|
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. |
Northern Ireland26623 Posts
On May 28 2025 05:27 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2025 05:07 Sermokala wrote:
I don't think its Ivory tower to say that in 2025 we probably shouldn't be rewarding those who want ethnic cleansing with letting them ethnic cleanse away their problems. The ivory tower component is the idea that reward/punish is a valid or realistic idea for the situation. Attaching moral guidelines to a situation that has been shown to obey zero moral guidelines is just detached and wrong. As for where to go, no idea. But I think if you showed someone in 2005 the situation for Palestinians in 2025, they would have absolutely zero optimism. The common trope in this discussion is "yeah but what if peace magically happens later? Better to at least allow for the potential for a miracle to happen". But look at all those maps showing "Palestinian land vs time". Its like a way more egregious version of "here's how Bernie can still win". Another thing that makes it ivory tower is the implication the situation is currently stable and/or acceptable. How many Palestinian children have been killed since Oct7 2023? Would someone in 2020 have anticipated that number of deaths in the next 5 years? Maybe I can more effectively frame my perspective with this question: How many more instances of 2023-2025 violence would need to take place before you give up on coexistence? Imagine a similar Israeli campaign happens in 2034, then again in 2049. It is always easy to assume things will improve, but I'm having a hard time finding a single example for Palestinians.
I’m sure if you said to a European in 1945, especially one who’d been around long enough to have experienced WW1 as well, they’d have a pretty fucking hard time envisaging our current timeline too.
Of course, differences abound too, as you’ve rightly pointed out.
I’m not one of life’s optimists, as a task it surely cannot remotely be as tough as rebuilding Europe post-WW2, dealing with the legacy of Nazism, Fascism, integrating Japan into the national fold etc.
The will to do it, sorely lacking, of course. But it’s not some consolatory intractable problem
|
On May 28 2025 06:43 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2025 05:27 Mohdoo wrote:On May 28 2025 05:07 Sermokala wrote:
I don't think its Ivory tower to say that in 2025 we probably shouldn't be rewarding those who want ethnic cleansing with letting them ethnic cleanse away their problems. The ivory tower component is the idea that reward/punish is a valid or realistic idea for the situation. Attaching moral guidelines to a situation that has been shown to obey zero moral guidelines is just detached and wrong. As for where to go, no idea. But I think if you showed someone in 2005 the situation for Palestinians in 2025, they would have absolutely zero optimism. The common trope in this discussion is "yeah but what if peace magically happens later? Better to at least allow for the potential for a miracle to happen". But look at all those maps showing "Palestinian land vs time". Its like a way more egregious version of "here's how Bernie can still win". Another thing that makes it ivory tower is the implication the situation is currently stable and/or acceptable. How many Palestinian children have been killed since Oct7 2023? Would someone in 2020 have anticipated that number of deaths in the next 5 years? Maybe I can more effectively frame my perspective with this question: How many more instances of 2023-2025 violence would need to take place before you give up on coexistence? Imagine a similar Israeli campaign happens in 2034, then again in 2049. It is always easy to assume things will improve, but I'm having a hard time finding a single example for Palestinians. I’m sure if you said to a European in 1945, especially one who’d been around long enough to have experienced WW1 as well, they’d have a pretty fucking hard time envisaging our current timeline too. Of course, differences abound too, as you’ve rightly pointed out. I’m not one of life’s optimists, as a task it surely cannot remotely be as tough as rebuilding Europe post-WW2, dealing with the legacy of Nazism, Fascism, integrating Japan into the national fold etc. The will to do it, sorely lacking, of course. But it’s not some consolatory intractable problem
This is fair, and I think your thoughts helped me boil down what I'm trying to say into a more direct sentence: All of the western diplomacy we love to pat ourselves on the back for in our history books was heavily carried by military force.
Get dumpstered --> surrender --> rebuild with a gun to your head specifying exactly how you will rebuild
When the other guy has a gun to their head, you're a lot more willing to trust them. We can look to Pakistan and North Korea for examples of nuclear weapons completely and totally preserving agency and sovereignty. So long as Israel has a choice in the matter, ethnic cleansing is the plan. The only variable is the rate at which they will kill Palestinians to maximize their diplomatic/economic qualities while still staying on their path.
|
On May 28 2025 06:43 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2025 05:27 Mohdoo wrote:On May 28 2025 05:07 Sermokala wrote:
I don't think its Ivory tower to say that in 2025 we probably shouldn't be rewarding those who want ethnic cleansing with letting them ethnic cleanse away their problems. The ivory tower component is the idea that reward/punish is a valid or realistic idea for the situation. Attaching moral guidelines to a situation that has been shown to obey zero moral guidelines is just detached and wrong. As for where to go, no idea. But I think if you showed someone in 2005 the situation for Palestinians in 2025, they would have absolutely zero optimism. The common trope in this discussion is "yeah but what if peace magically happens later? Better to at least allow for the potential for a miracle to happen". But look at all those maps showing "Palestinian land vs time". Its like a way more egregious version of "here's how Bernie can still win". Another thing that makes it ivory tower is the implication the situation is currently stable and/or acceptable. How many Palestinian children have been killed since Oct7 2023? Would someone in 2020 have anticipated that number of deaths in the next 5 years? Maybe I can more effectively frame my perspective with this question: How many more instances of 2023-2025 violence would need to take place before you give up on coexistence? Imagine a similar Israeli campaign happens in 2034, then again in 2049. It is always easy to assume things will improve, but I'm having a hard time finding a single example for Palestinians. I’m sure if you said to a European in 1945, especially one who’d been around long enough to have experienced WW1 as well, they’d have a pretty fucking hard time envisaging our current timeline too. Of course, differences abound too, as you’ve rightly pointed out. I’m not one of life’s optimists, as a task it surely cannot remotely be as tough as rebuilding Europe post-WW2, dealing with the legacy of Nazism, Fascism, integrating Japan into the national fold etc. The will to do it, sorely lacking, of course. But it’s not some consolatory intractable problem Rebuilding Europe post WW2 was 100x easier then rebuilding Gaza. Europe remembered a time before the nazis, a time before the war.
The people in gaza don't remember a time before. Before gaza was a hellhole refugee camp, before everyone around them was at risk of dying to hamas or the idf at any time.
Gaza isn't rebuilding, its building from scratch. There is no foundation.
|
United States43907 Posts
On May 28 2025 07:07 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2025 06:43 WombaT wrote:On May 28 2025 05:27 Mohdoo wrote:On May 28 2025 05:07 Sermokala wrote:
I don't think its Ivory tower to say that in 2025 we probably shouldn't be rewarding those who want ethnic cleansing with letting them ethnic cleanse away their problems. The ivory tower component is the idea that reward/punish is a valid or realistic idea for the situation. Attaching moral guidelines to a situation that has been shown to obey zero moral guidelines is just detached and wrong. As for where to go, no idea. But I think if you showed someone in 2005 the situation for Palestinians in 2025, they would have absolutely zero optimism. The common trope in this discussion is "yeah but what if peace magically happens later? Better to at least allow for the potential for a miracle to happen". But look at all those maps showing "Palestinian land vs time". Its like a way more egregious version of "here's how Bernie can still win". Another thing that makes it ivory tower is the implication the situation is currently stable and/or acceptable. How many Palestinian children have been killed since Oct7 2023? Would someone in 2020 have anticipated that number of deaths in the next 5 years? Maybe I can more effectively frame my perspective with this question: How many more instances of 2023-2025 violence would need to take place before you give up on coexistence? Imagine a similar Israeli campaign happens in 2034, then again in 2049. It is always easy to assume things will improve, but I'm having a hard time finding a single example for Palestinians. I’m sure if you said to a European in 1945, especially one who’d been around long enough to have experienced WW1 as well, they’d have a pretty fucking hard time envisaging our current timeline too. Of course, differences abound too, as you’ve rightly pointed out. I’m not one of life’s optimists, as a task it surely cannot remotely be as tough as rebuilding Europe post-WW2, dealing with the legacy of Nazism, Fascism, integrating Japan into the national fold etc. The will to do it, sorely lacking, of course. But it’s not some consolatory intractable problem Rebuilding Europe post WW2 was 100x easier then rebuilding Gaza. Europe remembered a time before the nazis, a time before the war. The people in gaza don't remember a time before. Before gaza was a hellhole refugee camp, before everyone around them was at risk of dying to hamas or the idf at any time. Gaza isn't rebuilding, its building from scratch. There is no foundation.
To +1 this. Not only is there no foundation, nothing to go back to, there’s no even the materials needed to build a foundation. Too many people that, for generations, have only known the refugee prison.
It’s not a problem of money and the comparison with rebuilding Europe after WW2 is apt for the wrong reasons. On a per capita basis Gazans received vastly more money than the Marshall aid plan, even after adjusting for inflation. Far more was spent trying to rebuild Palestine than Western Europe, the problem wasn’t lack of resources.
We’ve essentially had a two state solution for decades and Palestine has been given a colossal amount of money to build a viable state. They have failed to do so.
Whether it’s because they didn’t want to or because Hamas/PLO stole all the money or whatever is beside the point. Unless whatever factor prevented it from working last time is addressed there’s absolutely no reason to think it’ll work next time.
Gaza got autonomy. Gaza got elections. Gaza got absurd amounts of foreign aid for nation building. Look at what they did with it.
|
I don't want this to come across as dismissive to what both of you are saying, but I feel like rebuilding isn't even a real idea because peace isn't even a real idea. Is it that you guys see a path to genuine peace I am missing? Or you guys are assuming Israel has less diplomatic wiggle room than I am?
|
On May 28 2025 08:43 Mohdoo wrote:
I don't want this to come across as dismissive to what both of you are saying, but I feel like rebuilding isn't even a real idea because peace isn't even a real idea. Is it that you guys see a path to genuine peace I am missing? Or you guys are assuming Israel has less diplomatic wiggle room than I am?
Don't worry KwarK just wanted to see if he could slip into his argument that the blockade of the Gaza Strip is the same thing as autonomy and a two-state solution, he didn't really want a discussion with you.
|
United States43907 Posts
On May 28 2025 08:43 Mohdoo wrote:
I don't want this to come across as dismissive to what both of you are saying, but I feel like rebuilding isn't even a real idea because peace isn't even a real idea. Is it that you guys see a path to genuine peace I am missing? Or you guys are assuming Israel has less diplomatic wiggle room than I am?
We're not disagreeing. You're saying that peace was never an option and I'm saying that in a hypothetical scenario of there being peace the prerequisites for normalization aren't there. We're identifying different aspects of hopelessness.
|
United States43907 Posts
On May 28 2025 09:30 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2025 08:43 Mohdoo wrote:
I don't want this to come across as dismissive to what both of you are saying, but I feel like rebuilding isn't even a real idea because peace isn't even a real idea. Is it that you guys see a path to genuine peace I am missing? Or you guys are assuming Israel has less diplomatic wiggle room than I am? Don't worry KwarK just wanted to see if he could slip into his argument that the blockade of the Gaza Strip is the same thing as autonomy and a two-state solution, he didn't really want a discussion with you.
As always you've completely failed to read and understand my post, despite me laying it out clearly. It doesn't matter what cause you attribute to Gaza's failure as a state unless you have a plan to address that failure. You can blame it on anything you like, I don't care, it changes nothing. Let's say that Gaza with all of its trauma and poverty and gangs and religious death cults and so forth was actually totally viable as a state right up until Israel blockaded it and then it was doomed to failure. Unless you've got a plan to stop Israel doing a blockade all you're doing is agreeing that Gaza was doomed to failure.
On May 28 2025 07:56 KwarK wrote:
Whether it’s because they didn’t want to or because Hamas/PLO stole all the money or whatever is beside the point. Unless whatever factor prevented it from working last time is addressed there’s absolutely no reason to think it’ll work next time.
|
On May 28 2025 09:45 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2025 09:30 Nebuchad wrote:On May 28 2025 08:43 Mohdoo wrote:
I don't want this to come across as dismissive to what both of you are saying, but I feel like rebuilding isn't even a real idea because peace isn't even a real idea. Is it that you guys see a path to genuine peace I am missing? Or you guys are assuming Israel has less diplomatic wiggle room than I am? Don't worry KwarK just wanted to see if he could slip into his argument that the blockade of the Gaza Strip is the same thing as autonomy and a two-state solution, he didn't really want a discussion with you. As always you've completely failed to read and understand my post, despite me laying it out clearly. It doesn't matter what cause you attribute to Gaza's failure as a state unless you have a plan to address that failure. You can blame it on anything you like, I don't care, it changes nothing. Let's say that Gaza with all of its trauma and poverty and gangs and religious death cults and so forth was actually totally viable as a state right up until Israel blockaded it and then it was doomed to failure. Unless you've got a plan to stop Israel doing a blockade all you're doing is agreeing that Gaza was doomed to failure. Show nested quote +On May 28 2025 07:56 KwarK wrote:
Whether it’s because they didn’t want to or because Hamas/PLO stole all the money or whatever is beside the point. Unless whatever factor prevented it from working last time is addressed there’s absolutely no reason to think it’ll work next time.
Your post also contained the things that I reacted to: "We’ve essentially had a two state solution for decades and Palestine has been given a colossal amount of money to build a viable state. They have failed to do so."
"Gaza got autonomy. Gaza got elections. Gaza got absurd amounts of foreign aid for nation building. Look at what they did with it."
You didn't have to put those things in if you didn't want people to "misread" you.
|
United States43907 Posts
On May 28 2025 10:00 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2025 09:45 KwarK wrote:On May 28 2025 09:30 Nebuchad wrote:On May 28 2025 08:43 Mohdoo wrote:
I don't want this to come across as dismissive to what both of you are saying, but I feel like rebuilding isn't even a real idea because peace isn't even a real idea. Is it that you guys see a path to genuine peace I am missing? Or you guys are assuming Israel has less diplomatic wiggle room than I am? Don't worry KwarK just wanted to see if he could slip into his argument that the blockade of the Gaza Strip is the same thing as autonomy and a two-state solution, he didn't really want a discussion with you. As always you've completely failed to read and understand my post, despite me laying it out clearly. It doesn't matter what cause you attribute to Gaza's failure as a state unless you have a plan to address that failure. You can blame it on anything you like, I don't care, it changes nothing. Let's say that Gaza with all of its trauma and poverty and gangs and religious death cults and so forth was actually totally viable as a state right up until Israel blockaded it and then it was doomed to failure. Unless you've got a plan to stop Israel doing a blockade all you're doing is agreeing that Gaza was doomed to failure. On May 28 2025 07:56 KwarK wrote:
Whether it’s because they didn’t want to or because Hamas/PLO stole all the money or whatever is beside the point. Unless whatever factor prevented it from working last time is addressed there’s absolutely no reason to think it’ll work next time. Your post also contained the things that I reacted to: "We’ve essentially had a two state solution for decades and Palestine has been given a colossal amount of money to build a viable state. They have failed to do so." "Gaza got autonomy. Gaza got elections. Gaza got absurd amounts of foreign aid for nation building. Look at what they did with it." You didn't have to put those things in if you didn't want people to "misread" you.
The original assertion was that money could make a viable two state. Unless other factors are changed money won't be enough. We know money won't be enough because they had money.
|
The Real Ivory position is to simply state "yeah lets just relocate them that'll solve the problem" and then convince yourself that's the smart position to have. Applying "Reward or Punish" to what you do isn't being up your own ass its realizing that people see situations and learn from them. If you tell the world that if you abuse a population enough to where they have no good options the world will reward you for taking the population of people you don't like off your hands. You're teaching people that the problem with genocide isn't that its inherently evil, its that you're doing it too fast, do it slowly and you're okay.
The Ivory position is to see that "gee just removing the population will solve the problem, to end the suffering now in one super duper bad thing is good because long term you're preventing greater suffering". You're not offering a solution no matter how brave you think you are by offering Patrick square-level logic of "just push it somewhere else".
If we take you seriously for the first moment, where do you relocate the Palestinians to? How do you propose relocating them? What do you think will happen when they get to this promised land for them?
|
United States43907 Posts
Literally nobody has a viable solution, that's kind of the point.
|
OK KwarK, we had your "god mode" solution.
Can you let us know what is a "realistic" solution?
Are you on board with the (very tempted to throw in final here) solution that Israel is currently enacting with it's incursion and occupation?
Let's break it down like this:
1. Just your best case scenario, for me I'd say let's imagine Israel has 10 days of mass protests and general strike, they outs Netanyahu and via snap elections put in someone less hell bent on ethnic cleansing who gets a super-majority based on a "humane solution for Gaza and West bank", what would that be?
2. A huge, deliberate, well documented massacre of clear civilians, mostly children forces the international community to do something, Trump calls Bibi crazy and Bibi tells him to fuck off and hurts his ego, Trump cuts off all aid and weapons, UN gets a resolution unanimously passed and all members are on board, what would you suggest for their plan to be?
For me, I think I laid down a scenario that might be realistic in either of these situations, go back to Oslo, in the first part roll back the Apartheid policies, get a fund together, rebuild, educate, send a force from UN that is manned mostly by ME folks but under UN jurisdiction and keep it there until everything is enforced, for 20 years if need be.
|
On May 28 2025 16:06 Jankisa wrote:
OK KwarK, we had your "god mode" solution.
Can you let us know what is a "realistic" solution?
Are you on board with the (very tempted to throw in final here) solution that Israel is currently enacting with it's incursion and occupation?
Let's break it down like this:
1. Just your best case scenario, for me I'd say let's imagine Israel has 10 days of mass protests and general strike, they outs Netanyahu and via snap elections put in someone less hell bent on ethnic cleansing who gets a super-majority based on a "humane solution for Gaza and West bank", what would that be?
2. A huge, deliberate, well documented massacre of clear civilians, mostly children forces the international community to do something, Trump calls Bibi crazy and Bibi tells him to fuck off and hurts his ego, Trump cuts off all aid and weapons, UN gets a resolution unanimously passed and all members are on board, what would you suggest for their plan to be?
For me, I think I laid down a scenario that might be realistic in either of these situations, go back to Oslo, in the first part roll back the Apartheid policies, get a fund together, rebuild, educate, send a force from UN that is manned mostly by ME folks but under UN jurisdiction and keep it there until everything is enforced, for 20 years if need be. literally the post above this he tells you plainly there is no realistic solution.
|
I would argue that this just goes to show that if someone can't imagine that Israel could be doing better they are basically endorsing what they are doing, with the "everything is unrealistic" as an excuse. They have all the power.
It's unrealistic because Israel doesn't want to do it, if they wanted to, there would be a lot of realistic solutions.
|
And in times when Israel wanted to do so (or at least more of it) the Palestinians spat in Israels face and there is 0 reason to believe it wouldn't happen again.
This conflict is doomed since decades. If you don't have some magic trick up your sleeve that suddenly disappears all extreme factions on both sides, then there won't be a solution.
|
Unrealistic:
Accept that Israel won. The great replacement of a few hundred non organized normadic arab tribes with millions of european jews seeking refuge from the Holocaust in the land of their ancestors was successful as both sides prevented mixed marriages on a larger scale, so the natural assimilation of "natives" didn't happen.
Israel build a nation, an economy, they have an army and they have allies and wealth.
Palestine build a now destroyed shithole open internment camp terror base that doesn't survive unless 5000 trucks deliver free food every day.
No second state, only israel. Hand out passports to everyone in Gaza to henceforth be known as Israeli, with a David-Star on the cover and assimilate the population.
Everyone who doesn't want this, gets detained and send to any country they name and agrees to take them.
This is unrealistic, because Hardliners don't want arabs to be citizens who can vote.
And there are Racist shitbags, that just want to keep shooting, stabbing and starving them, so they eventually die or move to "Elsewhere".
|
To comment on both of your posts together, I guess judging people who weren't even alive when their states / tribes fucked up is correct, you guys seem to be carrying the nazi legacy just fine.
|
United States43907 Posts
On May 28 2025 10:59 KwarK wrote:
nobody has a viable solution
On May 28 2025 16:06 Jankisa wrote:
Can you let us know what is a "realistic" solution?
|
On May 28 2025 17:44 Jankisa wrote:
I would argue that this just goes to show that if someone can't imagine that Israel could be doing better they are basically endorsing what they are doing, with the "everything is unrealistic" as an excuse. They have all the power.
It's unrealistic because Israel doesn't want to do it, if they wanted to, there would be a lot of realistic solutions.
We are now in the stage of this fight where the onlookers are standing by as one side is jumping on and kicking the passed out body of the guy who initially started the fight, and instead of saying "maybe we should restrain the guy he's going to kill him" you are saying "there's no realistic solution the guy getting killed did some stupid shit before".
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
