Our TV reporters are like touches earpiece "... I'm being told that somebody, somewhere, is saying the words.." glances down at the page in front of them looks back up at the camera "... well, it's.. it's certainly some words, words that describe how they're feeling, which is likely quite bad at this moment. And now we're going to get back to clips of U.S. officials parroting the IDF. Thank you." I read the chat with 'bl00 and spence, and I think my cynical takeaway is that once a country can make nuclear weapons, they can do almost whatever they want to any non-nuclear regional powers, using the threat of proliferation. It's pretty sad that we'll just let Israel be expansionist, even if it takes a genocide to hasten in their perceived manifest destiny. We didn't ever really admonish Israel for their political oppression of Palestinians, but it's nice to know that a rapid, violent military op is also fine. U.S. foreign policy is moreso about an attempt to justify ongoing atrocities in the name of possible future atrocity prevention, sounds like. It reminds me of effective altruism, honestly. Watching all this while my country uses the UN to shield Israel from accountability? Fucking sucks. My heart goes out to Palestine. But all of the tankies supporting Palestine who also fetishize Russia are a fucking joke, at least everyone can agree on that. It'd be hard for me not to wanna police them out of the pro-Palestine camp in America. And the camp is small. Very small. SECOND NAKBA
This was argued in as many words by the Iranian foreign minister in 2008. He said, in effect, Bush put us, Iraq and North Korea in the Axis of Evil. North Korea has nukes and is still here. Iraq did not and is gone. Our instructions are clear. Again, though, that's too simple. The United States has maintained an ambivalent, adversarial relationship with Israel when it benefits us - America fucked Britain over to help the Jews and recognized Israel two years before Britain. But then when the Israelis and British got too big for their britches the Americans fucked them both over (in no small part because it fucked Hungary). There's ample evidence that the CIA/NRO knew damn well the Yom Kippur War was bound to happen and let Israel get a little bit fucked before airdropping a fuckton of foreign aid and that frankly, the fall of Iran as a vassal US state caused America to give Israel too much leeway. Israel is useful to the US. Need some Iranian physicists assassinated? Israel. Need an Iraqi reactor bombed? Israel. Need to shoot down some Soviet MiGs? Israel. Palestine? ... is not. That's really what it comes down to - it's proxy warfare all the way down. Now. How much are you gonna wanna talk about proxy warfare in Intro to Fuckery? 'cuz it's complicated.I read the chat with 'bl00 and spence, and I think my cynical takeaway is that once a country can make nuclear weapons, they can do almost whatever they want to any non-nuclear regional powers, using the threat of proliferation.
I don't disagree that we're using Israel for proxy warfare. But this fits so much with what am_U's saying about effective altruism,. We gotta give them nukes and let them bomb children because it lets us stop these other guys from getting nukes and lets us bomb them easier which gives us lower prices on oil which helps the global stability and peace or whatever. It's all so indirect and sneaky and about the ends justifying the means, and I'm not convinced we're going to get the ends anyways.
That's not effective altruism and you know it. Power of language - you're changing terms from something simple (pragmatism) to something abhorrent ("effective altruism") because you can't argue against pragmatism while "effective altruism" has no credible defenders. "The ends justify the means" is the fundamental nature of politics and has been since Sumeria. "It's all indirect and sneaky" is that "standing on the wall" speech from A Few Good Men and has been going back to Sargon of Akkad. It all fucking sucks. All of it. It has always fucking sucked. All of it. Rashida Tlaib is urging Michigan Democrats to vote against Biden in the primary. She should. He is acting in a way that is abhorrent to her politics, her constituency and her way of life. American policy towards Israel has long needed a change but there hasn't been enough momentum. Now? Now we've got a bunch of simps running around screaming "river to the sea" like it's fucking KONY2012 because if you scratch the surface of the problem even a little tiny bit you can't go "Biden is a Zionist sorted."
"once a country can make nuclear weapons, they can do almost whatever they want to any non-nuclear regional powers, using the threat of proliferation." That's the weird thing about it, we're sanctioning Russia, confiscating their offshore funds, pulling all the stops, etc. I don't think having nukes is the only thing, and the situations are close enough that if the sole point was to get the respective leaders out of power, it's odd that our way of doing it with Israel is via giving them 14 billion with no strings attached.
It's been really funny to watch what only the progressives originally called for (a cease-fire, in this instance) get slowly normalized enough that it becomes U.S. foreign policy. Can't wait to ignore the progressives again. Sounds like the "undecided" vote in Michigan air dropped 38k meals to Palestine the other day, by the way. It's obviously wayyyy shy of the million+ meals they'll need every day, but it's a message to Netanyahu. Hopefully the message isn't interpreted as "we're so weak we'll only do something symbolic and inconsequential".
Fuckin'... do you even realize how much your snark interferes with your happiness? a deeply involved process involving constant diplomacy combined with a wearying Israeli electorate has resulted in a change in the legitimacy and acceptability of Israeli reprisals and you're out here going "see? I told you we should have stood in front of the stampede in the first place, they would have never dared to run us over!"
It's probably the converse, I think, the snark is a coping mechanism for a lack of happiness. It's a lot of that, agreed, but are you sure that the pro-Palestine progressive movement here in the 'States can be wholly discounted in influencing U.S. diplomatic efforts?constant diplomacy combined with a wearying Israeli electorate
Yes and yes. I'm very happy, in general, but not about this stuff. Feeling guilty that none of it directly affects me. But it does fuck over some of my good friends, and plenty of other innocents, so I guess that's more than enough. Maybe I just come off very poorly in plaintext. I suspect everyone does, though. I also focus on this kinda stuff here because I don't really get to anywhere else. Like at a baby shower a few weeks ago: "How've you been, am_U?" "I'm good! Very good. It's gonna be a crazy year, though, I'm worried, towards the end of the year" "Why?" "Oh, just the election and everything" "What do you mean?" aaaaaand the shift: "Ah, y'know, election years are always kinda nutzo lately. Anyway, ..", then I change the subject, and that's all she wrote. If someone doesn't wanna talk about something, or feels unequipped or uncomfortable about it, I'm never going to force the subject. Maybe I need to post more in Pubski to prove to people that I have a life? I don't know. This shit troubles me though, and I'm keen to understand it. I do apologize if it comes across as grating and single-minded.
Well, Russia's long been an enemy, for starters. And Russia was completely unprovoked by Ukraine, physically, at least. Post-9/11 anti-Islamic sentiments play in, and as we all know, the Jews have gotta be in the holy land for Jeebus to come back. The U.S. also didn't help found Russia, so we don't feel a sense of responsibility for their success and safety, and while Russian losses in WWII were almost unfathomable, there wasn't a genocide against them. But yeah, ultimately, of course whether or not you're a U.S. geopolitical ally has the most to do with it. Speaking of the import of language, 'bl00 used the phrase "foreign catastrope" to describe Oct. 7th. It's not really foreign, though. It's a domestic attack from an occupied territory, ultimately because of a lack of political influence in the Israeli system. But it is perceived as a foreign attack by the Israelis, which is a tacit admission that continuing to slowly invade and disable Palestine was a terrible idea. It's punishing the side pushing for a two-state solution while also imagining them as foreigners. Makes no fucking sense. It's also really hard to convince me that Israeli intel (hella top notch, the best money can buy) had no knowledge of an operation large enough to kill 1,200 Israelis, especially when the political survival of the current regime in Israel depends on waging war on Palestinians. But I digress.
"Zionism" means the protection of a Jewish state in Israel. Anyone with even a cursory familiarity with geopolitics since the 1880s will recognize the utility to the United States of a Jewish state in Israel. Conversely, anyone arguing otherwise is revealing either deeply anti-American politics or deep naiivete.
"Protection" being the operative word of evergreen disagreement. I still think the odds are that Israeli intel knew about Oct. 7 and buried it, because "protection", to some, might mean sacrificing a thousand people if it justifies a violent response that will, yes, undoubtedly do a lot of protecting. For one beautiful moment of my life, I almost half-believed that U.S. support of Ukraine portended a principled U.S. geopolitik that aligned with my values, and wasn't one opportunistic fuck-up after the other. Nah I'm just kidding.
That presupposes that October 7 was somehow good for Likud. The fact of the matter is, Netanyahu's entire political career has been aligned along "I will keep you safe from Hamas" and he didn't.
We'll see. They just admitted publicly the goal is indefinite military control with "buffer zones" of stolen Palestinian land. https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/02/23/world/israel-hamas-war-gaza-news More so than staying safe from Hamas, this seems like Netanyahu's real goal and that of a lot of people that voted for him. Certainly this war hasn't made people more leftist over there.
Dude they've been admitting publicly that Palestinians gotta go for seventy fucking years. They've been doing that one murder, one humiliation, one annexation at a time the whole time until they were given an excuse to glass Gaza and here we are. But they WERE given an excuse and it just gets uglier from there. 'cuz yeah. I watched Bush's approval rating go from 50% to 90% in One Fucking Day. Here's a candlelight vigil for victims of September 11 in Tehran.
It's too late for it now, Israel's existed for a while, so a two state answer is still best. But I don't see why it's self evident that the only option at the time was a colonial project, or why an ethostate is inherently a good idea. So much of our culture now in the USA is embracing diversity and inclusion. Anyone arguing the USA should be an ethostate of White Christians is a deplorable, but the same arguments are made for why Israel should be allowed to do what they do.
It wasn't evident at the time. What was evident at the time was that Europe had torn itself apart over ethnic lines and here's America, trying to keep the Soviets from overrunning the ruins. The most expedient solution for American interests was a place the Jews could go that wouldn't prompt the Soviets to call for their genocide (again). So do me a solid - stop changing the subject. I didn't mention "diversity and inclusion" I didn't mention "ethnostates" I didn't talk about "two state answers" NONE OF THAT SHIT is under debate here. Your argument is "Joe Biden is a Zionist" and fucking hell of course he is. The alternative to Zionism has been fucking genocide going back to 1492.
i think that's maybe just your definition? I don't want the Jews to be genocided again lol. To me Zionism is unquestioning support for Israel as it is, an ethostate where Arabs are a second class citizen and Palestine is occupied and blockaded. It's support for Israel as a colonial project. And if finding an expedient place to live requires doing a genocide of your own, maybe it wasn't a good place to pick idk.
If you want a "Jewish" state, I don't see how you can possibly say that talking about ethostates is off topic. It's not a space where Jewish people can be safe it's a Jewish state. In Israel, a place were people already lived. It's saying they have more of a right there than the Arabs. It is absolutely picking a side.
Yeah well BIden's not Zionist enough for the Christian Zionists, because that's not a threshold that exists. He still hasn't figured out that MAGA will hate him regardless of what he does, and on any issue whatsoever. If part of a long-term plan includes being on the wrong side of history in the moment that it mattered, the plan sucks. It looks like this is a personal issue for Biden, to me. Yeah, he is some degree of Zionist, for sure. And I do think that he's built the type of white house where people don't typically challenge him, but for different reasons than why Trump's underlings wouldn't buck Trump. I should also just say that I absolutely do think Israel should exist, but I think the way it was brought into existence and the way that it operates is a disgrace. The holocaust was real, and it was maybe the most morally reprehensible thing in human history, but there were ways to better get along with the people whose land they invaded, and just about all of those ways were carefully avoided.sneaky realpolitik to end Netanyahu
Actually, I think the True Zionists typically decide who is and is not welcome to identify with them, and it's pretty obvious that they'd have no place for me. Literally any criticism of the Israeli gov't is all that it takes to be disqualified. Congrats, you're not really a Zionist.
This is actually really funny. A Southern Baptist telling a Jew that the Jew is not a Zionist, after the Jew tells the Southern Baptist that the Southern Baptist is a Zionist. Are we inside of a joke? Maybe we just walked into a bar.
The power of language: For those too young to remember, "ethnic cleansing" was a term unheard of before Slobodan Milosovic. The phrase was coined by the Serbians to describe what they were doing to the Bosnians to say "silly NATO! We're not committing genocide! We're practicing ethnic cleansing! What are you worried about!" It's an example of the power of language that "filling trenches with dead children" was very much genocide, but for the past 30 years everyone has been circling around the crime of "ethnic cleansing" to determine what, exactly, is the prosecutable crime there that doesn't trigger UN conventions against genocide. It's also worth pointing out that when first introduced, embargoes were considered genocide. After all, they target a civilian population for purposes of death and displacement. Now of course they're the first tool in the kit despite knowing that they hurt the civilian population first and foremost. The power of language: The Nakba was the direct result of European genocide and, if you like, "ethnic cleansing." The whole of the post-WWII economy of Europe was powered by confiscated Jewish wealth; the whole of the West German economy was Jewish wealth, the post-war economies of Eastern Europe and the USSR were powered by confiscated Jewish wealth and founded on confiscated Jewish property. The overwhelming majority of post-War American influence was due to massive expansion in the Western states which was only possible due to de-facto confiscation of property from Japanese Americans. Meanwhile, of course, the 1948 war was in response to a partition plan that allowed Europe to kick the can down the road. If you give the Jews palestine you don't have to give them back Brussels. The British Empire, which had ruled the entire region with an iron fist for generations, was too weak to do anything but withdraw and the end result was genocide. Jews did the displacing. It's also complicated. The power of language: “What couldn’t be?” my professor asked. “Ethnic cleansing. Because it’s what happened in the Holocaust, so we can’t be charged with this,” she replied. Another student cut in. He qualified by referring to himself as a critic of Israel. “There’s a distinction between occupation and ethnic cleansing,” he announced. “It’s an issue of structural power and systematic violence—what happened in 1948 was not ethnic cleansing.” I can't be guilty. There's no way I have any culpability here I'm just a smol bean. History, on every level, in every country, at any time, is "we did good" and "they did bad." The purpose of history education from a civics standpoint is to sheepdip your populace into the common understanding that defines your collective morals - that's why the southern US skirmishes over slavery every goddamn day and will until the end of time. Nobody wants to be the baddies. It doesn't help that we don't introduce the "are we the baddies" conversation until fucking college because any casual observation of the History Channel will clue you in to the fact that we're the baddies, all of us, at some point or another. But unless you want to know this shit, there's too much complexity. "I benefit materially and spiritually from the oppression of others" is an ethics question for philosophy majors, not a viewpoint introduced to children and god help you if you try. So here's this poor Intro to Fuckery professor saddled with Mary Jane and Bobby Sue who are pretty sure the Nakba wasn't ethnic cleansing and into that mix you've got a Palestinian auditor who could obviously teach the class? But whose salary and tenure are not dependent on Mary Jane and Bobby Sue. We're the baddies, all of us, at some point or another. Munich bombings? Palestinians. Lebanese civil war? Palestinians. October 7? Palestinians. I could very easily make the argument that each of those was justified and retaliatory but I won't. Fundamentally the Israelis wear uniforms, the Palestinians don't, both sides know it's because that would be the end of the Palestinians and the Israelis get to sit there going "checkmate." The power of language: "Simple" implies it can be fixed. "Complicated" implies that it can't. It's been nigh onto 80 years and the world can't agree on borders, let alone what happens after that, and it's not like nobody has tried. Ben Gurion and Maier firmly believed that there would never truly be peace until they had exterminated the Palestinians but they also knew that Hitler held those exact same firm beliefs about the Jews so they didn't shout it from the mountaintops. Meanwhile four generations of Arab states have loudly proclaimed that the only pathway to peace is the eradication of Israel which - c'mon. You're going to triangulate around the phrase "ethnic cleansing" and ignore that it's a stated goal of Hamas' charter? Bartcop argued the simplest solution would be to give the Jews Oklahoma and I'm not sure he's wrong, despite the obvious distaste Israel would have for replacing Jerusalem with Tulsa. "Complicated" masks the fact that in a simpler time, both the Palestinians and the Jews would be extinct. That "simpler time" wasn't so long ago. And that really gets to the worst part of the Israel/Palestine conflict: both sides plead simplicity and if you disagree, you're a murderer. IN MY ADULT LIFE I have watched the phrase "ethnic cleansing" be born, ridiculed, argued, enshrined and defined. What started out as "you murderous asshole that's genocide" has become "well, but let's figure out if this is bad or bad-bad" and it's nothing more than a way to justify sitting back and doing nothing. A lot of that is because "genocide" was used to set what the Nazis were doing apart from what everyone throughout history has always done, which was generally just referred to as "winning." And yet there are still Palestinians, and there are still Jews, because as a civilization we no longer permit that scale of win. If it were simple it would be solved already. That it's not means any argument put forth for solving it in Intro to Fuckery is likely to be eliding some important details.But that familiarity didn’t last. By the end of the first month, the class was split on the definition of “ethnic cleansing”—not only how to define it but who, in terms of the subject doing the action, can be charged with this human rights violation.
The professor called our attention to his use of the term “ethnic cleansing” in his own writing. He wrote that around 750,000 Palestinians were displaced in 1948, an act that today would be considered ethnic cleansing. At first read, this statement seemed bold—he may not have named the Nakba, but his writing gestured toward violence. Even so, his examination felt sanitized. Palestinians “were displaced,” he wrote. But there was no mention of who did the displacing.
After reading part of the article out loud, a girl who had been fidgeting in her seat said it couldn’t be.
The word “complicated” is often used to describe the occupation in Palestine, a word that insists that occupation is untouchable—Palestine’s history is too complex, there are too many moving parts, it’s a puzzle that can never be solved. But this word is condescending—a distraction. It wants us to feel small, worthless, and petty in our investigation. It demands power structures remain in place, allowing some to speak while requiring others to stay quiet.
How to get to a two state solution is complicated. One thing is not complicated though, that it we absolutely should not give half the budget of NASA no strings attached to Israel so they can bomb children. I don't see how your simpler times examples match, it took us until 2019 to recognize the Armenian Genocide. That was straightforwardly bad. Until then, our policy was that we like the Turks more so it doesn't count. That's our policy with Israel, but now it's just complicated?
sigh The point is that until 2019, everyone was fucking cool with the Armenian Genocide except Armenians. The point is that until my lifetime everyone was fucking cool with the extermination of Native Americans. And here you are - conflating "half the budget of NASA" and "so they can bomb children" without pausing to give any air whatsoever to the complications of the existence of Israel because it forces you to grapple with uncomfortable thoughts. I'm probably done with this shit. There's way too much desire on your behalf to go "but but but intifada" in response to any good-faith discussion. So I'll just say this: I have been leaning into my Jewish heritage my entire life to criticize Israel. Can't call me anti-semitic when I bring up my Jewish grandmother! I was giving speeches against Israel before you were fucking born and the most infuriating, alienating aspect of modern politics is any discussion of "well here's how we got here" is invariably met by someone going "nope I've been thinking about this since yesterday and I've solved it." So congratulations. Cling close to your absolutes. Shine thy platitudes and buff thy maxims for yours is the way. The baths of Tiberias, where Joseph and Bessie Shoolman were enjoying a respite having successfully fled the Pogroms of 1881, were Ground Zero in the Nakba. Their granddaughter? Was kicked out of Radcliffe for being a Jew. So come at me with "simple" again.
I think maybe I'm being to quippy: The situation in the middle east in general is complicated, clearly. Two oppressed groups who hate eachother, one of which is currently subjugating the other and the other is guerilla terrorists. It is complicated in that I hate what both are doing while sympathizing with both as oppressed groups. What Hamas did was straightforwardly bad, if slightly understandable. They have been oppressed for decades and were about to be sold out by the Saudis. What Israel did after the attack was straightforwardly bad, if slightly understandable. We did the same thing after 9/11. What Israel is doing right now - in my opinion - is straightforwardly bad, and extremely disproportionate. They are trying to capitalize on the war to fully occupy Palestine and guarantee there can be no two state solution. Biden is choosing a side completely, with unconditional support for Israel including vetoing any UN ceasefires and a massive donation of weapons. He is making this simple, by declaring Israel morally untouchable and ignoring the worth of Palestinian lives. He is morally culpable in this war continuing and their blood is on his hands. To me, opposing this is equally simple. Our support to Israel SHOULD NOT BE UNCONDITIONAL. That's all I'm asking, I'm not calling for unconditional support of Hamas, or the dissolution of the state of Israel. Just an end to this genocide. Or, given that they are their own sovereign nation and we can't decide it for them, at the very least not aiding and abetting in it. I don't know nearly enough to say how to get to a two state solution, However, seems obvious that it will not be helped by being unconditionally in the pocket of Israel, who would much prefer themselves to be the one state. That's all I'm trying to say. I'm glad now we're not one sidedly against the Native Americans and one sidedly against the Armenians. We should stop being one sidedly against the Palestinians too.
One of the last smart things Ryan Holiday said was that snark is (A) the coin of the realm online and (B) not useful. By being glib you shut down any opportunity for deeper discussion. "Quippy" is just what you call snark when it comes out of your mouth. We agree on your first three points. Here's your fourth: I want you to visit this list and scroll down to October 7, 2023. I also want you to read some of those veto articles that make you so mad and ctrl-f "two state". Because while everyone else is demanding ceasefire and withdrawal, the United States has been pushing for a two-state solution in every proposal they put up. Then I want you to read this Al Jazeera article which is very not pro-Biden: But let's highlight what we're sending, shall we? there are no good bombs. That said, Israel invented the barrel bomb. There are bombs where you're at least pretending you care about collateral damage and there are bombs where you are telegraphing you do not give the first fuck and when you have a weapon you can target you have to accept responsibility for what you're targeting. When you're throwing buckets of explosive out of helicopters everything's a mulligan. I think Biden would agree with this. I think Biden would agree with this, too. And it's pretty clear Biden would also agree with this. _______________________ You started out your argument by saying you were being too quippy, and then proceeded to parse the problem into quips. It's Joseph Kony all over again - twenty million teens watch an hour of Youtube and think they've solved colonialism. What do you mean it's complicated just fucking fix it! is not an acceptable sentiment anywhere but social media and it's so fucking discouraging.Biden is choosing a side completely, with unconditional support for Israel including vetoing any UN ceasefires and a massive donation of weapons. He is making this simple, by declaring Israel morally untouchable and ignoring the worth of Palestinian lives.
While the Biden administration maintains that an Israeli incursion into the densely packed city would be a “disaster”, it has said that such an operation would not result in tangible consequences, such as a freeze in US weapons transfers.
The proposed arms delivery includes about a thousand each of MK-82 500-pound (227kg) bombs and KMU-572 Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAMs) that turn unguided munitions into precision-guided bombs, The Wall Street Journal reported on Friday, citing unnamed US officials.
He is morally culpable in this war continuing and their blood is on his hands.
Our support to Israel SHOULD NOT BE UNCONDITIONAL.
We should stop being one sidedly against the Palestinians too.
Idk, I guess I really just don't get you. I am trying to understand. Dropping untargetted bombs on civilian centers is already against the rules of war. They have responsibility there too. And I can't see how we can ever get to two states when Israel is winning their war to totally subjugate one of the two. And we are aiding them at doing that. Or I guess put another way, surely it is uncontroversial that we have historically sided almost exclusively with Israel against the Palestinians, for proxy war and geopolitical reasons, or because evangelicals like it, or whatever. What's different now? Because our behavior seems exactly the same. Palestine has offered an exchange of all hostages for an indefinite ceasefire. Israel rejected it and said that it will just allow Hamas time to regroup. They propose a temporary ceasefire (weeks) and then a return to the genocide. They will accept nothing other than total military control of Gaza. We're backing that plan at the UN. I cannot understand how you believe that we are doing everything we can to save Gazan lives and to ensure they will be able to keep an independent state. Edit: Even NYT agrees Biden is not doing much: https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/02/24/world/israel-hamas-war-gaza-news#us-takes-a-harder-line-on-israel-in-words-but-not-in-deeds And other articles list UN Human Rights experts begging to stop arms exports. None of Bidens messaging has been about how their bombs are safer or more targeted, it has always been about ensuring Israel has enough weapons.
CHECK YOUR ASSUMPTIONS. Every conversation we've had around this has been some form of "the information you are presuming is undisputed and universally accepted is actually anything but that." Yet even now, every conversation we have starts with you going "here's an unassailable maxim" and me going "well actually." You'd be in much better shape, mentally and philosophically, if you started out with "why hasn't anybody figured this shit out" instead of "this intractable problem has been solved by Zoomers and it's grownups who suck." However, they have been arguing since October 8 that they're not doing that. Whether or not they are bombing legitimate targets is controversial and, personal opinion here, pretty laughable but whatever they're hitting, they're hitting on purpose. "Ooopsie, guess we blew up your embassy by mistake" is a lot harder pitch when you're using guided weapons. Cut a despot off cold turkey and things get ugly. The Oslo Accords were a two-state solution. They were also what Netanyahu used to get Rabin assassinated. The Obama administration also proposed a two-state solution. The singular force against a two-state solution going back to Partition has been Israeli hard-liners and since 1991, Benjamin Netanyahu. "Israel winning against Palestinians" is nothing new; Israel has historically won against four, seven, or ten nation-states at once. What's new is that Israel is getting sick of the hard-liners. why do you think that is? Let's focus on something for a minute - NOBODY WANTS THE PALESTINIANS. Much of the Middle East is united in wanting the destruction of Israel, but also united in turning away Palestinian refugees. Jordan doesn't want them because they started a civil war there. Lebanon doesn't want them because they started a civil war there. Kuwait doesn't want them because they tried to start a civil war there and Egypt doesn't want them because they're afraid they'll start a civil war there. The Israelis are guilty of extreme fuckery by any metric but one thing they've never done to the US is blown up 300 peacekeepers. A half dozen different flavors of Palestinian political parties have been designated as foreign terrorist organizations for decades and yet the prevailing Zoomer consensus is "israel/palestine same/same." Gotta say - I'm with the Israelis on this one. Right - the current Israeli plan is untenable and nobody takes it seriously. This is simply false. What we've done at the UN is veto the Palestinian plan, not support the Israeli plan. Because I know more about this situation than you do. And I'd have a lot more patience if you didn't phrase every response in terms of "no matter what you say you're just wrong."Idk, I guess I really just don't get you. I am trying to understand.
Dropping untargetted bombs on civilian centers is already against the rules of war. They have responsibility there too.
And I can't see how we can ever get to two states when Israel is winning their war to totally subjugate one of the two.
Or I guess put another way, surely it is uncontroversial that we have historically sided almost exclusively with Israel against the Palestinians, for proxy war and geopolitical reasons, or because evangelicals like it, or whatever.
Palestine has offered an exchange of all hostages for an indefinite ceasefire. Israel rejected it and said that it will just allow Hamas time to regroup.
They propose a temporary ceasefire (weeks) and then a return to the genocide. They will accept nothing other than total military control of Gaza.
We're backing that plan at the UN.
I cannot understand how you believe that we are doing everything we can to save Gazan lives and to ensure they will be able to keep an independent state.
Gah, I wrote a long detailed response, but my cat pressed the power button on the computer just as I was finishing the conclusion. Hopefully with the second chance to write it it will be a little more edited anyways. The basic gist was that, to me, this has a lot of parallels with the BLM movement, which also tried to solve something incredibly complicated in a What do you mean it's complicated just fucking fix it! sort of way. And while the BLM movement largely failed, as I suspect this one will to, at least it's heart was in the right place. And it does not seem like the government's heart is in the right place currently. Is this another Kony 2012? Maybe. Was BLM another Kony 2012? Also maybe. The first draft was a little more poetic here, but there is something to the idea that with the most powerful government in the world, that we're capable of writing wrongs and making the world better. And it totally didn't work, lol. And was obviously an easy movement to criticize both now and back then, but there is still a bit of beauty to it. I don't think any zoomer claims to have the solution, just like BLM did not claim to know how to solve police brutality. It just demanded that people care, and gave some first steps. Defund the police is pretty comparable to the demand to not give weapons to Israel. Increasing the police budgets to solve brutality seems about as effective as giving unconditional military aid to Israel. And as for "they have been arguing since October 8 that they're not [using untargetted bombs]", Biden himself has denied this. Saying there is ‘indiscriminate bombing’ is the closest Biden has ever come to accusing Israel of war crimes. This is while using our weapons. From the poll you posted earlier, only 13% of the 65+ demographic think Israel is an apartheid state, and only 27% think their treatment of palestinians is analogous to racism in the US. Zoomers do not have the solution, but there can not ever be a solution if you don't agree there's a problem. I know you're not one of those, but a large part of the movement here is just to get Biden to acknowledge it! The closest he comes is calling Israel "over the top," when the rest of the world can at least say "ethnic cleansing," if not "genocide." It made the news when Biden even mentioned the possibility of a "ceasefire" instead of just a "humanitarian pause" (what a term). This is hundreds of days into the war and after being the sole veto on two earlier UN ceasefire votes. Here's another parallel to BLM: Seems similar to the idea that the police are so violent because everyone has guns, and if you just look at the crime statistics, you'll see who the problem really is. Not strictly wrong, but just like in BLM it's doesn't detract from the main point, and also, maybe there are better ways to solve the problem than by giving the oppressor tanks. Anyways, conclusion take 2: It seems to be that Biden would like peace in the middle east in the abstract, just like he would like it if there wasn't police brutality. Any of the obvious steps towards this are not being done, in the same way that none of the steps BLM asked for ever happened. If you think the pro-palistinian movement is a bunch of piss baby dunces who watched one video and threw a tantrum, fine, but BLM was also largely based on watching one extremely horrifying video, and I while I don't know your opinions on that movement I hope you at least sympathize with why people wanted to be part of it. That's all. I'll read and consider anything you reply with, and I promise I have spent a lot of time considering what you've already wrote. No worries if you're tired and done though, I am too, and I don't think I'll be writing any more on this. It's exhausting."this intractable problem has been solved by Zoomers and it's grownups who suck."
Much of the Middle East is united in wanting the destruction of Israel, but also united in turning away Palestinian refugees. Jordan doesn't want them because they started a civil war there. Lebanon doesn't want them because they started a civil war there. Kuwait doesn't want them because they tried to start a civil war there and Egypt doesn't want them because they're afraid they'll start a civil war there.
It's fucking exhausting. Doubly exhausting when you have to do it twice. Your cat was probably trying to do you a favor. I think the BLM analogy fits and doesn't fit in a number of ways, so I question the utility in modeling everyone's turmoil around October 7 on BLM. I'll address it as far as it's useful, though. For example: Defund the police. Your argument is that "defund the police" means to stop "Increasing the police budgets to solve brutality." I agree with this position. I get it. But "defund the police" when shouted from a crowd does not mean "stop increasing police budgets to solve brutality" it means ACAB. it means "we can get along without police at all." It means "dissolve the carceral state." It's a step away from "storm the Bastille" not "let's de-escalate police violence through selective reductions in spending." And when shouted at people with "blue lives matter" stickers on their car, it means "fuck you." There has been an appalling amount of antisemitism in response to October 7. Not anti-Zionism, good ol'fashioned Jew-hating bigotry. There has been a lot of triangulation around how any atrocity committed by Hamas is justifiable, about how any death in Gaza by anyone under any circumstances is a war crime. And while I believe the answer to the correct amount of reprisal for October 7 is zero (0) bombs, I also knew - Hamas also knew - Iran also knew - Russia also knew - that the number would be higher than that. And I also knew - as did Hamas, Iran and Russia - that whenever Israel opens a can of whoopass international hate crimes against Jews skyrocket. that's the point. Black Lives Matter had a very simple cause - stop killing black people. It's a really easy one to agree with on the face of it and the reason it didn't get nearly enough done is the entrenched power of police unions and the political makeup of policing in the United States. And the fact that BLM's position was "defund the police" ie ACAB. Shouting "defund the police" at a bunch of indemnified, entrenched police unions was never going to fucking accomplish a thing. De-escalation training? A drawing down of military hardware? SWAT rotation rather than dedicated squads? All of these things would make a difference. But to the people shouting "defund the police" they were a bunch of ineffectual, quisling half-measures. Nobody wanted to think about it, they wanted to shout slogans. You've got this idea that the government of the United States is all-powerful and that Biden could somehow bring Israel to heel. It's worth pointing out that Netanyahu has never said a single polite thing about Democrats and that the only thing keeping him out of jail right now is his coalition. There's a path forward here - a tricky, game-playing, polticking path - but shouting "defund Israel" is not dissimilar from shouting "defund the police." And I don't think anybody shouting it cares. I think BLM was a spontaneous, loosely-organized movement that - and I hope I'm wrong about this - lacked the vision to push for lasting change and as a consequence, faded out of existence. I think the Left's position on October 7 is a spontaneous, loosely-organized movement that doesn't want the complications of geopolitics to interfere with its anger. And I do - honestly and truly - feel that the butts-in-seats at State and above know more about this than I do, have more experience with this than I do, and feel the violence in Gaza as much or more than anyone else. I was wrong about Garland. I could be wrong about this. But I've done a fair amount of reading on Israel, Palestine and how we got here over the past 20 years and I don't see the slogans as helpful.This is an opinion, but I believe slogans should be immediately obvious. This is, in my opinion, the problem wypepo have with the phrase "defund the police." It requires explanation. "Disarm the police?" That one's obvious. "Demilitarize the police?" equally obvious. Black Lives Matter chose language that spoke to those who already have affinity for them, not those who were on the fence.
Leave a penny, take a penny Great response. Yeah, it's funny how it's both complicated, and also, at the root of it, not. They fuckin' hate each other. It's gotta stop. It won't.
Since I hate myself, I watched Trump's speech from yesterday. Nobody has to read this. There's no surprises. I'm just cataloging, because it was hella relevant. Hellevant. Hell event. This one's a bit different than a typical rally or campaign event because he's addressing an explicitly Christian evangelical audience. This is like, the base of his base, and he knows exactly who he's pandering to. He knows exactly what their issues are. Truly though, he is a very skilled orator, and I don't really question whether he's as late along in cognitive decline as maybe some other people, maybe just one guy, out there, maybe running for president as well. One of the biggest, longest cheers was when Trump began talking about support for Israel. He blamed Biden for Oct. 7th. He even had a guy come up on the mic and tell a remarkable tale of fictional Zionism tailored to an American audience. Painted Trump as Israel's savior. Amazing. Then, for a solid five minutes, Trump proceeds to tell the construction details for the U.S. embassy in Jerusalem that he had relocated there (maybe he truly missed building things? idk). No teleprompter. Frequently throughout the entire speech, he's just riffing. It's very, very, very well received. The narrative about the Iran deal is hilarious. "We canceled the nuclear deal. It was a bad deal. Obama's. Then we imposed sanctions on their oil, which were very successful. But Iran still got a lot of money somehow, and now they're building a nuclear weapon, and Joe Biden has done NOTHING." It doesn't have to be true or remotely make sense. Besides, favorable foreign policy will be awarded to countries with leaders Trump likes, so hopefully you're fantastically wealthy, you're a fascist strongman, and you've already appeased him by kissing the ring. He praises SCOTUS, and Clarence Thomas (only Clarence Thomas) by name. Gonna privatize schools. Gonna "defeat gender ideology" (he'll probably use the word "exterminate" in a few weeks or so, in case it was unclear what the insinuation might be). Gonna pardon J6ers. If you pick any other issue and find the worst option, that's the policy platform. Earlier in the, uh, the show, Trump tells them to their faces something like "the communists try to destroy religion, and fascists co-opt the religious for their own power. Fascists like Joe Biden. Don't fall for it." I love this, this is an especially strong "fuck you", straight to me. Right into my mouth. It's a fascist little shitgoblin telling me that he knows exactly what he's doing, that he knows that I know what he's doing, and that we both know I can basically do fuckall about it besides vote. Why not lay out exactly how to do fascism while pulling the fascist trick of saying, actually, no, it's the other side doing that. He can say anything. It doesn't matter to these folks anymore. All of the reports suggesting that Trump has replaced Jesus as the head of the evangelical church? Yes. Yes, he has. He seems to draw physical power from losing court cases. I'm pretty sure he's convinced he'll avoid prison. I think so too. I think that he'll win the election, but even if he doesn't, and then, even if he unleashes hell on Biden after losing, he'll never get locked up. He might ultimately be pardoned by Biden, if it comes to that, to "preserve the dignity of American presidency". Or something. Anyway, the Israel stuff is pretty new. And abhorrent, obviously. It dominates the speech, easily the most time spent on a single topic. Trump also repeats his claim that he'll "settle" the Russia-Ukraine war within a day. We all know that "settle" means do everything that he can to give Putin Ukraine, right? Surely we all know that. Perhaps Trump can re-appropriate any ex-Ukraine funds to the massive deportation operation they're gonna try. Keeping kids in cages was child's play. Haha. Wordplay. It's fuckin' wild to live through this. The logical endpoint of the republican party, who're hellbent on destroying the country if they can't have it after radicalizing themselves into a bunch of hate-worthy, corrupt morons. This will not end well. The sooner the better. ['X0Oo_am_Unitoinz'_e-hubski_bAdtimes_dairy_oO0X'] post 11/??
sweet, sweet summer child The Fundamentalist position on Israel has always boiled down to the Red Heifer which has to be born in "the Holy Land" to signify the Rapture and Tribulation. They've been there since like '77, a cursory reading of charismatic eschatology will say as much (I recommend the Left Behind series as it's basically "Rocky & Bullwinkle's Guide to the End Times"). "Fuck yeah Israel" also annoys the Zoomers who may/may not be sucking down a CCP's worth of Palestinian propaganda but either way are here for the outrage. In the milieu you're examining? The individual talking points don't even matter. You say so yourself you just refuse to hear yourself saying them. It's all about owning the libs/triggering the snowflakes while the Zoomers are dutifully lining up behind the philosophy of "if it bugs my grandparents it's my jam". And the thing you're missing is that, with dwindling victories among the populace, both sides are turning inward. The fucking NRB convention? The fuck even is that? Fucking 5,000 attendees is what that is, or roughly eight percent the attendance of the Northwest Flower & Garden Show which you have also never given a shit about but which is organized by the Seattle Orchid Society which my 80-year-old father-in-law is a board member of. Like, my wife has organized conventions for 5,000 people. Herself. In her spare time. They're "let's see if we can get Larry to do the keynote" level operations and here's the former president of the United States out here going "woo hoo red heifer" and selling fucking high tops. Yet you're eating it fucking up as if it were the burning of the Reichstag.Anyway, the Israel stuff is pretty new.
No no, I just mean that a lengthy incorporation of Israel is new in terms of Trump rally content. Maybe not new, but certainly has recently been infused with some fresh fodder to load the propaganda cannons with. Truly reactionary. It's still a convention focused entirely on a former President's speech, and it will be circulated on social media more than footage from the flower show, sorry to say. I'm pleased to see that the youtube vid has only a few hits, but there's undoubtedly some clips on Rumble, TRUTH Social, Gettr, Telegram, Signal, etc. Is the speech pathetic to us? Fuck yeah it is, but MAGA is freebasing this shit, and doin' bad things to brown people is the one thing they aspire to, separate of whether it owns the libs or not. But it does, if anybody asks. I think I'm moreso throwing it up as if it were the chugging of the Ipecac. About two or three times a year, over the last several years, I'll watch a Trump speech, just to see what he's up to. To have someone ideologically vomit alllllllll over me.