|
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 October 30 2023 05:08 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2023 04:41 Dan HH wrote:An average of 20 unique buildings damaged by each strike? Doubtful That depends on what they mean with moderately or lightly damaged. Almost 85% of the damaged buildings fall into that category. Hamas most likely also does not differentiate between the buildings damaged by themselves just as they don't differentiate between Palestinians killed by Israel and the Palestinians that died because of them.
Yeah this whole hospital situation made me totally reassess my historic understanding of everything. Realizing how much information we get is extremely difficult to verify without Hamas being involved, and the comparison between what Hamas said and reality of the hospital thing, really made it hard to hold on to my previous views
Most of my life I wanted Israel to be flat out abolished, but I am more and more realizing a great deal of what I had read or believed was from Hamas. At this point I don’t see either side as “morally superior” and it’s just a matter of fighting for land where 2 different factions want it. Great example of why the world is a worse place when we let land wars like this fester. This is such an embarrassment as a human. Very unsavory to witness this level of collective failure
|
Norway28814 Posts
There have been a couple in Trondheim. Our government has also been starting to increasingly condemn Israel's actions (after initially showing full support following the terror attack).
Also noticed this - the list of countries voting for/against/abstaining on a resolution on “protection of civilians and upholding legal and humanitarian obligations” on the ongoing Gaza crisis.
![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F9eI7BYWAAAy7nT?format=jpg&name=large)
Europe has 4 countries going against and a whole bunch abstaining. (Four countries going against are 'conservative or further right' from my understanding) Then there are some oceania states (unsure to what degree they have independent foreign policy or not) going against. Paraguay and Guatemala I have no idea about.
Aside from that the world is pretty overwhelmingly supportive of the resolution. I think the current events might create a wider schism between 'the west and the rest', tbh. I also think (not passing personal judgment right now) that the support given to Israel/indifference towards the humanitarian situation on Gaza is going to be used as an argument by non-affiliated countries who wish to adopt a position of indifference towards other conflicts.
|
|
|
Out of curiosity for folks who feel strongly 1 way or the other regarding this cringe rivalry: let’s assume the world agreed to pool resources together to create an extremely good Israel/Palestine alternative, equal amount of land, resources, infrastructure, blah blah long story short an entirely great place to live, with houses and whatnot ready and waiting to be provided for fee. Jobs and job training, whatever you need to think “this is a great solution”. Let’s say the world decided to just resolve this conflict with a coin toss. Winner gets to keep the entirety of Israel/Palestine and the loser gets relocated to this new, developed, ideal country.
In short, the only thing the “loser” loses is the fairy tale in their heads associated with the land. But I’m many ways, the new place is actually better since you get a free house and whatnot. If the entire world all worked together to pull this off, it wouldn’t be some humanitarian tragedy, it would be a blessing. Other than the loser losing their “god given” land. And the winner and loser are decided with a coin toss. Would you support this solution? A permanent end to this remarkably embarrassing conflict forever and the loser essentially wins the lottery.
The reason I ask is that my impression is that many people let their own impressions of who has some kinda historic moral high ground or respect for religion or whatever impact how they view the conflict. I am curious if those of you who appear to be deeply invested think the land itself is sacred or if you just don’t want a population to deeply suffer.
|
Norway28814 Posts
Ya the average is definitely leaning 'abstain'. If you look at EU+EFTA countries, it's 4 against, 16 abstain, 11 for. Add to it that Japan and Canada and Australia abstain and the 'west' overall leans pretty strongly abstain.
|
Northern Ireland27004 Posts
Abstention is a no vote without the balls, at least on this specific proposal
|
On October 30 2023 06:23 Mohdoo wrote:
Out of curiosity for folks who feel strongly 1 way or the other regarding this cringe rivalry: let’s assume the world agreed to pool resources together to create an extremely good Israel/Palestine alternative, equal amount of land, resources, infrastructure, blah blah long story short an entirely great place to live, with houses and whatnot ready and waiting to be provided for fee. Jobs and job training, whatever you need to think “this is a great solution”. Let’s say the world decided to just resolve this conflict with a coin toss. Winner gets to keep the entirety of Israel/Palestine and the loser gets relocated to this new, developed, ideal country.
In short, the only thing the “loser” loses is the fairy tale in their heads associated with the land. But I’m many ways, the new place is actually better since you get a free house and whatnot. If the entire world all worked together to pull this off, it wouldn’t be some humanitarian tragedy, it would be a blessing. Other than the loser losing their “god given” land. And the winner and loser are decided with a coin toss. Would you support this solution? A permanent end to this remarkably embarrassing conflict forever and the loser essentially wins the lottery.
The reason I ask is that my impression is that many people let their own impressions of who has some kinda historic moral high ground or respect for religion or whatever impact how they view the conflict. I am curious if those of you who appear to be deeply invested think the land itself is sacred or if you just don’t want a population to deeply suffer.
Weren't you all about realistic solutions in this thread? Or is genocide your actual desired outcome and not what you think is inevitable and are therefore arguing ways to make the genocide slightly less awful? Because if happy rainbow unicorn solutions are suddenly acceptable, this one is probably fine. Of course, if we could conjure up unoccupied but useful land out of nowhere, there'd be far fewer wars to begin with...
|
On October 30 2023 06:23 Mohdoo wrote:
Out of curiosity for folks who feel strongly 1 way or the other regarding this cringe rivalry: let’s assume the world agreed to pool resources together to create an extremely good Israel/Palestine alternative, equal amount of land, resources, infrastructure, blah blah long story short an entirely great place to live, with houses and whatnot ready and waiting to be provided for fee. Jobs and job training, whatever you need to think “this is a great solution”. Let’s say the world decided to just resolve this conflict with a coin toss. Winner gets to keep the entirety of Israel/Palestine and the loser gets relocated to this new, developed, ideal country.
In short, the only thing the “loser” loses is the fairy tale in their heads associated with the land. But I’m many ways, the new place is actually better since you get a free house and whatnot. If the entire world all worked together to pull this off, it wouldn’t be some humanitarian tragedy, it would be a blessing. Other than the loser losing their “god given” land. And the winner and loser are decided with a coin toss. Would you support this solution? A permanent end to this remarkably embarrassing conflict forever and the loser essentially wins the lottery.
The reason I ask is that my impression is that many people let their own impressions of who has some kinda historic moral high ground or respect for religion or whatever impact how they view the conflict. I am curious if those of you who appear to be deeply invested think the land itself is sacred or if you just don’t want a population to deeply suffer. Such a weird and useless hypothesis.
Do you want world peace at no cost.
Yes?
Are you seriously expecting people to come out for genocide over world peace here?
|
Norway28814 Posts
On October 30 2023 06:23 Mohdoo wrote:
Out of curiosity for folks who feel strongly 1 way or the other regarding this cringe rivalry: let’s assume the world agreed to pool resources together to create an extremely good Israel/Palestine alternative, equal amount of land, resources, infrastructure, blah blah long story short an entirely great place to live, with houses and whatnot ready and waiting to be provided for fee. Jobs and job training, whatever you need to think “this is a great solution”. Let’s say the world decided to just resolve this conflict with a coin toss. Winner gets to keep the entirety of Israel/Palestine and the loser gets relocated to this new, developed, ideal country.
In short, the only thing the “loser” loses is the fairy tale in their heads associated with the land. But I’m many ways, the new place is actually better since you get a free house and whatnot. If the entire world all worked together to pull this off, it wouldn’t be some humanitarian tragedy, it would be a blessing. Other than the loser losing their “god given” land. And the winner and loser are decided with a coin toss. Would you support this solution? A permanent end to this remarkably embarrassing conflict forever and the loser essentially wins the lottery.
The reason I ask is that my impression is that many people let their own impressions of who has some kinda historic moral high ground or respect for religion or whatever impact how they view the conflict. I am curious if those of you who appear to be deeply invested think the land itself is sacred or if you just don’t want a population to deeply suffer.
I just don't want a population to deeply suffer. You seem to be extremely fixated on the need for 'a solution', to the point where you'd accept a terrible 'solution' over a less terrible status quo. I accept that there's no real 'great outcome' here, but there's a whole spectrum of how deplorable a humanitarian situation can be, and I think right now the situation in Gaza qualifies for more than 1 on a 0-10 Norway to Tutsi in 1995-scale, I think it's in danger of steadily increasing and going by this scale I never want to see numbers above 0.
There's no point in trying to make silly hypotheticals. Nobody here wants to throw all the Jews out of Israel and hopefully nobody here (I'm slightly less convinced) wants every Palestinian thrown out of Palestine. These aren't options to seriously discuss, because there is no other home for either group. There are however many plausible ways I can imagine for both groups to coexist with significantly less overall suffering than what we see today and what we have seen for the past x decades.
|
On October 30 2023 06:31 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2023 06:23 Mohdoo wrote:
Out of curiosity for folks who feel strongly 1 way or the other regarding this cringe rivalry: let’s assume the world agreed to pool resources together to create an extremely good Israel/Palestine alternative, equal amount of land, resources, infrastructure, blah blah long story short an entirely great place to live, with houses and whatnot ready and waiting to be provided for fee. Jobs and job training, whatever you need to think “this is a great solution”. Let’s say the world decided to just resolve this conflict with a coin toss. Winner gets to keep the entirety of Israel/Palestine and the loser gets relocated to this new, developed, ideal country.
In short, the only thing the “loser” loses is the fairy tale in their heads associated with the land. But I’m many ways, the new place is actually better since you get a free house and whatnot. If the entire world all worked together to pull this off, it wouldn’t be some humanitarian tragedy, it would be a blessing. Other than the loser losing their “god given” land. And the winner and loser are decided with a coin toss. Would you support this solution? A permanent end to this remarkably embarrassing conflict forever and the loser essentially wins the lottery.
The reason I ask is that my impression is that many people let their own impressions of who has some kinda historic moral high ground or respect for religion or whatever impact how they view the conflict. I am curious if those of you who appear to be deeply invested think the land itself is sacred or if you just don’t want a population to deeply suffer. Weren't you all about realistic solutions in this thread? Or is genocide your actual desired outcome and not what you think is inevitable and are therefore arguing ways to make the genocide slightly less awful? Because if happy rainbow unicorn solutions are suddenly acceptable, this one is probably fine. Of course, if we could conjure up unoccupied but useful land out of nowhere, there'd be far fewer wars to begin with...
I’m not trying to propose a solution. I’m seeking understanding with folks here who disagree with me. I’m legitimately puzzled and don’t understand some people’s views on this topic and I am trying to gain insight into how/why they reached their conclusions or advocate for their position.
The reason I have spent most of my life favoring the dissolution of Israel as a country is that its location looks incredibly stupid from a Birds Eye view. Forgive my brashness here, but Muslims and Jews being enemies for a billion years is well understood, and putting some kinda Jewish headquarters in the middle of a bunch of Muslim countries is clearly stupid. But I understand why they did it of course. I’ve always thought the idea of peace isn’t actually viewed as realistic for people who pretend they think it’s possible. I think many people who advocate for this or that solution, deep down inside, know it’s just pushing the problem til later because they simply can’t seem to get along.
But the world is extremely neglectful in their duties to reduce suffering and no one seems interested in preventing this war from occurring. The only concern is to prevent it boiling over, but a few hundreds of deaths on each side each year seems entirely satisfactory for most of the world’s governments. It’s all cowardly and irresponsible. So in the absence of the world actually being willing to do their duty as humans and prevent war, the world should own their negligence and selfishness. They should let the war happen, fully, in whatever form it takes. The world lost the ability to interject with “yeah but you’re being like, extra mean now  (((“ when they are openly and knowingly allowing tons and tons of violence every year. But that’s a bit of a tangent. Im just saying I am curious what motivates people’s specific views on the topic and how much of it comes from moral high ground vs reducing suffering
On October 30 2023 06:37 Liquid`Drone wrote:
There's no point in trying to make silly hypotheticals. Nobody here wants to throw all the Jews out of Israel and hopefully nobody here (I'm slightly less convinced) wants every Palestinian thrown out of Palestine. These aren't options to seriously discuss, because there is no other home for either group. There are however many plausible ways I can imagine for both groups to coexist with significantly less overall suffering than what we see today and what we have seen for the past x decades.
I’m glad you said this because if I didn’t do a good job at describing what I am against in my above post, you perfectly encapsulated it here. You aren’t advocating for an end to the suffering created by this conflict. You’re wanting it to simmer down a bit but ultimately continue with no end in sight. You know a 2 state solution isn’t happening. You know the settlements aren’t going anywhere. You are essentially giving a thumbs up to prolonged suffering.
I think “let’s wait for peace” is the gist of what you’re describing and I think it’s mostly bad faith. I don’t think you actually believe it. I think you are aware that the conditions needed for each faction to be entirely satisfied are fundamentally incompatible with approval from the other. Am I wrong? Is it that you have an idea as to some kinda agreement where they’re both happy and they no longer see a need for military conflict?
|
My views on the topic are motivated by leftist principles. Social hierarchies are bad, ethnic cleansings and genocides are very bad, and treating people like subhumans is bad. I don't think any state should do it, be it a state that's an enemy of the West (such as Russia) or a state that's an ally of the West (such as Israel), but it does hit me more when it's an ally doing it of course because then I get to see a bunch of gargoyles talking about why it's okay this time instead of the near universal condemnation that we see when an enemy does it.
That's all, really. Much like almost all of the political discussions that we have that involve fascism-adjacent ideas, it is not a complex moral issue.
|
On October 30 2023 06:30 WombaT wrote:
Abstention is a no vote without the balls, at least on this specific proposal
I view it more as a "don't get us involved in this shit" vote, which I greatly agree with.
I'd rather not see more people die and I would like to see aid to civilians, refuge camps or best of all if the war could just stop.
But I'm not going to pretend that my country has any right to tell Israel and neighbouring countries what to do right now (odd coming from Sweden, I know...).
I would much prefer if we just stuck to telling the leaders on both sides that they are absolute dicks and that we greatly prefer if they could keep the suffering and killing to a minimum, but without any "binding" resolutions.
|
On October 30 2023 06:59 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2023 06:31 Acrofales wrote:On October 30 2023 06:23 Mohdoo wrote:
Out of curiosity for folks who feel strongly 1 way or the other regarding this cringe rivalry: let’s assume the world agreed to pool resources together to create an extremely good Israel/Palestine alternative, equal amount of land, resources, infrastructure, blah blah long story short an entirely great place to live, with houses and whatnot ready and waiting to be provided for fee. Jobs and job training, whatever you need to think “this is a great solution”. Let’s say the world decided to just resolve this conflict with a coin toss. Winner gets to keep the entirety of Israel/Palestine and the loser gets relocated to this new, developed, ideal country.
In short, the only thing the “loser” loses is the fairy tale in their heads associated with the land. But I’m many ways, the new place is actually better since you get a free house and whatnot. If the entire world all worked together to pull this off, it wouldn’t be some humanitarian tragedy, it would be a blessing. Other than the loser losing their “god given” land. And the winner and loser are decided with a coin toss. Would you support this solution? A permanent end to this remarkably embarrassing conflict forever and the loser essentially wins the lottery.
The reason I ask is that my impression is that many people let their own impressions of who has some kinda historic moral high ground or respect for religion or whatever impact how they view the conflict. I am curious if those of you who appear to be deeply invested think the land itself is sacred or if you just don’t want a population to deeply suffer. Weren't you all about realistic solutions in this thread? Or is genocide your actual desired outcome and not what you think is inevitable and are therefore arguing ways to make the genocide slightly less awful? Because if happy rainbow unicorn solutions are suddenly acceptable, this one is probably fine. Of course, if we could conjure up unoccupied but useful land out of nowhere, there'd be far fewer wars to begin with... I’m not trying to propose a solution. I’m seeking understanding with folks here who disagree with me. I’m legitimately puzzled and don’t understand some people’s views on this topic and I am trying to gain insight into how/why they reached their conclusions or advocate for their position. The reason I have spent most of my life favoring the dissolution of Israel as a country is that its location looks incredibly stupid from a Birds Eye view. Forgive my brashness here, but Muslims and Jews being enemies for a billion years is well understood, and putting some kinda Jewish headquarters in the middle of a bunch of Muslim countries is clearly stupid. But I understand why they did it of course. I’ve always thought the idea of peace isn’t actually viewed as realistic for people who pretend they think it’s possible. I think many people who advocate for this or that solution, deep down inside, know it’s just pushing the problem til later because they simply can’t seem to get along. But the world is extremely neglectful in their duties to reduce suffering and no one seems interested in preventing this war from occurring. The only concern is to prevent it boiling over, but a few hundreds of deaths on each side each year seems entirely satisfactory for most of the world’s governments. It’s all cowardly and irresponsible. So in the absence of the world actually being willing to do their duty as humans and prevent war, the world should own their negligence and selfishness. They should let the war happen, fully, in whatever form it takes. The world lost the ability to interject with “yeah but you’re being like, extra mean now (((“ when they are openly and knowingly allowing tons and tons of violence every year. But that’s a bit of a tangent. Im just saying I am curious what motivates people’s specific views on the topic and how much of it comes from moral high ground vs reducing suffering Show nested quote +On October 30 2023 06:37 Liquid`Drone wrote:
There's no point in trying to make silly hypotheticals. Nobody here wants to throw all the Jews out of Israel and hopefully nobody here (I'm slightly less convinced) wants every Palestinian thrown out of Palestine. These aren't options to seriously discuss, because there is no other home for either group. There are however many plausible ways I can imagine for both groups to coexist with significantly less overall suffering than what we see today and what we have seen for the past x decades. I’m glad you said this because if I didn’t do a good job at describing what I am against in my above post, you perfectly encapsulated it here. You aren’t advocating for an end to the suffering created by this conflict. You’re wanting it to simmer down a bit but ultimately continue with no end in sight. You know a 2 state solution isn’t happening. You know the settlements aren’t going anywhere. You are essentially giving a thumbs up to prolonged suffering. I think “let’s wait for peace” is the gist of what you’re describing and I think it’s mostly bad faith. I don’t think you actually believe it. I think you are aware that the conditions needed for each faction to be entirely satisfied are fundamentally incompatible with approval from the other. Am I wrong? Is it that you have an idea as to some kinda agreement where they’re both happy and they no longer see a need for military conflict?
In a imperfect world some things don't have solutions. Some things don't have a right or wrong. At times (very rarely) because both sides are right, but far to often because both sides are wrong. This is one such case. It's not realistic to expect a solution. It's not particularly fruitful to pick sides. Wishing for the minimum amount of suffering is perhaps the best we can do, even if it's just letting the conflict "simmer".
And who knows, perhaps it will change for the better in the future?
|
On October 30 2023 07:11 Nebuchad wrote:
My views on the topic are motivated by leftist principles. Social hierarchies are bad, ethnic cleansings and genocides are very bad, and treating people like subhumans is bad. I don't think any state should do it, be it a state that's an enemy of the West (such as Russia) or a state that's an ally of the West (such as Israel), but it does hit me more when it's an ally doing it of course because then I get to see a bunch of gargoyles talking about why it's okay this time instead of the near universal condemnation that we see when an enemy does it.
That's all, really. Much like almost all of the political discussions that we have that involve fascism-adjacent ideas, it is not a complex moral issue.
This is reasonable and makes sense. We’re mostly aligned on this.
The one thing I am realizing I have done a poor job at explaining is one of the core assumptions I make when discussing this topic: it is a moral imperative for the current generation to try to leave the world in as good of a state as possible for the next generation. When people fight for civil rights and against fascism like you described, they did so selflessly. They did not run from the ugly nature of the world and they did not put their heads in the sand for the sake of preventing short term tragedy. Similar to how leaving climate change as a disaster for our kids to deal with would be an enormous moral failing, our human society on this planet is failing to sort out the Israel/Palestine issue in a concentrated, long-term way. We are kicking the can down the road and forcing our subsequent generations to have all the same discussions, all the same conflict, all the same suffering. It’s not ethical. The way our planet has handled this issue is deeply irresponsible. I view it as a failing of humanity as a whole.
|
Norway28814 Posts
North Korea and South Korea hating each other and having a perpetual ceasefire is preferable to one group killing the other. The idea of 'ending suffering' as a goal isn't really present anywhere that I know of outside of like, Buddhism, and there, it's achieved by ending the cycle of rebirth.
It's not a binary question of 'suffering' or 'no suffering', there's a huge spectrum of potential suffering. Life is chaotic, the world is chaotic, there are no perfect solutions, history has happened, we do the best with what we have. I have no idea how to achieve peace, BUT, it's not like no oppressed people throughout history has ever achieved betterment for themselves.
While I'm not going to claim expertise here and it might be that I'm wrong, it's my impression that in western democracies, indigenous populations are less oppressed today than they were ~70 years ago. Maybe there are exceptions, but I know it's certainly the case in Norway. I'm pretty confident it's the case in Australia and Canada too. The way this happened was that the majority population (oppressors) became less oppressive. It's not like samis in Norway will state that they encounter no discrimination any longer. But they'll certainly prefer the current situation over forced displacement and not being allowed to speak their native language. I'm sure indigenous canadian tribes still suffer discrimination, but I believe the forced sterilization programmes ended something like 50 years ago. Etc, etc, etc.
Likewise, people in Gaza can be in a shitty situation because they have few options and live under an oppressive regime (Hamas, now), but their situation is less shitty if they have electricity, clean water, enough food to survive and an absense of bombs being dropped on their homes.
|
The reason I have spent most of my life favoring the dissolution of Israel as a country is that its location looks incredibly stupid from a Birds Eye view. Forgive my brashness here, but Muslims and Jews being enemies for a billion years is well understood, and putting some kinda Jewish headquarters in the middle of a bunch of Muslim countries is clearly stupid. But I understand why they did it of course. I’ve always thought the idea of peace isn’t actually viewed as realistic for people who pretend they think it’s possible. I think many people who advocate for this or that solution, deep down inside, know it’s just pushing the problem til later because they simply can’t seem to get along.
Muslims and Jews being enemies for a billion years is not 'well understood', it's historically inaccurate. Jews coexisted with Muslims for a very long time, far better than they have with Christians for nearly all of recorded history. And the idea that the conflict is all due to Jew HQ being put in the middle of Muslim lands is incredibly reductionist (kinda like the rest of your arguments are, like the claim that Hamas only exists because of Iran and Qatar funding and they are the real reasons for the currently ongoing violence).
I’m glad you said this because if I didn’t do a good job at describing what I am against in my above post, you perfectly encapsulated it here. You aren’t advocating for an end to the suffering created by this conflict. You’re wanting it to simmer down a bit but ultimately continue with no end in sight. You know a 2 state solution isn’t happening. You know the settlements aren’t going anywhere. You are essentially giving a thumbs up to prolonged suffering.
I think “let’s wait for peace” is the gist of what you’re describing and I think it’s mostly bad faith. I don’t think you actually believe it. I think you are aware that the conditions needed for each faction to be entirely satisfied are fundamentally incompatible with approval from the other. Am I wrong? Is it that you have an idea as to some kinda agreement where they’re both happy and they no longer see a need for military conflict?
You don't need both sides to be perfectly happy with a solution, you just need a solution that is better than the alternative. For Israel, literally any solution where the alternative is them actually being held accountable for their constant war crimes would be 'acceptable' because Israel would not be able exist without international support. Like, if the US right now, today, insisted that Israel must dismantle their settlements in West Bank and stop bombing Gaza then they would have no choice but to do so. For Palestine, it's more complicated since they're fucked enough that many people simply don't care any more (especially in the Gaza strip), but again... given a choice between a life worth living and dying in a Jihad, vast majority of folks would choose the former. It's evident in just how different Palestinian attitudes in West Bank are vs those in the Gaza strip.
The one thing I am realizing I have done a poor job at explaining is one of the core assumptions I make when discussing this topic: it is a moral imperative for the current generation to try to leave the world in as good of a state as possible for the next generation. When people fight for civil rights and against fascism like you described, they did so selflessly. They did not run from the ugly nature of the world and they did not put their heads in the sand for the sake of preventing short term tragedy. Similar to how leaving climate change as a disaster for our kids to deal with would be an enormous moral failing, our human society on this planet is failing to sort out the Israel/Palestine issue in a concentrated, long-term way. We are kicking the can down the road and forcing our subsequent generations to have all the same discussions, all the same conflict, all the same suffering. It’s not ethical. The way our planet has handled this issue is deeply irresponsible. I view it as a failing of humanity as a whole.
Technically, this is exactly the opposite of what has happened (and still routinely happens) in reality. Most states in the world do not operate based on moral principles, they operate in their own self-interest (or even in the interest of whomever bribes the currently ruling politicians). It's definitely a huge collective failure of humanity, but it ain't the first or even the biggest one in recent history. It's also why the global south is so skeptical of calls to 'stand with Ukraine' or whatever.
|
|
|
On October 30 2023 06:13 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2023 05:50 Liquid`Drone wrote:There have been a couple in Trondheim. Our government has also been starting to increasingly condemn Israel's actions (after initially showing full support following the terror attack). Also noticed this - the list of countries voting for/against/abstaining on a resolution on “protection of civilians and upholding legal and humanitarian obligations” on the ongoing Gaza crisis. Europe has 4 countries going against and a whole bunch abstaining. (Four countries going against are 'conservative or further right' from my understanding) Then there are some oceania states (unsure to what degree they have independent foreign policy or not) going against. Paraguay and Guatemala I have no idea about. Aside from that the world is pretty overwhelmingly supportive of the resolution. I think the current events might create a wider schism between 'the west and the rest', tbh. I also think (not passing personal judgment right now) that the support given to Israel/indifference towards the humanitarian situation on Gaza is going to be used as an argument by non-affiliated countries who wish to adopt a position of indifference towards other conflicts. Looks like most western democracies abstained.
Its pretty solid evidence that the western exceptionalism that leads people to judge arab countries so harshly is based on a very warped, flawed view of ourselves.
|
|
|
On October 30 2023 10:33 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2023 09:41 Jockmcplop wrote:On October 30 2023 06:13 JimmiC wrote:On October 30 2023 05:50 Liquid`Drone wrote:There have been a couple in Trondheim. Our government has also been starting to increasingly condemn Israel's actions (after initially showing full support following the terror attack). Also noticed this - the list of countries voting for/against/abstaining on a resolution on “protection of civilians and upholding legal and humanitarian obligations” on the ongoing Gaza crisis. Europe has 4 countries going against and a whole bunch abstaining. (Four countries going against are 'conservative or further right' from my understanding) Then there are some oceania states (unsure to what degree they have independent foreign policy or not) going against. Paraguay and Guatemala I have no idea about. Aside from that the world is pretty overwhelmingly supportive of the resolution. I think the current events might create a wider schism between 'the west and the rest', tbh. I also think (not passing personal judgment right now) that the support given to Israel/indifference towards the humanitarian situation on Gaza is going to be used as an argument by non-affiliated countries who wish to adopt a position of indifference towards other conflicts. Looks like most western democracies abstained. Its pretty solid evidence that the western exceptionalism that leads people to judge arab countries so harshly is based on a very warped, flawed view of ourselves. I’d say that’s you coming to a conclusion you already had.
So when people criticize Qatar when they host a world cup, for example, because they have a poor record of protecting their workers and upholding legal and human rights obligations you'd say there isn't any hypocrisy there?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
