naraburns nihil supernum
2yr ago
(text post)
31466 thread views
Israel-Gaza Megathread #1
This is a megathread for any posts on the conflict between (so far, and so far as I know) Hamas and the Israeli government, as well as related geopolitics. Culture War thread rules apply.
Human beings have an instinct that makes them lash out violently against oppression, real or perceived. If it were possible to eliminate this instinct through genetic engineering, would it be worthwhile to do so? Would the Palestinians be better off if they were engineered to feel less emotional in response to discrimination and ethnic cleansing?
I mean, if we're granting the ability to apply arbitrary genetic behavioral modification to classes of people, I'd rather make all the oppressors uninterested in oppressing...
Anyway, there's a difference between 'would Palestinians in the real world be better off without the instinct now' versus 'Would Palestinians from five hundred years ago be better off today in expectation without the instinct.'
I think this instinct, like a lot of human instincts towards violent retaliation under various circumstances, serves an important evolved purpose as a disincentive towards other people doing those thing in the first place.
An instinct towards psychotically attacking oppressors is an incentive against oppression. Not a strong enough disincentive to stop all oppression, oppression can be really really profitable, but God alone knows how much more oppression there would be in the world and in the history books without that instinct.
Nah, resistance to some forms of oppression, even if irrational from an individual perspective, is very much necessary for the survival of the group. You have to make someone, who wishes to oppress you more than is within the Overton Window, reconsider due to the cost in blood they'd have to pay. Even if you will inevitably lose it they chose to pay it. (Do stop resisting after you're done with the minimum needed to add credibility to your claims, assuming they aren't literally killing you)
While I wouldn't object too hard if it was done for basket cases like Palestine, it's infinitely preferable to just make them as smart as their Israeli cousins, so that integration could be smoother. Can't forget the cultural component and memetic engineering, genius Jihadis cause much of the carnage, the ones who did 9/11 were well educated. The two are inextricable, smarter people can be more pro-social, certainly more productive, and find positive sum ways of solving their problems without resorting to force.
At any rate, I do find making otherwise normal humans into meeker ones distasteful, if you want servants and workers who won't give you lip, just make more robots.
No. Striking violently and possibly in a suicidal way to achieve taking your oppressor's life is paramount. Sacrosanct. I would not want to live with a people who have had this urge lobotomized out of them. Indeed I would look at them as lesser beings.
The_Nybbler
If you win the rat race you're still a rat. But you're also still a winner.
omfalos 2yr ago
You have perhaps read S.M. Stirling's Drakas books? I don't think breeding Homo servus is really a good idea, whether you're doing it to the Palestinians or the Israelis.
There has been a lot of discourse among the American Right about the recent Hamas attack on Israel. This specific attack has caught this attention of the "vitalist Nietzschean" sphere of the Right, often followers of Bronze Age Pervert.
This sphere is known to be against moralizing and all "slave morality" coming from either the liberal establishement, the left or religion. An example of this would be the meme culture of the BAP sphere, which openly celebrates murder, rape and death.
However, with an ironic twist of reality, Hamas is precisely getting accused of what these BAP rightists vitalists uphold. But when they are faced with Hamas's "barbarian vitalist attack" on Israel, utilizing non-modern warfare techniques, they suddenly all cowered out.
All of the BAP sphere has stopped celebrating "vitalism" when it came to Israel. This is because it is now "low IQ Muslims" that do it. It is very clear that Islam challenges the ontological foundations of the Nietzschean worldview. They can not explain Hamas on their terms.
Since you are forced by the rise of the world market to take a position (the American people's money is going into this), the Nietzschean BAP sphere can not say anything. They are practically rendered politically irrelevant.
Thus, their position is reduced to fence-setting or straight zionism, a position completely and utterly in line with the political establishement in America. All of this to claim to be "right-wing dissidents".
All of the rejection of moralizing now became an endorsement of moralizing. BAP openly retweeted a post denouncing "the rape & genocide" of Hamas (unproven by the way) while he himself, a couple days earlier, celebrated the killing of a leftist journalist saying it turned him on.
This reveals a huge hole in BAP's worldview. A gap between his "complete surrendering to natural instinct" and "transcendetal Platonist moralizing". He has now suddenly decided to start moralizing! He has found the exception to his Nietzscheanism!
This single event has proven the complete bankruptcy of the Nietzschean outlook. It can never explain REVOLUTIONS, it can only react to it in its own moralizing sense through its metaphysical lense of "will to Power". It is fundamentally a whining ideology.
The Nietzschean outlook does not understand that high culture is only secondary to material harmony of society. Only when inherent tensions are solved in modernity can "high culture" be produced once again. Harmony is directly derivative of political & economic realities.
Thus, taking the metaphysical lense of "will to Power" becomes non-sensical when faced with a pre-modern (non-aristocratic) revolutionary force. It is what creates (or destroys) aristocracy itself. Faced with the deep ancient Islamic spirit, the Nietzscheans have no answer.
In the same way that the revolutionnaries of the 20th century rendered Nietzschean fascism politically useless (this was done by Mao and the creation of Neo-China), the same is happening with the new Hamas partisan. This is material Being asserting itself against ideology.
This has forced the online political sphere, specifically the Right, for a re-alignement. You either oppose the current political establishement (left-wing) or you support it (right-wing). BAP has chosen to support it.
The whole "vitalism" "Bronze Age Mindset" just basically comes off as fantasizing and wish-fulfillment for the masculinity-based sector of the right, no wonder it would get instantly thrown aside (with some scant justifications about not supporting brown barbarians or whatever) whenever it might conflict with actual politics.
BAP has already been discredited by a large portion of the Dissident Right for being a Jewish Zionist, he is a known quantity as a Zionist posing as a Nietzschean. The real Nietzscheans in the DR don't have much of a dog in the inter-Abrahamic wars beyond the impact on their own civilization. That doesn't mean necessarily killing civilians, although context certainly matters. One pattern we saw in WWII was that shooting civilians is seen as much more barbaric than bombing civilians, and that pattern seems to hold today as well.
I also don't think "you are barbarians for your practices in war, so we must subjugate you and civilize you" is really contrary to Nietzsche. That was the M.O of the Roman Empire, who would basically denounce everyone outside their sphere of influence as a "barbarian." So the "barbarian spirit" is a little more complicated than glamorizing the most grotesque things any people does. Being Nietzschean doesn't mean you have to glorify all acts by the barbarians, it also means you subjugate them and impose your morality onto them.
Going around raping random women and killing defenseless civilians as an prelude for your home to get leveled by heavy artillery by a powerful military doesn’t seem very Nietzschean to me…
BAM's exhortations run counter modern technology. You can't be a pirate or a steppe raider when the people whose settlements you want to conquer or raid can get you bombed.
Is it incumbent upon dissidents to oppose every single policy of the current establishment? If it is, there have been very few (perhaps no) dissidents in human history. In general this is a relatively weak defense of a form of historical materialism, misunderstands Nietzsche and so on, as many others have noted. The author writes with the eloquence of a 13 year old, which is somehow even more grating than Costin's shtick.
More generally, BAP is Jewish and has longstanding sympathies for some of the early zionists, if not the degraded and spiritually void religious zionism that exists in Israel today (and which Costin has not infrequently criticized).
Faced with the deep ancient Islamic spirit, the Nietzscheans have no answer.
Perhaps in an Israel that had embraced BAP's nietzscheanism more wholly, there wouldn't be much of the population in question left at all, certainly not in its current form. So this is a somewhat weird point, in that it hardly disproves the relevant political program (not that anyone, of course, knows what that is).
So maybe I just don't understand what people have been meaning by having a Bronze Age Mindset, because to be BAP's position seems perfectly ideologically consistent. Them raping and pillaging is bad, us raping and pillaging is good. What's more Bronze Age than that? For anyone reading this forum, the Palestinians are not your allies and never will be, so it seems only natural the Bronze Age response is "slaughter them and salt the earth"
Uh…did you write this? Write commentary for it? Or are you just sharing?
Also, what’s up with his love for letter “e”? There’s quite a fewe extras sprinkeled in.
I’m familiar with the concepts of BAM but not the culture. So it’s hard for me to tell if the author is representing it fairly. The piece feels like a strawman, even though I know edgy memes and bad optics are in line with the Mindset. Is he trying to bait Bronze Agers into his position?
The more I think about it, the more this scans like a Tumblr hit piece. The Mindset must be bankrupt, perhaps even problematic. It’s insufficiently REVOLUTIONARY. And all of this based off of a retweet! Truly, the most decisive endorsement of slave morality. Bronze Agers simply must smash their idols, and cast aside the false dichotomy of “fence-setting” or “Zionism.” They must travel a third road. They must become… anti-Semites.
I don't really know what he thinks, he seems to be obsessed with the Ukraine war and the Gaza conflict (RT galore) but thinks it is stupid to fight (and die) as a low level grunt?
The “Bronze Age” ruler would have smashed your idol group identities in a thousand pieces. Literally every state and group today is fake. And my book isn’t about celebrating your preferred ethnic pathic affectations when they engage in chimpouts or fake modern wars.
The main objection against the aesthetic admiration of POC violence whether Pali or BLM joggers or Somalis is that they are only allowed to exist in a limited playpen situation, dependent as wards of the state or other powers and a humanitarian ethics. It is therefore sterile.
Gangsta violence can be made to look transgressive only so long as the power of the USA state in this case stops nature from taking its course—50-100 military cadets could probably pacify all of LA or Chicago in a couple of weeks.
Now extend this to the world—virtual playpen.
Edit: I should put a disclaimer that I have never read BAP and only vaguely understand what any of this debate is about, but those posts randomly drifted into my twitter feed and were clearly a response to the critique above. If anyone thinks it's worth the time to read BAPista philosophy so this all makes sense, could you give me an elevator pitch? I got filtered pretty hard on him right off the bat.
It's not always exactly easy to see what BAP and his followers are actually supporting, seeing how it's couched in layers of comic exaggeration (or... IS IT??) and memespeak.
I don't disagree. But some prominent examples would really buttress this crux, and I do think it's the crux of this position. Do they really advocate and celebrate Hamas-style barbarism?
The overwhelming majority of conservatives and right wingers are firmly on the side of civilization, on the civilization-barbarism axis.
I'm not really that familiar with BAP, since I don't like his writing style (see above), and strictly defining who is his follower and who is not is similarly beyond my ken.
4bpp
Now I am become a Helpful, Honest and Harmless Assistant, the destroyer of jobs
Tanista 2yr ago
This seems to be saying in many words that $cool_thing suddenly seems not so cool when it becomes associated with the despised outgroup. It's not even the first time this has happened recently: the whole Russia/Western Europe/Eastern Europe/US empire/traditionalism/progressivism graph has been a wellspring of cognitive dissonance and stomach aches to anyone trying to bipartition it into good ingroup and evil outgroup, as seen with the Trump-Russia association, Ukrainian neo- and paleonazi gaffes or Germany's very mixed feelings about the rise of PiS Poland. For a cast more reminiscent of the Israel scenario, recall also the "Islam is right about women" trolling campaign.
It is very clear that Islam challenges the ontological foundations of the Nietzschean worldview.
Only if you've never read Nietzsche.
The Gay Science #306:
Stoic and Epicurean. The Epicurean selects the situations, the persons, and even the events which suit his extremely sensitive, intellectual constitution; he renounces the rest that is to say, by far the greater part of experience - because it would be too strong and too heavy fare for him. The Stoic, on the contrary, accustoms himself to swallow stones and vermin, glass-splinters and scorpions, without feeling any disgust: his stomach is meant to become indifferent in the end to all that the accidents of existence cast into it: - he reminds one of the Arabic sect of the Assaua, with which the French became acquainted in Algiers; and like those insensible persons, he also likes well to have an invited public at the exhibition of his insensibility, the very thing the Epicurean willingly dispenses with: - he has of course his "garden"! Stoicism may be quite advisable for men with whom fate improvises, for those who live in violent times and are dependent on abrupt and changeable individuals. He, however, who anticipates that fate will permit him to spin "a long thread," does well to make his arrangements in Epicurean fashion; all men devoted to intellectual labour have done it hitherto! For it would be a supreme loss to them to forfeit their fine sensibility, and to acquire the hard, stoical hide with hedgehog prickles in exchange.
Here's my proposal for how to solve this, with a plan I am shamelessly stealing from Greg Abbot and Camp of the Saints.
Step 1, just start rounding up Palestinians and putting them on boats. Let them grab their possessions if they want to cooperate. These are nice, safe, clean boats with cameras everywhere to film all the food/medicine/clean water being provided. Maybe also Gaza is 100% blockaded and no food goes in, giving people an incentive to leave.
Step 2: the boats set sail to Iran. Egypt allows them to traverse Suez because...well keep reading.
Step 3: the unarmed boats full of refugees and cameras go directly to shore in Iran. They ignore warnings to stop. They let the Iranians inspect them for weapons. They land, tell everyone to get off, and repeat.
This puts Iran in the unenviable position of either a) having to martyr thousands of unarmed Palestinian refugees on camera or b) live with Palestinians. If Egypt doesn't let them through Suez, then Egypt can have the Palestinians.
Better border security seems a lot more feasible and practical . Relocating millions of Arabs won't change anything if the funding for terrorism is intact, as is the antipathy against the West. The money for arms is coming from somewhere...focusing on that should be the main priority, combined with better border security and intelligence. Now we see why surveillance exists. 99.9% of the time it seems useless and intrusive , but then incidents like this happen.
Moving the Palestinians would change a lot. First of all, they'd mostly be Iran's problem. If they remain prisoners in Iran-operated refugee camps, any human rights issues are the result of Persian rather than Israeli oppression. If they integrate into Iranian society, hopefully they find better things to do than become terrorists. Meanwhile the world loses a current talking point against Israel - maybe 10-20 years ago they did a forced migration, but that's ancient history. Netenyahu, the person with his name/face on the policy, is 74 today and will be dead soon.
Second, they'd be far away. No matter how terrible the Palestinians are, they aren't America's problem due to distance. To attack America they need to either get past airport security, take a boat, or something similar.
What if Iran sends the Palestinians back on boats, with food? The Palestinians want to live in Jerusalem. The Iranians want the Palestinians to live in Israel. Neither wants the Palestinians to be in Iran.
Realistically, the US/Israel are far better able to mount a logistical operation such as this than Iran is. Taking the $50B-ish of US aid to Ukraine and dividing by 2M Palestinians, that's $25k/person to spend. Can Iran throw $25B at the return trip?
Maybe not, but it's quite a gamble on the past of the US/Israel, especially because e.g. Iraq and Syria might let the Iranians bus the Palestinians to Israel.
This does of course assume that Assad has no problem taking the risk of Palestinians getting off the bus in Syria - everyone is happy with a bunch of Palestinians showing up, right?
Relocating millions of Arabs won't change anything if the funding for terrorism is intact, as is the antipathy against the West
This doesn't seem like a serious assertion. Of course relocating millions of people would change something. Probably entirely. X can't do Y if there are no more X taps temple
99.9% of the time it seems useless and intrusive , but then incidents like this happen.
But if incidents like this still happen then why are you rhetorically attempting to justify intrusive surveillance?
Every Israeli needs a wearable Iron Dome to protect them from blade and projectile attacks. Border security won't be enough because the Palestinians can fly over the border in ornithopters or tunnel through the sand. Mass surveillance is a technological solution that ultimately relies on human beings to interpret the data. Having the prescience to predict attacks before they happen is a rare gift, and the Israelis don't seem to have anyone with that gift.
So massive genocide and another mass wave of refugees from the middle east. Neo con pro Israel policies always end up being a disaster for Europe and the middle east. Why not an alternative plan, arabs get to live in the same town as their grandparents lived in.
It is possible that Iran commits genocide against the Palestinians. Quite a move, first steering them towards committing atrocities against Israel, then murder them all when they show up in need of help.
Why not an alternative plan, arabs get to live in the same town as their grandparents lived in.
Honestly this is the best idea. Arabs get to live in the same town, but with Jewish masters and overlords. And if they start shitting stuff up, beat them with a large stick (literally) until they learn their lessons, the stick is very effective on those humans on which words don't have any effect. Also as subjects of the state of Israel, their incoming packages can all be legally inspected at will etc. (just like how the incoming packages of any Israeli Jew can be legally inspected by Israel) and any weapons easily confiscated without the ability of the former Gazans to be able to cry "oppression" and "blockade". Israel needs to make it clear that we are your rulers, just like it has done to the Israeli Arabs who are far more civilized than the Palestinians.
Why bring back slavery? If anything, the eastern European jews who have moved there recently should be ruled by the locals. The arabs have done a fairly good job at handling jewish minorities for the last millenia. It has been the natural order in much of the middle east with an arab ruling glass and ghetto jews being an underclass.
It's not slavery any more than being the citizen of any democratic western country is slavery (Nozick may well have argued that that is still slavery, but most people would disagree).
It has been the natural order in much of the middle east with an arab ruling glass and ghetto jews being an underclass.
Sure, but the ruling Jews of modern day Israel are not Middle Eastern Mizrahim any more, they are high end Ashkenazim from Europe who are a superior breed, destined to rule over others in any fair system. Different people, different relative social structure.
This is all so tiresome. Since we are going wild with ambitious proposals, how about we deport the Jews instead?
This would have to take place some decades in the future, when the space tech matures a little. That, or we just give the Jews longer deadlines. Everybody (by that I mean mostly the US) does their best to convince the Jews that the promised holy land is, in fact, on Mars. They are then strongly incentivized, both through threats, as well as generous funding, to use their superior IQ to settle the red planet. The place is admittedly somewhat drier, but on the other hand, a lot more spacious and with no neighbors to complain. I'm sure they'll do fine.
Benefits of my plan:
-Space development dramatically accelerated.
-Final solution to Jewish settlement problem. Jews don't bother anyone and no one is bothering the Jews.
-The Palestinians can have their cursed patch of desert all to themselves.
Why don't you just hit the mute button and watch the ads? I don't understand why people complain so much about watching a few short seconds of advertisements in exchange for dozens of minutes of FREE video.
It's my understanding that, if you don't skip until the 30-second mark, then the ad counts as having been "watched", so the uploader still gets paid. There's at least one Chrome extension that you can set up to automatically skip ads after the 30-second mark. I don't know whether Safari has anything similar.
Hilariously terrible idea. When you're relying on Iran to allow you to do things it doesn't want you to do on the basis of them being too squeamish to stop you, you know you've got a bad plan.
If you let them on to inspect for weapons, they can just shoot the crew and let the Palestinians take the boat back. If that doesn't work, they can just sink the boats. "It's terrible that the enemy forced us to kill these innocent civilians" is a time honoured rhetorical device, and it wouldn't even be wrong here.
Not to mention the passengers would be trying to kill you the whole time.
When you're relying on Iran to allow you to do things it doesn't want you to do on the basis of them being too squeamish to stop you, you know you've got a bad plan.
I'm not relying on this. Iran can murder all the Palestinians on camera as far as I'm concerned. It's a win for Israel and there's tons of footage of Persians murdering Arabs to broadcast to the Arab world. Arab/Persian conflict is a distraction from Arab/Jew conflict.
You'd need 1000 boats with 1000 person capacity to move a million refugees. Among the refugees would almost certainly be terrorists and crypto-militants. Obviously no weapons would be allowed on board, despite a small chance of smuggling efforts succeeding. So you will need a sizeable police force. And can you trust all of the police to maintain control of their weapons and populace, and not support some kind of mutiny?
Food and water could probably be handled.
Who is paying for this, and in charge? Israel? The UN? Someone will have to take responsibility for the Iran destination, and that will prove quite contentious. Iran can reasonably blockade and/or refuse port. Eventually conditions onboard deteriorate. Maybe the crew abandons ship? Iran could commandeer the ships and park them at the Port Authority of NY/NJ.
To put it into context: if we are talking about moving 1 million Gazans, then in Ukraine equivalent spending this is about $100k per person to cover the logistics of it.
Laughing at the idea of sending Hamas to Iran on The Disney Wish..
It typically carries 4000 passengers and 1500 crew members. Even assuming doubling up (even expensive cruises don't have a lot of cabin space), that leaves maybe 10,000 refugees per trip. Also would need to consider how much security is needed to prevent a mutiny and capture of the vessel by its passengers.
Or you need 100 boats with 1000 person capacity if each one takes 10 trips. I'm shocked at your suggestion that the Palestinians are a bunch of terrorists, rather than innocent victims of Israeli oppression!
Who is paying for this, and in charge? Israel?
As I see it, Israel + USA.
Someone will have to take responsibility for the Iran destination, and that will prove quite contentious.
USA and Israel can certainly provide tons of Israeli/American flag branded food/water/etc, which Iran can distribute as they see fit.
Someone will have to take responsibility for the Iran destination, and that will prove quite contentious. Iran can reasonably blockade and/or refuse port.
Yes, Iran certainly does have the ability to shoot guns at boats full of Palestinian refugees while the cameras broadcast videos of innocent women and children dying to the world. How is showing Iran to be bloodthirsty killers of Arabs and getting rid of Palestinians not a huge win for Israel?
Iran could commandeer the ships and park them at the Port Authority of NY/NJ.
Getting from the Meditterranean to the Persian Gulf is a far simpler logistical problem than Persian Gulf to America, and Iran is far less capable of logistics than Israel or the US.
Yes, Iran certainly does have the ability to shoot guns at boats full of Palestinian refugees while the cameras broadcast videos of innocent women and children dying to the world.
And then what does the world do? Send a strongly-worded letter? Sanction them? Maybe try to stop their nuclear program?
At some point after Iran has established they're going to shoot, I think Israel loses their plausible deniability. "oh no Iran shot them AGAIN? What are the odds?" probably wouldn't come off very well.
Assuming they don't run out of boats and/or Palestinians who would prefer to be shot by Iran than by Israel first, of course.
Or you need 100 boats with 1000 person capacity if each one takes 10 trips.
Multiple trips are not realistic. I'm happy to explain why, but that shouldn't be necessary.
As I see it, Israel + USA.
Good luck with gaining access to Iranian ports.
Yes, Iran certainly does have the ability to shoot guns at boats full of Palestinian refugees while the cameras broadcast videos of innocent women and children dying to the world.
Refusing port does not imply shooting guns.
Getting from the Meditterranean to the Persian Gulf is a far simpler logistical problem than Persian Gulf to America
The destination is rhetorical. Iran can perform the same maneuver at any port of their choosing.
Multiple trips are not realistic. I'm happy to explain why, but that shouldn't be necessary.
Please, explain.
Good luck with gaining access to Iranian ports.
Wow, so Europe can stop illegal immigrants from taking boats across the Mediterranean simply by refusing a port pass? Why haven't they thought of this?
The destination is rhetorical. Iran can perform the same maneuver at any port of their choosing.
This sounds like a problem for Iran and Saudi Arabia/the UAE/Oman/Pakistan (ports that are reasonably accessible to Iran) to work out amongst themselves. Pretty sure Israel can work out ways to stop a Suez crossing in the reverse direction if they need to.
Wow, so Europe can stop illegal immigrants from taking boats across the Mediterranean simply by refusing a port pass? Why haven't they thought of this?
I dunno about a port pass, but yes, they can. They have thought of this.
It's sometimes referred to as "turnback policy" under international maritime law, as I understand.
Foreign vessels have a right of innocent passage in a state’s territorial sea (up to 12 miles from shore) under article 17 LOSC. If passage is not innocent, such as when domestic immigration laws are breached, states can take necessary steps to prevent passage. For seaworthy vessels, this is generally unproblematic. It may be that the UK government expects to rely on some iteration of this principle.
But if a vessel determines and justifies that it is in distress, it can enter the state’s territorial sea, according to an exception in article 18 LOSC. The duty to render assistance is also still applicable, even where the state believes that migration offences have been committed by those in peril.
For this same reasoning, multiple trips to Iranian port will be denied. And when the first trip is denied, the boat remains full and unable to take on additional migrants.
Israel can of course do the same thing that African migrants to Europe are doing: ensure that by the time the Palestinians are 11.9 miles from Iran, they are in boats capable of traveling only 30 miles (i.e. not enough to cross the gulf to reach Saudi Arabia).
The Iranians can shoot them out of the sea, let them land on the beach, or even render assistance.
Kind of strange how Europe is incapable of turning back migrants, but sending migrants to Iran is of course impossible.
Yes, Europe “can’t” stop the boats in part because it’s not the migrants’ boats landing in Europe, it’s the NGO boats that pick them up just offshore near North Africa that are landing, and those boats are in large part literally funded by European governments like those of Germany, and those boats say they have passengers in distress when they return with the migrants.
with a plan I am shamelessly stealing from Greg Abbot and Camp of the Saints.
Greg Abbott is seeing success with his immigration policy because the people he’s bussing more or less by definition want to go somewhere deep in the country that may or may not be in Texas but definitely isn’t the Rio grande valley. ‘You can go to New York, LA, Denver, Chicago, or DC’ is an appealing pitch to such people.
Of course those cities don’t want them and he’s only willing to stop sending them if they stop coming, which those cities then advocate for the federal government to enforce(and he got his way, at least as far as barriers are concerned).
In contrast, the Palestinians want to live in Tel Aviv, not Iran, and there is no policy concession Iran can give to Israel that makes the Palestinians go away.
The Palestinians didn’t want to go to Iran in the first place, and unlike the masses of economic migrants showing up at the Texas border, are controlled by a militant group of psychopathic terrorists. This makes relocating them much more difficult.
Israel has repeatedly bombed the Rafah border crossing (the only border crossing to Egypt) in the last few days. There is plenty of international citizens in Gaza who can't get out either because apparently the crossing is not functioning from the Palestinian side.
Or Egypt fails to brutally repress them, either because it's hard or because it inspires homegrown resistance, the government falls to Islamic radicals, and Egypt becomes 10 Gazas. Or the Sinai becomes a lawless hellscape filled with weapons, a problem for both governments. Or Hamas militiaman cool their heels in Sinai for five or ten years then return to cause problems for Israel anywhere else. One doesn't just decide to engage in brutal repression and instantly win.
I agree, it’s very much not in Egypt’s interests to take them, and it would be an extraordinarily tough pill for Sisi to swallow if the US ordered him to, such that the amount of aid required would be so large I doubt it would pass congress.
Apart from this being an act of war against Egypt, open up Google maps. It’s 100 miles of desert on the other side of that wall before you get to any real civilization.
The regime in Egypt (largely a continuation of pre-2011 military rule) was literally overthrown by the Muslim Brotherhood, of which Hamas is a spin-off of the Palestinian chapter. Sisi would consider that an act of war. It’s hard to say what he’d do, but it wouldn’t be good for relations.
HlynkaCG
old man yelling at clouds
bro 2yr ago·Edited 2yr ago
Which aspects of what happened were intentionally part of the plan?
This is an objectively stupid question.
Even the parts that weren't ostensibly "part of the plan" were very much intentionally "part of the plan" because the intention was always to "send drugged up teenagers into battle unsupervised" and see what happens.
While moral culpability is certainly part of the question (I think the answer is easy enough to be uninteresting: you are right), my question is literally which parts were in the plan?
Which parts they implicitly expected would happen, vs which parts were explicitly in the plan, vs what instructions were propagated to the men, vs what actually happened.
Between any two of those, surely not all, surely not none.
If you were to fire your gun blindly into a crowd and kill someone, do you believe that claiming that you never intended to shoot that person in particular would be a valid defense against the subsequent criminal charges?
While moral culpability is certainly part of the question (I think the answer is easy enough to be uninteresting: you are right), my question is literally which parts were in the plan?
Which parts they implicitly expected would happen, vs which parts were explicitly in the plan, vs what instructions were propagated to the men, vs what actually happened.
This is a factual question
I'm curious, because your initial post was just a link to a Tweet with one statement that basically paraphrased the Tweet without adding context, what is the significance of these factual questions in this context? For instance, "How many of the attackers wore matched socks, instead of mismatched?" is also a factual question with a factual answer that has some objectively true answer, but knowing this positive integer figure doesn't seem particularly important or even meaningful in this context. Your factual questions seem only marginally more relevant to the situation than my own made-up theoretical one. But as someone who's only been tangentially keeping track of this situation (I must admit that I grew bored of the whole Israel-Palestine saga two decades ago), I could be missing some context that illuminates the importance of the questions you asked.
It is meaningful to understand what plans the Hamas leadership has. If they intentionally directed the civilian atrocities, that means something different in terms of how they plan for the situation to play out compared to mere wanton disregard for life.
It is meaningful to understand what plans the Hamas leadership has.
I'm not convinced it is. As I said below, any model of Hamas' behavior must start from the assumption that "Hamas will behave in the manner that Hamas has been observed to behave" if it wants to make any claim to accuracy.
If they intentionally directed the civilian atrocities, that means something different in terms of how they plan for the situation to play out compared to mere wanton disregard for life.
I get that this is the contention, but the part I don't get is, what is the actual meaningful difference there?
Jesus christ lol. Are you being deliberately obtuse? I am asking "was the guy aiming for the specific person he hit, or just firing wildly into the crowd", "did he leave the house in the morning intending to shoot up that mall or did he see it on the way", "was he trying to start a race war, or to impress Jodi Foster". Not as a leading question but because I want to know what literally happened.
Give up. Most human beings are apparently incapable of distinguishing between an empirical issue and a normative issue, and most people who post here are very much not an exception, in my experience.
Most human beings are apparently incapable of distinguishing between an empirical issue and a normative issue, and most people who post here are very much not an exception, in my experience.
You are not stuck in traffic, you are traffic. Sweeping, unflattering claims about "people who post here" are toxic to the community, for a variety of reasons; often they're wrong, often they're insulting, often they're subtly consensus-building. If you want to engage in some high-effort demographic-checking, have at it, but low-effort sneers do not meet that threshold.
I read the question as "Did hamas wanted the gang rapes and decapitated babies or they didn't bother putting leash on their fighters because they didn't think they would survive long enough"
Terror like everything else is a tool. That level and kind of terror will drive whole of Israel howling for blood.
The question whether it planned or unplanned is important. At least from the Know your enemy. In the first case there may be a way of achieving Israel goals short of the complete eradication of Hamas once the punishment is over (everyone in the command chain, booths on the ground foreign consultants, political machune that was involved in this must die no questions about that) . In the other case Hamas must go and Israel must pay with enough of it's blood to achieve it.
Lives of IDF members also matter. With a huge discount (from Israel pov) so does the gaza women and children's. And depending on the expected casualties it is important to know where you can stop.
I think @bro is asking which tactical objectives were pre-planned and which were simply targets of opportunity. For example, did Hamas decide to attack the nightclub months ago or did they only learn about it after the breach and thought "YOLO LET'S GO"?
I think there’s a case to be made that they didn’t think they’d get as far as they did, but in any case, how far did they think they’d get? Locations of military bases near Gaza are public information and well known to Hamas, if they had wanted to limit themselves to military targets only, they could have.
On the other hand, the degree of organization raises more questions. If it’s just “the elite troops trained by Iran opened the fence and stormed the border posts, then random 17 year olds with guns drove through and began killing civilians” that doesn’t square with operatives who landed by paraglided and started killing civilians, who would presumably be in the former category and who would have needed some training. And beyond a handful of border posts, there doesn’t seem to have been a concerted effort to target military sites deeper into the country.
My guess is that instructions post-breach, other than the targeting of the very nearest IDF and possibly police facilities, were pretty limited but involved capturing hostages (to use in negotiations) and maybe weapons and armor. Beyond that, they’ve obviously had no issues with terrorism in the past, so it’s hard to see why civilian casualties would be a problem.
While it seems to us (and I would say is) more morally abhorrent, indiscriminately firing missiles at towns and cities is no different in terms of ambivalence to civilian casualties as telling drugged up young men to do what they want with a local civilian population.
While it seems to us (and I would say is) more morally abhorrent, indiscriminately firing missiles at towns and cities is no different in terms of ambivalence to civilian casualties as telling drugged up young men to do what they want with a local civilian population.
I don't fully agree with it, but there's an argument that society has physical limits to how moral it 'can' be at maximum: slavery went from common-place world-wide to detestable with automation and wage manpower (and having literally any other option with war slaves), lowering infant mortality and mass-production of household necessities made it possible for women to have a place outside of the home, so on. At the extreme end, sufficient outside stressors can drive people to cannibalism surprisingly quickly. That doesn't mean that these limits make people more moral, just that they can't be better.
One of the commonly-cited examples is that mass bombing campaigns could only fall out of military necessity with the development of computerized guided missiles. And this is pretty applicable for Gazans: their artillery not only can't be more precise, it's often not even precise enough to distinguish its own launcher site from its 'target'. Leaving that weapon aside requires leaving a tremendous tactical and strategic space.
There are equivalents examples for other laws of war, including some relevant for these attacks. There are a lot of indiscriminate Biblical atrocities, after all. But they fell out of favor before the New Testament; the technology that obviated them wasn't microchips, but roads. The closest I've seen to a tactical or strategic argument is this one (cw: advocacy of outright evil, absolutely not condoned), and that's damning with faint praise: it's the logic of a tantrum, not a military plan.
In this framework, indiscriminately firing missiles at towns and cities is ambivalent in the sense that you're accepting the risk to civilian lives as part of a military plan that has not other comparable options; less ambivalent, and more accepting the costs. Maybe there's something that required the baby-murdering rapists, or Hamas was so low on armed adults that they couldn't pick and choose (but it's not like America's dabbling with baby-murdering rapists found them able to turn it off when they went home!), but it looks more like -- at best! -- absolute indifference.
I saw a retrieved dashcam video today from someone who was shot in their car. There's about a dozen Hamas fighters in it shooting up vehicles on the road. They're uniformed and look to have at least a basic level of coordination - so from that clip at least it looked more like an actual military action than a bunch of random teenagers with guns.
Some of them have uniforms (seemingly both their own and some stolen or copied IDF style uniforms), but others in the festival footage seem to be wearing civilian clothes.
OPSEC seems to have been airtight even within Gaza, with most of the participating groups being informed only days in advance.
I'm not sure in that context there was much of a plan for most of the forces. Some portion of troops probably had specific goals, but some portion were probably also just sent off-leash to do whatever.
To some extent I feel this is the only really interesting bit of this episode. And it does feel to me like there is another shoe to drop in the plan.
Butcher civilians and especially a bunch of good looking young females = Israel goes Old Testament on Gaza = ?????
The first Israel response seems an obvious second step in this event.
If Hamas had no foreign help then one could argue they hoped that Hezbolla and Iran would all jump into the fight. Hezbolla seems reluctant since who wants to jump into Old Testament wrath and Iran leader has strongly denied any involvement.
This play is lacking Act 3. Which would make sense if Hamas was hoping for Act 3 but didn’t plan with outside parties. The other alternative would be that Israel hasn’t done something too far to bring in Act 3 Casus Belli yet.
So far the only Act 3 has been some dumb Harvard students. Which basically helps Israel by outing some people that would support Palestine for punishment in the west (no jobs for those Harvard kids). It likely increased Trumps likelihood of being elected perhaps even pulling in some Jewish votes since he’s solid Israel.
I’ve upgraded this attack to truly a September 11 type event. Which helps Israel because it means they get to take the gloves off for the Old Testament Retribution. US had about 6-12 months of do wtf you want to global support.
Imagine we were in a small French town in the 700s that just suffered from a viking attack. Women and girls raped, the priest has been beheaded and the church looted, etc, etc. Imagine someone surveying the carnage and asking "But what larger strategic goal does this serve for the northmen?"
This is the goal. This is the point. People try too hard to imagine large strategies and 3D chess.
In a world where a lot of financial and material support for the vilings relies on a large portion of the world not thinking they're the baddies, taking into account the larger strategic goal (or blunder) does in fact make sense.
I agree it's not complicated, but I don't believe the Viking analogy holds.
The Vikings were there for loot. Simple as. They might have enjoyed killing monks and raping nuns, but that's not what got them to sail across the North Sea in a tiny boat.
The Palestinians aren't looting Israel. The foot soldiers are there out of pure hate. And the leaders are playing from the standard terrorist playbook.
Commit atrocity
Provoke larger atrocity from enemies
Win powerful allies to defeat enemy
This is their strategy. Their strategy sucks. It's not going to work. Peaceful mass resistance would work a lot better. Imagine unarmed Palestinians being shot as they climb the border wall to try to "immigrate to a better life in Israel". That's a message that would play well in the current zeitgeist.
A lot of terrorism has no deep political motive beyond bloodlust. Yes you can argue that Islamist attacks on civilians in the West had the motive of killing enough people that the US pulled out of the Middle East, but there’s a lot of ‘Step 2: ???’ involved with this even if you accept the premise that attacking a people doesn’t create a lust for vengeance. Much of it just desire to hurt another people as much as you think yours have been hurt.
9/11 looks slightly more defensible in historical context I think. At the time America pulled out of Somalia over comparatively minor losses, and refused to engage with the Rwandan genocide that they probably could have stopped relatively easily.
I'm honestly not even sure if Osama's plan - as opposed to post-hoc cope - was the conflict that happened. Yes, America bled and arguably has not recovered from the loss of trust in institutions and the cost but it wasn't bleeding out from the conflict. Hindsight makes it clear that the US could absorb such a loss.
He may have expected either to shock and awe the US or some sort of invasion followed by a general uprising of Muslims* or the US giving up relatively quickly. After all, it has the entire Western hemisphere to itself. Just how many Americans are willing to die in the Middle East?
This? I dunno. America stayed in the ME for a generation, and Israel has nowhere to go and is even more determined. Hamas knows this better than anyone else.
Much of it just desire to hurt another people as much as you think yours have been hurt.
Islam is a triumphalist religion. Muslims aren't supposed to be in this position. If they are, they always have the Khalid bin al-Walid out: love death more than the infidel loves life. You fight and win, or you die and "win". Either way you don't have to sit around wondering how you went from ruling the world to...this.
* Maybe some weird vanguard party logic of "lighting the spark". Not the first time it's failed.
I've read a fair amount about the IRA's guerrilla war / terrorism campaign. One of the things I noted is that quite a lot of the violence they carried out was not executed with a great deal of care - things like, making sure you're killing the right person, making sure there aren't any bystanders who you would also have to kill in addition to the planned target, making sure it's done at a time and place without too much witnesses or evidence, etc. There was only a relatively small number of hardcore members who were capable of carrying out savage violence with careful planning. I concluded from this that it's genuinely hard to find people who are both prepared to carry out gruesome acts against innocent-seeming targets and also sane and rational enough to be intelligent and careful about it.
Act 3 of the Hamas' ideal outcome involves international condemnation of Israeli human rights violations, televised slaughter of Arabs, and the hardliners within Saudi Arabia vetoing a normalizing of Israeli-Saudi relations. The beginnings of this were already visible in the Asian news tonight: the official Korean national broadcaster (KBS) had a segment focused on the blockade of humanitarian resources (with mention that fuel cuts impact hospitals) which segued into a report that Israel has dropped white phosphorous bombs. (The NYT reported one day ago that "the Israeli army denied the use of white phosphorus, saying soldiers had deployed only illumination flares." Footage was from broad daylight, so either the footage is old/repurposed, the denial is out of date, someone is lying and it was white phosphorous, or it was actually anti-SAM flares.)
We've had some questions on the reports of beheadings that have been going around.
Claims of beheadings have been emerging after a media tour of Kfar Aza on Tuesday when soldiers told reporters that children had been beheaded during Hamas' attack of the kibbutz.
An IDF spokesperson reacted shortly after by saying it could not confirm the claims.
CNN on Wednesday reported that Tal Heinrich, a spokesperson for the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, said that beheaded babies and toddlers had been found in Kfar Aza.
On the same day US President Joe Biden spoke to leaders of Jewish groups at the White House.
"I never really thought that I would see and have confirmed pictures of terrorists beheading children," he said.
The White House later clarified his claims by saying neither the president nor US officials had seen pictures or independently confirmed the alleged atrocities and that Mr Biden had based his comments on statements by the spokesman for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and media reports from Israel.
On Thursday IDF spokesperson Lieutenant Jonathan Conricus mentioned the claims while giving an update about the situation in Be'eri.
"We got very, very disturbing reports that came from the ground that there were babies that had been beheaded. And I admit it took us some time to really understand and to verify that report," he said on X.
"After eyewitnesses came forward and after a senior official in the Israeli coronary service, Zaka, came forward on record ... and said 'yes, I saw the bodies of beheaded babies', I think we can now say with relative confidence that this is unfortunately what happened in Be'eri ."
The allegations could not be independently confirmed, and authorities did not immediately offer further details or evidence.
I know some people have been waiting for more info before rushing to judgement, which is fair enough. Unfortunately, it seems like this particular horrific story is true.
Given terrorist attacks in the US and Europe the prior should be pretty high that they would commit atrocities like this. Even if they didn't, we know they slaughtered people at a music festival so they are committing war crimes regardless.
It’s true that it seems like the kind of thing Palestinian terrorists rampaging unopposed through a kibbutz might do, but it also seems like the kind of exaggerated rumor that would go around after such an event.
This sentence will get me put on a list, but Israel’s international credibility depends on releasing the dead baby pics.
They did release these (DON'T CLICK IF YOU DON'T WANT TO SEE MURDERED BABIES), but as far as I can tell there's no decapitation in these pics. One might have his throat slit, they've censored it so it's hard to tell. The other two are burned to the point I can't discern what body part is which (I can however confirm from personal experience that's pretty much what an incompletely-burned baby looks like).
I don't think this release was intended to address that specific claim though.
EDIT: Ok, apparently these are the same photos that the Jerusalem Post is saying confirm the decapitation story. Which makes me feel like I'm taking crazy pills. They seem to do the opposite.
Considering that this indicates that the Israeli government is not shy to release gruesome photos of dead babies in general, what's the explanation for them not releasing photos of all the decapitated ones at this point?
My suspicion is that the 'beheaded babies' rumour is a deliberate op intended to portray whatever response they are planning to engage in as proportional -- there will be plenty of babies burned to a crisp in Gaza if the IDF invades. (I saw a video of a guy running through the streets with his own dead baby, who had been recovered from some rubble, already)
What's worse than blowing babies up as 'collateral damage'? Deliberately beheading them, of course -- so this is a thing that must be. By now there's been time to generate some fake photos even -- so my standard of proof for this incident is increasing daily.
Yeah, I’ve said it before but while killing at gunpoint and knifepoint is arguably more ‘visceral’ than suicide bombing (in that more remains of the victims, largely), blowing up a bus full of civilians isn’t much morally removed from a lot of the slaughter that happened on Saturday and so should hardly surprise anyone. I suppose sadism and torture add to it, but again, those aren’t new for them either.
Similar to how WWII bombing campaigns that caused far more destruction inspire less ire than a competition to decapitate 100 Chinese. (Including bombings by the same country).
On the same day US President Joe Biden spoke to leaders of Jewish groups at the White House.
"I never really thought that I would see and have confirmed pictures of terrorists beheading children," he said.
The White House later clarified his claims by saying neither the president nor US officials had seen pictures or independently confirmed the alleged atrocities and that Mr Biden had based his comments on statements by the spokesman for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and media reports from Israel.
As an aside, just about everytime I hear a direct quote from Biden in the MSM, it is directly followed by a 'clarification' from the White House. Trump also had 'clarifications' following his off the cuff statements, but not at this scale.
I hope America can eventually get a president that actually spouts something close to the White House's official position when asked to make a statement, because right now you're better off asking the press secretary rather than the president if you want to know America's position.
Yeah Biden gets a lot of passes for being a confused old man when the reality is he's nearly as much of a reflexive liar as Trump is. He just says what sounds good with no regard for whether it's true or not.
It’s interesting that the Nayirah Testimony that got us into the Iraq War also featured dying babies. That turned out to be fabricated, but before that it was confirmed by Bush and a host of journalists.
"I never really thought that I would see and have confirmed pictures of terrorists beheading children," he said.
The White House later clarified his claims by saying neither the president nor US officials had seen pictures or independently confirmed the alleged atrocities
Are they trying to pull a Mitch Hedberg? That's one of the weakest "clarifications" I've seen recently.
The Jerusalem Post can now confirm based on verified photos of the bodies that the reports of babies being burnt and decapitated in Hamas's assault on Kfar Aza are correct.
I suppose I would believe it if someone from, say, the BBC or Reuters had personally viewed the pictures. I’m ambivalent about the truth content, but I’ll say that I (a) fully believe they killed babies and (b) wouldn’t be surprised at beheadings, although I’m somewhat more skeptical of claims of babies being beheaded.
The pro Palestine argument is that Israel is colonial power and that Palestine deserves freedom. The chant is “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.”
In the minds of most of these people, it is Israel that is keeping the Palestinians down. Yet Hamas, the regime in charge of Gaza, hasn’t held an election since 2006. They are an autocratic dictatorship. Why is the focus solely on Israel as “oppressors” and not the shitty, despotic regime in charge of Gaza?
Yep, Hamas could have chosen to tread the path that Singapore took, instead they preferred to lob rockets into Israel rather than improve the living standards of their own citizens, or even allow a different group who would have focused on that to take power. At this point I absolutely support Total Hamas Death, not just for what they have done to the Israelis, but also what they have done to their own citizens: Kill Hamas, Behead Hamas, Roundhouse kick Hamas...
Hamas could have chosen to tread the path that Singapore took,
No they couldn't.
Where's the talented and capable han chinese minority that were an essential part of Singapore's success? Where's the massive advantage of being an incredibly important maritime trading post for centuries? Furthermore, Singapore didn't need a strategy to deal with an equivalent to Israel, a well supplied and technologically advanced occupation force that actively works to sabotage their economy and control trade. Criticising Palestine for not pursuing a strategy that required substantially more genetic capital than they had on hand is farcical reasoning - one may as well criticise a poor person for not investing several million dollars in stocks and living off the dividends.
And while I'm not exactly on Hamas' side, from their perspective they are doing everything they can to improve the living standards of their people. They view the current situation as an Israeli strategy of wiping them out gradually overtime - there's a need for violent resistance or their people just stop existing.
I have no sympathy for the terrorists, but are you sure Israel would have let them become richer? Sometimes they are targeting civilian infrastructures like power plants, it does not help when you try to build a richer country. A rich enemy is more dangerous, it's a risk Israel is perhaps not ready to take.
I don't know, but the West bank is not controlled by Hamas so you can't put it on them. Moreover, from Wikipedia:
According to a 2013 World Bank report, Israeli restrictions hinder Palestinian economic development in Area C of the West Bank. A 2013 World Bank report calculates that, if the Interim Agreement was respected and restrictions lifted, a few key industries alone would produce US$2.2 billion per annum more (or 23% of 2011 Palestinian GDP) and reduce by some US$800 million (50%) the Palestinian Authority's deficit; the employment would increase by 35%.
Before, during and after the 1947–1949 war, hundreds of Palestinian towns and villages were depopulated and destroyed. Geographic names throughout the country were erased and replaced with Hebrew names, sometimes derivatives of the historical Palestinian nomenclature, and sometimes new inventions. Numerous non-Jewish historical sites were destroyed, not just during the wars, but in a subsequent process over a number of decades. For example, over 80% of Palestinian village mosques have been destroyed, and artefacts have been removed from museums and archives.
You shouldn't be able to get away with this sort of thing right in the middle of the 20th century. After that, it's no wonder if there are Palestinians who will never accept Israel, and I also think Israel doesn't really have a leg to stand on to negotiate, as it's not really a legitimate state, just a top-down imposition.
Debating this elsewhere, some reactions were "Oh, but the Arabs wouldn't accept the partition plan", but why should they, why does the UN have the right to just impose that on them? Actually, the UN involvement just makes Israel seem like another High Modernist fuck up, another of the numerous errors of the first half of the 20th century.
Addressing something Ike Saul said below:
I don’t view Israelis and Brits as colonizers any more than the Assyrians or the Babylonians or the Romans or the Mongols or the Egyptians or the Ottomans who all battled over the same strip of land from as early as 800 years before Jesus’s time until now. The Jews who founded Israel just happened to have won the last big battle for it.
No, I am not moved by appeals to ancient history. That cycle has to end at some point, and the end of WW II seems like a good stopping point for that sort of shenanigan.
Also, you can't have your high officials expressing themselves like the guy above and like this:
Gallant said that he had ordered “a complete siege of the Gaza Strip,” which is home to 2.2 million Palestinians, nearly half of them children. “There will be no electricity, no food, no fuel, everything is closed,” he said. “We are fighting human animals, and we act accordingly.”
Netanyahu:
The weak crumble, are slaughtered and are erased from history while the strong, for good or for ill, survive. The strong are respected, and alliances are made with the strong, and in the end peace is made with the strong.
You can't talk like this and then pretend you're the civilized party here! Though of course, looking at the so-called developed nations, especially America, maybe they don't talk like this, but they sure behave like it, so maybe there actually are no or few civilizations around.
But that doesn't make me think Israel is legitimate, it just makes me think the developed world is fake too.
It was almost inconceivable that this wasteland had been made by Jews, that my people and my religion could have created something so ungodly. I did not recognise myself in this mirror. Jews—like Mel Brooks, like Franz Kafka, like Albert Einstein, like Bruno Schulz, like Woody Allen, like the Coen brothers, like Walter Benjamin, like me. People with sexual hangups and a good sense of humour. Bookish men with overbearing mothers. Latkes and lokshen pudding. Candles on a Friday night. Jews, the guilty conscience of Europe, the bearers of messianic hope through every generation—reduced to this.
American support for an ethno-nationalist state can't last. All it takes is a sufficiently left-wing administration coming around to undo this by simply withdrawing support, which could easily happen in the next few decades.
Apologies if this is too much heat, but looking at the circumstances of Israel's founding, Israel genuinely just seems to me to be an injustice. Maybe Israel could have happened legitimately if they hadn't been in such a hurry, and maybe the hurry could have been excused because of the Holocaust, but not to the point that you pull a Nakba.
EDIT: And of course, Hamas' attacks were barbarous, but that doesn't really conjure up legitimacy for the state of Israel. Why should they?
You’ve just now looked up the ‘48 war, then came up with a bunch of quotes to support your new-found opinion that just happens to mirror the same talking points as every other pro-Hamas person in the world? Is that supposed to be believable?
That actually is the truth yeah, I didn't have a particularly strong opinion on this, though I suppose I was never pro-Israel. I'm not pro-Hamas either, although, to be fair, I don't know who has the moral authority to actually punish them. Possibly only the Palestinians themselves. Reading up more on the history of Zionism prior to the partition, I'm increasingly of the view this was a bad idea. Two of the quotes came from The Intercept article I linked to, Netanyahu's from this thread, and the Sam Kriss article I read months ago when it came out.
Frankly, I don’t believe you. You’ve already stated that you think Israel “should never have existed”, and that we should “forgive Hitler” - whatever forgiveness to a dead man even means. Maybe he should apologize first. Of course, I have no way to prove that one way or another.
But if you really are new to the subject, I ask you to consider: before 1947, Jews were spread out all over mandatory Palestine. In Hebron, in east Jerusalem, in Kfar Etzion in Samaria. After 1949, every place conquered by the Jordanians and Egyptians - formerly mandatory Palestine - suddenly became judenfrei. The Jews were all mysteriously gone. On the other side of the armistice line, there still existed a mixed population. In fact, this happened all over the Middle East, where Jewish communities would suddenly vanish from Muslim countries. So tell me, please, why do you think these countries have any right to exist? They also have their own sectarian violence going on until today, of course, where minorities have not been totally wiped out yet.
(That article is awful, by the way. The kind of foreign misunderstanding that’s close to getting it, but then misses the mark so widely it almost makes me want to defend the government I was just protesting against. He actually thinks anyone wants to shut down electricity on Shabbat? Jesus, how about shutting up?)
The weak crumble, are slaughtered and are erased from history while the strong, for good or for ill, survive. The strong are respected, and alliances are made with the strong, and in the end peace is made with the strong.
You can't talk like this and then pretend you're the civilized party here! Though of course, looking at the so-called developed nations, especially America, maybe they don't talk like this, but they sure behave like it, so maybe there actually are no or few civilizations around.
I agree it sounds menacing but I parse that as: the strong don't get surprised by a devastating terrorist attack Hamas has been planning for 2 and a half years almost in the open and then get sucked basically irrecoverably into an invasion of Gaza that causes enormous collateral damage on both sides that will skyrocket animosity and anger for decades to come.
They obviously failed at this "strong" ideal here but IMO, part of security and stability means convincing criminals and terrorists that it's futile to even try to do bad things.
If the Arab states somehow really managed to unite, crush Israel, send the Jews packing and establish a river-to-sea Palestine, I have a distinct feeling that many people who believe that the "right of conquest" can actually be used as a justification for anything would suddenly no longer see it that way.
I don’t think you understand the sheer elegance of the position. From the pov of some uninvolved party, it doesn’t matter who wins, it’s just about solving the problem. Coase theorem really. Just assign it to whoever holds it and defends it, no one has to do anything, and all aboard for the pareto optimum.
The question by CrashedPsychonaut was why the UN were in any way justified to authorize a partition and the simple answer is that they were and are not. But if you deny this „top-down imposition“, and you can’t rely on a hegemon to keep the status quo as the British are leaving, you will instead have a bottom-up solution: civil war.
The_Nybbler
If you win the rat race you're still a rat. But you're also still a winner.
Stefferi 2yr ago
And I have a feeling that many people who have been crying about human rights violations Israel is perpetrating on Palestinians would range from absolutely blind to triumphant over human rights violations occurring in that scenario. Arguments are soldiers, what else is new?
Personally, I really do feel that the Arab nations are not civilized, so they play by different rules. It ticks me off more when a nation pretends to be of a superior sort, but then not actually live up to the supposed superiority.
Not really. He's just asking them to be honest. If Israel wants to become a blood-drenched Bronze Age state in response to their environment, they can. But if they do decide to take that path then they should be honest and open about it.
It does seem to me that Israel is going to try to use this incident to fully remove Palestinian from Israel forever. That’s actually the 4-D chess thing where Israel new of the attack and let it happen.
Honestly most of the regimes in the area probably want the issue settled and won’t care that much. The Saudis want to be friends for geopolitical aims. The Iranians if I had to guess don’t give a shit about Hamas other than they want to use them to prevent Arab-Israel friendship.
I’ve got a pretty healthy skepticism for any theory which relies on that level of “4-D chess.” Israel doesn’t appear to have needed a manufactured consensus to get Gaza to this point; the cost-benefit is all wrong even before asking if there’s a simpler explanation.
I am willing to bet that Israel does not go further than this in an ethnic cleansing of the strip. Military action yes, continued blockade yes, targeted killings of civilians, no.
More concretely, my wager is they are asking civilians to clear out of North Gaza because they plan to occupy it and root out and destroy all of the tunnels and hopefully destroy supply caches and find hostages and treat everyone who gets in the way as Hamas. I expect they would leave when this mission is accomplished.
So where do the 2 million Gazans go? Mass emigration is essentially impossible. No one wants these people. Genocide is even more unlikely as it would result in the withdrawal of U.S. support and, probably, the end of the Israeli state in the following decades.
Honestly not a clue. I mean they are like a hot potato no one wants them. Probably most likely is refugee camp in Egypt. Then they are stuck with them.
However many Palestinians survive the months long siege and bombardment and ground invasion will have to be dealt with somehow, and it sure won’t be by letting them roam through Israel. Lebanon and Egypt and Jordan don’t want them either.
Debating this elsewhere, some reactions were "Oh, but the Arabs wouldn't accept the partition plan", but why should they, why does the UN have the right to just impose that on them? Actually, the UN involvement just makes Israel seem like another High Modernist fuck up, another of the numerous errors of the first half of the 20th century.
The British had control of the territory, but had decided to step out and leave it to be governed by the people who lived there - fair enough, right?
But of course some of the people who lived there were Jews and some of them were Arabs. So the partition plan was an attempt to ensure that British withdrawal would not result in war and ethnic cleansing.
The Arabs refused to accept it, so we got war and ethnic cleansing. Their only problem with that was that they were on the losing side.
What do you suggest should have been done instead of the partition plan? Just step out and let the chips fall where they may? The result would have been the same.
What do you suggest should have been done instead of the partition plan?
Give the Jewish people Alaska, or something, and let them do their "right of return" thing there?
I can see their side of things on a lot of issues there, but I dare you to look me in the eye and say that they picked a reasonable location for "the only place in the world where it's safe to be a Jew".
That's an argument against the Jews moving to Israel. By the time of the partition plan, they had already moved there. The partition was an attempt to deal with that reality.
Now, the Jews could indeed have not moved to Palestine, that's absolutely true. But I do not believe for a second if they had not done so that they would have been granted a homeland in Alaska.
For pretty much the same reason that the US has not given Alaska to the Kurds or to the Roma or to any other people group. Countries typically make decisions in their own interests. It's in America's interests to maintain ownership of Alaska.
This is true in Palestine as well. The British Empire shrank significantly in the postwar period as Britain decided that maintaining the Empire had become too costly. British rule didn't end as a favour to the Jews, they would have pulled out regardless.
The formation of Israel was borne out of Jewish agency, not the gift of western powers. For that reason it's not really accurate to say that any coalition "gave" them Palestine. Yes there was a partition plan, but that plan was rejected by the Arab side who immediately started a war to take over the whole territory, so it's not like everyone said "Oh well, the UN decided, we better let it happen then".
If the Jews were to have a nation in Alaska, they would have needed to create it themselves - just as they created Israel in our reality. Realistically, this is always going to mean fighting whoever else thinks they have a claim. In the case of Israel it was Egypt, Jordan, and Syria. In the alternate reality it would have been the USA. I think they made the right choice.
MadMonzer
Epstein Files must have done something really awful for so many libs to want him released.
CrashedPsychonaut 2yr ago
Debating this elsewhere, some reactions were "Oh, but the Arabs wouldn't accept the partition plan", but why should they, why does the UN have the right to just impose that on them?
The UN didn't. The British did, both as the internationally recognised rulers of Mandate Palestine, and by virtue of having (if we could be bothered, which in the post-WW2 environment we couldn't) sufficient men, ships and guns to determine the outcome. The legal status of the 1947 partition plan was that it was non-binding advice (it was a General Assembly resolution, and only the Security Council can issue binding resolutions and only under specific circumstances) to the British. When Israel's Arab neighbours (most of which were nominally British allies) rejected the plan, the British government declined to enforce it and we basically bugged out and let the Jews and Arabs fight.
Zionists were only given the territory of Palestine as a nation (rather than a home for a small segment of Jewry) because of the abundance of terrorist attacks that Zionists committed against the British, in some cases slaughtering civil servants and kidnapping politicians, in one case blowing up a boat of 250 Jewish refugees as a false flag (the refugee ship Patria). Once they secured the nation of Israel for themselves, they used brutal terrorism and psychological warfare on the Palestinians to get them to flee. They killed innocents in a village called Deir Yassin, audio recorded their cries for help, and then drove loud “sound trucks” around Palestinian villages which played the cries of women and children while threatening nuclear warfare and poison gas attacks —
The Jews, too, used Deir Yassin's memory effectively, both against the Irgun and Stern Gang and against the Arabs. Jacques de Reznier of the International Red Cross said, "News of Deir Yassin promoted a widespread terror which the Jews always skillfully maintained. "The Jews used Deir Yassin extensively in their psychological warfare campaigns designed to make the Arabs quit their lands. Horror recordings and sound trucks accompanied Jewish attacks. “Shrieks, wails and anguished moans of Arab women, the wails of sirens and the clangs of fire-alarm bells, interrupted by a sepulchral voice calling out in Arabic, 'Remember Deir Yassin' and 'Save your souls, all ye faithful! Flee for your lives! The Jews are using poison gas and atomic weapons! Run for your lives in the name of Allah!"
In that unsearchable 270 page master’s thesis from the ‘70s, what page is your quote from? Did you just happen to stumble upon this, and read it at your leisure?
It is searchable for me on iOS. Actually it was a top search when I plugged in “Zionist terrorism Israel”, because I wanted to understand how the early Zionists used terrorism and whether it was comparable to Hamas actions. I realized that some American gentile’s military thesis from the 70s is almost certainly less biased than the leading Israeli or Palestinian histories, so why not read it? It’s all cited anyway. My passage is from page 81.
And yes I read most of it, it’s legitimately interesting, would recommend
There's a debate on whether Deir Yassin was really a 'massacre'. both the Jews and Arabs trumpeted up the atrocities, the Jews to encourage other Arabs to flee, the Arabs to encourage other Arabs to stand and fight. the Jews turned out to be correct.
Every group in Palestine had cause for spreading the atrocity narrative. The Irgun and Lehi wished to frighten the Arabs into leaving Palestine; the Arabs wished to provoke an international response; the Haganah wished to tarnish the Irgun and Lehi; and the Arabs wished to malign both the Jews and their cause.
Hazem Nuseibeh, the news editor of the Palestine Broadcasting Service at the time of the attack, gave an interview to the BBC in 1998. He spoke about a discussion he had with Hussayn Khalidi, the deputy chairman of the Higher Arab Executive in Jerusalem, shortly after the killings: "I asked Dr. Khalidi how we should cover the story. He said, 'We must make the most of this.' So he wrote a press release, stating that at Deir Yassin, children were murdered, pregnant women were raped, all sorts of atrocities."
Menachem Begin, leader of the Irgun at the time of the attack, though not present at the village, wrote in 1977: The enemy propaganda was designed to besmirch our name. In the result it helped us. Panic overwhelmed the Arabs of Eretz Israel. Kolonia village, which had previously repulsed every attack of the Haganah, was evacuated overnight and fell without further fighting. Beit-Iksa was also evacuated. These two places overlooked the main road; and their fall, together with the capture of al-Qastal by the Haganah, made it possible to keep open the road to Jerusalem. In the rest of the country, too, the Arabs began to flee in terror, even before they clashed with Jewish forces. Not what happened at Deir Yassin, but what was invented about Deir Yassin, helped to carve the way to our decisive victories on the battlefield ... The legend was worth half a dozen battalions to the forces of Israel.
The question is not about the legitimacy of Israel. Israel was founded on blood like any other state in the world. Before that the territory was british, and before that it was ottoman (turkish) for centuries. So do you think Turkey was the legitimate owner of this territory? Anyway they didn't get it peacefully from the crusaders, who took it by force from the arabs. Those arabs took it by force from the byzantine empire. I don't think I need to continue.
Nowadays, Israel is a strong state and a nuclear power. Perhaps it has no right to exist but it will exist anyway. The earlier you accept it, the earlier a more acceptable solution than this awful status quo can be found.
Nothing wrong with having your own country with ethnic preference for your kin and discrimination against non-kin, strong border walls, and brutality against foreign intruders.
The issue is when Israeli/Israel supporters tell us we can't have it in our own country.
For example the ADL as highlighted by Carlson.
It's not the police brutality, the bombing of innocent civilians, the colonization... it's the hypocrisy.
Well, it wasn't clear from my comment but the brutality and the settlements are not necessary for Israel to exist, so they aren't justified at all. I mean, if you are searching for a peaceful solution and not to justify your own crimes.
Out of hate, perhaps? Or as a revenge? I'm pretty sure raping women is useless for the freedom of palestinians, it does not prevent hamas to do it. People do not always act in their best interests... if they did, there would be no suicide terror attack
My hypothesis for suicide attacks is that they would be a way to manage mental illness in the Middle-East.
While in the US disturbed, isolated teenagers may become fodder for gun control fed conspiracies, in the Middle-East they could serve as a tribute to the local islamists.
While the family may not necessarily approve of the insurgents' actions, giving away their failson would be better than any other family member or other forms of extortions.
If they do approve of the insurgency, then it may be the most effective way a particularly defective family member may contribute to it.
orthoxerox
If you can read this, you're using a custom theme
distic 2yr ago
Anyway they didn't get it peacefully from the crusaders
That's because they got it from the Mamluks, who got it from the Ayyubids, who got it from the crusaders. The sands of the Levant have been watered by a lot of blood.
There is a possibility for something truly great that would shock the world here: do nothing. Just beef up defenses around Gaza so they don't catch them with their pants down again, but actually demonstrate what the high road looks like. Perhaps some will claim they have taken the high road many times, but I'm not so convinced.
Locking Gaza down is probably the right tactical decision (urban warfare sucks, urban warfare against military willing to used ununiformed and armed troops alongside an armed civilian populace that hates you sucks even more), but it's not politically viable (there's no appetite among the Israeli population nor the IDF would accept orders that don't cost enemies blood; until the hostages are returned or known dead kinetic actions are going to take too high a priority) and more importantly it doesn't really work over the long term.
Beefing up defenses around and boxing in Gaza still gets you kilodeaths among Gazans, they're just going to die to less kinetic means, and be more photogenic (and often even more innocent!) victims. Gaza just doesn't have the infrastructure to maintain consistent food, water, medicine, and power, Hamas isn't interested in developing that infrastructure, no other nearby country is interested in doing so (or can be trusted to do so without providing combat or dual-use materials), Israel can not maintain connection into the country without presenting new vulnerabilities. You're either kicking the can down the road until another high-profile civilian hostage crisis shows up, or somewhere in May of next year international pressure (correctly!) notices that you're basically starving hundreds of young children a day.
It's wild that water pipes are now dual-use technology. There's promotional video the Gazans put out themselves of them digging up functional water/sewer pipe infrastructure and fashioning them into rockets that are then fired into Israel. What on Earth can you do with such a deranged culture? The Gazans hate Israelis more than they love water, and they're getting exactly what they want.
No, I am not moved by appeals to ancient history. That cycle has to end at some point, and the end of WW II seems like a good stopping point for that sort of shenanigan.
What does this mean? The Jews in 2023 should just pack up and leave Israel for other countries because WW2 was supposed to be the end of these shenanigans? Why can't you say this to Palestinians?
(I agree stuff like "it's time to be cruel" isn't a good look)
They should have handled the situation differently back then, do anything other than the Nakba, but the way they acted shows they don't respect anything but their own power. Reading up more about the history, I'm just against Zionism as it was practiced, the people actually living there weren't liking it, and I really dislike that a displaced people could just decide to pass the buck on and displace other people, particularly when the ones doing the displacing are supposed to be civilized.
Either pack up and leave, or adopt a semi-pacifist policy towards Gaza: beef up the defenses around it, but there is to be no retaliation.
Even in the 70s the US was doing things in Vietnam that would be much more scandalous if it did today. There's been a lot of moral progress since the end of WW2 and I have trouble judging Israel's current population for things most of them had no hand in.
It sounds like your point boils down to: truly enlightened people would accept the sins of the past and surrender the place to the Palestinians and make a new life elsewhere. That sounds like a great standard but I don't think any people on Earth would rise to it.
(For a phantasmagoric twist, it would be nice if Palestinians were so touched by the offer that they offered to pack up instead and both sides had a eureka moment and moved towards a single state peace)
That cycle has to end at some point, and the end of WW II seems like a good stopping point for that sort of shenanigan.
I think the history of peaceful resolutions to conflicts (of which there are not many) is that the stopping point has to be now. You can't go back and re-litigate what happened 50 years ago or 20 or even 5. And this has problems of course. People who had their loved ones killed recently will not be ready to let it go. But if you want peace then you have to work on an agreement from where things are now.
Whether Israel should have been created after WW2 is irrelevant. Whether Israel should have been building new settlements or blockading Gaza is irrelevant. Whether surrounding nations should have attacked Israel in 1967 is irrelevant. Those things happened and are part of history. For a peaceful settlement enough people have to be willing to ignore that and negotiate based on what today looks like and on what they want tomorrow to look like.
Clearly that won't happen any time soon. Tensions are running too high. But at some point if there is to be a real long lasting peace deal (and that is by no means certain), then at some point in the future Israelis are going to have to get past the deaths that occurred at the weekend and Palestinians will have to get past the deaths happening now.
For Northern Ireland, they didn't try to roll back the clock to a prior point, the agreement is based upon agreeing that Northern Ireland is currently British, that this can change in the future with the democratic assent of the people and that individuals can be British citizens, Irish citizens or both. There is a lot more to it, but those are the main points that addressed what Nationalists wanted (to be Irish, for Northern Ireland to be able to be part of Ireland) and Unionists wanted (that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and that they are and will remain British citizens).
As much as you have to learn history to not repeat it, sometimes that history will cause you to repeat it, if you cannot learn to let go of its emotional hold on your decision making. When it comes to deaths and hurt and war, if you want to create a peaceful outcome for the future, remember what happened, learn from it, let it inform you, but don't let it rule you.
And that is tough. It's especially tough if you have lost someone personally. It is hard to decouple when your father was killed by the IRA or your brother was shot by the UVF. Many Israelis and Palestinians will be out for blood to pay for the lives of their kin, that's an entirely normal human reaction, no matter who is to blame for the initial set of events which led us here.
This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a
court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to
optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.
The weekly Culture War threads host the most
controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are
appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy;
if in doubt, post!
Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts.
You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.
Why are you called The Motte?
A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently,
it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey",
originally identified by
philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial
but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens
this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for
the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired
propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."
On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
New post guidelines
If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it.
A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts
such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a
submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).
Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or
significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Human beings have an instinct that makes them lash out violently against oppression, real or perceived. If it were possible to eliminate this instinct through genetic engineering, would it be worthwhile to do so? Would the Palestinians be better off if they were engineered to feel less emotional in response to discrimination and ethnic cleansing?
I mean, if we're granting the ability to apply arbitrary genetic behavioral modification to classes of people, I'd rather make all the oppressors uninterested in oppressing...
Anyway, there's a difference between 'would Palestinians in the real world be better off without the instinct now' versus 'Would Palestinians from five hundred years ago be better off today in expectation without the instinct.'
I think this instinct, like a lot of human instincts towards violent retaliation under various circumstances, serves an important evolved purpose as a disincentive towards other people doing those thing in the first place.
An instinct towards psychotically attacking oppressors is an incentive against oppression. Not a strong enough disincentive to stop all oppression, oppression can be really really profitable, but God alone knows how much more oppression there would be in the world and in the history books without that instinct.
So again, I think its better to keep overall.
More options
Context Copy link
Nah, resistance to some forms of oppression, even if irrational from an individual perspective, is very much necessary for the survival of the group. You have to make someone, who wishes to oppress you more than is within the Overton Window, reconsider due to the cost in blood they'd have to pay. Even if you will inevitably lose it they chose to pay it. (Do stop resisting after you're done with the minimum needed to add credibility to your claims, assuming they aren't literally killing you)
While I wouldn't object too hard if it was done for basket cases like Palestine, it's infinitely preferable to just make them as smart as their Israeli cousins, so that integration could be smoother. Can't forget the cultural component and memetic engineering, genius Jihadis cause much of the carnage, the ones who did 9/11 were well educated. The two are inextricable, smarter people can be more pro-social, certainly more productive, and find positive sum ways of solving their problems without resorting to force.
At any rate, I do find making otherwise normal humans into meeker ones distasteful, if you want servants and workers who won't give you lip, just make more robots.
More options
Context Copy link
No. Striking violently and possibly in a suicidal way to achieve taking your oppressor's life is paramount. Sacrosanct. I would not want to live with a people who have had this urge lobotomized out of them. Indeed I would look at them as lesser beings.
More options
Context Copy link
You have perhaps read S.M. Stirling's Drakas books? I don't think breeding Homo servus is really a good idea, whether you're doing it to the Palestinians or the Israelis.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Did Hamas debunk the "Bronze Age Mindset"?
The whole "vitalism" "Bronze Age Mindset" just basically comes off as fantasizing and wish-fulfillment for the masculinity-based sector of the right, no wonder it would get instantly thrown aside (with some scant justifications about not supporting brown barbarians or whatever) whenever it might conflict with actual politics.
This is Bulverism.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
BAP has already been discredited by a large portion of the Dissident Right for being a Jewish Zionist, he is a known quantity as a Zionist posing as a Nietzschean. The real Nietzscheans in the DR don't have much of a dog in the inter-Abrahamic wars beyond the impact on their own civilization. That doesn't mean necessarily killing civilians, although context certainly matters. One pattern we saw in WWII was that shooting civilians is seen as much more barbaric than bombing civilians, and that pattern seems to hold today as well.
I also don't think "you are barbarians for your practices in war, so we must subjugate you and civilize you" is really contrary to Nietzsche. That was the M.O of the Roman Empire, who would basically denounce everyone outside their sphere of influence as a "barbarian." So the "barbarian spirit" is a little more complicated than glamorizing the most grotesque things any people does. Being Nietzschean doesn't mean you have to glorify all acts by the barbarians, it also means you subjugate them and impose your morality onto them.
More options
Context Copy link
Going around raping random women and killing defenseless civilians as an prelude for your home to get leveled by heavy artillery by a powerful military doesn’t seem very Nietzschean to me…
BAM's exhortations run counter modern technology. You can't be a pirate or a steppe raider when the people whose settlements you want to conquer or raid can get you bombed.
Same problem as anarcho-primitivism.
Who could have guessed that a bronze age mindset had been rendered obsolete by technological advance!
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Is it incumbent upon dissidents to oppose every single policy of the current establishment? If it is, there have been very few (perhaps no) dissidents in human history. In general this is a relatively weak defense of a form of historical materialism, misunderstands Nietzsche and so on, as many others have noted. The author writes with the eloquence of a 13 year old, which is somehow even more grating than Costin's shtick.
More generally, BAP is Jewish and has longstanding sympathies for some of the early zionists, if not the degraded and spiritually void religious zionism that exists in Israel today (and which Costin has not infrequently criticized).
Perhaps in an Israel that had embraced BAP's nietzscheanism more wholly, there wouldn't be much of the population in question left at all, certainly not in its current form. So this is a somewhat weird point, in that it hardly disproves the relevant political program (not that anyone, of course, knows what that is).
More options
Context Copy link
So maybe I just don't understand what people have been meaning by having a Bronze Age Mindset, because to be BAP's position seems perfectly ideologically consistent. Them raping and pillaging is bad, us raping and pillaging is good. What's more Bronze Age than that? For anyone reading this forum, the Palestinians are not your allies and never will be, so it seems only natural the Bronze Age response is "slaughter them and salt the earth"
More options
Context Copy link
Uh…did you write this? Write commentary for it? Or are you just sharing?
Also, what’s up with his love for letter “e”? There’s quite a fewe extras sprinkeled in.
I’m familiar with the concepts of BAM but not the culture. So it’s hard for me to tell if the author is representing it fairly. The piece feels like a strawman, even though I know edgy memes and bad optics are in line with the Mindset. Is he trying to bait Bronze Agers into his position?
The more I think about it, the more this scans like a Tumblr hit piece. The Mindset must be bankrupt, perhaps even problematic. It’s insufficiently REVOLUTIONARY. And all of this based off of a retweet! Truly, the most decisive endorsement of slave morality. Bronze Agers simply must smash their idols, and cast aside the false dichotomy of “fence-setting” or “Zionism.” They must travel a third road. They must become… anti-Semites.
Oh. Wait.
Just sharing. Ran into it on a certain anti-Western Muslim account I follow and this is the only other place I know that gets into BAP.
Same here, got his first book but never really finished. Was interested to see how more familiar people take it .
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I don't really know what he thinks, he seems to be obsessed with the Ukraine war and the Gaza conflict (RT galore) but thinks it is stupid to fight (and die) as a low level grunt?
https://twitter.com/bronzeagemantis/status/1711513938511196289
More options
Context Copy link
BAP's reply:
Edit: I should put a disclaimer that I have never read BAP and only vaguely understand what any of this debate is about, but those posts randomly drifted into my twitter feed and were clearly a response to the critique above. If anyone thinks it's worth the time to read BAPista philosophy so this all makes sense, could you give me an elevator pitch? I got filtered pretty hard on him right off the bat.
More options
Context Copy link
Citations needed. I highly doubt they are celebrating Hamas style barbarism, or else we are nutpicking.
It's not always exactly easy to see what BAP and his followers are actually supporting, seeing how it's couched in layers of comic exaggeration (or... IS IT??) and memespeak.
I don't disagree. But some prominent examples would really buttress this crux, and I do think it's the crux of this position. Do they really advocate and celebrate Hamas-style barbarism?
The overwhelming majority of conservatives and right wingers are firmly on the side of civilization, on the civilization-barbarism axis.
More options
Context Copy link
Can you link any tweets from the BAPsphere that are endorsing Hamas, even ironically?
I'm not really that familiar with BAP, since I don't like his writing style (see above), and strictly defining who is his follower and who is not is similarly beyond my ken.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This seems to be saying in many words that $cool_thing suddenly seems not so cool when it becomes associated with the despised outgroup. It's not even the first time this has happened recently: the whole Russia/Western Europe/Eastern Europe/US empire/traditionalism/progressivism graph has been a wellspring of cognitive dissonance and stomach aches to anyone trying to bipartition it into good ingroup and evil outgroup, as seen with the Trump-Russia association, Ukrainian neo- and paleonazi gaffes or Germany's very mixed feelings about the rise of PiS Poland. For a cast more reminiscent of the Israel scenario, recall also the "Islam is right about women" trolling campaign.
More options
Context Copy link
Only if you've never read Nietzsche.
The Gay Science #306:
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Here's my proposal for how to solve this, with a plan I am shamelessly stealing from Greg Abbot and Camp of the Saints.
Step 1, just start rounding up Palestinians and putting them on boats. Let them grab their possessions if they want to cooperate. These are nice, safe, clean boats with cameras everywhere to film all the food/medicine/clean water being provided. Maybe also Gaza is 100% blockaded and no food goes in, giving people an incentive to leave.
Step 2: the boats set sail to Iran. Egypt allows them to traverse Suez because...well keep reading.
Step 3: the unarmed boats full of refugees and cameras go directly to shore in Iran. They ignore warnings to stop. They let the Iranians inspect them for weapons. They land, tell everyone to get off, and repeat.
This puts Iran in the unenviable position of either a) having to martyr thousands of unarmed Palestinian refugees on camera or b) live with Palestinians. If Egypt doesn't let them through Suez, then Egypt can have the Palestinians.
What you guys think of this plan?
Better border security seems a lot more feasible and practical . Relocating millions of Arabs won't change anything if the funding for terrorism is intact, as is the antipathy against the West. The money for arms is coming from somewhere...focusing on that should be the main priority, combined with better border security and intelligence. Now we see why surveillance exists. 99.9% of the time it seems useless and intrusive , but then incidents like this happen.
Moving the Palestinians would change a lot. First of all, they'd mostly be Iran's problem. If they remain prisoners in Iran-operated refugee camps, any human rights issues are the result of Persian rather than Israeli oppression. If they integrate into Iranian society, hopefully they find better things to do than become terrorists. Meanwhile the world loses a current talking point against Israel - maybe 10-20 years ago they did a forced migration, but that's ancient history. Netenyahu, the person with his name/face on the policy, is 74 today and will be dead soon.
Second, they'd be far away. No matter how terrible the Palestinians are, they aren't America's problem due to distance. To attack America they need to either get past airport security, take a boat, or something similar.
What if Iran sends the Palestinians back on boats, with food? The Palestinians want to live in Jerusalem. The Iranians want the Palestinians to live in Israel. Neither wants the Palestinians to be in Iran.
Realistically, the US/Israel are far better able to mount a logistical operation such as this than Iran is. Taking the $50B-ish of US aid to Ukraine and dividing by 2M Palestinians, that's $25k/person to spend. Can Iran throw $25B at the return trip?
Maybe not, but it's quite a gamble on the past of the US/Israel, especially because e.g. Iraq and Syria might let the Iranians bus the Palestinians to Israel.
Suppose that Syria and Iraq allow buses to drive to Israel. The buses get to the fence, which you can see pictures of here:
https://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-gunfire-from-syria-aimed-at-military-drone-operating-along-border/
https://www.timesofisrael.com/syrian-man-shot-by-idf-after-allegedly-hurling-objects-at-golan-border/
Now what?
For comparison, Iran has 800 miles of coastline on the Persian Gulf which looks like this:
https://theculturetrip.com/middle-east/iran/articles/the-most-beautiful-beaches-in-iran
https://traveltriangle.com/blog/beaches-in-iran/
The media game begins. Israel is portrayed as an ethnic cleanser, the Palestinians as wanting to return to their homelands.
The Israelis might win the media game, but it's a gamble.
Sure, but that's the same as it always was.
This does of course assume that Assad has no problem taking the risk of Palestinians getting off the bus in Syria - everyone is happy with a bunch of Palestinians showing up, right?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This doesn't seem like a serious assertion. Of course relocating millions of people would change something. Probably entirely. X can't do Y if there are no more X taps temple
But if incidents like this still happen then why are you rhetorically attempting to justify intrusive surveillance?
More options
Context Copy link
Every Israeli needs a wearable Iron Dome to protect them from blade and projectile attacks. Border security won't be enough because the Palestinians can fly over the border in ornithopters or tunnel through the sand. Mass surveillance is a technological solution that ultimately relies on human beings to interpret the data. Having the prescience to predict attacks before they happen is a rare gift, and the Israelis don't seem to have anyone with that gift.
Not if Palantir has anything to say about it.
Wait, wrong franchise.
More options
Context Copy link
Wait are we talking about Palestinians or Fremen?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
So massive genocide and another mass wave of refugees from the middle east. Neo con pro Israel policies always end up being a disaster for Europe and the middle east. Why not an alternative plan, arabs get to live in the same town as their grandparents lived in.
It is possible that Iran commits genocide against the Palestinians. Quite a move, first steering them towards committing atrocities against Israel, then murder them all when they show up in need of help.
More options
Context Copy link
Honestly this is the best idea. Arabs get to live in the same town, but with Jewish masters and overlords. And if they start shitting stuff up, beat them with a large stick (literally) until they learn their lessons, the stick is very effective on those humans on which words don't have any effect. Also as subjects of the state of Israel, their incoming packages can all be legally inspected at will etc. (just like how the incoming packages of any Israeli Jew can be legally inspected by Israel) and any weapons easily confiscated without the ability of the former Gazans to be able to cry "oppression" and "blockade". Israel needs to make it clear that we are your rulers, just like it has done to the Israeli Arabs who are far more civilized than the Palestinians.
Why bring back slavery? If anything, the eastern European jews who have moved there recently should be ruled by the locals. The arabs have done a fairly good job at handling jewish minorities for the last millenia. It has been the natural order in much of the middle east with an arab ruling glass and ghetto jews being an underclass.
Yes, the Arabs have done a great job. That's why virtually all the Jews in their countries fled or were expelled, and mostly wound up in Israel.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farhud
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1956%E2%80%931957_exodus_and_expulsions_from_Egypt
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Syria#Post-1948
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exodus_of_Iranian_Jews
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Afghanistan#Anti-Jewish_campaign
More options
Context Copy link
It's not slavery any more than being the citizen of any democratic western country is slavery (Nozick may well have argued that that is still slavery, but most people would disagree).
Sure, but the ruling Jews of modern day Israel are not Middle Eastern Mizrahim any more, they are high end Ashkenazim from Europe who are a superior breed, destined to rule over others in any fair system. Different people, different relative social structure.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
As cheeky as this is, doesn't reasonably constitute an act of war?
The "proposal" is so autistic that I hope it is trolling, but to be fair each side does like 10 things per day that constitutes an act of war.
More options
Context Copy link
Against whom? The Palestiniains? Sure. They wanted a war, they got one.
Against Iran? It doesn't seem any more an act of war than Mexico or other nations cooperating with illegal immigration to the US.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This is all so tiresome. Since we are going wild with ambitious proposals, how about we deport the Jews instead?
This would have to take place some decades in the future, when the space tech matures a little. That, or we just give the Jews longer deadlines. Everybody (by that I mean mostly the US) does their best to convince the Jews that the promised holy land is, in fact, on Mars. They are then strongly incentivized, both through threats, as well as generous funding, to use their superior IQ to settle the red planet. The place is admittedly somewhat drier, but on the other hand, a lot more spacious and with no neighbors to complain. I'm sure they'll do fine.
Benefits of my plan:
-Space development dramatically accelerated.
-Final solution to Jewish settlement problem. Jews don't bother anyone and no one is bothering the Jews.
-The Palestinians can have their cursed patch of desert all to themselves.
This is excellent. Maybe Elon can send them some rockets.
We’ve had enough rockets, but thanks for the offer.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Chapelle already covered Space Jews.
On an unrelated note, how the hell can I get through these YouTube "you must watch ads" pop-ups?? I am on safari with adguard
Why don't you just hit the mute button and watch the ads? I don't understand why people complain so much about watching a few short seconds of advertisements in exchange for dozens of minutes of FREE video.
It's my understanding that, if you don't skip until the 30-second mark, then the ad counts as having been "watched", so the uploader still gets paid. There's at least one Chrome extension that you can set up to automatically skip ads after the 30-second mark. I don't know whether Safari has anything similar.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Mel Brooks before him:
“We’re Jews up in space.
We’re zooming along
protecting the Hebrew race
We're Jews out in space
If trouble appears
we put it right back in its place
When goyim attack us
We give 'em a smack
we'll slap them right back in the face
We’re Jews up in space.
We’re zooming along
protecting the Hebrew race"
https://youtube.com/watch?v=sz7JGCj4Q5k
That was beautiful, wow.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Hilariously terrible idea. When you're relying on Iran to allow you to do things it doesn't want you to do on the basis of them being too squeamish to stop you, you know you've got a bad plan.
If you let them on to inspect for weapons, they can just shoot the crew and let the Palestinians take the boat back. If that doesn't work, they can just sink the boats. "It's terrible that the enemy forced us to kill these innocent civilians" is a time honoured rhetorical device, and it wouldn't even be wrong here.
Not to mention the passengers would be trying to kill you the whole time.
I'm not relying on this. Iran can murder all the Palestinians on camera as far as I'm concerned. It's a win for Israel and there's tons of footage of Persians murdering Arabs to broadcast to the Arab world. Arab/Persian conflict is a distraction from Arab/Jew conflict.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
You'd need 1000 boats with 1000 person capacity to move a million refugees. Among the refugees would almost certainly be terrorists and crypto-militants. Obviously no weapons would be allowed on board, despite a small chance of smuggling efforts succeeding. So you will need a sizeable police force. And can you trust all of the police to maintain control of their weapons and populace, and not support some kind of mutiny?
Food and water could probably be handled.
Who is paying for this, and in charge? Israel? The UN? Someone will have to take responsibility for the Iran destination, and that will prove quite contentious. Iran can reasonably blockade and/or refuse port. Eventually conditions onboard deteriorate. Maybe the crew abandons ship? Iran could commandeer the ships and park them at the Port Authority of NY/NJ.
It's whimsical but seems quite unrealistic to me.
We just gifted like $100 Billion dollars to Ukraine. I think we can probably buy a few cruise ships to facilitate this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruise_ship
To put it into context: if we are talking about moving 1 million Gazans, then in Ukraine equivalent spending this is about $100k per person to cover the logistics of it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Laughing at the idea of sending Hamas to Iran on The Disney Wish..
It typically carries 4000 passengers and 1500 crew members. Even assuming doubling up (even expensive cruises don't have a lot of cabin space), that leaves maybe 10,000 refugees per trip. Also would need to consider how much security is needed to prevent a mutiny and capture of the vessel by its passengers.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Or you need 100 boats with 1000 person capacity if each one takes 10 trips. I'm shocked at your suggestion that the Palestinians are a bunch of terrorists, rather than innocent victims of Israeli oppression!
As I see it, Israel + USA.
USA and Israel can certainly provide tons of Israeli/American flag branded food/water/etc, which Iran can distribute as they see fit.
Yes, Iran certainly does have the ability to shoot guns at boats full of Palestinian refugees while the cameras broadcast videos of innocent women and children dying to the world. How is showing Iran to be bloodthirsty killers of Arabs and getting rid of Palestinians not a huge win for Israel?
Getting from the Meditterranean to the Persian Gulf is a far simpler logistical problem than Persian Gulf to America, and Iran is far less capable of logistics than Israel or the US.
And then what does the world do? Send a strongly-worded letter? Sanction them? Maybe try to stop their nuclear program?
Just like the Palestinians, this isn't really Israel's problem anymore.
More options
Context Copy link
Keep sending Palestinians until there are no more Palestinians, of course.
At some point after Iran has established they're going to shoot, I think Israel loses their plausible deniability. "oh no Iran shot them AGAIN? What are the odds?" probably wouldn't come off very well.
Assuming they don't run out of boats and/or Palestinians who would prefer to be shot by Iran than by Israel first, of course.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Multiple trips are not realistic. I'm happy to explain why, but that shouldn't be necessary.
Good luck with gaining access to Iranian ports.
Refusing port does not imply shooting guns.
The destination is rhetorical. Iran can perform the same maneuver at any port of their choosing.
Your reply here is mostly fantasy.
Please, explain.
Wow, so Europe can stop illegal immigrants from taking boats across the Mediterranean simply by refusing a port pass? Why haven't they thought of this?
This sounds like a problem for Iran and Saudi Arabia/the UAE/Oman/Pakistan (ports that are reasonably accessible to Iran) to work out amongst themselves. Pretty sure Israel can work out ways to stop a Suez crossing in the reverse direction if they need to.
I dunno about a port pass, but yes, they can. They have thought of this.
It's sometimes referred to as "turnback policy" under international maritime law, as I understand.
For this same reasoning, multiple trips to Iranian port will be denied. And when the first trip is denied, the boat remains full and unable to take on additional migrants.
Israel can of course do the same thing that African migrants to Europe are doing: ensure that by the time the Palestinians are 11.9 miles from Iran, they are in boats capable of traveling only 30 miles (i.e. not enough to cross the gulf to reach Saudi Arabia).
The Iranians can shoot them out of the sea, let them land on the beach, or even render assistance.
Kind of strange how Europe is incapable of turning back migrants, but sending migrants to Iran is of course impossible.
Europe is certainly capable of turning back migrants. They choose not to.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yes, Europe “can’t” stop the boats in part because it’s not the migrants’ boats landing in Europe, it’s the NGO boats that pick them up just offshore near North Africa that are landing, and those boats are in large part literally funded by European governments like those of Germany, and those boats say they have passengers in distress when they return with the migrants.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Greg Abbott is seeing success with his immigration policy because the people he’s bussing more or less by definition want to go somewhere deep in the country that may or may not be in Texas but definitely isn’t the Rio grande valley. ‘You can go to New York, LA, Denver, Chicago, or DC’ is an appealing pitch to such people.
Of course those cities don’t want them and he’s only willing to stop sending them if they stop coming, which those cities then advocate for the federal government to enforce(and he got his way, at least as far as barriers are concerned).
In contrast, the Palestinians want to live in Tel Aviv, not Iran, and there is no policy concession Iran can give to Israel that makes the Palestinians go away.
I already addressed this point. The Palestinians want to get on the boat and go to Iran because there's food in Iran, and none in Gaza.
The Palestinians didn’t want to go to Iran in the first place, and unlike the masses of economic migrants showing up at the Texas border, are controlled by a militant group of psychopathic terrorists. This makes relocating them much more difficult.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Usually the "and then a miracle happens" step is in the middle of a proposal, not at the very beginning.
I already mentioned the most extreme method needed to do this:
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Why doesn’t Israel just blow up the wall on the Eygpt border so all the Gazans can flee there?
I wouldn't be surprised if Israel genuinely soon attempted to do exactly that.
More options
Context Copy link
Even if it was possible (others have proved that it isn't a good idea), what makes you think that all of them would flee?
More options
Context Copy link
Israel has repeatedly bombed the Rafah border crossing (the only border crossing to Egypt) in the last few days. There is plenty of international citizens in Gaza who can't get out either because apparently the crossing is not functioning from the Palestinian side.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.timesofisrael.com/israel-said-to-bomb-rafah-crossing-to-egypt-after-telling-gazans-to-flee-through-it/amp/
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20231012-egypt-urges-israel-to-halt-airstrikes-on-rafah-border-crossing-with-gaza/
More options
Context Copy link
They have no desire for Gazans to flee to Egypt. It would not help any of Israel's aims to have them do so.
If Egypt brutally represses them to destroy Hamas it won’t be blamed on Israel, and both the US and Israel will be fine with it.
Or Egypt fails to brutally repress them, either because it's hard or because it inspires homegrown resistance, the government falls to Islamic radicals, and Egypt becomes 10 Gazas. Or the Sinai becomes a lawless hellscape filled with weapons, a problem for both governments. Or Hamas militiaman cool their heels in Sinai for five or ten years then return to cause problems for Israel anywhere else. One doesn't just decide to engage in brutal repression and instantly win.
I agree, it’s very much not in Egypt’s interests to take them, and it would be an extraordinarily tough pill for Sisi to swallow if the US ordered him to, such that the amount of aid required would be so large I doubt it would pass congress.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Apart from this being an act of war against Egypt, open up Google maps. It’s 100 miles of desert on the other side of that wall before you get to any real civilization.
More options
Context Copy link
The regime in Egypt (largely a continuation of pre-2011 military rule) was literally overthrown by the Muslim Brotherhood, of which Hamas is a spin-off of the Palestinian chapter. Sisi would consider that an act of war. It’s hard to say what he’d do, but it wouldn’t be good for relations.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Which aspects of what happened were intentionally part of the plan?
This is an objectively stupid question.
Even the parts that weren't ostensibly "part of the plan" were very much intentionally "part of the plan" because the intention was always to "send drugged up teenagers into battle unsupervised" and see what happens.
While moral culpability is certainly part of the question (I think the answer is easy enough to be uninteresting: you are right), my question is literally which parts were in the plan?
Which parts they implicitly expected would happen, vs which parts were explicitly in the plan, vs what instructions were propagated to the men, vs what actually happened.
Between any two of those, surely not all, surely not none.
Again, this is a stupid question.
If you were to fire your gun blindly into a crowd and kill someone, do you believe that claiming that you never intended to shoot that person in particular would be a valid defense against the subsequent criminal charges?
Please see my edits. This is a factual question, not a moral one.
I'm curious, because your initial post was just a link to a Tweet with one statement that basically paraphrased the Tweet without adding context, what is the significance of these factual questions in this context? For instance, "How many of the attackers wore matched socks, instead of mismatched?" is also a factual question with a factual answer that has some objectively true answer, but knowing this positive integer figure doesn't seem particularly important or even meaningful in this context. Your factual questions seem only marginally more relevant to the situation than my own made-up theoretical one. But as someone who's only been tangentially keeping track of this situation (I must admit that I grew bored of the whole Israel-Palestine saga two decades ago), I could be missing some context that illuminates the importance of the questions you asked.
It is meaningful to understand what plans the Hamas leadership has. If they intentionally directed the civilian atrocities, that means something different in terms of how they plan for the situation to play out compared to mere wanton disregard for life.
I'm not convinced it is. As I said below, any model of Hamas' behavior must start from the assumption that "Hamas will behave in the manner that Hamas has been observed to behave" if it wants to make any claim to accuracy.
More options
Context Copy link
I get that this is the contention, but the part I don't get is, what is the actual meaningful difference there?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Im not discussing morality, I'm discussing facts and hypotheticals. If you were to fire your gun into a crowd, what would you expect to happen?
Jesus christ lol. Are you being deliberately obtuse? I am asking "was the guy aiming for the specific person he hit, or just firing wildly into the crowd", "did he leave the house in the morning intending to shoot up that mall or did he see it on the way", "was he trying to start a race war, or to impress Jodi Foster". Not as a leading question but because I want to know what literally happened.
Give up. Most human beings are apparently incapable of distinguishing between an empirical issue and a normative issue, and most people who post here are very much not an exception, in my experience.
You are not stuck in traffic, you are traffic. Sweeping, unflattering claims about "people who post here" are toxic to the community, for a variety of reasons; often they're wrong, often they're insulting, often they're subtly consensus-building. If you want to engage in some high-effort demographic-checking, have at it, but low-effort sneers do not meet that threshold.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
No, I'm trying to figure out what you're actually asking.
Are you trying to smuggle the idea that there are "legitimate reasons" to shoot up a mall in under the radar?
I read the question as "Did hamas wanted the gang rapes and decapitated babies or they didn't bother putting leash on their fighters because they didn't think they would survive long enough"
Terror like everything else is a tool. That level and kind of terror will drive whole of Israel howling for blood.
The question whether it planned or unplanned is important. At least from the Know your enemy. In the first case there may be a way of achieving Israel goals short of the complete eradication of Hamas once the punishment is over (everyone in the command chain, booths on the ground foreign consultants, political machune that was involved in this must die no questions about that) . In the other case Hamas must go and Israel must pay with enough of it's blood to achieve it.
Lives of IDF members also matter. With a huge discount (from Israel pov) so does the gaza women and children's. And depending on the expected casualties it is important to know where you can stop.
More options
Context Copy link
I think @bro is asking which tactical objectives were pre-planned and which were simply targets of opportunity. For example, did Hamas decide to attack the nightclub months ago or did they only learn about it after the breach and thought "YOLO LET'S GO"?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
What drugs? What's your source on that aspect of it?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More effort than just posting links to some random hot-take on Twitter, please.
More options
Context Copy link
I think there’s a case to be made that they didn’t think they’d get as far as they did, but in any case, how far did they think they’d get? Locations of military bases near Gaza are public information and well known to Hamas, if they had wanted to limit themselves to military targets only, they could have.
On the other hand, the degree of organization raises more questions. If it’s just “the elite troops trained by Iran opened the fence and stormed the border posts, then random 17 year olds with guns drove through and began killing civilians” that doesn’t square with operatives who landed by paraglided and started killing civilians, who would presumably be in the former category and who would have needed some training. And beyond a handful of border posts, there doesn’t seem to have been a concerted effort to target military sites deeper into the country.
My guess is that instructions post-breach, other than the targeting of the very nearest IDF and possibly police facilities, were pretty limited but involved capturing hostages (to use in negotiations) and maybe weapons and armor. Beyond that, they’ve obviously had no issues with terrorism in the past, so it’s hard to see why civilian casualties would be a problem.
While it seems to us (and I would say is) more morally abhorrent, indiscriminately firing missiles at towns and cities is no different in terms of ambivalence to civilian casualties as telling drugged up young men to do what they want with a local civilian population.
I don't fully agree with it, but there's an argument that society has physical limits to how moral it 'can' be at maximum: slavery went from common-place world-wide to detestable with automation and wage manpower (and having literally any other option with war slaves), lowering infant mortality and mass-production of household necessities made it possible for women to have a place outside of the home, so on. At the extreme end, sufficient outside stressors can drive people to cannibalism surprisingly quickly. That doesn't mean that these limits make people more moral, just that they can't be better.
One of the commonly-cited examples is that mass bombing campaigns could only fall out of military necessity with the development of computerized guided missiles. And this is pretty applicable for Gazans: their artillery not only can't be more precise, it's often not even precise enough to distinguish its own launcher site from its 'target'. Leaving that weapon aside requires leaving a tremendous tactical and strategic space.
There are equivalents examples for other laws of war, including some relevant for these attacks. There are a lot of indiscriminate Biblical atrocities, after all. But they fell out of favor before the New Testament; the technology that obviated them wasn't microchips, but roads. The closest I've seen to a tactical or strategic argument is this one (cw: advocacy of outright evil, absolutely not condoned), and that's damning with faint praise: it's the logic of a tantrum, not a military plan.
In this framework, indiscriminately firing missiles at towns and cities is ambivalent in the sense that you're accepting the risk to civilian lives as part of a military plan that has not other comparable options; less ambivalent, and more accepting the costs. Maybe there's something that required the baby-murdering rapists, or Hamas was so low on armed adults that they couldn't pick and choose (but it's not like America's dabbling with baby-murdering rapists found them able to turn it off when they went home!), but it looks more like -- at best! -- absolute indifference.
More options
Context Copy link
I saw a retrieved dashcam video today from someone who was shot in their car. There's about a dozen Hamas fighters in it shooting up vehicles on the road. They're uniformed and look to have at least a basic level of coordination - so from that clip at least it looked more like an actual military action than a bunch of random teenagers with guns.
Some of them have uniforms (seemingly both their own and some stolen or copied IDF style uniforms), but others in the festival footage seem to be wearing civilian clothes.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
OPSEC seems to have been airtight even within Gaza, with most of the participating groups being informed only days in advance.
I'm not sure in that context there was much of a plan for most of the forces. Some portion of troops probably had specific goals, but some portion were probably also just sent off-leash to do whatever.
This would explain the tendency of hamas troops to just kind of wander around raping and killing random people.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
To some extent I feel this is the only really interesting bit of this episode. And it does feel to me like there is another shoe to drop in the plan.
Butcher civilians and especially a bunch of good looking young females = Israel goes Old Testament on Gaza = ?????
The first Israel response seems an obvious second step in this event.
If Hamas had no foreign help then one could argue they hoped that Hezbolla and Iran would all jump into the fight. Hezbolla seems reluctant since who wants to jump into Old Testament wrath and Iran leader has strongly denied any involvement.
This play is lacking Act 3. Which would make sense if Hamas was hoping for Act 3 but didn’t plan with outside parties. The other alternative would be that Israel hasn’t done something too far to bring in Act 3 Casus Belli yet.
So far the only Act 3 has been some dumb Harvard students. Which basically helps Israel by outing some people that would support Palestine for punishment in the west (no jobs for those Harvard kids). It likely increased Trumps likelihood of being elected perhaps even pulling in some Jewish votes since he’s solid Israel.
I’ve upgraded this attack to truly a September 11 type event. Which helps Israel because it means they get to take the gloves off for the Old Testament Retribution. US had about 6-12 months of do wtf you want to global support.
Imagine we were in a small French town in the 700s that just suffered from a viking attack. Women and girls raped, the priest has been beheaded and the church looted, etc, etc. Imagine someone surveying the carnage and asking "But what larger strategic goal does this serve for the northmen?"
This is the goal. This is the point. People try too hard to imagine large strategies and 3D chess.
In a world where a lot of financial and material support for the vilings relies on a large portion of the world not thinking they're the baddies, taking into account the larger strategic goal (or blunder) does in fact make sense.
More options
Context Copy link
I agree it's not complicated, but I don't believe the Viking analogy holds.
The Vikings were there for loot. Simple as. They might have enjoyed killing monks and raping nuns, but that's not what got them to sail across the North Sea in a tiny boat.
The Palestinians aren't looting Israel. The foot soldiers are there out of pure hate. And the leaders are playing from the standard terrorist playbook.
This is their strategy. Their strategy sucks. It's not going to work. Peaceful mass resistance would work a lot better. Imagine unarmed Palestinians being shot as they climb the border wall to try to "immigrate to a better life in Israel". That's a message that would play well in the current zeitgeist.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
A lot of terrorism has no deep political motive beyond bloodlust. Yes you can argue that Islamist attacks on civilians in the West had the motive of killing enough people that the US pulled out of the Middle East, but there’s a lot of ‘Step 2: ???’ involved with this even if you accept the premise that attacking a people doesn’t create a lust for vengeance. Much of it just desire to hurt another people as much as you think yours have been hurt.
9/11 looks slightly more defensible in historical context I think. At the time America pulled out of Somalia over comparatively minor losses, and refused to engage with the Rwandan genocide that they probably could have stopped relatively easily.
I'm honestly not even sure if Osama's plan - as opposed to post-hoc cope - was the conflict that happened. Yes, America bled and arguably has not recovered from the loss of trust in institutions and the cost but it wasn't bleeding out from the conflict. Hindsight makes it clear that the US could absorb such a loss.
He may have expected either to shock and awe the US or some sort of invasion followed by a general uprising of Muslims* or the US giving up relatively quickly. After all, it has the entire Western hemisphere to itself. Just how many Americans are willing to die in the Middle East?
This? I dunno. America stayed in the ME for a generation, and Israel has nowhere to go and is even more determined. Hamas knows this better than anyone else.
Islam is a triumphalist religion. Muslims aren't supposed to be in this position. If they are, they always have the Khalid bin al-Walid out: love death more than the infidel loves life. You fight and win, or you die and "win". Either way you don't have to sit around wondering how you went from ruling the world to...this.
* Maybe some weird vanguard party logic of "lighting the spark". Not the first time it's failed.
More options
Context Copy link
I've read a fair amount about the IRA's guerrilla war / terrorism campaign. One of the things I noted is that quite a lot of the violence they carried out was not executed with a great deal of care - things like, making sure you're killing the right person, making sure there aren't any bystanders who you would also have to kill in addition to the planned target, making sure it's done at a time and place without too much witnesses or evidence, etc. There was only a relatively small number of hardcore members who were capable of carrying out savage violence with careful planning. I concluded from this that it's genuinely hard to find people who are both prepared to carry out gruesome acts against innocent-seeming targets and also sane and rational enough to be intelligent and careful about it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Act 3 of the Hamas' ideal outcome involves international condemnation of Israeli human rights violations, televised slaughter of Arabs, and the hardliners within Saudi Arabia vetoing a normalizing of Israeli-Saudi relations. The beginnings of this were already visible in the Asian news tonight: the official Korean national broadcaster (KBS) had a segment focused on the blockade of humanitarian resources (with mention that fuel cuts impact hospitals) which segued into a report that Israel has dropped white phosphorous bombs. (The NYT reported one day ago that "the Israeli army denied the use of white phosphorus, saying soldiers had deployed only illumination flares." Footage was from broad daylight, so either the footage is old/repurposed, the denial is out of date, someone is lying and it was white phosphorous, or it was actually anti-SAM flares.)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
There's been some confusion over the beheaded babies claim. The ABC looks into it:
I know some people have been waiting for more info before rushing to judgement, which is fair enough. Unfortunately, it seems like this particular horrific story is true.
Given terrorist attacks in the US and Europe the prior should be pretty high that they would commit atrocities like this. Even if they didn't, we know they slaughtered people at a music festival so they are committing war crimes regardless.
It’s true that it seems like the kind of thing Palestinian terrorists rampaging unopposed through a kibbutz might do, but it also seems like the kind of exaggerated rumor that would go around after such an event.
This sentence will get me put on a list, but Israel’s international credibility depends on releasing the dead baby pics.
…why does its credibility hinge on this? Hamas has played its own star witness for various, uh, lesser crimes.
This matters mostly for the credibility—or credulousness—of Western reporting.
More options
Context Copy link
Detractors will say it’s AI generated or shopped anyway. “Obviously Mossad can fake a photo” etc.
More options
Context Copy link
They did release these (DON'T CLICK IF YOU DON'T WANT TO SEE MURDERED BABIES), but as far as I can tell there's no decapitation in these pics. One might have his throat slit, they've censored it so it's hard to tell. The other two are burned to the point I can't discern what body part is which (I can however confirm from personal experience that's pretty much what an incompletely-burned baby looks like).
I don't think this release was intended to address that specific claim though.
EDIT: Ok, apparently these are the same photos that the Jerusalem Post is saying confirm the decapitation story. Which makes me feel like I'm taking crazy pills. They seem to do the opposite.
Link appears to be dead. "Hmm...this page doesn’t exist. Try searching for something else."
Still works for me.
Odd. Do I need to have an account to view, maybe?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Considering that this indicates that the Israeli government is not shy to release gruesome photos of dead babies in general, what's the explanation for them not releasing photos of all the decapitated ones at this point?
My suspicion is that the 'beheaded babies' rumour is a deliberate op intended to portray whatever response they are planning to engage in as proportional -- there will be plenty of babies burned to a crisp in Gaza if the IDF invades. (I saw a video of a guy running through the streets with his own dead baby, who had been recovered from some rubble, already)
What's worse than blowing babies up as 'collateral damage'? Deliberately beheading them, of course -- so this is a thing that must be. By now there's been time to generate some fake photos even -- so my standard of proof for this incident is increasing daily.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yeah, I’ve said it before but while killing at gunpoint and knifepoint is arguably more ‘visceral’ than suicide bombing (in that more remains of the victims, largely), blowing up a bus full of civilians isn’t much morally removed from a lot of the slaughter that happened on Saturday and so should hardly surprise anyone. I suppose sadism and torture add to it, but again, those aren’t new for them either.
Similar to how WWII bombing campaigns that caused far more destruction inspire less ire than a competition to decapitate 100 Chinese. (Including bombings by the same country).
Eh...it wasn't that a couple of shitheads had a sick competition but that the mainstream press reported favorably on it IMO.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
As an aside, just about everytime I hear a direct quote from Biden in the MSM, it is directly followed by a 'clarification' from the White House. Trump also had 'clarifications' following his off the cuff statements, but not at this scale.
I hope America can eventually get a president that actually spouts something close to the White House's official position when asked to make a statement, because right now you're better off asking the press secretary rather than the president if you want to know America's position.
Yeah Biden gets a lot of passes for being a confused old man when the reality is he's nearly as much of a reflexive liar as Trump is. He just says what sounds good with no regard for whether it's true or not.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It’s interesting that the Nayirah Testimony that got us into the Iraq War also featured dying babies. That turned out to be fabricated, but before that it was confirmed by Bush and a host of journalists.
More options
Context Copy link
Are they trying to pull a Mitch Hedberg? That's one of the weakest "clarifications" I've seen recently.
More options
Context Copy link
I don't think an IDF spokesperson saying "Yes, we've seen pictures of the results of our enemy's atrocities" is dispositive.
Jerusalem Post is now saying they have confirmed it:
More options
Context Copy link
I suppose I would believe it if someone from, say, the BBC or Reuters had personally viewed the pictures. I’m ambivalent about the truth content, but I’ll say that I (a) fully believe they killed babies and (b) wouldn’t be surprised at beheadings, although I’m somewhat more skeptical of claims of babies being beheaded.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The pro Palestine argument is that Israel is colonial power and that Palestine deserves freedom. The chant is “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.”
In the minds of most of these people, it is Israel that is keeping the Palestinians down. Yet Hamas, the regime in charge of Gaza, hasn’t held an election since 2006. They are an autocratic dictatorship. Why is the focus solely on Israel as “oppressors” and not the shitty, despotic regime in charge of Gaza?
Yep, Hamas could have chosen to tread the path that Singapore took, instead they preferred to lob rockets into Israel rather than improve the living standards of their own citizens, or even allow a different group who would have focused on that to take power. At this point I absolutely support Total Hamas Death, not just for what they have done to the Israelis, but also what they have done to their own citizens: Kill Hamas, Behead Hamas, Roundhouse kick Hamas...
No they couldn't.
Where's the talented and capable han chinese minority that were an essential part of Singapore's success? Where's the massive advantage of being an incredibly important maritime trading post for centuries? Furthermore, Singapore didn't need a strategy to deal with an equivalent to Israel, a well supplied and technologically advanced occupation force that actively works to sabotage their economy and control trade. Criticising Palestine for not pursuing a strategy that required substantially more genetic capital than they had on hand is farcical reasoning - one may as well criticise a poor person for not investing several million dollars in stocks and living off the dividends.
And while I'm not exactly on Hamas' side, from their perspective they are doing everything they can to improve the living standards of their people. They view the current situation as an Israeli strategy of wiping them out gradually overtime - there's a need for violent resistance or their people just stop existing.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I have no sympathy for the terrorists, but are you sure Israel would have let them become richer? Sometimes they are targeting civilian infrastructures like power plants, it does not help when you try to build a richer country. A rich enemy is more dangerous, it's a risk Israel is perhaps not ready to take.
Does Israel have the same level of attacks on the West Bank?
I don't know, but the West bank is not controlled by Hamas so you can't put it on them. Moreover, from Wikipedia:
I don't know if this report is biased.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
So I looked up more on this Nakba:
You shouldn't be able to get away with this sort of thing right in the middle of the 20th century. After that, it's no wonder if there are Palestinians who will never accept Israel, and I also think Israel doesn't really have a leg to stand on to negotiate, as it's not really a legitimate state, just a top-down imposition.
Debating this elsewhere, some reactions were "Oh, but the Arabs wouldn't accept the partition plan", but why should they, why does the UN have the right to just impose that on them? Actually, the UN involvement just makes Israel seem like another High Modernist fuck up, another of the numerous errors of the first half of the 20th century.
Addressing something Ike Saul said below:
No, I am not moved by appeals to ancient history. That cycle has to end at some point, and the end of WW II seems like a good stopping point for that sort of shenanigan.
Also, you can't have your high officials expressing themselves like the guy above and like this:
Netanyahu:
You can't talk like this and then pretend you're the civilized party here! Though of course, looking at the so-called developed nations, especially America, maybe they don't talk like this, but they sure behave like it, so maybe there actually are no or few civilizations around.
But that doesn't make me think Israel is legitimate, it just makes me think the developed world is fake too.
Sam Kriss had a great article on Israel from some time ago:
American support for an ethno-nationalist state can't last. All it takes is a sufficiently left-wing administration coming around to undo this by simply withdrawing support, which could easily happen in the next few decades.
Apologies if this is too much heat, but looking at the circumstances of Israel's founding, Israel genuinely just seems to me to be an injustice. Maybe Israel could have happened legitimately if they hadn't been in such a hurry, and maybe the hurry could have been excused because of the Holocaust, but not to the point that you pull a Nakba.
EDIT: And of course, Hamas' attacks were barbarous, but that doesn't really conjure up legitimacy for the state of Israel. Why should they?
You’ve just now looked up the ‘48 war, then came up with a bunch of quotes to support your new-found opinion that just happens to mirror the same talking points as every other pro-Hamas person in the world? Is that supposed to be believable?
That actually is the truth yeah, I didn't have a particularly strong opinion on this, though I suppose I was never pro-Israel. I'm not pro-Hamas either, although, to be fair, I don't know who has the moral authority to actually punish them. Possibly only the Palestinians themselves. Reading up more on the history of Zionism prior to the partition, I'm increasingly of the view this was a bad idea. Two of the quotes came from The Intercept article I linked to, Netanyahu's from this thread, and the Sam Kriss article I read months ago when it came out.
Frankly, I don’t believe you. You’ve already stated that you think Israel “should never have existed”, and that we should “forgive Hitler” - whatever forgiveness to a dead man even means. Maybe he should apologize first. Of course, I have no way to prove that one way or another.
But if you really are new to the subject, I ask you to consider: before 1947, Jews were spread out all over mandatory Palestine. In Hebron, in east Jerusalem, in Kfar Etzion in Samaria. After 1949, every place conquered by the Jordanians and Egyptians - formerly mandatory Palestine - suddenly became judenfrei. The Jews were all mysteriously gone. On the other side of the armistice line, there still existed a mixed population. In fact, this happened all over the Middle East, where Jewish communities would suddenly vanish from Muslim countries. So tell me, please, why do you think these countries have any right to exist? They also have their own sectarian violence going on until today, of course, where minorities have not been totally wiped out yet.
(That article is awful, by the way. The kind of foreign misunderstanding that’s close to getting it, but then misses the mark so widely it almost makes me want to defend the government I was just protesting against. He actually thinks anyone wants to shut down electricity on Shabbat? Jesus, how about shutting up?)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I agree it sounds menacing but I parse that as: the strong don't get surprised by a devastating terrorist attack Hamas has been planning for 2 and a half years almost in the open and then get sucked basically irrecoverably into an invasion of Gaza that causes enormous collateral damage on both sides that will skyrocket animosity and anger for decades to come.
They obviously failed at this "strong" ideal here but IMO, part of security and stability means convincing criminals and terrorists that it's futile to even try to do bad things.
More options
Context Copy link
Because the alternative was what happened: The right of conquest.
If the Arab states somehow really managed to unite, crush Israel, send the Jews packing and establish a river-to-sea Palestine, I have a distinct feeling that many people who believe that the "right of conquest" can actually be used as a justification for anything would suddenly no longer see it that way.
I don’t think you understand the sheer elegance of the position. From the pov of some uninvolved party, it doesn’t matter who wins, it’s just about solving the problem. Coase theorem really. Just assign it to whoever holds it and defends it, no one has to do anything, and all aboard for the pareto optimum.
More options
Context Copy link
The question by CrashedPsychonaut was why the UN were in any way justified to authorize a partition and the simple answer is that they were and are not. But if you deny this „top-down imposition“, and you can’t rely on a hegemon to keep the status quo as the British are leaving, you will instead have a bottom-up solution: civil war.
More options
Context Copy link
And I have a feeling that many people who have been crying about human rights violations Israel is perpetrating on Palestinians would range from absolutely blind to triumphant over human rights violations occurring in that scenario. Arguments are soldiers, what else is new?
Personally, I really do feel that the Arab nations are not civilized, so they play by different rules. It ticks me off more when a nation pretends to be of a superior sort, but then not actually live up to the supposed superiority.
At which point you're insisting Israel behave according to Marquis de Queensbury rules in a street fight. It makes no sense.
Not really. He's just asking them to be honest. If Israel wants to become a blood-drenched Bronze Age state in response to their environment, they can. But if they do decide to take that path then they should be honest and open about it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It does seem to me that Israel is going to try to use this incident to fully remove Palestinian from Israel forever. That’s actually the 4-D chess thing where Israel new of the attack and let it happen.
Honestly most of the regimes in the area probably want the issue settled and won’t care that much. The Saudis want to be friends for geopolitical aims. The Iranians if I had to guess don’t give a shit about Hamas other than they want to use them to prevent Arab-Israel friendship.
Want to bet?
I’ve got a pretty healthy skepticism for any theory which relies on that level of “4-D chess.” Israel doesn’t appear to have needed a manufactured consensus to get Gaza to this point; the cost-benefit is all wrong even before asking if there’s a simpler explanation.
I am willing to bet that Israel does not go further than this in an ethnic cleansing of the strip. Military action yes, continued blockade yes, targeted killings of civilians, no.
Sorry misworded. I don’t think they played 4-D chess and were just confused. I do think they met try to push for expulsion now.
More options
Context Copy link
More concretely, my wager is they are asking civilians to clear out of North Gaza because they plan to occupy it and root out and destroy all of the tunnels and hopefully destroy supply caches and find hostages and treat everyone who gets in the way as Hamas. I expect they would leave when this mission is accomplished.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
So where do the 2 million Gazans go? Mass emigration is essentially impossible. No one wants these people. Genocide is even more unlikely as it would result in the withdrawal of U.S. support and, probably, the end of the Israeli state in the following decades.
Honestly not a clue. I mean they are like a hot potato no one wants them. Probably most likely is refugee camp in Egypt. Then they are stuck with them.
Egypt won’t let them in.
However many Palestinians survive the months long siege and bombardment and ground invasion will have to be dealt with somehow, and it sure won’t be by letting them roam through Israel. Lebanon and Egypt and Jordan don’t want them either.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The British had control of the territory, but had decided to step out and leave it to be governed by the people who lived there - fair enough, right?
But of course some of the people who lived there were Jews and some of them were Arabs. So the partition plan was an attempt to ensure that British withdrawal would not result in war and ethnic cleansing.
The Arabs refused to accept it, so we got war and ethnic cleansing. Their only problem with that was that they were on the losing side.
What do you suggest should have been done instead of the partition plan? Just step out and let the chips fall where they may? The result would have been the same.
Give the Jewish people Alaska, or something, and let them do their "right of return" thing there?
I can see their side of things on a lot of issues there, but I dare you to look me in the eye and say that they picked a reasonable location for "the only place in the world where it's safe to be a Jew".
That's an argument against the Jews moving to Israel. By the time of the partition plan, they had already moved there. The partition was an attempt to deal with that reality.
Now, the Jews could indeed have not moved to Palestine, that's absolutely true. But I do not believe for a second if they had not done so that they would have been granted a homeland in Alaska.
Why? It's a marginal state controlled by the same coalition that gave them Palestine.
For pretty much the same reason that the US has not given Alaska to the Kurds or to the Roma or to any other people group. Countries typically make decisions in their own interests. It's in America's interests to maintain ownership of Alaska.
This is true in Palestine as well. The British Empire shrank significantly in the postwar period as Britain decided that maintaining the Empire had become too costly. British rule didn't end as a favour to the Jews, they would have pulled out regardless.
The formation of Israel was borne out of Jewish agency, not the gift of western powers. For that reason it's not really accurate to say that any coalition "gave" them Palestine. Yes there was a partition plan, but that plan was rejected by the Arab side who immediately started a war to take over the whole territory, so it's not like everyone said "Oh well, the UN decided, we better let it happen then".
If the Jews were to have a nation in Alaska, they would have needed to create it themselves - just as they created Israel in our reality. Realistically, this is always going to mean fighting whoever else thinks they have a claim. In the case of Israel it was Egypt, Jordan, and Syria. In the alternate reality it would have been the USA. I think they made the right choice.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Should've been part of Germany, if anything; they were the ones that started the shit that go-round.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Re your comment “it has to stop somewhere” why not today as opposed to 70 years ago?
More options
Context Copy link
The UN didn't. The British did, both as the internationally recognised rulers of Mandate Palestine, and by virtue of having (if we could be bothered, which in the post-WW2 environment we couldn't) sufficient men, ships and guns to determine the outcome. The legal status of the 1947 partition plan was that it was non-binding advice (it was a General Assembly resolution, and only the Security Council can issue binding resolutions and only under specific circumstances) to the British. When Israel's Arab neighbours (most of which were nominally British allies) rejected the plan, the British government declined to enforce it and we basically bugged out and let the Jews and Arabs fight.
More options
Context Copy link
I was just reading an interesting paper last night about Zionist terrorism in the lead-up to the founding of Israel:
Zionist Terrorism and the Establishment of Israel (pdf warning)
Zionists were only given the territory of Palestine as a nation (rather than a home for a small segment of Jewry) because of the abundance of terrorist attacks that Zionists committed against the British, in some cases slaughtering civil servants and kidnapping politicians, in one case blowing up a boat of 250 Jewish refugees as a false flag (the refugee ship Patria). Once they secured the nation of Israel for themselves, they used brutal terrorism and psychological warfare on the Palestinians to get them to flee. They killed innocents in a village called Deir Yassin, audio recorded their cries for help, and then drove loud “sound trucks” around Palestinian villages which played the cries of women and children while threatening nuclear warfare and poison gas attacks —
In that unsearchable 270 page master’s thesis from the ‘70s, what page is your quote from? Did you just happen to stumble upon this, and read it at your leisure?
It is searchable for me on iOS. Actually it was a top search when I plugged in “Zionist terrorism Israel”, because I wanted to understand how the early Zionists used terrorism and whether it was comparable to Hamas actions. I realized that some American gentile’s military thesis from the 70s is almost certainly less biased than the leading Israeli or Palestinian histories, so why not read it? It’s all cited anyway. My passage is from page 81.
And yes I read most of it, it’s legitimately interesting, would recommend
Very impressive, honestly.
So what is your position re: group responsibility? Are the Israelis of the time, or even today, accountable for the alleged actions of a few?
That’s something of a non-sequieter, I’d say. You’re a different profile, care to answer my question re: group responsibility?
Alright, does that hold to every people? Should Americans go back to Europe? Should all the Al-Masris in Gaza go back to Egypt?
Actually, is the population in Gaza responsible for what happened on October 7th?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
There's a debate on whether Deir Yassin was really a 'massacre'. both the Jews and Arabs trumpeted up the atrocities, the Jews to encourage other Arabs to flee, the Arabs to encourage other Arabs to stand and fight. the Jews turned out to be correct.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The question is not about the legitimacy of Israel. Israel was founded on blood like any other state in the world. Before that the territory was british, and before that it was ottoman (turkish) for centuries. So do you think Turkey was the legitimate owner of this territory? Anyway they didn't get it peacefully from the crusaders, who took it by force from the arabs. Those arabs took it by force from the byzantine empire. I don't think I need to continue.
Nowadays, Israel is a strong state and a nuclear power. Perhaps it has no right to exist but it will exist anyway. The earlier you accept it, the earlier a more acceptable solution than this awful status quo can be found.
Nothing wrong with having your own country with ethnic preference for your kin and discrimination against non-kin, strong border walls, and brutality against foreign intruders. The issue is when Israeli/Israel supporters tell us we can't have it in our own country. For example the ADL as highlighted by Carlson. It's not the police brutality, the bombing of innocent civilians, the colonization... it's the hypocrisy.
Well, it wasn't clear from my comment but the brutality and the settlements are not necessary for Israel to exist, so they aren't justified at all. I mean, if you are searching for a peaceful solution and not to justify your own crimes.
Are you sure about that? They may be the most pragmatic solution after all. Why do you think they're doing it if they're not necessary?
Out of hate, perhaps? Or as a revenge? I'm pretty sure raping women is useless for the freedom of palestinians, it does not prevent hamas to do it. People do not always act in their best interests... if they did, there would be no suicide terror attack
My hypothesis for suicide attacks is that they would be a way to manage mental illness in the Middle-East.
While in the US disturbed, isolated teenagers may become fodder for gun control fed conspiracies, in the Middle-East they could serve as a tribute to the local islamists. While the family may not necessarily approve of the insurgents' actions, giving away their failson would be better than any other family member or other forms of extortions. If they do approve of the insurgency, then it may be the most effective way a particularly defective family member may contribute to it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
That's because they got it from the Mamluks, who got it from the Ayyubids, who got it from the crusaders. The sands of the Levant have been watered by a lot of blood.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think it’s still very unclear what Israel is going to do, honestly.
There is a possibility for something truly great that would shock the world here: do nothing. Just beef up defenses around Gaza so they don't catch them with their pants down again, but actually demonstrate what the high road looks like. Perhaps some will claim they have taken the high road many times, but I'm not so convinced.
Locking Gaza down is probably the right tactical decision (urban warfare sucks, urban warfare against military willing to used ununiformed and armed troops alongside an armed civilian populace that hates you sucks even more), but it's not politically viable (there's no appetite among the Israeli population nor the IDF would accept orders that don't cost enemies blood; until the hostages are returned or known dead kinetic actions are going to take too high a priority) and more importantly it doesn't really work over the long term.
Beefing up defenses around and boxing in Gaza still gets you kilodeaths among Gazans, they're just going to die to less kinetic means, and be more photogenic (and often even more innocent!) victims. Gaza just doesn't have the infrastructure to maintain consistent food, water, medicine, and power, Hamas isn't interested in developing that infrastructure, no other nearby country is interested in doing so (or can be trusted to do so without providing combat or dual-use materials), Israel can not maintain connection into the country without presenting new vulnerabilities. You're either kicking the can down the road until another high-profile civilian hostage crisis shows up, or somewhere in May of next year international pressure (correctly!) notices that you're basically starving hundreds of young children a day.
It's wild that water pipes are now dual-use technology. There's promotional video the Gazans put out themselves of them digging up functional water/sewer pipe infrastructure and fashioning them into rockets that are then fired into Israel. What on Earth can you do with such a deranged culture? The Gazans hate Israelis more than they love water, and they're getting exactly what they want.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Is it? They’re going to invade and set up a puppet government.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
What does this mean? The Jews in 2023 should just pack up and leave Israel for other countries because WW2 was supposed to be the end of these shenanigans? Why can't you say this to Palestinians?
(I agree stuff like "it's time to be cruel" isn't a good look)
They should have handled the situation differently back then, do anything other than the Nakba, but the way they acted shows they don't respect anything but their own power. Reading up more about the history, I'm just against Zionism as it was practiced, the people actually living there weren't liking it, and I really dislike that a displaced people could just decide to pass the buck on and displace other people, particularly when the ones doing the displacing are supposed to be civilized.
Either pack up and leave, or adopt a semi-pacifist policy towards Gaza: beef up the defenses around it, but there is to be no retaliation.
Even in the 70s the US was doing things in Vietnam that would be much more scandalous if it did today. There's been a lot of moral progress since the end of WW2 and I have trouble judging Israel's current population for things most of them had no hand in.
It sounds like your point boils down to: truly enlightened people would accept the sins of the past and surrender the place to the Palestinians and make a new life elsewhere. That sounds like a great standard but I don't think any people on Earth would rise to it.
(For a phantasmagoric twist, it would be nice if Palestinians were so touched by the offer that they offered to pack up instead and both sides had a eureka moment and moved towards a single state peace)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think the history of peaceful resolutions to conflicts (of which there are not many) is that the stopping point has to be now. You can't go back and re-litigate what happened 50 years ago or 20 or even 5. And this has problems of course. People who had their loved ones killed recently will not be ready to let it go. But if you want peace then you have to work on an agreement from where things are now.
Whether Israel should have been created after WW2 is irrelevant. Whether Israel should have been building new settlements or blockading Gaza is irrelevant. Whether surrounding nations should have attacked Israel in 1967 is irrelevant. Those things happened and are part of history. For a peaceful settlement enough people have to be willing to ignore that and negotiate based on what today looks like and on what they want tomorrow to look like.
Clearly that won't happen any time soon. Tensions are running too high. But at some point if there is to be a real long lasting peace deal (and that is by no means certain), then at some point in the future Israelis are going to have to get past the deaths that occurred at the weekend and Palestinians will have to get past the deaths happening now.
For Northern Ireland, they didn't try to roll back the clock to a prior point, the agreement is based upon agreeing that Northern Ireland is currently British, that this can change in the future with the democratic assent of the people and that individuals can be British citizens, Irish citizens or both. There is a lot more to it, but those are the main points that addressed what Nationalists wanted (to be Irish, for Northern Ireland to be able to be part of Ireland) and Unionists wanted (that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and that they are and will remain British citizens).
As much as you have to learn history to not repeat it, sometimes that history will cause you to repeat it, if you cannot learn to let go of its emotional hold on your decision making. When it comes to deaths and hurt and war, if you want to create a peaceful outcome for the future, remember what happened, learn from it, let it inform you, but don't let it rule you.
And that is tough. It's especially tough if you have lost someone personally. It is hard to decouple when your father was killed by the IRA or your brother was shot by the UVF. Many Israelis and Palestinians will be out for blood to pay for the lives of their kin, that's an entirely normal human reaction, no matter who is to blame for the initial set of events which led us here.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link