The AP analyzed more than a dozen videos from the moments before, during and after the hospital explosion, as well as satellite imagery and photos. AP’s analysis shows that the rocket that broke up in the air was fired from within Palestinian territory, and that the hospital explosion was most likely caused when part of that rocket crashed to the ground.
A lack of forensic evidence and the difficulty of gathering that material on the ground in the middle of a war means there is no definitive proof the break-up of the rocket and the explosion at the hospital are linked. However, AP’s assessment is supported by a range of experts with specialties in open-source intelligence, geolocation and rocketry.
It's disturbing to me how clearly this conflict shows people are willing to just discard evidence they don't like, and assume/celebrate facts they do. I'm sure the same people would call for...
It's disturbing to me how clearly this conflict shows people are willing to just discard evidence they don't like, and assume/celebrate facts they do. I'm sure the same people would call for caution or distance on less emotionally charged subjects, but that all goes out the window when suddenly "your side" isn't right.
I feel like the worst thing about it is the inability to admit you were wrong because of that. Just entrenching positions more.
I think the social media news cycle just goes too fast for good journalistic practice to keep up. So the poorly vetted and low integrity crap gets on peoples feeds before it can get fact checked....
I think the social media news cycle just goes too fast for good journalistic practice to keep up. So the poorly vetted and low integrity crap gets on peoples feeds before it can get fact checked. And by the time it is it’s too late, the meta conversation will have outpaced the actual factual story.
My feeling is that it doesn't matter. Both Israel and Palestine are already in the wrong. You only need to deny evidence of the bombing if you feel it could switch your preferred entity out of a...
My feeling is that it doesn't matter. Both Israel and Palestine are already in the wrong. You only need to deny evidence of the bombing if you feel it could switch your preferred entity out of a morally superior position. If you think they're both bad then it hardly affects the score you're keeping.
As for the actual people harmed and those that can be blamed, figuring this out is very important. To me in America it's hard to find value in further discussion.
Yeah, I feel like I can literally tell with 95 percent accuracy what someones stance is on "who bombed the hospital" based on their stance on "Is US foreign policy bad" regardless of the...
Yeah, I feel like I can literally tell with 95 percent accuracy what someones stance is on "who bombed the hospital" based on their stance on "Is US foreign policy bad" regardless of the increasingly overwhelming evidence.
Depends on your country. US policy installed, backed and supported rightwing dictators in Latin America because their opponents had the temerity of trying to introduce healthcare. For someone...
Depends on your country. US policy installed, backed and supported rightwing dictators in Latin America because their opponents had the temerity of trying to introduce healthcare.
For someone living in Argentina in the Pinochet era, I struggle to think of how China or the USSR would've been worse.
I think maybe I'm not being clear. I am not saying that the USSR was a better place to live than the US. I'm saying that, if you were in Latin America during the Cold War, I struggle to think how...
I think maybe I'm not being clear. I am not saying that the USSR was a better place to live than the US. I'm saying that, if you were in Latin America during the Cold War, I struggle to think how the the USSR could be more evil in terms of foreign policy. The US installed and backed some of the most sadistic monsters humanity have ever seen.
Really easy to say when you're not having your drugged kids thrown off helicopters by Pinochet's men. I know the kind of people the Soviets backed. People like Castro and Chavez. They weren't...
Really easy to say when you're not having your drugged kids thrown off helicopters by Pinochet's men.
I know the kind of people the Soviets backed. People like Castro and Chavez. They weren't particularly worse than the monsters I'm referring to. They did their share of murder and torture, but I think you're underestimating how utterly sadistic the rightwing dictators were. Made Castro look like Bernie Sanders.
Because at least the leftwing dictators had a goal, through all the murder. They legitimately wanted to lift the poor, and many did. The rightwing dictators' only goal was to retain power and to hurt leftists, in that order. Torturing and assaulting student protesters wasn't collateral damage in pursuit of the greater good, it was the point. It was what they were there to do.
But this is all beside the point. My point was that, US foreign policy was utterly ruinous for vast swathes of Latin America. Most countries are still recovering from the massive damage the US did to it. Your argument can't be "well, the Soviets might have been worse". Perhaps, but we can't know that. We do know that US policy in the region was devastating.
Again, were arguing entirely different things. You originally said: This is the part I took exception to. The US was not the least bad. The US in Latin America was the most bad. The Soviets...
Again, were arguing entirely different things. You originally said:
As I've said too many times in this post: it's often a question of least bad, not good or best.
This is the part I took exception to. The US was not the least bad. The US in Latin America was the most bad. The Soviets would've struggled to find worse people than the US did. The influence that they did have, because it wasn't zero, I would argue was of a better kind than the American one. Because hell, at least the Soviets weren't knocking down socially democratically elected governments and installing murderers just so one of their corporationa could continue to get favourable rates in the primary sector. I can't speak to Asia and Europe. I can say than during the Cold War in Latin America, I'd rather have more Soviet influence than American influence.
I am not saying that the Soviet appointed tyrants were better. I believe in Latin America they were, but then we're just arguing body count. I'm saying that there was no moral difference between the Americans and the Soviets when it came to foreign policy. That the US was not a more moral actor compared to Stalin's regime and his gulags when it came to other countries.
So yes, US foreign policy bad, at least in Latin America. US foreign policy was so bad, half the continent is still recovering from the trauma.
When it comes to discussing American foreign policy, it is incredibly important to acknowledge that the US acts entirely out of self-interest, and good outcomes are coincidental. It is a very good...
When it comes to discussing American foreign policy, it is incredibly important to acknowledge that the US acts entirely out of self-interest, and good outcomes are coincidental. It is a very good thing that the US is backing Ukraine in their fight against tyranny. It's also important to acknowledge that the reason Ukraine gets this help but the US is silent as Gaza is being levelled is geopolitics. Right now, the Russian and Chinese are calling for a ceasefire and international aid. They similarly do not actually give a shit about Palestine, but it's still a good thing that someone can pressure Israel into allowing those trucks in. It is a coincidence that they're on the right side of that debate, just like it's a coincidence that the US is helping Ukraine win its freedom.
The Pax Americana was great for the US web of alliances. Are you European or American? Then yeah, you directly benefited from the Pax Americana. But much like the Pax Romana, some people did not benefit, and the Pax Americana entrenched the systems that kept them in their place.
I am not looking forward to a post Pax Americana world. I'm well aware of that the Russians and Chinese are like. I am saying that unless you aligned with American political and economic policy, Americans would torture your country with the same glee the Soviets did.
Regarding your last point, I daysay the rightwing turning to fascism is a more real and more present danger. Are you not seeing the Trumps, the Orbans, the Mileis? If there's a political wing flirting with fascism right now, it ain't the left. The current Speaker is the House in the US right now is an insurrectionist that gave succor to those trying to overthrow the republic.
I just don't see an anti democratic left in the West. Spain's been governed by the left, barely held on to power, no foul play. Greece was run by honest to God communists recently, lost the...
I just don't see an anti democratic left in the West. Spain's been governed by the left, barely held on to power, no foul play. Greece was run by honest to God communists recently, lost the election, no foul play. Same for the socialists on France, lost, no foul play.
The left (in the West) is constantly trying to expand the franchise. Whether that's attempted to reform the voting system into MMP or proportional or giving 16 year olds the right to vote, all moves to broaden or deepen democracy come constantly from the left. The right (in the West) is too busy doing extreme gerrymandering, playing games with supreme and high courts, entrenching itself into the state, and trying its damnedest to discourage voting. I'm sorry, I just don't see the reality that you're seeing.
Biden is doing a piss poor job at pressuring for aid, and I say this as someone who likes him. Air drop medicine and food, why don't you?
I cannot say for sure that ascendant Soviet Union would've been better or worse for LatAm. But based on existing evidence, probably. Again, murder and torture will still happen. But they wouldn't happen so that a Russian corporation could loot and pillage a country's assets.
On anti semitism, yeah, and I'm not sure what can be done about it. The Palestine debate has divided people into extremes. It shouldn't be controversial to condemn the atrocities that Hamas did (and continues to do, since hostages) to a bunch of innocent bystanders, while at the same time condemning the human rights catastrophe Israel has unleashed on a population of two million. But is is, apparently.
Regarding gerrymandering, I think you're forgetting what the New York court (filled with Democratic appointees) did to that gerrymandered map. They threw it out for being gerrymandered. Indeed, it...
Regarding gerrymandering, I think you're forgetting what the New York court (filled with Democratic appointees) did to that gerrymandered map. They threw it out for being gerrymandered. Indeed, it was probably a big reason why Dems lost the House. Dems aren't saints. But they haven't taken voter suppression to the extreme Reps have.
And again, we can trade stories, but I have to plant us in reality. Which side attempted a coup? Who was chanting "stop the count" in 2020? Which party voted to threw out the electoral votes for a candidate they didn't like? I wasn't happy when Trump got elected, but you didn't see me breaking into the House.
Tankies are a tiny minority. The mainstream of the Republican Party is now anti-democracy. They do not acknowledge their competitors as legitimate. This is happening in the right, not the left. The left has always had its tankies and cranks. You'll notice that we didn't nominate them. The right did nominate Trump, and is still mostly loyal to him.
Young progressives can be anti semitic? I agree, and that's a problem. But too often we confuse anti semitism with anti Israeli policy. Indeed, most Jewish organisations in the US are critical of the current far right Israeli government. You're talking about lefties being anti semitic, forgetting that most American Jews are leftists.
And again, this is ignoring the rest of Europe. The vast, vast majority of leftist governments in Europe have not damaged democracy, and indeed, attempt to expand it. On the right, who do we have? Orban, Erdogan, Duda, Putin.
That's not to say every rightwing government in Europe is anti democratic. But when a European government does fall to tyranny, have you noticed that it's always a rightwing government? It's not the leftists in power in Russia, Turkey, Hungary. In fact, I struggle to think of many modern leftwing dictatorships, period. Cuba and Venezuela for sure. China's... weird. Who else? On the other hand, I can rattle off rightwing dictatorships easily. Syria, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Egypt, Hungary, Russia, Belarus. It's trivial.
I never said anti semitism didn't exist. Indeed, I acknowledged that it's a problem multiple times. I'm sorry that you've experienced it, but I don't know what you want from me. Criticising Israel...
I never said anti semitism didn't exist. Indeed, I acknowledged that it's a problem multiple times. I'm sorry that you've experienced it, but I don't know what you want from me. Criticising Israel is ok, anti semitism isn't. What else can I say here? What is the correct way of opposing Israeli policies?
We're quibbling over words. Liberals are on the left. The centre-left, specifically. Liberals are leftists. Socialists and communists are more to the left, but it's all the left. The vast majority of American Jewish organisations are on the centre left.
And now you're blaming the left for the rightwing dictators of the world??? It's no one faults but Putin's that Russia is a dystopic rightwing dictatorship. It's not the Israeli's left fault that the Israeli rightwing government keeps approving settlements in the WB. It's not Democrats' fault that a bunch of rightwing lunatics tried to kill Pence.
Yes, but my point if that this lefty is absolutely nowhere near power. No president, presidential candidate, governor, senator or representative is anywhere close to this. A leftwing military...
Yes, but my point if that this lefty is absolutely nowhere near power. No president, presidential candidate, governor, senator or representative is anywhere close to this. A leftwing military dictatorship implemented in any western country is not a real issue anywhere.
By contrast in the right, the frontrunner and last president actively attempted a coup d'etat, the current Speaker if the House supported that could, and the majority of the Republican party is behind that too. There is a real, present and near threat from the right. They have tried and have gotten not that far away from overthrowing the democratic republic. If you're worries about the left overthrowing democracy, to be consistent, you must be terrified of the right, since they've actually tried to do so and will probably try again if they lose.
In LatAm, there's two leftist dictatorships, and plenty of countries where the leftists in charge have dictatorial inclinations. This is not a problem in the West.
This is separate from the issue of anti semitism, which is a real and present problem in most progressive and leftist circles in the West. Like I said, it makes this a really hard topic to discuss, because my natural inclination is that Israel is occupying Palestine, but the people I'd usually be allied with tend to discount the absolute horror and suffering Hamas inflicted on southern Israel that day.
The concept of the overton window generally applies to politicians significant enough to have the power to move it. The lefties you're referring to are nowhere near the level where they mean...
The concept of the overton window generally applies to politicians significant enough to have the power to move it. The lefties you're referring to are nowhere near the level where they mean anything.
The right is going to be fascist whether we nominate Bernie or Biden. It doesn't matter. The right's fear is that demographics are working against them. It doesn't matter how moderate Dems are. Hell, the right's scream of rage happened after Obama, a frankly milquetoast moderate Democrat.
Your last point is precisely my problem; it is difficult to talk about this issue without being cast into an extreme position.
Israel shouldn't have been created where it currently is, because there were loads of people living there. But that's irrelevant; it exists now, and it's the only home for the people that live in it. So it certainly has the right to exist. It just doesn't have the right to keep annexing the parts of the West Bank it likes, and cutting off the flow of food and medicine into Gaza. It has the power to do so, so it does. But this a hugely difficult problem because the country was created in a populated area as a colonial project, and it's dealing with the same problem every colonial project does; what do we do about the natives? And it's reaching the same solution every colonial project has reached; ethnic cleansing. But it's a bit different to do ethnic cleansing in the 21sr Century, plus Israel is surrounded by hostile forces, so here we are.
I don't have a solution. Israel has a right to exist. So does Palestine.
I do think the Squad has moved the overton window to the left, but I don't think it's moved it very much on the topic of Israel. Most of that movement has been on economic and social policy. But...
I do think the Squad has moved the overton window to the left, but I don't think it's moved it very much on the topic of Israel. Most of that movement has been on economic and social policy. But in term of taking control of the military to establish a leftist state? Zero. They're explicitly anti-military, and interventions. There is zero risk that AOC declares a people's republic. That's not where her support is, and that's not the kind of leftism she ideally wants.
You're specifically thinking of tankies, the dumbest of the dumb. There are none of those in the House that I'm aware of.
There's a lot of things about some western leftists that I disagree with. Democratic backsliding isn't one of them. They think (correctly) that demographics are on their side, so why bother?
Don't misunderstand me on the formation of an Israeli state. There should've been an Israeli state. Just not in the Middle East, as a colonial project. The obvious answer is that the country that perpetrated the Holocaust should've borne the cost. The same way land went to Poland and Russia and France, land should've been broken off to found a New Israel. This social, economic and human cost should've been paid by Nazi Germany.
Too late now. And yes, Hamas wants to wipe out every Jew in the region. And we all know what happened during the attacks, torture and suffering. But the hatred of Hamas does not exist without the background of more than half a century of occupation. Right now, over half the population of Gaza has been displaced. Over 4 times the victims of Hamas' attack have died, most of them women and children. So that hatred that led to this will now be stronger.
Like I've said before, I don't have a good solution. The only thing I can think of that might remotely work is a massive (and I mean massive) UN peacekeeping force, staffed entirely by countries without a reason to hate either side, in full security control of the WB and Gaza. It will never happen. Israel will never give up its settlers, the US will never pressure Israel into conceding anything significant, and Hamas will never want stability in Palestine.
That specifically is a stupid American problem. By which I mean, those comments are clearly hate speech and an incitement to violence, and in most of the West, would lead to prosecution. I think...
That specifically is a stupid American problem. By which I mean, those comments are clearly hate speech and an incitement to violence, and in most of the West, would lead to prosecution.
I think we're discussing the same issue. The issue is specifically anti-semitism on the left. The norms are being bent specifically to allow anti-semitism. I don't think there's democratic backsliding or anti-pluralism in general. I think it's just plain hatred for Jews being aired here.
Now, please take into account the above paragraph when I say this next one; the left is struggling because it's seeing what it hates. What the left hates is seeing an American backed colonial power ethnically cleansing a native population. This part? This is the part I'm sympathetic to. The problem then is that it's become impossible to criticise Israel without attracting anti-semites into your protest. I oppose settlement expansion in the West Bank. I think it's a very open, very explicit case of classic colonialism. It is EXTREMELY difficult to air these views without a. attracting anti-semites who agree with me for the wrong reasons and b. being called an anti-semite myself. I am well aware of Jewish history. I'm well aware of the Babylonian exile, of emperor Hadrian, of the progroms. I am not an anti semite. I am not anti Israel's right to exist. I am anti colonialism and anti ethnic cleansing, which is the stated intent of most of the parties in government right now. In my ideal world in half a century, Israel straight up joins the EU, and is forever protected from threats. I adore the best of Israel, and I despise the worst of Israel.
Slight aside, but man, Arabs hate Israel too. Would've been much better to keep the state in Europe, where (post Holocaust) it's a safe continent. I get that most Jews probably wanted nothing to do with Europeans, but it's not like Arabs were ever going to be better either.
There's no real third parties, but there's countries that probably have less of a stake in the game. New Zealand, Mongolia, Uruguay, Japan, Ireland. Not to say there's no anti semitism or Islamophobia there, but they're less likely to be instantly hated by the people in the ground.
I don't mean to gaslight you or diminish your experiences. I'm not Jewish, so you're probably far more familiar with increase in anti semitism. But do want to emphasise that being opposed to Israeli policies can be done while acknowledging Israel's right to exist. Heck, while liking Israel.
That sucks, I'm sorry. I'm a minority, but not a hated one, so I won't pretend to understand what that's like. I haven't personally seen that level of vitriol in the circles I run in, but to be...
That sucks, I'm sorry. I'm a minority, but not a hated one, so I won't pretend to understand what that's like. I haven't personally seen that level of vitriol in the circles I run in, but to be frank, I don't think I know a single Jewish person either, so it's possible that I'm just removed from those interactions.
And you're right. I don't think there's a single pro Palestinian protest that doesn't have anti semites in it. I don't know what to do about this. An anti Israeli policy protest is such a prime breeding ground for anti semites that I don't know how you keep them away. This is precisely why I spend paragraphs and paragraphs on this issue, and even then stumble.
Regarding Egypt, yeah. And Jordan doesn't want the WB either. Not to sound trite, but this is why through everything, I still think the two state solution is the only alternative. Look, I'm not an idiot. The second Palestine gets free elections, they'll elect an Islamist rightwing asshole party that's going to crush dissent and immediately suspend democracy (ie. exactly what happened in Gaza). But what the fuck is the alternative? Eternal occupation was never sustainable, and this terror attack should make it clear to everyone.
Regarding Hamas, I don't know. Israel has real security requirements, and Hamas isn't going to be happy with Gaza, or even the West Bank. They want to kill Jews. The occupation is what gave this hatred oxygen, but it's probably independent of that now. It sickens me to see ignorant people defend Hamas, and what they did. But it is important to know why Hamas has the space to do this, and the Israeli reaction to the attack is creating those exact same conditions; absolute, burning hatred of Israel in Palestine.
This is a bit of an off topic question, and please believe me when I say I'm asking this in good faith. Explain the West Bank settlements. Why is this happening? It makes the state weaker and overextended, it loses Israel international support, and it's not necessary to protect the state. Installing of military outposts for the defense of Israel, I'd understand. But why is the government intentionally supporting these? Why is there a need for Jewish people to move here?
The failure of the Arab Spring still makes me so sad. There was real hope. Tunisia was a real democracy. Libyans voted for the non-Islamists. There's real Arab secular democrats out there, and the...
The failure of the Arab Spring still makes me so sad. There was real hope. Tunisia was a real democracy. Libyans voted for the non-Islamists. There's real Arab secular democrats out there, and the number isn't small. It's just not big enough. Egypt was a classic example of progressive stupidity, where 7 liberal Egyptian candidates ran at the same time, and who made it to the final round? The military candidate and the Muslim Brotherhood candidate.
Progressive stupidity around Hamas isn't just about Hamas, for what it's worth. This is less of a problem with the American left (though it's there), but the European left still bends over backwards to defend Russia. Russia, a theocratic rightwing kleptocratic dictatorship that would gleefully and happily throw them all off buildings if they were political parties in their country.
I think that's less being pro Hamas and pro Russia and more about being anti West, anti US, and anti Israel. It doesn't matter that Hamas would tear an openly gay person limb from limb while laughing. They oppose the West, and in many western leftist circles, the main problem is the western monopoly on power.
This is why I said before that though America had done many atrocities to my home region of Latin America, I am still not looking forward to a post American world order, because I know what's coming after.
What you said about Israel is true and reflects my complicated feelings on the matter. I love the best about Israel. I love the vibrant democracy, the world's only successful case of reviving a dead language, the science and technology, the culture. But I still have to contend with the fact that, and I'm not mincing words, that all of this was built by setting up a complex apartheid regime. I hate that they downgraded the Arabic language, how they turned on the Druze, the unnecessary illegal settlements, the complete lack of recognition of the native people they conquered. This is my opinion as someone who is not a Jew and does not know any Jews, so it might be wildly different from yours. I can't speak for the anti semites, but it riles me up because it's a vibrant, educated democracy. It should know better. I'd be a Labour voter too, but let's be real, the left in Israel is absolutely insignificant. The two divides are the religious rightwing or the secular rightwing, at least when it comes to social policy. Should the religious be excluded from service, or should they also be sent to defend the illegal settlements we have no business defending? Should be re elect Bibi, or should we get someone that hates Arabs just as much, but isn't as openly corrupt? Those are the current political issues. If I were a leftist in Israel, I don't know how I wouldn't be in constant despair, even ignoring Palestine.
Thanks for the articles, that's really interesting. I actually didn't know how much of a failure the settlements were. I thought their birth rate would be higher. It's the same reason I think the US is trying to discourage a ground invasion into Gaza; there's just too many Palestinians for the state to displace or occupy. It's also why Israel would absolutely prefer that Egypt and Jordan took care of it.
This situation absolutely sucks because, in theory, it's not a hard problem. Israel annexes the large settlements, gives up good bits of land to keep Palestine continuous, evacuates the rest. No one fires any more rockets, conflict over. But neither side trusts the other, so no one is willing to give anything up. Some Palestinians want Palestine from the river to the sea (a slogan I'm sure you've heard). And some Jews want all of Judea and Samaria.
That person doesn't know Hamas. Hamas are monsters. I will argue all day that Hamas only becomes possible because of the situation in Palestine, for which Israel has blame. But Hamas itself? I...
That person doesn't know Hamas. Hamas are monsters. I will argue all day that Hamas only becomes possible because of the situation in Palestine, for which Israel has blame. But Hamas itself? I challenge anyone to watch the videos or read the stories of what Hamas fighters did to innocent people during the terror attack. They are collectively a bunch of rapists and torturers, and their only goal in life is to kill every Jew in the region. I couldn't really sleep the day the attack happened just thinking about it, the sheer evil of it. I even logically understand the goal. Hit Israel where it hurts, goad them into overreacting, ideally get them to commit to an occupation they can never win, and maybe expand the war into Hezbollah, Iran and its proxies. The only sacrifices are Israeli and Palestinian civilians. They don't give a shit, they're in Doha.
I'm repeating myself, but this is why I struggle to articulate my thoughts and why I don't really belong in any circles on this issue. I'm not a centrist by any means, but I try very hard to not dehumanise any victims. The ravers at the concert didn't deserve the gang tales. The father as Gaza City didn't deserve to have his 19 family members die. It's just fucking awful for everyone.
I'd actually like to talk to an Israeli Arab one day, and maybe even a Druze. I'm sure they have extremely complicated feelings on it. I think they're better off than Palestinians in Palestine for sure, but from what I've seen, they're still mostly seen a second class citizens. And that, as a Latin person that lived in the US, is a feeling I completely understand.
I do think it'd be better if Palestine was independent and declared war in Israel. Not better immediately, but better in what Israel could do and what the perception would be. Fuck, I think Israel had a real shot at changing public opinion in the immediate aftermath of the attack. But Israel doesn't trust anyone, because of our collective history of anti semitism, and the response has no overshadowed the initial attack. I'm no military expert, but I think keeping the flow of food and medicine up (hell, airdrop them into Gaza City), sending assassins after Hamas' leadership, perhaps getting UN consensus, maybe getting a UNSC resolution through within the day (before the anti semites got their talking points). Just not this. Not a displacement of half the population. But again, I know why they think this way; they feel like they can never trust any country, not again.
Yeah, Hamas isn't interested in two states. I do feel that Likud constantly undermine and humiliate the only Palestinian power that is; Fatah and the PA. Fuck Bibi, throw them a bone! Stop the illegal settlements, spend some money on their infrastructure. But they're forced to suppress their own protests, lose popularity, so now we all know who'd win an election in the WB.
It has been a long time in the US since the actual far left had any influence. However, the logic of the leftest left leads to leaders like Mao and Stalin if given free reign unless people become...
It has been a long time in the US since the actual far left had any influence. However, the logic of the leftest left leads to leaders like Mao and Stalin if given free reign unless people become anarchists and eschew political power.
I am a lawyer. There is a lot wrong with our economic and legal system in the US. However, we have due process, and government in the sunshine laws and disability rights and the Bill of Rights and a system of peaceful transition of power. We would lose a lot if our system was overthrown.
I'm not sure that they ever did all agree. I've been politically aware since the mid 70s or early 80s, depending how you measure it. Also I live in the East Bay.
Again, I think democracy thrives in the middle with compromise and plurality. I don't know that everyone agrees anymore.
I'm not sure that they ever did all agree. I've been politically aware since the mid 70s or early 80s, depending how you measure it.
True enough. I am sad at the growing antisemitism. We live in fascinating times. I just posted an article with one theory of how algorithms on social media could be modified to be less polarizing.
True enough. I am sad at the growing antisemitism. We live in fascinating times.
I just posted an article with one theory of how algorithms on social media could be modified to be less polarizing.
Holy hell, no wonder people are sceptical. Israel military are known to have "misfired" into civilian convoys that are clearly marked. But Hamas also said yeah they've misfired onto their own...
Re: the journalists being killed above - I believe the Israelis when they say it was an accident. How would killing journalists serve their interests in the slightest? It's about the worst PR...
Re: the journalists being killed above - I believe the Israelis when they say it was an accident. How would killing journalists serve their interests in the slightest? It's about the worst PR imaginable, since their colleagues are literally responsible for creating that PR.
I think it's more likely that this happened for no better reason than that war sucks. When we're talking about "shelling", as in the linked article, it's usually coming from kilometers or tens of kilometers away. It is so hard to be sure of the target. And I know, I know - if you're not sure, don't fire. But the realities of war are different. You just do the best you can and try to make peace with it later.
A journalist was killed inside an Israel-controlled territory with no threat except the news reporter's convoy. Another journalist was killed by being shot in the head. What makes you think things...
A journalist was killed inside an Israel-controlled territory with no threat except the news reporter's convoy. Another journalist was killed by being shot in the head.
How would killing journalists serve their interests in the slightest? It's about the worst PR imaginable, since their colleagues are literally responsible for creating that PR.
What makes you think things done need to always "serve an interest" or that they "care about PR?"
Cruelty knows no bounds. And look at the aftermath, nothing happened to them. The US still backs them hard despite US journalists getting killed. They know they can get away with it.
Let me counter you by also asking, why do people bully others? What good is bullying? What about cruelty in general? What good is cruelty inflicted upon others? Where's the interest? And if you get caught, won't you get negative PR?
The world doesn't run on rationality or logic. Rationality and logic are just byproducts of the drive of emotion to arrive at its goals. For example, one wants to realize an emotion-fueled dream or desire. That person needs to use actual physics and reality (logic and reason) to get to that goal.
I really don't think that some random Israeli soldier is thinking "I bet the Americans will still send my country weapons even if I kill these journalists." I've got to object to the comparison...
The US still backs them... They know they can get away with it.
I really don't think that some random Israeli soldier is thinking "I bet the Americans will still send my country weapons even if I kill these journalists."
And if you get caught [bullying], won't you get negative PR?
I've got to object to the comparison here.
While I take your point about most actions in war not being logical - it's a good one - one would think that the decision to execute journalists would have to be sanctioned by the commanders, which seems unlikely. And to the point about emotional actions --
Look, your tone suggests that you think I'm some pro-israeli moron with blinders on, ready to excuse any war crimes by the Jewish state. I am not. But I have seen war. There are always a few guys - the bullies - who don't give a shit and are seeing what they can get away with (and those guys wouldn't do something so high profile. They prey on the overlooked.) Everyone else is just trying to survive. Palestinian or Israeli or French - soldiers are all the same.
And again - war is awful. That's all it is. Do you think Hamas meant to blow up that hospital? Did America intentionally bomb a doctors without borders hospital back in 2015? Are the Israelis intentionally killing journalists?
To be fair, their sense for what they can get away with is signaled from above. So if it isn’t clear that there will be repercussions for being reckless or for not following proper rules of...
There are always a few guys - the bullies - who don't give a shit and are seeing what they can get away with (and those guys wouldn't do something so high profile. They prey on the overlooked.)
To be fair, their sense for what they can get away with is signaled from above. So if it isn’t clear that there will be repercussions for being reckless or for not following proper rules of engagement they’ll behave worse and with more impunity.
The IDF being mostly conscripts also probably doesn’t do much good for discipline, though from what I’ve heard they do all right all things considered.
I'm in complete agreement, but there's also no better way to cow journalists than to kill them, especially if you can do so with complete impunity. It's one thing to say that you can't control who...
I'm in complete agreement, but there's also no better way to cow journalists than to kill them, especially if you can do so with complete impunity. It's one thing to say that you can't control who gets the worst of a mortar strike and that war is hell, but it's another thing to hunt them down, specifically. So in that sense, it's not irrational if you also think you can have peace and get rid of extremists by murdering thousands innocent of people.
Al Jazeera are generally not big Israel fans so it's not implausible for Israel to want to assassinate their journalists – especially given that we do have evidence of the IDF assassinating other...
Al Jazeera are generally not big Israel fans so it's not implausible for Israel to want to assassinate their journalists – especially given that we do have evidence of the IDF assassinating other journalists e.g. Shireen Abu Akleh it's not an unreasonable hypothesis.
The New York Times published an editorial note about their initial reporting on this incident today. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/23/pageoneplus/editors-note-gaza-hospital-coverage.html
On Oct. 17, The New York Times published news of an explosion at a hospital in Gaza City, leading its coverage with claims by Hamas government officials that an Israeli airstrike was the cause and that hundreds of people were dead or injured. The report included a large headline at the top of The Times’s website.
Israel subsequently denied being at fault and blamed an errant rocket launch by the Palestinian faction group Islamic Jihad, which has in turn denied responsibility. American and other international officials have said their evidence indicates that the rocket came from Palestinian fighter positions.
The Times’s initial accounts attributed the claim of Israeli responsibility to Palestinian officials, and noted that the Israeli military said it was investigating the blast. However, the early versions of the coverage — and the prominence it received in a headline, news alert and social media channels — relied too heavily on claims by Hamas, and did not make clear that those claims could not immediately be verified. The report left readers with an incorrect impression about what was known and how credible the account was.
The Times continued to update its coverage as more information became available, reporting the disputed claims of responsibility and noting that the death toll might be lower than initially reported. Within two hours, the headline and other text at the top of the website reflected the scope of the explosion and the dispute over responsibility.
Given the sensitive nature of the news during a widening conflict, and the prominent promotion it received, Times editors should have taken more care with the initial presentation, and been more explicit about what information could be verified. Newsroom leaders continue to examine procedures around the biggest breaking news events — including for the use of the largest headlines in the digital report — to determine what additional safeguards may be warranted.
As a paying NYT subscriber, I'm pretty disappointed in their rush to assign blame in the headline. I absolutely had the initial impression that this was an Israeli strike because of the early...
As a paying NYT subscriber, I'm pretty disappointed in their rush to assign blame in the headline. I absolutely had the initial impression that this was an Israeli strike because of the early reporting. It's good they made corrections and published this statement, but the damage done especially in such a highly charged conflict is unexcused.
It's also worth noting that more and more people won't read past the headline and won't go back to articles once they've finished reading them to see if corrections were made, so they can change...
It's also worth noting that more and more people won't read past the headline and won't go back to articles once they've finished reading them to see if corrections were made, so they can change their minds about what's happening in the news, no matter what that news actually is. It's not as much of an issue on Tildes because the site prioritizes actually reading the article before you comment, so at least the first part, reading past just the headline, is taken care of, but the second part is still an issue.
This message is one of those "ooops!" that NYT has had a few times recently, and it's partly because journalists are trying to get the scoop of what happened instead of what is actually going on....
This message is one of those "ooops!" that NYT has had a few times recently, and it's partly because journalists are trying to get the scoop of what happened instead of what is actually going on. I don't appreciate this style of reporting and wish that journalists would slow tf down and take a beat before they publish anything so that they don't have to constantly walk back what they've already said (that's been damaging and has already become THE talking point.
After the dust settled, a different picture is formed for the alleged Israeli missile strike of Al-Ahli hospital as well as the number of reported casualties. Similar report from the BBC
After the dust settled, a different picture is formed for the alleged Israeli missile strike of Al-Ahli hospital as well as the number of reported casualties. Similar report from the BBC
AP visual analysis: Rocket from Gaza appeared to go astray, likely caused deadly hospital explosion
It's disturbing to me how clearly this conflict shows people are willing to just discard evidence they don't like, and assume/celebrate facts they do. I'm sure the same people would call for caution or distance on less emotionally charged subjects, but that all goes out the window when suddenly "your side" isn't right.
I feel like the worst thing about it is the inability to admit you were wrong because of that. Just entrenching positions more.
I think the social media news cycle just goes too fast for good journalistic practice to keep up. So the poorly vetted and low integrity crap gets on peoples feeds before it can get fact checked. And by the time it is it’s too late, the meta conversation will have outpaced the actual factual story.
My feeling is that it doesn't matter. Both Israel and Palestine are already in the wrong. You only need to deny evidence of the bombing if you feel it could switch your preferred entity out of a morally superior position. If you think they're both bad then it hardly affects the score you're keeping.
As for the actual people harmed and those that can be blamed, figuring this out is very important. To me in America it's hard to find value in further discussion.
Yeah, I feel like I can literally tell with 95 percent accuracy what someones stance is on "who bombed the hospital" based on their stance on "Is US foreign policy bad" regardless of the increasingly overwhelming evidence.
Depends on your country. US policy installed, backed and supported rightwing dictators in Latin America because their opponents had the temerity of trying to introduce healthcare.
For someone living in Argentina in the Pinochet era, I struggle to think of how China or the USSR would've been worse.
I think maybe I'm not being clear. I am not saying that the USSR was a better place to live than the US. I'm saying that, if you were in Latin America during the Cold War, I struggle to think how the the USSR could be more evil in terms of foreign policy. The US installed and backed some of the most sadistic monsters humanity have ever seen.
Really easy to say when you're not having your drugged kids thrown off helicopters by Pinochet's men.
I know the kind of people the Soviets backed. People like Castro and Chavez. They weren't particularly worse than the monsters I'm referring to. They did their share of murder and torture, but I think you're underestimating how utterly sadistic the rightwing dictators were. Made Castro look like Bernie Sanders.
Because at least the leftwing dictators had a goal, through all the murder. They legitimately wanted to lift the poor, and many did. The rightwing dictators' only goal was to retain power and to hurt leftists, in that order. Torturing and assaulting student protesters wasn't collateral damage in pursuit of the greater good, it was the point. It was what they were there to do.
But this is all beside the point. My point was that, US foreign policy was utterly ruinous for vast swathes of Latin America. Most countries are still recovering from the massive damage the US did to it. Your argument can't be "well, the Soviets might have been worse". Perhaps, but we can't know that. We do know that US policy in the region was devastating.
Again, were arguing entirely different things. You originally said:
This is the part I took exception to. The US was not the least bad. The US in Latin America was the most bad. The Soviets would've struggled to find worse people than the US did. The influence that they did have, because it wasn't zero, I would argue was of a better kind than the American one. Because hell, at least the Soviets weren't knocking down socially democratically elected governments and installing murderers just so one of their corporationa could continue to get favourable rates in the primary sector. I can't speak to Asia and Europe. I can say than during the Cold War in Latin America, I'd rather have more Soviet influence than American influence.
I am not saying that the Soviet appointed tyrants were better. I believe in Latin America they were, but then we're just arguing body count. I'm saying that there was no moral difference between the Americans and the Soviets when it came to foreign policy. That the US was not a more moral actor compared to Stalin's regime and his gulags when it came to other countries.
So yes, US foreign policy bad, at least in Latin America. US foreign policy was so bad, half the continent is still recovering from the trauma.
When it comes to discussing American foreign policy, it is incredibly important to acknowledge that the US acts entirely out of self-interest, and good outcomes are coincidental. It is a very good thing that the US is backing Ukraine in their fight against tyranny. It's also important to acknowledge that the reason Ukraine gets this help but the US is silent as Gaza is being levelled is geopolitics. Right now, the Russian and Chinese are calling for a ceasefire and international aid. They similarly do not actually give a shit about Palestine, but it's still a good thing that someone can pressure Israel into allowing those trucks in. It is a coincidence that they're on the right side of that debate, just like it's a coincidence that the US is helping Ukraine win its freedom.
The Pax Americana was great for the US web of alliances. Are you European or American? Then yeah, you directly benefited from the Pax Americana. But much like the Pax Romana, some people did not benefit, and the Pax Americana entrenched the systems that kept them in their place.
I am not looking forward to a post Pax Americana world. I'm well aware of that the Russians and Chinese are like. I am saying that unless you aligned with American political and economic policy, Americans would torture your country with the same glee the Soviets did.
Regarding your last point, I daysay the rightwing turning to fascism is a more real and more present danger. Are you not seeing the Trumps, the Orbans, the Mileis? If there's a political wing flirting with fascism right now, it ain't the left. The current Speaker is the House in the US right now is an insurrectionist that gave succor to those trying to overthrow the republic.
I just don't see an anti democratic left in the West. Spain's been governed by the left, barely held on to power, no foul play. Greece was run by honest to God communists recently, lost the election, no foul play. Same for the socialists on France, lost, no foul play.
The left (in the West) is constantly trying to expand the franchise. Whether that's attempted to reform the voting system into MMP or proportional or giving 16 year olds the right to vote, all moves to broaden or deepen democracy come constantly from the left. The right (in the West) is too busy doing extreme gerrymandering, playing games with supreme and high courts, entrenching itself into the state, and trying its damnedest to discourage voting. I'm sorry, I just don't see the reality that you're seeing.
Biden is doing a piss poor job at pressuring for aid, and I say this as someone who likes him. Air drop medicine and food, why don't you?
I cannot say for sure that ascendant Soviet Union would've been better or worse for LatAm. But based on existing evidence, probably. Again, murder and torture will still happen. But they wouldn't happen so that a Russian corporation could loot and pillage a country's assets.
On anti semitism, yeah, and I'm not sure what can be done about it. The Palestine debate has divided people into extremes. It shouldn't be controversial to condemn the atrocities that Hamas did (and continues to do, since hostages) to a bunch of innocent bystanders, while at the same time condemning the human rights catastrophe Israel has unleashed on a population of two million. But is is, apparently.
Regarding gerrymandering, I think you're forgetting what the New York court (filled with Democratic appointees) did to that gerrymandered map. They threw it out for being gerrymandered. Indeed, it was probably a big reason why Dems lost the House. Dems aren't saints. But they haven't taken voter suppression to the extreme Reps have.
And again, we can trade stories, but I have to plant us in reality. Which side attempted a coup? Who was chanting "stop the count" in 2020? Which party voted to threw out the electoral votes for a candidate they didn't like? I wasn't happy when Trump got elected, but you didn't see me breaking into the House.
Tankies are a tiny minority. The mainstream of the Republican Party is now anti-democracy. They do not acknowledge their competitors as legitimate. This is happening in the right, not the left. The left has always had its tankies and cranks. You'll notice that we didn't nominate them. The right did nominate Trump, and is still mostly loyal to him.
Young progressives can be anti semitic? I agree, and that's a problem. But too often we confuse anti semitism with anti Israeli policy. Indeed, most Jewish organisations in the US are critical of the current far right Israeli government. You're talking about lefties being anti semitic, forgetting that most American Jews are leftists.
And again, this is ignoring the rest of Europe. The vast, vast majority of leftist governments in Europe have not damaged democracy, and indeed, attempt to expand it. On the right, who do we have? Orban, Erdogan, Duda, Putin.
That's not to say every rightwing government in Europe is anti democratic. But when a European government does fall to tyranny, have you noticed that it's always a rightwing government? It's not the leftists in power in Russia, Turkey, Hungary. In fact, I struggle to think of many modern leftwing dictatorships, period. Cuba and Venezuela for sure. China's... weird. Who else? On the other hand, I can rattle off rightwing dictatorships easily. Syria, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Egypt, Hungary, Russia, Belarus. It's trivial.
I never said anti semitism didn't exist. Indeed, I acknowledged that it's a problem multiple times. I'm sorry that you've experienced it, but I don't know what you want from me. Criticising Israel is ok, anti semitism isn't. What else can I say here? What is the correct way of opposing Israeli policies?
We're quibbling over words. Liberals are on the left. The centre-left, specifically. Liberals are leftists. Socialists and communists are more to the left, but it's all the left. The vast majority of American Jewish organisations are on the centre left.
And now you're blaming the left for the rightwing dictators of the world??? It's no one faults but Putin's that Russia is a dystopic rightwing dictatorship. It's not the Israeli's left fault that the Israeli rightwing government keeps approving settlements in the WB. It's not Democrats' fault that a bunch of rightwing lunatics tried to kill Pence.
Yes, but my point if that this lefty is absolutely nowhere near power. No president, presidential candidate, governor, senator or representative is anywhere close to this. A leftwing military dictatorship implemented in any western country is not a real issue anywhere.
By contrast in the right, the frontrunner and last president actively attempted a coup d'etat, the current Speaker if the House supported that could, and the majority of the Republican party is behind that too. There is a real, present and near threat from the right. They have tried and have gotten not that far away from overthrowing the democratic republic. If you're worries about the left overthrowing democracy, to be consistent, you must be terrified of the right, since they've actually tried to do so and will probably try again if they lose.
In LatAm, there's two leftist dictatorships, and plenty of countries where the leftists in charge have dictatorial inclinations. This is not a problem in the West.
This is separate from the issue of anti semitism, which is a real and present problem in most progressive and leftist circles in the West. Like I said, it makes this a really hard topic to discuss, because my natural inclination is that Israel is occupying Palestine, but the people I'd usually be allied with tend to discount the absolute horror and suffering Hamas inflicted on southern Israel that day.
The concept of the overton window generally applies to politicians significant enough to have the power to move it. The lefties you're referring to are nowhere near the level where they mean anything.
The right is going to be fascist whether we nominate Bernie or Biden. It doesn't matter. The right's fear is that demographics are working against them. It doesn't matter how moderate Dems are. Hell, the right's scream of rage happened after Obama, a frankly milquetoast moderate Democrat.
Your last point is precisely my problem; it is difficult to talk about this issue without being cast into an extreme position.
Israel shouldn't have been created where it currently is, because there were loads of people living there. But that's irrelevant; it exists now, and it's the only home for the people that live in it. So it certainly has the right to exist. It just doesn't have the right to keep annexing the parts of the West Bank it likes, and cutting off the flow of food and medicine into Gaza. It has the power to do so, so it does. But this a hugely difficult problem because the country was created in a populated area as a colonial project, and it's dealing with the same problem every colonial project does; what do we do about the natives? And it's reaching the same solution every colonial project has reached; ethnic cleansing. But it's a bit different to do ethnic cleansing in the 21sr Century, plus Israel is surrounded by hostile forces, so here we are.
I don't have a solution. Israel has a right to exist. So does Palestine.
I do think the Squad has moved the overton window to the left, but I don't think it's moved it very much on the topic of Israel. Most of that movement has been on economic and social policy. But in term of taking control of the military to establish a leftist state? Zero. They're explicitly anti-military, and interventions. There is zero risk that AOC declares a people's republic. That's not where her support is, and that's not the kind of leftism she ideally wants.
You're specifically thinking of tankies, the dumbest of the dumb. There are none of those in the House that I'm aware of.
There's a lot of things about some western leftists that I disagree with. Democratic backsliding isn't one of them. They think (correctly) that demographics are on their side, so why bother?
Don't misunderstand me on the formation of an Israeli state. There should've been an Israeli state. Just not in the Middle East, as a colonial project. The obvious answer is that the country that perpetrated the Holocaust should've borne the cost. The same way land went to Poland and Russia and France, land should've been broken off to found a New Israel. This social, economic and human cost should've been paid by Nazi Germany.
Too late now. And yes, Hamas wants to wipe out every Jew in the region. And we all know what happened during the attacks, torture and suffering. But the hatred of Hamas does not exist without the background of more than half a century of occupation. Right now, over half the population of Gaza has been displaced. Over 4 times the victims of Hamas' attack have died, most of them women and children. So that hatred that led to this will now be stronger.
Like I've said before, I don't have a good solution. The only thing I can think of that might remotely work is a massive (and I mean massive) UN peacekeeping force, staffed entirely by countries without a reason to hate either side, in full security control of the WB and Gaza. It will never happen. Israel will never give up its settlers, the US will never pressure Israel into conceding anything significant, and Hamas will never want stability in Palestine.
That specifically is a stupid American problem. By which I mean, those comments are clearly hate speech and an incitement to violence, and in most of the West, would lead to prosecution.
I think we're discussing the same issue. The issue is specifically anti-semitism on the left. The norms are being bent specifically to allow anti-semitism. I don't think there's democratic backsliding or anti-pluralism in general. I think it's just plain hatred for Jews being aired here.
Now, please take into account the above paragraph when I say this next one; the left is struggling because it's seeing what it hates. What the left hates is seeing an American backed colonial power ethnically cleansing a native population. This part? This is the part I'm sympathetic to. The problem then is that it's become impossible to criticise Israel without attracting anti-semites into your protest. I oppose settlement expansion in the West Bank. I think it's a very open, very explicit case of classic colonialism. It is EXTREMELY difficult to air these views without a. attracting anti-semites who agree with me for the wrong reasons and b. being called an anti-semite myself. I am well aware of Jewish history. I'm well aware of the Babylonian exile, of emperor Hadrian, of the progroms. I am not an anti semite. I am not anti Israel's right to exist. I am anti colonialism and anti ethnic cleansing, which is the stated intent of most of the parties in government right now. In my ideal world in half a century, Israel straight up joins the EU, and is forever protected from threats. I adore the best of Israel, and I despise the worst of Israel.
Slight aside, but man, Arabs hate Israel too. Would've been much better to keep the state in Europe, where (post Holocaust) it's a safe continent. I get that most Jews probably wanted nothing to do with Europeans, but it's not like Arabs were ever going to be better either.
There's no real third parties, but there's countries that probably have less of a stake in the game. New Zealand, Mongolia, Uruguay, Japan, Ireland. Not to say there's no anti semitism or Islamophobia there, but they're less likely to be instantly hated by the people in the ground.
I don't mean to gaslight you or diminish your experiences. I'm not Jewish, so you're probably far more familiar with increase in anti semitism. But do want to emphasise that being opposed to Israeli policies can be done while acknowledging Israel's right to exist. Heck, while liking Israel.
That sucks, I'm sorry. I'm a minority, but not a hated one, so I won't pretend to understand what that's like. I haven't personally seen that level of vitriol in the circles I run in, but to be frank, I don't think I know a single Jewish person either, so it's possible that I'm just removed from those interactions.
And you're right. I don't think there's a single pro Palestinian protest that doesn't have anti semites in it. I don't know what to do about this. An anti Israeli policy protest is such a prime breeding ground for anti semites that I don't know how you keep them away. This is precisely why I spend paragraphs and paragraphs on this issue, and even then stumble.
Regarding Egypt, yeah. And Jordan doesn't want the WB either. Not to sound trite, but this is why through everything, I still think the two state solution is the only alternative. Look, I'm not an idiot. The second Palestine gets free elections, they'll elect an Islamist rightwing asshole party that's going to crush dissent and immediately suspend democracy (ie. exactly what happened in Gaza). But what the fuck is the alternative? Eternal occupation was never sustainable, and this terror attack should make it clear to everyone.
Regarding Hamas, I don't know. Israel has real security requirements, and Hamas isn't going to be happy with Gaza, or even the West Bank. They want to kill Jews. The occupation is what gave this hatred oxygen, but it's probably independent of that now. It sickens me to see ignorant people defend Hamas, and what they did. But it is important to know why Hamas has the space to do this, and the Israeli reaction to the attack is creating those exact same conditions; absolute, burning hatred of Israel in Palestine.
This is a bit of an off topic question, and please believe me when I say I'm asking this in good faith. Explain the West Bank settlements. Why is this happening? It makes the state weaker and overextended, it loses Israel international support, and it's not necessary to protect the state. Installing of military outposts for the defense of Israel, I'd understand. But why is the government intentionally supporting these? Why is there a need for Jewish people to move here?
The failure of the Arab Spring still makes me so sad. There was real hope. Tunisia was a real democracy. Libyans voted for the non-Islamists. There's real Arab secular democrats out there, and the number isn't small. It's just not big enough. Egypt was a classic example of progressive stupidity, where 7 liberal Egyptian candidates ran at the same time, and who made it to the final round? The military candidate and the Muslim Brotherhood candidate.
Progressive stupidity around Hamas isn't just about Hamas, for what it's worth. This is less of a problem with the American left (though it's there), but the European left still bends over backwards to defend Russia. Russia, a theocratic rightwing kleptocratic dictatorship that would gleefully and happily throw them all off buildings if they were political parties in their country.
I think that's less being pro Hamas and pro Russia and more about being anti West, anti US, and anti Israel. It doesn't matter that Hamas would tear an openly gay person limb from limb while laughing. They oppose the West, and in many western leftist circles, the main problem is the western monopoly on power.
This is why I said before that though America had done many atrocities to my home region of Latin America, I am still not looking forward to a post American world order, because I know what's coming after.
What you said about Israel is true and reflects my complicated feelings on the matter. I love the best about Israel. I love the vibrant democracy, the world's only successful case of reviving a dead language, the science and technology, the culture. But I still have to contend with the fact that, and I'm not mincing words, that all of this was built by setting up a complex apartheid regime. I hate that they downgraded the Arabic language, how they turned on the Druze, the unnecessary illegal settlements, the complete lack of recognition of the native people they conquered. This is my opinion as someone who is not a Jew and does not know any Jews, so it might be wildly different from yours. I can't speak for the anti semites, but it riles me up because it's a vibrant, educated democracy. It should know better. I'd be a Labour voter too, but let's be real, the left in Israel is absolutely insignificant. The two divides are the religious rightwing or the secular rightwing, at least when it comes to social policy. Should the religious be excluded from service, or should they also be sent to defend the illegal settlements we have no business defending? Should be re elect Bibi, or should we get someone that hates Arabs just as much, but isn't as openly corrupt? Those are the current political issues. If I were a leftist in Israel, I don't know how I wouldn't be in constant despair, even ignoring Palestine.
Thanks for the articles, that's really interesting. I actually didn't know how much of a failure the settlements were. I thought their birth rate would be higher. It's the same reason I think the US is trying to discourage a ground invasion into Gaza; there's just too many Palestinians for the state to displace or occupy. It's also why Israel would absolutely prefer that Egypt and Jordan took care of it.
This situation absolutely sucks because, in theory, it's not a hard problem. Israel annexes the large settlements, gives up good bits of land to keep Palestine continuous, evacuates the rest. No one fires any more rockets, conflict over. But neither side trusts the other, so no one is willing to give anything up. Some Palestinians want Palestine from the river to the sea (a slogan I'm sure you've heard). And some Jews want all of Judea and Samaria.
That person doesn't know Hamas. Hamas are monsters. I will argue all day that Hamas only becomes possible because of the situation in Palestine, for which Israel has blame. But Hamas itself? I challenge anyone to watch the videos or read the stories of what Hamas fighters did to innocent people during the terror attack. They are collectively a bunch of rapists and torturers, and their only goal in life is to kill every Jew in the region. I couldn't really sleep the day the attack happened just thinking about it, the sheer evil of it. I even logically understand the goal. Hit Israel where it hurts, goad them into overreacting, ideally get them to commit to an occupation they can never win, and maybe expand the war into Hezbollah, Iran and its proxies. The only sacrifices are Israeli and Palestinian civilians. They don't give a shit, they're in Doha.
I'm repeating myself, but this is why I struggle to articulate my thoughts and why I don't really belong in any circles on this issue. I'm not a centrist by any means, but I try very hard to not dehumanise any victims. The ravers at the concert didn't deserve the gang tales. The father as Gaza City didn't deserve to have his 19 family members die. It's just fucking awful for everyone.
I'd actually like to talk to an Israeli Arab one day, and maybe even a Druze. I'm sure they have extremely complicated feelings on it. I think they're better off than Palestinians in Palestine for sure, but from what I've seen, they're still mostly seen a second class citizens. And that, as a Latin person that lived in the US, is a feeling I completely understand.
I do think it'd be better if Palestine was independent and declared war in Israel. Not better immediately, but better in what Israel could do and what the perception would be. Fuck, I think Israel had a real shot at changing public opinion in the immediate aftermath of the attack. But Israel doesn't trust anyone, because of our collective history of anti semitism, and the response has no overshadowed the initial attack. I'm no military expert, but I think keeping the flow of food and medicine up (hell, airdrop them into Gaza City), sending assassins after Hamas' leadership, perhaps getting UN consensus, maybe getting a UNSC resolution through within the day (before the anti semites got their talking points). Just not this. Not a displacement of half the population. But again, I know why they think this way; they feel like they can never trust any country, not again.
Yeah, Hamas isn't interested in two states. I do feel that Likud constantly undermine and humiliate the only Palestinian power that is; Fatah and the PA. Fuck Bibi, throw them a bone! Stop the illegal settlements, spend some money on their infrastructure. But they're forced to suppress their own protests, lose popularity, so now we all know who'd win an election in the WB.
It has been a long time in the US since the actual far left had any influence. However, the logic of the leftest left leads to leaders like Mao and Stalin if given free reign unless people become anarchists and eschew political power.
I am a lawyer. There is a lot wrong with our economic and legal system in the US. However, we have due process, and government in the sunshine laws and disability rights and the Bill of Rights and a system of peaceful transition of power. We would lose a lot if our system was overthrown.
I'm not sure that they ever did all agree. I've been politically aware since the mid 70s or early 80s, depending how you measure it.
Also I live in the East Bay.
True enough. I am sad at the growing antisemitism. We live in fascinating times.
I just posted an article with one theory of how algorithms on social media could be modified to be less polarizing.
Holy hell, no wonder people are sceptical. Israel military are known to have "misfired" into civilian convoys that are clearly marked. But Hamas also said yeah they've misfired onto their own public, but never on the order of this magnitude.
Re: the journalists being killed above - I believe the Israelis when they say it was an accident. How would killing journalists serve their interests in the slightest? It's about the worst PR imaginable, since their colleagues are literally responsible for creating that PR.
I think it's more likely that this happened for no better reason than that war sucks. When we're talking about "shelling", as in the linked article, it's usually coming from kilometers or tens of kilometers away. It is so hard to be sure of the target. And I know, I know - if you're not sure, don't fire. But the realities of war are different. You just do the best you can and try to make peace with it later.
A journalist was killed inside an Israel-controlled territory with no threat except the news reporter's convoy. Another journalist was killed by being shot in the head.
What makes you think things done need to always "serve an interest" or that they "care about PR?"
Cruelty knows no bounds. And look at the aftermath, nothing happened to them. The US still backs them hard despite US journalists getting killed. They know they can get away with it.
Let me counter you by also asking, why do people bully others? What good is bullying? What about cruelty in general? What good is cruelty inflicted upon others? Where's the interest? And if you get caught, won't you get negative PR?
The world doesn't run on rationality or logic. Rationality and logic are just byproducts of the drive of emotion to arrive at its goals. For example, one wants to realize an emotion-fueled dream or desire. That person needs to use actual physics and reality (logic and reason) to get to that goal.
I really don't think that some random Israeli soldier is thinking "I bet the Americans will still send my country weapons even if I kill these journalists."
I've got to object to the comparison here.
While I take your point about most actions in war not being logical - it's a good one - one would think that the decision to execute journalists would have to be sanctioned by the commanders, which seems unlikely. And to the point about emotional actions --
Look, your tone suggests that you think I'm some pro-israeli moron with blinders on, ready to excuse any war crimes by the Jewish state. I am not. But I have seen war. There are always a few guys - the bullies - who don't give a shit and are seeing what they can get away with (and those guys wouldn't do something so high profile. They prey on the overlooked.) Everyone else is just trying to survive. Palestinian or Israeli or French - soldiers are all the same.
And again - war is awful. That's all it is. Do you think Hamas meant to blow up that hospital? Did America intentionally bomb a doctors without borders hospital back in 2015? Are the Israelis intentionally killing journalists?
Of course not. War just sucks.
To be fair, their sense for what they can get away with is signaled from above. So if it isn’t clear that there will be repercussions for being reckless or for not following proper rules of engagement they’ll behave worse and with more impunity.
The IDF being mostly conscripts also probably doesn’t do much good for discipline, though from what I’ve heard they do all right all things considered.
I'm in complete agreement, but there's also no better way to cow journalists than to kill them, especially if you can do so with complete impunity. It's one thing to say that you can't control who gets the worst of a mortar strike and that war is hell, but it's another thing to hunt them down, specifically. So in that sense, it's not irrational if you also think you can have peace and get rid of extremists by murdering thousands innocent of people.
Al Jazeera are generally not big Israel fans so it's not implausible for Israel to want to assassinate their journalists – especially given that we do have evidence of the IDF assassinating other journalists e.g. Shireen Abu Akleh it's not an unreasonable hypothesis.
The New York Times published an editorial note about their initial reporting on this incident today. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/23/pageoneplus/editors-note-gaza-hospital-coverage.html
As a paying NYT subscriber, I'm pretty disappointed in their rush to assign blame in the headline. I absolutely had the initial impression that this was an Israeli strike because of the early reporting. It's good they made corrections and published this statement, but the damage done especially in such a highly charged conflict is unexcused.
Edit: Here's a podcast they posted discussing the editor's note in more detail. I haven't listened to it yet, but thought to share. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/23/podcasts/headlines-gaza-hospital-coverage.html
It's also worth noting that more and more people won't read past the headline and won't go back to articles once they've finished reading them to see if corrections were made, so they can change their minds about what's happening in the news, no matter what that news actually is. It's not as much of an issue on Tildes because the site prioritizes actually reading the article before you comment, so at least the first part, reading past just the headline, is taken care of, but the second part is still an issue.
This message is one of those "ooops!" that NYT has had a few times recently, and it's partly because journalists are trying to get the scoop of what happened instead of what is actually going on. I don't appreciate this style of reporting and wish that journalists would slow tf down and take a beat before they publish anything so that they don't have to constantly walk back what they've already said (that's been damaging and has already become THE talking point.
After the dust settled, a different picture is formed for the alleged Israeli missile strike of Al-Ahli hospital as well as the number of reported casualties.
Similar report from the BBC
Over NYT's paywall:
https://archive.ph/Lc90t