FirmWeird
Randomly Generated Reddit Username
No bio...
User ID: 757
He's not even going to accept that - he's either getting everything he wants or nothing. He's currently winning the war (in the sense of winning the fight) and momentum is on his side. What possible motivation does he have to stop and leave Ukraine a frozen conflict that will be a continual thorn in his side? There's nothing the west can actually offer that's worth the continued existence of Ukraine as a problem for Russia when he can just finish the job and get everything he wants anyway.
How exactly do you pick up joint hypermobility via social contagion? I'm willing to believe your argument (and I'm sure there are other mysterious syndromes which are actually just social contagion) but in this case there's an actual physiological difference that seems beyond the ability of the human body to fake. Joints normally can't bend that way and I don't think reading a bunch of tumblr posts can really change that.
If Biden has a normal, boring performance at the first debate then he doesn't drop out and, who knows, maybe he wins.
In that world Trump gets 400 electoral votes.
I skimmed it.
You didn't read it and your critiques have no value because you do not understand the position you're attempting to argue against. You're not engaging with the material being presented, and you don't even seem to understand the underlying reasoning. Even beyond that your position is an incomprehensible joke - "Worst case they die out and are thoroughly forgotten. Not a problem for anyone involved in said history." Did you even read your own post? Dying is actually something most people consider to be a problem!
Well you should read it. It goes over, in sometimes tedious detail, about how the present-day environmental movement evolved. It's a pretty infuriating book and it makes very clear environmentalism is actually not about the environment.
Sure, I'm willing to read it - though I probably won't be finished by the time this thread is dead, which is why I gave my reply after reading about the book and not after I'd finished reading it. But John Michael Greer has been making this exact point for decades now! He has written multiple articles explaining why the environmentalist movement has failed, how it failed and what people can do to move on in a world shaped by that failure. He explicitly and overtly attacks a lot of the scams like Goldman Sachs' carbon pricing scheme and even in the essay you refused to read he explicitly points out that the entire environmentalist movement has done absolutely nothing to change the trajectory of carbon emissions.
If you're going to complain about someone being a noise generator, take a look at yourself - you spouted a whole bunch of nonsense because you couldn't even be bothered reading a single essay while expecting me to go read an entire novel.
Did you even read the article?
The points you're raising have already been brought up and dealt with. I'm not familiar with Apocalypse Never, but from reading the back of the book and how it talks about climate activism not being effective that's actually a point raised in the article itself:
Protest marches and virtue signaling do nothing to keep the resulting carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. Nor do the wind farms, rooftop solar panels, and other pork barrel projects that have been marketed so heavily using climate change as a sales pitch Nor, for that matter, do any of the other gimmicks that have been so heavily promoted and praised by corporate media. If you doubt this, dear reader, take a good look at the chart of carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere, and see if you can find any sign that any of these things have slowed the steady increase in carbon dioxide one iota. If the point of the last three decades of climate change activism was to slow the rate at which greenhouse gases enter the atmosphere, the results are in and the activists have failed. Nor is there any reason to think that doing more of the same will yield anything else; what’s that saying about doing the same thing and expecting different results?
Furthermore...
And? That article itself notes planet used to be much warmer and there were no real issues with that.
Compare that to:
Second, an equable climate may sound great in the abstract, but getting there’s not going to be so fun. To begin with, melting the polar ice caps will raise sea levels three hundred feet. While it will take centuries for this process to complete, even the first steps along that route will play merry hob with the global economy, flooding most of the world’s large cities and a vast amount of other real estate, erasing entire nations from the map, forcing mass migrations, crippling ports and other trade facilities, and the list goes on. Meanwhile the weather isn’t simply going to pop right into an equable condition; to judge from what’s currently happening, the climate belts will keep on lurching unsteadily toward the poles a little at a time, causing droughts, floods, famines, and other entertainments. A thousand years from now things may be great, but that’ll be small consolation to you, or to the generations who have to deal with the rest of the change.
If you want to have an actual discussion about the merits of the article and Greer's position I'm here for it 100%, but you have to actually argue against what he's written rather than just some imaginary gestalt of all the articles on the climate you've read in the past. Telling someone that "fantasies of runaway greenhouse effects are obviously just that" doesn't even reach the level of being wrong when the person you are talking to has explicitly criticised apocalyptic fantasies of runaway greenhouse effects in the essay you're trying to attack.
On a bit of a tangent, a surprising amount of game development is done in Canada as it's harder for devs to find other jobs
Actually this is because of a massive tax credit scheme which meant that not opening a game studio in Canada meant you were actively paying a big premium for the privilege. Any large company which could open an office there did, because any employee on a salary under 100k a year was effectively subsidized by the local government.
There's no real chance we start seeing some serious shit - we are already seeing serious shit. 2024 is the hottest year on record, beating out... 2023 for the top spot. Corals all over the world are bleaching and dying and we're already seeing temperature zones marching away from the equator and towards the poles.
I highly recommend the following article, because I think it is the most reasonable take on the issue that I've seen. https://www.ecosophia.net/riding-the-climate-toboggan/
Climate change.
I'll take the opposite bet. Elon will make money on Twitter.
Elon would have made a massive profit if Twitter went completely bankrupt today and charged him another ten billion dollars for nothing on the way out.
He used it to buy himself a seat in the halls of power, not just embedding himself in a brand new government but doing so with an explicit mandate to fire the people who were in charge of regulating his various companies. I'm honestly not sure you could put the value of that trade into dollar terms.
The Substance was fantastic and definitely had a lot to say, and that came out just this year.
I'm asking you to summarize what the hard-liners who believe in a Jewish ethnostate believe, in terms they would agree with.
"Israel is the exclusive nation-state of the Jewish people. It consists of the lands that God agreed to give us in the torah (or talmud, not up to date on the specifics of jewish religious texts), stretching from the river to the sea. As God's chosen people, we are justified in conquering the lands he promised us."
That isn't what I meant by "stupid grunt shit," and I think you are being disingenuous in claiming that you think that's what I meant. I was thinking more of the videos of them making offensive jokes and raiding Palestinian women's underwear drawers.
Apologies for misunderstanding - there has been a recent (well not terribly recent but the process has stretched on for a long time) high-profile case in my country where someone was prosecuted for "stupid grunt shit" that turned out to actually be warcrimes. This included kicking a man in handcuffs off a cliff and giving the soldier that did it the nickname Leonidas, as well as multiple murders of civilians (look up Ben Roberts-Smith if you want more information) - that's the sort of behavior I assumed you were describing here.
I know that the Palestinians (and our resident Jew-haters) claim that Israelis are sniping Palestinian children for fun, but there's been no substantial evidence of this, and to believe that it's happening at scale requires, again, believing that Israelis are so psychologically different from most people, and so bloodthirsty, that "monsters" would be an appropriate description.
Actually, I don't think that this behavior marks them as being psychologically different from most people. Go back through history and you'll be hard-pressed to find a people that hasn't engaged in these kinds of brutal acts - you don't even need to go that far back at all when you look at Germany. It is eminently human to get caught up by powerful feelings of nationalism, ethnic chauvinism, esprit de corps etc, and take actions that will haunt you for the rest of your life. That is actually one of the pieces of information that went into forming my view on the topic - the (supposed) increased rates of suicide and psychological issues amongst IDF soldiers as a result of what has happened in Gaza. Take this article for instance - https://edition.cnn.com/2024/10/21/middleeast/gaza-war-israeli-soldiers-ptsd-suicide-intl/index.html
After Mizrahi took his own life, videos and photos surfaced on social media of the reservist bulldozing homes and buildings in Gaza and posing in front of vandalized structures. Some of the images, which were purportedly posted on his now removed social media accounts, appeared in a documentary that he was interviewed for on Israel’s Channel 13.
Here we have a man who gets radicalised by what happened on October 7, goes to fight in Gaza, commits atrocities and brags about it on social media (I'm sure you can see why my mind went to the place it did when you discussed stuff being posted to social media by Israeli soldiers)... then kills himself because he's unable to live with what he's done. I don't think this man was uniquely evil or some incomprehensible monster with alien psychology, and I can understand why he took the actions he did. But that doesn't excuse the fact that what he did was monstrous, and I'm not going to back down from the description of "blood-drenched" when we have an actual soldier who took part in those deeds repeatedly telling his family that "invisible blood" is coming out of his skin. I like to think that if I was in the same position I'd take a different course of action, but that's very easy to say when it isn't my relatives being kidnapped.
I have never claimed that the Israelis are non-human or otherwise incomprehensible. I believe that deeds like the ones Israel is committing are morally wrong, but also that they have an incredibly negative effect on the people who commit them as well. The stoics and the buddhists both view harming others as an act that harms the self as well, and I'm honestly inclined to agree with them. Bulldozing people alive in great numbers as you demolish their homes leaves a stain on the soul that is impossible to remove - but with that said, I'm going to be largely reserving my empathy for the victims.
Using the "Aparthead state" rhetoric kind of gives the game away,
Is Israel not an apartheid state? If you can provide some evidence that Palestinians and Israelis are treated equally under the law I'd be very happy to be proven wrong. But when I hear about laws that say things like "The right to exercise national self-determination in the State of Israel is unique to the Jewish people." I can't help but think of apartheid. I'm not a big fan of Ta-Nehisi Coates, but I think his description was right on the money.
I mean, have you read any other books? I haven't read Righteous Victims but I've read some of the other stuff by Benny Morris and the New Historians, and even they don't tell it that way.
I've read other books, yes. But some of those books are from the Palestinian perspective, and my view is informed by both.
If you think that terrorism and unending warfare is a "political consequence of their continued existence," though, then you apparently share the most pessimistic Israeli view of Palestinians.
I think that terrorism and unending warfare is a political consequence not of their continued existence but rather a reaction to Israeli policy. Change those policies, give them justice and a lot of that terrorism and unending warfare will vanish. I personally support a single-state solution with full franchise for the Palestinians and prosecutions for the minority of Israelis that were actually engaged in planning and carrying out the blood-drenched, bronze-age deeds that have rightfully garnered so much opprobrium from the rest of the world.
On the other hand, we're back to how you characterize "the lengths Israel has gone to."
I feel like I addressed several of the other points here earlier, but I'm basing this off widely accepted and reputable sources. I think the UN and ICC are worth listening to when it comes to questions of genocide, war crimes and ethnic cleansing, and even pro Israeli sources largely agree that the north of Gaza has been destroyed and the people who lived there displaced in order to let the settlers start moving in as soon as possible. Even if I go solely by the deeds actually announced by Israeli government officials, I still think that "the lengths Israel has gone to." are that bad.
That's a very complicated question I've spent a lot of time posting about on here - but luckily, Australia is so comically corrupt that it is a lot simpler down under. Previous government leaders signed ruinously, comically bad deals that fucked over our national economy for personal profit. We're exporting natural gas during a domestic natural gas shortage, because corrupt deals were made that essentially result in us subsidising companies which extract fossil fuels then sell them to Japan at below cost so that Japanese middlemen can profit from the deal. Destroying all of that would actually lower domestic energy prices.
That's a complicated question, and I don't think I can actually provide an answer for Americans because I am not one. I can tell you what those policies would look like for the country where I live (Australia), and those policies would probably look something like this.
- Cost of living adjustments - dramatic reductions in property values, dramatic reduction in immigration intake, increases in the amount of money provided to jobseekers/welfare recipients, muscular antitrust enforcement against major supermarkets engaging in price-fixing and collusion, nationalisation of toll roads run by overseas firms. I'd have to do some research and planning, but ideally I'd like to burst the real estate bubble while confining as much of the pain to the obscenely wealthy rather than the battlers who managed to get onto the property ladder despite the shithouse conditions.
- Actual taxation of the wealthy - creation of a petroleum resources rent tax, removal of all fossil fuel subsidies from major corporations, crackdown on tax avoidance by multinational firms and a full audit of everything PWC has ever done with public money. The entire fossil fuel sector in Australia contributes substantially less to national finances than payroll taxes on nurses and I think this is morally wrong (and not just inefficient). I'd also implement a progressive taxation system on income generated by real estate, with every property after the first getting taxed at increasingly ruinous levels.
- Muscular and substantial anti-corruption proceedings. Empower an actual body to go after incidents of government corruption and malfeasance, without being connected to the existing major parties and deeply compromised like the current NACC. There are a lot of scandals and naked corruption in Australian government and there's not going to be any trust in the government until that gets dealt with, and a lack of trust in government means there are a lot of good policies you just can't implement or pursue because the people don't trust government to do them fairly.
This is just an appeal to authority. If there are particularly compelling arguments, you can reproduce them directly here.
I viewed the entire document she put together as compelling - I can repost the entire thing here if you want, but why? If I just copy and paste the arguments I like piecemeal, there's way too much room for forgotten citations or other misunderstandings. There's an immense number of citations and I don't really see what would be gained by reposting the whole thing here with worse formatting.
So there's no point gathering evidence to support your claim? That's a bold position to take.
You missed the other half of that point. You can't use casualty numbers to determine whether or not a genocide is taking place, because by the time you can accurately identify a genocide via casualty numbers those people are already dead and there's nothing you can do. That's why people rely on other signs that a genocide is taking place or is otherwise imminent, because if your goal is to prevent genocides from taking place you have to be able to show that one is in progress or about to start, rather than just showing up after the victims are all dead, saying "Well, now that we have the numbers I guess this was actually a genocide." and shrugging your shoulders.
That's not really an argument. I could just as easily say the answer is so clearly and blatantly no.
Yes, it isn't an argument - it is just restating my position because the actual argument was already linked in pdf form above.
I think your mask might be slipping here. But I'm not surprised you like these conversations more when your opponent just admits you're right and they're wrong. You do have to do the work of convincing them first, though.
Mask? Assuming that you're accusing me of being an antisemite who is disguising my hatred for jews as a more generic opposition to crimes against humanity and genocide, I have to disagree. I'm a (very unconventional) leftist and I think that what Israel is doing is morally and ethically wrong, and this is a direct consequence of left wing political values. I've broken bread with jews and gotten along with them just fine at the protest marches against the genocide, so at the very least I can say that my own personal experience is not that of an anti-semite. If you think that all criticism of Israel is anti-semitic, then I fall into that category (and I'm in good company to boot).
Incidentally I'm curious as to where you get the idea that Israel is intent on ethnic purity. You do know that 20% of the population is Arab, right?
The Basic Law: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People. I have been repeatedly told by Israelis that a single state solution is unviable because it would loses its Jewish character, and that seems to be backed up by the laws passed and enforced by Israel. If it isn't intent on ethnic purity, there should be no barrier to a single state solution with full-franchise for everyone, including non-jewish Palestinians.
Apologies for the delayed response - I don't post on the motte on weekends.
Out of curiosity, have you actually read any books about the history of Israel and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Do you think you could accurately summarize both the Israeli and the Palestinian positions in words that they themselves would agree with?
Yes, I have, and I've read a lot about the history of the region due to the prominence of the issue. As for accurately summarizing both positions... the Palestinian side would be easy but as for the Israeli side I honestly don't think so - there are real divisions in Israeli society on these topics, and coming up with an answer that could satisfy all of them is hard. There are hardline settlers who believe that all the land God gave them in their scriptures belongs to them with no negotiation, and there are Israelis who want a two or one-state solution to the Palestinian issue. At the same time I have actually discussed the issue with people who were born Israeli citizens and they've agreed with my understanding... but given that I met them at a protest against the genocide, I am not actually sure that they'd qualify for your purposes here. I could definitely come up with an accurate summary of the Israeli position that the current government would agree with, but I would prefer not to lie.
Who is them? The footballers in Amsterdam?
"Israeli partisans". The Amsterdam crew count, but they're a subset of the larger category.
It's undeniable that tens of thousands of Palestinians have been killed. There is no war, especially one happening in an urban environment, where lots of casualties weren't women and children. This doesn't make their war just, but it does make it unexceptional.
Disproportionate numbers of women and children are showing up in the casualty lists and this is being reported on by reputable media organisations - these figures are actually exceptional.
The U.N. Human Rights Office said on Friday nearly 70% of the fatalities it has verified in the Gaza war were women and children, and condemned what it called a systematic violation of the fundamental principles of international humanitarian law.
The U.N. tally since the start of the war, in which Israel's military is fighting Hamas militants, includes only fatalities it has managed to verify with three sources, and counting continues.
The 8,119 victims verified is a much lower number than the toll of more than 43,000 provided by Palestinian health authorities for the 13-month-old war. But the U.N. breakdown of the victims' age and gender backs the Palestinian assertion that women and children represent a large portion of those killed in the war.
This finding indicates "a systematic violation of the fundamental principles of international humanitarian law, including distinction and proportionality", the U.N. rights office said in a statement accompanying the 32-page report.
Nor are the Israelis exceptional in having some drunken footballers chanting terrible things and soldiers in the field sometimes getting up to stupid and offensive grunt shit to amuse themselves.
I have never in my life heard a football chant that was as offensive and cruel as the ones from Maccabi Tel Aviv. Taking glee and exulting in the mass extermination of children is way beyond the bounds of football banter, at least in my experience. Do you have any examples of ones that were worse or even comparable? As for soldiers in the field, I'm going by reputable third-party numbers as linked above. There's a difference between soldiers in the field getting up to stupid and offensive grunt shit to amuse themselves and "systematic violation of the fundamental principles of international humanitarian law, including distinction and proportionality." Even if your argument holds, the idea that they're disproportionately murdering women and children to amuse themselves says worse things about the IDF than any of the claims I've made so far.
That would require you to describe them as they would describe themselves. Do you think they would describe themselves as "a blood-drenched, bronze-age state intent on ethnic purity and conquest via force of arms to reclaim the territory their god said was theirs"?
I have had conversations with hardline Israelis who would proudly adopt that label for themselves, but I understand those people are a minority in Israeli society. At the same time, I know several people who would object to entirely accurate and factual descriptions of themselves because they don't want to admit something that they actually did. If I murdered someone in cold blood and was convicted, you'd be entirely justified in calling me a murderer, even if I would disagree and describe myself as a patriot who did what I had to do to save my nation. The standard you're applying here prevents any kind of condemnation of the Nazis as well - they'd view themselves as brave heroes protecting their nation from evil parasites, so they'd disagree with any of the negative descriptions that they deserve to receive.
Again, you aren't using the word "evil" but you're clearly saying, in not so many words, that they're evil monsters and there is no other way to explain them.
I believe they're ethnonationalists who want to reclaim the territory that their god supposedly promised them in their religious scriptures. That's the explanation! It sounds unflattering to modern, non-Bronze age ears, but that's because the actions the Israelis have actually undertaken are unflattering. You don't get to run an apartheid state and then complain that people are saying you run an apartheid state because you'd call it something else that's not as bad for your reputation.
Also, Likud is one political party in Israel whose popularity waxes and wanes. They do not speak for the Israeli state and the entirety of the Israeli citizenry. This would be like taking some of the Republicans' most extreme statements and saying they speak for Americans. (Which of course is exactly what they and their enemies would both like to claim, but it doesn't make it true.) Much has been made of Netanyahu's "Amelek" comment. Netanyahu is a sort of Trump-like figure in Israel - he has a lot of supporters, especially after 10/7, but a substantial portion of the Israeli's population hates him. Think of all the outrageous things Trump has said, which a sizeable portion of the American population would not agree with, and then claiming that Trump was clearly speaking for the American people, and reflecting what Americans think. In an abstract sense, this may be true (they elected him, after all), but at the same time, you'd be completely wrong in claiming he's channelling the American psyche and voicing what the average American thinks about everything.
Likud is currently in power and Benjamin Netanyahu is the longest serving PM the country has had. Unless you want to make the claim that Israel isn't a democracy and their elected leaders do not represent the will of the people, Likud and Netanyahu do speak for the Israeli state. You make the point about extreme republicans, but Zero HP Lovecraft isn't the POTUS right now - and when Trump takes office again, I have no problem saying that he speaks for Americans. Do I think that all Israelis act like this? Absolutely not, I've even mentioned the Israelis I marched and protested alongside. But when I look at the polls, a lot of those more noxious beliefs have incredibly broad support amongst Israeli citizens.
https://truthout.org/articles/polls-show-broad-support-in-israel-for-gazas-destruction-and-starvation/ (yes, the source for this is anti-zionist - I don't believe that means they are just publishing fiction.)
Polls seem to offer confirmation of this statement. A 2013 survey showed that over half of Israeli Jews believe “very strongly” that Jews are the chosen people and that nearly two-thirds believe this statement either “very strongly” or “quite strongly.”
In a January 2023 poll, 93 percent of Israeli Jews said that all of the land between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River belongs to them. The justification for this belief is not discussed in the poll
93 percent of Israeli jews support the claim that their god promised them all the territory between the river and the sea. If you put the claim that the Jews are god's chosen people and that he has given them all that territory (including Palestine) to the Israeli people on a referendum, polling data suggests that's what they'd vote for! I don't think you can really say that these ideas don't represent the will of the people when a majority of them say they do when asked.
Netanyahu, and other militant Likud officials, are pretty open about despising Palestinians, and there's a sizeable portion of Israel that would just like the Palestinians to go away (who can blame them, after all this time?).
Me! I can blame them! Not once have I ever in my life said that I would like another ethnicity to just 'go away' because I don't like the political consequences of their continued existence. If you want to defend that impulse, go ahead - but you're forever giving up the ability to criticize antisemites, racists and white nationalists. After all, they would just like the jews to go away - who can blame them, after all this time?
But most Israelis do not want to exterminate Palestinians because God said to, and you know this and you know it's not an accurate characterization, you're just using that description because it makes Israel sound really super-evil.
I said it because the polling data supports it. That's what it means when over half the population says that they are god's chosen people, and 93% of them of them believe that the territory promised to them in their scriptures belongs to them.
We have a number of white ethnonationalists here, and while sometimes they will admit that they would be okay with a violent solution to create the ethnostate they want, none of them would accept as uncharitable a description of their motives as the one you are claiming is the Israeli one.
I'm not just aware, I've spoken to and argued with them. And you're totally right - very few of them would accept as uncharitable a description of their motives. But at the same time, I'm willing to bet if you assembled all the white nationalists here on the motte and asked them if they were willing to go to the lengths Israel has gone to in order to rid their country of jews and non-whites, many of them would actually say that they would prefer less overtly violent and bloodthirsty methods. I have no problems criticising white nationalists and other ethnic supremacists who would support the disproportionate murder of women and children in support of their ethnostate, and when I see white nationalist troops blowing up hospitals I'll be protesting against them too.
No, you are assuredly and absolutely not. Again, can I ask what books you have read?
Most of them I read over fifteen years ago and can't recall, but the most recent one was Righteous Victims.
As the 2024 election is mulled over by pundits to see what, exactly, went wrong, I wonder if we are missing similar “warning signs” in trends. The Bernie-Bro-turned-Trump-supporter pipeline a la Joe Rogan could be symptomatic of voters aligning more along an axis of “insiders vs. outsiders” instead of policy preferences, education, age, or race; while there are correlations with each of those things to an “insiders vs. outsiders” axis, none of them are definitive.
I'm on the record as saying that this has been coming for quite a while now. Google is broken and not finding my posts on the old subreddit, but I said this 10 months ago (https://www.themotte.org/post/842/culture-war-roundup-for-the-week/181915?context=8#context)
That said I think I go a bit further - I think Left/right as a meaningful political divide is going to either go away or simply transform into pro/anti regime/establishment, because neither of them can offer anything which actually helps people deal with the problems they're facing in their daily lives. Trump is just the early foreshadowing of that realignment.
I'm pretty sure the UN and the ICC did not say "the Israeli side is a blood-drenched, bronze-age state intent on ethnic purity and conquest via force of arms to reclaim the territory their god said was theirs." Though it is probably what a lot of people in those organizations think, given the hostility they have traditionally shown towards Israel.
Yes, I said that my view was based on those things, not that I was just directly quoting them, and I don't think any individual element of that description is inapplicable. Even pro-Israeli partisans admit they've killed tens of thousands of Palestinians, including women and children - “There are no schools in Gaza, as there are no children left.” was proudly chanted by them in public. I think that more than justifies the charge of "blood-drenched", and it puts in some work when it comes to justifying "bronze-age" as well. Netanyahu himself has referenced Amalek and what their god tells them to do to Amalek with regards to the current conflict, and I believe the Amalek-Israel dispute does actually date back to the bronze age. As for ethnic purity, Israel proudly advertises itself as a state for Jewish people and has laws which back that up - I can't think of any other nation that allows for DNA testing to determine whether or not you can immigrate. And as for conquest via force of arms to reclaim the territory their god said was theirs... I've been watching that happen on the news and social media for months now. I've already provided quotes from Israeli settlers planning on settling in the now-cleansed north of Gaza.
My point here is not that I think Israelis are the good guys and how dare you criticize them, but that the history there is a lot more complicated than your simplistic, straight-from-the-mouths-of-Hamas version of Israeli history.
I've based my views on quotes straight from the mouths of Likud officials, not Hamas. As I said, I'm not condemning the Israelis as evil (I don't think calling a state evil really has much meaning) - I'm just taking them at their word. I think that they're motivated by ethnonationalist impulses, and multiple Israelis have simply told me this to my face in other discussions. Until you face the reality of what Israel has done and is doing, you're not going to be able to have a meaningful conversation about it - that's what I meant by preferring conversations where the Israeli partisans just admit that Israel is actually doing what it proudly advertises itself as doing.
The moral valence only comes into play because in the modern era most nations saw an attempt at wiping out an inconvenient population and collectively decided that it must never be allowed to happen again, and that efforts at genocide are a collective stain upon humanity. I'm very partial to that belief and I'm not going to deny that I'm opposed to the genocide of the Palestinians, but at the same time...
I find conversations more productive when people are actually able to steelman their opponents as rational human beings acting out of motives other than pure malice or blind fanaticism
That's precisely what I'm doing. I can understand the logic behind their actions - I disagree with their reasoning, but I can understand why they believe the things they believe and do the things they do. An accurate depiction of what they're doing sounds like evil to the majority of humanity, but that's not a reason to mince words.
Edit: Just to clarify, I think that calling a state evil is indeed meaningless. But having a widespread and justified belief among the rest of humanity that what you're doing is evil is very different and much more consequential.
I'm basing my view of the Israeli side on direct quotes from high-ranking government officials and widely respected international legal bodies. The United Nations and the ICC are both making this claim, and so is the Israeli government. https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2024-01-29/ty-article-magazine/.premium/the-people-of-israel-will-settle-gaza-netanyahu-ministers-urge-palestinians-expulsion/0000018d-5495-d1b6-aded-5fdd570c0000
'The People of Israel Will Settle Gaza': Netanyahu's Ministers at Far-right Conference Endorse Expulsion of Palestinians
''Voluntary' [emigration] is at times a situation you impose until they give their consent,' declared Netanyahu's communications minister on-stage, exposing the true message of the 'Conference for the Victory of Israel': The transfer, or expulsion, of Palestinians from Gaza
One of the sources that I linked in my post was a report by the UN stating that what Israel is doing is genocide. This morning the ICC issued arrest warrants for Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant for war crimes/crimes against humanity. IDF soldiers are killing themselves because they're unable to live with the memories of what they've done. Blood-drenched may sound hyperbolic, but how else can you describe reports of somebody bulldozing hundreds of people alive to the point that they're unable to eat meat anymore because it reminds them too much of what's inside people?
It's so bizarre you would suggest the Israeli side should just admit that they are evil and monstrous and start the conversation from there that I am genuinely not sure whether I missed the subtle irony you're conveying.
Just to clarify, I didn't say they were evil. I'm not interested in moral discussions like that, which is why I posited those alternative questions in my post. None of them revolved around the morality of what's happening, but you can't even begin to talk reasonably about the topic without being honest and admitting that Israel is trying to ethnically cleanse Gaza (as their government has repeatedly admitted, and as the UN has repeatedly accused them of).
It makes very little sense to accuse Israel of genocide/ethnic cleansing if you claim that you we don't have a reasonable sense of the numbers of civilians killed. What are you even basing the accusation on then?
Francesca Albanese's report to the UN. I know you said that she is "cartoonishly anti-Israeli" but if you can spot any lies in here that I missed feel free to point them out. There's actually no point relying on the number of civilians killed to identify genocide or ethnic cleansing, because by the time those figures tell you that a genocide is occurring it is already too late to do anything about it, and the point of identifying genocide/ethnic cleansing is to make sure it doesn't happen again.
In the present report, the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, Francesca Albanese, examines the unfolding horrors in the occupied Palestinian territory. While the wholesale destruction of Gaza continues unabated, other parts of the land have not been spared. The violence that Israel has unleashed against the Palestinians post-7 October is not happening in a vacuum, but is part of a long-term intentional, systematic, State-organized forced displacement and replacement of the Palestinians. This trajectory risks causing irreparable prejudice to the very existence of the Palestinian people in Palestine. Member States must intervene now to prevent new atrocities that will further scar human history.
I highly recommend giving it a read - there's a mountain of citations, and there are even a whole lot more photos of children with bullet wounds in those citations as well. That said the report is extremely long so I'll refrain from just posting the entire thing here, but it represents my position on the conflict very well. There are mountains of evidence with regards to the genocidal intent and actions of the Israeli government, even if you just go through the citations of that report. When I read a report about IDF soldiers killing themselves because they can't live with what they've done in Gaza, or how they can't eat meat anymore because they ran over so many people with a bulldozer and saw the "meat" come out I find it very hard to believe that nothing's happening. When Israelis chant "School's out in Gaza because all the children are dead" to try and intimidate people in Amsterdam, I find it very hard to feel sorry for them.
For what it's worth, I don't find the argument about whether or not Israel is actually a committing a genocide to be that interesting - the answer is just so clearly and blatantly yes. Attempting to make the claim that israeli protests against enforcement of rules against raping prisoners are just made up by evil terrorist prisoners when I've seen the video footage just makes me feel like you're trying to insult my intelligence. Even one of the debunking links you gave me is so nakedly partisan that is has two giant DONATE TO ISRAEL NOW buttons on it - I may as well link to the Daily Stormer as proof that Israel is bad.
I like these conversations a lot more when the Israeli side is willing to admit that they're a blood-drenched, bronze-age state intent on ethnic purity and conquest via force of arms to reclaim the territory their god said was theirs - when you're willing to admit that there are actual conversations that can be had. Will Israel's plans actually work? What are the long-term consequences going to be? Does ethnic cleansing actually work without any downsides? Does international law exist at all? Those are all much more interesting topics, and as an added bonus I don't have to look at gore of dead children or picture hundreds of people getting crushed with a bulldozer in such a gruesome way that it made one of the drivers kill themselves later.
I strongly suspect that for the majority of these "I'm Jewish and I don't like Israel" types their Judaism means nothing to them in any other context.
Who cares? That doesn't change the fact that they're Jewish, any more than I would become black for not supporting white nationalists. Again, unless you're willing to endorse Rachel Dolezal transracialism this doesn't stop them from being Jewish, in many cases loudly and proudly so. They qualify for Aaliyah to Israel, they would be granted citizenship if they went - even the Israeli government considers these people jews. Alternatively, if you've got some kind of proof that you are an official arbiter of Judaism who can tell people whether or not they're authentically Jewish, you get to make this argument. Otherwise it's just another plate of warmed up haggis.
Sure, but I don't know what relation that bears to non-orthodox Jews who are anti-Israel.
They're an example of jews for whom their Jewishness is a central element of their life and still oppose Israel. Some of them are left wing as well, some not.
Your comment reminded me of an article that I read previously which explores one of the points you're making in great detail, specifically about the "bad guys always lose" kind of thinking that seems so prevalent in NATO. https://www.ecosophia.net/the-three-stigmata-of-j-r-r-tolkien/
The first of these habits of thought may as well be called the Orc Fallacy. Orcs? Those are the foot soldiers of the Dark Lord Sauron in Tolkien’s trilogy. They’re bad. They’re so bad they’re a caricature of badness. Not only that, they don’t even pretend to believe in the rightness of their own cause; they know they’re on the wrong side, and glory in it. In Tolkien’s world, no orc anywhere ever had a generous thought or did a kindly action. The closest they get to loyalty is a kind of malicious team spirit, coupled with stark terror of what their bosses will do to them if they don’t follow orders. The closest they get to courage is bloodlust coupled with a clear sense of what everyone else in Middle-earth will do to them given half a chance. When they’re winning, they swagger; when they’re losing, they panic and run. For all their apparent strength, in other words, they’re lousy soldiers, and their main function in the trilogy consists of showing up in vast numbers and then being slaughtered en masse by their outnumbered enemies.
As a literary device this sort of gimmick has its problems. As a basic assumption about reality, shaping the way that liberal politicians and bureacrats in the Western world think about the people they hate, it has much greater problems. There are plenty of examples, but the one that comes first to mind just at the moment is the fate of last summer’s Ukrainian counteroffensive.
According to recent news reports, the counteroffensive was planned out in detail by NATO generals. They’re the ones who insisted that the Ukrainian forces should drive south across Zaporhizhia province to the gates of Crimea, and their countries provided the Ukrainian army with the tanks and other equipment that would supposedly guarantee victory. They wargamed out the offensive in repeated exercises, always with the same results. At the heart of their plan, however, was the conviction that Sauron’s hosts would panic and run once the heroic defenders of the West came charging onto the scene. Since “orcs” is a standard slang term for Russians in Ukraine these days, it probably sounded like a slam-dunk.
Unfortunately for Ukraine, nobody seems to have made sure the Russian soldiers in Zaporhizhia agreed with this. As a result, those soldiers went on believing that they were the heroes of the piece, fighting to defend Mother Russia against neo-Nazis at their gates. Instead of milling around aimlessly while the Ukrainians got ready to attack, and then fleeing in terror and dying like flies once the assault began, the Russian forces dug themselves in, built three hardened defensive lines behind the line of contact, and then fought like tigers once the battle got going, mauling one elite Ukrainian armored brigade after another. By the time the counteroffensive ended this autumn, 150,000 Ukrainian soldiers had died uselessly, billions of dollars of NATO armored vehicles had been blown to smithereens, and the Russian Army still held firm.
Can you link the x-ray pictures you considered credible, so the debunking would be more direct?
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/10/09/opinion/gaza-doctor-interviews.html
I'm just going directly with the story posted by the NYT. I tried looking for a debunking of the story, but the only ones I could find were on websites with huge DONATE TO ISRAEL NOW buttons which made me a bit skeptical of their motivations. I believed the story because there's a huge number of people talking about what they saw treating casualties in Gaza, and it is consistent with all the other reporting I've seen come out of the region. There have been multiple reports of Israeli soldiers killing Palestinian children for several years, and I don't see why the current circumstances would make them stop doing that.
For what it's worth, if you've got video evidence of the attacks, I'd certainly be interested in seeing it.
I do not. I honestly have no desire to go looking for footage of children being gruesomely murdered, no matter how much it might strengthen my argument on an online forum. I'm aware that this is a dodge, but I'm sure you can appreciate that not only is graphic footage of child murder extremely hard to stomach, it is also banned by almost all major platforms and is frequently removed after it gets too "popular". I regret seeing the clips that I have seen and have no desire to repeat the experience.
No one does, because the only sources are Hamas. We can be generous and take their figure, which seems to be about 40000 last time I checked
This is the number of dead that they're able to verify, which is extremely difficult for a variety of reasons. There's another 10000 that are missing and can safely be presumed dead as well, and I believe about 90000 with severe injuries. I don't think we're going to get true or accurate casualty numbers until after the war ends, and even then I have my doubts.
I think the chances that story is true are almost nil.
I have seen too many photos of dead Palestinian children to give the story that little credibility. On top of that, Israeli murder of children is common enough even outside the conflict that there are a lot of reports of it from the west bank as well. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/nov/19/west-bank-children-killed-unprecedented-rate
If you've got a comprehensive debunking of the x-ray claims I'd like to see it, but I've seen enough direct video footage of these kinds of attacks that I can't just brush the claim off wholesale, especially not on the basis of vibes rather than citations (admittedly a bit hypocritical of me given that I'm not posting the evidence I'm talking about either, but I'm sure you can understand why I don't save and archive all the videos of children being graphically murdered that I see).
I haven't heard this story, do you have a source?
https://x.com/FranceskAlbs/status/1858304872963010840 Franceska Albanese makes the claim here.
A single example - that I'm fairly certain wasn't sanctioned by the government/military - seems insufficient to help build a case that Israel is acting with unprecedented levels of brutality towards Palestinian civilians.
There are countless claims from released Palestinian prisoners that rape and sexual abuse was endemic in Israeli prisons - and Israelis themselves (including high ranking government officials!) have protested any attempt to hold the perpetrators accountable.
I suspect the majority of these people are only Jewish by parentage and don't actually live their lives in any way that's discernably Jewish (happy to be proven wrong on this)
This is an old argument that we've seen a lot of times before. "I suspect the majority of these people are only Scottish by parentage, and don't actually live their lives in any way that's discernibly and truly Scottish". But either way there's a decently sized population of orthodox jews who reject Israel for scriptural reasons as well.
Your second point is being litigated in another post so I won't respond to it here.
- Prev
- Next
This standard means the US empire needs to be incapacitated as well. What the US has done in Libya, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan etc is well beyond the bounds of 'civilized' behavior. You don't get to talk about the evil Russian empire while defending the same empire that dumped agent orange on Vietnam.
More options
Context Copy link