|
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. |
On June 06 2024 16:03 RenSC2 wrote:
Going this route is a tough one though. If you punch someone, they're likely to punch you back. Instead, you need to absolutely destroy someone so they will cower in fear around you.
Likewise, if you kill someone's child, they're going to remember it and want revenge. If you leave everything they've ever known as rubble, killing many of their friends and family in the process, there is a point where they will cower in fear. That fear has to be stronger than their desire for revenge.
Fear doesn't stop violence, fear creates violence. If I'm not afraid, I have no enemy to destroy. The only person I need to destroy is the one that I'm afraid will destroy me if I don't act first.
Have you not learned anything from Yoda, literally one of the most popular characters in movie history known for his wise words?
|
If you want to pacify a population hope is going to go infinitely further then fear. History is full of it.
'we' fixed Germany by occupying and rebuilding it over a decade. That did a whole lot more then bombing and fear. Just look for the difference between East and West Germany if you want to see the effect of hope vs fear.
I honestly think if you put NATO into Gaza and the West bank and got both sides to back off under threat of arms and stay there for 20-30-50 years administrating and rebuilding the entire region, pumping untold trillions into development and created a stable, largely self sufficient (at least in terms of basic necessities) prosperous country you could perhaps have some semblance of peace.
Actual real nation building.
But there is exactly 0% chance of that ever happening. so eternal shitstorm it is.
|
On June 06 2024 22:23 Nebuchad wrote:
There is also a fourth option, by the way. You could make most Israelis leave and go to the US and Europe. This would cause a lot less deaths and suffering than the three options you're considering right now, so maybe you ought to consider this one?
It's not my preferred option because I'm of the opinion that people are capable of living in peace next to each other when there is no system of supremacy in place to crush that harmony, but if I believed that this was impossible, then surely I would consider leaving before I'd consider killing hundreds of thousands of people to get to stay here.
Its important to remember how Jews first arrived in Europe. The Holocaust was not their first genocide.
Let me stop right here and ask you how familiar you are with the actual nitty gritty of Jewish persecution in the middle east. Are you familiar with when they started moving away from Judea? Where they went after Judea? The events that motivated it?
How about during the Ottoman empire? Are you familiar with how persecution of Jews varied across parts of the Ottoman empire up through its eventual demise in the 1920? The TLDR is that some places treated Jews mostly fine while other areas were essentially sundown towns where they'd be fools to try to live there. People often try to pretend the Ottoman empire was some pre-historic age of history but it was not.
And then once they fled Europe to move to Israel, they were labeled as invaders. I think Jews are entirely justified in saying "fuck all this, we just need our own country so we can ensure our own safety".
Similarly, Palestinians have every right to feel like their safety will never be guaranteed. Both populations can be fighting for their safety in a tragic mess.
Groups of people with a long history of getting dumpstered end up deciding to stop trusting they'll be cared for. When they have so much evidence to point to indicating they won't be cared for, why would they trust anyone?
This is why I am saying it is so cringey and foolish when people try to have some kinda suffering dick measuring contest. "Oh, you had some babies killed? Yeah buddy well let me link you to a tweet about 100 babies dying. I'll have you know my suffering cock is at least 100 meters long"
We can just understand many groups have experienced extreme tragedy and suffering. There isn't some bizarre system of arranging groups by suffering in descending order.
|
United States42794 Posts
On June 06 2024 21:01 Salazarz wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2024 19:44 KwarK wrote:On June 06 2024 19:01 Salazarz wrote:
Most people would much rather work on their farms or herd their sheep or whatever it is that Palestinians usually do I honestly don’t understand posts like this. The ignorance is hard to comprehend. The population density is far too high for that kind of pastoral lifestyle and the demographic pyramid is absurdly bottom heavy. The average Palestinian doesn’t have a job. They’re likely a child, living in multigenerational shared housing, without employment or education, and dependent on foreign aid. They spend their time alternating between nothing at all and having more kids. The idea that given the chance they’d love to tend their flocks of sheep is just weird. The assumptions involved in getting there are all wrong. That is not to say that no productive labour happens in Palestine, only that we cannot simply imagine rural Wales and assume it probably looks like that. It is an extremely unusual state that has been created by extremely unusual circumstances. The average Palestinian doesn't have a job at least in part because they're under constant (semi)-blockade, and because nobody wants to build infrastructure or factories etc in a place where they might well be bombed to smithereens at any time assuming the local wankers don't mess it up first. There are plenty of places around the world where people without proper education are living productive and relatively content lives, with population densities that are higher than that of Gaza. Cheap labor is still very much in demand, the problem is lack of stability. If you want to believe that all Palestinians are fundamentally broken and would prefer to perpetually watch their homes be demolished and families murdered for the pay-off of occasionally getting a chance to murder a Jew, that's cool, I suppose. In my experience, vast majority of people turn away from violence as soon as they're given the chance, and I believe Palestinians would do just that.
I'm not saying they're fundamentally broken, I'm saying they're not shepherds. The population density of Palestine is comparable to Houston.
|
On June 07 2024 00:15 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2024 22:23 Nebuchad wrote:
There is also a fourth option, by the way. You could make most Israelis leave and go to the US and Europe. This would cause a lot less deaths and suffering than the three options you're considering right now, so maybe you ought to consider this one?
It's not my preferred option because I'm of the opinion that people are capable of living in peace next to each other when there is no system of supremacy in place to crush that harmony, but if I believed that this was impossible, then surely I would consider leaving before I'd consider killing hundreds of thousands of people to get to stay here. Its important to remember how Jews first arrived in Europe. The Holocaust was not their first genocide. Let me stop right here and ask you how familiar you are with the actual nitty gritty of Jewish persecution in the middle east. Are you familiar with when they started moving away from Judea? Where they went after Judea? The events that motivated it? How about during the Ottoman empire? Are you familiar with how persecution of Jews varied across parts of the Ottoman empire up through its eventual demise in the 1920? The TLDR is that some places treated Jews mostly fine while other areas were essentially sundown towns where they'd be fools to try to live there. People often try to pretend the Ottoman empire was some pre-historic age of history but it was not. And then once they fled Europe to move to Israel, they were labeled as invaders. I think Jews are entirely justified in saying "fuck all this, we just need our own country so we can ensure our own safety". Similarly, Palestinians have every right to feel like their safety will never be guaranteed. Both populations can be fighting for their safety in a tragic mess. Groups of people with a long history of getting dumpstered end up deciding to stop trusting they'll be cared for. When they have so much evidence to point to indicating they won't be cared for, why would they trust anyone? This is why I am saying it is so cringey and foolish when people try to have some kinda suffering dick measuring contest. "Oh, you had some babies killed? Yeah buddy well let me link you to a tweet about 100 babies dying. I'll have you know my suffering cock is at least 100 meters long" We can just understand many groups have experienced extreme tragedy and suffering. There isn't some bizarre system of arranging groups by suffering in descending order.
It's not entirely clear to me why you're telling me this but yes, I'm familiar with jewish history. This is a special case in terms of how we deal with the remnants of colonization because it doesn't make as much sense to decolonize Israel as it makes to decolonize for example Kanaky-New Caledonia, we can just send those pricks back to France and that's okay, there's not the equivalent of this option for Israel. So I'm looking at the best options possible and what makes the most sense to me is Israelis staying in Israel but with no system of supremacy in place, and thus either one state where everyone has the same rights, or two states in order to alleviate the suffering of the most directly oppressed population.
That's where I'm at because I generally believe in the shared humanity of all people, and I side with Salazarz and Gorsameth when it comes to what happens during and after an oppression. But if I was Ren and I didn't share those beliefs, then surely I would consider leaving the place before I'd consider killing hundreds of thousands of people to get to stay there.
|
On June 07 2024 01:47 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2024 00:15 Mohdoo wrote:On June 06 2024 22:23 Nebuchad wrote:
There is also a fourth option, by the way. You could make most Israelis leave and go to the US and Europe. This would cause a lot less deaths and suffering than the three options you're considering right now, so maybe you ought to consider this one?
It's not my preferred option because I'm of the opinion that people are capable of living in peace next to each other when there is no system of supremacy in place to crush that harmony, but if I believed that this was impossible, then surely I would consider leaving before I'd consider killing hundreds of thousands of people to get to stay here. Its important to remember how Jews first arrived in Europe. The Holocaust was not their first genocide. Let me stop right here and ask you how familiar you are with the actual nitty gritty of Jewish persecution in the middle east. Are you familiar with when they started moving away from Judea? Where they went after Judea? The events that motivated it? How about during the Ottoman empire? Are you familiar with how persecution of Jews varied across parts of the Ottoman empire up through its eventual demise in the 1920? The TLDR is that some places treated Jews mostly fine while other areas were essentially sundown towns where they'd be fools to try to live there. People often try to pretend the Ottoman empire was some pre-historic age of history but it was not. And then once they fled Europe to move to Israel, they were labeled as invaders. I think Jews are entirely justified in saying "fuck all this, we just need our own country so we can ensure our own safety". Similarly, Palestinians have every right to feel like their safety will never be guaranteed. Both populations can be fighting for their safety in a tragic mess. Groups of people with a long history of getting dumpstered end up deciding to stop trusting they'll be cared for. When they have so much evidence to point to indicating they won't be cared for, why would they trust anyone? This is why I am saying it is so cringey and foolish when people try to have some kinda suffering dick measuring contest. "Oh, you had some babies killed? Yeah buddy well let me link you to a tweet about 100 babies dying. I'll have you know my suffering cock is at least 100 meters long" We can just understand many groups have experienced extreme tragedy and suffering. There isn't some bizarre system of arranging groups by suffering in descending order. It's not entirely clear to me why you're telling me this but yes, I'm familiar with jewish history. This is a special case in terms of how we deal with the remnants of colonization because it doesn't make as much sense to decolonize Israel as it makes to decolonize for example Kanaky-New Caledonia, we can just send those pricks back to France and that's okay, there's not the equivalent of this option for Israel. So I'm looking at the best options possible and what makes the most sense to me is Israelis staying in Israel but with no system of supremacy in place, and thus either one state where everyone has the same rights, or two states in order to alleviate the suffering of the most directly oppressed population. That's where I'm at because I generally believe in the shared humanity of all people, and I side with Salazarz and Gorsameth when it comes to what happens during and after an oppression. But if I was Ren and I didn't share those beliefs, then surely I would consider leaving the place before I'd consider killing hundreds of thousands of people to get to stay there.
I agree with the ideals. But I also think these thought experiments proceed further than they should because they use “both sides are interested in peace” as a core assumption. The sad reality is that it isn’t true. Peace can’t come from Israel and Palestine. Peace can only come from stronger nations forcing peace on them.
I think Salazarz is entirely right in saying Israel can only do what they do because the world has failed in their duty to intervene. I think the same is true of Palestinians.
When 2 toddlers are screaming at each other in a playground, it would be inappropriate for a teacher to leave all of the decision making to them. The same is true here. There is an enormous amount of bad faith and purely dishonest behavior for both of them to point to as evidence the other can never be trusted.
I would argue we can look at the current situation and observe this to be true. It shouldn’t be a consideration whether or not they can ever each hold half of a heart and take a wholesome picture together at a Muslim+Jew temple.
And even if we assume it’s technically possible. Do they not get a time limit? Do we just let these belligerent drunks ruin the vibe of the bar for the entire night? Or should someone eventually say “you’re both some fucking idiots” and sit them each down? How long have Israel and Palestine been doing this dance? What’s your beacon of hope? What do you see as a realistic possibility for them to live happily ever after?
If you’re just describing this from a more “theoretical” perspective, sure. Anyone can agree peace is better than war. But my bank account being 9999x larger would also be ideal. It doesn’t mean I have a path to that.
|
Mohdoo's general approach is what we like to call "Realpolitik" in the Germany language, a very frequently used term by our politicians and journalists. It literally means "realistic politics" as I'm sure people would've guessed. The idea is to put idealism aside and look at what can realistically be accomplished.
I think this approach has various benefits, but sometimes it ends up becoming an ideology of sorts, which can lead to a rejection of everything that sounds vaguely idealistic and thus narrows down all the available options to just what's convenient at the expense of what's possible. Even the perception alone of Realpolitik can shape politics itself, making that which is possible impossible by automatically excluding it from discourse. Thus an idea becomes reality because it dominates the discourse, not because it is desirable.
There's always a balancing act between realism and idealism. Neglecting one or the other can lead to terrible outcomes.
|
On June 07 2024 02:48 Magic Powers wrote:
Mohdoo's general approach is what we like to call "Realpolitik" in the Germany language, a very frequently used term by our politicians and journalists. It literally means "realistic politics" as I'm sure people would've guessed. The idea is to put idealism aside and look at what can realistically be accomplished.
I think this approach has various benefits, but sometimes it ends up becoming an ideology of sorts, which can lead to a rejection of everything that sounds vaguely idealistic and thus narrows down all the available options to just what's convenient at the expense of what's possible. Even the perception alone of Realpolitik can shape politics itself, making that which is possible impossible by automatically excluding it from discourse. Thus an idea becomes reality because it dominates the discourse, not because it is desirable.
There's always a balancing act between realism and idealism. Neglecting one over the other can lead to terrible outcomes.
I understand where you're coming from and I think your label is fair and valid. I prefer to think of it like: we ought to be as ambitious as possible and really push the limits of what is possible. But for the road blocks that are HARD blocks, we need to be focusing on other ideas.
My point is that the monkey has been typing on the typewriter trying to come up with a story where Israel and Palestine existing peacefully side by side for 100 years. Things have only gotten worse during that time. Not better. When you spend 100 years trying to climb out of a hole, and the hole is deeper than when you started, maybe digging isn't the right way to get out of the hole.
So I want to be clear that I am not saying we need to just keep our standards low and aim for an easy target. I am instead describing why the goal of peaceful coexistence managed between themselves isn't possible. We can be ambitious, strive for greatness, and also recognize which goals are worth pursuing and which are fantasy.
|
On June 07 2024 02:18 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2024 01:47 Nebuchad wrote:On June 07 2024 00:15 Mohdoo wrote:On June 06 2024 22:23 Nebuchad wrote:
There is also a fourth option, by the way. You could make most Israelis leave and go to the US and Europe. This would cause a lot less deaths and suffering than the three options you're considering right now, so maybe you ought to consider this one?
It's not my preferred option because I'm of the opinion that people are capable of living in peace next to each other when there is no system of supremacy in place to crush that harmony, but if I believed that this was impossible, then surely I would consider leaving before I'd consider killing hundreds of thousands of people to get to stay here. Its important to remember how Jews first arrived in Europe. The Holocaust was not their first genocide. Let me stop right here and ask you how familiar you are with the actual nitty gritty of Jewish persecution in the middle east. Are you familiar with when they started moving away from Judea? Where they went after Judea? The events that motivated it? How about during the Ottoman empire? Are you familiar with how persecution of Jews varied across parts of the Ottoman empire up through its eventual demise in the 1920? The TLDR is that some places treated Jews mostly fine while other areas were essentially sundown towns where they'd be fools to try to live there. People often try to pretend the Ottoman empire was some pre-historic age of history but it was not. And then once they fled Europe to move to Israel, they were labeled as invaders. I think Jews are entirely justified in saying "fuck all this, we just need our own country so we can ensure our own safety". Similarly, Palestinians have every right to feel like their safety will never be guaranteed. Both populations can be fighting for their safety in a tragic mess. Groups of people with a long history of getting dumpstered end up deciding to stop trusting they'll be cared for. When they have so much evidence to point to indicating they won't be cared for, why would they trust anyone? This is why I am saying it is so cringey and foolish when people try to have some kinda suffering dick measuring contest. "Oh, you had some babies killed? Yeah buddy well let me link you to a tweet about 100 babies dying. I'll have you know my suffering cock is at least 100 meters long" We can just understand many groups have experienced extreme tragedy and suffering. There isn't some bizarre system of arranging groups by suffering in descending order. It's not entirely clear to me why you're telling me this but yes, I'm familiar with jewish history. This is a special case in terms of how we deal with the remnants of colonization because it doesn't make as much sense to decolonize Israel as it makes to decolonize for example Kanaky-New Caledonia, we can just send those pricks back to France and that's okay, there's not the equivalent of this option for Israel. So I'm looking at the best options possible and what makes the most sense to me is Israelis staying in Israel but with no system of supremacy in place, and thus either one state where everyone has the same rights, or two states in order to alleviate the suffering of the most directly oppressed population. That's where I'm at because I generally believe in the shared humanity of all people, and I side with Salazarz and Gorsameth when it comes to what happens during and after an oppression. But if I was Ren and I didn't share those beliefs, then surely I would consider leaving the place before I'd consider killing hundreds of thousands of people to get to stay there. I agree with the ideals. But I also think these thought experiments proceed further than they should because they use “both sides are interested in peace” as a core assumption. The sad reality is that it isn’t true. Peace can’t come from Israel and Palestine. Peace can only come from stronger nations forcing peace on them. I think Salazarz is entirely right in saying Israel can only do what they do because the world has failed in their duty to intervene. I think the same is true of Palestinians. When 2 toddlers are screaming at each other in a playground, it would be inappropriate for a teacher to leave all of the decision making to them. The same is true here. There is an enormous amount of bad faith and purely dishonest behavior for both of them to point to as evidence the other can never be trusted. I would argue we can look at the current situation and observe this to be true. It shouldn’t be a consideration whether or not they can ever each hold half of a heart and take a wholesome picture together at a Muslim+Jew temple. And even if we assume it’s technically possible. Do they not get a time limit? Do we just let these belligerent drunks ruin the vibe of the bar for the entire night? Or should someone eventually say “you’re both some fucking idiots” and sit them each down? How long have Israel and Palestine been doing this dance? What’s your beacon of hope? What do you see as a realistic possibility for them to live happily ever after? If you’re just describing this from a more “theoretical” perspective, sure. Anyone can agree peace is better than war. But my bank account being 9999x larger would also be ideal. It doesn’t mean I have a path to that.
Oh no neither side is interested in peace of course, nor should we expect them to, this was just looking at the options available. Peace would require, as you point out, the US being quite different from what it is right now, so in the current situation it is unavailable because Biden is not an ally. But that's not really the same thing as it being theoretical, or impossible. It doesn't break any of the rules of reality, so it could be done, we've just decided that it's not worth doing. If we only consider what's directly available as reasonable paths, then we can just prepare for the far right taking over because neoliberalism is opening every door for them to make sure leftists have a harder time attacking social hierarchies, then if I know my far right there'll be some sort of world war soon after, a bunch of people are going to die, including me, and then after the war depending on who wins we'll get a very different reality, but none of that is very interesting to talk about in my opinion.
|
On June 07 2024 03:01 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2024 02:18 Mohdoo wrote:On June 07 2024 01:47 Nebuchad wrote:On June 07 2024 00:15 Mohdoo wrote:On June 06 2024 22:23 Nebuchad wrote:
There is also a fourth option, by the way. You could make most Israelis leave and go to the US and Europe. This would cause a lot less deaths and suffering than the three options you're considering right now, so maybe you ought to consider this one?
It's not my preferred option because I'm of the opinion that people are capable of living in peace next to each other when there is no system of supremacy in place to crush that harmony, but if I believed that this was impossible, then surely I would consider leaving before I'd consider killing hundreds of thousands of people to get to stay here. Its important to remember how Jews first arrived in Europe. The Holocaust was not their first genocide. Let me stop right here and ask you how familiar you are with the actual nitty gritty of Jewish persecution in the middle east. Are you familiar with when they started moving away from Judea? Where they went after Judea? The events that motivated it? How about during the Ottoman empire? Are you familiar with how persecution of Jews varied across parts of the Ottoman empire up through its eventual demise in the 1920? The TLDR is that some places treated Jews mostly fine while other areas were essentially sundown towns where they'd be fools to try to live there. People often try to pretend the Ottoman empire was some pre-historic age of history but it was not. And then once they fled Europe to move to Israel, they were labeled as invaders. I think Jews are entirely justified in saying "fuck all this, we just need our own country so we can ensure our own safety". Similarly, Palestinians have every right to feel like their safety will never be guaranteed. Both populations can be fighting for their safety in a tragic mess. Groups of people with a long history of getting dumpstered end up deciding to stop trusting they'll be cared for. When they have so much evidence to point to indicating they won't be cared for, why would they trust anyone? This is why I am saying it is so cringey and foolish when people try to have some kinda suffering dick measuring contest. "Oh, you had some babies killed? Yeah buddy well let me link you to a tweet about 100 babies dying. I'll have you know my suffering cock is at least 100 meters long" We can just understand many groups have experienced extreme tragedy and suffering. There isn't some bizarre system of arranging groups by suffering in descending order. It's not entirely clear to me why you're telling me this but yes, I'm familiar with jewish history. This is a special case in terms of how we deal with the remnants of colonization because it doesn't make as much sense to decolonize Israel as it makes to decolonize for example Kanaky-New Caledonia, we can just send those pricks back to France and that's okay, there's not the equivalent of this option for Israel. So I'm looking at the best options possible and what makes the most sense to me is Israelis staying in Israel but with no system of supremacy in place, and thus either one state where everyone has the same rights, or two states in order to alleviate the suffering of the most directly oppressed population. That's where I'm at because I generally believe in the shared humanity of all people, and I side with Salazarz and Gorsameth when it comes to what happens during and after an oppression. But if I was Ren and I didn't share those beliefs, then surely I would consider leaving the place before I'd consider killing hundreds of thousands of people to get to stay there. I agree with the ideals. But I also think these thought experiments proceed further than they should because they use “both sides are interested in peace” as a core assumption. The sad reality is that it isn’t true. Peace can’t come from Israel and Palestine. Peace can only come from stronger nations forcing peace on them. I think Salazarz is entirely right in saying Israel can only do what they do because the world has failed in their duty to intervene. I think the same is true of Palestinians. When 2 toddlers are screaming at each other in a playground, it would be inappropriate for a teacher to leave all of the decision making to them. The same is true here. There is an enormous amount of bad faith and purely dishonest behavior for both of them to point to as evidence the other can never be trusted. I would argue we can look at the current situation and observe this to be true. It shouldn’t be a consideration whether or not they can ever each hold half of a heart and take a wholesome picture together at a Muslim+Jew temple. And even if we assume it’s technically possible. Do they not get a time limit? Do we just let these belligerent drunks ruin the vibe of the bar for the entire night? Or should someone eventually say “you’re both some fucking idiots” and sit them each down? How long have Israel and Palestine been doing this dance? What’s your beacon of hope? What do you see as a realistic possibility for them to live happily ever after? If you’re just describing this from a more “theoretical” perspective, sure. Anyone can agree peace is better than war. But my bank account being 9999x larger would also be ideal. It doesn’t mean I have a path to that. Oh no neither side is interested in peace of course, nor should we expect them to, this was just looking at the options available. Peace would require, as you point out, the US being quite different from what it is right now, so in the current situation it is unavailable because Biden is not an ally. But that's not really the same thing as it being theoretical, or impossible. It doesn't break any of the rules of reality, so it could be done, we've just decided that it's not worth doing. If we only consider what's directly available as reasonable paths, then we can just prepare for the far right taking over because neoliberalism is opening every door for them to make sure leftists have a harder time attacking social hierarchies, then if I know my far right there'll be some sort of world war soon after, a bunch of people are going to die, including me, and then after the war depending on who wins we'll get a very different reality, but none of that is very interesting to talk about in my opinion.
Fair enough and I appreciate the explanation. I think its important to always contextualize discussions like this with "how it ought to be" rather than being over focused on what is possible. When people get overly pragmatic, they let their standards slip and ambition is lost.
For Israel vs Palestine in particular, I think the mistake other people make when discussing "how it ought to be" is that their solutions always start with somehow overpowering the US's influence rather than incorporating it. If I think of a great solution to a problem, but my boss hates the solution, my goal should not be to find a way to have my idea adopted despite my boss fighting against it. My goal should be to find a way to make my solution the solution my boss supports. Similarly, the fact of the matter is that any real solution will require the support of the US. It probably just won't actually happen otherwise.
|
On June 07 2024 02:55 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2024 02:48 Magic Powers wrote:
Mohdoo's general approach is what we like to call "Realpolitik" in the Germany language, a very frequently used term by our politicians and journalists. It literally means "realistic politics" as I'm sure people would've guessed. The idea is to put idealism aside and look at what can realistically be accomplished.
I think this approach has various benefits, but sometimes it ends up becoming an ideology of sorts, which can lead to a rejection of everything that sounds vaguely idealistic and thus narrows down all the available options to just what's convenient at the expense of what's possible. Even the perception alone of Realpolitik can shape politics itself, making that which is possible impossible by automatically excluding it from discourse. Thus an idea becomes reality because it dominates the discourse, not because it is desirable.
There's always a balancing act between realism and idealism. Neglecting one over the other can lead to terrible outcomes. I understand where you're coming from and I think your label is fair and valid. I prefer to think of it like: we ought to be as ambitious as possible and really push the limits of what is possible. But for the road blocks that are HARD blocks, we need to be focusing on other ideas. My point is that the monkey has been typing on the typewriter trying to come up with a story where Israel and Palestine existing peacefully side by side for 100 years. Things have only gotten worse during that time. Not better. When you spend 100 years trying to climb out of a hole, and the hole is deeper than when you started, maybe digging isn't the right way to get out of the hole. So I want to be clear that I am not saying we need to just keep our standards low and aim for an easy target. I am instead describing why the goal of peaceful coexistence managed between themselves isn't possible. We can be ambitious, strive for greatness, and also recognize which goals are worth pursuing and which are fantasy.
I like the approach of looking at the most consistent factors of the conflict. Equally consistent as the conflict itself has been the support/funding for extremist Palestinian factions such as Hamas from countries such as Iran and Qatar. Likewise Israel has consistently received support/funding from countries such as the US. These are both sources of militarization, on the one hand fueling Palestinian terrorism and on the other hand supporting Israeli defense and retaliation. The result is thousands of dead people on both sides.
So it makes sense to look at the developments.
For example international support for Palestinians is at an all-time high. An uncomfortable coincidence considering this shift in public opinion has resulted from the war after the deadliest attack against Israel since its conception. Don't tell Hamas (they know, and they take full credit for it).
Another one is that Palestine as a country is quickly being recognized by European countries that were previously lagging behind the global trend. Netanyahu describes it as "siding with the terrorists", but thankfully he's falling on deaf ears. Here, too, Hamas take full credit. Countries have also started to ignore the accusations against the UNRWA and resumed aid (Italy, Sweden, Canada, Spain, to name a few).
Biden has started calling out Netanyahu/Israel, that was unthinkable prior to October 7. Previously he referred to himself as a "Zionist" in front of Netanyahu, assuring support on all fronts.
What other things did I miss?
|
On June 07 2024 03:56 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2024 02:55 Mohdoo wrote:On June 07 2024 02:48 Magic Powers wrote:
Mohdoo's general approach is what we like to call "Realpolitik" in the Germany language, a very frequently used term by our politicians and journalists. It literally means "realistic politics" as I'm sure people would've guessed. The idea is to put idealism aside and look at what can realistically be accomplished.
I think this approach has various benefits, but sometimes it ends up becoming an ideology of sorts, which can lead to a rejection of everything that sounds vaguely idealistic and thus narrows down all the available options to just what's convenient at the expense of what's possible. Even the perception alone of Realpolitik can shape politics itself, making that which is possible impossible by automatically excluding it from discourse. Thus an idea becomes reality because it dominates the discourse, not because it is desirable.
There's always a balancing act between realism and idealism. Neglecting one over the other can lead to terrible outcomes. I understand where you're coming from and I think your label is fair and valid. I prefer to think of it like: we ought to be as ambitious as possible and really push the limits of what is possible. But for the road blocks that are HARD blocks, we need to be focusing on other ideas. My point is that the monkey has been typing on the typewriter trying to come up with a story where Israel and Palestine existing peacefully side by side for 100 years. Things have only gotten worse during that time. Not better. When you spend 100 years trying to climb out of a hole, and the hole is deeper than when you started, maybe digging isn't the right way to get out of the hole. So I want to be clear that I am not saying we need to just keep our standards low and aim for an easy target. I am instead describing why the goal of peaceful coexistence managed between themselves isn't possible. We can be ambitious, strive for greatness, and also recognize which goals are worth pursuing and which are fantasy. I like the approach of looking at the most consistent factors of the conflict. Equally consistent as the conflict itself has been the support/funding for extremist Palestinian factions such as Hamas from countries such as Iran and Qatar. Likewise Israel has consistently received support/funding from countries such as the US. These are both sources of militarization, on the one hand fueling Palestinian terrorism and on the other hand supporting Israeli defense and retaliation. The result is thousands of dead people on both sides. So it makes sense to look at the developments. For example international support for Palestinians is at an all-time high. An uncomfortable coincidence considering this shift in public opinion has resulted from the war after the deadliest attack against Israel since its conception. Don't tell Hamas (they know, and they take full credit for it). Another one is that Palestine as a country is quickly being recognized by European countries that were previously lagging behind the global trend. Netanyahu describes it as "siding with the terrorists", but thankfully he's falling on deaf ears. Here, too, Hamas take full credit. Countries have also started to ignore the accusations against the UNRWA and resumed aid (Italy, Sweden, Canada, Spain, to name a few). Biden has started calling out Netanyahu/Israel, that was unthinkable prior to October 7. Previously he referred to himself as a "Zionist" in front of Netanyahu, assuring support on all fronts. What other things did I miss?
I think this is all mostly stuff I agree with. The only thing I strongly disagree with is your characterization of "support for Palestinians". Since the dawn of time, vocal support has rarely manifested as a willingness to spend any sort of political/financial/diplomatic/military resources on Palestinians. The situation has been as it is for 100 years because the simple reality is that no one cares enough to make a difference. The cost/benefit of doing this or that always leads nations to decide to stick to tweets rather than action. I think the whole ICC thing can be approximated as tweets because it will never have any impact on anything.
Peace will only be possible when Palestinians have the support of some nation or faction willing to spend any sort of political/financial/diplomatic/military resources on Palestinians. And that is why I originally said long-term peace will require the US to use their power to force it. It all comes down to the fact that UK+USA are willing to make concrete sacrifices for the sake of Israel whereas even Iran and Qatar are entirely unwilling to harm themselves in any way for the sake of Palestinians. And I'd say Iran and Qatar are the by far most significant supporters of Palestinians. So if that's all they got, that's game over IMO. That's why I think the goal should be to convince the US to adopt an idea that includes the US forcing peace.
|
The biggest issue, IMO, is that there is no incentive for the leaderships on either side to seek peace, so they're really not even trying to. I mean, you have Netanyahu saying on record that Hamas is good for Israel.
From Israel's side, I have no reason believe that they specifically allowed Oct 7 attack to happen, for example, but I do believe that Israel's government wasn't trying nearly as hard as it should have been to prevent it, because they've been using terrorist attacks against Israel as an excuse to carry out attacks of their own and to justify their continued oppression and non-recognition of Palestine.
If we (as in US & EU & rest of the world) collectively told them 'no more violence' and actually showed Israel that there will be consequences for committing war crimes and colonization no matter their justifications, they'd have to start genuinely prioritizing safety of their people and perhaps we'd actually see less security lapses leading to deaths of Israeli people. Their leadership pretends that terrorism is an inevitability because those damned Palestinian 'animals' (again, actual words used by their government) just can't live in peace. You don't really see them take responsibility or admit that they might have made a mistake (at least not as far as I know, feel free to correct me on this if I'm wrong), they just insist that they need to oppress Palestinians a little harder every time something goes wrong.
Likewise, if Palestine actually got a taste of what life without being bombed and oppressed looks like, they'd have at least some incentive to try and maintain peace, and to self-police terrorists of their own. At the moment basically no living people in Palestine have any idea of what 'peaceful life' looks like. Once you change that, suddenly the dudes who keep yelling 'kill all Jews' don't look like noble freedom fighters any more, they look like shitbags that result in your family getting killed and your home demolished. You need to change the status quo to homes not being demolished and people not being killed before you can talk to Palestinians about actions having consequences, but it isn't an impossible task. It's just that right now, their shit is getting blown up either way so might as well take down a Jew or two if you get the chance.
We really don't even need to invest all that much or sacrifice anything beyond the levels we're already investing in aid and support already given to the involved parties. We just need to show that actions have consequences, starting with Israel. Like, there doesn't need to be some kind of coalition standing up to protect Palestinians threatening military intervention against Israel. Simply making support for Israel not-unconditional would help move things in the right direction immensely, I believe.
On June 07 2024 01:20 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2024 21:01 Salazarz wrote:On June 06 2024 19:44 KwarK wrote:On June 06 2024 19:01 Salazarz wrote:
Most people would much rather work on their farms or herd their sheep or whatever it is that Palestinians usually do I honestly don’t understand posts like this. The ignorance is hard to comprehend. The population density is far too high for that kind of pastoral lifestyle and the demographic pyramid is absurdly bottom heavy. The average Palestinian doesn’t have a job. They’re likely a child, living in multigenerational shared housing, without employment or education, and dependent on foreign aid. They spend their time alternating between nothing at all and having more kids. The idea that given the chance they’d love to tend their flocks of sheep is just weird. The assumptions involved in getting there are all wrong. That is not to say that no productive labour happens in Palestine, only that we cannot simply imagine rural Wales and assume it probably looks like that. It is an extremely unusual state that has been created by extremely unusual circumstances. The average Palestinian doesn't have a job at least in part because they're under constant (semi)-blockade, and because nobody wants to build infrastructure or factories etc in a place where they might well be bombed to smithereens at any time assuming the local wankers don't mess it up first. There are plenty of places around the world where people without proper education are living productive and relatively content lives, with population densities that are higher than that of Gaza. Cheap labor is still very much in demand, the problem is lack of stability. If you want to believe that all Palestinians are fundamentally broken and would prefer to perpetually watch their homes be demolished and families murdered for the pay-off of occasionally getting a chance to murder a Jew, that's cool, I suppose. In my experience, vast majority of people turn away from violence as soon as they're given the chance, and I believe Palestinians would do just that. I'm not saying they're fundamentally broken, I'm saying they're not shepherds. The population density of Palestine is comparable to Houston.
Nowhere did I say that all of Palestinians are shepherds, or that we have to give every Palestinian a pasture for their sheep before peace can be found. Do better.
|
A change in Hamas tactics has been observed. More guerilla warfare and less standard resistance.
There's also an estimate on how many Hamas members are left fighting.
"The enclave's ruling group has been reduced to between 9,000 and 12,000 fighters, according to three senior U.S. officials familiar with battlefield developments, down from American estimates, opens new tab of 20,000-25,000 before the conflict. By contrast, Israel says it has lost almost 300 troops in the Gaza campaign."
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/diminished-hamas-switches-full-insurgent-mode-gaza-2024-06-06/
If this estimate is true, then I'd expect the war to continue for at least one more year and up to three years before Hamas could be considered politically defeated.
Why politically? Because Israel's messaging has shifted from a military victory to a political one. The official mission is now to make sure Hamas won't be able to govern Gaza, not to destroy them militarily.
In practice I'm not sure if this amounts to a meaningful difference for either side because Hamas is unlikely to surrender until they're out of options militarily. Personally I think the change in the phrasing is meaningless.
|
Strange thing with Biden announcing that Israel had proposed a permanent seize fire to Hamas, and that Hamas had agreed to it, but Israel had not.
And then next Netanyahu said Biden was a liar. And then Israel basically said that even if they agree to a permanent seize fire, their are gonna break it whenever they want. So their word is not worth anything and Hamas shouldn't even try to make a deal with them because it doesn't matter if there is a deal or not. If Israel thinks they can kill Hamas leaders, they will launch a military operation into Gaza.
We will know that Israel is serious about a seize fire only AFTER you hear Ben Gvir and Smotrich either quit or were kicked out. Before that, this will go on. And yes by this rate, it can take years for Israel to kill enough Hamas militants to be able to declare their military goals achieved.
We have heard very little about actual fighting between Hamas and Israel. You would think that Israel would benefit from propaganda videos where they are either attacked or kill Hamas soldiers. Like we see constantly come out of Ukraine.
|
If they did that then they'd need to sift through all the footage they have of waiting until supposed Hamas fighters are in a noncombat setting before choosing to bomb them when a 20:1 civilian fatality rate is deemed acceptable.
|
On June 08 2024 09:45 Kitalpha wrote:
We have heard very little about actual fighting between Hamas and Israel. You would think that Israel would benefit from propaganda videos where they are either attacked or kill Hamas soldiers. Like we see constantly come out of Ukraine.
That's because very little actual 'fighting' is happening. Majority of this war is just Israel lobbing bombs at Palestinians, and majority of Hamas kills is just Israel declaring that there was X number of fighters in this building we last levelled or that group of people we just slaughtered. No doubt at least some of those are in fact Hamas fighters being killed, but a video of a refugee camp or an apartment block full of civilians being destroyed would make for pretty poor propaganda no matter how many Hamas fighters you claim were hiding amongst said civilians.
|
We're seeing plenty of propaganda, just not in video form. Israel explains the lack of footage by saying they need to hide this information from Hamas. But at the same time they keep denying the deaths of dozens of civilians every time a building gets hit. Just recently they hit a UN school and killed civilians that were sheltering there. Israel of course denies that there were literally any (!) civilian casualties. If this lie wasn't so obvious and so commonly used, maybe people wouldn't suspect Israel of also lying about other things.
"Israel's military said its fighter jets had carried out a "precise strike", and circulated satellite photos highlighting two parts of a building where it said the fighters were based.
"We're very confident in the intelligence," military spokesperson Lt Col. Peter Lerner said, accusing Hamas and Islamic Jihad fighters of deliberately using U.N. facilities as operational bases.
He said 20 to 30 fighters were located in the compound, and many of them had been killed. "I'm not aware of any civilian casualties and I'd be very, very cautious of accepting anything that Hamas puts out," he said."
The problem with Lerner's statement is that civilians have confirmed the deaths of civilians, as Reuters writes in the article. So we know that he's lying. For what reason would he be lying?
This is why:
"Washington said it expected Israel to be fully transparent in making information about the strike public.
"As a general matter, and as we’ve said before, Israel has a right to go after Hamas. But we’ve also been clear that Israel must take every precaution possible and do more to protect civilians," a White House National Security Council spokesperson said."
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-says-jets-strike-school-containing-hamas-compound-gaza-media-says-27-2024-06-06/
|
4 Israeli hostages have been freed from Gaza.
This comes exactly on the day one of Bibi's coalition partners was about to leave the government for lack of 'day-after' plan.
Practically it means that Netanyahu is going nowhere anytime soon and the war will continue at a slower pace.
Also that we are well on the way to the 'open-air prison' solution to Gaza.
|
Imagine that, more hostages kept in a family home. And not just 1, moved around to various family apartments.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
