JarJarJedi
Streamlined derailments and counteridea reeducation
User ID: 1118
JarJarJedi
2mo ago
Israel policy on it is a bit schizophrenic. Officially, there are two goals - destroying Hamas and freeing the hostages. Unfortunately, the IDF seems to be unable to find the hostages by itself, at least within the boundaries that are set now by the government. And Hamas does not want to make any agreement that does not involve, basically, restoring the situation to pre-October 7, with Hamas in power in Gaza, IDF fully outside Gaza, and basically resetting the board to the situation where Hamas can recover and resume what they were doing and prepare for the next round to come soon.
Obviously, this is not acceptable to Israel. On the other hand, Israel does not want to administer Gaza - day to day control over Gaza means persistent deployment of armed forces into densely populated hostile areas, which will inevitably lead to great increase of casualties on both sides, and is usually horrible for morale. On yet other hand, there's no viable alternative which is acceptable to Israel - all the ideas of "somebody" taking over from Hamas are crushed by the facts that a) nobody wants to do it and b) Hamas is still alive so "somebody" will have to fight them and really nobody wants to do it. I mean, the offer is to fight a guerilla war against motivated, well supplied and entrenched opponent, with broad support among local population, and the prize is a control of one of the shittiest places on earth with no noticeable resources, warlike population and no possibility of making any profit from it ever. Who'd buy that? And with Hamas in control, October 7 will inevitably repeat as soon as the IDF is out.
So, what Israel is doing is increasing its control over Gaza territory, while specifically not declaring the full takeover. The goal of it is twofold: a) more control over the territory means more chance to eliminate Hamas resources and somehow get lucky in the hostage area, though absent a miracle the chances of that are small, but we're talking about Jews here, miracles happen all the time; and b) more pressure on Hamas means more place for piecemeal agreements where at least some hostages could be released in exchange for temporary relieving the pressure. The pressure of course includes control over resources - the last ceasefire let enough resources to come in Gaza to physically last several months, maybe more, but who controls those resources and how is much more complicated. A lot of them are controlled by Hamas, but people of Gaza, even with their deep hatred for Israel, know that too and know Hamas has much more than it gives out. So that is another way to put pressure on Hamas and force them to both dole out some of their hoards and erode their stance with the local population. Of course, Hamas aren't stupid either, and the less hostages they have, the more reluctant they are to part with them. Currently, 23 hostages are believed to be alive, and Hamas does not want to give up more without some permanent gains.
Obviously, this situation is not sustainable, however Israel currently doesn't seem to have a solution that is both feasible and acceptable. So the strategy is to continue pressuring Hamas as much as the local and international politics allows, in hope either of softening them enough to amend their negotiation position (by either convincing some people or killing enough of them that somebody more reasonable comes to lead) or something external happening that improves the situation. Maybe US signing up to population evacuation plan, maybe some Arab sheiks going crazy and agreeing to take responsibility for Gaza, maybe Hamas making some spectacular blunder that would temporarily shut up the wokes in Europe and allow Israel to drastically increase the pressure, or there's a revolution in Iran and Hamas is left without a sponsor. Who knows. Or maybe Israeli government suddenly finds its cojones and declares that it's ready to take over Gaza now, at which point we're back to 2005. It could also be resolved the other way - the right-leaning government is toppled, the left comes to power in the next election, and agrees to Hamas deal described above, at which point we're back to October 6.
So the near term goal is to erode and weaken Hamas as an organization. Official long-term goals are described above, but they are more of an aspirational nature, as nobody knows how it's possible to actually achieve them in reality, at least in the near term.
IMO it wasn't really about ethnicities. Americans are very focused on ethnic dimensions of the conflict due to their history but that was more of a class/power conflict than the ethnic one. Sure, there was a dimension to suppress the nationalist movement, but the main idea was to exterminate the class of independent farmers who were completely incompatible with the collectivist centralized agenda of the new power. Holodomor wasn't engineered to destroy Ukrainian nationalists (though by exterminating their base, it was a side benefit), it had been engineered to destroy Kulaks and the concept of independent self-sufficient agricultural production. I'm sure you can play with the definition of "genocide" to place it one way or another, but in my book a concerted social engineering effort to destroy a wide group of people is something that is horrible, and happens often enough that we need a term to call it. If you don't want to call it "genocide", you'd have to invent a new term with exactly the same semantic connotations, by which point there's not really any reason not to just use "genocide".
JarJarJedi
2mo ago
the murderous hatred will vanish once the oppression is lifted
That had already been proven wrong, it's not a theoretical question, Israel gave up all power in Gaza and actively tried to not intervene there as much as possible for 20 years. What we have now is the outcome of that policy. Israel has its own left, and it operated exactly based on that concept - in fact, it was the dominating concept over the majority of the establishment, however they color themselves on other issues - that the hate will recede once Israel administration is gone, and the residual hard core of haters is going to be easy to contain since it would be small and isolated. That went catastrophically wrong of course.
It's like somebody would say "if we only had a socialist country" ignoring the USSR ever existed. Which I guess what the left is routinely doing, so not much new here.
JarJarJedi
2mo ago
I just ignored those parts. Given that most critique of the capitalism is given in the voice of the character which understands very little about how humans work and derives most of its knowledge on the subject from soap operas and actively avoids getting any personal knowledge there, on top of being beset by a rich bouquet of psychological issues, it can be even taken as a satirical critique of the contemporary (and, really, all) left. I am not sure if that was the author's intent, but it certainly lends itself to this way of reading.
That said, "evil megacorp" is a staple villain in SciFi, at least in the settings where corporations exist at all, so it's nothing really new. And in general, economics and politics is almost never properly explored at all - the author doesn't seem to be interested in how that all "free stuff" works on Preservation Alliance - you just reverse the polarity and apply transquantum flux capacitors. Same, never explored what exactly motivates the corps and how they work and why, or why they need so many humans working in "mines" at all, given how advanced their tech is. If one can't get over it, the range of enjoyable SciFi would be greatly reduced. Fortunately, all that stuff is pretty easily ignorable for me, and most of the content is not about that at all.
JarJarJedi
2mo ago
That said, if it's Reddit we're talking about, it's kind of self-selected for the worst excesses of woke, so maybe overall picture is not that bad. No idea, I am still holding some stupid hope that they'd wake up one day and figure out this is all BS. Probably won't happen though.
JarJarJedi
2mo ago
Would you acknowledge the evilness of Armenian genocide if we agree to drop the "unique" part?
JarJarJedi
2mo ago
I know, Israel "really" invaded Palestine 75 years ago
Nah, around 1200 BCE actually. But that's not the reason not to acknowledge the unceded claim of Canaanites to the land, of course.
JarJarJedi
2mo ago
or attributing Israel's massive success among the audiences as the result of concerted, strategic voting efforts by "the right".
Wait, I thought "the right" are supposed to be all Nazis? So all the Nazis are voting for Israel now, against Austria, where literally Hitler was born? That's hilarious.
ambient nominally pro-Palestinian (but really anti-Israeli) sentiment in Ireland
On a more serious note, a disappointment of a decade, tbh, how quickly and easily Ireland turned anti-Semitic (let's not be coy, that's what it is). What did the Jews ever done to them? I have always been a fan of Irish and wider Celtic culture, but this thing makes me sad.
JarJarJedi
2mo ago
Probably has something to do with UK laws. Maybe some Google lawyers are scared somebody would sue them if some image casting somebody powerful in bad light is generated. UK is not a good place to be sued for defamation. While Google is probably not scared that somebody in UAE sues them. May be related to that.
JarJarJedi
2mo ago
Imagine you have a number of tasks to do. Some of them are relatively quick - maybe up to 15-20 minutes, some will probably take hours. You will eventually need to do all the tasks but you can do them in pretty much any order. Which ones do you start with? Is it the small ones to get a quick win and keep yourself motivated, or the largest one, so that once you do them you'd feel you made a lot of progress and what is left is easy work now compared to what you've already done? What would you do and why?
JarJarJedi
2mo ago
Just finished Murderbot series. Very fun reading. I hope the author writes a dozen more, if she doesn't get tired of it.
JarJarJedi
2mo ago
I have paid ChatGPT and it hallucinates profusely too, see my other comment above. Had this issue many times, not with Apache Spark specifically but with many other libraries and APIs - it just decides "it'd be nice to have this setting" and just invents it out of thin air, and I spent half an hour trying to hunt it down and going to the source to finally find out it never existed.
JarJarJedi
2mo ago
I felt like they were only really good for coding
They aren't that good for coding. I mean, they are ok for coding simple things that doesn't involve any complicated concepts or deep understanding, something like just reading the manual and applying it directly, many times just copypasting from the right example. But if it gets a bit more advanced it can't help you much. It also loves hallucinating new APIs and settings which don't actually exist, which is hugely annoying - I've been in this scenario many times: "Describe the ways to do X with system S?" - "The best way is to use api A with setting do_X=true, see the following code" - "This code does not work, because api A does not have setting do_X" - "Thanks for correcting me, actually it's api A.do_X which has configuration value enable_doing_X=1" - "That configuration doesn't exist either" - "Thanks for correcting me, actually there's no way to do X with api A" - "Are thee other ways to do X with system S" - "Yes, the best way is to use apis B and C with options do_X=true"... you can guess the rest. They are good for easy tasks, but as soon as the tasks require any actual understanding and not just regurgitating pre-chewed information, its usability drops dramatically. Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of tasks which are literally just applying the right copypastes in the right sequence, but it can only get you so far.
JarJarJedi
2mo ago
Good analogy. We're now living in the epoch were we have discovered radioactive materials but have zero idea what the ionizing radiation does to the body - only in the informational/cognitive space. So, thorium toothpaste, radium showers, radium-spiked beer (gives you extra energy!), and so on. Stuff that makes you hairs stand on end reading about it now - only the society has no idea yet what is happening.
JarJarJedi
2mo ago
The framing here is spectacular. Policy shifting your way is described as "need to grow a bit of a spine" (note the undertone oppression narrative - good guys are always oppressed, doncha know? - and heroic revolutionary spirit), while the opponents are described - without any argument towards it, just so, as "Insane pro car legislature". How about considering this situation: most people actually like it that way, do not think it's insane at all, and actually elect legislature to enact their own priorities, and aren't oppressed by anything (insert "putting boot on one's own face" meme picture here) and don't need to raise up.
but I doubt there are many users here
And when we're discussing wider policy, "users here" is obviously the only group that matters.
Biking is always a suitable alternative in major eastern urban areas
I personally know several people seriously hurt while bike commuting. No such data about car (or public transport) commuters. And that's not just my personal anecdata - data shows bike commuting is 8-15 times more dangerous for injury, and 4-5x for death, than car commute. I'm sorry that doesn't sound like a suitable alternative to me.
Guys, the subway is not very dangerous during work hours
And if you stay late one day... well, you could sleep under your desk. You'd have to be back the next day anyway, don't you? Also, it may not be dangerous in some hours but it still smells 24/7.
JarJarJedi
2mo ago
For reasons, I've been recently traveling to quite a few cities (I usually live in a suburb environment and have zero commute since I work remotely), mostly large ones on the West Coast. Sometimes I rent a car, sometimes I don't. What I noticed is that not having a car makes everything take way longer and way more complicated.
With a car I know when I have to leave to be at time X at point A, and how much time it'd take me to get to point B afterwards. Yes, even with the traffic, modern online tools are pretty decent at predicting it. And, as you note, I can listen to music, audiobooks, or silently meditate while I'm driving. I can also literally get to any place at any time of my choosing. And If I decide to make a detour to grab a coffee or buy some stuff I forgot, I know up to a minute how long that'd take me.
When I rely on the public transport, I am at the whim of its schedule (which could be extremely inconvenient for me) and it's coverage - if the closest bus stop is a mile from where you need, it's walking time. I'm reasonably fit so walking a mile is not a problem for me, but what if it's raining? What if it's hot as hell and I show up there all sweaty and smelly? And that's the ideal case. So many times the bus that should be on 15 min schedule just didn't show up - who knows why - and I was left guessing should I wait another 15 mins and then be guaranteed to be late if the next one doesn't show up too, or it's time to pay for uber/taxi?
And now safety. I've seen all kinds of crazy on public transport. I am pretty large, somewhat ugly and, again, reasonably fit male, so the chance somebody chooses to mess with me in particular, out of all possible choices, is not that big. Never happened so far. But still being in the presence of obviously psychotic person (who evidently hadn't experienced a shower in this decade) in a closed box is not something I particularly enjoyed. I've also seen and smelled a lot of bodily fluids and solids which I'd prefer not to. It's not always that bad - some routes are quite fine, but there's always a chance.
And of course if you need to bring something with you, it's even more problematic. I mean, if it fits in a backpack, then fine. But if not? With a car, I can pack stuff I'd need for a week there without a problem, and have plenty of space left. I can go to a shopping spree and just put all the stuff in my trunk and forget about it. I can buy a pack of water bottles once, put them in the car and use them for a week. I can have a change of clothes if the weather changes or I get dirty. Etc. etc. A lot of things are so simple when you have a mobile mini-home with you everywhere you go.
In short, car improves your quality of life so much. Sometimes, in some visits, the cost (rent, gas, parking, time to find parking, etc.) may be so high that even that improvement does not cover it, and then I still choose to go car-less. But the love for the car is not baseless at all, there's a lot there to love.
JarJarJedi
2mo ago
Thanks, the first one looks good, even though I don't see a single D cosponsor, but at least the majority of Dems voted for it. One has to wonder though if it were about denouncing Nazis, would there be 86 congressmen saying "nah" and another 14 saying "I don't care so much I can't even form an opinion on this".
For the second one, it sounds like communism is so much dead the Congress feels they need to pass federal legislation to counter its influence in the schools (despite school programs traditionally being a local matter and not the federal Congressional matter). If it's politically dead the politicians certainly don't think so. But again, it is encouraging to see the majority of Dems voting for it.
communism is dead as a political force
Nazism has been dead as a political force for much longer. And was active as a political force for much shorter period. And "the handful of self-identified Nazis" most definitely are "LARPers with no aspirations to power" (if by "aspirations" one means serious possibility and not wet dreams under the influence of drugs) - while communists are plentiful in our academic institutions, can easily find themselves at positions of power in smaller local governments, and that is without even peeling the veil under which DSA is hiding. Short of violent overthrowing of the government, if a politician supports virtually any part of Communist program, she may be considered a bit of a radical but not completely out of the acceptable in the polite society. If you can shut up about the glorious revolution for a bit, there's no barrier for a communist to participate in modern politics. You may not win the presidency (though watch AOC, who knows?) but you won't also be kicked out. Is it really dead or just temporarily laying in wait?
whereas fascist sympathizers keep surfacing in positions of influence inside right-wing populist movements
Here we have not one rhetoric tricks but several:
- "Sympathizers" - we move from self-identified Nazis to nebulous "fascist" (on the left, anybody to the right of Bernie is damn "fascist", including one's own landlord who demands paying rent with the delay of no more than three months!) and then from that to even more nebulous "sympathizer" - which is pure mind-reading.
- What is "position of influence"? A blog on instagram is a "position of influence". A soapbox in the middle of the street is a "position of influence". Is professor in the university a "position of influence"? We have a ton of communist professors, find me one self-identified Nazi professor. We have school teachers parading in shirts with the portrait of Gevara (notorious communist mass murderer) - can you point any teachers parading in a shirt with a portrait of Hitler? Or even Eichmann? What would happen if a prominent movie star declares herself a communist and what would happen if she declares herself a Nazi? Where are "positions of influence" here?
- Which "movements"? Are "groypers" a movement? Are 4chan trolls a "movement"? Are Andrew Tate followers a "movement"? Who knows, maybe. None of those has serious participation in national politics. Which "populist movements" under the serious ideological influence of Nazis can you name? Can they take over and burn down a whole city, and repeat it for months? Because I know movements on the left that can, and did.
but there just isn't the kind of symmetry they're looking for.
True, there isn't. "Neo-nazi problem" exists almost exclusively as a thing to accuse everybody on the right in, not as stand-alone political movement that is capable of anything more than moving the stale tiki torch inventory in the local hardware store. Violent leftist movement are capable of much, much more. And their political wing controls a lot of society's cultural and educational institutions. It's not even close to symmetry. That's why a former communist terrorist can be a respected professor and a mentor to the US President, and a former Nazi never could. Former KKK member probably could (did Byrd mentor anyone? don't remember) but he would end up in the same party as the Communist one.
The closest you get are pro-palestinian activists, who rather famously don't get along with mainstream left-wing politicians
The not getting along is rather one sided though. The militant left doesn't like the polite left, because they consider the latters to be wusses, hipocrites and pretenders (in which they might even be correct, even if for the wrong reasons) but the polite left would always cover for, enable and defend the militant left. And the antisemitism is just the "current thing" in fashion today (though antisemitism is never truly out of fashion on the left) but there's always some cause where violence, especially deniable violence, would be very useful to the Party. Be it protecting the Gaia, enforcing DEI, suppressing enemy speech or impeding enforcement of the laws the left doesn't like, there's always enough reason for political violence. And those who deploy this violence look very much like those whose existence you deny.
There's no equivalent neo-stalinist movement
Why it has to be Uncle Joe? Neo-Nazis have no choice, they had only one prominent figure. Communism has so many bloodthirsty tyrants or wannabe tyrants on record, one could choose freely among them, or proclaim all of those weren't true Communism, which has never been tried, and thus it all doesn't count.
JarJarJedi
2mo ago
If somebody says "anybody who does X is a psychopath" while doing X, then I think we have the right to treat him as if he said "I am a psychopath". Not if he said "anybody is doing X, including me, but I think it would be morally superior to do Y, and since I want to be morally superior, I invite you to do Y with me" that would shield him from the same line of criticism, but that's not what happened. If you call everybody around a psychopath, then that's the line of argument you opened, and should expect the same kind of argument in return.
JarJarJedi
2mo ago
Are there any left wingers at all that aren't comfortable working with communists? I mean, a while ago, there were real flaming anti-communists, even among prominent democrats. But among modern prominent democrats - are there any anti-communists at all? Are there any that at least are able to give proper recognition to the crimes committed by communist regimes in the last century and not just treat as "it was long time ago, let's not talk about it"?
JarJarJedi
2mo ago
I think that you are defining "the right" in a way which means anyone who is a reliable ally against Nazis doesn't qualify
This is quite misleading - since there aren't any proper right-wing movements available in Germany, except maybe AfD, and AfD can not be a "reliable ally" to any other party due to the consistent policy of those parties to reject any cooperation with it, then it may be vacuously true, but that's exactly my point. Your explanation is "the right you're talking about are essentially Nazis and that's why there's no proper right in Germany" (which btw doesn't explain what happens with the rest of Europe?) - but that's completely untrue. It is possible to have a right-wing movement that does not include Nazis (at least not in any political way - an individual Nazi sympathizer of course can join any movement and it's impossible to prevent it in a free country) - it's just that in Europe there's a distinct lack of such movements that have any power or serious influence on the current politics. And this has nothing to do with Nazis or my definition of the right converging to Nazis (it does not). It's just that the population of Europe seems to be fine with the soft-left policies they are getting. They probably wouldn't be fine with full-scale hard-left communism, but the center of mass for the modern Left is not there, it's more around big-government woke welfare open-borders state with heavily regulated economy, still nominally allowing private ownership but within tightly controlled boundaries (and private speech and political participation within tightly controlled boundaries too). Europeans have the full right to like this package, but that's exactly why I am saying "the right is over" - because there are no serious offering outside this package on the political scene. And no, "that's because you want Nazis" is not a good answer to it - there can be a lot of potential offerings outside this package that do not include Nazis. They are just not available on the European political market.
nobody paying attention to British politics thinks that Reform UK is "over"
They are not "over" as the party still exists, but they don't have any power, so it's not "over" because it never was actually "in". Britain is a bit different case because it does have a functioning conservative party that is not in name only, and sometimes can implement policies - even though in many important aspects, again, there's not much departure from the same package there either.
I was referring to Kiev, the first capital of the original Rus state from which modern Russia claims cultural, linguistic, and religious continuity.
That is an extremely tortured argument. Like claiming US must invade and annex Italy because our culture has so much connections to Romans. Kiev, as you know, is the capital of Ukraine, and not Russia, and while it is true that Kiev, at certain times, was the center of the civilizational entity which gave birth to many other that eventually become modern entities including Russia, treating this as a claim that "Ukraine was an ancient part of Russia" makes as much sense as claiming "Rome is an ancient part of the US". It's just ahistorical nonsense based on shallow TV-news-level knowledge - which is exactly why Putin is using it btw, his target audience knows "there was something with the name vaguely resembling "Russia" in Kiev at one time, so that means Kiev always belonged to Russia".
despite having been easier for them to conquer in the current war on account of their terrain and their population not having gone through the cultural separation from Moscow and St. Petersburg that the rest of Ukraine has.
This has nothing to do with the population or what they would want or not want. Pre-2022, the territories were mostly conquered by using Ukrainian internal turmoil and weakness to capture control. The population wishes had precisely little to do with it - it's not like Russia is a democracy or cares what the population thinks - people that think wrong just get jailed (or die of mysterious illnesses, or fall out of windows, you get the idea). Once they expanded their interest to the territories which couldn't be easily grabbed, the default mode became just bomb the shit out of it until nothing but barren scorched earth is left. Again, nothing to do with "cultural separation". It's not like Civilization games when there's a "cultural vote" among the population and if the culture of other country wins, this city joins it. What actually happens Russian just bomb this city into dust, and it matters preciously little what the former occupants of the former city thought about St. Peterburg's culture.
JarJarJedi
2mo ago
the way Ukraine is an ancient part of Russia
What's "ancient" for you? Ukraine was incorporated in Russian Empire in late 18 century. That's not something people really call "ancient" usually - that's like saying "Texas is one of the ancient states of the US" or "Lincoln's Gettysburg address is one of the great ancient speeches". Surely there's no strict definition of "ancient" but that's not the usage most of people would be comfortable with.
JarJarJedi
2mo ago
conservative parties like the German CDU
They present as "conservative" but from their actions it doesn't seem like they actually are. It looks more like what is called the Uniparty in the US context - parties that pretend to provide alternative solutions but once elected fall back into the same set of policies no matter which label is on them currently.
The point @Tree is making is that functional political parties adjust their positioning in order to chase votes.
Sure, I do not disagree with this. And that's exactly my point - if you instantly add a California-worth of leftist voters, the political parties will have to shift left, or go extinct and be replaced by the left-shifted ones. And if your politics is based on principles and not on whether "our team" or "their team" wins, and your political principles happen to be on the right, then it would be a disaster for you, because no political party - however it would be called - would be willing to adhere to your principles and provide any policies according to them.
then it was all over for the right in 1945
If you mean the German National-Socialist party, calling them "the right" was a propaganda trick in 1930s and will remain so in 2030s. Mentioning them in the broader political context as the valid definition of the whole term raises from a trick to a libelous smear. A behavior one would be ashamed of if there were any decency left, but we all know that ship has sailed long time ago.
And if @JarJarJedi thinks that Meloni and Farage are insufficiently right-wing to count, then for him it probably was.
I never mentioned Farage (for the simple reason that his political power right now is microscopic, 4 seats out of 650?). But I would like to hear in plain speak what you mean by this, because it certainly sounds like you're calling me a Nazi. Which would be nothing new - it is basically a propaganda tick of the left since, again, 1930s, but I'd like a clarification this this particular case - what do you mean by this?
"IDF" is not a good term here. While some of the people responsible are top of the IDF command, it's by no means ends there. Pretty much all Israeli establishment has been captured in the worldview that allowed it to happen, and sole dissenting voices have been dismissed as kooks. Israel military intelligence has a special "contrarian" unit whose sole task had been to produce scenarios challenging the established way of thinking and poking holes in established paradigms. Sort of advocatus diaboli. They weren't able to make a dent in the wall of denial that something like Oct 7 is possible even in theory. And it's hard to call it "incompetence" per se - many of the people involved were highly knowledgeable, smart and competent professionals - but within the limits of their world model. Escaping those confines is hard for any person, and it turned out that this particular world model, while very attractive - in fact, so attractive that many people still cling to it right now, unable to part with it even with the benefit of the hindsight - this model is spectacularly wrong. How to prevent it from happening again is a very hard question, I am not sure Israel will find an answer, though I sincerely hope they do.
On the other hand, Hamas spent 18 years meticulously organizing and preparing for this kind of attack and followup confrontation with the IDF. It's not random that IDF can not locate the hostages, or eliminate Hamas in one sweep, and not because they are a bunch of bumbling fools - they aren't. Hamas made a lot of preparations for this exact scenario, including developing a system of underground communications, storages and munitions, and associated warfare paradigm that still has no adequate answer from the IDF side. It's not to say Hamas is now stronger than the IDF, they are not, by far, but they came prepared and successfully exploited - and continue to exploit - the weaknesses in IDF's military approach, be it sensitivity to casualties from both sides, or unwillingness to stay on the ground for a prolonged period of time, or vulnerability to propaganda efforts targeted at the wokes in Europe and the US.
So it was both. Hamas did their homework, for 18 years, and Israel didn't and completely ignored what Hamas has been doing, because it didn't fit their worldview. The result was the catastrophe of October 7.
More options
Context Copy link