done about it unless the Israelis or the Palestinians have a massive change of heart. At this point though, why would they?

The US siding against Israel simply isn't going to happen for a dozen different reasons, cultural, religious, and political. And without the US being willing to, Europe isn't going to do more than wag its finger (not to mention that any sort of military action could easily end in failure).

Tell me a plausible scenario where the Israelis pack up and leave. I'd love to hear it.

On November 27 2018 17:37 GreenHorizons wrote:


Then people probably shouldn't get so bent out of shape about Hitler trying to exterminate the Jews before they caused this problem and should be more hostile for the US intervening and the West at large for imposing such a catastrophic problem into the middle east being an Israeli state on top of previously existing peoples without their consent.

We can call it unavoidable if we want, but that's like spending years planning a murder and then excusing yourself of culpability because it's inevitable now that you've already stabbed them a dozen times and broken their phone when they tried to call for help.

We're basically circling into might makes right and why the only way to save the US is to eliminate any other place that doesn't submit to our rule.

On November 27 2018 17:42 Jockmcplop wrote:


Yeah but if you gave the stabbed person a gun it would be reasonable to say that someone is going to die.
There isn't really a solution, otherwise someone would have found it. The most generous part of me is saying that Israel are just waiting and hoping for a change in Palestine that leads to submission. What that could ever look like, I have no idea.

On November 27 2018 17:49 GreenHorizons wrote:


When one person's condition is "let us keep stabbing you until there's nothing left" it's not really fair to say "well neither of them can get along".

That's not how we typically treat people who have their home broken into and the invaders set up in their living room and cage their children.

Basically you're saying, there's no good solution to this hostage situation so we might as well sell the hostage takers bullets so they can end this. As if that's a morally neutral position.

On November 27 2018 17:35 LegalLord wrote:

Somewhat ambiguous “that.” I’m going to assume that in context it means “the situation in the ground in and near Israel’s borders.”

The cause is the existence of multiple parties in conflict with each other in close proximity. A common trend in the Middle East, the only special factor here is the asymmetry in power balance. Sure, there might be a valid argument to be made that the Palestinians don’t have full control of the situation and can’t really change what is happening there, even with the very real contribution they make of firing rockets at Israel on a regular basis. But there’s the age-old problem we always return to: the situation is unstable, it’s easy to say “I wish these bad things didn’t happen” and yet the options are a mix of horrifying realities and untenable fantasy solutions. There honestly isn’t much of a middle ground here.


Although something of an aside, the creation of Israel was a wee bit more forcefully done than what could be described as “land given by the west.” But the idea of that they could just leave is frankly quite laughable. I’d go as far as to say that if the choice is between genocide of the locals and uprooting the lives of your entire nation, the former option would be quite favorable. And as it stands the former description is a gross exaggeration of what’s actually happening.


Mmh... not really interested in debating this one, given that the trajectory of that discussion is necessarily going to go into weird places, but I will note that this entire line of thinking makes a couple gigantic whoppers of assumptions about how well things would work by just relocating the entirety of Israel to some theoretical peaceful sanctuary.

On November 27 2018 18:14 Jockmcplop wrote:


No I'm not saying that. Read my previous arguments, its a horrendous situation but there are no solutions. Israel aren't going to pack up and leave and no-one can force them to. Neither are Palestine. The only thing we can do is try to get Israel to stop being insane psychopaths and hope a solution materializes due to some change of circumstance.

On November 27 2018 18:27 GreenHorizons wrote:

Like the US and the rest of the international community sanctioning israel into the ground unless they stop and we move them somewhere they are wanted or at least let them know their on their own in the middle east and they'll have to Iran their nuclear program before we even consider allowing the world to trade with them.

We shouldn't treat a genocidal regime better than we treat the people being slaughtered, even if worst case the roles would just switch were the power dynamic different. It makes us no better than other people who commit genocide.

On November 27 2018 18:32 Jockmcplop wrote:


I agree 100% with this. Pressure needs to be put on Western governments to get off their arses and act. Pressure needs to be put on European governments who already agree with this position to grow a set of balls and stand up to the US, telling them that their proxy war needs to end, and to take actual measures other than sending them a strongly worded letter.
BDS needs to grow and governments need to start supporting it as policy, instead of cowtowing to Israel on it and calling it antisemitic to avoid upsetting people.

In the meantime, though, we are waiting at a standstill for a solution to appear out of nowhere, and it isn't happening.

On November 27 2018 18:44 GreenHorizons wrote:


There we go. There's a difference between doing all of those things and letting defeatism have it's moments and shrugging and shipping over billions of dollars of arms or voting for people who make that happen.


When hundreds of millions of people look at a 10's of thousands of people in power spending their money to fund genocide and say "we're helpless" the people in power get exactly what they want and countless people suffer and die. If by hook or by crook one has managed to carve out a temporal tide pool to enjoy it doesn't obviate them from their responsibilities to their fellow humans imo. As comforting as it may be to set up a world view that alleviates one from practical participation in the struggle, it's not as if their complicity isn't necessary for the whole thing to work in the first place.

For decades this has been a bipartisan international atrocity, and it can only continue as long as people accept it as inevitable instead of something humanity (or our lack thereof) is manifesting.

On November 27 2018 18:56 iamthedave wrote:


As I said, I agree with you emotionally, but I don't see any of these things happening. I don't see the will to make them happen, I don't see the practicality. Levy whatever sanctions we like, do you seriously believe the Israelis will pack up and leave?

The current population of Israel is 8.7 million people. Where exactly are they supposed to go? What right does the west have to declare the land they've lived on, fought and died over, is no longer theirs? Are we at two wrongs make a right? Is that actually better than might makes right?

And what's the solution if they just say 'no'?

Would you be satisfied if those sanctions led to the Israelis being on the receipt of genocide from their neighbours?

It's not as simple as right and wrong here. Both sides are right and wrong. The balance of power has shifted overwhelmingly in favour of Israel, but they still had to fight tooth and nail to hold their ground in the early days, without much support. The Palestinians could upsticks and leave, too, but they don't want to or see why they should have to (quite reasonably, I'd say).

And yes for the record I fully support withdrawing support from Israel. But I don't see that actually helping the Palestinians. Unless you support actual military action, I don't think anything will help them.